Content uploaded by Martin Ebner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Ebner on Jul 31, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Draft – finally published in: Daling, L.M. et al. (2022). Evaluation of Mixed Reality Technologies in Re-
mote Teaching. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds) Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Novel Tech-
nological Environments. HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13329. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05675-8_3
Evaluation of Mixed Reality Technologies in Remote Teach-
ing
Lea M. Daling1 , Samira Khoadei2, Denis Kalkofen3, Stefan Thurner4, Johannes Sieger5, Taras
Shepel6, Anas Abdelrazeq7, and Ingrid Isenhardt8
1,2,5,6 Information Management in Mechanical Engineering (IMA)
RWTH Aachen University, Germany
lea.daling@ima.rwth-aachen.de
3 Institute of Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology, Austria
4 Educational Technology, Graz University of Technology, Austria
5 Institute of Mineral Resources Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Germany
6 Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, Germany
Abstract. The trend towards remote teaching is steadily increasing and is partic-
ularly intensified by the current situation of the global pandemic. This is a par-
ticular challenge for subjects with a high practical relevance, such as mining en-
gineering education, as practical experiences and on-site excursions are an inte-
gral part of the curriculum. In face-to-face teaching settings, mixed reality tech-
nologies are already considered a promising medium for the implementation of
e.g. virtual field trips. Based on this, the current study addresses the question to
what extent the integration of mixed reality technologies is suitable for remote
teaching and which strengths and challenges are perceived by students and teach-
ers. For this purpose, two 60-minute remote lectures in the field of mining engi-
neering were conducted, in which the use of mixed reality was tested on the basis
of shared 360° experiences and 3D models and evaluated by students and teach-
ers. Results reveal that the use of mixed reality in remote teaching was perceived
as useful, enabled a realistic experience and improved students’ understanding of
presented theory compared to traditional teaching methods. This paper discusses
possible potentials and risks of using mixed reality in remote teaching and derives
directions for further research.
Keywords: Remote teaching, mixed reality, virtual excursions, mining engi-
neering, education.
1 Introduction
1.1 Potentials of Mixed Reality in Mining Engineering Education
The use of Mixed Reality (MR) technologies in teaching brings new opportunities to
incorporate the practical experience into theoretical contexts. Particularly in subjects
2
such as mining engineering, which normally rely on excursions and field trips to create
insights into the work area, MR can provide access to high-consequence environments
that are difficult to reach. Thus, MR can create a link between theory and practice and
thereby improve motivation and learning [1].
Especially in times of the global pandemic, the challenges for teachers to link remote
teaching with practical content increases significantly [2]. Despite the limited interac-
tion possibilities in remote teaching, teachers still have to prepare students adequately
for their professional life. When applying conventional remote teaching approaches in
practical and applied fields of studies such as mining engineering, it is a major chal-
lenge to explain the scale and function of machines to students, to give them an orien-
tation and understanding for the (spatial) structure of underground or surface mines, or
to illustrate work processes and interfaces in mining [3]. Practical, on-site experience
is an essential component of mining engineering education. However, university re-
sources (e.g., funds, time and personnel) only allow a limited amount of field trips to
mine sites for a limited number of students. In addition, the curricular required intern-
ships give students only very limited insights into the various facets and disciplines of
mining.
MR teaching approaches enable to address those challenges, as they allow to repeat-
edly conduct virtual excursions to various mine sites all over the world [4]. Making the
most of MR's potential for teaching in mining is the goal of the MiReBooks project, is
described below. Subsequently, the research questions derived from the current chal-
lenges are described, from which the goal of this study as well as the design and proce-
dure are derived.
1.2 The MiReBooks Project
The MiReBooks project (launched in 2018, funded by EIT Raw Materials) is exploring
how teachers in mining education can be optimally supported in preparing for teaching
with MR materials and how the use of MR impacts student learning experiences [5].
So far, the project has primarily explored the use of MR experiences in face-to-face
teaching and has already revealed promising findings on how MR can enhance stu-
dents’ motivation and provide a better understanding of the teaching content [6]. Thus,
MR has already been identified as a powerful medium to enable hands-on experiences
in the classroom.
During the course of the project, the requirements for the use of MR in mining edu-
cation changed drastically. Due to the global pandemic, teaching in presence was
largely abandoned, so that practical experiences, field trips and visits became not only
costly, but partly impossible. This raised completely new research questions related to
the possible use of MR technologies in remote teaching: To what extent can students
get hands-on experience remotely? How can instructors ensure that students gain an
understanding of procedures and processes? What opportunities are there for interac-
tion with each other and with instructors?
Addressing these changes in teaching due to the pandemic, the current study exam-
ines the use of MR in remote teaching. Thus, the current study aimed to make a first
3
contribution to explore this new field of research, focusing on the question where stu-
dents and teachers see strengths and risks in the use of MR in remote teaching.
1.3 Aim of the Present Study
In order to answer the research question of the perception, usefulness and suitability
of MR as remote teaching tool in mining engineering education, we conducted an eval-
uation study, which is presented below. Two different 60-minute remote lectures in the
field of mining engineering education were conducted and subsequently evaluated by
students (N = 23) and lecturers (N = 2). In order to gain insight into the effectiveness
and usefulness of the MR system, we focused on three important aspects: Usability,
user experience, and evaluation of the suitability of MR for (remote) teaching.
Following the ISO 9241-11 [7], usability covers the effectiveness, i.e. the ability of
users to complete a task using the system, the efficiency, i.e. the level of resource con-
sumed in performing tasks, and satisfaction, i.e. users’ subjective reactions to using the
system [8]. Moreover, user experience and acceptance of the system provide infor-
mation about the usefulness that the users see in the system [9].
In order to receive more insight into the reasons for evaluating a system, the strengths
and weaknesses as well as potentials and threats from the perspective of students and
teachers, the suitability of MR is furthermore directly queried and evaluated.
In order to obtain statements about these three aspects, the study design and the con-
tent and technical design of the remote lectures are presented in the next section. Then,
the selection of questionnaires and evaluation questions is presented. Subsequently, the
results of the evaluation study are analyzed and discussed. Finally, an outlook on further
research is given.
2 Methodological Approach for Evaluating Mixed Reality in
Remote Teaching
2.1 Study Design and Procedure
In order to evaluate the use of MR technologies in remote teaching, two different 60-
minute MR-based remote lectures in the field of mining engineering were conducted
and evaluated. Participants were recruited via e-mail and in mining lectures by the lec-
turers of Freiberg Mining Academy and University of Technology, RWTH Aachen
University and Montanuniversität Leoben. Participants were informed in advance that
they would be using MR technologies. Participation was voluntary. The required equip-
ment consisted of an internet-enabled laptop or PC with headset and microphone - the
VR goggles were provided by the respective research institutions. A total of 13 students
attended the first lecture on underground longwall mining and 10 students attended the
second lecture on continuous surface mining methods. Four students attended both lec-
tures.
The Lectures were delivered via a video conferencing platform and included theo-
retical inputs as well as several MR-based experiences, such as interactive 360° and 3D
4
environments. Each student was equipped with VR goggles and pre-dialed into a net-
work that all students and the instructor had access to. Before the lectures started, par-
ticipants received a technical introduction into the VR goggles as well as an introduc-
tion into the procedure of the lecture. All participants were asked to imagine this lecture
being part of their curriculum. During the use of MR, lecturers had the opportunity to
guide students, direct their views, and accompany their explanations with drawings on
a 2D desktop version. The lectures were evaluated through an online post-test survey
using standardized questionnaires and open questions. Overall, we collected feedback
in terms of their usability, the feeling of presence, and in terms of the usefulness of
mixed reality in remote teaching by both teachers and students.
In the following, the content and procedures of the two lectures will be explained.
After that, we will describe the technical set-up. Finally, the questionnaires and open
questions will be presented.
2.2 Description of the Remote Lectures
The lectures conducted covered topics relevant to the actual teaching of mining studies.
One lecture was held by a lecturer from RWTH Aachen University, another by a lec-
turer from TU Freiberg. The lecture design, structure, and content were discussed in
advance with didactic experts to ensure that the students were adequately informed
about the learning objectives, content and procedure in the lecture. In both lectures,
slides were shown via screen sharing to convey theoretical content. Due to the pan-
demic, the students were asked to participate from home or single work spaces and to
behave as they would in a normal remote lecture. In the following, the lectures are
described in detail.
Lecture on Longwall Mining. The goal of the test lecture was to convey the concept
and key characteristics of the longwall mining method, which is typically applied for
the extraction of tabular, flat, and uniform soft rock deposits, such as coal, potash, trona
or phosphate rock. During the lecture, the method and involved machine components
(shearer, hydraulic shield, armoured face conveyor, beam stageloader, and conveyor
belt) and their functionality were introduced and visualized.
Learning objectives of this lecture are listed in the following:
At the end of the lecture, …
• the students should understand the key characteristics and fields of appli-
cation of the longwall mining method.
• the students should be able to explain the function and basic kinematics of
the different machine components in longwall mining.
• the students should be able to explain how the different machine compo-
nents interact with each other to allow for the production and advance of
the mining system.
• the students should get an impression for the scale, noise, harshness, and
hazards in underground (longwall) mining.
5
The lecture was structured into three separate sections. The first section was held in
a conventional presentation format and introduced the students to the agenda, the lec-
ture’s approach, the envisaged learning objectives, and provided instructions on how to
use the VR goggles, the controllers and the utilized software.
In the second and main section, the students were introduced to the fundamental
concepts and terminology of the longwall mining method, by means of conventional
slides including pictures and 3D drawings to illustrate the mining method (15 minutes).
During this section, the lecture shifted to an interactive VR-supported format where the
students were asked to explore animated 3D models of the different machine compo-
nents in VR for 15 minutes (see Figure 1).
[put Fig1. here]
Fig. 1. Scene of students exploring machine components remotely in VR.
The students assessed the functionality of the models’ different machine components
and explored how the machine components interact with each other. After several
minutes of individual exploration time, the students shared their observations with the
other attendees and discussed them jointly with the lecturer. Subsequently, the lecture
shifted to a joint 360° excursion into a realistic underground longwall training mine,
where the machinery introduced could be explored in a realistic mining environment.
Here, the lecturer guided the students through a series of linked 360°-videos following
the route of the mined ore from the mining face to the surface (20 minutes). The VR-
excursion was held in an interactive format. The lecturer explained different concepts
to the students and asked questions to the audience. The integrated real-time annotation
tool allowed the lecturer to make small live-drawings and annotations in the 360°-
scenes to better illustrate certain aspects to the students. Vice-versa, the students were
encouraged to ask questions themselves, and could make use of a pointer tool, to indi-
cate points of interest in the 360° section to the remaining audience. In the third section
(10 minutes), the participants were asked to fill out the evaluation questionnaire.
Lecture on continuous mining systems: bucket wheel excavators. The second
lecture topic was continuous mining systems with a special focus on bucket-wheel ex-
cavators (BWE). The lecture consisted of introducing the fundamentals, terminology
and the key concept on continuous mining systems, as well as presenting the classifi-
cation of BWE, their main parameters, design and operation principle.
Learning objectives of this lecture are listed in the following:
At the end of the lecture, …
• the students understand the design, operation principle and working meth-
ods of BWE.
• the students can distinguish between BWE of different size classes and ex-
plain their application areas.
6
• the students can explain the function and kinematics of different machine
components.
• the students can explain how BWE is integrated into the mine and how it
interacts with other mining equipment.
• the students got an impression of scale and movability of BWE and poten-
tial hazards during its operation.
Similar to the first lecture, the second lecture consisted of three main parts. At first, the
lecture approach was introduced to the participants, followed by the checklist of equip-
ment required for the lecture (VR-goggles, PC/Laptop with a camera and microphone,
etc.), the content of the lecture and learning objectives (15 minutes).
The main part included the presentation and VR demonstrations, conclusions and a
quiz to estimate what participants learned during the lecture. First, a conventional
presentation with figures and schemes was held and followed by a demonstration of 3D
models (three different BWEs) in VR (10 minutes). Students were able to ask questions
during the lecture. In VR, the lecturer focused the attention of the participants by high-
lighting machine parts of interest. Subsequently, a slide based presentation showed fig-
ures and 2D animations demonstrating different operation modes of BWE (10 minutes).
Then, the students were asked to follow a joint 360° experience (see Figure 2), where
the operation of BWEs in a surface mine was demonstrated (5 minutes).
After a short slide presentation demonstrating the operation of BWEs with other
equipment in the surface mine (10 minutes), the students were again asked to join a
360°experience, showing videos of the operation of a belt conveyor, a spreader, and a
conveyor bridge (5 minutes). At the end, students were able to have a discussion with
the lecturer; the achievement of the learning objectives was checked based on the quiz
results. In the last section (5 minutes), participants filled out the evaluation question-
naire.
Fig. 2. View of the lecturer during a joint 360° experience.
7
2.3 Technical Setup
We implemented support for online teaching by connecting the teacher’s PC with sev-
eral Oculus Quest 2 devices over the internet, which provide the students with a shared
VR environment. Thus, the system is split into an Android application, which is running
on every Oculus Quest, and a single application running on the teacher’s PC. The PC
application is supporting the teacher with software tools to control the content displayed
in the shared VR environment of the students. The implemented set of tools for teaching
in MR is based on the design described by Kalkofen et al [10].
In addition to these tools for teaching in MR, the teacher’s environment includes the
capability for screen sharing, which allows for an integration with common tools for
online-teaching, such as Zoom [11], Cisco WebEx [12], and Microsoft Teams [13].
Therefore, an online lecture may consist of any kind of traditional teaching material,
enhanced by the Mirebooks MR experience. This includes images, videos and text, de-
livered with traditional slide based presentation tools, such as Microsoft PowerPoint.
Furthermore, during an online teaching session, the teacher controls the content that is
shown in VR using common desktop tools for interaction. For example, our systems
supports mouse interactions for guiding student attention, for selecting scene elements,
for controlling the video playback, and for sketching on the 360 video during the lec-
ture.
2.4 Questionnaires
In order to be able to make a statement about the effectiveness of MR as a remote
teaching tool, criteria for the quality of the technology (e.g. usability), the software and
application (e.g. presence) as well as for the suitability of MR in remote teaching were
assessed. In the following, we will describe the questionnaires and open questions used
to evaluate the MR-based remote lectures.
Perceived Usability and User Experience. Usability was measured using System Us-
ability Scale (SUS) [8]. SUS items were rated on a five-point Likert scale from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. Examples for items are “I thought the system
was easy to use.” (positively formulated item) and “I thought there was too much in-
consistency in this system.” (inverse item). In order to calculate the SUS score, ratings
were transformed to a range from 0 to 100. A score of 60 to 80 indicates acceptable
usability, a score above 80 indicates good to very good usability, and a score of 100
indicates excellent usability [8]. Internal consistency was acceptable with Cronbach’s
a = .71.
User experience was measured to extend and validate the findings of the SUS. Lewis
(2019) proposed 12 items from the TAM (source) to capture user experience, consisting
of the subscales perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) [9]. These
items have been slightly adapted to the context of learning. Thus, we used and adjusted
the subscales PU (six items, e.g., “using this technology would enable me to learn more
quickly.”, good reliability, Cronbach’s a = .91), and PEU (six items, e.g., “learning
8
how to use the technology is easy for me”, good reliability, Cronbach’s a = .95). All
items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “extremely disagree” to
7 “extremely agree”.
Suitability of MR for (remote) teaching. Although the usability, user experience,
and presence scores provide information on the degree to which the factors are assessed,
they do not explain why the assessment was made. To capture to what extent and why
the participants consider the use of MR as suitable for (remote) teaching, we also in-
cluded open-ended questions: “What do you see as the particular strengths of using
mixed reality in lectures compared to traditional learning materials?; What would have
to be changed and improved in order to use Mixed Reality successfully in teaching?
What do you think is the biggest opportunity mixed reality offers for learning and teach-
ing? What do you think are the biggest obstacles to successfully using mixed reality for
learning and teaching?”. Finally, the participants were asked to rate the statement
“Mixed reality is well suited for remote learning and teaching.” from 1 "strongly disa-
gree" to 5 "strongly agree" and to explain their rating in an open text field.
After reading the material carefully, the interview statements were coded and
grouped into categories by meaning following the methodology of qualitative content
analysis by Kuckartz [14].
3 Results
All analyses were computed using Microsoft Excel. Since both lectures used the same
system, no comparison between the two lectures was foreseen. All data will be de-
scribed and analyzed on a descriptive level.
3.1 Perceived Usability and User Experience
Usability of the MR system was rated by the participants with an overall score of M
= 83.70, SD = 11.70 indicating a “good” usability. Lecturers rated the usability as “ac-
ceptable to good” with M = 78.75. Looking at the lectures separately, the first lecture
was rated with M = 84.42, SD = 12.64 by the participants (n = 13) and with SUS = 72.5
by the lecturer. The second lecture was rated with M = 82.75, SD = 10.27 by the par-
ticipants (n = 10) and with SUS = 85 by the lecturer.
User experience was measured with the scales perceived usefulness (PU) and per-
ceived ease of use (PEU). Overall, PU was rated with M = 5.97, SD = 1.32 and PEU
with M = 6.17, SD = 1.10. On a descriptive level, both ratings were slightly higher in
the second lecture (PUL2: M = 6.05, SD = .30; PEUL2: M = 6.23, SD = .20) compared
to the first lecture (PUL1: M = 5.88, SD = .33; PEUL2: M = 6.10, SD = .28), as shown
in Figure 1.
[put Fig. 3 here]
9
Fig. 3. Average Ratings of Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) of the
MR system in Lecture 1 and Lecture 2 on a scale from 1 “extremely disagree” to 7 “extremely
agree”
3.2 Suitability of MR for (Remote) Teaching
All answers to the open questions of the student evaluation questionnaire were trans-
formed into categories and frequencies were counted. Due to the low number of lectur-
ers, answers of the lecturers were not analyzed by frequency. The categories were clus-
tered using the strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threat (SWOT) scheme. Results
are summarized in Figure 4.
Strengths. Example statements for strengths of MR in lectures emphasize that MR
was perceived as a teaching tool and medium that could bridge the gap between theory
and practical experience: „Especially in mining education it's hard to see many ma-
chines and environments in presence, MR can solve this problem for students and
makes them experience many things.” Another aspect that was reflected in the state-
ments was sustainability, stating that MR “helps students to understand e.g., mining
methods without the need to visit several mining sites around the world personally. It
also helps persons who can't imagine components/machines from a 2D picture/plan or
animation.” In this regard, the combination of 360° videos and 3D was mentioned to
be a helpful aspect: “A very good thing was the combination of the 3D model and the
video.”
From the teachers perspective, “more realistic impressions and better understanding
for scale, size, noise, as well as the functionality of the equipment” as well as “much
clearer understanding of different objects/processes, particularly in mining, where the
operations might be extremely sophisticated” were mentioned as particular strengths.
10
Fig. 4. Summarized answers to open question in SWOT categories. N indicates the total number
of statements.
Weaknesses. Concerning the weaknesses, however, it was pointed out that low
quality of MR content might hinder from enjoying the experience: “The quality should
be high because when the picture is very pixeled or blurred you can easily get a head-
ache”. From the first lecture we furthermore received the feedback that there is a high
need for “synchronized views. The lecturer should have a function for synchronizing
all views before he / she starts to draw in the models”.
This statement was supported from the lecturer in the first lecture: “Sometimes I was
not sure if everyone is following me.” An overview function of seeing if everyone is
looking to the right spot was implemented as a trial function in the second lecture,
where we received positive feedback. Another feedback from the lecturers was that it
“is way more exhausting for the lecturer, as he frequently has to test, check, and observe
if everything is running smoothly and if the students can follow the lecturer. However,
this might change once one gets used to it.”
Opportunities. When asked about general opportunities of MR, the students stated
that MR offers “seeing real mines working or how certain mining procedures are done
in real scenarios”, which seems to be a particular strength with regard to the current
pandemic: “Especially in situations such as the current pandemic, when students can-
not be present in a classroom or go on field trips, this still enables a better visualization
of reality.”
11
From the lecturer perspective, opportunities mentioned were “being able to show
realistic 360° videos instead of conventional videos. Enforcing the explorative learn-
ing, and giving students the chance to look around in their own pace”. The lecturers
also mentioned that they MR is particularly suitable “for some introduction sessions on
various mining methods. Specific contents and calculations still require more classic
tools, but for a good realistic introduction it can be really helpful.”
Threats. Finally, we asked about the biggest obstacles to successfully use MR for
learning and teaching. On the one hand, the students stated that the overall costs and
availability of VR devices in university teaching might be a risk factor: “The price of
the VR sets, setting everything up, building high quality models”. On the other hand,
“the creation of good models and videos” as well as “capturing and recording the in-
formation from mines” was seen as a threat when using MR in teaching.
The lecturers mentioned that “the preparation of this test lecture was quite some
effort, but that is mostly due to the current status where it is not fully finished. Thereby,
I must say that not only the 360° videos, but also the classic slides required more
thoughtful preparation.” Moreover, they said that during the MR lecture, “more ques-
tions [were] devoted to dynamic processes, which were not easy to explain with pic-
tures/schemes.”
Suitability of MR for remote teaching. As already indicated by the statements
above, students “strongly agreed” with M = 4.65, SD = .63 to the suitability of MR as
remote teaching tool. Open comments underline this rating, emphasizing that usually
“remote lectures are less engaging and more boring - VR makes it more interesting”
and that MR offers the “opportunity to see far away places and machinery without long
travel distances”. Nevertheless, students stated that even if “MR can support the lec-
turer to make it more understandable, [...] it doesn't solve the general problems of re-
mote learning.”
The lecturers stated that in comparison to other remote lectures, MR allows “much
more interaction possibilities such as drawing and pointing to convey the content form
the real perspective, demonstration of real cases in mining.”
4 Discussion and Outlook
The present study aimed to provide initial findings on the suitability and quality of
mixed reality (MR) technologies for the use in remote teaching in the field of mining
engineering. For this purpose, two different remote lectures were conducted, in which
interactive 360 videos as well as 3D models were presented with the help of VR gog-
gles. The lectures were evaluated with a posttest only design by both students and teach-
ers.
The results show promising results for the suitability of MR in remote teaching as
well as some challenges that still need to be addressed in order to use MR widely and
successfully. In the following, the limitations of the study are discussed, followed by a
discussion of the results with regard to technical aspects as well as content- and di-
dactic-related findings.
12
4.1 Limitations of the Study
This study provides initial insights into how MR tools are perceived in remote teach-
ing by both students and instructors. Due to the current pandemic situation, these are
important findings to investigate further. However, some limitations should also be
considered when interpreting the results. One of these limitations relates to the sample.
Participation in the study was voluntary and thus attracted mainly students who were
interested in the topic and in trying out new technologies anyway. The teachers already
had previous experience with the technology. The sample size was based on a realistic
lecture in mining engineering. However, the results should still be validated using a
larger and more divergent sample.
Another limitation relates to the posttest-only study design. Two different lectures
were tested, which are not easily comparable. Furthermore, there was no comparative
lecture that was performed without MR, for example. Also, the technology was mini-
mally modified and adapted between the lectures in order to directly incorporate feed-
back, e.g. on interaction possibilities.
With these limitations in mind, some exciting findings can nevertheless be derived
and discussed in the context of this study, which will be addressed in the next section.
Furthermore, indications for further research are suggested.
4.2 Opportunities and Challenges of using MR in (Remote) Teaching
Technical Aspects. Overall, our evaluations reveal that the perceived usability and ac-
ceptance of the used applications is already pretty high. Most of the students did not
experience any problems. At this point it has to be mentioned that technical support
was present before and during the lecture, which supported both teachers in preparing
the lecture and students in setting it up and operating it. If possible, this should be en-
sured during the first use of the technology in a normal or remote lecture in order to
reduce the workload of the teachers.
Nevertheless, there is still potential for improvement in the quality and editing of the
MR content. Since not all lecturers have the possibility to create their own high-quality
content, possibilities for sharing and making available 360° recordings, 3D models, etc.
must be established. The availability of devices as well as the overall costs of preparing
and conducting MR lectures are seen as a barrier. Possibilities for lending and cooper-
ation of universities should be considered here in order to be able to use the technology
broadly.
Since keeping track of the students and the software tools used at the same time was
initially difficult for the lecturers, functionalities for directing and monitoring the atten-
tion of students should be further evaluated. The lecturer reported to have a high work-
load during the lecture, making it harder to only concentrate on conveying the infor-
mation and knowledge. We therefore suggest to at least have a technical support present
or even to include one of the more experienced students as a tutor and facilitator be-
tween technology, students, and the lecturer.
13
Content related Aspects. As a main result, we can conclude that MR was consid-
ered helpful and beneficial for learning within the course of our study. Both 3D models
and 360° videos were considered as useful teaching tool, especially when combined.
While 360° videos were reported to provide a realistic impression of situations and
processes similar to field trips, schematic 3D models were mentioned to help illustrat-
ing complex processes and machinery. Especially with regard to remote teaching and
learning, MR allows for more interactive, hands-on learning. Lecturers emphasized that
drawing and pointing functions were helpful to react to questions and explain functions
and processes in more detail.
Both Students and lecturers saw the creation of high quality
content as one of the biggest challenges of using MR in (remote) teaching. This applies
not only to the creation of 360° or 3D content, but also to the content of the lecture
itself. The lecturers emphasized that it took a lot more effort to create a sophisticated
lecture, where slides and MR content is combined in a didactic well thought out way.
All in all, it became apparent, that teaching and learning with MR is currently associated
with a high effort and task load, but at the same time also leads to a more intensive
consideration of learning objectives and media selection, which in turn increases the
quality of teaching.
5 Conclusion and Outlook
The present study shows that MR technologies are a promising teaching medium for
remote teaching settings. The evaluation of two MR-based remote lectures in the field
of mining engineering reveals that the strengths and opportunities of using MR for uni-
versity teaching argue for overcoming current challenges, especially with regard to
availability, cost, and effort of using MR. From the perspective of the learners, the use
of MR in remote teaching was perceived as useful, since it enabled a realistic experi-
ence and improved the understanding of presented theory compared to traditional teach-
ing methods. From the teachers perspective, the lecturers agreed that they were able to
convey the knowledge better than in remote teaching without MR. At the same time,
the lecturers reported that they were much more intensively occupied in the preparation
and during the lecture, because in addition to the preparation of the content, they also
needed to provide technical support. Moreover, it becomes evident that the success of
mixed reality technologies in teaching does not only depend on the technical design.
The didactic integration into the teaching concept as well as the individual preparation
of the teachers for technology-based and interactive teaching and learning also play a
decisive role.
The results suggest that MR is able to bridge the gap between theory and practice,
which should be verified in further studies. Thus, future research should validate the
initial, mainly qualitative results with larger sample sizes. Moreover, the effectiveness
of MR in remote teaching should be investigated within an experimental design in di-
rect comparison to traditional remote teaching as a control group. This analysis could,
through the addition of objective criteria for measuring learning success, provide sub-
14
stantial information about the quality in relation to the achievement of learning objec-
tivesAs outlook, further research should relate to the question how teachers can be en-
abled to prepare their own MR-based teaching and how this workflow can be evaluated.
References
1. Dede, C. J., Jacobson, J., Richards, J.: Introduction: Virtual, Augmented, and
Mixed Realities in Education. In: Liu, D., Dede, C., Huang, R. et al. (eds) Virtual,
Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education, vol 59, pp 1–16. Springer, Singa-
pore, (2017)
2. Hughes, M. C., Henry, B. W., Kushnick, M. R.: Teaching during the pandemic?
An opportunity to enhance curriculum. Pedagogy in Health Promotion 6(4), 235-
238 (2020)
3. Scoble, M., Laurence, D.: Future mining engineers – educational development
strategy, In: Proceedings of the First International Future Mining Conference, pp.
237–242. Sydney (2008).
4. Daling L., Eck C., Abdelrazeq A., Hees, F.: Potentials and Challenges of Using
Mixed Reality in Mining Education: A Europe-wide Interview Study. In: Lloret
Mauri J., Saplacan D., Çarçani K., Ardiansyah Prima, O.D., Vasilache, S. (eds.)
Thirteenth International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interac-
tions, ACHI 2020, pp. 229–235. IARIA (2020).
5. Bertignoll, H., Ortega, M. L., Feiel, S.: MiReBooks – Mixed Reality Lehrbücher
für das Bergbau-Studium (MiReBooks—Mixed Reality Handbooks for Mining Ed-
ucation). Berg Huettenmaenn Monatshefte 164(4), 178-182 (2019).
6. Daling L., Kommetter C., Abdelrazeq A., Ebner, M., Ebner, M.: Mixed Reality
Books: Applying Augmented and Virtual Reality in Mining Engineering Educa-
tion. In: Geroimenko V. (ed.) Augmented reality in education, pp. 185–195.
Springer, Cham, (2020).
7. International Organization for Standardization: ISO 9241-11:2018 Ergonomics of
human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization (2018).
8. Brooke, J.: “SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale.” Usability evaluation in indus-
try. CRC Press (1996).
9. Lewis, J. R.: Comparison of Four TAM Item Formats: Effect of Response Option
Labels and Order. Journal of Usability Studies 14(4), 224–236, (2019).
10. Kalkofen, D. et al.: Tools for Teaching Mining Students in Virtual Reality based
on 360° Video Experiences. In: 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D
User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW). pp. 455–459. IEEE (2020).
11. Zoom Video Communications Inc: Zoom. https://zoom.us/
12. Cisco Webex: Cisco Webex. https://www.webex.com/
13. Microsoft Corporation: Microsoft Teams. https://www.microsoft.com/
14. Kuckartz, U.: Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstüt-
zung (Qualitative content analysis: methods, practice, computer support). 3rd. edn.
Beltz, Weinheim Basel (2016).
