Open AccessArticle

Exploiting Augmented Reality Technology in Special Education: A Systematic Review

Andrianthi Kapetanaki

Akrivi Krouska

Christos Troussas

and

Cleo Sgouropoulou

Department of Informatics and Computer Engineering, University of West Attica, 12243 Egaleo, Greece

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Computers 2022, 11(10), 143; https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11100143

Submission received: 27 August 2022 / Revised: 17 September 2022 / Accepted: 20 September 2022 / Published: 21 September 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Virtual & Augmented Reality Innovations for Teachers, Teacher Education, and Professional Development)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

In this systematic review, research works pertaining to the use of augmented reality (AR) in special education are investigated. In recent years, the introduction of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in education has transformed the teaching and learning process. Augmented reality is an emerging technology, which has been widely used in education during the past few years. However, only few studies focus on the advantages and limitations of AR use in special education. This review investigates research in AR educational systems addressed to students with special needs. In total, 14 studies between 2014 and 2022 were selected and analyzed. Specifically, this systematic review examines types of students that have been included in learning scenarios supported of AR, distribution of educational AR studies by field of education, types of technology developed to support the use of AR in special education, and the advantages and limitations of AR use in special education. The findings mainly show that AR technology, used on students with special educational needs, has multiple potential advantages.

Keywords:

augmented reality; educational technology; special education; systematic review

1. Introduction

The rapid spread of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has brought about notable social, political, and financial transformations. It has also affected education, as it has become an inseparable part of today’s educational process [1]. Augmented Reality (AR) is a rapidly emerging technology, which has been widely used in educational settings in recent years [2]. An AR system combines the real world with virtual objects that are embodied in the environment appearing as real [3]. Nowadays, mobile AR applications use a great variety of means, such as head mounted displays, cameras, GPS sensors, smart glasses, smartphones, and tablets to combine real-world environments with digital content [4,5].

In the literature, there are many studies on the use of AR in an educational context; however, a small number of these focus on special education [6,7,8]. Special Education calls for specialized and individualized instruction to facilitate individuals with learning disabilities and communicative, behavioral, or developmental disorders to acquire either learning or functional skills [9]. Augmented Reality technology enables students with special educational needs to reduce behavioral problems, gain independence, and acquire essential skills so as to be integrated into the community [10]. In fact, children with special educational needs benefit notably from augmented reality use, as it provides them real-life experiences [10]. On the other hand, it has been noted that on the strength of augmented reality, students’ readiness, interest, motivation, academic achievements, and self-confidence increases [10,11,12,13], as well as their interaction with peers [12,14].

In view of the above, augmented reality plays an important role in the learning of students with special educational needs by improving the acquisition of skills and knowledge through an interactive environment tailored to their characteristics. As such, investigating the implementation of AR in special education is crucial for enhancing instruction in these environments. To this direction, the target of this study is to present a systematic review of the literature on AR used on special education from 2014 to 2022. Exploring prior research in this field is critical, as it can illustrate the current state of AR use in learning environments, addressed to students with special educational needs, and offer guidance to where future research can be directed.

The novelty of this research is to answer vital questions and to explore the real impact of the technology of AR in the field of Special Education, which is not sufficiently investigated. Additionally, it aims to identify deficiencies, gaps, and trends in the field and can underpin and inform future research in the area, while using the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) [15] for ensuring the quality of this research. The contribution of the study is to provide a guide for researchers who seek to conduct research in AR in special education, as well as for special education teachers who seek to enrich the learning process with this novel technology so that individual differences, disabilities, and special needs of students can be adequately accomplished and handled. There is room for a lot of improvement. In contrast to the current literature in the field, the scope of this study differs in the research gaps that it covers; these are related to the needs of the special education students, the field of education to which AR studies refer, the types of AR technology that have been developed to support special education, and to the advantages and limitations of AR in special education.

2. Research Methodology

This study tackles the need to illustrate the current state of research in exploitation of AR learning systems in Special Education. Since AR is a novel technology, it is highly important to obtain an overview of its implementation in learning environments, addressed to students with special educational needs. In view of the above, this study followed the 5-phase process developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) [15] for systematic review studies. Figure 1 illustrates the steps of research methodology.

A.: Identifying the research questions:

This work aims to identify the trends in AR use in special education studies conducted between the years 2014 and 2022. Hence, answers to the following questions were sought:

What special educational needs have the students included in the learning scenarios using AR?
To which field of education do educational AR studies refer?
What types of technology have been developed to support the use of AR in special education?
What are the advantages and limitations of AR use in special education?

B.: Identifying relevant studies:

A huge number of studies have investigated the usage of AR in an educational context [6,7,16]. However, only one research work on AR usage in education have focused to students’ diverse needs [17]. Therefore, we conducted a thorough search of scientific articles in Scopus and Google Scholar. Keywords like “augmented reality” AND/OR “special education”, “learning difficulties” were used.

C.: Study selection:

A total of 147 papers were obtained, excluding afterwards the duplicates. Furthermore, studies that used, except for AR and, Virtual Reality (VR) were also excluded. In this step, studies focusing mainly on the design process of AR content or testing the design process were also excluded. Alternatively, articles with access to full texts and those who used AR technology—alone or in conjunction with other environments—for educational purposes were included. As a result of this step, 14 papers related to AR usage as a learning tool for students with special education needs were included in this review (Figure 2).

D.: Charting the data:

Examined articles were initially coded in the Microsoft Excel program and then the content analysis method was used to examine the data. Initially, studies were presented by year of publication and country.

Figure 2 revealed that between 2014–2017 there had been only one study per year; research in AR use in Special Education had significantly increased between 2018–2019, as seven studies—four in 2018 and three in 2019 had appeared. It is remarkable that between 2020–2022, there had been once again one study per year. Thus, it was observed that research in AR in Special Education was in an early stage.

In the reviewed studies, the country that mostly explored the contribution of AR in Special Education was the USA, with three studies, while Ecuador and Turkey had conducted two studies each. India, Canada, Taiwan, Spain, Greece, and Ireland were following with one study each (Figure 3).

Concerning the level of education of the participants in the experiments, it appeared that the majority of studies (57%) involved Primary education students, while Secondary education students (22%) were the second most commonly preferred learner type. Postsecondary, and Diverse population (aged 11–40) education represented a lower percentage (7%). In one study, the educational level of the participants was not mentioned (Figure 4). Thus, researchers were interested in exploring the affordance of AR in several levels of special education, but there was a tendency towards Primary education students.

E.: Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting Findings:

In this phase, findings were compared, summarized, and reported. These were presented in the Results and Discussion section.

3. Results and Discussion

This section consists of two subsections. The first subsection describes the results obtained from coding and using content analysis method so as to examine the data of the reviewed studies carried out from 2014 to 2022. Findings are shown according to each research question, then in the subsection Discussion they are summarized and reported.

3.1. Results

RQ1: What special educational needs have the students included in the learning scenarios using AR?

The first evaluation criterion analyzed in this systematic literature review deals with the types of students with special educational needs that have been included in the studies (Table 1). It appeared that the majority of the studies (27%) focused on students with intellectual disabilities (Figure 5). AR learning environments were used by researchers in order to help students with intellectual disabilities obtain either general or language skills, which are essential for everyday life. Four studies (18%) involved students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); Liu et al. (2017) [18] observed some of the most promising technologies included augmented reality, which could facilitate the acquisition of social and behavioral skills, as well as science vocabulary [19] and general skills [10]. Four studies (18%) were directed at students with specific learning disabilities (i.e., dyslexia, dyscalculia) to explore the feasibility of AR environments for mathematics learning [12,13], science education [20], and dyslexia detection [21]. Furthermore, two studies (9%) included students with seeing and hearing problems. Albouys-Perrois et al. (2018) [22] developed a map with multisensory functionality for blind people and those with low vision, enabling both the exploration and construction of the map, while Cakir and Korkmaz (2019) [10] developed AR teaching material to help students with seeing and hearing problems obtain general skills by bringing them real life experiences. Moreover, in two studies (9%) students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) participated to explore the impact of AR technology to literacy and mathematic skills [12,23]. Two studies (9%) focused on training students with learning disabilities on mathematics [12,24]. One study (5%) included students with Down’s Syndrome [10] to provide them concrete experiences of everyday life. Finally, one study focused on students with different disabilities not specified [14]. As was observed, studies were inclined toward students with diverse disabilities, which was a fact that provided evidence of the affordance of AR use in special education. Nevertheless, this review revealed that a notable gap exists as the studies analyzed reported small samples and short-term experimental procedures, which did not allow for generalizing results or verification of the impact of AR use over time.

RQ2: To which field of education do educational AR studies refer?

Regarding the field of education explored, studies have been oriented to STEM, Social Sciences, and Humanities (Figure 6). In particular, five studies (36%) examined the impact of AR on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics). As observed, four of these focused on the acquisition of mathematical skills. In particular, Lin et al. (2016) [14] developed an interactive mobile augmented reality application to facilitate geometry learning. Cascales-Martínez et al. (2017) [12] used tabletop activities related to the European monetary system and Avila-Pesantez et al. (2018) [14] designed an Augmented Reality Serious Game named ATHYNOS to improve students’ basic numeracy, sequential order, and mathematical reasoning. Additionally, Kellems et al. (2020) [24] assessed the effectiveness of video-based mathematics instruction using AR for students with specific learning disorders (SLD). Alternatively, Turan et Atila (2021) [20] and Rapti et al. (2022) [26] investigated the effect of using AR on teaching science to students diagnosed with specific learning difficulties.

Furthermore, five studies (36%) concerned Social Sciences and Humanities. Tosto et al. (2020) [23] developed the AHA system as an integrated web-based AR learning environment to study the effect of AR on reading and spelling skills (Table 2). AR was also used to teach science vocabulary words to college students [19]. Savitha and Remunol (2019) [11] and Rapti et al. (2022) [26] explored how AR educational applications could facilitate learning English words (as foreign language) and Tenemaza et al. (2019) [21] designed a mobile AR application to detect dyslexia signs. Moreover, researchers focused on the acquisition of general skills as four studies (36%) explored as the affordance of AR environments to skills that could provide independence to students with special educational needs (Table 2) [10,18,22,25].

RQ3: What types of technology have been developed to support the use of AR in special education?

Figure 7 presents the different types of technology that have been used to implement AR in learning environments of students with special educational needs. Most of the studies, 9 out of 14 (65%), used mobile devices in immersive AR learning environments. The use of AR applications in handheld devices allowed students to enhance classroom learning experiences and learn by doing [27]. Additionally, the use of mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and PDA devices, may be due to the fact that they are affordable and user-friendly, especially for younger students who are familiar with these devices. Two studies (14%) used desktop computers [13,23]. In two studies (14%) a tabletop system was developed [12,22]. The main advantage of this system was that it provided multi-touch interaction. as it could be used by multiple users. Thus, multiple users could interact with the system, which enabled cooperative interaction between the participants [12]. Finally, one study (7%) used augmented reality smart glasses as a learning tool for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In [18], it was reported that, initially, a great number of user data was collected through smart glasses sensors and then analyzed through the applications. The authors also highlighted that smart glasses may offer notable advantages compared to mobile devices applications. With smart glasses, users were immersed in a screen remaining hands-free. That enabled them to use their hands to engage in both non-verbal social communication and to carry out educational tasks. By this type of technology, users may coach themselves wherever and whenever was the most convenient [18].

RQ4: What are the advantages and limitations of AR use in special education?

The identified advantages of AR in special education were arranged into three categories: learner outcomes, pedagogical contributions, and technical perspectives. The results of the reported advantages are presented in Table 3. Most of the studies (12 out of 14) reported that AR technology in education led to learner outcomes. Numerous studies (9 out of 14) indicated that AR improved skills. For instance, researchers observed the improvement of general [25], mathematical [12,13,24], science [20], reading [21], English as a foreign language [26], and social skills [18]. Additionally, in [10,11], it was noted that an AR learning environment led to better academic performance. The review findings also indicated that AR could enhance motivation, enthusiasm, and provide user satisfaction. According to [21], students’ motivation was increased interacting with the mobile application, mainly due to AR innovation, as it combined the real environment with virtual objects, providing an interface with colors and sounds. Furthermore, the researchers of this study noted that AR use improved memory recall and facilitated concentration. In [10], it was highlighted that due to AR teaching material children with vision and hearing problems, physical growth retardation and behavior problems, as well as the children with special educational needs remained more focused to educational process. However, it was less contributed to the attention times of students who needed verbal guidance due to the lack of language-speech inadequacy.

According to pedagogical affordances of AR, the most prominent contribution was the attraction of students’ interest [10,11,13,14]. In [11] and [13], the authors observed that the AR learning environment contributed to a reduction in learning time, while in [10], they noted that AR technology allowed students to be active. Self-confidence was also enhanced as [14] reported that mobile devices could provide real-time information feedback, enhancing security and reducing frustration for children with developmental disabilities. Thus, the game incorporated several levels of AR assistance, improving confidence and increasing the chance of finishing the game successfully. In [14] and [18], it was assumed that AR improved social interactions. In [18], it was observed that the users had improved social interactions, through improvements in non-verbal communication, social engagement, and eye contact. These results were encouraging, as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is principally characterized by impairments in social communication and interaction and AR could facilitate life skills conquests that may facilitate or favor self-sufficiency. It was remarkable that AR provided collaboration opportunities [12,14], allowing for the personalization of learning (27%), which was quite important in special education as its target group is highly demographically and clinically heterogeneous. Finally, in [14] and [26], it was noticed that the AR system reduced its dependence on teachers, which was quite important in special education, as teachers could design multi-level and individualized teaching strategies to encourage children with special educational needs adapted to independent learning.

The last part of Table 3 shows two advantages concerning technical perspectives. In three studies [18,19,26], it was noted that AR technology was easy to use. Furthermore, Tenemaza et al. (2019) [21] concluded that the designed AR application was affordable, therefore either teachers or specialists may include it in their interventions.

Alternatively, in [23], it did not notice an increasing positive effect on the acquisition of reading and spelling skills of students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, researchers mentioned that this finding should be considered with caution, since the evaluation questionnaires were not validated and standardized and not all participants, but only a few children, completed the questionnaires. As a result, this may affect the validity of the tests to detect a significant effect.

Though AR provides remarkable advantages in special education, researchers highlighted some limitations imposed by this technology (Table 4). The most reported limitation is small sample size, namely 8 out 14 studies mentioned the limited number of participants in the sample size [10,12,18,19,20,21,25,26] which does not allow for the generalization of the results. Another important limitation indicated is the inadequate evaluation method [18,23,24,26]. A limitation mentioned in three studies was the lack of skills’ generalization and maintenance probes. Kang and Chang (2020) [25] and McMahon et al. (2020) [19] claimed that time constraints prevented the collection of maintenance probes, but maintenance should be addressed in future work in order to improve reliability. Further limitations of the impose of AR technology in special education is that it is expensive [14], there is lack of different levels of difficulty or other learning areas [13], and it requires internet access [19] and computer skills [14]. Furthermore, Albouys-Perrois et al. (2018) [22] noted the necessity for content improvement, while Liu et al. (2017) [18] observed that gender related differences in performance could not be examined due to the lack of a female sample. Thus, the small sample size and short-term or inadequate evaluation methods did not allow for the generalization of the results. Future work should include a sufficient sample, as well as long-term analysis in order to produce a large-scale study and generalize the results.

3.2. Discussion

This study aimed to synthesize the existing literature exploring the use of AR in special education. The results helped to capture the state of research in the field of AR used to support students with varied educational needs at different educational stages, countries, and disciplines, therefore providing valuable information on the knowledge about the experience of AR use in special education.

According to the findings, AR has notable advantages in special education. Initially, AR application improves skills, academic performance, memory recall, and concentration. It was also found that AR use has positively affected their enthusiasm—as students with special needs found its use fun and motivational. Additionally, it enhances self-confidence, social interactions, and independence. These findings were quite important, as one of the main goals of special education is to enable individuals with special needs the ability to obtain functional skills of everyday life and maintain their lives independently. Moreover, another remarkable advantage of AR implementation is that AR technology is user-friendly and affordable.

Nevertheless, there have been detected limitations regarding the use of AR technology in special education. Firstly, most of the studies tend to involve small sample sizes. Therefore, the results may have limited generalizations. Secondly, the analyzed studies report short-term evaluation through experimental procedures, which had been carried out for a limited time. Thus, future works should include more sufficient and diverse samples, as well as longitudinal studies to investigate the real impact of AR technology to students with special educational needs.

4. Conclusions

This systematic review of literature examined the implementation of AR technology in special education. A total of 14 studies were analyzed to capture the current situation in this field. It has been concluded that the reviewed studies have been addressed to diverse types of students with special educational needs, such as students with intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), specific learning disabilities (i.e., dyslexia, dyscalculia), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Down’s syndrome, and learning disabilities during the period 2014–2022. Regarding the field of education explored, it has been noticed that the reviewed studies have been oriented to STEM, Social Sciences and Humanities, and General skills. With respect to the different types of technology that have been used to implement AR in the learning environments of students with special educational needs, it has been observed that mainly mobile devices have been used, as well as tabletop systems, desktop computers, and smart glasses. The predominant finding of this review is that the reviewed studies have shown that AR educational technology has a positive impact on students with special educational needs. It is remarkable that AR implementation in special education leads to better learner outcomes and pedagogical contributions. It leads to skills acquisition, better performance and social interaction, enthusiasm, self-confidence, motivation, better memory recall, personalization of learning, and independence. Concerning technical perspectives, it has been noticed that AR technology is easy to use and affordable. Alternatively, there are various limitations arising from this technology. The most reported limitation is the small sample size with a lack of female sample in some cases, which does not allow for the examination of gender-related differences. Another limitation is the short-term evaluation method, as well as the lack of skills generalization and maintenance probes and different levels of difficulty. Thus, a challenge for future work is more evident; a more heterogeneous sample, including a population of both genders, varied ages, and diverse educational needs, as well as long-term analysis to improve the reliability and verify the real impact of AR use over time are needed. Another challenge for future work is to create AR systems addressed to students with special educational needs giving prominence to personalization incorporating learning theories to establish a meaningful student-centered learning environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; methodology: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; validation: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; formal analysis: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; investigation: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; resources: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; data curation: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; writing—original draft preparation: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; writing—review and editing: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; visualization: A.K. (Andrianthi Kapetanaki), A.K. (Akrivi Krouska) and C.T.; supervision: A.K. (Akrivi Krouska), C.T. and C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in Scopus and Google Scholar.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Troussas, C.; Krouska, A.; Sgouropoulou, C. Impact of social networking for advancing learners’ knowledge in E-learning environments. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 4285–4305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Papakostas, C.; Troussas, C.; Krouska, A.; Sgouropoulou, C. User acceptance of augmented reality welding simulator in engineering training. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 791–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Azuma, R.; Baillot, Y.; Behringer, R.; Feiner, S.; Julier, S.; MacIntyre, B. Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2001, 21, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Marougkas, A.; Troussas, C.; Krouska, A.; Sgouropoulou, C. A Framework for Personalized Fully Immersive Virtual Reality Learning Environments with Gamified Design in Education. In Novelties in Intelligent Digital Systems: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference (NIDS 2021), Athens, Greece, 30 September–1 October 2021; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 338, p. 95. [Google Scholar]
Papakostas, C.; Troussas, C.; Krouska, A.; Sgouropoulou, C. On the Development of a Personalized Augmented Reality Spatial Ability Training Mobile Application. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference: Novelties in Intelligent Digital Systems (NIDS 2021), Athens, Greece, 30 September–1 October 2021; pp. 75–83. [Google Scholar]
Akçayır, M.; Akçayır, 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]
Sirakaya, M.; Alsancak Sirakaya, D. Trends in Educational Augmented Reality Studies: A Systematic Review. Malays. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2018, 6, 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kapetanaki, A.; Krouska, A.; Troussas, C.; Sgouropoulou, C. A Novel Framework Incorporating Augmented Reality and Pedagogy for Improving Reading Comprehension in Special Education. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference: Novelties in Intelligent Digital Systems (NIDS 2021), Athens, Greece, 30 September–1 October 2021; pp. 105–110. [Google Scholar]
Cifuentes, S.C.; García, S.G.; Andrés-Sebastiá, M.P.; Camba, J.D.; Contero, M. Augmented Reality Experiences in Therapeutic Pedagogy: A Study with Special Needs Students. In Proceedings of the IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Austin, TX, USA, 25–28 July 2016; pp. 431–435. [Google Scholar]
Cakir, R.; Korkmaz, O. The Effectiveness of Augmented Reality Environments on Individuals with Special Education Needs. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 24, 1631–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Savitha, K.K.; Renumol, V.G. Effects of Integrating Augmented Reality in Early Childhood Special Education. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 7867. [Google Scholar]
Cascales-Martínez, A.; Martínez-Segura, M.J.; Pérez-López, D.; Contero, M. Using an augmented reality enhanced tabletop system to promote learning of mathematics: A case study with students with special educational needs. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2017, 13, 355–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Avila-Pesantez, D.F.; Vaca-Cardenas, L.A.; Avila, R.D.; Padilla, N.P.; Rivera, L.A. Design of an Augmented Reality Serious Game for Children with Dyscalculia: A Case Study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Technology Trends, Babahoyo, Ecuador, 29–31 August 2018; pp. 165–175. [Google Scholar]
Lin, C.Y.; Chai, H.C.; Wang, J.Y.; Chen, C.J.; Liu, Y.H.; Chen, C.W.; Liu, Y.H.; Chen, C.W.; Lin, C.W.; Huang, Y.M. Augmented reality in educational activities for children with disabilities. Displays 2016, 42, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2006, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bacca, J.; Baldiris, S.; Fabregat, R.; Graf, S.; Kinshuk. Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 133. [Google Scholar]
Quintero, J.; Baldiris Navarro, S.M.; 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] [Green Version]
Liu, R.; Salisbury, J.P.; Vahabzadeh, A.; Sahin, N.T. Feasibility of an autism-focused augmented reality smart glasses system for social communication and behavioral coaching. Front. Pediatrics 2017, 5, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McMahon, D.D.; Cihak, D.F.; Wright, R.E.; Bell, S.M. Augmented reality for teaching science vocabulary to postsecondary education students with intellectual disabilities and autism. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2016, 48, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Turan, Z.; Atila, G. Augmented reality technology in science education for students with specific learning difficulties: Its effect on students’ learning and view. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2021, 39, 506–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tenemaza, M.; Navarrete, R.; Jaramillo, E.; Rodriguez, A. Specific dyslexia exploratory test (TEDE): Two tasks using augmented reality. In Advances in Stability, User Experience and Assistive Technology; Ahram, T., Falcao, C., Eds.; AHFE: Orlando, FL, USA, 2018; Volume 794, pp. 925–933. [Google Scholar]
Albouys-Perrois, J.; Laviole, J.; Briant, J.; Brock, A. Towards a multisensory augmented reality map for blind and low vision people: A participatory design approach. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 21–26 April 2018; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tosto, C.; Hasegawa, T.; Mangina, E.; Chifari, A.; Treacy, A.; Merlo, G.; Chiazzese, G. Exploring the effect of an augmented reality literacy programme for reading and spelling difficulties for children diagnosed with ADHD. Virtual Real. 2021, 25 (Suppl. S1), 879–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kellems, R.O.; Eichelberger, C.; Cacciatore, G.; Jensen, M.; Frazier, B.; Simons, K.; Zaru, M. Using Video-Based Instruction via Augmented Reality to Teach Mathematics to Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities. J. Learn. Disabil. 2020, 53, 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kang, Y.S.; Chang, Y.J. Using an augmented reality game to teach three junior high school students with intellectual disabilities to improve ATM use. J. Appl. Res. Intellect. Disabil. 2020, 33, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rapti, D.; Gerogiannis, D.; Soulis, S.G. The effectiveness of augmented reality for English vocabulary instruction of Greek students with intellectual disability. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Chiang, T.H.C.; Yang, S.J.H.; Hwang, G.-J. An Augmented Reality-based Mobile Learning System to Improve Students’ Learning Achievements and Motivations in Natural Science Inquiry Activities. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 352–365. [Google Scholar]

Figure 1. Research methodology.

Figure 2. Studies per year.

Figure 3. Studies published by country.

Figure 4. Level of education applying AR on participants with special educational needs.

Figure 5. Types of populations in AR for special education.

Figure 6. Studies per field of education.

Figure 7. Distribution of AR technology used.

Table 1. Types of students with special educational needs.

Types of Students with Special Educational Needs	Research
Intellectual disabilities	[10,11,12,19,25,26]
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD)	[10,18,19,23]
Seeing and hearing problems	[10,22]
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)	[12,23]
Down’s syndrome	[10]
Specific learning disabilities	[13,20,21,23]
Learning disabilities	[12,24]
Different disabilities not specified	[14]

Table 2. Studies by field of education.

Field of Education	Research
STEM	[12,13,14,20,24]
Social Sciences and Humanities	[11,19,21,23,26]
General skills	[10,18,22,25]

Table 3. Advantages of AR in special education.

Categories	Sub-Categories	Research
Learner outcomes	improves skills	[12,13,18,19,20,21,24,25,26]
	improves academic performance	[10,11]
	provides user satisfaction	[20,22]
	improves memory recall	[11]
	enhances motivation	[10,12,13,21,26]
	enhances enthusiasm	[10,11,12]
	facilitates concentration	[10,21]
Pedagogical contributions	enhances self-confidence	[10,14]
	reduces learning time	[11,13]
	provides collaboration opportunities	[12,14]
	improves social interaction	[14,18]
	attracts interest	[10,11,13,14]
	allows students to be active	[10]
	allows personalization of learning	[14,18,22]
	reduces dependence on teachers	[14,26]
Technical perspectives	is easy to use	[18,19,26]
	is affordable	[21]

Table 4. Limitations of AR in special education.

Limitations	Research
Small sample size	[10,12,18,19,20,21,25,26]
Expensive	[14]
Lack of different levels of difficulty or other learning areas	[13]
Requirement of internet access	[19]
Requirement of computer skills	[14]
Inadequate evaluation method	[18,23,24,26]
Lack of skills’ generalization and maintenance probes	[19,24,25]
Necessity for content improvement	[22]
Gender related differences in performance could not be examined due to lack of female sample	[18]
Not mentioned	[11]

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

MDPI and ACS Style

Kapetanaki, A.; Krouska, A.; Troussas, C.; Sgouropoulou, C. Exploiting Augmented Reality Technology in Special Education: A Systematic Review. Computers 2022, 11, 143. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11100143

AMA Style

Kapetanaki A, Krouska A, Troussas C, Sgouropoulou C. Exploiting Augmented Reality Technology in Special Education: A Systematic Review. Computers. 2022; 11(10):143. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11100143

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kapetanaki, Andrianthi, Akrivi Krouska, Christos Troussas, and Cleo Sgouropoulou. 2022. "Exploiting Augmented Reality Technology in Special Education: A Systematic Review" Computers 11, no. 10: 143. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11100143

APA Style

Kapetanaki, A., Krouska, A., Troussas, C., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2022). Exploiting Augmented Reality Technology in Special Education: A Systematic Review. Computers, 11(10), 143. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11100143

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu