The KXR instructional design framework: a theory-informed model for accessible extended reality learning

1 Introduction to an XR instructional design framework

Extended reality (XR), which includes virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is gaining momentum as a tool for teaching and learning across higher education and workforce training. These technologies offer immersive and interactive experiences that can enhance engagement, support skill development, and provide access to environments that may otherwise be inaccessible.

As interest in XR grows, educators face the challenge of integrating these technologies in ways that are pedagogically sound, scalable, and aligned with clear learning objectives. Despite rapid advances in XR, implementation in educational settings is often driven by technological novelty rather than instructional intent. This can lead to experiences that are engaging but lack meaningful alignment with learning goals.

Unlike prior work that often focuses on either technology or pedagogy in isolation, there is a need for integrated approaches that align XR capabilities with established instructional design principles. Addressing this gap requires a structured framework that supports intentional decision-making across the design process.

The Konnect XR (KXR) Instructional Design Framework is introduced to support this need. The framework integrates Backward Design and the ADDIE model into a unified XR-specific process that aligns learning objectives, instructional activities, and assessment strategies. It is developed and refined through iterative application in higher education and workforce training contexts, with representative cases illustrating how XR technologies, including 360° media, AR, MR, and VR, are selected and implemented based on instructional goals and contextual constraints.

This paper makes three contributions. First, it presents the KXR framework as a structured approach for designing XR-based learning experiences that align technology, pedagogy, and assessment. Second, it connects XR affordances to established learning theories, including experiential learning, constructivism, and cognitive load theory, to support evidence-informed design. Third, it demonstrates the application of the framework through representative examples that illustrate how XR can be effectively integrated across different contexts.

1.1 Operationalizing the KXR framework

The KXR framework is intended to support instructional designers, subject matter experts, and educators in aligning XR technologies with pedagogical goals and learner needs. Rather than prescribing a fixed sequence of steps, the framework provides a structured approach for making informed design decisions across a range of XR implementation contexts.

The framework adopts a platform-agnostic perspective, focusing on transferable design principles rather than specific tools or technologies. While examples are included to illustrate key concepts, the framework is designed to be adaptable across evolving XR ecosystems and diverse educational and training environments.

To support understanding and application, the following sections examine XR technologies and their affordances, followed by a structured design process grounded in established instructional design models. Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the framework as an overview of the design, development, and evaluation process.

2 Technologies for XR development and access

Extended Reality (XR) technologies are rapidly evolving, driven by advances in hardware, software, and artificial intelligence that expand their accessibility and instructional potential. These developments have enabled more immersive and interactive applications across education, healthcare, and workforce training. Han et al. (2026) note the rapid expansion of capabilities has led to ambiguities in how the technology is defined.

In this section we define how XR terminology is used within the framework. Each type of XR is introduced using Milgram et al. (1994) Reality-Virtuality Continuum as this classification aligns with the general population’s understanding of what constitutes XR and it is a good starting point for educators that may not be familiar with XR technologies. We then move to a user-focused analysis of each technology by discussing the specific learning affordances that each technology supports.

This method follows Han et al. (2026) findings “that the classification paradigm in the XR field has clearly transitioned from a single-dimensional (technology-driven) approach to a multidimensional theoretical space (user-experience and system-attribute-driven).” (p19).

2.1 Extended reality (XR)

XR serves as an umbrella term for technologies that blend physical and digital environments, including 360-degree media, augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and virtual reality (VR). Each offers varying levels of immersion and interactivity (Shatokin et al., 2025). WebXR is a related term which refers to the set of web-based standards that enable XR experiences to be delivered through web browsers without the need for additional software or hardware. WebXR, along with emerging hardware, such as smart glasses, have the potential to lower technical barriers and expand access to immersive learning experiences. As these technologies continue to evolve, they offer a promising path toward more scalable and accessible XR applications.

The Reality-Virtuality Continuum illustrates a progression from fully real to fully virtual environments, highlighting both the overlap among technologies and the increasing integration of digital elements across the spectrum (Milgram and et al., 1994).

Within the KXR framework, XR technologies are treated not as standalone solutions, but as tools whose affordances must be evaluated in relation to learning objectives. Effective integration depends not only on technological capability, but also on the user-experience and how it aligns with instructional goals, learner needs, and contextual constraints. Examining XR technology’s characteristics helps clarify how they can enhance learning. AR, MR, and VR offer different affordances depending on device capabilities. We will now define how we conceptualize the specific subcategories of technologies that fall within the XR umbrella.

2.2 360-degree media

360-degree media provides immersive visual experiences that allow learners to explore real-world or simulated environments from fixed perspectives. Typically delivered through panoramic video or images, this modality enables users to navigate a scene spatially while maintaining a relatively low level of interactivity compared to other XR technologies. It is accessible across a range of devices, including smartphones, tablets, and head-mounted displays.

From an instructional perspective, 360-degree media is particularly effective for providing contextualized exposure to environments, processes, and scenarios that may be difficult to access due to cost, location, or safety constraints. It supports observational learning by allowing learners to situate themselves within authentic settings, enhancing spatial awareness and situational understanding. Additionally, its relatively low development complexity and scalability make it well suited for broad deployment across diverse educational and training contexts.

Within the KXR framework, 360-degree media is most appropriate for introductory and exploratory learning objectives, where the primary goal is to build familiarity, support contextual understanding, and prepare learners for more interactive or immersive experiences.

2.2.1 360-degree media examples

YouTube’s Virtual Reality channel (@360, n.d.)links to many publicly accessible 360-degree videos. Educational examples can be found by viewing the National Geographic 360-video playlist (National Geographic, 2026a). Buck Island Reef National Park (National Geographic, 2026b), which demonstrates the immersive nature of this format. As viewers watch the video, they can use their mouse or finger to change the camera focus while listening to the narration. They can also zoom in to take a closer look at the reef. For those unfamiliar with 360-degree video, it may be helpful to view the National Geographic video and other 360-video examples to explore the possibilities of using this technology.

Another example of an educational use of 360-degree media is CareerViewXR (CareerViewXR, 2026) created by Be More Colorful, an immersive media and virtual reality video production studio. Their library of experiences provide interactive web-based tours along with accompanying virtual reality videos that are accessible using a VR headset. These experiences allow learners to explore a day in the life of professionals from various fields to discover career paths that are relevant to their personal interests and goals.

2.2.2 Affordances of 360-degree media

360-degree media offers several advantages including the ability to choose viewing angles, which allows for a more comprehensive examination of the environment (Qian et al., 2025). Unlike traditional photographs and video, the viewer is at the center of the action, creating a stronger sense of presence and engagement. Viewers of 360-degree media can feel as though they’re inside the environment, which can deepen emotional impact and understanding. As compared to viewing static photos and videos, seeing the full environment provides a better sense of space, relationships, and surroundings. Deploying 360-degree media provides an immersive sense of presence without complex interactions, making it more affordable than other XR options. Easily captured on smartphones, it's versatile and viewable on many devices.

360-degree content can enhance learning by making abstract or distant concepts more tangible and memorable. This makes 360-degree media a powerful tool for storytelling, education, training, and ideal for virtual tours and environmental awareness. Virtual field trips offer valuable historical or cultural context and are an accessible alternative to full VR experiences. Users control their viewpoint which encourages curiosity and active participation. Experiencing a setting from a first-person perspective can promote empathy and connection.

2.2.3 Key benefits and limitations of 360-degree media

360-media is typically accessible through web browsers, smartphones, tablets, and smart glasses. These tools are portable, making them flexible for use in diverse learning environments. While 360-degree media has limited interactivity, it provides engaging visual experiences. Experience quality heavily depends on the capture technology used. High-quality audio and visual elements can enhance the sense of realism and engagement, and can significantly affect the educational effectiveness (Jiang et al., 2024). Cameras designed specifically for 360-degree capture can enhance realism, while smartphones and tablets offer effective and accessible options for creating meaningful immersive experiences.

360-degree media excels at providing a sense of place and context for educational purposes. Developing virtual tours that incorporate interactive hotspots can be done with relative ease using tools such as SeekBeak (SeekBeak, 2026). These accessible and affordable applications offer immersive experiences without the need for large budgets or complex setups. For scenarios requiring active engagement or interaction with virtual objects, other XR technologies are more suitable. Figure 2 provides additional ways that 360-degree can be used for instructional purposes.

2.3 Augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR)

AR and MR are similar in both the technology used and how they enable interaction between virtual and real-world environments (Rauschnabel et al., 2022). MR is an emerging area that has evolved from AR. In AR digital information is overlaid onto the real world, while MR enables dynamic, real-time interaction between digital and physical elements (Catenazzi et al., 2024). Both are delivered through devices such as smartphones, tablets, while smart glasses and head-mounted displays continue to expand its capabilities. These platforms help shape the level of immersion, interaction, and accessibility.

AR blends virtual elements with the physical environment to create informative and engaging experiences. These digital elements enhance, but do not interact with, the physical world. AR is commonly used to provide contextual information and interactive visualizations that support engagement with both physical and digital content (Wu et al., 2013). By integrating instructional content directly into real-world settings, AR allows learners to access guidance within the context of the task, making it especially effective for procedural training, equipment operation, and real-time decision support. This alignment supports just-in-time learning and can improve efficiency, accuracy, and knowledge transfer (Diegmann et al., 2015).

MR builds on AR by allowing digital and physical elements to interact in real time. In MR environments, virtual content is aware of and responsive to the physical space, enabling two-way interaction between digital and real-world elements. This allows learners to manipulate virtual objects in ways that are shaped by the surrounding environment, supporting more complex and integrated learning experiences. These capabilities are particularly valuable for tasks that require coordination between physical tools and digital guidance.

2.3.1 AR and MR examples

The following examples illustrate how AR and MR are applied across informal, educational, and professional contexts. A widely recognized example of AR is the mobile game Pokémon Go (Pokemon GO, 2026), which allows players to “catch” virtual Pokémon that appear in real-world environments using a smartphone or tablet. This application demonstrates how AR can transform everyday settings into interactive experiences that encourage exploration and engagement.

AR also supports learning in natural and scientific contexts. Stargazing apps such as Stellarium Mobile (Stellarium Labs, 2026) allow learners to scan the night sky to identify planets and constellations. Similarly, plant identification apps like PlantSnap (Plantsnap, 2026) combine AR with artificial intelligence to recognize plants and display information about species, including visualizations of growth cycles. These tools place information directly onto real-world objects, making learning more interactive and easier to access.

AR is used to provide real-time, context-sensitive information in a variety of professional settings. Pilots use head-up displays (HUDs) to project flight data onto a transparent screen, allowing them to access critical information without shifting their attention away from their environment (Safi and Chung, 2023). Similar approaches are increasingly used in technical training, where AR guides users through tasks such as equipment assembly and troubleshooting by overlaying step-by-step instructions onto physical objects.

MR extends these capabilities by enabling dynamic interaction between digital and physical elements. For example, the Virtual Reality Neuron Tracer (VRNT) (Steam, 2026) allows researchers to visualize and reconstruct neurons using 3D scanned data within an interactive environment. In another application, landscape design students use MR to integrate virtual plants into real-world spaces, allowing them to visualize and refine their designs in real-world contexts (Zhao et al., 2022). These examples highlight how MR supports more complex, interactive learning experiences that combine physical and digital elements.

2.3.2 Affordances of augmented and mixed reality

AR and MR enable interaction with virtual elements in real-world contexts. They differ primarily in degree: AR overlays information, while MR enables dynamic, real-time interaction between digital and physical elements. Wu et al. (2013) identify key affordances of AR, including 3D visualization, multiple perspectives, situated and collaborative learning, enhanced presence, and the ability to visualize otherwise invisible phenomena. Catenazzi et al. (2024) identify four categories of affordances that apply specifically to MR. This includes the ability to manipulate an object or position it in a specific location; movement, such as walking or eye gaze; focus, through cuing or holding someone’s attention; and providing input.

Together, AR and MR support learning that is grounded in real-world contexts and enhanced through interactive digital augmentation. AR emphasizes accessibility and contextual support, while MR enables more integrated and interactive experiences. Within the KXR framework, both are most effective when learning objectives require real-world anchoring combined with context-sensitive guidance and interaction. AR and MR are appropriate for learning objectives that require real-world anchoring combined with interactive, context-sensitive guidance and feedback.

MR extends these capabilities by enabling bidirectional interaction between digital and physical elements, supporting more complex, interactive, and collaborative learning tasks that require coordination, spatial reasoning, or shared problem-solving. By embedding instructional content within physical contexts, AR and MR support situated and experiential learning through just-in-time guidance (Garzón et al., 2020; Garzón, 2021). Evidence of the impact of AR and MR show improvements in understanding, retention, and motivation (Radu, 2012), along with support for collaboration (Wu et al., 2013) and procedural skill development (Diegmann et al., 2015).

MR enables deeper integration of physical and digital elements, supporting more immersive, interactive, and collaborative learning experiences. These affordances are particularly valuable for complex or hands-on tasks, but they require more advanced hardware, greater development expertise, and increased resources.

2.3.3 Key benefits and limitations of AR and MR

AR is effective for contextual, task-based learning, particularly for just-in-time guidance in real-world settings. Its effectiveness is constrained by device limitations, positioning demands, and the risk of cognitive or information overload. Mobile devices offer accessibility and scalability but may increase cognitive load during hands-on activities. In contrast, head-mounted devices support hands-free interaction and greater immersion, with tradeoffs including limited field of view, usability challenges, and higher cost. AR is widely accessible and relatively easy to deploy, making it an effective entry point for integrating XR into learning environments. AR supports contextual, situated learning by enhancing the real world with digital overlays, without fully immersing the learner in a virtual environment. This makes AR particularly well suited for just-in-time learning, procedural guidance, and real-world task support. AR experiences are often constrained by limited fields of view, reliance on device positioning, and the quality of camera and sensor technology. Poorly designed overlays can contribute to cognitive overload or distract from learning objectives.

MR builds on the capabilities of AR by enabling seamless interaction between physical and digital elements, supporting more immersive and interactive learning experiences. Learners can manipulate virtual objects that respond to real-world conditions, fostering deeper engagement and more active learning. MR also enhances opportunities for collaboration, as learners can interact with shared virtual content within a physical space. These benefits come with increased complexity, since MR experiences typically require more advanced hardware, greater development expertise, and higher implementation costs. Additionally, the learning curve for both users and developers can be steeper, requiring additional training and support. Figures 3, 4 provide specific instructional applications for AR and MR respectively.

2.4 Virtual reality (VR)

VR refers to fully immersive virtual experiences where the real world is completely replaced by a computer generated virtual environment. VR has evolved significantly since the 1960s. Early systems required entire rooms (CAVEs) to project immersive content (Huang et al., 2010). Computer-based simulations like Second Life allowed for interactive immersive environments. Today, stand-alone head-mounted displays (HMDs) provide fully immersive 3D virtual worlds (Jensen and Konradsen, 2018), such as the Meta Quest, HTC Vive, or Apple Vision Pro. VR systems generate 3D environments where learners actively interact with virtual worlds through multisensory interfaces. This immersive experience allows instructors to place learners in authentic contexts, providing a safe, cost-effective way to develop skills and knowledge (Huang and Liaw, 2018). Figure 5 defines the key characteristics of VR.

2.4.1 VR examples

Finding examples of VR applications can be challenging as open-source simulations have only recently become more available. VR simulations tend to be developed for specific headsets, further impacting availability. The Open Educational Extended Reality (OEXR) (OEXR, 2026) collaborative repository seeks to address this issue. This repository is part of the REsource Collaborative for Immersive TEchnologies (RECITE), an NSF initiative that is running parallel to KXR. The OEXR library is a growing collection of openly licensed XR teaching tools, including searchable and downloadable 3D assets and educational resources.

Below are two VR examples referenced throughout the KXR ID Framework. Fully immersive versions are available for the Meta Quest platform. If you do not have access to a Meta Quest headset, visit the appropriate app store for your VR device and explore comparable free applications for your platform. The Innocan VR Build: Drone Assembly Simulation and the Trauma-Informed Spaces VR Simulation examples are used throughout the framework to demonstrate how the KXR ID Framework can be applied in authentic learning environments (Boxes 1, 2).

This VR simulation guides students through the drone assembly process, from uncrating to final assembly. Students go through an instructional phase which provides step-by-step guidance, a practice phase where they can freely explore, and an assessment phase assures they understand the process. The Innocan VR Build simulation is accessible via the National Center for Autonomous Technologies (NCAT) website. The site features a brief video showcasing students undertaking the assembly process depicted in the VR experience. Additionally, installation instructions and a download link for the simulation are available.

The Trauma-Informed Spaces simulation, developed by the University at Buffalo School of Social Work, allows students to visit a virtual health clinic. Students learn the principles of trauma-informed care and how they can impact the physical characteristics of human services agencies. A fully immersive version is available for Meta Quest users and a Cardboard version is available for Android and iOS smartphone devices for those who may not have access to a VR headset. To better understand how technology choices influence XR-based learning activities, it’s helpful to explore both versions of the simulation. Reading the article and watching the accompanying video will provide additional context.

Sturman et al. (2021). Development of an immersive virtual reality learning environment: Integrating trauma-informed principles into human service agency settings. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 39(3), 232-259.

This short 20-min video that describes the development of the app, “Using Immersive VR to Integrate Trauma-Informed Principles into Human Service Agency Settings.” (SWClasses, 2021).

2.4.2 Affordances of virtual reality

Advancements in technology have made it easier to integrate VR into education. VR creates immersive spaces to support learning through visuals and interactive experiences. These environments connect learners with peers and experts, fostering deeper engagement (Bronack et al., 2008).

Current VR technology offers fully immersive experiences in simulated environments, where learners are visually and auditorily isolated from the real world. VR headsets like the Meta Quest or HTC Vive, provide access to virtual worlds that can simulate real or imagined environments (Kisker et al., 2021). VR setups may include haptic feedback devices, such as gloves or pressure plates, which enhance realism and allow users to interact physically with the virtual environment.

VR fosters a sense of physical presence (“being there”) and social presence through interaction with others in immersive, avatar-based environments (Schuemie et al., 2001; Cho et al., 2015; Cadet and Chainay, 2020). It supports learner-centered approaches by enabling self-directed exploration, decision-making, and experiential learning (Johnston et al., 2017; Martín-Gutiérrez et al., 2017).

As Huang and Liaw (2018) note, VR offers an alternative to real-world settings while maintaining contextual authenticity (p. 96). These characteristics align with situated and experiential learning, as well as the social construction of knowledge. VR’s rich, realistic environments further support constructivist approaches that emphasize active, learner-centered engagement (Huang et al., 2010; Fowler, 2015; Johnston et al., 2017). Figure 6 provides a summary for instructional applications of VR.

2.4.3 Key benefits and limitations of virtual reality

VR excels in creating fully immersive simulations, making it suitable for visualizing abstract 3D concepts like molecular structures, historical re-enactments, and for hands-on practice in real-world environments. It is particularly effective for training in high-risk scenarios where physical safety is a concern. These activities can enhance engagement, knowledge retention, and can foster attitude development, such as building empathy by enabling users to experience situations from diverse perspectives (Makransky and Petersen, 2021). Challenges including the potential for motion sickness, the need for expensive hardware, user isolation from the physical environment, and accessibility issues often need to be taken into consideration.

With a solid understanding of how these technologies work and the key benefits and limitations of each platform, we will now examine the learning theories that should be considered when designing any instruction that utilizes XR technologies.

3 Theoretical foundations: adult learning theories in support of XR-based learning

The design of XR-based learning activities needs to be rooted in evidence-based andragogical theories to ensure they support learning outcomes. Theories to consider include constructivist principles, which highlight learning through experience; scaffolded learning, where tasks gradually become more complex; Universal Design for Learning (UDL), which promotes multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression; and psychological concepts such as cognitive load theory, which considers sensory overload in immersive environments.

3.1 Situated learning

Situated learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991) occurs when an activity, skill, or knowledge is taught within the environment or setting where it naturally occurs. Constructivism states that knowledge is constructed through experience, and learning is tied directly to the social environment in which it occurs (Ertmer and Newby, 2013). Constructivism also emphasizes that learners actively build knowledge by reflecting on their experiences and integrate new information into existing their cognitive structures. Situational learning theory highlights the importance of context and practice in the social process of learning. By situating students in authentic or highly realistic environments, they prepare for real-world applications of their skills and knowledge (Al Hakim et al., 2024). XR experiences provide situated learning through the creation of digital environments that replicate the real-world.

360-degree media facilitate situated learning by enabling students to virtually explore real-world locations that are typically inaccessible or dangerous. This experience offers a more active learning approach compared to traditional instructional materials. Students can control their field of vision by scrolling and zooming in on specific areas, fostering greater engagement and freeing them from a fixed perspective. Box 3 below illustrates this application of situated learning.

The Buck Island Reef National Park (National Geographic, 2026b) video is an example of how 360-degree technology can bring real-world environments into the classroom. This high-quality recording immerses viewers in the Buck Island ecosystem, with audio narration that highlights the importance of wildlife conservation and environmental protection. As viewers explore the environment while listening to the narration, they experience a deeper and more meaningful connection to the content. The option to control the camera and zoom in on specific features helps maintain attention and encourages active engagement, offering a richer experience than reading a text or watching a standard 2D video.

AR and MR are ideal for situated learning, as they enable the integration and access of graphical images and other data during real-world interactions. AR allows instructors to blend authentic real-world exploration with virtual objects like text, video, or images, providing additional context for learners investigating their environment (Wu et al., 2013). According to Garzón (2021), AR offers an interactive real-world experience, enhancing real-world objects with computer-generated perceptual information. An example of this approach is presented in Box 4.

The Stellarium Mobile App (Stellarium Labs, 2026) is a prime example of how AR and MR can be combined with the real world to add context and additional information to a learning experience. Focusing a mobile device’s camera on different sections of the sky, and utilizing its location services lets learners pinpoint and reveal the names of various celestial objects, including stars, constellations, and planets. Tapping these objects will provide more information. For instance, clicking on the constellation Cassiopeia, provides information on where it is in the night sky, a description of the constellation, who it was named after, and the names of the stars that make up the constellation. A paid app subscription grants access to high-resolution images of stars, nebulas, and galaxies. This app can also be used with telescopes and cameras to automatically zoom in on specific celestial bodies. AR and MR tools, such as physical observational tools combined with a digital stellar library, exemplify how specific activities can leverage these technologies to enhance the learning process.

VR supports situated learning by creating computer-generated representations of real-world environments and objects. These immersive environments offer rich, interactive learning experiences (Huang et al., 2010). VR makes learners feel as if they are physically present in the space. The ability to interact with and manipulate virtual objects deepens the sense of presence. VR allows learners to engage with meaningful, real-world contexts that might otherwise be out of reach (Huang and Liaw, 2018). Box 5 illustrates this application of situated learning in VR.

The Trauma-Informed Spaces app is an excellent example of situated learning. The simulation recreates a typical mental health agency which students can explore. Within this context, it allows students to learn how the physical environment of service agencies impact clients and their adherence to treatment programs. By observing the environment, students learn how to assess whether an agency is trauma-informed and identify ways to improve the space to better support individuals who have experienced trauma. This simulation relies upon situated learning to give students real world examples of what they may encounter in a typical agency. It helps students visualize real-world improvements and develop empathy for their clients’ experiences. The use of the simulation provides a more active learning experience compared to traditional teaching methods. It also provides an experience that is not available in a traditional classroom. It would be difficult to have a class walk through an agency to evaluate that agency’s adherence to trauma-informed practices without disrupting the agency and its clients.

3.2 Experiential learning

Experiential learning happens when students learn through active participation and reflect on their experiences. It is a continuous cycle of doing, reflecting, and applying new knowledge or skills (Kolb, 1984). The core considerations for experiential learning are: attending to the learner’s intellect, emotions, and senses; actively connecting new learning to their personal or past experiences; and encouraging reflection to deepen understanding (Andresen et al., 2020).

XR supports experiential learning by allowing learners to practice skills or abilities expected in real-life situations. Environments based upon constructivist principles, allow students to build upon prior learning through experiential active learning and problem solving to construct meaningful new knowledge and skill (Cho et al., 2015; Fowler, 2015; Huang et al., 2010; Huang and Liaw, 2018; Johnston et al., 2017). AR, MR, and VR can give learners immediate feedback, helping them reflect on whether they are practicing skills correctly and applying their knowledge effectively. Examples of sample assignments are provided in Boxes 6, 7.

Using VR for Self-Care (Sperlich et al., 2021) is a good example of an assignment that integrates Experiential Learning. It was developed for students who work with mental-health clients, where self-care is an important professional skill to help avoid burnout. It has several learning outcomes including; building students’ VR skills, encouraging them to explore how VR can support their own self-care, and prompting them to consider VR’s practical applications in their field.

This activity has students experiment with various apps to develop skills in navigating a VR headset with handheld controllers and learn how to access the headset’s app library to identify and download new apps. Tutorials built into the headset provide extra guidance whenever students need it and provides immediate feedback on whether they are using the controls properly.

In this assignment, students select and experience an app they might use for their personal self-care. This helps connect the learning activity to their specific interests and professional goals. They are then encouraged to reflect on their experience considering how VR could be applied in a professional setting.

Student learning is assessed through external discussions and a short paper where they reflect upon their experiences and discuss how they might have their mental health clients use VR for their own self-care.

The Drone Assembly Simulation is another example of experiential learning. Learners go through the entire process of unboxing and assembling a drone. The simulation provides step-by-step guidance, offering cues and directions to help students follow the correct order.

In the practice phase, students assemble the drone without guidance, relying on memory. They can repeat this as many times as needed to build confidence and accuracy. During the final assessment phase, students are evaluated on their ability to complete the assembly in the proper sequence.

3.3 Collaborative learning

Social applications of XR have become promising environments for collaborative learning, especially within online and hybrid classes. Social XR platforms allow individuals to meet, interact, and work together in virtual spaces that simulate physical environments.

Collaborative learning is rooted in constructivist and socio-cultural theories, which emphasize interaction, shared knowledge-building, and solving problems together (Benbunan-Fich et al., 2004; Vygotsky, 1977). In XR-enhanced education, success depends on intentionally designed learning activities that support communication, coordination, co-creation, and reflection. Social XR platforms provide features such as spatial audio, persistent environments, customizable avatars, and interactive 3D objects that support collaborative processes (Bronack et al., 2008; Zheng et al., 2018).

3.3.1 Affordances for collaborative learning in XR

Inspired by Jeong and Hmelo-Silver’s (2016) Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) framework, the following affordances detail how XR enhances collaborative learning.

• Engage in Joint Tasks: XR enables learners to engage in shared tasks like group discussions, role-plays, and simulations. Virtual environments enable collaboration in settings that are inaccessible due to location or cost (Zheng et al., 2018).
• Communicate: Spatial audio and avatar-based interaction enable real-time verbal and non-verbal communication. These tools help simulate face-to-face interaction, promoting a strong sense of social presence (Fowler, 2015; Cho et al., 2015).
• Share Resources: Social XR platforms often support sharing multimedia content, such as documents, images, videos, websites, and 3D models. Persistent content enables asynchronous collaboration and knowledge sharing (Girvan and Savage, 2019).
• Engage in Productive Collaborative Learning Processes: Instructors can structure activities that promote critical thinking, peer feedback, co-creation, and real-time problem solving. Immersive environments enhance student participation and engagement (Huang and Liaw, 2018; Martín-Gutiérrez et al., 2017).
• Engage in Co-Construction: Learners co-create digital artifacts such as simulations, concept maps, or environments, supporting reflection and iteration and enhancing group learning (Huang, 2010; Dalgarno and Lee, 2010).
• Monitor and Regulate Collaborative Learning: Platforms that support recording, feedback, and replay tools help instructors and learners evaluate collaboration and adjust strategies to improve learning outcomes (Moskaliuk et al., 2013). The ability for instructors to join learners in these virtual spaces allows them to provide real-time guidance and feedback to support the learning process.
• Encourage Learners to Join or Create XR Communities: Social XR environments let users join public communities and create private groups. This flexibility supports informal learning and peer connections beyond the classroom (Thomas and Brown, 2009; Anderson, 2008).

By aligning platform features with instructional goals, educators can design meaningful, learner-centered experiences that go beyond replicating traditional classrooms. Immersive environments have the potential to open new pathways for student interaction, knowledge construction, and community development in virtual spaces.

When considering XR-based collaborative experiences:

• Choose a platform that fits the instructional goal.
• Develop structured tasks that promote inquiry, discussion, and shared outcomes.
• Use persistent environments to support asynchronous learning.
• Leverage avatars and spatial audio to enhance social presence.
• Integrate tools for feedback, reflection, and peer assessment.
• Support community building through informal, interest-driven spaces. Examples of collaborative XR platforms are summarized in Box 8.

Numerous XR-based applications facilitate collaborative learning, each offering distinct functionalities. When selecting a platform for your learning activities, it is crucial to consider the specific collaborative activities you intend for your learners. Instructors also need to consider what technologies learners have access to and which apps work well with those technologies. As XR technologies evolve, staying informed about new features in collaborative XR applications is crucial. A sample of the XR applications that support collaborative learning include - Engage XR (Engage, 2026), Spatial (Spatial, 2026), and VRChat (VRChat, 2026).

3.4 Multimodal learning theory

Multimodal Learning Theory emphasizes the benefits of integrating text, visuals, sound, and interaction to create engaging XR learning experiences. Activating multiple senses helps learners process information through different neural channels, enhancing comprehension, retention, and motivation. Research by Gill et al. (2025) shows multimodal approaches significantly boost understanding and performance. Multimodal Learning Theory builds on Mayer’s (2020) seminal Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning by incorporating additional sensory inputs such as haptic and kinesthetic, alongside visual and auditory elements. Both theories highlight a core principle: multisensory learning aligns with the brain’s natural information integration, leading to deeper and longer-lasting understanding.

When applied to XR, this approach guides educators in designing immersive environments with multiple means of presenting information and experiences. By presenting information across multiple modalities, learners benefit from seeing visuals, accompanied by narration and sound cues, that involve interactive engagement and hands-on activities. Multimodal design enhances retention and skill-building; supports accessibility; promotes active engagement, and enables more personalized learning experiences.

3.4.1 Key benefits of multimodal design in XR

• Enhanced Immersion: Utilizing multiple sensory inputs (e.g., haptics, kinesthetics) creates believable, immersive environments that heighten the sense of presence.
• Intuitive Interfaces: Natural interaction methods like hand tracking and voice commands reduce reliance on traditional controllers, making XR experiences more seamless and user-friendly.
• Adaptable Experiences: Sensor data and biofeedback enable real-time adjustments to user states, emotional or cognitive, allowing XR systems to personalize learning and therapeutic outcomes.

3.5 Cognitive load theory

Another important consideration for integrating XR into learning is Cognitive Load Theory, which focuses upon learner’s use of their working memory when acquiring new materials (Sweller, 1988). This theory distinguishes between three types of cognitive load: intrinsic load, which is the inherent difficulty of learning the materials; extraneous load, which arises from poorly-designed materials; and germane load, which is the effort needed to process the materials and add it to their existing knowledge or long-term memory. When designing XR-based learning activities, consider the limits of working memory to avoid overwhelming learners (Al Hakim et al., 2024; Parong and Mayer, 2021). Cognitive load should be considered in both the design and implementation phase, integrating visual cues, signaling and generative learning strategies can help minimize extraneous load (Buchner et al., 2022). To support students, consider how and when the XR experience is introduced in your course and what students need to make the most of the activities. Figure 7 provides suggestions on how to address cognitive load when designing and implementing XR based learning activities.

3.6 Universal design for learning (UDL)

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework for designing learning experiences that are accessible and engaging for all learners, regardless of their individual differences. When designing and developing XR experiences, the principles of UDL should be a central consideration in your planning.

UDL aims to remove barriers by creating flexible and accessible methods, materials, and environments that support learner variability. CAST (CAST, 2026), a nonprofit education research and development organization, created the Universal Design for Learning Framework and UDL Guidelines (CAST, 2024) as a tool for developing or redesigning curriculum to align to the UDL principles.

Rooted in neuroscience, UDL emphasizes the importance of providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression. These three principles encourage educators to offer diverse ways to motivate learners, present information, and allow students to demonstrate what they know, thereby fostering inclusive, flexible learning environments.

With the passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-315) in 2008, UDL is explicitly referenced in federal education and training legislation (CAST, n.d.). It is either recommended or required as a framework for schools and higher education institutions to enable all learners to achieve high standards, including students with disabilities/disabled students, English learners, and other underserved populations.

Research on UDL has demonstrated enhanced learning for all students, including students with disabilities/disabled students (Izzo and Bauer, 2013). UDL application in higher education can improve the learner experience for performance, engagement, satisfaction, social presence, learning stress, and learning flexibility (Davies et al., 2013; Hall et al., 2015; He, 2014; Kumar and Wideman, 2014). When UDL-oriented curriculum is coupled with accessible technology such as text-to-speech software, media-rich experiences that incorporate visuals and video, and flexible technology-based assessment systems, both teaching and learning are better supported (Basham et al., 2010; Dalton et al., 2011; Marino et al., 2014). A recent meta-analysis of experimental studies in UDL-based interventions found a moderately positive effect on learner achievement with a UDL intervention compared to controls (King-Sears et al., 2023). The use of XR aligns well with UDL principles because it enhances personalized and immersive learning experiences.

• Engagement: XR can boost motivation and curiosity by immersing students in realistic simulations or gamified environments tailored to different interests and needs. XR can bring experiences to students who would otherwise not be able to participate due to distance, cost, or availability of equipment. When used for career exploration, XR can increase students’ motivation to consider careers they may not be otherwise exposed to due to socio-economic and other barriers.
• Representation: XR allows content to be visualized in 3D or interactive formats, making abstract or complex information more concrete and accessible to diverse learners, including those with learning differences.
• Action and Expression: XR tools provide learners with multiple ways to interact with content and demonstrate understanding, whether through virtual experiments, voice interactions, or immersive storytelling, giving all students more autonomy and flexibility in how they learn and show their knowledge.

Accessibility, which is elaborated on in a later section, is foundational to UDL. The goal of UDL is to support learners in using accessible information to build useful knowledge which they can apply to accomplish personal and collective goals.

To this point, the framework focuses on the foundational knowledge that instructors, instructional designers, and developers need to understand the basics of XR technologies, the types of learning activities they support, and the relevant learning theories that support their educational application. In the next sections, we apply this knowledge to the development process and outline a structured approach for designing XR-based learning activities.

4 Steps to develop XR training

The KXR Framework guides instructional design decisions through structured models to ensure XR-based training remains goal-aligned. Using Backward Design, developers first define learning outcomes before creating content to ensure pedagogy drives the technology. Additionally, the ADDIE model provides an iterative process through Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate stages to refine the XR experience.

4.1 Using backward design

The Backward Design model is an effective way to plan and implement XR-based learning experiences. This model starts by outlining the Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes (KSAs) targeted in the learning activities and identifying the desired learning outcomes. By starting with desired outcomes and working backward, developers can strategically integrate XR to enhance specific KSAs. This approach helps to focus development efforts, prevent feature creep, and optimize resource allocation (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005).

Backward design should be paired with a well-established taxonomy of learning, such as Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Bloom’s Taxonomy is a framework used to design and evaluate learning by organizing cognitive skills into six levels: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create. The revised version emphasizes active thinking and helps educators build learning experiences that move from basic recall to complex problem-solving and creativity (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Integrating one of the well-known taxonomies helps to define clear learning objectives and ensures XR activities target measurable skills.

Backward design helps guide the selection of assessment methods that target the identified KSAs. These methods can use XR’s data-driven features to provide deeper insights into the effectiveness of achieving the learning outcomes.

4.2 The ADDIE model

The ADDIE model offers five stages for designing learning activities: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. This cyclical process promotes continuous improvement and serves as an effective guide for designing and assessing XR-based learning initiatives. In the next section, we summarize each step and highlight XR-specific considerations. For more information on each phase within the ADDIE model, refer to GoSkills’ “The ADDIE Model: A Beginner’s Guide.” (Boogard, 2019).

The figure below presents an overview of the five phases. Li and Sun (2024) conducted qualitative research to refine the ADDIE model, resulting in a similar framework specifically designed for the unique challenges and opportunities of VR-based training. Figure 8 diagrams the ADDIE model with specific XR based considerations for each phase of the process.

4.2.1 Analyze

A needs analysis should be conducted as the first step in this process. This analysis is critical to identify skill gaps, operational requirements, and learner demographics. This analysis informs decisions around XR tool selection, the implementation of XR technologies, and the fit of XR experiences within the curriculum. This will ensure that XR solutions address specific needs rather than being driven by technological novelty.

4.2.1.1 Institutional readiness

Understanding the context of XR activities is crucial for their development and implementation. As Upadhyay et al. (2024) noted, common institutional barriers to the adoption of XR include the cost of the equipment, the lack of resources for in-house development of content, lack of support teams for the specialized equipment, and the need for faculty training and the time needed for instructors to become familiar with XR materials prior to using them with their students. Instructors need to consider the availability of technologies, and the types of support for developing and implementing the XR technologies. Development of XR-based simulations can be resource-intensive and expensive; funding will be a key consideration for the development process.

The Personalized XR Implementation Plan Workbook: Demystifying Extended Reality Technologies in Technician Education (Anderson, 2025), is a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) based implementation guide that targets the analysis phase. The workbook is a practical guide to aid in the adoption of XR technologies. The workbook will help you understand your institution’s readiness, set priorities, develop checklists for moving forward, and develop a list of resources and key contacts to support the implementation of XR based activities. Figure 9 provides specific questions to consider when analyzing your institutions readiness to implement XR based learning.

4.2.1.2 Fit within the curriculum

After grasping the broader institutional context, the next step is to evaluate the optimal points for integrating XR into the targeted curriculum. As we discussed earlier, it is important to pick portions of the curriculum where XR will have the most impact and where it will allow for learning activities that cannot be offered in a traditional manner. Figure 10 provides specific questions you should consider when deciding where XR based learning activities should fit within your curriculum.

4.2.1.3 Student characteristics

Knowing the demographics and characteristics of the learners is necessary to ensure the relevance of the learning activities for the target audience. Additionally, it helps identify any training and support students may need before they start using XR.

4.2.1.4 Understand student needs and accessibility

• What are students’ access levels to XR technology (e.g., VR headsets, mobile AR)?
• Are there accessibility concerns (e.g., disabilities, motion sickness, Internet access)?
• What are students’ attitudes and familiarity with XR tools?

4.2.2 Design

The information gathered during the needs analysis serves as the starting point for the design process. This information informs who needs to be on the design team, which technologies will be used, and defines the scope and purpose of the educational activities. The design process is not strictly linear and may require iteration as you move through the process. For instance, you may start by choosing a technology based upon availability, but once you identify the learning experience and outcomes you may find a different technology would support that activity better and may need to switch approaches.

The framework incorporates structured tools to support alignment between learning objectives, XR affordances, and implementation constraints. The XR in Education Worksheet (Sturman, 2021) is a useful starting point. The worksheet helps focus the process on the learning outcomes and the supports that students need to be successful in navigating an XR based assignment.

4.2.2.1 Building the design team

A critical part of the design process is ensuring the right people are on the team. This typically includes the SMEs, instructional design staff, application developers, and the technologists who will support the implementation of the XR application. Having the right people on the team ensures any roadblocks or challenges are addressed early in the design process. Figure 11 outlines the specific roles that are important for designing and implementing XR based instruction.

4.2.2.2 Design with accessibility in mind

XR learning should be inclusive so all students can fully participate. Making XR learning accessible benefits everyone through the “curb cut effect” (Blackwell, 2017). Curb cuts were originally developed for the benefit of wheelchair users, in practice many people can use them to more easily navigate cities: parents pushing children in strollers, delivery staff pushing carts, and travelers with heavy luggage are examples. Captions are another example. They are essential for deaf or hard of hearing people, yet other people can benefit when they are available: those learning a new language, anyone in a new field with specialized vocabulary, and those working in environments where using audio is not practical.

Accessibility is a legal requirement under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For students covered under Title II of the ADA, these laws ensure equal access to facilities, services, and educational programs. This includes physical accessibility (like ramps and elevators) and digital accessibility (like websites and learning platforms, including XR). More recently, Title II of the ADA was updated to align with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), the international standard for accessibility. Entities covered under Title II of the ADA will soon be required to meet the requirements of WCAG 2.1 at level AA.

A challenge for designing accessible XR experiences is that WCAG standards were originally developed for websites and documents and only later adapted to other formats. Recognizing these challenges, the standards-making body, W3C, drafted the XR Accessibility User Requirements (W3C, 2021) to provide guidance to XR developers to address the complex challenges posed by XR accessibility.

In the absence of standards for XR accessibility, developers can rely on the principle of “equivalent facilitation” embedded in Section 508 of the federal procurement requirements to meet their obligations under Section 504 and the ADA. Equivalent facilitation means that when a specific technical accessibility requirement is not met exactly, or a standard for a technology does not yet exist, an alternative approach can be used. This alternative must provide equal or better access for individuals with disabilities. In other words, designers and developers are not locked into one method; any approach achieving the same level of access and usability is permitted.

One way to ensure equivalent facilitation is by working with people with disabilities and involving them early in the development process. Co-design provides a proactive approach, embedding accessibility throughout the design process rather than addressing it only at the end during quality assurance.

XR can impose significant accessibility challenges that must be considered during design. These experiences are often highly visual, and if poorly implemented, can cause motion sickness (Sturman et al., 2021). Furthermore, technologies like head-mounted displays can create physical stress due to their weight and the strain on a user’s head and neck. The fine motor skills required to manipulate handheld controllers also present a barrier for some individuals.

In an instructional context, the goals of an immersive learning experience determine how to implement accessibility practices without altering its fundamental nature. A certain level of challenge is essential for learning, but barriers unrelated to the learning goal should be removed whenever possible. As discussed previously, UDL expands upon accessibility by addressing learner motivation and the need for a balance between support and challenge. This balance helps a diverse range of learners, with varied experiences, needs, and preferences, to find an optimal learning experience.

Given these challenges, it is vital to incorporate accessibility into the design and development process. One key strategy is “chunking,” or breaking experiences into shorter subsections to limit continuous time in the simulation. Figure 12 provides a list of other essential accessibility considerations.

A full discussion of the various ways XR can be made accessible is beyond the scope of this document. However, those interested in learning more are encouraged to read Cross-Platform Integration of Accessibility into XR (Gomez Marroquin et al., 2025), a comprehensive guide that brings together current guidelines and best practices for designing inclusive experiences for diverse learners. Additional insights can be found in Chapter 3 of the XR Associations’ Developers Guide (XRA Association, 2026), which offers practical recommendations for improving XR accessibility using current technologies.

4.2.2.3 Define clear learning objectives

To ensure scenarios directly target observable and measurable outcomes, learning objectives should be defined using Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, as introduced in the Backward Design section. After selecting a specific learning activity, it is beneficial to identify the activity’s Knowledge, Skills, or Attitudes (KSAs) and how they will be enhanced through XR. Examples of such objectives include learning task-based processes, enhancing problem-solving, and empathy development.

4.2.2.4 Choice of learning activity

Choosing the right learning activity is an important consideration when designing for XR. The selected activity should align with the affordances that the technology offers. Choosing experiences that cannot be easily replicated in the classroom or through other technologies is also beneficial. For instance, when teaching an online course, using VR to deliver a traditional lecture is often not practical. It can be difficult to take notes, headsets may become uncomfortable over time, and the costs are typically much higher than video conferencing. Instead, pick activities that cannot be done easily or as effectively in a traditional manner. Contemplating the relevant learning theories will assist in choosing an appropriate learning activity. Figure 13 provides guidance and examples for aligning learning outcomes and XR based activities.

4.2.2.5 Integrate learning theories

Since we covered learning theories in more depth earlier, we provide this quick reference to reiterate essential points for consideration to guide your XR integration.

• Consider whether your approach is based on Experiential Learning, Situated Learning, Collaborative Learning, or another framework.
• When focusing on Experiential Learning, identify the key skills or tasks learners should practice, such as problem-solving, decision-making, collaboration, critical thinking, and hands-on application of knowledge in real-world scenarios.
• In Situated Learning, identify the key aspects of the environment that are crucial to replicate, such as real-world contexts, social interactions, and authentic tasks relevant to the learning objectives.
• Collaborative Learning should focus on how group work and interaction will be supported. Use XR for group projects and peer engagement, add gamification to boost motivation, and allow students to create XR content for coursework.

4.2.2.6 Choice of technology platform

Choosing the right technology is crucial at the beginning of the design phase. This will determine the skills needed from the design team, including the specific programming and design expertise required. The technology choice also impacts the available features for designing XR learning activities. When making this decision, focus on the data from the analysis phase, including available technology, support, and the type of learning activity you want to create.

When selecting XR technologies, it is essential to consider the distinct affordances and limitations of each platform and how they will support the learning objectives. You may need to balance immersion with cost, availability, and accessibility. High-end immersive VR headsets offer the most immersive experience but they operate within closed, proprietary ecosystems. As a result, applications developed for one device (e.g., Meta Quest) may not be compatible with others (e.g., HTC Vive). In contrast, low-cost VR platforms like the open-source Cardboard SDK (Google for Developers, 2026), formerly Google Cardboard, provide immersive experiences with limited interactivity. Mobile phone applications offer increased availability, but they may have limited functionality. Another factor to consider when selecting technologies is the skill set of the application developers. The design team should have the expertise needed to build applications for the chosen platform. The influence of technology selection on instructional design is illustrated in Box 9.

The Trauma Informed Spaces app has multiple versions that illustrate tradeoffs that need to be considered. There is a version that uses a VR headset and a mobile version of the app. It is helpful to experience both versions to understand the tradeoffs. The headset version is fully immersive and allows the user flexibility to explore the environment on their own. The user interface allows better tracking, so it is easier to see what portions of the environment have already been explored. The full VR version also supports built-in assessment, allowing students to record audio, rate the trauma-informed aspects of the environment, and submit their responses directly to the instructor. The main drawback is that students need a specialized headset to access the materials and they also need to know how to operate the equipment. To increase availability, a mobile version of the app with reduced functionality is offered on smartphones. This expands the app’s reach and lessens the reliance on expensive, specialized hardware. Within the mobile app, users are limited to jumping to specific locations within the health clinic, thus restricting the free exploration of the environment. Text is also presented in a less user-friendly manner. The in-app assessment portion also needed to be eliminated. The visual 3D environment was also scaled back because of the processing limitations of mobile devices. The changes made from the original fully immersive version to the more widely distributed mobile version highlight the need to balance technological affordances with other considerations.

4.2.2.7 Identify assessment options

Assessing student learning is an important part of any learning activity. The use of XR technologies offers a wide range of possibilities beyond traditional means of assessment. Depending upon the KSAs in question, consider a blend of in-simulation assessment and tracking methods, and traditional assessment/feedback mechanisms. XR-based Assessment Options (Gill, 2025) provides an expansive list of options for how to conduct assessments in XR simulations and also list device specific functionality that support non-traditional forms of assessment. Remember when assessing learning outcomes, it is important to align the assessment to the learning outcomes and target the correct level of Bloom’s taxonomy. Boxes 10, 11 includes examples of VR-based assessment strategies.

For the Trauma Informed Spaces applications, it was necessary to create varied methods for evaluating student learning, aligning with the distinct capabilities of each technology. Typing in VR is difficult, so alternative, non-text-based assessments were developed.

The full VR version of the app includes an in-app assessment portion. As students work through the assessment, they use the in-app tablet and stylus to rate low, medium, or high levels of trauma-informed care (TIC) for each area of the clinic. This assesses their knowledge (Bloom’s - Remember/Understand) of the TIC principles and what they may look like in the physical environment. The VR headset’s built-in microphone allows students to record a 2-min narrative of why they rated what they saw as low, medium, or high (Bloom’s - Apply/Analyze) and also describe how they would modify the environment to make it more trauma-informed (Bloom’s - Evaluate). The data from the assessments get uploaded into a cloud drive where the instructor reviews the student responses and then provides them with feedback outside of the app.

To support broader use by other instructors and make the app accessible to a wider range of learners, the in-app assessment was removed from the mobile version due to challenges with managing data uploads. The assessment was re-designed to use traditional assessment methods using the testing features of the campus learning management system. For this assessment, students were presented with images from real health clinics and asked to determine whether the image showed low, medium or high levels of TIC (Bloom’s - Remember/Understand). Students were then asked open-ended questions; why they rated what they saw as low, medium, or high (Bloom’s - Apply/Analyze); and also describe how they would modify the environment to make it more trauma-informed (Bloom’s - Evaluate). By switching to more traditional assessment methods we were still able to effectively assess student learning and also make the app available to faculty outside of our institution.

The Drone Assembly Simulation was designed to teach a specific set of skills and the process for assembling a drone. This is a very straightforward process that must be performed in a specific order. The assessment portion of the simulation tracks student progress as they move through the process.

4.2.2.8 Define where the experience fits within the curriculum

To prepare for implementation, determine where the XR experience fits within the curriculum and how it supports the overall course goals. This decision will help to schedule its introduction within the semester.

Key Considerations for Placement:

• Prerequisite Knowledge: What prior knowledge or skills do learners need before accessing the XR experience?
• Preparation: Do you need to develop specific materials to ensure learners have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) beforehand?
• Timing: Where in the course will you introduce these preparatory materials, and how soon after will the XR experience take place?
• Follow-Up: Will you provide time to debrief, reflect on, or discuss the XR experience to deepen learner understanding?

Staff and technologists should be notified once the schedule for the XR session is determined to ensure that laboratory space and necessary hardware are available.

4.2.2.9 Ideation, storyboarding, and scripting

After the learning objectives have been mapped out, the content to be covered has been identified, and it has been determined how students will be assessed, it is time to dive into the specifics of the experience you want to create. This is an important step. The more detail included in this process, the easier the development phase will be. This step allows the SMEs and IDs to outline the specific interactions and learning opportunities within the simulation so that they can be passed on to the development team at the start of the development phase.

It is often helpful to split this into different phases, a common model for learning activities typically includes:

• Guided learning: where the learner receives focused support and direction while engaging in the learning process
• Independent learning or practice: where the learners perform tasks independently without guidance to cement their skills and knowledge
• Assessment: where learners demonstrate knowledge, skills, or attitudes acquired.

For each of the phases of the learning and assessment process it is helpful to storyboard any step-by-step processes and interactions. Scripting dialog and learning materials for each section will also speed the development process and provide the developers with a fuller representation of what will be required in each phase. It is also helpful to diagram or describe any key visuals that would occur within the process. It will also be helpful to simulation specific interactions, recordings or data collection that will be necessary for assessment purposes.

4.2.3 Develop

4.2.3.1 Iterative design

Once the design of the experience is completed, development begins. IDs and SMEs must remain engaged with the developer throughout the development process. As the user interfaces and content are integrated into the simulation, the team must review all aspects to ensure the design aligns with the original vision and that learning outcomes are reflected in the user experience. The team needs to check for bugs and ensure the functionality is working as expected. It is best to use an iterative process where small portions are developed and tested thoroughly before all of the content is integrated and the experience is fully developed. This allows the team to spot issues early on and make any technical or instructional adjustments. Before entering the beta testing phase, identify any bugs or misalignments between the content and learning objectives. This may require multiple iterations before being shared with larger groups of testers.

4.2.3.2 Beta testing

Beta testing is a critical part of the development process and should take place when the experience is nearly complete. It is important to use this process to assess both the ease of use and effectiveness of the instructional design. When possible, beta testers should complete the assessments for the learning activity to verify the content aligns with the targeted KSAs.

Beta testers should mirror the demographic of the end users. This should include participants of the same age range, the same foundational knowledge, and the same technology skill sets of the learners. To identify and address accessibility issues, the test population should include users with learning differences. If possible, include other SMEs not involved with the initial design to receive feedback on the alignment of the learning activity with the learning outcomes. To gain a comprehensive understanding of participant issues and ensure alignment between the learning activity and objectives, both questionnaires and focus groups are valuable methods for beta testing.

Assess Both Learning Outcomes and Usability.

• Use pre- and post-assessments to measure engagement and comprehension.
• Gather student usability feedback to refine the user interfaces.
• Identify if any additional prior learning materials need to be developed.
• Identify any additional technology training and tutorials that may be needed.
• Adjust the XR activities based on the performance data.

Once the data is collected from the beta testing participants, share the results with the entire team so the feedback can be assessed and integrated into future iterations. SMEs may need to adjust the learning materials or the assessments to improve alignment with learning outcomes. They may also need to adjust other aspects of the course to ensure students have the foundational knowledge and adjust the scaffolding of materials to more effectively align with the XR assignment. Developers may need to adjust the user interface, imagery, or in-experience tutorials so they support student learning by minimizing cognitive load and removing any bugs that were discovered. An example of this beta testing process is presented in Box 12.

With the trauma informed spaces app, we went through two rounds of beta testing, one for the Meta-based version and another for the mobile device-based version of the app. We identified issues users were having with both apps before integrating them into the course. A General XR Beta Test Questionnaire (Konnect XR, 2026), is available that you can use or modify to suit your specific needs. This generic questionnaire has been designed and is based off of the questionnaire to evaluate the Trauma Informed Spaces (Sturman et al., 2020).

When beta testing the full VR-based version of the app, it was discovered that the joystick movement was causing motion sickness for a large number of testers. We were able to address this by adjusting the speed of movement relative to the joystick inputs so that movement was slower, which reduced the level of motion sickness. It was also determined that more in-app tutorials and additional preparatory materials describing what students would experience were needed. Beta testing also affirmed that the in-app materials positively impacted the targeted learning outcomes. Feedback highlighting how helpful it was to see virtual representations of different levels of trauma-informed care confirmed its value for student learning. Pre- and post-tests completed by the beta-testers also showed that the simulation was effective.

During beta testing of the mobile app, two different approaches for displaying text within the app were explored. The legibility of text in VR can be challenging. The two approaches were - displaying all text simultaneously in a small font with the narration, and using a larger font similar to closed captioning. Feedback from testing led to the selection of the full-text version. Testers also ultimately requested an option to hide the text if desired, which was a feature that was incorporated into the final version.

4.2.4 Implementation

After the application design and development are completed, the next step is implementation. Careful planning and coordination are required to ensure that the XR activities are introduced to learners in a way that maximizes their effectiveness and supports the intended learning outcomes.

4.2.4.1 Integrate XR into the curriculum

During the design and development process, consider how the XR activity fits within your overall curriculum. Scaffold the experience so students possess the necessary prior knowledge to understand the concepts addressed in the XR activity and to connect them with the rest of the course content. This includes completing traditional lectures and readings or any skills practice they need before entering the XR environment. Providing clear descriptions of what students will encounter in the XR experience helps them link new information with existing knowledge. All supporting materials should be available in accessible formats to ensure equitable participation.

4.2.4.2 Provide training and support

XR technologies are still new, and many students and faculty have limited experience. Unlike other web or computer-based learning tools, students and instructors may need to develop new skills to effectively access content. Institutions should provide structured support and guided opportunities for familiarity before integrating these technologies into learning activities.

• Provide low- or no-stakes assignments for students to experience and learn to operate the XR technologies effectively.
• Provide descriptions of how the user interface functions and any process ques they need to pay attention to before they get into the experience.
• Coordinate the scheduling of equipment or facilities ahead of time to ensure that the XR experience is available at the right time within the course.
• Ensure students know how to access any additional resources or supports they might need if they run into issues.
• Plan extra time into your schedule in case there are unexpected technology issues, including make up dates.

4.2.5 Evaluation

Evaluation is a key part of every stage of the ADDIE model, but it also has a dedicated phase. This phase determines whether the training meets its goals using formative and summative evaluation methods. Evaluation involves gathering feedback from participants and stakeholders through surveys, interviews, or focus groups to improve future iterations of the program. Effective frameworks employ blended assessment strategies combining quantitative and qualitative measures.

Another focus of the evaluation phase is to analyze student performance in relation to the KSAs that were targeted. This can be achieved in multiple ways, including pre- and post-tests and by using the data collection features built into XR technologies. Using features such as real-time performance tracking, which can assess user interaction, and spatial learning can be an effective way to understand the impacts of the learning activity. These can be compared with non-XR-based learning activities to provide an analysis of which strategies had the greatest impact. The results can inform changes that may need to occur to improve the XR activities and to ensure they are meeting the desired learning outcomes.

4.2.5.1 Assess the effectiveness of the XR implementation

The Kirkpatrick Model is widely used to evaluate training programs. XR-based training aligns well with this model, which includes four levels, each measuring a different aspect of learning impact:

• Level 1 (Reaction): Measure engagement and usability via post-training surveys and biometric data (e.g., eye tracking, stress levels).
• Level 2 (Learning): Assess skill mastery through real-time performance tracking, interactive troubleshooting exercises, and pre/post-tests.
• Level 3 (Behavior): Evaluate workplace application by monitoring error rates, efficiency improvements, and supervisor feedback.
• Level 4 (Results): Measure the impact on productivity, equipment downtime reduction, and cost savings from fewer training-related mistakes.

It is also important to assess the effectiveness of the design and implementation of the XR activity. While this is often done during beta testing, it is important to repeat these steps with a larger audience to confirm that nothing was missed and that post-testing changes were implemented effectively.

5 Additional XR resources

Additional XR resources and activities are available in the KXR ID Framework Resources, a shared library that provides a growing collection of materials designed to complement and broaden the information provided within the KXR Framework. Included in this collection are:

• A curated index of supplementary tools pertinent to utilizing XR in educational settings;
• Relevant templates, worksheets, and questionnaires;
• An inventory of various XR-specific assessment alternatives;

New and updated materials are regularly integrated into this collection to ensure the resources remain relevant for designing impactful XR learning experiences.

6 Conclusion: shaping the future of educational XR

This framework has laid out a comprehensive approach to integrating XR into training and education, highlighting its potential to transform learning experiences. By grounding XR implementations on established adult learning theories, we can create immersive, interactive, and personalized learning experiences. XR-based activities aligned with learning theory and structured design processes support effective, evidence-informed learning.

The integration of the Backward Design and ADDIE models provide a structured and iterative process for developing effective, engaging, and scalable XR learning experiences. Using these models ensures that XR experiences are aligned with clearly defined learning objectives throughout the process. Following these processes will help lead to practical learning activities that equip learners with the KSAs needed for their professions.

By understanding the unique benefits of XR and designing activities grounded in best practices, educators can harness these technologies to foster innovative teaching approaches that promote self-direction, real-world relevance, and the integration of prior experiences. As XR continues to evolve, this framework serves as a guiding foundation for creating impactful learning experiences that not only enhance student outcomes but also prepare learners to thrive in an ever-changing world.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. The authors used ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-5.3) during the conceptualization and editing phases of this manuscript. Specifically, the tool was used to refine sentence structure, improve readability, and check for grammatical accuracy. The authors used Google NotebookLM to generate a draft of the infographic included as Figure 1; the image was reviewed and edited by the authors for accuracy. Figures 3-13 were generated using Nano Banana, Google AI Studio. All substantive intellectual contributions, including the research design, analysis, framework development, and conclusions, were developed by the authors.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Sungchul Jung, Kennesaw State University, United States

Reviewed by: Sheila L. Macrine, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, United States

Salam Daher, New Jersey Institute of Technology, United States