Monday , June 18 2018

Influence of Specific AR Capabilities on the Learning
Effectiveness and Efficiency

Dragos Daniel IORDACHE, Costin PRIBEANU, Alexandru BALOG
I C I Bucharest
(National Institute for R & D in Informatics)

8-10 Averescu Blvd.
011455 Bucharest 1, Romania,,

Abstract: Augmented reality (AR) is a promising technology for improving the applicative and comprehension skills of students. The ARiSE project developed an Augmented Reality Teaching Platform (ARTP) for secondary schools. A Chemistry learning scenario was implemented that is based on the interaction paradigm “building with guidance”. This study aims at assessing the extent to which specific capabilities of the ARTP support the understanding of Chemistry concepts as well as their contribution to the perceived utility. The results of a multiple-regression analysis show that the specific features of the Chemistry scenario enable students to better understand the subject matter with less effort in learning. Overall, the interaction paradigm proved to have a positive influence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the learning process

Keywords: Perceived usefulness, learning effectiveness, learning efficiency, augmented reality, e-learning.

>>Full text
Dragoş Daniel IORDACHE, Costin PRIBEANU, Alexandru BALOG, Influence of Specific AR Capabilities on the Learning Effectiveness and Efficiency, Studies in Informatics and Control, ISSN 1220-1766, vol. 21 (3), pp. 233-240, 2012.

1. Introduction

AR can enhance the learner’s perception of a real environment, unlike other computer-based interactive technologies that draw users away from the real world and focus their attention onto a screen (Chen &Tsai, 2012). Thus, AR is a promising technology for improving the practical and comprehension skills of students and supporting the learning and teaching process in educational contexts.

The Augmented Reality Teaching Platform (ARTP) was developed in the framework of the ARiSE project (Wind, Riege & Bogen, 2007). ARTP consists in three research prototypes (applications), implementing various learning scenarios based on different interaction paradigms. The second prototype implemented a Chemistry scenario.

The interaction paradigm was “building with guidance” and was targeted at understanding the periodic table of Chemical elements, the structure of atoms / molecules, and chemical reactions. There are typical AR capabilities, such as: 3D visualization, animation, vocal interface for learning and guidance, and haptic feedback. There are also some specific features for this scenario: augmentation of the atom structure, building a molecule from atoms, and simulation of chemical reactions.

The purpose of this study is twofold: (a) to evaluate the extent to which these specific capabilities of the ARTP are supporting the understanding and learning of Chemistry concept (b) to analyze the relations between the ARTP features and two variables related to the perceived utility: effectiveness and efficiency of the learning process.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section we present related work in AR-based learning. In Section 3 we describe the method, including the rationale for the evaluation instrument. The results of this study are presented in section 4. The paper ends with conclusion and future work.


  1. BALOG, A., C. PRIBEANU, The Role of Perceived Enjoyment in the Students’ Acceptance of an AR Teaching Platform: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach, Studies in Informatics and Control, vol. 19(3), 2010, pp. 319-330.
  2. BILLINGHURST, M., Augmented Reality in Education. New Horizons for Learning, 2003,
  3. CHEN, R., X. WANG, An Empirical Study on Tangible Augmented Reality Learning Space for Design Skill Transfer, Tsinghua Science & Technology, vol. 13(1), 2008, pp. 13-18.
  4. CHEN, Y.-C. A Study of Comparing the Use of Augmented Reality and Physical Models in Chemistry Education. ACM International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications, 2006, pp. 369-372.
  5. CHEN, C.-M., Y.-N. TSAI, (). Interactive Augmented Reality System for Enhancing Library Instruction. Computers & Education 2012, vol. 59, pp. 638-652.
  6. CHIEN, C.-H., C.-H. CHIEN, T.-S. JENG, An Interactive Augmented Reality System for Learning Anatomy Structure, Proceedings of International Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, 2010, pp. 370-375.
  1. DI SERIO, A., M. B. IBÁŇEZ, C. D. KLOOS, Impact of an Augmented Reality System on Students’ Motivation for a Visual Art Course. Computers & Education Journal, 2012, pp. 1-11.
  2. DUNLEAVY, M., C. DEDE, R. MITCHELL, Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 18(1), 2009, pp. 7-22.
  3. FIELD, A., Discovering Statistics using SPSS. Second edition. SAGE Publications Ltd., 2005.
  4. FJELD, M., J. FREDRIKSSON, M. EJDESTIG, F. DUCA, K. BOTSCHI, B. VOEGTLI, P. JUCHLI, Tangible User Interface for Chemistry Education: Comparative Evaluation and Re-design, CHI’07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. New York, NY, USA, ACM, 2007, pp. 805-808.
  5. GARDNER, H., Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, London, William Heinemann, 1983.
  6. IORDACHE, D., C. PRIBEANU, Impactul problemelor de utilizabilitate asupra utilităţii percepute şi experienţei utilizatorului unui scenariu de învăţare bazat pe realitate îmbogăţită. Revista Romana de Interactiune Om-Calculator, 4 (Special issue – RoCHI 2011), 2011, pp. 43-48.
  7. KAUFMANN, H., Augmented Reality with Geometry Education, Doctoral Thesis: Vienna University of Technology, 2004
  8. KYE, B., Y. KIM, Investigation of the Relationship between Media Characteristics, Presence, Flow and Learning Effects in Augmented Reality based Learning, International Journal for Education Media and Technology, vol. 2(1), 2008, pp. 4-14.
  9. LIU, W., D. CHEOK, Mixed Reality Classroom – Learning from Entertainment. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts, Perth, Australia, 2007, pp. 65-72.
  10. MAIER, P. TÖNNIS, M. KLINKER G. (2009), Dynamics in Tangible Chemical Reactions. International Conference on Chemical Engineering – ICCE 2009, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  11. MEDINA, E., Y. CHEN, S. WEGHORST, Understanding Biochemistry with Augmented Reality. C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.) Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007, Chesapeake, VA: AACE, 2007, pp. 4235-4239.
  12. NICULESCU, A., G. THORSTEINSSON, Enabling Idea Generation through Computer-assisted Collaborative Learning, Studies in Informatics and Control, vol. 20(4), 2011, pp. 403-410.
  13. NÚŇEZ M., R. QUIROS, I. NÚŇEZ, J. B. CARDA, E. CAMAHORT, Collaborative Augmented Reality for Inorganic Chemistry Education, Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS/IASME International Conference on Engineering Education, July 22-24, 2008, Heraklion, 2008, pp. 271-277.
  14. PINTER, R., D. RADOSAV, S. M. CISAR, Analyzing the Impact of Using Interactive Animations in Teaching, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, vol. 7(1), 2012, pp. 147-162.
  15. PRIBEANU, C., Un model formativ de măsurare a valorii motivaţionale a unei aplicaţii educaţionale bazate pe realitate îmbogăţită. Revista Romana de Interactiune Om-Calculator, vol. 5(2), 2012, pp. 13-18.
  16. PRIBEANU, C., Specification and Validation of a Second Order Formative Index to Evaluate the Ergonomic Quality of an AR-based Educational Platform. International Journal of Computers, Communication and Control, vol. 7(4), 2011, pp. 720-731.
  17. PRIBEANU, C., A. BALOG, D. D. IORDACHE, Formative User-centered Usability Evaluation of an Augmented Reality Educational System, Proceedings of ICSOFT 2008 – The Third International Conference on Software and Data Technologies, Porto 5-8 July, INSTICC. 2008, pp. 65-72.
  18. Pribeanu, C., D. D. Iordache, From Usability to User Experience: Evaluating the Educational and Motivational Value of an Augmented Reality Scenario. Affective, Interactive and Cognitive Methods for E-Learning Design: Creating an Optimal Education Experience, Tzanavari E., Tsapatoulis N. (Eds), IGI-Global, 2010, pp. 244-259.
  19. SANKARANARAYANAN, G., S. WEGHORST, M. SANNER, A. GILLET, A. OLSON, Role of Haptics in Teaching Structural Molecular Biology. Proceedings of Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (IEEE HAPTICS’03), 2003, pp. 363-366.
  20. SHELTON, B. E., How Augmented Reality Helps Students Learn Dynamic Spatial Relationships. PhD Thesis, University of Washington, 2003.
  21. WIND, J., K. RIEGE, M. BOGEN, Spinnstube®: A Seated Augmented Reality Display System, Proceedings of IPT-EGVE – EG/ACM Symposium, 2007, pp. 17-23.
  22. WIND, J., V. LAMANAUSKAS, J. KRIVANEK, Deliverable D4.2: Description of Lessons, Electronic Content and 3D Models. ARISE project, FP6-027039, 2006.
  23. WOODS, E. et al, Augmenting the Science Centre and Museum Experience. Proceedings of Graphite 2004, ACM, 2004, pp. 230-236.