CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,210Augmented Reality ApplicationsArt Education and DevelopmentVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts

Impact of an augmented reality system on students' motivation for a visual art course

Open access
Di Serio, Ángela, Ibáñez, María Blanca, Kloos, Carlos Delgado·2013·Computers & Education
DOI 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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 · 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • People often lack motivation to visit heritage exhibitions.

    “One problem faced by these institutions is that people often lack motivation to visit the exhibitions [8][9][10]”

    From Motiv-ARCHE: co-creation of augmented reality educational content to motivate cultural and natural heritage learning (2025) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Introduction and §2.2 discuss students’ motivation to learn, while §4.4 describes their engagement with artworks during a class activity. Neither addresses whether people often lack motivation to visit heritage exhibitions; searches for exhibition visits, museums, and visitor motivation found no relevant passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The content presented about exhibited elements does not consider the characteristics or needs of users.

    “as the content presented about the exhibited elements does not consider the characteristics or needs of the users.”

    From Motiv-ARCHE: co-creation of augmented reality educational content to motivate cultural and natural heritage learning (2025) · cites this paper as [10]

    Section 3 describes teacher-prepared information about Renaissance masterpieces, and Section 4.4 describes students exploring that information. Neither says whether content about exhibited elements considers users’ characteristics or needs; searches for that claim and for personalized exhibition content found no such passage. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 54

  1. Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M.-T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students' engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74-85, Elsevier Ltd.
  2. Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., & MacIntyre, B. (2001). Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(6), 34-47, IEEE Computer Society.
  3. Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, A game without guns. Educational Research & Development, 53(1), 86-107.
  4. Barger, A., & Byrd, K. (2011). Motivation and computer-based instructional design. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 4(1), 1-9.
  5. Billinghurst, M., Kato, H., & Poupyrew, L. (2001). The MagicBook: moving seamlessly between reality and virtuality. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 2-4.
  6. Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S., & Boggs, C. (2010). Impact of podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment. Computers & Education, 55(2), 714-722, Elsevier Ltd.
  7. Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis -matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15, Routledge.
  8. Burigat, S., & Chittaro, L. (2007). Navigation in 3D virtual environments: effects of user experience and location-pointing navigation aids. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 65(11), 945-958, Elsevier.
  9. Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, M. (2010). Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 51(1), 341-377, Springer Netherlands.
  10. Chittaro, L., & Ranon, R. (2007). Web3D technologies in learning, education and training: motivations, issues, opportunities. Computers & Education, 49(1), 3-18, Elsevier.
  11. Dünser, A., Steinbügl, K., Kaufmann, H., & Glück, J. (2006). Virtual and augmented reality as spatial ability training tools. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGCHI New Zealand chapter's international conference on computer-human interaction (pp. 125-132).
  12. Dalgarno, B. (2004). A classification scheme for learner-computer interaction. In Annual conference of the Australasian society for computers in learning in tertiary education (pp. 240-248).
  13. Dickey, M. D. (2005). Brave new (interactive) worlds: a review of the design affordances and constraints of two 3D virtual worlds as interactive learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 13(1-2), 121-137, Routledge.
  14. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Introduction to theories of learning instruction. Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  15. Dror, I. (2008). Technology enhanced learning: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Pragmatics Cognition, 2(2), 215-223, John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  16. Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22, Springer Netherlands.
  17. Green, M., & Sulbaran, T. (2006). Motivation assessment instrument for virtual reality scheduling simulator. In T. Reeves, & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education 2006 (pp. 45-59). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  18. Gutiérrez, M. J., Saorín, J. L., Contero, M., Alcañiz, M., López, P. D. C., & Ortega, M. (2010). Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students. Computers & Graphics, 34(1), 77-91.
  19. Henderson, S., & Feiner, S. (2011). Exploring the benefits of augmented reality documentation for maintenance and repair. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(10), 1355-1368.
  20. Huang, D. W., Diefes-Dux, H., Imbrie, P. K., Daku, B., & Kallimani, J. G. (2004). Learning motivation evaluation for a computer-based instructional tutorial using ARCS model of motivational design. In 34th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference T1E.
  21. Huang, H.-M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S.-S. (2010). Investigating learners' attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171-1182, Elsevier Ltd.
  22. Jeamu, L., Kim, Y., & Lee, Y. (2008). A web-based program to motivate underachievers learning number sense. International Journal of Instructional Media, 35(2), 185-194.
  23. Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Instructional Development, 2, 26-34.
  24. Keller, J. M. (1987b). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 1-7.
  25. Keller, J. M. (2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance. Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 6(2), 79-104.
  26. Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance. Science þ Business Media227-286, Springer.
  27. Keller, J. M., & Litchfield, B. C. (2002). Motivation and performance. In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. New Jersey: Merill Prenctice Hall.
  28. Kleinginna, P. R., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of motivation definitions, with a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5(3), 263-291, Springer.
  29. Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental Detectivesdthe development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(2), 203-228, Springer.
  30. Krevelen, D. W. F. V., & Poelman, R. (2010). A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1-20.
  31. Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. L. Baker, & H. F. O'Neill, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9-33).
  32. Kye, B., & Kim, Y. (2008). Investigation of the relationships between media characteristics, presence, flow, and learning effects in augmented reality based learning augmented reality. International Journal, 2(1), 4-14.
  33. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), 20, Wiley Online Library.
  34. Milgram, P., & Kishino, A. F. (1994). Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E77-D(12), 1321-1329.
  35. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  36. Narzt, W., Pomberger, G., Ferscha, A., Kolb, D., Müller, R., Wieghardt, J., et al. (2005). Augmented reality navigation systems. Universal Access in the Information Society, 4(3), 177-187, Springer-Verlag.
  37. Nejdl, W., Tochtermann, K., Bogen, M., Wind, J. &Giuliano, A. (2006). ARISE -Augmented Reality in School Environments. In Nejdl, W., Tochtermann, K. (eds.), pp. 709-714.
  38. Neumann, U., & Majoros, A. (1998). Cognitive, performance, and systems issues for augmented reality applications in manufacturing and maintenance. In Proceedings IEEE 1998 virtual reality annual international symposium Cat No98CB36180 (pp. 4-11). IEEE Comput. Soc.
  39. Nilsson, S., Johansson, B. J. E., & Jönsson, A. (2010). Cross-organisational collaboration supported by augmented reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(X).
  40. InSmart, J. C. (Ed.). (1991). Higher education handbook of theory and research, Vol. 7. New York: Agathon.
  41. Pintrich, P. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459-470, Elsevier.
  42. Platonov, J., Heibel, H., Meier, P., & Grollmann, B. (2006). A mobile markerless AR system for maintenance and repair. In 2006 IEEE-ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (pp. 105-108). IEEE.
  43. Rodgers, D. L., & Withrow-Thorton, B. J. (2005). The effect of instructional media on learner motivation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 91-106.
  44. Rost, M. (2010). Generating student motivation [Internet]. WorldView, Pearson Longman. Available from <http://www.pearsonlongman.com/ae/worldview/> Accessed 25.08.
  45. Rovai, A. P., Ponton, M. K., Wighting, M. J., & Baker, J. D. (2007). A comparative analysis of student motivation in traditional classroom and E-learning courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 413-432.
  46. Shen, J., & Eder, L. B. (2009). Intentions to use virtual worlds for education. Journal of Information System Education, 20(2), 225-233.
  47. Sherman, W. R., & Craig, A. B. (2003). Understanding virtual reality. New York: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  48. Specht, M., Ternier, S., & Greller, W. (2011). Dimensions of mobile augmented reality for learning: a first inventory. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 7(1), 117-127.
  49. Stipek, D. (1998). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice, Vol. 4. Allyn and Bacon.
  50. Sumadio, D. D., & Rambli, D. R. A. (2010). Preliminary evaluation on user acceptance of the augmented reality use for education. In. 2010 second international conference on computer engineering and applications, Vol. 2 (pp. 461-465).
  51. Svinicki, M. (1999). New directions in learning and motivation. In M. D. Svinicki (Ed.), Teaching and learning on the edge of the millennium: Building on what we have learned. New directions for teaching and learning, Vol. 80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  52. Taran, C. (2005). Motivation techniques in elearning, ICALT 2005. In Fifth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (pp. 617-619).
  53. Theall, M. (1999b). New directions for theory and research on teaching: a review of the past twenty years (80). New Directions for Teaching and Learning29-52, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  54. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal Setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D.
Affiliations
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (ES)
Corresponding author
Ibáñez, María Blanca
ORCID
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
68
Pages
586-596
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002
OpenAlex
W2068391117
Cited by
1,210
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 111 · 2022: 125 · 2021: 130 · 2020: 135 · 2019: 111 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 116 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 6
FWCI
33.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
  • e-Archivo (Carlos III University of Madrid) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Spanish national projects Learn3 ((grant TIN2008-05163/TSI))
  • EEE ((grant TIN2011-28308-C03-01))
  • the Madrid regional project eMadrid ((grant S2009/TIC-1650))
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Visual Arts and Performing Arts › Art Education and Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Keywords
augmented reality, student motivation, visual arts education, junior high school students, ARCS motivation model, attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction, teaching materials, usability

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