Imagining futures for Communication Education: XR/VR and the promise of educational technology

Whether chalkboards, overhead projectors, personal computers, or any manner of “smart” devices embedded in classrooms, education technology plays a vital role in shaping our courses. Research in Communication Education has addressed a wide variety of issues related to education and technology, including the effects of noneducation technology in the classroom (e.g., mobile phones, Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013), the promise and potentials distance education technologies (e.g., Guillem & Briziarelli, 2020), and course-related technology policies (e.g., Finn & Ledbetter, 2013). Although each new iteration of educational technology claims to be more effective or efficient than the last, Postman (2011) reminds us that technological advancement is rarely a linear improvement. Rather, new technologies are both generative and restrictive, providing new ways of teaching, learning, relating, organizing, and performing in educational institutions—to ends both predictable and not.

XR (extended reality) and VR (virtual reality) technologies are at the forefront of discussions about the digitization of education, offering tempting new promises about their ability to solve, mitigate, or address problems, such as lack of access, inequitable learning contexts, and identity-based marginalization while providing a safe(r) space for students to practice, drill, or perform their learning. However, potentials for these dreams come on the heels of the reality that XR/VR environments are places where sexual harassment, racist, homophobic comments, and violent threats are common (The Extended Mind, 2018); privacy invasion, surveillance, and biodata farming (e.g., eye-tracking) are routine (Nix, 2024); and health concerns about extended XR/VR use are often downplayed by tech giants (LaMotte, 2017). As such, it is important for scholars of communication, teaching, and learning to answer Sellnow et al.’s (2015) call for expanding the scope of our research beyond the traditional classroom and address our increasingly technologically enhanced environments. Research about XR/VR can examine how communication practices through educational technologies can (re)structure inequality in the everyday “taken-for-granted practices of communication that are often ignored as neutral or natural” (Fassett & Warren, 2007, p. 45). The following forum essays delve into the possibilities for communication, teaching, and learning, providing possibilities and cautions for researcher sand instructors alike.

Gualano and Campbell explore the current state of VR in educational contexts, focusing on applications for teaching and learning across different levels of interaction. The authors adopt Moore’s typology of educational interactions, which includes learner–content, learner–instructor, and learner–learner levels, and propose the addition of learner–self and learner–environment interactions. They highlight the challenges of accessibility, equity, and digital divides as VR technology is integrated into education, emphasize the importance of considering the impact of VR on various aspects of learner interaction, and advocate for new ways to make mediated learning more accessible to all. Next, Won and Bailey explore the social aspects of teaching with XR, particularly in the context of the intersection between virtual and physical classrooms. The article identifies three challenges in teaching with XR: representation and identity in virtual environments, accessibility issues, and concerns related to data privacy and ethics. Won and Baily discuss the imperfections of current avatar representation in VR and the need for instructors to consider how limitations may impact the classroom experience. They also delve into the ethical considerations of tracking student behavior in virtual space, emphasizing privacy risks and the need for transparency. They end by considering how these technologies can enhance communication, support individuality, and protect privacy in educational settings while emphasizing the potential of XR to enhance social interaction and thoughtful reflection on embodied communication. Finally, Han and Bailenson discuss the challenges and successes of incorporating VR into education. They identify pedagogical challenges based on their experiences of building a “Virtual People” course at Stanford University, where students build VR content by drawing in 3D space, creating avatars, and meeting in virtual Greek courtyards. They emphasize the potential of VR as a tool for addressing challenges in virtual education while highlighting the importance of careful planning, collaboration, and consideration when integrating VR into educational settings.

Based on their work, we generate four research trajectories about XR/VR and communication, teaching, and learning. First, scholars should explore the applications of XR/VR as an instructional tool in communication courses. Although there is some burgeoning work in this area (LeFebvre et al., 2021), there is still much to do in assessing the usefulness of XR/VR in addressing communication-based issues such as public-speaking performance, intercultural contact, small-group problem-solving, or organizational leadership. Second, beyond communication pedagogy, XR/VR provides a relatively new channel of communication, and therefore an untapped area for studying the role of communication in teaching and learning in all subject areas. Therefore, scholars in our field can work to understand how communication through XR/VR is beneficial, or not, for teaching content in other disciplines such as engineering, nursing, or teaching—all areas that have a strong performance-based component. Third, XR/VR offers a potential trajectory for our scholarship in studying student–student interactions, context, and the situatedness of learning. That is, scholarship about XR/VR articulates avenues for understanding how creating avatars, environments, or even whole worlds shape, and are shaped by identity, power, and prejudice in mediated environments—each affecting the ways that students come to learn about, and relate to, each other. Finally, the immersive quality of VR provides possibilities for communication classes to develop new approaches to open previously inaccessible spaces. In doing so, our scholarship must work to understand how XR/VR might exacerbate equity gaps as well as how it offers possibilities for developing more inclusive learning practices.

XR/VR offers future researchers the possibility to reimagine communicative interactions, relationship building, and meaning making as they occur in mediated learning contexts. This forum emphasizes the potential of XR/VR to enhance social interaction and promote thoughtful reflection on embodied communication both virtually and physically. Although XR/VR has tremendous potential, we must continue to be vigilant of its application. This forum expands our scholarly and pedagogical practice by calling for new approaches to how educational technologies can enhance communication in educational contexts, support teaching/learning, and consider the social justice implications of its application. It is with these new approaches in mind that we call for new futures in Communication Education.

Disclosure statement

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