Content uploaded by Mohd Zairul
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohd Zairul on Jun 14, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Investigating immersive learning
technology intervention in
architecture education:
a systematic literature review
Annisa Ummihusna and Mohd Zairul
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Design and Architecture,
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose –This study intends to review the existing studies on the application of immersive learning
technology (ILT) in architecture education field. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted on the
characteristics and implementation of ILT, research purpose, approach and outcome of research.
Design/methodology/approach –The PICO concept (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome
measures) was used to form the research keywords. The Scopus database was searched and supported by
supplementary search on Google Scholar, ProQuest, Emerald Insight and Springer Link. Based on the inclusion
and exclusion criteria, 19 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2013 and 2019 were identified.
Findings –Virtual reality was found to be the most prevalent ILT applied in architecture education and
commonly used as simulation. Most of the studies were applied in year-two architecture study and were mainly
implemented for architecture design subject. Very few studies have associated the use of ILT with learning
theories, and most of the existing studies have examined the effect of ILT on learning performance. Motivation
was found to be the dominant emotional state, and most of the interventions deal with a higher cognitive level.
Research limitations/implications –Only a small number of articles were selected due to the limited
number of studies on the subject. Nevertheless, analysis of the selected few has provided valuable insight into
the current scenario of the research topic.
Originality/value –This study adds to the existing literature by examining the existing empirical evidence
on ILT intervention in the architecture education field. The findings will contribute towards innovating the
learning process among architecture students and encouraging the use the ILT as part of architecture
education system in higher education institutions.
Keywords Architecture education, Learning technology, Higher education, Virtual reality, Augmented
reality, Gaming, Systematic review
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Immersion is an experience when one is intensely absorbed into something and is inclined to
forget the surrounding temporarily (Yuen et al., 2013). One example is a condition when a
person is immersed in music, an art piece, a performance, a view or even his or her thoughts.
Immersion ina mediated and a nonphysical environment (such as virtual experience) provides
an enthusiastic condition of disbelief. Therefore, the use of “immersive”technology is thought
to enhance learning (Dede et al.,2017). Immersive technology refers to technologies such as
virtual reality environment (VRE), immersive virtual reality (IVR), augmented reality (AR), mix
reality (MR) and virtual learning (VR) in a gaming platform (Handa et al., 2012;Soliman et al.,
2017;Suh and Prophet, 2018). These technologies are able to enhance the quality of the learning
experience.
The interest in ILT has increased in both professional and academic literature (Horne and
Thompson, 2013;Portman et al.,2015), yet little has been studied regarding the implementation
of ILT in architecture education. Architecture education relies on looking outside the classroom
and therefore, should alternately take place between indoor and outdoor environments.
Site visits and field trips provide students with the opportunity of experiential learning
Immersive
learning
technology
intervention
Received 27 August 2020
Revised 10 November 2020
11 January 2021
Accepted 26 January 2021
Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-7003
DOI 10.1108/JARHE-08-2020-0279
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-7003.htm
(Jose et al., 2017;Ng, 2013). Following the COVID-19 pandemic and other issues (such as spatial,
time arrangement, situational contextual restrictions, lack of administrative support, complex
logistics planning and expenses), student management and safety concerns have affected
the overall learning environment (Jose et al.,2017;Kwon, 2019). As stated in the latest RIBA
COVID-19 Student Survey 2020 (Royal Institute of British Architect, 2020), online teaching and
learning is suitable only for some parts of the curriculum and requires good preparation for the
digital future. Therefore, there is a need to explore the use of ILT, such as virtual simulation, to
replace students’concrete experience in the current architecture learning context.
This study seeks to answer the following research question:
What are the existing ILT interventions implemented for students in architecture
education?
2. Literature review
The application of ILT can be seen across various industries and business departments, such
as (1) arts, entertainment, and recreation; (2) architecture, construction and engineering;
(3) education; (4) wholesale and retail trade; and (5) manufacturing (Handa et al., 2012;Poppe
and Gilgen, 2017). The use of such technology is expected to change how people communicate
and collaborate (Shamalinia, 2017). Researchers from various fields have been exploring the
use of ILT as a new education delivery method. For instance, Song et al. (2012) studied the
application of an IVR system in sports education, while Schroeder et al. (2017) examined IVR
as a training tool for operators in the industrial sector. Other researchers studied the use of
VR simulation for engineering education (H€
afner et al., 2013;Sampaio et al., 2010). These
studies have also highlighted the potential of technology as a teaching instrument. The ILT
particularly, through its visual representation and user experience, is seen as a tool that can
benefit architecture education.
The use of ILT in architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) education has been
reviewed in the work of Wang et al. (2018) (in construction engineering education and training
[CEET]) and Portman et al. (2015) (in architecture, landscape design, and environmental
planning education). Chi et al. (2013) studied the implementation of AR in architecture,
engineering, construction and facility management (AEC/FM), while Eiris and Gheisari (2017)
discussed the trend of using virtual humans, such as avatar and virtual agent applications, in
AEC. Another study by L€
offler et al. (2016) concluded that ILT is a powerful designing tool that
could alter design processes. In another study, Moloney (2015) reviewed the adaptation of video
game technology in creating a collaborative virtual environment for architecture.
Nevertheless, very few studies have comprehensively analysed the use of ILT in
architecture education and discussed the relationship between the use of the technology and
the emerging learning theories (Maghool et al., 2018). The current study, therefore, aimed to
look into the empirical evidence regarding the intervention in the field while classifying and
analysing the ways ILT was employed in the past studies.
3. Method
A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to investigate the current ILT interventions
used in architecture education. The procedure suggested by Materla et al. (2019) (adopted from
Tranfield et al. (2003)) was adopted for the review, as shown in Figure 1. The SLR comprised three
stages: (1) planning the review, (2) conducting the review and (3) reporting and dissemination.
3.1 Planning the review
The research question for the SLR was formed by referring to the PICO concept (Population,
Intervention, Comparison, Outcome measures) (Aromataris and Riitano, 2014) to achieve a clear
and concise review process. As noted, the study sought answer to the following question: what
JARHE
are the existing ILT interventionsimplementedfor students in the architecture education field?
By referring to the PICO concept, the following aspects are inherent in the research question:
student (population), ILT (intervention), architecture education (comparison), and intervention
implemented (outcome). This step is crucial in finding similar terms and keywords applied by
previous researchers. The terms subtracted from the titles, abstracts and keywords of the
initially retrieved articles were then expanded using similar terms and placed in a logic grid
table (Table 1) adopted from Aromataris and Riitano (2014).
3.2 Conducting the review
Relevant literature was sought mainly from Scopus, a bibliographic database that comprises
journals for social science as well art and humanities. The search was conducted using the
key search string constructed from the combination of the keywords identified from logic
grid table (Table 1) as follows:
TITLE-ABS-KEY((“architect* student”OR “degree student”OR undergraduate OR
postgraduate OR “first year student”OR “second year student”OR “third year student”OR
“final year student”OR freshman ) AND (“immersive learning technology”OR “immersive
technology”OR “augmented reality”OR are OR “virtual reality”OR vr OR “immersive virtual
reality”OR ivr OR “mix reality”OR mr OR “game technology”OR gaming OR game OR
digital ) AND (“architect* education”OR “architect* learning”OR “architect* syllabus”OR
Planning the Review
Step 1: Formulate the research question of the systematic literature
review
Step 2: Select keywords and databases
Conducting the Review
Step 3: Search the databases such as Web of Science, Scopus,
Google Scholar among others base on their relevancy to the
research area
237 search results
Step 4: Screening the articles using database- published between
2013 and 2019, peer-reviewed journal article, English language
Step 5: Detailed review of papers to eliminate articles that duplicate
& not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria - Related to
academic architecture learning, described application of immersive
learning technology (AR, VR, MR, Gaming) in architecture
education
19 articles selected for full review
Reporting and Dissemination
Step 6: Data coding & analysis are done in ATLAS.ti 8 program.
The following are codes created: (1) type of technology, (2)
application type (3) area of study, (4) level of study (e.g.,
undergraduate-year 1, year 2, year 3 etc.), (5) learning theory, (6)
research purpose, (7) research approach (8) outcome
Step 7: Report the findings
Figure 1.
The systematic review
methodology
Immersive
learning
technology
intervention
“architect* pedagogy”OR aec OR “architect* design”OR “architect* study”OR “design
studio”OR “architect* school”) AND ( characteristic OR “learning theory”OR “learning style”
OR application OR pedagogy* OR method)).
The search resulted in the identification of sixty-eight articles. Due to the small number of
articles, a supplementary literature search was conducted on other databases. The
unconstructed and unconstrained search was performed on Google Scholar, ProQuest,
Emerald Insight, and Springer Link. As of December 2019, the search resulted in a total of 237
articles. The publications were then exported to Mendeley softwareto remove duplicaterecords.
The next screening stage involved limiting the results to peer-reviewed articles that were
published between 2013 and 2019. Articles from conference proceedings were omitted to ensure
only quality literature contents were included. Then, the title and abstract of the remaining
articles were thoroughly evaluated to validate the selection based on a set of inclusion and
exclusion criteria (Table 2). Only articles that describe the application of ILT (AR, VR, MR,
gaming) in architecture education were included. Several articles with premature results,
duplication of the same theme from the same authors, and conducted in non-academic context
were removed. Eventually, nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria for the final review.
3.3 Reporting and dissemination
The selected publications were then uploaded to Atlas.ti 8, a qualitative data analysis and
research software that is widely used for coding and analysing qualitative data. Thematic
analysis was performed on the selected articles. The initial codes were defined by adapting
Population
(student) Intervention (ILT)
Comparison intervention
(architecture education)
Outcome measure
(intervention implemented)
Architecture
student
Degree student
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
First year student
Second year
student
Third year
student
Final year
student
Freshman
Immersive learning
technology
Immersive
technology
Augmented reality
AR
Virtual reality
VR
Immersive virtual
reality
IVR
Mix reality
MR
Game technology
Gaming
Game
Digital
Architecture education
Architecture learning
Architecture syllabus
Architecture pedagogy
AEC
Architecture design
Architecture study
Design studio
Architecture studio
Architecture school
Characteristic
Learning theory
Learning style
Application
Pedagogy
Method
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Published between 2013 and 2019 <2013
Indexed journal, peer-reviewed
journal article
Non-indexed journals, review journals, chapter in book, conference
proceeding, master dissertation, prefaces and opinion
English language Non-English
Specific application for academic
architecture learning
General application for professional learning (e.g. architect,
contractor, engineer)
Table 1.
Logic grid with
identified keywords
Table 2.
Inclusion and
exclusion criteria
JARHE
the PICO concept (Aromataris and Riitano, 2014) as a framework (Table 3), namely (1) level of
study (2) type of technology, (3) application types, (4) area of study, (5) learning theory,
(6) research purpose, (7) research method, (8) research design and (9) research outcome.
4. Result
4.1 Characteristic and implementation of ILT
This section presents the finding from the component of student (population), ILT
(intervention) and architecture education (comparison) based on the PICO concept. Table 4
summarises the characteristics of the ILT adopted in architecture education and how it was
implemented.
4.1.1 Level of study. ILT has been applied across different levels of study: 11% in year 1
(2 articles), 25% in year 2 (5 articles), 21% in year 3 (4 articles) and 11% in year 4 and 5
(3 articles). Another 21% (4 articles) were applied in various years of study and no study level
was mentioned in the remaining 11% of articles (2 articles).
4.1.2 Type of ILT. Four main types of ILT were found to have been applied in architecture
education: (1) IVR (5 studies); (2) game technology (5 studies); (3) VRE (4 studies); and (4) AR
(3 studies). Game technology was commonly integrated with other ILTs, such as AR, VRE
and IVR (Ayer et al., 2016;Hong and Lee, 2018;Moleta, 2016;S
¸ahbaz and
€
Ozk€
ose, 2018;Valls,
2017). While study from Fonseca et al. (2017a,b) and Gonz
alez (2018) demonstrated a
combination of two ILT (VRE & AR) in a single study.
4.1.3 Application types. Four types of ILT applications are commonly applied in
architecture education: (1) simulation (6 studies), (2) exploration instrument (6 studies),
(3) visualisation tool (5 studies) and (4) game (2 studies). Simulation that involved providing a
learning environment or technical setting within which three-dimensional (3D) models are
constructed as a VRE and are designed for the following learning outcomes: experiencing
building construction process (3 applications), understanding steel architectural details
(1 application), understanding fire safety evacuee behaviour (1 application), spatial
experience (1 application), and construction of an ancient timber temple. An exploration
instrument was used as part of a design process experimental stage and as a platform to
visualise and experiment environmental data. A visualisation tool serves as a visual
communication platform in diverse settings, and for experimenting with various learning
contents and technologies. Game applications allow users to experience interactive game
features as part of their learning process.
4.1.4 Area of study. Often in architectural studies, the subject Architecture Design Studio
carries the major unit with the highest credit hours, and is supported by units from other
streams, namely architecture technology, design communication, architecture history and
theory, and building science (Ibrahim and Utaberta, 2012). The nineteen studies reviewed
were grouped according to these streams (based on their application): (1) architecture design
Review component Codes
P -Population Architecture Students (1) Level of study
I - Intervention Immersive Learning Technology (ILT) (2) Type of ILT
C- Comparison intervention Architecture Education (3) Application types
(4) Area of study
(5) Learning theory associated
O- Outcome measure Intervention Implemented (6) Research purpose
(7) Research approach
(8) Research outcome
Table 3.
Initial codes
construction
framework
Immersive
learning
technology
intervention
Author Level of study
Type of
ILT
Application
type Area of study
Learning theory
associated
Abdelhameed
(2017)
Year 3
(Architecture)
VRE Exploration Architecture
Design: Design
process
–
Abdullah et al.
(2017)
Year 2
(Architecture)
AR Simulation Architecture
Technology:
Construction
–
Abu Alatta and
Freewan (2017)
Year 4 and 5
(Architecture)
IVR Exploration Architecture
Design: Design
process
Constructivism
Ayer et al. (2016) Year 4
(Architecture),
Year 3 (Civil Eng),
Year 1 (Eng)
VRE
and
Game
Exploration Building Science:
Sustainable Design
–
Bartosh and
Krietemeyer
(2017)
Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
(Architecture)
IVR Exploration Building science:
Solar and
Environmental
Comfort
–
David Fonseca
et al. (2016)
Year 1 and 2
(Architecture)
AR Visualisation Design
Communication
ETL and PBL
Fonseca et al.
(2017a,b)
Year 1, 2, 3
(Architecture)
VRE
and AR
Visualisation Design
Communication
–
Gonz
alez (2018) Year 1
(Architecture,
industrial design)
VRE &
AR
Visualisation Architecture
Design: Design
process
–
Hong and Lee
(2018)
Year 3
(Architecture)
VRE &
Game
Simulation Architecture
Design: Fire Safety
–
Lin and Hsu
(2017)
Year 2 and 3
(Architecture)
VRE Exploration Architecture
Design: Design
process
–
Maghool et al.
(2018)
Year 2
(Architecture)
IVR Simulation Architecture
Technology:
Construction
PBL, BL, FL, EL,
LSI
Moleta (2016) Year 3
(Architecture,
interior and
landscape)
VRE
(BIM)
and
Game
Exploration Architecture
Design: Spatial
Experience
–
Pamungkas
et al. (2018)
Year 2
(Architecture)
IVR Simulation Architecture
Design: Design
process
–
Redondo
Dom
ınguez et al.
(2014)
Non-specific
(Architecture)
AR Visualisation Architecture
Technology:
Construction
Mobile learning
S
¸ahbaz and
€
Ozk€
ose (2018)
Year 1, 2, 3
(Architecture)
VRE
and
Game
Game Architecture
History
Game-based
learning (GBL)
S
anchez et al.
(2015)
Year 4 and 5
(Architecture)
AR Visualisation Design
Communication
–
Sun et al. (2018) Year 2
(Architecture)
IVR Simulation Architecture
History
–
Valls (2017) Non-specific
(Architecture)
VRE
and
Game
Game Architecture
Design: Spatial
Experience
Wang et al.
(2015)
Year 1
(Architecture)
VRE Simulation Architecture
Technology:
Construction
EL, LSI
Table 4.
Summary of the
characteristics and ILT
implementation in
architecture education
JARHE
(8 studies) (further divided into design process [6 applications] and spatial experience
[2 applications]); (2) architecture technology and construction (3 studies); (3) design
communication (3 studies); (4) building science/environmental physics (2 studies); and
(5) architecture history and theory (2 studies).
4.1.5 Associated learning theories. Among the nineteen publications, only six (Abu Alatta
and Freewan, 2017;David Fonseca et al., 2016;Maghool et al., 2018;Redondo Dom
ınguez et al.,
2014;S
¸ahbaz and
€
Ozk€
ose, 2018;Wang et al., 2015) are associated with a learning theory.
Abu Alatta and Freewan (2017) related VR with the constructivist learning theory, claiming
that humans are able to build information by integrating their own experience and generated
knowledge. David Fonseca et al. (2016) discussed the use of information technology (IT) in
promoting enhanced technology learning (ETL), using exercises through problem-based
learning (PBL). The approach of integrating the existing learning theory with the use of IT
was thought to encourage creativity, allowing students to apply collaborative environments
to generate and express new ideas and design proposals. S
¸ahbaz and
€
Ozk€
ose (2018)
concluded that a digital game-based method can enhance the learning of architectural history
through interactive game features, allowing students to experience historical buildings.
Wang et al. (2015) explored the effects of VR application named “Situation Engine”on
students’learning preferences by adapting Kolb’s experiential learning model and learning
style inventory (LSI). In response to the complex nature of architecture learning, Maghool
et al. (2018) introduced the adaptation of PBL, flipped learning (FL), blended learning (BL),
and experiential learning (EL) in understanding and designing a VR application for different
learning styles.
4.2 Evaluation of intervention
This section presents the finding from the component of intervention implemented (outcome)
according to the PICO concept, which includes the research purpose, approach, and outcome
of the existing research.
4.2.1 Research purpose. Thematic analysis was conducted on the research purposes of the
selected literature (Table 5).
The following four categories of research purposes emerged from the reviewed articles:
(1) Effect of ILT on learning performance (nine studies)
ILT was found to enhance users’involvement, provide better performance and
efficiency, assist in decision making, and enable the users to visualise data. One study
involved the designing of an ILT application as a flexible tool for facilitating
discussions and assessment activities.
(2) Users’experience (five studies)
These studies found positive feedbacks in terms of users’satisfaction level, degree of
motivation, adaptation to the technology, and the ILT performance. Fonseca et al.
(2017a,b) found that the use of ILT is preferred when it has been deemed relevant to
the students’study.
(3) Benefits of ILT (three studies)
The studies confirmed the benefits of ILT as a supporting teaching and learning tool
in architecture education.
(4) Effects of ILT on learning style (two studies)
R. Wang et al. (2015) identify that increasing exposure to ILT promotes preference for
active experimentation and concrete experience learning mode in experiential
learning. Hence, learning with ILT encourages an Accommodator learning style
preference. While Maghool et al. (2018) indicate that the use of ILT is able to reduce
Immersive
learning
technology
intervention
Item Deductive code Research purpose
No of
articles
Research
purpose
Effect of ILT on
learning performance
(1) To investigate the effect of IVR on changing the
way of designing for human experience and
improve students’spatial understanding,
imagination, creativity (Abu Alatta and Freewan,
2017)
(2) To explore the pedagogical value of using AR and
a simulation game to enhance building
engineering, design education (Ayer et al., 2016)
(3) To examine the virtual environment for design
and analysis (Veda) and enhance design decision
making through visualisation techniques
combining solar irradiation mapping with
interactive VR tools (Bartosh and Krietemeyer,
2017)
(4) To examine the relationship between using human
behaviour simulation, intelligent Virtual-Users,
students’self-experimentation performance in fire
egress planning (Hong and Lee, 2018)
(5) To design multiuser system-3D modelling,
procedural modelling, and VR platform that
integrates and supports architectural design
education (Lin and Hsu, 2017)
(6) To analyse the effectiveness of VR for a spatial
experience of architecture students (Pamungkas
et al., 2018)
(7) To assess hand-held AR technology in learning the
processes on the usability of the systems
employed and students’academic performance
(Redondo Dom
ınguez et al., 2014)
(8) To demonstrate the value of experiencing
historical buildings through the digital game-
based learning method (S
¸ahbaz and
€
Ozk€
ose, 2018)
(9) To explore and measure the influence of the
proposed key factors of user interface design for
VR-based architectural applications factors on
learning performance (Sun et al., 2018)
9
Users’experience (1) To examine the students’satisfaction in the
explorative learning method introduced using AR
application (Abdullah and Kassim, 2017)
(2) To evaluate the motivation, user profile, and level
of satisfaction in the workflow using the AR
visualisation of complex models in educational
environments (David Fonseca et al., 2016)
(3) To evaluate students’behaviour, motivation, and
adaptation to pedagogical innovations that
involve the use of different work technologies and
visualisation of complex 3D models (Fonseca et al.,
2017)
(4) To evaluate the implementation of AR tool in the
framework of architecture and building
engineering education (S
anchez Riera et al., 2015)
(5) To analyse educational experience using
videogame technology in architecture education,
5
(continued )
Table 5.
Thematic analysis on
research purpose
categories
JARHE
neglection of learners of some learning styles. This finding was supported by Wang
et al. (2015), who found that learners do not prefer any learning mode or style during a
learning process but rather want to be involved in all the modes and learning styles.
ILT was found to be able to facilitate EL, BL, and PBL due to its flexibility.
4.2.2 Research approach. All the reviewed studies were conducted using an experimental
approach consisting of participants’exposure to an ILT intervention and a subsequent data
collection stage. Among the 19 studies, 13 were quantitative, 4 were qualitative, and 2 were
mixed-approaches. The quantitative approach appears to be the dominant method (68.4%);
eight studies implemented both a pre-test and a post-test while the remaining involved only a
post-test. The qualitative studies (21%) included those that adopted two analysis methods:
(1) interpreted participant textual records (student’s design works) (Gonz
alez, 2018;Lin and
Hsu, 2017;Moleta, 2016) and (2) interviews by means of participants’sharing and comparing
their experience with an ILT intervention (Maghool et al., 2018). Only 10.5% of the studies
adopted a mixed method. These studies involved a questionnaire survey (or the attainment of
structured feedback) and an interpretation of participants’textual records of design
development and modification. Table 6 summarises the thematic analysis of the research
approaches of the previous studies.
4.2.3 Research outcome. Findings from the thematic analysis indicate that the intervention
implemented has affected learners’outcome by means of (1) affective outcome and
(2) cognitive outcome (Table 7). Motivation was the most frequently mentioned emotional
state (3 studies), followed by expectation, engagement, immersion, satisfaction, involvement,
and confidence (1 study each).
Twelve studies were found to focus on the measures of learners’cognitive outcomes,
which included intervention that deals with the following cognitive processes proposed in
Bloom’s taxonomy (Adams, 2015): remember, understand, create, apply, analyse and
evaluate. Two of the studies included an intervention that involved following simpler
cognitive processes: remember and understand (Abdelhameed, 2017;Abdullah et al., 2017).
The remaining ten studies concern interventions involving higher cognitive levels: create
(2 studies), apply (2 studies), analyse (1 study) and evaluate (5 studies).
Item Deductive code Research purpose
No of
articles
exploring its applicability and comparing it to
more traditional media (Valls, 2017)
Benefits of ILT (1) To investigate the benefit of VR in design
activities and the relationship between creativity
and VR use (Abdelhameed, 2017)
(2) To better understand the spatial sense for
constructive visual representation (Gonz
alez,
2018)
(3) To identify how game mechanics can be used
effectively in a design studio setting (Moleta, 2016)
3
Effects of ILT on
learning style
(1) To design, develop and evaluate an educational
application based on a VR technology for learning
architectural and understanding different user
learning styles (Maghool et al., 2018)
(2) To examine the impact of VR technology on the
learning style preferences of students (Wang et al.,
2015)
2
Table 5.
Immersive
learning
technology
intervention
5. Discussion
5.1 Characteristics and implementation of ILT
VR was found to be the most prevalent ILT applied in architecture education and is commonly
used as a simulation. Most of the previous studies involved the implementation of ILT at
year-two of architecture study, particularly for the architecture design subject (Figure 2).
In year one, ILT is mainly taught as a visualisation tool and less as a tool for other
application types (simulation 1, exploration 1). ILT is a highly beneficial instrument for
students who have minimal exposure to digital learning (Wang et al., 2015). In year two, ILT is
mostly applied as a simulation tool for architecture technology and construction subjects.
The remaining ILT applications were significantly used as a visualisation and exploration
tool for architecture design subjects, probably because digital tools are introduced in the
second year in most architecture schools (Kara, 2015). Hence, students who are familiar with
digital modelling can easily produce or adapt to the ILT. In year three and above, ILT is an
Item
Research
method Research design Authors
No. of
articles
Research
approach
Quantitative Experimental
(1) Post-test questionnaire
Abdullah et al. (2017)
Hong and Lee (2018)
Pamungkas et al. (2018)
13
S
anchez Riera et al.
(2015)
Sun et al. (2018)
Experimental
(1) Pre-test and post-test
questionnaire
Ayer et al. (2016)
Bartosh and
Krietemeyer (2017)
David Fonseca et al.
(2016)
Fonseca et al. (2017a,b)
Redondo Dom
ınguez
et al. (2014)
S
¸ahbaz and
€
Ozk€
ose
(2018)
Valls (2017)
Wang et al. (2015)
Qualitative Experimental
(1) Observation
(2) Textual records of
students’work
Gonz
alez (2018)
Lin and Hsu (2017)
Moleta (2016)
Maghool et al. (2018)
4
Experimental
(1) Interview
Mix method Experimental
(1) Textual records of design
works
(2) Questionnaire
Abdelhameed (2017) 2
Experimental
(1) Observation
(2) Questionnaire
(3) Semi structured interview
(4) Textual records of design
works
Abu Alatta and Freewan
(2017)
Table 6.
Thematic analysis on
the research
approaches of the
previous studies
JARHE
Item Deductive Research outcome
No. of
articles
Affective
outcome
Motivation (1) Demonstrates greater effectiveness in students’perception and increases motivation to use technologies: Fonseca
et al. (2017a,b)
(2) Allows the ability to feel the scale of space and increases learning motivation: Pamungkas et al. (2018)
(3) User improved in scores, generated high degree of expectation, motivation and engagement: Redondo Dom
ınguez
et al. (2014)
3
Expectation (1) User improved in scores, generated a high degree of expectation, motivation and engagement: Redondo Dom
ınguez
et al. (2014)
1
Engagement (1) User improved in scores, generated a high degree of expectation, motivation and engagement: Redondo Dom
ınguez
et al. (2014)
1
Immersion (1) Usability, results obtained from effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction indicators show a low degree of immersion
provided by these devices: S
anchez Riera et al. (2015)
1
Satisfaction (1) Usability; results obtained from effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction indicators show a low degree of immersion
provided by these devices: S
anchez Riera et al. (2015)
1
Involvement (1) Increases designers’involvement with the design itself; enriches their imagination, creativity: Abu Alatta and
Freewan (2017)
1
Confidence (1) Creates new insights on users’decisions and visualization methods; improve confidence in decision making and
awareness of design criteria, environmental comfort, performance: Bartosh and Krietemeyer (2017)
1
Cognitive
outcome
Understand (1) Exploration allows them to understand the subject better comparing to lectures: Abdullah and Kassim (2017)
(2) increases designer awareness: Abdelhameed (2017)
2
Create (1) Respondents were able to produce 3D construction steel detail even with basic 3D modelling skills: Abdullah and
Kassim (2017)
(2) Allows designers to build 3D models, automatically linked to the IVR environment, accessed by all design class
participants, perform design simulations, discussions, feedback to the designers: Lin and Hsu (2017)
2
Apply (1) Allows designers to build 3D models, automatically linked to the IVR environment, accessed by all design class
participants, perform design simulations, discussions, feedback to the designers: Lin and Hsu (2017)
(2) Provides an experiential learning tool that facilitates transferring perceived knowledge into practice: Maghool (2018)
2
Analyse (1) Enriches imagination and creativity; affects the creation and generation of ideas: Abu Alatta and Freewan (2017) 1
Evaluate (1) Eases imagination and facilitates evaluating design ideas and design concepts: Abdelhameed (2017)
(2) Affects the creation and generation of ideas in the design process, improves users’self-evaluation and critical
thinking: Abu Alatta and Freewan (2017)
(3) Allow designs assessment, better overall performance across all disciplines: Ayer et al. (2016)
(4) Breaks the tendency toward design fixation; allows experimentation: Ayer et al. (2016)
(5) Assists in finding unexpected problems; evaluates the validity and functionality of design solutions, conducts the
experimentation process efficiently and determine the solutions with ease: Hong and Lee (2018)
5
Table 7.
Thematic analysis on
research outcome
Immersive
learning
technology
intervention
exploration tool mainly for learning the architecture design process. Often in this stage, the
technology is used to reflect the students’level of skills and maturity in learning. Therefore,
architectural students who are exposed to digital tools later in an architectural programme
are at an advantage since they have developed a strong manual foundation (Kara, 2015). The
gaming approach is applied as a learning tool for nonspecific groups, generic for all levels of
architecture study. ILT is also commonly used for construction and history subjects, which
are more theoretical and similar to other fields in education.
The findings above provide an avenue for further studies on the use of ILT in architecture
education. More studies are required to explore the different types of application at the early
stage of architecture education, particularly when the students are more keen and were
technologically simulated throughout their childhood (Martin and Monaco, 2007). Because ILT
was found to significantly support and improve learners’insights and design (Kuhn, 2001),
further research is needed on the use of such a tool in architecture education. The studyby Abu
Alatta and Freewan (2017) can be extended by exploring or adapting other learning theories.
5.2 Evaluation of intervention
The findings also indicate the positive effect of ILT on architecture student’s learning
performance, behaviour, and experience. Due to its flexibility, ILT is able to accommodate
most learning approaches. However, most of the interventions were introduced as a learning
tool in supporting teaching and learning activities in the current conventional education
Figure 2.
Distribution of
characteristics and
implementation of ILT
JARHE
setting where it is seen as the only supplementary and temporary component rather than
fully embedded in the system. Hence, the assessment may not be in-depth. With the current
need for digitalisation and mobility in education delivery, ILT might be the best solution in
tackling the situation. It would be exciting to see more studies that explore collaboration and
self-directed learning to address the current setback. Therefore, future studies may propose a
framework for the full utilisation of ILT in architecture education environments.
In terms of research approach and outcome, the findings suggest that the use of ILT can
lead to positive affective and cognitive outcomes among learners. The affective outcome, as
confirmed in most of the quantitative studies, can be seen in the students’emotions. ILT
facilitated learning performance in terms of engagement, expectation, motivation, immersion,
confidence, and students’satisfaction level. The evaluation performed in the qualitative and
mixed-method studies demonstrated that ILT is a tool that can provide positive cognitive
outcomes, such as the ability to apply knowledge and understand spatial qualities; ease of
imagination; enrichment of creativity; improvement of designers’self-evaluation; and critical
thinking. All these abilities can hamper the creation of ideas. These studies have facilitated
knowledge acquisition and a better understanding of the learning process promoted with the
use of ILT in the complex nature of architecture learning. While the results are reassuring,
none of the studies have looked into the effectiveness of ILT in nurturing the level of cognitive
and affective outcome in architecture education. Most of the existing interventions are a
stand-alone learning tool without associating with any of the learning theories or pedagogies.
Such limitations necessitate further exploration of how a learning experience occurs with a
different intervention method. Also, most of the publications reviewed do not discuss
learner’s characteristics, such as gender, prior knowledge, or skills. None of the studies have
considered the types of learners such as gifted or special-needs students. Hence, it would be
fascinating to know the effect of ILT on affective or cognitive outcomes according to the
learner’s type and characteristics. Such insight will be beneficial in adaptive learning
interventions (Liu et al., 2017) in architecture education.
6. Conclusion
This paper reports a review of previous studies on the use of ILT in the current architecture
academic environment. Though the study is not intended to be inclusive, it offers findings
that can be valuable for researchers and educators interested in the subject. Figure 3
summarises the thematic framework of the ILT intervention in an architecture education
environment.
The first section seeks to classify the components of student (population), ILT
(intervention), and architecture education (comparison) based on the PICO concept, which
are the general characteristics and implementation of ILT in the selected studies. Five
categories of characteristics were formed: (1) level of study; (2) type of technology; (3)
application type; (4) area of study; and (5) associated learning theories. In terms of type of
technology, four groups emerged: virtual reality environment (VRE), immersive virtual
reality (IVR), augmented reality (AR), and game technology. Four categories emerged on the
type of application: simulation, exploration, visualisation, and game. The following five
streams of architecture studies were identified: architecture design, architecture technology
and construction, design communication, building science, as well as architecture history and
theory. Four categories were identified on the level of study in which ILT is applied, namely
year one, year two, year three, year four, and year five.
The explored studies, however, were found to be not evenly distributed, with most
centralising in year two and year three. Simulation was applied mostly at year two for
architecture technology and construction subjects (Abdullah et al., 2017;Maghool et al., 2018),
architecture history (Sun et al., 2018), and architecture design process (Pamungkas et al.,
2018). In year-three and above, ILT is used as an exploration medium and mainly for the
Immersive
learning
technology
intervention
architecture design process (Abdelhameed, 2017;Abu Alatta and Freewan, 2017;Lin and
Hsu, 2017;Moleta, 2016). The distribution reflects the actual architectural syllabus needs,
complexity of its content, and students’skills level. The majority of the studies associated
with learning theories were implemented for architecture construction (Maghool et al., 2018;
Redondo Dom
ınguez et al., 2014;Wang et al., 2015) and history subjects (S
¸ahbaz and
€
Ozk€
ose,
Figure 3.
Thematic framework
on ILT intervention in
architecture education
JARHE
2018), which are more theoretical and are similar with other fields in education. There is
limited intervention for the subject ’architecture design unit’, which is the core subject in
architecture learning. Such inconsistency calls for more research on ILT intervention and its
association with other relevant learning theories and pedagogy aspects, specifically in an
architecture design studio environment.
The second section sought to identify the component of intervention implemented
(outcome) according to the PICO concept, which are the research purpose, approach, and
outcome from the selected studies. Four categories of research purposes were derived: (1)
evaluating the effect of ILT on learning performance (e.g. Ayer et al., 2016;Bartosh and
Krietemeyer, 2017;Hong and Lee, 2018); (2) evaluating users’experience (e.g. Abdullah et al.,
2017;Fonseca et al., 2017a,b;Valls, 2017); (3) investigating the benefits and potentials of ILT
(Abdelhameed, 2017;Gonz
alez, 2018;Moleta, 2016), and (4) evaluating the effect of ILT on
learning style and type of learner (Maghool, 2018;Wang et al., 2015). In terms of research
outcome, two learners’outcome were identified from the selected literature: (1) affective
outcome, consisting of emotional states such as motivation, expectation, engagement,
immersion, satisfaction, involvement, confidence; and (2) cognitive outcome, consisting of
cognitive processes such as remember, understand, create, apply, analyse, and evaluate.
The reviewed studies also indicate that most of the ILT interventions were used as an
independent learning tool without being associated with any learning theory (see, e.g.
Abdullah et al., 2017;Bartosh and Krietemeyer, 2017;Lin and Hsu, 2017). This finding
indicates that ILT is still perceived as a mere tool rather than a component of the education
system. To address this setback, there is a need for researchers to expand their investigation
to gain a better understanding of how ILT can be a part of innovative architecture education,
such as exploring collaboration, integration, and self-directed learning. Future studies may
propose a framework for the full utilisation of ILT in an architecture education environment.
Most of the studies do not discuss learner’s characteristics such as gender, prior
knowledge, or skills. None of the studies consider the types of learners, such as gifted or
special-needs students. Such shortcoming necessitates further exploration of the effect of ILT
on the learning experience of various learner’s types and characteristics. The findings from
such a study may suggest an adaptive learning intervention in architecture education
delivery. Educators worldwide will be able to benefit from the use of ILT as a new adaptation
to encounter the difficulties that arise due to the current pandemic. Learning with ILT would
be a new norm in architecture education.
References
Abdelhameed, W.A. (2017), “Creatıvıty ın the ınıtıal phases of architectural design”,Open House
International, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 29-34, available at: https://search-proquest-com.sheffield.idm.
oclc.org/docview/1907751116?accountid513828.
Abdullah, F., Kassim, M.H., Bin and Sanusi, A.N.Z. (2017), “Go virtual: exploring augmented reality
application in representation of steel architectural construction for the enhancement of
architecture education”,Advanced Science Letters, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 804-808, doi: 10.1166/asl.
2017.7449.
Abu Alatta, R.T. and Freewan, A.A. (2017), “Investigating the effect of employing immersive virtual
environment on enhancing spatial perception within design process”,International Journal of
Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 219, doi: 10.26687/archnet-ijar.
v11i2.1258.
Adams, N.E. (2015), “Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives”,Journal of the Medical
Library Association, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 152-153, doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010.
Aromataris, E. and Riitano, D. (2014), “Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence”,
American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 114 No. 5, pp. 49-56, doi: 10.1097/01.NAJ.0000446779.99522.f6.
Immersive
learning
technology
intervention
Ayer, S.K., Messner, J.I. and Anumba, C.J. (2016), “Augmented reality gaming in sustainable design
education”,Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 22 No. 1, 04015012, doi: 10.1061/(asce)ae.
1943-5568.0000195.
Bartosh, A. and Krietemeyer, B. (2017), “Virtual environment for design and analysis (VEDA):
interactive and immersive energy data visualizations for architectural design”,
TechnologyjArchitecture þDesign, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 50-60, doi: 10.1080/24751448.2017.1292794.
Chi, H.L., Kang, S.C. and Wang, X. (2013), “Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality
applications in architecture, engineering, and construction”,Automation in Construction,
Vol. 33, pp. 116-122, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2012.12.017.
Dede, C.J., Jacobson, J. and Richards, J. (2017), “Introduction: virtual, augmented, and mixed realities in
education”. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7_1.
Eiris, R. and Gheisari, M. (2017), “Research trends of virtual human applications in architecture,
engineering and construction”,Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon),
Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 168-184.
Fonseca, D., Redondo, E. and Valls, F. (2016), “Motivation and academic improvement using
augmented reality for 3D architectural visualization”,Education in the Knowledge Society
(EKS), Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 45, doi: 10.14201/eks20161714564.
Fonseca, D., Villagrasa, S., Ferrer,
A., Llorca, J., Id Navarro, I., Valls, F., Redondo, E., Gomez-Zevallos, M.
and Calvo, X. (2017a), “Student motivation assessment using and learning virtual and gamified
urban environments”,TEEM2017 Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological
Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality,Vol.72,pp.1-7,doi:10.1145/3144826.3145422.
Fonseca, D., Redondo, E., Valls, F. and Villagrasa, S. (2017b), “Technological adaptation of the student
to the educational density of the course. A case study: 3D architectural visualization”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 72, pp. 599-611, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.048.
Gonz
alez, N.A.A. (2018), “Development of spatial skills with virtual reality and augmented reality”,
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 133-144,
doi: 10.1007/s12008-017-0388-x.
H€
afner, P., H€
afner, V. and Ovtcharova, J. (2013), “Teaching methodology for virtual reality practical
course in engineering education”,Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 25, pp. 251-260, doi: 10.1016/j.
procs.2013.11.031.
Handa, M., Aul, E.G. and Bajaj, S. (2012), “Immersive technology –uses, challenges and
opportunities”,International Journal of Computing and Business Research ISSN (Online,
2229–6166, available at: http://www.researchmanuscripts.com/isociety2012/12.pdf.
Hong, S.W. and Lee, Y.G. (2018), “The effects of human behavior simulation on architecture major
students0fire egress planning”,Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 125-132, doi: 10.3130/jaabe.17.125.
Horne, M. and Thompson, E.M. (2013), “The role of virtual reality in built environment education”,Journal
for Education in the Built Environment,Vol.3No.1,pp.5-24,doi:10.11120/jebe.2008.03010005.
Ibrahim, N.L.N. and Utaberta, N. (2012), “Learning in architecture design studio”,Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 60, Figure 1, pp. 30-35, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.342.
Jose, S., Patrick, P.G. and Moseley, C. (2017), “Experiential learning theory: the importance of outdoor
classrooms in environmental education”,International Journal of Science Education, Part B:
Communication and Public Engagement, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 269-284, doi: 10.1080/21548455.2016.
1272144.
Kara, L. (2015), “A critical look at the digital technologies in architectural education: when, where, and
how?”,Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 176, pp. 526-530, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.
2015.01.506.
Kuhn, S. (2001), “Learning from the architecture studio: implications for project-based pedagogy”,
International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 17 Nos 4 and 5, pp. 349-352, available at:
http://www.ijee.ie/articles/Vol17-4and5/Ijee1214.pdf.
JARHE
Kwon, C. (2019), “Verification of the possibility and effectiveness of experiential learning using HMD-
based immersive VR technologies”,Virtual Reality, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 101-118, doi: 10.1007/
s10055-018-0364-1.
Lin, C.H. and Hsu, P.H. (2017), “Integrating procedural modelling process and immersive VR
environment for architectural design education”,MATEC Web of Conferences, Vol. 104
No. 03007, doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201710403007.
Liu, M., McKelroy, E., Corliss, S.B. and Carrigan, J. (2017), “Investigating the effect of an adaptive
learning intervention on students’learning”,Educational Technology Research and
Development, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 1605-1625, doi: 10.1007/s11423-017-9542-1.
L€
offler, R., Tholt, T. and
Simkovi
c, V. (2016), “Mixed reality in architecture”,Applied Mechanics and
Materials, Vol. 820 No. 2007, pp. 9-14, doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.820.9.
Maghool, S.A.H., Moeini, S.H. and Arefazar, Y. (2018), “An educational application based on virtual
reality technology for learning architectural details: challenges and benefits”,International
Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 246, doi: 10.26687/archnet-ijar.
v12i3.1719.
Martin, M. and Monaco, M. (2007), “The millennial student: a new generation of learners”,Athletic
Training Education Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 42-46.
Materla, T., Cudney, E.A. and Antony, J. (2019), “The application of Kano model in the healthcare
industry: a systematic literature review”,Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
Vol. 30 Nos 5–6, pp. 660-681, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2017.1328980.
Moleta, T.J. (2016), “Game on: exploring constructive design behaviors through the use of real-time
virtual engines in architectural education”,International Journal of Architectural Computing,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 212-218, doi: 10.1177/1478077116663341.
Moloney, J. (2015), “Videogame technology Re-purposed: towards interdisciplinary design
environments for engineering and architecture”,Procedia Technology, Vol. 20 July,
pp. 212-218, doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2015.07.034.
Ng, V. (2013), “Values of learning through0place-makin
g in the design studio”,Archnet-IJAR, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 86-98.
Pamungkas, L.S., Meytasari, C. and Trieddiantoro, H. (2018), “Virtual reality as A spatial experience
for architecture design A study of effectiveness for architecture students”,Les Ulis: EDP
Sciences, Vol. 05005, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20184105005.
Poppe, E. and Gilgen, D. (2017), “Virtual reality goes mobile in the digital age”, in Oswald, G. and
Kleinemeier, M. (Eds), Shaping the Digital Enterprise, Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-
40967-2.
Portman, M.E., Natapov, A. and Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2015), “To go where no man has gone before:
virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning”,Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 54, pp. 376-384, doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.05.001.
Redondo Dom
ınguez, E., Fonseca Escudero, D., S
anchez Riera, A. and Navarro Delgado, I. (2014), “Mobile
learning in the field of architecture and building construction. A case study analysis”,RUSC
Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 152-174, doi: 10.7238/rusc.v11i1.1844.
Royal Institute of British Architect (2020), “RIBA publishes results of covid-19 student survey”,
available at: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/
riba-publishes-covid-19-student-survey-results.
S
anchez Riera, A., Redondo, E. and Fonseca, D. (2015), “Geo-located teaching using handheld
augmented reality: good practices to improve the motivation and qualifications of architecture
students”,Universal Access in the Information Society, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 363-374, doi: 10.1007/
s10209-014-0362-3.
S
¸ahbaz, E. and
€
Ozk€
ose, A. (2018), “Experiencing historical buildings through digital computer games”,
International Journal of Architectural Computing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 22-33, doi: 10.1177/
1478077117749960.
Immersive
learning
technology
intervention
Sampaio, A.Z., Ferreira, M.M., Ros
ario, D.P. and Martins, O.P. (2010), “3D and VR models in Civil
Engineering education: construction, rehabilitation and maintenance”,Automation in
Construction, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 819-828, doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.05.006.
Schroeder, H., Friedewald, A., Kahlefendt, C. and L€
odding, H. (2017), “Advances in production
management systems. The path to intelligent,”,Collaborative and Sustainable Manufacturing,
Vol. 513, pp. 330-337, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-66923-6.
Shamalinia, S. (2017), “Virtual and augmented reality applications in building industry”, in Rassia, S.
and Pardalos, P. (Eds), Smart City Networks, Springer, Cham, Vol. 125, pp. 11-24, doi: 10.1007/
978-3-319-61313-0.
Soliman, M., Peetz, J. and Davydenko, M. (2017), “The impact of immersive technology on nature
relatedness and pro-environmental behavior”,Journal of Media Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 8-17, doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000213.
Song, P., Xu, S., Fong, W.T., Chin, C.L., Chua, G.G. and Huang, Z. (2012), “An immersive VR system for
sports education”,IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, Vols E95-D No. 5,
pp. 1324-1331, doi: 10.1587/transinf.E95.D.1324.
Suh, A. and Prophet, J. (2018), “The state of immersive technology research: a literature analysis”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 86, pp. 77-90, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.019.
Sun, C., Hu, W. and Xu, D. (2018), “Navigation modes, operation methods, observation scales and
background options in UI design for high learning performance in VR-based architectural
applications”,Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, Vol. 6, pp. 189-196, doi: 10.
1016/j.jcde.2018.05.006.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”,British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 207-222, doi: 10.2307/249689.
Valls, F. (2017), “Simulated environments in architecture education. Improving the student
motivation”,Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 571, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-
56541-5.
Wang, R., Newton, S. and Lowe, R. (2015), “Experiential learning styles in the age of a virtual
surrogate”,International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, Vol. 9 No. 3, p. 93,
doi: 10.26687/archnet-ijar.v9i3.715.
Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H.L. and Wang, X. (2018), “A critical review of the use of virtual
realityinconstructionengineering education and training”,International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 15 No. 6, doi: 10.3390/ijerph15061204.
Yuen, S.C., Yaoyuneyong, G. and Johnson, E. (2013), “Augmented reality and education: applications
and potentials”, in Huang, R. and Kinshuk, S.J.M. (Eds), Reshaping Learning. New Frontiers of
Educational Research, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 385-414, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-32301-0.
Corresponding author
Annisa Ummihusna can be contacted at: meerannisa@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
JARHE
