location-based learning through augmented realityblue.lins.fju.edu.tw/~lin/papers/2014...

J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol. 51(3) 355-368, 2014

LOCATION-BASED LEARNING THROUGH

AUGMENTED REALITY

TE-LIEN CHOU

National Taiwan University of Science and Technology

LIH-JUAN CHANLIN

Fu-Jen Catholic University

ABSTRACT

A context-aware and mixed-reality exploring tool cannot only effectively

provide an information-rich environment to users, but also allows them to

quickly utilize useful resources and enhance environment awareness. This

study integrates Augmented Reality (AR) technology into smartphones to

create a stimulating learning experience at a university in northern Taiwan.

Some 100 freshmen volunteered for application testing. Students’ reactions to

AR mobile campus exploration experiences are assessed based on three

facets: functionality, personal satisfaction, and effectiveness of learning.

Findings of the study indicate positive reactions as follows: 4.18 (SD = 0.48)

for functionality, 4.25 (SD = 0.60) for personal satisfaction, and 4.35 (SD =

0.59) for effectiveness of learning. From open-ended feedback, three positive

reactions and one suggestion are inducted. Based on our findings, we suggest

utilizing the proposed AR mobile touring system for wider educational

purposes. It is hoped that the findings of this study provide a reference for

further development and implementation of mobile AR learning systems.

INTRODUCTION

According to a report by UNESCO (2013), within the next 15 years, mobile appli-

cations will proactively guide and support learners through activities appropriate

355

� 2014, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.3.e

http://baywood.com

to different settings and facilitate useful and lasting personal learning. The ever-

evolving development of smartphones and the popularity of information

technology have not only influenced the development of campus networks, but

have also changed learning settings. The evolution of high-resolution cameras, big

screens, and embedded GPS and compass technologies in mobile devices have

brought about a new era in the mobile learning context (Bernardos, Corredera,

Ramon, & Cano García, 2011). Service providers can leverage both existing

information and facilities layout for the design of innovative information

environments that respond to users’ shifting information needs (Hahn, 2012;

Lázaro, 2012).

With the advancement of mobile technology, augmented reality (AR) is increas-

ingly used in mobile devices to satisfy location-based needs in specific learning

settings. AR allows specific elements in a physical environment to be supple-

mented by virtual computer-generated sensory input. The implementation of AR

helps people understand more detailed information about an environment

(Forsyth, 2011). When applied in specific contextual learning activities, location-

based information is critical for supporting students’ outdoor learning. AR can be

utilized to create rich information applications by using the geographical position

of a mobile device. Researchers have designed applications to provide students

learning content based on their real-time locations (Dow & Huang, 2011; Novak,

Wang, & Callaghan, 2012).

Augmented reality (AR) applications on smartphones can be particularly useful

during student orientation when they are expected to both make a transition to the

life on an unfamiliar campus and to be able to quickly navigate among different

buildings that contain a multitude of academic departments and administrative

offices (Boticki, Hoic-Bozic, & Budiscak, 2009; Jaramillo, Quiroz, Cartagena,

Vivares, & Branch, 2010; Kurkovsky, Koshy, Novak & Szul, 2012; Mar et al.,

2012). Extending the real world with a layer of virtual information, AR enables

seamless connection between digital and physical worlds; supports just-in-time,

context-based, and ubiquitous learning; and can help to build knowledge-rich

environments (Hwang, Chu, Lin, & Tsai, 2011; Novak et al., 2012). Previous

studies have identified AR simulation environments as an effective medium for

enhancing collaborative learning (Liu, Tan, & Chu, 2010; Wang, Lin, Tsai, Duh,

& Liang 2012). Due to its unique characteristics, AR could be one of the advance

technologies applied to education (Billinghurst & Dünser, 2012).

Related literature has addressed the effectiveness of AR for situated learning.

Bernardos et al. (2011) conclude that AR assists users’ learning of location-based

information by making information accessible, facilitating navigation of environ-

ments, and offering flexible, interactive, and appealing features. Wasko (2013)

summarizes students’ learning outcomes by investigating the enjoyment (motiva-

tion, interest, challenging, problem-solving, and critical thinking) they experience

during AR exploration. Berthold, Steiner, and Albert (2012) emphasize self-

regulated learning skills developed from using AR in project-based medical

356 / CHOU AND CHANLIN

training, including memorizing, elaboration, organization, planning, self-moni-

toring, and time management. Mar et al. (2012) suggest the use of AR has satisfied

students’ needs in supporting learning and motivational elements in both formal and

informal exploratory activities. With regard to location-based and real-time learning

needs, Chang and Liu (2013) and Novak et al. (2012) conclude that AR provides

situated learning opportunities and helps learners construct their understanding

through just-in-time, context-based elements in knowledge-rich environments.

Integrating AR technology into smartphones provides learners with a user-

centered, visualized operation and context-aware personal campus navigation

experiences. This study explores how an AR mobile touring system was devel-

oped and evaluated among users. Specifically, the study explores (a) students’

experiences using the functions provided by the AR mobile touring system, (b)

students’ satisfaction with location-based learning, and (c) the effectiveness of

using the tool for learning.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopts application prototyping and questionnaire survey methodol-

ogies to elicit feedback from college freshmen. First, in order to study how

students use an information-rich and self-guided AR tool during campus orien-

tation, a prototype mobile campus touring system employing AR technology was

developed at Fu-Jen Catholic University. Formative evaluation was employed

during the development phase to gather users’ feedback and suggestions. The final

version of the AR touring system was adjusted accordingly. The system was then

introduced to 100 volunteer freshmen. Overall reactions toward the systems were

gathered through a questionnaire.

Development and Application

The development of the mobile campus touring system applied the freeware

tool Layar as it supports the majority of smartphone platforms, including iOS,

Android, Symbian, and Blackberry. Hoppala was used as the data server to store

relevant geospatial information for effective guidance. Photoshop was used in

designing tags for AR points of interests (POIs), Audacity was used for audio tour

recordings, and a camera was used for taking photos of POIs to supplement

descriptions. The system was tested in both Android and iOS smartphone plat-

forms for comparability (Table 1).

The system structure consisted of two databases and three interfaces. The

developer or the administrator used both Layar and Hoppala accounts via the Web

to implement the mobile campus touring system. To run the system, users had to

download the Layar application to their smartphones and search for the Fu-Jen

Catholic University mobile campus touring system to start navigation. Via WIFI

or 3G Internet connections, and GPS and compass sensory technology, real-time

LOCATION-BASED LEARNING / 357

geospatial information on the campus was displayed on the screens of users’

smartphones (Figure 1).

When the sensors of both the GPS and the compass were triggered, associated

POIs (such as departments, libraries, dining areas, sport fields, or dorms) within

the searchable radius then appeared on the screen in the form of AR tags overlaid

on a physical surrounding object. Users further scanned 360 degrees for a specific

POI and then tapped on the designated AR tag for further actions, such as text

description, audio touring guide, phone numbers for either direct phone calls or

text messaging, directions, social network sharing, and so on (Figure 2). The

system operations included scanning, radius-setting, searching, accessing, filtering,

browsing, action-selecting, directions, and sharing (Figure 3).

Assessment

At the end of application testing, summative data were collected. Volunteer

recruitment for experimentation and evaluation of the system was conducted


Table 1. Tools for Development of Campus Touring System

Items Tools

Development OS

Internet browser

Audio recorder

Image creator

Interface platform

Database platform

Smartphone models

Smartphone OS platforms

Windows XP/Windows Vista PC

Firefox

Audacity

Photoshop

Layar

Hoppala

HTC Aria/Samsung Galaxy II/Apple iPhone 4

Android/iOS

Figure 1. System structure of AR mobile touring system.

among freshmen through invitations in freshmen classes and DMs on school

bulletin boards (both electronic and physical) during the first month of the

semester. A total of 100 students signed up to participate in the study. Each student

was asked to complete a task sheet in which 13 tasks were given (such as describ-

ing directions and names about specific locations, providing background informa-

tion about specific buildings, and demonstrating one’s understanding about

assessing specific important information from the AR mobile touring system). To

accomplish the tasks given, students were requested to familiarize themselves with

both the operation and the use of special functions embedded in their smartphone

for retrieving relevant location-based information. After completing the task

sheet, students responded immediately to a set of questionnaire items to express

their reactions to their learning experience. Each student learned independently

and responded individually. It took each individual about 20 to 30 minutes to

finish the tasks and fill out questionnaire items.

The questionnaire contained 25 items. It assessed students’ learning reactions

after exploring the location-based information embedded in the system. The struc-

ture of the questionnaire items was framed based on theoretical issues addressed in

related studies (Bernardos et al., 2011; Berthold et al., 2012; Chang & Liu, 2013;

Jaramillo et al., 2010; Mar et al., 2012; Novak et al., 2012; Nurminen, Jarvi, &

Lehtonen, 2014) and the needs of users (formative assessment in the prototype

version of the system) (Table 2). The first section of the questionnaire covered

basic information about students (gender, college, activities via cell phones, and

experiences finding locations). The second section of the questionnaire assessed

students’ learning and reactions to the AR mobile touring system, including the

functionality of the AR mobile touring system (stability, content categorization,

positioning, audio guide, and textual guidance), personal satisfaction (enjoyment,

interest in interactions, personal importance, and exploration enjoyment) with the


Figure 2. System configuration structure.


Fig

ure

3.U

ser

ap

plic

atio

n.

location-based learning experiences, and perceived effectiveness of using the tool

for learning (tagging sufficient information, helpfulness in learning, and guidance

to target locations). A Likert’s 5-point scale was adopted to obtain summative

data. Data from a total of 100 participants were collected and processed using

SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).

FINDINGS

Prior Experience Among Subjects

Of the 100 volunteers, 37 were males (37 %) and 63 were females (63%). Most

students used their cell phones for various activities, including making phone calls

and text messaging (100%), calculating (77%), playing games (61%), and setting

personal calendars (61%). Most of their campus exploration experiences included

asking passersby (61%), following instincts (60%), and using signposts (59%).

Only 23 students (23%) used online maps, and only 3 students (3%) used

smartphone guidance. According to their responses, the AR mobile touring system

was a new experience for them.


Table 2. Structure of Questionnaire Items

Category of items Type of data to be obtained Source

Background information

and prior experiences

Facet I:

Functions of AR mobile

system

Facet II:

Personal satisfaction

Facet III:

Effectiveness of using

the tool for location-

based learning

Open-ended reactions

Gender, college, activities via

cell phones, and experiences

following directions.

Stability of functions in exploration

(categorization, positioning, audio

guide, and directions).

Enjoyment, interest in use of

real-time interactions, personal

importance and joy in exploring

various features.

Effectiveness in tagging sufficient

information, providing helpful

learning, and guiding to target

locations.

Descriptions, learning experiences

that occurred when exploring the

AR mobile learning tool.

Relevant information

from target users

Bernardos et al. (2011);

Chang & Liu (2013);

Liu (2013); Berthold et al.

(2012); Novak et al.

(2012); Mar et al. (2012);

Jamarillo et al. (2010);

Nurminen et al. (2014)

Functions of the AR Mobile Touring System

From students’ responses to questionnaire items, the mean score for the function

of AR mobile touring was 4.18 (SD = 0.48). As shown in Table 3, the majority of

students strongly agreed that “3. This system is easy to handle”; “5. The audio tour

guide provides me with deeper information about various points of interest”; and

“8. Categorization of information helps me to identify targets.” Most mean scores

were above 4.00. From these results, most students were positive about functions

such as positioning, quick response, ease of use and handling.

Personal Satisfaction With Learning

From the questionnaire responses, the mean score for personal satisfaction with

learning was 4.25 (SD = 0.60). As shown in Table 4, the majority of students

strongly agreed that “9. I enjoy navigating the campus touring system for real-time

interaction with the environment”; “10. This campus touring system gives me the

freedom to interact with the new environment by myself”; “12. I like the social

networking features provided by the system”; “13. I enjoy using this campus

touring system to explore the school”; “14. I will recommend this system to


Table 3. Functions of AR Mobile Touring

Strongly

disagree �Strongly

Agree

Item 1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD

1. This system switches

functions smoothly

2. This positioning function

runs stably

3. This system is easy to

handle

4. This system responds to

my requests quickly

5. The audio tour guide

provides me with deeper

information about various

points of interest

6. Text should be biggera

7. The audio tour guide in

the system is important

to me

8. Categorization of

information helps me to

identify targets

0

0

0

0

0

5

2

0

2

1

0

3

0

5

13

0

20

18

13

20

10

23

34

10

41

42

24

31

31

34

23

31

37

39

63

46

59

33

28

58

4.13

4.19

4.50

4.20

4.49

2.15

3.62

4.44

0.80

0.76

0.72

0.86

0.67

1.10

1.09

0.81

The average score for the function of AR mobile touring 4.18 0.48

Note: Likert’s 5-point scale (n = 100); aReversed item.

others”; and “15. Google direction guidance in the system is important to me.”

Most mean scores were above 4.00. Based on these results, most students enjoyed

using these real-time, self-guided, and social networking campus navigation

services. They felt satisfied using the tool for location-based learning.

Effectiveness of Learning

Based on responses related to the effectiveness of learning, the mean score was

4.35 (SD = 0.59). As shown in Table 5, the majority of students strongly agreed

that “17. This system provides me with correct information about buildings”; “18.

The information integrated with the physical objects helps me become familiar

with the environment”; “19. The use of visuals provides helpful representations


Table 4. Personal Satisfaction in Learning

Strongly


Agree


9. I enjoy navigating the

campus touring system

for real-time interaction

with the environment

10. This campus touring

system gives me the

freedom to interact with

the new environment by

myself

11. The experience of mobile

learning triggers my

interest to explore the

campus

12. I like the social

networking features

provided by the system

13. I enjoy using this campus

touring system for

learning through

exploration

14. I will recommend this

system to others

15. Google direction

guidance in the system is

important to me

16. Social network capability

is very important to me

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

2

2

1

8

2

3

2

2

7

7

13

31

17

16

14

13

22

33

31

28

31

30

28

35

24

57

55

32

50

51

58

50

45

4.43

4.40

3.82

4.22

4.29

4.38

4.33

4.03

0.79

0.75

1.01

0.82

0.84

0.80

0.78

1.07

The average score for the personal joyfulness in learning 4.25 0.60

Note: Likert’s 5-point scale (n = 100).

for comprehension”; “22. AR tagging provides enough contextual descriptions”;

“23. The direction guidelines on the system take me to the target locations

accurately”; and “24. This system provides me everything I need for touring the

campus.” Mean scores were all above 4.00. From these results, most students were

pleased with the AR campus touring system for it helps them become familiar with

the campus (Table 5).


Table 5. Effectiveness of Learning

Strongly


Agree


17. This system provides me

with correct information

about buildings

18. The information

integrated with the

physical objects helps

me become familiar with

the environment

19. The use of visuals

provides helpful

representations for

comprehension

20. The mobile learning

system integrated with

AR tags reinforces my

spatial memories.

21. The use of visuals is

intuitive.

22. AR tagging provides

enough contextual

descriptions.

23. The direction guidelines

on the system take me

to the target locations

accurately.

24. This system provides

me everything I need

four touring the campus.

25. This campus touring

system provides an

efficient context-aware

learning experience

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

3

5

6

8

12

18

23

11

8

14

19

33

38

37

33

27

33

35

31

36

61

54

51

49

49

54

56

50

40

4.55

4.46

4.39

4.31

4.24

4.39

4.46

4.22

4.11

0.61

0.64

0.69

0.76

0.84

0.76

0.69

1.02

0.89

The average score for the effectiveness of learning 4.35 0.59

Note: Likert’s 5-point scale (n = 100).

Open-Ended Feedback

From open-ended feedback, students gave three major positive feedbacks and

one suggestion. About the positive feedback, the majority of the users highly

valued the augmented information. They enjoyed gaining awareness and using

this personal mobile learning module to acquaint themselves with the new envi-

ronment. They felt this service offered immediate information to satisfy their

timely needs. As for the suggestion, seven users responded negatively toward the

font size of the system. They felt it was difficult to read descriptions on the small

screen of their smartphone.

DISCUSSION

In this study, students’ experiences in three facets of the AR mobile touring

system were evaluated, including the function of the AR mobile system, personal

satisfaction, and the effectiveness of using the tool for situated learning. Even

though only 3% of students had experience using smartphone direction guidance

and 25% of students had used an online map for campus exploration, the majority

of students reacted positively to the functions of the AR mobile campus touring

system. Similar findings have been reported in related studies showing that most

students appreciate the exploration of various functions embedded in AR for

location-based learning (Lee, 2012; Novak et al., 2012; Rockwell et al., 2014).

Integrating functions of AR and geographical positioning in a mobile device

creates a new experience for users exploring rich location-based information. In

our study, students’ valued the functions of the AR mobile system highly. The

enriched environment information system helped freshmen become familiar with

the new environment.

Students perceived high levels of personal satisfaction with the experiences of

both real-time interaction and self-guided navigation in the campus touring

system. As noted by Pribeanu and Iordache (2010), AR technology encourages

students to learn theoretical knowledge through practical experiences learned

from constructive activities. In our study, we found that students were satisfied

with the proposed self-guided AR system. These freshmen felt freedom to explore

the unfamiliar campus with both joyfulness and ease.

Students also highly valued the effectiveness of using the tool for location-based

learning. With the capability to enhance seeing, hearing, and feeling from diverse

input, students learn efficiently from AR experiences (van Krevelen & Poelman,

2010). In our study, most students considered the tool helpful in reaching a target

location efficiently and providing opportunities for helpful and effective learning.

There are limitations in the current study, given the fact that only a limited num-

ber of users participated in the study and variations in individual or gender

differences were not analyzed. Bao, Xiong, Hu, and Kibelloh (2013) suggest

that computer self-efficacy and individual differences might play a role in a


self-exploration learning mobile environment. Kay and Lauricella (2011) and

Schumacher and Morahan-Martin (2001) address gender differences in computer

attitudes, ability, and use. Other studies also suggest that a great deal of techno-

logical effort is needed to merge AR applications in support of multiuser collab-

oration in real time (Carmigniani et al., 2011; Yang, 2012). Mobile devices are

limited by some major factors, including small input interfaces and small displays

(Novak et al., 2012). Putting rich information onto the screen of a mobile device

creates a big challenge in structuring and sequencing needed information in a

timely fashion. Further innovation is still needed to fulfill users’ specific needs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study utilizes Augmented Reality (AR) technology and smartphones to

implement a mobile campus touring system. Throughout the development and

evaluation of the AR mobile touring system, students’ reactions to the use of sys-

tem were gathered. The majority of the users highly valued the use of visualized

augmented information in the AR campus touring system. They also appreciated

gaining situated awareness and using the AR mobile campus touring system to

acquaint themselves with the new environment. Different from other touring

systems, this AR campus navigation application offers immediate information to

satisfy students’ timely needs.

The use of the AR mobile tool provided students with context-aware location-

based learning experiences. However, some research limitations and develop-

mental issues should be well considered. Future studies of gender differences and

self-efficacy issues might be investigated in relation to learning outcomes. We

expect that this AR mobile touring system can allow freshmen to readily experi-

ence interactive learning. It is also hoped that, in the future, the use of AR can be

applied in more learning settings on campus as an innovative alternative for bring-

ing experiential and ubiquitous learning to students.

REFERENCES

Bao, Y., Xiong, T., Hu, Z., & Kibelloh, M. (2013). Exploring gender differences on general

and specific computer self-efficacy in mobile learning adoption. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 111-132.

Bernardos , A. M., Corredera, C., Ramon, J., & Cano García, J. (2011). Mobile indoor

augmented reality: Exploring applications in hospitality environments. PECCS

2011—International conference on Pervasive and Embedded Computing and

Communication Systems (pp. 232-236).

Berthold, M., Steiner, C. M., & Albert, D. (2012, July). How to augment simulated

environments by services supporting self-regulated learning? A baseline study.

in advanced learning technologies (ICALT), 2012 IEEE 12th International Confer-

ence (pp. 700-701). IEEE.


Billinghurst, M., & Dünser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer,

45(7), 56-63.

Boticki, I., Hoic-Bozic, N., & Budiscak, I. (2009). A system architecture for a context-

aware blended mobile learning environment. Journal of Computing and Information

Technology, 2, 165–175.

Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, M. (2011).

Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools and

Applications, 51(1), 341-377.

Chang, Y. H., & Liu, J. (2013). Applying AR technique to enhance situated heritage learn-

ing in a ubiquitous learning environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational

Technology, 12(3), 21-32.

Dow, C.-R., & Huang, L.-H. (2011, December 5). Context-aware and LBS learning sys-

tems using ubiquitous teaching assistant (u-TA): A case study for service-learning

courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. doi:10.1002/cae.21552

Forsyth, E. (2011). AR U feeling appy? Augmented reality, apps, and mobile access to

local studies information. Aplis, 24(3), 124-132

Hahn, J. (2012). Mobile augmented reality applications for library services. New Library

World, 113(9/10).

Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Lin, Y. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). A knowledge acquisition

approach to developing mindtools for organizing and sharing differentiating knowl-

edge in a ubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education, 57, 1368-1377.

Jaramillo, G. E., Quiroz, J. E., Cartagena, C. A., Vivares, C. A., & Branch, J. W. (2010).

Mobile augmented reality applications in daily environments. Revista EIA, 14, 125-134.

Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Gender differences in the use of laptops in higher

education: A formative analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3),

361-380.

Kurkovsky, S., Koshy, R., Novak, V., & Szul, P. (2012). Current issues in handheld aug-

mented reality. The 2nd international conference on Communications and Information

Technology (ICCIT): Information Technology and Cloud Computing, Hammamet,

Tunisia (pp. 68-72).

Lázaro, R. M. (2012, January 23–25). Augmented reality as a tool to bring young users to

the public libraries—The case of the libraries of the city of Barcelona. Proceedings of

the 20th international conference on Information Science, Amsterdam (pp. 226-229).

Lee, K. (2012). Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends, 56(2), 13-21.

Liu, T.-Y., Tan, T.-H., & Chu, Y.-L. (2010). QR code and augmented reality-supported

mobile English learning system. Lecture Notes on Computer Science, 5960, (pp. 7-52).

Mar, B. I., Gustavo, R. G., Davinia., H. L., Mario, M. O., Patricia, S., Josep, B., & Carlos,

D. K. (2012). Discovering the campus together: A mobile and computer-based learning

experience. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 35(1), 176-188.

Novak, D., Wang, M., & Callaghan, V. (2012). Looking in, looking out: A discussion of the

educational affordances of current mobile augmented reality technologies. In J. Jia

(Ed.), Educational stages and interactive learning: From kindergarten to workplace

training. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Nurminen, A., Jarvi, J., & Lehtonen, M. (2014, June 16-19). A mix reality interface for real

time tracked public transportation. 10th ITS European Congress, Helsinki, Finland.

Pribeanu, C., & Iordache, D. D. (2010). From usability to user experience: Evaluating the

educational and motivational value of an augmented reality scenario. In A. Tzanavari,


& N. Tsapatsoulis (Eds.), Affective, interactive and cognitive methods for elearning

design: Creating an optimal educational experience (pp. 244-258). New York, NY:

Information Science Reference.

Rockwell, G., Henry, C., deJong, E., Lucky, S., Illovan, M., Gouglas, S., et al. (2014). Cam-

pus mysteries: Serious walking around. The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies

Association, 7(12), 1-18

Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and

experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 95-110.

UNESCO. (2013). The future of mobile learning. Implications for policy makers and

planners. Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/

002196/219637e.pdf

van Krevelen, D. W. F., & Poelman, R. (2010). A survey of augmented reality technologies,

applications and limitations. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1-20.

Wang, H. Y., Lin, T. J., Tsai, C. C., Duh, B. L., & Liang, J. C. (2012). An investigation of

students’ sequential learning behavioral patterns in mobile CSCL learning systems.

Proceedings of 12th IEEE international conference on Advanced Learning Technol-

ogies (pp. 53-57).

Wasko, C. (2013). What teachers need to know about augmented reality enhanced learning

environments. TechTrends, 57(4), 17-21.

Yang, S. C. (2012). Mobile applications and 4G wireless networks: A framework for

analysis. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(5), 344–357.

Direct reprint requests to:

Dr. Lih-Juan ChanLin

Department of Library and Information Science

Fu-Jen Catholic University

No. 510 Zhongzheng Rd., Xinzhuang Dist.,

New Taipei City 24205, Taiwan

e-mail: [email protected]


user

螢光標示

location-based learning through augmented realityblue.lins.fju.edu.tw/~lin/papers/2014...

Documents