Advertisement

Influence of Pre-service and In-service Teachers’ Gender and Experience on the Acceptance of AR Technology

  • Fangjing Ning
  • Yang Yang
  • Tingting Zhu
  • Tseden-Ish Bayarmaa
  • Ning MaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)

Abstract

Augmented reality has received more and more attention by researchers in the field of education. Because of its rich visual presentations and various user interaction, AR leaning environment has great potential for learning activities. This study used mature UTAUT questionnaires to investigate pre-service teachers and in-service teachers’ acceptance of AR technology. The effective participants included 70 pre-service and 50 in-service teachers. Through data analysis of effective participants from the perspectives of gender and experience, we found that 1) Pre-service teachers are more sensitive to social influences than in-service teachers are. For all the participants, 2) Male teachers are more sensitive to social influences than females. 3) Effort expectancy has a negative impact on AR behavioral intention of high-experience teachers. Based on the research results, specific discussions and suggestions are proposed for different teacher groups to improve the technical acceptance of AR in teaching.

Keywords

augmented reality UTAUT gender experience 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1] Akçayır, M., Akçayır, G.: Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. [2] Cai S., Chiang F.K., Sun Y., Lin, C., Lee, J.J.: Applications of augmented reality-based natural interactive learning in magnetic field instruction. Interactive Learning Environments 25(6):778–791 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. [3] Yang, Y., Ning F.J., Zhu T.T., BAYARMAA, T., Ma, N.: The Behavioral intentions of K-12 Teachers in Adopting Augmented Reality Applications. In: International Conference on Education and E-Learning. Singapore (2018)Google Scholar
  4. [4] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Mis Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. [5] Lakhal, Sawsen, Khechine, Hager, Pascot, Daniel.: Student behavioural intentions to use desktop video conferencing in a;distance course: integration of autonomy to the utaut model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(2), 93–121 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. [6] Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., Macintyre, B.: Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics & Applications, 21(6), 34–47 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. [7] Azuma, R.T.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. [8] Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., Ivkovic, M.: Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools & Applications, 51(1), 341–377 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. [9] Bruns, E., Brombach, B., Zeidler, T., Bimber, O.: Enabling mobile phones to support large-scale museum guidance. IEEE Multimedia, 14(2), 16–25 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. [10] Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., Mitchell, R.: Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(1), 7–22 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. [11] Huang, Y., Liu, Y., Wang, Y.: AR-View: An augmented reality device for digital reconstruction of Yuangmingyuan. In 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality-Arts, Media and Humanities (pp. 3–7).IEEE. (2009)Google Scholar
  12. [12] Miyashita, T., Meier, P., Tachikawa, T., Orlic, S., Eble, T., Scholz, V., Gapel, A., Gerl, O., Arnaudov, S., Lieberknecht, S.: An Augmented Reality museum guide. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (pp. 103–106). IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  13. [13] Wu, H.K., Lee, W.Y., Chang, H.Y., Liang, J. C.: Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62(2), 41–49 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. [14] Cheng, K.H., Tsai, C.C.: Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 22(4), 449–462 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. [15] Ibáñez, M.B., Di Serio, A., Villarán-Molina, D., Kloos, C.D.: Augmented Reality-Based Simulators as Discovery Learning Tools: An Empirical Study. IEEE Trans. Education, 58(3), 208–213 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. [16] Ruiz-Ariza, A., Casuso, R.A., Suarez-Manzano, S., Martínez-López, E.J.: Effect of augmented reality game Pokémon GO on cognitive performance and emotional intelligence in adolescent young. Computers & Education, 116, 49–63 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. [17] Chiang, T.H.C., Yang, S.J.H., Hwang, G.J.: An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352–365 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. [18] Lu, S.J., Liu, Y.C.: Integrating augmented reality technology to enhance children’s learning in marine education. Environmental Education Research, 21(4), 525–541 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. [19] Wang, Y.S., Wu, M.C., Wang, H.Y.: Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British journal of educational technology, 40(1), 92–118 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. [20] Cheng, Y.S., Yu, T.F., Huang, C.F., Yu, C., Yu, C.C.: The comparison of three major occupations for user acceptance of information technology: applying the UTAUT model. IBusiness, 3(02), 147 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. [21] Wong, K.T., Teo, T., Russo, S.: Interactive whiteboard acceptance: applicability of the utaut model to student teachers. Asia-pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 1–10 (2013).Google Scholar
  22. [22] Šumak, B., Šorgo, A.: The acceptance and use of interactive whiteboards among teachers: Differences in UTAUT determinants between pre-and post-adopters. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 602–620 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. [23] Workman, M.: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Measure [Database record]. Retrieved from PsycTESTS. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t34374-000 (2014)
  24. [24] Birch, A., & Irvine, V.: Preservice teachers’ acceptance of ICT integration in the classroom: Applying the UTAUT model. Educational Media International, 46(4), 295–315 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fangjing Ning
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yang Yang
    • 1
  • Tingting Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tseden-Ish Bayarmaa
    • 1
  • Ning Ma
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of EducationBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Future EducationBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations