Instructional Design: An Opportunity for Integrity and Inclusion for ALL

This is a the first of many papers being written for my Digital Media and Learning class this Fall:

Links to papers read online:

https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/sts5424/pdfs/Marx_Braverman.pdf

https://via.hypothes.is/http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/Winner.pdf

http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/016224399201700302

https://via.hypothes.is/http://codev2.cc/download+remix/Lessig-Codev2.pdf

ethics of care - pluralism by hello-magpie on DeviantArt

Synthesis and analysis:

Before beginning my first synthesis paper, I wanted to understand “synthesis” fully, since it’s a term that I have not been asked to perform very much [directly albeit] in my previous coursework. I found a great example and guidance after searching “blooms synthesis” as I wanted to know what our tested Bloom’s Taxonomy would define synthesis as: http://www1.center.k12.mo.us/edtech/Blooms/Synthesis.htm

As the page linked above defines, my articles/creations to follow will adhere to the following learning objective verbs and expressions:

Synthesis
Putting together ideas into a new or unique
product or plan.

Guiding questions for synthesis level:

What changes would you make to solve _______?
How would you improve _______?
Can you propose and alternative _______?
What way would you design _______?
Suppose you could _______. What would you do ________?
Can you construct a model that would change _______?
Can you think of an original way for _______?
Can you predict the outcome if _______?

This week, we were asked to read in order and synthesize 4 articles:

K. Marx, The Machine Versus the Worker
L. Winner, Do Artifacts Have Politics?
B. Pfaffenberger, Technological Dramas
L. Lessig, Code 2.0, Ch. 7

Our instructor promised us that it really wasn’t that much reading.

Karl Marx is a name I have heard many times, but before reading the assigned article, I really couldn’t remember his major stances on the worker and the machine-industrial complex. The reading assigned was only two pages in length, but was substantial in the new perspective brought to me attention. His major points in this reading are:

• p. 156 “The instrument of labour strikes down the labourer. This direct antagonism between the two comes out most strongly, whenever newly introduced machinery competes with handicrafts or manufactures, handed down from former times.“
• He states that “machinery not only acts as a competitor…” but that the capital generated “is the most powerful weapon for repressing strikes” (p.156).
• On page 157, he gives the example of Nasmyth, the inventor of the steam hammer: he testifies that “Thanks to these new mechanical combinations, I have reduced the number of grown-up men from 1,500 to 750. The result was a considerable increase in my profits.” Mechanical innovation and replacement of human workers was seen as a solution to long standing strikes in many industries.

Prior to reading Langdon Winner’s article “Do Artifacts have Politics?,” I had no experience with the author, but I did have an idea of the article content: since most products or innovations are created for someone, or a specific audience or consumer type, I can infer that the affordances generated will favor that group, and that favoritism in design can be called ‘politics.’ After reading the selection, the following are the main points presented:

• He states that “At issue is the claim that the machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged by their contributions… but also for the ways in which they embody specific forms of power and authority” (p. 19). My thought in reaction to this claim of embodying power and authority is: ‘is this an intentional assertion of power/authority?’, but then I think it wouldn’t matter whether the answer was yes or no, rather that we must have designers with the highest ethical standards for all people so that the assertion of power and authority through innovations is a positive contribution intended to help the greatest amount of people, making considerations for as many learner types as possible and for known accessibility concerns. I am then reminded that sometimes good products come out of ill intentioned designs, such as nuclear power that grew out of military applications or maybe medicines developed through unethical methods that end up saving thousands of others.

Moving on to the next article “Technological Dramas”, I can speculate that the idea of artifact features having politics will be expanded upon by Bryan Pfaffenberger. Main points of this reading include:

• Confirming my earlier thoughts about designers and how their personal values affect the social and political considerations and outcomes in a design, Pfaffenberger states that “The demonstration that technology is socially shaped (MacKenzie and Wacjman 1985) or socially constructed (Pinch and Bijker 1987) is a major achievement of science and technology studies (STS).... To account fully for a technical design, one must examine the technical culture, social values, aesthetic ethos, and political agendas of the designers” (p.282).
• He goes on to assert that “Technical innovation provides an opportunity to embed political values in technological production process and artifacts, which then diffuse throughout society…” (p. 283).
• Pfaffenberger then makes several claims that I personally questioned as I read them. I questioned the sources quoted for support of his idea, and I questioned the methods used to determine the thinking of the designers or managers described in the studies. He mentions “Noble (1986) shows how managers hoped that numerically designed machine tools would deskill lathe operators and transfer process control from the shop floor to management. Barker and Downing (1985) show how networked word-processing technology has been used to erode the work autonomy of typists by monitoring the number of times per hour that a typist presses a key” (p. 284). How do you ‘show how a manager hoped’ for something? Why does having a measure by which to compare yourself to others while typing at work ‘erode work autonomy’? Is this really what the managers or designers were thinking when designing these tools - thinking of controlling their workers? I do not think so. I would imagine that most inventors and good managers in business are creative, kind people looking to better the populations, the work conditions, and the precision and quality of products.

I decided to move onto the next article, because I did not have the time to locate and verify each of the sources that I found a little biased that were used to support Pfeffenberger’s argument.

Lessig’s open source text “Code 2.0” was published in 2006 and appears to be a very straight forward, comprehensive, and foundational text to understanding power in our digital world, despite being over ten years old now. We were asked to read chapter seven.

• This author details how our lives are regulated by first naming us “as a dot” and then analogizing how we (quite sarcastically as “a pathetic dot”) are controlled in behavior by social norms (p. 122), that “the market is also a constraint,” laws, and architecture (p. 123).
• I found the multiple historical examples of design choices to control or direct people fascinating, especially the French Revolution (p. 127) and the later building of wider streets; because I have been there and can visualize this constraint fully and how it later affected history during Napoleon's rule.
• I appreciated Lessing’s inclusion of three major socially excluded classes: “discrimination against the disabled,” “drugs” (p. 131), and “abortion” (p. 132). Heavily socially stigmatized, these populations can give back to the world in innumerable ways, yet we seek to disinclude them or ostracize them for their actions. Unfortunately there are many other populations and stigmatized groups that can bring a lot to the world. I think of refugees and immigrants, people of gender or identity minority, people of religious minority or misunderstood groups; an endless list could be created entitled ‘you are different because ______, but you can still participate in and create fully’. I think this is what the creators of the internet intended (that unknowingly started humankind into all this digital social mess ;-) ).

In closing, I will attempt to provide a brief synthesis and closing to conclude this week’s reading assignment. I think that digital media and the internet has the unique power to make the world a more equal place for all. I think this is how it was intended when it was envisioned and built, but I think a handful of people’s greed and business interests seek to build on the majority’s good intentions and desire for inclusion for all people. Two ways that I think could encourage this positive ethic and intention in designers and developers is to 1. apply the principle of ‘care ethic’ in all design ventures and 2. Encourage broad adoption of a code of ethics for designers, similar to the oath a doctor would take prior to service with patients (but obviously a little less focused on life and death, but rather access and value in intentions).

I am particularly interested in adapting the physicians Hippocratic oath into a guiding document for designers and inventors., so I wanted to share it here for your consideration too. The current medically-focused oath reads as:

“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

• I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
• I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
• I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
• I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
• I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
• I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
• I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
• I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
• If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
  

—Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.”

We have great powers as designers to shape the experiences in our world to elevate all of humankind for higher purposes, or to harm and control. We have power in the way we design things and to which attributes we craft. We can also be the gatekeepers and choose not break our own values just for monetary gain or otherwise negative purpose. May we all design with integrity and care.

Augmented Reality, Motivation, and Critical Thinking: A Systematic Literature Review

Hello everyone,

I hope you enjoy this systematic literature review I completed last semester for my doctoral class in Computer-Augmented Instructional Paradigms in Education.

Project Introduction: The development of decision making skills and judgement collectively known as “critical thinking” is an important 21st century skill that can possibly benefit from the application of instructional technology tools and pedagogical methods. Additionally, engaging and supporting student through the use of ARCS principles as we embark on this new use of technology is important to include if we want our learning experiences to truly be “effective.” My research focus will center on the effectiveness of mobile AR applications and the interaction between the development of critical thinking skills and the ARCS indicators. ARCS is a learner motivational model developed by John Keller and critical thinking will be presented as the Watson-Glaser assessment instrument defines the construct.


Here is the literature review:

Augmented Reality, Motivation, and Critical Thinking: A Systematic Literature Review

Amber C. Lee

University of South Florida

Abstract

This systematic literature review is a mixed-methods search and critical analysis of the intersections between Augmented Reality, Motivation, and Critical Thinking skill development. Analysis of findings from 12 studies were conducted to learn how and what pedagogical methods are most effective when implementing mobile augmented reality technology to enhance learner motivation and nurture critical thinking skill development. The results indicate that inquiry-based, problem-based, or collaborative pedagogical methods are most effective with mobile augmented reality technology for enhancing motivation and critical thinking. Additionally it was found that augmented reality is appropriate for application with multiple subject areas, with many learner ages, and successful in multiple geographical settings.

Introduction

    One new technology that is just beginning to be utilized in education is known as Augmented Reality. Augmented Reality is the visual imposing of data or images over the real world, which is achieved by utilizing a tablet, mobile phone, Google glasses, or other digital device that employs the device’s camera as the real world capture and then superimposes the content over the real world in real-time. Augmented Reality is frequently used in commercial or entertainment mobile applications, but is new to educational applications (Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013).

Researchers Yuen, Yaoyuneyong, and Johnson (2011) define Augmented Reality as “a wide spectrum of technologies that project computer generated materials, such as text, images, and video, onto users’ perceptions of the real world.” Augmented Reality is defined by Klopfer (2008) as “technologies that combine the real and the virtual in any location-specific way, where both real and virtual information play significant roles” (p.92). Researchers FitzGerald, Ferguson, Adams, Gaved, Mor, and Thomas define augmented reality as “the fusion of any digital information with physical world settings, i.e. being able to augment one’s immediate surroundings with electronic data or information, in a variety of formats including visual/graphic media, text, audio, video and haptic overlays” (2013, p. 44).

Researcher Azuma (1997) defined Augmented Reality as the "middle ground" between completely synthetic and completely real environments (quoting Milgram and Kishino, 1994a; Milgram et al., 1994b) and that AR "1. combines real and virtual; 2. is interactive in real time; and 3. is registered in three dimensions" (p. 356). The definition by Azuma is widely accepted and will be the basis for the definition used by this literature review.

AR systems are typically categorized as location-based systems or image-based systems (Cheng & Tsai, 2012).

Pictures 1, 2, 3. Examples of mobile augmented reality technology.

Rationale

A primary focus of this literature review will center on the effectiveness of mobile AR applications for learning and both the pedagogical application of the ARCS-V learner supports or evidence of learner motivation as a result of the pedagogical application. The well-known ARCS model and the recently developed ARCS-V model are frameworks for learner motivation developed through systematic meta-analysis conducted by researcher John Keller. His ARCS-V model will be the basis for motivational evaluation in coding for both design and learner effect. The ARCS-V framework includes the following motivational supports for learning: attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction, and volition. Engaging and supporting learners through the application of ARCS-V principles to enhance learner motivation is important for inclusion in this literature review to determine the best pedagogical methods for mobile AR technology application, for overall learner success, and for the development of critical thinking skills. Studies utilizing augmented reality will be reviewed for pedagogical methods, for evidence of learner motivation, and evidence of the critical thinking skills.

This literature review will secondarily explore the use of mobile AR technology and the pedagogies used to develop critical thinking skills. As our society continues to be influenced by the digital landscape and new methods of interacting the world around us [globally and digitally], several new skills collectively known as 21st century skills have been deemed necessary for our learners to succeed in the workplace of tomorrow. Coined by the National Education Association, but being implemented widely, these 21st century skills are known as the “4 C’s”: collaboration, creativity, communication, and critical thinking (n.d.). The development of decision making skills and judgement collectively known as “critical thinking” is an important 21st century skill that can possibly benefit from the application of instructional technology tools and pedagogical methods; and will be the second intersecting focus of this review.

Both constructs examined in this literature review, critical thinking and motivation, will be further defined below.

Background and Prior Reviews

Previous reviews are extensive in the application of augmented reality for learning, but do not code or seek to answer questions specifically about motivation design and outcomes, or in critical thinking skill development. As learner motivation is a strong precursor for learner success, critical thinking and learner motivation have been found comorbid and beneficiary to each other, and since critical thinking is such a major need for our learners future success, it is imperative that a thorough literature review be conducted to begin categorizing and exploring the effects related to these elements.

This systematic literature review will center on the use of mobile augmented reality applications for immersive, constructivist learning experiences, which has been found to be beneficial for the application of augmented reality technology by many previous literature reviews. Researcher Dunleavy suggests the utilization of challenge, fantasy, and curiousity to motivate learners and decrease cognitive load (2014). In a recent systematic literature review conducted by researchers Akçayır and Akçayır, their findings after reviewing 68 articles is that augmented reality supports learning and has many educational advantages, but that it has challenges to implementation like low literacy with devices or technical issues [mainly with the location-based software](2017).

In another recent systematic literature review of 32 studies that has very transparent and consistent methods stated in their paper, researchers Bacca, Baldiris, Fabregat, Graf, and Kinshuk have also found augmented reality to be extremely beneficial to learning, reporting advantages such as: “learning gains,” “motivation,” “students attention,” “enjoyment,” “increase capacity of innovation,” and “create positive attitudes” (2014, p. 141). While the focus of their review was not on motivation or critical thinking, several of the indicators they reviewed for could be coded for these two interactions and this provides strong evidence for continued research in this area.

Previous literature reviews completed point to the gap in research surrounding motivation and augmented reality; and critical thinking skills and augmented reality. Therefore to add to the discussion and hopefully add clarity for practice, research questions for this review will include:

1. How effective is mobile AR for learner motivation: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Volition?
2. What are the pitfalls of utilizing mobile AR for learning?
3. How effective is mobile AR for developing critical thinking skills?
4. What pedagogical strategies are most effective [for motivation + CT]?

What is Motivation

Researcher Keller (1979; 1983; 1997; 1999a; 1999b; 2000) has established that supporting learner motivation increases learner success and overall knowledge transfer. Keller’s most recent ARCS+V model is the basis for the definition of motivation and coding of motivational factors for this review:

• Attention: Defined in this literature review as: "perceptual arousal," "inquiry arousal," and "variability."
• Relevance: Defined in this literature review as: "goal orientation," "motive matching," and "familiarity."
• Confidence: Defined in this literature review as: "learning requirements," "success opportunities," and "personal control."
• Satisfaction: Defined in this literature review as: "intrinsic reinforcement," "extrinsic rewards," and "equity."
• Volition: Defined in this literature review as: "self-regulation by learner."

What is Critical Thinking

Studies in critical thinking are limited, but researchers have already established that there is a connection of the development of critical thinking skills to learner motivation (Facione, 2000; Halonen, 1995; Halpern, 1998; Lai, 2011; Paul, 1992; Turner, 1995).

Researchers Paul and Elder (2003) assert that critical thinking skills are generally defined by nine attributes: depth, breadth, logic, clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, fairness, and significance. If these nine attributes are consistently demonstrated in a learner’s thinking, it is said that the learner is

utilizing critical thinking and therefore their arguments and conclusions are more thorough, less biased, and examined from multiple perspectives: a sound argument.

Purpose of the Current Review

It is important to note that while studies in critical thinking are limited, researchers have found a connection to the development of critical thinking skills and the relationship to learner motivation (Lai, 2011 p.20):

"Critical thinking is also related to motivation. For example, most researchers view critical thinking as including both skills, or abilities, and dispositions. The disposition to think critically has been defined as the “consistent internal motivation to engage problems and make decisions by using critical thinking” (Facione, 2000, p. 65). Thus, student motivation is viewed as a necessary precondition for critical thinking skills and abilities. Similarly, Halonen notes that a person’s propensity, or disposition, to demonstrate higher-order thinking relates to their motivation (1995). Halpern (1998) argues that effort and persistence are two of the principal dispositions that support critical thinking, and Paul maintains that perseverance is one of the “traits of mind” that renders someone a critical thinker (1992, p. 13). Thus, like metacognition, motivation appears to be a supporting condition for critical thinking in that unmotivated individuals are unlikely to exhibit critical thinking. On the other hand, several motivation researchers have suggested that the causal link goes the other way. In particular, some motivation research suggests that difficult or challenging tasks, particularly those emphasizing higher-order thinking skills, may be more motivating to students than easy tasks that can be solved through the rote application of a predetermined algorithm (Turner, 1995)."

Lai’s literature review shows a connection broader than the application of motivation by the pedagogical methods introduced by John Keller’s ARCS-V, introducing the disposition of critical thinking as similar and related to the disposition for a motivated learner. Lai’s description of the motivated disposition may be related to the “V” of Keller’s model, indicating learner self-regulation instead of a externally applied technique, tool, or pedagogy.

This literature review expects to bring additional clarify the pedagogical strategies most effective when employing mobile AR for instruction in multiple educational settings and for multiple learner types; it additionally seeks to identify factors that develop critical thinking skills and that nurture learner motivation.

Conclusions of this review could be used to guide practitioners in the classroom [or in the

museum, or in the field, or at a distance, etc.] in designing mobile AR learning experiences and

also could be helpful to librarians, teachers, or curriculum developers.

Method

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

    This literature review is looking for evidence of the interactions of mobile AR, critical thinking, and motivation. All articles related to the keywords above will be included to establish clarity and interactions for these constructs. Inclusions noted are:

1. Inclusion #1: Studies will be for all age and grades, not limited to a specific group, so that a wide picture can be gathered.
2. Inclusion #2: Mobile AR/VR applications included will be all types and all subject matters.
3. Inclusion #3: Conference papers and refereed articles will both be included to gain a wider picture.
4. Inclusion #4: Overall “effectiveness,” ARCS indicators, and critical thinking indicators, will be the foci of the literature review.

Exclusions were removed during the course of the literature review in order to capture all possible interactions of the constructs previously described. Initial exclusions during the planning phase of the study were: 1. Articles will be excluded that do not reference mobile learning, for this exercise; and 2. Articles will be excluded that are greater than 15 years old.

Search Strategies

A search for literature will be conducted utilizing the University of South Florida Library electronic database and Google Scholar electronic database. Search keywords used will be:

• augmented reality
• mobile apps
• Constructivist
• critical thinking
• Attention
• Relevance
• Confidence
• Satisfaction
• “mobile augmented reality learning arcs”

Study Features Coding and Analysis

This literature review was conducted over a one-semester period of approximately 12 weeks. Coding features were established based on a general template provided by the instructor and then groomed to capture motivational factors, critical thinking elements, and affordances specific to utilizing augmented reality technology. Geographic location, learner age, and subject matter of the study was added after the review began and previously coded articles were re-coded, because it was recognized during reviewing the articles that there was variance and interesting features between the studies in these areas.

Results

Overview of Studies Included

    Of the 12 studies that met the threshold for inclusion in this literature review, the studies are mostly in agreeance that utilizing mobile augmented reality technology applications with constructivist methods, in many forms, enhances learner motivation, development of critical thinking, and overall learner success with the lesson. The studies were overwhelmingly quasi-experimental or case study in design, so while the researchers are in agreeance, greater amounts of research with stronger controls for internal validity are needed in this area. Additionally, greater amounts of research is needed at the intersection of augmented reality, motivation, and critical thinking, to build the body of literature and create a body of externally generalizable data and recommendations. There is minimal research documented in the U.S. and with college or adult-aged learners. Augmented reality applications in education research is still really in its infancy and needing further exploration and confirmation of early findings as presented by this literature review.

    The journals or publication locations of the studies included in this literature review:

Journal/Publication	Studies analyzed
Journal of Educational Technology	1
Computers & Education	2
British Journal of Educational Technology	1
Journal of Science Education and Technology	1
Procedia Computer Science	1
Modern English Teacher	1
IEEE International Conference on CyberWorlds	1
15th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, mLearn 2016, At Sydney, Australia, Volume: 1	1
Educational Technology & Society	1
Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences.	1

Table 1. Journals that articles were found in that were included in the review. **One additional study was unpublished outside of the academic institution.

Number of Studies by Research Design and Type of Research Question

    Studies found for review were overwhelmingly quasi-experimental by design with minimal quantitative data and a small amount of qualitative explanation. Many studies were conducted by the instructor in the classroom with basic research design and minimal controls for quality implemented. The studies utilized to answer each research question by the study research design include:

Research Questions	Quasi-Experimental	Qualitative Survey	Case Study
Q1: How effective is mobile AR for learner motivation: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Volition?	Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014 Chang, H.Y., Hsin-Kai, W., & Ying-Shao, H., 2013 Liou, H.H., Yang, S. J. H., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W., 2017	Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R., 2009 Cascales, A., Perez-Lopez, D., & Contero, M., 2013 Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013	Alvarez, V., Perez Perez, J. R., & de Freitas, S., 2016 Fotouhi-Ghazvini, F., Earnshaw, R. A., Robinson, D., Excell, P. S., 2009 Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008 Squire, K., 2010
Research Questions	Quasi-Experimental	Qualitative Survey	Case Study
Q2: What are the pitfalls of utilizing mobile AR for learning?	Di Serio, A., Ibanez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D., 2012	Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013
Q3: How effective is mobile AR for developing critical thinking skills?	Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014	Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R., 2009 Cascales, A., Perez-Lopez, D., & Contero, M., 2013 Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013	Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008 Reinders, H. & Lakarnchua, 2014 Squire, K., 2010
Q4: What pedagogical strategies are most effective [for motivation + CT]?	inquiry-based pedagogical methods
	Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014 Chang, H.Y., Hsin-Kai, W., & Ying-Shao, H., 2013 Liou, H.H., Yang, S. J. H., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W., 2017		Fotouhi-Ghazvini, F., Earnshaw, R. A., Robinson, D., Excell, P. S., 2009 Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008 Reinders, H. & Lakarnchua, 2014 Squire, K., 2010
	collaborative, problem-based methods
	Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014	Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013	Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008 Reinders, H. & Lakarnchua, 2014

Table 2. Studies utilized for the review organized by research question and study design type.

Research Questions of Key Features

In studies reviewed, learners studied:

• included ages from preschoolers to freshman in college
• from 7 different countries (2 were from USA)
• were studying many different subject areas (Science was cited 8 times)

With the popularity of commercial AR in the United States, I was surprised that the U.S. did not lead in the study of the educational application of AR. With the excitement over commercial augmented reality applications in the U.S., I thought that they would also lead in the integration and therefore study and reporting of the tool application too. A positive result represented by the below table is that learners of many age groups, countries, and subject areas benefited from the use of AR and related constructivist pedagogical strategy:

Study	Learner Age	Country/Region	Subject Area
Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014	4th graders	Taiwan	Natural science
Di Serio, A., Ibanez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D., 2012	Middle schoolers	Spain	Art
Chang, H.Y., Hsin-Kai, W., & Ying-Shao, H., 2013	9th graders	Taiwan	Nuclear energy and radiation (science)
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R., 2009	Middle and high schoolers	NE U.S.	Math, science, english
Cascales, A., Perez-Lopez, D., & Contero, M., 2013	Preschoolers	Spain	Reading and writing
Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013	2nd graders	Poland	Chemistry
Reinders, H., & Lakarnchua, O., 2014	Freshman college	Thailand	English language
Fotouhi-Ghazvini, F., Earnshaw, R. A., Robinson, D., Excell, P. S., 2009	Multiple K-12	UK	multiple
Alvarez, V., Perez Perez, J. R., & de Freitas, S., 2016	[not reported]	Spain	Environmental science
Liou, H.H., Yang, S. J. H., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W., 2017	4th Graders	Taiwan	Sciences
Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008	5th Graders; 8th Graders; and Primary students	Singapore	Zoo animals, illegal trade, habitats
Squire, K., 2010	7th Graders	WI, USA	Science, language arts, mathematics, and art together

Table 3. Studies and the learner grade, location of study, and the subject matter paired with mobile augmented reality for education.

Number of Studies by Type of Technology Used and Type of Learning Tasks

Characteristics of Studies on Research Question 1

How effective is mobile AR for learner motivation: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Volition?

An exciting outcome of the literature review, most studies found evidence of learner motivation as an outcome of the learning design (Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014; Chang, H.Y., Hsin-Kai, W., & Ying-Shao, H., 2013; Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R., 2009; Cascales, A., Perez-Lopez, D., & Contero, M., 2013; Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013; Fotouhi-Ghazvini, F., Earnshaw, R. A., Robinson, D., Excell, P. S., 2009; Alvarez, V., Perez Perez, J. R., & de Freitas, S., 2016; Liou, H.H., Yang, S. J. H., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W., 2017; Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008; Squire, K., 2010). As the majority of studies utilized constructivist curriculum design, it is uncertain whether the motivational effects are due to a specific affordance of the augmented reality technology or due to the pedagogical application.

Characteristics of Studies on Research Question 2

What are the pitfalls of utilizing mobile AR for learning?

Some studies found that the motivational effects were explained by mere excitement over the introduction of the AR technology (Di Serio, A., Ibanez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D., 2012; Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013). This is in alignment with previous research of the field: that excitement over use of the tool is external to the learner and not a consistent internally motivating addition to the learning experience. Studies that are more long range or with better internal controls could possibly help to clarify this effect.

Characteristics of Studies on Research Question 3

How effective is mobile AR for developing critical thinking skills?

Another promising outcome of the current literature review, seven out of twelve studies reviewed noted that critical thinking skills were present or strengthened by their study’s curriculum/design (Chang, H.Y., Hsin-Kai, W., & Ying-Shao, H., 2013; Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R., 2009; Cascales, A., Perez-Lopez, D., & Contero, M., 2013; Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013; Reinders, H., & Lakarnchua, O., 2014; Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008; Squire, K., 2010).

Characteristics of Studies on Research Question 4

What pedagogical strategies are most effective [for motivation + CT]?

The majority of studies utilized inquiry-based pedagogical methods (Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014; Chang, H.Y., Hsin-Kai, W., & Ying-Shao, H., 2013; Reinders, H., & Lakarnchua, O., 2014; Fotouhi-Ghazvini, F., Earnshaw, R. A., Robinson, D., Excell, P. S., 2009; Liou, H.H., Yang, S. J. H., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W., 2017; Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008; Squire, K., 2010).

Many studies utilized collaborative problem-based curriculum activities (Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014; Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013; Reinders, H., & Lakarnchua, O., 2014; Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008).

Quality of the Studies

While results of the literature review are promising, many studies were either quasi-experimental in study design or had no control group [or randomization] to compare and validate results internally (Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014; Di Serio, A., Ibanez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D., 2012; Chang, H.Y., Hsin-Kai, W., & Ying-Shao, H., 2013; Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C., 2013; Reinders, H., & Lakarnchua, O., 2014; Alvarez, V., Perez Perez, J. R., & de Freitas, S., 2016; Liou, H.H., Yang, S. J. H., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W., 2017; Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008; Squire, K., 2010).

In this review, the studies:

• included primarily case studies (4) or quasi-experimental (5) study design
• included 2 research studies that utilized survey for data collection
• typically utilized a pretest/posttest design for assessment
• sample (N) size ranged from 22 to 69 participants

Summary of the Findings

There is a connection of the development of critical thinking skills to learner motivation.

There is a connection between constructivist curriculum methods and the utilization of mobile AR for learning, in many different settings and with many different learner types.

Conclusion and Discussion

Inquiry-based methods and collaborative problem-based activities are effective curriculum strategies for successful mobile AR tool integration.Learner motivation was found as a significant outcome for most of studies reviewed. Two studies concluded that learner motivation was due to the excitement about the AR tool, and not from the pedagogical methods applied. Development in critical thinking skills was found by several of the studies to be strengthened.

Studies in this literature review were either quasi-experimental in study design or had no control group [or randomization] to compare and validate results internally: therefore research is needed in this area that utilizes further controls for internal validity, which will also strengthen the ability to externally validate and apply findings.

Several studies cited challenges to utilizing mobile AR including errors with software (Reinders, H., & Lakarnchua, O., 2014; Alvarez, V., Perez Perez, J. R., & de Freitas, S., 2016), errors with hardware (Alvarez, V., Perez Perez, J. R., & de Freitas, S., 2016), a high cognitive load (Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G., 2014; Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008), a lack of teamwork (Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008), and low technological literacy (Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K., 2008).

Recommendations for Future Research

One future direction for research suggested by researchers is the integration of wearable devices with AR for education (Alvarez, Perez Perez, & de Freitas, 2016). Wearable devices such as smartglasses or smartwatches are just the beginning of wearable devices that are expected to create more immersive experiences in conjunction with augmented reality. For example, by using wearable devices such as smartglasses, this either frees the learner’s hands or brings the visual experience right in front of the eyes [with retina control of the interface] so that the augmented reality elements and controls blend even more seamlessly into the real world.

Picture 4. Examples of smartglasses.

Other researchers Wojciechowski and Wojciech (2013) suggest 3D games with augmented reality as a future direction for research based on the success of their case study. With the success of commercial 3D games such as PokemonGo, it is a natural step to evaluate whether this immersive technology’s location and game-based affordances can be harnessed for educational purposes.

Recommendations for Future Practice

    Several factors for future practice in the classroom result from this systematic literature review. The first consideration for educators and designers is to first evaluate if the augmented reality tool will add any affordances or new learning opportunities for learners, rather than just introducing a cool new tool. Mobile augmented reality is possible with many subject and learner types, but careful planning must be conducted before trying a new tool. Another finding of this review for practice is that constructivist learning designs, such as inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, or game-based learning, are great when paired with augmented reality technology. Educators should conduct thorough planning for technical errors and scaffolding for low technological literacy in learners that could hinder the learning experience.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies in the literature review.

Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X16300616

*Alvarez, V., Perez Perez, J. R., & de Freitas, S. (2016). Ariane: A web-based and mobile tool to guide the design of augmented reality activities. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309486381_Ariane_A_Web-Based_and_Mobile_Tool_to_Guide_the_Design_of_Augmented_Reality_Learning_Activities

Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133-149. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/17_4/9.pdf

*Cascales, A., Perez-Lopez, D., & Contero, M. (2013). Study on parents' acceptance of the augmented reality use for preschool education. Procedia Computer Science, 25, 420-427. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.053

*Chang, H.Y., Hsin-Kai, W., & Ying-Shao, H. (2013). Integrating a mobile augmented reality activity to contextualize student learning of a socioscientific issue. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 95-99.

*Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students' learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352-365. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/tc/accept?origin=/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.17.4.352.pdf

*Di Serio, A., Ibanez, M. B., Kloos, C. D. (2012). Impact of an augmented reality system on students' motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586-596. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512000590

Dunleavy, M. (2014). Design principles for augmented reality learning. Tech Trends, 58(1), 28-34. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-013-0717-2

*Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84.

FitzGerald, E., Ferguson, R., Adams, A., Gaved, M., Mor, Y., & Thomas, R. (2013). Augmented reality and mobile learning: the state of the art. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 5(4), 43-58.

*Fotouhi-Ghazvini, F., Earnshaw, R. A., Robinson, D., Excell, P.S. (2009). Designing augmented reality games for mobile learning using an instructional-motivational paradigm. IEEE International Conference on CyberWorlds, 312-319. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5279554/#full-text-section

Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4),449–455.

Halpern, D. F. (2001) Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of General Education, 50(4), 270–286.

Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical thinking: A literature review. Research report. Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.thinkwatson.com/wp-content/uploads/CriticalThinkingReviewFINAL.pdf

*Liou, H.H., Yang, S. J. H., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W. (2017). The influences of the 2D image-based augmented reality and virtual reality on student learning. Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 110-121. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/download_pdf.php?j_id=77&a_id=1834

National Education Association. An Educator’s Guide to the “Four Cs”. Preparing 21st Century Students for a Global Society. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf

*Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K. (2008). AR gone wild: two approaches to using augmented reality learning games in Zoos. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on International conference for the learning sciences. International Society of the Learning Sciences, 3, 322-329. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/marleigh/www/portfolio/Files/argonewild.pdf

*Reinders, H., & Lakarnchua, O. (2014). Implementing mobile language learning with an augmented reality activity. Modern English Teacher, 23(2), 42-46. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.365619888&site=eds-live

*Squire, K. (2010). From information to experience: Place-based augmented reality games as a model for learning in a globally networked society. Retrieved from http://www.litmedmod.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/squire_2010_technologies_realite_augmentee.pdf

Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410–441.

*Wojciechowski, R., & Wojciech, C. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, 68, 570-585. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131513000535