Immersive and extended-reality learning
Explore when AR, VR, MR and related approaches can make otherwise difficult experiences visible, accessible or safe to practise.
Overview
Extended reality, or XR, is an umbrella term for technologies that combine physical and digitally created environments in different ways. Augmented reality overlays digital information on a view of the physical world. Virtual reality places the user inside a digitally generated environment. Mixed reality allows digital and physical elements to be spatially anchored and, in some systems, manipulated together.
These technologies can support learning when spatial, embodied or simulated experience is important to the objective. Their value lies less in immersion itself than in what immersion enables learners to perceive, do, practise, discuss or revisit.
Relevance to teaching and learning
XR can make inaccessible places, scales, time periods or processes available for exploration. It can support rehearsal where real-world practice is costly, dangerous or impractical. It can also provide spatial representations of complex structures and invite learners to act within a situation rather than only read or watch.
The same features can also introduce distraction, cognitive burden, discomfort and logistical complexity. A conventional video, physical model, simulation or field experience may be more effective when immersion does not contribute directly to the learning task.
Key ideas
- Use XR for a reason only XR can serve well. Prioritise spatial understanding, embodied rehearsal, safe practice, perspective-taking or access to otherwise unavailable experiences.
- Align action with the learning objective. Interactions should require learners to notice, decide, manipulate, explain or practise the target knowledge and skills.
- Design guidance inside the experience. Use orientation, cues, prompts and feedback to prevent attention from being captured by irrelevant details.
- Connect experience to explanation. Prepare learners before entry and use discussion, reflection or representation afterwards to consolidate learning.
- Plan classroom orchestration. Account for device rotation, observation, hygiene, supervision, time, technical support and meaningful activity for learners who are not in the headset.
- Monitor comfort and access. Provide alternatives and breaks; consider vision, hearing, mobility, sensory sensitivity, motion sickness and age-appropriate use.
- Compare against simpler media. Ask whether the same objective could be achieved more efficiently with an image, video, desktop simulation, model or physical activity.
Use cases and examples
- Exploring the internal structure of a cell, machine or building where scale and spatial relationships are difficult to convey in two dimensions.
- Rehearsing a hazardous, rare or expensive procedure without exposing learners to the real-world risk.
- Visiting a reconstructed historical environment and examining evidence from multiple viewpoints.
- Using AR to connect labels, data or explanatory overlays to a physical object or location.
Limitations and implementation cautions
- Immersion and presence may increase interest without necessarily improving understanding.
- Device management can reduce instructional time and make whole-class participation difficult.
- Cybersickness, visual discomfort and sensory demands affect some users.
- Evidence varies by domain, design, duration and comparison condition; results from adult training cannot automatically be transferred to schools.
Evidence
Recent systematic reviews find educational promise for immersive technologies, particularly for action-oriented, spatial and experiential learning. Meta-analyses often report positive average effects, but effects vary considerably and are sensitive to instructional design. The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning proposes that presence and agency influence cognitive and affective processes, but immersive features can also increase extraneous load. Reviews of media-comparison studies caution that apparent benefits may result from differences in instructional content or activity rather than immersion alone.
Specialists in this area
Member specialists for this domain will be listed once profiles are approved. Meet the Research Group → or connect with a specialist →
Selected evidence
- Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL). Educational Psychology Review, 33, 937–958.
- Hamilton, D., et al. (2024). Learning effectiveness of immersive virtual reality in education and training: A systematic review of findings. Computers & Education: X Reality, 4, 100053.
- Lawson, A. P., et al. (2024). Confounded or controlled? A systematic review of media comparison studies involving immersive virtual reality for STEM education. Educational Psychology Review, 36, 69.
- Wang, Q., & Li, Y. (2024). How virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality facilitate teacher education: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40, 1276–1294.
Last reviewed: 25 July 2026
Have a question in this area?
Connect with the Research Group to explore this further.
Connect with us