Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Mixed-Reality Drills in Team Practices
Keywords:
Mixed-reality drills, sports training, barriers, facilitators, qualitative research, athlete engagement, technology adoptionAbstract
This study aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of mixed-reality (MR) drills in team sports practices. A qualitative research design was employed, grounded in an interpretivist paradigm to capture participants’ lived experiences. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 22 participants from Slovenia, including coaches, athletes, sport psychologists, and technology specialists. Interviews were conducted until theoretical saturation was reached, with sessions lasting between 45 and 70 minutes. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, and NVivo 14 software was used for systematic coding and analysis. Thematic analysis was performed to identify categories, subcategories, and concepts representing barriers and facilitators to MR adoption. Two overarching themes emerged from the analysis: barriers and facilitators. Barriers included technical limitations, financial constraints, resistance to change, training and expertise gaps, infrastructure challenges, and time restrictions. Participants emphasized issues such as inconsistent tracking accuracy, high equipment costs, skepticism from experienced coaches, and inadequate facilities. Conversely, facilitators included performance enhancement, motivation and engagement, supportive leadership, external partnerships, adaptability of technology, athlete readiness, and long-term vision. Athletes valued real-time feedback, immersive experiences, and the novelty of MR training, while organizational support and strategic planning were recognized as crucial for sustainable implementation. The study highlights a dual reality: while MR drills hold strong potential to enhance performance, engagement, and innovation in team sports, their integration is constrained by technical, financial, and organizational challenges. Successful adoption requires addressing these barriers through leadership support, strategic partnerships, structured training, and incremental implementation. These findings offer valuable insights for sports organizations seeking to integrate MR into practice and provide a foundation for future research on technology adoption in athletic contexts.
Downloads
References
1. Merino MdR. Feasibility of Using New Technologies and Artificial Intelligence in Preventive Measures in Building Works. Buildings. 2025;15(12):2132. doi: 10.3390/buildings15122132.
2. Encarnación-Dicent JdC, Kirwant H. Impact of Learning and Knowledge Technologies (TAC) on Digital Teaching Competencies in Higher Education. Yuyay Estrategias Metodologías & Didácticas Educativas. 2025;4(2):62-75. doi: 10.59343/yuyay.v4i2.94.
3. Pickering ME, Jopp R, Wheeler MA, Topple C. Authentic Learning and Job Readiness: Are Mixed-Reality Simulations Effective Tools for Preparing Business Students for the Real World? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2024. doi: 10.14742/ajet.9296.
4. Sargent DL. The Evolution of Teacher Education Through Emerging Technologies of Mixed Reality Simulation. 2020:16-30. doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1770-3.ch002.
5. Kelley MH, Qualls LW, Scott S, Hirsch SE. Mixed-Reality Simulation to Prepare Preservice Teachers to Use Culturally Responsive Teaching Strategies: A Pilot Study. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2024;40(1):65-78. doi: 10.1177/01626434241262238.
6. Whitney T, Cooper JT, Snider K. A Comparison of Role-Play v. Mixed-Reality Simulation on Pre-Service Teachers’ Behavior Management Practices. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2024;40(1):28-38. doi: 10.1177/01626434241257225.
7. Pinto MO, Vilaça A, Coelho L, Magalhães R, Veloso R. Extended Reality Tools for Medical Training and Education. 2024:89-96. doi: 10.17979/spudc.9788497498913.13.
8. Colley N. Nursing XR Simulator for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: A New Purpose of Future Technology Development. 2024. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.114170.
9. Shin J-H, Park S, Kim M, Lee M-J, Lim S-C, Cho K-W. Development of a Digital Twin Pipeline for Interactive Scientific Simulation and Mixed Reality Visualization. Ieee Access. 2023;11:100907-18. doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3314793.
10. Ntinda M, Haiduwa T, Kamati W. Development and Analysis of Virtual Laboratory as an Assistive Tool for Teaching Grade 8 Physical Science Classes. 2021:326-49. doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-4963-6.ch016.
11. Kouijzer M, Kip H, Bouman YHA, Kelders SM. Implementation of Virtual Reality in Healthcare: A Scoping Review on the Implementation Process of Virtual Reality in Various Healthcare Settings. Implementation Science Communications. 2023;4(1). doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00442-2.
12. Peña C, Vargas LMU, Murcia JCS. Approach to Professional Practice From Simulators and Virtual Laboratories. Iop Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering. 2020;844(1):012036. doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/844/1/012036.
13. Kinoshita A, Fukuda T, Yabuki N. Enhanced Tracking Method With Object Detection for Mixed Reality in Outdoor Large Space. 2022. doi: 10.52842/conf.ecaade.2022.2.457.
14. Kim SK, Lee Y, Go Y. Constructing a Mixed Simulation With 360° Virtual Reality and a High-Fidelity Simulator. Cin Computers Informatics Nursing. 2022;41(8):569-77. doi: 10.1097/cin.0000000000000976.
15. Walters S, Hirsch SE, McKown G, Carlson A, Allen AA. Mixed-Reality Simulation With Preservice Teacher Candidates: A Conceptual Replication. Teacher Education and Special Education the Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. 2021;44(4):340-55. doi: 10.1177/08884064211001453.
16. Perryman T, Sandefur C, Morris CT. Developing Interpersonal and Counseling Skills Through Mixed-Reality Simulation in Communication Sciences and Disorders. Perspectives of the Asha Special Interest Groups. 2021;6(2):416-28. doi: 10.1044/2020_persp-20-00118.
17. Christianingrum, Hurriyati R, Wibowo LA, Hendrayati H, Gunawan AI, Afifah N, et al. Memorable Experiential Reality Tech as an Environmentally Friendly Technology: Reducing Energy Consumption From Consumer Perspectives. Iop Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science. 2024;1419(1):012013. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1419/1/012013.
18. Spitzman E, Balconi A, Renaud G, Ingle JC, Cayson A. Promising Practice for Building Community Through Mixed-Reality Simulation in Teacher Preparation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2022;22(1). doi: 10.14434/josotl.v22i1.31187.
19. Anton SR, Piro J, Delcourt MAB, Gundel E. Pre-Service Teachers’ Coping and Anxiety Within Mixed-Reality Simulations. Social Sciences. 2023;12(3):146. doi: 10.3390/socsci12030146.
20. Collier R, Darling R, Sprague L-M, Murphy J. The Development and Feasibility of an Empathy Virtual Reality Scenario in Healthcare Education. Cin Computers Informatics Nursing. 2023;41(10):759-64. doi: 10.1097/cin.0000000000001034.
21. Quinones-Visot E, Bakk L, Allen K, Milnamow M, Dauenhauer J. Expanding Worlds: Assessing Strategies to Implementing a Virtual Reality Program in Respite Care. Innovation in Aging. 2022;6(Supplement_1):879-. doi: 10.1093/geroni/igac059.3138.
22. Almaguer CAG, López AA, Acosta ÁCA, Herrera EIR, Gastélum VS, Jiménez ORR, et al. Mix Reality, Gamification, and Simulators: Three Types of Strategies to Increase Learning in the Tec21 Educational Model. 2023. doi: 10.35199/epde.2023.89.
23. Yannier N, Hudson SE, Chang HL, Koedinger KR. AI Adaptivity in a Mixed-Reality System Improves Learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2024;34(4):1541-58. doi: 10.1007/s40593-023-00388-5.
24. Cho J, Thaker DM, Jotwani R, Hao D. Extended Reality for Neuraxial Anesthesia and Pain Procedures: A Scoping Review. 2024. doi: 10.1101/2024.01.29.24301926.
25. Mutyara D, Adisusilo AK, Abdillah BAP. Literature Review: Immersive Technology as a Teaching Aid in the Health Sector. Ic-Itechs. 2024;5(1):309-15. doi: 10.32664/ic-itechs.v5i1.1668.
26. Chango X. Extended Reality Technologies: Transforming the Future of Crime Scene Investigation. 2025. doi: 10.20944/preprints202506.1628.v1.
27. Page C, Blaydes M, Simpkins L, Humphrey C, Ellis K. Virtual Simulation-Based Training and Person-Centered Care. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. 2024;24(4). doi: 10.14434/josotl.v24i4.35605.
28. Nylund M, Jain S, Tegnander E, Jensen EJL, Prasolova‐Førland E, Linsdeth F, et al. Mixed Reality Training Application to Perform Obstetric Pulsed-Wave Doppler Ultrasound. Education and Information Technologies. 2023;29(6):7519-51. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12069-w.
29. Kamhi‐Stein LD. Integrating Mixed-Reality Simulations in TESOL Teacher Preparation Programs: Principles, Strengths, and Weaknesses. The CATESOL Journal. 2024;35(1). doi: 10.5070/b5.34834.
30. Karunarathna D, Jaliyagoda N, Jayalath G, Alawatugoda J, Ragel R, Nawinne I. Mixed-Reality Based Multi-Agent Robotics Framework for Artificial Swarm Intelligence Experiments. Ieee Access. 2023;11:105718-33. doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3317434.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
