FLCARA: Frog Life Cycle Augmented Reality Game-Based Learning Application

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12785)


The increased ubiquity of technology in everyday life, as well as the value placed on technology skills, has resulted in increased use of technology in the classroom. STEM education has become a focal point in modern K-12 classrooms, with educators seeking ways to create technology-rich learning spaces. We propose that pedagogical design around Augmented Reality (AR) technology can be used to provide students with novel learning opportunities that take advantage of tangible printed materials and mobile technology that is readily available at home. As a learning resource, augmented reality (AR) has shown its versatility at all levels of education (C. H. Chen et al., 2015, T. Bratitsis et al., 2017, A. M. Amaia et al., 2016). In this paper, we present FLCARA; the Frog Life Cycle Augmented Reality Application, which presents the frog life cycle stages to students as a complete three-dimensional model placed in front of them. Using printed cards representing the various stages of the frog’s life cycle, the students organize the cards to reflect the correct order of the cycle and then use the application to check if the order is correct. The application’s design can be mapped easily onto other subjects, providing teachers with additional pedagogical tools to utilize in the classroom. The results of our initial study on the usability of the application are quite promising and reflect positively on this application’s usability for the intended educational purpose. Overall, 90% of our participants agree that the application is effective; they were satisfied with the application’s educational content (mean = 4.56, st dev = 0.76).


Augmented reality Educational application Science STEM 


  1. Akçayır, M., Okçe Akçayır, G.: Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: a systematic review of the literature (2017). Scholar
  2. American Association of School Administrators (AASA): Consortium for School Networking, and National School Boards Association. Leading the digital leap (2014). Accessed: July 10, 2020
  3. Anderson, T.R.: Bridging the educational research-teaching practice gap: the power of assessment. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 35(6), 471–477 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacca, J.; Baldiris, S.; Fabregat, R.; Graf, S.; Kinshuk, G.: Augmented Reality Trends in Education: A Systematic. Review of Research and Applications. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17, 133–149 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R.: How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education: National Research Council, 133. Retrieved from how-people-learn-brain-mind-experience-and-school-expanded-edition (2000)Google Scholar
  6. Cabero, J., García, F.: Realidad Aumentada. Tecnología Para La Formación; Síntesis: Madrid, Spain (2016)Google Scholar
  7. Cano, E.V., Sevillano-García, M.L.: Ubiquitous Educational Use of Mobile Digital Devices. A General and Comparative Study in Spanish and Latin America Higher Education. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 7,105–115 (2018)Google Scholar
  8. Churches, A.: Bloom’s digital taxonomy (2010)Google Scholar
  9. Diaz, C., Hincapié, M., Moreno, G.: How the Type of Content in Educative Augmented Reality Application Affects the Learning Experience. Procedia Comput. Sci. 75, 205– 212 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C.: Augmented Reality Teaching and Learning. In: Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D., Elen, J., Bishop, M.J. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 735–745. Springer, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  11. Fensham, P.J.: Science Education Policy-making: Eleven emerging issues (UNESCO) (2008).
  12. Forbes: “How Is Augmented Reality Being Used In Education?” (2019). Accessed May 2020Google Scholar
  13. Fortus, D., Vedder-Weiss, D.: Measuring students’ continuing motivation for science learning. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 51(4), 497–522 (2014). Scholar
  14. Hanna, N., Richards, D., Jacobson, M. J.: Academic performance in a 3D virtual learning environment: different learning types vs. different class types. In Pacific Rim Knowledge Acquisition Workshop (pp. 1–15). Springer, Cham, December 2014Google Scholar
  15. Li, J., van der Spek, E., Hu, J., Feijs, L.: See Me Roar. Abstr. Publ. Annu. Symp. Comput. Interact. Play - CHI Play '17 Ext. Abstr., no. October, pp. 345–351 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, L., Adams, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., Hall, C.: NMCHorizon Report: 2016Higher Education Edition; The New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2016.
  17. Seo, J., Kim, N., Kim, G.J.: Designing interactions for augmented reality based educational contents. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 3942, 1188–1197 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Office of Educational Technology, United States of America, 2016, Section 1: Engaging and Empowering Learning Through Technology., Accessed 16 July 2020
  19. Park, B., Flowerday, T., Brünken, R.: Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Comput. Hum. Behav., 267–278 (2015).
  20. Petrov, P.D., Atanasova, T.V.: The Effect of Augmented Reality on Students’ Learning Performance in Stem Education. Information 11(4), 209 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freitas, R., Campos, P.: SMART: a System of Augmented Reality for Teaching 2nd grade students. In: Proc.of BCS-HCI ’08, vol. 2, pp. 27–30 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. Radu, I., MacIntyre, B., Lourenco, S.: Children’s crosshair and finger interactions in handheld Augmented Reality: Relationships between usability and child development. In: Proceedings of The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 288–298. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  23. Reardon, C.: More than toys—Gamer affirmative therapy. Social Work Today, 15(3), 10 (2015).
  24. Radu: Why should my students use AR? A comparative review of the educational impacts of augmented-reality. ISMAR 2012 - 11th IEEE Int. Symp. Mix. Augment. Real. 2012, Sci. Technol. Pap., pp. 313–314 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. Sotiriou, M., CH Tong, V., Standen, A.: Shaping Higher Education with Students–ways to connect Research and Teaching, p. 346. UCL Press (2018)Google Scholar
  26. Shoukry, L., Sturm, C., Galal-Edeen, G.H.: Pre-MEGa: A Proposed Framework for the Design and Evaluation of Preschoolers’ Mobile Educational Games. In: Sobh, T., Elleithy, K. (eds.) Innovations and Advances in Computing, Informatics, Systems Sciences, Networking and Engineering. LNEE, vol. 313, pp. 385–390. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  27. Villalustre, L.; Del Moral, M.E. Expeirencias Interactivas Con Realidad Aumentada En Las Aulas; Octaedro: Barcelona, Spain (2017)Google Scholar
  28. Yáñez-Luna, J.C., Arias-Oliva, M.: M-learning: ttechnological acceptance of mobile devices in online learning. Tecnol. Cienc. Educ. 10, 13–34 (2018)Google Scholar
  29. Zhu, Q., Tang, Y.: Design of an augmented reality teaching system for FPGA experimental instruction. In: 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on Teaching Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE), pp. 35–38 (2017). ISSN 2470–6698Google Scholar
  30. 3C Institute: Serious games (2015). Accessed 3 July 2020

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information TechnologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of Journalism and CommunicationCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations