# Extended Reality in Applied Sciences Education: A Systematic Review
## 4 Discussion
Conversely, in applied natural sciences, AR technology is favored for its ability to overlay virtual elements onto real-world environments, making abstract concepts, such as chemical structures, more tangible. It also simulates experimental scenarios, enhancing safety and helping students intuitively understand scientific principles [28]. Engineering education focuses on applying theoretical knowledge to practical operations, requiring the integration of real-world scenarios to deepen understanding of abstract concepts. For example, AR technology can simulate chemical reactions to help students better grasp theoretical knowledge, whereas the high hardware demands of VR result in relatively lower adoption rates. AR's ease of integration into courses and instructional materials makes it a more practical choice. In architecture and civil engineering, AR combines simulation modeling with real-world scenarios, aiding students in spatial planning and structural design. MR technology is also used in this field for immersive modeling of complex structures, enriching the learning experience [22]. In engineering mathematics and applications, AR facilitates students' understanding of geometric concepts and enhances their ability to visualize real-world spaces [7]. In social sciences, VR technology simulates historical scenarios, enabling students to deeply comprehend social and cultural contexts through immersive learning [44]. In the marine sciences, VR allows for the simulation of ship engine room operations and marine ecosystems, providing students with opportunities to learn diagnostic and repair techniques in environments otherwise difficult to access [26]. Despite XR technologies' demonstrated potential across disciplines, challenges remain. The high software development costs and equipment requirements of VR and MR technologies hinder their large-scale implementation in primary and secondary education. In contrast, AR technology, with its lower costs and ease of operation, is better suited to meet the practical needs of foundational education, making it more widely adopted in this context. To answer RQ2, our findings indicate that the choice of XR modality is highly discipline-specific, with VR predominantly used for high-risk simulations, AR for conceptual visualization, and MR for hybrid physical-virtual interactions. VR technology is often adopted in fields where hands-on practice involves significant risk or resource constraints--such as medical sciences or industrial design--because it provides a fully virtual environment that allows repeated training without real-world hazards [5]. In contrast, AR technology is better suited for disciplines that benefit from concretizing abstract concepts and integrating real-world scenarios, such as applied natural sciences and engineering education, where theoretical knowledge can be superimposed onto physical objects to enhance students' understanding [7]. Meanwhile, MR combines these advantages by enabling real-time interaction with virtual elements in physical space, making it especially useful for assembly tasks in engineering or architecture, where learners can manipulate digital components as if they were physically present [10]. Consequently, XR modality aligns with distinct pedagogical aims. VR for immersive and often risk-intensive simulations, AR for bridging theory and practice through overlays, and MR for highly interactive, mixed-environment learning experiences. Future research could enhance XR experiences by incorporating greater interactivity and engagement, rather than primarily converting existing educational materials into static 3D digital content. For example, VR and MR technologies could be utilized to create immersive virtual laboratories where students actively test hypotheses, validate theoretical concepts, and explore subject matter in real time. These environments could integrate dynamic simulations and personalized feedback mechanisms features that foster deeper engagement and adaptability to individual learning needs [67; 68; 69].