# Extended Reality in Applied Sciences Education: A Systematic Review
## 2 Materials and Methods
This rigorous approach ensures a robust foundation for subsequent analysis, advancing the understanding of XR technologies' transformative potential in education. It highlights how these technologies can bridge theoretical learning and practical application, fostering innovation and improving learner engagement across applied sciences disciplines. For each included study, key data items such as publication year, country, XR technology type (VR, AR, MR), educational level, academic discipline, frequency of technology use, observed learning outcomes, and study limitations were extracted and summarized for analysis. Subsequently, a systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, which are widely recognized for promoting rigor and transparency in systematic reviews. These guidelines provide a standardized framework for data collection and literature screening, ensuring that the review process is both thorough and replicable. A total of 4981 relevant articles were retrieved. The screening process is illustrated in Figure 2's PRISMA flow diagram, where duplicates (n = 14) and articles lacking full text, non-journal publications, or non-English articles (n = 3142) were excluded, leaving 1825 articles. Titles and abstracts were then reviewed to eliminate articles unrelated to the study's focus (n = 1548), resulting in 277 articles. The exclusion criteria included studies that did not address educational applications of XR technologies, lacked relevance to applied sciences, or focused on theoretical rather than practical implementations. A full-text review was subsequently conducted, leading to the exclusion of 221 articles that did not align with the study's objectives. Examples of excluded articles include those that focused on unrelated technological domains, lacked empirical data, or provided only theoretical frameworks without practical educational applications. Ultimately, 56 articles were selected for analysis. The main results extracted from the studies are summarized in Table A1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Framework** & **Description** & **Inclusion** & **Exclusion** \\ \hline Population & Participants are students spanning all educational levels & Includes students in elementary school, junior high school, senior high school, university, and graduate school or above & Non-student populations or individuals not engaged in educational activities \\ \hline Intervention & Utilization of XR virtual technologies (VR, AR, MR) for instructional purposes & Includes the use of head-mounted devices, specialized glasses, mobile applications, etc. & Teaching methods that do not incorporate any form of virtual technology \\ \hline Comparison & Comparison of outcomes before and after XR-based instruction & Includes comparisons of pre- and post-intervention outcomes or comparisons between XR-based instruction and traditional methods (e.g., lectures, face-to-face classroom interaction, printed materials) & Studies that do not include a pre- and post-XR instructional comparison or do not compare XR instruction to traditional teaching methods \\ \hline Outcome & Effectiveness and acceptance of virtual technologies in applied science education & Involves improvements in learning outcomes (e.g., knowledge mastery, skill enhancement) or acceptance of virtual technologies (e.g., learning satisfaction, technology acceptance) & Studies that do not provide specific assessments of learning outcomes or technology acceptance \\ \hline Study & Research on the application of virtual technologies in applied science education & English-language publications from 2010 to 2024 & Studies unrelated to applied science education or non-research articles (e.g., review articles, meta-analyses) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: PICOS framework.