4.6 Review

Augmented Reality in K-12 Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature from 2000 to 2020

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 14, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su14159725

关键词

augmented reality; K-12 education; systematic literature review; meta-analysis; technology features

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [62177021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reviewed the literature on the application of augmented reality in K-12 education settings between 2000 and 2020. The results revealed interesting findings regarding publication patterns, application fields, technological affordances, instructional designs, and methods in augmented reality literature. The meta-analysis showed a large overall effect size for augmented reality-based instruction.
With its capacity to support student-centered learning through digital transformation and shared experience, augmented reality (AR) has received increasing attention from both researchers and practitioners as an emerging technology to achieve innovative and sustainable education. Therefore, this study systematically reviewed the literature on the application of augmented reality in K-12 education settings between 2000 and 2020. After two stages of screening, 129 articles were selected, and the key research results were analyzed and integrated by adopting a coding scheme including basic information, instruction contexts, technical features, instructional design, and research results. The results revealed interesting findings regarding the augmented reality literature in terms of publication patterns, application fields, technological affordances, instructional designs, and methods. Furthermore, a meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of augmented reality-based instruction, and the results showed a large overall effect size (g = 0.919) with three significant moderators. Finally, the practical significance of AR-based instruction and a future research agenda are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据