Pedagogical Efficacy and Barriers: Analysis of Faculty Perceptions on Augmented Reality Integration in Fashion Education

Fashion pedagogy is predominantly visual and practice-based; Augmented reality (AR) offers enhanced spatial comprehension and iterative design, however it, encounters adoption obstacles, including infrastructure, training, and assessment alignment. This study aimed to assess the faculty perspectives towards the pedagogical efficacy of augmented reality in fashion education. This study used a mixed-methods design. A quantitative questionnaire (UTAUT/TAM constructs), was sent to 92 faculty members who teach patternmaking in fashion courses and SPSS was used to analyze the answers. Based on a semi-structured questionnaire qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 faculty members, who had answered the quantitative questionnaire. The interviews were analyzed using Nvivo software. The findings revealed that the faculty felt that visualization, confidence, and experiential learning provided by AR were helpful, but that high effort expectancy, a lack of discipline-specific AR tools, and weak institutional support make it hard to scale up. Suggestions include co-design, centralized asset support, and ongoing training specific to each discipline. The limitations of this study are that it is based on cross-sectional design and faculty-only sample; future research can incorporate longitudinal design and student-level outcomes. This study uniquely synthesizes Cognitive Load Theory and Experiential Learning Theory with UTAUT constructs to elucidate the interplay of cognitive and institutional factors in influencing AR adoption within creative curricula.

Augmented Reality, Fashion education, Patternmaking, Cognitive Load Theory, Experiential Learning Theory.

1. Abbas Shah, S. F., Mazhar, T., Shahzad, T., Khan, M. A., Ghadi, Y. Y., & Hamam, H. (2024). Integrating educational theories with virtual reality: Enhancing engineering education and VR laboratories. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 10, 101207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Akinradewo, O., Hafez, M., Aliu, J., Oke, A., Aigbavboa, C., & Adekunle, S. (2025). Barriers to the adoption of augmented reality technologies for education and training in the built environment: A developing country context. Technologies, 13(2), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies13020062 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Albishri, B., & Blackmore, K. L. (2025). Duality in barriers and enablers of augmented reality adoption in education: A systematic review of reviews. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 22(2), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-10-2023-0194 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A Survey of Augmented Reality. In Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments (Vol. 6, pp. 355–385). http://www.cs.unc.edu/~azumaW: [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented Reality Trends in Education: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133–149. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Batool, R., & Mou, J. (2024). A systematic literature review and analysis of try-on technology: Virtual fitting rooms. Data and Information Management, 8(2), 100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dim.2023.100060 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Buchner, J., Buntins, K., & Kerres, M. (2022). The impact of augmented reality on cognitive load and performance: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12617 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cabero-Almenara, J., Palacios-Rodríguez, A., Loaiza-Aguirre, M. I., & Andrade-Abarca, P. S. (2024). The impact of pedagogical beliefs on the adoption of generative AI in higher education: Predictive model from UTAUT2. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1497705. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1497705 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Çavuşoğlu, S., Dağ, K., & Aslan, F. (2025). The adoption of augmented and virtual reality technologies in the context of the UTAUT model and behavioral intention. International Journal of Business and Society, 26(2), 668–689. https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.8443.2025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Chadeea, T. K., & Prinsloo, P. (2024). Adoption of augmented reality in distance education: A scoping review. Journal of Learning for Development, 11(2), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v11i2.1351 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Chang, H.-Y., Binali, T., Liang, J.-C., Chiou, G.-L., Cheng, K.-H., Lee, S. W.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2022). Ten years of augmented reality in education: A meta-analysis of (quasi-) experimental studies to investigate the impact. Computers & Education, 191, 104641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104641 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Chen, G., Wang, H., Liang, A., Oubibi, M., & Zhou, Y. (2025). From detached observer to immersive participant: An augmented reality-based experiential learning approach to promote academic performance and learning behaviors in science education. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 19, 100756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100756 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Drakou, A., Papachristou, E., Tarnanidis, T., & Bilalis, N. (2024). Transforming fashion education: The impact of AI-driven 3D design on learning, creativity, and sustainability. Proceedings of the 13th Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3688671.3688794 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Elwan, N., Abdelaal, H. S. E. A., Elshiekh, R. A. M., Alnawawy, H. A. A., & Rezk, E. H. A. (2023). Impact of augmented reality on pattern designing using origami-style among clothing and textile students. Information Sciences Letters, 12(8). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Faqih, K. M. S., & Jaradat, M.-I. R. M. (2021). Integrating TTF and UTAUT2 theories to investigate the adoption of augmented reality technology in education: Perspective from a developing country. Technology in Society, 67, 101787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101787 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ferati, M., Abualrob, M. M. A., & Frehat, R. (2025). Shaping Future Educators: Attitudes toward Augmented Reality Adoption in Teaching. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 15(4), 651–661. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2025.15.4.2273 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Giaretta, A. (2024). Security and privacy in virtual reality: A literature survey. Virtual Reality, 29(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-024-01079-9 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Herbert, B., Wigley, G., Ens, B., & Billinghurst, M. (2022). Cognitive load considerations for augmented reality in network security training. Computers & Graphics, 102, 566–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2021.09.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Kazlaris, G. C., Keramopoulos, E., Bratsas, C., & Kokkonis, G. (2025). Augmented reality in education through collaborative learning: A systematic literature review. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 9(9), 94. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti9090094 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701029_Experiential_Learning_Experience_As_The_Source_Of_Learning_And_Development [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Koutromanos, G., Mikropoulos, A. T., Mavridis, D., & Christogiannis, C. (2024). The mobile augmented reality acceptance model for teachers and future teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 29(7), 7855–7893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12116-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Li, G., Luo, H., Chen, D., Wang, P., Yin, X., & Zhang, J. (2025). Augmented reality in higher education: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from 2000 to 2023. Education Sciences, 15(6), 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060678 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Manocha, R. (2024). Eduverse: Changing paradigms in fashion education and management. Journal of Operations and Strategic Planning, 7(1), 80–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/2516600X241248910 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Merz, A., Moser, I., & Bergamin, P. B. (2025). Performance expectancy and social influence drive the acceptance of immersive virtual reality for professional collaboration. Virtual Reality, 29(3), 123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-025-01182-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Mohamed, T. I., & Sicklinger, A. (2022). An integrated curriculum of virtual/augmented reality for multiple design students. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11137–11159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11069-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Morales Méndez, G., & Del Cerro Velázquez, F. (2024). Impact of augmented reality on assistance and training in Industry 4.0: Qualitative evaluation and meta-analysis. Applied Sciences, 14(11), 4564. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14114564 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Nikou, S. A., Perifanou, M., & Economides, A. A. (2024). Exploring teachers’ competences to integrate augmented reality in education: Results from an international study. TechTrends, 68(6), 1208–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-01014-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2020). Cognitive-load theory: Methods to manage working memory load in the learning of complex tasks. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420922183 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Perret, J. K., & Schwientek, J. (2025). Beauty tech—Customer experience and loyalty of augmented reality- and artificial intelligence-driven cosmetics. Digital, 5(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital5020021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Piedade, J., & Batista, E. (2025). Teachers’ perceptions of augmented reality in education: Between pedagogical potential and technological readiness. Education Sciences, 15(8), 1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15081076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ronaghi, M., Ronaghi, M. H., & Boskabadi, E. (2024). The impact of individual, scientific and organizational factors on the adoption of AR in university education. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 19(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-05-2023-0061 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Sarkis, N., Jabbour Al Maalouf, N., Saliba, E., & Azizi, J. (2025). The impact of augmented reality within the fashion industry on purchase decisions, customer engagement, and brand loyalty. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/17543266.2025.2470187 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Suhail, N., Bahroun, Z., & Ahmed, V. (2024). Augmented reality in engineering education: Enhancing learning and application. Frontiers in Virtual Reality, 5, 1461145. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2024.1461145 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Udiono, T. & Maryani. (2021). Perceptions of using augmented reality features on online shopping fashion platforms based on technology acceptance model. 2021 3rd International Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent System (ICORIS), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORIS52787.2021.9649444 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. UNESCO. (2025, March 31). UNESCO spotlights how digital learning can promote equity in low-resource contexts. UNESCO. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-spotlights-how-digital-learning-can-promote-equity-low-resource-contexts [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Wenk, N., Penalver-Andres, J., Buetler, K. A., Nef, T., Müri, R. M., & Marchal-Crespo, L. (2023). Effect of immersive visualization technologies on cognitive load, motivation, usability, and embodiment. Virtual Reality, 27(1), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00565-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Xue, L., Parker, C. J., & Hart, C. (2024). In-store augmented reality design: Fashion retail’s perspectives. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 52(7/8), 817–832. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-10-2023-0599 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Zekeik, H., Chahbi, M., Lamarti Sefian, M., & Bakkali, I. (2025). Augmented reality and virtual reality in education: A systematic narrative review on benefits, challenges, and applications. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(9), em2699. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/16830 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet