You are here:

Applied Technological Innovations for Learning: User Perceptions of an Augmented Reality Tutorial on DNA Molecular Modeling
PROCEEDING

, , Texas Tech University, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, United States Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

Information presented in this paper highlights the potential benefits of using computer-based augmented reality (AR) in teaching instructional content in STEM courses. Questionnaire data was collected from a random sample of undergraduate and graduate students who participated in the study. Students were required to complete an instructional tutorial on DNA molecules which included basic information about DNA molecules and presented 3-dimensional models of molecules described in the tutorial. Students completed a comprehensive test at the end of the tutorial and then completed a feedback questionnaire. Results from the questionnaire are presented and reveal several salient findings about the students' perceptions of the instructional AR tutorial on DNA molecules.

Citation

Safadel, P. & White, D. (2016). Applied Technological Innovations for Learning: User Perceptions of an Augmented Reality Tutorial on DNA Molecular Modeling. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 1264-1269). Washington, DC, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 9, 2019 from .

© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alessi, S.M., & Trollip, S.R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and development (3rd Ed.). Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA.
  2. Bokyung, K. (2009). Investigation on the Relationships among Media Characteristics, Presence, Flow, and Learning Effects in Augmented Reality Based Learning. In P.A. Bruck (Ed.), Multimedia and E-Content Trends (pp. 21–37). Vieweg+Teubner. Retrieved from
  3. Corlett, D., Sharples, M., Bull, S., & Chan, T. (2005). Evaluation of a mobile learning organiser for university students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 162–170.
  4. Draper, S.W., & Brown, M.I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81–94.
  5. Dunleavy, M. (2014). Design principles for augmented reality learning. TechTrends, 58(1), 28–34.
  6. Hecht, D., & Reiner, M. (2006). Field dependency and the sense of object-presence in haptic virtual environments. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 243–251.
  7. Honebein, P.C., Duffy, T.M., & Fishman, B.J. (1993). Constructivism and the design of learning environments: Context and authentic activities for learning. In Designing environments for constructive learning (pp. 87–108). Springer. Retrieved from
  8. Mohler, J.L. (2009). A review of spatial ability research. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 72(2). Retrieved from http://www.edgj.org/index.php/EDGJ/article/view/49 Oliver, R. (2006). Exploring a technology-facilitated solution to cater for advanced students in large undergraduate classes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(1), 1–12.
  9. Palincsar, A.S. (2005). 12 Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. An Introduction to Vygotsky, 285.
  10. Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: a critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 83–94.
  11. Shelton, B.E., & Hedley, N.R. (2004). Exploring a cognitive basis for learning spatial relationships with augmented reality. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(4), 323.
  12. Smaldino, S.E., Lowther, D.L. & Russell, J.D. (2011). Instructional technology and media for learning (10 edition.). Pearson.
  13. Snow, R.E. (1999). Commentary: Expanding the breadth and depth of admissions testing. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-08061-009 Takacs, G., Chandrasekhar, V., Gelfand, N., Xiong, Y., Chen, W.-C., Bismpigiannis, T., … Girod, B. (2008). Outdoors augmented reality on mobile phone using loxel-based visual feature organization. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM international conference on Multimedia information retrieval (pp. 427–434). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1460165
  14. Wagner, D., & Schmalstieg, D. (2009). Making augmented reality practical on mobile phones, part 1. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 29(3), 12–15.
  15. Wagner, D., Pintaric, T., Ledermann, F., & Schmalstieg, D. (2005). Towards massively multi-user augmented reality on handheld devices. In Proc. 3rd Int’l Conference on Pervasive Computing, Munich, Germany
  16. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817.
  17. Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87–114.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read