2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

In this complete paper, we report a scoping review that maps what systematic literature reviews (SLRs) and review-type conference proceedings say and do not say about augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) in teacher education. While AR/VR scholarship continues to expand, teacher education remains comparatively underexamined within AR/VR synthesis work. Teacher readiness and pedagogical design are repeatedly identified as decisive mediators of whether immersive technologies lead to meaningful learning. Reflective practice further shapes how teachers interpret evidence, adapt implementation, and sustain equitable integration over time. To address this gap, we reviewed review-type literature published from 2020–2024 across Google Scholar, Wiley, and ScienceDirect, and synthesized how the field frames AR/VR “impact” when teachers and preservice and in-service teacher learning are treated as the unit of analysis.

Across the final 84 screened records, AR/VR is most consistently associated with improved engagement, motivation, and perceived learning experience. Evidence for durable learning gains, however, is mixed. Reported outcomes are frequently constrained by short interventions, small samples, inconsistent measures, and heavy reliance on usability and self-report data. Teacher education remains only partially visible: approximately 42% (35/84) of the records mention teacher education in meaningful ways, and only 21% (18/84) substantively discuss AR/VR affordances and challenges for teacher learning. Equity-relevant issues (e.g., access/cost, adverse effects and usability burdens, privacy/ethics, and unequal benefits across learners) are also more often framed as secondary constraints than as central design-and-evaluation imperatives. Grounded in concerns that immersive technologies can import and amplify persistent real-world inequities across access, identity, language, and distribution of harms and benefits, we argue that “Where are the teachers?” is not rhetorical but a methodological and programmatic challenge, one that should reshape AR/VR research agendas for K–12 teacher preparation, including engineering/computing education contexts where simulation, design, and human–technology interaction are central.