Exploring Parents’ Conceptions of Augmented Reality Learning and Approaches to Learning by Augmented Reality With Their Children

Abstract

With the increasing attention to the role of parents in children's learning, what issues parents consider and how they behave when learning with their children when confronted with the emerging augmented reality (AR) technology may be worth exploring. This study was therefore conducted to qualitatively understand parents' conceptions of AR learning and approaches to learning by AR with their children. A total of 90 pairs of parents and children were invited to participate in an AR book reading activity held in 2015; all of the parents were then interviewed to acquire the research data. Through the phenomenographic method, this study generated several categories of the parents' conceptions of and approaches to AR learning. Further analysis identified the relationships between parents' conceptions and approaches. For example, the parents holding cohesive conceptions (e.g., learning by AR as attaining in-depth understanding) tended to use deep approaches (e.g., offering guidance to connect life experiences with the book content for thorough reading). Based on the findings, a framework of interactive AR book systems for child-parent shared reading is proposed. This study was expected to initiate research in the area of learning by AR in informal learning environments.

Surveying Students’ Conceptions of Learning Science by Augmented Reality and their Scientific Epistemic Beliefs

“…It was also found that parents who held higher-level conceptions (e.g., learning by AR as increasing the interaction between learners and learning materials) may have used more advanced strategies to learn with their children (e.g., discussing the learning content with their children in order to help their children's reflection on the content learned previously), and vice versa. Interestingly, in that study (Cheng, 2017), for those parents with negative conceptions, they may have thought more critically rather than superficially about the disadvantages of AR learning, and therefore tended to utilize more advanced strategies. To some extent, the findings imply the relationships between individuals' conceptions of learning and the way they learn.…”

“…A recent study explored parents' conceptions of AR learning (e.g., Cheng, 2017) and identified eight hierarchical categories of their conceptions. That is, the parents considered learning by AR as (1) increasing presence, (2) drawing attention, (3) fostering motivation, (4) extending content, (5) attaining in-depth understanding, (6) enhancing interaction, (7) obstructing reading, and (8) diminishing imagination.…”

“…Based on the categories of parents' conceptions of AR learning developed by Cheng (2017), in this study, we developed an instrument, namely the Conceptions of Learning Science by AR (CLSAR) survey, to investigate the students' beliefs about learning science by AR. Firstly, the eight categories of parents' conceptions of AR learning in Cheng's study (2017), namely (1) increasing presence (called presence), (2) drawing attention (called attention), (3) fostering motivation (called motivation), (4) extending content (called extending), (5) attaining in-depth understanding (called understanding), (6) enhancing interaction (called interaction), (7) obstructing reading, and (8) diminishing imagination, were adopted as the scales of the CLSAR survey.…”

“Helping Nemo!”—Using Augmented Reality and Alternate Reality Games in the Context of Universal Design for Learning

“…Location-based AR recognises where the user is positioned and provides virtual information which seamlessly blends with the physical environment of the users (e.g., the game Pokemon Go developed by Niantic). Image-based AR utilises graphics identification techniques to identify plain images within the real world and then provides to users synthetic information or other elements intersecting with the plane images [51].…”

Do “Interactive” Educational Technologies Promote Interactive Literacy Instruction?

“…Technology integration in education is mandated by programs of study in Canada and in many other places around the world. Advocates of technology integration extol improved student achievement (Butzin, 2001), heightened motivation and engagement (Cheng, 2017;Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, & Solloway, 2003;Passey, Rogers, Machell, McHugh, & Allaway, 2003), and performance in curricular areas such as in Language Arts (e.g., Andresen, 2017;Curcic & Johnstone, 2016;Lopez, 2010;Maher, 2011). Canadian research has also reported similar perceived benefits to students' learning and teachers' instruction (Froese-Germain, Reil, & McGahey, 2013); however, the presence of technology neither ensures it is integrated effectively nor used to promote pedagogically appropriate practices (Bauer & Kenton, 2005;Hooper & Rieber, 1999) and new technologies are often used to replicate traditional delivery methods such as blackboards (Beauchamp, 2004;Serow & Callingham, 2011) or drill-and-practice worksheets (Franklin, 2007).…”