Virtual Reality-Based Learning for Sustainable Education: A Systematic Review of Learning Outcomes, Research Gaps, and Alignment with SDG 4

2.1 Virtual Reality in education

VR has emerged as an innovative educational technology because of its capacity to create immersive, interactive, and contextual learning experiences. Unlike traditional approaches that position students as passive recipients of information, VR allows learners to actively engage with simulated environments that resemble real-world situations, making learning more meaningful and experience-based [13, 14]. A primary motivation for adopting VR lies in its ability to enhance engagement and motivation: immersive environments capture attention and sustain focus, especially for abstract or complex subject matter [15, 16], and encourage active participation in authentic communicative situations [17].

Increased engagement also supports comprehension and retention. By emphasizing experiential learning, VR enables direct exploration of content, leading to deeper conceptual understanding and longer-lasting memory [18]; in human-computer interaction education, for instance, VR has outperformed traditional methods [19]. VR further supports personalized and adaptive learning, allowing students to control their pace and explore content according to individual needs [20], consistent with the learner-centered demands of 21st-century education [21]. It is particularly effective for developing practical skills through simulation-based learning in engineering and vocational education, where learners practice safely without real-world risk [22-24], and it facilitates collaborative learning across physical distance [25].

Nevertheless, implementation faces challenges. High hardware and content-development costs remain significant barriers [16, 26]; technical issues such as motion sickness and device limitations may hinder the user experience [27]; and effective integration requires adequate teacher training and pedagogical adaptation [27]. Addressing these barriers requires high-quality content, improved accessibility, and sustained professional development [26], while integration with emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence offers opportunities for more adaptive and personalized environments [28]. These limitations should therefore be read not as obstacles but as directions for future development.

2.2 Virtual Reality and sustainable education (SDG 4)

The 2030 Agenda for sustainable development frames quality education (SDG 4) as a foundation for inclusive and equitable development [29], and education for sustainable development emphasizes learner-centered, experiential, and transformative pedagogies [30]. VR aligns with this agenda along three dimensions. First, it advances inclusivity and equity by extending immersive experiences to learners who lack access to physical laboratories, field sites, or specialized equipment; low-cost solutions such as cardboard VR demonstrate that immersive learning need not be confined to well-resourced institutions [10]. Second, it supports resource efficiency and resilience by reducing dependence on physical materials, enabling virtual laboratories, and sustaining remote education during disruptions, which contributes to economically sustainable provision over time [31]. Third, it strengthens the experiential and competence-based learning that education for sustainability requires, allowing learners to rehearse complex, real-world scenarios safely [22, 24].

Despite this conceptual fit, the explicit use of the SDGs as an analytical or design framework remains rare in VR research. Few studies position immersive learning within sustainability targets or evaluate outcomes against equity and access criteria. This review therefore treats SDG alignment not as a peripheral concern but as an organizing lens for interpreting learning outcomes and research gaps, thereby connecting immersive pedagogy to the planning and policy priorities central to sustainable development.

Table A1 operationalizes the alignment of the 37 primary studies with SDG 4 (Quality Education) by mapping the educational context reported in each study to the most relevant SDG 4 targets. Specifically, Target 4.1 was mapped to studies conducted at the school and early-childhood levels, reflecting its emphasis on equitable access to quality primary and secondary education; Target 4.3 was mapped to studies addressing vocational and higher education, consistent with its focus on equal access to technical, vocational, and tertiary education; and Target 4.4 was applied to studies emphasizing vocational or technical skills relevant to employment. Target 4.5 was associated with studies addressing gifted learners or inclusive education, particularly where the focus involved reducing educational disparities, whereas Target 4.c was mapped to studies focused on pre-service teacher education and teacher preparation.

To distinguish the strength of this alignment, studies were classified as Direct only when their substantive content explicitly addressed a theme that could be linked to an SDG 4 target beyond educational level alone, such as environmental sustainability or other clearly articulated educational priorities. Studies that did not explicitly address SDG 4-related themes were classified as Indirect, even when their educational context was consistent with a particular SDG 4 target. This approach provides a structured and transparent first-pass assessment of SDG 4 alignment based on the available extraction data. Nevertheless, because SDG 4 was not necessarily an explicit analytical framework in the original studies, the Direct/Indirect classifications should be interpreted cautiously. A full-text assessment of the 37 primary studies would provide a stronger basis for validating these classifications and identifying additional dimensions of equity, inclusion, and educational access that may not have been captured in the current extraction framework.

2.3 Positioning against existing systematic reviews

Several systematic reviews have already examined VR in education, yet each adopts a narrower lens than the present study. Table 1 contrasts six recent reviews with the current work across primary focus, explicit alignment with SDG 4, and whether the review delivers an integrative four-part synthesis—simultaneously addressing publication trends, conceptualizations, research themes, and learning—outcome domains. Prior reviews typically privilege a single dimension (e.g., competence development, effectiveness, or challenges) within a specific population, and none foregrounds the SDGs as an analytical frame. The present review addresses this gap by integrating all four analytical dimensions and explicitly mapping VR learning outcomes to SDG 4.

Table 1. Comparison of the present review with existing systematic reviews

4.1 Publication trends (RQ1)

The 43 eligible documents were published between 2014 and 2025 across social sciences, computer science, psychology, engineering, education, environmental science, and health sciences, reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of VR research. Three complementary analyses—performance analysis, science mapping, and network analysis—are reported below.

Figure 2 illustrates the annual publication output from 2014 to 2025. Publication activity remained limited and relatively stable during 2014–2020, with one to two documents published per year, followed by a modest increase in 2021–2022. The number of publications then increased to five in 2023 and rose substantially to 12 in 2024 and 17 in 2025. Across the study period, the annual distribution sums to 43 documents, consistent with the total corpus. Notably, 29 of the 43 studies (67.4%) were published during 2024–2025, indicating a pronounced recent acceleration in research activity. This pattern suggests growing scholarly interest in VR-based education and may reflect the field’s transition toward a more established and increasingly dynamic area of research, in parallel with broader developments in digital transformation and learning technologies [9].

2.png

Figure 2. Document productivity on Virtual Reality (VR) in education, 2014–2025

3.png

Figure 3. International collaboration network in Virtual Reality (VR) education research

Figure 3 visualizes the international collaboration network generated with VOSviewer. The United States occupies a central position, reflected in its larger node and strong links—particularly with Italy—indicating high productivity and intensive cooperation. Countries such as Indonesia, Australia, Mexico, and Germany appear in smaller, less connected clusters, suggesting that research remains concentrated in a limited number of countries and highlighting opportunities to broaden global participation, especially among under-represented regions central to equitable sustainable development.

Figure 4 presents the distribution by subject area. Social Sciences account for the largest share (27.8%), indicating a predominantly pedagogical and policy-oriented framing, followed by Computer Science (20.0%), reflecting attention to system design and technological development. Psychology (8.9%) and Engineering (7.8%) contribute substantially, while Arts and Humanities (5.6%), Health Professions (4.4%), Medicine (4.4%), Business and Management (3.3%), Decision Sciences (3.3%), and Nursing (3.3%) represent smaller but meaningful shares; the “Other” category (11.1%) underscores the spread of VR across emerging fields.

4.png

Figure 4. Distribution of Virtual Reality (VR) in education research by subject area

5.png

Figure 5. Most prolific authors in Virtual Reality (VR) in education research

Figure 5 shows the most prolific authors. Fijačko, N.; Greif, R.; Kablitz, D.; and Nadkarni, V.M. record the highest output, while a broader group—including Abella, B.S.; Agustin, M.; Ahmad, L.; Al-Bawaleez, M.; Amenduni, F.; and Amsari, D.—contribute consistently. Representative works from these core contributors [36-41] illustrate their sustained engagement with VR in education. The pattern reflects both a concentration of activity among a few productive authors and a diverse base of contributors.

4.2 Conceptualizations of Virtual Reality (RQ2)

Across the corpus, VR is conceptualized as an immersive technology that generates simulated environments, enabling learners to experience situations otherwise inaccessible in the real world [42]. Its immersive and interactive nature facilitates active learning and deeper comprehension [43], sustains engagement and motivation [44], and strengthens knowledge retention through multisensory experiences [45]. VR is further framed as a means of developing practical and technical skills through experiential simulation [46], enabling personalized and adaptive learning [47], and fostering inclusivity for learners with diverse abilities [48]. Additional defining features include enhanced visualization of abstract concepts [49], collaborative learning in shared virtual spaces [50], reduced performance anxiety in low-pressure settings [51], real-time feedback [52], and safe exploration of hazardous scenarios [53]. While initial setup costs are high, VR is increasingly conceptualized as economically sustainable over time [31], and ongoing advances in hardware, graphics, and haptics are expected to expand its applications further [52]. Table 3 summarizes the defining elements of VR in education.

Table 3. Defining elements of Virtual Reality (VR) in education

4.3 Research themes (RQ3)

Figure 6 presents a keyword co-occurrence network generated with VOSviewer, mapping the main research themes linking VR to students' learning outcomes. Learning-related constructs—learning, immersive learning, teaching, students, and learning outcomes—form closely connected clusters, indicating strong conceptual integration between VR technology and educational effectiveness.

6.png

Figure 6. Keyword co-occurrence map of Virtual Reality (VR) research in educational contexts

Table 4. Most frequent keywords and their total link strength in Virtual Reality (VR)-based educational research

Table 4 quantifies these patterns through total link strength. Virtual Reality is the most dominant keyword, followed by Education and Augmented Reality, reinforcing VR's central role in educational research. The substantial link strength of Learning Outcome (93) shows that outcome-oriented perspectives are a core focus rather than a peripheral concern, while Immersive Learning (93) highlights the emphasis on experiential, engagement-driven environments. Taken together, Figure 6 and Table 4 indicate that VR research in school settings is primarily oriented toward improving learning outcomes through immersive, pedagogically grounded experiences—treating VR not as a technological novelty but as an instructional medium strategically linked to learning effectiveness.

4.4 Effects on learning outcomes and research gaps (RQ4)

Table 5 summarizes the effects of VR on learning outcomes across the 37 primary studies, organized into five domains: cognitive, affective, skill-based, pedagogical, and behavioral-attitudinal. Because individual studies frequently report outcomes across multiple domains, these categories are not mutually exclusive.

Affective outcomes are the most consistently reported benefit (18 of 37 primary studies; 48.6%): VR enhances motivation, engagement, interest, satisfaction, and immersion across contexts [54]. Cognitive benefits are also substantial (24; 64.9%), with immersive environments supporting concrete, experiential processing of abstract content; however, several studies report mixed or non-significant cognitive effects when instructional design fails to manage task complexity or cognitive load. Skill-based outcomes (8; 21.6%) include spatial reasoning and applied competence, particularly in vocational and technical contexts [55], though this domain remains comparatively under-represented. Pedagogical outcomes (3; 8.1%) suggest VR can support instructional practice through scenario-based activities, but the evidence is limited and fragmented, concentrated in pre-service teacher training [56]. Behavioral and attitudinal outcomes (4; 10.8%) include more positive attitudes, greater participation, and learner autonomy.

Table 5. Effects of Virtual Reality (VR) on learning outcomes

Table 6. Research gaps identified in Virtual Reality (VR)-based learning studies

Synthesizing findings across the 37 primary studies, six recurrent research gaps emerge (Table 6). VR research remains concentrated in higher education, with 10 of the 37 primary studies (27.0%) conducted at the higher-education level, while evidence from school-level and early-childhood contexts remains comparatively limited. Interventions are predominantly short-term, constraining conclusions regarding knowledge retention and transfer over time. Affective outcomes are more frequently examined than higher-order cognitive outcomes, while instructional designs are often insufficiently grounded in established learning theories and may be susceptible to cognitive overload. Assessment practices also rely heavily on self-reported measures rather than objective or performance-based indicators. Finally, cultural, contextual, and sustainability dimensions including explicit alignment with the SDGs remain underexplored, highlighting important opportunities for future research.

This systematic review synthesized 37 primary studies (2014–2025) on VR-based learning, following PRISMA 2020 and drawing on four databases. Six review-type documents identified in the corpus were analyzed separately and excluded from this primary-research synthesis. The evidence shows that VR most consistently enhances affective outcomes-motivation, engagement, and immersion (48.6% of studies)-while also supporting cognitive (64.9%) and skill-based (21.6%) learning. Evidence on higher-order cognition and long-term retention, however, remains limited and inconclusive, frequently constrained by short interventions, weak theoretical grounding, and reliance on self-report assessment.

Theoretically, the review clarifies how immersive learning operationalizes constructivist and experiential principles while underscoring the need to manage cognitive load. Practically, it offers planners and educators a sustainability-oriented agenda: invest in teacher training, adopt scalable low-cost VR, and embed equity and durability into design. Its principal contribution is an integrative synthesis that, for the first time within this corpus, connects VR learning outcomes to the SDG 4 agenda.

Future research should prioritize: (1) longitudinal designs measuring retention and transfer; (2) studies in early-childhood and primary education; (3) higher-order cognitive and skill outcomes; (4) theory-driven instructional-design models that balance immersion with cognitive load; (5) objective, performance-based assessment; (6) culturally responsive VR for under-represented regions; and (7) explicit alignment of VR research with SDG 4 and broader sustainability targets. Pursuing these directions will help ensure that immersive learning technologies are pedagogically effective, equitable, and sustainable.

This research was supported by BIMA, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, through the Doctoral Dissertation Research Scheme 2026 under Contract Number 267/C3/DT.05.00/PL-BARU/2026.

The authors thank BIMA for the financial support that enabled the completion of this research.