Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality in Experiential Learning: Transforming Educational Paradigms

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR) have impacts on experiential learning, redefining educational paradigms through immersive and interactive environments. By integrating extended reality (XR) technologies, learners can transcend traditional barriers to engage with dynamic simulations, historical recreations, and scientific visualizations that enhance engagement, comprehension, and retention. This research reviews the existing literature, highlighting the benefits of XR in fostering critical thinking, collaboration, and practical skill development while addressing challenges such as accessibility, cost, and cognitive overload. Empirical findings from a mixed-methods approach, including case studies, faculty training programs, and pilot classes, underscore XR’s efficacy in improving student performance, engagement, and inclusivity. This paper concludes by emphasizing XR’s potential to revolutionize experiential learning, fostering authentic, memorable, and transformative educational experiences across disciplines.

1. Introduction

In the wake of the pandemic, instruction has shifted to synchronous and asynchronous online teaching, which has posed privacy issues and led to reduced student engagement. Virtual reality (VR) has been proposed as a potential solution to improve student engagement by allowing students to create customized avatars that reflect their identity. Research suggests that these avatars, combined with systems capable of reading facial expressions and emotional cues, can create interactive spaces that mimic aspects of reality, thereby promoting a more immersive and engaging learning experience (J. Bailenson, 2018; Schroeder, 2011; Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016; J. N. Bailenson et al., 2008). While this approach has shown promise in reducing disengagement for some students, it is not a universal solution, and its effectiveness can vary based on individual student preferences and the specific learning context (Lee & Wong, 2014). VR learning is at the forefront of scientific learning and helps students visualize concepts in a realistic way (Irawati et al., 2008; Tekedere & Göke, 2016). VR learning also improves focus and reduces distractions, as students’ vision and attention are fully captured by immersive experiences in a VR headset, limiting opportunities for multitasking or interruptions. Though some desktop-based VR applications are available, the headset-based experience generally enhances engagement by creating a more isolated, distraction-free environment (PricewaterhouseCoopers, n.d.). Jaror Lanier coined the term “virtual reality”, popularized in the 1980s (Lanier & Biocca, 1992).

VR has the potential to significantly enhance education by offering engaging, interactive simulations that make previously inaccessible experiences more accessible in the classroom, such as historical scenes or complex scientific structures, thereby boosting student motivation and retention. For instance, Stanford University’s research demonstrated that VR can significantly enhance student engagement and improve retention rates compared to traditional teaching methods (J. Bailenson, 2018). Additionally, VR holds the promise of democratizing learning by providing accessible, immersive virtual field trips and cultural exchanges, helping students overcome geographical or socioeconomic barriers (Radianti et al., 2020). VR also facilitates experiential learning and skill development by allowing students to practice tasks, such as medical procedures or engineering feats, in a risk-free environment. Stanford University’s Medicine program found that VR simulations reduced anxiety in medical students while improving their real-life surgical performance (Weiss et al., 2021). A recent study demonstrated that VR enhances collaborative and social learning by connecting students across distances and fostering group interactions (Lee & Wong, 2014). The study also found that VR-based collaboration significantly improves communication skills and overall learning outcomes. Finally, VR serves as a valuable tool for teacher training and professional development, equipping educators with the skills needed to integrate this technology effectively into their teaching practices (Tekedere & Göke, 2016).

Transitioning away from the immersive worlds of VR, augmented reality (AR) seamlessly blends digital data with our tangible surroundings. Instead of constructing an entirely virtual realm, AR superimposes digital elements onto our physical world. This fusion of realities gained significant attention with the rise of smartphone applications in the late 2000s and early 2010s (Azuma, 1997).

Mixed reality (MR) is a blend of both VR and AR, merging real and virtual worlds to produce new environments where physical and digital objects co-exist and interact in real time. This concept was more fully developed with the advent of devices like Microsoft HoloLens, which allowed for the integration of holographic digital content into the physical space (Milgram & Kishino, 1994).

Extended reality (XR) is an umbrella term that encompasses all immersive technologies and the experiences they create. It combines the spectra of real and virtual environments. Technologies that fall under XR include VR, AR, and MR. XR stands at the intersection of various technological advances, offering numerous possibilities across sectors. By bridging the real and digital worlds, XR could reshape industries, redefine human–computer interactions, and provide immersive experiences that were once the domain of science fiction. Across sectors like healthcare, retail, and training, XR is enhancing engagement, from virtual patient simulations that improve skills to AR-enabled retail experiences that allow customers to preview products in real time, reducing return rates and boosting satisfaction (World Economic Forum, n.d.; Kellton, n.d.). As technology progresses, the boundaries between VR, AR, and MR may blur, potentially leading to more integrated and seamless experiences. Further advancements in AI and 5G, which enhance XR’s responsiveness and accessibility, are poised to make these tools integral to daily life, with XR headsets and wearables now moving toward mainstream use (Autodesk, n.d.; Rock Paper Reality, n.d.; AxisXR, 2024).

Experiential learning is a method of educating through first-hand experience. Skills, knowledge, and experience are acquired outside of the traditional academic classroom setting, including through internships, studies abroad, field trips, or workshops. Kolb’s experiential learning theory posits that effective learning is achieved when a person progresses through a cycle of four stages: experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting (D. A. Kolb, 1984). In history, learning was best achieved experientially, with transferable skills developed through guided activities. Symbols, like wreaths for Olympic champions in ancient Greece and “master’s marks” for skilled apprentices in medieval Europe, marked achievements (Crogman et al., 2023).

The purpose of this paper is to explore and evaluate the integration and effectiveness of XR technologies in experiential learning environments. It aims to examine how these immersive technologies can enhance, transform, and potentially revolutionize educational practices, providing novel experiences and learning methods that traditional approaches might not offer. While XR fosters empathy by providing historical and cultural contexts through first-person experiences, educators face challenges like integrating XR cost-effectively, ensuring it complements rather than replaces traditional education, and mitigating health concerns associated with its prolonged use. As XR becomes more advanced and accessible, its integration into education could influence how educational content is delivered and experienced.

1.1. Background/Theoretical Framework

Virtual reality (VR) and Augmented reality (AR) have long been recognized for their potential to transform education through immersive, experiential learning. Early VR concepts date back to Morton Heilig’s Sensorama in the 1950s, an innovative attempt to create a multisensory virtual experience that prefigured modern applications of VR in experiential learning (Sutherland, 1968). Ivan Sutherland’s pioneering work, including the Ultimate Display in 1968 and the “Sword of Damocles” head-mounted display developed with Sproull, demonstrated the potential of immersive technologies to simulate environments that blend real and virtual elements, offering innovative opportunities for experiential learning (Heilig, 1962). Although initially focused on entertainment, VR has evolved to serve educational purposes, with systems incorporating auditory, visual, and even haptic feedback to create realistic, interactive simulations.

In the 1980s, Jaron Lanier not only coined the term “virtual reality” but also founded VPL Research, establishing the groundwork for VR’s future in realistic, experiential learning scenarios (Lanier & Biocca, 1992; J. N. Bailenson et al., 2008). Despite gaming ventures by companies like Sega and Nintendo in the 1990s, it was in the 2010s—marked by the launch of the Oculus Rift—that VR’s educational potential was truly highlighted. The Oculus Rift catalyzed interest from companies like Google, Sony, and HTC to develop VR platforms aimed at immersive learning, from simulated field trips to virtual lab experiences, enabling students to explore complex scientific concepts and historical sites in ways previously unimaginable (Luckerson, 2015).

While VR immerses users in a fully virtual environment, AR enhances real-world views by overlaying digital information, allowing students to interact with both real and virtual elements simultaneously. The concept of AR emerged in the late 20th century, with Tom Caudell at Boeing coining the term “augmented reality” in the 1990s. This development paved the way for educational applications where digital content could complement traditional learning tools, enriching physical environments with interactive, layered information (Caudell & Mizell, 1992). The 2000s saw the introduction of the ARToolKit, a breakthrough that brought mobile AR experiences to educational settings, transforming classrooms into interactive learning zones (Kato & Billinghurst, 1999). With the rise of smartphones in the 21st century and the introduction of applications like Pokémon Go and tools such as Microsoft’s HoloLens, AR has further bridged digital and physical realms, offering holistic educational experiences that support active, experiential learning (Microsoft Inc., 2015).

Together, the advancements in VR and AR over the decades have laid the foundation for a transformative educational landscape, where immersive and augmented experiences promote deeper engagement, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, bringing theoretical concepts to life in ways that traditional methods cannot achieve.

It is important to note that place illusion and plausibility are two key concepts that help explain the effectiveness of VR experiences. These concepts are crucial for understanding how VR can create a convincing, immersive environment that users interact with as if it were real (Slater, 2009). However, in AR, the concepts of physical presence (PP) and plausibility illusion (Psi) operate a bit differently compared to in VR, due to the fundamental nature of AR (Wienrich et al., 2021). AR blends digital content with the real world, rather than creating a completely virtual environment (see

Table 1. This table highlights the fundamental differences between virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) by focusing on key aspects related to physical presence, simulation, and interaction.

	VR	AR
PP	Creates a sense of physical presence in a virtual environment through visual, auditory, and haptic stimuli. Makes the user feel as if they are actually in the simulated location (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016; Sherman & Craig, 2018; Biocca & Delaney, 1995).	About integrating digital elements into the real world, making them appear as part of the physical environment, maintaining proper scale and perspective (Milgram & Kishino, 1994; Billinghurst et al., 2015).
PSi	Ensures that the virtual environment’s events and interactions are believable. Focuses on how the environment reacts to the user’s actions and how entities within it behave realistically (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016; Sherman & Craig, 2018).	Focuses on ensuring realistic interactions between virtual and real objects, like a virtual ball bouncing off a real wall convincingly (Milgram & Kishino, 1994; Billinghurst et al., 2015).

).

Positioned between the immersive realm of VR and the digitally enhanced domain of AR is mixed reality (MR). The concept of MR was first articulated by Milgram and Kishino in the 1990s, who emphasized a continuum between the real and virtual worlds (Milgram & Kishino, 1994). MR truly began to gain prominence in the 2010s, particularly with the introduction of Microsoft’s HoloLens, which merged key features of both VR and AR, allowing users to interact with digital objects within their physical space (Microsoft Inc., 2015). Since then, significant advancements in MR hardware and software have enabled the seamless convergence of physical and digital worlds, offering new possibilities for educational applications (Radianti et al., 2020; Milgram & Kishino, 1994; Microsoft Inc., 2015; Peddie, 2022; Merchant et al., 2014).

With the advent of Apple’s Vision Pro (AVP), the landscape of AR technology is rapidly evolving. AVP introduces an intuitive control system utilizing eye tracking, hand gestures, and voice commands, eliminating the need for external controllers. This technology leverages more than a dozen cameras and sensors to map the environment, enhancing the user experience by tracking hand and eye movements accurately (Apple Inc., 2023). The potential of AVP, Meta’s headsets, and other MR devices to transform education lies in their ability to provide immersive, interactive experiences that deepen the understanding of complex concepts through hands-on, virtual interaction. Studies have shown that MR can enhance student engagement and retention by enabling learners to visualize and manipulate 3D models of anatomical structures, mechanical systems, or historical artifacts, which would otherwise be challenging to experience in a traditional classroom setting (J. Bailenson, 2018; Merchant et al., 2014).

Despite its potential, the integration of AVP and similar technologies into educational systems is not without challenges. Factors such as the high cost of devices, dependency on other proprietary products, the need for external accessories like battery packs, and considerations for prescription glasses wearers present obstacles that must be addressed before widespread adoption. Nevertheless, Apple’s innovations have driven the market, encouraging other technology companies to develop similar products. For example, Meta has introduced new headsets that incorporate similar features but are offered at a much lower cost, making these technologies more accessible to a broader audience. This competitive development in the industry suggests that while initial challenges exist, the growing ecosystem of MR technology could facilitate broader adoption. The educational community’s readiness to embrace and adapt to such technology will play a critical role in determining its success. However, the trajectory of XR technology suggests that the convergence of digital and physical realities could revolutionize industries beyond entertainment and healthcare, including education, by offering new methods of interactive, experiential learning that traditional methods cannot replicate (Radianti et al., 2020; Stanford University Medicine, 2022) (see

Table 2. Emerging trends in extended reality (XR) technology.

Category	Description
Technology and Hardware	HMDs (Head-Mounted Displays): devices like Oculus Rift, HoloLens, Google Glass. Trackers: measure position and orientation. Controllers: allow interaction in virtual environments.
Applications	Education and Training: simulate real-world scenarios. Entertainment: enhanced video games, concerts. Healthcare: rehab, surgical planning, phobia treatments. Real Estate: virtual property tours. Retail: virtual product try-ons, shopping aids.
Future of XR	Boundaries between VR, AR, and MR will blur due to tech advancements. XR is expected to become more integrated with daily life.

Note: XR is redefining human–computer interactions and offers transformative potential across various sectors.

). As we stand on the precipice of this technological leap, it is essential to engage in a dialog on how best to integrate these tools into educational frameworks to maximize their potential benefits.

The evolution of VR, AR, and MR may enhance existing experiential learning approaches by offering immersive environments that promote active engagement, critical thinking, and problem-solving. While experiential learning is a core component of effective teaching, these technologies can extend its reach by providing unique experiences that are difficult to achieve in traditional settings, such as simulating historical events or complex scientific processes (J. Bailenson, 2018; Radianti et al., 2020). For example, VR allows students to experience environments that are otherwise inaccessible or hazardous, which enhances engagement and deepens learning (Stanford University Medicine, 2022). This integration of immersive technology lays the foundation for a transformative educational future.

Experiential learning, rooted in the theories of Dewey and further structured by Kolb, is a holistic approach that combines experience, perception, cognition, and behavior. Dewey emphasized the importance of experience in education, advocating active, experience-centered learning (Dewey, 1938). Kolb’s experiential learning theory (ELT) further formalizes this approach by proposing a cyclical process in which learners pass through interconnected stages: from directly experiencing an event, to reflecting on it, drawing conclusions, and then applying what they have learned in new situations. As shown in Figure 1, each stage is associated with specific learning styles—Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, and Accommodating—highlighting the diverse ways individuals engage with and process experiences. This structured cycle, enhanced through immersive technologies, supports a deeper, more engaged learning experience by bridging theoretical concepts with practical application. The cycle of experiential learning can begin at any stage but requires the following of subsequent steps in sequence for effective learning (Kellton, n.d.). Experiential learning can take many forms, including internships, fieldwork, laboratory experiments, studio work, study abroad programs, service-learning, and more. It is employed across various educational settings, from primary education to higher education and professional training programs.

The key benefits of experiential learning include the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills, enhanced engagement and motivation, the ability to apply theoretical knowledge in practical contexts, and the development of personal and professional skills. By bridging the gap between academic theory and real-world practice, experiential learning prepares students for the complexities and challenges of the professional world. It also emphasizes the importance of reflection, allowing learners to analyze and learn from their experiences. This reflective practice is crucial for deep learning, as it enables students to connect their experiences with their existing knowledge and skills, leading to more profound and lasting learning outcomes.

In summary, experiential learning is a dynamic and effective approach to education that prepares learners for real-world challenges by integrating theoretical knowledge with practical application. It encourages active participation, critical thinking, and a deeper understanding of the subject matter, making it a valuable tool in modern education.

Extended realities offer profound tools for experiential learning. XR serves as a platform to develop alternative assessment methods that incorporate experiential learning into modern grading systems as described by Crogman and colleagues (Autodesk, n.d.). Immersive technologies can place learners in controlled yet realistic environments, offering hands-on experiences that traditional classrooms might not provide. For instance, VR can simulate historical events, enabling students to “experience” history. AR can superimpose complex structures, like human anatomy, in a real-world setting. MR, being a blend, might allow medical students to practice surgeries with virtual tools on a real mannequin. By integrating VR/AR/MR into experiential learning, educators may foster deeper engagement, improved retention, and more meaningful learning experiences (Merchant et al., 2014).

1.2. A Review of the Literature

In the realm of digital learning, the incorporation of extended reality has received significant attention. Studies have illustrated that VR provides a more immersive learning environment, increasing student engagement and retention rates (Lee & Wong, 2014). Additionally, recent research by Stanford University suggests that VR can improve non-verbal synchrony and positive measures such as pleasure, presence, and enjoyment, leading to implications for student learning (Hadazy, 2022). The same can be said for AR, where the integration of the digital with the physical realm provides learners with a more enriched, context-aware learning experience (Dunleavy & Dede, 2014).

However, there are also concerns regarding the use of VR in education. Some studies suggest that VR could lead to cognitive overload, overwhelming students with excessive sensory input that detracts from learning (Makransky & Petersen, 2021). Others have highlighted that the immersive nature of VR could become distracting, causing students to focus more on the virtual environment than the educational content (Mayer et al., 2020). Physical discomfort, such as motion sickness, has also been raised as a potential barrier to VR adoption (Keshavarz & Hecht, 2011). Additionally, issues of accessibility and equity have been identified, with the high costs of VR equipment making it difficult for all students to benefit from the technology (Checa & Bustillo, 2020).

Despite these concerns, recent studies offer counterpoints that demonstrate how VR’s negative effects can be mitigated through thoughtful design and technological advancements. Research shows that when properly designed, VR environments can reduce cognitive load by making abstract concepts more tangible and easier to grasp (Makransky & Petersen, 2021). This suggests that cognitive overload is not an inherent flaw of VR but a challenge that can be addressed through appropriate instructional design (Makransky & Petersen, 2021).

Similarly, concerns about distraction from core content have been refuted by other studies, which argue that well-designed VR environments enhance focus by engaging students more deeply with the learning material (Jensen & Konradsen, 2018). Reviews conclude that distractions often arise from poor content design rather than from the medium itself, and when implemented correctly, VR can increase students’ focus on the subject matter (Jensen & Konradsen, 2018).

Advancements in VR hardware, including improved tracking systems and higher frame rates, have significantly reduced motion sickness. These technological improvements enable more comfortable and extended learning sessions without the adverse side effects previously experienced (Lin et al., 2020).

On the issue of accessibility and equity, researchers observed that the cost of VR is steadily decreasing, making it more accessible to a broader range of institutions. Furthermore, schools and universities are finding innovative solutions, such as shared VR resources, whereby students can use the technology in communal learning settings without needing to own the devices personally (Farra et al., 2019; Alpert, 2024).

Lastly, while some researchers raised concerns about VR fostering social isolation, others found that VR can enhance social collaboration by creating shared virtual spaces where students interact and work together (Dalgarno & Lee, 2019). Their research emphasized that VR, when designed for collaborative learning, can foster greater peer interaction and engagement, sometimes even more effectively than traditional classrooms (Dalgarno & Lee, 2019).

In addition to these refutations, experiential learning, defined as the process of learning through experience, has been widely examined in the literature. D. A. Kolb (1984) has been foundational in this domain, introducing a four-stage experiential learning cycle that emphasizes the role of experience, observation, conceptualization, and experimentation in learning (Kellton, n.d.). Crogman and colleagues (Crogman et al., 2015; Crogman & Trebeau Crogman, 2016, 2018) present a compelling case for the integration of experiential learning in science education. Their Generated Question Learning Model (GQLM) exemplifies an approach that empowers students to engage in self-assessment, thereby promoting active participation and reflection, key tenets of experiential learning. This method not only encourages critical thinking but also accommodates diverse learning styles, as evidenced by its successful application in a high school physics class, where it enhanced student engagement and learning outcomes.

Wenning’s Levels of Inquiry Model presents a nuanced, systematic approach to learning in science through experience (Wenning, 2011; Wening, 2011; Wenning & Khan, 2011). It categorizes learning into five stages: discovery learning, interactive demonstrations, inquiry lessons, inquiry labs, and hypothetical inquiry, each characterized by different levels of teacher and student involvement. The model is underpinned by a five-stage cycle including observation, manipulation, generalization, verification, and application, facilitating knowledge building. While it embodies the core tenets of experiential learning such as active engagement and practical experiences, its distinctiveness lies in its ordered, methodical emphasis on scientific processes and knowledge, making it especially apt for science education and inquiry-based learning.

Further, Crogman et al. (2015) discussed the importance of fostering an environment that creates a space where students are comfortable enough to develop their question-asking skills. Similarly, Crogman et al. (2018) proposed a revised Force Concept Inventory that aligns with experiential learning principles. By allowing students to explain their answers and gauge their confidence, the modified FCI transforms assessments into active learning experiences, facilitating deeper engagement with physics concepts and providing insights into students’ understanding. These approaches collectively illustrate how experiential learning strategies can revolutionize education, making it more inclusive, effective, and attuned to 21st century educational needs. With the advent of digital technologies, scholars have explored the amplification of experiential learning in digitally augmented environments, demonstrating the myriad ways through which digital tools can simulate real-world experiences, enhancing the depth and breadth of the learning experience (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2017).

While gaps in interdisciplinary research combining VR and experiential learning remain, these counterpoints illustrate that many of the negative effects of VR can be addressed through proper design and thoughtful integration. Our lab is working with companies like Victory XR to create educational environments that are more interactive and dynamic, incorporating these lessons from research to maximize VR’s positive impact on student learning while minimizing its drawbacks. There is a call for more robust studies on the pedagogical implications of integrating XR in experiential learning settings and understanding the long-term outcomes of such integrations (Radianti et al., 2020).

1.3. The Potential of Extended Reality in Experiential Learning

The integration of XR into experiential learning is associated with several reported benefits. For example, researchers highlighted that one of the primary advantages is the technology’s ability to create highly immersive environments that can mimic or replace real-world experiences, potentially enhancing learning outcomes (Hu-Au & Lee, 2017). These simulated settings provide learners with the opportunity to explore, interact with, and manipulate their surroundings in ways that foster deeper engagement and comprehension. For example, medical students can practice surgical procedures in a risk-free virtual environment, gaining hands-on experience without the consequences of real-life mistakes. Similarly, VR can enable history students to virtually explore ancient civilizations, making historical content more accessible and engaging. By making abstract concepts tangible and complex subjects more approachable, XR environments allow learners to experience otherwise inaccessible places and scenarios (Merchant et al., 2014).

At California State University Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), VR is explored as a teaching modality using the platform Engage as a tool in face-to-face classrooms to enrich the learning experience. Figure 2 shows how adaptive technologies such as XR can be used in the classroom to create immersive learning experiences and enhance student engagement.

In the burgeoning field of educational technology, the advent of the Apple Vision Pro, a yet-to-be-released mixed reality headset, looms on the horizon with the promise of revolutionizing the way educational content is delivered and experienced. Imagine a learning environment where interaction with digital content is as natural as conversing with a peer. The Apple Vision Pro is poised to unlock such interactions, granting users the ability to command apps with simple gestures, voice prompts, and the subtle movement of their eyes. The confines of a traditional classroom are set to expand beyond four walls. With the AVP, the ceiling could dissolve into the cosmos, offering a tangible astronomy experience, or the past could come alive with detailed historical simulations. These immersive capabilities suggest that education may transcend physical and temporal boundaries in the future. Distance learning, often plagued by a sense of isolation, could be radically transformed as the AVP aims to create an inclusive, collaborative space where remote learners are as engaged as their counterparts in brick-and-mortar classrooms. Additionally, this technology has the potential to increase student engagement and curiosity by providing immersive learning experiences that are both informative and interactive. For instance, the Apple Vision Pro could enhance students’ understanding in fields such as science and engineering by allowing them to visualize and interact with complex models in a realistic 3D environment. Such applications may help students grasp challenging concepts more effectively, contributing to a more profound interest in their studies.

Additionally, the unique affordances of XR contribute immensely to experiential learning. Slater and Sanchez-Vives (2016) noted that VR’s immersive nature facilitates a sense of presence, allowing learners to feel “physically” present in a non-physical world. AR, on the other hand, enhances the user’s real environment by overlaying digital information, thus providing contextual learning experiences that bridge theory and practice (Slater & Sanchez-Vives, 2016; Merchant et al., 2014). MR, merging both real and virtual worlds, provides a seamless environment where physical and digital objects co-exist, offering learners an enriched interactive experience that can adapt and respond in real time (Milgram & Kishino, 1994). Figure 3 shows students engaging in learning through XR. The key aspect that differentiates AR from MR is the level of interaction and integration between the virtual and real worlds. AR overlays digital content onto the real world but does not allow for interaction between real and virtual objects, while MR goes a step further by not only overlaying virtual objects onto the real world but also allowing interaction between these virtual objects and the real world (see Figure 3c,d). Therefore, these technologies, combined with sound pedagogical strategies, hold the promise of redefining the boundaries of experiential learning, offering learners more authentic, memorable, and transformative experiences.

2. Materials and Methods

In our study, we employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating case studies, a pilot study with participant feedback, and faculty development initiatives to examine the impact of VR, AR, and MR on experiential learning (see

Table 3. Overview of programs implementing XR (VR, AR, and MR) in educational settings: participants, activities, and data collection methods.

Program	Participants	Implementation/Activity	Data Collection/Surveys
Pilot Class with Calculus-Based Physics Students	105 students enrolled in a calculus-based physics course over three semesters.	Pilot course taught using VR as a primary teaching modality.	Pre- and post-course surveys created by authors evaluated students’ understanding of physics concepts and perceptions of VR in learning. Class averages of classes taught by VR were compared to averages of similar classes over a two-year period.
Faculty Training Program in VR Teaching	24 faculty members in a VR teaching training program.	Program focused on equipping faculty with skills to integrate VR into their teaching methodologies.	Pre- and post-training surveys created by authors assessed faculty attitudes toward VR, comfort with technology, and readiness to implement it.
Summer Program with High School Students	24 high school students participating in a summer program.	Students created dynamic objects within VR environments, with a virtual pendulum project as an example.	Pre- and post-program surveys created by authors measured changes in students’ understanding of dynamic concepts and VR learning experiences.
Case Studies in VR, AR, and MR	N/A	In-depth case studies of VR, AR, and MR implementations in various educational settings.	Observational data, interviews, and document analysis provided insights into applications and outcomes of these technologies.

). The research methodology encompassed detailed case studies of specific XR applications in educational settings, offering insights into practical implementations and outcomes. This was complemented by a pilot study where 105 selected participants actively engaged with VR tools in a controlled learning environment, providing valuable data on user experience, engagement, and learning efficacy. A total of 24 faculty members involved in this study participated in specialized development programs, equipping them with the necessary skills to effectively integrate these technologies into their teaching practices. The class averages of non-VR classes (9 classes) taught as pilot classes by both Crogman and other physics faculty were compared to those of classes taught using VR (2 classes). Moreover, the authors developed the course materials and collected data from the participants during the pilot study.

Additionally, the study involved the development and assessment of dynamic objects within XR environments, focusing on their role in enhancing interactive and immersive learning experiences. Data were collected through a combination of surveys, interviews, and observational methods, and analyzed to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of immersive technologies in enhancing the educational process.

This multi-faceted methodology allows for a thorough examination of the roles and effects of VR, AR, and MR technologies in enhancing experiential learning. Similar implementations have shown promise in various educational settings, such as university physics courses and faculty training programs (Merchant et al., 2014; Sahin & Yilmaz, 2020; Mikropoulos & Natsis, 2011; Wu et al., 2013; Fidan & Tuncel, 2019). All XR-based lessons were delivered by the corresponding author, Dr. H. T. Crogman. Dr. Crogman conducted the lectures and guided classroom activities, while training on the use of XR technologies was jointly provided by Dr. Crogman and Reza Boroon. Student collaborators and researchers contributed by developing dynamic VR objects and assisting with their classroom testing and implementation. By analyzing data from different contexts—including a university-level physics course, a faculty training program, a high school summer program, and diverse case studies—this study aims to provide a well-rounded understanding of how these immersive technologies influence and augment the educational experience.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Case Studies and Empirical Evidence

In Section 3.1.1, Section 3.1.2 and Section 3.1.3 the findings are based on the authors’ original research, while Section 3.1.4, Section 3.1.5 and Section 3.1.6 present results sourced from external studies. XR-based lessons followed the same duration as traditional lessons, with each class session spanning 60 to 90 min. However, XR lessons required additional setup time for equipment, including system checks and troubleshooting, which were performed prior to class to minimize disruptions.

3.1.1. Creating VR Dynamic Object to Enhance Students’ Experiential Learning

Description: Making a physics lab in VR was achieved by mimicking a lab experiment that was conducted and used for reference in real life (see Figure 4). The choice was made to recreate a pendulum that can swing back at a certain angle and time it. This shows the period of the pendulum swing from one end to another, and we wanted to replicate it in virtual reality to showcase that virtual reality can enhance learning by being more interactive.

Method: The materials in this experiment were a pendulum, angle calculator, VR Oculus, and UNITY Software (Unity 2023.1.0: Released on 12 June 2023). The measurements in this experiment were the mass of the ball, 0.114 kg, and the length of the rope, 0.7 m. The steps needed for this experiment were to swing the pendulum in VR at a 15° angle and record the time for 10 swings. Then, in real life, the pendulum was swung at a 15° angle, and time was recorded for 10 swings. After time was recorded, both data sets were compared.

Results: Data were collected for the pendulum in the real world vs. the virtual world (see

Table 4. Time comparison between the pendulum in the VR world vs. the real world.

Trial	VR Pendulum	Real-Life Pendulum
	Time (s)	Time (s)
1	8.60	8.31
2	8.23	8.40
3	8.65	8.36
4	8.60	8.25

).

Analysis: The trials show that the periods observed for the VR pendulum and the real-life pendulum are of near equal values. With a percent error of 2.3%, it can be concluded that the VR physics experiments are comparable to real-life ones and can be used to conduct cheaper experiments with accurate results within a reasonable error margin (see

Table 5. The average time in which the pendulum swung in real life and in VR.

	In Real-Life Tests	Virtual Reality
Periods	5	5
Average Time (s)	8.33	8.52
Angle (degrees)	15	15

). In the future, a way to program the start position of the VR pendulum would be added so that the position would not need to be manually set.

3.1.2. Student Survey: Data for Pilot VR Class and Summer Program

Description: CSUDH introduced a pilot course utilizing VR as a teaching modality for calculus-based physics (see Figure 5). The course was offered across three semesters to a cohort of 105 students. The implementation of VR aimed to enhance the conceptual understanding and engagement of students by immersing them in interactive 3D environments that elucidate complex physical phenomena. The VR curriculum was combined with traditional teaching methods to create a blended learning experience. This approach integrated the immersive and interactive capabilities of VR with conventional teaching strategies, such as lectures, textbooks, classroom discussions, videos, and hands-on activities. The goal was to leverage the strengths of both methods, using VR to enhance engagement and provide visual and experiential learning opportunities, while traditional methods offered structure, foundational knowledge, and guided instruction. This blended approach aimed to create a comprehensive and effective learning environment that caters to diverse learning styles and improves overall educational outcomes.

Results: To evaluate the impact of virtual reality (VR) on student performance, an independent-samples t-test was conducted comparing test scores from VR-taught classes and non-VR-taught classes. The results revealed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (t(2.65) = 4.74; p = 0.0016). The mean test score for VR classes (M = 78.6, SD = 1.96) was significantly higher than for non-VR classes (M = 64.48, SD = 7.50). Additionally, An F-test was conducted to compare the variability in test scores between classes taught by Crogman with and without virtual reality (VR). The analysis revealed no significant difference in variability between the two groups (F(1,1) = 0.16; F(1, 1) = 0.16). This suggests that the spread of scores in the VR group (variance = 3.92) was comparable to the non-VR group (variance = 24.5).

Analysis: Upon completion of the pilot VR course, student performance data and feedback were collected to assess the impact of VR on learning outcomes. The significant t-test results indicate that students in VR-taught classes consistently outperformed their counterparts in traditional settings. This suggests that VR technology may enhance engagement with and the understanding of physics concepts. Furthermore, the ANOVA results support this finding, highlighting that the observed differences are unlikely due to random variation. These results align with previous studies demonstrating the educational benefits of immersive learning environments. The surveys created by the authors focused on areas such as student engagement, comprehension of calculus-based concepts, and the overall effectiveness of VR as a learning tool. There was also a notable increase in class participation and enthusiasm for the subject matter.

The F-test indicated no significant difference in the variability of test scores between the VR and non-VR groups. This finding suggests that virtual reality did not introduce additional variability in student performance, supporting the hypothesis that VR as a teaching tool can maintain consistent outcomes among students. While the VR group’s mean scores were higher, the similar variability implies that the technology enhances overall understanding without disproportionately benefiting or disadvantaging subsets of students. Future research with larger sample sizes could further explore whether VR reduces variability by engaging students more uniformly and investing the effect of other professors using VR in their classroom.

Furthermore, the immersive nature of VR allowed students to visualize and manipulate physical systems, which facilitated a deeper understanding of the principles underlying these systems. However, some challenges were also observed. A minority of students reported experiencing discomfort while using the VR headsets, a phenomenon often referred to as “VR sickness”. The data from the pilot VR class suggests that while VR can be a powerful educational tool in teaching complex subjects like calculus-based physics, its integration into the curriculum must be carefully managed to ensure accessibility for all students.

3.1.3. Faculty Training and Implementation of VR as a Teaching Modality at CSUDH

Description: At CSUDH, a significant initiative was undertaken to integrate VR into the pedagogical framework. Over the course of a semester, 25 faculty members from various departments (see

Table 6. Virtual reality learning program departments represented.

Departments	Count
Chemistry and Biochemistry	3
Clinical Science	2
Communications	2
Computer Information Systems	1
Computer Science	1
History	1
IDS	1
Mathematics	1
Nursing	1
Physics	2
Psychology	3
Sociology	1
Special Education	1
Theatre and Dance	1

) underwent training to employ VR as a teaching modality. The training was designed to equip educators with the necessary skills to incorporate VR technology effectively into their teaching practices, with a focus on enhancing student engagement and reinforcing traditional teaching methods with immersive experiences. The authors were responsible for developing and providing the training materials for faculty and students.

A total of 21 faculty members responded to the pre-survey; 15 faculty members responded to the post-survey. Of the participating faculty, 70% (n = 14) self-identify as men, while 30% (n = 6) self-identify as women. Also, 80% (n = 16) are not Hispanic and 20% (n = 4) are Hispanic; 55% (n = 11) are white, 35% (n = 7) are Asian, and 10% (n = 2) prefer not to state their race.

Table 7. Faculty responses to sample survey on virtual reality in science education—this table summarizes faculty feedback on VR integration, highlighting efforts to enhance science classrooms and labs, improve student engagement, and motivate learners by transforming abstract concepts into interactive, immersive experiences.

Objective	Details
Using VR in Science Classrooms and Labs	Integrating VR into organic and biochemistry classes and labs. Enhancing students’ understanding of complex physics concepts through visualization. Enabling students to work with biological molecules in VR to make abstract concepts engaging and enjoyable. Exploring VR simulations for Special Relativity concepts, such as Doppler effect, length contraction, and time dilation.
Increasing Student Engagement and Motivation	Discovering innovative methods to use VR for education and training to boost engagement. Utilizing VR to connect with tech-savvy students and increase motivation. Making abstract concepts more tangible to enhance the learning experience. Integrating VR into teaching to adapt to future trends and improve student involvement.

provides an overview of faculty responses to the survey on VR in science education, detailing their initiatives to integrate VR into classrooms and labs, enhance student engagement, and make abstract scientific concepts more interactive.

Analysis: The training program was comprehensive, covering the technical aspects of operating VR equipment, the development of VR content aligned with curriculum objectives, and pedagogical strategies to maximize the benefits of immersive learning. Post-training evaluations indicated a successful upskilling of faculty, with many reporting increased confidence in utilizing VR tools. The use of VR allowed for abstract concepts to be presented in a more tangible and relatable manner. For instance, in subjects such as biology, students could virtually explore human anatomy, leading to a more profound understanding of complex structures. Some faculty members felt there would be a steep learning curve with the technology, which may necessitate ongoing technical support. Additionally, there were concerns related to class time, with the setup and use of VR occasionally cutting into instructional time. Despite these hurdles, the use of VR was generally well received, with faculty acknowledging its potential to augment traditional teaching practices. The initiative at CSUDH has set a precedent for the adoption of innovative teaching tools in higher education, paving the way for further research into and the application of VR in academia.

3.1.4. Virtual Reality in Medical Training

Description: One of the most prominent applications of VR in experiential learning is within the medical sector (see Figure 6). Stanford University’s Medicine program, for instance, incorporates VR simulations that allow medical students to walk through a 3D version of the human heart, visualizing complex heart conditions and surgeries from angles that are impossible in traditional settings (Axelrod, 2017). This immersive environment has been employed in training for surgical procedures, diagnostics, and understanding patient experiences (J. Bailenson, 2018).

Analysis: Research conducted on medical students who trained using VR indicated that they were better prepared for surgeries, experienced reduced anxiety levels, and had improved retention of complex anatomical information (Weiss et al., 2021; Axelrod, 2017). The immersive nature of VR can offer learners a multisensory experience that may promote active participation and deepen understanding (Gil et al., 2021).

3.1.5. Augmented Reality in Field Trips

Description: The AR-based educational platform, “Fieldscapes”, lets educators and students design and partake in virtual field trips. By using tablets or smartphones, students can interact with virtual elements superimposed over the real world, such as historical reconstructions or geological phenomena in their actual geographical settings (Carmigniani & Furht, 2011).

Analysis: Studies have shown that students who participated in AR-based field trips displayed higher levels of engagement and recall compared to traditional field trip methods. This augmented experience allowed for the immediate application of knowledge in real-world contexts, aligning with the principles of experiential learning (Sutherland, 1968).

3.1.6. Mixed Reality for Engineering Education

Description: At the University of Maryland, MR tools have been integrated into engineering courses, allowing students to interact with 3D models of machinery, circuitry, and other engineering components. Using devices like the Microsoft HoloLens, students can collaboratively engage with and manipulate these virtual tools while still being grounded in a physical lab environment (Gavish et al., 2015).

Analysis: Students utilizing MR in engineering courses exhibited a deeper comprehension of complex mechanisms and processes, as it enabled them to visualize, dissect, and interact with intricate systems in ways that 2D diagrams or physical models could not replicate. The hands-on nature of MR additionally promoted cooperative learning and problem-solving skills (Bressler & Bodzin, 2016).

3.2. Summary: Case Studies and Empirical Evidence on XR in Experiential Learning

In our study on the impact of VR, AR, and MR technologies in educational settings, we gathered data from three distinct groups: a pilot class of 105 calculus-based physics students, 24 faculty members enrolled in a VR training program (only 20 completed the program), and 24 high school students participating in a summer VR program. The survey results revealed significant improvements in both student engagement and the understanding of complex concepts. Initially, only 40% of the calculus-based physics students reported confidence in understanding complex concepts, which post-implementation increased dramatically to 60%. Furthermore, their engagement with course material rose from 30% to an impressive 85%. Among the faculty members, comfort with using VR in teaching soared from 20% pre-training to 80% post-training, and their willingness to integrate VR into their curriculum increased from 25% to 70%. The high school students in the summer program also showed a notable rise in interest in VR, from 50% pre-program to 90% post-program, with 75% reporting an enhanced understanding of dynamic concepts after the program, a significant increase from the initial 35%.

The t-test results demonstrate that students in VR-taught classes consistently achieved higher performance compared to those in traditional classroom settings, suggesting that VR technology enhances student engagement and facilitates a better understanding of physics concepts. The ANOVA further supports this observation, indicating that the differences in performance are unlikely due to chance. Additionally, the F-test revealed no significant differences in the variability of test scores between VR and non-VR groups. This finding suggests that the use of virtual reality as a teaching tool ensures consistent performance across students, without disproportionately affecting particular groups. The combination of higher mean scores and comparable variability implies that VR fosters a deeper and more uniform understanding of material. Future investigations with larger sample sizes could examine whether VR reduces performance variability by creating a more inclusive and engaging learning environment.

These findings collectively underscore the substantial impact that immersive technologies like VR, AR, and MR have on enhancing experiential learning across various educational levels and settings.

XR has shown significant promise in experiential learning across various disciplines. In medical training, for instance, Stanford University’s Medicine program has utilized VR to enable medical students to explore the human heart in 3D, enhancing their preparedness for surgery and improving the retention of complex anatomical information (Weiss et al., 2021). Furthermore, the introduction of dynamic objects in VR, such as a pendulum experiment, has demonstrated that VR can replicate real-world physics with high accuracy, offering cost-effective and interactive learning experiences.

In the realm of physics education, CSUDH implemented a pilot VR course in calculus-based physics. The course aimed to boost conceptual understanding and student engagement by integrating VR with traditional teaching. VR participants had better engagement, although some experienced “VR sickness”, and faculty faced challenges in VR implementation. These case studies suggest that while XR holds transformative potential in education, its application requires thoughtful integration into curricula, the consideration of user experience, and support for both students and educators.

In each of the case studies, students experience the Kolb cycle. XR technologies have the potential to enhance each stage of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle by providing immersive, interactive experiences. In all these stages, XR technologies can provide stimuli for learning and may enhance the depth and breadth of the experiential learning process. In the concrete experience stage, these technologies offer realistic simulations, allowing students to engage directly with the subject matter, whether it is a historical event in VR, a data overlay on physical objects in AR, or a blend of digital and physical elements in MR. Reflective observation is facilitated as students ponder their immersive experiences, potentially discussing and reviewing their actions and outcomes within these virtual spaces. For abstract conceptualization, XR aids in visualizing and understanding abstract theories, enabling students to construct conceptual models from their observations. Finally, in the active experimentation stage, these technologies allow students to test hypotheses or theories within safe, controlled virtual environments, applying their new understanding to solve problems or adapt to new scenarios, thus completing the learning cycle with practical application. This integration of VR/AR/MR not only stimulates the learning process but also deepens students’ comprehension of and engagement with complex concepts. It allows for safe experimentation, immediate feedback, and the ability to visualize complex phenomena, making the learning process more engaging, effective, and aligned with the principles of experiential learning.

4. Extended Reality and Multisensory Stimuli

Multisensory learning, characterized by its use of diverse sensory stimuli, plays a pivotal role in fostering learners’ curiosity and capturing their attention, essentially creating a “wow factor” (Crogman et al., 2015; Crogman & Trebeau Crogman, 2018; Trebeau Crogman & Crogman, 2020). This engaging approach can be directly linked to the principles of experiential learning, which emphasize learning through direct experience, reflection, and active engagement. By integrating multisensory methods, educators can transform topics that students might previously have found daunting or challenging into captivating and approachable learning experiences (Trebeau Crogman & Crogman, 2020).

In the context of experiential learning, multisensory techniques serve as a catalyst for curiosity, which is a critical component for deep, experiential learning. When students are curious, they are more likely to engage deeply with the material, explore it further, and persist in their learning efforts (Crogman et al., 2015; Crogman, 2017; Crogman & Jackson, 2023). This is especially significant for students who may struggle with traditional learning methods. For instance, a student who finds the abstract nature of mathematical concepts challenging might benefit from a multisensory approach where they can physically manipulate objects to understand mathematical theories, thereby making the learning experience more tangible and less intimidating.

Furthermore, multisensory learning aligns with the experiential learning cycle proposed by David Kolb. This cycle involves concrete experiences, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. Multisensory experiences provide the concrete experience that is the starting point for this cycle. For example, in a science class, students might not only read about a chemical reaction but also perform the experiment, see the changes, hear the reactions, and smell the byproducts, providing a holistic sensory experience (Wenning, 2011; Wening, 2011; Wenning & Khan, 2011). This experience then becomes the basis for reflection, discussion, and further exploration, leading to a deeper understanding of the concepts.

By reducing the fear of performance and fostering an environment where practice and exploration are encouraged, multisensory experiential learning helps students build confidence in their abilities. As they engage in this immersive form of learning, they develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, essential for academic success and lifelong learning. In summary, multisensory learning within an experiential learning framework not only makes challenging subjects more accessible but also equips students with the skills and confidence to pursue learning with perseverance and enthusiasm.

Incorporating XR into multisensory learning can enrich the experiential learning process by adding an immersive dimension that engages multiple senses simultaneously. XR, encompassing VR, AR, and MR, serves as a powerful tool in drawing out learners’ curiosities and capturing their attention, thereby creating a “wow factor” essential for transformative learning experiences. This immersive technology takes the concept of multisensory learning to a new level, making complex or abstract concepts more accessible and less intimidating, particularly for students who might struggle with traditional learning methods. For instance, in an XR-enhanced learning environment, a student learning about the solar system can virtually travel through space, exploring scientifically modeled representations of different planets. These representations are based on current data, including visual imagery from space missions and simulated soundscapes derived from scientific interpretations (e.g., electromagnetic or atmospheric data). By engaging both visual and auditory senses in this manner, XR enhances learning experiences beyond what is possible with traditional textbooks or classroom settings. This approach aligns with Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, where concrete, immersive experiences serve as a foundation for reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.

XR’s ability to simulate real-world scenarios in a safe and controlled environment is particularly beneficial in reducing fears related to performance and practice. Students can repeatedly practice skills or engage with materials that they find challenging without the real-world pressures or constraints. For example, medical students can perform virtual surgeries, allowing them to learn and make mistakes in a risk-free setting. This not only builds their confidence but also enhances their learning outcomes.

Moreover, XR’s interactive nature encourages active participation, making learning a more engaging, memorable, and enjoyable experience. By integrating XR into multisensory, experiential learning environments, educators can provide students with a holistic and immersive learning experience. This approach not only helps students overcome barriers to learning but also fosters essential skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity, preparing them for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.

5. Challenges and Limitations

Technical Challenges: While the promise of XR in educational contexts is immense, it is not without technical challenges. Users often report issues related to device connectivity, software glitches, or difficulties in manipulating virtual objects. High-quality VR especially demands considerable computational power, making it costly and less accessible for many institutions (Hussein & Nätterdal, 2015; Lin et al., 2020).

Pedagogical Challenges: There is a learning curve not just for students but for educators too. Integrating XR meaningfully into the curriculum requires training, time, and pedagogical redesign. Not every learning outcome may benefit from XR, and understanding where it fits best is crucial (Radianti et al., 2020).

Logistical Challenges: Implementation on a large scale could be a logistical nightmare, especially considering the storage, maintenance, and updating of the devices. There are also concerns about ensuring equal access for all students, irrespective of their socioeconomic backgrounds (Lindsey, 2019).

Social, Psychological, and Health Implications: The prolonged use of VR has been linked to symptoms like nausea, dizziness, or eye strain, commonly termed as “cybersickness”. There are also concerns about the psychological impacts of extended immersion in virtual worlds, especially for younger users, and potential implications for social isolation (Madary & Metzinger, 2016).

During the implementation of XR-based lessons, several challenges were encountered. Technical difficulties such as intermittent hardware malfunctions and connectivity issues arose but were mitigated through regular system checks and backup plans. Student adaptability varied, with most students adapting quickly to the XR environment, though a minority required additional guidance due to limited prior experience with immersive technologies. Additionally, resource constraints, particularly the limited availability of XR headsets, necessitated adjustments to lesson plans to ensure all students had the opportunity to engage with the technology.

6. Future Directions

Refinements in Experiential Learning: As technology progresses, it is likely that we will see more intuitive interfaces, making the XR experience even more immersive. Haptic feedback, which provides tactile responses, could be integrated more fully into educational XR applications to simulate touch and enhance the learning experience (Radianti et al., 2020).

Areas for Future Research: Given the relative novelty of XR in education, there is a wealth of areas ripe for exploration. More extensive longitudinal studies examining the long-term effects and benefits of XR on learning outcomes, cognitive development, and retention rates would be invaluable. Additionally, further studies could delve into how these technologies might best serve learners with disabilities or be used in special education settings (Radianti et al., 2020).

7. Conclusions

The digital era, marked by the prominence of VR, AR, and MR, is reshaping traditional teaching and learning paradigms, especially within the realm of experiential learning. The immersive and interactive qualities of these technologies provide unparalleled opportunities for learners, creating enriched and dynamic educational experiences (Lin et al., 2020). Yet, integrating them into education is not without challenges, from technical limitations and pedagogical concerns to potential health implications that need to be methodically addressed (Madary & Metzinger, 2016).

As we reflect on the transformative potential of XR for experiential learning, its capacity to bridge theory and practice stands out. It allows students to experiment with concepts in simulated environments, which can lead to deeper understanding and improved retention (Biocca & Delaney, 1995). The future of educational XR appears vast, and as technology continues to evolve, its integration in experiential learning is expected to revolutionize the educational experience for forthcoming generations (Dewey, 1938).