The perceptions of CEIT postgraduate students regarding reality concepts: Augmented, virtual, mixed and mirror reality
- 624 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAugmented reality Virtual reality Mixed reality Education CEIT
- 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
- 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
- Boyner, Ü. N. (2012). Suggestion to improve university-industry cooperation. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 63–66.Google Scholar
- 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
- Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
- 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
- Gökkaya, Z. (2014). A new approach in adult education: gamification. Journal of Hasan Ali Yücel Education Faculty, 11(1), 71–84.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems, E77-D(12), 1321–1329.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- Schmeck, R. R. (Ed.) (2013). Learning strategies and learning styles. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
- Schuster, G., Strothotte, C., & Zwick, C. (2007). Syncing croquet with the real world. Fifth International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing (C5’07) (pp. 117–124). IEEE. doi:10.1109/C5.2007.29Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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.