The Effect of Augmented Reality Applications in the Learning Process: A Meta-Analysis Study

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this research is to investigate the effect of Augmented Reality (AR) applications in the learning process. Problem: Research that determines the effectiveness of Augmented Reality (AR) applications in the learning process with different variables has not been encountered in national or international literature. Research Methods: To determine the effect of AR in the learning process, experimental studies conducted in 2007-2017 on the use of AR in education were analyzed by the Meta-Analysis Method. Analyzed articles were selected among the publications in the journals scanned in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). In this context, 16 studies were examined to identify the effect of AR applications in the learning process. Findings: Findings indicated that AR applications increase students’ academic achievement in the learning process compared to traditional methods. Implications for Research and Practice: It was concluded that AR applications do not show significant differences in academic success in the learning process. For example, the “grade level” variable of the study does not show a significant difference compared to traditional methods. When assessing AR display devices, the largest effect size was related to the use of mobile devices, while the smallest effect size was in the use of webcam-based devices. When comparing sample size in the study, it was identified that the effect size of large sample groups was affected by AR on a medium level, while small samples were affected minimally.

Full text

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research
www.ejer.com.tr
The Effect of Augmented Reality Applications in the Learning Process: A Meta-
Analysis Study*
Muzaffer OZDEMIR1, Cavus SAHIN2, Serdar ARCAGOK3, M. Kaan DEMIR4
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article History:
Purpose: The aim of this research is to investigate the
effect of Augmented Reality (AR) applications in the
learning process. Problem: Research that determines
the effectiveness of Augmented Reality (AR)
applications in the learning process with different
variables has not been encountered in national or
international literature. Research Methods: To
determine the effect of AR in the learning process,
experimental studies conducted in 2007-2017 on the
use of AR in education were analyzed by the Meta
Received: 14 Aug. 2017
Received in revised form: 01 Feb. 2018
Accepted: 10 Mar. 2018
DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2018.74.9
Keywords
Academic achievement, innovative
learning environments, thematic analysis
Analysis Method. Analyzed articles were selected among the publications in the journals
scanned in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). In this context, 16 studies were examined
to identify the effect of AR applications in the learning process. Findings: Findings indicated
that AR applications increase students’ academic achievement in the learning process
compared to traditional methods. Implications for Research and Practice: It was concluded
that AR applications do not show significant differences in academic success in the learning
process. For example, the “grade level” variable of the study does not show a significant
difference compared to traditional methods. When assessing AR display devices, the largest
effect size was related to the use of mobile devices, while the smallest effect size was in the use
of webcam-based devices. When comparing sample size in the study, it was identified that the
effect size of large sample groups was affected by AR on a medium level, while small samples
were affected minimally.
© 2018 Ani Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved
* This paper was presented as a summary paper at the 16th International Primary Teacher Education
Symposium, 08-11 May. 2017
1
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, TURKEY, mozdemir@comu.edu.tr, ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5490-
238X
2
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, TURKEY, csahin25240@yahoo.com, ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4250-
9898
3
Corresponding Author: Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, TURKEY, serdar_arcagok21@comu.edu.tr,
ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4937-3268
4
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, TURKEY, mkdemir2000@comu.edu.tr, ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-
8797-0410

166
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
Introduction
The emergence of innovative technologies helps instructional designers develop
learning environments that facilitate learning (Chang, Hsu, & Wu, 2016). Fast and
widespread use of wireless communication networks and mobile devices has made
access to innovative technologies such as Augmented Reality (AR) considerably easier
and has provided significant advantages for technology-assisted learning (Ozdemir,
2017a). AR is a variation of virtual environments commonly called Virtual Reality (VR)
(Azuma, 1997), which can be defined as a technology enabling virtual objects
produced by computers to be placed on physical objects in real time (Zhou, Duh, &
Billinghurst, 2008).
There are two types of AR, namely, image-based AR and location-based AR. In
image-based AR, some markers are needed to fix the position of 3D objects onto real-
world images (Ibanez, Di-Serio, Villaran-Molina & Delgado - Kloos, 2016). In
application, an AR marker is matched with a 3D model or animation, and this marker
is perceived by a camera to enable the model or animation to appear on a screen
(Pasareti, Hajdin, Patusaka, Jambori, Molnar & Tucsanyi-Szabo, 2011). In location-
based AR, the location information of users’ mobile devices is used with the help of
the global positioning system (GPS) or Wi-Fi-based positioning systems
(Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013). GPS determines the exact location of mobile devices
and how far related objects can be exactly calculated from the target location (Pasareti
et al., 2011). In both AR types, virtual objects are associated with real-world objects,
and a 3D perception is presented to its user (Ke & Hsu, 2015). AR objects can be
displayed on mobile devices, projection systems or head-mounted screens (for
instance, Google Cardboard). AR helps to increase users’ experiences with the real
world as opposed to other computer interfaces that pull users away from the real
world through the screen (Billinghurst, Kato & Poupyrev, 2001). Therefore, the use of
AR technologies provides benefits in a number of fields, including engineering,
entertainment and education (Zhou, Duh, & Billinghurst, 2008).
Augmented Reality in Education
AR provides students with the opportunity to practice their knowledge and skills
by seamlessly combining digital information with the real-world environment
(Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013). In addition to the practicing real-world senarios, AR
can also provide interactive learning environments through interactive activities
(Chen & Wang, 2015). AR has the potential to save time and money in the case of high-
cost educational needs (Gavish, Gutierrez, Webel, Rodriguez, Peveri, Bockholt &
Tecchia, 2015). AR systems, which can be used to increase collaborative learning
experiences (Billinghurst, Kato & Poupyrev 2001), enable the teaching of lessons in an
innovative and interactive way by presenting information in 3D format, thereby
facilitating students’ skill acquisition (Wu, Lee, Chang, & Liang, 2013). Besides, AR
systems positively affect students’ motivation and cognitive learning (Sotiriou &
Bogner, 2008). They help to develop their spatial (Kaufmann & Schmalstieg, 2003) and
psychomotor-cognitive skills. AR can provide hints and feedback visually, auditorily
or sensorially to improve students’ experiences (Zhou et al., 2008). Through these

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
167
features, AR systems can be integrated into teachers’ lecture notes. Thus, the abstract
information to be taught can be conveyed to the students in a concrete way. Because
AR allows students to observe events that they cannot easily see in a natural
environment (Wu Lee, Chang, & Liang, 2013). One of the most important advantages
of AR in terms of education is helping to create a comprehensive, blended learning
environment which facilitates the development of critical thinking, problem solving
and mutually cooperative communicative skills by presenting digital and physical
objects together in the same environment (Dunleavy, Dede & Mitchell, 2009).
Following is a comparison of other analysis studies on the use of AR in the educational
field with our research.
Meta- Analysis Studies Conducted for the Use of AR in the Educational Process
Using meta-analysis, Santos et al. (2014) examined 87 studies in the IEEE Xplore
database, which were conducted for the use of AR at the K-12 level. Tekedere and
Göker (2016) investigated 15 articles published in SCI/SSCI indexed journals between
the years 2005 and 2015 by using the meta-analysis method. Finally, Yılmaz and Batdı
(2016) examined the effects size of AR on academic success in 12 studies conducted in
national and international areas through the meta-analysis method. The above-
mentioned analysis studies are found to be limited when the results of their research-
-conducted to investigate the effectiveness of AR applications in the learning process
in different environments and times is combined. Moreover, research that determines
the effectiveness of AR applications in the learning process with different variables
(e.g., education areas, educational situations, the use of AR display devices and sample
sizes) has not been encountered in national or international literature. In this regard, it
is considered that this research will contribute to the field in terms of these variables.
The education areas that prefer to use AR technology for educational purposes differ.
For this reason, it is considered important to investigate the effect of AR applications
on achievement in terms of educational areas. AR technologies are more preferred as
an educational tool in several science branches such as physics, chemistry, biology,
mathematics and ecology (Ozdemir, 2017b). In these branches of science, teaching is
easier when concepts which are abstract and difficult to understand are presented in a
concrete way with the help of AR technologies (Ozdemir 2017b). AR also offers many
activities that allow students to visualize some educational content (e.g., the magnetic
field) that they will not see in the real world (Ibanez et al., 2014). On the contrary, the
using of AR applications as an educational tool is much less frequently preferred in
areas such as social sciences, business, administration and law (Ozdemir, 2017b). In
addition, the analized studies emphasized that AR applications are an important factor
in increasing student achievement at every level of education (Bacca at al., 2014;
Ozdemir, 2017b). Experimental studies on the use of AR in education seem to have
been made at various educational levels, such as secondary, undergraduate and
primary education (Ozdemir, 2017b). In this framework, it can be said that the
determination of the effect size of AR applications on the students’ academic
achievements at different educational levels is very important. Since the sample size is
very important in determining the effectiveness of the method used for student
achievement, it can be said that it should be considered as a variable in meta-analysis

168
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
studies. Furthermore, current devices used to display AR applications (e.g., mobile
phones, tablets and webcam-based) differ. Usefulness and efficiency of these display
devices can be an effective factor in uncovering the success of AR in educational
environments. From this point forward, this variable is taken into consideration in this
study.
A number of the studies on the use of AR in education (Chen & Tsai, 2012; Gavish
et al., 2015; Han, Jo, Hyun, & So, 2015; Huang, Chen, & Chu, 2016; Ibanez, Serio,
Villaran & Kloos, 2014; Kamaraine et al., 2013; Ke & Hsu, 2015; Lin, Duh, Li, Wang &
Tsai, 2013; Lin, Chen & Chang, 2013; Liou, Bhagat, & Chang, 2016; Sommerauer &
Müller, 2014; Yang & Liao, 2014; Zhang, Sung, Hou, & Chang, 2014) indicated that AR
applications have an impact on academic achievement. In this regard, grouping the
findings of the different studies dealing with AR applications and combining the
quantitative findings of these studies will reveal to what extent these applications are
effective.
Purpose of the Research
The aim of the research is to investigate the effect of AR applications in the learning
process. Therefore, this research aimed to combine the results of the independent
studies dealing with the use of AR in education. Sixteen studies were examined to
identify the effect of AR applications in the learning process, and this study aimed to
answer the following questions:
1. What is the effect size of the AR applications on students’ academic
achievement?
2. Are there significant differences among the effect sizes of AR applications on
students’ academic achievement as regard to education areas (Natural Sciences and
Social Sciences) addressed in studies?
3. Are there significant differences among the effect sizes of AR applications on
students’ academic achievement, when the grade levels (primary education, high
school and undergraduate level) of students are taken into consideration?
4. Are there significant differences among the effect sizes of AR applications on
students’ academic achievement, when the display devices used by students (mobile
devices, tablets, and webcam-based devices) are handled?
5. Are there significant differences among the effect sizes of AR applications on
students’ academic achievement as regard to the sampling size of the research?
Method
Research Design
The meta-analysis method was used to determine the effect of AR in the learning
process. Meta-analysis is a statistical method that attempts to obtain a general
conclusion by compounding findings of independent studies (Ergene, 2003). In the

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
169
meta-analysis method, results of the findings of similar studies are collected according
to certain criteria, analyzed and interpreted (Lipsey & Wilson 1993).
Data Collection
The studies revealing the effectiveness of AR applications on the learning process
were included in the research. In this respect, the following phases were pursued:
Literature Review
In this study, experimental studies conducted on the use of AR in education
between October 1st, 2007 and February 1st, 2017 were analyzed. In this regard, the
articles that use AR applications in the experimental group and the traditional
applications in the control group are discussed. In order to reach these articles, this
study used a three-stage roadmap as follows: In the first stage, the articles were
scanned in “educational research,” “education scientific disciplines,” “psychology
education” and “special education” categories through the Web of Science search
engine. The journals scanned in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) were selected.
Keywords such as "augmented reality," "augmented reality system," "mixed reality,"
"virtual environments," "virtual reality," and "virtual learning environments" were
used as search terms. As a result of scanning the journals, an academic journal list was
obtained (100 journals in total). In the second stage, the first 15 academic journals in
the Google Academic h5-index rank (in the Education Technologies category) were
added to the list of journals to be considered for the study (Table 1). In the final stage,
six journals were added to the list which were scanned in the first 100-journal list in
Web of Science, were not available in the 15-journal list in the second stage but
published most articles in respect to the subject matter (Table 2). As a result, 21
academic journals scanned in SSCI were determined for evaluation in the study.
Criteria for the Inclusion of Articles and Determination of the Studies
The articles which were published by February 2017 were analyzed in the current
study. In the study, symposium and conference proceedings, book reviews, book
chapters, editorial writings, meeting abstracts, biographical items, master’s theses and
PhD theses written at national and international levels, and the studies published in
other languages except in English were excluded. In the journals determined in
accordance with the above criteria, this study found a total of 75 articles published on
the use of AR in education until February 2017 from October 2007. Of the examined 75
articles, the articles involving the application of pre-tests, post-tests and comparisons
among the groups were selected by focusing on the experimental studies. In terms of
meta-analysis, studies that do not contain sufficient data to calculate effect sizes were
excluded from the analysis. As a result, 16 articles were analyzed in the study
according to the determined criteria.

170
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
Table 1
15 Journals at the Top List of h5-Indexed Ranking in Google Scholar Metrics, Which Were
Obtained as a Result of Scanning the Web of Science Search Engine.
Academic Journal Name
h5-index*
(06.02.2017)
Number
of articles
published
on AR
ineducatio
n
Computers & Education
88
18
British Journal of Educational Technology
48
8
The Internet and Higher Education
43
1
Journal of Educational Technology & Society
41
6
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
40
3
Intern. Review of Research in Open and Dist. Learning
38
-
Educational Technology Research and Development
32
4
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
32
-
Intern. Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning
31
3
IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies
28
4
Distance Education
27
-
Language, Learning & Technology
26
1
Recall
26
-
Computer Assisted Language Learning
25
-
Journal of Educational Computing Research
25
2
Total
50
* h5-index means that h article is cited at least h times each in the last five years.

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
171
Table 2
Unavailable Journals in the List of the h5-Indexed Ranking of Google Scholar Metrics, Having
Most-Published Articles in Respect to the Use of AR in Education
Academic Journals
Number of articles published on
AR in education
Interactive Learning Environments
10
Journal of Science Education and Technology
8
Education and Science
3
Comunicar
2
Teachers College Record
1
Environmental Education Research
1
Total
25
Evaluation Criteria
The studies conducted with students were examined in terms of the AR
applications. Furthermore, the studies involving the post-test results of the
experimental and control groups were analyzed. In this regard, this research examined
studies including the values for sample size (n), arithmetic mean ( ), standard
deviation (sd) and possibility (p) to calculate effect sizes in the experimental group. In
this context, studies that do not give values to calculate the effect size were excluded
from the scope of the study. In studies involving more than one AR application, data
from any randomly selected test were analyzed.
Coding Stage
Coding must be conducted to reflect the general characteristics of the studies
covered in the meta-analysis method. In this study, the data were grouped under three
main sections, as follows: The first section was called “study identity.” In this section,
the names and number of the studies, the countries where they were conducted, the
place where they were applied, and the time and author information were included.
The second section was called “study content.” This section presents data including
grade level, educational area, and AR display devices being used. The third section
was called “study data.” This section gives information about the values used in meta-
analysis calculations such as sample size (n), arithmetic mean ( ), standard deviation
(sd) and possibility (p).
Variables
In the study, the effect sizes for the usefulness of AR applications in the learning
process in the articles included in the meta-analysis were treated as dependent

172
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
variables. Effect sizes are defined as standardized values for different-scale
instruments in every study (Tarım, 2003). The study characteristics, which are
expressed as independent variables of the study, are defined as “educational areas,”
“grade levels,” “AR display devices used,” and “sampling size”.
Data Analysis
Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA), the MetaWin package program and the
Excel program were utilized to analyze the data in the study. CMA and MetaWin
programs are used to calculate effect sizes. The primary purpose of this method is to
calculate the mean differences in the experimental studies between the experimental
and control groups (Hunter & Schmidth, 2004), expressed in the formula: d = (Xe – Xc)
/Sd. In the field of educational sciences, different meta-analysis studies (Batdı, 2014;
Batdı, 2017; Gözüyesil & Dikici, 2014; Günay, Kaya & Aydın, 2014) show that the d
coefficient is used to determine the effect value. Hedge’s d expresses coefficients used
in the calculations of effect sizes in meta-analysis applications (Hedges & Olkin, 1985),
where, d is calculated by dividing the differences between experimental and control
groups with total standard deviation (Cooper, 1989; Şahin, 2005). The following
classification is used to evaluate the obtained effect sizes in this study (Thalheimer &
Cook, 2002):
 -0.15 < effect size < 0.15 insignificant
 0.15 < effect size < 0.40 small
 0.40 < effect size < 0.75 medium
 0.75 < effect size < 1.10 large
 1.10 < effect size < 1.45 larger
 1.45 < effect size < very good
Since this meta-analysis study is an analysis of previously conducted studies, there
is no limit to the number of studies to be included in the analysis. If the effect size of
any study for meta-analysis is to be achieved, at least two studies are needed (Dinçer,
2014). When the databases identified by the criteria in the study were considered, 16
studies were analyzed in this study.
The reliability calculation of the coding form was conducted by two coders. In this
respect, the inter-rater reliability formula--Reliability = Consensus / (Consensus +
Disagreement) by Miles and Huberman (1994)--was conducted to ensure the reliability
of the coding form. In this regard, the reliability of the study was found to be 100%.
Findings
Research Questions (RQ)
RQ-1: What is the Effect Size of the AR Applications on Students’ Academic Achievement?
When all 16 studies involving the use of AR in the learning environment and the
use of traditional methods in the learning environment were taken into account, the
experiment group contained 506 students, and the control group contained 435
students. The frequency (f) and percentage (%) values of the different variables of the

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
173
research such as “grade levels,” “educational areas,” and “AR display devices” are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Different Variables of the Research
Variable
(f)
(%)
Grade Level
Primary education
8
50
High school
5
31.25
Undergraduate level
3
19.75
Educational Area
Natural Sciences
12
75
Social Sciences
4
25
AR Display Device
Mobile devices
6
38.5
Tablet
5
31.25
Webcam-based devices
5
31.25
When Table 3 is examined in terms of "educational status," it is seen that half of the
studies were carried out in the primary-education level (50%). The other half of the
studies was conducted with the participants in high schools (31.25%) and the
undergraduate level (19.75%). When the “educational area” variable is considered, the
studies were predominantly carried out in Natural Sciences (75%) and then in Social
Sciences (25%). When the AR display devices are examined, six studies were
conducted with mobile devices (38.25%), five studies with tablets (31.25%), and five
studies with webcam-based devices (31.25%) respectively.
The homogeneity values, mean effect values and confidence intervals in the effect
sizes of the studies were included in the meta-analysis according to a Fixed-Effects
Model (FEM) and Random-Effects Model (REM), as displayed in Table 4.

174
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
Table 4
The Homogeneity Values, Mean Effect Values and Confidence Intervals in the Effect Sizes of
the Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis According to the Effects Models
Type of
Model
N
Z
Total
Heterogeneity
Value (Q)
Average
Effect Size
(ES)
Mean Confidence
Interval for Impact
Size
Lower
Limit
Upper
Limit
FEM
16
7.509
53.99
0.508
0.375
0.640
REM
16
3.933
55.018
0.517
0.259
0.775
When Table 4 is examined, it is found that the effect of AR applications on
academic success in the learning process is positive, with a 0.508 effect size in FEM.
According to the homogeneity test, Q and p values were found to be 55.018 and 0.00,
respectively. When the chi-square table is considered, the critical value was 24.996 at
a 95% significance level and 15 degrees of freedom. At this point, Q values (55.018) are
recognized to be higher than the critical value (24.996). Therefore, the homogeneity
test for the distribution of the effect sizes was accepted in REM. In other words, the
distribution can be thought to be heterogeneous.
Because of the heterogeneous nature of the study, the analyses were performed
according to REM. In this respect, when the 16 studies comparing the effect of a
learning environment supported by AR and the effect of a traditional learning
environment not supported by AR on academic success were analyzed according to
the Random-Effects Model, the upper and lower limits of a 95 confidence interval
turned out to be 0.775 and .259, respectively, and the effect value was found to be .517.
Therefore, the effect size was at a medium level (.517). It was concluded that AR
applications positively affect academic success in the learning process.
RQ-2: Are there significant differences among the effect sizes of AR applications on students’
academic achievement in various areas of education (Natural Sciences and Social Sciences)
addressed in studies?
The studies conducted to reveal whether there are significant differences in
academic success when using AR applications within various educational areas are
displayed under two main headings, namely “Natural Sciences” and “Social Sciences”
in Table 5.

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
175
Table 5
Effect Values with Regard to Educational Areas
95% Confidence Interval
Educational Area
N
ES
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
Natural Sciences
12
0.562
0.288
0.836
Social Sciences
4
0.409
0.212
1.031
When Table 5 is examined, it is recognized that the Natural Sciences effect sizes
(0.562) is higher than the Social Sciences value (0.409). The Q value was found to be
0.195 according to the homogeneity test. When a 95% significance level and 1 degree
of freedom is considered in chi-square table, the Q value turns out to be 3.841. As Q
(0.195) is lower than the critical value (3.841). In this study, the homogeneity test for
the effect sizes was implemented according to REM. In this respect, it can be stated
that there is not a significant difference among the groups with regard to the effect
sizes (QB = 0.195, p = 0.659). Therefore, it can be stated that the educational area does
not affect AR applications. In other words, AR applications did not differ according to
educational area.
RQ-3: Are There Significant Differences Among the Effect Sizes of AR Applications on
Students’ Academic Achievement, When the Students’ Grade Levels (Primary Education, High
School and Undergraduate) Are Taken into Consideration?
The studies conducted to reveal the effects of AR applications on academic success
according to grade level are displayed under three main headings, namely “primary
education,” “high school,” and “undergraduate” in Table 6.
Table 6
Effect Sizes Regarding Grade Level
95% Confidence Interval
Grade Level
N
ES
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
Primary Education
8
0.303
0.002
0.604
High School
5
0.623
0.359
1.319
Undergraduate
3
0.839
0.189
1.057
According to Table 6, the largest effect of AR applications on academic
achievement in the learning process turned out to be with the students in
undergraduate levels (0.839). Furthermore, it is seen that the effect sizes of AR
applications in high schools (0.623) is higher than that in primary education (0.303).
The Q value was 3.876 according to the homogeneity test. When 95% significance level

176
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
and 2 degrees of freedom (df) are considered in the critical-interval value of the chi-
square table, this value turned out to be 5.991. In this regard, Q value (3.876) is
understood to be lower than the critical value (5.991). Therefore, the homogeneity test
with regard to the distribution of effect sizes was accepted in REM. This indicates that
the distribution is heterogeneous and there is not a significant difference among the
groups in terms of the effect values (QB = 3.876, p= 0.144).
RQ-4: Are there significant differences among the effect sizes of AR applications on students’
academic achievement in regard to the display devices used by students (mobile devices, tablets,
and webcam-based devices)?
The studies conducted to reveal whether there are significant differences in
academic success when using AR applications on various display devices are
presented in Table 7 under three main headings, namely, “mobile devices,” “tablets,”
and “webcam-based devices.”
Table 7
Effect Values with Regard to AR Display Devices
95% Confidence Interval
AR Display Devices
N
ES
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
Mobile Devices
6
0.686
0.180
1.192
Tablets
5
0.667
0.419
0.916
Webcam-based Devices
5
0.159
0.171
0.488
When Table 7 is considered, it was recognized that the largest effect size (0.686) is
found among students using mobile devices and the smallest effect (0.159) with those
using webcam-based devices. As a result of the homogeneity test, the Q value was
identified as 6.371. When 95% significance level and 2 degrees of freedom (df) are
considered in the critical-interval value in the chi-square table, this value is seen to be
5.991. In this regard, it is seen that the Q value (6.371) is higher than the critical value
(5.991). Therefore, the homogeneity test related to the distribution of effect sizes was
implemented according to FED. Thus, it was revealed that the distribution is
homogenous and there is a significant difference among the groups with regard to the
effect sizes (QB = 6.371; p= 0.0041) based on the display devices being used. In other
words, it can be stated that the effect of AR applications on academic success in the
learning process is positive when related to the display-devices variable.
RQ 5: Are There Significant Differences Among the Effect Sizes of AR Applications on
Students’ Academic Achievement in regard to the Sampling Size of the Research?
The studies conducted to reveal whether there are significant differences in
academic success when using AR applications in various sampling sizes are provided

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
177
in Table 8 under two main headings, namely “small sampling” (1-49) and “large
sampling” (50 and over).
Table 8
Effect Sizes with Regard to Sampling Size
95% Confidence Interval
Sampling Size
N
ES
Lower Limit
Upper Limit
Large (50 and
over)
10
0.647
0.306
0.988
Small (1-49)
6
0.262
0.042
0.565
Table 8 indicated that the average effect size for the use of AR applications in a
large sampling is 0.647, and the effect size in a small sampling is 0.262. According to
the critical-interval value in a chi-square table with a 95% significance level and 1
degree of freedom (df), this value turned out be 3.841. In this case, the Q value (2.734)
was understood to be lower than the critical value (3.841). The homogeneity test with
regard to the distribution of effect sizes was conducted according to FEM. When the
effect size of the groups, which were classified based on sampling size, was examined,
it was concluded that the sampling size variable is not an effective variable.
Result, Discussion and Recommendations
Researchers need to test prototypes of AR in the learning process in terms of their
benefits and user-friendliness (Santos et al., 2014). The research conducted to
investigate the effectiveness of AR technology on students’ learning process will give
insight into the role of AR for instructional designers and educators.
The findings of the current study indicated that AR applications increase students’
academic achievement in the learning process compared with the use of traditional
learning methods. This result shows consistencies when the studies zoned in on
students in different grade levels (Chiang, Yang, & Hwang, 2014; Gavish et al., 2015;
Hsiao, Chang, Lin, & Wang, 2016; Hwang, Wu, Chen, & Tu, 2016; Ibanez, Di Serio,
Villaran, & Kloos, 2014; Liou et al., 2016; Liu, 2009; Lin et al., 2015; Sommerauer &
Müller, 2014; Yang & Liao, 2014; Lin et al., 2013; Yang & Liao, 2014; Yoon, Elinich,
Wang, Steinmeier, & Tucker, 2012; Zhang et al., 2014).
There may be a number of reasons why learning applications supported with AR
positively influence students’ academic achievement. For example, Chiang et al. (2014)
stated in their studies on AR that AR enables students to practice what they are
learning in an entertaining environment. In another study, Hsiao et al. (2016) indicated
that AR provides better understanding, recall, concentration, interaction, and more-
attractive learning environments compared with traditional learning environments.

178
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
Likewise, Ibanez et al. (2014) reported that AR increases concentration and facilitates
improved subject comprehension. Liou et al. (2016) studied the benefits of AR from
various dimensions, thereby revealing that teachers can more-easily and quickly
convey concepts to their students who study the learning materials supported by AR
prior to their lessons. In another study, Lin et al. (2013) stated that AR is a supportive
instrument for constructing students’ own knowledge in a way that clarifies the
relations among theoretical concepts or principles.
The results of the findings of the 16 studies examined according to meta-analysis
indicated that the effect size of AR for Natural Sciences is higher than that for Social
Sciences. However, it was determined that the effect sizes for both educational areas
were at a medium level and were therefore positive. On the other hand, it was
concluded that AR applications do not show significant differences in academic
success during the learning process in respect to educational areas. The subjects taught
in Natural Sciences courses such as physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics
involve predominantly abstract concepts. However, almost all the subjects in social-
science courses such as economics, political sciences, psychology and sociology,
require abstract thinking. “…by integrating the digital information with real-world
assets simultaneously, AR helps to concretize abstract concepts, enables the use of all
senses, and enhances the sense of reality, which in turn is a huge contribution to
learning” (Ozdemir, 2017a). One of the reasons why the effect sizes of AR among
Natural-Science courses are higher than those of Social-Science courses is that the
abstract concepts in Natural-Science courses can be concretized more easily in an AR
learning environment compared with those in Social Science courses.
The effect sizes for grade level, which is a variable of the study, do not show a
significant difference. Nevertheless, the effect sizes for high schools are higher than for
other grade levels according to a study by Thalheimer and Cook (2002).
Display devices were studied as one of the variables in the effect of AR. According
to the findings of the comparison, the largest effect size was observed with mobile
devices, with the smallest effect being with desktop applications displaying webcam-
based devices. Therefore, a significant difference among the effect sizes was
recognized. At this point, it can be thought that “AR display devices” used for AR
applications is an important variable affecting students’ academic achievement in the
learning process. It was found in a number of studies that the use of mobile devices to
display AR applications increased the students’ academic success in the learning
process in comparison to the use of traditional learning methods (Chiang et al., 2014;
Gavish et al., 2015 ; Hsiao et al; Hwang et al., 2016; Ibanez et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2013;
Liou et al., 2016; Liu, 2009; Sommerauer & Müller, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014). On the
other hand, in some studies (Chang, Chung, & Huang, 2016; Chen & Tsai, 2012) that
preferred webcam-based devices to display AR applications, a significant difference
was not observed in academic success. With regard to the effect sizes of sampling size
in the study, it was identified that the effect value of a large sampling group was at
medium level and that of a small sampling group was at a minimal level. Therefore, it
was concluded that in regard to the use of AR applications in the learning process,
sampling size is not an effective variable to influence academic achievement.

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
179
This study dealt with the effect of AR applications in the learning process in respect
to academic success. Different research could be conducted to study the effect of AR
applications in the learning process as it affects variables such as attitude, anxiety,
motivation, etc. Different independent variables such as age or gender could be
investigated apart from the independent variables of the current study. Master’s and
PhD theses related to AR studies conducted at national and international levels could
be considered to examine larger sampling sizes.
References
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence (Cambridge, Mass.), 6(4),
355–385.
Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S. (2014). Augmented reality trends in
education: a systematic review of research and applications. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133-149.
Batdı, D. (2014). Etkinlik temelli öğrenme yaklaşımının akademik başarıya etkisi
(Metaanalitik ve tematik bir çalışma) [The Effect of Activity-Based Learning
Approach on Academic Achievement (A Meta-Analytic and Thematic Study)].
e-International Journal of Educational Research, 5(3), 39-55. DOI: 10.19160/e-
ijer.12976.
Batdı, V. (2015). Kavram haritası tekniği ile geleneksel öğrenme yönteminin
kullanılmasının öğrencilerin başarıları, bilgilerinin kalıcılığı ve tutumlarına
etkisi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması [The Effect of Using the Concept-Mapping
Technique and Traditional Methods on the Achievement, Retention and
Attitudes of Students: A Meta-Analytic Study]. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal
Bilimler Dergisi, 42(2), 93-102.
Batdı, V. (2017). Eğitlence Uygulamalarının Akademik Başarıya Etkisi: Meta-Analitik
Bir Çalışma [The Effect of Edutainment Applications upon Academic
Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Study]. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,
37(1), 47–62.
Billinghurst, M., Kato, H., & Poupyrev, I. (2001). The magicbook-moving seamlessly
between reality and virtuality. IEEE Computer Graphics and applications, 21(3), 6-
8.
Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research. A guide for literature reviews (Applied
Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 2). London: Sage Publications.
Chang, H. Y., Hsu, Y. S., & Wu, H. K. (2016). A comparison study of augmented reality
versus interactive simulation technology to support student learning of a socio-
scientific issue. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1148-1161.
Chang, R. C., Chung, L. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2016). Developing an interactive
augmented reality system as a complement to plant education and comparing

180
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
its effectiveness with video learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6),
1245-1264.
Chen, C. M., & Tsai, Y. N. (2012). Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing
library instruction in elementary schools. Computers & Education, 59(2), 638-652.
Chen, C. P., & Wang, C. H. (2015). Employing Augmented-Reality-Embedded
Instruction to Disperse the Imparities of Individual Differences in Earth Science
Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 835-847
Chiang, T. H., Yang, S. J., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). An Augmented Reality-based Mobile
Learning System to Improve Students' Learning Achievements and
Motivations in Natural Science Inquiry Activities. Educational Technology &
Society, 17(4), 352-365.
Dinçer, S. (2014). Eğitim bilimlerinde uygulamalı meta-analiz. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of
immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and
learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22.
Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions on test anxiety reduction: A meta-
analysis. School Psychology International, 24(3), 313-328.
Gavish, N., Gutierrez, T., Webel, S., Rodriguez, J., Peveri, M., Bockholt, U., & Tecchia,
F. (2015). Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for
industrial maintenance and assembly tasks. Interactive Learning
Environments, 23(6), 778-798.
Gözüyesil, E., ve Dikici, A. (2014). Beyin temelli öğrenmenin akademik başarıya etkisi:
Bir meta-analiz çalışması [The Effect of Brain Based Learning on Academic
Achievement: A Meta-analytical Study]. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,
14(2), 1-2. DOI: 10.12738/estp.2014.2.2103.
Günay, R., Kaya, Y. ve Aydın, H. (2014). Çok kültürlü Eğitim Yaklaşımının Etkililik
Düzeyi: Bir Meta-Analiz Çalışması [The Effectiveness Level of Multicultural
Education: A Meta-Analysis Study]. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,
7(4): 145-166.
Han, J., Jo, M., Hyun, E., & So, H. J. (2015). Examining young children’s perception
toward augmented reality-infused dramatic play. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 63(3), 455-474.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Hsiao, H. S., Chang, C. S., Lin, C. Y., & Wang, Y. Z. (2016). Weather observers: a
manipulative augmented reality system for weather simulations at home, in the
classroom, and at a museum. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(1), 205-223.

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
181
Huang, T. C., Chen, C. C., & Chou, Y. W. (2016). Animating eco-education: To see, feel,
and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning
environment. Computers & Education, 96, 72-82.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and
bias in research synthesis.
Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., Chen, C. C., & Tu, N. T. (2016). Effects of an augmented
reality-based educational game on students' learning achievements and
attitudes in real-world observations. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8),
1895-1906.
Ibanez, M. B., Di Serio, A., Villaran, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2014). Experimenting with
electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience
and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education, 71, 1-13.
Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D., Tutwiler, M. S.,
& Dede, C. (2013). EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware
with environmental education field trips. Computers & Education, 68, 545-556.
Kaufmann, H., & Schmalstieg, D. (2003). Mathematics and geometry education with
collaborative augmented reality. Computers & Graphics, 27(3), 339-345.
Ke, F., & Hsu, Y. C. (2015). Mobile augmented-reality artifact creation as a component
of mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher
Education, 26, 33-41.
Lin, H. C. K., Chen, M. C., & Chang, C. K. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of learning
solid geometry by using an augmented reality-assisted learning
system. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 799-810.
Lin, T. J., Duh, H. B. L., Li, N., Wang, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). An investigation of
learners' collaborative knowledge construction performances and behavior
patterns in an augmented reality simulation system. Computers & Education, 68,
314-321.
Liou, W. K., Bhagat, K. K., & Chang, C. Y. (2016). Beyond the Flipped Classroom: A
Highly Interactive Cloud-Classroom (HIC) Embedded into Basic Materials
Science Courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 460-473.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and
behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American
psychologist, 48(12), 1181.
Liu, T. Y. (2009). A context‐aware ubiquitous learning environment for language
listening and speaking. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 515-527.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. sage.

182
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
Ozdemir, M. (2017a). Educational Augmented Reality (AR) Applications and
Development Process. In Mobile Technologies and Augmented Reality in Open
Education (pp. 26-53). IGI Global.
Ozdemir, M. (2017b). Artırılmış Gerçeklik Teknolojisi ile Öğrenmeye Yönelik Deneysel
Çalışmalar: Sistematik Bir İnceleme [Experimental Studies on Learning with
Augmented Reality Technology: A Systematic Review]. Mersin University
Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(2), 609-632.
Pasareti, O., Hajdin, H., Matusaka, T., Jambori, A., Molnar, I., & Tucsanyi-Szabo, M.
(2011). Augmented Reality in education. INFODIDACT 2011 Informatika
Szakmódszertani Konferencia.
Santos, M. E. C., Chen, A., Taketomi, T., Yamamoto, G., Miyazaki, J., & Kato, H. (2014).
Augmented reality learning experiences: Survey of prototype design and
evaluation. Learning Technologies, IEEE Transactions on, 7(1), 38-56.
Sommerauer, P., & Müller, O. (2014). Augmented reality in informal learning
environments: A field experiment in a mathematics exhibition. Computers &
Education, 79, 59-68.
Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2008). Visualizing the invisible: augmented reality as an
innovative science education scheme. Advanced Science Letters, 1(1), 114-122.
Sahin, M. C. (2005). İnternet tabanlı uzaktan eğitimin etkililiği: Bir meta-analiz çalışması
[The effectiveness of Internet-based distance education: A meta-analysis study].
Unpublished master's thesis, Çukurova University, Social Sciences Institute,
Adana, Turkey
Tarım, K. (2003). Kubaşık öğrenme yönteminin matematik öğretimindeki etkinliği ve kubaşık
öğrenme yöntemine ilişkin bir meta analiz çalışması [Effectiveness of cooperative
learning method on teaching mathematics and meta analytic study for cooperative
learning method]. Unpublished master's thesis. Çukurova University Institute of
Science and Technology, Adana, Turkey.
Tekedere, H., & Göker, H. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of augmented reality
applications in education: A meta-analysis. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education.
Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published
research: A simplified methodology. Work-Learning Research, 1-9.
Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward
learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, 68,
570-585.
Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status,
opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers &
Education, 62, 41-49.

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
183
Yang, M. T., & Liao, W. C. (2014). Computer-assisted culture learning in an online
augmented reality environment based on free-hand gesture interaction. IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(2), 107-117.
Yılmaz, Z. A., & Batdı, V. (2016). Artırılmış Gerçeklik Uygulamalarının Eğitimle
Bütünleştirilmesinin Meta-Analitik ve Tematik Karşılaştırmalı Analizi [A
Meta-Analytic and Thematic Comparative Analysis of the Integration of
Augmented Reality Applications into Education]. Education and
Science, 41(188), 273-289.
Yoon, S. A., Elinich, K., Wang, J., Steinmeier, C., & Tucker, S. (2012). Using augmented
reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science
museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(4),
519-541.
Zhang, J., Sung, Y. T., Hou, H. T., & Chang, K. E. (2014). The development and
evaluation of an augmented reality-based armillary sphere for astronomical
observation instruction. Computers & Education, 73, 178-188.
Zhou, F., Duh, H. B. L., & Billinghurst, M. (2008). Trends in augmented reality tracking,
interaction and display: A review of ten years of ISMAR. In Proceedings of the
7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (pp. 193-
202). IEEE Computer Society.
Öğrenme Sürecinde Artırılmış Gerçeklik Uygulamalarının Etkililiği: Bir
Meta-Analiz Çalışması
Atıf:
Ozdemir M., Sahin C., Arcagok S., & Demir M. K. (2018). The effect of augmented
reality applications in learning process: A meta-analysis study, Eurasian Journal
of Educational Research, 74, 165-186, DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2018.74.9
Özet
Problem Durumu: AR’nin eğitim ortamlarında kullanımına yönelik analiz
çalışmalarına rastlamak mümkündür. Fakat AR uygulamalarının öğrenme
sürecindeki etkisini belirlemeye yönelik farklı ortamlarda ve zamanlarda
gerçekleştirilen araştırmaların birleştirilmesini öngören kapsamlı araştırmaların sınırlı
olduğu ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra, AR uygulamalarının öğrenme
sürecindeki etkililiğini farklı değişkenler (ders alanları, eğitim durumları, kullanılan
görüntüleme aygıtları) ile belirleyen araştırmalara gerek yurt için de gerekse yurt
dışında rastlanmamıştır. Bu çerçevede araştırmanın bu değişkenler bakımından alana
katkıda bulunacağı düşünülmektedir.

184
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
Araştırmanın Amacı: Bu araştırmanın amacı AR uygulamalarının öğrenme sürecindeki
etkisini belirlemektir.
Araştırmanın Soruları: 1. Artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamalarının öğrencilerin akademik
başarıları üzerindeki etkisi nedir? 2. Araştırmaların gerçekleştirildiği ders alanları
(Doğa Bilimleri ve Sosyal Bilimler) incelendiğinde, artırılmış gerçeklik
uygulamalarının etki büyüklükleri arasında akademik başarı açısından anlamlı bir
fark var mıdır? 3. Öğrencilerin eğitim durumları (ilköğretim, lise ve lisans)
bakımından artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamalarının etki büyüklükleri arasında
akademik başarı bakımından anlamlı bir fark var mıdır? 4. Öğrencilerin kullandığı
görüntüleme aygıtları (mobil, tablet ve web) bakımından artırılmış gerçeklik
uygulamaları arasında akademik başarı bakımından anlamlı bir fark var mıdır? 5.
Araştırmanın örneklem büyüklükleriyle artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamalarının etki
büyüklükleri arasında akademik başarıya göre anlamlı bir fark var mıdır?
Araştırmanın Yöntemi: AR uygulamalarının öğrenme sürecindeki etkisini belirlemek
amacıyla gerçekleştirilen araştırmada meta analiz yöntemi kullanılmıştır.
Araştırma Verilerinin Toplanması: Araştırmaya artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamalarının
öğrenme sürecindeki etkisini ortaya koyan çalışmalar dahil edilmiştir. Bu çerçevede
şu aşamalar izlenmiştir:
Literatür Taraması: 1 Ekim 2007 ile 1 Şubat 2017 arasında eğitimde AR kullanımına
yönelik yurtiçinde ve yurtdışında gerçekleştirilen nicel çalışmalar araştırmaya dâhil
edilmiştir. Bu çerçevede araştırmada deney grubunda AR uygulamalarını kullanan,
kontrol grubunda ise geleneksel uygulamaları kullanan makaleler ele alınmıştır. Bu
makalelere ulaşmak için üç aşamalı bir yol izlenmiştir; Birinci aşamada, analiz edilecek
makaleler Web of Science arama motoru yardımı ile eğitim araştırmaları, eğitim
bilimsel disiplinleri, psikoloji eğitimi ve özel eğitim kategorilerinde taranmıştır.
Makalelerin yayınlandığı dergiler Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) tarafından
tarananlar arasından belirlenmiştir. Tarama terimleri olarak “augmented reality”,
“augmented reality technology”, “augmented reality system”, “mixed reality”,
“virtual environments”, “virtual reality” ve “virtual learning environments”
şeklindeki anahtar kelimeler kullanılmıştır. Taramalar sonucunda bir akademik dergi
listesi elde edilmiştir (toplam 100 adet). İkinci aşamada, birinci aşamada belirlenen
dergilerin içerisinden, Google Akademik h5-endeks sıralamasında (Eğitim
teknolojileri” kategorisinde) ilk 15’de yer alan akademik dergiler çalışma için
değerlendirilmiştir (Tablo 1). Üçüncü ve son aşamada ise Web of Science taramasında
elde edilen ilk 100 dergi arasında yer alıp da ikinci aşamada belirlenen 15 dergi
arasında yer almayan fakat çalışma konusu ile ilgili en fazla makale yayınlayan altı
dergi yine çalışma için ele alınacak dergiler listesine eklenmiştir (Tablo 2). Sonuç
olarak SSCI tarafından taranan toplam 21 akademik dergi çalışmada değerlendirmek
üzere belirlenmiştir.
Makaleleri Seçme Kriterleri ve Çalışmaların Belirlenmesi: Çalışmada analiz etmek üzere
Ekim 2017’den Şubat 2017’ye kadar yayınlanmış SSCI makaleleri ele alınmıştır.
Tarama sırasında sempozyum ve kongre bildirileri, kitap incelemesi, kitap bölümleri,
editör yazıları, toplantı özetleri, biyografik öğeler, ulusal ya da uluslararası alanda yer

Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN- Serdar ARCAGOK- Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
185
alan yüksek lisans ve doktora tezleri ve İngilizce dışındaki dillerde yayınlanmış
çalışmalar inceleme dışı bırakılmıştır. Yukarıda belirlenen kriterler doğrultusunda,
belirlenen dergilerde Şubat 2017’ye kadar eğitimde AG kullanımı üzerine yayınlanmış
olan toplam 75 makaleye ulaşılmıştır. İncelenen 75 makale içinden deneysel
çalışmalara odaklanılarak özellikle ön–test ve son–test uygulanan ve gruplar arasında
karşılaştırma yapılan makaleler ilgili çalışma için seçilmiştir. Meta-analiz çalışmaları
için etki boyutunu hesaplamak üzere yeterince veri içermeyen araştırmalar analiz dışı
bırakılmıştır. Sonuç olarak belirlenen ölçütlere göre araştırmada 16 makale analiz
edilmiştir.
Araştırmanın Bulguları ve Sonuçları: Araştırmada elde edilen bulgular ile, AR
uygulamalarının öğrenme sürecinde öğrencilerin akademik başarılarını geleneksel
öğretime göre artırdığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bu sonuç farklı öğretim kademelerinde
öğrenim gören öğrencilerle yapılan araştırma sonuçlarıyla tutarlılık göstermektedir.
AR destekli öğrenme uygulamalarının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarını olumlu
yönde etkilemelerinin altında yatan birçok neden olabilir. Meta-analiz kapsamında
incelenen 16 araştırma bulgularının sonucu, araştırmanın gerçekleştiği eğitim
alanlarına göre Doğa Bilimlerinin etki büyüklüğü Sosyal Bilimlere göre daha yüksek
düzeyde ortaya çıktığını göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte her iki eğitim alanının etki
büyüklüğünün orta düzeyde olduğu ve pozitif değerler aldığı belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca
artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamalarının öğrenme sürecindeki akademik başarıyı eğitim
alanı bakımından anlamlı olarak farklılaştırmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Hem Doğa
bilimlerinde (örn., fizik, kimya biyoloji ve matematik) anlatılan derslerde genellikle
soyut kavramlar ağırlıklıdır. Fakat sosyal bilimlerde (örn., Ekonomi, Siyaset Bilimi,
Psikoloji ve Sosyoloji vb.) anlatılan derslerin neredeyse tamamı soyut düşünmeyi
gerektirmektedir. Meta-analiz kapsamında, Doğa Bilimlerinin etki büyüklüğünün
Sosyal Bilimlere göre daha yüksek düzeyde çıkmasının olası nedenleri arasında, AR
teknolojisi ile Doğa Bilimlerindeki soyut kavramların Sosyal bilimlere göre daha kolay
somutlaştırılabiliyor olması yer alabilir. Araştırmanın diğer bir değişkeni olan öğretim
kademesine göre etki büyüklüklerinin anlamlı bir farklılık göstermediği belirlenmiştir.
Araştırmada etki büyüklükleri bakımından karşılaştırma yapılan değişkenlerden biri
de görüntüleme aygıtlarıdır. Buna göre en yüksek etki büyüklüğü mobil aygıtlarda,
en düşük etki büyüklüğü ise web kame tabanlı görüntüleme sistemlerinde
gözlemlenmiştir. Bununla birlikte söz konusu etki büyüklükleri arasında anlamlı bir
fark bulunmuştur. Bu noktadan hareketle artırılmış gerçeklik ile ilgili uygulamalarda
kullanılan görüntüleme aygıtlarının öğrencilerin öğrenme sürecindeki akademik
başarılarını etkileyen önemli bir değişken olduğu düşünülebilir. Öyle ki AR
uygulamalarını görüntülemek için mobil aygıtların kullanıldığı çoğu çalışmada AR
uygulamalarının öğrenme sürecinde öğrencilerin akademik başarılarını geleneksel
öğretime göre artırdığı sonucuna ulaşılırken, AR uygulamalarını web kamerası ile
görüntüleyen bazı çalışmalarda ise akademik başarıda anlamlı bir farklılık
gözlenmemiştir. Araştırmada ele alınan çalışmalarda büyük örneklem gruplarının etki
büyüklüğünün orta düzeyde, küçük örneklem gruplarının etki büyüklüğünün küçük
düzeyde olduğu bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır. Böylece örneklem büyüklüklerinin AR
uygulamalarının öğrenme sürecindeki akademik başarıyı etkileyen önemli bir
değişken olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmamıştır.

186
Muzaffer OZDEMIR – Cavus SAHIN - Serdar ARCAGOK - Mehmet Kaan DEMIR
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 74 (2018) 165-186
Araştırmanın Önerileri: Bu çalışma artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamalarının öğrenme
sürecindeki etkililiğini akademik başarı değişkeni bakımından ele almıştır. Farklı
araştırmalar artırılmış gerçeklik uygulamalarının öğrenme sürecindeki etkililiğini
tutum, kaygı, motivasyon gibi farklı değişkenler bakımından ele alınabilir. Araştırma
kapsamında ele alınan bağımsız değişkenler dışında farklı bağımsız değişkenler (yaş,
cinsiyet vb.) dikkate alınarak çeşitli araştırmalar gerçekleştirilebilir. Artırılmış
gerçeklik çalışmaları ile ilgili ulusal ve uluslararası alanda yer alan yüksek lisans ve
doktora tezleri dikkate alınarak daha büyük örneklem grupları incelenebilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Akademik başarı, yenilikçi öğrenme ortamları, tematik analiz