Comparing learning geometry using a tablet to head-mounted display augmented reality: How and when dimensionality matters

IF 4.8 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Candace Walkington, Mitchell J. Nathan, Julianna Washington, Jonathan Hunnicutt, Taylor Darwin, LeaAnne Daughrity, Kelsey Schenck
{"title":"Comparing learning geometry using a tablet to head-mounted display augmented reality: How and when dimensionality matters","authors":"Candace Walkington, Mitchell J. Nathan, Julianna Washington, Jonathan Hunnicutt, Taylor Darwin, LeaAnne Daughrity, Kelsey Schenck","doi":"10.1007/s10639-024-13008-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Augmented Reality (AR) technologies allow for holograms to be layered over the real-world, “augmenting” human vision by adding technical information or illustrations onto 3D space. Although AR-based applications are showing positive effects in many systematic reviews and meta-analyses, well-designed, rigorous studies with strong control conditions are lacking. Further, many experimental studies lack process data to illuminate what is happening as students engage with AR. In this pre-registered study, we conducted an experiment where <i>n</i> = 120 high school students were assigned to reason about identical geometry simulations collaboratively either using tablets or AR head‐mounted displays (HMDs). We look at their learning and how it was impacted by the dimensionality (2D or 3D) of the shapes they explored, as well as how they engaged with virtual objects using gestures and epistemic actions. AR HMDs were more effective for students getting an initial sense of 3D shapes, but less effective for 2D shapes. For gaining insights into the workings of shapes and formulating justifications of conjectures, we see no evidence AR is more effective, and trends indicating AR may be detrimental to eliciting generalizations. Further, process data showed that students using tablets are more likely to manipulate the geometric shapes in the simulations, while students using the AR HMDs are more likely to use dynamic gestures that simulate these manipulations, which are less constrained by the objects’ actual properties. Implications for the future design and use of AR in education are given.</p>","PeriodicalId":51494,"journal":{"name":"Education and Information Technologies","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education and Information Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13008-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) technologies allow for holograms to be layered over the real-world, “augmenting” human vision by adding technical information or illustrations onto 3D space. Although AR-based applications are showing positive effects in many systematic reviews and meta-analyses, well-designed, rigorous studies with strong control conditions are lacking. Further, many experimental studies lack process data to illuminate what is happening as students engage with AR. In this pre-registered study, we conducted an experiment where n = 120 high school students were assigned to reason about identical geometry simulations collaboratively either using tablets or AR head‐mounted displays (HMDs). We look at their learning and how it was impacted by the dimensionality (2D or 3D) of the shapes they explored, as well as how they engaged with virtual objects using gestures and epistemic actions. AR HMDs were more effective for students getting an initial sense of 3D shapes, but less effective for 2D shapes. For gaining insights into the workings of shapes and formulating justifications of conjectures, we see no evidence AR is more effective, and trends indicating AR may be detrimental to eliciting generalizations. Further, process data showed that students using tablets are more likely to manipulate the geometric shapes in the simulations, while students using the AR HMDs are more likely to use dynamic gestures that simulate these manipulations, which are less constrained by the objects’ actual properties. Implications for the future design and use of AR in education are given.

Abstract Image

比较使用平板电脑和头戴式显示器增强现实技术学习几何:维度如何以及何时重要
增强现实(AR)技术可将全息图像分层覆盖在现实世界中,通过在三维空间中添加技术信息或插图来 "增强 "人类视觉。尽管在许多系统综述和荟萃分析中,基于 AR 的应用都显示出了积极的效果,但仍缺乏设计良好、严格的研究和强有力的控制条件。此外,许多实验研究缺乏过程数据,无法说明学生在使用 AR 时发生了什么。在这项预先注册的研究中,我们进行了一项实验,让 n = 120 名高中生使用平板电脑或 AR 头戴式显示器(HMD)协作推理相同的几何模拟。我们研究了他们的学习情况,以及他们所探索的形状的维度(2D 或 3D )对学习的影响,以及他们如何使用手势和认识行动与虚拟对象打交道。AR HMD 对于学生初步感知三维图形更为有效,但对于二维图形则效果较差。对于深入了解形状的工作原理和提出猜想的理由,我们没有发现 AR 更有效的证据,而且有趋势表明 AR 可能不利于激发概括能力。此外,过程数据显示,使用平板电脑的学生更有可能在模拟中操作几何图形,而使用 AR HMD 的学生则更有可能使用动态手势来模拟这些操作,因为动态手势受物体实际属性的限制较少。这对未来教育领域中 AR 的设计和使用具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Education and Information Technologies
Education and Information Technologies EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
12.70%
发文量
610
期刊介绍: The Journal of Education and Information Technologies (EAIT) is a platform for the range of debates and issues in the field of Computing Education as well as the many uses of information and communication technology (ICT) across many educational subjects and sectors. It probes the use of computing to improve education and learning in a variety of settings, platforms and environments. The journal aims to provide perspectives at all levels, from the micro level of specific pedagogical approaches in Computing Education and applications or instances of use in classrooms, to macro concerns of national policies and major projects; from pre-school classes to adults in tertiary institutions; from teachers and administrators to researchers and designers; from institutions to online and lifelong learning. The journal is embedded in the research and practice of professionals within the contemporary global context and its breadth and scope encourage debate on fundamental issues at all levels and from different research paradigms and learning theories. The journal does not proselytize on behalf of the technologies (whether they be mobile, desktop, interactive, virtual, games-based or learning management systems) but rather provokes debate on all the complex relationships within and between computing and education, whether they are in informal or formal settings. It probes state of the art technologies in Computing Education and it also considers the design and evaluation of digital educational artefacts.  The journal aims to maintain and expand its international standing by careful selection on merit of the papers submitted, thus providing a credible ongoing forum for debate and scholarly discourse. Special Issues are occasionally published to cover particular issues in depth. EAIT invites readers to submit papers that draw inferences, probe theory and create new knowledge that informs practice, policy and scholarship. Readers are also invited to comment and reflect upon the argument and opinions published. EAIT is the official journal of the Technical Committee on Education of the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) in partnership with UNESCO.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信