Technology, Knowledge and Learning (2023) 28:347–368

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09542-1

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented

Reality

Clarissa Hedenqvist1 · Mario Romero1 · Ricardo Vinuesa2

Accepted: 8 June 2021 / Published online: 12 July 2021

© The Author(s) 2021

Abstract
This study investigates to which extent students’ understanding of the physical phenom-
enon of torque can be improved through the use of visualization technology, in particu-
lar of augmented reality (AR). The students in the first-year course Mechanics I at KTH
participated in the study by taking two tests on torque. In between those tests, a subgroup
of students participated in a user study where they used an AR application to solve prob-
lems regarding torque. The results of the pre-test and the post-test indicate that the sub-
group who used the app improved their understanding of torque to a greater extent than
the ones who did not use the app. However, a larger sample space would be required to
obtain a complete statistical characterization of the reported (qualitative and quantitative)
improvement.

Keywords Visualization · Augmented reality · Technology-enhanced learning ·

Engineering mechanics · Torque

1 Introduction

Technology has become a very naturally integrated part of our everyday lives. We con-
stantly find ways to solve problems and enhance experiences through the use of technol-
ogy, and education is not an exception. A recent review study (Vinuesa et al. 2020) shows
that using advanced technology may help to increase the education quality. Technology-
Enhanced Learning (TEL) can roughly be described as when technology is used in edu-
cational settings with the purpose of enhancing the students learning. On the other hand,
Augmented Reality (AR) is a technology that is being increasingly used for educational
purposes. With its possibility to supplement the real world with computer-generated
objects, thus allowing an extension of reality, it enables the user to experience otherwise
impossible scenarios (Yuen et al. 2011). This property opens up for many possible areas of

* Ricardo Vinuesa
[email protected]
1
Department of Computational Science Technology, School of Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
2
SimEx/FLOW, Engineering Mechanics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stokcholm,
Sweden

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
348 C. Hedenqvist et al.

use in education, providing teachers with richer tools of explanation. Using technology in
education can be a way to implement Active Learning (AL), which is defined as “anything
that involves students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing” (Bon-
well and Eison 1991). As discussed below, research shows that students learn better when
the educational environment encourages them to be actively involved in their own learning
(Prince 2004; Freeman et al. 2014; Kontra et al. 2015).
In order to assess the role that technology can play in learning, in this work we consider
the epistemological framework of constructivism. Piaget (1964), one of the pioneers within
constructivism, claimed that learning “is provoked, [...], as opposed to spontaneous”,
meaning that in order to learn you need to actively experience. According to Piaget, indi-
viduals need to construct their own knowledge, and when exposed to new information, this
is compared with previously acquired information, either the previous beliefs are adjusted
or one gets reassurance that the already constructed knowledge is indeed correct. Note that
constructivism promotes a “learning-by-doing” approach which motivates the technology-
enhanced active-learning environment of this study. Thus, AL can be viewed as a form of
applied constructivism. It is a learning configuration built on the assumption that students
construct their own knowledge, rather than on the traditional image of the students being
solely recipients. According to the review on AL by Prince (2004) there is a widespread
support for more engaging teaching methods, although varying in strength. All the research
that he examined confirmed improvement in learning outcomes as a consequence of active
engagement, leading to the conclusion that such teaching approach should be encouraged.
On the other hand, Freeman et al. (2014) showed that AL is effective in Science, Technol-
ogy, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education and led to increased performance in
examination. Comparing traditional lecturing with a more active approach, they concluded
that AL is to be promoted and could lower failure rates, thus inspiring more individuals
to pursue a STEM degree. Furthermore, by measuring activity in the sensorimotor brain
regions, Kontra et al. (2015) found that physical experience in physics education indeed
enhances learning. They examined regions in the brain that “add kinetic detail and meaning
to students’ thinking”, and they observed that these regions were activated while perform-
ing the physical experiments. The students, as a consequence, showed signs of enhanced
learning demonstrated by increased quiz scores.
Making teaching and learning more effective has always been of interest throughout his-
tory. The possibilities that arouse with modern technology were harvested immediately.
Educational films were introduced in the beginning of the twentieth century, slide projec-
tors were a standard aid in the 1950s classrooms (Saettler 2004), and with the arrival of
internet the possibilities have become endless. One use of technology in education is to
create an active learning environment. And although TEL does not necessarily imply AL,
obtaining a more active setting is a common result of including technology in teaching.
Rutten et al. (2012) reviewed a decade worth of research regarding the usefulness of com-
puter simulations assisting traditional education forms in science education. This review of
the literature showed clear evidence of traditional instruction being enhanced by the use of
computer simulations, specifically in laboratory exercises. For instance, Dori and Belcher
(2005) used software in a redesigned classroom for teaching first-year Physics at the Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology. The focus was specifically on electromagnetism, which
is a particularly challenging concept for the students, and the researchers believed that their
Technology-Enabled Active Learning (TEAL) environment would positively contribute
to their understanding. The study analysed the cognitive and effective results of the stu-
dents, coming to the conclusion that the TEAL setup had significantly improved student
performance.

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 349

When it comes to the particular technological resource to use, Sung et al. (2016) con-
cluded (after reviewing over 100 studies) that mobile devices have a more positive effect
in education than desktop computers. Nevertheless, such a positive effect is only obtained
when the instruction style is adapted in such a way that cooperative study and self-directed
learning are promoted (Liu et al. 2014; Lan et al. 2015). If steered in this way, the use of
mobile devices for teaching is expected to enhance the development of additional high-
level skills (Frohberg et al. 2009; Zucker and Light 2009), but the available studies merely
focus on the improvement regarding the course content (Sung et al. 2016). Another aspect
that should be exploited to a larger extent is the possibility of obtaining instant feedback
from the students using the mobile device (Ozcelik and Acarturk 2011), and this is con-
nected to the fact that a specific training for the teachers may be the best away to achieve
such improvements (Penuel 2006). It is therefore important, when using technology for
teaching, to create the right environment in terms of technology, teaching style and student
awareness (Liu et al. 2012; Gao et al. 2016).

1.1 Contributions of This Work

In this work, we developed a technological tool to help students (and possibly the general
public) to understand concepts of physics through visualization. This study will therefore
investigate whether an AL setting using technology, in particular AR, can be useful for stu-
dents in their learning of physics phenomena. This work is framed in the context a Mechan-
ics I course from first year at KTH. Based on student performance in exams from previous
years, we identified that the concept of torque is particularly challenging for the students,
and it is a threshold concept studied early in the course which is required to understand the
more advanced topics covered later. Therefore, our AR environment was designed to help
the students to learn and apply this concept, as discussed below. We note that similar AR-
based methodologies could be developed and applied in the context of other study areas,
for instance linear algebra (where the vector product is also very relevant) or aerospace
engineering.
This article is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we provide an overview of the literature
on AR in education; the methodology employed for this work is discussed in Sect. 3; the
results are presented in Sect. 4, while the discussion can be found in Sect. 5; finally the
conclusions of the work, together with an outlook, are provided in Sect. 6.

2 Overview of Augmented Reality in Education

As the name reveals, this technology is based on the augmentation of reality, meaning that
the real world is enhanced through the addition of virtual elements. The interactive expe-
rience through the AR-enabled immersion allows the users to feel as if they were affect-
ing reality, while they are really just manipulating the computer-generated effects. AR is a
kind of technology which could be useful for educational purposes given the constructivist
framework in which this study is performed. For instance, nowadays 92 % of the Swedish
population have a smartphone (InternetStiftelsen 2019), which makes AR an accessible
technology, since most1 smartphones contain a gyroscope, an accelerometer and a camera,

1
https://​docs.​unity​3d.​com/​2019.1/​Docum​entat​ion/​Manual/​vufor​ia_​requi​remen​ts.​html.

13
350 C. Hedenqvist et al.

the three parts a phone needs to be able to support AR applications. In an overview of AR

in education, Yuen et al. (2011) state that one of the main purposes behind research in the
field is that AR has great potential to improve productivity in real-world tasks. In terms
of education, AR is believed to have potential to engage and stimulate students, nurture
their creativity and imagination, and help to teach them concepts that are difficult, or even
impossible to experience in the real world.
One of the first studies to examine the potential of augmented reality in the education of
mechanical engineering was Web3D-AR (Liarokapis et al. 2004) in 2004. While the core
concepts of AR in engineering education were originally explored in this paper, here we
also review the vast advancements in technological platform of the last decade. Physics-
Playground is a project developed by Kaufmann and Meyer (2008) with the intention to
show how education can benefit from using technology. PhysicsPlayground is an AR appli-
cation that helps to visualize e.g. forces, counterforces, speed and velocity. The hardware
necessary for using this application is a Head-Mounted Display (HMD), a wireless pen
and a Personal Interaction Panel (PIP). Note that in this case, the hardware requirements
may limit the accessibility to a greater audience. Furthermore, this study did not evaluate
the effectiveness of their application in improving learning. Vaughan et al. (2017), inspired
by the fact that active participation has been proven to enhance learning in STEM courses,
included an AR sandbox in an undergraduate introductory course in soil science. The
results of a qualitative survey filled out by the participating students showed that they all
reported a deeper understanding of the studied phenomena such as water flow, erosion and
soil formation. Due to the use of a sandbox, together with the required technology, acces-
sibility is also a limitation in this project. A different implementation of AR was proposed
by Dünser et al. (2012), who considered a book augmented through the use of a Hand-Held
Device (HHD) to increase the understanding in secondary school Physics. They performed
a quantitative test on a group of students, half of which used the book with augmenta-
tion, while the other half studied the book without augmentation. Keeping in mind that the
test groups were small, the study showed that AR has the potential to support the teach-
ing of spatial concepts that could benefit from being visualized in three dimensions (3D).
Although books are accessible, this method still relies on the use of a HHD, a fact that
reduces the accessibility of this AR framework.
An interactive AR environment was implemented by Liarokapis and Anderson (2010)
in Informatics and Multimedia classes. They concluded that AR can be used as a comple-
mentary tool to traditional teaching in a laboratory environment, in order to help students
to better understand complex concepts. The participating students could choose between
using HMDs or simply a standard display monitor, among which the second increases the
accessibility of the educational environment. On the other hand, Liarokapis et al. (2004)
developed a web-based AR application for teaching mechanical engineering, as mentioned
above. They did not evaluate possible learning outcomes, but the approach was more acces-
sible than the ones discussed above because it only required a personal computer (PC) with
internet access. Jamali et al. (2015) developed a mobile AR application for medical stu-
dents, the main topic of which was the human skeleton. They called the application Human
anatomy in Mobile Augmented Reality (HuMAR). Since this application was based on a
mobile phone and a tablet, it can be considered as relatively accessible. The results of pre-/
post-tests showed improvements in knowledge, behaviour and attitude amongst the stu-
dents after using the HuMAR application. Finally, the Science Center To Go (SCeTGo) is
a European-Union funded project developed by Davidsson et al. (2012), where they tested
different ways in which AR and mobile devices could support science classes in secondary
school. The goal was to use “off-the-shelf” technology, making it as accessible as possible.

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 351

Table 1  Summary of related work, color coded from low to mid and to high accessibility

Study Evaluated learning outcomes Used hardware Studied concepts with AR

Quantitative Qualitative
HMD, Wireless pen and Forces and counterforces,
PhysicsPlayground [22] Personal Interaction Panel speed and velocity,
(PIP) motion paths.
AR Sandbox [23] × Computer, Kinect Surface water flow,
and Sandbox erosion and soil formation
AR Books [24] × Book and HMD Secondary School Physics
AR Higher Education [25] × HMD, Display Monitor Informatics and Multimedia
Web3D-AR [21] PC Platonic solids, tools, machines and vehicles
HuMAR [26] × Tablet Anatomy
FenAR [28] × × Tablet Physics (forces, friction, energy)
SCeTGo [27] × Off-the-shelf technology Science (e.g. molecules and forces)
Present study × × Smartphone Mechanics, torque

The students being part of activities using AR, such as obtaining geometrical data sam-
ples outdoors, were all very positive towards the different way of taking the class, and the
new setting did result in enhanced discussion and collaboration among the students. Teach-
ers were also mostly positive but stressed the fact that in order to become ubiquitous in a
school environment, the technology needs to be low-cost and run smoothly. A recent study
by Fidan and Tuncel (2019) employs an AR setting based tablets, with moderately high
accessibility, aimed at teaching concepts of physics in secondary school. They conducted a
thorough assessment of the impact of the AR framework on student development, and they
observed improved learning measured both qualitatively and quantitatively. A wide range
of topics were covered in this study, including forces, mass, friction, energy, pressure and
work.
In the present study, our main motivation is to develop an AR environment which is as
accessible as possible. Furthermore, and following Kirkwood and Price (2014), quantita-
tive evaluation will be performed in order to assess whether there is any actual contribu-
tion of the technology to the understanding of the studied subject. Moreover, qualitative
data will be gathered and analysed for a more complete understanding of the impact of
the prototype on the students’ learning. In Table 1 we summarize the features of the AR
studies discussed above, as well as the ones of this study. It is interesting to note that, from
the studies under consideration, only in the present work and the one by Fidan and Tuncel
(2019) both qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the learning outcome was conducted.
In this work a slightly higher accessibility is possible due to the use of smartphones instead
of tablets.

3 Methodology

In this section we will discuss the techniques employed in the present work. First, in
Sect. 3.1 we describe the AR prototype, and we introduce the physical concept of torque.
Second, in Sect. 3.2 we discuss a think-aloud session aimed at identifying problems with
visualization and usability. Finally, in Sect. 3.3 we explain the approach adopted to meas-
ure the learning enhancement through the use of the AR app. In particular, we describe the

13
352 C. Hedenqvist et al.

test design and we discuss the statistical analysis and the scoring system used to assess the
performance improvement.

3.1 Prototype

A prototype in the form of an AR application was developed and evaluated to see whether
the learning process of the concept torque could be enhanced by means of visualization.
The prototype was developed using the cross-platform game engine Unity2 together with
Vuforia3, a software-development kit that enables the use of AR in mobile applications.
The development of the software was done through an iterative process where the applica-
tion was continuously evaluated by the three authors. When an alpha version was ready,
a think-aloud user study focusing on usability and visualization was performed (see more
details in §??). The gathered data was taken into consideration when finishing the beta ver-
sion of the app. In the application, torque is visualized through two examples (see Fig. 1): a
wrench tightening a bolt to visualize torque applied at a point and a door opening and clos-
��⃗O of a
ing, to visualize torque applied with respect to an axis. Let us recall that the torque M
force F applied at point A, with respect to another point O, is calculated as:
�⃗

��⃗O = ⃗rOA × F,
M �⃗ (1)

where ⃗rOA is the position vector (which defines the location of A with respect to O), ×
denotes vector product and (⋅) ���⃗ indicates vector quantities. The user can control the mag-
nitude of the position vector ⃗rOA , as well as the magnitude and the orientation of the force
vector F�⃗ . When the force is applied by the user pressing the “play” button, the torque vec-
tor and its projected component on the directions normal to the plane (wrench example)
and parallel to the axis of rotation (door example), are shown on the screen. The corre-
sponding object moves according to the applied torque, and the calculation of the corre-
sponding vector product can be observed in the upper part of the screen. In Fig. 2 we can
see an example of the application being used, and a video of its usage can be found in the
Supplementary Material 1.
The two different examples were made using basic 3D models provided in Unity, mixed
with imported, pre-made models such as the wrench and bolt, and a self-made model for
the arrow. The arrow was modelled using the 3D modelling program Blender. After creat-
ing the scenes they were placed on image targets, which are necessary for the AR app to
know where to render the modelled scene. When the Vuforia-powered app recognises the
target through the phones camera, the app renders the model placed on that specific target.
In order to get the model to move, Unity’s built-in functionality of applying e.g. force and
torque was used. Unity allows to classify objects as rigid bodies, thus opening up the pos-
sibility to apply real-life physics to the objects. Through scripting, the forces applied to the
objects were regulated by controls, visualized by the arrows and the torque was activated
when pressing the play button.

2
https://​unity.​com/.
3
https://​www.​ptc.​com/​en/​produ​cts/​augme​nted-​reali​ty/​vufor​ia.

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 353

Fig. 1  Two screen captures from the mobile phone with the application exemplifying the augmented-reality
(AR) learning platform for mechanics. The left screenshot shows the concept of torque as it is applied to a
point exemplified by a wrench tightening a bolt. The right screenshot shows the concept of torque applied
to an axis using a door opening by its handle. Both examples visualize the vectors over the 3D models of
the objects in the scene. Furthermore, they write and update the equations on top. As the user moves the
wrench or the door handle, the vectors and the equations change dynamically. The user inputs the magni-
tude of the position (red) and force (green) vectors with the red and green sliders at the bottom of the appli-
cation. Also, the user can modify the angles of the force vector with the circles labelled alpha and beta at
the bottom of the screen. Finally, the user can play, pause and rewind the application of forces in the system
and watch an animation of the results while reading the updated equations. This direct mapping between
what is visible and what is computed is a major affordance of AR for learning mechanics

3.2  Visualization and Usability

To evaluate the usability of the AR application (also denoted as app in this study), a user
study in the form of a think-aloud session was performed with a group of three gradu-
ate students who studied both visualization and interaction design. The participants’

13
354 C. Hedenqvist et al.

Fig. 2  Example of the application in use, where both the real world and the augmented reality on the screen
can be seen. In this scenario, the user holds the phone with the camera pointed at the image on the assign-
ment. The system uses this image to register the coordinate space of the world to render the augmented-
reality scene from the perspective of the phone camera. The user can move and rotate the camera to appre-
ciate and understand the scene from different perspectives. The user can read the equations of the system
at the top of the application. Furthermore, the user can change the setup, i.e. change forces, distances, and
angles, using the interface at the bottom with sliders and knobs. When changing these parameters, the user
can gain both visual insight from the vectors on the screen and mathematical intuition from the equations
on top. This direct manipulation, together with the immersive visualization and the real-time equation
updating are major affordances of AR in learning mechanics

continuous loud thinking allows for usability mishaps to be detected during the process
of completing a particular task. These students were considered to be able to provide rel-
evant feedback since they all have a background in both interaction design and visualiza-
tion studies. In individual sessions, the participants were first instructed to apply a torque
to the displayed figure. Since this is the main function of the application, it was considered
relevant to investigate how intuitively could this task be carried out. After completing the
first task, the users were asked whether they could find additional information regarding
the concept of torque in the app. Finally, the participants were encouraged to provide feed-
back on possible improvements of the usability and visualization of the app. No questions
were answered, nor any help was given by the interviewer during the session. The user
study was performed on an iPhone X running with iOS 13.1.3. All participants had pre-
vious basic knowledge of torque, although it was acquired many years ago. This session
resulted in qualitative data that was taken into account when finishing the development of
the prototype.

3.3 Measuring Learning Enhancement

Despite the assumption that individuals learn by doing, the potential learning enhance-
ment needs to be proved and therefore measured. Kirkwood and Price (2014) stated that
many studies discuss enhancement without defining exactly in which sense, and thus in
many cases the approach adopted to measure any improvement is not appropriate. They
emphasize the importance of clearly stating how one defines enhancement, not assuming

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 355

that technology enhances learning, and carefully choosing relevant methods of measuring.
In this work, we consider what Kirkwood and Price (2014) denoted as supplementing exist-
ing teaching. The most common (and perhaps most objective) way of measuring learning
outcomes when adopting this approach is to assess quantitative improvements, and this is
what we will consider as enhancement in this work. The improvement can be measured
using pre-test/post-test results, i.e. having the participants take a test before the experiment,
then retake a similar test after the experiment and compare the results. The outcome will
also be compared with the results of a group that takes the same tests but does not use the
AR application in between. Note that, although the quantitative improvement is an objec-
tive measurement, it lacks the possibility of portraying the quality in learning enhance-
ment (Kirkwood and Price 2014). Thus, we complement the testing with a qualitative form
investigating the experienced improvement or stagnation in understanding of the studied
phenomenon. The evaluation method in this study therefore followed a convergent par-
allel design (Creswell and Clark 2017), gathering both quantitative and qualitative data
simultaneously.
The most important aspect to evaluate was whether the developed application could
enhance the learning of torque among mechanical engineering students. To this end, after
an initial lecture on the subject, a pre-test consisting of one question regarding torque was
carried out. The students then got to volunteer for the second user study: a lab session
using the AR application to answer questions regarding torque. The session ended with the
students filling out a qualitative form. Finally, a post-test consisting of multiple questions
was held, where two of them examined the concept of torque (note that one of them was
similar to the one in the pre-test). The results of the pre- and post-test constitute the quan-
titative data of this study, complemented with qualitative data from the previously men-
tioned form. The evaluation approach is described in more detail in Sect. 3.3.1.

3.3.1 Test Design

The students in the Mechanics I course participated in a lecture on torque. A couple of

weeks after the lecture, the students were given the opportunity to solve a problem on
torque, without any particular preparation, and this problem was graded. This task is
labelled as pre-test in the Supplementary Material 2. After around one week, the students
were invited to participate in a workshop to practice the interpretation and calculation of
the torque by means of the AR app. The activities in this workshop are labelled as AR
Session in the Supplementary Material 2. Around four weeks after this, the students took
a partial exam in the Mechanics I course, where two problems were related to torque cal-
culation. These two tasks are labelled as post-test in the Supplementary Material 2. Note
that not all the students who took the post-test were part of the pre-test or the AR session,
and a schematic representation of this is provided in Fig. 6. A total of 26 students volun-
teered to participate in the workshop, which was designed as a user study with the devel-
oped AR prototype. It is important to note that when experimenting with early prototypes
of technological interventions in a learning context, it is beneficial to run pilot studies of
modest sample sizes to focus first on the usability of the technology before delving deeper
into the impact the tools may have on the learning outcomes. These studies are typically
short, from a few hours to a few weeks, and involve few participants, from 5 to 30. Stud-
ies aimed at learning outcomes will typically recruit at least tens of participants and last at
least several weeks if not months or even years. The present study is a pilot to determine
the usability of the technological intervention and a pre-investigation to forecast possible

13
356 C. Hedenqvist et al.

impacts. The course instructor acquired consent from the program director to run this study
and announced in class to the students: “My collaborators and I would like to recruit your
participation in a research study. The aim of the study is to test the learning potential of
an augmented-reality smartphone application aimed at understanding mechanical torque.
Your participation will be anonymous and voluntary. You may cease to participate even
after you volunteer without any penalty to you. Your performance in the study will not
be a measure of your ability to learn but of the application to support learning. Your per-
formance in the study will not negatively impact your performance in this course in any
way. On the other hand, while we will not reward or compensate your participation with
academic credit or financially, your participation may improve your learning of the core
material of this course and this improvement would materialize as a higher final grade.
Participation in this study does not pose any physical or personal risk higher than that pre-
sent in normal office and classroom conditions. You will not interact with hazardous mate-
rials or in hazardous conditions. All the material gathered about your participation will
be kept anonymous. Please, contact me by email if you wish to participate. Thank you
for considering to participate. Do you have any questions?”. By contacting the researcher
through email, participants stated their consent to participate under the conditions stated
above. From the 26 volunteers, 12 actually attended the session. The students could work
individually but they were encouraged to work together since it has been shown that coop-
eration (i.e., in the context of peer instruction) increases engagement (Crouch and Mazur
2001). Since having the goal of performing a specific task has been proven effective for
closing the gap between what is expected to learn and what is actually learned (Hattie and
Timperley 2007), the lab session included a task sheet where the example illustration of the
tasks were the image targets needed for the AR application (see the AR Session section of
the Supplementary Material 2). The tasks were exploratory, focused on trying to get the
students to understand the concept of torque rather than performing specific calculations.
The session ended with the students being asked to fill out a form, which was meant to pro-
vide complementary qualitative data regarding experienced improvement in understanding.
The form was also intended to lead to a self-evaluation on their general motivation in the
course, the latter in order to know the ambition level of the students who participated. As
stated above, few weeks later a post-test consisting of multiple questions was carried out in
the Mechanics I course. Two of the questions were about torque, and one was very similar
to the question in the pre-test. The results could then be compared with those of the pre-
test, and further compared with the results of the group who did not use the application.
These results constitute the quantitative assessment of the improvement in understanding
of torque. Note that the pre- and the post-tests, together with the tasks and the question-
naire in the AR session, can be found in the Supplementary Material 2.

3.3.2 Statistical Analysis and Scoring System

We estimated that the study would need to include about 500 people to statistically deter-
mine the smallest difference of proportion observed with a power of 80% and significance
level of 95% (see Sect. 4.3 for the calculations), while the amount of available students
was only 39. It is important to note that this study does not aim at reproducibility of the
learning outcomes. It lacks the statistical power for that. Rather, it is a demonstration of
the feasibility of the technology. It focuses on usability and utility. We address the ques-
tions: “Can engineering students use it?”, and “Do they get and perceive value by using
it?”. In order to answer the question “Can people learn more by using the tool?” we would

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 357

need more people and a longer study for that. As a starting point of such a quantitative
study, statistical analyses were performed to properly evaluate any performance improve-
ments. The first analysis was a statistical hypothesis testing of proportions within the same
population during different stages, a test which aims to examine whether possible differ-
ences between proportions are statistically significant. The procedure starts with declaring
a null hypothesis ( H0), which states that there is no difference between the two proportions
being compared ( p1 and p2). Secondly, an alternative hypothesis ( HA) is defined, stating
that there is a difference between the proportions. That difference is defined according to
whether the test is one- or two-sided. If the test is two-sided, the HA will be the opposite of
H0, i.e. the proportions are not equal. On the other hand, if the test is one-sided the test will
be more effective, but only one of the options p1 > p2 or p1 < p2 can be investigated. This
is formulated as follows:
H0 ∶ p1 = p2 ; HA ∶ p1 ≠ p2 , p1 > p2 or p1 < p2 . (2)
The considered proportions were the students who passed the pre-test ( p1) and the propor-
tion of students who passed the tasks on torque in the post-test ( p2) in each of the groups,
i.e. the one that used the app and the one that did not. Due to the small sample size in
this study, a one-sided approach was chosen and only the scenario that p1 < p2 was ana-
lysed to maximize the possibility of seeing any possible improvements. This was a relevant
approach since the raw data showed positive tendencies of change rather than negative, i.e.
the students had better results on the post-test compared to the pre-test. Furthermore, this
decision was motivated due to the results seen in the form, where a large majority answered
that the app contributed to their understanding of torque. Hence, there was no reason to
believe that the app would have caused negative effects on the students’ test results. The
statistical analysis was performed using the software environment for statistical comput-
ing R4, through the graphical user interface (GUI) R Commander. We ran the test prop.
test5 with a confidence level of 95 %.
When comparing the results between the groups, a grading system was developed in
order to be able to analyze the average results of both groups in a reasonable way due to the
limitations caused by a small sample size and the grading of only pass or fail. Note that this
grading system differs from the one adopted in the actual exam, because the present system
aims at assessing the improvement with respect to the pre-test. The system was designed to
favor improvement in the test results and especially regarding task 2 in the post-test since
it was the most similar to the task in the pre-test. It is important to note that the tasks are
labelled in the Supplementary Material 2, and the notation task 2 and task 3 refers to the
order of the tasks in the exam, which included problems on other topics. The scores for
task 2 therefore depend on the result from the pre-test while task 3 is scored individually.
Hence, a student who did not pass the pre-test but passed both tasks on the post-test would
receive the highest score while a student who passed the pre-test and failed both tasks on
the post-test would receive the lowest score. The points were assigned as shown in Fig. 3.
The average score from each group was calculated and Welch’s t-test was performed to
compare those averages. Welch’s t-test evaluates the hypothesis that two averages generated
from groups of different sizes are equal. Thus, the hypotheses are formulated as follows:

4
https://​www.r-​proje​ct.​org/.
5
https://​www.​rdocu​menta​tion.​org/​packa​ges/​stats/​versi​ons/3.​6.2/​topics/​prop.​test.

13
358 C. Hedenqvist et al.

Fig. 3  Summary of the grad-

ing system for the pre-test and
the post-test. The system was
designed to highlight improve-
ments between the pre- and
post-test in Task 2 given that
it was the most similar task to
the pre-test. Task 3 is scored
individually. Thus, a student that
failed the pre-test and succeeded
at both post-test tasks would get
the highest score (30). A student
that passed the pre-test and failed
both post-test tasks would get the
lowest possible score (−15). The
boxes are color-coded green for
passed and red for failed

H0 ∶ 𝜇1 = 𝜇2 ; HA ∶ 𝜇1 ≠ 𝜇2 , (3)
where 𝜇1 and 𝜇2 are the averages in each group. This analysis was also performed using
R, through t.test6 with a confidence level of 95%. The sample populations of the engi-
neering students at a major upper education technical university like KTH are not a rep-
resentative sample from general populations. They have self-selected into the upper 25th
percentile of their graduating cohorts from high school. Their grade performance is skewed
toward the top of the scales. Once the scales are re-normalized for higher-level education,
the curve typically remains skewed towards the upper levels of achievement in grading
criteria. Yet and according to Borg et al. (1989), in terms of learning outcomes and skills
acquired, the underlying distribution remains normal, thus justifying the use of Welch’s
t-test in the present context.

4 Results

Here we will discuss the main results of the study, divided into different categories. We
first describe the visualization and usability results based on the feedback from the students
in Sect. 4.1. Second, we describe the degree to which enhanced learning was achieved in
Sect. 4.2, focusing on qualitative (from the forms filled in by the participants) and quantita-
tive results (based on the performance on the pre- and post-tests). Finally, additional statis-
tical analyses on the quantitative data are presented in Sect. 4.3.

6
https://​www.​rdocu​menta​tion.​org/​packa​ges/​stats/​versi​ons/3.​6.2/​topics/​t.​test.

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 359

Fig. 4  Answers to the questions (top) “How hard do you find the mechanics course so far?”, and (bottom)
“Did the app contribute to your understanding of torque?”. The panels show how many students chose each
option

4.1 Visualization and Usability

The three participants in the think-aloud user study were first instructed to apply torque to the
AR figures. They all expressed that they found the controls of the vectors very intuitive, since
the changes in the displayed objects appeared immediately on the screen. However, they all
also expressed confusion regarding the labels of the controls and did not understand what the
controls did just by reading the label. The label that produced most questions from the partici-
pants was the one regarding changing the magnitude of the position vector (see Fig. 1). This is
perhaps not surprising, but given the fact that the students of the Mechanics I course are very
familiar with this concept, this label was finally not changed. Secondly, the participants were
asked to find the instructions on how to use the app. One participant completely missed the
upper part of the application because the lower part, consisting of the control panel seen in
Fig. 1, was very colorful and drew all his attention, while the other two found the information
button in the upper right corner without problems. No action was taken on this point either,
since the confused participant also found the information button quickly after realizing the
existence of the upper part of the screen. We expect that the users will be able to solve this
after enough practice time. In addition to the two explicit instructions, the participants were
asked to generally review the usability of the app and express possible concerns. One gen-
eral suggestion of improvement was that the explanation of torque, which can be found under
information, could benefit from containing an example figure and not only text. Another sug-
gestion was that the vectors could be changed dynamically on the screen, so the applied torque
would increase or decrease while the figure was moving. Both suggestions were considered to
be good ideas for future development, but not necessary for the next stage of the project.

13
360 C. Hedenqvist et al.

Fig. 5  Comparison of the two main questions labelled by user and the chosen preferred example in the app.
Note that 8 of 12 participants preferred the Door over the Wrench example and that 8 of 12 participants
rated the app “contributing” (3) or “very contributing” to understanding (4)

4.2 Enhanced Learning

4.2.1 Qualitative Results: User Study

The form consisted of two main questions:

• How hard do you find the Mechanics course so far?

• Did the app contribute to your understanding of torque?

The answers to the questions by the 12 participants in the user study are represented in
Fig. 4. Both questions were followed by a mandatory request to motivate their answers. As
can be seen in Fig. 4 (top), 8 out of the 12 participants found the course to be on the hard
side of the difficulty spectrum. None of the participants in the user study considered the
course to be very easy. Regarding the second question, Fig. 4 (bottom) shows that 11 out of
the 12 students answered that they believed the app had contributed to their understanding
of the studied concept. These results are consistent with the notion that new technology,
particularly when an interactive physical representation of the phenomenon is enabled, is
well received by the students. In particular, we created what is called a direct manipula-
tion interface Hutchins et al. (1985). While a textbook provides figures and equations and
interactive desktop applications may provide a window into the effects of the change in
vector magnitude and direction to the factors in the equation, it is only through AR that the
learner is able to have an interface to directly manipulate the equation, with a real-world
first-person perspective of the direction and magnitude of the mechanical setup. Learners
can see it from their eyes, in real time, and through their hands on manipulation.

In Fig. 5 we see a comparison of the results from the two main questions, labelled by
which of the two presented examples the participant preferred. Note that three out of the
four students who found the course the easiest, preferred the example with the wrench.

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 361

Fig. 6  Student distribution mapped out over the different stages of the study. Note that 6 of the students that
took the pre-test did not take the post test and that all the students that did not take the pre-test (8) in fact
took the post-test

Only one other student preferred the same example, and that student can be found on the
other side of the spectrum regarding the perceived difficulty of the course. The same group,
i.e. students rating the course as relatively easy, also spans the whole scale of experienced
contribution from the app to their understanding of torque, from 1: Nothing to 4: Very
much. The five participants who found the course to be hard, but not very hard, all pre-
ferred the door example, and also found the app to have contributed relatively much to
their understanding of torque. The three remaining students all found the course to be very
hard and believed that the app helped them in their understanding, albeit reporting a milder
perceived contribution than the previous group. Out of the four students who found the
app the least helpful (answering 1 and 2), two found the course easy rather than hard, and
preferred the wrench example. The other two found the course very hard and preferred
the door example. When asked to motivate their response on the app contribution, the
answers from this group were diverse. One student (who found the course easy) said that
they understood the theory and rather needed help with calculations, which they found that
the app did not help with. Another student (who found the course hard) however, answered
that they did not find the app helpful since they did not have enough knowledge about the
theory and hence could not get any help from the app. Recurrent comments made from the
participants that reported increase in understanding thanks to the app were that they found
the visualization very helpful. Examples of those comments are: “While realistic examples
are great, it’s nice to be able to apply vectors and I would say it’s easier to visualise the vec-
tors and their impact, it helps with the logic”; “It was easier when you could see it in 3D
and try out the different forces on positions”.

4.2.2 Quantitative Results: Pre‑ and Post‑test

The pre-test consisted of one question regarding torque. The post-test consisted of eight
questions whereof two regarded torque. One of the two post-test questions, task 2, was very
similar to the pre-test question while the other post-test question on torque, task 3, differed
slightly. This can be observed in the Supplementary Material 2. The distribution of the
students in the Mechanics I course, throughout the process of this study, is mapped out in
Fig. 6. Regarding how the students performed on the tests, Fig. 7 (top) shows the number

13
362 C. Hedenqvist et al.

Fig. 7  Number of students who passed (darker color) versus the ones who failed (lighter color) each of the
tests. Note that for direct visual comparison the columns show percentages and not absolute values, so they
are all of equal height. The top panel shows all the students, while the bottom one only shows the students
who participated in the pre- and post-tests. Note that in this bottom figure there are 25 students all together
and that the sum of no-app and app add up to the total of 25 as well. The clearest difference here is the
right-most case of post-test task 2 and 3, where 4 out of 13 (30.77%) passed without the app and 5 out of 8
(62.5%) passed with the app

of participants who passed and failed the different tasks. The results are shown for all the
students, i.e. the ones who used the app and the ones who did not. The same is represented
in Fig. 7 (bottom), with the difference that this one only includes the students who partici-
pated in both tests, and answered all three questions about torque. The graphs show that the
proportions of students who passed are higher in the post-test task 2, task 3, and both, com-
pared to the pre-test in all groups except in one case (no app, post-test task 2 and 3), where

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 363

Fig. 8  Improvement (green), stagnation (white) and deterioration (red) of the test results in the post-test
tasks on torque compared to their pre-test results. In task 2, the group who did not use the app shows a
larger improvement than the group who did. However, they also show a larger deterioration than the group
who had used the app. In task 3, the group of students who used the app stands for both the larger improve-
ment and deterioration in proportion to the group who did not

Fig. 9  Comparing proportions of students who passed the various assignments. (Left) Group who did not
use the app and (right) group who used the app. Resulting P values are shown for comparison

the proportion was unchanged. Another interesting trend shown in Fig. 7 is that the propor-
tion of students who passed is higher in all the cases (pre-test, post-test per task, and both
tasks on post-test) in the group who used the app compared to the group who did not, and
also compared with the total of both groups. Perhaps the most pertinent result in this study
is that of possible improvements in learning amongst the participating students, which is
shown in Fig. 8. In this figure it can be observed the students’ improvement, deterioration
or stagnation of test results in the post-test’s tasks on torque, compared to their pre-test
results. In task 2, the group who did not use the app shows a larger improvement than the
group who did. However, they also show a larger deterioration than the group who had
used the app. In task 3, the group of students who used the app stands for both the larger
improvement and deterioration in proportion to the group who did not.

4.3 Statistical Analysis: Calculations

The results presented until this point are based on observations from the raw data. In the
following, we discuss whether the observed trends are statistically significant. In order to

13
364 C. Hedenqvist et al.

analyze the possible improvement of the students who participated in both the pre-test and
the post-test, the question asked for each group (the app users and the no-app users) was:
“Is the proportion of students who passed the post-test larger than the the proportion who
passed the pre-test?” A statistical hypothesis test was performed to answer that question for
each of the following pairs of proportions:

• Passed pre-test vs Passed post-test task 2

• Passed pre-test vs Passed post-test task 3
• Passed pre-test vs Passed post-test, both tasks 2 and 3
• Passed pre-test vs Passed post-test, any of task 2 or 3

The group who participated in the app session and took both tests consisted of 8 people,
while the students who did not use the app but also took both tests summed up to 17 (see
Fig. 6 for an overview of the distribution of students). The resulting P values (using a
significance level of 95%) after comparing the above mentioned proportions within each
group respectively, can be seen in Fig. 9. The only improvements that are statistically sig-
nificant at a confidence level of 95%, i.e. having a P value lower than 0.05, are the pre-test
vs post-test task 2 and the pre-test vs post-test any of task 2 or 3 in the group who did not
use the app. None of the observed improvements in pass/fail ratios within the group who
used the app can be considered statitically significant, as expected from the small sample
size.
To calculate the approximate sample size that would have been necessary to get statisti-
cal significance when comparing proportions in our study, we used the method proposed
by Whitley and Ball (2002). Firstly we calculate the standardized difference, sd:
(p − p2 ) (p + p2 )
sd = √ 1 ; p= 1 , (4)
p(1 − p) 2

where p1 and p2 are the two proportions and p is the mean of those proportions. When
making this estimation of sample size we considered the comparison of proportions in the
study with the smallest difference, which was p1 = 0.625 and p2 = 0.5. This leads to:
(0.625 + 0.5) (0.625 − 0.5)
p= = 0.5625; sd = √ = 0.25. (5)
2 0.5625(1 − 0.5625)

Secondly, following Fig. 1 in Whitley and Ball (2002) with a statistical power of 80%,
a confidence level of 95% and having a standardized difference of 0.25, we find that the
required sample size would be approximately 500 people in total. Using this method, we
are assuming equally sized sample groups. Since we compared proportions from within the
same group (app users’ pre-test result with app users’ post-test result and the same for no-
app users), the condition of equal sized sample groups is met. Each group would therefore
need to contain 500∕2 = 250 people. Thus, ideally one would need 500 participants, i.e. a
group of 250 students that used the app and performed both tests, as well as a group of 250
students who did not use the app but performed both tests.
On the other hand, after grading the participants in the two groups, i.e. app users and
non-app users, the average scores from each group were 13.1 and 11.5, respectively. In other
words, according to the scoring system proposed in this study, the group who used the app
exhibits a better ratio of improvement than the group who did not. Moreover, by applying
Welch’s t-test, the significance in the difference between the averages was examined using a

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 365

significance threshold of 0.05. The test result of P = 0.8104 ≫ 0.05 concludes that we cannot
discard the null hypothesis that the averages are equal and the difference between them can
therefore not be regarded as statistically significant.

5  Discussion

The results of this study indicate that the AR application helped most of the students to
improve their understanding of torque. However, the collected data was not from a large
enough sample to be able to find statistical significance in the results. Interestingly, the group
of students who received most from the application were those who had some grasp of the
theory. Moreover, the answers on the form from the app session helped to substantiate the
tendencies observed in the pre-/post-test comparison. These tendencies did not reflect signs
of improvement within each group. There were also indications that the app users did improve
on their test results to a greater extent than the group who did not use the app. The fact that 11
out of 12 participants in the app session answered that the app had helped their understand-
ing of torque supports the shown trend. Furthermore, time has to be considered as a possible
influencing factor when seeing improvements among the students. The fact that they had more
time and therefore more opportunity to study before the post-test, may be one of the factors
explaining the observed improvement from both groups. The group who used the app showed
tendencies of greater improvement than the group who did not, which speaks in favor of the
app having had an additional impact, besides time, on the improvement. This observation is
supported by other similar AR studies (Fidan and Tuncel 2019), in which both qualitatively
and quantitatively improvement is reported.
Nevertheless, the proportion of students who passed the pre-test in the app-using group was
bigger than the proportion in total, i.e. including all students regardless of the fact that they
had used the app or not. This could indicate that the participants in the app session already had
a better understanding of torque and therefore they were more likely to perform better in the
post-test as well. Future studies should consider randomly distributing students into the app
and the no-app groups in order to discard this possibility, whilst keeping in mind the ethical
aspect of not offering to a random set of students a teaching method that will probably help
them perform better.
Another question that requires reflection is whether the best approach for this study was
AR, or whether a simpler 3D visualisation could have had an equivalent effect. The reason for
choosing AR was mainly for the accessibility it provides, since it is available in a majority of
smartphones. Other technologies such as Virtual Reality were discussed but discarded due to
the lack of accessibility, an aspect that was prioritized due to the constraints in an educational
environment. Additionally, the possibility of immersion, a core feature of AR, was crucial in
deciding among the various alternative technologies. Unlike a standard 3D simulation, AR
generates the feeling of actually affecting the reality rather than something that obviously only
exists on a screen. It is possible that a 3D visualisation would yield comparable results, but
this would require further investigation.

13
366 C. Hedenqvist et al.

6 Conclusions and Outlook

In order to investigate the opportunities and challenges to enhance learning of torque through
visualization with AR, a prototype in the form of an AR smartphone app was developed. The
effect of the prototype on students learning was tested by holding a pre-test and a post-test in
a basic Mechanics course. A subgroup from the class participated in a user study where they
used the AR application to solve problems regarding torque. The results showed indications
that visualization through AR of a physical phenomenon which was considered a threshold
concept did help students to better understand it. The students who participated in the study
using the developed AR application improved their test results to a greater extent than the stu-
dents who did not use the application. It was however not possible to obtain statistically signif-
icant results, since a much larger sample size would be needed to do so. Note that other similar
studies (Fidan and Tuncel 2019) have documented quantitative improvement using AR, a fact
that supports the positive trends obtained here.
The indication that the AR application improved the students’ understanding of torque
motivates further research within the area. To statistically confirm the observed trends, the
estimation of sample size done in this work indicates that a group of approximately 500 stu-
dents would be necessary. The study could also be performed using students in other courses,
or at other universities, with larger classes to shorten the time it would take to reach 500 par-
ticipants. In order to reach a large amount of users in a short time, another alternative could be
to integrate the app into a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). That would enable the app
to be used by many during one course round since MOOCs often allow for unlimited amounts
of students to participate (Martínez et al. 2020). Deploying the app on platforms such as the
App Store or Google Play Store could also be an option, opening up for the possibility of users
all over the world to use it. Furthermore, if instead of just pass and fail grades, a higher granu-
larity in the grades was considered, smaller variances could be detected and perhaps it would
be sufficient with a smaller sample size to observe statistical significance.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10758-​021-​09542-1.

Acknowledgements RV acknowledges the funding provided by the Swedish Research Council (VR).

Author Contributions The project was ideated by RV and MR, who jointly supervised the project. CH
developed the app and conducted the user study under the supervision of RV and MR. CH wrote the manu-
script with input from RV and MR.

Funding Open access funding provided by Royal Institute of Technology. Swedish Research Council (VR).

Availability of Supporting Data The pre- and post-tests are provided as Supplementary Material, together
with a video illustrating the use of the app.

Declarations

Conflict of interest Not applicable.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not

13
Improving the Learning of Mechanics Through Augmented Reality 367

permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

References
Bonwell, C. C. & Eison, J. A. (1991) Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Reports.
Borg, M. O., Mason, P. M., & Shapiro, S. L. (1989). The case of effort variables in student performance.
The Journal of Economic Education, 20, 308–313.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publi-
cations. https://​us.​sagep​ub.​com/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​upm-​binar​ies/​35066_​Chapt​er3.​pdf
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal
of Physics, 69(9), 970–977. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1119/1.​13742​49.
Davidsson, M., Johansson, D. & Lindwall, K. (2012) Exploring the use of augmented reality to support
science education in secondary schools. In: 2012 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Wireless,
Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education, Vol. 3, pp. 218–220.
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate stu-
dents understanding of electromagnetism concepts? Journal of Learninig Science, 14(2), 243–279.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1207/​s1532​7809j​ls1402_3.
Dünser, A., Walker, L., Horner, H., & Bentall, D. (2012). Creating interactive physics education books with
augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference.
Fidan, M., & Tuncel, M. (2019). Integrating augmented reality into problem based learning: The effects on
learning achievement and attitude in physics education. Computure Education, 142, 103635.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L. ,McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth, M. P. (2014)
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. The Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415, 6. [Online]. Available: https://​www.​
pnas.​org/​conte​nt/​111/​23/​8410
Frohberg, D., Goth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects - A critical analysis of the state of
the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 307–331.
Gao, Y., Liu, T. C., & Paas, F. (2016). Effects of mode of target task selection on learning about plants in a
mobile learning environment: Effortful manual selection versus effortless QR-code selection. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 108, 694–704.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3102/​00346​54302​98487.
Hutchins, E. L., Hollan, J. D., & Norman, D. A. (1985). Direct manipulation interfaces. Human-Computer
Interaction, 1, 311–338.
Internetstiftelsen (2019) Allmänt om internetutvecklingen - Enheter och uppkopplade saker. Svenskarna
och Internet 2019. [Online]. https://​svens​karna​ochin​ternet.​se/​rappo​rter/​svens​karna-​och-​inter​net-​2019/​
allma​nt-​om-​inter​netut​veckl​ingen/#​enhet​er-​och-​uppko​pplade-​saker
Jamali, S. S., Shiratuddin, M. F., Wong K. W., & Oskam, C. L. (2015) Utilising mobile-augmented reality
for learning human anatomy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 197, pp. 659 – 668, 7
2015, 7th World Conference on Educational Sciences. Available: http://​www.​scien​cedir​ect.​com/​scien​
ce/​artic​le/​pii/​S1877​04281​50404​83
Kaufmann, H., & Meyer, B. (2008) Simulating educational physical experiments in augmented reality. In
ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 Educators Programme, ser. SIGGRAPH Asia ’08. New York, NY, USA:
ACM, Vol. 12 pp. 3:1–3:8. Available: http://​doi.​acm.​org/​10.​1145/​15077​13.​15077​17
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is
‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology 39(1),
6–36. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17439​884.​2013.​770404.
Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., Beilock, S. L. (2015) Physical experience enhances science learn-
ing. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749, 6 2015, pMID: 25911125. [Online]. Available: https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1177/​09567​97615​569355
Lan, Y. J., Sung, C. C., Cheng, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Computer-supported cooperative prewrit-
ing for enhancing young EFL learners’ writing performance. Language Learning & Technology, 19,
134–155.
Liarokapis F., & Anderson E. F. (2010) Using augmented reality as a medium to assist teaching in higher
education. In: Kjelldahl, L. & Baronoski, G. (Eds.), Eurographics 2010 - Education Papers. The Euro-
graphics Association.

13
368 C. Hedenqvist et al.

Liarokapis, F., Nikolaos Mourkoussis, M. W., Darcy, J., Maria Sifniotis, P. P., Basu, A., & Lister, P. F.
(2004) Web3d and augmented reality to support engineering education,” World Trans. Eng. Technol.
Educ., 3(1), 1–4. Available: http://​www.​wiete.​com.​au/​journ​als/​WTE&​TE/​Pages/​Vol.3,
Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., Tsai, M. J., & Paas, F. (2012). Split-attention and redundancy effects in mobile learn-
ing in physical environments. Computers & Education, 58, 172–180.
Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of prior knowledge on learning from different compositions
of representations in a mobile learning environment. Computer Education, 72, 328–338.
Martínez, P. J., Aguilar, F. J., & Ortiz, M. (2020). Transitioning from face-to-face to blended and full online
learning engineering Master’s program. IEEE Transactions on Education, 2–9, 103635.
Ozcelik, E., & Acarturk, C. (2011). Reducing the spatial distance between printed and online information
sources by means of mobile technology enhances learning: using 2D barcodes. Computers & Educa-
tion, 57, 2077–2085.
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of 1:1 computing initiatives: a research synthesis. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329–348.
Piaget, J. (1964) Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. The Journal of
Research in Science Teaching , 2(3): 176–186, 9 1964. [Online]. Available: https://​onlin​elibr​ary.​wiley.​
com/​doi/​abs/​10.​1002/​tea.​36600​20306
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education,
93(3), 223–231. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/j.​2168-​9830.​2004.​tb008​09.x.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R. , & van der Veen, J. T. (2012) The learning effects of computer simulations
in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153, 1 [Online]. Available: http://​www.​
scien​cedir​ect.​com/​scien​ce/​artic​le/​pii/​S0360​13151​10017​58
Saettler, L. P. (2004) The Evolution of American Educational Technology. IAP, Information Age Publishing,
2004. [Online]. Available: https://​books.​google.​se/​books?​id=​s1ThX​561Z5​8C
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and
learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computer Educa-
tion, 94, 252–275.
Vaughan, K. L., Vaughan, R. E., & Seeley, J. M. (2017). Experiential learning in soil science: Use of an
augmented reality sandbox. Natural Sciences Education, 46(1), 6.
Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I., Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., et al. (2020). The role of artifi-
cial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications, 11, 233.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41467-​019-​14108-y.
Whitley, E., & Ball, J. (2002). Statistics review 4: Sample size calculations. Critical Care, 6(4), 5. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1186/​cc1521.
Yuen, S. C.-Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., & Johnson, E. (2011) Augmented reality: An overview and five directions
for ar in education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 4(1), 12, article
11. [Online]. Available: https://​aquila.​usm.​edu/​jetde/​vol4/​iss1/​11
Zucker, A. A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science, 323, 82–85.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13