Virtual and Augmented Reality in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: An Umbrella Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.3. Search Procedures
2.4. Interrater Consensus
3. Results
3.1. Augmented Reality
3.1.1. STEM Disciplines
3.1.2. Study Goals
3.1.3. Major Findings
Source | Scope | Field | Subjects/Concepts | Target Population | Purpose/Aim | Total Papers | Research Questions (RQs) as They Originally Appeared | Overall Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sırakaya and Alsancak Sırakaya [32] | SR of articles until the end of 2018 (from 1980) | STEM | Physical sciences, Life sciences, Earth/Space Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering | Not specified | To show the studies in STEM education that used AR | 42 | RQ1. What are the general characteristics of AR-STEM studies? RQ2. What are the advantages identified in AR-STEM studies? RQ3. What are the challenges identified in AR-STEM studies? | 1. AR-STEM studies have had a growing interest over the years, using quantitative methods in schools (many secondary schools). Marker-based AR was common. 2. AR’s advantages: benefits for the learners, a better learning experience with interaction, and more. 3. The major difficulties were problems with technology (e.g., detecting the marker) and teachers’ hesitance. |
Ajit et al. [33] | SR of papers published between 2012 and May 2020 | STEM | Physics (general), Physics (electrostatic, electromagnetism, and elastic collision), Mathematics, Science (electromagnetism), Chemistry (periodic table and molecules), Astronomy, and Natural sciences | Not specified | To discuss how AR is connected to STEM and how it benefits learning | 19 | RQ1. What are the general characteristics of AR in STEM education? RQ2. What are the benefits of AR in STEM study? RQ3. What are the challenges of AR in STEM study? | 1. Worldwide interest (primarily in secondary schools with varying sample sizes). Physics was a popular subject to use it. Assessment (e.g., test) was involved. Most studies used marker-based AR with handheld displays. Vuforia and Unity were common tools. 2. Benefits covered benefits to learners (e.g., better academic achievement), improved learning outcomes (e.g., visualizing abstract concepts), and more. 3. Challenges emerged from difficulty detecting the marker, system glitches, physical discomfort, and so on. |
Hidayat and Wardat [34] | SR of literature published between 2017 and 2022 | STEM | Astronomy, STEM and STEAM, Science, Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Engineering and Architecture, STEM-based Mathematics and Science, and Technology | Not specified | To see how AR helped STEM education | 42 | RQ1. What are the types of augmented reality used in STEM learning? RQ2. What are the types of technology employed in implementing STEM learning? RQ3. What are the types of augmented parameters in implementing STEM learning? | 1. Mainly marker-less (e.g., for chemistry) and marker-based (e.g., for engineering). 2. Camera-based AR was popular, followed by markers, object recognition, and more. 3. Animation and 3D models were the most used. |
Irwanto et al. [39] | SR of literature published between 2007 and 2022 | Science | N/A | Not specified | To investigate research trends of AR in science | 319 | RQ1. What is the annual scientific growth rate of publications on the topic of AR in science education between 2007 and 2022? RQ2. How is the distribution of the documents reviewed with regard to the number of authors in the 2007–2022 period? RQ3. Which countries contributed the most to the publications in the academic journals from 2007 to 2022? RQ4. Which are the most productive journals publishing articles on the applications of AR in science education between 2007 and 2022? RQ5. Which are the most cited articles related to the applications of AR in science education in the 2007–2022 period? RQ6. What were the most preferred research methods in articles on the applications of AR in science education from 2007 to 2022? | 1. Growth in publication. 2. Two or three authors were common in publications. 3. The United States is the country with the most publications. 4. The Journal of Chemical Education and Computers and Education were the two most productive. 5. The most cited paper was "Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning" by Dunleavy et al., as cited in Irwanto et al. [39]. 6. Quantitative designs have become increasingly popular. |
Yin et al. [30] | SR of articles published between 2001 and 2020 | Science | Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and others | K-16 | To review of AR in K-16 science | 89 | RQ1. What patterns in research publication can be identified from the metadata? RQ2. What pedagogies and instructional affordances have been utilized in AR-supported science education? RQ3. What technological features of AR have been used in science education and how are they evolving over time? | 1. Over time, there have been many research publications, with many studies in Asia. AR has been most popular in subjects such as physics and biology. 2. Inquiry-based learning along with direct instruction. 3. AR could be location-based or image-based. Human–computer interaction was important in AR instruction. The common presentation mediums are 3D objects and 2D images. |
Kalemkuş and Kalemkuş [38] | Meta-Analysis of papers published between 2015 and 2020 | Science | N/A | Not specified | To examine the effect of AR in science on student academic achievement | 16 | RQ1. What is the general effect of the use of augmented reality applications in science education on the academic achievement of students? | 1. A moderate effect of using AR in science education on student achievement and positive aspects of encouraging the use of AR in science. |
Álvarez-Marín and Velázquez-Iturbide [35] | SR of literature published until September 2019 | Engineering | Electromagnetism, Assembling, Robotics, Topology Technical drawing, Electronics, Production, Nuclear reactor, Construction, and Manufacturing | Not specified | To check the strengths and weakness of the current state of the art and provide recommendations for future research | 52 | RQ1. In which engineering studies has AR been applied? RQ2. In what types of educational activities in engineering education have AR apps been used? RQ3. How have AR apps been assessed in engineering education? RQ4. What are the main characteristics of the AR apps used in engineering education? RQ5. What is the degree of interactivity of the AR apps used in engineering education? | 1. More than half of the studies were about electronics or technical drawing. 2. Laboratory activities, lecture activities, and exercise class-related activities. 3. Assessments included perceptions of instructors and students (e.g., usefulness) along with academic performance. 4. Enabling technologies and functional characteristics: Smartphones were commonly used, and overlay perception was part of functional characteristics. 5. Limited interactivity. In only a few studies, there was some support. |
Hidajat [40] | SR of articles published between 2015 and 2023 | Mathematics | N/A | Not specified | To analyze the past research of AR for mathematical creativity | 66 | RQ1. What are the implications and features of using AR for mathematical creativity? RQ2. What is the potential of using AR for mathematical creativity based on the six themes from the NCTM Principles and Standards? RQ3. What are the perceptions of using AR for mathematical creativity, user criteria, measurement tools, and evaluation methods? | 1. Common good impacts on cognitive performance, knowledge gains, and aspects of self. Main features: head-mounted displays, Unity 3D, and and Vuforia. 2. AR was effective in distinct aspects of mathematical creativity. 3. AR could foster collaboration and was used widely in the college student population. Questionnaires and testing were examples of measurement tools. AR helped with skill development and mathematics learning. |
Ahmad and Junaini [36] | SR of literature published between 2015 and 2019 | Mathematics | Statistics, Probability, Algebra, Geometry, Euclidean Vectors, and others | Not specified | To give a clear and comprehensive overview of AR in mathematics learning | 19 | RQ1. What are the most popular types of AR development tools used for learning mathematics? RQ2. What are the popular types of AR tools to develop mathematics applications? RQ3. What did the research say on the implementation, development and effectiveness of AR? RQ4. What are the significant benefits of AR in math learning? RQ5. What are the major problems of AR in math learning? RQ6. What are the research approaches used to study AR in math learning? RQ7. What are the methods used to evaluate the effectiveness of AR math tools? RQ8. What are the main topics in mathematics that implement AR for learning? | 1. Marker-based AR was the most popular, followed by marker-less AR. 2. Unity 3D and Vuforia SDK. 3. Well-demonstrated results. 4. Major benefits included boosted confidence, better visualization, and interactive learning. 5. Difficulties came from visualization and understanding. 6. Quantitative and quasi-experimental seemed common. 7. Pre-test-and-post-test was mostly embraced. 8. Topics covered geometry, algebra, and a few more. |
Mazzuco et al. [37] | SR of papers published between 2011 and 2020 | Chemistry | Kinetic molecular theory, Laboratory safety, Liquids, Nucleophilic addition, Molecular chirality, Molecular geometry, Material composition, Molecular structures, NMR spectroscopy, Molecular hybridization, Organic and inorganic compounds, Solvay and Leblanc process, Organic chemistry, Periodic table, PH and conductivity, Simple compounds, Stereochemistry, Submicroscopic representation, and Titration | Not specified | To inform of the use of AR in chemistry education using articles published from 2011 to 2020 | 49 | RQ1. In what topics of chemistry is augmented reality applied? RQ2. Which types of devices are used? RQ3. What are the reported advantages of using augmented reality in chemistry teaching? RQ4. What are the challenges of using augmented reality in chemistry teaching? | 1. Many distinct topics (e.g., molecular structures), as seen in this row. 2. Smartphones and tablets were mainly utilized. 3. The advantages came from learning domains and technological aspects, such as intellectual skill development and ease of use, respectively. 4. Challenges existed, such as cognitive overload and technical problems. |
Vidak et al. [29] | SR of literature published from January 2012 to 3 November 2020 | Physics | Physics: Electromagnetic waves, Ray optics, Electrostatics, Magnetism, Thermodynamics and heat, Atomic and molecular physics, Mechanics/mechanical waves, Astronomy, and Electrical circuits | All physics learners | To review how AR was used in physics education | 60 | RQ1. What instructional techniques and strategies were used for AR-based learning of physics? RQ2. Is the number of studies related to AR in teaching about physics increasing over time? RQ3. How are the articles on AR in teaching physics topics distributed geographically? RQ4. What types of participants and how many of them were included in earlier AR physics education research? RQ5. In what learning environments was the AR physics education research situated? RQ6. What are the most popular software development and hardware technologies for AR-based teaching about physics? RQ7. What physics topics were covered through earlier AR physics education articles? | 1. The discovery strategy and inquiry-based instructional technique were widely embraced. 2 and 3. The popularity of AR in physics education has expanded across the globe. 4. Many studies were conducted on the K-12 level with fewer than 100 participants. 5. AR was mainly used in the classroom. 6. Unity 3D and Vuforia (for software), and mobile devices (for hardware). 7. Various topics such as electrical circuits and mechanics. |
Source | Scope | Field | Subjects/Concepts | Target Population | Purpose/Aim | Total Papers | Research Questions (RQs) as Originally Appeared | Overall Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tsichouridis et al. [28] | Meta-analysis of literature between 1998 and 2019 (primarily focused on the past ten years before this paper was published) | Science | Zoology, Physics, Programming, Heat conduction, Science, Electricity, Natural sciences, Chemistry, STEM, and Distance perception | Primary to tertiary education | To see the implementation and effectiveness of AR and VR in science education | 19 | N/A | VR and AR positively impacted learning: they mainly kept high motivation, improved learning outcomes, and helped low-performing learners in primary education; they helped with increased participation and addressed misconceptions in lower-secondary education; students in upper-secondary education showed boosted motivation and enhanced practical skills; in tertiary education, they provided interactive practical experiences, beneficial for physics and space-related concepts. AR and VR created engaging environments that benefitted learning. |
Zhang and Wang [31] | SR of papers between 2002 and 2021 | Science | Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Environmental science, Physiology, STEM, Science, Geography, Medical science, and Physics | K-12 | To provide insights into AR/VR theories and practices in K-12 science | 61 | RQ1. What were the research trends? RQ2. What theories were grounded upon or adopted? RQ3. What types of learning activities have been conducted? RQ4. What research designs were used? RQ5. What types of VR/AR technologies were employed? RQ6. What kind of science education content was involved? RQ7. What were the learning outcomes? | 1 and 2. Increased publications since 2019, focusing on K-12 physics and biology. >30% studies used constructivism. 3. The emphasis was on inquiry-based learning. 4 and 5. Quantitative and experimental study designs and technologies, such as marker-based AR and tablet PCs, were used. 6 and 7. Many studies aimed at enhancing scientific understanding and investigating cognitive and affective goals. Multiple suggestions for future studies, such as using longer and repeated study designs for robust evaluations. |
3.2. Virtual Reality
3.2.1. STEM Disciplines
3.2.2. Study Goals
3.2.3. Major Findings
Source | Scope | Field | Subjects/Concepts | Target Population | Purpose/Aim | Total Papers | Research Questions (RQs) as They Originally Appeared | Overall Findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cromley et al. [26] | Meta-analysis of papers published between 2000 and 2020 | STEM | N/A | Middle schoolers to undergraduates (excluding health fields) | To foster informed decisions for using VR in STEM | 18 | RQ1. Does the research base on learning with virtual reality support this level of use? RQ2. Does VR actually help learning, and if so, for whom and under what conditions? RQ3. To what extent have theory-driven constructs such as presence been tested in studies of VR efficacy for learning? RQ4. Does active learning help learners get more from VR? | VR positively impacted learning (g = 0.33). Moderator effects were noted in VR redesign, place settings, learning in science, desktop displays, and across learning outcomes. Desktop VR had more effects than head-mounted displays. Good effects for factual, conceptual, and transfer learning. |
Lui et al. [27] | SR of papers published between 1 January 2013 and 13 May 2022 | Science | Marine ecology, Human anatomy, Medical science, Life science, Geoscience, Biochemistry, Physics, Biology, (Organic) Chemistry, Astronomy, and Environmental science | Higher education | To explore learning theories and affordances of immersive VR (IVR) in science | 29 | RQ1. How should IVR lessons in higher education be designed to optimize students’ learning outcomes? | “Agency” was a prevalent design in IVR. IVR impacts were mixed for students with low prior knowledge. Effective IVR would minimize cognitive loads, improve the process of Select–Organize–Integrate, and use generative learning strategies for active learning. |
di Lanzo et al. [41] | SR of literature published from 2015 to 2019 | Engineering | Pneumatics, Civil, Electrical, Software, Industrial, and Mechanical engineering | Not specified | To understand the use of VR in engineering education | 17 | Guiding RQ1. What are the ways in which virtual reality is currently being used within the context of engineering education? | Three-dimensional virtual classrooms were effective for teaching complex industrial processes but faced challenges, such as high processing needs and immersion deficiency. VR in engineering lacked a comprehensive assessment model despite showing promise in good learning outcomes. |
Pirker et al. [42] | SR of literature published after 2013 | Computer science (CS) | Object-oriented programming, Coding, Computational thinking, Innovation and invention and skills, Project-oriented working, System development, Security concepts, and Theoretical CS | Not specified | To investigate VR in computer science education | 13 | RQ1. How relevant is the topic learning and teaching computer science topics with VR in relation to the numbers of research publication? RQ2. What are the learning scenarios and reported learning objectives regarding computer science education? RQ3. What are the reported advantages of using VR for reaching the learning objectives? RQ4. What technologies were used for the VR experiences? RQ5. What forms of locomotion and interaction with the environment are implemented within the VRs? RQ6. What are the distinguished target groups and which engagement strategies were chosen regarding the respective target group? RQ7. What issues and problems were reported within the studies? | 1. Stable publications on the topic in recent years. 2. Various CS topics taught covering all-cognitive-level learning goals. 3. Notable advantages such as helpful interaction, interesting design, and so on. 4. Desktop VR was popular. 5. Comfort needed to be essential in locomotion methods. 6. Various engagement strategies based on the specific context. 7. Challenges included interface interaction, user acceptance, and cybersickness. |
4. Discussion
4.1. Similarities and Differences Among Studies
4.2. Advantages and Limitations of AR and VR
Aspect | Category | Summary |
---|---|---|
Similarities and Differences | Similarities | All the selected STEM-related studies focused on one or more types of XR technology (specifically, AR and VR) and had explicit study goals/purposes/aims/research questions to guide their research. Many studies (a) revealed a growing research interest in the topic, (b) provided examples of STEM disciplines or topics to be covered by their corresponding type of XR technology, (c) appeared to have reliable or generalizable findings within their scope, and (d) gave a sense of the effectiveness of using XR in STEM education primarily in terms of advantages and challenges. |
Differences | The selected STEM-related studies mainly differed by their research goals/purposes/aims/research questions, making some seem more applied. This fundamental difference likely led to different (a) choices of the type of study conducted (i.e., SR or meta-analysis; quantitative or qualitative in analysis) and (b) year ranges of interest in choosing the studies to be examined. | |
Advantages of the Technology | AR | The main advantages of using AR in STEM include (a) general adaptability and versatility in the actual use, (b) sufficient support by existing tools [29,33,36,40], and (c) benefits to learners such as boosted confidence in learners [36] and helpful learning interactions [32]. |
VR | The main advantages of using VR in STEM include (a) general adaptability and versatility in the actual use, (b) the positive impact on learning outcomes [26], and (c) specific benefits to learners such as allowing effective interactions and improving their understanding of hard concepts through good visualizations [42]. | |
Overall | Using XR in STEM can (a) make learning experiences better at different education levels, (b) facilitate the understanding of concepts taught, and (c) improve learners’ skills such as critical thinking and problem-solving [28,31]. | |
Limitations of the Technology | AR | This technology may (a) have issues with marker detection [32] and (b) cause some physical discomfort [33]. |
VR | This technology may (a) cause some cybersickness [42] and (b) have challenging interactions with interfaces [42]. | |
Overall | Due to complexity or unfamiliarity, XR may lead to (a) learning difficulties and (b) ineffective learning results [31]. |
4.3. Overall Trends
5. Conclusions, Limitations, Implications, and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Stanney, K.M.; Nye, H.; Haddad, S.; Hale, K.S.; Padron, C.K.; Cohn, J.V. Extended reality (XR) environments. In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 782–815. [Google Scholar]
- Alnagrat, A.; Ismail, R.C.; Idrus, S.Z.S.; Alfaqi, R.M.A. A review of extended reality (XR) technologies in the future of human education: Current trend and future opportunity. J. Hum. Centered Technol. 2022, 1, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doolani, S.; Wessels, C.; Kanal, V.; Sevastopoulos, C.; Jaiswal, A.; Nambiappan, H.; Makedon, F. A review of extended reality (XR) technologies for manufacturing training. Technologies 2020, 8, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaman, A.; Abir, M.R.; Mursalin, S. Extended reality in education and training: Enhancing trustworthiness. Int. J. Sci. Res. Arch. 2024, 11, 1705–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauschnabel, P.A.; Felix, R.; Hinsch, C.; Shahab, H.; Alt, F. What is XR? Towards a framework for augmented and virtual reality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022, 133, 107289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguayo, C.; Videla-Reyes, R.; Veloz, T. Entangled cognition in immersive learning experience. Adapt. Behav. 2023, 31, 497–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Chi, H.L.; Wang, X. A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salah, B.; Abidi, M.H.; Mian, S.H.; Krid, M.; Alkhalefah, H.; Abdo, A. Virtual reality-based engineering education to enhance manufacturing sustainability in industry 4.0. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Logeswaran, A.; Munsch, C.; Chong, Y.J.; Ralph, N.; McCrossnan, J. The role of extended reality technology in healthcare education: Towards a learner-centred approach. Future Healthc. J. 2021, 8, e79–e84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takrouri, K.; Causton, E.; Simpson, B. AR technologies in engineering education: Applications, potential, and limitations. Digital 2022, 2, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khlaif, Z.N.; Mousa, A.; Sanmugam, M. Immersive extended reality (XR) technology in engineering education: Opportunities and challenges. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 2024, 29, 803–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, D.; Jiang, W.; Wang, C.; Dingler, T.; Velloso, E.; Goncalves, J. ShadowDancXR: Body gesture digitization for low-cost extended reality (XR) headsets. In Proceedings of the Companion Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, Virtual, 8–11 November 2020; pp. 79–80.
- Kini, V.G.; Ganeshrao, S.B.; Siddalingaswamy, P. XR review: A comprehensive analysis of visual function testing and gamification in extended reality environments. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 79714–79730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Shi, R.; Zheng, W.; Xie, W.; Kao, D.; Liang, H.N. Effect of frame rate on user experience, performance, and simulator sickness in virtual reality. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2023, 29, 2478–2488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gamba, I.A.; Hartery, A. The virtual reality radiology workstation: Current technology and future applications. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2024, 75, 08465371241230278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hua, H.; Hu, X.; Gao, C. A high-resolution optical see-through head-mounted display with eyetracking capability. Opt. Express 2013, 21, 30993–30998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Itoh, Y.; Klinker, G. Interaction-free calibration for optical see-through head-mounted displays based on 3D eye localization. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 29–30 March 2014; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 75–82. [Google Scholar]
- Plopski, A.; Itoh, Y.; Nitschke, C.; Kiyokawa, K.; Klinker, G.; Takemura, H. Corneal-imaging calibration for optical see-through head-mounted displays. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2015, 21, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meccawy, M. Creating an immersive XR learning experience: A roadmap for educators. Electronics 2022, 11, 3547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrov, P.D.; Atanasova, T.V. The effect of augmented reality on students’ learning performance in STEM education. Information 2020, 11, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aromataris, E.; Fernandez, R.; Godfrey, C.M.; Holly, C.; Khalil, H.; Tungpunkom, P. Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int. J.-Evid.-Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zotero. Credits and Acknowledgments. Available online: https://www.zotero.org/support/credits_and_acknowledgments (accessed on 28 June 2024).
- Parabhoi, L.; Seth, A.K.; Pathy, S.K. Citation management software tools: A comparison with special reference to Zotero and Mendeley. J. Adv. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2017, 6, 288–293. [Google Scholar]
- Stephen McMinn, H. Library support of bibliographic management tools: A review. Ref. Serv. Rev. 2011, 39, 278–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cromley, J.G.; Chen, R.; Lawrence, L.E. Meta-analysis of STEM learning using virtual reality: Benefits across the board. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2023, 32, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lui, A.L.; Not, C.; Wong, G.K. Theory-based learning design with immersive virtual reality in science education: A systematic review. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2023, 32, 390–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsichouridis, C.; Batsila, M.; Vavougios, D.; Ioannidis, G. Virtual and augmented reality in science teaching and learning. In The Impact of the 4th Industrial Revolution on Engineering Education; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 193–205. [Google Scholar]
- Vidak, A.; Šapić, I.M.; Mešić, V. Augmented reality in teaching about physics: First findings from a systematic review. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2415, 012008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, X.; Li, G.; Deng, X.; Luo, H. Enhancing K-16 science education with augmented reality: A systematic review of literature from 2001 to 2020. In Proceedings of the 2022 8th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network, Vienna, Austria, 30 May–4 June 2022; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, W.; Wang, Z. Theory and practice of VR/AR in K-12 science education—A systematic review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sırakaya, M.; Alsancak Sırakaya, D. Augmented reality in STEM education: A systematic review. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022, 30, 1556–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajit, G.; Lucas, T.; Louis, K. A systematic review of augmented reality in STEM education. Stud. Appl. Econ. 2021, 39, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hidayat, R.; Wardat, Y. A systematic review of augmented reality in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2023, 29, 9257–9282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Álvarez-Marín, A.; Velázquez-Iturbide, J.A. Augmented reality and engineering education: A systematic review. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2021, 14, 817–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, N.; Junaini, S. Augmented reality for learning mathematics: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2020, 15, 106–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazzuco, A.; Krassmann, A.L.; Reategui, E.; Gomes, R.S. A systematic review of augmented reality in chemistry education. Rev. Educ. 2022, 10, e3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalemkuş, J.; Kalemkuş, F. Effect of the use of augmented reality applications on academic achievement of student in science education: Meta analysis review. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2022, 31, 6017–6034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irwanto, I.; Dianawati, R.; Lukman, I. Trends of augmented reality applications in science education: A systematic review from 2007 to 2022. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (iJET) 2022, 17, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hidajat, F.A. Augmented reality applications for mathematical creativity: A systematic review. J. Comput. Educ. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- di Lanzo, J.A.; Valentine, A.; Sohel, F.; Yapp, A.Y.; Muparadzi, K.C.; Abdelmalek, M. A review of the uses of virtual reality in engineering education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2020, 28, 748–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirker, J.; Dengel, A.; Holly, M.; Safikhani, S. Virtual reality in computer science education: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Virtual Event, 1–4 November 2020; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Makransky, G.; Borre-Gude, S.; Mayer, R.E. Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2019, 35, 691–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, E.A.L.; Wong, K.W. Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Comput. Educ. 2014, 79, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klingenberg, S.; Jørgensen, M.L.; Dandanell, G.; Skriver, K.; Mottelson, A.; Makransky, G. Investigating the effect of teaching as a generative learning strategy when learning through desktop and immersive VR: A media and methods experiment. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 2115–2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azevedo, R. Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educ. Psychol. 2015, 50, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofer, M. Adolescents’ development of individual interests: A product of multiple goal regulation? Educ. Psychol. 2010, 45, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fidan, M.; Tuncel, M. Integrating augmented reality into problem based learning: The effects on learning achievement and attitude in physics education. Comput. Educ. 2019, 142, 103635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pena, B.M.; Gil Quilez, M. The importance of images in astronomy education. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2001, 23, 1125–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akçayır, M.; Akçayır, G.; Pektaş, H.M.; Ocak, M.A. Augmented reality in science laboratories: The effects of augmented reality on university students’ laboratory skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 57, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, S.-J.; Liu, Y.-C.; Chen, P.J.; Hsieh, M.R. Evaluation of AR embedded physical puzzle game on students’ learning achievement and motivation on elementary natural science. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2018, 28, 451–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mejías Borrero, A.; Andújar Márquez, J. A pilot study of the effectiveness of augmented reality to enhance the use of remote labs in electrical engineering education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2012, 21, 540–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.; Wang, Y.; Tjondronegoro, D.; Song, W. Construction of interactive teaching system for course of mechanical drawing based on mobile augmented reality technology. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2018, 13, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.C.K.; Chen, M.C.; Chang, C.K. Assessing the effectiveness of learning solid geometry by using an augmented reality-assisted learning system. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2013, 23, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palancı, A.; Turan, Z. How does the use of the augmented reality technology in mathematics education affect learning processes?: A systematic review. Int. J. Curric. Instr. Stud. 2021, 11, 89–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tee, N.Y.K.; Gan, H.S.; Li, J.; Cheong, B.H.P.; Tan, H.Y.; Liew, O.W.; Ng, T.W. Developing and demonstrating an augmented reality colorimetric titration tool. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, B.; Feng, M.; Lowe, H.; Kesselman, J.; Harrison, L.; Dempski, R.E. Increasing enthusiasm and enhancing learning for biochemistry-laboratory safety with an augmented-reality program. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 1747–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thees, M.; Kapp, S.; Strzys, M.P.; Beil, F.; Lukowicz, P.; Kuhn, J. Effects of augmented reality on learning and cognitive load in university physics laboratory courses. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 108, 106316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faridi, H.; Tuli, N.; Mantri, A.; Singh, G.; Gargrish, S. A framework utilizing augmented reality to improve critical thinking ability and learning gain of the students in physics. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2020, 29, 258–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parong, J.; Mayer, R.E. Learning science in immersive virtual reality. J. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 110, 785–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, R. Declarative knowledge acquisition in immersive virtual learning environments. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2016, 24, 1319–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trindade, J.; Fiolhais, C.; Almeida, L. Science learning in virtual environments: A descriptive study. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2002, 33, 471–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strzys, M.P.; Kapp, S.; Thees, M.; Klein, P.; Lukowicz, P.; Knierim, P.; Schmidt, A.; Kuhn, J. Physics holo.lab learning experience: Using smartglasses for augmented reality labwork to foster the concepts of heat conduction. Eur. J. Phys. 2018, 39, 035703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, K.T.; Ball, C.; Francis, J.; Ratan, R.; Boumis, J.; Fordham, J. Augmented versus virtual reality in education: An exploratory study examining science knowledge retention when using augmented reality/virtual reality mobile applications. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2019, 22, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil-Quílez, M.J.; Martínez-Peña, B.; De la Gándara, M.; Ambite, M.; Laborda, M. Constructing a model of digestion in a primary school using a theatrical performance. J. Life Sci. 2012, 6, 91–98. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhang, Y.; Feijoo-Garcia, M.A.; Gu, Y.; Popescu, V.; Benes, B.; Magana, A.J. Virtual and Augmented Reality in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: An Umbrella Review. Information 2024, 15, 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15090515
Zhang Y, Feijoo-Garcia MA, Gu Y, Popescu V, Benes B, Magana AJ. Virtual and Augmented Reality in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: An Umbrella Review. Information. 2024; 15(9):515. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15090515
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Yiqun, Miguel A. Feijoo-Garcia, Yiyin Gu, Voicu Popescu, Bedrich Benes, and Alejandra J. Magana. 2024. "Virtual and Augmented Reality in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: An Umbrella Review" Information 15, no. 9: 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15090515