Virtual Reality in reality: considerations for mitigating the physical risks in classrooms

My research is centred on the potential value that IVR (immersive virtual reality) can bring to secondary English classrooms. However, before I could even begin to consider this potential, the former secondary teacher in me was practically screaming ‘How will all of this work in a typical classroom?’

Many suggestions have been made for mitigating the risks explored throughout the consideration of direct and indirect impacts of IVR (Burdea and Coiffet, 2003). However, a large mitigating factor is dependent upon the relationship between staff and students, and how the school culture as a whole, as well as individual staff, shape the physical and virtual learning environments.

Using IVR technology in mainstream U.K. classrooms is currently a novelty. There will be a discrepancy between students’ knowledge and experience of IVR based on the access they have out of school, which may make the digital divide between students feel even more pronounced. In order to get the most out of IVR, schools need to foster a culture of openness and support.

Some students may have already used IVR, but not in the context of a classroom in the presence of teachers and peers. Teachers and students will be embarking upon this learning experience together and having a culture of openness, so that students feel confident to raise issues around physical discomfort, for example, not only means that schools have a greater chance of providing meaningful learning experiences in IVR over time, but that students are also able to use the equipment in a way that minimises the risk of harm.

The following table provides an overview of the practical mitigations that can be made to reduce the physical risks of using IVR in the classroom:

A further consideration for schools is the physical space in which the IVR experience is happening and how these spaces could/ should be organised. This is not only to ensure the physical safety of pupils, but to maximise the IVR experience. Higher education institutions have already considered the implications of how real-world spaces can be used to utilise IVR and are in a better position than mainstream secondary settings to create spaces for the sole use of IVR.

In mainstream education settings, it is obvious that the space used for IVR will also have additional uses/ purposes, whether that’s as a classroom, drama studio, sports hall etc. Schools therefore need to consider the physical space available, along with the requirements of IVR ‘safe play’ spaces. This will in turn have an impact on how teaching spaces are organised, as well as issues of teachers’ time spent preparing room layouts, along with a potential impact on timetabling if certain spaces need to be ‘booked’ in advance. 

The learning environment and culture of any classroom or teaching space is key to the safety of students. Although this blog post is centred on the physical safety of students in relation to the use of IVR technology, it is also vital to acknowledge the importance of a holistic view of what ‘safety’ equates to in teaching. It could refer to students feeling physically safe insofar as they feel like they are unlikely to sustain physical injuries in the environment, but also refer to more abstract and psychological feelings of security and belonging.

It is these feelings of security and belonging that are key in facilitating a supportive environment and open dialogue between staff and students when exploring new learning experiences in IVR. At this burgeoning stage of utilising IVR in education (particularly as it is not commonly used in mainstream secondary settings in the U.K) the value of promoting IVR as a learning experience for both teachers and students cannot be underestimated. Schools and staff need to be aware of the physical safety implications of facilitating IVR experiences for students, although it is anticipated that the implications explored here will become ‘common sense’ as the expansion of IVR continues.