Virtual Plus Physical

Designing Accessible Site-Based Learning Experiences

Abstract

Virtual Site Visits (VSVs) can address long-standing barriers to student engagement in place-based learning (Tuthill & Klemm, 2002). Since 2019, the BEL+T group has developed over 50 VSVs across a range of disciplines, using technologies such as 360° cameras, LiDAR scanners and drones to create interactive environments that simulate, augment and extend real-world sites. These experiences have been delivered to over 8,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students, enabling site-based learning regardless of physical location, mobility constraints or other barriers to participation.

The design and implementation of VSVs can be considered through the lens of learning design. This perspective influences both how virtual environments are constructed, and their function within the broader curriculum. The authors’ previously published typology categorised VSVs by learning aims and formats (Tregloan et al., 2023). It offers examples of VSVs from diverse built environment subjects that have delivered searchable ‘fields of objects’; ’theatre sets’ introducing participants and places; ‘demonstrations of process’; ‘situations’ of abstract concepts or standards; and ‘starting points’ for creative responses. It distinguishes VSVs developed to inspire and contextualize; those that demonstrate or demarcate; and those that ground abstract experiences via specific locations.

We propose that the learning potential of site can be achieved—and amplified—through multiple, complementary experiences that together support broader learning outcomes (Tregloan et al., 2023). VSVs offer alternative modes of engagement that can supplement and extend in-person experiences. When designed as part of a broader pedagogical sequence, VSVs can shift the focus from virtual replication to achieving learning outcomes through a purposeful blend of tools and experiences. We encourage educators to think critically about how students’ engagements with site, experienced through these complementary avenues, can be sequenced, scaffolded and integrated within their own subjects.

Effective VSVs must be designed with a clear understanding of both their advantages and limitations. While they offer scalability, controlled environments and enhanced accessibility, they may lack the sensory immediacy or social dynamics of physical site visits. These differences matter. Educators must consider not just the content of the site, but how and why students are engaging with it—and select technologies and tailor learning experiences accordingly. Some formats may better serve specific pedagogical goals than others, and thoughtful alignment between technology and intent is essential.

Ultimately, this work highlights how VSVs can enrich place-based learning when embedded in a broader pedagogical strategy, encouraging educators to reimagine how virtual and physical modalities can work together to achieve inclusive, meaningful student learning.

References:

Klippel, A., Zhao, J., Oprean, D., Wallgrün, J. O., Stubbs, C., La Femina, P., & Jackson, K. L. (2020). The value of being there: Toward a science of immersive virtual field trips. Virtual Reality, 24(4), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00418-5

Tregloan, K., Thompson, J., Holland, S., & Song, H. (Sarah). (2023). Unreal … a Typology for Learning from Virtual Site Visits. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 0(0), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2023.2294198

Tuthill, G., & Klemm, E. B. (2002). Virtual field trips: Alternatives to actual field trips. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 453–468.