Article

Journal of Educational Computing

Mixed Reality in Research

0(0) 1–31
! The Author(s) 2018
Science Education as Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
a Learning Support: DOI: 10.1177/0735633118757017
journals.sagepub.com/home/jec
A Revitalized
Science Book

Cathy Weng1, Abirami Rathinasabapathi1,

Apollo Weng2, and Cindy Zagita1

Abstract
This study aimed to explore whether the integration of virtual reality and augmented
reality used in a specially designed science book could improve the students’ science
concept learning outcomes. A true experimental research design was conducted
to check the effectiveness of the specially designed book in terms of learners’
achievement. The sample for this study consisted of 80 fifth-grade students, divided
into a control and an experimental group. The results revealed that using mixed
reality (augmented reality and virtual reality) as a learning supplement to the printed
book could improve students’ learning outcomes, particularly for low spatial ability
students. Finally, recommendations for future practices and research are discussed.

Keywords
augmented reality, virtual reality, mixed reality, learning outcomes, spatial ability

1
Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
2
Department of Digital Multimedia Design, China University of Technology, Taiwan
Corresponding Author:
Abirami Rathinasabapathi, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, No. 43, Section 4,
Keelung Rd, Da’an District, Taipei 106, Taiwan.
Email: [email protected]
2 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Introduction
Access to advanced technology devices such as laptops, iPads, and mobile
phones has changed the world and affected not only adults’ ways of reading
and learning but also those of children. Technology keeps students focused and
extended and builds their excitement to learn further, particularly in the science
and mathematics subjects. Therefore, the inclusion of technology and computers
in teaching and learning has been beneficial by making it easier for learners to
keep up with the materials while assisting teachers by illuminating the ways in
which lessons can be arranged and taught. According to Johnstone (1991), the
difficulties of science learning arise from the Nature of Science itself. For
instance, a poor understanding of the earth–sun relationship in introductory
classes might lead to inaccurate understanding when students encounter more
advanced environmental concepts. When studying the concept of the relation-
ship between the earth and sun, learners have difficulties making abstract visual
connections between the position and tilt of the earth, the revolution of the sun,
the rotation of the earth, solar and lunar eclipses, and the daily and seasonal
conditions on earth (Shelton & Hedley, 2002). In the field of educational
research, increasing efforts have been made to explore how advanced technology
applications could support science learning and teaching. Studies in science
classrooms have pointed out that the integration of technologies has had posi-
tive impacts on student learning outcomes, specifically in the understanding of
scientific theories (Dani & Koenig, 2008; Schroeder, Scott, Tolson, Huang, &
Lee, 2007; Songer, 2007).
Recently, using visual models such as pictures, diagrams, and animations in
science learning has been increasing because of its complex concepts. In the past,
some instructors attempted to use real 3D objects or materials available in the
classroom to enhance the learning process of science concepts, while children
followed along reading their science-printed books. Many scientific phenomena
are challenging to study through direct observations; hence, the learners might
sense that the ideas are tough to understand. Indeed, some scientific ideas are
abstract and students cannot imagine the real occurrences. Previously, Shelton
and Hedley (2002) reported the usage of 3D objects such as holding an orange or a
flashlight (which represents the sun) in one hand and an apple impaled on a pencil
(earth with axis) in the other. In their study, however, what the students saw was
still just an apple and a pencil or an orange. However, instructors have assumed
that students can understand how relative position along the path of revolution
interacts with the tilt of the earth’s axis and the effect when illuminated by the sun
from their visualization. Until now, some educational instructors have rarely
matched the concepts of science with students’ experiences (Fusco, 2001); learners
still struggle to match the visual models with the science concepts.
Technology advancement and initiation of new teaching ways have made
some methodologies outdated, so they are not accurately adapted to the current
Weng et al. 3

trends. Instructional methods must progress and adapt to innovative technolo-

gies that students are used to so that their learning will benefit. Instructors need
multiple strategies to teach science concepts in the classroom, and among those,
finding an effective strategy is the most significant challenge for science teachers
today, as they need to be aware of the implementation of these strategies for
learners’ better understanding of intellectual concepts. Curricula and instruc-
tional strategies are the methods mainly used in science classrooms to teach
better. The existing curricula and instructional materials are generally not well
planned to help improve the students’ knowledge. For instance, textbooks are
more likely to instruct students in how to do something than to support their
understanding of the conditions under which doing it will be useful (Simon,
1980). Thus, it is understood that teaching based on the textbooks alone is
not enough for students to completely understand the complex phenomena.
According to Gilakjani (2012), most students at an early age learn best by
seeing the meaning (value) and the importance of the information with visual-
ization through some illustrations (pictures). Through the execution and inte-
gration of advanced technologies into the classroom environment, learners can
have new realistic and open learning experiences. Further, the learning through
visual simulations is a cognitive process, which involves a variety of mental
processes as explained in the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer,
2002). Among these modern advanced technologies, virtual reality (VR) and
augmented reality (AR) are two examples that we can find in our classrooms
today. With mixed reality (MR), learners can control their learning by manip-
ulating objects which are not real in an augmented environment to achieve
understanding and knowledge. They can pool the benefits from a combination
of theoretical and practical learning with 3D virtual elements from MR appli-
cations. In addition, nowadays the popularity of VR and AR is supported by the
success of the current advancements in mobile devices and can be implemented
on them to allow users to use the applications easily.
Even though MR is usually more interesting than the 2D images in the
printed book, it is still unclear about the effects of MR on learning outcomes.
Moreover, as not so many research studies have been performed on the effects of
MR on students’ science learning, the aim of the current research was to inte-
grate VR and AR and apply this technology in developing learning supplements
for science educational materials about solar and lunar eclipses. The combin-
ation of VR and AR also enhances the students’ understanding since it can
effortlessly transfer 2D images into 3D, which then provides a sufficient level
of realism. Visual-spatial skills are of great significance for achievement in resol-
ving many tasks in daily life and are one of the most considered skills in the field
of human cognition. Logically, students who have high spatial ability tend to
have a better interpretation of the process of solar and lunar eclipses presented
in traditional reading materials, but it does not rule out the possibility that they
also need MR to enhance their imagination to give them a clearer image of the
4 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

process. Besides, students with low spatial abilities need some appealing learning
approaches. This can be achieved by providing more interesting visual aids or
instructional supports to enhance their learning outcomes. Further, previous
studies have also shown that spatial presence, social presence, authenticity,
engagement, and emotiveness are key factors in the situational interest of stu-
dents, not only in the context of a traditional classroom (Gregory, Bruning, &
Svoboda, 1995; Schraw, Flowerday, & Lehman, 2001) but also in the context of
a multimedia e-learning environment (Cho, Yim, & Paik, 2015; Sun & Rueda,
2012). According to Münzer (2012), the realistic and dynamic 3D visualization
in an MR system creates spatial understanding for learners, including for those
with low spatial recognition ability. As a result, MR supports learning process
by allowing the individuals to be engaged mentally and it develops interest in
low spatial ability learners. Thus, it is believed that this technology might be
particularly useful for students with low spatial ability in their learning while
picturing science-related diagrams.
Further, in this article, we discuss the effect of those learning materials on
students with high and low spatial abilities and compare them. Hence, we hope
that with the integration of VR and AR (MR), students’ understanding of solar
and lunar eclipses will be enhanced. Moreover, we believed that it would also
improve the students’ science learning outcomes. It was hoped that MR could
solve the difficulties of understanding science concepts. By redesigning the learn-
ing material, it could also help to solve some of the learners’ problems of lack of
interest in science concept learning as well as their achievement. Since most
studies have found the effect of advanced technologies on learning interest,
the focus of the current study was on its effect on learning achievement; this
achievement was then further divided into different levels.

Research Questions
The research questions for this study are as follows:

RQ1: What is the effect of 3D animated mixed reality on the learning outcomes of
the experimental and control groups?
RQ2: Are there any differences in the learning outcomes of the two groups with
different spatial abilities (students with high vs. low spatial ability)?

Related Literature
The following sections overview the fields of VR, AR, MR, spatial ability, and
science learning. This quick overview presents a synthesis of the major foci of
interest of the combination of the two fields (VR and AR) of study and their
perception of science learning.
Weng et al. 5

Virtual Reality
VR is a way to allow the users to interact in real time with 3D spaces generated
by computers (Kirner, Cerqueira, & Kirner, 2012). Stronge (2010) described that
VR makes the learning conditions more interesting and fun since it can enhance
users’ attitudes and attention. This was also confirmed by Piovesan, Passerino,
and Pereira (2012) in their study which found that VR can facilitate the visual-
ization and interaction of impossible things, for example: exploring a planet like
Mars, traveling inside the human body, performing submarine explorations of
deep-sea caves, or interacting with very small objects such as molecules. Hence,
students using VR will be more focused on science learning because they can
experience an immersive environment (Roussou, Oliver, & Slater, 2006).
Previously, educational research on VR was conducted mainly in the area of
sciences (Annetta, Mangrum, Holmes, Collazo, & Cheng, 2009; Cai, Lu, Zheng,
& Li, 2006; Chen, Yang, Shen, & Jeng, 2007). In addition, VR study has also
paid specific attention to mathematics, for instance, the calculation of volume
(Hwang & Hu, 2013).
There are many advantages of applying VR in education. According to
Pantelidis (1995), VR delivers new forms and methods of visualization and its
representations in education. Further, it improves the presentation of material
and motivates students’ interaction through their active participation.
Furthermore, VR allows the disabled to participate in the learning environment
(Pantelidis, 2009). The other major advantage of using VR in teaching is that it
is highly motivating. In addition, it can explain some features and processes
more precisely. Moreover, it gives students the opportunity to understand new
perspectives. The participant who interacts with the virtual environment is
inspired and continues interacting by looking at the results instantly. VR also
provides an opportunity for the learner to make discoveries of previously
unknown phenomena. Therefore, it is important that instructional designers
make accurate decisions in the design and development of instructional mater-
ials utilizing VR technologies (Merchant, Goetz, Cifuentes, Keeney-Kennicutt,
& Davis, 2014). Thus, VR was used in this study to help describe a complicated
set of concepts or theories to the students.

Augmented Reality
AR is a technology which allows users to combine real-life sensory experiences
with digital environment perceptions. It combines human senses with virtual
objects to facilitate real-world environment interactions, enabling users to
achieve an authentic perception of the virtual environment (Azuma, 1997). It
has been reported that AR can possibly be used in connection with educational
research (Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell, 2009). Martı́n-Gutiérrez et al. (2010)
designed an augmented book with image-based codes for spatial ability
6 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

development of engineering students. They found that AR’s implementation in

the classroom improved the learning process, students’ motivation, and eased
the teacher’s workload. Moreover, Lin, Hsieh, Wang, Sie, and Chang (2011)
developed an interactive image-based AR learning system on the conservation of
fish. When users are engaged with this environment, they feel separated from the
real world and learn better (Freitas & Campos, 2008). Therefore, a study has
used AR to support teaching and learning, some of which have shown that AR
technology provides many benefits when used in educational situations (Cheng
& Tsai, 2013). The greatest challenges educators face when using AR is how to
increase learning motivation by enhancing the students’ sensory experiences.
The most important aspect is the interaction between the student and the learn-
ing content. An earlier study has indicated that this type of interaction increased
students’ cognitive learning abilities, such as comprehension, memory, and
imagination (Dalgarno, 2004).
Similar to VR, the application of AR has provided benefits in many fields,
including education. Besides improvements in reading comprehension, AR has
shown its potential to increase students’ interest in learning (Balog & Pribeanu,
2010; Pribeanu, Balog, & Iordache, 2008). This tool can be a valuable learning
support in the educational field since it is well aligned with the constructivist
learning theory (Martı́n-Gutiérrez et al., 2010).

Mixed Reality
MR is defined as the space in which virtual worlds such as 3D computer graphics
images and animations are merged with the real world (Cheok, Haller,
Fernando, & Wijesena, 2009; Milgram & Kishino, 1994). Generally, in real
applications, MR can be created in many ways; for instance, it is possible to
create meeting spaces that are half physical and half virtual. MR has been
implemented and investigated in earlier studies (Gardner, Scott, & Horan,
2008; Müller & Ferreira, 2003; Tolentino, Birchfield, & Kelliher, 2009).
Specifically, the application of MR simulation in the educational field has
been examined in depth by many researchers (Hoffmann, Meisen, & Jeschke,
2014; Johnson-Glenberg, Birchfield, Tolentino, & Koziupa, 2014; Lindgren,
Tscholl, Wang, & Johnson, 2016; Tscholl & Lindgren, 2016). Nikolakis,
Fergadis, Tzovaras, and Strintzis (2004) proposed an MR system which consists
of a virtual environment for creating 3D objects that allow interaction with the
virtual geometric objects, and their results showed that MR can help to solve
geometric problems efficiently.
Research has found that MR has characteristics that are especially suitable
for immersion and interactivity. However, learning through entertainment is
also a vital consideration in promoting students’ outcomes. Thus, introducing
MR technology such as tangible interaction, 3D display, attractive graphics, and
animations into the education field can attain a better quality learning
Weng et al. 7

environment. It has been said that the introduction of MR devices greatly

enhances people’s knowledge of the real world (Helle, Lehtonen, Woodward,
Turunen, & Salmi, 2017), as it is a collaboration which allows remote groups to
perceive exactly what someone is employed with in real time and it characterizes
a new and digital experience in classrooms. Past studies have examined the user
experience of a 3D MR-integrated classroom, revealing that the sense of immer-
sion in these classrooms encourages engagement and improves the teaching
practice (Aleshia, Carrie, Lisa, Charlie, & Michael, 2013; Hayes, Hardin, &
Hughes, 2013). MR helps with learning by freeing up working memory for
things that matter, thus increasing students’ focus. MR devices encourage
engagement via moving, walking, glancing, gesturing, and voicing in a natural
and spontaneous way. It has been found that MR technology is extremely useful
for the people who are not naturally good at spatial reasoning (Cheng, 2016).

Spatial Ability
Carroll (1993) described spatial ability as ‘‘an ability in manipulating visual
patterns, as indicated by the level of difficulty and complexity in visual stimulus
material that can be handled successfully without regard to the speed of task
solution’’ (p. 362). It is one of the essential skills required to understand what
one visualizes. It is asserted that Intelligence Quotient tests measure only the
linguistic and logical intelligences, which were the only intelligences valued in
schools (Gardner, 1993). Since Intelligence Quotient test scores, however, are
not enough to predict the performance of someone’s future success, Gardner
divided human intelligence into eight types, one of them being spatial ability.
According to Carroll (1993), the spatial ability is the ability of manipulating
visual patterns in visual stimulus material. Learners’ perspectives on different
spatial abilities could affect their understanding of the learning concepts in sci-
ence and their interpretation of graphs and pictures.

Spatial Ability and Science Learning

Spatial thinking seems to be central to several scientific domains. For example,
an astronomer must imagine the structure of a solar system and the motions of
the substances in it. Therefore, spatial thinking is essential to progress the ability
to discover and visualize real-world actions. Spatial ability encourages a lifelong
interest among learners. Printed books that contained 2D images can foster
children’s interest in reading and promote better understanding, but it is still
challenging, especially for children with low spatial ability. In another study,
researchers found that spatial ability is one of the most studied abilities in the
field of human cognition (Martı́n-Gutierrez, Trujillo, & Acosta-Gonzalez, 2013).
Further, spatial ability is mainly predictive of higher level achievements and
creative accomplishments (Kell, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2013). It has
8 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

also been suggested that spatial abilities might be more significant at the initial
stages of learning science, with specific strategies and theoretical knowledge
being more important at later stages (Uttal & Cohen, 2012). Orion, Ben-
Chaim, and Kali (1997) found in their study that students’ spatial abilities
improved learning much as an outcome. Spatial ability is especially important
in science learning and must be improved because students need to use their
imaginations to learn the space concepts. For instance, in the case of learning
about solar and lunar eclipses, every student should attempt to use their spatial
abilities and senses to understand the relationships between and properties of
those abstract objects. According to Giaquinto (2007), the perception of an
object or an image can be extremely affected by the object orientation, and it
can affect how people recognize an object or image. Therefore, it means that low
spatial ability students will more likely lack focus and need a visual mediator to
assist them in understanding the information (Stanney & Salvendy, 1995).
Hoffler (2010) stated that learners with low spatial ability need to be sup-
ported by a dynamic stimulus such as 3D visualization. Another researcher,
Hays (1996), could not find a significant aptitude-treatment-interaction effect
to support this statement, but he showed that low spatial ability participants
are helped by animations combined with text, which made significantly greater
progress than those receiving either static pictures plus text or text only.
Therefore, instructors need some solutions to increase reading comprehension
for students with low spatial ability using supportive visual aids.

Method
Participants and Procedure
The study sample consisted of 80 volunteer fifth graders (44 female and 36 male
students) from elementary schools in Indonesia. They ranged in age from 9 to 11
years old. Fifth graders were recruited since the solar and lunar eclipse lessons
are introduced in the fifth-grade level of elementary education in most Asian
curricula. All participants had excellent English skills. They were given a consent
form before using the books, and only data from participants who consented
were collected and analyzed. The participants were randomly divided into two
groups: the experimental and control groups. For the experimental group, the
participants read the printed book with the integration of MR (AR and VR)
technologies. Meanwhile, students in the control group used the printed book
only. Similarly, the participants were analyzed and separated into high and low
spatial ability groups. Group placement was determined by spatial ability test
scores.
The experiment with each student was conducted in English. Each participant
took part in three steps of the experiment as indicated in Figure 1. The first is a
pretest where the students were given a spatial ability test, the Revised Purdue
Weng et al. 9

Figure 1. Structure of the data analysis.

Spatial Visualization Test: Visualization of Rotations (Revised PSVT: R). In the

analysis, the first top 10 students were selected (25%) from the spatial ability test
results and were considered as the high spatial ability group (score  8), and the
bottom 10 students (25%) were considered as the low spatial ability group
(score  4).
A total of 10 minutes was allowed for students to complete the test. They were
given the recommended time limit for each test and were not allowed to start the
next test until the allocated time for the previous test had expired. Students were
also allowed 20 minutes to complete the science test (Solar and Lunar
Knowledge) to gather their prior knowledge of the topic.

Instruments
The second step introduced the tool and mission of the learning activity, which
took about 5 minutes. The study then continued with the real treatment where
students in the experimental group were asked to read the book with the MR
applications from the contents and curriculum of the Harcourt Science book
(Frank et al., 2002). Students from the experimental group used glasses. The
glasses used were a cardboard structure as shown in Figure 2.
The book title, Let’s Play with Sun Moon Earth, contained solar and lunar
eclipse material with a marker. The content pages of the books are shown in
Figures 3 to 6. Figure 3 shows the two kinds of buttons which were used to move
10 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Figure 2. Cardboard.

Figure 3. Cover page of the book.

between the AR and VR modes. Figure 4 explains the process of revolution and
rotation. Figure 5 describes the process and the effect of a lunar eclipse, and
Figure 6 presents the process and the effect of a solar eclipse. This whole treat-
ment took 30 minutes. The last step was the posttest which was a science test
related to solar and lunar eclipses. The questions were similar to those in the
pretest.
Weng et al. 11

Figure 4. Revolution and rotation page of the book.

Figure 5. Lunar eclipse page of the book.

12 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Figure 6. Solar eclipse page of the book.

Measures
Spatial ability test. The purpose of this test was to assess all participants’ compe-
tencies related to their spatial ability. The Revised PSVT: R is a Mental
Rotation test used to measure mental rotation ability. The PSVT has three
12-item subtests titled ‘‘Developments,’’ ‘‘Rotations,’’ and ‘‘Views’’ (Guay,
1976). The PSVT: R is a stretched version of the subtest, ‘‘Rotations,’’ to meas-
ure the 3D mental rotation ability of people aged 13 and older than 13 in 20
minutes. It has 30 items comprising 13 symmetrical and 17 nonsymmetrical
figures of 3D objects and is drawn in a 2D isometric design. An example item
of the PSVT: R used in this research study is shown in Figure 7. For each object,
the participant has to mentally revolve a figure in the identical direction as
specified visually in the guidelines and then to choose a response from five pos-
sible selections. In the revised version, figures are rescaled and items are restruc-
tured from the easiest to hardest under the framework of item response theory.
The PSVT: R has been commonly used in educational research for over three
decades (Contero, Naya, Company, Saorin, & Conesa, 2005; Field, 2007) and
has often been mentioned as having the greatest focus on spatial visualization
ability of mental rotation that mostly includes holistic or gestalt spatial thinking
Weng et al. 13

Figure 7. A sample item of the revised PSVT: R.

processes while having the least focus on analytic or analogical spatial thinking
processes (Black, 2005; Branof, 1998; Guay, McDaniel, & Angelo, 1978).
In this study, the researchers used 15 out of 30 possible questions consisting of
13 symmetrical and 17 nonsymmetrical questions from the easiest to the hardest.
The questions selected were more suitable for fifth-grade students. It took about
10 minutes to complete the 15 items. The students’ scores were the number of
items answered correctly. Therefore, the maximum possible score was 15.

Science knowledge test. The purpose of this test was to assess the participants’
competencies related to the processes of solar and lunar eclipses. The level of
this test is of medium difficulty, that is, from the easiest to hardest. The questions
on the test were extracted from the reference of the chapters in Harcourt Science
(Frank et al., 2002). This textbook was originally used by third-grade elementary
school students in the United States, but most students in schools in Asia do not
learn about solar and lunar eclipses until the fifth grade, so it was chosen as the
learning content for development of the science knowledge test for this current
study.
The test was split into three categories of Bloom’s revised Taxonomy (1956),
namely, remembering, understanding, and analyzing. An example for the
remembering level is memorization; for the understanding level, students need
to know about the concepts and connect them; and for the analyzing level,
students need to draw, analyze, and compare the information based on their
learned concepts. To ensure the content validity of the levels, three experts in the
field of pedagogy reexamined the test categories. They matched the characteristic
14 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

of each question with what the students needed to answer and determined the
category which the question belonged to. The test consisted of 12 questions
divided into three sections explained as follows:

1. Vocabulary review—Remembering level

This test consisted of five questions in fill-in-the-blank format. The students
were given a list of new vocabulary and had to fill in the blank space with the
answer. These types of questions were used to refresh their memories and to
know whether they understood the lesson clearly. For example, the move-
ment of one object around another object is called a revolution.
2. Connect concepts—Understanding level
This test consisted of five questions about connecting concepts to each sub-
title. The format of these questions was also fill-in-the-blanks. The students
were given some terms where they needed to use to fill in a chart with the right
answer. These types of questions were used to connect the learned concepts to
manage their understanding of the relationships among different concepts.
For example, the earth’s rotation causes day and night.
3. Deep thinking—Analyzing level
In this part, the questions were more profound, so there were only two ques-
tions. These questions were used to determine the logic of their knowledge
after observation. For example, how do solar and lunar eclipses happen?

This section was in essay format, where the students had to write an explan-
ation using their own words. Thus, in this part, three experts examined the
answers with a grading rubric (as shown in Table 1) to decrease the subjectivity
of the raters.
In this research, since there were three graders responsible for measuring the
third section of the learning outcomes, it was important to decide whether they
agreed with each other. The overall interrater reliability was .996, which is con-
sidered as high reliability. Since there were varying numbers of questions in each
category, the scores were assumed to be 100%. The highest possible score is 100,
and the lowest possible is zero.

Open-ended questions (interview). This instrument included questions about the

students’ willingness to participate in this science activity after utilizing the
book Let’s Play with Sun Moon Earth. Four students (two from the experimental
and two from the control group) were randomly selected and interviewed.
Students in the control group were asked how they felt during the learning
activity, whereas those in the experimental group were asked three questions
to elicit their opinions on the learning tool used in the experiment (MR appli-
cation). The questions are as follows:

1. How did you feel during the learning activity?

 Table 1. Questions and Descriptions in the Grading Rubric.

No Questions Answer Description

1 How do solar and Drawing part:

lunar eclipses happen? Each answer should have
Draw and explain. five parts, and if stu-
dents can provide the
right answer, they will
get two points for each,
and for the wrong
answer they score 0
points. So, the total
points for this section
is 20.

(continued)

15
16
Table 1. Continued

No Questions Answer Description

A solar eclipse occurs when the moon casts its shadow on earth while passing Description part:
between the sun and earth. The moon has an elliptical orbit around the This section is based on
earth. When the moon’s distance from the earth is near, the moon appears subjective scores pro-
significantly larger and can completely obscure the sun, causing a total solar vided by the experts,
eclipse. and the score is a
A lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes directly behind the earth into its range.
umbra (shadow). This can occur only when the sun, earth and moon are  Unacceptable
aligned (in ‘‘syzygy’’) exactly, or very closely so, with the earth in the middle. 0–10
Hence, a lunar eclipse can occur only the night of a full moon.  Slightly acceptable
11–20
 Acceptable
21–30
2 Compare and explain Similarity: There will be two parts in
the similarity and A ‘‘lunar eclipse’’ and a ‘‘solar eclipse’’ refer to events involving three celestial this question. Each part
difference between bodies: the sun (‘‘solar’’), the moon (‘‘lunar’’), and the earth. (similarity and differ-
two eclipses Difference: ence) consists of 25
from No. 1 A lunar eclipse occurs when the earth passes between the moon and the sun, points. For each part:
and the earth’s shadow obscures the moon or a portion of it. A solar eclipse  Unacceptable
occurs when the moon passes between the earth and the sun, blocking all or 0–7
a portion of the sun.  Slightly acceptable
8–16
 Acceptable
17–25
Weng et al. 17

Table 2. Paired Sample t Test of Students’ Total Learning Outcome for the Two Groups.

Group Test Mean N SD t p Cohen’s d

Control group Pretest 39.55 40 10.936 8.63** .00 1.01

Posttest 53.28 40 15.722
Experimental group Pretest 41.25 40 9.198 16.45** .00 3.52
Posttest 79.22 40 12.141
**p < .01.

2. What was the thing you liked most about the MR application?
3. What was the thing you liked least about the MR application?

The interview questions were asked in English; however, the answers could be
in English or Indonesian. Thus, the transcripts were translated into English and
checked by the experts.

Results
The purposes of this research were to develop several 3D animated learning
supplements in a traditional printed book with the integration of VR and AR
technology, to investigate the effect of those learning materials on students’
learning outcomes, and to compare the learning effects of the newly developed
materials on students with high and low spatial abilities. Several pre- and postt-
est instruments were used to gather the research data. The instruments consisted
of a spatial ability test, science knowledge tests, and a survey interview.
RQ1: To explore the difference between the control and experimental group
students’ learning outcomes regarding their science knowledge, paired sample t
tests were employed to compare their learning outcomes before and after the
learning activity. As shown in Table 2, it was found that the students in the
experimental group had significant improvement in their learning outcomes after
participating in the learning activity (t ¼ 16.45, p < .01), and the students in the
control group also showed significant difference in their learning outcomes after
the learning activity (t ¼ 8.63, p < .01), indicating that the MR could promote
the students’ learning outcomes in both groups. However, when comparing the
differences between pretests and posttests in both groups, the experimental
group had a larger number of increments than the control group with a larger
effect size (Cohen’s d ¼ 3.52).
A further investigation was done to know the effects at the different levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy. Analysis of covariance was conducted on the posttest
scores to analyze the effects of learning outcomes in the three levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy. As listed in Table 3, there is a significant difference between
the groups in the remembering level posttest after controlling for the pretest,
18 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Table 3. Analysis of Covariance of Remembering Level of Bloom’s Taxonomy Between the

Two Groups on the Posttest Controlling for the Pretest.

Type III sum

Source of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Corrected model 356.91a 2 178.45 20.85 .000

Intercept 1,216.53 1 1,216.53 142.17 .000
Pretest 340.71 1 340.71 39.82 .000
Group 34.85 1 34.85 4.07 .047
Error 658.89 77 8.56
Note. Dependent variable: Remembering posttest score.
a 2
R ¼ .35 (Adjusted R2 ¼ .34).

Table 4. Analysis of Covariance of Analyzing Level of Bloom’s Taxonomy Between the

Two Groups on the Posttest Controlling for the Pretest.

Type III sum Partial Eta

Source of squares df Mean square F Sig. squared

Corrected model 7,658.54a 2 3,829.27 36.35 .00 .49

Intercept 5,588.23 1 5,588.23 53.05 .00 .41
Pretest 627.29 1 627.29 5.96 .02 .07
Group 5,388.54 1 5,388.54 51.15 .00 .40
Error 8,111.47 77 105.34
Note. Dependent Variable: Analyzing post-test score.
a 2
R ¼ .49 (Adjusted R2 ¼ .47).

F(1, 77) ¼ 4.07, p ¼ .047. The adjusted means of the control and experimental
groups at the remembering levels are 14.79 and 16.11. This shows that the stu-
dents in the experimental group had better learning outcomes than the students
in the control group at the remembering level.
For the analyzing level, there is a significant difference between the groups
on the posttests after controlling for the pretests, F(1, 77) ¼ 51.15, p ¼ .00
(see Table 4). The adjusted means of the control and experimental groups at
the analyzing levels are 22.45 and 39.55. This reveals that the students in the
experimental group had better learning outcomes than the students in the con-
trol group at the analyzing level.
There is also a significant difference between the groups on the understanding
level posttest after controlling for the pretests, F(1, 77) ¼ 31.73, p ¼ .00 (as listed
in Table 5). The adjusted means of the control and experimental groups at the
Weng et al. 19

Table 5. Analysis of Covariance of Understanding Level of Bloom’s Taxonomy Between

the Two Groups on the Posttest Controlling for the Pretest.

Type III sum Partial Eta

Source of squares df Mean Square F Sig. squared

Corrected model 1,823.51a 2 911.76 34.73 .00 .47

Intercept 2,016.36 1 2,016.36 76.81 .00 .50
Pretest 1,029.71 1 1,029.71 39.23 .00 .34
Group 833.17 1 833.17 31.74 .00 .30
Error 2,021.29 77 26.25
Note. Dependent variable: Understanding the posttest score.
a 2
R ¼ .47 (Adjusted R2 ¼ .46).

Table 6. Two-Ways Analysis of Variance of Students’ Learning Outcome Between the Two
Groups With Different Spatial Abilities.

Type III sum

Source of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Corrected model 10,482.68a 3 3,494.23 27.79 .00

Intercept 202,066.23 1 202,066.23 1.607E3 .00
Group 5,880.63 1 5,880.63 46.77 .00
Level 3,783.03 1 3,783.03 30.09 .00
Group  Level 819.03 1 819.03 6.51 .02
Error 4,526.10 36 125.73
Note. Dependent Variable: Score.
a 2
R ¼ .70 (Adjusted R2 ¼ .67).

understanding level are 16.57 and 23.03. This discloses that the students in the
experimental group had significantly better learning outcomes than the students
in the control group at the understanding level.
RQ2: Were any differences in the learning outcomes found between the two
groups with different spatial abilities (students with high vs. low spatial ability)?
The results of the two-way analysis of variance test are given in Table 6.
A statistically significant interaction at the p ¼ .02 level was found. Even
though there are statistically significant differences in the ‘‘score’’ means of the
control and experimental groups (p ¼ .00) and between the high and low spatial
levels (p ¼ .00), there is also an interaction of the learning outcomes between those
two independent variables for learning outcomes, F(1,36) ¼ 6.51, p ¼ .02, as
shown in Figure 8. Since there is a significant interaction effect, the simple main
effect tests are needed to explore the different effects between the two independent
variables.
20 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Figure 8. Two-way analysis of variance interaction between group and level.

The simple main effects test results are listed in Table 7. From Table 7, we can see
a notable difference in the learning results of the high and low levels in both control
and experimental groups, as well as different learning results between control and
experimental groups in both levels. The observed learning outcome difference
between control and experimental group in the low-level group is larger
(2low ¼ 0:70 4 2high ¼ 0:28). It is furthermore noted that the differences in learning
results between high and low levels are smaller in the experimental group than in the
control group (2experimental ¼ 0:24 5 2control ¼ 0:55), indicating that the 3D animated
MR supplements especially helped the group of students with low spatial ability.

Qualitative Inquiry
To know more about the treatments affecting the performance of students par-
ticipating in the experiment, several in-depth interviews were carried out. Four
Weng et al. 21

Table 7. Simple Main Effect of Students’ Learning Outcomes Between Levels and Groups.

t p g2

Level High Control Experimental 2.83 .01 .28

Low Control Experimental 7.20 .00 .70
Group Control Low High 4.95 .00 .55
Experimental Low High 2.51 .02 .24

students (two from the experimental and two from the control groups) were
randomly selected from the participants to have an in-depth interview. The
first question they needed to answer was ‘‘How did you feel during the learning
activity?’’ The response obtained from Student A in control group is, ‘‘I like this
book more than my old science book; the image here is cute, but sometimes
I cannot imagine the illustrations.’’ Student B replied, ‘‘Happy! This book is
colorful. I wonder if I can look into this image. Hahaha . . . because I cannot
really connect the concepts. I just know the information as what I read.’’ The
two experimental group students responded to the same question. The first stu-
dent answered, ‘‘Amazing! I like this and enjoy learning with it!’’ The second
student replied, ‘‘I feel very happy. I do not want the time to pass quickly. Can I
try again?’’
To better understand the students’ likes and dislikes regarding the MR sup-
plements, the students in the experimental group were asked two extra questions;
first: What was the thing you liked most about the MR application? The two
students from the experimental group in this study gave different responses
regarding what they liked about the MR application. The results obtained
from the responses indicated that the application was interesting and made it
easy to understand the concepts. One student said, ‘‘I liked this application when
the picture came alive and talked to me.’’ Second: What was the thing you liked
least about the MR application? One student from the experimental group in
this study gave the response that a rubber band will make the glasses to stay easy
on the head. Another student said, ‘‘These glasses! I had to hold this all the
time.’’ The interview results showed that the students in this group enjoyed MR
as a learning tool because of its novelty (a new experience for these students).
The common problem they had with the tool was the cardboard glasses. They
had difficulty holding the glasses all the time during the learning activity.
Besides their opinions, their spontaneity during the learning activity was
noted. In the control group, the students just followed the instructions quietly
and spent more time trying to understand the content. They tended to write
down what they read in the book. Meanwhile, in the experimental group, some
of them saw the MR application and said ‘‘WOW’’ repeatedly. One stated,
‘‘Wow, it is the coolest science material ever! Especially, when the environment
changes like in the Galaxy. Wow!’’ The students indicated that seeing the real
22 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

3D objects of the science materials in a traditional printed book was such an

interesting mode for learning. Before the in-depth interview, one student said,
‘‘I can still read the information in this printed book, and it can make them come
alive. It makes me feel good when learning science.’’ The same results can be
seen from the in-depth interview responses, that is, MR as supplements for the
printed book was able to attract the students’ attention. Another student stated,

It was fun to see this lively material. Therefore, I do not need to imagine the process
of the lunar and solar eclipse because it was so difficult to make it 3D in my mind,
and I did not need much time to organize what I learned in this unit.

Therefore, this learning activity in the experimental group can help them to learn
science in a more interesting way as well as connecting things easily and seeing
the abstract to facilitate understanding.

Discussion
In this study, the results indicate that the developed learning material can really
enhance students’ science learning performances for both groups; however, there
was a greater effect for the experimental group. The results show significant
differences between the science knowledge posttest and pretest scores for both
groups, with the posttest scores higher than the pretest scores. This could be
because both groups used the same printed book with a well-designed curricu-
lum that was modified from the Harcourt Science book (Frank et al., 2002).
Even though both groups showed a significant difference between their postt-
est and pretest scores, the experimental group had better results than the control
group. The possible causes for these results could be influenced by the different
amount of time and attention spent reading the book for both groups. It is
believed that the reason behind this is that, in the experimental group, the
printed book with exactly same content was supplemented by MR applications
that helped the students see 3D objects with animated learning materials while
reading. This indicates that MR provides an immersive and effective learning
experience. Therefore, we believe that the results found might be due to the
technology integration.
Although Kordaki (2010) found that the learning achievement and motiv-
ation of students who learn with paper and pencil are usually not better than
those of students who learn with technologies, our findings suggest that the
technology supports learners’ achievement along with the traditional methods
for better learning results. VR and AR are examples of technology that are
commonly used in the learning process, as well as for education and entertain-
ment through interactive experience (Noh, Sunar, & Pan, 2009). They usually
provide great benefits since they can help children in reading printed books by
providing 3D virtual content (Chen, Teng, Lee, & Kinshuk, 2011; McKenzie &
Weng et al. 23

Darnell, 2003; Yang, Huang, Tsai, Chung, & Wu, 2009). Besides, MR can
engage students by providing entertainment. Instead of looking ‘‘through a
window’’ of static pictures, linear animations, or movies, students can look at
the phenomena with sound in their own 3D spaces, and they can leverage the
power of virtual objects, that is, representing anything they like all at once
(Shelton & Hedley, 2002). The results are also supported by our findings from
the interviews that the students in the experimental group showed positive
impacts. They commented that they could see the real 3D objects of the science
material that had been introduced, which helped them to understand the intro-
duced concepts. Meanwhile, in the control group, they expressed their difficulties
imagining 3D objects from 2D pictures. Thus, these findings reveal the need to
apply the right technology in developing traditional paper-based learning mater-
ials. The MR used as the supplement in this current study really enhanced stu-
dents’ science learning by increasing their reading comprehension of the
curriculum materials.

MR in Bloom’s Taxonomy
Even though the overall results of the experimental group’s learning outcomes in
terms of their posttest scores were better than those of the control group, further
analysis was performed to investigate whether the same results would be found
for all levels of learning outcomes. Significant differences were found for all three
levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Most schools use standardized examination and
test scores as indicators of students’ learning. A cognitive approach only can
focus on a test result that examines a student’s memory of a subject but not their
understanding (Huang, Chen, & Ho, 2014). Thus, it will be easier to increase and
reach this level. MR can help them connect the ideas that are difficult to imagine.
Therefore, they can understand the introduced concepts better after memorizing
the content. This understanding can also bring them to a deeper level of think-
ing, and then they will be able to analyze the concepts (Anderson, Krathwohl, &
Bloom, 2001). It is believed that these are the reasons that explain the better
learning outcomes of the experimental group compared with the control group
in the current experiment.

MR to Enhance the Learning Outcomes of Students

With Low-Level Spatial Abilities
The results revealed that the high-level spatial ability group performed better
than the low-level spatial ability group. However, for the experimental group,
the difference between the high- and low-level spatial ability groups was smaller.
Moreover, when compared with the two groups’ learning results in both the
high-level and low-level subgroups, there was a significant difference between
the control and the experimental groups. For the lower spatial ability subgroups,
24 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

the difference found was much greater, which means that the 3D-animated MR
supplements especially helped the group of students with low spatial ability.
Thus, we can state that even though spatial ability is an important factor affect-
ing students’ learning outcomes, the use of MR technology as supplements can
especially help low spatial ability students to reduce the gap and obtain better
learning results.
It is important to help low spatial ability students get better results in science
since there are many 3D features in science concepts, and thus spatial ability
plays an important role (Schwartz & Heiser, 2006). Students who have high
spatial ability may implement imagery strategies and adapt verbal strategies
more successfully than students with low spatial ability, thus affecting their
achievement level. Some researchers have predicted a positive relationship
between students’ spatial abilities and their achievements in science learning.
Thus, it is important that the performance of those students with low spatial
ability be enhanced.

Conclusion
In this study, we investigated the effects of combining VR and AR as supple-
ments to a printed book on students’ learning outcomes. The first research ques-
tion in this study focused on the 3D animated MR on the learning outcomes of the
students in the two groups. It was found that the students who learned with MR as
a learning aid revealed significantly better results in terms of their science learning
outcomes. The results obtained from further inquiry into the effects according to
the level of Bloom’s Taxonomy states that the students in the experimental group
had much better learning outcomes than the students in the control group at all
three levels (remembering, analyzing, and understanding).
The second research question focused on investigating the differences in
learning outcomes found between the two groups with different spatial abilities.
It is found that there was a significant difference between the learning outcomes
of the high- and low-level students in both control and experimental groups, as
well as different learning results between control and experimental groups in
both levels, but the effect sizes are different. This confirms that the 3D-animated
MR application supports mainly low spatial ability learners and decrease the
gap between high and low spatial ability learners.
Finally, from the qualitative inquiry, we were able to elicit students’ responses
about their feelings during the learning process, and their likes and dislikes
regarding the application. The reactions from the students indicated that they
found the application to be interesting, and that is made it easy for them to
understand difficult concepts; they also enjoyed learning the material. Therefore,
teachers can use this application in the classroom as it motivates students to
learn better and assists instructors in the process of explaining abstract concepts.
MR has the potential to increase learning through improved instructional
Weng et al. 25

planning, and relying on its assistance could facilitate abstract concept learning.
In this article, a conception of the MR-based learning environment, linking
physical objects (glasses) and visualization of its digital context has been pre-
sented. This invisible relations experience allowed for an understandable learn-
ing environment. Thus, this study intended not only to discuss a particular
discipline but also to benefit people from many different disciplines by providing
a more profound understanding of MR. Although most studies have concluded
that all technologies need further improvements on many levels, they bear the
potential to further increase learning efficiency in science education and to pro-
vide enhanced education services to teachers and students in the future.
Although there are many studies on how MR technology increases motivation
and engagement in the educational field, the impact of MR on learners’ achieve-
ment is still lacking. Thus, this study focused on learners’ achievement, specif-
ically that of low spatial ability students.
This study implemented MR technology in the educational field based on
evidence that it can contribute to increased motivation, engagement, achieve-
ment, and critical thinking among students. The present instructional principles
and challenges could support educators in developing and applying MR learning
environments appropriately. Therefore, the main contribution of this study is
that it provides a reference for instructors who want to apply this technology in
their teaching.

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

Since this study was focused on the topic of solar and lunar eclipses (science
material), it is important to test more topics and subjects to see whether the great
effects of MR on learning are universal. We suggest that authors and curriculum
designers should include this new technology in their practice. Our research will
serve as a good example and evidence that a carefully designed technology
implemented with a traditional printed book can improve students’ learning
outcomes. Instead of simply replacing printed books with their digital forms,
giving them a new life might be a better decision, and so more MR supplements
should be developed. However, the students found it difficult to hold the glasses
throughout the learning process; this problem needs to be overcome. One of the
other limitations of using MR in the classroom is that it is expensive, a fact that
may act as a barrier to learning. However, the recent advancements in technol-
ogy have overcome this cost barrier and hence implementing MR in classrooms
is much easier. Moreover, due to the time limitation of this current research, we
do not know the extended effect of the experiment. It is anticipated that in the
future, researchers could review the results after a week or several days so that
the extended effect can be tested. As most of the technology development atten-
tion has been in the medical field, it is recommended that researchers also pay
attention to the science education field.
26 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: The Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
(ROC) supported this work, under contract no. MOST 105-2511-s-011-005-MYZ.

References
Aleshia, T. H., Carrie, L. S., Lisa, A. D., Charlie, E. H., & Michael, C. H. (2013). Ludic
learning: Exploration of TLE TeachLivETM and effective teacher training.
International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS),
5(2), 20–33. doi:10.4018/jgcms.2013040102
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New
York, NY: Longman.
Annetta, L., Mangrum, J., Holmes, S., Collazo, K., & Cheng, M. T. (2009). Bridging
realty to virtual reality: Investigating gender effect and student engagement on learn-
ing through video game play in an elementary school classroom. International Journal
of Science Education, 31(8), 1091–1113. doi:10.1080/09500690801968656
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments, 6(4), 355–385.
Balog, A., & Pribeanu, C. (2010). The role of perceived enjoyment in the students’ accept-
ance of an augmented reality teaching platform: A structural equation modelling
approach. Studies in Informatics and Control, 19(3), 319–330.
Black, A. A. (2005). Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of
Geoscience Education, 53(4), 402–414. doi:10.5408/1089-9995-53.4.402
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive
domain. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.
Branof, T. (1998). The effects of adding coordinate axes to a mental rotations task in
measuring spatial visualization ability in introductory undergraduate technical graph-
ics courses. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 62(2), 16–34.
Cai, Y., Lu, B., Zheng, J., & Li, L. (2006). Immersive protein gaming for bio edutain-
ment. Simulation & Gaming, 37(4), 466–475. doi:10.1177/1046878106293677
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, C. H., Yang, J. C., Shen, S., & Jeng, M. C. (2007). A desktop virtual reality earth
motion system in astronomy education. Educational Technology & Society, 10,
289–304.
Chen, N. S., Teng, D. C. E., Lee, C. H., & Kinshuk (2011). Augmenting paper-based
reading activity with direct access to digital materials and scaffolded questioning.
Computers & Education, 57(2), 1705–1715.
Cheng, G. T. (2016). How can mixed reality help in learning? Retrieved from https://www.
accenture.com/us-en/blogs/blogs-how-mixed-reality-help-learning
Weng et al. 27

Cheng, K., & Tsai, C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning:
Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 449–462.
Cheok, A. D., Haller, M., Fernando, O. N. N., & Wijesena, J. P. (2009). Mixed reality
entertainment and art. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 8, 83–90.
Cho, Y. H., Yim, S. Y., & Paik, S. (2015). Physical and social presence in 3D virtual role-
play for pre-service teachers. The Internet and Higher Education, 25(Supplement C),
70–77. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.01.002
Contero, M., Naya, F., Company, P., Saorin, J. L., & Conesa, J. (2005). Improving
visualization skills in engineering education. IEEE Computer Graphics and
Application, 25(5), 24–31.
Dalgarno, B. (2004). A classification scheme for learner-computer interaction. Paper pre-
sented at the Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE
Conference, Perth.
Dani, D. E., & Koenig, K. M. (2008). Technology and reform-based science education.
Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 204–211. doi:10.1080/00405840802153825
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, 7–22.
Field, B. W. (2007). Visualization, intuition, and mathematics metrics as predictors of
undergraduate engineering design performance. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(7),
735–743. doi:10.1115/1.2722790
Frank, M. S., Jones, R. M., Krockover, G. H., Lang, M. P., McLeod, J. C., Valenta, C.
J., & Van Deman, B. A. (2002). Cycles on Earth and in space. Orlando, FL: Harcourt,
Inc.
Freitas, R., & Campos, P. (2008). SMART: A system of augmented reality for teaching 2nd
grade students. Paper presented at the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on
People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction, Liverpool, England.
Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 860–877. doi:10.1002/tea.1036
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY:
Fontana Press.
Gardner, M., Scott, J., & Horan, B. (2008, November 20–21). Reflections on the use of
Project Wonderland as a mixed-reality environment for teaching and learning. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the ReLIVE 08 Conference, Milton Keynes, UK.
Giaquinto, M. (2007). Visual thinking in mathematics: An epistemological study. Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). The significant role of multimedia in motivating EFL learners’
interest in English language learning. International Journal of Modern Education &
Computer Science, 4, 57–66.
Gregory, S., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 27(1), 1–17. doi:10.1080/10862969509547866
Guay, R. (1976). Purdue spatial visualization test. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research
Foundation.
Guay, R. B., McDaniel, E. D., & Angelo, S. (1978). Analytic factor confounding spatial
ability measurement. In R. B. Guay, & E. D. McDaniel, (Eds.), Correlates of per-
formance on spatial aptitude tests. West Lafayette, IN: Army Research Institute for the
Behavioural and Social Sciences.
28 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Hayes, A. T., Hardin, S. E., & Hughes, C. E. (2013). Perceived presence’s role on learning
outcomes in a mixed reality classroom of simulated students. Paper presented at the
virtual, augmented and mixed reality systems and applications (VAMR 2013). Lecture
Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Hays, T. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term
and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2),
139–155. doi:10.2190/60y9-bqg9-80hx-ueml
Helle, S., Lehtonen, T., Woodward, C., Turunen, M. & Salmi, H. (Eds.),. (2017). Miracle
handbook-guidelines for mixed reality applications for culture and learning experiences.
Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
Hoffler, T. N. (2010). Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations-a meta-
analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 245–269.
Hoffmann, M., Meisen, T., & Jeschke, S. (2014). Shifting virtual reality education to the
next level-experiencing remote laboratories through mixed reality. Paper presented at
the International Conference on Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and
Education Technologies, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Huang, K. L., Chen, K. H., & Ho, C. H. (2014). Enhancing learning outcomes through
new e-textbooks: A desirable combination of presentation methods and concept maps.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5), 600–618.
Hwang, W.-Y., & Hu, S.-S. (2013). Analysis of peer learning behaviors using multiple
representations in virtual reality and their impacts on geometry problem solving.
Computers & Education, 62(Supplement C), 308–319. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.
10.005
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D. A., Tolentino, L., & Koziupa, T. (2014).
Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments:
Two science studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 86–104.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they
seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7(2), 75–83. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2729.1991.tb00230.x
Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2013). Creativity and technical
innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1831–1836.
doi:10.1177/0956797613478615
Kirner, C., Cerqueira, C. S., & Kirner, T. G. (2012). Using augmented reality artifacts in
education and cognitive rehabilitation. In C. Eichenberg, (Ed.) Virtual reality in
psychological, medical and pedagogical applications. New York, NY: InTech.
Kordaki, M. (2010). A drawing and multi-representational computer environment for
beginners’ learning of programming using C: Design and pilot formative evaluation.
Computers & Education, 54(1), 69–87. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.012
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 con-
servation of fish. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 181–187.
Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and
engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation.
Computers & Education, 95(Supplement C), 174–187. doi:10.1016/
j.compedu.2016.01.001
Martı́n-Gutiérrez, J., Luı́s Saorı́n, J., Contero, M., Alcañiz, M., Pérez-López, D. C., &
Ortega, M. (2010). Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities
Weng et al. 29

development in engineering students. Computers & Graphics, 34(1), 77–91.

doi:10.1016/j.cag.2009.11.003
Martı́n-Gutierrez, J., Trujillo, R. E. N., & Acosta-Gonzalez, M. M. (2013). Augmented
reality application assistant for spatial ability training. HMD vs Computer screen use
study. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93(Supplement C), 49–53.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.150
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41(4),
226–232. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4
McKenzie, J., & Darnell, D. (2003). The eyeMagic book. Paper presented at the A Report
into Augmented Reality Storytelling in the Context of a Children’s Workshop 2003,
New Zealand Centre for Childrenm’s Literature and Christchurch College of London,
Christchurch.
Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014).
Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-
12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40.
Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual display. IEICE
Transaction on Information and Systems, E77-D, 73–87.
Müller, D., & Ferreira, J. M. M. (2003, November 20–21). A mixed-reality learning envir-
onment for vocational training in mechatronics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
Technology Enhanced Learning International Conference, Milan, Italy.
Münzer, S. (2012). Facilitating spatial perspective taking through animation: Evidence
from an aptitude–treatment-interaction. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4),
505–510. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.002
Nikolakis, G., Fergadis, G., Tzovaras, D., & Strintzis, M. G. (2004). A mixed reality
learning environment for geometry education. In G. A. Vouros, &
T. Panayiotopoulos, (Eds.), Methods and applications of artificial intelligence.
SETN 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3025). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
Noh, Z., Sunar, M. S., & Pan, Z. (2009). A review on augmented reality for virtual
heritage system. In M. Chang, R. Kuo, Kinshuk, G.-D. Chen, & M. Hirose (Eds.),
Learning by playing. Game-based education system design and development: Proceedings
of the 4th international conference on e-learning and games, edutainment 2009, Banff,
Canada, August 9–11, 2009 (pp. 50–61). Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Orion, N., Ben-Chaim, D., & Kali, Y. (1997). Relationship between Earth-Science educa-
tion and spatial visualization. Journal of Geoscience Education, 45(2), 129–132.
doi:10.5408/1089-9995-45.2.129
Pantelidis, V. S. (1995). Reasons to use virtual reality in education. VR in the Schools,
1(1), 9.
Pantelidis, V. S. (2009). Reasons to use virtual reality in education and training courses
and a model to determine when to use virtual reality. Themes in Science and
Technology Education, 2(1–2), 59–70.
Piovesan, S. D., Passerino, L. M., & Pereira, A. S. (2012). Virtual reality as a tool in the
education. IADIS international conference on cognition and exploratory learning in
digital age (pp. 295–298). Madrid: IADIS.
Pribeanu, C., Balog, A., & Iordache, D. D. (2008). Formative user-centered usability
evaluation of an augmented reality educational system. Paper presented at the proceed-
ings of international conference on software and data technologies—ICSOFT.
30 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Roussou, M., Oliver, M., & Slater, M. (2006). The virtual playground: An educational
virtual reality environment for evaluating interactivity and conceptual learning.
Virtual Reality, 10, 227–240.
Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the
classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 211–224.
Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A meta-
analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in
science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10),
1436–1460. doi:10.1002/tea.20212
Schwartz, D. L., & Heiser, J. (2006). Spatial representations and imagery in learning. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Shelton, B. E., & Hedley, N. R. (2002). Using augmented reality for teaching Earth-Sun
relationships to undergraduate geography students. Paper presented at the First IEEE
International Workshop Augmented Reality Toolkit, Darmstadt, Germany.
Simon, H. A. (1980). Problem solving and education. In D. T. Tuma, & F. Reif, (Eds.),
Problem solving and education: Issues in teaching and research (p. 92). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Songer, N. B. (2007). Digital resources versus cognitive tools: A discussion of learning
science with technology. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman, (Eds.), Handbook of
research on science education (pp. 471–493). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stanney, K. M., & Salvendy, G. (1995). Information visualization; Assisting low spatial
individuals with information access tasks through the use of visual mediators.
Ergonomics, 38(6), 1184–1198. doi:10.1080/00140139508925181
Stronge, J. H. (2010). Evaluating what good teachers do: Eight research-based standards for
assessing teacher excellence. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Sun, J. C.-Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-
regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
Tolentino, L., Birchfield, D., & Kelliher, A. (2009, January 29–30). SMALLab for special
needs: Using a mixed-reality platform to explore learning for children with autism. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the NSF Media Arts, Science and Technology
Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
Tscholl, M., & Lindgren, R. (2016). Designing for learning conversations: How parents
support children’s science learning within an immersive simulation. Science Education,
100(5), 877–902. doi:10.1002/sce.21228
Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education. When, why,
and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation—Advances in Research and Theory,
57, 147–181.
Yang, J. C., Huang, Y. T., Tsai, C. C., Chung, C. I., & Wu, Y. C. (2009). An automatic
multimedia content summarization system for video recommendation. Educational
Technology & Society, 12(1), 49–61.
Weng et al. 31

Author Biographies
Cathy Weng is the director and an associate professor of the Graduate Institute
of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taiwan. Her research interests include social media and informa-
tion sharing, interactive storybooks and learning, digital reading and storytell-
ing, and digital language learning.

Abirami Rathinasabapathi is a PhD student in the Graduate Institute of Digital

Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taiwan. Her research interests include technology enhanced lan-
guage learning, mobile assisted language learning, and social media use
behavior.

Apollo Weng is an assistant professor of the Applied English Studies

Department, China University of Technology, Taiwan. His research interests
include instructional design and educational technology, computer-assisted lan-
guage learning, multimedia learning, distance learning, smart cities and eco-
nomic development, and mobile learning.

Cindy Zagita graduated from the Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and
Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan.
Her research interests include image processing, knowledge management, and
graphic design.