Game Changer: An Interview with EDMEDIA 2026 Keynote Speaker Johanna Pirker

Johanna Pirker, Photo Copyright: Matthias Rauch, mrfoto.at

Games increasingly shape how people learn, collaborate, solve problems, and experience complex systems. At EDMEDIA 2026, Johanna Pirker, Professor of computer science at the Technical University of Munich and Associate Professor at Graz University of Technology, will explore how games, VR/AR, AI, and interactive environments can help educators rethink the design of future learning spaces. Her keynote, “It’s not a game. It’s a game changer: The Potential of Game Technologies for Education,” invites attendees to consider not only game-based learning, but also the broader technological ecosystem around games: immersive worlds, AI agents, collaborative simulations, data-informed learning environments, and inclusive design. Pirker’s work sits at the intersection of game development, education, virtual and augmented reality, artificial intelligence, human-computer interaction and data analytics. In the interview, we talk about her wide-ranging expertise and current work in these areas.

As an expert on games and game design, what games, digital, augmented or physical, do you personally enjoy playing?  

I love exploring new games and constantly challenging myself to step outside of my comfort zone. While my “go-to” games are often large open-world experiences like Cyberpunk 2077, Elden Ring, The Witcher 3, Diablo, or Grand Theft Auto V, I’m especially passionate about indie games. Indie games often feel like interactive art pieces. They allow us to explore unique mechanics, deeply personal stories, and perspectives shaped by different cultures. That diversity is something I find incredibly inspiring, both as a researcher and as a player. From a technology perspective, I’m extremely fascinated by virtual reality. VR opens entirely new possibilities for storytelling, interaction, and embodied learning, and I’m very excited about where immersive technologies are heading. 

What brought you to games as a topic for scholarship?

Games have always brought me so much joy. From an early age, I loved the feeling of exploration, experimenting, solving puzzles, discovering systems, and learning through play. At some point, I became curious about why games were teaching me so much so naturally. Why could a game make me spend hours solving incredibly complex problems, while traditional learning formats sometimes struggled to create the same level of engagement; even when the content itself was fascinating? That question stayed with me and eventually shaped my academic path. I wanted to understand what makes games such powerful learning environments, and how we can bring some of that magic into education, science communication, and human-computer interaction. Also, I love developing games. I think many computer scientists I met share a passion for game; what also got them in computer science in the first place. This is certainly also true for me. I see so much potential in the world of games and their technologies for so many other discplines.

Most educators today are familiar with the concept “gamification,” but your work points to a much broader ecosystem: game engines, immersive environments, multiplayer worlds, simulation, AI, and data-informed design. What is lost when we reduce game-based learning to points, badges, and leaderboards?

To be honest, I’ve become a little cautious with the word “gamification”. Not because the idea itself is wrong, but because it has often been oversimplified or even misused. For a long time, people assumed that if you take something extremely unengaging and simply add points, badges, or leaderboards, it will suddenly become super motivating. That’s rarely how meaningful engagement works. Game design is an art and also a science in itself. Great games don’t motivate us because they reward us with points. They motivate us because they create curiosity, challenge, agency, discovery, social connection, and meaningful feedback. When we reduce game-based learning to surface-level reward systems, we lose the deeper potential of games: simulation, experimentation, storytelling, collaboration, identity, and exploration. What excites me most is when educators, scientists, and game designers work together. That’s where truly powerful learning experiences emerge. Meaningful learning experiences.

Your research has explored games and virtual environments for STEM learning, computer science education, and collaborative problem-solving. What kinds of learning goals are especially well suited to game technologies, and where should educators be cautious?

I think game technologies are especially powerful when learning involves exploration, experimentation, systems thinking, problem-solving, or collaboration. All things that are central to STEM education. I’m particularly interested in the power of simulations. Games allow learners to interact with complex systems, test hypotheses, fail safely, and try again. That mirrors the scientific process really well. Whether it’s understanding physics, programming concepts, engineering systems, or collaborative problem-solving, games can make abstract concepts tangible and interactive. At their best, games remind us that learning is fundamentally about curiosity. They show us that even difficult challenges can become deeply engaging when we’re given the freedom to explore and persist. I would also say that this form of learning will be more and more important in our current push from different AI tools that are reshaping the world of learning really fast.

But at the same time, educators should be thoughtful about when to use game technologies. Not every learning experience needs to become a game. If something already works beautifully in a real-world, hands-on setting, we shouldn’t replace it just for the sake of digitalization. For example, I’m excited about using virtual environments for physics experiments that would otherwise be too expensive, too dangerous, or simply inaccessible. But if learners can easily recreate an experiment at home or in a classroom, hands-on physical experience may still be the better choice. For me, technology should expand access and possibility but should not replace what already works well. 

Your work on digital twins and immersive VR points to applications in industry, training, collaboration, and education. How might digital twins change the way students learn about complex systems, from engineering and architecture to healthcare and climate systems?

For learning purposes, we increasingly build virtual representations (linked or not linked) of real-world systems, environments, buildings, processes, or scientific concepts: interactive models that allow learners to explore how complex systems behave and evolve over time. Instead of only reading about these systems in textbooks or looking at static diagrams, learners can actively interact with dynamic simulations of real-world environments. Imagine engineering students experimenting with a virtual power plant, architecture students exploring how buildings respond to environmental changes, medical students working with patient-specific simulations, or climate science students visualizing the long-term impact of interventions in real time. What makes these kinds of interactive models so powerful is that they allow learners to experiment, make mistakes, test hypotheses, and immediately see the consequences of their decisions. That kind of active exploration can make highly abstract systems much more intuitive, tangible, and meaningful. 

What should educators know about the limitations of VR — including accessibility, cost, motion sickness, classroom logistics, and the risk of overdesigning experiences?

VR is incredibly exciting, but educators should always start with the learning goal and not with the technology. In many classrooms, resources are limited, space is limited, and having 30 students simultaneously moving around in room-scale VR simply may not be feasible. But limitations can also become design opportunities. In one of our own research projects, we turned this challenge into an asset: only one learner wore the VR headset, while the others explored the same learning environment through tablets. Each participant received different pieces of information, so they had to communicate and collaborate in order to solve the learning challenge together. This also addresses something we know from learning science: discussion, collaboration, and social interaction are key drivers of deep learning.

Motion sickness is another important concern, but good design can significantly reduce it. And interestingly, our studies also show that we often don’t need hyper-realistic graphics. Simple, clear, and well-designed environments with fun interactions are often more than enough if the experience itself is engaging and meaningful. So for me, the question is not necessary “How advanced can we make it?” but rather “How accessible and human-centered can we design it?” 

Your work has examined both 360-degree VR videos and what you call “real VR” for education. How should educators decide when a 360° video is enough, and when a fully interactive VR environment is worth the additional design effort?

These are actually two very different learning experiences, and both have their place.

360° videos are for instane powerful when the goal is presence, observation, and exposure to real places or situations. They allow learners to visit environments that might otherwise be inaccessible such as an archaeological site, a hospital operating room, a factory floor, or even remote ecosystems and combines it with a strong sense of realism and immersion. But fundamentally, they are still videos. The learner can look around, but they cannot meaningfully change or manipulate the environment. Fully interactive VR, on the other hand, creates an entirely different kind of learning experience. Here, learners can interact with objects, manipulate systems, conduct experiments, solve problems, and actively shape what happens. That makes interactive VR especially valuable when learning requires experimentation, decision-making, procedural training, or collaborative problem-solving. So: Does the learner mainly need to observe or do they need to act? If observation, empathy, or contextual understanding is the goal, 360° video may be completely sufficient. But if learners need to explore, test ideas, make mistakes, and learn through interaction, then fully interactive VR can unlock experiences that traditional media simply cannot provide.

Augmented reality has a different educational affordance than VR: it layers information onto the real world rather than replacing it. Where do you see AR as more powerful than VR for learning?

This is a very different use case. Augmented reality has its own unique educational strengths because it does not replace the real world; it enhances it. Instead of transporting learners somewhere else, AR allows us to enrich the physical environment with information, visualizations, and interactive content that would otherwise remain invisible.

For example, imagine students holding real magnets in their hands while AR makes magnetic fields visible around them, or biology students exploring the human body by seeing organs, muscles, or blood flow projected onto physical models or a stundt standing at an archaeological site, a historical battlefield, or an ancient city, and through AR being able to see how that place looked hundreds or even thousands of years ago. That creates a very powerful sense of contextual learning. So AR is incredibly powerful when the real world itself is already the learning environment and we want to reveal what is hidden, abstract, or no longer there

VR, on the other hand, allows us to create experiences that would otherwise not be possible at all; e.g. to visit inaccessible places, explore impossible worlds, simulate dangerous scenarios, or conduct experiments that would be too expensive or complex in reality. I personally am incredibly fascinated by VR because it makes the impossible possible and the inaccessible accessible. I’ve always loved the idea that immersive technologies can open extraordinary learning experiences to people who may never have had access to expensive labs, specialized schools, or unique educational environments otherwise.

AI is rapidly entering both education and game development. In your view, how might AI change the design of educational games—through adaptive feedback, intelligent agents, procedural content generation, personalized worlds, or new forms of assessment?

Yes to all. And it’s happening at an incredible pace. We are currently opening what feels like an entirely new chapter for education but also game development. AI has the potential to transform educational games on many levels; from adaptive feedback systems and intelligent virtual tutors, to procedural content generation, personalized learning worlds, dynamic storytelling, and entirely new forms of assessment that focus not just on outcomes, but on the learning process itself. Personally, I’m especially fascinated by the intersection of AI and immersive technologies. At the same time, it’s also incredibly important to talk about the risks and ethical considerations. AI is not automatically a solution just because it is powerful. If AI is introduced poorly into learning environments, it can reduce critical thinking, create over-reliance, reinforce bias, or optimize for the wrong learning outcomes. In fact, we are already seeing some of these challenges today.

So for me, the exciting question is not whether AI will change educational environments –  as it already is. The real question is how do we design AI-powered learning experiences that remain human-centered, transparent, ethical, and truly support curiosity, creativity, and deep learning? And here again, we are back to are game to show us that experimenting and problem solving can be difficult, but we can solve any puzzle when we continute working on it.

In 2026, you were appointed to the UN Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, which will assess AI’s global opportunities and risks from a scientific perspective. Can you tell me more about the panel and your work there?

I’m truly honored to be part of this panel. It brings together an extraordinary group of researchers and experts from many different disciplines, countries, and perspectives, all working toward a shared goal: building a scientifically grounded understanding of both the opportunities and the risks of artificial intelligence on a global scale. Right now, we are working intensely on our first report, which will be published in July. I’m very excited about the conversations happening in this group and about contributing to a global dialogue on how we can develop and use AI responsibly, inclusively, and in ways that create meaningful positive impact. 

Games are often discussed either as motivational tools or as risks. How can researchers and educators move beyond simplistic debates about screen time, addiction, or gamification and toward a richer understanding of play?

My simplest advice is: play more games.

If we really want to understand games, we need to experience them and not just talk about them from the outside. The moment people start playing a broader range of games, they quickly realize how incredibly colorful, diverse, complex, and powerful this medium really is, far beyond traditional entertainment. I often recommend exploring shorter indie games in particular, because they showcase the enormous diversity of mechanics, stories, perspectives, and design philosophies that exist in this space. Many of them are like interactive art pieces. Some teach through experimentation, some through collaboration, some by putting you into unfamiliar perspectives, and some by forcing you to make meaningful decisions and live with their consequences. That is something games can do in a very unique way. They don’t just tell us something. They let us experience systems, choices, emotions, and consequences firsthand.

You teach game development. For EDMEDIA attendees who may not identify as game designers, what is one idea from game development that you wish more educators, instructional designers, and researchers would adopt?

One idea from recent game development that I love is that learning does not always need to feel easy to feel meaningful. Some of the most memorable games deliberately dare to be difficult. Take Dark Souls, for example. Players go into that experience knowing they will fail. Sometimes dozens, maybe even hundreds of times against the same boss. And yet they keep going. Why? Because the game creates a powerful message that improvement is possible. Every failure teaches you something. Every attempt makes you a little better. And eventually, through practice and persistence, you overcome what once felt impossible. I absolutely love that mindset, and I think education can learn a lot from it. Learning can, and sometimes should, be difficult. Struggle is not always a sign that something is wrong but maybe also a sign that growth is happening. What I would love to see more in education is learning experiences that don’t remove challenge, but instead create safe spaces for failure, iteration, feedback, and persistence. So that students can understand: if I keep learning, experimenting, and improving, I will get there. And perhaps most importantly: at some point, you stop fearing the difficult parts… and start enjoying the challenge itself.

About

Johanna Pirker is a computer scientist working at the intersection of game development, education, and interactive technologies. Her research explores how games, VR, and AI can enhance learning, collaboration, and problem-solving. With experience in both industry and academia, including work at EA and research at MIT, she currently serves as a Full Professor at the Technical University of Munich and Associate Professor at Graz University of Technology. She is active in science communication, interdisciplinary research, and was named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 list for science.