The Use of VR/AR End-User Development Tools in Education: Lessons Learned and Future Challenges

The answers to these RQs will help lay the groundwork for a broader research project aimed at supporting teachers in developing their own VR/AR environments and resources aligned with their teaching needs.

3.2. Research Methodology and Data-Collection Tools

The authors employed a quantitative research approach based on a survey (see Appendix) distributed to Spanish primary and secondary schools and universities. The survey was sent via email, social networks and teaching associations to reach a broad community of educators, inviting teachers and researchers from various fields (science, technology, engineering, arts and humanities and mathematics [STEAM]). It was designed following the model proposed by Nistor et al. (2018). To ensure that the questions were detailed enough to provide accurate information on the items being investigated, the survey was validated by three external experts and researchers. Next, it underwent a conventional pre-testing phase. Teachers from different teaching areas and backgrounds were asked to fill out the questionnaire and provide feedback on its content, including the clarity of the language used and the conciseness of the questions. Feedback was collected via individual interviews with the testers, then incorporated into a subsequent version of the questionnaire. The final questionnaire comprised 11 closed questions and 12 closed-ended questions, all of which required an answer and one optional open-ended question allowed respondents to provide more detailed information on their use of VR/AR apps. The questions were organised under different section headings specifying the topic of interest covered (see Table 1).

The question types and scales for the analysis are briefly described below. The full questionnaire is included in the Appendix.

3.2.1. Question Types and Scales for the Analysis

The required responses varied since the survey included different types of questions (closed, closed-ended and open-ended). Answers were provided as single or multiple-choice options, five-point Likert ratings or open-ended responses.

3.3. Sample Description

3.3.1. Number and Profiles of Survey Participants: Age, Gender and Teaching Experience

The research was conducted among a random sample of 210 teachers from Spain. Survey participants were between 23 and 65 years of age; 64.76% were women, 34.29% were men, and 0.95% did not disclose their gender. Table 2 displays the distribution of participants based on their STEAM teaching areas. To collect feedback from teachers without information technology (IT) backgrounds, the survey was mostly distributed among educators in the arts and humanities (60.35%), followed by science and technology teachers (19.82% and 13.66%, respectively). Smaller percentages of mathematics (3.96%) and engineering (2.20%) teachers also participated. The subjects’ teaching areas span the full range of formal education, including early childhood, primary (15.71%), secondary (50.47%), higher education (24.76%) and vocational training (9.04%).

Participants’ teaching experience ranged from less than seven years to 29 years (see Figure 1). The rate of participation in the survey was similar among teachers with 7–28 years of experience (20% for 7–13 years, 18% for 14–20 years and 23% for 21–28 years), slightly higher among novice teachers (27% for 1–6 years) and lower among senior teachers (12% for more than 29 years; Q1–Q6).

Figure 1. Participants’ Teaching Experience (in Years).

4. Analysis

4.1. Use of Digital Resources

Q8 and Q9 aimed to collect information about the types of digital resources and software most frequently used by teachers to create their educational materials (RQ1; Figure 2). As expected, most teachers reported using digital resources based on videos (196 out of 210 responses) and presentation software (188; e.g., PowerPoint and Google Slides). Interactive exercises and gamified questionnaires were the third most frequently used type of resource. The type of software employed for these activities varied, including Kahoot, Hot Potatoes, JClic, Quizlet, Baamboozle, Padlet, Flippity or H5P. In this case, 184 of the teachers surveyed reported using these tools to create teaching materials. To a lesser extent, participants also mentioned using messaging apps (24), such as WhatsApp, Telegram and Facetime; VR/AR apps (21); and non-programmer tools, such as Scratch, CoSpaces or AppInventor (18). Leaving aside other subject-specific software (9), the least frequently used resources were video games (6) and social networks (4; e.g., TikTok and Instagram). In addition, only around half of the teachers used videos or video games created by themselves and aligned to their teaching needs (Q8). For the other resources mentioned, the percentage of teachers who both used and created their own materials remained consistent, dropping significantly only for non-programmer tools (decreasing from 18 to 13 responses).

Figure 2. Teachers’ Use of Digital Resources for Teaching and Creating Teaching Resources.

4.2. Learning Approaches

When participants were asked to identify up to three learning approaches or strategies (Q10) of greatest interest to them (RQ2), the most frequently selected were collaborative learning (149 out of 210 responses), followed by experience-based learning (97 responses), discovery learning (87) and individual learning (87). By contrast, visual learning (53 responses), contextualised learning (50), and immersive learning (44) approaches were among the least selected (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Frequency of Demanded Teaching Approaches Across All STEAM Areas.

Finally, an analysis of educators’ needs across teaching areas revealed no significant differences among them (Table 3).

4.3. Teachers’ Needs Regarding Educational Tools

To better understand teachers’ needs and preferences for teaching and learning tools, the survey participants were asked to specify up to five types of educational tools in which they were most interested (Q11). The study found that teachers’ primary concern was to find tools that engage students in the learning process (143 out of 210 responses), followed by the need to find tools that facilitate the teaching process (111) and autonomous learning process (109), as well as the acquisition of learning content (104). These needs are clearly framed within an educational context characterised by factors like increasing diversity within classrooms (Carvalho et al., 2019), a lack of motivation among a large portion of the student population (Padilla Piernas et al., 2024) and a growing attention deficit among students (Fabiano et al., 2024). These factors reinforce the need to continuously review and adapt teaching–learning resources to align with students’ profiles and specific needs. In this context, it is not surprising that teachers are much less interested in tools that allow them to create innovative teaching and learning resources (79 responses), facilitate teacher–student interaction (74) or support student assessment (70; see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Teachers’ Needs for Educational Tools.

Notably, despite their interest in pedagogical approaches like collaborative learning (see Figure 3), teachers showed much less interest in tools that facilitate student–student interaction (63). Table 4 presents the three most requested tools in each area, based on an analysis of teachers’ needs.

4.4. Use of Digital Devices for Teaching

The analysis of teachers’ use of digital devices in class (Q7) revealed that computers were the most frequently used tool (188 out of 210 responses), while significantly fewer reported using smartphones and tablets (70 and 52, respectively). The proportion of teachers using no electronic devices in the classroom is remarkably low (10 responses).

A more detailed examination of teachers’ profiles (e.g., by teaching area, gender and age) reveals that technology and mathematics are the areas where electronic devices are used the most, with all teachers in these fields reporting the use of at least one device. The analysis indicates, however, that computers remain the most widely used electronic device, regardless of teaching discipline (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Electronic Devices Used Per Area.

When examining factors like gender or age, the percentage of teachers using computers and smartphones with their students is slightly higher among men (60.55% and 24.77%, respectively) compared to women (58.25% and 19.9%, respectively) and, to some extent, those who did not specify their gender (40% and 60%). Individuals who did not disclose their gender (20%) and women (17.96%) tended to use tablets more frequently than men (12.84%).

Figure 6. Use of Electronic Devices According to Gender.

Finally, the use of electronic devices is generally much higher among younger teachers (100% among those aged 23–29) than teachers aged 30–51 years and older, where usage gradually decreases from around 97% to 95%. Although trends and preferences remain similar across all age groups, the percentage of those who use no electronic devices in the classroom increases notably with age, rising from 2.52% to 4.23%.

4.5. Teachers’ Expertise in VR and AR Technologies

When analysing teachers’ expertise (RQ3) in VR and AR technologies (Q12–Q13), less than half of the surveyed teachers (49%) considered themselves knowledgeable in this area, rating their knowledge as either very high (16%) or moderate (33%). Meanwhile, 42% admitted to having little knowledge of these technologies, and 9% reported having no knowledge at all (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Teachers’ Knowledge of VR and AR Technologies.

These findings are reinforced by data on teachers’ use of VR/AR in their daily lives. Only 22% of the teachers surveyed reported using VR/AR regularly, while 25% report using it rarely and 53% report never having used it. Regarding the VR/AR applications they had used, the most frequently mentioned were commercial software (e.g., Google Arts & Culture, Lens [AR] and IKEA Place) or games (Pokémon Go, Wii and Nintendo).

4.6. Teachers’ Experience with VR/AR Technologies for Teaching

An analysis of teachers’ experiences with VR/AR suggests that these technologies remain rarely used in the classroom (Q14–Q15); 86.67% of survey participants reported never having used them, 12% had used them occasionally and only 0.96% had used them very often or often (0.48% each). An analysis of participants’ responses by teaching area and age reveals that VR/AR technology is most used in fields like technology (22.58%), mathematics (22.22%) and engineering (20%) and is significantly less frequent in fields like science (15.56%) and arts and humanities (9.49%; see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Use of VR/AR Technologies in Teaching, by Field of Study.

Hence, the data suggest that despite the increasing demands for digital innovation and teacher training in digital literacy (Gutiérrez-Castillo, 2021), the integration of cutting-edge technologies like VR/AR seems to take place at a much lower pace in education than in other areas of society. This is particularly noteworthy given the enormous potential of such technologies to create immersive and interactive experiences that can enhance understanding of abstract and complex concepts in fields like engineering, science and mathematics or allow the exploration of historical and cultural environments that are usually impossible to recreate in traditional classroom settings for teaching the arts and humanities (Christou et al., 2025; Jesionkowska et al., 2020).

4.6.1. Teachers’ Use of VR/AR Technologies by Age

When examining teachers’ ages, the results suggest that younger teachers (aged 23–36) are more likely to integrate VR/AR technologies (16.67% and 21.74%, respectively) into their teaching compared to senior teachers, whose usage ranged from 8.7% to 11.94%. The use of these technologies, however, was generally very low across all ages (see Figure 9).

Figure 9. Teachers’ Use of VR/AR Technologies by Age.

4.6.2. VR/AR Apps Used for Teaching

When assked about the VR/AR applications they use, some teachers mentioned using Google’s VR Tour Creator and Quest’s Cities for VR to explore different cultures. For AR, Quiver, Roar and Aurasma were cited as tools for visualising and understanding concepts, as well as for motivating students through an innovative learning approach. Many teachers, however, referenced what appeared to be non-commercial software, likely developed by universities or research institutions. In some cases, the apps were used in class to develop listening and speaking skills in foreign languages. Additionally, some teachers could not remember which software they used, suggesting that its use was sporadic. In general, the low number of responses (19 out of 210 teachers) indicate a very limited use of VR/AR applications.

4.6.3. Teachers’ Opinions and Attitudes towards VR/AR

Despite the still cautious adoption of VR/AR technologies in teaching (12.76% of the teachers surveyed), the survey data (Q17) suggest that those who had incorporated these technologies into their classes agree on their positive effects in supporting students' learning processes (RQ4). In this context, the four most frequently mentioned positive aspects were the potential to: increase students’ motivation (19 responses), visualise and assimilate content (18), promote the exploration of environments often not accessible in conventional teaching/learning environments (16), and—in the case of AR—combine the real and virtual worlds (16; Table 5). Interestingly, teachers saw less potential in VR/AR for facilitating autonomous learning and learning in general (7 and 11 responses, respectively) or allowing learners to visualise and understand abstract content (6).

When asked about the negative aspects of this technology (Q18), teacher participants mentioned difficulties in managing the implementation of VR/AR resources for large courses (15 responses), the lack of technological resources (12), the difficulty of its use (11) and problems in terms of software compatibility (10). Issues that raised fewer concerns were the lack of evaluation tools (7), the lack of feedback to guide students during their learning processes (5) and difficulties in implementing the VR/AR technologies without information and communications technology (ICT) support (4; see Table 6).

The feedback from the teachers surveyed reflects, on the one hand, the educational and motivational potential that numerous studies have identified in VR/AR technologies to enhance learning (Akaçyir & Akaçyir, 2017; Christou et al., 2025; Jesionkowska et al., 2020; Luo et al., 2024; Parmaxi, 2020; Parmaxi & Demetriou, 2020; Romano et al., 2020) and, on the other hand, the common concerns teachers have when implementing new technologies. These concerns are primarily related to the fact that most schools still lack the physical and financial resources to implement state-of-the-art technology or provide teachers with the pedagogical and technological training for its successful integration (Jesionkowska et al., 2020; Kaplan-Rakowski et al., 2023; Romano et al., 2023).

4.6.4. Teachers’ Suggestions for the Development of VR/AR Teaching–Learning Tools

When teachers were asked to provide their feedback and suggestions for possible improvements in the VR/AR apps they had used for their teaching (Q19), the most frequently mentioned aspects were the need to ensure compatibility with multiple operating systems (e.g., Android, iPhone; 14 responses), the need to facilitate their use and functioning (13) and the availability of a wider range of resources (12). Other aspects requiring improvement were students’ feedback mechanisms (10), support for collaborative activities (10), students’ evaluations (9) and the provision of more learning content (9). One teacher noted the need to ensure that apps did not require an internet connection but instead could be used offline (Table 7). These requirements also coincide with those expressed by the learners of a case study conducted by Valero-Franco & Berns (2023).

4.6.5. Teachers’ Attitudes Towards VR/AR Technologies

The survey also aimed to gain insight into teachers’ general attitudes towards VR and AR technologies (RQ5). In this sense, feedback from teachers who had never used VR/AR technologies in their teaching was especially valuable. A look at teachers’ feedback (Q20) suggests that the reasons for not having used such technologies were primarily the lack of familiarity with the technology (98 out of 210 responses), followed by the fact that teachers either did not know how to use it in their teaching (74) or simply did not know of any VR/AR apps related to their teaching subjects (65). Notably, however, fewer teachers than initially expected cited reasons like a lack of time or a fear of an increased workload. Only 30 teachers mentioned a lack of time, while another 19 expressed their reluctance to use technologies with which they were unfamiliar. Finally, seven teachers reported not identifying any added value for their teaching (see Table 8).

4.6.6. Teachers’ Interest in Receiving Training in the Use of VR/AR

Based on the feedback given so far and with the aim of identifying teachers’ general attitudes towards VR/AR technologies (RQ6), the survey participants were asked whether they would attend a teacher training course on the topic (Q21–Q22). The results indicated a high interest in such training courses (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Reasons for and Attitudes Towards Participating in VR/AR Training Courses.

Specifically, 98% of teachers confirmed that they would attend such a course, either for professional development (57%) and needs (16%; i.e., curricula requirements or mandatory or teacher training), personal interest (17%), development (6%) or other reasons (16%). Overall, only a very small percentage of the teacher participants (2%) showed no interest in attending any training in VR/AR technologies.

Despite teachers’ generally high interest in receiving training in the use of VR/AR technologies, the data from the survey also indicate that their willingness to attend such training courses might be negatively affected by factors inherent to any course, such as excessive course hours (31.51%), high course fees (31.51%), excessive course requirements (15.43%) or the course format. In this case, teachers preferred distance learning to face-to-face courses, with 13.83% specifying that face-to-face courses could prevent them from attending a training course on VR/AR technologies. By contrast, only 3.86% considered distance learning to be a reason not to attend such courses (Figure 11).

Figure 11. Reasons for Not Being Willing to Attend VR/AR Training Courses.

4.6.7. Teachers’ Interest in Receiving Training in the Development of VR/AR Teaching–Learning Resources

When analysing teachers’ attitudes and willingness to enrol in training courses that cover not only VR/AR technologies but also the use of EUD tools for creating personalised VR/AR teaching and learning resources (Q23; RQ6), 48% expressed strong or very strong interest in such training (33% and 15%, respectively). At the same time, however, many teachers appeared sceptical about using or reluctant to use VR/AR technologies in their teaching; 29% expressed moderate interest, followed by 17% who had little interest and 6% who had no interest.

In addition, when asked about their interest in creating VR/AR resources (Q24), most teachers (57%) confirmed feeling either motivated by the challenge (30%) or curious about it (27%). This was followed by 19% who admitted to feeling stressed or worried about the challenge. The other participants (24%) seemed less enthusiastic and curious about creating their own VR/AR resources (Figure 12).

Figure 12. Feelings About Creating Their Own VR/AR Resources.

5. Findings and Discussion

This section presents the study’s findings according to the initial objectives.

5.1. Current Trends in Teachers’ Technology Usage

The study’s first objective was to gain insight into current trends in teachers’ usage of technology and their interest in concrete learning approaches and tools. The results from the analysis highlight that, despite the increasing expansion and availability of cutting-edge technologies and software applications to implement innovative and student-aligned learning materials, most teachers still rely on traditional technologies (RQ1) for both teaching and creating educational resources. Interestingly, the results from all STEAM areas indicate similar trends, with practitioners primarily using educational resources based on videos and presentation software, followed by authoring tools that enable the creation of interactive educational content, such as gamified questionnaires and exercises. Notably, other technologies, such as messaging, VR/AR apps and non-programmer tools (in addition to other subject-specific software), video games or social networks, are seldom used.

When examining the most demanded learning approaches and tools (RQ2) across all five STEAM areas, experience-based and collaborative learning consistently rank among the top three. Additionally, visual learning (engineering), discovery learning (science) and individual learning (arts and humanities and technology) were also mentioned as the most preferred approaches. Regarding teachers’ needs for learning tools, survey respondents particularly highlighted their interest in tools that support students’ autonomous learning process and actively engage them in the learning process. Both the learning approaches and tools mentioned could be effectively supported by VR and AR technologies, which enable the creation of versatile and student-centred learning environments (Gruber et al., 2024; Jesionkowska et al., 2020; Parmaxi, 2020; Parmaxi et al., 2024). However, greater pedagogical and technical support is needed to encourage teachers to adopt these technologies and fully explore their potential (Christou et al., 2025).

5.2. Teachers’ Usage of, Needs for and Attitudes towards VR/AR Technologies

The second objective was to understand teachers’ usage of, needs for and attitudes towards VR and AR technologies. The survey data indicate that these technologies are still rarely incorporated into teaching practices across all STEAM areas, with notably low adoption among senior teachers and in fields like arts and humanities. Unsurprisingly, the primary reason for this appears to be a lack of familiarity with these technologies, which prevents educators from recognising their potential to enhance the teaching–learning process (RQ3 and RQ4). Providing teachers with more pedagogical training could help them better understand the educational value of VR/AR technologies and encourage their adoption (RQ6).

A noteworthy finding from the study is the teachers’ positive attitude towards such training. Notably, they expressed a strong interest in participating in VR/AR training courses, with fear of using unfamiliar technologies being one of the least-cited reasons for their current lack of adoption (RQ5).

Still, although teachers appear willing to use ready-made VR/AR digital resources, they were significantly less interested in receiving training on educational authoring tools that would enable them to create VR/AR resources independently (RQ7). This reluctance aligns with their preference for traditional tools, such as presentation software, over more innovative alternatives for developing non-VR/AR-based digital educational content. Given this, it is not surprising that, if teachers already recognise the difficulty of creating standard digital educational content, developing materials based on a largely unfamiliar technology may seem challenging, if not intimidating. As a result, they may perceive more potential drawbacks than benefits in using these technologies to enhance the teaching–learning process. This highlights the need to design authoring tools that conceal the complexity of the technology, alleviate such concerns, and potentially increase teachers’ willingness to adopt them.

5.3. Challenges in Integrating VR/AR Technologies into the Classroom

The third objective was to identify key factors software designers should consider when developing VR/AR authoring tools to help teachers create resources aligned with their instructional needs (RQ8). The survey results, combined with our literature review and experience, highlight some significant challenges developers face in designing effective applications for this purpose.

A key priority is to ensure that the authoring tool is user-friendly and intuitive, particularly for teachers with limited technical expertise (Godwin-Jones, 2015; Parmaxi, 2020; Romano et al., 2020). Well-designed graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and prebuilt templates can enhance the non-expert user experience and streamline the development process, as demonstrated by their effective implementation in AR authoring tools, such as WebART (Liu et al., 2022) and ARCreator (Romano et al., 2020). Novel AR/VR authoring approaches, such as VR immersive authoring (Coelho et al., 2024) or generative AI-assisted authoring (Cuervo-Rosillo et al., 2024), have the potential to significantly lower the technical barrier for educators when applied to this area.

Regardless of the technique used to improve these tools’ usability, and given the wide range of requirements that can arise from different teacher needs, learner profiles, subjects and pedagogical strategies, research has consistently emphasised the importance of applying user-centred approaches to the design of authoring tools (Christou et al., 2025; Lytridis et al., 2018; Romano et al., 2020) to ensure that the real needs of practitioners are properly addressed.

Another key challenge lies in adapting standard educational procedures, such as monitoring, tracking and assessment, to these novel environments (Chamusca et al., 2023). This also presents, however, an opportunity to enhance these processes: for example, by leveraging facial biometrics to facilitate monitoring (Daza et al., 2025) or capturing more accurate learning metadata (Mota et al., 2018). The survey also highlighted both technical and user-related issues that software developers should consider. In this context, we offer the following recommendations: