Exploring the Efficacy of Mixed Reality versus Traditional Methods in Higher Education: A Comparative Study

  1. Petruse, Radu Emanuil 3
  2. Grecu, Valentin 3
  3. Gakić, Maja 1
  4. Gutierrez, Jorge Martin 2
  5. Mara, Daniel 4
  1. 1 College “Logos Centar” Mostar, 88100 Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  2. 2 Higher School of Engineering and Technology, Universidad de La Laguna, 38071 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Spain
  3. 3 Faculty of Engineering, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania
  4. 4 Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania
Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
Applied Sciences

ISSN: 2076-3417

Año de publicación: 2024

Volumen: 14

Número: 3

Páginas: 1050

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3390/APP14031050 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Applied Sciences

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

“Immersive technology” is a broad and evolving term that encompasses various kinds of technologies and viewpoints, and has applications in various fields, such as education, healthcare, entertainment, the arts, and engineering. This research paper aims to compare the effectiveness of two teaching methods, namely the conventional method (using PowerPoint slides), and the immersive technology method (initiating a mixed reality with a HoloLens 2 device). The experiment involved two groups of students, aged between 19 and 52 years-of-age, who received different types of instruction: the first group viewed a PowerPoint slide with an image of the human muscular system, and the second group viewed a 3D hologram of the human body that displayed the same muscle groups as in the PowerPoint slide. The researchers wanted to examine if mixed reality devices could improve students’ cognitive abilities and explore if the age of the participants had any impact on the effectiveness of the instruction method. The main findings of this study are that the instruction method that used mixed reality technology, the Microsoft HoloLens 2 device, was more suitable for younger participants, and that traditional instruction methods, such as PowerPoint slides, are more appropriate for older students. While this research provides some valuable insights into the factors that influence student performance in anatomy tests, it has some limitations that should be considered.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Tang, (2022), Educ. Res. Rev., 35, pp. 100429, 10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100429
  • Kloos, (2013), Comput. Educ., 68, pp. 586, 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002
  • Zhao, (2016), Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact., 32, pp. 708, 10.1080/10447318.2016.1191263
  • Bacon, (2013), J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput., 4, pp. 581, 10.1007/s12652-012-0124-0
  • Sebillo, (2016), Multimed. Tools Appl., 75, pp. 9609, 10.1007/s11042-015-2955-0
  • Hamilton, (2021), J. Comput. Educ., 8, pp. 1, 10.1007/s40692-020-00169-2
  • Kavanagh, (2017), Themes Sci. Technol. Educ., 10, pp. 85
  • Khan, M.N.R., and Lippert, K.J. (2022). Intelligent Systems and Machine Learning for Industry, CRC Press.
  • Petruse, R.E., Grecu, V., and Chiliban, B.M. (2016). Augmented Reality Applications in the Transition towards the Sustainable Organization, Springer.
  • Poelman, (2010), Int. J. Virtual Real., 9, pp. 1, 10.20870/IJVR.2010.9.2.2767
  • Grecu, (2013), Appl. Mech. Mater., 371, pp. 764, 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.371.764
  • Mallam, S.C., Nazir, S., and Renganayagalu, S.K. (2019). Rethinking Maritime Education, Training, and Operations in the Digital Era: Applications for Emerging Immersive Technologies. J. Mar. Sci. Eng., 7.
  • Sutherland, I.E. Sketch Pad a Man-Machine Graphical Communication System. Proceedings of the SHARE Design Automation Workshop.
  • Slater, (2009), Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 364, pp. 3549, 10.1098/rstb.2009.0138
  • Lee, (2013), New Media Soc., 15, pp. 930, 10.1177/1461444812464033
  • Tarango, (2019), Digit. Libr. Perspect., 35, pp. 216, 10.1108/DLP-08-2019-0034
  • Butt, (2018), Clin. Simul. Nurs., 16, pp. 25, 10.1016/j.ecns.2017.09.010
  • Salzman, (1999), Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ., 8, pp. 293, 10.1162/105474699566242
  • Ellaway, (2008), Med. Teach., 30, pp. 455, 10.1080/01421590802108331
  • Harden, (1992), Med. Educ., 26, pp. 407, 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1992.tb00194.x
  • Ryan, (2022), J. Med. Internet Res., 24, pp. e30082, 10.2196/30082
  • Fortman, (2023), Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn., 18, pp. 145, 10.1007/s11412-023-09404-1
  • Mathew, P.S., and Pillai, A.S. (2020). Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education, Art, and Museums, IGI Global.
  • Makransky, (2019), Learn. Instr., 60, pp. 225, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
  • Parong, (2018), J. Educ. Psychol., 110, pp. 785, 10.1037/edu0000241
  • Jensen, (2018), Educ. Inf. Technol., 23, pp. 1515, 10.1007/s10639-017-9676-0
  • Reed, (2007), JAMA, 298, pp. 1002, 10.1001/jama.298.9.1002
  • Chen, J.Y.C., and Fragomeni, G. (2022, January 16). Is Off-the-Shelf VR Software Ready for Medical Teaching?. Proceedings of the Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality: Design and Development, Virtual.
  • Banjar, (2023), Comput. Educ. X Real., 3, pp. 100034
  • Sweller, (2011), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Volume 55, pp. 37, 10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
  • Sweller, (2020), Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., 68, pp. 1, 10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
  • Felder, (1988), Eng. Educ., 78, pp. 674
  • Felder, (2020), Adv. Eng. Educ., 8, pp. 1
  • Dowling, (2003), Account. Educ., 12, pp. 373, 10.1080/0963928032000154512
  • Nikitenko, G. (2011). Analysis of Adult Students’ Self-Directed Learning Readiness, Affective Learning Outcomes, Prior e-Learning Experience, and Age in Hybrid and Online Courses, Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  • (2024, January 13). VOSviewer—Visualizing Scientific Landscapes. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com//.
  • Zhang, (2022), Asia-Pac. Educ. Res., 31, pp. 1, 10.1007/s40299-020-00533-x
  • Staddon, (2020), Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., 17, pp. 11, 10.1186/s41239-020-00184-4
  • Lewis, I. (2018). The Student Experience of Higher Education, Routledge.
  • Garland, (2004), Comput. Hum. Behav., 20, pp. 823, 10.1016/j.chb.2003.11.010
  • Kim, (2011), Sensors, 11, pp. 7835, 10.3390/s110807835
  • Butler, (2018), J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn., 7, pp. 323, 10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.07.002
  • Roediger, (2005), J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn., 31, pp. 1155, 10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1155
  • Marsh, (2007), Psychon. Bull. Rev., 14, pp. 194, 10.3758/BF03194051