Exploring Immersive Learning Experiences: A Survey
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Immersive Learning
2.2. Virtual Reality (VR)
2.3. Augmented Reality (AR)
2.4. Mixed Reality (MR)
2.5. Interaction Techniques of Immersive Technologies
2.6. The SAMR Model
3. Related Work
4. Methodology
4.1. Research Questions
4.2. Search Process
(“Immersive Technologies”) AND (“Education” OR “Learning” OR “Learner” OR “Teaching” OR “Teacher” OR “Student”).
- We read the articles’ metainformation and applied the IC-1 and EC-1 criteria. Consequently, the number of articles was reduced to 674.
- We applied the criteria IC-2 and EC-2 by reading the title, abstract, and keywords of the articles, thereby reducing the articles to 191.
- We excluded the articles irrelevant to the research questions and applied the EC-3 criteria, thus reducing the articles to 84.
- Finally, we meticulously read the whole content of the articles while applying IC-3 and IC-4. Further, we applied EC-4, thereby excluding the articles that had little to no empirical evaluation. Consequently, the number of articles was reduced to 42. Table A1 shows the selected articles.
5. Results
5.1. RQ1—In What Fields Are the Immersive Learning Experiences Applied?
5.2. RQ2—What Types of Immersive Technologies Are Used in Learning Experiences?
5.3. RQ3—What Role Do Immersive Technologies Play in Supporting Students’ Learning?
5.4. RQ4—What Are the Pedagogical Strategies Used to Support the Immersive Learning Experiences?
5.5. RQ5—What Are the Interaction Styles Implemented by the Immersive Learning Experiences?
5.6. RQ6—What Empirical Evidence Substantiates the Validity of the Immersive Learning Experiences?
5.7. RQ7—What Are the Challenges of Applying the Immersive Learning Environments?
- Lack of tutorials: Masso and Grace [115] highlighted that students experienced difficulties understanding how to operate the AR-based game without a tutorial.
- Inadequate vision: Two studies highlighted issues with vision that students experienced due to the immersive technology headsets. Erofeeva and Klowait [84] reported breakdowns of visibility in the classroom causing students to not be able to see each other which impeded collaboration. Nersesian et al. [83] noted that students reported blurry vision as well as disorientation caused by the VR HMDs.
- Difficulty with handling the equipment: Two studies reported that students struggled with operating immersive technologies. Hu-Au and Okita [111] stated that some students faced difficulties with handling the VR equipment leading to a preference of the traditional learning methods. Batra et al. [134] reported that some students could not fit their smart phones inside the VR headsets.
- Heavily text-based: Hunvik and Lindseth [103] stated that students found the amount of text used for the learning experience too high. The students preferred exchanging the text with more immersive materials.
- Inadequate audio: Salman et al. [88] reported that the audio feedback given to assist students with an MR immersive system was insufficient to guide the students.
- Hyper-fidelity: Stone [87] reported that students reported that the VR system used in medical education was burdened with hyper-fidelity as there was excessive sensory data.
- Limited Interaction: Lee [128] stated that students used the HMDs for a long time, and only simple interaction techniques such as pointing were available.
6. Discussion and Future Research Directions
- RQ1 examined the fields where the immersive learning experiences were applied. Our findings show that computing is the most targeted field, followed by science and engineering topics such as physics, chemistry, geosciences, and math. Other topics include medicine, history, and technology. Our results are somewhat akin to Luo et al. [17] and Radianti et al. [12] where basic and social sciences, engineering, and computing are highly represented. In comparison, Kavanagh et al. [18] identified that most articles focused more on health-related and general education topics, and less on science and engineering topics.
- RQ2 discussed the types of immersive technologies used in educational settings. The results show that more than half of the articles used VR, while a third used AR, and only two articles used MR. VR was mostly HMD-based (in particular, advanced HMDs), and AR experiences were mostly marker-based and used phones and tablets, where MR used projection and HMDs. Concerning VR, our results are rather different from the findings reported by Luo et al. [17] as the authors identified desktop computers to be the most preferred VR devices. Desktop-based VR is considered non-immersive VR, and this study excludes this type of VR systems. Similar to our findings, Luo et al. [17] identified advanced HMDs and mobile VR as forms of VR in educational settings. Concerning AR, Akçayır and Akçayır [8] focused on the devices used to create AR experiences rather than the types of AR technologies (e.g., marker-based, markerless). However, our findings are similar to the authors′ where mobile phones are widely used to create AR experiences. Since MR is an emerging technology in education, no review study has covered educational MR, and thus, our findings are unique.
- RQ3 investigated the role of immersive technology using the SAMR model based on teachers’ actions in developing students’ higher-order thinking skills. The findings of this study show that the MR-based studies were classified in the redefinition level. In addition, most of the VR-based studies were classified in the augmentation level, followed by the redefinition level. The studies using AR were mostly categorized in the modification level followed by augmentation. No related review studies investigated the role of technology using the SAMR model. However, it was stated in a previous systematic review by Blundell et al. [135] that the SAMR model is mostly used to categorize educational practices with digital technologies based on teachers’ and students’ actions.
- RQ4 examined the pedagogical approaches of immersive technology. The results show that most studies did not identify a specific pedagogical approach, however, these studies showed evidence of using an active learning approach. Other pedagogies mentioned in the studies were: experiential learning, game-based learning, and inquiry-based learning. Other studies showed the following pedagogies being used equally: self-directed learning, project-based learning, and collaborative learning. Our results are similar to those of Radianti et al. [12], as most studies on immersive technology did not mention the pedagogical approach, followed by studies that used experiential learning. In contrast, Kavanagh et al. [18] pointed out that most researchers using VR ILEs used collaboration and gamification.
- RQ5 identified the interaction techniques used in the immersive learning experiences. In terms of input, touch-based interaction (mostly AR based) was the most reported, followed by hardware (mostly advanced HMD-based), hand, and head-based interaction. Concerning the task-based interaction techniques, viewpoint and select interactions were the most described, followed by pointing, scaling, translating, and rotating. Our findings are unique as the relevant review studies did not attempt to classify immersive interaction techniques based on existing frameworks. However, Luo et al. [17] identified that most VR systems used minimal interaction, while a few featured high interactions that allowed rich exploration of the environment. Pellas et al. [13] concentrated on the features of advanced HMDs allowing sophisticated tracking of head and hand movements.
- RQ6 examined the empirical evidence backing the validity of the immersive learning environments. Our findings show that the ILEs were evaluated mostly by experiments, questionnaires, evaluation studies, and a few ILEs were also evaluated by interviews, informal evaluation, and field observations. The evaluation shows improved motivation, performance, perceived usefulness, and subjective satisfaction. Our findings resemble those mentioned by Asad et al. [72] where the authors demonstrated similar methods of evaluation such as experiments, interviews, and questionnaires. In comparison, Luo et al. [17] reported that questionnaires were the most-used evaluation method, followed by tests, observations, and interviews.
- RQ7 presented the reported challenges of applying the immersive learning environments. Most of the challenges were related to usability and ergonomics such as discomfort, inadequate tracking, vision, and audio, handling the equipment, and lack of tutorials. Other challenges include low performance, software compatibility issues, and the novelty effect. Our findings are similar to those of Akçayır and Akçayır [8] where usability issues such as the difficulty of usage and cognitive load were reported, but the authors also reported other issues such as some teacher’s inadequacy when it came to using the technology. Kavanagh et al. [18] reported similar usability issues in addition to overhead and perceived usefulness issues.
- To set the ground for future research and implementation of ILEs, we shed some light on a few areas that should be contemplated when designing and implementing ILEs
- Limited Topics: By far, most of the topics presented in the selected studies were STEM (science, technology, engineering, math)-related. While it is natural for such topics to be visualized and illustrated with immersive technologies, future researchers and educators should venture beyond STEM topics and explore how immersive technologies could be impactful in non-STEM contexts such as the arts, humanities, and language learning.
- End-user development (EUD) of the ILEs: EUD is a set of tools and activities allowing non-professional developers to write software programs [136]. EUD equips many people to engage in software development. [137]. Most studies presented programmatic tools such as Unity and Vuforia for building ILEs. Such tools are only accessible to developers. A few articles used existing immersive applications or relied on paid off-the-shelf components such as Modum Lab. However, this limits the range of possibilities and increases the cost of ILEs. Nonetheless, a few commercial tools allow non-developers to build immersive experiences. Examples include VeeRA [138] and Varwin [139]. However, such tools tend to be limited to creating immersive 360-degree videos. As such, future research could experiment with existing EUD tools that allow the implementation of ILEs. Researchers could evaluate such tools′ usability and appropriateness in the educational context.
- Development Framework: Despite being in circulation for decades, there is a lack of guidance in the literature to assist educators in identifying educational contexts that immersive technologies could enhance. Further, there is a lack of guidance to assist educators in selecting and deploying immersive technology and interaction styles appropriate for the educational context of choice. A notable recent effort in this direction is a framework devised by An et al. [140], assisting K-12 educators with the design and analysis of teaching augmentation. While promising, the framework is geared towards the K-12 curriculum and focuses on assisting teachers in their teaching instead of assisting learners in their learning. Another significant effort is the work of Dunleavy [141], in which he described general principles for designing AR learning experiences. The described design principles are useful for leveraging the unique affordances of AR. However, the principles are not grounded in pedagogical learning theories. Further, the work does not accommodate the affordances of MR. As such, future research could focus on developing a conceptual framework to help educators identify contexts for implementing immersive learning experiences and guidance on deployment and integration into classroom settings.
- Usability principles: usability assesses how easy it is to use a user interface. Usability principles can act as guidelines for designing a user interface. As an example, Schneiderman et al. highlighted eight user interface design rules [142]. Moreover, Joyce extended the 10 general usability heuristics defined by Nielsen [143] to accommodate VR experiences [144]. Nevertheless, most studies shied away from explicitly applying usability heuristics. However, the evaluation shows that there were several usability issues. As such, we argue that designing ILEs with usability principles in mind is crucial to avoid such errors. Further, we recommend that future researchers assess the usability of the ILEs during the design process.
7. Study Limitations
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
ID | Article | Reference |
---|---|---|
A1 | (Stone, 2011) | [87] |
A2 | (Hunvik and Lindseth, 2021) | [103] |
A3 | (Arntz et al., 2020) | [131] |
A4 | (Nordin et al., 2020) | [114] |
A5 | (Sajjadi et al., 2020) | [133] |
A6 | (Chiou et al., 2020) | [79] |
A7 | (Bursztyn et al., 2017) | [121] |
A8 | (Tims et al., 2012) | [145] |
A9 | (Batra et al., 2020) | [134] |
A10 | (Majid and Majid, 2018) | [146] |
A11 | (Rossano et al., 2020) | [125] |
A12 | (Cecil et al., 2013,) | [104] |
A13 | (Theart et al., 2017) | [80] |
A14 | (Cherner et al., 2019) | [123] |
A15 | (Wei et al., 2013) | [105] |
A16 | (McCaffery et al., 2014) | [132] |
A17 | (Lin et al., 2018) | [124] |
A18 | (Erofeeva and Klowait, 2021) | [84] |
A19 | (Masso and Grace, 2011) | [115] |
A20 | (Garri et al., 2020) | [112] |
A21 | (Lindner et al., 2019) | [107] |
A22 | (Bursztyn et al., 2017) | [127] |
A23 | (Restivo et al., 2014) | [122] |
A24 | (Nersesian et al., 2019) | [113] |
A25 | (Nersesian et al., 2020) | [83] |
A26 | (Kreienbühl et al., 2020) | [109] |
A27 | (Truchly et al., 2018) | [86] |
A28 | (Sarkar et al., 2019) | [108] |
A29 | (Stigall and Sharma, 2017) | [130] |
A30 | (Peltekova et al., 2019) | [117] |
A31 | (Woźniak et al., 2020) | [110] |
A32 | (Salman et al., 2019) | [88] |
A33 | (Wu et al., 2021) | [89] |
A34 | (Safari Bazargani et al., 2021) | [118] |
A35 | (Georgiou et al., 2021) | [116] |
A36 | (de Back et al., 2021) | [119] |
A37 | (Reeves et al., 2021) | [81] |
A38 | (Hu-Au and Okita, 2021) | [111] |
A39 | (Shojaei et al., 2021) | [120] |
A40 | (Remolar et al., 2021) | [106] |
A41 | (Santos Garduño et al., 2021) | [82] |
A42 | (Lee et al., 2021) | [128] |
References
- Lee, H.-G.; Chung, S.; Lee, W.-H. Presence in virtual golf simulators: The effects of presence on perceived enjoyment, perceived value, and behavioral intention. New Media Soc. 2013, 15, 930–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, T.-L.; Liao, S.-L. Creating e-shopping multisensory flow experience through augmented-reality interactive technology. Internet Res. 2017, 27, 449–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, M.Y.; Ong, S.K.; Nee, A.Y.C. An Augmented Reality-Assisted Therapeutic Healthcare Exercise System Based on Bare-Hand Interaction. Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2016, 32, 708–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arino, J.-J.; Juan, M.-C.; Gil-Gómez, J.-A.; Mollá, R. A comparative study using an autostereoscopic display with augmented and virtual reality. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2014, 33, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, J.A.; Kapila, V. Mixed-reality learning environments: Integrating mobile interfaces with laboratory test-beds. Comput. Educ. 2017, 110, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistica. Immersive Technology Consumer Market Revenue Worldwide from 2018 to 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/936078/worldwide-consumer-immersive-technology-market-revenue/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
- Falah, J.; Khan, S.; Alfalah, T.; Alfalah, S.F.; Chan, W.; Harrison, D.K.; Charissis, V. Virtual Reality medical training system for anatomy education. In Proceedings of the 2014 Science and Information Conference, London, UK, 27–29 August 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Akçayir, M.; Akçayir, G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017, 20, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonseca, D.; Martí, N.; Redondo, E.; Navarro, I.; Sánchez, A. Relationship between student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with the use of Augmented Reality technology for visualized architecture models. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 31, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, H.-M.; Rauch, U.; Liaw, S.-S. Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 1171–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beyond Millennials: The Next Generation of Learners, Global Research & Insights. Pearson, 2018. Available online: https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/news-annoucements/2018/The-Next-Generation-of-Learners_final.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2022).
- Radianti, J.; Majchrzak, T.A.; Fromm, J.; Wohlgenannt, I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput. Educ. 2020, 147, 103778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellas, N.; Mystakidis, S.; Kazanidis, I. Immersive Virtual Reality in K-12 and Higher Education: A systematic review of the last decade scientific literature. Virtual Real. 2021, 25, 835–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bacca Acosta, J.L.; Baldiris Navarro, S.M.; Fabregat Gesa, R.; Graf, S. Augmented Reality Trends in Education: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 133–149. [Google Scholar]
- Quintero, J.; Baldiris, S.; Rubira, R.; Cerón, J.; Velez, G. Augmented Reality in Educational Inclusion. A Systematic Review on the Last Decade. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Santos, M.E.C.; Chen, A.; Taketomi, T.; Yamamoto, G.; Miyazaki, J.; Kato, H. Augmented Reality Learning Experiences: Survey of Prototype Design and Evaluation. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 2014, 7, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, H.; Li, G.; Feng, Q.; Yang, Y.; Zuo, M. Virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A systematic. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2021, 37, 887–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavanagh, S.; Luxton-Reilly, A.; Wuensche, B.; Plimmer, B. A Systematic Review of Virtual Reality in Education. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 10, 85–119. [Google Scholar]
- Kesim, M.; Ozarslan, Y. Augmented Reality in Education: Current Technologies and the Potential for Education. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 47, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dengel, A. What Is Immersive Learning? In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN), Vienna, Austria, 30 May–4 June 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Li, C.; Ip, H.H.S. Defining virtual reality enabled learning. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2022, 31, 291–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slater, M. A note on presence terminology. Presence Connect 2003, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Dengel, A.; Magdefrau, J. Immersive learning explored: Subjective and objective factors influencing learning outcomes in immersive educational virtual environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), Wollongong, Australia, 4–7 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Dalgarno, B.; Lee, M.J.W. What are the learning affordances of 3-d virtual environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 1, 10–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulders, M.; Buchner, J.; Kerres, M. A framework for the use of immersive virtual reality in learning environments. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (IJET) 2020, 15, 208–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makransky, G.; Petersen, G.B. The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 33, 937–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delaney, B.; Furness, T.A. Virtual Reality 1.0—The 90′s: The Birth of VR, in the Pages of CyberEdge Journal; CyberEdge Information Services. 2014. Available online: https://books.google.ae/books?id=OgZatAEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 18 July 2022).
- Muhanna, M.A. Virtual reality and the CAVE: Taxonomy, interaction challenges and research directions. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. 2015, 27, 344–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutherland, I.E. SketchPad: A man–machine graphical communication. In Proceedings of the American Federation of the American Federation of Information Processing Societies (AFIPS), Detroit, MI, USA, 21–23 May 1963. [Google Scholar]
- Sutherland, I. The ultimate display. Proc. IFIPS Congr. 1965, 65, 506–508. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, P.H. Sound Bytes; He Added ‘Virtual’ to ‘Reality’. New York Times, 25 September 1994; p. 37. [Google Scholar]
- The 3 Types of Virtual Reality. 2022. Available online: https://heizenrader.com/the-3-types-of-virtual-reality/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).
- William, S.; Craig, A. Understanding Virtual Reality: Interface, Application, and Design, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Keck, W.M. Center for Active Visualization in the Earth. 2012. Available online: www.idav.ucdavis.edu/~okreylos/ResDev/KeckCAVES (accessed on 13 July 2022).
- Czernuszenko, M.; Pape, D.; Sandin, D.; DeFanti, T.; Dawe, G. The ImmersaDesk and infinity wall projection-based virtual reality displays. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 1997, 31, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melzer, J.E.; Moffitt, K. Head-Mounted Displays: Designing for the User; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2011. Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Head-Mounted-Displays-Mr-James-Melzer/dp/1456563491 (accessed on 18 July 2022).
- Cruz-Neira, C.; Sandin, D.J.; DeFanti, T.A.; Kenyon, R.V.; Hart, J.C. The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual environment. Commun. ACM 1992, 35, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linklater, A.S.J. Exploring the large amplitude multi-mode aerospace research simulator’s motion drive algorithms. In Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, Hilton Head, SC, USA, 20–23 August 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Benyon, D.; Turner, P.; Turner, S. Designing Interactive Systems: People, Activities, Contexts, Technologies; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2005; Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Interactive-Systems-Activities-Technologies/dp/0321116291 (accessed on 18 July 2022).
- Google Cardboard. Available online: https://arvr.google.com/cardboard/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Rift, O. Available online: https://www.oculus.com/rift-s/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Quest, O. Available online: https://www.oculus.com/experiences/quest/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Vive, H. Available online: https://www.vive.com/mea-en/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Technologies, I. Light Vehicle Simulator Launched to Improve Site Safety. 2012. Available online: http://www.immersivetechnologies.com/news/news2008 (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Klopfer, E.; Squire, K. Environmental Detectives—The development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 2007, 56, 203–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brito, P.Q.; Stoyanova, J. Marker versus Markerless Augmented Reality. Which Has More Impact on Users? Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2018, 34, 819–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Filali, Y.; Krit, S.-D. Augmented Reality Types and Popular Use Cases. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of Computer Science and Renewable Energies, Ouarzazate, Morocco, 22–24 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards-Srewart, A.; Hoyt, T.; Reger, G.M. Classifying Different Types of Augmented Reality Technology. Annu. Rev. CyberTherapy Telemed. 2016, 14, 199–202. [Google Scholar]
- Katiyar, A.; Kalra, K.; Garg, C. Marker based augmented reality. Adv. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 2015, 2, 441–445. [Google Scholar]
- Papagiannakis, G.; Singh, G.; Magnenat-Thalmann, N. A survey of mobile and wireless technologies for augmented reality systems. Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds 2008, 19, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herling, J.; Broll, W. Markerless Tracking for Augmented Reality. In Handbook of Augmented Reality; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 255–272. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, K.-H.; Tsai, C.-C. Affordances of Augmented Reality in Science Learning: Suggestions for Future Research. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2013, 22, 449–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mine, M.; Rose, D.; Yang, B.; van Baar, J.; Grundhöfer, A. Projection-Based Augmented Reality in Disney Theme Parks. Computer 2012, 45, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Disney. D23 Expo. Available online: https://d23.com/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Naudi, K.; Benramadan, R.; Brocklebank, L.; Ju, X.; Khambay, B.; Ayoub, A. The virtual human face: Superimposing the simultaneously captured 3D photorealistic skin surface of the face on the untextured skin image of the CBCT scan. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2013, 42, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lin, Y.-K.; Yau, H.-T.; Wang, I.-C.; Zheng, C.; Chung, K.-H. A novel dental implant guided surgery based on integration of surgical template and augmented reality. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2015, 17, 543–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- blippAR. Available online: https://www.blippar.com/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Auganix. Aurasma. Available online: https://www.auganix.org/hud/aurasma/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Google. Google Maps. Available online: http://maps.google.com/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Yelp.com. Available online: https://www.yelp.com/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Leonard, S.N.; Fitzgerald, R.N. Holographic learning: A mixed reality trial of Microsoft HoloLens in an Australian secondary school. Res. Learn. Technol. 2018, 26, 2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speicher, M.; Hall, B.D.; Nebeling, M. What is Mixed Reality? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘19), Glasgow, UK, 4–9 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Milgram, P.; Kishino, F. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994, 12, 1321–1329. [Google Scholar]
- Microsoft. Hololens. Available online: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/hardware (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Zapbox. Available online: https://www.zappar.com/zapbox/ (accessed on 14 July 2022).
- Aliprantis, J.; Konstantakis, M.; Nikopoulou, R.; Mylonas, P.; Caridakis, G. Natural Interaction in Augmented Reality Context. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Visual Pattern Extraction and Recognition for Cultural Heritage Understanding co-located with 15th Italian Research Conference on Digital Libraries (IRCDL 2019), Pisa, Italy, 30 January 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bowman, D.A.; Kruijff, E.; LaViola, J.J.; Poupyrev, I. 3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice; Addison-Wesley: Westford, MA, USA, 2004; Available online: https://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/9780201758672/samplepages/0201758679.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2022).
- Spittle, B.; Frutos-Pascual, M.; Creed, C.; Williams, I. A Review of Interaction Techniques for Immersive Environments. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puentedura, R.R. Transformation, Technology, and Education in the State of Maine. 2006. Available online: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2006_11.htm (accessed on 15 July 2022).
- Puentedura, R.R. Moving from Enhancement to Transformation. 2013. Available online: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html (accessed on 15 July 2022).
- Hamilton, E.R.; Rosenberg, J.M.; Akcaoglu, M. The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends 2016, 60, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asad, M.M.; Naz, A.; Churi, P.; Tahanzadeh, M.M. Virtual Reality as Pedagogical Tool to Enhance Experiential Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. Educ. Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 7061623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D. Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rayyan. Intelligent Systematic Review—Rayyan. Available online: https://rayyan.ai/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Scimago. Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Available online: https://www.scimagojr.com/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Lenovo. Lenovo Mirage Solo. Available online: https://www.lenovo.com/gb/en/smart-devices/virtual-reality/lenovo-mirage-solo/Mirage-Solo/p/ZZIRZRHVR01?orgRef=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Meta. Oculus Go. Available online: https://www.oculus.com/experiences/go/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Pico. Pico G2. Available online: https://www.picoxr.com/us/G2_4K.html (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Chiou, R.; Fegade, T.; Wu, Y.J.; Tseng, T.B.; Mauk, M.G.; Husanu, I.N.C. Project-based Learning with Implementation of Virtual Reality for Green Energy Manufacturing Education. In Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual, 22–26 June 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Theart, R.; Loos, B.; Niesler, T. Virtual reality assisted microscopy data visualization and colocalization analysis. BMC Bioinform. 2017, 18, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reeves, S.M.; Crippen, K.J.; McCray, E.D. The varied experience of undergraduate students learning chemistry in virtual reality laboratories. Comput. Educ. 2021, 175, 104320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garduño, H.S.; Martínez, M.E.; Castro, M.P. Impact of Virtual Reality on Student Motivation in a High School Science Course. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nersesian, E.; Vinnikov, M.; Ross-Nersesian, J.; Spryszynski, A.; Lee, M.J. Middle School Students Learn Binary Counting Using Virtual Reality. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), Princeton, NJ, USA, 1 August 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Erofeeva, M.; Klowait, N.O. The Impact of Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Interactive Whiteboards on the Attention Management in Secondary School STEM Teaching. In Proceedings of the 2021 7th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN), Eureka, CA, USA, 17 May–10 June 2021. [Google Scholar]
- TechFuture. VR Box. Available online: https://www.techfuturae.com/vr/headsets/box-v2/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Truchly, P.; Medvecký, M.; Podhradský, P.; Vančo, M. Virtual Reality Applications in STEM Education. In Proceedings of the 2018 16th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), Starý Smokovec, Slovakia, 15–16 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Stone, R.J. The (human) science of medical virtual learning environments. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salman, E.; Besevli, C.; Göksun, T.; Özcan, O.; Urey, H. Exploring Projection Based Mixed Reality with Tangibles for Nonsymbolic Preschool Math Education. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ‘19), Tempe, AZ, USA, 17–20 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, C.; Tang, Y.; Tsang, Y.; Chau, K. Immersive Learning Design for Technology Education: A Soft Systems Methodology. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 745295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unity. Unity: The World’s Leading Platform for Real-Time Content Creation. Available online: https://unity.com/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Vuforia. Vuforia Engine Developer Portal. Available online: https://developer.vuforia.com/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- OpenCV. Learn OpenCV. Available online: https://learnopencv.com/tag/augmented-reality/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- AutoDesk. AutoDesk: Design it. Build it. Autodesk it. Available online: https://www.autodesk.com/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Processing Foundation. Available online: https://processing.org/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Jsartoolkit V5. Available online: https://github.com/artoolkitx/jsartoolkit5 (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Vizard. Vizard: Comprehensive Virtual Reality. Available online: https://www.worldviz.com/vizard-virtual-reality-software (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- OpenSimulator. What Is OpenSimulator? Available online: http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Main_Page (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- ValveSoftware. OpenVR. Available online: https://github.com/ValveSoftware/openvr (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- Modum Education. Available online: https://modumlab.com/education (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- StoryToys. StoryToys: Apps to Help Your Child Learn, Play, and Grow. Available online: https://storytoys.com/ (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- 3D Systems. Omni Haptics. Available online: https://www.3dsystems.com/haptics-devices/touch (accessed on 16 July 2022).
- McHugh, M.L. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. 2012, 22, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunvik, S.; Lindseth, F. Making Use of Virtual Reality for Artificial Intelligence Education. In Bridges and Mediation in Higher Distance Education; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Cecil, J.; Ramanathan, P.; Mwavita, M. Virtual Learning Environments in engineering and STEM education. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 23–26 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, L.; Zhou, H.; Soe, A.K.; Nahavandi, S. Integrating Kinect and haptics for interactive STEM education in local and distributed environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Wollongong, Australia, 9–12 July 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Remolar, I.; Rebollo, C.; Fernández-Moyano, J. Learning History Using Virtual and Augmented Reality. Computers 2021, 10, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindner, C.; Rienow, A.; Jürgens, C. Augmented Reality applications as digital experiments for education—An example in the Earth-Moon System. Acta Astronaut. 2019, 161, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarkar, P.; Kadam, K.; Pillai, J.S. Collaborative Approaches to Problem-Solving on Lines and Angles Using Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Tenth International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E), Goa, India, 9–11 December 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kreienbühl, T.; Wetzel, R.; Burgess, N.; Schmid, A.M.; Brovelli, D. AR Circuit Constructor: Combining Electricity Building Blocks and Augmented Reality for Analogy-Driven Learning and Experimentation. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), Recife, Brazil, 9–13 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Woźniak, M.; Lewczuk, A.; Adamkiewicz, K.; Józiewicz, J.; Jaworski, T.; Rowińska, Z. ARchemist: Towards in-situ experimental guidance using augmented reality technology. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing & Multimedia (MoMM ‘20), Chiang Mai, Thailand, 30 November–2 December 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Hu-Au, E.; Okita, S. Exploring Differences in Student Learning and Behavior between Real-life and Virtual Reality Chemistry Laboratories. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2021, 30, 862–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garri, J.M.V.; Santacruz-Valencia, L.P.; Gomez, J. ARMat: When Math is a Game. In Proceedings of the SIIE 2020, Online, 9–13 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Nersesian, E.; Spryszynski, A.; Lee, M.J. Integration of Virtual Reality in Secondary STEM Education. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), Princeton, NJ, USA, 16 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Nordin, N.A.A.; Majid, N.A.A.; Zainal; Ainun, N.F. Mobile augmented reality using 3D ruler in a robotic educational module to promote STEM learning. Bull. Electr. Eng. Inform. 2020, 9, 2499–2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masso, N.; Grace, L. Shapemaker: A game-based introduction to programming. In Proceedings of the 2011 16th International Conference on Computer Games (CGAMES), Louisville, KY, USA, 27–30 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Georgiou, Y.; Tsivitanidou, O.; Ioannou, A. Learning experience design with immersive virtual reality in physics education. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 2021, 69, 3051–3080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peltekova, E.; Stefanova, E.; Nikolova, N. Space Safari: Challenge for STEM Rangers. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies (CompSysTech ‘19), Ruse, Bulgaria, 21–22 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Bazargani, J.S.; Sadeghi-Niaraki, A.; Choi, S.-M. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of an Immersive Virtual Reality-Based Educational Game for Learning Topology Relations at Schools: A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Back, T.; Tinga, A.; Louwerse, M. CAVE-based immersive learning in undergraduate courses: Examining the effect of group size and time of application. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2021, 18, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shojaei, A.; Rokooei, S.; Mahdavian, A.; Carson, L.; Ford, G. Using immersive video technology for construction management content delivery: A pilot study. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2021, 26, 886–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bursztyn, N.; Walker, A.; Shelton, B.; Pederson, J. Assessment of student learning using augmented reality Grand Canyon field trips for mobile smart devices. Geosphere 2017, 13, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Restivo, T.; Chouzal, F.; Rodrigues, J.; Menezes, P.; Lopes, J.B. Augmented reality to improve STEM motivation. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Istanbul, Turkey, 3–5 April 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cherner, Y.E.; Uhomoibhi, J.; Mullett, G.; Kuklja, M.M.; Mkude, C.; Fweja, L.; Wang, H. Implementation of Interactive and Adjustable Cloud-based e-Learning Tools for 21st Century Engineering Education: Challenges and Prospects. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE World Conference on Engineering Education (EDUNINE), Lima, Peru, 17–20 March 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, P.-H.; Huang, Y.-M.; Chen, C.-C. Exploring Imaginative Capability and Learning Motivation Difference Through Picture E-Book. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 63416–63425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossano, V.; Lanzilotti, R.; Cazzolla, A.; Roselli, T. Augmented Reality to Support Geometry Learning. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 107772–107780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, T.; Campbell, D.; Shadish, W. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bursztyn, N.; Shelton, B.; Walker, A.; Pederson, J. Increasing Undergraduate Interest to Learn Geoscience with GPS-based Augmented Reality Field Trips on Students’ Own Smartphones. GSA TODAY 2017, 27, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Surh, J.; Choi, W.; You, B. Immersive Virtual-Reality-Based Streaming Distance Education System for Solar Dynamics Observatory: A Case Study. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adèr, H.; Mellenbergh, G.J. Tests and questionnaires: Construction and administration. In Advising on Research Methods: A Consultant’s Companion; Van Kessel: Huizen, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 211–236. [Google Scholar]
- Stigall, J.; Sharma, S. Virtual reality instructional modules for introductory programming courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), Princeton, NJ, USA, 1 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Arntz, A.; Eimler, S.C.; Keßler, D.; Nabokova, A.; Schädlich, S. Thermodynamics Reloaded: Experiencing Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning in AR. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR), Kumamoto, Japan, 23–25 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
- McCaffery, J.; Miller, A.; Oliver, I.; Allison, C. Augmented learning roads for Internet routing. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, Madrid, Spain, 22–25 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sajjadi, P.; Bagher, M.M.; Cui, Z.; Myrick, J.G.; Swim, J.K.; White, T.S.; Klippel, A. Design of a Serious Game to Inform the Public About the Critical Zone. In Proceedings of the IEEE 8th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 12–14 August 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Batra, J.; Richardson, R.; Webb, R. How can instructors strengthen students’ motivation to learn complex 3D concepts in an engineering classroom? In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Uppsala, Sweden, 21–24 October 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Blundell, C.; Mukherjee, M.; Nykvist, S. A scoping review of the application of the SAMR model in research. Comput. Educ. Open 2022, 3, 100093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lieberman, H.; Paternò, F.; Klann, M.; Wulf, V. End-User Development: An Emerging Paradigm. In End User Development; Human-Computer Interaction Series; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhail, M.; Farooq, S.; Hammad, R.; Bahja, M. Characterizing visual programming approaches for end-user developers: A systematic review. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 14181–14202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VeeR. VeeR: The Future Starts Here. Available online: https://veer.tv/veer-studio (accessed on 17 July 2022).
- VarWin. VarWin: Manageable VR Projects for Business: Custom and Ready-Made Solutions. Available online: https://varwin.com/ (accessed on 17 July 2022).
- An, P.; Holstein, K.; d’Anjou, B.E.B.; Bakker, S. The TA Framework: Designing Real-time Teaching Augmentation for K-12 Classrooms. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 April 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Dunleavy, M. Design Principles for Augmented Reality Learning. TechTrends 2014, 58, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shneiderman, B.; Plaisant, C.; Cohen, M.; Jacobs, S.; Elmqvist, N.; Diakopoulos, N. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction; Pearson: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Nielsen, J. 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Nielsen Norman Group, 15 November 2020. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/ (accessed on 17 July 2022).
- Joyce, A. 10 Usability Heuristics Applied to Virtual Reality. Nielsen Norman Group, 11 July 2021. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-heuristics-virtual-reality/ (accessed on 17 July 2022).
- Tims, H.; Turner, G.E.; Cazes, G.; Marshall, J.M. Junior Cyber Discovery: Creating a Vertically Integrated Middle School Cyber Camp. In Proceedings of the 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX, USA, 10–13 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Majid, N.A.A.; Majid, N.A. Augmented Reality to Promote Guided Discovery Learning for STEM Learning. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2018, 8, 1494–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Immersion | Type | Technology | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
Partially Immersive | Surface Projection | Wall Projector | IDAV’s Tiled Powerwall [34] |
Immersive Desk | ImmersaDesk VR system [34] | ||
Fully Immersive | HMD-based | Mobile VR | Google cardboard [40] |
Enhanced VR | HMDs together with bodysuits or data gloves. | ||
Advanced HMDs | Oculus Rift [41], Oculus Quest [42], HTC Vive [43] | ||
Room-based | CAVE | University of Illinois Visualization Lab’s CAVE [37] | |
Vehicle Simulation | Light Vehicle Simulator [44] |
Type | Technology | Examples |
---|---|---|
Marker-based | Marker-based paper | Blippar [57] |
Marker-based objects | Aurasma [58] | |
Markerless | Location-based | Google Maps [59], Yelp [60]. |
Projection-based | Sandstorm at D23 Expo [54]. | |
Superimposition-based | Medical field. Superimposing an image on the human body [55] |
No. | Study | Area of Focus |
---|---|---|
1. | Kesim and Ozarslan [19], Akçayır and Akçayır [8] | Types of immersive systems |
2. | Kesim and Ozarslan [19], Kavanagh et al. [18] | Applications of immersive technology in education |
3. | Radianti et al. [12] | Learning domains of immersive systems. |
4. | Radianti et al. [12], Kavanagh et al. [18], Pellas et al. [13], Asad et al. [72], Luo et al. [17] | Learning theories and pedagogy behind immersive educational experiences |
5. | Akçayır and Akçayır [8], Kavanagh et al. [18], Quintero et al. [15], Bacca et al. [14], Pellas et al. [13] | Motivations and benefits of immersive technology in education |
6. | Akçayır and Akçayır [8], Kavanagh et al. [18], Bacca et al. [14] | Challenges of immersive technology in education |
7. | Quintero et al. [15], Bacca et al. [14] | Role of immersive technology in educational Inclusion |
8. | Santos et al. [16], Pellas et al. [13], Radianti et al. [12] | Design methods of immersive systems in education |
9. | Santos et al. [16], Bacca et al. [14], Pellas et al. [13], Luo et al. [17] | Evaluation methods of immersive systems in education |
Study | Tech. Type | Field | Type of Tech. | Role of Tech. | Pedagogy | Interaction | Evidence | Challenges |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[19] | AR | Partial | Partial | - | - | Partial | - | - |
[14] | AR | - | - | - | - | - | Partial | - |
[16] | AR | Partial | Partial | Partial | Partial | - | Partial | Partial |
[8] | AR | - | ✔ | - | - | - | - | ✔ |
[18] | VR | ✔ | - | - | - | Partial | - | ✔ |
[15] | AR | - | Partial | - | - | - | Partial | - |
[17] | VR | ✔ | ✔ | Partial | ✔ | Partial | ✔ | - |
[13] | VR | - | - | Partial | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | - |
[12] | VR | ✔ | - | Partial | - | Partial | Partial | - |
[72] | VR | - | - | Partial | - | - | ✔ | - |
This study | VR, AR, MR | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Inclusion Criteria (IC) | Exclusion Criteria (EC) |
---|---|
IC-1: The article is written in English. | EC-1: The duplicated studies with the same content. |
IC-2: The article presents an immersive learning experience. | EC-2: The article is a technical report, tutorial, PhD thesis, or a poster. |
IC-3: The article sufficiently explains the usage of an immersive technology in a learning environment. | EC-3: An article presenting an immersive learning experience that was already introduced in another article (in this case, only the newest article is included.) |
IC-4: The article presents an immersive learning experience applied in a classroom setting or offered to the public. | EC-4: The article presented an immersive learning experience but with little or no empirical evaluation. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kuhail, M.A.; ElSayary, A.; Farooq, S.; Alghamdi, A. Exploring Immersive Learning Experiences: A Survey. Informatics 2022, 9, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9040075
Kuhail MA, ElSayary A, Farooq S, Alghamdi A. Exploring Immersive Learning Experiences: A Survey. Informatics. 2022; 9(4):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9040075
Chicago/Turabian StyleKuhail, Mohammad Amin, Areej ElSayary, Shahbano Farooq, and Ahlam Alghamdi. 2022. "Exploring Immersive Learning Experiences: A Survey" Informatics 9, no. 4: 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9040075
APA StyleKuhail, M. A., ElSayary, A., Farooq, S., & Alghamdi, A. (2022). Exploring Immersive Learning Experiences: A Survey. Informatics, 9(4), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics9040075