This study aimed to explore whether the integration of virtual reality and augmented reality used in a specially designed science book could improve the students' science concept learning outcomes. A true experimental research design was conducted to check the effectiveness of the specially designed book in terms of learners' achievement. The sample for this study consisted of 80 fifth-grade students, divided into a control and an experimental group. The results revealed that using mixed reality (augmented reality and virtual reality) as a learning supplement to the printed book could improve students' learning outcomes, particularly for low spatial ability students. Finally, recommendations for future practices and research are discussed.
AleshiaT. H.CarrieL. S.LisaA. D.CharlieE. H.MichaelC. H. (2013) Ludic learning: Exploration of TLE TeachLivE™ and effective teacher training. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS)5(2): 20–33.
2.
AndersonL. W.KrathwohlD. R.BloomB. S. (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, New York, NY: Longman.
3.
AnnettaL.MangrumJ.HolmesS.CollazoK.ChengM. T. (2009) Bridging realty to virtual reality: Investigating gender effect and student engagement on learning through video game play in an elementary school classroom. International Journal of Science Education31(8): 1091–1113.
4.
AzumaR. T. (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments6(4): 355–385.
5.
BalogA.PribeanuC. (2010) The role of perceived enjoyment in the students' acceptance of an augmented reality teaching platform: A structural equation modelling approach. Studies in Informatics and Control19(3): 319–330.
6.
BlackA. A. (2005) Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geoscience Education53(4): 402–414.
7.
BloomB. S. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive domain, New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.
8.
BranofT. (1998) The effects of adding coordinate axes to a mental rotations task in measuring spatial visualization ability in introductory undergraduate technical graphics courses. Engineering Design Graphics Journal62(2): 16–34.
9.
CaiY.LuB.ZhengJ.LiL. (2006) Immersive protein gaming for bio edutainment. Simulation & Gaming37(4): 466–475.
10.
CarrollJ. B. (1993) Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
ChenC. H.YangJ. C.ShenS.JengM. C. (2007) A desktop virtual reality earth motion system in astronomy education. Educational Technology & Society10: 289–304.
12.
ChenN. S.TengD. C. E.LeeC. H.Kinshuk (2011) Augmenting paper-based reading activity with direct access to digital materials and scaffolded questioning. Computers & Education57(2): 1705–1715.
ChengK.TsaiC. (2013) Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology22: 449–462.
15.
CheokA. D.HallerM.FernandoO. N. N.WijesenaJ. P. (2009) Mixed reality entertainment and art. The International Journal of Virtual Reality8: 83–90.
16.
ChoY. H.YimS. Y.PaikS. (2015) Physical and social presence in 3D virtual role-play for pre-service teachers. The Internet and Higher Education25(Supplement C): 70–77.
17.
ConteroM.NayaF.CompanyP.SaorinJ. L.ConesaJ. (2005) Improving visualization skills in engineering education. IEEE Computer Graphics and Application25(5): 24–31.
18.
Dalgarno, B. (2004). A classification scheme for learner-computer interaction. Paper presented at the Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth.
19.
DaniD. E.KoenigK. M. (2008) Technology and reform-based science education. Theory Into Practice47(3): 204–211.
20.
DunleavyM.DedeC.MitchellR. (2009) Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology18: 7–22.
21.
FieldB. W. (2007) Visualization, intuition, and mathematics metrics as predictors of undergraduate engineering design performance. Journal of Mechanical Design129(7): 735–743.
22.
Frank, M. S., Jones, R. M., Krockover, G. H., Lang, M. P., McLeod, J. C., Valenta, C. J., & Van Deman, B. A. (2002). Cycles on Earth and in space. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.
23.
Freitas, R., & Campos, P. (2008). SMART: A system of augmented reality for teaching 2nd grade students. Paper presented at the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction, Liverpool, England.
24.
FuscoD. (2001) Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching38(8): 860–877.
25.
GardnerH. (1993) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences, New York, NY: Fontana Press.
26.
Gardner, M., Scott, J., & Horan, B. (2008, November 20–21). Reflections on the use of Project Wonderland as a mixed-reality environment for teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ReLIVE 08 Conference, Milton Keynes, UK.
27.
GiaquintoM. (2007) Visual thinking in mathematics: An epistemological study, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
28.
GilakjaniA. P. (2012) The significant role of multimedia in motivating EFL learners' interest in English language learning. International Journal of Modern Education & Computer Science4: 57–66.
29.
GregoryS.BruningR.SvobodaC. (1995) Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior27(1): 1–17.
30.
GuayR. (1976) Purdue spatial visualization test, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research Foundation.
31.
GuayR. B.McDanielE. D.AngeloS. (1978) Analytic factor confounding spatial ability measurement. In: GuayR. B.McDanielE. D. (eds) Correlates of performance on spatial aptitude tests, West Lafayette, IN: Army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences.
32.
Hayes, A. T., Hardin, S. E., & Hughes, C. E. (2013). Perceived presence's role on learning outcomes in a mixed reality classroom of simulated students. Paper presented at the virtual, augmented and mixed reality systems and applications (VAMR 2013). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, Heidelberg.
33.
HaysT. A. (1996) Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research14(2): 139–155.
34.
HelleS.LehtonenT.WoodwardC.TurunenM.SalmiH. (2017) Miracle handbook-guidelines for mixed reality applications for culture and learning experiences, Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
35.
HofflerT. N. (2010) Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations-a meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review22: 245–269.
36.
Hoffmann, M., Meisen, T., & Jeschke, S. (2014). Shifting virtual reality education to the next level-experiencing remote laboratories through mixed reality. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Education Technologies, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
37.
HuangK. L.ChenK. H.HoC. H. (2014) Enhancing learning outcomes through new e-textbooks: A desirable combination of presentation methods and concept maps. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology30(5): 600–618.
38.
HwangW.-Y.HuS.-S. (2013) Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving. Computers & Education62(Supplement C): 308–319.
39.
Johnson-GlenbergM. C.BirchfieldD. A.TolentinoL.KoziupaT. (2014) Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: Two science studies. Journal of Educational Psychology106: 86–104.
40.
JohnstoneA. H. (1991) Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning7(2): 75–83.
41.
KellH. J.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.SteigerJ. H. (2013) Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability's unique role. Psychological Science24(9): 1831–1836.
42.
KirnerC.CerqueiraC. S.KirnerT. G. (2012) Using augmented reality artifacts in education and cognitive rehabilitation. In: EichenbergC. (ed.) Virtual reality in psychological, medical and pedagogical applications, New York, NY: InTech.
43.
KordakiM. (2010) A drawing and multi-representational computer environment for beginners' learning of programming using C: Design and pilot formative evaluation. Computers & Education54(1): 69–87.
44.
LinH. C. K.HsiehM. C.WangC. H.SieZ. Y.ChangS. H. (2011) Establishment and usability evaluation of an interactive Ar learning system on conservation of fish. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology10(4): 181–187.
45.
LindgrenR.TschollM.WangS.JohnsonE. (2016) Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education95(Supplement C): 174–187.
46.
Martín-GutiérrezJ.Luís SaorínJ.ConteroM.AlcañizM.Pérez-LópezD. C.OrtegaM. (2010) Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students. Computers & Graphics34(1): 77–91.
47.
Martín-GutierrezJ.TrujilloR. E. N.Acosta-GonzalezM. M. (2013) Augmented reality application assistant for spatial ability training. HMD vs Computer screen use study. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences93(Supplement C): 49–53.
48.
MayerR. E. (2002) Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice41(4): 226–232.
49.
McKenzie, J., & Darnell, D. (2003). The eyeMagic book. Paper presented at the A Report into Augmented Reality Storytelling in the Context of a Children's Workshop 2003, New Zealand Centre for Childrenm's Literature and Christchurch College of London, Christchurch.
50.
MerchantZ.GoetzE. T.CifuentesL.Keeney-KennicuttW.DavisT. J. (2014) Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education70: 29–40.
51.
MilgramP.KishinoF. (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual display. IEICE Transaction on Information and Systems, E77-D. 73–87.
52.
Müller, D., & Ferreira, J. M. M. (2003, November 20–21). A mixed-reality learning environment for vocational training in mechatronics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Technology Enhanced Learning International Conference, Milan, Italy.
53.
MünzerS. (2012) Facilitating spatial perspective taking through animation: Evidence from an aptitude–treatment-interaction. Learning and Individual Differences22(4): 505–510.
54.
NikolakisG.FergadisG.TzovarasD.StrintzisM. G. (2004) A mixed reality learning environment for geometry education. In: VourosG. A.PanayiotopoulosT. (eds) Methods and applications of artificial intelligence. SETN 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceVol. 3025, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
55.
Noh, Z., Sunar, M. S., & Pan, Z. (2009). A review on augmented reality for virtual heritage system. In M. Chang, R. Kuo, Kinshuk, G.-D. Chen, & M. Hirose (Eds.), Learning by playing. Game-based education system design and development: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on e-learning and games, edutainment 2009, Banff, Canada, August 9–11, 2009 (pp. 50–61). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
56.
OrionN.Ben-ChaimD.KaliY. (1997) Relationship between Earth-Science education and spatial visualization. Journal of Geoscience Education45(2): 129–132.
57.
PantelidisV. S. (1995) Reasons to use virtual reality in education. VR in the Schools1(1): 9.
58.
PantelidisV. S. (2009) Reasons to use virtual reality in education and training courses and a model to determine when to use virtual reality. Themes in Science and Technology Education2(1–2): 59–70.
59.
Piovesan, S. D., Passerino, L. M., & Pereira, A. S. (2012). Virtual reality as a tool in the education. IADIS international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in digital age (pp. 295–298). Madrid: IADIS.
60.
Pribeanu, C., Balog, A., & Iordache, D. D. (2008). Formative user-centered usability evaluation of an augmented reality educational system. Paper presented at the proceedings of international conference on software and data technologies—ICSOFT.
61.
RoussouM.OliverM.SlaterM. (2006) The virtual playground: An educational virtual reality environment for evaluating interactivity and conceptual learning. Virtual Reality10: 227–240.
62.
SchrawG.FlowerdayT.LehmanS. (2001) Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review13: 211–224.
63.
SchroederC. M.ScottT. P.TolsonH.HuangT.-Y.LeeY.-H. (2007) A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching44(10): 1436–1460.
64.
SchwartzD. L.HeiserJ. (2006) Spatial representations and imagery in learning, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
65.
Shelton, B. E., & Hedley, N. R. (2002). Using augmented reality for teaching Earth-Sun relationships to undergraduate geography students. Paper presented at the First IEEE International Workshop Augmented Reality Toolkit, Darmstadt, Germany.
66.
SimonH. A. (1980) Problem solving and education. In: TumaD. T.ReifF. (eds) Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 92.
67.
SongerN. B. (2007) Digital resources versus cognitive tools: A discussion of learning science with technology. In: AbellS. K.LedermanN. G. (eds) Handbook of research on science education, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 471–493.
68.
StanneyK. M.SalvendyG. (1995) Information visualization; Assisting low spatial individuals with information access tasks through the use of visual mediators. Ergonomics38(6): 1184–1198.
69.
StrongeJ. H. (2010) Evaluating what good teachers do: Eight research-based standards for assessing teacher excellence, Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
70.
SunJ. C.-Y.RuedaR. (2012) Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology43(2): 191–204.
71.
Tolentino, L., Birchfield, D., & Kelliher, A. (2009, January 29–30). SMALLab for special needs: Using a mixed-reality platform to explore learning for children with autism. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the NSF Media Arts, Science and Technology Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
72.
TschollM.LindgrenR. (2016) Designing for learning conversations: How parents support children's science learning within an immersive simulation. Science Education100(5): 877–902.
73.
UttalD. H.CohenC. A. (2012) Spatial thinking and STEM education. When, why, and how?. Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory57: 147–181.
74.
YangJ. C.HuangY. T.TsaiC. C.ChungC. I.WuY. C. (2009) An automatic multimedia content summarization system for video recommendation. Educational Technology & Society12(1): 49–61.
