1 Introduction

Utilizing digital technology, the internet, and electronic devices in interactive and social learning environments has enhanced the effectiveness of student-centered learning approaches (Al-Ansi, 2022). Termed as 6G, the next iteration of communication networks promises to unlock a plethora of novel applications and services previously unattainable with current 4G or 5G infrastructures (Al-Ansi & Al-Ansi, 2023). Among the key applications earmarked for development within 6G communication networks are (Al-Ansi & Al-Ansi, 2023): Digital Twin, Holograms, Robot Avatars, High-Density Internet of Things (IoT), Augmented Reality (AR), and Virtual Reality (VR). Despite having existed for some time, these applications have undergone continuous refinement and improvement (Al-Ansi & Al-Ansi, 2023).

Extended Reality (XR) technologies, including Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), are transforming the landscape of education by offering immersive and interactive learning experiences (Guo et al., 2021; Johnston et al., 2018; Kamińska et al., 2019; Kavanagh et al., 2017). VR allows students to be transported to virtual environments that can simulate real-world scenarios or abstract concepts (Garcia et al., 2019). For example, students studying history can explore ancient civilizations and interact with historical figures (Villena Taranilla et al., 2022; Yildirim et al., 2018), bringing their lessons to life. In science, VR can provide students with virtual laboratories where they can conduct experiments safely and gain practical knowledge (Akçayır et al., 2016; Makransky et al., 2019; Techakosit & Wannapiroon, 2015). This technology fosters engagement and curiosity, as students become active participants in their own learning process (Akman & Çakır, 2023; Allcoat & von Mühlenen, 2018).

Augmented Reality (AR) enhances the learning experience by overlaying digital information in the real world (Farshid et al., 2018). AR applications can be used to provide additional context and information about objects or environments (Chen et al., 2017). For instance, students studying biology can use AR to examine 3D models of organs or organisms, allowing them to explore their structures in detail (Arslan et al., 2020; Kalana et al., 2020). AR can also be employed to gamify education, turning lessons into interactive experiences that promote collaboration (Martín-Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Phon et al., 2014) and problem-solving skills (Karagozlu et al., 2018; Sarkar et al., 2020). These immersive technologies are making education more dynamic and personalized (Bacca et al., 2014), catering to different learning styles and capturing students’ attention in ways that traditional methods often struggle to achieve.

Studies have hence proved that VR/AR/XR technologies have transformed educational methodologies by providing immersive digital experiences, interactive environments, simulations, and enhanced engagement (Al-Ansi et al., 2023). However, these technologies are still in their developmental stages and require significant investment and customization to meet the growing demand in education (Al-Ansi et al., 2023). Findings of several studies indicate a significant surge in the adoption of these pieces of technology in education in recent years, particularly with the proliferation of wearable devices (Al-Ansi & Al-Ansi, 2023; Al-Ansi et al., 2023). However, there exists a noticeable gap in the swift implementation and customization of these technologies within educational institutions (Al-Ansi et al., 2023). As VR/AR/XR technologies continue to mature, an increasing array of educational applications are emerging to enhance the learning process.

The opinions of teachers regarding VR, AR, and XR in education vary, reflecting a range of perspectives on their potential benefits (Alalwan et al., 2020; Aliyu & Talib, 2019) and challenges (Alalwan et al., 2020; Bahari, 2022; Perifanou et al., 2022). Some teachers are enthusiastic about these technologies (Sudirman et al., 2020), recognizing their ability to enhance student engagement (Singh et al., 2023; Yildirim et al., 2018), deepen understanding (Sudirman et al., 2020), and provide unique learning experiences (Kok et al., 2022). They appreciate how VR, AR, and XR can transport students to different times, places, and environments, making abstract concepts more tangible and fostering active learning (Chen et al., 2011). However, other teachers may approach these technologies with caution or skepticism (Hamilton et al., 2021). They may express concerns about the cost of implementing VR and AR systems (Billingsley et al., 2019; Perifanou et al., 2022), as well as the necessary training and technical support required (Alalwan et al., 2020; Wells & Miller, 2020). Additionally, a major issue with VR/AR/XR implementations for educational purposes is the limited understanding of teachers about these kinds of technologies (Alalwan et al., 2020; Hanson & Shelton, 2008; Trust et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2021).

While VR/AR/XR technologies in education are being extensively explored, the opinions of educators regarding their usage remain relatively unexplored. In this research, our objective is to delve into the level of awareness, experiences, and opinions of educators regarding VR/AR/XR technologies in education. Firstly, we aim to investigate educators’ awareness and determine the extent to which they are familiar with these technologies. Secondly, we will focus on how educators’ awareness of VR/AR/XR technologies correlates with their previous experiences using them. Thirdly, we will examine whether educators have integrated VR/AR/XR technologies into their teaching practices, exploring the extent of their usage in the classroom. Fourthly, we will explore educators’ curiosity and willingness to further explore the implementation of VR/AR/XR technologies for educational purposes. Finally, our research aims to capture educators’ overall opinions on the implementation, awareness, and knowledge of VR/AR/XR technologies, providing valuable insights into their perspectives on these emerging educational tools.

2 Empirical research

2.1 Research questions

Our research questions were the following:

RQ1

How much are educators aware of the VR/AR/XR technologies?

RQ2

How does educators’ awareness of VR/AR/XR technologies depend on their previous experience with them?

RQ3

Have educators already used VR/AR/XR technologies in their teaching practice?

RQ4

Are educators curious to learn more about the usage of VR/AR/XR technologies for education?

RQ5

What are the educators’ overall opinions about the implementation, awareness, and knowledge of VR/AR/XR technologies?

2.2 Sample

The participants in the present study were 324 educators from Europe and Eurasia. The nationalities are presented in Appendix A. Among them, 197 (60.8%) were females, 117 (36.1%) were males, 8 (2.5%) respondents did not want to express their gender, and 2 (0.6%) were non-binary/genderqueer.

The ages of the participants are presented in Table 1. The modal class was 41–50 years old. Participants worked in several areas and levels of education. Participants could choose more than one area. The majority of the participants (33.4%) worked in the area of higher education. Concerning the main subjects and fields of teaching, educators could select more than one answer. The modal class of years of experience is “5 or less” years of service. In Table 1 we also present the frequency of undergoing professional education and training pedagogy (e.g., methodology, didactics, learning tools, communication with learners, etc.) and the regularity of undergoing further pedagogical training.

Table 1 Description of the sample of the participants in the study
Full size table

2.3 Materials

To measure educators’ attitudes towards VR/AR/XR, a questionnaire was developed in the context of the European Union project XRforPED (https://www.xr4ped.eu/). The instrument was created to measure educators’:

  • awareness of the VR/AR/XR technologies;

  • previous experiences with VR/AR/XR technologies;

  • experiences with the usage of VR/AR/XR for educational purposes;

  • curiosity to learn more about the usage of VR/AR/XR for educational purposes;

  • overall attitudes towards the usage of VR/AR/XR for educational purposes.

2.3.1 Awareness of the VR/AR/XT technologies

To measure educators’ awareness of VR/AR/XR technologies, we asked three closed-ended questions, specifically:

  • Are you aware of Virtual Reality (VR) technologies and what they are about?

  • Are you aware of Augmented Reality (AR) technologies and what they are about?

  • Are you aware of Extended Reality (XR) technologies and what they are about?

Participants were required to choose one of the following answers: (1) no; (2) I have a vague idea; (3) Yes, but I’m not very familiar with using it; and (4) I’m rather familiar with using it.

2.3.2 Previous experiences with VR/AR/XR technologies

To measure educators’ previous experiences with VR/AR/XR technologies, three close-ended questions were asked, specifically:

  • How often have you already tested/used VR/AR/XR technologies yourself? [never; up to 3 times; up to 10 times; up to 20 times; more than 20 times]

  • How did you have access to VR/AR/XR equipment? (multiple answers possible) [I never had access to this technology; I tested it briefly in shopping centers, at fairs, etc.; I own equipment myself; I have access to equipment in my social environment (family, friends, etc.); The organization I’m working for provides equipment; I practiced it during my pedagogic education/training; other]

  • What kind of VR/AR/XR apps have you experienced? (multiple answers) [I never experienced any apps; Gaming, fun, and entertainment; Visiting cultural, historic, etc. sites; Visiting geographic landscapes and natural sites; Learning apps; other].

2.3.3 Experiences with the usage of VR/AR/XR for educational purposes

To measure participants’ experiences with the usage of VR/AR/XR for educational purposes, one closed-ended question was developed, i.e.:

  • Have you already applied VR/AR/XR apps to your own teaching? [yes; no]

2.3.4 Curiosity to learn more about the usage of VR/AR/XR for educational purposes

One question was developed to measure educators’ curiosity about learning more about the usage of VR/AR/XR for educational purposes, i.e.:

  • Are you curious to learn more about VR/AR/XR and how it could be used for teaching? [yes; no; I’m not sure]

2.3.5 Opinion and knowledge about the usage of VR/AR/XR for educational purposes

A 13-items instrument was developed to measure teachers’ opinions and knowledge about VR/AR/XR:

  1. 1.

    There is little/no knowledge within the management team about these technologies and how they can be used in the classroom.

  2. 2.

    Management team is aware of these technologies but has no interest in them.

  3. 3.

    Trainers/teachers have little/no knowledge about these technologies and use them in the classroom.

  4. 4.

    Trainers/teachers are aware of these technologies but have no interest in them.

  5. 5.

    There are concerns that the use of VR/AR/XR does not enable teaching quality.

  6. 6.

    We already do enough digital teaching and with VR/AR/XR, more negative effects on learners are amplified.

  7. 7.

    We don’t have time to deal with it.

  8. 8.

    VR/AR/XR equipment is too expensive for us.

  9. 9.

    We would have money and interest, but we don’t know what equipment we should buy.

  10. 10.

    We have too few technical staff for the installation and maintenance of the devices/apps.

  11. 11.

    VR/AR/XR technologies are not yet sufficiently well developed to be used in teaching.

  12. 12.

    The curriculum, which we are obliged to implement, does not allow the use of VR/AR/XR

  13. 13.

    The architecture and structure of the classrooms and learning spaces are not designed for the use of VR/AR/XR.

Initially, the factorability of the 13-items instrument was examined. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.813 and no item had a measure of sampling adequacy lower than 0.733. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2(78) = 684; p < .001). Given these indicators, factor analysis was deemed to be suitable for all 13 items of the instrument.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to identify the factors underlying the instrument. The analysis based on eigenvalues greater than 1 has identified three components (Table 2). The first component explained 24.2% of the variance, the second factor explained 23.6% of the variance, and the third factor explained 14.1% of the variance. Overall, the three components explained 61.9% of the variance. Solutions for two factors were examined using the varimax rotation. The first component is related to educators’ opinions about the implementation of VR/AR/XR in education, the second component is related to educators’ awareness of VR/AR/XR, and the third component is related to educators’ knowledge of VR/AR/XR.

Table 2 Factors loadings with the varimax rotation
Full size table

The reliability of the questionnaire was measured with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and McDonald’s omega coefficient. Both coefficients have shown very good reliability of the instrument (α = 0.866; ω = 0.868).

2.4 Data analysis

The collected data was analyzed using the Jamovi statistical software. Descriptive statistical methods have been used to analyze frequencies and percentages, while inferential statistical tools have been applied to analyze the relationships between the data. Since data were ordinal and it was not normally distributed, non-parametric tests were used. In particular, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to check for differences among different groups. The Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Flinger (DSCF) test was used as a post-hoc test.

3 Results

3.1 Awareness of VR/AR/XR technologies

Regarding the awareness of VR/AR/XR technologies, results presented in Table 3 show that participants have different levels of awareness about these kinds of technologies. In particular, differences between the awareness of VR and AR (χ2(9) = 382; p < .001), VR and XR (χ2(9) = 238; p < .001), and XR and AR (χ2(9) = 470; p < .001) are statistically significant.

Table 3 Awareness of VR/AR/XR technologies
Full size table

The awareness of VR (χ2(4) = 2.55; p = .636), AR (χ2(4) = 3.18; p = .528), and XR (χ2(4) = 6.70; p = .152) did not vary among the various levels of experience as a teacher, indicating that both novice and experienced teachers had a similar awareness of the above-mentioned technologies. The awareness of VR (χ2(5) = 7.99; p = .157), AR (χ2(5) = 9.21; p = .101), and XR (χ2(5) = 2.31; p = .805) did not vary among the different levels of the duration of professional teacher training, indicating that teachers with more years of professional teacher training and those with a shorter period of training had similar awareness levels about VR/AR/XR technologies.

3.2 Previous experiences with VR/AR/XR technologies

Table 4 depicts the frequency of participants’ previous experiences with VR/AR/XR technology, while Table 5 shows the typology of access to this kind of technology. As it might be seen in Table 6, more than half of the participants never tried VR/AR/XR technologies, while only a little more than 7% of the participants used them more than 20 times. As seen in Table 7, the majority of the participants who used the VR/AR/XR technology tried it in shopping centers and fairs (24.8%), while only a minority of participants (4.0%) own this kind of technology.

Table 4 Frequency of the usage of VR/AR/XR technologies
Full size table
Table 5 Kind of access to VR/AR/XR technologies (multiple answers possible)
Full size table
Table 6 Contents experimented/used with VR/AR/XR technologies (multiple answers possible)
Full size table
Table 7 Usage of VR/AR/XR technology in teaching
Full size table

As shown with the Kruskal-Wallis test, the participants’ awareness about the VR (χ2(4) = 13.06; p = .011; ε2 = 0.040), AR (χ2(4) = 13.28; p = .010; ε2 = 0.041) technologies differ among the frequency of usage of this kind of technology, while no significant differences have been detected regarding the XR technology (χ2(4) = 2.67; p = .614). The DSCF test has shown that participants who used VR and AR technologies more often are also more aware of these kinds of technologies.

Moreover, there were some differences in the frequency of using the VR/AR/XR technologies and the years of experience as teachers (χ2(4) = 12.7; p = .013; ε2 = 0.039). In particular, teachers with more years of teaching experience used the VR/AR/XR technologies more often than novice teachers. Further analysis has shown no statistically significant difference between the length of formal teaching training and the frequency of using VR/AR/XR technologies (χ2(5) = 4.32; p = .504), indicating that participants with longer periods of formal teacher training used the VR/AR/XR technologies almost as frequently as those with shorter training.

In Table 8 we present what kind of contents did the participants experiment with or used. Among those who used VR/AR/XR technology, the majority (23.8%) used it for gaming, followed by cultural content (19.1%) and learning content (12.2%).

Table 8 The curiosity of participants to know more about the applications of VR/AR/XR technologies for education
Full size table

3.3 XR/AR/VR technology in teaching

In Table 9 we report whether the participants applied the VR/AR/XR technologies to their own teaching. The majority of the participants (90.4%) did not use VR/AR/XR technologies yet.

In Table 10 we present the responses about whether the participants were curious to learn more about the VR/AR/XR technologies for teaching. More than half of the participants (57.4%) expressed their curiosity to do so.

Table 9 Descriptive statistics of the main part of the questionnaire
Full size table
Table 10 Correlations between variables
Full size table

3.4 Opinions about VR/AR/XR

Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of the central part of the questionnaire, i.e. the one that was aimed at measuring participants’ opinions about VR/AR/XR technologies. Considering separately the means of the three factors that are measured by the questionnaire, we found that educators believe that the implementation of VR/AR/XR technologies in education is still difficult (M = 3.12; SD = 0.773). Moreover, educators believe that awareness of these technologies is scarce and there is not a great interest in implementing their usage in education (M = 2.38; SD = 0.664). Furthermore, educators think that their knowledge and the knowledge of school staff to use and maintain these pieces of technology is still not adequate (M = 2.65; SD = 0.664). Overall, educators agreed the most that they have little or no knowledge about VR/AR/XR technologies and their usage in classrooms (M = 3.19; SD = 0.792), followed by the idea that schools have too few technical staff for the installation and maintenance of the devices and apps (M = 3.10; SD = 0.893).

In Table 7 Spearman’s correlation coefficients are presented. The numbers corresponding to individual variables are the same as the ones presented in Table 4. Overall, the correlations between the variables are positive and statistically significant.

4 Discussion

VR/AR/XR technologies have the potential to enhance learning by immersing students in interactive experiences (Al-Ansi et al., 2023). Through these technologies, students can engage with dynamic visuals and auditory cues, fostering heightened interest in the subject matter. Additionally, they enable the creation of captivating simulations and virtual worlds, amplifying the learning experience with increased interactivity and immersion. Therefore, by leveraging these technologies, educators can augment the relevance of the curriculum (Al-Ansi et al., 2023). By enabling individuals to navigate virtual environments according to their own pace and preferences, these technologies enhance accessibility for learners with physical or cognitive challenges, ensuring a more equitable educational experience (Al-Ansi et al., 2023).

Due to the increasing presence of XR, VR, and AR technologies in education (Akman & Çakır, 2023; Allcoat & von Mühlenen, 2018; Guo et al., 2021; Johnston et al., 2018; Kamińska et al., 2019; Kavanagh et al., 2017), it has become equally important to explore educators’ opinions about their potential benefits (cf. Alalwan et al., 2020; Aliyu & Talib, 2019) and issues (cf. Alalwan et al., 2020; Bahari, 2022; Perifanou et al., 2022). The aim of the present research was, therefore, to investigate educators’ opinions about VR/AR/XR technologies.

The first research question dealt with the educators’ awareness of VR/AR/XR technology. Findings have shown that educators had limited knowledge about these kinds of technologies, which is in accordance with the literature (cf. Alalwan et al., 2020; Hanson & Shelton, 2008; Trust et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2021). In particular, educators seemed to be more aware of VR technology, followed by AR, and, lastly, XR. This fact might be related to virtual reality being more prevalent in the news and everyday life, for instance in gaming (cf. Psotka, 2013) and shopping malls (Van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017), compared to AR and XR. Educators’ awareness of these technologies did not vary based on their experience as teachers, indicating that both novice and experienced teachers had a similar level of awareness.

The fact that more experienced teachers were not significantly more aware of VR/AR/XR technology than novice educators might suggest that they lack information about novel methods and technologies in education. Similarly, the observation that novice teachers were equally aware of this technology might indicate that their university education did not adequately provide them with enough knowledge about these kinds of technologies. Additionally, the duration of professional teacher training did not significantly impact teachers’ awareness of VR/AR/XR technologies. This means that even teachers who underwent a longer period of training did not gain sufficient knowledge and competencies about VR/AR/XR technologies.

Therefore, we suggest policymakers and university administrators consider the possibility of introducing specific courses that would provide students/prospective teachers with a deeper understanding and awareness of VR/AR/XR technologies, with particular emphasis on their applications in educational settings.

Findings also show that more than half of the educators had little or no experience with VR/AR/XR, and they mainly used it in shopping centers and fairs (cf. Van Kerrebroeck et al., 2017). As expected, educators’ experiences with VR and AR influenced their awareness of these technologies, while the frequency of usage of this technology did not influence participants’ awareness of XR technologies. Once again, we might explain these differences considering the popularity of VR compared to other technologies (Akbulut et al., 2018). However, additional research is needed to fully understand the relationship between exposure to VR/AR/XR and educators’ awareness of these technologies.

To facilitate the effective integration of VR, AR, and XR technologies in education, policymakers, and educational stakeholders should implement specific policy measures and educational frameworks tailored to address the identified gaps in teachers’ knowledge and application of VR/AR/XR technologies. Firstly, educational policies should prioritize the allocation of funding and resources for the development and deployment of VR/AR/XR infrastructure in schools and educational institutions (cf. Cook et al., 2019). This may involve initiatives such as grants, subsidies, or tax incentives to support the purchase of hardware, software, and content creation tools. Moreover, educational frameworks should be revised to incorporate VR/AR/XR technology training and integration strategies into teacher education programs and professional development initiatives. This may involve revising curriculum guidelines, certification requirements, and licensure standards to include competencies related to VR/AR/XR pedagogy and practice (cf. Green Paper, 2023). Educational institutions should establish partnerships with industry stakeholders and technology providers to offer specialized training programs, workshops, and certification courses for educators seeking to enhance their skills in using VR/AR/XR technologies. Furthermore, educational frameworks should emphasize the importance of ongoing research and evaluation to assess the impact of VR/AR/XR integration on student learning outcomes, engagement, and equity. By embedding VR/AR/XR technology training and integration frameworks within educational policies and systems, policymakers can foster a culture of innovation and collaboration that empowers educators to harness the full potential of these technologies to enhance teaching and learning experiences.

Findings also show that more experienced educators have tried these technologies more times than novice teachers. Future research might investigate the reasons underlying this phenomenon; one possible reason could be attributed to the genuine interest of older, more experienced teachers in newer technology (cf. Huber & Watson, 2014). Similarly, teachers with more years of professional training used VR/AR/XR technologies more often than teachers with fewer years of professional training. The reason behind this phenomenon might be that teachers with longer periods of training developed a professional interest in new technologies and teaching methodologies compared to those with shorter professional training (cf. Trust et al., 2021). However, additional research is needed to validate this hypothesis.

Results have shown that the vast majority (more than 90%) of educators have never used VR/AR/XR technologies in their teaching practice, but more than half of them are curious to learn more about the applications of VR/AR/XR technologies in education. These findings are consistent with the literature, which suggests that teachers are interested in the possible applications of these kinds of technologies (Alalwan et al., 2020; Cooper et al., 2019). However, despite their interest, the majority of teachers have not used these technologies in the classroom (Khukalenko et al., 2022).

Therefore, we suggest administrators and policymakers to implement more courses, both in universities and professional training, that deal with VR/AR/XR, as teachers have not been adequately trained to use these kinds of technologies in classrooms (Yildirim et al., 2020).

The latter hypothesis has been confirmed in the main part of the questionnaire, where participants expressed their opinions about VR/AR/XR technologies. Overall, educators had a neutral view about the majority of the items; however, they expressed concerns about their knowledge of VR/AR/XR and their implementation in the classroom. Nevertheless, they seem to agree that they are curious to learn more about these technologies.

Previous literature has underscored teachers’ interest in furthering their understanding of VR/AR/XR technologies due to their potential to aid students in visualizing complex concepts and serving as effective facilitators in the classroom (Yildirim et al., 2020). Additionally, educators have acknowledged that VR/AR/XR technology has the capacity to enhance students’ interest in learning and motivation, thereby potentially improving overall learning outcomes (Yildirim et al., 2020). However, educators have also raised concerns regarding the cost associated with acquiring such technologies (Billingsley et al., 2019; Perifanou et al., 2022), often compounded by a lack of technological expertise and insufficient technical support from educational institutions (Alalwan et al., 2020; Wells & Miller, 2020).

As evidenced by our research, in line with existing literature (Alalwan et al., 2020; Hanson & Shelton, 2008; Trust et al., 2021; Wei et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2021), teachers exhibit a limited understanding of these technologies, which may serve as a barrier to their willingness to integrate and utilize VR/AR/XR technologies in their teaching practices. Consequently, the initial enthusiasm among teachers for these technologies may be dampened by technical challenges and a lack of comprehensive knowledge.

Therefore, to better prepare educators for the effective utilization of VR/AR/XR technologies in educational settings, educational institutions can implement a multifaceted approach encompassing both pre-service and in-service training programs (cf. Green Paper, 2023). Firstly, integrating VR/AR/XR technology training into teacher education curricula at the undergraduate and graduate levels is imperative (cf. Billingsley & Scheuermann, 2014; Billingsley et al., 2019; Howard et al., 2021). This could involve dedicated courses or modules focusing on the theoretical foundations, practical applications, and pedagogical strategies for integrating these technologies into teaching practices. These courses should provide hands-on experience with VR/AR/XR tools, allowing future educators to experiment with different platforms, develop proficiency in content creation, and explore innovative instructional methods. Additionally, collaborative projects and experiential learning opportunities can be incorporated to foster teamwork and creativity among aspiring educators. Among these initiatives, we mention the XRforPED Erasmus + project, which aimed to create 10 modules (for a total of 4 ECTS) specifically designed to provide educators with theoretical and practical knowledge about the educational usage of VR/AR/XR technologies (Green Paper, 2023). Both pre-service and in-service teachers would have the opportunity to learn more about how to utilize VR/AR/XR technologies in educational settings, ranging from medicine to social pedagogy.

Furthermore, ongoing professional development opportunities should be provided for practicing educators to continuously enhance their skills and knowledge in using VR/AR/XR technologies. This can be achieved through workshops, seminars, webinars, and online courses tailored to different proficiency levels and subject areas (cf. Green Paper, 2023). These professional development initiatives should not only focus on technical training but also emphasize pedagogical strategies for effectively integrating VR/AR/XR technologies into diverse instructional contexts (Green Paper, 2023). Educators should be encouraged to engage in peer learning and communities of practice where they can share best practices, troubleshoot challenges, and collaborate on innovative projects. Moreover, educational institutions should allocate resources for the procurement of VR/AR/XR hardware and software, establishing dedicated labs or resource centers where educators can access equipment, receive technical support, and collaborate on interdisciplinary projects. By investing in comprehensive training and support mechanisms, educational institutions can empower educators to leverage VR/AR/XR technologies as powerful tools for enhancing teaching and learning experiences.

While this research provided valuable insights into educators’ opinions about VR/AR/XR technologies, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations. Firstly, in the present study, educators from different countries were involved; however, the sample was not homogeneous, which may limit the generalizability of the results to the entire population of educators. The uneven distribution of educators from certain countries compared to others should be taken into consideration, as it might introduce bias in the findings. Conducting larger-scale studies with more diverse participant groups would offer a more comprehensive understanding of educators’ perspectives. Furthermore, the research focused on educators’ awareness, experiences, and opinions about VR/AR/XR technologies but did not delve deeply into the reasons behind their attitudes and beliefs. Exploring the underlying factors influencing educators’ reluctance to use these technologies in the classroom would provide valuable insights for policymakers and administrators to address potential barriers effectively. Understanding the specific challenges and concerns that educators face when implementing VR/AR/XR technologies in educational settings can help design targeted interventions and support systems to encourage greater adoption and integration of these technologies into teaching practices. Future research should aim to explore these underlying factors in more depth to facilitate successful implementation and maximize the benefits of VR/AR/XR technologies in education.

5 Conclusions

The present study has shed light on educators’ perspectives regarding VR/AR/XR technologies in education. It has revealed a general lack of awareness and limited experience among educators, irrespective of their level of teaching experience or professional training duration. The findings underscore the need for educational institutions and policymakers to address this gap through tailored courses and training programs aimed at enhancing educators’ understanding and proficiency in utilizing VR/AR/XR technologies effectively in teaching.

While a significant portion of educators expressed curiosity about these technologies, the majority have yet to incorporate them into their teaching practices. Concerns about knowledge gaps and implementation challenges were prevalent among participants, indicating a readiness to embrace these technologies but a lack of support and resources to do so effectively.

Future research should explore the reasons behind educators’ reluctance to adopt VR/AR/XR technologies more comprehensively. Understanding these underlying factors is crucial for developing targeted interventions and support systems that address educators’ concerns and facilitate successful integration of VR/AR/XR technologies into educational settings. By addressing these challenges, policymakers and administrators can harness the full potential of VR/AR/XR technologies to enhance teaching and learning experiences for educators and students alike.