Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 1179–1194 | Cite as

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

  • Zeynep TaçgınEmail author
  • Ahmet Arslan
Article

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.

Keywords

Augmented reality Virtual reality Mixed reality Education CEIT 

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.Google Scholar
  2. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Teleoperators and virtual environments, 6(4), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (2014). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy (structure of the Observed learning Outcome). Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyner, Ü. N. (2012). Suggestion to improve university-industry cooperation. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 63–66.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connacher, H. I., & Jayaram, S. (1997). Virtual assembly using virtual reality techniques. Computer-Aided Design, 29, 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gökkaya, Z. (2014). A new approach in adult education: gamification. Journal of Hasan Ali Yücel Education Faculty, 11(1), 71–84.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmeck, R. R. (Ed.) (2013). Learning strategies and learning styles. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  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/C5.2007.29Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Distance Education CenterMarmara UniversityİstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Computer Education and Instructional TechnologiesMarmara UniversityİstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Social Science Vocational High SchoolMarmara UniversityİstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Atatürk Educational Faculty Computer Education and Instructional TechnologiesMarmara UniversityİstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations