It has been so rewarding to be on this research journey. However, I am happy that it has concluded with successful results to share!
After my last post about needing to pause and rewind in my research process, my district had yet another school closing after I had taught the revamped Unit 4. At that point in time, the decision was made that the data collected from Units 1 & 2 could be used and analyzed to see what kind or if any impact was made from the traditional method compared to the AR method of teaching vocabulary.
The two research questions for the purpose of this study were:
How does augmented reality affect a learner’s vocabulary acquisition and retention?
What differences exist between traditional flashcard based acquisition and retention and AR-based approaches?
To find the answers to these question, the results from Unit 1 (traditional) and Unit 2 (AR). As shown in the chart to the left, participants in the study had an average score difference of 0.72 from pre- to post-test in Unit 1. On the other hand, participants had an average score difference of 2 from pre- to post-test in Unit 2.
Then to determine whether or not there was a significant difference between the two units, an independent-sample t-test was conducted. As shown in the chart to the right, there was a definite significant difference in the two units of vocabulary. Because the p value is below the 0.05 threshold, I was able to reject the null hypothesis of there being no difference between the two units of vocabulary.
In the participants' reflection of their thoughts of the study through a questionnaire, there were also some definite differences in their thoughts on the the units. Most participants claimed the traditional method of teaching felt more "normal" to them and they liked being able to see the word/definition on screen. Even with their comfort, they also claimed the traditional unit was boring, hard to stay focused, and not engaging. On the other hand, many participants said they liked the AR method of teaching because there were visuals, gave them something to connect to, and held their attention. This held true with the fact that “visualizing the information in context-rich environments using AR can aid participants in creating meaningful associations between the content and the real environment” (Santos, et al., 2016). Additionally, 75.9% of participants claimed it was easier to learn their new vocabulary words from the AR unit as compared to the traditional unit, and if this type of teaching were to continue, 93.1% of participants in this study would like to keep AR incorporated in some way into their learning, thus proving that “AR environments could increase participants’ motivation and interest” (Wu, Lee, Chang, & Liang, 2013). While participants were more interested in the AR option, their chief complaints about the AR method were that they couldn’t see the word and definition and if looking at the AR screen too long, it would start to hurt their eyes. A 5 - 10 minute viewing warning for eye strain is listed on the headset themselves, so that was known to be a potential drawback from the beginning. Even with the drawback of their eyes hurting, participants reported in their post-study questionnaire that the units using the AR headsets were in general more fun for them to participate in, further supporting “another benefit of AR is that it brings an element of gamification to the learning task” (Ibrahim, et al., 2018). When students are having fun and engaged in what they are learning, the learning becomes more natural and easier, which was clearly shown in their post-assessment data.
Additionally, the implementation of the AR headsets also took a lot of distraction away from students. Cell phones, which are usually big distractions, were taken away from students by becoming their educational tool to be immersed into their AR world. By using their phones as their tool and lessening their distractions, it made it easier for students to engage in what they were learning. Furthermore, any type of classroom or peer pressure distractions were also removed because of the VR headsets students were using, which blocked everything except their AR world out of view.
With the successes of implementing this study, there were definitely some challenges. Relying on a structured schedule while teaching during a pandemic was a major factor. As initially planned, this study was to have four complete vocabulary units (2 traditional and 2 AR). It was designed this way to determine whether or not there was a true pattern in the results. However, two school closures hindered that possibility. Units 1 through 3 went off smoothly, but Unit 4 was attempted twice due to the school closures. With time constraints, only the data from Units 1 & 2 were used for this study. Because of this, in the future, other researchers or myself could carry out more vocabulary units in the same pattern to determine if the results show a pattern. Through the results of this study, AR has the potential to open a whole new world to learners at every level of education through vocabulary, writing, field trips, “hands on” experiences, and more through any content area.
I am very excited to be able to share these results with you and thank you for following along on my research through this internship journey. Feel free to contact me through the comments, this site, or email me at mtyson2@ycp.edu if you would like to discuss my findings further.
References
Ibrahim, A., Huynh, B., Downey, J., Hollerer, T., Chun, D., & Odonovan, J. (2018). ARbis
Pictus: A Study of Vocabulary Learning with Augmented Reality. IEEE Transactions on
Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(11), 2867–2874. doi:
10.1109/tvcg.2018.2868568
Santos, M. E. C. et al (2016). Augmented reality as multimedia: the case for situated vocabulary learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(4). doi: 10.1186/s41039-016-0028-2
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. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024