Building and evaluating learners’ attitudes toward augmented reality learning
system
Hsiu-Mei Huang
Department of Information Management, National Taichung University of Science
and Technology,129, Sec. 3, Saming Rd., Taichung, 404, Taiwan
E-mail: hmhuang@nutc.edu.tw, Phone: 886-4-22196609
Yen-Hsiang Andrew Liaw
Department of Computer Science, Simon Fraser University, Canada
E-mail : yhandrew.liaw@hotmail.com
Yen-Ting Angela Liaw
Facuty of Arts, University of British Columbia, Canada
E-mail : angelaliaw12345@yahoo.com.tw
Shu-Sheng Liaw
General Education Center, China Medical University
91 Shiuesh Rd., Taichung, 404, Taiwan
E-mail: ssliaw@mail.cmu.edu.tw ,Phone: 886-4-22053366 Ext. 6319
Abstract
Augmented reality (AR) appears as an attractive technology that promises to
allow learners to realize the virtual and real objects coexist at the same time. Previous
experiences in the application of augmented reality in educational contexts were quite
successful. The AR learning environment enables learners to make use of extensive
interactions with the system and real world. This study attempts to build a prototype
of augmented reality learning system for health care. In order to evaluate the learners’
attitude toward the system, TAM (technology acceptance model) was applied. The
result showed that perceived usefulness is the only and most important factor to affect
learners’ attitude toward using the AR learning system.
1. Introduction
Information communication and advanced technology has been assisted learning
for decades and shown that it can be able to create new learning opportunities for
learners. Due to the great impact of advanced technology in the field of education, a
virtual learning environment as a powerful virtual world for teaching and learning has
been applied with e-learning applications (Carmigniani et al., 2001; Dunleavy, Dede,
& Mitchell, 2009). Educators and researchers seem to consider how to improve the
virtual learning process and authentic activities. Recently, advanced augmented reality
(AR) technology has been expanded to enable the learners to interact with both of
virtual worlds and real worlds significantly (Carmigniani et al., 2001; Dunleavy, Dede,
& Mitchell, 2009). With this technological shift, the technology is more likely to
continue progressing toward a more powerful and intuitive interaction, efficient visual
communication, integration of rich media and delivering high quality learning content
generated and managed by instructors.
Carmigniani et al. (2001) defined “Augmented Reality as a real-time direct or
indirect view of a physical real world environment that has been enhanced /
augmented by adding virtual computer generated information to it” (p.342).
Augmented reality is concerned with bringing virtual information generated by
computer imagery not only to immediate surroundings, but also to any indirect view
of physical real-world environment (Park, 2011). Augmented reality (AR) systems
integrate virtual information into a user’s physical environment so that the user will
perceive that information as existing in the environment. Computer graphics can be
spatially registered with, and overlaid on, geographic locations and real objects to
provide visual AR. Augmented reality (AR) is a newly emerging type of digital
content that combines real imagery, which is usually captured by video cameras with
virtual 3D graphic objects. In short, augmented reality refers to most of images that
are real and can interact with the virtual world in real-time.
2. The devices of AR
AR could potentially apply to all senses, which are augmenting smell, touch and
hearing, as well by using augmented devices. The main devices for augmented reality
are displays, input devices, tracking, and computers (Carmigniani et al., 2001; Kesim
& Ozarslan, 2012).
2.1 Displays
Head mounted displays (HMD), handheld displays and spatial displays are three
major types of displays used in AR. To obtain an enhanced view of the real
environment, learners wear video-see-through or optical see-through HMDs to see 3D
computer-generated objects superimposed on their real-world view. With optical
see-through HMDs, the real world is seen through half-transparent mirrors placed in
front of the user’s eyes. The half silver mirror technology allows the views of real
world to graphically overlay information of computer-generated images into the
user’s eyes, thereby optically combining the real and virtual world views. With a
video see-through HMD, the real world view is captured with two cameras on the
learner’s head and the computer-generated images are electronically combined with
the video representation of the real world (Carmigniani et al., 2001). Many
applications of AR are integrated virtual objects, either directly into the real
environment with a spatial display or indirectly with a head-mounted display
(HMD)(Park,2011).
Handheld displays employ a small computing device that can hold in a learner's
hand. The two main advantages of handheld AR are the portable nature of handheld
devices and ubiquitous nature of camera phones. On the other hand, the physical
constraints of the learner should hold the handheld device out in front of real
environments at all times, and the distorting effect of wide-angled mobile phone
cameras while comparing the usage of eyes for viewing the real world are the
disadvantages of handheld displays. All handheld AR displays employ
video-see-through techniques to overlay computer-generated images into the real
environment and use sensors, such as digital compasses and GPS units for their six
degree of freedom tracking sensors. For augmented reality system, there are many
promising platform currently available for handheld displays such as smart-phones,
PDAs, and Tablets. Although smart-phones are extremely portable and widespread,
the lack of adequate processing power and local network connectivity would be the
two main disadvantages for meaningful AR platform options (Carmigniani et al.,
2001).
Spatial Augmented Reality (SAR) makes use of video-projectors, optical
elements and other tracking technologies to display computer-generated images
directly onto physical objects without requiring the learner to wear or carry the
display (Kesim &Ozarslan, 2012). Spatial augmented reality separate displays from
the user and integrate it into the real world. The system can be used by multiple
learners at the same time without each user having his/her own AR display, thus SAR
allows for collaboration learning between users (Carmigniani et al., 2001).
2.2 Input devices
There are many types of input devices for AR systems such as pinch glove, a
wand with a button and a smart phone that be used as a pointing device. For example,
Android phone requires the user to point his/her phone in the direction of the stars. In
general, the input devices chosen depends on the type of application is developed for
the display chosen. For instance, if an AR system uses a handheld display, the learners
should utilize a touch screen as input device (Carmigniani et al., 2001).
2.3 Tracking devices
Tracking devices employ the tracking technologies: digital cameras and/or other
optical sensors, GPS, RFID, and wireless sensors. Each of these technologies has
different levels of accuracy and precision depends on the type of system being
employed. For instance, the tracking devices for AR can be provided by vision
tracking using the built-in camera of the handheld device. The ARToolKit library is a
well-known marker tracking tool for developing a significantly tracking approach for
both PCs and handheld devices (Carmigniani et al., 2001).
2.4 Computers
AR systems require powerful CPU and enough RAMs to process camera images.
Thus, the computer analyzes the sensed visual and other data to synthesize and
position augmentations devices.
2.5 The advantages and disadvantages of AR
It is important to discuss about the benefits and drawbacks of AR technology
when employed in learning. The advantages of the AR can be classified into two parts:
advantages of AR application and advantages at the AR creation phase. One of the
advantages of AR application is used for simulation, visualization, addition of
information, and interaction with the virtual objects without being totally immersed in
the virtual life (Diggins, 2005; El Sayed et al., 2011). The most important of the AR
creation process is less expensive than the Virtual Reality (El Sayed et al., 2011).
Furthermore, the advantages of Augmented Reality versus Virtual Reality (VR)
includes the require of requiring less power since fewer pixels are needed and provide
more immersion since AR technology immerse the learner’s activities into a complete
virtual environment.
Real-time registration and user interaction are two major problems of augmented
reality (Park, 2011). For the problem of real-time registration, there are the accurate
camera pose estimation and accurate geometric registration between the captured real
world and mixed virtual 3D objects (Park, 2011). On the other hand, since any events
occurred in a real environment consists of intentional body motions by changing
poses or signals from classical input devices, those events should immediately affect
the real-time interaction problem for the augmented environment (Park, 2011). In
Addition, El Sayed et al. (2011) proposed that the tracking time, registration error, and
rendering quality are all AR drawbacks.
3. A case study of augmented reality learning system
3.1 System development
The body organs augmented reality learning system (named 3DHC-AR)
provides learners to explore body organs related knowledge in immersive learning
environment. The system is designed to offer basic concepts of anatomy and health
care by integrating D’Fusion into Virtools 4.0 and 3D system components through 3D
object sourced from Turbo Squid. The system’s 3D graphic modules were drawn and
rendered using 3DsMax and Maya, then edited with 3Ds Max, and transformed into
OBJ files for export to D’Fusion Authoring tools, which included a 3D model export
tool and a 3D model viewing tool from D’Fusion written in Lua Script.
This system created Augmented Reality by D'Fusion CV and D'Fusion AR and
provides learners with interactive control over virtual human body organs by physical
cards and webcams. The system and course contents were built using Dreamweaver,
the D’fusion Web player, and Virtools, thus ensuring that the user has continuous
access to the program without any additional program installation. The overall
architecture is shown as Fig. 1. The learner uses an organ card to control the learning
process. For example, the learner can rotate, observe, and zoom in/out on the organs.
The learner needs to prepare a Webcam and a body organ card for learning as shown
in Figure 2. Using a body organ card to control the learning process, the learner can
rotate and observe the organs as shown in Figure 3
Fig 1. System architecture
Fig 2. A Webcam and body organ card for AR learning
Fig.3 A learner rotates and observes the body organ.
3.2 Research hypotheses
AR allows learners to see the real world as well as the virtual when it combines
with all components in the form of virtual objects in the system, thus AR functions
with the real-time activities allows learners to realize that the virtual and real objects
coexist at the same time (Hsiao & Rashvand, 2011).The AR learning environment
enables learners to make use of extensive interactions with the system such as the
interaction between the learner and the real objects in the real world.
TAM (technology acceptance model), examining learners’ attitudes and
intentions on the usage of computer and communication technology, has emerged to
be especially promising (Vankatesh & Davis 1996). TAM proposes that perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use to determine an individual's intention to use a
system based on user attitudes (Davis 1989). Perceived usefulness is the extension to
which a learner’s beliefs of using an information system will increase his or her
learning performance (Davis, 1989). Perceived ease of use is a measure of users’
perceptions about how easy it is to implement a system. TAM has been successfully
examined by many researchers to predict behavioural intention towards the use of an
information system.
Based on TAM theory, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1: The perceived ease of use will have positive impacts on learners’ attitudes toward
the AR learning system.
H2: The perceived usefulness will have positive impacts on learners’ attitudes toward
the AR learning system.
3.3. Participants and measurement
There were 25 males and 30 females of a total of 55 valid responses. The data for
this study were gathered by using the paper-and-pencil surveys. The questionnaire
included 19 questions by using a 5-point Likert scales (ranging from 1 which means
‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 which means ‘‘strongly agree’’). All subjects were asked to
respond to the questionnaire and their responses were guaranteed to be confidential.
The internal consistency reliability was assessed by computing Cronbach's αs. There
are .76,.80 and .91 for the perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intention
to use factors, respectively. Thus, the alpha reliability was highly accepted.
3.4 Results
According to the results, 49.1% participants have over 10 years for computer
experience. 19 out of 55 participants had used augmented reality environment (34.5%)
and 9 of the participants had used augmented reality environment for learning
(16.4%). Moreover, 36.4% learners had used augmented reality game. Only 6%
learners had experience in learning the health care related course.
The means of the perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intention to use
factors are shown in Table 1. For investigating hypotheses H1 and H2, a multiple
regression was conducted in this study. The result showed that perceived usefulness
factor was the only predictor to contribute in learners’ attitude towards the using of
the AR learning system (F(1, 53)=16.14, p<0.001, R2=0.24).
Table 1. The means, standard deviations of items.
Factors
Perceived
ease of use
Item
M
S.D.
1. I feel the system is easy to use.
3.93
2. The system is convenient for me to 3.69
use.
3. Learning how to operate the
3.69
system is easy for me.
.57
.79
1. I feel that the system is helpful for
4.11
.71
2. I feel that the system is helpful to
me to learn about health care.
4.20
.73
3. I feel that the system make me
understand more about health care.
3.96
.86
1. The system can motivate me to
3.76
.98
.74
learning.
Perceived
usefulness
learn.
Intention
to Use
4.
2. I feel that the system can
strengthen my intention to learn.
3. The presentations of the system
arose my curiosity to learn.
4. I am willing to use the system in
my future learning.
5. The contents of the learning
system can help me learn quickly.
3.65
.80
3.73
.93
3.78
.86
4.02
.81
Discussion
The mean of perceived ease of use factor is 3.77. On the other hand, the mean of
perceived usefulness is 4.09. Thus, learners perceive that the system is useful than the
ease of use. In this study, perceived ease of use is not a predictor of learners’
behavioral intention to use AR learning system. Moreover, the result of the study
supported that perceived usefulness is the most significant contributor to positive
learner attitudes toward the use of 3D virtual reality systems (Huang, Rauch & Liaw,
2010; Verhagen et al., 2012).
5.
Conclusion
Learners can explore or navigate in a VR learning environment, and manipulate
the 3D learning objects. Augmented reality has the ability to engage the learners and
motivate them to explore authentic contexts between the instructional materials from
real world with virtual objects created by VR technology (Hsiao & Rashvand, 2011).
The result of this study supports that the potential of AR as a useful educational tools,
which has been recognized by educators and researchers for many years. As a result,
AR technology can offer the opportunity to create user friendly authentic learning
environment that could be useful environment for learning. Therefore, educators
would like to take advantages on the usefulness of AR technology, which affects
learners’ intention to engage in learning activities. That is, the result of the study
supported that a learner’s perception of the perceived usefulness is a crucial factor to
influence the learners’ attitude toward the usage of AR learning.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan under
contract numbers NSC100-2511-S-025-003-MY3.
References
Carmigniani,J. , Furht,B. ,Anisetti,M., Ceravolo ,P. , Damiani ,E.& Ivkovic.M. (2011).
Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimed Tools
Appl ,51,341–377.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance
of information technology, MIS Quarterly, 14，319-340.
Diggins, D. (Sep. 2005). ARLib: Act augmented reality software development kit. MSc
Thesis. Bournemouth University.
Dunleavy, M.,Dede ,C., Mitchell,R.(2009). Affordances and Limitations of Immersive
Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning.Journal
of Science Educational Technology,18,7–22.
El Sayed, N.A. M., Zayed, H. H., Sharawy , M. I.(2011). ARSC: Augmented reality
student card: An augmented reality solution for the education field. Computers &
Education ,56,1045–1061.
Huang, M.-M., Rauch, U. and Liaw, S.-S. (2010), Investigating learners’ attitudes
toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach.
Computers & Education, 55(3), pp. 1171-82.
Hsiao, K.-F. & Rashvand, H. F. (2011). Integrating body language movements in
augmented reality learning environment. Human-centric Computing and
Information Sciences, 1:1. (http://www.hcis-journal.com/content/1/1/1)
Kesim, M. &Ozarslan,Y. (2012). Augmented reality in education: current technologies
and the potential for education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47,
297 – 302.
Park, J.S. (2011) AR-Room: a rapid prototyping framework for augmented reality
applications, Multimedia Tools Application, 55,725–746.
Vankatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of
use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27 (3), 451-481.
Verhagen, T. Feldberg, F., van den Hooff, B., Meents, S., Merikivi, J. (2012)
Understanding users’ motivations to engage in virtual worlds: A multipurpose
model and empirical testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 484–495.