Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison and evaluation of augmented reality technologies for designing interactive materials

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although there has been a growing interest in the use and adoption of augmented reality (AR) technology in educational institutions recently, there is limited research dwelling on pre-service teachers’ technical and pedagogical preparation for AR technology. This study investigated teacher candidates’ perceptions concerning their learning and immersive experiences of different AR tools and compared these tools on seven dimensions, i.e., intention to use, multimedia, satisfaction, usefulness, self-efficacy, effectiveness, and system quality. A mixed method approach was adopted to analyze qualitative and quantitative data gathered from 55 pre-service teachers who attended a five-day online seminar program about AR tools. The findings showed that teachers developed positive views for all AR tools but some tools like CoSpaces, Fectar, and Blippar were found to be significantly superior in all dimensions to Wikitude, UniteAR, and Unity & Vuforia. The findings also revealed that AR tools presented both affordances and challenges for instructional learning environments. While affordances included materializing and visualizing the abstract concepts, providing permanent learning, and catching interest, challenges consisted of unaffordable applications, limited educational content, internet connectivity issues, and limited access to devices. Overall, the findings of the current study have offered significant implications for designing and preparing AR-enhanced interactive course materials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Akçayır, M., Akçayır, G., Pektaş, H. M., & Ocak, M. A. (2016). Augmented reality in science laboratories: The effects of augmented reality on university students’ laboratory skills and attitudes toward science laboratories. Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 334–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.054

  • Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: a systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002.

  • Arici, F., & Yilmaz, M. (2022). An examination of the effectiveness of problem-based learning method supported by augmented reality in science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12752.

  • Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.963459.

  • Baabdullah, A. M., Alsulaimani, A. A., Allamnakhrah, A., Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2022). Usage of augmented reality (AR) and development of e-learning outcomes: an empirical evaluation of students’ e-learning experience. Computers & Education, 177, 104383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104383.

  • Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk (2014). Augmented reality Trends in Education: a systematic review of Research and Applications. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133–149.

  • Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., & Pomerantz, J. (2018). NMC Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition.

  • Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Giesinger, H., C., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition.

  • Belda-Medina, J., & Calvo-Ferrer, J. R. (2022). Integrating augmented reality in language learning: pre-service teachers’ digital competence and attitudes through the TPACK framework. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11123-3.

  • Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented reality in education – cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International, 51(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2014.889400.

  • Buchner, J., Buntins, K., & Kerres, M. (2022). The impact of augmented reality on cognitive load and performance: a systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12617.

  • Cai, S., Wang, X., & Chiang, F. K. (2014). A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.018.

  • Cakir, R., & Korkmaz, O. (2019). The effectiveness of augmented reality environments on individuals with special education needs. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1631–1659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9848-6.

  • Çetin, H., & Ulusoy, M. (2022). The effect of augmented reality-based reading environments on retelling skills: formative experiment. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11415-8.

  • Chang, K. E., Chang, C. T., Hou, H. T., Sung, Y. T., Chao, H. L., & Lee, C. M. (2014). Development and behavioral pattern analysis of a mobile guide system with augmented reality for painting appreciation instruction in an art museum. Computers & Education, 71, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.022.

  • Chang, R. C., Chung, L. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2016). Developing an interactive augmented reality system as a complement to plant education and comparing its effectiveness with video learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1245–1264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.982131.

  • Chang, Y. L., Hou, H. T., Pan, C. Y., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Apply an augmented reality in a Mobile Guidance to increase sense of place for Heritage Places. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 166–178.

  • Chen, C. M., & Tsai, Y. N. (2012). Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools. Computers & Education, 59(2), 638–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.001.

  • Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). Students’ online interactive patterns in augmented reality-based inquiry activities. Computers & Education, 78, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.05.006.

  • Chiang, T. H., Yang, S. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). 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.

  • Chin, K. Y., Kao, Y. C., & Wang, C. S. (2020). Effects of augmented reality technology in a mobile touring system on university students’ learning performance and interest. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5841.

  • Chin, K. Y., & Wang, C. S. (2021). Effects of augmented reality technology in a mobile touring system on University Students’ learning performance and interest. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 27–42.

  • Chookaew, S., Howimanporn, S., Sootkaneung, W., & Wongwatkit, C. (2017). Motivating Pre-service Teachers with Augmented Reality to Developing Instructional Materials through Project-Based Learning Approach. 2017 6th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), 780–784. https://doi.org/10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2017.106

  • Chu, Y. B. (2022). A mobile augmented reality system to conduct electrical machines laboratory for undergraduate engineering students during the COVID pandemic. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10987-9.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013a). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013b). Research Design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications, Inc.

  • Diacopoulos, M. M., & Crompton, H. (2020). A systematic review of mobile learning in social studies. Computers & Education, 154, 103911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103911.

  • Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1.

  • European Commission (2020, September 30). Communication From the Commission to The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of The Regions, Digital Education Action Plan 2021–2027, Resetting Education and Training for The Digital Age. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0624

  • Faridi, H., Tuli, N., Mantri, A., Singh, G., & Gargrish, S. (2021). A framework utilizing augmented reality to improve critical thinking ability and learning gain of the students in physics. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22342.

  • Furió, D., González-Gancedo, S., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Costa, M. (2013). The effects of the size and weight of a mobile device on an educational game. Computers & Education, 64, 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.015.

  • Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019). Meta-analysis of the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review, 27, 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001.

  • Gavish, N., Gutiérrez, T., Webel, S., Rodríguez, J., Peveri, M., Bockholt, U., & Tecchia, F. (2015). Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 778–798. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.815221.

  • Goundar, M. S., & Kumar, B. A. (2022). The use of mobile learning applications in higher education institutes. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 1213–1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10611-2.

  • Granić, A. (2022). Educational Technology Adoption: a systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9725–9744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10951-7.

  • Gregorčič, T., & Torkar, G. (2022). Using the structure-behavior-function model in conjunction with augmented reality helps students understand the complexity of the circulatory system. Advances in Physiology Education. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00015.2022.

  • Hadi, S. H., Permanasari, A. E., Hartanto, R., Sakkinah, I. S., Sholihin, M., Sari, R. C., & Haniffa, R. (2022). Developing augmented reality-based learning media and users’ intention to use it for teaching accounting ethics. Education and Information Technologies, 27(1), 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10531-1.

  • Hamilton, D., McKechnie, J., Edgerton, E., & Wilson, C. (2021). Immersive virtual reality as a pedagogical tool in education: a systematic literature review of quantitative learning outcomes and experimental design. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00169-2.

  • Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: a systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002.

  • Kerr, J., & Lawson, G. (2020). Augmented reality in Design Education: Landscape Architecture Studies as AR Experience. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(1), 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12227.

  • Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

  • Koçak, Ö., Yılmaz, R. M., Küçük, S., & Göktaş, Y. (2019). The Educational potential of augmented reality technology: experiences of Instructional Designers and Practitioners. Journal of Education and Future, 15, 17–36. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.396286.

  • Kucuk, S., Kapakin, S., & Goktas, Y. (2015). Medical faculty students’ views on anatomy learning via mobile augmented reality technology. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 5(3), 316–323. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2015.133.

  • Laurens-Arredondo, L. (2022). Mobile augmented reality adapted to the ARCS model of motivation: a case study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10933-9.

  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Sage Publications.

  • Nikimaleki, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022). Effects of a collaborative AR-enhanced learning environment on learning gains and technology implementation beliefs: evidence from a graduate teacher training course. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(3), 758–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12646.

  • Okumuş, A. (2021). Pre-Service EFL Teachers’ Perceptions and Self-Efficacy of Augmented Reality Technology: A Mixed-Method Study [Master Thesis]. Middle East Technical University.

  • Pelletier, K., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Robert, J., Arbino, N., Al-Freih, M., Dickson-Deane, C., Guevara, C., Koster, L., Sanchez-Mendiola, M., Bessette, S., L., & Stine, J. (2022). 2022 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report Teaching and Learning Edition. EDUCAUSE. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/221033/.

  • Pitsikalis, S., Lasica, I. E., Kostas, A., & Vitsilaki, C. (2022). Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century. In T. Bratitsis, I.-A. Chounta, I. Geraniou, K. Karpouzis, E. Petelos, & I. Voulgari (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Integrating ICTs in STEAM Education (pp. 153–175). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3861-9.ch008

  • Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533–1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0747-y.

  • Rasimah, C. M. Y., Ahmad, A., & Zaman, H. B. (2011). Evaluation of user acceptance of mixed reality technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.899.

  • Rauschnabel, P. A., Felix, R., Hinsch, C., Shahab, H., & Alt, F. (2022). What is XR? Towards a Framework for Augmented and virtual reality. Computers in Human Behavior, 133, 107289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107289.

  • Sáez-López, J. M., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., González-Calero, J. A., & Gómez Carrasco, C. J. (2020). Augmented reality in Higher Education: an evaluation program in initial teacher training. Education Sciences, 10(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020026.

  • Salleh, A., Phon, D. N. E., Ernawan, F., Ismail, A. Y., & Adi, P. W. (2021). Teacher’s ICT Skills and Readiness of Integrating Augmented Reality in Education. 2021 5th International Conference on Informatics and Computational Sciences (ICICoS), 205–209. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICoS53627.2021.9651904

  • Sally Wu, Y. H., & Alan Hung, S. T. (2022). The Effects of virtual reality infused instruction on Elementary School Students’ English-Speaking performance, willingness to Communicate, and learning autonomy. Journal of Educational Computing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211068207.

  • Sari, U., Çelik, H., Pektaş, H. M., & Yalçın, S. (2022). Effects of STEM-focused Arduino practical activities on problem-solving and entrepreneurship skills. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 135–149. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7293.

  • Smarkola, C. (2008). Efficacy of a planned behavior model: beliefs that contribute to computer usage intentions of student teachers and experienced teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 1196–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.005.

  • Statista (2020, September 22). Forecasted expenditure on advanced education technology worldwide from 2018 to 2025. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1085930/edtech-expenditure-forecast/

  • Turhan, M. E., Metin, M., & Ezberci Çevik, E. (2022). A content analysis of studies published in the field of augmented reality in Education. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 5(1), 243–262. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.925340.

  • Ustun, A. B., Simsek, E., Karaoglan-Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2022). The effects of AR-enhanced English Language Learning experience on students’ attitudes, self-efficacy and motivation. TechTrends, 66(5), 798–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00757-2.

  • Uygur, M., Yanpar, T., & Akay, C. (2018). Analyzing the views of Pre-Service Teachers on the use of augmented reality applications in Education. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 849–860. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.4.849.

  • Wang, H. Y., & Sun, J. C. Y. (2021). Real-time virtual reality co-creation: collective intelligence and consciousness for student engagement and focused attention within online communities. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1928711.

  • Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024.

  • Yilmaz, R. M., & Baydas, O. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ behavioral intention to make educational animated movies and their experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey

    Mustafa Sat, Fatih Ilhan & Erman Yukselturk

Authors
  1. Mustafa Sat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fatih Ilhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erman Yukselturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Sat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1 Online Survey

Appendix 1 Online Survey

 

Definitely Disagree

Disagree

Uncertain

Agree

Definitely Agree

Intention to Use

     

I would like textbooks to be supported with THIS AR TOOL in the future.

     

I would like THIS AR TOOL to be implemented in our lessons in the future.

     

In the future, I would like to use THIS AR TOOL application as an individual learning tool.

     

Multimedia

     

I like the use of sounds in THIS AR TOOL.

     

I like the use of images in THIS AR TOOL.

     

I liked the use of 3D animated videos in THIS AR TOOL.

     

Satisfaction

     

I am satisfied with the multimedia (image, audio, video) applications in THIS AR TOOL.

     

I am satisfied with the use of materials created by THIS AR TOOL during class hours.

     

I am pleased to work with the course materials created with THIS AR TOOL outside of class hours.

     

Usefulness

     

Implementation of THIS AR TOOL created a sense of reality.

     

Implementation of THIS AR TOOL made the subject concrete.

     

Implementation of THIS AR TOOL has been useful in my individual works.

     

Implementation of THIS AR TOOL increased my interest in the course.

     

Implementation of THIS AR TOOL provided a flexible (anytime, anywhere access) learning environment.

     

Self-Efficacy

     

I can easily use the particular software/applications required for THIS AR TOOL.

     

It doesn’t bother me to use THIS AR TOOL while studying.

     

I can manage the technical features (custom applications, internet connection, etc.) required for THIS AR TOOL.

     

Effectiveness

     

I believe THIS AR TOOL has improved my learning performance.

     

I believe THIS AR TOOL provides effective and efficient learning.

     

I believe THIS AR TOOL has increased my motivation to learn.

     

System Quality

     

I am satisfied with the interaction that THIS AR TOOL provides with the course content.

     

I am satisfied with the features of the specific software/applications used for THIS AR TOOL.

     

I had no problem with the internet connection while using THIS AR TOOL.

     

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sat, M., Ilhan, F. & Yukselturk, E. Comparison and evaluation of augmented reality technologies for designing interactive materials. Educ Inf Technol 28, 11545–11567 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11646-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11646-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation