Virtually Qualified - why technology should be used to enhance and not replace
With Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality hardware and software coming on leaps and bounds in the past few years we see more and more business verticals turning to embrace these technologies, and for a variety of reasons.
One of the most popular use cases of VR / AR / XR is for personnel training, to provide users with realistic scenarios that might come up in their day to day jobs and to prepare / track / score their response. Now there are plenty of instances where this kind of training is ideally suited for the role of the user:
Take driving tests for example. While there are simulator tests that can assess a person's knowledge of what they are "meant" to do in a given situation, this alone is no substitute for the real world experience of avoiding a crash, etc. Driving tests in the UK combine both the simulator style assessment with a physical session where the learner drives, with an assessor in the passenger seat. This is a great example of using technology to enhance and not replace the physical, manual assessment.
However with more extensive use of this kind of technology, there is a danger that too much will be weighted on the performance of an individual in a virtual environment, as opposed to real life experience. That combined with the cost savings simulated training can bring vs physical / manual alternatives could result in a misuse of the technology, with some cases where virtual training would be so inadequate as to be dangerous and misleading for those involved.
For instance, simulations and training are already prevalent in policing in the US and have been used to train officers in a variety of scenarios. From "Active Shooter" to "Traffic Stops," the aim is to prepare the officers mentally and physically for the real world situation of being faced with life or death decisions. Used in the right way, these scenario based learning exercises can definitely help train those in what steps should have been taken or additional things that could have been tried, running the simulation back so the individual starts to learn the cues to which they are meant to respond. But there is a limit to the effectiveness and extent to which these simulations can actually alter human behaviour; ultimately, the person will always know they're in a training scenario.
That is why it is very important when considering the use of these tools, that they are not used for "box-ticking" or relied too heavily on. We are all human and while we can engage in an exercise with near-realistic environments presented to us, there will always be an element of "this is the choice to make to complete this task" vs "in real life I would choose option B every time". Just look at driving tests; we all [who drive] passed the test driving in a way that almost no one does one they are qualified. And there is no difference with these, more important and impactful scenarios.
As humans we also have the fight or flight response to stressful experiences and events, and to test how someone might respond in a real event it will take just that - a real event. Some things we simply can't simulate… yet.
