Immersive virtual reality (IVR) is increasingly being used in higher education teaching to enhance student learning, wellbeing, accessibility, and inclusivity. The rapidly maturing and growing academic literature on IVR highlights the potential benefits for knowledge retention, transfer, and application; as well as engagement, interest, and self-efficacy, among other factors (see, for example, Meyer et al. 2019; Makransky et al. 2019; Klingenberg et al. 2020). Nevertheless, research into the interrelationship between technological, cognitive, and learning design factors that may influence such enhancements is in need of further development (Makransky & Petersen 2021).

For institutions to effectively pursue such research, widespread investment, interest, and uptake across faculties and schools and among staff with varying levels of experience is needed. To address this, the current study assesses factors influencing staff acceptance of IVR in teaching at the University of Leeds via an extension of the Universal Theory of the Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) (see Venkatesh et al. 2012; Venkatesh et al. 2016; and Blut et al. 2022). This approach targets a notable gap in the technology acceptance literature, with comparable UTAUT-based studies examining general acceptance of IVR (Mütterlein & Hess 2017), student acceptance (Teng et al. 2022), and acceptance among secondary school teachers (Boel et al. 2021).

In addition to the classic UTAUT modifying variables (e.g., age, gender, and experience), my novel extension investigates the influence of faculty and school on behavioural intention to use and actual use of IVR. I also investigate the influence of the University of Leeds HELIX innovation hub on these variables: a new centre for IVR teaching, research, and collaboration, opened in September 2023, giving staff unprecedented ease of access to IVR hardware, software, facilities, and technical support. In doing so, I illustrate how positive changes to facilitating conditions may affect staff interest in IVR in different educational contexts.

This paper presents the findings of my mixed methods investigation, comprising a University-wide quantitative survey, followed by semi-structured interviews with staff of varying IVR experience and subject matter expertise. Based on the outcomes, I suggest how support infrastructure, training, and promotion may be tailored and targeted within different faculties and in different educational contexts to address concerns surrounding performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence, as well as broader understanding of the opportunities and possibilities afforded for educational IVR at the University.

Keywords: Virtual Reality, Technology Acceptance Models, Higher Education, Teaching Staff, XR Infrastructure.