Hands-on training is essential in surveying education, where students must develop both conceptual understanding and procedural accuracy in tasks such as differential leveling. Traditional field-based instruction is often constrained by limited equipment, logistical challenges, and restricted opportunities for repeated practice. Virtual reality (VR) offers a scalable alternative, yet prior work has largely focused on system development with limited empirical evaluation of performance and learning outcomes. This study presents the design and evaluation of a VR-based laboratory for teaching differential leveling, integrating immersive interaction, real-time feedback, and realistic task simulation. A controlled study with engineering students assessed learning outcomes, task performance, usability, cognitive workload, and user experience. Results show improvements in post-task learning, indicating gains in both procedural and conceptual understanding. Participants reported high usability, strong engagement, and low frustration. Log data revealed consistent procedural execution but greater difficulty in later-stage calculations, particularly foresight and elevation computation, partly due to limited familiarity with metric leveling staff readings. Statistical analysis showed that inaccurate participants required significantly more interactions and that interaction count was strongly correlated with completion time, while error rates differed significantly across task components. However, interaction frequency was not significantly associated with total error count, suggesting that interaction effort and task accuracy capture distinct dimensions of learner performance. These findings suggest that VR-based laboratories can effectively support surveying education by enabling structured practice, identifying learning challenges, and reinforcing key concepts in a controlled environment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Udekwe et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: