Advertisement

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1533–1543 | Cite as

Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis

  • Iulian Radu
Original Article

Abstract

Augmented reality (AR) is an educational medium increasingly accessible to young users such as elementary school and high school students. Although previous research has shown that AR systems have the potential to improve student learning, the educational community remains unclear regarding the educational usefulness of AR and regarding contexts in which this technology is more effective than other educational mediums. This paper addresses these topics by analyzing 26 publications that have previously compared student learning in AR versus non-AR applications. It identifies a list of positive and negative impacts of AR experiences on student learning and highlights factors that are potentially underlying these effects. This set of factors is argued to cause differences in educational effectiveness between AR and other media. Furthermore, based on the analysis, the paper presents a heuristic questionnaire generated for judging the educational potential of AR experiences.

Keywords

Augmented reality Education Comparative studies Children Human factors 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Jennifer M. Rodriguez of PBS KIDS Digital for her thoughtful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Azuma RT (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 6:355–385Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. Trans Inf Syst E77-D:1321–1329Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Lisi R, Wolford JL (2002) Improving children’s mental rotation accuracy with computer game playing. J Genet Psychol 163:272–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Billinghurst M (2002) Augmented reality in education. New Horizons Learn. http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/technology/billinghurst.htm. Accessed 20 Jan 2009
  5. 5.
    Shelton B, Hedley N (2003) Exploring a cognitive basis for learning spatial relationships with augmented reality. Technol Instr Cogn Learn 1:323–357Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kerawalla L, Luckin R, Seljeflot S, Woolard A (2006) “Making it real”: exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Real 10:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merians AS, Jack D, Boian R, Tremaine M, Burdea GC, Adamovich SV, Recce M, Poizner H (2002) Virtual reality—augmented rehabilitation for patients following stroke. Phys Ther 82:898Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tang A, Owen C, Biocca F, Mou W (2003) Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly. In: Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI ‘03, p 73Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu Y, Mendenhall S, Ha V, Tillery P, Cohen J (2012) Herding nerds on your table: NerdHerder, a mobile augmented reality game. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts, pp 1351–1356Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sony Computer Entertainment. EyePet TM. http://www.eyepet.com/
  11. 11.
    Juan C, Beatrice F, Cano J (2008) An augmented reality system for learning the interior of the human body. In: International conference on advanced learning technologies, Santander, Cantabria, Spain, pp 186–188Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bujak KR, Radu I, Catrambone R, MacIntyre B, Zheng R, Golubski G (2013) A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Comput Educ 68:536–544Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lindgren R, Moshell JM (2011) Supporting children’s learning with body-based metaphors in a mixed reality environment. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on interaction design and children. ACM, pp 177–180Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macchiarella ND, Liu D, Gangadharan SN, Vincenzi DA, Majoros AE (2005) Augmented reality as a training medium for aviation/aerospace application. In: Annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society, Orlando, FL, USA, pp 2174–2178Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Macchiarella ND, Vincenzi DA (2004) Augmented reality in a learning paradigm for flight aerospace maintenance training. In: Digital avionics systems conference, vol 1, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, pp 5.D.1–5.1-9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Valimont RB, Vincenzi DA, Gangadharan SN, Majoros AE (2002) The effectiveness of augmented reality as a facilitator of information acquisition. In: Digital avionics systems conference, vol 2, Irvine, CA, USA, pp 7C5-1–7C5-9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vincenzi DA, Valimont B, Macchiarella N, Opalenik C, Gangadharan SN, Majoros AE (2003) The effectiveness of cognitive elaboration using augmented reality as a training and learning paradigm. In: Annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society, Denver, CO, USA, pp 2054–2058Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hedley NR (2003) Empirical evidence for advanced geographic visualization interface use. In: International cartographic congress, Durban, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sin AK, Zaman HB (2010) Live solar system (LSS): evaluation of an augmented reality book-based educational tool. In: International symposium in information technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Seo J, Kim N, Kim G (2006) Designing interactions for augmented reality based educational contents. In: International conference on edutainment, Hangzhou, China, pp 1188–1197Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chen Y-C (2006) A study of comparing the use of augmented reality and physical models in chemistry education. In: International conference on virtual reality continuum and its applications, Hong Kong, China, pp 369–372Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nischelwitzer A, Lenz F-j, Searle G, Holzinger A (2007) Some aspects of the development of low-cost augmented reality learning environments as examples for future interfaces in technology enhanced learning. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on universal access in human-computer interaction: applications and services. Springer, pp 728–737Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quarles J, Lampotang S, Fischler I, Fishwick P, Lok B (2008) A mixed reality approach for merging abstract and concrete knowledge. In: Virtual reality conference, Reno, NV, USA, pp 27–34Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen C-h, Wu FG, Su CC, Lee P-y (2007) Augmented interface for children Chinese learning. In: Seventh IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2007). IEEE Computer Society, pp 268–270Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Freitas R, Campos P (2008) SMART: a SysteM of Augmented Reality for Teaching 2nd grade students. In: Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group annual conference on people and computers: culture, creativity, interaction, vol 2, Swinton, UK, pp 27–30Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henderson SJ, Feiner S (2009) Evaluating the benefits of augmented reality for task localization in maintenance of an armored personnel carrier turret. In: International symposium on mixed and augmented reality, Orlando, FL, USA, pp 135–144Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Henderson S, Feiner S (2011) Exploring the benefits of augmented reality documentation for maintenance and repair. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 17:1355–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pathomaree N, Charoenseang S (2005) Augmented reality for skill transfer in assembly task. IEEE Int Workshop Robot Human Interact Commun 500–504Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tang A, Owen C, Biocca F, Mou W (2003) Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly. In: Conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA, pp 73–80Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tang A, Owen C, Biocca F, Mou W (2002) Experimental evaluation of augmented reality in object assembly task. In: International symposium on mixed and augmented reality, Darmstadt, Germany, p 265Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morrison A, Oulasvirta A, Peltonen P, Lemmela S, Jacucci G, Reitmayr G, Nasanen J, Juustila A (2009) Like bees around the hive: a comparative study of a mobile augmented reality map. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1889–1898Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Billinghurst M, Belcher D, Gupta A, Kiyokawa K (2003) Communication behaviors in colocated collaborative AR interfaces. Int J Human–Comput Interact 16:395–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaufmann H, Dünser A (2007) Summary of usability evaluations of an educational augmented reality application. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on virtual reality. Springer, pp 660–669Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Juan CM, Toffetti G, Abad F, Cano J (2010) Tangible cubes used as the user interface in an augmented reality game for edutainment. In: 2010 10th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies, pp 599–603Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Liu T-Y, Tan T-H, Chu Y-L (2009) Outdoor natural science learning with an RFID-supported immersive ubiquitous learning environment. J Educ Technol Soc 12:161–175Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dunleavy M, Dede C, Mitchell R (2009) Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J Sci Educ Technol 18:7–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hornecker E, Dünser A (2007) Supporting early literacy with augmented books—experiences with an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the German Society of informatics annual conference (GI-Jahrestagung)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mayer RE, Moreno R (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 38:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shelton B, Hedley N (2004) Exploring a cognitive basis for learning spatial relationships with augmented reality. Technol Instr Cogn Learn 1(4):323–357Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Goldin-Meadow S, Cook SW, Mitchell ZA (2009) Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychol Sci 20(3):267–272Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Glenberg AM, Brown M, Levin JR (2007) Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemp Educ Psychol 32:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roth W, Lawless D (2002) Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learn Instr 12:285–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Antle AN, Corness G, Droumeva M (2009) Springboard: exploring embodiment, balance and social justice. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (SIGCHI’09), Extended Abstracts. ACM, pp 3961–3966Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Abrahamson D, Trninic D (2011) Toward an embodied-interaction design framework for mathematical concepts. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on interaction design and children. ACM, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mautone PD, Mayer RE (2001) Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. J Educ Psychol 93:377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Theng Y-l, Mei-ling CL, Liu W, Cheok AD (2007) Mixed reality systems for learning: a pilot study understanding user perceptions and acceptance. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on virtual reality. Springer, pp 728–737Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stapleton C, Smith E, Hughes CE (2005) The art of nurturing citizen scientists through mixed reality. In: International symposium on mixed and augmented reality, Vienna, Austria, pp 2–11Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kaufmann H, Meyer B (2008) Simulating educational physical experiments in augmented reality. In: ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 educators programme. ACM, p 3Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hornecker E, Dünser A (2009) Of pages and paddles: children’s expectations and mistaken interactions with physical-digital tools. Interact Comput 21:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nakamura J, Csikszentmihalyi M (2009) Flow theory and research. In: Snyder CR, Lopez SJ (eds) Handbook of positive psychology, 2nd edn. Oxford, New York, pp 195–206Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Radu I, MacIntyre B (2012) Using children’s developmental psychology to guide augmented-reality design and usability. In: 2012 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR), pp 227–236Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations