A few months ago, my child visited an Egyptian museum and took a VR journey through an ancient tomb. When he got home, he couldn't stop talking about the experience. Today, he can still describe the hieroglyphs, the passageways, and what it felt like to "be there" with the pharaohs. What struck me was how well he remembered details that would have been forgotten from a textbook or presentations.

This experience made me wonder about the cognitive processes at work. Why do immersive experiences create such lasting memories? How do VR and AR align with what we know about how the brain learns and retains information? What cognitive principles make these technologies so effective for learning?

Introduction

Stop and think—we've had books, overhead projectors, PowerPoint presentations, learning management systems, interactive whiteboards, video tutorials, and online modules. The next wave of tools is already here, though not yet everywhere. VR and AR technologies are moving from experimental to practical, but we're still in the early stages of understanding how to use them effectively in education.

Virtual Reality (VR) creates completely immersive digital environments where learners wear headsets and step into simulated scenarios—like exploring ancient civilisations or conducting virtual experiments.
Augmented Reality (AR) adds digital information to the real world around you, using devices like tablets or smart glasses to place virtual objects in real spaces—imagine seeing historical facts floating above museum items or molecules appearing on your desk.

Both technologies offer hands-on learning experiences that go beyond what traditional and analog methods can provide.

As learning experience and instructional designers, we need to understand not just what these tools can do, but how they work with human cognition. When learners can physically explore concepts, manipulate objects in three-dimensional space, and experience scenarios from multiple perspectives, what happens in their brains? How does this type of embodied learning differ from traditional instruction methods?

Cognitive Load in Immersive Learning

When we talk about learning, we often think about memorising information and remembering it when we need it. Very simply explained, information travels from short-term to long-term memory and back when we need it. But designing learning experiences with VR and AR isn't just about choosing cool technology—we're changing how learners' brains process information. This matters because our working memory—the mental workspace where we actively process information—has limits. Understanding these cognitive load constraints helps us create effective immersive learning experiences.

Imagine a training session for cardiologists learning to interpret complex cardiac imaging. Every time they have to mentally visualise a 3D heart structure from 2D echocardiogram slices, it takes significant cognitive effort, leaving less mental energy available to absorb new diagnostic information. VR could eliminate this visualisation burden by presenting the heart as a manipulable 3D model, freeing up cognitive resources for the actual learning objectives. This was a focus of a study (1) comparing students learning spatial concepts through traditional slides versus VR environments. The results showed that VR students scored more than twice as high (83 vs 37 out of 100) while reporting significantly lower mental effort.

Why such a difference?

In traditional learning, students had to mentally construct 3D relationships from 2D images—a cognitively demanding process that's particularly challenging in fields like architecture, where designers work from 2D blueprints to envision complex spatial structures, and archaeology, where researchers reconstruct ancient sites from excavation maps and artefact layouts. VR can eliminate this burden by letting students directly manipulate and explore objects in three dimensions. Instead of working hard to imagine how something might look from different angles, they could simply look. In this study, VR eliminated this burden by letting students directly manipulate and explore objects in three dimensions. Instead of working hard to imagine how something might look from different angles, they could simply look.

The study also revealed that gender differences in performance disappeared in VR. Female students, who typically experienced higher cognitive load with traditional spatial learning methods, performed equally well as males in the immersive environment. This suggests VR can level the playing field by reducing reliance on specific cognitive skills that vary among learners.

However, this effectiveness is not automatic!

A study (2) with 91 participants examined how cognitive load influences the relationship between VR technology and learning effectiveness. The research found that cognitive load acts as a crucial moderator—when users experienced lower cognitive load while using VR, they showed greater learning benefits from reflective thinking activities.

This finding is particularly important because it helps explain the contradictory results often seen in VR learning research. The study suggests that VR's effectiveness isn't automatic—it depends on how well the technology manages cognitive demand. When VR systems are designed with simplified, intuitive interfaces that reduce cognitive overload, users find the experience more comfortable and learning outcomes improve significantly.

The conclusion that derives from these studies is straightforward: if the VR environment is not too demanding, we can expect better learning performance.

A comprehensive literature review examined how augmented reality affects cognitive thinking in learning environments. The research (3) revealed that AR helps learners process, remember, and acquire information more effectively by combining virtual and real learning components. Learners using AR showed increased learning engagement and better performance, with one study reporting that 80% of information remained in short-term memory compared to just 20% with traditional lectures.

How can we apply these learnings in LX and instructional design for VR and AR?

Practical Implications

These findings suggest several key principles for designing immersive learning experiences:

Focus on learning goals, not technology features: As with all learning solutions, we should prioritise educational outcomes over flashy capabilities. VR's strength isn't impressive graphics or cutting-edge features—it's removing cognitive barriers that prevent effective learning. When learners don't have to imagine spatial relationships or mentally construct complex scenarios, they can focus on understanding core concepts.

Complement, don't replace, hands-on learning: VR shouldn't replace tactile learning and hands-on activities, but rather bring additional learning value by providing experiences that would be impossible, dangerous, or impractical in real life. The goal is to enhance traditional learning methods, not substitute them entirely.

Prioritise simplicity: VR developers should focus on creating simplified, intuitive interfaces. The research shows that reducing cognitive overload directly improves both user comfort and learning effectiveness. Remember that every additional menu, button, or interaction step adds to cognitive burden—design with restraint and purpose.

Consider context and objectives: VR systems should be adapted to specific learning contexts and objectives rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach.

Understanding cognitive load is just the first step—once we know how to manage mental effort effectively, we can focus on how immersive technologies can support the learning strategies that actually work.

Learning Strategies in Immersive Learning

To achieve positive and long-term learning outcomes, learners need to use effective learning strategies. Unfortunately, most rely on passive, ineffective strategies like rereading or highlighting. These approaches make the learning process appear easier, creating a false sense of fluency that leads students to become overconfident about their long-term learning and overestimate their ability to remember information, ultimately harming their learning outcomes (4).

While direct research on applying specific learning strategies within VR and AR environments is still emerging, we know from decades of cognitive science research that certain techniques consistently improve learning outcomes.

The most effective strategies include:
- retrieval practice (actively recalling information from memory),
- distributed practice (spacing learning sessions over time),
- elaborative interrogation (asking "why" and "how" questions), and
- interleaving (mixing different types of problems or concepts within study sessions).

How can we apply these learnings in LX and Instructional design for VR and AR?

Practical Implications

Retrieval practice: Instead of simply reviewing information, VR can present learners with scenarios where they must recall and apply knowledge. For example, medical students could diagnose virtual patients without access to reference materials, forcing them to retrieve diagnostic criteria from memory.

Distributed practice: VR systems can schedule return visits to virtual environments, spacing out learning sessions optimally. Students might revisit the same virtual laboratory or historical site at increasing intervals, with the system tracking their progress and adjusting timing accordingly.

Elaborative interrogation: Immersive environments can prompt "why" and "how" questions as learners explore. For example, when maintenance trainees point their AR device at an engine component, the system could ask "Why does this part fail most frequently?" or "How would removing this component affect the system's performance?" This transforms passive observation into active inquiry.

Interleaving: VR can seamlessly mix different types of problems or scenarios within a single session. A virtual chemistry lab could present various types of reactions in random order, rather than practicing one type at a time, improving learners' ability to discriminate between different concepts.

The key advantage of immersive technologies is that they can make these evidence-based strategies feel natural and engaging, rather than like additional work imposed on top of learning content.

Conclusion

VR and AR technologies offer opportunities to bridge the gap between what we know works in learning and what students actually do. By embedding evidence-based strategies like retrieval practice, distributed practice, and elaborative interrogation into immersive experiences, these technologies can make effective learning feel intuitive rather than forced.

The key is moving beyond the novelty of immersive technology and cool features toward purposeful design that supports both cognitive efficiency and proven learning strategies. When VR and AR reduce unnecessary cognitive load while simultaneously encouraging the kind of effortful, strategic thinking that leads to lasting learning, they become powerful tools for educational transformation rather than just impressive demonstrations.

References

1) Jian, Y., & Abu Bakar, J. A. (2024). Comparing cognitive load in learning spatial ability: Immersive learning environment vs. digital learning media. Discover Sustainability, 5(111). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00310-6

2) Lacroix, L., Augereau, O., & Le Bigot, N. (2024). Assessing cognitive load in virtual reality: A comparative analysis of objective and subjective measures. HAL Archives Ouvertes. hal-04489219v2

3) Kairu, C. (2021). Augmented reality and its influence on cognitive thinking in learning. American Journal of Educational Research, 9(8), 504-512. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-9-8-6

4) Biwer, F., oude Egbrink, M. G. A., Aalten, P., & de Bruin, A. B. H. (2020). Fostering effective learning strategies in higher education: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(2), 186-203.