https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1566-4355
ABSTRACT
Virtual reality (VR) is a computer-generated environment where scenes and objects appear to be real, immersing the user in their surroundings. This systematic review aims to explore the benefits and challenges of VR and AR in higher education and to identify the trends and issues regarding courses and teaching methods in which VR and AR are integrated. 95 articles from the past 7 years were reviewed to gather comprehensive insights. According to findings, VR and AR in higher education have been used most frequently in medical courses, while simulations have been predominantly implemented as teaching strategies in VR and AR. The most common types of research methods have been experimental and survey studies. The findings indicate that, while VR/AR has promising potential in higher education, certain challenges such as understanding how and when virtual and augmented reality can be most effective must be addressed before widespread adoption in higher education.
Summary
What is already known about this topic
Virtual and augmented reality-based learning modes, in terms of motivation and engagement, may attract and motivate learners to learn and boost their confidence.
Virtual and augmented realities are not widely used in education due to limitations such as required technologies, cost, etc.
What this paper adds
Virtual and augmented realities in higher education have been implemented mostly in medical courses. These courses include medicine, biology, surgery, and nursing.
In terms of interaction and collaborative learning, the teaching strategies used with virtual and augmented realities do not provide an interactive environment and opportunity for collaborative learning for students, contrary to expectations.
Simulations have been used mostly in virtual and augmented reality research in higher education. Simulations are explained as scenario-based learning in some research, and students were expected to complete some tasks based on the scenario.
Implications for practice and/or policy
It is crucial to identify how and when learning with virtual and augmented realities is effective.
Virtual and augmented realities in higher education have both advantages and disadvantages in the context of technology-enhanced learning, and its use is up to the learning designers.
Introduction
Virtual reality is a computer-generated environment with realistic-looking scenes and objects that immerses the user in their surroundings.Footnote1 This technology is not new, nor is its use in education. When the benefits of virtual and augmented realities are studied, virtual reality-based content helps students better understand the subject matter (Shakirova et al., Citation2020) and allows the instructor to design the course without the need for costly laboratory upgrades (Syed et al., Citation2019). Augmented reality-based learning modes, in terms of motivation and engagement, may attract and motivate learners to learn (Chu et al., Citation2019) and boost their confidence (Al-Hatem et al., Citation2018). Last but not least, several advanced tools for technology-supported pedagogical practices, such as gamification and the use of virtual reality, as well as social media, can help university students develop online collaborative skills (Martínez-Cerdá et al., Citation2018).
Despite their popularity, they are not widely used in education due to limitations such as required technologies, cost, etc (Sprenger & Schwaninger, Citation2021). Mystakidis et al. (Citation2022) conducted a systematic review of augmented reality to support STEM learning in higher education. According to them, augmented reality in higher education is still an emerging trend. Besides, according to Buchner and Kerres (Citation2023), most research on augmented reality in education is based on media comparison studies, with 80% of studies comparing augmented reality to another medium or technology. Few studies have been conducted to investigate how and when learning with augmented reality is effective. Although many systematic reviews (Merchant et al., Citation2014; Pellas et al., Citation2021; Radianti et al., Citation2020) and other types of literature reviews on virtual and augmented realities in higher education have been published, none address how and when learning with augmented reality is effective. In other words, the literature lacks clarity in explaining when and how augmented reality learning is beneficial. Furthermore, immersive VR has primarily been used in experimental and development work rather than being regularly used in actual teaching, and the evaluation of educational VR apps has primarily focused on the VR apps’ usability rather than learning outcomes (Radianti et al., Citation2020). For this reason, a systematic review of the use of virtual and augmented realities in higher education should illuminate how it has been used in higher education thus far and identify the trends regarding courses and teaching strategies that incorporate virtual and augmented realities.
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of the use of virtual and augmented realities in higher education in the context of technology-enhanced learning. To accomplish this, the present study began with the formulation of the following research questions regarding publications related to virtual and augmented realities in higher education:
What are the trends regarding publication year, country, and research methodologies?
What are the trends regarding courses and teaching strategies that incorporate virtual and augmented realities?
What are the difficulties experienced in the integration of virtual and augmented realities?
Method
This study is designed as a systematic literature review with five steps. These steps, according to Petersen et al. (Citation2008), are describing research questions, searching for relevant published research, screening the research, coding it, and lastly analysing and mapping the data. Gusenbauer and Haddaway (Citation2020) conducted a recent review in which they evaluated the retrieval performance of 28 well-known databases for evidence synthesis and concluded that some databases, such as Google Scholar, are useful for cross-checks yet unsuitable for reviews. For this reason, the Web of Science database was selected among the principal sources they listed.
The following code was used for the search. It includes keywords for both virtual and augmented realities and higher education, undergraduate and university. The study was framed with articles in English published in the last seven years.
TS=(‘virtual reality’ OR ‘augmented reality’) AND TS=(‘higher education’ OR ‘university’ OR ‘undergraduate’) and Article (Document Types) and last 7 years.
After an advanced search, it was seen that there were 105 studies, but since six of them could not be reached and four of them have only the abstract in English, the study has been carried out with 95 studies. After screening the related research, it has been seen that 69 of them are relevant for that review. Systematic review process can be seen in .
Figure 1. Systematic review process.
Despite being listed in the database with keywords, 26 of the research papers were unrelated to virtual and augmented realities in higher education. The most common misunderstanding was between virtual reality in education and virtual learning environments (e.g. Porubčinová et al., Citation2020; Tan & Lin, Citation2021). The second confusion was that while higher education was mentioned in the title or/and abstract, some of the work was done with groups including adults or primary school students other than higher education.
Findings
Research question 1
After screening relevant published research, it was first investigated to see how articles are distributed based on the publication years. It can be seen in .
Table 1. The distribution of publication years.
Based on the information presented in the , publications about virtual and augmented realities in higher education are systematically increasing, except 2022. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a dramatic increase in research on the use of virtual and augmented realities in higher education with online learning environments (e.g. Tan & Lin, Citation2021; Tsekhmister et al., Citation2021) in 2021 (n = 21).
After screening relevant published research based on publication years, the countries, where research about virtual and augmented realities in higher education was conducted, were also screened. In some papers, there was more than one country; in that case, the country where the research was conducted or corresponding author’s country were taken, if it was a non-experimental study.
Based on the country information, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, the UK, and the US are the leading countries in terms of where research about virtual and augmented realities in higher education was conducted, each with three published papers addressing virtual and augmented realities in higher education. Most of the publications come from the continent of Europe. In this section, it was lastly investigated to see how articles are distributed based on the research methods, in order to see the weight of the experimental design in which virtual and augmented realities are integrated.
Based on the information presented in the , experimental studies have been most frequently used in virtual and augmented realities research in higher education. The distribution of research methods in order of frequency is as follows: experimental research (27), survey studies (20), systematic reviews (12), theoretical/design studies (6), and qualitative methods (4). Although systematic reviews do not appear to be prominent, an increase has been observed in recent years.
Table 2. The distribution of research methods in relevant published research.
Research question 2
In this research question, the data was investigated to see if there was a distribution of the courses the researchers conducted. For this reason, in this part, it was focused on experimental and survey studies. It is important to gain a better understanding of how it has been used in higher education thus far and what the trends regarding courses and teaching strategies that incorporate virtual and augmented realities are.
After screening experimental and survey studies (n = 47), it can be seen that there is a distribution of courses in virtual and augmented realities integrated in higher education. According to , virtual and augmented realities in higher education have been implemented mostly in medical and engineering courses. These medical courses consist of medicine, biology, surgery, and nursing subjects. The distribution of the courses the studies conducted are as follows: medicine (12), engineering (12), social sciences (8), teacher education (5), tourism (3), and business studies (2). Last but not least, in five studies, participants were recruited from across the university rather than attending an individual course.
Table 3. The distribution of the courses the studies conducted in relevant published research.
After mapping the courses the studies conducted in relevant published research, it was also investigated to see if there was a distribution of the teaching strategies in virtual and augmented realities research in higher education. The reason for that was to assess why virtual and augmented realities were integrated into the courses in higher education.
After the screening process, it can be seen that there is a distribution of teaching strategies in virtual and augmented realities research in higher education. Based on the information in relevant published researches provided in , simulations have been mostly implemented in virtual and augmented realities research in higher education as a teaching strategy. The distribution of the teaching strategies is as follows: digital learning environment (integration of virtual and augmented realities into learning management systems) (17), classroom replica (7), simulation (11), field trips (4), assessment (4), virtual labs (2), drama (1), and library (1). Simulations are explained as scenario-based learning in some research, and students were expected to complete some tasks based on the scenario. Besides that, virtual and augmented realities in higher education have been used mostly to create a virtual environment for students to access digital learning environments.
Table 4. The distribution of teaching strategies in relevant published research.
Subsequently, it was investigated to see if there was a distribution of the research group in virtual and augmented realities research in higher education. This is shown in .
Table 5. The distribution of research groups in relevant published research.
The distribution of the research groups is as follows: undergraduate students (28), lecturers (7), graduate students (4), and high school students (1) in virtual and augmented realities research in higher education. This was unsurprising, as the research was narrowed down with the keyword ‘higher education’. 7 of the manuscripts mentioned that the data collected from different stakeholders such as students, staff and administrators. Lastly, it was checked the distribution of group size in relevant published research, as seen in .
Table 6. The distribution of group size in relevant published research.
The distribution of group sizes is as follows: 100+ (20), 50–100 (13), 20–50 (7), and up to 20 (7). Researchers may choose large groups when conducting surveys and experimental studies with control and experimental groups.
Finally, during the screening process, other criteria, such as modality for virtual and augmented realities, software and hardware development tools, and effect size were taken into consideration, but those were infrequently mentioned in the publications, so it was not possible to map those criteria. It can be asserted, nevertheless, that the majority of virtual and augmented realities in higher education are low modalities, such as using a phone to scan a barcode; the HTC Vive is the most widely used VR headset.
Research question 3
Lastly, when it was looked at the results of the relevant published studies to see if there was any frequency in the published results, it was found many trends and limitations of using virtual and augmented realities in higher education. This research question is critical, as it gives clue about when learning with virtual and augmented realities is effective.
On the one hand, it can be seen that there is a positive correlation between virtual reality and cost reduction when it was looked at the positive results. There is a possibility of reducing the consumption of raw materials required for book printing, thereby lowering costs (Alahmari et al., Citation2019). The use of virtual and augmented realities supports and improves students’ learning. Students in the experimental groups had better learning achievement in terms of scores than those in the control groups (Eldokhny & Drwish, Citation2021; Ha & Im, Citation2020; Medina et al., Citation2018; Nielsen et al., Citation2021).
Virtual reality can improve the quality of educational products and provide new avenues for mastering practical skills. Virtual reality implementation in the experimental study illuminated complex concepts and helped students gain experience in their chosen professional field (Shakirova et al., Citation2020). Lastly, as students from low-income families are often unable to participate in outdoor activities outside of school, virtual experiences make these activities available to all, helping to reduce social inequalities (Verdes et al., Citation2021). Furthermore, the adaptability of mobile learning and virtual experiences may improve learning outcomes because they can be tailored to the diverse learning styles of students enrolled in the same course.
On the other hand, there have been studies in which virtual learning participants did not outperform non-virtual learning participants (Andersen et al., Citation2021; Fitton et al., Citation2020; Petrović et al., Citation2022). For example, according to Petrović et al. (Citation2022), the time required to complete a task in the virtual environment is significantly longer than the time required to complete the written test. Sprenger and Schwaninger (Citation2021) indicated that the setup of the mobile VR sequences took too long – technical issues for a few students delayed the entire class – which could have hampered their acceptance of virtual technology.
According to Osmani (Citation2021), participants were dissatisfied with their virtual reality experiences. Technology has the potential to increase accessibility and remove geographic barriers, but it is ineffective if teaching techniques are simply replicated (Brewer et al., Citation2021). Wang and Sun (Citation2021) also discovered no significant differences in overall student engagement among the environments. Virtanen et al. (Citation2018) reported that the conventional digital learning environment was determined to be more valuable in terms of flexibility, context awareness, and interactivity. Lastly, Alamäki et al. (Citation2021) found that virtual realities may also reduce students’ overall affective experiences if students encounter usability issues.
From the teachers’ viewpoint, according to Fransson et al. (Citation2020), no teacher was ‘over-enthusiastic’ about VR as a ‘revolution’ in education, but instead teachers saw VR as a technology that could add value in some pedagogical settings. The main issue raised by all of the teachers was the lack of financial resources to purchase the necessary hardware and software.
Last but not least, some studies report in favour of both the experiment and control groups (Bushell et al., Citation2020; Ip et al., Citation2018). According to them, students were both satisfied and they valued the integration of virtual reality into the teaching and learning process.
Discussion
Despite their popularity, virtual and augmented realities are not widely used in education due to limitations such as required technologies, cost, etc. A systematic review of the use of virtual and augmented realities in higher education should illuminate how they have been used in higher education thus far and identify the trends regarding courses and teaching strategies in which virtual and augmented realities were integrated.
In this paper, it was attempted to present trends and issues from relevant published research on virtual and augmented realities in higher education, as well as teaching strategies and courses for the use of virtual and augmented realities in higher education. While Buchner and Kerres (Citation2023) have stated that most research on augmented reality in education is based on media comparison studies, with 80% of studies comparing augmented reality to another medium or technology, few studies have investigated how and when learning with augmented reality is effective. For this reason, it is crucial to identify how and when learning with virtual and augmented realities is effective.
According to the findings, virtual and augmented realities in higher education have been implemented mostly in medical and engineering courses. It was interesting that it was not seen any extensive implementation of VR/AR in higher education as it requires special equipment and software. The unique capabilities of VR/AR technology make it well- suited for medical education as they enhance patient safety, and prepare future healthcare professionals more effectively. They can also be updated easily to reflect new medical advancements or changes in practice guidelines (e.g. for nursing). Medical procedures often require precise movements and decision-making under pressure. VR/AR simulations allow students to practice repeatedly without consequences, helping them develop skills and confidence before working with real patients. Moreover, the immersive nature of VR/AR can increase student engagement and motivation by making learning more interactive and enjoyable. This can lead to better learning outcomes and a deeper understanding of scientific concepts.
In terms of teaching strategies, simulations have been used mostly in virtual and augmented reality research in higher education. Simulations are explained as scenario-based learning in some research, and students were expected to complete some tasks based on the scenario. The distribution of the teaching strategies follows simulations as digital learning environment, field trips, assessments, and virtual labs. Integrating virtual reality into digital learning environments is also common, but it can be difficult to distinguish between a virtual learning environment and a virtual reality integrated into a virtual learning environment because of the term ‘virtual’ (Porubčinová et al., Citation2020; Tan & Lin, Citation2021).
The distribution of the research groups is as follows: undergraduate students (28), lecturers (7), graduate students (4), and high school students (1) in virtual and augmented realities research in higher education. Based on these findings, it can be said that there is a need for more research from teachers’ points of views, because according to Fransson et al. (Citation2020), no teacher was ‘over-enthusiastic’ about virtual reality as a ‘revolution’ in education, but instead saw VR as a technology that could add value in some pedagogical settings. The main issue raised by all of the teachers was a lack of financial resources to purchase the necessary hardware and software.
The use of virtual and augmented realities supports and improves students’ learning. Students in the experimental groups had better learning achievement in terms of scores than those in the control groups in the studies (Eldokhny & Drwish, Citation2021; Ha & Im, Citation2020; Medina et al., Citation2018; Nielsen et al., Citation2021). On the other hand, there have been studies in which virtual learning participants did not outperform non-virtual learning participants (Andersen et al., Citation2021; Fitton et al., Citation2020; Petrović et al., Citation2022). So, this debate is still ongoing, and it needs to be further explored with different research groups and sizes. It could also be related to the course chosen for the research and the virtual and augmented realities teaching strategies used.
In terms of interaction and collaborative learning, the teaching strategies used with virtual and augmented realities do not provide an interactive environment and opportunity for collaborative learning for students, contrary to expectations. Simulations have been implemented in virtual and augmented realities research in higher education mostly as a teaching strategy, but those simulations do not give any chance to students to interact with their peers, even though research shows that any increase in environment interactivity will increase the user’s confidence (Al-Hatem et al., Citation2018).
Keywords used in this study included virtual and augmented realities, as well as higher education (undergraduate and university). The study was based on English-language articles published within the last seven years. In terms of limitations, keywords can be more specific to fields such as medicine and engineering to dive into those fields to get deeper insights. Also, Web of Science database was searched for that study, it could also be the limitation of the manuscript.
For further studies, researchers can also work with other databases. It could also be beneficial to look into other target groups including primary school, high school, and adult education. Especially, virtual and augmented realities in adult education is lacking the literature and it is not known if it is effective with this target group.
To sum up, virtual and augmented realities in higher education have both advantages and disadvantages in the context of technology-enhanced learning, and its use is up to the learning designers. In other words, there is no design framework for it yet, so it must be further investigated to create some design criteria.
Availability of data and material
The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Murat Sümer
Murat Sümer is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Instructional Technologies at Uşak University, Turkey. He is interested in digital media design for learning, teachers’ professional development in online learning communities and gamification.
David Vaněček
David Vaněček is an Associate Professor of Teaching Methodologies at Masaryk Institute of Advanced Studies at Czech Technical University in Prague, Czechia. He is specialized in vocational teacher education, artificial intelligence in education, virtual and augmented realities, and new trends in teaching methodologies.
Notes
1. This manuscript is an expanded version of the short paper titled ‘What Previous Research Says About Virtual and Augmented Reality in Higher Education’ presented at the 21st European Conference on e-Learning – ECEL 2022.
References
- Alahmari, M., Issa, T., Issa, T., & Nau, S. Z. (2019). Faculty awareness of the economic and environmental benefits of augmented reality for sustainability in Saudi Arabian universities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.090
- Alamäki, A. V., Dirin, A., Suomala, J., & Rhee, C. (2021). Students’ experiences of 2D and 360° videos with or without a low-cost VR headset: An experimental study in higher education. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 20, 309–329. https://doi.org/10.28945/4816
- Al-Hatem, A. I., Masood, M., & Al-Samarraie, H. (2018). Fostering student nurses’ self-regulated learning with the second life environment: An empirical study. Journal of Information Technology Education Research, 17(1), 285–307. https://doi.org/10.28945/4110
- Andersen, N. L., Jensen, R. O., Posth, S., Laursen, C. B., Jørgensen, R., & Graumann, O. (2021). Teaching ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter placement through immersive virtual reality: An explorative pilot study. Medicine, 100(27), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026394
- Brewer, P. E., Racy, M., Hampton, M., Mushtaq, F., Tomlinson, J. E., & Ali, F. M. (2021). A three-arm single blind randomised control trial of naïve medical students performing a shoulder joint clinical examination. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02822-5
- Buchner, J., & Kerres, M. (2023). Media comparison studies dominate comparative research on augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 195, 104711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104711
- Bushell, M., Frost, J., Deeks, L., Kosari, S., Hussain, Z., & Naunton, M. (2020). Evaluation of vaccination training in pharmacy curriculum: Preparing students for workforce needs. Pharmacy, 8(3), 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy8030151
- Chu, H. C., Chen, J. M., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, T. W. (2019). Effects of formative assessment in an augmented reality approach to conducting ubiquitous learning activities for architecture courses. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(2), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0588-y
- Eldokhny, A. A., & Drwish, A. M. (2021). Effectiveness of augmented reality in online distance learning at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Online), 16(9), 198. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i09.17895
- Fitton, I. S., Finnegan, D. J., & Proulx, M. J. (2020). Immersive virtual environments and embodied agents for e-learning applications. PeerJ Computer Science, 6(4), e315. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.315
- Fransson, G., Holmberg, J., & Westelius, C. (2020). The challenges of using head mounted virtual reality in K-12 schools from a teacher perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 3383–3404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10119-1
- Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
- Ha, Y., & Im, H. (2020). The role of an interactive visual learning tool and its personalizability in online learning: Flow experience. Online Learning, 24(1), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.1620
- Ip, H. H. S., Li, C., Leoni, S., Chen, Y., Ma, K. F., Wong, C. H. T., & Li, Q. (2018). Design and evaluate immersive learning experience for massive open online courses (MOOCs). IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2018.2878700
- Martínez-Cerdá, J. F., Torrent-Sellens, J., & González-González, I. (2018). Promoting collaborative skills in online university: Comparing effects of games, mixed reality, social media, and other tools for ICT-supported pedagogical practices. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37(10–11), 1055–1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1476919
- Medina, A. M., García, F. J. C., & Olguín, J. A. M. (2018). Planning and allocation of digital learning objects with augmented reality to higher education students according to the VARK model. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 5(2), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2018.02.005
- Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033
- 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/s10639-021-10682-1
- Nielsen, M. R., Kristensen, E. Q., Jensen, R. O., Mollerup, A. M., Pfeiffer, T., & Graumann, O. (2021). Clinical ultrasound education for medical students: Virtual reality versus e-learning, a randomized controlled pilot trial. Ultrasound Quarterly, 37(3), 292–296. https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000558
- Osmani, F. (2021). Analysis of students satisfaction with virtual education in medical science university during the pandemic outbreak of COVID-19. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.854675
- Pellas, N., Mystakidis, S., & Kazanidis, I. (2021). Immersive virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A systematic review of the last decade scientific literature. Virtual Reality, 25(3), 835–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00489-9
- Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2008, June 26–27). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) (Vol. 12. pp. 1–10). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2227115.2227123
- Petrović, L., Stojanović, D., Mitrović, S., Barać, D., & Bogdanović, Z. (2022). Designing an extended smart classroom: An approach to game‐based learning for IoT. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(1), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22446
- Porubčinová, M., Novotná, I., & Fidlerová, H. (2020). The use of education 4.0 tools in tertiary education system in Slovakia. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 80(6), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v80i6.4004
- 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.2019.103778
- Shakirova, N., Said, N., & Konyushenko, S. (2020). The use of virtual reality in geo-education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(20), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i20.15433
- Sprenger, D. A., & Schwaninger, A. (2021). Technology acceptance of four digital learning technologies (classroom response system, classroom chat, e-lectures, and mobile virtual reality) after three months’ usage. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00243-4
- Syed, Z. A., Trabookis, Z., Bertrand, J., Chalil Madathil, K., Hartley, R. S., Frady, K. K., & Gramopadhye, A. K. (2019). Evaluation of virtual reality based learning materials as a supplement to the undergraduate mechanical engineering laboratory experience. International Journal of Engineering Education, 35(3), 1–11. https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10096489.409
- Tan, C., & Lin, J. (2021). A new QoE-based prediction model for evaluating virtual education systems with COVID-19 side effects using data mining. Soft Computing, 27(3), 1699–1713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-05932-w
- Tsekhmister, Y., Konovalova, T., Tsekhmister, B., Agrawal, A., & Ghosh, D. (2021). Evaluation of virtual reality technology and online teaching system for medical students in Ukraine during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(23), 127–139. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i23.26099
- Verdes, A., Navarro, C., & Álvarez‐Campos, P. (2021). Mobile learning applications to improve invertebrate zoology online teaching. Invertebrate Biology, 140(1), e12321. https://doi.org/10.1111/ivb.12321
- Virtanen, M. A., Haavisto, E., Liikanen, E., & Kääriäinen, M. (2018). Students’ perceptions on the use of a ubiquitous 360° learning environment in histotechnology: A pilot study. Journal of Histotechnology, 41(2), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01478885.2018.1439680
- Wang, H. Y., & Sun, J. C. Y. (2021). Real-time virtual reality co-creation: Collective intelligence and consciousness for student engagement and focused attention within online communities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3422–3435. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1928711