Teachers’ Perceptions on Using Augmented Reality for Language Learning in Primary Years Programme (PYP) Education

Abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) is a relatively new technology and is increasingly being posited as an educational game-changer, particularly - but not exclusively - in language learning. On a scale where the virtual and real world sit at opposite ends of the spectrum, AR sits in-between, combining real world elements with virtual overlays. Research suggests that an obstacle to English language learning in countries where English is not the first language (EFL) is a lack of authentic situations outside of the classroom for practising English communication skills. AR technology, by combining elements of real-life and virtual content could potentially overcome some of these limitations. However, as with all technologies, the use of AR in the classroom is not only confined to the learner, but also largely dependent on the willingness and skills of teachers to utilise it effectively. This study hopes to shed some light on the possible uses, benefits, and challenges that AR may present to the field of EFL learning in an Egyptian International Baccalaureate (IB) school.

International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme: a systematic review

“…There is great heterogeneity in the purpose of the different papers included in this review. The works by Lebreton (2014), Bueno-Villaverde et al (2018), Solano-Campos (2017), Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos (2020), Lochmiller et al (2016) and Carder (2006) examine the integration of foreign language teaching within the PYP programme in enquiry processes in which fluid and deep communication takes place among students and with the teacher, which promotes the effective acquisition of communicative skills as pointed out by authors including Gibbons (2014) or Téllez & Waxman (2006). Roiha & Sommier (2021) focus their work on teachers’ perceptions of interculturality in the PYP programme, in line with the work of Walsh & Casinader (2019), although in this case it focuses on the moral aspects of interculturality.…”

“…Spain is represented in two publications (Steffen & Bueno-Villaverde, 2018; Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018). The remaining countries have produced only one publication: The Netherlands (Roiha & Sommier, 2021), the United Kingdom (Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos, 2020), Canada (Walsh & Casinader, 2019), Uruguay (Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018), Azerbaijan (Palmer, 2016), Colombia (Lochmiller et al, 2016), France (Lebreton, 2014) and Switzerland (Twigg, 2010). However, it should be noted that some papers sample schools from more than one country, either for comparison or for other methodological or researcher convenience reasons.…”

“…Most of the articles included in the review (fourteen out of a total of twenty-one) use a qualitative methodology for the collection and subsequent analysis of data. One of the most commonly used data collection instruments is the semi-structured interview (Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos, 2020; Bueno-Villaverde et al, 2018; Sperandio & Kong, 2018; Palmer, 2016; Savage & Drake, 2016; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Quaynor, 2015; Law et al, 2012; O’Boyle, 2009; Güler & Yaltırık, 2011), and subsequently conducting a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) from which independent categories of analysis emerge (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). Focus groups are also used in two articles (O’Boyle, 2009; Sperandio & Kong, 2018), as well as direct observation by researchers of the development of classes in the different educational centres in which the research is conducted (Quaynor, 2015; Solano-Campos, 2017; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Kauffman, 2005; Palmer, 2016).…”

“…Just over a third of the articles collect data exclusively from teachers teaching in the PYP programme, with a sample of between ten and forty teachers (Roiha & Sommier, 2021; Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos, 2020; Walsh & Casinader, 2019; Lochmiller et al, 2016; Twigg, 2010; Steffen & Van Vooren, 2018; Güler & Yaltırık, 2011; Kauffman, 2005). Only the work of Tugluk (2020) uses exclusively a sample of students, in this case eighteen 5-6-year-olds.…”

“…The diversity of topics covered in the articles reviewed, as discussed above, leads as a logical consequence to a wide variety of results associated with IB research and specifically with the PYP stage. Research related to the methodological management of foreign languages yields some very interesting results, such as the great potential of the use of augmented reality for language teaching because of the possibility of generating situations closer to the contexts of real language use, although the authors warn of the need for teacher training in these techniques for their correct use (Ashley-Welbeck & Vlachopoulos, 2020), the need to take into account the context of immigrant students for the use of bilingualism as one of the central axes of the research (Solano-Campos, 2017), the existing tensions between members of the educational community (students, families, teachers, management teams) when it comes to identifying the role and importance of the use of the foreign language in the educational process, and the need to perceive the usefulness that language learning can have not only in the educational context but also outside the school. It is also important to promote the enjoyment of language learning (Lebreton, 2014) and the desirability of integrating the foreign language at all stages of IB and to reward this effort through foreign language certifications (Carder, 2006).…”