Advancing Extended Reality Teaching and Learning Opportunities Across the Disciplines in Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of Extended Reality (XR) technologies in diverse fields, along with research demonstrating opportunities for innovation in teaching and learning, warrants further exploration. However, investigation into the supports required by instructors for experimentation, design, and deployment of XR technologies is needed. This study explores the benefits and challenges of XR technologies for teaching and learning, and reviews XR pedagogical initiatives at three universities. The research aims to discern strategies to promote and support XR initiatives in higher education, develop best practices for using and integrating XR technologies into university courses, and guide future research into XR technologies in higher education. To develop an empirical understanding of the opportunities and challenges faced by instructors using XR technologies, we performed a thematic analysis of sixteen semi-structured interviews to capture insights from instructors’ experiences. We found that instructors were cognizant of the many benefits associated with XR use in terms of experiential learning, making learning content more accessible, and the potential for its application. However, the findings also highlight the lack of guidance and support available to instructors in the implementation of these technologies in educational contexts. Our results provide recommendations for future institutional supports that could advance XR and expand the current teaching and learning opportunities available to instructors and students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".