One way of charting the way forward is to research potentials to educate through various options that today’s technology can offer. Virtual reality (VR) using 3D glasses is one example and we know from earlier research that learning in this way is experienced as joyful by students. In a European perspective, the use of technology in a pedagogical way to stimulate learning needs attention. Despite fairly common prerequisites in Europe, it is not obvious how technology can be used to not only be joyful but also enhance learning and develop the learning environment. In this specific study, the safe environment in a virtual reality lab (Tatli & Ayas, 2010) offers an alternative to the real physical lab when students in textile education are studying inkjet printing. The aim is to gain knowledge about how the learning of the inkjet printing process takes place in the traditional physical lab and in virtual reality lab. The research questions are: 

• What characterizes the learning conditions in a lab and VR environment respectively?
• What characterizes the learning through physical lab work and in VR respectively?
• What improvements do the students suggest for the VR app?
• What happens to learning when lab and VR experiences are combined in different sequences?

Closely related to the security that virtual environments offer is the joy that arises (De Vries & May, 2019; Makransky et al. 2019), for example, from students being able to repeat stages in a process as long as they want and need without risking destroying anything. The positive feelings increase students’ confidence in their own ability (Sarmouk et al., 2019) and thereby, motivation for learning is strengthened. Not least intrinsic motivation, based on Self Determination Theory, meaning that the driving force comes from the students themselves instead of, for example, parents or teachers, is desirable. The result in a study by Makransky et al. (2019) show that the use of VR provides increased internal motivation. Comparing VR and physical labs, the conclusion in most studies is drawn that VR constitutes a valuable complement to the physical lab (see for example Sarmouk et al., 2019; Vahdadikhaki et al., 2024). However, there are researchers claiming that VR labs in some cases are more effective than physical labs (Chan et al., 2021). Training in VR as preparation for students to handle the real lab better contributes to both cognitive and emotional aspects meaning that they increase their self-confidence (Sarmouk et al., 2019). Other researchers, for example Moozeh et al. (2020) show that VR is not only preparing students but also gives them an opportunity to integrate and apply knowledge from the physical lab in the VR context. Apart from the research showing that safety, joy and motivation through VR stimulate students' learning, there are no clear results about what characterizes learning in the virtual environment. Learning in areas such as processes, concepts, practical skills and analytical skills can according to some studies (for example Garcia Estrada & Prasolova-Førland, 2022) be facilitated by VR while other studies (for example Sarmouk et al., 2019) show that students can become accustomed to using the equipment through VR. However, it is not only the design of the specific VR app that is essential for learning. In addition, factors such as pursuit of realism (Vahdadikhaki et al., 2024), the implementation in terms of, for example, instructions, support (Chan et al., 2021) and adaptation to students' individual needs (Yang et al., 2023) also matters for learning.

Method

Descriptive phenomenology and specifically the approach Reflective Lifeworld Research (RLR) (Dahlberg et al., 2008; Giorgi, 1997) has been used to study how the learning of the inkjet printing process takes place in the traditional physical lab and in virtual reality lab respectively. The current phenomena, i.e. those that manifest themselves, are both learning that takes place in a physical lab and learning that takes place in VR. Within descriptive phenomenology, only basic theories on which phenomenology generally rests, for example life-world theory (Husserl, 1970/1936) are used. It is a conscious choice to avoid other theories with the aim of reinforcing that the lived experiences of the participants must be central in the search for new knowledge. Data collection was conducted via five focus group interviews with students, four of them at bachelor’s level and one group at master's level, a total of 12 participants. The participants were expected to experience learning through both lab and VR and therefore were offered both for ethical reasons. Informed consent had been collected previously. Lab and VR were scheduled in different orders and interviews at different times enabled variations in the participants' experiences. To avoid that the learning VR experience was prevented by novice equipment issues, all participants had an opportunity to try VR glasses with Demo app before using the specific app. In phenomenological research, many different contexts and variations are desirable in the data and in this study, variation was offered through schedule, different study levels, gender and ages. The variations enable examination of what, despite all the differences, are common characteristic features of the phenomena (Dahlberg et al., 2008). The analysis was conducted in several different steps, all of which are characterized by openness and reflection so that the researcher's previous knowledge of the phenomenon is bridled during the process (Dahlberg et al., 2008). After reading the data, meaning-bearing units, which can consist of words, sentences or whole paragraphs are marked (van Manen, 2014). Patterns, called clusters are then sought among the units so that the meaning of the phenomenon can eventually be formulated as a new whole on an abstract level.

Expected Outcomes

The result shows that learning in both physical and VR lab evoke emotions. The students experience joy in both labs but express their motivation more clearly based on the experience of using VR glasses. The physical lab is experienced as more serious based on all safety instructions, protective clothing and more. The VR lab is more playful and because mistakes have no consequences, a kind of trial-and-error behavior develops. The instructions in the physical lab were more detailed and were perceived as very clear and easy to follow. In addition, there was the possibility to always ask a teacher. In VR, the instructions were not that specific and disappeared after a while.The students also felt that they were left to fend for themselves without having anyone to ask. In VR lab, different parts of the process can be practiced again and again without any material being destroyed, which offers students opportunities for extensive training that might be too costly in physical labs. An advantage of the physical lab is that the students experienced the process with many different senses. They understood how the ink worked by observing how particles got stuck in the filter and by handling the ink with their own hands. Learning differs in the various labs and aspects such as being able to use one's senses are difficult to achieve via VR, but for example the perceived uncertainty through unclear instructions could be remedied without major efforts. There is thus good potential for learning through the virtual lab and regardless of order, students need both labs as they offer different kinds of learning.