‍

What Counts as VR and AR in Education Right Now?

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) have moved from novelty demos into more regular use in some educational environments, especially in well‑resourced schools and museums. In VR setups, students wear headsets which block out the physical room they’re in and place them in fully digital environments: a reconstructed ancient city, a simulated science lab, a tour of the solar system, or even a model of the human body they can “walk through”. AR, by contrast, layers digital information on top of the real world using tablets, phones, or lightweight glasses – think of pointing a device at a page and seeing a 3D model of a molecule appear, or scanning a poster to trigger an animation.​

‍

Education‑focused VR platforms now offer libraries of curriculum‑linked experiences, complete with teacher guides and discussion prompts. Some companies are experimenting with multi‑user VR classrooms where avatars can manipulate objects together, while AR apps allow students to annotate physical spaces with digital notes, translations, or historical overlays. On top of that, mainstream tools like Minecraft Education and other 3D environments blur the line between game and virtual field trip, letting students build and explore worlds collaboratively. The tech is not yet universal – hardware cost, safety policies, and teacher training are real barriers – but it is far enough along that some families and educators are starting to ask: when is this genuinely better than a well‑drawn diagram or a thoughtful text?​

Real Learning Gains vs Shiny Distractions

Immersive tech can be powerful in specific circumstances. Spatial experiences tend to help with concepts that are inherently three‑dimensional or hard to visualise in 2D: navigating inside a cell, understanding scale in astronomy, or seeing how a historical site looked before it was damaged. For students who struggle with abstract language or who might be kinesthetic learners, “being there” can make an idea more concrete. VR trips can also increase access: classes that could never afford to visit a distant museum or archaeological dig can still explore a high‑fidelity simulation. When paired with good pre‑teaching and follow‑up discussion, these experiences can spark curiosity and deepen empathy – for example, walking through reconstructions of different living conditions or ecosystems.​

‍

However, immersion is not automatically understanding. Without clear learning goals and scaffolding, VR and AR can become expensive field trips with little transfer back to core concepts. Students may remember the “wow” of flying through space but not the underlying physics, or recall the drama of a simulation but not how to evaluate the sources it was based on. There are also practical concerns: motion sickness and eye strain for some users, equity issues when only a subset of students get full headset experiences, and safety policies around device hygiene and content vetting.​

‍

For parents and teachers, it is worth considering:

‍

• What, precisely, will students be able to do or explain better after this VR/AR activity than after a good video or hands‑on demo?
• What are students doing during the experience – is it more active or more passive? Are they making decisions, observing carefully, taking notes, or just being taken on a ride?

Thoughtfully used, immersion should serve thinking, not replace it. Sometimes this can mean saying no to the latest headset demo and yes to a well‑run discussion with a map and a primary source.

‍

Note: the first draft of this article was done by AI Chatbot Claude with the support of Max Capacity. The text was then edited and adapted by Jaye Sergeant of Turtle & elephant, who is responsible for the published version.