IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 5 May 2023

International Journal
of
Learning, Teaching
And
Educational Research
p-ISSN:
1694-2493
e-ISSN:
1694-2116
IJLTER.ORG
Vol.22 No.5

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
(IJLTER)
Vol. 22, No. 5 (May 2023)
Print version: 1694-2493
Online version: 1694-2116
IJLTER
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research (IJLTER)
Vol. 22, No. 5
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically those of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations,
broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data banks.
Society for Research and Knowledge Management

The International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal which has been
established for the dissemination of state-of-the-art knowledge in the
fields of learning, teaching and educational research.
Aims and Objectives
The main objective of this journal is to provide a platform for educators,
teachers, trainers, academicians, scientists and researchers from over the
world to present the results of their research activities in the following
fields: innovative methodologies in learning, teaching and assessment;
multimedia in digital learning; e-learning; m-learning; e-education;
knowledge management; infrastructure support for online learning;
virtual learning environments; open education; ICT and education;
digital classrooms; blended learning; social networks and education; e-
tutoring: learning management systems; educational portals, classroom
management issues, educational case studies, etc.
Indexing and Abstracting
Research is indexed in Scopus since 2018. The Journal is also indexed in
Google Scholar and CNKI. All articles published in IJLTER are assigned
a unique DOI number.

Foreword
We are very happy to publish this issue of the International Journal of
Learning, Teaching and Educational Research.
Research is a peer-reviewed open-access journal committed to
publishing high-quality articles in the field of education. Submissions
may include full-length articles, case studies and innovative solutions to
problems faced by students, educators and directors of educational
organisations. To learn more about this journal, please visit the website
http://www.ijlter.org.
We are grateful to the editor-in-chief, members of the Editorial Board
and the reviewers for accepting only high quality articles in this issue.
We seize this opportunity to thank them for their great collaboration.
The Editorial Board is composed of renowned people from across the
world. Each paper is reviewed by at least two blind reviewers.
We will endeavour to ensure the reputation and quality of this journal
with this issue.
Editors of the May 2023 Issue

VOLUME 22 NUMBER 5 May 2023
Table of Contents
Assessing the Influence of Augmented Reality in Mathematics Education: A Systematic Literature Review ..........1
Samsul Pahmi, Agus Hendriyanto, Sani Sahara, Lukman Hakim Muhaimin, Krida Singgih Kuncoro, Budi Usodo
Twenty-First Century Learning (21 CL) – South African Private Secondary Schools in KwaZulu-Natal................ 26
Michael Naidoo, Cecile Gerwel-Proches, Angela James
Fostering Resilience in South African Township Primary School Teachers .................................................................58
Luzaan Schlebusch, Gawie Schlebusch, Lineo Matjeane
Promoting Self-Regulation Skills Among Pre-Service Islamic Studies Teachers Through Project-Based Learning
Utilizing a Flipped Learning Strategy................................................................................................................................ 74
Kalthoum Alkandari, Maali Alabdulhadi
Malaysian English Language Teachers’ Willingness, Readiness, Needs and Wants to Develop Graphic Oral
History ELT Materials........................................................................................................................................................ 101
Said Ahmed Mustafa Ibrahim, Azlina Abdul Aziz, Nur Ehsan Mohd Said, Hanita Hanim Ismail
Utilisation of ICT Tools for School Governance amid COVID-19 Crisis in South Africa.......................................... 119
Ntombozuko Duku, Kazeem Ajasa Badaru, Kemi Olajumoke Adu, Moses Sipho Mkhomi, Emmanuel Olusola Adu,
Mzuyanda Percival Mavuso
Using Ubuntu Values in Integrating African Indigenous Knowledge into Teaching and Learning: A Review of
Literature.............................................................................................................................................................................. 140
Nkosinathi Ndumiso Mkosi, Mzuyanda Percival Mavuso, Kayode Babatunde Olawumi
Enhancing Students' Communication and STEM Reasoning Abilities Based on Gender Through Application of
IT-based Chemistry Teaching Materials .......................................................................................................................... 160
Dwi Wahyudiati
Divulging the Lived Experiences of Public School Teachers in the U.S.A. during COVID-19 Pandemic:
Phenomenological Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 180
Jaypee R. Lopres, Glendale Y. Niadas, Geraldine P. Minez, Greatchie M. Lopres, Madeleine I. Gutierrez, Albert Marion Q.
Quiap, Saturnino Renante O. Bangot Jr.
The Metaverse in University Education during COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Success Factors................... 206
Omar Chamorro-Atalaya, Víctor Durán-Herrera, Raul Suarez-Bazalar, Anthony Gonzáles-Pacheco, Manuel Quipuscoa-
Silvestre, Fredy Hernández-Hernández, Elio Huaman-Flores, Vidalina Chaccara-Contreras, Carlos Palacios-Huaraca,
Teresa Guía-Altamirano
Teaching of the Quran and Hadiths Using Sign Language to Islamic Boarding School Students with Hearing
Impairment.......................................................................................................................................................................... 227
Bayu Pamungkas, Rochmat Wahab, Suwarjo Suwarjo

Effects of the POSSE Strategy on Reading Comprehension of Physics Texts and Physics Anxiety among High
School Students................................................................................................................................................................... 243
Adam A. Al Sultan
Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Teaching and Learning Social Studies: A Literature Review ................... 262
Mohammed Abdullah Al-Nofli
Changes in Lesson Plans as Teachers Participate in a Professional Development on Statistical Literacy .............. 281
Dung Tran, An Thi Tan Nguyen, Duyen Thi Nguyen, Phuong Thi Minh Ta, Nga Thi Pham, Binh Tri Huynh
Life Sciences Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge When Addressing Socioscientific Issues in The Topic
Evolution.............................................................................................................................................................................. 302
Mokgadi Elizabeth Relela, Lydia Mavuru
Korean University Students' Attitudes, Perceptions, and Evaluations of Asynchronous Online Education in
Korean Higher Education.................................................................................................................................................. 344
Ji-Young Chung, Seung-Hoon Jeong
Educators’ Perceptions and Approaches to Environmental Education and Pro-Environmental Behaviour in South
African Secondary Schools ................................................................................................................................................ 359
Raymond Nkwenti Fru, Thobile Lucia Ndaba
Management of Psychological Counseling for High School Students......................................................................... 374
Le Khanh Tuan
Pedagogical Capital Strategies for Civil Technology Skills-Based Activities ............................................................. 389
Thokozani Isaac Mtshali, Asheena Singh-Pillay
Reframing Online Classroom Management: Toward Enhanced Undergraduate Teaching and Learning............. 410
Junxiang Zhou, Marilou M. Saong
Exploring Students’ Perceptions of Virtual and Physical Laboratory Activities and Usage in Secondary Schools
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 437
Céline Byukusenge, Florie Nsanganwimana, Albert Paulo Tarmo
Curriculum Development Competency of Pedagogical Students: An Exploratory Study from Vietnam.............. 457
Thi Bich Nguyen, Quang Linh Nguyen, Thi Phuong Thao Trinh, Thi Hai Anh Nguyen, Thi Minh Thu Nguyen, Tien Khoa
Cao, Thi Thanh Ha Nguyen, Thi Kieu Oanh Pham
Monitoring, Support and Inter-Learning in Teaching Performance in Basic Education of the Area of Mathematics.
A Case Study in Puno (Perú)............................................................................................................................................. 479
Judith Annie Bautista-Quispe, Edwin Gustavo Estrada-Araoz, Marisol Yana-Salluca, Zaida Esther Callata Gallegos,
Ronald Raul Arce Coaquira, Benjamin Velazco Reyes, Jaffet Sillo Sosa, Victor Raul Medina Alanoca
Induction Programs’ Effectiveness in Boosting New Teachers’ Instruction and Student Achievement: A Critical
Review.................................................................................................................................................................................. 493
Asma Khaleel Abdallah, Ahmed M. Alkaabi
Linking Teachers' Profiles to their Capability in Curriculum Implementation: Analysis of Factors that Shape and
Influence EFL Classes......................................................................................................................................................... 518
Hazel Acosta, Diego Cajas, Danilo Isaac Reiban Garnica
Learning Model Inquiry-Based Local Wisdom Dilemmas Stories and Their Effects on Critical Thinking and
Scientific Writing Abilities................................................................................................................................................. 538
Yuliarti Yuliarti, Sarwiji Suwandi, Andayani Andayani, Sumarwati Sumarwati

Paving Ways for Effective Inclusion in Selected Mainstream Secondary Schools in Gauteng Province, South
Africa .................................................................................................................................................................................... 558
Appolonia Masunungure, Mbulaheni Maguvhe
Salient Stressors of Teachers Employed in Private Schools in Andhra Pradesh, India ............................................. 570
Subhasree Geddam, Deepthi D P, Sundaramoorthy Jeyavel
Teachers’ Beliefs and Teaching Practices in Teaching Phonics to Lower Primary Learners..................................... 587
Masturah Aimuni Mohd Zin, Kim Hua Tan, Syar Meeze Mohd Rashid, Suziana Mat Saad
Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Emotions among University Students....................... 605
Nor Hafiza Othman, Zaminor Zamzamir Zamzamin, Nor Asma Ahmad
Expectations and Reality Regarding Teacher Personality: Perspectives of Indonesian Students Using Importance-
Performance Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 620
Afdal Afdal, Nur Hidayah, Nandang Budiman, Yessa Maulida, Indah Sukmawati, Rezki Hariko, Miftahul Fikri,
Nurfarhanah Nurfarhanah, Netrawati Netrawati
Situational Foreign Language Instruction in Competency-Based Learning Framework: Ukrainian Experience.. 637
Valeriy Red'ko, Natalia Sorokina, Liudmyla Smovzhenko, Olena Onats, Borys Chyzhevskyi
Impact of the First-Year Seminar Course on Student GPA and Retention Rate across Colleges in Qatar University
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 658
Manal Elobaid, Rafida M. Elobaid, Lamia Romdhani, Arij Yehya
Understanding the Demand for Industrial skills through the National Certificate (Vocational) Building and Civil
Engineering Programme.................................................................................................................................................... 674
Themba Paulos Nkwanyane

1
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 1-25, May 2023
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.5.1
Received Feb 20, 2023; Revised May 6, 2023; Accepted May 13, 2023
Assessing the Influence of Augmented Reality in
Mathematics Education: A Systematic Literature
Review
Samsul Pahmi
Nusa Putra University, Sukabumi, Indonesia
Agus Hendriyanto , Sani Sahara ,
Lukman Hakim Muhaimin and Krida Singgih Kuncoro
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia
Budi Usodo
Universitas Sebelas Maret, Surakarta, Indonesia
Abstract. One of the promising technologies to support the application of
mathematics learning is augmented reality (AR). It is considered an
important pedagogical tool that allows an increasing understanding of
challenging ideas at most levels of education. This article presents the
approach and concept of a systematic literature review (SLR) for
reviewing the effects of AR in mathematics education. Filtering relevant
material on AR and mathematics education from two databases (Scopus
and Eric) to answer research questions is part of the review study. In the
investigation, a total of 23 publications from 2018 to 2022 were
systematically selected based on the PRISMA protocol. A review of the
literature shows that interest in AR research has grown over time and is
evenly distributed across different countries. The use of AR in
mathematics education has been adopted and used as a supporting
medium for interactive learning at various levels, from elementary school
to college, that appears on the topics of geometry, algebra, basic
mathematics, statistics and probability, and other mathematical topics.
The effectiveness of AR, which is widely developed by researchers, is its
ability to overcome existing problems, such as learning barriers,
mathematical anxiety, and other cognitive problems. This review has
filled and amplified the literature on AR on the effectiveness of AR in
school mathematics learning. We recommend that in the future research
on AR should focus on exploring the broad uses and long-term impacts
of AR development and implementation on mathematics learning.
Keywords: augmented reality; learning media; learning technology;
literature review; mathematics education

2
http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
1. Introduction
The diversity of theoretical ideas regarding principles, methods, and topics in the
mathematics education research community has its own uniqueness. Each idea
has its own focus in mathematics education, prioritizing certain aspects (Font et
al., 2011). Most theories in this field emphasize the complexity of the mathematical
objects taught and learned (Mattis, 2015). However, in our view, the complexity
of mathematical objects and the learning process is the key to answering the
question of why there are many theoretical approaches in mathematics education.
Alternative theories can help address the complex didactic problems in
mathematics, as each theory can cover different aspects. However, using several
theories with different assumptions and terms to approach the same problem can
lead to conflicting results and hinder progress in mathematics education. In this
case, the challenge lies in how to combine and integrate those theories into a
framework that includes appropriate and adequate tools for the desired work
(Moll et al., 2016; Prediger et al., 2008).
Among the many tools available for mathematics learning today, augmented
reality (AR) has attracted many researchers. It is integrated with various learning
theories and used as an alternative to overcome the complexity of mathematical
material. Kaufmann et al. (2000) discussed the application of 3D constructs in
mathematics and geometry at the high school and university levels.
Dinayusadewi and Agustika (2020) applied AR to geometry materials for
elementary school students, and Velázquez and Méndez (2021b) discussed the use
of AR in algebra.
AR has experienced rapid growth as it is often adopted as an interactive
technology option in various learning and education contexts (Nurbekova &
Baigusheva, 2020). AR makes the teaching and learning process more flexible and
simplifies complex knowledge (Hamzah et al., 2021). Aside from being widely
used in education at all levels (Akçayir et al., 2016; Ponners & Piller, 2019; Thees
et al., 2020; Weng et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2021), AR has been studied in a number
of academic fields outside of mathematics, including physics (Thees et al., 2020),
biology (Weng et al., 2019), and chemistry (Wong et al., 2021). One of the main
factors contributing to its widespread benefits is the ability of AR technology to
operate on various types of devices, such as personal computers, tablets,
smartphones, and notebooks.
AR is a program that integrates virtual objects with the real world, as well as a
tool that is interactive in real time (Azuma, 1997). In other words, AR is a tool used
to add information and a view of the real world through virtual objects. In general,
AR is used to connect visual objects and real environments to clarify and simplify
the display of complex materials (Dunleavy et al., 2009). Since its first introduction
in the 1990s, ‘‘mixed reality’’ — a term to refer to a combination of visual objects
and the real world — has continued to receive considerable attention and study
as a new training tool and teaching method (Caudell & Mizell, 1992). Although
AR studies are gaining popularity among academics and researchers in the field
of mathematics education, there is still limited knowledge regarding the
usefulness of AR in the mathematical pedagogical.

3
The aim of this paper is to investigate, evaluate, and categorize the literature that
has been written about teaching mathematics through the use of AR. This
comprehensive review examines the usefulness of AR in the field of mathematical
pedagogy. Ibáñez and Delgado-Kloos (2018), Ajit et al. (2021), and Velázquez and
Méndez (2021b) reviewed AR for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics), while Ahmad and Junaini (2020) and Jabar et al. (2022) studied AR
in mathematics learning SLR with basic questions.
Table 1 illustrates the frameworks of some of the previous AR researchers. Based
on the existing works in Table 1, it appears that a comprehensive and thorough
analysis of the particular theme has not yet been presented.
Table 1: Comparison with existing work
Jabar et al.
Velázquez and
Méndez
Ajit et al.
Ahmad and
Junaini
Ibáñez and
Delgado-Kloos
Review methodology
PRISMA PRISMA PRISMA PRISMA -
Year of publication
2022 2021 2021 2020 2018
Year of article database
2017-2022 2002-2021 2012-2020 2015-2019 2010-2017
Number of search database
5 3 1 1 7
Final set of articles
20 17 19 19 28
Subject
Mathematics
Education
STEM & spatial
intelligence
STEM
Learning
Mathematics
STEM
Research questions
Topic, learning
outcomes, research
design, year and
countries
Impact spatial skill,
contribution, type
of AR and
limitation
Characteristic,
AR advantages
and challenges
Types of
Characteristics AR
tools, design specific
research, benefits,
problems and topic
Characteristics and
specific design,
instructional
processes and
measured outcomes
Keyword
"augmented reality
learning" OR
augmented reality"
AND
"Mathematics
education" OR
"mathematics"
AND "secondary
school" OR
"middle school"
OR "high school"
OR "senior high
school"
"augmented
reality" and
"augmenting
reality in
combination with"
spatial
intelligence",
"spatial ability",
"spatial abilities"
and "visuospatial
ability"
“augmented
reality” AND
“STEM OR
science OR
technology OR
engineering OR
mathematics”,
AND
“education”
“augmented reality”
AND “mathematics”
OR “geometry” OR
“mathematical”
“augmented reality”
AND (“education OR
learning” AND
“STEM OR science OR
technology OR
engineering OR
mathematics””
Based on Table 1, the similarities observed between this study and previous
research lie in the chosen protocol, specifically our use of the PRISMA protocol.
Another similarity is related to the selection of the year and keywords. However,
the most prominent difference is related to the research questions posed. We

4
argue that the research questions posed are the most critical element in an SLR.
Our questions are focused on the development and utilization of AR in
mathematics education, while other researchers focus on more general topics.
Although AR technology has been around for a while, its potential in the field of
education is currently being developed.
Unlike other computing technologies, AR provides an experience of limitless
interaction between the virtual and real world. This serves as a metaphor for the
real interface and also acts as a means of transition between the virtual and real
world. SLR becomes important as a first step to explore how the characteristics of
AR can be developed and effectively applied in formal educational environments,
because SLR is a scientific technique for collecting all accessible information
according to established criteria to address a specific research problem (Gough et
al., 2017). In addition, SLR is also a systematic and appropriate method of
classifying, selecting and critically analyzing various studies or research
documents (Tikito & Souissi, 2019). Compared to traditional literature reviews,
SLRs enhance review validity, reliability, replicability, and consistency (Xiao &
Watson, 2019). An author’s claim of accuracy can be clarified by a methodical
review, allowing gaps and directions for further research to be identified.
2. Literature Review
Modern technology is becoming increasingly important in modern culture as it
helps to simplify daily tasks and provide quick access to information through
various means. The number of jobs dependent on technology has also increased
in recent years, making it important for children and teenagers to learn about
technology from a young age. Currently, technology enables individuals to
interact with it through simulated learning experiences. AR is a modern
technology that enhances real-life experiences by incorporating virtual elements.
Although AR is still considered a relatively new technology in the field of
education, its benefits in the teaching and learning process are significant.
Therefore, a research-based guideline is needed to design AR tools that are
appropriate for school-based learning (Ozcakir & Cakiroglu, 2021), AR-enhanced
creativity and motivation among students, realistic visualizations, improved 3D
object visualization, rapid generation and manipulation of models, and ease of
rotation.
Basically, AR can be defined as the process of adding new information through
computer devices such as computers, tablets, or smartphones. When these devices
detect certain patterns, positions, and images, they will display additional
information that is added to the existing information in that reality. Azuma, an
expert in studying AR technology, views AR as a combination of real elements
and interactive virtual elements recorded in three dimensions and in real-time
(Azuma, 1997). Technology-assisted learning and teaching through AR has
several advantages. AR technology enables human-machine interaction to
become more natural and provides a reliable real-world reference framework for
users to perform specific actions (Velázquez & Méndez, 2021a). This process can
be achieved by superimposing virtual objects onto the real environment. Students

5
can experiment with the ability to combine their actual environment with the
created virtual environment.
Referring to its principles and technologies, there are many types of AR systems
and applications. Different research publications classify categories in different
ways, so there is no consistent classification for this group. The six different types
of AR discussed by Edwards-Stewart et al. (2016) fall under two main categories:
triggered and view-based augmentation. Marker-based AR, dynamic
augmentation, location-based AR and complex augmentation fall into the
category of triggered AR technologies while indirect and non-specific digital
augmentations are included in view-based augmentation; and Rabbi and Ullah
(2013) distinguished two groups of methods: marker-based and marker-less
(location-based). These two primary types of AR serve various specific goals and
were developed using various methodologies.
3. Review Methodology
The purpose of this study is to collect, assess, and synthesize empirical data on
AR and its effects on mathematics learning through SLRs. SLR provides several
potential benefits both to support further research efforts from the findings that
have been presented by previous works (Kitchenham et al., 2009). This review
procedure refers to what is recommended by Kitchenham et al. (2009), which we
modified it to fit our framework. The modifications are related to the stages
carried out, relating to the activities in each stage referring to what Kitchenham et
al. (2009) explained. In general, the stages of implementing this SLR consist of
three major parts: planning, development and results. The details of each stage
are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: SLR phase diagram
During the planning stage, activities include identifying the review needs,
determining research questions (RQ), selecting databases, searching for
keywords, and determining inclusion and exclusion criteria. During the
development stage, activities include conducting a primary study search without
screening, screening studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and
extracting and synthesizing the data. During the results stage, activities include a
quantitative summary of the findings, discussion, and conclusion. The 23 studies

6
from the Scopus and ERIC databases measuring the impact of AR on mathematics
learning were selected for analysis.
3.1 Planning
In the initial planning phase, a review procedure is developed as a guide for
reviewing and determining the main outcomes, methods and objectives of the
SLR review. In this phase, keywords, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and
research questions (RQ) are identified. By using predetermined keywords, an
article search was performed on the Scopus and ERIC databases. As a result, 568
journal articles (467 articles from Scopus and 101 from ERIC) were found based
on title-abstract-keywords search: “augmented reality” OR “augmenting reality”
OR “augmented reality learning” AND “mathematics” OR "mathematics
education" OR "learning mathematics" OR "teaching mathematics”. We set
inclusion-exclusion criteria (Table 2) to simplify the process of selecting
appropriate literature.
Table 2: Criteria of inclusion and exclusion
Criteria Inclusion Exclusion
Article title
and content
An appropriate title that
complied with the study’s
requirements
Did not match the requirements of the
study and had an irrelevant title
Year of
publication
Publications from 2018 to
2022
Publications outside the range
specified
Type of
publication Solely for journal articles
Reviews, editorials, and non-
empirical studies
Language English Others
Field of article
study Mathematics education Others than mathematics education
Accessibility
Full-text articles or open
access
Preview articles and required a
payment
RQ is the beginning and basis of SLR. RQ is used to guide the process of searching
and extracting literature. Data analysis and synthesis, as a result of SLRs, is the
answer to the RQ we specify up front. RQ formulations are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Research questions
ID RQ Motivation
RQ1
How is the development
of AR in mathematics
learning based on the
distribution of years and
their demographics?
Knowing the year and demographics will provide an
overview of the development of AR studies that have
been carried out and predict what is still necessary and
will be investigated next.
RQ2
Who are the target AR
users in mathematics
learning?
The population in selected studies can provide an
overview of the most appropriate use of AR in terms of
cognitive development levels.
RQ3
Who is an AR developer
in mathematics learning?
This study will provide an overview of how far the role
of interested parties is for the advancement of AR
development and implementation in formal mathematics
RQ4
How is the
implementation of AR
The pedagogical aspect in the implementation of AR is
intended to see how far AR becomes a tool that can lead

7
ID RQ Motivation
for mathematics learning
in the classroom?
students to achieve predetermined learning goals or
perhaps even surpass them.
RQ5
What problems can be
solved using AR
technology in
mathematics learning?
This section offers on the side where AR can contribute
more in solving mathematics learning problems
RQ6
What topics are featured
in AR?
The extent to which AR can facilitate mathematical topics
will be seen in this section
3.2 Development
The development stage is the stage that contains the implementation of the SLR,
where we refer to the standard PRISMA. PRISMA creates a uniform, peer-
reviewed technique that makes use of checklists of best practices to help ensure
the quality and reproducibility of the revision process (Conde et al., 2020).
Identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion are the foundational elements
of PRISMA.
Figure 2: PRISMA protocol flow chart
3.3 Result
The final stage involves a methodical analysis and discussion of the reported
results, which leads to the conclusion of the SLR. Trends, study deficiencies, and

8
suggestions for further investigation are also mentioned. In order to properly
assess the importance of the phases illustrated in Figure 1, and to underscore the
methodological limitations inherent in conducting an SLR, it is necessary to
conduct a thorough analysis.
4. Review Result and Discussion
The papers selected for this SLR were obtained from the Scopus and ERIC
databases, as mentioned in the methodology section. These databases were
chosen because they comply with protocol requirements and have a filtering
feature that automates specific parameters set. As shown in Figure 2, a search
using the specified keywords yielded 586 articles from both databases. Due to the
application of inclusion criteria, 485 were excluded; there were 11 duplicate
articles, which reduced the number of articles to 72. After careful review of ‘‘title,
keywords, abstract and content’’, 49 articles were excluded for not having a focus
of study in ‘‘mathematics education’’. Finally, a total of 23 scientific articles was
analyzed.
All articles (n=23) were analyzed to gather the information we needed to answer
our research topic, then the discussion was categorized into seven categories
according to the research question. The following subsection provides answers to
the research questions.
4.1 Distribution of research study by publication year and country
The first RQ relates to the year of publication and the country in which the
research was conducted. Overall, there are a total of 23 related articles from the
Scopus and ERIC databases published between 2018 and 2022. Figure 3 shows the
distribution of studies analyzed by year of publication.
Figure 3: Distribution of research studies by publication year
It is interesting to note that interest in AR research has evolved over time. Overall,
research related to AR increased in 2019 (n=5) and 2020 (n=6), resulting in the
publication of a total of 11 papers. The study of the application of AR in the field
of mathematics education is seen as a new direction from various studies that
have been carried out previously. The number of publications published in 2021
increased rapidly to reach eight articles. However, only four articles were released
in 2022. This growth suggests that researchers are increasingly interested in using
AR as a medium for mathematical learning (Cahyono et al., 2020). According to

9
the Horizon report, AR is a new and rapidly advancing educational technology
(Brown et al., 2020), and it is possible that, in the coming years, research
supporting this evolving technology will increase.
AR is predicted to become increasingly popular and develop among the public,
including in the educational environment (Martín-Gutiérrez et al., 2017). Several
non-educational applications that use AR have become popular trends, such as
the game Pokémon GO, which has attracted the interest of both adults and
children, demonstrating the potential of AR usage. In the context of mathematics
learning, there has been an increase in AR usage in 2021 that may be related to the
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (Eldokhny & Drwish, 2021). The year of 2020
was the beginning of massive transmigration in all sectors of life — including
education — due to the impact of the pandemic (Hendriyanto et al., 2021), thus
forcing everyone to learn adaptively, of which, one way is through digital
technology instruments. There has been a tremendous acceleration in the use of
digital technology in the world of education during the pandemic.
With regard to the distribution of AR studies by country, based on Figure 4, it can
be observed that there are publications from selected countries included in this
study. According to the established criteria, Indonesia has the highest number of
publications (n=8), followed by Spain (n=3), Malaysia (n=2), and Turkey (n=2).
However, there are several other countries that only have one publication each,
such as Beijing, China, Ecuador, Germany, Jordan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and
Ukraine.
Figure 4: Distribution of researchers based on countries
The researchers from each of these countries are:
1) Researchers from Indonesia: Fatimah et al. (2019); Amir et al. (2020a,
2020b); Cahyono et al. (2020); Sudirman et al. (2020); Wangid et al. (2020);
Mailizar and Johar (2021); Wiliyanto et al. (2022).
2) From Spain: Flores-Bascuñana et al. (2020); Cabero-Almenara et al. (2021);
Velázquez & Méndez (2021a).
3) From Malaysia: Ahmad and Junaini (2022); Hanid et al. (2022).
4) From Turkey: Ibili and Billinghurst (2019); Ozcakir and Cakiroglu (2021).

10
5) From Beijing: Cai et al. (2019).
6) From China: Li et al. (2022).
7) From Ecuador: Lozada-Yánez et al., (2019).
8) From Germany: Schutera et al. (2021).
9) From Jordan: Ahmad (2021).
10) From Mexico: Moreno et al. (2021).
11) From Saudi Arabia: Elsayed and Al-Najrani (2021).
12) From Ukraine: Vakaliuk et al. (2020).
The reason why developing countries apply ICT in education is to support various
goals such as education reform, social progress, and economic development
(Kozma & Vota, 2014). Many countries have used ICT as a means to train students’
skills and knowledge, even as if it had become an obligation in developed
countries to involve ICT in learning. ICT integration in the education sector has
improved dramatically worldwide over the past 40 years (Chen et al., 2020). ICT
can complement, enrich, and transform education for the better (Garzón &
Acevedo, 2019). Countries that have initiated ICT integration programs in the
education system are Portugal — a program of one-to-one laptop schools (Lucas,
2018) in the Magellan project (Piper et al., 2017); South Korea — smart education
program (Leem & Sung, 2019); Australia — digital education revolution program
(Brown, 2021); Turkey — FATIH program (İra et al., 2021); one laptop per child
program in Peru and Uruguay (Hennessy et al., 2021); and the O-OLS program in
Latin America (Capota & Severin, 2011). Thus, the discovery of a AR-based
learning approach demands further research in different countries around the
world (Cahyono et al., 2020).
4.2 Educational level study sample
Research conducted by Neofotistos and Karavakou (2018), revealed that most of
the students (junior and senior high school levels) master ICT well. This happens
because ICT has been known by students since elementary school. The
components of ICT are very important for education, because their use can
support the smooth teaching and learning process and ICT can present
opportunities for teacher-students to innovate on content, methods, and
pedagogy (Zhang et al., 2016). AR in mathematics education has been
implemented and applied as a medium to support interactive learning at various
levels ranging from elementary school to college. The distribution of AR studies
according to education level can be seen in Figure 5.

11
Figure 5: Distribution of research studies by educational level study sample
The data in Figure 5 demonstrate that junior high school level has the highest
quantity of AR-based teaching media (n=10), followed by elementary school
(n=5), college (n=4), senior high school (n=3), and finally specific learning
disabilities (n=1). The transfer of thinking that is still contextual at the elementary
school level to the senior high school level and which uses an abstract thinking
perspective in mathematics requires a bridge that mediates; this makes some
researchers interested in developing this AR-based media at that level. Next,
elementary school students have a level of contextual thinking, so that, in
learning, the teacher must always involve contextual problems (Phonapichat et
al., 2014). This is inversely proportional to high school students who are required
to have abstract thinking in mathematics (Reys et al., 2007).
Similar findings conclude that K-12 students make up the majority of the sample
in AR-related articles (Akçayır & Akçayır, 2017; Ibáñez & Delgado-Kloos, 2018).
K-12 children are the most desirable sample population, probably because they
are in a period of stable functioning according to Piaget’s theory of human
development (Kohler, 2014). At this stage, children can easily learn about concrete
concepts through the process of reasoning and classification that involves
multiple senses (Ghazi et al., 2016). As a result, learning tools like AR can help
make abstract concepts more concrete and accessible during this learning phase.
Despite mathematics being an intrinsic part of our daily lives, understanding
abstract concepts remains a challenging topic in mathematics education at all
academic levels (Lozada-Yánez et al., 2019).
4.3 AR developer
AR technology is a new breakthrough in learning media where the learning
process in the world of education so far is still mostly conventional. This can lead
to a level of saturation and lack of motivation for students to learn. Technology
will never replace the role of teachers, but teachers who do not take advantage of
technology will soon be replaced. With advances in science and technology,
teachers are expected to carry out their duties adaptively, innovatively, creatively
and critically in the learning process. The teacher has full control over the
implementation of mathematics education.

12
As facilitators of learning activities, teachers have the freedom to design learning
activities that can be applied in their respective classes, both in a physical and
virtual sense (Cuendet et al., 2013). The teacher’s role in developing learning
activities must be able to engineer learning experiences that are interesting,
varied, repetitive, and enhanced for students. The integration of ICT in
mathematics learning has epistemic potential that allows students to engage in
the instrumental genesis of mathematical concepts (Moreno & Llinares, 2018), and
allows teachers to develop their abilities to achieve specific learning objectives
(Stein et al., 2020), redesign learning and deliver new mathematics assignments to
students (Yeh et al., 2021).
However, the fact that there is currently a competency gap between users and
developers also needs to be taken in consideration. Recognizing that self-setting
aside as a developer requires knowledge and skills, several strategies have been
applied in programs for pre-service teachers, as for instance, in the curriculum of
educational lectures and the teacher professionalism program, which is also
known as the Program Profesi Guru (PPG) in Indonesia. AR developers have
published the results, including those also aimed at learning mathematics. The
teachers, however, are more inclined to the user.
With open access and opportunity to technology, in-service teachers also have a
wide range of opportunities to use, or even develop their own ideas and products
and disseminate them. Although it is not the main task of teachers to play the role
of developers, they must still be given a platform for their ideas and competencies
so that the integration of technology in education will be a transformation that
goes is concurrent with its development. It is also relevant to how the research
group has discovered the many benefits of developing and applying AR
technologies in learning. The findings suggest that AR developers are currently
dominated by researchers (n=21) (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Distribution of AR developer
In the era of rapidly advancing communication and information technology,
education must keep up with these developments by adopting teaching methods
that are appropriate and compatible with current technology (Elsayed & Al-

13
Najrani, 2021). Following the ongoing digital developments, teachers are expected
to be able to prepare themselves at least adequately to use the available
technology to be applied in learning. The greatest opportunity must be provided
for the development, implementation, and collaboration strategies that may be
implemented.
For more serious conditions, looking at how problems occur in conventional
learning, the use of ICT in education can be one of the pragmatic but sustainable
‘urgent solutions’. The utilization of ICT, especially AR, can be integrated into
learning designs that are tailored to the current and future learning needs of
students. This can be observed from students’ attachment to devices such as
tablets, smartphones, and other technologies, which has driven the use of digital
technology in education. Therefore, it is important for teachers to receive training
in AR technology development (Sáez-López et al., 2020). Although the new
challenge with technology is not only the economic cost but also the need for
teachers to get used to it, this can be overcome more effectively to implement this
technology in the classroom (Fernández-Enríquez & Delgado-Martín, 2020).
Currently, only GeoGebra AR can be utilized by teachers for AR-based learning.
The role of governments to provide facilities that support the achievement of ICT
integration in learning holistically is urgently needed.
4.4 The role of AR in learning mathematics
The role of digital technology in education is not only limited to its use as a
learning tool, but encompasses various complex dimensions. Educational
technology can be described as the study of ethics and practices that facilitate
learning and improve performance through the appropriate use of technological
processes and resources, as defined by the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (AECT) (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008).
However, this research shows that the role of augmented reality (AR) in learning
is only as an assistive tool (n=21) to enhance effectiveness and student
engagement in the learning process; two other studies (Ozcakir & Cakiroglu, 2021;
Wangid et al., 2020) developed AR as teaching materials (n=2).
To achieve learning goals, student performance is a very important factor. The
selection of appropriate technology designed for learning must be tailored to the
conditions and needs of students in their respective schools or regions. AR
technology has certain advantages, such as promoting motor learning and
supporting the learning process through the integration of digital learning
elements that help engage students and enhance their motivation to learn (Diaz et
al., 2015). AR technology can be easily implemented in various learning media,
such as smartphones and printed materials like books, making it more accessible
and practical to use (Wiliyanto et al., 2022).
Dunleavy and Dede (2014) stated that AR technology is considered to have the
potential to enhance learning based on two different and independent theoretical
frameworks. The first is the constructivist learning theory developed by Bruner
and Vygotsky. According to this theory, individuals create new knowledge based
on their prior knowledge. These theories view AR as a technology with great
potential to enhance students’ ability to construct knowledge. Second, according

14
to the situational learning theory, meaningful learning occurs in a certain
environment, and the effectiveness of such a setting is influenced by the
interaction between people, objects, locations, processes, and cultures (Dunleavy
& Dede, 2014). The use of AR provides a new way for students to connect with
course material, teachers, and other students, as well as with activities, locations,
and cultures that may be useful for learning.
4.5 Recommendations for AR to solve the problems in mathematics learning
ICT integration has become an integral and inclusive part of the educational
process (Nikolić et al., 2019). The cone of experience model initiated by Dale
(Edgar, 1970) gives an idea that the more concrete the learning experience that is
passed, the higher the students’ understanding of the information they obtain.
The more abstract the learning experience experiences, the less understanding is
gained. In this case, ICT — AR technology — can provide a concrete learning
experience in mathematics learning. It should be noted that the studies that have
been carried out prove that the effectiveness of the use of AR in mathematics
education is able to overcome existing problems (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Distribution of AR to solve the problems in mathematics learning
Regarding the didactic proposals outlined, it can be said that the use of AR
technology is an educational innovation, which can make a positive contribution
to improving the understanding of geometry concepts, developing spatial
visualization (Ahmad, 2021; Amir et al., 2020b; Elsayed & Al-Najrani, 2021; Flores-
Bascuñana et al., 2020; Ozcakir & Cakiroglu, 2021; Schutera et al., 2021; Vakaliuk
et al., 2020; Velázquez & Méndez, 2021a), and increased student motivation
(Fatimah et al., 2019; Lozada-Yánez et al., 2019; Mailizar & Johar, 2021; Sudirman
et al., 2020). Student motivation and their involvement in learning is key to
achieving effective learning (Fernández-Enríquez & Delgado-Martín, 2020).
The use of AR technology is beneficial for students through increased
achievement (Moreno et al., 2021) and learning performance (Cabero-Almenara
et al., 2021; Wangid et al., 2020; Wiliyanto et al., 2022). AR helps with knowledge
construction (Amir et al., 2020a; Cahyono et al., 2020; Cai et al., 2019; Ibili &
Billinghurst, 2019), develops thinking skills (Li et al., 2022) and supports learners
to better understand the topic being studied (Cabero-Almenara et al., 2021;
Moreno et al., 2021).

15
The way of thinking of students who have studied with AR tends to focus on
developing their ability to translate embedded visual language in visual form
(Amir et al., 2020b). Further results related to visuals are also obtained in solving
one of the problems that are widely found, such as Velázquez and Méndez (2021a)
and Ozcakir and Cakiroglu (2021), who found correlations of AR use and
improved student spatial ability.
Students exposed to learning with GeoGebra AR — a learning package developed
by researchers — in the experimental group, got better results in visualization and
spatial rotation skills, compared to students in the control group. Therefore,
Velázquez and Méndez (2021a) also recommend the use of AR as a support in the
learning and teaching process to improve the performance of spatial abilities and,
of course, also the academic performance of students.
In its application, AR accessed in the form of an application, which is standalone
and made with an easy-to-use design, can facilitate students in the understanding
of mathematics learning; as Ozcakir and Cakiroglu (2021) concluded, the
application actively invites students who can interactively use the components in
it directly, such as changing image types and parameters, and testing them
simultaneously. AR builds spatial imaginations that can be harder to realize with
two-dimensional teaching materials as usually used.
On the topic of spatial ability, an important finding shows that students contribute
to their own development of spatial ability. According to Schutera et al. (2021),
the support of AR can create positive perceptions and motivations in students
during spatial-based learning activities, such as representation, visualization,
rotation, reconstruction, and constructive space. Through these activities,
students’ spatial ability can improve. This finding is also supported by Ahmad’s
(2021) theory, that of the two-sided brain, in which there are two complementary
methods in processing information. The second method shows how the brain
works to find spatial relationships formed and is done in the right brain, both
moving linearly, so they move step by step. When performing activities that
require visual thinking, the brain also increases its activity in performing activities
that require verbal thinking.
Discussing the use of tools in the learning process cannot be separated from the
design used. In some cases, as in Flores-Bascuñana et al. (2020) and Vakaliuk et al.
(2020), neither the characteristics nor designs described in the study are intended
to be specific about the design and development of AR applications to encourage
the development of spatial ability. However, they demonstrate how to use AR to
provide learning opportunities that enhance students’ spatial abilities, while also
helping teachers implement better classroom instruction.
In another perspective, another benefit of the use of AR when the goal has been
determined in overcoming problems related to spatial ability, is that students will
be able to use the tool to perform their spatial ability through spatial tasks and,
with the use of their devices, it will be seen to be more supportive of students in
enhancing the use of their devices more positively. Students will not only use their

16
devices to communicate, read books, or play games, but they will also become a
support mechanism for students to learn mathematics (Vakaliuk et al., 2020).
Elsayed and Al-Najrani (2021) supported that focusing on the implementation of
AR in mathematics education can be a powerful tool to address students’ spatial
ability issues, while simultaneously strengthening their spatial visualization
skills.
Furthermore, the use of AR also demonstrates its potential in promoting student
representational ability, described by Li et al. (2022) as an AR-based multi-
representational learning environment (AR-based MRLE). AR-based MRLE
promotes lower secondary school students’ representational ability in linear
function. In the study, a successful experiment was to combine function material
with its representation with AR that attempted to be exploited with a real-life
dimension to representational learning of linear function. The three
representations used are real-life, symbolic, and graphical.
Furthermore, in the context of mathematical modeling there are several ways that
students use it to solve mathematical problems based on their work results.
Mathematical concepts can be learned by students through mathematical
modeling in various ways. Research by Amir et al. (2020a), in line with Sudirman
et al. (2020) and Wangid et al. (2020), aimed to develop an AR system on mobile
devices to improve students’ understanding of mathematical concepts. Concepts
such as doing, drawing, having a picture, paying attention to properties,
formalizing, observing, arranging, and discovering are involved in this topic.
The utilization of AR technology on smartphones can have a positive impact on
learning outcomes, especially in financial mathematics. The use of AR technology
can also enhance students’ perception of their environment and their interaction
with it. AR technology alters the way in which students engage with the
surrounding environment and offers a distinctive and interactive delivery of
information, thus increasing their involvement in the process of learning.
Although a three-dimensional model is required to represent AR, an alternative
representation of the application can still motivate students, as reported by
Vakaliuk et al. (2020). Furthermore, research has identified five computational
skills, namely abstraction, generalization, decomposition, algorithms, and
debugging, that can be used to solve geometry problems.
Computational thinking with the help of AR technology can be an effective
approach to promote the use of technology in learning and trigger further
research on technology and pedagogical approaches to solving problems in
learning activities. Ibili and Billinghurst (2019) discussed the relationship between
the use of AR teaching software and cognitive load. The study aimed to
investigate the correlation between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
natural interaction, and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load.
When discussing problem-solving and skill development in learning
mathematics, student motivation is crucial, especially in the context of AR or
technology use. Some articles discussed how student motivation is measured and

17
the results showed that student motivation developed in learning activities is
more determined by the students themselves when using AR (Cahyono et al.,
2020; Cai et al., 2019; Mailizar & Johar, 2021). Positive results in those cases
indicate that the forms of internalized motivation (IM) and identified regulation
(IR) are more dominant. Students feel that their learning activities are interesting
and meaningful, and they are satisfied with the activities. They also learn how to
apply mathematics in the real world with the help of mobile applications.
In a more serious context, mathematics education programs focus on activities
that support students in building their own mathematical knowledge during their
learning process. Cai et al. (2019) discussed how the utilization of AR apps in the
classroom can facilitate mathematics learning for students who possess high
levels of self-efficacy by adopting profound strategies. Research by Lozada-Yánez
et al. (2019) described the use of MS-Kinect as its AR form. The result is that MS-
Kinect can be used as an interactive device that provides various possibilities in
its application to educational environments.
AR also helps in creating simplified representations of multidimensional objects
used in educational content to facilitate students’ understanding. The idea of
broad concepts and spaces has several problems in learning, such as examples in
circles, ellipses, parabola, and hyperboles (Fatimah et al., 2019). Therefore, AR,
with the integration of these topics that are adjusted to learning standards and
media, will be generally attractive, easy to operate, facilitate understanding and,
of course, will increase student motivation.
The use of AR in learning attitudes has a positive impact on learning motivation,
as found by Sudirman et al. (2020). The use of local wisdom in AR can stimulate
students’ curiosity in exploring geometric concepts, to pay attention to learning
spirit, and encourage students to apply AR when learning independently. The
four motivational factors that have been implemented are attention, relevance,
self-confidence, and satisfaction. Researchers have integrated local knowledge
into AR technology to enhance geometry teaching. They also analyzed how this
affects students’ learning attitudes, motivation, and ability to understand
geometric concepts.
Wangid et al. (2020) showed that mathematics anxiety can be a hindrance for
students in achieving mathematics learning achievement. However, AR can help
reduce students’ anxiety through its use in AR-assisted storybooks, which can
have a positive and significant impact on students’ mathematics anxiety. Another
advantage of using AR is that it helps students’ spatial abilities, which ultimately
can reduce student anxiety. In understanding mathematics, students with
learning disabilities require longer and repetitive time to understand concepts.
Mathematics learning is also an abstract subject and requires constant repetition
for students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). Therefore, AR is used as
technology in mathematics learning in junior high schools to overcome SLD
mathematical barriers by projecting images in three dimensions (Wiliyanto et al.,
2022).

18
4.6 Mathematical topics used in implementation of AR
In relation to the mathematical topics used in the application of AR, five main
areas of mathematics were identified: geometry (n=15), algebra (n=3), basic
mathematics (n=2), statistics and probability (n=1), as well as other fields
including mathematical economics (n=1) and mathematical engineering (n=1).
Table 4: Topic of implementations of AR in mathematics
Mathematics Topics 𝒏𝒊 Sample Research
Algebra 3 Li et al. (2022)
Basic mathematics 2 Lozada-Yánez et al. (2019)
Geometry 15 Schutera et al. (2021)
Mathematical economics 1 Moreno et al. (2021)
Mathematical engineering 1 Cabero-Almenara et al. (2021)
Statistics and probability 1 Cai et al. (2019)
According to the findings of this study, Table 4 shows that the use of AR in
mathematics education is more commonly applied to geometry, especially 3D
geometry. This is due to AR’s advantages in visualization (Behringer et al., 1999)
and the availability of 3D-based AR support software such as GeoGebra 3D;
Unity; Assembler Edu, AR-Math, and Vuforia Augmented Reality SDK.
Geometry itself is an important topic in mathematics (Ma et al., 2015) that studies
shape, position, and spatial properties. While innovation in education does not
always involve new technology, visualization issues in geometry cannot be
addressed solely by using traditional manipulative teaching materials such as
polyhedral made of paper and wood, or knot and end assemblies.
AR is frequently used to teach geometry because it makes abstract concepts
tangible, enhances spatial visualization skills, and facilitates active learning.
Geometry involves abstract concepts, such as points, lines, angles, and shapes,
that can be difficult for students to grasp. AR provides a way to make these
abstract concepts more tangible by allowing students to see and interact with
them in a virtual environment. This can enhance their understanding of these
concepts and help them visualize them more clearly. Spatial visualization skills
are important for understanding and solving problems in geometry, and AR can
help students develop these skills by providing them with opportunities to
manipulate and explore geometric shapes and structures in three-dimensional
space. AR also provides an immersive and interactive learning experience that
encourages students to actively engage with the material, leading to greater
retention, understanding, motivation, and engagement.
5. Conclusion
All research questions have been evaluated in this study. In terms of quantity,
Indonesia appears to lead among the 23 selected articles, with eight studies
obtained from the two databases that we used. The use of AR in mathematics
education has been implemented and applied as a medium to support interactive
learning at various levels ranging from elementary school to college. The results
of the analysis revealed that junior high school students made up most of the
sample in the review of selected articles, followed by students in elementary
school. Piaget’s human development theory provides support for this notion, as

19
learners at this stage can easily grasp concrete concepts through cross-sensory
classification and reasoning. The application of AR technology in mathematics
education has been recognized as a “tool” that can be utilized in various topics,
such as geometry, algebra, basic mathematics, statistics and probability, among
others. AR, developed by researchers, has been proven to be effective in
addressing various problems, including learning barriers, mathematical anxiety,
and cognitive issues. AR technology is a useful and efficient tool that can be
extensively applied in education, especially in mathematics education.
According to this study, if AR is to be used in a learning context, it is very
important to have a clear and accurate conceptual characteristic of AR. The results
of systematic studies strongly suggest that AR can be developed and
implemented in pedagogical practice when knowing exactly the characteristics of
AR that are suitable in mathematical learning.
This review has filled in and amplified the literature on AR on the effectiveness of
AR in school mathematics learning. AR can be used to facilitate student
engagement in learning but must still pay attention to alignment on
implementation practices and materials that match AR technology. We
recommend that, in the future, research on AR should focus on exploring the
broad uses and long-term impacts of AR development and implementation on
mathematics learning.
6. Limitations
Only indexed articles in Scopus and ERIC databases were used to review this
investigation and even then it was limited to the last five years’ review. Future
studies may also be able to use other databases, such as SCCI, ProQuest, and
Springer. In addition, the study is restricted to studies published as articles.
Future studies may focus on looking at a larger range of aspects, including
conference papers, editorials, theses, and dissertations, as this may help
researchers learn more about the benefits and disadvantages of using AR
technology in mathematics teaching.
In contrast, there are a number of studies that do not address the uses and uses of
augmented reality learning in mathematics education in detail. Therefore, the
conclusions of this review are limited to some other studies with a clear
justification.
7. References
Ahmad, F. A. R. O. B. (2021). The effect of augmented reality in improving visual thinking
in mathematics of 10th-grade students in Jordan. International Journal of Advanced
Computer Science and Applications, 12(5), 352–360.
https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2021.0120543
Ahmad, Nur Izza N., & Junaini, S. N. (2020). Augmented reality for learning mathematics:
a systematic literature review. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in
Learning, 15(16), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i16.14961
Ahmad, Nur Izza Nabila, & Junaini, S. N. (2022). PrismAR: A Mobile Augmented Reality
Mathematics Card Game for Learning Prism. International Journal of Computing and
Digital Systems, 11(1), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.12785/ijcds/110118

20
Ajit, G., Lucas, T., & Kanyan, R. (2021). A systematic review of augmented reality in STEM
education. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-
022-10122-y
Akçayir, M., Akçayir, G., Pektaş, H. M., & Ocak, M. A. (2016). Augmented reality in science
laboratories: The effects of augmented reality on university students’ laboratory
skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Computers in Human Behavior, 57,
334–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.054
Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented
reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research
Review, 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
Amir, M. F., Ariyanti, N., Anwar, N., Valentino, E., & Afifah, D. S. N. (2020a). Augmented
reality mobile learning system: Study to improve PSTs’ understanding of
mathematical development. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies,
14(9), 239–247. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i09.12909
Amir, M. F., Fediyanto, N., Rudyanto, H. E., Nur Afifah, D. S., & Tortop, H. S. (2020b).
Elementary students’ perceptions of 3Dmetric: A cross-sectional study. Heliyon,
6(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04052
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 6(4), 335–385.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
Behringer, R., Klinker, G., & Mizell, D. (1999). Augmented Reality: Placing artificial objects in
real scenes. AK Peters/CRC Press.
Brown, B. (2021). ‘Steering at a distance’, Australian school principals’ understandings of
digital technologies policies during the Digital Education Revolution. Journal of
Educational Administration and History, 53(1), 50–66.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2020.1856796
Cabero-Almenara, J., Barroso-Osuna, J., & Martinez-Roig, R. (2021). Mixed, augmented
and virtual, reality applied to the teaching of mathematics for architects. Applied
Sciences (Switzerland), 11(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/app11157125
Cahyono, A. N., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., Asikin, M., Miftahudin, Ahsan, M. G. K., & Ludwig,
M. (2020). Learning mathematical modelling with augmented reality mobile math
trails program: How can it work? Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 181–192.
https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.10729.181-192
Cai, S., Liu, E., Yang, Y., & Liang, J. C. (2019). Tablet-based AR technology: Impacts on
students’ conceptions and approaches to learning mathematics according to their
self-efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 248–263.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12718
Capota, C., & Severin, E. (2011). One-to-One Laptop Programs in Latin America and the
Caribbean - Panorama and Perspectives. Development, (April), 60.
Caudell, T. P., & Mizell, D. W. (1992). Augmented reality: an application of heads-up
display technology to manual manufacturing processes. Proceedings of the Twenty-
Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, ii, 659–669 vol.2.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1992.183317
Chen, X., Zou, D., Cheng, G., & Xie, H. (2020). Detecting latent topics and trends in
educational technologies over four decades using structural topic modeling: A
retrospective of all volumes of Computers & Education. Computers and Education,
151(December 2019), 103855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103855
Conde, M. Á., Sedano, F. J. R., Fernández-Llamas, C., Gonçalves, J., Lima, J., & García-
Peñalvo, F. J. (2020). RoboSTEAM Project Systematic Mapping: Challenge Based
Learning and Robotics. 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference
(EDUCON), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125103

21
Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Designing augmented
reality for the classroom. Computers and Education, 68, 557–569.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.015
Diaz, C., Hincapié, M., & Moreno, G. (2015). How the type of content in educative
augmented reality application affects the learning experience. Procedia Computer
Science, 75(Vare), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.239
Dinayusadewi, N. P., & Agustika, G. N. S. (2020). Development Of Augmented Reality
Application As A Mathematics Learning Media In Elementary School Geometry
Materials. Journal of Education Technology, 4(2), 204.
https://doi.org/10.23887/jet.v4i2.25372
Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented Reality Teaching and Learning BT -
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. In J. M.
Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on
Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 735-745).Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_59
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive
participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-
9119-1
Edgar, D. (1970). The Cone of Experience. Theory into Practice, 9(2), 96–100.
Edwards-Stewart, A., Hoyt, T., & Reger, G. M. (2016). Classifying different types of
augmented reality technology. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine,
14(January), 199–202.
Eldokhny, A. A., & Drwish, A. M. (2021). Effectiveness of augmented reality in online
distance learning at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(9), 198–218.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i09.17895
Elsayed, S. A., & Al-Najrani, H. I. (2021). Effectiveness of the Augmented Reality on
Improving the Visual Thinking in Mathematics and Academic Motivation for
Middle School Students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education, 17(8), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11069
Fatimah, S., Setiawan, W., Juniati, E., & Surur, A. S. (2019). Development of Smart Content
Model-based Augmented Reality to Support Smart Learning. Journal of Science
Learning, 2(2), 65. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v2i2.16204
Fernández-Enríquez, R., & Delgado-Martín, L. (2020). Augmented reality as a didactic
resource for teaching mathematics. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(7).
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072560
Flores-Bascuñana, M., Diago, P. D., Villena-Taranilla, R., & Yáñez, D. F. (2020). On
augmented reality for the learning of 3D-geometric contents: A preliminary
exploratory study with 6-grade primary students. Education Sciences, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10010004
Font, V., Malaspina, U., Giménez, J., & Wilhelmi, M. (2011). Mathematical objects through
the lens of three different theoretical perspectives. Proceedings of the VII Congress
of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, 2411–2420.
Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019). Meta-analysis of the impact of Augmented Reality on
students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review, 27(April), 244–260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001
Ghazi, S. R., Ullah, K., & Jan, F. A. (2016). Concrete operational stage of Piaget’s cognitive
development theory: an implication in learning mathematics. Gomal University
Journal of Research [GUJR], 31(1), 9–20.
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.

22
Hamzah, M. L., Ambiyar, Rizal, F., Simatupang, W., Irfan, D., & Refdinal. (2021).
Development of augmented reality application for learning computer network
device. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(12), 47–64.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i12.21993
Hanid, M. F. A., Mohamad Said, M. N. H., Yahaya, N., & Abdullah, Z. (2022). The elements
of computational thinking in learning geometry by using augmented reality
application. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(2), 28–41.
Hendriyanto, A., Kusmayadi, T. A., & Fitriana, L. (2021). What are the type of learning
media innovation needed to support distance learning? AKSIOMA: Jurnal Program
Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 10(2), 1043–1052.
Hennessy, S., Jordan, K., Wagner, D. A., & Hub, E. (2021). Problem Analysis and Focus of
EdTech Hub’s Work: Technology in Education in Low-and Middle-Income Countries.
EdTechHub. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4332693.
Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A
systematic review. Computers and Education, 123(November 2017), 109–123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002
Ibili, E., & Billinghurst, M. (2019). Assessing the relationship between cognitive load and
the usability of a mobile augmented reality tutorial system: A study of gender
effects. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 6(3), 378–395.
https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.594749
İra, N., Yıldız, M., Yıldız, G., Yalçınkaya-Önder, E., & Aksu, A. (2021). Access to
information technology of households and secondary school students in Turkey.
Information Development, 37(3), 444–457.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669211008949
Jabar, J. M., Hidayat, R., Samat, N. A., Rohizan, M. F. H., Rosdin, N. ‘Ain, Salim, N., &
Norazhar, S. A. (2022). Augmented reality learning in mathematics education: a
systematic literature review. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 22(15),
183–202.
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational Technology: A Devinition with
Commentary. Routledge – Taylor & Francis Group.
Juandi, D. (2021). Heterogeneity of problem-based learning outcomes for improving
mathematical competence: A systematic literature review. Journal of Physics:
Conference Series, 1722(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1722/1/012108
Kaufmann, H., Schmalstieg, D., & Wagner, M. (2000). Construct3D: a virtual reality
application for mathematics and geometry education. Education and Information
Technologies, 5(4), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012049406877
Kitchenham, B., Pearl Brereton, O., Budgen, D., Turner, M., Bailey, J., & Linkman, S. (2009).
Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A systematic literature
review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1), 7–15.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.09.009
Kohler, R. (2014). Jean Piaget. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Kozma, R. B., & Vota, W. S. (2014). ICT in Developing Countries: Policies, Implementation, and
Impact BT.. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook
of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_72
Leem, J., & Sung, E. (2019). Teachers’ beliefs and technology acceptance concerning smart
mobile devices for SMART education in South Korea. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 50(2), 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12612
Li, S., Shen, Y., Jiao, X., & Cai, S. (2022). Using augmented reality to enhance students’
representational fluency: The case of linear functions. Mathematics, 10(10).

23
https://doi.org/10.3390/math10101718
Lozada-Yánez, R., La-Serna-Palomino, N., & Molina-Granja, F. (2019). Augmented reality
and MS-Kinect in the learning of basic mathematics: KARMLS case. International
Education Studies, 12(9), 54. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n9p54
Lucas, M. (2018). Chapter 8 The Use of Tablets in Lower Secondary Education: Students’
Perspectives and Experiences. The Future of Innovation and Technology in Education:
Policies and Practices for Teaching and Learning Excellence, 127–138.
https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-555-520181010
Ma, H. L., Lee, D. C., Lin, S. H., & Wu, D. B. (2015). A study of Van Hiele of geometric
thinking among 1 st through 6 th Graders. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 11(5), 1181–1196.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1412a
Mailizar, & Johar, R. (2021). Examining students’ intention to use augmented reality in a
project-based geometry learning environment. International Journal of Instruction,
14(2), 773–790. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.14243a
Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe-Díaz, B., & González-Marrero, A. (2017). Virtual
technologies trends in education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 13(2), 469–486.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00626a
Mattis, K. V. (2015). Flipped Classroom Versus Traditional textbook instruction: assessing
accuracy and mental effort at different levels of mathematical complexity.
Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(2), 231–248.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9238-0
Moll, V. F., Trigueros, M., Badillo, E., & Rubio, N. (2016). Mathematical objects through
the lens of two different theoretical perspectives: APOS and OSA. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 91(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-015-9639-
6
Moreno, L. A. H., Solórzano, J. G. L., Morales, M. T. T., Villegas, O. O. V., & Sánchez, V.
G. C. (2021). Effects of using mobile augmented reality for simple interest
computation in a financial mathematics course. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.618
Moreno, M., & Llinares, S. (2018). Prospective Mathematics Teachers’ Perspectives on
Technology. In M. Strutchens, R. Huang, D. Potari, L. Losano, (Eds) Educating
Prospective Secondary Mathematics Teachers. ICME-13 Monographs. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91059-8_8
Neofotistos, V., & Karavakou, V. (2018). Factors Influencing the Use of ICT in Greek
Primary Education. Open Journal for Educational Research, 2(2), 73–88.
https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojer.0202.02073n
Nikolić, V., Petković, D., Denić, N., Milovančević, M., & Gavrilović, S. (2019). Appraisal
and review of e-learning and ICT systems in teaching process. Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics and Its Applications, 513, 456–464.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.09.003
Nurbekova, Z., & Baigusheva, B. (2020). On the issue of compliance with didactic
principles in learning using augmented reality. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 15(15), 121–132.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i15.14399
Ozcakir, B., & Cakiroglu, E. (2021). An augmented reality learning toolkit for fostering
spatial ability in mathematics lesson: Design and development. European Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 145–167.
https://doi.org/10.30935/SCIMATH/11204
Phonapichat, P., Wongwanich, S., & Sujiva, S. (2014). An Analysis of Elementary School

24
Students’ Difficulties in Mathematical Problem Solving. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 116(2012), 3169–3174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.728
Piper, B., Oyanga, A., Mejia, J., & Pouezevara, S. (2017). Implementing large-scale
instructional technology in Kenya: Changing instructional practice and
developing accountability in a national education system. International Journal of
Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 13(3),
57–79.
Ponners, P. J., & Piller, Y. (2019). Investigating the impact of augmented reality on
elementary students’ mental model of scientists. TechTrends, 63(1), 33–40.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0366-6
Prediger, S., Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Arzarello, F. (2008). Networking strategies and
methods for connecting theoretical approaches: first steps towards a conceptual
framework. ZDM, 40(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0086-z
Rabbi, I., & Ullah, S. (2013). A survey on augmented reality challenges and tracking. Acta
Graphica, 24, 29–46.
Reys, B. J., Dingman, S., Nevels, N., & Teuscher, D. (2007). High School Mathematics:
State-Level Curriculum Standards and Graduation Requirements. Center for the
Study of Mathematics Curriculum, 1–13.
Sáez-López, J. M., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., González-Calero, J. A., & Carrasco, C. J. G. (2020).
Augmented reality in higher education: An evaluation program in initial teacher
training. Education Sciences, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020026
Schutera, S., Schnierle, M., Wu, M., Pertzel, T., Seybold, J., Bauer, P., … Krause, M. J. (2021).
On the potential of augmented reality for mathematics teaching with the
application cleARmaths. Education Sciences, 11(8).
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080368
Stein, H., Gurevich, I., & Gorev, D. (2020). Integration of technology by novice
mathematics teachers – what facilitates such integration and what makes it
difficult? Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 141–161.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09950-y
Sudirman, Mellawaty, Yaniwati, R. P., & Indrawan, R. (2020). Integrating local wisdom
forms in augmented reality application: Impact attitudes, motivations and
understanding of geometry of pre-service mathematics teachers’. International
Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14(11), 91–106.
Thees, M., Kapp, S., Strzys, M. P., Beil, F., Lukowicz, P., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Effects of
augmented reality on learning and cognitive load in university physics laboratory
courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106316.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106316
Tikito, I., & Souissi, N. (2019). Meta-analysis of systematic literature review methods.
International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 11(2), 17–25.
https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2019.02.03
Vakaliuk, T. A., Shevchuk, L. D., & Shevchuk, B. V. (2020). Possibilities of using AR and
VR technologies in teaching mathematics to high school students. Universal
Journal of Educational Research, 8(11B), 6280–6288.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082267
Velázquez, F. D. C., & Méndez, G. M. (2021a). Application in augmented reality for
learning mathematical functions: A study for the development of spatial
intelligence in secondary education students. Mathematics, 9(4), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.3390/math9040369
Velázquez, F. D. C., & Méndez, G. M. (2021b). Systematic review of the development of

25
spatial intelligence through augmented reality in stem knowledge areas.
Mathematics, 9(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/math9233067
Wangid, M. N., Rudyanto, H. E., & Gunartati. (2020). The Use of AR-assisted storybook to
reduce mathematical anxiety on elementary school students. International Journal
of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 14(6), 195–204.
https://doi.org/10.3991/IJIM.V14I06.12285
Weng, C., Otanga, S., Christianto, S. M., & Chu, R. J.-C. (2019). Enhancing students’
biology learning by using augmented reality as a learning supplement. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 747–770.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119884213
Wiliyanto, D. A., Gunarhadi, G., Anggarani, F. K., Yusuf, M., & Subagya, S. (2022).
Development of augmented reality-based learning models for students with
specific learning disabilities. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 17(8), 2915–
2926. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i8.7845
Wong, C. H. S., Tsang, K. C. K., & Chiu, W.-K. (2021). Using augmented reality as a
powerful and innovative technology to increase enthusiasm and enhance student
learning in higher education chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education,
98(11), 3476–3485. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01029
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
Yeh, Y. F., Chan, K. K. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2021). Toward a framework that connects
individual TPACK and collective TPACK: A systematic review of TPACK studies
investigating teacher collaborative discourse in the learning by design process.
Computers and Education, 171(May), 104238.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104238
Zhang, J., Yang, J., Chang, M., & Chang, T. (2016). ICT in Education in Global Context - The
Best Practices in K-12 School. Springer Science & Business Media.

26
©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 26-57, May 2023
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.5.2
Received Jan 27, 2023; Revised Mar 10, 2023; Accepted May 12, 2023
Twenty-First Century Learning (21 CL) – South
African Private Secondary Schools in KwaZulu-
Natal
Michael Naidoo
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
Cecile Gerwel-Proches
Angela James
Abstract. Globally, many educational systems were designed to produce
a labour force to meet the requirements of previous industrial
revolutions. Currently, in the fourth industrial revolution, the world is
undergoing profound changes in all spheres. Learners need to be
prepared for a future with novel jobs, radical information and
communication technology (ICT), and global problems never previously
encountered. Many countries have therefore, moved from traditional
approaches to education, to 21 CL. 21 CL is application-driven, student-
focused;, and it incorporates intellectual, social, and emotional aptitudes.
The purpose of this research is to provide an in-depth analysis of the 21
CL pedagogy. The study, therefore, investigates how some private South
African secondary schools interpret and enact with 21 CL. The research is
embedded in the positivist and interpretivist paradigms. The study
utilizes a mixed-method research approach, because both quantitative
and qualitative data are required to achieve the research objectives. The
research strategy used was a case study, specifically a multiple-case study
design. This research provides a more theoretical and practical
information regarding the successful interpretation and enactment of 21
CL, in private secondary schools in KwaZulu-Natal. The research also
provides current information on 21 CL globally. The research findings
revealed that private secondary schools in KwaZulu-Natal were only in
the initial stages of changing to 21 CL. The findings also revealed that the
change to 21 Cl can be facilitated by the design of a sustainable vision and
well-defined plan of execution, as well as the effective training of school
leaders.

27
Keywords: twenty-first century learning; information and
communication technology; school-leadership development; private
secondary schools; KwaZulu-Natal
1. Introduction
We are currently undergoing radical ICT transformations in almost all spheres of
life, as we advance through the fourth industrial revolution, towards a potential
fifth one, which already seem to be rapidly emerging (Claro et al., 2018; Bedir,
2019; Maphosa et al., 2020). COVID-19 has also accelerated ICT advancement (Le
Grange, 2021; Maree, 2022). The rapid ICT developments have introduced
significant global changes in education, which has necessitated pedagogical
transformation (Hines & Lynch, 2019; Maphosa et al., 2020). Many countries have
moved from conventional approaches to education, to 21 CL (McGuire, 2018;
Bedir, 2019). 21 CL is student-centred, practical, inquiry-based, ICT aligned,
inclusive of morals and attitudes; and it now focuses on the development of
cognitive and affective competences (Varghese et al., 2019; Maphosa, 2021). ICT
and effective school leadership are necessary and critical facets of 21 CL (Moyo &
Hadebe, 2018; Ajmain et al., 2019; Munby, 2020).
Globally, many professions in the 21st century have simultaneously transformed
with the global changes brought about by the fourth industrial revolution and
now require individuals of a different calibre, with different 21st century
competence (Cheng, 2017; Claro et al., 2018). Any form of employment that does
not require a significant, or critical amount of some form of human input, can be
replaced with advanced robotics and/or complex computer software, either
currently, or in the near future (Mhlanga & Moloi, 2020; Maphosa, 2021).
However, the fourth industrial revolution has also given rise to new professions,
such as ICT technicians, software developers, cybersecurity experts, social-media
consultants, and data scientists. ICT innovations have also, fundamentally altered
many aspects of human existence, such as the way we communicate, bank, buy,
socialise, and learn (Bai & Song, 2018; Barrot, 2018; Maphosa, 2021).
In the light of the changes in the twenty-first century, many countries, have
already transformed their educational systems to 21 CL whilst others are in
different stages of the change process (Hines & Lynch, 2019). These countries
have realised that traditional pedagogy does not have the capacity to prepare
learners to be effective global citizens, whereas 21 CL, does have the potential to
empower learners to be successful in the global arena (Clarke et al., 2014; Claro et
al., 2018; Maphosa, 2021). African governments, such as those of South Africa,
Ghana and Nigeria, have also started to change their educational systems, in order
to become more 21 CL aligned (Agormedah et al., 2020; Ogbonnaya et al., 2020).
There are many different types of schools present in South Africa, ranging from
old to new, private to public, and poor to wealthy (Mhlanga & Moloi, 2020). The
need to change to 21 CL, driven by ICT, has been legislated by the South African
Government from 1996. However, the extent of the interpretation and the
enactment of 21 CL varies, according to the context of the different schools (Botha,

28
2016; Mabaso, 2017). Private schools have much more resources to engage with 21
CL when compared to public schools (Mudaly & Mudaly, 2021). Learner school
fees, which are higher than that of public schools, are the major source of income
for private schools in South Africa. Therefore, their finances are usually well
managed with stringent monitoring procedures, unlike many public schools
(Naidoo, 2019). To remain attractive to prospective learners, these private schools
spend a substantial amount of their finances on resourcing their schools and
engaging with innovative educational practices (Ramrathan, 2020). This has
produced the ideal climate and culture for the interpretation and enactment of 21
CL (Subekti, 2020).
Better working conditions for teachers in private schools, allow, and encourage
teachers to experiment with innovations in education (Naidoo, 2019). For these
reasons, the context of this study is therefore on private schools rather than on
public schools, in KwaZulu-Natal.
The focus of 21 CL is the application of knowledge n new and different situations
rather than just on the memorisation of content knowledge through repetition
(Bedir, 2019; Varghese et al., 2019). 21 CL is also characterised by being cross-
disciplinary, enquiry-based and learner-centred (van Laar et al., 2017; Maphosa et
al., 2020). The use of ICT and effective school leadership have proven to be vital
components in creating innovative learning environments during the application
of 21 CL (Toh et al., 2014; Maphosa, 2021). The 21st century competences included
in 21 CL include social, emotional and cerebral abilities (Hakkinen et al., 2017;
Siddiq et al., 2017; Abdurrahman et al., 2019). The objective of this study was to
assess how 21 CL is interpreted and applied in private-secondary schools in
KwaZulu-Natal. It therefore, provides in-depth information about 21 CL in
private secondary schools in KwaZulu-Natal, as well as globally.
2. Literature Review and the Theoretical framework
As the world progresses rapidly through the fourth industrial revolution, many
countries have realised the need for a drastic change in current educational
practices (Ogbonnaya et al., 2020). Globally, 21 CL is considered as a viable
alternative for learners to survive in an ever-changing environment (Maphosa et
al., 2020). South Africa has only recently embarked on the journey to 21 CL in the
form of enquiry-based learning and ICT development, and whilst there is a large
amount of literature on 21 CL globally, local research seems to be sparse (Mhlanga
& Moloi, 2020). This research satisfies this research gap by providing more
information about 21 CL in the unique South African context.
2.1.1 What is twenty-first century learning?
Most traditional teaching and learning methods are based on the learning theory
of Behaviourism (Lay & Osman, 2018). Whereas 21 CL is based more on the
learning theories of Cognitivism, Constructivism and Constructionism (Ajmain et
al., 2019). van Laar et al. (2017) explain that 21 CL involves skills and competencies
that go beyond mere digital proficiencies, to include a wider range of cognitive,
social and affective skills. 21 CL shifts the emphasis from the learning of facts to

29
the application of knowledge to solve real-life problems (Barrot, 2018; Varghese
et al., 2019).
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO),
describes 21st century competences in their Four Pillars of Learning, as including
both the knowledge and skill set that would allow learners to be productive
members of the modern global society (Hines & Lynch, 2019). Some of the
competences include creativity, critical and innovative thinking, social and
emotional intelligence, global citizenship, civic literacy, cross-cultural skills, self-
direction, self-management, life-long learning, ethics, morals, values and
communication, collaboration and information skills (Bai & Song, 2018; Maphosa,
2021).
These competences can be grouped into four main categories, namely: ways of
cogitating, ways of interacting with others, tools for interacting with others, and
skills for surviving in the modern world (Hakkinen et al., 2017). This is in line with
UNESCO’s Four Pillars of Learning, which are learning to be, learning to know,
learning to do, and learning to live together (Cheng, 2017). McGuire (2018)
explains that the 21st century competences from the four categories can be
arranged in three incremental levels of competence. These include the cognitive
domain, the intrapersonal domain, and the specific-skills domain (Barrot, 2018;
McGuire, 2018).
21 CL is also learner-centred, with the learners taking greater responsibility for
their own learning, from beginning to end (Lay & Osman, 2018). 21 CL involves a
partnership between the teacher and learners, in which both parties are co-
learners in a community of learning (Maphosa, 2021). The pedagogy of 21 CL also
extensively uses the scientific method (Barrot, 2018). Cheng (2017); and Ajmain et
al. (2019) also explain that 21 CL involves experiential learning or learning
through experience.
2.1.2 The need for twenty-first century learning
The world is becoming more complex socially, economically, professionally and
digitally (Claro et al., 2018; Hashim et al., 2019). Some of the traditional
employment opportunities have drastically changed. This has led to a demand for
a labour force, with different competences (Howard et al., 2019; Maphosa, 2021).
COVID-19 has been a further catalyst to the fourth industrial revolution, as
countries rapidly move into a digital space (Mahaye, 2020; Maphosa, 2021). Global
changes have necessitated a change in the educational sphere, in order for it to be
germaine in the 21st century (Subekti, 2020; Chirinda et al., 2021). 21 CL is
considered a prerequisite for learners becoming successful in the modern world;
and it has drawn much attention from all educational sectors (Hashim et al., 2019).
2.2.3 The interpretation and enactment of 21 CL in schools
East Asia was one of the leading parts of the globe in introducing 21 CL into
schools, in the late 1990’s (Tong & Razniak, 2017). Some of the other leading
countries in 21 CL include Canada, Australia, Mexico, Switzerland, Finland,
England, and Germany (Mathew, 2018; Mayfield & Hester, 2018). Schools appear
to have also discarded the fragmented use of 21 CL in disconnected and

30
compartmentalised learning programmes (Siddiq et al., 2017). Effective
interpretation and enactment of 21 CL in schools has been characterised by a
comprehensive and holistic adoption of the paradigm, by all components with a
school (McGuire, 2018). Cheng (2017) warns that the political climate and
aspirations of governments can play a key role in the extent to which 21 CL is
interpreted and enacted.
The effective use of ICT has also expedited the interpretation and enactment
process (Barrot, 2018; Lay & Osman, 2018). 21 CL is also characterised by enquiry-
based project work, which is cross curricular in nature (Bai & Song, 2018). In
addition, Lay and Osman (2018) propose an instructional strategy for 21 CL,
which is broken down into five phases, namely: enquiry, discover, produce,
communicate, and review. Nappi (2017) emphasises the incorporation of
structured higher order questions in 21 CL.
McGuire (2018) explains that the effectiveness of 21 CL can be increased if schools
that invest time and recourses to improve the reading, writing and mathematical
skills of the students. 21 CL has also been successful, when time and resources
have been made available to educate and develop teachers, in the latest
pedagogical and ICT research (Nouri et al., 2019). In addition, 21 CL is facilitated
when the teacher adopts a more personalised coaching approach, and the learners
becoming more autonomous in their approach to learning (Maphosa, 2021).
Another common element that seems to emerge in the successful interpretation
and enactment of 21 CL programmes is the establishment of strong partnerships
between professional teaching practice and informative research, where one
mutually informs the other (Bai & Song, 2018). 21 CL in schools can also be further
facilitated by well-developed policies and plans, to measure and enact higher
order learning programs (Heinrich & Kupers, 2018). Another essential component
pertaining to the success of 21 CL is the professional development of a school’s
leadership team (Howard et al., 2019).
Finally, the entire interpretation and enactment process of 21 CL in schools, can
adopt a more centralised approach or a more distributed approach, using system
thinking (Tong & Raznaik, 2017). The centralised approach is directed towards
smaller systems, whereas the distributed approach focuses on larger systems
(Cheng, 2017).
2.2.4 Positive outcomes of 21 CL
Technological advancements in pedagogical approaches have provided evidence
showing that 21 CL can facilitate learners producing and maintaining a higher
standard of work, as well as them achieving more advanced learning outcomes
(Varghese et al., 2019; Maphosa, 2021). Increased learner participation,
performance and overall results have also accompanied the successful use of 21
CL (Kokare & Strautins, 2018; Bedir, 2019). Hashim et al. (2019) affirm that 21 CL
leads to an improvement in learner’s retention and application of knowledge, in
higher order form of assessments. Ajmain et al. (2019) explain that 21 CL seems,

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 5 May 2023

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 5 May 2023

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 5 May 2023

IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 5 May 2023

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 5 May 2023

Similar a IJLTER.ORG Vol 22 No 5 May 2023(20)