How Augmented Reality (AR) Affect Pedagogical Contributions
Now we will look at Theme Two. How Augmented Reality (AR) affect pedagogical contributions such as enjoyment, level of engagement, interest for the student?
Many researchers found these themes in their research and spent some time writing about these elements. How Augmented Reality (AR) Affect Pedagogical Contributions.
The following are main key points from researchers and reflections about these key points include:-
- Defined as “the action of possessing and benefiting from something”
Level of Engagement
Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning – Dede, C. (2009)
- Simple design in layout helps every user navigate through the software and often produces engagement as well as a willingness to reuse the system. On the other hand, overusing a device or overloading the user has a negative response.
- More wearables purport to enable human-computer interaction (Kim & Dey, 2015) However, many of the devices are immature as development issues exist and privacy may lower engagement.
Engagement using different media was found by Billinghurst and Dunser (2012)
- New devices, new software, new experiences in learning help raise engagement which is evident throughout these studies.
Interest for the Student
Chang, Chang, Hou, Sung, Chao, & Lee (2014) found AR increases learning interest. This example provided research to pedagogical contributions.
Explore collaborative opportunities, communication between student and professor.
- Collaborative activity is the activity – among more – and less-capable peers (Vygotsky,1978). Constructivism is a theory in research to encourage Dunleavy et al. (2009)
- Communication – more effective quality communication Bente, Ruggenberg, Kramer, and Eschenburg (2008)
Other contributors include self-learning, physical and virtual worlds, actually ‘learn by doing’, ‘student-centered technology’, ‘multisensory learning’, and ‘instant information retrieval’.
- self-learning achievement presence Martin-Gutierrez et al. (2012)
- demographic population results varied due to cognitive capabilities (Kim & Dey, 2015)