Explores cognitive engagement and affective arousal impact on children's sustained VR learning engagement, suggesting design insights.
Introduction Sustaining children’s engagement in immersive learning environments is a central challenge in educational psychology. Virtual reality (VR) offers multisensory and interactive experiences that can foster creativity and skill development. However, the psychological mechanisms that drive sustained participation remain underexplored. This study applied the stimulus–organism–response (S–O–R) framework to examine how cognitive engagement (e.g., attention guidance and cognitive load control) and affective arousal (e.g., valence design and arousal intensity) influence children’s flow experience, satisfaction, continued engagement, and perceived learning achievement in VR-based pottery education. Methods A total of 220 elementary school students (aged 7–12 years) from four Chinese cities participated in a structured VR pottery course. Following the activity, participants completed validated questionnaires measuring the targeted constructs. Data were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling, with bootstrapping employed to assess path significance and model fit indices to evaluate the overall adequacy. Results Cognitive engagement had a stronger positive impact on flow and satisfaction than affective arousal. Flow was a stronger predictor of continued engagement than satisfaction. Continued engagement significantly predicted perceived learning achievement. The structural model demonstrated acceptable fit (standardized root mean square residual = 0.062), with substantial variance explained in key outcome variables. Discussion These findings highlight the dominant role of cognitive engagement in fostering sustained participation in VR-based creative learning, with affective arousal providing supplementary enhancement. The results extend the stimulus–organism–response framework to children’s art education, offering theoretical insights into cognitive-affective mechanisms and practical guidance for designing psychologically optimized VR learning environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: