Metaverse vs Classroom: A Quasi-Experimental Study on Learning Digital Business and Creative Skills
(1) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(2) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(3) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
To address the need for practical skills in the creator economy era, this study evaluates the comparative effectiveness of Metaverse Based Learning, Online Learning, and Blended Learning models on students' cognitive competence. This study fills a crucial research gap by providing a quasi-experimental comparison within a developing country context, where technical constraints are a critical variable. Employing a mixed-methods approach anchored in a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design (N = 90), data were collected using a validated cognitive competency test (α = 0.796) administered as a pre/post-test, supplemented by participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using N-Gain and ANCOVA, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. The results revealed a paradox: quantitatively, there was no statistically significant difference (p = .376) among the groups, with all models proving equally effective (N-Gain "High" category). However, qualitative findings consistently revealed that Metaverse Based Lerning was fundamentally superior in fostering interaction, active participation, and spontaneous creativity not observed in the other groups. The implication is that while all three models are equivalent for standard knowledge acquisition, Metaverse Based Learning offers a far superior potential for developing active and creative learners, a potential that was likely suppressed by technical constraints and not captured by the standard cognitive test.
Keywords: Metaverse Based Learning; Quasi-Experimental Design; Second Life; Blended Learning; Online Learning.
Full Text:
PDF 350-365References
Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context: Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348–379. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21075
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
Casinillo, L., & Fuentes, A. G. P. (2025). Assessing the Effect of the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) Model in Teaching Science. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol14.1.2.2024
Catalano, A. (2015). The effect of a situated learning environment in a distance education information literacy course. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 653–659. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.008
Chen, Y.-L. (2016). The effects of virtual reality learning environment on student cognitive and linguistic development. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 637–646. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40299-016-0293-2
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage publications.
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3‐D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
Eriksen, M. B., & Frandsen, T. F. (2018). The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106(4), 420–431. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.345
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/https://doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Fadhil, M., Kasli, E., & Halim, A. (2021). Impact of Project Based Learning on Creative Thinking Skills and Student Learning Outcomes. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1940(1), 12114. https://doi.org/https://10.1088/1742-6596/1940/1/012114
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage Publications.
Gao, H., Chong, A. Y. L., & Bao, H. (2024). Metaverse: literature review, synthesis and future research agenda. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 64(4), 533–553. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2233455
Hake, R. R. (1999). Analyzing change/gain scores. Bloomington: Indiana Unversity.
Herayanti, L., Habibi, H., & Sukroyanti, B. A. (2022). The Development of Inquiry-Based Teaching Materials to Improve Physics Teacher’s Conseptual Understanding. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 8(6), 3110–3116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v8i6.2543
Hussain, S. (2023). Metaverse for education–Virtual or real? Frontiers in Education, 8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1177429
Inman, C., Wright, V. H., & Hartman, J. A. (2010). Use of Second Life in K-12 and higher education: A review of research. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 44–63. https://www.ncolr.org/jiol
Jiang, J., & Fryer, L. K. (2024). The effect of virtual reality learning on students’ motivation: A scoping review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(1), 360–373. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12885
Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2007). The 2007 Horizon Report. Austin: The New Media Consortium.
Jusuf, H., Istiyowati, L. S., Fauzi, M., Magdalena, M., & Indrajit, R. E. (2023). Metaverse-Based Learning in the Digital Era. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan, 25(3), 334–346. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.21009/JTP2001.6
Kapur, M. (2016). Examining productive failure, productive success, unproductive failure, and unproductive success in learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 289–299. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1155457
Khammar, A., Yarahmadi, M., & Madadizadeh, F. (2020). What is analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and how to correctly report its results in medical research? Iranian Journal of Public Health, 49(5), 1016. https://doi.org/https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7475615/
Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846–854. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
Kim, J., Jeon, Y., Koo, Y., & Yoo, M. (2023). The Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Metaverse-based Learning in Korea. Korean Association for Educational Information and Media, 29(3), 651–679. https://doi.org/10.15833/KAFEIAM.29.3.651
Kirriemuir, J. (2008). A July 200 “snapshot” of UK higher and further education developments in Second Life. Bath: Eduserv Foundation.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Latif, M. E., Hussain, I., & Rauf, A. (2024). Metaverse in education: Opportunities, challenges and future research directions. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2024), 15–26.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Britania Raya: Cambridge University Press.
Li, M., & Yu, Z. (2023). A systematic review on the metaverse-based blended English learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1087508
Liang, J., Li, G., Zhang, F., Fan, D., & Luo, H. (2023). Benefits and challenges of the educational metaverse: Evidence from quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 16(1), 71–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.1601.04
Liaw, S. Y., Ooi, S. W., Rusli, K. B. D., Lau, T. C., Tam, W., & Chua, W. L. (2020). Designing and evaluating a web-based virtual reality simulation for situated learning. Interactive Learning Environments. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 28(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3853
Linden Lab. (2023). Second Life Weekly Metrics. Linden Lab Official. Diakses pada 28 Oktober 2025 melalui https://secondlife.com/statistics
McLeod, S. (2024). Mixed Methods Research Guide With Examples. England: Simply Psychology.
Nguyen, A. H. D., Tran, K. L. M., & Nguyen, M. T. (2024). Understanding the metaverse: A systematic literature review of definitions, enabling technologies, and research themes. Telematics and Informatics, 8, 102146.
Peng, S., Li, Y., Wang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2024). A Survey of Metaverse: Technologies, Applications, and Challenges. Procedia Computer Science, 230, 1–10.
Peres, R., Schreier, M., Schweidel, D. A., & Sorescu, A. (2024). The creator economy: An introduction and a call for scholarly research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 41(3), 403-410.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2024.07.005
Poupard, M., Larrue, F., Sauzéon, H., & Tricot, A. (2025). A systematic review of immersive technologies for education: Learning performance, cognitive load and intrinsic motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13503
Pradan, M. (2023). Metaverse and its impact on society: A sociological perspective. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), 2181585.
Prasetyo, H., & Sutopo, W. (2018). Industri 4.0: Telaah Klasifikasi Aspek dan Arah Perkembangan Riset. Jurnal Teknik Industri, 13(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14710/jati.13.1.17-26
Rasmitadila, R., Aliyyah, R. R., Rachmadtullah, R., Samsudin, A., Syaodih, E., Nurtanto, M., & Tambunan, A. R. S. (2020). The perceptions of primary school teachers of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 7(2), 90–109. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48710085
Reeves, B. C., & Wells, G. A. (2017). Quasi-experimental study designs for evaluating practice and policy. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 17(1), 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.016
Schardt, C., Adams, M. B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., & Fontelo, P. (2007). Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 7(1), 16. https://doi.org/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1472-6947-7-16
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift Für Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107–131. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
Shahrin, S. (2016). A review of situated learning theory. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 4, 327–334.
Shi, C., & Park, J. Y. (2024). A systematic review of the Metaverse in formal education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 17(5), 1850–1868. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2024-0162
Sripan, T., & Lertlutersirikul, S. (2025). Metaverse for education: A systematic literature review. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(1), 512.
Sugiyono. (2018). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: CV Alfabeta.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5
Sweller, J., Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Talan, T., & Gulsecen, S. (2019). The effect of a flipped classroom on students’ achievements, academic engagement and satisfaction levels. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 20(4), 31–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.640503
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 414–426. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00952.x
Wu, B., Yu, X., & Gu, X. (2020). Effects of different interaction modes of virtual reality on learning performance and cognitive load. Education Sciences, 10(6), 154.
Yudhanto, Y., Utomo, A. B., & Wibowo, F. W. (2023). The readiness of implementing the metaverse in Indonesian higher education: A preliminary study. Jurnal Pendidikan Vokasi, 13(1), 115–128.
Yuniarto, B., & Yudha, R. P. (2021). Literasi digital sebagai penguatan pendidikan karakter menuju era society 5.0. Edueksos Jurnal Pendidikan Sosial & Ekonomi, 10(2), 33–46. https://www.syekhnurjati.ac.id/Jurnal/index.php/edueksos/article/view/8096
Zheng, R. (2010). Effects of situated learning on students’ knowledge acquisition: An individual differences perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(4), 467–487. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.4.c
DOI: 10.24235/edueksos.v14i02.22331
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 0 timesPDF 350-365 - 0 times
Refbacks
Copyright (c) 2025 Edueksos Jurnal Pendidikan Sosial & Ekonomi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.