EVOLVE YOUR HISTORY: LEARNER ENGAGEMENT IN THE UNIVERSITY
HISTORY CLASSROOM EXPLORED THROUGH AUGMENTED REALITY
by
C. LACHLAN GONZALES

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Educational Leadership
Thompson Rivers University
Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada
August 2017

Thesis examination committee:
Dr. Patrick Walton, Professor and Thesis Supervisor, Faculty of Education and Social
Work, Thompson Rivers University
Dr. Wilson Bell, Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, History
and Politics, Thompson Rivers University
Dr. Haytham El Miligi, Associate Professor, Faculty of Science, Department of
Computing Science, Thompson Rivers University
Dr. Kevin O’Neil, Faculty of Education, Simon Fraser University

© Christopher Lachlan Gonzales, 2017

i

Abstract
This thesis presents research results on Augmented Reality (AR) from an educational
engagement point of view, sharing findings on how AR can be deployed in history
classrooms to potentially increase learner engagement. In modern historical educational
practices, students are often only moderately engaged, and increasing engagement using
AR remains largely unexplored. This study surveyed 19 history students in phase one,
and 15 students in phase two with observations in both phases, fieldnotes, and interviews
with four British Columbian university students. Overall data analysis suggested that AR
did not increase student engagement under an already engaging history professor,
although qualitative data suggested that students were engaged with AR and classmates
in this study. Participant feedback identified that engagement could be increased through
dramatic historical topics such as WW 1, using AR with elementary and high school
students, AR tutorial sessions, defined timelines, and feedback on potential barriers in the
classroom.
Keywords: Augmented Reality, Student engagement, Neomillennial, Modern
Curriculum, Educational technology, Teacher engagement, Historical educational
methods

ii

Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
Chapter 1 Modern Historical Education ............................................................................. 8
Defining Key Terms ...................................................................................................... 11
Engagement. .............................................................................................................. 11
Student to Student engagement. ................................................................................ 11
Teacher-Student engagement. ................................................................................... 11
Historical research methods....................................................................................... 12
Neomillennial. ........................................................................................................... 12
Heritage: The Living History ........................................................................................ 13
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 14
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................ 16
History Instruction......................................................................................................... 16
Rethinking critical pedagogy, curriculum, and technology. ...................................... 17
The relevance and implications of history instruction............................................... 19
Learner Engagement ..................................................................................................... 20
Relevance and implications of learner engagement. ................................................. 21
Educational Technology................................................................................................ 21
Relevance and implications of educational technology. ........................................... 23
Augmented Reality Technology.................................................................................... 23
Augmented reality, gamification, and immersion. .................................................... 27
Augmented Reality as a Curriculum ............................................................................. 32
The what. ................................................................................................................... 33
The why. .................................................................................................................... 34
The how. .................................................................................................................... 34
Potential classroom activities. ................................................................................... 36
Two Examples of Augmented Reality Curricula .......................................................... 37
Mad City Mysteries. .................................................................................................. 37
General summary. ............................................................................................ 37
Breaking it down. ............................................................................................. 38
Implications. ..................................................................................................... 39

iii

Reliving the Revolution ................................................................................................ 39
General summary. ...................................................................................................... 39
Breaking it down. ...................................................................................................... 40
Implications. .............................................................................................................. 40
Relevance and Implications of Augmented Reality in History and Science................. 41
The Future of Educational Technology......................................................................... 42
Holographic technology. ........................................................................................... 42
Augmediated reality. ................................................................................................. 42
Science fiction to science fact. .................................................................................. 42
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 44
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3 Research Methodology..................................................................................... 46
Participants .................................................................................................................... 47
Comparison of Augmented Reality Applications ......................................................... 48
Description of Technology Used .................................................................................. 51
Method .......................................................................................................................... 52
Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 54
Phase one: the professor’s class................................................................................. 55
Phase two: Researchers’ observations. ...................................................................... 56
Group 1............................................................................................................. 56
Group 2............................................................................................................. 57
Group 3............................................................................................................. 57
Group 4............................................................................................................. 57
Group 5............................................................................................................. 57
Methods and Data Collection ........................................................................................ 58
Surveys. ..................................................................................................................... 58
Interviews. ................................................................................................................. 59
Field notes.................................................................................................................. 60
Participant feedback forms. ....................................................................................... 60
Chapter 4 Results .............................................................................................................. 61
Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 61

iv

Research Themes........................................................................................................... 62
Augmented Reality and Historical Content: Research Questions 1-2 .......................... 62
Survey results on historical content. .......................................................................... 62
Survey results on teaching methods. ......................................................................... 63
Augmented Reality and Engagement with Students and Professor: Research Question 1
....................................................................................................................................... 66
Survey Results on AR engagement with students and professor. ............................. 66
Augmented Reality and Knowledge Acquisition: Research Question 3....................... 69
Barriers to Augmented Reality: Research Question 4 .................................................. 70
Technology experiences related to AR. ..................................................................... 70
Participant Feedback on Augmented Reality: Research Question 5 ............................. 72
Interview feedback. ................................................................................................... 72
Class feedback. .......................................................................................................... 72
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 73
Augmented reality and historical content. ................................................................. 73
Augmented reality and increased engagement with students and professor. ............ 73
Augmented reality and knowledge acquisition. ........................................................ 73
Barriers to augmented reality. ................................................................................... 73
Participant feedback on augmented reality. ............................................................... 74
Chapter 5 Discussion and Conclusions ............................................................................. 75
Augmented Reality and Engagement with Historical Content ..................................... 75
Survey items. ............................................................................................................. 75
Augmented Reality and Engagement with Students and Professor .............................. 76
Augmented Reality and Knowledge Acquisition .......................................................... 76
Barriers to Augmented Reality...................................................................................... 77
Technology experience related to AR. ...................................................................... 77
Participant Feedback on Augmented Reality ................................................................ 78
Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 79
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 79
Implications ................................................................................................................... 80
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 81
Limitations ................................................................................................................. 82
Future research .......................................................................................................... 82

v

References ......................................................................................................................... 85
Appendix A: Pre-test survey ........................................................................................... 102
Appendix B: Post-test survey.......................................................................................... 108
Appendix C Interview questions for students ................................................................. 114
Appendix D: Interview questions for educator ............................................................... 117
Appendix E: Feedback form for students ....................................................................... 120
Appendix F: Field notes .................................................................................................. 122
Appendix G: Characters .................................................................................................. 125
Appendix H: Description of historical topic ................................................................... 128
List of Figures
Figure 1.. ........................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 2. ............................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 3. ............................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 4. ............................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 5. ............................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 6. ............................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 7. ............................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 8. ............................................................................................................................ 54
Figure 9. ............................................................................................................................ 67
Figure 10. .......................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 11. ........................................................................................................................ 125
Figure 12. ........................................................................................................................ 126
Figure 13. ........................................................................................................................ 126
Figure 14. ........................................................................................................................ 127
Figure 15. ........................................................................................................................ 128
List of Tables
Table 1. ............................................................................................................................. 43
Table 2. ............................................................................................................................. 48
Table 3. ............................................................................................................................. 51
Table 4. ............................................................................................................................. 63

vi

Table 5. ............................................................................................................................. 64
Table 6. ............................................................................................................................. 67

vii

Chapter 1
Modern Historical Education
History is usually seen through the lens of antiquity, primary sources, contemporary
reports, textbooks, and journal articles (Goodin, 2012; Luckhardt, 2014), or in relation to
modern society and its concurrent issues. This dusty viewpoint has given history
classrooms a dull environment wherein students are not engaged to their fullest
intellectual potential (Savich, 2009; Waring & Robinson, 2010). This means that history
is not seen as the most interesting and relevant subject as shown by Statistics Canada
(2004) which showed history was the least interesting subject in schools. As presented by
Cheung and Slavin (2012), the rapid growth, availability, and the ever-changing
evolution of technologies – specifically educational technologies – make it increasingly
difficult to determine how to incorporate them into the classroom (Karich Burns, & Maki,
2014). Ideally, the effective use of educational technology, such as Power Points and
Moodle and augmented reality (AR) environments, would be accomplished by creating
classrooms that are connected to the Internet of Things (IoT) allowing the students to
adapt to new information and ideas. These would be dedicated to technological
modularity and the use of virtual and AR environments to create what could be termed
living history (Mayrose, 2012). This could also be called experiential history.
Professors and other educators have the opportunity to use many kinds of educational
technology; unfortunately, it is possible to miss or lose sight of critical objectives,
including student to student engagement and engagement with the topic when doing so.
Furthermore, the use of cell phones is pervasive in current society; students often use
them to connect to others or as entertainment devices, thus overlooking or
misunderstanding the educational value they can represent. Educators have the potential
to improve their connection to students in relation to history pedagogy if they use and
incorporate educational technology in the classroom for the benefit of the student and
themselves (Lee, Waxman, Wu, Michko, & Lin, 2013). Educational technology has the
potential for increased learning and engagement and this links to the teacher’s connection
to their students by way of engagement. Additionally, teachers less familiar with modern
technology could potentially increase student engagement by learning how to use modern
8

technology competently and efficiently. Students, as persons usually fluent with digital
technology, could be shown that their cell phone or tablet, by providing connections and
entertainment, also delivers a wide scope of collected human knowledge, experience and
understanding (Goodin, 2012; Ladbrook & Prober, 2011; Prensky, 2001). The new
method of teaching could encompass the neo-millennial environment where students are
no longer overlooking information (Dede 2005). It may be useful to combine educational
technology such as AR, haptics-touch sensory devices, online media, and multi-media
applications with novel and traditional in-class history education to create an immersive
foundation for student engagement while keeping students grounded in the real world.
This could potentially create a sense of wonder and appreciation that cannot be gained
from a textbook, and bring history to life in an interactive, livable, touchable experience
which Luckhardt (2014) called historical literacy.
History has been given less attention in main stream education, and as Savich (2009)
pointed out, rendered dull by poor public opinion and higher emphasis on the Science,
Education, Technology, and Math (S.T.E.M) fields (Statistics Canada, 2004). Instruction
in history is critical for students to learn about their own county’s past, and to understand
its role in a glocal-global context (Watts, 2017; Weber, 2007). Furthermore, they gain
the abilities to explain and reproduce historical information, and learn how to deal with
source bias. Additionally, they acquire the ability to discern fragmentary information, and
gain an appreciation for how far civilizations and cultures have progressed over 15,000
years since the first societies were established. Technology can facilitate this
understanding (Seixas, 1999).
Technology has seen mixed results in its deployment for educational purposes (Celik,
& Yesilyurt, 2013; Singh, & Hurley, 2017; Venkatesh, Croteau, & Rabah, 2014). Many
teachers are enthusiastic about technology and a key cornerstone of their education,
(Açikalin, 2010) while others may shun it due to logistical issues unique to the school
environment, lack of adequate technical support, and old equipment. Technology will
continue to drive cultural and social change and educators have a duty to teach using
methods that are relevant and engaging to the current generation of students (Prensky,
2014).
9

Engagement is key to success in education (Fredricks, Filsecker, & Lawson, 2016;
Kuh, 2003). A student can be engaged with the content of the class or course when they
actively seek knowledge from sources, interact with educators and other students on a
level in which they are comfortable, and when they can explain the historical significance
of the topic with insight. This is not developed during a single class, but is encouraged
over time. Engagement with content is cultivated over a period when the student gains
familiarity with the content and engages with the instructor and the teaching methods
used. Thus, engagement is another cornerstone of educational success.
AR was relegated to a niche market until the release of Pokémon GO in early July of
2016, which has introduced AR to mainstream media and populace (VentureBeat, 2016).
This in turn has caused businesses to look for ways to profit from the technology, making
it possible for AR to become a multi-billion-dollar market by the year 2020
(VentureBeat, 2016). AR has the potential to immerse students in content without the
difficulty inherent to using virtual reality (VR), which requires headsets that can reduce
engagement with the physical space (Echeverría, Gil, & Nussbaum, 2016). AR can have
students searching and interacting with the historical content outside the physical
classroom, and responds to calls for a more active society (Kreizer, 2016).
This paper will present research that examines the effects of AR on student
engagement. The following will be discussed: Modern historical education and its
implications, modern technology and its current use in the education system, the
engagement of students in the classroom, and AR technology. Furthermore, a potential
AR curriculum could be created based upon the results of the literature review. The
researcher followed calls by Egan and Judson (2009) and Prensky (2014) for a new and
modern curriculum that caters to student needs, and continued research by Schrier (2005)
and Squire and Jan (2007) by creating an AR game that taught history to students. The
research examined the results of emerging AR technology from an educational
engagement point of view, and shared findings on how AR can be deployed in history
classrooms to potentially increase learner engagement.

10

Defining Key Terms
The key terms used in the study are defined below.
Engagement. This refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and
passion that students show when they are learning or being taught, which extends to the
level of motivation they must learn and progress in their education. The concept of
student engagement is predicated on the belief that learning improves when students are
inquisitive, interested, or inspired, and that learning tends to suffer when students are
bored, dispassionate, disaffected, or otherwise disengaged (Hidden Curriculum, 2014).
Student to Student engagement. Refers to the positive or negative relationship of
students interacting with classmates in a work-related environment. This study looked at
the interactions between students in an AR environment and asked questions to determine
if an increase in student to student engagement occurred. Kuh (2003) defines
engagement as follows:
The engagement premise is straightforward and easily understood: the
more students study a subject, the more they know about it, and the
more students practice and get feedback from faculty and staff
members on their writing and collaborative problem solving, the deeper
they come to understand what they are learning and the more adept
they become at managing complexity, tolerating ambiguity, and
working with people from different backgrounds or with different
views (p. 5).
Kuh explains another way engagement helps to develop habits of the mind and heart
that enlarge their capacity for continuous learning and personal development (2003).
This describes what the study seeks to obtain: an increase in engagement with students
working with their peers on an interesting topic.
Teacher-Student engagement. The positive or negative engagement that constitutes
a student-teacher bond. The definition is the same as above; students are engaged with
the faculty and obtain feedback and increased interest in the topic (Cornelius-White,

11

2007; Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder Jr, 2004; Hamre, & Pianta, 2006; Klem, & Connell,
2004; Kuh, 2003; Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011).
Historical research methods. This is a group of techniques and guidelines that a
historian uses when examining a primary, secondary, or tertiary source of evidence, to
research and write a historical account of the past, usually within in a specific topical
area. Furthermore, they are used to analyse contradictory sources (Howell & Prevenier,
2001). This study will look at these methods and ask if students were able to use them in
the AR phase.
Neomillennial. This is a broad term that is concerned with creating learning materials
that are focused towards a range of different learning styles, abilities, student
backgrounds, and familiarity with technology (Bennet, Malton, & Kervin, 2008; Dede,
2005; Helsper & Eynon, 2009). This can include multimedia applications, group learning;
experiential, collective and guided education; non-linear teaching, and co-design of
educational materials (Dede, 2005). A Millennial could be a student that has experienced
the technological revolution that includes personal computers and cell phones and is
familiar, but may not always be fluent, with technology (Bennet, Malton, & Kervin,
2008; Dede, 2005; Helsper & Eynon, 2009; Oblinger, 2003) These people also may have
different learning styles than the previous generation as they have been more exposed to
different technologies (Jonas-Dwyer & Pospisil, 2004). This is different than that of a
Neomillennial, who can be described as having experienced technology and very rarely
experiences it without a cell phone or instant information, again with the associated
familiarity or lack thereof (Bennet, Malton, & Kervin, 2008; Dede, 2005; Helsper &
Eynon, 2009). This is different from the digital native and immigrant defined Prensky,
(2014) who only defines them by age ranges and not ability with technology based on
numerous real-life factors (Bennet, Malton, & Kervin, 2008; Helsper & Eynon, 2009).
Furthermore, Prensky (2014) links Neomillenials to a drastic change in education while
Bennet, Malton, and Kervin, (2008) liken this research to a moral panic and lacking an
empirical definition. This definition is an evolution rather than a revolution in education.
Furthermore, Neomillennial can also refer to the styles in which the students learn and

12

the methods that teachers can use to educate them (Bennet, Malton, & Kervin, 2008;
Helsper & Eynon, 2009).
Heritage: The Living History
Living history refers to places, objects, or people that are historically significant
because of location, past or historical events, or lived experience (Mayrose, 2012;
Luckhardt, 2014). Historical heritage sites in Canada can incorporate Aboriginal
locations and knowledge, colonial history, or Canadian history. The reason they are
called living history is because the public has a present and vested interest in exploring,
utilising, or listening to these stories because they have a significant impact. This impact
can be in the form of fostering knowledge, nostalgia, tourism, or simple curiosity. The
heritage of ‘living history’ is important because it creates a connection with the learner
who can relate to the history they are experiencing, and see it as impactful in their lives.
The researcher had a chance to experience a Canadian Railway heritage site firsthand,
and to witness the impact of living history and the connections it made with learners of
all ages and backgrounds, including both high school and university students.
The 2141 Spirit of Kamloops is a 105-year-old steam locomotive that was built in
1912 in Kingston, Ontario. Over time, it moved towards British Columbia, eventually
retiring to Riverside park in Kamloops BC as a display for over 30 years. In the early
1990s, volunteers banded together to restore the engine. For over eight years, a group of
volunteer men and women worked to restore the 2141 to operating status. Following
these restorations, it began to take guests on hour-long tours of the Kamloops railway
area. The connection the 2141 creates for older guests and volunteers is one of nostalgia
and memories; these are volunteers who worked on the locomotive during the 1940’s and
50’s. For the younger generation, the connection is more difficult to describe. Riding on
a device that is over 100 years old creates a feeling of wonder and a strong connection
with the past. When the guests or volunteers stand where their predecessors once stood,
they tend to ask questions like: who were they? What did they do? What were their
stories? This reinforces the connection as the volunteers ‘take them back in time’ with
period clothing, music, and events.

13

The shared experience and relevance strengthens the connection as the guest
experiences exactly what a historical passenger would experience. The nostalgia,
novelty, and a shared understanding of relevance for the guests, volunteers and the people
who have their stories heard after 40 or even 80 years is the basis of this connection. The
local Kamloops history is also extolled, along with the impact of the railway on Canada
itself. J. Popadynetz, a train manager for the 2141, describes the reason for the
connection as: “The connection to the past; everyone has some sort of connection to our
past and our train brings it to life. Also, steam locomotives are rare and have a soul to
them” (J. Popadynetz, Personal communication, September 7, 2016). Potentially, it is
these smaller details, along with the massive impact of the larger picture, that creates and
reinforces the connection guests feel for the 2141, Canadian history, and – by extension –
history itself. Potentially, if this nostalgia, novelty, and relevance can be reproduced in
the classroom, then heritage and history would likely have increased meaning and
engagement for students and the larger society. Connecting, engaging, and making
history relevant in the classroom is the focus of the study and the focus of teaching.
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of this study was to assess whether and how AR technology can
increase student engagement with content, peers, and educators in history education in
universities, and to assess AR learning preferences.
Summary
The problem area focused on was increasing student engagement with historical
content, peers, and educators in the university history classroom. The researcher
conducted a literature review on current educational methods, educational technology,
engagement in classrooms, AR, and current curricula in addition to two research studies
in history that used AR curricula to understand the current gaps in research and
opportunities for expansion. This study created an immersive historical environment and
modular curriculum to study AR’s applications in education, wherein technology has
been reported to engage students and help them achieve higher success in history courses
(Schrier, 2005).

14

Concerning the problem of disinterest in history, students may not fully understand the
impact of history on modern society; they may be subject to socially constructed
viewpoints on history instruction, or uninterested in the topic itself. History education
along with other subjects such as the sciences, business, and law, is currently
incorporating educational technology. This could be enhanced by encouraging use of
current methods along with an umbrella framework of modern pedagogical, social,
technological, and contextual understanding (Egan, 1978; Freire, 1970/2005; Prensky,
2014). Learning allows the student to study the past and prepare for the future by
learning from the mistakes of previous civilizations. Thus, the researcher proposes a
future history education based on multi-modal, reality-orientated augmentation
approaches to teaching. This encompasses gamification, AR curricula, AR based lessons,
Neomillennial teaching styles, interactive campus learning, and city-wide historical
investigations, along with gender and social equity in learning.

15

Chapter 2
Literature Review
A summary of research on AR is presented with a focus on five overarching themes,
including: history instruction, learner engagement, general educational technology, AR,
and a potential AR curriculum along with two major studies on AR and education. This
literature review and study focused on increasing engagement and identifying AR
learning preferences.
History Instruction
Educating students in history can be a challenge for instructors in the classroom. The
subject encompasses historical literature, persons, and events, and requires a wide range
of skills to effectively analyze and understand its implications across a wide range of
cultures, societies, and civilizations (Seixas, 2000). Furthermore, history textbooks
contain a great deal of text interspersed with pictures that do not illuminate the subject to
the degree desired by students (Luckhardt, 2014). Because of this, students and educators
may disengage from the subject matter, which can lead to a decrease in positive learning
outcomes (Egan & Judson, 2009). As reported by Goodin (2012), current technology can
provide access to more varied sources and thus make students more discerning holders of
information. Furthermore, Goodin’s experimental study (2012) revealed that test scores
measurably increased and student behavior was more animated and engaged when using
technology.
History education in universities can be seen as similar to the myth of Icarus and
Daedalus, however flipped on its head. Many teachers and students are Daedalus, flying
far below the clouds, keeping themselves in familiar sight of lectures and tests, textbooks,
and methods. Other teachers and students are willful Icarus, flying above the clouds and
closer to the sun, able to enact new methods and new technologies and connecting with
the contemporary world. These teachers make use of PowerPoints, Moodle, experiential
learning, social media, and other educational technologies. This analogy is echoed in part
by Prensky (2014) who calls for not only modern 21st century methods and proxies to be
let go, but to find the core of modern education that speaks to the Neomillennial students
(Dede, 2005; Dieterle, Dede, & Schrier, 2007). However, this call must be tempered with
16

empirical research that goes beyond the definition of age (Bennet, Malton, & Kervin,
2008; Helsper & Eynon, 2009).
A meta-analysis conducted by Karich, Burns, and Maki (2014) found:
The components of learner control within educational technology and found mostly
negligible effects on student outcome measures. Although overall effects of including
learner control within educational technology produced near zero effects, some
variables contributed to higher student outcomes (p. 406).
This effect size was small, and the control that learners had over educational
technology was too small to affect an increase on their outcomes. This means that
students control of educational technology appeared to be neutral based on this study.
While the reported effects may be negligible, history educators strive to bring a variety of
methods to engage learners in historically relevant topics to teach critical thought and
enhance the historical literacy skills of the students. These can be augmented with
educational technology to improve reader response (Cheung & Slavin, 2012) and
computer-assisted-learning (CAL) to improve workflow (Açikalin, 2010).
Luckhardt (2014) noted that developing historical literacy is difficult and educators
often use primary sources to teach historical consciousness, which in effect creates a
student who is aware of the effects of history and the criticality of understanding.
Additionally, using online sources as a narrative in a native environment, the digital
online word, and providing a foundation for discussion between students using social
media would enhance feedback (Luckhardt, 2014). These primary sources may be
contextually unsuited for modern students facing contemporary issues if they are not
provided a connection to modernity. This contextual relevance was explained by
Sebbowa, Ng’ambi & Brown (2014) whose research found that history content may not
be relevant to modern students as they cannot relate it to their modern lives. This relation
appears to be needed if students are to see history as relevant (Sebbowa, Ng’ambi &
Brown, 2014).
Rethinking critical pedagogy, curriculum, and technology. As civilizations rose
and fell, the instruction and the relevance of learning history has changed from a general
17

interpretation with the victor being the writer to critical thought and interpretation (Seixas
& Peck, 2004). Savich (2009) stated, “An important element of getting students to
connect or identify with a historical event or issue is by making it relevant and personal
to them. In this way, there is engagement and connectedness to the issue” (p. 6). How
can modern students be interested by events in the past that seemingly had little or no
effect on their current lives?
Sebbowa1, Ng’ambi and Brown (2014) stated that “history education is becoming
dangerously obsolete as it does not relate to the contemporary needs of 21st century
learners, who often find history useless and irrelevant to their present situation” (p. 24).
Savich (2009), Seixas (1999), and Vansledright (2004) tackled this problem in similar
ways. Critical thought processes are espoused by Savich (2009), as a way for students to
become historically literate. Furthermore, they can “evaluate, assess, analyze,
conceptualize, and judge what is presented as information or facts. Critical thinking
skills are important in a democracy where citizens need to be informed in order to make
judgments and decisions” (Savich, 2009, p. 12). Vansledright (2004) described the
methods used by two separate teachers: both are effective, one lectures from a planned
curriculum as described by (Aoki 1986/1991) while the other exists in a lived curriculum.
Vandelsright (2004) stated that “The knowledge history teachers need to possess in order
to significantly deepen their students’ historical understandings, as complex,
multivalenced, and socioculturally diverse as those might be” (p. 2). Teachers must be
knowledgeable about their subject to a high degree. However, this does not guarantee
that students will be interested or see the course as relevant. Both teachers described in
Vansledright’s (2004) book had full classes but one group scored higher on SATs. He
went on to describe the potentials of investigative history, stating that while uncommon,
research indicated “that it shapes and cultivates deeper historical understandings of the
sort epitomized by the experts than do our more common and traditional ways of teaching
history in school” (p. 2).
This raises questions about how history is taught and the ways both scholars and
teachers construct history. When creating history curricula for student consumption,
teachers, and scholars, according to Seixas (1999), should work together. He notes that
18

“The separation of ‘content’ and ‘method’ and the distance between historians and
teachers were thus closely connected problems” (p .1). This can create further problems
when delivering knowledge to students as scholars and teachers can have different
interpretations. This separation of teacher and scholar can only have negative
repercussions on the student who is developing critical history skills, referred to as
“learning to do the discipline” by Seixas (1999). Furthermore, “Hertzberg, Dewey, and
Shulman remind us that content separated from pedagogy is an incomplete metaphor for
knowledge. Yet the dichotomous formulation has tremendous staying power” (Seixas,
1999, p. 319). Thus, both content and pedagogy are potentially best used together.
Even though history teachers do use educational technology in their classrooms, the
level of it depends on the teacher, classroom, and students. Most commonly used are
Moodle and PowerPoint, though some teachers experiment with new educational
technology and methods. Morgan (2013) used Second Life, an online virtual world, and
asked students to use the program in research projects. He found that there was an
effective use for Second Life in history educational methods, and encouraged the use of
virtual technologies. Other educators used television, such as Putman (2013), who
utilized Star Trek to teach World War II and contextualize history, helped students
overcome bias and stereotypes. Finally, educators have used social media and
experiential learning to engage students and update older curricula for current and future
students (Reyerson, Mummey, & Higdon, 2011).
The relevance and implications of history instruction. History has broad
implications in a wide range of fields. Educating a student in history can create a person
who is historically aware and capable of applying critical thought and analysis to the
modern world (Egan & Judson, 2009). Furthermore, this ‘historical consciousness’
(Luckhardt, 2014) is critical in understanding major-scale social, political and national
interactions. Fostering learner engagement in the subject is also essential.
There are many ways of teaching history, from straight lecturing, to inquiry,
investigation, using educational technology, and experiential learning. The challenge for
scholars and teachers is to find the one that works in each individual moment in the

19

classroom. This provided an adaptive learning experience for students who are
themselves constantly changing and engaging in response to the wider world.
Learner Engagement
Learner engagement is the cornerstone of an educator’s classroom, and how much the
learners are engaged can be thought of generally as a function of how well they do in
their course. As Roorda, Helma, Spilt, and Oort, (2011) stated in their meta-analytic
approach to teacher-student relationships: “The correlations between the combined
person-centred teacher variables, on one hand, and participation, positive motivation, and
the composite of all cognitive student outcomes, on the other, ranged from medium to
large. The influence of teacher behaviours has also been shown in the research area of
instructional communication” (p. 494). The meta-analysis addressed positive and
negative factors of TSR, attempting to define and explain the relationships between them,
with a focus on previous research (Roorda, Helma, Spilt & Oort, 2011). Educational
technology was not mentioned in the study, but other research on it found a positive
effect on learner engagement (Açikalin, 2010; Goodin, 2012). Prensky (2014) stated,
“As the digital-aged learners of today prepare for their post-classroom lives, educational
experiences within classrooms and outside of schools should reflect advances both in
interactive media and in the learning sciences” (p. 37).
Interactive media is continually advancing, and the interactivity presented to students
is much more the norm as “The current generation of college students (ages 18-22) tend
to be experiential learners, they prefer to learn by doing, as opposed to learning by
listening” (Oblinger, 2004, p. 2). It is estimated that by the time an individual is 21 years
old, they will have spent 5,000 hours reading, 10,000 hours playing video games, and
10,000 hours on the cell phone (Prensky, 2001, p. 3). Furthermore, Hattie (2008) stated
in a meta-analytic review that inquiry-based learning had a negative impact on the
student and their engagement. Therefore, it can be postulated that if inquiry-based
learning is ineffective for engagement, are there areas where it does work in a positive
manner?
The relevance of this is clear: education is potentially more effective when based on
concepts that work, and those concepts are constantly in flux, changing to reflect society
20

and culture. Jardine (2023) stated, “The mindfulness of inquiry often requires bloodymindedness and refusing to expend ourselves in the ever-accelerating rush of empty time
that is deliberately designed to never be satisfied and to produce in us a cynicism about
any viable alternative” (p. 24). Thus, if concepts such as learner engagement are so
fragile, how can we as educators and scholars make learning and the acquisition of
knowledge useful to students? hooks (1994), in her work Teaching to Transgress,
described teaching as a path to freedom and to work; not to merely share information, but
to share in the growth of the students. Furthermore, Freire (1970) called for a revolution
in education. A change from the widely-sanctioned methods that we use today, to return
to a human centered approach. “The ‘humanism’ of the banking approach masks the
effort to turn women and men into automatons—the very negation of their ontological
vocation to be more fully human.” (p. 74). Liberation has many definitions, in the
context of education as hooks and Freire espouse, it means teaching in innovative ways
that allow creativity to flourish.
Perhaps, engagement is a more fluid concept than has been historically understood.
As both Prensky (2014) and Bassendowski and Petrucka (20013) mentioned, our methods
must be updated to reflect the changes in our society which are in constant flux.
Relevance and implications of learner engagement. Learner engagement is critical
to the student and the history classroom: it can transform a boring class with old
textbooks and tired students into an interactive classroom, and could become another
method in increasing learner engagement by using educational technologies
(Bassendowski & Petrucka, 2013; Bernard, Borokhovski, Schmid, Tamim, 2014; Karich,
Burns, & Maki, 2014; Mayrose, 2012; Zhang, 2014).
Educational Technology
Educational technology is an emerging field in the last three decades that focuses on
using technology from commercial and government applications in the field of education
(Papert, 1980). The focus is on enhancing student engagement, knowledge acquisition,
digital literacy, and global awareness, among other skills (Wilson, Wright, Inman &
Matherson, 2011). However, “The image of students passively absorbing information
from an educator who is lecturing from behind a podium does not reflect the current
21

scope and dimension of higher education” (Bassendowski & Petrucka, 2013, p. 665).
Technology has rapidly increased and educational facilities, teachers, and pedagogy
should follow suit.
Goodin (2012) reported that the goal of all social studies educators – and arguably all
educators – is to bring multiple resources to the classroom. Mayfield (2014) noted that
electronic technologies are increasingly influencing how students learn about the world.
Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami and Schmid (2011) found an effect size of 0.35
on the positive effects of computers in education in an exhaustive, second order metaanalysis of educational technology. However, despite some promising research
(Açikalin, 2011; Goodin, 2012; Machin, McNally, & Silva, 2007) the increased
prevalence and use of computers in schools yielded mixed results (Karich, Burns, &
Maki, 2014). Thus, perhaps different kinds of technologies are needed.
Educational technology includes many types of technology, including virtual
environments using special glasses and software haptics which use the sensation of touch
much like the virtual keyboard on a cellphone, and popular software such as Microsoft
Office (Luckhardt, 2012; Mayfield, 2012; Minogue & Jones, 2006; Taylor, 2016).
Furthermore, web-based applications such as social networking, online discussion boards,
Moodle and even games are included (Junco & Cole-Avent, 2008; Luckhardt, 2014;
Uricchio, 2005). Video games, even though the contents are often fictional, and their
learning impact is sill being debated, can be an asset for education. Meier, a key
developer of historically-oriented games, put it best: “We’re not trying to duplicate
history. We’re trying to provide you with the tools, the elements of history and let you
see how it would work if you took over” (cited in Uricchio, 2005, p. 329). This is the
concept of simulation history.
Murray, Giesbrecht, and Mosonyi (2011) noted that online courses had effects on the
educator and the student that increased engagement and teaching enquiry-based learning
styles. Furthermore, teaching faculty and staff integrated educational technology, which
was a logistical challenge that should also be addressed (Mirriahi, Vaid, Burns, 2015).
Lastly, the pedagogy and understanding around educational technology as expressed by
Lee et al. (2013), who examined effects of teaching and learning on students, found a
22

moderate positive effect size that could be advanced to match educational technology
along with continuing education for teachers (Bernard, Borokhovski, Schmid, Tamim, &
Abrami, 2014; Chai, Koh & Tsai, 2013; Mirriahi, Vaid, Burns, 2015; Murry, Giesbrecht,
& Mosonyi 2011).
Relevance and implications of educational technology. Research found that
educational technology can have a positive and a negative impact on learner engagement
(Goodin, 2011; Roorda, 2011; Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami & Schmid, 2011),
and can create engaged students as well as challenges for teachers (Mirriahi et al., 2015).
Distinguishing between effective and ineffective technologies may be difficult for the
practitioner. Some technologies that are tried and true such as PowerPoint may not
engage the student to the desired degree while newer technologies may have both
technological and informational issues. These technological issues can include bugs in
the programming, and the application failing to work as expected when used in a
classroom context. Furthermore, students may not be aware of the technology, how it fits
into their lives, and how to use it effectively. Finally, the educator may also be minimally
experienced with the educational technology they desire to use, and it could potentially
increase the difficulty of using it in the classroom. This study also identified an emerging
technology that may be useful for education: touchable holography, where lasers create a
touchable image in the air in front of the user (Hoshi, Takahashi, Shinoda, & Nakatsuma,
2009).
Augmented Reality Technology
Virtual reality has the ability to send a person into a digital world, pulling the user
from the physical surroundings. However, AR does the opposite and brings the digital
world to the user’s reality and physical space by super-imposing information technology
on everything the user sees (Taylor, 2016). AR, or Terminator Vision (see Figure 1) as it
is colloquially known, is generally described as hidden information overlaid on the world
in front of the user.

23

Figure 1. Augmented Reality was made popular by the Terminator movies as seen above
(Cameron, Hurd, Schwarzenegger, Hamilton, & Biehn, 1984).

However, unlike a Heads-Up Display (HUD) or Virtual Reality (VR) device, the AR
user remains in the physical space with the information overlay adapting to their
movements without a cumbersome Virtual Reality headset (Cassella, 2009; Mann &
Michael, 2013).
AR can be thought of in its simplest terms from the Milgram-Kishino Reality
Virtuality Continuum (1994) (see Figure 2). On the chart at the left is the real
environment as a human experiences it without any technological aid. Moving towards
the right, the user experiences increasing integration of digital technology or stimulation
within the real environment.

24

Figure 2. Reality Virtuality Continuum. This shows the various realities that a human
can experience. On the left is normal reality, while on the right is a virtual reality as made
by technology. Augmented reality is closer to normal than virtual reality (Milgram,
Takemura, Utsumi, & Kishino, 1994).

This introduction of hidden or new information can increase the user’s knowledge of
the local area or be used for direction finding. Furthermore, AR has been used in medical
and engineering applications to general success (Martín-Gutiérrez, Fabiani, Benesova,
Meneses, & Mora, 2015). AR can be used with a phone, tablet, eyewear, or separate
device that responds to either GPS data, or with photo triggers prompting overlaid
information. Photo triggers are any area, picture, or camera recognizable medium that
triggers the AR application. This technology can be used to recreate historical
information locally without having to travel to the physical area. It can also have a host
of other uses including navigation in a city, displaying information, and even dating as
the short film Sight depicts (see Figures 3 & 4).

25

Figure 3. Augmented Reality on a cell phone. This image shows a potential
demonstration of what augmented reality could accomplish by highlighting various
places of interest to the user (Real AR, n.d).

Figure 4. The short film Sight posits AR technology for numerous applications. Here it
is being used as part of a dating or ‘wingman’ app (Lazo, May-Raz, Golad, & Aroshas,
2016).

26

Educational technology has seen incredible gains and adoption among educators
within the past 10 years (Goodin, 2012). This includes PowerPoints and whiteboards, as
well as online and technological learning applications aimed at reducing and simplifying
the physical curriculum that teachers use. Educators are seen as guides rather than founts
of information as students are able to call up information on nearly any subject within
seconds (Egan & Judson, 2009). This change calls for teachers to modify and adapt to
the future of their students and technology (Egan & Judson, 2009; Lee et al., 2013;
Smith, 1996/2000). AR activities could provide the perfect solution for a technological
curriculum.
Augmented reality, gamification, and immersion. Gamification of education has
been used increasingly as video games become more prevalent in society. Nearly all games
that are first-person shooters (FPS) or first person in some degree have what is called a
HUD or Heads-Up-Display, most commonly seen by the public in aircraft cockpits. The
HUD displays information that is relevant to the user or player and sometimes incorporates
environmental parsing, meaning it updates in response to the changing environment around
the player. However, this HUD is generally an AR display that is tethered to either a
surface such as a table (see Figure 5), glasses, a phone, a transparent LCD computer
display, or eventually contact lenses. According to Squire and Klopfer (2007), “Playing
the game in "real" space also triggered students' preexisting knowledge, suggesting that a
powerful potential of augmented reality simulation games can be in their ability to connect
academic content and practices with students' physical, lived worlds” (p. 1). This suggests
that games have found a medium to display information and knowledge to gamers, that
education can be adapted for students, many of whom play video games.

27

Figure 5. The video game Deus Ex Human Revolution displays AR information on tables
for the player character, a mechanically augmented human. This could potentially be used
in education to display maps or other large features such as historical buildings (Square
Enix/Eidos Montreal, 2013)

An example is Dice’s Battlefield 4 (see Figure 6). The player is provided information
onscreen through an unmentioned AR display which is transparent, allowing the user to
see the physical world and react accordingly to changing situations.

28

Figure 6. Dice’s Battlefield 4. The player has an AR display that provides battlefield
information similar in part to what real world militaries are developing (Dice/ EA Dice,
2014).

A more extreme example is Tom Clancy’s Future Soldier (see Figure 7) which, while
third person, displays AR information seamlessly with the game environment. For
example, when the player looks to the sky, they see weather and temperature information,
such as an incoming sandstorm.

29

Figure 7. Tom Clancy’s Future Soldier uses a more visible method of fictional CrossCom
‘3.0’ AR technology. Here AR is displayed on nearly every surface providing critical
battlefield information (Ubisoft/Red Storm Entertainment, 2012).

This example could be translated to real life, wherein the user would have a seamless
display of information mixed with the real world. Science fiction, games, and movies
have used virtual reality and AR long before they were popular subjects in mainstream
media. It is also interesting to note that militaries are actively developing this technology
for enhanced situational awareness for their soldiers (Livingston et al., 2011). However,
games remain the most popular venue for this technology.
Educators have employed games for teaching. Gamifying a subject can be simple or
complex, depending on the subject and how far the instructor wants to go. According to
Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, and Nacke (2011):
30

Gamification refers to: the use (rather than the extension) of; design (rather than gamebased technology or other game related practices); elements (rather than full-fledged
games) characteristic for games (rather than play or playfulness); in non-game
contexts (regardless of specific usage intentions, contexts, or media of
implementation) (p. 12).
AR lends itself particularly well to gamification as shown by the immense popularity
of Pokémon GO (Cabero, & Barroso, 2016; Hammady, Ma, & Temple, 2016). Agreeing
with the above definition of gamification, da Rocha Seixas, Gomes, and de Melo (2016)
found that there has been an increase in the use of gamification for non-game applications
that also enabled students to receive instant feedback. It enabled student gratification and
acknowledgement on tasks completed. This is significant because their findings
highlighted that achievements badges had positive effects on student engagement in
elementary schools, (da Rocha Seixas, Gomes, & de Melo, 2016). Their work also
agreed with McGonigal’s “Reality is Broken” (2011), where the use of games need not
be solely focused on entertainment, but also used for building life skills. Research by
Buckley and Doyle (2016) supported this finding, though they described gamification in
education as ‘cautiously optimistic’ and called for more research. They noted that
personality traits influence positive impressions of gamification (Buckley & Doyle,
2016).
Stott and Neustaedter (2013) referred to gamification as “the application of game
dynamics, mechanics, and frameworks into non-game settings” (p. 1), and found that four
gamification concepts are successful then applied to educational environments. These
include “freedom to fail, rapid feedback, progression and storytelling” (Stott and
Neustaedter, 2013, p. 1). Furthermore, similar to other researchers, they espouse a
nuanced approach to using gamification in education, stating that there appears to be no
one size fits all approach (p. 1). Finally, according to research by Sailer, Hense, Mayr,
and Mandl (2017), certain aspects of gamification, including “badges, leaderboards, and
performance graphs all positively effect competency but need satisfaction and task
meaningfulness,” while “avatars, meaningful stories and teammates effect social
relatedness” (p. 1). Furthermore, similar to previous research (Buckley & Doyle, 2016; da
31

Rocha Seixas, Gomes, & de Melo, 2016; Stott and Neustaedter, 2013) they found that
gamification can be a powerful resource to address motivational problems (Sailer, Hense,
Mayr, & Mandl, 2017). However, they stated dissimilarly that “gamification is not
effective per say but that specific game design elements have specific psychological
effects” (p. 1). According to Blessinger and Wankel (2013):
If designed properly and integrated into the course in a purposeful manner, immersive
technologies can provide today’s learners with a viable means to further enhance their
learning experience, especially since todays learners are increasingly accustomed to
interfacing with digital, virtual realities (p. 6).
They also listed several application benefits according to a majority of scholars of the
learner centered approach. This included inter and intra group dialogue, belonging,
mediation of learning tasks, multi-perspective development, and personalized learning.
Taking the preceding research and literature into account, the researcher determined
that the four concepts by Stott and Neustaedter (2013), “freedom to fail, rapid feedback,
progression and storytelling” (p. 1.), represent a starting point when designing a gamified
curriculum. Furthermore, a nuanced approach is desired as interpretations of the
gamified process can be highly subjective based upon personality (Buckley & Doyle,
2016). However, the generalized definition as espoused by Deterding, Dixon, Khaled,
Nacke (2011) remains true. Finally relating the gamified curriculum to life skills or
determining their usefulness as described by McGonigal (2011) will be critical to the
student in creating achievement and engagement. Thus, creating a curriculum is a
complex process that must cater to many different students whilst not losing sight of the
educational objectives. Here, teachers are the critical lynchpins in the process of student
engagement (da Rocha Seixas, Gomes, and de Melo, 2016; Gapp & Fisher, 2012) and
their participation must be emphasized when enacting the curriculum.
Augmented Reality as a Curriculum
William Doll (1993) stated, “The heart of the curriculum process calls for adding
continuously to [these] connections [between students and teachers], making the overall
system deeper, richer, darker” (p. 289). Curriculum can be defined as the what, how and
32

why of educational information (Egan 1979). Furthermore, Egan (1979) and Egan and
Judson (2009) stated that a problem exists when focusing on the basic question of what
curriculum is. Egan (1978, 1979) described the evolution of the problem along with
several examples and stated that the reason the problem exists is because educators
decided to ask the questions in the first place. While much discussion about these areas
has occurred, especially in the last two decades, the myriad of solutions and answers to
the problem of curriculum can be described in a humorous and accurate narrative from
Boswell (1950) sixty years previous:
Boswell, searching around for a topic of discussion one Tuesday
morning, asked Dr. Johnson what was the best thing to teach children
first. Johnson replied: “There is no matter what you teach them first,
any more than what leg you shall put in your breeches first. Sir, you
may stand disputing which is best to put in first, but in the meantime
your backside is bare. Sir, while you stand considering which of two
things you should teach your child first, another boy has learnt ’em
both” (p. 323).
This neatly sums up the confusion that surrounds curriculum as described by Egan
(1978) and Egan and Judson (2009). However, despite the general confusion, scholars
have emerged (Stenhouse 1975; Smith, 1996/2000) who advocate for a revised and less
confusing method of curriculum delivery.
The what. The AR Curriculum could teach British Columbia History 12 with many
the major focuses that the BC IRP (2016) outlines or that are included in university
curricula as per the individual educator (Chambers, 2003; Pinar, 2003). The only major
difference is that assignments and classroom presentations would be shifted from
traditional methods to using AR in an experimental manner as shown by several scholars
(Mann & Michael 2013; Papagiannis, 2014). Furthermore, the what of the curriculum as
Egan and Judson (2009) and Smith (1996/2000) describe is culture based, and is open to
interpretation and refinement. Wolk (2003) describes four questions that could
potentially affect the adaption of AR into the curriculum: (1) The authenticity of the AR,
tasks, tools, and resources, (2) The social learning and cooperation; (3) Self-guided, but
33

mentored discovery of history; and (4) Reflective practice and engagement. Thus, the
curriculum is defined as what is needed by the students at that point in time and what will
create students that define the culture.
The why. The why can be described as one of the most important pieces of a
curriculum. Why teach the subject at all? Will it be relevant, and will it help students
become productive members of society? Dewey (1897) stated, “I believe that this
educational process has two sides - one psychological and one sociological; and that
neither can be subordinated to the other or neglected without evil results following.” AR
has the potential to link students in a similar and even more evocative way than social
media has done in the past decade. As expressed by several scholars and their research
(Billinghurst, Weghorst & Furness III, 1998; Mann & Michael, 2013), AR technology is
rapidly advancing and the prospects of incorporating it into everyday life are becoming
commonplace. Furthermore, as an interactive teaching method that requires no new
technology or increased cost, it is being actively considered for STEM programs and
medical applications. However, newspapers and scholarly articles (Cassella, 2009;
Papagiannis, 2014) have reported that teachers who have used AR to teach or create
historical spaces have seen a general increase in the engagement and retention of
information by their students. Therefore, it can be postulated that AR has the potential to
become a new media platform for exploring history in a manner that students are familiar
with from the big screen and video games (Yuen, Yaoyuneyong, & Johnson, 2011).
However, without further research, this can only be taken as conjecture.
The how. Egan (1978) described a general confusion about curriculum creation and
education. To supersede and rise above confusion, several interested groups would
collaboratively design an AR curriculum. The curriculum would teach the 2016 B.C.
history curriculum as outlined in the British Columbia Ministry of Education IRP, 2016
(British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2016). The educational outcomes for History
12 are stated as follows:
A1: analyse primary and secondary sources (historical evidence) with
reference to reliability, bias, and point of view, corroborating and
conflicting evidence.
34

A2: assess significant historical events in relation to social, political,
economic, technological, cultural, and geographic factors.
A3: demonstrate historical empathy (British Columbia Ministry of
Education, 2006).
The only notable difference would be that, instead of only essays, multimedia and AR
would also be used as methods for assessment creation. For instance, a student may be
tasked with creating an interactive presentation that outlines Roman Architecture; the
presentation would contain text and video, and the accuracy of the historical information
could be judged similarly to that of a traditional essay. The free applications ARToolkit
and Aurasma could be easily used by the students.
This curriculum is designed to encapsulate Egan (1979) and incorporate a backwards
design to benefit the students to the greatest degree possible (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011).
Finally, the theory closes with Stenhouse (1974) who developed a pragmatic approach to
curriculum that was the basis for the praxis approach suggested by Grundy (1978). This
praxis approach is the selected method that the Augmented Curriculum would use
because it caters to the needs of the students and allows them to ask questions to develop
a greater and more inclusive understanding of history (Smith, 1999/2011). Finally, as the
subject of history lends itself to critical thought, the praxis approach could be a strong
method to lead the students towards an understanding of the larger picture. Stenhouse
(1974) described the objective-based model as flawed, and the objective based model for
history education was found to be lacking:
I believe there is a tendency, recurrent enough to suggest that it may be
endemic in the approach, for academics in education to use the
objectives model as a stick with which to beat teachers. ‘What are your
objectives?’ is more often asked in a tone of challenge than one of
interested and helpful inquiry. The demand for objectives is a demand
for justification rather than a description of ends… It is not about
curriculum design, but rather an expression of irritation in the problems
of accountability in education (Stenhouse 1974, p. 77).

35

Stenhouse (1974) described education as needing to account for why and how it is
doing, creating, and teaching curriculum.
Potential classroom activities. Developing AR for a history classroom would be
accomplished in several steps after choosing the application, content, and initial setup.
Separating students into small research groups that would allow for collaborative
exploration of specific historical topics. Thus, each group would be tasked with teaching
parts of the curriculum to other groups. The goal of the class activity would be to create
content that to be delivered by AR applications. The proposed research groups would
then begin the activity by searching the web for content pertaining to the historical topics
they selected at the beginning or in the previous class. Students could be asked any
number of significant inquires, for example: to identify similarities and differences across
historical artifacts and explain how these evolved from the past to the present time
period.
The role of the educator would be to facilitate the search for information, assist
students in performing tasks if problems arise, and act as a sounding board for questions.
Potential questions pertaining to historical artifacts are displayed below.
•

What is the name of the historical artifact? Does its modern name differ?

•

What is the use of the historical artifact? Religious? Cultural?

•

How was the historical artifact made, what particular tools?

•

Where is the historical artifact located; is its location historically important?

Students would discuss with their groups to formulate answers, and then share the
results of their research. The teacher could provide grids to fill out, which would then be
scanned and digitized as the information would later serve as the content of the AR
applications. The creation of AR occurs later in the activity depending on the grade level
of students, the availability of computers, and the time requirements of the class. The
task is designed to engage students in historical content: their efforts would result in a
concrete, real-world product that could be downloaded and viewed by the population
outside the classroom. Several AR toolkits and Software Development Kits (SDKs) have
been developed for beginners and serve to facilitate the process of creating an
application.

36

Two Examples of Augmented Reality Curricula
Two AR curricula and experiments will be examined to assess their impact on student
engagement and best practices, and assist in creating the researchers experimental study.
Mad City Mysteries was chosen because it provided a framework for the researcher to
follow in creating the experiment. Mad City Mysteries included fictional characters for
the students to interact with, a focus question, and the task of gathering evidence to
identify a murderer, which were deemed useful in gathering data on engagement.
Reliving the Revolution was chosen because it adopted a focus on historical
environments, placing the user in the role of a historian, interacting with virtual historical
figures and collaborating to answer a multifaceted question.
Mad City Mysteries.
General summary. Squire and Jan (2007) have developed a location-based AR game
using handheld computers to increase scientific argumentation skills among students.
They call this an opportunity to create a ‘post-progressive’ pedagogy where students are
immersed in scientific inquiry and discourse (Squire & Jan, 2007). They asked whether
AR and handheld devices could be used to engage students on scientific thinking, the
impact of role playing, and the role of the physical environment. “We argue that specific
game features scaffold this thinking process, creating supports for student thinking nonexistent in most inquiry-based learning environments” (Squire & Jan, 2007).
The game takes place at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus and is
described as follows:
Ivan Illyich is dead. Police claimed that he drowned while fishing by the south shore
of Lake Mendota. Between January and the time of his death, Ivan put on 25 pounds
and started drinking heavily. His health condition had deteriorated considerably. As
one of his friends, your task is to investigate the case with two of your best friends. It
is your duty to present a clear picture about the causes and effects of these to the
public (Squire & Jan, 2007).
The game takes roughly 90 minutes to complete and students were included in a
briefing, game play and debriefing. Students are tasked with interviewing virtual
characters, gathering quantitative data samples, and examining government documents to
37

piece together an explanation of the murder. Student players work in teams that may or
may not compete with other teams, depending on the teacher’s preferences (Squire & Jan,
2007).
Gameplay for the student players requires them to:
Observe phenomena in their environment and tie them to underlying scientific
processes and phenomena, (2) ask questions about the human and environmental
effects of human processes in the environment; (3) engage in scientific argumentation
forming hypotheses, refining them based on evidence and discussing and arguing
rationale in order to develop theory; and (4) develop conceptual understandings of
geochemical water cycles, specifically, how chemicals move through the water system
(Squire & Jan, 2007).
They argued that the students, having played the game using AR games on handheld
computers, were an exciting new pedagogical model for developing students’ scientific
literacy, particularly their argumentation skills. Playing AR games immersed learners in
a kind of scientific argumentation that is purportedly difficult to achieve and yet desired
by science educators as a primary goal of science education (Squire and Jan, 2007). They
also reported that, similar to a constructivist style, a game-based approach involves a new
orientation to learning for students, teachers, and researchers. Furthermore, they reported
that teachers reported increased engagement among their students for science, inquiry,
and in their local communities as a major and worthwhile outcome of this study, which
stands in stark contrast to the current rhetoric of accountability (Squire & Jan, 2007).
Breaking it down. Squire and Jan (2007) faced several problems and challenges in
implementing Mad City Mysteries. The participants were a group of elementary school
students, a middle school group and two high school groups of lesser numbers than the
first. Squire and Jan (2007) designed and adopted an open, problem-based learning style
with multiple causal argumentations and approaches. This style was adopted because
they wanted to have a game without a single answer approach as a more robust model of
scientific inquiry. Additionally, the location and engagement of the students needed to be
carefully selected to hold scientific inquiry for the environmental watershed. They
acknowledged that the game is a short-term learning device. Furthermore, students are
not developing their own questions or lines of inquiry due to ‘black boxing’ for question
38

analysis. They also faced a lack of pre-post data on the student performance which
would have been useful for assessing broader student learning. Effective assessment
generation was also a challenge in yielding valid interpretations on student learning. A
final challenge Squire and Jan (2007) faced was the active participation the investigators
played with the game. The younger participants needed supervision and they
acknowledged this could play a part in the participation of schools using the same gamebased approach.
Implications. The implications of Mad City Mysteries can be drawn from the
research. Squire and Jan (2007) reported that student enthusiasm increased and that
student participants gained an appreciation for argumentative science along with role play
and inquiry. They reported that location-based AR has the potential to increase student
understanding of authentic scientific inquiry and research, (Squire & Jan, 2007). This
location-based game could also be aimed at other fields of study including history. It
would be able to teach students historical inquiry, rigour, and the critical evaluation of
evidence along with collaboration with team members and their virtual partners.
Furthermore, this game could be adapted to other locations which would be critical in
using location-based games. This adaptation would bring local cultural and historical
relevance to participants which, as reported by both Squire and Jan (2007) and Schrier
(2005), was critical to their research design.
Reliving the Revolution
General summary. Schrier (2005) created a location-based AR game for history
students at MIT. This game was designed around the historical Battle of Lexington and
was used to simulate the activities of a historian for the participants, including evidence
collection and interpretation. Participants were to interact with virtual historical figures
and collaboratively evaluate the evidence to prove who fired the first shot. The results of
Schrier’s (2005) work showed that there was a potential for AR games to enhance the
learning of “(1) historical name, places, and themes; (2) historical methodology and the
limits to representations of the past; and (3) alternative perspectives and challenges to
"master" historical interpretations” (p. 1). Furthermore, they stated that it could create an
authentic ‘practice field’, increase potential for collaboration among students, express

39

identities through role playing and consider interactions between the real and virtual
world (Schrier, 2005).
Breaking it down. Schrier (2005) created an interactive historical game for students
wherein they would act like detectives. They analyzed data presented through historical
figures and then, in teams, identified the shooter. This taught evidence analysis and
critical history through gamification of history. The evaluation of sources and their
interpretation was key in Schrier’s work.
Schrier examined the following topics to guide her research:
(1) Understand better the people and leaders involved in the Battle of Lexington and
the American Revolution; (2) Become more aware of the social, economic, geographic,
and political forces surrounding the Battle of Lexington and the American Revolution;
(3) Learn more about a local historic site and how it functioned in the past. Build
Knowledge of the Methods and Limitations of History; (4) Question sources and
authorial intent of evidence; identify biases in evidence; (5) Create hypotheses, and draw
inferences and conclusions based on historical evidence; (6) Consider the limits of
historical methods and representations of the past. Confront Multiple Perspectives and
Mainstream Interpretations of the Past; (7) Understand and critique master narratives of
the Revolutionary War, the Battle of Lexington and history in general; (8) View, seek
out, consider, and manage multiple views of the Battle of Lexington and other historic
moments, and (9) Reflect on ones' own perspective on the past and recreations of event
(Schrier, 2005).
Implications. The implications for Schrier’s research (2005) are very similar to those
found by Squire and Jan (2007) even though the fields of inquiry are separate. The
location-based AR approach allows students to gain a critical cultural and location-based
relevance within their local communities. Furthermore, working with a team allows the
participants to develop social and team building skills that are in high demand in nearly
all sectors of work and research. Finally, developing historical literacy and critical
inquiry based on evidence from several virtual historical persons is critical in creating a
student who can interpret history based on conflicting evidence (Schrier, 2006).

40

Relevance and Implications of Augmented Reality in History and Science
AR has the potential to become the next technological leap in education if certain
hurdles are overcome (Chen, Liu, Cheng, & Huang, 2017). These hurdles can include
cost, area of implementation, teacher and student training, and the technology itself. Is
the augmented portion enough to create the suspension of disbelief for the student?
While textbooks face increasing costs and drive students to imaginative ways to either
save or buy these books, digital and virtual technologies provide new avenues for
knowledge acquisition, learning, engagement, and teaching (Weisbaum, 2016).
Furthermore, while textbooks offer a liner narrative to the student, AR can offer a
nonlinear pathway for the student to observe the past (Schrier, 2005) or create further
inquiry (Squire & Jan, 2007). Interestingly, the medical profession has willingly adopted
AR and has been using it to teach medical students in a variety of ways. This can range
from true AR, to virtual reality, or using online platforms such as Second Life or
Rocketmoon (Milgram, Takemura, Utsumi, & Kishino, 1994). As described by Hansen
(2008), 3D Virtual environments have the potential in medical professions to encourage
active learning that is dissimilar to the static classroom lecture. Furthermore, the use of
virtual characters to engage and increase engagement among students, rather than being
written by the researchers, can be adapted to use Artificial Intelligence or AI similar to an
AI named Jill Watson that was used in a classroom to teach the creation of AI (Maderer,
2016). Students reported interacting with Jill was normal and she was seen as a person
even after she had been revealed as artificial (Maderer, 2016). While some see AI as
dangerous, others, such as Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk (AI Open Letter - Future of
Life Institute, 2015), see them as a potential benefit (Maderer, 2016). AI has the
potential to interact with humans in a virtual world as almost a surrogate human
(Maderer, 2016). There are potentials to be explored, including “Educators that see “onthe-horizon technologies” in higher education present an opportunity for today’s learners
to explore exciting worlds beyond the traditional classroom and are showing an
understanding of current students’ use of technology” (Hansen, 2008).

41

The Future of Educational Technology
Holographic technology. The future of AR can be summarized in research conducted
by Lee (2013). Lee described the current Virtual Reality trends in society and education
while going into length on the development of 3D holographic technology which requires
no user-based device. Furthermore, this would provide full user interaction which is
integral in learning, including force feedback (Lee, 2013). 3D holographic technology
along with AR contacts and increased device processing and rendering power has
incredible potential to create new educational frontiers (Sight, 2015).
Augmediated reality. Dr. Steve Mann coined this term which describes the
connections between multimedia applications and AR (Mann & Michael, 2013). This
Augmediated Reality is similar to the contemporary IoT which describes the everincreasing connectivity between devices, applications, and their users. Future
applications of AR will incorporate this connectivity making the experience between user
and technology seamless. This seamless connection is the cornerstone of AR technology
providing an immersive interface that the IoT cannot.
Science fiction to science fact. Technology has progressed at a rapid rate and our
predictions for the future have become increasingly correct as our ability to predict
becomes enhanced by the technology we develop. The future of education could be a
reliance on the extreme connectivity and novel teaching methods that Neomillennial
students exemplify, echoing Prensky (2014) and Dede (2005). Santos et al. (2014)
conducted a large meta analysis focusing on examining effect size, prototypes, and
Augmented Reality Learning Experiences (ARLEs) of AR technology in educational
contexts aimed at informing the design of future ARLEs. They examined 87 research
articles and looked for user studies and effect sizes. Seven were found to meet the two
criteria while 43 only met the criteria for user studies. Santos et al. found a varying effect
size from the data studied, however the effect size averaged to 0.56 which is moderate in
relation to student performance in the classroom. This effect finding is significant
because it correlated multiple AR studies and their effects on the students and found a
positive association with this technology. Furthermore, Santos et al. (2014) preformed a
qualitative analysis on designs of ARLEs, calling for standard designs for increased
testability of effect sizes on student performance. Concluding their findings, Santos, et al.
42

(2014) described AR as having three inherent advantages: real world annotation,
contextual visualization, and vision haptic visualization. These advantages are critical to
the development of ARLEs because they are grounded in several theories including
multimedia learning, experiential learning, and animate vision theory. Each of these
theories can be grounded in AR because AR allows the participants to lean via
multimedia, hands on, or animated technology, as well as visuals. Santos et al.’s (2017)
meta-study is potentially critical to the future design and standardisation of AR
technology in education.
The following table (Table 1) summarizes research and contributions from major
studies on AR technology in several contexts.

Table 1.
Researcher’s contribution to Augmented Reality
Citation
(Santos et al., 2014)

Research Focus
AR Learning Experiences

(Chang, Morreale &
Medicherla, 2010)
(Coffin, Bostandjiev, Ford &
Hollerer, 2010)
(Dede, 1996)

AR and education

(Jee, Lim, Youn & Lee, 2011)

AR, E-learning, and AR programming

(Billinghurst & Duenser, 2012)

AR and education

(Billinghurst, 2002)

AR and education

(Shelton, 2002)

AR and education

(Wu, Lee, Chang, Liang, 2013)

AR’s barriers to education

(Lee, 2012)

AR and education

(Kaufmann, 2003)

AR and educational group work

(Kesim & Ozarslan, 2012)

AR and education

(Chen, Liu, Cheng & Huang,
2017)

AR and education

AR, education, distance learning
Technology’s effect on learning

Contribution to Field
Meta-analysis
and
design for future AR
studies
AR’s applications in
educational contexts
AR’s effects on
distance e-learning
AR’s effects on distance
education
Creation of AR
authoring tools
Classroom applications
for AR
AR’s potential for
classroom applications
AR classroom
applications
Current opportunities for
AR in education
Training with AR in
educational contexts
Group collaboration
using AR
Current/future state of
AR
Suggestions for future
research on AR

43

(Cheng & Tsai, 2013)

AR and education

(Milgram & Kishino, 1994)

Virtual Reality technology

(Schmid, Bernard, Borokhovski,
Tamim, Abrami, Wade, Surkes
& Lowerison, 2009)
(Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski,
Abrami & Schmid, 2011)

Technology’s effect on educational
achievement in higher education

(Klopfer & Sheldon, 2010)

AR and educational challenges

(Bower, Howe, McCredie,
Robinson & Grover, 2014)
(Bacca, Baldiris, Fabregat &
Graf, 2014)
(Mann & Michael, 2013)
(Martín-Gutiérrez, Fabiani,
Benesova, Meneses, & Mora,
2015)
(Squire and Klopfer, 2007)

AR and potential in education

(Livingston et al., 2011)

AR and military applications

(Papagiannis, 2014)

AR, education, and curriculum

(Wolk, 2003)

AR and education

(Billinghurst, Weghorst &
Furness III, 1998)
(Squire & Jan, 2007)

AR technology

(Schrier, 2005)

Technology’s effect on Education

AR and education
AR and society
AR and higher education

AR and Education

AR, education, and environmental
science
AR, education, and history

Suggestions for future
research on AR
Classification of virtual
reality displays
A meta-analysis on
educational achievement
in relation to technology
Second-order metaanalysis on technology
in education
Challenged for AR in
educational contexts
AR’s potential for usage
in education
Review of AR in
educational contexts
AR and wearable media
AR collaborative
learning
Student-created AR
focusing on science
fields
AR advanced warfighter
applications and spatial
awareness
AR transitions in
technological usage
Utilising AR for Social
Studies
AR collaborative
networks
Placing AR within
environmental sciences
Utilizing historical
evidence with AR and
educational methods

Summary
This review identifies several areas that require further elaboration and study: specific
educational technologies and their effects on student to teacher engagement, and critical
development of an extensive and comprehensive pedagogy for educational technology
that creates an efficient pathway for educators and further research on the effectiveness of
learner engagement while using AR. Students are able to access information to a degree
unparalleled in the previous decades, and educators have the essential task of

44

modernizing their educational methodologies (Dede, 2005), pedagogy, technology, and
curriculum to match.
Today’s teachers have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their
students. This does not mean changing the meaning of what is important, or of good
thinking skills. But it does mean going faster, less step-by step, more in parallel, with
more random access, among other things (Prensky, 2001 p. 4).
Dede (2005) called for modern teaching methods for Neomillennials, and argued that
present methods do not consider changes in technology. Furthermore, he argued that AR
and virtual worlds along with wireless technology and immersion can bring a depth to
education that is required when teaching Neomillennial students (Dede, 2005). The
methods we use to teach students now may not be as effective as they once were.
Furthermore Books (2010) stated that “The basic components in the relationship between
students and teachers include; individual features, information exchange between the
parties and external influences to the relationship.” Prensky (2001) also stated, “Our
students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our
educational system was designed to teach” (p. 1). Thus, the educators and curricula
designers must change with them. This should not be a radical change but a more gradual
evolution; as technology progresses so should teachers progress their methods.
Research Questions
Based upon the literature review and the existing research, the following research
questions were used to guide the study:
1. Will augmented reality historical environments increase engagement with the
professor, among students, and with historical content?
2. What historical and augmented reality topics will students or faculty identify as
increasing learner engagement?
3. Will Augmented Reality increase the acquisition of knowledge in history
classrooms?
4. What barriers will students and educators report on using Augmented Reality in
the classroom?
45

5. What recommendations will participants provide on using augmented reality in the
history classroom?
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
The main goal of the research was to identify educational learning preferences and
historical teaching methods using AR that increase learner interest in the university
history classroom. A mixed-methods approach was used in the study to generate the
strongest evidence for any findings; this involved observing and administering a survey
during the instructor-led history class and an experimental AR curriculum based off the
instructor’s chosen topic and focus. During this AR curriculum, a survey was provided,
field notes taken, feedback sheets provided, and the researcher asked participants to be
involved in a semi-structured interview. The proposed research identified specific
educational preferences that were reported to support learner engagement with content,
teacher-student engagement, and identify AR curriculum preferences that students use
concurrently to increase interest. The identified learning preferences would be used to
improve the study and the use of AR technology in education. In addition, the proposed
methods were designed to gather the strongest evidence to examine the proposed research
questions. Semi-structured interviews, a survey, and field notes were used to obtain the
strongest data for the research study (Babbie, 2005; Burgess, 1991; Creswell, 1998, 2015;
Crocker, Besterman-Dahan, Himmelgreen, Castañeda, Gwede, & Kumar, 2014; Hu,
2009; Meyers, Guarino & Gamst, 2005; Newton, 2010; Norman, 2010; Sanjek, 1990;
Savin-Baden & Major, 2013; Webb,1991).
The university where the study took place was in the province of British Columbia,
located on unceded lands of the Secwepemc nation. This research project was conducted
by one researcher who had been a student at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) for
eight years. The student population at TRU is multi-national and multi-cultural, and
included a variety of age ranges, genders, faiths, and demographic backgrounds
representing the full multi-pluralism of Canada. However, the history class where the
study took place was not representative of TRU’s multiculturalism. The primary
buildings where history courses are taught are older units that have only been partially
46

updated with technologies such as SMART boards, and that experience frequent
technological problems.
Participants experienced a pre-test, post-test design trial. Thus, the class was tested
before and after the AR experience. When designing the research, the teacher effect had
to be taken into consideration. The teacher effect is when a teacher has a measurable
effect on the student’s grade or ability in class based on the teacher’s ability, engagement
with students, and effectiveness of teaching (Nye, Konstantopoulos & Hedges, 2004).
The results could vary depending on the teacher’s level of engagement with the students.
Teachers who already have a high level of student engagement during the study could
potentially see a negligible increase in engagement based on the already high
engagement. Both the teacher and the students were permitted to withdraw from the
study at any time, and participation was not mandatory. The students did not receive
marks, nor monetary compensation, and the study findings were not applied to course
marks.
Participants
A target group of 19 students in a third-year undergraduate history class and their
professor at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) participated in the study. There were
eleven females and 7 males with one respondent not reporting gender. The average age
of the participants was 20.8 and the standard deviation was 2.2 (see Table 2 for
demographic data). The study topic for the AR experience was chosen by the history
professor and the AR curriculum was tailored to match. The instructor and students were
interviewed after the AR curriculum was completed. The students were in their second,
third and fourth years and had been studying in certificate, diploma, and degree programs
at TRU. Participants were also sought out that took part in the initial surveys, however,
students who did not participate in the survey were not excluded from the study.
Although the chosen class did not provide an equal number of male, female, and othergendered participants, gender, ethnicity, and demographic factors were considered as
they may have influenced the experiment.

47

Table 2.
Participant Demographic Data
Participant

Program

Major

Year

1

BA

History

4

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

BA
BA
BA
BA
Unclassified
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA
BA

History
History
None
History
None
History
History
English
History
History
History
History
History
English

3
3
3
2
N/A
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3

15
16
17
18

BA
BA
BA
BA

History
None
History
English
History

19

BA

History

Courses Taken

Age

Gender

NA

24

2

8
5
8
7
5
N/A
7
3
6
10
7
5
6

23
20
20
20
28
20
22
20
20
20
20
19
20

2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
N/A

3
4
3
3

8
6
12
9

20
21
19
19

2
1
2
1

3

12

20

2

Note. Participant data taken from the pre-test survey which asked for demographics. For
gender, 1 donates male and 2 donates female.

Comparison of Augmented Reality Applications
Several AR applications were compared based on their viability to the experiment
(see Table 3). The comparison variables were based upon the direct needs of the
experiment and the researcher. The following criteria were required from the application:
free to download from Google Play, relatable to education, user friendly with an interface
that is easy to understand; compatible with popular devices such as iPhone7, Samsung,
and Motorola; able to create immersive environments (i.e., using a smart phones camera
48

to overlay information rather than looking at a map interface), and able to create
customized content specific to the needs of the chosen topic. All applications were tested
on a Moto X Play 2015 with Android 6.0.1. Out of the top 20 applications for AR
(Corpuz, 2016) five were chosen based on additional selection criteria. The following
applications were disqualified: games such as Pokémon GO, Ingress, Mybrana, or AR
Invaders; brand promotion applications such as Hyundai Virtual Guide; apps unrelated to
education such as Star Walk, Theodolite, Sunwalk, Inkhunter, Google Translate,
Anatomy 4D, Snapshop, and Virtualtee; and applications intended for the use children
such as Quiver and Crayola Live Color. Due to budgetary restriction, apps with a
download fee were also prohibited. The five apps chosen for comparison from these
criteria were: Aurasma, Wikitude, Field Trip, Blippar, and Layar. Following the
selection stage, the five passing applications were compared on the primary variables.
Wikitude, from the developer Wikitude GmbH (2017), is an application available
from the Google and Apple Stores (Wikitude GmbH, 2017). This application was
advertised as augmenting the local area around the user based on entered search terms.
The application was free, and it allowed the creation of immersive content. However,
custom content was not allowed. The application linked with Wikipedia and was
education-based with a user-friendly interface and was compatible with major devices
(Wikitude GmbH, 2017). However, based upon the application’s limited search terms and
the inability to create custom content, this application was disqualified.
Field Trip from Niantic, Inc. (2017) is an educational application available from
the Google and Apple Stores (Niantic, Inc., 2017). It was advertised as allowing students
and interested users the ability to learn about global content without traveling to the area.
The interface was based on Google Maps and the search terms linked with Wikipedia,
online reviews, and photos (Niantic Inc., 2017). Unfortunately, the user interface was
cluttered and was frequently non-responsive to input. Furthermore, custom content was
not available and local content was frequently incorrect; therefore, this app was
disqualified.
Blippar from Blippar Entertainment (2017) is a live camera overlay application
available from Google Play and Apple Stores (Blippar Entertainment, 2017). The
49

application included a short tutorial. The app integrated with the test phone’s camera
function by creating an overlay of search terms and definitions, with links to further
information, when the camera is directed at objects, pictures, or faces. However, creating
custom content was not supported, and the researcher had trouble getting the application
to recognize simple geometric shapes or easily identifiable objects and brands such as an
HP laptop or a Sony PlayStation controller. The device created an immersive
environment using its overlay technology integrated with the smart phone camera and
could potentially be related to education depending on the user’s interests (Blippar
Entertainment, 2017). However, based upon the inability to create custom content and
recognize simple pictures, the application was disqualified.
Layar from Layar B.V. (2017) is a reality-augmenting application available from
the Google and Apple stores (Layar B.V., 2017). This application was advertised as being
able to supply information on everyday objects with a simple one-tap user interface
(Layar B.V., 2017). This supported its user friendliness in addition to its compatibility
with major devices and its ability to create an immersive environment. However, custom
content creation is not allowed. In addition, the only reality augmentation the application
allows is on objects with Layar’s branding or a QR code, thereby severely limiting its
versatility. Based upon these variables, the application was disqualified.
Aurasma, from the developer Aurasma Entertainment (2017), is a free application
downloadable from Google Play and Apple stores (Aurasma Entertainment, 2017). It is
advertised as a reality-augmenting application with an educational focus that is
specifically for teachers, including the allowance of custom content creation via Aurasma
Studios, a secondary app (Aurasma Entertainment, 2017). Furthermore, the application
can be locked by the user, limiting it to use with a single group of AR photo triggers. This
feature was deemed useful for a teacher. Furthermore, the application allows for the
creation of immersive environments using the phone’s camera with triggers, videos, text,
and music, and is compatible with major devices (Aurasma Entertainment, 2017).
Aurasma also uses a very user-friendly interface. Based upon the variables and the
allowance of custom content, Aurasma was chosen as the application for the study.

50

Table 3.
Comparison of Augmented Reality Applications
Application
Aurasma
Free
Yes
Create custom
Yes
content
App Related to
Yes
Education
User-friendly
Yes
Immersive
Yes
Environment
Compatibility
with popular
Yes
devices
Operating
Android 4.0
System
+
required
iOS 8 +
Restrictions to
Screen size or
None
orientation

Wikitude
Yes
No

Field Trip
Yes
No

Blippar
Yes
No

Layar
Yes
No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes
Yes

No
No

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Android
4.1 +
iOS 8 +

Android
2.3 +
iOS 8 +

None

None

Android 4.3 Android
+
4.3 +
iOS 9+
iOS 8+
None

None

Note. All system information gathered from Google Play (2017), Corpuz (2016) and the
iTunes App Store (2017)

Description of Technology Used
The technology used was AR, which has been previously described. The application
used for the AR phase is described in further detail below. The application was picked
based on the learning goals of increased interaction and engagement.
Aurasma was an AR application that was free to download from Google Play and the
App Store (Aurasma Entertainment (2017). The app used photo triggers: specific images
that triggered the app to create 3D images. The app could have also used Global
Positioning System (GPS) co-ordinates to make an AR image in a certain location
without a photo trigger. The student or participant had to install the app on their phones,
search for the account they wanted to follow as this account had the images that the
51

student would later see, and then the app worked immediately. To use the application,
the student held up the phone to an area previously marked with an identifying
characteristic that was told to them beforehand, and the application handled the rest. WiFi or data was required, but the usage was quite small, on the order of a dozen megabytes
per session. Furthermore, battery life for the phone was only marginally less than
standard usage.
The app incorporated still images, 3D images, text, video, and audio, thus making it a
fully immersive multimedia app; the only caveat being the work required to set up the
photo triggers both physically and in the app. In this experiment, the researcher had
spent five days researching and gathering the images, evidence, and text, two full days
creating the images and text in Aurasma studio, and two days placing them around the
campus. Another day was used to test each photo trigger. The photo triggers were
subsequently tested on each day leading up to the study in order to potentially replace,
fix, or bug test the paths the participants were to take.
The images used were taken directly from poster boards around campus to be used as
photo triggers. They were augmented with colored strips of paper delineating groups one
to five. The texts were image screenshots from historical documents and contemporary
journal articles, and the images used for the characters were Creative Commons licenced.
The character text was created solely by the researcher and tailored to reflect speech
patterns of the selected era. The characters would reveal certain information that the
historical and conventional texts would not, thus providing a reason for the participants to
interact with them (see Appendix G for character description). Furthermore, to add to the
difficulty, the characters had a fifty-fifty chance to reveal the information. Unfortunately,
the participant could simply repeat the conversation to get the desired answer, but
subsequent inquiry determined that this did not occur.
Method
Here is where you should describe the kind of research you have done. This is
important so that the readers can clearly understand the kind of contributions to
knowledge that it is possible for your research to make. It does not appear to be an
experiment, but more of a design trial.
52

The research proceeded in two phases. The preparation before the first phase
consisted of meeting with the instructor to determine the topic and focus of the
curriculum. After these had been determined, the researcher created the AR curriculum.
The first phase was then implemented. Phase one consisted of the instructor teaching
while the researcher acted as a passive observer and teaching assistant if needed, and
taking field notes (Burgess, 1991; Creswell, 1998, 2008; Sanjek, 1990; Webb, 1991).
One survey was given during this phase (see Appendix A for Survey Questions). These
questions were adapted from Walton, Hamilton, Johnson, and Arnouse (2010) which
focused on demographics, technology acumen and questions on engagement.
The second phase consisted of the AR curriculum and involved the researcher giving
instructions, observing the students outside, and taking field notes. The investigator
posed a focus question to the students before they left the classroom, on which they
collected data and attempted to find an answer. The focus question was “Who killed
Richard III’s nephews?” It was chosen in order to provide the students with a topic that
has proven controversial in history (Pollard, 1991). To control for potential coercion,
which could influence the research, no marks were given, and the curriculum was not
treated as course work. This phase consisted of Aurasma photo triggers, photographic
markers that trigger the application to function, (see Figure 8), placed throughout the
university for the participants to search out and take notes on. This mystery hunt
occurred with prearranged maps that were created by the researcher for each of the
groups in the style of a treasure hunt. The participants were randomly assigned to groups
of no more than five students each. The participants collaborated between themselves
and other teams, obtaining a fuller picture of the historical topic (see Appendix H for
description of historical topic). This session lasted for approximately one hour. A
second survey was given during this phase when the participants returned to the
classroom (see Appendix B for survey questions). These questions were chosen based
upon a focus on AR and its potential effects on student engagement with questions
adapted from Walton, Hamilton, Johnson, and Arnouse (2010). The total time allotted
for the second phase was one hour and 45 minutes. After the information had been
obtained, the participants had 45 minutes to collaborate in their groups to answer the
researcher’s question to the best of their ability, using the evidence provided.
53

Figure 8. This photo was used for the experiment as a photo trigger (Abellan, 2016).

Procedure
The study period occurred over two consecutive days for a total class time of
approximately two hours and 30 minutes. The professor arrived, and the study began.
The professor is a very strong educator and his classes are very popular; reviews posted
on RateMyProfessor (2017) use terms such as nice, helpful, and caring in relation to his
educational ability. He greeted the students and the researcher, and stated that the
researcher would be doing a study and that the normal class had been moved to another
day. The professor invited the researcher to introduce themselves and the researcher
explained the type of research that they were doing. They explained that they were trying
to make history an interesting subject again and that they would be using experimental
technology coupled with a historical topic to do so. The researcher asked if the students
were familiar with Pokémon GO! Several of them were, and the researcher explained
they would be using similar style of technology to present information in a new way.

54

Upon hearing this, the students seemed interested. The researcher then provided consent
forms, which the entire class voluntarily signed.
Phase one: the professor’s class. November 7, 2016. The classroom was arranged in
a series of long tables with four students per table; there were 19 students in the room,
including one who arrived at the end of the class.
The professor asked if the students had done the required reading of a chapter in their
text book. The chapter was entitled “Historians in the Digital Age.” He asked the
students what evidence there was to support the evolution of historians in the digital age
and tasked them with discussing the question in groups for about five minutes to generate
answers. It appeared that many of the students had not read the chapter, and the
beginning of the discussion was rather quiet. After a few moments, the conversation
picked up and they started to focus on the task at hand with apparent enthusiasm.
The professor sat at the centre table and proceeded to ask questions concerning the
chapter. He switched to a personal story for a few moments and it appeared to keep the
students’ interest. He asked for examples of historians’ craft in the digital age and one
student responded that “historical information may not be believable” and that “the 10th
century had different approaches to history.” The students discussed among themselves
again and the conversation appeared to die for a minute until the professor spoke up with
another story to pique interest in the topic. Here the researcher made a note describing
the possible relation of personal, allegorical, and relational stories which were slightly off
the topic to keep student interest. During this time, the researcher also made observations
on the student’s engagement with the professor and with each other. The subject of
student/student engagement is expanded upon in the individual interviews in which
students mentioned that the study afforded more time with students with whom they had
little interaction.
The discussion lasted for 45 minutes, after which the researcher was invited to set up
the AR phase for the next class. The researcher presented a short PowerPoint, and
distributed a handout explaining how the activity would happen, and how to use the
Aurasma application. Many students set up the app without issue, although the
researcher has noted areas where instructions could be streamlined or expanded upon in
potential future iterations. Several students had issues with the setup of the app;
55

however, these issues were minor and quickly solved. The test Aura, which was the
application’s name for an AR trigger, was placed up on the screen and immediately
students crowded around to test the application’s functionality. The researcher observed
that they appeared interested in the Aura, as the volume of the crowd increased, and
laugher was heard as well. The class ended a few minutes later. The researcher noted
that the students seemed engaged and enthusiastic about the next class.
Phase two: Researchers’ observations. November 14, 2016. The next class was
scheduled for November 8th, however, due to the US federal election and the lack of
participants on the selected day, the study was rescheduled. The following Monday,
November 14th, the number of participants had dropped from 19 to 15 students. Prior to
the class where the experiment was conducted, the researcher went through the activity
with a small test group that was unrelated to the study.
The test students had been assigned to five groups consisting of three students each.
Each test group was assigned a starting point and a set of photo triggers. The groups
were asked the focus question “Who killed the Princes in the Tower?” The students were
then placed into groups and immediately sent out. The professor did not participate in
phase two as the researcher desired that the AR component be separate from the initial
examination. This would remove the effect of an extremely strong and competent
educator, allowing for AR’s effects to be studied alone.
Group 1. Group 1 consisted of three students. They started on the first floor in a
different building from the one their class usually met in. The researcher followed them,
but did not talk, letting the students talk amongst themselves. Upon reaching the first
photo trigger and starting the app, the researcher noted that two of the students seemed
impressed, remarking “Whoa.” They played with it for a few moments, tapping the
screen in various places. It was obvious that they were having difficulty interacting with
the program. They turned to the researcher who told them that they had to ask the
question by tapping the questions displayed on the screen. The next photo trigger was a
simple poster with the group’s number underneath. The students quietly talked amongst
themselves on how to take notes, settling on a screenshot. Having taken note of this, the
researcher left the building to observe another group.

56

Group 2. The group consisted of three students. They had started in a different
building from the one their class usually met in, and different from building the first
group used. They immediately approached the researcher, and remarked that they had
similar difficulties with character interaction. Upon further questioning, they were the
same difficulties. When asked how the study had proceeded thus far, one group member
remarked that “It’s fun” and a second group member said, “The App is junk.” The
researcher noted that the second group member was using Facebook on their phone and
not participating in the activity, except to follow the others around. This behaviour could
have been the result of the application difficulties. The other two group members took
photographs of the evidence individually and when they interacted with each other, their
conversation was on personal, social topics, and not the class or experiment.
Group 3. This group was not observed during the experiment.
Group 4. The fourth group experienced difficulties with the character interaction.
They did not know how to ask the character questions. Furthermore, they also showed
minimal individual interaction. They each took pictures separately. They remarked that
“This is really interesting” and that “This is better than class”. The two previous groups
also appeared happy to escape the classroom and when queried on this they, replied with
similar responses. The group returned to the class, and two of the three participants
joined, discussed, and wrote down the evidence. However, when asked, they stated that
they would have liked more time to examine the evidence required rather than the few
minutes they had, saying that it “Took longer than I thought”.
Group 5. Group five was observed when the researcher returned to class. They had
completed the study quickly and when asked if they had managed to talk with the
characters, they remarked that they had no idea they could interact with them. However,
they scanned the evidence they collected and arrived at the same answer as group four,
and noted that more time would have been useful. The researcher noted that given the
overall difficulty experienced in interacting with the characters, a more thorough tutorial
on character interaction would potentially be useful in future tests.

57

Methods and Data Collection
Surveys. The surveys were conducted in a pre-test, post-test methodology with 19
students having participated in the pre-test and 15 having participated in the post-test.
(see Table 2 for participant data and see Appendix A and B for pre-test and post-test
surveys). The surveys directly examined the six research questions, although the pre-test
collected demographic data and historical content, while the post-test focused on AR.
The first survey was conducted after Phase One implementation and the second survey
was conducted during Phase Two, after the students returned from the mystery hunt.
This survey was provided to each student in the selected history classroom. The first
survey consisted of 66 questions, and the responses were based on a 5-point Likert scale
from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The second survey consisted of 47
questions on the same 5-point scale. The survey questions were generated from the
research questions and literature review. The surveys were coded and divided into their
pre-test, post-test categories and the data transcribed into an Excel spreadsheet program.
After verification that the data was accurate, the data was loaded into SPSS (Version 23).
Each survey was separated into its own case, similar questions were linked together, and
an analysis was performed using SPSS.
Several demographic factors were examined, including gender, age, and ethnicity.
There were several questions pertaining to student-to-student and student-to-teacher
engagement. The strengths of a survey using a 5-point Likert scale were that it allowed
for an examination of multiple teaching methods for AR and it determined the learning
preferences of students. Furthermore, the technology’s prevalence of use, the educator’s
and students’ experience with the technology, the technology’s effectiveness, and general
engagement of the students were examined with open-ended questions.
An independent t-test compares the means of two independent groups in order to
determine if there is statistical evidence that the associated populations were significantly
different. The t-test is a parametric test. Mann-Whitney U test is the non-parametric
statistical test equivalent to the independent t-test.

58

When comparing two groups of five-point Likert data, the results are generally the
same when using a parametric statistic (i.e., t-test) or a non-parametric statistic (MannWhitney-Wilcoxon). These patterns hold true for sample sizes of 10, 30, and 200 per
group. The t-test is typically used because it has more statistical power (the ability of a
statistical test to detect a significant difference when there actually is one) (de Winter, &
Dodou, 2010). An examination of normality (skewness and kurtosis less than 3.00)
found that only three survey items were not normally distributed. However, the t-test is
robust for violations of normality (Joanes & Gill, 1998). Following de Winter and Dodou
(2010), the t-test was used to examine changes over time.
For completeness, the Mann-Whitney U test was also run to determine if there was a
change in the results. These analyses were very similar to the t-test results, although there
were two items that were found not significant on the Mann-Whitney U but significant on
the independent t-test.
Interviews. The study used semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews (see
Appendices C and D for interview questions). The questions were designed to elicit
responses from the participants on the six themes: augmented reality and historical
content, augmented reality and engagement with students and instructor, augmented
reality and knowledge acquisition, barriers to augmented reality, and participant feedback
on augmented reality. The researcher interviewed the participants in the weeks following
the study. Each interview lasted about 15 to 20 minutes, and the interviews were
digitally recorded with the participants’ permission, transcribed, and coded by the
researcher to discover thematic patterns across the interviews. It is worth noting that the
responses provided by the participants were much shorter than anticipated and asking for
elaboration did not always generate additional responses. Out of 19 participants who
agreed to the study, and the 15 who participated, four students and the instructor agreed
to interviews with the researcher. Finally, of the interviewees, two were male and two
were female.
The questions asked of the instructor were similar in nature to those asked of the
participants, but were tailored towards curriculum, the overall course, history education,
and potential suggestions. It is worth noting that the feedback forms were far more
59

detailed in certain areas than the interviews. The strength of the research methodology
was that students and the educator could further expand on the surveys and their
experiences, giving voice to the results since the survey only allowed a 5-point Likert
scale response. An additional strength was the ability to illuminate areas in need of
address in future research.
Field notes. Field notes were taken during the first and second phases of the study to
note how the students reacted to instructor-led teaching and the AR curriculum. This
consisted of notes taken in the classroom and on the campus. The criteria of focus for the
field notes were taken from the research questions and included engagement with
students, content, and the instructor. The observations of participant engagement were
based on body language and facial expressions, participant engagement with other
participants, and difficulties with the topic and the application (for examples of these
field notes, refer to Appendix F). The participants were quoted on their views during
Phase Two. The field notes were prepared and reordered into the relevant themes. The
notes were expanded on while the study was ongoing in order to provide a detailed and
coherent description of the observed events. This revealed emergent themes that meshed
well with the chosen themes. Finally, the notes were analyzed along with the interviews
and surveys for thematic data in order to provide answers to the research questions. The
notes were also studied for participant suggestions, comments, and behaviour regarding
the study.
Participant feedback forms. Feedback forms were circulated after the AR phase two
was completed (see Appendix E for the feedback form). This feedback form consisted of
three questions designed to elicit information on how history education could be
improved, how AR curricula could be implemented in the classroom, and suggestions for
the study itself. 15 feedback forms were circulated and retrieved. The feedback reported
was divided into two broad categories, positive and negative, based on the responses
garnered from the feedback forms, and was further sub-divided in those categories into
constructive criticism and destructive criticism. There were also neutral comments that
were gathered and assessed for thematic data.

60

Chapter 4
Results
These sections present the themes identified through thematic analysis of the mixedmethods research data. This data includes observations, interviews, and feedback as well
as the statistical data collected and analysed through SPSS.
Data Sources
There were three sets of qualitative data sources and one quantitative source: student
interviews and feedback forms, the instructor interview response, and the researcher’s
field notes during phases one and two. Both sets of interviews were a research strength
because the students could elaborate on thoughts and feelings from the study: they were
able to respond to specific questions regarding the research and create an understanding
of areas that were useful to the study. The professor responded to specific questions with
his own teaching expertise and offered his thoughts and constructive feedback.
In addition to the interviews, participant feedback on areas of AR barriers allowed for
continued elaboration. The participant feedback forms were extremely useful because
they allowed the students to describe areas that needed improvement or elimination.
Furthermore, they suggested alternatives to specific themes, topics and technologies used
and proffered new areas for the researcher to study.
Additionally, written observations during both phases of the study allowed the
researcher to examine student reactions to the experiment. The researcher used the field
notes to expand upon observed behaviours and noted areas such as collaboration that
provided detailed data.
Finally, the surveys incorporated quantitative data for the research study and revealed
statistical significance and correlation on the research themes. These sources of data are
strong because they were used to determine and triangulate areas that were consistent in
responses and those that vary.

61

Research Themes
This section will present answers to the research questions asked in the study (see the
Literature Review for the list of Research Questions). The research questions are
organized into common themes that may include more that one research question.
1. Augmented Reality and Historical Content, Research Questions 1-2.
2. Augmented Reality and Engagement with Students and Professor, Research
Question 1.
3. Augmented Reality and Knowledge Acquisition, Research Question 3.
4. Barriers to Augmented Reality, Research Question 4.
5. Participant Feedback on Augmented Reality, Research Question 5.
Augmented Reality and Historical Content: Research Questions 1-2
AR and historical content was assessed in the context of an extremely engaging
professor (M = 4.26 out of 5.00 on engagement with instructor from student survey).
Since the professor’s engagement with the students was very high, and the semester was
nearly finished, an increase in engagement with content or the teacher was not expected.
Survey results on historical content. There were five survey items (items 16, 25, 26,
27, 28) designed to assess the effect of the AR experience on increasing engagement with
the historical content. An independent t-test was used to examine any possible changes
in engagement from the pre-test to the post-test (see Table 4). A Wilcoxon sign ranked
test was also used and produced the same results. All t-test analyses found that there
were no statistically significant changes in engagement with content from the pre-test to
the post-test.

62

Table 4.
Survey Results on Augmented Reality and Engagement with Content
Item #
The historical content was
engaging (16)
History teaching methods are
relevant (25)
The history topic was appropriate
(26)
The history topic was challenging
(27)
The history topic was biased (28)

Pre-Test
M (SD)
3.95 (0.52)

Post-Test
t
M (SD)
3.57 (0.85) 1.46

p

ἠ

0.160

0.071

3.89 (0.73)

3.73 (1.03) 0.53

0.600

0.003

4.53 (0.51)

4.20 (0.77) 1.48

0.250

0.048

3.84 (0.77)

3.47 (0.99) 1.29

0.221

0.051

2.37 (0.60)

2.60 (0.99) -0.85

0.403

0.025

Note. Scores ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Survey results on teaching methods. There were five survey items (items 19, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24) designed to assess the effect of the AR experience on teaching methods. An
independent t-test was used to examine any possible changes in engagement from the
pre-test to the post-test. All t-test analyses, except for items 20 and 22, (see Table 5)
found that there were no statistically significant changes in engagement with content
from the pre-test to the post-test. Items 20 and 22 decreased at the post-test.

63

Table 5.
Augmented Reality and Methods
Factor (Item #)
The teacher used critical inquiry to
teach history (19)
A textbook was the primary source
(20)
PowerPoint was the primary source
(21)
Critical inquiry was useful (22)
Primary sources were presented
through text or pictures (23)
Secondary sources were presented
through text or pictures (24)

t

p

ἠ

Pre-Test
M (SD)
4.00 (0.82)

Post-Test
M (SD)
3.33 (1.40)

1.64

0.120 0.064

2.50 0(.86)

1.67 (0.72)

3.00

0.006 0.227

2.21 (1.13)

1.93 (1.22)

0.68

0.500 0.022

3.84 0(.90)
4.00 (0.94)

3.00 (1.00)
4.13 (0.74)

2.58
-.46

0.015 0.161
0.660 0.003

4.34 (0.82)

4.07 (0.46)

1.12

0.271 0.035

Note. Scores ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Based on field observations, the participants appeared engaged, but this could have
been due to the AR technology or student to student cooperation and social behaviour.
Furthermore, based upon the interviews with four participants, there was no increase in
engagement with historical content. Unlike the survey results which found no change in
engagement with content, there were individual exceptions with the interviewees; (e.g.,
Participant A stated, “Having to do it again helped me understand and engage more” and
Participant B said “No” when asked if AR increased their engagement because of
technical issues with the application). Participant D remarked that if there was a more
hands-on approach, they would have been more engaged.
The professor indicated that it appeared to be very hard to say if there was an increase
in engagement with the historical content. He remarked that “We had already read Tey.”
He further stated that “I’m not sure…other than the students having a fun
experience…I’m not sure it specifically increased historical engagement.” Thus, perhaps
a new topic would have been more suitable with the students than one with which they
were already familiar.

64

Among the students interviewed, a variety of topics were reported as preferential and
engaging. This included the World Wars, Canadian history, mystery themes, historical
architecture, and historical household tools. Furthermore, a visual mystery was indicated
as preferential, if changes were made to include presenting unique mysteries to each
group in class. The professor described that many students taking history opted for the
more dramatic courses such as the World Wars or the Gulag. He stated that the
department offered more seats in those classes, but waitlists were still prevalent. He
noted that topics such as sex and gender hold relatively small class sizes in relation. The
mystery themed hunt appeared to engage the participants immediately during the setup
and implementation. They appeared to enjoy gathering clues toward an eventual
understanding and revealing the answer to the mystery. Additionally, during the
interviews, the students expressed interest in the provided topic and suggested that the
mystery hunt be broken into sequential pieces; a single mystery for each group in the
classroom along with a think-pair-share activity afterwards. The class professor
suggested that the students were already familiar with the topic and that perhaps a new
topic would be more beneficial. Participant C indicated that having multiple concurrent
mysteries, unique per group, may have increased engagement. They also suggested using
AR as icebreakers.
The study results indicate that the more dramatic historical themes such as the World
Wars and those that held an enduring or solvable mystery would be courses that sparked
the most interest and have the potential for increased engagement for history courses and
for adaptation to use with AR. Thus, a new AR topic may do the same if the class found
them entertaining. However, one interviewee reported that historical architecture and
tools would be of interest rather than the more dramatic courses. AR already has a venue
in highlighting historical buildings, as seen in popular media, and this could be adapted
for the classroom or campus (Yuen, Yaoyuneyong & Johnson, 2011). All participants
and the instructor expressed interest in seeing the AR study conducted in a high school or
elementary setting, suggesting that the novelty and techniques used would promote more
student interest. The students and instructor expressed interest in AR and a further
interest in related topics, but a preference for mystery and dramatic topics was shown.

65

Augmented Reality and Engagement with Students and Professor: Research
Question 1
AR and engagement with students and instructor was assessed in the context of an
tremendously engaging professor (M = 4.26 out of 5.00 on engagement with instructor)
and already engaged students (M = 4.37 out of 5.00) who were over three quarters into
the semester.
Survey Results on AR engagement with students and professor. There were seven
survey items (items 16, 17, 36, 40, 42, 45, 46) designed to examine if the AR experience
affected student to student engagement and student to teacher engagement. Independent
t-test analyses found that five items did not change from the pre-test to the post-test (see
Table 6 and Figure 10). Item 18 “I was engaged with my professor” showed a decrease
during the post-test, while 17 “I was engaged with fellow students” remained high during
both tests. However, the survey item that asked, “I was engaged with my professor during
class time” decreased significantly at the post-test. t(31)= 4.76, p<.000. Additionally,
item 40 that asked, “The relationship with my instructor is important” decreased slightly
during the post-test. t(31) 2.56, p<.015. Demographic questions were assessed for a
statistical impact on responses, but no statistically significant results emerged. Scores
ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

66

Table 6.
Student and Teacher Engagement
Factor (Item #)
I was engaged with fellow
students (17)
I was engaged with my
professor (18)
Instructor methods made
working with fellow students’
easier (45)
Instructor teaching increased
engagement with students (46)
A good relationship with my
teacher enhanced learning (36)
The relationship with the
instructor is important (40)
The relationship with the
instructor is important (42)

Pre-Test
M (SD)
4.37 (0.50)

Post-Test
M (SD)
4.29 (0.47)

t

p

ἠ

0.48

0.631

0.003

4.26 (0.56)

2.71(1.27)

4.28

0.001

0.408

4.68 (0.58)

4.26 (0.63)

1.54

0.140

0.063

4.37 (0.58)

4.36 (0.63)

1.54

0.140

0.059

4.47 (0.69)

3.86 (0.66)

1.09

0.290

0.038

4.42 (0.61)

4.14 (0.77)

2.56

0.015

0.161

4.42 (0.61)

4.14 (0.80)

1.20

0.254

0.048

Student and Teacher Engagement
5
4.5

4.37

4.29

4.26

4

Mean (SD)

3.5
3

2.71

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Pre-Test M (SD)
I was engaged with fellow students 17

Post-Test M (SD)
I was engaged with my professor 18

Figure 9. This graph shows the survey items 17, and 18.
67

The researcher’s observations indicated that the students appeared engaged during
both study phases. The researcher observed that they were engaged with the class
professor and responded to his questions with insight and relevant answers. At the end of
phase one when the researcher was setting up the students’ applications, they appeared
engaged with him. They asked questions and expressed interest in the way the
application presented information. During phase two, the students individually collected
data from the photo triggers but talked amongst themselves and remained in their selected
groups. Additionally, they appeared to have little engagement with the researcher, only
asking him questions when the app failed to work properly. Once they returned to the
classroom, several groups collaborated within and across groups, studying the evidence
provided to ascertain an answer to the key question.
Unlike the findings from the survey results, which found no changes in student to
student engagement, some interviewees indicated that they saw the exercise favourably in
that it allowed them to engage with their classmates. Participant A stated that “We had to
actually kind of talk and figure things out.” They also reported that they had to interact
with students with whom they would not normally interact with. Participant C spoke well
of the student to student collaboration, stating “Yes those are students that I never worked
with. They sat on the other side of the long tables. I actually got to talk with them, going
around with them, helping them learn the content.” It was also noted that the topic was
more hands on and interactive than the previous in-class exercises. Participant B stated
that the AR phase was “More interactive than a lecture.” Participant D noted that AR
increased their collaboration with other students, but it was also dependant on the goal
that was provided.
The professor agreed that the students worked more with each other and saw AR as a
chance to get out of the classroom and work on an activity besides a lecture. He also
likened it to having a guest lecturer in that it was a change of routine and a different way
to study history: “It was like a bonding experience for the students.” This bonding
experience during the study was potentially a positive indication of student to student
engagement.

68

The interviewees expressed that they were not engaged with the researcher during the
AR phase (phase two). They noted that the researcher was not directly supervising them
or interacting with them. The professor said that it likely did not increase his engagement
with the students as “It was already a fair way in to the semester.” He also stated that it
was hard to tell if the AR increased the student engagement with the instructor. The
reason behind the lack of professor involvement with phase two was that the researcher
wanted to study the effects of AR on engagement with content separately.
The interview results indicate that some students were engaged with their fellow
students because of the method used in the mystery hunt. Although they did not always
collaboratively work on the topic outside the classroom, they did engage with one
another, talking and bonding. Furthermore, in the classroom, they worked together to
study the evidence provided and the students all agreed that they had more interaction
than from a usual classroom experience. They were also observed looking at the photo
triggers collectively in their groups and pointing out “This is really interesting” (Group
4). Furthermore, they indicated that they had to work together to solve the mystery and
analyze the data, often helping each other with the historical content and technological
problems that arose.
The survey results showed that they were engaged during phase one, but their
engagement decreased during the AR curriculum. Students were engaged with the
professor during phase one as he was a very strong educator while students were not
engaged with him or the researcher during the AR phase of the study; the survey results
show a marked decrease in engagement during this time. Participant D offered a
potential solution, stating that “It has potential to…If we go back and discuse[ss] [the
content] more. If [the researcher] followed them around. [Augmented Reality] could do
that if you were our teacher.”
Augmented Reality and Knowledge Acquisition: Research Question 3
AR, according to the observations, did not appear to increase the acquisition of
knowledge about the topic. However, some participants stated they acquired knowledge
based on the evidence provided by the photo triggers. The interviewees indicated that
they had no increase in their acquisition of knowledge, although Participant A expressed
69

satisfaction in going over the content a second time. Participant D expressed frustration,
stating “Did I learn it or already know? Potentially a valuable learning tool. Tried again,
and it was information that we haven’t seen before.” No interviewee expressed an
increase in knowledge by way of the AR experiment, but they did state that it was a new
way of acquiring the same information that they would have gotten from a lecture.
Furthermore, the professor stated that it was very hard to tell if the students were using
knowledge they had had previously, or additional new information.
Based upon the results, in this single study, AR did not increase the student acquisition
of knowledge, but it did reinforce existing information. Potentially using a topic that has
not been explored by the students would provide a new answer to the research question
along with a larger sample size of participants in a new study.
Barriers to Augmented Reality: Research Question 4
The study revealed several barriers to using AR in a classroom, including time to set
up, difficulty of incorporation into the curriculum, difficulty of the topic, methods used in
the topic, and the experimental nature of the technology. Another barrier participants
indicated was the amount of content and the length of time needed to set up the photo
triggers around the campus (Participant A and B). A third barrier to AR was not having
an educator to keep the groups on task during the investigation when they were out of the
classroom. Participant D thought that it may be difficult for some professors who to
prevent students from using their phones in class to adapt to using AR.
Technology experiences related to AR. There were 18 survey items (items 47-64)
(see Figure 11) designed to examine the student’s experience with common technology
including AR and virtual reality. A frequency test determined the percentages of
participants that used each corresponding technology. The participant’s experiences with
technology included texting, Facebook, and Moodle rated highly (> 4) while their
experience with AR was low (< 2). Their inexperience with AR could account for the
decreased engagement with content in several survey items (see Tables 4, 5, and 6).

70

Participant Technology Experiences

Technology

0

0.5

VoiceThread
TitianPad
ePortfolios
Virtual Reality Headset
Virtual Reality
AR
Blackboard
Skype
Blogs
FaceTime
Wikis
Twiter
Haptics
Chat (Online)
Facebook
YouTube
Moodle
SMS (Texting)

1

1.5

Level of Experience (M)
2
2.5
3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1.05
1.05
1.11
1.42
1.42
1.95
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.84
2.84
3.11
3.36
3.89
4.11
4.21
4.26

4.53

Figure 10. Participant Experience with Technology. The scores ranged from 1 (None) to
5 (Extensive) and are measured in mean.

The professor indicated that the students needed a better understanding of how AR
works:
I would recommend having the students do a trial run before doing it. Even set up
mini assignment to make things work. It’s not the key element, it’s more about
understanding the complexities of the past and what goes into the past, how you get the
[historical] past into the AR game.
This recommendation was in line with the frequency data (see Figure 10) and the
interviews with participants. They were familiar with Pokémon GO but few had played
before the study and most were not familiar with the technology behind it.

71

Participant Feedback on Augmented Reality: Research Question 5
Interview feedback. Feedback retrieved from the interviews varied in the scope of
their responses. Participant A stated that more explanation of the app and the topic, as
well as a specific mention of the characters, and a different method of utilising the photo
triggers would have helped increase their engagement. They also stated that “It can’t be
as interesting as a seminar.” Participant B indicated that less technological problems and
more varied topics would have increased their engagement and provided “augmented
reality more legitimacy”. Participant C mentioned that “younger children may benefit
from the technology, such as those in high school or university as they are already using
technology”. Participant D said that icebreakers along with the gradual introduction of
content would help reduce confusion. They also said that they were “Used to talking
with group members,” and having a discussion afterwards might make them share more
information.
Class feedback. When provided with feedback forms and when queried on the first
question improving history education, the participants suggested more open discussions
in addition to hands-on work and excursions. Historical movies and novels, multimedia
presentations and Aurasma (the AR app) for younger students, such as kindergarten and
high school, were also requested.
The second question asked participants how AR could be used in classrooms: Several
responses included helpful suggestions. Suggestions, included that AR should not
replace primary teaching, it was difficult and time consuming and, a better application
and introductory summary would improve AR usage as a secondary teaching method.
The final question asked participants for suggestions on the study itself. Responses
varied but included answers similar to those of the previous question: A better
application along with dedicated spaces for photo triggers, better explanation of the task,
purpose, and technology. Participants also suggested adding more time for field work
and post discussions. The increased timeframe was widely desired and would allow for
further discussion. This, along with a more detailed timeframe and set goals, may help
students engage with the topic to a greater degree. They also stated that the AR app
should be used with a younger audience and geared more towards younger learners with

72

suitable historical topics. Finally, they said that creating a task-based mystery that has a
step-by-step sequence would also be a valuable change.
Summary
This section presents a summary of findings on research questions and data.
Augmented reality and historical content. The post-test survey showed no
statistically significant change, although the interviews with the participants indicated an
even split between agreements and disagreements when asked whether the AR
environment increased their engagement. The interviewees reported that the more
dramatic topics such as the World Wars, were topics of greater interest and that topics
such as sex and gender were of less interest. The AR curricula that the participants
indicated would be engaging were mystery themed, specifically, content that students
could work together in a group to solve or arrive at an answer based on the evidence.
Augmented reality and increased engagement with students and professor. The
survey results indicated that students did not experience increased co-operative work
relationships with each other during either phase, and that the AR study did not increase
their engagement and collaboration with their fellow classmates. However, the interview
participants indicated that they engaged more with their peers during phase two than they
did during phase one. Furthermore, they talked with students that they normally had no
interaction with on a regular basis. The students were engaged with the instructor during
phase one, but this decreased sharply during phase two. During phase two the
participants, according to survey data, indicated that they felt less engaged with the
instructor.
Augmented reality and knowledge acquisition. The interviewees and the survey
results indicated that there was no increase in the knowledge acquired in history
classrooms during the AR phase (phase two). The participants indicated that the
historical research methods they learned in class were different than the skills required
for the AR phase.
Barriers to augmented reality. The barriers to using AR in the classroom that the
interviewees indicated included that the technology was not effective enough given its
current development. The primary problems the participants reported were the
73

application crashing, frozen photo triggers, and confusion over how to interact with the
characters. They also reported that the AR could best be implemented at the elementary
and high school levels and more time to set up the AR was needed.
Participant feedback on augmented reality. The participants provided detailed
feedback on the AR used in the classroom and suggestions on how it could be improved
and deployed. They also provided information on how history instruction could be
improved and implemented differently in the future. The results from the feedback forms
were valuable in charting a path to improve the AR experience.

74

Chapter 5
Discussion and Conclusions
Augmented Reality and Engagement with Historical Content
The participants, during both phases of the study, appeared engaged with the content
as per the interviews and feedback. The engagement in the first phase can be attributed
to the strong teaching methods of the class professor, and the number of topics chosen for
the course content. Furthermore, he employed anecdotal stories and face-to-face seating
methods along with discussion and inquiry to maintain engagement with the content.
During the second phase (AR), the students’ engagement with content did not change
and was not statistically significant as seen in the surveys. However, according to the
interviews and feedback, several participants expressed engagement with the AR topic.
The topic, while already familiar to the students, was presented in a different way than
the historical teaching methods the students were used to receiving. The first display of
the AR technology resulted in the students crowding around the researcher attempting to
use the application.
Several students expressed uncertainty on the AR experience as it was an unfamiliar
topic to them. During the interviews, historical content and several historical topics were
identified that could, if adapted for AR, be used in an AR curriculum. These topics are
more dramatic and include World Wars 1 and 2. However, these topics may lack
Canadian history, which the interviewees reported as less dramatic. Canadian history
does have an exceptional opportunity for use in AR, and this could increase the student
interest in the topic. The use of AR emerges as an important area in the study of Canadian
history.
Survey items. The survey items found no significant differences from the post-test to
the pre-test surveys. A potential explanation for the lack of significant engagement with
the content could be student familiarity with the content chosen for the study and the
exemplary teaching methods of the professor. Participant C was the only interviewee
who expressed a desire to learn more about the topic. The other participants expressed
interest in the topic but no desire to learn more. Thus, a new topic with historical content
identified from the interviews could potentially show different results on engagement.
75

Additional participant experience with AR technology may have resulted in an increase
in engagement. The professor’s suggestion of a slower introduction, or tutorial could
prove useful in building interest and engagement in the future.
Augmented Reality and Engagement with Students and Professor
Survey results on student to student engagement showed that there was no statistical
change on engagement. This was interesting because it showed that the students were
already engaged with each other during class time and this did not change during the AR
phase. However, student to student engagement increased according to the interviews and
feedback, and the participants expressed that they had interacted with unfamiliar
classmates in a way that was not demonstrated during a seminar interaction.
Survey results on student to teacher engagement showed that students average ratings
on two items (17 and18) decreased during phase two (AR). The professor was not
participating in the second phase of the study because the researcher wished to test AR`s
effects on student engagement with content and student to student engagement on their
own without the effects on an exceptional teacher. Item 18 showed a decrease during the
post-test. This was interesting because it showed the effect of a strong educator and the
effect of a student to teacher relationship on engagement. Student-to-teacher engagement
could have increased with strong teacher direction during the second phase, a tutorial and
increased time to analyse the historical data. Student to teacher engagement was strong
during the first phase due to the professor’s teaching ability. However, it decreased
during the post-test phase (AR). This could have been because the study took place well
into the semester and the students were very used to the professor’s teaching style and the
topics. The new presentation of a familiar topic with a guest lecturer could have been a
cause of the decrease in student to teacher engagement. There is potential for a longer
duration test to see if, over several days, student to student engagement increases further
with continued use of AR technology. There is also a potential for an increase in
engagement if an educator maintains an active role during the mystery hunt, guiding
students and answering questions, and solidifying their goals with a designated time limit.
Augmented Reality and Knowledge Acquisition
Data to answer this topic was collected by interviewing four students. The four
students interviewed, reported that they did not gain appreciable historical content
76

knowledge from the AR experience. Because they were already familiar with the topic
they reported that the historical content information was not new.
Barriers to Augmented Reality
Data to answer this question included surveys on technology experience and
interviews. One of the barriers that the participants noted during their interviews was that
the AR technology was not effective because of the application crashing, freezing and not
recognizing photo triggers. AR technology is still in its infancy with regards to mobile
phones. Over time, the processing power and abilities of mobile phones will improve.
However, testing multiple applications to determine the best one would be worthwhile.
Furthermore, the technological problems reported during phase two can be fixed in two
ways: First with improvements to the application and a wider range of test phones, and
secondly with improvements to the technology itself over time. Now that AR has been
introduced to the mainstream by Pokémon GO, improvements to the technology could
potentially be much quicker and the AR application more robust. Additionally, the
characters the students had difficulty interacting with could be voiced or animated, and
the curriculum could include a short tutorial on how to interact, since the researcher noted
that all participants had issues with interaction.
Technology experience related to AR. The students’ rated their experience with AR
as low in the survey (M = 1.95) which represents ‘Very Little’. The student’s limited
experience with AR technology could have been a barrier during the second phase of the
study. This might have been resolved with explicit, step-by-step instructions on how to
use the application. The difficulties stemming from this, including program crashes, and
freezing, could have acted as another barrier during the experiment. Furthermore, the
students were only experienced with social media technology and one interviewee had
little experience with smartphone technology and found working with it difficult. The
professor’s suggestion of starting small and introducing students to AR via short tutorials
would be useful in increasing their familiarity with application and fixing errors:
I would recommend having the students do a trial run before doing it. Even set up
mini assignment to make things work. Its not the key element, its more about

77

understanding the complexities of the past and what goes into the past, how you get the
[historical] past into the AR game.
AR can be used at lower levels of education such as elementary school which was
supported by the participant interviews and feedback. Furthermore, a lower level
educational level with a more relevant topic could potentially increase the student’s
engagement with the topic, among students, and the instructor. The participants expressed
that the long time needed to set up the technology was also an impediment: a streamlined
setup process could reduce this time. Additionally, the multiple and varied smart devices
used by the participants in the study may have had an impact on their experience and
contributed to a technological barrier. The participant’s smart devices, while meeting the
technical requirements of the application (see Table 3), may not have worked correctly,
causing the instances of freezing or crashing that were reported. It was observed that
many participants had different types of devices and the requirements of the AR
application were vague (Aurasma Entertainment, 2017). As has been noted, the
application crashes or freezes and created technical issues and the participant became
disengaged with the historical content. Therefore, a potential solution for this is to
deploy a single type of smart device that would be confirmed to work flawlessly via
testing, with Aurasma or another AR application.
Participant Feedback on Augmented Reality
Subsequent analysis of the observation notes revealed several areas where the
application and implementation of both the study and AR could be improved. Positive
remarks and indications of success also arose from the observations. These will aid future
research in terms of revising the program, as well as in designing AR curricula. The
researcher’s observations and interviews indicated that participants in the AR phase
appeared to collaborate with each other to a greater degree than they would have in a
normal classroom lecture. Furthermore, despite the technological malfunctions, the
participants who continued to work with the application provided useful feedback on the
photo triggers, characters, and locations where they were used.
The researcher noted that there were several immediate problems in implementing the
AR phase of the study. The students were unfamiliar with the researcher and only
78

approached them when the application presented problems. Instances occurred during
setup where some of the participants were unable to sign up for the Aurasma app and had
to be aided by the researcher, taking time away from other tasks. Additionally, it was
noted that the participants had trouble understanding the goals and requirements of the
study and that they seemed already familiar with the historical content.
The most critical barriers included: (a) a lack of time for the participants to discuss the
evidence, with some groups returning far too late to do so; (b) difficulties with the photo
triggers, and finally (c) lack of interaction with the researcher-created historical
characters. Many of the participants did not respond to calls for interviews and were
absent for class in phase two. Many of these problems can be addressed by implementing
changes such as increased experience, tutorials from an educator, and advances in AR
technology. Despite the barriers, the findings in this study could still be instrumental in
creating an improved version of the AR that caters to the needs of both the educator and
students.
Discussion
All four groups that were observed appeared to have a generally favourable opinion of
the experiment, remarking that it was “better than class” (Group 4 Participant) and “more
interesting than a PowerPoint” (Group 4 Participant). Furthermore, based on the
observations, the students seemed happy to interact with their peers while walking and
reviewing evidence, and to explore individually when collecting evidence. The
observations revealed several interesting areas that the participants noted as either
engaging or needing improvement. Participants noted that the AR application itself was
interesting, chiefly in its use of teaching history. They further indicated that the
researcher-created characters had depth, and the information they relayed was relevant to
the topic. The participants also suggested recommendations for the AR study.
Recommendations
The participants suggested that AR be used with an elementary school classroom. This
would allow for the assessment of potential increases in collaborative engagement factors
and could increase the acquisition of knowledge when teaching relevant history

79

methodology as shown by the effectiveness of previous research (da Rocha Seixas,
Gomes, & de Melo, 2016; Schrier, 2005; Squire & Jan, 2007).
Additionally, the researcher recommends implementing the improvements suggested
by the observations, participant feedback, and the interview participants. These include,
but are not limited to: better application functionality, improved photo trigger placement
and sizing, detailed instructions on the application and topic, hands-on tutorials, and
simpler characters with voices for increased interactivity. Also suggested are increased
and better-defined time limits, multiple topics, the educator being present with the
students during the AR phase, and a younger audience, made up of elementary school
students with an unfamiliar topic. Also implemented could be: an in-game achievement
system, software-based achievement badges, and a way for students to assess themselves
based on other students, as these tools have been shown to increase engagement (Sailer,
Hense, Mayr, & Mandl, 2017) and are based upon the four engagement concepts
described by Stott and Neustaedter (2013). Finally, the creation of recall questions for
the students at the end of the traditional and AR phases to assess the potential increase in
knowledge and whether AR has a positive or negative effect could prove beneficial.
The researcher recommends that a new mobile application be specifically developed
for the classroom and tailored to the needs of students and the professor, including ease
of use, reliability, and modularity. As expressed by the participants and the class
professor, AR has potential to be useful in education if used in the proper circumstances
with an engaging topic.
Finally, the study repeats the calls made by Egan (1979), Egan and Judson (2009),
Dewy (1879), Seixas (1999), and Freire (1970/2005) to modernize the curriculum based
upon the student needs and society of the modern era. Doing so has the potential to open
a new era of education that will meet and exceed the needs of students for years to come.
Implications
The practical implications of this AR study shows what to do, what not to do, and
what practitioners could do to use and enhance AR.
AR could be used in a context where students are not familiar with the topic and the
AR content should be a digital overlay enhancing the users experience rather than
80

supplanting it with non-related images. Furthermore, the application should be bug tested
to stand up to the rigors of multiple users. This implies that the student will have a
tutorial or a method of learning the application, and clear goals beforehand. Finally, the
application content should be made to be intuitive and as uncluttered as possible to allow
for easy of use.
The implications for practitioners are several. AR can be used in education to teach in
a different way that students may not be used to in the classroom. AR may impart more
pressure, time, and difficulty on the teacher when they are presented with a new way of
creating a curriculum which could influence them to return to their tried and true
methods. AR might not provide an increased engagement factor. Finally, AR can be
unfamiliar to the students and the teacher and may not present any new gains for teaching
when the current methods are already displaying positive results. AR can only provide
another method of education that some students may respond favourably to in certain
circumstances as shown by this study.
Conclusions
Student engagement with content did not increase during either phase of the study.
However, historical topics were identified that could potentially be more engaging and
preferential for students. These topics included more dramatic areas of study such as the
World Wars and the Cold War. Topics seen as less dramatic were deemphasized due to
student disinterest, although they should have a place in an AR curriculum. Canadian
history does have exceptional opportunities for use in AR, and these opportunities could
increase student interest in the topic.
According to the survey results, overall student to student engagement did not increase
during the AR phase of the study. However, during the interviews, feedback and
observations, the participants expressed that their collaboration did increase outside of the
classroom during the AR phase. This increase in collaboration could be related to the
gamified aspect of the AR experience (da Rocha Seixas, Gomes, & de Melo, 2016). The
findings from the data, subsequent theming, and analysis, showed there was a potential to
incorporate AR into the education system. This AR experience could be explored for the
benefit of modern students.

81

Limitations
The limitations of the research included a small sample size which totalled only 19
participants. There were technical issues related to the AR application which may have
affected the results. Only four participants responded to calls for interviews as the study
took place near the end of the semester when students are most busy. Furthermore, it
must be considered that this was a study with a small sample and so the findings should
only be generalized to similar circumstances. This study had mixed technological success
because the AR was not used to the best potential as the participants were already
working with familiar content.
Furthermore, the study provided an index into unrelated digital materials used as
photo-triggers and did not immerse the students with a digital annotated overlay. This
limitation could be addressed in future research with real world annotation and
immersion implementations of augmented reality.
Future research
Future research can potentially create an improved AR curriculum using the findings
from this study, which included, recommendations from the participants. Also, the best
practices from current research on AR could be incorporated along with this research to
further enhance student learning. Adding AR tutorials to preface the AR content,
involving the professor directly, and new topics for the students could improve the
student AR educational experience.
This new AR curriculum could be developed and deployed in a university history
classroom, or elementary general classroom for short periods of time. Less than three
hours in individual lessons to examine effects on learner interest and engagement along
with the continued feasibility of using AR in education. Furthermore, outdoor AR
activities could also continue to be studied, such as those based at heritage sites,
museums, or location-based games on campus.
The areas that participants noted as needing improvement were: Instructions for
participants, character interaction, participant collaboration, photo triggers/GPS,
theme/topic and content, and the AR application. Based on the observations, the
researcher concluded that several immediate and simple improvements could be
82

implemented. First, the character interaction could either be demonstrated visually with a
demonstration character or explained via PowerPoint. Moreover, the characters could be
voiced to raise student interest and engagement.
Additionally, the photo triggers could be elaborated upon, and a new method of taking
notes could be used in lieu of screenshots (see Figure 8). A medium and area can be
chosen where the photo-triggers will not be removed by persons not participating in the
class or study. The evidence text could be made larger to facilitate ease of reading. The
time students are given to complete the experiment, generate a solution, and find an
answer could be extended.
On the technological side, the AR application could be improved by further
development or superseded by a different AR application that included enhanced
functionality. In case that the AR application could not be used across various devices,
the participant groups could decide among themselves how best to take notes. For
example, participants could pick one student whose phone or device was working and
rely on them to use the photo-triggers while the others take notes.
The surveys could be revised based on the results of the current study. Additions to the
survey could also ask for student experience with video games and the social media
applications Instagram and Snapchat. Further survey questions could include:
(1) Does augmented reality increase your motivation with historical content?
(2) What achievements in history classes do you see determine as preferential and
engaging?
(3) Will augmented reality enhance your engagement?
(4) What learning outcomes have the most effect on your participation and
engagement when using AR?
A revised survey with the addition of these items would be extremely useful for other
researchers in AR.
Gaps in the literature include: modern technological curriculum and methods that are
related to the way students learn in a digital world. Furthermore, increasing student to
83

teacher reliance and interface with technology for successful education and studying the
student shift towards increasing connectivity and demand for instant information.
Additionally, the impact of Generation Z or Cybrids, on the above areas and effective
teaching methods tailored to their learning preferences (Orange, 2016).
Finally, there is potential for a larger study with an increased sample size, multiple
topics, applications, and smart devices to study results regarding the use of AR using the
AR design methodology as shown by the AR framework created by Santos et al. (2014).

84

References
Abellan, J. (2016). Historia Universal, Historia de España. Retrieved from:
https://historiamedinasiyasa.blogspot.ca/
Açikalin M. (2010). Exemplary social studies teachers’ use of computer-supported
instruction in the classroom. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 9(4), 66-82.
AI Open Letter - Future of Life Institute. (2015). Future of Life Institute. Retrieved from:
https://futureoflife.org/ai-open-letter
Aoki, T. (1986/1991) Teaching as in-dwelling between two curriculum worlds. In T.
Aoki, W. Pinar, R.L. Irwin, Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted.
T. Aoki, pp. 159-165. New York, NY: Routledge.
Aurasma Entertainment (2017). Aurasma (Version 3.5.3) [Mobile application software].
Retrieved from:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aurasma.aurasma&hl=en
Aurasma Entertainment (2017). Aurasma (Version 5.1.2) [Mobile application software].
Retrieved from: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/aurasma/id432526396?mt=8
Babbie, E.R. (2005). The Basics of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S. (2014). Augmented reality trends in
education: a systematic review of research and applications. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133.
Bassendowski, S. L., & Petrucka, P. (2013). Are 20th-century methods of teaching
applicable in the 21st century? British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4),
665–667.
Bennett, S. J., Maton, K. A. & Kervin, L. K. (2008). The 'digital natives' debate: A
critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (5),
775-786.

85

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014).
A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education:
From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26,
87–12.
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim R. M. (2014). An exploration of
bias in meta-analysis: The case of technology integration research in higher
education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26, 183–209.
Billinghurst, M., Weghorst & S., Furness III, T. (1998). Shared space: An augmented
reality approach for computer supported collaborative work. Virtual Reality, 3(1),
25-36.
Billinghurst, M., & Duenser, A. (2012). Augmented Reality in the Classroom. Computer.
45(7) 56-63.
Billinghurst, M. (2002). Augmented Reality in Education. New Horizons for
Learning, 12, 3-5
Blessinger, P., & Wankel, C. (2012). Innovative Approaches in Higher Education: An
Introduction to Using Immersive Interfaces. In Increasing Student Engagement and
Retention Using Immersive Interfaces: Virtual Worlds, Gaming, and Simulation (pp.
3-14). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Blippar Entertainment (2017). Blippar (Version 2.1.2) [Mobile application software].
Retrieved from:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.blippar.ar.android&hl=en
Blippar Entertainment (2017). Blippar (Version 2.1.2) [Mobile application software].
Retrieved from: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/blippar/id410604563?mt=8
Boswell, J. (1950). Boswell’s London Journal, ed. Frederick A. Pottle.
Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented
Reality in education–cases, places and potentials. Educational Media
International, 51(1), 1-15.

86

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2006). History 12: integrated Resource
Package. Retrieved from the British Columbia Ministry of Education website:
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade12/teach/pdfs/curriculum/socialstudies/2006history12.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2016). BC’s New Curriculum. Retrieved from
the British Columbia Ministry of Education website:
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/teach/curriculum
Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2017). Individualising gamification: An investigation of the
impact of learning styles and personality traits on the efficacy of gamification
using a prediction market. Computers and Education, 106, 43-55.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.11.009.
Burgess, R. G. (1991). Keeping field notes. In RG Burgess (Ed.) Field research: A
sourcebook and field manual (pp. 191-194). London: Routledge.
Cabero, J., & Barroso, J. (2016). The educational possibilities of Augmented
Reality. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 5(1), 44.
Cameron, J., Hurd, G., Schwarzenegger, A., Hamilton, L., & Biehn, M. (2016). The
Terminator (1984). IMDb. Retrieved from:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/?ref_=nv_sr_4. http://www.voletic.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/terminator_vision_02.jpg
Cassella, D., (2009, November 03). What is augmented reality (AR): Augmented reality
defined, iPhone augmented reality apps and games and more. Digital Trends.
Retrieved from: http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/what-is-augmented-realityiphone-apps-games-flash-yelp-android-ar-software-and-more/
Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer selfefficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported
education. Computers and Education, 60(1), 148-158.
Chang, G., Morreale, P., & Medicherla, P. (2010, March). Applications of augmented
reality systems in education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher
87

Education International Conference (pp. 1380-1385). Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Chai, C.-S., Koh, J. H-L., & Tsai, C.C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical
content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 31–51.
Chen, P., Liu, X., Cheng, W., & Huang, R. (2017). A review of using augmented reality
in education from 2011 to 2016. In Innovations in Smart Learning (pp. 13-18).
Springer: Singapore.
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Affordances of augmented reality in science
learning: Suggestions for future research. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 22(4), 449-462.
Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology
applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational
Research Review, 7(3), 198-215.
Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Traditions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. Educational research. Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. NJ, United States, Pearson, 2015.
Crocker, T., Besterman-Dahan, K., Himmelgreen, D., Castañeda, H., Gwede, C. K., &
Kumar, N., (2014). Use of semi-structured interviews to explore competing
demands in a prostate cancer prevention intervention clinical Trial (PCPICT). The
Qualitative Report, 19(95), 1-16. Retrieved from:
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/crocker95.pdf
Coffin, C., Bostandjiev, S., Ford, J., & Hollerer, T. (2010, June). Enhancing classroom
and distance learning through augmented reality. In EdMedia: World Conference
on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1140-1147). Association for the
Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective:
A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 77(1), 113-143.
88

Corpuz, J. (2016, July 12). Best Augmented Reality Apps. TomsGuide. Retrieved from:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/657-best-augmented-realityapps.html
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder Jr, G. H. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in
school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher
relationships. Sociology of Education, 77(1), 60-81.
Cynthia M. Chambers (2003). As Canadian as possible under the circumstances: a view
of contemporary curriculum discourses in Canada. In W.F Pinar (Ed.).
International Handbook of Curriculum Research, (pp. 221-252), Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
da Rocha Seixas, L., Gomes, A. S., & de Melo Filho, I. J. (2016). Effectiveness of
gamification in the engagement of students. Computers in Human Behavior, 58,
48-63.
Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and
distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2) 4-36.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles. Educause Quarterly, 28(1),
7-12.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design
elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th
international academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media
environments (pp. 9-15). ACM.
Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, (54), 77-80. Retrieved from:
http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.html
de Winter, J.C.F. & Dodou, D. (2010). Five-point Likert items: t test versus MannWhitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 15(11), 116.
Dice/ EA Dice. (2014). Battlefield 4. PC Video game. Stockholm, Sweden.
http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Battlefield-4-3.jpg
89

Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Schrier, K. (2007). “Neomillennial” learning styles propagated
by wireless handheld devices. In M. Lytras & A. Naeve (Eds.), Ubiquitous and
pervasive knowledge and learning management: Semantics, social networking
and new media to their full potential. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc. 35-66
Retrieved from: http://gseacademic.harvard.edu/~hdul/Dieterle-Dede-SchrierNLS-2006.pdf
Doll, W. (1993). Curriculum possibilities in a “post” future. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 8(4), 297-292
Echeverría, A., Gil, F., & Nussbaum, M. (2016). Classroom augmented reality games: A
model for the creation of immersive collaborative games in the classroom.
Retrieved from: http://dcc.puc.cl/system/files/MN43-Classroom+ augmented+
games. pdf
Egan, K. (1978) What is Curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1) 66–7.
Egan, K. (1979) Educational development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Egan, K., & Judson, G. (2009). Values and imagination in teaching: With a special focus
on social studies. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(2), 126-140.
Fredricks J. A., Filsecker M., & Lawson M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and
adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues.
Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4.
Freire, P. (1970/2005). Chapter 2. In Pedagogy of the oppressed, (pp. 71-86). London,
Continuum Publishing Group.
Gapp, R., & Fisher, R. (2012). Undergraduate management students’ perceptions of what
makes a successful virtual group. Education & Training, 54(2/3), 167-179.
Goodin, L.M. (2012). Incorporating technology into the instruction of social studies.
(Unpublished Masters dissertation). Saint Xavier University, Chicago, Illinois.
Google Play Store (2017). Alphabet Inc, Google. Retrieved from:
https://play.google.com/store
90

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.
Hansen, M. (2008). Versatile, immersive, creative and dynamic virtual 3-d healthcare
learning environments: a review of the literature. Journal of Medical Internet
Research, 10(3) 26.
Hammady, R., Ma, M., & Temple, N. (2016, September). Augmented reality and
gamification in heritage museums. In Marsh, M. Ma, M. F. Oliveira, J. Baalsrud
Hauge, and S. Göbel, (Eds). Joint International Conference on Serious
Games (pp. 181-187). Springer International Publishing.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In Children's needs
III: Development, prevention, and intervention. Bear, G. G., and Minke, K. M.
(Eds). 59-71, National Association of School Psychologists. Washington, DC.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Routledge.
Helsper, E. & Eynon, R. (2009). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British
Educational Research Journal, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/01411920902989227
Hidden curriculum (2014, August 26). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education
reform. Retrieved from: http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum
Hoshi, T., Takahashi, M., Nakatsuma, K., & Shinoda, H. (2009, August). Touchable
holography. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2009 Emerging Technologies (p. 23). ACM
hooks, b., (1994). Engaged pedagogy. In Teaching to transgress: Education as the
practice of freedom, New York, NY: Routledge.
Howell, M., & Prevenier, W. (2001). From reliable sources: An introduction to historical
methods. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hu, J. (2009). Discovering emerging research in a qualitative study of ESL academic
writing. The Qualitative Report, 14(4) 629-664. Retrieved from:
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR14-4/hu.pdf
iTunes App Store (2017). Apple. Retrieved from: https://itunes.apple.com
91

Jardine, D. W. (2013). Time is (Not) Always Running Out. Journal of the American
Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, 9(2).
Joanes, D. N. & Gill, C. A. (1998). Comparing measures of sample skewness and
kurtosis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 47(1): 183–189. doi:10.1111/14679884.00122.
Jonas-Dwyer, D., & Pospisil, R. (2004, July). The millennial effect: Implications for
academic development. In Proceedings of the 2004 annual international
conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of
Australasia (HERDSA) (pp. 356-366).
Jee, H. K., Lim, S., Youn, J. & Lee, J. (2011). Proc. Int’l Conf: An immersive authoring
tool for augmented reality-based r-learning applications. Proceedings of
International Conference on Information Science and Applications (ICISA), 1-5.
Junco, R., & Cole-Avent G. A. (2008). An introduction to technologies commonly used
by college students. New Directions for Student Services, 12(4), 3-17.
Karich, A C., Burns M. K., & Maki K. E. (2014). Updated meta-analysis of learner
control within educational technology. Review of Educational Research, 84(3),
392 –410.
Kaufmann, H. (2003). Collaborative augmented reality in education. Institute of
Software Technology and Interactive Systems, Vienna University of Technology.
Kelly, R. G. (2000). Josephine Tey and others: The case of Richard III", in R. B. Browne,
L. A. Kreiser, Jr. (Eds.) The detective as historian: History and art in historical
crime fiction, 1, Popular Press.
Kesim, M., & Ozarslan, Y. (2012). Augmented reality in education: Current technologies
and the potential for education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47,
297-302.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to
student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

92

Klopfer, E., & Sheldon, J. (2010). Augmenting your own reality: Student authoring of
science‐based augmented reality games. New Directions for Student
Leadership, 128, 85-94.
Kreizer, M. J. (2016, September 16). Why is physical activity and fitness important?
Taking Charge of Your Health & Wellbeing. Retrieved from:
https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/enhance-your-wellbeing/health/physicalactivity-fitness/what-physical-activity-fitness
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE:
Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 35(2), 24-32.
Ladbrook, J., & Prober, E. (2011). Information skills and critical literacy: Where are our
digikids at with online searching and are their teachers helping? Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 105-121.
Layar B.V (2017). Layar (Version 8.5.3) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.layar&hl=en
Layar B.V (2017). Layar (Version 8.5) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from:
https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/layar-augmented-reality/id334404207?mt=8
Lazo, D., May-Raz, E., Golad, O., & Aroshas, D. (2016). Sight (2012). IMDb. Retrieved
from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2433494/
Lee, Y.-H., Waxman. H., Wu, J.-Y., Michko, G., & Lin, G. (2013). Revisit the effect of
teaching and learning with technology. Educational Technology and Society,
16(1), 133–146.
Lee, K. (2012). Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends, 56(2), 13-21.
Lee, H. (2013). 3D holographic technology and its educational potential. TechTrends,
57(4), 34.
Livingston, M. A., Rosenblum, L. J., Brown, D. G., Schmidt, G. S., Julier, S. J., Baillot,
Y., Swan II, J. E., AI, Z., & Maassel, P. (2011). Military applications of
93

augmented reality. In Handbook of augmented reality (pp. 671-706). Springer
New York.
Luckhardt, C. (2014). Teaching historical literacy and making world history relevant in
the online discussion board. The History Teacher Volume, 47(2), 187-196.
Machin, S., McNally, S., & Silva, O. (2007). New Technology in Schools: Is There a
Payoff? The Economic Journal 117(522) 1145-1167. doi: 10.1111/j.14680297.2007.02070.x
Maderer, J. (May, 9, 2016). Artificial intelligence course creates AI teaching assistant:
Students didn’t know their TA was a computer. Georgia Tech. Retrieved from:
www.news.gtech.edu
Mann, S. & Michael, K. (2013). Smart world-social implications of wearable computing
and augmediated reality in every day life. In IEEE symposium on technology and
society, ISTAS13.
Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Fabiani, P., Benesova, W., Meneses, M. D., & Mora, C. E. (2015).
Augmented reality to promote collaborative and autonomous learning in higher
education. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 752-761.
Mayrose, J. (2012). Active learning through the use of virtual environments. American
Journal of Engineering Education, 3(1), 13-18.
McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can
change the world. Penguin.
Meyers, L. S., Guarino, A., & Gamst, G. (2005). Applied multivariate research: Design
and interpretation. Sage Publications.
Milgram, P., Takemura, H., Utsumi, A., & Kishino, F. (1994, October). Augmented
reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. In Telemanipulator
and telepresence technologies, 2351(11) 282-292.
Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality virtual displays. IEICE
Transactions on Information and Systems. 77(12) 1321-1329.

94

Minogue, J., & Jones, M.G. (2006). Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory
modality. Review of Educational Research, 76, 317–348.
Mirriahi, N., Vaid, B.S., & Burns, D.P. (2015). Meeting the challenge of providing
flexible learning opportunities: Considerations for technology adoption amongst
academic staff. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 4(1), 1-16.
Moody, S. (1990). 100 top crime novels selected by the crime writers' association. The
hatchards crime companion. London. Retrieved from:
http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/scoliosis.html
Morgan, E. J. (2013). Virtual Worlds: Integrating Second Life into the History
Classroom. History Teacher, 46(4), 547-559.
Murray J., Giesbrecht N., & Mosonyi, S. (2011). Enquiry, engagement, and elearning:
Three perspectives on a student-centered, online, enquiry-based course. Collected
Essays on Learning and Teaching, 6, 34-40.
Newton, N. (2010). The use of semi-structured interviews in qualitative research:
Strengths and weaknesses. Exploring Qualitative Methods, 1(1), 1-11. Retrieved
from:
http://www.academia.edu/1561689/The_use_of_semistructured_interviews_in_qu
alitative_research_strengths_and_weaknesses
Niantic Inc. (2017). Field Trip (Version 2.09) [mobile application software]. Retrieved
from:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nianticproject.scout&hl=en
Niantic Inc. (2017). Field Trip (Version 1.7.0) [mobile application software]. Retrieved
from: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/field-trip/id567841460?mt=8
Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the laws of statistics.
Advances in Health Science Education, 15(5) 625-632.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237-257.
95

Oblinger, D. G. (2003). Boomers gen-xers millennials. EDUCAUSE review, 500(4), 3747.
Oblinger, D. G. (2004). The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education, 8, 1–18.
Orange, E. (2016). Future of the far far next. Presentation at the Human by Design
Conference, August, New York, New York.
Papagiannis, H. (2014). Working towards defining an aesthetics of augmented reality: A
medium in transition. Convergence, 20(1) 33-40.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. UK: Harvester Press.
Pinar, W. F. (2003). International handbook of curriculum research. W. F. Pinar (Ed.).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2. Do they really think
differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6. Retrieved from:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1074-8121.
Prensky, M. (2014). The world needs a new curriculum. Educational Technology, 54(4),
3-15.
Pollard, A. J. (1991) Richard III and the princes in the tower. Stroud: Sutton.
Putman, J. C. (2013). To boldly go where no history teacher has gone before. History
Teacher, 46(4), 509-529.
Real AR. (n.d.). Retrieved from:
http://m.c.lnkd.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/4/005/027/2f1/16f8237.jpg
Reyerson, K., Mummey, K., & Higdon, J. (2011). Medieval cities of Europe: Click,
tweet, map, and present. History Teacher, 44(3), 353-367.
Roorda, D. L., Helma K.M.Y., Spilt, J. L. & Oort, F.J. (2011). The influence of affective
teacher-student relationships on students' school engagement and achievement: A
meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529.

96

Ross, Charles (1981). Richard III. Eyre Methuen.
Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates:
An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on
psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371-380.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033
Sanjek, R. (1990). A vocabulary for fieldnotes. In R. Sanjek (Ed.) Fieldnotes: The
making of anthropology, (pp. 92-121). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Santos, M. E. C., Chen, A., Taketomi, T., Yamamoto, G., Miyazaki, J., & Kato, H.
(2014). Augmented reality learning experiences: Survey of prototype deign and
evaluation. IEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(1) 38-56.
Savich. C. (2009). Improving critical thinking skills in history. An online Journal for
Teacher Research, 11(2). Retrieved from:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED501311.pdf
Savin-Baden, M. & Major, C.H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to
theory and practice. New York: Routledge.
Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Wade,
C.A., Surkes, M.A, & Lowerison, G. (2009). Technology’s effect on achievement
in higher education: a stage 1 meta-analysis of classroom applications. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education. 21(2) 95-109.
Singh, R. N., & Hurley, D. (2017). The effectiveness of teaching and learning process in
online education as perceived by university faculty and instructional technology
professionals. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 6(1), 65-75.
Schrier, K. L. (2005). Revolutionizing history education: Using augmented reality games
to teach histories (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Department of Comparative Media Studies). Retrieved from:
http://cms.mit.edu/research/theses/KarenSchrier2005.pdf

97

Schrier, K. L. (2006). Student postmortem: reliving the revolution. Retrieved from:
http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/263/student_postmortem_reliving_the.
php?page=1
Sebbowa, D., Ng’ambi, D., & Brown, C. Using Wikis to Teach History Education to 21st
Century Learners: A Hermeneutic Perspective. Critical Studies in Teaching and
Learning 2(2) 24-48.
Seixas, P. (1999). Beyond content and pedagogy: In search of a way to talk about history
education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 317-337.
Seixas, P. (2000). Schweigen! Die kinder! Or, does postmodern history have a place in
the schools? In P. N. Stearns, P. Seixas, & S. Wineburg, (Eds.), Knowing teaching
& learning history: National and international perspectives. New York: New
York University Press.
Seixas, P., & Peck, C. (2004). Teaching historical thinking. In A. Sears & I. Wright
(Eds.), Challenges and prospects for Canadian social studies (pp. 109-117).
Vancouver: Pacific Educational Press.
Shelton, B. E. (2002). Augmented reality and education: Current projects and the
potential for classroom learning. New Horizons for Learning, 9(1). Retrieved
from: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/itls_facpub/96/
Smith, M. K. (1996/2000) Curriculum theory and practice. In The Encyclopaedia of
Informal Education. Retrieved from: www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.html
Smith, M. K. (1999/2011). 'What is praxis?' in The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education.
http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-praxis.html
Statistics Canada. (2017). 2004 Census at school: Engaging students. Catalogue no. 92566-XWE. Ottawa, Ontario. December 01.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/reference/dictionary/index.cfm
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development.
Stott, A., & Neustaedter, C. (2013). Analysis of gamification in education. Surrey, BC,
Canada.
98

Square Enix/Eidos Montreal. (2013). Deus Ex: Human Revolution. PC video game.
Eidos Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from: http://cdn.psfk.com/wp
content/uploads/2011/10/deusex-table2.jpg
Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371 – 413.
Squire, K.D, & Jan, M. (2007). Mad city mystery: Developing scientific argumentation
skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 16(1) 5-29.
Tamim R.M., Bernard, R.M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P.C. & Schmid, R.F. (2011).
What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A
second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational
Research, 81(1), 4-28.
Taylor, H. (2016, January 21). Augmented reality glasses, for the masses, for $2,750.
CNCB. Retrieved from: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/21/augmented-reality
glasses-for-the-masses-for-2750.html
Tey, J. (1951) The Daughter of Time. McMillian.
Ubisoft/Red Storm Entertainment (2012). Tom Clancy’s future soldier. PC video game.
Ubisoft, Rennes, France. Retrieved from:
http://s.progmedia.com/videogamer/media/images/xbox360/ghost_recon_future_s
oldier/screens/ghost_recon_future_soldier_56_605x.jpg
Uricchio, W. (2005). Simulation, history, and computer games. Handbook of computer
game studies, 327, 338.
Vansledright, B. (2004.) What does it mean to think historically and how do you teach it?
Social Education, 68(2), 230-233.
Venkatesh, V., Croteau, A. M., & Rabah, J. (2014, January). Perceptions of effectiveness
of instructional uses of technology in higher education in an era of Web 2.0.
In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference
on IEEE. (pp. 110-119).
99

VentureBeat. (July 22, 2016). Pokémon Go has already passed 30M downloads and
$35M in revenue. Retrieved from: http://venturebeat.com/2016/07/19/sensortower-pokemon-go-has-already-passed-30m-downloads-and-35m-in-revenue
Walton, P., Hamilton, K., Johnson, S., & Arnouse, M. (2010). Why do Aboriginal
students stay or leave Thompson Rivers University? Report prepared for
Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC.
Waring, S. M., & Robinson, K. S. (2010). Developing critical and historical thinking
skills in middle grades social studies. Middle School Journal, 42(1), 22-28.
Watts, R. (2017). Science and public understanding: The role of the historian of
education. History of Education, 46(2), 147-161.
Webb, B. (1991). The art of note-taking. In R.G. Burgess (Ed.) Field research: A
sourcebook and field manual, (pp. 195-199). London: Routledge.
Weber, E. (2007). Globalization, "glocal" development, and teachers' work: A research
agenda. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 279-309.
Wikitude GmbH (2017). Wikitude (Version 8.3.1) [Mobile application software].
Retrieved from:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wikitude&hl=en
Wikitude GmbH (2017). Wikitude (Version 8.3.0) [Mobile application software].
Retrieved from: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/wikitude/id329731243?mt=8
Wilson, E. K., Wright V. H., Inman, C. T., & Matherson L. H. (2011). Retooling the
social studies classroom for the current generation. The Social Studies, 102, 65–
72.
Wilson Bell at Thompson Rivers University - RateMyProfessors.com. (2017).
Ratemyprofessors.com. Retrieved from:
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1775894
Weisbaum, H. (2016, February 10). Students are still saddled with soaring textbook costs,
report says. NBC News. Retrieved from:
100

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/students-are-still-saddledsoaring-textbook-costs-report-says-n516011
Wolk, S. (2003). Teaching for critical literacy in social studies. The Social Studies, 94(3),
101-106.
Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status,
opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers and
Education, 62, 41-49.
Yuen, S., Yaoyuneyong, G., & Johnson, E. (2011). Augmented reality: An overview and
five directions for AR in education. Journal of Educational Technology
Development and Exchange, 4(1), 119-140.
Zhang, L. (2014). A meta-analysis method to advance design of technology-based
learning tool: Combining qualitative and quantitative research to understand
learning in relation to different technology features. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 23, 145–159.

101

Appendix A: Pre-test survey

Phase Survey 1 for Participants
Research Project
File Number: 101322
Approval Date: October 25, 2016
Expiry Date: October 24, 2017
Evolve your History: Learner Engagement in the History Classroom through
Augmented Reality
Principal Investigator: Lachlan Gonzales
Graduate Student
Faculty of Education and Social Work
Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC V2C 0C8
Phone 250-814-3885 Email: Lachlan.Gonzales@Gmail.com
The researcher is looking to use an advanced technology in classrooms called
augmented reality, a computer overlay of information on the real world, to study the
engagement of history students on historical content and other areas and see if augmented
reality increases said engagement. I am pleased that you have consented to be
interviewed. Your feedback is important to help me understand how augmented reality
effects your engagement with history content and the education of history at TRU. This
will be used to potentially create an augmented reality curriculum to increase student
engagement. This survey is designed to elicit information about: engagement with
historical content, student-student relationships, and student-teacher relationships.
Your responses will be kept strictly confidential, no information collected can be
used to identify you and you may opt out at any time without any consequences. The
survey should take about fifteen (15) minutes. If the survey has been completed it will be
102

assumed consent has been given. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact
me at the above number or email.
Thank you for participating.
=============================================================
Demographic Information
1. What program are you enrolled in? ____________________________
2. What year of your program are you in? _____
3. How many history courses have you taken? ____
4. Does your teacher use educational technology (e.g., Power Point or Moodle) _______
5. What is your major? ___________ B) I have none ________
6. Age: ____
7. Do you identify as: First Nations__
8. Gender: Male __

Metis__

Inuit__

Non-Indigenous__

Female __ Other ___

9. Where have you lived most of your life? Rural community__

Urban community__

Both about equally__
10. Can you speak a second language? No__

A bit__ Some__ Fairly well__

Fluently__ (please check)
11. Can you write in a second language?

No___ A bit__ Some__ Fairly well __

Fluently__ (please check)
12. I have access to a computer or tablet in the classroom.

Yes__

13. I have access to the Internet in the classroom.

No___

Yes__

No__

14. What type of learner are you (Check all that apply) Moving___ Building___
Reading___ Writing___

Listening___ Discussing____ Investigating____

Other_____ Not sure ____
15. What experience do you have with technology in the classroom? __ Lots __ Some
___ Little ___ None_____

103

Course Instructor Teaching:
Circle the number that best
describes your experience in
the instructor phase
16. The historical content was
presented in an engaging way
17. I was engaged with fellow
students during class time
18. I was engaged with my
professor during the class time

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

History Engagement:
Circle the number that best
describes your experience in
the instructor phase
19. The teacher used critical
inquiry to teach history
20. A textbook was the
primary source of historical
information
21. PowerPoint was the
primary source of historical
information
22. I found critical inquiry
useful to learn about history
23. Primary sources were
presented through text or
pictures
24. Secondary sources were
presented through text or
pictures
25. History teaching methods
as I have experienced them are
relevant to the modern world

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

104

History Topics:
Circle the number that best
describes your experience in
the instructor led phase
26. The history topic was
appropriate
27. The history topic was
challenging
28. The history topic was
biased
29. The history topic was
relevant to modern context
30. The course historical topic
increased my interest in
history
31. It increased my interest in
the class
32. The historical topic
increased engagement
33. The instructor’s methods
of teaching history are
relevant to the way I learn
36. Historical literacy is
relevant to modern society
37. My interpretation of the
content was relevant to my
learning

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Student-Teacher
Relationship
Circle the number that best
describes your experience
during the instructor led
phase
38. I have a good
relationship with my teacher
39. The instructor’s method
of teaching increased
engagement with my
instructor
40. Having a good
relationship with my teacher
enhanced learning
41. The teacher suggests new
methods of inquiry to
examine history
42. The relationship with the
instructor is important

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

105

Student-Student
Relationships:
Circle the number that best
describes your experience
during the instructor led
phase
43. The instructor’s teaching
methods facilitate increased
co-operative work
relationships with other
students
44. Having a good
relationship with other
students enhanced learning
45. Instructor educational
methods made working with
fellow students’ easier
46. Instructor teaching
methods increased
engagement with fellow
students
47. Working with other
students increases
engagement
48. Instructor teaching
methods assisted in creating
new ideas with fellow
students

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

106

Technology Experience:
Circle your level of experience
using the following

None

Very
Little

Some

A Lot

Extensive

49. Facebook
50. Twitter
51. Blogs
52. Wikis
53. Skype
54. FaceTime
55. Chat (instant messaging)
56. SMS (Texting)
57. Blackboard
58. Moodle
59. Titianpad
60. VoiceThread
61. ePortfolios
62. Virtual Reality
63. YouTube
64. Haptics (e.g., like a cellphone’s
keyboard)
65. Virtual reality (e.g., Oculus Rift)
66. Augmented reality (e.g., Pokémon
GO)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

107

Appendix B: Post-test survey

Phase 2 Survey for Participants
Research Project
File Number: 101322
Approval Date: October 25, 2016
Expiry Date: October 24, 2017
Evolve your History: Learner Engagement in the History Classroom through
Augmented Reality
Principal Investigator: Lachlan Gonzales
Graduate Student
Faculty of Education and Social Work
Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC V2C 0C8
Phone 250-814-3885 Email: Lachlan.Gonzales@Gmail.com
The researcher is looking to use an advanced technology in classrooms called
augmented reality, a computer overlay of information on the real world, to study the
engagement of history students on historical content and other areas and see if augmented
reality increases said engagement. I am pleased that you have consented to be
interviewed. Your feedback is important to help me understand how augmented reality
effects your engagement with history content and the education of history at TRU. This
will be used to potentially create an augmented reality curriculum to increase student
engagement. This survey is designed to elicit information about: engagement with
historical content, student-student relationships, and student-teacher relationships.
Your responses will be kept strictly confidential, no information collected can be
used to identify you and you may opt out at any time without any consequences. The
survey should take about fifteen (15) minutes. If the survey has been completed it will be
assumed consent has been given. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact
me at the above number or email.
Thank you for participating.
108

===============================================================
You will be asked to give your views on the augmented reality phase:
Augmented Reality:
Strongly
Circle the number that
Disagree
best describes your
experience during the
augmented reality phase
1. Have you used
1
augmented reality
2. Augmented reality
1
enhanced my
engagement with the
instructor
3. Augmented
1
reality enhances my
engagement with the
historical content
4. Aurasma was easy
1
to use
5. Augmented
1
reality enhanced my
engagement with fellow
students
6. Augmented
1
Reality can be used to
teach history
7. Augmented reality
1
can be used in education
8. The photo triggers
1
used were easy to work
with
9. Using augmented
1
reality would increase
my learning

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

109

History Engagement:
Strongly
Circle the number that
Disagree
best describes your
experience during the
augmented reality phase
10. The teacher used
1
augmented reality to
teach history
11. A textbook was
1
the primary source of
historical information
12. PowerPoint was
1
the primary source of
historical information
13. I found
1
technology useful to
learn about history
14. Primary sources
1
are presented through
text or pictures
15. Secondary
1
sources are presented
through text or pictures
16. I am motivated to
1
use technology to learn
about history
17. Augmented
1
reality teaching
methods as I have
experienced them are
relevant to the modern
world

Disagree

History Topics: Circle the
number that best
describes your experience
during the augmented
reality phase
18. The history topic
was appropriate
19. The history topic
was challenging
20. The history topic
was biased

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

1

2

1
1

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

2

3

4 5

2

3

4 5

2

3

4 5

2

3

4 5

2

3

4 5

2

3

4 5

2

3

4 5

2

3

4 5

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

110

Augmented Reality &
History: Circle the number
that best describes your
experience during the
augmented reality phase
21. Augmented reality can
be used to present historical
topics
22. Augmented reality
made history easier to learn
23. Augmented reality
enhanced the presented
content
24. Augmented reality
increased my engagement
with history
25. Augmented reality
allowed new ways of
exploring historical content
26. The use of augmented
reality to teach history was
clearly visible
27. The historical content
displayed through augmented
reality was engaging
28. Text, videos and
pictures were helpful in
creating a picture of the
historical content
29. Augmented reality
increased my interest in the
class

Strongly Disagree
Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

111

Augmented Reality
Teaching Methods: Circle
the number that best
describes your experience
during the augmented
reality phase
30. Augmented reality
technology increased
engagement with the
instructor
31. My interpretation of
the content was relevant to
my learning
32. The augmented
reality teaching methods
were relevant to the way I
learn
33. Augmented reality
makes historical literacy
relevant to modern society

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

1

2

1

Student-Teacher
Relationship Circle the
number that best describes
your experience during the
augmented reality phase
34. I have a good
relationship with my
teacher
35. Augmented reality
facilitated increased
engagement between my
teacher and myself
36. Having a good
relationship with my
teacher enhanced learning
37. Augmented reality
enhanced my relationship
between the teacher and
myself
38. The relationship
with the instructor is
important

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

112

Student-Student
Relationships: Circle the
number that best describes
your experience during the
augmented reality phase
39. Augmented reality
teaching methods facilitate
increased co-operative work
relationships with other
students
40. Working with my
fellow students increases
engagement
41. Augmented reality
made working together
easier
42. Augmented reality
made collaboration with
fellow students more
important
43. Working with fellow
students increases
engagement
44. Augmented reality
teaching methods assisted in
creating new ideas with
fellow students

Augmented
Reality: Circle the
number that best
describes your
experience during the
augmented reality
class
45. The historical
content was presented
in an engaging way
46. I was engaged
with fellow students
during class time
47. I was engaged
with my professor
during the class time

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

1

2

1

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

3

4

5

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Undecided

Agree

Strongly
Agree

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Adapted from Walton, P. (2010)

113

Appendix C Interview questions for students

Interview Guide for Participants
Research Project
File Number: 101322
Approval Date: October 25, 2016
Expiry Date: October 24, 2017
Evolve your History: Learner Engagement in the History Classroom through
Augmented Reality
Principal Investigator: Lachlan Gonzales
Graduate Student
Faculty of Education and Social Work
Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC V2C 0C8
Phone 250-814-3885 Email: Lachlan.Gonzales@Gmail.com
The researcher is looking to use an advanced technology called augmented reality
in classrooms. This will involve a computer overlay of information on the real world, to
study the engagement of history students on historical content and other areas and see if
augmented reality increases engagement. I am pleased that you have consented to be
interviewed. Your feedback is important to help me understand how augmented reality
effects your engagement with history content, your fellow students, teacher, technology,
and the education of history at TRU. This will be used to potentially create an augmented
reality curriculum to increase student engagement.
This interview is designed to expand on information from the survey and the
classroom study. It will be audio-taped for those who have consented. Your responses
will be kept strictly confidential, no information collected can be used to identify you and
you may opt out at any time without any consequences. The interview should take about
20 minutes.
114

Background Information
Gender:
Program & Major:
History courses taken:
Length of studies at TRU:
=============================================================
Engagement
1. Was your engagement in class based on the instructor, the content, or methods?
Why?
2. Were the historical research methods used in the class enhanced by the augmented
reality curriculum?
3. What made you feel engaged in this study? What detracted from the experience?

Augmented Reality
4. What do you think are the key factors that explain engagement with augmented
reality apps such as Aurasma and Pokémon Go?
a. Physical activity?
b. Technology?
c. Collaboration?
d. Novelty?
e. Other ________________

5. What is it about augmented reality that is engaging to you?

6. Are there barriers to using augmented reality in the classroom?

7. Did augmented reality increase your interest in history as a subject? How?
115

Historical content
8. Did augmented reality increase your engagement with the historical content?
How?

9. What historical topics do you believe would increase your engagement in history?
History Research Methods
10. Were the history research methods used in the class enhanced by the augmented
reality?
11. Were the history research methods used in the study engaging and relevant to the
way you learn?
Relationships
12. Did the augmented reality enhance your relationship with other students? How?
13. Did the augmented reality enhance your relationship with the teacher? How?
Curriculum
14. What could we do to make augmented reality in the classroom more engaging?
15. Do you have suggestion for this study?

116

Appendix D: Interview questions for educator

Interview Guide for Educator
Research Project
File Number: 101322
Approval Date: October 25, 2016
Expiry Date: October 24, 2017
Evolve your History: Learner Engagement in the History Classroom through
Augmented Reality
Principal Investigator: Lachlan Gonzales
Graduate Student
Faculty of Education and Social Work
Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC V2C 0C8
Phone 250-814-3885 Email: Lachlan.Gonzales@Gmail.com
The researcher is looking to use an advanced technology called augmented reality
in classrooms. This will involve a computer overlay of information on the real world, to
study the engagement of history students on historical content and other areas and see if
augmented reality increases engagement. I am pleased that you have consented to be
interviewed. Your feedback is important to help me understand how augmented reality
effects your engagement with history content, your fellow students, teacher, technology,
and the education of history at TRU. This will be used to potentially create an augmented
reality curriculum to increase student engagement.
This interview is designed to expand on information from the survey and the
classroom study. It will be audio-taped for those who have consented. Your responses
will be kept strictly confidential, no information collected can be used to identify you and
you may opt out at any time without any consequences. The interview should take about
20 minutes.

117

Background Information
Gender:
Faculty:
Degrees Earned:
Length of teaching at TRU:
=============================================================
Engagement
1. Was your engagement in class based on the students, the content, or methods?
Why?
2. Were the historical research methods used in the class enhanced by the augmented
reality curriculum?
3. What made you feel engaged in this study? What detracted from the experience?
Augmented Reality
4. What do you think are the key factors that explain engagement with augmented
reality apps such as Aurasma and Pokémon Go?
a. Physical activity?
b. Technology?
c. Collaboration?
d. Novelty?
e. Other ________________

5. What is it about augmented reality that is engaging to you?

6. Are there barriers to using augmented reality in the classroom?

7. Did augmented reality increase your interest in history as a subject? How?

118

Historical content
8. Do you believe augmented reality increased student engagement with the
historical content? How?
9. What historical topics do you believe would increase student engagement in
history?
History Research Methods
10. Were the history research methods used in the class enhanced by the augmented
reality?
11. Were the history research methods used in the study engaging and relevant to
modern students?
12. What are some ways you teach to appeal to their current needs?
Relationships
13. Did the augmented reality enhance your relationship with students? How?
14. Did the augmented reality enhance student relationship with the content? How?
Curriculum
15. What could we do to make augmented reality in the classroom more engaging?
16. Do you have any suggestions for this study?

119

Appendix E: Feedback form for students

Feedback Form for Participants
Research Project
File Number: 101322
Approval Date: October 25, 2016
Expiry Date: October 24, 2017
Evolve your History: Learner Engagement in the History Classroom through
Augmented Reality
Principal Investigator: Lachlan Gonzales
Graduate Student
Faculty of Education and Social Work
Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, BC V2C 0C8
Phone 250-814-3885 Email: Lachlan.Gonzales@Gmail.com
The researcher is looking to use an advanced technology in classrooms called
augmented reality, a computer overlay of information on the real world, to study the
engagement of history students on historical content and other areas and see if augmented
reality increases said engagement. I am pleased that you have consented to provide
feedback on this study. Your feedback is important to help me understand how
augmented reality effects your engagement with history content and the education of
history at TRU. This will be used to potentially create an augmented reality curriculum to
increase student engagement.
This feedback will help me create a better curriculum based on your individual
needs. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential, no information collected can be
used to identify you and you may opt out at any time without any consequences. The
feedback should take about five (5) minutes. If the feedback form has been completed it

120

will be assumed consent has been given. If you have any questions or concerns, you may
contact me at the above number or email.
Thank you for participating.
=============================================================
1

Do you have any suggestions on how history education could be more engaging?

2

D you have suggestions on how augmented reality could be used in education?

3

Do you have any suggestions for this study?

121

Appendix F: Field notes
November 7th, 2016
Phase One Field Notes- Lachlan Gonzales
Observations from the classroom 8:37 AM
Wilson starts by talking about Historians in the Digital age. At the beginning the
students seem tired but attentive to what he is talking about. Wilson starts by remarking
he is not sure if the students read the chapter followed by his (possibly) nervous laughter.
He talks about placing students in groups followed by a very short introduction of myself
and the students seem distracted by this development. He sits down with the group in a
long round table and proceeds to talk about the chapter asking about specific quotes that
would support the evolution of historians’ in the digital age. The students start talking in
quiet voices and there is the occasional laugh and higher pitched happy talk. The talk
starts to die down as they begin their happy talk. The students are talking to one another
and exchanging ideas. The body language observed indicates they are engaged with the
subject. Wilson joins in the discussion to elicit more responses. I am too far away to
discern individual conversations. The conversation drops as some students look at me.
The conversations rise again. A student quotes from p 83, 3/4ths of the way down the
page. – understanding decontextualized history. It is a challenge to understand the
original environment. The students seem enthusiastic about learning about the historian’s
abilities in the digital age. Another start to talk about online cultural behaviour. Students
looking to find understanding about history. Wilson switches between asking questions
and telling stories to keep the student engaged in the subject matter. The students seem
engaged by his stories and attentive. A student talks about historical information may not
believable? the 10th century had different approaches to history.
At 8:45 students seem to lose interest in the current subject and talking about it.
Wilson starts telling a story to drive student interest. Is it possible that student interest is
related to the stories that teachers tell? Stories that are allegorical drive interest. They
seem to listen to the professor’s story with interest. There are only a few students using
their phones, but they seem to be taking notes as well so by inference they could be using
122

their phones to search up information. They listen and take notes on what he is saying.
The professor’s second discussion question provokes discussion by one female student
with an interesting opinion. A second female student pipes up with a response. The
professor agrees and launches into another story. Is a historian a computer programmer
as well? Interest is flagging. The professor asks if there is anything else? Students ask
questions. He answers, and most student’s attention shifts to him. Some students seem
lost in thought. He ends the discussion and starts handing back an annotation assignment
and the conversation starts up again. The classroom orientation is not conducive to
discussions or to handing back assignments nor walking around. Perhaps a different
arraignment would be better for the students. The professor remarks that everyone
should sit in alphabetical order. The class gets quieter as they begin to examine their
marks.
The professor comments on how impressed he is with their research and extra work
that they did. Nearly everyone has received good marks. A big difference from other
classes. He talks about how context is a common issue in history. They did miss relating
it to the source but only the single document. They stuck with what they had but did not
end up going further. Tough to tell what doc they were using. They were fun to read. A
final mini assignment to hand back. Many did not talk about the book at all. The
professor is lenient but still a tough marker. It seems they did not do as well as he
indicated. Unsatisfactory grade. He gives a bonus assignment to make up for their bad
mark. Class ends.
Phase Two Field Notes
November 14th
Five different groups. They seem energised and the weather is good, but they will
mainly be inside.
Group 1
Whoa; Difficulties with the questions; Difficulties taking notes – they needed to read
the whole conversation. They took longer than they thought, and some photo triggers
were missing. Their interaction with the characters was a slow point.
123

Group 2
“It was fun” “Apps are junk” Co-operation does not seem apparent. Individualistic in
evidence collection. But collective in directions and helping each other.
Group 4
Character difficulties; “This is really interesting”; Minimal co-operation; Seem to go
about it with okayness Just making it work; They read the evidence individually and they
are quiet. Taking longer than they thought. “Better than class”
Group 5- In class
Attentive to the professor; Completed it very quickly. Studying the evidence pieces;
Did not know they could interact with the characters. Excitedly scanning the evidence,
seeking answers.
Problems
Taking notes; Interacting with the characters; Difficult to read; Not as intuitive as
expected; They needed more time; -App was not perfect; Crashing; Having problems
with the triggers; Posters had been removed; They are not showing ardent co-operation
but some collaboration to learn and understand; 1 person interviewed had done research
on Richard III previously.
They were able to talk with other students that they had had no interaction with before.
It was a new approach to the study of history. It got them out of the classroom. The
interaction was cool. Reading the evidence aloud would have been neat. Voiced
characters? A non-typical way of understanding the evidence. Clearer instructions
would have helped.

124

Appendix G: Characters
Four characters were created for the students. They represented a variety of social
classes in the medieval eras and were created to reveal or hide information from the
students and make them relate on a more social level to the application and the topic.
Knight

Figure 11. Sir Daniel Edwards

The knight was made to have been once loyal to Richard but still hesitant to reveal
information because of his past loyalties. He would however, reveal that he believed that
King Henry was the killer, but he was not sure and would quickly cover his mistake. The
information he provided would be circumspect when the participants encountered the
other characters however, societies respect for the title of knight would maybe influence
the participant’s belief.

125

Priest

Figure 12. Franz Joseph

He was based off the real-life priest Dominic Mancini who had been in England
during the time that the Princes were alleged to have been killed. This character was also
hesitant to reveal information as it was not his country. Though he would respond with a
more logical analysis that would point towards Henry being the killer. Due to his logical
nature and the fact that he is a priest, it was believed that the participants would
immediately believe his story only begin to question it if they encountered the maid and
serf directly afterwards.
Maid

Figure 13. Charlotte Lyndin

126

The maid was modeled after a simple working woman in the fourteenth century. In
this era women were largely uneducated, and they were not considered the equal of men
however, her information would be largely word of mouth. The participants were
expected to take note but not have any strong feelings towards the legitimacy of the
information.
Serf

Figure 14. David the Serf.

The serf was based upon a working man in the fourteenth century. Uneducated and
poor, his information was completely incorrect, and his believability was immediately
suspect as he asked for money to refresh his memory. It was expected that the
participants would disregard his information on any order of encounter.
It is noted that these characters appeared only as still images and text. As expressed
by the participants, voiced and mobile characters would have been more engaging and
interactive.

127

Appendix H: Description of historical topic
A brief history of Richard III and The Princes in the Tower
Richard the III (see Figure 9), was King of England from 1483 to 1485, his reign
fraught with low public opinion and rebellions, the largest of which caused deep internal
strife and led by the former King Edward IV (Ross, 1981). He was killed at the Battle of
Bosworth in 1485 and his body discovered only recently in 2013.

Figure 15. Richard III, painted C.1520

The disappearance of princes Edward and George caused the origin of the Princes in
the Tower legend sometime in late 1483 purportedly in the Tower of London where
Richard was staying (Tey, 1951). This parked rumors that he had killed them to cement
his claim to power (Pollard, 1991). At the time, there were few rumors and they only
turned mainstream with the publication of Shakespeare’s famous play Richard the III.
Subsequent books and analyses, both historical and contemporary have been published
either stating to solve the mystery, offer new leads or suspects (Kelly, 2000). Even
current journals and books cannot agree on an interpretation of the tale. The Daughter of
128

Time, by Josephine Tey, (1951) published over fifty years ago, and considered one of the
most influential mystery novels (Moody, 1990), is one such book that explores the
historical evidence and attempts to rationally argue for Richard’s innocence. This book
was the focal point for the target classroom and the researcher drew on this book as a
framework for the participant’s experiment.
A Summary of Tey’s Daughter of Time
Tey’s novel follows inspector Allen Grant of Scotland Yard, who is recovering from
an injury that leaves him critically bored. He starts studying a portrait of Richard III and
concludes that based on his face, that he cannot have killed his nephews. To substantiate
this claim, he studies British history focusing on accounts of Richard III, using historical
research methods and logic, he postulates a pro-Richard theory. He states that it was
Henry VII that killed his nephews and blamed Richard.
This book while lighthearted and an easy read, explores how history can be misread
and changed, if not twisted into outright lies. For instance, Richard III was not a
hunchback as Shakespeare’s play would have the reader believe, though he did possess
idiopathic scoliosis (Current Archaeology, 2012). Tey’s book highlights the need to
critically examine historical documents and arguments to arrive at a more scientific
conclusion. However, this book does not solve the mystery and to date, it has not been
solved.
The participants were given this topic on order to potentially develop historical
literacy, engagement and assess historical content in its accuracy. Eventually concluding
as to whom killed the Princes based on the evidence provided. They were not expected
to find conclusive evidence nor arrive at a final empirical conclusion.

129