Augmented Reality (AR) for Architectural Design

Abstract

In this review paper, the use of Augmented Reality (AR) in teaching architectural design is discussed, using insights from research \"Augmented Reality in Design Education: Landscape Architecture Studies as AR Experience\" by Kerr and Lawson (2019). The paper discusses the creation of the AR prototype Master of Time, its educational advantages, design philosophies, and collaborative approaches. The implications of the findings are the potential of AR to change pedagogy in architecture through improvement in immersive, location-based learning experiences. Important themes are learning by narrative, multisensory engagement, and interdisciplinarity. The paper concludes with suggestions for using AR in architectural design assignments.

Introduction

The rapid growth of digital technologies, particularly Augmented Reality (AR), is transforming teaching methods across disciplines. AR blends digital content with the physical world, offering immersive, interactive, and context-aware learning experiences. This technology is especially valuable in spatial fields like architecture and landscape architecture, where understanding scale, materiality, and context is crucial.

Traditional architectural education relies heavily on studio work, physical models, and site visits, but these approaches face practical limitations such as costs, accessibility, and the constraints of 2D drawings. AR addresses these by enabling situated learning (overlaying virtual designs onto real sites), iterative design visualization, and story-based pedagogy that ties theory to real-world contexts.

Despite its promise, AR’s use in architectural education is still limited, with few case studies or established frameworks. The "Master of Time" project at Queensland University of Technology is a pioneering example, using an AR app to guide users through Brisbane’s Botanic Gardens with a narrative that teaches design principles and fosters emotional connections to the site.

The essay reviews this project to explore how AR can enhance architectural education through immersive, place-based experiences, effective design approaches (like narrative and multisensory interaction), and addresses challenges such as technical and pedagogical barriers. It also situates AR’s educational benefits more broadly, including improved engagement, spatial understanding, situated learning, and collaborative opportunities.

While AR in architecture often focuses on visualization and virtual site visits, it rarely explores pedagogical integration for teaching core design concepts or critical thinking. Narrative-driven AR experiences, like those in "Master of Time," show promise in enriching learning by combining storytelling with multisensory engagement.

Current gaps include a lack of pedagogical frameworks, user-centered design in AR tools, and studies on long-term learning impacts. The paper proposes a framework for AR experience design aligned with architectural education goals, aiming to inspire further innovations in AR-based architectural pedagogy.

Conclusion

The Master of Time initiative is a groundbreaking model for demonstrating how Augmented Reality (AR) can reengineer the way architecture is taught by turning static, passive education into dynamic, location-based learning. With site-based storytelling and multisensory interaction, AR engages students not just at the conceptual level in understanding architectural concepts, but also emotionally in experiencing the spaces they learn about. It fills the gap between theoretical teaching and practical application, enabling visualization and interaction with intricate design components in context—something conventional pedagogical approaches tend to lack. By making it possible for users to investigate inaccessible or remote architectural locations and to visualize spatial and structural relationships in real time, AR eliminates obstacles created by physical limitations and resource constraints. In the future, scalability of AR tools is paramount. Creating modular and versatile AR templates for numerous architectural courses and environments will increase the accessibility and affordability of the technology. Simultaneously, subsequent research will be required to examine the long-term effects of AR-based learning, particularly on enhancing students\' spatial thinking, critical thinking, and overall design capability. In addition, the combination of advanced AR hardware such as Microsoft HoloLens can take educational limits to new heights by allowing immersive, hands-free experience that closely approximates real-world design workflows. Yet, in order to properly leverage AR\'s educational value, one must implement a pedagogy-first methodology. AR need not be simply a technological adjunct but must support explicit instructional purposes. Design considerations should incorporate practical usability factors like outdoor lighting, mobile connectivity, and user accessibility. No less critical is an iterative design process based on frequent user feedback from students and teachers. User-centered development like this guarantees not just technical functionality but also educational value and interest. As highlighted by the Master of Time crew, AR does not merely show buildings—it puts learners inside them, making for engaging and lasting learning experiences. To progress from pilot phases to widespread use, teachers and architects need to welcome small-scale pilot schemes, collecting facts and opinions to guide bigger initiatives. Shared AR resource collections and collaborative development platforms can help open up access and boost innovation in the area. Ultimately, the future of architectural education is hybrid—where digital technologies such as AR support, but don\'t replace, hands-on, physical learning, to produce a rich, immersive, and complete educational experience that readies students for the sophistication of contemporary design practice.

References

[1] Akçay?r, M., &Akçay?r, 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 [2] Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355 [3] 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. [4] Billinghurst, M., Kato, H., &Poupyrev, I. (2001). The MagicBook: Moving seamlessly between reality and virtuality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(3), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.920621 [5] Bitter, G., & Corral, A. (2014). The pedagogical potential of augmented reality apps. International Journal of Engineering Science Invention, 3(10), 13–17. [6] Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented Reality in education – Cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2014.889400 [7] Chang, G., Morreale, P., &Medicherla, P. (2010). Applications of augmented reality systems in education. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 1380–1385). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [8] Chou, R. (2017). Going out into the field: An experience of the landscape architecture studio incorporating service-learning and participatory design in Taiwan. Landscape Research, 43(6), 784–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1290226 [9] 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 [10] Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., &Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 [11] Jarvin, L. (2015). Edutainment, games, and the future of education in a digital world. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2015(147), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20082 [12] Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium. [13] Kerawalla, L., Luckin, R., Seljeflot, S., & Woolard, A. (2006). \'Making it real\': Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Reality, 10(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-006-0036-4 [14] Kesim, M., &Ozarslan, Y. (2012). Augmented reality in education: Current technologies and the potential for education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.654 [15] Kipper, G., & Rampolla, J. (2013). Augmented Reality: An Emerging Technologies Guide to AR. Syngress [16] Nemec, J., &Trna, J. (2007). Edutainment or entertainment: Education possibilities of didactic games in science education. In J. Nemec (Ed.), The Evolution of Children Play, 24th ICCP World Play Conference (pp. 55–64). Masaryk University [17] Oppegaard, B., & Grigar, D. (2014). The interrelationships of mobile storytelling: Merging the physical and the digital at a national historic site. In J. Farman (Ed.), The Mobile Story: Narrative Practices with Locative Technologies (pp. 17–33). Routledge. [18] Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533–1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0747-y [19] Rasimah, C., Ahmad, A., & Zaman, H. (2011). Evaluation of user acceptance of mixed reality technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1369–1387. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.899 [20] Smith, D. (2004). Issues and trends in higher education biology fieldwork. Journal of Biological Education, 39(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2004.9655945 [21] Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355 [22] Bitter, G., & Corral, A. (2014). The pedagogical potential of augmented reality apps. International Journal of Engineering Science Invention, 3(10), 13–17. [23] Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented Reality in education – Cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2014.889400 [24] Chang, G., Morreale, P., &Medicherla, P. (2010). Applications of augmented reality systems in education. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 1380–1385). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [25] Chou, R. (2017). Going out into the field: An experience of the landscape architecture studio incorporating service-learning and participatory design in Taiwan. Landscape Research, 43(6), 784–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1290226 [26] 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 [27] Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., &Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001 [28] Jarvin, L. (2015). Edutainment, games, and the future of education in a digital world. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2015(147), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20082 [29] Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium. [30] Kerawalla, L., Luckin, R., Seljeflot, S., & Woolard, A. (2006). \'Making it real\': Exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Reality, 10(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-006-0036-4 [31] Kesim, M., &Ozarslan, Y. (2012). Augmented reality in education: Current technologies and the potential for education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.654 [32] Kipper, G., & Rampolla, J. (2013). Augmented Reality: An Emerging Technologies Guide to AR. Syngress. [33] Nemec, J., &Trna, J. (2007). Edutainment or entertainment: Education possibilities of didactic games in science education. In J. Nemec (Ed.), The Evolution of Children Play, 24th ICCP World Play Conference (pp. 55–64). Masaryk University. [34] Oppegaard, B., & Grigar, D. (2014). The interrelationships of mobile storytelling: Merging the physical and the digital at a national historic site. In J. Farman (Ed.), The Mobile Story: Narrative Practices with Locative Technologies (pp. 17–33). Routledge. [35] Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533–1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0747-y [36] Rasimah, C., Ahmad, A., & Zaman, H. (2011). Evaluation of user acceptance of mixed reality technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1369–1387. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.899 [37] Smith, D. (2004). Issues and trends in higher education biology fieldwork. Journal of Biological Education, 39(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2004.9655945

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Rishabh Kumar Sharma, Suyogya Kushagra Srivastav, KM Poonam , Shubham Kumar, Mr. Harendra Singh, Dr. Abdul Alim, Dr. Sureshwati . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.