# Virtual Reality or Videoconferencing for Online Learning? Evidence from Comparative Meta-Analyses
## 5 Comparative Discussion  
To answer RQ1, both VR and VC platforms effectively promote online learning, but their impact differs due to three possible technical affordances: immersion, interaction, and supported pedagogies. Compared with VC platforms that rely primarily on real-time  
Figure 3: Publication bias funnel plots. (**a**) VR; (**b**) VC platforms. video transmission, VR stands out due to its ability to provide physical and cognitive immersion in a virtual world [12]. This immersive affordance generates a powerful sense of presence [88], which leads to enhanced learning experience and performance. VR also allows for more natural interactions in the virtual environment and facilitates convenient peer-to-peer interactions. VC platforms often restrict social interaction to fixed forms such as text chat and on-screen speech, which enables a mostly one-to-many discourse mode between the teacher and students. Finally, VR has greater potential for student-centered pedagogies, such as experiential learning, which is supported by more studies on this topic related to VR than VC. This divergence in pedagogical support contributes to the variance in learning effectiveness between these two technologies. To answer RQ2, moderating effects exist for both VR and VC platforms, with contextual and technological factors commonly identified with VC platforms and pedagogical factors with VR. First, contextual factors such as class size and grade level were found to significantly moderate the effects of VC-supported online learning, while VR was more generally applicable and had a more stable supporting effect for online learning. In a large class, the one-to-many model of the VC environment makes it difficult for teachers to consider the needs of all students, and the difficulty in class management increases significantly. Younger students, with limited attention spans and poor self-regulated learning skills, can more easily withdraw from the teacher-centered model. VR, meanwhile, can support more diverse instructional models, which makes it effective across different contexts. The VR environment, with its enhanced immersion, presence, and usability [89], can support effective instruction for both large-scale lectures in regular-sized classes and group discussions in small classes [90]. Additionally, this difference may also be interpreted through attribution theory [91]. VR's student-centered structure encourages learners to view success as the result of their own effort, while VC's more teacher-led model--especially in large or lower-grade classrooms--may foster external attributions, potentially reducing engagement and motivation. Second, technical factors such as the camera option have a significant influence on the efficacy of online learning with VC platforms, whereas the effects of VR-supported online learning remain stable regardless of the equipment chosen. The VC brand appears to be a moderating factor for online learning; compared with established VC brands such as Skype, the latest VC platforms tend to incorporate more social functions and, thus, lead to improved online learning experiences [85; 92]. By contrast, advances in VR equipment appear to have less of an impact on learning outcomes. In fact, several meta-analyses revealed that desktop VR programs have been more effective than HMD-based programs overall, despite the technical advantages of HMDs [10; 37]. One possible explanation for this paradox is that the effectiveness of VR-supported online learning largely depends on its instructional design, which offsets the influence of technical disparities among devices. Despite offering an enriched experience, more advanced VR devices can also cause increased extrinsic cognitive load and cybersickness. This pattern may also be explained by the novelty effect [93], which temporarily enhances learner engagement when new technologies like HMDs are introduced. However, as the initial excitement fades, motivation may decline--especially if the learning task lacks intrinsic value.