Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

[Link]

Metaverse system adoption in education: a systematic

literature review

Raghad Alfaisal1 · Haslinda Hashim1 · Ummu Husna Azizan1

Received: 14 October 2022 / Revised: 2 December 2022 / Accepted: 4 December 2022 /

Published online: 24 December 2022
© Beijing Normal University 2022

Abstract
The evaluation of information systems (IS) models, which are employed to research
the adoption or acceptance of metaverse systems, is thought to be a subject of
major significance. Studying the adoption or acceptability of the metaverse system
is not a recent study area, and many academics have taken on the task. We should
be acquainted with the leading IS models used in this study trend to assess these
models and give academics a comprehensive understanding of this study trend. The
primary goal of this research, in contrast to previous reviews, is to systematically
evaluate the metaverse research in education from the viewpoint of IS theories/mod-
els to offer a thorough pointer that might help the scholars to carry out additional
research in metaverse acceptance. A total of 41 research that was published between
2011 and 2022 were examined in the present systematic review. The main study
results showed that the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is recognized as the
most widely used model in forecasting people’s intentions to uphold the metaverse
system. Furthermore, it was discovered that SmartPLS (PLS-SEM) is a typical tool
for validating metaverse models. In addition, the key research purpose covered in the
bulk of the reviewed research is to study how students adopt or accept the metaverse
system and the technology that supports it. Additionally, most of the research that
was gathered was done in China, Taiwan, and the USA, accordingly. Additionally,
in most of the evaluated research, it was discovered that university students were
the primary respondents concerning data acquisition. These findings are anticipated
to significantly improve both our comprehension of metaverse system study and the
utilization of IS models.

* Raghad Alfaisal
raghad.alfaisal81@[Link]
Haslinda Hashim
haslinda@[Link]
Ummu Husna Azizan
ummuhusna@[Link]
1
Faculty of Art, Computing and Creative Industries, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris,
Tanjong Malim, Perak, Malaysia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
260 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Keywords Education · Metaverse · Systematic literature review · Virtual Reality

Introduction

The aim of computer scientists and researchers was to rapidly develop the aspects
of virtual environment. Due to the advancement of the Internet and the widespread
distribution of social media, cheap and easy access is provided to hardware and soft-
ware with the aim of offering enhanced digital content that is signified by three-
dimensional (3D) virtual environments (Collins, 2008; MacCallum & Parsons,
2019). Stephenson (1992) coined the term metaverse, whereby an immersive 3D
virtual environment was explained through a science fiction novel. The development
of metaverse helps in carrying out every day communication and interaction among
humans. Hence, metaverse may be referred to as a world that virtually enhances
physical space and physical reality. It is an integration of real as well as physical
universe through which the users are able to imagine various and myriad digital mir-
rors of the actual world and mirrors that are NOT present in the actual world for
different purposes (Arcila, 2014; Collins, 2008; Díaz et al., 2020; Márquez, 2011).
A large number of studies have been conducted in various universities and edu-
cational institutions, with the focus of these studies being on the metaverse. The
metaverse was used by the researchers in an educational setting, concentrating on
the adoption of a problem-based technique in which students and teachers can pre-
sent the problem and identify potential solutions in the imaginary world with the
help of three-dimensional classes and the avatar (Barry et al., 2009; Farjami et al.,
2011; Kanematsu et al., 2012, 2013). It was determined by Jeon & Jung (2021) that
a metaverse platform is a vital tool using which learners can enhance their motiva-
tion and immersion. It allows them to generate real feelings regarding the use of
innovative learning approaches and acquire self-directed learning experiences. In
addition, the significance of using the metaverse system in different fields of study
globally was demonstrated by Farjami et al. (2011), Han (2020), and Kanematsu
et al. (2013). The focus of these studies was on formulating real-life experiences
where the metaverse system is employed to obtain solutions to the problem. This
shows that a conceptual model needs to be developed that can explain the significant
role of the metaverse system from the point of view of students. The conceptual
model is capable of examining whether the metaverse system is effective, focusing
on the perception of students from a distinct point of view.
The metaverse is an extension of real-time interaction that allows many peo-
ple to enjoy a variety of experiences. The metaverse is an imagined world with
increasingly realistic digital spaces, enabling a more dynamic learning environment
in educational settings. From the standpoint of education, both the industrial sec-
tor and corporation demand an educated workforce to address the new obstacles of
the metaverse environment, which necessitates new management and operational
leadership paradigms. Furthermore, these environments describe and study human
conduct in an educational setting to evaluate how it varies from conduct in the real
world. This review intends to review and synthesize metaverse systems studies that
systematically incorporated educational environments. A collection of 41 research

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 261

articles released between 2011 and 2022 were assessed using preset standards.
The key research fields in metaverse systems, the main and the most frequent factor
categories utilized in metaverse systems in the education sector, the most important
research methods, the main disciplines, and the main educational levels. The eleven
research questions listed below are presented in this retrospective research:

1. What are the primary research goals of the articles collected?

2. What are the primary research methods used in the articles gathered?
3. What are the primary countries represented in the articles accumulated?
4. What are the primary disciplines of the articles gathered?
5. What are the highest educational levels of the target group in the articles that
have been accumulated?
6. What are the primary software/tool used in the articles gathered?
7. What are the primary research model used in the articles accumulated?
8. What are the key factor categories in the articles gathered?
9. What are the most frequently researched factors in the collated articles?
10. Which key databases are these collated articles included in?
11. What are the trends across time in metaverse/virtual reality studies?

In addition, the methodological and conceptual characteristics of metaverse sys-

tems in education are covered in this review. In this paper, multiple methodologies
were used to assess journals, symposia, covered publications, and workshop pieces
to study metaverse systems in education. This paper also assists the recipient in
becoming acquainted with the core concepts associated with metaverse systems, as
well as how education specialists have employed metaverse systems in the education
and the current problem spectrum.

Literature review

The basic purpose of education is to provide students with the knowledge and train-
ing that are considered important in society to equip them for life, job, and citi-
zenship (Wittich et al., 2017). The act of enabling learning, acquiring knowledge,
abilities, or constructive values is typically referred to as education. Enhancing
graduates’ credentials, abilities, and skills throughout the educational process is the
responsibility of the educator (Dewey, 2007). Classes typically include two com-
ponents theoretical and practical, including activities, labs, or internships. In theo-
retical courses, knowledge is transferred among a sizable group through lectures that
may also include debates. The demands of students and the job prospects throughout
time compelled modifications in the educational system (Blumenfeld et al., 1991).
The practical aspect had been given precedence. Due to the technical difficulty,
the need for conceptual thought, and the reality that these notions are not physical,
many students have difficulty comprehending ideas, particularly in science courses
(Zheng et al., 2015). Basic flaws limit continued research and improvement of more
complex issues. Students are not allowed to self-configure lab equipment, encounter

13
262 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

emergencies, or undergo the impacts of configuration errors that could cause equip-
ment breakage. Practical exercises, which are dependent primarily on sophisticated
research equipment, must be performed under oversight. Additionally, there is no
way to practice and make up lost time outside of the lab timetable. Contemporary
technologies, including online courses (Magdalene & Sridharan, 2018), blended
learning (Al-Maroof et al., 2021; Halverson et al., 2017), various computer-based
platforms (Van der Kleij et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2018), and many more, are the
present alternatives. This tool enables students to revisit the same material multi-
ple times, make mistakes, and improve from them. The edtech industry can enhance
learning outcomes for the bulk of students, according to numerous instances of
hardware and software that have proved effective in educational procedures (Col-
lins & Halverson, 2018). Sophisticated new technological resources are being intro-
duced by an increasing number of educational institutions worldwide to assist them
in better fulfilling the needs of their heterogeneous student demographics. Digital
learning materials, particularly those from open academic services, are overtaking
classical books (Atkins et al., 2007). Traditional copybooks have been supplanted
with notebooks, tablets, or smartphones with specialized apps (Ally, 2009), and per-
sonalized learning (FitzGerald et al., 2018) and distance learning (Kaye & Rumble,
2018) are utilized to adapt the educational experience to each student’s educational
abilities, shortcomings, interests, and aspirations. It is commonly recognized that the
usage of Information and communication technologies has been shown to increase
students’ perceptions of education (Hõrak, 2019; Lieshout et al., 2018). It is an area
of study that is expanding quickly, constantly searching for new technical alterna-
tives. The interactive computer-generated world known as metaverse, which was
previously only used for gaming, is now being used for professional development
in fields including education, health, and psychiatry forces. Numerous review stud-
ies were done to emphasize the importance of the metaverse in helping the teaching
and learning procedure in response to the growing curiosity in metaverse research
among academics. One of the evaluation research projects was carried out to
uncover an intriguing scholarly outlook that emphasizes the necessity for additional
research into the motivations behind researchers’ involvement in metaverse spaces
and the motivations behind some of them in integrating technology for engaging
computer-generated surroundings. To assist researchers in creating metaverse sur-
roundings, the academics offered a repository of metaverse techniques and appli-
cations. In a survey paper, Lee et al. (2021a) made the first attempt to establish a
comprehensive framework that analyzes the most recent metaverse development in
the context of innovative technologies and metaverse ecosystems, and highlight the
potential for the digital “big bang.” The drivers for the shift from the existing Inter-
net to the metaverse are technologies. The technical framework of the metaverse was
presented in a review study by Ning et al., (2021) that discussed the development
trends of the metaverse from the five viewpoints of network infrastructure, manage-
ment technology, basic prevalent technology, virtual reality object connection, and
virtual reality convergence. This study also covers the social and hyper spatiotem-
poral aspects of the metaverse and explores its initial application domains as well as
some potential issues and difficulties. Seven crucial subjects that are pertinent to the
metaverse were identified by Lee et al., (2021b) in their comprehensive survey on

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 263

computational arts, which presents new artworks in hybrid virtual-physical realities.

The subjects address the components that make up the metaverse, such as virtual
characters, sceneries, and auditory and textual features. The increased frontiers of
metaverse cyberspace have also been mirrored in several amazing original inven-
tions, including immersive arts, robotic arts, and other user-centric strategies that
support modern artistic yields. The study also acts as a starting point for creative
works in the field of surreal cyberspace for artists and metaverse technologists. The
application of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training
(CEET) was explored in a systematic review by Wang et al. (2018). They target all
academic works written between 1997 and 2017 that discuss VR and objectively
compile and assess all the VR applications in CEET.
To outline the benefits of the metaverse as an innovative education space that
supports Universal Design for Learning, Mistretta (2022) undertook a review
paper. The uses and value of virtual reality, or the metaverse, in education
and training, have been the subject of numerous research (Dahan et al., 2022;
Kamińska et al., 2019; Mistretta, 2022; Smutny et al., 2019). This publication
also examines channels that provide a variety of access points for participation,
advocacy, action, and discourse. Furthermore, Smutny et al. (2019) conducted a
survey paper to investigate how virtual reality is now employed to assist with
learning and teaching. The research’s findings outline the allocation of curricu-
lum material in virtual reality programs as well as the top user-rated educational
VR programs. The other review study was carried out in metaverse-based e-learn-
ing systems (Dahan et al., 2022). The academics looked at some earlier studies
to determine the unique technologies that the metaverse framework should offer,
and they then talked about how the metaverse framework might be used in an
e-learning environment framework. Prospective metaverse-based apps will be
simple to create as a result, as the suggested architecture would enable a seam-
less operation of virtual learning environments on the metaverse. E-learning will
also be a more enjoyable and involved experience. Additionally, Kamińska et al.
(2019) conducted a second survey paper to systematically analyze virtual reality
and its uses in education. They discussed future VR possibilities and compiled
the most intriguing, current VR educational uses concerning a variety of educa-
tional areas, including general, engineering, and health-related education. This
survey also contributes by outlining several strategies for analyzing and validat-
ing simulations as well as methodologies for simulation creation.
It is clear from this those prior evaluations have primarily concentrated on the
academics’ participation in virtual reality or metaverse classes (Smutny et al., 2019),
the classroom atmosphere during the Covid-19 pandemic (Mistretta, 2022), the
system of the metaverse if implemented as an e-learning environment framework
(Dahan et al., 2022), and the impact of virtual reality on students’ attitudes and
accomplishments (Kamińska et al., 2019). The goals of the existing reviews were
constrained, even though they gave us a greater grasp of virtual reality or metaverse
study. The primary goal of this research, in contrast to previous reviews, is to sys-
tematically evaluate the metaverse research in education from the viewpoint of IS
theories/models to offer a thorough pointer that might help the scholars carry out
additional research in Metaverse acceptance.

13
264 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Metaverse: scope and characteristics

The purpose of developing the term metaverse was to achieve fictional objectives,
where users function as avatars or pseudonyms to replicate interaction with other
users in several day-to-day scenarios. Metaverse refers to a three-dimensional,
immersive, virtual world in which social and economic interaction occurs between
the users, irrespective of their location. Computational-based interaction takes place
between the users (Arcila, 2014; Díaz et al., 2020; Márquez, 2011; Vázquez-Cano &
Sevillano-García, 2017). There are significant characteristics of the metaverse that
distinguishes it from other tools within an educational setting, such as “Interactivity,
Corporeity and Persistence”. Users are able to interact with each other in a virtual
learning platform as part of a virtual world. Through the interactivity feature, the
world becomes more dynamic and an innovative educational scenario of autono-
mous and collaborative learning is established that offers access to all the existing
resources. The metaverse system can work without leaving the actual world, while
maintaining a consistent connection with the virtual world without any time restric-
tions. In the same way, the corporeity feature adds the avatar with no limit in the
virtual world, which gives rise to a highly realistic environment with respect to their
definition as their shape is the same or better than 3D games. The persistence feature
is also very important as it helps save conversation, objects and data even after users
have left the virtual world (Ando et al., 2013; Castronova, 2001; Díaz et al., 2020;
Tarouco et al., 2013).
From an education point of view, industries and businesses look for an educated
workplace that is able to fulfill the new problems that emerge in the metaverse envi-
ronment and that need novel management and organizational leadership models.
Furthermore, these environments better explain and evaluate the human behaviors
in an educational situation to determine the ways in which human behavior in these
settings is identical or distinct to behavior in the real world. Higher education insti-
tutions are also able to benefit from the different methods by offering a platform for
faculty, students and staff to interact in an entirely flexible environment, where there
are no limitations on classrooms, contrary to the traditional classrooms. Students
can easily communicate with professors in a digital environment simply by pressing
a button. This means that the metaverse is capable of employing a real university
and institution by transforming it to a virtual world in which there can be interaction
between students, teachers and learning models in hybrid and collaborative class-
rooms (Ando et al., 2013; Tarouco et al., 2013).

The importance of metaverse in education

University lectures used to be given in person to a small group of students by a

genuine lecturer—a solitary resource. The manner universities and academic work
are promoted could be altered by metaverses. Students will benefit from a more
“cyber-physical” learning experience thanks to the Metaverse, where the virtual and
physical worlds converge. Owing to metaverses, students can easily switch between

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 265

online stores and lecture rooms with a single avatar. Certain types of conventional
university teaching may contribute to the development of the metaverse. A lot of
individuals would prefer cyber-physical institutions to conventional brick-and-mor-
tar institutions. In the metaverse, they might gain knowledge through virtual experi-
ences provided by numerous international universities.
Because of the metaverse system’s rapid surge, researchers are looking at its sig-
nificance in the field of education. Prospective academics and programmers might
work together to create instructors that can help educators in their metaverse real-
ity (Han & Noh, 2021; Preston, 2021). With an emphasis on its pedagogical sig-
nificance, Han & Noh (2021) performed research to look at the perspectives and
requirements of higher education teachers about metaverse-based education. The
primary objective of the research is to ascertain instructors’ perspectives toward
adopting the metaverse system in higher education. They formed the opinion that
the Metaverse can be used in addition to conventional communication techniques.
One other research evaluated the metaverse system’s effects as an innovative tech-
nology in adjacent universities. Instructors also believed that there were procedures
in place and support available as needed for the classroom environment, including
for the use of curriculum material and instructional techniques. A novel approach
to the conundrum that instructors and students face in online learning environments
is the metaverse system. The difficulties instructors have in conveying specialized
classes and the percentage of student satisfaction with online learning are two note-
worthy concerns that can be fixed (Jeon, 2021).

Method

“Identification of inclusion and exclusion criteria, data sources and search strategies,
quality assessment, and data coding and analysis” (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007)
were the four processes used to perform the review. The specifics of these stages
are presented in the sub-sections that precede. The guidelines used to conduct the
present review research’s systematic review can be accessed within Kitchenham &
Charters (2007). Regarding improved organization, the systematic literature review
(SLR) approaches suggested in Moher et al. (2009a) were also used in this research.
The developed SLR method comprises the initial process of defining a review
standard, while the review processes include planning, conducting, and evaluating
the review. The review was carried out using the methods below. The search was
selected, the quality of the work was evaluated, the major research was picked, the
data were synthesized, the review was documented, the data was retrieved, and ulti-
mately, validation was carried out.
Furthermore, the research question formulation is an important part of the SLR
process because it establishes the research’s frames of reference at the outset. Fig-
ure 1 depicts the six stages of the review methodology that were employed in this
study. Figure 1 next highlights the procedure of merging a search strategy that
emphasizes developing the preliminary research. Even if this process is completed,
a method for determining the search terms/criteria must be developed, and the initial
research must be correlated to the SLR.

13
266 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Fig. 1  Protocol Review Stages (Moher et al., 2009a)

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

The articles that meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria listed in Table 1 will be
analyzed for the review research.

Data sources and search strategies

The search for articles to be considered in this systematic review will begin in
May of 2022. The “ACM Digital Library, Emerald, Google Scholar, IEEE, Sci-
enceDirect, Springer, Taylor and Francis Online, and Wiley Online Library”
databases were employed to conduct a comprehensive search of published
research to compile the research articles for inclusion in this systematic review.
The search terms utilized to find pertinent publications were predicated on the
keywords in Table 2. Because keywords provide the foundation for accessibil-
ity to pertinent publications, proper keyword selection is critical for the selec-
tion of articles for inclusion in the systematic review (Costa & Monteiro, 2016).
The search findings acquired using the already mentioned keywords provided

Table 1  Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Must involve metaverse systems in education Articles on metaverse systems but not in education field
Must involve research framework Articles without research framework
Must be written in English language Articles published in languages other than English
Must be published between 2011 and 2022

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 267

Table 2  Keyword search

Keyword search

“Metaverse” or “Augmented Reality” or “Virtual Reality” or “Virtual Worlds” or “Second Life” or

“Immersion virtual reality” & or “Mixed Reality” or “Avatars” or “Digital Twins” & [“Education”
or “Learning” or “E-learning”] & [“Students” or “pupil” or “learner”] & [“technology adoption” or
“technology acceptance”]

Table 3  Final search results No Database Count

across the databases
1 ACM Digital Library 6
2 Emerald 12
3 Google Scholar 98
4 IEEE 10
5 SAGE Pub 5
6 Springer 15
7 ScienceDirect 18
8 Taylor and Francis Online 10
9 Wiley Online Library 3
Total 177

accessibility to 177 articles (see Table 3), comprising 87 redundant articles that
were extracted. As a result, we received 90 articles. The researchers assessed
each article under the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with 41 research arti-
cles meeting the inclusion criteria and so being incorporated in the evaluation
procedure. Throughout the searching and filtration phases of the articles for the
present review paper, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were used (Moher et al., 2009b). Figure 2 shows the
PRISMA flowchart.

Quality assessment

Following filtration (N = 41), seven criteria from the quality assessment checklist
were used to assess the quality of the research articles that were eligible for further
analysis. Quality assessment is just as significant as inclusion and exclusion crite-
ria (Al-Emran et al., 2018). The quality assessment checklist is presented in Fig. 3.
The checklist was a tweaked version of (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007) suggestions,
and it was not intended to criticize any of the researchers’ projects. The questions
were scored using a three-point scale which is standard for scoring questions, with 1
point being allocated to ‘Yes,’ 0 points being allocated to ‘No,’ and 0.5 points being
allocated to ‘Partially.’ Any research could receive anywhere from 0 to 7 points.
The research’s higher overall score indicates that it is better able to respond to the

13
268 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Fig. 2  PRISMA flow diagram

Fig. 3  Quality assessment

checklist (Kitchenham and
Charters, 2007)

research questions. The results of every research’s quality assessment are presented
in Table 4, which shows that all 41 studies met the quality assessment criteria, indi-
cating their acceptability and competence for further analysis.

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 269

Table 4  Quality assessment Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Total Percentage (%)

results
P1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P3 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 6.5 93
P4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 5 71
P6 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 5.5 79
P7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 4.5 64
P8 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 4.5 64
P9 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 4 57
P10 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.5 64
P11 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 6 86
P12 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 5.5 79
P13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P14 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 4 57
P15 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 5.5 79
P16 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 6 86
P17 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4 57
P18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P21 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 5 71
P22 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 5.5 79
P23 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 4.5 64
P24 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 6 86
P25 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 5 71
P26 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4 57
P27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P28 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 6 86
P29 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 5 71
P30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P31 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 6.5 93
P32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P34 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 4.5 64
P35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P36 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 6.5 93
P37 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 6 86
P38 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 6 86
P39 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.5 50
P40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100
P41 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 5.5 79

13
270 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Data coding and analysis

The following characteristics of research methodology reliability were coded: (a)

year of publication (b) primary research area in metaverse systems (c) research
methodology (example, interview, survey, experiment, etc.), (d) education level
(such as higher education, high school, and elementary school.), (e) region, (f) and
database (e.g., Springer, ScienceDirect, IEEE, etc.).

Results and discussion

To obtain responses to 11 research questions, the present systematic review looked

at 41 research publications about metaverse in education that were conducted from
2011 to 2022.

RQ1: What are the primary research goals of the articles collected?

(1) Analyzing the factors of adoption of virtual reality (N = 32), (2) Analyzing the
factors of adoption of metaverse systems (N = 5), (3) Analyzing the adoption and
usage of augmented reality (N = 3), and (4) Analyzing the factors that affect the use
of virtual classrooms to improve academic performance (N = 1) (see Fig. 4). Those
mentioned are the major themes that have been used to group the study objective of
the publications that have been analyzed. To sum up, the most common study issue
addressed is figuring out factors that influence students’ adoption of virtual reality. It
is important to remember that the keyword “adoption” alludes to research that gages
how well students are adopting virtual reality now before it becomes widely used
later, while “acceptance” pertains to research that assesses students’ acceptance of
virtual reality following their use.

RQ2: What are the primary research methods used in the articles gathered?

We can see that almost 97% of virtual reality academics focused primarily on
questionnaire surveys to gather data. The researches (N = 1) that employed hybrid
approaches come after this (e.g., interview, experiment, survey, etc.). This outcome

Fig. 4  Research purposes

distribution 35
30
25
20
32
15
10
5
5 3 1
0
Virtual Reality Metaverse Augmented Virtual
Reality classrooms

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 271

Fig. 5  The primary research 25

methods 23
20

18
15

10

0 1
Survey quesonnaire Online survey Interview

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
t

ce

an

ico

an

ain

lia

ey

sia

an

a
yp

an

in
di

re

bi
UA

US
an

ra

rk
rd

Om

iw
ay
ex

Ch
In

Sp

ra
Eg

Ko

rm
Tu
st
Jo
Fr

Ta
al
iA
M

Au

Ge

M
ud
Sa

Fig. 6  The primary countries represented in the articles

can be attributed to the survey instrument’s status as the most widely used approach
for a range of technology acceptance analyses and as a useful model testing resource
in the field of information systems. The prevalence of the evaluated papers accord-
ing to the research methodologies employed is displayed in Fig. 5.

RQ3: What are the primary countries represented in the articles accumulated?

Most of the gathered research (N = 8) was carried out in China. The research that
came after that was carried out in the USA (N = 5) and Taiwan (N = 7), accordingly.
This finding may be explained by the fact that Chinese academics are very interested
in researching virtual reality, and their focus is drawn to it. As a result, there is still
room for research on this topic in nations that the available studies did not cover.
According to the countries in which this research was conducted, the categorization
of the analyzed research is shown in Fig. 6.
Note that the frequency mentioned here is not in a one-to-one, for example, study
number P2 (Akour et al., 2022) was conducted in three countries (UAE, KSA, and
Oman). Study P7 was also conducted in the United States and China (George et al.,
2020).

13
272 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

RQ4: What are the primary disciplines of the articles gathered?

Scientific papers from a variety of fields were categorized as (General). The arrange-
ment of the examined papers in terms of their disciplines is shown in Fig. 7. We can
see that about half of the research (N = 20) did not identify the field of research.
Additionally, the preponderance of the reviewed research (17%) focused on medical
education (N = 7). Aviation training (N = 3) and tourism education (N = 2) are the
next two subjects, accordingly.

RQ5: What are the highest educational levels of the target group in the articles
that have been accumulated?

We can see that research done in higher education settings accounted for almost
83% of the studied papers (N = 34), trailed by research done in high school settings
(N = 2). The arrangement of the evaluated research according to educational level
is shown in Fig. 8. Considering graduate and undergraduate students are the most
frequent adopters of virtual reality for academic reasons, this conclusion may be
explained by the fact that virtual reality is more successful in the domain of instruct-
ing and studying within higher educational institutions.

RQ6: What are the primary software/tool used in the articles gathered?

The prevalence of the evaluated research concerning the statistical software

employed for data analysis is shown in Fig. 9. Statistical software is typically used
to assess academic papers that include both quantitative and qualitative data. Smart-
PLS (PLS-SEM) is the most often employed data analysis software (N = 15) in the

General 20
Medical educaonal 7
Aviaon training 3
Tourism educaon 2
Shopping/commerce-rela... 1
Law 1
Laboratory experiments 1
English language educaon 1
Engineering educaon 1
Dance training 1
Construcon safety training 1
Chinese language educaon 1
Architecture students 1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Fig. 7  The primary disciplines

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 273

Fig. 8  The primary educational 40

levels 35
34
30

25

20

15

10

5
2
4
0
Middle1school High school Others University students

PLS-SEM

AMOS-SEM

SPSS

VirtualPLS

The VR simulaon

Qualitave Cohort Study

Psych

R soware

Oculus Ri DK2 and Google Blocks

Minitab soware

MARLCardio

KMO

Descripve stascal analysis

Arficial neural network

Machine Learning

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Fig. 9  Popularity of various software in researches

research under consideration. The research that precedes employs AMOS-SEM

(N = 12) and SPSS (N = 4), accordingly. The fact that SmartPLS (PLS-SEM) is con-
sidered the most popular and trustworthy statistical software for data analysis is
noteworthy. This may help to clarify why SPSS was used the most frequently in the
reviewed research.

RQ7: What are the primary research model used in the articles accumulated?

We can see that the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was used in about
67% of the evaluated publications (N = 29), second by research that used the Uni-
fied Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (N = 12). Consider-
ing graduate and undergraduate students are the most common adopters of virtual
reality for academic reasons, this conclusion could be explained by the fact that

13
274 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

the TAM model is more beneficial in enhancing acceptance and adoption of new
technology within higher educational schools. The arrangement of the evaluated
research concerning the research model is shown in Fig. 10.

RQ8: What are the key factor categories in the articles gathered?

The arrangement of most environmental variables among the databases is shown

in Table 5. In total, 41 research recognized and evaluated 96 external factors.

RQ9: What are the most frequently researched factors in the collated articles?

The factor frequencies determined from the reviewed studies are displayed in
Fig. 11. We have tallied the frequency of each factor employed in the gathered
research to determine which factors were most regularly utilized to prolong the
TAM or UTAUT in the virtual reality environment. Most research that extended
the TAM or UTAUT employing the factor is measured by the “frequency” char-
acteristic. Once the relevant studies were found, all the constructs offered in the
research were combined to establish the external factors frequently employed.
External factors whose ties to TAM or UTAUT were validated and corroborated
in three or more analyses were brought into consideration and evaluated to be
certain in the strength of the correlation between the external factors and TAM
or UTAUT. As a result, we can see that “Social Influence/Subjective Norm, Per-
formance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions, Perceived
Enjoyment, Self-efficacy, Immersion, Perceived Compatibility, User Satisfaction,
Imagination, Interaction, Perceived Anxiety, and Personal innovativeness” are
the most common observed factors that successfully influenced the adoption and
acceptance of the virtual reality setting.

35

30
29
25

20

15

10 12

5
1 1
0
Technology Acceptance Unified Theory of Flow theory Movaon-hygiene theory
Model Acceptance and Use of
Technology

Fig. 10  The primary research model

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 275

Table 5  The key factors Factor Count

Social influence/subjective norm 14

Performance expectancy 13
Effort expectancy 12
Facilitating conditions 12
Perceived enjoyment 11
Self-efficacy 10
Immersion 5
Perceived compatibility 4
User satisfaction 4
Imagination 3
Interaction 3
Personal innovativeness 4
Perceived anxiety 3
Active experimentation 2
Concrete experience 2
Experienced realism 2
Hedonic motivation 2
Involvement 2
Learning motivation 2
Perceived complexity 2
Perceived observability 2
Perceived playfulness 2
Perceived price value 2
Perceived triability 2
Purchase intention 2
Realism 2
Reflective observation 2
Regulatory uncertainty 2
Sense of presence 2
Spatial presence 2
Ability to act 1
Ability to examine 1
Abstract conception 1
Abstract conceptualization 1
Appreciation 1
Autonomy 1
Cognitive engagement 1
Competence 1
Competencies 1
Concentration 1
COVID-19 pandemic context 1
Curiosity 1
Deep learning 1

13
276 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Table 5  (continued) Factor Count

Espoused individualist/collectivist 1
Espoused masculinity/femininity 1
Espoused power distance 1
Espoused uncertainty avoidance 1
Experimental fidelity 1
Fantasization 1
Feedback 1
Flow 1
Future perception 1
Goal orientation 1
Hedonic quality-stimulation 1
Hygiene 1
Information overload 1
Information quality 1
Interface quality 1
Learner interaction 1
Learning outcome 1
Mastery-approach 1
Mastery-avoidance 1
Media richness 1
Mobility 1
Motivators 1
Nausea 1
Oculomotor 1
Organizational factor 1
Perceived behavioral control 1
Perceived health risk 1
Perceived interaction 1
Perceived Learning 1
Performance approach 1
Performance avoidance 1
Plausibility illusion 1
Pragmatic quality 1
Presence 1
Price willing to pay 1
Purchase attitude 1
Recommendation 1
Relatedness 1
Security, technology availability 1
Self-assessment of performance 1
Service quality 1
Social interactions 1
Social presence 1

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 277

Table 5  (continued) Factor Count

Strength of the social ties 1

Stress/worry/pressure 1
Surface learning 1
System attributes 1
System quality 1
Trainer 1
Trust 1
Usability 1
Wellbeing 1
Word-of-mouth Intention 1

Perceived Anxiety 3
Interac on 3
Imagina on 3
User Sa sfac on 4
Personal innova veness 4
Perceived Compa bility 4
Immersion 5
Self-efficacy 10
Perceived Enjoyment 10
Facilita ng Condi ons 12
Effort Expectancy 12
Performance Expectancy 13
Social Influence /Subjec ve Norm 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Fig. 11  The most frequently researched factors

RQ10: Which key databases are these collated articles included in?

We can see that the number of research in the first top rank database, “Google
Scholar” (N = 22), is followed by “Springer” (N = 8), “ScienceDirect” (N = 7), “Tay-
lor & Francis” (N = 2), “ACM,” and “IEEE” (N = 1), in that order. The databases
where the evaluated study publications were nominated are depicted in Fig. 12.

RQ11: What are the trends across time in metaverse/virtual reality studies?

Figure 13, which shows the publication year, shows growth in virtual reality research
over time. The accumulation of research on virtual reality by year of publication is
shown in Fig. 13. As we can see, the research spans the years 2011–2022. The larg-
est number of papers has expanded quickly from one in 2011 to six in the previous
four years. There are now seven research projects in 2019, up from one research in

13
278 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Fig. 12  Distribution of studies IEEEACM

2% 2% Taylor & Francis
in terms of databases 5%

ScienceDirect
17%

Google Scholar
54%

Springer
20%

16
14
14

12

10 9

8 7

6
4
4
2 2
2 1 1 1

0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024

Fig. 13  The trends across time in metaverse/virtual reality studies

2018. A sum of 34 studies was conducted, and nearly 83% of these 41 papers were
released between 2019 and 2022. With 14 papers, the year 2022 saw the most study
releases. The following year with the most papers was 2020, with a net of 9 papers
released in the virtual reality domain.

Similarities and differences between this review study and previous

reviews

The current and previous studies shed insight on the use of various research meth-
ods, namely quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods, in the context of the simi-
larity. In between the current review research and the other reviews, there are several
commonalities and distinctions. The strong influence of metaverse within higher

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 279

education facilities on students’ educational accomplishments and results was also

validated by this review study and the previous reviews. Contrasting this review
study with other reviews revealed a variety of noteworthy distinctions. In contrast
to prior studies, this review study did not restrict the data it collected to a particu-
lar period. For example, Wang et al. (2018) limit its scope to publications between
1997 and 2017. Second, the discipline in which metaverse was adopted was not
constrained by the current review. In the other reports, where discipline was a key
problem, though, this was not the position for this study. For instance, the review
study by Wang et al. (2018) was primarily concerned with the properties of virtual
reality in the education and training of construction engineering. Third, this review
research did not restrict the data it collected to any one country. Fourth, while the
current review covers papers from a variety of disciplines, prior evaluations focused
on a particular context. For example, a systematic review (Dahan et al., 2022) exclu-
sively investigated the framework for e-learning environments. Last, the model
or theory adopted in the analyzed studies is responsible for the large discrepancy
between the current analysis and the other evaluations. The existing reviews make it
clear that none of them provide any information on theories or models of technology
acceptance. As a result, there is a dearth of research on the metaverse. Rather, the
emphasis of this review research has been on exploring the metaverse research from
the standpoint of the IS theories and models employed, which then leads to one of
the key characteristics that set this research apart from the others.

Study implications

Theoretically, the findings showed that research on metaverse adoption is increas-

ing, indicating that there is still a need for more studies to be done to better under-
stand the factors influencing its adoption. The findings revealed that most of the
research on the metaverse was carried out in China, Taiwan, and the USA, suggest-
ing that much more study must be done in other countries to better comprehend the
factors influencing its adoption. Most respondents in the metaverse research that
were reviewed were university students, which is another possibility for a prospec-
tive study to take into account students from various educational fields. The major-
ity of performed research has centered on factors influencing students’ or teachers’
adoption of the metaverse. To ascertain what keeps the metaverse relevant for edu-
cational reasons, future studies may investigate why it is still employed. The find-
ings establish the methodology’s usefulness for measuring the adoption of various
metaverse research using the TAM and UTAUT models. The findings also indicated
that the Expectation-Confirmation Model (ECM) has not been widely used to assess
the ongoing application of the metaverse. This finding opens the possibility of per-
forming additional studies utilizing post-adoption/post-acceptance models, like
ECM. Additionally, the findings showed that questionnaire surveys were the primary
method of data collecting in the majority of earlier metaverse research. To better
comprehend the underlying links between the affecting factors, additional study is
advised to employ mixed methodologies, including interviews or focus groups in
conjunction with surveys. According to the findings from a pedagogical perspective,

13
280 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

metaverse was the technology that impacted metaverse classrooms the most. Pro-
spective decision making on the relevance and applicability of technologies over
others, particularly when it pertains to accepting synchronous or asynchronous
method assistance, can be assisted by the classification of educational technolo-
gies underneath the metaverse landscape. Additionally, this can help professionals
and teachers choose the technology that best complements their lesson plans and
develop appropriate preparations. Numerous theoretical, methodological, and peda-
gogical implications are provided by this systematic review.

Conclusions and future work

This review study intends to thoroughly look into the various features of metaverse
investigations, focusing on the works that use IS theories and models. These view-
points comprise the publishing year, the country, the sample, the model or theory,
the technology, the study strategy, and the goal of the study. Regardless of the prem-
ise that earlier metaverse review research provided a beneficial comprehension of
the metaverse study, it is still disregarded to be thoroughly explored from various
angles. 41 research studies in aggregate have been evaluated carefully. There were a
maximum of seven noteworthy findings from the ongoing research. It is first impor-
tant to highlight that involvement in metaverse research on IS models and theories
began in 2019 (N = 7), and continued by 2020 (N = 9), with a notable surge in 2022,
when 14 scientific papers were produced. Second, many of the studies that were
collected were done in China, Taiwan, and the USA, accordingly. Third, in most of
the assessed research, it was discovered that university students made up most of the
data collection. Fourth, TAM is recognized as the most widely used model in fore-
casting people’s intentions to uphold the metaverse system. Fifth, it was discovered
that questionnaire surveys were the most widely used research method for data col-
lection. Sixth, it was discovered that SmartPLS (PLS-SEM) is an effective tool for
validating metaverse models. Seventh, the main research goal discussed in much of
the reviewed research is determining whether students adapt or accept virtual real-
ity and the technologies that support it. Three factors restrict this systematic review.
First, papers were gathered from only four scientific databases, including “ACM
Digital Library, Emerald, Google Scholar, IEEE, ScienceDirect, Springer, Taylor
and Francis Online, and Wiley Online Library”. In consequence, this might not give
a complete picture of the metaverse studies that have been submitted in other data-
bases. Academics might carry out checks for metaverse studies in additional data-
bases, such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Business Source Premier, as a prospec-
tive studies. Second, the application of IS theories and models in comprehending
the adoption of the metaverse was the exclusive subject of this research. Subsequent
studies could concentrate on evaluating more theories from the social science and
education fields. Third, the research used in the evaluation only looked at confer-
ence proceedings and journal articles. Upcoming analyses might look at publica-
tions namely books and book chapters in addition to the high-quality publications
that this research reflects.

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 281

Appendix

Analysis of metaverse system research papers

Article Ref Year Country Objective Database Method &

ID Sample

P1 Almarzouqi 2022 UAE “Evaluate IEEE Online sur-

et al., (2022) students’ vey1858
perception of
the applica-
tion of MS
in the United
Arab Emirates
(UAE) for med-
ical-educational
purposes”
P2 Akour et al., 2022 UAE, KSA, and “Investigate ScienceDirect Online survey
(2022) Oman the students’ 862
perceptions
towards
metaverse
system for
educational
purposes in the
Gulf area”
P3 Manis and Choi 2019 USA “This study ScienceDirect Online survey
(2019) explores factors 283
influencing
consumer
acceptance of
VR hardware
by extending
and individuat-
ing the original
TAM for
virtual reality
hardware (i.e.,
VR-HAM)”

13
282 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Article Ref Year Country Objective Database Method &

ID Sample
P4 Barrett et al., 2021 China “This article ScienceDirect A post-session
(2021) reports on questionnaire
a study that 134
investigated
user accept-
ance of a
high-immersion
virtual real-
ity learning
environment to
learn English
paragraph writ-
ing structure”
P5 Hussin et al., 2011 Malaysia “Investigate Springer Survey 41
(2011) and provide
a preliminary
analysis of a
framework that
predicts level
of technology
acceptance in a
post-secondary
institution in
Perak, Malay-
sia”
P6 Ustun et al., 2020 Turkey “To examine Google Scholar Survey 421
(2020) student accept-
ance and use of
virtual reality
technologies in
medical educa-
tion”
P7 George et al., 2020 USA, China “Conduct a Google Scholar Survey 242
(2020) methodological
replication of
one of the most
widely cited
MIS Quarterly
papers on TAM
and national
culture”
P8 Plotzky et al., 2020 Germany “To exam- Google Scholar Survey 47
(2020) ine the VR
simulation’s
acceptance
and knowledge
Improvement”

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 283

Article Ref Year Country Objective Database Method &

ID Sample
P9 Fussell and 2020 USA “To identify, Google Scholar Online survey 42
Truong (2020) validate, and
confirm impact
factors relevant
to VR use in
aviation train-
ing as well as
flight training
in general”
P10 Lange et al., 2020 Germany “To observe Google Scholar A quantitative
(2020) the degree of questionnaire.
acceptance of The qualitative
VR applica- interview fol-
tions by nursing lowed 12
students in
Germany”
P11 Özgen et al., 2019 Turkey “To use VR in Springer Questionnaire 20
(2021) basic design
education and
focuses on the
usability of VR,
especially for
problem-solv-
ing activities”
P12 Chang et al., 2020 China “Explaining the Google Scholar Online survey 55
(2020) acceptance
of a novel
VR-assisted
mental rotation
(MR) training
system”
P13 Iqbal and Sidhu 2022 India “Solving the Springer Online survey 86
(2022) long-term
learning
retention and
poor learning
efficiency for
mastering a
dance skill”
P14 Nizar et al., 2019 Malaysia “To analyze the Google Scholar Survey question-
(2019) influencing fac- naire 75
tors towards the
use behavior
of AR by using
the MARL-
Cardio app as
an experiment
instrument”

13
284 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Article Ref Year Country Objective Database Method &

ID Sample
P15 Huang et al., 2016 USA “To develop Google Scholar Web question-
(2016a, 2016b) a research naires 186
framework that
integrates the
technology
acceptance
model (TAM)
and self-deter-
mination theory
to understand
how tourists
use a 3D virtual
world”
P16 Lee and Kim 2022 Korea “Aimed to empir- Google Scholar Survey question-
(2022) ically verify naire 120
user acceptance
of metaverse
platforms by
referring the
unified theory
of acceptance
and use of
technology
(UTAUT)”
P17 2021 Saudi Arabia “The aim of this Google Scholar Online survey
study was to 235
examine the
factors that may
influence the
use of virtual
classrooms”
P18 Shen et al., 2022 China “Determine the ScienceDirect Online survey
(2022) acceptance of 604
Augmented
Reality and
Virtual Reality
applications
in the tertiary
tourism educa-
tion within the
context of cur-
rent pandemic”

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 285

Article Ref Year Country Objective Database Method &

ID Sample
P19 Lee et al., (2019) 2019 South Korea “This study ScienceDirect Survey question-
empirically naire 350
analyzes how
the introduc-
tion of social
network
characteristics
as a diffusion
strategy for
virtual reality
devices affects
consumers’
intention to
use”
P20 Fussell and 2022 USA “The goal of this Springer Online Survey
Truong (2022) research was 487
to determine
the factors that
influence stu-
dents’ intention
to use VR in a
dynamic learn-
ing environ-
ment”
P21 AL-Oudat and 2022 Jordan “Investigated the Google Scholar Online Survey
Altamimi factors affecting 503
(2022) the adoption of
VR in higher
educational
institutes”
P22 Huang and Liaw 2018 Taiwan “To evaluate Google Scholar Survey question-
(2018) learner percep- naire 308
tions of novel
learning tech-
nologies, the
present study
examines learn-
ers’ behavioral
intention to use
such a virtual
reality learning
environment”
P23 Sagnier et al., 2020 France “To test an Google Scholar Survey question-
(2020) extended naire 89
Technology
Acceptance
Model designed
for studying
user acceptance
of VR”

13
286 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Article Ref Year Country Objective Database Method &

ID Sample
P24 Plotzky et al., 2021 Germany “To exam- Google Scholar Quasi-exper-
(2021) ine the VR imental
simulation’s pre-post-test
acceptance design 51
and increase
of knowledge
among partici-
pants”
P25 Chen et al., 2012 Taiwan “This study Springer Online Survey 87
(2012) explores the
effectiveness
of disaster
prevention
programs using
virtual reality
and partial
least squares
techniques”
P26 Abd Majid and 2019 Malaysia “Identify the Google Scholar Online Survey 98
Mohd Shamsu- factors that
din (2019) could affect the
respondents’
acceptance of
Virtual Reality
(VR) in class-
rooms”
P27 Shen et al., 2019 Taiwan “To investigate Springer Survey question-
(2019) the direct naire 376
determinants
affecting stu-
dents’ reasons
for HMD use in
learning”
P28 Bernhard (2019) 2019 Taiwan “Investigate the Google Scholar Online survey 97
factors that
leadpeople to
try VR in VOM
context”
P29 Shih et al., (2012)2012 Taiwan “Investigates the Google Scholar Survey question-
willingness of naire 85
teachers who
use VR system
to educate
students and
understand the
relevant factors
of improving
the use of VR
system”

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 287

Article Ref Year Country Objective Database Method &

ID Sample
P30 Huang et al., 2016 Taiwan “This research Taylor & Francis Survey question-
(2016a, 2016b) describes the naire 167
use of high
performance
real-time inter-
active software
(VR4MAX)
to build a
prototype 3D
VR learning
system”
P31 Shen et al., 2017 Taiwan “Investigate the ACM Survey question-
(2017) factors affect- naire 376
ing students’
behavioral
intention to use
a virtual reality
headset (VRH)
in learning”
P32 Barrett et al., 2020 China “Investigated Taylor & Francis Survey question-
(2020) learner attitudes naire 33 CSL
towards Hubs learners
by Mozilla,
a multi-user
VR learning
environment,
for the purpose
of learning
Chinese as
an additional
language”
P33 Zhang et al., 2022 China “Investigate the ScienceDirect Survey question-
(2022) factors behind naire 1158
low acceptance
of VR technol-
ogy”
P34 Kemp et al., 2021 Australia “Determine an Google Scholar Online survey
(2022) appropriate 517
specification
of educational
compat-
ibility within
a technology
acceptance
model suited
to engaging
educational
technologies”

13
288 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Article Ref Year Country Objective Database Method &

ID Sample
P35 Xie et al., (2022) 2022 China “This study Springer Online survey
explored 334; 124 junior
the relation- middle school
ships among students and
computer 210 senior high
self-efficacy, school students
perceived
immersion, and
intention to use
VR training
systems”
P36 Rocha Estrada 2022 Mexico “This article ana- Google Scholar Survey question-
et al. (n.d.) lyzes teachers’ naire 426; 262
and Students’ students and
acceptance of 164 teachers
a web-based
virtual reality
(WebVR)
tool called
Virtual Campus
proposed to
overcome the
limitations
of teaching
strategies
using video
conferencing
platforms”
P37 Luo and Du 2022 China “This study Springer Survey question-
(2022) aims to clarify naire 94 junior
the relation- and senior
ship among students
students’ self-
efficacy, goal
orientation,
technology
acceptance”
P38 Cabero-Almenara 2022 Spain “This study aims Google Scholar Survey question-
et al., (2022) to facilitate naire 20
knowledge
acquisition
and to develop
university
students’
competences
through the use
of MR”

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 289

Article Ref Year Country Objective Database Method &

ID Sample
P39 Mostafa (2022) 2022 Egypt This research Google Scholar Online survey
paper aims to 661
identify the fac-
tors affecting
Egyptian users
of new tech-
nologies such
as Metaverse”
P40 Pedram et al., 2020 Australia “This study ScienceDirect Survey question-
(2020) proposed naire 284
and tested a rescue brigades
framework men
for learning
in immersive
VR based
on previous
research that
has identified
the most rel-
evant variables
for describing
the process of
learning in VR”
P41 Alawadhi et al. 2022 UAE “The current Google Scholar Online survey
(2022) research 435
investigated
the students’
perceptions
of the use of
metaverse sys-
tems in medical
training within
the medical
community
of the United
Arab Emirates
(UAE)”
Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables
ID context ables

P1 Machine Learn- TechnologyHigher educationMetaverse (MV) “Personal inno- “Perceived

ing (ML) Accept- (University vativeness,” Usefulness,”
algorithms ance students)— “Perceived “Perceived
and Structural Model Medical Compat- Ease of Use
Equation (TAM) educational ibility,” “User ,” and “Users’
Modeling Satisfaction,” Intention to
(PLS-SEM) “Perceived use”
Triability,”
and “Perceived
Observability”

13
290 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables

ID context ables
P2 Artificial TAM Higher educationMV “Perceived “Perceived
neural network (University Trialability,” Usefulness,”
(ANN) and students)— “Perceived “Perceived
(PLS-SEM) General Observability,” Ease of Use,”
“Perceived and “Users’
Compat- Intention to
ibility,” use”
“Perceived
Complexity,”
“Personal
Innovative-
ness,” and
“Users’ Satis-
faction”
P3 Structural equa- TAM Members of Virtual Reality “Perceived “Perceived
tion modeling LinkedIn – (VR) enjoyment,” Usefulness,”
(SEM)—R General “Purchase “Perceived
software attitude,” Ease of Use,”
“Purchase “Use attitude,”
intention,” “Users’ Inten-
“Curiosity,” tion to use,”
“Age,” and and “Actual
“Price willing use”
to pay”
P4 PLS-SEM TAM Higher educationVR “Immersion,” “Perceived
(University “Imagination,” Usefulness,”
students— and “Interac- “Perceived
Undergradu- tion” Ease of Use,”
ate)—English and “Users’
language Intention to
education use”
P5 A standard step- Unified Higher educationVR “Performance “Behavioral
wise regression Theory of (University Expectancy,” Intention”
analysis Accept- students) – “Effort Expec-
ance and General tancy,” “Social
Use of Influence,” and
Tech- “Gender”
nology
(UTAUT)
P6 KMO (Kaiser– UTAUT​ Higher educationVR “Performance “Behavioral
Meyer–Olkin (University Expectancy,” Intention”
Measure of students)— “Effort
Sampling Medical Expectancy,”
Adequacy) educational “Facilitating
Conditions,”
and “Social
Influence”

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 291

Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables

ID context ables
P7 Confirmatory TAM Higher educationVR “Espoused “Perceived
factor analysis (University Power Usefulness,”
(CFA) using students) – Distance,” “Perceived
AMOS (ver- General “Espoused Ease of Use,”
sion 25) Uncertainty and “Users’
Avoidance,” Intention to
“Espoused use”
Masculinity/
Femininity,
“Espoused
Individualist/
Collectivist,”
“Subjective
Norm”
P8 The VR simula- UTAUT​ Higher educationVR “Performance “Behavioral
tion runs on (University Expectancy,” Intention”
the HTC Vive students— “Effort
Head Mounted Medical Expectancy,”
Display educational “Facilitating
(HMD) with Conditions,”
Vive control- “Social
lers Influence,”
“Anxiety,”
“Self-efficacy,”
“Sense of
Presence,”
“Spatial
Presence,”
“Involve-
ment,” and
“Experienced
Realism”
P9 Confirmatory TAM Higher educa- VR “Perceived “Perceived
factor analysis tion—Aviation Enjoyment,” Usefulness”
(CFA) using training “Performance
AMOS (ver- Expectancy,”
sion 25) “Perceived
Health Risk,”
““Regulatory
Uncertainty,”
and “Self-
efficacy”

13
292 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables

ID context ables
P10 A qualitative UTAUT​ Higher educationVR “Performance “Behavioral
cohort study (University Expectancy,” Intention”
nursing stu- “Effort and “Further
dents—Medi- Expectancy,” application
cal educational “Facilitating possibilities”
Conditions,”
“Social
Influence,”
“Hedonic
Motivation,”
“Moderation
Factors,” and “
P11 Oculus Rift DK2 TAM Higher educa- VR “Perceived “Perceived
and Google tion—(Archi- Enjoyment” Usefulness,”
Blocks tecture “Perceived
students) Ease of Use,”
and “Users’
Intention to
use”
P12 PLS-SEM TAM Higher educationVR “Perceived “Attitude,” “Per-
(post-gradua- Enjoyment,” ceived Ease
tion)—General and “Satisfac- of Use,” and
tion” “Users’ Inten-
tion to use”
P13 SPSS TAM Higher educa- AR “Perceived “Perceived
tion—(Dance Enjoyment,” Usefulness,”
training “Complexity,” “Perceived
system) and “Self- Ease of Use,”
efficacy” and “Users’
Intention
touse”
P14 MARLCardio UTAUT​ Higher educa- Augmented “Performance “Behavioral
tion—General Reality (AR) Expectancy,” Intention”
“Effort
Expectancy,”
“Facilitating
Conditions,”
and “Social
Influence”
P15 AMOS-SEM TAM High school VR “Competence,” “Perceived
or college “Autonomy,” Usefulness,”
degree—Tour- “Relatedness,” “Perceived
ism education and “Enjoy- Ease of Use,”
ment” and “Users’
Intention to
use”

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 293

Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables

ID context ables
P16 PLS-SEM UTAUT​ Student—Labo- MV “Performance “Behavioral
ratory experi- Expectancy,” Intention”
ments “Effort
Expectancy,”
“Facilitating
Conditions,”
“Social
Influence,”
“Satisfaction,”
“Purchase
intention,”
“Word-of-
mouth Inten-
tion,” “Media
Richness,”
“Information
Overload” and
“Fantasiza-
tion”
P17 AMOS-SEM UTAUT​ Higher educa- Virtual class- “Performance “Behavioral
tion (teaching rooms Expectancy,” Intention” and
staff)—Gen- “Effort “Actual Use”
eral Expectancy,”
“Facilitating
Conditions,”
“Social Influ-
ence,” and
“Mobility”
P18 PLS-SEM TAM Higher educationAugmented and “Hedonic “Perceived Use-
(tourism edu- Virtual Reality motivation,” fulness,” “Per-
cation)—Tour- (AVR) and “Perceived ceived Ease of
ism education price value” Use,” “Usage
Attitude,” and
“Users’ Inten-
tion to use”
P19 AMOS-SEM TAM General VR “Perceived “Perceived Use-
Enjoyment,” fulness,” “Per-
“Social ceived Ease of
Interactions,” Use,” “Usage
and “Strength Attitude” and
of the social “Users’ Inten-
ties” tion to use”
P20 AMOS-SEM TAM Higher educa- VR “Perceived “Perceived Use-
tion—Aviation Enjoyment,” fulness,” “Per-
training “Perceived ceived Ease of
Behavioral Use,” “Attitude
Control,” toward use”
“Performance and “Users’
Expectancy,” Intention to
“Regulatory use”
Uncertainty,”
and “Self-
efficacy”

13
294 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables

ID context ables
P21 PLS-SEM TAM Higher educa- VR “Perceived “Perceived Use-
tion—Aviation Facilitating fulness,” “Per-
training Condition,” ceived Ease of
“Perceived Use,” “Attitude
Compat- toward use”
ibility,” “Per- and “Users’
ceived Effort Intention to
Expectancy,” use”
and “Usabil-
ity”
P22 PLS-SEM TAM University stu- VR “Learning “Perceived
dents- higher motivation,” Usefulness,”
education— “Perceived “Perceived
Shopping/ self-efficacy,” Ease of Use,”
commerce- and “Perceived and “Users’
related interaction” Intention to
use”
P23 PLS-SEM TAM Undergraduate VR “Pragmatic “Perceived
students in Quality,” Usefulness,”
psychology “Hedonic “Perceived
and graduate Quality- Ease of Use,”
students in Stimulation,” and “Users’
engineering “Nausea,” Intention to
“Oculomotor,” use”
“Ability to
act,” “Ability
to examine,”
“Interface
quality,” “Self-
Assessment of
Performance,”
“Realism,”
and “Personal
Innovative-
ness”
P24 PLS-PM library UTAUT​ Higher educationVR “Performance “Behavioral
in R© (University Expectancy,” Intention”
students— “Effort
Medical Expectancy,”
educational “Anxiety,”
“Self-efficacy,”
“Sense of
Presence,”
“Spatial
Presence,”
“Involve-
ment,” and
“Experienced
Realism”

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 295

Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables

ID context ables
P25 VirtualPLS 1.04 TAM University stu- VR “v-learning “Perceived Use-
software (PLS- dents- higher self-efficacy,” fulness,” “Per-
SEM) education— “Subjec- ceived Ease of
General tive norm,” Use,” “Attitude
“Organiza- toward use”
tional factor,” and “Users’
“System qual- Intention to
ity,” “Informa- use”
tion quality,”
“Service
quality,” and
“Playfulness”
P26 SPSS TAM University stu- VR N/A “Perceived Use-
dents—higher fulness,” “Per-
education— ceived Ease of
General Use,” “Attitude
toward use”
and “Users’
Intention to
use”
P27 AMOS-SEM UTAUT​ University stu- VR “Performance “Behavioral
dents—higher Expectancy,” Intention”
education— “Effort
General Expectancy,”
“Facilitating
Conditions,”
“Social Influ-
ence,” and
“Concrete
experience,”
“Reflective
observation,”
“Abstract
conceptu-
alisation,” and
“Active experi-
mentation”
P28 SPSS UTAUT​ University stu- VR “Performance “Behavioral
dents—higher Expectancy” Intention”
education— and, “Effort
Law Expectancy”
P29 PLS-SEM TAM, flow Teachers and VR “Hygiene,” “Perceived Use-
theory users—Gen- “Motivators, fulness,” “Per-
and moti- eral “Concentra- ceived Ease of
vation- tion,” and Use,” “Attitude
hygiene “Perceived toward use”
theory Enjoyment” and “Users’
Intention to
use”

13
296 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables

ID context ables
P30 PLS-SEM TAM Higher educationVR “Immersion, “Perceived
(University “Imagination,” Usefulness,”
students— and “Interac- “Perceived
Medical tion” Ease of Use,”
educational and “Users’
Intention to
use”
P31 AMOS-SEM UTAUT​ Higher educationVR “Concrete “Behavioral
(University experience,” intention to
students)— “Reflective use”
General observation,”
“Abstract
conception,”
“Active experi-
mentation,”
“Performance
expectancy,”
“Effort expec-
tancy,” “Social
influence,” and
“Facilitating
conditions”
P32 AMOS-SEM UTAUT​ Higher educationVR “Immersion, “Perceived
(University “Imagination,” Usefulness,”
students)— “Interaction,” “Perceived
Chinese and “Learning Ease of Use,”
language Motivation” and “Users’
education Intention to
use”
P33 AMOS-SEM TAM Higher educa- VR “Self-efficacy,” “Perceived Use-
tion—(Con- “Perceived fulness,” “Per-
struction safety playfulness,” ceived Ease of
training) and “Perceived Use,” “Usage
price value” Attitude,” and
“Users’ Inten-
tion to use”
P34 Psych TAM Higher educationVR “Educational “Perceived Use-
(University Compatibil- fulness,” “Per-
student)— ity,” “Cogni- ceived Ease of
General tive Engage- Use,” “Usage
ment,” “Social Attitude,” and
Influence,” “Users’ Inten-
“System tion to use”
Attributes,”
“Perceived
Anxiety” and
“Facilitating
Conditions”

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 297

Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables

ID context ables
P35 AMOS-SEM TAM Middle and high VR “Computer “Perceived
school—Gen- Self-efficacy ,” Usefulness,”
eral “Experimen- “Perceived
tal Fidelity,” Ease of Use,”
“Learner and “Users’
Interaction,” Intention to
“Subjec- use”
tive Norm,”
“Facilitating
Conditions,”
“Perceived
Immersion,”
P36 Minitab softwareTAM Higher educationVR “Future “Perceived
(University perception,” Usefulness,”
student)— “COVID-19 “Perceived
General pandemic Ease of Use,”
context,” and “Users’
“Competen- Intention to
cies,” “Appre- use”
ciation,” and
“Recommen-
dation”
P37 Descriptive sta- TAM Higher educationVR “Self-efficacy,” “Perceived
tistical analysis (University “Goal Usefulness,”
student)— orientation,” “Perceived
General “Performance- Ease of Use,”
approach,” and “Users’
“Performance- Intention to
avoidance,” use”
“Mastery-
approach,”
“Mastery-
avoidance,”
“Deep learn-
ing,” “Surface
learning,” and
“Learning
outcome”
P38 Descriptive sta- TAM Higher educationVR “Perceived “Perceived Use-
tistical analysis (University Enjoyment” fulness,” “Per-
student)— ceived Ease of
General Use,” “Usage
Attitude,” and
“Users’ Inten-
tion to use”
P39 PLS-SEM TAM Facebook MV “Social “Perceived
users—Gen- Influence,” Usefulness,”
eral “Security, “Perceived
Technology Ease of Use,”
availability,” and “Users’
and “Trust” Intention to
use”

13
298 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Article Technique(s) Model Discipline/ Type External vari- Core variables

ID context ables
P40 AMOS-SEM TAM Training ses- VR “Wellbeing,” “Perceived Use-
sions– General “Realism,” fulness,” “Per-
“Immersion,” ceived Ease of
“Presence,” Use,” “Usage
“Social Pres- Attitude,” and
ence,” “Flow,” “Users’ Inten-
“Stress/Worry/ tion to use”
Pressure,”
“Plausibil-
ity Illusion,”
“Trainer,”
“Feedback,”
and “Perceived
Learning”
P41 PLS-SEM TAM Higher educationMV “Perceived “Perceived
(University Enjoyment” Usefulness,”
students— and “Personal “Perceived
Medical Innovative- Ease of Use,”
educational ness” and “Users’
Intention to
use”

Acknowledgements This work is a part of a thesis submitted in fulfilment of a PhD in the Faculty of Art,
Computing and Creative Industries at Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia.

Data availability Data available on request from the authors.

Declarations
Ethical statements I hereby declare that this manuscript is the result of my independent creation under
the reviewers’ comments. Except for the quoted contents, this manuscript does not contain any research
achievements that have been published or written by other individuals or groups. I am the only author of
this manuscript. The legal responsibility of this statement shell be borne by me.

Conflict of interest All authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Abd Majid, F., & Mohd Shamsudin, N. (2019). Identifying factors affecting acceptance of virtual reality
in classrooms based on technology acceptance model (TAM). Asian Journal of University Educa-
tion, 15(2), 1–10.
Akour, I. A., Al-Maroof, R. S., Alfaisal, R., & Salloum, S. A. (2022). A conceptual framework for deter-
mining metaverse adoption in higher institutions of gulf area: An empirical study using hybrid
SEM-ANN approach. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100052. [Link]
10.​1016/j.​caeai.​2022.​100052
Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., Kamaludin, A., & Shaalan, K. (2018). The impact of knowledge manage-
ment processes on information systems: A systematic review. International Journal of Information
Management, 43, 173–187. [Link]

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 299

Al-Maroof, R., Al-Qaysi, N., Salloum, S. A., & Al-Emran, M. (2021). Blended learning acceptance: a
systematic review of information systems models. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10758-​021-​09519-0
AL-Oudat, M., & Altamimi, A. (2022). Factors influencing behavior intentions to use virtual reality in
education. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 6(3), 733–742. [Link]
5267/j.​ijdns.​2022.3.​008
Alawadhi, M., Alhumaid, K., Almarzooqi, S., Aljasmi, Sh., Aburayya, A., Salloum, S. A., & Almesmari,
W. (2022). Factors affecting medical students’ acceptance of the metaverse system in medical train-
ing in the United Arab Emirates. SEEJPH. [Link]
Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca Uni-
versity Press.
Almarzouqi, A., Aburayya, A., & Salloum, S. A. (2022). Prediction of user’s intention to use metaverse
system in medical education: a hybrid SEM-ML learning approach. IEEE Access. [Link]
1109/​ACCESS.​2022.​31692​85
Ando, Y., Thawonmas, R., & Rinaldo, F. (2013). Inference of viewed exhibits in a metaverse museum.
International Conference on Culture and Computing, 2013, 218–219. [Link]
reCom​puting.​2013.​73
Arcila, J. B. P. (2014). Metaversos Para el máster iberoamericano en educación en entornos virtuales.
Etic@ Net. Revista Científica Electrónica De Educación y Comunicación En La Sociedad Del Con-
ocimiento, 14(2), 227–248. [Link]
Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the open educational resources
(OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities (Vol. 164). Creative common
Mountain View.
Barrett, A. J., Pack, A., & Quaid, E. D. (2021). Understanding learners’ acceptance of high-immersion
virtual reality systems: Insights from confirmatory and exploratory PLS-SEM analyses. Computers
& Education, 169, 104214. [Link]
Barrett, A., Pack, A., Guo, Y., & Wang, N. (2020). Technology acceptance model and multi-user virtual
reality learning environments for Chinese language education. Interactive Learning Environments.
[Link]
Barry, D. M., Kanematsu, H., Fukumura, Y., Ogawa, N., Okuda, A., Taguchi, R., & Nagai, H. (2009).
International comparison for problem based learning in metaverse. The ICEE and ICEER, 6066.
Bernhard, J. P. (2019). Investigating people’s intention to use virtual reality in the context of victim-
offender mediation using the UTAUT model. NY: University of Twente.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivat-
ing project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist,
26(3–4), 369–398. [Link]
Cabero-Almenara, J., Llorente-Cejudo, C., & Martinez-Roig, R. (2022). The use of mixed, augmented
and virtual reality in history of art teaching: A case study. Applied System Innovation, 5(3), 44.
[Link]
Castronova, E. (2001). Virtual worlds: A first-hand account of market and society on the cyberian fron-
tier. Indiana University.
Chang, C.-W., Yeh, S.-C., & Li, M. (2020). The adoption of a virtual reality-assisted training system
for mental rotation: A partial least squares structural equation modeling approach. JMIR Serious
Games, 8(1), e14548. [Link]
Chen, C.-Y., Shih, B.-Y., & Yu, S.-H. (2012). Disaster prevention and reduction for exploring teachers’
technology acceptance using a virtual reality system and partial least squares techniques. Natural
Hazards, 62(3), 1217–1231. [Link]
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution
and schooling in America. Teachers College Press.
Collins, C. (2008). Looking to the future: Higher education in the metaverse. Educause Review, 43(5),
51–63.
Costa, V., & Monteiro, S. (2016). Knowledge processes, absorptive capacity and innovation: A mediation
analysis. Knowledge and Process Management, 23(3), 207–218. [Link]
Dahan, N. A., Al-Razgan, M., Al-Laith, A., Alsoufi, M. A., Al-Asaly, M. S., & Alfakih, T. (2022).
Metaverse framework: A case study on E-learning environment (ELEM). Electronics, 11(10), 1616.
[Link]
Dewey, J. (2007). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster.

13
300 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Díaz, J., Saldaña, C., & Avila, C. (2020). Virtual world as a resource for hybrid education. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 15(15), 94–109.
Farjami, S., Taguchi, R., Nakahira, K. T., Fukumura, Y., & Kanematsu, H. (2011). W-02 problem based
learning for materials science education in metaverse. JSEE Annual Conference International Ses-
sion Proceedings 2011 JSEE Annual Conference. [Link]
FitzGerald, E., Kucirkova, N., Jones, A., Cross, S., Ferguson, R., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., & Scanlon,
E. (2018). Dimensions of personalisation in technology-enhanced learning: A framework and impli-
cations for design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 165–181. [Link]
1111/​bjet.​12534
Fussell, S. G., & Truong, D. (2020). Preliminary results of a study investigating aviation student’s inten-
tions to use virtual reality for flight training. International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and
Aerospace, 7(3), 2. [Link]
Fussell, S. G., & Truong, D. (2022). Using virtual reality for dynamic learning: An extended technology
acceptance model. Virtual Reality, 26(1), 249–267. [Link]
George, J. F., Chi, M., & Zhou, Q. (2020). American and Chinese students and acceptance of virtual real-
ity: A replication of “the role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance.” AIS
Transactions on Replication Research, 6(1), 1.
Halverson, L. R., Spring, K. J., Huyett, S., Henrie, C. R., & Graham, C. R. (2017). Blended learning
research in higher education and K-12 settings. Learning, Design, and Technology. [Link]
10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​17727-4_​31-1
Han, H.-C. (2020). From visual culture in the immersive metaverse to visual cognition in education. In
R. Z. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive and affective perspectives on immersive technology in education (pp.
67–84). IGI Global.
Han, S., & Noh, Y. (2021). Analyzing higher education instructors’ perception on Metaverse-based Edu-
cation. 디지털콘텐츠학회논문지 (J. DCS), 22(11), 1793–1806.
Hõrak, H. (2019). Computer vision-based unobtrusive physical activity monitoring in school by room-
level physical activity estimation: A method proposition. Information, 10(9), 269. [Link]
3390/​info1​00902​69
Huang, H.-M., & Liaw, S.-S. (2018). An analysis of learners’ intentions toward virtual reality learning
based on constructivist and technology acceptance approaches. International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning. [Link]
Huang, H.-M., Liaw, S.-S., & Lai, C.-M. (2016a). Exploring learner acceptance of the use of virtual real-
ity in medical education: A case study of desktop and projection-based display systems. Interactive
Learning Environments, 24(1), 3–19. [Link]
Huang, Y. C., Backman, K. F., Backman, S. J., & Chang, L. L. (2016b). Exploring the implications of
virtual reality technology in tourism marketing: An integrated research framework. International
Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 116–128. [Link]
Hussin, N. H., Jaafar, J., & Downe, A. G. (2011). Assessing educators’ acceptance of Virtual Reality
(VR) in the classroom using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT).
International Visual Informatics Conference. [Link]
Iqbal, J., & Sidhu, M. S. (2022). Acceptance of dance training system based on augmented reality and
technology acceptance model (TAM). Virtual Reality, 26(1), 33–54. [Link]
s10055-​021-​00529-y
Jeon, J. H. (2021). A study on education utilizing metaverse for effective communication in a conver-
gence subject. International Journal of Internet, Broadcasting and Communication, 13(4), 129–134.
[Link]
Jeon, J., & Jung, S. K. (2021). Exploring the educational applicability of Metaverse-based platforms. 한
국정보교육학회: 학술대회논문집, 361–368. [Link]
9122.​page
Kamińska, D., Sapiński, T., Wiak, S., Tikk, T., Haamer, R. E., Avots, E., Helmi, A., Ozcinar, C., &
Anbarjafari, G. (2019). Virtual reality and its applications in education: Survey. Information,
10(10), 318. [Link]
Kanematsu, H., Kobayashi, T., Ogawa, N., Barry, D. M., Fukumura, Y., & Nagai, H. (2013). Eco car pro-
ject for Japan students as a virtual PBL class. Procedia Computer Science, 22, 828–835. [Link]
org/​10.​1016/j.​procs.​2013.​09.​165
Kanematsu, H., Kobayashi, T., Ogawa, N., Fukumura, Y., Barry, D. M., & Nagai, H. (2012). Nuclear
energy safety project in metaverse. In T. Watanabe, J. Watada, N. Takahashi, R. J. Howlett, & L.
C. Jain (Eds.), Intelligent interactive multimedia: Systems and services (pp. 411–418). Springer.

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 301

Kaye, A. T., & Rumble, G. (2018). Distance teaching for higher and adult education. Routledge.
Kemp, A., Palmer, E., Strelan, P., & Thompson, H. (2022). Exploring the specification of educational
compatibility of virtual reality within a technology acceptance model. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 38(2), 15–34. [Link]
Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in
software engineering. Software Engineering Group, School of Computer Science and Mathemat-
ics, Keele University, 1–57.
Lange, A.-K., Koch, J., Beck, A., Neugebauer, T., Watzema, F., Wrona, K. J., & Dockweiler, C.
(2020). Learning with virtual reality in nursing education: Qualitative interview study among
nursing students using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. JMIR
Nursing, 3(1), e20249. [Link]
Lee, J., Kim, J., & Choi, J. Y. (2019). The adoption of virtual reality devices: The technology accept-
ance model integrating enjoyment, social interaction, and strength of the social ties. Telematics
and Informatics, 39, 37–48. [Link]
Lee, L.-H., Braud, T., Zhou, P., Wang, L., Xu, D., Lin, Z., Kumar, A., Bermejo, C., & Hui, P. (2021a).
All one needs to know about metaverse: A complete survey on technological singularity, virtual
ecosystem, and research agenda. ArXiv 2110.05352.
Lee, L.-H., Lin, Z., Hu, R., Gong, Z., Kumar, A., Li, T., Li, S., & Hui, P. (2021b). When creators meet
the metaverse: A survey on computational arts. ArXiv 2111.13486.
Lee, U.-K., & Kim, H. (2022). UTAUT in metaverse: An “Ifland” Case. Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 17(2), 613–635. [Link]
Lieshout, M., Egyedi, T., & Bijker, W. (2018). Social learning technologies: The introduction of mul-
timedia in education. Routledge. [Link]
Luo, Y., & Du, H. (2022). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Changes and interrelationship of self-
efficacy, goal orientation, technology acceptance and learning behavior. Smart Learning Envi-
ronments, 9(1), 1–22. [Link]
MacCallum, K., & Parsons, D. (2019). Teacher perspectives on mobile augmented reality: The poten-
tial of metaverse for learning. World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, 21–28.
Retrieved from [Link]
Magdalene, R., & Sridharan, D. (2018). Powering e-learning through technology: An overview of
recent trends in educational technologies. The Online Journal of Distance Education and
E-Learning, 6(1), 60.
Manis, K. T., & Choi, D. (2019). The virtual reality hardware acceptance model (VR-HAM): Extend-
ing and individuating the technology acceptance model (TAM) for virtual reality hardware.
Journal of Business Research, 100, 503–513. [Link]
Márquez, I. V. (2011). Metaversos y educación: Second Life como plataforma educativa. Revista
ICONO14 Revista Científica De Comunicación y Tecnologías Emergentes, 9(2), 151–166.
[Link] i14.​v9i2.​30
Mistretta, S. (2022). The metaverse—An alternative education space. AI, Computer Science and
Robotics Technology. [Link]
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009a). Preferred reporting items for system-
atic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4),
264–269.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009b). Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. [Link]
org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pmed.​10000​97
Mostafa, L. (2022). Measuring technology acceptance model to use metaverse technology in Egypt.
118–142 ,)3(23 ,‫مجلة البحوث المالية والتجارية‬.
Ning, H., Wang, H., Lin, Y., Wang, W., Dhelim, S., Farha, F., Ding, J., & Daneshmand, M. (2021).
A survey on metaverse: The state-of-the-art, technologies, applications, and challenges. ArXiv
2111.09673.
Nizar, N. N. M., Rahmat, M. K., Maaruf, S. Z., & Damio, S. M. (2019). Examining the use behav-
iour of augmented reality technology through MARLCardio: Adapting the UTAUT model. Asian
Journal of University Education, 15(3), 198–210.
Özgen, D. S., Afacan, Y., & Sürer, E. (2021). Usability of virtual reality for basic design education: A
comparative study with paper-based design. International Journal of Technology and Design Edu-
cation, 31(2), 357–377. [Link]

13
302 Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303

Pedram, S., Palmisano, S., Skarbez, R., Perez, P., & Farrelly, M. (2020). Investigating the process of mine
rescuers’ safety training with immersive virtual reality: A structural equation modelling approach.
Computers & Education, 153, 103891. [Link]
Plotzky, C., Lindwedel-Reime, U., Bejan, A., König, P., & Kunze, C. (2020). Virtual reality in health care
education: A study about the effects of presence on acceptance and knowledge improvement among
health care students. DeLFI, 79–90.
Plotzky, C., Lindwedel, U., Bejan, A., König, P., & Kunze, C. (2021). Virtual reality in healthcare skills
training: The effects of presence on acceptance and increase of knowledge. I-Com, 20(1), 73–83.
[Link]
Preston, J. (2021). Facebook, the metaverse and the monetisation of higher education. Impact of Social
Sciences Blog.
Rocha Estrada, F. J., Glasserman Morales, L. D., Ruiz Ramírez, J. A., & George Reyes, C. E. (n.d.).
Evaluation of a virtual campus adapted to web-based virtual reality spaces: assessments of teachers
and students. Retrieved from [Link]
Sagnier, C., Loup-Escande, E., Lourdeaux, D., Thouvenin, I., & Valléry, G. (2020). User acceptance of
virtual reality: An extended technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Com-
puter Interaction, 36(11), 993–1007. [Link]
Shen, C., Ho, J., Kuo, T.-C., & Luong, T. H. (2017). Behavioral intention of using virtual reality in learn-
ing. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion. [Link]
org/​10.​1145/​30410​21.​30541​52
Shen, C., Ho, J., Ly, P. T. M., & Kuo, T. (2019). Behavioural intentions of using virtual reality in learn-
ing: Perspectives of acceptance of information technology and learning style. Virtual Reality, 23(3),
313–324. [Link]
Shen, S., Xu, K., Sotiriadis, M., & Wang, Y. (2022). Exploring the factors influencing the adoption and
usage of augmented reality and virtual reality applications in tourism education within the context
of COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 30, 100373.
[Link]
Shih, B.-Y., Chen, C.-Y., & Chen, C.-L. (2012). An enhanced acceptance model for exploring user inten-
tion towards virtual reality environment: Partial least squares (PLS) statistical method. International
Journal of Physical Sciences, 7(5), 776–786.
Smutny, P., Babiuch, M., & Foltynek, P. (2019). A review of the virtual reality applications in education
and training. 2019 20th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC). [Link]
1109/​Carpa​thian​CC.​2019.​87659​30
Stephenson, N. (1992). Snowcrash. ROC, Penguin.
Tarouco, L., Gorziza, B., Corrêa, Y., Amaral, É. M. H., & Müller, T. (2013). Virtual laboratory for teach-
ing Calculus: An immersive experience. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDU-
CON), 2013, 774–781. [Link]
Ustun, A. B., Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2020). Virtual reality in medical education. In S. Umair
(Ed.), Mobile devices and smart gadgets in medical sciences (pp. 56–73). NY: IGI Global.
Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-
based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educa-
tional Research, 85(4), 475–511. [Link]
Vázquez-Cano, E., & Sevillano-García, M. L. (2017). Lugares y espacios para el uso educativo y ubicuo
de los dispositivos digitales móviles en la Educación Superior. Edutec Revista Electrónica De Tec-
nología Educativa, 62, 48–61. [Link]
Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H.-L., & Wang, X. (2018). A critical review of the use of virtual real-
ity in construction engineering education and training. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 15(6), 1204. [Link]
Wittich, C. M., Agrawal, A., Cook, D. A., Halvorsen, A. J., Mandrekar, J. N., Chaudhry, S., Dupras, D.
M., Oxentenko, A. S., & Beckman, T. J. (2017). E-learning in graduate medical education: Sur-
vey of residency program directors. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 1–7. [Link]
s12909-​017-​0953-9
Xie, T., Zheng, L., Liu, G., & Liu, L. (2022). Exploring structural relations among computer self-efficacy,
perceived immersion, and intention to use virtual reality training systems. Virtual Reality. [Link]
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10055-​022-​00656-0
Zhang, M., Shu, L., Luo, X., Yuan, M., & Zheng, X. (2022). Virtual reality technology in construction
safety training: Extended technology acceptance model. Automation in Construction, 135, 104113.
[Link]

13
Journal of Computers in Education (2024) 11(1):259–303 303

Zhang, M., Zhang, Z., Chang, Y., Aziz, E.-S., Esche, S., & Chassapis, C. (2018). Recent developments in
game-based virtual reality educational laboratories using the microsoft kinect. International Journal
of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 13(1), 138–159.
Zheng, S., Rosson, M. B., Shih, P. C., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). Understanding student motivation, behav-
iors and perceptions in MOOCs. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work & Social Computing. [Link]

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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.

Raghad Alfaisal received the MSc degree from Yarmouk University with a distinction, in 2008. He is
currently pursuing the PhD degree in Information Technology Education at Universiti Pendidikan Sultan
Idris (UPSI). His research interests include Mobile Learning, Internet of Things (IoT), and educational
technology.

Haslinda Hashim is a lecturer from the Faculty Of Art, Computing And Creative Industry, Universiti
Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI), Tanjung Malim, Perak, Malaysia. He specializes in Instructional Tech-
nology & Educational Technology.

Ummu Husna Azizan is a lecturer from the Faculty Of Art, Computing And Creative Industry, Universiti
Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI), Tanjung Malim, Perak, Malaysia. He specializes in Multimedia in educa-
tion, Gamification, Game Based Learning, and Instructional Technology.

13