This week I had a conversation that stayed with me.
I was speaking with a European university about medical imaging education and a potential collaboration. They had already been shown virtual reality by another provider.
You might think that prior exposure would make the conversation easier.
Instead, it had done the opposite.
Some educators, and even some students, had come away thinking of VR as something fun, interesting, and ultimately a bit of a gimmick.
My reaction was not that they had misunderstood VR.
It was that we, as an industry, have to be much more careful about what we present as immersive education.
That is frustrating, because well-designed immersive simulation can do things that are genuinely difficult to achieve in conventional education.
But only if we start in the right place.
That distinction sounds simple.
I think it is fundamental.
My background is in diagnostic radiography and education.
When we started developing simulation, the problem was not that radiography students did not have access to enough technology.
The problem was that there were things they needed to understand through doing.
You can explain those concepts in a lecture.
You can put them in a textbook.
You can show photographs.
But at some point a student needs to make a decision, perform an action, see what happened and work out whether they got it right.
That is where simulation becomes useful.
Only after understanding that educational problem does the question of technology become relevant.
If the answer is yes, use VR.
If the answer is no, don't.
That has always been our philosophy.
There is nothing wrong with games.
There is nothing wrong with entertainment.
There is nothing wrong with an immersive experience designed primarily to be enjoyable.
Those things can also have educational elements.
But an enjoyable experience and an effective learning experience are not automatically the same thing.
That distinction becomes particularly important in healthcare.
Eventually the learner leaves the simulation.
They stand beside a real patient.
They enter a real imaging room.
They work with real colleagues.
They make decisions that have consequences.
Those may be useful observations.
They are not the educational outcome.
The questions I am much more interested in are:
If a simulation cannot answer those questions, adding a headset does not solve the problem.
Projection radiography is inherently spatial.
The learner is dealing with a patient, detector, and X-ray tube, all positioned relative to one another in three-dimensional space.
Small changes matter.
Rotate the patient incorrectly, and anatomy changes on the image.
Centre incorrectly and the examination changes.
Change object-to-image distance and magnification changes.
Collimate poorly and there are consequences for both image quality and radiation protection.
Select inappropriate exposure factors and the outcome changes again.
That is precisely why immersive simulation can make sense for radiography.
The educational value is not that they were “inside VR”.
The value is that the medium allows them to practise a spatial and procedural task repeatedly without requiring a patient, an available X-ray room or an exposure to ionising radiation.
That is a very different proposition from building a virtual radiography room because a virtual radiography room looks impressive.
Radiation safety presents a different educational challenge.
Scatter radiation is invisible.
We teach the inverse square law.
We teach shielding.
We teach staff positioning.
We teach how tube angle, patient size, distance, and equipment configuration affect occupational exposure.
But the learner cannot stand in an operating theatre and see radiation moving through space.
A learner can change position and see what happens to their exposure.
Move closer to the patient.
Move further away.
Introduce shielding.
Change the tube position.
Change patient size.
Change imaging parameters.
Then examine the consequences.
Here, immersive technology is not simply replicating reality.
It can actually extend reality for educational purposes by revealing something the learner cannot normally see.
CT is different again.
A CT simulator should not begin with the challenge of constructing an impressive virtual scanner.
The educational questions are much more interesting.
Those are the problems worth solving.
Some of that learning may benefit from immersion.
Some may be just as effective, or more accessible, on a desktop.
That is fine.
I think companies working in immersive learning need to be comfortable saying this.
The purpose of educational technology is not to maximise technology.
It is to remove barriers to understanding, practice and competence.
That principle also matters for accessibility.
Not every student will have access to a headset.
Not every institution will want to manage immersive hardware.
Not every learning objective requires embodied interaction.
We increasingly think about simulation as a learning environment that can be delivered through different interfaces where appropriate, rather than treating the headset as the definition of the experience.
There is a familiar form of VR demonstration.
Five minutes later, the headset comes off.
“That was cool.”
Next person.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that as a demonstration of virtual reality.
But what has actually been demonstrated educationally?
Perhaps very little.
A clinical simulation demonstration should make the educational design visible.
At that point something important happens.
The learner stops thinking about the headset.
They start thinking about radiography.
Or CT.
Or radiation safety.
This is also why independent educational research has always mattered to us at VMC.
Our first radiography research did not produce a simplistic conclusion that “VR works”.
That is useful.
Educational research should tell us where something works, where it does not and how it should fit into a wider curriculum.
Does anything learned inside the simulation survive when the learner leaves it?
Another study randomly allocated 188 first-year radiography students to either VMC simulation or physical simulation using X-ray equipment.
Again, the finding that did not differ matters just as much as the findings that did.
We should not be trying to prove that immersive simulation is universally superior.
We should be trying to understand where it contributes.
None of this means engagement is irrelevant.
Quite the opposite.
An anxious learner does not learn well.
An interface that is unnecessarily difficult creates cognitive load that has nothing to do with the subject being taught.
A confusing VR environment can leave the learner thinking about controllers and locomotion when they should be thinking about anatomy or clinical decision-making.
So good immersive design should reduce unnecessary friction.
Engagement matters because it can support learning. It is not a substitute for learning.
I do not think educators should be persuaded to become less sceptical about educational technology.
I think they should become more demanding.
If someone presents a simulation, ask:
That final question is particularly important.
A company confident in its educational design should be able to answer it.
The conversation with that European university bothered me.
Not because somebody had seen another company's product.
Competition is normal.
What bothered me was that an experience presented as educational VR had apparently left people less convinced about the educational value of VR than they had been before they tried it.
That is a problem for everybody working seriously in this space.
The answer is better educational design.
That is how we approached simulation when Virtual Medical Coaching began.
It is still how we approach it now.
Sometimes the answer is immersive VR.
Sometimes it is desktop simulation.
Sometimes it is a combination.
And sometimes technology should get out of the way entirely.
That is not a weakness in an immersive learning strategy.
It is the strategy.