Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Apr 25;20(4):e0319664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319664

Exploring the impact of virtual reality-based mathematics learning on students’ motivation: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Shally Novita 1,2,*, Hari Setyowibowo 1, Puspita Adhi Kusuma Wijayanti 1, Wina Erwina 3, Whisnu Yudiana 1,4, Fredrick Dermawan Purba 1, Afra Hafny Noer 1
Editor: Ziyu Qi5
PMCID: PMC12026933  PMID: 40279331

Abstract

It has been extensively documented that motivation plays a pivotal role in both the learning and performance of mathematics, often intersecting with various antecedents of mathematical competence, such as math anxiety and self-esteem. These factors, in turn, significantly influence the well-being of students. Therefore, it is necessary to provide learning situations that may impact students’ motivation in learning mathematics. During the digital era, studies have examined the use of technology, particularly, virtual reality-based mathematics learning in explaining the variance of students’ motivation in mathematics learning. However, the results seem to be various and a comprehensive review about the impact of virtual reality mathematics learning on students’ motivation does not seem to exist yet. This review aims to fill this knowledge gap by examining the impact of mathematics learning using virtual reality-based learning materials on students’ motivation. The literature search will be conducted across multiple bibliographic databases, including Cambridge, Oxford, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, SpringerLink. Only studies published in English, German, or Indonesian within the past seven years will be eligible for inclusion in the review. The risk of bias inherent in this review will be evaluated by two independent reviewers utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical assessment tool. Any discrepancies between the reviewers will be resolved through the third reviewer. Further, quality of evidence will be examined using The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). A review exploring the correlation between mathematics education utilizing virtual reality and student motivation will offer educational practitioners and stakeholder’s valuable insights into the effective integration of technology-based learning resources, particularly virtual reality. The findings of this study aim to elucidate the advantages and potential drawbacks associated with the adoption of virtual reality in mathematics education, as well as identify the student and instructional material characteristics that may be associated with specific increases in motivation. This protocol has been registered in PROSPERO with registration number: CRD42023463974.

Introduction

Motivation plays a crucial role in mathematics learning, as evidenced by its correlation with mathematical performance [1,2] and its interaction with key predictors such as math anxiety and self-esteem [3]. Derived from the Latin word “movere,” meaning “to move” [2,4] motivation is considered a primary factor that drives and energizes human behaviour [4].

In the literature on motivation, needs are regarded as specific instances that potentially guide behaviour and possess distinct characteristics compared to goals [5]. In the context of mathematics education, students may identify a need for competence as a goal to proficiently solve tasks, a social need as a goal to contribute meaningfully to group projects, and a need for autonomy as a goal to challenge the teacher’s authority [5]. The recognition of these needs as goals during mathematics learning is heavily influenced by students’ beliefs, the mathematics curriculum, learning environment, and socio-mathematical norms within the classroom [5].

In the quest to identify effective strategies for enhancing motivation in mathematics learning, previous studies have investigated various interventions, including teacher interventions [6], classroom discourse interventions [7] and technology-based programs, such as the utilization of virtual reality [8]. Students in the 21st century, often characterized as digital natives, exhibit preferences for digital tools, possess advanced proficiency in information technologies [9]. Drawing from experiences with platforms like Minecraft and Roblox [10,11] traditional learning methods such as structured textbooks and linear lectures may be perceived as unengaging and unworthy of attention [12]. Consequently, digital natives have developed distinct interests, learning approaches, and lifestyles compared to their predecessors. Hence, one effective strategy to captivate the interest of digital natives and enhance their curiosity, enjoyment, and ultimately motivation is by utilizing familiar language and tools.

Virtual reality enables users to experience a near-realistic simulation, be in spaces and conditions that are impossible to be encountered in the real world, experience a high-risk environment that may be danger to face in the real world [13], as well as repeating procedural steps as many times as required according to individual learning progress, which may not be feasible in the real world [14].

Virtual reality may also help students understand abstract concepts and reduce students’ misunderstanding [15]. It improves student’s ability to understand abstract concepts by making those concepts more concrete, bringing them to a real-world situation, and establishing a deeper understanding [16]. For example, utilizing virtual reality for geometry instruction creates an immersive learning environment that boosts student motivation by encouraging exploration, visualization of abstract concepts, and active engagement [17].

However, while the use of virtual reality for learning holds promise in enhancing students’ understanding, it also entails certain limitations and concerns. Firstly, there are health considerations for users. It is possible that during virtual session, some individuals experience physical strains such as balance disruptions and nausea(see also [18]). Secondly, there is the issue of users’ technological literacy. The lack of familiarity with virtual reality technology, coupled with limited technical support, may hinder students from deriving maximum benefit from its educational applications in science [19]. Thirdly, there is the challenge of accurately replicating real-life sensory experiences and physical interactions within virtual environments [18]. While virtual reality can offer immersive and interactive experiences, it may not fully capture the complexity and authenticity of real-world encounters [18].

The objective of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the correlation between mathematics learning facilitated by virtual reality-based materials and student motivation in learning this subject. Specifically, this review will address following questions:

  1. What is the impact of virtual reality-based mathematics learning on students’ motivation?

  2. What are the overlapping and discrete characteristics of virtual reality-based mathematics learning that have an impact on students’ motivation?

  3. Which participant characteristics may influence student motivation in the context of virtual reality-based mathematics learning?

Methods

This review aims to examine the impact of virtual reality-based learning materials on students’ motivation in learning mathematics and has been officially registered in PROSPERO under the registration number: CRD42023463974. Adhering to the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) that can be reviewed in the supplementary file included in this protocol [20,21,22]. During the review process, no similar review topic was identified during the review process within both PROSPERO and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.

Eligibility criteria

The studies to be included in this review must meet the following criteria (Table 1):

Table 1. PICOS.

Inclusion Exclusion
Population Students aged 7-15 years old, who are still learning mathematics in elementary or secondary schools (spanning from the beginning of elementary school through the end of high school) Individuals with mental health or specific difficulties such as: down syndrome, mentally retarded, autism, slow learner
Intervention Virtual reality for mathematics learning Other learning tools that do not include virtual reality
Comparison Other learning tools such as augmented reality, computer-based learning or paper-based learning tools
Outcome Motivation to learn mathematics
Study Design Experimental and quasi experimental studies that used quantitative and mixed-method analytical approaches

1) participants of the studies were students aged 7-15 years old, who are still learning mathematics in elementary or secondary schools (spanning from the beginning of elementary school through the end of high school); 2) the virtual reality-based learning materials including both virtual reality headset and sticks or only headset; 3) the studies must involve mathematics learning without restriction to specific sub-domains (e.g., numerical, algebra, measurement, data analysis, geometry, etc.); 4) Studies must compare motivation levels between different participant groups (i.e., virtual reality group vs. non-virtual reality groups); 5) the studies treated motivation as an outcome and this construct was measured using instruments that were proven to have good psychometric properties (e.g., questionnaire with proven validity and reliability for measuring motivation); 6) study designs include experimental and quasi experimental studies that used quantitative and mixed-method analytical approaches; 7) studies were conducted in educational settings such as schools or child centre; 8) studies were published in English, German, or Indonesian; 9) studies were published between 2015 and 2025.

The exclusion criteria for the studies under review are as follows: 1) studies involving students with disabilities, including down syndrome, intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, slow learners, dyslexia and dyscalculia; 2) knowledge synthesis studies, such as literature reviews, scoping reviews, and systematic reviews will be excluded from consideration.

Search strategy

The following databases will be employed to search for relevant studies: EBSCO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Springer. Keywords will be tailored for each information database (refer to Table 2). All studies published between January 1st, 2015, and February 28th, 2025, will be gathered. The search strategy and procedure were devised collaboratively by the research team in conjunction with the librarian. Citation search of included studies will be conducted.

Table 2. Data sources and search.

Database Query
Cambridge children OR child OR “7-15 years old” OR teenager OR adolescents OR student OR “K-12” OR “K12” AND “virtual reality” OR vr OR “virtual environment” AND learning OR education AND math OR mathematics AND motivation OR motive OR enjoyment with years filter from 2015-2025
Oxford (children OR child OR “7-15 years old” OR teenager OR adolescents OR student OR “K-12” OR “K12”) AND (“virtual reality” OR vr OR “virtual environment”) AND (learning OR education OR assessment OR test) AND (math OR mathematics) AND (motivation OR motive OR enjoyment)
Pubmed ((((children OR child OR “7-15 years old” OR teenager OR adolescents OR student OR “K-12” OR “K12”) AND (“virtual reality” OR vr OR “virtual environment”)) AND (learning OR education)) AND (math OR mathematics)) AND (motivation OR motive OR enjoyment) AND years filter from 2015 - 2025
Science direct (child OR “7-15 years old” OR adolescents OR student OR “K-12” OR “K12”) AND (“virtual reality” OR “virtual environment”) AND (learning OR education) AND (math) with years filter 2015-2025
Scopus TITLE-ABS-KEY (children OR child OR “7-15 years old” OR teenager OR adolescents OR student OR “K-12” OR “K12”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“virtual reality” OR vr OR “virtual environment”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (learning OR education) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (math OR mathematics) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (motivation OR motive OR enjoyment) AND PUBYEAR >  2014 AND PUBYEAR <  2026
SpringerLink (children OR child OR “7-15 years old” OR teenager OR adolescents OR student OR “K-12” OR “K12”) AND (“virtual reality” OR vr OR “virtual environment”) AND (learning OR education) AND (math OR mathematics) AND (motivation OR motive OR enjoyment) with years filter 2015-2025

Study selection

The data screening will be conducted by two reviewers using the open-source Rayyan application. The screening procedure included three stages: 1) removal of excluded studies, 2) title and abstract screening, and 3) full-text screening. In all stages, both reviewers will be blinded. The screening will commence with the identification and removal of duplicates, followed by an assessment of the appropriateness of publication year, study designs, language, and types of studies (e.g., reviews or book chapters), as provided by Rayyan. In the second stage, both reviewers will assess the titles and abstracts of the remaining studies and determine their inclusion based on predefined criteria. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria in this stage will proceed to the third stage for full-text screening. Any discrepancies between the reviewers will be resolved through consultation with a third reviewer.

Data extraction

Two reviewers will extract data from the selected studies using a standardized extraction form, which will undergo pilot testing to ensure reliability [23]. This form consists of following aspects: 1) author name(s); 2) year of publication; 3) sample characteristics including age, gender, and, if available, information regarding socioeconomic status. Additionally, the frequency of prior digital tool usage, including virtual reality, may be recorded, as variability in familiarity with virtual reality could influence tool preferences; 4) virtual reality tools used in mathematics learning, whether only virtual reality or virtual reality with other tools and the use of complete virtual reality sets such as headset and sticks or only headset; 5) duration of virtual reality-based mathematics learning sessions; 6) the specification of mathematics materials implemented in virtual reality; 7) Conception of motivation, classified into four elements as outlined in the Background section: goal orientation, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, interest, and self-schema [24]; 8) description of how motivation was measured; 9) study location, 10) relevant findings including any additional constructs related to motivation.

The information regarding the conception of motivation, the method of measuring motivation, and other pertinent findings elucidating the primary outcome of motivation will be utilized to investigate the first hypothesis regarding the influence of virtual reality-based mathematics learning on student motivation. Given the multifaceted nature of motivation, discerning which elements of motivation are associated with virtual reality-based mathematics learning is of significant advantage. To address the second research question, data on the specific virtual reality tools employed, the duration of mathematics learning sessions, and the materials implemented within the virtual reality environment are essential.

Finally, both sample characteristics and study location will be utilized to address the third research question, which seeks to elucidate the significance of students’ characteristics in explaining motivation.

Quality assessment

The quality of the included studies will be evaluated by two independent reviewers using the critical appraisal tool issued by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [25]. This tool comprises eight to 12 items, contingent upon study design, aimed at assessing the quality of the included studies. Each reviewer will be provided with four possible responses for each item: yes, no, unclear, and not applicable. Any discrepancies between the reviewers will be resolved through consensus and if not possible a third reviewer will be assigned.

The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework will be utilized to assess the quality of evidence from the included studies [26]. The GRADE framework includes assessment of risk of bias (within JBI framework it refers to critical appraisal [27]), inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias [28]. Two reviewers will use the GRADE to examine the quality of evidence from the pooled studies. Any disagreements between the two reviewers will be resolved through a consensus. If the consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer will be assigned.

Data synthesis

Both random-effects meta-analyses and the inverse variance method will be conducted. The impact of virtual reality-based mathematics learning will be quantified using a standardized mean difference (SMD) and its corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Cohen’s d effect size guidelines [29] will be employed to interpret the SMD scores (0.2 =  small, 0.5 =  moderate, 0.8 =  large difference). Graphical analysis will be conducted using forest plots to assess the heterogeneity of the studies [30].

A moderator analysis will be conducted to explore the influence of moderating variables (e.g., sample size and methodological characteristics) on the effect size and heterogeneity of the included studies. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic, which quantifies heterogeneity as a percentage. I2 scores of < 30% indicate low heterogeneity, scores of 30–60% suggest moderate heterogeneity, and scores of > 60% indicate high heterogeneity [31]. Additionally, narrative synthesis will be employed to investigate the effects of various factors, such as study locations, socioeconomic status, and, if feasible, students’ familiarity with virtual reality, on their motivation in learning mathematics.

Discussion

Motivation stands as a pivotal determinant of student success across academic and educational trajectories. Particularly in mathematics learning, motivation has consistently demonstrated a profound impact on mathematical performance [5,32,33] and is inversely correlated with mathematics anxiety [3]. As posited in the literature, one potential avenue for enhancing motivation in mathematics learning lies in the integration of digital learning through virtual reality [8]. Through virtual reality, students are afforded the opportunity to immerse themselves in a virtual environment, which aligns with the preferences of digital natives. Moreover, virtual reality offers the means to virtually present abstract mathematical concepts, potentially augmenting students’ comprehension as well.

The primary aim of this review is to investigate the potential impact of virtual reality-based mathematics learning on students’ motivation in this subject, while also exploring how specific student characteristics and elements of virtual reality-based mathematics learning may contribute to variations in motivation. This information is useful particularly for educational practitioners when planning and implementing technology-based education in a classroom setting. Additionally, this review may provide valuable support to policymakers in crafting educational policies tailored to the needs of digital native students.

In addition to following PRISMA as a review guideline, this study will review studies that publish in three languages: English, German and Indonesian. Incorporating both German and Indonesian languages will broaden the scope of the study search and selection process, ultimately enhancing the richness of the review results. Meta-analysis findings, particularly the computed effect sizes, will significantly contribute to advancing understanding in this area and enhance measurement precision, thereby reinforcing the value of this review. However, it should be noted that implementing meta-analysis may pose challenges, particularly regarding heterogeneity issues inherent in cross-sectional and observational studies. Furthermore, we acknowledge the rapid growth of virtual reality technology in recent years. Consequently, the ten-year study period may not be entirely optimal. Nevertheless, we believe that to offer a comprehensive review, a broader timeframe is warranted to include a greater number of studies.

Supporting information

S1 Data. PRISMA-P. PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0319664.s001.docx (35.9KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We thank following individuals for their support the writing process of protocol in form of layout design and referencing (M. Rafli Iltizamullah), proofreading (Karisma Putri Diyana), and consultation of search code determination (Ziani Marni).

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

This systematic review is conducted within project of Mathematics Assessment using Virtual Reality in Indonesian Elementary School Children that was funded by Indonesian Ministry of Education with contract number 5413/UN6.3.1/PT.00/2021. However, this study protocol did not undergo any review process before submitted to Plos One.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Parhiala P, Torppa M, Vasalampi K, Eklund K, Poikkeus A-M, Aro T. Profiles of school motivation and emotional well-being among adolescents: associations with math and reading performance. Learn Individ Differ. 2018;61:196–204. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2017.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pantziara M, Philippou GN. Students’ motivation in the mathematics classroom. Revealing causes and consequences. Int J of Sci and Math Educ. 2014;13(S2):385–411. doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9502-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wang Z, Borriello GA, Oh W, Lukowski S, Malanchini M. Co-development of math anxiety, math self-concept, and math value in adolescence: The roles of parents and math teachers. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2021;67:102016. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Neta M, Haas IJ. Movere: characterizing the role of emotion and motivation in shaping human behavior. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 2019:1–9. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-27473-3_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hannula MS. Motivation in mathematics: goals reflected in emotions. Educ Stud Math. 2006;63(2):165–78. doi: 10.1007/s10649-005-9019-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stipek D, Givvin KB, Salmon JM, Macgyvers VL. Can a teacher intervention improve classroom practices and student motivation in mathematics?. J Exp Educ. 1998;66(4):319–37. doi: 10.1080/00220979809601404 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kiemer K, Gröschner A, Pehmer A-K, Seidel T. Effects of a classroom discourse intervention on teachers’ practice and students’ motivation to learn mathematics and science. Lear Instr. 2015;35:94–103. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hsu Y-C. Exploring the learning motivation and effectiveness of applying virtual reality to high school mathematics. Univers J Educ Res. 2020;8(2):438–44. doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080214 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bennett S, Maton K, Kervin L. The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. Brit J Educ Tech. 2008;39(5):775–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Partridge J. Digital games-based learning: minecraft in the 21st century classroom (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia) 2022. https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0422940 [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Wardhana MI. Learning through a social gaming platform. KnE Soc Sci. 2021;221–6. doi: 10.18502/kss.v5i6.9199 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Prensky M. Digital natives, Digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon. 2001;9(5):1–6. doi: 10.1108/10748120110424816 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sherman WR, Craig AB. Understanding virtual reality—interface, application, and design. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments. 2003;12(4):441–2. doi: 10.1162/105474603322391668 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Izard SG, Juanes JA, García Peñalvo FJ, Estella JMG, Ledesma MJS, Ruisoto P. Virtual reality as an educational and training tool for medicine. J Med Syst. 2018;42(3):50. doi: 10.1007/s10916-018-0900-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mikropoulos TA, Natsis A. Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Comput Educ. 2011;56(3):769–80. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Passig D, Eden S, Heled M. The impact of virtual reality on the awareness of teenagers to social and emotional experiences of immigrant classmates. Educ Inf Technol. 2007;12(4):267–80. doi: 10.1007/s10639-007-9031-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wang S-T, Liu L-M, Wang S-M. The design and evaluate of virtual reality immersive learning–the case of serious game “Calcium Looping for Carbon Capture”. 2018. doi: 10.1109/icsse.2018.8520002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Marougkas A, Troussas C, Krouska A, Sgouropoulou C. Virtual reality in education: A review of learning theories, Approaches and methodologies for the last decade. Electronics. 2023;12(13):2832. doi: 10.3390/electronics12132832 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Alalwan N, Cheng L, Al-Samarraie H, Yousef R, Ibrahim Alzahrani A, Sarsam SM. Challenges and prospects of virtual reality and augmented reality utilization among primary school teachers: a developing country perspective. Stud Educ Eval. 2020;66. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100876 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Implementing PRISMA-P: recommendations for prospective authors. Syst Rev. 2016;5:15. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0191-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9, W64. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E. JBI’s systematic reviews: data extraction and synthesis. Am J Nurs. 2014;114(7):49–54. doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000451683.66447.89 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Murphy P, Alexander P. A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):3–53. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetc R, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. 2020. doi: 10.46658/jbimes-20-08 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Goldet G, Howick J. Understanding GRADE: an introduction. J Evid Based Med. 2013;6(1):50–4. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Stone JC, Barker TH, Aromataris E, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Sears K, Klugar M, et al. From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):472–7. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Granholm A, Alhazzani W, Møller MH. Use of the GRADE approach in systematic reviews and guidelines. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(5):554–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.08.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. 1988. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203771587 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Brush PL, Sherman M, Lambrechts MJ. Interpreting meta-analyses: a guide to funnel and forest plots. Clin Spine Surg. 2024;37(1):40–2. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Schukajlow S, Rakoczy K, Pekrun R. Emotions and motivation in mathematics education: theoretical considerations and empirical contributions. ZDM Mathematics Education. 2017;49(3):307–22. doi: 10.1007/s11858-017-0864-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Stevens T, Olivarez A, Lan WY, Tallent-Runnels MK. Role of mathematics self-efficacy and motivation in mathematics performance across ethnicity. J Educ Res. 2004;97:208–21 [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ziyu Qi

29 Jan 2025

PONE-D-24-41535Exploring the Impact of Virtual Reality-Based Mathematics Learning on Student's Motivation: Protocol for A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Novita,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:  Please address all of my concerns before I consider accepting this manuscript==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 15 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ziyu Qi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/13/2832

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Fredrick D. Purba received the Funding from the Ministry of Education. However, this study was not the main study listed in the funding proposal and therefore, the study protocol has not been externally reviewed.“

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4.  Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please address all of my concerns before I consider accepting this manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The protocol is well organized, with clear objectives and reasonable methods. I suggest the authors consider the following aspects.

Introduction

1 Although it is commendable that this section is very detailed, it should be shortened to less than 400 words and no more than 700 words.

2 It should be stated why the study spans 2015-2024. It is recommended to review existing systematic reviews on related topics in the Introduction through a table to strengthen the rationale of the protocol. (See doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080741)

Methods

3 Describe the PICOS criteria in a table (still referencing the same article)

4 Search strategy should integrate the terms "K-12" or "K12" to reduce search misses

5 Citation search of included articles should be performed (forward or backward snowballing method).

6 Please update the archive on the PROSPERO webpage to always keep it consistent with this article

7 Authors should describe where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete.

Minor corrections

8 PRISMA should be cited in the text. (10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Ziyu Qi

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Apr 25;20(4):e0319664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319664.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Feb 2025

Response to the reviewer

Reviewer #1: The protocol is well organized, with clear objectives and reasonable methods. I suggest the authors consider the following aspects.

Author(s): Thank you.

Introduction

1 Although it is commendable that this section is very detailed, it should be shortened to less than 400 words and no more than 700 words.

Author(s): the actual introduction consists of 629 words (between 400 and 700 words).

2 It should be stated why the study spans 2015-2024. It is recommended to review existing systematic reviews on related topics in the Introduction through a table to strengthen the rationale of the protocol. (See doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080741)

Author(s): this is a mistake due to the extended deadline based on internal circumstances. We have extended the time range of study publication into 2025.

Methods

3 Describe the PICOS criteria in a table (still referencing the same article)

Author(s): a PICOS table is included in the manuscript

4 Search strategy should integrate the terms "K-12" or "K12" to reduce search misses

Author(s): both terms have been included in the revised search strategy.

5 Citation search of included articles should be performed (forward or backward snowballing method).

Author(s): we included this information in the search strategy section

6 Please update the archive on the PROSPERO webpage to always keep it consistent with this article

Author(s): we will update the title registration in the PROSPERO after peer review process is completed.

7 Authors should describe where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete.

Author(s): this information has been submitted as metadata. Since this protocol does not include any pilot data, we stated “data are not reported” in this manuscript. However, we included a statement regarding the plan to publish the data once the systematic review is completed: “Since this manuscript is a study protocol, the data will be published in Open Science Framework upon publication of the systematic review and meta-analysis paper” (please check our responses to the following instruction from the Plos One’s system: Describe where the data may be found in full sentences. If you are copying our sample text, replace any instances of XXX with the appropriate details.)

Minor corrections

8 PRISMA should be cited in the text. (10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135)

Author(s): thank you for this detail feedback. We cited PRISMA as reference list [20] to [22].

________________________________________

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Author(s): Yes, we would like to publish the peer review history.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Editor and Reviewers.docx

pone.0319664.s003.docx (18.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Ziyu Qi

6 Feb 2025

Exploring the Impact of Virtual Reality-Based Mathematics Learning on Student's Motivation: Protocol for A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PONE-D-24-41535R1

Dear Dr. Novita,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ziyu Qi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am satisfied with the author's revisions and rebuttals and have no further concerns or comments. This manuscript can be accepted in its presenting form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Ziyu Qi

**********

Acceptance letter

Ziyu Qi

PONE-D-24-41535R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Novita,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Mr. Ziyu Qi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. PRISMA-P. PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0319664.s001.docx (35.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Editor and Reviewers.docx

    pone.0319664.s003.docx (18.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES