Hello everyone,
Welcome to our Opportunity Forecast on Immersive Experiences in Education.
For this OER, we invite you to explore how immersive experiences can support teaching and learning in high school classrooms. The OER begins with a brief overview of immersive experiences before showcasing a social studies-focused, multi-day virtual field trip that explores virtual reality technologies, including spatial audio, language learning, guided 360° experiences, and interactive virtual tours. Finally, we will explore market trends in immersive educational experiences, as well as their current limitations and future growth potential.
Our goal is not only to showcase immersive experiences, but also to consider whether these technologies offer meaningful educational value and market opportunities. As you move through the OER, we invite you to reflect on questions such as:
- When does immersive technology add genuine pedagogical value?
- What barriers might limit adoption in K–12 classrooms?
- How can immersive tools be used when schools have only one headset, a class set of headsets, or no VR hardware at all?
- What opportunities exist for educators, institutions, and ventures in the virtual field trip market?
Please complete the short activities embedded throughout the virtual field trip. At the conclusion of the OER, you will be invited to complete a final reflection comparing different approaches to immersive learning and sharing your perspective on the future of virtual field trips in education. We look forward to hearing your thoughts, questions, and feedback as we explore the educational potential of immersive experiences together.
Please begin here:
Immersive Experiences in Education OER
Pre-Module Discussion Question
Before exploring the module, do you think immersive experiences such as VR, 360° video, and virtual field trips represent a strong investment opportunity for education? Please include your impressions for why or why not.
We also invite you to revisit this question and your response afterwards. Did your perspective change considering what you now know?
At this point, I would lean toward no, at least as a significant investment. When VR was first introduced in my school district, it generated a lot of excitement. Students explored Ancient Greece and other ancient civilizations through virtual experiences, and it was definitely engaging and fun. However, after the initial novelty wore off, it didn’t become a regular part of classroom instruction. That makes me wonder why it would be different now. Since then, AI has advanced rapidly, and there are a lot of high-quality educational videos, virtual tours, and videoconferencing opportunities that allow students to learn from experts and classrooms around the world without the need for expensive VR equipment. From a school district perspective, investing in headsets, maintaining the technology, and providing teacher training can be costly, especially when there are more accessible alternatives available. I do think immersive experiences have value in certain learning contexts, but at this stage, I’m not convinced they represent the strongest investment opportunity for education. I’m interested to see whether this module highlights applications that demonstrate innovative educational value beyond what current technologies already offer!
Immersive experiences give students the chance to explore places, ideas, and situations they may never get to experience in real life. This could mean visiting a historical site, exploring space, walking through a future city, or seeing a place that would be too far, too expensive, or too unsafe to visit in person. For students, this can make learning feel more real because they are not just reading about something or looking at a picture. They are able to experience it in a more visual and interactive way.
VR and AR can also help teachers show things that are hard to explain in a regular classroom. For example, students could explore the human body in 3D, look closely at a scientific process, or move through an environment that would normally only be shown in a textbook or video. This does not mean that immersive technology should replace good teaching, discussion, or hands-on activities. Instead, it should be used when it adds something meaningful that students could not easily get another way.
What stood out to me about this OER is that it does not just present VR and AR as exciting tools. It also asks important questions about when these technologies actually improve learning and when they might just be interesting extras. That is an important distinction because immersive learning has a lot of potential, but it needs to be used with a clear purpose. When it helps students access something they could not otherwise experience or understand, it can be a really powerful addition to the classroom.
I think immersive experiences represent a promising investment opportunity for education, but only when they are used with a clear pedagogical purpose rather than for novelty. Technologies such as VR, 360° video, and virtual field trips have the potential to increase engagement, provide access to places or experiences that would otherwise be impossible, and support experiential learning. However, I also think their educational value depends on thoughtful instructional design, as making a lesson immersive doesn’t necessarily guarantee deeper learning. However, factors such as learning objectives, accessibility, cost, teacher readiness, and equitable access to technology will ultimately determine whether these tools provide meaningful value in classrooms. I’m interested to see whether this OER changes my perspective on where immersive technologies have the greatest potential and where their limitations may outweigh their benefits.
I believe virtual immersive experiences could increase engagement of lessons taught in the classroom, deepen students’ understanding of concepts, or even build empathy for events that have happened in history. I remember visiting a Holocaust Museum in Germany and they had an exhibit that was an immersive experience. Visitors stepped on a Holocaust survivors nameplate that was illuminated on the floor, and then onto the wall their life story and the letters from their diary detailing that experience were illuminated on the wall. It was incredibly engaging, and helped me empathize with people who were living in the WWII era and survived these catastrophic events. Imagine bringing that into your history lesson in a traditional classroom? It would also be beneficial if that student community could not make a field trip in real life, or afford one but then they had the chance to encounter a virtual field trip of their choice. With that being said, accessibility is the main barrier I see here, most public schools- and certainly mine since its inner city could not afford a VR machine. I personally do not believe school districts would have the funding available to invest in immersive experiences in public schools. It would be expensive to upkeep as well, and teachers would have to undergo regular training. In this case, the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
I think immersive tech brings genuine value when it lets students experience things that are otherwise impossible or unsafe in a traditional classroom. That said, it definitely shouldn’t be forced into every subject just for the sake of using tech. If standard readings or hands-on labs achieve the same goal, the immersive tool isn’t adding real value.
We also have to consider how these experiences impact different learners. For some neurodivergent students, the sensory immersion can be an incredible way to engage and focus, but for others, it can easily lead to sensory overload. Because of that, and the massive equity gap it introduces if school districts don’t fully fund the hardware themselves, it works much better as a flexible option rather than a rigid requirement.
Reading through everyone’s posts, I find myself agreeing with many of the common themes. Cost, equitable access, teacher training, thoughtful pedagogy, and avoiding the novelty factor all seem like important considerations when evaluating immersive technologies. Those are certainly some of the questions I have going into this OER as well.
The question I’m most interested in exploring is how we measure the success of immersive experiences. How do we know they are worth the investment? Is student engagement enough, or should we be looking for evidence of deeper understanding, knowledge transfer, critical thinking, empathy, or long-term retention? If immersive technologies are going to require significant investments in hardware, software, and professional learning, then I think they should also demonstrate meaningful improvements in learning outcomes.
I’m also wondering what systems need to be in place for immersive technologies to become part of everyday teaching and learning rather than something teachers use once or twice because it is difficult to organize or maintain. Successful implementation seems like more than simply purchasing VR headsets. It likely requires curriculum integration, technical support, ongoing professional learning, and ways to evaluate whether the technology is actually improving student learning.
I’m interested to see whether this OER changes my thinking, particularly around how schools and educational ventures can demonstrate value beyond engagement and build sustainable systems that make immersive learning worth the investment.
I think VR has the potential to be a game changer for education, particularly by allowing students to experience places and situations they otherwise never could. Virtual field trips and immersive learning experiences could make abstract concepts much more meaningful. However, whether I would invest in VR is another question. I would be more cautious because of the high costs, especially in public schools. We already struggle to provide enough laptops and iPads for our students, so purchasing and maintaining VR headsets would be a significant challenge. I also know that many VR headsets are generally recommended for children aged 12 and older, which would exclude many elementary classrooms, including my own. That further limits its potential adoption in elementary schools. While I see strong educational potential, I’m not yet convinced there is a broad enough market to make it a strong investment opportunity at this point. I’m really interested to see whether my perspective changes after exploring this OER and learning more about the opportunities and challenges of immersive technologies in education.
I think that VR has the potential to increase understanding of 3D constructs and concepts in education, but I also believe that it won’t be transformative. There is always something that they thought would transform education, from radio to video. While these offered unique opportunities for learning, it is really the pedagogy of how you use these devices, rather than the devices themselves, that influences the success of the students. Another concern I have is cost. Nothing can truly be transformative in education if it cannot be afforded by the majority of schools. While the cost of VR was declining, it is climbing up due to the shortage of metals used in microchips, and if the price remains high, then it becomes a significant barrier to implementation.
VR/360° video/virtual field trips are genuinely compelling for a narrow set of learning goals, such as for experiences that are dangerous, expensive, or physically impossible to experience otherwise. However, the tech is expensive and can quickly become outdated, and I wonder if the “wow” factor might conflate enjoyment with comprehension. But I feel that there’s decent evidence that spatial presence boosts engagement and supports learning. Currently, I think that immersive tech could be a worthwhile investment for specific use cases (simulations, field trips to inaccessible places, skills training), but a risky one if adopted broadly just because it’s novel.
I understand why many people here are cautious about investing in VR, especially because of the cost, accessibility, maintenance, and availability of more affordable alternatives. However, I think immersive technology can be especially valuable in specialized training environments where mistakes are costly or dangerous.
In my training context, learners support complex and fragile technical surveillance systems used in emergency, security-sensitive, and high-risk environments. Individual pieces of equipment can cost ten of thousands of or even millions dollars. An incorrect configuration or troubleshooting step could damage equipment, interrupt operations, and create significant losses.
A realistic VR simulation could allow learners to examine components, practise troubleshooting, and make mistakes safely before working with real equipment. In this context, VR would offer more than engagement—it could build confidence, improve performance, and reduce operational and financial risks.
I see similar value in medical, aviation, and other safety-critical training. VR may not be a worthwhile investment for every educational setting, but it has strong potential in high-risk and high-cost fields where the consequences of mistakes are much greater than the cost of the technology.
erika
After completing the VFTs, my perspective has changed. I now see much greater educational potential in immersive technologies than I did initially.
What stood out to me is how much the technology has evolved. Tools like Matterport, spatial audio experiences, and YouTube 360 provide authentic, immersive learning opportunities that go beyond simply “visiting” a place. They can help students build context, increase engagement, and create experiences that would otherwise be impossible in a traditional classroom. I also appreciated that many of these tools can be accessed on Chromebooks or mobile devices, making them far more practical and accessible than relying solely on VR headsets.
Your market research shows that this is a market which continues to grow and now with AI, VR will most likely continue to increase in classrooms. I now believe immersive technologies have become much more than a trendy activity making them a much stronger investment opportunity than I originally thought! Thank you for asking us to revisit this response because my thoughts have definitely shifted! – Jessy
I think these immersive technologies definitely represent a strong opportunity, both for learning and for investors. However, my concern is that the novelty is more impactful than the actual value they bring to students. We’ve seen similar technologies wither after the initial enthusiasm wears off (for example, Google Glass). If the educational value of this tech can fill an actual gap that transforms learning, it has incredible potential. This would entail educators and researchers having a larger say in how they are deployed, more so than the business people and entrepreneurs.
Though I haven’t started your OER yet, I already think you made a great choice in focusing on Social Studies. I feel that the immersion aspect is well-suited to this subject.
Now that I’ve completed your OER, I can say that my perspective has changed slightly. The activity in particular that shifted my view was the Matterport museum tours. The technology here was a fantastic use of tech to allow an experience that wouldn’t be possible otherwise, but one that had learning embedded. What I mean is that a museum is a place of learning, and being able to visit it virtually was a fantastic experience, and so much more engaging than learning the exact same content from a book or website. Whereas the 360 walking tours and soundscapes were interesting, they still required a teacher to decide how to use them for learning, as opposed to the museums. This transportation directly to the museum is not a thing of novelty; it holds genuine value for learners who want to learn want the museum holds.
I think immersive experiences have potential, but at this point I’m cautiously optimistic rather than fully convinced. Like many new educational technologies, it’s easy to be impressed by the experience itself. My question is whether that excitement actually translates into better learning.
Before I would see immersive technologies as a strong investment, I would want evidence that they improve understanding, retention, or knowledge transfer, not just student engagement. I’ve seen schools purchase innovative technologies before, only to have them used a handful of times because teachers didn’t have the time, training, or support to integrate them meaningfully into their classrooms.
I’m also curious about scalability. Can immersive learning become part of everyday teaching, or will it remain an occasional enrichment activity? I’m hoping this OER helps answer whether the educational benefits justify the investment and what conditions are needed for these technologies to be successfully implemented in K-12 schools.
After going through the OER, my overall perspective hasn’t changed dramatically, but it has become more informed. I still think immersive experiences have potential, especially for subjects like language learning, history, and geography where context matters. The module showed that meaningful learning can happen without expensive VR headsets through tools like 360° videos and Matterport tours. That said, I still believe the technology needs to be paired with purposeful activities and discussion. The immersive experience alone isn’t enough. The learning comes from how teachers design and use it.
I think the question is whether immersive experiences offer something genuinely different from what existing tools already do.
I see real potential when immersive tech enables hands-on manipulation; rotating organs in biology, navigating a 3D molecule, interacting with spatial structures you can’t access otherwise. That’s where immersion actually changes what’s possible, not just how it looks. But I also remember when interactive whiteboards were going to transform education, and now many sit unused or function as expensive projectors. The pattern is familiar: hardware arrives, training doesn’t follow, pedagogy stays the same, and the innovation quietly fades.
My investment concern is what it takes to sustain this. This involves a whole ecosystem and administrative support. It’s not just buying headsets, it’s the ongoing infrastructure: device maintenance, software licensing, content updates, dedicated spaces, and teacher PD that actually integrates immersive tools into the curriculum rather than treating them as enrichment.
So my answer is a conditional yes, contingent on measurable outcomes beyond student engagement, and on sustaining the whole ecosystem that makes VR learning possible in schools.
Before exploring the module, I believe immersive experiences have strong potential as an educational investment, but only when they are designed to support meaningful learning rather than simply provide impressive technology. Virtual reality, 360° videos, and virtual field trips can make learning more engaging by allowing students to experience places and situations that would otherwise be inaccessible because of cost, distance, safety, or time. Subjects such as history, geography, science, and language learning seem especially well suited to these technologies because students can explore authentic environments instead of only reading about them. However, I also have concerns about scalability and long-term adoption. Many schools, particularly public schools, face limited budgets, insufficient technical support, and competing priorities. Purchasing VR headsets alone does not guarantee improved learning outcomes. Teachers also need time, professional development, and curriculum resources that clearly connect immersive experiences to learning objectives. Without this support, VR risks becoming an occasional novelty rather than a sustainable teaching tool. I am particularly interested in seeing how the module addresses different implementation models, especially for schools with only one headset or no VR hardware at all. If immersive learning can still provide meaningful educational experiences through accessible technologies such as 360° videos or shared virtual tours, it may become a much more practical investment.
My perspective has changed, but perhaps not in the way I expected. I now see much greater potential in immersive learning than I did at the start of the module. What changed most was my understanding of where the investment opportunity lies. Rather than investing primarily in VR headsets, I see greater value in flexible learning ecosystems that are curriculum-aligned, accessible, and intentionally designed for teachers and learners.
Throughout the OER, I found myself returning to the questions I posed at the beginning. How do we measure success, and what systems are needed to make immersive technologies sustainable? I still don’t think engagement alone is enough. The strongest learning experiences combined explanation, immersion, discussion, research, hands-on inquiry, and reflection. The technology enriched the learning experience, but it did not replace good teaching.
I also found myself questioning whether a classroom full of students wearing headsets is really the best pedagogical model. Instead, I see greater potential in small-group inquiry, project-based learning, and learning stations where immersive technologies provide access to perspectives, places, and experiences that would otherwise be impossible. In an IB classroom, immersive experiences become one source of inquiry alongside collaboration, research, creation, and reflection.
Ultimately, I think the strongest message from this OER is that the future is not just immersive, it is intentional. Technology can enable new possibilities, but teachers remain the designers of meaningful learning. For me, the most promising investment is not in hardware alone, but in learning ecosystems that give educators flexible tools to create authentic experiences that would not otherwise be possible.
After going through this OER, I wouldn’t say my perspective has flipped completely, but it’s become more specific.
While immersive tech has potential for exploring new places, what fascinates me is the potential it has in trades and trades-adjacent educational contexts where a student might have an opportunity to practice a skill safely in an unfamiliar learning environment or in different contexts.
It was interesting to consider the developments that are taking place for lower-spec consumer hardware for those who do not have access to VR headsets. I think this is a driver of value and accessibility of this technology and whether it becomes a sustainable addition to what edtech market as it becomes likely be something which reuses the technology in the room rather than seeking external funding.
Overall, I’m still cautiously optimistic about where this technology is headed, and I think the Immersive Experience Team’s tiered approach to implementation, whether a school has one headset, a class set, or none at all, is a good example of how that sustainability could actually play out in a classroom.
My first impression is that immersive technologies like VR and virtual field trips have a lot of potential, but I’m not sure they are a strong investment for education on a large scale right now. My main concerns are the cost of the technology and how it would be implemented in practice because I don’t think it’s effective for all learning situations.
I do think VR is incredibly valuable for training in fields like medicine, emergency response, and firefighting, where learners can safely practice high-risk scenarios, but these examples are tied to specific professions.
I also think immersive technologies could be appropriate for broader audiences by making environmental education more accessible. Many students may never have the opportunity to visit a coral reef, a rainforest, or even a nearby conservation area. VR could help create more equitable access to these experiences and build a stronger understanding of issues like climate change by allowing students to explore places they might never otherwise see.
As it stands now, ideally yes, but in a perfect world and perfect system. I would love for us all to use this tool in ways that benefit the learning of all individuals in classrooms and other learning environments. However, currently, safety, security, reliability, usability, and competencies of these technologies are not quite where they need ot be to be fully effective in the educational setting – speaking from a public education standpoint. In 5-10 years, this answer may be different; however, only time and igunity will tell.
My initial impression, approaching this as an educational venture analyst recommending prudent investment for schools, is that immersive experiences in theory offer promising educational value, such as immersive audio for engaging ecosystem sounds or immersive video for captivating lessons on space exploration. But I’d focus on where the durable investment value actually lies. Currently, my sense is that it’s less in the hardware and more in the content and software platform layers. Headsets are costly to buy and maintain, and until that hardware layer matures and the economics improve, I’d hesitate to invest heavily there. Content and software platforms, such as immersive video and audio libraries that are curriculum-aligned and work across whatever devices a school already has, seem like the stronger bet.
This trades some immersive learning experience for flexibility, where schools avoid getting locked into one provider and teachers get room to experiment and build pedagogy around the technology as it develops.
After exploring your site, my perspective has shifted somewhat. I still think there are challenges around cost and implementation, which are both indicated on the site as well, but I was surprised by how accessible many immersive learning tools are. I had initially associated immersive learning mostly with VR headsets, but I now see that tools like Google 360, Matterport tours, soundscapes, and language-learning experiences can be integrated into lessons without always needing specialized equipment. I thought the examples in the module did a great job of showing practical classroom applications. For example, a teacher could incorporate a Google 360 virtual field trip into a lesson tomorrow with very little additional cost or training. That makes immersive learning feel much more realistic and achievable than I had originally assumed.
I also really enjoyed the experience of going through your site! The explore Japan theme for the virtual tour was so cohesive and a really enjoyable way to experience and learn about immersive learning!
Immersive technology has tremendous potential to enrich learning by giving students access to experiences they might otherwise never have. It can transport students to historical events, remote ecosystems, scientific environments, or different cultures, creating authentic learning opportunities that extend far beyond the classroom.
I believe its greatest pedagogical value lies in its ability to close environmental, experiential, economic, and cultural gaps. By providing shared experiences, immersive technology can build background knowledge, broaden perspectives, and create meaningful opportunities for students to question, analyze, and make connections.
Ultimately, the technology itself is not what improves learning—the learning experiences that educators design around it do. When immersive technology is used to deepen understanding, encourage critical thinking, and inspire curiosity rather than simply entertain, it becomes a powerful tool that enhances and propels student learning.