Systematic literature review shows augmented and virtual reality improve learning outcomes in digital museums, suggesting a need for better evaluation practices.
Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are reshaping digital museums by enabling immersive storytelling, heritage reconstruction, and participatory learning. However, despite their rapid growth, research on these technologies remains fragmented, leaving uncertainties about effectiveness, design strategies, and long-term sustainability. This study aims to consolidate and critically evaluate existing scholarships on VR and AR applications in digital museums, identifying major themes, methodological tendencies, and persisting gaps. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of peer-reviewed studies published between 2015 and 2025 in Scopus and Web of Science was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The analysis reveals five thematic domains: immersive storytelling and heritage reconstruction, interactive visitor engagement and education, hybrid physical—digital exhibitions, technological ecosystems and design strategies, and evaluation practices in user studies. Findings show that VR/AR consistently enhance cultural engagement and learning outcomes, with reported 20—35 % higher knowledge retention, 60 % longer visitor dwell times, and 78 % stronger perceived learning gains compared with traditional displays. Hybrid exhibitions demonstrate that digital augmentation can enrich interpretation while maintaining authenticity, though evaluative studies reveal ongoing gaps in standardized assessment frameworks. Persistent challenges include high implementation costs, hardware obsolescence, digital inequality, and contested notions of authenticity and curatorial control. This review concludes that VR and AR should be positioned as complementary mediators within blended exhibition ecosystems, and that future development should prioritize inclusivity, AI-driven personalization, and sustainable design to realize museums as participatory, educational, and culturally resilient environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: