Media comparison studies dominate comparative research on augmented reality in education
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning
Hodges, C. B., Moore, S., Lockee, B. B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2024) · Handbook of Research in Online Learning · doi:10.1163/9789004702813_021 · Cited by 6,253 · see citing works
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
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. (2021) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583 · Cited by 5,148 · see citing works
Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media
Clark, R. E. (1983) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543053004445 · Cited by 2,715 · see citing works
Media will never influence learning
Clark, R. E. (1994) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02299088 · Cited by 1,893 · see citing works
Learning science in immersive virtual reality.
Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2018) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000241 · Cited by 1,088 · see citing works
Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review
Ibáñez, M.-B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002 · Cited by 1,036 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of the impact of Augmented Reality on students’ learning gains
Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001 · Cited by 491 · see citing works
Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research?
Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C. K. (2019) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12770 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
<scp>ChatGPT</scp> in Education: An Effect in Search of a Cause
Weidlich, J., Gašević, D., Drachsler, H., & Kirschner, P. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70105 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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