If you are like me, the uses of augmented reality can be difficult to wrap your head around. I love the idea, but how exactly can it be used in a learning environment? After reading 3 select articles, I was amazed at how little I actually knew. While the applications are vast, their ROI (return on investment) may be left wanting. But as with learning, it is best to approach it on a case-by-case basis. 

“AR aligns well with situated and constructivist learning theory as it positions the learner within a real-world physical and social context, while guiding, scaffolding and facilitating participatory and metacognitive learning processes such as authentic inquiry, active observation, peer coaching, reciprocal teaching and legitimate peripheral participation with multiple modes of representation” (Dunleavy and Dede, 2014).

In the article Augmented Reality Teaching and Learning written by Dunleavy and Dede, they gave a pretty great breakdown of current forms of AR and their applications in situated and constructivist learning theory. One of the aspects I found most interesting was the comparison between the two ways transfer is measured: sequestered problem-solving, accomplished through presentational instruction, vs. preparations for future learning and how AR helps to bridge the gap.They argue that many of the pedagogies used in education, including standardized tests, are based on sequestered problem-solving which utilizes near-transfer of knowledge–meaning that the knowledge gained is then used to solve similar problems as presented in the learning context. These problems tend to be abstract without much real-world context. This is problematic because there is a disconnect between the learning context and the performance context (real world). According to the authors, presentational instruction generates lower rates of far-transfer, making it more difficult for learners to be able to apply what they have learned to real-world problems. Preparations for future learning focuses “on extended performances where students ‘learn how to learn’ in a rich environment and then solve related problems in real-world contexts” (Dunleavy and Dede, pg. 737). AR is immersive by design, allowing for virtual and real world overlap, which can aid in situations where a standard learning environment would be far removed from reality. “The potential advantage of immersive interfaces for situated learning is that their simulation of real-world problems and contexts means that students must attain only near-transfer to achieve preparation for future learning” (Dunleavy and Dede, pg. 737). Flight simulators are a classic example of how technology can help aid in psychomotor learning while still in a controlled environment. This is also explored in the article Augmented reality training of military tasks: Reactions from subject matter experts (discussed later). I have always been a fan of controlled environments, where learners can test the limits of what they can do–so naturally, I was intrigued by AR as a new learning tool. Since my experience has been in corporate training, I found myself wondering how something like AR could be used to onboard new employees–short answer, it really depends on your context. Most corporate jobs are office-based where the majority of the work is done using computers. In this type of context, AR learning is a novelty. With a few exceptions, such as completing a new hire orientation scavenger hunt using vision-based AR, most training functions are adequately accomplished through standard means (classrooms, elearning, in-person simulations, etc.). However, as outlined in the next article, AR is useful in higher-stakes training where mistakes can be costly.

 

In the article Augmented reality training of military tasks: Reactions from subject matter experts, the authors explore military training applications of AR, more specifically using AR to simulate field training exercises. The research focused on Call For Fire training–this is when a field officer tracks enemy combatants and determines when and where backup artillery might be necessary. What was the most interesting was to see how AR could be specifically used in skills training. The participants in the study worked with both the AR Binos and real-world instruments (compass, map, walkie). Using a few scenarios, the marines (participants) were able to execute the skills training while being immersed in the environment–this was particularly fascinating because other psychological/physiological responses are an integral part of the training (i.e. fight or flight). This is critical for effective training in high-stakes situations because instinctual factors can have surprising, and even inconvenient, effects on the outcome. Take for instance women’s self-defense, some instructors might say that learning the mechanics is important, but if the instruction involves little-to-no contact, a trained woman can be taken by surprise during an attack, leaving her just as vulnerable as if she’d never taken a self-defense class. As mentioned above, AR can help in creating environments dedicated to situated learning without the high price tag. “Within the armed forces domain, AR is also valuable for its ability to repeatedly provide opportunities to train otherwise hazardous or expensive tasks and thus have a high return on training investment” (Champney et al., pg. 253). Using AR technology means that the learner can fail without risking their lives or others in the process (hello, bomb squad!). Immersion is essential to help the trainee feel more comfortable when/if they should encounter a similar situation in the real world. The benefit here is that AR allows for a better controlled learning environment. With this context in mind, I look to my current position in the medical lab where mistakes can have profound, ill-effects. Working with corrosive chemicals to irreplaceable patient specimens, learning via AR could have more direct application (provided you don’t mind your cell phone being tucked away in a plastic bag!).

 

In the article Participatory scaling through augmented reality learning through local games, the authors argue for participatory scaling using ARIS as a learning model. The authors explore three projects using ARIS:  Then, Now, Wow, Mobile Quest Folklore. These projects use games to aid in the learning process, including forming connections, digital literacy, creative problem-solving, collaboration, and creative expression. “AR for learning is particularly promising as it enables designers to organize learning around real world issues. Places hold meaningful embodied stories, and AR technologies provide a vehicle for making these stories accessible to learners” (Martin et al., pg. 36). By bridging the gap to more formal learning spaces, lessons are presented in situated learning environments from the beginning, adding context and relevance which is used by the learner to achieve deeper understanding because of their own interpretation based on personal, real world experiences. The findings support the notion that AR helps to create a participatory learning environment because students are more engaged and thus more likely to contribute to the community’s collective knowledge. This is promising as it could be applied to a variety of situations–making lessons come to life helps students to gain a better understanding faster. They can explore, play, and create

 

Augmented reality can be a great tool if it is used in a meaningful way–not just as the most cutting edge trend. If the technology is used to bring the real world to the learning environment, students are set up to be able to use what they’ve learned to solve real world problems because the learning environment is the real world (and vice versa). Only requiring near-transfer, learners become more engaged and readily able to contribute to the collective learning process. A key takeaway from this collection of articles suggests that augmented reality has the potential to be a powerful vehicle to create an almost ideal learning environment, leveraging participatory, situated, and constructivist learning concepts to create students who are better equipped to handle real world problems.

 

 

References

Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 735–745). Springer.


Champney, R., Lackey, S. J., Stanney, K., & Quinn, S. (2015). Augmented reality training of military tasks: Reactions from subject matter experts. In R. Shumaker & S. Lackey (Eds.), Virtual, augmented and mixed reality (pp. 251–262). Springer International Publishing.

Martin, J., Dikkers, S., Squire, K., & Gagnon, D. (2014). Participatory scaling through augmented reality learning through local games. TechTrends, 58(1), 35–41.