Teachers’ Perceptions of Augmented Reality in Education: Between Pedagogical Potential and Technological Readiness

Abstract

This study sought to investigate the perceptions of teachers from the Porto Metropolitan Area regarding the use of augmented reality (AR) in primary and secondary education. Drawing on a quantitative, descriptive, and correlational research design, data were collected through a validated questionnaire adapted to the Portuguese context and administered to 116 teachers across different curricular subjects of primary and secondary education. The findings reveal overall positive perceptions of AR’s educational potential, particularly in its capacity to enhance teaching strategies and student engagement. Teachers with prior AR training and more frequent use of AR reported significantly higher levels of perceived benefit across dimensions such as teaching, learning, and inclusive practices. Notably, teachers’ perceptions of their own technological competence were lower, suggesting a gap between pedagogical appreciation and technical readiness. No significant differences were observed with respect to gender, age, or academic qualifications. This study highlights the importance of continuous training and professional development focused on both technical and pedagogical aspects to support the effective integration of AR into classrooms. These findings underscore the need for educational policies that promote equitable access to training, resources, and opportunities to experiment with AR, thereby fostering more inclusive and innovative learning environments.

1. Introduction

The rapid development of digital technologies is transforming educational processes and challenging traditional teaching and learning models. Augmented reality (AR), by overlaying digital elements onto the real world, offers unique pedagogical advantages. It can enhance understanding of complex content, promote interactivity, and support student-centred and visual-based learning.

Various studies (Cai et al., 2020; Cardoso et al., 2017) have highlighted the benefits of AR in the educational context, particularly in enhancing student motivation (Villalustre Martínez et al., 2019), promoting active methodologies (Perifanou et al., 2023), and fostering the inclusion of students with different learning profiles (Marín-Díaz et al., 2024). However, despite its potential, the adoption of AR in schools remains limited (Simon et al., 2025). One of the key factors underlying this limitation lies in teachers’ perceptions, given their central role in integrating technological innovations into teaching. The lack of specific training and the presence of perceived technical difficulties can act as barriers to implementation (Perifanou et al., 2023). Although research has examined the effects of AR on students (Cai et al., 2020), relatively few studies have explored teachers’ perceptions of its use in teaching practices. Understanding how teachers evaluate the potential of AR, as well as the personal and professional factors that influence these perceptions, is essential for supporting effective training policies and technology integration strategies. In the Portuguese context, despite the existence of various programs aimed at integrating digital technologies into teachers’ practices, studies focusing on teachers’ perceptions of the pedagogical use of augmented reality remain scarce. In many cases, didactic experiences are superficial and predominantly used for classroom demonstrations. Noteworthy contributions are the studies by Faria (2024) and Faria and Lobato Miranda (2024), which highlighted positive effects of AR use with different learning strategies on students’ outcomes in science and biology topics.

This article aims to examine the perceptions of teachers in the Porto Metropolitan Area on the use of augmented reality in teaching and learning. In particular, it seeks to understand how variables such as gender, age, academic qualifications, and level of education influence this perception, as well as to assess the impact of continuous training on the perception of teacher technological competence and the contribution of AR to promoting diversity and educational inclusion.

2. Augmented Reality

2.1. Concept and Origin of Augmented Reality

Augmented reality (AR) consists of integrating virtual elements into the real world, allowing the user to incorporate digital objects into their physical environment, enriching it without replacing the perception of reality. This concept is part of the reality–virtuality continuum proposed by Milgram and Kishino (1994), in which augmented reality occupies one of the poles of Mixed Reality, distinguishing itself by adding virtual elements to reality, as opposed to Augmented Virtuality, which adds real elements to a virtual environment.

AR merges real and virtual elements in real-time, creating an enriched perception of the world that engages multiple senses (Azuma et al., 2001; Barfield & Caudell, 2001).

The potential of AR lies in its ability to allow the user to represent and interact with real and imaginary situations and objects, whether static or in motion (Marín-Díaz et al., 2022b), operating in real time using technological devices (Tori et al., 2006). For Tori (2010), the central challenge of AR lies in its ability to virtually integrate elements into the real environment credibly and interactively.

From early multisensory experiments in the 1960s (Heilig, 1962) to the coining of the term “augmented reality” in 1992 (Caudell & Mizell, 1992), and the popularisation of AR with tools like ARToolkit and applications like Pokémon Go, AR has evolved significantly and become increasingly accessible. Today, AR is widespread in sectors such as education, industry, and health, benefiting from accessible platforms such as Google Glass or Microsoft HoloLens.

2.2. Augmented Reality in Education

Augmented reality (AR) is emerging as an innovative educational technology capable of providing active and immersive learning experiences based on constructivist principles (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2018; Órfão, 2014). By superimposing digital content on the real environment using mobile devices, AR favours student interaction and involvement, facilitating the construction of knowledge (Gomes, 2015; Ladykova et al., 2024; Monteiro & Mendes, 2018; Singh et al., 2024). However, its pedagogical effectiveness depends on its intentional and contextualised use, avoiding mere technological dazzle (Marín-Díaz et al., 2018).

The pedagogical potential of AR is widely recognised, especially in facilitating the understanding of abstract concepts through its dynamic visual representation (Cai et al., 2020; Vázquez-Cano et al., 2020). By stimulating interactivity and promoting meaningful learning, AR allows students to take an active role in their educational journey, developing multiple literacies and problem-solving skills (Cardoso et al., 2017; Perifanou et al., 2023). Its ability to integrate virtual elements into the real context favours experiential learning, helping to strengthen scientific skills and increase student motivation (Rezende et al., 2021; Villalustre Martínez et al., 2019). Furthermore, incorporating AR into collaborative and cooperative learning methodologies fosters teamwork, communication, and critical thinking (Marín-Díaz et al., 2022a, 2022b).

With regard to teachers’ perceptions of augmented reality, the scientific literature points to promising expectations, given that the technology has become more accessible and teachers more trained, which facilitates its use. However, as Marín-Díaz et al. (2022a) point out, “to take full advantage of this technology, it is necessary to adopt ‘new ways of seeing, feeling and understanding the act of educating, as well as changes in the roles of teachers and students’” (p. 3). The same authors stress that this implies “a process of renewing teaching methodologies, as well as the beliefs and visions of students and teachers” (p. 4), and it is essential to promote teacher training to maximise the potential of AR as a more autonomous and experiential learning tool. In addition, teachers’ holistic view of the teaching and learning process directly influences the strategies adopted, favouring approaches that encourage active learning (Marín-Díaz et al., 2022b).

Despite the advantages of AR, its pedagogical implementation faces challenges. Its use must be guided by well-defined pedagogical objectives, avoiding excesses or decontextualisation that could result in cognitive overload (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Teacher training continues to be a determining factor, since the effective integration of AR requires specific skills for selecting and applying appropriate tools, with the aim of creating enriching learning experiences (Marín-Díaz & Sampedro-Requena, 2020, 2023). According to Moreno-Guerrero et al. (2021), teachers who use AR in their teaching practices tend to have a higher level of digital competence compared to those who do not (p. 122). For their part, Marín-Marín et al. (2023) emphasise the direct influence of ICT training on teachers’ attitudes towards using AR. According to Simon et al. (2025), greater involvement of teachers in research on augmented reality in environmental education is imperative, given the documented paucity of their participation in such investigations.

With regard to the perception of teachers who do not use AR, the main challenges include a lack of technological resources, a deficit in digital pedagogical skills, and insecurity in the use of technology (Moreno-Guerrero et al., 2021, p. 112). On the other hand, even teachers who have already adopted AR need to improve their digital skills to fully exploit the potential of this emerging technology in the curricular context. The research by Huertas-Abril et al. (2021) reinforces that teachers perceive AR as a technology capable of creating a dynamic and motivating educational environment, contributing to learning and knowledge acquisition (p. 199). However, teachers’ perceptions of the use of AR in the classroom depend not only on the availability of technological resources but also on their ability to maximise its potential.

Based on this evidence, it is possible to state that, when implemented strategically, AR has the potential to promote student engagement, autonomy, and conceptual understanding, consolidating itself as an innovative resource for 21st-century education (Terán, 2012; Vázquez-Cano et al., 2020).

Training initiatives are a key factor that allows teachers to develop both technical and pedagogical competencies for the use of AR in their professional practice. As Perifanou et al. (2023) point out, training programs that focus solely on the technological dimension, although valuable, often lead to a superficial use of AR, typically limited to motivational activities or occasional demonstrations in the classroom. Without alignment with curricular objectives, this technology tends to be applied in a decontextualised manner, which diminishes its pedagogical impact. In their study with prospective teachers, Belda-Medina and Calvo-Ferrer (2022) reported the importance of engaging teachers in training initiatives that foster the development of practical and pedagogical knowledge, rather than solely technological knowledge. In this regard, models such as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) can serve as structuring frameworks for the development of training initiatives, as they enable the integrated development of technological and pedagogical knowledge in connection with curricular content and learning objectives. Structured interventions and comprehensive approaches in teacher training, including AR, have been shown to improve confidence and competence in integrating technology, pedagogy, and content (Belda-Medina & Calvo-Ferrer, 2022; Tan et al., 2023). To conclude, research in the field recommends differentiated professional development to build TPACK, especially for AR, as many teachers lack experience as AR content creators rather than just users. Training should emphasise the intersection of technology, pedagogy, and content, not just technical aspects.

3. Materials and Methods

Considering the research question and context, this study was organised according to a quantitative approach with a descriptive, exploratory, and correlational design (Tuckman, 2012) using an ad hoc questionnaire specifically designed instrument to assess teachers’ perceptions of AR, based on an extensive literature review and expert validation. Consequently, this study aligns with the post-positivist paradigm, with researchers maintaining an objective stance, ensuring methodological rigour, and prioritising validity and reliability in both data collection and conclusions drawn. This study aimed to analyse teachers’ perceptions of the use of augmented reality in elementary and secondary school classrooms. Nevertheless, the limitations of a descriptive and exploratory study based on teachers’ perceptions are acknowledged, as is the importance of researcher reflexivity in interpreting the findings and situating them within the existing body of literature.

3.1. Participants

The sample comprised 116 teachers from Portuguese primary and secondary schools, recruited through convenience sampling. All the participants were affiliated with schools located in the Porto Metropolitan Area, the second-largest metropolitan region in the country, encompassing seventeen municipalities. The cohort was predominantly female (81.9%), with most of the participants aged between 41 and 60 years (76.8%), 18.1% aged over 60 years, and only 5.1% under 30 years of age. The teachers represented diverse educational backgrounds and possessed substantial teaching experience, with many having more than 15 years in the profession. They taught across different educational levels, with 39.6% in primary education, 31.9% in lower secondary education, 21.6% in upper secondary education, and 6.9% in preschool education. Only 23.3% of the participants reported having received any training in the pedagogical use of augmented reality in the classroom.

3.2. Instruments

This study used the scale of teachers’ perceptions of the use of augmented reality in the teaching and learning process, developed and validated by Marín-Díaz et al. (2022c). The original scale is organised into 6 dimensions (“AR mediated classroom work”; “AR and Socio-educational Vision”; “AR and Technological Competence”; “AR and Learning Development”; “AR and SEN”; “AR and Linguistic Competence”), comprising a total of 35 items, with 5 Likert response options, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. After authorisation from the original authors, the instrument was translated using the “translate–translate back” method and adapted to the Portuguese context and regulations. Upon analysing the instrument, it was necessary to reorder the dimensions, as well as to restructure and refine the items so that they aligned with the objectives previously established for the present study and remained consistent with the curricular reference documents that guide the Portuguese Educational System. The final version, translated and adapted for the Portuguese context, was organised into four dimensions (“Teaching and AR”; “Learning and AR”; “Diversity and Inclusion and AR”; “Technological Competence and AR”) and 26 items. The metric quality of the adapted instrument was analysed considering three criteria: sensitivity (skewness and kurtosis), reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) and validity (confirmatory factor analysis).

The sensitivity analysis carried out by calculating the asymmetry values revealed a slightly positive asymmetric distribution (between sk= −0.351 and sk= −1.222), and the kurtosis values revealed a Leptokurtic curve, which means that the results are more concentrated around the average (between ku = −0.836 and ku = 2.523).

To verify the reliability of the instrument, a Cronbach’s alpha test was used. The calculated alpha for the entire scale was 0.957, ranging between 0.944 and 0.967, for a 95% confidence interval. This shows that the items in the scale are highly consistent with each other, cohesively measuring the same underlying construct (Marôco, 2014). A favourable level of reliability was found for each of the 4 factors, ranging between 0.678 (factor 4) and 0.949 (factor 2).

Even considering the limitation of analysing an instrument with 26 items, 4 factors and only 116 participants, the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) plays a fundamental role in validating a multidimensional model related to augmented reality (AR). Its objective is to examine the internal consistency of the key constructs—"Teaching and AR”, “Learning and AR”, “Diversity and Inclusion and AR”, and “Technological Competence and AR”—while also exploring their interrelationships. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity revealed a significant result (χ² = 3115.641, df = 325, p < 0.001), supporting the feasibility of confirmatory factor analysis for this study. The model’s goodness of fit was assessed using multiple fit indices. The results indicated a satisfactory model fit: χ²(293) = 816.177, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.831; TLI = 0.813; RMSEA = 0.012; and SRMR = 0.05. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) values were close to the recommended threshold of 0.90, while the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardised Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values were below the acceptable cut-off of 0.05, suggesting an adequate model fit. The factor loadings ranged from 0.71 to 0.85, all statistically significant at p < 0.001, confirming that each observed variable adequately represented its respective latent construct. However, given the CFI and TLI values, it is advisable to confirm the model in future studies with a larger sample size.

Convergent validity was assessed using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), with values ranging from 0.51 to 0.65, thus exceeding the recommended minimum threshold of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2019) and demonstrating adequate convergence of the indicators on their respective constructs. Composite reliability (CR), which accounts for the contribution of each indicator to the latent construct, yielded values above 0.70 across all dimensions, confirming robust internal consistency. The inter-factor correlation matrix revealed positive and statistically significant associations of moderate to high magnitude (r = 0.52 to 0.78; p < 0.01), supporting the theoretical coherence of the model. The strongest correlation was observed between the constructs Technological Competence and AR and Learning and AR (r = 0.78), suggesting that teachers who perceive themselves as more technologically competent are more likely to recognise the potential of AR to enhance learning. Figure 1 presents the path diagram of the model for the four latent factors.

These findings suggest that the proposed multidimensional model provides a valid and reliable structure for assessing teachers’ perceptions of the use of augmented reality in teaching and learning.

3.3. Procedures and Data Analysis

Data collection took place between April and May 2024, using a digital questionnaire developed on the EUSurvey platform, in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The questionnaire was sent by email to the School Principals of all the 124 school clusters in the Porto Metropolitan Area, asking for their co-operation in disseminating the survey to their teachers.

After collection, the data were organised and analysed using Jamovi (v. 2.3.25.0) and SPSS Statistics (v. 29). The statistical analysis followed a strict sequential plan, including (i) descriptive and sensitivity analysis of the items (asymmetry and kurtosis); (ii) assessment of internal reliability using Cronbach’s alpha; (iii) validation of the model by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using the maximum likelihood method; (iv) verification of convergent validity and composite reliability; and (v) analysis of correlations between scale factors.

In addition, inferential analyses were carried out to examine the influence of independent variables (gender, age, academic qualifications, length of service, recruitment group, teaching level, AR training and frequency of AR use) on teachers’ perceptions. Given the ordinal nature of the data and the non-normality of the distributions, non-parametric tests were used, including Mann–Whitney for comparisons between two groups, Kruskal–Wallis for more than two groups, and Spearman’s correlation to explore relationships between continuous variables. The significance level adopted was α = 0.05, and effect sizes (r) were also calculated, with values of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 interpreted as small, medium, and large effects, respectively.

3.4. Ethical Issues

Ethical considerations were rigorously observed throughout this study. Approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Education, University of Lisbon (16 March 2024), and from the Ministry of Education of Portugal (No. 145500001, 20 April 2024). Permission was also secured from the original authors of the Scale of Perceptions of Augmented Reality in Education to adapt and translate the instrument into Portuguese. All ethical safeguards concerning the participants were ensured, including informed consent, voluntary participation, and the protection of anonymity and confidentiality. Informed consent was obtained via a digital form that the participants completed prior to accessing the survey. Moreover, this study adhered to the provisions of European regulations on personal data protection and complied with the ethical guidelines for educational research issued by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the British Educational Research Association (BERA).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Results

The descriptive analysis of the data highlights the teachers’ perceptions regarding the educational potentialities of augmented reality (AR) across four distinct dimensions: “Teaching and AR”, “Learning and AR”, “Diversity and Inclusion”, and “Technological Competence”.

In the Teaching and AR Dimension (see

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the dimension “Teaching and AR”.

Teaching and AR	M	Mdn	SD	Min	Max
(1) The use of augmented reality (AR) promotes the adoption of active methodologies that facilitate learning through projects or problem-solving.	3.88	4.00	0.97	1.00	5.00
(2) The use of AR allows the adopted teaching methodology to contribute more effectively to the development of the Essential Learnings of the subject in which it is used.	3.83	4.00	0.93	1.00	5.00
(3) The use of AR enables the teaching methodology to promote the development of key competencies.	3.72	4.00	0.91	1.00	5.00
(4) The use of AR favours the adoption of a more contextualised teaching methodology.	3.72	4.00	0.97	1.00	5.00
(5) The use of AR fosters creativity in teaching activities.	4.12	4.00	0.93	1.00	5.00
(6) The use of AR encourages planning and structuring of teaching practices.	3.91	4.00	0.90	1.00	5.00
(7) The use of AR encourages collaboration between students and between students and teachers.	3.97	4.00	0.96	1.00	5.00
(8) The integration of AR significantly changes the traditional teaching methodology.	3.70	4.00	0.91	1.00	5.00
Global Score	3.86	4.00	0.80	1.00	5.00

), the teachers indicated positive perceptions towards AR’s contribution to teaching methodologies, with an average global score of M = 3.86. Specifically, the highest mean was observed for Item 5 (“The use of AR fosters creativity in teaching activities”), with M = 4.12 (SD = 0.93), while the lowest mean appeared for Item 8 (“The integration of AR significantly changes the traditional teaching methodology.”), at M = 3.70 (SD = 0.91). The standard deviations across items ranged from 0.90 to 0.97, indicating consistent agreement levels among the respondents.

The teachers also perceived AR positively regarding learning processes (see

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the dimension “Learning and AR”.

Learning and AR	M	Mdn	SD	Min	Max
(9) The use of AR promotes students’ autonomy in the learning process.	3.80	4.00	0.92	1.00	5.00
(10) The use of AR increases students’ motivation to learn.	4.09	4.00	0.88	1.00	5.00
(11) The use of AR facilitates students’ understanding of complex concepts.	3.75	4.00	0.88	1.00	5.00
(12) The use of AR promotes more meaningful and experiential learning.	3.91	4.00	0.87	1.00	5.00
(13) The use of AR allows students to create and share their own learning content.	3.77	4.00	0.94	1.00	5.00
(14) The use of AR supports the development of critical thinking and problem-solving.	3.85	4.00	0.90	1.00	5.00
(15) The use of AR contributes to more differentiated learning.	3.59	4.00	0.98	1.00	5.00
(16) The use of AR facilitates the learning of students with special educational needs.	3.70	4.00	0.98	1.00	5.00
Global Score	3.81	4.00	0.79	1.00	5.00

), reflected by a global average score of M = 3.81. Item 10 (“The use of AR enhances student motivation for learning”) had the highest mean (M = 4.09, SD = 0.88), while Item 15 (“The use of AR significantly impacts long-term retention of knowledge”) scored the lowest (M = 3.59, SD = 0.98). The variability across the items remained moderate, with standard deviations ranging between 0.87 and 0.98.

Regarding diversity and educational inclusion, the teachers reported moderately positive perceptions (see

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the dimension “Diversity and Inclusion”.

Diversity and Inclusion and AR	M	Mdn	SD	Min	Max
(17) The use of AR encourages students’ civic participation.	3.71	4.00	0.91	1.00	5.00
(18) The use of AR promotes respect for cultural diversity.	3.53	4.00	0.96	1.00	5.00
(19) The use of AR facilitates inclusive education.	3.70	4.00	0.89	1.00	5.00
(20) The use of AR promotes the development of multiple literacies.	3.88	4.00	0.95	1.00	5.00
(21) The use of AR contributes to the development of transversal skills.	3.95	4.00	0.82	1.00	5.00
(22) The use of AR supports the exercise of full, active, and creative citizenship.	3.57	4.00	0.94	1.00	5.00
Global Score	3.72	3.83	0.80	1.00	5.00

), with an average global score of M = 3.72. Item 21 (“The use of AR contributes to the development of transversal skills”) presented the highest mean (M = 3.95, SD = 0.82), whereas Item 18 (“The use of AR encourages respect for cultural diversity”) had the lowest mean (M = 3.53, SD = 0.96). The standard deviations varied from 0.82 to 0.96, suggesting a somewhat diverse level of agreement.

Finally, the teachers expressed moderate perceptions related to their technological competence concerning AR (see

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the dimension “Technological Competence”.

Technological Competence and AR	M	Mdn	SD	Min	Max
(23) AR is a complex and difficult technology for teachers to use.	3.24	3.50	1.17	1.00	5.00
(24) The use of AR involves high costs.	3.37	4.00	1.11	1.00	5.00
(25) To use AR in the classroom, excellent technological support is necessary.	3.89	4.00	1.14	1.00	5.00
(26) The lack of educational content in AR is a limitation to its use in the classroom.	3.76	4.00	1.19	1.00	5.00
Global Score	3.56	3.75	0.91	1.00	5.00

), with a global mean of M = 3.56. Within this dimension, Item 25 (“To use AR in the classroom, excellent technological support is necessary”) recorded the highest agreement (M = 3.89, SD = 1.14), indicating recognition of the complexity of technological requirements. Conversely, Item 23 (“AR is a complex and difficult technology for teachers to use”) scored lowest (M = 3.24, SD = 1.17), suggesting variability in perceived ease of use and competence. The relatively higher standard deviations (1.11 to 1.19) indicate substantial diversity in teacher perceptions in this dimension.

Overall, the results reflect predominantly positive yet nuanced perceptions about the educational potential of AR, with generally moderate agreement among the respondents across the dimensions analysed. The boxplot (Figure 2) illustrates the overall distribution of teachers’ perceptions across the full AR scale and its four dimensions. In general, the median scores for all dimensions fall above the midpoint of the scale, suggesting a predominantly positive perception of augmented reality among the teachers. The Teaching and AR and Learning and AR dimensions show slightly higher median values and narrower interquartile ranges (IQRs), indicating greater consensus and confidence in AR’s pedagogical potential.

4.2. Correlation Between Dimensions of AR Perception

A Spearman correlation analysis was conducted to assess the strength and direction of associations between the four dimensions of teachers’ perceptions regarding augmented reality. The use of Spearman’s rho was justified by the fact that none of the variables followed a normal distribution, as confirmed by the Shapiro–Wilk test (all p < 0.001). Figure 3 presents the correlation heat map, with statistically significant values marked (p < 0.001).

A very strong positive correlation was found between the “Teaching and AR” and “Learning and AR” dimensions (ρ = 0.84, p < 0.001), indicating that teachers who value AR’s contribution to teaching also tend to recognise its impact on student learning. Strong positive correlations were also observed between “Teaching and AR” and “Diversity and Inclusion” (ρ = 0.78, p < 0.001), as well as between “Learning and AR” and “Diversity and Inclusion” (ρ = 0.83, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that educators who perceive AR as a pedagogical asset are also more likely to believe it supports inclusive and diverse educational environments. In contrast, the Technological Competence dimension showed weak and statistically non-significant correlations with all of the other dimensions (ρ ranging from 0.10 to 0.14, p > 0.05). This indicates that teachers’ perceptions of AR’s pedagogical benefits are largely independent of their self-assessed technological competence.

These results reinforce the idea that the teachers in the study recognise the educational potential of AR, particularly in enhancing both teaching strategies and student learning. The strong associations between the pedagogical and inclusion-related dimensions suggest a coherent and integrated view of AR as a tool that fosters active, inclusive, and meaningful learning experiences. However, the disconnect between pedagogical perception and technological confidence highlights a potential barrier to effective implementation. While teachers may see the value of AR, they might still feel unprepared or unsupported in terms of technical capability, underlining the importance of professional development and accessible infrastructure to bridge this gap.

4.3. Influence of Independent Variables on Teacher Perceptions

To investigate the influence of gender on teachers’ perceptions of augmented reality (AR), we compared responses from the female participants (n = 95) and male participants (n = 21). Given that normality assumptions were not met—Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated non-normal distributions across most variables (p < 0.001)—we employed the Mann–Whitney U test, a non-parametric alternative suitable for comparing two independent groups. The analysis revealed no statistically significant gender-based differences in any of the five measured dimensions related to AR perception. Moreover, all effect sizes were negligible (r < 0.10), suggesting that gender does not meaningfully influence how AR is perceived in terms of pedagogical utility, inclusiveness, or technological complexity. These results indicate that both female and male teachers hold comparable views regarding the educational potential of AR.

To assess whether age influenced perceptions of AR, we applied the Kruskal–Wallis H test, a non-parametric method appropriate for comparing more than two independent groups under non-normal distribution conditions. Age was treated as an ordinal variable with five categories. The results showed no statistically significant differences in perceptions of AR across age groups (p > 0.05 for all dimensions). This suggests that teachers of varying ages share similar views on the educational relevance of AR, including its utility in teaching and learning, its inclusivity, and the technological challenges it presents. Likewise, no significant differences were observed across different levels of academic qualification (p > 0.05 for all dimensions), indicating that formal educational background does not appear to influence perceptions of AR in the educational context.

However, differences did emerge when considering prior training in AR. Among the participants, a subset had attended professional development sessions focused on AR in education. To evaluate the impact of such training, we again used the Mann–Whitney U test, comparing the teachers who had received AR training (n = 27) with those who had not (n = 89). Effect sizes were also calculated. The results revealed that prior training had a statistically significant positive impact on perceptions in three dimensions. The teachers with AR training reported significantly more favourable views in the “Teaching and AR” dimension (p = 0.043, r = 0.19), suggesting a stronger belief in AR’s potential to enhance teaching practices. They also expressed significantly more positive attitudes in the “Diversity and Inclusion” dimension (p = 0.039, r = 0.19), indicating a greater appreciation of AR’s role in promoting inclusive education. Finally, a significant difference was found in the “Technological Competence” dimension (p = 0.015, r = 0.23), highlighting that training improves teachers’ confidence in using AR technologies effectively.

The participants reported varying levels of AR use in their teaching practices: 59 indicated they had never used it, 44 had used it occasionally, 8 had used it frequently, and 5 had used it very frequently. The analysis revealed that the teachers’ frequency of AR use had a significant impact on their perceptions across several dimensions. Overall, the participants who reported using AR more frequently tended to express more positive views regarding its educational potential. Statistically significant differences were identified in four key areas: Global Perception (H = 7.92, p = 0.048), Teaching and AR (H = 8.95, p = 0.030), Learning and AR (H = 7.95, p = 0.047), and Diversity and Inclusion (H = 11.23, p = 0.011). Post hoc analyses further revealed a significant difference in the “Diversity and Inclusion” dimension between the teachers who reported using AR occasionally and those who used it very frequently (U = 21.0, p = 0.003, Bonferroni-adjusted). This finding suggests that regular use of AR contributes to a stronger recognition of its potential to support inclusive and equitable educational environments. Although the Technological Competence dimension did not reach the conventional level of statistical significance (p = 0.062), the results showed a similar trend, with more frequent users perceiving themselves as more capable of using AR tools effectively.

The analysis of independent variables revealed a nuanced picture of the factors influencing teachers’ perceptions of augmented reality (AR) in education. Variables such as gender, age, and academic qualification showed no statistically significant effects across any of the measured dimensions. These results suggest that demographic and academic background do not substantially shape how teachers perceive the pedagogical value or technological demands of AR. In contrast, prior training in AR had a significant impact.

The teachers who had participated in training reported more favourable perceptions in the dimensions of “Teaching and AR”, “Diversity and Inclusion”, and “Technological Competence”, with small-to-moderate effect sizes. This highlights the positive role of professional development in enhancing both the pedagogical appreciation and technological confidence necessary for the implementation of AR in classroom contexts.

The frequency of AR use was the most influential variable. The teachers who reported using AR more frequently expressed significantly higher perceptions in almost all dimensions, particularly in their appreciation of AR’s contribution to inclusive education. This finding reinforces the notion that hands-on experience with AR contributes meaningfully to teachers’ perceptions of its value. These insights emphasise the importance of providing educators with structured opportunities to explore and apply AR in authentic educational settings.

5. Discussion

Analysis of the data collected shows that the participating teachers tended to have favourable perceptions of the educational use of augmented reality (AR), with particular emphasis on the “Teaching and AR” and “Learning and AR” dimensions. These results reflect a clear appreciation of AR’s pedagogical potential, corroborating what was emphasised by Marín-Díaz et al. (2022a, 2022b, 2022c) when they argued that this technology contributes to making the teaching–learning process more dynamic, engaging, and meaningful.

The teachers particularly recognised AR’s ability to diversify teaching strategies, capture students’ interest, and facilitate the understanding of complex content. The higher average in the “Teaching and AR” dimension denotes an openness to technological innovation. In contrast, the results in the “Learning and AR” dimension confirm that the immersive environments provided by this technology are perceived as fostering greater student involvement and participation.

In the “Diversity and Inclusion” dimension, although the results remained positive, there was a slight drop in the averages, especially in items related to respect for cultural diversity. This suggests that AR’s potential as a promoter of inclusive pedagogical practices may not yet be fully exploited, highlighting the need for a more intentional and critical integration of technology in the development of global citizenship skills (Marín-Díaz et al., 2018; Vázquez-Cano et al., 2020).

The “Technological Competence” dimension had the lowest average overall, revealing a clear gap between the teachers’ appreciation of AR’s pedagogical potential and their self-perceived ability to implement it. This disconnect suggests that, although educators see value in AR, they often lack the technical confidence or support to integrate it effectively into their teaching practice. Such a gap is consistent with argument that the absence of structured opportunities to develop technical skills can hinder the adoption of emerging technologies in education. Addressing this gap requires a dual approach. Firstly, training initiatives should combine technical skill-building with pedagogical design, enabling teachers to move beyond “how to use the tool” towards “how to design effective AR-enhanced learning experiences.” Hands-on workshops, peer mentoring, and model lesson demonstrations can help teachers develop both competence and confidence. Secondly, establishing dedicated support structures in schools, such as technology coaches or AR resource teams, can provide immediate assistance when teachers face challenges, reducing the risk of technology abandonment.

Practical experience with AR emerged as a significant factor in shaping perceptions. The teachers who had used AR more frequently reported higher levels of confidence and greater recognition of its inclusive and pedagogical value. This reinforces the importance of school-based experimentation through pilot projects, sandbox environments, or collaborative lesson design initiatives where teachers can trial AR in low-stakes settings before integrating it fully into the curriculum.

The positive correlations between the dimensions “Teaching and AR”, “Learning and AR”, and “Diversity and Inclusion” suggest an integrated perception of the educational value of AR, in that teachers who recognise its contribution to teaching also tend to value it as a promoter of active learning and inclusion. However, the lack of significant correlations with the “Technological Competence” dimension shows a gap between the pedagogical appreciation of AR and the self-perception of the technical capacity to use it. This gap could jeopardise the effective integration of technology into everyday school life, reinforcing the need to invest in continuous training (Marín-Díaz & Sampedro-Requena, 2023).

Finally, the analysis of sociodemographic variables revealed no statistically significant differences in perceptions, particularly according to gender, which points to a transversal appreciation of AR among teachers, regardless of their personal or professional profile (Huertas-Abril et al., 2021; Marín-Marín et al., 2023).

In summary, the results show that teachers recognise the educational value of AR, particularly in terms of methodological innovation, student motivation, and the promotion of inclusive learning environments. However, the persistence of a competence gap highlights the urgent need for comprehensive, sustained, and context-sensitive training and support policies. These should prioritise technical confidence alongside pedagogical integration, ensuring that teachers are not only willing but also fully prepared to embed AR critically, autonomously, and sustainably into their teaching practices.

6. Conclusions

The results obtained in this study have several relevant implications for teaching practice, particularly with regard to the integration of augmented reality (AR) as an educational technology.

Firstly, teachers’ generally positive perceptions of AR’s pedagogical potential indicate a favourable attitude towards its integration in educational settings. This openness should be leveraged by school leaders and those responsible for ongoing training to promote initiatives that facilitate the practical and contextualised application of this technology, particularly in the development of active, student-centred methodologies.

The valorisation of AR in the teaching and learning dimensions reinforces the need to support teachers in the transition to more innovative pedagogical practices, which include the creation of immersive and interactive environments. Continuous training should therefore focus not only on the technical skills associated with the use of AR but also on its effective pedagogical integration, in conjunction with curricular objectives and the Profile of Students Leaving Compulsory Education.

The more moderate perception of the diversity and inclusion dimension points to the need to develop AR educational resources that are explicitly and intentionally geared towards promoting equity, individualisation of learning, and respect for cultural diversity. This aspect should be incorporated into both the design of materials and teacher training, in order to guarantee an inclusive approach that is sensitive to the different realities of students.

On the other hand, the perception of weaknesses in teachers’ technological competence emphasises the importance of more robust digital empowerment policies, involving practical training, technical support, and access to appropriate resources. Technological confidence proved to be a decisive factor in the willingness to use AR, which makes it essential to ensure that all teachers have equitable opportunities for professional development in this area.

Finally, these findings underscore the need for educational policies that promote equitable access to training, resources, and opportunities to experiment with AR, aiming to foster more inclusive and innovative learning environments. Such policies should include dedicated funding for the acquisition of AR tools and digital content, comprehensive teacher training programs integrating both technical and pedagogical aspects, and the implementation of pilot projects in schools to encourage experimentation and the sharing of best practices.

7. Limitations and Future Directions

Despite its relevant findings, this study presents a set of limitations that should be acknowledged, including a convenience-based sample and structural modifications to the original measurement instrument, both of which limit the generalisability and robustness of the findings. Although the CFA indicated an acceptable model fit, the CFI and TLI values fell below the optimal threshold, underscoring the need for validation with larger and more representative samples. Furthermore, reliance solely on self-report measures raises the possibility of social desirability bias. Future research should address these limitations by employing probabilistic sampling, validating the scale through both exploratory and confirmatory analyses, and adopting mixed-methods or longitudinal designs to capture the evolving interplay between teachers’ perceptions, technological competence, and authentic AR integration in classroom practice.