CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Augmented Reality ApplicationsTeaching and Learning ProgrammingMathematics Education and Pedagogy

Effects of augmented reality application integration with computational thinking in geometry topics

Open access
Abdul Hanid, Mohd Fadzil, Mohamad Said, Mohd Nihra Haruzuan, Yahaya, Noraffandy, Abdullah, Zaleha·2022·Education and Information Technologies
DOI 10.1007/s10639-022-10994-w
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this article, researchers conducted a study that integrates Augmented Reality application with Computational Thinking into Geometry Topics. Three variables were measured, Computational Thinking, Visualisation Skills and Geometry Topic achievement. The study was implemented with 124 students in two different schools using quasi-experimental study design. The t-test analysis was performed to see the differences before and after the intervention between the control and treatment groups. Next, a MANCOVA was conducted to see the effectiveness of the intervention in more depth on Computational Thinking, Visualisation Skills and Geometry Topic achievement after controlling for existing knowledge factors. The results show that there is a positive effect of teaching methods using Augmented Reality applications with Computational Thinking for students in the improvement of Computational Thinking, Visualisation Skills and Geometry Topic achievement. Moreover, the results of the MANCOVA show that overall, teaching methods using Augmented Reality applications with Computational Thinking are factors in the improvement of Computational Thinking scores, Visualisation Skills and Geometry Topic achievement, which means the students’ existing knowledge did not affect the results of the three dependent variables. In conclusion, this study proposed that the Computational Thinking approach with Augmented Reality application can improve Computational Thinking, Visualisation Skills and Geometry Topic achievement among students.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-022-10994-w

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Virtual reality has limitations: despite providing an immersive experience, it blocks users' interaction with the surroundings.

    “On the other hand, “Virtual reality has its limitations. Despite its ability to provide [… an] immersive experience, it blocks users’ interaction with the surroundings” (Abdul Hanid et al., 2022, p. 9487).”

    From Exploring AR and VR Tools in Mathematics Education Through Culturally Responsive Pedagogies (2024) · cites this paper as Abdul Hanid et al., 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 95

  1. Abd Rahim, F., Ujang, N., & Said, M. T. (2018). Geometri dan peranannya dalam reka bentuk bandar Islamik. Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 14(2), 82-96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17576/ geo-2018-1402-07 · DOI
  2. Abdul Halim, A., & Effandi, Z. (2013). The Effects of Van Hiele's Phases of Learning Geometry on Students' Degree of Acquisition of Van Hiele Levels. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102(Ifee 2012), 251-266. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sbspro. 2013. 10. 740 · DOI
  3. Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. edurev. 2016. 11. 002 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Akoglu, H. (2018). Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine User ' s guide to correlation coe ffi cients. Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine, 18(August), 91-93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tjem. 2018. 08. 001 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Alex, J., & Mammen, K. J. (2018). Students' understanding of geometry terminology through the lens of Van Hiele theory. Pythagoras -Journal of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa, 39(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 4102/ pytha goras. v39i1. 376 · DOI
  6. Alhumaidan, H., Lo, K. P. Y., & Selby, A. (2018). Co-designing with children a collaborative augmented reality book based on a primary school textbook. International Journal of Child-Computer Interac- tion, 15, 24-36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijcci. 2017. 11. 005 · DOI
  7. Almelhi, A. M. (2021). Effectiveness of the ADDIE Model within an E-Learning Environment in Devel- oping Creative Writing in EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 14(2), 20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5539/ elt. v14n2 p20 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 Com- putational Thinking Curriculum Framework: Implications for Teacher Knowledge. Education Technology and Society, 19(3), 47-57.
  9. Anna, F., Sabariah, S., Wong, W., & Muralindran, M. (2017). Computational Thinking and Tinkering : Exploration Study of Primary School Students ' in Robotic and Graphical Programming. Interna- tional Journal of Assessment and Evaluation in Education, 7(1993), 44-54.
  10. Ayan, R., & Isiksal Bostan, M. (2016). Middle School Students??? Reasoning in Nonlinear Proportional Problems in Geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 1-16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10763-016-9777-z · DOI
  11. Baiduri, Ismail, A. D., & Sulfiyah, R. (2020). Understanding the concept of visualization phase student in geometry learning. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(2), 2353-2359.
  12. Baranová, L., & Katreničová, I. (2018). Role of descriptive geometry course in development of students' spatial visualization skills. Annales Mathematicae et Informaticae, 49, 21-32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 33039/ ami. 2018. 04. 001 · DOI
  13. Barcelos, T. S., Munoz, R., Villarroel, R., Merino, E., & Silveira, I. F. (2018). Mathematics learning through computational thinking activities: A systematic literature review. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(7), 815-845.
  14. Batı, K. (2018). Computational Thinking Test (CTT) for Middle School Students. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 12(23), 89-101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 29329/ mjer. 2018. 138. · DOI
  15. Bergstrom, C., & Zhang, D. (2016). Geometry interventions for K-12 students with and without dis- abilities: A research synthesis. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 134-154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijer. 2016. 04. 004 · DOI
  16. Bertoline, G. R. (1998). Visual science: An emerging discipline. Journal for Geometry and Graphics, 2(2), 181-187.
  17. Bikić, N., Maričić, S. M., & Pikula, M. (2016). The effects of differentiation of content in problem- solving in learning geometry in secondary school. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(11), 2783-2795. https:// doi. org/ 10. 12973/ euras ia. 2016. · DOI
  18. 02304a · DOI
  19. Booker, G., & Windsor, W. (2010). Developing algebraic thinking: Using problem-solving to build from number and geometry in the primary school to the ideas that underpin algebra in high school and beyond. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8(5), 411-419. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sbspro. 2010. 12. 057 · DOI
  20. Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2019). Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in geometric problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 341-362. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10798-018-9446-3 · DOI
  21. Budoya, C. M., Kissaka, M., & Mtebe, J. (2019). Instructional Design Enabled Agile Method Using ADDIE Model and Feature Driven Development Process. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 15(1), 35-54.
  22. Chang, S. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2018). Impacts of an augmented reality-based flipped learning guiding approach on students' scientific project performance and perceptions. Computers and Educa- tion, 125(October 2017), 226-239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2018. 06. 007 · DOI
  23. Chinnappan, M., & Lawson, M. J. (1996). The effects of training in the use of executive strategies in geometry problem solving. Learning and Instruction, 6(1), 1-17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319-99130-6_ 11 · DOI
  24. Christou, C., Pittalis, M., Mousoulides, N., & Jones, K. (2006). Developing the 3DMath dynamic geometry software: theoretical perspectives on design. International Journal, 13, 168-174. http:// eprin ts. soton. ac. uk/ 42114/.
  25. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Metod Approaches. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
  26. De Souza, A. A., Barcelos, T. S., Munoz, R., Villarroel, R., & Silva, L. A. (2019). Data Mining Framework to Analyze the Evolution of Computational Thinking Skills in Game Building Workshops. IEEE Access, 7, 82848-82866. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ ACCESS. 2019. 29243 · DOI
  27. DeJarnette, A. F., & González, G. (2016). Thematic analysis of students' talk while solving a real- world problem in geometry. Linguistics and Education, 35, 37-49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. linged. 2016. 05. 002 · DOI
  28. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participa- tory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10956-008-9119-1 · DOI
  29. Dünser, A., Steinbügl, K., Kaufmann, H., & Glück, J. (2006). Virtual and augmented reality as spatial ability training tools. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI New Zealand Chapter's Interna- tional Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Design Centered HCI -CHINZ '06, 125- 132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 11527 60. 11527 76 · DOI
  30. Echeverría, L., Cobos, R., Morales, M., Moreno, F., & Negrete, V. (2019). Promoting computational thinking skills in primary school students to improve learning of geometry. IEEE Global Engi- neering Education Conference, EDUCON, April-2019, 424-429. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ EDU- CON. 2019. 87250 88 · DOI
  31. Effandi Zakaria, & Lee, L. S. (2012). Teachers' perceptions toward the use of geogebra in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Journal of Mathematics and Statistics, 8(2), 253-257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3844/ jmssp. 2012. 253. 257 · DOI
  32. Erbas, A. K., & Yenmez, A. A. (2011). The effect of inquiry-based explorations in a dynamic geometry environment on sixth grade students' achievements in polygons. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2462-2475. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2011. 07. 002 · DOI
  33. Ferrer-Torregrosa, J., Torralba, J., Jimenez, M. A., García, S., & Barcia, J. M. (2015). ARBOOK: Devel- opment and Assessment of a Tool Based on Augmented Reality for Anatomy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(1), 119-124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10956-014-9526-4 · DOI
  34. Gavita. (2016). Kemahiran Visualisasi Dalam Mata Pelajaran Matematik Dalam. Proceedings of the ICE- CRS, 1(October), 909-916. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21070/ picec rs. v1i1. 629 · DOI
  35. Geary, D. C., Saults, S. J., Liu, F., & Hoard, M. K. (2000). Sex Differences in Spatial Cognition, Compu- tational Fluency, and Arithmetical Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(4), 337-353. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jecp. 2000. 2594 · DOI
  36. Gibson, J. P. (2012). Teaching graph algorithms to children of all ages. Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, 34-39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 23252 96. 23253 · DOI
  37. Gong, D., Yang, H. H., & Cai, J. (2020). Exploring the key influencing factors on college students' com- putational thinking skills through flipped-classroom instruction. International Journal of Educa- tional Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s41239-020-00196-0 · DOI
  38. González, N. A. A. (2015). How to Include Augmented Reality in Descriptive Geometry Teaching. Pro- cedia Computer Science, 75(Vare), 250-256. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. procs. 2015. 12. 245 · DOI
  39. González, F., López, C., & Castro, C. (2018). Development of Computational Thinking in High School Students: A Case Study in Chile. Proceedings -International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, SCCC , 2018-Novem. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ SCCC. 2018. 87052 39 · DOI
  40. Gutiérrez, Á. (1996). Visualization in 3-Dimensional Geometry: In Search of a Framework. Proceedings of the 20th PME Conference, 1, 3-19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ CBO97 81107 415324. 004 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. SIGCSE Bulletin Inroads, 41(1), 183-187. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 15390 24. 15089 31 · DOI
  42. Hanafi, M., Wulandari, K. N., & Wulansari, R. (2017). Transformasi geometri rotasi berbantuan software geogebra. Fibonacci Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika Dan MAtematika, 3(2), 93-102.
  43. Hani, U., & Asarani, M. (2020). Pengintegrasian pemikiran komputasional dalam aktiviti pengatur- caraan dan robotik. 2(2), 126-135.
  44. Harangus, K., & Kátai, Z. (2020). Computational thinking in secondary and higher education. Procedia Manufacturing, 46(2019), 615-622. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. promfg. 2020. 03. 088 · DOI
  45. Harris, A. D., Bradham, D. D., Baumgarten, M., Zuckerman, I. H., Fink, J. C., & Perencevich, E. N. (2004). The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in infectious diseases. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 38(11), 1586-1591. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1086/ 420936 · DOI · Paper page
  46. Herbert, B., Ens, B., Weerasinghe, A., Billinghurst, M., & Wigley, G. (2018). Design considerations for combining augmented reality with intelligent tutors. Computers and Graphics (pergamon), 77, 166-182. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cag. 2018. 09. 017 · DOI
  47. Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem Solving in Real-Life Contexts: An Alternative for Design in Technology Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 203-220. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10088 54926 028 · DOI
  48. Hollebrands, K., & Okumuş, S. (2018). Secondary mathematics teachers' instrumental integration in technology-rich geometry classrooms. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 49(October 2017), 82-94. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmathb. 2017. 10. 003 · DOI
  49. Hsu, T. C., Lee-Hsieh, J., Turton, M. A., & Cheng, S. F. (2014). Using the ADDIE model to develop online continuing education courses on caring for nurses in Taiwan. Journal of Continuing Educa- tion in Nursing, 45(3), 124-131. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3928/ 00220 124-20140 219-04 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Hwang, W. Y., Su, J. H., Huang, Y. M., & Dong, J. J. (2009). A study of multi-representation of geometry problem solving with Virtual Manipulatives and Whiteboard system. Educational Technology and Society, 12(3), 229-247.
  51. Ibáñez, M. B., Uriarte Portillo, A., Zatarain Cabada, R., & Barrón, M. L. (2020). Impact of augmented reality technology on academic achievement and motivation of students from public and private Mexican schools. A case study in a middle-school geometry course. Computers and Education, 145, 103734. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2019. 103734 · DOI
  52. İbili, E., & Şahin, S. (2016). The effect of augmented reality assisted geometry instruction on students' achiveement and attitudes. Teaching Mathematics and Computer Science, 13(2), 177-193. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5485/ tmcs. 2015. 0392 · DOI
  53. Jeřábek, T., Rambousek, V., & Wildová, R. (2014). Specifics of Visual Perception of the Augmented Reality in the Context of Education. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 598-604. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sbspro. 2014. 12. 432 · DOI
  54. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2000). Educational research: quantitative and qualitative approaches (A. & Bacon (ed.)).
  55. Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embed- ding Computational Thinking in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math ( CT-STEM ). Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting, 2002, 1-5. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2967/ jnumed. 114. 144386 · DOI
  56. Jonassen, D. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21-26. http:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ 44429 574. Accessed 4 Mar 2020
  57. Kaya, O. S., & Bicen, H. (2019). Study of augmented reality applications use in education and its effect on the academic performance. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 17(3), 25-36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ IJDET. 20190 70102 · DOI
  58. Khor, M. K., Ruzlan, M.-A.A., Kim, K. M., & Md-Ali, R. (2017). Penggunaan Geogebra Dalam Pemb- elajaran Matematik Melalui Pembelajaran Modular. Proceedings of the ICECRS, 1(October), 147- 154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21070/ picec rs. v1i1. 591 · DOI
  59. Kim, K. M., & Md-Ali, R. (2016). Penggunaan Geogebra Dalam Pembelajaran Matematik Melalui Pembelajaran Modular. Proceedings of the ICECRS, 1(1), 147-154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21070/ picec rs. v1i1. 591 · DOI
  60. Klerkx, J., Verbert, K., & Duval, E. (2014). Enhancing learning with visualization techniques. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Fourth, Vol. 1999, pp. 791-807). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-1-4614-3185-5_ 64 · DOI
  61. Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558-569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2017. 01. 005 · DOI
  62. Laski, E. V., Casey, B. M., Yu, Q., Dulaney, A., Heyman, M., & Dearing, E. (2013). Spatial skills as a predictor of first grade girls' use of higher level arithmetic strategies. Learning and Individual Dif- ferences, 23(1), 123-130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lindif. 2012. 08. 001 · DOI
  63. Lee, H. S., & Hollebrands, K. F. (2006). Students' use of technological features while solving a math- ematics problem. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 25(3), 252-266. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jmathb. 2006. 09. 005 · DOI
  64. Li, W., Nee, A. Y. C., & Ong, S. K. (2017). A state-of-the-art review of augmented reality in engineer- ing analysis and simulation. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 1(3), 17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ mti10 30017 · DOI
  65. Liang, Z., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2016). Digital technologies in designing mathematics education tasks : potential and pitfalls. October, 19-20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-319-43423-0 · DOI
  66. Liang, S. (2016). Design Principles of Augmented Reality Focusing on the Ageing Population. In Pro- ceedings of the 30th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference: Fusion! (P. 2)., 1-7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14236/ ewic/ HCI20 16a. · DOI
  67. Liao, Y. T., Yu, C. H., & Wu, C. C. (2015). Learning geometry with augmented reality to enhance spatial ability. Proceedings -2015 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering, LaTiCE 2015, 221-222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ LaTiCE. 2015. · DOI
  68. Libarkin, & Brick. (2002). Research methodologies in science education: Visualization and the geo- sciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 50(4), 449-456.
  69. Lin, Y. S., Chen, S. Y., Tsai, C. W., & Lai, Y. H. (2021). Exploring Computational Thinking Skills Train- ing Through Augmented Reality and AIoT Learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(February), 1-9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 640115 · DOI
  70. Marner, M. R., Irlitti, A., & Thomas, B. H. (2013). Improving procedural task performance with Aug- mented Reality annotations. 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Real- ity. ISMAR, 2013, 39-48. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ ISMAR. 2013. 66717 · DOI
  71. Mavani, D., Mavani, B., & Schäfer, M. (2018). A Case Study of Two Selected Teachers as they Integrated Dynamic Geometry Software as a Visualisation Tool in Teaching Geometry. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(3), 297-307. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 18117 295. 2018. 15227 · DOI
  72. Mehroosh, S., Taha, L., & Khalid, M. (2017). Augmented Reality ( AR ) vs Virtual Reality ( VR ). Inter- national Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, 6(6), 1-10.
  73. Mix, K. S., Levine, S. C., Cheng, Y. L., Young, C., Hambrick, D. Z., Ping, R., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2016). Separate but correlated: The latent structure of space and mathematics across development. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(9), 1206-1227. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ xge00 00182 · DOI
  74. Mohd Fadzil, A. H., & Mohd Nihra Haruzuan, M. S. (2019). Mobile Application for G-Suite Based on Multimedia Learning Cognitive Theory. Innovative Teaching and Learning Journal, 3(1), 55-60.
  75. Mohd Fadzil, A. H., Mohd Nihra Haruzuan, M. S., Noraffandy, Y., & Nur Fadhilah, Z. (2018). Applica- tion Development of Augment Reality in Geometry Topic Based on Multimedia Learning Cogni- tive Theory. In SSRN Electronic Journal. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 35137 99 · DOI
  76. Mohd Fadzil, A. H., Mohd Nihra Haruzuan, M. S., & Noraffandy, Y. (2020). Learning Strategies Using Augmented Reality Technology in Education : Meta-Analysis. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(5A), 51-56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13189/ ujer. 2020. 081908 · DOI
  77. Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34-36.
  78. Morgan, G. A., Barrett, K. C., Leech, N. L., & Gloeckner, G. W. (2012). IBM SPSS for Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation. In IBM SPSS for Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97804 29287 657 · DOI
  79. National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. National Academies Press.
  80. Nazar, M., Aisyi, R., Rahmayani, R. F. I., Hanum, L., Rusman, R., Puspita, K., & Hidayat, M. (2020). Development of Augmented Reality application for learning the concept of molecular geometry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1460(1), 012083. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 1742-6596/ 1460/1/ 012083 · DOI
  81. Olkun, S. (2004). When does the volume formula make sense to students. Hacettepe Univesity Journal of Faculty of Education, 25, 160-165.
  82. Prokýšek, M., Rambousek, V., & Wildová, R. (2013). Research into Spatial Intelligence and the Effi- ciency of the Application of Spatial Visualization in Instruction. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 855-859. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sbspro. 2013. 06. 661 · DOI
  83. Radu, I., Doherty, E., Diquollo, K., Mccarthy, B., & Tiu, M. (2015). Cyberchase Shape Quest : Pushing Geometry Education Boundaries with Augmented Reality. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 430-433.
  84. Repenning, A., Basawapatna, A. R., & Escherle, N. A. (2017). Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking. Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-319-52691-1 · DOI · Paper page
  85. Román González, M. (2015). Computational Thinking Test: Design Guidelines and Content Validation. July, 2436-2444. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13140/ RG.2. 1. 4203. 4329 · DOI
  86. Román-gonzález, M., Moreno-león, J., & Robles, G. (2019). Combining Assessment Tools for a Compre- hensive Evaluation of Computational Thinking Interventions. Computational Thinking Education. Springer Singapore. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-981-13-6528-7 · DOI
  87. Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of Research Design: Grounded Theory. Encyclopedia of Research Design. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4135/ 97814 12961 288 · DOI · Paper page
  88. Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. edurev. 2017. 09. 003 · DOI · Paper page
  89. Sinclair, N., Bussi, M. G. B., Villiers, D. M., Jones, K., Kortenkamp, U., Leung, A., & Owens, K. (2017). Geometry education, including the use of new technologies: A survey of recent research. Proceed- ings of the 13th international Congress on Mathematical Education. Springer.
  90. Sırakaya, M., Alsancak Sırakaya, D., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2020). The Impact of STEM Attitude and Think- ing Style on Computational Thinking Determined via Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 561-572. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10956-020-09836-6 · DOI
  91. Sung, W., & Black, J. B. (2020). Factors to consider when designing effective learning: Infusing compu- tational thinking in mathematics to support thinking-doing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(4), 404-426. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15391 523. 2020. 17840 · DOI
  92. Susilawati, W., Suryadi, D., & Dahlan, J. A. (2017). The Improvement of Mathematical Spatial Visualiza- tion Ability of Student through Cognitive Conflict. Mathematics Education, 12(2), 155-166.
  93. Trentin, G., & Alvino, S. (2011). Faculty training as a key factor for web enhanced learning sustainability. Faculty Training for Web Enhanced Learning, September 2011 (pp. 1-19)
  94. Wong, G. K. W., & Jiang, S. (2019). Computational Thinking Education for Children: Algorithmic Thinking and Debugging. Proceedings of 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering, TALE 2018, December, 328-334. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ TALE. 2018. 86152 32 · DOI
  95. Yoon, S., Anderson, E., Lin, J., & Elinich, K. (2017). How augmented reality enables conceptual under- standing of challenging science content. Educational Technology and Society, 20(1), 156-168.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Abdul Hanid, M. F., Mohamad Said, M. N. H., Yahaya, N., & Abdullah, Z.
Affiliations
University of Technology Malaysia (MY)
ORCID
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-04-04
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
9485-9521
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
DOI
10.1007/s10639-022-10994-w
OpenAlex
W4225553605
Cited by
76
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 2
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (19J16)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
augmented reality, computational thinking, geometry teaching, geometry achievement, mathematics teaching methods, educational technology integration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review