Randomized trial demonstrates inclusive XR learning environments improve educational outcomes, suggesting new design frameworks for better learning experiences.
Reality (XR) technologies hold significant potential for transforming higher education by enabling immersive, embodied, and data-informed learning experiences within smart campus ecosystems. However, adoption remains uneven, as many implementations are driven by technological availability rather than by educational psychology models, formative assessment logic, accessibility requirements, or sustainable implementation criteria. This study proposes a theoretically grounded set of guidelines for inclusive XR learning environments in higher education, following a Design Science Research methodology in which the guidelines are conceived as a design artifact derived from an interdisciplinary knowledge base. The study covers the design and development phase of the DSR cycle; the evaluation phase, comprising expert review and field deployment, constitutes the planned immediate next step. The literature base integrates recent systematic reviews and empirical studies on cognitive load, multimedia learning, self-regulated learning in immersive environments, Universal Design for Learning 3.0, and learning analytics. The resulting artifact comprises an Integrative Educational Psychology Model, organized across three mutually informing analytical layers connecting constructs such as presence, agency, embodiment, cognitive load, self-regulation, and learner variability, and ten design guidelines linking pedagogical alignment, UX/UI design, accessibility, feedback, analytics, and scalability. Two hypothetical illustrative use cases demonstrate how the framework could be operationalized across individual and collaborative learning scenarios. The proposed framework offers psychologically grounded and practically applicable guidance for educators, instructional designers, and developers seeking to create pedagogically meaningful and inclusive XR environments. Empirical evaluation will be necessary to confirm its effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Artusi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: