Assessing the Relationship between Cognitive Load and the Usability of a Mobile Augmented Reality Tutorial System: A Study of Gender Effects

Abstract

In this study, the relationship between the usability of a mobile Augmented Reality (AR) tutorial system and cognitive load was examined. In this context, the relationship between perceived usefulness, the perceived ease of use, and the perceived natural interaction factors and intrinsic, extraneous, germane cognitive load were investigated. In addition, the effect of gender on this relationship was investigated. The research results show that there was a strong relationship between the perceived ease of use and the extraneous load in males, and there was a strong relationship between the perceived usefulness and the intrinsic load in females. Both the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use had a strong relationship with the germane cognitive load. Moreover, the perceived natural interaction had a strong relationship with the perceived usefulness in females and the perceived ease of use in males. This research will provide significant clues to AR software developers and researchers to help reduce or control cognitive load in the development of AR-based instructional software.

Keywords

• Augmented Reality
• Geometry
• Natural Interaction
• Usability
• Cognitive Load

Assessing the Relationship between Cognitive Load and the Usability of a Mobile Augmented Reality Tutorial System: A Study of Gender Effects

Abstract

In this study, the relationship between the usability of a mobile Augmented Reality (AR) tutorial system and cognitive load was examined. In this context, the relationship between perceived usefulness, the perceived ease of use, and the perceived natural interaction factors and intrinsic, extraneous, germane cognitive load were investigated.  In addition, the effect of gender on this relationship was investigated. The research results show that there was a strong relationship between the perceived ease of use and the extraneous load in males, and there was a strong relationship between the perceived usefulness and the intrinsic load in females. Both the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use had a strong relationship with the germane cognitive load. Moreover, the perceived natural interaction had a strong relationship with the perceived usefulness in females and the perceived ease of use in males. This research will provide significant clues to AR software developers and researchers to help reduce or control cognitive load in the development of AR-based instructional software.

Keywords

• Augmented Reality
• Geometry
• Natural Interaction
• Usability
• Cognitive Load

References

1. Abdullah, A. H., & Zakaria, E. (2013). Enhancing students' level of geometric thinking through van hiele's phase-based learning. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 6(5), 4432-4446.
2. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 665-694.
3. Ahmad, A. M., Goldiez, B. F., & Hancock, P. A. (2005, September). Gender differences in navigation and wayfinding using mobile augmented reality. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49(21), 1868-1872). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
4. Amaguaña, F., Collaguazo, B., Tituaña, J., & Aguilar, W. G. (2018, June). Simulation System Based on Augmented Reality for Optimization of Training Tactics on Military Operations. In International Conference on Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and Computer Graphics, (pp. 394-403). Springer, Cham.
5. Arvanitis, T. N., Williams, D. D., Knight, J. F., Baber, C., Gargalakos, M., Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2011). A human factors study of technology acceptance of a prototype mobile augmented reality system for science education. Advanced Science Letters, 4(11-12), 3342-3352.
6. Baki, A., Kösa, T., & Karakuş, F., Çakıroğlu, Ü (2008). Uzay geometri öğretiminde 3D dinamik geometri yazılımı kullanımı: öğretmen görüşleri. In International Educational Technology Conference, Eskisehir, Turkey (pp. 6-9), 2008, May.
7. Baraldi, S., Del Bimbo, A., Landucci, L., & Torpei, N. (2009). Natural interaction. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems (pp. 1880-1885). Springer, Boston, MA.
8. Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., & Camos, V. (2007). Time and cognitive load in working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 570.

9. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS quarterly, 351-370.
10. Bujak, K. R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., Macintyre, B., Zheng, R., & Golubski, G. (2013). A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 536-544.
11. Bunch, R. L., & Lloyd, R. E. (2006). The cognitive load of geographic information. The Professional Geographer, 58(2), 209-220.
12. Cheng, K. H. (2018). Surveying Students’ Conceptions of Learning Science by Augmented Reality and their Scientific Epistemic Beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(4), 1147-1159.
13. Chessa, M., & Noceti, N. (2017). Investigating Natural Interaction in Augmented Reality Environments using Motion Qualities. In VISIGRAPP (6: VISAPP) (pp. 110-117).
14. Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2014). Visualizing cross sections: Training spatial thinking using interactive animations and virtual objects. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 63-71.
15. Costley, J., & Lange, C. H. (2017). Video lectures in e-learning: effects of viewership and media diversity on learning, satisfaction, engagement, interest, and future behavioral intention. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(1), 14-30.
16. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
17. Debue, N., & Van De Leemput, C. (2014). What does germane load mean? An empirical contribution to the cognitive load theory. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1099.
18. Dünser, A., Steinbügl, K., Kaufmann, H., & Glück, J. (2006, July). Virtual and augmented reality as spatial ability training tools. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCHI New Zealand chapter's international conference on Computer-human interaction: design centered HCI (pp. 125-132). ACM.
19. Ejaz, A., Ali, S.A., Ejaz, M.Y & Siddiqui, F.A. (2019). “Graphic User Interface Design Principles for Designing Augmented Reality Applications” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications(IJACSA), 10(2), 209- 216, http://dx.doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2019.0100228
20. Fabiyi, T. R. (2017). Geometry concepts in mathematics perceived difficult to learn by senior secondary school students in Ekiti State Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOS-JRME), 7, 83.
21. Gimba, R. W. (2006). Effects of 3-dimensional instructional materials on the teaching and learning of mathematics among senior secondary schools in Minna metropolis. In 2nd SSSE Annual National Conference, Federal University of Technology, Minna. Held between 19th–2nd November.
22. Hou, H. T., & Li, M. C. (2014). Evaluating multiple aspects of a digital educational problem-solving-based adventure game. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 29-38.
23. Hsu, T. C. (2017). Learning English with augmented reality: Do learning styles matter? Computers & Education, 106, 137-149.
24. Ibili, E., & Sahin, S. (2015). The effect of augmented reality assisted geometry instruction on students’ achievement and attitudes. Teaching Mathematics and Computer Science, 13(2), 177-193.
25. Ibili, E., Çat, M., Resnyansky, D., Şahin, S., & Billinghurst, M. (2019). An assessment of geometry teaching supported with augmented reality teaching materials to enhance students’ 3D geometry thinking skills. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, (In Press).
26. Ibili, E., Resnyansky, D., & Billinghurst, M. (2019). Applying the technology acceptance model to understand maths teachers’ perceptions towards an augmented reality tutoring system. Education and Information Technologies, (In Press).
27. Jamali, S. S., Shiratuddin, M. F., Wong, K. W., & Oskam, C. L. (2015). Utilising mobile-augmented reality for learning human anatomy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 659-668.
28. Karadeniz, Ş. (2006). Design cues for instructional hypertext, hypermedia and multimedia, Yüzüncü Yıl Univesity Journal of Education, 3(1).
29. Kato, H., & Billinghurst, M. (1999). Marker tracking and hmd calibration for a video-based augmented reality conferencing system. In Augmented Reality, 1999. (IWAR'99) Proceedings. 2nd IEEE and ACM International Workshop on (pp. 85-94). IEEE.
30. Kaushik, D., & Jain, R. (2014). Natural user interfaces: Trend in virtual interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.0101.
31. Kılıç, E. (2007). The Bottle Neck in Multimedia: Cognitive Overload. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 27(2), 1-24.
32. Kılıç, E., & Karadeniz, Ş. (2014). Cinsiyet ve öğrenme stilinin gezinme stratejisi ve başarıya etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 129-146.
33. Kimbrough, A. M., Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., & Dill, J. (2013). Gender differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than do men. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 896-900.
34. Klepsch, M., Schmitz, F., & Seufert, T. (2017). Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1997.
35. Lai, A. F., Chen, C. H., & Lee, G. Y. (2019). An augmented reality‐based learning approach to enhancing students’ science reading performances from the perspective of the cognitive load theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 232-247.
36. Lawton, C. A., & Morrin, K. A. (1999). Gender differences in pointing accuracy in computer-simulated 3D mazes. Sex roles, 40(1-2), 73-92.
37. Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2005). Interactions among the imagination, expertise reversal, and element interactivity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(4), 266.
38. Lee, E. A. L., & Wong, K. W. (2014). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Low spatial ability learners are more positively affected. Computers & Education, 79, 49-58.
39. Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior research methods, 45(4), 1058-1072.
40. Leue, M. C., Jung, T., & tom Dieck, D. (2015). Google glass augmented reality: Generic learning outcomes for art galleries. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015 (pp. 463-476). Springer, Cham.
41. Liou, Yang, Chen, & Tarng (2017). The influences of the 2d image-based augmented reality and virtual reality on student learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 110-121.
42. Moro, C., Štromberga, Z., Raikos, A., & Stirling, A. (2017). The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anatomical sciences education, 10(6), 549-559.
43. Nedim, S. (2013). The effect of augmented reality treatment on learning, cognitive load, and spatial visualization abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA.
44. Ong, C. S., & Lai, J. Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in human behavior, 22(5), 816-829.
45. Paas, F., & Van Gog, T. (2006). Optimising worked example instruction: Different ways to increase germane cognitive load, Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 87-91.
46. Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.
47. Pantano, E., Rese, A., & Baier, D. (2017). Enhancing the online decision-making process by using augmented reality: A two country comparison of youth markets. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 38, 81-95.
48. Poushneh, A., & Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z. (2017). Discernible impact of augmented reality on retail customer's experience, satisfaction and willingness to buy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 229-234.
49. Robertson, J. (2012). Making games in the classroom: Benefits and gender concerns. Computers & Education, 59(2), 385-398.
50. Sadi, O., & Lee, M. H. (2015). The conceptions of learning science for science-mathematics groups and literature-mathematics groups in Turkey. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(2), 182-196.
51. Safadel, P. (2016). Examining the Effects of Augmented Reality in Teaching and Learning Environments that Have Spatial Frameworks, (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation), In Department of Educational and Instructional Technology, Texas Tech University.
52. Shelton, B. E. (2003). How augmented reality helps students learn dynamic spatial relationships (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington), University of Washington.
53. Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational psychology review, 22(2), 123-138.
54. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and instruction, 12(3), 185-233.
55. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.
56. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Computer-assisted research design and analysis (Vol. 748). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
57. Venkadesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why dont men ever stop to ask for directions. Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behaviour.
58. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.
59. Wang, X., Truijens, M., Hou, L., Wang, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2014). Integrating Augmented Reality with Building Information Modeling: Onsite construction process controlling for liquefied natural gas industry. Automation in Construction, 40, 96-105.
60. Wei, X., Weng, D., Liu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). Teaching based on augmented reality for a technical creative design course. Computers & Education, 81, 221-234.
61. Weiser, E. B. (2001). The functions of Internet use and their social and psychological consequences. CyberPsychology & behavior, 4(6), 723-743.
62. Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Signal Detection, Information Theory, and Absolute Judgment. Engineering psychology and human performance, 2, 24-73.
63. Wu, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Yang, M. L., & Chen, C. H. (2018). Impacts of integrating the repertory grid into an augmented reality-based learning design on students’ learning achievements, cognitive load and degree of satisfaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(2), 221-234.
64. Xie, H. (2003). Supporting ease-of-use and user control: desired features and structure of Web-based online IR systems. Information processing and management, 39(6), 899-922.
65. Xue, H., Sharma, P., & Wild, F. (2018). User Satisfaction in Augmented Reality-Based Training Using Microsoft HoloLens, Computers, 8(1), 1-23.
66. Young, J. Q., Van Merrienboer, J., Durning, S., & Ten Cate, O. (2014). Cognitive load theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE guide no. 86. Medical teacher, 36(5), 371-384.