Submitted:
29 August 2025
Posted:
29 August 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Method
3. The Hybrid Learning Atelier (HLA): Conceptual Foundations and Design Principles
3.1. Background and Objective

3.2. Foundations of Space Design
- Spatial Practice should enable flexible usage scenarios.
- Representations of Space should convey openness and adaptability.
- Representational Spaces should support experiences of presence in both physical and digital form.

3.3. Design Principles and Their Implementation
- Learning-friendly Workspace Design. The combination of modular furniture and clear spatial affordances aims at reduction of extraneous cognitive load and should promote learning-relevant processing (germane load) (cf. Chandler & Sweller, 1991; Klepsch et al., 2017).
- Flexibility Through Modularity. The furniture consists of rectangular seating elements that can be used as individual seats, arranged in rows, or combined to form group tables. This flexibility should allow for fast adaptation to different teaching scenarios, from frontal presentations to small group work to informal discussion rounds (Ninnemann, 2018).
- Technology as an Invisible Enabler. The passive technical infrastructure has been deliberately integrated into wall cabinets and ceiling installations so as not to dominate the character of the room. Cables are routed through floor boxes and wall ducts.
- Atmospheric Quality. The interior design strives to strike a balance between the perception of a creative studio and a technologically advanced learning space. Visible Oriented Strand Board (OSB) surfaces and a coarse coloured carpet reference the Bauhaus tradition of using materials in their pure form, while indirect LED lighting and acoustically effective textiles offer contemporary comfort (Figure 3).

3.4. Technical Implementation
3.5. Usage Scenarios
- 5.
- Virtual Field Trips (VFTs): The combination of wall-to-wall projection and spatial audio creates immersive experiences that go far beyond traditional screen presentations.
- 6.
- Experimental Teaching Formats: The flexible infrastructure invites experimentation with new concepts – from interactive installations to networked courses across spatial boundaries.
- 7.
- Collaborative Creative Processes: Multiple inputs and freely scalable displays allow different work results to be presented and discussed simultaneously.
3.6. Design Summarization
4. Evaluation Study
4.1. Motivation
4.2. Emotion
4.3. Cognitive Load
4.4. Presence and Immersion
5. Discussion
5.1. Hybrid Learning Atelier (HLA)
5.2. Evaluation Study
5.2.1. Survey
5.2.2. Implications of the Survey
- i.
- The HLA-based VFT achieves conducive conditions for learning and can be considered an effective learning activity. This finding confirms the existing literature on the learning-conduciveness of VFTs (Koçoğlu & Haidari, 2025; Shadiev et al., 2022; Shinde et al., 2023).
- i.
- ii. The similarity of VFT and FT is reflected in their frequently comparable characterization across different constructs, such as motivation, emotion, and CL. The improved values regarding presence and social presence in the FT seem plausible.
- i.
- iii. The FT appears to be slightly more conducive to learning than the HLA-powered VFT. This finding aligns with the literature but does not diminish the validity of VFTs and especially the HLA. VFTs have various advantages, such as the ability to be used independent of time and location and significantly lower effort for implementation. Additionally, the VFT in this study was used as preparation and thus as a complement to the FT.
- i.
- iv. A further study result is the generation of exemplary values for the respective measures regarding an HLA-based learning activity.
- i.
- v. The effects of preparing for the FT with the VFT should also be examined in detail. It is to be assumed that learning already occurred during the VFT. If the germane CL for the FT reached the same value, this suggests that additional details about the learning content were learned during the FT, which aligns with the slightly higher intrinsic CL value for the FT.
5.2.3. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Agrawal, S., Simon, A., Bech, S., Bærentsen, K., & Forchhammer, S. (2020). Defining Immersion: Literature Review and Implications for Research on Audiovisual Experiences. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 68(6), 404–417. [CrossRef]
- Asad, M. M., Naz, A., Churi, P., & Tahanzadeh, M. M. (2021). Virtual reality as pedagogical tool to enhance experiential learning: A systematic literature review. Education Research International, 2021(1), 7061623.
- Barrett, P., Davies, F., Zhang, Y., & Barrett, L. (2015). The impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning: Final results of a holistic, multi-level analysis. Building and Environment, 89, 118–133. [CrossRef]
- Bennett, D., Knight, E., & Rowley, J. (2020). The role of hybrid learning spaces in enhancing higher education students’ employability. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1188–1202.
- Bülow, M. W. (2022). Designing Synchronous Hybrid Learning Spaces: Challenges and Opportunities. In E. Gil, Y. Mor, Y. Dimitriadis, & C. Köppe (Eds.), Hybrid Learning Spaces (pp. 135–163). Springer International Publishing. [CrossRef]
- Bulu, S. T. (2012). Place presence, social presence, co-presence, and satisfaction in virtual worlds. Computers & Education, 58(1), 154–161.
- Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.
- Cox, T., & d’Antonio, P. (2016). Acoustic absorbers and diffusers: Theory, design and application. CRC press.
- Dengel, A., & Mägdefrau, J. (2020). Immersive learning predicted: Presence, prior knowledge, and school performance influence learning outcomes in immersive educational virtual environments. 163–170.
- Eiris, R., Wen, J., & Gheisari, M. (2022). iVisit-Collaborate: Collaborative problem-solving in multiuser 360-degree panoramic site visits. Computers & Education, 177, 104365. [CrossRef]
- Eyal, L., & Gil, E. (2022). Hybrid learning spaces—A three-fold evolving perspective. In Hybrid learning spaces (pp. 11–23). Springer.
- Fink, M. C., Sosa, D., Eisenlauer, V., & Ertl, B. (2023). Authenticity and interest in virtual reality: Findings from an experiment including educational virtual environments created with 3D modeling and photogrammetry. 8, 969966.
- Goodyear, P. (2020). Design and co-configuration for hybrid learning: Theorising the practices of learning space design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1045–1060.
- Heuke Genannt Jurgensmeier, N., Schmidt, R., & Stumpe, B. (2023). Creating Virtual Field Trips for Education: A Comparison of Software and Tools for Creating Virtual Field Trips with 360° Images. International Journal of Technology in Education, 6(3), 385–417. [CrossRef]
- Hintzer, J., Rudder, S., Mai, A., Sieber, J. M., Andreas, Wolter, A., & Bast, C. (2023, January 1). Lernraum Bauhaus: Hybrides Lernatelier. https://www.uni-weimar.de/de/universitaet/struktur/zentrale-einrichtungen/zue/lernraum-bauhaus/hybrides-lernatelier/.
- Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27(1), 1–9.
- Huang, C. L., Luo, Y. F., Yang, S. C., Lu, C. M., & Chen, A.-S. (2020). Influence of Students’ Learning Style, Sense of Presence, and Cognitive Load on Learning Outcomes in an Immersive Virtual Reality Learning Environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 596–615. [CrossRef]
- Hu-Au, E., & Lee, J. J. (2017). Virtual reality in education: A tool for learning in the experience age. International Journal of Innovation in Education, 4(4), 215–226.
- Jennett, C., Cox, A. L., Cairns, P., Dhoparee, S., Epps, A., Tijs, T., & Walton, A. (2008). Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 641–661. [CrossRef]
- Kim, G., & Biocca, F. (2018). Immersion in virtual reality can increase exercise motivation and physical performance. 94–102.
- Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 294028.
- Klippel, A., Zhao, J., Oprean, D., Wallgrün, J. O., Stubbs, C., La Femina, P., & Jackson, K. L. (2020). The value of being there: Toward a science of immersive virtual field trips. Virtual Reality, 24(4), 753–770. [CrossRef]
- Koçoğlu, A., & Haidari, S. M. (2025). A three-level meta-analytic review of research on virtual field trips and their contribution to students’ academic achievement. Education and Information Technologies, 30(9), 12735–12763. [CrossRef]
- Kohls, C., Dubbert, D., & Kehrer, M. (2023). The dynamic campus – flexible learning spaces for hybrid education. Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, 1–11. [CrossRef]
- Kreijns, K., Xu, K., & Weidlich, J. (2022). Social Presence: Conceptualization and Measurement. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 139–170. [CrossRef]
- Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
- Lin, G.-Y. (2004). Social Presence Questionnaire of Online Collaborative Learning: Development and Validity. Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
- Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), JCMC321. [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Reyes, J. M., Alejos, D. J., Siefker, D., & Martínez-Meza, R. (2022). 360 virtual tour and escape room design as a video games-based learning process for diagnosis and strengthening of the English language. Revista de Tecnología Informática, 1–14. [CrossRef]
- Mulders, M. (2023). Learning about Anne Frank in Virtual Reality: Investigating the Role of Cognitive Load. 1034–1040.
- Nilsson, N. C., Nordahl, R., & Serafin, S. (2016). Immersion revisited: A review of existing definitions of immersion and their relation to different theories of presence. Human Technology, 12(2), 108–134.
- Ninnemann, K. (2018). Innovationsprozesse und Potentiale der Lernraumgestaltung an Hochschulen: Die Bedeutung des dritten Pädagogen bei der Umsetzung des” Shift from teaching to learning”. Waxmann Verlag.
- Pallasmaa, J. (2012). The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48.
- Petersen, G. B., Petkakis, G., & Makransky, G. (2022). A study of how immersion and interactivity drive VR learning. Computers & Education, 179, 104429. [CrossRef]
- Pham, H. C., Dao, N., Pedro, A., Le, Q. T., Hussain, R., Cho, S., & Park, C. (2018). Virtual field trip for mobile construction safety education using 360-degree panoramic virtual reality. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 1174–1191.
- Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
- Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. [CrossRef]
- Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: Gaps identified. Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 269–290.
- Reinking, D., & Alvermann, D. E. (2005). What Are Evaluation Studies, and Should They Be Published in” RRQ”? Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 142–146.
- Reinman, G. (2021). Hybride Lehre – Ein Begriff und seine Zukunft für Forschung und Praxis. Impact Free, 35, 1–10.
- Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2001). FAM: Ein Fragebogen zur Erfassung aktueller Motivation in Lern-und Leistungssituationen (Langversion, 2001). Diagnostica, 2(2), 57–66.
- Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., & Regenbrecht, H. (2001). The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 10(3), 266–281. [CrossRef]
- Shadiev, R., Yang, L., & Huang, Y. M. (2022). A review of research on 360-degree video and its applications to education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(5), 784–799.
- Shinde, Y., Lee, K., Kiper, B., Simpson, M., & Hasanzadeh, S. (2023). A Systematic Literature Review on 360° Panoramic Applications in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) Industry. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 28, 405–437. [CrossRef]
- Skarbez, R., Brooks, Jr., F. P., & Whitton, M. C. (2018). A Survey of Presence and Related Concepts. ACM Computing Surveys, 50(6), 1–39. [CrossRef]
- Slater, M., & Wilbur, S. (1997). A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): Speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(6), 603–616.
- Söbke, H., Arnold, U., & Montag, M. (2020). Intrinsic Motivation in Serious Gaming A Case Study: Games and Learning Alliance (I. Marfisi-Schottman, F. Bellotti, L. Hamon, & R. Klemke, Eds.; pp. 362–371). Springer International Publishing. [CrossRef]
- Söbke, H., & Kraft, E. (2024). Eine 360°-basierte virtuelle Exkursion in einem hybriden Lernraum. 10–18420.
- Spangenberger, P., Freytag, S.-C., & Geiger, S. M. (2024). Embodying nature in immersive virtual reality: Are multisensory stimuli vital to affect nature connectedness and pro-environmental behaviour? Computers & Education, 212, 104964.
- Stadtwirtschaft Weimar, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, & Florian Wehking. (2022, January 1). Kompostierungsanlage Umpferstedt: 360°-Tour. https://www.360-degree.education/Umpferstedt/.
- Teo, T., Norman, M., Lee, G. A., Billinghurst, M., & Adcock, M. (2020). Exploring interaction techniques for 360 panoramas inside a 3D reconstructed scene for mixed reality remote collaboration. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, 14(4), 373–385.
- Tyng, C. M., Amin, H. U., Saad, M. N. M., & Malik, A. S. (2017). The influences of emotion on learning and memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 235933.
- Violante, M. G., Vezzetti, E., & Piazzolla, P. (2019). Interactive virtual technologies in engineering education: Why not 360° videos? International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(2), 729–742. [CrossRef]
- Weber, S., Weibel, D., & Mast, F. W. (2021). How to Get There When You Are There Already? Defining Presence in Virtual Reality and the Importance of Perceived Realism. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 628298. [CrossRef]
- Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 7(3), 225–240. [CrossRef]
- Wolf, M., Hartwig, S., Steinhöfel, G., Söbke, H., & Kraft, E. (2024). PanoramaViewer–A Framework for Educational Collaborative Virtual Field Trips. 269–274.
- Wolf, M., Montag, M., Söbke, H., Wehking, F., & Springer, C. (2024). Low-Threshold Digital Educational Escape Rooms Based on 360VR and Web-Based Forms. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 01–18. [CrossRef]
- Wolf, M., Wehking, F., Montag, M., & Söbke, H. (2021). 360°-Based Virtual Field Trips to Waterworks in Higher Education. Computers, 10(9), 118. [CrossRef]
- Wolf, M., Wehking, F., Söbke, H., Montag, M., Zander, S., & Springer, C. (2023). Virtualised virtual field trips in environmental engineering higher education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(6), 1312–1334. [CrossRef]
- Xiao, J., Sun-Lin, H., Lin, T., Li, M., Pan, Z., & Cheng, H. (2020). What makes learners a good fit for hybrid learning? Learning competences as predictors of experience and satisfaction in hybrid learning space. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1203–1219.




| Scale | VFT x̅ (σ) |
FT x̅ (σ) |
| Intrinsic | 2.6 (1.57) | 3.0 (1.27) |
| Germane | 5.7 (1.05) | 5.7 (0.95) |
| Extraneous | 2.2 (1.20) | 1.7 (0.65) |
| Subscale | VFT x̅ (σ) |
FT x̅ (σ) |
| Spatial Presence (SP) | 2.7 (1.42) | 4.5 (1.49) |
| Involvement (INV) | 2.2 (1.34) | 2.7 (1.53) |
| Experienced Realism (EXP) | 2.7 (1.26) | 4.7 (1.68) |
| General Presence (G) | 3.3 (1.21) | 6.0 (0.00) |
| Subscale | VFT x̅ (σ) |
FT x̅ (σ) |
| Learning-Supportive Group Activities | 4.5 (1.31) | 5.4 (1.44) |
| Social Well-Being | 3.4 (1.58) | 5.0 (1.66) |
| Social Orientation | 2.7 (1.59) | 3.6 (1.59) |
| Scale | VFT x̅ (σ) |
FT x̅ (σ) |
| 16 Positive Items (0 to 4) | 31.8 (7.83) | 32.1 (6.17) |
| General Item (1 to 10) | 7.0 (1.76) | 8.4 (1.32) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).