1. Introduction
The limitations of traditional approaches to teaching and learning theories through lectures and textbooks often serves to complicate the learning process [
1]. In technical applications especially, higher education involves learning practical concepts that are often complex, abstract, and intangible [
2]. This is especially the case for students from equity backgrounds and international students [
3]. COVID-19 has further limited opportunities for students to engage beyond textbook learning practice through limiting access to construction projects [
4]. New technologies may offer a solution to these challenges, while increasing student motivation and interest and improving attitudes towards learning [
5,
6]. AR (Augmented Reality) and VR (Virtual Reality) are some of the most quickly developing and widely adopted of these new learning and teaching technologies [
7,
8]. AR brings physical and digital information together in real-time through different technological formats such as smartphones and tablets, enabling users to interact with virtual images superimposed onto the real world [
9]. VR is a medium made up of computer simulations in which feedback is altered or augmented based on the user’s actions, creating the feeling of being physically present or mentally immersed in the simulation [
10]. In academic contexts, AR especially offers a variety of possibilities that are attractive to learners, teachers, and institutions [
11,
12]. Huang, et al. [
13], Alkhattabi [
14] asserted that utilizing AR in the learning process could offer positive pedagogical contributions, learner outcomes, and interaction. Providing interaction opportunities, promoting ubiquitous learning, creating the safe artificial scenarios for users, making the information more comprehensible by enriching it with reality, using training activities, promoting self-learning, increasing the level of engagement, and applying it to a variety of disciplines and educational levels, are the most important strength of integrating AR into education. These technologies are especially valuable for their ability to give users the opportunity to test scenarios that would be dangerous or difficult to accomplish in real life, in a safe environment [
15]. In light of these possible benefits, the [
16] use of VR and AR in academic environments has grown significantly in recent years as educators, organizations and researchers employ new technologies in efforts to add a new dimension to the classroom environment [
17,
18,
19]. Reference [
20] predicts the VR, AR, and Mixed Reality (MR) market will grow by over USD 30 billion by 2030. Reference [
21] predicted that 14 million American employees will probably utilize AR smart glasses on a daily basis by 2025.
Despite their application in numerous fields, especially in learning and education, the implications, impacts, and effects of using AR technologies are contentious [
3]. Several studies indicate AR technologies especially offer benefits for student engagement and learning performance. Wang, et al. [
22] developed a VR-enhanced BIM immersive system for quantity surveying practice and education based on two main components; non-immersive systems (desktop VR) and immersive systems (head-mounted displays). Through VR-BIM, users gained a deeper understanding of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems. As a result of the developed VR-BIM system, quantity surveying jobs could be performed more efficiently after trial use, and students were able to grasp and apply concepts better than those in textbooks. In a study involving 396 university students, Cabero-Almenara, et al. [
23] used material created in AR as an enhancement to traditional notes or books. Information was presented in video, audio, and multimedia resources through QR codes. Students were found to be willing to use AR in their future education, and perceptions of enjoyment on the part of the students and their intentions to use AR affected their academic performance. Wojciechowski and Cellary [
24] assessed learning attitudes among secondary school students in an AR environment where teachers authored interactive educational scenarios using an e-learning system. This research used interface style and perceived enjoyment as external constructs of TAM. A significant relationship was found between perceived ease of use and interface style and perceived usefulness, whereas these two constructs did not have any association with perceived enjoyment. Luo and Mojica Cabico [
25] evaluated the effect of AR-based learning tools on learning performance among 40 undergraduate construction engineering students. This study used AR to show various types of bridge structures. Mobile AR tools were found to be more effective than conventional learning methods by improving academic performance. Gavish, et al. [
26] investigated the use of AR systems as possible training platforms to support employees in procedural maintenance and repair tasks. Aromaa, et al. [
27] used a mobile handheld AR system for technicians in routine preventive field service. The results indicated the potential benefits of using this technology particularly in performing the first maintenance task. Martín-Gutiérrez, et al. [
28] investigated the use of AR for promoting collaborative and autonomous learning in higher education. The results indicated that AR could achieve a connection between the laboratory practices and theoretical explanations. Furthermore, students emphasized the convenience and usefulness of this technology.
While the above studies report positive impacts on satisfaction and student engagement, few academic studies have substantiated AR’s educational benefits [
29]. Some studies suggest that AR technology can help students grasp complex concepts in educational settings [
30,
31]. However, several studies have also identified weaknesses in the use of AR as an educational aid. The literature mentions several weaknesses associated with integrating AR, including difficulty for students to use [
32], high time consumption [
26], the distraction of students’ attention [
33], and incompatibility with large group instruction [
34]. Lin, et al. [
35], found that students may find AR learning difficult because of technical issues and complicated interfaces. It has also been found that individuals and organizations do not widely use AR due to a lack of adequate empirical analysis [
36]. Some studies that do show positive outcomes of AR technology in the classroom also suggest a confluence of factors including teacher skill and involvement are also critical to successful AR learning and teaching. Tzima, Styliaras and Bassounas [
2] examined teachers’ opinions on AR training and diffusion, and the feasibility of AR applications developed by students and teachers in school. Several factors, including the teacher’s personality and their desire for collaboration, were found to contribute to the feasibility of AR application development. Much of the research that supports AR technology as a learning tool is also limited to Western countries and the developed world. Few empirical studies discuss factors the use of AR technologies for education in non-Western countries or in developing countries [
37]. Chiang, Yang and Hwang [
33] developed location-based AR environment with a guiding mechanism to guide students to share knowledge in inquiry learning activities among 57 fourth-grade students in Northern Taiwan. Students were divided into experimental and control groups. The experimental group learned with AR and the control group learned with conventional in-class mobile learning. This study found that AR-based inquiry learning activities are more engaging for students than conventional inquiry-based mobile learning activities.
Some studies of VR/AR have considered the impact of gender on AR use, finding that gender has an influence on the adoption of AR technology [
38,
39]. Abed [
40] found that gender has a statistically significant effect on whether persons intend to adopt AR. However, in AR-related science studies, the learning experience is seldom discussed, and determining if technology assists students’ learning is important. According to a systematic review undertaken by [
41] there is a need to understand how AR is used in learning and study its impacts, especially on science learning. Essentially, current research on the effects of AR technologies on learning is divided regarding AR’s efficacy, and limited in its considerations of non-Western contexts and gender. Further research is needed to examine the impacts of AR application on learning process [
37,
42]. This study aims to provide a deeper consideration of the factors that contribute to successfully implementing AR and VR technology in a learning context in a non-Western country with considerations of gender.
This study has the following specific objectives:
To identify the factors affecting AR acceptance;
To examine participants’ behavioral intentions to use AR;
To examine the impact of practitioners’ and students’ gender on their acquisition of knowledge;
To examine the differences of opinion between students and practitioners in utilizing AR as a new method in the learning procedure.
5. Discussion
This study investigated the factors that contribute to learning from AR tools and the factors that hinder learning performance when using AR among civil engineering and architectural students enrolled in master’s degrees in Isfahan, Iran. The study tested an acceptance model for learning in AR, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), based on previous studies that have identified the relevant variables for describing the procedure of learning in AR [
45,
46]. The TAM was selected due to its power as a model for analyzing user behavior in researching emerging technologies’ adoption. In addition to its conceptual validity and statistical significance, this model confirms earlier analyses and conclusions for adopting AR systems in other countries.
Regarding this study’s hypothesis (H3a), perceived enjoyment was not found to be correlated to perceived ease of use. This indicates that participants were more concerned with the enjoyability of the AR technology, and less concerned with ease-of-use. This leads us to suggest that unlike [
24], AR users may be more concerned with factors such as better technical quality and usefulness rather than the entertainment value of AR technologies. Unlike other research [
24,
71], reported enjoyment was not found to be influential in the acceptance of VR technology. A moderate difference in acceptance of AR technology across participants’ genders and occupations was found, unlike other works carried out with different technologies [
23,
38]. This study also revealed significant differences between female and male participants on the PU -> ATT path, despite the findings of [
38]. In terms of perceived usefulness and attitude towards implementing AR, this study finds that gender does play a significant role. One of this study’s central findings is that AR will be successfully accepted and adopted in the learning process if the factors identified including, perceived immersion, technical quality, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, social influence, learning, and attitude, are considered. These results support earlier findings by [
28,
46,
66,
71] about the high acceptance of AR in education. This study’s results also differ somewhat from the TAM model assumption, which states that users’ acceptance of this technology is strongly related to its technical quality.
Participants’ professions as users of AR technology were also addressed in this study. The research showed that practitioners and students on the PIM -> PEOU and TQL -> PEOU pathways differ significantly, where
p = 0.027 and 0.015, respectively. This might be because students and practitioners have different perspectives on how AR technology can be used and applied in the learning process. No significant differences were found between other paths in these groups. Concerning H2c, H3b, and H5b hypotheses, the perceived usefulness of VR can be significantly positively influenced by technical quality, perceived enjoyment, and learning. Unlike other studies [
23,
71,
72], this study found that attitudes toward AR were not positively influenced by perceived ease of use (H4a). According to H5a, perceived usefulness positively and significantly affects attitudes toward using AR technology. Similar to other studies [
23,
24,
72], attitudes toward using AR positively affects behavioral intention (H6). As a result of using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, the results are consistent with those of other authors regarding the significance of the model [
46]. Therefore, the TAM model is sufficient to understand the degree of acceptance and future intention. In summary, this study’s findings suggest that AR can be used in learning procedures as a training and learning tool to be used in the future. In line with other studies [
2,
23,
72], the acceptance and implementation of AR was more possible under certain conditions. In this research, it was found that factors such as technical quality, the usefulness of AR, and its lack of complexity, have a significant effect on raising the attitude towards the use of this technology. Similar to other studies [
22], the use of AR leads to better understanding and learning of users. However, in this regard, teacher-training [
23], using effective educational materials [
72], and the proper use of AR technology [
71], the possible deviation and the creation of educational intervention were prevented. The results of this research are consistent with other studies in the field of education and learning through AR [
24,
28,
71].
Education institutions, learners, system developers, managers, marketers, and educators can benefit significantly from this study’s findings to understand AR technology dynamics, which will improve the acceptance of AR in learning settings. This study found that the following factors are crucial to predicting behaviors associated with the adoption of AR technology in the learning environment: attitude, perceived immersion, the perceived ease of use, technical quality, perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, social influence, and learning. Any institution wishing to use AR in the classroom should consider characteristics related to these factors. AR features are an important variable to emphasize using AR to enhance learning. The developers of AR apps need to pay more attention to the app immersion feature and 3D view, which provide a much better visualization to users than 2D images of the content. Especially in this research, students may find it difficult to fully visualize the spatial elements of construction piling process, despite the lecture notes and images that provide explanations and two-dimensional views of the process. Learners with high levels of presence have greater intrinsic motivation and ease of use, which directly impacts their behavioral intention to use AR for learning.
While this research provides a theoretical model that can potentially be a good predictor of immersive interactive tools, the model needs further testing by various groups of participants from different regions to provide more generalizable, and predictive results. Another limitation of this research is related to the method conducted in this study. In this research, only a sample of existing AR applications has been used, and the volunteers that participated in the research may be those that liked the technology while some others who did not like it, never answer the questionnaire. These gaps can be resolved by other researchers in the future. Future studies need to discuss the performance expectance of the immersive tools and find out how practitioners can use them for other tasks such as building façade, excavation, pouring concrete, using tower cranes, and other job site activities. Research should be conducted in different directions in the future, in order to overcome some of the limitations of the present study. In the future, a wider range of academic institutions and universities should be included in future studies. Studying mobile-based technologies was carried out in the current study; future studies should examine computer-based technologies. Research on the acceptance and adoption of AR has been limited within educational contexts and across subject domains. Future empirical tests should consider ongoing studies under varying educational contexts and subjects.
Finally, this research indicates that AR/VR developers should pay attention ease of use, that a high degree of ease of use and usefulness is crucial for AR users’ learning. This is related to their attitude, perceived enjoyment, social influence, and learning construct, leading to their intention to use AR. For instance, designing an AR tool that provides meaningful and detailed information about the construction process can lead to high usefulness and usability in AR tools. As mentioned, AR adoption in learning is influence by the social influence factor. Most students and practitioners mentioned that if other students and colleagues use AR technology, their motivation to use this technology will increase, which may be because individuals are looking for the usability and usefulness of this technology, not just to use new technology. Similar to other study results [
71], with the advancement of technology, the number of people who use this technology increases; however, paying attention to the quality and details of the AR content (similar to [
24]) from system developers can help use AR technology in the learning process.