Barriers Toward the Implementation of Extended Reality (XR) Technologies to Support Education and Training in Workforce Development Programs

Abstract

Advancements in computer technology have revolutionized extended reality (XR) experiences, including augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR), and 360° photography and videography. These technologies have found widespread adoption in various educational contexts, from K-12 schools to universities. However, community and technical colleges in the United States have been slower to adopt these innovative instructional modalities. This study aims to investigate the factors influencing the adoption of XR technologies at 2-year institutions, guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). A qualitative research approach was applied by interviewing 13 educators from 2-year colleges to identify their perception and the challenges faced while implementing XR-enabled instruction. Limited availability of XR educational content, restricted development opportunities of XR content, limited integration of these technologies with existing learning management systems, resource constraints and training needs of educators are some of the factors that hinder implementation of these technologies at 2-year colleges.

Introduction

The breakthroughs in computer technology have significantly enhanced extended reality (XR) experiences (augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), mixed reality (MR) and 360^o photography and videography) leading to their adoption across a variety of contexts (Chuah, 2018). Several industries, K-12 institutions and universities are adopting XR technology for training and educational purposes, but community and technical colleges in the United States are lagging in their adoption of these novel technology-enhanced instruction modalities (Duran, 2022).

XR experiences can be both immersive and non-immersive. VR can be immersive when experienced through a head mounted display and non-immersive when experienced through a desktop computer (Milgram et al., 1999). AR blends the digital and physical world by overlaying digital objects on the physical world (Milgram et al., 1995). AR experiences can be accessed through headsets, smartphones, and projectors. MR combines the elements of AR and VR, thus allowing the user to interact with the digital and physical objects simultaneously. MR applications facilitate real-time interaction between digital and physical objects, giving the user an enhanced immersive experience (Rokhsaritalemi et al., 2020). MR experiences can be accessed by the user through headsets such as the Microsoft HoloLens 2 and the Meta Quest Pro 3. 360^o videos and photography capture a specific scene in all directions (Ranieri et al., 2022). The users can view the scene by panning and tilting a smartphone or through a VR headset.

Previous research has demonstrated the advantages of XR technologies in education and training. These benefits include increased student engagement, enhanced visualization, and immersion, the ability for students to perform practical tasks repeatedly on virtual equipment in a safe learning environment at reduced cost, potentially improved learning outcomes, and collaboration opportunities facilitated by XR-enabled instructional mediums (Alnagrat et al., 2022; Upadhyay et al., 2023). These benefits should be leveraged by 2-year institutions to enhance student training, potentially leading to the addition of a skilled workforce to industry. To improve adoption of XR technologies at 2-year institutions, it is important to conduct a systematic assessment of the potential barriers and facilitators that affect its integration. Thus, guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR), this research aims to investigate five key domains: the innovation itself (XR technologies), the inner setting (2-year college institutions), the outer setting (broader context), the individuals involved, and the implementation process (Damschroder et al., 2009). The findings of this study will help the researchers understand the challenges faced by educators that are already implementing XR-enabled educational content in their curricula and provide evidence-based guidelines to create effective instruction and training programs for 2-year colleges. Accordingly, this research study explores the following research question: What are the barriers and facilitators to implementing XR technologies to support education and training at 2-year education institutions?

Method

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To be included in this study, the participants should be educators with experience in XR technology implementation at 2-year colleges.

Participants

A total of 13 educators from 2-year colleges were recruited through purposive sampling from the United States (11 participants) and Canada (two participants) were interviewed.

Study Procedure

A qualitative research approach was employed to investigate the challenges encountered for implementing XR technology for instruction at 2-year educational institutions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data on participants’ experiences with XR technology implementation. The interview protocol, developed using the CFIR framework, examined the impact of various factors such as XR technology benefits and challenges, institutional culture for XR implementation, influence of external agencies and policies, characteristics of educators, and the implementation process for XR technology integration.

The study was conducted online via recorded Zoom meetings, with each interview session lasting between 60 to 90 min. The audio recordings of the interviews were automatically transcribed using Zoom, and the transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti qualitative analysis software. An open coding technique was initially used to develop a codebook from the seven interviews, which was then used to identify themes from all 13 interviews and identify the barriers for XR implementation in 2-year educational institutions. Figure 1 provides the steps followed for conducting this study.

Figure 1.

Study procedure steps.

Results

The findings of this study showcase the use of XR technologies for instruction and training at 2-year colleges, offering insights into the technology’s adoption processes, and the factors influencing its implementation.

All participants reported benefits of XR, such as improved concept visualization, safe space for student experimentation, and the ability to conduct lab activities repeatedly without additional costs. Despite these benefits, several challenges were reported by all the participants. These included technological failures, resource limitations for purchasing equipment, increased teaching loads and constraints related to equipment availability, internet bandwidth and a dedicated campus space for an XR lab.

A notable challenge highlighted by one participant was the difficulty in accurately depicting steps involved in practical training procedures in XR simulations, which could impact quality of instruction, and hinder learning outcomes. Five participants expressed a need for new assessment techniques, as they still relied on traditional methods such as quizzes to measure student learning following technology-enhanced instruction. Another challenge mentioned by two participants was difficulty in integration XR-enabled instruction with existing learning management systems which necessitated the use of multiple systems for learning. Six participants reported that it was challenging to find XR learning content that fit their specific courses and it required additional resources to customize and update the learning content. Interestingly, all educators relied on open-source or off-the-shelf XR learning content, highlighting a lack of in-house development teams dedicated to creating or enhancing educational XR content. All the participants mentioned that a five to eight percent of students approximately in their classes felt discomfort while learning immersive VR and alternate provisions had to be made to ensure consistent learning for all the students. External factors like grants and industry demand were motivating factors for adopting XR technologies.

Discussion

The findings of this study highlight key implications for implementing XR technologies in 2-year colleges, providing practical guidelines for educators, instructional designers, and policymakers in the academic landscape. This section outlines the challenges associated with integration of XR guided by the CFIR framework.

Technological Factors

Technological considerations of implementing XR-enabled instruction at 2-year institutions include integration of XR-enabled learning content with existing learning management systems (LMS) and content development. LMS integration could potentially enhance the overall educational experience, by providing a seamless transition for educators and students, making it easier to incorporate XR into their teaching and learning practices. Additionally, integrating XR-enabled instructional content with existing LMS would prevent the need to switch between multiple platforms, thereby reducing learning complexity and cognitive load for all users which is found to affect transfer of learning in previous studies (Fisch, 2013; John, 2000). Furthermore, development of evidence based educational XR content is required within institutions to promote both availability and iterative refinement of existing content, which could further encourage XR adoption. This includes having the necessary hardware, as well as the software platforms needed to develop and deliver XR content.

Inner Setting Domain Factors

For successful implementation of XR-enabled instruction, institutions should have robust technical support systems to address technological challenges such as equipment failures, bandwidth limitations, and prohibitive network security obstacles which are necessary for smooth implementation and running of XR technology-enhanced instruction. Furthermore, a dedicated space for XR labs should be allocated for conducting classes to ensure a rich learning experience. Decision makers should support educators in adopting technology-enhanced instructional methods that benefit students. Additionally, institutions should allocate dedicated personnel like instructional designers and content developers for creation and refinement of educational content required to support different courses taught at 2-year colleges. Fostering collaborative efforts between educators and instructional designers could potentially lead to the development of evidence-based assessment strategies tailored to learning in XR environments, ensuring accurate measurement of student learning outcomes. Availability of these resources positively affect the technology adoption and motivate educators to provide students with good learning experiences (Gregory & Lodge, 2015).

Outer Setting Domain Factors

Outer setting domain factors primarily include partnerships with industry stakeholders which ensure XR technologies used in education align with real-world applications and industry needs. This can provide students with valuable skills and experiences that are directly relevant to their future careers, helping bridge the gap between education and the workforce. Furthermore, local governing bodies should create policies, potentially make changes to accreditation standards, and even provide funding for 2-year institutions to encourage adoption of novel technologies such as XR.

Characteristics of Individuals

Institutions should invest in training programs to enhance educators’ technological proficiency and support educators in overcoming workload challenges to drive successful implementation of XR in 2-year colleges. Educator training aids them in experimenting with technological interventions before learning and provides readiness for implementing technology-enhanced instruction based on the findings of Govender (2012). Additionally, XR educational content should be born accessible to ensure effective learning by students with accessibility challenges. Educators, instructional designers and XR content developers should receive training in how to create born accessible XR educational content to prevent retrofitting the XR content after it has been created. Development of educational XR applications that are intuitive for both educators and students should be encouraged to ensure implementation without added efforts. Older individuals, both students and educators, generally face challenges while using newer technologies; hence, additional support should be available for them to learn newer technologies.

Conclusion

This qualitative study investigated the challenges faced by 2-year institutions for implementing XR-enabled instruction and training programs specifically focusing on technological, internal, external, characteristics of individuals and implementation factors guided by the CFIR framework. Despite the benefits of XR-enabled technology-enhanced instruction for 2-year colleges, technological factors like cost of equipment, limited availability of ready-to-use XR content, lack of resources for in-house development of XR content and accessibility challenges faced by some students pose a challenge for making this technology a widespread medium for instruction. Internal factors like availability of lab space for XR-enabled training, a dedicated support team to ensure smooth operation of technology-enhanced instruction, and high-speed Internet availability hinder adoption and implementation of XR as an instructional tool for curricula offered at 2-year institutions. Even though external factors like grants encourage the adoption of XR technology as an instructional tool, 2-year college educators often come from industry rather than academia, and so may not have the foundational knowledge or experience to readily secure such funding. Additionally, industry partners that are likely to recruit 2-year college students, encourage implementation of technology-enhanced instruction to ensure addition of technologically skilled employees to the workforce. Finally, educators require specialized training or need to invest time to learn XR applications before teaching students. This is especially difficult due to time constraints associated with heavy courseload. All these challenges identified through this study provide insights for educational stakeholders that wish to implement XR-enabled instructions.

There are some limitations to this study. Only educators were interviewed for this study, and several other stakeholders from 2-year institutions can be interviewed to develop a comprehensive understanding of the barriers for implementation of XR-enabled instruction at 2-year institutions. Additionally, there is disparity in availability of resources across institutions where the participants currently teach, which could affect the implementation of innovative technologies and thus affect the perception of educators toward these technologies. The participant responses were analyzed based on the researcher’s interpretations and their biases could potentially influences the findings reported in this article, potentially leading to subjective results. The small sample size of 13 participants also raises the question of generalizing the results to larger populations.

It is evident from the findings of this study that implementing XR-enabled instruction at 2-year institutions will need a collective effort to overcome some of the challenges identified. Future research studies should explore design elements of XR-enabled instruction that are intuitive and enable the instructors and students to adopt and adapt to this modality.