Main Article Content

Authors

Ankit Kumar

Ayush Singh Bhadauriya

Aman Kaushik

Ms. Priyanka Singh

Abstract

The growing presence of educational technology has significantly reshaped how students engage with learning content. These tools not only enhance comprehension but also increase learner motivation by providing dynamic, interactive experiences.


However, research has shown that when technology fails to stimulate critical thinking, reasoning, or self-reflection, it can result in passive learning that limits academic growth. Among the emerging innovations, Augmented Reality (AR) stands out for its ability to bridge this gap. AR introduces a hybrid learning environment where digital elements are overlaid onto the real world, allowing students to interact with virtual models, simulations, and visualizations in real time.


This paper explores the transformative impact of AR on modern learning methodologies. It discusses how AR can improve understanding by offering immersive educational experiences that are particularly effective in subjects that require visualization, such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, and geography. Furthermore, it compares the benefits of AR with traditional teaching approaches such as chalk-and- talk and more recent digital tools like e-learning platforms, highlighting AR’s advantages in fostering engagement and retention.


The study also outlines the limitations of AR, including technological constraints and accessibility issues, and provides recommendations for future research to address these challenges. By reviewing current applications of AR in education and evaluating its effectiveness across various disciplines, this paper emphasizes AR’s growing potential to support more personalized, interactive, and efficient learning environments. The findings suggest that with continued research and thoughtful integration, AR can become a central tool in 21st-century education.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section

Articles

References

  1. Bevins, S., Brodie, M., & Brodie, E. (2005). A study of UK secondary school students’ perceptions of science and engineering.
  2. In European Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Dublin, 7-10 September 2005.
  3. Bjork, R. A. (1989). Retrieval inhibition as an adaptive mechanism in human memory. In H. L.
  4. Roediger III, & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory & consciousness (pp. 309- 330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. Burton, E. P., Frazier, W., Annetta, L., Lamb, R., Cheng, R., & Chmiel, M. (2011). Modeling Augmented Reality Games with Preservice. Jl. of Technology and Teacher Education, 19(3), 303-329.
  6. Cerqueira, C. S., & Kirner, C. (2012). Developing Educational Applications with a Non-Programming Augmented Reality Authoring Tool. Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 2816-2825).
  7. Chang, G., Morreale, P., & Medicherla, P. (2011). Applications of Augmented Reality Systems in Education. Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010, 1380-1385. Coffin, C., Bostandjiev, S., Ford, J., & Hollerer, T. (2008). Enhancing Classroom and Distance Learning Through Augmented Reality. Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual Representations in Science Education: The influence of prior knowledge and Cognitive Load Theory on Instructional Design Principles. Sci. Ed.90, 1073-1109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164 Danakorn .
  8. Noor Dayana, A., & Norafffandy, Y. (2013). Mobile Augmented Reality: The potential for education. 13th International Educational Technology Conference, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 657-664.
  9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.385
  10. Dede, C., & Salzman, M. C. (1996). Sciencespace: Virtual Realities for Learning Complex and Abstract Scientific Concepts. IEEE Proceedings of VRAIS ‘96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/vrais.1996.490534
  11. Fleck, S., & Simon, G. (2013). An Augmented Reality Environment for Astronomy Learning in Elementary Grades. An Exploratory Study.
  12. Folkestad, J., & O’Shea, P. (2011). An Analysis of Engagement in a Combination Indoor/Outdoor Augmented Reality Educational Game.
  13. Geer, R., & Sweeney, T.-A. (2012). Students Voice about Learning with Technology. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 294-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2012.294.303
  14. Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and Modelling: Routes to More Authentic Science Education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education2(2), 115-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-3186-4
  15. Goleman, D. (2009). What makes a leader? In D. Demers (Ed.), AHSC 230: Interpersonal communication and relationships (pp. 47-56). Montreal, Canada: Concordia University Bookstore. (Reprinted from Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 93-102).
  16. Hay, K. E., Marlino, M., & Hosehuh, D. R. (2000). The Virtual Exploratorium: Foundational Research and Theory on the Integration of 5-D and Visualization in Undergraduate Geoscience Education. International Conferences of the Learning Science (pp. 214-220). University of Michigan.