Theoretical analysis proposes a framework to connect philosophy and immersive technology in education, suggesting implications for design.
The rapid evolution of immersive technologies has created a fragmented landscape of definitions and frameworks that fail to connect philosophical foundations with practical educational implementations. This paper addresses this gap through a theoretical analysis proposing the Philosophical-Technical Immersion Framework (PTIF), which bridges pre-digital concepts of immersion with modern VR, AR, MR, and XR technologies. Through systematic philosophical inquiry and historical analysis, we develop a three-dimensional classification space integrating perceptual, cognitive, and embodied immersion. Our theoretical analysis synthesizes insights from phenomenology, cognitive science, learning theory, and human–computer interaction, grounded in extensive literature review of 127 empirical studies (2018–2024). Comparative analysis with eight established frameworks demonstrates PTIF’s superior theoretical coherence and coverage. The framework maps philosophical concepts to technical parameters, providing theoretical guidance for educational technology design. Our analysis reveals that successful educational immersive experiences require dimensional balance aligned with learning objectives rather than technical maximization. PTIF offers researchers and educators a theoretical tool for understanding and designing immersive learning experiences that align with fundamental principles of human cognition and perception, addressing a critical need for theoretically-grounded frameworks in educational technology. • Novel 3D theoretical framework bridges philosophy and educational technology. • Synthesizes 127 empirical studies through systematic philosophical analysis. • Maps learning concepts to concrete XR design parameters through theory. • Superior to existing frameworks across 6 theoretical evaluation criteria. • Provides theoretical foundation for educational XR design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rashevska et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: