Beyond the Headset: From Consumers to Creators in Immersive Learning
- Debbie Holley
- 3 days ago
- 3 min read
At the recent EdTech World Forum, our keynote “Beyond the Headset: From Consumers to Creators” explored a question that remains central to contemporary educational technology: we have digitised education and globalised classrooms—but have we truly transformed learning?
Across higher education, immersive technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR) are frequently positioned as catalysts for engagement, simulation, and experiential learning. Their potential is well-rehearsed: immersive environments can situate learners in otherwise inaccessible contexts and support complex skills development. However, much current practice risks reproducing traditional pedagogies in digital form. Students may enter visually rich, interactive environments, yet often remain passive consumers of instructor-designed content.
The issue, therefore, is not access to immersive tools, but how they are pedagogically enacted.
Our keynote argued for a shift from immersion as spectacle towards immersion as participatory learning. Central to this shift is a rethinking of the learner’s role—from recipient to co-creator. Drawing on the work of Makransky & Peterson (2021)Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL), we highlighted that meaningful engagement emerges through the relationship between presence—the sense of “being there”—and agency—the learner’s ability to act, shape, and influence outcomes. Immersion alone does not guarantee learning; design, intention, and activity are critical.
This perspective aligns with longstanding educational theory. From a Vygotskian lens, immersive environments can act as mediating tools within the Zone of Proximal Development, enabling learners to extend capability through collaboration and scaffolded practice. Crucially, this requires learners to be active participants rather than observers. Presence without agency risks creating compelling experiences that are memorable, but pedagogically shallow.
A key example we shared was the TalkTech project, an international collaboration involving students from Bentley University (USA) and the Polytechnic University of Timișoara (Romania). In this initiative, students designed their own immersive VR environments representing culturally significant locations. Through narrative construction, 3D design, and intercultural collaboration, learners moved beyond consuming digital content to producing it. Importantly, the educational value lay not only in the final artefacts but in the process itself: students negotiated meaning across cultures, addressed complex design challenges, and developed digital fluency alongside communication and reflective capabilities. In CAMIL terms, the project intentionally combined agency, immersion, and social interaction to support deeper and more sustained learning.
We also explored immersive approaches within healthcare education, where high-pressure, scenario-based simulations enable students to engage in complex decision-making, followed by structured debriefing and reflection. These examples highlight that immersive learning is not confined to VR headsets alone; rather, it encompasses any carefully designed experience that integrates emotional engagement, active participation, and critical reflection. This broader conception of immersion is evident in a recent large-scale simulation at Bournemouth University. Students across paramedic, nursing, physiotherapy, and mental health nursing programmes responded to a fictional ‘major incident’ scenario, staged in an underground car park at the Lansdowne Campus. Set against the backdrop of a dramatic, simulated urban emergency, learners worked collaboratively to manage a range of complex injuries and evolving situational challenges.
The educational power of this experience derived from its design: the integration of realism, teamwork, time pressure, and reflective debrief created an environment where technical knowledge, professional judgement, and interpersonal skills could be developed in tandem. Such examples reinforce a key argument from our keynote—that immersive learning is defined not by the technology itself, but by the intentional structuring of experiences that enable learners to think, act, and reflect in authentic contexts.
Across these contexts, several patterns emerge. Effective immersive learning positions students as creators, emphasises collaboration, and situates tasks in authentic, meaningful contexts. It also supports “flow”—deep cognitive engagement—through carefully balanced challenge and scaffolding. These “best learning moments” are not technologically determined; they are intentionally designed.
As institutions continue to invest in immersive technologies, there is a risk that focus remains on hardware and novelty. Our argument is deliberately different. The future of immersive learning will not be defined by the sophistication of the tools, but by the quality of the pedagogy underpinning them.
For educators, the implication is clear: design for agency, collaboration, creativity, and reflection. When students move from consumers to creators, immersive learning has the potential to move beyond engagement towards genuine educational transformation.
Makransky, G. and Petersen, G.B. (2021) ‘The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality’, Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), pp. 937–958.
Information on the 'Godzilla attack' from here - with thanks to lead paramedic lecturer Una Brosnan for sharing.
Comments