Classrooms in the metaverse: educational applications and levels of learner interaction in virtual reality

Introduction

The metaverse has been reimagined time and time again, with science fiction writers at the helm of decades of discourse. Blascovich and Bailenson (2011) dubbed science fiction authors “professional futurists” (p. 233). Coined and popularized by Neil Stephenson in his 1992 novel Snow Crash, the term “metaverse” refers to a shared virtual space accessed through avatar embodiment. Over the years, it has been reimagined through the eyes of writers, as many people are familiar with pop-culture staples such as The Matrix, Avatar, and Ready Player One. Novels, movies, and representations of VR in media and popular culture comprise “technological rhetorics” (Baym, 2015, p. 48) that shape how people think and feel about it. They contribute to an image of VR in (oftentimes dystopian) futuristic societies, providing new opportunities for escape, agency, and exploitation.

Although often depicted in futuristic terms, VR has been around for decades, and the narrative surrounding it follows a winding path of hype, disappointment, and renewed hope (Frith & Saker, 2022). As the cost of VR continues to drop, and availability continues to rise (Kahlon et al., 2019), instructors and students will have increasing opportunities to use it for education and learning. Setting aside popular narratives, this essay brings focus to the present state of VR in educational contexts, reviewing applications for teaching and learning, and offering considerations for engaging learners across different levels of interaction.

As a framework for assembling these considerations, we take up Moore’s (1989) typology of educational interactions in technological environments: learner–content, learner–instructor, and learner–learner levels of engagement. Moore’s typology has been taken up widely in the field of distance education, serving as a heuristic for teaching and research (Ling, 2007), evidenced by its influence on Community of Inquiry approaches to online education (Garrison et al., 2000). It reflects a timeless set of core pedagogical concerns while also revealing some important gaps as VR continues to emerge in educational contexts. Moore advanced his typology as a foundational heuristic for instructors teaching in “distance education” environments and interested in fostering “good interaction” through and with technology. Moore’s three-part typology helps structure questions about how to engage learners while providing opportunities to consider how technology-mediated teaching and learning are changing with VR. We take up this framework as a way of bringing foundational thinking about teaching in technological spaces into conversation with VR applications and their implications for learner interaction with content, instructor, and fellow learners. In addition, we propose other important contexts to be added to the framework—learner–self interaction and learner–environment interaction. As we discuss, VR has distinct implications for how people engage at the intrapersonal level of learning, as well as their interactions with the surrounding environment, which can be characteristically interactive in VR. We also recognize how VR has the capacity to widen educational gaps and the need for stakeholders to foreground challenges of accessibility, equity, and digital divides as the technology is developed and adopted in education.

Learner–content interaction

One of the promises of VR is to expand opportunities for active learning via “hands-on” engagement with virtual content (Campbell et al., 2021). In training-related applications(e.g., Psotka, 1995; Wang et al., 2018), VR is used to animate educational content through three-dimensional and interactive tools, materials, and graphics (e.g., Taxén & Naeve, 2002), while users are immersed in audio-visual environments customized to enhance the experience (e.g., Woodworth et al., 2019). Although we envision VR to complement rather than compete with offline hands-on learning, the two are commonly compared head-to-head in research on learning outcomes. For example, Chen et al. (2020) reported consistently more effective hands-on learning for students trained to build a drone in VR than in an offline setting, and others found greater content memory and test performance when comparing VR to traditional textbook learning (Allcoat & von Mühlenen, 2018; Horvath, 2021). However, some research also points to no significant differences when comparing learning outcomes across VR, computer, and offline conditions, other than a consistent preference for VR from students (Madden et al., 2020). Whereas these comparative approaches show that VR can support learning through hands-on engagement, other research is focused on how multisensory experiences with VR content can appeal to multisensory learning. As with VR, learning has visual, auditory, kinesthetic, cognitive, and affective dimensions, and there are individual differences in how each supports learning (Fleming & Baume, 2006; Kolb, 1999). So far, there is evidence that the multisensory nature of VR content engagement can equitably support learning across different styles, especially when there are personalized options for how people experience content (e.g., Chen et al., 2005; Horvath, 2021; Lee et al., 2010).

Educational uses of VR also have the capacity to reconfigure learner–content interaction in less direct ways. For example, being in environments that are virtual can shift cognitive processing by reducing social anxiety (Anderson et al., 2003; Kahlon et al., 2019), creating space for more focus on the content and delivery of social interactions and public speeches. Thus, VR could foster greater creativity and skill absorption, deemed a “promising arena for language learners” (Lin & Lan, 2015, p. 495).

During the process of language acquisition, VR can also contribute to intracultural learning and awareness (Yeh et al., 2020). Parmaxi (2020) conducted a systematic review of the benefits and limitations of various forms of VR in facilitating language learning, warranting a brief overview of some key findings, assembled in a descriptive table (Table 4 on pp. 7–8), that can serve as exemplars for further discussion. For one, the studies reviewed showed that Second Life can improve vocabulary acquisition and decrease anxiety surrounding learning a foreign language, though technical difficulties and a lack of modal diversity were listed as cons. Alternatively, studies of language learning on platforms like OpenSimulator found that language learning in virtual worlds could promote learner autonomy and lead to contextualized communication competence, noting that these platforms are time-consuming to orient toward specific teaching goals. The systematic review then concludes with important considerations, including the need for more topical research that takes place within fully immersive systems (rather than the forms of semi- or nonimmersive systems predominantly discussed), and maps well to real-life tasks and practical contexts for language use. Further, VR lessons allow students to “learn through doing” (p. 1192), encouraging them to engage critically with course concepts, such as ethical reasoning. In one case study approach, AltspaceVR was used to integrate bioethics discussions into a VR classroom (Harfouche & Nakhle, 2020). The space was designed to optimize teamwork and coffee breaks, giving creative room for collective brainstorming as well as individual reflection on the consolidated considerations from the case as they developed. A later section will further discuss design opportunities in virtual environments, but for now we will end this section by noting that these environmental design choices could potentially impact engagement with the course content.

Learner–instructor interaction

VR has been found to be an effective instructional tool in some classroom contexts. Kindergarten teachers who engaged in VR perspective-taking emerged with a greater understanding of student “feelings, perceptions, and needs” than those trained using a traditional workshop method (Katz, 2006, p. 155). Nursery school teachers who were trained in VR better understood children’s perceptions and needs than those trained in a non-VR workshop setting (Katz, 2017). Researchers saw the potential in moving toward a VR bullying simulation that offers teachers experiences as a bully, victim, and observer to increase critical perspective-taking potential (Stavroulia et al., 2016). In a mixed-reality simulator, TeachLive, teachers-in-training taught lessons to a handful of avatar students, then offered critique and recommended strategies for improvement (Larson et al., 2019). This environment allowed them to refine classroom-management skills before interacting with real students, warranting further investigation into virtual trainings that involve perspective-taking as well as practice.

More scholarship is needed for understanding the possibilities and challenges of VR for direct engagement among students and teachers. One area that has been examined is virtual field trips, for example to a museum in VR, where instructors take on the role of tour guide while students become the visitors (e.g., Han, 2020; Taxén & Naeve, 2002). VR technology can also support the impression of more personalized and targeted teacher–student interaction through avatar proximity and focused eye contact. VR allows the instructor’s avatar to be close and (seemingly) attentive to everyone, basically positioning all students in the same optimal seat simultaneously (Bailenson et al., 2008). These aspects of presence in VR can have implications for courses of varying formats. Lectures, for example, may feel more targeted and personally salient, and active learning might be enhanced by configuring instructor–learner avatars in ways that make them proximal, attentive, and available to all individuals and groups during the flows of applied learning exercises.

Learner–learner interaction

VR can alter learner–learner interaction through simulation of roles, tasks, resources, and setting. Classroom presentations are common components of curriculums, and this is magnified in communication classrooms where students are expected to present ideas in front of an audience of peers. Public-speaking anxiety and shyness can prevent students from effectively communicating and engaging with others, both within and beyond the classroom. A primary objective of introductory communication courses is to help students overcome the fear commonly associated with presenting ideas in front of audiences, which will continue to serve them throughout careers across many domains. Imagining interactions in advance of (or following) public speaking can help improve communication efficacy and calm nerves, and along these lines practicing in VR settings where the imagined scenario is more salient can improve public-speaking anxiety (LeFebvre et al., 2021), especially when part of a cognitive behavior therapy program (Anderson et al., 2005). In fact, research on virtual reality exposure therapy, in the context of addressing public-speaking anxiety, has provided support for its interventional efficacy and revealed preliminarily that even self-led efforts might benefit students (Reeves et al., 2022). So, contingent on further research, the practice of self-led preparations in VR could become a beneficial component of a communication curriculum. Thus, we view this application as an example of how VR can change the learner–learner dynamic, in this case with students becoming more comfortable using one another for an audience. The research reviewed in this section suggests VR simulation can have implications for learner–learner interaction in other communication courses. Learning how people work together and the power dynamics of different roles are central concerns for interpersonal, group, and organizational communication, pointing to opportunities for instructors in these and other courses to leverage VR for social learning through simulated tasks, roles, resources, and other communication dynamics. As we turn to next, there are also applications for learners to engage with intercultural communication. However, instructors need to be aware of some important challenges and potential limitations.

Studies of virtual collaborations offer a variety of evidence regarding their effectiveness at different levels of immersion. Qiu et al. (2009) found an improvement in teamwork following a Wii music game intervention. Participants who played the game alongside teammates learned to approach problem-solving through teamwork, and researchers speculate the virtual team experience led to an ingroup identity that bridged participants across disparate (self-described) social categories. Falloon (2009) examined Marvin, which is a nonimmersive, avatar-based learning environment, as a tool for strengthening student presentational skills. Its features offered creative license for students to customize their avatars, then engage and collaborate with peers remotely. Falloon found this computer-based virtual platform helped facilitate a sense of community and led to the effective communication of group ideas at the project’s conclusion.

However, the efficacy of VR interventions reported by Qiu et al. (2009) and Falloon (2009) is part of a more mixed set of findings when looking at the research. Notably, Chiang et al. (2021) immersed volunteers in spherical video-based virtual reality (SVVR) training, a cost-effective alternative to more expensive headsets, requiring just a phone and cardboard goggles. Ultimately, teamwork did not improve, though problem-solving and self-efficacy improved at the individual level. Wu et al. (2021) used SVVR as a learning tool for architecture students, finding improved achievements, attitudes, and self-regulation in the classroom. Combined, these two studies show how SVVR can be a constructive platform for individual learning, and that there are challenges to address when it comes to bolstering teamwork and collaboration. When fully immersive VR was implemented as a training for nurse–physician teams, researchers found that live and VR simulations were equally effective (Liaw et al., 2020). Thus, at present, VR may serve as a useful complement, or substitute in some cases, to conventionally live teamwork training. More scholarship is needed to understand team-based applications for education, and research in this direction may be informed by the work on VR and teamwork more broadly (Sonalkar et al., 2020; Wolfartsberger et al., 2020). Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the uptick in virtual collaborations, this may be an especially relevant option for teamwork-oriented training.

Scholars are also interested in how VR might foster empathy across social groups, and this work may help guide applications for intercultural communication courses. It extends on the tradition of the “contact hypothesis,” proposing that interaction among people with different backgrounds and statuses can reduce prejudice under certain conditions (Allport, 1954). Research supports that certain conditions, such as cooperative pursuit of goals, can help reduce prejudice (Pettrigrew & Tropp, 2006), but that other conditions, such as political strife, can foster the exact opposite (Key, 1949; Paolini et al., 2010). Considering the contact hypothesis is highly conditional, it is not surprising that research on VR and empathy yields mixed results and nuanced findings. For example, Tassinari et al. (2022a) found no direct effects on empathy among a sample of high school students when manipulating the race of their teammate’s avatar in a VR game intervention. However, participants who reported a stronger sense of copresence with the other avatar tended to report more empathic interest, and those experiencing more body ownership and control over their avatars reported higher scores for general empathy after the intervention. Those findings are in line with Bertrand et al.’s (2018) conclusion, based on a review of empathy research, that more work is needed to understand how empathy-related traits and appearances in avatar representations and interactions can uniquely shape empathy effects. In a systematic review of VR and prejudice reduction, Tassinari et al. (2022b) found notably mixed results. In some studies, CVR contact reduced prejudice, while in others it actually increased it, further underscoring the need for more nuance and coherency in this line of work and a focus on the conditions that yield different results. It is also important to note that not everyone sees the potential in this. Nakamura (2020) cautions that virtual environments aimed at fostering empathy may actually function more in making one only feel they had an authentic empathy-producing experience, which can stunt the process. All in all, there are potential applications, as well as potential pitfalls, for teaching and learning in communication, particularly intercultural communication. Research in this area is growing, and the debates surrounding it can help inform instructors as they consider whether and how VR might be useful for learner interaction in their courses.

Learner–self interaction

As explained in the introduction, this article draws from and expands the scope of Moore’s (1989) model for considering different levels of interaction in mediated education. Whereas the material above highlights implications of VR for how learners engage with content, instructors, and each other, this section adds the intrapersonal level of learner–self as a meaningful context. Though the field of communication has long debated its definition, we discuss intrapersonal communication as defined by Stacks and Andersen (1989), who wrote, “It is the transmission of messages between [brain] hemispheres or modules that is a distinct intrapersonal communication process” (p. 281). Functionally, these sectors of the brain converse with each other in a way that mimics interpersonal communication between people, and these transmissions create opportunities for attitudinal and behavioral change.

VR adds another layer to the self by allowing someone to walk a virtual mile in others’ shoes. Avatar embodiment has been studied as an instigator of behavioral change in different contexts. Much of this research was inspired by the Proteus Effect (Yee & Bailenson, 2007), named for a shapeshifting god from Greek mythology. As suggested by its namesake, the theory acknowledges the postimmersion effects of avatar embodiment. Essentially, the virtual avatars people inhabit could impact later behavior, facilitating a level of potential self-reflexivity. In their original article, the Stanford team working on the Proteus Effect found that participants who embodied more attractive avatars later behaved with more interpersonal intimacy, while participants who embodied taller avatars projected greater confidence in a negotiation task (Yee & Bailenson, 2007). These findings sparked further investigation into interventions facilitated by virtual interactions with the self, including a follow-up that discovered the utility of virtual interactions with the self in promoting exercise (Fox & Bailenson, 2009). There may also be implications for empathy, such as when one’s avatar embodies characteristics from another identity. However, instructors and scholars should be aware of the unfolding debates and conditions surrounding these dynamics (Bertrand et al., 2018; Nakamura, 2020; Tassinari et al., 2022a, 2022b).

From an empirical and educational standpoint, we are interested in the developing literature surrounding temporal consequences of the Proteus Effect. Technologies like VR can support intrapersonal communication in distinctive ways, expanding the reach of the self-concept across temporal boundaries. VR’s avatar-aging technologies could make the past, present, and future selves more salient by facilitating three-dimensional interactions with alternate versions of oneself. This approach can bring focus to certain qualities of the self, such as motivation, which often involves conversation between the present and potential future selves (Dörnyei, 2009). One set of studies used aging-progression technology to expose participants to mirrors reflecting the avatars of their future selves, which increased their orientation toward saving behaviors (i.e., contributing to a retirement savings account; Hershfield et al., 2011). Another research team investigated VR interactions with the future self by alternating perspectives between the present self and an aged projection of the future self (van Gelder et al., 2022). The participants, who were convicted offenders, reported less self-defeating behaviors throughout the course of the week following the intervention. In both studies, immersive interactions with the future self made the connection between present and future more salient, facilitating change. This introduces an interesting take on the development of self-reflexivity, suggesting that present self-consciousness might be increased via more careful consideration of future self-outcomes. Psychological-mindedness, defined by Appelbaum (1973) as “a person’s ability to see relationships among [his] thoughts, feelings, and actions” (p. 36), might come into play here, indicating that the practice of self-reflection, and specifically the examination of one’s difficult thoughts and actions, could improve mental health. In this scenario, not practicing self-reflexivity could form a barrier to mental health and, more broadly, educational success.

Dweck (2000) offered a perspective that can be applied when considering the practical and theoretical implications of the VR domain. Dweck highlighted the belief systems that underlie how people understand their limitations, including helpless vs. mastery orientations, achievement goals, fixed vs. changeable beliefs and social traits, and theories of intelligence. Further, belief in the self’s abilities to grow and change mediates academic achievement, which poses an obstacle for students who possess fixed mindsets. However, systemic barriers that perpetuate educational inequality, such as imposter syndrome and stereotype threat, complicate these ideas along racial and gender lines (Edwards, 2019).

Marginalized groups in the academy face added external pressure that can become internalized through implicit biases and historical limitations imposed on one’s potential for achievement based on various social identities. As Edwards (2019) pointed out, the traditional “scholar” requires reconceptualization to uplift marginalized groups; perhaps there is room in VR mediated self-talks to facilitate these reconceptualizations through student conversations between present and future selves, helping them to envision educational achievement and transition toward growth mindsets to overcome historical barriers to learning and implicit attitudes about the self. These applications and interventions could be customized to fit individual student needs, or generalizable throughout the class, and students could contribute to the script or read a series of preset affirmations based on their unique circumstances and challenges. The development of culturally sustaining learning practices requires a “conscious effort to make the invisible visible” (Edwards, 2019, p. 29), pulling in perspectives from scholars who identify as members of marginalized communities as well as cultural histories that have been largely excluded from the institutional curriculum. To this end, Edwards recommends that women of color avoid being overly critical of themselves in acknowledgement of the systemic issues they face, that they seek out or form community support, and that they celebrate successes, regardless of magnitude. As VR’s potential to mediate these self-transmissions is explored, these considerations should be weighed. VR calls for new thinking about not only learner interactions but also ways of making learning and interaction more accessible to everyone, a point we will return to later.

Learner–environment interaction

In addition to learner–self, we add learner–environment to the mix of contexts in which VR has implications for education. By definition, VR is an environment. To the extent people have vivid and immersive experiences, their presence in these environments seems real. When virtual waters churn, and a virtual ship creaks, walking a digital plank can be a truly frightening experience (Bailenson, 2018). As noted earlier, museum and field trips are common applications of VR environments for educational purposes (Han, 2020; Taxén & Naeve, 2002). VR field trips are hailed as cost-effective opportunities for students to teleport from the physical classroom to virtual environments that facilitate higher engagement with material. According to Han (2020), VR school trips offer an accessible and affordable way to give digital glimpses into physical locations, finding elementary students who take VR field trips to be more likely to visit the physical locations. However, students critiqued the lack of social interaction on these immersive field trips, indicating their desire to learn alongside peers in educational contexts. So, educators should consider opportunities to infuse social engagement with material presentation in VR field-trip environments.

We appreciate the formative role of educational settings in supporting the development of world perceptions, self-understandings, and new perspectives. Some might argue that the physical and social constructions of educational environments are as impactful as the quality of the content delivered. One of the authors recalls the first time stepping into a physical classroom that felt designed with mental health and well-being in mind—taking in the four glass walls, tree-lined view, and natural lighting as welcome replacements for the four white walls, closed blinds, and artificial lighting that commonly outline U.S. classroom environments. Recognizing the architectural, logistical, financial, and geographical barriers to creating classrooms built around student well-being, we turn to VR’s potential to surpass logistically restrictive design barriers.

Engineer et al. (2021) proposed a framework to foster well-being through healthy design principles that include recommendations for optimal lighting, spatial configuration, acoustics, temperature, odors, biophilia, and art/color. As instructors and designers create and use virtual classroom spaces, they should be mindful of the nonvirtual design principles that help people thrive. Of course, these might not map on perfectly across virtual and nonvirtual environments, but they could serve as a useful starting place. For example, virtual classrooms built upon this framework might include spatial design considerations (noncrowded layouts, unobstructed windows, clear corridor directions), tempered acoustics (noise levels below the stress response trigger), and inclusion of biophilia (nature elements). Ultimately, these nonvirtual design principles would have to be tested in VR environments to examine whether and how they support translational efficacy, and in recent years, there has been a focus on human-centered translational work targeted at virtual environment design (Jerald, 2015).

Transcending (and reinforcing) barriers

Educational environments should be accessible for all students, regardless of their group identity, socioeconomic status, health, and ability. As we continue to develop these environments, it is important to bear in mind that virtual spaces can present a distinctive set of opportunities, challenges, and ethics, with accessibility at the forefront of these considerations. Han (2020) noted that VR might support students with certain mobility-related disabilities to participate in school field trips that might otherwise be more challenging to navigate. Indeed, VR’s design could be compatible with heightened physical accessibility in some regards, though this remains contingent on students’ ability to operate the hand controls and navigate VR landscapes visually and aurally, among other considerations. Additionally, VR can further develop communication skills among some students with communication-related disabilities (Bryant et al., 2019). However, this example speaks less to the accessibility of the VR interface itself and more to one potential use. Different experiences of disability coincide with a broad range of nuanced and diverse accessibility needs that do not align with current VR design. Along with other organizations around the world, Cornell University’s XR Access (n.d.) is working to mitigate these design issues to curate more accessible VR environments. The University of Melbourne (n.d.) outlined a comprehensive list of VR pros and cons for people with disabilities related to mobility, hearing, cognition, low vision, blindness, olfactory, and aging. Instructors should keep these in mind as they decide how to incorporate VR into their classrooms. While many students report educational interactions with VR as “easier to visualize” and more “realistic, immersive, fun, interesting, and accurate,” (p. 12), motion sickness and other cognitive effects should still be considered; some students may feel confused, overwhelmed, dizzy, distracted, or uncomfortable in VR environments (Madden et al., 2020). Given these concerns, researchers are exploring mitigation strategies that should be built into the curriculum development process to ensure maximum inclusion, though interventional efficacy is so far mixed (Cao et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2021).

Apart from disability-related accessibility discussions, another institutional barrier to consider is VR’s potential to offer a more affordable mode of transportation to local landmarks and global destinations. As discussed, virtual field trips have become a real possibility for teachers and students, though research has yielded mixed results regarding various efficacy criteria (Klippel et al., 2020; Zhao et al., 2020). Psotka (2013) suggested that students who attend less affluent schools might benefit from the integration of VR into the curriculum, pointing to the potential of “disruptive technology” in closing educational gaps for public schools with fewer resources. While there are important merits to this argument, a concern arises about the nature of VR field trips as supplements vs. replacements for in-person opportunities.

Learning through VR is becoming more widely accessible through low-cost, consumer-level headsets (Kahlon et al., 2019). For example, researchers have examined the classroom feasibility of Google’s “Cardboard” display, an affordable and portable system compatible with smartphones (Ray & Deb, 2016). Researchers divided students into two groups, one receiving content via a nonvirtual classroom and the other experiencing the content in an immersive 3D environment facilitated by cardboard headsets. Though the VR group had a slower start, they eventually met and surpassed the control group’s understanding of the lesson content as the two-month study window progressed (Ray & Deb, 2016). So, it appears that affordable, consumer-level forms of VR technology can benefit students to an extent when used in the longer term. This may represent progress, but addressing challenges of equity and divides will require investment from a number of stakeholders.

Like other technological innovations, VR has the capacity to widen socioeconomic divides, as some students are privileged with opportunities, while others face barriers to access and resources. There is a deep tradition of research and theory concerned with the inequities that underlie technological development and diffusion across socioeconomic conditions. Commonly known as “the digital divide,” scholarship in this area actually points to a number of divides, including access (Van Dijk, 2005), skills (Hargittai, 2002), and supporting resources and policies (Donner, 2015). The introduction of new innovations in media often exacerbates existing divides, which can widen learning and knowledge gaps when people of greater means get a head start in using new sources of media and information (Tichenor et al., 1970). Focusing solely on VR’s possibilities and challenges for teaching and learning may be akin to attending to trees while overlooking the health of the forest. We can anticipate that VR will exacerbate present challenges of equity in education, unless those challenges are foregrounded by developers, policymakers, educators, and scholars. As VR gets taken up more widely, those stakeholders will need to be invested in working together to find (and fund) opportunities for equity while considering who benefits from VR in education.

No schools, classes, or students are identical, so these considerations are not presented as “one size fits all” solutions. Educators can weigh these considerations based on personal knowledge of their own teaching styles and the wants, needs, and learning styles of students in their classrooms. That said, institutional barriers related to accessibility have been a part of the conversation surrounding emerging technologies, and these topics should always have a seat at the educational table.

Concluding remarks

The literature, along with the essays in this special forum, reflects that VR is not just an object of future imagination, but also a present-day resource for teaching and learning. As educators continue to take up and develop VR applications, it is important to be mindful of foundational as well as emergent needs, challenges, and opportunities associated with teaching through and with technology. The literature assembled here speaks to these issues across the traditional levels of learner–content, learner–instructor, and learner–learner interaction while recognizing the self and environment as meaningful anchors of learner interaction that are being incorporated into VR applications and scholarship. Just as technological rhetorics in science fiction and popular culture shape social imaginations of VR, so too do scholarly heuristics shape the ways people apply and study it. This article highlights the utility of taking a dynamic approach to traditional organizing questions and frameworks as VR introduces new environments and modes of engagement. At the same time, we recognize the value of having core principles to ground and guide as developers, teachers, and scholars further carve out this dynamic territory. For movement in this direction, we argue that considerations of accessibility and equity be foregrounded across levels of learner engagement in VR settings and beyond as stakeholders address the recurring challenges of equity and digital divides.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).