Abstract
This study examined the effect of using Monoscopic Three-Dimensional (M3D) and Stereoscopic Three-Dimensional (S3D) animation on students’ achievement and perceptions. A total of 66 ninth-grade students participated in this Explanatory Sequential Mixed Design study. At the beginning of the study, an academic achievement test was applied, and then at the end of the study the same academic achievement test, plus an animation opinion scale, an animation rubric, and a structured interview form were applied to both groups. T-test, descriptive statistics, and content analysis were used for the data analysis. The results showed a significant difference in the post-test scores in favour of the students using the S3D animation. Both groups of students provided positive feedback concerning the use of animations in their course; however, they highlighted that S3D animations were more effective and enjoyable. Conclusively, this study is expected to contribute to the limited literature and open a new window for future studies. Additionally, this study may guide instructors towards increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of their instruction within courses that require visual input and scaffolding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.
Akıllı, M., & Seven, S. (2014). 3D bilgisayar modellerinin akademik başarıya ve uzamsal canlandırmaya etkisi: atom modelleri. Turkish Journal of Education, 3(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.181072.
Akkoyunlu, B., & Yılmaz, M. (2005). Türetimci çoklu öğrenme kuramı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 9–18.
Alam, G. M., Oloruntegbe, O. K., Oluwatelure, A. T., Alake, E. M., & Ayeni, A. E. (2010). Is 3D just an addition of 1 to 2 or is it more enhancing than 2D visualizations? Scientific Research and Essays, 5(12), 1536–1539.
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Anastakis, D. J., Hamstra, S. J., & Matsumoto, E. D. (2000). Visual-spatial abilities in surgical training. The American Journal of Surgery, 179(6), 469–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(00)00397-4.
Barbalios, N., Ioannidou, I., Tzionas, P., & Paraskeuopoulos, S. (2013). A model supported interactive virtual environment for natural resource sharing in environmental education. Computers & Education, 62, 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.029.
Brandt, M. G., & Davies, E. T. (2006). Visual-spatial ability, learning modality and surgical knot tying. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 49(6), 412–416.
Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416848.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi elkitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum (7th ed.). Ankara: Pegem A Yayınları.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Istanbul: Pegem Atıf İndeksi.
Çelik, E. (2007). The effect of using computer aided animations to geography teaching skills of secondary education. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Marmara University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Department of Secondary Social Education & Geography Education, Turkey.
Çepni, S., Taş, E., & Köse, S. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students’ cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Computers in Education, 46(2), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.07.008.
Clarke, A. (2001). Designing computer-based learning materials. Aldershot: Gower.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Cui, D., Wilson, T. D., Rockhold, R. W., Lehman, M. N., & Lynch, J. C. (2016). Stereoscopic (3D) visualization improves medical student comprehension of head and neck vascular anatomy. The FASEB Journal, 30 (1_supplement), 570-7.
Curtain-Phillips, M. (1999). Math attack: How to reduce math anxiety in the classroom, at work and everyday personal use. Kearney: Morris.
Dale, E. (1969). Audio-visual methods in teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Daşdemir, İ., (2006). The effect of the use of animation on academic achievement and retention in elementary science lesson. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Atatürk University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Erzurum, Turkey.
Daşdemir, İ., & Doymuş, K. (2012). 8. sınıf kuvvet ve hareket ünitesinde animasyon kullanımının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına, öğrenilen bilgilerin kalıcılığına ve bilimsel süreç becerilerine etkisi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), 77–87.
Erdun, H. (1993). Turbo ve Borland C & Pascal ile grafik. İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım.
Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1976). Fennema-Sherman mathematics attitudes scales: Instruments designed to measure attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 7(5), 324–326.
Ferdig, R., Blank, J., Kratcoski, A., & Clements, R. (2015). Using stereoscopy to teach complex biological concepts. Advances in Physiology Education, 39(3), 205–208. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00034.2014.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publications.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
French, W. S. (1974). Two-dimensional and three-dimensional migration of model-experiment reflection profiles. Geophysics, 39(3), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1440426.
Goodchild, M. F., Yuan, M., & Cova, T. J. (2007). Towards a general theory of geographic representation in GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658810600965271.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2016). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Cengage Learning.
Green, S., & Salkind, N. (2013). Using SPSS for windows and Macintosh (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Günter, T., Demir, E. O., & Güner, T. A. (2011). Meslek yüksekokullarında temel kimya dersi için bilgisayar destekli aktif öğrenme yönteminin önemi. Yüksekögretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 1(3), 170–176. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2011.025.
Handal, B., & Herrington, A. (2003). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and curriculum reform. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 15(1), 59–69.
Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, pp. 641–668). New York: Longman.
Hirmas, D. R., Slocum, T., Halfen, A. F., White, T., Zautner, E., Atchley, P., & McDermott, D. (2014). Effects of seating location and stereoscopic display on learning outcomes in an introductory physical geography class. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(1), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.5408/12-362.1.
Howard, I. P., & Rogers, B. J. (1995). Binocular vision and stereopsis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hubber, P., Tytler, R., & Haslam, F. (2010). Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9154-9.
Jang, S., Vitale, J. M., Jyung, R. W., & Black, J. B. (2017). Direct manipulation is better than passive viewing for learning anatomy in a three-dimensional virtual reality environment. Computers & Education, 106, 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.009.
Korakakis, G., Pavlatou, E. A., Palyvos, J. A., & Spyrellis, N. (2009). 3D visualization types in multimedia applications for science learning: A case study for 8th grade students in Greece. Computers & Education, 52(2), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.011\.
Koşar, E., Yüksel, S., Özkılıç, R., Sarıtaş, M., Şentürk, A., & Çiğdem, H. (2005). Eğitim ortam tasarımı, araç-gereç ve materyal özellikleri. Ankara: Pegem A.
Krendl, K. A., & Clark, G. (1994). The impact of computers on learning: Research on in-school and out-of-school settings. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 5(2), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02948572.
Kulik, J. A. (2002). School mathematics and science programs benefit from instructional technology. United States National Science Foundation (NSF), National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), info brief NSF-03-301, Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED472100.pdf
Liu, Z., & Chai, Y. (2012). Web-based interactive animation for children’s safety education: From 2D to 3D. In A. Xie & X. Huang (Eds.), (Vol. 140, pp. 403–407). Berlin: Springer.
Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715–726.
McIntire, J. P., Havig, P. R., & Geiselman, E. E. (2014). Stereoscopic 3D displays and human performance: A comprehensive review. Displays, 35(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2013.10.004.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Ministry of National Education. (2018). Öğretim programlarını izleme ve değerlendirme sistemi (Monitoring and evaluation of curriculum system). Ankara: Ministry of National Education Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=336.
Pillay, H. (1998). Cognitive processes and strategies employed by children to learn spatial representations. Learning and Instruction, 8(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(97)00030-3.
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843–1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600718294.
Proctor, J. D., & Richardson, A. E. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of multimedia computer modules as enrichment exercises for introductory human geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098269708725408.
Remmele, M., Weiers, K., & Martens, A. (2015). Stereoscopic 3D's impact on constructing spatial hands-on representations. Computers & Education, 85, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.008.
Richards, D., & Taylor, M. (2015). A comparison of learning gains when using a 2D simulation tool versus a 3D virtual world: An experiment to find the right representation involving the marginal value theorem. Computers & Education, 86, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.009.
Roblyer, D., & Edwards, J. (2000). . Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Roche, S., Nabian, N., Kloeckl, K., & Ratti, C. (2012). Are ‘smart cities’ smart enough. In Proceedings of the 2012 GSDI global geospatial conference (pp. 215–235). New York ACM.
Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8.
Seel, P. B. (2010). Digital TV in 3D: A passing fad or the next step in the evolution of digital television? International Journal of Digital Television, 1(3), 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1386/jdtv.1.3.309_1.
Simoneau, J., Fortin, C., & Ferguson, R. J. (1987). Using 3-D industrial software in a teaching environment. In Proceedings of the Annual Mid-Year Meeting of the Engineering Design Graphics Division of the American Society for Engineering Education. Austin: Texas.
Şimşek, E., & Yücekaya, G. K. (2014). Dinamik geometri yazılımı ile öğretimin ilköğretim 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin uzamsal yeteneklerine etkisi. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 65–80.
Tankut, U. S. (2008). The effect of computer assisted instruction to academic success and continuity for the course of social studies in primary school 7th class. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çukurova University, Social Sciences Institute, Adana, Turkey.
Tytler, R., Peterson, S., & Prain, V. (2006). Picturing evaporation: Learning science literacy through a particle representation. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 52(1), 12–17.
Unver, E. (2006). Strategies for the transition to CAD based 3D design education. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 3(1-4), 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/16864360.2006.10738470.
Vlachos, P., & Kehagias, A. (2000). A computer algebra system and a new approach for teaching business calculus. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 7(2), 87–104.
Wu, C.-F., & Chiang, M.-C. (2013). Effectiveness of applying 2D static depictions and 3D animations to orthographic views learning in graphical course. Computers & Education, 63, 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.012.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Yünkül, E. (2014). The effect of instructional software developed according to multimedia design principles on students’ academic performances and attitudes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Balıkesir University, Institute of Social Sciences, Turkey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A. (Item analysis of the achievement test)
Appendix A. (Item analysis of the achievement test)
2015–2016 Academic Year Ninth Grade Geography Course 1. Semester 2. Written Exam - 16/12/2015
Question | Being Answered | Distinctiveness | Option | Being Answered | Double Point Double | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
– | – | – | A | 0.039 | −0.289 | −0.126 |
– | 0.768 | 0.654 | * B | 0.768 | 0.654 | 0.472 |
1 | – | – | C | 0.084 | −0.433 | −0.241 |
– | – | – | D | 0.081 | −0.464 | −0.255 |
– | – | – | E | 0.026 | −0.589 | −0.224 |
– | – | – | A | 0.285 | −0.548 | −0.412 |
– | – | – | B | 0.029 | −0.604 | −0.238 |
2 | – | – | C | 0.014 | −0.416 | −0.126 |
– | – | – | D | 0.041 | −0.444 | −0.197 |
– | 0.629 | 0.736 | * E | 0.629 | 0.736 | 0.576 |
– | – | – | A | 0.012 | −0.412 | −0.118 |
– | – | – | B | 0.041 | −0.513 | −0.227 |
3 | – | – | C | 0.130 | −0.615 | −0.387 |
– | 0.790 | 0.702 | * D | 0.790 | 0.702 | 0.497 |
– | – | – | E | 0.026 | −0.229 | −0.087 |
– | – | – | A | 0.220 | −0.374 | −0.267 |
– | – | – | B | 0.130 | −0.380 | −0.239 |
4 | 0.495 | 0.630 | * C | 0.495 | 0.630 | 0.503 |
– | – | – | D | 0.061 | −0.450 | −0.227 |
– | – | – | E | 0.086 | −0.042 | −0.023 |
– | – | – | A | 0.010 | −0.390 | −0.104 |
– | – | – | B | 0.077 | −0.368 | −0.199 |
5 | – | – | C | 0.016 | −0.395 | −0.126 |
– | 0.695 | 0.568 | * D | 0.695 | 0.568 | 0.432 |
– | – | – | E | 0.198 | −0.426 | −0.298 |
– | 0.458 | 0.543 | * A | 0.458 | 0.543 | 0.432 |
– | – | – | B | 0.291 | −0.478 | −0.361 |
6 | – | – | C | 0.026 | −0.180 | −0.068 |
– | – | – | D | 0.063 | −0.313 | −0.159 |
– | – | – | E | 0.159 | −0.002 | −0.001 |
– | – | – | A | 0.057 | −0.457 | −0.226 |
– | – | – | B | 0.016 | −0.235 | −0.075 |
7 | 0.764 | 0.590 | * C | 0.764 | 0.590 | 0.428 |
– | – | – | D | 0.094 | −0.262 | −0.151 |
– | – | – | E | 0.065 | −0.594 | −0.306 |
– | – | – | A | 0.071 | −0.477 | −0.252 |
– | 0.635 | 0.636 | * B | 0.635 | 0.636 | 0.496 |
8 | – | – | C | 0.061 | −0.325 | −0.164 |
– | – | – | D | 0.191 | −0.430 | −0.298 |
– | – | – | E | 0.039 | −0.186 | −0.081 |
– | – | – | A | 0.006 | −0.349 | −0.077 |
– | – | – | B | 0.041 | −0.357 | −0.158 |
9 | 0.778 | 0.557 | * C | 0.778 | 0.557 | 0.399 |
– | – | – | D | 0.136 | −0.483 | −0.307 |
– | – | – | E | 0.037 | −0.276 | −0.118 |
– | 0.585 | 0.799 | * A | 0.585 | 0.799 | 0.632 |
– | – | – | B | 0.071 | −0.440 | −0.232 |
10 | – | – | C | 0.077 | −0.461 | −0.250 |
– | – | – | D | 0.053 | −0.327 | −0.157 |
– | – | – | E | 0.212 | −0.504 | −0.358 |
1.1 Appendix B. (M3D & S3D Animation rubric)
Rubric for the Evaluation of the Learning Environment and Process Constructed by the Monoscopic 3-Dimensional (2D) and Stereoscopic 3-Dimensional Animations
High quality | Medium quality | Low quality | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | 2 | 1 | |||
The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was related to “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” unit. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was partly related to “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” unit. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was not related to “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” unit. | ☐ |
The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed reinforced my learning. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed partly reinforced my learning. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was not reinforced my learning. | ☐ |
The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed facilitated my learning. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed partly facilitated my learning. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was not facilitated my learning. | ☐ |
I was able to comprehend the content of the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed. | ☐ | I was able to partly comprehend the content of the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed. | ☐ | I was not able to comprehend the content of the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed. | ☐ |
The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed engaged my attention / aroused my interest towards the course. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed partly engaged my attention / aroused my interest towards the course. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was not engaged my attention / aroused my interest towards the course. | ☐ |
The duration of the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was sufficient for me to comprehend the subject. | ☐ | The duration of the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was partly sufficient for me to comprehend the subject. | ☐ | The duration of the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was not sufficient for me to comprehend the subject. | ☐ |
I was able to relate the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed with my daily life. | ☐ | I was able to partly relate the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed with my daily life. | ☐ | I was not able to relate the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed with my daily life. | ☐ |
The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was close to reality. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was partly close to reality. | ☐ | The monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was not close to reality. | ☐ |
The quality / legibility of the text used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was suitable. | ☐ | The quality / legibility of the text used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was partly suitable. | ☐ | The quality / legibility of the text used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was not suitable. | ☐ |
The colours used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed were coherent. | ☐ | The colours used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed were partly coherent. | ☐ | The colours used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed were not coherent. | ☐ |
The quality of the sound of the monoscopic 3D animation I viewed was high. | ☐ | The quality of the sound of the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was partly high. | ☐ | The quality of the sound of the monoscopic 3D animation I viewed was not high. | ☐ |
The sound used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was appropriate. | ☐ | The sound used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was partly appropriate. | ☐ | The sound used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed was not appropriate. | ☐ |
The graphics used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed were appropriate. | ☐ | The graphics used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed were partly appropriate. | ☐ | The graphics used in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed were not appropriate. | ☐ |
The image transitions in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed were appropriate. | ☐ | The image transitions in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed were partly appropriate. | ☐ | The image transitions in the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D animation I viewed were not appropriate. | ☐ |
1.1.1 Appendix C. (Student interview form)
Student Interview Form Intended for Monoscopic 3D (Dimensional) and Stereoscopic 3D (Dimensional) Animation and the Learning Environment
-
1)
Was it enjoyable to learn with the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D (dimensional) animation about “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” prepared for the geography course?
-
2)
Did the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D (dimensional) animation about “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” prepared for the geography course increase your motivation?
-
3)
Do you think that the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D (dimensional) animation about “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” prepared for the geography course contributed to your learning? Why?
-
4)
Do you think that learning the subject was easier thanks to the correlation between the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D (dimensional) animation about “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” prepared for the geography course and daily life?
-
5)
Do you think that the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D (dimensional) animation about “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” prepared for the geography course contributed to making more complex and difficult subjects easier to comprehend? Why? Explain.
-
6)
Do you think that the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D (dimensional) animation about “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” prepared for the geography course was helpful in converting abstract concepts into concrete ones?
-
7)
Could you write down the strengths and weaknesses of the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D (dimensional) animation about “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” prepared for the geography course?
-
8)
In which other courses do you think the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D (dimensional) animation about “The Shape and the Movements of the Earth” prepared for the geography course may be utilized?
-
9)
Would you like to be taught your future courses with the monoscopic 3D / stereoscopic 3D (dimensional) animations? Why? Explain.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Taştı, M.B., Avcı, Ü. Examination of using monoscopic three-dimensional (M3D) and stereoscopic three-dimensional (S3D) animation on students. Educ Inf Technol 25, 2765–2790 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10095-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10095-1