Menu
Augmented Reality and a UDL
Implementing scaffolded Augmented Reality to create authentic learning experiences using a Universal Design for Learning Curriculum
In a rapidly evolving technological landscape, teachers search for innovative and engaging methods to create inclusive learning environments that promote authentic learning. This paper considers Augmented Reality (AR) from the perspective of the iPAC Framework and its correlation with a Universal Design for Learning to create inclusive and immersive augmented learning experiences for students.
Context
Currently, I am a secondary teacher working in a pre-to-post, inquiry-based learning environment in Sydney’s West. In an ever-changing digital world, teachers are confronted with the daunting task of equipping students with interchangeable skills for future jobs that do not exist. This notion has called for in depth research in areas that will define the next ‘new normal’ in education and initiates the quest for transferable digital skills set (Xi et al, 2020). Accompanying this ideology was the alarming discovery that our students expressed feeling ‘ok’ and ‘tired’ more frequently than the feeling of ‘happy’ and ‘motivated’ (Figure 1).
In a rapidly evolving technological landscape, teachers search for innovative and engaging methods to create inclusive learning environments that promote authentic learning. This paper considers Augmented Reality (AR) from the perspective of the iPAC Framework and its correlation with a Universal Design for Learning to create inclusive and immersive augmented learning experiences for students.
Context
Currently, I am a secondary teacher working in a pre-to-post, inquiry-based learning environment in Sydney’s West. In an ever-changing digital world, teachers are confronted with the daunting task of equipping students with interchangeable skills for future jobs that do not exist. This notion has called for in depth research in areas that will define the next ‘new normal’ in education and initiates the quest for transferable digital skills set (Xi et al, 2020). Accompanying this ideology was the alarming discovery that our students expressed feeling ‘ok’ and ‘tired’ more frequently than the feeling of ‘happy’ and ‘motivated’ (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Inquiry Based Learning community engagement levels
Upon the discovery, I endeavoured to create an authentic learning experience for intrinsically motivated students that was inclusive, inquiry based and valued student agency while creating a meaningful learning experience that was connected to the real world. In teaching teams, we co-designed and implemented an integrated Religious Education and Technology unit called the Inclusive Community Project, which was delivered remotely (due to Covid-19 restrictions) to 339 Stage 4 students. An emphasis of this project was to engage students in the curriculum through scaffolded AR as a learning medium to generate interchangeable digital skills. The project was delivered to a diverse group of mixed ability students armed with the objective to produce an AR experience to send to patients at the Children’s Hospital, Westmead. |
Students in the learning community described themself as ‘novice’ with many having little exposure to designing AR. Majority of students were, however, equipped with their own mobile-learning devices. Students who did not have any access to mobile devices were delivered a loan device for the duration of the lockdown timeframe. Every student reported having moderate to good connectivity to Wi-Fi. Learning activities included: self-directed modules, digital collaborative platforms, safe to fail experiential AR workshops and teacher consultation check-ins that facilitated the reflective nature of the learning cycle. Students’ self-paced through modules that taught skills in AR while Zoom lessons provided opportunities to rehearse skills through collaboration and consider how the experiences aligned with the Religious Education concepts of Human Dignity and Fraternal Solidarity. In this context, all lessons were taught in teaching teams which both enabled and constrained the delivery of AR in the classroom.
Augmented Reality (AR) as a by-product of the iPAC framework
Augmented Reality in education has been used to enhance student agency, innovation and application through hybrid learning experiences. AR is the projection of interactive and simulated objects into real world landscapes (Tzima, 2019). Presenting new ideologies in student engagement, AR is a cost-effective approach that aligns with Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy that is currently implemented in NSW schools (Gómez-García, 2021). The immersive nature of this technology presents an array of authentic methods to engage students through customised learning experiences that relate to real world environments. AR, as a by-product of mobile-learning (m-learning) in education, is underpinned by the key attributes of the iPAC Framework: personalisation, collaboration, and authenticity (Kearney, 2019). While understanding that iPAC is suitably applied to m-learning, it is relevant to view AR as a technological branch that is enabled through mobile devices (France et, al, 2021).
Figure 2 Current representation of the iPAC framework (formerly known as mobile-learning pedagogy framework).
Augmented Reality (AR) as a by-product of the iPAC framework
Augmented Reality in education has been used to enhance student agency, innovation and application through hybrid learning experiences. AR is the projection of interactive and simulated objects into real world landscapes (Tzima, 2019). Presenting new ideologies in student engagement, AR is a cost-effective approach that aligns with Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy that is currently implemented in NSW schools (Gómez-García, 2021). The immersive nature of this technology presents an array of authentic methods to engage students through customised learning experiences that relate to real world environments. AR, as a by-product of mobile-learning (m-learning) in education, is underpinned by the key attributes of the iPAC Framework: personalisation, collaboration, and authenticity (Kearney, 2019). While understanding that iPAC is suitably applied to m-learning, it is relevant to view AR as a technological branch that is enabled through mobile devices (France et, al, 2021).
Figure 2 Current representation of the iPAC framework (formerly known as mobile-learning pedagogy framework).
The immersive and interactive nature of AR technology correlates with the iPAC Framework as it promotes collaboration, inclusivity, customization, empathetic engagement, and inquiry based on personal interest (Berman & Pollack, 2021); whilst also developing the application of knowledge into new contexts (David, 2017); self-regulation; resilience (Zheng, 2020); and developing intrinsic motivation through enriched connections to community (Green et al., 2017).
|
A constraint that needs to be considered by the facilitator of the learning process is the authenticity of the task. Whilst AR is context specific, it is the facilitator’s responsibility to design meaningful directions that fuel intrinsic motivation and promote accessibility for a diverse range of learners. Thus, the intention of the Inclusive Community Project was to create a product that valued the empathetic nature of real-world connections, promoting the values of human dignity and inclusivity by addressing the boundaries between ‘sick’ and ‘healthy’, making the learning experience personal, real and authentic (Figure 3). Therefore, a response to the constraint was the collaborative and customizable modification of the task that was enabled through AR and correlates to the iPAC Framework (France, et. al, 2021).
Figure 3 Students enrolled in the Inclusive Community Project’s reflection on activities that provided meaningful impact.
Figure 3 Students enrolled in the Inclusive Community Project’s reflection on activities that provided meaningful impact.
Despite the iPAC framework reinforcing the authentic nature of AR as a by-product of m-learning, teacher perceptions present reservations about technology in education. Interestingly, many teachers objectively identify AR as an authentic tool to deliver teaching and learning in differing educational contexts (Tzima et al., 2019). This theoretical understanding is contradicted by assumptions that constrain the physical delivery of technology in the classroom.
|
The first constraint is the perceived insufficient AR training for teachers (Instefjord et al, 2017). A large contributor to this notion is the lack of integrated opportunities for preservice teachers to engage with emerging technologies in undergraduate degrees (Gómez-García, et.al, 2021). Roig-Vella, Lorenzo & Mengual emphasises that preservice teachers’ previous exposure to AR has significant influences on an individual’s application of new technologies in future learning (2019). This ideology, however, does not account for teachers who are years into their profession. Lascia, Meletiou and Katzis implies that a possible motive for the reluctance to implement AR is due to the lack of awareness of professional development opportunities (2020). Considering these findings, the team of teachers delivering the Inclusive Community Project attended three, 1 hour intensive and practical tutorials to introduce the Reality Composer app, presented by ICT NSW. The introductory AR workshops gave teachers tangible interactions with the technology, and, in result, all teachers reported a newly found confidence to teach with AR.
Coinciding with teacher reservation, was the perceived assumption that AR lacks opportunities to differentiate and offer support to high needs students (Lai, et.al 2019). This logic is countered by Kyza & Georgiou’s research that outlines the benefits of scaffolded Augmented Reality (2019). Aligning with the engagement component of the iPAC framework, AR can be scaffolded to a degree to introduce flexible learning experiences to children as young as 3. Evidently, the scaffolded adventure AR experience, Pokémon Go, supports a range of mixed ability participants as the user friendly up is designed to be accessible to all. In this safe to fail environment, participants as young as infants, develop skills in spatial awareness, cognitive performance and encourages daily exercise (Ruiz-Ariza, 2018) Furthermore, Early Stage 1 teachers are implementing +andscapes to engaging a diverse range of students in AR experiences (Leinonen, et.al, 2021). Digital augmentation therefore offers the capacity to modify learning opportunities to promote cognitive development, executive function, spatial awareness, collaboration skills and problem-solving capabilities for mixed ability students.
Augmented Reality and its correlation with Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an inclusive model that promotes student voice, engagement, and ability to embrace flexibility by means of representation. UDL is the promotion of a range of learning materials that allows students of mixed abilities to access the curriculum through enriched engagement. Learning cycles aim to generate student engagement by aligning projects to personal interest that develops empathetic connection to real world issues. Furthermore, UDL implies that barriers in education are not individualistic, but rather occur with interaction of the curriculum that can be designed to eliminate constraints and support authentic learning opportunities. (Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2013).
UDL key elements is presented as:
Learning cycles therefore must promote the personalisation of learning experiences and support the application of self-expression through student agency. The affordance of AR clearly correlates with the UDL Framework as students develop a range of autonomy through accessible safe to fail, experiential learning experiences. Bernat expresses that student engaging with immersive technologies learn greater skills in problem solving as students encounter problems in safe and manageable environments (2019). AR as a method of delivering UDL creates opportunities for students to learn organisational skills, resilience to respond to feedback, self-reflection and actions that simultaneously improve metacognition and cognitive flexibility (Garcia-Campos, et.al 2020). AR in this manner enables students to fulfil the expectations of the UDL Framework as the curriculum is modified to a level that allows for greater autonomy and student agency to refine, practise, and reflect on interchangeable skills that will prepare them for the rapidly changing digital context.
Furthermore, AR enables a UDL curriculum with an initial platform that is accessible to students of all abilities. The customisable feature of AR provides personalised and reasonable adjustments to encourage student engagement and support students of all abilities (David, 2017). AR evidently presents an onset of flexible skills that can be implemented to varying degrees, generating greater autonomy in the delivery of an end product. This is exemplified in the Inclusive Community Project as all students commenced the unit with a safe to fail entry event that guided mixed ability students through the creation of a vertical marble run game. As an entry event, students displayed engagement and refined a set of digital skills that would inform the creation of an end product depending on personal interest and intrinsic motivation levels. Interestingly, we had students of all abilities approach us and request for specific workshops, testament to student success in the entry event and ignited intrinsic motivation. AR therefore enabled a UDL curriculum that was engaging, achievable and offered greater capacity to feel success as a resilient problem solver which correlated with learning growth presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Students enrolled in the Inclusive Community Project’s reflection on greatest learning growth.
Coinciding with teacher reservation, was the perceived assumption that AR lacks opportunities to differentiate and offer support to high needs students (Lai, et.al 2019). This logic is countered by Kyza & Georgiou’s research that outlines the benefits of scaffolded Augmented Reality (2019). Aligning with the engagement component of the iPAC framework, AR can be scaffolded to a degree to introduce flexible learning experiences to children as young as 3. Evidently, the scaffolded adventure AR experience, Pokémon Go, supports a range of mixed ability participants as the user friendly up is designed to be accessible to all. In this safe to fail environment, participants as young as infants, develop skills in spatial awareness, cognitive performance and encourages daily exercise (Ruiz-Ariza, 2018) Furthermore, Early Stage 1 teachers are implementing +andscapes to engaging a diverse range of students in AR experiences (Leinonen, et.al, 2021). Digital augmentation therefore offers the capacity to modify learning opportunities to promote cognitive development, executive function, spatial awareness, collaboration skills and problem-solving capabilities for mixed ability students.
Augmented Reality and its correlation with Universal Design for Learning
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is an inclusive model that promotes student voice, engagement, and ability to embrace flexibility by means of representation. UDL is the promotion of a range of learning materials that allows students of mixed abilities to access the curriculum through enriched engagement. Learning cycles aim to generate student engagement by aligning projects to personal interest that develops empathetic connection to real world issues. Furthermore, UDL implies that barriers in education are not individualistic, but rather occur with interaction of the curriculum that can be designed to eliminate constraints and support authentic learning opportunities. (Rappolt-Schlichtmann et al., 2013).
UDL key elements is presented as:
- Engagement through the rise of student agency
- Representation through a variety of multi-media and digital technologies
- Application of knowledge expressed through different way
Learning cycles therefore must promote the personalisation of learning experiences and support the application of self-expression through student agency. The affordance of AR clearly correlates with the UDL Framework as students develop a range of autonomy through accessible safe to fail, experiential learning experiences. Bernat expresses that student engaging with immersive technologies learn greater skills in problem solving as students encounter problems in safe and manageable environments (2019). AR as a method of delivering UDL creates opportunities for students to learn organisational skills, resilience to respond to feedback, self-reflection and actions that simultaneously improve metacognition and cognitive flexibility (Garcia-Campos, et.al 2020). AR in this manner enables students to fulfil the expectations of the UDL Framework as the curriculum is modified to a level that allows for greater autonomy and student agency to refine, practise, and reflect on interchangeable skills that will prepare them for the rapidly changing digital context.
Furthermore, AR enables a UDL curriculum with an initial platform that is accessible to students of all abilities. The customisable feature of AR provides personalised and reasonable adjustments to encourage student engagement and support students of all abilities (David, 2017). AR evidently presents an onset of flexible skills that can be implemented to varying degrees, generating greater autonomy in the delivery of an end product. This is exemplified in the Inclusive Community Project as all students commenced the unit with a safe to fail entry event that guided mixed ability students through the creation of a vertical marble run game. As an entry event, students displayed engagement and refined a set of digital skills that would inform the creation of an end product depending on personal interest and intrinsic motivation levels. Interestingly, we had students of all abilities approach us and request for specific workshops, testament to student success in the entry event and ignited intrinsic motivation. AR therefore enabled a UDL curriculum that was engaging, achievable and offered greater capacity to feel success as a resilient problem solver which correlated with learning growth presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Students enrolled in the Inclusive Community Project’s reflection on greatest learning growth.
Conclusion
Undeniably, Augmented Reality, when applied with a UDL curriculum, accelerates personalisation, collaboration and authenticity as demonstrated in the iPAC Framework. Evidence throughout this study supports the growth in student capabilities and cognitive capacities through the immersive AR learning experiences. Initial teacher perceptions constrain the authentic delivery of AR in the classroom, despite teachers objectively identifying its large benefits on individual learning growth. The safe to fail nature of AR provides an accessible platform for a diverse range of learners that aligns with UDL curriculum. Teachers can scaffold AR with the integration of verbal and visual prompts in addition to interactive elements. The benefits on student meta-cognition, social capacities, executive functioning, and spatial awareness accompanied by the capabilities of student agency, collaboration, autonomy, and critical thinking generates innovative and curious problem solvers equipped with transferable digital skills that undeniably prepares students for an exciting digital future. |
References
Bernat, C. (2019). Individualized learning with technology: meeting the needs of high school students (2nd edition.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Berman, B., & Pollack, D. (2021). Strategies for the successful implementation of augmented reality. Business Horizons, 64(5), 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.027
DAVID R, S. (2017). Working Memory and Augmented Reality’s Trajectory: A Literature Review of AR in Education, Online Learning, Workforce Training, and Working Memory Research. i-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 14(3), 55–. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.3.13860
France, D., Lee, R., Maclachlan, J., & McPhee, S. R. (2021). Should you be using mobile technologies in teaching? Applying a pedagogical framework. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1773417
García-Campos, M.-D., Canabal, C., & Alba-Pastor, C. (2020). Executive functions in universal design for learning: moving towards inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(6), 660–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1474955
Green, J., Green, T., & Brown, A. (2017). Augmented Reality in the K-12 Classroom. TechTrends, 61(6), 603–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0223-z
Gómez-García, G., Hinojo-Lucena, F.-J., Alonso-García, S., & Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M. (2021). Mobile Learning in Pre-Service Teacher Education: Perceived Usefulness of AR Technology in Primary Education. Education Sciences, 11(6), 275–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060275
Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016
Kearney, M., Schuck, S. & Burke, P. (2019). The iPAC Scale: A Survey to Measure Distinctive Mobile Pedagogies. Tech Trends 63, 751-764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00414-1
Kyza, E. A., & Georgiou, Y. (2019). Scaffolding augmented reality inquiry learning: the design and investigation of the TraceReaders location-based, augmented reality platform. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1458039
Lai, A.-F., Chen, C.-H., & Lee, G.-Y. (2019). An augmented reality-based learning approach to enhancing students’ science reading performances from the perspective of the cognitive load theory: Augmented reality-based science learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12716
Lasica, I.-E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Katzis, K. (2020). Augmented Reality in Lower Secondary Education: A Teacher Professional Development Program in Cyprus and Greece. Education Sciences, 10(4), 121–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10040121
Leinonen, T., Brinck, J., Vartiainen, H., & Sawhney, N. (2021). Augmented reality sandboxes: children’s play and storytelling with mirror worlds. Digital Creativity (Exeter), 32(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2020.1868535
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S.G., Lim, S., Lapinski, S., Robinson, K.H. and Johnson, M. (2013). Universal Design for Learning and Elementary School Science: Exploring the Efficacy, Use, and Perceptions of a Web-Based Science Notebook. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1210 –1225
Roig-Vila, R., Lorenzo-Lledó, A., & Mengual-Andres, S. (2019). Perceived usefulness of augmented reality as a didactic resource in the Infant Education Teacher Degree. Campus Virtuales, 8(1), 19-35
Ruiz-Ariza, A., Casuso, R. A., Suarez-Manzano, S., & Martínez-López, E. J. (2018). Effect of augmented reality game Pokémon GO on cognitive performance and emotional intelligence in adolescent young. Computers and Education, 116, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.002
Tzima, S., Styliaras, G., & Bassounas, A. (2019). Augmented Reality Applications in Education: Teachers Point of View. Education Sciences, 9(2), 99–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020099
Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F. F.-H. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic – online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 22(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884
Zheng, R. Z. (2020). The Reality of Augmented Reality in the Classroom. In Cognitive and Affective Perspectives on Immersive Technology in Education (pp. 51–66). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3250-8.ch003
Bernat, C. (2019). Individualized learning with technology: meeting the needs of high school students (2nd edition.). Rowman & Littlefield.
Berman, B., & Pollack, D. (2021). Strategies for the successful implementation of augmented reality. Business Horizons, 64(5), 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.027
DAVID R, S. (2017). Working Memory and Augmented Reality’s Trajectory: A Literature Review of AR in Education, Online Learning, Workforce Training, and Working Memory Research. i-Manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 14(3), 55–. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.14.3.13860
France, D., Lee, R., Maclachlan, J., & McPhee, S. R. (2021). Should you be using mobile technologies in teaching? Applying a pedagogical framework. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(2), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2020.1773417
García-Campos, M.-D., Canabal, C., & Alba-Pastor, C. (2020). Executive functions in universal design for learning: moving towards inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(6), 660–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1474955
Green, J., Green, T., & Brown, A. (2017). Augmented Reality in the K-12 Classroom. TechTrends, 61(6), 603–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0223-z
Gómez-García, G., Hinojo-Lucena, F.-J., Alonso-García, S., & Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M. (2021). Mobile Learning in Pre-Service Teacher Education: Perceived Usefulness of AR Technology in Primary Education. Education Sciences, 11(6), 275–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060275
Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.016
Kearney, M., Schuck, S. & Burke, P. (2019). The iPAC Scale: A Survey to Measure Distinctive Mobile Pedagogies. Tech Trends 63, 751-764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00414-1
Kyza, E. A., & Georgiou, Y. (2019). Scaffolding augmented reality inquiry learning: the design and investigation of the TraceReaders location-based, augmented reality platform. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1458039
Lai, A.-F., Chen, C.-H., & Lee, G.-Y. (2019). An augmented reality-based learning approach to enhancing students’ science reading performances from the perspective of the cognitive load theory: Augmented reality-based science learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12716
Lasica, I.-E., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., & Katzis, K. (2020). Augmented Reality in Lower Secondary Education: A Teacher Professional Development Program in Cyprus and Greece. Education Sciences, 10(4), 121–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10040121
Leinonen, T., Brinck, J., Vartiainen, H., & Sawhney, N. (2021). Augmented reality sandboxes: children’s play and storytelling with mirror worlds. Digital Creativity (Exeter), 32(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2020.1868535
Rappolt-Schlichtmann, G., Daley, S.G., Lim, S., Lapinski, S., Robinson, K.H. and Johnson, M. (2013). Universal Design for Learning and Elementary School Science: Exploring the Efficacy, Use, and Perceptions of a Web-Based Science Notebook. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1210 –1225
Roig-Vila, R., Lorenzo-Lledó, A., & Mengual-Andres, S. (2019). Perceived usefulness of augmented reality as a didactic resource in the Infant Education Teacher Degree. Campus Virtuales, 8(1), 19-35
Ruiz-Ariza, A., Casuso, R. A., Suarez-Manzano, S., & Martínez-López, E. J. (2018). Effect of augmented reality game Pokémon GO on cognitive performance and emotional intelligence in adolescent young. Computers and Education, 116, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.002
Tzima, S., Styliaras, G., & Bassounas, A. (2019). Augmented Reality Applications in Education: Teachers Point of View. Education Sciences, 9(2), 99–. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9020099
Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F. F.-H. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic – online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 22(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884
Zheng, R. Z. (2020). The Reality of Augmented Reality in the Classroom. In Cognitive and Affective Perspectives on Immersive Technology in Education (pp. 51–66). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3250-8.ch003