Chapter 3: Augmentation, Pros, Cons and Contextual Factors in Higher Education
This Chapter aims to present the role of AR in the learning process as a visual approach, the benefits, challenges and contextual factors that emerged in the iPEAR research process, and an updated literature review.
Merriam-Webster.com dictionary (2022) defines AR as ” an enhanced version of reality created by the use of technology to overlay digital information on an image of something being viewed through a device (such as a smartphone camera)”. Various industries have increasingly used AR technology as a multi-purpose tool that allows users to combine virtual information with the real world through easy interactions. Several researchers are working with AR in business, marketing, education, tourist industry, etc., with positive results revealing the potential benefits of AR technology.
Nowadays, there are three ways to view an AR experience:
- Through mobile devices (smartphone or tablet). The user opens the device camera and sees the real world with digital augmentations (virtual elements) added to it. The quality of the experience heavily relies on the quality of the camera and the device’s processing power. When many moving 3D augmentations are displayed, the processing power needed to be displayed correctly and in high quality is significant. In most cases, AR experiences are provided through mobile applications. Many of them require the support of ARCore and ARKit by the device, Google’s and Apple’s libraries for AR experiences. AR experiences can also be provided through a webpage using only the browser and not a specific application. This is the case of Web-based Augmented Reality (WebAR), a relatively new technology that does not require a mobile application. WebAR has limited features since supporting frameworks are still being developed; thus, it provides less-complex animations, video and limited image target detection and interactivity.
- Through Head Mounted Displays (HMD). HMDs are small displays or projection technology integrated into eyeglasses or mounted on a helmet. The displays of these devices are transparent. They do not block the user’s vision but superimpose digital content on the user’s view of the real world. An example of HMD is Microsoft HoloLens. The cost of these devices is significantly higher than mobile devices, although recent hardware and software advances have reduced their cost. Depending on the device, an HMD can be connected to a computer or a mobile device or run independently.
- Through transparent screens. Transparent display screens display dynamic or interactive content through a transparent surface, allowing viewers to see what is shown on the screen whilst still being able to see through the display. They can also be interactive through touch. Currently, they are used in many applications, such as product displays with images floating around the product. They are also used in museums, theme parks and visitor attractions to provide a memorable and engageable experience. In the car industry, head-up displays (HUDs) project critical information above the dashboard for the driver to see without looking down, utilising transparent screens. Some refrigerators from LG also use transparent screens so that a user will not have to open the door to see inside the fridge and provide helpful information to the user simultaneously. This technology is costly.
AR has been developing rapidly and growing among the users of smartphones and tablets because they cost less than HMDs. Educational applications and resources that use AR technology are improving in number and quality at the speed of light.
3.1. The Semi-systematic process to identify themes (advantages, disadvantages, and contextual factors)
AR technologies can potentially use visualisations and interactions in class and out-of-class activities, online and offline. Based on the iPEAR research illustrated in Chapter 4, students could benefit from using AR and working with their peers. It can boost creativity, motivation, engagement and empowerment. Digital skills were also enhanced by working with portable devices and visual media (editing videos or images), tackling compatibility and connection challenges. To investigate more case studies, a semi-structured literature review was conducted. The number of resources available is almost endless. Only in Google Scholar are about 2,570,000 results (0.10 sec) in August 2023 and 19,000 resources published in the first six months of 2023. Therefore, the semi-structured and narrative approach could be a good strategy for identifying themes (Snyder, 2019), as presented in the following questions:
- What advantages could AR offer to higher education?
- What are the disadvantages that could hinder the adoption of AR in higher education?
- What contextual factors could play a key role in adopting AR in Higher education?
The literature review has some criteria. First, in terms of time, case studies and research conducted in the last two years were considered because of the rapid technological advances in immersive tools. In other words, many AR tools are developed, changed and adapted, while others become obsolete and vanish. One such case is the Aurasma, often used in higher education, and then it was sold and renamed HP Reveal, but for the time being, it is not available. Journal papers and books take at least one year to get published, so the two-year period is a reasonable time frame to look for AR studies. The literature review aims to show potential use and obstacles that may benefit or hinder the learning process so that educators think beforehand when experimenting with AR technologies.
Looking for findings via the NTNU library (books and papers) written within the last two years. Several documents summarise findings regarding the use of AR in specific areas such as STEM disciplines, health sciences, architecture, art and language learning. The cases refer to in-class and remote approaches. Furthermore, some studies consider the needs of students who face physical or mental challenges. Experimental tools not widely available to the public were excluded because educators could not test them. Full-text scanning spotted potential advantages, disadvantages and contextual factors affecting the adoption of AR in higher education. Selective publications suggested by iPEAR partners (Ens et al., 2019; Billinghurst, 2021; Radu et al., 2021) were also considered, adding value to the narrative of themes. Hence, it is considered a semi-structured narrative approach (Snyder,2019).
| Disciplines or teaching mode | Publications | Type |
| 1. STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) | Mystakidis, Christopoulos, A., & Pellas, N. (2022) | Systematic literature review |
| 2. Fashion design | Elfeky, & Elbyaly, M. Y. H. (2021). | Case study |
| 3. Physics – Mechanics with mobile distance learning. | Gurevych, Silveistr, A., Мokliuk, M., Shaposhnikova, I., Gordiichuk, G., & Saiapina, S. (2021). | Case study |
| 4. Chemistry | Lu, Wong, C. S. K., Cheung, R. Y. H., & Im, T. S. W. (2021) | Case study |
| 5. Health Sciences | Rodríguez-Abad, Fernández-De-la-iglesia, J.-D.-C., Martínez-Santos, A.-E., & Rodríguez-González, R. (2021). | Systematic literature review |
| 6 Multidisciplinary higher education | Olasina. (2022). | Literature review on educators’ readiness to use AR. |
| 7. Chemistry | Wong, Tsang, K. C. K., & Chiu, W.-K. (2021 | Case studies |
| 8. Bussiness/ Entrepreneurship | Situmorang, Kustandi, C., Maudiarti, S., Widyaningrum, R., & Ariani, D. (2021). | Case studies |
| 9. English | Irina V. Dukalskaya, Irina N. Tabueva (2022). | Case studies |
| 10. Computer Sciences | Alshamrani Alshaikhi, & Joy, M. (2021) | Case studies |
| 11 Special challenges | Jdaitawi, & Kan’an, A. F. (2022). | Literature review. |
| 12. Multidisciplinary higher education – Remote education | Nesenbergs, Abolins, V., Ormanis, J., & Mednis, A. (2021). | Literature review. |
| 13. Mathematics | Jabar, Hidayat, R., Samat, N. A., Rohizan, M. F. H., Rosdin, N. ‘Ain, Salim, N., & Norazhar, S. A. (2022). | Literature review. |
| 14. Satellite remote sensing education | O’Banion, Lewis, N. S., Boyce, M. W., Laughlin, J., & Majkowicz, D. C. (2022). | Case studies |
| 15. Multidisciplinary higher education | Yildiz. (2022). | Case studies |
| 16. Architecture and construction education | Hajirasouli, & Banihashemi, S. (2022). | Case studies |
| 17. Social Sciences | Soutthaboualy, Chatwattana, P., & Piriyasurawong, P. (2022). | Case studies |
| 18. Ethics | Chan, Hafiz, M., Kwong, T., & Wong, E. Y. W. (2021). | Case studies |
| 19. Multidisciplinary higher education- research in Collaboration, social norms and ethics | Billinghurst, M. (2021).
|
Literature review |
| 20. Multidisciplinary higher education- collaboration | Radu, J., Joy, T., Bowman, Y., Bott, I., Schneider, B. (2021, April). | Case studies |
| 21. Multidisciplinary higher education | Ens, Lanir, J., Tang, A., Bateman, S., Lee, G., Piumsomboon, T., & Billinghurst, M. (2019). | Literature review |
3.2. Advantages
As the iPEAR research specified, the advantages of AR refer to visual learning for better understanding, student agency for motivation and engagement, inclusion as social value and valuable digital skills for the job market. The data from the students’ surveys showed that the students were creatively engaged and worked collaboratively to help each other understand the assignment or the AR tool’s unique features. Empowerment was also evident in some participants, who felt ownership of their collaboration’s outcome. Surprisingly, some groups adopted an inclusive mentality, embraced participants without technical skills or mobile devices, and shared tools and ideas. To combine research and literature review (from 2021 to 2023) in PART 3, this section concentrates on the benefits of using AR in higher education.
Regarding the literature of the last two years, Mystakidis, Christopoulos, and Pellas (2022), in their systematic review from 2010 to 2019, found that 114 case studies were designed in the field of STEM, and most implementations took place in engineering. They used desktop computers, smartphones, and mobile devices with AR wearable equipment and sensors, such as AR glasses and projection-based AR. The instructional strategies that were identified in forty-five articles reviewed were Experiential, Cooperative/Collaborative, Presentation, Activity-based, and Discovery (scientific inquiry In terms of instructional techniques, the reviewed STEM studies in HE settings could be categorised into (1) instruction through Simulation, (2) Project, (3) Observation, (4) Problem-solving, and (5) Question–answer.
Mystakidis, Christopoulos, and Pellas (2022) note that the advantages focus on learner motivation and engagement. A common denominator across the reviewed studies can be identified as researchers and educators collectively underline the positive emotional effects of such technology on learners’ interest, attention, and motivation. Furthermore, researchers who have examined such elements in greater depth also reported positive outcomes on learners’ satisfaction and achievement.
In the same study, another benefit that the integration of AR brings to the modern classroom concerns the deconstruction of complex devices, such as oscilloscopes, function generators in electronics engineering laboratories, and multidimensional scientific scenarios such as stability assessment of linear control systems (which cannot be demonstrated conveniently in the real-world).
Aligned to the context of such scenarios, the experienced cognitive load in AR-based systems is significantly lower compared to conventional solutions, although a comparative study reported no differences. Several studies (Akçayır et al., 2016; AlNajdi et al., 2018; Odeh et al., 2013; Vassigh et al., 2018; Wang, 2017; Yip et al., 2019 as cited in Mystakidis, Christopoulos, & Pellas, 2022) also reported positive outcomes on the individual or collaborative efforts that students make to grasp the scale of the problem and reach a solution or complete a task faster. The users’ experience with specific applications in mobile devices, such as video conversation applications in the work environment, seemed to positively impact their learning performance and outcomes (Mystakidis, Christopoulos, & Pellas, 2022).
Also, the use of AR tools enables learners to practice from anywhere and at any time, following students’ needs and pace, as it lifts the need for real-time supervision, which, otherwise, would have been essential to prevent the misuse of the specialised laboratory equipment (e.g., robots, current meter, oscilloscope, sewing machines, computer electrical components) and ensure students’ safety (AlNajdi et al., 2018; Andujar et al., 2011; Mejías Borrero & Andújar Márquez, 2012; Odeh et al.,2013, 2015; Singh et al., 2019; Westerfeld et al., 2015; Yip et al., 2019 cited in Mystakidis, Christopoulos, & Pellas, 2022).
Indeed, the unlimited practising with AR tools —and thus, refection and rethinking—that is offered to learners facilitates the comprehension of theoretical knowledge and promotes the development of conceptual understanding (Ke & Hsu, 2015; Opriş et al., 2018; Ozdamli & Hursen, 2017; Schneider et al., 2013; Shirazi & Behzadan, 2015b; Singh et al., 2019; Vassigh et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2014, 2018 as cited in Mystakidis, Christopoulos, & Pellas, 2022).
Elfeky and Elbyaly (2021) explored the use of AR in a course on fashion design. Findings indicated that the fashion products of students taught via augmented reality technology achieved higher success and acceptance in all aspects (the functional, aesthetic, creative) and the fashion design skills as a whole than the products of students taught via the traditional teaching method (educational videos). It enhanced independent thinking, creativity and critical analysis (Bower et al., 2014, as cited in Elfeky & Elbyaly, 2021). It motivated students by creating a distinguished learning environment where a student did not feel bored. When adequately designed for pedagogical purposes, augmented reality can inspire the authentic practice of twenty-first-century skills (Schrier, 2006, as cited in Elfeky & Elbyaly, 2021). Moreover, the ability of augmented reality technology to change images into animated objects as soon as students look at them using the cameras of their smartphones or tablets was also exciting and attracted students to learn better.
Gurevych et al. (2021) designed physics courses and holistically enlisted the AR approach’s pros. Firstly, it was found that augmented reality technologies stimulate the educational process and provide the opportunity to implement knowledge because it increases interest in educational material, self-study and learning new things. Then, the visibility of training increases its quality and efficiency. In addition, there is an improvement in spatial imagination and thinking. It is also evident that interactive learning prevails. It is equally essential to consider how user-friendly the AR is because it is an element of the task’s success and attracts students’ interest. Finally, it provides a micro-learning technique for students to learn information quickly. Overall, the effect of students’ enthusiasm and satisfaction plays a crucial role in learning and memorisation.
Lu et al. (2021) claim that students lose interest in chemistry because they cannot relate theories to praxis and end up with rote learning of the subject matter. They consider AR to be a competent pedagogical facilitator. Their pilot survey about students’ perception of the AR showed positive feedback for the AR app in enhancing awareness, learning, understanding, and engagement. It addresses the concerns of retaining students’ attention during teaching and learning real-life chemistry. The questionnaire results show that students generally had a positive evaluation and satisfaction toward the AR software because it allows easy observation and manipulation of real-world environments or elements. Students appreciated the AR software as a valuable tool in a flipped classroom context. It allowed them to better prepare and understand the intended learning outcomes before face-to-face online classes.
Furthermore, significant positive correlations between learner attitude and perception of the AR software were found. Despite the high p-value in the construct of Cognitive Accessibility, its score was still within the positive category. Still, it may bring an implication for further consideration during the design and introduction of the software to minimise students’ overhead to access the AR. This result also aligns with Cai et al. (2014, as cited in Lu et al. 2021) ‘s conclusion that promoting learners’ initiative toward chemistry is the cornerstone to enhancing learning effectiveness via AR software.
Wong, Tsang, and Chiu (2021) indicate that spatial skills are essential in chemistry education. However, acquiring these skills can be monotonous if learning is limited to memorising Newman projections or 3D molecular kits. Existing approaches to learning using visualisation tools require physical models, which limit learning activities to within the classroom. Augmented reality (AR) in chemistry education allows students to see actual compound representation in a 3D environment, inspect compounds from multiple viewpoints, and control interaction in real-time in any location. This facilitates the understanding of the spatial relations between compounds. Quantitative questionnaire feedback results from students showed that 87% found that using AR technology for chemistry subjects was an effective teaching method that enhanced their learning. Students were satisfied with the AR educational app and the AR materials used. In a pre-and post-test evaluation of a group activity, students learned better and remembered more information about functional groups and drawings of complicated compounds after using AR technology. Based on the case study, results show that using AR positively impacts enthusiasm and learning in higher education chemistry courses for sub-degree students. This technology should be broadly used as a digital tool to promote active learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rodríguez-Abad et al. (2021) have written a systematic review of augmented reality in health sciences: A guide to decision-making in higher education investigating the impact of AR on learning outcomes and students’ skills. They are also digging more deeply into the advantages and disadvantages of AR in health studies. This review highlighted the motivational drive because AR enhances students’ involvement. In four cases, satisfaction was also reported and linked to the realism of the training, and as a result, the technologies could enhance understanding and performance. AR positively influences learning outcomes and long-term retention; regarding chronic wound diagnosis, human anatomy includes the musculoskeletal system and neuroanatomy.
Regarding acquiring clinical competencies, AR improved clinical decision-making skills in treating chronic wounds in nursing students. For the acquisition of cognitive skills, studies underlined the excellent assessment that Phonoaudiology students make on using a methodology based on AR, contributing to the construction of learning and collaborative work. The students positively valued using AR as support for teaching human anatomy, providing student-centred learning and facilitating a three-dimensional understanding of human anatomy.
To recap, Rodríguez-Abad et al. (2021) systematic review of AR used as an educational, technological tool in university studies in Health Sciences improves the teaching-learning process by influencing it in a multidimensional way. The use of AR in higher education in the field of Health Sciences reduces the cognitive load and increases the motivation and satisfaction of the students. It is a learning support tool that improves spatial understanding and promotes autonomous learning, per the European Higher Education Area guidelines. Given that AR provides clinical simulation environments with greater realism, we can conclude that using this technology in Health Sciences is especially useful in those courses with a significant component of 3D vision during the teaching-learning process.
Olasina (2022) supports the view that professors and lecturers must take full advantage of AR despite the challenges. AR apps help improve students’ understanding of spatial geometric concepts through manipulation and multiangle observation of AR objects. For instance, fine arts students used HP Reveal to create an exhibition for galleries using a green screen app. The students and gallery visitors create their realities by taking ownership of projects while increasing their engagement and responsibility with learning materials. The reviews strongly indicate that AR can compensate for the shortcomings of online teaching and learning and enhance the quality of lectures and students’ performance. The lessons learned show that AR-led teaching and learning should be supplemented in line with the characteristic features of each program and level of study based on new ideas during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, soft and hard skills such as emotional intelligence and social abilities using programs and strategies to cultivate emotional competencies via mobile apps, software, and games can be driven by AR.
Situmorang, Kustandi, Maudiarti, Widyaningrum, and Ariani (2021) studied entrepreneurship education through mobile augmented reality in Higher Education in Indonesia. Students view that the mobile augmented reality application’s most exciting function lies in displaying information and characteristics of SMEs. These findings confirm that Augmented Reality can increase learning motivation and provide students contextual information about the learning environment. Therefore, science and technology development increasingly encourage renewal efforts in using technology results in the learning process. The results show that mobile augmented reality can make learning activities more exciting and fun.
On the other hand, it can significantly improve student learning outcomes. The novelty of augmented reality in this study can be seen in the aspect of watching the virtual of various products available o and the ease of accessing information due to its visual appeal. These factors impact students’ emotional acceptance of augmented reality and their performance.
Dukalskaya and Tabueva (2022) discuss the advantages of using AR technologies in language learning. AR applications can be widely used in English language classes to introduce professional and country studies in ways that increase the efficiency and motivation of students. In addition, AR applications help form students’ cross-cultural and sociocultural competencies. They include practical-oriented training aimed at improving and developing the skills and skills of students in the professional field and the readiness of students to use the obtained theoretical knowledge in solving practical problems. They have formulated the main characteristics of AR in the learning process, which reflect the authors’ approach to implementing this technology:
- Contextuality – the students can experience the real world and virtual elements simultaneously;
- Interactivity – it gives the possibility to interact with AR through the manipulation of both real objects and virtual properties, which offer novel possibilities for interaction;
- Spatiality – virtual elements placed inside the 3D real world appear as if they were really
This technology allows educators to:
- offer students links to authentic materials (vocational-oriented texts, articles);
- organise classroom and out-of-audience independent work of students;
- listen to audio material and view authentic videos;
- organise project activities;
- offer access to links for downloading electronic textbooks, literature or additional information on a given topic;
- provide students with links for testing to control the formation of knowledge in students (ClassTools.NET, QRTreasureHuntGenerator) in a foreign language;
- post up-to-date information in the form of QR codes on university stands (schedule, schedule of teachers, competitions, Olympiads, project protection, and conferences).
Alshamrani, Alshaikhi and Joy, M. (2021) focus on investigating a new approach to emerging and integrating computing education with AR technology in Saudi Arabia. Data further supports students’ acceptance of new educational tools, and AR might be effective.
Jdaitawi and Kan’an (2022) wrote a literature review on a decade of research on the effectiveness of augmented reality on students with disabilities in higher education. The results also showed that AR technology was mainly used in intellectual disability settings. Finally, the result evidenced that AR assists students in enhancing their social skills, relationships and engagement. The results from this systematic review provide valuable information regarding enhancing physical, cognitive, personal, and social abilities. Based on the findings, most of the studies in the literature supported positive outcomes. They reinforced the potential of AR to contribute to and satisfy special education and its needs, particularly for students with learning and other disability types. AR has also been evidenced to improve those with visual impairments and to promote social interaction among disabled individuals, motivating them and encouraging them to participate in social and daily activities. The results also revealed the usefulness of AR in developing special education students’ skills, bringing them real-life experiences while increasing their individual social interaction and environmental collaboration (with peers and teachers, etc.). Thus, AR is a potential tool to assist special-needs individuals’ learning and skills development (social and academic).
Concerning the assisting learning outcomes among special needs students, more than half of all studies on AR primarily concluded that AR improved students’ learning outcomes. AR can improve skills such as increased knowledge, supported learning and perception. It is a supportive tool for students with low vision, enhances social skills and decision-making, improves academic and functional skills and navigation skills, and increases independence and motivation (Bacca et al., 2018; Benda et al., 2015; Bridges et al., 2020; Cate et al., 2017; Chang et al., 2013; Huang et al., 2019; Lorenzo et al., 2019; McMahon et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2018 as cited in Jdaitawi and Kan’an, 2022). The current results extend the past systematic reviews, such as Baragash et al. (2020), on the importance of assistive technology in facilitating the learning outcomes of individuals with special needs. The results of this study also supported the development of Garzon et al. (2020), who confirmed the potential of AR in reinforcing the skills acquisition and learning skills of students with special needs. Based on these, it can be anticipated that students benefit from AR technology as it can augment information and combine it with contextual information to provide new experiences in their learning (Bacca et al., 2014;2018).
Nesenbergs, Abolins, V., Ormanis, J., & Mednis, A. (2021) wrote a systematic umbrella review on using augmented and virtual reality in remote higher education. The authors research the impact of AR on learning outcomes as performance and engagement in all stages of higher education, from course preparation to student evaluation and grading. This review was a state-wide research effort in Latvia to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and provide a framework for a technological transformation of education in this context. In this work, they organised laboratory or practical exercises within virtual or augmented reality when physical presence is not feasible. The results were very encouraging in these cases, especially in medical education. In addition, the literature also suggests that virtual/augmented reality cannot wholly replace on-site studies because whenever it was tried, the student grades suffered.
Jabar et al. (2022) wrote a systematic literature review on augmented reality learning in mathematics education. This process resulted in a total of 20 articles in a wide range of countries: Indonesia, followed by Malaysia, and a few studies were conducted in China, USA, Turkey, USA, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Spain, Mexico, Germany, and Chile. The findings identified that AR learning was implemented in several mathematics topics: geometry, algebra, statistics, probability, and others, including mathematical modelling and mathematics technology. The effectiveness of AR learning towards mathematics education also included cognitive, affective, and psychomotor effects. The most substantial impact was on the cognitive domain as it consisted of several aspects: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, which were crucial in learning (Syahtriya Ningsih et al., 2019, cited in Jabar et al., 2022). Thus, this study discovered a significant influence on students’ interest through the implementation of AR learning by its ability to apply visualisation in mathematics while allowing students to keep up with technological advancements.
On the other hand, the affective domain plays a role in enhancing the effectiveness of AR in learning, as previous studies found that AR-based technology promotes student’s motivation which can strengthen them to acquire mathematics knowledge (Elsayed & Al-Najrani, 2021, cited in Jabar et al., 2022). Motivation increases when using interactive technology (Lainufar et al., 2021, cited in Jabar et al., 2022) and can potentially reduce student’s level of mathematics anxiety (Saha et al., 2020, cited in Jabar et al., 2022). Finally, it aids students’ high self-efficacy in mathematics through reflection (Cai et al., 2018, cited in Jabar et al., 2022). Studies also found that AR technology integrated with body-based activities was more effective in learning mathematics (Smith, 2018). In the study of Saha et al. (2020), they identified that students could develop a strong positive attitude toward mathematics because of AR, which assisted them in overcoming their mathematics fear.
O’Banion et al. (2022) designed a case study for an augmented reality sand table for satellite remote sensing education that was evaluated by 400 students investigating the retention of foundational remote sensing knowledge. The findings indicated that using the AR sand table in a classroom environment improves the retention of foundational remote sensing knowledge and elevates the assessment performance for subjects identified as lower performers. The authors highlighted the need to explain to educators how advanced visualisation technologies can enhance the learning experience and enable excellent knowledge retention.
Yildiz (2022) wrote a report on augmented reality applications in Higher Education in Turkey. The case study focused on giving examples designed with AR. The qualitative research embraced the students’ perspective and found the use of augmented reality applications in education helpful in making the lesson fun, providing permanence in learning, and improving creativity skills.
Hajirasouli and Banihashemi’s (2022) literature review focuses on the state of the field and opportunities of augmented reality in architecture and construction education. They presented in this study utilised the qualitative methodology and thematic data analysis method to identify the effects and implications of using AR in technology-enhanced teaching and learning environments. It was determined that immersive 3D virtual content results in deeper learning and long-lasting knowledge for students, creating more fluid learning, improving students’ experience and knowledge-acquisition process, and developing in-depth perception and spatial representation. Integrating AR into the curriculum can provide students with a more realistic and practical learning experience, adaptable to tangible and physical sites. AR allows students to adapt their design to the actual scale of construction. It also provides unlimited access to otherwise limited opportunities to participate in real-life experiences. It was also confirmed that AR enhances the participants’ understanding of complex assembly procedures in teaching construction processes. Overall, it can be concluded that the application of AR improves students’ academic performance and learning in the short term and long term.
Soutthaboualy, Chatwattana, and Piriyasurawong (2022) designed an interactive augmented reality technology case study via a blended instruction lesson on the cloud. The results showed the following:
- The quality assessment results of developed blended instruction lessons on cloud overall were very high.
- The post-test has an achievement score higher than the pre-test, which is statistically significant at 0.01.
- The result of the assessment of the digital literacy score of students after studying was reasonable.
- The student satisfaction results study with the developed blended instruction lesson on the cloud were high.
Chan et al. (2021) presented a case study that reinforces Academic Integrity and Ethics (AIE) through augmented reality (AR) learning trials. This project utilises the latest technological advances in augmented reality (AR) and mobile technologies to bring scenarios of AIE in real-life situations to students. Students make use of their mobile devices to retrieve information, give responses, and even consider ethically related decisions in different circumstances and locations. The project focuses on finding out how students perceive the use of AR for learning AIE and the influence of cultural background on their perception and understanding of AIE. Students were generally satisfied with the help of AR in learning AIE. The findings suggest that the AR blended learning approach could help enhance AIE learning. In addition, variations in learning AIE among students of different cultural backgrounds were found.
Billinghurst (2021) writes about emerging Empathic Computing (Piumsomboon et al., 2017, cited in Billinghurst, 2021) that explores how physiological cues can be linked with AR in a collaborative virtual environment to enable remote people to share what they see, hear and feel. There is also the opportunity to study how to support viewing large-scale social networks in AR interfaces, including using visual and spatial cues to separate out dozens of social contacts (Nassani et al., 2017, cited in Billinghurst, 2021).
To summarise, the AR application into teaching and learning supports many of Maslow’s needs for working in a safe environment and collaborating democratically. Hence, AR has the potential to help students regain their enthusiasm for learning, creating student agency and leading them to self-directed life-long learning and efficacy (Heutagogy).
3.3 Disadvantages
The iPEAR informants highlighted the technical issues (compatibility issues, internet connection) and the digital divide. Typical with technologies, different AR tools can facilitate various tasks and resolve compatibility issues. Overall, the cost of the internet and the lack of updated tablets or mobile phones hinder the implementation of the iPEAR assignments. Studies that have adopted the ‘Bring Your Own Device’ approach reported issues related to the limited affordances of the students’ phones. The same findings were reported in many studies (Mystakidis, Christopoulos, & Pellas, 2022; Olasina, 2022).
Mystakidis, Christopoulos, and Pellas (2022) reported that the main problem in architecture and construction is the accurate and correct scale integration of virtual objects with actual images in a physical space. The marker-based AR could use different pictures in the exact location, which can cause challenges in the presentation order.
Gurevych et al. (2021) designed a physics course and enlisted the AR approach’s cons. The authors claimed that more specialised AR should be developed with applications within disciplinary boundaries or a single educational platform that could accommodate the needs of all disciplines in higher education. Accessibility must be addressed to tackle technical issues for smartphones, tablets and other devices. In agreement with Mystakidis, Christopoulos, and Pellas (2022), they claim that marker recognition should be facilitated to avoid complications regarding the lighting, the angle at which the user points the camera and the quality of the camera itself.
Lu et al. (2021) claim that the students were looking for more content, better control, and a brilliant presentation of the AR software to enhance their satisfaction with it, thus suggesting possible improvements for future works. In more detail, they have asked for more images in the AR software, gaming and interaction elements. Gaming and interaction may enhance the immersive effect of AR. Overall, better training for educators and students is reported as the key to the efficient use of AR software.
Rodríguez-Abad et al. (2021) have enlisted the disadvantages in their systematic review of augmented reality in health sciences. Despite the vast array of AR tools, it is poorly implemented as a didactic tool in health sciences. Nevertheless, its application in this field has increased in the last few years due to students’ widespread use of mobile devices and readability and ease of use. The difficulty in using and handling some devices can be underlined. Participants talked about technical challenges. They pointed out problems in adjusting the glasses, instability of the projected image and the need to keep the head still, among others. Also, when using smart glasses as a display device activated by gestures that had to be very precise, causing difficulties among the participants. Likewise, most AR tools did not allow tactile feedback in studying brain anatomy. In addition, the participants found challenges in handling the materials necessary to visualise the contents, concluding that these difficulties in interaction negatively affected the learning process.
Rodríguez-Abad et al. (2021) report that AR is a new technology with little implementation in education. Its incorporation as a teaching technology tool is recent, so research on this topic is novel but scarce. In addition, ignorance about its use can cause difficulties in its handling by students. The findings showed adverse effects reported by students who used AR in a teaching intervention. The analysed symptoms were classified into general (discomfort, fatigue, boredom, nausea or headache) and ocular (eye fatigue, blurred vision or double vision). Sometimes, AR has a high cost of implementation. Bogomolova et al. (2020, as cited in Rodríguez-Abad et al.2021) used the highest level of AR, augmented vision, with smart glasses that provide stereoscopic 3D vision. They identified as a disadvantage the high cost of the development of the experience, which, on the other hand, facilitates the learning of students with low spatial-visual skills, an improvement compared to other cheaper AR levels (for example, mobile devices allow monoscopic vision). In addition, a lack of content developers was found. One of the main obstacles to integrating AR technology in classrooms is the development of 3D multimedia content. This technology is still under-utilised because insufficient experts can generate AR-based interactive teaching materials.
The Olasina (2022) review of existing literature frames a high fragmentation among various tools, software, and AR apps, leading to increased complexity in adapting the systems to teaching and learning. There is a need for a well-thought-out approach to integrating AR apps into online and blended learning in higher education, addressing stakeholder needs, diversity, and inclusion and expanding a critical discussion on transformative AR teaching and learning. In short, Olasina’s (2022) findings indicate that teaching approaches have changed, particularly during COVID-19. Many students and faculty are not ready, just as some are ready to accept and use ARs as any emerging technology owing to their affordances. However, most research reports that mobile devices such as iPads, smartphones, and tablets are vehicles for sharing AR content, research and learning materials with students. Training for faculty and students in connected learning should include a relevant introduction to AR forms for current and future readiness formation for professional activity.
Dukalskaya and Tabueva (2022) present the negative aspects of implementing augmented reality in language learning.
- leads to the breakdown of interpersonal relations (connections) between the participants of the training (teacher-student);
- there is a significant gap between the development of information and computer technologies and technologies that are used in the actual practice at universities, the lack of teaching literature and recommendations;
- lack of training or retraining of faculty and the formation of necessary digital skills to work with advanced educational technologies.
Alshamrani Alshaikhi and Joy (2021) in their investigation on education with AR technology in Saudi Arabia in a preliminary analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative data confirm our initial hypothesis that there is a lack of hardware equipment in computing labs and that accessibility is difficult.
Jdaitawi and Kan’an (2022) in their literature review on the effectiveness of augmented reality on students with disabilities in higher education notice that limitations stem from the purpose and time of activities. The development of AR applications should cater to the perception and needs of the users (Huang et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2018, as cited in Jdaitawi and Kan’an, 2022). AR limitations also relate to the user’s skill and ability to use it. Hence, AR technology development should be directed towards meeting the learning needs of students, and it should be made flexible to enable the student’s completion of the activities efficiently. The current results extend the past systematic reviews, such as Giglioli et al. (2015, as cited in Jdaitawi and Kan’an, 2022) and Blattgerste et al. (2019, as cited in Jdaitawi and Kan’an, 2022) who focused on specific needs. Although AR technology is helpful for individuals with disabilities to learn various skills, literature highlighted that AR activity design is a core challenge in the form of learning using AR. This multi-task technology could be complicated for some students to manoeuvre.
From a different angle, Yildiz (2022) explains that despite all these positive aspects, the fact that some AR apps are expensive makes their implementation difficult for some audiences. Apart from this, “physical discomfort” (eye pain- neck pain) was also emphasised by students.
Radu et al. (2021) point out that sometimes AR designers lack an understanding of what collaborators need during an interaction or what features have already been designed to solve those needs. AR creators will spend time redesigning features that have already been created or, worse, creating applications that do not contain the necessary features. While much work has been done on designing virtual reality (VR) collaborative environments, AR environments are a relatively newer design space. Designers lack a comprehensive framework for describing needs that arise during collaborative activities and the features that could be designed into AR applications to satisfy those needs.
Overall, there is still very little research conducted on collaborative AR. A survey of 10 years of user studies until 2015 found that only 15 of the 369 AR studies reviewed were cooperative, and only seven used AR HMDs (Dey et al., 2018, cited in Billinghurst, 2021).
3.4 Contextual factors
In the iPEAR study, lack of training and assignment clarity needed to be considered in depth. Educators must be aware of tools to use for a visual approach and facilitate the adoption process. Professional development courses within educational institutions or outside of it could make the transition process smoother and more manageable for educators and, consequently, their students in higher education. The students’ and educators’ expectations should be aligned to successfully adopt experimental approaches such as the iPEAR perspective.
In the literature review of Mystakidis, Christopoulos, & Pellas, 2022, other contextual factors concern the weather conditions when students are outside the classroom settings and want to use mobile devices. Pejoska-Laajola et al. (2017 as cited in Mystakidis, Christopoulos, & Pellas, 2022) mentioned that external factors like the environment’s noise, screen visibility under direct sunlight, rain, and low temperatures can negatively affect the learning experience.
Rodríguez-Abad et al. (2021) believe that despite the boom experienced in recent years, the use of AR as an innovative technological educational tool is still quite limited despite the significant advantages that have been found. This is mainly due to teachers’ reluctance and lack of training and means to generate 3D content. Perhaps this is due to the scarcity of research demonstrating the efficacy and effectiveness of this technology since most of the studies analysed have a small sample size in a single institution, making it difficult for the data to be generalisable.
Mota et al. (2018, as cited in Olasina, 2022) identified vital predictors, including motivational readiness, values, beliefs, personality, and professional interest. Teacher engagement incentives include personal development, self-affirmation, and professional and financial incentives (Vlasenko et al., 2021, as cited in Olasina, 2022). Jarrar, Awobamise, and Sellos (2020, as cited in Olasina, 2022) employed a technology readiness index (TRI) to explain individual attitudes toward technology readiness perspectives concerning AR applications by tourists in Dubai. The fundamental findings revealed a relationship between the TRI dimensions of optimism, innovation, insecurity, discomfort, and the intention to use mobile phone AR applications. The researchers highlighted the cruciality of innovation and optimism for users to be motivated by the perceived benefits of AR. The benefits led to an intention to use it, and the discomfort and insecurity in the setting made the tourists demotivated to use AR. Mupfunya, Roodt, and Mwapwele (2018, as cited in Olasina, 2022) used AR readiness dimensions such as discomfort, insecurity, innovativeness, and optimism to examine teachers’ acceptance in township schools.
Álvarez-Marín, Velázquez-Iturbide, and Castillo-Vergara (2021, as cited in Olasina, 2022) determined how technology innovativeness and optimism predict the use of AR in education. They explained the role of attitude, technology innovation and optimism, subjective norms, and behavioural intention to use. Their core findings were that the student characteristics of technology innovation and optimism moderated their attitude to use. Factors such as sociocultural background, historical norms, race, class, gender, age, and sexuality predicted students’ beliefs regarding the uptake of new digital media. They concluded that a deep understanding of the nature of the educational setting informs students’ attitudes toward AR use at universities and affects intervention policies to facilitate AR-led teaching activities.
Osadchyi, Valko, and Kuzmich (2021, as cited in Olasina, 2022) and Oberdörfer et al. (2021, as cited in Olasina, 2022) have outlined some of the requirements for smartphone use in the classroom. These include an internet connection, mobile devices, educational AR apps, objects, images, locations, and tangible AR learning user experiences that trigger actions on device screens via the AR app.
It is recommended that individual needs, preferences, attitudes, perceptions, and fears be bridged with institutional silos (Tella and Olasina, 2014, as cited in Olasina, 2022). AR achieves this through the practical nature of handheld AR, ease of use, promotion of exploratory behaviour, and students’ interactive understanding of learning aspects, allowing for self-observation and reaction when using AR tools (Alalwan et al. 2020, as cited in Olasina, 2022).
Nesenbergs, Abolins, V., Ormanis, J., & Mednis, A. (2021) regard novelty as a contextual factor! The fact that in all interventions where engagement was measured, the engagement increased leads us to speculate that the novelty of technology used directly impacts engagement. If this is the case, novelty is a potential intervention, and any newly hyped technology could provide similar results. Another question should be researched if this is true—whether a cumulative novelty resistance exists.
Nesenbergs et al. (2021) suggest:
- Creating courses for teachers and lecturers on how to prepare/adapt courses for AR/VR;
- Creating a framework that would allow teachers to easily prepare/adapt their material for AR/VR;
- Do not overload students with the need to quickly get familiar with AR/VR. There should be a possibility to use classical methods to get through the course. At the same time, AR/VR proved that it could help to understand abstract and complex content more quickly due to good visualisation capabilities and interactivity. In multiple of the reviewed articles, it was shown that kinesthetic learning, when instead of a classic lecture, students are working in the 3D world, performing experiments alone or together with a teacher, is much more efficient than, previously mentioned, classic method.
The creation of AR/VR-adopted courses could significantly affect knowledge availability. An opinion in the educational community and society reinforced by the 2020 lockdown is that online learning could be the future of education. Suppose this is the case because multiple papers show that AR/VR labs are of similar benefits as traditional “offline” labs with actual equipment. In that case, it could be argued that properly adopted AR/VR-based courses could potentially raise good, qualified specialists all around the globe, not only in local regions, democratising education in hands-on skills. Performance is not the only factor we need to consider; emotional wellness is at least as essential as performance regarding grades. It was fitted with VR/AR technologies, where students could arrive to work, but educators would connect remotely.
Overall, Chan et al. (2021) and other authors emphasise variations in learning among students of different cultural backgrounds. Billinghurst (2021) supports the view that several ethical issues may arise when AR devices become more widely used. Who should be allowed to place AR content in the view of a person, and what are the ethics around AR advertising? Brinkman also discusses the privacy implications of AR as an extension of home and AR advertising (Brinkman, 2014, cited in Billinghurst, 2021).
3.5 Conclusion on AR
AR in higher education, in-class, online or blended, could serve many objectives for students, including those with learning challenges or low performers. The role of AR could enhance cognitive skills, performance, creativity, engagement, retention, and spatial awareness and positively influence soft skills such as satisfaction, empathy, and positive attitude towards learning. More research on an experiential approach to learning is needed to incorporate more collaborative issues and physiological impacts, such as the feeling of touch.
On the other hand, the disadvantages cannot be ignored. Conclusive evidence is challenging to reach when many tools and disciplines exist. The common denominator is the cost of technology and technical issues that urge more training and closer collaboration among experts. Some studies urge for domain-specific tools, while others suggest a single educational platform that could accommodate the needs of all higher education disciplines and provide more content, better control, and a brilliant presentation of the AR software. Some students also noted physical discomfort, such as pains in the back, headaches or even nausea. Further implications are the lack of teaching literature and recommendations, faculty training or retraining, and the formation of necessary digital skills to work with advanced educational technologies. When AR is linked to the physical world, weather conditions or external factors such as environmental noises could affect the learning experience.
The contextual factors that could lead to the effective use of AR are the quality of training to design practical technology-enhanced learning assignments. Educators resist thinking out of the box and trying new approaches. Educators’ incentives include personal development, self-affirmation, and professional and financial incentives for digital transformation.
The student’s individual characteristics, such as motivational readiness, values, beliefs, personality, and professional interest, also play a role in the learning equation. Variations in learning among students of different cultural backgrounds are also evident.
Finally, several ethical issues and privacy implications may arise when AR devices become more widely used. Who should be allowed to place AR content in the view of a person, and what are the ethics around AR advertising?
Overall, the effectiveness of the AR approach is heavily dependent on the learning architecture: how the students and educators are connected and to what extent TEL could be implemented for the domain-specific learning objectives.