View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Conceptualizing a Pedagogical Model for Immersive Virtual Reality Safety Training: Pedagogical Practices in Trainer Interviews

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Conceptualizing a Pedagogical Model for Immersive Virtual Reality Safety Training: Pedagogical Practices in Trainer Interviews
Language: English
Authors: Anu Lehikko (ORCID 0000-0001-5573-929X), Mikko Nykänen (ORCID 0000-0002-6688-4991), Heli Ruokamo (ORCID 0000-0002-8679-781X)
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development. 2025 73(4):2543-2565.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Descriptors: Computer Simulation, Computer Uses in Education, Safety Education, Occupational Safety and Health, Models, Educational Practices, Trainers, Training Methods
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-025-10490-1
ISSN: 1042-1629
1556-6501
Abstract: The potential of immersive virtual reality (IVR) to deliver engaging occupational safety training has been established by previous research; however, to date, there have not been any pedagogical models to guide its implementation. This study's objective was to conceptualize a pedagogical model for IVR safety training by combining a multidisciplinary theoretical framework with safety trainers' contextual and pedagogical expertise. The research questions were (1) what kind of pedagogical practices do trainers apply in safety training, and (2) how do the trainers' pedagogical practices inform the sociocultural contextualization of the pedagogical model for IVR safety training? Eighteen safety trainers were interviewed across two work organizations. An inductive approach was used in the interview data analysis. Three main categories of pedagogical practices were identified: (1) matching pedagogy to training goals, (2) guiding social interaction in training situations, and (3) utilizing organizational resources for training development. The findings extended our understanding of the sociocultural training context and provided insight into the pedagogical practices used in safety training. Based on the findings, pre- and post-training activities were added to the pedagogical model, and the descriptions of trainers' actions during the facilitated introduction and debriefing phases were modified to support the training's relevance to the learners, trainers, and organizations. This study illustrates a pragmatic approach to developing safety training in the context of advanced learning technology in design-based research. The pedagogical model will be applicable by training and education providers in IVR safety training across industries and in practice-based learning.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483816
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHE_clJJ0vIS7P4YbJEyPB1AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAHLez01gXCjz9p0IwIBEICBm9mNgkC6DRwKwpk3xNpMu_ciUUsMRxi67FyLDTvi2HAZaaMQ50R9tW-55DXb7By2wnRIegiD2IBMH_N6dwSq9ntcqvqbfDW38wT87oeDtjpHIVTbn-QT2gRi99cZ-62usDaFhpTh5q3GepET9rHHPChhNLtFlXSK5xM4voLUOV0_SnWqu8ztf2lfk0_LpJuraXC3E83zoSbDF1MB
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188049010;etr01aug.25;2025Sep22.01:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188049010-1">Conceptualizing a pedagogical model for immersive virtual reality safety training: pedagogical practices in trainer interviews </title> <p>The potential of immersive virtual reality (IVR) to deliver engaging occupational safety training has been established by previous research; however, to date, there have not been any pedagogical models to guide its implementation. This study's objective was to conceptualize a pedagogical model for IVR safety training by combining a multidisciplinary theoretical framework with safety trainers' contextual and pedagogical expertise. The research questions were (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) what kind of pedagogical practices do trainers apply in safety training, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) how do the trainers' pedagogical practices inform the sociocultural contextualization of the pedagogical model for IVR safety training? Eighteen safety trainers were interviewed across two work organizations. An inductive approach was used in the interview data analysis. Three main categories of pedagogical practices were identified: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>) matching pedagogy to training goals, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>) guiding social interaction in training situations, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>) utilizing organizational resources for training development. The findings extended our understanding of the sociocultural training context and provided insight into the pedagogical practices used in safety training. Based on the findings, pre- and post-training activities were added to the pedagogical model, and the descriptions of trainers' actions during the facilitated introduction and debriefing phases were modified to support the training's relevance to the learners, trainers, and organizations. This study illustrates a pragmatic approach to developing safety training in the context of advanced learning technology in design-based research. The pedagogical model will be applicable by training and education providers in IVR safety training across industries and in practice-based learning.</p> <p>Keywords: Immersive virtual reality; Safety training; Pedagogical model; Pedagogical practices; Qualitative methods; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Immersive virtual reality (IVR) learning environments offer opportunities to provide engaging occupational safety training in which employees can rehearse hazardous work situations and develop their hazard identification and prevention abilities (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref6">52</reflink>]). Safety training is integral not only in workplaces but also to learning many skills and trades in vocational and higher education. Previous research has highlighted the importance of safety training in increasing safety knowledge, modifying safety attitudes, increasing motivation to prevent accidents, and improving safety behaviors (Ricci et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref7">76</reflink>]; Robson et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref8">77</reflink>]). Casey et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]) review study on safety training effectiveness and Babalola et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]) systematic review on IVR applications in occupational health and safety training and education have indicated the potential of IVR as a safety training medium. Empirical studies performed by Nykänen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref11">66</reflink>]) and Rey-Becerra et al. ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref12">75</reflink>]) have provided evidence for small to medium effect sizes in favor of IVR compared to lecture-based safety training implementations. However, IVR research has remained detached from theories of learning (Radhakrishnan et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref13">72</reflink>]; Radianti et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref14">73</reflink>]), and pedagogical models fully capable of guiding its implementation in safety training have not yet been proposed.</p> <p>Our pragmatically oriented research aims to support IVR safety training implementation by proposing a pedagogical model that combines existing research on simulation learning, safety training, and IVR learning. The current study belongs to the initial phase of a design-based research (DBR), but it does not report a full DBR cycle. Both sociocultural and cognitivist views on learning are applied in the model: Whereas educational research often sits comfortably within the sociocultural framework (e.g., Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]; Sutherland et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref16">88</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref17">93</reflink>]), a cognitivist approach is more often applied in the research disciplines of IVR learning (e.g., Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref18">57</reflink>]; Mulders et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref19">63</reflink>]) and occupational safety training (e.g., Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]; Nykänen et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref21">66</reflink>]). Current conceptual models (see Tondeur et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref22">90</reflink>]) relevant to workplace learning design (e.g., Holdsworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref23">39</reflink>]; Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref24">91</reflink>]) advocate for the recognition of situational and contextual factors in professional learning.</p> <p>Our theory-based pedagogical model for IVR teaching and learning (Lehikko et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref25">51</reflink>]) combined a simulation learning framework with IVR scenarios. In the model, simulation training's inherent social learning processes enrich the IVR learning experience in the form of facilitated introduction and debriefing discussions (Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref26">28</reflink>]; Keskitalo, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref27">42</reflink>]), which precede and follow the safety training scenarios performed in IVR. To fully acknowledge the multimodal nature of learning with IVR technology (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]), elements of the Cognitive Affective Model for Immersive Learning (CAMIL; Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref29">57</reflink>]) were incorporated into the pedagogical model. Our model thus considers the learners' sense of agency (Braun et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref30">13</reflink>]), sense of presence (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref31">48</reflink>]), sense of body ownership (Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref32">84</reflink>]), embodiment (Johnson-Glenberg, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref33">41</reflink>]), and cognitive load (Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref34">89</reflink>]). The purpose of this qualitative study was to anchor the pedagogical model in the sociocultural framework of workplace learning with the aid of qualitative findings from safety trainer interviews.</p> <p>This paper reports on a qualitative study that advanced the pedagogical model's conceptual development prior to its empirical testing, reported elsewhere (Lehikko et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref35">50</reflink>]). Occupational safety training goals are discussed in the literature section alongside the former theoretical background. We performed semi-structured thematic interviews with trainers who plan and deliver safety training and orientation at the two participating organizations to further understand the training context in this study (Bengtsson, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]; Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]). The interviews provided us with insight into the pedagogical practices that are essential for safety training delivery, and they also served as a means for channeling the trainers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK; Berry et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]; Shulman, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref39">85</reflink>]) into the model development process within the practical constraints (Amiel & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]; Creswell & Plano Clark, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]). Understanding the trainers' pedagogical practices and their views on the training goals and expectations in their work organizations was also important for training design and trainer preparation in the subsequent stages of the DBR cycle (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]; Creswell & Plano Clark, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]; Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref44">62</reflink>]). In this study, pedagogical practices are understood as social practices intended to shape learners' educational development (Higgs, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-3">Literature review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188049010-4">Occupational safety training goals</hd> <p>The training goals should be well defined (Anderson & Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>]; Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref47">28</reflink>]; Kraiger et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>]; Krathwohl et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]). In occupational safety training, declarative knowledge goals refer to knowledge of safety-related facts (e.g., occupational hazards and personal protective equipment). Procedural knowledge goals refer, for example, to knowledge related to performing safety-promoting procedures, using personal protective equipment, and engaging in safety behaviors to reduce risk. Safety attitudes are individual beliefs, commitment, and a sense of personal responsibility regarding safety policies, procedures, and practices (Henning et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>]). Psychomotor skills refer to the ability to execute physical work-related tasks safely and with a degree of precision (Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref51">15</reflink>]). Learning psychomotor skills in a simulation demands high physical realism (Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>]), which should be noted when considering hand-controller-operated IVR as a training media for tasks that include detailed hand and finger movements (e.g. Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref53">34</reflink>]). The systematic review on computer-aided health and safety training technologies in the construction sector by Gao et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref54">33</reflink>]) provided evidence on VR effectiveness for knowledge acquisition.</p> <p>Safety knowledge and safety attitudes play an important role in promoting occupational safety and preventing accidents (e.g., Christian et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref55">20</reflink>]). We consider motivation and self-efficacy to be examples of attitude-related training goals (Kraiger et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref56">45</reflink>]; Krathwohl et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref57">46</reflink>]). Motivation to promote safety plays a key role in accident prevention (Neal & Griffin, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref58">64</reflink>]). Previous studies have indicated that safety training methods through which learners significantly participate in learning activities have a stronger impact on this motivation (Hedlund et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]). Intrinsic safety motivation is particularly important for preventive safety behavior, as it involves a feeling of fulfillment related to enacting such behavior (Mariani et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref60">59</reflink>]); it encourages people to perform safety-related activities because they perceive them as interesting and satisfying. There is evidence that as a learning medium, IVR induces greater motivation in learners—possibly due to the learners' heightened sense of presence—than do less immersive media (Makransky & Lilleholt, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref61">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Self-efficacy (SE) is a key determinant of preventive safety behaviors in the workplace (Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref62">14</reflink>]; DeJoy, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref63">26</reflink>]). Enhancing the learner's safety-related SE is a common goal in safety training, as it increases the learner's likelihood of using the learned safety knowledge and skills at work (e.g., Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref64">15</reflink>]). Achievement is closely linked to SE; a person with higher SE in a certain domain of action will set more demanding goals for themselves and persist longer with these challenges. Having first-hand experience of success with a certain task or in a certain domain provides a firm basis for SE development and links it to personal feelings of agency (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>]). There is empirical evidence that IVR learning environments may support SE development (e.g. Meyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref68">61</reflink>]), but the contributing factors are not yet clear (Lehikko, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref69">49</reflink>]). However, IVR's emotion-inducing capability is considered especially advantageous to safety learning (Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref70">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-5">Simulation learning for IVR safety training outcomes and transfer</hd> <p>Simulations can play a vital role in inducing and consolidating an increasingly safety-oriented organizational culture (Gaba, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref71">32</reflink>]). Previous research indicates that occupational safety training based on learners' active participation is more effective in terms of knowledge acquisition and motivational outcomes than passive safety training approaches such as lectures; in the former, dialogue and action-focused reflection are strongly encouraged (Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref72">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref73">16</reflink>]; Hedlund et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref74">35</reflink>]). Debriefing the learners may have a beneficial effect, especially on behavioral outcomes in IVR safety learning (Feng et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref75">31</reflink>]). Thus, the simulation training principles and practices appear to be well suited for IVR safety training. A single-user IVR scenario can be compared to individual simulation-based training, which is common in, for instance, basic clinical skills training in medical education.</p> <p>Simulator practice is often preceded by introductory and pre-training activities that support learners' metacognitive processes. The trainer may apply strategies, such as the use of analogies and artifacts, direct explanations, and representations of new concepts or procedures, to assist the learners in understanding and processing the training content (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref76">12</reflink>]). The learners' individual expectations, attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref77">11</reflink>]; Gaba, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref78">32</reflink>]; Holdsworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref79">39</reflink>]; Sutherland et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref80">88</reflink>]) may also be addressed or influenced in the pre-briefing (Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]). A debriefing follows the simulation: The trainer should maintain a positive learning atmosphere and deliver necessary and helpful feedback to the learners (Decker et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref82">25</reflink>]; Gaba, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref83">32</reflink>]; Rudolph et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref84">79</reflink>]). After attending the training, the participants return to their daily work, ideally reconstructing and transforming what they learned in the simulation and assimilating it into their work practices (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref85">11</reflink>]; Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref86">28</reflink>]; Sutherland et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref87">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>Any IVR safety training requires close consideration of the situated nature of learning and training transfer in the workplace context (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref88">11</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref89">34</reflink>]; Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref90">91</reflink>]). It has been suggested that the situational nature of learning makes transfer difficult to achieve (Mason, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref91">60</reflink>]). Billett ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref92">11</reflink>]) proposed that the circumstances of thinking, acting, and learning influence its adaptability. Depending on the learners' backgrounds and previous experiences, as well as on the many possible interchanges and occurrences during the training session, the exact same learning scenarios may have different learning outcomes for individuals and training groups (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref93">11</reflink>]; Rystedt et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref94">81</reflink>]; Säljö, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref95">82</reflink>]). Learning conceptual and procedural knowledge is most effective when the representations of these forms of knowledge are coherent with work practice (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref96">12</reflink>]). Based on Harris et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref97">34</reflink>]) framework for testing and validation of simulated environments, a close resemblance between the IVR scenario and authentic work activities and interactions may support learning transfer directly by increasing the psychological, affective and ergonomic fidelity of the scenario, and indirectly by supporting learner buy-in.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-6">Immersive virtual reality in safety training</hd> <p>The term <emph>virtual</emph> refers to computer-generated environments wherein the experienced objects do not actually exist but are artificially created or simulated (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref98">48</reflink>]). This study considers immersive virtual reality (IVR), a simulated environment that is accessed by a head-mounted display and hand controllers that fulfil the technical prerequisites for immersion (Concannon et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref99">21</reflink>]; Elbamby et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref100">30</reflink>]; Pelargos et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref101">70</reflink>]; Rebelo et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref102">74</reflink>]), presenting "a vivid virtual environment while shutting out physical reality" (Cummings & Bailenson, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref103">24</reflink>], p. 3). Immersion is thought to increase learner engagement, but it may also have adverse effects on learning due to its demands on the learner's cognitive resources (Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref104">54</reflink>]; Skulmowski & Xu, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref105">86</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Sense of agency</emph> describes the learner's feeling of generating and controlling actions in the IVR (Braun et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref106">13</reflink>]). The agency experienced by the learner is considered to enable embodied learning and increases learning retention (Johnson-Glenberg, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref107">41</reflink>]; Kilteni et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref108">43</reflink>]), and it helps the learners to assume responsibility and experience more motivation and self-efficacy in the learning process (Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref109">28</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref110">80</reflink>]). <emph>Sense of presence</emph> is defined as "a psychological state in which the virtuality of experience is unnoticed" (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref111">48</reflink>], p. 32): It has been associated with stronger spatial learning outcomes. Empirical research indicates that presence may be affected by distraction factors, such as isolation and interference awareness (Parong et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref112">69</reflink>]).</p> <p>The learners' <emph>sense of body ownership</emph> should be considered when the IVR training objectives extend beyond declarative knowledge acquisition. Body ownership, i.e., the feeling of possessing a body, has been found to negatively influence IVR task performance in high-risk conditions such as the teleoperation of high-risk machinery (Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref113">84</reflink>]), which has relevance for occupational safety training. A sense of body ownership influences <emph>embodiment</emph>, which may be pivotal for training effectiveness (Johnson-Glenberg, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref114">41</reflink>]; Kilteni et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref115">43</reflink>]). Embodiment means the feeling of "being inside, having, and controlling a body" (Kilteni et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref116">43</reflink>], pp. 374–375). In the IVR safety training context, embodiment may play an important role in increasing attention to the learning task and increasing training engagement, which may lead to better learning outcomes (Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref117">18</reflink>]; Johnson-Glenberg, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref118">41</reflink>]). Embodiment may be especially important for attaining procedural learning goals. However, previous empirical results suggest that the learner's physical and virtual movements should be carefully mapped for congruency to avoid detrimental effects on their motor performance (Odermatt et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref119">67</reflink>]; Pritchard et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref120">71</reflink>]).</p> <p> <emph>Cognitive load</emph> describes the amount of information that the learner must process during the learning situation; if it exceeds the limits of their working memory, overload may occur (Skulmowski & Xu, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref121">86</reflink>]; Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref122">89</reflink>]). In simulations, higher realism may free up some cognitive capacity by reducing the need for simulation orientation; however, the training scenario's relevance to the learning goals outweighs maximizing simulation fidelity. According to previous studies on IVR learning, high fidelity and excessive detail may hinder learning by overtaxing the learner's cognitive ability; the appealing details that foster learner engagement may also work against the training goals (Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref123">57</reflink>]; Makransky et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref124">58</reflink>]; Skulmowski & Xu, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref125">86</reflink>]). Previous experience impacts the learners' cognitive load: Based on their integrative review on nursing simulations, Rogers and Franklin ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref126">78</reflink>]) recommend scaffolding simulation fidelity. Progressing from simplified to more realistically detailed environments by modifying the available cues and the noise to signal ratio may better facilitate training transfer. The learner's technological self-efficacy may contribute to their perceived ease of use of IVR (Holden & Rada, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref127">38</reflink>]). Introducing the key concepts in pre-training may ease the learner's cognitive load during the training scenario while also supporting their self-efficacy development (Dieckmann & Ringsted, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref128">29</reflink>]); empirical evidence indicates that pre-training may support the achievement of IVR learning outcomes (Delgado & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref129">27</reflink>]; Meyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref130">61</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-7">Combining experiential IVR learning with reflective group activities</hd> <p>We propose that utilizing a phased simulation training framework in an IVR scenario-based safety training design allows the blending of experiential and reflective components (Kolb, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref131">44</reflink>]) within the social learning and training processes that enhance the effectiveness of the individually performed IVR safety training scenarios. Facilitated discussions provide the sociocultural setting needed to ensure the relevance and contextual validity of the training, and they may also yield cognitive benefits to the learners. We suggest four essential training phases: introduction, IVR briefing, IVR scenario, and debriefing (Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref132">28</reflink>]; Keskitalo, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref133">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-8">Introduction</hd> <p>In the introduction phase, the trainer presents the training topic, the key concepts, and an overview of the course content. The learners are provided with the background knowledge needed to fully understand the concepts and are prompted to reflect on the training topic's context and relevance to their previous life and work experiences (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref134">11</reflink>]; Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref135">28</reflink>]; Sutherland et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref136">88</reflink>]). This will foster situational interest and motivation (e.g., Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref137">80</reflink>]; Schraw et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref138">83</reflink>]) and help the learners to engage their former knowledge and competences in the training setting (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref139">12</reflink>]; Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref140">91</reflink>]). According to earlier studies, establishing a positive and psychologically safe atmosphere in the learning group (Rudolph et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref141">79</reflink>]), encouraging the learners to take active roles in the learning process, and helping them determine personal training goals support the learners' SE, motivation, and agency (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref142">6</reflink>]; Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref143">18</reflink>]; Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref144">28</reflink>]). IVR learning environments may be designed to foster active learning, but it is nonetheless important to encourage and enable learners to actively participate in all phases of the training situation (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref145">12</reflink>]; Sutherland et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref146">88</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref147">93</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-9">IVR Briefing</hd> <p>Once the introduction phase is complete, the learners attend a guided briefing on the IVR equipment and environment operation. This may help them use their cognitive resources more effectively during the training session (Dieckmann & Ringsted, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref148">29</reflink>]; Meyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref149">61</reflink>]; Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref150">89</reflink>]). If the trainees are unfamiliar with IVR technology, the trainer can reduce uncertainty by personally demonstrating use of the equipment and sharing their previous experiences of IVR use (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref151">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref152">6</reflink>]; Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref153">12</reflink>]). The learners also complete an interactive tutorial in the IVR environment before entering the training scenario. The tutorial supports learner self-efficacy by reducing cognitive load (Meyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref154">61</reflink>]; Sweller, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref155">89</reflink>]) and creating opportunities for IVR-related mastery experiences (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref156">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref157">6</reflink>]; Holden & Rada, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref158">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-10">IVR scenario</hd> <p>After completing the tutorial, the learners may advance in the training scenario at their own pace and without the trainer's assistance. Learners' motivation and self-efficacy are supported by designing the IVR-guided scenario to allow the learner to feel autonomous and in control (Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref159">28</reflink>]; Makransky & Petersen, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref160">57</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref161">80</reflink>]). The scenario script should guide learners to identify the positive outcomes of their actions. This contributes to SE throughout learning activities (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref162">6</reflink>]; Stajkovic & Sommer, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref163">87</reflink>]). Giving learners an opportunity to make choices and influence the course of events in the IVR scenario will also accommodate embodied learning (Johnson-Glenberg, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref164">41</reflink>]; Kilteni et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref165">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-11">Debriefing</hd> <p>Once the scenario is over, the learners return to their groups for debriefing. The trainer supports learner SE and agency by offering feedback and creating opportunities for positive affect, as well as by maintaining an active and positive group atmosphere (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref166">6</reflink>]; Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref167">28</reflink>]; Rudolph et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref168">79</reflink>]). The learners discuss the scenario and analyze it together, constructing and co-creating an understanding of the learning experience in relation to their goals (Decker et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref169">25</reflink>]; Keskitalo, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref170">42</reflink>]; Säljö, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref171">82</reflink>]; Sutherland et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref172">88</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref173">93</reflink>]). They are guided to share their personal experiences of work hazards as they relate to the simulated activities (Bhandari et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref174">10</reflink>]). The generative learning strategies of summarization and reflection after the IVR training scenario improve factual and conceptual knowledge building, which are connected to cognitive learning outcomes (Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref175">17</reflink>]; Kraiger et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref176">45</reflink>]; Parong & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref177">68</reflink>]). Through their facilitative actions, the trainer supports the learners' proactive stance and active participation in safety practices and a positive safety culture (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref178">12</reflink>]; Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref179">91</reflink>]).</p> <p>The research aim was to design and conceptualize a pedagogical model for IVR safety training by integrating these theoretical viewpoints with the pedagogical practices applied in the design and delivery of safety training by 18 experienced trainers in two work organizations. We set two exploratory research questions, (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref180">1</reflink>) what kind of pedagogical practices do trainers apply in safety training, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref181">2</reflink>) how do the trainers' pedagogical practices inform the sociocultural contextualization of the pedagogical model for IVR safety training?</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-12">Method</hd> <p>This current qualitative study was carried out in the conceptual design phase of pedagogical model development as the first step in a pragmatically motivated design-based research (DBR). The DBR method has long been associated with technological interventions: It seeks to connect educational research with practice and is well-suited to research on learning environments and to the development of related learning theories in innovative collaboration between researchers and practitioners (Anderson & Shattuck, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref182">3</reflink>]; Moore et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref183">62</reflink>]; Wang & Hannafin, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref184">94</reflink>]; Zheng, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref185">95</reflink>]). The cyclical DBR process typically has four stages: design, implementation, analysis, and redesign (Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 DBR Process in Pedagogical Model Development (adapted from Amiel & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref186">1</reflink>], p. 34)</p> <p>Semi-structured thematic interviews (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref187">22</reflink>]) were selected as the qualitative data collection method in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the relevant pedagogical practices in the sociocultural contexts surrounding occupational safety training in trainers' daily work and the various skills demanded from the trainers. The interviews allowed us to engage with more trainers in the collaborator organizations than was otherwise possible during the research, and informed training development in the next stage of the DBR process prior to the model's implementation and empirical data collection. Pedagogical content knowledge built by experience is often tacit, making it difficult to articulate and share (see Nind & Lewthwaite, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref188">65</reflink>]). The interview protocol (see Appendix A) was designed to support knowledge elicitation by emphasizing the interviewees' first-hand knowledge and professional experience. The protocol included instructions, warm-up questions, two interview themes and the corresponding questions and prompts, wrap-up questions and a thank you statement (Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref189">22</reflink>]). The current study focuses on Theme 2—pedagogical practices.</p> <p>Eighteen persons involved in designing and implementing safety training for two work organizations in Finland were interviewed for this study. These individuals were selected due to their practical experience in safety promotion and first-hand knowledge of the factors that contribute to successful safety training. They were recruited by contact persons within the organizations—one training expert and one digitalization expert—and they joined the study on the basis of informed consent. The semi-structured thematic interviews were carried out by one researcher in December 2021 and January 2022. The interviewer and the interviewees made the interview arrangements via email, and the interviews lasted between 25 and 40 min, averaging 34 min and totaling 10 h and 9 min. They were conducted by means of a video conferencing tool and recorded on two external audio recording devices. Cameras were kept on during the video conference if preferred by the interviewee, but no video was recorded. An external service provider transcribed the audio recordings. The transcribed material totaled 55,920 words. Before being subjected to content analysis using NVivo software, the transcripts were checked against the audio recordings for accuracy and were corrected as necessary.</p> <p>For RQ 1 (what kind of pedagogical practices do trainers apply in safety training?), a content-driven approach was applied in the analysis (see Bengtsson, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref190">8</reflink>]; Hsieh & Shannon, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref191">40</reflink>]). In the thematic interviews, we asked the trainers about their experiences with functional pedagogical practices and asked them to describe effective safety training implementations. The transcripts were read several times while an initial round of codes was created using topical sentences as units of analysis. To ensure conceptual clarity, the codes were edited, occasionally renamed, combined, and grouped as the coding progressed. The codes were grouped into subcategories and, finally, into main categories. Coding was initially performed by the first author, and coding consistency was checked by another member of the research team (see Creswell, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref192">22</reflink>]). The findings were quantified and reported as frequencies. The second research question (how do the trainers' pedagogical practices inform the sociocultural contextualization of the pedagogical model for IVR safety training?) was then addressed by synthesizing the findings for RQ 1 with research literature and producing a conceptualization of the pedagogical model for IVR safety training based on the synthesis.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-13">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188049010-14">Pedagogical practices identified in the trainer interviews</hd> <p>To answer RQ 1, we sought to explore the pedagogical practices that trainers use in safety training. Three main categories were discovered: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref193">1</reflink>) matching the pedagogy to training goals, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref194">2</reflink>) guiding social interaction in training situations, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref195">3</reflink>) utilizing organizational resources for training development.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-15">Category 1: match the pedagogy to training goals</hd> <p>Three subcategories were discovered, the first of which was <emph>ensure relevance.</emph> This was the most frequently mentioned code within the subcategory (Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1 Pedagogical Practices in Category 1: Match the Pedagogy to Training Goals</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Subcategory</p></th><th align="left"><p>Code</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>f</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Example Interview Quote</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Ensure relevance</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fit training to the learners' work context</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Practicality... that they are just those normal, everyday things that students do every day at work and at the site [Trainer #17]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Use examples to increase relevance</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>I always think of an example, or someone else comes up with one and then goes through it [Trainer #18]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Train for teamwork</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>And I usually tell, before we go [to train in practice], what it's like to work with a pair and how to communicate. And how to agree on what everyone will do in that... inspection [Trainer #16]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="4"><p>Select delivery method</p></td><td align="left"><p>Provide hands-on training</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>The applied exercises, that is, when the topic is applied to working life and the exercise is done there. They are the best in terms of learning [Trainer #17]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Give lectures</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Of course, there are some basics that you have to teach in the classroom [Trainer #10]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Use simulations for challenging situations</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>... to train for safety–critical events for which you would not otherwise be able to practice [Trainer #13]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Utilize learning technology</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>... we have noticed, now, that these new technologies have been introduced and used, that people would rather be involved with them than sit, for example, in a classroom, looking at slides [Trainer #2]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Evaluate outcomes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Evaluate learning outcomes (e.g., tests, interviews, observation)</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>And then we help the students to prepare for the demonstration of [their] knowledge at the end of the course [Trainer #3]</italic></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>f</emph> number of coded units, <emph>n</emph> number of interviews with coded units</p> <p>Fifteen trainers mentioned selecting topics from the learners' direct work contexts. Twelve referred to the use of practical examples, and five talked about providing training that focused on teamwork. The second subcategory was <emph>select delivery method</emph>; depending on the type of training goals, the trainers selected the most appropriate methods. Seventeen trainers mentioned providing hands-on training, which was the most frequently coded item in this subcategory. Twelve trainers mentioned giving lectures. Eight talked about using simulations for challenging situations, and seven talked about utilizing learning technology. The third and final subcategory was <emph>evaluate outcomes.</emph> Eleven trainers talked about evaluating the learning outcomes via, for example, written tests, interviews, and learner observation in work situations. The trainers had practical views on training relevance and sought to incorporate examples of the learners' everyday work situations in the training process. They made decisions about the delivery method on the basis of the learning context and goals and considering learner engagement (Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref196">17</reflink>]). Ensuring that the learners attained the training goals was a priority, and the learning outcomes were subjected to evaluation.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-16">Category 2: guide the social interaction in training situations</hd> <p>Two subcategories were identified. The first was <emph>facilitate social interaction</emph>. The trainers facilitated learners' interactions by, for example, actively promoting discussion (14 trainers), which was the most frequent code in this subcategory (Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Pedagogical Practices in Category 2: Guide the Social Interaction in Training Situations</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Subcategory</p></th><th align="left"><p>Code</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>f</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Example Interview Quote</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>Facilitate social interaction</p></td><td align="left"><p>Promote discussion and interaction</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Preferably talking to other learners. So that one would understand why that topic is important and why it should be considered in one's own work [Trainer #13]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Apply professional experience and set an example</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Especially in safety matters, it must show that I'm talking about something I really believe in and this is how things have to be done to be safe at work there [Trainer #11]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Adapt training to the learner group</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>... tailored it a little for the target group, if there were people working in the controlled area or if they never really visit it... [Trainer #14]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Promote learner activity</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>So that you really have to think about it; I won't give an answer straight up, but you have to work for it a bit yourself [Trainer #2]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Observe individual differences</p></td><td align="left"><p>21</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>... there are perhaps some people who... shy away from the situation [Trainer #16]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Modulate emotional atmosphere</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>... the learning environment needs to be relaxed enough for learning to take place [Trainer #15]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Maintain temporal structure</p></td><td align="left"><p>Give an outline of training and goals first</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Usually we start with going through the basic principles of the training, what are we aiming for, why we have this training [Trainer #11]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Debrief learners afterwards</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>And then afterwards a joint discussion, what we got out of this, what kind of observations we made [Trainer #3]</italic></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>f</emph> number of coded units, <emph>n</emph> number of interviews with coded units</p> <p>Other actions mentioned by the participants were applying professional experience and setting an example (12 trainers), adapting the training to the target group (11 trainers), observing and modulating the emotional atmosphere (10 trainers), and promoting learner activity and agency by engaging the learners in tasks and exercises (10 trainers). The second subcategory was <emph>maintain temporal structure</emph>. The trainers provided the learners with a temporal structure by discussing the training plan and the training goals early in the process (8 trainers), as well as by debriefing the learners afterwards (7 trainers).</p> <p>In the learning situations, the trainers used a wide range of pedagogical practices to promote a learning-conducive mindset and atmosphere for the learners. Peer discussions were seen as opportunities to create a shared understanding of the importance of safety training and as helpful in terms of connecting the topic to one's work (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref197">11</reflink>]; Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref198">17</reflink>]). The trainers recognized their positions as role models for the learners and used them to lend credibility to the subject at hand. The trainers aimed to adapt the training to the group in the planning phase; however, the trainers also observed the group during the learning situations and adjusted their actions according to individual needs, such as encouraging quieter individuals to contribute to the discussion. They aimed to promote an open and relaxed atmosphere to lower the threshold for participation, and many preferred to challenge the learners instead of simply handing out information. Training was structured to support the learning process.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-17">Category 3: utilize organizational resources for training development</hd> <p>Two subcategories of pedagogical practices were discovered. <emph>Social resources</emph> was the first—the trainers utilized the organization's social resources, i.e., they cooperated with other trainers in training design and delivery (10 trainers) and collected feedback from the learners (9 trainers; Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3 Pedagogical Practices in Category 3: Utilize Organizational Resources for Training Development</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Subcategory</p></th><th align="left"><p>Code</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>f</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>n</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Example Interview Quote</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Social resources</p></td><td align="left"><p>Cooperate with other trainers in training design and delivery</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>... when they were divided into two groups, there were both of us there too; I was in one group and another trainer was in the other group, watching all the time... [Trainer #14]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Collect feedback from learners</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Well, of course, we have a feedback system where the trainees are allowed to give feedback on their training and, of course, also the trainers [Trainer #11]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>Material resources</p></td><td align="left"><p>Plan training materials and methods</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>... we'll break those themes down into smaller ones in basic training and then combine them with others so that they can be taken in more easily [Trainer #17]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Organize training programs</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>... radiation protection training packages... are repeated x times a year. Everyone who needs it can enroll... [Trainer #14]</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Use statistics and training data for development</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>I think it is worthwhile to use the information that is extracted from the organization where people work so that training can be developed from its point of view [Trainer #12]</italic></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>f</emph> number of coded units, <emph>n</emph> number of interviews with coded units</p> <p>The second subcategory was <emph>material resources.</emph> The trainers planned training materials and methods (8 trainers), organized training programs (6 trainers), and monitored statistics and training data (5 trainers) with the help of their organization's material systems and frameworks. Conceptual and physical artifacts that support training development, such as systems for safety incident management or training feedback delivery, were mentioned in both subcategories (Sutherland et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref199">88</reflink>]). The trainers were able to draw on both social and material resources to plan, prepare, and carry out safety training (Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref200">18</reflink>]; Vuojärvi & Korva, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref201">92</reflink>]). When describing cooperation with other trainers during training, the interviewees' focus was on their collective action; when discussing feedback collection, they described the ways in which the feedback was requested or received in their interactions with the learners. In their comments on preparing training materials and methods, the trainers' focus shifted to the learning content, and they discussed training programs in terms of the importance of training frequency. The trainers who described utilizing statistics and data did so by referring to safety-related processes and systems.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-18">The pedagogical model for IVR safety training</hd> <p>With RQ 2, we sought to determine how the trainers' pedagogical practices informed the sociocultural contextualization of the pedagogical model. Our findings support the sociocultural framing in several aspects. The trainers' pedagogical practices demonstrated their awareness of the learning context and learner factors while displaying pedagogical and procedural skill (Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref202">91</reflink>]). The trainers introduced the learners to the organizational safety culture by drawing on their own experiences of work safety matters and acting as examples or role models for the learners (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref203">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref204">12</reflink>]; Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref205">17</reflink>]; Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref206">18</reflink>]). The trainers facilitated the discussions along both the social and the temporal axes of the training and used the organizations' material and social resources to arrange, deliver, and develop safety training (Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref207">18</reflink>]; Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref208">91</reflink>]). The trainers acted as mediators as they connected the training to the learners' current work and previous experiences, ensured that clearly defined training goals guided the process, and afterwards evaluated the training outcomes (Anderson & Krathwohl, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref209">2</reflink>]; Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref210">18</reflink>]; Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref211">28</reflink>]; Kraiger et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref212">45</reflink>]). The trainer's role is pivotal, both in communicating the practices and discourses of the organization's safety culture and in guiding the learners to become active participants in that culture.</p> <p>The IVR environment used to deliver the safety training scenarios in the training interventions only accommodates individual learning (i.e., the learner advances through the IVR tutorial and the training scenario independently of the other learners)—a feature that is observed in the conceptualized model (Fig. 2).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 The Pedagogical Model for IVR Safety Training</p> <p>Our findings confirm the importance of including the social setting in the pedagogical model for IVR safety training. The introduction and debriefing phases enact social learning; the learners are engaged in small-group discussions and interactions (Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref213">15</reflink>]; Dieckmann, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref214">28</reflink>]; Säljö, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref215">82</reflink>]; Vygotsky, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref216">93</reflink>]). The trainer links the training goals and contents to the organization's safety culture and safety practices by applying select pedagogical practices, such as adapting the training to the learner group and connecting the subject and examples to the actual work situations (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref217">11</reflink>]; Burke et al, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref218">17</reflink>]; Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref219">18</reflink>]; Holdsworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref220">39</reflink>]). In the interviews, the trainers also described guiding the group interaction, modulating the emotional atmosphere, and activating the learners. These pedagogical practices are essential in supporting learner agency and motivation (Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref221">6</reflink>]; Ryan & Deci, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref222">80</reflink>]). The introduction provides the trainer with an opportunity to adjust the training to the group of learners while providing them with context and background information that will benefit their learning (Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref223">91</reflink>]). The debriefing allows the learners to discuss and reflect on the IVR experience together. Based on our findings, we place an emphasis on trainer-facilitated reflection on the training experience in relation to the organization's safety practices and the learners' work context in the debriefing phase of the pedagogical model. This approach will help learners apply the learning content to their daily work, allowing for training transfer (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref224">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref225">12</reflink>]; Kolb, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref226">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Occupational safety training is designed, coordinated, and implemented within the sociomaterial environment of the work organization (Holdsworth et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref227">39</reflink>]; Vuojärvi & Korva, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref228">92</reflink>]). The findings have encouraged us to include the trainers' pre- and post-activities in the pedagogical model to encourage the practitioners to strive for a good fit between the training goals, the learners' work tasks, and the organizational safety culture (Casey et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref229">18</reflink>]; Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref230">91</reflink>]). Pre-training activities include organizing training programs, choosing pedagogies, and adapting the training to the learners' work context. The trainers frequently talked about collecting learner feedback and mentioned several ways of evaluating the training outcomes. However, evaluating training viability or impact was not a prominent theme. Post-training activities therefore encompassed feedback collection and outcome evaluation, which should also include an appraisal of the technological tools used in the process (e.g., Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref231">34</reflink>]; Holden & Rada, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref232">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-19">Discussion</hd> <p>The qualitative findings contributed to the design of the trainer-facilitated discussions in the pedagogical model (i.e., introduction and debriefing) and broadened our understanding of the contextual possibilities and limitations of safety training in the trainers' organizational settings (Tynjälä, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref233">91</reflink>]). The proposed model's underlying assumptions about learners and trainers, such as the expected level of competence upon entering the training situation, should be noted. Our study highlights the role of the trainers' pedagogical content knowledge (e.g. Berry et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref234">9</reflink>]). The trainers choose appropriate pedagogical methods to suit the objectives, adapt training content to the learners' work context, collect feedback, and evaluate outcomes. To do this, they need to understand the occupational safety hazards, issues, and procedures that are relevant to the learners. Some tech-savviness is required to support the learners' interactions with the IVR and to solve any possible technical problems. In their facilitator role, the trainer guides the learners to become participants and members of the expert community, whose actions, discourses, practices, and artifacts contribute to a positive safety culture. Intra- and interpersonal skills help trainers create positive and effective learning experiences (Chai et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref235">19</reflink>]; Ling Koh et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref236">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>For the pedagogical model for IVR safety training to be applied successfully, trainers must be provided with sufficient training and facilitation materials beforehand. Some may need coaching and support to create the positive learner–facilitator interaction that is a key element of the pedagogical model. In this study, the trainers reported using a range of means to evaluate whether the desired learning outcomes had been achieved. In their organizational roles, trainers must be adequately supported, not only in exploring the possibilities of learning evaluation in IVR but also in assessing the overall viability of various IVR training applications as part of a learning curriculum (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref237">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>IVR learning environments may enable more engaging training experiences in the occupational safety context, but training design should not rely on immersive technology alone. Establishing clear, well-formulated goals is fundamental. We propose that identifying the organization's training needs and the learners' immediate work context should be prioritized, followed by carefully formulating the training objectives and selecting the best methods for attaining them. It is advisable to consider possible technological limitations when designing IVR scenarios and setting goals. Overall, the learning tasks for the IVR scenarios should be designed to feel relevant to the learners. Our interviews with trainers highlighted the importance of selecting the scenario topic from the learners' direct work context and using practical examples. Aligning the concepts from the training session with safety practices and operating procedures in the learners' work tasks supports both declarative and procedural training goals (Billett, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref238">12</reflink>]). Applying this principle to IVR safety training creates better premises for training transfer.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-20">Limitations and future considerations</hd> <p>The research community has identified certain possible weaknesses in DBR. The first of these is researcher bias, which may be induced by the researcher's close involvement with the design, development, and application of a pedagogical approach. Scientific objectivity and detachment must be maintained, despite the commitment and persistence required throughout DBR's iterative processes. We have striven for this by ensuring cross-disciplinary researcher collaboration during all stages of the research. Additionally, while DBR is often used to develop educational theory, its results may have little impact on educational practices, and its iteration frequency may remain low (Anderson & Shattuck, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref239">3</reflink>]; Zheng, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref240">95</reflink>]). In this study, data were collected from 18 semi-structured thematic interviews in two work organizations, and the results were used in the conceptual design of a pedagogical model for IVR safety training. The model will be applied in empirical research to continue the iteration, but this study has not reported empirical results. Learners were not interviewed at this stage, as the target groups for the safety training interventions had not yet been identified. The challenges for training facilitation that can be brought on by the learners' varied backgrounds, previous experiences and attitudes towards IVR safety training must be further explored in empirical research to increase the model's practical relevance.</p> <p>This study focused on the sociocultural aspects of safety training design. As the causal pathways between the IVR learning-critical cognitive and affective factors proposed in the pedagogical model, on one hand, and the learning outcomes, on the other, are not yet clear, they should be studied further (see Makransky & Klingenberg, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref241">55</reflink>]). Quantitative and mixed-methods research would add robustness to the study design. Questions about IVR training evaluation should also be directly addressed in future research, as they were not included in this study (Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref242">34</reflink>]; Lai et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref243">47</reflink>]). Other future research directions include a follow-up study on the affective learning objectives that are central to occupational safety learning (Christian et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref244">20</reflink>]). Finding the best ways of moving toward these goals with engaging training methods such as IVR could have a major impact on safety training effectiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-21">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study presented a multi-disciplinarily informed pedagogical model for IVR safety training that has been conceptually designed with the aid of safety trainer interviews. Our findings reveal the importance of tailoring safety training to both the learners' and the organization's context. They illustrate the pedagogical practices employed by the trainers and further clarify how the trainers sought to fulfil the training goals set by themselves and others. The study illustrated in multiple ways how carefully planned and facilitated social learning complements individual IVR training scenarios. Establishing clear, explicit learning goals and tasks with high relevance to the learners' work context is pivotal in designing effective occupational safety education and training scenarios. IVR safety training should be aligned with the organization's safety culture. Moreover, the trainers play a major role in learner engagement: Using their experiences and views as a starting point for discussion, they invite the learners to become active participants in the positive safety culture. Finally, rather than relying solely on IVR's engaging features, it would be beneficial to consider including social learning opportunities in the IVR safety training design.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-22">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This work was supported in part by the Finnish Work Environment Fund (grant numbers 210177 and 210182), Fortum Power and Heat, and Stereoscape Ltd. We also wish to express our gratitude to the occupational safety and training personnel at the participating work organizations.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-23">Author contributions</hd> <p>Anu Lehikko: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Visualization, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. Mikko Nykänen: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Validation, Writing—original draft. Heli Ruokamo: Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Writing—review and editing.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-24">Funding</hd> <p>Open Access funding provided by University of Lapland. This study was funded by the Finnish Work Environment Fund (Työsuojelurahasto), grant numbers 210177, 210182.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-25">Data availability</hd> <p>The research data is not publicly available due to the data privacy agreement.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188049010-27">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-28">Ethical approval</hd> <p>This study has been reviewed and approved by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health's Ethical Committee.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-29">Appendix A</hd> <p>Interview protocol</p> <p>Introductions and welcome.</p> <p>The informant's agreement to participate in the study, including their acceptance of the privacy and data processing declarations supplied in advance, is confirmed before the interview begins.</p> <p>Warm-up questions</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Tell us how you are involved with safety training at your workplace.</item> <p></p> <item> Describe your specific area of responsibility in safety training</item> <p></p> <item> What kind of work duties are connected with this area of responsibility?</item> </ulist> <p>Theme 1: Training Goals</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Please tell us what kinds of goals your organization has for safety training.</item> <p></p> <item> What kinds of goals do you have for safety training?</item> <p></p> <item> What kinds of goals do the learners have for safety training?</item> <p></p> <item> Give 1‒2 examples of the goals.</item> </ulist> <p>Theme 2: Pedagogical Practices.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Describe what kinds of instructional practices are most functional, in your experience, in</item> <p></p> <item> Training in general, and</item> <p></p> <item> Safety training carried out within your organization.</item> </ulist> <p>Supporting prompts:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In your experience, what are the best ways to achieve the learning goals in the training sessions, so that learning can be transferred to work practice?</item> <p></p> <item> Please describe some safety training implementations that you have observed to be effective and influential on the learners' work practice.</item> <p></p> <item> Describe how you would like to develop the instructional practices applied in your organization's safety training.</item> </ulist> <p>Wrap-up.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Is there anything else you would like to tell us? Would you like to revisit any of the previous questions and add something to your comments?</item> </ulist> <p>Thank you. Interview ends.</p> <hd id="AN0188049010-30">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0188049010-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Amiel T, Reeves T. Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society. 2008; 11: 29-40</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. 2001; Longman</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson T, Shattuck J. Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research?. Educational Researcher. 2012; 41; 1: 16-25. 10.3102/0013189X11428813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Babalola A, Manu P, Cheung C, Yunusa-Kaltungo A, Bartolo P. Applications of immersive technologies for occupational safety and health training and education: A systematic review. Safety Science. 2023; 166: 106214. 10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106214</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref65" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 1977; 84; 2: 191-215. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref66" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. 1997; Freeman</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref67" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management. 2012; 38; 1: 9-44. 10.1177/0149206311410606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref36" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bengtsson M. How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open. 2016; 2: 8-14. 10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Berry A, Loughran J, van Driel JH. Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education. 2008; 30; 10: 1271-1279. 10.1080/09500690801998885</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bhandari S, Hallowell MR, Correll J. Making construction safety training interesting: A field-based quasiexperiment to test the relationship between emotional arousal and situational interest among adult learners. Safety Science. 2019; 117: 58-70. 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.03.028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Billett S. Recasting transfer as a socio-personal process of adaptable learning. Educational Research Review. 2013; 8: 5-13. 10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Billett S. Mediating worklife learning and the digitalisation of work. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2021; 52; 4: 1580-1593. 10.1111/bjet.13115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braun, N, Debener, S, Spychala, N, Bongartz, E, Sörös, P, Müller, H. H. O, & Philipsen, A. (2018). The Senses of Agency and Ownership: A Review. Frontiers in Psychology,9, 535. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00535</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown KA, Willis G, Prussia G. Predicting safe employee behavior in the steel industry: Development and test of a sociotechnical model. Journal of Operations Management. 2000; 18: 445-465. 10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00033-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke MJ, Holman D, Birdi KHodgkinson GP, Ford JK. A walk on the safe side: The implications of learning theory for developing effective safety and health training. International review of industrial and organizational psychology 2006. 2006; Wiley Publishing: 1-44</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke MJ, Salvador R, Smith-Crowe K, Chan-Serafin S, Smith A, Sonesh S. The dread factor: How workplace hazards and training influence learning and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011; 96: 46-70. 10.1037/a0021838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke MJ, Sarpy SA, Smith-Crowe K, Chan-Serafin S, Salvador RO, Islam G. Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. American Journal of Public Health. 2006; 96: 315-324. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059840</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casey T, Turner N, Hu X, Bancroft K. Making safety training stickier: A richer model of safety training engagement and transfer. Journal of Safety Research. 2021; 78: 303-313. 10.1016/j.jsr.2021.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chai CS, Koh JHL, Tsai CC. A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology and Society. 2013; 16; 2: 31-51</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christian MS, Bradley JC, Wallace JC, Burke MJ. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2009; 94; 5: 1103-1127. 10.1037/a0016172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Concannon BJ, Esmail S, Roduta Roberts M. Head-mounted display virtual reality in post-secondary education and skill training. Frontiers in Education. 2019; 4: 1-23. 10.3389/feduc.2019.00080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell JW. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 20093; Sage Publications, Inc</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 20173; Sage Publications, Inc</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cummings JJ, Bailenson JN. How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology. 2016; 19; 2: 272-309. 10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decker S, Fey M, Sideras S, Caballero S, Rockstraw L, Boese T, Franklin AE, Gloe D, Lioce L, Sando CR, Meakim C, Borum JC. Standards of best practice: Simulation standard VI: The debriefing process. Clinical Simulation in Nursing. 2013; 9; 6: S26-S29. 10.1016/j.ecns.2013.04.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeJoy D. Theoretical models of health behavior and workplace self-protective behavior. Journal of Safety Research. 1996; 27: 61-72. 10.1016/0022-4375(96)00007-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delgado CY, Mayer RE. Implementing pretraining to optimise learning in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2025; 41; 1: e13099. 10.1111/JCAL.13099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dieckmann PDieckmann P. Simulation settings for learning in acute medical care. Using simulations for education, training and research. 2009; Pabst Science Publishers: 40-138</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dieckmann P, Ringsted CForrest K, McKimm J, Edgar S. Simulation-based training in healthcare. Essential simulation in clinical education. 2013; Wiley: 43-58. 10.1002/9781118748039.ch4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elbamby MS, Perfecto C, Bennis M, Doppler K. Toward low-latency and ultra-reliable virtual reality. IEEE Network. 2018; 32; 2: 78-84. 10.1109/MNET.2018.1700268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feng Q, Luo H, Li W, Chen Y, Zhang J. The moderating effect of debriefing on learning outcomes of IVR-based instruction: An experimental research. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11; 21: 10426. 10.3390/app112110426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in health care. Quality and Safety in Healthcare. 2004; 13; 1: 2-10. 10.1136/qshc.2004.009878</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gao Y, Gonzalez V, Yiu T. The effectiveness of traditional tools and computer-aided technologies for health and safety training in the construction sector: A systematic review. Computers & Education. 2019; 138: 101-115. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris DJ, Bird JM, Smart PA, Wilson MR, Vine SJ. A framework for the testing and validation of simulated environments in experimentation and training. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11: 605. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedlund A, Gummesson K, Rydell A, Andersson I. Safety motivation at work: Evaluation of changes from six interventions. Safety Science. 2016; 82: 155-163. 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.09.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henning J, Stufft C, Payne S, Bergman M, Mannan M, Keren N. The influence of individual differences on organizational safety attitudes. Safety Science. 2009; 47; 3: 337-345. 10.1016/j.ssci.2008.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higgs JHiggs J, Barnett R, Billett S, Hutchings M, Trede F. Practise-based education pedagogy: Situated, capability-development, relationship practice(s). Practice-based education: Perspectives and strategies. 2012; Brill: 71-80. 10.1007/978-94-6209-128-3_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holden H, Rada R. Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers' technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2011; 43; 4: 343-367. 10.1080/15391523.2011.10782576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holdsworth S, Hayes J, Sandri O, Maslen S. Developing professional expertise for safety: A learning design framework. Cognition, Technology and Work. 2022; 24; 3: 459-472. 10.1007/s10111-022-00702-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2005; 15; 9: 1277-1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson-Glenberg MCDíaz P, Ioannou A, Kumar Bhakat K, Spector MJ. The necessary nine: Design principles for embodied VR and active stem education. Learning in a digital world. Smart computing and intelligence. 2019; Springer: 83-112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keskitalo, T. (2015). Developing a pedagogical model for simulation-based healthcare education [Doctoral dissertation, University of Lapland]. Lapland University Archives. https://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-484-812-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilteni K, Groten R, Slater M. The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments. 2012; 21; 4: 373-387. 10.1162/pres_a_00124</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. 1984; Prentice Hall, Inc</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraiger K, Ford JK, Salas E. Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993; 78; 2: 311-328. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS, Masia BB. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II Affective domain. 1973; Longman</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lai JWM, Bower M, De Nobile J, Breyer Y. What should we evaluate when we use technology in education?. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2022; 38; 3: 743-757. 10.1111/jcal.12645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee KM. Presence, explicated. Communication Theory. 2004; 14; 1: 27-50. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehikko A. Measuring self-efficacy in immersive virtual learning environments: A systematic literature review. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 2021; 32; 2: 125-146. 10.70725/672759jhzbkw</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehikko A, Nykänen M, Lukander K, Uusitalo J, Ruokamo H. Exploring interactivity effects on learners' sense of agency, cognitive load and learning outcomes: A mixed-methods study. Computers & Education: X Reality. 2024; 4: 100066. 10.1016/j.cexr.2024.100066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehikko A, Ruokamo H, Nykänen MLangran E. Developing a Pedagogical Model for Immersive Virtual Reality in Teaching and Learning. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2022 Proceedings. 2022; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education: 1990-1994</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li X, Yi W, Chi H-L, Wang X, Chan A. A critical review of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) applications in construction safety. Automation in Construction. 2018; 86: 150-162. 10.1016/j.autcon.2017.11.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ling Koh JH, Chai CS, Tay LY. TPACK-in-Action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers' construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers and Education. 2014; 78: 20-29. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky G, Borre-Gude S, Mayer RE. Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2019; 35: 691-707. 10.1111/jcal.12375</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky G, Klingenberg S. Virtual reality enhances safety training in the maritime industry: An organizational training experiment with a non-WEIRD sample. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2022; 38; 4: 1127-1140. 10.1111/jcal.12670</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky G, Lilleholt L. A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018; 66; 5: 1141-1164. 10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky G, Petersen GB. The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review. 2021; 33: 937-958. 10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Makransky G, Terkildsen TS, Mayer RE. Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction. 2019; 60: 225-236. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mariani MG, Soldà BL, Curcuruto M. Employee safety motivation: Perspectives and measures on the basis of the self-determination theory. La Medicina Del Lavoro. 2015; 106; 5: 333-341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason L. Introduction: Bridging the cognitive and sociocultural approaches in research on conceptual change: Is it feasible?. Educational Psychologist. 2007; 42; 1: 1-7. 10.1080/00461520709336914</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer OA, Omdahl MK, Makransky G. Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Computers & Education. 2019; 140: 103603. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore SL, Howard CD, Boling E, Leary H, Hodges CB. Research methods for design knowledge: Clarifying definitions, characteristics, and areas of confusion. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2023; 72: 2679-2703. 10.1007/s11423-023-10271-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mulders M, Buchner J, Kerres M. A framework for the use of immersive virtual reality in learning environments. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET). 2020; 15; 24: 208-224. 10.3991/ijet.v15i24.16615</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neal A, Griffin MA. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2006; 91: 946-953. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nind M, Lewthwaite S. Methods that teach: Developing pedagogic research methods, developing pedagogy. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2018; 41; 4: 398-410. 10.1080/1743727X.2018.1427057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nykänen M, Puro V, Tiikkaja M, Kannisto H, Lantto E, Simpura F, Uusitalo J, Lukander K, Räsänen T, Heikkilä T, Teperi AM. Implementing and evaluating novel safety training methods for construction sector workers: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Safety Research. 2020; 75: 205-221. 10.1016/j.jsr.2020.09.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odermatt IA, Buetler KA, Wenk N, Özen Ö, Penalver-Andres J, Nef T, Mast FW, Marchal-Crespo L. Congruency of information rather than body ownership enhances motor performance in highly embodied virtual reality. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2021; 15: 678909. 10.3389/fnins.2021.678909</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parong J, Mayer RE. Learning science in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2018; 110; 6: 785-797. 10.1037/edu0000241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parong J, Pollard KA, Files BT, Oiknine AH, Sinatra AM, Moss JD, Passaro A, Khooshabeh P. The mediating role of presence differs across types of spatial learning in immersive technologies. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020; 107: 106290. 10.1016/J.CHB.2020.106290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelargos PE, Nagasawa DT, Lagman C, Tenn S, Demos JV, Lee SJ, Bui TT, Barnette NE, Bhatt NS, Ung N, Bari A, Martin NA, Yang I. Utilizing virtual and augmented reality for educational and clinical enhancements in neurosurgery. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience: Official Journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia. 2017; 35: 1-4. 10.1016/j.jocn.2016.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pritchard SC, Zopf R, Polito V, Kaplan DM, Williams MA. Non-hierarchical influence of visual form, touch, and position cues on embodiment, agency, and presence in virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016; 7: 1649. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01649</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radhakrishnan U, Koumaditis K, Chinello F. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality for industrial skills training. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2021; 40; 12: 1310-1339. 10.1080/0144929X.2021.1954693</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radianti J, Majchrzak TA, Fromm J, Wohlgenannt I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education. 2020; 147: 103778. 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rebelo F, Noriega P, Duarte E, Soares M. Using virtual reality to assess user experience. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2012; 54; 6: 964-982. 10.1177/0018720812465006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rey-Becerra E, Barrero LH, Ellegast R, Kluge A. Improvement of short-term outcomes with VR-based safety training for work at heights. Applied Ergonomics. 2023; 112: 104077. 10.1016/j.apergo.2023.104077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ricci F, Chiesi A, Bisio C, Panari C, Pelosi A. Effectiveness of occupational health and safety training: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Workplace Learning. 2016; 28; 6: 355-377. 10.1108/JWL-11-2015-0087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robson LS, Stephenson CM, Schulte PA, Amick BC, Irvin EL, Eggerth D, Chan S, Bielecky AR, Wang AM, Heidotting TL, Peters RH, Clarke JA, Cullen K, Rotunda CJ, Grubb PL. A systematic review of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety training. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health. 2012; 38: 193-208. 10.5271/sjweh.3259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, B. A, & Franklin, A. E. (2021). Cognitive load experienced by nurses in simulation-based learning experiences: An integrative review. Nurse Education Today,99, 104815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104815</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rudolph JW, Raemer DB, Simon R. Establishing a safe container for learning in simulation: The role of the presimulation briefing. Simulation in Healthcare. 2014; 9; 6: 339-349. 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000; 55; 1: 68-78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rystedt H, Abrandt Dahlgren M, Kelly MAbrandt Dahlgren M, Rystedt H, Felländer-Tsai L, Nyström S. Understanding interprofessional simulation practice. Interprofessional simulation in healthcare: Professional and practice-based learning. 2019; Springer: 9-30. 10.1007/978-3-030-19542-7_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Säljö R. Learning and technologies, people and tools in coordinated activities. International Journal of Educational Research. 2004; 41: 489-494. 10.1016/j.ijer.2005.08.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schraw G, Flowerday T, Lehman S. Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review. 2001; 13; 3: 211-224. 10.1023/A:1016619705184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin M, Lee S, Song SW, Chung D. Enhancement of perceived body ownership in virtual reality-based teleoperation may backfire in the execution of high-risk tasks. Computers in Human Behavior. 2021; 115: 106605. 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman LS. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher. 1986; 15; 2: 4-14. 10.3102/0013189X015002004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skulmowski A, Xu KM. Understanding cognitive load in digital and online learning: A new perspective on extraneous cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review. 2022; 34; 1: 171-196. 10.1007/s10648-021-09624-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stajkovic AD, Sommer SM. Self-efficacy and causal attributions: Direct and reciprocal links. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2000; 30; 4: 707-737. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02820.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutherland R, Lindström B, Lahn LBalacheff N, Ludvigsen S, de Jong T, Lazonder A, Barnes S. Sociocultural perspectives on technology-enhanced learning and knowing. Technology-enhanced learning. 2009; Springer: 39-53. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9827-7_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller J. Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Education Technology Research and Development. 2020; 68: 1-16. 10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tondeur J, Petko D, Christensen R, Drossel K, Starkey L, Knezek G, Schmidt-Crawford DA. Quality criteria for conceptual technology integration models in education: Bridging research and practice. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021; 69; 4: 2187-2208. 10.1007/s11423-020-09911-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tynjälä P. Toward a 3-P model of workplace learning: A literature review. Vocations and Learning. 2013; 6; 1: 11-36. 10.1007/s12186-012-9091-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vuojärvi H, Korva S. An ethnographic study on leadership-as-practice in trauma simulation training. Leadership in Health Services. 2020; 33; 2: 185-200. 10.1108/LHS-06-2019-0031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vygotsky L. Mind in society. 1978; Harvard University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang F, Hannafin M. Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2005; 53; 4: 5-23. 10.1007/BF02504682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng L. A systematic literature review of design-based research from 2004 to 2013. Journal of Computers in Education. 2015; 4; 2: 399-420. 10.1007/s40692-015-0036-z</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Anu Lehikko; Mikko Nykänen and Heli Ruokamo</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Anu Lehikko Anu Lehikko (M.Ed.) is a Doctoral Candidate and a Researcher in the Faculty of Education at University of Lapland. Her research interests include workplace learning and immersive virtual learning environments.</p> <p>Mikko Nykänen Mikko Nykänen (Ph.D.) is actively involved in projects aimed at promoting occupational wellbeing and work ability in the workplaces. The common themes running through his work include evaluation of organizational development activities and occupational wellbeing interventions.</p> <p>Heli Ruokamo Heli Ruokamo (Ph.D.) is a Professor in the Faculty of Education and the Director of the Media Education Hub at University of Lapland.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref235"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref236"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref241"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref243"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483816
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Conceptualizing a Pedagogical Model for Immersive Virtual Reality Safety Training: Pedagogical Practices in Trainer Interviews
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anu+Lehikko%22">Anu Lehikko</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5573-929X">0000-0001-5573-929X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mikko+Nykänen%22">Mikko Nykänen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6688-4991">0000-0002-6688-4991</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heli+Ruokamo%22">Heli Ruokamo</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8679-781X">0000-0002-8679-781X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Technology+Research+and+Development%22"><i>Educational Technology Research and Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 73(4):2543-2565.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Simulation%22">Computer Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Uses+in+Education%22">Computer Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Safety+Education%22">Safety Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Occupational+Safety+and+Health%22">Occupational Safety and Health</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trainers%22">Trainers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training+Methods%22">Training Methods</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11423-025-10490-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1042-1629<br />1556-6501
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The potential of immersive virtual reality (IVR) to deliver engaging occupational safety training has been established by previous research; however, to date, there have not been any pedagogical models to guide its implementation. This study's objective was to conceptualize a pedagogical model for IVR safety training by combining a multidisciplinary theoretical framework with safety trainers' contextual and pedagogical expertise. The research questions were (1) what kind of pedagogical practices do trainers apply in safety training, and (2) how do the trainers' pedagogical practices inform the sociocultural contextualization of the pedagogical model for IVR safety training? Eighteen safety trainers were interviewed across two work organizations. An inductive approach was used in the interview data analysis. Three main categories of pedagogical practices were identified: (1) matching pedagogy to training goals, (2) guiding social interaction in training situations, and (3) utilizing organizational resources for training development. The findings extended our understanding of the sociocultural training context and provided insight into the pedagogical practices used in safety training. Based on the findings, pre- and post-training activities were added to the pedagogical model, and the descriptions of trainers' actions during the facilitated introduction and debriefing phases were modified to support the training's relevance to the learners, trainers, and organizations. This study illustrates a pragmatic approach to developing safety training in the context of advanced learning technology in design-based research. The pedagogical model will be applicable by training and education providers in IVR safety training across industries and in practice-based learning.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1483816
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483816
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11423-025-10490-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 2543
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Safety Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Occupational Safety and Health
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trainers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training Methods
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Conceptualizing a Pedagogical Model for Immersive Virtual Reality Safety Training: Pedagogical Practices in Trainer Interviews
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anu Lehikko
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mikko Nykänen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Heli Ruokamo
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1042-1629
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-6501
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 73
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Technology Research and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1