Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Telematics and Informatics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tele

The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality

learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual
reality
Dong-Hee Shin ⇑
School of Media and Communication, Chung-Ang University, #1411, bldg. 303, Heukseok-ro 84, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As virtual reality becomes more and more mainstream, the role of affordances in virtual
Received 1 March 2017 environments becomes an important question. The goal of this study is to explicate users’
Accepted 25 May 2017 motivational affordances and examine how they influence the acceptance of a virtual real-
Available online 29 May 2017
ity learning environment (VLE). It examines how motivational affordances in an educa-
tional virtual reality (VR) system affect user experience to track and achieve goals for
Keywords: users. A multimixed approach was used by combining qualitative methods and a quantita-
Virtual reality learning
tive survey. First, a critical incident technique was used to explore a range of affordance
Critical incident technique
Amultimixed approach
factors related to VLE. Second, based on the affordance factors identified from the qualita-
Educational affordance tive methods, a survey was conducted to examine the effects of affordance on user cogni-
Virtual reality tive processes and the influence of affordance on the learning process. The results of the
Affordance user model confirmed the heuristic role of presence and immersion affordance regarding
their underlying link to educational affordances, such as empathy and embodied cognition.
The findings imply the embodied cognition process of VLE in which technological qualities
are shaped by users’ perception and context. The results establish a foundation for VR tech-
nologies through a heuristic assessment tool from a user-embodied cognitive process. They
confirm the validity and utility of applying affordances to the design of VR as a useful con-
cept and prove that the optimum mix of affordances is crucial to the success of VR design.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1827
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1828
2.1. Affordances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1828
2.2. Affordances in VR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1828
3. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1829
3.1. Mixed methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1829
3.2. Qualitative method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1829
4. Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1830
4.1. Design: survey development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1830
4.2. Survey measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1830

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dshin1030@cau.ac.kr

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.013
0736-5853/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836 1827

5. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1830
5.1. Exploratory factor analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1830
5.1.1. Presence affordance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1830
5.1.2. Immersion affordance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1830
5.1.3. Comfortability affordance (usability). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1830
5.1.4. Empathy affordance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1831
5.1.5. Embodiment affordance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1831
5.2. Model & hypotheses development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1831
5.2.1. Immersion and presence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1831
5.2.2. Usability and engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1831
5.2.3. Sense of embodiment and empathy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1832
5.3. Results from the user model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1832
5.3.1. Fit indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1832
5.3.2. Path analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1832
5.4. Discussions regarding the survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1832
6. Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1834
6.1. Knowing by interacting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1834
7. Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1835
7.1. Theoretical contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1835
7.2. Practical contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1835
Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1835
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1835

1. Introduction

Virtual reality (VR) has brought about numerous learning opportunities. VR will promisingly continue to offer enormous
window of opportunities in the future and thus is a technology that deserves major consideration and investigation. VRs are
used as learning environments (virtual reality learning environment [VLE]) in which learners can interact with others while
carrying out a set of tasks (Huang et al., 2016). They also have the chance to gain new skills such as spatial socialization,
sharing, data visualization, and even acquiring new language capacity. It is a heuristic tool of getting learners involved by
exploring ideas in real time and in an experimental setting. VLE affords users to conduct experiments with no risk to them-
selves or others—which would not be possible in the actual reality. VLE provides authentic contexts in which users form and
share virtual assets and develop their scope of learning (Huang et al., 2016) and that are perceived as more meaningful for
contemporary smart generation learners (Dalgarno and Lee, 2010; Keller, 2009).
As VR becomes more reality-like, it reframes some of fundamental questions about cognition, epistemology, and the nat-
ure of reality. Despite active progress in terms of technological advancements to the VR system, there is little knowledge on
such questions particularly how people experience VR and how the users’ cognition plays in the experience in VR (Rienties
et al., 2016). In other words, the user experience (UX) of the VR educational system remains underdeveloped. A compelling
question is how VLE enhances the human experience and thus improves learning performance (Saniye and Veysi, 2015). The
issues of low usability and uncomfortable user interface have been claimed to have negative effects on user acceptance (Erik
and Jeroen, 2008; Marc and Christoph, 2008; Rienties et al., 2016). With the lingering inconveniences, users must cope with
the burden of usability. With the limited usability, a natural question comes up what affords and what constrains the VR
experience process.
Despite the growing interest in VR, numerous questions remain unanswered regarding what and how VR affords users,
how users feel about VR services, what they experience in learning contexts, and which aspects could promote affordance. It
is critical to examine how users perceive qualities, how these qualities elicit motivational affordances, what cognitive expe-
riences are embedded/held, and what affective perception are absent from the services.
How to elicit affordances in VLE, and VR in general, has been a question for both the academe and industry. The discussion
on affordance, including subjectivity, perception, roles, and context, plays a critical role in the advance of a future VR system
in the educational domain and in other diverse areas.
Against this backdrop, this study examines user attitudes and behaviors under VLE by focusing on affordance with regard
to other factors that influence and embody satisfaction. For this goal, this study seeks the affordance of VLE through two
venues. First, it uses qualitative methods to determine possible affordance factors of VLE using critical incidence technique.
Second, based on the exploratory factors, it surveys the affordance model to shed light on UX using VR in terms of motiva-
tions and affordance. The following research questions guide this study.
1828 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836

RQ1: How do motivational affordances affect educational affordances? How do affordances affect satisfaction in VR
learning?
RQ2: How are the affordances of VR learning related to user contexts?

The results from the RQs imply that VR learning is accepted by users through embodied cognition. The mind is not only
connected to the technological features of the VR system; the technological features induce the users’ affective affordance,
which then influences user satisfaction. The influence of personal traits on affordance also supports the embodied cognition
of VR. The personal traits already embody expectation, confirmation, and satisfaction as preacceptance variables. VR’s tech-
nological qualities and features are embodied by users’ perceptions with regard to eliciting perceived affordance, moderated
by personal and contextual factors. Affordance thus affects the cognitive processes of expectation, confirmation, and satis-
faction (Curry et al., 2014). From a usability and design perspective, it is useful to consider embodied cognition as the key
concept of user interface for VLE. The study results provide insights on the determinants of user acceptance of VLE through
the lens of affordance. The eventual goal is to understand user affordance to develop an effective user interface for designing
VLE.

2. Literature review

2.1. Affordances

This study investigates the role that affordances played in adoption, as observed in students learning performance when
they interacted with VLE. An affordance is a characteristic of the environment that, when perceived, affords or provides an
opportunity for some action (Gibson, 1986). The concept describes the relationship between a physical object or some aspect
of the environment and an organism in which a characteristic of the object or environment affords an organism an oppor-
tunity to perform some action. Gibson (1986) developed the term affordance as a new perspective on visual stimuli. Rather
than the traditional view of visual stimuli, he preferred to conceptualize visual elements of the environment as information.
Information does not stimulate a passive receiver but instead allows the user the active role of noticing and utilizing the
information. Affordances are thus properties of the environment that enable action on the part of those who perceive them.
Affordances must be properly perceived for the user to recognize the potential for action. Therefore, the concept of affor-
dances is a pragmatic concept that should guide design decisions in developing cues that are both functional and easily per-
ceived by the intended user.

2.2. Affordances in VR

In a VLE, users actively engage with what is going on rather than being passive recipients (Dalgarno and Lee, 2010). This
involves the form of a desktop set-up but can also involve the users wearing VR glasses or some other form of head-mounted
display (HMD) and an input device. This allows them to interact with events in that environment. While VR has been widely
used in education and has taken a big leap forward, the research behind VR experience, particularly affordance, has not. An
affordance approach is an effective framework for researching how VR is integrated into routines, affecting subsequent pat-
terns of experience (Nelson et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2014). Gross et al. (2005) argue that the affordance framework is an effec-
tive functional approach for defining the reality of experience in relation to the problem of designing virtual environments.
VLE will need affordances to show what can be interacted with, and when that interaction occurs. The sensory display of
those affordances should scale with technology just like screen affordances. A highlight that now takes place on gaze should
still work for micro-gestures, hand tracking, or a mind event. By engaging in an immersive virtual world with various affor-
dances, a participant creates a story or does many different things in VLE. As various affordances might arise in VR, it is
important to design cues and affordances that encourage participants to engage in VLE. Thus, in designing VLE, designers
should leverage the opportunities provided by technology and be informed of their affordances (Kim, 2016). In VLE, it is crit-
ical to design effective perceived affordance but also reveal hidden affordance by implementing artifacts that transform cov-
ert affordances into actual affordance.

VR Learning Environments

Property Signifier

Immersion Presence Empathy Embodiment

Afforded Learning Tasks: Usability and Learnability

Learning Benefits

Fig. 1. An affordance model of VLE.

 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836 1829

Interviews VR

Focus group VR & learning

Critical incidence tech. VLE

Fig. 2. Qualitative method.

Affordance in relation to VR is divided into technological affordance (property/signifier) and affective affordance of users’
perceived technological property. It can result in a system with high visibility of actual and latent affordances, which is more
likely to be appreciated and accepted by users through embodied cognition (Fig. 1).

3. Methods

With the advent of VR, increasing emphasis has been placed on the investigation of affordance to explore ways to provide
more natural and socially meaningful experiences. The aforementioned RQs are answered using different methods and
approaches to triangulate findings. For RQ1 (explore the technological affordances of VLE), interviews and critical incidence
methods were used. For RQ2 (examine the affordance-based UX model of VR), a survey was conducted to identify UX and
find a user model based on experience.

3.1. Mixed methods

Understanding the affordances of VLE requires a thorough analysis. This study utilized a triangulated mixed method
design, in which quantitative and qualitative data were collected and merged to address research questions. The justification
for this design is that the study is designed to obtain complementary data on the same topic to better answer the research
questions and then combine the two sets of results together to allow an integrated interpretation. The quantitative data
analysis focused on examining factors in learners’ learning performance and experience. The qualitative data analysis was
designed to identify learners’ affordances of the VLE.

3.2. Qualitative method

For the qualitative method, interviews, focus group, and critical incidence technique were used to obtain information on
VR, VR services, and VLE, respectively (Fig. 2). First, individualized in-depth interviews were carried out with selected VR
users. Thirty subjects were randomly chosen in comprehensive universities located in Seoul, Korea. They were selected
out of the college programs related to user interface and VR, and so they were well aware of VLE. The interviewees explained
their opinions and views on VR. They were given as much freedom as possible to express their views and opinions on VR and
VR services (e.g., VR games).
Second, five focus group sessions were organized. In the group interviews, groups of four to six participants discussed
their current use of VR services in education and the motivations that would influence their future adoption of the services.
The focus groups consisted of participants in their 20 s (33%), 30 s (31%), and 40 s (18.4%) who were students (29%), office
workers (28%), and factory workers (18.2%). The results of the six focus group sessions provided this study with a list of
potential factors of usage and adoption of VR in the learning domain. The goal of the in-depth interviews and focus group
sessions was to obtain feedback on the preliminary analyses, gather input from people, conduct a needs assessment, uncover
items missing from the model, and capture a preliminary understanding of the factors that affect usage and experiences.

Table 1
Summary of Mixed Methods.

Tools Functions Rationale

Focus group and in-depth
interview
Critical incidence tech.
Survey
 Afford pilot insights of explanatory factors  Valuable in outlining ideas and
 Offer post-confirmation of the factors taken from the existing concepts
literature  Offer insights into users’ cognition
 Complement quantitative methods  Uncover hidden user values
 Secure user opinion  Permit further probing
 Identify motivational factors  Common methods for UX and user
 Understand UX model behavior
1830 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836

Finally, the critical incidence technique was used to identify possible affordances in VLE. The technique enabled this study
to collect direct observations of user behavior of VR. The technique gathered explicit but important information and facts
regarding behavior in VLE. Participants were asked to identify specific emotion events he or she has experienced in the
VLE. The emphasis is on the incident of VR, the rationalization, the implication and the meaning given to it. Twenty respon-
dents of the technique identified three technological affordances and three affective affordances. Affective affordances
(immersion and presence) are related to the users’ perceived characteristics from technological features, whereas educa-
tional affordances (empathy and embodiment) are considered users’ perceived characteristics for learning from affective
affordances (See Table 1).

4. Survey

4.1. Design: survey development

Based on the interviews and critical incidence technique, a survey questionnaire was composed through three rounds
conducted by a panel consisting of experts, researchers, and industry representatives. Before its field application, the ques-
tionnaire was assessed by conducting a pilot survey of possible users who, in turn, provided a broad review of individual
responses to the pretest survey. Survey respondents were hired through the courses related to usability. Four colleges
located in East Asia participated in the pretest survey. Consequently, 22 respondents participated, with tests given at
one-month intervals. Before answering the questionnaire, the participants were instructed to raise questions on question-
naire items they did not comprehend or any ambiguous wordings. Finally, the survey was administered under the supervi-
sion of trained interviewers. Over a six-month period, a total of 281 responses were collected.

4.2. Survey measurement

The variables in the model have been extensively researched in cognitive psychology, communications, and the usability
literature. As the survey items employed in this research were adapted from previously published work, content validity was
confirmed through a review of the literature. The convergent and discriminant validity of each variable were tested by mea-
suring the reliability of each measure and construct, and the average variance was extracted for each construct. The relia-
bility of each item was checked utilizing a principal component factor analysis. In general, a measurement item loads
highly if its loading coefficient is more than 0.6 and does not load highly if the coefficient is less than 0.4. Most items showed
factor loadings higher than 0.73. Each item loaded significantly on its underlying construct (p < 0.001 in all cases). Thus, all
constructs in the model had acceptable reliability and convergent validity. Discriminant validity was confirmed, as the
shared variance between constructs was lower than the average variance extracted (AVE) from the individual constructs.

5. Findings

5.1. Exploratory factor analysis

Following the evaluation and analysis of the interview and critical incidence data, five potential affordances perceived by
the participants with respect to VR learning were identified. These affordances include presence, immersion, usability, empa-
thy, and embodiment.
Some of the affordances were comparable to those identified by previous studies of technological affordances of VR, aug-
mented reality games, and related technologies.

5.1.1. Presence affordance

The concept of presence has been touted during interviews in combination with immersion. People mentioned presence
as the extent to which two people interacting via VR feel as if they are together. Respondents referred to their awareness of
another person in a mediated VR environment. Respondents commonly talked about a feeling of being connected to other
social users. Other people stated a state of mind in VR environments. Some people said that improved image quality leads
to them experiencing increased presence in VR.

5.1.2. Immersion affordance

Respondents often confused immersion with presence. They said that engaging with VR gives rise to experiences of deep
involvement with VLE. When they use VR, they expect to have an immersive experience. Although respondents used terms
like ‘‘absorption,” ‘‘concentration,” and ‘engrossment” interchangeably, they all referred to immersion. People see immersion
as a buzzword in regard to VLE.

5.1.3. Comfortability affordance (usability)

Numerous respondents emphasized the usability of VLE. Sickness and nausea have been associated with VR. The respon-
dents complained about symptoms that are similar to motion sickness symptoms. The most common symptoms are general
 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836 1831

Affective affordance Educational affordance

Immersion Empathy
H5
H1
H3

Usability Learnability

H4
H2
H6
Presence Embodiment

Fig. 3. VLE experience model.

uneasiness, headache, stomach awareness, nausea, vomiting, paleness, sweating, weariness, drowsiness, disorientation, and
apathy. The respondents’ views on the usability of VR pertained more to how comfortable users feel about immersion and
presence and less to the traditional definition of usability, which is a degree to which something is able to be used.

5.1.4. Empathy affordance

Empathy and embodied cognition are two concepts that frequently arise in the discussions of VLE. People can understand
and empathize when they comprehend another person’s subjective experience and environment. VR content stimulates
empathy between people: VR allows people to understand others. Empathizing can help to more strongly combine VR
and physical reality, thus producing higher credibility. VR can convey another person’s experience or feelings to a viewer.
In VLE, viewers might strongly feel another person’s emotions or situation by being in the same space and close to a char-
acter. Becoming absorbed by VR can stimulate empathy. Stimulated empathy in VR can make users perceive a virtual envi-
ronment to be a more realistic and overall empathic experience.

5.1.5. Embodiment affordance

Through empathy, users can feel a sense of embodiment or embodied cognition based on news stories. Respondents said
that while using VR, an avatar-like virtual body is created inside the immersive virtual environment as an analog of their
biological body. It can be inferred that there is embodied cognition in VR where users feel a sense of embodiment in VLE.
People said that VR triggers an embodied experience in an unchangeable narrative that allows queries to the environment
without altering any individual’s story trajectory. VLE users are able to embody experiences by viewing, playing, and feeling
perceptual cues linked to those experiences. Embodied experiences create the sensation of personally having experiences in
VR. Users that embody their avatars show a tendency to perceive avatar actions as their own. Fully immersive VR can grant
users a sense of embodiment in which users see themselves as part of the VR environment and, at the same time, feel that
the VR components are a part of their own bodies.

5.2. Model & hypotheses development

The user model postulates two affective affordances that determine usability, which then influence two other educational
affordances on learnability (Fig. 3). The model is well suited to analyze the effects of affordance on VR learning as it shows
the technological features of VR and usage dynamics regarding users’ cognitive process in VR environments.

5.2.1. Immersion and presence

Engaging with media such as AR and VR has been claimed to give rise to experiences of deep involvement with the par-
ticular medium. In computer-mediated environments, achieving an immersive experience is an important goal. Immersion
can be used to characterize a technology-enabled virtual reality environment. This study posits a cognitive model to inves-
tigate the effects of engaging experiences on confirmation by considering immersion and presence as suboptimal experi-
ences. Immersion is an experience that occurs at one moment in time, similar to engagement, engrossment, and total
immersion.
H1. Immersion has a positive effect on the usability of VR learning.
The concept of presence has been investigated in combination with immersion; it refers to the extent to which two people
interacting via a technological medium feel as if they are together. Since its initial conceptualization, presence has been
defined as technology users’ awareness of another person in a mediated environment. With the emergence of VR, the con-
cept has been understood as a feeling of being connected to other social users. Presence can be regarded as a state of mind,
whereas immersion is an experience over time. Using the results of an experiment, Bracken (2005) argues that improved
image quality leads to viewers experiencing increased presence.
H2. Presence has a positive effect on the usability of VLE.

5.2.2. Usability and engagement

A common motive behind the implementation of learning system is the notion that learning affords a greater level of
motivation or engagement that encourages learners to perform better or complete more challenging problems. There are
1832 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836

in truth several aspects to concepts such as immersion, flow or other terms used to trigger the use of learning system in place
of more conventional pedagogical approaches.
Learners’ engagement can be greatly affected by usability of VLE. Prior studies (Roldán-Álvarez et al., 2016) have exten-
sively shown that users’ engagement is heavily influenced by the level of usability (Shin et al., 2017). Commonly, learners are
engaged if VLE is easy to use and comfortable to control. Based on previous studies and inference, the relation of usability
and engagement satisfaction can be hypothesized.

H3. Usability with VLE is positively related to embodiment.

H4. Usability with VLE is positively related to empathy.

5.2.3. Sense of embodiment and empathy

Empathy and embodied cognition are duo concepts that frequently arise in discussions of VR and storytelling (Shin and
Ahn, 2013). VR triggers an embodied experience in an unchangeable narrative that allows queries to the environment with-
out altering any individual’s story trajectory. VLE users are able to embody experiences by viewing, playing, and feeling per-
ceptual cues linked to those experiences. Embodied experiences create a sensation of personally having the experiences in
VR. Users that embody their avatars show a tendency to perceive avatar actions as their own. In addition to embodiment,
people can understand and empathize when they comprehend another person’s subjective experience and environment.
VLE stimulates empathy between people by allowing them to understand others.
VR can convey another person’s experience or feelings to a viewer. In VLE, learners might strongly feel another person’s
emotions or situation by being in the same space and close to a character. Becoming absorbed by VR can stimulate empathy.
Stimulated empathy in VLE can make users perceive a virtual environment to be a more realistic and overall empathic expe-
rience. Through empathy, users can feel a sense of embodiment or embodied cognition based on the news stories. Kliteni,
Groten, and Slater (2012) argue that VR users create a virtual body inside the immersive virtual environment as an analog
of their biological body. That is, there is embodied cognition in VR where users feel a sense of embodiment in VLE. VLE does
not just make users feel, but changes who they are in the virtual space. That is, fully immersive VLE can grant users a sense of
embodiment in which users see themselves as a part of the VR environment and, at the same time, the users feel that the VR
components are part of their own bodies. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:H5. Embodiment has a positive effect
on learnability when experiencing VLE
H6. Empathy has a positive effect on learnability when experiencing VLE.

5.3. Results from the user model

5.3.1. Fit indices

The overall fit of the model was highly satisfactory; all relevant goodness-of-fit indices exceeded 0.92. All other significant
fit indices indicated that the model provided a satisfactory fit to the data. Similarly, there was no evidence of a poor fit to the
data according to the root mean squared error approximation (RMSEA), which showed an acceptable level of less than 0.06.
The standardized root mean residual was also satisfactory. The normed chi-squared value was 1.95, which is significantly
less than the benchmark of three that indicates fine overall model performance. The structural model path coefficients could
be assessed because the model had satisfactory fit indices.

5.3.2. Path analyses

The hypothesized causal paths were tested, and all the proposed hypotheses were supported (Fig. 4). The results generally
supported the proposed model, illustrating the underlying roles of affective affordance as well as the educational affordance
of VLE. The key relationships between affective affordance and usability, and educational affordance and learnability, were
backed by the data, as indicated by the significant critical ratios (CRs). Usability of VR was influenced by affective affordance.
Particularly, immersion had the most significant effect on usability (H1), followed by presence (H2). Usability influenced
educational affordance empathy and embodied cognition (H3 & H4). Among the educational affordances, embodied cogni-
tion was more significantly influenced by usability, implying a key motivational factor in VLE. The paths from educational
affordance to learnability were also found to be significant (H5; H6), which implied the significant role of educational affor-
dance in the learning process. Overall, the model implies the cognitive process (affective affordance influences educational
affordances, which then affect learnability) and implies that each process is affected differently: once users confirm immer-
sion and presence to be usable and acceptable, then usability influences educational affordances. Users start the empathic
process and begin to learn the VR object using embodied cognition.

5.4. Discussions regarding the survey

The survey results explain the development of users’ affordance in the adoption and experience of VLE. The results add to
our current understanding of learners’ cognitive process of usability and learnability of VLE and offer implications for the-
oretical advancement regarding affordance and its effects.
Consistent with prior research on immersion and user studies (e.g., Kuo and Feng, 2013), the results show that immersion
and presence are the primary constructs in explaining user attitude and behavior. In particular, this study clarified the rela-
 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836 1833

Fig. 4. Research model result.

tion of immersion/presence with usability by establishing immersion/presence as the antecedents of usability. Immersion
and presence as affective affordances are found to have a significant influence on usability. Usability as the antecedent of
engagement is found to wield significant influence on users’ empathy and embodiment. After users feel that VR is usable,
they start to engage themselves in VLE and feel empathy for the content. Embodied cognition starts the users’ learning pro-
cess. That is, users not only see the VR content as learning materials, but they also see them as a part of themselves getting
more actively involved in the accepting process. These educational affordances play a determining role in learnability. The
current study clarifies users’ cognitive process—how they appraise technological affordances and how those affordances are
transferred to educational affordances. In particular, the relation of usability and learnability has become more clear.
As antecedent variables, technological affordance based on material properties plays an important role because one of the
drawbacks of the current affordance literature is that it has limited explanations for acceptance in ways that guide develop-
ment beyond indicating that technological characteristics have effects on perceptions of motivation and affection. That is,
while previous studies on affordance have emphasized the importance of users’ perceived affordance, they have limited
the implications on the specific processes of how technological affordances came about, how affordances trigger affective
affordances, and how they are formed by what motivations influencing behavioral factors. It is critical to uncover the ante-
cedents of technological key variables to explain individuals’ cognitive confirmation process. This study sought answers to
these issues by focusing on user cognition: how users perceive and process data with VR, how immersion/presence play a
role in the development of users’ usability in VLE, and how technological features lead to educational affordances.
These findings indicate the need for VLE to provide quality content based on high immersion and presence as well as
excellence of usability through affective affordance to users. The perception of VR quality by users is one major factor for
achieving market breakthrough of the system. Although the issue of quality has emerged as a major inhibitor of VLE accep-
tance, research on this issue has been scarce, especially from the users’ point of views. The study sought to approach the
issue from a cognitive empirical perspective to come to a better understanding of the concept of VLE in terms of technolog-
ical properties and affordance. Despite its innovative features and functions, VLE has been criticized for its most significant
flaw of unavailability of reliable data on what users really want and how various qualities transmit to the user domain. That
is, what VLE affords people to do remains unclear and vague. As VR develops rapidly and quality increases drastically, peo-
ple’s expectations for VLE will change. These varying expectations will certainly have an impact on the development of VR

Technological Affordance Interface Educational Affordance

which then embodies UX
Interaction arouses embodied cognition,

Immersion Empathy

Presence Embodiment

Signifier Affordance
Personal and
Contextuality
*Interaction occurs in between technology and user cognition eliciting affordance, which depends upon technological properties and
contextual/personal traits. Affordance changes during ongoing interaction either enhance or reduce interactivity.

Fig. 5. Enactive interaction of VR learning.

1834 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836

and the future of the VR milieu. How increased qualities are transferred to users’ cognition will be an important cue in
embodied cognition as regards VLE.
The findings of this study show how users have certain expectations of technological quality affordances, which create
corresponding motivational and affective affordances. These technological and affective affordances together include confir-
mation belief, which then determines user satisfaction. In this study, the quality factors as well as affective affordances
showed a much stronger impact on satisfaction than indicated in previous studies on technology use (e.g., Shin, 2015).
The findings here play a substantial role for technological/affective affordances and their causal linkage to other variables,
their relation to usability, learnability, and satisfaction.

6. Results

6.1. Knowing by interacting

The present research is an effort to broaden the current understanding of the implications of a user’s VLE affordance. The
results show that VR learning and interaction are positively associated with affordances. In turn, the perceived affordance
held by users is positively associated with usability and learnability. Thus, the study revealed the links (cues) among tech-
nological properties, emerging technology experiences, and users’ interaction with VLE. Further, it can be inferred from the
findings that VLE’s affordance is obtained through users’ action and interaction with the technologies. Immersion is decided
by the user input, and user input is driven by the perceived system properties. Immersion and presence do not stimulate
passive users mechanically but instead allow users to play an active role by noticing immersive features and utilizing them
in their using and learning process. Users’ attitudes towards VLE are formed during users’ action, motivations are formed
while they interact within VLE, attitudes and motivation together embody affective affordance and, subsequently, educa-
tional affordance. Usability and learnability are realized through interaction while users are actually interacting with VR
learning contents. While this idea is consonant with embodied interaction, immersion as affordance in VLE is somewhat sim-
ilar to the idea of enactive interaction where the immersion is based on active participation, or knowing by doing; users learn
the features of immersion based on technological properties and individual intrinsic traits by interacting with VLE (Fig. 5).
Enactive interaction of VLE translates the aspects of a property base into perception for a user. Immersion and presence qual-
ity by VLE responds to tactile input from the user, while user input in turn depends on the technological qualities from the
system (Fig. 5).
Based on this notion of knowing by interaction, immersion as affordance can be further discussed in three aspects. First,
the present results imply that immersion is a multifaceted concept broadly encompassing media, users, and contexts. As
argued by Shin et al. (2016), immersion as a quality experience is composed of users’ individual traits and social contexts.
In this regard, the key to immersion is users’ perception of quality, interaction with the service, and technological qualities
that users perceive and interact with. Overall, these findings imply that much of immersion is related to users’ subjectivity as
well as the properties of technology. Engaging in VLE could be the key to UX; however, whether such engagement concerns
total immersion, empathy with characters, pleasures of navigating a space, or interacting with other users depends on indi-
vidual preferences and the specific contextual situation.
Second, the importance of user cognition shows how users play an increasingly active role in forming immersion itself
and in turn how immersion influences user learning experiences. Immersion is not mechanically given or perfunctorily con-
ferred by VLE’s technological features or functions; it is reconstructed by the users during interaction with VLE. Users can
interact with their environment in meaningful and conscientious ways. They have to participate to get the most out of
the VLE, which can only hint at the intensity of real-world experiences. This argument is consonant with the previous finding
that engaging factors largely depends on personal traits and users’ own intentions (e.g., Kuo and Feng, 2013). As shown by
Weibel, Wissmath, and Mast (2010), willingness to try, openness to explore, innovativeness, and extraversion are positively
related to the tendency to be immersed in a virtual environment. Similarly, certain personalities, characterized by being
more absorptive and willing to immerse in oneself, can become more interactive in interacting with VLE than other person-
ality types. VLE users with high cognitive interactivity tend to have more active interactive experiences and favorable atti-
tudes toward VLE compared with those having low cognitive immersion. These consistent findings suggest that immersion
has an emotional involvement component. Users become easily immersive because they are willing to be and intend to
become so and thus cooperate with the expected and designed outcome. The relationship between immersion and users
has been considered passive or unidirectional. It is implicitly assumed that users experience interactivity that is made by
the technology.
Third, immersion can be a fluid and reflective concept rather than a fixed and isolated factor. An underlying assumption is
that immersion is a single, unidirectional, and consequential effect. Research on perceived engagement has focused on dis-
crete factors (e.g., content, service, and system), overlooking how these factors are processed (e.g., how users perceive,
accept, experience, and interact) and related (e.g., how a particular experience of interactivity is related to specific content).
A procedural and contextual view of immersion highlights the dynamic nature of users’ quality of experience.
The combined subjective and behavioral methods used in this study imply that users’ cognition dynamically influences
and is influenced by interactivity. Interactivity and users are interactive and co-evolving; interactivity influences and is
shaped by users. This interaction is not a one-time or temporary occurrence; it is constantly evolving and bidirectional. Users
 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836 1835

with interactive tendencies seek interactive endeavors, and interactive environments reinforce users’ attitudes and future
intentions.

7. Contributions

Using the theory of affordances, VLEs were seen to offer a range of pedagogical uses and benefits to pedagogical quality
(engagement, empathy, and embodiment). The approach of drawing upon a wide sample of learners as well as the literature
has resulted in finding more affordances and issues than drawing upon one or other of these sources in isolation. With all of
these affordances, it is clear that VLE has the potential to facilitate and trigger a new era of learning.

7.1. Theoretical contributions

The findings constitute a theoretical improvement for the interaction literature. The user-based affordance model
advances the affordance theory by identifying antecedent variables and their underlying relations. Previous research on
affordance has shown that user affordance plays a significant role in the adoption and experience process. The findings of
the study show an embodied cognitive affordance process by identifying the interaction mechanism of technological qual-
ities and affective affordances. The findings promote an understanding of the heuristic role of affordance by clarifying the
distinction and relation between technological and affective affordances. Per Sundar’s heuristic cue (2008), the link between
the two can serve as a technological cue that triggers a series of behavioral changes in UX. The cue triggers latent beliefs,
including interactivity, flow, immersion, presence, and perceived quality. Eliciting these beliefs can facilitate the adoption
of VR services greatly in learning contexts.
This study also contributes to a new understanding of the various effects of affordance on VLE users’ attitudes and belief.
Previous studies (e.g., Karanam et al., 2014) have tended to distinguish affordance from technological quality, using affor-
dance to describe the perceptual experience and psychological response of users while neglecting technological features.
Based on its efforts to clarify the relationship between affordance, UX, and performance, this study argues that affordance
involves both technology and the concomitant behavioral and psychological responses of users. Although issues in affor-
dances have emerged as key factors in VLE as well as in broader VR development, to date, the role that affordances play
in the acceptance of users’ perceptual and behavioral systems remains unclear. The findings of this study, particularly the
affordance-driven and experience-based affordance measurement, will enable future research to take meaningful strides
in the conceptualization of affordance in learning contexts.

7.2. Practical contributions

The results of this study provide the industry with some implications. The practical contributions of this study are two-
fold. First, it defines affordances of VLE using two identified dimensions. What differentiates this approach of technology
affordance is that it does not constrain affordance to the materiality of technology, which is the case for most other technol-
ogy affordance approaches. The identified affordances are applied for any case of technology; however, their proportional
influence on forging affordances might differ based on the technology and its context. Second, this study empirically iden-
tifies four primary affordances of VR learning that are mostly generalizable to other VR technology in their specific contexts.
These contributions have value for industry practitioners engaged in VR user-behavior measurements. They are being
increasingly asked to develop improved experience and acceptance indicators on which a series of important decisions
are based. As more compelling content and interesting services are introduced through VR, affordance becomes an important
differentiator among providers. The affordance issue attracts significant attention in the industry, where UX is considered
more important than the traditional technology-centric perspective. As user satisfaction of VR may relate to embodied cog-
nition, the industry can use the implications stated in this work in developing new VR services based on embodied cognition
such as embodied games.
Just like any other research in academia, this study is not without limitations. the sample may not represent the popu-
lation of VLE users. The subjects were recruited only in South Korea, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Future studies can work on the development of an efficient and effective framework for monitoring and analyzing affordance
and other influencing parameters for future VLE services.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.
2017.05.013.

References

Curry, M., Marshall, B., Kawalek, P., 2014. IT artifact bias. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 34 (4), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.02.005.
Dalgarno, B., Lee, M., 2010. What are the learning affordances of 3D virtual environments? Br. J. Edu. Technol. 41 (1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.01038.x.
1836 D.-H. Shin / Telematics and Informatics 34 (2017) 1826–1836

Erik, M.V.R., Jeroen, J.L.S., 2008. The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Comput. Edu. 50 (3), 838–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2006.09.001.
Gibson, J.J., 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Gross, D., Stanney, K., & Cohn, J. (2005). Evoking affordances in virtual environments via sensory-stimuli substitution. Presence, 14(4), 482–
491.doi>10.1162/105474605774785244.
Huang, H., Liaw, S., Lai, C., 2016. Exploring learner acceptance of the use of virtual reality in medical education. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24 (1), 3–19. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.817436.
Karanam, Y., Filko, L., Kaser, L., Alotaibi, H., Makhsoom, E., & Voida, S. (2014). Motivational affordances and personality types in personal informatics.
Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, p. 79–82.doi>10.1145/2638728.2638800.
Kim, J., 2016. Interacting socially with the Internet of Things (IoT). J. Comput. Mediated Commun. 21, 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12177.
Keller, C. (2009). User acceptance of virtual learning environments. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25, Article 38. Available at:
http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol25/iss1/38.
Kuo, Y., Feng, L., 2013. Relationships among community interaction characteristics, perceived benefits, community commitment, and oppositional brand
loyalty in online brand communities. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 33 (6), 948–962.
Lee, K., Lee, S., & Hwang, Y. (2014). The impact of hyperlink affordance, psychological reactance, and perceived business tie on trust transfer. Computers in
Human Behavior, 30, 110–120. doi>10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.003.
Marc, F., & Christoph, L. (2008). User acceptance of virtual worlds. Journal of Electron. Consumer Research, 9(3), 231–242. doi>10.1145/1314234.1314250.
Nelson, S., Jarrahi, M., & Thomson, L. (2017). Mobility of knowledge work and affordances of digital technologies. International Journal of Information
Management, 37 (2), 54–62. doi>10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.11.008.
Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Lygo-Baker, S., Ma, S., 2016. Why some teachers easily learn to use a new virtual learning environment. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24
(3), 539–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.881394.
Roldán-Álvarez, D., Martin, E., Garcia-Herranz, M., Haya, P., 2016. Mind the gap: impact on learnability of user interface design of authoring tools for
teachers. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 94, 18–34. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.04.011.
Saniye, T.T., Veysi, I.,_ 2015. Acceptance of virtual worlds as learning space. Innov. Edu. Teach. Int. 52 (3), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14703297.2013.820139.
Shin, D., Lee, S., Hwang, Y., 2017. How do credibility and utility affect the user experience of health informatics services? Comput. Hum. Behav. 67, 292–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.007.
Shin, D., Choi, M., Kim, J., Lee, J., 2016. Interaction, engagement, and perceived interactivity in single-handed interaction. Internet Res. 26 (5), 1134–1157.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-12-2014-0312.
Shin, D., 2015. Quality of experience. Total Qual. Manag. 26 (8), 919–932. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.912037.
Shin, D., Ahn, D., 2013. Associations between game use and cognitive empathy. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Social Networking 16 (8), 599–603. https://doi.org/
10.1089/cyber.2012.0639.