The Study of AR-Based Learning for Natural Science Inquiry Activities in Taiwan’s Elementary School from the Perspective of Sustainable Development
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Research Background and Motivation
1.2. Research Purpose
- How to develop an outdoor learning guide application that allows students to learn about the campus trees?
- Which factors will affect students’ intention to use the proposed AR-based application?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Augmented Reality Technology
2.2. M-Learning and U-Learning
2.3. Augmented Reality-Based Learning
2.4. Development of Mobile Augmented Reality System
2.5. Technology Acceptance Model
3. Research Model and Hypotheses
3.1. Hypothesis Development
- (1)
- When the user’s knowledge of the new technology is limited, subjective norms have more influence, but when the system development is complete and the user becomes proficient, attitudes have a more significant effect on behavioral intentions than subjective norms.
- (2)
- The TAM assumes that perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use are key factors that influence individuals’ attitudes towards using information systems. An individual’s attitude toward using will influence his or her intentions to use, which will in turn determine the actual behavior of using the information system.
- (3)
- The TAM is used to understand the factors that contribute to a user’s acceptance or rejection of a computer information system. Theoretical support is provided not only as a predictor of user behavior but also as an explanation of that user behavior.
- (4)
- The TAM suggests two main dimensions, “perceived ease-of-use” and “perceived usefulness,” in individuals’ perceptions to predict and explain why users accept or reject the system. The two major variables that affect individuals’ acceptance of technology are “perceived ease-of-use” and “perceived usefulness.” Moreover, these two major aspects not only directly affect users’ attitudes towards using, but further influence users’ behavioral intentions to use the technology system.
- (5)
- Perceived usefulness (PU): refers to “the extent to which individuals believe how useful information technology systems would be, which will not only enhance the user’s PU of the system, but also create positive attitudes such as trust in the system.” The dimension applied in this study indicates that when elementary school students are satisfied with the quality and quantity of their learning experience via the mobile learning system, they perceive that the system does help them strengthen their learning. Thus, the degree of PU is a reflection of the degree to which students themselves can actually learn via this system.
- (6)
- Perceived ease-of-use (PEU): is defined as “the degree to which individuals perceive how easy it is to use the information technology systems, which will not only enhance the user’s PEU of the system, but also create positive attitudes such as confidence in the system.” In this study, when users perceive the interactive learning interface of the mobile learning system as easy to use rather than difficult, the degree of PEU also reflects the degree of students’ mastery and familiarity with the system.
- (7)
- Attitude toward using: In this study, it refers to users’ positive or negative perceptions of the learning experience with the information technology system in terms of its interface environment, quality, and operation, which is expected to have an impact on students’ intentions to use the system.
- (8)
- Behavioral intention to use: In this study, it refers to the frequency of users using the information technology learning system in the future.
3.2. Research Architecture
4. Methodology
4.1. Sampling Procedures
4.2. Instrument
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. System Demonstration
5.2. Scale Validity and Reliability
5.2.1. Discriminant Validity
5.2.2. Reliability Analysis
5.3. Variance Analysis: One-Way ANOVA Test and Scheffe’s Method
- The perceived usefulness in the group of students aged 12 years was significantly different from that in all other age groups.
- The perceived ease of use in the group of students aged 13 years was not significantly different from that in the group aged 12 years. That in all other age groups differed significantly from that in the 12-year-old group.
- The application use attitude in the group of students aged 8 years was significantly different from that in the 12-year-old group. That in all other groups was not significantly different from that in the 12-year-old group.
- The item “Easy-to-download Applications” was not significantly correlated with perceived usefulness.
- The item “Easy-to-download Applications” was significantly correlated with perceived ease of use only in the anchors “strongly agree” and “agree.”
5.4. Hypotheses Model Test
5.4.1. The Independent t-Test Results
5.4.2. Regression Results for H1a, H2a, H3a, and H4a
5.4.3. Regression Results for H1b, H2b, H3b, and H4b
5.4.4. Regression Results for H5
5.4.5. Regression Results for H6 and H7
5.4.6. Regression Results for H8
5.4.7. Hypotheses Results of the proposed TAM
6. Conclusions
- Age and digital literacy affect the PU of the AR application. The results suggested that PU was weaker among the older students in the elementary school. A negative correlation in the data also indicated that the younger students felt more strongly that the AR app was useful.
- The digital literacy of the students was assessed on the basis of their experience of using mobile phones and tablets, ability to search for information on the Internet, ability to use email, ability to use a word processor, experience of using smartphone applications, and whether they agree with statement “Easy to download Applications.” Students with weaker digital literacy perceived the AR app to be more useful. Thus, digital literacy was positively correlated with perceived usefulness.
- The correlations of PU with student gender and experience of using information apps were nonsignificant.
- Age affects PEU of AR application. The results suggested that older students perceived the AR application to be less useful, which differs from the general belief of scholars. We speculate that this could have been because younger students are more likely to follow teachers’ instructions and because the system operation function was not difficult. Alternatively, it could have been because younger students considered the level of difficulty to be different from that considered by older students.
- PEU positively affects PU of AR application. The results indicated that students who perceived the AR application to be easier to use also perceived the app to be more useful. This result is consistent with the literature.
- PU positively affects app use attitude. The results indicated that students who perceived the usefulness of the AR application to be higher also had a more positive attitude toward using the application. This is consistent with previous findings.
- PEU positively influences application use attitude. Stronger PEU among the students was correlated with more positive app use attitude. This result was in agreement with the literature.
- Application use attitude positively affects application use intention. We discovered that students with stronger application use attitude had higher intention to use the application. This finding is consistent with the literature.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Student Questionnaire Questions
Personal Information
- Gender
- Age
Experience of Using Information Applications
- Do you have computer equipment at home?
- Is the computer at home connected to the Internet?
- Have you ever used a mobile phone or tablet?
Digital Literacy Background Information
- Do you search for information online?
- Do you use email?
- Do you use word processing software?
- Have you ever used mobile applications?
- In order to meet your needs for mobile vehicles, do you think it is easy to download the application and use it?
Perceived Usefulness
- I think using this AR application can speed up my learning.
- I think using this AR application can improve my learning effectiveness.
- I think using this AR application will make it easier for me to understand the learning content.
- I think using this AR application can improve my learning skills.
- I think using this AR application is helpful for my study.
Perceived Ease of Use
- The download method provided by this AR application is very easy for me to use.
- The interface function provided by this AR application is very easy for me to use
- The learning screen provided by this AR application is clear and easy to understand to me.
- The teaching function provided by this AR application makes it easy for me to complete learning.
- This AR application is very convenient to use, which makes me think it is usable and easy to use.
Attitudes Toward Using
- When using this AR application, I prefer to use computers, mobile phones, and other mobile vehicles to learn.
- When using this AR application, I am confident that I can keep up with the development trend of new technology.
- When using this AR application, I can learn happily.
- When using this AR application, I don’t feel anxious about learning.
- Because this AR application is easy to use, I prefer to use computers, mobile phones, and other mobile vehicle-related devices to learn.
- Because this AR application is easy to use, it gives me confidence that I can keep up with the development trend of new technologies.
- Because this AR application is easy to use, it allows me to study happily.
- Because this AR application is easy to use, so I don’t feel anxious about learning
Behavoral Intentions to Use
- If I have the opportunity, I hope to use this AR application frequently.
- If there is a chance, I am happy to let more people know about this AR application.
- If there is an opportunity, I hope that the learning content of other subjects can also develop AR applications.
- If I have the opportunity, I hope to use mobile vehicles for augmented reality courses.
References
- Sachs, J.D. The Age of Sustainable Development; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference, 1972). Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/humanenvironment (accessed on 20 March 2021).
- Keeble, B.R. The Brundtland report: ‘Our common future’. Med. War 1988, 4, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992). Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2021).
- United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014). Available online: https://www.bibb.de/dokumente/pdf/a33_unesco_international_implementation_scheme.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2021).
- Kalogiannakis, M.; Papadakis, S. Combining mobile technologies in environmental education: A Greek case study. International J. Mob. Learn. Organ. 2017, 11, 108–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCO. Trends in Environmental Education; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Environmental Education: A Process for Pre-service Teacher Training Curriculum Development; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Palmer, J.A.; Suggate, J. Influences and experiences affecting the pro-environmental behavior of educators. Environ. Educ. Res. 1996, 2, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, J.A.; Suggate, J.; Bajd, B.; Tsaliki, E. Significant influences on the development of adults’ environmental awareness in the UK, Slovenia and Greece. Environ. Educ. Res. 1998, 4, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gough, N.; Palmer, J.A. Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise; Routledge, London. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 1999, 15, 165–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Sustainable Development Summit (New York, 2015). Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/summit (accessed on 20 March 2021).
- K-12 Education Administration. 2008 Grade 1–9 Curriculum Guidelines. Available online: https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/Tw/Common/SinglePage?filter=F34E9417-8374-4A02-97CC-0DEDFD13514F (accessed on 20 March 2021)In Chinese.
- K-12 Education Administration. Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education. Available online: https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/WebFile/index.aspx?sid=11&mid=55 (accessed on 20 March 2021). In Chinese.
- Liu, Z.W.; Yang, H.C.; Shiau, Y.C. Investigation on evaluation framework of elementary school teaching materials for sustainable development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milgram, P.; Kishino, F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994, 77, 1321–1329. [Google Scholar]
- Azuma, R.T. A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1997, 6, 355–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georgieva, E.S.; Smrikarov, A.S.; Georgiev, T.S. Evaluation of mobile learning system. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2011, 3, 632–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sandberg, J.; Maris, M.; De Geus, K. Mobile English learning: An evidence-based study with fifth graders. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1334–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, G.Z.; Hwang, G.J. A key step to understanding paradigm shifts in e-learning: Towards context-aware ubiquitous learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 41, E1–E9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.L.; Wu, C.Y. Application of context-aware and personalized recommendation to implement an adaptive ubiquitous learning system. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 10831–10838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.C.; Huang, T.C. Learning in a u-Museum: Developing a context-aware ubiquitous learning environment. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 873–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Squire, K.; Klopfer, E. Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. J. Learn. Sci. 2007, 16, 371–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martín-Gutiérrez, J. Proposal of methodology for learning of standard mechanical elements using augmented reality. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Rapid City, SD, USA, 12–15 October 2011; pp. T1J-1–T1J-6. [Google Scholar]
- Herfana, P.; Nasir, M.; Prastowo, R. Augmented Reality Applied in Astronomy Subject. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1351, 12058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Önal, N.T.; Önal, N. The effect of augmented reality on the astronomy achievement and interest level of gifted students. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.C. Effect of mobile augmented reality on learning performance, motivation, and math anxiety in a math course. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2019, 57, 1695–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, S.C.; Hwang, G.J. Impacts of an augmented reality-based flipped learning guiding approach on students’ scientific project performance and perceptions. Comput. Educ. 2018, 125, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibáñez, M.B.; Delgado-Kloos, C. Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2018, 123, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarng, W.; Ou, K.L.; Yu, C.S.; Liou, F.L. Development of a virtual butterfly ecological system based on augmented reality and mobile learning technologies. Virtual Real. 2015, 19, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mei, B.; Yang, S. Nurturing Environmental Education at the Tertiary Education Level in China: Can Mobile Augmented Reality and Gamification Help? Sustainability 2019, 11, 4292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ducasse, J. Augmented Reality for Outdoor Environmental Education. In Augmented Reality in Education; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 329–352. [Google Scholar]
- Sermet, Y.; Demir, I. Virtual and augmented reality applications for environmental science education and training. New Perspect. Virtual Augment. Real. Find. New Ways Teach A Transform. Learn. Environ. 2020, 261–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Comport, A.I.; Marchand, É.; Chaumette, F. A real-time tracker for markerless augmented reality. The Second IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, Tokyo, Japan, 10 October 2003; pp. 36–45. [Google Scholar]
- Teichrieb, V.; Lima, J.P.S.M.; Apolinário, E.; Farias, T.S.M.C.; Bueno, M.; Kelner, J.S. A survey of online monocular markerless augmented reality. Int. J. Model. Simul. Pet. Ind. 2007, 1, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Werner, P.A. Review of implementation of augmented reality into the georeferenced analogue and digital maps and images. Information 2019, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wikitude Augmented Reality SDK. Available online: https://www.wikitude.com/products/wikitude-sdk/ (accessed on 20 March 2021).
- Cordova. Available online: https://cordova.apache.org/ (accessed on 20 March 2021).
- Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decis. Sci. 1996, 27, 451–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guest, W.; Wild, F.; Vouk, A.; Lefrere, P.; Klemke, R.; Fominykh, M.; Kuula, T. A Technology Acceptance Model for Augmented Reality and Wearable Technologies. J. UCS 2018, 24, 192–219. [Google Scholar]
- Lasica, I.E.; Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M.; Katzis, K. Augmented Reality in Lower Secondary Education: A Teacher Professional Development Program in Cyprus and Greece. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, J.; Park, E.; Moon, J.; Lee, W.S. Exploration of Sharing Accommodation Platform Airbnb Using an Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, J.; Ko, Y.; Shin, W.S.; Han, I. Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality for Learning: An Examination Using an Extended Technology Acceptance Model. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 6798–6809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, A.; Kale, S.; Chandel, S.; Pal, D.K. Likert scale: Explored and explained. Curr. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2015, 7, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
External Variables | Items of External Variable | Frequency | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Personal information | Gender | Male | 44 | 57.1 |
Female | 33 | 42.9 | ||
Age | 7 | 8 | 10.4 | |
8 | 11 | 14.3 | ||
9 | 11 | 14.3 | ||
10 | 12 | 15.6 | ||
11 | 11 | 14.3 | ||
12 | 10 | 13.0 | ||
13 | 14 | 18.2 | ||
Information experience | Do you have computer equipment at home? | 56 | 72.7 | |
Is the computer at home connected to the Internet? | 52 | 67.5 | ||
Have you ever used a mobile phone or tablet? | 71 | 92.2 | ||
Digital literacy | Do you search for information online? | 60 | 77.9 | |
Do you use email? | 41 | 53.2 | ||
Do you use word processing software? | 47 | 61.0 | ||
Have you ever used mobile applications? | 68 | 88.3 | ||
In order to meet your needs for mobile vehicles, do you think it is easy to download the app and use it? | Strongly agree | 52 | 67.5 | |
Agree | 16 | 20.8 | ||
Neither agree nor disagree | 6 | 7.8 | ||
Disagree | 3 | 3.9 | ||
Strongly disagree | 0 | 0 |
External Variable | PU | PEU | Att | BI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
External variable | Pearson correlation | 1 | −0.437 | −0.487 | −0.469 | −0.317 |
Significance(2-tailed) | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.005 ** | ||
N | 77 | 77 | 77 | 77 | 77 | |
PU | Pearson correlation Significance(2-tailed) N | −0.437 0.000 *** 77 | 1 77 | 0.741 0.000 *** 77 | 0.693 0.000 *** 77 | 0.495 0.000 *** 77 |
PEU | Pearson correlation Significance(2-tailed) N | −0.487 0.000 *** 77 | 0.741 0.000 *** 77 | 1 77 | 0.738 0.000 *** 77 | 0.435 0.000 *** 77 |
Att | Pearson correlation Significance(2-tailed) N | −0.469 0.000 *** 77 | 0.693 0.000 *** 77 | 0.738 0.000 *** 77 | 1 77 | 0.611 0.000 *** 77 |
BI | Pearson correlation Significance(2-tailed) N | −0.317 0.005 ** 77 | 0.495 0.000 *** 77 | 0.435 0.000 *** 77 | 0.611 0.000 *** 77 | 1 77 |
Constructs | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|
PU | 0.819 |
PEU | 0.818 |
Att | 0.847 |
BI | 0.731 |
External Variable | Constructs | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | PU | 14.832 | 76 | 1.176 | 8.680 | 0.000 *** |
PEU | 15.272 | 76 | 1.111 | 7.238 | 0.000 *** | |
Att | 13.457 | 76 | 0.687 | 4.770 | 0.000 *** | |
BI | 11.644 | 76 | 0.506 | 2.758 | 0.018 * | |
Easy-to-download Applications | PU | 14.832 | 76 | 0.932 | 4.420 | 0.007 ** |
PEU | 15.272 | 76 | 1.053 | 5.088 | 0.003 ** | |
Att | 13.457 | 76 | 0.581 | 2.473 | 0.068 | |
BI | 11.644 | 76 | 0.286 | 0.857 | 0.467 |
Constructs | I(Age) | J(Age) | Mean Difference (I-J) | Standard Error | p | 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||||
PU | 7 8 9 10 11 13 | 12 | 0.80000 | 0.16534 | 0.002 ** | 0.1951 | 1.4049 |
12 | 0.99091 | 0.15230 | 0.000 *** | 0.4337 | 1.5481 | ||
12 | 0.88182 | 0.15230 | 0.000 *** | 0.3246 | 1.4390 | ||
12 | 0.65000 | 0.14924 | 0.008 ** | 0.1039 | 1.1961 | ||
12 | 0.60909 | 0.15230 | 0.022 * | 0.0519 | 1.1663 | ||
12 | 0.60000 | 0.14432 | 0.014 * | 0.0720 | 1.1280 | ||
PEU | 7 8 9 10 11 | 12 | 0.85000 | 0.17405 | 0.002 ** | 0.2132 | 1.4868 |
12 | 0.78182 | 0.16032 | 0.002 ** | 0.1952 | 1.3684 | ||
12 | 0.83636 | 0.16032 | 0.001 *** | 0.2498 | 1.4230 | ||
12 | 0.70000 | 0.15711 | 0.006 ** | 0.1252 | 1.2748 | ||
12 | 0.63636 | 0.16032 | 0.024 * | 0.0498 | 1.2230 | ||
Att | 8 | 12 | 0.63182 | 0.16140 | 0.027 * | 0.0413 | 1.2224 |
BI | 8 | 13 | 0.54383 | 0.14779 | 0.048 * | 0.0031 | 1.0846 |
Constructs | I (Easy to Download the App) | J (Easy to Download the App) | Mean Difference (I-J) | Standard Error | p | 95% Confidence Interval | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||||
PEU | Strongly agree Strongly agree Strongly agree | Agree Neither agree nor disagree | −0.2447 0.45513 | 0.24698 0.17934 | 0.805 0.102 | −0.9517 −0.0581 | 0.4620 0.9684 |
Disagree | 0.35096 | 0.11892 | 0.040 * | 0.0106 | 0.6913 |
External Variables | PU | PEU | Att | BI |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | 0.329 | 0.209 | 0.892 | 0.546 |
Do you have computer equipment at home? | 0.113 | 0.040 * | 0.026 * | 0.048 * |
Is the computer at home connected to the Internet? | 0.957 | 0.539 | 0.245 | 0.778 |
Have you ever used a mobile phone or tablet? | 0.396 | 0.377 | 0.119 | 0.222 |
Do you search for information online? | 0.001 *** | 0.005 * | 0.064 | 0.005 ** |
Do you use email? | 0.000 *** | 0.012 * | 0.092 | 0.253 |
Do you use word processing software? | 0.178 | 0.792 | 0.881 | 0.328 |
Have you ever used mobile applications? | 0.008 ** | 0.004 ** | 0.126 | 0.282 |
Standardized Coefficients | Adjusted R Square | F | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | −0.113 | 0.013 | 0.966 | −0.983 | 0.329 |
age | −0.437 | 0.180 | 17.682 | −4.205 | 0.000 *** |
Information Experience | −0.115 | 0.013 | 1.006 | −1.003 | 0.319 |
Digital literacy | 0.254 | 0.052 | 5.155 | 2.271 | 0.026 * |
Standardized Coefficients | Adjusted R Square | F | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | −0.145 | 0.021 | 1.606 | −1.267 | 0.209 |
age | −0.487 | 0.227 | 23.380 | −4.835 | 0.000 *** |
Information Experience | −0.167 | 0.028 | 2.145 | −1.464 | 0.147 |
Digital literacy | 0.082 | 0.007 | 0.503 | 0.709 | 0.480 |
Standardized Coefficients | Adjusted R Square | F | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PEU | 0.0741 | 0.544 | 91.550 | 9.568 | 0.000 *** |
Standardized Coefficients | Adjusted R Square | F | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PU | 0.693 | 0.473 | 69.242 | 8.321 | 0.000 *** |
PEU | 0.738 | 0.538 | 89.441 | 9.457 | 0.000 *** |
Standardized Coefficients | Adjusted R Square | F | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Att | 0.611 | 0.365 | 44.715 | 6.687 | 0.000 *** |
Hypotheses | Results |
---|---|
H1a | Not supported |
H1b | Not supported |
H2a | Supported *** |
H2b | Supported *** |
H3a | Not supported |
H3b | Not supported |
H4a | Supported * |
H4b | Not supported |
H5 | Supported *** |
H6 | Supported *** |
H7 | Supported *** |
H8 | Supported *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lo, J.-H.; Lai, Y.-F.; Hsu, T.-L. The Study of AR-Based Learning for Natural Science Inquiry Activities in Taiwan’s Elementary School from the Perspective of Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116283
Lo J-H, Lai Y-F, Hsu T-L. The Study of AR-Based Learning for Natural Science Inquiry Activities in Taiwan’s Elementary School from the Perspective of Sustainable Development. Sustainability. 2021; 13(11):6283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116283
Chicago/Turabian StyleLo, Jung-Hua, Yu-Fan Lai, and Tzu-Lun Hsu. 2021. "The Study of AR-Based Learning for Natural Science Inquiry Activities in Taiwan’s Elementary School from the Perspective of Sustainable Development" Sustainability 13, no. 11: 6283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116283
APA StyleLo, J.-H., Lai, Y.-F., & Hsu, T.-L. (2021). The Study of AR-Based Learning for Natural Science Inquiry Activities in Taiwan’s Elementary School from the Perspective of Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 13(11), 6283. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116283