Filippos Tzortzoglou
ABSTRACT
Augmented Reality (AR) is an emerging technology with measurable benefits for students and teachers. However, it is sometimes difficult to use, especially for young-aged users, which may negatively affect learning experience. Many researchers agree that to achieve the technology’s unique benefits, AR designs should take into consideration students’ abilities and limitations that derive from their physical and cognitive development. In the case of primary school students (aged 6-12), the need for appropriately designed AR experiences is higher, as children’s abilities are still developing at this period of their lives. The present research aims to understand how children’s level of motor and spatial abilities relate to the use of certain interaction types of mobile AR. Students’ cognitive scores will be correlated with usability metrics and performance data, while using four different interaction types in a specially designed mobile AR game application. The results may lead to the formation of a set of guidelines for designing usable mobile AR applications that comply with primary students’ cognitive development.
- Miki Baumgarten. 2003. Kids and the internet: a developmental summary. Computers in Entertainment (CIE) 1, 1 (2003).Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tilde Bekker and Alissa N Antle. 2011. Developmentally situated design (DSD) making theoretical knowledge accessible to designers of children’s technology. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2531–2540. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34291-2_7Google ScholarDigital Library
- Natacha Borgers, Joop Hox, and Dirk Sikkel. 2003. Response Quality in Survey Research with Children and Adolescents: The Effect of Labeled Response Options and Vague Quantifiers. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 15, 1 (03 2003), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/15.1.83 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article-pdf/15/1/83/1969932/150083.pdfGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Amy Bruckman and Alisa Bandlow. 2002. HCI for Kids. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Kuo-En Chang, Chia-Tzu Chang, Huei-Tse Hou, Yao-Ting Sung, Huei-Lin Chao, and Cheng-Ming Lee. 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 (2014), 185–197.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kun-Hung Cheng and Chin-Chung Tsai. 2013. Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of science education and technology 22 (2013), 449–462.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Phil Diegmann, Manuel Schmidt-Kraepelin, Sven Eynden, and Dirk Basten. 2015. Predicate Path Expressions. In Proceedings of Wirtschaftsinformatik(105). https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2015/103Google Scholar
- Matt Dunleavy, Chris Dede, and Rebecca Mitchell. 2009. Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of science Education and Technology 18 (2009), 7–22.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert S Feldman. 2006. Development across the life span. Pearson Education New Zealand.Google Scholar
- David Furió, Santiago González-Gancedo, M-Carmen Juan, Ignacio Seguí, and Noemí Rando. 2013. Evaluation of learning outcomes using an educational iPhone game vs. traditional game. Computers & Education 64 (2013), 1–23.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juan Garzón, Juan Pavón, and Silvia Baldiris. 2019. Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings. Virtual Reality 23, 4 (2019), 447–459.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nirit Gavish, Teresa Gutiérrez, Sabine Webel, Jorge Rodríguez, Matteo Peveri, Uli Bockholt, and Franco Tecchia. 2015. Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interactive Learning Environments 23, 6 (2015), 778–798.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Helene Gelderblom and Paula Kotzé. 2008. Designing technology for young children: what we can learn from theories of cognitive development. In Proceedings of the 2008 annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT research in developing countries: riding the wave of technology. 66–75.Google Scholar
- Feifei Liu, Katie Sherwin, and Raluka Budiu. 2012. UX Design for Children (Ages 3-12), 4th edition. Nielsen Norman Group.Google Scholar
- Derek Mak and Dan Nathan-Roberts. 2017. Design considerations for educational mobile apps for young children. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 61. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 1156–1160.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Danakorn Nincarean Eh Phon, Mohamad Bilal Ali, and Noor Dayana Abd Halim. 2015. Learning with augmented reality: Effects toward student with different spatial abilities. Advanced Science Letters 21, 7 (2015), 2200–2204.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Iulian Radu. 2014. Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and ubiquitous computing 18 (2014), 1533–1543.Google Scholar
- Iulian Radu and Blair MacIntyre. 2012. Using children’s developmental psychology to guide augmented-reality design and usability. In 2012 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 227–236.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Iulian Radu, Blair MacIntyre, and Stella Lourenco. 2016. Comparing children’s crosshair and finger interactions in handheld augmented reality: Relationships between usability and child development. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 288–298.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Janet C. Read. 2008. Validating the Fun Toolkit: An Instrument for Measuring Children’s Opinions of Technology. Cogn. Technol. Work 10, 2 (mar 2008), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-007-0069-9Google ScholarDigital Library
- Neha Tuli and Archana Mantri. 2021. Evaluating usability of mobile-based augmented reality learning environments for early childhood. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37, 9 (2021), 815–827.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Filippos Tzortzoglou and Alivisos Sofos. 2023. Evaluating the Usability of Mobile-Based Augmented Reality Applications for Education: A Systematic Review. In Research on E-Learning and ICT in Education : Technological, Pedagogical, and Instructional Perspectives, Tharrenos Bratitsis (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 105–135.Google Scholar
- Peta Wyeth and Helen C Purchase. 2003. Using developmental theories to inform the design of technology for children. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Interaction design and children. 93–100.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Exploring the usability of mobile augmented reality interactions in relation with primary school students' level of cognitive abilities.
Recommendations
Exploring Expressive Augmented Reality: The FingAR Puppet System for Social Pretend Play
CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsWe present "FingAR Puppet", an Augmented Reality (AR) system enhancing social pretend play by young children. Unlike goal-oriented AR systems that augment reality with informative instructions, FingAR Puppet helps children associate expressive ...
Augmented reality as perceptual reality
VSMM'06: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Interactive Technologies and Sociotechnical SystemsAs shown in Paul Milgram et al’s Reality-Virtuality Continuum (1994), Augmented Reality occupies a very unique status in the spectrum of Mixed Reality. Unlike Virtual Reality, which is completely made up of the virtual and has been the most important ...
Haptics in Augmented Reality
ICMCS '99: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems - Volume 2An augmented reality system merges synthetic sensory information into a user's perception of a three-dimensional environment. An important performance goal for an augmented reality system is that the user perceives a single seamless environment. In most ...
Comments