Kesim, M. and Ozarslan, Y. (2012) ‘Augmented reality in education: Current technologies and the potential for education’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, pp. 297–302.
Kesim and Ozarslan consider Augmented reality to be a new way to manipulate how we interact with the world. They explain Augmented Reality as technology that augments virtual information over your interrupted (through a devise) view of the real world. They refer to Azuma’s (1997) three characteristics that (he believes) Augmented Reality must have: “combining the real and virtual worlds, having real-time interaction with the user, and is being registered in a 3D space. Augmented Reality allows the user to see the real world and aim to supplement reality without completely immersing the user inside a synthetic environment.” (p298) Kesim and Ozarslan go on to discuss technologies that support Augmented Reality Systems. These include; Head Mounted Displays, worn on the head, directly or as part of a helmet using technology that allows the graphic overlay information to be reflected in the users eye, handheld displays, that overlays graphical information through “video-see-through” techniques with advantages that include portability, and the fact that smart-phones and tablets (handheld devices) are found virtually everywhere (ubiquitous) and pinch gloves, gloves with wireless sensors (that are often paired with a digital camera, gps and a range of other sensors) generally linked to a computer that analyzes the data. Kesim and Ozarslan argue that Augmented Reality technology used in education is not new, and has been used across a range of industries including medicine, engineering design, psychological treatments and medicine. They argue that augmented reality allows users to interact with the real world in ways “like never before.” This article was great introduction into what Augmented Reality is and how it can be used. It provides an overview of Augmented Reality, the devices that support it and its relation to education. While it was only brief it allowed the context to be understood clearly and provided a good starting point. One thing to be aware of when reading the article is the developments and larger use of Augmented Reality in the four years since the article was published, while the lists of platforms that supported Augmented Reality technology was informative over the last four years Augmented reality technology has moved more (in a public, easy to use sense) in the direction of handheld displays through tablets and predominantly smartphones.
Yilmaz, R.M. (2016) ‘Educational magic toys developed with augmented reality technology for early childhood education’, Computers in Human Behavior, 54, pp. 240–248.
The article identifies a relationship between playing and learning as an essential part in children’s development. Yilmaz argues that over the last few decades the concept of “toy” has changed considerably as traditional games and interactive computer games have been combined and proved to be of great benefit to children. These ‘smart toys’ or Educational Magic Toys (EMT) enrich play, providing a more creative environment, increase fantasy and enhance interaction and provide mixed reality. These toys do not only improve playtime, they also have great educational benefits. Yilmaz examines Lampe and Hinske (2007) ideal learning experience as: “a combination of physical experience, virtual content and the imagination of the child.” Yilmaz also identifies Azuma (1997) three characteristics that (he believes) Augmented Reality must have: “combining the real and virtual worlds, having real-time interaction with the user, and is being registered in a 3D space.” Yilmaz argues that 3D objects appearing in the real world creates a sense of magic, encouraging surprise and therefore curiosity. EMT has a range of different toys and games including; puzzles, flash cards and match cards (testing animals, fruits, vegetables, vehicles, colours, numbers and so on) aimed at children of the ages of 5 and 6, in early childhood education. These toys differentiate from other toys as they “integrate multimedia materials on toys and to provide magical sense by means of AR technology.” Yilmaz discusses a report on the attitudes, relationship and behaviors of students (and teachers) on EMT. The report concludes to find that teachers and children liked EMT activity, teachers positive attitude ad acceptance of the toys will allow them to use them in the future and that children, while playing with the toys, had high cognitive attainment, and as a result found that these toys can be effectively used in early childhood education. The article provided a large focus on EMT, which aren’t just augmented reality but augmented reality on a physical toy. The inclusion of the actual report, method and findings while harder for me to understand as it was written as a proper research report was interesting and allowed me to see the original thoughts and attitudes towards EMT and the shifts after the experiment for both teachers and children. The inclusion of teachers in the report was also great because it look to see if EMT could realistically be used in a classroom, children learning and benefiting from these toys is one thing but the teachers have to understand them and have positive attitudes towards them or else they will not be implemented to their full capabilities in the classroom.
Wu, H.-K., Lee, S.W.-Y., Chang, H.-Y. and Liang, J.-C. (2013) ‘Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education’, Computers & Education, 62, pp. 41–49.
The article presents Augmented Reality as a bridge between virtual and real world. It argues that educational values of Augmented Reality “are not solely based on the use of technologies but closely related to how Augmented Reality is designed, implemented, and integrated into formal and informal learning settings”- how the technologies support learning is more important to consider for educational purposes that the type of technology used to create it. The article recognizes 5 areas, based off their research, that Augmented Reality could be used for educational purposes (page 43): enabling learning content in 3D perspectives, ubiquitous (everywhere), collaborative and stimulated learning, learners’ sense of presence, immediacy, and immersion, visualizing the invisible and bridging formal and informal learning. The break down of different areas that educational tools can be used through Augmented Reality as presented through this article is helpful because as we start to work towards creating something, or if we have an area of research we are particularly interested in we can look closely at one of those areas to get more specific examples and research to guide us. This article was supported by many other examples of research, which strengthened their arguments, and have provided us with more (specific) resources we can look at deeper if we feel they are relevant to our research.
Cascales, A., Pérez-López, D. and Contero, M. (2013) ‘Study on parent’s acceptance of the augmented reality use for preschool education’, Procedia Computer Science, 25, pp. 420–427.
This article presents a study exploring the parental influence on a child’s Augmented Reality use at preschool education. The study identified parents’ perspectives into five components: motivation, knowledge, reading and writing, creativity and degree of satisfaction. The conclusion of the study showed that parents rated the Augmented Reality experience positively. Parents proved to like learning with Augmented Reality and were able to adapt it to the school system. Parents believed that Augmented Reality resources helped their children to promote the five components addressed above. Parents also felt benefits with the resources provided through Augmented Reality with its ability to integrate knowledge, reading and writing into a common framework that supports a variation of learning activities. Ideas presented in this article are important to keep in mind as we continue our research. If we chose to focus on AR education for children it is important to consider parents attitudes towards the technology (something I hadn’t actually considered until I saw this article), this technology is still new in the sense that it isn’t being used commonly in schools so if you were working towards its development parents support would be crucial as this technology has to be supported both at school at home so the children can get the most out of it.