Cited by 133Augmented Reality ApplicationsVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsEducational Technology in Learning

Media comparison studies dominate comparative research on augmented reality in education

Open access
Buchner, Josef, Kerres, Michael·2023·Computers & Education

Abstract

Research on the use of augmented reality (AR) in education has received a lot of attention in recent years. Based on many systematic reviews and meta-analyses, it has been concluded that AR is effective. Recently, however, researchers have criticized the fact that the empirical basis for this conclusion is based on results from methodologically problematic media comparison studies. However, an analysis of the literature and quantitative evidence for this claim are lacking. In this research project, this research gap was addressed using the Systematic Review method. A total of 92 primary studies from the top 12 Educational Technology journals were coded and analyzed. The results show that research on AR in education is based on media comparison studies: 80% of the studies compare AR to another medium or technology. Few studies examine how and when learning with AR is effective. In addition, results show that over the years, since 2009, more media comparison studies have been published than other research types. We summarize why media comparison studies are problematic and discuss directions for future research on AR in education. This research shifts from the question if AR can be used in instruction to the more important questions of how and when learning and teaching with AR works.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104711

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Buchner and Kerres (2023) concluded from their systematic review that 80% of studies on the effects of Augmented Reality for learning are media comparisons.

    “Buchner and Kerres(2023) conclude from their systematic review that 80% of studies on the effects of Augmented Reality for learning are media comparisons.”

    From <scp>ChatGPT</scp> in Education: An Effect in Search of a Cause (2025) · cites this paper as Buchner and Kerres(2023)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buchner, J., & Kerres, M.
Affiliations
  • St.Gallen University of Teacher Education (CH)
  • University of Duisburg-Essen (DE)
Corresponding author
Buchner, Josef
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-04
Volume
195
Pages
104711
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4313399483
Cited by
133
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 29
FWCI
8.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Computers & Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
Keywords
augmented reality, educational technology research, research methodology critique, research trends

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review