Review

Augmented Reality: A Systematic Review of Its

Benefits and Challenges in E‐Learning Contexts
Nouf Matar Alzahrani
Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, Albaha University, Albaha 42331,
Saudi Arabia; [email protected]

Received: 28 June 2020; Accepted: 10 August 2020; Published: 14 August 2020

Abstract: Augmented reality (AR) has received increasing attention in the research literature as a
fundamental pedagogical tool that can enhance learning at most educational levels. In academic
contexts, this technology permits the superimposing of three‐dimensional images onto the real
environment. Although AR has been found to enhance learning in the academic environment, no
systematic review of it has been conducted to identify, evaluate, and summarize empirical findings
on its advantages and challenges in e‐learning contexts. Hence, a systematic review of the research
literature was conducted on the use of AR in e‐learning contexts, with a focus on the key benefits
and challenges related to its adoption and implementation. Electronic searches on databases,
including Springer, Science Direct, EBSCO, and Google Scholar, were performed to retrieve relevant
journal articles; 28 studies were included after they were screened using the inclusion and exclusion
criteria. The key benefits of using AR in e‐learning included support of kinesthetic (tactile) learning,
collaborative learning, distance/remote learning, learner‐centered learning, and creative learning.
Studies also reported that AR enhanced students’ engagement, motivation, attention/focus,
interactivity, verbal participation, concentration, knowledge retention, and spatial abilities, as well
as information accessibility. The findings suggest that challenges associated with AR in e‐learning
include information and cognitive overload, lack of experience in using the technology, resistance
from teachers, complex technology, costly technology, and technical issues, such as connectivity
problems.

Keywords: augmented reality; adaptive learning; collaborative learning; E‐learning; mobile

learning; gamification; kinesthetic learning; real‐world simulations; robotics; virtual reality

1. Introduction

1.1. Background
Over the past decade, the field of augmented reality (AR) has been established as one of the most
promising areas of computer graphics. During this time, myriad groundbreaking applications have
been actualized, increasing the significance of AR in daily life [1]. Such developments have not
remained outside the academic realm; rather, they have had a significant influence on this sector
through the creation of new disseminating tools, knowledge, and learning structures [2]. Refs. [3,4]
noted that novel lines of actions and ideas that have been implemented are linked to various forms
of established technologies, such as electronic learning (e‐learning), ubiquitous learning (u‐learning),
mobile learning (m‐learning), and game‐based learning. Ref. [5] proposed that such technological
innovations in academic setting allow various fields of knowledge to collaborate to generate different
academic issues and complementary methods, content, and learning objectives.
Indeed, [6] postulated that AR embeddedness in the field of education generates positive
learning and teaching outcomes. Ref. [7] proposed that the use of AR in education provides portable,

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660; doi:10.3390/app10165660 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 2 of 22

low‐cost, stress‐free, and promising solutions for use in a variety of academic settings. However, the
challenges associated with its implementation have also been reported by academic researchers [8,9].
Ref. [8] identified the challenges of usability and inadequate experience with the involved
technologies, and [9] noted several issues related to resistance from teachers, information overload,
and usability. Although advantages and disadvantages of AR have been identified in the literature,
no systematic reviews of this topic in the current literature have been conducted, which has created
a knowledge gap, necessitating further exploration in this area.

1.2. Purpose
This systematic review was intended to probe deeper into the applicability and pertinence of AR
in e‐learning contexts, revealing its benefits and challenges, as reported in the published research.
The purpose of this review was to inform academicians of the advantages and challenges of using
AR, as reported in the published research. It was projected that the findings reported in this
systematic review would help find answers to questions about the applicability of this technology in
the e‐learning context, share policies (i.e., the relationship between AR pedagogy and academic
outcomes for policy makers), and improve practice (for practitioners). The analysis of the challenges
of AR in this context was expected to uncover trends, limitations, and affordances, thereby creating
opportunities for further research and a general vision of the future.

1.3. Objectives
The key objectives of this review were to, first, highlight the advantages/benefits of using AR in
e‐learning contexts, and second, identify the challenges of adopting and applying AR in the
educational setting. As part of these objectives, the distribution of published studies over time on the
use of AR in academic settings was examined using the Web of Science databases. The goals of this
study were to provide recommendations for both AR development and education and suggest future
directions for future studies.

1.4. Research Questions

This investigation explored two research questions: (i) what are the advantages of AR in
academic settings, as reported in the research literature? (ii) what are the challenges of AR in
academic settings, as reported in the research literature?

2. Augmented Reality

2.1. Definition and Taxonomy

Ref. [10] defined AR as a technology that overlays virtual objects (augmented constituents) onto
the real world. The Oxford Dictionary defines this as a technology that superimposes a computer‐
produced portrayal on a user’s outlook of the real world and, therefore, shows a composite
perspective. In their handbook of AR, [11] hypothesize that AR is a real‐time direct or indirect outlook
on a real‐world physical environment, which is improved (augmented) by adding virtual computer‐
generated information to it. This definition is congruent with that of Silva, Oliveira, and Giraldi [12],
who view AR as a concept used for computer‐generated 3D environments, which allow the user to
cross the threshold and interact with synthetic environments. In other words, the individual using
the computer is able to “immerse” him/herself to varying degrees into the computer’s synthetic
virtual world that may be either a simulation of some form of reality or a simulation of a complex
phenomenon.
According to [13], AR can be viewed as a computerized extension of people’s reality in a system
that is characterized by three key features: combined reality and virtuality, interactive in real time,
and presented in 3D. As noted by [11], AR is within the context of reality and virtuality, which Fumio
Kishino and Paul Milgram described as a continuum spanning real and virtual environments. In this
context, AR and augmented virtuality (AV) arise, where AR represents the real world and AV
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 3 of 22

represents the virtual world. For this reason, [14] consider AR to be a concept in technology rather
than a certain form of technology. Similarly, [6] posited that AR should not be limited to any
particular type of technology but viewed as a broad concept that can be conceptualized beyond
technology. Thus, AR should play a supplementary role in any setting rather than replace reality in
such settings. For instance, in academic settings, virtual objects can be incorporated into the real
world, and AR implementation could exploit the affordances of that real world by offering
supplementary and contextual information that enhances (augments) students’ experiences of reality
[15].

2.2. Application of AR in E‐Learning

Vast transformations are currently taking place in learning practices and paradigms. Presently,
the continued rise of the internet and related technologies has led to the introduction of new
pedagogical approaches based on the sensation of time and space in the use of knowledge. In the
realm of e‐learning, shrewd instructors are looking for an appropriate mix of innovative teaching
technologies and methodologies to enhance the efficacy of instruction. AR was developed for this
reason. This innovative technology has allowed e‐learning learners to receive instruction using a
mixture of the virtual and real world in varying proportions to achieve a degree of immersion that
no virtual equipment can provide [16]. It is a novel medium that combines various elements from
social computing to tangible and ubiquitous computing. Given its capabilities, [4] argues that AR
(especially game‐based AR) brings to the e‐learning segment the unique affordances and benefits of
adaptive learning, including enhancement of student motivation, engagement, involvement, and
comprehension.
Given the evolution of AR, other related technologies, and technological concepts, [17] have
identified the need for e‐learning platforms to shift from simplistic and monolithic frameworks
dealing with the fundamentals of course management, design, and delivery, to more “flexible”
paradigms involving active learners and the use of external stimuli that augment their motivation.
With innovative technologies, such as virtual reality (VR) and AR, e‐learning institutions now have
a robust and flexible learning environment that serves learners with improved dynamicity and
personalization [17]. This convenience is underscored by the ability of innovations, such as VR and
AR to present information by orchestrating a number of functionalities that are grounded on service‐
oriented architectures. For example, [18] emphasize that AR is vital to e‐learning because it
encourages kinesthetic and 3D perspectives. As demonstrated subsequently, such advantages allow
students who are e‐learners that struggle with the visualization of phenomena to envisage such
phenomena in the real world, even in extreme complex scenarios. As pointed out by [19], and
importantly for this review, AR in e‐learning contexts entails combining digital information within
an existing environment (physical, real‐world settings), where the elements are augmented or
supplemented through computer‐generated sensory inputs that may include video, sound, GPS data,
graphics, and visualizations.

2.3. The Role of Robotics in AR‐Based Learning

As the field of robotics continues to grow tremendously, scholars have attempted to explore how
robotics technology can combine with a number of other innovative technologies to improve usability
and operational efficiency. In this study, [20] explored the use of robotics in the education of primary‐
school‐age learners, aiming to shed light on planning applications about robotics in Turkey. The
researchers also aimed to help these learners get close to robotics and AR technology. In this context,
their exploration was supported by the AR robotics construction programming for both fourth and
fifth‐grade learners. The findings of this study demonstrate that robotics in AR‐based learning can
improve learning outcome, but it is vital to identify different application methods to enhance
learners’ motivation and enable the use of robotics that fits their creative skills. The scholars also
suggest that there is a need for teacher training to enable the effective combination of AR with
robotics. The researchers point out further exploration is necessitated, especially starting from
elementary schools to students at the university level.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 4 of 22

Correspondingly, [21] consider robotics as a flexible medium for learning, offering opportunities
for design and construction, particularly with limited time and funds. According to the researchers,
the new versions of education robotics technologies allow learners to control the behavior of tangible
models by means of other technologies such as VR and AR. This enables the possibility of new forms
of science experiments, where learners, even in kindergarten, can investigate everyday phenomena
[21]. Ref. [22] make a similar observation in their study involving 300 students in secondary school.
In this study, the researchers explore the effectiveness of Vollstedt, a LEGO Robotics Learning
program for high school students. Their findings suggest that, when utilizing this application in an
AR learning environment, the interest of the students and knowledge of mathematics, engineering,
technology, and science increased considerably. Similarly, [23] created a robotics education
application called FASTBOT to allow students to make better decisions regarding their future careers.
The tool allows students to program, find solutions to given tasks, and apply their knowledge in
combination with programming. The results suggest that that the robotics systems can allow students
to become more aware of their capabilities, enable effective problem solving, and enhance
effectiveness in working towards the desired results in their robotic interactions. In addition, this
research suggests that robotics applications such as FASTBOT can be effective in enabling students
to understand better different aspects of mathematics, technology, and science.
Based on the overview of these studies, it is apparent that both AR and robotics can benefit each
other in terms of increasing usability and operational efficiency. Most of the studies presented here
highlight the key roles and contributions of robotics in an AR‐based education system. There are
others, however, that explore and document the application of AR in robotics, where AR acts as a
new medium for interaction and information exchange with the capability to enhance the
effectiveness of the human–robot interaction (HRI) [24] The combination of robotics and AR can
allow students to learn complicated academic aspects, especially in sciences such as biology,
mathematics, and chemistry, and is particularly useful in medical procedures [25,26] When applied
to the field of education, robotics can change the way learners learn and, in turn, create a more
motivated, knowledgeable, and well‐adjusted student. Further, in the face of teacher shortage,
educators and their institutions are turning to AR‐powered robotics to provide instruction and
educational support. This is especially fundamental in teaching students with disabilities, an area
that is seen to have a personnel shortage. As reported by [27], when provided with the capabilities of
human intelligence, robots, as well as other assertive devices, have the potential to empower people
with disabilities with instruction and academic support. Some of these capabilities, especially for
students with disabilities, may include context awareness, scalability, tirelessness, precision, and
embodiment, making robotics particularly beneficial in instruction roles.

3. Methods

3.1. Selection of Articles

A systematic search was performed to identify all literature pertaining to the benefits and
advantages of using AR in education, and particularly, in e‐learning contexts. To guide this research,
a brief scoping review and evaluation of key research on AR in various sectors were conducted to
identify common terminology and implement a more in‐depth search. The Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations were adhered to, as
described by [28] The primary search strategy included electronic searches in four major databases,
including Springer, Science Direct, EBSCO, and Google Scholar. This review included only studies
published from 2009 through 2019. This inclusion timeframe was selected to reflect the most recent,
accurate, and extensive (long‐standing) evidence‐based peer‐reviewed studies. Furthermore, as the
demand for AR in education and other sectors has increased during the last decade [29], this period
marks a crucial time to evaluate how the technology has been beneficial and the challenges that have
been encountered by those who have adopted and implemented it at various levels of education.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 5 of 22

3.2. Identification of Articles

The researcher used the advanced search function and entered the search terms “augmented
reality” and “augmenting reality” because scholars in the field tend to use these terms
interchangeably. The researcher in this review used both keywords with the Boolean operator “OR”
to combine multiple search terms in order to obtain relevant results relating to AR in e‐learning
contexts. Although VR and mixed reality (MR) are components of AR, the researcher did not search
for articles specifically addressing VR or MR in academic settings in order to narrow the scope to
address only AR. Although these concepts are related, they accomplish different goals in different
ways, as noted by [30] and therefore, their applicability in academic settings varies greatly. Extensive
phrases, including “benefits of augmented reality in e‐learning/education/online learning/virtual
learning/mobile learning,” were also used to identify key studies. Alternatives to benefits and
challenges in relation to AR in e‐learning/education included terms, such as “pros” and “cons” and
“advantages” and “disadvantages.” The abstracts and titles of all the retrieved articles were
independently reviewed for relevance. If deemed relevant and eligible, the full text was retrieved for
a full review. Each eligible article’s reference list was also reviewed for other articles with similar
themes to improve the results of the search. The eligible papers from these searches were then read
and screened using the inclusion and exclusion criteria established for this systematic review, as
illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Addressed AR in an academic setting Addressed related concepts (e.g., VR and MR)
Published from 2009 through 2019 Published before 2009
Written in English Non‐English publication
Peer‐reviewed journal Not a peer‐reviewed journal
Published study Unpublished study (e.g., proposal and ongoing project)
Original publication Duplicate

3.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

This study’s inclusion and exclusion criteria set the boundaries and scope for the scholarly
publications that were included in the final review. These criteria were determined after the
establishment and refinement of the research topic and the objectives. A variety of factors were
considered in formulating the eligibility criteria to define a practical scope of analysis, enhance the
study’s focus, and ensure the inclusion of only recent articles. First, the researcher included only
articles that addressed AR in academic contexts (formal education), where outcomes could be
measured. Other related technologies, such as VR and MR, which address similar benefits,
limitations, and challenges in academic settings, were not included in order to narrow the scope of
the review and enhance the focus of the analysis. Similarly, articles published before 2009 were
excluded from this study to allow a review of studies published in the past decade (i.e., from 2009
through 2019). This allowed studies to be included that could be considered recent, thereby reporting
various fundamental advancements in technology. Only peer‐reviewed published studies were
included in this review because they were judged to have more credibility than studies that were not
reviewed or published. Only articles published in English were considered for inclusion. Although
there are software programs that can translate articles to English, the researcher was skeptical about
the quality and outcomes of the translation, which informed the decision to exclude non‐English
articles. Only original articles, not duplicates, were included in this study. To determine the
originality of a publication, the researcher investigated the authors, publication dates, and journals
where the studies were published. For instance, Google Scholar provided the results for most of the
duplicates in this study. Using the search criteria that included the author, publication date, and
journal, the researcher was able to identify original works. For example, [31] had an exact duplicate
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 6 of 22

published by [32], which was retrieved from Google Scholar. After examination, the researcher
determined that the study was originally published by [31].

3.4. Data Coding, Analysis, and Appraisal

As noted previously, the researcher read through all the selected articles that met the inclusion
criteria, and using content analysis, identified the patterns in relation to the benefits and challenges
of using AR in e‐learning contexts. The research objectives and questions were used to extract
relevant data from the reviewed articles. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) for qualitative
and quantitative research was used to crosscheck the extracted and coded data and evaluate the
studies (CASP, 2018). This tool is considered valid for conducting critical appraisals of research
studies in a wide variety of settings.

3.5. Data Extraction and Synthesis

3.5.1. Data Gathering

The data were extracted using carefully designed forms (Microsoft Word tables) and undertaken
with the appropriate synthesis in mind. Microsoft Word, an application by an American
multinational technology, as chosen because it allowed the researcher to create tables for the easy
extraction and synthesis of the data. To chart the data from the extracted studies, the researcher
created a descriptive summary of the results that addressed the objectives and research questions
previously stated in the introductory section of this review. A draft of the charting template was
developed to allow efficient data coding. The charting form was left open to allow editing and
additional unforeseen data during the analysis, which allowed the process to be iterative. The key
items on the charting form included the author, year of publication, learner type, AR technology,
advantages, challenges, and key inference.

3.5.2. Data Synthesis

A thematic analysis protocol was used in the synthesis of data recorded on the charting form
after data gathering/extraction. Thematic synthesis, as described by [33], provides a range of
established techniques and methods for the identification and development of analytical themes for
the purpose of secondary data synthesis. This method was adopted in this review for three reasons.
First, the process of synthesis provides great transparency and the outcomes are easily accessible [33].
Second, thematic synthesis is also used for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative data.
Third, this method was suited to the objectives of the present study, as it aimed to aggregate evidence
and highlight patterns within the data. This process was conducted in three stages, with all steps
applied to all studies, including both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The first stage involved
coding (identification of text or other data items), as described on the charting form. Each article that
was identified after the inclusion and exclusion criteria was read twice to ensure that every item was
coded. The second phase involved analyzing the similarities between the codes related to the benefits
and challenges of using AR in education, and these were categorized as “descriptive themes” and
“descriptive patterns” across the included studies. These descriptive patterns and themes are
presented subsequently to facilitate comparisons within and between studies for reporting and
discussion. The final step involved the establishment of analytic themes to allow the researcher to
synthesize the findings across studies and interpret their meanings. Doing this allowed the researcher
to group the studies that reported the benefits of AR in education and those that highlighted the
challenges of its application.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 7 of 22

4. Results

4.1. Search Results

As described in the methodology section, articles for this systematic review were retrieved from
the Springer, Science Direct, EBSCO, and Google Scholar databases, which are used extensively to
retrieve accurate and suitable scholarly data from published qualitative and quantitative studies.
These databases were selected because they complied with the protocol requirements and protocol‐
specific parameters reported in a variety of academic studies. The searches revealed 303 articles from
the databases, of which 44 were duplicates, thereby reducing the number of articles to 259. After
reviewing their titles and abstracts, 221 articles were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion
criteria regarding publication date, language, or focus of the study, and 10 additional studies were
excluded after their full‐text reviews for eligibility. The findings reported in those studies did not
satisfy the objectives of this study in terms of reporting the benefits and challenges of AR in e‐
learning, leaving 28 articles available for the analysis, see Figure 1. The researcher proceeded to
identify the key benefits and challenges of using AR in e‐learning contexts using the 28 articles
selected for inclusion in this systematic review. The findings are reported in the ensuing individual
sections, and recommendations are provided subsequently.

Springer Science Direct EBSCO Google

Sholar
(n=96) (n=67) (=35)
(n=105)

Articles Identified from Additional Articles Identified

Database Searches from Other Sources (n =0)
(n=303)

Articles after removal of duplicates (n=44)

Abstracts and titles Articles excluded due to date, language,

screened (n=259) focus of study (n=221)

Full text articles evaluated Excluded due to inconclusive findings,

for eligibility (n=38) research methods and conclusions (n=10)

Studies included in the

systematic review (n=28)

Figure 1. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) flow
diagram.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 8 of 22

Results of the Thematic Analysis

The results of the thematic analysis indicated that the application of AR in academic settings had
a variety of benefits and challenges, see Table 2. AR was found to promote kinesthetic (tactile)
learning, enhance interactivity, facilitate students’ engagement and participation, improve
satisfaction with learning and outcomes, and encourage collaborative learning, among other benefits.
The major challenges, as reported in these studies, may be categorized into pedagogical, learning,
and technological issues. Pedagogical issues encompassed resistance from teachers and their lack of
skills, training, and experience in the use of AR technologies. Learning issues, based on the findings,
included cognitive overload and health issues. Technical issues included connectivity issues and
cumbersome devices.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 9 of 22

Table 2. Summary of the key findings from the included studies.

Students’
Author/Date Research Design Participants Benefits Challenges Inferences
Educational Level
Three‐dimensional
visualizations, and kinesthetic
AR can be helpful to students learning
learning; provides student
anatomy in a higher education setting
with an interactive
Randomized because it has several benefits compared to
Tertiary; environment; promotes
Chien et al. (2010) controlled 30 medical students None noted traditional systems, including 3D
Higher learning students’ interest and
study; experimental visualization and improvement in
knowledge retention; students
students’ motivation and
learn faster and more
knowledge retention.
effectively; helps with
memorization
Kinesthetic learning; 3D
The study suggests that the fundamental
visualizations; enables
Randomized 30 high school benefit of AR is that it allows kinesthetic
Santos and collaborative learning;
controlled students (63% boys High school None noted learning, which promotes both
Corbí (2019) improves students’ motivation
study; experimental and 37% girls) collaborative and
and
individualized learning.
knowledge retention
Promotes kinesthetic learning; This study suggests that AR promotes
provides prompt feedback; kinesthetic learning and prompts feedback.
Tertiary; enhances students’ motivation The technology facilitates motivation and
callIqbal et al. (2019) Exploratory study No participants None noted
Higher education and engagement; promotes students’ engagement. The authors note
better interactions and that AR promotes better interactions and
adaptability adaptability.
Fosters mathematical and
This study concluded that the key
Engineering cognitive skills; promotes
Quintero et Experimental; Tertiary; advantage of using AR in learning is that it
students from a spatial visualization skills; None noted
al. (2015) app development Higher education promotes mathematical and
Calculus I course promotes efficient and
cognitive skills.
effective learning
This study indicates that AR provides
Teachers may have difficulty various affordances in a school setting,
Improvement in the using the technology; teachers including improvements in the learner’s
High school learners appreciation of subject areas, might not find compatible motivation and engagement, enhancement
Virata and Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act from an exclusive such as chemistry; improved apps that will meet their of learning satisfaction, and improvements
High school
Castro (2019) or PDSA academic institution learning outcomes; easy to use; pedagogical needs; in overall academic outcomes. However,
for girls in Manila improved motivation and oversimplification of the challenges are the use of the technology
learning satisfaction visualization by by teachers and the lack of applications
the technology that are compatible with learning and
teaching objectives.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 10 of 22

AR allows tangible interactions The researcher developed a technology

with learning materials; using AR for a program to teach high
improves students’ school students chemistry. The researchers
Experimental;
Singhal et al. (2012) No participants High school engagement and participation None noted claim that such applications allow tangible
app development
in learning; has simplicity and interactions in the learning process; this
ease of use for both the also improves learning engagement and
students and teachers participation.
Allows smooth transition
between reality and virtuality;
The researcher’s main conclusion is that
enables the use of a tangible The greatest challenge is the
AR fosters the ability to transition
Kesim and Exploratory, interface metaphor for object need for instructional
No participants All levels smoothly between reality and virtuality,
Ozarslan (2012) qualitative study manipulation; supports designers to design learning
which makes it easy for learners to
seamless interactions between activities for AR.
improve their learning.
real and
virtual settings
Enhances collaborative The key inferences from this study is that
Randomized
learning; facilitates AR enables both collaborative and
Giraudeau et controlled studies, 18 teachers and
Primary and high school autonomous learning; and None noted autonomous learning. The authors refer to
al. (2019) focus groups educational trainers
enables real‐world pedagogical this technology as one that enhances
and observations
activities students’ motivation and engagement.
Nice, easy, and useful;
promotes student motivation
The key conclusion from this study is that
Six groups of 25 and engagement; allows
Martín‐Gutiérrez et Experimental, AR promotes collaborative and
engineering Higher learning individualized, autonomous, None noted
al. (2015) app development autonomous learning among students at
students each and collaborative learning;
higher educational levels.
allows the teacher to improve
guidance at the training
There are still some difficulties
The key inferences from this research is
Randomized AR facilitates student in the validity of the research
that AR‐based learning promotes students’
controlled study; motivation; learning design for AR‐based learning
Chu et al. (2019) 39 students Higher education motivation and engagement, and
experimental achievements are significantly settings; promotes critical
significantly improves
group learning improved thinking skills
learning outcomes
in learners
The review revealed that AR The findings of this study suggest that
enhances student engagement, when AR is incorporated into primary and
increases learners’ self‐ secondary school curricula, it allows
Pellas et al. (2019) Systematic review No participants Primary and high school management, influences None noted students to self‐manage their learning,
students’ cognitive improves students’ cognitive acceleration,
acceleration, and enriches the and enhances the
learning experience. learning experience.
Allows mobile/remote
learning; enhances 3D The key conclusions from this study are
visualizations for more that AR can facilitate the learning of
Experimental
Bitter and effective learning; and concepts that cannot be otherwise be
research, No participants All levels None noted
Corral (2014) facilitates the learning of accessed in a normal classroom setting. It
app development
concepts that cannot otherwise can also enhance mobile and
be learned in the classroom remote learning.
setting
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 11 of 22

AR‐based mobile learning

This experimental study showed that AR‐
increases learners’
Experimental based mobile learning enhances learners’
performance on mathematics
Deng et al. (2019) research, 20 students Not provided None noted performance, and their portability allows
exams; has the convenience of
app development the convenience of mobility and remote
mobility; and enables distance
learning.
and remote learning
Allows students to learn more
The key findings show that AR can
effectively; allows learners to
Bos et al. (2019) Exploratory study Five participants Not provided None noted enhance students’ focus and
focus and
their attentiveness.
remain attentive
This systematic review
revealed that AR can enhance The key conclusions from this study are
students’ satisfaction, increase that AR in the academic setting can
Diegmann et
Systematic review No participants All levels student‐centered learning, None noted enhance students’ satisfaction, promote
al. (2015)
promote collaborative collaborative learning, and promote
learning, and increase learner‐centered pedagogy.
information accessibility
If well designed, the
The key conclusions from this study is that
researchers argue that AR can
Experimental, 21 AR can enhance student motivation,
Niu et al. (2019) Primary help improve motivation to None Noted
app development elementary students satisfaction, and subsequently,
learn and enhance academic
academic performance.
performance and satisfaction.
AR can benefit learners by The study revealed that the key
enhancing creative learning affordances provided by AR in the
484 Grade 3
Vate‐U‐Lan (2012) Experimental study Primary and by improving interactivity None noted academic setting include enhancing
Thai students
and creative learning and
information accessibility. improving interactivity.
The survey revealed
improvements in students’
The key conclusions from this study
learning autonomy,
Elmunsyah et al. suggest that AR in the academic
Survey 30 students Primary encouragement of learning via None noted
(2019) environment enhances
diverse methods, and
learning autonomy.
improved functions of mobile
devices.
The study showed that AR
could enhance collaborative The major conclusions from this study are
learning and information that AR can enhance collaborative learning,
Law et al. (2019) Qualitative study No participants All levels accessibility; it can also None noted improve information accessibility, and
improve learners’ engagement, enhance learners’ engagement and
satisfaction, and satisfaction.
learning outcomes.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 12 of 22

Key affordances, as reported in

this study, were that AR can
enhance learners’ sense of This study showed that although AR has
Key advantages were found in
presence; enable visualizing key advantages in terms of enhancing
Exploratory this study as well as
Wu et al. (2013) No participants All levels the invisible; enhance students’ student motivation and performance,
study, qualitative technological, pedagogical,
immersion and immediacy; learning, pedagogical, and technical issues
and learning issues.
promote ubiquitous, need to be addressed.
collaborative, and situated
learning.
The key challenges in the
50 students from The key benefits reported were adoption and implementation The key inferences from this study are that
Experimental, two classes of fourth that AR can benefit learners in included a possible AR can enhance students’ academic
Wu et al. (2018) Primary
app development graders (9‐–10‐year‐ terms of improving their overwhelming increase in performance, but there is also the challenge
olds) learning achievements students’ of cognitive overload.
cognitive load.
The findings of this study suggest that
Six teachers from the This study revealed that AR The key limitation of using AR
while AR can provide a variety of
Dunleavy et Qualitative core subject areas of can facilitate simulations and in education is the complexity
Primary; high school advantages, the complexity of the
al. (2009) study; interviews English, Math, interactive and collaborative of the technology for both
technologies can be problematic for both
and Science learning students and teachers.
teachers and students.
However, the study also The key inference from this study is that
The study found that 3D revealed that without AR can enhance students’ motivation and
Experimental study; 140 visualizations in AR enhanced straightforward designs for engagement, but the current designs are
Chang et al. (2011) Higher education
survey university students students’ attention the use of AR in education, not sufficiently straightforward, which
and engagement. learners’ enthusiasm might be might affect learners’ enthusiasm about
negatively impacted. learning.
The key benefits of AR in The key challenges or cons to
educational settings, as AR application, as reported by The key takeaway from this study is that
reported in this review, is that the researchers, is that the the use of the technology may present both
it enhances learners’ technology can be difficult to affordances and challenges. For instance, it
Galati et al. (2019) Literature review No participants All levels engagement, increases their use, it may be very complex can enhance both engagement and
enjoyment, and supports for both students and teachers enjoyment in learners but can also lead to
different pedagogies, including and may also lead to cognitive their cognitive overload
game‐based learning and overload and confusion.
situated learning. and confusion.
The key challenges reported in
this study are that The main conclusions from this study are
The study concludes that the technological issues are key that AR presents an exciting solution for
5 middle school prospect of enhancing challenges to mass adoption improving learners’ engagement in subjects
Mitchell (2011) Experimental Primary
math teachers students’ learning through AR due to incompatibility with such as mathematics, but technological
is exciting. current curricula and lack of issues, lack of training, and incompatibility
training on the use of the with current curricula remain challenges.
technology.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 13 of 22

The key challenges, as

The study shows there is a This study demonstrates that even if there
200 participants: 115 reported in the study, include
willingness to use AR and is great potential in terms of learners’
Exploratory research females and 85 lack of proper training among
Alkhattabi (2017) Primary there is a generally high outcomes with the use of the technology,
study males; age 25 to 55 teachers, lack of willingness to
acceptance rate of its use, some teachers are still resistant to change,
years embrace the technology, and
given its potential. and there is still a need for teacher training.
resistance to change.
The study reports that AR has The researchers report a
the potential to support variety of pedagogical issues,
The key inferences from this study are that
learning and teaching because such as the need for more
although this technology has great
Akçayır & it offers teachers and learners class time and inadequate
Systematic review No participants Primary potential in academic settings, there are
Akçayır (2017) the opportunity to combine experience in the use of AR
key pedagogical and technological issues
virtual and real‐world settings technologies. They also noted
that hinder its implementation.
to enhance students’ a variety of technological
engagement. issues.
The key benefits of AR, as The study revealed key The key inferences from this study are that
reported in this study, are that technical and social problems AR may be beneficial for improving
it enhances entertainment, that hindered the application learners’ engagement, participation, and
Elmqaddem (2019) Exploratory study No participants All levels
manipulation of objects, of AR in academic settings, interactivity, but a variety of issues that
learners’ participation, and including uncomfortable include health problems may hinder its
interactivity. devices and health issues. application in education.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 14 of 22

5. Discussion
This section provides the discussion of the study results, thus answering the two research
questions provided in the introductory section. Firstly, the chapter presents the discussion of the
benefits of AR as derived from scholarly literature. Secondly, the challenges of using AR in the
academic context are then presented.

5.1. Benefits of AR in E‐learning Contexts

RQ1: What Are the Advantages of AR in Academic Settings as Reported in the Research
Literature?
This systematic review revealed that the affordances of AR in e‐learning contexts were
investigated and empirical and theory‐based findings and conclusions were reported. In their study,
[18] explored the influence of the introduction of AR on how medical students learned and interacted
with a computer‐generated 3D skull. The results suggest that one of the most fundamental
advantages of AR in education lies in its ability to support kinesthetic learning. Ref. [34] define
kinesthetic learning as a form of learning where learners carry out physical activities rather than listen
to lectures or teachers’ demonstrations. Using a cohort of 30 medical students, [18] demonstrated that
AR could improve students’ motivation to learn anatomy and their retention of knowledge, while
also promoting an interactive environment for students to learn more effectively.
Ref. [18] Also suggest that AR supports kinesthetic learning because it creates an interactive
learning system that allows students to understand and memorize content through 3D visualizations.
This can allow e‐learning students to learn faster and more effectively, even in complex learning
situations. The efficacy of this pedagogical strategy on student outcomes, performance, and
motivation has been empirically examined and reported by [35]. Similarly, [36] agree that AR allows
for the creation of learning aids that promote better interactions, adaptability, and creative
engagement among learners. These researchers argue that AR can be implemented successfully in
learning settings, including e‐learning contexts, to create new pedagogical approaches that foster the
development of human‐centered learning environments. Essentially, [36] concluded that AR
facilitates kinesthetic learning, also known as “learning by doing,” which enables faster mastery of
the learning content.
AR has also been found to be beneficial in academic settings, as it allows a more efficient
visualization of abstract concepts, which in turn, facilitates students’ engagement and learning
intentions. The empirical evidence is the variety of benefits of AR in academics, particularly in
subjects and topics that demand imaging abstractions. For instance, [31] reported the benefits of
special visualization enabled by AR in enhancing the ability of students to understand and solve real‐
world problems. Ref. [37] Agree that the advantage of using AR in educational settings is that it
provides better visualization even in complex academic situations, such as chemistry and biology. In
most cases, important elements of visual‐spatial abilities in e‐learning contexts have depended on
teachers’ drawings or oral descriptions. However, [31] argue that special abilities should not be static,
and as such, a dependence on teachers’ drawings and oral lectures can negatively affect the learning
outcomes and performance of students. The dynamic process of spatial ability can be fostered
through AR, in particular, through the interactions of real and virtual objects. Ref. [31] found that AR
applications could be used in a variety of academic settings to promote spatial visualization even in
complex courses such as Calculus. In a similar study, [38] suggested that current strategies of
knowledge delivery should move away from memory‐based education toward motivating and
creative technological innovations, such as AR. They proposed a paradigm for teaching chemistry
called “Augmented Chemistry,” in a study, in which they emphasized the advantages of tangible
interactions. They concluded that it is vital and academically beneficial for learners to view
representations of actual molecules in 3D settings, which allow learning from a variety of viewpoints.
Their findings provide a variety of ways through which educators in both land‐based and e‐learning
environments can implement AR using a webcam and open‐source software to teach chemistry and
other complex subjects and topics.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 15 of 22

According to [39], AR can be used to augment collaborative tasks in e‐learning contexts. Through
this technology, it is possible to develop and implement innovative computer interfaces that can
integrate real and virtual worlds to develop better face‐to‐face and remote interactions and
collaborations. Furthermore, a key affordance in the academic setting is that it allows a smooth
transition between reality and virtuality. Ref. [40] Reported that interactions and collaborations
enabled by AR were more similar to natural face‐to‐face collaborations than were screen‐based
collaborations. This affordance was also reported by [41] in their study on the promotion of
collaborative and autonomous learning of science practices without the assistance of a teacher. The
results showed that students preferred using AR rather than traditional teaching practices, describing
AR as “nice,” “easy,” and “useful.” Such findings not only have practical implications for e‐learning
performance and outcomes but also students’ motivation and engagement. This systematic review of
the research literature also found that other studies, such as those by [42,43] supported the findings
that AR in academic settings improves learners’ motivation and engagement, especially when game‐
based approaches are utilized.
Studies by [44,45] investigated the current state of AR application in mobile learning contexts,
particularly for wearable devices, both stationary and mobile. Essentially, they investigated selected
subject areas of education that have been positively impacted by AR and provided recommendations
for applications of AR in these areas. For instance, [44] found that, for the subject area of history,
museum guide apps could be used to recreate artifacts, especially where structures have become
dilapidated over the years. Similarly, game‐based AR applications were found to be useful in
educational settings to teach students a variety of subjects and topics through embodiment, play, and
practice. The AR applications in the mobile devices, such as iPhones and Android devices, were
found to have the potential for positive implications in education when their application was suitable
and appropriate. Furthermore, [45] reported that AR was beneficial because it allowed remote and
distance learning due to the devices’ portability and convenience.
Studies by [46,47] reported that AR increased learners’ focus, attention, and concentration. Ref.
[46] examined a variety of educational technologies and increases in student focus and attention, and
found that innovations, such as AR, when used appropriately, could enhance learning by increasing
their focus and attentiveness. In their systematic review of the research literature, [47,48] found that
the key benefits of AR for learning included increased satisfaction, concentration, attention, and
motivation. Increased satisfaction implies that students’ experiences in the learning context rise to
satisfactory levels, particularly during the learning process. Students enjoy learning subject areas they
would otherwise not engage in during routine teacher–student lectures. For instance, students are
reported to enjoy going through library catalogs and solving mathematics and science tasks when
AR technology is involved. In contrast, frustration is increased when using a manual or a routine
method of accomplishing such tasks. Increased concentration connotes learners’ intensified degree
of focus while using AR tools during the learning process. The results of the study by [47] suggest
that AR application in learning situations increases students’ physical interactions, which in turn,
induces deeper concentration.
This systematic review revealed that learners pay attention to AR as a technology, which they
described as being “interesting” compared to other learning approaches. Learners’ attention and
amplified interest have been shown to promote their interactions with learning materials. Ref. [47]
found that AR‐centered approaches to learning tended to increase students’ eagerness, interest, and
engagement (also referred to as motivation) when compared to non‐AR methods. For instance, when
AR‐style gameplay was introduced in a learning context, the learners’ intrinsic motivation increased.
Similarly, students who used AR books appeared to be much more eager to read and learn than
students who used non‐AR books. The students who used AR were also found, in the included
studies, to be more proactive compared to non‐AR students and were often willing to continue to
learn through the technology even after the end of the learning session.
The empirical and theoretical literature on the benefits of AR in e‐learning contexts cite a variety
of other positive implications, see Table 3. Refs. [49,50] found that in similar subject areas, students
who learned using AR tended to score higher on tests compared to those who learned using
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 16 of 22

conventional methods because AR was found to improve students’ knowledge retention. Such
findings suggest that AR also promotes improvement in students’ learning curve compared to other
traditional non‐AR contexts, with students studying similar subjects and taking similar tests. The
study by [51] found that AR methods support creative learning, and thus, produce creative learners
compared to non‐AR methods. This benefit was related to the method’s capacity to facilitate the
absorption of new knowledge while solving problems in settings that were more realistic. Other
benefits, such as increased interactivity, information accessibility, and improved collaborative and
student‐centered learning were also reported in studies by [52,53].

Table 3. Summary of the key benefits of augmented reality (AR) in e‐learning contexts.

Key Benefits Authors

Supports kinesthetic learning [18,36]
Allows more efficient visualization [31,37,38]
Enhances collaborative learning [39–41]
Allows distance & remote learning due to
[44,45];
portability and convenience
Boosts students’ motivation and engagement [41–43]
Increases students’ physical interactions
[46,47]
and concentration
Allows student‐centered learning [53]
Increases learning satisfaction [47,48]
Enhances knowledge retention and
[49,50]
spatial abilities
Supports creative learning [51]
Increases interactivity and
[51,52]
information accessibility

5.2. Challenges of AR in E‐learning

RQ2: What are the challenges of AR in academic settings as reported in scholarly literature?
The challenges associated with AR in e‐learning and learning contexts in general, in the research
literature, have been categorized in various ways by different researchers. Most of the studies, such
as those by [14,54] have identified three key areas of education where AR is challenging (e.g.,
learning, pedagogy, and technology), and researchers have provided possible solutions to overcome
the challenges. Based on these studies, challenges in the application of AR are related to learners as
well as the learning process. Ref. [55] Also reported that learners in AR e‐learning environments
could become cognitively overwhelmed by the large amounts of content they encounter, the complex
learning content they are expected to consume, and the multiple, highly technical devices they are
expected to use. This is particularly true when students are expected to set up the devices on their
own and multitask to accomplish learning targets. Ref. [55] Reported that students might become
confused and astounded when they engage in complex AR simulations because they are required to
deal with mostly unfamiliar technologies and complex tasks under intense circumstances.
Ref. [55] Also found that AR challenges the learner and the learning process, especially in subject
areas where the learner is required to both apply and synthesize a multitude of complex tasks and
skills through spatial navigation, mathematical estimation, technology manipulation, problem
solving, and collaboration. These challenges are evident in e‐learning contexts where the student is
expected to perform most of the tasks and have the essential skills to learn them effectively. Ref. [56]
Study also emphasized this challenge, stating that when AR is unassisted, it may confuse learners,
which may delay or have another negative effect on the learning process. The general
recommendation is to provide the support necessary for students to use the technological devices in
AR and the skills necessary during the AR learning process. As reported by [6] this is particularly
vital in e‐learning scenarios where learning takes place in a virtual world.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 17 of 22

Pedagogically, AR implementation in e‐learning contexts also presents a variety of challenges

and should be taken into consideration when adoption initiatives are planned. For instance, [9,14]
reported that, like many other technological innovations, there is often resistance from teachers to
adopt AR to replace their conventional approaches to instruction. The learning activities that often
characterize AR learning include studio‐based pedagogy and participatory simulations. Such
approaches typically contradict and are quite different from the usual teacher‐ and delivery‐based
methodologies [57]. This difference in approaches has been shown to hinder the implementation of
AR in academic settings, such as e‐learning contexts. Related to this challenge is the lack of necessary
training in effective pedagogies that can aid both the adoption and implementation of AR [6]. This
lack of training among teachers on how to implement AR effectively in their usual instructional
settings was found by [8] to have a negative effect on instructional design. Ref. [14] also found that
lack of proper teacher training caused confusion even for teachers as they attempted to distribute
information between the two realities and among the devices. These studies recommended extensive
teacher training on AR implementation in various academic settings to help in their transition to AR
and resolve these problems.
Technological challenges related to AR adoption and its implementations were examined in the
included studies. Ref. [14,58] reported that one of the fundamental challenges to incorporating AR
into learning situations is that the cumbersome and often expensive AR equipment may cause
discomfort and poor health for the users. Ref. [8] Found that some technical issues, such as poor
connectivity, expensive technology, low sensitivity in recognition triggering, GPS errors, and
technical problems could frustrate the entire learning process. Ref. [14] Recommended adopting AR
technologies that can detect the differences between reality and fantasy to avoid confusing both the
teachers and students. They also acknowledged that issues of device integration, stability, and failure
could be solved by the current rapid advancement in AR technologies that offer devices that are more
stable, portable, and wireless. A summary of the key challenges is listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of the key challenges.

Key Challenges Authors

Information/cognitive overload [14,54,55]
Complex technology for both students and teachers [55]
May be confusing and overwhelming to both students
[56]
and teachers
Lack of necessary skills to use AR technologies [6]
Teachers’ resistance to adoption [9,14]
Incompatibility with the usual pedagogical approaches [6,57]
Lack of training and knowledge among teachers about
[14,54]
using AR in education
Technology is expensive [14,58]
May cause health and discomfort concerns for users [14]
Technical problems, such as poor connections and
[8]
Global Positioning System (GPS) errors
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 18 of 22

5.3. Recommendations for AR Development

As mentioned previously, this systematic review describes some of the technical problems that
challenge the mass adoption of AR in educational settings, such as e‐learning contexts. To circumvent
such issues, developers must take advantage of advancements in technology to enhance various
aspects of AR technology. For instance, most mobile and laptop cameras are currently made for
capturing 2D videos and images, and thus, do not render good 3D images. Similarly, the current GPS
readings are precise, but only up to 6 m; however, greater accuracy is needed for deploying AR
markers. AR developers in academic settings need to enhance accelerometer reading using protocols,
such as the exponential smoothing technique, as described by [59]. Camera performance can also be
enhanced by using approaches, such as the 2D QR and bar‐code markers, as suggested by [60]. In
terms of cumbersome (heavy) devices, developers should focus on using lightweight materials to
reduce their weight significantly and address health‐related concerns, such as neck pain. Currently,
Microsoft Compact is developing a lightweight AR prototype that has benefits for academic
environments, both online and on‐site. During the development of new AR devices, methods for
complete eradication of potential eye problems also need to be considered. Many issues with software
inter‐operability in academic settings must be addressed, as does how the current technology can be
seamlessly integrated with traditional pedagogical approaches.

5.4. Recommendations for Education and Training

To increase the acceptance and use of AR in e‐learning contexts, student and teacher training on
how to use the application are needed. Ref. [6] Identified this need, arguing that lack of training is a
major cause of deployment and implementation challenges. On‐the‐job training for teachers not only
can facilitate the implementation of AR in e‐learning contexts, but it can also resolve the challenge of
resistance to AR and hasten its swift adoption. The applicability and use of AR should be
incorporated into teacher training courses and students’ curricula to equip future teachers and
students with the necessary knowledge of AR technology and to ensure their ongoing use of it.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions

In the rapidly developing embryonic world of technology, AR is no longer a new concept, and
with the concurrent rise of e‐learning platforms, AR’s significance in education is growing as well.
This systematic review revealed that AR amalgamates modern technology with real‐world settings
to provide an immersive e‐learning experience for learners. The benefits of using this approach in e‐
learning contexts include, but are not limited to, the enhancement of kinesthetic and collaborative
learning, the enabling of high‐risk e‐learning in real‐time, as well as visualizations, the support of
real‐world simulations with interactive objects, and the increase in learners’ motivation, satisfaction,
attention, and content retention. However, the research literature on AR also indicated challenges to
its adoption and implementation, specifically, its learning, pedagogical, and technological issues.
Regardless of the challenge, training and continuous education were viewed as viable solutions to
the key issues in AR adoption in e‐learning contexts, although the field is still reliant on technological
advancements in this area. This systematic review is the only current study that has examined the
benefits and challenges of implementing AR in an e‐learning setting. The few existing studies of this
nature have only attempted to identify the advantages and disadvantages of its use as a
supplementary approach in an on‐the‐premises classroom‐learning environment.
The main limitation of this study is that it identified the benefits and challenges of using AR in
e‐learning contexts based on findings from empirical studies that may have limitations in terms of
research design and evidential validity. This limitation is accentuated by the fact that the applicability
of AR in education is still in its infancy, and more research is needed. Given this, future directions
are suggested for future studies. First, although the use of AR within the classroom environment
provides academic benefits, future research on how effective this approach is for distance and remote
learning is needed. The measure of its effectiveness is vital for education, given that learners’
attentiveness and competence in the use of technology vary considerably. Second, in relation to the
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 19 of 22

first future direction, there is a need for more research on the pitfalls of using AR and how to mitigate
them in educational settings. For instance, some studies have reported that using AR in education
can result in cognitive overload for the students. Learners might become overwhelmed by the
complexity of the platform or the amount of information displayed. Future research should
investigate how such detriments to learning can be overcome or mitigated to enhance the efficiency
of AR in improving academic outcomes. Third, future studies should investigate the effects of AR on
the development of long‐term memories. Although theoretical perspectives on this have been
developed, there are no empirical studies on how AR can effectively create long‐term memories in
students. This investigation is particularly important for improving learners’ retention in studies
conducted on the use of AR in educational settings.
Author Contributions: N.M.A. (Nouf Alzahrani) conceived and designed the methodology and literature
review, researched and wrote the paper. Author have read and agreed to the published version of the
manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declare that had had no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships, which have, or could be perceived to have, influenced the work reported in this paper.

References
1. Rhodes, C.; Weaver, J.; Watkins, M. Criminology as an augmented reality: A multi‐purpose e‐learning
platform to support student understanding of applied criminology. In Proceedings of the HEA Annual
Conference 2017: Generation TEF: Teaching in the Spotlight, Manchester, UK, 4–6 July 2017.
2. Joo‐Nagata, J.; Abad, F.M.; Giner, J.G.B.; 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.
3. Crompton, H.; Burke, D.; Gregory, K.H.; Gräbe, C. The use of mobile learning in science: A systematic
review. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2016, 25, 149–160.
4. Shen, V.R. Development of a Game‐Based e‐Learning System with Augmented Reality for Improving
Students’ Learning Performance. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2020, 2, doi:10.14710/ijee.2.1.1‐10.
5. Huang, W.; Sun, M.; Li, S.A. 3D GIS‐based interactive registration mechanism for outdoor augmented
reality system. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 55, 48–58.
6. Alkhattabi, M. Augmented reality as E‐learning tool in primary schools’ education: Barriers to teachers’
adoption. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (IJET) 2017, 12, 91–100.
7. Le, H.; Nguyen, M. An Online Platform for Enhancing Learning Experiences with Web‐Based Augmented
Reality and Pictorial Bar Code. In Augmented Reality in Education; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp.
45–57.
8. Akçayır, M.; Akçayır, G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A
systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017, 20, 1–11.
9. Galati, F.; Bigliardi, B.; Deiana, A.; Filippelli, S.; Petroni, A. Pros and cons of augmented reality in education.
In Edulearn19 Proceedings; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2019; pp. 9165–9168.
10. Azuma, R.; Baillot, Y.; Behringer, R.; Feiner, S.; Julier, S.; MacIntyre, B. Recent advances in augmented
reality. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2001, 21, 34–47, doi:10.1109/38.963459.
11. Carmigniani, J.; Furht, B. Augmented reality: An overview. In Handbook of Augmented Reality; Springer:
New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 3–46.
12. Silva, R.; Oliveira, J.C.; Giraldi, G.A. Introduction to augmented reality. Natl. Lab. Sci. Comput. 2003, 11, 1–
11.
13. Dutta, K. Augmented Reality for E‐Learning. Available online: https://www. researchgate.
net/.../304078112_Augmented_Reality_for _E‐Learning (accessed on 13 July 2020).
14. Wu, H.K.; Lee, S.W.Y.; Chang, H.Y.; Liang, J.C. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented
reality in education. Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 41–49.
15. Liu, W.; Cheok, A.D.; Mei‐Ling, C.L.; Theng, Y.L. Mixed reality classroom: Learning from entertainment.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts,
Perth, Western Australia, 19–21 September 2007; pp. 65–72.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 20 of 22

16. Son, N.D. The Application of Web‐3D and Augmented Reality in E‐learning to Improve the Effectiveness of Arts
Teaching in Vietnam; EasyChair: Manchester, UK, 2019; No. 1675.
17. Camilleri, V.; Montebello, M. ARieL: Augmented Reality in interactive e‐Learning. 2008. Available online:
shorturl.at/ouyFU (accessed on 9 August 2020).
18. Chien, C.H.; Chen, C.H.; Jeng, T.S. An interactive augmented reality system for learning anatomy structure.
In Proceedings of the International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Hong Kong,
China, 17–19 March 2010; International Association of Engineers: Hong Kong, China, 2010; Volume 1, pp.
17–19.
19. Samy, S.S.; Kumar, V.; Singh, R.R. Augmented Reality in E‐Learning System. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2018,
118, 291–296.
20. Albayrak, M.; Altıntaş, V.; Sümen, A.M.; Şener, G. Robotics Education Based on Augmented Reality in
Primary Schools. 2016. Available online:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309134652_Robotics_Education_Based_on_Augmented_Reality
_in_Primary_Schools (accessed on 22 July 2020).
21. Alimisis, D.; Kynigos, C. Constructionism and robotics in education. In Teacher Education on Robotic‐
Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods; Alimisis, D., Ed.; ASPETE: Athens, Greece; AACE:
Morgantown, WV, USA, 2009; pp. 11–26. ISBN 978‐960‐6749‐49‐o.
22. Parhizkar, B.; Obeidy, W.K.; Chowdhury, S.A.; Gebril, Z.M.; Ngan, M.N.A.; Lashkari, A.H. Android mobile
augmented reality application based on different learning theories for primary school children. In
Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems, Tangier,
Morocco, 10–12 May 2012; pp. 404–408.
23. Balaji, M.; Balaji, V.; Chandrasekaran, M.; Elamvazuthi, I. Robotic training to bridge school students with
engineering. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 76, 27–33.
24. Makhataeva, Z.; Varol, H.A. Augmented Reality for Robotics: A Review. Robotics 2020, 9, 21.
25. Madhavan, K.; Kolcun, J.P.G.; Chieng, L.O.; Wang, M.Y. Augmented‐reality integrated robotics in
neurosurgery: Are we there yet? Neurosurg. Focus 2017, 42, E3.
26. Okamoto, T.; Onda, S.; Yanaga, K.; Suzuki, N.; Hattori, A. Clinical application of navigation surgery using
augmented reality in the abdominal field. Surg. Today 2015, 45, 397–406.
27. Reardon, C.; Zhang, H.; Wright, R.; Parker, L.E. Robots Can Teach Students With Intellectual Disabilities:
Educational Benefits of Using Robotic and Augmented Reality Applications. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2018,
26, 79–93.
28. Nagendrababu, V.; Duncan, H.F.; Tsesis, I.; Sathorn, C.; Pulikkotil, S.J.; Dharmarajan, L.; Dummer, P.M.H.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses for abstracts: Best practice for reporting
abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology. Int. Endod. J. 2019, 52, 1096–1107.
29. Grzegorczyk, T.; Sliwinski, R.; Kaczmarek, J. Attractiveness of augmented reality to consumers. Technol.
Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2019, 31, 1257–1269.
30. Gavish, N.; Gutiérrez, T.; Webel, S.; Rodríguez, J.; Peveri, M.; Bockholt, U.; Tecchia, F. Evaluating virtual
reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interact. Learn.
Environ. 2015, 23, 778–798. Doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.815221
31. Quintero, E.; Salinas, P.; González‐Mendívil, E.; Ramírez, H. Augmented reality app for calculus: A
proposal for the development of spatial visualization. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 75, 301–305. Doi:
10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.251.
32. Rodrigues, E.; Mendivil, E.; Martinez, N. Augmented reality app for calculus: A proposal for the
development of spatial visualization. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 75, 301–305.
33. Ryan, C.; Hesselgreaves, H.; Wu, O.; Paul, J.; Dixon‐Hughes, J.; Moss, J.G. Protocol for a systematic review
and thematic synthesis of patient experiences of central venous access devices in anti‐cancer treatment.
Syst. Rev. 2018, 7, doi:10.1186/s13643‐018‐0721‐x.
34. Vázquez, C.; Xia, L.; Aikawa, T.; Maes, P. Words in motion: Kinesthetic language learning in virtual reality.
In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies
(ICALT), Mumbai, India, 9–13 July 2018; pp. 272–276.
35. Santos, O.C.; Corbí, A. Can Aikido Help With the Comprehension of Physics? A First Step towards the
Design of Intelligent Psychomotor Systems for STEAM Kinesthetic Learning Scenarios. IEEE Access 2019,
7, 176458–176469.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 21 of 22

36. Iqbal, M.Z.; Mangina, E.; Campbell, A.G. Exploring the use of Augmented Reality in a Kinesthetic Learning
Application Integrated with an Intelligent Virtual Embodied Agent. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE
International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR‐Adjunct), Beijing, China, 10–
18 October 2019; pp. 12–16.
37. Virata, R.O.; Castro, J.D.L. Augmented reality in science classroom: Perceived effects in education,
visualization and information processing. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on E‐
Education, E‐Business, E‐Management and E‐Learning, Tokyo, Japan, 10–13 January 2019; pp. 85–92.
38. Singhal, S.; Bagga, S.; Goyal, P.; Saxena, V. Augmented chemistry: Interactive education system. Int. J.
Comput. Appl. 2012, 49, doi:10.5120/7700‐1041.
39. Kesim, M.; Ozarslan, Y. Augmented reality in education: Current technologies and the potential for
education. Procedia‐Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 47, 297–302.
40. Giraudeau, P.; Olry, A.; Roo, J.S.; Fleck, S.; Bertolo, D.; Vivian, R.; Hachet, M. CARDS: A Mixed‐Reality
System for Collaborative Learning at School. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on
Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, At Deajon, Korea, 10 November 2019; pp. 55–64.
41. Martín‐Gutiérrez, J.; Fabiani, P.; Benesova, W.; Meneses, M.D.; Mora, C.E. Augmented reality to promote
collaborative and autonomous learning in higher education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 51, 752–761.
42. Chu, H.C.; Chen, J.M.; Hwang, G.J.; Chen, T.W. Effects of formative assessment in an augmented reality
approach to conducting ubiquitous learning activities for architecture courses. Univers. Access Inform. Soc.
2019, 18, 221–230.
43. Pellas, N.; Fotaris, P.; Kazanidis, I.; Wells, D. Augmenting the learning experience in primary and
secondary school education: A systematic review of recent trends in augmented reality game‐based
learning. Virtual Real. 2019, 23, 329–346.
44. Bitter, G.; Corral, A. The pedagogical potential of augmented reality apps. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent. 2014, 3,
13–17.
45. Deng, L.; Tian, J.; Cornwell, C.; Phillips, V.; Chen, L.; Alsuwaida, A. Towards an Augmented Reality‐Based
Mobile Math Learning Game System. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human‐Computer
Interaction, Orlando, FL, USA, 26–31 July 2019; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 217–225.
46. Bos, A.S.; Herpich, F.; Kuhn, I.; Guarese, R.L.; Tarouco, L.M.; Zaro, M.A.; Wives, L. Educational Technology
and Its Contributions in Students’ Focus and Attention Regarding Augmented Reality Environments and
the Use of Sensors. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2019, 57, 1832–1848.
47. Diegmann, P.; Schmidt‐Kraepelin, M.; Eynden, S.; Basten, D. Benefits of augmented reality in educational
environments‐a systematic literature review. Benefits 2015, 3, 1542–1556.
48. Niu, B.; Liu, C.; Liu, J.; Deng, Y.; Wan, Q.; Ma, N. Impacts of Different Types of Scaffolding on Academic
Performance, Cognitive Load and Satisfaction in Scientific Inquiry Activities Based on Augmented Reality.
In Proceedings of the 2019 Eighth International Conference on Educational Innovation through Technology
(EITT), Biloxi, MS, USA, 27–31 October 2019; pp. 239–244.
49. Liu, T.Y.; Tan, T.H.; Chu, Y.L. Outdoor natural science learning with an RFID‐supported immersive
ubiquitous learning environment. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2009, 12, 161–175.
50. Huang, K.T.; Ball, C.; Francis, J.; Ratan, R.; Boumis, J.; Fordham, J. Augmented versus virtual reality in
education: An exploratory study examining science knowledge retention when using augmented
reality/virtual reality Mobile applications. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2019, 22, 105–110.
51. Vate‐U‐Lan, P. An augmented reality 3d pop‐up book: The development of a multimedia project for
English language teaching. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and
Expo, Melbourne, Australia, 9–13 July 2012; pp. 890–895.
52. Elmunsyah, H.; Hidayat, W.N.; Asfani, K. Interactive learning media innovation: Utilization of augmented
reality and pop‐up book to improve user’s learning autonomy. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series; IOP
Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 1193, p. 012031.
53. Law, L.; Hafiz, M.; Kwong, T.; Wong, E. Enhancing SPOC‐Flipped Classroom Learning by Using Student‐
Centred Mobile Learning Tools. In Emerging Technologies and Pedagogies in the Curriculum; Springer:
Singapore, 2020; pp. 315–333.
54. Wu, P.H.; Hwang, G.J.; Yang, M.L.; Chen, C.H. Impacts of integrating the repertory grid into an augmented
reality‐based learning design on students’ learning achievements, cognitive load and degree of satisfaction.
Interact. Learn. Environ. 2018, 26, 221–234.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660 22 of 22

55. Dunleavy, M.; Dede, C.; Mitchell, R. Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented
reality simulations for teaching and learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2009, 18, 7–22.
56. Chang, Y.J.; Chen, C.H.; Huang, W.T.; Huang, W.S. Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction,
behavioral intention, and effectiveness of English learning using augmented reality. In Proceedings of the
2011 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, Barcelona, Spain, 11–15 July 2011; pp. 1–6.
57. Mitchell, R. Alien Contact!: Exploring teacher implementation of an augmented reality curricular unit. J.
Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 2011, 30, 271–302.
58. Elmqaddem, N. Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Education. Myth or Reality? Int. J. Emerg.
Technol. Learn. (IJET) 2019, 14, 234–242.
59. Gibbon, D.C.; Zavesky, E.; Renger, B.S.; Shahraray, B.; Begeja, L. Context‐based Object Location via
Augmented Reality Device. U.S. Google Patent No. 10,650,239. Date of Patent May 12, 2020. Available
online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/99/b3/62/1143ff2022708a/US10650239.pdf (accessed
on 18 July 2020)
60. Nguyen, M.; Lai, M.P.; Le, H.; Yan, W.Q. A Web‐based Augmented Reality Plat‐form using Pictorial QR
Code for Educational Purposes and beyond. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality
Software and Technology, Parramatta, NSW, Australia, November 2019; pp. 1–2.

© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).