Abstract
The design of learning activities that are supported by Augmented Reality (AR) technologies is on the rise. As the field is still new, there is a need to consider optimal designs to enable and facilitate student learning. This chapter discusses the socio-material aspects of effective learning with AR technologies. A review of the extant literature indicates that material conditions are often ignored when discussing optimal learning in informal settings. We argue that designing for optimal learning should attend to the relations between humans, technology, and the environment—that is, it should carefully consider characteristics of the participants, the affordances of the AR technologies which are bounded by the material conditions, and the nature and goals of the learning activity. To support our argument, we present data from two case studies with the TraceReaders AR platform in the context of a broader design-based research project, that illustrate how the intended design of AR-supported learning is transformed by the interactions between the components of the triadic system. The chapter concludes with a discussion of design principles that consider aspects of materiality during learning with AR technologies using mobile devices in outdoors settings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405.
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.
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449–462.
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.
Efstathiou, I., Kyza, E. A., & Georgiou, Y. (2018). An inquiry-based augmented reality mobile learning approach to fostering primary school students’ historical reasoning in non-formal settings. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1276076
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2015). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the socio-material. London: Routledge.
Georgiou, Y., & Kyza, E. A. (2013). The trace readers. [Augmented reality application]. Limassol: Cyprus University of Technology.
Georgiou, Y., & Kyza, E. A. (2017). The development and validation of the ARI questionnaire: An instrument for measuring immersion in location-based augmented reality settings. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, 24–37.
Georgiou, Y., & Kyza, E. A. (2018). Relations between student motivation, immersion and learning outcomes in location-based augmented reality settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.011
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336–342.
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1145/353485.353487
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012, May). Affordances in HCI: Toward a mediated action perspective. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 967–976). New York, NY: ACM.
Kim, M. J. (2013). A framework for context immersion in mobile augmented reality. Automation in Construction, 33, 79–85.
Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J.-W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.
Kyza, E. A., & Constantinou, C. P. (2007). STOCHASMOS: A web-based platform for reflective, inquiry-based teaching and learning. Cyprus: Learning in Science Group.
Kyza, E. A., Constantinou, C. P., & Spanoudis, G. (2011). Sixth graders’ co-construction of explanations of a disturbance in an ecosystem: Exploring relationships between grouping, reflective scaffolding, and evidence-based explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2489–2525.
Kyza, E. A., & Georgiou, Y. (2018). Scaffolding augmented reality inquiry learning: The design and investigation of the TraceReaders location-based, augmented reality platform. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15.
Kyza, E. A., Georgiou, Y., Souropetsis, M., & Agesilaou, A. (2019). Collecting ecologically valid data in location-aware augmented reality settings: A comparison of three data collection techniques. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 11(2).
MacPhail, A. (2001). Nominal group technique: A useful method for working with young people. British Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 161–170.
Mifsud, L. (2014). Mobile learning and the socio-materiality of classroom practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 142–149.
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1995, December). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In Proceedings of Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies (Vol. 2351, pp. 282–293). Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optics and Photonics.
Munoz-Cristobal, J. A., Jorrin-Abellan, I. M., Asensio-Perez, J. I., Martinez-Mones, A., Prieto, L. P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2015). Supporting teacher orchestration in ubiquitous learning environments: A study in primary education. Learning Technologies, IEEE Transactions on Learning, 8(1), 83–97.
Sørensen, E. (2009). The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verillon, P., & Rabardel, P. (1995). Cognition and artifacts: A contribution to the study of though in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 77–101.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.
Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49.
Yoon, S. A., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Steinmeier, C., & Tucker, S. (2012). Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4), 519–541.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kyza, E.A., Georgiou, Y. (2019). The Impact of Materiality on the Design of Mobile, Augmented Reality Learning Environments in Non-formal, Outdoors Settings. In: Cerratto Pargman, T., Jahnke, I. (eds) Emergent Practices and Material Conditions in Learning and Teaching with Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10764-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10764-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10763-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10764-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)