The differences in pleasing value and learning performance among different groups using mobile augmented reality system for cultural environment learning

  • Yuh-Shihing Chang
  • You-Shyang ChenEmail author
  • Cheng-Wei ChiangEmail author


Mobile Augmented Reality (MAR) has becomes more widely used and provides the great context of an immersive virtual learning environment. However, sometimes the learning effect is influenced by the pleasing value, which is always subjective and learning driven. In order to ensure a successful launch of the MAR cultural interactive learning tool, it is extremely important to predict the pleasing value of design alternatives based on the common language understood by students. For learners, in the learning process, the value of pleasure comes from the improvement of external emotional interest as well as internal cognitive interest that learners already have. This research will examine if students have problems with operating the MAR, and to understand whether they have pleasing value and a learning performance. Thus, this research has proposed a difference of visual perception and a construction for the evaluation of pleasing value as well as the culture of learning performance between media students and students in other majors. The research team has chosen different cultural temples in Shi-lin and Tam-sui in Taiwan using the MAR systems to evaluate the correctness and speed of the reaction in between the two groups represented as: the experimental group and the control group. The research objects will be the second year/sophomore studentsat Taipei University of Marine Technology. There were two classes with different majors and there were 35 students in each class. This research took one of the classes as the experimental group with “MAR empirical teaching in cultural and environmental learning” and other class will be the control group using the traditional teaching method. The result from the experiment and the ANCOVA analysis indicates: (1) Based on the results of experiments, the participants appreciated the MAR approach. The learning performance of the students did improve significantly via ACNOVA. (2) The experimental group has a more significant effect compared to the control group in the aspect from the four learning performance constructions: stylistic, cultural value, cultural characterization and innovation services. (3) Through the bi-variance statistical analysis (One-Way, ANOVA), there was a significant positive correlation between pleasing value and the improvement of post-learning interest in the experimental group. This research found that based on the exploration factor from that the results the interfaces were built on a mobile phone with a touch-screen can be a model for the effectiveness examination, It can also expand the MAR application scope by incorporating it into teaching.


Mobile augmented reality Mobile learning and Cultural learning 



  1. 1.
    Azuma RT (1993) Tracking requirements for augment reality. Commun ACM 36(7):50–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azuma RT (1997) A Survey of Augmented Reality. Teleoperators and Environments, Issue 6(14):355–385Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berlyne DE (1950) Novelty and curiosity as determinants of exploratory behavior. Br J Psychol 41:68–80Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang G, Morreale P, Medicherla P (2010) Applications of augmented reality systems in education. In: Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, Chesapeake, pp. 1380–1385Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen YS, Sheu JP (2003) A mobile learning system for scaffold bird watching learning. J Comput Assist Learn 19(3):347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Craig AB (2013) Understanding augmented reality. Concepts and Applications, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. San Francisco, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fei L, Stefan S (2017) On the precision of third person perspective augmented reality for target designation tasks. J of Multimedia Tools and Applications 76(14):15279–15296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Häkkilä J (2006) Usability with context-aware mobile applications. Dissertation. University of OuluGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hidi S, Baird W (1988) Strategies for increasing text-based interest and students’ recall of expository text. Read Res Q 23:465–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Höllerer T, Feiner S (2004) Mobile augmented reality. In: Karimi H, Hammad A (eds) Telegeoinformatics: location-based computing and services. Taylor & Francis Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang MH (2001) The theory of emotions in marketing. J Bus Psychol 16(2):239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hull C (1943) Principles of behavior. Apple-Century-Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hyung-Keun J, Sukhyun L, Jinyoung Y, Junsuk L (2011) An augmented reality-based authoring tool for E-learning applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications 68(2):225–235Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Janelle C (2018) 10 ways to make learning fun. ThoughtCo. Accessed 26 March 2018
  15. 15.
    John B, Jean B (1995) Supporting interactive presentation for distributed multimedia applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications 1(1):47–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loewenstein GL (1999) The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation. Psychol Bull 116(1):75–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mackay WE (1996) Augmenting reality: a new paradigm for interacting with computers. La RechercheGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milgram P, Kishino F (1974) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual display. 12:1321–1329Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Inf Syst E77-D(12):1321–1329Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saaty TL, Takizawa M (1986) Dependence and independence: From linearhierarchies to nonlinear networks. Eur J Oper Res 26(2):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schiefele U (1996) Topic interest, text representation, and quality of experience. Contemp Educ Psychol 21:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sefton-Green J (2003) Literature review in informal learning with technology outside school. NESTA Future lab, Bristol, Accessed 01 Jan 2004
  23. 23.
    Shulman LS, Loupe MJ, Piper RM (1968) Studies of the inquiry process: inquiry patterns of students in teacher training programs. United States Office of Education Cooperative Research Project, No. 5–0597Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wagner D, Schmalstieg D, Billinghurst M (2006) Handheld AR for collaborative edutainment. Advances in Artificial Reality and TeleExistence, pp 85–96Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zsole B (2017) 3 Benefits of using augmented reality in education. Neo Blog, Accessed 19 Jan 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Digital Media DesignAsia UniversityTaichungRepublic of China
  2. 2.Department of Information ManagementHwa Hsia University of TechnologyNew Taipei CityRepublic of China
  3. 3.Department of Digital Content DesignLing Tung UniversityTaichungRepublic of China

Personalised recommendations