Next Article in Journal
Prediction of FRP–Concrete Bond Strength Using a Genetic Neural Network Algorithm
Previous Article in Journal
Prediction and Optimization of the Restoration Quality of University Outdoor Spaces: A Data-Driven Study Using Image Semantic Segmentation and Explainable Machine Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 16
10.3390/buildings15162938
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Transforming AEC Education: A Systematic Review of VR/AR in Mass Timber Curriculum

by
Mohammed Rayan Saiba
1,*,
George H. Berghorn
1,
Linda Nubani
1,
Kristen Cetin
2 and
M. G. Matt Syal
1
1
School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(16), 2938; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15162938
Submission received: 29 June 2025 / Revised: 13 August 2025 / Accepted: 18 August 2025 / Published: 19 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Construction Management, and Computers & Digitization)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) education requires a radical shift in pedagogical strategies to enhance knowledge retention, critical thinking, practical skills development, and student engagement. The integration of immersive tools such as virtual reality and augmented reality (VR/AR) into AEC curricula has shown enormous potential in enhancing learning outcomes. Despite the increasing popularity of these tools, their adoption for sustainable construction materials and systems such as mass timber building remains underexplored, especially for teaching and facilitating their curricula delivery. This study adopted a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and a scientometric analysis across key AEC journals. The study synthesizes findings from 69 peer-reviewed articles across three databases. While the findings suggest that VR/AR significantly enhances learning outcomes, key gaps such as lack of standardized evaluation metrics, inadequate faculty training, and a lack of a robust integration framework persist, especially for mass timber and overall sustainability education. This study proposed a foundational framework for VR/AR integration in AEC curricula for mass timbers education and highlighted some pedagogical strategies for bridging the identified gaps. The insights establish the basis for future research that will develop and evaluate a VR-based instructional tool to teach mass timber and sustainable construction education.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) education can be significantly enhanced by a change in pedagogical approaches through virtual reality and augmented reality (VR/AR) integration. As projects continue to become more complex, innovative pedagogical techniques beyond conventional methodologies are required to tackle the increasing demands of modern AEC projects [1]. Conventional pedagogical approaches do not usually provide students with the required cognitive skills for overcoming challenges that may arise in modern AEC projects. The adoption of emerging technologies such as VR/AR in AEC education offers promising solutions by enabling learners to interact, visualize, and simulate with realistic environments [2]. VR/AR also offers multi-user interactions and simulations that enhance cognitive skills, experiential learning, and knowledge retention better than traditional teaching instructions [3]. The integration of VR/AR into AEC pedagogy has the potential to foster collaborative designs, improve safety training, and enhance Building Information Modeling (BIM) [4].
Although VR/AR adoption is increasingly gaining traction, there is limited research on its application in mass timber-specific education [5]. Most existing research on VR/AR for AEC education focuses on areas such as concrete, steel, and general processes but not on mass timber [6,7]. Traditional teaching approaches usually do not adequately highlight the dimensional and tactile details of mass timber systems, making the intervention of VR/AR-enhanced pedagogy necessary. This study therefore explores how insights from broader existing AEC VR/AR research can inform the development and validation of an interactive immersive learning tool for mass timber education.
Moreover, the growing emphasis on sustainability in the AEC sector has amplified the adoption of sustainable practices such as the use of mass timber for structural building systems. Mass timber includes a unique set of components such as glued-laminate timber (glulam), dowel-laminated timber (DLT), and cross-laminated timber (CLT) connections, which requires precise spatial understanding. It provides environmental benefits due to its biophilic properties, low embodied carbon, carbon sequestration capacity, prefabrication potential, and high strength-to-weight ratio. This advantage makes it a better eco-friendly alternative to concrete and steel components [8,9,10,11,12]. Adopting conventional teaching methodologies for mass timber education does not fully account for its tactile and unique features, such as layered sequence logic, erection sequence, intricate joints, and detailed connections. VR/AR has the potential of clearly projecting the properties of mass timber; however, its integration into the AEC curricula remains limited [13].
The primary pedagogical importance of VR/AR over conventional teaching is its potential of offering superior learning outcomes, including hazard detection, experiential engagement, task simulation, and spatial awareness. VR environments are developed based on full simulations, while AR presents digital content onto the physical world. Although VR and AR offer different user experiences, they both support immersive learning, and are key to AEC pedagogy [14,15]. This review combines both VR/AR perspectives in line with established AEC education research, as they both share pedagogical goals [16].
Figure 1 illustrates the position of this study within the broader framework of sustainable construction pedagogy. It emphasizes the current research gap and the potential of transferring VR/AR strategies to fill that void.
The lack of immersive delivery models for teaching sustainable construction materials, like mass timber, hinders the integration of sustainability in AEC curricula. The tactility (hidden joints, sequencing logic, and intricate connections) present educators with problems through conventional instruction. Several studies highlight the potential of VR/AR in learning outcomes, task simulation, and spatial awareness [17,18]. However, the adoption of VR/AR remains in its infancy regarding this area, with very few studies exploring its potential for enhancing sustainable construction education, particularly mass timber.
There is a pressing need for a structured, evidence-based approach to guide the design and development of an immersive and interactive mass timber delivery tool. In the absence of such a tool, efforts to encourage and promote sustainable construction practices and mass timber education may fall short. This review provides systemic guidance to implement, evaluate, and optimize this tool within the AEC curricula. Insights from this study guide the design of a mass timber instruction tool.

1.1. Research Questions

This study is guided by the following research questions (RQs) that will help identify the critical gaps hindering the effective integration of VR/AR into AEC education, especially for mass timber:
RQ1: What are the key pedagogical, technological, and institutional factors affecting the integration of VR/AR into AEC education?
RQ2: How does VR/AR impact learning outcomes such as engagement, knowledge retention, and skill acquisition among AEC students?
RQ3: What delivery strategies and frameworks have been proposed, and how transferable are they to mass timber education?

1.2. Identified Research Gaps

From the proposed research questions, three key limitation categories persist based on the synthesis of the identified relevant studies on VR/AR for AEC education:
Limited Empirical Validation: While many studies ascertain the relevance of VR/AR-enhanced learning for improving outcomes, only a few provide validated frameworks for supporting sustainability and mass timber education. Studies are generally focused on BIM or construction education, without any emphasis on the properties of mass timber [19,20].
Unstructured Pedagogical Integration: A lot of research has been conducted on VR/AR for conventional materials such as steel and concrete, but not so much on sustainable materials like mass timber. Many of the studies also do not align with educational theories such as authentic learning, Kolb’s experiential cycle, or Bloom’s taxonomy to frame immersive modules [21,22]. This weakens the pedagogical foundation of VR/AR applications in the mass timber context.
Adoption Barriers: Key adoption challenges associated with VR/AR:
  • Lack of standardized evaluation metrics: This includes a lack of consistent, quantifiable parameters (knowledge retention scoring, pre/post-tests, immersion level), which are important for measuring VR/AR learning outcomes [23,24].
  • Inadequate faculty readiness: This highlights the limitations in technical competency, pedagogical skills, and confidence among AEC educators to design, validate, and deliver VR/AR modules. Most research concentrates on hardware performance, with limited focus on faculty preparedness
  • Lack of Integration Framework: There is an absence of a structured roadmap or strategy for incorporating VR/AR modules into AEC curricula.
These challenges remain unsolved and continue to hinder the widespread adoption of VR/AR in mass timber education. Overcoming these barriers can ensure effective VR/AR integration and improve AEC education in areas where conventional teaching methods fall short [25].
Table 1 highlights how existing gaps in VR/AR literature inform the need for the development of an immersive and interactive tool for delivering mass timber models.

1.3. Aims and Objectives of the Study

This study aims to systematically review the existing literature on VR/AR in AEC education to extract transferable strategies, frameworks, and pedagogical models that can lay the foundation for the development and validation of immersive tools for delivering mass timber and sustainable construction curricula.
The research objectives are as follows:
  • To perform a scientometric analysis that emphasizes the publication trend, citation analysis, keyword analysis, and overall journal contributions.
  • To assess how VR/AR impacts learning outcomes, including student engagement, cognitive outcomes, and skill across the reviewed studies.
  • To evaluate the adoption barriers and optimization strategies of VR/AR for education.
  • To propose a framework for developing and validating a VR/AR-based instruction tool for mass timber education by synthesizing pedagogical models, delivery strategies, and immersive content.
  • To propose evaluation metrics and instructional strategies for integrating VR/AR into mass timber curricula in AEC education.

2. Methodology

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary SA highlights the PRISMA checklist for the study. The meta-analysis synthesizes quantitative findings from previous studies on VR/AR in AEC education. A PRISMA flow diagram was adopted for the selection of relevant literature. This framework is an effective approach to systematically searching, collecting, and organizing relevant studies. Furthermore, a scientometric analysis was also conducted to identify the publication trends and determine themes for VR/AR integration in AEC education. Scientometric analysis evaluates research trends, citation networks, and keyword occurrences to identify dominant themes and emerging directions [26]. The combination of thematic analysis and scientometric analysis ensures the employment of both quantitative and qualitative (mixed method) methods to analyze existing studies on VR/AR for AEC education, highlighting how they affect learning outcomes and with particular attention to mass timber instruction. Figure 2 shows the structure of the study. The methodology underlines a comprehensive, structured, and systematic review process that consolidates results from both theoretical concepts and real-world research.

2.1. Data Selection

The Web of Science, Scopus, and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Library databases were selected for the searching and collection of relevant data. The ASCE Library was specifically included to capture domain-specific peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Civil Engineering Education, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, and Journal of Architectural Engineering. The Web of Science and Scopus databases are also powerful academic databases with standard searching and filtering options that enable the user to browse for their desired literature [27].

2.2. Search Strategy

To capture a broad but focused dataset, a Boolean keyword search strategy was developed using a combination of four thematic clusters as listed in Table 2 to obtain reliable data from esteemed journals. Keywords were expanded to include synonymous words in their meanings to ensure that relevant literature was not omitted.
These keywords were combined using the Boolean operator “OR” between synonyms and “AND” between keywords. A search was first conducted on each of the databases.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria:

The search was restricted to peer-reviewed journals within the last 5 years (2020–2024), published in English, addressing VR/AR applications in AEC education, and empirical research with defined methodologies and measurable outcomes. Table 3 elaborates the dataset inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Exclusions were conference papers, studies outside the AEC domain, gray literature, studies without an AEC education focus, duplicates, and articles with missing data. Due to the scarcity of peer-reviewed articles that concentrate on VR/AR for mass timber education, the inclusion criteria were widened to include articles on the general employment of VR/AR for AEC education. This strategy aids the identification of transferable techniques that may benefit mass timber education in the future. Figure 3 is a PRISMA flow diagram that details the selection process.
A total of 69 articles were considered relevant to this study and were selected for full review and thematic synthesis included. A data extraction sheet was used to obtain all relevant data from the selected papers as highlighted in Supplementary SB. Each of these was analyzed based on the study objectives and further categorized into themes. This systematic approach ensures that the findings are directly aligned with the research objectives and suitable for extrapolation to mass timber-focused educational tools.

3. Scientometric Analysis

This section provides a scientometric analysis of the relevant articles. The results highlighted the publication trends, citation patterns, journal impacts, and science mapping and relationship between keywords.

3.1. Publication Trends (2020–2024)

Figure 4 illustrates the increasing research interest in VR/AR in AEC education from 2020 to 2024. The figure reveals a consistent rise in research interest over a five-year period, with a significant rise in publications observed particularly in 2023 (23 articles) and 2024 (20 articles) and an average of 13.8 publications per year. This indicates a growing recognition of VR/AR in improving AEC education. While there are minor fluctuations, this trend highlights the evolving focus on integrating VR/AR technologies into AEC learning environments. Furthermore, this trend emphasizes the potential of VR/AR technologies for emerging sustainability construction practices such as mass timber, which lags in terms of immersive learning research.

3.2. Journal Distribution and Contribution

Table 4 presents the broader distribution of contributing articles to VR/AR in AEC education. The sourced articles were published in core construction and education journals, substantiating the broader academic relevance of VR/AR in engineering education.
The publications were grouped according to published journals and their corresponding years of earliest and latest publications. The Journals of Civil Engineering Education was the lead contributor with six articles. This underscores the potential of VR/AR in the general AEC context. This was closely followed by Buildings and Sustainability, with five and four articles, respectively. Advanced Engineering Informatics, Safety Science, International Journal of Construction Education and Research, Safety Science, and Journal of Construction Engineering and Management contributed three articles each. The sources indicate that articles relevant to the research concentration of VR/AR in AEC education are largely published in technology-based journals within the broader scope of construction engineering education and management.

3.3. Word Clouds Analysis

Furthermore, the journal titles were assessed using word clouds. This technique is based on visually weighing the frequency of all keywords and displaying the keywords with higher frequency in a larger font [92]. The journals were analyzed to display the prominence of the various journals for the study. From Figure 5, it was shown that the most prominent words were “Engineering,” “Education,” “Construction,” and “Journal”. Emphasizing the primary focus of VR/AR on engineering and construction education. “Technology,” “Civil,” “Safety,” and “Sustainability” were also prominent, indicating key thematic areas relating to technological innovations, civil engineering, safety training, and sustainability practices within the AEC domain. The results reinforce the multifaceted educational impact of VR/AR in AEC and emphasize their alignment with spatial and experiential learning needs in mass timber.

3.4. Keyword Co-Occurrence Mapping

Keyword co-occurrence analysis is crucial in the study as it showcases the key thematic foundation of the study. The evaluation of the frequency and structure of keywords of the literature can help researchers in finding the most relevant topics and identifying correlations between the concepts with the study context [93].
In this research, VOSviewer 1.6.19 as employed to perform a co-occurrence analysis of keywords gathered from the 69 articles. Vosviewer is a tool that uses visual maps and relationships based on a study’s bibliometric data [94]. The parameters were filtered such that only keywords with a minimum of five occurrences were considered in the analysis. From the 1868 identified keywords across the selected studies, only 71 met the minimum occurrence threshold (n ≥ 5). Figure 6 presents a keyword co-occurrence analysis that finds the main research themes in VR/AR for AEC education. The thicker the connecting line, the stronger the co-occurrence relationship. Again, the larger the keyword, the more often it appears. Key areas of concentration are shown by prominent word such as “construction industry”, “learning”, and “safety training”. The study suggests that research in AEC education is strongly linked to applications in the construction industry, underpins the significance of VR/AR in enhancing learning experiences, and emphasizes the principal role of VR in construction safety training. The words “teaching”, “user”, and “experiment” were also revealed, suggesting that the focus on VR/AR is not only based on users (students and workers) but also on pedagogical strategies. These patterns highlight opportunities for applying immersive strategies to mass timber especially in areas like structural visualization, joint detailing, and safety simulation.

4. Thematic Analysis of Reviewed Studies

This section explores the findings of the SLR of the relevant studies included. All the collected articles were rigorously reviewed using scientific methodologies. This provided the basis for critically exploring the articles’ themes and their impacts, features, and potential.

4.1. Effectiveness of VR/AR in AEC Education

It is important to explore the overall effectiveness of VR/AR and investigate the influence of different levels of immersion on learning outcomes. The following section specifically seeks to critically examine how VR/AR in education impacts learning outcomes among AEC students and then compares it with traditional teaching methods based on the included studies.
Several important metrics, such as knowledge retention, situational awareness, practical application, skill acquisition, and engagement, were adopted to evaluate the effectiveness of VR/AR in AEC education.
Engagement enhancement was the most frequently measured factor, accounting for 30% of studies on VR/AR effectiveness in education. Compared to conventional lecture-based methods, VR/AR demonstrated higher student participation, motivation, and interactivity [95]. This factor was assessed using quasi-experimental designs, surveys [50], and iterative feedback mechanisms [70,71]. The results indicate that VR-based learning fosters participation, particularly through immersive simulations and multi-user collaborative experiences [89].
Skill acquisition was evaluated in 25% of the studies, focusing on how students can effectively apply theoretical knowledge to practical construction scenarios. Compared to traditional training, VR-based task simulations and virtual site inspections improved student problem-solving abilities, design accuracy, and safety awareness [96]. Notwithstanding, the articles show that VR/AR-enabled building assessment is integral to allowing students to learn new skills. Data collection tools included task simulations, observations, and quasi-experiment methods, all of which emphasized the superiority of VR/AR training over traditional learning experiences.
Knowledge retention was indicated in 20% of the studies. VR/AR-enhanced experience facilitated higher memory retention and conceptual understanding than textbook-based learning [97]. The common data collection tools employed in this research were performance assessment metrics, surveys, and quasi-experimental designs. The findings suggest that VR/AR enable students to retain complex construction concepts more effectively than passive learning methods, particularly through 3D models and real-time simulations.
Practical skills another important way to evaluate learning outcomes was through practical applications. This investigates how VR/AR helps students accomplish real-world construction tasks better. Students can safely practice construction skills, structural analysis, and BIM visualizations in VR/AR-based simulations [98]. VR/AR simulations, performance tracking, and iterative feedback analysis were some of the metrics employed to measure practical skills. The research reveals that VR/AR-based learning makes students better at technical skills, reduces material wastage, and minimizes the risks associated with real-world training settings.
Situational awareness is the student’s ability to perceive, understand, and find insights from relevant details and elements in a construction environment. Such awareness is a vital skill in construction safety and project management and was examined in 10% of the studies. VR/AR-based hazard detection exercises allow students to respond to identify potential hazards and improve their capacity to handle construction safety risks. Task analysis, observational studies, and task simulation were the main quantifiable tools for evaluating situational awareness. These findings indicate that VR/AR-based hazard training provides a more robust and engaging alternative to conventional safety lectures by allowing students to experience realistic risk scenarios in an immersive environment. For mass timber education, eye tracking, hazard identification, and clash detection techniques can be employed to quantitatively assess situational awareness. Periodic testing and task transfers to new but similar scenarios can also be adopted for measuring the long-term retention of skills in mass timber projects [99].
As illustrated in Figure 7, VR/AR has the potential of helping AEC students learn and improve their practical skills. Some of the fundamental benefits are that students are more engaged, learn better skills, remember what they learn better, have better hands-on training opportunities, and are more aware of their surroundings. Conventional teaching methods are still instrumental for building basic knowledge; however, VR/AR makes experiential learning better, lowers safety risks, and encourages student participation. The insights from this could be relevant for mass timber education, where students need to understand hidden joints, structural elements, and fabrication logic.
Table 5 presents a summary of VR/AR impact on learning outcomes. VR/AR environments offer a secure platform for real-world construction problems and therefore can be important for complex material systems like mass. VR/AR was shown to improve engagement in 30% of the studies and enhance skill acquisition (25%) and knowledge acquisition (20%) compared to conventional teaching techniques. These advantages suggest that VR/AR could be far more useful than conventional instructions for mass timber education, which involve intricate and detailed structural assemblies.
The study investigated the various levels of VR immersion and their impact on the learning outcomes of AEC students, and the results are displayed in Table 6. It can be noted that while desktop VR offers a cost-friendly and accessible basis for conceptual learning, fully immersive VR offers superior practical training in real-world applications such as construction processes, equipment handling, and BIM integration. The integration of both desktop and fully immersive VR can optimize learning by leveraging desktop VR for theoretical understanding and fully immersive VR for skill acquisition and experiential learning [59,100].

4.2. Adoption and Optimization Strategies

The studies were also explored to ascertain critical factors, including pedagogical, technological, usability, and student experience influence the adoption and optimization of VR/AR in AEC education.

4.2.1. Factors Influencing Adoption

The study examined the key factors influencing the adoption of VR/AR in AEC education, including pedagogical, student experience, technological, and usability considerations. These factors impact the integration effectiveness and sustainability of immersive environments in AEC curricula. The results are highlighted in Figure 8.
Pedagogy: The most prevalent factor was pedagogy, with 27 articles (39%) highlighting the importance of curriculum integration, instructional design development, and faculty training [61]. Institutional support is vital for the successful adoption of VR/AR, demanding standard and structured training for educators and the design of sound educational modules [23]. Additionally, without appropriate curriculum alignment, VR/AR may struggle to produce the optimal learning outcomes [101]. This emphasizes that for the implementation to be successful, strategic planning is required. Shore et al. [32] indicated that aligning VR/AR-based task simulations with the objectives of AEC education goals will encourage adoption.
Student Experience: Another key factor is student experience; 24 articles (35%) underscore how student motivation, engagement, and self-efficacy affect VR/AR learning outcomes. Parameters that are closely linked to improved knowledge retention in the AEC research are self-efficacy (student confidence), level of immersion (how real the reality seems), cognitive load, and VR engagement durations. The interactive element of VR/AR enhances comprehension and knowledge retention in contrast to traditional education approaches [102]. These factors are crucial for the mass timber pedagogy, as they facilitate the understanding of the sustainability, erection, and assembly characteristics of mass timber components. However, challenges such as motion sickness, cognitive overload, and learning curve difficulties need to be overcome to ensure optimal student adoption and satisfaction [103].
Technological Challenges: The adoption of VR/AR is also greatly impacted by technological challenges; 12 papers (17%) reveal key obstacles like hardware performance, software compatibility, and affordability [54]. The availability of high-performance computing, seamless software integration, and affordability are required for effective VR/AR adoption [104]. There is a need for scalable and affordable VR/AR platforms for wider accessibility [15].
Usability Concerns: Six articles (9%) concentrated on usability concerns, which include system accessibility, ease of use, and user interface design. For VR/AR to be effectively adopted, interfaces must be simple and easy to use so that educators and students can navigate virtual platforms with little difficulty [105]. Usability challenges decrease learning efficiency and heighten frustration, which negatively impacts adoption rates. Therefore, well-designed, ergonomic, and flexible VR/AR tools are essential for enhancing user experiences and learning efficacy.
While showing significant potential, students encounter several challenges while using VR/AR tools. These barriers include motion sickness, headset discomfort, cognitive overload, and real-world misalignment. A summary of key identified challenges encountered by AEC students while using VR/AR is illustrated in Table 7.
The implementation of VR/AR for mass timber education may require lightweight, modular VR/AR tools that can simulate realistic mass timber material behaviors without overwhelming the users with hyper-realistic rendering loads.

4.2.2. Optimizing Approaches

To improve learning outcomes in AE education, optimization of VR/AR tools for key concepts including cognitive skills, collaborative learning, practical application, self-efficacy, and student engagement is paramount. Figure 9 shows how the study aligns with these concepts. The most dominant identified idea was practical applications, which were found in 18 articles. This shows the importance of real-world, hands-on training to AEC education. VR/AR makes construction safety training and BIM visualizations easier by providing students with a safe, interactive platform for applying their acquired knowledge to real-world scenarios [85].
Student engagement was highlighted in 16 articles, underscoring the role of interactive environments and gamification in VR/AR learning. Research shows that VR-based learning environments enhance participation, motivation, and knowledge retention compared to conventional approaches [106].
Students’ confidence in using VR/AR tools, effectively termed self-efficacy, was also a significant theme in 14 studies. The research suggests that frequent exposure to VR/AR-based learning builds confidence in problem-solving and design understanding [52]. Lozano-Galant et al. [33] highlighted that even affordable AR tools improved engagement and practical skill acquisition.
Cognitive skills such as spatial reasoning, critical thinking, and problem-solving were identified in 12 articles as integral to AEC education. VR/AR tools support cognitive development through interactive, decision-based learning experiences [107].
Despite being the least discussed concept (9 articles), collaborative learning in multi-user VR/AR environments remains a promising area for VR/AR optimization in AEC education. The low number of studies suggests that multi-user platforms are still developing, but they hold the potential for team-based design collaboration and remote learning [108].
To fully optimize VR/AR tools in AEC education, institutions should concentrate on enhancing practical applications, increasing student engagement, fostering self-efficacy, reinforcing cognitive skill development, and expanding collaborative learning opportunities. Table 8 presents relevant pedagogical models and optimization strategies for VR/AR adoption. The identified dominant pedagogical strategies are Kolb’s Learning Cycle, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and Authentic Learning. Kolb’s learning cycle emphasizes that effective learning can be achieved by successfully going through four phases, which include concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation [109]. Stringer et al. [110] postulates that Bloom’s taxonomy describes the objectives of study based on a hierarchical framework that focuses on six levels of cognitive skills (remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create). Furthermore, authentic learning is a pedagogical framework that supports learning and knowledge construction through the integration of realism, complexities, and technology into learning experiences and engagement [111].
These pedagogical strategies can be integrated into VR/AR-based mass timber education for a holistic learning experience.
To identify the key VR/AR features that are essential for improving skill acquisition and knowledge retention in AEC settings, the relevant studies were further analyzed. Immersive learning environments, emphasized in 18 articles, were the most noteworthy features. The articles focused on how fully immersive VR/AR experiences can improve understanding of difficult concepts and increase engagement. As suggested in the study of Huang et al. [78], 3D visualizations and real-world models enhance learning outcomes in AEC students. Furthermore, 14 articles also highlighted scenario-based learning as a principal feature for improving knowledge retention and skill acquisition. Research on this VR/AR feature has gained traction, especially in construction safety training [112]. VR/AR facilitates a safe simulation of hazardous construction scenarios without real exposure to danger, providing platforms for superior skill acquisition compared to conventional approaches [80].
Moreover, 13 studies indicated interactive simulations as a crucial feature in reinforcing knowledge retention and skill acquisition. Interactive simulations link theoretical learning to practical applications, ensuring that students develop problem-solving skills through test models in a VR/AR environment [113]. Collaboration and remote training accounted for 12 of the studies; this highlights a growing focus on multi-user VR/AR environments. Nikolic and Whyte [114] posited that VR/AR environments foster team collaborations in AEC education. Again, 12 studies identified data-driven progress tracking as a key VR/AR feature for enhancing skill acquisition and knowledge retention. The results of the studies are highlighted in Figure 10.

4.2.3. Delivery Models for VR/AR in AEC Education and Mass Timber Education

How VR/AR has been employed as a delivery mechanism within the AEC domain was evaluated to ascertain teaching strategies that are transferable to mass timber education. This focuses on models of immersive content delivery such as task simulations, BIM integration experience, building walkthroughs and tours that can be adopted to teach mass timber concepts, fire detailing, material compositions, jointing systems and erection, and different mass timber elements.
Table 9 highlights the various pedagogical delivery approaches identified in the review for VR/AR integration.
Individual VR/AR modules were identified in most studies, highlighting a modular approach that offers a self-paced environment and focuses on learning unique construction procedures and is prominently employed in safety training. BIM-VR/AR integration was also identified as a common delivery model, which involves design-construction workflow simulation. This enables AEC students to visualize spatial setup, structural interactions, and detailing. Furthermore, scenario-based simulations also demonstrated to be another relevant delivery model, helping to mimic real-world tasks and interactions. This included hazard detection, site inspection, and component assembly. Multi-user collaboration and gamification were incorporated into the delivery strategies to enhance student engagement and motivation. Moreover, feedback mechanisms and learner control are another delivery strategies that underscore the pedagogical relevance of real-time feedback and self-regulated learning. Figure 11 highlights the distribution of articles across the identified pedagogical strategies and delivery models.
Synthesizing the identified pedagogical delivery strategies and models from the review highlights a fair adoption of VR/AR instructional delivery across various AEC settings for concrete, steel, and BIM education. However, the review highlights a limited effort in the context of sustainable materials like mass timber. This review identifies key strategies that will directly inform the next step in designing and validating an immersive, interactive, collaborative delivery tool for mass timber construction education. Table 10 is a conceptual map that highlights the relationship between identified delivery modules and mass timber-specific learning objectives.
The identified models will be integrated into a VR-based learning environment focused on teaching spatial, structural, detailed, and sustainability-driven knowledge of mass timber, thereby addressing an evident research and educational gap.

4.3. Integration Framework and Assessment Metrics

An integration framework emphasizes a systematic and structured roadmap for incorporating VR/AR content into AEC curricula. This includes the design, delivery, and scalability of the VR/AR content. This section focuses on developing a structured approach for integrating VR/AR into AEC courses and establishing robust assessment metrics for measuring learning outcomes. The aim is to identify comprehensive guidelines for effective VR/AR integration into AEC curricula and the evaluation methods for measuring their impact on learning outcomes.

4.3.1. Propose Framework for VR/AR Integration in AEC Curricula

Identified Gaps
The articles were assessed to identify the gaps in teaching methods and evaluation metrics for VR/AR education. The study showed some gaps in VR/AR teaching and evaluation, such as a lack of standardized teaching methods for integrating VR/AR, insufficient evaluation metrics to assess learning outcomes, limited faculty training and unfamiliarity with VR/AR tools, hardware and software limitations, including high costs, and a lack of multi-user collaborative VR/AR environments [15,32,42,75,81]. Results highlighted in Figure 12.
Recommendations
Several studies recommended some remedies to bridge the gaps in teaching methods and evaluation metrics. The highest suggested recommendation was scenario-based learning and task-based simulations. For example, Abotaleb et al. [57] highlighted this as the most effective method of addressing VR/AR in AEC education challenges. Rokooei et al. [45] and Shore et al. [32] proposed the creation of standardized rubrics and performance metrics for evaluating VR/AR-based learning outcomes. This was the second-most significant recommendation from the study. Limited faculty training and unfamiliarity with VR/AR tools, hardware and software limitations, including high costs, and a lack of multi-user collaborative VR/AR environments were the other respective frequent recommendations from the studies. These are shown in Figure 13.
Framework
Drawing insights from the highlighted gaps and recommendations, a comprehensive framework was proposed for integrating VR/AR into AEC curricula. This framework includes the following:
  • Curriculum Integration: To ensure that VR/AR content is correctly applied, it should be added to AEC syllabi through strategies like scenario-based learning and interactive simulations [57]. This will help students interact with realistic construction settings in ways that improve their spatial awareness and critical thinking potential. For mass timber, this means being able to visualize the sequencing of structural systems, including CLT and glulam and understanding their fire detailing and connection profile. The content of the curriculum must meet the standards for accreditation.
  • Faculty Training and Development: The success of adopting VR/AR in AEC education depends on how prepared educators are [6]. To equip educators with the technical skills required for successfully integrating VR/AR into teaching methodologies, AEC institutions should put a lot of emphasis on practical training, professional development, and interdisciplinary collaborations. This involves faculty development workshops on using VR/AR tools, teaching guidelines on linking conventional teaching content to VR/AR workflows, and robust technical support for integrating VR/AR into mass timber courses.
  • Infrastructure and Accessibility: Accessibility remains a challenge due to the inadequate number of available VR/AR technologies [38]. Dudley et al. [115] also attributed the limited accessibility to the cost-intensive nature of VR/AR hardware and software. The infrastructure required for the VR/AR experience, such as Meta Quest and HTC Vive, should be affordable and scalable. There should be access to reliable internet, cross-platform compatibility, and Unity-based modules should be tailored for mass timber systems.
  • Immersion and Motivation: VR/AR achieves optimal performance and engagement when students feel present and involve [76]. This framework suggests gamified modules, scenario-based learning, and voice narrations of design logic as strategies to enhance engagement.
  • Assessment and Feedback: Yu et al. [116] found that there are no standard metrics to measure learning outcomes. Standardized assessment guidelines or metrics are required to accurately measure and enhance learning outcomes [117]. These metrics include metrics for spatial performance, post-simulation tests or reports, and real-time formative feedback.
Figure 14 emphasizes the proposed integration framework. This framework can be used as a guide to develop and validate a robust interactive VR-based tool for teaching sustainable construction systems like mass timber construction.

4.3.2. Cognitive Metrics for Measuring Learning Outcomes

As indicated in Table 11, predefined cognitive metrics such as evaluation, analysis, critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving can be employed to systematically evaluate the impact of VR/AR on learning outcomes. These skills can be evaluated through a combination of pre/post-tests, scenario-based assessment, real-time simulations, and follow-up quizzes. As indicated in recent research (75), VR-enhanced simulations and interactive 3D models have a great influence on knowledge retention, making the understanding of complex concepts easier compared to conventional instructions.
VR/AR allows students to deconstruct and assess real-time data from distinct construction scenarios, which helps to improve their evaluation and analysis skills [118]. Leveraging scenario analysis, observation, and eye-tracking tools, students can gain a deeper understanding of complex construction concepts. Moreover, VR/AR encourages problem-solving and decision-making by immersing students in realistic environments where they must complete tasks, detect clashes, and suggest remedies under performance restrictions [76].
Furthermore, VR/AR fosters critical thinking through group-based reasoning task simulations and cognitive reflections [119]. Analytic reasoning can also be improved through VR/AR by allowing the testing and verification of different strategies and outcomes within the VR/AR platform [60]. This emphasizes the potential of VR/AR to integrate information and optimize construction decisions.

5. Discussion and Summary

This review explores the potential of advancing sustainable construction education, particularly mass timber, through VR/AR integration. By synthesizing insights from identified studies, it is evident that VR/AR improves student engagement, knowledge retention, collaborative learning, and practical skill development [120]. These technologies offer immersive and interactive learning experiences for important AEC concepts. The three research questions (RQs) are discussed in relation to the study findings and emphasize the contribution of the study in terms of AEC pedagogy, VR/AR framework standardization, and mass timber curriculum integration.
RQ1: What are the pedagogical, technological, and institutional factors affecting VR/AR integration in AEC education?
This review indicates that the primary influencing factors for VR/AR introduction are faculty preparedness and institutional backing. Most AEC educators still require certain technical competencies to incorporate these technologies into their pedagogical approaches. Furthermore, the expensive nature of VR/AR technology, software, subscriptions, and maintenance poses a significant obstacle for universities with constrained resources. A cost–benefit trade-off is vital to determine the most efficient VR/AR solutions for affordable integration.

5.1. Contribution to AEC Pedagogy

The synthesis underscores the impact of integrating VR/AR into an authentic learning context guided by Bloom’s taxonomy and Kolb’s experiential learning theory. The study evaluated measurable outcomes such as hazard detection, layered assembling, and spatial reasoning within the framework of VR/AR modules. This established a teaching framework for improving knowledge retention and engagement among AEC students.

5.2. Contribution to the Standardization of VR/AR Frameworks

The analysis emphasizes the absence of a defined framework and assessment criteria, both essential for the integration and scalability of VR/AR in AEC education. The suggested framework underscores the necessity for uniform instructional protocols and performance assessment criteria. Curriculum alignment, faculty training, infrastructure accessibility, and systematic feedback mechanisms are essential components for the uptake, reproducibility, and scalability of VR/AR in AEC education.
RQ2: In what manner does VR/AR influence learning outcomes, including engagement, information retention, and skill acquisition, among AEC students?
Thematic analysis indicated a beneficial impact of VR/AR on student engagement, skill development, and information retention. Fully immersive environments have demonstrated efficacy in improving situational awareness and skill learning, particularly in safety training and BIM visualizations. Partially immersive or desktop-based platforms offer cost-effective options for conceptual understanding and theoretical education. A hybrid learning model, utilizing both full and partial immersion, is advised to optimize cost-effectiveness and efficacy in AEC education.

5.3. Contribution to AEC Pedagogy

The findings demonstrate that immersive learning promotes profound cognitive engagement and improves practical skills, addressing the traditional disparity between theoretical instruction and practical skill acquisition. This underscores a significant transition from traditional classroom lectures to interactive, student-centered learning environments in AEC education.

5.4. Integration of Mass Timber Curriculum Contributions

Mass timber, defined by intricate joinery, layered systems, and prefabricated logic, necessitates an educational methodology that fosters spatial cognition and sequencing comprehension. VR/AR platforms are best suited for this task yet are inadequately employed in that sector. The results substantiate the call for an interactive VR/AR-based instructional tool for mass timber education. This approach can bridge the gap between theoretical learning and practical experience, which is paramount for instructing sustainable structural systems.
Research Question 3: What delivery methodologies and frameworks have been suggested, and how applicable are they to mass timber education?
This study identified five essential delivery modules: individual VR/AR modules, BIM-integrated simulations, scenario-based simulations, multi-user environments, and feedback-driven learner control. Although these models are well-established for concrete, steel, and general BIM processes, their direct application to mass timber is still developing. Their proposed adoption for addressing the unique feature of mass timber is highlighted in Table 12.

5.5. Contribution to the Standardization of VR/AR Frameworks

Figure 14 outlines an integration structure for identified delivery strategies. This can function as a fundamental framework for the design and development of mass timber VR/AR curricula. This framework emphasizes the essential elements for standardizing VR/AR-based education within sustainable construction modules.

5.6. Integration of Mass Timber Curriculum Contributions

The transferable models inform the design and implementation of an interactive VR/AR platform for mass timber education. AEC students can visualize and simulate the assembling and logical sequencing of different mass timber elements. This will render mass timber learning more experiential, scalable, and accessible, bridging the pedagogical gap in sustainable construction education.
The insights from this review are as follows:
-
Proposes a standardized framework for VR/AR integration and assessment.
-
Establishes a pedagogical foundation for immersive AEC learning.
-
Provides the basis for VR/AR-based mass timber curricula, advancing sustainable construction education.
The synthesis offers proactive strategies for developing and validating an interactive VR/AR-based tool for mass timber education.
Bamboo and hempcrete construction are other sustainable construction strategies that can leverage the emergence of VR/AR for better design, construction, and educational outputs [121,122,123,124]. However, the integration of these immersive technologies into mass timber construction is particularly important due to the complex and tactile nature of the connections. Unlike mass timber, bamboo and hempcrete connections do not require assembly sequencing [125]. Mass timber requires layered assembly logic and precise connections [126], making VR/AR’s spatial and interactive capabilities specifically suited for its pedagogy.

6. Conclusions

Regarding the use of VR/AR in AEC education, the review offers a comprehensive synthesis of 69 peer-reviewed publications. The results provide an empirically supported framework for the creation and verification of an interactive VR/AR tool for mass timber education. The review provides a thorough understanding of the incorporation of immersive technology into AEC education by analyzing publication patterns, adoption variables, pedagogical approaches, and assessment measures in line with the study’s objectives.
We derive useful concepts that address the pedagogical, technological, and cognitive issues related to teaching mass timber models, even though most identified studies focus on generic AEC contexts. For courses focused on the structural, spatial, and sustainability aspects of mass timber, the framework places a strong emphasis on the development and validation of VR/AR platforms. A visual summary of the reviewed papers, noted shortcomings, and potential research directions is given in Figure 15. These results directly address the study’s original goal, which was to address the underutilization of VR/AR tools in sustainable construction education and provide useful information for mass timber instruction.
This study provides the empirical foundation for the creation of a VR-based instructional tool for mass timber construction and is the first stage of an extensive research project. Informed by the educational practices described in this evaluation, the tool will be structured around measurable outcomes and supported by ongoing feedback from educators and students. Through the application of well-established immersive approaches from general AEC education to the unique needs of sustainable materials like mass timber, this initiative seeks to transform students’ understanding, visualization, and application of timber-based construction systems in real-world environments.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/buildings15162938/s1.

Author Contributions

M.R.S. led the conceptualization of the study, conducted the systematic literature review, performed the scientometric and thematic analysis, prepared the original draft, and developed the figures and tables. G.H.B. and L.N. led the conceptualization of the study, provided supervision, methodological guidance, and critical review of the study design and analysis, and provided revisions to improve the clarity and structure of the manuscript. K.C. contributed to the review of the methodology, refinement of the integration framework, and editing for technical accuracy. M.G.M.S. supervised the overall research process, contributed to framing the pedagogical and sustainability context, and provided critical manuscript revisions. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. This study involved a systematic review of published literature and did not include human or animal subjects.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable. No human subjects were involved in this research.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. The dataset consists of the reviewed peer-reviewed articles as cited in the reference list.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rehman, S.U.; Kim, I.; Hwang, K.E. Advancing BIM and game engine integration in the AEC industry: Innovations, challenges, and future directions. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2025, 12, 26–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhu, Y.; Jafari, A.; Behzadan, A.H.; Issa, R.R. A roadmap to the next-generation technology-enabled learning-centered environments in AEC education. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2024, 150, 05024002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hosny, F.; Mantha, B.R.; Dabous, S.A.; Al-Khateeb, G.; Omar, M.; Arab, M.G.; Zeiada, W.; Merabtene, T.; Hamad, K. Advancing Civil Engineering Education: A Systematic Review of Opportunities, Trends, Challenges, and Future Research Directions in Computer-Altered Reality Technologies. Res. Sq. Prepr. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ventura, S.M.; Castronovo, F.; Nikolić, D.; Ciribini, A.L.C. Implementation of Virtual Reality In Construction Education: A Content-Analysis Based Literature Review. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2022, 27, 705–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Adami, P.; Singh, R.; Rodrigues, P.B.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Soibelman, L.; Copur-Gencturk, Y.; Lucas, G. Participants matter: Effectiveness of VR-based training on the knowledge, trust in the robot, and self-efficacy of construction workers and university students. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2023, 55, 101837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Spitzer, B.O.; Ma, J.H.; Erdogmus, E.; Kreimer, B.; Ryherd, E.; Diefes-Dux, H. Framework for the Use of Extended Reality Modalities in AEC Education. Buildings 2022, 12, 2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Urban, H.; Pelikan, G.; Schranz, C. Augmented reality in AEC education: A case study. Buildings 2022, 12, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Duan, Z.; Huang, Q.; Zhang, Q. Life cycle assessment of mass timber construction: A review. Build. Environ. 2022, 221, 109320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gustafsson, A.; Fridh, K.; Sandberg, D. Biophilic and sustainable design: The effect of visible wood in buildings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Churkina, G.; Organschi, A.; Reyer, C.P.O.; Ruff, A.; Vinke, K.; Liu, Z.; Reck, B.K.; Graedel, T.E.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jones, D.; Llorens, J.; Mallo, M.F. Mass timber and sustainability: An analysis of the manufacturing and construction processes. Wood Des. Build. 2016, 21, 30–35. [Google Scholar]
  12. Teshnizi, Z.; Fovargue, D. Designing for deconstruction in mass timber buildings: Circular economy in action. Buildings 2022, 12, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Green, M.; Taggart, J. Tall Wood Buildings: Design, Construction and Performance, 2nd ed.; Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ilbeigi, M.; Bairaktarova, D.; Morteza, A. Gamification in Construction Engineering Education: A Scoping Review. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2023, 149, 04023015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, Y. Application of virtual reality technique in the construction of modular teaching resources. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2020, 15, 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tan, Y.; Xu, W.; Li, S.; Chen, K. Augmented and Virtual Reality (AR/VR) for Education and Training in the AEC Industry: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. Buildings 2022, 12, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Militello, M.; Tredway, L.; Hodgkins, L.; Simon, K. Virtual reality classroom simulations: How school leaders improve instructional leadership capacity. J. Educ. Adm. 2021, 59, 286–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kaur, D.P.; Mantri, A.; Horan, B. Enhancing student motivation with use of augmented reality for interactive learning in engineering education. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 172, 881–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kim, J.I.; Li, S.; Chen, X.; Keung, C.; Suh, M.; Kim, T.W. Evaluation framework for BIM-based VR applications in design phase. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2021, 8, 910–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Czok, V.; Krug, M.; Müller, S.; Huwer, J.; Kruse, S.; Müller, W.; Weitzel, H. A Framework for Analysis and Development of Augmented Reality Applications in Science and Engineering Teaching. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Faridi, H.; Tuli, N.; Mantri, A.; Singh, G.; Gargrish, S. A framework utilizing augmented reality to improve critical thinking ability and learning gain of the students in Physics. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2021, 29, 258–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Familoni, B.T.; Onyebuchi, N.C. Augmented and virtual reality in U.S. Education: A review: Analyzing the impact, effectiveness, and future prospects of AR/VR tools in enhancing learning experiences. Int. J. Appl. Res. Soc. Sci. 2024, 6, 642–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Algerafi, M.A.M.; Zhou, Y.; Oubibi, M.; Wijaya, T.T. Unlocking the Potential: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality in Education. Electronics 2023, 12, 3953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alzahrani, N.M. Augmented reality: A systematic review of its benefits and challenges in e-learning contexts. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, X.; Li, S.; Li, G.; Xue, B.; Liu, B.; Fang, Y.; Seo, J.; Kim, I.; Kim, J.I. Effects of building information modeling prior knowledge on applying virtual reality in construction education: Lessons from a comparison study. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2023, 10, 2036–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kastrin, A.; Hristovski, D. Scientometric analysis and knowledge mapping of literature-based discovery (1986–2020). Scientometrics 2021, 126, 1415–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Afzal, M.; Shafiq, M.T. Evaluating 4D-BIM and VR for effective safety communication and training: A case study of multilingual construction job-site crew. Buildings 2021, 11, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abouelkhier, N.; Shafiq, M.T.; Rauf, A.; Alsheikh, N. Enhancing Construction Management Education through 4D BIM and VR: Insights and Recommendations. Buildings 2024, 14, 3116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sami Ur Rehman, M.; Abouelkhier, N.; Shafiq, M.T. Exploring the effectiveness of immersive virtual reality for Project Scheduling in Construction Education. Buildings 2023, 13, 1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shringi, A.; Arashpour, M.; Golafshani, E.M.; Rajabifard, A.; Dwyer, T.; Li, H. Efficiency of VR-based safety training for construction equipment: Hazard recognition in heavy machinery operations. Buildings 2022, 12, 2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shore, J.; Ravindran, A.V.; Gonzalez, V.A.; Giacaman, N. Using augmented reality in AEC tertiary education: A collaborative design case. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2023, 149, 04022009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lozano-Galant, F.; Porras, R.; Mobaraki, B.; Calderón, F.; Gonzalez-Arteaga, J.; Lozano-Galant, J.A. Enhancing civil engineering education through affordable AR tools for visualizing BIM models. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2024, 150, 05024003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ilbeigi, M. A Scoping Review: Virtual and Augmented Reality Game-Based Applications to Civil Engineering Education. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2024, 150, 04024013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ogunseiju, O.R.; Nnaji, C.; Eiris, R.; Akanmu, A.; Olayiwola, J. Assessment of Interactive Holographic Scenes in Learning: A Review on the Applications of Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality in Civil Engineering Education. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2023, 149, 04023002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, X.; Chou, M.; Lai, X.; Tang, J.; Chen, J.; Kong, W.K.; Chi, H.-L.; Yam, M.C. Examining the effects of an immersive learning environment in tertiary AEC education: CAVE-VR system for students’ perception and technology acceptance. J. Civ. Eng. Educ. 2024, 150, 05023012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kuncoro, T.; Ichwanto, M.A.; Muhammad, D.F. VR-based learning media of earthquake-resistant construction for civil engineering students. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akinradewo, O.; Hafez, M.; Aigbavboa, C.; Ebekozien, A.; Adekunle, P.; Otasowie, O. Innovating Built Environment Education to Achieve SDG 4: Key Drivers for Integrating Augmented Reality Technologies. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shanti, Z.; Al-Tarazi, D. Virtual Reality Technology in Architectural Theory Learning: An Experiment on the Module of History of Architecture. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rueda Márquez de la Plata, A.; Cruz Franco, P.A.; Ramos Sánchez, J.A. Applications of virtual and augmented reality technology to teaching and research in construction and its graphic expression. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hu, X.; Goh, Y.M.; Lin, A. Educational impact of an Augmented Reality (AR) application for teaching structural systems to non-engineering students. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2021, 50, 101436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Adami, P.; Rodrigues, P.B.; Woods, P.J.; Becerik-Gerber, B.; Soibelman, L.; Copur-Gencturk, Y.; Lucas, G. Effectiveness of VR-based training on improving construction workers’ knowledge, skills, and safety behavior in robotic teleoperation. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2021, 50, 101431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Guo, X.; Liu, Y.; Tan, Y.; Xia, Z.; Fu, H. Hazard identification performance comparison between virtual reality and traditional construction safety training modes for different learning style individuals. Saf. Sci. 2024, 180, 106644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gong, P.; Lu, Y.; Lovreglio, R.; Yang, X.; Deng, Y. Comparing the effectiveness of AR training and slide-based training: The case study of metro construction safety. Saf. Sci. 2024, 176, 106561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rokooei, S.; Shojaei, A.; Alvanchi, A.; Azad, R.; Didehvar, N. Virtual reality application for construction safety training. Saf. Sci. 2023, 157, 105925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wu, W.; Zhao, D.; Suk, S.J. Evaluating virtual reality simulations in construction safety education. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2022, 148, 04022037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kim, H.; Park, J.; Lee, S. Curriculum design for digital twin learning environments in construction education. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2024, 150, 04023088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yu, W.D.; Wang, K.C.; Wu, H.T. Empirical comparison of learning effectiveness of immersive virtual reality–based safety training for novice and experienced construction workers. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2022, 148, 04022078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Andalib, S.Y.; Monsur, M. Co-Created Virtual Reality (VR) Modules in Landscape Architecture Education: A Mixed Methods Study Investigating the Pedagogical Effectiveness of VR. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Capecchi, I.; Borghini, T.; Barbierato, E.; Guazzini, A.; Serritella, E.; Raimondi, T.; Saragosa, C.; Bernetti, I. The combination of serious gaming and immersive virtual reality through the constructivist approach: An application to teaching architecture. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lucas, J.; Gajjar, D. Influence of virtual reality on student learning in undergraduate construction education. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2022, 18, 374–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Olbina, S.; Glick, S. Using integrated hands-on and virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) approaches in construction management education. Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 2023, 19, 341–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tan, Y.; Xu, W.; Chen, K.; Deng, C.; Wang, P. An interactive and collaborative augmented reality environment for civil engineering education: Steel reinforcement bars teaching as an example. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2024, 31, 1100–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, P.; Yang, Z.; Huang, J.; Wang, T.K. The effect of augmented reality applied to learning process with different learning styles in structural engineering education. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2024, 32, 3727–3759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cheng, J.Y.; Gheisari, M.; Jeelani, I. Using 360-degree virtual reality technology for training construction workers about safety challenges of drones. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2023, 37, 04023018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lin, K.Y.; Ayer, S.K. BIM-based virtual construction labs for undergraduate construction education. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2023, 37, 04023007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abotaleb, I.; Hosny, O.; Nassar, K.; Bader, S.; Elrifaee, M.; Ibrahim, S.; Hakim, Y.E.; Sherif, M. An interactive virtual reality model for enhancing safety training in construction education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2023, 31, 324–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, C.; Tang, Y.; Kassem, M.A.; Li, H.; Hua, B. Application of VR technology in civil engineering education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2022, 30, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, Z.; Wong, M.O.; Pan, W. Virtual reality enhanced multi-role collaboration in crane-lift training for modular construction. Autom. Constr. 2023, 150, 104848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bao, L.; Tran, S.V.T.; Nguyen, T.L.; Pham, H.C.; Lee, D.; Park, C. Cross-platform virtual reality for real-time construction safety training using immersive web and industry foundation classes. Autom. Constr. 2022, 143, 104565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Man, S.S.; Wen, H.; So, B.C.L. Are virtual reality applications effective for construction safety training and education? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Saf. Res. 2024, 88, 230–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Raut, S.; Bhura, S.; Khushalani, J.; Kim, H.; Ramani, N.; Bajaj, R.; Jeswani, D. Revolutionizing construction engineering education: A virtual reality approach for enhanced training and optimization. J. Stat. Manag. Syst. 2024, 27, 395–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Al-Khiami, M.I.; Jaeger, M.; Soleimani, S.M.; Kazem, A. Enhancing concrete structures education: Impact of virtual reality on motivation, performance and usability for undergraduate engineering students. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2024, 40, 306–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Din, Z.U.; Mohammadi, P.; Sherman, R. A systematic review and analysis of the viability of virtual reality (VR) in construction work and education. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2408.01450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pei, W.; Lo, T.T.S.; Guo, X. Integrating Virtual Reality and interactive game for learning structures in architecture: The case of ancient Chinese dougong cognition. Open House Int. 2023, 48, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wu, W.L.; Hsu, Y.; Yang, Q.F.; Chen, J.J. A spherical video-based immersive virtual reality learning system to support landscape architecture students’ learning performance during the COVID-19 era. Land 2021, 10, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Elgewely, M.H.; Nadim, W.; ElKassed, A.; Yehiah, M.; Talaat, M.A.; Abdennadher, S. Immersive construction detailing education: Building information modeling (BIM)–based virtual reality (VR). Open House Int. 2021, 46, 359–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Vasilevski, N.; Birt, J. Analysing construction student experiences of mobile mixed reality enhanced learning in virtual and augmented reality environments. Res. Learn. Technol. 2020, 28, 2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Agirachman, F.A.; Shinozaki, M. Design evaluation in architecture education with an affordance-based approach utilizing non-virtual reality and virtual reality media. Technol. Archit. Des. 2021, 5, 188–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Osti, F.; de Amicis, R.; Sanchez, C.A.; Tilt, A.B.; Prather, E.; Liverani, A. A VR training system for learning and skills development for construction workers. Virtual Real. 2021, 25, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wong, J.Y.; Yip, C.C.; Yong, S.T.; Chan, A.; Kok, S.T.; Lau, T.L.; Ali, M.T.; Gouda, E. BIM-VR framework for building information modelling in engineering education. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2020, 14, 15–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tai, N.C. Applications of augmented reality and virtual reality on computer-assisted teaching for analytical sketching of architectural scene and construction. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2023, 22, 1664–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. McCord, K.H.; Ayer, S.K.; Wu, W.; Perry, L.A.; London, J.S.; Kopitske, J. Using augmented reality to simulate authentic learning building assessment and construction experiences. J. Archit. Eng. 2023, 29, 04023023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. An, D.; Deng, H.; Shen, C.; Xu, Y.; Zhong, L.; Deng, Y. Evaluation of virtual reality application in construction teaching: A comparative study of undergraduates. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wang, K.C.; Hsu, L.Y. Effectiveness of an Immersive VR System for Construction Site Planning Education. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2024, 28, 1622–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Voordijk, H.; Vahdatikhaki, F. Virtual Reality Learning Environments and Technological Mediation in Construction Practice. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2022, 47, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Arif, F. Application of virtual reality for infrastructure management education in civil engineering. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 3607–3627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Huang, Y.; Amini, F.; Jiang, C.; Yin, J. The effectiveness of an augmented reality app in online civil engineering learning. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2023, 60, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Li, W.; Huang, H.; Solomon, T.; Esmaaeili, B.; Yu, L.-F. Synthesizing personalized construction safety training scenarios for VR training. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2022, 28, 1993–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Seo, S.; Park, H.; Koo, C. Impact of interactive learning elements on personal learning performance in immersive virtual reality for construction safety training. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 251, 124099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Espinoza, V.P.R.; Cárdenas-Salas, D.; Cabrera, A.; Coronel, L. Virtual reality and BIM methodology as teaching-learning improvement tools for sanitary engineering courses. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2021, 16, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ummihusna, A.; Zairul, M.; Ab Jalil, H.; Sulaiman, P.S. Immersive virtual reality in experiential learning for architecture design education: An action research. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2025, 17, 738–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Seyman-Guray, T.; Kismet, B. Drivers and barriers on implementing XR technologies in the construction industry in Turkey. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2024, 24, 959–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Placencio-Hidalgo, D.; Álvarez-Marín, A.; Castillo-Vergara, M.; Sukno, R. Augmented reality for virtual training in the construction industry. Work 2022, 71, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Álvarez-Marín, A.; Velazquez-Iturbide, J.A. Augmented reality and engineering education: A systematic review. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2021, 14, 817–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Luo, Y.; Ahn, S.; Abbas, A.; Seo, J.; Cha, S.H.; Kim, J.I. Investigating the impact of scenario and interaction fidelity on training experience when designing immersive virtual reality-based construction safety training. Dev. Built Environ. 2023, 16, 100223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Alzarrad, A.; Miller, M.; Durham, L.; Chowdhury, S. Revolutionizing construction safety: Introducing a cutting-edge virtual reality interactive system for training US construction workers to mitigate fall hazards. Front. Built Environ. 2024, 10, 1320175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yu, A.; Xu, Z. On the Application of Digitized Virtual Reality Technology in the Teaching of Landscape Architecture Design. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Educ. 2024, 20, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Birt, J.; Vasilevski, N. Comparison of Single and Multiuser Immersive Mobile Virtual Reality Usability in Construction Education. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2021, 24, 93–106. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27004934 (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  90. Gheisari, M.; Issa, R.R.A. Augmented reality and virtual reality in construction education: A systematic literature review. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2023, 37, 04022067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Holly, M.; Pirker, J.; Resch, S.; Brettschuh, S.; Gütl, C. Designing VR Experiences–Expectations for Teaching and Learning in VR. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2021, 24, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhao, Q.; Liu, J.; Sullivan, N.; Chang, K.; Spina, J.; Blasch, E.; Chen, G. Anomaly detection of unstructured big data via semantic analysis and dynamic knowledge graph construction. In Proceedings of the Signal Processing, Sensor/Information Fusion, and Target Recognition XXX, Online, 12–17 April 2021; Volume 11756, pp. 126–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Weismayer, C.; Pezenka, I. Identifying emerging research fields: A longitudinal latent semantic keyword analysis. Scientometrics 2017, 113, 1757–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wen, J.; Gheisari, M. Using virtual reality to facilitate communication in the AEC domain: A systematic review. Constr. Innov. 2020, 20, 509–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Tetiranont, S.; Anantsuksomsri, S.; Prasittisopin, L. Understanding the Similarities and Differences Between Augmented and Virtual Reality (AR and VR) in Architectural Design Education: A Systematic Review. Authorea Prepr. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Henstrom, J.; De Amicis, R.; Sanchez, C.A.; Turkan, Y. Immersive Learning in Engineering: A Comparative Study of VR and Traditional Building Inspection Methods. In Proceedings of the 28th International ACM Conference on 3D Web Technology, Kyoto, Japan, 9–11 October 2023; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Childs, E.; Mohammad, F.; Stevens, L.; Burbelo, H.; Awoke, A.; Rewkowski, N.; Manocha, D. An Overview of Enhancing Distance Learning Through Emerging Augmented and Virtual Reality Technologies. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2023, 30, 4480–4496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zhu, Y.; Li, N. Virtual and augmented reality technologies for emergency management in the built environments: A state-of-the-art review. J. Saf. Sci. Resil. 2021, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Thapa, S.; Peansupap, V. A Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Construction Safety Awareness Using Virtual Safety Games. In Proceedings of the 28th National Civil Engineering Conference, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 24–26 July 2023; Volume 28, p. CEM16-1. Available online: https://conference.thaince.org/index.php/ncce28/article/download/2480/1321/33250 (accessed on 17 August 2025).
  100. Mallek, F.; Mazhar, T.; Shah, S.F.A.; Ghadi, Y.Y.; Hamam, H. A review on cultivating effective learning: Synthesizing educational theories and virtual reality for enhanced educational experiences. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2024, 10, e2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Goi, C.L. The impact of VR-based learning on student engagement and learning outcomes in higher education. In Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future: Innovative Strategies and Best Practices; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2024; pp. 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yadav, S. Transformative Learning with Advanced Technologies: Harnessing VR and AR for Immersive Educational Experiences. In Revolutionizing Pedagogy Through Smart Education; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA, 2025; pp. 139–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Marougkas, A.; Troussas, C.; Krouska, A.; Sgouropoulou, C. Virtual reality in education: A review of learning theories, approaches and methodologies for the last decade. Electronics 2023, 12, 2832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, Y.; Huang, X. Integrating Extended Reality (XR) in Architectural Design Education: A Systematic Review and Case Study at Southeast University (China). Buildings 2024, 14, 3954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Koumpouros, Y. Revealing the true potential and prospects of augmented reality in education. Smart Learn. Environ. 2024, 11, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Fitrianto, I.; Saif, A. The role of virtual reality in enhancing Experiential Learning: A comparative study of traditional and immersive learning environments. Int. J. Post Axial Futur. Teach. Learn. 2024, 6, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Rashidian, N.; Giglio, M.C.; Van Herzeele, I.; Smeets, P.; Morise, Z.; Alesidi, A.; Troisi, R.I.; Willaert, W. Effectiveness of an immersive virtual reality environment on curricular training for complex cognitive skills in liver surgery: A multicentric crossover randomized trial. HPB 2022, 24, 2086–2095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Hu, W.; Chan, C.K.Y. Evaluating technological interventions for developing teamwork competency in higher education: A systematic review and meta-ethnography. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2024, 83, 101382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Wijnen-Meijer, M.; Brandhuber, T.; Schneider, A.; Berberat, P.O. Implementing Kolb’s experiential learning cycle by linking real experience, case-based discussion and simulation. J. Med. Educ. Curric. Dev. 2022, 9, 23821205221091511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Stringer, J.K.; Santen, S.A.; Lee, E.; Rawls, M.; Bailey, J.; Richards, A.; Perera, R.A.; Biskobing, D. Examining Bloom’s taxonomy in multiple choice questions: Students’ approach to questions. Med. Sci. Educ. 2021, 31, 1311–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Yang, F.; Goh, Y.M. VR and MR technology for safety management education: An authentic learning approach. Saf. Sci. 2022, 148, 105645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Mo, Y.; Zhao, D.; Du, J.; Liu, W.; Dhara, A. Data-driven approach to scenario determination for VR-based construction safety training. Constr. Res. Congr. 2018, 2018, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Sepasgozar, S.M. Digital twin and web-based virtual gaming technologies for online education: A case of construction management and engineering. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Nikolić, D.; Whyte, J. Visualizing a new sustainable world: Toward the next generation of virtual reality in the built environment. Buildings 2021, 11, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Dudley, J.; Yin, L.; Garaj, V.; Kristensson, P.O. Inclusive Immersion: A review of efforts to improve accessibility in virtual reality, augmented reality and the metaverse. Virtual Real. 2023, 27, 2989–3020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yu, R.; Gu, N.; Lee, G.; Khan, A. A systematic review of architectural design collaboration in immersive virtual environments. Designs 2022, 6, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Rane, N.; Choudhary, S.; Rane, J. Education 4.0 and 5.0: Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) for personalized and adaptive learning. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Education and Artificial Intelligence Technologies, Kobe, Japan, 22 March 2023; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Al-Ansi, A.M.; Jaboob, M.; Garad, A.; Al-Ansi, A. Analyzing augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) recent development in education. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2023, 8, 100532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wang, P.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Chi, H.L.; Wang, X. A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Labhane, S.; Keerthika, T.; Dahiya, V.T.; Al-Ansi, A. Virtual reality and augmented reality: Future trends in technology and education. Acta Sci. 2024, 7, 538–550. [Google Scholar]
  121. Mansuri, A.; Agkathidis, A.; Lombardi, D.; Chen, H. Rethinking traditional Indonesian bamboo-frame structures by utilizing parametric tools and automated fabrication techniques: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the ASCAAD 2023—Computation, Culture, and Context, Amman, Jordan, 10 November 2023. [Google Scholar]
  122. Wu, N.H.; Dimopoulou, M.; Hsieh, H.H.; Chatzakis, C. A digital system for AR fabrication of bamboo structures through the discrete digitization of bamboo. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, Rome, Italy, 11–13 September 2019; pp. 20–22. [Google Scholar]
  123. Tong, W.; Memari, A.M. Sustainable Construction with Hempcrete: A State-of-the-Art Review of Hempcrete Technology and Market. Open J. Civ. Eng. 2025, 15, 139–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Yadav, M.; Saini, A. Opportunities & challenges of hempcrete as a building material for construction: An overview. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 65, 2021–2028. [Google Scholar]
  125. Binega, E.; Memari, A.M. Application of Bamboo as the Reinforcement for Walls Made Using 3D Printed Clay-Hemp Mixture. Open J. Civ. Eng. 2025, 15, 70–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Wagner, H.J.; Alvarez, M.; Groenewolt, A.; Menges, A. Towards digital automation flexibility in large-scale timber construction: Integrative robotic prefabrication and co-design of the BUGA Wood Pavilion. Constr. Robot. 2020, 4, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 15 02938 g001
Figure 1. Positioning of this systematic review within the broader context of mass timber and sustainable construction education. The study identifies a gap in VR/AR adoption for mass timber and aims to extract transferable pedagogical strategies from general AEC VR/AR applications.
Figure 1. Positioning of this systematic review within the broader context of mass timber and sustainable construction education. The study identifies a gap in VR/AR adoption for mass timber and aims to extract transferable pedagogical strategies from general AEC VR/AR applications.
Buildings 15 02938 g001
Buildings 15 02938 g002
Figure 2. Research methodological framework.
Figure 2. Research methodological framework.
Buildings 15 02938 g002
Buildings 15 02938 g003
Figure 3. PRISMA framework.
Figure 3. PRISMA framework.
Buildings 15 02938 g003
Buildings 15 02938 g004
Figure 4. Publication trends (2020–2024).
Figure 4. Publication trends (2020–2024).
Buildings 15 02938 g004
Buildings 15 02938 g005
Figure 5. Word cloud of journals.
Figure 5. Word cloud of journals.
Buildings 15 02938 g005
Buildings 15 02938 g006
Figure 6. Scientific mapping of keywords.
Figure 6. Scientific mapping of keywords.
Buildings 15 02938 g006
Buildings 15 02938 g007
Figure 7. Effectiveness of AR/VR in AEC education.
Figure 7. Effectiveness of AR/VR in AEC education.
Buildings 15 02938 g007
Buildings 15 02938 g008
Figure 8. Factors influencing VR/AR adoption.
Figure 8. Factors influencing VR/AR adoption.
Buildings 15 02938 g008
Buildings 15 02938 g009
Figure 9. Addressing key concepts.
Figure 9. Addressing key concepts.
Buildings 15 02938 g009
Buildings 15 02938 g010
Figure 10. Key VR/AR features in skill acquisition and knowledge retention.
Figure 10. Key VR/AR features in skill acquisition and knowledge retention.
Buildings 15 02938 g010
Buildings 15 02938 g011
Figure 11. Pedagogical strategies and delivery models for VR/AR in AEC education. The size of each colored block corresponds to the frequency with which the model appeared in the review studies.
Figure 11. Pedagogical strategies and delivery models for VR/AR in AEC education. The size of each colored block corresponds to the frequency with which the model appeared in the review studies.
Buildings 15 02938 g011
Buildings 15 02938 g012
Figure 12. Identified teaching methods and evaluation metrics gaps from the studies. The size of each colored block corresponds to the frequency with which the model appeared in the review studies.
Figure 12. Identified teaching methods and evaluation metrics gaps from the studies. The size of each colored block corresponds to the frequency with which the model appeared in the review studies.
Buildings 15 02938 g012
Buildings 15 02938 g013
Figure 13. Recommendations from studies. The size of each colored block corresponds to the frequency with which the model appeared in the review studies.
Figure 13. Recommendations from studies. The size of each colored block corresponds to the frequency with which the model appeared in the review studies.
Buildings 15 02938 g013
Buildings 15 02938 g014
Figure 14. AEC mass timber integration framework.
Figure 14. AEC mass timber integration framework.
Buildings 15 02938 g014
Buildings 15 02938 g015
Figure 15. Graphical representation of the explored studies identified gaps and future directions.
Figure 15. Graphical representation of the explored studies identified gaps and future directions.
Buildings 15 02938 g015
Table 1. Identified research gaps and their relevance to mass timber instructions.
Table 1. Identified research gaps and their relevance to mass timber instructions.
Gap CategoryRelevance to Mass TimberStudiesCountry/Institutions of Study
Lack of Empirical ValidationNo pilot studies of VR/AR timber
curricula		[19,20]South Korea (KAIST); Germany (RWTH)
Pedagogical
Integration		Absence of VR/AR modules for fire
detailing or joint
sequencing		[21,22]UAE (Khalifa University);
Nigeria (UNILAG)
Adoption BarriersLack of faculty experience on mass
timber-specific VR/AR modules		[23]Saudi Arabia (KFUPM)
Table 2. Keyword enumerations.
Table 2. Keyword enumerations.
ThemeKeywords Enumerations
Immersive Technology TermsVirtual Reality
Augmented Reality		“Virtual Reality”, “VR”, “Virtual Environments”,
“Immersive Environments”
“AR”, “Augmented Reality”, “Mixed Reality”
Educational ContextAEC“AEC”, “Architecture, Engineering, and Construction”, “Architecture”, “Engineering”, “Construction”, “Built Environment”
Material FocusMass Timber“Mass Timber”, “Sustainable Construction Materials”, “Cross-laminated Timber”, “CLT”, “Glue Laminated Timber”, “Glulam”, “DLT”
Domain FocusEducation“Education,” “Teaching,” “Learning,” “Training,”
“Pedagogy”
Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for dataset.
Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for dataset.
CriterionInclusionExclusion
Publication TypePeer-reviewed articlesConference papers, abstracts, and posters
LanguageEnglishNon-English
Timeframe2020–2024Studies before 2020
Educational ContextMust involve education,
teaching, training, or learning in AEC 		VR/AR studies without education applications
Technology ScopeExplicit adoption of VR/AR or
mixed reality (MR) in AEC education		Studies that do not focus on education including gaming and entertainment focus studies
Table 4. Publications by journals.
Table 4. Publications by journals.
JournalEarliest PublicationLatest PublicationNumber of PublicationsArticles
Buildings202120245[7,28,29,30,31]
Journal of Civil Engineering Education202320246[14,32,33,34,35,36]
Sustainability202320244[37,38,39,40]
Advanced Engineering Informatics202120233[5,41,42]
Safety Science202420243[43,44,45]
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management202220243[46,47,48]
Education Sciences202220242[49,50]
International Journal of Construction Education and Research202220232[51,52]
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management202420242[53,54]
Journal Of Computing in Civil Engineering202320232[55,56]
Computer Applications in Engineering Education202220232[57,58]
Automation in Construction202220232[59,60]
Others2020202434[15,25,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91]
Table 5. VR/AR impacts on learning outcomes.
Table 5. VR/AR impacts on learning outcomes.
MetricVR/AR Impact (%)Key Findings
Engagement Enhancement30Enhanced motivation and participation [71]
Skill Acquisition25Improved problem-solving abilities [68]
Knowledge Retention20Higher memory recall in VR environments [70]
Practical Training15Better situational awareness and safety training [46]
Critical Thinking10Increased reasoning skills through immersive problem-solving [60]
Table 6. Impact of VR levels of immersion on learning outcomes.
Table 6. Impact of VR levels of immersion on learning outcomes.
FeaturePartial (Desktop)Fully Immersive
Tools/DevicesGoogle Cardboard, Smartphones, Desktop VRHTC Vive, Oculus Rift,
Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs)
Software UsedEduVenture VR, UtoVR, Quest3DUnity3D 2022.3.8f1, Autodesk Revit, Unreal Game Engine
Learning FocusConceptual Understanding,
Visualization		Practical skill application, situational awareness
Engagement LevelModerateHigh
Retention of KnowledgeGood for theoretical conceptsExcellent for practical tasks
Skill AcquisitionLimited hands-on practiceSignificant improvement in practical skills
Accessibility and CostHighly accessible, low-costHigh-cost hardware setup
Potential RisksMinimal cognitive overload, limited interactionRisk of motion sickness, higher
cognitive overload
Performance OutcomesImproved understanding and long-term retentionFaster learning and comparable performance for traditional training
Table 7. Summary of key student-centered challenges.
Table 7. Summary of key student-centered challenges.
StudiesMotion Sickness/FatigueReal-World MisalignmentCognitive OverloadHeadset Discomfort
[68]YesNoImpliedYes
[76]ImpliedYesImpliedYes
[15]NoYesYesImplied
[53]YesYesNoNo
[71]NoYesNoNo
[63]YesYesNoNo
Table 8. Optimization and pedagogical strategies for VR/AR key concepts.
Table 8. Optimization and pedagogical strategies for VR/AR key concepts.
DimensionPedagogical
Strategy		Optimizing
Strategy		Supporting
Articles
Hands-on SimulationKolb’s Learning CyclePractical
Application		[33,57,64,78]
Student EngagementAuthentic LearningGamification
features		[38,49,54,80]
Self-EfficacyBloom’s TaxonomyPersonalized
Learning		[45,79]
Cognitive Skills Bloom’s TaxonomyAI-driven adaptive learning[39,81]
Collaborative LearningAuthentic LearningMulti-user
environment		[60,81]
Table 9. Pedagogical delivery strategies.
Table 9. Pedagogical delivery strategies.
Delivery ModelsStudiesCountry/Institution
Individual VR/AR modules[14,46]USA (Arizona State University); China (Tsinghua University)
BIM-VR/AR Integration[45,56]USA (University of Michigan); South Korea (Hanyang University)
Scenario-based Simulations[73]Australia (University of Melbourne)
Multi-user Environments and Gamification[81]Australia (University of Southern Queensland)
Feedback Mechanisms and Learner Control[68]USA (University of Florida)
Table 10. Conceptual map highlighting the relationship between identified VR/AR delivery modules and mass timber-specific learning objectives.
Table 10. Conceptual map highlighting the relationship between identified VR/AR delivery modules and mass timber-specific learning objectives.
CategoryDelivery ModuleMass Timber Education Objective
PedagogicalIndividual VR/AR ModulesAssembly sequencing and fire ratings
Multi-user EnvironmentsCollaborative large-scale timber installation and handling skills
TechnicalBIM VR/AR IntegrationOptimizing fabrication-to-assembly workflow
Scenario-based SimulationsSpatial understanding, hazard identification, and situational awareness
SustainabilityFeedback MechanismsUnderstanding sustainability features and optimization
Table 11. Cognitive skills and assessment parameters.
Table 11. Cognitive skills and assessment parameters.
Cognitive SkillsEvaluationAnalysisDecision-MakingCritical ThinkingProblem-SolvingKnowledge Retention
Assessment MethodPre/Post Tests, Scenario-Based AssessmentsObservation, Scenario Analysis, SurveysReal-Time Simulation, Performance MetricsGroup Tasks, Reasoning ExercisesObservation in Simulation, Error AnalysisFollow-Up Testing, Retention Quizzes
Measurement ToolsSurveys, Rubrics, ChecklistsEye Tracking, Surveys, ReportsTask Completion Time, Error RatePeer Evaluation, Cognitive Load Analysis Task-Based Analysis, Collaborative TestsPre/Post Retention Tests
Table 12. Delivery modules and their proposed adoption for mass timber education.
Table 12. Delivery modules and their proposed adoption for mass timber education.
ModuleAdoption for Mass Timber Education
Individual VR/AR ModulesConcentrate on handling, sustainability, and fire detailing of individual or isolated timber elements such as glulam and CLT
BIM-VR/AR IntegrationLink shop drawings and fabrication data into BIM platforms for accurate assembling, sequencings, and real-time spatial analysis
Scenario-based SimulationsInclude offsite prefabrication models, onsite joint installations under different weather conditions, and handling equipment sequencing such as cranes and lifts
Multi-user EnvironmentsAllow students to collaboratively erect and install mass timber elements, optimize component handling, and simulate alignment tasks
Feedback MechanismsReal-time sustainability scoring for embedded embodied carbon and material wastage during simulated assembly
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saiba, M.R.; Berghorn, G.H.; Nubani, L.; Cetin, K.; Syal, M.G.M. Transforming AEC Education: A Systematic Review of VR/AR in Mass Timber Curriculum. Buildings 2025, 15, 2938. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15162938

AMA Style

Saiba MR, Berghorn GH, Nubani L, Cetin K, Syal MGM. Transforming AEC Education: A Systematic Review of VR/AR in Mass Timber Curriculum. Buildings. 2025; 15(16):2938. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15162938

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saiba, Mohammed Rayan, George H. Berghorn, Linda Nubani, Kristen Cetin, and M. G. Matt Syal. 2025. "Transforming AEC Education: A Systematic Review of VR/AR in Mass Timber Curriculum" Buildings 15, no. 16: 2938. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15162938

APA Style

Saiba, M. R., Berghorn, G. H., Nubani, L., Cetin, K., & Syal, M. G. M. (2025). Transforming AEC Education: A Systematic Review of VR/AR in Mass Timber Curriculum. Buildings, 15(16), 2938. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15162938

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop