Next Article in Journal
Parental Influence in Disengagement during Robot-Assisted Activities: A Case Study of a Parent and Child with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Next Article in Special Issue
Vocational Training in Virtual Reality: A Case Study Using the 4C/ID Model
Previous Article in Journal
A Web-Based Platform for Traditional Craft Documentation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
MTI
Volume 6
Issue 5
10.3390/mti6050038
mti-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Didactic Use of Virtual Reality in Colombian Universities: Professors’ Perspective

by
Álvaro Antón-Sancho
1,
Diego Vergara
2,*,
Pablo Fernández-Arias
2 and
Edwan Anderson Ariza-Echeverri
3
1
Department of Mathematics and Experimental Science, Catholic University of Ávila, C/Canteros s/n, 05005 Ávila, Spain
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Catholic University of Ávila, C/Canteros s/n, 05005 Ávila, Spain
3
School of Mechanical Technology, Technological University of Pereira, Carrera 27 #10-02 Alamos, Pereira 660003, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6(5), 38; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/mti6050038
Submission received: 20 April 2022 / Revised: 11 May 2022 / Accepted: 15 May 2022 / Published: 16 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper presents quantitative research on the perception of the didactic use of virtual reality by university professors in Colombia, with special attention to the differences according to their area of knowledge, as the main variable, and gender and digital generation, as secondary variables. The study involved 204 professors from different Colombian universities. As an instrument, a survey designed for this purpose was used with four scales that were used to measure, on a Likert scale, different dimensions involving the participants’ perception of the use of virtual reality in the classroom. The answers were analyzed statistically and the differences in the perceptions have been identified by means of parametric statistical tests according to the following: (i) area of knowledge, (ii) gender, (iii) digital generation of the participants. The results showed that the participants expressed high valuations of virtual reality, despite having intermediate or low levels of digital competence. Gaps were identified in terms of area of knowledge, gender, and digital generation (digital natives or immigrants) with respect to opinions of virtual reality and digital competence. The highest valuations of virtual reality are given by professors of Humanities, and by digital natives. It is suggested that Colombian universities implement training plans on digital competence for professors and that these plans be aimed at strengthening knowledge of virtual reality.

1. Introduction

Virtual reality (VR) is a set of computer technologies that allow the creation of interactive sensory experiences in the user, based on the three-dimensional simulation of real environments [1]. VR has proven to have multiple applications in very diverse areas of knowledge, including engineering [2], psychology and medicine [3,4], experimental sciences [5], social sciences [6] and the study of art [7]. VR has also been shown to be an effective didactic resource for teaching different areas of knowledge at all educational levels, especially in higher education [8]. In fact, in recent years, there has been an increasing number of publications in the field of higher education that propose VR technologies as a resource that increases student motivation and involvement in the classroom, and enhances academic performance and the meaningfulness of learning, due to the realistic and interactive experience of learning that it generates in students [9,10,11,12]. Regarding the didactic use of VR in higher education, there is currently a powerful line of research that studies the opinions of students about their learning experiences through VR, or the assessments that teachers make of these types of technologies applied to training. Some studies show, for example, that professors of Health Sciences and Engineering give high valuations of VR as a teaching resource, but there are significant gaps in these assessments according to academic level, age, or experience of the participants [13,14].
In Colombia, which is precisely the field in which this study is developed, there is evidence of applications, based on VR for training purposes both at the university teaching level and at the level of training in professional subjects, since 2004, when VR was introduced [15]. Thus, some examples of the use of VR in Colombia are focused on the field of Engineering [16,17,18,19,20], others in the fields of Health Sciences [21,22,23,24,25,26], marketing and journalism [26,27,28,29], biology [30,31,32,33], and education [34,35,36,37,38], and there are even examples in the military field [39] or in Physical Education [40]. Given the experience accumulated by Colombian universities in the use of VR in the classroom, it is possible to conduct an exploratory study of the perceptions of professors in this regard. In addition, Colombia is a country with an intermediate level of digitalization within its geographical area, which makes it a representative country, in terms of digital development, of a large part of the countries in its area.
To measure Colombia’s digital development, the Global Innovation Index (GII) has been used, which is an index that evaluates on a scale of 0 to 100 the economic and innovative power of 130 countries around the world, using, as key criteria, the strength of their technological and digital development [41,42]. The GII distinguishes seven geographical areas in the world, within each of which there is a certain homogeneity in terms of the digital and technological level of the member countries. Thus, the Latin American and Caribbean area has intermediate levels of technological development, since it is behind Europe and North America in the GII, but ahead of East and Southeast Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa [41]. The 2021 GII data [41], which are the first to consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on country development, indicate that the GII declines relative to 2020 [43] in all Latin American and Caribbean countries except Brazil and, very slightly, El Salvador (Table 1). In this sense, the variation rates indicate that Colombia is, together with Paraguay, the country in which digital and technological development has suffered the least among all the countries in the Latin American region that have seen their GII decrease. The data in Table 1 also show that Colombia is representative of the countries in the region that have an intermediate-high level of development. In fact, the average GII in Latin America and the Caribbean is 29.22, with a standard deviation of 4.45. If the intermediate-high values are taken as the indices that oscillate between the mean (29.22) and the sum of the mean plus the standard deviation (33.67), it turns out that Colombia’s GII is in the median of this interval. Consequently, Colombia has a medium GII index within the countries with an intermediate-high level of technological and digital development within the states in its area.
Numerous studies show that the digital generation is a strongly influential variable in digital competence or in the perception, or frequency of use, of digital resources among professors [44,45]. According to Prensky’s theory [46,47], two main generations can be distinguished, in terms of degree of connection with digital technologies (Figure 1): (i) digital natives and (ii) digital immigrants. Digital natives are those who were born and raised in a digitalized environment, so that computational media are routine for them, as if they were their mother tongue, in Prensky’s terms [46]. Digital immigrants, on the other hand, have not grown up linked to digital technologies, but have been incorporated into them, so that they have learned them, as one learns a second language. Prensky identifies a chronological distinction between the two generations, so that those born before 1980 would be digital immigrants and those born after 1980 are digital natives. There may be sociological and cultural aspects that condition the digital generation of individuals beyond the year of birth. For example, a person born after 1980 could be considered a digital immigrant if, having grown up in a depressed or rural area, in terms of access to technological resources, he or she was deprived of the regular use of digital media during his or her youth. However, many studies consider 1980 to be the objective chronological boundary between digital immigrants and digital natives [48,49,50,51,52,53].
This criterion is also assumed in this work, given that, as the research was carried out among a population of university professors, it is possible to assume that their social and economic environment is of intermediate or high level and, consequently, there are no reasons to think that there are socio-cultural circumstances, such as those mentioned, that alter the chronological criterion that distinguishes the digital generations defined.
For more than 20 years, the need for the incorporation of virtual modalities in higher education has been raised in Colombia. La Rota [54] described a series of advantages of virtual university education and proposed a Virtual University project that sought to reduce inequality gaps in Colombia. The importance of digitalization in the transition from face-to-face to virtual scenarios has implied an enormous challenge for Colombian universities, especially during and after the COVID pandemic. Considering that, by 2020, Colombia had only 11% of higher education programs in virtual or distance mode, according to the latest statistics published by the National System of Higher Education Information—SNIES 2020 [55], it is evident that there is a need to strengthen the incorporation of digital environments in all the mission areas of universities (teaching, research, and extension). One of the scenarios where this transition has been most relevant is in internationalization processes. The drastic reduction in the mobility of students and professors has generated a high impact on research and teaching, which has been addressed with the incorporation of virtual tools and digitalization, resulting in the so-called “internationalization at home” [56]. This has the advantage of generating a greater democratization of higher education, given that the international focus and dimension can cover a much larger proportion of students and professors, in addition to reduction of the brain drain [57], through digitalization and the use of technological tools [56]. On the other hand, the analysis carried out by Pérez [58] showed great shortcomings and needs regarding digitalization in the formative processes of higher education in Colombia, concluding that the coverage of technological infrastructure must be expanded, since it is one of the main barriers to facilitating access of students in different parts of the country, in addition to strengthening technological competencies in professors.
Given the wide transcendence that VR applications are currently having in different areas of knowledge, this study aims to know and analyze the opinions of university professors in Colombia in relation to this technology, distinguishing opinions according to different variables: (i) area of knowledge; (ii) gender; and (iii) digital generation. In this way, the results obtained could help to identify the weaknesses and strengths of Colombian professors according to these variables in order to establish specific training lines.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The study involved 204 university professors from Colombia, who were chosen through a non-probabilistic convenience sampling process. They were contacted by e-mail to ask them to answer a GoogleFormsTM survey, which has been used as a research instrument. Previously, the professors participated in training in VR technologies and their didactic use in higher education, so it can be assumed that the participants had a homogeneous theoretical knowledge about the main concepts they were asked about in the survey. All participants answered the survey, and all answers were validated.

2.2. Objectives and Variables

The general objective of this research was to study the perception that university professors in Colombia have about the didactic employability of VR technologies and the differences that exist, with respect to this perception, according to the professors’ areas of knowledge. In particular, the following specific objectives were pursued: (i) to analyze the perception of Colombian university professors about their digital competence and their assessment of VR from technical and didactic points of view and of the disadvantages of its use; (ii) to identify gaps in the above perceptions by reason of the professors’ area of knowledge; and (iii) to study the influence of the professors’ gender, and their digital generation, on their perception of the didactic employability of VR technologies.
The following dependent variables were considered in the study (Figure 2): (i) self-concept of participants’ competence in the use of digital and virtual technologies; (ii) assessment of the technical aspects of VR; (iii) perception of the level of drawbacks of VR for its employability in university classrooms; (iv) perceived didactic and academic benefits of using VR. All the dependent variables were considered quantitative variables and measured on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means the lowest valuation and 5 means the highest valuation. The dependent variables were selected to cover the perception of the different aspects involved in the didactic use of VR in higher education, following the line of other previous works in this regard [13,14].
The following independent variables, which affect the sociological and academic profile of the participants, are also considered: (i) area of knowledge; (ii) gender; and (iii) digital generation. The area of knowledge is taken as the main independent variable. The variables of gender and digital generation are dichotomous, while the area of knowledge is polytomous. The different areas of knowledge have been extracted from the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), which is the classification established by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [59]. In this classification, the area of Education has been integrated within the area of Social and Legal Sciences, and the area of Health within the area of Health Sciences. Thus, the following areas of knowledge are distinguished: (i) Arts and Humanities (specifically, philosophy, philology, literature, history and art; hereafter, Humanities); (ii) Pure and Health Sciences (specifically, mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural sciences and medicine; hereafter, Science); (iii) Social and Legal Sciences (specifically, sociology, geography, law, political science, economics, communication, pedagogy and psychology; hereafter, Social Sciences); and (iv) Engineering and Architecture (which covers the different specialties of technical education; hereafter, Engineering).

2.3. Instrument

To measure the values of the dependent variables, a 17-question survey was used which asked the participant to assess each of the aspects of VR mentioned in the definition of the dependent variables (Table 2). The survey was adapted for the purposes of this research from the instrument developed in [14]. The adaptation was done without questions involving the distinction between immersive VR and non-immersive VR, or perspectives on the future use of VR technologies; aspects that are not the subject of the present study. The questions in the survey were distributed in the following subscales, each one corresponding to one dependent variable: (i) self-concept of digital competence (questions 1 to 3); (ii) rating of the technical aspects of VR (questions 4 to 10); (iii) perception of the drawbacks of VR (questions 11 to 13); and (iv) valuation of the didactic benefits of VR (questions 14 to 17). All assessments were measured on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to the lowest assessment and 5 to the highest. For the questions on VR drawbacks, the lowest valuation indicates that the participant does not identify any drawbacks, while the highest valuation indicates that many drawbacks are observed with respect to the VR feature that is the subject of the corresponding question.

2.4. Procedure

This paper reports a quantitative descriptive research based on the data extracted from the answers to a self-designed survey on the use of VR technologies in university classrooms in Colombia. After an initial training session, that served to clarify and homogenize concepts about VR among the participants, they responded to the survey that was sent to them by e-mail. All the answers provided by the participants were validated because all the participants gave complete answers.
The statistics of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were used to validate the instrument and the definition of the subscales, according to the different dependent variables under consideration. Validation of the instrument’s consistency was carried out using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) parameters, which were computed for each subscale of the survey. Convergent validity was obtained from the average variance extracted (AVE) and an analysis of the Pearson correlations of the different subscales with each other and between each of them with the global scale.
The analysis of the results obtained was carried out through the descriptive statistics of the answers. Finally, to identify gaps in the perceptions measured when the participants were distinguished by the different values of the independent variables, the ANOVA test was used for the knowledge area variable, which is the main variable of the study, and the multifactor ANOVA test (MANOVA) when the answers within each knowledge area were differentiated by the values of the rest of the independent variables. The mean comparison tests were performed with Welch’s correction without assuming equality of variances. For comparison of the standard deviations of the answers when the participants were differentiated by areas of knowledge, Levene’s test statistics were computed. All tests were carried out with a statistical significance level of 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Sample of Participants

As can be seen in Table 3, most of the professors are specialists in Engineering or Social Sciences, with Humanities being the least frequent in the distribution of participants. Males are slightly more frequent than females overall (51.96% vs. 48.04%), although females are more frequent than males in the Science area. By digital generation, digital natives are slightly more frequent than digital immigrants (53.92% vs. 46.08%). In all areas there are more digital native professors than digital immigrants; except in Science, where the proportion of digital immigrants is higher than that of natives.

3.2. Validation of the Instrument

In Table 4 it is shown that the definition of the subscales that was carried out explained a total of 58.50% of the variance. These subscales correspond to the dependent variables under study: (i) perception of one’s own digital competence (questions 1 to 3); (ii) assessment of the technical aspects of VR (questions 4 to 10); (iii) disadvantages of using VR technologies (questions 11 to 13); (iv) assessment of the didactic benefits of VR in higher education (questions 14 to 17). The CFA indices support the definition made for the subscales (chi-square = 207.3637 with a p-value = 0.0000). The incremental fit indices are adequate (AGFI = 0.7986; NFI = 0.7942; TLI = 0.9697; CFI = 0.8918; IFI = 0.8945) and the absolute fit indices also indicate that the model is acceptable (GFI = 0.8226; RMSEA = 0.0909; AIC = 287.3637; chi-square/df = 1.8351).
The composite reliability parameters and Cronbach’s alphas (Table 5) assume that the defined instrument has high levels of internal consistency, since all parameters exceeded 0.7. Likewise, all the AVE statistics exceeded 0.5, which confirm convergent validity. Finally, from the Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 6) it follows that the different subscales of the survey were weakly correlated, but the correlation between each subscale and the global scale was moderate or high. All correlations were statistically significant.

3.3. Analysis of the Answers

The mean valuation of VR by the participants was high, both in its technical and didactic aspects (Table 7). These valuations were given with smaller deviations than the rest of the subscales, which proved that the responses were more homogeneous than those given to digital competence and to disadvantages of VR. However, the perception of the disadvantages was intermediate-high, which means that professors found limitations in the didactic employability of these technologies, despite the benefits they recognized. In this respect, the deviation was higher, so the answers were more disparate. The participants also expressed having intermediate levels of digital competence, although the perceptions were, in this sense, heterogeneous among the surveyed population, given the high standard deviation.
The high dispersion in the VR disadvantages subscale is due to the fact that the participants identified, to a greater extent, economic cost (mean of 3.75 out of 5), technological obsolescence of the university’s equipment (3.73 out of 5), and lack of specific training for professors (3.74 out of 5). The shortage of space was mentioned, to a lesser extent (mean of 2.84 out of 5), as a disadvantage of VR. Regarding dispersion in the answers on digital competence, these were due to the low evaluation given by the participants of the training offered by their respective universities (2.20 out of 5), as opposed to their digital skills (3.28 out of 5) and their knowledge of VR (2.56 out of 5).
By areas of knowledge, Science professors were those who expressed a lower mean value of digital competence and technical aspects of VR, Social Sciences professors identified, to a lesser extent the drawbacks of VR and recognized less didactic benefits, and Humanities professors were those who expressed the highest values in all subscales (Table 8). As for the deviations (Table 9), Science professors presented the greatest heterogeneity of answers—except in the subscale of digital competence, in which the greatest heterogeneity corresponded to the area of Engineering—and Humanities professors the least, except in the subscale of digital competence.
The MANOVA test statistics found statistically significant gender gaps in the perception of digital competence in the different areas of knowledge (Table 10). Specifically, females reported higher digital skills in Humanities, Social Sciences, and Engineering, and lower in Science. Males gave significantly higher ratings than females for the technical aspects of VR and its didactic benefits in all areas, except in Social Sciences and Engineering, where females gave higher ratings. In addition, females found more disadvantages in the didactic use of VR than males in all fields, except Humanities. Digital generation is a discriminative variable in all subscales of the survey (Table 11).
Table
Table 10. Mean answers (out of 5) and MANOVA test statistics when participants are differentiated by area of knowledge and gender.
Table 10. Mean answers (out of 5) and MANOVA test statistics when participants are differentiated by area of knowledge and gender.
GenderArea of KnowledgeMean Values
DCATDDU
FemaleHumanities3.224.333.514.21
Sciences2.473.983.593.96
Social Sciences2.934.333.384.50
Engineering3.394.213.694.31
MaleHumanities2.814.493.954.50
Sciences2.674.313.004.50
Social Sciences2.744.013.243.72
Engineering2.614.123.414.28
MANOVA
DCATDDU
Chi-square2.36617.92042.855124.0060
p-Value0.03100.0000 *0.0228 *0.0000 *
* p < 0.05.
In Humanities and Social Sciences, the perception of digital competence was higher in digital immigrants than in digital natives, while in Sciences and Engineering, natives reported higher digital competence than immigrants. Digital natives rated the technical aspects of VR higher but the didactic benefits lower than digital immigrants in all areas of knowledge (except Social Sciences, where digital natives rated both technical and didactic aspects higher than digital immigrants). Finally, digital natives were the ones who identified more disadvantages of VR in all areas except in Science, where digital immigrants perceived a higher level of disadvantages in VR than digital natives.
Table
Table 11. Mean answers (out of 5) and MANOVA test statistics when participants are differentiated by area of knowledge and digital generation.
Table 11. Mean answers (out of 5) and MANOVA test statistics when participants are differentiated by area of knowledge and digital generation.
GenerationArea of KnowledgeMean Values
DCATDDU
Digital immigrantsHumanities3.074.343.474.45
Sciences2.073.893.554.16
Social Sciences3.043.712.843.58
Engineering2.414.123.444.38
Digital nativesHumanities2.964.463.924.31
Sciences3.224.353.114.00
Social Sciences2.634.533.714.49
Engineering2.604.173.564.24
MANOVA
DCATDDU
Chi-square13.144021.937014.290033.0340
p-Value0.0000 *0.0000 *0.0000 *0.0000 *
* p < 0.05.

4. Discussion

The results obtained show that the perception that Colombian university professors have of their own digital competence is intermediate, in general (Table 7). In any case, their assessment of VR technologies and their didactic benefits is much higher than the training they express for their use in the classroom. This is in line with numerous studies that indicate low level of use of digital technologies, or the Internet, in the Latin American context [60]. Although the use of digital environments has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, the projection that the use of this type of resources has experienced still seems to be scarce in Latin America, especially in higher education, due, in part, to the need for specific training in this regard by professors, and due to the economic demands posed by the implementation of these technologies [61,62,63]. However, there is a growing perception of the benefits of the use of digital teaching technologies among university faculties, which leads to the design of proposals and research on teaching experiences in this regard. The specialized literature supports the view that these types of experiences are being developed in Latin American universities [64,65] and in other geographical areas, such as Spain and Portugal [11,66] and Italy [67,68]. In this sense, there are works that show that VR technologies can be integrated into different Latin American learning systems, although their implementation is still weak [69,70]. In the specific case of Colombia, the use of VR technologies in digital learning environments has attracted the interest of numerous researchers, who have verified the increase in motivation and learning experience of students caused by the use of VR [71,72] and the increase in self-esteem and technological skills of students due to the use of VR [73]. All this may be causing the excellent valuations of the didactic benefits of VR obtained in this study, even though self-concept about digital competence is less valued.
The participating professors also assessed the level of disadvantages posed by VR as intermediate–high (Table 7). In this sense, professors especially highlight the technological obsolescence of the equipment, the economic cost, and the lack of specific training for professors. These results are in line with previous research works [74], which indicate that the difficulty expressed by a set of Colombian university professors in the use of certain VR tools is their greatest difficulty. In other different geographical areas, technological obsolescence of equipment has also been found to be a notable disadvantage of VR, which shows that this observation is not strictly local [75].
Regarding the influence of the area of knowledge and the rest of the independent variables, it has been shown that Colombian professors of Humanities are those who manifest greater digital competence and better assessment of VR, in general (Table 8). With respect to the differences by areas of knowledge in the valuation of VR as a teaching resource, there are discrepancies between the different works in previous literature carried out on geographical areas, other than the one in this study. Some studies do not find differences between professors in areas such as Humanities and Engineering [76] or Heath Sciences and Engineering [13], while those that do find differences indicate that Humanities professors are the ones who encounter more obstacles and limitations to the use of these technologies in the classroom [77]. The results found in this research point precisely in the opposite direction. Colombian Humanities professors are the ones who gave higher valuations to VR, which suggests that there is a geographical or cultural component that affects the professors’ perceptions of VR. These results are novel in the literature, which is an element of originality of the present research. Typically, published work in this area focuses on a specific area of knowledge [78,79,80,81], or on the identification of other variables that influence the perceptions analyzed, such as the country of origin [82].
This research has shown that there is a gender gap in the perception of digital competence so that, in the areas of Engineering, Humanities, and Social Sciences, females express higher levels of digital competence, while in Science it is males who express having greater digital skills (Table 10). This fact reveals that Colombia shares, with its neighboring countries, the gender gap that exists in the digital training of Latin American professors in university education [83,84] and it is proposed as a line of future research to explore the reasons why the gender gap in the area of Science benefits males in terms of digital competence, rather than females, as in the rest of the areas. Moreover, this result is in line with those described by previous works in which gender gaps in digital competence in a population of Latin American university professors were identified [13]. Gender gaps were also found in terms of perceptions of the technical aspects, didactic benefits and drawbacks of VR. This fact disagrees with previous works [13] where the perceptions on similar aspects in a population of Latin American university professors were studied, although only in the case where professors were from the fields of Health Sciences and Engineering. This work has shown that male professors in all areas of knowledge value the technical and didactic aspects of VR more than females. In addition, females find more disadvantages in the use of VR in all areas, except in Humanities. In contrast, there are previous works where no significant gender gaps were identified in the assessment of VR when the population was reduced to professors of Health Sciences and Engineering [13].
With respect to age, digital native professors are those who report having greater digital competence in the areas of Science and Engineering. This fact is consistent with those of other works [14], where it is shown that the perception of digital competence decreases with age among Engineering professors. In contrast, in the areas of Humanities and Social Sciences, the highest self-concepts in this regard are digital immigrants (Table 11). In addition, digital natives report higher valuations of the technical dimensions of VR, but lower valuations of its didactic benefits, than digital immigrants in all areas, except Social Sciences, where digital natives also outperform immigrants in valuing the didactic benefits of VR. This fact may reveal that younger generations of professors in Science and Engineering are acquiring training in digital technologies that previous generations did not receive, but this digitization effort in professor training is not developing at the same pace in the humanistic-social areas. However, the high valuations of VR among digital native professors of Humanities and Social Sciences manifests that, despite having a lower self-concept of their digital competence, these professors see VR technologies as applicable to their teaching activities. The perception of their own digital competence, higher among digital native professors, are in line with the results of previous works on digital competence in higher education in Latin America [85]. However, in this work it was found that the highest valuations were concentrated, above all, in scientific-technical areas. With respect to the valuation of VR technologies in the specific case of university professors in Colombia, the present work is novel in the literature and, consequently, constitutes an original contribution.

5. Conclusions

The participating professors consider their level of digital competence to be intermediate-low, but rated VR very highly, both in its technical aspects and in its didactic benefits in higher education. However, they understand that the incorporation of VR technologies into university classrooms in Colombia poses disadvantages, mainly due to the technological obsolescence of university equipment, the economic cost and the lack of specific training for professors. With respect to the above perceptions, gaps have been identified in terms of area of knowledge, gender, and digital generation. In particular, the highest valuations of VR are expressed by digital natives, and by professors of the area of Arts and Humanities. Female professors in Humanities, Social Sciences, and Engineering report higher digital competence than males, contrary to what happens in the area of Science.
There are some future lines of research opened up from the present study. In particular, it would be interesting to explore whether the gap that exists in areas of knowledge concerns aspects linked to the nature of the area itself and the applicability of VR or, rather, with the previous training of the professors in each area. It would also be useful to explore the reasons why the gender gap in the area of science is contrary to that of the rest of the areas. Specifically, it would be useful to explore to what extent the reasons for the above behaviors arise from sociological or academic characteristics of Colombia or whether they can be extrapolated to other countries in the region with a similar level of technical and digital development. This could be corroborated by extending the study to other countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. It would also be interesting to compare the case of Colombia with that of countries in different areas with a higher (Europe or North America) or lower (Asia or Africa) level of digitization. In addition, it is suggested that universities design specific training actions on the use of VR technologies and their didactic employability, especially in the humanistic-social areas, and that these trainings have a specific focus for each area of knowledge.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Á.A.-S. and D.V.; methodology, Á.A.-S., D.V. and P.F.-A.; validation, Á.A.-S., D.V. and P.F.-A.; formal analysis, Á.A.-S. and D.V.; resources, Á.A.-S., D.V., P.F.-A. and E.A.A.-E.; data curation, Á.A.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, Á.A.-S., D.V., P.F.-A. and E.A.A.-E.; writing—review and editing, Á.A.-S., D.V., P.F.-A. and E.A.A.-E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Project “Influence of COVID-19 on teaching: digitization of laboratory practices at UCAV” (24 January 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

All participants were informed about the anonymous nature of their participation, why the research is being conducted, how their data will be used and that under no circumstances would their data be used to identify them. The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Project “Influence of COVID-19 on teaching: digitization of laboratory practices at UCAV” (24 January 2022).

Data Availability Statement

The data are not publicly available because they are part of a larger project involving more researchers. If you have any questions, please ask the contact author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mandal, S. Brief introduction of virtual reality & its challenges. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2013, 4, 304–309. Available online: https://www.ijser.org/researchpaper/Brief-Introduction-of-Virtual-Reality-its-Challenges.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  2. Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Kang, S.C.; Al-Hussein, M. Virtual reality applications for the built environment: Research trends and opportunities. Autom. Constr. 2020, 118, 103311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rizzo, A.A.; Schultheis, M.; Kerns, K.A.; Mateer, C. Analysis of assets for virtual reality applications in neuropsychology. Neuropsychol. Rehabil. 2004, 14, 207–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Camp, J.J.; Cameron, B.M.; Blezek, D.; Robb, R.A. Virtual reality in medicine and biology. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 1998, 14, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ihlenfeldt, W.D. Virtual reality in chemistry. J. Mol. Med. 1997, 3, 386–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Innocenti, A. Virtual reality experiments in economics. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2017, 69, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Grau, O. Virtual Art. From Illusion to Immersion; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  8. Extremera, J.; Vergara, D.; Rubio, M.P.; Gómez, A.I. Design of virtual reality learning environments: Step-by-step guidance. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Seville, Spain, 11–13 November 2019; pp. 1285–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Núñez, M.; Quirós, R.; Núñez, I.; Carda, J.B.; Camahort, E. Collaborative augmented reality for inorganic chemistry education. In Proceedings of the 5th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on Engineering Education, Heraklion, Greece, 22–24 July 2008; pp. 271–277. Available online: https://0-dl-acm-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/10.5555/1581120.1581171 (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  10. Fabris, C.P.; Rathner, J.A.; Fong, A.Y.; Sevigny, C.P. Virtual reality in higher education. Int. J. Inn. Sci. Math. Educ. 2019, 27, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vergara, D.; Fernández-Arias, P.; Extremera, J.; Dávila, L.P.; Rubio, M.P. Educational trends post COVID-19 in engineering: Virtual laboratories. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 49, 155–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vergara, D.; Rubio, M.P.; Lorenzo, M. On the design of virtual reality learning environments in engineering. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2017, 1, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Vergara, D.; Antón-Sancho, Á.; Extremera, J.; Fernández-Arias, P. Assessment of virtual reality as a didactic resource in higher education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vergara, D.; Antón-Sancho, Á.; Dávila, L.P.; Fernández-Arias, P. Virtual reality as a didactic resource from the perspective of engineering teachers. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2022, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mystakidis, S.; Berki, E.; Valtanen, J.-P. Deep and meaningful e-learning with social virtual reality environments in higher education: A systematic literature review. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Esteban-Duarte, P.; Trefftz-Gómez, H.; Restrepo, J.; Giraldo-Velásquez, F.D.; Jiménez-Rojas, Á.M.; Giraldo-Muñoz, A.A.; Peñalosa, C.; Restrepo, A.; Rojas-Flórez, L.C.; Lamprea, J.A.; et al. Ambientes colaborativos en cursos de matemáticas para ingeniería soportados por redes de alta velocidad. Rev. Educ. Ingeniería 2009, 8, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Potkonjak, V.; Gardner, M.; Callaghan, V.; Mattila, P.; Guetl, C.; Petrovic, V.M.; Javanovic, K. Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Comput. Educ. 2016, 95, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Morales, A.D.; Sanchez, S.A.; Pineda, C.M.; Romero, H.J. Use of augmented reality for the simulation of basic mechanical physics phenomena. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 519, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Velosa, J.D.; Cobo, L.; Castillo, F.; Castillo, C. Methodological proposal for use of virtual reality VR and augmented reality AR in the formation of professional skills in industrial maintenance and industrial safety. In Online Engineering & Internet of Things; Auer, M., Zutin, D., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 987–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Agudelo-Velez, L.; Sarmiento-Ordosgoitia, I.; Córdoba-Maquilón, J. Virtual reality as a new tool for transport data collection. Arch. Transp. 2021, 60, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cárdenas, K.; Aranda, M. Uso de psicoterapias como tratamiento del dolor de miembro fantasma. Rev. Colomb. Psiquiatr. 2017, 46, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Delgado-Reyes, A.C.; Ocampo-Parra, T.L.; Sánchez-López, J.V. Realidad virtual: Evaluación en el trastorno del espectro autista. Rev. Electrón. Psicol. Iztacala 2020, 23, 369–399. [Google Scholar]
  23. Laverde-Robayo, D.M. Reflexiones sobre la utilidad de la realidad virtual en la práctica fonoaudiológica. Rev. Colomb. Rehabil. 2014, 13, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Botero-Rosas, D.A.; Mosquera-Dussán, O.L.; Trujillo-Rojas, C.G.; Guzmán-Pérez, D.; Zamudio-Palacios, J.E.; García-Torres, J.A.; Terán-Ortega, A.P. Decision making, stress assessed by physiological response and virtual reality stimuli. Rev. Colombiana Psicol. 2020, 19, 89–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bernal-García, M.; Quemba, M.M.; Silva, O.S.; Pacheco-Olmo, B. Laboratorios tradicionales versus nuevas tecnologías para el estudio de anatomía humana en estudiantes de medicina: Revisión sistemática y meta análisis. Int. J. Morphol. 2021, 40, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Delgado-Reyes, A.C.; Sánchez-López, J.V. Escenarios virtuales para la evaluación neuropsicológica: Una revisión de tema. Cuad. Neuropsicol./Panam. J. Neuropsychol. 2021, 15, 196–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Basto-Cardona, N.; García-Capdevilla, D.; Vargas-Losada, H. Estrategia de marketing digital mediante la realidad virtual para potencializar el ecoturismo en la vereda El Manantial Municipio de Florencia-Caquetá Colombia. Entorno Geográfico 2019, 18, 128–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Colussi, J.; Reis, T.A. Periodismo inmersivo. Análisis de la narrativa en aplicaciones de realidad virtual. Rev. Lat. Comun. Soc. 2020, 77, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Giraldo-Dávila, A.F. ‘Realidad virtual’: Análisis del marco teórico para explorar nuevos modelos de comunicación. Anagramas 2011, 9, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Garzón-Martín, V.; Figueroa, P.; Molina, J. Learning to distinguish insects from other arthropods with immersive virtual reality. Rev. Colomb. Comput. 2021, 22, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Restrepo, D.J.; Cuello, L.S.; Contreras, L. Juegos didácticos basados en realidad aumentada como apoyo en la enseñanza de biología. Ingeniare 2015, 11, 99–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Arce-Lopera, C.; Arias, M.J.; Corrales, G. Training birdsong recognition using virtual reality. Virtual Real. Intell. Hardw. 2021, 3, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gil, O.L.F.; Cardoso, V.J. Development of virtual reality (VR) as an affordable learning method with species of nature. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies LCT 2016, Toronto, ON, Canada, 17–22 July 2016; Springer International Publishing Switzerland: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2016; pp. 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Santamaria-Granados, L.H. Simbiosis de realidad virtual y educación. Educ. Cienc. 2006, 9, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  35. Trefftz, H.; Restrepo, J.; Esteban, P.; Jimenez, A.M.; Giraldo, F.D. Virtual collaborative learning environments with the Telepresence Platform supported by the Teaching for Understanding pedagogical framework: Experiences in Higher Educational process in Colombia. In E-Learning; Buzzi, M., Ed.; IntechOpen Book Series; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 197–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Torres-Zamudio, M.; Manzano-Durán, O.; González-Castro, Y. Realidad virtual, e-learning y estrategias de enseñanza-aprendizaje. Evaluación de la actividad científica. Rev. Bol. Redipe 2011, 10, 232–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Burdea, G. Teaching virtual reality: Why and how? Presence-Teleop. Virt. 2004, 13, 463–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gómez-Restrepo, C.; Reveiz-Narváez, Y. Pacientes virtuales em la enseñanza médica. Rev. Colomb. Psiquiatr. 2012, 41, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. García-Rodríguez, C.C.; Mosquera-Dussán, O.L.; Guzmán-Pérez, D.; Zamudio-Palacios, J.E.; García-Torres, J.A. Needs analysis and implementation of virtual reality technology for military training and education in Colombia. Logos Cienc. Tecnol. 2021, 13, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. López, L.C.; Caviativa, J.; Guzman, Y.; Gutiérrez, A. The video game as practice for developing virtual reality sports jumping skills in children 5 years. Case study of innovative practices in educational institutions of Bogotá, Colombia. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on New Developments in Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vienna, Austria, 3–6 June 2015; pp. 215–221. Available online: http://www.inase.org/library/2015/vienna/bypaper/MAPUR/MAPUR-34.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2022).
  41. WIPO. The Global Innovation Index 2021: Tracking Innovation through the COVID-19 Crisis. 2021. Available online: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2021.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2022).
  42. Antón-Sancho, Á.; Vergara, D.; Fernández-Arias, P. Self-assessment of soft skills of university teachers from countries with a low level of digital competence. Electronics 2021, 10, 2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cornell University; INSEAD; WIPO. The Global Innovation Index 2020: Who Will Finance Innovation? 2021. Available online: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2020.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2022).
  44. Portillo, J.; Garay, U.; Tejada, E.; Bilbao, N. Self-perception of the digital competence of educators during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-analysis of different educational stages. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Joiner, R.; Gavin, J.; Brosnan, M.; Cromby, J.; Gregory, H.; Guiller, J.; Maras, P.; Moon, A. Comparing first and second generation digital natives’ internet use, internet anxiety, and internet identification. Cyberpsych. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2013, 16, 549–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 1. Horizon 2001, 9, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Prensky, M. Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2: Do they really think differently? Horizon 2001, 9, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Margaryan, A.; Littlejohn, A.; Vojt, G. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Creighton, T.B. Digital natives, digital immigrants, digital learners: An international empirical integrative review of the literature. Ed. Leadership Rev. 2018, 19, 132–140. [Google Scholar]
  50. Nevin, A.D.; Shieman, S. Technological tethering, digital natives, and challenges in the work–family interface. Soc. Q. 2021, 62, 60–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Atadil, H.A.; Erdem, M.; Green, A.J.; Crinson, D. Digital natives in the hospitality workforce: An exploratory study on mobile dependency. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2021, 30, 785–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Guntara, Y.; Utami, I.S. Measuring the classification of digital natives use digital natives assessment scale: The implementation pre-service physics teachers in Banten-Indonesia and its implications. JPPPF (J. Penelit. Pengemb. Pendidik. Fis.) 2021, 7, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vergara-Rodríguez, D.; Antón-Sancho, Á.; Fernández-Arias, P. Variables influencing professors’ adaptation to digital learning environments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. La Rota, A. Colombia: Un proyecto de universidad virtual. RED Rev. Educ. Form. Prof. Distancia 2001, 25, 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sistema Nacional de Información de la Educación Superior-SNIES. 2020. Available online: https://snies.mineducacion.gov.co (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  56. Fairlie, A.; Portocarrero, J.; Herrera, E. Desafíos de digitalización para la internacionalización de la educación superior en los países de la Comunidad Andina. Doc. Trab. (Fund. Carol.) 2021, 46, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Madeleine, F.G. Internationalization at home: Seizing the moment. Int. High. Educ. 2020, 104, 24–25. [Google Scholar]
  58. Pérez, Y.T. Análisis del Sistema de Aseguramiento de la Calidad en Colombia Frente a la Digitalización en la Educación Superior. Master’s Thesis, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, 20 January 2021. Available online: http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/bitstream/10609/128532/7/yperezdTFM0221memoria.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  59. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. International Standard Classification of Education ISCED 2011; UNESCO-UIS: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012; Available online: http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-2011-en.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  60. Friedman, E.J. The reality of virtual reality: The internet and gender equality advocacy in Latin America. Lat. Am. Polit. Soc. 2005, 47, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Paredes-Chacín, A.J.; Inciarte-González, A.; Walles-Peñaloza, D. Higher education and research in Latin America: Transition to the use of digital technologies by COVID-19. Rev. Cienc. Soc. Venez. 2020, 26, 98–117. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gómez, G.M.; Uzín, G.J.A. Effects of COVID-19 on Education and Schools’ Reopening in Latin America. In COVID-19 and International Development; Papyrakis, E., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Salas-Pilco, S.Z.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, Z. Student engagement in online learning in Latin American higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2022, 1, 593–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Cabrera-Duffaut, A.; Pinto-Llorente, A.M.; Iglesias-Rodríguez, A. Efficiency in the application of virtual reality in the teaching processes to generate competences in the university environment. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’20), Salamanca, Spain, 21–23 October 2020; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1008–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Argüelles-Cruz, A.J.; García-Peñalvo, F.J.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Education in Latin America: Toward the digital transformation in universities. In Radical Solutions for Digital Transformation in Latin American Universities; Lecture Notes in Educational Technology; Burgos, D., Branch, J.W., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vergara, D.; Extremera, J.; Rubio, M.P.; Dávila, L.P. Meaningful learning through virtual reality learning environments: A case study in materials engineering. Appl. Sci. 2017, 9, 4625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Mirauda, D.; Capece, N.; Erra, U. StreamflowVL: A virtual fieldwork laboratory that supports traditional hydraulics engineering learning. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Mirauda, D.; Capece, N.; Erra, U. Sustainable water management: Virtual reality training for open-channel flow monitoring. Sustainability 2020, 12, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Nakamoto, P.T.; Cardoso, A.; Lamounier-Júnior, E.; Mendes, E.B.; Takahaschi, E.K.; Carrijo, G.A. A virtual environment learning of low cost for the instruction of electric circuits. IEEE Lat. Am. Trans. 2010, 8, 695–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mendoza-Hidalgo, A.C.; Álvarez-Franco, R.F. Incidence of virtual learning environments in the development of mathematical logical thinking. Cent. Sur. 2021, 5, 71–79. [Google Scholar]
  71. Bendeck-Soto, J.; Toro-Ocampo, D.; Beltrán-Colon, L.; Valencia-Oropesa, A. Perceptions of ImmerseMe virtual reality platform to improve English communicative skills in higher education. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2020, 14, 4–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Angarita-Díaz, M.P.; Bernal-Cepeda, L.; Bastidas-Legarda, L.; Forero-Escobar, D.; Ricaurte-Avendaño, A.; Mora-Reina, J.; Vergara-Mercado, M.; Herrera-Herrera, A.; Rodríguez-Paz, M.; Cáceres-Matta, S.; et al. Impact of a virtual learning environment on the conscious prescription of antibiotics among Colombian dentists. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Huang, H.M.; Rauch, U.; Liaw, S.S. Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 1171–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. McDougald, J.S. The use of new technologies among in-service Colombian ELT teachers. Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J. 2013, 15, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Vergara, D.; Extremera, J.; Rubio, M.P.; Dávila, L.P. The technological obsolescence of virtual reality learning environments. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Antonietti, A.; Rasi, C.; Imperio, E.; Sacco, M. The representation of virtual reality in education. Educ. Inform. Technol. 2000, 5, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mercader, C.; Gairín, J. University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: The importance of the academic discipline. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2020, 17, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Alfalah, S.F.M. Perceptions toward adopting virtual reality as a teaching aid in information technology. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 2633–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhao, J.; Xu, X.; Jiang, H.; Ding, Y. The effectiveness of virtual reality-based technology on anatomy teaching: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Van-Deursen, M.; Reuvers, L.; Duits, J.D.; De-Jong, G.; Vand-Den-Hurk, M.; Henssen, D. Virtual reality and annotated radiological data as effective and motivating tools to help social sciences students learn neuroanatomy. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 12843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. González-Zamar, M.-D.; Abad-Segura, E. Implications of virtual reality in arts education: Research analysis in the context of higher education. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Campos-Soto, M.N.; Navas-Parejo, M.R.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.J. Virtual reality and motivation in the educational context: Bibliometric study of the last twenty years from Scopus. Alteridad 2020, 15, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Gray, T.J.; Gainous, J.; Wagner, K.M. Gender and the digital divide in Latin America. Soc. Sci. Quart. 2017, 98, 326–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Antón-Sancho, Á.; Vergara, D.; Lamas-Álvarez, V.E.; Fernández-Arias, P. Digital content creation tools: American university teachers’ perception. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Saltos-Rivas, R.; Novoa-Hernández, P.; Serrano-Rodríguez, R. On the quality of quantitative instruments to measure digital competence in higher education: A systematic mapping study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mti 06 00038 g001 550
Figure 1. Main generations in terms of the degree of connection with digital technologies.
Figure 1. Main generations in terms of the degree of connection with digital technologies.
Mti 06 00038 g001
Mti 06 00038 g002 550
Figure 2. Variables considered in this study.
Figure 2. Variables considered in this study.
Mti 06 00038 g002
Table
Table 1. GII indices for Latin American and Caribbean countries in 2021 and 2020 (ordered by GII of 2021) and annual variation rates for 2021 with respect to 2020.
Table 1. GII indices for Latin American and Caribbean countries in 2021 and 2020 (ordered by GII of 2021) and annual variation rates for 2021 with respect to 2020.
CountryGII 2021GII 2020Variation Rate (%)
Chile36.1036.64−4.20
Mexico34.5036.06−4.33
Costa Rica34.5036.13−4.51
Brazil34.2033.821.12
Uruguay32.2034.32−6.18
Colombia31.7033.00−3.94
Peru31.2032.93−5.25
Argentina29.8031.95−6.73
Panama28.0031.51−11.14
Paraguay26.4027.09−2.55
Ecuador25.4026.56−4.37
El Salvador25.0024.890.44
Guatemala24.1025.07−3.87
Bolivia23.4024.76−5.49
Honduras22.8025.48−10.52
Table
Table 2. Subscales and questions of the survey.
Table 2. Subscales and questions of the survey.
SubscalesQuestion
Perception of digital competenceLevel of knowledge about VR
VR training received at your institution
Assessment of your digital skills
Assessment of the technical aspects of VR3D Design
User experience
Usability
Immersion degree
Interaction
Realism
Didactic employability
Disadvantages of VRCosts
Space
Faculty training
Didactic usefulness of VRIncreased student attention
Improvement in the progress of the subject
Increased motivation
Increased academic performance
Table
Table 3. Percentage distributions of participants by areas of knowledge and differentiating by the values of the other independent variables.
Table 3. Percentage distributions of participants by areas of knowledge and differentiating by the values of the other independent variables.
HumanitiesScienceSoc. Sci.Engineering
Area of knowledge12.8%22.5%31.4%33.3%
GenderFemale46.2%73.9%43.8%35.3%
Male53.8%26.1%56.2%64.7%
Digital generationImmigrant38.5%60.9%46.9%38.2%
Native61.5%39.1%53.1%61.8%
Table
Table 4. Proportions of the variance explained by the defined subscales.
Table 4. Proportions of the variance explained by the defined subscales.
Digital CompetenceTechnical AspectsDisadvantagesDidactic Usefulness
Proportion Variance0.0870.2410.0920.165
Cumulative Variance0.0870.3280.4200.585
Table
Table 5. Cronbach’s alpha, CR and AVE parameters.
Table 5. Cronbach’s alpha, CR and AVE parameters.
SubscaleCRCronbach’s AlphaAVE
Digital competence (DC)0.69860.70630.5712
Assessment of technical aspects (TA)0.89030.90780.6947
Disadvantages of VR (D)0.72320.72900.6129
Didactic usefulness of VR (DU)0.87410.87920.6657
Table
Table 6. Pearson correlations between the subscales and with the global scale.
Table 6. Pearson correlations between the subscales and with the global scale.
DCTADDUGlobal
DC10.0781−0.00100.06910.6789
TA 10.22620.41310.8926
D 10.05110.7022
DU 10.7627
Global 1
Table
Table 7. Overall descriptive statistics (out of 5) of the answers to the survey.
Table 7. Overall descriptive statistics (out of 5) of the answers to the survey.
SubscaleMeanStandard Deviation
Digital competence2.681.19
Assessment of technical aspects4.170.95
Disadvantages of VR3.441.25
Didactic usefulness of VR4.190.92
Table
Table 8. Mean answers (out of 5) and ANOVA test statistics when differentiating participants by area of knowledge.
Table 8. Mean answers (out of 5) and ANOVA test statistics when differentiating participants by area of knowledge.
HumanitiesScienceSocial ScienceEngineeringANOVAp-Value
DC3.002.522.822.538.20020.0000 *
AT4.424.074.154.1510.68000.0000 *
D3.743.383.303.514.58650.0036 *
DU4.374.104.064.297.78410.0000 *
* p < 0.05.
Table
Table 9. Standard deviations (out of 5) and Levene’s test statistics when participants are differentiated by area of knowledge.
Table 9. Standard deviations (out of 5) and Levene’s test statistics when participants are differentiated by area of knowledge.
HumanitiesScienceSocial ScienceEngineeringLevene’s Fp-Value
DC0.960.961.111.318.14050.0000 *
AT0.791.020.980.916.34850.0000 *
D1.061.361.321.176.06070.0001 *
DU0.710.911.050.836.53360.0000 *
* p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Antón-Sancho, Á.; Vergara, D.; Fernández-Arias, P.; Ariza-Echeverri, E.A. Didactic Use of Virtual Reality in Colombian Universities: Professors’ Perspective. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2022, 6, 38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/mti6050038

AMA Style

Antón-Sancho Á, Vergara D, Fernández-Arias P, Ariza-Echeverri EA. Didactic Use of Virtual Reality in Colombian Universities: Professors’ Perspective. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction. 2022; 6(5):38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/mti6050038

Chicago/Turabian Style

Antón-Sancho, Álvaro, Diego Vergara, Pablo Fernández-Arias, and Edwan Anderson Ariza-Echeverri. 2022. "Didactic Use of Virtual Reality in Colombian Universities: Professors’ Perspective" Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 6, no. 5: 38. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/mti6050038

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop