Enhancing Cognitive Skills in Basic Electronics Using an Augmented Reality Learning Environment

This study aimed to determine whether an Augmented Reality–based instructional module can improve students’ cognitive understanding of abstract electronic concepts. Concepts such as current flow and circuit laws often pose challenges for vocational students, as conventional 2D teaching fails to support adequate visualization. To address this issue, a purpose-built Augmented Reality learning environment, AR-ElecSim, was developed and implemented. A quasi-experimental pre-test/post-test non-equivalent control group design involving 100 students from four vocational colleges was used. The experimental group (n = 50) used the AR-ElecSim module, while the control group (n = 50) received traditional instruction. Cognitive performance was measured using the Basic Electronics Cognitive Test (BECT), a 30-item instrument validated by experts (α = .88). After controlling for pre-test scores, ANCOVA results showed a significant effect of instructional method, F(1, 97) = 152.45, p < .001, η²ₚ = .61, indicating that students using AR-ElecSim achieved higher adjusted mean scores (75.75) than the control group (55.45). The AR module effectively enhanced cognitive performance by promoting conceptual understanding and minimizing cognitive overload. This study fills a national research gap by providing empirical evidence on AR’s cognitive effects in Malaysian vocational education, highlighting its potential to strengthen analytical and application skills in Basic Electronics.

Augmented Reality, Cognitive Skills, Basic Electronics, TVET

1. Rahman, A. B. W. A., Hussain, M. A. M., & Zulkifli, R. M. (2020). International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(7), 176–188. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Liu, Y., Zhan, Q., & Zhao, W. (2023). Interactive Learning Environments. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Rodzalan, S. A., Mohd Noor, N. N., Abdullah, N. H., & Mohamed Saat, M. (2022). Journal of Technical Education and Training, 14(1), 158–177. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Billinghurst, M., & Kato, H. (2002). Collaborative augmented reality. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 64–70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current Status, Opportunities and Challenges of Augmented Reality in Education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bödding, R., Schriek, S. A., & Maier, G. W. (2025). Computers & Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I – Cognitive Domain. David McKay. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Pathak, J. P. (2025). in Advances in Vocational Training Technology. IGI Global. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Alkhabra, Y. A., Ibrahem, U. M., & Alkhabra, S. A. (2023). Augmented reality technology in enhancing learning retention and critical thinking according to STEAM program. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The Instructive Animation: Helping Students Build Connections between Words and Pictures in Multimedia Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–452. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Asoodar, M., et al. (2024). Advances in Simulation, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Liu, Y., Zhan, Q., & Zhao, W. (2023). Interactive Learning Environments. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Alkhabra, Y. A., Ibrahem, U. M., & Alkhabra, S. A. (2023). Augmented reality technology in enhancing learning retention and critical thinking according to STEAM program. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 174. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Tuli, N., Singh, G., Mantri, A., & Sharma, S. (2022). Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 26. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Chiang, F. K., Shang, X., & Qiao, L. (2022). Augmented reality in vocational training: A systematic review of research and applications. Computers in Human Behavior, 129, 107125. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Asoodar, M., et al. (2024). Advances in Simulation, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Rodríguez-Saavedra, M. O., et al. (2025). Information, 16(5), 372. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current Status, Opportunities and Challenges of Augmented Reality in Education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study