To VR or not to VR? A Taxonomy for Assessing the Suitability of VR in Higher Education
Nadine Bisswang, Georg Herzwurm, Sebastian Richter
This study proposes a taxonomy to help educators in higher education systematically assess whether virtual reality (VR) is suitable for specific learning content. The taxonomy is grounded in established theoretical frameworks and was developed through a multi-stage process involving literature reviews and expert interviews. Its utility is demonstrated through an illustrative scenario where an educator uses the framework to evaluate a specific course module.
Problem
Despite the increasing enthusiasm for using virtual reality (VR) in education, its suitability for specific topics remains unclear. University lecturers, particularly those without prior VR experience, lack a structured approach to decide when and why VR would be an effective teaching tool. This gap leads to uncertainty about its educational benefits and hinders its effective adoption.
Outcome
- Developed a taxonomy that structures the reasons for and against using VR in higher education across five dimensions: learning objective, learning activities, learning assessment, social influence, and hedonic motivation. - The taxonomy provides a balanced overview by organizing 24 distinct characteristics into factors that favor VR use ('+') and factors that argue against it ('-'). - This framework serves as a practical decision-support tool for lecturers to make an informed initial assessment of VR's suitability for their specific learning content without needing prior technical experience. - The study demonstrates the taxonomy's utility through an application to a 'warehouse logistics management' learning scenario, showing how it can guide educators' decisions.
Host: Welcome to A.I.S. Insights — powered by Living Knowledge. I’m your host, Anna Ivy Summers. Host: Today, we’re diving into the world of virtual reality in education and training, looking at a study titled, "To VR or not to VR? A Taxonomy for Assessing the Suitability of VR in Higher Education". Host: With me is our analyst, Alex Ian Sutherland. Alex, this study seems timely. It proposes a framework to help educators systematically assess if VR is actually the right tool for specific learning content. Expert: That's right, Anna. It’s about moving beyond the hype and making informed decisions. Host: So, let's start with the big problem. We hear constantly that VR is the future, but what's the real-world challenge this study is addressing? Expert: The core problem is uncertainty. An educator, or a corporate trainer for that matter, might be excited by VR's potential, but they lack a clear, structured way to decide if it's genuinely effective for their specific topic. Host: So they’re asking themselves, "Should I invest time and money into creating a VR module for this?" Expert: Exactly. And without a framework, that decision is often based on gut feeling rather than evidence. This can lead to ineffective adoption, where the technology doesn't actually improve learning outcomes, or it gets used for the wrong things. Host: It’s the classic ‘shiny new toy’ syndrome. So how did the researchers create a tool to solve this? What was their approach? Expert: It was a very practical, multi-stage process. They didn't just theorize. They combined established educational frameworks with real-world experience. They conducted sixteen in-depth interviews with experts—university lecturers with years of VR experience and the developers who actually build these applications. Host: So they grounded the theory in practical wisdom. Expert: Precisely. This allowed them to build a comprehensive framework that is both academically sound and relevant to the people who would actually use it. Host: And this framework is what the study calls a 'taxonomy'. For our listeners, what does that actually look like? Expert: Think of it as a detailed decision-making checklist. It organizes the reasons for and against using VR across five key dimensions. Host: What are those dimensions? Expert: The first three are directly about the teaching process: the **Learning Objective**—what you want people to learn; the **Learning Activities**—how they will learn it; and the **Learning Assessment**—how you’ll measure if they've learned it. Host: That makes sense. Objective, activity, and assessment. What are the other two? Expert: The other two are about the human and social context. One is **Social Influence**, which considers whether colleagues and the organization support the use of VR. The other is **Hedonic Motivation**, which is really about whether people are personally and professionally motivated to use the technology. Host: And I understand the framework gives a balanced view, right? Expert: Yes, and that’s a key strength. For each of those five areas, the taxonomy lists characteristics that favor using VR—marked with a plus—and those that argue against it—marked with a minus. It gives you a clear, balanced scorecard to inform your decision. Host: This is fascinating. While the study focuses on higher education, the implications for the business world seem enormous, particularly for corporate training. What is the key takeaway for a business leader? Expert: The takeaway is that this framework provides a strategic tool for investing in training technology. You can substitute 'lecturer' for 'corporate L&D manager,' and the challenges are identical. It helps a business move from asking, "Should we use VR?" to the much smarter question, "Where will VR deliver the best return on investment for us?" Host: Could you walk us through a business example? Expert: Of course. The study uses the example of teaching 'warehouse logistics management.' For a large retail or logistics company, training new employees on the layout and flow of a massive fulfillment center is a real challenge. It can be costly, disruptive to operations, and even unsafe. Host: So how would the taxonomy help here? Expert: A training manager would see a strong case for VR. The *learning objective* is to understand a complex physical space. The *learning activity* is exploration. VR allows a new hire to do that safely, on-demand, and without setting foot on a busy warehouse floor. It makes training scalable and reduces disruption. Host: And importantly, it also helps identify where *not* to use VR. Expert: Exactly. If your training module is on new compliance regulations or software that's purely text and forms, the taxonomy would quickly show that VR is overkill. You don't need an immersive, 3D world for that. This prevents companies from wasting money on VR for tasks where a simple video or e-learning module is more effective. Host: So, in essence, it’s not about being for or against VR, but about being strategic in its application. This framework gives organizations a clear, evidence-based method to decide where this powerful technology truly fits. Host: A brilliant tool for any business leader exploring immersive learning technologies. Alex Ian Sutherland, thank you for breaking down this study for us. Expert: My pleasure, Anna. Host: And to our audience, thank you for tuning in to A.I.S. Insights — powered by Living Knowledge.
