Smartglasses as Assistive Tools for Undergraduate and Introductory STEM Laboratory Courses
Learning is known to be a highly individual process affected by learners’ individual previous experience and self-directed action. Especially during laboratory courses in university science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, all channels of knowledge construction become relevant: students have to match their theoretical background with experimental hands-on experience, leading to an intensive interaction between theory and experiment. Realizing augmented reality scenarios with see-through smartglasses allows to display information directly in the user’s field of view and creates a wearable educational technology, providing learners with active access to various kinds of additional information while keeping their hands free. The framework presented here describes the use of augmented reality learning environments in introductory STEM laboratory courses aiming to provide students additional information and real-time feedback while sustaining their autonomy and the authenticity of their action. Based on principles of the cognitive-affective theory of learning with media (CATLM), we hypothesize that this tool can structure students’ hands-on experiences and guides their attention to cue points of knowledge construction.
KeywordsSmartglasses Augmented reality Cognitive load Split-attention effect STEM laboratory courses
Support from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) via the projects Be-greifen and gLabAssist is gratefully acknowledged.
- AAPT. (2014). AAPT recommendations for the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum. Report prepared by a Subcommittee of the AAPT Committee on Laboratories Endorsed by the AAPT Executive Board.Google Scholar
- 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, 133–149.Google Scholar
- Baumeister, J., Ssin, S. Y., ElSayed, N. A. M., Dorrian, J., Webb, D. P., Walsh, J. A., Simon, T. M., Irlitti, A., Smith, R. T., Kohler, M., & Thomas, B. H. (2017). Cognitive cost of using augmented reality displays. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(11), 2378–2388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brown, D. E., & Hammer, D. (2013). Conceptual change in physics. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., Reid, S., & LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 1, 010103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fujimoto, Y., Yamamoto, G., Kato, H., & Miyazaki, J. (2012). Relation between location of information displayed by augmented reality and user’s memorization. In Proceedings of the 3rd Augmented Human International Conference, AH 12, 7:1–7:8, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Google LLC. (2018). https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.translate. Accessed 27 Apr 2018.
- Hockett, P., & Ingleby, T. (2016). Augmented reality with hololens: Experiential architectures embedded in the real world, Authorea. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.148821660.05483993.
- Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (2018). https://itunes.apple.com/de/app/ikea-place/id1279244498.
- Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
- Klein, P., Kuhn, J., Müller, A., & Gröber, S. (2015). Video analysis exercises in regular introductory mechanics physics courses: Effects of conventional methods and possibilities of mobile devices. In W. Schnotz, A. H. Kauertz, A. M. Ludwig, & J. Pretsch (Eds.), Multidisciplinary research on teaching and learning (pp. 270–288). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Lin, H.-C. K., Hsieh, M.-C., Wang, C.-H., Sie, Z.-Y., & Chang, S.-H. (2011). Establishment and usability evaluation of an interactive ar learning system on conservation of fish. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 181–187.Google Scholar
- Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2005). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell, N. G. Lederman (Eds.) Handbook of research on science education. Taylor & Francis, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R. E. (Ed.). (2014a). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329.Google Scholar
- Moreno, R. (2005). Instructional technology: Promise and pitfalls. In Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Munnerley, D., Bacon, M., Wilson, A., Steele, J., Hedberg, J., & Fitzgerald, R. (2012). Confronting an augmented reality. Research in learning technology, ALT-C 2012 Conference Proceedings, 0154.Google Scholar
- Muñoz-Cristóbal, J. A., Jorrín-AbellÁn, I. M., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Martínez-Monés, A., Prieto, L. P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2015). Supporting teacher orchestration in ubiquitous learning environments: A study in primary education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2014). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Palmerius, K. L., & Schönborn, K. (2016). Visualization of heat transfer using projector-based spatial augmented reality (pp. 407–417). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
- Sandor, C., Fuchs, M., Cassinelli, Á., Li, H., Newcombe, R. A., Yamamoto, G., & Feiner, S. K. (2015). Breaking the barriers to true augmented reality. CoRR, abs/1512.05471. arXiv:1512.05471Google Scholar
- Schmalstieg, D., & Höllerer, T. (2016). Augmented reality: Principles and practice. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
- Schreiber, N., Theyßen, H., & Schecker, H. (2012). Experimental competencies in science: A comparison of assessment tools. In C. Brugière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), Proceedings of the ESERA 2011 Conference, Lyon.Google Scholar
- Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell: ACER Press.Google Scholar
- Theyßen, H., Schecker, H., Gut, C., Hopf, M., Kuhn, J., Labudde, P., Müller, A., Schreiber, N., & Vogt, P. (2014). Modeling and assessing experimental competencies in physics. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), Topics and trends in current science education: 9th ESERA Conference Selected Contributions, Contributions from Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Vollmer, M., & Möllmann, K.-P. (2013). Infrared thermal imaging. Weinheim: Wiley.Google Scholar