Applied Knowledge and Augmented Reality

Digital transformation and Industry 4.0 significantly reshape industrial workplaces by introducing advanced technologies and increasing automation, fundamentally altering the nature of work and the competencies required of employees [1, 2, 3]. As production environments continue to evolve through interconnectivity and automation, workers are required to develop new skills, such as the ability to interact with sophisticated technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) and digital systems, and engage in complex problem-solving. To keep up with the integration of new technologies and resulting process modifications, lifelong learning and training are crucial [4], and workers must stay flexible to apply new technologies effectively across dynamic and rapidly changing contexts [5].

Traditional educational methods, such as lectures and textbooks, often prove inadequate in developing these new competencies because they lack real-world applicability and the hands-on experience needed for effective skill acquisition [6, 7, 8]. To address these limitations, learning factories represent an alternative by offering applied, interactive training formats that more effectively support the development of practical skills and competencies in realistic, industry-aligned environments. Learning factories enable skill development through realistic simulations of manufacturing environments, allowing for practical competence-building similar to realistic environments [9, 10, 11].

Incorporating digital technologies into these simulation environments further enhances their effectiveness by enabling learners to directly engage with complex technological interfaces and decision-support systems. Augmented reality provides an opportunity for transferring applied knowledge [12]. It offers learning integrated in the work environment, with virtual cues and 3D elements [13] that enable step-by-step learning in a realistic environment [14, 15]. Building on this foundation, it provides a promising extension to learning factory environments by seamlessly integrating instructional content into real-world contexts, bridging the gap between abstract instruction and hands-on application.

So far, learning with augmented reality has been shown to be valuable in terms of improved learning outcomes, including increased performance [16], more positive learner attitudes, higher satisfaction with the training process [17, 18, 19], and reduced learning time [13]. While existing studies highlight the motivational and cognitive benefits of augmented reality-based learning, empirical evidence on its effectiveness in the transfer of applied knowledge to the workplace remains scarce.

Learning outcomes are often assessed through knowledge tests or questionnaires on motivation and perceived competence, which often fail to capture whether learners can effectively apply the acquired skills in practice. The present study addresses this gap with the following research question (RQ):

RQ: To what extent does training with augmented reality facilitate the transfer of applied knowledge into the production setting?

To answer the RQ, this paper applied an experiment using a realistic training and application scenario in which participants use augmented reality to learn a production process. The transfer of applied knowledge is subsequently evaluated based on their ability to apply the task without further instruction in the manufacturing environment. The methodology, results, and implications are presented below.

Methodology

The training scenarios are evaluated with the aim of validating the impact of applied augmented reality-supported training methods. Addressing the RQ,this study uses a one-factor between-subject design to compare people learning with augmented reality instruction with people learning with paper instructions. The study design complied with the approval of the ethics committee of the authors’ research institute.

The study took place at the authors’ university between November 2023 and May 2024. Before participation, individuals were informed of their rights, including voluntary participation and the ability to withdraw from the study at any time. Participants were then provided with a general explanation of the factory environment, which included the production setup and workstation. They were then randomly assigned to one of the instructional conditions: traditional paper-based instructions (control) or augmented reality-based instructions delivered via head-mounted display (HMD). All participants underwent a calibration procedure for the augmented reality HoloLens, which was used as an augmented reality HMD.

In the learning phase, participants completed three production cycles (referred to as learning rounds), each involving six production steps. Each learning round was triggered by the arrival of a workpiece at the station. Participants of both groups received identical instructional content. However, the delivery format differed: the control group used printed materials presented over three pages in the sequence of the production process, while the augmented reality groups accessed the same information via the augmented reality HMD (HoloLens), offering real-time digital guidance directly in their visual field (following [20]).

Upon completing the learning phase, participants completed a follow-up questionnaire, which included scales measuring usability and cognitive load. Following the learning phase, the study progressed to the application scenario, which served as a test of knowledge transfer and performance. Participants completed 15 production rounds without any instructional aid. The purpose was to evaluate how well participants could independently apply what they had learned.

Participants assumed the role of factory workers engaged in manufacturing optical lenses. The production tasks required participants to verify the accuracy of incoming orders, configure specific machine parameters, monitor ongoing production processes, and conduct thorough quality control checks. Participants underwent three learning rounds.

Assessment methods

The initial questionnaire captured demographic variables (for example age, gender, employment status), previous experience with augmented reality, and familiarity with production-related tasks.

After completing all three learning rounds, participants responded to the cognitive load scale developed by Klepsch et al. (2017). This instrument consists of eight items rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (“completely untrue”) to 7 (“completely true”). Example statements include: “During this task, it was exhausting to find the important information,” “The design of this task was very inconvenient for learning,” and “During this task, it was difficult to recognize and link the crucial information.”

Additionally, participants completed the System Usability Scale (SUS; Brooke, 1986). The scale includes ten items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Sample items include statements such as “I found the system unnecessarily complex” and “I thought the system was easy to use.” In addition to the subjective evaluation of learning, objective data on learning duration were also collected. For each round, learning duration was defined as the time interval between the arrival of the workpiece and the completion of the final subtask.

Learning outcomes were assessed by task completion time and number of errors. This metric captured the total time required for participants to complete a production round without guidance. The task completion time was measured from the arrival of the workpiece to the participant’s final interaction with the production line. Errors were defined as any incorrect interactions within the workspace. These included, for instance, pressing the wrong button on the machine terminal, selecting incorrect parameters for machine calibration, or specifying the wrong number of lenses in the quality check.

Sample

Data from 87 participants (39 females and 46 males, two prefer not to say), on average 25 years old (SD=5.91), were integrated into the data analysis. The participants were recruited via mailing lists and announcements at several universities and randomly assigned to one group, either augmented reality (N= 69) or paper instructions (N=17). Before the experiment, people were asked about their experience with augmented reality HMD. 64.29% said they had never used augmented reality before, 34.29% said they had rarely used augmented reality, and 1.43% said they had used augmented reality occasionally. Additionally, the participants rated their experience with production environments: 13.79% had experience and 86.2% did not.

Results: Improved learning with augmented reality

This section outlines the examination of the gathered data, which was compared between the augmented reality and paper instruction groups. The entire learning lasted on average 7.24 minutes. Participants who learned with augmented reality needed 7 minutes, while those who learned with paper instructions needed 8.24 minutes. They required approximately 17.7% more time to complete the learning compared to those who learned with augmented reality instruction.

Complementing the objective data, they evaluated the usability of the learning instruction and the cognitive load they perceived during learning. The results show that learners prefer augmented reality (M=72.54, SD=19.57) over paper instructions (M=67.08, SD=17.75) in terms of usability and report less cognitive load arising from the instruction (augmented reality M=8.43, SD=4.28, paper instruction M=9.94, SD=4.15).

Addressing the RQ, how well the participants could transfer and apply the learned skills into the production process without receiving additional instructions, time and number of errors were considered. The time metrics reveal that participants who learned with the augmented reality instruction were able to apply the steps of the production process 1 minute faster (M=21.59, SD=4.5) than those who learned with paper instructions (M=22.58, SD=3.92). In addition, people who learned with the augmented reality instruction made fewer errors (M=4.48, SD=4.10) when they applied the production steps without instruction than people who had learned with the paper instruction (M=5.17, SD=4.31). Figure 2 presents all results.

Answering the research question, the findings indicate that augmented reality facilitates the transfer of applied knowledge into real-world production settings. Participants who received augmented reality-based instruction applied the production task faster and with fewer errors in a realistic production setting than those who used conventional paper-based instructions. Not only did they need less time to apply the production without instruction, they also required less time during learning. The objective data was supported by a positive evaluation of the usability and cognitive load using augmented reality. Taken together, these findings provide empirical support for the effectiveness of augmented reality-based training in promoting more efficient learning processes and facilitating the transfer of applied knowledge to complex real-world production tasks.

Implications and future research

Based on the study’s findings, we suggest two implications: First, our findings indicate that augmented reality offers an opportunity to provide training directly within the work environment. Unlike traditional classroom or manual-based training, augmented reality can guide employees step-by-step within the production setting, making learning more context-relevant and reducing the gap between training and application.

In our study, learners applied the production process faster and with fewer errors in the production process without instruction. For companies, this suggests reducing initial errors, which can lead to significant cost savings. Secondly, our findings indicate that using AR for learning enables employees to reach operational readiness more quickly. Companies introducing new processes or technologies could benefit from augmented reality’s ability to lower the learning curve, especially for inexperienced workers who might otherwise struggle with abstract instructions, which means reduced onboarding time.

Nevertheless, the study’s limitations should be acknowledged for an accurate understanding of the findings. First, the relatively small sample size and unbalanced group assignment may limit the generalizability of the results and restrict the statistical power needed for more robust inferential analyses. Furthermore, potential distortions due to sampling variability or uncontrolled confounding factors may have influenced the observed effects. As a consequence, the decision was made to focus on descriptive statistics only, as the available data lacked sufficient power to support meaningful inferential calculations.

Second, although the study was conducted in a realistic production setting to enhance ecological validity, the sample was relatively homogeneous, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research should seek to replicate these results using larger and more diverse samples to strengthen the empirical evidence and allow for more precise statistical analyses, including robust inferential testing.

This study contributes to the research on augmented reality in learning by offering a performance-based evaluation of applied knowledge transfer within a realistic industrial setting. The findings demonstrate that augmented reality can effectively support the transfer of practical skills, as participants who learned with augmented reality applied the production process more quickly and with fewer errors than those who received paper-based instruction.

The work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), grant numbers 16DII137 (Weizenbaum-Institute) and 16DII131 (Weizenbaum-Institute).

This is an original article. The German translation can be accessed via DOI: 10.30844/I4SD.25.5.22

You might also be interested in

Serious Games as a Training Tool Game mechanics design to promote resilience Annika Lange , Thomas Knothe

Unforeseen events are increasingly challenging manufacturing companies. Being resilient during crises is becoming a key competence. Serious games (SG) can help make resilience-building processes more transparent. This article derives specific requirements for SG from different phases of resilience and shows how these can be implemented in game mechanics in order to effectively support the training of resilience.

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 2 | Pages 98-104

From Brownfield to Industry 4.0 Learning factories as training and testing environment for digital transformation Jakob Weber, Sven Völker

To succeed in their digital transformation, manufacturing companies need engineers with in-depth knowledge of key technologies and concepts, and a profound understanding of the transition from Industry 3.0 to Industry 4.0. This article describes the concept of a learning factory that is continuously subjected to a digital transformation, thereby creating an environment for the development of transformation competencies. The concept of digital transformation is based on digital worker assistance systems and multi-agent systems for production control. These enable the incremental integration of existing resources into the digitalized factory. The learning factory is not presented to students as a completed solution. Instead, it is continuously developed further as part of student projects. This way, it contributes directly to the qualification of personnel for the implementation of Industry 4.0.

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 2 | Pages 88-96

AI Colleagues? Competence requirements and training for AI use in industry Swetlana Franken

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally changing tasks, roles, and skills in (industrial) companies. Increasingly, it acts as a colleague, preparing decisions, supporting processes, and interacting with people. This article highlights key competence requirements for AI use in industry, presents an integrated competence model, and outlines practical strategies for the transfer of skills. The aim is to prepare companies and employees for humane, competence-oriented AI implementation that combines technological efficiency with human creativity and judgment.

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 2 | Pages 78-86

Operationalizing Ethical AI with tachAId Validating an interactive advisory tool in two manufacturing use cases Pavlos Rath-Manakidis, Henry Huick, Björn Krämer , Laurenz Wiskott

Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into workplace processes promises significant efficiency gains, yet organizations face numerous ethical challenges that stakeholders are often initially unaware of—from opacity in decision-making to algorithmic bias and premature automation risks. This paper presents the design and validation of tachAId, an interactive advisory tool aimed at embedding human-centered ethical considerations into the development of AI solutions. It reports on a validation study conducted across two distinct industrial AI applications with varying AI maturity. tachAId successfully directs attention to critical ethical considerations across the AI solution lifecycle that might be overlooked in technically-focused development. However, the findings also reveal a central tension: while effective in raising awareness, the tool’s non-linear design creates significant usability challenges, indicating a user preference for more structured, linear guidance, especially ...

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 1 | Pages 50-59 | DOI 10.30844/I4SE.26.1.48

AI Implementation in Industrial Quality Control A design science approach bridging technical and human factors Erdi Ünal , Kathrin Nauth , Pavlos Rath-Manakidis, Jens Pöppelbuß , Felix Hoenig, Christian Meske

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers significant potential to enhance industrial quality control, yet successful implementation requires careful consideration of ethical and human factors. This article examines how automated surface inspection systems can be deployed to augment human capabilities while ensuring ethical integration into workflows. Through design science research, twelve stakeholders from six organizations across three continents are interviewed and twelve sociotechnical design requirements are derived. These are organized into pre-implementation and implementation/operation phases, addressing human agency, employee participation, and responsible knowledge management. Key findings include the critical importance of meaningful employee participation during pre-implementation, and maintaining human agency through experiential learning, building on existing expertise. This research contributes to ethical AI workplace implementation by providing guidelines that preserve human ...

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 1 | Pages 120-127 | DOI 10.30844/I4SE.26.1.112

XAI for Predicting and Nudging Worker Decision-Making Feasibility and perceived ethical issues Jan-Phillip Herrmann , Catharina Baier, Sven Tackenberg , Verena Nitsch

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI)-based nudging, while ethically complex, may offer a favorable alternative to rigid, algorithmically generated schedules that simultaneously respects worker autonomy and improves overall scheduling performance on the shop floor. This paper presents a controlled laboratory study demonstrating the successful nudging of 28 industrial engineering students in a job shop simulation. The study shows that the observed concordance between students’ sequencing decisions and a predefined target sequence increases by 9% through nudging. This is done by using XAI to analyze students’ preferences and adjusting task deadlines and priorities in the simulation. The paper discusses the ethical issues of nudging, including potential manipulation, illusory autonomy, and reducing people to numbers. To mitigate these issues, it offers recommendations for implementing the XAI-based nudging approach in practice and highlights its strengths relative to rigid, ...

Industry 4.0 Science | Volume 42 | 2026 | Edition 1 | Pages 70-78