## 5 Discussion
It is worth mentioning that nearly 90% of those identified as _Contornists_ reported having no prior experience with VR technology, which might have limited their ability to engage in the immersive experience fully. Although not a primary focus of this study, one possible explanation could be an occurrence of cybersickness, which might have affected their capacity to process the immersive VR environment effectively. Previous research has reinforced the claim that prior experience with a VR environment significantly influences cybersickness susceptibility, with longer prior virtual experience correlating with higher resilience to VR-induced discomfort [82; 83]. Given these findings, future research should further examine the relationship between prior VR experiences, cybersickness, and perceived immersion to mitigate the potential barriers to implementing HMD-VR technology in MET. Segments exhibited significant differences when profiled according to the perceived learning benefits, future behavioural intentions, and satisfaction. _Immersionists_ consistently reported statistically higher scores in all the investigated aspects than _Contornists_. Regarding the perceived learning benefits, the results indicate that students with more positive reflections on perceived immersion are more likely to find the VR environment beneficial for studying and learning, particularly in reinforcing and deepening their understanding of previously learned concepts. These findings seem consistent with other research in the EVE field [35; 37; 49], highlighting the potential of immersive VR technologies as a valuable tool in complementing traditional learning and training methods. However, as this study did not incorporate a standardised metric knowledge assessment before and after trial sessions, the effectiveness of VR-based learning in terms of knowledge comprehension remains uncertain. Further research, thus, should integrate objective pre- and post-training knowledge assessments, including various training scenarios (e.g., fire, flood, and evacuation), to quantify learning outcomes, providing a more precise evaluation of perceived learning benefits. Moreover, conducting a comparative analysis of perceived learning benefits between HMD-VR and semi-immersive (i.e., desktop) engine room simulators would also be beneficial. Assessing the advantages and limitations of fully immersive VR-based learning in relation to semi-immersive would contribute to a more informed approach to best practices in MET. Perceived immersion also played a significant role in shaping students' future behavioural intentions regarding the use of VR technology. _Immersionists_ were significantly more likely to consider using VR educational tools in the future and recommend them to others. These findings corroborate similar studies [35; 38], suggesting that students with positive immersion experiences are more likely to advocate for its continued use. Similarly, _Immersionists_ reported significantly higher satisfaction levels with the HMD-VR engine room experience than _Contornists_, reinforcing the claim that perceived immersion positively influences users' overall experience [38; 45]. Despite being encouraging and thus hypothesising a direct link between perceived immersion, future behavioural intentions, and satisfaction, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Previous research indicates that the relationship between affective variables, such as PIMM, and outcome variables (e.g., FBI) is not direct but often mediated by factors like perceived learning outcomes [77]. This mediation is especially critical in the educational context, where emotional engage ment alone may not lead to sustained use or advocacy of the technology unless it provides measurable learning benefits.