As part of ALT/ Jisc XR Community’s work investigating the ethical use of immersive technology, we’ve invited Matthew Coxon (Programme Lead (BSc, Psychology) and Senior Lecturer in Cognitive Psychology at York St John University), who is a member of our steering group, to share his experiences:
Over the past decade, we’ve been developing our approach to using virtual reality in Psychology teaching at York St John University. What started as experimentation has evolved into something a bit more considered, built on one core principle: student autonomy matters more than the technology itself.
The conversation around VR in education often focuses on the ‘wow factor’ of the technology. For us though, the real focus has been in designing our practice around choice, informed decision-making, and inclusivity. It’s been iterative, sometimes messy, but always with students at the centre.
The Choice Architecture: More Than Just Alternatives
When we use tools like Bodyswaps for soft skills training, we could easily follow what seems to be the conventional approach. Select a relevant module, run a VR session, and if students don’t attend, they miss out. Simple. Instead, we’ve rather deliberately flipped this on its head.
Our students choose their medium. Whether it’s VR, desktop, or phone, they complete activities in the way that works best for them. We’re transparent about the differences between experiences, but all the options are presented as valid ways of engaging with the same learning.
We’ve also built choice into the content itself. Students select from a range of experiences that align with their career ambitions and personal needs. If a student wants to avoid certain scenarios, they can. If someone has concerns about a particular type of interaction, there are alternatives. This isn’t about making exceptions; it’s designed into the module from the start.
Navigating the Generative AI Question
An interesting challenge emerged when VR experiences began incorporating GenAI. We have several students who object to GenAI use, primarily due to environmental concerns. Rather than forcing a choice between using the technology or missing out, we worked with the companies involved to arrange non-AI versions.
The students are aware these versions have reduced functionality yet have well-considered reasons for opting out. Their preferences are deliberate and respecting them matters.
What Students Actually Choose
Interestingly, we’re finding that across different contexts and modules, roughly two-thirds of students opt for non-VR experiences. In my third-year module, about 90% of them tried VR out in class at the beginning when offered a range of introductory experiences, but it was always a conscious choice. That proportion choosing VR drops off quite considerably after that initial exploration.
The reasons vary quite a bit. Sometimes it’s as straightforward as “I’ve had a long day and don’t fancy it” or “I’ve got a headache coming on.” Other times it’s “I get as much from doing it on a desktop and it’s less tiring.” Others have just learnt that VR “isn’t for them”. All perfectly reasonable.
Whilst motion sickness and cybersickness are common reasons for avoiding VR. I’m definitely seeing lots of students for whom cognitive load is as much a consideration. VR can still be cognitively demanding in ways that aren’t immediately obvious. For us, the important thing isn’t getting students into headsets, it’s having alternatives which are as equivalent as possible. This keeps the focus on the learning rather than the medium.
Evidence-Led Practice
This approach isn’t just about being accommodating, it’s evidence-based. For many of the applications we explore, such as wellbeing and relaxation, language learning, interacting in the metaverse, exposure therapy, pain management, there’s growing research suggesting that 2D experiences can be as effective. This is against a backdrop where the research evidence for VR ‘superiority’ is often more mixed than the hype suggests (Conrad et al., 2024; Jenson and Konradsen. 2018).
2D experiences aren’t identical, particularly in terms of presence, motivation, engagement, and emotion. But in broader ways, they aren’t that different. Understanding this helps us design with realistic expectations rather than assuming VR is automatically ‘better’.
Staying Agnostic
More generally, in the broader ecosystem, we’ve tried to stay as headset agnostic as possible to avoid being tied to any one company and the ethical implications of this. This is important to consider, given Meta’s 70% market dominance in the AR/ VR space. Everything we use can be used on any device, and we try our best to ‘own’ it rather than be tied to subscription models (although this isn’t always possible, and sometimes the subscription is the pragmatic choice).
This takes more work upfront, admittedly, but it protects our flexibility and our students’ options in the long run.
Reflecting on Ten Years
Looking back over ten years of development, what’s become clear is that our approach has evolved around a few core principles, we aim to:
- Respect the autonomy of our learners
- Make use of evidence in developing our practice
- Be as inclusive as possible
- Design systems that give students genuine choice
A lot of what we do centres around that choice and autonomy. We avoid ‘making’ students use headsets. We have different ways they can engage and try to design activities where the alternatives are genuinely valid.
Has it been perfect? No. Are we still learning? Absolutely. But starting from a position of respecting student choice has served us well, and it feels like the right foundation to build on as both the technology and our understanding continue to develop.
If you’re interested continuing the discussion on the ethical challenges of embedding immersive technologies into the curriculum, join our ALT/ Jisc XR Community Teams space, or sign up to our ALT-IMMTECH Jiscmail.