Research & Case Studies

Explore the transformative power of immersive learning and delve into compelling evidence from our case studies and research projects, as well as external findings by experts in the field.

The Evidence of the Transformative Power of
Our Immersive Learning Solutions

Inspired by our advisor Dr. Jeremy Bailenson, founder of the Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab, we develop innovative content that aligns with the DICE framework, emphasizing learning experiences that are Dangerous, Impossible, Counterproductive, or Expensive in the real world.

Inspirit's Mission

Our interactive STEM labs, career discovery content, and skill training modules offer students the opportunity to undertake experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), “learn by doing”, through immersive simulations and 3D models, fostering a deep understanding of complex concepts and practical skills without ever leaving the classroom.

Our In-house Case Studies and Research Projects

Inspirit remains at the forefront of educational innovation through ongoing research collaborations with both academic and
school partners. Our dedicated research team works hand in hand with distinguished academics from world-renowned universities, including Harvard, Stanford, Northeastern, Michigan State, and the University of Toronto. Together, we delve into the transformative potential of XR technologies in education.

See all Case Studies


For more information on our previous and current research projects, reach out to our customer success team.

External Literature

Inspirit’s learning solution leverages the distinctive affordances of VR technology, enabling users to navigate and interact within a virtual space with 18 degrees of freedom (DoF) (across head motion and hand tracking for both hands). This approach yields several key benefits:

By integrating above findings in our product design & curriculum work, Inspirit empowers students to take ownership of their learning, fostering a deep understanding of complex concepts in an engaging and intuitive way.

6DoF headsets (that allow for movement of the user’s head in 6 degrees, and generally includes 2 hand controllers with 6 degrees of freedom each) allows for a more comprehensive interaction with virtual environments by tracking both head and body movements. In contrast, traditional 3DoF headsets are limited to very basic head movements only, and do not permit hands-on exploration and manipulation of objects in the scene. Driving desirable learning outcomes does not solely depend on the form factor of the hardware, but also the degree of control (or agency) given to the learner within the learning experience – which is possible only in 6DoF devices.

Research that supports this : Enhanced immersion and presence with 6DoF VR provides a more immersive experience by supporting changes in both viewing direction and position, which can lead to a stronger sense of presence within the virtual environment (Hou et al., 2019).

Most VR headset manufacturers restrict use to those over 13, except a few that do not provide an age restriction but advise caution for young learners. This guideline is often supported by the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC), and often cites concerns about VR use with very young children such as headset fit, strength needed, and potential eyesight effects. However, definitive evidence of harm is lacking, and research is limited. To avoid potential risks, we strongly recommend limiting VR use for children under 13 (Jones, 2022).

Delve deeper into understanding Inspirit’s Experiential Learning

Know More

Further Readings

● Bailenson, J. N. (2018). Experience on Demand. W. W. Norton & Company

● Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.

● Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639

● Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01361-3

● David, N., Newen, A., & Vogeley, K. (2008). The “Sense of Agency” and its underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(2), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2008.03.004

● Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. WIREs Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.55

● Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think. Harvard University Press.

● Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S. W., & Mitchell, Z. A. (2009). Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20(3), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02297.x

● Hou, X., Zhang, J., Budagavi, M., & Dey, S. (2019). Head and body motion prediction to enable mobile VR experiences with low latency. 2019 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/GLOBECOM38437.2019.9014097

● Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.495

● Kilteni, K., Groten, R., & Slater, M. (2012). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(4), 373–387.https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00124

● Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice‐Hall.

● Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007

● Markowitz, D. M., Laha, R., Perone, B. P., Pea, R. D., & Bailenson, J. N. (2018). Immersive virtual reality field trips facilitate learning about climate change. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2364. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02364

● Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 184–211. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_1

● Queiroz, A. C. M., Fauville, G., Herrera, F., da Leme, M. I. S., & Bailenson, J. N. (2022). Do students learn better with immersive virtual reality videos than conventional videos? A comparison of media effects with middle school girls. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000052

● Roselli, C., Ciardo, F., De Tommaso, D., & Wykowska, A. (2022). Human-likeness and attribution of intentionality predict vicarious sense of agency over humanoid robot actions.Stern, E. (2015). Embodied cognition: A grasp on human thinking. Nature, 524(7565), 158–159. https://doi.org/10.1038/524158a

● Wahlheim, C. N., Eisenberg, M. L., Stawarczyk, D., & Zacks, J. M. (2022). Understanding everyday events: Predictive-looking errors drive memory updating. Psychological Science, 33(6), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211056870

● Yohji, J. (2022, August 1). Assessing the impact of VR (Virtual Reality) headsets on under 13-year-olds. Retrieved from https://www.visionfountain.com/2022/08/01/assessing-the-impact-of-vr-virtual-reality-headsets-on-under-13-year-olds/