Virtual Classrooms, Real Impact: A Framework for Introducing Virtual Reality to K–12 STEM Learning Based on Best Practices

Abstract

Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a promising tool for transforming science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, yet its adoption in K–12 classrooms remains uneven and often limited to short-term pilots. While prior studies highlight VR’s potential to increase engagement and support conceptual understanding, questions persist about scalability, sustainability, and equity in implementation. This paper addresses these gaps by synthesizing recent scholarship and proposing a structured framework of best practices for integrating VR into K–12 STEM education. Drawing on academic literature, U.S. policy reports, and case studies, we identify persistent challenges that include high costs, lack of teacher preparation, infrastructure disparities, and overlooked accessibility concerns. We use these findings to inform a phased implementation roadmap. Our framework emphasizes assessment and planning, technical integration, teacher preparation, student implementation, and iterative evaluation, providing actionable strategies for schools and districts. Results of this synthesis indicate that successful VR adoption requires coordinated attention to pedagogy, funding, professional development, and equity. We conclude that moving VR from isolated novelty projects to sustainable and equitable tools in STEM classrooms depends on aligning technology with curricular goals, investing in teacher pipelines, and embedding VR within long-term evaluation and improvement cycles.

1. Introduction

In recent years, virtual reality (VR) has gained traction as a transformative tool for education, offering immersive experiences that have the potential to deepen engagement and make abstract concepts more accessible [1]. While higher education and professional training have adopted VR at an accelerating pace, its integration into K–12 STEM education remains comparatively limited. This gap is striking given the unique challenges STEM subjects present at the elementary and secondary levels where learners must bridge concrete experiences with increasingly abstract theories, and where traditional instructional methods often fall short in sustaining motivation [2].

Despite demonstrating potential, the current state of the literature on this topic reveals persistent barriers to scalable and sustainable VR adoption in schools. Many efforts remain confined to small pilot projects or isolated classrooms, leaving unanswered questions about long-term feasibility across entire districts or states [3,4]. Cost, infrastructure requirements, and insufficient teacher preparation exacerbate these challenges, particularly in under-resourced or rural schools. Moreover, while enthusiasm for immersive technologies runs high, schools face the risk of implementing VR in ways that prioritize novelty over alignment with curricular goals and pedagogy [5].

At the same time, equity and ethical concerns have become more pressing. Unequal access to broadband and devices risks widening the digital divide, while accessibility for students with disabilities has often been overlooked. Data privacy and student well-being in immersive environments are also emerging concerns [6], raising questions about how schools can responsibly integrate VR into everyday learning.

These gaps point to a central problem: although VR offers clear promise for enriching STEM education, the field lacks a coherent framework to guide its adoption in K–12 classrooms. Recent work [7,8,9] has highlighted the need for systematic strategies that go beyond isolated successes to address policy, teacher development, equity, and sustainability at scale. This paper responds to that need by proposing a structured framework of best practices for integrating VR into K–12 STEM education. Drawing on existing research, implementation case studies, and policy perspectives, we outline a phased roadmap that begins with assessment and planning and extends through teacher preparation, technical integration, classroom practice, and iterative evaluation. In doing so, this study aims to provide educators, administrators, and policymakers with actionable guidance for moving VR from experimental novelty to a sustainable and equitable component of STEM learning.

2. Literature Review

This study employed a narrative synthesis informed by scoping review principles to identify key themes, challenges, and best practices in implementing VR in K–12 STEM education. We searched peer-reviewed literature across databases using keywords such as ‘virtual reality,’ ‘STEM education,’ ‘K–12 learning,’ ‘teacher training,’ and ‘immersive learning.’

Studies were included if they (1) examined VR or AR interventions in K–12 STEM contexts, (2) reported learning or engagement outcomes, or (3) discussed implementation or teacher training practices. Studies focusing solely on higher education or non-STEM subjects were excluded. We also reviewed policy reports and implementation case studies from educational agencies and technology providers to contextualize findings.

The synthesis integrated both quantitative and qualitative evidence to identify recurring themes and inform the proposed framework.

2.1. Growth and Potential of VR in K–12 STEM Education

Over the past decade, researchers have increasingly explored VR’s ability to enrich STEM learning. A recent systematic review [3] of 117 studies published between 2010 and 2022 uncovered a surge of interest in the topic beginning around 2017, with most studies focusing on VR in science and math education. Applications of VR for engineering or other technical education remain comparatively underexplored in the literature. VR initiatives can range from virtual science labs [10] and math simulations [11] to immersive field trips [12], with the overarching goal to make abstract STEM concepts more concrete and engaging for students.

Research in this area consistently reports a positive impact on learning outcomes, with numerous studies finding that VR/AR-based lessons can improve students’ academic achievement and understanding of complex topics, even outperforming traditional instruction methods in some circumstances [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Specifically, VR’s interactive 3D environments are highlighted as a way to enable students to actively engage in the scientific inquiry process, leading to gains in critical thinking, problem-solving, and scientific literacy. Additionally, many students report heightened motivation, interest, and positive attitudes from students when VR is utilized in the classroom.

Even outside of research studies, VR is rapidly finding real-world adoption in classrooms across the country. For example, just this year (2025), Alabama’s Montgomery Public Schools rolled out VR/AR-equipped STEM labs in every elementary school in the district, servicing approximately 27,000 students [26]. Such rapid adoption is driven by increasingly teacher-friendly and complete VR solutions [27], such as ClassVR, an all-in-one classroom VR kit that comes with management software, curriculum-aligned content libraries, and teacher training/support [28].

International research further indicates that the educational benefits of VR extend well beyond U.S. contexts. In Turkey, a systematic review of studies published between 2013 and 2022 found that VR enhanced students’ academic achievement, motivation, participation, and critical thinking skills, often outperforming traditional teaching methods [29]. However, Turkish educators also expressed concerns about potential isolation from real-world interaction, online safety risks, and the need to balance immersive engagement with social learning contexts. Similar findings emerge from South Korea, where an empirical study integrating VR into high school science courses reported notable gains in engagement and conceptual understanding of complex phenomena [30]. Yet the same researchers emphasized that insufficient teacher training and difficulty aligning VR with existing curricular standards hindered sustained implementation, indicating that effective adoption requires both policy support and structured professional development. In Italy, a 2023 workshop with over 120 secondary teachers found that hands-on exposure to VR increased enthusiasm for its classroom use, with many educators viewing it as a powerful tool for experiential and inquiry-based learning [31]. Nonetheless, uptake remained limited due to gaps in teacher preparedness and the cost of equipment.

As enthusiasm for this technology grows, there are increasing calls to remember that the design of meaningful VR K–12 STEM education models should be based on established pedagogical frameworks [32]. In subsequent sections, we will review popular pedagogical frameworks and their relation to VR-based education, as well as challenges faced when implementing VR. In doing this, we aim to highlight how VR can be most effectively applied in STEM classrooms.

2.2. Pedagogical Frameworks

2.2.1. Constructivism

A major appeal of VR in education is its alignment with constructivist learning theory. According to constructivism, learners build new knowledge actively, based on experience and prior understanding, rather than passively absorbing information [33]. VR provides a powerful tool for facilitating constructivist learning experiences by placing students in immersive, interactive environments where they can explore, experiment, and discover concepts firsthand. This makes VR an ideal platform for “learning by doing” [7], an idea traceable to Dewey’s experiential learning [34] and Piaget’s notion that active engagement is key to deep understanding [35].

For example, in a virtual physics lab, a student can manipulate variables in a simulation of projectile motion and immediately see the results [10], constructing understanding through trial and observation. Such experiences mirror authentic scientific inquiry and problem-solving, embodying the student-centered, hands-on approach that constructivism champions. Social constructivist theory further complements this by emphasizing learning as a social, collaborative process [33]. Multi-user VR environments and classroom VR activities allow students to work together, communicate, and negotiate meaning in shared virtual contexts. This collaborative immersion supports peer learning and the co-construction of knowledge [7].

Building upon foundational work on virtual learning environments, Dalgarno and Lee [36] identified five core learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments: enhanced spatial knowledge representation, opportunities for experiential learning, heightened motivation and engagement, contextualized learning, and enriched collaboration. These affordances mirror many of the advantages cited in contemporary K–12 VR research, underscoring how immersive environments support constructivist, experiential, and socially mediated learning. In particular, their emphasis on the link between representational fidelity and learner interaction provides a theoretical bridge between earlier desktop 3-D learning models and current VR-based STEM education frameworks.

2.2.2. Cognitive Load and Multimodal Learning Considerations

While VR has been shown in many cases to be effective in enhancing learning, there should also be considerations paid by researchers to ensure that VR education modules are cognitively effective. Cognitive load theory (CLT) posits that learners have limited working memory resources, and overly complex or unfocused presentations can overwhelm students and hinder learning [37]. This concept is particularly relevant to VR in education, as VR has the potential to reduce cognitive load for difficult STEM concepts by offloading mental visualization demands.

For instance, abstract 3D structures or processes (like molecular models [38] or solar system mechanics [39]) can be directly experienced in VR, which may lighten the intrinsic cognitive load by making the content more intuitively understandable. Empirical studies support this, with it being found that students learning in a well-designed virtual environment show significantly lower mental effort and cognitive load than those learning the same content through traditional methods [25]. However, the immersive nature of VR can also increase extraneous load if not carefully managed [7].

Extraneous load refers to mental effort imposed by irrelevant or poorly structured elements of instruction [40]. In VR, distractions or unnecessary interactive features could divert students’ attention, and the sheer novelty of the environment might initially tax working memory. In fact, findings on VR and cognitive load have been mixed: while some studies report reduced cognitive load with VR [25], others found no significant difference compared to conventional learning, or noted that only certain aspects of load were reduced (e.g., lower mental effort but similar mental load) [41,42]. These discrepancies indicate that applying CLT principles in VR design is non-trivial and remains an active area for research.

Another relevant perspective is multimedia and multimodal learning theory. VR is inherently a multimodal medium: it combines visual, auditory, and sometimes haptic or kinesthetic stimuli. According to the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML), students learn better from well-coordinated combinations of words and pictures than from either alone, because dual channels (visual and verbal) enable deeper processing [43,44]. In a VR context, this suggests that the effective use of narration, on-screen text/labels, graphics, and sound together can reinforce understanding.

For example, a virtual chemistry experiment might verbally explain a reaction while the student visually observes molecules reacting in 3D. VR’s multimodality can engage multiple senses and cater to different learning modalities simultaneously, potentially boosting engagement and recall. However, researchers caution that traditional multimedia design guidelines, derived mostly from 2D media like slides or videos, may not directly translate to VR. Some of VR’s more unique characteristics, such as 360° environments, embodied interaction, and a heightened sense of presence are not accounted for in classic CTML principles. This means designers must extend or adapt multimedia principles for VR, ensuring, for instance, that audio narration and visual cues are contextually appropriate in 3D space, or that extraneous sensory information is minimized.

In short, VR offers powerful multimodal learning opportunities, but maximizing its benefit requires mindful integration of visual, auditory, and interactive elements in line with both multimedia learning theory and CLT. When done right, VR can create an optimal “flow” state for learners—highly engaged yet not cognitively overloaded—leading to memorable and effective STEM learning experiences.

2.3. Limitations of Prior Work

Despite the enthusiasm and early successes, existing work on VR in K–12 STEM has faced several noteworthy limitations that inform the direction of current research. In the following subsections, we will detail these limitations.

2.3.1. Limited Scale and Generalizability

Much of the literature consists of small-scale studies or short-term pilots rather than large, long-term implementations. In fact, a review found that about 75% of VR/AR-in-education studies over the last decade involved sample sizes of fewer than 100 students [3]. These studies, often conducted in single classrooms or labs, demonstrate what can happen under favorable conditions, but they may not capture the challenges of integrating VR across an entire grade level or school system. Results from limited trials might not generalize to more diverse student populations or longer durations. Consequently, there is a gap in understanding how VR performs at scale—for example, when hundreds of students and multiple teachers use it as a regular part of instruction [4].

Our proposed framework directly responds to these limitations by emphasizing phased implementation, iterative evaluation, and scalability planning. By encouraging schools to begin with structured pilot phases that include evaluation metrics, infrastructure readiness checks, and feedback loops, the framework creates a pathway for gradual expansion rather than isolated trials. Each phase explicitly builds institutional capacity so that small-scale successes can be replicated and sustained across broader contexts.

2.3.2. Accessibility and Infrastructure Barriers

Another challenge facing VR K–12 STEM education modules lies in the cost of it. High-end immersive VR headsets and capable computers can be expensive, and even lower-cost solutions like smartphone-based technology require reliable devices and internet connectivity. Many schools, especially in under-resourced areas, struggle with cost-related deterrents and inadequate infrastructure for advanced technology. This creates a risk that only well-funded districts can fully utilize VR, potentially widening digital divides. Even within a school, limited hardware can constrain how VR is used.

Physical space can be another issue: some VR applications work best in open areas, and not all classrooms have room for students to move freely. Moreover, technical issues such as device maintenance, software updates, and ensuring student safety present non-trivial challenges. Schools have also voiced privacy and cybersecurity concerns when using online VR platforms or student data within virtual environments [6]. All these factors mean that without careful planning and support, VR could be difficult to sustain or could exacerbate inequity by only benefiting certain classrooms.

2.3.3. Teacher Preparedness and Training

Another critical limitation is the lack of extensive teacher training and buy-in for educational VR. Introducing VR into the curriculum is not just a matter of buying hardware; it requires teachers to integrate the technology meaningfully into lessons. Studies have noted that teachers often feel unprepared to use VR, facing a time-intensive process of incorporating VR/AR into the curriculum and technical unfamiliarity with the tools [45,46,47,48,49]. Without training, teachers may struggle to move into the facilitator role that VR-enriched, student-centered learning demands. Prior initiatives have sometimes overlooked professional development, resulting in under-utilization of VR equipment once the initial novelty wears off [5]. In essence, many past projects treated VR as a tech deployment rather than a pedagogical innovation, leaving teachers without the mindset or skills to fully harness it.

3. Best Practices for VR Integration in K–12 STEM Learning

Building on the insights from prior literature, it is essential to translate research into actionable strategies for implementation. To move VR from isolated pilots toward sustainable classroom integration, schools require a structured framework that addresses planning, teacher preparation, technical integration, and ongoing evaluation.

Figure 1 presents our proposed implementation roadmap. Rather than treating VR as a one-time add-on, the framework emphasizes a phased approach: beginning with alignment to curricular goals, followed by careful technical integration, sustained teacher professional development, student implementation, and continuous evaluation and refinement. Each phase is designed to build capacity incrementally while feeding back into earlier stages through cycles of improvement.

The structure of this framework is grounded in key learning theories discussed earlier. Principles of constructivism underpin the student-centered nature of implementation and teacher preparation, emphasizing inquiry-based learning, active exploration, and reflection. CLT informs the technical design and integration phases by guiding how VR content should be sequenced and scaffolded to optimize working memory and minimize extraneous cognitive demand. Finally, multimodal learning theory shapes the emphasis on diverse sensory inputs and multimodal feedback mechanisms throughout implementation and evaluation. Together, these theoretical foundations ensure that the framework aligns not only with technical and logistical best practices but also with empirically supported models of how students learn most effectively in immersive environments.

By following this structured process, schools can avoid common pitfalls identified in the literature, such as lack of teacher readiness, inadequate infrastructure, or unsustained adoption after initial enthusiasm. Importantly, this framework highlights that successful VR adoption is not solely about hardware procurement. But about embedding VR within pedagogy, professional development, and long-term evaluation cycles.

3.1. Assessment and Planning

The first step in integrating VR into K–12 STEM classrooms is a careful assessment and planning phase. Schools must begin by aligning VR initiatives with curricular goals and standards-based outcomes, rather than adopting technology for novelty’s sake. As highlighted in the literature, prior pilots often struggled with sustainability because VR was deployed as an isolated tool rather than as part of a coherent instructional strategy. By contrast, effective planning ensures that VR experiences directly support grade-level STEM standards.

Equity and accessibility should be embedded from the outset of planning. Needs assessments must evaluate disparities in access to devices, connectivity, and physical classroom spaces, ensuring that under-resourced schools and students with disabilities are not excluded. Planning teams should include diverse stakeholders such as teachers, administrators, students, and community representatives, to ensure that VR initiatives reflect local needs and support inclusive learning environments. This readiness assessment should explicitly include equity and accessibility indicators, such as device access, connectivity reliability, and accommodations for students with diverse needs.

At this stage, it is also valuable to define evaluation criteria and success metrics upfront. These might include student engagement measures, pre- and post-assessments of STEM learning outcomes, or long-term tracking of course enrollment patterns. Establishing such benchmarks early allows for iterative improvement and builds an evidence base that can justify scaling efforts.

Finally, the planning process should be collaborative and participatory. Teachers, administrators, IT staff, and even students should have input into which modules to adopt and how they will be used. Involving multiple stakeholders early fosters buy-in, ensures smoother technical integration, and helps tailor VR adoption to the unique culture of each school or district.

In summary, the assessment and planning phase lays the foundation for successful VR adoption by clarifying goals, identifying constraints, and building a roadmap that aligns pedagogy, infrastructure, and evaluation from the outset. Without this groundwork, VR risks becoming an expensive experiment rather than a sustainable, transformative tool for STEM learning.

3.2. Technical Considerations and Integration

Creating effective VR experiences for K–12 STEM education relies on selecting the right hardware and software. High-quality VR headsets, such as the HTC Vive, are frequently used in educational settings for their immersive visuals, ergonomic designs, and compatibility with a range of educational software. These devices provide students with an engaging, realistic experience that facilitates interactive learning, while high-resolution displays and motion-tracking capabilities make it easier for students to explore and manipulate virtual environments. In addition to headsets, VR systems often require hand controllers for user interaction, motion sensors, and sometimes additional accessories, such as haptic gloves, which allow students to handle virtual objects in a more realistic way.

On the software side, educational VR modules are often developed on platforms like Unity or Unreal Engine, which are powerful tools for creating 3D content. Unity in particular has become popular in educational contexts because of its user-friendly interface, wide library of assets, and compatibility with multiple VR headsets. Educational VR software platforms need to offer robust support for interactive elements, easy customization, and high-quality graphics to effectively support the goals of STEM learning. Additionally, VR software should include comprehensive analytics to help educators track student engagement and performance, providing valuable insights into learning outcomes and areas for improvement. On the side of the decision-makers on the school side, when selecting the appropriate hardware and software tools for VR integration into the classroom, there should be a focus on selecting hardware and software that can scale across schools of varying resources and ensuring licensing models or content libraries do not disadvantage low-income districts to maintain equity.

The success of VR modules in education depends greatly on their usability, particularly for K–12 students who may have little experience with VR technology. Usability testing, which evaluates a product’s ease of use, is essential for ensuring that VR modules are intuitive, responsive, and accessible to young users. Testing should involve observing students as they navigate VR environments, identifying any challenges they encounter, and iteratively improving the design based on their feedback. By conducting usability tests, developers can ensure that VR modules are age-appropriate, with simple interfaces, clear instructions, and manageable controls that reduce cognitive load and enable students to focus on learning.

An example of effective usability design includes adding tutorials or guided introductions within VR modules. These walkthroughs would help familiarize students with VR controls before they begin more complex tasks. In usability testing, designers should also pay attention to potential discomfort issues, such as motion sickness, which can occur with extended VR use, especially in younger students. Addressing these issues early in the design phase helps ensure a smoother, more enjoyable experience for students, ultimately enhancing the educational value of VR modules.

To be genuinely effective and inclusive, VR in education must also address accessibility for all students, including those with disabilities. Many K–12 classrooms include students with a range of learning needs, physical limitations, and sensory impairments, making it crucial for VR systems to accommodate diverse users. VR modules should provide customizable accessibility options, such as text-to-speech, screen reader compatibility, and adjustable text sizes, so that visually impaired students can interact with content. Other important features include closed captioning for auditory content and alternative navigation controls for students with limited mobility.

Developers can also integrate features that accommodate cognitive differences, such as simplified interfaces and support for multiple interaction styles. By embedding these accommodations into VR modules, educational technology becomes more inclusive, enabling students with disabilities to participate fully in immersive learning. Such considerations not only promote equity but also reinforce the principle that VR in education should enhance, rather than hinder, students’ access to high-quality, engaging learning experiences.

3.3. Teacher Preparation

Teachers play a pivotal role in determining whether VR becomes a transformative instructional tool or remains a novelty. As studies [5,40,41,42,43,44] repeatedly emphasize, even well-designed VR modules will have limited impact if educators lack the knowledge, confidence, and pedagogical strategies to integrate them meaningfully into STEM instruction. Teacher preparation, therefore, must extend beyond one-off workshops to a comprehensive and sustained professional development pipeline.

Effective preparation begins with hands-on training, where teachers experience VR modules as learners before implementing them with students. This allows them to familiarize themselves with the hardware, explore common student challenges (such as navigation difficulties or motion sickness), and develop strategies to manage VR use in real classroom settings. Experiencing VR first-hand also helps teachers reflect on how immersive activities align with their curricular objectives and which instructional approaches best leverage VR’s affordances for conceptual understanding.

Beyond initial exposure, schools and districts should provide ongoing professional development and mentorship. This can take the form of professional learning communities, peer coaching, and district-supported “VR lead teachers” who serve as mentors for colleagues. Professional development programs should also address equity and inclusion, equipping teachers to adapt VR lessons for diverse learners and to recognize barriers faced by students with disabilities, language differences, or limited technology access. Embedding inclusive pedagogy within VR training helps ensure that all students benefit equitably from immersive technologies. As highlighted in recent implementation studies [8,9], structured follow-up and collaboration are essential: teachers need time and space to test modules, adapt lesson plans, and exchange feedback with peers. Embedding VR competencies into teacher credentialing programs and state professional standards would further strengthen the preparation pipeline by ensuring new teachers graduate with baseline familiarity in immersive learning technologies.

Teacher preparation also requires equipping educators with classroom management and troubleshooting skills. Running VR sessions presents unique logistical challenges, such as managing groups of students rotating through limited devices, maintaining student safety while headsets are in use, and troubleshooting technical issues mid-lesson. Training programs should explicitly address these scenarios, offering teachers strategies to keep students engaged (e.g., parallel activities for non-headset groups) and to respond effectively to common disruptions.

Finally, teacher preparation must also emphasize critical awareness of VR’s limitations and ethical considerations. Educators need guidance on accessibility, data privacy, and ensuring equitable use for students with different needs and abilities. By developing this awareness alongside technical and pedagogical skills, teachers are better positioned to adopt VR responsibly and inclusively.

3.4. Student Implementation

Once VR modules are implemented, assessing their impact on students becomes central to understanding their educational value and planning for future iterations. Building on Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model [50], assessment should not only capture immediate student reactions but also trace learning progression, behavioral transfer, and institutional outcomes. As shown in Figure 2, this requires a layered approach that aligns instruments with specific dimensions of evaluation.

At the reaction level, surveys administered immediately after VR sessions can capture usability, engagement, and perceived relevance. Figure 3 illustrates an example of how such feedback can be synthesized to reveal patterns in student sentiment regarding subject-area suitability for VR integration. The data, derived from Foundry 10’s pilot program [51], indicate that students perceive VR as particularly valuable in visually and spatially rich subjects such as science and history, while showing less enthusiasm for more abstract disciplines like mathematics.

These insights informed the structure of our framework by emphasizing the need to align VR adoption with curricular contexts where immersive visualization yields the greatest conceptual benefits. For instance, in the planning phase (Figure 1), schools are encouraged to prioritize content areas that inherently benefit from three-dimensional interaction. Similarly, teacher-training and evaluation phases were designed with the understanding that perceived subject fit strongly influences both teacher buy-in and sustained student engagement.

At the learning level, pre- and post-tests, concept inventories, and VR analytics (e.g., task completion rates, error patterns) provide concrete evidence of knowledge and skill acquisition. Behavioral outcomes can be assessed through classroom observations, teacher reports, and performance in group projects or traditional labs, which highlight how students apply VR-acquired skills in broader contexts. Finally, the results dimension moves the focus to institutional planning: retention rates, standardized assessments, and interest in advanced STEM pathways provide signals of systemic impact, guiding strategic decisions about scaling VR adoption.

In parallel, longitudinal planning (Figure 4) ensures that assessments are not confined to isolated checkpoints. By integrating pre-module baselines, immediate post-tests, mid-semester diagnostics, and end-of-year follow-ups, educators can construct a coherent timeline that captures both immediate and enduring outcomes. This continuity is vital for differentiating between temporary novelty effects and sustained educational benefits, enabling schools to plan for meaningful, long-term integration.

3.5. Evaluation & Refinement

Evaluation within virtual-reality-based STEM education can be conceptualized as a cyclical and iterative process that continually informs refinement rather than serving as a terminal stage. In a theoretical sense, the integration of Dalgarno and Lee’s [36] learning affordances of 3D virtual environments with Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model [50] offers a coherent structure for linking design intentions with evidence of learning im-pact. Dalgarno and Lee identify five affordances: spatial knowledge representation, experiential learning, motivation and engagement, contextualized learning, and collaboration, that describe the pedagogical capacities inherent in 3-D virtual environments. When aligned with the successive levels of Kirkpatrick’s model (Figure 2) these affordances pro-vide a theoretically grounded map for evaluation and improvement.

At Level 1 (Reaction), evaluative emphasis lies on learners’ affective and usability responses associated with the motivation and engagement affordance. Instruments such as the Student Engagement Instrument (SEI) [52] and the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) [53], adapted for immersive contexts, can theoretically capture presence, enjoyment, and perceived relevance, which are key indicators of how effectively VR environments elicit engagement. At Level 2 (Learning), measures such as standardized concept inventories (Force Concept Inventory [54], Chemistry Concept Inventory [55], Mathematics Concept Inventory [56]) and cognitive-load assessments like the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) [57] correspond to the spatial representation and experiential learning affordances. These instruments illustrate how embodied and interactive 3-D experiences may translate into conceptual understanding and cognitive efficiency.

Level 3 (Behavior) extends evaluation to the transfer and application of VR-acquired knowledge, aligning with the contextualized learning and collaboration affordances. Observation protocols or teacher-developed rubrics informed by the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework [58] can capture how learners apply and communicate understanding in subsequent non-VR or team-based tasks. Portfolio-based and longitudinal approaches can further represent how behavioral change might manifest across time and contexts. At Level 4 (Results), the framework connects individual learning affordances to broader educational outcomes. Tools such as the STEM Career Interest Sur-vey (STEM-CIS) [59] or the STEM Semantics Survey [60] align with motivational and collaborative dimensions to explore shifts in career orientation, disciplinary identity, and program-level retention. Long-term indicators such as increased enrollment in advanced STEM courses or persistence in related pathways serve as systemic reflections of VR’s sustained value.

Importantly, evaluation conceived through this dual-framework lens encompasses both learning effectiveness and equity. Metrics related to accessibility, participation across demographic groups, and feedback from students with disabilities help determine whether the identified affordances are experienced uniformly by all learners. The resulting feedback loops inform successive cycles of pedagogical, technical, and curricular refinement.

When embedded within a longitudinal design, such as the timeline depicted in Figure 4, this combined theoretical approach offers a structured means of examining not only immediate cognitive and affective outcomes but also the durability and scalability of VR’s impact. Through the synthesis of Dalgarno and Lee’s affordance-based perspective with Kirkpatrick’s hierarchical evaluation model, the framework delineates a systematic process for understanding how virtual environments can evolve from experimental novelty toward an equitable, sustainable component of STEM learning.

4. Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides a conceptual framework grounded in existing literature and practice-based insights, it is subject to several limitations. The framework relies primarily on secondary data and published sources, and most examples are drawn from U.S. K–12 contexts. As such, cross-cultural applicability and contextual variation across education systems may not be fully captured. In addition, the study does not include empirical testing or direct observation of classroom implementation, which constrains the ability to validate causal relationships between framework components and learning outcomes.

Future research should therefore focus on empirical validation of the proposed framework through pilot studies and longitudinal investigations across multiple school districts and diverse geographic regions. Mixed-methods approaches combining surveys, classroom observations, and learning analytics could provide deeper insights into how the framework performs in real educational settings. Comparative studies between schools with varying resources would also help assess the model’s equity and scalability. Such research would not only test the framework’s robustness but also refine it into a practical, evidence-based tool for guiding equitable VR integration in K–12 STEM education.

5. Conclusions

This paper explored the potential of VR as a transformative tool for K–12 STEM education, examining its unique advantages, design considerations, and implementation strategies. VR’s ability to create immersive, interactive learning experiences enables students to engage deeply with complex STEM concepts, fostering hands-on learning, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. By integrating VR modules that align with STEM curricula, schools can offer students a dynamic, experiential approach to science and technology that traditional methods often struggle to achieve.

Successful VR implementation hinges on several design and technical principles, including user-centered design, content alignment, interactivity, and real-time feedback mechanisms. Additionally, technical considerations such as hardware and software selection, usability testing, and accessibility measures are essential to ensure that VR modules are effective, user-friendly, and inclusive for all students. The future of VR in education also depends on practical strategies for training teachers, managing costs, and gradually scaling VR resources in classrooms. Finally, feedback from students and educators provides vital insights for iterative improvements, ensuring that VR remains responsive to evolving educational needs [61,62]. Future research could also explore how continual learning models, as discussed in multiple studies [63,64,65,66], may be integrated with VR-based STEM environments to enable adaptive, personalized instruction that evolves with student performance over time.