Penerapan Augmented Reality Sebagai Media
Pembelajaran Sistem Pencernaan pada Manusia
dalam Mata Pelajaran Biologi
Rizqi Mauludin1, Anggi Srimurdianti Sukamto2, Hafiz Muhardi3
Program Studi Teknik Informatika Fakultas Teknik Universitas Tanjungpura
rizqiedge.rm@gmail.com
anggidianti@informatika.untan.ac.id
hafiz.muhardi@informatika.untan.ac.id
Abstrak— Perkembangan teknologi informasi di bidang
pendidikan, salah satunya adalah teknologi Augmented
Reality (AR) yang dapat dimanfaatkan sebagai media
pembelajaran multimedia termasuk media pembelajaran
sistem pencernaan manusia. Hal ini dikarenakan proses
pembelajaran tentang sistem pencernaan manusia masih
melalui media-media konvensional seperti papan tulis dan
gambar - gambar yang terdapat di buku biologi. Sementara
materi tentang sistem pencernaan manusia sangat sulit
untuk dilihat langsung secara langsung karena sebagian
besar berada didalam tubuh. Kelebihan dari Augmented
Reality adalah tampilan visual yang menarik, karena dapat
menampilkan objek 3D beserta animasinya yang seakan-
akan ada pada lingkungan nyata dan disandingkan dengan
informasi tentang objek 3D yang berupa suara, diharapkan
dapat digunakan sebagai alternatif media pembelajaran
untuk mengenalkan sistem pencernaan pada manusia yang
mampu membuat pengguna tertarik mempelajarinya. Pada
penelitian ini digunakan Game Engine UNITY untuk
membangun aplikasi berbasis Android serta Vuforia SDK
agar aplikasi yang dibangun dapat menjadi aplikasi
berteknologi Augmented Reality. Disertai dengan 1 gambar
marker yang terdapat didalam buku pelajaran biologi yang
apabila diarahkan ke aplikasi dapat menampilkan
visualisasi objek 3D seperti gigi anak, gigi dewasa, gigi
geraham, lidah, animasi pencernaan mulut, kerongkongan,
lambung, usus halus dan usus besar. Aplikasi ini dapat
bermanfaat bagi siswa sekolah menengah atas (SMA), yang
memperoleh materi pembelajaran sistem pencernaan
manusia. Berdasarkan pengujian kompabilitas, aplikasi ini
sudah berjalan dengan baik pada perangkat mobile
Android, mulai dari Android versi 4.2.0 (Jelly Beans) hingga
Android versi 7.0 (Nougat). Dari hasil pengujian Pre Test
dan Post Test yang telah dilakukan, untuk kelompok siswa
yang belajar menggunakan buku biologi memiliki persentase
kenaikan dari nilai Pre Test ke Post Test sebesar 14,5 %,
sedangkan untuk kelompok siswa yang belajar
menggunakan aplikasi Augmented Reality Sistem
Pencernaan memiliki persentase kenaikan dari nilai Pre Test
ke Post Test sebesar 24,8 %, yang berarti Augmented Reality
dapat diterapkan sebagai media pembelajaran sistem
pencernaan manusia.
Kata kunci— Augmented Reality, Sistem Pencernaan
Manusia, Media Pembelajaran 3D
Jurnal Edukasi dan Penelitian Informatika (JEPIN) Vol. 3, No. 2, 2017
p-ISSN : 2460-0741 / e-ISSN : 2548-9364
I. PENDAHULUAN
Makanan yang kita makan tidak dapat langsung diserap
dan digunakan oleh tubuh kita melainkan harus
dicernakan terlebih dahulu oleh organ-organ pencernaan.
Terdapat 2 jenis proses pencernaan makanan yaitu
pencernaan mekanis dan pencernaan kimiawi.
Pencernaan mekanis merupakan suatu proses yang
melibatkan organ-organ pencernaan sedangkan
pencernaan kimiawi adalah suatu proses yang melibatkan
kalenjar-kalenjar pencernaan[1]. Proses mencerna
makanan terjadi melalui saluran pencernaan yang dimulai
dari mulut, lalu menuju ke kerongkongan, lambung, usus
halus, dan berakhir di usus besar.
Sistem pencernaan pada manusia merupakan salah satu
materi yang diajarkan pada mata pelajaran biologi pada
kelas XI SMA. Penyampaian materi tentang sistem
pencernaan pada manusia sendiri masih melalui media
konvensional seperti papan tulis, dan gambar - gambar
yang terdapat di buku biologi. Sementara materi tentang
sistem pencernaan ini sulit dilihat secara langsung, karena
sebagian besar terjadi didalam tubuh. Walaupun begitu,
berbagai teknologi dapat digunakan sebagai media
pembelajaran yang bisa menampilkan objek 3D, salah
satunya adalah teknologi Augmented Reality. Augmented
Reality adalah sebuah teknik yang menggabungkan benda
maya dua dimensi maupun tiga dimensi ke dalam sebuah
lingkup nyata[2]. Lalu, benda-benda maya tersebut
diproyeksikan dalam waktu nyata langsung melalui media
berupa marker atau penanda yang diarahkan ke kamera.
Dengan menggunakan teknologi ini, siswa dapat melihat
visualisasi secara nyata tentang sistem pencernaan
manusia yang diaplikasikan ke dalam perangkat mobile
Android.
Berdasarkan latar belakang tersebut, maka penulis
membuat penelitian yang berjudul “Penerapan Augmented
Reality Sebagai Media Pembelajaran Sistem Pencernaan
Pada Manusia Dalam Mata Pelajaran Biologi”. Penelitian
ini diharapkan menjadi salah satu alternatif media
pembelajaran untuk mempelajari sistem pencernaan
manusia sehingga dapat meningkatkan minat dan
42
pemahaman siswa terhadap materi di pelajaran biologi
tersebut.
II. TINJAUAN PUSTAKA
A. Augmented Reality
Augmented Reality atau dalam Bahasa Indonesia
diterjemahkan menjadi realitas tambahan adalah sebuah
teknik yang menggabungkan benda maya dua dimensi
maupun tiga dimensi ke dalam sebuah lingkup nyata tiga
dimensi lalu memproyeksikan benda-benda maya tersebut
dalam waktu nyata[2].
Teknologi augmented reality ini dapat menambahkan
informasi tertentu ke dalam dunia maya dan menampilkan
informasi tersebut ke dalam dunia nyata dengan bantuan
perlengkapan seperti webcam, komputer, smartphone
Android, maupun kacamata khusus. Pengguna di dalam
dunia nyata tidak dapat melihat objek maya secara
langsung, sehingga untuk mengidentifikasi objek
diperlukan perantara berupa komputer dan kamera yang
nantinya akan menambahkan objek maya ke dalam dunia
nyata.
Metode yang dikembangkan pada Augmented Reality
saat ini terdiri dari dua metode yaitu Marker Based
Tracking dan Markerless Augmented Reality. Marker
Based Tracking merupakan metode yang memerlukan
penanda yang umumnya berupa gambar hitam putih.
Markerless Augmented Reality merupakan metode
Augmented Reality dimana pengguna tidak perlu lagi
menggunakan penanda atau gambar untuk menampilkan
objek maya secara langsung.
B. Media Pembelajaran
Media pembelajaran adalah alat metode dan teknik
yang digunakan dalam rangka lebih mengefektifkan
komunikasi dan interaksi antara pengajar dan pembelajar
dalam proses pembelajaran dikelas[3].
Keberadaan media pembelajaran dalam kegiatan
belajar mengajar sangat bermanfaat bagi guru maupun
siswa. Manfaat dari penggunaan media pembelajaran
adalah dapat memperjelas penyajian pesan dan
informasi[4]. Dengan menggunakan media pembelajaran,
pengajar dapat meningkatkan minat dan mempermudah
untuk mengarahkan perhatian siswa saat kegiatan
pembelajaran berlangsung. Hal itu menyebabkan siswa
termotivasi untuk giat belajar dan aktif dalam kegiatan
pembelajaran.
C. Augmented Reality Sebagai Media Pembelajaran
Interaktif
Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, dengan
berkembangnya teknologi perangkat mobile, Augmented
Reality telah memasuki berbagai macam bidang[5].
Dalam bidang pendidikan, Augmented Reality telah
banyak digunakan sebagai alat bantu penelitian di
laboratorium dan dapat juga digunakan sebagai media
pembelajaran di ruang kelas. Teknologi Augmented
Jurnal Edukasi dan Penelitian Informatika (JEPIN) Vol. 3, No. 2, 2017
p-ISSN : 2460-0741 / e-ISSN : 2548-9364
Reality memungkinkan untuk menggabungkan objek
virtual ke dalam lingkungan nyata dan menempatkan
informasi yang sesuai ke lingkungan sekitar. Dengan
menggunakan teknologi Augmented Reality, bidang
pendidikan dan hiburan dapat digabungkan, sehingga
menciptakan metode baru untuk mendukung pembelajaran
dan pengajaran di lingkungan formal dan informal.
Media pembelajaran yang menggunakan teknologi
Augmented Reality dapat dengan mudah meningkatkan
pemahaman siswa karena objek 3D, teks, gambar, video,
audio dapat ditampilkan kepada siswa dalam waktu
nyata[6]. Siswa bisa terlibat secara interaktif, yang
menyebabkan Augmented Reality bisa menjadi media
pembelajaran yang dapat memberikan feedback kepada
siswa sehingga siswa mendapatkan kenyamanan dalam
menggunakan media tersebut.
D. Pengujian Kompatibilitas
Pengujian kompatibilitas adalah memeriksa apakah
suatu software berinteraksi dan membagi informasi secara
benar dengan software yang lain. Interaksi ini bisa terjadi
antara dua program yang secara bersama-sama pada
komputer yang sama ataupun pada komputer yng berbeda
yang tersambung lewat internet atau lewat kabel
network[7]. Jenis pengujian ini membantu mengetahui
seberapa baik kinerja aplikasi di lingkungan tertentu
mencakup perangkat keras, jaringan, sistem operasi dan
perangkat lunak lainnya. Pada penelitian ini, pengujian
kompatibilitas dilakukan terhadap fungsionalitas aplikasi
dalam tipe perangkat smartphone yang berbeda. Pengujian
ini dilakukan agar dapat melihat kompatibilitas perangkat
saat menjalankan aplikasi. Pada penelitian ini, pengujian
kompatibilitas dilakukan terhadap fungsionalitas aplikasi
dalam tipe perangkat smartphone yang berbeda.
E. Pengujian Pre Test dan Post Test
Pengujian ini dilakukan di SMAN 1 Pontianak dengan
jumlah masing-masing kelompok berjumlah 10 siswa.
Soal yang diujikan terdiri dari 20 butir soal Pre Test dan
Post Test. Pengujian Pre Test dan Post Test dilakukan
untuk melihat seberapa besar pengaruh aplikasi yang
dibuat dalam pemahaman siswa terhadap materi sistem
pencernaan. Jika ingin mengetahui persentase kenaikan
nilai yang terjadi antara nilai yang lama ke nilai yang baru,
maka digunakan persamaan[8] :
kenaikan = x 100%
III. PERANCANGAN SISTEM
A. Arsitektur Sistem
Arsitektur Sistem menjelaskan cara kerja pada sistem.
Desain Arsitektur Sistem dapat dilihat pada gambar 1.
Objek 3D, Konten Audio, Image Target dan Vuforia
Package di import ke dalam aplikasi Unity. Proses
pembangunan aplikasi dilakukan di Unity. Setelah proses
pembangunan aplikasi selesai, maka aplikasi di-export ke
43
dalam format file APK agar dapat disematkan pada bagaimana alir berakhir[9]. Berikut merupakan activity
Android. Aplikasi yang dijalankan kemudian akan diagram sistem yang dapat dilihat pada gambar 3.
mengakses kamera yang ada di Android. Kemudian
kamera Android diarahkan di atas marker. Aplikasi
kemudian akan mendeteksi validitas marker yang
ditangkap oleh kamera. Jika valid, aplikasi akan
menampilkan objek 3D dari sistem pencernaan ke layar
Android.

Gambar. 3 Activity Diagram

Gambar. 1 Desain Arsitektur Sistem
B. Use Case Diagram
Use Case Diagram menggambarkan fungsionalitas
yang diharapkan dari sebuah sistem[9]. Sebuah use case
merepresentasikan sebuah interaksi antara aktor dengan
sistem. Berikut merupakan use case diagram sistem yang
dapat dilihat pada gambar 2.
Setelah pengguna memilih menu AR Pencernaan, maka
kamera pada perangkat akan aktif selanjutnya pengguna
mengarahkan kamera ke atas marker sehingga gambar
marker tertangkap dengan baik oleh kamera. Selanjutnya
sistem akan mengidentifikasi marker tersebut, apabila
marker tersebut tidak valid maka animasi objek 3D tidak
akan muncul. Tetapi apabila marker tersebut
teridentifikasi valid maka animasi objek 3D dari akan
muncul.

Gambar. 2 Use Case Diagram

Pengguna dapat memilih menu yang terdiri dari AR

Pencernaan, Kuis, Petunjuk, Tentang, dan Keluar. Dalam
menu AR Pencernaan pengguna dapat memilih untuk
melihat bentuk 3D dan animasi dari organ-organ pada
sistem pencernaan seperti Mulut, Kerongkongan,
Lambung, Usus Halus, dan Usus Besar untuk melihat Gambar. 4 Class Diagram
bentuk 3D serta mendengarkan materi yang diberikan
melalui suara.
D. Class Diagram
C. Activity Diagram
Class diagram adalah sebuah spesifikasi yang jika
Activity diagrams menggambarkan berbagai alir diinstansiasi akan menghasilkan sebuah objek dan
aktivitas dalam sistem yang sedang dirancang, bagaimana merupakan inti dari pengembangan dan desain
alir berawal, decision yang mungkin terjadi, dan berorientasi objek[9]. Class menggambarkan

44
Jurnal Edukasi dan Penelitian Informatika (JEPIN) Vol. 3, No. 2, 2017
p-ISSN : 2460-0741 / e-ISSN : 2548-9364
atribut/properti suatu sistem, serta menawarkan layanan aplikasi, tombol Tentang yang akan menampilkan pop up
untuk memanipulasi metoda/fungsi. Berikut merupakan informasi mengenai aplikasi, dan tombol Keluar yang
class diagram sistem yang dapat dilihat pada gambar 4. akan menampilkan pop up pilihan untuk keluar dari
Berdasarkan gambar, terdapat class Menu yang dapat aplikasi atau tidak.
menampilkan class Pencernaan, class Persistent, class
petunjukController, class tentangController dan class
keluarController.

E. Sequence Diagram
Sequence diagram menggambarkan interaksi antar
objek di dalam dan di sekitar sistem berupa message yang
digambarkan terhadap waktu[9]. Sequence diagram terdiri
atas dimensi vertikal (waktu) dan dimensi horizontal
(objek-objek yang terkait). Berikut merupakan sequence
diagram sistem yang dapat dilihat pada gambar 5.

Gambar. 6 Tampilan Menu Utama

Gambar. 5 Sequence Diagram

Pengguna pertama kali memulai aplikasi dan menuju

Menu Utama, lalu memilih Menu AR Pencernaan dan dari
menu tersebut akan mengaktifkan kamera dan melalukan
scanning marker. Dari hasil scanning akan muncul Objek
3D Pencernaan, selanjutnya memilih menampilkan
animasi untuk menampilkan animasi pencernaan.

IV. HASILL DAN ANALISIS

A. Hasil Perancangan
Aplikasi AR Pencernaan yang dibangun merupakan
penerapan dari teknologi Augmented Reality berbasis
Android. Dibangunnya aplikasi AR Pencernaan bertujuan
sebagai media pembelajaran multimedia sistem Gambar. 7 Tampilan Menu AR Pencernaan menampilkan Objek 3D
pencernaan pada manusia. Berikut beberapa tampilan
hasil perancangan aplikasi, yang diperlihatkan pada Pada scene AR Pencernaan objek yang ditampilkan
gambar 6-8. adalah Objek 3D keseluruhan dari sistem pencernaan.
Gambar 6 merupakan tampilan dari menu utama Terdapat juga tombol-tombol untuk menuju ke scene dari
aplikasi. Menu Utama merupakan tampilan antarmuka berbagai macam sistem pencernaan. Ketika marker
yang berisikan tombol-tombol navigasi untuk berpindah- terdeteksi dan objek 3D tampil pada layar android, maka
pindah scene. Pada scene ini terdapat beberapa tombol tombol untuk menjalankan animasi serta informasi dari
yaitu, tombol AR Pencernaan yang akan mengarahkan ke objek pencernaan akan aktif dan tampil bersamaan dengan
scene AR Pencernaan, tombol Kuis yang akan tampilnya objek 3D.
mengarahkan ke scene Menu Kuis, tombol Petunjuk yang
akan menampilkan pop up informasi cara menggunakan

45
Jurnal Edukasi dan Penelitian Informatika (JEPIN) Vol. 3, No. 2, 2017
p-ISSN : 2460-0741 / e-ISSN : 2548-9364
 TABEL I.
DAFTAR PERANGKAT PENGUJIAN KOMPATIBILITAS

No Merek Spesifikasi
Perangkat
1 Xiaomi - OS: Android 5.0.2 (Lollipop)
Redmi Note 2 - Kamera: 13 megapixel
- Layar: 1080 x 1920 pixels,
5,5 inches
2 Oppo Neo 5 - OS: Android 4.4.2 (Kitkat)
- Kamera: 8 megapixel
- Layar: 480 x 854 pixels, 4,5
inches
3 Asus Zenfone - OS: 4.4.2 (Kitkat)
C - Kamera: 5 megapixel
- Layar: 480 x 854 pixels, 4,5
inches
4 Samsung - OS: 4.4.2 (Kitkat)
Galaxy Grand - Kamera: 8 megapixel
Gambar. 8 Tampilan Menu AR Pencernaan menampilkan animasi dan 2 - Layar: 720 x 1080 pixels,
informasi objek 3D
5,25 inches
5 Xiaomi - OS: 6.0.1 (Kitkat)
Animasi objek 3D dari sistem pencernaan dapat
Redmi 4X - Kamera: 13 megapixel
dijalankan dengan cara menekan tombol play. Setelah
- Layar: 720 x 1080 pixels, 5
menekan tombol play, maka animasi akan berjakan dan
inches
informasi akan terdengar. Selain itu, ketika tombol play
ditekan, maka akan tampil tombol pause dan stop animasi. 6 Samsung - OS: 7.0 (Nougat)
Galaxy J7 - Kamera: 13 megapixel
B. Hasil Pengujian Kompatibilitas - Layar: 1080 x 1920 pixels,
Pengujian ini dilakukan agar dapat melihat 5,5 inches
kompatibilitas perangkat saat menjalankan aplikasi yang 7 Asus Zenfone - OS: 5.0 (Lollipop)
digunakan saat melakukan pre test dan post test. Pada Selfie - Kamera: 13 megapixel
pengujian kompatibilitas ini, aplikasi diuji mulai dari - Layar: 1080 x 1920 pixels,
tahap instalasi hingga saat dioperasikan pada perangkat. 5,5 inches
Langkah-langkah pengujian kompatibilitas terhadap 8 Sony Xperia - OS: 4.2.2 (Jelly Beans)
perangkat yang akan digunakan adalah sebagai berikut: L - Kamera: 8 megapixel
1. Menginstal file ARPencernaan.apk pada masing- - Layar: 480 x 854 pixels, 4,7
masing perangkat. inches
2. Kemudian jalankan aplikasi. 9 Xiaomi - OS: 5.1 (Lollipop)
3. Uji beberapa tombol menu yang terdapat pada Redmi 3 Pro - Kamera: 13 megapixel
menu utama. - Layar: 720 x 1080 pixels, 5,0
4. Pada menu yang menggunakan teknologi inches
Augmented Reality, pengujian dilakukan dengan 10 Oppo F1 - OS: 5.1 (Lollipop)
mengarahkan kamera pada marker. - Kamera: 13 megapixel
5. Amati apakah aplikasi dapat mendeteksi pola - Layar: 720 x 1080 pixels, 5,0
marker sehingga dapat menampilkan objek 3D, inches
animasi, dan informasi objek berupa suara.
Daftar perangkat yang digunakan untuk pengujian A. Hasil Pengujian Pre Test dan Post Test
aplikasi dapat dilihat pada Table I. Hasil pengujian Pertama kali yang dilakukan dalam pengujian adalah
kompatibilitas menunjukkan beberapa hal yang menjadi memberi Pre Test seputar materi pelajaran sistem
parameter pengukuran sesuai dengan langkah-langkah pencernaan manusia kepada 20 orang siswa. Selanjutnya,
pengujian, berhasil di-install dan berjalan pada setiap 20 orang siswa tadi dibagi menjadi 2 kelompok.
perangkat smartphone Android (Tabel II). Kelompok pertama akan disuruh untuk mengulang lagi
materi tentang sistem pencernaan dengan membaca buku
pelajaran biologi. Untuk kelompok kedua akan mengulang
lagi materi sistem pencernaan manusia dengan
menggunakan aplikasi Augmented Reality Sistem
Pencernaan Manusia, dan selanjutnya dua kelompok siswa

46
Jurnal Edukasi dan Penelitian Informatika (JEPIN) Vol. 3, No. 2, 2017
p-ISSN : 2460-0741 / e-ISSN : 2548-9364
ini akan diberi Post Test. Pre Test dan Post Test nya
sendiri terdiri dari 20 sampel pertanyaan. Jawaban Benar
akan diberi nilai 10, sedangkan jawaban “Salah” akan
diberi nilai 0. Total nilai Pre Test dibandingkan dengan
total nilai Post Test. Kemudian di hitung berapa
persentase kenaikan nilai dari Pre Test ke Post Test.
Berikut beberapa grafik rata-rata nilai dan grafik
persentase kenaikan nilai, yang diperlihatkan pada gambar
9 dan gambar 10.
Gambar 10. Grafik Persentase Kenaikan Nilai
TABEL II.
TABEL PENGUJIAN KOMPATIBILITAS B. Analisis Hasil Pengujian
Dari dua pengujian yang sudah dilakukan, dapat
Komponen Nomor Perangkat disimpulkan beberapa poin hasil analisis dari aplikasi AR
Pengujian 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Pencernaan yang akan dijelaskan sebagai berikut.
Menginstall           1. Berdasarkan hasil pengujian kompatibilitas
Aplikasi aplikasi, diperoleh bahwa aplikasi dapat berjalan
Menjalankan           pada perangkat smartphone Android dengan sistem
Aplikasi
operasi versi 4.2.0 (Jelly Beans) hingga versi 7.0
Membuka Kuis          
(Nougat). Berdasarkan data ini, dapat diketahui
Membuka Menu           bahwa aplikasi dapat dijalankan pada perangkat
Petunjuk android versi terendah sesuai dengan yang telah
Membuka Menu           ditentukan pada Batasan Masalah dan
Tentang diimplementasikan melalui pengaturan pada Game
Mencoba Menu           Engine Unity. Selain itu, aplikasi ini juga dapat
Keluar
Membuka Menu
dijalankan pada perangkat Android versi terbaru.
          Hal ini dikarenakan script Game Engine Unity
AR
Menampilkan dibangun menggunakan IDE (Integrated
Objek 3D           Development Environment) untuk Linux,
Pencernaan Macintosh dan Windows. Hal ini membuat aplikasi
Menjalankan yang dibangun di Unity dapat digunakan untuk
Animasi Objek           berbagai macam jenis dan versi dari sistem operasi.
3D Pencernaan 2. Berdasarkan hasil pengujian kompatibilitas
Menjalankan aplikasi, diperoleh hasil bahwa tampilan pada
Informasi Suara           setiap perangkat smartphone Android memiliki
Objek 3D
perbedaan, hal ini disebabkan perbedaan ukuran
Pencernaan
dan resolusi pada setiap layar smartphone Android.
Perbedaan ini dikarenakan pengaturan ukuran layar
pada Game Engine Unity sebesar 720 x 1080 pixels.
Hal ini berpengaruh terhadap perangkat
smartphone Android yang memiliki resolusi
dibawah 720 x 1080 pixels. Pada perangkat yang
memiliki resolusi dibawah 720 x 1080 pixels,
tampilan aplikasi terlihat menumpuk. Sedangkan
untuk perangkat smartphone Android yang
memiliki resolusi diatas 720 x 1080 pixels
perbedaan tampilan tidak terlalu signifikan.
3. Berdasarkan hasil pengujian Pre Test dan Post Test,
untuk kelompok siswa yang belajar menggunakan
buku mata pelajaran biologi diperoleh nilai rata-
rata 72 untuk Pre Test dan 82,5 untuk nilai rata-
Gambar 9. Grafik Nilai Rata-Rata Pre Test dan Post Test rata Post Test, sedangkan untuk kelompok siswa
yang belajar menggunakan aplikasi Augmented
Reality Sistem Pencernaan memperoleh nilai rata-
rata 72,5 untuk Pre Test dan 90,5 untuk nilai rata-
rata Post Test. Untuk persentase kenaikan nilai dari
Pre Test ke Post Test, siswa yang belajar
menggunakan buku mata pelajaran mendapat

47
Jurnal Edukasi dan Penelitian Informatika (JEPIN) Vol. 3, No. 2, 2017
p-ISSN : 2460-0741 / e-ISSN : 2548-9364
 kenaikan sebesar 14,5 %, sedangkan untuk
kelompok siswa yang belajar menggunakan
aplikasi AR Pencernaan mendapat kenaikan
sebesar 24,8%.
4. Perbedaan persentase kenaikan nilai ini,
dipengaruhi oleh media belajar dari masing-masing
kelompok. Dimana saat pengujian dilakukan,
kelompok yang belajar menggunakan Aplikasi
Sistem Pencernaan terlihat lebih tertarik dan fokus
dalam memahami materi. Sedangkan untuk
kelompok yang belajar menggunakan buku
pelajaran terlihat lebih cepat bosan dan tidak fokus.
Selain itu, jawaban dari soal Post Test yang
diberikan terdapat di materi pembelajaran pada
Aplikasi Sistem Pencernaan seperti soal-soal
tentang bagian-bagian dari organ pencernaan yang
pada Aplikasi Sistem Pencernaan ditampilkan
secara visual dalam bentuk 3D dan disandingkan
dengan informasi berupa suara. Sedangkan pada
kelompok siswa yang belajar menggunakan buku
pelajaran, bagian-bagian dari organ pencernaan
ditampilkan secara 2D yaitu berupa gambar yang
terdapat di buku pelajaran.
5. Dari persentase kenaikan nilai dan pengamatan
langsung terhadap proses pembelajaran siswa,
dapat dilihat bahwa Aplikasi Augmented Reality
Sistem Pencernaan dapat membantu
menyampaikan materi pelajaran sistem pencernaan
manusia kepada siswa.
diterapkan sebagai media pembelajaran sistem
pencernaan pada manusia.
REFERENSI
[1] Purnomo, Sudjino, Trijoko, Suwarno Hadisusanto. 2009.
BIOLOGI kelas XI untuk SMA dan MA. Jakarta: Intan Pariwara
[2] Andre Kurniawan Pamoedji, Maryuni, Ridwan Sanjaya. 2017.
Mudah Membuat Game Augmented Reality (AR) dan Virtual
Reality (VR) dengan Unity 3D. Jakarta: PT. Elex Media
Komputindo
[3] Hujair, Sanaky. 2013. Media Pembelajaran Interaktif dan Inovatif.
Yogyakarta: PT Kaukaba Dipantara
[4] Azhar Arsyad. 2013. Media Pembelajaran. Jakarta: PT. Raja
Grafindo Persada
[5] Martin Owen, Sue Owen, Mario Barajas, Anna Trifonova. 2013.
Augmented Reality in Education. Greece: Ellinogermaniki Agogi
[6] Abbas Abdoli Sejzi. 2015. Augmented Reality and Virtual
Learning Environment. Malaysia: Universitas Teknologi Malaysia
[7] Suhatati Tjandra, C. Pickerling. 2015. Aplikasi Metode-Metode
Software Testing Pada Configuration, Compatiblity dan Usability
Perangkat Lundak. Surabaya: Sekolah Teknik Tinggi Surabaya
[8] Paul Pope. 2008. How To Calculate Percentage Change. Texas:
Texas A&M University
[9] Sri Dharwiyanti, Romi Satria Wahono. 2003. Pengantar Unified
Modeling Language (UML). IlmuKomputer.com

V. KESIMPULAN
Berdasarkan hasil implementasi dan hasil analisis
pengujian terhadap aplikasi Augmented Reality Sistem
Pencernaan dapat disimpulkan bahwa:
1. Berdasarkan hasil pengujian kompatibilitas
aplikasi, diperoleh bahwa aplikasi dapat berjalan
pada perangkat smartphone Android dengan sistem
operasi versi 4.2.0 (Jelly Beans) hingga versi 7.0
(Nougat).
2. Berdasarkan pengujian kompatibilitas aplikasi,
resolusi terbaik untuk menjalankan aplikasi ini
pada smartphone Android adalah sebesar 720 x
1080 pixels.
3. Berdasarkan perhitungan persentase kenaikan nilai,
untuk kelompok siswa yang belajar menggunakan
buku mata pelajaran biologi diperoleh persentase
kenaikan sebesar 14,5 %, sedangkan untuk
kelompok siswa yang belajar menggunakan
aplikasi Augmented Reality Sistem Pencernaan
diperoleh persentase kenaikan sebesar 24,8 % yang
berarti kelompok siswa yang belajar menggunakan
aplikasi Augmented Reality Sistem Pencernaan
memiliki persentase kenaikan nilai yang lebih
tinggi dari kelompok siswa yang belajar
menggunakan buku mata pelajaran biologi.
4. Dari perhitungan persentase kenaikan nilai dapat
disimpulkan bahwa, Augmented Reality dapat

48
Jurnal Edukasi dan Penelitian Informatika (JEPIN) Vol. 3, No. 2, 2017
p-ISSN : 2460-0741 / e-ISSN : 2548-9364
Article
Journal of Educational Computing

Exploring Parents’ Research

2017, Vol. 55(6) 820–843
! The Author(s) 2017
Conceptions of Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Augmented Reality DOI: 10.1177/0735633116686082
journals.sagepub.com/home/jec
Learning and
Approaches to
Learning by
Augmented Reality
With Their Children

Kun-Hung Cheng1

Abstract
With the increasing attention to the role of parents in children’s learning, what issues
parents consider and how they behave when learning with their children when
confronted with the emerging augmented reality (AR) technology may be worth
exploring. This study was therefore conducted to qualitatively understand parents’
conceptions of AR learning and approaches to learning by AR with their children.
A total of 90 pairs of parents and children were invited to participate in an AR book
reading activity held in 2015; all of the parents were then interviewed to acquire
the research data. Through the phenomenographic method, this study generated
several categories of the parents’ conceptions of and approaches to AR learning.
Further analysis identified the relationships between parents’ conceptions and
approaches. For example, the parents holding cohesive conceptions (e.g., learning
by AR as attaining in-depth understanding) tended to use deep approaches
(e.g., offering guidance to connect life experiences with the book content for thor-
ough reading). Based on the findings, a framework of interactive AR book systems for
child–parent shared reading is proposed. This study was expected to initiate research
in the area of learning by AR in informal learning environments.

1
Department of Communication and Technology, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan
Corresponding Author:
Kun-Hung Cheng, Department of Communication and Technology, National Chiao Tung University,
No.1, Sec. 1, Liujia 5th Rd., Zhubei City, Hsinchu County 302, Taiwan.
Email: kuhu@mail.nctu.edu.tw
Cheng 821

Keywords
augmented reality, informal learning, conceptions of learning, approaches to
learning, parents, children, phenomenographic method

Introduction
In addition to emphasizing what individual learners attain and how they learn,
the role of parents in their children’s learning with information technology is a
notable issue worth exploring. Research has addressed that parents’ continuing
firm perceptions of and support for learning with information technology could
be beneficial for extending student learning from classrooms to home environ-
ments (Kong & Li, 2009). A possibility of changing parents’ attitudes toward
science and technology clubs (after-school clubs) for facilitating students’
creative learning was also highlighted in a previous study (Hong, Chen, &
Hwang, 2013). Although parents generally expressed less confidence in helping
their children to learn with technology, they exhibited positive attitudes toward
their children’s Internet-based learning (Anastasiades, Vitalaki, & Gertzakis,
2008), educational programmable bricks learning (Feng, Lin, & Liu, 2011), or
game-based learning (Bourgonjon, Valcke, Soetaert, Wever, & Schellens, 2011).
As far as further engaging parents in their children’s learning, it was found that
children who wrote programs with their parents performed better than those
who worked alone (Lin & Liu, 2012).
With regard to the prospective technology applied in education, it might be
important for researchers to endeavor to understand parents’ beliefs about how
the new technology is currently affecting their children. Augmented reality (AR)
is a technique which can blend virtual information with the physical world in
real time, further creating a brand new learning experience (Wu, Lee, Chang, &
Liang, 2013). With its ability of conveying situational information beyond trad-
itional learning contexts, recent studies have examined the effectiveness of
AR applications in terms of students’ learning in various educational fields,
such as science learning (Chen & Wang, 2015), engineering learning (Gavish
et al., 2015), mathematics learning (Lin, Chen, & Chang, 2015), medical learning
(Ferrer-Torregrosa, Torralba, Jimenez, Garcia, & Barcia, 2015), or history
learning (Chang, Hou, Pan, Sung, & Chang, 2015). Research evidence also indi-
cates that learners tend to possess positive attitudes toward AR-related learning
(Bressler & Bodzin, 2013; Lin et al., 2015; Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013).
As there has been little research on children’s learning with their parents in
AR environments (Cheng & Tsai, 2014; Tscholl & Lindgren, 2016), the investi-
gation of parents’ beliefs (e.g., conceptions) about AR learning for their children
is still limited. Since parents play an important role in extending children’s
e-learning from the classroom to the home environment, an understanding of
822 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

parents’ conceptions of AR learning might be helpful for the implementation of

AR learning at home. Moreover, several studies have verified that people’s con-
ceptions of learning may guide their approaches to learning (e.g., Chen, 2015;
Ellis, 2014). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to learning
have been measured in the past; however, a limited number of studies have
examined the same issues with parents as the subjects. This study was therefore
conducted in an attempt to explore parents’ conceptions of and approaches to
learning with their children, especially in the context of AR learning. Based on
the understandings of what parents consider AR learning to be and how they
learn with their children in AR settings, researchers, educators, or even learning
material developers could get more ideas for promoting learning by AR in
informal learning environments. Accordingly, this study aimed to answer the
following research questions:

1. What are parents’ conceptions of AR learning and approaches to learning by

AR with their children?
2. What are the associations between parents’ conceptions of and approaches to
AR learning?
3. What suggestions for supporting AR learning in informal learning environ-
ments can be provided?

Features of AR in This Study

In the field of educational research, increasing efforts have been made to explore
how prospective technology applications could support learning or teaching.
For example, AR is a notable technology for pedagogical use. Differing from
virtual reality (VR), which immerses users in a computer-generated environ-
ment, AR technology provides users with a mixed vision, combining the physical
world and virtual information in real time. Generally, AR can be classified into
two types, image-based AR and location-based AR (Cheng & Tsai, 2013).
Location-based AR identifies the user’s position by way of a wireless network
or global positioning system and accordingly offers virtual information blended
with and presented over the physical environment they see. The recent popular
mobile game Poke´mon GO developed by Niantic is a typical example of location-
based AR. In contrast, image-based AR uses graphics recognition techniques to
detect plane images in the physical world and then provides users with synthetic
information or elements overlapping the plane images. AR books, similar to an
enhanced version of a traditional three-dimensional (3D) pop-up paper book
which can overlap augmented information on the printed pages (Abas & Zaman,
2011; Ramli & Zaman, 2011; Tomi & Rambli, 2013), are a typical image-based
AR application. Some studies have investigated how AR books can benefit
students, such as by fostering motivation (Ferrer-Torregrosa et al., 2015) or
Cheng 823

enhancing performance (Vate-U-Lan, 2012). Due to the fact that AR books

could be easily adopted by parents and further used for parent–child shared
reading in home environments, this study selected AR books as the learning
materials for understanding what parents consider AR learning is and how they
learn with their children by AR.

Parents’ Views on AR Learning

Despite the increasing work on AR learning issues, research on explorations
of parents’ views on AR learning is still relatively scarce. In 2013, Cascalesa,
Pérez-Lópezb, and Contero explored parents’ acceptance of AR technology
applied for preschool education. The parents in Cascalesa et al.’s study (2013)
considered that the integration of AR into preschoolers’ learning could facilitate
motivation, creativity, and a degree of satisfaction. According to the parents,
the application of AR technology was also positively correlated with their chil-
dren’s learning outcomes such as improvements in reading and writing
skills. Similar to the findings of parents’ attitudes toward students learning
with information technology in previous studies (e.g., Anastasiades et al.,
2008; Feng et al., 2011), the parents perceived several benefits in using AR for
preschoolers’ learning as well. However, the parents’ responses in Cascalesa
et al.’s study (2013) were not based on their personal experiences of using AR.
In this study, we considered that parents may think differently about the role
of AR in education when they themselves have personal experiences of AR
learning, particularly experiences of engaging in AR learning together with
their children.
In a recent study (Cheng & Tsai, 2016), the researchers invited children and
parents to read an AR book. They then further examined the parents’ concep-
tions of AR learning. It was found that the parents considered learning by AR as
enhancing impressions, fostering motivation, and attaining in-depth understand-
ing. In addition to these positive beliefs, some of the parents negatively perceived
learning by AR as obstructing reading or as a substitute for parents. These
results indicate that parents do not always hold positive perceptions of learning
with technology. When parents participate in the AR learning process, they may
perceive a relatively wider spectrum of conceptions of AR learning (Cheng &
Tsai, 2016) than just expressing acceptance of the use of AR in their children’s
learning (Cascalesa et al., 2013). Hence, this study considered that the explor-
ation of parents’ conceptions of AR learning could reflect their sophisticated
beliefs about the technology applied in education. The limited research to
date has preliminarily probed parents’ conceptions of AR learning with a
small sample size (Cheng & Tsai, 2016). To enhance the applications of AR
technology for home education, in this study, we attempted to examine parents’
conceptions of AR learning with a large sample size and further generate more
constructive categories of parents’ conceptions of AR learning.
824 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

Conceptions of Learning
To understand learners’ beliefs about the nature of learning, several studies have
explored the issue through the examination of their conceptions of learning (e.g.,
Marton, Dall’Alba & Beaty, 1993; Tsai, 2004). An individual’s description of
what learning purposes and processes are can be defined as his or her concep-
tions of learning (Benson & Lor, 1999). These conceptions can be deemed as
the reflection of the individual’s learning experiences. Early research found
that students’ conceptions of learning can be hierarchically classified into five
different categories, namely (a) an increase in knowledge, (b) memorizing, (c) the
acquisition of knowledge for retention or use in practice, (d) understanding, and
(e) an interpretative process aimed at an understanding of reality (Saljo, 1979).
Researchers took the findings of Saljo’s studies (1979) a step further and probed
students’ conceptions of learning in various learning contexts or domains such as
science learning (Tsai, 2004), language learning (Drewelow & Mitchell, 2015),
history teaching (Voet & De Wever, 2016), and blended learning (Bliuc, Casey,
Bachfischer, Goodyear, & Ellis, 2012). Although these studies found similar
results regarding the categories of conceptions of learning in order, the concep-
tions presented in these studies included a variety of content; that is to say, an
individual may possess different conceptions of learning in different learning
contexts (Marshall, Summer, & Woolnough, 1999). As a result, exploring par-
ents’ conceptions of AR learning might facilitate understanding of their beliefs
about learning with the aid of AR.

Approaches to Learning
In general, people’s conceptions of learning may guide their approaches to
learning, an argument which has been examined and verified by previous studies
(e.g., Bliuc et al., 2012; Li, Liang, & Tsai, 2013). Approaches to learning refers
to the strategies by which an individual processes his or her learning tasks
(Biggs, 1994), and qualitative differences by individuals have been found
(Marshall et al., 1999). For students’ science learning, it was found that those
students who possessed less advanced conceptions of science learning (e.g.,
learning science as memorizing, testing, or calculating) tend to apply surface-
level approaches for achieving extrinsic goals of learning science with simple
strategies (e.g., just memorizing the most important content that may achieve
high scores in exams instead of understanding it). On the contrary, students
holding more sophisticated conceptions of science learning (e.g., learning science
as understanding and seeing in a new way) are inclined to adopt deep-level
approaches for achieving intrinsic goals of learning science with advanced stra-
tegies (e.g., understanding the meaning of the contents in science textbooks
and relating new materials to what they already know; Li et al., 2013).
Similarly, with regard to teachers’ conceptions of and approaches to blended
Cheng 825

learning in vocational education, research has shown that those teachers who
consider blended learning as student-centered learning (sophisticated concep-
tions) may be inclined to teach or design instruction which supports deep and
meaningful student learning (deep-level approaches; Bliuc et al., 2012). Based on
the literature mentioned earlier, it can be speculated that there may be certain
associations between parents’ conceptions of and approaches to learning with
their children, especially in the context of AR learning.

The Purposes of This Study

In sum, the purposes of this study were to examine what parents consider AR
learning to be through the lens of an individual’s conceptions. Besides, how
parents’ conceptions of AR learning link to their approaches to learning with
their children were explored as well. Subsequently, based on the findings of this
study, suggestions for designing AR systems for parents and their children to
learn together could be proposed. Also, the examination of AR learning from
parents’ perspectives may benefit the extension of learning by AR from the
classroom to the home environment.

Method
Sample
The participants of this study included 90 pairs of parents and children in north-
ern (45 pairs) and southern (45 pairs) Taiwan. They were recruited based on the
purposive sampling method for possibly representing parents’ perceptions of AR
learning in different areas of Taiwan. The mean age of the parents was 39.31
years old (SD ¼ 3.92), ranging from 31 to 50. Among these parents, 73 were
females (81%) and 17 were males (19%). Regarding the educational background
of the parents, there were 30 parents with a graduate level (33%), 47 with an
undergraduate level (52%), and 13 with a high school level qualification (15%).
The children’s age ranged from 7 to 14 years, with an average of 10.03
(SD ¼ 1.63). The proportion of the children’s gender is almost equal, with
51% females and 49% males. All of them were primary school students. The
parents in this study mostly responded that they were familiar with operating
mobile devices such as smart phones or tablet personal computers (PCs), but not
with using AR-related applications. The research data were gathered in 2015.

Data Collection
To understand the parents’ interpretations of AR learning, the sample parents
were individually interviewed by a trained research assistant for collecting the
qualitative data. In this study, the parent interviews were conducted in Chinese,
826 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

and all the interviews were audio-recorded. Due to the fact that most of the
parents did not have any AR learning experience, they were required to read an
AR book with their children before the interview. The AR book adopted in this
study aimed to introduce the artistic works of the artist YuYu Yang from
Taiwan. The content of the paper book was in the form of storytelling with
pictures. With the aid of AR technology, users can read more details about the
artistic works. To be more specific, by focusing on the pictures of the paper book
with the camera of a mobile device, the augmented information could be super-
imposed upon the physical book and presented in the form of interactive 3D
objects or videos to describe the artistic works in the book (e.g., sculptures or
engravings). Notably, the augmented information did not represent the story but
provided scaffolding to help readers better understand or appreciate the artist’s
creative concepts. On average, each child–parent pair spent about 30 minutes
reading the AR book. All of the parents were interviewed after the reading activity
to reveal how they felt about learning with the aid of AR, and what strategies they
perceived themselves as having used during the process of the AR book reading
with their children. The interview questions for the parents are as follows:

. Conceptions of AR learning
1. According to the reading experiences, please describe what AR learning is
in your understanding.
2. How would you introduce AR learning to your friends?
3. Do you think the AR technology can benefit children’s learning? Why?
. Approaches to AR learning
1. What did you do during the process of the AR book reading with your
child?
2. Why did you apply these approaches or strategies in the reading activity?

Data Analysis
To analyze the qualitative data, the parent interviews were fully transcribed as
verbatim text. Two researchers subsequently examined and analyzed the verba-
tim transcripts based on the phenomenographic method, which has been used in
previous studies (e.g., Tsai, 2004). Within the interpretivist paradigm, phenom-
enography is a qualitative research approach used to investigate individuals’
different understandings of reality in which people experience something or
think about something. The method is focused on variations of experience
rather than variations of individuals. It usually involves data collection of
small and purposive samples of subjects through interviews. By sorting subjects’
perceptions (from the interview data) into specific categories of experience,
the phenomenographic method can form the underlying structure based on
these categories and reveal probable conceptions of experience related to the
Cheng 827

phenomenon (Åkerlind, 2005). Accordingly, this study considered phenomeno-

graphic analysis as an appropriate qualitative method to understand the phe-
nomenon with regard to parents’ perceptions of AR learning.
To analyze the parents’ interview responses, first, the most important sen-
tences in the verbatim transcripts were marked to extract the main ideas about
parents’ conceptions of and approaches to AR learning. The two researchers
then summarized the similarities and differences between the parents’ concep-
tions of AR learning, as well as approaches to AR learning, by comparing the
main ideas. By examining the consistencies and differences across the interview
data, different categories of conceptions of and approaches to AR learning can
be qualitatively constructed. The researchers discussed and classified the parent
interview data into the generated categories in agreement. Through the phenom-
enographic method, the parents’ responses could be classified into hierarchical
categories to depict their conceptions of and approaches to AR learning, and the
qualitative relationships between the categories could be further identified by
cross-tabulation analysis.

Results
The Categories of Parents’ Conceptions of AR Learning
By analyzing the qualitative variations in the parents’ interview data through the
phenomenographic method, this study found several major categories of con-
ceptions of AR learning as indicated by the parents. Specifically, the parents’
conceptions of AR learning can be classified into eight hierarchical categories.
That is, they considered AR learning as (a) increasing presence, (b) drawing
attention, (c) fostering motivation, (d) extending content, (e) attaining in-
depth understanding, (f) enhancing interaction, (g) obstructing reading, and
(h) diminishing imagination. The descriptions of the parents’ responses for the
eight categories are presented as follows, from positive (1 to 6) to negative (7 to
8). Note that the positive categories of the parents’ conceptions of AR learning
are listed from the less advanced to the more sophisticated levels.

a. Increasing presence (called extending)

In this category, the parents considered learning by AR as being for the

purpose of increasing presence. To be more specific, they think that AR tech-
nology can allow learners to read books from 3D aspects and therefore create
the feelings of reality by AR. For example, some of the parents’ responses are
extracted below:

P11: My child could actually observe the artistic work from various aspects as he
wanted. I think AR can provide the perceived reality for him to appreciate artistic works.
828 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

P55: I think AR can offer opportunities of seeing artistic works for those people who
can’t visit art galleries.

b. Drawing attention (called attention)

Differing from learning with the aid of a computer, in this category, the
parents thought that learning with new technology such as AR can attract
their children’s attention and can even help their children to remember what
they have read in the AR book. For example, the parents stated that:

P29: In my opinion, reading the text in the book may be boring. Learning by AR can
enhance the impressions of the content with those 3D virtual objects. It’s appealing for
children, and even for adults as well.
P68: Learning by AR with the 3D presentation is attractive for children. The way of
learning is quite different from learning by using a mouse. AR learning can create
more experiences of engagement. Also, children would understand the appearance of
the artistic works better and remember them more easily.

c. Fostering motivation (called motivation)

The parents’ responses classified into this category represented their interpret-
ation that learning with the aid of AR can foster children’s willingness to read.
The children may have more motivation to explore the content of the book. For
example, the parents responded that:

P16: We can be personally on the learning scene when reading with the aid of AR. The
learning experience could induce our curiosity to go into the field to see the artistic
works.
P60: Integrating AR technology into traditional reading experiences can overcome
the boredom that children may perceive when reading paper books. I think that, with
the aid of AR, it can push children to learn actively. At least, children are willing to
open books to read.

d. Extending content (called content)

In this category, the parents’ responses represented the consideration

of AR learning as using technology to offer relevant knowledge while
their children engaged in learning such as reading AR books. They perceived
Cheng 829

learning by AR as extending learning content. For example, the parents

stated that:

P14: I think that, in addition to the content of the book, there was complementary
information provided by the smart device. If children’s textbooks can be presented in
this way, I think it would be better for their learning.
P57: I think the application of AR learning is good. Learning by AR can extend
children’s learning because the AR book system would provide much relevant infor-
mation for them to read, just like somebody else is commenting on the book
beside them.

e. Attaining in-depth understanding (called understanding)

According to the responses of the parents which were classified into this
category, learning by AR was conceptualized as attaining more in-depth under-
standing of the learning materials. They thought that AR learning can provide
opportunities for children to read the content of the paper book more carefully.
Children could have thorough comprehension of the learning content. For
example, the parents responded that:

P12: I found that AR technology could help my child to read the content and observe
the pictures in the book carefully. Instead of turning over the pages quickly, the details
of the book content could be noticed, as well as the story described in the book.
P39:Learning by AR can help us to understand the rationale of the artistic work. That
is, with the aid of AR, we could know about why the artist created the work, what
messages he wanted to transmit, and what techniques he used in the creation.

f. Enhancing interaction (called interaction)

In this category, the parents considered that AR technology could create inter-
active environments for learning. Specifically, in addition to the interaction
between parents and their children, AR learning allows learners to interact with
the learning materials and provides opportunities for learners to explore the learn-
ing content. For example, some of the parents’ responses are extracted below:

P52: In the learning activity, I can either interact with my child or let her read the AR
book herself. My child’s exploration of the book can also be fostered with the aid of
AR. I think that learning by AR can help children to gain more knowledge regarding
the book.
830 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

P56: We can interact with each other in the process of the AR book reading. For
example, I can instruct my child to view the work from several perspective angles or
far and near distance. He can also operate the AR book by himself. In my opinion, the
interaction resulting from AR learning could motivate children to learn.

g. Obstructing reading

In contrast to the positive conceptions of AR learning perceived by the

parents, in this category, the parents were concerned that their children’s
attention was attracted by the AR technology rather than by the text in the
paper book. Learning by AR may even interrupt their children’s reading and
further have a negative effect on their learning. For example, the parents
stated that:

P13:I think AR learning is kind of a new way to learn; however, I am concerned about
the situation that AR technology would obstruct children’s reading.
P36:I found my child playing with the tablet PC for AR. Hence, I am worried about
the situation that my child may pay less attention to book text reading.
P43:I think that children did not want to read the book in more detail; on the contrary,
they concentrated on the tablet PC and were eager to explore what else to play on it.

h. Diminishing imagination

In this category, the parents considered that learning by AR may diminish

children’s imagination originating from traditional text reading. Learning by
AR may have negative effects on children’s reading because of the novelty of
the technology. According to the parents’ responses, the reality provided by AR
also inhibited children’s opportunities to think creatively. Some of the parents’
responses are given below as examples:

P09:I don’t think learning by AR is good for my child. Reading the text in the paper
book can help children to understand the meaning of the content. Also, their imagin-
ation can be enhanced by reading.
P37:Reading paper books could help my child to develop a rich imagination. Seeing
the real objects with the aid of AR may not be helpful for creative thinking.
P87:Books with too many fancy effects may not lead readers to read the books
carefully. In my opinion, reading can cultivate children’s imagination due to the pres-
entation of the text and pictures in the books.
Cheng 831

Table 1. The Distributions of the Categories of Parents’ Conceptions of Augmented

Reality Learning.

Categories Description n %

(1) Presence Parents considered learning by AR as 17 19%

(2) Attention
(3) Motivation
(4) Extending
(5) Understanding
(6) Interaction
(7) Obstructing reading
(8) Diminishing imagination
AR ¼ augmented reality.
being for the purpose of increasing
presence
Parents considered learning by AR can 15 17%
attract children’s attention
Parents considered learning by AR can 9 10%
foster children’s willingness to read
Parents considered AR can offer rele- 14 15%
vant knowledge while children
engaged in learning
Parents considered learning by AR can 17 19%
attain thorough understanding of the
learning materials.
Parents considered AR technology can 7 8%
create interactive environments for
learning (e.g., interaction between
parents and children or interaction
between learners and learning
materials).
Parents considered learning by AR may 5 5%
even interrupt children’s reading and
further have a negative effect on
their learning.
Parents considered learning by AR may 6 7%
diminish children’s imagination origi-
nating from traditional text reading.

The Distributions of the Categories of Parents’ Conceptions of AR

Learning
To understand how the parents perceived AR learning, the interview data were
analyzed by quantitative content analysis according to the eight categories gen-
erated earlier. The frequency and proportion of each category were then calcu-
lated. According to Table 1, in general, there were no specific conceptions of AR
832 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

learning that predominated. It was found that 19% of the parents perceived
learning by AR as creating presence for users (n ¼ 17) and as attaining in-
depth understanding of book content (n ¼ 17). Meanwhile, 17% of the parents
(n ¼ 15) considered learning by AR as capturing users’ attention because of its
new technology features which differ from those of a traditional computer inter-
face. Also, the conceptions regarding learning by AR as providing relevant
knowledge for extending book content were held by a similar proportion of
the parents (n ¼ 14, 15%). With regard to the positive-oriented conceptions,
relatively fewer parents perceived AR learning as fostering motivation (n ¼ 9,
10%) and enhancing interaction (n ¼ 7, 8%).
In addition, it should be noted that there were 11 parents who possessed
negative-oriented conceptions of AR learning. They considered that learning by
AR may have negative effects on learners’ concentration on book reading (n ¼ 5,
5%) and may diminish readers’ imagination regarding the text because of the
presence provided by AR (n ¼ 6, 7%). A previous study indicated parents’ accept-
ance of AR learning due to its benefits for children’s motivation and creativity
(Cascales et al., 2013). However, the findings were based on a situation in which
the parents did not have actual personal experience of using AR for learning with
their children. Taking this a step further, this study engaged parents in the AR
learning context so as to understand their conceptions in more depth. In addition
to positive conceptions, this study found that parents may have negative concep-
tions when confronting AR learning. Even though the frequency of the categories
of negative conceptions was relatively low, the results may address the bottleneck
of AR book reading at the present stage of AR learning development.

The Categories of Parents’ Approaches to AR Learning

To understand what strategies the parents perceived themselves as using during
the process of the AR book reading with their children, the phenomenographic
method was adopted to analyze the parents’ interview responses. The results
show that there were six hierarchical categories of the parents’ approaches to
AR learning generated by the phenomenographic analysis. Specifically, the par-
ents utilized approaches including (a) accompanying, (b) assisting, (c) instruct-
ing, (d) prompting, (e) guiding, and (f) discussing to read the AR book with their
children. In the following, we present descriptions of the parents’ responses for
the six categories listed from surface to deep levels.

a. Accompanying

In this category, the parents responded that they accompanied their children
to read the AR book without other strategies or interventions. Some of the
parents’ responses are extracted below as examples:
Cheng 833

P06:My child likes to read by herself; therefore, I kept up with her. Sometimes she
would wait for me if I read more slowly.
P32:I think I can’t teach him anything. Hence, I would not intervene in his reading
process and allow him to learn himself.

b. Assisting

According to the responses of the parents which were classified into this
category, it was revealed that some acted as facilitators to assist their children
in holding the paper book, operating the mobile device, or narrating the content
of the book. It should be noted that, in this category, the parents did not inter-
vene in their children’s reading. For example, some of the parents stated that:

P39:To see the augmented information quickly, I helped him to focus the paper book
with the camera of the iPad. Sometimes, he may skip the pages with more text
content; and I would help to narrate the content.
P47:I was worried that she may not hold the iPad stably; hence, I always held the
iPad during the reading activity. When we turned to the pages with AR information,
either she would control the paper book or I would operate the iPad to read the AR
book. I think she kept her mind on the AR book reading activity.

c. Instructing

In this category, the parents acted as instructors to demonstrate how to oper-

ate the AR book system. Some of the parents tended to explain the content of
the book. Despite the parents’ instruction in this category, they still encouraged
their children to read the AR book actively. For example, some of the parents
responded that:

P31:I explained the content of the book for my child for instructing how the artistic
work was made. He would read the AR information and compare it with what I said.
P87:Firstly, I would demonstrate how to read the AR book with the iPad, such as
narrating the content of the book and operating the iPad to see the AR elements from
different angles; then, he would read the book by himself.

d. Prompting

The parents responded that, in this category, they may provide prompts or
hints to help their children pay attention to reading the AR book in detail. Also,
834 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

some of the parents would propose questions to get their children to think about
the content of the AR book. For example, some of the parents stated that:

P13:I usually reminded my child to notice the details in the book. For example, I
would ask him to pay attention to the artistic work and further ask him questions
about its appearance (e.g., size).
P36:When finishing a learning topic, I would ask questions about the augmented
information for my child to think about. For example, what is engraving? How is it
made? If my child cannot answer my questions, I would provide more hints for my
child to get a better understanding.

e. Guiding

In the process of the AR book reading, the parents’ responses in this category
indicated that they guided their children to connect life experiences with the
content of the book. From the parents’ guidance, the children could read the
AR book in more depth. For example, some of the parents responded that:

P11:I would guide him to see the pictures in the book; then, I also asked him some
questions to connect with his life experiences.
P38:When he could not understand the augmented objects, I had to provide guidance
to link what he had seen before. For example, I reminded him to recall Taroko Gorge
when he observed the virtual artistic work in the AR book.

f. Discussing

In this category, the parents discussed the content of the AR book with
their children during or after the reading activity. They considered that experi-
ence sharing would be helpful for facilitating their children’s integration of
and reflection on the content learned earlier. For example, some of the parents
stated that:

P55:During the process of the AR book reading, I expected that my child could learn
actively. Hence, I would not interfere in my child’s learning. When we finished reading
the AR book, I shared what I had seen previously with my child and discussed with him
to facilitate reflection on and integration of the learning content.
P74:Actually, we enjoyed reading the AR book. During the reading activity, we dis-
cussed the book content together. In my opinion, this kind of interaction may help my
child to remember our discourse or the content of the book.
Cheng 835

Table 2. The Distributions of the Categories of Parents’ Approaches to Augmented

Reality Learning.

Categories Description n %

(1) Accompanying Parents accompanied their children to read 16 18%

the AR book without other strategies or
interventions.
(2) Assisting Parents assisted their children in holding the 27 30%
paper book, operating the mobile device,
or narrating the content of the book, but
did not intervene in their children’s reading.
(3) Instructing Parents demonstrated how to operate the AR 10 11%
book system or tended to explain the
content of the book for the purpose of
encouraging their children to learn actively.
(4) Prompting Parents provided prompts to help their chil- 13 14%
dren pay attention to reading the AR book
in detail or proposed questions to get their
children to think.
(5) Guiding Parents guided their children to connect life 8 9%
experiences with the content of the book
for reading the AR book in more depth.
(6) Discussing Parents discussed the content of the AR book 16 18%
with their children during or after the
reading activity for the purposes of facili-
tating their children’s integration of and
reflection on the content learned
previously.
AR ¼ augmented reality.

The Distributions for the Categories of Parents’ Approaches to AR

Learning
Similar to the analysis of the parents’ conceptions of AR learning, the interview
data regarding approaches to AR learning were also analyzed and classified into
the six categories by quantitative content analysis. The results in Table 2 show
that the most common approach to AR learning used by the parents was assist-
ing. Specifically, 30% of the parents (n ¼ 27) acted as facilitators to help their
children hold the paper book or operate the mobile device but did not interfere
with their children’s reading. The second highest frequency of the approaches
836 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

which the parents applied were accompanying (n ¼ 16, 18%) and discussing
(n ¼ 16, 18%). In the hierarchical categories, whereas the approach accompany-
ing indicates the most surface-level strategy, the approach discussing represents
the deep-level strategy. To some extent, these results may imply that the parents
in this study did not show certain preferences for utilizing the surface-level or the
deep-level strategies to read the AR book with their children. Compared with
other approaches to AR learning by the parents, the approach guiding was not
commonly applied (n ¼ 8, 9%). This result may indicate that the parents in this
study were not used to providing guidance for connecting life experience with
book content when reading with their children, particularly in the AR learning
context. For AR learning system designers, this finding might also raise practical
implications regarding what mechanisms of reading guidance could be enhanced
in the future.

The Relationships Between Parents’ Conceptions of and Approaches

to AR Learning
To explore the relationships between the parents’ conceptions of AR learning and
their approaches to learning by AR with their children, in this study, we classified
the categories of conceptions and approaches into several major dimensions for
further cross-tabulation analysis. Regarding the conceptions, past studies gener-
ally found hierarchical conceptions of learning by students and further classified
them into two types, that is, cohesive and fragmented conceptions (e.g., Marton
et al., 1993; Quinnell, May, & Peat, 2012). Whereas cohesive conceptions refer to
more sophisticated thoughts about how knowledge is constructed, fragmented
conceptions reflect less advanced thoughts about how knowledge is memorized.
To a certain degree, the eight categories of conceptions of AR learning found in
this study corresponded to previous studies. For instance, the conceptions of
learning by AR as drawing attention to help learners memorize the learning con-
tent can be deemed as fragmented conceptions. The conceptions of learning by
AR as enhancing interaction for offering opportunities to explore the learning
content can be considered as cohesive conceptions. Differing from the positive-
oriented conceptions found in previous studies, in the context of AR learning, in
this study it was further found that the parents had negative-oriented conceptions
such as obstructing reading. Accordingly, we classified the eight categories into
three dimensions of conceptions of AR learning. To be more specific, learning by
AR as increasing presence, drawing attention, and fostering motivation were clas-
sified into the dimension of fragmented conceptions, whereas learning by AR as
extending content, attaining in-depth understanding, and enhancing interaction
were classified into the dimension of cohesive conceptions. On the other hand,
learning by AR as obstructing reading and diminishing imagination were classified
into the dimension of negative conceptions.
Cheng 837

Table 3. The Relationships Between Parents’ Conceptions and Approaches.

Surface Deep
approaches approaches Total

(3) Instructing
(4) Prompting
(1) Accompanying (5) Guiding
(2) Assisting (6) Discussing

Fragmented (1) Presence 27 (30%) 14 (16%) 41 (46%)

conceptions (2) Attention
(3) Motivation
Cohesive (4) Extending 13 (14%) 25 (28%) 38 (42%)
conceptions (5) Understanding
(6) Interaction
Negative (7) Obstructing reading 3 (3%) 8 (9%) 11 (12%)
conceptions (8) Diminishing
imagination
Total 43 (48%) 47 (52%) 90 (100%)
Note. 2 ¼ 10.03, p ¼ .007.

In terms of approaches, several studies have examined students’ approaches

to learning via the two broad types of surface and deep approaches (e.g., Chin &
Brown, 2000; Li et al., 2013). While surface approaches to learning usually refer
to simple strategies such as memorizing fragmented knowledge, deep approaches
refer to advanced strategies such as connecting prior knowledge with present
learning content for attaining thorough understanding. In this study, the
parents’ approaches including accompanying their children and helping their
children’s reading with simple assistance with the operation of the device did
not involve much intervention in the children’s reading. Therefore, in this study,
the approaches of accompanying and assisting were deemed as surface
approaches. On the other hand, the approaches of instructing, prompting, guid-
ing, and discussing involved more intervention by the parents with the aim of
helping their children integrate their ideas and reflect on their learning process;
accordingly, these four approaches were considered as deep approaches which
the parents used to read the AR book with their children.
According to the cross-tabulation analysis in Table 3, the results of the chi-
square analysis indicated significant associations between the parents’ concep-
tions of and approaches to AR learning (2 ¼ 10.03, p < .01). As shown in
Table 3, the parents possessing fragmented conceptions tended to utilize surface
approaches (n ¼ 27, 30%) rather than deep approaches (n ¼ 14, 16%) to reading
838 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

the AR book with their children. That is, the parents who considered learning by
AR as being for the purposes of creating presence or drawing attention were
inclined to let their children read the AR book on their own, or provided a
little help with the operation. On the other hand, for those parents who held
cohesive conceptions, it was found that they tended to utilize deep approaches
(n ¼ 25, 28%) rather than surface approaches (n ¼ 13, 14%) to reading the
AR book with their children. These results indicate that the parents perceiving
learning by AR as possibly extending learning content, attaining thorough
understanding, or enhancing interaction had the tendency to engage more in
the AR book reading process with their children. From the parents’ perspective,
the application of the strategies such as providing prompts to encourage the chil-
dren to pay attention to reading the AR book in detail, or discussing the book
content with their children during or after the reading activity may be beneficial
for acquiring in-depth understanding of the book.
The aforementioned results found in the AR learning context correspond to
previous studies which were situated in other learning contexts for indicating the
positive relationships between students’ conceptions and approaches (Bliuc
et al., 2012). In addition, it is also interesting to note that, for the parents
who held negative conceptions of AR learning, they were inclined to use deep
approaches (n ¼ 8, 9%) rather than surface approaches (n ¼ 3, 3%) to learning
with their children. Although some parents in this study considered learning by
AR as hindering children’s reading or even diminishing their imagination
regarding the content of the book, the negative conceptions were probably
involved in more critical thinking rather than simple considerations of the limi-
tations of AR book reading. The associations between negative conceptions and
deep approaches such as instructing, prompting, guiding, and discussing were
identified in this study, accordingly.

Discussion and Conclusion

The present study qualitatively explored parents’ conceptions of AR learning
and their approaches to learning by AR with their children through the phe-
nomenographic method. Associations between the parents’ conceptions of and
approaches to AR learning were also found. Specifically, the parents possessing
more sophisticated conceptions (e.g., learning by AR as attaining in-depth
understanding) tended to utilize deep approaches (e.g., offering guidance to
connect life experiences with the book content for thorough reading) to reading
the AR book with their children, and vice versa. It is notable that the parents
who held negative conceptions of AR learning (i.e., obstructing reading and
diminishing imagination) were inclined to apply deep approaches to reading
with their children. We speculated that the negative conceptions were involved
in critical thinking and related to deep-level strategies. However, in the current
stage, the parents’ perceptions of the shortcomings of AR learning still need to
Cheng 839

be improved. The parents in this study stated that the possible reasons for
interrupting the AR book reading were the operation of one hand for control-
ling the mobile device and the other for flipping the paper book. Another pos-
sible reason was the novelty effect which drew the children’s attention to the
mobile devices, distracting them from actually reading the book. As a result, it is
suggested that wearable devices (e.g., AR glasses) might reduce the interference
of the mobile devices (e.g., tablet PCs) in AR book reading. Reading AR books
using wearable devices may create more intuitive user experiences and may also
reduce users’ attention to the hardware.
In addition, to enhance children’s and parents’ reading by AR technology, a
mechanism for the design of child–parent shared AR books is also proposed.
To be more specific, the deep approaches to AR learning including instructing,
prompting, guiding, and discussing found in this study can be the basis of the
mechanism. For each learning topic of the AR book, the proposed design would
first provide hints regarding the operation of the AR book or the instruction of
the book content to engage the readers in the activity of child–parent shared
book reading. Subsequently, the prompts with regard to the current learning
topic and the guidance for connecting life experiences with the book content are
offered. Finally, the AR book raises open-ended issues regarding the current
learning topic for parents and their children to discuss with each other. Through
the sequence of instructing ! prompting ! guiding ! discussing (IPGD)
strategies, the understanding of each learning topic could be enhanced by con-
tinuing the interaction between the children and parents.
Moreover, the parents in this study considered that learning by AR may
diminish their children’s imagination originating from traditional text reading.
It is therefore further proposed that features of social sharing and learning
process recording be integrated in the phase of discussing the IPGD strategies.
That is, in addition to the supply of open-ended issues during the phase of
discussing, the proposed mechanism also allows users to actively ask questions
on the built-in social network to increase knowledge building. The features of
learning process recording allow users to reexamine their reading process in the
AR book system via the recorded discourse among users. This feature of the
proposed mechanism might foster parents’ and children’s reflection on what
they have learned, and integrate it with their prior knowledge. It is considered
that the proposed mechanism of AR books with the IPGD strategies could
lead parents who hold less advanced conceptions of AR learning to use more
sophisticated approaches to learning with their children. The aforementioned
framework is expected to be helpful for future studies regarding the design of
AR books.
With the increasing attention to the role of parents in children’s learning
(e.g., Bourgonjon et al., 2011; Hong et al., 2013), this study further addressed
what parents considered and how they behaved as learning with their children
when confronted with the emerging AR technology. The findings of this study
840 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

are also expected to initiate the research on learning by AR in informal learning

environments. Moreover, several categories of conceptions of and approaches
to AR learning were identified from the parents’ perspectives. Similar to past
studies (e.g., Li et al., 2013) situated in science learning contexts, it was found
that, in the context of AR learning, the parents’ conceptions of AR learning
were also related to the approaches they used to read with their children.
Notably, the purposive sampling conducted in this study may have resulted in
potential limitations of uncontrolled background variables (e.g., parents’ gender
and education level). Also, involving child–parent pairs in the AR book reading
activity for the first time may have engendered novelty effects of new technology
usage. To eliminate these potential limitations, large scale quantitative research
is suggested to reexamine the results of this study. Specifically, based on the
generated categories of conceptions and approaches in this study, future work
could verify the correlations between users’ conceptions of and approaches to
AR learning through quantitative measurements. The causal relationships
among conceptions, approaches, and learning outcomes could be further
examined based on a structural model. It might be interesting to include other
variables such as self-efficacy (Issaieva, 2016), motivation (Rabanaque &
Martinez-Fernandez, 2009), or technology literacy (Hohlfeld, Ritzhaupt, &
Barron, 2013) in the discussion of users’ conceptions of and approaches to
AR learning. In addition to the exploration of parent subjects, it is also sug-
gested that future studies on AR learning examine other cohorts of research
samples such as high school students, college students, or teachers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: Funding of this study is supported by Ministry of
Science and Technology, Taiwan, under grant number MOST 103-2511-S-009-010.

References
Abas, H., & Zaman, H. B. (2011). Visual learning through augmented reality storybook
for remedial student. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Visual
informatics: Sustaining Research and Innovations (pp. 157–167). Selangor, Malaysia.
Åkerlind, G. (2005). Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods.
Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 321–334.
Anastasiades, P. S., Vitalaki, E., & Gertzakis, N. (2008). Collaborative learning activities
at a distance via interactive videoconferencing in elementary schools: Parents’ atti-
tudes. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1527–1539.
Cheng 841

Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. System,
27(4), 459–472.
Biggs, J. (1994). Approaches to learning: Nature and measurement of. In T. Husen & T.
N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education Vol. 1, (2nd ed.,
pp. 319–322). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Bliuc, A. M., Casey, G., Bachfischer, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2012). Blended
learning in vocational education: Teachers’ conceptions of blended learning and their
approaches to teaching and design. Australian Educational Researcher, 39(2), 237–257.
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., de Wever, B., & Schellens, T. (2011). Parental
acceptance of digital game-based learning. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1434–1444.
Bressler, D. M., & Bodzin, A. M. (2013). A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow
experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 29(6), 505–517.
Cascales, A., Pérez-López, D., & Contero, M. (2013). Studies on parent’s acceptance of
the augmented reality use for preschool education. Proceedings of 2013 International
Conference on Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education (pp. 420–427). Puerto de la
Cruz, Tenerife, Spain.
Chang, Y. L., Hou, H. T., Pan, C. Y., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Apply an
augmented reality in a mobile guidance to increase sense of place for heritage places.
Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 166–178.
Chen, C. P., & Wang, C. H. (2015). Employing augmented-reality-embedded instruction
to disperse the imparities of individual differences in earth science learning. Journal of
Science Education and Technology, 24(6), 835–847.
Chen, J. (2015). Teachers’ conceptions of approaches to teaching: A Chinese perspective.
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 341–351.
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science learning:
Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4),
449–462.
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Children and parents’ reading of an augmented
reality picture book: Analyses of behavioral patterns and cognitive attainment.
Computers & Education, 72, 302–312.
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). The interaction of child-parent shared reading with
an augmented reality (AR) picture book and parents’ conceptions of AR learning.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 203–222.
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface
approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.
Drewelow, I., & Mitchell, C. (2015). An exploration of learners’ conceptions of language,
culture, and learning in advanced-level Spanish courses. Language Culture and
Curriculum, 28(3), 243–256.
Ellis, R. A. (2014). Quality experiences of inquiry in blended contexts—University stu-
dent approaches to inquiry, technologies, and conceptions of learning. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 273–283.
Feng, H. C., Lin, C. H., & Liu, E. Z. F. (2011). Parents’ perceptions of educational
programmable bricks for kids. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2),
E30–E33.
842 Journal of Educational Computing Research 55(6)

Ferrer-Torregrosa, J., Torralba, J., Jimenez, M. A., Garcı́a, S., & Barcia, J. M. (2015).
ARBOOK: Development and assessment of a tool based on augmented reality for
anatomy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 119–124.
Gavish, N., Gutierrez, T., Webel, S., Rodriguez, J., Peveri, M., Bockholt, U., . . . Tecchia,
F. (2015). Evaluating virtual reality and augmented reality training for industrial
maintenance and assembly tasks. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(6), 778–798.
Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. E. (2013). Are gender differences in
perceived and demonstrated technology literacy significant? It depends on the model.
ETR&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 639–663.
Hong, J. C., Chen, M. Y., & Hwang, M. Y. (2013). Vitalizing creative learning in science
and technology through an extracurricular club: A perspective based on activity
theory. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 45–55.
Issaieva, E. (2016). Conceptions of intelligence and learning and perceptions of self-
efficacy among students at the end of primary school. Educational Studies, 42(1),
114–118.
Kong, S. C., & Li, K. M. (2009). Collaboration between school and parents to foster
information literacy: Learning in the information society. Computers & Education, 52,
275–282.
Li, W. T., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Relational analysis of college chemistry-
major students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning chemistry. Chemistry
Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 555–565.
Lin, H. C. K., Chen, M. C., & Chang, C. K. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of learning
solid geometry by using an augmented reality-assisted learning system. Interactive
Learning Environments, 23(6), 799–810.
Lin, J. M., & Liu, S. F. (2012). An investigation into parent-child collaboration in
learning computer programming. Educational Technology and Society, 15(1),
162–173.
Marshall, D., Summer, M., & Woolnough, B. (1999). Students’ conceptions of learning in
an engineering context. Higher Education, 38(3), 291–309.
Marton, F., Dall’ Alba, G., & Beaty, E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International.
Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 277–299.
Quinnell, R., May, E., & Peat, M. (2012). Conceptions of biology and approaches to
learning of first year biology students: Introducing a technique for tracking changes in
learner profiles over time. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7),
1053–1074.
Rabanaque, S., & Martı́nez-Fernández, J. R. (2009). Conception of learning and motiv-
ation of Spanish psychology undergraduates in different academic levels. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(4), 513–528.
Ramli, R., & Zaman, H. B. (2011). Augmented reality in helping early reading: A story-
telling approach. Proceedings of INTED2011: 5th International Technology, Education
and Development Conference (pp. 2185–2192). Valencia, Spain.
Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective 1. Some commonsense conceptions.
Gothenburg, Sweden: Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg.
Tomi, A. B., & Rambli, D. R. A. (2013). An interactive mobile augmented reality magical
playbook: Learning number with the thirsty crow. Procedia Computer Science, 25,
123–130.
Cheng 843

Tsai, C. C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in

Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis. International Journal of Science Education,
26(14), 1733–1750.
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.
Vate-U-Lan, P. (2012). An augmented reality 3D pop-up book: The development of a
multimedia project for English language teaching. Proceedings 2012 IEEE
International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (pp. 890–895). Melbourne, Australia.
Voet, M., & De Wever, B. (2016). History teachers’ conceptions of inquiry-based learn-
ing, beliefs about the nature of history, and their relation to the classroom context.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 57–67.
Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward
learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education, 68,
570–585.
Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, oppor-
tunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62,
41–49.

Author Biography
Kun-Hung Cheng is an assistant professor at the Department of Communication
and Technology, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan. His research inter-
ests have mainly focused on augmented reality learning and Internet-based
learning.