Finds documents with both search terms in any word order, permitting "n" words as a maximum distance between them. Best choose between 15 and 30 (e.g. NEAR(recruit, professionals, 20)).
Finds documents with the search term in word versions or composites. The asterisk * marks whether you wish them BEFORE, BEHIND, or BEFORE and BEHIND the search term (e.g. lightweight*, *lightweight, *lightweight*).
The integration of Extended Reality (XR) technologies, encompassing Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR), is revolutionizing higher education by creating immersive learning experiences that mimic real-world scenarios. This systematic review examines the global trends in XR adoption, revealing a widespread interest across six continents and 48 countries, with a significant focus on undergraduate education and disciplines such as science, teacher education, and engineering. The study highlights the pedagogical affordances of XR, including situated immersion, inquiry learning, and the concretization of imagination, which enhance learner engagement, empathy, and deeper learning experiences. XR is utilized in various ways, such as simulations, visualizations, problem-solving, and gaming, each offering unique learning opportunities. However, the review also identifies challenges, including the impact on students, inauthentic environments, financial and time constraints, and technical issues, which must be addressed for successful implementation. The findings provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of XR in higher education, offering valuable insights for researchers, educators, and policymakers seeking to leverage these technologies for enhanced learning outcomes.
AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
Abstract
The use of XR, which encompasses Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR) has evolved rapidly in higher education (HE), driven by advancements in technology and the increasing recognition of its potential to enhance learning experiences. This systematic review provides unique findings with an up-to-date examination of the use of XR in HE from 2020–2024. Using PRISMA principles and protocol, 295 articles were identified for full examination. Using a priori, and grounded coding, the data from the 295 articles were extracted, analyzed, and coded to determine the trends in HE research regarding the use of XR. A priori coding revealed that research was conducted on six continents and in 48 countries, with the US leading in the number of publications. A prior coding also showed that VR was the most frequently used type of XR in the research studies (58%), that the research took place most often in undergraduate settings (81%), and that science was the academic discipline with the most studies (21%). Grounded coding identified three domains regarding the purpose of using XR: knowledge acquisition (51%), psychomotor learning (35%), and affective learning (14%). The grounded coding also revealed that XR was being used in four ways to facilitate learning: 1) Simulation, 2) Visualization, 3) Problem-solving, and 4) Gaming. Lastly, four challenges were identified: 1) Impact on students, 2) Inauthentic environments, 3) Time and money, and 4) Usability and technical issues. This systematic review revealed gaps in the literature to be used as a springboard for future researchers studying the use of XR in HE.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
The use of XR, which encompasses Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR), has evolved rapidly in higher education (HE), driven by advancements in technology and the increasing recognition of its potential to enhance learning experiences. XR technologies can create experiences similar to real experiences in the physical world. Scholars (viz., Hollander, 2018; Marks & Thomas, 2022; Pomerantz, 2019; Wang et al., 2018) state that XR is one of the key technologies for HE in the medium and long term, and advocate for the expanded use of XR in this setting with further research into that use. These research findings will help inform researchers and practitioners seeking to deploy XR in HE settings. Therefore, this study is a systematic review of XR in HE to achieve this goal. The overarching question for this study is: What are the trends in HE research regarding the use of XR?
Background
With the new pedagogical opportunities afforded by XR, these technologies are gaining attraction in HE (Tilhou et al., 2020). Pedagogical affordances include situated immersion, inquiry learning, and concretization of imagination (Ke et al., 2020). These new pedagogical approaches offer the learner benefits with a sense of embodiment, empathy (Crompton et al., 2023), deeper engagement (Makransky & Mayer, 2022), and an enriched learning experience (Southgate et al., 2019). There are a variety of descriptions for XR and the sub-categories. In this study, XR is defined as systems that include augmented, virtual, and mixed reality systems. These individual definitions of VR, AR, and XR follow those of Crompton et al., (2020).
Advertisement
The use of XR in education began in the 1990 s, but high costs and limited technology restricted its widespread adoption. In the early 2000 s, improvements in computer graphics and processing power made VR more accessible, and HE began experimenting with VR for simulations in medical training, architecture, and engineering (Yildirim et al., 2018). In 2007, the release of the first iPhone sparked interest in AR, with educational apps starting to emerge, though their use was still limited by technology and funding. The introduction of technologies such as Oculus Rift, Google Glass, and Microsoft HoloLens provided new possibilities for interactive learning experiences (Elmqaddem, 2019). As a result, XR technologies became more integrated into HE curricula and institutions began creating dedicated XR labs and centers to explore and develop new applications. Routine classroom use became more commonplace and desirable (EDUCAUSE, 2020; Maas & Hughes, 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of XR as universities sought new ways to engage students remotely (Filho et al., 2023). Virtual labs, classrooms, and field trips became more common. Innovations included virtual campuses, immersive storytelling, and remote collaboration tools. Today, to capture the power of XR, some institutions of HE are even developing XR content in-house, partnering with tech companies, and using XR to enhance inclusivity and accessibility in education (Georgieva et al., 2024).
Extant Systematic Reviews
Scholars have conducted several systematic reviews in the past regarding the use of XR in HE, each contributing important information for scholars to better understand the use of XR. However, these reviews focused on specific aspects of XR, not providing a comprehensive assessment of the field. For example, some scholars have conducted systematic reviews focusing on a particular subject domain (architecture and construction, manufacturing, medicine, engineering, STEM, and teacher education). In addition, other scholars have investigated the use of a specific type of XR or use with a particular type of student or in a specific setting.
Studies investigating the use of XR in specific subject matter domains include Hajirasouli and Banihashemi (2022) who looked at the use of AR in architecture and construction education. Their review revealed that VR results in more persistent learning and long-lasting knowledge, more in-depth perception and spatial representation, and more realistic and practical learning experiences. Doolani et al. (2020) examined the use of XR in manufacturing. This review investigated the tasks supported by using XR technologies and the applications of XR technology and identified the gaps in areas of XR technology and manufacturing that need more attention.
Two reviews investigated XR technology use in medical education. Moro et al. (2021) investigated VR and AR in teaching physiology and anatomy. Their review revealed that student test results were similar in settings using traditional teaching methods and in settings using VR and AR technology. Rad et al. (2022) examined using XR, VR, and AR in thoracic surgery training. The results indicated that junior trainees benefited by allowing them to operate in a realistic, yet ethically risk-free setting. In addition, preoperative planning time and workload were reduced and there was an increase in intraoperative performance.
Advertisement
Engineering education using AR was reviewed by Garcia et al. (2022) in Latin America only. The authors investigated how AR systems were designed, used, and evaluated in engineering education. Their results indicated that the use of AR in engineering education in Latin America is mostly pedagogically and technologically conservative and the research designs are diverse but still limited. A review of the use of AR to support STEM learning conducted by Mystakidis et al. (2022) concluded that there was widespread adoption of AR in engineering subjects and a scarcity of AR use in mathematics and technology. The study reported that students who used AR achieved better outcomes than students in traditional format settings. A study of MR only (Dieker et al., 2023) in teacher preparation from 2018–2023 revealed that MR simulation appears to provide a positive experience in teacher preparation programs. While all these studies examined the use of XR in specific disciplines, there is no systematic review that looked at using XR across all disciplines.
A look at using XR with one specific type of student was done in a review of the effectiveness of AR with special needs students (Jdaitawi & Kan’an, 2022). This study revealed that AR is mostly used in the intellectual disability setting but that AR also assists students in enhancing their social skills, social relationships, and engagement. Although this study provided important information, it did not look at students other than those with special needs.
In addition to investigating specific subject matter domains, some researchers focused only on the setting in which XR was used. COVID-19 was the impetus for a study by Nesenbergs et al. (2020) which investigated the use of AR and VR online. The results indicated that most of the technology was used in laboratory or practical exercises when physical presence was not feasible. Again, the narrow setting focus of this study limited its generalizability. A review of other settings would enhance the understanding of the use of XR in multiple places.
Two final systematic reviews looked at the use of XR in HE in general. However, they only investigated the use of VR, excluding an examination of AR and MR. Luo et al. (2021) reviewed the use of VR from 2000–2019. Basic science, social science, and health and medicine were the most common disciplinary domains. The two most common pedagogies for VR interventions were direct instruction and inquiry-based learning. Most VR interventions were enabled by computers or projectors and characterized by low levels of immersion, interaction, and imagination. Radianti et al. (2020) looked at the use of VR from 2009–2018. Their findings revealed that learning theories were not often considered in VR application development to assist and guide toward learning outcomes, that the evaluation of educational VR applications was primarily focused on the usability of the VR apps instead of learning outcomes, and VR has mostly been a part of experimental and development work rather than being applied regularly in actual teaching.
This review of the research available regarding the use of AR, VR, and MR in HE is informative but does not provide an up-to-date picture of the status of the use of these technologies in HE. None of these studies look at all the technologies. Many focus on just one (Hajirasouli & Banihashemi, 2022; Jdaitawi & Kan’an, 2022). Some focus on one geographic region (Garcia et al., 2022) or setting (Nesenbergs et al., 2020), and others on one discipline (Mystakidis et al., 2022; Rad et al., 2022). Finally, the systematic reviews only include studies to 2019. As the development, availability, and use of AR, VR, and MR have grown since 2019, there is a need for a review of the research since this time to inform both researchers and practitioners in the HE community of the current state of the field. In addition, a broader look is needed beyond specific subject matter domains, student populations, settings, and individual types of XR.
Purpose
Following the call for further research on XR in HE from Hollander (2018), Marks and Thomas (2022), Pomerantz (2019), and Wang et al. (2018), the purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of XR in HE. The researchers systematically reviewed the literature to gain an understanding of the extent of the research activity in the use of XR in HE, the context of the studies, use and challenges. The overarching question for this study is: What are the trends in HE research regarding the use of XR? Four sub-questions further refine this examination:
RQ 1. What were the geographic locations of the research?
RQ 2. Which types of XR were being used in HE, and what were the educational levels and disciplines involved?
RQ 3. How was the XR used for learning?
RQ 4. What challenges were identified when using XR?
The first two questions provide a contextual overview of where the studies took place with which populations. Question three and four provide an in-depth examination of the affordances and changes of using XR in HE.
Method
To answer the four questions driving this study, a systematic review methodology was conducted. To ensure rigor and transparency the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA principles; Page et al., 2021) were followed in conducting the full review. Most importantly, PRISMA principles guided the search, identification, and selection of the studies to be included in the study. Once the studies were selected, analysis was conducted using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative methods were used to provide basic statistics on numerical counts and percentages. Qualitative methods use deductive coding techniques with a priori coding, and inductive methods with grounded coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1995) that provide a summary of how XR is used in HE and generate new theories from the collective review of the extant studies (Gough et al., 2017).
Search Strategy
For this systematic review, only primary research studies were included. These studies involve direct data collection from participants by the researcher and exclude systematic reviews and theoretical papers. To ensure the quality of the research, only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were considered. Given the rapid evolution of XR technologies only articles from 2020 to 2024 were selected. This ensured that the findings would report the most current and up to date uses of XR in HE Table 1.
Table 1
Definitions of XR Systems
XR Systems
System name
System description
Virtual Reality (VR)
Virtual reality is an immersive experience as the user has a headset that generates images and sounds similar to a real or imaginary world
Augmented Reality (AR)
Augmented reality is experienced using a headset, glasses, or handset (e.g. phone or tablet) to view a live view of the physical world while elements are incorporated, such as images, video, sound, or GPS data. The AR is an overlay of digital content on the real world
Mixed Reality (MR)
Mixed reality, which is also called hybrid or extended reality is when real and virtual worlds are merged, and physical and digital objects co-exist and interact in real time. For example, while seeing a digital image, a user may be able to reach out and interact with the digital overlay
The data retrieval protocol involved an electronic search. For the electronic search, a Boolean string (Table 2) was developed to include three parts; Part 1) terms connected to XR, Part 2) the educational level, and Part 3) teaching or learning. The Boolean string was then used in databases connected to education, specifically Educational Research Complete, Education Source, ERIC, JSTOR, Wiley International Science, and Sage Journal On-line.
Table 2
Boolean Search Terms
Search Section
Search Terms
Part 1
"Virtual reality" OR "augmented reality" OR "mixed reality" OR "XReality" OR "AR" OR "VR" OR "MR" OR "immersive learning environment" OR "haptic" OR "head-mounted displays" OR "cinematic reality" OR "wearable technology" OR "XR Reality" OR "Extended Reality" OR "Cross Reality"
Part 2
“higher education” OR “tertiary education”
Part 3
learning OR teaching
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Following the Boolean search, the databases retrieved 795 articles for possible inclusion in the systematic review. The deduplication feature in the databases automatically eliminated duplicates within each database. However, an additional ten duplicates were removed across the databases. This reduced the number of possible studies to 785. The 785 were subsequently evaluated to determine their alignment with the inclusion/exclusion criteria outlined in Table 3.
Table 3
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion
Exclusion
• Primary research
• Peer Review journal articles
• Studies published in English
• Studies in higher education/tertiary education
• Studies involving XR (AR, VR, & MR)
• Includes the use of a headset*that provides a 3D visual experience
• Virtual experiences not using a headset/2D virtual experiences
*Headsets can include cardboard options as well as market devices, such as Oculus and HTC Vive
In determining the articles for inclusion, two researchers independently assessed each article based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with inter-rater reliability calculated using percentage agreement (Belur et al., 2018). Initially, the researchers achieved a 95% agreement. After resolving the small discrepancies through discussion, they reached a 100% agreement. Therefore, 490 articles were excluded based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 295 articles met the inclusion criteria for this study. Figure 1 shows the number of articles excluded according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the final number of studies included in this systematic review.
A priori and grounded coding was used to then analyze the data within the studies.
A Priori
A priori refers to knowledge or assumptions that are established before the analysis or research begins. Geographic locations, types of XR, academic levels, and disciplines were all listed and counted as a priori data. Geographic locations by continent and country; XR as Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR); academic levels as undergraduate or graduate students; and disciplines as areas, such as engineering, art, languages, architecture.
Grounded Coding
Grounded coding is a qualitative research method where categories and themes are developed directly from the data through an iterative process of coding and constant comparison. The intended outcomes, affordances, and challenges were all examined using grounded coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1995). Grounded coding is developed through an inductive method, without relying on pre-determined categories or theories. As an extra step in the grounded coding, "In vivo" coding (Saldana, 2015), which uses language from the original articles, was also employed to maintain consistency with the authors'original meanings. The grounded coding process followed a constant comparative method, where researchers examined and coded text segments from the articles. As the coding progressed, trends emerged in similar codes across articles. Codes were considered theoretically saturated when all data on uses, affordances, and challenges fit within a code. If necessary, codes were further divided into axial codes. Two researchers applied grounded coding to the articles, achieving an initial inter-rater agreement of 95%, which reached 100% after discussing the final discrepancies.
Findings and Discussion
RQ 1: What were the geographic locations of the research?
The data showed that research on XR took place across the globe in 48 different countries and on six continents. Of the 295 studies, 31% took place in North America, with 93% from the United States. Asia (30%) was the second largest region represented, with China and Taiwan accounting for 42% of the research studies in this region. Ranking third in this study, Europe (20%) reflected a wide diversity of countries researching XR (19). Africa (2%), South America (2%), and Australia/New Zealand (8%), accounted for the balance of the research studies included in this study, see Fig. 2.
The United States and China may have the largest number of research publications because these are both large, developed countries. This may provide the opportunity for money to support research grants focused on XR. However, it is encouraging that the study of XR is happening globally with 48 different countries investigating this topic. Other scholars have not examined the geographic distribution of XR studies globally. This is the first study to do so. However, the results of this study indicate that there is worldwide interest in the use of XR. Researchers need to investigate the extent of this research globally and share the results.
RQ 2: What types of XR are being used in HE, and in what educational levels and disciplines did the XR research take place?
Types of XR
The data showed that VR was the most frequently used type of XR in the research studies (58%), followed by AR (33%), MR (7%) and finally XR (2%), see Fig. 3. Virtual Reality (VR) may have more studies focused on this type of reality because the VR environment is easier to control. This can be beneficial in educational settings by reducing environmental distractions. These distractions can stem from other students as well as the real-world location. Augmented Reality (AR) can also introduce real-world distractions that may hinder learning. Nonetheless, AR has been effectively utilized to help students connect real-world phenomena with learning content. Scholars (e.g., Marto et al., 2021) note that AR provides users with a realistic and intuitive sensory experience. The VR studies in this systematic review are often used to simulate real-world environments that students could not physically visit, providing an alternative to real experiences that would otherwise be unfeasible. Few studies involving Mixed Reality (MR) were found, reflecting the paucity of existing literature on the topic. This may also be attributed to the additional technological requirements necessary for an MR environment.
The aggregated a priori findings revealed that the majority of the studies took place at the undergraduate level (81%). Studies at the graduate level took place in 15% of the studies and 3% of the studies involved undergraduate and graduate students. Only 1% of the studies took place investigating XR with HE faculty, see Fig. 4.
The results of this study may be due to the larger number of undergraduate students to graduate student populations globally. UNESCO (Craft, 2023) states that undergraduate students typically represent about 80–90% of the total student population in HE institutions, while graduate students make up the remaining 10–20%. Given this global distribution of student educational levels, it makes sense that research in undergraduate environments is the predominant setting for XR research as they are more accessible to faculty conducting research.
Educational Disciplines
The investigation of the academic disciplines involved in researching the use of XR revealed 10 codes with subdisciplines for the major discipline areas, see Fig. 5. The academic discipline with the most studies was science (21%) with six sub-disciplines. Second was education (20%) with four subdisciplines, and engineering (14%) with 10 subdisciplines. The remaining disciplines were medical studies (11%) second language study (8%), social science, humanities and arts (10%), business (4%), architecture (2%), math (1%), and other (7%).
One of the benefits of using XR as a tool for learning is the opportunity to interact with the subject matter content in ways that are not possible in regular classrooms and laboratories (Alnagrat et al., 2022). In an XR learning environment, students have access to areas they would not normally go to and have the opportunity to practice skills and learn from their mistakes without real-world consequences, such as the use of dangerous chemicals in a chemistry lab. The top three disciplines in which XR research took place, science, teacher education, and engineering are disciplines in which students can benefit from simulations that create physical phenomena and environments. Students can engage with interactive scenarios that simulate real-life challenges, whether in the laboratory, the classroom, or the field.
One example of these simulations includes a study of pre-service teachers (Larson et al., 2020) who used TeachLive™, a mixed-reality teaching simulator to practice responding to specific student behaviors and situations. Another example is a civil engineering class (Arif, 2021), where students inspected bridges and were able to develop bridge rating systems.
RQ 3: How was XR used for learning?
The grounded coding of the data revealed three overarching domain codes for using XR to facilitate learning: the knowledge domain, the psychomotor domain, and the affective domain. These domains matched existing established educational frameworks for types of learning. The knowledge domain has knowledge acquisition or transfer as the learning goal. It also involves both the knowledge of facts and information and the understanding of the interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together (Meyer & Sugiyama, 2007). The psychomotor domain is where procedural knowledge about how to do something is learned. This learning is manifested through behavior (e.g., knowing how to complete a task or skill) (Anderson et al., 2001). The affective domain involves emotions, attitudes, and values and is concerned with how learners internalize and exhibit attitudes and feelings (Krathwohl et al., 1964), see Fig. 6.
This systematic review identified that more than half of the studies were in the knowledge domain, (51%). One example of knowledge acquisition was in a biochemistry class (Peterson et al., 2020), where immersive augmented reality (AR) visors, specifically the Microsoft HoloLens, were used to reinforce learning about biomolecular structures. AR exercises were developed to allow students to review concepts relevant to protein or DNA structure.
The psychomotor domain was investigated in 35% of the research studies. An example of procedural knowledge was the use of VR in dental training (Collaco et al., 2020). Students practiced the skill of needle insertion using a haptic VR simulator. The VR evaluated needle insertion features computed from a haptic device providing kinematic data. The VR was also able to automatically evaluate the performance of the student.
The final code was the affective domain. In this review, 14% of the studies focused on this domain. An example of using XR to impact affective outcomes involved computer science students (AbdelAziz et al., 2020) using a mobile VR-enhanced operating gaming system developed to determine whether the use of VR would impact students’ learning motivation. A second study in history, (Calvert and Abadia, 2020) involved students using an educational VR experience that featured an immersive narrative that put students in the center of a historical moment in WWII. Students using VR reported higher engagement, presence, and empathy than the 360° video groups.
In addition to identifying the three domains in which XR was used, the grounded coding of the data revealed that XR was being used in four different ways: 1) Simulation, 2) Visualization, 3) Problem-solving, and 4) Gaming. Each of these approaches provided different affordances. Simulation provides highly immersive environments that can replicate real-world scenarios, allowing users to practice in conditions that closely resemble those they will face in the real world. Simulation allows the safe repetition of high-risk tasks, such as surgical procedures or hazardous material handling, without the associated risks. Finally, simulations can provide real-time feedback and analytics, helping students to learn from their mistakes and improve their performance quickly.
A simulation study (Paxinou et al., 2020) in which biology students were trained in microscopy via a virtual biology lab, Onlabs, allowed them to develop their skills to properly handle a real light microscope in the wet biology lab. The results indicated that their grasp of the concepts and conceptual knowledge increased by 31.15% in comparison with students who were trained through the conventional face-to-face tutorial or the video method.
XR allows students to visualize complex data sets and models in three dimensions, making it easier to understand and analyze data patterns and relationships. It also enhances spatial awareness and understanding. Students can rapidly prototype and modify designs in a virtual space, seeing changes in real-time and understand the impact of modifications immediately. Finally, XR can overlay proposed structures onto real-world environments, providing context and helping to assess the impact of new developments.
Visualizing molecular conformations and complex compound structures and chemical transformations in 3D is one of the most difficult tasks for undergraduate chemistry students. One example of using XR for visualization involved the development of several 3D animations of fundamental chemical transformations (Abdinejad et al., 2021). The AR app, ARchemy simulated designated molecular structures in a screen-based 3D environment. This allowed for the enhancement of static textbook images with live 3D models and animations. In the analysis of student responses, seventy percent of the participants agreed that the ARchemy app positively impacted their learning.
XR can enhance problem-solving skills by allowing students to interact with data in real time, exploring different scenarios and outcomes. Students can repeatedly test and refine their solutions in a virtual environment. Finally, XR can enable multiplayer experiences where learners work together to solve problems, promoting teamwork and collaborative skills. One example of the use of XR for problem-solving occurred in a study investigating the effect of VR on problem-solving-based learning (Wu et al., 2020). In this study VR was used to help solve problems regarding electrical circuit design units. Students in this study performed better in electrical circuit design tasks and the transfer of knowledge to real-world settings than the control group. In addition, these students reported a higher sense of presence and self-efficacy.
XR can gamify learning tasks making the learning process more enjoyable and can work to motivate students. Games can provide real-time feedback and corrections, helping students understand mistakes and improve their performance. Games in XR can provide engaging narratives that make learning more interesting and memorable, enhancing retention and comprehension. A study using a VR game-based English mobile learning application (Chen & Hsu, 2020) investigated student English learning effectiveness, student game engagement, and self-regulated learning from a cognitive and psychological perspective. The results indicated that both game engagement and game experience significantly influenced self-efficacy, intrinsic value, and test anxiety.
RQ4: What challenges were identified when using XR?
Integrating XR into HE presents both opportunities and challenges. It is important to examine these challenges to ensure that the full potential of these technologies is effectively harnessed. From the data, grounded coding identified four codes for challenges with 14 axial codes, see Fig. 7. The four codes were 1) Impact on students, 2) Money and Time, 3) Inauthentic environments, and 4) Usability and technical issues, see Fig. 7.
During the coding, four axial codes emerged regarding the impact of XR on students. 1) decreased peer interaction and social isolation, 2) lack of control of emotions, 3) cognitive overload, and 4) physical discomfort. The concern of decreased peer interaction and social isolation was reported by three authors (Belda-Medina, 2022; Çoban et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023). This concern around the use of technology as an isolating factor has manifested itself with the use of other digital technologies (Fasoli, 2021). An awareness of the potential that XR can cause students to disengage and insulate themselves from others is a key factor to keep in mind when planning to use these technologies.
The possibility of cognitive overload was another axial code that emerged. In a study of the use of VR as a tool for teaching management, Huang et al. (2022) found that the experimental groups using VR reported higher cognitive load as compared to the control group using videos for learning. The novelty of these technologies may consume the valuable yet limited learner's cognitive processing capacity. This potential for cognitive overload necessitates the need for designing learning that reduces extraneous cognitive load.
Another code that emerged involved the possibility that students may find themselves in negative situations and may not be able to control their emotions, such as fear and excitement (Çoban et al., 2022). A final code was the physical discomfort XR may cause during use (e.g., dizziness, the feeling of lightheadedness), as well as the possible damage and harm it may cause to bodies, such as possible myopia in the eyes and fatigue of the various senses (Li et al., 2023).
Inauthentic Environments
Three axial codes were revealed regarding inauthentic environments: 1) artificial environments, 2) lack of realistic feelings of care and interaction, and 3) limitations and poor quality of materials and content. It is important to remember that XR creates and simulates real learning environments. These environments can lead to challenges regarding the authenticity of the learning experience. A study of teaching reading in a simulated environment (Allen & Stecker, 2023) presented unique challenges related to visual cues. In typical instruction, a student looks at text during instruction. In the simulated environment, it is not feasible to ask the student to read text directly from the teacher’s screen. In a study in which students used virtual reality to investigate natural hazard field sites (Wright et al., 2023), students reported a concern that a lack of a realistic experience inhibited real enjoyment and positive experiences. An assessment of pre-service teachers using VR (Bower et al., 2020) revealed that some teachers felt the VR lacked the realistic feeling of care and interactions. Poor quality of materials and content was a challenge in a study (Bonner et al., 2023) that analyzed teachers’ perspectives on planning and implementing a VR curriculum. Challenges occurred in the limitation of displaying written content created by instructors and students. The limited visual resolution of currently available VR headsets and the limited fidelity of motion-tracking when writing with virtual pens, restricted the content that can be displayed on an interactable VR object.
Money and Time
Three axial codes emerged regarding the cost of XR in both time and money: 1) time-consuming to learn, 2) resistance to learning new technologies, and 3) cost of software, hardware, and repair and maintenance. Many devices require a high level of skill to operate and thus require a teacher’s time to learn how to utilize the device for teaching (Bonner et al., 2023; Sunday et al., 2022). Some teachers may not have or be willing to invest the necessary time needed to ensure that the technology is effectively deployed. The initial cost of both the hardware and the software presented financial challenges (Agrawal & Austin, 2023; Hou et al., 2023). In addition, some applications are free for a certain period and then become available only through a paid prescription (Sat et al., 2023). Finally, as with all technology and equipment, repairs are inevitable and require the commitment of resources (Sunday et al., 2022).
Usability and Technical Issues
Four axial codes emerged regarding usability and technical issues regarding the use of XR. 1) access and availability of technology, 2) poor connectivity, 3) management concerns, and 4) rapid change of technology. Availability and access to XR were stated as challenges in a study (Lim, 2022) integrating AR into an art education curriculum. Issues of accessibility occurred with some programs only being available on iOS-based devices. Students in a study of the use of AR (Sat et al., 2023) reported concerns about poor connectivity making access to the technology difficult. The challenge of managing a classroom was raised in a study of AR as an authoring tool (Belda-Medina, 2022). Particular concern was raised in the studies regarding the challenges presented with multiuser interaction since most AR programs are single-user oriented. Class management could become a problem depending on the teacher-student ratio and technological resources available in the classroom. Finally, the challenge that technology is continually changing is an issue. In a study of VR in language learning (Baralt et al., 2022) the authors stated how staying current with software and hardware updates is critical.
Implications for Educators
This review of the trends in the use of XR in HE indicates that these technologies have provided a number of pedagogical opportunities. These opportunities have implications for educators. The fact that in all six populated continents researchers are investigating the use of XR technologies indicates a world-wide interest in their use. Finding a way to share the knowledge and expertise from different parts of the world would enrich the potential of XR. Four disciplines (education, science, engineering and medical) comprised 66% of the studies. While these academic disciplines have dominated the research in the use of XR, other disciplines would also benefit from its applications for learning. This is particularly true in disciplines where XR could promote the development of specific skills, such as in second language learning and communication. The majority of studies took place with undergraduate students. While this makes sense from a mathematical perspective, as the majority of students in HE are undergraduate students, educators should consider expanding the use of XR to post-graduate settings, particularly in those where procedural knowledge is important, as XR can provide opportunities for this type of learning. In more than half (51%) of the studies, XR was used for students to gain knowledge. As XR is an effective technology to engage students in both procedural and affective learning, educators should investigate these possibilities. This review of XR in HE did reveal challenges when using these technologies. Educators should be aware of these challenges and consider ways to ensure that they are addressed to ensure success when using XR.
Gaps, Future Research, and Limitations
From this systematic review, four gaps emerged in the data providing opportunities for future studies to investigate and provide a fuller understanding of how XR can used in HE. 1.) Most of the research was conducted at the undergraduate level. More research needs to be conducted at the graduate student level, as XR may provide many opportunities in this environment. 2.) This study revealed that only 1% of the studies took place investigating XR with HE faculty. This is an area that would benefit from further research with faculty examining the way XR can be integrated into teaching and learning.3.) This study revealed that there is an international interest in the use of XR in HE. However, there are many countries not yet examining the use of these tools in HE. Researchers across the globe should find ways to share their findings so that the potential benefits of XR can be further explored and within the context of that country. 4.) This systematic review only investigated research written in English. As this study revealed that research is taking place on six continents and 48 countries, it would be beneficial for research written in other languages to be reviewed and shared for researchers and practitioners to benefit from the findings. As stated in the gaps, this systematic review only reported on research written in English. In addition, this review only covered the span of the last five years of research from 2020–2024.
Conclusion
This study provides unique findings with an up-to-date examination of the use of XR in HE from 2020–2024. It is the first systematic review that looks at all types of XR across multiple dimensions. The findings revealed that of the 295 studies examined, research was conducted on six continents and in 48 countries. This significant geographic distribution of the research on XR indicates a worldwide interest in using this technology to enhance the educational experiences of students. The data showed that VR was the most frequently used type of XR in the research studies (58%), followed by AR (33%), and MR (7%). This may be due to it being easier to control the VR environment for both learning and conducting studies. Studies most frequently occurred in undergraduate settings (81%). This high percentage of undergraduate students may be the result of the fact that undergraduate students make up the majority of university students and they are easily accessible to researchers working and teaching in HE. The academic disciplines with the most studies were science (21%) followed by teacher education (20%), and engineering (14%). These disciplines, by their nature, are ones in which students can benefits from the opportunity presented by XR to interact with the subject matter content in ways that are not possible in regular classrooms and laboratories.
The study results indicated that XR was used to facilitate learning in three domains: knowledge, psychomotor, and affective. As these domains are important areas of learning, this study revealed that XR can be used effectively in all three domains. The data also revealed that XR was used in four ways: 1) Simulation, 2) Visualization, 3) Problem-Solving, and 4) Gaming. Each of these approaches allows XR to provide different learning opportunities for students to grow in their learning and experiences. Finally, four challenges were identified: 1) Impact on students, 2) Inauthentic environments, 3) Time and money, and 4) Usability and technical issues. Understanding that these challenges exist can help users of XR to be better prepared to successfully implement their use.
As scholars (Hollander, 2018; Marks & Thomas, 2022; Pomerantz, 2019; Wang et al., 2018) continue to advocate for the expanded use of XR, the findings of this study gain importance as they provide an up-to-date understanding of the use of XR in HE. Researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and funders can use these findings as a springboard to future studies on XR, with a clear direction as to the existing knowledge and the gaps that need to be addressed.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Mildred V. Jones, Yaser Sendi, Maram Aizaz, Katherina Nako, and Ricardo Randall for their work on the initial examination of the databases.
Declarations
Ethics Approval & Consent
This study uses public data so no ethics approval is required.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests for this study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
AbdelAziz, M. A., ElBakry, H. M., Riad, A. E. M., & Senouy, M. B. (2020). The impact of using virtual reality on student’s motivation for operating systems course learning. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society,16(2), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135076CrossRef
Abdinejad, M., Talaie, B., Qorbani, H. S., & Dalili, S. (2021). Student perceptions using augmented reality and 3D visualization technologies in chemistry education. Journal of Science Education and Technology,30(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09880-2CrossRef
Agrawal, S., & Austin, S. (2023). An idea to explore: Augmented reality and LEGO® brick modeling in the biochemistry and cell biology classroom‐two tactile ways to teach biomolecular structure—Function. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Education, 51(4), 439–445. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/10.1002/bmb.21734.
Alnagrat, A., Ismail, R. C., Idrus, S. Z. S., & Alfaqi, R. M. A. (2022). A review of extended reality (XR) technologies in the future of human education: Current trend and future opportunity. Journal of Human Centered Technology, 1(2), 81–96. 10.11113
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., & Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. Longman Publishing.
Arif, F. (2021). Application of virtual reality for infrastructure management education in civil engineering. Education and Information Technologies,26, 3607–3627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10429-yCrossRef
Baralt, M., Doscher, S., Boukerrou, L., Bogosian, B., Elmeligi, W., Hdouch, Y., & Vassigh, S. (2022). Virtual tabadul: Creating language-learning community through virtual reality. Journal of International Students, 12. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v12is3.4638.
Belda-Medina, J. (2022). Using augmented reality (AR) as an authoring tool in EFL through mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. Teaching English with Technology,22(2), 115–135.
Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2018). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372
Bonner, E., Lege, R., & Frazier, E. (2023). Teaching CLIL courses entirely in virtual reality: Educator experiences. CALICO Journal, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.22676
Bower, M., DeWitt, D., & Lai, J.W.M. (2020), Reasons associated with preservice teachers’ intention to use immersive virtual reality in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51, 2215–2233. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/10.1111/bjet.13009.
Chen, Y. L., & Hsu, C. C. (2020). Self-regulated mobile game-based English learning in a virtual reality environment. Computers & Education, 154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103910
Çoban, M., Akçay, N. O., & Çelik, İ. (2022). Using virtual reality technologies in STEM education: ICT pre-service teachers’ perceptions. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 14(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2022.14.015
Collaço, E., Kira, E., & Sallaberry, L. H. (2020). Immersion and haptic feedback impacts on dental anesthesia technical skills virtual reality training. Journal of Dental Education,85, 589–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12503CrossRef
Crompton, H., Bernacki, M., & Greene, J. (2020). Psychological foundations of emerging technologies for teaching and learning in higher education. Current Opinion in Psychology,36, 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.04.011CrossRef
Crompton, H., Nako, K., & Burke, D. (2023). The historical empathy measurement tool (HEMT). The Journal of Social Studies Research,47(3–4), 147–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/23522798231206184CrossRef
Dieker, L., Hughes, C., & Hynes, M. (2023). The past, the present, and the future of the evolution of mixed reality in teacher education. Education Science,13, 1070. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111070CrossRef
Doolani, S., Wessels, C., Kanal, V., Sevastopoulos, C., Jaiswal, A., Nambiappan, H., & Makedon, F. (2020). A review of extended reality (XR) technologies for manufacturing training. Technologies,8(4), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies8040077CrossRef
Elmqaddem, N. (2019). Augmented reality and virtual reality in education. Myth or reality? International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i03.9289.
Fasoli, M. (2021). The overuse of digital technologies: Human weaknesses, design strategies and ethical concerns. Philosophy and Technology,34, 1409–1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00463-6CrossRef
Filho, W., Salvia, A., Beynaghi, A., Fritzen, B., Ulisses, A., Avila, L. V., & Nikolaou, I. (2023). Digital transformation and sustainable development in higher education in a post-pandemic world. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology,31(1), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2023.2237933CrossRef
García, R. S., Borjas, L. G., Cruzata-Martínez, A., & Mancisidor, M. C. (2022). The use of augmented reality in Latin-American engineering education: A scoping review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11485
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). Sage.
Hajirasouli, A., & Banihashemi, S. (2022). Augmented reality in architecture and construction education: State of the field and opportunities. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,19(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00343-9CrossRef
Hou, H., Lai, J. H. K., & Wu, H. (2023). Project-based learning and pedagogies for virtual reality-aided green building education: Case study on a university course. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(6), 1308–1327. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-06-2022-0197
Huang, Y., Richter, E., Kleickmann, T., & Richter, D. (2022). Comparing video and virtual reality as tools for fostering interest and self-efficacy in classroom management: Results of a pre-registered experiment. British Journal of Educational Technology,54, 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13254CrossRef
Jdaitawi, M. T., & Kan'an, A. F. (2022). A decade of research on the effectiveness of augmented reality on students with special disability in higher education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech%2F11369
Ke, F., Pachman, M., & Dai, Z. (2020). Investigating educational affordances of virtual reality for simulation-based teaching training with graduate teaching assistants. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,32(6), 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09249-9CrossRef
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. Longmans, Green.
Larson, K. E., Hirsch, S. E., McGraw, J. P., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2020). Preparing preservice teachers to manage behavior problems in the classroom: The feasibility and acceptability of using a mixed-reality simulator. Journal of Special Education Technology,35(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419836415CrossRef
Li, Q., Liu, Q. & Chen, Y. (2023). Prospective teachers’ acceptance of virtual reality technology: a mixed study in rural China. Education Information Technology, 28, 3217–3248. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11219-w
Lim, K. (2022). Expanding multimodal artistic expression and appreciation methods through integrating augmented reality. International Journal of Art & Design Education,41(4), 562–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12434CrossRef
Luo, H., Gege, L., Qinna, F., Yuqin, Y., & Mingzhang, Z. (2021). Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A systematic review of the literature from 2000 to 2019. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,37(3), 887–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12538CrossRef
Maas, M. J., & Hughes, J. M. (2020). Virtual, augmented and mixed reality in K–12 education: A review of the literature. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,29(2), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1737210CrossRef
Makransky, G., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Benefits of Taking a Virtual Field Trip in Immersive Virtual Reality: Evidence for the Immersion Principle in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychology Review,34, 1771–1798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09675-4CrossRef
Marks, B., & Thomas, J. (2022). Adoption of virtual reality technology in higher education: An evaluation of five teaching semesters in a purpose-designed laboratory. Education and Information Technologies,27(1), 1287–1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10653-6CrossRef
Marto, A., Melo, M., Gonçalves, A., & Bessa, M. (2021). Development and evaluation of an outdoor multisensory AR system for cultural heritage. IEEE Access(9), 16419–16434.
Meyer, B., & Sugiyama, K. (2007). The concept of knowledge in KM: A dimensional model. Journal of Knowledge Management,11(1), 17–35.CrossRef
Moro, C., Birt, J., Stromberga, Z., Phelps, C., Clark, J., Glasziou, P., & Scott, A. M. (2021). Virtual and augmented reality enhancements to medical and science student physiology and anatomy test performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anatomical Sciences Education,14(3), 368–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2049CrossRef
Mystakidis, S., Christopoulos, A., & Pellas, N. (2022). A systematic mapping review of augmented reality applications to support STEM learning in higher education. Education and Information Technologies,27(2), 1883–1927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10682-1CrossRef
Nesenbergs, K., Abolins, V., Ormanis, J., & Mednis, A. (2020). Use of augmented and virtual reality in remote higher education: A systematic umbrella review. Education Sciences,11(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010008CrossRef
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C. … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Paxinou, E., Panagiotakopoulos, C. T., Karatrantou, A., Kalles, D., & Sgourou, A. (2020). Implementation and evaluation of a three-dimensional virtual reality biology lab versus conventional didactic practices in lab experimenting with the photonic microscope. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education,48(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21307CrossRef
Peterson, C. N., Tavana, S. Z., Akinleye, O. P., Johnson, W. H., & Berkmen, M. B. (2020). An idea to explore: Use of augmented reality for teaching three‐dimensional biomolecular structures. Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Education, 48(3), 276–282. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/10.1002/bmb.21341
Rad, A., Vardanyan, R., Thavarajasingam, S., Zubarevich, A., Eynde, J., Pompeu, M., B., Zhigalov, K., Nia, S., Ruhparwar, A., Weymann, A. (2022). Extended, virtual and augmented reality in thoracic surgery: A systematic review. Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, 34(2), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivab241
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education,147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778CrossRef
Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers, (3rd Edition). Sage.
Sat, M., Ilhan, F., & Yukselturk, E. (2023). Comparison and evaluation of augmented reality technologies for designing interactive materials. Education & Information Technologies, 28(9), 11545–11567. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/10.1007/s10639-023-11646-3
Southgate, E., Smith, S. P., Cividino, C., Saxby, S., Kilham, J., Eather, G., Scevak, J., Summerville, D., Buchanan, R., & Bergin, C. (2019). Embedding immersive virtual reality in classrooms: Ethical, organisational and educational lessons in bridging research and practice. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction,19, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.10.002CrossRef
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1995). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285).
Sunday, K., Wong, S. Y., Samson, B. O., & Sanusi, I. T. (2022). Investigating the effect of imikode virtual reality game in enhancing object-oriented programming concepts among university students in Nigeria. Education & Information Technologies, 27(5), 6819–6845. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.odu.edu/10.1007/s10639-022-10886-z
Tilhou, R., Taylor, V., & Crompton, H. (2020). 3D virtual reality in K-12 education: A thematic systematic review. In S. Yu, M. Ally, & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Emerging technologies and pedagogies in the curriculum. Bridging human and machine: Future education with intelligence. Springer.
Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H.-L., & Wang, X. (2018). A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,15(6), 1204. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15061204CrossRef
Wright, P. N., Whitworth, M., Tibaldi, A., Bonali, F., Nomikou, P., Antoniou, V., Wyk, V., & de Vries, B. (2023). Student evaluations of using virtual reality to investigate natural hazard field sites. Journal of Geography in Higher Education,47(2), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2022.2045573CrossRef
Wu, B., Hu, Y., & Wang, M. (2020). How do head-mounted displays and planning strategy influence problem-solving-based learning in introductory electrical circuit design? Educational Technology & Society, 23(3), 40–52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26926425
Yildirim, G., Elban M. & Yildirim, S. (2018). Analysis of use of virtual reality technologies in history education: A case study. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 4(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522.2018.42.62.69
