Content uploaded by Phil Hennel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Phil Hennel on Jan 19, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
12th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik,
March 4-6 2015, Osnabrück, Germany
Benefits of Augmented Reality in Educational
Environments – A Systematic Literature Review
Phil Diegmann1, Manuel Schmidt-Kraepelin2,
Sven van den Eynden2, and Dirk Basten2
1 University of Cologne, Germany
mail@phildiegmann.com
2 Department of Information Systems and Systems Development,
University of Cologne, Germany
{schmidt-kraepelin,vandeneynden,basten}@wiso.uni-koeln.de
Abstract. By augmenting the real world with virtual information, Augmented
Reality (AR) provides new possibilities for education. Although AR is frequent-
ly applied in educational environments, the value of AR applications in these
environments is not yet investigated in its entirety. Additionally, educators face
different directions of AR applications, which may differ regarding their poten-
tial benefits. To help overcome these challenges, we conduct a systematic litera-
ture review to synthesize a set of 25 publications. We identify 14 different ben-
efits and cluster these into six different groups. We use the Five Directions of
AR in educational environments by Yuen et al. [1] to further detail possible
benefits for different directions of AR applications. Our findings indicate that
specific directions of AR applications are more likely to lead to certain benefits
such as increased motivation. Future research is needed to investigate the cau-
sality between benefits and directions of AR in more detail.
Keywords: Augmented reality, education, benefits, literature review.
1 Introduction
Bridging the gap between the virtual and the real world, Augmented Reality (AR)
provides new ways of teaching and learning, which are increasingly recognized in
research [2]. Although AR is one of the most emerging technologies in education
these days [3], the value of AR in learning environments remains unclear [2]. Fur-
thermore, various types of AR applications exist in educational environments, which
may differ regarding their benefits towards educational outcomes [1]. For the context
of this paper, we refer to educational environments as any scenario, in which people
are acquiring knowledge in a structured and controlled process.
While recent studies have investigated the use of AR in educational environments
[2, 4], a systematic analysis of AR benefits is yet to be accomplished [2]. A first pub-
lication exists, identifying positive and negative effects of AR in educational envi-
ronments [5]. Due to missing information concerning the applied methodology, we
were not able to reproduce the study. Previous research does not consider the different
Diegmann, P.; Schmidt-Kraepelin, M.; Van den Eynden, S.; Basten, D. (2015): Benefits of Augmented
Reality in Educational Environments - A Systematic Literature Review, in: Thomas. O.; Teuteberg, F.
(Hrsg.): Proceedings der 12. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI 2015), Osnabrück, S.
1542-1556
1542
types of AR applications in educational environments. To close this research gap and
advance the field of AR, we pose the following two research questions:
1. Which benefits do AR applications provide in educational environments?
2. How do these benefits differ regarding different types of AR applications?
For the purpose of answering these questions, we conduct a systematic literature re-
view to identify and analyze relevant publications. Additionally, we cluster relevant
publications with regard to the applied type of AR based on the Five Directions of AR
in education proposed by Yuen et al. [1].
An overview of AR benefits in educational environments regarding different types of
AR applications helps educators to decide whether the implementation of AR is rea-
sonable in certain educational scenarios. Moreover, our study identifies gaps in cur-
rent research and thus guides future studies within this domain.
This paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 introduces the AR concept and describes
AR’s Five Directions in educational environments [1]. We then describe our system-
atic approach to identify and analyze previous literature in Section 3. In Section 4, we
present the identified benefits of AR in educational environments and map the related
studies to the Five Directions in Section 5. We discuss our findings in Section 6. Our
paper ends with a conclusion for research and practice in Section 7.
2 Augmented Reality in Educational Environments
2.1 The Concept of Augmented Reality
Although the term Augmented Reality was coined by Tom Caudell – a former Boeing
researcher – in 1990, the concept of augmenting the real world by virtual data was
initially used by a number of applications in the late 1960s and 1970s. Since the
1990s, AR was used by some large companies in purpose of visualization and train-
ing. Nowadays, the rising power of personal computers and mobile devices enables
the concept of AR to be applied in traditional educational environments such as
schools and universities [3].
During recent years, AR has been given different meanings [2]. Milgram et al.
[6, p. 283] define AR based on the reality-virtuality continuum (Fig. 1) as “augment-
ing natural feedback to the operator with simulated cues”. The reality-virtuality con-
tinuum allows distinguishing between the concept of AR and concepts such as Virtual
Environments (also known as Virtual Reality (VR)) and Augmented Virtuality (AV)).
While VR deals with settings where “the participant observer is totally immersed in a
completely synthetic world” [6, p. 283], AV is concerned with environments in which
“the primary world being experienced is in fact [...] predominantly ‘virtual’” [7, p. 4]
and augmented with information from the real world. Additionally, Milgram et al.
[6, p. 283] mention a more restricted definition where AR is seen as “form of virtual
reality where the participant’s head-mounted display is transparent, allowing a clear
view of the real world”.
1543
Mixed Reality
Real
Environment
Augmented
Reality (AR)
Augmented
Virtuality (AV)
Virtual
Environment
Fig. 1. Reality-Virtuality Continuum [6]
In line with Wu et al. [2], we do not believe, that AR is restricted to any type of tech-
nology. Accordingly, we broadly define AR as “a situation in which a real world con-
text is dynamically overlaid with coherent location or context sensitive virtual infor-
mation” [8, p. 205] and consider AR as a concept which is conceptualized beyond
technology. Nevertheless, its realization depends on modern technology.
2.2 Five Directions of Augmented Reality in Educational Environments
Different ways exist to implement AR in educational environments [1, 4]. The Five
Directions by Yuen et al. [1] enable a classification of AR applications into five
groups as follows.
Discovery-based Learning. AR can be used in applications that enable Discovery-
based Learning. A user is provided with information about a real-world place while
simultaneously considering the object of interest. This type of application is often
used in museums, in astronomical education, and at historical places.
Objects Modeling. AR can also be used in Objects Modeling applications. Such ap-
plications allow students to receive immediate visual feedback on how a given item
would look in a different setting. Some applications also allow students to design
virtual objects in order to investigate their physical properties or interactions between
objects. This type of application is also used in architectural education.
AR Books. AR Books are books which offer students 3D presentations and interac-
tive learning experiences through AR technology. The books are augmented with the
help of technological devices such as special glasses. The first implementations of AR
Books show that this kind of medium is likely to appeal to digital native learners,
which makes it an appropriate educational medium even at the primary level.
Skills Training. The support of training individuals in specific tasks is described by
Skills Training. Especially mechanical skills are likely to be supported by AR Skills
Training applications. Such applications are, for instance, used in airplane mainte-
nance, where each step of a repair is displayed, necessary tools are identified, and
1544
textual instructions are included. The applications are often realized with head-
mounted displays.
AR Gaming. Video Games offer powerful new opportunities for educators which
have been ignored for many years [9]. Nowadays, educators have recognized and
often use the power of games in educational environments. AR technology enables
the development of games which take place in the real world and are augmented with
virtual information. AR Games can give educators powerful new ways to show rela-
tionships and connections. Additionally, they provide educators with highly interac-
tive and visual forms of learning.
3 Systematic Literature Review
We applied a four-step research approach. We (1) identified relevant publications. We
then analyzed the identified publications by (2) coding and (3) grouping benefits as
well as (4) mapping the related studies to the Five Directions.
3.1 Data Collection
For the identification of publications addressing AR in educational environments
(Fig. 2), we applied a systematic online literature database search. We included data-
bases related to the information systems discipline (IEEE Xplore (IEEE), ProQuest,
AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), and ACM Digital Library (ACM)) as well as more
general databases (EBSCO Host (EBSCO) and ScienceDirect). Potentially relevant
papers needed to match the following search pattern in title, abstract, or keywords:
(“Augmented Reality” AND (“Educat*” OR “Learn*” OR “Teach*” OR “College”
OR “School”) AND (“Benefi*” OR “Advantage*”)). Our search yielded a total of 523
articles. The publications were analyzed with regard to our inclusion and exclusion
criteria (Tab. 1).
ACM
AISeL
EBSCO
IEEE
ProQuest
ScienceDirect
523
publications
25
publications
Keyword search
conducted
Include- & exclude-
criteria applied
Fig. 2. Research Approach: Data Collection
1545
Table 1. Include and Exclude Criteria
We limited the results to empirical works since we aimed to gain insights into benefits
of applied systems and benefits in real-world scenarios. Additionally, we aimed to
ensure, that the benefits we found were not only results of theoretical thoughts, but
proved in real-world scenarios. Whereas some papers reported negative effects (e.g.,
ineffective classroom integration), we focused on positive effects due to their predom-
inance in research studies and in order to analyze the interdependence of these posi-
tive effects. Moreover, we excluded non-human scenarios like machine learning and
learning contexts with special requirements like students with handicaps. Both aspects
were left out since they deal with specialized context that may provide benefits which
cannot be transferred to a general context without additional validation.
Each article was read by two of the authors. In case of divergent classifications, the
authors reasoned until agreement was reached. After merging our results, a total of 25
articles remained. All relevant articles describe experiments, which were conducted in
order to investigate the benefits of AR in comparison to conventional learning tools.
They are printed bold in the reference section.
3.2 Data Analysis
Our data analysis is illustrated in Fig. 3. First, we assigned articles to one of the Five
Directions. The definitions proposed by Yuen et al. [1] include characteristics for
each direction, which we matched to the reviewed articles. Two authors independent-
ly assigned each article to one of the Five Directions and subsequently compared their
assignments. In case of divergent assessments, the authors reasoned until agreement
was reached. The according inter-coder reliability [10] – calculated by dividing the
number of initial agreements by the total number of initial agreements and disagree-
ments – amounts 0.64 (cf. our discussion of this score in Section 6). During the as-
signment, we collected information about the mentioned benefits and merged similar
benefits into a single one. To improve clarity and to find semantically coherent
groups, the benefits were clustered into categories if they were logically related to the
Include Criteria
Exclude Criteria
Empirical works
Theoretical works
A teaching problem is solved with the
help of AR or a teaching concept is
improved by AR
Untried or untested technologies
Lists positive effects of AR applica-
tions in comparison to conventional
learning tools
No comparison to conventional learn-
ing tools
Human learning
Machine learning
English language
Other languages
Peer-reviewed
Not peer-reviewed
Students without special require-
ments
Students with special requirements
1546
same subject. We followed the theoretical approach of clustering proposed by Jan-
kowicz [11]. After the assignment of a direction to each article, we counted the occur-
rences of each benefit found in the articles for each direction. A total of 67 benefits
were identified, containing 14 unique benefits, which were clustered into six clusters.
In the next chapter, we describe the groups and related benefits.
6 benefit groups
14 unique benefits
67 benefits mentioned
assigning
direction to
article
collecting
benefits
grouping
benefits
Fig. 3. Research Approach: Data Analysis
4 Benefits of Augmented Reality in Educational Environments
In this section, we present the groups of benefits as well as single benefits, which we
identified and describe them by citing examples from the reviewed literature.
4.1 State of Mind
Increased Motivation. By Increased Motivation, we refer to users being more eager,
interested, and engaged to deal with new technology as well as teaching and learning
content compared to non-AR (NAR) methods [12–24]. The benefit is described in
quotations such as “the AR-style game play successfully enhanced intrinsic motiva-
tion towards the self-learning process” [13, p. 113], “Participants using the AR books
appeared much more eager at the beginning of each session compared with the NAR
group” [12, p. 112], and “students have been satisfied and motivated by these new
methodologies, in all cases” [19, p. 60]. The benefit can be further described by find-
ings such as the users being “more proactive” [25, p. 10, 26, p. 187] or the will to
continue learning using the AR technology after class. A more detailed description
was found in Iwata et al. [13], where physical interaction is explicitly identified as a
driver to enhance emotional engagement.
Increased Attention. This benefit is about the attention users pay to the technology
and thus to the teaching and learning content. It is mentioned explicitly by Vate-U-
Lan [20]. In two other cases, we interpreted the quotations “felt it interesting [...] us-
ing the AR-guide system” [27, p. 194] and “teachers noted that the smartphones [the
AR-System] promoted interaction with the pond (of which the pupils should learn
something about) and classmates” [14, p. 552] as indicators for increased attention.
1547
Increased Concentration. This benefit concerns users’ concentration while using AR
applications. Similar to the detailed description for Increased Motivation through AR
application in Iwata et al. [13, p. 9], “physical interaction induced deeper concentra-
tion [...]”.Yen et al. [21, p. 173] and Ibáñez et al. [24, p. 11] perceive a “higher [...]
degree of concentration” or a “higher level of concentration”.
Increased Satisfaction. Increased Satisfaction means that users experience higher
satisfaction regarding the learning process or their educational progress, that is, re-
garding the learning process, students have more fun running through a library and
solving tasks directed by an AR application than by a librarian [28]. Martín-Gutíerrez
et al. [17, p. 6] state that “the students were quite satisfied with the [AR-]tools used to
learn”. A reverse statement is that the frustration level is higher using the manual way
[23]. This benefit is also mentioned by Ibáñez et al. [24] and Redondo et al. [19].
4.2 Teaching Concepts
Increased Student-centered Learning. Student-centered Learning is a teaching con-
cept in which conventional lectures are replaced by new active and self-paced learn-
ing programs. In Student-centered Learning approaches, students are more self-
responsible for their own progress in education, and educators act as facilitators who
enable the students to learn independently and individually. Three studies report that
AR enabled an increased Student-centered Learning in the regarded learning envi-
ronment. Vate-U-Lan [20, p. 894] recognizes that the regarded AR application ena-
bled the tailoring of functionality to student’s learning capabilities. Similarly, Kama-
rainen et al. [14, p. 554] report that “these technologies provide ways of individualiz-
ing instruction in a group setting” and that “the technology supported independence”
which “freed the teacher to act as a facilitator”. Furthermore, Liu et al. [15, p. 173]
report that AR “improves the ability to explore and absorb new knowledge and solve
problems”, indicating that AR can support Student-centered Learning environments
as students are enabled to explore knowledge and solve problems autonomously.
These studies show that AR can support a Student-centered Learning approach by
providing educators with new possibilities to individualize their lessons according to
students’ capabilities and by enabling students to learn more independently from edu-
cators.
Improved Collaborative Learning. Three studies report that the analyzed AR appli-
cations improved collaborative learning by providing new ways of communication
and cooperation. Wang et al. [29, p. 57] regard their AR application as “effective
environment for conducting collaborative inquiry learning activities”. Other authors
join the observation of Improved Collaborative Learning as they highlight “the oppor-
tunity for collaborative communication and problem-solving among students that
arose from the augmented reality experience” [14, p. 552] and the “facilitation effects
of AR technology on collaborative learning effectiveness” [22, p. 322].
1548
4.3 Presentation
Increased Details. In the context of urban design education, the tested AR “has more
detailing particularly in the texture of models” [27, p. 17] compared to the traditional
use of wooden block models.
Increased Information Accessibility. AR applications can improve and ease the
access to information regarding teaching and learning content. In the context of an
assembly task guided by an AR application, Hou et al. [23, p. 447] report that “AR
eases information retrieval”. Additionally, Iwata et al. [13, p. 112] mention that “su-
perimposed information was nicely integrated and did not interfere with the learning
process” while learning a traditional Chinese board game.
Increased Interactivity. This benefit is about new ways of interaction with the learn-
ing tool, through concepts such as context-aware information on the device. Increased
Interactivity can be seen as precondition for other presented benefits. However, In-
creased Interactivity through the application of AR is a characteristic which is not
realized by conventional methods [12, 24] and is therefore specified as an individual
benefit. Dünser et al. [12, p. 113] state that “[i]nteractions in AR engage learners with
the content, and allow for knowledge to be acquired through their [the students] own
manipulation of content [...], as supported by constructivist learning theory”. While
Increased Interactivity can also be related to teaching concepts, it mainly focusses on
technology enabling interactivity rather than the educational decision for interactivity.
4.4 Learning Type
Improved Learning Curve. An Improved Learning Curve effect refers to students
learning faster and easier with AR applications compared to non-AR applications. Liu
[30, p. 525] reports that “tests taken by the [AR application users] in all the learning
activities were significantly better than those of the [traditionally learning users]”.
Similarly, Chang et al. [25, p. 193] state that “[t]he AR-guided group had better learn-
ing effectiveness” as well as “[t]he learning performance of the AR-guided group was
thus superior to that of the other two groups”. Similar observations have been made in
multiple studies [14–16, 19, 22–24, 26, 31–33].
Increased Creativity. AR supports creative learning as observed by Chang et al.
[25, p. 194]. Additionally, Liu et al. [15, p. 173] found that “[AR] also improves stu-
dent creativity and the ability to explore and absorb new knowledge and solve prob-
lems”. Vate-U-Lan [20, p. 894] reports that AR “highlighted many benefits that in-
clude [...] integration of a variety of learning skills such as [...] creativity”.
1549
4.5 Content Understanding
Improved Development of Spatial Abilities. Our research indicates that with the
help of AR, students are able to acquire a new level of spatial abilities. Dünser et al.
[12, p. 112] mention that their “results support the hypothesis, and suggest that Aug-
mented Reality has some potential to be effective in aiding the learning of 3D con-
cepts”. The benefit was also identified by Martín-Gutíerrez et al. [16, p. 5]: “the train-
ing of spatial ability based on Graphic Engineering contents and AR technology im-
proves spatial abilities for those who perform them and consequently lower the num-
bers of students who drop out of the subject”. This benefit is also mentioned by Mar-
tín-Gutíerrez et al. [17] and Chen and Wang [27].
Improved Memory. Improved Memory refers to the retention of knowledge acquired
during the use of an AR application. Hou et al. [23, p. 450] state that “trainees with
AR training could remember or recollect more assembly clues that were memorized
in the former training task than those trained in the manual”. Furthermore, this benefit
is not only about memory itself but also refers to the vividness of the memory. As
Chang et al. [25, p. 193] point out, “[the AR application] facilitates the development
of art appreciation […], supporting the coupling between the visitors, the guide sys-
tem, and the artwork (Klopfer & Squire, 2008) by using AR technology, and helping
visitors keep their memories of the artwork vivid”. Macchiarella et al. [34, p. 4] con-
clude that AR “lead[s] to an increased ability to retain long term memories”.
4.6 Reduced Costs
Leblanc et al. [35] and Martín-Gutíerrez et al. [16] report Reduced Costs in AR-
scenarios compared to traditional learning in the long term. Chen and Tsai [28] in
particular highlight the low cost in executing manpower and moderate costs for de-
signing and renewing the courses. Andujar et al. [36] agree on this benefit, especially
for virtual laboratories. They add that AR applications not only reduce direct costs,
such as needed materials, but also time for preparing classes. While AR technology is
accompanied with high acquisition cost, this investment is most likely to pay off in
the long term. Leblanc et al. [35] conclude that, while one time acquisition cost were
high, the cost per class could be lowered by 93.34%, reducing overall costs.
5 Mapping of the Benefits to the Five Directions
Table 2 maps the benefits to the Five Directions. This mapping is discussed below.
Discovery-based Learning. We found eight articles which present learning concepts
that were discovery-based. Those articles had the most mentions of state-of-mind
benefits, especially Increased Motivation. Also, an Improved Learning Curve was
mentioned. Nine out of 14 benefits were reported for Discovery-based Learning ap-
1550
plications, which is the most diverse pool of benefits in our literature review. Reduced
Costs were reported in one article for Discovery-based Learning applications.
Objects Modeling. We identified five articles dealing with an Objects Modeling
approach. Similar to Discovery-based Learning applications, Objects Modeling re-
sulted in an Increased Motivation and Increased Satisfaction. We found four articles
mentioning Increased Motivation in an Objects Modeling context. Also, an Improved
Learning Curve was observed. It is noticeable that, although Objects Modeling itself
is highly interactive, we did not identify references of Increased Interactivity. Also,
we did not find reports of Increased Creativity linked to Objects Modeling, but spatial
abilities were reported to be developed better. Objects Modeling applications are re-
ported to have reduced costs in comparison to non-AR learning tools.
Table 2. Mapping of Benefits to Directions
(25 articles, 6 benefit groups, 14 different benefits and 5 directions)
Discovery-based
Learning
Objects Modeling
AR Books
Skills Training
AR Gaming
Total
State of Mind
Motivation
7
4
2
1
1
15
Attention
2
0
1
0
0
3
Concentration
2
0
0
0
1
3
Satisfaction
1
2
0
1
1
5
Teaching
Concepts
Student-centered Learning
2
0
1
0
0
3
Collaborative Learning
1
2
0
0
0
3
Presentation
Details
0
0
0
1
0
1
Accessibility Information
0
0
0
1
1
2
Interactivity
1
0
1
0
0
2
Learning Type
Learning Curve
6
4
1
6
1
18
Creativity
2
0
1
0
0
3
Content
Understanding
Spatial Abilities
0
2
1
1
0
4
Memory
1
0
0
2
0
3
Reduced Costs
Reduced Costs
0
1
0
1
0
2
AR Books. Two articles were based on AR Books applications. AR Books applica-
tions were the least found direction. Six out of 14 benefits were reported in context of
AR Books. No Reduced Costs were reported for AR Books applications.
Skills Training. Seven articles presented a Skills Training AR application and seven
out of 14 unique benefits were mentioned in in this regard. Skills Training applica-
1551
tions have most mentions of Content Understanding, especially in Improved Memory.
It is also noteworthy that Skills Training applications have the same count of men-
tions for Improved Learning Curve as Discovery-based Learning applications. Both
have the highest count for Improved Learning Curve. It was reported that Skills
Training applications reduced costs in comparison to traditional learning tools.
AR Gaming. AR Gaming was shown in three articles. AR Gaming has most benefits
in the State of Mind group. An Improved Learning Curve and better accessible infor-
mation were reported. Content Understanding and Teaching Concepts were not ex-
plicitly improved in the reviewed cases. Reduced Costs were reported in one article.
6 Discussion
Compared to the previous study by Radu [5], our study has some similarities as well
as some distinctions. Radu [5] mentions Spatial Abilities, Long Term Memory, Col-
laboration, and Motivation as AR benefits, which are supported by our results. How-
ever, we aggregate Content Understanding, Language Association, and Physical Task
Performance into Improved Learning Curve. Depending on the direction of the appli-
cation, we are able to disaggregate our aggregated benefit Improved Learning Curve
into a more detailed benefit, that is, Skills Training application with an Improved
Learning Curve conforms to Physical Task Performance. We defined Improved De-
velopment of Spatial Abilities as another benefit and even in another group, as some
applications lead to a new level of spatial abilities, which might not have been
achieved without AR or is at least extraordinary improvements in spatial abilities.
Martín-Gutíerrez et al. [17, p. 4] states that “[...] the students have a probability of
over 95% of improving their levels of spatial ability when performing the proposed
training. Besides this, results show there is no improvement in control group levels”,
which indicates that spatial abilities were improved far more than usual. In contrast to
Radu [5], we divided Attention into two benefits, that is, Increased Concentration and
Increased Attention. While Radu [5] states that AR applications might fail to improve
student attention or lead to an unintended focus on the technology itself rather than
the topic, we found articles that state the opposite. Kamarainen et al. [14, p. 554]
highlights that “[t]he teachers stated that they began this project with skepticism about
whether the technology would overwhelm the experience, holding the students’ atten-
tion at the expense of their noticing the real environment. However, teachers and in-
vestigators found the opposite to be true. Students were captivated when a squirrel
dropped a seed from a tree near the path and nearly hit a classmate; they called out
excitedly when they observed a frog near the shore”. We thus believe the drawback
mentioned by Radu [5] to be related to system design. Furthermore, our differentia-
tion between attention and concentration is based on the findings by Kamarainen et al.
[14, p. 554]. Attention relates to an increased awareness of the situation and a focus
on the broader environment only, while concentration refers to an increased aware-
ness of the topic or subject and a high level of cognitive activity. In addition to Radu
[5], we identified the following benefits: Reduced Costs, Student-centered Learning,
1552
Increased Creativity as well as all presentation-related benefits like Increased Details,
Increased Information Accessibility, and Increased Interactivity. We found Increased
Creativity to be a surprising benefit of AR applications. We rather expected AR ap-
plications to display prescribed information and interact in predefined ways. Our find-
ings conversely show that AR applications are able to support creative, non-linear
learning. This finding also stresses that AR is a very flexible tool which can be used
in many educational environments and settings and for very different purposes if it is
applied thoroughly. Hannafin and Land [37, p. 197] state that although “[s]tudent-
centered learning environments, with or without technology, will not be the system of
choice for all types of learning”, “[Student-centered Learning environments] represent
alternative approaches for fundamentally different learning goals” [37, p. 197]. Thus,
“[i]t is important to recognize, however, that viable alternatives to direct instruction
methods exist, alternatives that reflect different assumptions and draw upon different
research and theory bases than do traditional approaches”. These statements make us
believe that Student-centered Learning, especially with AR as a tool, may be an im-
portant new movement for education. Discovery-based Learning seems to be a very
promising AR direction. As outlined in Section 5, this direction includes benefits
ranging from Increased Motivation and Improved Learning Curve to Reduced Costs
and Increased Student-centered Learning. Supporting a Discovery-based Learning-
approach, the student is the center of the learning process and the learning process is
adjusted to the student’s needs and preferences. This seems a promising way of learn-
ing in the future. Our study is limited by a number of factors. First, the identified em-
pirical studies are only informal investigations with a low number of participants. The
significance of the ascertained benefits of AR applications may be unclear in these
cases. However, these studies are based on experiments and thus are able to reveal
causal relations. For some of the regarded directions, we did not find sufficient arti-
cles in order to make a point about the diversity of benefits compared to other direc-
tions. However, AR is one of the most emerging technologies in education and the
fact that 15 out of 25 articles were published in 2012 or later shows that these limita-
tions can be overcome in the future when further empirical evaluations of AR applica-
tions in educational environments are published. Another factor that limits our study
is the inter-coder reliability of 0.64 regarding the classification of articles to a certain
direction of AR. We believe that this rather low value can be explained by the cir-
cumstance that some articles cannot be precisely classified to a single direction (e.g.,
a Discovery-based Learning application which uses game elements). In addition, the
definitions by Yuen et al. [1] leave some room for interpretation, which we attempted
to reduce before we conducted our systematic literature review in order to ensure a
common understanding. However, since research on AR benefits can be considered to
be at an early stage, reliabilities of .70 or higher suffice [38]. Our value is thus only
marginally below the recommended threshold. To keep the focus on the primary clas-
sification of every article, we decided to allow only single classifications and accepted
a lower inter-coder reliability. Another aspect we left out are ‘special learners’: while
handicapped people have (sometimes) special requirements, we focused on more
general aspects of AR in educational environments.
1553
7 Conclusion
AR is eligible to be used in educational environments and we identified many applica-
tions successfully applying AR to improve learning: language education, training of
mechanical skills, and spatial abilities training. Nevertheless, AR should not be con-
sidered a magic bullet in educational environments. Each AR application is in its own
way unique and therefore the identified benefits may not apply in each context. Each
application has to be implemented thoroughly to prevent drawbacks in user interac-
tion or system failures in order to profit from benefits. Special user groups (e.g., hand-
icapped people) can benefit in different as well as additional ways due to their re-
quirements to learning methods and the characteristics of AR. The exploration of
these benefits could be an objective for future research in the field of AR applications
in educational environments. We identified 14 different benefits of AR in our source
literature of which two (Improved Learning Curve and Increased Motivation) account
for more than 20% of all benefits mentioned. Other benefits with much lower repre-
sentation could be in the focus of future works assessing AR applications in educa-
tional environments. Future research should also focus on each of the Five Directions.
References
1. Yuen, S., Yaoyuneyong, G., Johnson, E.: Augmented Reality: An Overview and
Five Directions for AR in Education. Journal of Educational Technology Devel-
opment and Exchange 4, 119–140 (2011)
2. Wu, H.-K., Lee, S., Chang, H.-Y., Liang, J.-C.: Current Status, Opportunities and
Challenges of Augmented Reality in Education. Computers & Education 62, 41–
49 (2013)
3. Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., Stone, S.: The 2010 Horizon Report New
Media Consortium (2010)
4. Lee, K.: Augmented Reality in Education and Training. TechTrends 56 (2012)
5. Radu, I.: Augmented Reality in Education: A Meta-Review and Cross-Media
Analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (2014)
6. Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., Kishino, F.: Augmented Reality: A Class
of Displays on the Reality-Virtuality Continuum. In: Proceedings of SPIE 2351,
Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies, pp. 282–292 (1994)
7. Milgram, P., Kishino, F.: A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE
Transactions on Information Systems E77-D (1994)
8. Klopfer, E., Squire, K.: Environmental Detectives—The Development of an
Augmented Reality Platform for Environmental Simulations. Educational Tech-
nology Research and Development 56, 203–228 (2008)
9. Squire, K.: Video Games in Education. International Journal of Intelligent Simu-
lations and Gaming 2, 49–62 (2003)
10. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis Sage, Thousand Oaks
(1994)
11. Jankowicz, D.: The Easy Guide to Repertory Grids Wiley (2004)
1554
12. Dünser, A., Walker, L., Horner, H., Bentall, D.: Creating Interactive Physics
Education Books with Augmented Reality. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australian
Computer-Human Interaction Conference, pp. 107–114 (2012)
13. Iwata, T., Yamabe, T., Nakajima, T.: Augmented Reality Go: Extending Tra-
ditional Game Play with Interactive Self-Learning Support. In: IEEE 17th Inter-
national Conference on Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and Ap-
plications, pp. 105–114 (2011)
14. Kamarainen, A., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D., Tutwiler,
M., Dede, C.: EcoMOBILE: Integrating Augmented Reality and Probeware with
Environmental Education Field Trips. Computer and Education 68, 545–556
(2013)
15. Liu, T.Y., Tan, T.-H., Chu, Y.-L.: Outdoor Natural Science Learning with an
RFID-Supported Immersive Upiquitous Learning Environment. Educational
Technology and Society 12, 161–175 (2009)
16. Martín-Gutíerrez, J., Navarro, R., González, M.: Mixed Reality for Develop-
ment of Spatial Skills of First-Year Engineering Students. In: 41st ASEE/IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference (2011)
17. Martín-Gutíerrez, J., Garcia-Dominguez, M., Roca-González, C., Cor-
redeguas, M.: Using Different Methodologies and Technologies to Training Spa-
tial Skill in Engineering Graphic Subjects. In: Frontiers in Education Conference,
IEEE (2013)
18. Tian, K., Endo, M., Urata, M., Mouri, K., Yasuda, T.: Development of a Mul-
ti-viewpoint AR-Based Mobile Learning System for Supporting Lunar Observa-
tion. In: International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based
Systems, pp. 1034–1041 (2013)
19. Redondo, E., Fonseca, D., Sánchez, A., Navarro, I.: New Strategies Using
Handheld Augmented Reality and Mobile Learning-teaching Methodologies, in
Architecture and Building Engineering Degrees. Procedia Computer Science 25,
52–61 (2013)
20. Vate-U-Lan, P.: An Augmented Reality 3D Pop-Up Book: The Development of
a Multimedia Project for English Language Teaching. In: IEEE International
Conference on Multimedia and Expo, pp. 890–895 (2012)
21. Yen, J.-C., Tsai, C.-H., Wu, M.: Augmented Reality in the Higher Education:
Students’ Science Concept Learning and Academic Achievement in Astronomy.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 103, 165–173 (2013)
22. Li, N., Gu, Y., Chang, L., Duh, H.: Influences of AR-Supported Simulation on
Learning Effectiveness in Face-to-face Collaborative Learning for Physics. In:
11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp.
320–322 (2011)
23. Hou, L., Wang, X., Bernold, L., Love, P.: Using Animated Augmented Reality
to Cognitively Guide Assembly. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 27,
439–451 (2013)
24. Ibáñez, M., Di Serio, A., Villarán, D., Delgado Kloos, C.: Experimenting with
Electromagnetism Using Augmented Reality: Impact on Flow Student Experience
and Educational Effectiveness. Computer and Education 71, 1–13 (2014)
25. Chang, K.-E., Chang, C.-T., Hou, H.-T., Sung, Y.-T., Chao, H.-L., Lee, C.-
M.: Development and Behavioral Pattern Analysis of a Mobile Guide System
1555
with Augmented Reality for Painting Appreciation Instruction in an Art Museum.
Computer and Education 71, 185–197 (2014)
26. Zhang, J., Sung, Y.-T., Hou, H.-T., Chang, K.-E.: The Development and Eval-
uation of an Augmented Reality-Based Armillary Sphere for Astronomical Ob-
servation Instruction. Computer and Education 73, 178–188 (2014)
27. Chen, R., Wang, X.: An Empirical Study on Tangible Augmented Reality Learn-
ing Space for Design Skill Transfer. Tsinghua Science and Technology 13, 13–18
(2008)
28. Chen, C.-M., Tsai, Y.-N.: Interactive Augmented Reality System for Enhancing
Library Instruction in Elementary Schools. Computer and Education 59, 638–652
(2012)
29. Wang, H.-Y., Lin, T.-J., Tsai, C.-C., Duh, H., Liang, J.-C.: An Investigation of
Students’ Sequential Learning Behavioral Patterns in Mobile CSCL Learning
Systems. In: IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Tech-
nologies, pp. 53–57 (2012)
30. Liu, T.Y.: A Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning Environment for Language
Listening and Speaking. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 25, 515–527
(2009)
31. Yeo, C., Ungi, T., U-Thainual, P., Lasso, A., McGraw, R., Fichtinger, G.: The
Effect of Augmented Reality Training on Percutaneous Needle Placement in Spi-
nal Facet Joint Injections. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 58,
2031–2037 (2011)
32. Wilson, K., Doswell, J., Fashola, O., Debeatham, W., Darko, N., Walker, T.,
Danner, O., Matthews, R., Weaver, W.: Using Augmented Reality as a Clinical
Support Tool to Assist Combat Medics in the Treatment of Tension Pneumotho-
races. Military Medicine 178, 981–985 (2013)
33. Anderson, F., Grossman, T., Matejka, J., Fitzmaurice, G.: YouMove: Enhanc-
ing Movement Training with an Augmented Reality Mirror. In: Proceedings of
the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology,
pp. 311–320 (2013)
34. Macchiarella, N., Liu, D., Gangadharan, S., Vincenzi, D., Majoros, A.: Aug-
mented Reality as a Training Medium for Aviation/Aerospace Application. In:
Proceedings of the 49th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meet-
ing, pp. 2174–2178 (2005)
35. Leblanc, F., Champagne, B., Augestad, K., Neary, P., Senagore, A., Ellis, C.,
Delaney, C.: A Comparison of Human Cadaver and Augmented Reality Simula-
tor Models for Straight Laparoscopic Colorectal Skills Acquisition Training.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons 211, 250–255 (2010)
36. Andujar, J., Mejias, A., Marquez, M.: Augmented Reality for the Improvement
of Remote Laboratories: An Augmented Remote Laboratory. IEEE Transactions
on Education 54, 492–500 (2011)
37. Hannafin, M., Land, S.: The Foundations and Assumptions of Technology-
Enhanced Student-centered Learning Environments. Instructional Science 25,
167–202 (1997)
38. Lance, C.E., Butts, M.M., Michels, L.C.: The Source of Four Common-
ly Reported Cutoff Criteria. What Did They Really Say? Organizational Research
Methods 9, 202–220 (2006)
1556
