Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 May 5:1–24. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11849-8

The use of immersive technologies in distance education: A systematic review

Zeynep Turan 1,✉, Sinem Cilligol Karabey 2
PMCID: PMC10160721  PMID: 37361798

Abstract

This study aims to conduct a systematic review that includes studies on the use of immersive technologies in distance education. For this purpose, 132 studies detected by searching Web of Science, Eric, Taylor & Francis and Education Full Text (EBSCO) databases were examined. The studies were analysed using the content analysis method. As a result of the analyses, it was observed that the first study investigating the subject was conducted in 2002, and the number of related studies increased over the years. In addition, these studies were primarily conducted quantitatively, were mainly journal articles, and originated mostly from China and the USA. Moreover, the sample groups of these studies consisted mostly of university students. Therefore, they mainly used academic performance and motivation variables. Furthermore, these studies were conducted primarily in the science and medical education disciplines. When the studies were evaluated in terms of publication journals, it was determined that they were published mostly in “Education Science” and “Computers & Education” journals. They were also included in the proceedings published within the scope of various conferences. When the application platforms in the studies were examined, it was determined that the UNITY and ARTUTOR platforms were mostly used. The findings of the studies revealed that the increase in academic performance and motivation was one of the most reported advantages of such technologies. On the other hand, the problems caused while using these technologies and the internet were the most reported difficulties in the studies. Finally, the review presented suggestions for future studies.

Keywords: Augmented reality, Virtual reality, Immersive technologies, Distance education, Systematic review

Introduction

Technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. Additionally, the invention of Metaverse and the digital world has spurred educators to want to introduce virtual platforms in educational environments. In particular, virtual environments attract people’s attention owing to the opportunities they offer in distance education, where students and teachers interact only on the internet. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic reminded us that we must transform distance education. Rather than merely “surviving” through a wave of crises, we must learn how to adapt to the new normal (Nesenbergs et al., 2021). Although distance learning environments offer various advantages, such as flexibility, affordability and unlimited repetition (Rodrigues et al., 2014), they also have several disadvantages. Distance education provides students with a more flexible learning environment when compared to face-to-face education; however, it is difficult to ensure that students participate in distance courses at the same level as regular education (Coyne et al., 2018). Pozdnyakova and Pozdnyakov (2017) stated that these difficulties might be mainly associated with the fact that the student and instructor are not physically present in the same environment. At this point, immersive technologies such as VR and AR can help overcome these difficulties. In this sense, innovative technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) enable e-learning environments to have currently robust and flexible learning opportunities that offer learners enhanced dynamism and customisation opportunities (Alzahrani, 2020). Immersive technologies simulate the real world through the virtual world, allowing users to perceive virtual components as a part of the real world and have an immersive experience (Barrett et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021). This study examined immersive technologies based on augmented and virtual reality technologies. In addition, in distance education, researchers have studied innovative instructional technologies and methods to increase the effectiveness of the teaching process. This has brought augmented reality and virtual reality technologies to the forefront.

Virtual reality and augmented reality technologies are attracting people’s attention, mainly due to the commercial availability of new immersive VR/AR platforms and cost-effective standalone VR/AR platforms (Scavarelli et al., 2021). Although VR technology focuses on creating virtual environments by allowing the simulation of physical presence at a specific location in the real world, users can use this technology through several specialised devices that enable them to recreate hearing, seeing, hearing, and even smelling experiences (Guevara et al., 2020). In this sense, Lu et al. (2018) define VR technology as a computer-assisted simulation system that enables the formation of virtual environments to make real interactions. Also, VR technology can be used to overcome the difficulties of distance education (Liu et al., 2019). For example, in their study, Dunnagan and Gallardo-Williams (2020) designed a virtual laboratory to solve the spatial problems experienced due to distance education in organic chemistry laboratory courses during the COVID-19 pandemic and stated that the students were satisfied with this laboratory.

Moreover, in an experimental study conducted by Valenti et al. (2020) to examine how the use of VR technology affected the orientations of students in distance education programs, they found that students using VR technology were more knowledgeable about evaluating their programs compared to the controls. In addition, their anxiety levels about the program decreased slightly, and they were satisfied with VR technology. Thus, it can be asserted that achieving deep and meaningful learning in e-learning environments and maintaining students’ interests and motivation towards learning is more complicated when compared to face-to-face learning environments (Mystakidis et al., 2021). In addition, the high drop-out rates of students in e-learning environments are usually caused by students and their teachers logging in to the system from different locations, experiencing connection problems and lacking motivation (Paulus & Scherff, 2008). In this regard, virtual environments can offer opportunities for individuals to socialise and increase their motivation.

AR technology allows virtual objects to be viewed in real environments (Azuma et al., 2001). AR can be regarded as a virtual extension of people’s reality in a system owing to three major features: real-time interaction, combined reality, and virtuality. Thus, AR has become a frequently studied technology in educational studies. Le and Nguyen (2020) state that AR offers cost-effective, easy-to-use solutions for academic settings. In this sense, in the study conducted by Çetin and Türkan (2022) with 15 third-grade students, they examined how the AR-based applications they developed for the science course affected the achievement and attitudes of the students who were taking science courses in distance education and found that students’ achievement levels and attitudes changed positively through these applications. In another study, Altunpulluk et al. (2020) evaluated the use of AR technology in distance education by holding interviews with 14 field experts through the Delphi technique and stated that AR is an up-and-coming technology in the context of distance education and made positive contributions to disabled students as well as healthy students during distance education.

While VR and AR are similar in using many equivalent technologies, such as tracking sensors and displays, they represent two different approaches to blending real and virtual world realities (Scavarelli et al., 2021). While artificial environments do not interact with the real world in virtual reality-assisted environments, augmented reality-assisted applications offer users the opportunity to interact with both artificial and real worlds simultaneously (Carmigniani & Furht, 2011). VR is not a novel technology; however, due to advancements in visualisation and interaction possibilities, it has become more and more interesting for researchers, and head-mounted displays, especially HTC Vive and Oculus Rift, allow users to have a high level of immersion experience (Radianti et al., 2020).

Although there are systematic reviews examining the studies on the use of augmented reality and virtual reality technologies in education, there is no comprehensive systematic review examining the studies on using these two technologies in the context of distance education. For instance, Tang et al. (2022) analysed 128 indexed articles on the Web of Science through a systematic review. The results show immersive technology is now widely used by physicians, medical students, and interns, primarily in surgery anatomy-related subjects. In addition, the authors discussed the evaluation methods and performance outcomes of immersive technology applications in medical education and practice. In their review, examining 54 studies on the state of immersive technology research in diverse settings, including education, marketing, business, and healthcare Suh and Prophet (2018) provide a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature on immersive technologies, including virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality. The authors identified four main themes in the literature related to immersive technologies: (1) the impact of immersive technologies on learning outcomes, (2) the use of immersive technologies in training and simulations, (3) the effects of immersive technologies on user experience and engagement, and (4) the ethical and social implications of immersive technologies. In another study examining 30 studies on the use of AR and VR in distance education in the context of higher education, Nesenbergs et al. (2021) stated that these studies mainly focused on laboratory or practical skills and yielded positive findings. The present systematic review differs from existing studies since it is not limited to only the context of higher education and examines the related studies in more detail. Also, this study is thought to benefit researchers working on the subject and practitioners in this field. Distance education is spreading worldwide, and schools, universities and especially open education faculties and universities should reconsider their education processes with technological advancements. In this sense, it can be asserted that a detailed examination of the studies on immersive technologies in distance education will be useful in describing the current situation and providing guidance for future predictions. In addition, the findings of this study will be useful in closing the gaps in the literature. In this regard, the studies on the use of immersive technologies in distance education were assessed in this systematic review. The research questions are as follows:

  • Research Question 1 (RQ1). What are the trends in immersive technologies in the context of distance education studies?

  • Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are the application platforms, environments for presenting materials, variables, and types of teaching preferred in using immersive technologies in distance education?

  • Research Question 3 (RQ3): What are the advantages and disadvantages of using immersive technologies in distance education?

Method

In this study, the systematic literature review method was used. The systematic literature review includes the following stages; doing a comprehensive search for the studies published to create a solution to an application-related problem, evaluating the quality of the studies based on their inclusion and exclusion criteria, determining studies to be included in the review, and synthesising the findings of the studies included in the review (Kowalczyk & Truluck, 2013). The method followed is the main difference between systematic and literature reviews. In the former, articles are accessed in a detailed, organised way through various databases. On the other hand, literature reviews are often done less systematically, and articles are obtained from only a few databases (Robinson & Lowe, 2015).

Data collection

The searching process of this systematic review was completed on April 9, 2022, through Web of Science, ERIC, Taylor & Francis and Education Full Text EBSCO databases. These databases were preferred because they contain a significant number of studies on education. Table 1 shows the individual keywords and their combinations. Both keywords and search strings were used to search.

Table 1.

Search terms

“Augmented Reality” OR “Mixed Reality” OR “Virtual Reality” OR “Virtual World” OR “Virtual Environments”

AND

“Distance Education” OR “Online Learning” OR “e-Learning” OR “Open Learning” OR “MOOC”

Open in a new tab

Data analysis

The articles/proceedings included in the study were analysed by one of the researchers, and it was aimed to increase the reliability of the analyses through checking by another researcher. This study used content analysis as the data analysis method, a form was prepared using Microsoft Word program, and sections were included to answer the research questions. These sections in the form included the number of the article/proceeding, type of the article/proceeding, database of the article/proceeding, name of the article/proceeding, publication venue of the article/proceeding, the publication year of the article/proceeding, method of the article/proceeding, the sample of the article/proceeding, education level of the sample, the country where the article/proceeding was conducted, the application platforms used in the article/proceeding, the type of material used, the discipline in which the study was conducted; the variables examined in the study, the effect level of augmented/virtual reality in distance education, the advantages of using augmented/virtual reality in distance education, the disadvantages of using augmented/virtual reality in distance education, and the type of teaching preferred in the studies. Once the studies were carefully read, this form was filled out for each study. Then, the data in the form was converted into codes, categories, and graphics using the Microsoft Excel program. Table 2 details the examinations made within the scope of the research questions during the analysis process. In the present systematic review, the data of the studies examined by the content analysis method were presented descriptively through figures and tables.

Table 2.

Subcategories of the research questions

Research question Subcategories
(RQ1) Distribution of the studies by years: To ascertain the overall number of studies by years, the publication years of the studies were looked at.
Research methods: The methods employed were determined by looking at the methods section of each study.
Distribution of the study types: The publication types of studies on immersive technologies in distance education were examined.
Countries of the studies: By looking at each study’s abstract, method section, and author workplaces and locations, the nations in which the studies were carried out were identified.
Study participants: Each study’s method section contained information that helped identify the participant types.
Disciplines examined: To identify the different forms of immersive technologies in distance education according to their domains, each study’s abstract and method sections were carefully studied.
Publication venues: The publication venues were revealed by examining each study’s journals and conference proceedings.
(RQ2) Application platforms: The applications were determined and used in studies examining immersive technologies in distance education.
Environments for presenting materials: The settings shown were determined and used in studies examining immersive technologies in distance education.
Variables: Each study was carefully examined to identify the variables by paying particular attention to the abstracts, research questions, and findings sections.
Types of teaching: The preferred teaching types in studies evaluating immersive technology in remote education were identified by carefully analysing the method section of each study.
(RQ3) Advantages and disadvantages of immersive technologies in distance education: The advantages and disadvantages of immersive technology were investigated by looking at each study’s findings, discussion, and conclusion.
Open in a new tab

A total of 207 articles were accessed from four databases examined within the scope of the review (Fig. 1). After reviewing the titles and abstracts, 36 out of 207 articles were excluded because they were unrelated to AR, VR, and distance education. The remaining ten articles were excluded because they were not written in English. The remaining 161 articles were generally reviewed in terms of eligibility for the study, and it was determined that 29 of the articles did not comply with the scope of the review. Eight of these studies were not related to distance education, and the other ten studies did not focus on AR or VR applications in distance education; therefore, they were not included in the review. On the other hand, the remaining 11 articles were excluded from the consideration because they only contained descriptive information about AR or VR applications in distance education and were not scientific research studies. As a result, 132 studies were included.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Diagram of the systematic review process (adapted from Liberati et al., 2009)

First, two researchers coded twenty randomly selected articles separately to ensure inter-rater reliability. The Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was then calculated to be 0.79 using SPSS for two codes. Values between 0.61 and 0.80 represent the ideal agreement level between the researchers, according to Viera and Garrett (2005).

Findings

The articles/proceedings determined from the search on the Web of Science, ERIC, Taylor & Francis and Education Full Text EBSCO databases for the studies on augmented/virtual reality used in distance education were analysed. The findings of the analysis are presented below based on the research questions.

Distribution of the studies by years

Figure 2 shows the distribution of studies using immersive technologies in distance education over the years. When Fig. 2 was examined, it was observed that the first of the studies were conducted in 2002, and the number of studies increased rapidly in the following years. In addition, as seen in Fig. 2, the articles and proceedings mainly belonged to 2021.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Distribution of the studies by years

Distribution of the studies in terms of their research methods

Figure 3 shows the distribution of the methods used in the studies. Based on Fig. 3, quantitative (n = 45) and system development (n = 38) methods were used primarily in the studies. The least used method in the studies was the literature review (n = 12).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Distribution of the methods used in the studies

Distribution of the studies in terms of their type

Figure 4 shows the types of studies included in the review. Based on Fig. 4, these studies were mostly journal articles (n = 92) and proceedings (n = 40).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Distribution of the studies in terms of their type

Distribution of the studies in terms of the country

Figure 5 shows the distribution of the studies included in the review by the countries where they were conducted. When Fig. 5 was analysed, it was determined that these studies were conducted mostly in China (n = 16) and the USA (n = 15).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Distribution of the studies in terms of the countries

Distribution of the studies in terms of the sample group

Figure 6 shows the distribution of the studies in terms of the sample group. Based on Fig. 6, the studies were conducted mostly with higher education students (n = 51). The other sample groups preferred in the studies consisted of postgraduate students (n = 23) and university instructors (n = 18). The least preferred sample groups in the studies were health personnel (n = 8) and elementary students (n = 8).

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Distribution of the studies in terms of the sample group

Distribution of the studies in terms of the discipline

Table 3 shows the distribution of the studies according to their disciplines. Accordingly, the studies included in the study were conducted mostly in the fields of Science Education (n = 24), Medical Education (n = 20), and Foreign Language Teaching (n = 17).

Table 3.

Distribution of the studies in terms of the discipline

Field Sub-Branches Number of Studies (Sub-Branches) Total
Science Education Chemistry 9 24
Biology 6
Physics 4
General 5
Medical Education 20
Foreign Language Teaching 17
Information Technology 14
Engineering Education Electrical-Engineering Education 4 12
Computer Education 6
Industrial Engineering Education 2
Mathematics Education 11
Computing and informatics 10
Instructional Technology 9
Architecture Education 5
Tourism 4
Clinical Psychology 2
Political Science 1
Unspecified 3
Total 132
Open in a new tab

Distribution of the studies in terms of journals/conference

Tables 4 and 5 show journals and conferences in which the related studies were published. As seen in Table 4, 92 articles were published mostly in the journals “Education Sciences” (n = 6) and “Computers & Education” (n = 5), respectively.

Table 4.

Distribution of the publication journals of the studies

Journal Name f Journal Name f
Education Sciences 6 Computer Assisted Language Learning 1
Computers & Education 5 Communications in Information Science and Management Engineering 1
Computer Applications in Engineering Education 4 Information Services & Use 1
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning 4 Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 1
Information & Communications Technology 3 I-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology 1
Applied Mechanics and Materials 3 IEEE Advancing Technology and Humanity 1
International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies 3 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 1
Journal of Chemical Education 3 Open Praxis 1
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 3 Behavior & Information Technology 1
IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 2 Technology, Pedagogy and Education 1
Journal of Universal Computer Science 2 Computer Assisted Language Learning 1
Interactive Learning Environments 2 Innovations in Education and Teaching International 1
Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning 2 World Journal of Engineering 1
The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 2 Interactive Learning Environments 1
Computers 2 Universal Access in the Information Society 1
Theory and Research in Education 2 Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 1
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 2 Hindawi Journal of Mathematics 1
International Journal of Engineering Technologies 2 Engineer 1
International Journal of Web Information Systems 2 Contemporary Nurse 1
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 2 Total 92
Journal of Political Science Education 2
International Association of Online Engineering 2
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education 2
Higher Education Studies 2
Educational and Information Technologies 2
Educational Media International 2
Applied Sciences 2
Distance Education 1
Croatian Journal of Education 1
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 1
Open in a new tab

Table 5.

Distribution of the conferences in which studies were published

Journal Name f Journal Name f
International Conference on Virtual Learning 2 International Conference on Mobile Ad Hoc and Smart Systems 1
International Conference Mobile Learning 2 Convention and Workshop of the Network of Sport and Health Science 1
IEEE Serious Games and Applications for Health 2 Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering 1
International Conference on Advances in Education and Management 2 Conference on Information Systems and Technologies 1
International Conference on Computers in Education 2 International Conference on Distance Education and Learning 1
International Conference on Computing and Applied Informatics 2 International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems 1
WSEAS International Conference on E-ACTIVITIES 2 International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies 1
International Conference on Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education 2 Total 40
International Technology, Education and Development Conference 2
International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence 1
International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing 1
International Technology, Education and Development Conference 1
International Conference on Informatics, Health & Technology 1
International Conf Human-Computer Interaction 1
International Scientific Conference E-Learning And Software for Education 1
In Proceedings Of The Combined European Concurrent Engineering Conference 1
International Conference Educational Technologies 1
IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies 1
IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference 1
IEEE Conference on Virtual Environments, Human-Computer Interfaces and Measurement Systems 1
International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment 1
International Conference on Engineering & MIS 1
International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network 1
Teaching & Education Conference 1
Open in a new tab

In addition, when Table 5 was examined, it was determined that 40 proceedings were presented in various conference organisations. In this sense, it was observed that the studies were published mostly in the following conferences: “International Conference on Virtual Learning”, “International Conference Mobile Learning”, “IEEE Serious Games and Applications for Health”, “International Conference on Advances in Education and Management”, “International Conference on Computers in Education”, “International Conference on Computing and Applied Informatics”, “WSEAS International Conference on E-ACTIVITIES”, “International Conference on Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education”, and “International Technology, Education and Development Conference”.

Distribution of the studies in terms of application platform

Figure 7 shows the distribution of application platforms used in the studies. As seen in Fig. 7, UNITY (n = 36) and ARTUTOR (n = 12) application platforms were mostly used in these studies.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

Distribution of the application platforms used in studies

Distribution of the environments where materials are presented

Figure 8 shows the environments in which materials are presented in these studies. As can be seen in Fig. 8, it was observed that the environments in which the materials were presented in the studies were mostly computer (49%) and mobile (30%). In addition, some studies used computers and mobile (21%).

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Open in a new tab

Environments in which materials were presented in studies

Distribution of the studies in terms of the examined variables

Table 6 shows the distributions of the variables examined in the studies. As seen in Table 6, it was determined that the variables examined in the studies were mostly achievement/performance (n = 48) and motivation (n = 37), and the least examined variables were cognitive affordances (n = 3) and recall (n = 2).

Table 6.

The variables examined in the studies

The Examined Variables f The Examined Variables f
Achievement/ Performance 48 Excitement 7
Motivation 37 Attention 7
Attitude 32 Drop-out 6
Cooperation/Collaboration 21 Perceived behavioural control 6
Engagement 19 Behavioural intention 5
Feeling of reality 16 Self-regulation 5
Satisfaction 13 Critical thinking 4
Learning experience 12 Individual learning 4
Interaction 10 Cognitive Affordances 3
Enjoyment 9 Recall 2
Usability 9
Flexibility 7
Skills 7
Open in a new tab

Distribution of the studies in terms of the type of teaching

Figure 9 shows the types of teaching preferred in the studies. As can be seen in Fig. 9, it was determined that the preferred teaching types in the studies were mostly distance education (77%), MOOC (16%), and Open University (7%), respectively.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

Open in a new tab

Distribution of the variables examined in studies

Advantages of the immersive technologies

Table 7 reveals the advantages of the use of immersive technologies in distance education. It was determined that the most reported advantages in the studies were increasing learning achievement/performance (n = 48), boosting learners’ attention and motivation (n = 37), and enhancing the engagement of learners (n = 19), respectively.

Table 7.

Advantages of using immersive technologies in distance education

Advantages f Sample Article
Increases learning achievement/performance 48 Eldokhny and Drwish (2021)
Boosting learner’s attention and motivation 37 Alzahrani (2020)
Enhancing the engagement of learners 19 Luke et al. (2021)
Improving learning by experience skills of learners 14 Yildiz and Demiray (2022)
Boosting learner’s satisfaction 13 Rozinaj et al. (2018)
Improving the online social collaboration experience 12 Yepez et al. (2020)
Visibility and variety of teaching methods and materials 10 Sitharan et al. (2020)
Enriching the learning environment 9 Rozinaj et al. (2018)
Enhancing peer interactions 5 Yilmaz et al. (2016)
Providing a learning environment at learners’ own pace 5 Patil et al. (2016)
Improving procedural learning skills of learners 5 Valdez et al. (2013)
Providing a constructivist learning environment 4 Sood and Singh (2018)
Easy enhancement of existing learning material by teachers or learners 3 Lytridis et al. (2018)
Reducing the cognitive load of students 2 Holopainen et al. (2022)
Enhancing student-teacher interactions 2 Zhang and Lin (2020)
Improving the learning permanence of learners 1 Doumanis et al. (2019)
Enhancing the self-regulation of learners 1 Cabrera-Umpierrez et al. (2006)
Open in a new tab

Disadvantages of the immersive technologies

Table 8 reveals the disadvantages of using immersive technologies in distance education. It was determined that most of the studies mentioned technology/Internet-related problems (n = 12), the problem of adaptation to all platforms (n = 9), and disadvantages related to technological and pedagogical adaptation (n = 8).

Table 8.

Disadvantages of using immersive technologies in distance education

Disadvantages f Sample Article
Technology/Internet-related problems 12 Rozinaj et al. (2018)
The problem of adaptation to all platforms 9 Birt et al. (2017)
Technological and pedagogical adaptation 8 Rogerson-Revell et al. (2012)
Increasing cost in terms of users 6 Lobo et al. (2020)
Learners’ individual differences 4 Alkhattabi (2017)
The extra workload for teachers 3 Lee et al. (2009)
Lack of direct contact between teacher and trainee 3 El Kabtane et al. (2020)
Information security problem for learners 1 Zeide and Nissenbaum (2018)
Open in a new tab

Discussion

This study aims to systematically review the studies on the use of immersive technologies in distance education. In this sense, the general features, methodological features, and findings of the studies examined in the present systematic review were presented as the advantages and disadvantages of using immersive technologies in distance education. In this regard, it was observed that the first study on immersive technologies in distance education was conducted in 2002. When the studies conducted since 2002 were examined, it was determined that the number of related studies increased and were conducted mostly in 2021. This is associated with the increase in the number of studies and technological developments. Moreover, it can be asserted that studies on the Metaverse, which came to the fore after the COVID-19 pandemic, contributed to this increase. Additionally, the recent increase in studies due to the current conditions, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic, indicates that technological innovation in education systems has come to the fore more than before (Rashid et al., 2021). In addition, the number of studies, especially after 2019, shows that these technologies are used more in various contexts in distance education, and educators’ interest in these technologies is increasing (Hincapie et al., 2021).

When the research methods used in the studies were examined, it was determined that quantitative and system development methods were most preferred. This finding can be associated with the interest in immersive technologies developing each day and the opportunity to reach many students in distance education. Additionally, since it is crucial to reach many people in quantitative research design and it is relatively easier to reach many people in distance education, the number of studies using this method may increase. Another reason for this finding on using quantitative methods in the studies stems from the researchers’ concern about objectively testing AR technology’s effects on students’ learning (Hrastinski & Keller, 2007).

It was determined that the studies examined in this systematic review consisted of journal articles more than conference proceedings. This finding was because journal articles are more permanent than conference proceedings and are cited more by researchers (Lisée et al., 2008). In addition, many researchers tend to publish extended versions of the studies they presented at conferences as journal articles (González-Albo & Bordons, 2011). On the other hand, when the distribution of the studies examined in this systematic review was analysed according to the countries where they were conducted, it was found that the studies were conducted mostly in China and the USA, respectively. This finding can be associated with the fact that these countries are pioneers in technological development. Moreover, this situation can be handled by making immersive technologies more prevalent among countries, especially in applied studies. Rashid et al. (2021) state that the research and development processes are the main foci for researchers in high-income economies (developed countries).

On the other hand, scientists in developing countries use technology invented by those in developed countries. Moreover, access to mobile devices, the internet, software, and immersive technology applications is growing rapidly, particularly in developing countries. As a result, the use of immersive technologies in educational environments and the number of studies investigating such technologies will likely increase (Akçayir & Akçayir, 2017).

When the sample groups included in the studies were examined, it was observed that the most preferred sample group was higher education students. This finding can be associated with university students receiving education through distance education at a higher rate. In addition, the fact that university students are easily accessible and their self-regulation skills are more advanced may be why the studies should include this sample group. The findings showed that the studies using immersive technologies were not limited to a specific discipline. Even though immersive technology requires a multidisciplinary nature, the studies in this review used this technology mostly in science and medical education. This may be because the complicated and high-cost application or experimental studies, which can attract the attention of students studying at higher education levels, can be easily supported with immersive technologies (Agbo et al., 2021). On the other hand, this finding can be explained by the fact that immersive technologies allow us to embody abstract concepts and simulate potentially dangerous situations (Cakiroglu, 2014; Klopfer & Squire, 2008). These immersive technologies’ features allow students receiving surgical education to conduct trials without harming the patient (Yoon et al., 2018).

It was determined that the examined studies were published mostly in “Education Sciences” and “Computers & Education” journals and included in different conferences’ proceedings. Therefore, this finding can be associated with these prominent and well-known journals. Furthermore, the studies revealed that Unity was mainly used as the application platform since it is open-source and easy to use.

Technology plays a vital role in immersive technologies (Wu et al., 2013); today, advances in PCs, mobile devices, hardware, and sophisticated head-mounted displays (HMD) give people more access to immersive technologies. On the other hand, other immersive technologies have different properties in terms of cost, accessibility and usability in educational environments. Desktop computers, for instance, can run AR apps, but they are not portable due to hardware restrictions (Chiang et al., 2014). Furthermore, mobile devices offer several benefits, including portability, promotion of high social interaction, and independent operation (Hwang et al., 2012). However, it can be thought that immersive technologies are generally presented in the classroom environment under the instructor’s control; therefore, they are used in the computer environment more.

It was observed that the studies mainly investigated academic performance, motivation, and attitude variables. The reason behind investigating these variables is that there are limited studies on immersive technologies in distance education. Therefore, these variables, especially academic performance, are essential in evaluating the effectiveness of technology in learning environments. Moreover, Arici et al. (2019), in their systematic review study on AR technologies, reported that the variables examined in the studies were mostly “learning/academic success”, “motivation”, and “attitude”, and these results support the findings of the present review. Therefore, it is logical that these factors are considered in conjunction with the examined studies because motivation and attitude significantly affect academic accomplishment (Lu & Liu, 2015; Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013). Furthermore, as AR is a newly-emerging technology, it is essential to understand attitudes towards it. In addition, motivation and attitude play a significant role in determining one’s desire to use new technologies (Baydas & Goktas, 2016; Hsiao et al., 2012).

When the contexts of the studies included in the systematic review were examined, it was observed that they examined mostly distance education contexts but Open Universities and MOOCs, albeit less. The reason for this finding is that the concept of “distance education” is an inclusive term and practice. Furthermore, it was determined that the advantage of using immersive technologies in distance education was the increased academic performance and motivation in the studies. This finding is consistent with the results of studies in the literature (Nesenbergs et al., 2021; Rizov & Rizova, 2015). Furthermore, Mayer’s spatial and continuity principles can also explain the increased academic performance associated with using immersive technologies (2009). In this sense, it can be asserted that well-designed immersive environments can reduce students’ cognitive load and thus increase their performance. On the other hand, it was observed that the most mentioned disadvantage in studies on the use of immersive technologies in distance education was a technology/Internet-related problems. This finding can be associated with the fact that immersive technologies are high cost and there is not enough internet speed to access the environments developed with this technology, as stated in the literature (Ellaway et al., 2003; Saleem et al., 2017).

Conclusion and recommendations

Consequently, it was observed that studies investigating immersive technologies in the context of distance education were primarily published as journal articles, the number of related studies increased over the years, and the studies were mainly conducted using the quantitative method. In addition, using immersive technologies in distance education had many positive learning outcomes. Still, using these technologies in distance education also brought several disadvantages, especially technological/internet-related problems. In light of this study, the following recommendations for future studies can be presented:

  • It was observed that the studies examined in this review were conducted mostly using the quantitative method. Therefore, It is recommended to conduct further studies using the qualitative approach to examine students’ interactions with the environment in depth by using immersive technologies in the context of distance education.

  • It was determined that the studies mainly included university students. Therefore, it is recommended to analyse the effects of immersive technologies in distance education of high and secondary school students.

  • Investigating how immersive technologies in distance education affect attention, self-regulation and drop-out variables is recommended.

  • It is recommended to examine quantitatively the effect of immersive technologies on learning in distance education environments using the meta-analysis method.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Zeynep Turan, Email: zeynepatauniv@hotmail.com, Email: zeynepturan@atauni.edu.tr.

Sinem Cilligol Karabey, Email: sinem.karabey@atauni.edu.tr.

References

  1. Agbo FJ, Sanusi IT, Oyelere SS, Suhonen J. Application of virtual reality in computer science education: A systemic review based on bibliometric and content analysis methods. Education Sciences. 2021;11(3):142. doi: 10.3390/educsci11030142. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Akçayir M, Akçayir G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review. 2017;20:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alkhattabi M. Augmented reality as E-learning tool in primary schools’ education: Barriers to teachers’ adoption. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 2017;12(02):91–100. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v12i02.6158. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Altunpulluk H, Kesim M, Kurubacak G. The usability of augmented reality in open and distance learning systems: A qualitative Delphi study. Open Praxis. 2020;12(2):283–307. doi: 10.5944/openpraxis.12.2.1017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Alzahrani NM. Augmented reality: A systematic review of its benefits and challenges in e-learning contexts. Applied Sciences. 2020;10(16):5660. doi: 10.3390/app10165660. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Arici F, Yildirim P, Caliklar Ş, Yilmaz RM. Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and bibliometric mapping analysis. Computers & Education. 2019;142:103647. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103647. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Azuma R, Baillot Y, Behringer R, Feiner S, Julier S, MacIntyre B. Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. 2001;21(6):34–47. doi: 10.1109/38.963459. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Barrett AJ, Pack A, Quaid ED. Understanding learners’ acceptance of high-immersion virtual reality systems: Insights from confirmatory and exploratory PLS-SEM analyses. Computers & Education. 2021;169:104214. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104214. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Baydas O, Goktas Y. Teachers and preservice teachers intentions to use ICT: The keys to ICT integration in school. Mersin University Journal of Faculty Education. 2016;12(1):145–162. [Google Scholar]
  10. Birt J, Moore E, Cowling M. Improving paramedic distance education through mobile mixed reality simulation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2017;33(6):69–83. doi: 10.14742/ajet.3596. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cabrera-Umpierrez, M. F., Ramirez, C. M., Sevillano, A., Arredondo, M. T., & DeSmedt, A. (2006). Medical educational e-platform through virtual reality technologies. In MELECON 2006-2006 IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (pp. 453-456). IEEE.
  12. Cakiroglu U. Evaluating students’ perspectives about virtual classrooms with regard to seven principles of good practice. South African Journal of Education. 2014;34(2):1–19. doi: 10.15700/201412071201. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carmigniani, J., & Furht, B. (2011). Augmented reality: An overview. Handbook of Augmented Reality, 3–46.
  14. Çetin H, Türkan A. The effect of augmented reality based applications on achievement and attitude towards science course in distance education process. Education and Information Technologies. 2022;27:1397–1415. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10625-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chiang TH, Yang SJ, Hwang GJ. Students’ online interactive patterns in augmented reality-based inquiry activities. Computers & Education. 2014;78:97–108. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Coyne L, Takemoto JK, Parmentier BL, Merritt T, Sharpton RA. Exploring virtual reality as a platform for distance team-based learning. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 2018;10(10):1384–1390. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2018.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Doumanis I, Economou D, Sim GR, Porter S. The impact of multimodal collaborative virtual environments on learning: A gamified online debate. Computers & Education. 2019;130:121–138. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dunnagan CL, Gallardo-Williams MT. Overcoming physical separation during COVID-19 using virtual reality in organic chemistry laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education. 2020;97(9):3060–3063. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00548. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. El Kabtane H, El Adnani M, Sadgal M, Mourdi Y. Virtual reality and augmented reality at the service of increasing interactivity in MOOCs. Education and Information Technologies. 2020;25(4):2871–2897. doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-10054-w. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Eldokhny AA, Drwish AM. Effectiveness of augmented reality in online distance learning at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. 2021;16(9):198–217. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v16i09.17895. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellaway R, Dewhurst D, Cumming A. Managing and supporting medical education with a virtual learning environment: The Edinburgh electronic medical curriculum. Medical Teacher. 2003;25(4):372–380. doi: 10.1080/0142159031000136789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. González-Albo B, Bordons M. Articles vs. proceedings papers: Do they differ in research relevance and impact? A case study in the library and information science field. Journal of Informetrics. 2011;5(3):369–381. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Guevara, L., Yépez, J., & Guerrero Idrovo, G. (2020). Virtual reality, a telepresence technique applied to distance education: A systematic mapping review. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. (pp. 587-591).
  24. Hincapie M, Diaz C, Valencia A, Contero M, Güemes-Castorena D. Educational applications of augmented reality: A bibliometric study. Computers & Electrical Engineering. 2021;93:107289. doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107289. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Holopainen J, Lähtevänoja A, Lammassaari H, Osmo M, Pöyry E, Parvinen P. Best of both worlds: A model combining online and mixed reality learning environments based on cognitive affordances. Educational Media International. 2022;59(1):45–61. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2021.1976824. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hrastinski S, Keller C. An examination of research approaches that underlie research on educational technology: A review from 2000 to 2004. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2007;36(2):175–190. doi: 10.2190/H16L-4662-6000-044. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hsiao KF, Chen NS, Huang SY. Learning while exercising for science education in augmented reality among adolescents. Interactive Learning Environments. 2012;20(4):331–349. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2010.486682. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hwang GJ, Tsai CC, Chu HC, Kinshuk K, Chen CY. A context-aware ubiquitous learning approach to conducting scientific inquiry activities in a science park. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2012;28(5):931–947. doi: 10.14742/ajet.825. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Klopfer E, Squire K. Environmental detectives-the development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2008;56(2):203–228. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kowalczyk N, Truluck C. Literature reviews and systematic reviews: What is the difference? Radiologic Technology. 2013;85(2):219–222. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Le, H., & Nguyen, M. (2020). An online platform for enhancing learning experiences with web-based augmented reality and pictorial Bar code. In: Geroimenko, V. (eds) Augmented reality in education. Springer series on cultural computing. Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-42156-4_3
  32. Lee SH, Choi J, Park JI. Interactive e-learning system using pattern recognition and augmented reality. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics. 2009;55(2):883–890. doi: 10.1109/TCE.2009.5174470. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., … Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, b2700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. Lisée C, Lariviére V, Archambault E. Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2008;59(11):1776–1784. doi: 10.1002/asi.20888. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu, Y., Fan, X., Zhou, X., Liu, M., Wang, J., & Liu, T. (2019). Application of virtual reality technology in distance higher education. 2019 4th International Conference on Distance Education and Learning, (pp. 35-39).
  36. Lobo, M. J., Hurter, C., & Irani, P. (2020). Flex-ER: A platform to evaluate interaction techniques for immersive visualizations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(ISS), 1–20. 10.1145/3427323
  37. Lu SJ, Liu YC. Integrating augmented reality technology to enhance children’s learning in marine education. Environmental Education Research. 2015;21(4):525–541. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2014.911247. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lu H, Li Y, Chen M, Kim H, Serikawa S. Brain intelligence: Go beyond artificial intelligence. Mobile Networks and Applications. 2018;23(2):368–375. doi: 10.1007/S11036-017-0932-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Luke, S. E., Ford, D. J., Vaughn, S. M., & Fulchini-Scruggs, A. (2021). An online field experience using mixed reality virtual simulation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-20.
  40. Lytridis C, Tsinakos A, Kazanidis I. ARTutor-an augmented reality platform for interactive distance learning. Education Sciences. 2018;8(6):1–12. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mayer RE. Multimedia learning. Cambridge university press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mystakidis S, Berki E, Valtanen J-P. Deep and meaningful e-learning with social virtual reality environments in higher education: A systematic literature review. Applied Sciences. 2021;11(5):2412. doi: 10.3390/app11052412. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Nesenbergs, K., Abolins, V., Ormanis, J., & Mednis, A. (2021). Use of augmented and virtual reality in remote higher education: A systematic umbrella review. Education Sciences, 11(8). 10.3390/educsci11010008
  44. Patil, S., Prabhu, C., Neogi, O., Joshi, A. R., & Katre, N. (2016). E-learning system using augmented reality. In 2016 International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation (ICCUBEA) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
  45. Paulus T, Scherff L. “Can anyone offer any words of encouragement?” online dialogue as a support mechanism for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2008;16(1):113–136. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pozdnyakova O, Pozdnyakov A. Adult students’ problems in the distance learning. Procedia Engineering. 2017;178:243–248. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.105. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Radianti J, Majchrzak TA, Fromm J, Wohlgenannt I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education. 2020;147:103778. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rashid S, Khattak A, Ashiq M, Ur Rehman S, Rashid Rasool M. Educational landscape of virtual reality in higher education: Bibliometric evidences of publishing patterns and emerging trends. Publications. 2021;9(2):17. doi: 10.3390/publications9020017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rizov D, Rizova D. Augmented reality as a teaching tool in higher education. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering Education. 2015;3(1):7–16. doi: 10.23947/2334-8496-2015-3-1-7-15. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Robinson P, Lowe J. Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2015;39(2):103. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Rodrigues SJ, Affonso SA, Quinelato E, Montiel JM. Distance learning in undergraduate education: The challenges of building a collaborative environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;116:3499–3501. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.791. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Rogerson-Revell P, Nie M, Armellini A. An evaluation of the use of voice boards, e-book readers and virtual worlds in a postgraduate distance learning applied linguistics and TESOL programme. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. 2012;27(2):103–119. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2012.678610. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Rozinaj, G., Vančo, M., Vargic, R., Minárik, I., & Polakovič, A. (2018). Augmented/virtual reality as a tool of self-directed learning. In 2018 25th International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing (IWSSIP) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
  54. Saleem K, Shahzad B, Orgun MA, Al-Muhtadi J, Rodrigues JJ, Zakariah M. Design and deployment challenges in immersive and wearable technologies. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2017;36(7):687–698. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2016.1275808. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Scavarelli A, Arya A, Teather RJ. Virtual reality and augmented reality in social learning spaces: A literature review. Virtual Reality. 2021;25:257–277. doi: 10.1007/s10055-020-00444-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Sitharan, R., Kian, N. T., Mai, N., Yeen-Ju, H. T., Abd Aziz, M. S., & Dollmat, K. S. B. (2020). Work-in-progress—assisting AR, VR and Hologram learning experience through MOOC. In 2020 6th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN) (pp. 366-368). IEEE.
  57. Sood SK, Singh KD. An optical-fog assisted EEG-based virtual reality framework for enhancing E-learning through educational games. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. 2018;26(5):1565–1576. doi: 10.1002/cae.21965. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Suh A, Prophet J. The state of immersive technology research: A literature analysis. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018;86:77–90. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Tang YM, Chau KY, Kwok APK, Zhu T, Ma X. A systematic review of immersive technology applications for medical practice and education - trends, application areas, recipients, teaching contents, evaluation methods, and performance. Educational Research Review. 2022;35:100429. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100429. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Valdez, M. T., Ferreira, C. M., & Barbosa, F. M. (2013). Electrical engineering teaching and distance learning using a desktop virtual reality system. In 2013 48th International Universities' Power Engineering Conference (UPEC) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
  61. Valenti S, Lund B, Wang T. Virtual reality as a tool for student orientation in distance education programs. Information Technology and Libraries. 2020;39(2):1–12. doi: 10.6017/ital.v39i2.11937. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistics. Family Medicine. 2005;37(5):360–363. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wojciechowski R, Cellary W. Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education. 2013;68:570–585. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Wu HK, Lee SWY, Chang HY, Liang JC. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education. 2013;62:41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Wu CH, Tang YM, Tsang YP, Chau KY. Immersive learning design for technology education: A soft systems methodology. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:745295. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.745295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Yepez, J., Guevara, L., & Guerrero, G. (2020). AulaVR: Virtual reality, a telepresence technique applied to distance education. In 2020 15th Iberian conference on information systems and technologies (CISTI) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
  67. Yildiz, H., & Demiray, A. (2022). Virtual reality in nursing education 3D intravenous catheterisation e-learning: A randomised controlled trial. Contemporary Nurse, 1-13. 10.1080/10376178.2022.2051573 [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Yilmaz R, Aydemir M, Karaman S, Goktas Y. Social presence in a three-dimensional virtual world used for distance education. Croatian Journal of Education: Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanje. 2016;18(3):859–897. doi: 10.15516/cje.v18i3.1664. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Yoon JW, Chen RE, Kim EJ, et al. Augmented reality for the surgeon: Systematic review. International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2018;14(4):e1914. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1914. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Zeide E, Nissenbaum H. Learner privacy in MOOCs and virtual education. Theory and Research in Education. 2018;16(3):280–307. doi: 10.1177/1477878518815340. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhang Y, Lin CH. Student interaction and the role of the teacher in a state virtual high school: What predicts online learning satisfaction? Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 2020;29(1):57–71. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2019.1694061. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Education and Information Technologies are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES