Digital entrepreneurial intentions the role of it knowledge and entrepreneurial program learning

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (31.81 MB, 422 trang )

Trang 1<div class="page_container" data-page="1">

Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 936

</div>Trang 2<div class="page_container" data-page="2">

Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems936

Series Editor

Janusz Kacprzyk , Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw,

Advisory Editors

Fernando Gomide, Department of Computer Engineering and Automation—DCA,

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering—FEEC, University of Campinas—UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil

Okyay Kaynak, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Bogazici

University, Istanbul, Türkiye

Derong Liu, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University

of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA

Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

Witold Pedrycz, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of

Alberta, Alberta, Canada

Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

Marios M. Polycarpou, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, KIOS

Research Center for Intelligent Systems and Networks, University of Cyprus, Nicosia,Cyprus

Imre J. Rudas, Óbuda University, Budapest, Hungary

Jun Wang, Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon,

Hong Kong

</div>Trang 3<div class="page_container" data-page="3">

in Networks and Systems—quickly, informally and with high quality. Original research reported in proceedings and post-proceedings represents the core of LNNS.

Volumes published in LNNS embrace all aspects and subfields of, as well as new challenges in, Networks and Systems.

The series contains proceedings and edited volumes in systems and net-works, spanning the areas of Cyber-Physical Systems, Autonomous Systems, Sen-sor Networks, Control Systems, Energy Systems, Automotive Systems, Biologi-cal Systems, Vehicular Networking and Connected Vehicles, Aerospace Systems, Automation, Manufacturing, Smart Grids, Nonlinear Systems, Power Systems, Robotics, Social Systems, Economic Systems and other. Of particular value to both the contributors and the readership are the short publication timeframe and the world-wide distribution and exposure which enable both a world-wide and rapid dissemination of research output.

The series covers the theory, applications, and perspectives on the state of the art and future developments relevant to systems and networks, decision making, control, complex processes and related areas, as embedded in the fields of interdisciplinary and applied sciences, engineering, computer science, physics, economics, social, and life sciences, as well as the paradigms and methodologies behind them.

Indexed by SCOPUS, INSPEC, WTI Frankfurt eG, zbMATH, SCImago.

All books published in the series are submitted for consideration in Web of Science. For proposals from Asia please contact Aninda Bose ().

</div>Trang 4<div class="page_container" data-page="4">

Michael E. Auer · Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

</div>Trang 5<div class="page_container" data-page="5">

Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems

ISBN 978-3-031-54326-5 ISBN 978-3-031-54327-2 (eBook) The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licenseto Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whetherthe whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse ofillustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmissionor information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoes not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevantprotective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this bookare believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or theeditors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errorsor omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AGThe registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Paper in this product is recyclable.

</div>Trang 6<div class="page_container" data-page="6">

IMCL2023 was the 15th edition of the International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication, Technologies and Learning.

This interdisciplinary conference is part of an international initiative to promote technology-enhanced learning and online engineering worldwide. The IMCL2023 cov-ered all aspects of mobile learning as well as the emergence of mobile communication technologies, infrastructures and services and their implications for education, business, governments and society.

The IMCL conference series actually aims to promote the development of mobile learning, to provide a forum for education and knowledge transfer, to expose students to latest ICT technologies and to encourage the study and implementation of mobile applications in teaching and learning. The conference was also platform for critical debates on theories, approaches, principles and applications of mobile learning among educators, developers, researchers, practitioners and policymakers.

IMCL2023 has been again organized by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece,

• Minjuan Wang, Professor and Program Head, San Diego State University;

Editor-in-Chief, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies (TLT), USA: The Impact of

Metaverse and Generative AI on Education.

• Michalis Giannakos, Professor at Norwegian University of Science and Technology

(NTNU), Norway: Multimodal Learning Analytics to Future Learning Systems.

• Stavros Demetriadis, Professor at School of Informatics, Aristotle University of

Thessaloniki, Greece: Harmonizing Minds: Navigating Human-AI Symbiosis in

Learning Environments with Conversational AI.

Furthermore, interesting workshops and tutorials have been organized:

Since its beginning, this conference is devoted to new approaches in learning with a focus to mobile learning, mobile communication, mobile technologies and engineering education.

We are currently witnessing a significant transformation in the development of working and learning environments with a focus to mobile online communication.

Therefore, the following main topics have been discussed during the conference in detail:

• Mobile Learning Issues:

• Dynamic learning experiences

</div>Trang 7<div class="page_container" data-page="7">

• Large-scale adoption of mobile learning • Ethical and legal issues

• Research methods and evaluation in mobile learning • Mobile learning models, theory and pedagogy • Life-long and informal learning using mobile devices • Open and distance mobile learning

• Social implications of mobile learning

• Cost effective management of mobile learning processes • Quality in mobile learning

• Case studies in mobile learning

• Interactive Communication Technologies and Infrastructures: • Wearables and Internet of Things (IoT)

• Tangible, embedded and embodied interaction • Location-based integration

• Cloud computing

• Emerging mobile technologies and standards

• Interactive and collaborative mobile learning environments

• Remote and online laboratories • Serious games and gamification

• Mobile health care, healthy lifestyle and training • Mobile apps for sports

• Mobile credentials, badges and blockchain • Learning analytics

• Mobile learning in cultural institutions and open spaces • Mobile systems and services for opening up education • Social networking applications

• Mobile learning management systems (mLMS) The following Special Sessions have been organized:

• Interactive Learning Interfaces for Meaning and Expression (iLIME2023),

Chair: Dionysios Politis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.

• From Headsets to Mindsets: Human-Centred Extended Reality for Fostering

Participation, Engagement and Co-Creation, Chairs: Petros Lameras, Centre for

Post Digital Cultures, Coventry University, Coventry, UK; Nektarios Moumoutzis, Lab of Distributed Multimedia Information Systems and Applications, School of Electronics and Computer Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Sylvester Arnab, Centre for Post Digital Cultures, Coventry University, Coventry, UK; and Panagiotis Petridis, Aston University, UK.

</div>Trang 8<div class="page_container" data-page="8">

Preface vii

• Empowering Young Women in ICT by Fostering an Inclusive Technological

Thinking (GIFT – IT), Chairs Ciupe Aurelia, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca,

• Digital Technologies for Health and Sports, Chairs: Stella Douka, Aristotle

Uni-versity of Thessaloniki, Greece; and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos, Aristotle UniUni-versity of Thessaloniki, Greece.

Also, a Doctoral Consortium has been organized in the context of IMCL2023,

chaired by Christos Katsanos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; and Jenny Pange, University of Ioannina, Greece.

As submission types have been accepted:

• Full Paper, Short Paper and Doctoral Consortium Work in Progress (within person or distant/pre-recorded presentation)

• Poster

• Special Sessions

• Round Table Discussions, Workshops, Tutorials and Students’ Competition

All contributions were subject to a double-blind review. The review process was very

competitive. We had to review about 146 submissions. A team of about 78 reviewers

did this terrific job. Our special thanks go to all of them.

Due to the time and conference schedule restrictions, we could finally accept only

the best 77 submissions for presentation.The best papers were the following:

• Category “Full Paper”: “Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence methods

in Language Learning Classification of Spanish Tertiary Students” by Grigorios Tzio-nis (1), Gerasimos Antzoulatos (1), Periklis Papaioannou (1), Athanasios Mavropou-los (1), Ilias Gialampoukidis (1), Marta González Burgos (2), Stefanos Vrochidis (1), Ioannis Kompatsiaris (1) and Maro Vlachopoulou (3). Organization(s): (1): CERTH, Greece; (2): Metodo Estudios Consultores, Spain; and (3): University of Macedonia, Greece.

• Category “Short Paper”: “VR as a Tool for Enhancing Public Speaking Skills” by

Aurelia Ciupe, Technical University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

• Category “Work-in-Progress”: “Work-in-Progress: “Smart Print Automation”

Remote Lab and Cloud Connector” by Christian Madritsch, Pierre Hohenberger, Benjamin Heindl and Valentin Smoly, Carinthia University of Applied Sciences, Austria.

Our conference had again more than 144 participants from 30 countries.

IMCL2025 will be held again at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.

</div>Trang 9<div class="page_container" data-page="9">

Steering Committee Chair

Michael E. Auer CTI Global, Frankfurt/M., Germany

General Conference Chair

Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

International Chairs

Samir A. El-Seoud The British University in Egypt (Africa) Neelakshi. C. Premawardhena University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka (Asia) Alexander Kist University of Southern Queensland, Australia

(North America)

Uriel Cukierman University of Buenos Aires, Argentina (South America)

Technical Program Chairs

Ioannis Stamelos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Stavros Demetriadis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Workshop, Tutorial and Special Sessions Chairs

Andreas Pester The British University in Egypt, Cairo, Egypt Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

</div>Trang 10<div class="page_container" data-page="10">

x Committees

Publication Chair

Local Organization Chair

Stella Douka Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Local Organization Committee Member

Christos Temertzoglou Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Program Committee Members (TBC)

Agisilaos Konidaris Ionian University, Greece Anastasios Economides University of Macedonia, Greece

Anastasios Karakostas Information Technologies Institute, Greece Anastasios Mikropoulos University of Ioannina, Greece

Apostolos Gkamas University Ecclesiastical Academy of Vella of Ioannina, Greece

Carlos Travieso-Gonzalez Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran. Canaria, Spain

Charalampos Karagiannidis University of Thessaly, Greece Christos Bouras University of Patras, Greece

Christos Katsanos Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Christos Douligeris University of Piraeus, Greece

Christos Pierrakeas University of Patras, Greece Daphne Economou University of Westminster, UK

Demetrios Sampson University of Pireaus, Greece

Dimitrios Kalles Hellenic Open University, Greece

Dionysios Politis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

George Palaigeorgiou University of Western Macedonia, Greece

</div>Trang 11<div class="page_container" data-page="11">

Giasemi Vavoula University of Leicester, UK

Helen Karatza Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

María Isabel Pozzo National Technological University, Argentina Manuel Castro Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia,

Maya Satratzemi University of Macedonia, Greece

Michail Giannakos Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Michalis Xenos University of Patras, Greece

Monica Divitini Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Nektarios Moumoutzis Technical University of Crete, Greece Nikolaos Avouris University of Patras, Greece

Nikolaos Tselios University of Patras, Greece

Panagiotis Bamidis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Panagiotis Petridis Aston University, UK

Petros Nicopolitidis Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Rhena Delport University of Pretoria, South Africa Santi Caballé Open University of Catalonia, Spain Stelios Xinogalos University of Macedonia, Greece

Stamatios Papadakis The University of Crete, Greece

Tharenos Bratitsis University of Western Macedonia, Greece Ting-Ting Wu National Yunlin University of Science and

Technology, Taiwan

Vassilis Komis University of Patras, Greece

</div>Trang 12<div class="page_container" data-page="12">

Augmented-, Virtual-, Mixed- and Cross- Reality Apps

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History to Primary and Secondary-School Students in Formal and Informal Learning

Environments: A Review of the Literature . . . . 3

Christopher Tripoulas and George Koutromanos

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance by In-Service

Teachers . . . . 15

Georgia Kazakou and George Koutromanos

The Design and Evaluation of an Augmented Reality History Textbook

for Primary Education . . . . 27

George Koutromanos, Christopher Tripoulas, and Maria Pappa

Unleashing the Potential: A Holistic Approach to Adaptive Learning

in Virtual Reality . . . . 40

Yahya Elghobashy, Nada Sharaf, and Slim Abdennadher

VR as a Tool for Enhancing Public Speaking Skills . . . . 53

Aurelia Ciupe, Claudia Maraciuc, and Bogdan Orza

Collaborative Virtual Reality Environment Structural Model Development

for Higher Education Remote Learning . . . . 61

Evija Cibu¸lska and Katrina Boloˇcko

Educators’ Ability to Use Augmented Reality (AR) for Teaching Based

on the TARC Framework: Evidence from an International Study . . . . 69

Stavros A. Nikou, Maria Perifanou, and Anastasios A. Economides

Work-in-Progress: Teaching Autistic Children Arabic Letters Using

Augmented Reality Technology . . . . 78

Mariam Sadek Kottb and Nada Sharaf

Implementation of Augmented Reality in Military Higher Education;

Exemplified by the Study of the Yagi-Uda Antenna . . . . 86

Ecaterina Liliana Miron, Liviu Gaina, Mihai Alin Meclea,and Mihai Miron

</div>Trang 13<div class="page_container" data-page="13">

Synthetic Water Crystal Image Generation Using VAE-GANs

and Diffusion Models . . . . 95

Farah Aymen, Andreas Pester, and Frederic Andres

IblueCulture: A Real Time Virtual Reality Dry Dive System . . . . 105

Apostolos Vlachos, Stelios Krinidis, Aristotelis Karavidas,and Dimitrios Tzovaras

Teaching the Ba-Construction with Augmented Reality in Online Learning

Environments . . . . 115

Lulu Wang, Antigoni Parmaxi, and Anna Nicolaou

Mobile Learning Models, Theory and Pedagogy

Exploring the Applications of QR Codes in STEM Subjects . . . . 129

Evgenia Tsoukala, Ioannis Lefkos, and Nikolaos Fachantidis

A Framework for Designing Gender Inclusive Mobile Learning

Experiences . . . . 140

Yevgeniy Lukhmanov, Asma Perveen, and Mariza Tsakalerou

Chat GPT Performance Evaluation Model for Learning . . . . 149

Tereza Ivanova, Antonia Staneva, Daniela Borissova,and Katia Rasheva-Yordanova

Design Process and Initial Development of a Serious Game for Supporting

the Personal Development of Young Athletes . . . . 158

Georgina Skraparli, Lampros Karavidas, Irena Valantine,Inga Butiene, Monica Shiakou, Eva-Maria Albu, Stella Douka,and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

Designing and Developing a Serious Game for Inclusion in Sports . . . . 168

Lampros Karavidas, Georgina Skraparli, Angeliki Mavropoulou,Christina Evaggelinou, Sarah Townsend, Kiki Hristova, Stella Douka,and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

Digital Entrepreneurial Intentions: The Role of IT Knowledge

and Entrepreneurial Program Learning . . . . 178

Ioannis Sitaridis and Fotis Kitsios

Work in Progress: STAYinBowling, Sensor Based Training for Athletes

and Youngsters in Bowling . . . . 188

Hippokratis Apostolidis, Lampros Karavidas, Ioannis Stamelos,and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

</div>Trang 14<div class="page_container" data-page="14">

Contents xv

Dynamic Learning Experiences

Impact of Innovation-Enabling Technologies on Business Performance:

An Empirical Study . . . . 197

Yevgeniy Lukhmanov and Mariza Tsakalerou

HEALINT4ALL Digital Interactive Platform for European and National Placements Audit for Medicine and Allied Health Professions Following

a User-Centered Design . . . . 208

Stathis Th. Konstantinidis, Ioannis Poultourtzidis, Foivos Papamalis,Dimitris Spachos, Theodoros Savvidis, Nikolaos Athanasopoulos,Maria Nikolaidou, Zoe Tilley, Stan Ko, James Henderson,Sheila Cunningham, Hodge Pam, Viveka Höijer-Brear,

Mari Törne, Manuel Lillo-Crespo, Maria Pilar Catala Rodriguez,Anna Stefanowicz-Kocol, Agnieszka Jankowicz-Szymanska,Aneta Grochowska, Małgorzata Kołpa, Carol Hall,and Panagiotis D. Bamidis

Implementation of a Faculty Development Program Though Coursera:

From the Instructional Design to the Results . . . . 216

Kevin Mejía Rivera and Anael Espinal Varela

Using ChatGPT for Research Report Design: A Collaborative Learning

Experience with Students and Professors in Honduras . . . . 224

Kevin Mejía Rivera and Mirna Rivera García

Analysis and Classification of Methods and Tools Applicable to e-Learning . . . . 232

Milena Bankovska, Katia Rasheva-Yordanova, Daniela Borissova,and Stefan Stoev

Work-in-Progress: Gamified Simulation for Interactive Experiences

in Learning . . . . 243

Simeon Karofyllidis, George Kousalidis, Hippokratis Apostolidis,and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

Work-in-Progress: Immersive and Diversified Artificial Intelligence

Education . . . . 254

Zhen Gao and Seshasai Srinivasan

Work-in-Progress: Simulations Incorporated in the Teaching Process

of Telecommunications . . . . 260

Milagros Hernández Martínez, María Elena Pardo Gómez,and Rebeca del Carmen Cintra Hernández

</div>Trang 15<div class="page_container" data-page="15">

Interactive Learning Interfaces

CHAISE: Empowering Europe with Blockchain Skills Through

a Multilingual Mobile-Enabled MOOC Platform . . . . 269

Dimitrios Kiriakos, Dimitrios Kotsifakos, Parisa Ghodous,and Yannis Psaromiligkos

The Use of Mobile Applications in the L2 Learning Classroom: Is it Worth

the While? . . . . 281

Ioanna Moustaka, Spyridon Doukakis, and Marina Mattheoudakis

Re-enacting the Past: Open Mobile Technologies for Artistic

Recreation – The Case of the Vlatadon Monastery . . . . 290

Rafail Tzimas, Dionysios Politis, Nektarios Paris, Nikolaos Rentakis,and Konstantinos Maniotis

Conditioning the Rhythm of Rehabilitative Appropriation Within

a Multiple Intelligences Programming Environment . . . . 299

Anastasios Nikiforos, Christos Polatidis, Panagiotis Kapadais,Dionysios Politis, Georgios Kyriafinis, and Veljko Aleksi´c

Enhancing Expression in Music Transcription – Towards the Donizetti

System of Semantics . . . . 311

Dimitrios Margounakis, Dionysios Politis, Georgios Patronas,Vasileios Vasileiou, and Evangelia Spyrakou

Student Affective Modelling and Participation in Web-Based Collaborative

Tutoring Systems . . . . 322

Dimos Charidimou, Nikolaos Kokolantonakis, and Dionysios Politis

Work-in-Progress: SYNERGIA, Towards an Online Communication

and Collaboration Interactivity . . . . 332

Hippokratis Apostolidis, Spyridon Armatas, George Tsantikis,and Thrasyvoulos Tsiatsos

e-Tambur: A Mobile App for the Music Pluralization of Emotions . . . . 339

Dimos Charidimou, Dionysios Politis, Evangelos Tringas,Stavros Vaslis, Georgios Ziogas, and Nektarios Paris

</div>Trang 16<div class="page_container" data-page="16">

Contents xvii

Learning Analytics

Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence Methods in Language

Learning Classification of Spanish Tertiary Education Students . . . . 351

Grigorios Tzionis, Gerasimos Antzoulatos, Periklis Papaioannou,Athanasios Mavropoulos, Ilias Gialampoukidis,

Marta González Burgos, Stefanos Vrochidis, Ioannis Kompatsiaris,and Maro Vlachopoulou

Automated Grading in Coding Exercises Using Large Language Models . . . . 363

Paraskevas Lagakis, Stavros Demetriadis, and Georgios Psathas

Development and Evaluation of a Gamified Application for Environmental

Education: coralQuest . . . . 374

Karen Dahl Aarhus, Julie Holte Motland, Feiran Zhang,and Sofia Papavlasopoulou

Genetic Algorithms: The Powerful Driver of the Functional Verification

Process . . . . 384

Alexandru Dinu

A Code-Driven Exploration of Key C Language Concepts in a CS1 Class . . . . 397

David Kerschbaumer, Alexander Steinmaurer, and Christian Gütl

Author Index . . . . 409

</div>Trang 17<div class="page_container" data-page="17">

Augmented-, Virtual-, Mixed-and Cross- Reality Apps

</div>Trang 18<div class="page_container" data-page="18">

The Use of Augmented Reality in TeachingHistory to Primary and Secondary-SchoolStudents in Formal and Informal Learning

Environments: A Review of the Literature

Christopher Tripoulas and George Koutromanos(

B

)

Department of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Abstract. The aim of this systematic literature review was to examine relevant

journal publications regarding the use of Augmented Reality (AR) to teach the subject of History to primary and secondary school students in both formal and informal learning environments. Following an initial search that yielded 21,979 results, 14 journal articles were included in the final analysis. These covered a diverse range of historical settings using technology relying mostly on smart phones, tablets, but also other handheld devices, projectors, and manipulatives enabling tactile learning and embodied instruction. Approximately one–third of the studies did not include references to learning theories or pedagogical back-grounds, while learning outcomes highlighted increased student comprehension, motivation, enjoyment, and positive attitudes. Although AR is not as widely used to teach History as some other subjects, the findings indicate that it could have a positive impact, transforming perceptions of the subject and practices associated with its teaching. The comparatively limited number of AR history studies necessi-tates further research marked by wider selection criteria and longitudinal studies to track students’ learning over time. The investigation of particular AR affordances facilitating History teaching and the role of learning theories in informing instruc-tional interventions are addiinstruc-tional aspects that can benefit from further research. AR’s impact on learning when compared with other digital technologies requires further investigation as technology continues to grow and develop.

Keywords: Augmented Reality· History · Primary and Secondary Education · Literature review

1 Introduction

Augmented Reality (AR) is an emerging technology that has seen rapid growth, partic-ularly in the last decade, earning it a reputation as a leading 21st-century technology [1]. Regarding its use in education, AR can be concisely defined as “a technology which over-lays virtual objects (augmented components) into the real world” [2p1]. The growing number of AR applications for mobile (e.g., smart phones, tablets) and wearable (e.g.,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024M. E. Auer and T. Tsiatsos (Eds.): IMCL 2023, LNNS 936, pp. 3–14, 2024.

class="text_page_counter">Trang 19<div class="page_container" data-page="19">

smart glasses) devices has made the use of this technology increasingly more practical. Consequently, it has become more accessible to students, resulting in steadily growing research interest regarding the use of AR in education [3,4].

Researchers have identified numerous affordances that AR brings to education, including visualization of objects, interaction with 3D objects [5], interactivity of vir-tual objects with a real environment in real-time [6], contextualized information, spatial ability, practical skills, conceptual understanding [7], and decreased cognitive load [2]. Additionally, a growing number of studies point to AR’s positive effects on student moti-vation and attitudes [8 10]. Numerous studies also point to AR’s increased instructional effectiveness compared to traditional textbooks, or videos and PCs, highlighting benefits such as learning gains [11], acquisition of problem–solving and spatial skills [12], and improved collaboration [13].

AR has been incorporated in the teaching of various subjects, including Math [14], STEM [15], Languages [16], Chemistry [17], and Physical Education [18]. Furthermore, there are a number of studies focusing on the use of AR to teach History to students at the primary and secondary level of education. Although it serves as a basic subject in school curriculums worldwide, History is often perceived to be boring [19] and overly focused on memorization and lower-order thinking skills [20]. Considering its affordances, AR could serve as a valuable tool to overcoming some of the perceived issues with History instruction, creating positive feelings toward learning History and improving learning outcomes.

Although some AR studies for History instruction do exist, there does not appear to be a comprehensive review of the literature detailing its use in teaching History to primary and secondary school students in formal and informal learning environments. While there is a review focusing on AR applications for History education and heritage visualization [21], it limits itself to one specific area of History - the Holocaust. Meanwhile, a review on AR in Cultural Heritage by Boboc et al. [22] surpasses the scope of education and also examines the use of AR in other sectors, such as tourism and intangible cultural heritage. This paper provides a systematic review of the relevant literature by conducting a search of published articles of journals in selected online databases, with the aim of addressing the existing research gap regarding the utilization of AR in formal and informal education settings for the teaching of history at the primary and secondary level.

The following research questions (RQ) were formulated to guide the review of the literature:

RQ1: What specific era/context of history did the studies investigate? RQ2: In what kind of learning environment was the research conducted?

RQ3: To what levels of education did the students involved in the studies belong? RQ4: What kind of AR devices were used in the research?

RQ5: What pedagogical foundation was used to support the use of AR? RQ6: What methodological designs were used to conduct the research? RQ7: What were the learning outcomes of the studies?

The organization of this review study is as follows. The next section provides a brief overview regarding the teaching of History in formal and informal learning environ-ments. The methodology guiding the research for this review follows. Next, the findings are presented, followed by a discussion. The final section contains the conclusions,

</div>Trang 20<div class="page_container" data-page="20">

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 5 including the limitations of this study and suggestions for future studies related to the use of AR to teach History to primary and secondary school students in formal and informal learning environments.

2 An Overview of History and Its Significance as a Subject

History has occupied a seminal role in school curriculums since the nineteenth century [23]. Seixas et al. [24p1] define History as “the stories we tell about the past”, arguing that historic understanding occurs when historians relate to the historical concept they are studying by interpreting evidence and using it to generate stories about events and figures from the past. Some of the learning objectives set by teachers when teaching History include increasing historical understanding among students, creating connections to figures and stories being studied, cultivating a sense of civic pride and duty, examining the past, and developing an appreciation for contemporary values and responsibilities [25]. According to Barton and Levstik [19], the aim of teaching this subject is to prepare young people for their upcoming participation in a pluralistic democracy. Opinions and practices differ regarding how History should be taught, with one major point of contention being the creation of a collective memory or the disciplinary approach [20, 26]. While the student-centered approach continues to gain favor in the 21stcentury, there are curricula that continue to emphasize the ability to memorize historical information as a prerequisite to being able to process it and engage in higher–order thinking [27].

In addition to the boredom often associated with History instruction, in recent years History has received diminished attention in the curriculum, as it is overshadowed by subjects deemed more technical and better suited to future employment opportunities [28]. However, History is integral not just for acquiring knowledge about the past, but for the formulation of values such as respect for cultural diversity and democracy, attitudes such as civic-mindedness, skills such as critical thinking, empathy, cooperation, and conflict resolution, and knowledge such as critical understanding of one’s self, language, and the world [29].

One reason for History’s perceived unpopularity among students is teacher-driven imparting of substantive (factual) knowledge, which relies on reading and rote memoriza-tion, which is usually limited to first-order thinking, in contrast to procedural knowledge, which develops second-order thinking and enables students to actively process knowl-edge [30]. Some 21st-century best practices for teaching History include mobilizing stu-dents’ prior knowledge, stimulating historical thinking by relating events to real-world problems, introducing students to historical research through activities involving the synthesis of evidence from multiple sources and accounts, diversifying learning tasks and expanding sources to beyond just the textbook or worksheet through multimedia and interaction allowing for manifold interpretations, as well as developing historical thinking and consciousness among students [31]. These recommended practices are in keeping with the constructivist approach [32] and historical empathy [33], which are believed to improve the teaching and learning of History.

Regarding classroom instruction, digital technologies play an essential role in achiev-ing equitable quality education for all [34]. AR is one of the most widely emerging digital technologies and its use in the classroom is expanding thanks to the positive results it

</div>Trang 21<div class="page_container" data-page="21">

has produced until now [35]. AR possesses the capability to benefit History learning by addressing current issues associated with its teaching, such as the traditional teacher-centered model of instruction, which overlooks students’ ability to learn autonomously and explore [13]. Moreover, History can be taught not only in formal classroom environ-ments but also in informal environenviron-ments, such as archaeological sites [36] and museums [37]. The use of AR for History learning in informal settings is credited with bringing “historical scenes to life”, although, it must be noted that technologies like AR and VR are still used mostly in science and art museums by primary and secondary students” [38]. According to Varinlioglu and Halici [39], AR offers immense potential for study-ing architectural objects due to capabilities such as 3D technology, which provides new prospectives on viewing and analyzing data; i.e., at archaeological sites. Considering AR’s affordances and successful implementation in other subjects, this technology has the potential to serve as a useful tool for teaching History in both formal and informal learning environments.

3 Methodology

The literature review was conducted from March 22, 2023 to April 26, 2023 on the international online databases Scopus, ScienceDirect, ERIC, IEEE Xplore, Springer-Link, Taylor and Francis, ACM Digital Library. The database searches used a year filter set from 2008 up to 2023, corresponding to the appearance and gradual increase of AR applications. The following search terms were used: Augmented Reality AND History AND Education OR School OR Students OR Image-Based Games OR Location-Based Games. A relevant target search using the same terms was also conducted on Google Scholar. Finally, relevant studies were handpicked from the bibliography of existing articles to account for related literature not found in the keyword search.

This review was restricted to open-access databases or databases that were accessible through the authors’ university library. The literature research adhered to the PRISMA guidelines [40]. The inclusion criteria applied to the research questions required that: (a) articles present research conducted in formal or informal educational settings in primary or secondary education, (b) articles be written in English, (c) articles provide empirical data from a sample of pupils, data analysis, and interpret the results, (d) articles be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal.

The search yielded 21,979 results (see Fig.1). After the initial screening, including the removal of 3 duplicates, 21,923 were excluded because they did not meet the search parameters due to irrelevant title, keywords, abstract, or content. After a full-text review of 53 studies for eligibility, 39 were excluded because they were incompatible with the aim and research questions of the current review. In total, 14 relevant articles were identified and used to formulate this review - 12 involving AR technology, along with another two using a combination of AR and VR, which were included here because the AR component was deemed significant enough to warrant it.

The analysis scheme was divided into 8 categories: (1) historical era/context (2) learning environment, (3) education level, (4) types of AR devices used, (5) pedagogical foundation, (6) methodological design, and (7) learning outcomes.

</div>Trang 22<div class="page_container" data-page="22">

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 7

Records identified through an online database search

The 14 articles reviewed examined very diverse historical eras and contexts, ranging from the 7th millennium BC up through the mid-20th century. Efsthatiou et al. [41] conducted a study focusing on the Neolithic settlement of Choirokoitia in Cyprus. Several studies focused on the ancient Greek and Roman period, focusing on the historical context of the gods of Olympus [42], the oracle of Delphi [43] and ancient Rome [44]. Meanwhile, Gogou and Kasvikis [45] covered Greek and Roman history from the 6th century BC up to the 6thcentury AD. Other researchers turned their attention to medieval Asian history, focusing on a 7th-century Buddhist temple in Korea [46] and the 13th -century Singhasari Kingdom in Indonesia [47]. Another study [48] investigated how AR can improve students’ historical knowledge of the prophets in the Islamic tradition. The Middle Ages and Renaissance also inspired research interest, with two studies [49,50] examining life in late medieval Amsterdam, and another [51] focusing on a historical landmark in the Italian city of Urbino. Other researchers [52] chose to focus on a broader historical period spanning the Renaissance, discovery of the New World,

</div>Trang 23<div class="page_container" data-page="23">

Enlightenment, and French Revolution. Finally, two studies included events from the 20th century, examining the historical context of the Spanish Civil War [53] and investigating the history of a local park during World War II [54].

4.2 Learning Environment

In terms of the learning environment in which they were conducted, the 14 studies reviewed were nearly evenly divided. Specifically, 5 studies [42,44,47,48,51] were conducted in a formal classroom setting. Another study [41] took place at an archaeo-logical site, however, students participated in the field trip as a whole class and engaged in related pre- and post-trip classroom activities, constituting a formal learning environ-ment. Among the studies conducted in an informal learning environment, two [45,52] featured a specially designed space with a Makey Makey board, and another [46] was held in students’ homes. Other studies were conducted at the archaeological site of Del-phi, Greece [43], a bomb shelter in Barcelona, Spain [53], a public park or “Common” in London, England [54], and historical medieval Amsterdam, Holland [49,50].

4.3 Level of Education

The 14 studies reviewed were also fairly balanced in regard to students’ level of educa-tion. In particular, primary school students participated in eight studies [41,45,46,48, 52 53,54]. Only one study [46] covered all the primary school grades, while another [52], limited its sample to students in Grade 6. Primary school students from the upper grades, ages of 9–11, also served as the sample in three studies [45,54], while another three [41,42,48] were conducted on students in Grades 3–4.

Among the researchers who chose secondary school students as their sample, the oldest sample involved students age 17 [51], while another [47] was composed of 10th -graders. Other researchers [43,44] used secondary school students in Grades 8–9, ages 12–13, as a sample. Finally, two studies [49,50] featured samples of secondary school students between the ages of 12–16.

4.4 Types of AR Devices Used

Researchers in the 14 studies reviewed used various devices and applications in their research. Smart phones appear to be the most popular, used in nearly half of the studies [42,44,46–48,51]. Two studies [41,54] used tablets, while another [43] used unspecified iOS mobile devices during their research, which was conducted at archaeological sites. Two more studies [49,50] relied on computers, early smart phones and video phones. Among the researchers opting for less widespread AR technology, one study [53] used handheld devices and a pico-projector, while two more [45,52] used Makey Makey boards, with the latter also incorporating computers and projectors.

4.5 Pedagogical Foundations

Regarding the pedagogical foundations guiding the research presented here, two stud-ies [49,50] make overt reference to the theory of constructivism, while others include

</div>Trang 24<div class="page_container" data-page="24">

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 9 implicit references. Toward this end, two studies focus on embodied learning and mobile embodiment theory [45,54], while another [41] adopts Endacott and Brooks’ view of historical empathy and the practice of scaffolding. The “learning by doing” concept was germane to the experiences of the participants in two more studies [44,54]. In addition, one study [46] refers to blended learning theory and Piaget’s theory of Cogni-tive Development, while another [48] relies on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Finally, there was a study [53] grounded on reality-based interaction, which adhered to the World-as-Support paradigm, and modified Lentini and Decortis’ five dimensions of experience in phys-ical space (geometrphys-ical and geographphys-ical experience, personal, sensorial, cultural, and relational experience) to guide its work.

Although not learning theories in themselves, the aforementioned concepts stem from the learning theory of constructivism. Nonetheless, out of the 14 studies, five [42, 43,47,51,52] did not include any references to learning theories, learning models, or characteristic elements related to learning theories.

4.6 Methodological Design

The majority of the researchers employed a quasi-experimental design for their studies, with two [44,51] relying solely on questionnaires and another two [47,48] using pre-and post-tests only. Others [42,50] adopted a mixed methods approach, using the pretest-posttest method together with a questionnaire and observation, while a third pair [41, 45] combined the pre- and post-test with interviews.

Meanwhile, other researchers based their investigations on case studies, with one [46] collecting data from interviews, another two [52,53] using questionnaires and interviews to evaluate their experiment, and a third pair [49,54] basing their research on observation. Finally, there was a field study [43] that relied on a questionnaire to collect data.

4.7 Learning Outcomes

In terms of the learning outcomes, the main results reported in this review included com-prehension of learning contents, motivation to use AR technology or engage in learning activities, attitudes toward the use of AR in teaching and learning, including acceptance of the technology, and enjoyment/satisfaction in engaging in activities employing the technology. Of the studies reviewed, the impact of AR on student comprehension was the most frequently noted outcome, being mentioned in all of studies. Degrees of com-prehension differ, with some studies [41,43–47,50,51] reporting clear learning gains due to the AR intervention and others noting that improved student performance was not statistically significant [42] or while statistically significant, nonetheless relatively small [48]. Some researchers also found that despite an increase in student knowledge certain issues affecting learning continued to be observed after the use of AR. For exam-ple, despite significant improvements to chronological understanding and processing of temporal concepts, one study [45] found that students continued to have problems associ-ating years to centuries, particularly regarding the BC era, while another [54] discovered that although the interaction with AR media helped students construct a new concept of “place”, it also conflated their comprehension of space and time, necessitating follow-up

</div>Trang 25<div class="page_container" data-page="25">

classroom activities to foster historical reflection and conceptualization. The importance of scaffolding and tailoring AR use to pre- and post-intervention activities is also empha-sized in another study [41]. The role of somatic learning and active participation to foster embodied knowledge was also a key finding highlighted by several researchers [45,49, 52–54]. Another factor that appears to have impacted learning in some of the research is age, with one study [46] finding primary school students in Grades 3–4 best suited to participate in AR-enabled blended learning - particularly when collaborating with peers, as opposed to working alone or with siblings of other ages - and another [52] suggesting that primary school-aged students are better suited to learn and interact with low-fidelity interactive AR environments that are not necessarily seamlessly authentic.

The next most widely cited outcome was AR’s impact on attitudes, which was ascer-tained by several researchers [42,43,46,52,53]. It is interesting to note that even in research where comprehension was not statistically significant [42], student attitudes and interest remained positive. Findings included in some of these studies are partic-ularly seminal in terms of reinforcing the idea that students respond better to learning History when given the opportunity to participate in the lesson actively and tangibly, digitally interacting with historical artifacts [52], reflect on history by storifying it [49], take on the role of performer [53], or attain experiential knowledge, as opposed to passively receiving information through one-way teacher-centered instruction [46]. As in the case of knowledge acquisition detailed above, which is dependent on pre- and post-instructional interventions, particular types of AR-based activities may cause fluc-tuations in students’ perception of historical events being studied [49]. Nevertheless, positive experiences with AR create favorable student impressions and make them want to experience it again by interacting anew with other AR apps or games [43].

Motivation and enjoyment were less commonly cited factors in the research. The findings regarding motivation are somewhat incongruent as some research indicates that AR usage improved student motivation to learn [43,44,46], while another study [50] found no significant difference between the experimental group engaging in the AR history game and the control group receiving project-based instruction. On the contrary, there was a study [44] attributing the improved knowledge and retention exhibited by the experimental group engaged with AR to greater motivation. Another study [43] also associated the interest and cooperation exhibited by students playing the AR game used in their experiment to its competitive nature, impacting their motivation to win. One study [52] makes specific reference to the enjoyability of the AR environment and activities in which students were engaged, noting that, as primary school students, their relatively young age made them better suited to authentically interact with this specific technology compared to older students.

Finally, it should be noted that two studies [44,51] incorporated elements of both AR and VR in their experiments, making the interpretation of their results more complex. Although not exclusively AR-based, the featured technology was grounded in AR to such a degree that their inclusion in the literature review seemed reasonable. In one study [44], students received instruction via AR regarding their subsequent usage of a VR game, while in the other study [51], the AR component of the featured ScoolAR platform informs students learning ahead of interaction with 360-degree panoramic VR images.

</div>Trang 26<div class="page_container" data-page="26">

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 11

5 Conclusions

This work presented a review of a total of 14 articles related to the use of AR in formal and informal learning environments to teach History to students at the primary and secondary education level. This review addresses a gap in the research and contributes to the existing literature by presenting, comparing, and analyzing relevant AR studies and learning interventions. Based on the results, these studies revealed numerous benefits for the students who interacted with AR, including a positive impact on their learning, motivation, engagement, and enjoyment, as well as an increase in historical empathy. Nevertheless, more studies are required to inform research knowledge, as not all the existing studies fully address the research questions formulated above. For example, specific reference regarding the type of device used in the AR intervention was not always cited [43], while studies employing both AR and VR technology [44,51] did not clarify AR’s unique impact on learning outcomes. Furthermore, existing research did not always address the learning theories serving as the framework for the experiment or the specific affordances of AR (e.g., immersion, contextualized information, visualization and real-time interaction with digital objects) contributing to observed learning outcomes or providing added value. There is also a need for studies employing greater methodological rigor, such as random sampling featuring larger cross-sectional samples or longitudinal research tracking AR’s impact in teaching History over the years across primary and secondary school.

The results of the findings could influence future practices regarding the use of AR to teach History by encouraging increased usage by students, and continued development by teachers and other developers. A better understanding of the most popular devices and environments where AR is used for History learning will provide greater insight into how this technology is currently being utilized, while possibly revealing new avenues for exploration that could enhance research to influence existing and future pedagogical practices.

This study’s limitation is that the online search was limited to open–access publi-cations and databases available through the authors’ institutional library. This literature review could be extended to investigate the impact of AR on history teaching longitudi-nally across the primary and secondary level. Future research should also study specific affordances of AR that best facilitate teaching History. Finally, future studies should compare the use of AR with other digital technologies to determine how AR interven-tions can best be implemented for learning History in combined formal and informal learning environments.

1. Sat, M., Ilhan, F., Yukselturk, E.: Comparison and evaluation of augmented reality

tech-nologies for designing interactive materials. Educ. Inf. Technol. 28(9), 1154511567

2. Akỗayr, M.: Akỗayr, G: Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for

education: a systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 20, 1–11 (2017)

3. Motejlek, J., Alpay, E.: Taxonomy of virtual and augmented reality applications in education.

IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 14(3), 415–429 (2021)

</div>Trang 27<div class="page_container" data-page="27">

4. Sirakaya, M., Alsancak Sirakaya, D.: Trends in educational augmented reality studies: a

systematic review. Malaysian Online J. Educ. Technol. 6(2), 60–74 (2018)

5. Wu, H.K., Lee, S.W.Y., Chang, H.Y., Liang, J.C.: Current status, opportunities and challenges

of augmented reality in education. Comput. Educ. 62, 41–49 (2013)

6. Azuma, R., Baillot, Y., Behringer, R., Feiner, S., Julier, S., Macintyre, B.: Recent advances

in augmented reality. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 21(6), 34–47 (2001)

7. Cheng, K.H., Tsai, C.C.: Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: suggestions

for future research. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 22(4), 449–462 (2013)

8. Ibáñez, M.B., Portillo, A.U., Cabada, R.Z., Barrón, M.L.: Impact of augmented reality tech-nology on academic achievement and motivation of students from public and private Mexican

schools. A case study in a middle–school geometry course. Comput. Educ. 145, 103734 (2020)

9. Erbas, C., Demirer, V.: The effects of augmented reality on students’ academic achievement

and motivation in a biology course. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 35(3), 450–458 (2019)

10. Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M.B., Kloos, C.D.: Impact of an augmented reality system on students’

motivation for a visual art course. Comput. Educ. 68, 586–596 (2013)

11. Garzón, J., Pavón, J., Baldiris, S.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality

in educational settings. Virtual Reality 23(4), 447–459 (2019)

12. Guntur, M.I.S., Setyaningrum, W.: The effectiveness of augmented reality in learning vector to

improve students’ spatial and problem–solving skills. Int. J. Interact. Mobile Technol. 15(5),

159–173 (2021)

13. Papanastasiou, G., Drigas, A., Skianis, C., Lytras, M., Papanastasiou, E.: Virtual and aug-mented reality effects on k–12, higher and tertiary education students’ twenty-first century

skills. Virtual Reality 23(4), 425–436 (2019)

14. Lin, H.C.K., Chen, M.C., Chang, C.K.: Assessing the effectiveness of learning solid geometry

by using an augmented reality–assisted learning system. Interact. Learn. Environ. 23(6),

799–810 (2015)

15. Ibáñez, M.B., Delgado-Kloos, C.: Augmented reality for STEM learning: a systematic review.

Comput. Educ. 123, 109–123 (2018)

16. Parmaxi, A., Demetriou, A.A.: Augmented reality in language learning: a state-of-the-art

review of 2014–2019. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 36(6), 861–875 (2020)

17. Yang, S., Mei, B., Yue, X.: Mobile augmented reality assisted chemical education: insights

from elements 4D. J. Chem. Educ. 95(6), 1060–1062 (2018)

18. Liu, Y., Sathishkumar, V.E., Manickam, A.: Augmented reality technology based on school

physical education training. Comput. Electr. Eng. 99, 107807 (2022)

19. Barton, K.C., Levstik, L.S.: Teaching History for the Common Good. Routledge, Mahwah (2004)

20. Van Sledright, B.A.: The Challenge of Rethinking History Education: On Practices, theories, and Policy. Routledge, New York (2011)

21. Challenor, J., Ma, M.: A review of augmented reality applications for history education and

heritage visualisation. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 3(2), 39 (2019)

22. Boboc, R.G., B˘autu, E., Gỵrbacia, F., Popovici, N., Popovici, D.M.: Augmented reality in

cultural heritage: an overview of the last decade of applications. Appl. Sci. 12(19), 9859

23. Wangdu, K.: Nation–building in exile: teachers’ perceptions on the goals of teaching history

in the Tibetan refugee schools. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 65(6), 928–940 (2021)

24. Seixas, P., Morton, T., Colyer, J., Fornazzari, S.: The Big Six: Historical Thinking Concepts. Nelson Education, Toronto (2013)

25. Zakai, S.: The stories of our national past: history and heritage in a Jewish high school. Curric.

Inq. 45(2), 219–243 (2015)

26. Stearns, P.N.: Knowing, Teaching, and Learning History: National and International Perspec-tives. NYU Press, New York (2009)

</div>Trang 28<div class="page_container" data-page="28">

The Use of Augmented Reality in Teaching History 13 27. Lim, K.Y., Lim, R.: Semiotics, memory and augmented reality: history education with

learner-generated augmentation. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 51(3), 673–691 (2020)28. Sears, A.: Teaching history, teaching complexity. Agora 53(3), 36–39 (2018)

29. Council of Europe. Quality History Education in the 21st Century–Principles and Guidelines. Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg (2018)

30. Rantala, J., Khawaja, A.: Prospective primary school teachers’ confidence in teaching

disciplinary history. Teach. Teach. Educ. 107, 103492 (2021)

31. Moreira, Alves, L. A., Duarte, P.: Teaching (history) in the 21st century: new competencies

with identical contents. Estud. Ibero–Am. 48(1), e42928 (2022)

32. Dulberg, N.: The theory behind how students learn: applying developmental theory to research

on children’s historical thinking. Theory Res. Soc. Educ. 33(4), 508–531 (2005)

33. Endacott, J.L.: Negotiating the process of historical empathy. Theory Res. Soc. Educ. 42(1),

4–34 (2014)

34. Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M.A., Suman, R.: Understanding the role of digital

technologies in education: a review. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 3, 275–285 (2022)

35. Garzón, J., Acevedo, J.: Meta-analysis of the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning

gains. Educ. Res. Rev. 27, 244–260 (2019)

36. Koutromanos, G., Pittara, T., Tripoulas, C.: Clavis Aurea: an augmented reality game for the teaching of local history. Eur. J. Eng. Technol. Res. 1–8 (2020)

37. Lea, J., Smardz, K., Smith, S.J.: Teaching the past in museums. In: Museums Archaeology, pp. 473–484 (2022)

38. Zhou, Y., Chen, J., Wang, M.: A meta-analytic review on incorporating virtual and augmented

reality in museum learning. Educ. Res. Rev. 36, 100454 (2022)

39. Varinlioglu, G., Halici, S.M.: Gamification of heritage through augmented reality. In: Ecaade Sigradi, pp. 513–518 (2019)

40. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G.: The PRISMA Group: preferred reporting

items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6(7),

e1000097 (2009)

41. Efstathiou, I., Kyza, E.A., Georgiou, Y.: An inquiry-based augmented reality mobile learning approach to fostering primary school students’ historical reasoning in non–formal settings.

Interact. Learn. Environ. 26(1), 22–41 (2018)

42. Ventoulis, E., Xinogalos, S.: AR the gods of Olympus: design and pilot evaluation of an augmented reality educational game for Greek mythology. Multimodal Technol. Interact.

7(1), 2 (2022)

43. Ekonomou, T., Vosinakis, S.: Mobile augmented reality games as an engaging tool for cultural

heritage dissemination: a case study. Sci. Cult. 4(2), 97–107 (2018)

44. Remolar, I., Rebollo, C., Fernández-Moyano, J.A.: Learning history using virtual and

augmented reality. Computers 10(11) (2021)

45. Gogou, A., Kasvikis, K.: Release Orpheus!: understanding historical time in a mixed/augmented reality environment through embodied learning. Education 3–13 (2022) 46. Lee, J., Lee, H.K., Jeong, D., Lee, J., Kim, T., Lee, J.: Developing museum education content:

AR blended learning. Int. J. Art Design Educ. 40(3), 473–491 (2021)

47. Utami, I.W.P., Lutfi, I., Jati, S.S.P., Efendi, M.Y.: Effectivity of augmented reality as media

for history learning. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 14(16), 83–96 (2019)

48. Aljojo, N., et al.: Lens application: mobile application using augmented reality. Int. J. Interact.

Mobile Technol. 14(2), 160–177 (2020)

49. Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J.: Storification in history education: a mobile game

in and about medieval Amsterdam. Comput. Educ. 52(2), 449–459 (2009)

50. Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., Dam, G.T.: Mobile game-based learning in sec-ondary education: engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game. J. Comput.

Assist. Learn. 25(4), 332–344 (2009)

</div>Trang 29<div class="page_container" data-page="29">

51. Puggioni, M., Frontoni, E., Paolanti, M., Pierdicca, R.: ScoolAR: an educational platform to

improve students’ learning through virtual reality. IEEE Access 9, 21059–21070 (2009)

52. Kalpakis, S., Palaigeorgiou, G., Kasvikis, K.: Promoting historical thinking in schools through low fidelity, low–cost, easily reproduceable, tangible and embodied interactions. Int. J. Emerg.

Technol. Learn. 13(12), 67–82 (2018)

53. Schaper, M.M., Santos, M., Malinverni, L., Berro, J.Z., Pares, N.: Learning about the past through situatedness, embodied exploration and digital augmentation of cultural heritage

sites. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 114, 36–50 (2018)

54. Price, S., Jewitt, C., Sakr, M.: Embodied experiences of place: a study of history learning

with mobile technologies. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 32(4), 345–359 (2016)

</div>Trang 30<div class="page_container" data-page="30">

Examining Augmented Reality Smart GlassesAcceptance by In-Service Teachers

Georgia Kazakou(

B

) and George Koutromanos

Department of Primary Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Ippokratous 20, PC 10680 Athens, Greece

Abstract. This study examined the acceptance of Augmented Reality Smart

Glasses (ARSGs) by 123 primary and secondary education teachers. The theoret-ical framework of the TAM and the variables of facilitating conditions and social influences of the UTAUT were used. The study was conducted in two phases: the first remotely, where teachers created their own AR objects, and the second in person, where teachers used two types of ARSGs devices to project their own AR learning resources and interact with AR applications. The study found that the TAM can be used as a valid model to explain the acceptance of ARSGs by teachers in their classroom. Also, it was found that attitude, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness affected teachers’ intention to use ARSGs. Moreover, the two variables of the UTAUT (i.e., facilitating conditions and social influence) did not influence teachers’ intention. These results have implications for schools as well as for educational policy regarding the use of ARSGs in teaching.

Keywords: Augmented Reality Smart Glasses· TAM · Education · Acceptance

1 Introduction

Augmented Reality (AR) [1], which is part of the Metaverse [2], is widely recognized as an emerging technology. It is defined as an experience that combines virtual content with a user’s physical environment in real time and is displayed through computing devices [3]. It features unique affordances such as concretization of abstract concepts, enhanced sense of presence, immediacy, and immersion [4,5]. One of the fields where AR is successfully exploited is education. According to literature reviews and meta-analyses, AR has a positive effect on learning outcomes, motivation, student concentration, and acquisition of vocational competences [6 8].

Augmented Reality Smart Glasses (ARSGs) are one way in which AR can be viewed. These glasses allow the user to see digital images superimposed in the real world (optical see-through) or to see video images generated by the glasses (video see-through) [9].

They differ from other AR projectors (e.g., handheld devices) because they have affordances such as immersion and first-person view [10,11].

The issue of the acceptance of ARSGs by teachers – who are among the most impor-tant stakeholders in the educational process – is imporimpor-tant as the value and importance

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024M. E. Auer and T. Tsiatsos (Eds.): IMCL 2023, LNNS 936, pp. 15–26, 2024.

class="text_page_counter">Trang 31<div class="page_container" data-page="31">

of ARSGs continue to increase during the Metaverse era. However, research regarding teachers’ acceptance of this new technology in their teaching is limited [12]. In particu-lar, what has been investigated is: (a) students’ acceptance of ARSGs in higher education [13–15] and (b) primary and secondary school teachers’ acceptance of ARSGs in their teaching [16]. A common feature of these studies is that the sample did not interact with the ARSGs. It is, therefore, necessary not only to investigate teachers’ acceptance of these smart glasses in teaching with more studies, but also with research that applies a more rigorous methodology. Investigating the factors that influence teachers to use ARSGs in their classrooms can help us understand how to design educational applications, develop didactic scenarios, and train teachers to use this new technology effectively. In addition, we can begin to develop solutions that address the challenges and maximize the benefits of smart glasses for education.

Therefore, this study aims to use the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [17] and two variables from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [18] - i.e., the facilitating conditions and the social influence - to examine the factors that influence in-service teachers’ intention to use ARSGs in their teaching. The objectives of this study are the investigation of:

1. attitude, perceived usefulness, facilitating conditions and social influence on teachers’ intention to use ARSGs,

2. perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on teachers’ attitude towards the use of ARSGs, and

3. perceived ease of use on teachers’ perceived usefulness on the use of ARSGs. The organization of the article includes four more sections. Section2summarizes the existing research on the acceptance of ARSGs in education and presents the theoretical framework that underpins this study. Section 3 illustrates the research methodology followed; i.e., sample, data collection instrument, and procedure. Section4presents the results of the study. Finally, Sect.5summarizes the findings, presents the limitations of the study, and suggests directions for future research in the field.

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Technology Acceptance Models

Educational technology researchers have used many different theories and models to understand how people adopt digital technologies. One of the first theories to examine this was the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) [19]. This theory supports, that indi-viduals’ intention to use digital technology is affected by their attitude (Att) towards the technology and their perception of social norms (i.e., subjective norm). Attitude is a person’s overall evaluation of a technology, while social norms are the perceived expec-tations of significant others. The TRA was extended by the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [20]. TPB added in TRA a third factor, the perceived behavioral control, which is a person’s perception of their ability to use a technology. The Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior (DTPB) [21] further decomposed the attitude and perceived behav-ioral control factors into more specific components - attitude toward behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control.

</div>Trang 32<div class="page_container" data-page="32">

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 17 The TAM [17] is one of the most well-known and widely used models of digital technologies acceptance in education. TAM posits that people’s decision to use a tech-nology is influenced by two perceptions - perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU). PU is a person’s perception that using a specific digital technology will help them achieve their goals. PEOU is defined as a person’s perception regard-ing whether usregard-ing a digital technology will be easy. Therefore, its main variables are intention, attitude (Att), PU, and PEOU. TAM 2 [22] and TAM 3 [23] are extensions of TAM that incorporated additional factors into the model, such as social factors and determinants of PEOU.

The UTAUT [18] is a more recent model that incorporates factors from both TAM and TPB. UTAUT posits that people’s decision to use a technology is influenced by four factors. The first factor is performance expectancy, which is defined as a person’s belief that using a digital technology will help them achieve their goals. The second factor is effort expectancy, which is a person’s perception that using a digital technology will be easy. The third factor is social influence, which is a person’s belief of the expectations of significant others. The fourth factor is facilitating conditions which are available to help people use a digital technology. UTAUT 2 [22] is an extension of UTAUT that added three factors to the model (i.e., price value, habit, and hedonic motivation). Hedonic motivation is a person’s motivation to use a digital technology because it is enjoyable. Habit is a person’s tendency to use a digital technology automatically. Price value is the financial burden that a person will bear to purchase a digital technology.

2.2 Previous Research on the Acceptance of ARSGs in Education

A previous literature review of research investigating the acceptance of ARSGs in various fields [12] found that four studies have been conducted so far on the acceptance of this technology in education. One of these studies was qualitative and focused on in-service teachers, while the other three were quantitative and focused on tertiary education. Both of these studies based their theoretical framework on TAM. It is notable in these studies that the sample did not have the opportunity to interact with the ARSG device.

More specifically, the quantitative studies [13–15] all used the TAM as a theoretical framework which they expanded by including the variables of motivation, functionality, trust, and privacy. Motivation was defined as the extent to which students engage in various tasks when using ARSGs, functionality was defined as the degree of attraction, complexity, and practicality of the ARSG device, and trust and privacy were defined as the degree to which a student trusts the ARSG device to share their data with others. The quantitative studies showed that PU and PEOU are positively influenced by the above four variables. In other words, students are more likely to use ARSGs if they believe that this new technology is useful, easy to use, and that they can trust the glasses to keep their data safe.

The qualitative study [16] also based its theoretical framework on TAM and found that PU, privacy risk, facilitating conditions, compatibility, and potential health risk are all important variables that affect teachers’ decision to use AR glasses in teaching practice. Compatibility is defined as the degree to which a teacher perceives that using ARSGs is compatible with their teaching style and experience, and meets their needs during teaching. Privacy risk includes teachers’ concerns about the security of personal data

</div>Trang 33<div class="page_container" data-page="33">

collected by ARSGs, while health risk includes their concerns about potential damage to their health.

In addition, other important factors that influence technology acceptance are facili-tating conditions and the social influence of the UTAUT [18]. More specifically, meta-analyses conducted by [24,25] have found that the conditions which facilitate the use of digital technologies in education influence teachers’ intention. This suggests that the availability of resources and support can also play a role in the integration of mobile AR applications by educators. Social influence can also be a powerful predictor of technol-ogy acceptance, and it is important to consider it when designing and implementing new technologies. This is because an individual’s beliefs about technology are shaped not only by both individual factors (i.e., attitudes, beliefs, and experiences) but also social ones (i.e., opinions and behaviors of friends, family, and colleagues) [26]. Social influ-ence is the extent to which an individual believes that the people who are important to them think they should use digital technology [22]. It is a variable that has been included in several technology acceptance models, such as TRA [19], TAM2 [22], TPB/DTPB, combined TAM-TPB as subjective norms, and Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) as image [27].

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Sample

In this research, 123 in-service Greek primary (N= 37, 30.1%) and secondary (N = 86, 69.9%) school teachers participated voluntarily. Eighty-three (67.5%) were female and 40 (32.5%) were male. Sixty-two (50.4%) were aged up to age 45, while 61 (49.6%)

were aged 46 and over. Their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 37 years (M= 15.20,

SD= 9.782).

3.2 Data Collection Instrument

In this study, the TAM [17] and UTAUT [18] served as the theoretical framework that guided the questionnaire, which was created using Google Forms and composed of two parts. The first part concerned teachers’ demographics; i.e., sex, age, education level, years teaching. The second part featured 19 items related to the six variables of the research model. Specifically, 3 items were used for intention (I), 3 items for attitude (Att), another 3 items for PEOU, and 3 items for PU. Four items of social influence (SI) and 3 items facilitating conditions (FC) were added to the questionnaire.

Four items regarding social influence (SI) and 3 items related to facilitating conditions (FC) were also included in the questionnaire. The items were verbally adapted from the Mobile AR Acceptance Model (MARAM) [28,29]. These items were pilot-tested by four in-service teachers. The sample responded using a 5-point Likert scale (1= Totally disagree to 5= Totally agree). Table2presents the items of the questionnaire.

</div>Trang 34<div class="page_container" data-page="34">

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 19

3.3 Procedure

This research was conducted from May to July 2023. Two devices of ARSGs were used to support the procedure: the Epson Moverio BT–300 and the Magic Leap 1. The study was implemented in two phases - the first remotely and the second in person. The first phase was conducted remotely via the Webex platform and lasted 1.5 h. In it, a presentation of the theoretical terms of AR, ARSGs, and AR applications and textbooks was given. Also, a demonstration of an AR object creation platform (Zapworks) was given so that participants could learn how to augment textbooks themselves. Teachers then created their own AR objects by augmenting a unit from the textbooks they teach. The second phase was implemented in person and lasted 1.5 h. In it, the teachers first wore the Epson Moverio BT–300 device and were asked to freely navigate through various applications, including the camera and the browser, to familiarize themselves with their use. They then used the same device to project the AR learning resources they had created themselves. They were then asked to wear Magic Leap 1 and browse freely to become familiar with it as well (See Fig.1). They then used three interactive applications on the Magic Leap 1 device. The first application featured animations of three extinct prehistoric animals. Participants interacted with the application by placing their hands on three virtual spheres. Each sphere represented one of the extinct animals. When a sphere was activated, the animal came to life and moved around, while the participant listened to a narrative about the animal. The second application was artistic in nature, as it allowed users to create virtual drawings. Participants could use the controller to select brushes, colors, and 3D objects to create their drawings. The third application concerned the 3D

Fig. 1. Teachers interacting with the ARSGs devices.

</div>Trang 35<div class="page_container" data-page="35">

demonstration of the human heart in four different conditions - arterial hypertension, myocardial infarction, normal heart rate, and atrial fibrillation (See Fig. 2). Finally, teachers completed the online questionnaire. Although teachers wore and interacted with both devices, they were instructed to answer the questions concerning the acceptance of ARSGs based on the Magic Leap 1 device. This is because it uses a more modern technology than that of the Epson Moverio BT–300 device, therefore, they could have a more comprehensive view of the ARSGs’ affordances.

Fig. 2. The third application as seen through the Magic Leap 1 device.

3.4 Analysis

The coding and data analysis was conducted using the SPSS (version 26). The reliability of the 19 items of the questionnaire was examined using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (see Table1). Then, the mean and standard deviation analysis of the data was performed (see Table2). In order to determine whether significant relationships exist between the six variables of the research model, we performed Pearson Correlation (two-tailed) analyses. Finally, to examine the influence of the independent variables of the acceptance model on the dependent variables, we implemented three linear regression analyses.

</div>Trang 36<div class="page_container" data-page="36">

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 21

4 Results

4.1 Internal Consistency and Descriptive Analysis

Table1shows the internal consistency of the six variables in the questionnaire as mea-sured by Cronbach’s alpha. The values range from .732 for facilitating conditions to .967 for social influence. All variables have values above 0.70, which is considered to

The mean (M) as well as standard deviation (SD) of the six variables and 19 items of

the questionnaire are presented in Table2. The values of the overall mean scores range from 3.67 (social influence) to 4.76 (attitudes). Most of the variables have mean scores above 4, which indicates that the teachers in the study had positive attitudes toward these variables. The mean scores for facilitating conditions and social influence are lower, but they are still relatively positive. More specifically, the teachers had a positive intention

to use ARSGs (M= 4.23, SD = .726), positive attitudes toward using ARSGs (M =4.76, SD= .446), and positive perceptions regarding ease of use (M = 4.45, SD = .782)and usefulness (M= 4.57, SD = .561) of ARSGs. In terms of the facilitating conditions

variable, teachers do not strongly feel that the conditions to facilitate the use ARSGs in

their teaching exist (M= 3.76, SD = .856); namely, they do not have the resources (M =3.88, SD= .856), knowledge (M = 3.77, SD = 1.093), time (M = 3.65, SD = .1.132) orsupport from the school (M= 3.76, SD = 1.140) to use them effectively. Regarding the

social influence variable, teachers do not feel strong pressure from their peers or other

significant individuals in their lives to use ARSGs in their teaching (M= 3.67, SD =

.1.024).

</div>Trang 37<div class="page_container" data-page="37">

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the variables of the study.

I intend to use ARSGs in my future teaching 4.40 .733

I predict I will use ARSGs in my future teaching 4.33 .786

My interaction with ARSGs is clear and understandable 4.51 .728 It is easy for me to become skillful at using ARSGs 4.40 .921

Using ARSGs enhances my teaching effectiveness 4.56 .603

Using ARSGs increases my teaching productivity 4.54 .617

I have the resources (e.g., Internet connection) necessary to use ARSGs in my teaching

I have the knowledge needed to use ARSGs in my teaching 3.77 1.093 I have the time needed to use ARSGs in my teaching 3.64 1.132 I have the necessary support from my school (e.g.,

headmaster, colleagues) to use ARSGs in my teaching

People who are important to me think that I should use

4.2 Pearson Correlations Analysis

The results of the Pearson correlation in Table3show that there was a positive correlation between teachers’ intention to use of ARSGs in their classroom and the other four

variables in the following order: PU (r= +.572), Att (r = +.567), FC (r = +.409),

</div>Trang 38<div class="page_container" data-page="38">

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 23

and SI (r= +.214). Additionally, teachers’ attitude was very positively correlated with

their PU (r= +.662) and PEOU (r = +.661). Table3also shows that the PU of the use of ARSGs in teaching positively correlated with the PEOU of ARSGs.

Table 3. Pearson correlations analysis

Table 4 presents the summary of the regression analysis results. The first regression analysis shows that teachers’ intention to use ARSGs was regressed on attitude, per-ceived usefulness, facilitating conditions, and social influence. As is evident, the four independent variables explained 39.5% of the variance in teachers’ intention, while the

Table 4. Regression analysis of the study’s variables on in-service teachers’ intention

</div>Trang 39<div class="page_container" data-page="39">

PU of ARSGs and attitude toward their use provided significant contributions. The PU was the most significant predictor of intention.

In the second regression, teachers’ attitude toward the use of ARSGs in their teach-ing was regressed on PU and PEOU. Consistent with the TAM, the two latter variables explained 52.5% of the variance in teachers’ attitude. The PEOU had the strongest influ-ence on attitude. In order to investigate the extent to which the PEOU explains teachers’ PU of ARSGs, a third regression analysis was conducted. According to the findings in Table4, the independent variable determined 40.8% of the variance of teachers’ PEOU.

5 Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research

This study aimed to examine teachers’ intention to use ARSGs in their teaching and identify the factors affecting this intention by using the TAM, as well as the social influ-ence and facilitating conditions of UTAUT. Its results show that teachers have a positive intention to incorporate ARSGs in their instruction. Most specifically, teachers have a positive attitude towards this new technology, and they believe that it easy to use and useful in their teaching. Although the results indicated that there was a positive relation-ship between teachers’ intention to use ARSGs and all variables, those that stand out, according to the regression analysis, are attitude, PU, and PEOU. The fact that teach-ers are not strongly influenced by their environment to accept ARSGs is possibly due to the lack of public knowledge regarding it. Also, the fact that facilitating conditions do not contribute to teachers’ intention to use ARSGs could be explained by the cen-tralized nature (i.e., limited local autonomy, slow decision making, inflexibility) of the educational system in Greece [31]. This means that teachers most often either do not control or do not feel that they can control the conditions that can facilitate their teaching. These results enhance the applicability and predictability of the TAM regarding teachers’ acceptance of ARSGs and are in compliance with previous studies on the acceptance of ARSGs [13,14,16] and of mobile AR applications used by teachers [28,29]. Moreover, based on this study, it is implied that teachers’ intention to use ARSGs can be enhanced by improving their perceptions of the usefulness and usability of ARSGs, most likely through pedagogical and technological training. This is a useful insight for researchers, practitioners, and education policymakers.

The results of this study add to the existing research literature on the integration of ARSGs by in-service teachers. Its originality relates to two elements. Primarily, it is the first to utilize a sample of teachers who wore and interacted with two ARSGs devices. Secondly, this interaction occurred after the teachers gained experience in designing and developing their own AR objects. However, there are two limitations to this study. The first is that the study only used a specific ARSG device - i.e., the Magic Leap 1 - to measure teachers’ intention. It is possible that using different devices would produce different results. The second is that the study participants were from one country, which means that conclusions should be drawn with caution.

Further research should measure whether other variables related to ARSGs’ affor-dances can enhance the predictability of TAM in the context of education. These variables could be immersion, mobile self-efficacy, perceived enjoyment, and relative advantage [28,29]. These affordances could then be used to develop a model of how ARSGs are accepted by teachers.

</div>Trang 40<div class="page_container" data-page="40">

Examining Augmented Reality Smart Glasses Acceptance 25

1. Verhulst, I., Woods, A., Whittaker, L., Bennett, J., Dalton, P.: Do VR and AR versions of an immersive cultural experience engender different user experiences? Comput. Hum. Behav.

125, 106951 (2021). Dixon, H.H.B., Jr.: The Metaverse. Judges’ J. 62(1), 36–38 (2023)

3. Rauschnabel, P.A., Felix, R., Hinsch, C., Shahab, H., Alt, F.: What is XR? Towards a

framework for augmented and virtual reality. Comput. Hum. Behav. 133, 107289 (2022)

4. Arici, F., Yilmaz, R.M., Yilmaz, M.: Affordances of augmented reality technology for educa-tion: views of secondary school students and science teachers. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. (2021). Garzón, J., Pavón, J., Baldiris, S.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality

in educational settings. Virtual Reality 23(4), 447–459 (2019)

6. Chiang, F.K., Shang, X., Qiao, L.: Augmented reality in vocational training: a systematic

review of research and applications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 129, 107125 (2022)

7. Sırakaya, M., Alsancak Sırakaya, D.: Augmented reality in STEM education: a systematic

review. Interact. Learn. Environ. 30(8), 1556–1569 (2022)

8. Yu, Z.: Meta-analyses of effects of augmented reality on educational outcomes over a decade. Interact. Learn. Environ. 1–15 (2023). 9. Bräker, J., Semmann, M.: Is There more than pokémon go?–Exploring the state of research on

causal modeling in the field of augmented reality. In: 56th Hawaii International Conference Proceedings on System Sciences, pp. 1323–1332 (2023). 10. Bower, M., Sturman, D.: What are the educational affordances of wearable technologies?

Comput. Educ. 88, 343–353 (2015)

11. Holdack, E., Lurie-Stoyanov, K., Fromme, H.F.: The role of perceived enjoyment and per-ceived informativeness in assessing the acceptance of AR wearables. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.

65, 102259 (2022). Koutromanos, G., Kazakou, G.: Augmented reality smart glasses use and acceptance: a

literature review. Comput. Educ. X Reality 2, 100028 (2023)

13. Alfaisal, R., et al.: Predicting the intention to use google glass in the educational projects: a

hybrid SEM- ML approach. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 21(6), 1–13 (2022)

14. Al Hamad, M.A.Q., Akour, I., Alshurideh, M., Al-Hamad, A.Q., Kurdi, B.A., Alzoubi, H.: Predicting the intention to use google glass: a comparative approach using machine learning models and PLS-SEM. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci. 311–320 (2021)

15. Al-Maroof, R.A., Alfaisal, A.M., Salloum, S.A.: Google glass adoption in the educational

environment: a case study in the Gulf area. Educ. Inf. Technol. 26(3), 2477–2500 (2020)

16. Kazakou, G., Koutromanos, G.: Augmented Reality Smart Glasses in Education: Teachers’ Perceptions Regarding the Factors That Influence Their Use in the Classroom. In Interac-tive Mobile Communication, Technologies and Learning (pp. 145–155). Cham: Springer International Publishing (2021). Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information

technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989). Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information

technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)

19. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)

20. Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–211

21. Taylor, S., Todd, P.A.: Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing

models. Inf. Syst. Res. 6, 144–176 (1995).