Digital entrepreneurial intentions the role of it knowledge and entrepreneurial program learning

The conference was also platform for critical debates on theories, approaches, principles and applications of mobile learning among educators, developers, researchers, practitioners and

Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 936

Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 936

Series Editor

Janusz Kacprzyk , Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,

Poland

Advisory Editors

Fernando Gomide, Department of Computer Engineering and Automation—DCA,

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering—FEEC, University of Campinas— UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil

Okyay Kaynak, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Bogazici

University, Istanbul, Türkiye

Derong Liu, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University

of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA

Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Witold Pedrycz, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of

Alberta, Alberta, Canada

Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Marios M Polycarpou, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, KIOS

Research Center for Intelligent Systems and Networks, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

Imre J Rudas, Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary

Jun Wang, Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon,

Hong Kong

in Networks and Systems—quickly, informally and with high quality Original researchreported in proceedings and post-proceedings represents the core of LNNS.

Volumes published in LNNS embrace all aspects and subfields of, as well as newchallenges in, Networks and Systems

The series contains proceedings and edited volumes in systems and works, spanning the areas of Cyber-Physical Systems, Autonomous Systems, Sen-sor Networks, Control Systems, Energy Systems, Automotive Systems, Biologi-cal Systems, Vehicular Networking and Connected Vehicles, Aerospace Systems,Automation, Manufacturing, Smart Grids, Nonlinear Systems, Power Systems,Robotics, Social Systems, Economic Systems and other Of particular value to boththe contributors and the readership are the short publication timeframe and the world-wide distribution and exposure which enable both a wide and rapid dissemination ofresearch output

net-The series covers the theory, applications, and perspectives on the state of the artand future developments relevant to systems and networks, decision making, control,complex processes and related areas, as embedded in the fields of interdisciplinary andapplied sciences, engineering, computer science, physics, economics, social, and lifesciences, as well as the paradigms and methodologies behind them

Indexed by SCOPUS, INSPEC, WTI Frankfurt eG, zbMATH, SCImago

All books published in the series are submitted for consideration in Web of Science.For proposals from Asia please contact Aninda Bose (aninda.bose@springer.com)

Michael E Auer · Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

Michael E Auer

CTI Global

Frankfurt, Germany

Thrasyvoulos TsiatsosDepartment of InformaticsAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessaloniki, Greece

Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems

ISBN 978-3-031-54326-5 ISBN 978-3-031-54327-2 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54327-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license

to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

This work is subject to copyright All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission

or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors

or omissions that may have been made The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Paper in this product is recyclable.

The IMCL conference series actually aims to promote the development of mobilelearning, to provide a forum for education and knowledge transfer, to expose students

to latest ICT technologies and to encourage the study and implementation of mobileapplications in teaching and learning The conference was also platform for criticaldebates on theories, approaches, principles and applications of mobile learning amongeducators, developers, researchers, practitioners and policymakers

IMCL2023 has been again organized by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece,from November 09 to 10, 2023

This year’s theme of the conference was “Smart Mobile Communication &

Artificial Intelligence”.

Again, outstanding scientists from around the world accepted the invitation forkeynote speeches:

• Minjuan Wang, Professor and Program Head, San Diego State University;

Editor-in-Chief, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (TLT), USA: The Impact of

Metaverse and Generative AI on Education.

• Michalis Giannakos, Professor at Norwegian University of Science and Technology

(NTNU), Norway: Multimodal Learning Analytics to Future Learning Systems.

• Stavros Demetriadis, Professor at School of Informatics, Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki, Greece: Harmonizing Minds: Navigating Human-AI Symbiosis in

Learning Environments with Conversational AI.

Furthermore, interesting workshops and tutorials have been organized:

Since its beginning, this conference is devoted to new approaches in learning with afocus to mobile learning, mobile communication, mobile technologies and engineeringeducation

We are currently witnessing a significant transformation in the development of workingand learning environments with a focus to mobile online communication

Therefore, the following main topics have been discussed during the conference indetail:

• Mobile Learning Issues:

• Dynamic learning experiences

• Large-scale adoption of mobile learning

• Ethical and legal issues

• Research methods and evaluation in mobile learning

• Mobile learning models, theory and pedagogy

• Life-long and informal learning using mobile devices

• Open and distance mobile learning

• Social implications of mobile learning

• Cost effective management of mobile learning processes

• Quality in mobile learning

• Case studies in mobile learning

• Interactive Communication Technologies and Infrastructures:

• Wearables and Internet of Things (IoT)

• Tangible, embedded and embodied interaction

• Location-based integration

• Cloud computing

• Emerging mobile technologies and standards

• Interactive and collaborative mobile learning environments

• Remote and online laboratories

• Serious games and gamification

• Mobile health care, healthy lifestyle and training

• Mobile apps for sports

• Mobile credentials, badges and blockchain

• Learning analytics

• Mobile learning in cultural institutions and open spaces

• Mobile systems and services for opening up education

• Social networking applications

• Mobile learning management systems (mLMS)

The following Special Sessions have been organized:

• Interactive Learning Interfaces for Meaning and Expression (iLIME2023),

Chair: Dionysios Politis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

• From Headsets to Mindsets: Human-Centred Extended Reality for Fostering

Participation, Engagement and Co-Creation, Chairs: Petros Lameras, Centre for

Post Digital Cultures, Coventry University, Coventry, UK; Nektarios Moumoutzis,Lab of Distributed Multimedia Information Systems and Applications, School ofElectronics and Computer Engineering, Technical University of Crete, SylvesterArnab, Centre for Post Digital Cultures, Coventry University, Coventry, UK; andPanagiotis Petridis, Aston University, UK

Preface vii

• Empowering Young Women in ICT by Fostering an Inclusive Technological

Thinking (GIFT – IT), Chairs Ciupe Aurelia, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca,

Romania

• Digital Technologies for Health and Sports, Chairs: Stella Douka, Aristotle

Uni-versity of Thessaloniki, Greece; and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos, Aristotle UniUni-versity ofThessaloniki, Greece

Also, a Doctoral Consortium has been organized in the context of IMCL2023,

chaired by Christos Katsanos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; and JennyPange, University of Ioannina, Greece

As submission types have been accepted:

• Full Paper, Short Paper and Doctoral Consortium Work in Progress (within person ordistant/pre-recorded presentation)

• Poster

• Special Sessions

• Round Table Discussions, Workshops, Tutorials and Students’ Competition

All contributions were subject to a double-blind review The review process was very

competitive We had to review about 146 submissions A team of about 78 reviewers

did this terrific job Our special thanks go to all of them

Due to the time and conference schedule restrictions, we could finally accept only

the best 77 submissions for presentation.

The best papers were the following:

• Category “Full Paper”: “Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence methods

in Language Learning Classification of Spanish Tertiary Students” by Grigorios nis (1), Gerasimos Antzoulatos (1), Periklis Papaioannou (1), Athanasios Mavropou-los (1), Ilias Gialampoukidis (1), Marta González Burgos (2), Stefanos Vrochidis (1),Ioannis Kompatsiaris (1) and Maro Vlachopoulou (3) Organization(s): (1): CERTH,Greece; (2): Metodo Estudios Consultores, Spain; and (3): University of Macedonia,Greece

Tzio-• Category “Short Paper”: “VR as a Tool for Enhancing Public Speaking Skills” by

Aurelia Ciupe, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania

• Category “Work-in-Progress”: “Work-in-Progress: “Smart Print Automation”

Remote Lab and Cloud Connector” by Christian Madritsch, Pierre Hohenberger,Benjamin Heindl and Valentin Smoly, Carinthia University of Applied Sciences,Austria

Our conference had again more than 144 participants from 30 countries.

IMCL2025 will be held again at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Michael E AuerIMCL Steering Committee ChairThrasyvoulos G TsiatsosIMCL General Chair

Steering Committee Chair

Michael E Auer CTI Global, Frankfurt/M., Germany

General Conference Chair

Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

International Chairs

Samir A El-Seoud The British University in Egypt (Africa)Neelakshi C Premawardhena University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka (Asia)Alexander Kist University of Southern Queensland, Australia

(Australia/Oceania)

(North America)Uriel Cukierman University of Buenos Aires, Argentina

(South America)

Technical Program Chairs

Ioannis Stamelos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GreeceStavros Demetriadis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Workshop, Tutorial and Special Sessions Chairs

Andreas Pester The British University in Egypt, Cairo, EgyptThrasyvoulos Tsiatsos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

x Committees

Publication Chair

Local Organization Chair

Stella Douka Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Local Organization Committee Member

Christos Temertzoglou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Program Committee Members (TBC)

Agisilaos Konidaris Ionian University, Greece

Anastasios Economides University of Macedonia, Greece

Anastasios Karakostas Information Technologies Institute, GreeceAnastasios Mikropoulos University of Ioannina, Greece

Apostolos Gkamas University Ecclesiastical Academy of Vella of

Ioannina, GreeceCarlos Travieso-Gonzalez Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria,

SpainCharalampos Karagiannidis University of Thessaly, Greece

Christos Bouras University of Patras, Greece

Christos Katsanos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GreeceChristos Douligeris University of Piraeus, Greece

Christos Pierrakeas University of Patras, Greece

Daphne Economou University of Westminster, UK

Demetrios Sampson University of Pireaus, Greece

Dimitrios Kalles Hellenic Open University, Greece

Dionysios Politis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

George Palaigeorgiou University of Western Macedonia, Greece

Giasemi Vavoula University of Leicester, UK

Helen Karatza Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

María Isabel Pozzo National Technological University, ArgentinaManuel Castro Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia,

SpainMaya Satratzemi University of Macedonia, Greece

Michail Giannakos Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

NorwayMichalis Xenos University of Patras, Greece

Monica Divitini Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

NorwayNektarios Moumoutzis Technical University of Crete, Greece

Nikolaos Avouris University of Patras, Greece

Nikolaos Tselios University of Patras, Greece

Panagiotis Bamidis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GreecePanagiotis Petridis Aston University, UK

Petros Nicopolitidis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GreeceRhena Delport University of Pretoria, South Africa

Santi Caballé Open University of Catalonia, Spain

Stelios Xinogalos University of Macedonia, Greece

Stamatios Papadakis The University of Crete, Greece

Tharenos Bratitsis University of Western Macedonia, GreeceTing-Ting Wu National Yunlin University of Science and

Technology, Taiwan

Vassilis Komis University of Patras, Greece

Augmented-, Virtual-, Mixed- and Cross- Reality Apps

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History to Primary

and Secondary-School Students in Formal and Informal Learning

Environments: A Review of the Literature 3

Christopher Tripoulas and George Koutromanos

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance by In-Service

Teachers 15

Georgia Kazakou and George Koutromanos

The Design and Evaluation of an Augmented Reality History Textbook

for Primary Education 27

George Koutromanos, Christopher Tripoulas, and Maria Pappa

Unleashing the Potential: A Holistic Approach to Adaptive Learning

in Virtual Reality 40

Yahya Elghobashy, Nada Sharaf, and Slim Abdennadher

VR as a Tool for Enhancing Public Speaking Skills 53

Aurelia Ciupe, Claudia Maraciuc, and Bogdan Orza

Collaborative Virtual Reality Environment Structural Model Development

for Higher Education Remote Learning 61

Evija Cibu¸lska and Katrina Boloˇcko

Educators’ Ability to Use Augmented Reality (AR) for Teaching Based

on the TARC Framework: Evidence from an International Study 69

Stavros A Nikou, Maria Perifanou, and Anastasios A Economides

Work-in-Progress: Teaching Autistic Children Arabic Letters Using

Augmented Reality Technology 78

Mariam Sadek Kottb and Nada Sharaf

Implementation of Augmented Reality in Military Higher Education;

Exemplified by the Study of the Yagi-Uda Antenna 86

Ecaterina Liliana Miron, Liviu Gaina, Mihai Alin Meclea,

and Mihai Miron

Synthetic Water Crystal Image Generation Using VAE-GANs

and Diffusion Models 95

Farah Aymen, Andreas Pester, and Frederic Andres

IblueCulture: A Real Time Virtual Reality Dry Dive System 105

Apostolos Vlachos, Stelios Krinidis, Aristotelis Karavidas,

and Dimitrios Tzovaras

Teaching the Ba-Construction with Augmented Reality in Online Learning

Environments 115

Lulu Wang, Antigoni Parmaxi, and Anna Nicolaou

Mobile Learning Models, Theory and Pedagogy

Exploring the Applications of QR Codes in STEM Subjects 129

Evgenia Tsoukala, Ioannis Lefkos, and Nikolaos Fachantidis

A Framework for Designing Gender Inclusive Mobile Learning

Experiences 140

Yevgeniy Lukhmanov, Asma Perveen, and Mariza Tsakalerou

Chat GPT Performance Evaluation Model for Learning 149

Tereza Ivanova, Antonia Staneva, Daniela Borissova,

and Katia Rasheva-Yordanova

Design Process and Initial Development of a Serious Game for Supporting

the Personal Development of Young Athletes 158

Georgina Skraparli, Lampros Karavidas, Irena Valantine,

Inga Butiene, Monica Shiakou, Eva-Maria Albu, Stella Douka,

and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

Designing and Developing a Serious Game for Inclusion in Sports 168

Lampros Karavidas, Georgina Skraparli, Angeliki Mavropoulou,

Christina Evaggelinou, Sarah Townsend, Kiki Hristova, Stella Douka,

and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

Digital Entrepreneurial Intentions: The Role of IT Knowledge

and Entrepreneurial Program Learning 178

Ioannis Sitaridis and Fotis Kitsios

Work in Progress: STAYinBowling, Sensor Based Training for Athletes

and Youngsters in Bowling 188

Hippokratis Apostolidis, Lampros Karavidas, Ioannis Stamelos,

and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

Contents xv

Dynamic Learning Experiences

Impact of Innovation-Enabling Technologies on Business Performance:

An Empirical Study 197

Yevgeniy Lukhmanov and Mariza Tsakalerou

HEALINT4ALL Digital Interactive Platform for European and National

Placements Audit for Medicine and Allied Health Professions Following

a User-Centered Design 208

Stathis Th Konstantinidis, Ioannis Poultourtzidis, Foivos Papamalis,

Dimitris Spachos, Theodoros Savvidis, Nikolaos Athanasopoulos,

Maria Nikolaidou, Zoe Tilley, Stan Ko, James Henderson,

Sheila Cunningham, Hodge Pam, Viveka Höijer-Brear,

Mari Törne, Manuel Lillo-Crespo, Maria Pilar Catala Rodriguez,

Anna Stefanowicz-Kocol, Agnieszka Jankowicz-Szymanska,

Aneta Grochowska, Małgorzata Kołpa, Carol Hall,

and Panagiotis D Bamidis

Implementation of a Faculty Development Program Though Coursera:

From the Instructional Design to the Results 216

Kevin Mejía Rivera and Anael Espinal Varela

Using ChatGPT for Research Report Design: A Collaborative Learning

Experience with Students and Professors in Honduras 224

Kevin Mejía Rivera and Mirna Rivera García

Analysis and Classification of Methods and Tools Applicable to e-Learning 232

Milena Bankovska, Katia Rasheva-Yordanova, Daniela Borissova,

and Stefan Stoev

Work-in-Progress: Gamified Simulation for Interactive Experiences

in Learning 243

Simeon Karofyllidis, George Kousalidis, Hippokratis Apostolidis,

and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

Work-in-Progress: Immersive and Diversified Artificial Intelligence

Education 254

Zhen Gao and Seshasai Srinivasan

Work-in-Progress: Simulations Incorporated in the Teaching Process

of Telecommunications 260

Milagros Hernández Martínez, María Elena Pardo Gómez,

and Rebeca del Carmen Cintra Hernández

Interactive Learning Interfaces

CHAISE: Empowering Europe with Blockchain Skills Through

a Multilingual Mobile-Enabled MOOC Platform 269

Dimitrios Kiriakos, Dimitrios Kotsifakos, Parisa Ghodous,

and Yannis Psaromiligkos

The Use of Mobile Applications in the L2 Learning Classroom: Is it Worth

the While? 281

Ioanna Moustaka, Spyridon Doukakis, and Marina Mattheoudakis

Re-enacting the Past: Open Mobile Technologies for Artistic

Recreation – The Case of the Vlatadon Monastery 290

Rafail Tzimas, Dionysios Politis, Nektarios Paris, Nikolaos Rentakis,

and Konstantinos Maniotis

Conditioning the Rhythm of Rehabilitative Appropriation Within

a Multiple Intelligences Programming Environment 299

Anastasios Nikiforos, Christos Polatidis, Panagiotis Kapadais,

Dionysios Politis, Georgios Kyriafinis, and Veljko Aleksi´c

Enhancing Expression in Music Transcription – Towards the Donizetti

System of Semantics 311

Dimitrios Margounakis, Dionysios Politis, Georgios Patronas,

Vasileios Vasileiou, and Evangelia Spyrakou

Student Affective Modelling and Participation in Web-Based Collaborative

Tutoring Systems 322

Dimos Charidimou, Nikolaos Kokolantonakis, and Dionysios Politis

Work-in-Progress: SYNERGIA, Towards an Online Communication

and Collaboration Interactivity 332

Hippokratis Apostolidis, Spyridon Armatas, George Tsantikis,

and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

e-Tambur: A Mobile App for the Music Pluralization of Emotions 339

Dimos Charidimou, Dionysios Politis, Evangelos Tringas,

Stavros Vaslis, Georgios Ziogas, and Nektarios Paris

Contents xvii

Learning Analytics

Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods in Language

Learning Classification of Spanish Tertiary Education Students 351

Grigorios Tzionis, Gerasimos Antzoulatos, Periklis Papaioannou,

Athanasios Mavropoulos, Ilias Gialampoukidis,

Marta González Burgos, Stefanos Vrochidis, Ioannis Kompatsiaris,

and Maro Vlachopoulou

Automated Grading in Coding Exercises Using Large Language Models 363

Paraskevas Lagakis, Stavros Demetriadis, and Georgios Psathas

Development and Evaluation of a Gamified Application for Environmental

Education: coralQuest 374

Karen Dahl Aarhus, Julie Holte Motland, Feiran Zhang,

and Sofia Papavlasopoulou

Genetic Algorithms: The Powerful Driver of the Functional Verification

Process 384

Alexandru Dinu

A Code-Driven Exploration of Key C Language Concepts in a CS1 Class 397

David Kerschbaumer, Alexander Steinmaurer, and Christian Gütl

Author Index 409

Augmented-, Virtual-, and Cross- Reality Apps

Mixed-The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching

History to Primary and Secondary-School

Students in Formal and Informal Learning

Environments: A Review of the Literature

Christopher Tripoulas and George Koutromanos(B)

Department of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian

University of Athens, Athens, Greece{christrip,koutro}@primedu.uoa.gr

Abstract The aim of this systematic literature review was to examine relevant

journal publications regarding the use of Augmented Reality (AR) to teach thesubject of History to primary and secondary school students in both formal andinformal learning environments Following an initial search that yielded 21,979results, 14 journal articles were included in the final analysis These covered

a diverse range of historical settings using technology relying mostly on smartphones, tablets, but also other handheld devices, projectors, and manipulativesenabling tactile learning and embodied instruction Approximately one–third ofthe studies did not include references to learning theories or pedagogical back-grounds, while learning outcomes highlighted increased student comprehension,motivation, enjoyment, and positive attitudes Although AR is not as widely used

to teach History as some other subjects, the findings indicate that it could have apositive impact, transforming perceptions of the subject and practices associatedwith its teaching The comparatively limited number of AR history studies necessi-tates further research marked by wider selection criteria and longitudinal studies totrack students’ learning over time The investigation of particular AR affordancesfacilitating History teaching and the role of learning theories in informing instruc-tional interventions are additional aspects that can benefit from further research.AR’s impact on learning when compared with other digital technologies requiresfurther investigation as technology continues to grow and develop

Keywords: Augmented Reality· History · Primary and Secondary Education ·

Literature review

1 Introduction

Augmented Reality (AR) is an emerging technology that has seen rapid growth, ularly in the last decade, earning it a reputation as a leading 21st-century technology [1].Regarding its use in education, AR can be concisely defined as “a technology which over-lays virtual objects (augmented components) into the real world” [2p1] The growingnumber of AR applications for mobile (e.g., smart phones, tablets) and wearable (e.g.,

partic-© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

M E Auer and T Tsiatsos (Eds.): IMCL 2023, LNNS 936, pp 3–14, 2024.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54327-2 _ 1

smart glasses) devices has made the use of this technology increasingly more practical.Consequently, it has become more accessible to students, resulting in steadily growingresearch interest regarding the use of AR in education [3,4].

Researchers have identified numerous affordances that AR brings to education,including visualization of objects, interaction with 3D objects [5], interactivity of vir-tual objects with a real environment in real-time [6], contextualized information, spatialability, practical skills, conceptual understanding [7], and decreased cognitive load [2].Additionally, a growing number of studies point to AR’s positive effects on student moti-vation and attitudes [8 10] Numerous studies also point to AR’s increased instructionaleffectiveness compared to traditional textbooks, or videos and PCs, highlighting benefitssuch as learning gains [11], acquisition of problem–solving and spatial skills [12], andimproved collaboration [13]

AR has been incorporated in the teaching of various subjects, including Math [14],STEM [15], Languages [16], Chemistry [17], and Physical Education [18] Furthermore,there are a number of studies focusing on the use of AR to teach History to students at theprimary and secondary level of education Although it serves as a basic subject in schoolcurriculums worldwide, History is often perceived to be boring [19] and overly focused

on memorization and lower-order thinking skills [20] Considering its affordances, ARcould serve as a valuable tool to overcoming some of the perceived issues with Historyinstruction, creating positive feelings toward learning History and improving learningoutcomes

Although some AR studies for History instruction do exist, there does not appear to be

a comprehensive review of the literature detailing its use in teaching History to primaryand secondary school students in formal and informal learning environments While there

is a review focusing on AR applications for History education and heritage visualization[21], it limits itself to one specific area of History - the Holocaust Meanwhile, a review

on AR in Cultural Heritage by Boboc et al [22] surpasses the scope of education and alsoexamines the use of AR in other sectors, such as tourism and intangible cultural heritage.This paper provides a systematic review of the relevant literature by conducting a search

of published articles of journals in selected online databases, with the aim of addressingthe existing research gap regarding the utilization of AR in formal and informal educationsettings for the teaching of history at the primary and secondary level

The following research questions (RQ) were formulated to guide the review of theliterature:

RQ1: What specific era/context of history did the studies investigate?

RQ2: In what kind of learning environment was the research conducted?

RQ3: To what levels of education did the students involved in the studies belong?RQ4: What kind of AR devices were used in the research?

RQ5: What pedagogical foundation was used to support the use of AR?

RQ6: What methodological designs were used to conduct the research?

RQ7: What were the learning outcomes of the studies?

The organization of this review study is as follows The next section provides a briefoverview regarding the teaching of History in formal and informal learning environ-ments The methodology guiding the research for this review follows Next, the findingsare presented, followed by a discussion The final section contains the conclusions,

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 5including the limitations of this study and suggestions for future studies related to theuse of AR to teach History to primary and secondary school students in formal andinformal learning environments.

2 An Overview of History and Its Significance as a Subject

History has occupied a seminal role in school curriculums since the nineteenth century[23] Seixas et al [24p1] define History as “the stories we tell about the past”, arguingthat historic understanding occurs when historians relate to the historical concept they arestudying by interpreting evidence and using it to generate stories about events and figuresfrom the past Some of the learning objectives set by teachers when teaching Historyinclude increasing historical understanding among students, creating connections tofigures and stories being studied, cultivating a sense of civic pride and duty, examiningthe past, and developing an appreciation for contemporary values and responsibilities[25] According to Barton and Levstik [19], the aim of teaching this subject is to prepareyoung people for their upcoming participation in a pluralistic democracy Opinionsand practices differ regarding how History should be taught, with one major point ofcontention being the creation of a collective memory or the disciplinary approach [20,

26] While the student-centered approach continues to gain favor in the 21stcentury, thereare curricula that continue to emphasize the ability to memorize historical information

as a prerequisite to being able to process it and engage in higher–order thinking [27]

In addition to the boredom often associated with History instruction, in recent yearsHistory has received diminished attention in the curriculum, as it is overshadowed bysubjects deemed more technical and better suited to future employment opportunities[28] However, History is integral not just for acquiring knowledge about the past, but forthe formulation of values such as respect for cultural diversity and democracy, attitudessuch as civic-mindedness, skills such as critical thinking, empathy, cooperation, andconflict resolution, and knowledge such as critical understanding of one’s self, language,and the world [29]

One reason for History’s perceived unpopularity among students is teacher-drivenimparting of substantive (factual) knowledge, which relies on reading and rote memoriza-tion, which is usually limited to first-order thinking, in contrast to procedural knowledge,which develops second-order thinking and enables students to actively process knowl-edge [30] Some 21st-century best practices for teaching History include mobilizing stu-dents’ prior knowledge, stimulating historical thinking by relating events to real-worldproblems, introducing students to historical research through activities involving thesynthesis of evidence from multiple sources and accounts, diversifying learning tasksand expanding sources to beyond just the textbook or worksheet through multimediaand interaction allowing for manifold interpretations, as well as developing historicalthinking and consciousness among students [31] These recommended practices are inkeeping with the constructivist approach [32] and historical empathy [33], which arebelieved to improve the teaching and learning of History

Regarding classroom instruction, digital technologies play an essential role in ing equitable quality education for all [34] AR is one of the most widely emerging digitaltechnologies and its use in the classroom is expanding thanks to the positive results it

achiev-has produced until now [35] AR possesses the capability to benefit History learning byaddressing current issues associated with its teaching, such as the traditional teacher-centered model of instruction, which overlooks students’ ability to learn autonomouslyand explore [13] Moreover, History can be taught not only in formal classroom environ-ments but also in informal environments, such as archaeological sites [36] and museums[37] The use of AR for History learning in informal settings is credited with bringing

“historical scenes to life”, although, it must be noted that technologies like AR and VRare still used mostly in science and art museums by primary and secondary students”[38] According to Varinlioglu and Halici [39], AR offers immense potential for study-ing architectural objects due to capabilities such as 3D technology, which provides newprospectives on viewing and analyzing data; i.e., at archaeological sites ConsideringAR’s affordances and successful implementation in other subjects, this technology hasthe potential to serve as a useful tool for teaching History in both formal and informallearning environments

3 Methodology

The literature review was conducted from March 22, 2023 to April 26, 2023 on theinternational online databases Scopus, ScienceDirect, ERIC, IEEE Xplore, Springer-Link, Taylor and Francis, ACM Digital Library The database searches used a year filterset from 2008 up to 2023, corresponding to the appearance and gradual increase of ARapplications The following search terms were used: Augmented Reality AND HistoryAND Education OR School OR Students OR Image-Based Games OR Location-BasedGames A relevant target search using the same terms was also conducted on GoogleScholar Finally, relevant studies were handpicked from the bibliography of existingarticles to account for related literature not found in the keyword search

This review was restricted to open-access databases or databases that were accessiblethrough the authors’ university library The literature research adhered to the PRISMAguidelines [40] The inclusion criteria applied to the research questions required that: (a)articles present research conducted in formal or informal educational settings in primary

or secondary education, (b) articles be written in English, (c) articles provide empiricaldata from a sample of pupils, data analysis, and interpret the results, (d) articles bepublished in a peer-reviewed academic journal

The search yielded 21,979 results (see Fig.1) After the initial screening, includingthe removal of 3 duplicates, 21,923 were excluded because they did not meet the searchparameters due to irrelevant title, keywords, abstract, or content After a full-text review

of 53 studies for eligibility, 39 were excluded because they were incompatible withthe aim and research questions of the current review In total, 14 relevant articles wereidentified and used to formulate this review - 12 involving AR technology, along withanother two using a combination of AR and VR, which were included here because the

AR component was deemed significant enough to warrant it

The analysis scheme was divided into 8 categories: (1) historical era/context (2)learning environment, (3) education level, (4) types of AR devices used, (5) pedagogicalfoundation, (6) methodological design, and (7) learning outcomes

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 7

Records identified through an online database search n=21,969

Records identified through targeted search

n=10

Records remaining after duplicates were removed

n=21,976

Records screened n=21,976

Records excluded n=21,923 irrelevant title/keywords/abstract n=0 not in English

Full-text records reviewed

n=53

Records excluded n=39 incompatible with aim/research ques- tions

Records included in the final

analy-sis n=14

AR can improve students’ historical knowledge of the prophets in the Islamic tradition.The Middle Ages and Renaissance also inspired research interest, with two studies[49,50] examining life in late medieval Amsterdam, and another [51] focusing on ahistorical landmark in the Italian city of Urbino Other researchers [52] chose to focus

on a broader historical period spanning the Renaissance, discovery of the New World,

Enlightenment, and French Revolution Finally, two studies included events from the 20thcentury, examining the historical context of the Spanish Civil War [53] and investigatingthe history of a local park during World War II [54].

4.2 Learning Environment

In terms of the learning environment in which they were conducted, the 14 studiesreviewed were nearly evenly divided Specifically, 5 studies [42,44,47,48,51] wereconducted in a formal classroom setting Another study [41] took place at an archaeo-logical site, however, students participated in the field trip as a whole class and engaged

in related pre- and post-trip classroom activities, constituting a formal learning ment Among the studies conducted in an informal learning environment, two [45,52]featured a specially designed space with a Makey Makey board, and another [46] washeld in students’ homes Other studies were conducted at the archaeological site of Del-phi, Greece [43], a bomb shelter in Barcelona, Spain [53], a public park or “Common”

environ-in London, England [54], and historical medieval Amsterdam, Holland [49,50]

Among the researchers who chose secondary school students as their sample, theoldest sample involved students age 17 [51], while another [47] was composed of 10th-graders Other researchers [43,44] used secondary school students in Grades 8–9, ages12–13, as a sample Finally, two studies [49,50] featured samples of secondary schoolstudents between the ages of 12–16

4.4 Types of AR Devices Used

Researchers in the 14 studies reviewed used various devices and applications in theirresearch Smart phones appear to be the most popular, used in nearly half of the studies[42,44,46–48,51] Two studies [41,54] used tablets, while another [43] used unspecifiediOS mobile devices during their research, which was conducted at archaeological sites.Two more studies [49,50] relied on computers, early smart phones and video phones.Among the researchers opting for less widespread AR technology, one study [53] usedhandheld devices and a pico-projector, while two more [45,52] used Makey Makeyboards, with the latter also incorporating computers and projectors

4.5 Pedagogical Foundations

Regarding the pedagogical foundations guiding the research presented here, two ies [49,50] make overt reference to the theory of constructivism, while others include

stud-The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 9implicit references Toward this end, two studies focus on embodied learning and mobileembodiment theory [45,54], while another [41] adopts Endacott and Brooks’ view ofhistorical empathy and the practice of scaffolding The “learning by doing” conceptwas germane to the experiences of the participants in two more studies [44,54] Inaddition, one study [46] refers to blended learning theory and Piaget’s theory of Cogni-tive Development, while another [48] relies on Bloom’s Taxonomy Finally, there was astudy [53] grounded on reality-based interaction, which adhered to the World-as-Supportparadigm, and modified Lentini and Decortis’ five dimensions of experience in phys-ical space (geometrical and geographical experience, personal, sensorial, cultural, andrelational experience) to guide its work.

Although not learning theories in themselves, the aforementioned concepts stemfrom the learning theory of constructivism Nonetheless, out of the 14 studies, five [42,

43,47,51,52] did not include any references to learning theories, learning models, orcharacteristic elements related to learning theories

4.6 Methodological Design

The majority of the researchers employed a quasi-experimental design for their studies,with two [44,51] relying solely on questionnaires and another two [47,48] using pre-and post-tests only Others [42,50] adopted a mixed methods approach, using the pretest-posttest method together with a questionnaire and observation, while a third pair [41,

45] combined the pre- and post-test with interviews

Meanwhile, other researchers based their investigations on case studies, with one[46] collecting data from interviews, another two [52,53] using questionnaires andinterviews to evaluate their experiment, and a third pair [49,54] basing their research onobservation Finally, there was a field study [43] that relied on a questionnaire to collectdata

4.7 Learning Outcomes

In terms of the learning outcomes, the main results reported in this review included prehension of learning contents, motivation to use AR technology or engage in learningactivities, attitudes toward the use of AR in teaching and learning, including acceptance

com-of the technology, and enjoyment/satisfaction in engaging in activities employing thetechnology Of the studies reviewed, the impact of AR on student comprehension wasthe most frequently noted outcome, being mentioned in all of studies Degrees of com-prehension differ, with some studies [41,43–47,50,51] reporting clear learning gainsdue to the AR intervention and others noting that improved student performance wasnot statistically significant [42] or while statistically significant, nonetheless relativelysmall [48] Some researchers also found that despite an increase in student knowledgecertain issues affecting learning continued to be observed after the use of AR For exam-ple, despite significant improvements to chronological understanding and processing oftemporal concepts, one study [45] found that students continued to have problems associ-ating years to centuries, particularly regarding the BC era, while another [54] discoveredthat although the interaction with AR media helped students construct a new concept of

“place”, it also conflated their comprehension of space and time, necessitating follow-up

classroom activities to foster historical reflection and conceptualization The importance

of scaffolding and tailoring AR use to pre- and post-intervention activities is also sized in another study [41] The role of somatic learning and active participation to fosterembodied knowledge was also a key finding highlighted by several researchers [45,49,

empha-52–54] Another factor that appears to have impacted learning in some of the research

is age, with one study [46] finding primary school students in Grades 3–4 best suited toparticipate in AR-enabled blended learning - particularly when collaborating with peers,

as opposed to working alone or with siblings of other ages - and another [52] suggestingthat primary school-aged students are better suited to learn and interact with low-fidelityinteractive AR environments that are not necessarily seamlessly authentic

The next most widely cited outcome was AR’s impact on attitudes, which was tained by several researchers [42,43,46,52,53] It is interesting to note that even inresearch where comprehension was not statistically significant [42], student attitudesand interest remained positive Findings included in some of these studies are partic-ularly seminal in terms of reinforcing the idea that students respond better to learningHistory when given the opportunity to participate in the lesson actively and tangibly,digitally interacting with historical artifacts [52], reflect on history by storifying it [49],take on the role of performer [53], or attain experiential knowledge, as opposed topassively receiving information through one-way teacher-centered instruction [46] As

ascer-in the case of knowledge acquisition detailed above, which is dependent on pre- andpost-instructional interventions, particular types of AR-based activities may cause fluc-tuations in students’ perception of historical events being studied [49] Nevertheless,positive experiences with AR create favorable student impressions and make them want

to experience it again by interacting anew with other AR apps or games [43]

Motivation and enjoyment were less commonly cited factors in the research Thefindings regarding motivation are somewhat incongruent as some research indicates that

AR usage improved student motivation to learn [43,44,46], while another study [50]found no significant difference between the experimental group engaging in the ARhistory game and the control group receiving project-based instruction On the contrary,there was a study [44] attributing the improved knowledge and retention exhibited bythe experimental group engaged with AR to greater motivation Another study [43]also associated the interest and cooperation exhibited by students playing the AR gameused in their experiment to its competitive nature, impacting their motivation to win.One study [52] makes specific reference to the enjoyability of the AR environment andactivities in which students were engaged, noting that, as primary school students, theirrelatively young age made them better suited to authentically interact with this specifictechnology compared to older students

Finally, it should be noted that two studies [44,51] incorporated elements of both ARand VR in their experiments, making the interpretation of their results more complex.Although not exclusively AR-based, the featured technology was grounded in AR tosuch a degree that their inclusion in the literature review seemed reasonable In onestudy [44], students received instruction via AR regarding their subsequent usage of a

VR game, while in the other study [51], the AR component of the featured ScoolARplatform informs students learning ahead of interaction with 360-degree panoramic VRimages

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 11

5 Conclusions

This work presented a review of a total of 14 articles related to the use of AR in formaland informal learning environments to teach History to students at the primary andsecondary education level This review addresses a gap in the research and contributes

to the existing literature by presenting, comparing, and analyzing relevant AR studiesand learning interventions Based on the results, these studies revealed numerous benefitsfor the students who interacted with AR, including a positive impact on their learning,motivation, engagement, and enjoyment, as well as an increase in historical empathy.Nevertheless, more studies are required to inform research knowledge, as not all theexisting studies fully address the research questions formulated above For example,specific reference regarding the type of device used in the AR intervention was not alwayscited [43], while studies employing both AR and VR technology [44,51] did not clarifyAR’s unique impact on learning outcomes Furthermore, existing research did not alwaysaddress the learning theories serving as the framework for the experiment or the specificaffordances of AR (e.g., immersion, contextualized information, visualization and real-time interaction with digital objects) contributing to observed learning outcomes orproviding added value There is also a need for studies employing greater methodologicalrigor, such as random sampling featuring larger cross-sectional samples or longitudinalresearch tracking AR’s impact in teaching History over the years across primary andsecondary school

The results of the findings could influence future practices regarding the use of AR toteach History by encouraging increased usage by students, and continued development

by teachers and other developers A better understanding of the most popular devicesand environments where AR is used for History learning will provide greater insight intohow this technology is currently being utilized, while possibly revealing new avenuesfor exploration that could enhance research to influence existing and future pedagogicalpractices

This study’s limitation is that the online search was limited to open–access cations and databases available through the authors’ institutional library This literaturereview could be extended to investigate the impact of AR on history teaching longitudi-nally across the primary and secondary level Future research should also study specificaffordances of AR that best facilitate teaching History Finally, future studies shouldcompare the use of AR with other digital technologies to determine how AR interven-tions can best be implemented for learning History in combined formal and informallearning environments

publi-References

1 Sat, M., Ilhan, F., Yukselturk, E.: Comparison and evaluation of augmented reality

tech-nologies for designing interactive materials Educ Inf Technol 28(9), 11545–11567

(2023)

2 Akçayır, M.: Akçayır, G: Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for

education: a systematic review of the literature Educ Res Rev 20, 1–11 (2017)

3 Motejlek, J., Alpay, E.: Taxonomy of virtual and augmented reality applications in education

IEEE Trans Learn Technol 14(3), 415–429 (2021)

4 Sirakaya, M., Alsancak Sirakaya, D.: Trends in educational augmented reality studies: a

systematic review Malaysian Online J Educ Technol 6(2), 60–74 (2018)

5 Wu, H.K., Lee, S.W.Y., Chang, H.Y., Liang, J.C.: Current status, opportunities and challenges

of augmented reality in education Comput Educ 62, 41–49 (2013)

6 Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., Macintyre, B.: Recent advances

in augmented reality IEEE Comput Graph Appl 21(6), 34–47 (2001)

7 Cheng, K.H., Tsai, C.C.: Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: suggestions

for future research J Sci Educ Technol 22(4), 449–462 (2013)

8 Ibáñez, M.B., Portillo, A.U., Cabada, R.Z., Barrón, M.L.: Impact of augmented reality nology on academic achievement and motivation of students from public and private Mexican

tech-schools A case study in a middle–school geometry course Comput Educ 145, 103734 (2020)

9 Erbas, C., Demirer, V.: The effects of augmented reality on students’ academic achievement

and motivation in a biology course J Comput Assist Learn 35(3), 450–458 (2019)

10 Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M.B., Kloos, C.D.: Impact of an augmented reality system on students’

motivation for a visual art course Comput Educ 68, 586–596 (2013)

11 Garzón, J., Pavón, J., Baldiris, S.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality

in educational settings Virtual Reality 23(4), 447–459 (2019)

12 Guntur, M.I.S., Setyaningrum, W.: The effectiveness of augmented reality in learning vector to

improve students’ spatial and problem–solving skills Int J Interact Mobile Technol 15(5),

159–173 (2021)

13 Papanastasiou, G., Drigas, A., Skianis, C., Lytras, M., Papanastasiou, E.: Virtual and mented reality effects on k–12, higher and tertiary education students’ twenty-first century

aug-skills Virtual Reality 23(4), 425–436 (2019)

14 Lin, H.C.K., Chen, M.C., Chang, C.K.: Assessing the effectiveness of learning solid geometry

by using an augmented reality–assisted learning system Interact Learn Environ 23(6),

799–810 (2015)

15 Ibáñez, M.B., Delgado-Kloos, C.: Augmented reality for STEM learning: a systematic review

Comput Educ 123, 109–123 (2018)

16 Parmaxi, A., Demetriou, A.A.: Augmented reality in language learning: a state-of-the-art

review of 2014–2019 J Comput Assist Learn 36(6), 861–875 (2020)

17 Yang, S., Mei, B., Yue, X.: Mobile augmented reality assisted chemical education: insights

from elements 4D J Chem Educ 95(6), 1060–1062 (2018)

18 Liu, Y., Sathishkumar, V.E., Manickam, A.: Augmented reality technology based on school

physical education training Comput Electr Eng 99, 107807 (2022)

19 Barton, K.C., Levstik, L.S.: Teaching History for the Common Good Routledge, Mahwah(2004)

20 Van Sledright, B.A.: The Challenge of Rethinking History Education: On Practices, theories,and Policy Routledge, New York (2011)

21 Challenor, J., Ma, M.: A review of augmented reality applications for history education and

heritage visualisation Multimodal Technol Interact 3(2), 39 (2019)

22 Boboc, R.G., B˘autu, E., Gîrbacia, F., Popovici, N., Popovici, D.M.: Augmented reality in

cultural heritage: an overview of the last decade of applications Appl Sci 12(19), 9859

(2022)

23 Wangdu, K.: Nation–building in exile: teachers’ perceptions on the goals of teaching history

in the Tibetan refugee schools Scand J Educ Res 65(6), 928–940 (2021)

24 Seixas, P., Morton, T., Colyer, J., Fornazzari, S.: The Big Six: Historical Thinking Concepts.Nelson Education, Toronto (2013)

25 Zakai, S.: The stories of our national past: history and heritage in a Jewish high school Curric

Inq 45(2), 219–243 (2015)

26 Stearns, P.N.: Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History: National and International tives NYU Press, New York (2009)

Perspec-The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 13

27 Lim, K.Y., Lim, R.: Semiotics, memory and augmented reality: history education with

learner-generated augmentation Br J Edu Technol 51(3), 673–691 (2020)

28 Sears, A.: Teaching history, teaching complexity Agora 53(3), 36–39 (2018)

29 Council of Europe Quality History Education in the 21st Century–Principles and Guidelines.Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg (2018)

30 Rantala, J., Khawaja, A.: Prospective primary school teachers’ confidence in teaching

disciplinary history Teach Teach Educ 107, 103492 (2021)

31 Moreira, Alves, L A., Duarte, P.: Teaching (history) in the 21st century: new competencies

with identical contents Estud Ibero–Am 48(1), e42928 (2022)

32 Dulberg, N.: The theory behind how students learn: applying developmental theory to research

on children’s historical thinking Theory Res Soc Educ 33(4), 508–531 (2005)

33 Endacott, J.L.: Negotiating the process of historical empathy Theory Res Soc Educ 42(1),

4–34 (2014)

34 Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M.A., Suman, R.: Understanding the role of digital

technologies in education: a review Sustain Oper Comput 3, 275–285 (2022)

35 Garzón, J., Acevedo, J.: Meta-analysis of the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning

gains Educ Res Rev 27, 244–260 (2019)

36 Koutromanos, G., Pittara, T., Tripoulas, C.: Clavis Aurea: an augmented reality game for theteaching of local history Eur J Eng Technol Res 1–8 (2020)

37 Lea, J., Smardz, K., Smith, S.J.: Teaching the past in museums In: Museums Archaeology,

pp 473–484 (2022)

38 Zhou, Y., Chen, J., Wang, M.: A meta-analytic review on incorporating virtual and augmented

reality in museum learning Educ Res Rev 36, 100454 (2022)

39 Varinlioglu, G., Halici, S.M.: Gamification of heritage through augmented reality In: EcaadeSigradi, pp 513–518 (2019)

40 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G.: The PRISMA Group: preferred reporting

items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement PLoS Med 6(7),

e1000097 (2009)

41 Efstathiou, I., Kyza, E.A., Georgiou, Y.: An inquiry-based augmented reality mobile learningapproach to fostering primary school students’ historical reasoning in non–formal settings

Interact Learn Environ 26(1), 22–41 (2018)

42 Ventoulis, E., Xinogalos, S.: AR the gods of Olympus: design and pilot evaluation of anaugmented reality educational game for Greek mythology Multimodal Technol Interact

7(1), 2 (2022)

43 Ekonomou, T., Vosinakis, S.: Mobile augmented reality games as an engaging tool for cultural

heritage dissemination: a case study Sci Cult 4(2), 97–107 (2018)

44 Remolar, I., Rebollo, C., Fernández-Moyano, J.A.: Learning history using virtual and

augmented reality Computers 10(11) (2021)

45 Gogou, A., Kasvikis, K.: Release Orpheus!: understanding historical time in amixed/augmented reality environment through embodied learning Education 3–13 (2022)

46 Lee, J., Lee, H.K., Jeong, D., Lee, J., Kim, T., Lee, J.: Developing museum education content:

AR blended learning Int J Art Design Educ 40(3), 473–491 (2021)

47 Utami, I.W.P., Lutfi, I., Jati, S.S.P., Efendi, M.Y.: Effectivity of augmented reality as media

for history learning Int J Emerg Technol Learn 14(16), 83–96 (2019)

48 Aljojo, N., et al.: Lens application: mobile application using augmented reality Int J Interact

Mobile Technol 14(2), 160–177 (2020)

49 Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J.: Storification in history education: a mobile game

in and about medieval Amsterdam Comput Educ 52(2), 449–459 (2009)

50 Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., Dam, G.T.: Mobile game-based learning in ondary education: engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game J Comput

sec-Assist Learn 25(4), 332–344 (2009)

51 Puggioni, M., Frontoni, E., Paolanti, M., Pierdicca, R.: ScoolAR: an educational platform to

improve students’ learning through virtual reality IEEE Access 9, 21059–21070 (2009)

52 Kalpakis, S., Palaigeorgiou, G., Kasvikis, K.: Promoting historical thinking in schools throughlow fidelity, low–cost, easily reproduceable, tangible and embodied interactions Int J Emerg

Technol Learn 13(12), 67–82 (2018)

53 Schaper, M.M., Santos, M., Malinverni, L., Berro, J.Z., Pares, N.: Learning about the pastthrough situatedness, embodied exploration and digital augmentation of cultural heritage

sites Int J Hum Comput Stud 114, 36–50 (2018)

54 Price, S., Jewitt, C., Sakr, M.: Embodied experiences of place: a study of history learning

with mobile technologies J Comput Assist Learn 32(4), 345–359 (2016)

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance by In-Service Teachers

Georgia Kazakou(B) and George KoutromanosDepartment of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,

Ippokratous 20, PC 10680 Athens, Greece{gkazakou,koutro}@primedu.uoa.gr

Abstract This study examined the acceptance of Augmented Reality Smart

Glasses (ARSGs) by 123 primary and secondary education teachers The ical framework of the TAM and the variables of facilitating conditions and socialinfluences of the UTAUT were used The study was conducted in two phases:the first remotely, where teachers created their own AR objects, and the second

theoret-in person, where teachers used two types of ARSGs devices to project their own

AR learning resources and interact with AR applications The study found thatthe TAM can be used as a valid model to explain the acceptance of ARSGs byteachers in their classroom Also, it was found that attitude, perceived ease of use,and perceived usefulness affected teachers’ intention to use ARSGs Moreover,the two variables of the UTAUT (i.e., facilitating conditions and social influence)did not influence teachers’ intention These results have implications for schools

as well as for educational policy regarding the use of ARSGs in teaching

Keywords: Augmented Reality Smart Glasses· TAM · Education · Acceptance

1 Introduction

Augmented Reality (AR) [1], which is part of the Metaverse [2], is widely recognized as

an emerging technology It is defined as an experience that combines virtual content with

a user’s physical environment in real time and is displayed through computing devices[3] It features unique affordances such as concretization of abstract concepts, enhancedsense of presence, immediacy, and immersion [4,5] One of the fields where AR issuccessfully exploited is education According to literature reviews and meta-analyses,

AR has a positive effect on learning outcomes, motivation, student concentration, andacquisition of vocational competences [6 8]

Augmented Reality Smart Glasses (ARSGs) are one way in which AR can be viewed.These glasses allow the user to see digital images superimposed in the real world (opticalsee-through) or to see video images generated by the glasses (video see-through) [9].They differ from other AR projectors (e.g., handheld devices) because they haveaffordances such as immersion and first-person view [10,11]

The issue of the acceptance of ARSGs by teachers – who are among the most tant stakeholders in the educational process – is important as the value and importance

impor-© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

M E Auer and T Tsiatsos (Eds.): IMCL 2023, LNNS 936, pp 15–26, 2024.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54327-2 _ 2

of ARSGs continue to increase during the Metaverse era However, research regardingteachers’ acceptance of this new technology in their teaching is limited [12] In particu-lar, what has been investigated is: (a) students’ acceptance of ARSGs in higher education[13–15] and (b) primary and secondary school teachers’ acceptance of ARSGs in theirteaching [16] A common feature of these studies is that the sample did not interact withthe ARSGs It is, therefore, necessary not only to investigate teachers’ acceptance of thesesmart glasses in teaching with more studies, but also with research that applies a morerigorous methodology Investigating the factors that influence teachers to use ARSGs intheir classrooms can help us understand how to design educational applications, developdidactic scenarios, and train teachers to use this new technology effectively In addition,

we can begin to develop solutions that address the challenges and maximize the benefits

of smart glasses for education

Therefore, this study aims to use the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [17] andtwo variables from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)[18] - i.e., the facilitating conditions and the social influence - to examine the factors thatinfluence in-service teachers’ intention to use ARSGs in their teaching The objectives

of this study are the investigation of:

1 attitude, perceived usefulness, facilitating conditions and social influence on teachers’intention to use ARSGs,

2 perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on teachers’ attitude towards the use

of ARSGs, and

3 perceived ease of use on teachers’ perceived usefulness on the use of ARSGs.The organization of the article includes four more sections Section2summarizes theexisting research on the acceptance of ARSGs in education and presents the theoreticalframework that underpins this study Section 3 illustrates the research methodologyfollowed; i.e., sample, data collection instrument, and procedure Section4presents theresults of the study Finally, Sect.5summarizes the findings, presents the limitations ofthe study, and suggests directions for future research in the field

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Technology Acceptance Models

Educational technology researchers have used many different theories and models tounderstand how people adopt digital technologies One of the first theories to examinethis was the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) [19] This theory supports, that indi-viduals’ intention to use digital technology is affected by their attitude (Att) towardsthe technology and their perception of social norms (i.e., subjective norm) Attitude is aperson’s overall evaluation of a technology, while social norms are the perceived expec-tations of significant others The TRA was extended by the Theory of Planned Behavior(TPB) [20] TPB added in TRA a third factor, the perceived behavioral control, which

is a person’s perception of their ability to use a technology The Decomposed Theory ofPlanned Behavior (DTPB) [21] further decomposed the attitude and perceived behav-ioral control factors into more specific components - attitude toward behavior, subjectivenorm, and perceived behavioral control

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 17The TAM [17] is one of the most well-known and widely used models of digitaltechnologies acceptance in education TAM posits that people’s decision to use a tech-nology is influenced by two perceptions - perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceivedusefulness (PU) PU is a person’s perception that using a specific digital technologywill help them achieve their goals PEOU is defined as a person’s perception regard-ing whether using a digital technology will be easy Therefore, its main variables areintention, attitude (Att), PU, and PEOU TAM 2 [22] and TAM 3 [23] are extensions

of TAM that incorporated additional factors into the model, such as social factors anddeterminants of PEOU

The UTAUT [18] is a more recent model that incorporates factors from both TAMand TPB UTAUT posits that people’s decision to use a technology is influenced by fourfactors The first factor is performance expectancy, which is defined as a person’s beliefthat using a digital technology will help them achieve their goals The second factor iseffort expectancy, which is a person’s perception that using a digital technology will beeasy The third factor is social influence, which is a person’s belief of the expectations ofsignificant others The fourth factor is facilitating conditions which are available to helppeople use a digital technology UTAUT 2 [22] is an extension of UTAUT that addedthree factors to the model (i.e., price value, habit, and hedonic motivation) Hedonicmotivation is a person’s motivation to use a digital technology because it is enjoyable.Habit is a person’s tendency to use a digital technology automatically Price value is thefinancial burden that a person will bear to purchase a digital technology

2.2 Previous Research on the Acceptance of ARSGs in Education

A previous literature review of research investigating the acceptance of ARSGs in variousfields [12] found that four studies have been conducted so far on the acceptance of thistechnology in education One of these studies was qualitative and focused on in-serviceteachers, while the other three were quantitative and focused on tertiary education Both

of these studies based their theoretical framework on TAM It is notable in these studiesthat the sample did not have the opportunity to interact with the ARSG device

More specifically, the quantitative studies [13–15] all used the TAM as a theoreticalframework which they expanded by including the variables of motivation, functionality,trust, and privacy Motivation was defined as the extent to which students engage invarious tasks when using ARSGs, functionality was defined as the degree of attraction,complexity, and practicality of the ARSG device, and trust and privacy were defined asthe degree to which a student trusts the ARSG device to share their data with others Thequantitative studies showed that PU and PEOU are positively influenced by the abovefour variables In other words, students are more likely to use ARSGs if they believethat this new technology is useful, easy to use, and that they can trust the glasses to keeptheir data safe

The qualitative study [16] also based its theoretical framework on TAM and found that

PU, privacy risk, facilitating conditions, compatibility, and potential health risk are allimportant variables that affect teachers’ decision to use AR glasses in teaching practice.Compatibility is defined as the degree to which a teacher perceives that using ARSGs

is compatible with their teaching style and experience, and meets their needs duringteaching Privacy risk includes teachers’ concerns about the security of personal data

collected by ARSGs, while health risk includes their concerns about potential damage

to their health

In addition, other important factors that influence technology acceptance are tating conditions and the social influence of the UTAUT [18] More specifically, meta-analyses conducted by [24,25] have found that the conditions which facilitate the use

facili-of digital technologies in education influence teachers’ intention This suggests that theavailability of resources and support can also play a role in the integration of mobile ARapplications by educators Social influence can also be a powerful predictor of technol-ogy acceptance, and it is important to consider it when designing and implementing newtechnologies This is because an individual’s beliefs about technology are shaped notonly by both individual factors (i.e., attitudes, beliefs, and experiences) but also socialones (i.e., opinions and behaviors of friends, family, and colleagues) [26] Social influ-ence is the extent to which an individual believes that the people who are important tothem think they should use digital technology [22] It is a variable that has been included

in several technology acceptance models, such as TRA [19], TAM2 [22], TPB/DTPB,combined TAM-TPB as subjective norms, and Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) asimage [27]

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Sample

In this research, 123 in-service Greek primary (N= 37, 30.1%) and secondary (N = 86,69.9%) school teachers participated voluntarily Eighty-three (67.5%) were female and

40 (32.5%) were male Sixty-two (50.4%) were aged up to age 45, while 61 (49.6%)

were aged 46 and over Their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 37 years (M= 15.20,

SD= 9.782)

3.2 Data Collection Instrument

In this study, the TAM [17] and UTAUT [18] served as the theoretical framework thatguided the questionnaire, which was created using Google Forms and composed of twoparts The first part concerned teachers’ demographics; i.e., sex, age, education level,years teaching The second part featured 19 items related to the six variables of theresearch model Specifically, 3 items were used for intention (I), 3 items for attitude(Att), another 3 items for PEOU, and 3 items for PU Four items of social influence (SI)and 3 items facilitating conditions (FC) were added to the questionnaire

Four items regarding social influence (SI) and 3 items related to facilitating conditions(FC) were also included in the questionnaire The items were verbally adapted from theMobile AR Acceptance Model (MARAM) [28,29] These items were pilot-tested byfour in-service teachers The sample responded using a 5-point Likert scale (1= Totallydisagree to 5= Totally agree) Table2presents the items of the questionnaire

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 19

3.3 Procedure

This research was conducted from May to July 2023 Two devices of ARSGs wereused to support the procedure: the Epson Moverio BT–300 and the Magic Leap 1 Thestudy was implemented in two phases - the first remotely and the second in person Thefirst phase was conducted remotely via the Webex platform and lasted 1.5 h In it, apresentation of the theoretical terms of AR, ARSGs, and AR applications and textbookswas given Also, a demonstration of an AR object creation platform (Zapworks) wasgiven so that participants could learn how to augment textbooks themselves Teachersthen created their own AR objects by augmenting a unit from the textbooks they teach.The second phase was implemented in person and lasted 1.5 h In it, the teachersfirst wore the Epson Moverio BT–300 device and were asked to freely navigate throughvarious applications, including the camera and the browser, to familiarize themselveswith their use They then used the same device to project the AR learning resources theyhad created themselves They were then asked to wear Magic Leap 1 and browse freely tobecome familiar with it as well (See Fig.1) They then used three interactive applications

on the Magic Leap 1 device The first application featured animations of three extinctprehistoric animals Participants interacted with the application by placing their hands onthree virtual spheres Each sphere represented one of the extinct animals When a spherewas activated, the animal came to life and moved around, while the participant listened to

a narrative about the animal The second application was artistic in nature, as it allowedusers to create virtual drawings Participants could use the controller to select brushes,colors, and 3D objects to create their drawings The third application concerned the 3D

Fig 1 Teachers interacting with the ARSGs devices.

demonstration of the human heart in four different conditions - arterial hypertension,myocardial infarction, normal heart rate, and atrial fibrillation (See Fig 2) Finally,teachers completed the online questionnaire Although teachers wore and interacted withboth devices, they were instructed to answer the questions concerning the acceptance

of ARSGs based on the Magic Leap 1 device This is because it uses a more moderntechnology than that of the Epson Moverio BT–300 device, therefore, they could have

a more comprehensive view of the ARSGs’ affordances

Fig 2 The third application as seen through the Magic Leap 1 device.

3.4 Analysis

The coding and data analysis was conducted using the SPSS (version 26) The reliability

of the 19 items of the questionnaire was examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient(see Table1) Then, the mean and standard deviation analysis of the data was performed(see Table2) In order to determine whether significant relationships exist between the sixvariables of the research model, we performed Pearson Correlation (two-tailed) analyses.Finally, to examine the influence of the independent variables of the acceptance model

on the dependent variables, we implemented three linear regression analyses

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 21

4 Results

4.1 Internal Consistency and Descriptive Analysis

Table1shows the internal consistency of the six variables in the questionnaire as sured by Cronbach’s alpha The values range from 732 for facilitating conditions to.967 for social influence All variables have values above 0.70, which is considered to

The mean (M) as well as standard deviation (SD) of the six variables and 19 items of

the questionnaire are presented in Table2 The values of the overall mean scores rangefrom 3.67 (social influence) to 4.76 (attitudes) Most of the variables have mean scoresabove 4, which indicates that the teachers in the study had positive attitudes toward thesevariables The mean scores for facilitating conditions and social influence are lower, butthey are still relatively positive More specifically, the teachers had a positive intention

to use ARSGs (M = 4.23, SD = 726), positive attitudes toward using ARSGs (M = 4.76, SD = 446), and positive perceptions regarding ease of use (M = 4.45, SD = 782) and usefulness (M = 4.57, SD = 561) of ARSGs In terms of the facilitating conditions

variable, teachers do not strongly feel that the conditions to facilitate the use ARSGs in

their teaching exist (M = 3.76, SD = 856); namely, they do not have the resources (M = 3.88, SD = 856), knowledge (M = 3.77, SD = 1.093), time (M = 3.65, SD = 1.132) or support from the school (M = 3.76, SD = 1.140) to use them effectively Regarding the

social influence variable, teachers do not feel strong pressure from their peers or other

significant individuals in their lives to use ARSGs in their teaching (M = 3.67, SD =

.1.024)

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the variables of the study.

Variables

I intend to use ARSGs in my future teaching 4.40 733

I predict I will use ARSGs in my future teaching 4.33 786

My interaction with ARSGs is clear and understandable 4.51 728

It is easy for me to become skillful at using ARSGs 4.40 921

Using ARSGs enhances my teaching effectiveness 4.56 603

Using ARSGs increases my teaching productivity 4.54 617

I have the resources (e.g., Internet connection) necessary

to use ARSGs in my teaching

I have the knowledge needed to use ARSGs in my teaching 3.77 1.093

I have the time needed to use ARSGs in my teaching 3.64 1.132

I have the necessary support from my school (e.g.,

headmaster, colleagues) to use ARSGs in my teaching

People who are important to me think that I should use

4.2 Pearson Correlations Analysis

The results of the Pearson correlation in Table3show that there was a positive correlationbetween teachers’ intention to use of ARSGs in their classroom and the other four

variables in the following order: PU (r = +.572), Att (r = +.567), FC (r = +.409),

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 23

and SI (r= +.214) Additionally, teachers’ attitude was very positively correlated with

their PU (r = +.662) and PEOU (r = +.661) Table3also shows that the PU of the use

of ARSGs in teaching positively correlated with the PEOU of ARSGs

Table 3 Pearson correlations analysis

Table 4 Regression analysis of the study’s variables on in-service teachers’ intention

Facilitatingconditions (FC)

Social influence(SI)

PU of ARSGs and attitude toward their use provided significant contributions The PUwas the most significant predictor of intention.

In the second regression, teachers’ attitude toward the use of ARSGs in their ing was regressed on PU and PEOU Consistent with the TAM, the two latter variablesexplained 52.5% of the variance in teachers’ attitude The PEOU had the strongest influ-ence on attitude In order to investigate the extent to which the PEOU explains teachers’

teach-PU of ARSGs, a third regression analysis was conducted According to the findings inTable4, the independent variable determined 40.8% of the variance of teachers’ PEOU

5 Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research

This study aimed to examine teachers’ intention to use ARSGs in their teaching andidentify the factors affecting this intention by using the TAM, as well as the social influ-ence and facilitating conditions of UTAUT Its results show that teachers have a positiveintention to incorporate ARSGs in their instruction Most specifically, teachers have apositive attitude towards this new technology, and they believe that it easy to use anduseful in their teaching Although the results indicated that there was a positive relation-ship between teachers’ intention to use ARSGs and all variables, those that stand out,according to the regression analysis, are attitude, PU, and PEOU The fact that teach-ers are not strongly influenced by their environment to accept ARSGs is possibly due

to the lack of public knowledge regarding it Also, the fact that facilitating conditions

do not contribute to teachers’ intention to use ARSGs could be explained by the tralized nature (i.e., limited local autonomy, slow decision making, inflexibility) of theeducational system in Greece [31] This means that teachers most often either do notcontrol or do not feel that they can control the conditions that can facilitate their teaching.These results enhance the applicability and predictability of the TAM regarding teachers’acceptance of ARSGs and are in compliance with previous studies on the acceptance ofARSGs [13,14,16] and of mobile AR applications used by teachers [28,29] Moreover,based on this study, it is implied that teachers’ intention to use ARSGs can be enhanced

cen-by improving their perceptions of the usefulness and usability of ARSGs, most likelythrough pedagogical and technological training This is a useful insight for researchers,practitioners, and education policymakers

The results of this study add to the existing research literature on the integration ofARSGs by in-service teachers Its originality relates to two elements Primarily, it is thefirst to utilize a sample of teachers who wore and interacted with two ARSGs devices.Secondly, this interaction occurred after the teachers gained experience in designing anddeveloping their own AR objects However, there are two limitations to this study Thefirst is that the study only used a specific ARSG device - i.e., the Magic Leap 1 - tomeasure teachers’ intention It is possible that using different devices would producedifferent results The second is that the study participants were from one country, whichmeans that conclusions should be drawn with caution

Further research should measure whether other variables related to ARSGs’ dances can enhance the predictability of TAM in the context of education These variablescould be immersion, mobile self-efficacy, perceived enjoyment, and relative advantage[28,29] These affordances could then be used to develop a model of how ARSGs areaccepted by teachers

affor-Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 25

References

1 Verhulst, I., Woods, A., Whittaker, L., Bennett, J., Dalton, P.: Do VR and AR versions of animmersive cultural experience engender different user experiences? Comput Hum Behav

125, 106951 (2021).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106951

2 Dixon, H.H.B., Jr.: The Metaverse Judges’ J 62(1), 36–38 (2023)

3 Rauschnabel, P.A., Felix, R., Hinsch, C., Shahab, H., Alt, F.: What is XR? Towards a

framework for augmented and virtual reality Comput Hum Behav 133, 107289 (2022)

4 Arici, F., Yilmaz, R.M., Yilmaz, M.: Affordances of augmented reality technology for tion: views of secondary school students and science teachers Hum Behav Emerg Technol.(2021).https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.310

educa-5 Garzón, J., Pavón, J., Baldiris, S.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality

in educational settings Virtual Reality 23(4), 447–459 (2019)

6 Chiang, F.K., Shang, X., Qiao, L.: Augmented reality in vocational training: a systematic

review of research and applications Comput Hum Behav 129, 107125 (2022)

7 Sırakaya, M., Alsancak Sırakaya, D.: Augmented reality in STEM education: a systematic

review Interact Learn Environ 30(8), 1556–1569 (2022)

8 Yu, Z.: Meta-analyses of effects of augmented reality on educational outcomes over a decade.Interact Learn Environ 1–15 (2023).https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2205899

9 Bräker, J., Semmann, M.: Is There more than pokémon go?–Exploring the state of research oncausal modeling in the field of augmented reality In: 56th Hawaii International ConferenceProceedings on System Sciences, pp 1323–1332 (2023).https://hdl.handle.net/10125/102793

10 Bower, M., Sturman, D.: What are the educational affordances of wearable technologies?

Comput Educ 88, 343–353 (2015)

11 Holdack, E., Lurie-Stoyanov, K., Fromme, H.F.: The role of perceived enjoyment and ceived informativeness in assessing the acceptance of AR wearables J Retail Consum Serv

per-65, 102259 (2022).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102259

12 Koutromanos, G., Kazakou, G.: Augmented reality smart glasses use and acceptance: a

literature review Comput Educ X Reality 2, 100028 (2023)

13 Alfaisal, R., et al.: Predicting the intention to use google glass in the educational projects: a

hybrid SEM- ML approach Acad Strateg Manag J 21(6), 1–13 (2022)

14 Al Hamad, M.A.Q., Akour, I., Alshurideh, M., Al-Hamad, A.Q., Kurdi, B.A., Alzoubi, H.:Predicting the intention to use google glass: a comparative approach using machine learningmodels and PLS-SEM Int J Data Netw Sci 311–320 (2021)

15 Al-Maroof, R.A., Alfaisal, A.M., Salloum, S.A.: Google glass adoption in the educational

environment: a case study in the Gulf area Educ Inf Technol 26(3), 2477–2500 (2020)

16 Kazakou, G., Koutromanos, G.: Augmented Reality Smart Glasses in Education: Teachers’Perceptions Regarding the Factors That Influence Their Use in the Classroom In Interac-tive Mobile Communication, Technologies and Learning (pp 145–155) Cham: SpringerInternational Publishing (2021).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96296-8_14

17 Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information

technology MIS Q 13(3), 319–340 (1989).https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

18 Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information

technology: toward a unified view MIS Q 27(3), 425–478 (2003)

19 Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theoryand Research Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)

20 Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2), 179–211

(1991).https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

21 Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing

models Inf Syst Res 6, 144–176 (1995).https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144