To Be or Not to Be: That is the VR Question

Whenever I talk to innovative educators about VR, the excitement and buzz are deliciously palpable. That’s not the usually the case for school leaders, however. Nor is it true for educators of the slow-to-adopt-new-things variety. As evidence, let me mention two recent requests from the leadership at educational conferences, both asking me to highlight in my presentations not only when it makes great sense to employ virtual reality in learning, but also when it makes no sense at all.

The underlying question they knowingly agitate for is “When and under what circumstances should educators steer clear of virtual reality?”

Tackling the question of when it makes sense to employ virtual reality in educational settings is an easier proposition, as I usually turn to research-based suggestions. We can comfortably move forward with VR in instruction:

• when visualization can aid learning. If we can use VR to take direct aim at reducing misconceptions, render the abstract a bit more concrete, or deal a blow to stubborn and recurring learning challenges with immersive visuals—that makes incredible sense.
• when experience trumps memorization. After all, virtual reality is a richly experiential technology.
• when you can bring life to an otherwise lifeless lesson. I suspect nothing can counter cosmic boredom like a scintillating VR experience.

On the other hand, wrestling with the notion of when educators or training specialists should NOT use VR has some obvious and less obvious twists. At the risk of treading on dangerous or controversial ground here, here’s my current thinking. We should think twice before using VR in educational settings:

• when VR has little to do with the lesson at hand. When VR merely serves as instructional candy, reward, attraction or the picayune (that spells C-R-A-P), then… let’s not.
• when VR takes too much time. If our limited instructional time can be better spent in a more productive and effective way, then… let’s not. Time remains a perpetually scarce resource.
• when VR usage approaches the unethical. If our planned use of VR verges on the questionable and unethical, then let’s not. If the immersive experience presents a false or one-sided story to a complex problem—if the immersive lesson leads to counterproductive psychological or emotional manipulation—if the immersive activity links strident emotion to a rushed call-to-action or financial transaction, then maybe we should steer clear. (I am reminded of an experiment in New York City in which street hawkers provided immersive gear to passersby in order to obtain donations for a charitable funds. Those passersby exposed to emotional scenarios via VR immersion contributed donations at nearly triple the rate of those who merely reviewed print materials of the plight of the needy.)

There are some important lessons for manufacturers, resellers and integrators that can be learned from the above discussion. Turn your attention, for a moment, to your sales literature, your demonstration tables, your exhibit hall booths, your elevator speeches and booth talks, or your value-added premise. How do I showcase a VR product? What use cases are on the tip of the tongue? What stories do we tell? If we are trying to reach the broader education market (K12, higher ed and industry), are our best stories and examples coming from the “when NOT” category listed above? It’s a huge customer-facing mistake to unconsciously showcase the NOTs—especially to leaders of these respective education industries. It’s also wise not to run away from the NOTS, to ignore them entirely or dismiss them as “never happening”. Instead, we should “lean in” to advantages, especially advantages other than the typical engagement and knowledge retention pablum. —Len Scrogan

Analyst Comment

Comment (INITIALS)

DD Article Source