Exploring the Acceptability of HELP-XR among Instructors: A Tool for XR Pedagogical Content Creation
Article No.: 14, Pages 1 - 9
Abstract
Virtual and Augmented Reality (VR and AR) are recognized for their potential in education, yet their widespread adoption remains limited, primarily due to challenges in content creation, especially in Extended Reality (XR). This paper presents an acceptability study of HELP XR, an authoring tool aimed at simplifying XR content creation. Following the Design Science Research Paradigm, we assessed educators’ attitudes towards technology using the Greek Computer Attitudes Scale (GCAS), followed by an evaluation of HELP XR’s acceptability using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) framework. Our study with 14 participants revealed positive attitudes towards computers, with high ratings in effort expectancy and facilitating conditions for HELP XR. These findings indicate its potential to ease XR content creation barriers in educational settings.
References
[1]
Linda Acosta Salgado, Eric Bonjour, and Auguste Rakotondranaivo. 2020. Towards an improved acceptability assessment model of innovative solutions in the design phase. International Journal of Business Information Systems 1, 1 (2020), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2020.10029802
[2]
Ida Fatimawati Adi Badiozaman, Augustus Raymond Segar, and John Hii. 2022. A pilot evaluation of technology –Enabled active learning through a Hybrid Augmented and Virtual Reality app. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 59, 5 (Sept. 2022), 586–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1899034 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1899034.
[3]
Murat Akçayır and Gökçe Akçayır. 2017. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review 20 (Feb. 2017), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
[4]
ARETE. 2022. Interactive Authoring Toolkit integration with MirageXR. (2022). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6579859
[5]
Andrés Ayala García, Israel Galván Bobadilla, Gustavo Arroyo Figueroa, Miguel Pérez Ramírez, and Javier Muñoz Román. 2016. Virtual reality training system for maintenance and operation of high-voltage overhead power lines. Virtual Reality 20, 1 (March 2016), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-015-0280-6
[6]
Gian Vittorio Caprara, Claudio Barbaranelli, Laura Borgogni, and Marco Perugini. 1993. The “big five questionnaire”: A new questionnaire to assess the five factor model. Personality and Individual Differences 15, 3 (Sept. 1993), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90218-R
[7]
Iolanda L. Chamusca, Cristiano V. Ferreira, Thiago B. Murari, Antonio L. Apolinario, and Ingrid Winkler. 2023. Towards Sustainable Virtual Reality: Gathering Design Guidelines for Intuitive Authoring Tools. Sustainability 15, 4 (Jan. 2023), 2924. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042924 Number: 4 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
[8]
Stephanie Hui-Wen Chuah. 2018. Why and Who Will Adopt Extended Reality Technology? Literature Review, Synthesis, and Future Research Agenda. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3300469
[9]
Hugo Coelho, Pedro Monteiro, Guilherme Gonçalves, Miguel Melo, and Maximino Bessa. 2022. Authoring tools for virtual reality experiences: a systematic review. Multimedia Tools and Applications 81, 19 (Aug. 2022), 28037–28060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12829-9
[10]
Andreas Dengel, Muhammad Zahid Iqbal, Silke Grafe, and Eleni Mangina. 2022. A Review on Augmented Reality Authoring Toolkits for Education. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 3 (April 2022), 798032. https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2022.798032
[11]
Sanika Doolani, Callen Wessels, Varun Kanal, Christos Sevastopoulos, Ashish Jaiswal, Harish Nambiappan, and Fillia Makedon. 2020. A Review of Extended Reality (XR) Technologies for Manufacturing Training. Technologies 8, 4 (Dec. 2020), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies8040077 Number: 4 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
[12]
Matt Dunleavy, Chris Dede, and Rebecca Mitchell. 2009. Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 18, 1 (Feb. 2009), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1
[13]
Mohamed Ez-zaouia, Iza Marfisi-Schottman, Maysa Oueslati, Cendrine Mercier, Aous Karoui, and Sébastien George. 2022. A Design Space of Educational Authoring Tools for Augmented Reality. In Games and Learning Alliance, Kristian Kiili, Koskinen Antti, Francesca De Rosa, Muhterem Dindar, Michael Kickmeier-Rust, and Francesco Bellotti (Eds.). Vol. 13647. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22124-8_25 Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
[14]
Laura Freina and Michela Ott. 2015. A Literature Review on Immersive Virtual Reality in Education: State Of The Art and Perspectives.The international scientific conference elearning and software for education 1, 133 (2015), 10–1007.
[15]
Alex Gabriel. 2024. HELP-XR instructor acceptability. https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:snp:bce7da486fe04f78882c514f7fa523469e5dd172;origin=https://github.com/ERPI-UL/helpxr-instructor-acceptability
[16]
Daniel Galvez, Lorena Delgado, Christopher Caceres, and Lucas Villarroel. 2022. Virtual Laboratory, a Learning Resource for Distance Education. In 2022 IEEE 28th International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC) & 31st International Association For Management of Technology (IAMOT) Joint Conference. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/ITMC-IAMOT55089.2022.10033177
[17]
Juan Garzón and Juan Acevedo. 2019. Meta-analysis of the impact of Augmented Reality on students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review 27 (June 2019), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001
[18]
Robin Horst, Ramtin Naraghi-Taghi-Off, Linda Rau, and Ralf Doerner. 2022. Authoring With Virtual Reality Nuggets—Lessons Learned. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 3 (2022). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frvir.2022.840729
[19]
S. Kassotaki and P. Roussos. 2006. The Greek computer self-efficacy scale. In Proceedings of the 5th Panhellenic Conference ICT in Education. 726–733.
[20]
Sam Kavanagh, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Burkhard Wuensche, and Beryl Plimmer. 2017. A systematic review of Virtual Reality in education. Themes in Science & Technology Education 2, 10 (2017), 85–119.
[21]
Kalliope Kounenou, Petros Roussos, and Vasiliki Yotsidi. 2014. Teacher Training in Technology Based on their Psychological Characteristics: Methods of Group Formation and Assessment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 116 (Feb. 2014), 3536–3541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.798
[22]
Kalliope Kounenou, Petros Roussos, Vasiliki Yotsidi, and Maria Tountopoulou. 2015. Trainee Teachers’ Intention to Incorporating ICT Use into Teaching Practice in Relation to their Psychological Characteristics: The Case of Group-based Intervention. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 190 (May 2015), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.925
[23]
Flavien Lécuyer, Valérie Gouranton, Adrien Reuzeau, Ronan Gaugne, and Bruno Arnaldi. 2020. Action sequencing in VR, a no-code approach. Transactions on Computational Science (2020), 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-61983-4_4
[24]
Guido Makransky, Thomas S. Terkildsen, and Richard E. Mayer. 2019. Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction 60 (April 2019), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
[25]
Maram Meccawy. 2023. Teachers’ prospective attitudes towards the adoption of extended reality technologies in the classroom: interests and concerns. Smart Learning Environments 10, 1 (July 2023), 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00256-8
[26]
Paul Milgram, Haruo Takemura, Akira Utsumi, and Fumio Kishino. 1994. Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies 2351 (Jan. 1994). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.197321
[27]
Brad Myers, Scott E Hudson, and Randy Pausch. 2000. Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 7, 1 (2000).
[28]
Michael Nebeling. 2022. XR tools and where they are taking us: characterizing the evolving research on augmented, virtual, and mixed reality prototyping and development tools. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 29, 1 (Sept. 2022), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3558192
[29]
Michael Nebeling and Maximilian Speicher. 2018. The Trouble with Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality Authoring Tools. In 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, Munich, Germany, 333–337. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct.2018.00098
[30]
Isabelle Pagé, Marianne Roos, Olivier Collin, Sean Dean Lynch, Marie-Eve Lamontagne, Hugo Massé-Alarie, and Andréanne K Blanchette. 2023. UTAUT2-based questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation to Canadian French. Disability and Rehabilitation 45, 4 (Feb. 2023), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2037746
[31]
Veronica S. Pantelidis. 2010. Reasons to Use Virtual Reality in Education and Training Courses and a Model to Determine When to Use Virtual Reality. Themes in Science and Technology Education 2, 1-2 (Oct. 2010), 59–70. http://earthlab.uoi.gr/theste/index.php/theste/article/view/22 Number: 1-2.
[32]
F. Paraskeva, H. Bouta, and Aik. Papagianni. 2008. Individual characteristics and computer self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational practice. Computers & Education 50, 3 (April 2008), 1084–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.10.006
[33]
Stéphanie Philippe, Alexis D. Souchet, Petros Lameras, Panagiotis Petridis, Julien Caporal, Gildas Coldeboeuf, and Hadrien Duzan. 2020. Multimodal teaching, learning and training in virtual reality: a review and case study. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware 2, 5 (Oct. 2020), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vrih.2020.07.008
[34]
Vinícius Pires De Oliveira, Rodrigo De Jesus Macedo, Fabio Vinicius De Freitas, Andrea Machado, Thiago Murari, and Ingrid Winkler. 2023. Virtual reality authoring tools acceptance and use: An exploratory study with the UTAUT2 model. In Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality. ACM, Rio Grande Brazil, 299–303. https://doi.org/10.1145/3625008.3625053
[35]
Alexandros Proedrou, Margarita Stankova*, Maria Malagkoniari, and Polina Mihova. 2023. Self-Efficacy and Attitudes Toward Computers of General and Special Education Teachers in Greece During the COVID-19 Period. European Journal of Educational Research 12, 4 (Oct. 2023), 1645–1656. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.12.4.1645
[36]
Philipp A. Rauschnabel, Alexander Brem, and Bjoern S. Ivens. 2015. Who will buy smart glasses? Empirical results of two pre-market-entry studies on the role of personality in individual awareness and intended adoption of Google Glass wearables. Computers in Human Behavior 49 (Aug. 2015), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.003
[37]
Philipp A. Rauschnabel, Reto Felix, Chris Hinsch, Hamza Shahab, and Florian Alt. 2022. What is XR? Towards a Framework for Augmented and Virtual Reality. Computers in Human Behavior 133 (Aug. 2022), 107289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107289
[38]
Killian Richard, Vincent Havard, Jordan His, and David Baudry. 2021. INTERVALES: INTERactive Virtual and Augmented framework for industriaL Environment and Scenarios. Advanced Engineering Informatics 50 (Oct. 2021), 101425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2021.101425 Publisher: Elsevier.
[39]
Mario A. Rojas-Sánchez, Pedro R. Palos-Sánchez, and José A. Folgado-Fernández. 2023. Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on virtual reality and education. Education and Information Technologies 28, 1 (Jan. 2023), 155–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11167-5
[40]
Francisco Rondan-Cataluña, Jorge Arenas-Gaitán, and Patricio Ramírez-Correa. 2015. A comparison of the different versions of popular technology acceptance models: A non-linear perspective. Kybernetes 44 (July 2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2014-0184
[41]
Petros Roussos. 2007. The Greek computer attitudes scale: construction and assessment of psychometric properties. Computers in Human Behavior 23 (Jan. 2007), 578–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.027
[42]
Ronny Scherer and Fazilat Siddiq. 2015. Revisiting teachers’ computer self-efficacy: A differentiated view on gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior 53 (Dec. 2015), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.038
[43]
Ioannis Tsaousis. 2002. The traits personality questionnaire (TPQue). In Big five assessment. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Ashland, OH, US, 238–256.
[44]
Ioannis Tsaousis and Ploutarxos Kerpelis. 2004. The Traits Personality Questionnaire 5 (TPQue5). European Journal of Psychological Assessment 20, 3 (Jan. 2004), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.20.3.180 Publisher: Hogrefe Publishing.
[45]
Pieter Vanneste, Yi Huang, Jung Yeon Park, Frederik Cornillie, Bart Decloedt, and Wim Van den Noortgate. 2020. Cognitive support for assembly operations by means of augmented reality: an exploratory study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 143 (Nov. 2020), 102480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102480
[46]
Viswanath Venkatesh, James Y. L. Thong, and Xin Xu. 2012. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly 36, 1 (2012), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412 Publisher: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota.
[47]
Silviu Vert and Diana Andone. 2019. Virtual Reality Authoring Tools for Educators. ITM Web of Conferences 29 (2019), 03008. https://doi.org/10.1051/itmconf/20192903008
[48]
Fridolin Wild, Christine Perey, Benedikt Hensen, and Ralf Klamma. 2020. IEEE Standard for Augmented Reality Learning Experience Models. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE). IEEE, Takamatsu, Japan, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE48869.2020.9368405
[49]
Zeynel Abidin Yilmaz and Veli Batdi. 2021. Meta-Analysis of the Use of Augmented Reality Applications in Science Teaching. Journal of Science Learning 4, 3 (July 2021), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v4i3.30570
Index Terms
- Exploring the Acceptability of HELP-XR among Instructors: A Tool for XR Pedagogical Content Creation
Recommendations
XR Immersion for teaching and learning with precise visualization in user perspective
ICEDS '24: Proceedings of the 2024 5th International Conference on Education Development and StudiesUser Perspective Learning is a method that stresses the importance of teaching and learning from the user's point of view (POV). A video is usually created from the user's point of view to be viewed on desktop displays, televisions, and mobile devices. ...
An Authoring Tool for XR Learning Environments
Extended RealityAbstractThe creation of extended reality applications, which combine elements of virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality, is complex and demanding, especially in education where its use has grown exponentially in recent years. This paper ...
Unified Representation for XR Content and its Rendering Method
Web3D '20: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on 3D Web TechnologyVirtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) have become familiar technologies with related markets growing rapidly every year. Moreover, the idea of considering VR and AR as one eXtended reality (XR) has broken the border between virtual space and ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2024
578 pages
Copyright © 2024 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 03 June 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
AVI 2024
AVI 2024: International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces 2024
June 3 - 7, 2024
Arenzano, Genoa, Italy
Acceptance Rates
AVI '24 Paper Acceptance Rate 21 of 82 submissions, 26%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 128 of 490 submissions, 26%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 39Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)39
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format