Next Article in Journal
Supporting Preservice Teachers in Analyzing Curriculum Materials
Next Article in Special Issue
Video-Based Feedback for Collaborative Reflection among Mentors, University Tutors and Students
Previous Article in Journal
Early Years Staff Experiences in a “Culture of Learning” Regarding Inclusion in a Nursery Class in a British School: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mediational Effect of Teacher-Based Discrimination on Academic Performance: An Intersectional Analysis of Race, Gender, and Income/Class
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Teachers’ Professional Training through Augmented Reality: A Literature Review

Juanjo Mena
Odiel Estrada-Molina
2 and
Esperanza Pérez-Calvo
Department of Education, University of Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain
Department of Education, International University of Valencia, 46002 Valencia, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(5), 517;
Submission received: 21 April 2023 / Revised: 15 May 2023 / Accepted: 16 May 2023 / Published: 19 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Online Practicum and Teacher Education in the Digital Society)


Practicum is regarded as a fundamental aspect of the training of prospective teachers. In addition, digital tools are increasingly used to enrich a traditional face-to-face experience. However, the technological exploitation of Augmented Reality (AR) by undergraduate students studying early childhood and primary education is low. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on the use of Augmented Reality (AR) in teacher training was conducted. Based on the overarching objectives of the ERASMUS+ project, entitled Digital Practicum 3.0 Exploring Augmented Reality, Remote Classrooms, and Virtual Learning to Enrich and Expand Pre-service Teacher Education Preparation (2020-1-ES01-KA226-HE-096120), the ultimate purpose of this study was to assess whether the use of this resource favors learning and expertise. Two main results are prominent. First, it is noteworthy how the use of this digital technology is limited, given the scarcity of studies. Second, the research studies available focus largely on the benefits of the use of AR in teacher education at a theoretical level. Thus, future research needs to further explore the use of AR in teacher training specially focused on student teachers’ learning processes.

1. Introduction

It is commonplace to consider a teaching practicum as a subject that plays a fundamental role in training prospective teachers in teacher education programs [1]. The reasons behind this point to the fact that prospective teachers have the opportunity to learn the profession within a school setting. However, the technological initiatives for undergraduate students in Early Childhood and Primary Education teaching programs to prepare them for such in practice learning from faculties are few [2].
Looking backwards, only a decade ago, great transformations occurred impacting society, economics, politics, and also education. One of the most significant transformations has been the digitalization of almost every representation (e.g., objects, images, sounds, documents, etc.) giving rise to the arrival of a so-called Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) society—a revolution that has promoted a different way of understanding our world and the rise of new types of learning that necessarily promote interactive and innovative processes [3]. Among these technologies, the use of immersive learning tools such as Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality have been brought to the forefront. This revolution was accelerated by the recent COVID-19 outbreak that forced professionals around the world to urgently adapt to digital formats [4].
Confronted with these changes, educational institutions have had to adapt rapidly to let their learners acquire and develop skills in, with, and for digital technologies that are necessary for new societal challenges [5]. Consequently, many schools at all levels have been prompted to include a number of technological resources that endorse the teaching-learning process through the use of innovative pedagogical approaches. It is commonplace that, nowadays, students do not learn in the same way as in years before. Therefore, it has been necessary to find effective and engaging pedagogical approaches to implement technologies and adapt the curriculum contents [6,7].
One of the current and future trends in education is the use of Augmented Reality (AR), an immersive technology that uses virtual elements in real scenarios and that teachers could make use of [8,9].
However, it is noteworthy that in the last five years, few systematic reviews have been published in the literature (as indexed in Scopus and the Web of Science) that are related to the use of AR in education. As Chang et al. [10] reported, there is a need for experimental studies to test the effectiveness of the use of AR in education. The available systematic reviews approach thorough bibliometric analysis of scientific production but fail to characterize the bibliometric indicators associated with the studies that analyze the use of AR in the specific domain of teacher training. Mainstream research provides evidence on the use of Augmented Reality and artificial intelligence in a general sense, that is, under the scope of ample concepts such education, teaching, or learning [11] and within specific contexts such as:
Science Education [12,13,14,15,16,17]
Language Learning [18],
Student Training Through M-learning [19]
Teaching Didactic Planning [20]
Development of Emotions [21]
Motivation and School Performance [22]
The Use of Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Environments [23]
It is also important to note that those studies focus on analyzing the pros and cons of using AR as an eligible technology to be used in the teacher education process. In the present study, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted to identify published research papers related to the use of AR in teacher education. Based on the main objectives of the ERASMUS+ project entitled Digital Practicum 3.0 Exploring Augmented Reality, Remote Classrooms, and Virtual Learning to Enrich and Expand Pre-service Teacher Education Preparation (2020-1-ES01-KA226-HE-096120), the ultimate goal was to examine whether the use of AR favors student teachers and school teachers learning the profession; specifically, whether it assists the teaching process when used as an active method.

1.1. Theoretical Framework

Technology-enhanced learning constitutes a crucial aspect of today’s educational programs [24]. The use of technologies combined with active methods triggers quality teaching as it facilitates the process of attending to students’ needs and pace of learning [25,26].
AR is defined as a part of the mixed reality within the reality–virtuality continuum that improves real environments through the use of the digital information projected onto them. AR uses technological applications “[…] to enrich users’ perceived physical environment with interactive virtual objects and information in real time” [15] (p. 2). The immersive nature of this technology makes it adaptable across any educational level and subject [27].
Even though AR and Virtual Reality (VR) are considered as part of the same spectrum (e.g., mixed reality), if they are confronted, it is noticeable that their relationship with the real world changes, which leads to different learning experiences when presenting the subject contents to students. Virtual Reality takes users to a world that does not exist, and AR allows us to be in the real world by adding a new perspective in which additional information is included through the superimposition of virtual elements in three dimensions [28]. The main characteristics of AR can be summarized as follows [29]:
It is a mixed reality that allows a view of the physical environment accompanied by the visualization of interrelated digital components.
The input is integrated and occurs in real time, i.e., both real and virtual information are delivered in parallel.
It offers a variety of layers of digital information, allowing the interleaving of different digital elements, such as text, graphics, audio, video, web pages, 3D objects, etc.
It allows interaction, which means the result of the digital information allows the user to interact with it; for example, 3D objects allow for a variety of options such as the objects being rotated or enlarged, where the animation can even be activated or deactivated. It can improve or change parts of reality when using technological devices that display additional information seen through the screen. It then requires the user’s mediation for it to take place.

Types of Augmented Reality (AR)

Depending on the physical component or marker that activates the digital information, different types of AR can be differentiated. The levels are understood as a type of measurement, which indicates the complexity of the technologies that are involved in developing Augmented Reality systems. Thus, the more levels there are, the greater the possibilities the applications can provide. Table 1 shows all the levels that currently exist, taking into account their physical and virtual components, as well as their functionality [30,31,32,33,34].
As Table 1 shows, the AR levels are based on three criteria: (1) the predominant technological component used such as QRs, images, 3D objects, GPS, and thermal footprints; (2) the virtual component (images, videos, etc.); (3) the functionality such as augmented perception where the technology gives extra information (virtual) when projected over real scenarios and artificial environments which are the type of artificial environments and experiences that are projected when using AR. We think that the classification based on augmented perception (3.1.) provides a more comprehensive understanding from an educational point of view as the different virtual projections can evoke particular learning patterns for students.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic review is a type of study that analyzes the production of scientific literature in a given range and area of knowledge [35]. For this reason, the PRISMA protocol and its extension PRISMA-S were used in addition to a meta-analysis of quantitative studies [36]. The PRISMA protocol consists of four steps to direct the design and implementation of systematic reviews. Step 1: main goal. Step 2: review protocol. Step 3: data mining. Step 4: data analysis. The PRISMA protocol was chosen on the basis that it is widely considered among the research community as an optimal procedure to carry out systematic reviews as well as a meta-analysis to allow for thorough quantitative and qualitative analyses.
Step 1: The main goal of the present systematic review is to analyze research related to the use of AR in teacher training. To meet this goal, the following research questions were posed:
Q1. What are the main bibliometric indicators of scientific production in terms of publication sources of a regional and institutional origin?
Q2. What are the most representative keywords used in the research studies?
Q3. What types of studies are most common in the scientific literature?
Q4. Which studies use reliability and validity processes in the design and application of the instruments applied?
Q5. Which augmented reality components are used depending on the user’s virtual component? At which stage of teacher training were they applied?

2.1. Validity

Step 2: review protocol.
Three types of validity were measured in this SLR:
Internal validity: the analysis of each study included the analysis of the keywords, abstract, article content, methodological approach, and type of research.
External validity: the studies that lacked validation and discussion of the results were excluded.
Conclusion validity: the Joanna Briggs Institute evaluation criteria for Systematic Literature Reviews were applied in relation to transparency, replicability, quality, and meta-aggregation [37].
The validity of the study was carried out under three approaches: Internal validity, external validity and, conclusion validity. In short, the keywords, the quality of the methodological design, the coherence between the methodological design, the results and conclusions were analyzed by following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. As a result data matrix (Excel document) was elaborated. This systematic review in turn used a quality protocol for data analysis (Section 2.4).

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The Keywording technique and the Mendeley manager were used to manage the resultant 38 keywords. The following criteria were applied:
Inclusion criteria: (a) publication period from 2012 to October 2022; (b) articles indexed in Scopus; (c) articles in English; (d) studies related to teacher training for the didactic use of Augmented Reality.
Exclusion criteria: date of publication, type of research (tutorials, essays), and relation to the object of study and the aim of the research.

2.3. Search Indicators

The Scopus database was used for selecting the papers, limiting the search to the last 10 years (2012–October 2022). Combinations between AND/OR logical operators were used, and the keywords were practicum, teachers, training, initial teacher education (ITE), pre-service, candidate, student, and Augmented Reality. Several terms established in the semantic framework of teacher training were used such as teachers, professors, initial, pre-service, and candidate.
The search string used was the following: (KEY (practicum) OR KEY (teachers AND training) OR KEY (initial AND training) OR KEY (preservice AND teachers) OR KEY (candidate AND teachers) OR KEY (student AND teachers) AND KEY (augmented AND reality)) AND PUBYEAR > 2011 AND PUBYEAR < 2023 AND PUBYEAR > 2012 AND PUBYEAR < 2023.

2.4. Data Analysis

Step 3: data mining.
A data matrix was used to analyze each study in depth and to achieve the analysis, synthesis, and grouping of the information [36,38] which included authors, studies, publication sources, type of research, stage of teacher training, reliability and validity of the instruments, and the components of Augmented Reality according to the user’s virtual component used in the studies. The three researchers rated each component from 1 (lowest score) to 5 (highest score). The process followed the established PRISMA method stages: grouping of variables, trend analysis, and statistics (see Figure 1). Cohen’s Kappa reliability coefficient (k = 0.826) was applied to the observations, achieving 96% and adequate coincidence [39].

2.5. Information Selection and Representation

Step 4: data analysis.
Functions of the VOSviewer were employed to determine the most common terms used from among the authors’ keywords using the co-occurrence of keywords and the networks they formed. In this regard, the functions were applied to clusters and subclusters. This software was used because it allowed the construction and visualization of networks based on clustering techniques [40].

3. Results

  • Q1. What are the main bibliometric indicators of scientific production in terms of publication sources of a regional and institutional origin?
A total of 72 documents were selected from the SCOPUS (meta)database, including 50 articles and 22 conference proceedings. The years with the highest scholarly production (Figure 2) were 2013, 2019, and 2020.
The research papers were published in the following journals (Figure 3): Computers and Education (23), Procedia Computer Science (19), Computers in Human Behavior (6), Heliyon (2), International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2), and Teaching and Teacher Education (2). It was observed that for subject matter, the conference proceedings presented in Procedia Computer Science had a great influence. Therefore, the indexing categories related to education and general computer science were the most representative, which reaffirms the interdisciplinary nature of the educational technology domain.
  • Q2. What are the most representative keywords used in the research studies?
The most frequently used keywords were found to be (Table 2): Augmented Reality (59), students (34), education (26), computer-aided instruction (21), teaching (21), E-learning (17), engineering education (15), Virtual Reality (14), interactive learning environment (12), and learning systems (11).
Concerning the keywords used in the research studies (Figure 4), a total of 211 were found in the sample of which 36 had appeared at least twice, with the most frequent being Augmented Reality (39), interactive learning environments (12), Virtual Reality (9), education (8), applications in subject areas (6), and mobile learning (6).
In the first and second clusters (Figure 5), the nodes for applications in subject areas and interactive learning environments stand out, respectively, and are interconnected through the nodes for teaching/learning strategies, simulations, and interactive learning environments.
In the third cluster, the nodes for mobile learning and engineering education were prominent, while in the fourth cluster, Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality stand out. Both clusters are interconnected through Augmented Reality, which highlights the strong relationships among user experience, mobile learning, and spatial ability (Figure 6).
In the fifth cluster (Figure 5), the nodes for Education and Mixed reality stand out, while the sixth cluster only contains the node for motivation. In addition, the fifth cluster shows a relationship with the third through the nodes associated with AR and Virtual Reality. For the sixth cluster, there is a strong interaction with the first three clusters through the terms applications in subject areas, interactive learning environments, and Augmented Reality, respectively (Figure 7).
Thirty-six countries were identified of which Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey were the most notable (Figure 8). Out of the total, 17 countries accounted for two published papers on the topic, but only three of them were specifically related to the use of AR in the classroom. They come from Spain, Venezuela, and Portugal.
Among these countries, the higher education institutions with the largest scientific production in the selected sample are the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (Taiwan), Ataturk University (Turkey), Carlos III University (Spain), University of La Laguna (Spain), Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico), and the University of Aveiro (Portugal), all of them accounting at least three publications.
  • Q3. What types of studies are the most common in the scientific literature?
As shown in Table 3, exploratory and quasi-experimental studies are the most common.
As shown in Table 3, a total of 27 (41.5%) studies implemented quasi-experimental designs, and 23 studies (35.3%) were exploratory, making the quantitative analysis approach the predominant type of research (76.8%). Another group of 11 studies (16.9%) were found to be of a qualitative nature, and just 4 (6.1%) were mixed method.
  • Q4. Which studies use reliability and validity processes in the design and application of the instruments applied?
Reliability indicates the degree to which repeated application of the instrument to the same subject will produce the same results, and validity refers to the degree to which a given instrument measures what it is supposed to measure [115]. Of the 72 documents, only 17 explicitly state reliability [41,47,48,49,51,52,53,63,68,72,77,89,97,99,100,112,114], and 9 explicitly state the validity of the instruments applied [42,43,44,46,57,87,88,105,106], which provides evidence of the limited transparency in data sharing.
In turn, only eight studies show the reliability and validity obtained in the design and application of the instruments [48,53,63,68,97,100,112,114].
  • Q5. Which AR components are mainly used by teachers? At which stage of teacher training were they applied?
The answers to these two questions can be found in Table 4 based on the following three legends.
Legend 1—research topic (related to AR) (first column):
Use of 360° videos in AR. Studies based on the use of immersive videos in Augmented Reality.
Virtual environments embedded in AR. Studies based on virtual learning environments and their integration with Augmented Reality technology.
Teacher’s digital competencies. Studies focused on the development of digital teaching skills through the use of Augmented Reality.
Learning applications for AR. Studies focused on the use of various gaming applications and learning environments; for example, mobile learning or ubiquitous games.
Development or adaptation of new Augmented Reality technologies. For example, plugin development (COPIE-STEM protocol).
Legend 2—Augmented Reality component (third column):
With markers (e.g., images, QR, printed images). A visual or activation key is provided to know where to position the AR content.
Without markers. A visual or activation key is not provided.
Projection-based. The projection of virtual animations (from a mobile device, for example) is used on a surface of the world, whether a “real or physical world”.
Superimposition-based. It partially or totally replaces the view of a physical object with an augmented view of that same object.
Legend 3—teacher training phase (fourth column):
Expert (teachers with teaching experience).
Beginner (teachers new to teaching).
Pre-service (teacher-training students).
As Table 4 shows, the most frequent research topics in the reviewed articles are learning applications for AR (79.19%), virtual environments embedded in AR (9.72%), and the use of 360° videos in AR (5.55%). As for the AR component, physical markers such as QRs or images are the most used in educational research (54; 75%) while other studies (10) research AR with no markers (13.88%). However, to a lesser extent, five research works focused on a more sophisticated technology: projection-based AR (4; 5.55%) or superimposition AR (1; 1.38%).
Finally, the majority of the studies included in this SLR performed AR research within the pre-service teaching period (66; 91.66%); eight (11.11%) investigated the AR components as used by expert teachers, whereas only two (2.77%) tested AR in the teaching induction period (beginner teachers).

4. Discussion

The aim of this research was to conduct a Systematic Literature Review related to the use of AR in teacher education. To this end, five research questions were posed in relation to (1) the analysis of academic production using bibliometric indicators (publication resources, author keywords, and countries), (2) methodological analysis, and (3) the analysis of the topics (subjects of study) related to the research topic.
The research production analyzed mainly came from three well-known journals in the field of technologies applied to education: Computers and Education (23), Computers in Human Behavior (6), and the conference proceedings published in Procedia Computer Science (19). Our analysis of the papers indicates that technologies in teacher education with an emphasis on the use of Augmented Reality has been increasing over the last ten years (2012–October 2022).
Moreover, the analysis of author keywords highlights the importance of the use of AR in education and, more specifically, in teacher education. In this regard, recent theoretical studies [12,116] and empirical studies carried out at the university [117], primary education [118], and high school [119,120] levels shed evidence on the pedagogical use of AR as an effective tool to promote student learning. However, the analysis of the scientific production gathered from Scopus reaffirms a lack of sufficient empirical research related to the importance of AR for the teacher training process. The related scarcity of qualitative and mixed studies carried out in educational research has had a negative impact on the generalizability of our results [121].
The results of other similar theoretical studies [122] scrutinizing the effect of gamification on academic performance have also reaffirmed the need for teacher training not only in the use of serious games based on AR but also in the understanding and pedagogical use of several digital technologies [123,124,125].
Five clusters were identified from the analysis of the author keywords, which show there is a strong relationship between Augmented Reality, mobile learning, interactive learning environments, and motivation.
Concerning mobile learning, the effectiveness of Augmented Reality in improving student engagement and providing a sense of reality is well known, especially in science education [12,13,15,19]. In this context, the concerns related to pedagogical usability [126,127], safety and privacy [19], and pedagogic practice are also important [128,129].
In the studies related to the keywords Augmented Reality and interactive learning environments, the need for educational software to be able to record, interact, and visualize objects in 3D is pointed out. However, the design of this software can be executed with or without bookmarks. The essence and effectiveness of interactive learning lies in selecting the right environment, instructional design, teacher training, and content management tools. The main tools used in educational studies for visualization are commercial or open-source ARs such as ARToolKit and Unity 3D. While content management tools such as Vuforia (virtual content storage) and Maya 3D are used for virtual content creation [130,131].
In the relationship between AR and motivation, it is noteworthy that the motivational factors of attention, satisfaction, and confidence increase with the use of AR, but not for the factor related to relevance [85,108,132].
This SLR of 72 research works shows that there is a great deal of diversity in the type of studies conducted, with a focus on exploratory and quasi-experimental studies. However, only 27 works explicitly state the reliability of the instruments applied, 9 mention the validity, and only 8 show the reliability and validity obtained in the design and application of the instruments. This does not detract from the quality of peer review and the editorial process of the journals, but it is a call to the community to offer reliable data and instruments for subsequent use (replicability).
Although the 72 studies are related to teacher training through AR, only 52 focus explicitly on this topic. As for the AR component used according to the user’s point of view, the studies focus their application on the use of markers (53) with an emphasis on the technological training of teachers. Few studies were related to the components of artificial intelligence based on projection and superimposition. On the other hand, regarding the stage of teacher training, 66 studies focus their attention on initial training (66), which highlights the limited number of studies on in-service teacher training. This reinforces the idea that educational research on AR is still in a preliminary phase and needs more evidence to test whether this technology is efficient for teacher training.
Finally, an overwhelming number of studies focus on student teachers, leading us to think that the main results are limited to the initial teacher training and could be different when applied in other teacher education phases such as beginner or expert teachers [133].

5. Conclusions

A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted to find research articles related to the use of AR in teacher education. However, it is important to consider that the study selection was based on the articles detected by Scopus during a period ranging from the year 2012 to October 2022 and on articles written in English. Therefore, valuable studies written in other languages may have been excluded from this study. Although 72 studies by authors from 32 countries were analyzed, this does not imply that it is representative of the world’s current educational reality but may, however, offer a possible perspective on the use of AR in the field of education.
The results of this systematic review reaffirm the scarcity of studies on teacher training using Augmented Reality. However, regardless of the type of studies, the didactic use of Augmented Reality in teacher training requires (a) initial and ongoing didactic training of teachers, (b) digital literacy appropriate to the new technological environments, and (c) the adaptation of techno-pedagogical models for teacher training in the context of Augmented Reality.
Another relevant finding from this review is the lack of research papers connecting the use of AR with the teaching practicum, which highlights the importance of this type of study for empirically validating the extent to which this immersive technology could be useful in preparing future teachers. Further research could consider conducting qualitative and mixed method studies to enrich the comprehension of the phenomenon under study, especially to those areas that are less researched and more prominent such as AR based on artificial intelligence (e.g., superimposition). Only generating a robust corpus of knowledge around this topic would enable teachers and teacher educators to know whether this type of technology would be beneficial for learning purposes.
Current trends in the use of AR in teacher education do not often include emerging concepts and tools related to Situated Visualization [134]. For this reason, it is suggested that future research assesses its techno-pedagogical use, since it contributes to the integration between space, timelines, place, activity, and the community.
Recent empirical research reinforces the importance of the use of AR in initial teacher training, allowing the development of digital skills for teachers to use AR in their pedagogical practice [135]. In this sense, it is advisable to promote the use of emerging pedagogies before the use of these emerging technologies [136,137,138].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; methodology, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; software O.E.-M.; validation, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; formal analysis, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; investigation, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; resources, J.M.; data curation, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, O.E.-M.; writing—review and editing, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; visualization, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; supervision, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; project administration, J.M., O.E.-M. and E.P.-C.; funding acquisition, J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


Funding: European Union. Project: ERASMUS+ project: Digital Practicum 3.0 Exploring Augmented Reality, Remote Classrooms, and Virtual Learning to Enrich and Expand Preservice Teacher Education Preparation. Program: Higher Education (2020-1-ES01-KA226-HE-096120).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Zhu, G.; Chen, M. Positioning Preservice Teachers’ Reflections and I-Positions in the Context of Teaching Practicum: A Dialogical-Self Theory Approach. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022, 117, 103734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Soni, A.; Reyes-Soto, M.; Lynch, P. A Review of the Factors Affecting Children with Disabilities Successful Transition to Early Childhood Care and Primary Education in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Early Child. Res. 2022, 20, 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fernández-Batanero, J.-M.; Montenegro-Rueda, M.; Fernández-Cerero, J.; García-Martínez, I. Digital Competences for Teacher Professional Development. Systematic Review. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 45, 513–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cutri, R.-M.; Mena, J.; Whiting, E.-F. Faculty Readiness for Online Crisis Teaching: Transitioning to Online Teaching during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2020, 43, 523–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Riofrío-Calderón, G.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S. Mediation and Online Learning: Systematic Literature Mapping (2015–2020). Sustainability 2022, 14, 2951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aznar-Díaz, I.; Hinojo-Lucena, F.J.; Cáceres-Reche, M.P.; Trujillo-Torres, J.M.; Romero-Rodríguez, J.M. Environmental Attitudes in Trainee Teachers in Primary Education. The Future of Biodiversity Preservation and Environmental Pollution. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Estrada-Molina, O. A Systematic Mapping of Variables Studied in Research Related to Education in Informatics and Computing. J. Eng. Educ. Transform. 2022, 36, 109–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Koutromanos, G.; Jimoyiannis, A. Augmented Reality in Education: Exploring Greek Teachers’ Views and Perceptions. In Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Education: Third International Conference, TECH-EDU 2022, Lisbon, Portugal, 31 August–2 September 2022; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Perifanou, M.; Economides, A.; Nikou, S. Teachers&rsquo; Views on Integrating Augmented Reality in Education: Needs, Opportunities, Challenges and Recommendations. Futur. Internet 2022, 15, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chang, H.Y.; Binali, T.; Liang, J.C.; Chiou, G.L.; Cheng, K.H.; Lee, S.W.Y.; Tsai, C.C. Ten Years of Augmented Reality in Education: A Meta-Analysis of (Quasi-) Experimental Studies to Investigate the Impact. Comput. Educ. 2022, 191, 104641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. López-Belmonte, J.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.; López-Núñez, J.; Hinojo-Lucena, F. Augmented Reality in Education. A Scientific Mapping in Web of Science. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Arici, F.; Yildirim, P.; Caliklar, Ş.; Yilmaz, R.M. Research Trends in the Use of Augmented Reality in Science Education: Content and Bibliometric Mapping Analysis. Comput. Educ. 2019, 142, 103647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mystakidis, S.; Christopoulos, A.; Pellas, N. A Systematic Mapping Review of Augmented Reality Applications to Support STEM Learning in Higher Education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 1883–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xu, W.; Ouyang, F. The Application of AI Technologies in STEM Education: A Systematic Review from 2011 to 2021. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2022, 9, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lampropoulos, G.; Keramopoulos, E.; Diamantaras, K.; Evangelidis, G. Augmented Reality and Gamification in Education: A Systematic Literature Review of Research, Applications, and Empirical Studies. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sırakaya, M.; Alsancak-Sırakaya, D. Augmented Reality in STEM Education: A Systematic Review. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2020, 30, 1556–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ibáñez, M.B.; Delgado-Kloos, C. Augmented Reality for STEM Learning: A Systematic Review. Comput. Educ. 2018, 123, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Parmaxi, A.; Demetriou, A.A. Augmented Reality in Language Learning: A State-of-the-Art Review of 2014–2019. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2020, 36, 861–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Statti, A.; Villegas, S. The Use of Mobile Learning in Grades K–12: A Literature Review of Current Trends and Practices. Peabody J. Educ. 2020, 95, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Theodoropoulos, A.; Lepouras, G. Augmented Reality and Programming Education: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 2021, 30, 100335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gómez-Rios, M.D.; Paredes-Velasco, M.; Hernández-Beleño, R.D.; Fuentes-Pinargote, J.A. Analysis of Emotions in the Use of Augmented Reality Technologies in Education: A Systematic Review. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2022, 31, 216–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Amores-Valencia, A.; Burgos, D.; Branch-Bedoya, J.W. Influence of Motivation and Academic Performance in the Use of Augmented Reality in Education. A Systematic Review. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1011409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Markouzis, D.; Baziakou, A.; Fesakis, G.; Dimitracopoulou, A. A Systematic Review on Augmented Reality Applications in Informal Learning Environments. Int. J. Mob. Blended Learn. 2022, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dubey, P.; Sahu, K.K. Investigating Various Factors That Affect Students’ Adoption Intention to Technology-Enhanced Learning. J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn. 2022, 15, 110–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Oliveira, G.; Grenha Teixeira, J.; Torres, A.; Morais, C. An Exploratory Study on the Emergency Remote Education Experience of Higher Education Students and Teachers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 1357–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Martins, R.M.; Gresse, C.; Wangenheim, V. Findings on Teaching Machine Learning in High School: A Ten-Year Systematic Literature Review. Inform. Educ. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Garzón, J.; Pavón, J.; Baldiris, S. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Augmented Reality in Educational Settings. Virtual Real. 2019, 23, 447–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Garzón, J.; Acevedo, J. Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Augmented Reality on Students’ Learning Gains. Educ. Res. Rev. 2019, 27, 244–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Barroso-Osuna, J.; Gallego Pérez, Ó. Learning Resource Production in Augmented Reality Supported by Education Students Producción de Recursos de Aprendizaje Apoyados En Realidad Aumentada Por Parte de Estudiantes de Magisterio. Edmetic: Rev. Educ. Mediática TIC 2017, 6, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Huertas-Abril, C.A.; Figueroa-Flores, J.F.; Gómez-Parra, M.E.; Rosa-Dávila, E.; Huffman, L.F. Augmented Reality for Esl/Efl and Bilingual Education: An International Comparison. Educ. XX1 2021, 24, 189–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Badilla-Quintana, M.G.; Sepulveda-Valenzuela, E.; Arias, M.S. Augmented Reality as a Sustainable Technology to Improve Academic Achievement in Students with and without Special Educational Needs. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Roig-Vila, R.; Lorenzo-Lledó, A.; Mengual-Andrés, S. Perceived Usefulness of Augmented Reality as a Didactic Resource in the Infant Education Teacher Degree. Campus Virtuales 2019, 8, 19–35. [Google Scholar]
  33. Belmonte, J.L.; Sánchez, S.P.; Belmonte, G.L. The Effectiveness of Augmented Reality in Infant Education: A BLS and CPR Learning Study in 5 Year-Old Students. Pixel-Bit Rev. Medios Educ. 2019, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cabero-Almenara, J.; Barroso-Osuna, J. Ecosistema de aprendizaje con realidad aumentada: Posibilidades educativas. Rev. Tecnol. Cienc. Educ. 2016, 5, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sánchez-Serrano, S.; Pedraza-Navarro, I.; Donoso-González, M. How to Conduct a Systematic Review under PRISMA Protocol? Uses and Fundamental Strategies for Its Application in the Educational Field through a Practical Case Study. Bordon. Rev. Pedagog. 2022, 74, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. 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]
  37. Lockwood, C.; Munn, Z.; Porritt, K. Qualitative Research Synthesis: Methodological Guidance for Systematic Reviewers Utilizing Meta-Aggregation. Int. J. Evid. Based. Healthc. 2015, 13, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Estrada-Molina, O.; Fuentes-Cancell, D.-R. Engagement and Desertion in MOOCs: Systematic Review. Comunicar 2022, 30, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tang, W.; Hu, J.; Zhang, H.; Wu, P.; He, H. Kappa Coefficient: A Popular Measure of Rater Agreement. Shanghai Arch. Psychiatry 2015, 27, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Citation-Based Clustering of Publications Using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 2017, 111, 1053–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Di Serio, Á.; Ibáñez, M.B.; Kloos, C.D. Impact of an Augmented Reality System on Students’ Motivation for a Visual Art Course. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 586–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ibáñez, M.B.; Di Serio, Á.; Villarán, D.; Delgado Kloos, C. Experimenting with Electromagnetism Using Augmented Reality: Impact on Flow Student Experience and Educational Effectiveness. Comput. Educ. 2014, 71, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chang, S.C.; Hwang, G.J. Impacts of an Augmented Reality-Based Flipped Learning Guiding Approach on Students’ Scientific Project Performance and Perceptions. Comput. Educ. 2018, 125, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yilmaz, R.M. Educational Magic Toys Developed with Augmented Reality Technology for Early Childhood Education. Comput. Human Behav. 2016, 54, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fonseca, D.; Martí, N.; Redondo, E.; Navarro, I.; Sánchez, A. Relationship between Student Profile, Tool Use, Participation, and Academic Performance with the Use of Augmented Reality Technology for Visualized Architecture Models. Comput. Human Behav. 2014, 31, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chiang, T.H.C.; Yang, S.J.H.; Hwang, G.J. Students’ Online Interactive Patterns in Augmented Reality-Based Inquiry Activities. Comput. Educ. 2014, 78, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hsu, T.C. Learning English with Augmented Reality: Do Learning Styles Matter? Comput. Educ. 2017, 106, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, J.; Sung, Y.T.; Hou, H.T.; Chang, K.E. The Development and Evaluation of an Augmented Reality-Based Armillary Sphere for Astronomical Observation Instruction. Comput. Educ. 2014, 73, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sahin, D.; Yilmaz, R.M. The Effect of Augmented Reality Technology on Middle School Students’ Achievements and Attitudes towards Science Education. Comput. Educ. 2020, 144, 103710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wojciechowski, R.; Cellary, W. Evaluation of Learners’ Attitude toward Learning in ARIES Augmented Reality Environments. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 570–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kamarainen, A.M.; Metcalf, S.; Grotzer, T.; Browne, A.; Mazzuca, D.; Tutwiler, M.S.; Dede, C. EcoMOBILE: Integrating Augmented Reality and Probeware with Environmental Education Field Trips. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 545–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Akçayir, M.; Akçayir, 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. Human Behav. 2016, 57, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cai, S.; Wang, X.; Chiang, F.K. A Case Study of Augmented Reality Simulation System Application in a Chemistry Course. Comput. Human Behav. 2014, 37, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Huang, T.C.; Chen, C.C.; Chou, Y.W. Animating Eco-Education: To See, Feel, and Discover in an Augmented Reality-Based Experiential Learning Environment. Comput. Educ. 2016, 96, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chen, C.M.; Tsai, Y.N. Interactive Augmented Reality System for Enhancing Library Instruction in Elementary Schools. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 638–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sommerauer, P.; Müller, O. Augmented Reality in Informal Learning Environments: A Field Experiment in a Mathematics Exhibition. Comput. Educ. 2014, 79, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lin, T.-J.; Duh, H.-B.; Li, N.; Wang, H.-Y.; Tsai, C.-C. An Investigation of Learners’ Collaborative Knowledge Construction Performances and Behavior Patterns in an Augmented Reality Simulation System. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chang, C.Y.; Lai, C.L.; Hwang, G.J. Trends and Research Issues of Mobile Learning Studies in Nursing Education: A Review of Academic Publications from 1971 to 2016. Comput. Educ. 2018, 116, 28–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hsu, S. Developing and Validating a Scale for Measuring Changes in Teachers’ ICT Integration Proficiency over Time. Comput. Educ. 2017, 111, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. González, N.A.A. How to Include Augmented Reality in Descriptive Geometry Teaching. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 75, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Behzadan, A.H.; Kamat, V.R. Enabling Discovery-based Learning in Construction Using Telepresent Augmented Reality. Autom. Constr. 2013, 33, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kose, U.; Koc, D.; Yucesoy, S.A. An Augmented Reality Based Mobile Software to Support Learning Experiences in Computer Science Courses. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 25, 370–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Walshe, N.; Driver, P. Developing Reflective Trainee Teacher Practice with 360-Degree Video. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 78, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Suárez-Warden, F.; Barrera, S.; Neira, L. Communicative Learning for Activity with Students Aided by Augmented Reality within a Real Time Group HCI. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 75, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Muñoz-Cristóbal, J.A.; Prieto, L.P.; Asensio-Pérez, J.I.; Martínez-Monés, A.; Jorrín-Abellán, I.M.; Dimitriadis, Y. Deploying Learning Designs across Physical and Web Spaces: Making Pervasive Learning Affordable for Teachers. Pervasive Mob. Comput. 2014, 14, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, N.; Tan, L.; Li, F.; Han, B.; Xu, Y. Development and Application of Digital Assistive Teaching System for Anatomy. Virtual Real. Intell. Hardw. 2021, 3, 315–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rai, A.S.; Rai, A.S.; Mavrikakis, E.; Lam, W.C. Teaching Binocular Indirect Ophthalmoscopy to Novice Residents Using an Augmented Reality Simulator. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 2017, 52, 430–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Lucas, M.; Bem-Haja, P.; Siddiq, F.; Moreira, A.; Redecker, C. The Relation between In-Service Teachers’ Digital Competence and Personal and Contextual Factors: What Matters Most? Comput. Educ. 2021, 160, 104052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lai, C.H.; Wu, T.E.; Huang, S.H.; Huang, Y.M. Developing a Virtual Learning Tool for Industrial High Schools’ Welding Course. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 172, 696–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Coimbra, M.T.; Cardoso, T.; Mateus, A. Augmented Reality: An Enhancer for Higher Education Students in Math’s Learning? Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 67, 332–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Arango-López, J.; Cerón Valdivieso, C.C.; Collazos, C.A.; Gutiérrez Vela, F.L.; Moreira, F. CREANDO: Tool for Creating Pervasive Games to Increase the Learning Motivation in Higher Education Students. Telemat. Inform. 2019, 38, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kearney, M.; Burden, K.; Rai, T. Investigating Teachers’ Adoption of Signature Mobile Pedagogies. Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Carrion, B.; Gonzalez-Delgado, C.A.; Mendez-Reguera, A.; Erana-Rojas, I.E.; Lopez, M. Embracing Virtuality: User Acceptance of Virtual Settings for Learning. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2021, 93, 107283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Limani, Y.; Hajrizi, E.; Stapleton, L.; Retkoceri, M. Digital Transformation Readiness in Higher Education Institutions (HEI): The Case of Kosovo. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2019, 52, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Eiris, R.; Wen, J.; Gheisari, M. IVisit-Collaborate: Collaborative Problem-Solving in Multiuser 360-Degree Panoramic Site Visits. Comput. Educ. 2022, 177, 104365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Iftene, A.; Trandabǎt, D. Enhancing the Attractiveness of Learning through Augmented Reality. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 126, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. López-Faican, L.; Jaen, J. EmoFindAR: Evaluation of a Mobile Multiplayer Augmented Reality Game for Primary School Children. Comput. Educ. 2020, 149, 103814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sampaio, D.; Almeida, P. Pedagogical Strategies for the Integration of Augmented Reality in ICT Teaching and Learning Processes. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 100, 894–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Che Dalim, C.S.; Sunar, M.S.; Dey, A.; Billinghurst, M. Using Augmented Reality with Speech Input for Non-Native Children’s Language Learning. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2020, 134, 44–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cen, L.; Ruta, D.; Al Qassem, L.M.M.S.; Ng, J. Augmented Immersive Reality (AIR) for Improved Learning Performance: A Quantitative Evaluation. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2020, 13, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lin, C.; Chai, H.; Wang, J.; Chen, C.; Liu, Y.; Chen, C.; Lin, C.; Huang, Y. Augmented Reality in Educational Activities for Children with Disabilities. Displays 2016, 42, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kugelmann, D.; Stratmann, L.; Nühlen, N.; Bork, F.; Hoffmann, S.; Samarbarksh, G.; Pferschy, A.; von der Heide, A.M.; Eimannsberger, A.; Fallavollita, P.; et al. An Augmented Reality Magic Mirror as Additive Teaching Device for Gross Anatomy. Ann. Anat.-Anat. Anz. 2018, 215, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Scaravetti, D.; Doroszewski, D. Augmented Reality Experiment in Higher Education, for Complex System Appropriation in Mechanical Design. Procedia Cirp 2019, 84, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kurniawan, M.H.; Suharjito; Diana; Witjaksono, G. Human Anatomy Learning Systems Using Augmented Reality on Mobile Application. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 135, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ibáñez, M.B.; Uriarte Portillo, A.; Zatarain Cabada, R.; Barrón, M.L. Impact of Augmented Reality Technology on Academic Achievement and Motivation of Students from Public and Private Mexican Schools. A Case Study in a Middle-School Geometry Course. Comput. Educ. 2020, 145, 103734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cabero-Almenara, J.; Fernández-Batanero, J.M.; Barroso-Osuna, J. Adoption of Augmented Reality Technology by University Students. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Bursali, H.; Yilmaz, R.M. Effect of Augmented Reality Applications on Secondary School Students’ Reading Comprehension and Learning Permanency. Comput. Human Behav. 2019, 95, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Joo-Nagata, J.; Martinez Abad, F.; García-Bermejo Giner, J.; García-Peñalvo, F.J. Augmented Reality and Pedestrian Navigation through Its Implementation in M-Learning and e-Learning: Evaluation of an Educational Program in Chile. Comput. Educ. 2017, 111, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Danaei, D.; Jamali, H.R.; Mansourian, Y.; Rastegarpour, H. Comparing Reading Comprehension between Children Reading Augmented Reality and Print Storybooks. Comput. Educ. 2020, 153, 103900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sharma, B.; Mantri, A. Assimilating Disruptive Technology: A New Approach of Learning Science in Engineering Education. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 172, 915–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bal, E.; Bicen, H. Computer Hardware Course Application through Augmented Reality and QR Code Integration: Achievement Levels and Views of Students. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2016, 102, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Del Bosque, L.; Martinez, R.; Torres, J.L. Decreasing Failure in Programming Subject with Augmented Reality Tool. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 75, 221–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yip, J.; Wong, S.H.; Yick, K.L.; Chan, K.; Wong, K.H. Improving Quality of Teaching and Learning in Classes by Using Augmented Reality Video. Comput. Educ. 2019, 128, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Cieza, E.; Lujan, D. Educational Mobile Application of Augmented Reality Based on Markers to Improve the Learning of Vowel Usage and Numbers for Children of a Kindergarten in Trujillo. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 130, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Martín-Gutiérrez, J.; Contero, M.; Alcañiz, M. Augmented Reality to Training Spatial Skills. In Procedia Computer Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 77, pp. 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ke, F.; Hsu, Y.C. Mobile Augmented-Reality Artifact Creation as a Component of Mobile Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Internet High. Educ. 2015, 26, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Georgiou, Y.; Kyza, E.A. Bridging Narrative and Locality in Mobile-Based Augmented Reality Educational Activities: Effects of Semantic Coupling on Students’ Immersion and Learning Gains. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2021, 145, 102546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Redondoa, E.; Fonsecab, D.; Sáncheza, A.; Navarroa, I. New Strategies Using Handheld Augmented Reality and Mobile Learning-Teaching Methodologies, in Architecture and Building Engineering Degrees. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 25, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wang, Y.H. Exploring the Effectiveness of Integrating Augmented Reality-Based Materials to Support Writing Activities. Comput. Educ. 2017, 113, 162–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Georgiou, Y.; Kyza, E.A. Relations between Student Motivation, Immersion and Learning Outcomes in Location-Based Augmented Reality Settings. Comput. Human Behav. 2018, 89, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Martín-Gutiérrez, J.; García-Domínguez, M.; Roca-González, C.; Sanjuán-HernanPérez, A.; Mato-Carrodeguas, C. Comparative Analysis between Training Tools in Spatial Skills for Engineering Graphics Students Based in Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality and PDF3D Technologies. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 25, 360–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yang, F.; Miang Goh, Y. VR and MR Technology for Safety Management Education: An Authentic Learning Approach. Saf. Sci. 2022, 148, 105645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Blanco-Fernández, Y.; López-Nores, M.; Pazos-Arias, J.J.; Gil-Solla, A.; Ramos-Cabrer, M.; García-Duque, J. REENACT: A Step Forward in Immersive Learning about Human History by Augmented Reality, Role Playing and Social Networking. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 4811–4828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Punithavathi, P.; Geetha, S. Disruptive Smart Mobile Pedagogies for Engineering Education. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 172, 784–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Alalwan, N.; Cheng, L.; Al-Samarraie, H.; Yousef, R.; Ibrahim Alzahrani, A.; Sarsam, S.M. Challenges and Prospects of Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality Utilization among Primary School Teachers: A Developing Country Perspective. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 66, 100876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Cross, S.; Wolfenden, F.; Adinolfi, L. Taking in the Complete Picture: Framing the Use of 360-Degree Video for Teacher Education Practice and Research. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2022, 111, 103597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lindner, C.; Rienow, A.; Jürgens, C. Augmented Reality Applications as Digital Experiments for Education—An Example in the Earth-Moon System. Acta Astronaut. 2019, 161, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Matsika, C.; Zhou, M. Factors Affecting the Adoption and Use of AVR Technology in Higher and Tertiary Education. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Luis, C.E.M.; Mellado, R.C.; Díaz, B.A. PBL Methodologies with Embedded Augmented Reality in Higher Maritime Education: Augmented Project Definitions for Chemistry Practices. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 25, 402–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Sonntag, D.; Albuquerque, G.; Magnor, M.; Bodensiek, O. Hybrid Learning Environments by Data-Driven Augmented Reality. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 31, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Crawford, E.O.; Higgins, H.J.; Hilburn, J. Using a Global Competence Model in an Instructional Design Course before Social Studies Methods: A Developmental Approach to Global Teacher Education. J. Soc. Stud. Res. 2020, 44, 367–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hsiao, J.C.; Chen, S.K.; Chen, W.; Lin, S.S.J. Developing a Plugged-in Class Observation Protocol in High-School Blended STEM Classes: Student Engagement, Teacher Behaviors and Student-Teacher Interaction Patterns. Comput. Educ. 2022, 178, 104403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Uriel, C.; Sergio, S.; Carolina, G.; Mariano, G.; Paola, D.; Martín, A. Improving the Understanding of Basic Sciences Concepts by Using Virtual and Augmented Reality. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 172, 389–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Amir, M.F.; Fediyanto, N.; Rudyanto, H.E.; Nur Afifah, D.S.; Tortop, H.S. Elementary Students’ Perceptions of 3Dmetric: A Cross-Sectional Study. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Miller, M.D.; Linn, R.L.; Gronlund, N. Measurement and Assessment in Readling, 11th ed.; Pearson Education, Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  116. Viñoles-Cosentino, V.; Sánchez-Caballé, A.; Esteve-Mon, F.M. Development of the Digital Teaching Competence in University Contexts. A Systematic Review. Reice-Rev. Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic. Cambio Educ. 2022, 20, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sjöberg, J.; Lilja, P. University Teachers’ Ambivalence about the Digital Transformation of Higher Education. Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res. 2019, 18, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Marques, M.M.; Pombo, L. The Impact of Teacher Training Using Mobile Augmented Reality Games on Their Professional Development. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. López-Belmonte, J.; Pozo-Sánchez, S.; Fuentes-Cabrera, A.; Trujillo-Torres, J.-M. Analytical Competences of Teachers in Big Data in the Era of Digitalized Learning. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ramírez-Rueda, M.d.C.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R.; Roblizo Colmenero, M.J.; González-Calero, J.A. Towards a Coordinated Vision of ICT in Education: A Comparative Analysis of Preschool and Primary Education Teachers’ and Parents’ Perceptions. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 100, 103300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Daniels, K.; Bower, K.; Burnett, C.; Escott, H.; Hatton, A.; Ehiyazaryan-White, E.; Monkhouse, J. Early Years Teachers and Digital Literacies: Navigating a Kaleidoscope of Discourses. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 2415–2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Martinez, L.; Gimenes, M.; Lambert, E. Entertainment Video Games for Academic Learning: A Systematic Review. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2022, 60, 1083–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Espinosa, M.P.P.; Cartagena, F.C. Advanced Technologies to Face the Challenge of Educational Innovation. RIED-Rev. Iberoam. Educ. A Distancia 2021, 24, 35–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. López-García, A.; Miralles Martínez, P. The Augmented Reality in Teacher Training. An Experience in the Practices of the Master’s Degree in Teaching Secondary Education. Campus Virtuales 2018, 7, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
  125. Fuentes, A.; López, J.; Pozo, S. Analysis of the Digital Teaching Competence: Key Factor in the Performance of Active Pedagogies with Augmented Reality. Rev. Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic. Cambio Educ. 2019, 17, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Molina, O.E.; Fuentes-Cancell, D.R.; García-Hernández, A. Evaluating Usability in Educational Technology: A Systematic Review from the Teaching of Mathematics. LUMAT Int. J. Math Sci. Technol. Educ. 2022, 10, 65–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Estrada-Molina, O.; Fuentes-Cancell, D.R.; Morales, A.A. The Assessment of the Usability of Digital Educational Resources: An Interdisciplinary Analysis from Two Systematic Reviews. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 4037–4063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Molina, O.E.; Cancell, D.R.F. Is It Possible to Predict Academic Performance? An Analysis from Educational Technology. Rev. Fuentes 2021, 3, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Jinot, B.L. An Evaluation of a Key Innovation: Mobile Learning. Acad. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2019, 8, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Prit Kaur, D.; Mantri, A.; Horan, B. Design Implications for Adaptive Augmented Reality Based Interactive Learning Environment for Improved Concept Comprehension in Engineering Paradigms. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2019, 30, 589–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Tugtekin, U.; Odabasi, H.F. Do Interactive Learning Environments Have an Effect on Learning Outcomes, Cognitive Load and Metacognitive Judgments? Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 7019–7058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Uriarte-Portillo, A.; Ibáñez, M.B.; Zatarain-Cabada, R.; Barrón-Estrada, M.L. Comparison of Using an Augmented Reality Learning Tool at Home and in a Classroom Regarding Motivation and Learning Outcomes. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2023, 7, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Sáez-López, J.M.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R.; González-Calero, J.A.; Gómez Carrasco, C.J. Augmented Reality in Higher Education: An Evaluation Program in Initial Teacher Training. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Galbo, S.C.; Mages, K. Dr. Howard, A. Kelly’s The Stereo Clinic: Health science pedagogy and the egalitarian future of 3D clinical visualization. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2022, 110, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Belda-Medina, J.; Calvo-Ferrer, J.R. Integrating augmented reality in language learning: Pre-service teachers’ digital competence and attitudes through the TPACK framework. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 12123–12146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Tzima, S.; Styliaras, G.; Bassounas, A. Augmented Reality Applications in Education: Teachers Point of View. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Balyk, N.; Grod, I.; Vasylenko, Y.; Shmyger, G.; Oleksiuk, V. The Methodology of Using Augmented Reality Technology in the Training of Future Computer Science Teachers. Int. J. Res. E-Learn. 2021, 7, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Belda-Medina, J. Using augmented reality (AR) as an authoring tool in EFL through mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. Teach. Engl. Technol. 2022, 22, 115–135. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart summarizing the procedure followed.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart summarizing the procedure followed.
Education 13 00517 g001
Figure 2. Number of documents per year.
Figure 2. Number of documents per year.
Education 13 00517 g002
Figure 3. Relationship between publication resources and years.
Figure 3. Relationship between publication resources and years.
Education 13 00517 g003
Figure 4. Keyword network.
Figure 4. Keyword network.
Education 13 00517 g004
Figure 5. First and second clusters (left to right).
Figure 5. First and second clusters (left to right).
Education 13 00517 g005
Figure 6. Third and fourth clusters (left to right).
Figure 6. Third and fourth clusters (left to right).
Education 13 00517 g006
Figure 7. Fifth cluster.
Figure 7. Fifth cluster.
Education 13 00517 g007
Figure 8. Countries with the highest scientific production.
Figure 8. Countries with the highest scientific production.
Education 13 00517 g008
Table 1. Levels of Augmented Reality.
Table 1. Levels of Augmented Reality.
(1) Based on Its Technological Component(2) Based on Its Virtual Component(3) Based on Functionality
(3.1) Functionality:
(3.2) Functionality:
Artificial Environments
Level 1: black and white pattern (QR codes)ImageDocumented reality and Virtual RealityEnvisaging a reality that could exist in the future, associating real and virtual components
Level 2: image3DReality with augmented perception or comprehension
Level 3: animationVideoPerceptual association of the real and the virtualEnvisaging a reality that occurred in the past, associating the real with the virtual
Level 4: coordinates determined by GPS coordinatesAudioBehavioral association of the real and the virtual
Level 5: thermal footprintMultimediaSubstitution of the real by virtual or virtualized realityEnvisaging impossible reality scenarios
Table 2. Keywords (number in brackets) vs. top articles.
Table 2. Keywords (number in brackets) vs. top articles.
KeywordsArticles with at Least 100 Citations
Augmented Reality
(Chen and Tsai 2012, Kamarainen et al., 2013, Lin et al., 2013, Wojciechowski and Cellary 2013, Di Serio et al., 2013, Cai et al., 2014, Sommerauer and Müller 2014, Zhang et al., 2014, Chiang et al., 2014, Fonseca et al., 2014, Ibáñez et al., 2014, Akçayir et al., 2016, Yilmaz 2016, Huang et al., 2016, Hsu 2017b, Chang and Hwang 2018, Sahin and Yilmaz 2020)
(Chen and Tsai 2012, Lin et al., 2013, Di Serio et al., 2013, Kamarainen et al., 2013, Zhang et al., 2014, Chiang et al., 2014, Fonseca et al., 2014, Ibáñez et al., 2014, Akçayir et al. 2016, Huang et al. 2016, Hsu 2017b, Chang and Hwang 2018, Sahin and Yilmaz 2020)
(Kamarainen et al., 2013, Akçayir et al., 2016, Huang et al., 2016, Hsu 2017b)
Computer-aided instruction
(Chen and Tsai 2012, Di Serio et al., 2013, Lin et al., 2013,
Wojciechowski and Cellary 2013, Zhang et al., 2014, Chiang et al., 2014, Ibáñez et al., 2014, Sommerauer and Müller 2014, Huang et al., 2016, Hsu 2017b, Chang and Hwang 2018)
(Kamarainen et al., 2013, Chiang et al., 2014, Zhang et al., 2014, Yilmaz 2016, Chang et al., 2018)
(Chen and Tsai 2012, Sommerauer and Müller 2014)
Engineering education
(Akçayir et al., 2016, Huang et al., 2016)
Virtual Reality
(Chen and Tsai 2012, Lin et al., 2013, Sahin and Yilmaz 2020)
Interactive learning environments
(Chen and Tsai 2012, Lin et al., 2013, Wojciechowski and Cellary 2013, Chiang et al., 2014, Ibáñez et al., 2014, Zhang et al., 2014, Huang et al., 2016, Hsu 2017a, Chang and Hwang 2018)
Learning systems
(Chen and Tsai 2012, Lin et al., 2013, Wojciechowski and Cellary 2013, Chiang et al., 2014, Ibáñez et al., 2014, Huang et al., 2016, Chang and Hwang 2018)
Table 3. List of study types (n = 72). Some listed below.
Table 3. List of study types (n = 72). Some listed below.
Quantitative StudiesQualitative StudiesMixed Method
Table 4. List of study types (n = 72).
Table 4. List of study types (n = 72).
ClassificationAugmented Reality ComponentTeacher Training
Research topicStudies
[106]11, 2, 3
[69]11, 3
3[91]11, 3
[44]11, 3
[76]11, 3
[98]41, 3
[55]1, 23
[66]1, 33
[71]1, 23
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mena, J.; Estrada-Molina, O.; Pérez-Calvo, E. Teachers’ Professional Training through Augmented Reality: A Literature Review. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 517.

AMA Style

Mena J, Estrada-Molina O, Pérez-Calvo E. Teachers’ Professional Training through Augmented Reality: A Literature Review. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(5):517.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mena, Juanjo, Odiel Estrada-Molina, and Esperanza Pérez-Calvo. 2023. "Teachers’ Professional Training through Augmented Reality: A Literature Review" Education Sciences 13, no. 5: 517.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop