User Evaluation on a Mobile Augmented Reality Game-based Application as a Learning Tool for Biology

Abstract

It is challenging to comprehend abstract information on a scientific topic. In essence, AR could display abstract scientific information excitingly and graphically, improving the students' learning interests and performance. Their critical engagement could be enhanced further through AR's visualisation capability, achieved via active learning in an AR-game environment. Hence, this paper proposed and described a reflection on a mobile AR game, ARCell, involving cell biology. This game is designed to help students learn about the structures of animals and plant cells via an AR tapping game and a quiz module. This study recruited thirty-two participants. The usability results showed that the game was practical and highly developed, predicated on the different usability factors. They were keen on more educational content on biology, which included challenging game features in the AR game module.

Augmented Reality (AR) Technology in Biology and Life Science Education: A Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

“…Source: (Hong et al, 2018) From the 29 selected articles, a diverse array of research designs was identified. Among them, 11 studies adopted quantitative non-randomized research designs (Al-Muqbil, 2022; Damopolii et al, 2022;Gnidovec et al, 2020;Gregorcic & Torkar, 2022;Lam et al, 2023;Nurhayati et al, 2022;Petrov & Atanasova, 2020;Sivri & Eroglu, 2022;Stojšić, Ostojić, & Stanisavljević, 2022;Weng et al, 2020a;Yang & Tsai, 2021). An equal number of studies, 11 in total, utilized mixed-method research designs (Celik et al, 2020;Delgado-Rodríguez, Carrascal Domínguez, & Garcia-Fandino, 2023;Erbas & Demirer, 2019;Fuchsova & Korenova, 2019;Kozcu Cakir et al, 2020;Lo et al, 2021;Omurtak & Zeybek, 2022;Serdar Yıldırım, 2021;Yapici & Karakoyun, 2021;Yildirim, 2020;Ziden et al, 2022).…”

“…Additionally, four qualitative studies were included (Ramli et al, 2022;Sarnat et al, 2019;Gökhan Sontay & Karamustafaoglu, 2021;Wommer et al, 2021), along with two quantitative control randomized (Dehghani, Mohammadhasani, Hoseinzade Ghalevandi, & Azimi, 2023;Maraza-Quispe et al, 2023) and one study employing a quantitative descriptive research design (Mustami et al, 2019). Furthermore, the selected articles were published in various journals, with two articles each in the following journals: International Journal of Information and Education Technology (Maraza-Quispe et al, 2023;Nurhayati et al, 2022), Journal of Science, Environment and Health Education (Omurtak & Zeybek, 2022;Serdar Yıldırım, 2021), Malaysian Journal of Online Education Technology (Gokhan Sontay & Karamustafaoğlu, 2021;Yapici & Karakoyun, 2021), TEM Journal (Damopolii et al, 2022;Lam et al, 2023), and one article each in Advances in Physiology Education (Gregorcic & Torkar, 2022), Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (Ziden et al, 2022), European Journal of Contemporary Education (Fuchsova & Korenova, 2019), Interactive Learning Environments (Dehghani et al, 2023)…”

“…However, six articles (21%) acknowledged and reported various limitations related to AR in Biological education. The study revealed that technical challenges, accounting for 64% of the reported limitations, primarily encompassed issues related to tools, weak internet coverage Fuchsova & Korenova (2019), long application startup time Omurtak & Zeybek (2022), lack of content Lam et al (2023), and complex download requirements (Ziden et al, 2022). Other than that, it has been recorded that financial and behavioral factors comprise 18% of each category.…”

“…ResultBackground of the selected studies Out of the 29 articles included in the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) study, seven were conducted in Turkey Erbas & Demirer (2019); Cakir et al (2020); Omurtak & Zeybek (2022); Yıldırım (2021); Sontay & Karamustafaoglu (2021); Yapici & Karakoyun (2021); Yildirim (2020), five in Indonesia Damopolii et al (2022); Erwinsah et al (2019); Mustami et al (2019); Nurhayati et al (2022); Weng et al (2020a), three in Malaysia(Lam, Lim, & Tan, 2023;Ramli et al, 2022;Ziden et al, 2022), two in Slovenia Gnidovec et al (2020);Gregorcic & Torkar (2022), two in TaiwanYang & Tsai (2021), and one each in Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Fiji, Iran, Istanbul, Serbia, Slovakia, and Spain. Additionally, three studies did not specify their location.…”

Augmented reality in biology education: A systematic literature review

“…Therefore, several researchers are also interested in using mix-methods (4 articles). Another interesting thing is the augmented reality trend which is approached by R&D. -Muqbil, 2022;Cahyana et al, 2023;Cejka et al, 2021;Chuang et al, 2023;Kumar et al, 2023;López-Cortés et al, 2021;Petrov & Atanasova, 2020;Wang et al, 2022) 2 Qualitative 21 (Abriata, 2020;Aivelo & Uitto, 2016;Annisa & Subiantoro, 2022;Borrel & Fourches, 2017;Bouksim et al, 2018;Bursjöö, 2022;Celik et al, 2020;Cortés Rodríguez et al, 2022;Fuchsova & Korenova, 2019;Gregorcic & Torkar, 2022;Lam et al, 2023;Loucif et al, 2019;Maraza-Quispe et al, 2023;Nasharuddin et al, 2021;Nuanmeesri, 2018;Pence, 2020;Reeves et al, 2021;Rodríguez et al, 2021;Saidin et al, 2015;Stojšić et al, 2022).…”