Next Article in Journal
Machiavellianism, Lying, and Motivation as Predictors of Academic Performance in Romanian Engineering Students
Previous Article in Journal
Disconnected in a Connected World: Improving Digital Literacies Instruction to Reconnect with Each Other, Ideas, and Texts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/educsci15081027
education-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

Virtual Reality in Engineering Education: A Scoping Review

by
Georgios Lampropoulos
1,2,
Pablo Fernández-Arias
3,
Antonio de Bosque
3 and
Diego Vergara
3,*
1
Department of Applied Informatics, School of Information Sciences, University of Macedonia, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Department of Education, School of Education, University of Nicosia, 2417 Nicosia, Cyprus
3
Technology, Instruction and Design in Engineering and Education Research Group (TiDEE.rg), Catholic University of Ávila, C/Canteros s/n, 05005 Ávila, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 1027; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081027
Submission received: 30 June 2025 / Revised: 26 July 2025 / Accepted: 6 August 2025 / Published: 11 August 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The aim of this study is to explore the role of virtual reality in engineering education. Specifically, it analyzed 342 studies that were published during 2010–2025 following a systematic approach. It examined how virtual reality is used in engineering education, explored the document main characteristics, and identified emerging topics. The study also revealed existing limitations and suggested future research directions. According to the outcomes, the following six topics emerged: (i) Immersive technologies in engineering education, (ii) Virtual laboratories, (iii) Immersive and realistic simulations, (iv) Hands-on activities and practical skills development, (v) Engineering drawing, design, and visualization, and (vi) Social and collaborative learning. Virtual reality was proven to be an effective educational tool which supports engineering education and complements existing learning practices. Using virtual reality, students can apply their theoretical knowledge and practice their skills within low-risk, safe, and secure learning environments characterized by high immersion and interactivity. Virtual reality through the creation of virtual laboratories can also effectively support social, collaborative, and experiential learning and improve students’ academic performance, engagement, interaction, and motivation. Learning using virtual reality can also enhance students’ knowledge acquisition, retention, and understanding. Improvements on students’ design, planning, and implementation skills and decision making, problem-solving skills, and visual analytic skills were also observed. Finally, when compared to physical laboratories, virtual reality learning environments offered lower costs, reduced infrastructure requirements, less maintenance, and greater flexibility and scalability.

1. Introduction

The field of engineering education is continuously evolving (Kamp, 2023). This is due to the technological advancements, such as artificial intelligence, (Qadir, 2023) as well as due to changes to the industrial sector (Gürdür Broo et al., 2022). In Education 4.0, information and communication technologies, infrastructure, competencies, and learning methods arose as key components in engineering education (Miranda et al., 2021). Simultaneously, to prepare engineering students to tackle sustainable development goals (SDGs) and improve sustainable development and industrial sustainability (Salah et al., 2019), it is important for strategic, normative, and systems thinking competences to be emphasized (Beagon et al., 2023) and for engineering students to understand technological, societal, and sustainable implications (Hadgraft & Kolmos, 2020).
Therefore, motivating students to participate actively in the learning process and integrate suitable approaches, such as flipped learning, which can positively affect their learning, are vital for engineering education (Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019b; Karabulut-Ilgu et al., 2018). Additionally, promoting experiential learning (Tembrevilla et al., 2024), improving their critical thinking (Ahern et al., 2019), enhancing their soft skills (Caeiro-Rodríguez et al., 2021), and providing students with hands on activities (Feisel & Rosa, 2005) are becoming increasingly important in the technologically driven society.
However, due to its complexity, teaching and learning approaches significantly influence students’ engagement and learning outcomes (Wankat et al., 2023); hence, adopting the most effective teaching methods is becoming increasingly important (Häfner et al., 2013). This fact is further highlighted when we consider that engineering students report having increased levels of stress and anxiety (Jensen & Cross, 2021). Although students’ anxiety and stress can be attributed to several factors, their having to practice their skills in real environments with using physical equipment can also be a contributory factor. However, it is important for engineering students to participate in practice-based and problem-based hands-on learning activities (Mann et al., 2021). Hence, having learning environments in which students could freely and safely practice their skills and develop their knowledge is imperative for engineering students to succeed.
Virtual laboratories have not only shown great potential to improve engineering education (Potkonjak et al., 2016) but can also be used in conjunction with physical laboratories to further improve students’ learning gains (de Jong et al., 2013). Hence, they are being more widely used to support engineering education (Kapilan et al., 2021). Immersive technologies and virtual reality in particular have shown great potential to enhance engineering education (Muzata et al., 2024) as they can positively affect various aspects of engineering education (Wang et al., 2018) and offer personalized data-driven learning experiences (Lampropoulos & Evangelidis, 2025). Therefore, virtual reality technology is increasingly being used in engineering education (Soliman et al., 2021). Virtual reality has arisen as a meaningful educational means which enhances teaching and learning across educational subjects and levels (Lampropoulos & Kinshuk, 2024) and can influence students’ cognitive and social-emotional skills (Lampropoulos & Chen, 2025, #26). Virtual reality refers to virtual environments that simulate real or imaginary spaces which actively engage users, perceptually surround them, and fully immerse them by simulating their physical presence in virtual environments (Anthes et al., 2016; Burdea & Coiffet, 2003; Lampropoulos, 2025a; Sherman & Craig, 2003, 2018). Virtual reality environments provide “all-inclusive, sensory illusion of being present in another environment” (Biocca & Delaney, 1995) and offer immersive experiences with high interactivity, involvement, and immediacy, which users perceive as real (Blascovich & Bailenson, 2011; Lampropoulos, 2025b; Psotka, 1995; Ryan, 2015; Sherman & Craig, 2003).
Virtual reality offers highly realistic, secure, and interactive simulations (Khlaif et al., 2024; Negahban, 2024), influences students’ affective states (Lampropoulos et al., 2024), and can be used in engineering education to improve students’ cognitive and skill-based learning outcomes (di Lanzo et al., 2020). Specifically, by integrating suitable pedagogical principles and interactive multimedia design approaches, virtual reality can enrich the educational process of engineering education (Oje et al., 2023) and effectively support project-based learning (Halabi, 2020), which, in turn, can improve students’ practical skills (Yang et al., 2024), learning experience (Singh et al., 2021), and learning achievements (Alhalabi, 2016). However, designing and creating virtual reality experiences that target engineering education and aid in the development of interdisciplinary skills demands sound pedagogical approaches and principles to be followed to provide students with authentic ways of learning within virtual learning environments (Van den Beemt et al., 2020).
Consequently, virtual reality constitutes a promising technology which could enrich engineering education. Recent studies explored the role of virtual reality in engineering education (di Lanzo et al., 2020; Soliman et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2025; Zontou et al., 2024). However, as the field advances, it is important to have an overview of the current state of the art. As far as we know, there has not been any study that maps the existing literature. Therefore, this study aims to provide an overview regarding the use of virtual reality in engineering education via a systematic bibliometric review. Specifically, it contributes to the existing literature as it presents the state of the art, it examines the main characteristics of the documents that focus on the use of virtual reality in engineering education, and identifies key studies within the literature. Additionally, the study reveals the main topics of the documents examined, identifies existing issues, and provides future research suggestions.

2. Materials and Methods

Due to this study striving to present an overview of virtual reality in engineering education, it was important to examine the related literature following a transparent, valid, and reproducible approach. Due to the relatively broad and general scope of the study, examining the literature through a systematic bibliometric analysis was selected as the most suitable approach (Ellegaard & Wallin, 2015). The PRISMA framework was adopted as it is commonly used in similar studies since it provides a transparent and robust approach in presenting each of the steps taken during the identification, processing, and creation of the document collection (Page et al., 2021). Additionally, to further ensure a valid analysis, the guidelines of Donthu et al. (2021) were adopted.
Bibliometrix was used (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017) to analyze the document collection and the main databases to identify relevant documents were Scopus and Web of Science. These databases contain high-quality and relevant manuscripts, are highly regarded, and are commonly used to conduct similar studies (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2015; Zhu & Liu, 2020). Another reason for opting to use them was that the data they generate can be used by Bibliometrix without requiring manual modifications, which further improves reproducibility.
Furthermore, the PRISMA flowchart presents the steps taken in detail (Figure 1). Specifically, the query used was purposefully kept basic to avoid shifting the outcomes to specific fields of engineering education through the use of specific keywords. The query which was used was (“virtual reality” OR “vr”) AND (“engineering education”). The query was used to search on the document title, abstract, and keywords on Scopus and Web of Science and looked for documents that were written in English and published from 2010 onwards. Hence, the use of only two databases (Scopus and WoS), the focus on documents written in English, the examination of documents published in the specific time period, and a relatively broad scope can be regarded as the main limitations of this study.
In total, 3847 potentially relevant documents (Scopus: 3505 and Web of Science: 342) were identified out of which 294 were duplicates and were removed and two were published prior to 2010 and were also excluded. To determine their relevancy, the 3551 documents were screened for eligibility according to their title and abstract. During this stage, 33 records were omitted for being conference proceedings or edited book collections and not separate documents, seven were identified as errata or retracted publications, and two were removed due to being written in languages other than English. Furthermore, 3123 documents were excluded as they fell outside the study scope. The remaining 386 documents were then subjected to a full-text assessment for eligibility. Given the broad scope of the study, the inclusion criterion set required each document to focus on engineering education and the use of virtual reality. As a result, studies concentrating on other extended reality technologies or studies that did not primarily focus on engineering education were removed. A total of 38 documents were excluded as they did not satisfy the inclusion criterion, four were excluded as they were published prior to 2010, and two were work-in-progress documents and were also omitted. Hence, 342 documents are examined in this study.

3. Result Analysis

The 342 relevant documents were analyzed according to the bibliometric data of the two databases. The average age of the documents, which were published from 2010 to June 2025, was 3.97 years. On average, the documents received 10.95 citations and were published in 207 sources with the majority being published as “conference/proceedings” papers (n = 208, 60.8%), followed by “journal” articles (n = 102, 29.8%). In comparison, only a few studies were published as “book chapters” (n = 19, 5.6%) and 13 were classified as “reviews” (3.8%). The 342 studies examined were created by 1053 authors from 58 countries. Each document had on average 3.7 co-authors. Additionally, there were 28 single authored documents (8.2%) written by 27 different authors. Following Lotka’s law (see Table 1), which examines the frequency distribution of scientific productivity (Lotka, 1926), most authors participated in a single document (87.1%) while only a limited number of authors took part in four or more documents (1.9%). The international co-authorship rate was relevantly low at 8.77% highlighting the need for more international collaborations to materialize. The annual growth rate was examined both from 2010 to 2024 as well as from 2010 to June 2025. In the first case, an annual growth rate of 20.54% was observed while for the second case, in which data from half of 2025 is being considered, the annual growth rate was 10.27%. In both cases, the positive growth rate points out the importance of the field and it being actively examined. The related outcomes are summarized in Table 2.
When examining the publication year of the documents (see Figure 2), three main time periods arise. The first period is from 2010 to 2016 (n = 35, 10.2%) and relates to the initial interest in the topic. The second period is from 2017 to 2022 (n = 143, 41.8%) and relates to the materialization of the topic. The third time period is from 2023 onwards (n = 164, 48.0%) and relates to the breakthrough of the research concerning virtual reality in engineering education. Most of the documents were published in 2024 (n = 82, 24.0%), followed by those published in 2023 (n = 3, 16.4%). This outcome further indicates the topic recency. In Table 3, the year (Year), mean total citations per document (MeanTCperDoc), the number of documents (N), the mean total citations pear year (MeanTCperYear), and the citable years (CitableYears) are presented. The documents published in 2018 (MeanTCperYear = 5.25), 2016 (MeanTCperYear = 4.67), and 2011 (MeanTCperYear = 3.08) had the most total citations per year. Although the significance of the published documents throughout the years cannot be evaluated based on this metric alone, it can be inferred that prior studies that were published during the first two time periods have laid strong foundations for this field. Nonetheless, when considering the continuous advancements, the document average age, the number of annual published documents, and the citable years, it is anticipated that these results will shift in the coming years.
To understand the sources used better, Bradford’s law that “estimates the exponentially diminishing returns of searching for references in science journals” (Bradford, 1934) was applied. The 207 sources were categorized into three main clusters (Cluster 1, 2, and 3), with Cluster 1 having the most relevant sources, that is those with the highest number of published documents. Specifically, Cluster 1 comprised of 115 documents published in 16 sources (7.7%), Cluster 2 comprised of 115 documents published in 79 sources (38.2%), and Cluster 3 comprised of 112 documents published in 112 sources (54.1%). As can be seen from the outcomes, Cluster 1 has the least number of sources but more related documents were published in these sources. Additionally, it should be mentioned that these clusters solely reflect the sources and not the related documents. Following this analysis, the specific sources that published the most documents on the field were identified as can be seen in Table 4 where the source, rank, number of published documents (Freq.), cumulative published documents (cumFreq.), and the cluster are depicted. “ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings” (n = 30 documents), “IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)” (n = 12 documents), “Computer Applications in Engineering Education” (n = 10 documents), “Frontiers in Education (FIE)” (n = 10 documents), and “SEFI Annual Conference” (n = 10 documents) were the sources with most published documents regarding virtual reality in engineering education. Table 5 presents the sources that have an h-index of 3 or greater on the topic and also display their g-index, m-index, total citations, number of published documents (NP), and the publication year in which the first related document was published (PY-start). The existence of both conferences and journals among the top sources indicates the existence of active research communities that pursue the advancement of this field.
Furthermore, the country of the corresponding author or the country of the first author, if no correspondence was defined, was examined to determine which countries mostly published on this topic. Based on Table 6, the United States (n = 67), China (n = 36), Germany (n = 26), and India (n = 22) were the countries with the most published documents from the 58 countries identified. Additionally, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Portugal, and Spain each contributed at least 10 documents, followed by Bulgaria and Austria that contributed nine and eight documents, respectively.
When considering the intra-country (SCP) collaboration, the highest SCP was attributed to the United States (SCP = 67) and China (SCP = 32) while when looking at the inter-country (MCP) collaboration, China (MCP = 4) and Spain (MCP = 3) had the highest MCP within the document collection. The relatively low number of MCP noticed indicates that there is a need to promote international collaborations as it has already been highlighted earlier with the international co-authorships rate being 8.77%. A preference for working with colleagues within the same country was observed. The few collaborations that arose among the countries are showcased in Figure 3 where five clusters of collaborators are depicted.
Finally, Table 7 showcases the countries with the most citations. Australia (TC = 512), the United Kingdom (TC = 452), the United States (TC = 338), Saudi Arabia (TC = 284), China (TC = 282), Portugal (TC = 275), and Spain (TC = 222) were the countries that received over 200 citations. However, when examining the average document citations (ADC), Australia (ADC = 102.4), Saudi Arabia (ADC = 56.80), and Hungary (ADC = 48.7) arose as the three countries whose documents on average received more than 40 citations.
Finally, the total citations received were also used to determine the most cited documents. Accordingly, Table 8 presents the 10 documents that received the most citations within the document collection as reported by the two databases used. These documents are further explored in the Discussion section.

4. Discussion

As a field, engineering education is constantly evolving as it is closely related to technological, societal, and industrial advancements (Gürdür Broo et al., 2022; Kamp, 2023; Qadir, 2023). Engineering education is complex in nature and requires students’ active involvement in experiential learning focusing on hands-on and problem-based activities (Feisel & Rosa, 2005; Mann et al., 2021; Tembrevilla et al., 2024). Therefore, it is vital to adopt suitable learning and teaching approaches and methods to promote students’ learning (Häfner et al., 2013; Jensen & Cross, 2021) and enhance their learning motivation and engagement (Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019b; Karabulut-Ilgu et al., 2018). Besides understanding the basic concepts of engineering, engineering students should also comprehend the technological, societal, and sustainable implications (Hadgraft & Kolmos, 2020); hence, cultivating their reasoning, strategic, and critical thinking skills is imperative (Ahern et al., 2019; Beagon et al., 2023).
However, given the nature of engineering education and the requirement of having specific equipment, areas, and settings available, it is increasingly important to provide students with opportunities to enhance their knowledge and practice their skills. As a result, virtual learning environments, such as virtual laboratories, are increasingly being used to enrich the existing practices and improve students’ learning outcomes in engineering education (de Jong et al., 2013; Kapilan et al., 2021; Potkonjak et al., 2016). In this context, virtual reality is more widely integrated into engineering education as it can positively impact several aspects of engineering education (Muzata et al., 2024; Soliman et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2018). Specifically, the highly immersive, realistic, interactive, social, and secure learning environments that can be created through virtual reality have shown great potential to effectively support and enrich engineering education (Khlaif et al., 2024; Lampropoulos & Kinshuk, 2024; Negahban, 2024; Oje et al., 2023). However, it is important to consider students’ affective states, characteristics, and learning needs (Lampropoulos et al., 2024; López-Belmonte et al., 2022). Recent studies have revealed the educational benefits that virtual reality can bring when applied in engineering education (di Lanzo et al., 2020; Lampropoulos & Kinshuk, 2024; Yuan et al., 2025; Zontou et al., 2024), which further highlights its potential to constitute an effective educational means.
In this study, besides the analysis of the bibliometric data, focus was also put on identifying the topics and themes contained within the collection of documents examined. The keywords (both keywords plus and author keywords), the title, and abstract of the documents were used to carry out the thematic analysis. Specifically, the most commonly used keywords plus were “engineering education”, “virtual reality”, “students”, “e-learning”, “teaching”, “augmented reality”, “curricula”, “design”, “learning systems”, and “computing education” (see Figure 4). “Virtual reality”, “engineering education”, “education”, “augmented reality”, “engineering”, “higher education”, “immersive learning”, “learning”, “educational innovation”, “mixed reality”, and “simulation” were the most commonly used author keywords (see Figure 5).
Furthermore, the keyword co-occurrence network was created to identify the relationship among them. In total, five main clusters arose as is depicted in Figure 6. The related keywords of each cluster are presented below:
  • Blue cluster: 3d modeling, 3d models, artificial intelligence, computer aided instruction, computing education, curricula, distance education, educational innovations, educational technology, e-learning, engineering education, engineering research, higher education, immersive, immersive learning, immersive technologies, learning environments, learning experiences, learning outcomes, learning systems, motivation, personnel training, students, sustainable development, teaching, teaching and learning, teaching methods, virtual environments, virtual laboratories, virtual reality, virtual reality environments, and virtualization.
  • Orange cluster: augmented reality, laboratories, mixed reality, and visualization.
  • Green cluster: education, engineering, science, and technology.
  • Red cluster: design, performance, and simulation.
  • Purple cluster: environments and system.
When considering the text of the title and abstract of the document and the keywords used and their clustering, six topics emerged from the topic modeling. These were related to the following:
  • Virtual laboratories;
  • Immersive and realistic simulations;
  • Hands-on activities and practical skills development;
  • Engineering drawing, design, and visualization;
  • Social and collaborative learning.
Furthermore, the studies presented in Table 8, which received the most citations, were further examined. Particularly, Wang et al. (2018) carried out a critical review regarding virtual reality use within construction engineering education. The study focuses on the transition from desktop-based virtual reality applications to mobile-based ones and comments that such applications can have increased interactivity and immersion. Additionally, the study reveals that virtual reality can be used in various domains of engineering education. Finally, the study highlights that immersive virtual reality experiences can enhance students’ learning motivation, interaction, and involvement. Abulrub et al. (2011) examined the role and utilization of virtual reality in engineering education. Their outcomes reveal the multiple ways in which virtual reality can be used in educational activities to support engineering education. It is revealed that students who learn through this approach can become accustomed to using innovative technologies and showcase additional benefits when applying their knowledge in industrial settings. The cost related to the development of virtual reality content and to the required equipment arose as the main challenge.
Alhalabi (2016) examined the impact of virtual reality on students’ academic performance in engineering education. Based on the outcomes, virtual reality arose as an educational means that can increase students’ academic performance. However, the degree to which students’ performance is increased can vary based on the virtual reality system used. Vergara et al. (2017) focused on the design aspects associated with virtual reality learning environments in engineering education. The study focused on different design and development aspects of virtual reality learning applications and provided guidelines to effectively design virtual reality applications and interventions. Ease of use, usefulness, realism, immersion, interactivity, and motivation arose as the main aspects to be considered. Finally, the study comments that when appropriately designed, virtual reality experiences can support students’ learning. Hernández-de-Menéndez et al. (2019a) focused on examining the use of virtual reality in hands-on, virtual, and remote laboratories in engineering education. Their results revealed that virtual reality-based virtual laboratories can effectively complement existing practices or even replace hands-on laboratories. Their low maintenance costs and initial investment as well as the ease of modification and replication were highly regarded. Additionally, virtual reality can meet students’ needs and encourage them to be actively involved in the learning process. Via virtual challenges and experiences engineering students can safely practice their skills which, in turn, can influence their learning outcomes. Nonetheless, the study points out that it is important to consider aspects, such as collaboration, communication, beliefs, immersion, and presence.
Soliman et al. (2021) analyzed the application of virtual reality in engineering education. Their results revealed that virtual reality can effectively support teaching and learning activities in engineering education. Virtual reality has the potential to improve students’ learning experience, performance, and understanding. Additionally, when compared to physical laboratories, virtual reality-based laboratories are characterized by reduced liability, maintenance, costs, and infrastructure requirements, which brings new opportunities to educational institutions to provide meaningful learning and equal access to education. Sampaio et al. (2010) examined the use of virtual reality 3D models in civil engineering education. Their study highlighted that 3D models can improve students’ visual analytic skills and decision making. Additionally, they can effectively simulate the physical progression of processes and tasks and facilitate the familiarization of students with specific equipment. Finally, virtual reality and 3D models arose as a suitable educational approach that can enhance students’ skills and can prepare them to consider these technologies in their future professional practice.
With the aim of improving manufacturing sustainability, Salah et al. (2019) explored how engineering education can be affected by using virtual reality. According to their outcomes, students expressed positive attitudes toward the use of virtual reality and those who learnt using it presented increased understanding, satisfaction, and performance as well as decreased task completion time and number of errors when compared to those who learnt using traditional methods. Finally, the study highlighted the importance of integrating emerging technologies in education to uphold students’ interest and to familiarize them with these technologies. In turn, students could effectively adopt and use them in their future professional practice to increase sustainability. Häfner et al. (2013) presented a teaching methodology for using virtual reality in practical courses within engineering education. Using virtual reality, students can engage in collaborative learning activities and cultivate their practical skills within digital and secure learning environments. Enabling students to freely practice and develop their skills without risks was highly regarded. As a result, involving students in undertaking challenging and complex tasks not only improves their skills but also their learning motivation and engagement. As virtual reality can reduce both development cost and time and improve students’ creativity and motivation, Halabi (2020) examined the use of virtual reality in engineering education. Emphasis was placed on integrating problem-based learning activities into virtual reality environments. Based on the outcomes, learning through virtual reality can improve students’ performance, problem solving skills, and communication capabilities. Additionally, it was revealed that students’ engineering design and planning skills and their implementation skills can also be positively affected when learning in virtual reality environments.
Virtual reality can positively affect engineering education; hence, the research surrounding its adoption and use has been gaining ground globally. As other immersive technologies, virtual reality can also be integrated into various domains of engineering education in different ways. However, there is an increasing focus on using virtual reality to create effective, immersive virtual laboratories and in its use to provide realistic and immersive simulations that reflect lifelike settings. Additionally, virtual reality learning environments enable students to engage in hands-on learning activities and to develop their practical skills within safe and low-risk settings. As a result, emphasis is put on supplementing engineering drawing, design, and visualization with virtual reality applications. Finally, the nature of virtual reality enables it to effectively support collaborative and social learning by allowing students to interact and pursue common learning goals within shared virtual learning environments.
Virtual reality can be used in various engineering education domains and in multiple ways to support teaching and learning (Abulrub et al., 2011; Soliman et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2018). Virtual reality can effectively support engineering education, complement existing practices, meet students’ needs and requirements, and improve educational accessibility and equity (Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019a; Soliman et al., 2021; Vergara et al., 2017). Therefore, students have positive attitudes toward the use of virtual reality in education and express high levels of satisfaction when learning through it (Salah et al., 2019).
Virtual reality supports problem-based learning, hands-on activities, and experiential learning (Halabi, 2020) and allows students to be engaged in collaborative and social learning experiences and develop their knowledge and practical skills within low-risk, safe, and secure virtual environments (Häfner et al., 2013; Sampaio et al., 2010) with high immersion and interactivity (Wang et al., 2018). Using virtual reality in engineering education can enhance students’ engagement, interaction, and motivation (Häfner et al., 2013; Halabi, 2020; Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2018) and increase their academic performance and learning outcomes (Alhalabi, 2016; Halabi, 2020; Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019a; Salah et al., 2019; Soliman et al., 2021). Additionally, it can improve students’ communication skills (Halabi, 2020), their learning experience and understanding (Salah et al., 2019; Soliman et al., 2021), their creativity, design, planning, and implementation skills (Halabi, 2020), as well as their decision making, problem-solving skills, and visual analytic skills (Halabi, 2020; Sampaio et al., 2010).
According to the virtual reality system and the design of the virtual environment or experience, students’ learning experiences and outcomes can be affected (Alhalabi, 2016; Vergara et al., 2017). Hence, there are several aspects that should be considered when designing, developing, and integrating virtual reality applications, such as realism, immersion, presence, usefulness, ease of use, beliefs, communication, collaboration, motivation, and interactivity (Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019a; Vergara et al., 2017).
When compared to physical laboratories, virtual reality learning environments can reduce development cost and time (Halabi, 2020), have lower initial investment and fewer infrastructure requirements, have reduced maintenance, liability, and cost (Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019a; Soliman et al., 2021), and can easily be replicated, modified, and extended (Hernández-de-Menéndez et al., 2019a). Finally, by integrating new virtual reality and other emerging technologies in education, students’ interest in their use increases, they become more accustomed to using these technologies and the related equipment and devices, and have higher chances to integrate them in their future professional practice (Abulrub et al., 2011; Salah et al., 2019; Sampaio et al., 2010; Vergara et al., 2022). As a result, the findings suggest that virtual reality can positively affect and support engineering education.

5. Conclusions

With the aim of examining the role and use of virtual reality in engineering education, this study explored 342 documents published from 2010 to June 2025 following a scoping review approach and focusing on bibliometric analysis. The study highlighted the increasing interest in this field and virtual reality being globally examined as an educational tool that can assist engineering education. Most documents were published in the last few years, showcasing the recency of the field while the citation distribution over the years reveals strong theoretical foundations in the field. It is also important to note that both conferences and journals arose as the most commonly selected sources to publish related studies in the field. Although there is a global interest in the field, the United States, China, Germany, and India contributed the most studies while studies from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States received the most citations.
Through topic modeling, six main topics arose. These topics focused on the integration of immersive technologies in engineering education, on the creation of virtual laboratories as well as on the development of immersive and realistic simulations for students to apply their theoretical knowledge and practice their skills within lifelike settings. Another key topic arisen was the need to develop students’ practical skills by engaging them in hands-on activities. The use of virtual reality in improving engineering drawing, design, and visualization is also actively examined. Finally, increased attention is being paid to the creation of social learning and collaborative learning experiences within virtual reality learning environments.
Furthermore, many institutions are actively seeking solutions to limited lab access, unequal digital readiness, and to bridge the gap between theoretical instruction and practical application. Virtual labs can extend access to complex engineering tools, reduce safety risks, and promote individualized learning, especially in blended or remote settings. Through its immersive visualization tools, it can also help students understand spatially complex subjects. Hence, the adoption of virtual reality has the potential to offer practical and scalable solutions to existing issues. As a result, virtual reality is no longer just an experimental tool in engineering education, but is increasingly seen as a valuable and strategic resource for teaching and learning.
The outcomes of this study and the current developments in the field further highlight the potential of virtual reality to effectively support and enrich engineering education. Well-designed virtual reality experiences can foster meaningful, experiential learning and aid students in cultivating their engineering competencies. Hence, virtual reality has the potential to play a key role in modern engineering education.
Emphasis should be placed on improving institutional readiness, integrating virtual reality into existing pedagogical structures, and addressing existing challenges, creating virtual reality-based educational material, and developing suitable training and development programs for educators. Further actions should focus on the development of coherent pedagogical models and frameworks that align with the unique affordances of virtual reality, for the establishment of robust evaluation methods that can assess learning effectiveness over time, and for the development of policies that promote equitable access to technology-enhanced learning opportunities.
However, for virtual reality to move from a promising innovation to a standard practice, long-term efforts must focus on its pedagogical integration. Hence, education stakeholders, developers, and researchers should collaborate to ensure that the integration of virtual reality is both pedagogically sound and aligned with the evolving needs of engineering education. As the field matures, the role of virtual reality is likely to expand from a supplemental tool to a transformative force in engineering education, reshaping not only how content is delivered, but also how students conceptualize, design, and engage with complex systems in their future professions.
More specifically, the results highlight the role of virtual reality as an effective educational means within engineering education as it can complement and enrich existing teaching methods and practices while also being well perceived by education stakeholders. Virtual reality supports problem-based, experiential, and collaborative learning, creates dynamic and active learning environments, and enables students to develop their knowledge and practical skills within immersive, interactive, secure, and low-risk virtual settings.
When applied in engineering education, virtual reality can yield several educational benefits, including improvements on students’ engagement, motivation, and overall academic performance. Additionally, virtual reality enables students to develop their professional competencies, including creativity, decision-making, problem-solving, and communication skills. Additionally, by familiarizing students with emerging technologies, it better prepares them to integrate them into their careers, ensuring that they are well equipped for the evolving demands of the engineering field. Finally, from a logistical standpoint, the adoption of virtual reality offers advantages over physical laboratories, including reduced costs, enhanced scalability, and greater flexibility for modification and replication.
Therefore, it can be inferred that virtual reality can positively impact and effectively support engineering education and increase students’ learning outcomes. Its integration into engineering curricula promotes a shift from passive instruction to active, experiential learning. However, there are several factors that should be considered, including equitable access, technical readiness, user acceptance, ethical considerations, hardware limitations, as well as a lack of standardized pedagogical frameworks, training, and educational material and resources. For virtual reality applications and environments to be effective, there is a need to focus on their design as factors, such as interactivity, usefulness, ease of use, realism, presence, immersion, beliefs, collaboration, communication, engagement, and motivation, which can influence students’ involvement and learning outcomes. Future studies should focus on longitudinal studies to assess the long-term impact of virtual reality on engineering students and on developing suitable pedagogical frameworks and guidelines to designing, developing, introducing, and using virtual reality in educational settings. As immersive technologies have shown great potential to enrich engineering education, future studies should examine how the use of virtual reality compares with other extended reality technologies. It is also important to examine how the different types of virtual reality experiences and the devices used influence students’ experiences and learning outcomes. Finally, future studies should also focus on examining the socio-economic factors related to the adoption of virtual reality in engineering education.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.L. and D.V.; methodology, G.L. and D.V.; validation, P.F.-A. and D.V.; formal analysis, G.L., P.F.-A., A.d.B., and D.V.; investigation, G.L., P.F.-A., and D.V.; data curation, G.L.; writing—original draft preparation, G.L.; writing—review and editing, P.F.-A., A.d.B., and D.V.; visualization, G.L., P.F.-A., and A.d.B.; supervision, D.V. 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.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abulrub, A.-H. G., Attridge, A. N., & Williams, M. A. (2011, April 4–6). Virtual reality in engineering education: The future of creative learning. 2011 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 751–757), Amman, Jordan. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ahern, A., Dominguez, C., McNally, C., O’Sullivan, J. J., & Pedrosa, D. (2019). A literature review of critical thinking in engineering education. Studies in Higher Education, 44(5), 816–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Alhalabi, W. (2016). Virtual reality systems enhance students’ achievements in engineering education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(11), 919–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Anthes, C., Garcia-Hernandez, R. J., Wiedemann, M., & Kranzlmüller, D. (2016, March 5–12). State of the art of virtual reality technology. 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Beagon, U., Kövesi, K., Tabas, B., Nørgaard, B., Lehtinen, R., Bowe, B., Gillet, C., & Spliid, C. M. (2023). Preparing engineering students for the challenges of the SDGs: What competences are required? European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(7), 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Biocca, F., & Delaney, B. (1995). Immersive virtual reality technology. In F. Biocca, & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality (pp. 127–157). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Blascovich, J., & Bailenson, J. (2011). Infinite reality: Avatars, eternal life, new worlds, and the dawn of the virtual revolution. William Morrow & Company. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bradford, S. C. (1934). Sources of information on specific subjects. Engineering, 137, 85–86. [Google Scholar]
  10. Burdea, G. C., & Coiffet, P. (2003). Virtual reality technology (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Caeiro-Rodríguez, M., Manso-Vázquez, M., Mikic-Fonte, F. A., Llamas-Nistal, M., Fernández-Iglesias, M. J., Tsalapatas, H., Heidmann, O., de Carvalho, C. V., Jesmin, T., Terasmaa, J., & Sørensen, L. T. (2021). Teaching soft skills in engineering education: A European perspective. IEEE Access, 9, 29222–29242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. di Lanzo, J. A., Valentine, A., Sohel, F., Yapp, A. Y. T., Muparadzi, K. C., & Abdelmalek, M. (2020). A review of the uses of virtual reality in engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(4), 748–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gürdür Broo, D., Kaynak, O., & Sait, S. M. (2022). Rethinking engineering education at the age of industry 5.0. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 25, 100311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hadgraft, R. G., & Kolmos, A. (2020). Emerging learning environments in engineering education. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Halabi, O. (2020). Immersive virtual reality to enforce teaching in engineering education. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(3), 2987–3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Häfner, P., Häfner, V., & Ovtcharova, J. (2013). Teaching methodology for virtual reality practical course in engineering education. Procedia Computer Science, 25, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., & Morales-Menéndez, R. (2019a). Virtual reality laboratories: A review of experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(3), 947–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., Tudón Martínez, J. C., Hernández Alcántara, D., & Morales-Menéndez, R. (2019b). Active learning in engineering education: A review of fundamentals, best practices and experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 13(3), 909–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jensen, K. J., & Cross, K. J. (2021). Engineering stress culture: Relationships among mental health, engineering identity, and sense of inclusion. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(2), 371–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kamp, A. (2023). Engineering education in the rapidly changing world: Rethinking the vision for higher engineering education. TU Delft, WL/Delft Hydraulics. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kapilan, N., Vidhya, P., & Gao, X.-Z. (2021). Virtual laboratory: A boon to the mechanical engineering education during COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1), 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Karabulut-Ilgu, A., Jaramillo Cherrez, N., & Jahren, C. T. (2018). A systematic review of research on the flipped learning method in engineering education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Khlaif, Z. N., Mousa, A., & Sanmugam, M. (2024). Immersive extended reality (XR) technology in engineering education: Opportunities and challenges. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 29, 803–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lampropoulos, G. (2025a). Combining artificial intelligence with augmented reality and virtual reality in education: Current trends and future perspectives. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9(2), 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lampropoulos, G. (2025b). Intelligent virtual reality and augmented reality technologies: An overview. Future Internet, 17(2), 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lampropoulos, G., & Chen, N.-S. (2025). Assessing the educational impact of extended reality applications: Development and validation of a holistic evaluation tool. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 15231–15280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lampropoulos, G., & Evangelidis, G. (2025). Learning analytics and educational data mining in augmented reality, virtual reality, and the metaverse: A systematic literature review, content analysis, and bibliometric analysis. Applied Sciences, 15(2), 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lampropoulos, G., Fernández-Arias, P., Antón-Sancho, Á., & Vergara, D. (2024). Affective computing in augmented reality, virtual reality, and immersive learning environments. Electronics, 13(15), 2917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lampropoulos, G., & Kinshuk. (2024). Virtual reality and gamification in education: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72, 1691–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323. [Google Scholar]
  35. López-Belmonte, J., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., Marín-Marín, J.-A., & Lampropoulos, G. (2022). The impact of gender on the use of augmented reality and virtual reality in students with ASD. Education in the Knowledge Society, 23, e28418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mann, L., Chang, R., Chandrasekaran, S., Coddington, A., Daniel, S., Cook, E., Crossin, E., Cosson, B., Turner, J., Mazzurco, A., Dohaney, J., O’Hanlon, T., Pickering, J., Walker, S., Maclean, F., & Smith, T. D. (2021). From problem-based learning to practice-based education: A framework for shaping future engineers. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(1), 27–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Miranda, J., Navarrete, C., Noguez, J., Molina-Espinosa, J.-M., Ramírez-Montoya, M.-S., Navarro-Tuch, S. A., Bustamante-Bello, M.-R., Rosas-Fernández, J.-B., & Molina, A. (2021). The core components of Education 4.0 in higher education: Three case studies in engineering education. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 93, 107278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2015). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Muzata, A. R., Singh, G., Stepanov, M. S., & Musonda, I. (2024). Immersive learning: A systematic literature review on transforming engineering education through virtual reality. Virtual Worlds, 3(4), 480–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Negahban, A. (2024). Simulation in engineering education: The transition from physical experimentation to digital immersive simulated environments. Simulation, 100(8), 695–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Oje, A. V., Hunsu, N. J., & May, D. (2023). Virtual reality assisted engineering education: A multimedia learning perspective. Computers & Education: X Reality, 3, 100033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Psotka, J. (1995). Immersive training systems: Virtual reality and education and training. Instructional Science, 23(5–6), 405–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Qadir, J. (2023, May 1–4). Engineering education in the era of ChatGPT: Promise and pitfalls of generative AI for education. 2023 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1–9), Kuwait City, Kuwait. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ryan, M.-L. (2015). Narrative as virtual reality 2: Revisiting immersion and interactivity in literature and electronic media. Johns Hopkins University Press. [Google Scholar]
  47. Salah, B., Abidi, M. H., Mian, S. H., Krid, M., Alkhalefah, H., & Abdo, A. (2019). Virtual reality-based engineering education to enhance manufacturing sustainability in Industry 4.0. Sustainability, 11(5), 1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sampaio, A. Z., Ferreira, M. M., Rosário, D. P., & Martins, O. P. (2010). 3D and VR models in civil engineering education: Construction, rehabilitation and maintenance. Automation in Construction, 19(7), 819–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2003). Understanding virtual reality—Interface, application, and design. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(4), 441–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2018). Understanding virtual reality: Interface, application, and design (2nd ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. [Google Scholar]
  51. Singh, G., Mantri, A., Sharma, O., & Kaur, R. (2021). Virtual reality learning environment for enhancing electronics engineering laboratory experience. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 229–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Soliman, M., Pesyridis, A., Dalaymani-Zad, D., Gronfula, M., & Kourmpetis, M. (2021). The application of virtual reality in engineering education. Applied Sciences, 11(6), 2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tembrevilla, G., Phillion, A., & Zeadin, M. (2024). Experiential learning in engineering education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Engineering Education, 113(2), 195–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., Van der Veen, J., Van de Ven, A., van Baalen, S., Klaassen, R., & Boon, M. (2020). Interdisciplinary engineering education: A review of vision, teaching, and support. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(3), 508–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Vergara, D., Antón-Sancho, A., Dávila, L. P., & Fernández-Airas, P. (2022). Virtual reality as a didactic resource from the perspective of engineering teachers. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(4), 1086–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vergara, D., Rubio, M., & Lorenzo, M. (2017). On the design of virtual reality learning environments in engineering. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1(2), 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H.-L., & Wang, X. (2018). A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6), 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wankat, P. C., Felder, R. M., Smith, K. A., & Oreovicz, F. S. (2023). The scholarship of teaching and learning in engineering. In H. E. Gardner, & M. T. Huber (Eds.), Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 217–237). AAHE/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yang, C., Zhang, J., Hu, Y., Yang, X., Chen, M., Shan, M., & Li, L. (2024). The impact of virtual reality on practical skills for students in science and engineering education: A meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 11, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yuan, S., Huang, H., & Wu, L. (2025). Virtual reality and augmented reality in higher engineering education: A systematic literature review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 33, e70022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zontou, E., Kaminaris, S., & Rangoussi, M. (2024). On the role of virtual reality in engineering education: A systematic literature review of experimental research (2011–2022). European Journal of Engineering Education, 49(6), 856–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 01027 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart.
Education 15 01027 g001
Education 15 01027 g002
Figure 2. Annual published documents production.
Figure 2. Annual published documents production.
Education 15 01027 g002
Education 15 01027 g003
Figure 3. Country collaboration network.
Figure 3. Country collaboration network.
Education 15 01027 g003
Education 15 01027 g004
Figure 4. Most commonly used keywords plus.
Figure 4. Most commonly used keywords plus.
Education 15 01027 g004
Education 15 01027 g005
Figure 5. Most commonly used author’s keywords.
Figure 5. Most commonly used author’s keywords.
Education 15 01027 g005
Education 15 01027 g006
Figure 6. Co-occurrence network of keywords plus.
Figure 6. Co-occurrence network of keywords plus.
Education 15 01027 g006
Table 1. Analysis of the number of documents written by authors based on Lotka’s law.
Table 1. Analysis of the number of documents written by authors based on Lotka’s law.
Documents WrittenN. of AuthorsProportion of Authors
19170.871
2920.087
3240.023
4110.01
570.007
620.002
Table 2. Specifications of the documents examined.
Table 2. Specifications of the documents examined.
DescriptionResultsDescriptionResults
Main information about data Document types
Timespan2010:2025Journal articles102
Sources (journals, books, etc.)207Book chapter19
Documents342Conference/proceedings paper208
Annual growth rate % (2010–2024)20.54Review13
Annual growth rate % (2010–2025 June)10.27Authors
Document average age3.97Authors1053
Average citations per document10.95Authors of single-authored docs27
References4949Authors collaboration
Document contents Single-authored docs28
Keywords plus (ID)1307Co-authors per doc3.7
Author’s keywords (DE)754International co-authorships %8.772
Table 3. Yearly number of documents published and total citations received.
Table 3. Yearly number of documents published and total citations received.
YearMeanTCperDocNMeanTCperYearCitableYears
201020.1761.2616
201146.1763.0815
20121320.9314
201330.6762.3613
201412.8361.0712
20159.3330.8511
201646.6764.6710
201719.94182.229
201842155.258
201916.38262.347
202015.35262.566
202114.94342.995
20225.75241.444
20233.34561.113
20241.28820.642
20250.04260.041
Table 4. List of sources based on Bradford’s law.
Table 4. List of sources based on Bradford’s law.
SourceRankFreq.cumFreq.Cluster
“ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings”130301
“IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)”212421
“Computer Applications in Engineering Education”310521
“Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference”410621
“SEFI Annual Conference”510721
“Sustainability”66781
“European Journal of Engineering Education”75831
“International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)”85881
“ACM International Conference Proceeding Series”94921
“Applied Sciences”104961
“IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW)”1141001
Table 5. List of sources according to their h-index on the topic.
Table 5. List of sources according to their h-index on the topic.
Sourcesh-Indexg-Indexm-IndexTotal CitationsNPPY-Start
“Computer Applications in Engineering Education”7100.467237102011
“ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings”570.33377302011
“IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)”4120.267298122011
“Sustainability”460.517162018
“Education for Chemical Engineers”330.610632021
“European Journal of Engineering Education”340.32452016
“IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW)”340.3753742018
“International Journal of Engineering Education”330.25732011
Table 6. Specifications of country publication.
Table 6. Specifications of country publication.
CountryDocumentsSCPMCPFreq.MCP_Ratio
United States676700.1960
China363240.1050.111
Germany262420.0760.077
India222110.0640.045
United Kingdom151320.0440.133
Mexico131120.0380.154
Portugal101000.0290
Spain10730.0290.3
Bulgaria9900.0260
Austria8710.0230.125
Table 7. List of countries with the most citations.
Table 7. List of countries with the most citations.
CountryTotal CitationsAverage Document Citations
Australia512102.4
United Kingdom45230.1
United States3385
Saudi Arabia28456.8
China2827.8
Portugal27527.5
Spain22222.2
Germany1837
Hungary14648.7
Mexico1219.3
Qatar11528.8
Table 8. List of documents with the most citations.
Table 8. List of documents with the most citations.
DocumentDOITotal
Citations		Total Citations per YearNormalized Total Citations
Kapilan et al. (2021)10.3390/ijerph1506120442853.510.19
Abulrub et al. (2011)10.1109/EDUCON.2011.5773223195134.22
Alhalabi (2016)10.1080/0144929X.2016.121293116816.83.6
Vergara et al. (2017)10.3390/mti102001114315.897.17
Hernández-de-Menéndez et al. (2019a)10.1007/s12008-019-00558-710815.436.59
Soliman et al. (2021)10.3390/app1106287910821.67.23
Sampaio et al. (2010)10.1016/j.autcon.2010.05.0061056.565.21
Salah et al. (2019)10.3390/su1105147710414.866.35
Häfner et al. (2013)10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.031977.463.16
Halabi (2020)10.1007/s11042-019-08214-884145.47
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

Lampropoulos, G.; Fernández-Arias, P.; de Bosque, A.; Vergara, D. Virtual Reality in Engineering Education: A Scoping Review. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081027

AMA Style

Lampropoulos G, Fernández-Arias P, de Bosque A, Vergara D. Virtual Reality in Engineering Education: A Scoping Review. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(8):1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081027

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lampropoulos, Georgios, Pablo Fernández-Arias, Antonio de Bosque, and Diego Vergara. 2025. "Virtual Reality in Engineering Education: A Scoping Review" Education Sciences 15, no. 8: 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081027

APA Style

Lampropoulos, G., Fernández-Arias, P., de Bosque, A., & Vergara, D. (2025). Virtual Reality in Engineering Education: A Scoping Review. Education Sciences, 15(8), 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081027

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