Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

The perceptions of CEIT postgraduate students regarding reality concepts: Augmented, virtual, mixed and mirror reality

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine perception of postgraduate Computer Education and Instructional Technologies (CEIT) students regarding the concepts of Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), Mixed Reality (MR), Augmented Virtuality (AV) and Mirror Reality; and to offer a table that includes differences and similarities between these concepts. This study also aims to determine the likelihood of CEIT postgraduate students for using the said concepts in education. In this context, the frequently used reality concepts in the CEIT field have been examined from the perspective of the participants and in terms of the following traits: frequency of potential use, perceived usefulness, and perceived effectiveness. The phenomenological method was used in this qualitative study. 10 CEIT graduate students have been the participants of this research; with 4 of these pursuing a PhD and 6 pursuing a Master’s Degree. 14 open-ended questions related to AR, VR, MR, AV and Mirror Reality concepts were used throughout semi-structured and face-to-face interviews in order to collect data. Findings show that AR and VR are the most familiar concepts. Participants have several misconceptions about the reality concepts but the least amount of misconception was associated with AR and VR. Most of the participants had no idea about MR and none of them had any idea about Mirror Reality. Findings refer that VR is the most frequently used kind of reality owing to the fact that it can be developed and implemented more easily and there are several AR studies because of its current popularity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Arslan, A. (2015). Using social media in education. In A. Büyükaslan & A. M. Kırık (Eds.), Social media research to socalized phenemenon 2 (pp. 191–219). Konya: Çizgi Kitapevi.

  2. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Teleoperators and virtual environments, 6(4), 355–385.

  3. Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Juiler, S., & ManIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47. doi:10.1109/38.963459.

  4. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the Observed learning Outcome). Academic Press.

  5. Boyner, Ü. N. (2012). Suggestion to improve university-industry cooperation. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 63–66.

  6. Chen, C. J., Toh, S. C., & Ismail, W. M. (2005). Are learning styles relevant to virtual reality? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 123–141. doi:10.1080/15391523.2005.10782453.

  7. Chung, I.-C., Huang, C.-Y., Yeh, S.-C. C., & Tseng, M.-H. (2014). Developing kinect games integrated with virtual reality on activities of daily living for children with developmental delay. Advanced Technologies, Embedded and Multimedia for Human-centric Computing Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, 260, 1091–1097. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7262-5_124.

  8. Connacher, H. I., & Jayaram, S. (1997). Virtual assembly using virtual reality techniques. Computer-Aided Design, 29, 575–584.

  9. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publication.

  10. Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (forth edition) (pp. 735–745). London: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_59.

  11. Gökkaya, Z. (2014). A new approach in adult education: gamification. Journal of Hasan Ali Yücel Education Faculty, 11(1), 71–84.

  12. Kiper, M. (2004). Technology transfer mechanism and university-industry cooparation in this field. In M. Kiper (Ed.), Teknoloji (pp. 59–122). Ankara: Kozan Ofset.

  13. Lin, T.-J., Duh, H. B.-L., Li, N., Wang, H.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). An investigation of learners’ collaborative knowladge construction performances and behaviour patterns in augmented reality simulation systems. Computers & Education, 68, 314–321.

  14. Lopez, L. C. (2006). The phenomenal world inside the noumenal head of the giant: Linking the biological evolution of consciousness with the virtual reality metaphor. Revista Eletrônica Informação e Cognição (Cessada), 5(1), 204–228.

  15. Ma, J. Y., & Choi, J. S. (2007). The virtuality and reality of augmented reality. Journal of Multimedia, 2(1), 32–37. doi:10.4304/jmm.2.1.32-37.

  16. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033.

  17. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329.

  18. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologie, 2351, 282–292.

  19. Nielsen, C. W., Anderson, M. O., McKay, M. D., Wadsworth, D. C., Boyce, J. R., Hruska, R. C., et al. (2014). USA Patent No. US, 8732592, B2.

  20. Nurminen, A., Jarvi, J., & Lehtonen, M. (2014). Mixed reality interface for real time tracked public transportation. 10th ITS European Congress. Helsinki: http://www.streetlife-project.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/ITS2014_Paper_Mixed_Reality_Interface.pdf.

  21. Regenbrecht, H., Lum, T., Kohler, P., Ott, C., Wagner, M., Wilke, W., & Mueller, E. (2004). Using augmented virtuality for remote collaboration. Presence, 13(3), 338–354. doi:10.1162/1054746041422334.

  22. Sanchez, A., Barreiro, J. M., & Maojo, V. (2000). Design of virtual reality systems for education: A cognitive approach. Education and Information Technologies, 5(4), 345–362.

  23. Schmeck, R. R. (Ed.) (2013). Learning strategies and learning styles. Springer Science & Business Media.

  24. Schuster, G., Strothotte, C., & Zwick, C. (2007). Syncing croquet with the real world. Fifth International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing (C507) (pp. 117–124). IEEE. doi:10.1109/C5.2007.29

  25. Serio, A. D., Ibanez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586–596.

  26. Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002.

  27. Stirbu, V., Murphy, D., & You, Y. (2012). Open and decentralized platform for visualizing web mash-ups in augmented and mirror worlds. WWW 2012 Companion (pp. 609–610). Lyon: http://www2012.org/proceedings/companion/p609.pdf. doi:10.1145/2187980.2188151

  28. Varspagen, B. (2006). University research, intellectual property rights and european innovation system. Journal Copilation, 607–632. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2006.00261.x.

  29. Wu, H.-K., Lee, S. W.-Y., Hsin-Yi, C., & Liang, J.-C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Zeynep Taçgın.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taçgın, Z., Arslan, A. The perceptions of CEIT postgraduate students regarding reality concepts: Augmented, virtual, mixed and mirror reality. Educ Inf Technol 22, 1179–1194 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9484-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Augmented reality
  • Virtual reality
  • Mixed reality
  • Education
  • CEIT