CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Augmented Reality ApplicationsMultimedia Learning SystemsSTEM Education

A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality in STEM Education

Open access
Ajit, Gloria·2021·Studies of Applied Economics
DOI 10.25115/eea.v39i1.4280
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study presents a systematic review of the existing literature on the benefits and challenges faced regarding the use of augmented reality (AR) in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. Guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method, a systematic review of the ScienceDirect database identified 19 related studies. Further investigation of these articles resulted in four themes of AR advantages, namely its contribution to learners, the learning outcomes, the interaction of AR, and other benefits. These four themes further produced a total of 16 sub-themes, while the challenges aspect of AR resulted in 5 sub-themes. The most reported benefit of AR is that it stimulates learning achievement. Some observed that the challenges imposed by AR are concerned with marker detection and usability. Several other problems and advantages of AR usage in STEM education were also discovered, which will be discussed in detail. Additionally, the existing gaps of AR study in the STEM education field were identified, and recommendations are therefore presented for future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25115/eea.v39i1.4280

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • AR serious games have been reported as motivating and engaging for children in their learning experience, stimulating positive learning attitude.

    “AR serious games have been reported as motivating and engaging for children in their learning experience, stimulating positive learning attitude [31], [32].”

    From Extracting Design Guidelines for Augmented Reality Serious Games for Children (2022) · cites this paper as [31]

    Section 3.2.1, “Contribution to Learners” (page not provided), reports that AR can increase students’ interest and motivation and foster positive attitudes. Section 3.2.2, “Learning Outcomes” (page not provided), says learners found AR fun and enjoyable. These passages concern AR in STEM education generally; they do not establish the claim specifically for AR serious games or children. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11.
  2. Ali, R., & Bakar, A. (2019). The probability to memorize and understand textbook information: Socioeconomic class as the predictor for cognitive processing strategies in Pakistani education system. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 39(1), 253-270.
  3. Altinpulluk, H. (2019). Determining the trends of using augmented reality in education between 2006-2016. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1089-1114.
  4. Askari, E., Brandon, D., Galvin, S., & Greenhow, C. (2018). Youth, learning and social media in K-12 education: The state of the field. Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS, 1, 344-351.
  5. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Educational Technology and Society, 17(4), 133-149.
  6. Brown, M., Mccormack, M., Reeves, J., Brooks, D. C., Grajek, S., Alexander, B., … Weber, N. (2020). 2020 EDUCAUSE Horizon report TM : Teaching and learning edition. Louisville: Educause Publication.
  7. Cai, S., Chiang, F., Sun, Y., Lin, C., & Lee, J. J. (2017). Applications of augmented reality-based natural interactive learning in magnetic field instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(6), 778- 791.
  8. Cheng, Y., Yen, C., Su, N., Ting, T., Yueh, W., & Huang, M. (2019). Enhancing students' botanical learning by using augmented reality. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(2), 231-241.
  9. Dey, A., Billinghurst, M., Lindeman, R. W., & Swan, J. E. (2018). A systematic review of 10 years of augmented reality usability studies: 2005 to 2014. In Frontiers in Robotics and AI (Vol. 5).
  10. Diegmann, P., Schmidt-Kraepelin, M., Van den Eynden, S., & Basten, D. (2015). Benefits of augmented reality in aducational environments-A systematic literature review. In 12th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 1542-1556).
  11. Echeverría, A., Améstica, M., Gil, F., Nussbaum, M., Barrios, E., & Leclerc, S. (2012). Exploring different technological platforms for supporting co-located collaborative games in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1170-1177.
  12. Erbas, C., & Demirer, V. (2019). The effects of augmented reality on students' academic achievement and motivation in a biology course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 450-458.
  13. Fidan, M., & Tuncel, M. (2019). Integrating augmented reality into problem based learning: The effects on learning achievement and attitude in physics education. Computers and Education, 142(2019), 103635.
  14. Ghazi, S. R., Ullah, K., & Jan, F. A. (2016). Concrete operational stage of Piaget's Cognitive Development Theory: An implication in learning mathematics. Gomal University Journal of Research, 32(1), 9-20.
  15. Gies, T. (2018). The ScienceDirect accessibility journey: A case study. Learned Publishing, 31(1), 69- 76.
  16. Gün, E. T., & Atasoy, B. (2017). The effects of augmented reality on elementary school students' spatial ability and academic achievement. Egitim ve Bilim, 42(191), 31-51.
  17. Günbaş, N. (2020). Students solve mathematics word problems in animated cartoons. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2), 43-57.
  18. 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 Syntesis Methods, 11(2), 181-217.
  19. Kohler, R. (2014). Jean Piaget. Bloomsbury Academic.
  20. Korucu, A. T., Usta, E., & Yavuzaslan, İ. F. (2016). The use of augmented reality technology in education: Content analysis of the research period 2007-2016 in Turkey. Journal of Field Education Research, 2(2), 84-95.
  21. Laine, T. H., Nygren, E., Dirin, A., & Suk, H. J. (2016). Science Spots AR: A platform for science learning games with augmented reality. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), 507-531.
  22. Milton, J. H., Flores, M. M., Moore, A. J., Taylor, J. L. J., & Burton, M. E. (2018). Using the concrete- representational-abstract sequence to teach conceptual understanding of basic multiplication and division. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(1), 32-45.
  23. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, T. P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
  24. Moorhouse, N., Dieck, M. C., & Jung, T. (2019). An experiential view to children learning in museums with augmented reality. Museum Management and Curatorship, 34(4), 402-418.
  25. Nurdyansyah, N., Mandarani, V., & Rais, P. (2020). How to make use of animation to improve primary school students' english achievement? JEES (Journal of English Educators Society), 5(1), 53-59.
  26. Palmiero, M., Piccardi, L., Giancola, M., Nori, R., D'Amico, S., & Olivetti Belardinelli, M. (2019). The format of mental imagery: from a critical review to an integrated embodied representation approach. Cognitive Processing, 20(3), 277-289.
  27. Pellas, N., Fotaris, P., Kazanidis, I., & Wells, D. (2019). Augmenting the learning experience in primary and secondary school education: A systematic review of recent trends in augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Reality, 23(4), 329-346.
  28. Petri, G., & Wangenheim, C. G. von. (2017). How games for computing education are evaluated? A systematic literature review. Computers and Education, 107, 68-90.
  29. Pirttimaa, M., Husu, J., Metsa, M., Metsärinne, M., & Metsa, M. (2017). Uncovering procedural knowledge in craft, design, and technology education: A case of hands-on activities in electronics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 215-231.
  30. Safadel, P., & White, D. (2019). Facilitating molecular biology teaching by using Augmented Reality (AR) and Protein Data Bank (PDB). TechTrends, 63(2), 188-193.
  31. Saltan, F., & Arslan, Ö. (2017). The use of augmented reality in formal education: A scoping review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 503-520.
  32. Sharma, K., Torrado, J. C., Gómez, J., & Jaccheri, L. (2021). Improving girls' perception of computer science as a viable career option through game playing and design: Lessons from a systematic literature review. Entertainment Computing, 36(October 2019).
  33. Shiner, N. (2018). Is there a role for simulation based education within conventional diagnostic radiography? A literature review. Radiography, 24(3), 262-271.
  34. Silva, M. M. O. da, Teixeira, J. M. X. N., Cavalcante, P. S., & Teichrieb, V. (2019). Perspectives on how to evaluate augmented reality technology tools for education: A systematic review. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society, 25(3), 1-18.
  35. Sirakaya, M., & Sirakaya, D. A. (2018). Trends in educational augmented reality studies: A systematic review. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6(2), 60-74.
  36. Sırakaya, M., & Alsancak Sırakaya, D. (2020). Augmented reality in STEM education: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14.
  37. Sommerauer, P., & Müller, O. (2018). Augmented reality for teaching and learning-A literature review on theoretical and empirical foundations. In 26th European Conference on Information Systems: Beyond Digitization -Facets of Socio-Technical Change, ECIS 2018.
  38. Sugiharti, G., Dalimunthe, M., & Syuhada, F. A. (2020). Learning media animations for subjects evaluation and Chemistry learning outcomes. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1462(1), 012021.
  39. Thibaut, L., Ceuppens, S., De Loof, H., De Meester, J., Goovaerts, L., Struyf, A., … Depaepe, F. (2018). Integrated STEM education: A systematic review of instructional practices in secondary education. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1-12.
  40. Tikito, I., & Souissi, N. (2019). Meta-analysis of systematic literature review methods. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 11(2), 17-25.
  41. Umi Fairus Mohd Jamil, & Fazlinda Ab Halim. (2018). Kaedah mnemonik akronim dalam mata pelajaran Reka Bentuk dan Teknologi di Sekolah Rendah Agama Bersepadu Mersing. Online Journal for TVET Practioners, 3(1).
  42. Wan Jaafar, W. N., & Maat, S. M. (2020). The relationship between self efficacy and motivation with STEM education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Modern Education, 2(4), 19-29.
  43. Wang, L., Lee, H., & Ju, D. Y. (2019). Impact of digital content on young children's reading interest and concentration for books. Behaviour and Information Technology, 38(1), 1-8.
  44. Wilhelmsen, T., & Sørensen, M. (2017). Inclusion of children with disabilities in physical education: A systematic review of literature from 2009 to 2015. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 34(3), 311-337.
  45. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93-112.
  46. Yu, S.-J., Sun, J. C.-Y., & Chen, O. T.-C. (2019). Effect of AR-based online wearable guides on university students' situational interest and learning performance. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(2), 287-299.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ajit, G.
Affiliations
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (MY)
Corresponding author
Ajit, Gloria
ORCID
Ajit, Gloria
Venue
Studies of Applied Economics
Publisher
Editorial Universidad de Almeria
Published
2021-10-28
Volume
39
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1133-3197 (ISSN-L)
  • 1697-5731
DOI
10.25115/eea.v39i1.4280
OpenAlex
W3126929323
Cited by
65
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Studies of Applied Economics (publishedVersion)
  • Unimas Institutional Repository (Universiti Malaysia Sarawak) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Multimedia Learning Systems
  • Social Sciences › Education › STEM Education
Keywords
augmented reality, STEM education, learning outcomes, academic performance, marker detection, usability, student engagement

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