Scholarlink

<p>Hologram technologies are being piloted in higher education, but adoption remains inconsistent. This systematic review identifies implementation barriers and organises the findings into an actionable planning framework to guide decision-makers. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we screened and critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The review distils four barrier families: (1) technical and infrastructure barriers, including hardware readiness, bandwidth limitations, system reliability, and ongoing support; (2) financial and sustainability barriers, including acquisition costs, maintenance budgets, and return-on-investment uncertainty; (3) pedagogical and curriculum integration barriers, such as instructional design capacity, faculty training, and assessment alignment; and (4) user- and context-related barriers, including digital literacy, institutional readiness, policy alignment, and equitable access. These barriers are mapped to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). The resulting framework helps decision-makers interpret barriers, prioritise interventions, and sequence implementation of hologram-based teaching and learning.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Barriers to adoption of hologram technology in higher education: a systematic review and strategic framework

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月2日

查看全文
  • Mohammed Alaidaros,
  • Siti Hajar Mohamad

摘要

Hologram technologies are being piloted in higher education, but adoption remains inconsistent. This systematic review identifies implementation barriers and organises the findings into an actionable planning framework to guide decision-makers. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we screened and critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The review distils four barrier families: (1) technical and infrastructure barriers, including hardware readiness, bandwidth limitations, system reliability, and ongoing support; (2) financial and sustainability barriers, including acquisition costs, maintenance budgets, and return-on-investment uncertainty; (3) pedagogical and curriculum integration barriers, such as instructional design capacity, faculty training, and assessment alignment; and (4) user- and context-related barriers, including digital literacy, institutional readiness, policy alignment, and equitable access. These barriers are mapped to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). The resulting framework helps decision-makers interpret barriers, prioritise interventions, and sequence implementation of hologram-based teaching and learning.