Inherent Advantages of Augmented Reality for K 12 Education A Review of Augmented Reality Learning Experiences Marc Ericson C. Santos, Angie Chen, Takafumi Taketomi, Goshiro Yamamoto, Jun Miyazaki, Hirokazu Kato Interactive Media Design Laboratory Graduate School of Information Science Nara Institute of Science and Technology Nara, Japan {chavez-s, chen-a, takafumi-t, goshiro, miyazaki, kato}@is.naist.jp
Presentation has three parts. 1. Report a survey of Augmented Reality Learning Experiences (ARLEs.) Objectives Method Results 2. Propose a participatory design model for ARLEs. 3. Illustrate the use of participatory design. Developing AR x-ray interaction Paper-prototyping for authoring AR content
Defining AR learning experiences imposes logical uses in education. Augmented Reality Learning Experience (ARLE) any form of personal experience designed to improve knowledge, facilitated by integrating virtual elements onto a real environment. Necessary? Beneficial? Cost-effective? Augmented Reality Interactions Educational Interaction Actual Classroom Use* *Picture from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/194569/public-schools-to-give-priority-to-early-enrollees
Conduct a review to understand AR interactions in education. 1. To find empirical proof that AR interactions can be beneficial to learning 2. To observe trends in implementation and evaluation that led to good interfaces
Approach for the survey Search digital libraries Filter using criteria Gather data IEEE digital library ACM digital library Learning technology publications Prototype K-12 Education Availability publication details prototype description use of AR user study Analysis and synthesis
We found 87 ARLE articles. Type of Publication Is it IEEE-Indexed? 72 15 Journal Conference 26 61 Yes No Computers and Education IEEE Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education IEEE Virtual Reality IEEE Int'l Symp. on Mixed and Augmented Reality IEEE Advanced Learning Technologies 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Number of Articles
There are five types of evaluation methods. User Study 11 39 37 Performance Usability None 1. Performance metrics Performance test Self-reported learning 2. Questionnaires Motivation Presence Usability 3. Behavior observation 4. Focused-group discussion 5. Heuristic evaluation Teacher evaluation Expert evaluation
Reported effect sizes vary widely. Ref Content Display Participants (Sample) Effect Size [3] English Handheld Grade school, teachers (67) Large [5] Solar system HMD High school (40) Large [6] Kinematics graphs Desktop High school (80) Large [7] Elastic collision Handheld University students (36) Large [4] Spatial ability training Desktop University students (49) Moderate to Large [2] Masterpieces of Renaissance Desktop High school (69) Moderate to Large [8] English Desktop Grade school (Six classes) Small to Moderate [9] Math game Handheld Grade school (123) No effect [10] Eulerian and Hamilton Graphs Projector University students (20) No effect [11] Spatial ability training HMD High school (215) No effect [12] Library skills Desktop Grade school (116) Small Negative
ARLEs (AR annotation) apply multimedia learning theory. Multimedia Learning Theory [13] (Learning from words and pictures) AR Annotation (Learning from virtual words and real objects) Multimedia material* Teacher s words + Real AR Annotation If we substitute: Words virtual symbols (words, numbers, arrows) Pictures real objects; Then, all of the empirically tested principles of Multimedia Learning Theory applies to AR annotation. *Picture from http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/earth3.htm
ARLEs apply situated visualization. Situated Learning Theory [14] Learning is situated in a specific context and embedded within a particular social and physical environment. Virtual apple + Real Fridge Virtual apple + Picture book* More cues Virtual apple *Picture from http://lifeonthecutoff.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/kerplunk/
ARLEs apply vision-haptic visualization. Animate Vision Theory [15] Vision data and haptic data are coded in the brain together. Vision but poor haptic Vision and better haptic [4]
AR Non-AR World annotation, situated visualization and vision-haptic visualization improves learning in two ways. AR Non-AR Working Memory Some Concept Knowledge as associations Perception Processing Some Concept Perception Processing Easier perception, thus more allotment for processing More cues, better experience, thus more elaborated knowledge
Given the affordances of AR, how can we design ARLEs?
We propose a participatory design model for authoring ARLEs. Implementation AR Learning Object Evaluation of learning AR and EdTech Engineers Teaching Requirements Expert Evaluation Teachers and Curriculum Designers Edit to match context Students Delivery to students
We tested an implementation of AR x-ray. Target Object Mask Edges Alpha Mask Edge-based AR X-ray Virtual Object AR x-ray on ipad
We conducted two user studies on perception. 1. User Study 1: 23 Filipino students (9 male, 14 female, aged 5-15) attending 13 different schools 2. User Study 2: 47 students (21 male, 26 female, aged 11-16) from Spring Christian School 3. Questionnaire: Q1. The object is inside the box. Q2. The object is easy to see. Q3. The object seems real. Q4. The object seems flat. Q5. I can see the different parts of the object clearly. Q6. My classmates will say the object is real.
User study set up Demonstration Control: without occlusion Experiment: with occlusion Set up for User Study 1 (involving younger kids)
There are no significant differences in perception. User Study 1 Without Occlusion With Occlusion (x-ray) Question (Construct) Mean Mean STDV (95% Conf.) (95% Conf.) STDV Q1 (Depth) 3.7 (3.1 4.2) 1.2 3.6 (3.1 4.1) 1.3 Q2 (Visibility) 4.0 (3.5 4.4) 1.0 3.3 (2.8 3.7) 1.2 Q3 (Realism) 3.4 (2.8 3.9) 1.4 2.7 (2.2 3.3) 1.3 Q4 (Depth) 4.1 (3.7 4.6) 0.9 4.0 (3.5 4.4) 1.2 Q5 (Visibility) 4.0 (3.6 4.5) 0.9 3.6 (3.1 4.1) 1.3 Q6 (Realism) 3.3 (2.8 3.8) 1.2 3.1 (2.6 3.7) 1.3 (p-value = 0.041) Significant based on t-test. User Study 2 Without Occlusion With Occlusion (x-ray) Question (Construct) Mean Mean STDV (95% Conf.) (95% Conf.) STDV Q1 (Depth) 3.4 (2.9 3.9) 1.2 3.4 (3.0 3.9) 1.2 Q2 (Visibility) 3.8 (3.3 4.3) 1.1 4.0 (3.5 4.4) 1.1 Q3 (Realism) 3.1 (2.6 3.7) 1.2 3.0 (2.5 3.5) 1.3 Q4 (Depth) 3.3 (2.9 3.7) 1.0 3.3 (2.9 3.7) 1.0 Q5 (Visibility) 4.0 (3.5 4.5) 0.6 3.7 (3.2 4.1) 1.0 Q6 (Realism) 3.4 (3.0 3.9) 1.0 3.7 (3.4 4.2) 1.0
Schools find ARLEs beneficial and would like to use it for specific content. Perceived advantages in practice 1. Learning by experience 2. Improved attention 3. Increased motivation Perceived issues in practice 1. Cost and availability of technology 2. Accuracy of virtual information 3. Time constraint Focused group discussions with Teachers, Parents, School Administrators
On-going paper-prototyping for ARLEs. Target Object Drop-down Menu Authoring on target object Annotated frog Can test knowledge in navigation Limited interactions and experience
Summary of contributions We showed that: ARLEs have variable effect to learning. ARLEs have inherent advantages that improve perception and knowledge construction. We recommend that: We can design better ARLEs using participatory design. Using participatory design, we Tested perception in AR x-ray interactions Gathered preliminary user requirements for ARLEs
Future Work Main Goal Simple Authoring Tool for Teachers Continue using Participatory Design Model that considers teachers and students in the authoring process Continue implementing state-of-the-art AR interactions Example: AR x-ray, AR Annotation Implement Augmented Reality Learning Objects (ARLOs) Standard ARLE file that packages AR content (real object, virtual objects, interactions)
References 1. Advanced Learning Technologies Journal List, CELSTEC, http://celstec.org/content/advanced-learning-technologiesjournal-list. Aug. 2012. 2. A. Di Serio, M. B. Ibáñez and C. D. Kloos, "Impact of an Augmented Reality System on Students Motivation for a Visual Art Course," Computers & Education, 2012. 3. T. Y. Liu, "A context aware ubiquitous learning environment for language listening and speaking," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 515-527, 2009. 4. J. Martín-Gutiérrez, J. L. Saorin, M. Contero, M. Alcañiz, D. C. Pérez-López and M. Ortega. "Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students," Computers & Graphics, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 77-91, 2010. 5. A. K. Sin and H. B. Zaman. "Live Solar System (LSS): Evaluation of an Augmented Reality book-based educational tool," Proc. IEEE Symp. Information Technology (ITSim 10), vol. 1, pp. 1-6. 2010. 6. T. F. L. Jerry and C. C. E. Aaron. "The impact of augmented reality software with inquiry-based learning on students' learning of kinematics graph," Proc. IEEE Conf. Education Technology and Computer (ICETC 10), vol. 2, pp. V2-1. 2010. 7. N. Li, L. Chang, Y. X. Gu and H. B. L. Duh. "Influences of AR-Supported Simulation on Learning Effectiveness in Face-toface Collaborative Learning for Physics," Proc. IEEE Conf. Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 11), pp. 320-322. 2011. 8. H. K. Jee, S. Lim, J. Youn and J. Lee, "An augmented reality-based authoring tool for E-learning applications," Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp. 1-11, 2011. 9. P. O'Shea, C. Dede and R. Mitchell, "A Study of the efficacy of an Augmented Reality curriculum," Proc. AACE Conf. Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE 09), pp. 1510-1514, 2009. 10.H. Mitsuhara, Y. Yano and T. Moriyama, "Paper-top interface for supporting note-taking and its preliminary experiment," Proc. IEEE Conf. Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC 10), pp. 3456-3462, 2010. 11.A. Dunser, K. Steinbugl, H. Kaufmann and J. Gluck, "Virtual and augmented reality as spatial ability training tools," Proc. ACM SIGCHI New Zealand Conf. Computer-human interaction: design centered HCI (CHINZ '06), vol. 158, pp. 125-132. 2006. 12.C. M. Chen and Y. N. Tsai, "Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools," Computers & Education, 2012. 13.Mayer, Richard. Multimedia Learning 2 nd ed. Cambridge, 2009. 14.Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge university press, 1991. 15.Ballard, Dana H. "Animate vision." Artificial intelligence 48.1 (1991): 57-86.