Applying a Repertory Grid-Oriented Mindtool to Developing a Knowledge Construction Augmented Reality Mobile Learning System

  • Hui-Chun ChuEmail author
Living reference work entry


In the past decade, a number of augmented reality (AR) systems have been developed. However, it is still not certain whether this new learning scenario is beneficial to students in a context-aware ubiquitous learning environment. In this study, a repertory grid-oriented mobile knowledge construction augmented reality learning system (ARMKC) was developed for context-aware ubiquitous learning. This learning module integrated a repertory grid-oriented Mindtool and AR technology to facilitate students’ observation of the learning targets, completion of the knowledge construction process, and organization of what they had learned during the u-learning process. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, an experiment was conducted on a natural science course to probe the feasibility of the proposed learning strategy in comparison with learning strategies of different learning systems. The results reveal that the proposed approach can facilitate the acquisition of conceptions by using a repertory grid-oriented Mindtool to construct knowledge; moreover, incorporating AR technology had a potential positive effect on the learning achievements of the students in comparison with the conventional approach.​ Such findings offer good references for those who intend to integrate Mindtools and augmented reality techniques in designing context-aware u-learning systems for mobile learning environments.


Augmented reality Repertory grid Mindtool Context-aware ubiquitous learning Cognitive load 


  1. Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3–15. Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chiang, T. H. C., Yang, S. J. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 352–365.Google Scholar
  7. Chu, H. C. (2014). Potential negative effects of mobile learning on students’ learning achievement and cognitive load – A format assessment perspective. Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 332–344.Google Scholar
  8. Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2010a). A knowledge engineering approach to developing mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 54(1), 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Huang, S. X., & Wu, T. T. (2008). A knowledge engineering approach to developing e-libraries for mobile learning. Electronic Library, 26(3), 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Tseng, J. C. R. (2010b). A two-tier test approach to developing location-aware mobile learning systems for natural science courses. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1618–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32, Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C. and 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, Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Earnshaw, R. A., & Vince, J. A. (2008). Digital convergence – Libraries of the future. London: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  14. Fonseca, D., Martí, N., Redondo, E., Navarro, L., & Sánchez, A. (2014). Relationship between student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with the use of augmented reality technology for visualized architecture models. Computers in Human Behavior, 31(1), 434–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoppe, H. U., Joiner, R., Milrad, M., & Sharples, M. (2003). Guest editorial: wireless and mobile technologies in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 255–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2010). Development of a reading material recommendation system based on a knowledge engineering approach. Computers & Education, 55, 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang, Y. M., Lin, Y. T., & Cheng, S. C. (2009). An adaptive testing system for supporting versatile educational assessment. Computers & Education, 52(1), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hwang, G. J. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments-a context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1(4), 1–14.Google Scholar
  19. Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., & Ke, H. R. (2011). An interactive concept map approach to supporting mobile learning activities for natural science courses. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2272–2280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., Zhuang, Y. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2013). Effects of the inquiry-based mobile learning model on the cognitive load and learning achievement of students. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(4), 338–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ibáñez, M. B., Serio, A. D., Villarán, D., & Kloos, C. D. (2014). Experimenting with electromagnetism using augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and educational effectiveness. Computers & Education, 71(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jee, H. K., Lim, S., Youn, J., & Lee, J. (2014). An augmented reality-based authoring tool for E-learning applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 68(2), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual difference, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Jorge, M. G. M., & Fernández, D. M. (2014). Augmented reality environments in learning, communicational and professional contexts in higher education. Digital Education Review, 26, 22–34.Google Scholar
  25. Kye, B., & Kim, Y. (2008). Investigation of the relationships between media characteristics, presence, flow, and learning effects in augmented reality based learning augmented reality. International Journal, 2(1), 4–14.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, C. H. M., Cheng, Y. W., Rai, S., & Depickere, A. (2005). What Affect Student Cognitive Style in the Development of Hypermedia Learning System?. Computers & Education, 45(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin, T. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Innovative technology-assisted science learning in Taiwan. In M. H. Chiu (Ed.), Science education research and practices in Taiwan: Challenges and opportunities. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Lin, T. J., Duh, H. B. L., Li, N., Wang, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). An investigation of students’ collaborative knowledge construction performances and behavior patterns in an augmented reality simulation system. Computers & Education, 68(1), 314–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H. J., Chen, W., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McLellan, H. (1993). Evaluation in a situated learning environment. Educational Technology, 33(3), 39–45.Google Scholar
  31. Oltman, P., Raskin, E., & Witkin, H. A. (1971). Embedded figures tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.Google Scholar
  32. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paas, F. G. W. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The sage handbook of Elearning research (pp. 221–247). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sommerauer, P., & Müller, O. (2014). Augmented reality in informal learning environments: A field experiment in a mathematics exhibition. Computers & Education, 79, 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tan, T. H., Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2009). Outdoor natural science learning with an RFID-supported immersive ubiquitous learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 161–175.Google Scholar
  38. Tutwiler, S., & Dede, C. (2013). EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Computers & Education, 68, 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang, H. Y., Duh, H. B. L., Li, N., Lin, T. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). An investigation of University students’ collaborative inquiry learning behaviors in an augmented reality simulation and a traditional simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 682–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wei, X. D., Weng, D. D., Liu, Y., & Wang, Y. T. (2015). Augmented reality in education – Cases, places and potentials. Computers & Education, 81(1), 221–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Reviews of Educational Research, 47, 1–64.Google Scholar
  42. Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2011). ‘What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning?’, A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang, B. H., Looi, C. K., Wong, L. H., Seow, P., Chia, G., & Chen, W. L. (2010). Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1504–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information ManagementSoochow UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations