Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Interactive authoring of outcome-oriented lesson plans for immersive Virtual Reality training

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FlowTrainer claims that welding educators without programming skills can author outcome-driven VR lesson plans through an LLM-assisted graph editor guided by Backward design, and a user study with eight welders reports lower workload and…

desk verdict A useful incremental authoring tool with an honest small study, but the abstract claims time and expertise savings the data do not support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01886 v2 pith:2IPRSBOU submitted 2025-05-03 cs.HC

Ananya Ipsita , Ramesh Kaki , Mayank Patel , Asim Unmesh , Kylie A. Peppler , Karthik Ramani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords VirtualRealityWeldingSimulatorsManufacturingBackwarddesignTrainingLLM-assistedauthoringlessonplan
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Immersive VR training for manufacturing is held back because authoring lessons normally requires programming and 3D-modelling skills, forcing educators to commission rigid apps from developers. This paper tries to establish that an LLM-assisted authoring tool called FlowTrainer lets subject-matter experts plan VR lessons from desired outcomes instead: the instructor states learning outcomes, and the system generates objectives, skills, assessment criteria, and a sequence of learning activities, which the instructor can then edit in a graph editor. In a comparative study with eight experienced welders building welding tutorials at three complexity levels, FlowTrainer scored higher usability in two of three sessions, showed significantly lower mental workload as task complexity rose, and produced shorter completion times on the most complex task than the baseline editor. If the claim holds, manufacturing educators can adapt VR training to changing class needs without waiting for developer revisions, which is the main barrier the paper targets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an LLM-assisted hierarchical prompt chain structured by Backward design. Backward design means the lesson is planned in reverse: start from desired learning outcomes, then define measurable objectives, the skills those objectives require, assessment criteria to test the skills, and finally the learning activities that teach them. The LLM updates this hierarchy with explicit precedence, so outcomes override objectives, objectives override skills, and so on, making a change in the instructor's goal propagate automatically through the plan. These activities come from a prebuilt library tagged with the four instructional phases, and the graph editor lets the instructor reorder, add, delete, or edit nodes such as timing, message, and hints before the JSON is exported and verified in the VR welding simulator.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment in which one group of trainees learns from FlowTrainer-authored lesson plans and another from baseline-authored or expert-written plans, with welding skill assessed on real joints: if FlowTrainer plans do not yield equal or better skill gains despite lower authoring effort, the claim that the system supports outcome-oriented training is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that outcome-oriented lesson planning for iVR training can be moved from VR developers to subject-matter experts by combining Backward design with LLM-guided generation over a reusable activity library. The workflow starts from a library of 27 welding learning activities grouped into Introduction, Presentation, Practice, and Application phases. The instructor enters learning outcomes; the LLM-assisted interface hierarchically produces three measurable objectives, three skills, and three assessment criteria, then a set of learning activities, with changes to higher-level items propagating downward. The resulting lesson graph can be edited node by node, saved as JSON, and run inside the Unity VR welding simulator, where a depth-first traversal presents the activities in order for verification. The user study compared this FlowTrainer system with the previous non-LLM graph editor and reported higher SUS scores in sessions 1 and 3, a significant reduction in mental workload with increasing task complexity, and faster completion on the hardest scenario, which the paper reads as evidence that instructors can flexibly author outcome-aligned scenarios with less time and technical expertise.

Load-bearing premise

The study measures ease, speed, and workload of authoring, not whether the resulting VR lessons actually teach welding better; if instructors can produce plans quickly but students do not learn from them, the central claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Welding instructors who state a learning outcome can get a complete draft lesson plan without writing code or manually assembling nodes.
  • Training programs can be revised when learner needs change, because editing outcomes regenerates the dependent objectives, skills, assessments, and activities.
  • The same workflow should transfer to other manufacturing skills once a comparable library of learning activities exists for that domain.
  • LLM assistance appears to help most as instructional complexity grows, since mental workload fell in FlowTrainer while the baseline editor became more physically demanding.
  • Separating the VR activity library from the lesson-planning editor lets developers build reusable components while instructors retain control over instructional design.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not measure whether FlowTrainer-authored plans improve welding skill, so a direct extension would be a randomized training study comparing trainee weld quality after FlowTrainer plans versus baseline or instructor-authored plans.
  • Several participants noted the generated results looked similar across sessions; this suggests the system's ceiling may depend on the diversity of the activity library, not just the LLM's prompt chain, and a larger library could be tested as a moderator.
  • One implicit claim, reduced technical expertise, rests on participants self-rating as VR-development novices or intermediates; a sharper test would compare first-use success and time-to-proficiency for users with no VR background at all.
  • The hierarchical propagation rule is essentially a constraint-satisfaction design; it could be generalized to check pedagogical alignment automatically, for instance verifying that every assessment criterion traces back to a stated outcome.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents FlowTrainer, an LLM-assisted interactive workflow for authoring outcome-oriented immersive Virtual Reality (iVR) lesson plans. The workflow combines a web-based graph editor with a left-hand panel that guides the user through stages of Backward design (learning outcomes, objectives, skills, assessment criteria, learning activities) and an LLM that generates hierarchical content, followed by a Unity-based VR verification stage. The system is evaluated in a within-subjects user study with 8 welding experts who author six training scenarios of increasing complexity using two systems: SystemA (the prior graph editor without LLM capabilities) and SystemB (FlowTrainer). Dependent measures are SUS, NASA-TLX, task completion time, sequence length of generated plans, Likert questionnaire responses, and qualitative feedback. The abstract claims that the system 'allowed users to plan lesson plans based on desired outcomes while reducing the time and technical expertise required for the authoring process.' The authors position the work as addressing the lack of pedagogically grounded, user-friendly authoring tools for iVR manufacturing training.

Significance. If the headline claims were fully supported, FlowTrainer would be a meaningful contribution to HCI and iVR training: it offers a concrete workflow that embeds Backward design in an interactive tool, provides a reusable library of 27 welding learning activities, and reports a counterbalanced within-subjects comparison against a sensible baseline. The paper includes detailed system description, qualitative user feedback, and appropriate non-parametric statistics for a small-sample study. However, the significance is substantially tempered because the abstract's claims about time reduction, reduced technical expertise, and outcome orientation go beyond what the measured variables (SUS, TLX, time, sequence length) can establish. The core system idea is promising, but the evidence as reported does not yet support the strongest stated contributions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §5.3 (Time of Task Completion)] The abstract's claim that FlowTrainer 'reduc[es] the time' required for authoring is not supported by the study's own statistics. The Friedman test for SystemB across sessions was not significant (χ²=5.25, p=0.0724), and the Wilcoxon comparison between SystemA and SystemB gave p=0.3828. The descriptive trends are suggestive at best, so the time-saving component of the headline claim should either be removed or explicitly labeled as a non-significant trend rather than stated as a demonstrated result.
  2. [Abstract and §5.2–§5.3] The claim that the system 'reduc[es] the technical expertise required' for authoring is not directly measured. The only evidence cited is that six of eight participants self-rated as novices and two as intermediate in VR development, plus qualitative comments. The study does not include a measure of the technical skill or background actually needed to operate each system, nor does it compare participants with different levels of authoring/programming expertise. The conclusion about reduced technical expertise therefore goes beyond the data collected.
  3. [Abstract and §5.3] The claim that the system enables 'lesson plans based on desired outcomes' is not tested. The dependent variables (SUS, NASA-TLX, time, sequence length) contain no independent evaluation of whether the produced lesson plans align with the stated learning outcomes or are pedagogically sound. Sequence length is a neutral quantity; longer plans could include irrelevant or redundant activities. One participant's comment that 'the generated results looked similar in most cases' further suggests that the LLM may not always tailor plans to distinct outcomes. Without a content-based evaluation (e.g., expert judgment of outcome alignment or pedagogical quality), the outcome-orientation claim remains unsupported.
  4. [§5.3 (SUS and NASA-TLX) and §6 Discussion] Comparisons between SystemA and SystemB are reported only through descriptive means or within-system Friedman tests over sessions; no between-system paired test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank on SUS or TLX scores) is reported, even though the design is within-subjects. Consequently, the statement in Section 6 that SystemB 'demonstrates a stronger capacity' than SystemA is not backed by a direct statistical comparison. The authors should report paired between-system tests and, if the differences are not significant, temper the comparative conclusions accordingly.
  5. [§4.1 (System Design and Implementation)] The LLM subsystem is not specified at a level that permits replication: no model name or version, API, prompt templates, generation parameters, or details of the 'hierarchical' propagation of user edits are given. Because the LLM-based interactive capability is the central difference between SystemB and SystemA, this omission prevents independent assessment of whether the observed effects are attributable to the LLM component or to other UI changes. Providing the prompt structure and model details would materially strengthen the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.3] There are several typos and repeated phrases: 'SysytemB', 'comparision', 'The results can be found in can be found in Figure 3' appears multiple times, and 'slightly greater for System with an average' is missing the 'B' in 'SystemB.'
  2. [§5.3 vs. §6] Time units are inconsistent: §5.3 reports task completion times in 'seconds' (e.g., 7.19 seconds, SD=4.13), while §6 refers to '1.71 minutes' and '2.79 minutes.' Please clarify which unit is correct and ensure consistency across the paper.
  3. [§5.2] The manipulation of 'task complexity' is described only as changes in scenario requirements across sessions; the paper does not report any check (e.g., perceived complexity ratings) confirming that the three sessions actually differed in complexity as intended, which would help interpret the Friedman test results.
  4. [§5.3 (NASA-TLX)] The TLX results are reported on a 1–5 scale (e.g., mental demand averages around 2–3), but standard NASA-TLX uses a 0–20 or 0–100 scale. Please specify the scale used and how the raw ratings were aggregated, since this affects interpretation and comparability with prior work.
  5. [Global] The paper references Figure 3 in the text as though it contains box plots and distributions, but the figure content is not described in enough detail for the reader to verify the statistical claims; consider making the plots larger and adding captions that define all axis labels and error bars.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims rest on newly collected comparative user-study data, not on fitted parameters or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles or predictive derivation; its central claim rests on a comparative user study (N=8) with original data. The baseline SystemA is the authors' earlier system [23], but the comparison draws on newly collected timings, SUS scores, NASA-TLX ratings, sequence lengths, and qualitative feedback rather than re-deriving those outcomes from the baseline's parameters. The use of Backward design [37,52] and the prior welding learning rationale [21] supply design inputs, not fitted outputs; no equation or normalization forces the reported differences. The abstract's phrasing that the system 'allowed users to plan lesson plans based on desired outcomes while reducing the time and technical expertise required' is broader than what the metrics directly measure (SUS, NASA-TLX, time, sequence length, and self-reported VR development experience), but overclaiming is a validity concern, not circularity. No self-citation is load-bearing in a way that makes the result true by construction, and the cited prior systems are external comparison points rather than the source of the claimed effect.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on pedagogical assumptions (Backward design, four phases) and on the completeness of the welding activity library from the authors' prior studies. There are no numeric free parameters or new physical or technical entities.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Backward design is an effective method for aligning VR training lessons with desired outcomes
    The system's core workflow is based on Backward design [37, 52], but the study never tests whether this pedagogical model improves training outcomes; it is treated as given in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The four-phase instructional framework (Introduction, Presentation, Practice, Application) is appropriate for organizing VR welding lessons
    The lesson plan structure relies on this framework from instructional design literature (Section 4), and no alternative framework was compared.
  • domain assumption The pre-built library of 27 welding learning activities covers the teaching goals for MIG welding, wire change, and Tee joint welding
    The activities were developed in prior work [21] with SMEs and are assumed adequate; the study does not evaluate whether the library itself constrains authoring quality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interactive authoring of outcome-oriented lesson plans for immersive Virtual Reality training." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2IPRSBOU

@misc{pith2026250501886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interactive authoring of outcome-oriented lesson plans for immersive Virtual Reality training},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2IPRSBOU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01886}
}
read the original abstract

Immersive Virtual Reality (iVR) applications have shown immense potential for skill training and learning in manufacturing. However, authoring of such applications requires technical expertise, which makes it difficult for educators to author instructions targeted at desired learning outcomes. We present FlowTrainer, an LLM-assisted interactive system to allow educators to author lesson plans for their iVR instruction based on desired goals. The authoring workflow is supported by Backward design to align the planned lesson based on the desired outcomes. We implemented a welding use case and conducted a user study with welding experts to test the effectiveness of the system in authoring outcome-oriented lesson plans. The study results showed that the system allowed users to plan lesson plans based on desired outcomes while reducing the time and technical expertise required for the authoring process. We believe that such efforts can allow widespread adoption of iVR solutions in manufacturing training to meet the workforce demands in the industry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System Features of FlowTrainer: The left section of the UI presents an interface that assists user to generate a lesson [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example implementation of the instructional planning of learning units using FlowTrainer: (A) Flowchart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quantitative Results from the Survey Questionnaire showing the comparision between SystemA (web-based editor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stephen Adam. 2004. Using learning outcomes. In Report for United Kingdom Bologna Seminar. 1–2

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Abdulmalik Abubakar Badamasi, Komal Raj Aryal, Usman Umar Makarfi, and Mansir Dodo. 2022. Drivers and barriers of virtual reality adoption in UK AEC industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 29, 3 (2022), 1307–1318

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Rodger W Bybee, Joseph A Taylor, April Gardner, Pamela Van Scotter, J Carlson Powell, Anne Westbrook, and Nancy Landes. 2006. The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, Co: BSCS 5 (2006), 88–98

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Fernando Cassola, Daniel Mendes, Manuel Pinto, Leonel Morgado, Sara Costa, Luís Anjos, David Marques, Filipe Rosa, Ana Maia, Helga Tavares, et al . 2022. Design and Evaluation of a Choreography-Based Virtual Reality Authoring Tool for Experiential Learning in Industrial Training. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 15, 5 (2022), 526–539. doi:10.110...

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Fernando Cassola, Manuel Pinto, Daniel Mendes, Leonel Morgado, António Coelho, and Hugo Paredes. 2021. A novel tool for immersive authoring of experiential learning in virtual reality. In 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW) . IEEE, 44–49. doi:10.1109/ VRW52623.2021.00014

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Yi-hsiang Isaac Chang, Kevin L Devine, and Gunnar Keith Klitzing. 2020. Ex- ploring the VR-based PBD programming approach to teach industrial robotics in manufacturing education. In 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Hugo Coelho, Miguel Melo, Luís Barbosa, José Martins, Mário Sérgio Teixeira, and Maximino Bessa. 2021. Authoring tools for creating 360 multisensory videos—Evaluation of different interfaces. Expert Systems 38, 5 (2021), e12418. doi:10.1111/exsy.12418

    work page doi:10.1111/exsy.12418 2021

  8. [8]

    Hugo Coelho, Miguel Melo, José Martins, and Maximino Bessa. 2019. Col- laborative immersive authoring tool for real-time creation of multisensory VR experiences. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78 (2019), 19473–19493. doi:10.1007/s11042-019-7309-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11042-019-7309-x 2019

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Hugo Coelho, Pedro Monteiro, Guilherme Gonçalves, Miguel Melo, and Maximino Bessa. 2022. Authoring tools for virtual reality experiences: a systematic review. Multimedia Tools and Applications 81, 19 (2022), 28037–28060. doi:10.1007/s11042- 022-12829-9

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Centre for Teaching Concordia University and Learning. 2021. Teaching Acad- emy: Resources for Promoting Teaching Excellence. https://teachingacademy. concordia.ca/courses/course-design/lessons/instructional-planning/

    2021

  3. [11]

    The Economist. 2023. Global Firms are Eyeing Asian Alternatives to Chinese Manufacturing. (2023). https://www.economist.com/business/2023/02/20/global- firms-are-eyeing-asian-alternatives-to-chinese-manufacturing

    2023

  4. [12]

    The Economist. 2023. The World is in the Grip of a Manufacturing Delusion. (2023). https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/07/13/the- world-is-in-the-grip-of-a-manufacturing-delusion

    2023

  5. [13]

    Marta Fairén, Jordi Moyés, and E Insa. 2020. VR4Health: Personalized teaching and learning anatomy using VR. Journal of medical systems 44, 5 (2020), 94. doi:10.1007/s10916-020-01550-5

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Haoxiang Fan, Guanzheng Chen, Xingbo Wang, and Zhenhui Peng. 2024. Lesson- Planner: Assisting novice teachers to prepare pedagogy-driven lesson plans with large language models. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–20

    2024

  7. [15]

    Manuel Fernandez. 2017. Augmented virtual reality: How to improve education systems. Higher Learning Research Communications 7, 1 (2017), 1–15

    2017

  8. [16]

    Horácio Gaspar, Leonel Morgado, Henrique Mamede, Teresa Oliveira, Baltasar Manjón, and Christian Gütl. 2020. Research priorities in immersive learning technology: the perspectives of the iLRN community. Virtual Reality 24 (2020), 319–341. doi:10.1007/s10055-019-00393-x

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    C Gráinne. 2007. Describing learning activities. Tools and resource to guide practice. Rethinking Pedagogy for A digital Age (2007), 82

    2007

  10. [18]

    Bihao Hu, Longwei Zheng, Jiayi Zhu, Lishan Ding, Yilei Wang, and Xiaoqing Gu. 2024. Teaching plan generation and evaluation with GPT-4: Unleashing the potential of LLM in instructional design. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Bihao Hu, Jiayi Zhu, Yiying Pei, and Xiaoqing Gu. 2025. Exploring the potential of LLM to enhance teaching plans through teaching simulation. npj Science of Learning 10, 1 (2025), 7

    2025

  12. [20]

    Ananya Ipsita, Runlin Duan, Hao Li, Subramanian Chidambaram, Yuanzhi Cao, Min Liu, Alex Quinn, and Karthik Ramani. 2024. The Design of a Virtual Pro- totyping System for Authoring Interactive Virtual Reality Environments From Real-World Scans. Journal of Computing and Informat...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Ananya Ipsita, Levi Erickson, Yangzi Dong, Joey Huang, Alexa K Bushinski, Sraven Saradhi, Ana M Villanueva, Kylie A Peppler, Thomas S Redick, and Karthik Ramani. 2022. Towards modeling of virtual reality welding simulators to promote accessible and scalable training. In Procee...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Ananya Ipsita, Hao Li, Runlin Duan, Yuanzhi Cao, Subramanian Chidambaram, Min Liu, and Karthik Ramani. 2021. VRFromX: from scanned reality to interactive virtual experience with human-in-the-loop. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing S...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Ananya Ipsita, Mayank Patel, Asim Unmesh, and Karthik Ramani. 2024. Au- thoring instructional flow in iVR learning units to promote outcome-oriented learning. Computers & Education: X Reality 5 (2024), 100074

    2024

  16. [24]

    Henri Jalo, Henri Pirkkalainen, and Osku Torro. 2021. The State of Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality and Virtual Reality adoption and use in European small and medium-sized manufacturing companies in 2020: VAM Realities Survey Report. (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Linzhao Jia, Changyong Qi, Yuang Wei, Han Sun, and Xiaozhe Yang. 2025. Fine- Tuning Large Language Models for Educational Support: Leveraging Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction for Lesson Planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09276 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    K Karpouzis, D Pantazatos, J Taouki, and K Meli. 2024. Tailoring education with GenAI: A new horizon in lesson planning. ArXiv. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12071 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Theodore H Kaskalis, Theodore D Tzidamis, and Konstantinos Margaritis. 2007. Multimedia authoring tools: the quest for an educational package. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 10, 3 (2007), 135–162

    2007

  20. [28]

    Sam Kavanagh, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Burkhard Wuensche, and Beryl Plimmer

  21. [29]

    Tuulikki Keskitalo. 2011. Teachers’ conceptions and their approaches to teaching in virtual reality and simulation-based learning environments. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 17, 1 (2011), 131–147. doi:10.1080/13540602.2011. 538503

    2011

  22. [30]

    Vix Kemanji Ketoma, Jean Vanderdonckt, and Gerrit Meixner. 2023. Towards Flexible Authoring and Personalization of Virtual Reality Applications for Train- ing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, EICS (2023), 1–37. doi:10.1145/3593241

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Kevin Kruse. 2009. Gagne’s nine events of instruction: An introduction.Retrieved the 10 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Abhishek Kumar, Abdul Khader Jilani Saudagar, Mohammed AlKhathami, Badr Alsamani, Muhammad Badruddin Khan, Mozaherul Hoque Abul Hasanat, and Ankit Kumar. 2022. Customized Curriculum and Learning Approach Recommen- dation Techniques in Application of Virtual Reality in Medical ...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Flavien Lécuyer, Valérie Gouranton, Aurélien Lamercerie, Adrien Reuzeau, Benoît Caillaud, and Bruno Arnaldi. 2020. Unveiling the implicit knowledge, one scenario at a time. The Visual Computer 36 (2020), 1951–1963. doi:10.1007/s00371-020- 01904-7

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Vasiliki Liagkou, Dimitrios Salmas, and Chrysostomos Stylios. 2019. Realizing virtual reality learning environment for industry 4.0. Procedia Cirp 79 (2019), 712–717

    2019

  27. [35]

    Jean-Luc Lugrin. 2009. Alternative reality and causality in virtual environments. PhD thesis (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Oussema Mahdi, Lahcen Oubahssi, Claudine Piau-Toffolon, and Sébastien Iksal

  29. [37]

    Jay McTighe and Ronald S Thomas. 2003. Backward Design for Forward Action. Educational leadership 60, 5 (2003), 52–55

    2003

  30. [38]

    M David Merrill. 2002. First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and development 50 (2002), 43–59. doi:10.1007/BF02505024

    2002 doi

  31. [39]

    Punya Mishra and Matthew J Koehler. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record 108, 6 (2006), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.0068

    2006

  32. [40]

    Jose E Naranjo, Diego G Sanchez, Angel Robalino-Lopez, Paola Robalino-Lopez, Andrea Alarcon-Ortiz, and Marcelo V Garcia. 2020. A scoping review on virtual reality-based industrial training. Applied Sciences 10, 22 (2020), 8224

    2020

  33. [41]

    Delwyn Nicholls, Linda Sweet, Sue Campbell Westerway, and Annie Gibbins

  34. [42]

    Jerry W Robinson Jr. 1972. Learning Modules: A Concept. Journal of Extension (1972)

    1972

  35. [43]

    Julien Saunier, Mukesh Barange, Bernard Blandin, and Ronan Querrec. 2016. A methodology for the design of pedagogically adaptable learning environments. International Journal of Virtual Reality 16, 1 (2016), 15–21. doi:10.20870/IJVR.2016. 16.1.2878

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Helen Scott, David Baglee, Roger O’Brien, and Rita Potts. 2020. An investigation of acceptance and e-readiness for the application of virtual reality and augmented reality technologies to maintenance training in the manufacturing industry. International Journal of Mechatronics...

    2020

  37. [45]

    J Seo, DN Kim, and GJ Kim. 2001. VR object reuse through component combina- tion. In International Workshop on Structured Design of Virtual Environments and 3D-Components. Web3D Conference, Paderborn, Alemania

    2001

  38. [46]

    Michail Theofanidis, Saif Iftekar Sayed, Alexandros Lioulemes, and Fillia Make- don. 2017. Varm: Using virtual reality to program robotic manipulators. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments. 215–221

    2017

  39. [47]

    The New York Times. 2024. America Is Sleepwalking Into an Economic Storm. (2024). https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/opinion/economy-us-aging-work- force-ai.html

    2024

  40. [48]

    The New York Times. 2024. The Good Old Days of Manufacturing Are Long Gone. (2024). https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/10/opinion/manufacturing- harris-trump-immigration-college.html

    2024

  41. [49]

    Minh Q Tram, Joseph M Cloud, and William J Beksi. 2023. Intuitive Robot Integration via Virtual Reality Workspaces. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 11654–11660. Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Ipsita et al

    2023

  42. [50]

    Krzysztof Walczak, Jakub Flotyński, Dominik Strugała, Sergiusz Strykowski, Paweł Sobociński, Adam Gałązkiewicz, Filip Górski, Paweł Buń, Przemysław Za- wadzki, Maciej Wielgus, et al. 2020. Semantic modeling of virtual reality training scenarios. In Virtual Reality and Augmente...

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    Yong Wei, Hua Liu, Haiyun Wu, and Ruokui Chang. 2016. OPME (Objectives- Process-Methods-Evaluation) Method for Lesson Planning. In 2016 2nd Interna- tional Conference on Social Science and Higher Education . Atlantis Press, 255–258. doi:10.2991/icsshe-16.2016.66

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe. 1998. What is backward design. Understanding by design 1 (1998), 7–19

    1998

  45. [53]

    Josef Wolfartsberger and Daniel Niedermayr. 2020. Authoring-by-doing: Ani- mating work instructions for industrial virtual reality learning environments. In 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). IEEE, 173–176. doi:10.1109...

    2020

  46. [54]

    Huitaek Yun and Martin BG Jun. 2022. Immersive and interactive cyber-physical system (I2CPS) and virtual reality interface for human involved robotic manufac- turing. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 62 (2022), 234–248

    2022

  47. [55]

    Ying Zheng, Xueyi Li, Yaying Huang, Qianru Liang, Teng Guo, Mingliang Hou, Boyu Gao, Mi Tian, Zitao Liu, and Weiqi Luo. 2024. Automatic Lesson Plan Gen- eration via Large Language Models with Self-critique Prompting. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Ed...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Paul Zikas, George Papagiannakis, Nick Lydatakis, Steve Kateros, Stavroula Ntoa, Ilia Adami, and Constantine Stephanidis. 2020. Immersive visual scripting based on VR software design patterns for experiential training. The Visual Computer 36 (2020), 1965–1977. doi:10.1007/s003...

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    Paul Zikas, Antonis Protopsaltis, Nick Lydatakis, Mike Kentros, Stratos Geroniko- lakis, Steve Kateros, Manos Kamarianakis, Giannis Evangelou, Achilleas Fil- ippidis, Eleni Grigoriou, et al . 2023. MAGES 4.0: Accelerating the world’s transition to VR training and democratizing...

    2023

  50. [2014]

    Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine 17, 4 (2014), 141–145

    The key to using a learning or skill acquisition plan. Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine 17, 4 (2014), 141–145. doi:10.1002/j.2205-0140.2014. tb00235.x

    2014

  51. [2017]

    Themes in Science and Technology Education 10, 2 (2017), 85–119

    A systematic review of virtual reality in education. Themes in Science and Technology Education 10, 2 (2017), 85–119

    2017

  52. [2018]

    In 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT)

    Towards design and operationalization of pedagogical situations in the VR- LEs. In 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). IEEE, 400–402. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2018.00095

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.