Quality Requirements for Implementing Augmented Reality in Heritage Spaces: Teachers’ Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Augmented Reality and the Virtuality Continuum
1.2. Augmented Reality in the Educational Context
1.3. AR Applied to Heritage Education and Cultural Spaces
1.4. Research Rationale and Research Questions
2. Present Study
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Research Objectives
- Q1.
- Do teachers know and implement AR as a beneficial tool for learning and understanding cultural assets in and outside the classroom?
- Q2.
- What are the teaching strategies teachers rate most highly when implementing AR in a classroom, museum or heritage space? (strategies)
- Q3.
- Which function do teachers prefer when implementing a resource with AR? (function)
- Q4.
- Which of an app’s technical and usability features do teachers and teachers in training rate more highly when using it in a museum, at an archaeological site or a historical place? (features)
- Q5.
- Are there significant differences between the two groups’ requirements?
3.2. Sample
3.3. Instrument
4. Results
4.1. Teachers’ Awareness of and Experience with AR
4.2. The Use of AR as an Educational Tool: The Highest Rated Resources to Achieve Learning
4.3. Preferred Function of the AR App in a Museum or Heritage Space
4.4. Technical Features and Specifications Teachers Rate Most Highly
4.5. Differences between Participants According to Their Responses in Relation to Their AR Knowledge
- (a)
- Educational strategies receive higher average values from practising teachers for those items that provide the student with reconstructions, recreations of the heritage environment or context, audiovisual animations describing pieces or characters, visualisations of the original state, recreations of characters or functions and pigmentations.
- (b)
- The functions on the advertising claim and the creation of gifts with the pieces presenting high values by the teachers in training.
- (c)
- The technical features concerning low battery and data consumption, which have again been highlighted by the high average of trainee teachers.
5. Discussion
5.1. Teachers’ Knowledge of AR: Essential Training for Its Implementation
5.2. Understanding Heritage, a Key Objective for Teachers: The Most Valued Teaching Strategies and Functions in AR
5.3. Multi-Functionality and Intuitive Use, Main Demands in AR Application
5.4. Understanding Heritage, a Key Objective for Teachers: The Most Valued Teaching Strategies and Functions in AR
6. Conclusions
- Both the teachers and the teachers in training consider the use of AR a priority for the synchronous reconstruction of the heritage piece and its context to enhance experience [13,16,28]. As mentioned above, these are more holistic processes that favor the understanding of the heritage asset—what it was like, how it has evolved, what its use, function or operation was—and this preference involves the highest possible level of exploration of the piece or place, so if the possibility exists, the teacher will look for the most complete learning process in AR.
- There is a consensus on using humanised figures to interpret the heritage, for the apps to have mediation with experts to ensure the information is precise, or images of actors in costume so the students can form a picture of the age, thus improving their understanding of the context of the historical moment referred to. Respondents moved away from simple animations that guide the visit in favour of a more real and tangible knowledge of the heritage, not even teachers in training at lower levels expressed this preference.
- Ease of use and multifunctionality are the two most appreciated features by both subsamples when using an app in a museum or at an archaeological site, as well as the need for it to be compatible with the simultaneous use of the user’s other apps and low battery consumption. These characteristics are more pronounced in young people due to the massive use of digital devices and by subjects who have greater knowledge of AR, precisely because the knowledge of the possibilities of AR makes their demand on its strategies, functions and characteristics greater.
- Active teachers are looking for more complete educational strategies that allow them to understand the heritage in depth, above the superficiality of knowledge and enjoyment, the result of what experience shapes in the teacher. These show higher results in favour of more holistic educational procedures.
- Teachers in training are experiencing a generational change—greater consumption of mobile devices—which leads to a greater demand for improved technical features, and where, as they are in a training process, their objective is not only educational but also to attract publicity. As mentioned in the discussion, this result will change as teachers grow, because with experience their objectives will become more didactic, and they will seek a higher educational performance.
- The participants with prior knowledge express a greater demand for the educational and technical possibilities of AR, while those without are looking for a more attractive and animated aspect such as drawings or moving artworks, a more superficial aspect of the potential of this new technology.
The Implication of AR in Digital Education
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ibáñez-Etxeberria, A.; Kortabitarte, A.; De Castro, P.; Gillate, I. Competencia digital mediante apps de temática patrimonial en el marco DigComp. Rev. Interuni. Form. Prof. 2019, 22, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caudell, T.; Mizell, D. Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing processes. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 7–10 January 1992; Volume 2, pp. 659–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bareld, W.; Hendrix, C. The Effect of Update Rate on the Sense of Presence within Virtual Environments. Virtual. Real. 1995, 1, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azuma, R. A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 1997, 6, 355–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azuma, R. Augmented Reality: Approaches and Technical Challenges. In Fundamentals of Wearable Computers and Augmented Reality; Barfield, W., Caudell, T., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2001; pp. 27–63. ISBN 0-8058-2901-6. [Google Scholar]
- Piqueras Casado, E.M.; Cózar Guitérrez, R.; González-Calero Somoza, J.A. Incidencia de la realidad aumentada en la enseñanza de la historia. Una experiencia en tercer curso de educación primaria. Enseñ. Teach. 2017, 36, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milgram, P.; Kishino, F. A Taxonomy Of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. Ieice Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994, E77-D, 1321–1329. [Google Scholar]
- Blázquez-Sevilla, A. Realidad Aumentada en Educación. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Gabinete de Tele-Educación. 2017. Available online: http://oa.upm.es/45985/1/Realidad_Aumentada__Educacion.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2021).
- Chang, Y.-S.; Chen, C.-N.; Liao, C.-L. Enhancing English-Learning Performance through a Simulation Classroom for EFL Students Using Augmented Reality—A Junior High School Case Study. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Enríquez, R.; Delgado-Martín, L. Augmented Reality as a Didactic Resource for Teaching Mathematics. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bacca-Acosta, J.; Baldiris, S.; Fabregat, R.; Kinshuk, D.; Graf, S. Mobile Augmented Reality in Vocational Education and Training. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 75, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cabero, J.; Barroso, J. Posibilidades educativas de la Realidad Aumentada. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2016, 5, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fombona, J.; Pascual-Sevillano, M.; González-Videgaray, M. M-learning and augmented reality: A review of the scientific literature on the WoS repository. [M-learning y realidad aumentada: Revisión de literatura científica en el repositorio WoS]. Comunicar 2017, 52, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Radu, I. Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2014, 18, 1533–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Serio, A.; Ibáñez, M.; Delgado-Kloos, C. Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 586–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dalgarno, B.; Lee, M.J.W. What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 41, 10–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bacca, J.; Baldiris, S.; Fabregat, R.; Graf, S.; Kinshuk. Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 133–149. [Google Scholar]
- Alzahrani, N.M. Augmented Reality: A Systematic Review of Its Benefits and Challenges in E-learning Contexts. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majeed, Z.; Ali, H. A review of augmented reality in educational applications. Int. J. Adv. Technol. Eng. Explor. 2020, 7, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delgado-Algarra, E.J. ICTs and Innovation for Didactics of Social Sciences; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geroimenko, V. (Ed.) Augmented Reality in Education. A New Technology for Teaching and Learning; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, H.-S.; Lee, S.; Chang, H.-Y.; Liang, J. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrado-Timón, D.A.; Hidalgo-Giralt, C. The Historical City, Its Transmission and Perception via AugmentedReality and Virtual Reality and the Use of the Past as a Resource for the Present: A New Era for UrbanCultural Heritage and Tourism? Sustainability 2019, 11, 2835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Petrucco, C.; Agostini, D. Teaching our cultural heritage using mobile augmented reality. J.E. Learn. Knowl. Soc. 2016, 12, 115–128. [Google Scholar]
- Rivas, Y.C.; Valdivieso, P.A.V.; Rodríguez, M.A.Y. Virtual reality and 21st century education. Int. Res. J. Manag. IT Soc. Sci. 2020, 7, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Squire, K.; Klopfer, E. Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. J. Learn. Sci. 2007, 16, 371–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunleavy, M.; Dede, C.; Mitchell, R. Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2009, 18, 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.M.; Tsai, Y.N. Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 638–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bujak, K.; Radu, I.; Catrambone, R.; Macintyre, B.; Zheng, R.; Golubski, G. A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 536–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cózar, R.; De Moya, M.V.; González-Calero, J.A.; Villena, R. Realidad Aumentada en las aulas Universitarias. Valoración de Una Experiencia en el Grado de Maestro; En Jornadas Universitarias de Tecnología Educativa: Burgos, Spain, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ibáñez-Etxeberria, A.; Gómez-Carrasco, C.J.; Fontal, O.; García-Ceballos, S. Virtual Environments and Augmented Reality Applied to Heritage Education. An Evaluative Study. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruiz, D.; Gant, M.L.B. La presencia de la realidad aumentada en los museos del siglo XXI: Difusión y accesibilidad a través de lo virtual. In ArTecnología. Conocimiento Aumentado y Accesibilidad; Andrade, V., Colorado, A., Moreno, I., Eds.; Universidad Complutense de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2014; pp. 218–223. [Google Scholar]
- Fabregat, R. Combinando la realidad aumentada con las plataformas de e-elearning adaptativas. Enl@Ce Rev. Venez. Inf. Tecnol. Conoc. 2012, 9, 69–78. [Google Scholar]
- Graziano, T.; Privitera, D. Cultural heritage, tourist attractiveness and augmented reality: Insights from Italy. J. Herit. Tour. 2020, 15, 666–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojciechowski, R.; Cellary, W. Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 570–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García, I.; Peña-López, I.; Johnson, L.; Smith, R.; Levine, A.; Haywood, K. Informe Horizon: Edición Iberoamericana; The New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- González-Rodríguez, M.R.; Díaz-Fernández, M.C.; Pino-Mejías, M.Á. The impact of virtual reality technology on tourists’ experience: A textual data analysis. Soft Comput. 2020, 24, 13879–13892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, C.; Bec, A.; Don-Moyle, B.; Patterson, D. Innovative methods for heritage tourism experiences: Creating windows into the past. J. Herit. Tour. 2020, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, M.; Wang, L.; Yan, K. Research on Cultural Tourism Experience Design Based on Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, C&C 2020, Held as Part of the 22nd HCI International Conference, HCII 2020, Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–24 July 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Templin, T.; Popielarczyk, D. The Use of Low-Cost Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the Process of Building Models for Cultural Tourism, 3D Web and Augmented/Mixed Reality Applications. Sensors 2020, 20, 5457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Consejo de Europa. Recomendación 2006/962/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 18 de Diciembre de 2006, Sobre las Competencias Clave para el Aprendizaje Permanente, Diario Oficial L 394 de 30.12.2006. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:ES:PDF (accessed on 21 March 2021).
- Redecker, C.; Punie, Y. (Eds.) European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators; DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxenbourg, 2017; Available online: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC107466 (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- UNESCO; UNICEF; The World Bank; UNFPA; UNDP; UN Women; UNHCR. Education 2030: Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. ED-2016/WS/28 W. In Proceedings of the World Education Forum 2015, Incheon, Korea, 19–22 May 2015; Available online: http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-foraction-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2021).
- Sparacino, F.; Davenport, G.; Pentland, A. Media in performance: Interactive spaces for dance, theater, circus, and museum exhibits. IBM Syst. J. 2000, 39, 479–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, B.; MacColl, I.; Chalmers, M.; Galani, A.; Randell, C.; Steed, A. Lessons from the lighthouse: Collaboration in a shared mixed reality system. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘03), Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA, 5–10 April 2003; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 577–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bowers, J.; Bannon, L.; Fraser, M.; Hindmarsh, J.; Benford, S.; Heath, C.; Taxén, G.; Ciolfi, L. From the Disappearing Computer to Living Exhibitions: Shaping Interactivity in Museum Settings. In The Disappearing Computer. Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Streitz, N., Kameas, A., Mavrommati, I., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 4500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelopoulou, A.; Economou, D.; Bouki, V.; Psarrou, A.; Jin, L.; Pritchard, C.; Kolyda, F. Mobile Augmented Reality for Cultural Heritage. In Proceedings of the Mobile Wireless Middleware, Operating Systems, and Applications, Proceedings of the 4th International ICST Conference, Mobilware, London, UK, 22–24 June 2011; Venkatasubramanian, N., Getov, V., Steglich, S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 15–22. [Google Scholar]
- Escaplés, J.; Tejerina, D.; Bolufer, J.; Esquembre, M.A. Sistema de Realidad Aumentada para la musealización de yacimientos arqueológicos. Virtual Archaeol. Rev. 2013, 4, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatzidimitris, T.; Kavakli, E.; Economou, M.; Gavalas, D. Mobile Augmented Reality edutainment applications for cultural institutions. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications—IISA2013, Mikrolimano, Greece, 10–12 July 2013; pp. 10–12. [Google Scholar]
- Perra, C.; Grigoriou, E.; Liotta, A.; Song, W.; Usai, C.; Giusto, D. Realidad aumentada para la educación del patrimonio cultural. In 2019 IEEE IX Conferencia Internacional de Electrónica de Consumo; ICCE: Berlín, Germany, 2019; pp. 333–336. [Google Scholar]
- Furata, H.; Takahashi, K.; Nakatsu, K.; Ishibashi, K.; Aira, M. A mobile application system for sightseeing guidance using augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems and the 13th International Symposium on Advanced Intelligence Systems, Kobe, Japan, 20–24 November 2012; pp. 20–24. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Han, M.; Chen, W. The strategy of digital scenic area planning from the perspective of intangible cultural heritage protection. EURASIP J. Image Video Process. 2018, 1, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BOCyL. ORDEN EDU/832/2015, De 2 De Octubre, Por la Que se Regula el Proyecto Denominado “FORMapps” para la Implantación de Nuevas Metodologías de Formación Permanente del Profesorado en su Competencia Digital, en Centros Educativos Sostenidos con Fondos Públicos de la Comunidad de Castilla y León. 2015. Available online: http://bocyl.jcyl.es/boletines/2015/10/14/pdf/BOCYL-D-14102015-1.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2019).
- Pierdicca, R.; Frontoni, E.; Puggioni, M.P.; Malinverni, E.S.; Paolanti, M. Evaluating Augmented and Virtual Reality in Education through a User-Centered Comparative Study: SmartMarca Project. In Virtual and Augmented Reality in Education, Art, and Museums; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 229–261. Available online: https://www.igi-global.com/gateway/chapter/241603 (accessed on 27 May 2021).
- Espinosa, C.P. Realidad aumentada y educación: Análisis de experiencias prácticas. Pixel-Bit. Rev. de Medios y Educ. 2015, 46, 187–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almenara, J.C.; Jiménez, F.G.; Osuna, J.B. La producción de objetos de aprendizaje en “Realidad Aumentada”: La experiencia del SAV de la Universidad de Sevilla. IJERI Int. J. Educ. Res. Innov. 2016, 6, 110–123. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11441/41045 (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Cabero-Almenara, J.; Vázquez-Cano, E.; López-Meneses, E. Uso de la Realidad Aumentada como Recurso Didáctico en la Enseñanza Universitaria. Form. Univ. 2018, 11, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quesada, M.B.; Poveda, A.M.S. Realidad aumentada como tecnología aplicada a la educación superior: Una experiencia en desarrollo. Innov. Educ. 2016, 17, 41–50. [Google Scholar]
- Margetis, G.; Apostolakis, K.C.; Ntoa, S.; Papagiannakis, G.; Stephanidis, C. X-Reality Museums: Unifying the Virtual and Real World Towards Realistic Virtual Museums. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paliokas, I.; Patenidis, A.T.; Mitsopoulou, E.E.; Tsita, C.; Pehlivanides, G.; Karyati, E.; Tsafaras, S.; Stathopoulos, E.A.; Kokkalas, A.; Diplaris, S.; et al. A Gamified Augmented Reality Application for Digital Heritage and Tourism. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pehlivanides, G.; Monastiridis, K.; Tourtas, A.; Karyati, E.; Ioannidis, G.; Bejelou, K.; Antoniou, V.; Nomikou, P. TheVIRTUALDiver Project. Making Greece’s Underwater Cultural Heritage Accessible to the Public. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cuenca-López, J.M.; Molina-Puche, S.; Martín-Cáceres, M.J. Identidad, ciudadanía y patrimonio. Análisis comparativo de su tratamiento didáctico en museos de Estados Unidos y España. Arbor 2018, 194, a447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copeland, T. Archaeological heritage education: Citizenship from the ground up. Treballsd’Arqueologia 2009, 15, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
- Smith Bautista, S. Museums in the Digital Age. Changing Meanings of Place, Community, and Culture; Altamira Press: Lanham, MD, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Semedo, A. Representações e Identidade em Exposições de Museus. Clío. History and History Teaching. 41.Recuperado de. 2015. Available online: http://clio.rediris.es/n41/articulos/mono/MonAsemedo2015.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2021).
- Luna, Ú.; Ibáñez-Etxeberría, Á.; Rivero, P. El patrimonio aumentado. 8 apps de Realidad Aumentada para la enseñanza-aprendizaje del patrimonio. Rev. Interuniv. Form. Prof. 2019, 94, 43–62. [Google Scholar]
- Noh, Z.; Sunar, M.S.; Pan, Z. A Review on Augmented Reality for Virtual Heritage System. In Learning by Playing. Game-Based Education System Design and Development. Edutainment 2009; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Chang, M., Kuo, R., Kinshuk, C.G.D., Hirose, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; Volume 5670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Torres, D. Realidad aumentada, educación y museos. Icono 14 Rev. de Comun. y Nuevas Tecnol. 2011, 9, 212–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontal, O.; Ibáñez-Etxeberria, A. La investigación en Educación Patrimonial. Evolución y estado actual a través del análisis de indicadores de alto impacto. Rev. Educ. 2017, 375, 184–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Röder, D. Smartphone apps: Their Use of History and Use for History Teaching. In E-Teaching History; Wojdon, J., Ed.; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: London, UK, 2016; pp. 140–152. [Google Scholar]
- Rivero, P.; García-Ceballos, S.; Aso, B.; Navarro-Neri, I. Augmented Reality and Heritage Education in Spain. In Augmented Reality in Tourism, Museums and Heritage. A New Technology to Inform and Entertain; Geroimenko, V., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, N.; Hyunae, L.; Jin-Young, K.; Chulmo, K. The Role of Augmented Reality for Experience-Influenced Environments: The Case of Cultural Heritage Tourism in Korea. J. Travel Res. 2017, 57, 627–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grevtsova, I. El patrimonio urbano al alcance de la mano: Arquitectura, urbanismo y apps. Her Mus. Herit. Mus. 2013, 5, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
- Hughes, K.; Moscardo, G. Connecting with New Audiences: Exploring the Impact of Mobile Communication Devices on the Experiences of Young Adults in Museums. Visit. Stud. 2017, 20, 33–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marto, A.; Gonçalves, A. Mobile AR: User Evaluation in a Cultural Heritage Context. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 5454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Real Decreto 126/2014, de 28 de Febrero, Por el Que se Establece el Currículo Básico de la Educación Primaria. Available online: https://bocyl.jcyl.es/boletines/2015/10/14/pdf/BOCYL-D-14102015-1.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2021).
- Bekele, M.K.; Pierdicca, R.; Frontoni, E.; Malinverni, E.S.; Gain, J. A Survey of Augmented, Virtual, and Mixed Reality for Cultural Heritage. Comput. Cult. Herit. 2018, 11, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.H.; Yu, J.M. Development of a Mobile Augmented Reality Application using Cultural Products. J. Korea Soc. Comput. Inf. 2021, 26, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobar, J.; Cuervo, A. Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: Una aproximación a su utilización. Av. En Med. 2008, 6, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
- O’Dwyer, L.M.; Bernauer, J.A. Quantitative Research for the Qualitative Researcher; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, J.; Pazmiño, M. Cálculo e interpretación del Alfa de Cronbach para el caso de validación de la consistencia interna de un cuestionario, con dos posibles escalas tipo Likert. Rev. Pub. 2015, 2, 62–77. [Google Scholar]
- Kabassi, K. Evaluating museum websites using a combination of decision-making theories. J. Herit. Tour. 2019, 14, 544–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piancatelli, C.; Massi, M.; Vocino, A. #artoninstagram: Engaging with art in the era of the selfie. Int. J. Market. Res. 2020, 63, 134–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, K.Y.; Wang, C.S. Effects of augmented reality technology in a mobile touring system on university students’ learning performance and interest. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 37, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibáñez-Etxeberria, A.; Fontal Merillas, O.; Rivero Gracia, P. Educación patrimonial y TIC en España: Marco normativo, variables estructurantes y programas referentes. Arbor 2018, 194, a448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Falomo Bernarduzzi, L.; Bernardi, E.M.; Ferrari, A.; Garbarino, M.C.; Vai, A. Augmented Reality Application for Handheld Devices: How to Make It hAPPen at the Pavia University History Museum. Sci. Educ. 2021, 18, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. Estadística de la Sociedad de la Información y la Comunicación en los Centros Educativos no Universitarios. Curso 2016–2017. 2018. Available online: http://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/dms/mecd/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/estadisticas/educacion/no-universitaria/centros/sociedad-informacion/2016-2017/Nota-Resumen.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2021).
- Sánchez-Prieto, J.C.; Olmos Migueláñez, S.; García-Peñalvo, F.J. ¿Utilizarán los futuros docentes las tecnologías móviles? Validación de una propuesta de modelo TAM extendido. RED—Rev. de Educ. Distancia 2017, 52, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osuna-Acedo, S.; Frau-Meigs, D.; Marta-Lazo, C. Educación en medios y formación de profesores. Educomunicación más allá de la alfabetización mediática. Rev. Interuni. Form. Prof. 2018, 91, 29–42. [Google Scholar]
- Bittencourt-Francisco, J. Connected Brazil and digital humanities: The perspective of interpreting museums in Porto Alegre. Иcтоpия 2020, 51, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannini, T.; Bowen, J.P. (Eds.) Transforming Education for Museum Professionals in the Digital Age. Springer Ser. Cult. Comput. 2019, 457–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czerkawski, B.; Berti, M. Learning experience design for augmented reality. Res. Learn. Technol. 2021, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha, P.M. The importance of educommunication in the training of mass communication professionals in contemporaneity. Communicatio 2015, 41, 192–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzima, S.; Styliaras, G.; Bassounas, A. Augmented Reality Applications in Education: Teachers Point of View. Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, E.; Hannafin, M.J. A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centeredlearning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 2016, 64, 707–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramtohul, A.; Kumar, K. User Experience and Engagement in Augmented Reality Systems for the Cultural Heritage Domain. In Augmented Reality in Tourism, Museums and Heritage. A New Technology to Inform and Entertain; Geroimenko, V., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 227–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puggioni, M.; Frontoni, E.; Paolanti, M.; Pierdicca, R. ScoolAR: An Educational Platform to Improve Students’ Learning Through Virtual Reality. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 21059–21070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro, L.; López-Facal, R. Educación patrimonial: Necesidades sentidas por el profesorado de infantil, primaria y secundaria. Re-Vista Interuniv. de Form. del Profr. 2019, 94, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conde, J.; Armas, X. Social representations of primary education students on heritage. Study by the word association. Rev. Interuniv. de Form. del Profr. Rifop 2019, 94, 187–201. [Google Scholar]
- Fontal, O.; García-Ceballos, S.; Aso, B. Desarrollo de competencias docentes en educación patrimonial mediante plataformas 2.0 y entornos digitales como herramienta de aprendizaje. Investig. e Innov. Educ. 2020, 101, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ott, M.; Pozzi, F. Towards a new era for cultural heritage education: Discussing the role of ICT. J. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2011, 27, 1365–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, A.; Matos, A. Museum Professionals in a Digital World: Insights from a Case Study in Portugal. Mus. Int. 2018, 70, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tammaro, A.M. New Profiles, New Skills, New Education for Digital Heritage Professionals: European Spotlight on Competency-Based System. Int. Inf. Libr. Rev. 2017, 49, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klarin, M.V. Twenty-First Century Educational Theory and the Challenges of Modern Education: Appealing to the Heritage of the General Teaching Theory of the Secondary Educational Curriculum and the Learning Process. J. Russ. Educ. Soc. 2016, 58, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solé, J. El cambio educativo ante la innovación tecnológica, la pedagogía de las competencias y el discurso de la educación emocional. Una mirada crítica. Teor. Educ. 2020, 32, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bernad, M.S. Nuevas tecnologías y difusión del turismo cultural: Descubriendo a Goya con realidad au-mentada. ROTUR—Rev. de Ocio y Tur. 2020, 14, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Ceballos, S.; Aso, B. Patrimonio confinado: Nuevos diálogos, desafíos y competencias educativas. Rev. Com Censo 2020, 7, 160–169. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, K.; Chang, C.; Hou, H.; Sung, Y.; Chao, H.; Lee, C. Development and behavioral pattern analysis of a mobile guide system with augmented reality for painting appreciation instruction in an art museum. Comput. Educ. 2014, 71, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sylaiou, S.; Kasapakis, V.; Gavalas, D.; Dzardanova, E. Avatars as storytellers: Affective narratives in virtual museums. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2020, 24, 829–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weibel, D.; Wissmath, B.; Mast, F.W. Influence of mental imagery on spatial presence and enjoyment assessed in different types of media. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2011, 14, 607–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chaparro-Aranguren, R.L.; Gutiérrez-Ríos, R.S. Implementación de realidad aumentada como experiencia en el aula universitaria. In Tecnología Innovación e Investigación en los Procesos de Enseñanza-Aprendizaje; Roig-Vila, R., Ed.; Octaedro: Barcelona, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Muñoz-Sajama, M.; Cornejo-Mejías, R.; Navarrete-Álvarez, M.; Aracena-Pizarro, D. Una aplicación de Realidad Aumentada para recorrer el sitio patrimonial “Aldea de San Lorenzo”. Ingeniare. Rev. Chil. de Ing. 2018, 26, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chiappe, A.; Amado, N.; Leguizamón, L. Educommunication in digital environments: An interaction’s perspective inside and beyond the classroom. Innoeduca. Int. J. Technol. Educ. Innov. 2020, 6, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dafonte-Gómez, A.; Maina, M.F.; García-Crespo, O. Uso del smartphone en jóvenes universitarios: Una oportunidad para el aprendizaje. Píxel-Bit. Rev. de Medios y Educ. 2021, 60, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giraldo-Luque, S.; Fernández-Rovira, C. Redes sociales y consumo digital en jóvenes universitarios: Economía de la atención y oligopolios de la comunicación en el siglo XXI. Prof. de la Inf. 2020, 29, e290528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcelo, C. Los comienzos en la docencia: Un profesorado con buenos principios. Rev. de Curric. y Form. del Profr. 2009, 13, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Bransford, J.; Darling-Hammond, L.; LePage, P. Introduction. In Preparing Teachers for a Changing World; Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Eds.; Jossey Bass S.: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 1–39. [Google Scholar]
- Darling-Hammond, L. El derecho de Aprender. Crear Buenas Escuelas Para Todos; Ariel: Barcelona, Spain, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Helsper, E.J.; Eynon, R. Digital natives: Where is the evidence? Br. Educ. Res. J. 2010, 36, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Acosta-Silva, D.A. Tras las competencias de los nativos digitales: Avances de una metasíntesis. Rev. Latinoam. de Cienc. Soc. Niñez y Juv. 2017, 15, 471–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias da Silva, M.; da Silva, D.; do Amaral, S.L. The Y generation myth: Evidences based on the causality relations among age, diffusion and adoption of technology of college students of São Paulo State. Future Stud. Res. J. Trends Strateg. 2014, 6, 32–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fajardo, I.; Villalta, E.; Salmerón, L. ¿Son realmente tan buenos los nativos digitales? Relación entre las habilidades digitales y la lectura digital. An. de Psicol. 2015, 32, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, S.; Maton, K.; Kervin, L. The «digital natives» debate: A critical review of the evidence. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2008, 39, 775–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sáez-López, J.M.; Cózar-Gutiérrez, R.; González-Calero, J.A.; Gómez Carrasco, C.J. Augmented Reality in Higher Education: An Evaluation Program in Initial Teacher Training. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akçayır, M.; Akçay, G. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 2017, 20, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontal, O. La Educación Patrimonial, del Patrimonio a Las Personas; Trea: Gijón, Spain, 2003. [Google Scholar]
Teachers in Training | Teachers | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age Range | No. | % | Age Range | No. | % |
19 to 24 (born between 2001 and 1996) | 157 | 72.7% | 20 to 30 (born between 1990 and 2000) | 8 | 6.1% |
25 to 30 (born between 1995 and 1990) | 39 | 18.1% | Over 30 (born after 1989) | 31 | 23.7% |
Over 30 (born after 1989) | 18 | 8.3% | Over 40 (born after 1979) | 38 | 29.0% |
Over 50 (born after 1969) | 2 | 0.9% | Over 50 (born after 1969) | 54 | 41.2% |
Total: | 216 | 100% | 131 | 100% |
Scale | Item |
---|---|
A. Indicate from 1 to 5 whether the following ideas would help learning or not where 1 is ‘would not help at all’ and 5 is ‘would help a lot’ (Corresponds to learning content and goals) | A.1 Having a complete reconstruction of the piece because it is very destroyed |
A.2 Having a cartoon character explain the work of art | |
A.3 Having a museum staff member explain the work of art as if they were a personal guide | |
A.4 Seeing a complete reconstruction of the place even though I already know what it is (for example, I know I am looking at a palace) | |
A.5 Having an actor in costume explain the work of art/place, etc. | |
A.6 Seeing an interpretation of the drawings of a pot, for example (or a sculpture, painting, etc.) | |
A.7 Representing useful data that help me understand what I am seeing | |
A.8 Seeing what colour it was or how the colours or shape of the piece I am looking at evolved | |
A.9 Recreating the setting the piece might have been in (grave goods, a room, etc.) and understanding its context better | |
A.10 Seeing characters using the piece or the place and understanding what it was for or how it was used (a tool, a place, etc.) | |
A.11 Seeing a moving painting | |
A.12 Seeing a reconstruction of the colours of a wall or painting | |
A.13 Finding out who the characters are in the image (a painting, sculpture, etc.) | |
B. Which features do you or would you rate more highly in an app to use in a museum where 1 is ‘not at all important’ and 5 is ‘very important’ (concerns design and application) | B.14 Does not use up much of the electronic device’s battery |
B.15 Does not use much of my data | |
B.16 Can be active in the background so I can use the device to take photos, listen to music, send messages, etc. | |
B.17 Does not take up much memory in my electronic device | |
B.18 Easy to use, the more intuitive the better | |
B.19 Allows me to take original photos and add figures or characters, for example, and share them on social media | |
B.20 Offers me itineraries in a more appealing and visual way | |
B.21 Allows me to discover the most interesting places or most representative monuments in a more original way | |
B.22 Will also work as an audio guide or map, for example, if I do not want to activate the augmented reality | |
B.23 Does not require constant updates | |
B.24 Allows users to add new information to make it more interesting and complete | |
C. Imagine you can use augmented reality in a museum. Indicate your priority for the following functions where 1 is ‘no priority’ and 5 is ‘top priority’ (concerns the purpose of the application) | C.25 As an advertising ploy (take a selfie with one of our characters) |
C.26 As a guide to understand a work of art or heritage asset | |
C.27 Seeing the reconstruction of a heritage asset that has deteriorated or of which only traces remain | |
C.28 Seeing an animation that enables me to understand how the piece was used or what it was for | |
C.29 Seeing a painting or a sculpture with a small animation (a nod of the head, a handclasp, a spear going through the air, etc.) |
Question 1: Do You Know What Augmented Reality Is? | Percentage (Frequency) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Total Sample (n = 347) | Teachers in Training (n = 216) | Teachers (n = 131) | |
A. No, this is the first time I have heard of it | 15.3% (53) | 14.8% (32) | 16.0% (21) |
B. Yes, I have heard of it, but I do not know how to explain it | 28.2% (98) | 32.4% (70) | 21.4% (28) |
C. Yes, this is when we see a completely different reality using an electronic device and we can even immerse ourselves in it using goggles, for example | 23.9% (83) | 25.9% (56) | 20.6% (27) |
D. Yes, this is when we see virtual elements using an electronic device in the physical world | 32.6% (113) | 26.9% (58) | 42.0% (55) |
Question 2: Have You Introduced Augmented Reality in Your Classes? | Percentage (Frequency) |
---|---|
Yes, I have done an activity in the classroom | 9.2% (123) |
Yes, we have had a session with an expert who brought the necessary equipment | 1.5% (2) |
Yes, we use it on cultural trips to a museum/archaeological site | 0.8% (1) |
No, I would like to, but I do not have the necessary equipment | 76.9% (100) |
No, I could have, but I do not think it is useful or it involved more problems than advantages | 11.5% (15) |
Total | 100% (130) |
ITEM/Content | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Mann–Whitney Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Teachers in Training (n = 216) | Teachers (n = 131) | Value | p-Value | |
A.1 Complete reconstruction of the piece because it is very destroyed | 4.74 (0.58) | 4.87 (0.45) | −2.83 ** | 0.005 |
A.2 Having a cartoon character explain the work of art or place | 3.14 (1.17) | 3.00 (1.19) | 1.03 N.S. | 0.303 |
A.3 Physical guide of the digitised museum accompanying visitors and explaining the pieces | 3.90 (1.04) | 4.06 (1.09) | −1.78 † | 0.074 |
A.4 Complete reconstruction of a place because there are remain | 4.66 (0.61) | 4.71 (0.63) | −1.28 N.S. | 0.198 |
A.5 Having an actor in costume explain the work of art/place, etc. | 3.71 (1.11) | 3.63 (1.15) | 0.59 N.S. | 0.552 |
A.6 Interpretation and animation of the drawings of a pot, for ex-ample (or a sculpture, painting, etc.) | 3.82 (1.05) | 3.95 (1.18) | −1.66 † | 0.098 |
A.7 Superimposed representation of useful data that help to under-stand or interpret the piece or place | 4.45 (0.72) | 4.53 (0.76) | −1.49 N.S. | 0.136 |
A.8 Visualisation of the original condition and development or deterioration of the piece | 4.28 (0.82) | 4.49 (0.74) | −2.45 * | 0.014 |
A.9 Recreating the setting the piece might have been in (grave goods, a room, etc.) and understanding its context better | 4.51 (0.72) | 4.73 (0.57) | −3.05 ** | 0.002 |
A.10 Recreating characters, function, use and/or handling of tools or places to understand what they were for or how they were used | 4.48 (0.74) | 4.65 (0.61) | −2.13 * | 0.033 |
A.11 Immersive animation of a moving structure | 3.61 (1.16) | 3.47 (1.44) | 0.52 N.S. | 0.603 |
A.12 Reconstruction of the colours of a wall or painting (pigmentation) | 4.33 (0.82) | 4.49 (0.84) | −2.30 * | 0.021 |
A.13 Audiovisual animation describing characters or elements of a work of art (it can be a painting, a sculpture, etc.) | 4.38 (0.84) | 4.62 (0.72) | −3.17 ** | 0.002 |
Question 3: If You Could Use AR to Learn More about a Museum Piece, Which of These Options Would You Prefer? | Percentage (Frequency) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Total Sample (n = 347) | Teachers in Training (n = 216) | Teachers (n = 131) | |
A. An actor in costume should explain the work of art to me | 28.5% (99) | 30.6% (66) | 25.2% (33) |
B. A museum staff member should explain the work of art to me as if they were my personal guide | 55.9% (194) | 52.8% (114) | 61.1% (80) |
C. A cartoon character should explain the work of art to me | 10.1% (35) | 11.6% (25) | 7.6% (10) |
D. They would not add anything to the experience; I prefer the audio guide or to read the labels | 5.5% (19) | 5.1% (11) | 6.1% (8) |
ITEM/Content | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Mann–Whitney Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Teachers in Training (n = 216) | Teachers (n = 131) | Value | p-Value | |
C.25 As an advertising ploy (take a selfie with one of our characters) | 2.94 (1.13) | 2.30 (1.30) | 4.80 ** | 0.000 |
C.26 As a guide to understand a work of art or heritage asset | 3.96 (1.00) | 3.92 (1.05) | 0.22 N.S. | 0.822 |
C.27 Seeing the reconstruction of a heritage asset that has deteriorated or of which only traces remain | 4.48 (0.81) | 4.34 (1.02) | 0.70 N.S. | 0.486 |
C.28 Seeing an animation that enables me to understand how the piece was used or what it was for | 4.32 (0.85) | 4.17 (1.02) | 1.02 N.S. | 0.308 |
C.29 Seeing a painting or a sculpture with a small GIF. | 3.06 (123) | 2.68 (1.34) | 2.67 ** | 0.007 |
ITEM/Content | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Mann–Whitney Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Teachers in Training (n = 216) | Teachers (n = 131) | Value | p-Value | |
B.14 Reduced battery consumption | 3.98 (1.11) | 3.50 (1.41) | 2.92 ** | 0.004 |
B.15 Reduced data consumption | 4.13 (1.01) | 3.80 (1.29) | 1.99 * | 0.046 |
B.16 The app can be active in the background to use the device for other purposes: photos, music, messages, etc. | 3.87 (1.08) | 3.59 (1.28) | 1.81 † | 0.071 |
B.17 Does not take up much of the device’s memory | 4.09 (0.97) | 3.92 (1.18) | 0.82 N.S. | 0.411 |
B.18 Intuitive and easy to use | 4.37 (0.82) | 4.47 (0.86) | −1.62 N.S. | 0.105 |
B.19 Allows me to take original photos and add figures or characters and share them on social media | 3.42 (1.26) | 3.20 (1.32) | 1.49 N.S. | 0.136 |
B.20 Offers itineraries in a more appealing and visual way | 4.06 (0.90) | 4.11 (0.97) | −0.83 N.S. | 0.406 |
B.21 Allows me to discover the most interesting places or most representative monuments in a more innovative and dynamic way | 4.32 (0.79) | 4.23 (0.96) | 0.40 N.S. | 0.691 |
B.22 Will also work as an audio guide or map if I do not want to activate the augmented reality | 4.21 (0.91) | 4.27 (1.00) | −1.12 N.S. | 0.262 |
B.23 Does not require constant updates | 3.94 (1.11) | 3.98 (1.14) | −0.20 N.S. | 0.845 |
B.24 Allows users to add new information to make it more interesting and complete | 3.68 (1.04) | 3.69 (1.11) | −0.23 N.S. | 0.815 |
ITEM/Content | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Mann–Whitney Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
YES Knowledge (n = 196) | NO Knowledge (n = 151) | Value | p-Value | |
A.1 Complete reconstruction of the piece because it is very destroyed | 4.86 (0.43) | 4.70 (0.65) | 3.10 ** | 0.002 |
A.2 Having a cartoon character explain the work of art or place | 2.99 (1.15) | 3.22 (1.22) | −1.91 † | 0.056 |
A.3 Physical guide of the digitised museum accompanying visitors and explaining the pieces | 3.90 (1.08) | 4.03 (1.03) | −1.11 N.S. | 0.266 |
A.4 Complete reconstruction of a place because there are remain | 4.71 (0.61) | 4.63 (0.63) | 1.80 † | 0.071 |
A.5 Having an actor in costume explain the work of art/place, etc. | 3.77 (1.04) | 3.58 (1.22) | 1.26 N.S. | 0.206 |
A.6 Interpretation and animation of the drawings of a pot, for ex-ample (or a sculpture, painting, etc.) | 3.87 (1.13) | 3.88 (1.05) | −0.13 N.S. | 0.896 |
A.7 Superimposed representation of useful data that help to under-stand or interpret the piece or place | 4.52 (0.71) | 4.44 (0.77) | 0.97 N.S. | 0.331 |
A.8 Visualisation of the original condition and development or deterioration of the piece | 4.42 (0.79) | 4.28 (0.79) | 1.98 * | 0.048 |
A.9 Recreating the setting the piece might have been in (grave goods, a room, etc.) and understanding its context better | 4.72 (0.60) | 4.44 (0.74) | 4.14 ** | 0.000 |
A.10 Recreating characters, function, use and/or handling of tools or places to understand what they were for or how they were used | 4.57 (0.70) | 4.51 (0.69) | 1.05 N.S. | 0.296 |
A.11 Immersive animation of a moving structure | 3.41 (1.27) | 3.74 (1.26) | −2.58 ** | 0.010 |
A.12 Reconstruction of the colours of a wall or painting (pigmentation) | 4.42 (0.83) | 4.35 (0.83) | 0.95 N.S. | 0.340 |
A.13 Audiovisual animation describing characters or elements of a work of art (it can be a painting, a sculpture, etc.) | 4.46 (0.81) | 4.48 (0.79) | −0.35 N.S. | 0.728 |
ITEM/Content | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Mann–Whitney Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
YES Knowledge (n = 196) | NO Knowledge (n = 151) | Value | p-Value | |
C.25 As an advertising ploy (take a selfie with one of our characters) | 2.63 (1.23) | 2.78 (1.24) | −1.02 N.S. | 0.306 |
C.26 As a guide to understand a work of art or heritage asset | 4.02 (1.03) | 3.86 (1.01) | 1.65 † | 0.098 |
C.27 Seeing the reconstruction of a heritage asset that has deteriorated or of which only traces remain | 4.63 (0.77) | 4.17 (0.98) | 5.23 ** | 0.000 |
C.28 Seeing an animation that enables me to understand how the piece was used or what it was for | 4.39 (0.87) | 4.10 (0.96) | 3.02 ** | 0.002 |
C.29 Seeing a painting or a sculpture with a small GIF. | 2.83 (1.36) | 3.03 (1.17) | −1.58 N.S. | 0.115 |
ITEM/Content | Mean (Standard Deviation) | Mann–Whitney Test | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
YES Knowledge (n = 196) | NO Knowledge (n = 151) | Value | p-Value | |
B.14 Reduced battery consumption | 3.83 (1.23) | 3.77 (1.28) | 0.33 N.S. | 0.740 |
B.15 Reduced data consumption | 4.07 (1.13) | 3.92 (1.14) | 1.41 N.S. | 0.158 |
B.16 The app can be active in the background to use the device for other purposes: photos, music, messages, etc. | 3.91 (1.16) | 3.57 (1.15) | 2.95 ** | 0.003 |
B.17 Does not take up much of the device’s memory | 4.07 (1.08) | 3.96 (1.03) | 1.33 N.S. | 0.183 |
B.18 Intuitive and easy to use | 4.47 (0.78) | 4.33 (0.90) | 1.31 N.S. | 0.189 |
B.19 Allows me to take original photos and add figures or characters and share them on social media | 3.34 (1.33) | 3.33 (1.22) | 0.23 N.S. | 0.816 |
B.20 Offers itineraries in a more appealing and visual way | 4.09 (0.88) | 4.06 (0.99) | 0.05 N.S. | 0.959 |
B.21 Allows me to discover the most interesting places or most representative monuments in a more innovative and dynamic way | 4.31 (0.88) | 4.25 (0.84) | 0.94 N.S. | 0.348 |
B.22 Will also work as an audio guide or map if I do not want to activate the augmented reality | 4.32 (0.87) | 4.11 (1.02) | 1.88 † | 0.061 |
B.23 Does not require constant updates | 4.01 (1.15) | 3.93 (1.09) | 0.97 N.S. | 0.332 |
B.24 Allows users to add new information to make it more interesting and complete | 3.68 (1.08) | 3.70 (1.05) | −0.01 N.S. | 0.993 |
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
Aso, B.; Navarro-Neri, I.; García-Ceballos, S.; Rivero, P. Quality Requirements for Implementing Augmented Reality in Heritage Spaces: Teachers’ Perspective. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 405. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080405
Aso B, Navarro-Neri I, García-Ceballos S, Rivero P. Quality Requirements for Implementing Augmented Reality in Heritage Spaces: Teachers’ Perspective. Education Sciences. 2021; 11(8):405. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080405
Chicago/Turabian StyleAso, Borja, Iñaki Navarro-Neri, Silvia García-Ceballos, and Pilar Rivero. 2021. "Quality Requirements for Implementing Augmented Reality in Heritage Spaces: Teachers’ Perspective" Education Sciences 11, no. 8: 405. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080405
APA StyleAso, B., Navarro-Neri, I., García-Ceballos, S., & Rivero, P. (2021). Quality Requirements for Implementing Augmented Reality in Heritage Spaces: Teachers’ Perspective. Education Sciences, 11(8), 405. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080405