Difficulties in the Incorporation of Augmented Reality in University Education: Visions from the Experts

Abstract

“Augmented reality” (AR) is presented as technology that harmonizes, in real time and with user collaboration, digital information with physical information through different technological supports. Such are AR possibilities, that when it is incorporated into teaching, students show high satisfaction rates and positive attitudes for its use, but at the same time, a series of limitations and obstacles can be noticed. As an attempt to investigate the technical, curricular and organizational difficulties of AR incorporation in training contexts, an instrument “AR obstacle questionnaire” (CORA) was designed, which in turn was administered to a total of 264 subject experts for validation through the Delphi method, subsequently applying the “K coefficient” (K = ½ Kc (knowledge coefficient) + Ka (argumentation coefficient)), selecting those experts who obtained a ≥ 0,8 score in the coefficient. Among the results obtained in the study we manage to point out the main obstacles involving AR implementation into university education: the lack of teacher training and improvement, the few educational experiences found, lack of conceptual foundation, limited educational research and lack of institutional support.

Virtual Museums as Learning Agents

“…i) It is possible to augment analogue reality with digital information; ii) Integration takes place in real time and in a coordinated way; iii) They facilitate combining different resources: Text, websites, video, audio and 3D; iv) They are interactive; and v) The involvement of the individual is necessary for the creation of the content [29].…”

“…The role of the teacher in this network of agents is still very important [32], because the virtual solutions available today cannot completely replace the human pedagogical element; as Garzón and Acevedo's study concluded [6], such solutions have medium learning gains and are difficult to use because teachers do not have the appropriate pedagogical, content and technological competences [33]. There are also studies that conclude that students are not yet ready to learn using such solutions [29,34]. This demonstrates the need to enhance the baggage of smart pedagogic solutions so that various technological affordances, including virtual museums, are used as learning agents, as these solutions not only solve access problems, but are considered to be used for scaffolding learning in authentic mobile learning space.…”

Evaluación de software en la producción de objetos en Realidad Aumentada con fines educativos

“…Cabero-Almenara, J., y Llorente-Cejudo, C. (2019). Evaluación de software de producción de objetos en Realidad Aumentada con fines educativos.…”

“…Página 3 de 23 podemos decir que éste debe ser funcionalmente correcto, fiable, comprensible, con una alta usabilidad, eficiente y actualizable (Schmalstieg & Höllerer, 2016). Y entre los problemas para su incorporación se encuentran: su novedad, la constante aparición de programas de software, y los sofisticados requerimientos técnicos que algunos requieren para que puedan ser utilizados por docentes y discentes (Barroso-Osuna, Gutiérrez-Castillo, Llorente-Cejudo & Valencia, 2019). De todas formas, resaltar que, en los últimos tiempos, hemos venido asistiendo al desarrollo de software, en muchos casos de código abierto, optimizado para su uso en diferentes plataformas que nos ayudan a producción de objetos de RA en unos pocos pasos de manera muy fácil e intuitiva (Kan, Teng & Chen, 2011), frente al software utilizado profesionalmente para la producción de estos objetos que requiere de altos conocimientos de programación para su correcta utilización.…”

Design and Validation of an Assessment Tool for Educational Mobile Applications Used with Autistic Learners

“…The index is calculated using the formula K= 1/2 (Kc + Ka). Finally, the result of the expert competence index is a score between 0 and 1 in which a score of 0.8 or higher corresponds to high degree of expert competence (Osuna, Gutiérrez-Castillo, del Carmen Llorente-Cejudo, & Ortiz, 2019). Table 1 shows the results obtained by the 33 potential experts we surveyed, of which 12 were chosen, distributed equally among the expertise groups.…”