Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 243–250 | Cite as

Human factors and qualitative pedagogical evaluation of a mobile augmented reality system for science education used by learners with physical disabilities

  • Theodoros N. Arvanitis
  • Argeroula Petrou
  • James F. Knight
  • Stavros Savas
  • Sofoklis Sotiriou
  • Michael Gargalakos
  • Elpida Gialouri
Original Article


Technology-enhanced learning, employing novel forms of content representation and education service delivery by enhancing the visual perception of the real environment of the user, is favoured by proponents of educational inclusion for learners with physical disabilities. Such an augmented reality computer-mediated learning system has been developed as part of an EU funded research project, namely the CONNECT project. The CONNECT project brings together schools and science centres, and produces novel information and communication technologies based on augmented reality (AR) and web-based streaming and communication, in order to support learning in a variety of settings. The CONNECT AR interactive learning environment can assist users to better contextualize and reinforce their learning in school and in other settings where people learn (i.e. science centres and home). The CONNECT concept and associated technologies encourage users to visit science centres and perform experiments that are not possible in school. They can also build on these experiences back at school and at home with visual augmentations that they are communicated through web-based streaming technology. This paper particularly focuses on a user-centred evaluation approach of human factors and pedagogical aspects of the CONNECT system, as applied to a special needs user group. The main focus of the paper is on highlighting the human factors issues and challenges, in terms of wearability and technology acceptance, while elaborating on some qualitative aspects of the pedagogical effectiveness of the instructional medium that AR technology offers for this group of learners.


Augmented reality Human factors Science education 



The authors would like to thank the European Community under the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme of the 6th FP for RTD-Project CONNECT contract number IST-507844 for supporting the project.


  1. 1.
    Tang S-L, Kwoh C-K, Teo M-Y, Sing NW, Ling KV (1998) Augmented reality systems for medical applications. IEEE Mag Engineering in Med Biol 17(3):49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufmann H, Schmalstieg D (2003) Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality. Comput Graph 27(3):339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Starner T, Mann S, Rhodes B, Levine J, Healey J, Kirsch D, Picard R, Pentland A (1997) Augmented reality through wearable computing. Presence 6:386–398Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feiner S, MacIntyre B, Haupt M, Solomon E (1993) Windows on the world: 2D windows for 3D augmented reality. In: Proceedings of the 6th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology (Atlanta, Georgia, United States). UIST ‘93. ACM Press, New York, 145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sotiriou S, Anastopoulou S, Rosenfeld S, Aharoni O, Hofstein A, Bogner F, Sturm H, Hoeksema K (2006) Visualizing the invisible: the CONNECT approach for teaching science. In: The 6th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT 2006), Kerkrade, The Netherlands, 5–7 July 2006Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bialo ER, Sivin-Kachala J (1996) The effectiveness of technology in schools: a summary of recent research. Sch Libr Media Q 25(1):51–57Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown DJ, Kerr S, Wilson JR (1997) Virtual environments in special-needs education. Commun. ACM 40(8):72–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hill JR, HwaKoh M, Singleton ES, Song L (2004) Improving online learning: student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. Internet High Educ 7:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knight JF, Baber C (2004) Neck muscle activity and perceived pain and discomfort due to variations of head load and posture, Aviat Space Environ Med 75:123–131Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knight JF, Baber C (2007) Assessing the physical loading of wearable computers. Appl Ergon (in press)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knight JF, Baber CA (2005) tool to assess the comfort of wearable computers, Hum Factors 47(1):77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Knight JF, Schwirtz A, Psomadelis F, Baber C, Bristow HW, Arvanitis TN (2005) The design of the SensVest. Personal Ubiquitous Comput 9:6–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knight JF, Williams DD, Arvanitis TN, Baber C, Sotiriou S, Anastopoulou S, Gargalakos M (2006). Assessing the wearability of wearable computers. In: Proceedings of the 10th international symposium on wearable computers – ISWC2006, IEEE, Montreaux, Switzerland, pp.75–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodoros N. Arvanitis
    • 1
  • Argeroula Petrou
    • 2
  • James F. Knight
    • 1
  • Stavros Savas
    • 3
  • Sofoklis Sotiriou
    • 3
  • Michael Gargalakos
    • 4
  • Elpida Gialouri
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Department of Pre-School Education and Educational Design, School of HumanitiesUniversity of the AegeanRhodesGreece
  3. 3.R&D DepartmentEllinogermaniki AgogiAthensGreece
  4. 4.Institute of Communication and Computer Systems, National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations