Review of Articles Related to Mixed Reality in Education

Year 2021, , 20 - 31, 24.06.2021

Mertkan Sinoplu , Fatma Gizem Karaoğlan Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.51535/tell.894508

Cited By: 1

Abstract

With the development of technology, there have been developments in the field of education as in every field. Among these developments, it can be said that the most important developments regarding educational environments are reality technologies. These technologies can be divided into three categories as virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality. Since mixed reality, one of these technologies, is a combination of virtual and augmented reality, it is thought that studies in this field will contribute to studies in other realities. In this study, the articles using mixed reality technologies were systematically examined. After the examination, the articles were evaluated and classified according to the criteria determined. With the study, the distributions of the articles on mixed reality in the field of education between years 2016-2020 in the Web of Science database were found according to the determined criteria and inferences were made about these distributions. As a result of the study, it was concluded that most of the articles were published in 2020 and 2018. In addition to this result, it was determined that quantitative articles were much more than qualitative articles. It was seen that experimental-applied study was mainly chosen as the type of article. Science was found to be the most preferred learning area. It was seen that the undergraduate level was the most chosen sample level. It was determined that the questionnaire was the most chosen data collection tool. Finally, it was concluded that “50-99” and “0-24” are the most selected sample ranges in mixed reality research in education.

Keywords

Mixed Reality, Education, Reality Environments, Learning Environments

Eğitimde Karma Gerçeklikle İlgili Makalelerin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Teknolojinin gelişmesiyle birlikte her alanda olduğu gibi eğitim alanında da gelişmeler olmuştur. Bu gelişmeler arasında eğitim ortamlarına ilişkin en önemli gelişmelerin gerçeklik teknolojileri olduğu söylenebilir. Bu teknolojiler sanal gerçeklik, artırılmış gerçeklik ve karma gerçeklik olarak üç kategoriye ayrılabilir. Bu teknolojilerden biri olan karma gerçeklik, sanal gerçeklik ile artırılmış gerçekliğin birleşimi olduğu için bu alandaki çalışmaların diğer gerçekliklerdeki çalışmalara katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Bu çalışmada karma gerçeklik teknolojilerini kullanan makaleler sistematik olarak incelenmiştir. İnceleme sonrasında makaleler değerlendirilip belirlenen kriterlere göre sınıflandırılmıştır. Yapılan çalışma ile Web of Science veritabanında bulunan 2016-2019 yılları arasında yayımlanan eğitim alanında karma gerçeklik ile ilgili makalelerin dağılımları, belirlenen kriterlere göre bulunmuş ve bu dağılımlar hakkında çıkarımlar yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda makalelerin çoğunun 2020 ve 2018 yıllarında yayınlandığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu sonuca ek olarak nicel makalelerin nitel makalelerden çok daha fazla olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Makale türü olarak ağırlıklı olarak deneysel uygulamalı çalışmanın seçildiği görülmüştür. En çok tercih edilen öğrenme alanı fen bilimleri olarak görülmüştür. Lisans düzeyinin en çok seçilen örneklem düzeyi olduğu görülmüştür. Anketin en çok tercih edilen veri toplama aracı olduğu belirlenmiştir. Son olarak eğitimde karma gerçeklik araştırmalarında en çok seçilen örneklem aralıklarının “50-99” ve “0-24” olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

Karma Gerçeklik, Eğitim, Gerçeklik Ortamları, Öğrenme Ortamları

References

• Aguayo, C., Dañobeitia, C., Cochrane, T., Aiello, S., Cook, S., & Cuevas, A. (2018). Embodied reports in paramedicine mixed reality learning. Research in Learning Technology, 26.
• Aguayo, C., Eames, C., & Cochrane, T. (2020). A Framework for Mixed Reality Free-Choice, Self-Determined Learning. Research in Learning Technology, 28.
• Ali, A. A., Dafoulas, G. A., & Augusto, J. C. (2019). Collaborative educational environments incorporating mixed reality technologies: A systematic mapping study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 12(3), 321-332.
• Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355-385.
• Beyoglu, D., Hursen, C., & Nasiboglu, A. (2020). Use of mixed reality applications in teaching of science. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4271-4286.
• Billinghurst, M., & Kato, H. (1999, March). Collaborative mixed reality. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Mixed Reality (pp. 261-284).
• Birt, J., & Cowling, M. (2018). Assessing mobile mixed reality affordances as a comparative visualization pedagogy for design communication. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 1-25.
• Birt, J., Moore, E., & Cowling, M. (2017). Improving paramedic distance education through mobile mixed reality simulation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(6).
• Birt, J., Stromberga, Z., Cowling, M., & Moro, C. (2018). Mobile mixed reality for experiential learning and simulation in medical and health sciences education. Information, 9(2), 31.
• Burleson, W. S., Harlow, D. B., Nilsen, K. J., Perlin, K., Freed, N., Jensen, C. N., ... & Muldner, K. (2017). Active learning environments with robotic tangibles: Children's physical and virtual spatial programming experiences. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(1), 96-106.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (23. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Çavas, B., Çavas, P. H., & Can, B. T. (2004). Egitimde sanal gerceklik. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(4).
• Chao, J., Chiu, J. L., DeJaegher, C. J., & Pan, E. A. (2016). Sensor-augmented virtual labs: Using physical interactions with science simulations to promote understanding of gas behavior. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 16-33.
• Chen, C. H., Chou, Y. Y., & Huang, C. Y. (2016). An augmented-reality-based concept map to support mobile learning for science. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(4), 567-578.
• Chew, E. and Chua, X.N. (2020), "Robotic Chinese language tutor: personalising progress assessment and feedback or taking over your job?", On the Horizon, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 113-124.
• Chini, J. J., Straub, C. L., & Thomas, K. H. (2016). Learning from avatars: Learning assistants practice physics pedagogy in a classroom simulator. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010117.
• Cochrane, T., Aiello, S., Cook, S., Aguayo, C., & Wilkinson, N. (2020). MESH360: a framework for designing MMR-enhanced clinical simulations. Research in Learning Technology, 28.
• Cochrane, T., Stretton, T., Aiello, S., Britnell, S., Cook, S., & Naryan, V. (2018). Authentic interprofessional health education scenarios using mobile VR. Research in Learning Technology, 26.
• Cohen, J., Wong, V., Krishnamachari, A., & Berlin, R. (2020). Teacher coaching in a simulated environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(2), 208-231.
• Dalinger, T., Thomas, K. B., Stansberry, S., & Xiu, Y. (2020). A mixed reality simulation offers strategic practice for pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 144, 103696.
• Danish, J. A., Enyedy, N., Saleh, A., & Humburg, M. (2020). Learning in embodied activity framework: a sociocultural framework for embodied cognition. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15, 49-87.
• Dawson, M. R., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2017). Meaningful practice: Generalizing foundation teaching skills from TLE TeachLivE™ to the classroom. Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(1), 26-50.
• Diker, O. Karma Gerçeklikli Görsel Müze Olarak Troya Müzesinin Karma Görsellik Yöntemi ile İncelenmesi. Gastroia: Journal of Gastronomy and Travel Research, 3(1), 197-224.
• Durak, A., & Karaoğlan Yılmaz, F. G. K. (2019). Artırılmiş gerçekliğin eğitsel uygulamalari üzerine ortaokul öğrencilerinin görüşleri. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 468-481.
• Essmiller, K., Asino, T. I., Ibukun, A., Alvarado-Albertorio, F., Chaivisit, S., Do, T., & Kim, Y. (2020). Exploring mixed reality based on self-efficacy and motivation of users. Research in Learning Technology, 28.
• Frank, J. A., & Kapila, V. (2017). Mixed-reality learning environments: Integrating mobile interfaces with laboratory test-beds. Computers & Education, 110, 88-104.
• Gallagher, S. (2018). Educating the right stuff: Lessons in enactivist learning. Educational Theory, 68(6), 625-641.
• Gautam, A., Williams, D., Terry, K., Robinson, K., & Newbill, P. (2018). Mirror worlds: examining the affordances of a next generation immersive learning environment. TechTrends, 62(1), 119-125.
• Huang, H. M., & Liaw, S. S. (2018). An analysis of learners’ intentions toward virtual reality learning based on constructivist and technology acceptance approaches. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1).
• Huang, H. M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171-1182.
• İçten, T., & Güngör, B. A. L. (2017). Artırılmış gerçeklik teknolojisi üzerine yapılan akademik çalışmaların içerik analizi. Bilişim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 10(4), 401-415.
• Kalpakis, S., Palaigeorgiou, G., & Kasvikis, K. (2018). Promoting Historical Thinking in Schools through Low Fidelity, Low-Cost, Easily Reproduceable, Tangible and Embodied Interactions. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(12).
• Karaoğlan Yılmaz, F. G., & Yılmaz, R. (2019). Sanal gerçeklik uygulamalarının eğitimde kullanımına ilişkin öğretmen adaylarının görüşlerinin incelenmesi.
• Katzis, K., Dimopoulos, C., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Lasica, I. E. (2018). Engineering attractiveness in the European educational environment: Can distance education approaches make a difference?. Education Sciences, 8(1), 16.
• Keifert, D., Lee, C., Enyedy, N., Dahn, M., Lindberg, L., & Danish, J. (2020). Tracing bodies through liminal blends in a mixed reality learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 1-23.
• Langbeheim, E., & Levy, S. T. (2018). Feeling the forces within materials: bringing inter-molecular bonding to the fore using embodied modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 40(13), 1567-1586.
• Ledger, S., & Fischetti, J. (2020). Micro-teaching 2.0: Technology as the classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 37-54.
• Lee, H., Parsons, D., Kwon, G., Kim, J., Petrova, K., Jeong, E., & Ryu, H. (2016). Cooperation begins: Encouraging critical thinking skills through cooperative reciprocity using a mobile learning game. Computers & Education, 97, 97-115.
• Leonard, S. N., & Fitzgerald, R. N. (2018). Holographic learning: A mixed reality trial of Microsoft HoloLens in an Australian secondary school. Research in Learning Technology, 26.
• Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174-187.
• Marcel, F. (2019). Mobile augmented reality learning objects in higher education. Research in Learning Technology, 27.
• Mikulecký, P. (2012, April). Smart environments for smart learning. In DIVAI 2012 9th International Scientific Conference on Distance Learning in Applied Informatics (pp. 213-222).
• Murphy, K. M. (2019). Working with Avatars and High Schoolers to Teach Qualitative Methods to Undergraduates. LEARNing Landscapes, 12(1), 183-203.
• Oh, S., So, H. J., & Gaydos, M. (2017). Hybrid augmented reality for participatory learning: The hidden efficacy of multi-user game-based simulation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(1), 115-127.
• Özdemir, M. (2017). Artırılmış gerçeklik teknolojisi ile öğrenmeye yönelik deneysel çalışmalar: sistematik bir inceleme. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 609-632.
• Palaigeorgiou, G., Karakostas, A., & Skenteridou, K. (2018). Touching and traveling on 3D augmented tangible maps for learning geography: The FingerTrips approach. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.
• Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95, 309-327.
• Roberts, J., & Lyons, L. (2017). The value of learning talk: applying a novel dialogue scoring method to inform interaction design in an open-ended, embodied museum exhibit. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(4), 343-376.
• Schoeb, D. S., Schwarz, J., Hein, S., Schlager, D., Pohlmann, P. F., Frankenschmidt, A., & Miernik, A. (2020). Mixed reality for teaching catheter placement to medical students: a randomized single-blinded, prospective trial. BMC medical education, 20(1), 1-8.
• Shakirova, N., Said, N., & Konyushenko, S. (2020). The Use of Virtual Reality in Geo-Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(20), 59-70.
• Sinfield, D. (2018). The Boundaries of Education: Using mobile devices for connecting people to places. ALTJ-Association for Learning Technology Journal, 26.
• Spencer, S., Drescher, T., Sears, J., Scruggs, A. F., & Schreffler, J. (2019). Comparing the efficacy of virtual simulation to traditional classroom role-play. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(7), 1772-1785.
• Stefan, L., Moldoveanu, F., & Gheorghiu, D. (2016). Evaluating a mixed-reality 3D virtual campus with big data and learning analytics: A transversal study. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 12(2).
• Taçgın, Z., & Arslan, A. (2017). The perceptions of CEIT postgraduate students regarding reality concepts: Augmented, virtual, mixed and mirror reality. Education and Information Technologies, 22(3), 1179-1194.
• 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.
• Usta, E., Korucu, A. T., & Yavuzarslan, İ. F. (2016). Eğitimde artırılmış gerçeklik teknolojilerinin kullanımı: 2007-2016 döneminde Türkiye’de yapılan araştırmaların içerik analizi. Alan Eğitimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 84-95.
• Vasilevski, N., & Birt, J. (2020). Analysing construction student experiences of mobile mixed reality enhanced learning in virtual and augmented reality environments. Research in Learning Technology, 28.
• Vince Garland, K. M., Holden, K., & Garland, D. P. (2016). Individualized clinical coaching in the TLE TeachLivE lab: Enhancing fidelity of implementation of system of least prompts among novice teachers of students with autism. Teacher Education and Special Education, 39(1), 47-59.
• Walker, Z., Vasquez, E., & Wienke, W. (2016). The impact of simulated interviews for individuals with intellectual disability. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 76-88.
• Watson, P., & Livingstone, D. (2018). Using mixed reality displays for observational learning of motor skills: A design research approach enhancing memory recall and usability. Research in Learning Technology, 26.
• Weng, C., Rathinasabapathi, A., Weng, A., & Zagita, C. (2019). Mixed reality in science education as a learning support: a revitalized science book. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(3), 777-807.
• Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41-49.
• Zheng, J. M., Chan, K. W., & Gibson, I. (1998). Virtual reality. IEEE Potentials, 17(2), 20-23.
• Zhou, Y. (2016). Application of Automatic Choreography Software Based on Virtual Technology in the Gymnastics Teaching. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(5).