Although the learning of programming language is critical in science and technology education, it might be difficult for some students, especially novices. One possible reason might be the fact that programming language, especially for three-dimensional (3D) applications, is too complex and abstract for these students to understand. Programming for 3D applications requires understanding the spatial relationship of 3D objects and hence needs a visualization technique more. In view of this, this article presents an augmented reality (AR)-enhanced learning system that offers visual representation and interactivity to help students learn programming for 3D applications. To examine the influences of such an AR-enhanced system on student learning, a within-group experiment with 34 college students was conducted. All students used both of an AR-enhanced version and an ordinary version. The findings revealed that the AR-enhanced version made students have better learning efficiency than the ordinary system. In addition, the AR-enhanced system also made students have enhanced perceptions in terms of system usability, flow experience, and usage perception. Based on the results, further development of AR-enhanced learning systems is also suggested and discussed.
AzumaR. (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments6(4): 355–385.
2.
AzumaR.BaillotY.BehringerR.FeinerS.JulierS.MacIntyreB. (2001) Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications21(6): 34–47.
3.
BaccaJ.BaldirisS.FabregatR.GrafS.Kinshuk (2014) Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Educational Technology & Society17(4): 133–149.
4.
Blythe, M. A., Overbeeke, K., Monk, A. F., & Wright, P. C. (2003). From usability to enjoyment. Human computer interaction series (Vol. 3). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5.
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189, 4–7.
6.
BuchauA.RuckerW. M.WossnerU.BeckerM. (2009) Augmented reality in teaching of electrodynamics. The International Journal for Computation and Mathematics in Electrical and Electronic Engineering28(4): 948–963.
7.
BujakK. R.RaduI.CatramboneR.MacIntyreB.ZhengR.GolubskiG. (2013) A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers & Education68: 536–544. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.017.
8.
Carmigniani, J., & Furht, B. (2011). Augmented reality: An overview. In B. Furht (Ed.), Handbook of augmented reality (Chapter 1, pp. 3–46). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
9.
ChangK. E.ChangC. T.HouH. T.SungY. T.ChaoH. L.LeeC. M. (2014) Development and behavioral pattern analysis of a mobile guide system with augmented reality for painting appreciation instruction in an art museum. Computers & Education71: 185–197.
10.
ChangY. L.HouH. T.PanC. Y.SungY. T.ChangK. E. (2015) Apply an augmented reality in a mobile guidance to increase sense of place for heritage places. Educational Technology & Society18(2): 166–178.
11.
ClarkR. C.MayerR. E. (2011) E-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
Cooper, S., Wanda, D., & Randy, P. (2000). Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. Proceedings of the 5th Annual CCSC Northeastern Conference, Mahwah, NJ, 28–29.
13.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990) Flow: The psychology of optimal performance, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Di SerioÁ.IbáñezM. B.KloosC. D. (2013) Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education68: 586–596. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002.
15.
FuF. L.SuaR. C.YubS. C. (2009) A scale to measure learner’s enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers & Education52(1): 101–112.
16.
HsuT. C. (2017) Learning English with augmented reality: Do learning styles matter?Computers & Education106: 137–149.
17.
HuangT. C.ChenC. C.ChouY. W. (2016) Animating eco-education: To see, feel, and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning environment. Computers & Education96: 72–82.
18.
IbáñezM. B.Di SerioÁ.VillaránD.DelgadoKloosC. (2014) Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education71: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.004.
19.
JohnsonL.Adams BeckerS.EstradaV.FreemanA. (2014) Horizon report 2014 – Higher education edition, Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
20.
Kaufmann, H., & Meyer, B. (2008). Simulating educational physical experiments in augmented reality. Proceedings of SIGGRAPH ASIA, New York, NY, 8.
21.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22.
KolfschotenG.LukoschS.VerbraeckA.ValentinE.de VreedeG. J. (2010) Cognitive learning efficiency through the use of design patterns in teaching. Computers & Education54(3): 652–660.
23.
LahtinenE.Ala-MutkaK.JärvinenH. M. (2005) A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin37(3): 14–18.
24.
Lewis, J. R., & Sauro, J. (2009). The factor structure of the system usability scale. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), International conference on human centered design (pp. 94–103). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
25.
Liu, T.-Y., Tan, T.-H., & Chu, Y.-L. (2007). 2D barcode and augmented reality supported English learning system. Sixth IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science, Melbourne, Australia.
26.
LiuT.-Y.TanT.-H.ChuY.-L. (2010) QR code and augmented reality –supported mobile English learning system. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS)5960: 37–52.
27.
Maier, P., Klinker, G., & Tönnis, M. (2009). Augmented reality for teaching spatial relations. Conference of the International Journal of Arts & Science, Toronto.
28.
Malone, T. W. (1984). Heuristics for designing enjoyable user interfaces: Lessons from computer games. In J. C. Thomas & M. L. Schneider (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems (pp. 1–12). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
29.
Martín-GutiérrezJ.SaorínJ. L.ConteroM.AlcañizM.Pérez-LópezD.OrtegaM. (2010) Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students. Computers & Graphics34: 77–91.
30.
MayerR. E. (2009) Multimedia learning, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
31.
NielsenJ. (1993) Usability engineering, New York, NY: Morgan.
32.
NormanD. (2002) Emotion & design, attractive things work better. Interactions4: 36–42.
33.
Sáez-LópezJ. M.Román-GonzálezM.Vázquez-CanoE. (2016) Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education97: 129–141.
34.
SantosM. E. C.ChenA.TaketomiT.YamamotoG.MiyazakiJ.KatoH. (2014) Augmented reality learning experiences: Survey of prototype design and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies7(1): 38–56.
35.
Santos, M. E. C., Yamamoto, G., Taketomi, T., Miyazaki, J., & Kato, H. (2013). Augmented reality X-ray interaction in K-12 education. Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT ’13), Beijing, China, 141–145.
36.
ThomasP.MacredieR. D. (2002) Introduction to the new usability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction9(2): 69–73.
37.
Tundjungsari, V. (2016). E-learning model for teaching programming language for secondary school students in Indonesia. 13th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV), Madrid, Spain, 262–266.
38.
WingJ. M. (2006) Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM49(3): 33–35.
39.
YoonS.AndersonE.LinJ.ElinichK. (2017) How augmented reality enables conceptual understanding of challenging science content. Educational Technology & Society20(1): 156–168.
