Exploring mixed reality based on self-efficacy and motivation of users

  • Kathy Essmiller Educational Technology, Educational Leadership, & Emerging Technologies and Creativity Research Lab, College of Education and Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
  • Tutaleni I. Asino Educational Technology, Educational Leadership, & Emerging Technologies and Creativity Research Lab, College of Education and Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
  • Ayodeji Ibukun Educational Technology, Educational Leadership, & Emerging Technologies and Creativity Research Lab, College of Education and Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
  • Frances Alvarado-Albertorio Educational Technology, Educational Leadership, & Emerging Technologies and Creativity Research Lab, College of Education and Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
  • Sarinporn Chaivisit Educational Technology, Educational Leadership, & Emerging Technologies and Creativity Research Lab, College of Education and Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
  • Thanh Do Educational Technology, Educational Leadership, & Emerging Technologies and Creativity Research Lab, College of Education and Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
  • Younglong Kim Educational Technology, Educational Leadership, & Emerging Technologies and Creativity Research Lab, College of Education and Human Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
Keywords: mixed reality, virtual reality, augmented reality, Microsoft HoloLens, emerging technologies, self-efficacy, motivation

Abstract

This study addresses the question of how to facilitate instruction and practice with virtual reality to mitigate the detrimental impact of cognitive load associated with use in simple procedural tasks. The study collected data from 63 college students aged 18 years and above from a university in the southern part of the USA. Each study participant completed a questionnaire that consisted of 22 questions using a seven-point Likert scale. The results show that there are no significant differences between motivation and self-efficacy as it relates to three selected activities: Roboraid, Tutorial and Freeplay. The opportunity for meaningful learning through the use of the mixed reality is enticing; there is value in exploring facilitation of these learning opportunities through redistribution of cognitive load.

This article is part of the special collection Mobile Mixed Reality Enhanced Learning edited by Thom Cochrane, James Birt, Helen Farley, Vickel Narayan and Fiona Smart. More articles from this collection can be found here.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References


Bach, B., et al., (2018) ‘The hologram in my hand: how effective is interactive exploration of 3D visualizations in immersive tangible augmented reality?’, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 457–467. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745941.


Bandura, A. (1977) ‘Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change’, Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.


Baumeister, J., et al., (2017) ‘Cognitive cost of using augmented reality displays’, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 23, no. 11, pp. 2378–2388. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2017.2735098.


Camba, J. D., Soler, J. L. & Contero, M. (2017) Immersive visualization technologies to facilitate multidisciplinary design education. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Novel Learning Ecosystems: 4th International Conference, LCT 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017, eds P. Zaphiris & A. Ioannou, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14, 2017, Proceedings, Part I, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 3–11. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58509-3_1.


Clark, J. M. & Paivio, A. (1991) ‘Dual coding theory and education’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 149–210. doi: 10.1007/BF01320076.


Coppens, A. (2017) Merging Real and Virtual Worlds: An Analysis of the State of the Art and Practical Evaluation of Microsoft HoloLens. Master in Computer Science Masters, University of Mons. arXiv:1706.08096.


Digregorio, N. & Liston, D. D. (2018) Experiencing Technical Difficulties : Teacher Self-Efficacy and Instructional Technology. pp. 103–117. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-99858-9.


Elliot, A. J. & Church, M. A. (1997) ‘A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 72, no. 1, p. 218. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218.


Funk, M., Kritzler, M. & Michahelles, F. (2017) HoloLens is more than Air Tap: Natural and Intuitive Interaction with Holograms. doi: 10.1145/3131542.3140267.


Furlan, R. (2016) ‘The future of augmented reality: HoloLens Microsoft’s AR headset shines despite rough edges’, IEEE Spectrum, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 21–21. doi: 10.1109/mspec.2016.7473143.


Garon, M., et al., (19–23 Sept. 2016) Real-Time High Resolution 3D Data on the HoloLens. Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR-Adjunct). doi: 10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2016.64.


Gilbert, K., Voelkel, R. & Johnson, C. (2018) ‘Increasing self-efficacy through immersive simulations: leading professional learning communities’, Journal of Leadership Education, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 154–174. doi: 10.12806/V17/I4/R5.


Gordon, N. & Brayshaw, M. (2017) Flexible Virtual Environments: Gamifying Immersive Learning. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-58753-0_18.


Guan, L. (2016) Creating Life-like Experience in Immersive Environment-A Human Computer Perspective. Paper presented at the Center for Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence Seminar, Waterloo, ON.


Hasan, M. S. & Yu, H. (2017) ‘Innovative developments in HCI and future trends’, International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 10–20. doi: 10.1007/s11633-016-1039-6.


Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B. (1997) Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits and Atoms. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems. doi: 10.1145/258549.258715.


Kehe, J. (2015) Microsoft HoloLens merges the physical world with virtual reality. Retrieved from https://www.wired.co.uk/article/project-HoloLens.


Mayer, R. E. (2002) ‘Multimedia learning’, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 41, pp. 85–139. Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80005-6.


Milgram, P., et al., (1995) Augmented Reality: A Class of Displays on the Reality-Virtuality Continuum. Paper presented at the Telemanipulator and telepresence technologies Conference. doi: 10.1117/12.197321.


Muser, S. (2015) Gestures in Human-Computer-Interaction, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich.


O’Neil, H. & Perez, R. (2006) Web-Based Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.


Patil, Y. (2017) A Multi-interface VR Platform for Rehabilitation Research. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi: 10.1145/3027063.3048421.


Prochaska, M. T., et al., (2016) ‘Patient perceptions of wearable face-mounted computing technology and the effect on the doctor-patient relationship’, Applied Clinical Informatics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 946–953. doi: 10.4338/aci-2016-06-le-0094.


Qian, L., et al., (2017) ‘Comparison of optical see-through head-mounted displays for surgical interventions with object-anchored 2D-display’, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 901–910. doi: 10.1007/s11548-017-1564-y.


Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000) ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.


Schunk. (2016) Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 7th edn., Pearson, Boston, MA.


Song, H., et al., (2016) Towards Robust Ego-Centric Hand Gesture Analysis for Robot Control. Paper presented at the Signal and Image Processing (ICSIP), IEEE International Conference on. doi: 10.1109/SIPROCESS.2016.7888345.


Stearns, L., et al., (2017) ‘Augmented Reality Magnification for Low Vision Users with the Microsoft HoloLens and a Finger-Worn Camera’, in Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 361–362.


Sweller, J. (2010) ‘Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 123–138. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.


van der Meulen, H., Kun, A. L. & Shaer, O. (2017) What Are We Missing?: Adding Eye-Tracking to the HoloLens to Improve Gaze Estimation Accuracy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces. doi: 10.1145/3132272.3132278.


Yeager, D. S. & Dweck, C. S. (2012) ‘Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal characteristics can be developed’, Educational Psychologist, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 302–314. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2012.722805.


Yuan-Jen, C., et al., (2011) ‘Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of English learning using augmented reality’, IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, Barcelona, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICME.2011.6012177
Published
2020-02-21
How to Cite
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. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2331
Section
Mobile Mixed Reality - Themed Collection