TYPE
Original Research
23 May 2024
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
PUBLISHED
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Helmi Norman,
National University of Malaysia, Malaysia
REVIEWED BY
Wahyu Widada,
University of Bengkulu, Indonesia
Haida Umiera Hashim,
MARA University of Technology, Malaysia
*CORRESPONDENCE
Jose Belda-Medina
jr.belda@ua.es
RECEIVED 21
December 2023
ACCEPTED 25 April 2024
PUBLISHED 23 May 2024
CITATION
Marrahi-Gomez V and Belda-Medina J (2024)
Assessing the effect of Augmented Reality on
English language learning and student
motivation in secondary education.
Front. Educ. 9:1359692.
doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
COPYRIGHT
© 2024 Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina.
This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is
permitted, provided the original author(s) and
the copyright owner(s) are credited and that
the original publication in this journal is cited,
in accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction
is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
Assessing the effect of
Augmented Reality on English
language learning and student
motivation in secondary
education
Victor Marrahi-Gomez 1 and Jose Belda-Medina 2*
1
Digital Language Learning, Facultad de Educación, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria, Madrid, Spain,
Department of English Studies, Digital Language Learning (DL2), University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
2
The integration of Augmented Reality (AR) in language learning has garnered
attention in the field of education, yet its effectiveness in enhancing grammar
proficiency among secondary school students remains relatively unexplored,
especially given that previous research has predominantly focused on vocabulary
acquisition at the primary and college levels. This study, based on a mixedmethods approach and convenience sampling, is aimed at assessing students’
attitudes toward the integration of technology (H1) in language learning and
examining the impact of using AR on grammar learning (H2) and motivation (H3)
among secondary education students. Employing a mixed-method approach
and convenience sampling, the research involved 130 students aged 14 to
15 from two secondary schools, divided into an experimental group (n = 64)
and a control group (n = 66). Both groups received instruction on English
comparative and superlative forms and completed a variety of exercises. The
control group followed a traditional approach using a printed handbook, while
the experimental group engaged with an AR-based lesson containing equivalent
grammar activities and vocabulary in a multimedia format. Pre and post-tests
were administered to evaluate grammar proficiency, accompanied by pre and
post-surveys. Semi-structured discussion was used for the qualitative data. The
findings revealed a strong interest in integrating AR technology into grammar
learning, underscored by a positive attitude toward its implementation in
secondary education. However, no statistically significant differences were
detected in grammar learning performance between the two student groups.
These findings emphasize the importance of providing proper teacher training
in secondary education to effectively utilize AR technology and highlight the
need for further research to explore its effectiveness and long-term impact.
KEYWORDS
Augmented Reality, language learning, grammar, motivation, secondary education
1 Introduction
Augmented Reality (AR) has emerged as a promising technology in education, offering
an innovative learning experience, particularly in the field of language learning, as highlighted
by Akçayır and Akçayır (2017), Min and Yu (2023), and Schorr et al. (2024). AR refers to a
digital technology that superimposes computer-generated sensory information, such as
images, sounds, or text, onto the real-world environment to enhance the user’s perception of
reality. The prevalence of Software Development Kits (SDKs) such as ZapWorks, Roar,
Frontiers in Education
01
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
Augment, and ARkit Unity is steadily rising within various educational
settings. These SDKs are employed to provide students with immersive
experiences and enhance their performance, engagement, and
motivation (Antonioli et al., 2014; Buchner et al., 2022; Damopoli
et al., 2022; Belda-Medina and Marrahi-Gomez, 2023).
According to different research works (Saltan and Arslan, 2016;
Akçayır and Akçayır, 2017; Lau and Wen, 2021; Demirdag et al.,
2024), the use of AR in education is on the rise, as seen in the number
of related publications. AR technology presents various advantages
and challenges in language learning. It can transform traditional
language learning into an engaging experience, increasing student
satisfaction and engagement (Dirin and Laine, 2018; Nami, 2020).
Moreover, recent studies have shown that AR can enhance skills
development in students, allowing for more interaction with the
environment while promoting creative thinking and problem-solving
abilities (Nizam et al., 2018; Belda-Medina and Calvo-Ferrer, 2022;
Lin and Wang, 2023).
However, the lack of knowledge and proper training among
in-service and pre-service teachers, along with the absence of technical
equipment and support, presents significant challenges in using AR
for language learning, hindering its adoption (Wu et al., 2013; Jamrus
and Razali, 2019; Osuna et al., 2019). Most research to date has
primarily concentrated on vocabulary acquisition in elementary
education (Solak and Cakir, 2015; Taskiran, 2019; Lau and Wen,
2021). Consequently, there is a research gap in understanding how
mobile Augmented Reality (AR) influences grammar skills across
different educational levels. Therefore, this study is dedicated to
examining the impact of mobile AR on student motivation and
grammar learning among secondary education students.
different subject areas. Additionally, recent research indicated that AR
technology captures students’ attention, and increases their engagement,
leading to positive attitudes in the classroom (Gamlo, 2019; Kaur et al.,
2020). Students tend to enjoy using AR technology in their learning,
finding it easy and convenient to use, and reporting high satisfaction,
which can reduce their learning anxiety compared to traditional
methods (Khan et al., 2019).
However, despite the substantial body of research on AR
technology and its impact on student motivation, a gap exists in studies
specifically targeting secondary education students. This gap is
particularly noteworthy, especially considering that secondary students
start being more exposed to smartphones and AR-based applications
at this educational level. In a systematic review of 21 studies conducted
between 2012 and 2017 within primary and secondary education,
Pellas et al. (2019) emphasized the potential of AR game-based
learning to enhance students’ motivation and promote positive
attitudes towards learning, underscoring the limited research available
in this particular domain. Similarly, Belda-Medina and MarrahiGomez (2023) indicated that although AR technology increased
student motivation, it did not lead to a significant difference in
vocabulary learning performance when compared to traditional
methods, further underscoring the dearth of studies conducted among
secondary education students. Therefore, there is a need for more
research to investigate the impact of AR technology on student
motivation in secondary education settings.
2.2 AR technology in language learning
The integration of AR in language learning has demonstrated
significant benefits across various educational levels (Gudoniene and
Rutkauskiene, 2019; Papanastasiou et al., 2019). AR’s ability to enhance
language learning experiences has been highlighted in various studies.
For example, at the elementary level, AR can captivate young learners
by providing them with more visual stimuli in their mastery of the
English language (Nizam et al., 2018; Yeh and Tseng, 2020). Similarly,
different works have explored AR’s potential to bridge the gap between
virtual and real worlds at the college level, particularly in language and
STEM education. By utilizing AR’s immersive qualities, this approach
to language learning effectively captures student engagement and
enjoyment (Belda-Medina, 2021; Shadiev and Liang, 2024).
Several studies to date have explored the impact of AR technology
on vocabulary acquisition (Solak and Cakir, 2015; Santos et al., 2016).
The findings indicate that the use of AR enhances vocabulary learning
and retention among language learners (Ji and Shin, 2019). For example,
one study concluded that mobile-based AR learning is more effective
than traditional methods like flashcards in improving vocabulary among
English learners (Chen and Chan, 2019). Moreover, the accessibility of
mobile devices and the ease of use of AR have been identified as
significant factors contributing to its widespread adoption. This
accessibility allows students to engage in interactive learning experiences
anytime and anywhere (Dirin and Laine, 2018). Furthermore, integrating
authentic language through AR has been found to promote contextual
learning and improve vocabulary proficiency, ultimately leading to
enhanced language skills (Qiu et al., 2023).
However, the effective implementation of AR in education faces
various challenges, both pedagogical and technological (Wu et al.,
2013; Jamrus and Razali, 2019). Regarding technological challenges,
the effective implementation of AR in education faces obstacle such
2 Article literature review
2.1 The effect of AR technology on student
motivation
AR technology has evolved rapidly since Ivan Sutherland created
the first head-mounted screen system in 1968 and Tim Codell coined
the term ‘AR’ in the early 1990s (Belda-Medina, 2021). AR can
be described as a technology that merges the real world with digital
content, offering an immersive experience within a real-world
environment. Electronic components are integrated into AR through
various devices, including head-up displays (HUD), holographic
displays, and handheld devices such as smartphones and smart glasses.
AR technologies are often categorized and placed on a continuum
known as the “reality-virtuality continuum, as llustrated in Figure 1 by
Skarbez et al. (2021).
The positive impact of Augmented Reality (AR) technology on
student motivation, particularly in the field of language learning, has
been widely examined (Yuen et al., 2011; Martin-Gutierrez et al., 2012;
Nincarean et al., 2013; Savela et al. 2020). Recent studies conducted by
Sun and Gao (2020), Belda-Medina (2022), Belda-Medina and MarrahiGomez (2023) have highlighted the motivational benefits of integrating
AR into education. Similarly, Taskiran’s (2019) research focused on the
significant improvements in English language learning motivation,
attributing these enhancements to various factors such as improved
learning facilities, peer influence, and creative thinking. Tsai (2020)
reported positive attitudes and a strong interest in adopting AR for
language learning, resulting in enhanced student performance across
Frontiers in Education
02
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
FIGURE 1
Reality–virtuality continuum.
as inadequate technology tools, connectivity issues, and a lack of
technical support in specific educational settings (Osuna et al., 2019).
As for pedagogical challenges, limitations arise from the absence of
suitable training, resistance to change, and insufficient awareness
among educators regarding contemporary pedagogical models for AR
integration (Garzón et al., 2020).
While several studies have delved into the utilization of mobile AR
for vocabulary acquisition, with a focus mainly on elementary and
college levels (Parmaxi and Demetriou, 2020; Lau and Wen, 2021),
there is a research gap in understanding how mobile AR affects
grammar learning in language education (Solak and Cakir, 2015;
Santos et al., 2016). To bridge this gap, our study aims to investigate
the impact of mobile Augmented Reality (AR) on grammar
development and student motivation in secondary education.
resulting in four groups, two from each school, consisting of ninthgrade students aged 14 to 15 (9th graders or GCSE). In each school,
there were two groups: an experimental group (EG) exposed to AR
technology and a control group (CG) whose treatment was based on
the printed materials conventionally used by their regular tutors. Thus,
there were a total of two EGs and two CGs, one in each school. The
gender distribution was 54% female and 46% male. Informed consent
was obtained from tutors and parents for the experiment, and the
study was carried out by the ethical procedures of the University of
Alicante, where both researchers work as lecturers. The lecturers
selected both public schools through the school administrators, and
all data were analyzed anonymously and confidentially. Table 1
provides information about students’ self-perceived English language
proficiency levels in speaking, listening, reading, and writing skills,
categorized according to the CEFR Framework.
3 Objectives and hypotheses
4.2 Instruments
This research has the three following objectives:
The study was based on a mixed-methods design as described by
Pardede (2019). Each group participated in the one-hour intervention
during the four-week period. Qualitative data were collected through
a post-intervention survey and classroom discussions, while
quantitative data on grammar performance were gathered through a
pre-posttest. To analyze the quantitative data, researchers utilized
IBM SPSS 20 software. Before the intervention, inquiries were made
to the EFL tutors at both educational institutions to determine the
grammar topic of study. They collectively proposed the development
of a lesson centred around comparative forms in English using the
topic of sea life.
The pre-survey consisted of three sections and a total of 15
questions (Appendix). Section A, which focused on sociodemographics, included questions related to gender, birthplace,
mother tongue, languages spoken at home, etc. Section B explored
technology ownership and affinity, with questions about smartphone
ownership and frequency of usage for various purposes. Section C
assessed attitudes toward technology in education, using a Likert scale
to measure agreement or disagreement with 15 statements related to
the use of technology in language learning and its potential impact on
motivation and learning outcomes. Administered on the first day
before the intervention, the pre-survey was similar for both the
control group (CG) and experimental group (EG). The post-survey
comprised 10 questions, employing a Likert scale to assess participants’
perceptions and attitudes regarding the AR-based language learning
activity, covering their interest, engagement, perceived usefulness,
ease of concentration, self-perceived grammar learning outcomes, and
preferences for future learning methods.
• (O1) To examine secondary students’ attitudes towards the use
of technology in language learning.
• (O2) To assess the effect of AR technology on grammar learning
among secondary students.
• (O3) To evaluate students’ motivation and self-perceptions
regarding the use of AR technology in language learning.
These objectives align with the following hypotheses:
• Hypothesis 1 (H1): Secondary education students hold a positive
attitude towards the integration of technology in
language learning.
• Hypothesis 2 (H2): The use of AR technology has a positive
impact on grammar learning among secondary students.
• Hypothesis 3 (H3): The integration of AR technology in language
learning has a positive impact on students’ perceptions and
motivation in secondary education.
4 Context and method
4.1 Sample
A sample of 130 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students
across two public secondary schools in Spain, where smartphones
were banned in one school and allowed in the other, participated in
the study. Participants were selected through convenience sampling,
Frontiers in Education
03
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
TABLE 1 Self-perceived language level according to the CEFR Framework: 1 = A0, 2 = A1, 3 = A2, 4 = B1, 5 = B2, 6 = C1, 7 = C2.
Students
English Level
Speaking
Listening
Reading
Writing
CG (N = 66)
3.1 (A2)
3.0 (A2)
3.0 (A2)
3.1 (A2)
3.1 (A2)
EG (N = 64)
3.1 (A2)
3.0 (A2)
3.0 (A2)
3.2 (A2)
2.9 (A2)
The pre-posttest (Appendix) aimed to measure students’
learning of comparative and superlative forms in English. It
consisted of two sections. In the first section, students completed 10
gap-filling sentences, where they had to provide the correct
comparative or superlative form of an adjective in the given context.
The second section involved reading a short passage about sea life
and filling in 10gaps with the appropriate comparative or superlative
adjectives based on the context of the passage. This assessment
allowed students to demonstrate their understanding of comparative
and superlative forms in practical language use. The test was
administered in a traditional paper-based format within the
classroom setting, with participants given 30 minutes to complete
the exercises. Test questions were sourced from the textbooks used
in both schools.
includes an SDK named “Creator” that serves as an authoring tool for
constructing AR-based instructional content. The AR-based lesson
included various multimedia elements and visual representations,
facilitated through the integration of various triggers and overlays. To
engage with this lesson, students were required to download the Scope
application onto their tablet or smartphone. They then uploaded the
AR lesson and used the application to scan the images distributed in
the classroom and complete two multimedia activities. The multimedia
components of the AR lesson were structured to include both
discursive elements, featuring text-based explanations of grammar,
and illustrative elements, including links to videos, web-based
activities, and similar resources. This arrangement allowed students
the freedom to move around the classroom space and interact with
the AR content. The printed and AR-based materials are shown in
Figure 2.
In the following session, all students completed the post-test,
based on the same grammar questions from the pre-test. Then,
participants filled out a post-survey to assess their motivation and
perceptions of the instructional materials used in each case. In the last
stage, a semi-structured discussion on the potential benefits and
limitations associated with each instructional method was conducted,
involving the students, tutors and researchers. A visual representation
of the distinct research stages is shown in Figure 3.
4.3 Materials and procedure
Throughout the four-week period, participants were required to
have access to a tablet or smartphone during class sessions. In cases
where students did not have their own devices, the educational
institutions provided tablets. The participants were already divided
into different groups within each school, allowing for convenient
assignment into a Control Group (CG) and an Experimental Group
(EG). The CG used traditional materials, such as a handbook, to learn
about comparative forms in English, while the EG engaged with an
AR-based lesson. During the first session, all students completed a
placement test to assess their English proficiency based on the
Cambridge Unlimited placement test, available at https://bit.
ly/3Rv9G3M, accessed on January 17, 2023. This test consisted of 60
multiple-choice questions with varying levels of difficulty (A1–C2).
Following the placement test, students took a grammar test to evaluate
their prior knowledge in comparison to what they could learn through
the intervention.
The instructional stage took place in the second and third sessions.
Each session consisted of two one-hour classes. EG students engaged
with several multimedia components (videos, websites and games)
related to English comparative forms through an AR-based
pedagogical approach. In contrast, CG students received similar
instruction on comparative forms using a more traditional method
based on the class handbook. The handbook used for the CG included
five pages, featuring visual aids and theoretical explanations relevant
to the targeted grammatical concepts. It also included a pair of
written activities:
For the Experimental Group (EG), an instructional module
employing AR technology was previously designed. This module
covered the same set of grammar activities and was created using the
Software Development Kit (SDK) named Aumentaty, accessible via
the website www.aumentaty.com, accessed on January 17, 2023.
Aumentaty is a freely available educational software product
developed by the Universitat Politècnica de València in Spain. It
Frontiers in Education
5 Results
The data showed that all participants (n = 130) owned smartphones
although their use was prohibited in the classroom in one of the
participating schools. Analysis of the pre-survey results revealed
similar purposes of smartphone use among all students, as outlined in
Table 2. Communication activities, including instant messaging and
social networking, emerged as the primary motivations, followed by
information retrieval and entertainment activities, such as video
consumption and music listening. Gaming was in the third position,
with some participants indicating their familiarity with AR-based
games like Pokémon Go, The Walking Dead, and Harry Potter. In
contrast, educational purposes such as language learning scored
significantly lower. Some participants pointed out that their tutors did
not promote the educational use of smartphones in and outside
the classroom.
5.1 Attitudes towards the use of technology
in education and language learning (H1)
Regarding H1 about attitudes toward technology integration in
education, the results were positive, as illustrated in Table 3. The scores
were based on a five-point Likert scale, including 15 items, with 5
negatively worded statements to prevent the acquiescence bias present
in self-reporting scales. The reliability, measured using Cronbach’s
04
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
FIGURE 2
Paper-based (CG) and AR-based (EG) lessons on comparative forms in English.
FIGURE 3
Research stages.
Alpha, yielded a value of 0.87. when analyzed separately, no significant
differences were found between the students attending the school
where smartphones were prohibited and those attending the school
where these devices were allowed. As a result, the researchers did not
include the school’s smartphone usage policy as a determining factor
in the study’s results.
Consistent with previous studies (Gamlo, 2019; Taskiran, 2019),
Table 4 participants displayed enthusiasm for learning English
through technology, as evidenced by the scores for items #1 (M = 3.6)
and #4 (M = 4.1). They also believed that their learning progress would
be enhanced through the use of technology, as indicated by items #2
(M = 3.8), #3 (M = 4.0), and #8 (M = 3.7). Additionally, they supported
the use of smartphones both in the classroom (#6 M = 3.6) and outside
(#8 M = 3.7). In line with prior findings (Kacetl and Klímová, 2019;
Sun and Gao, 2020). The data revealed that students supported the use
of technology in general (#10 M = 3.7) and believed in the benefits of
Frontiers in Education
combining traditional methods with new technology-oriented
approaches (#11 M = 3.9). Results concerning the potential distraction
factor of technology were moderate, both at the individual level
(#9 M = 2.7) and as a group (#7 M = 3.0). Consistent with previous
studies (Gamlo, 2019; Sun and Gao, 2020) on the use of smartphones
in language learning, items 13 (M = 2.2) and 14 (M = 4.0) confirmed
the enjoyment and engagement experienced by participants who were
exposed to technology.
The Wilcoxon signed-rank test used to determine any significant
difference between the two groups, EG and CG, revealed no
statistically significant difference as shown in Table 4. These results
align with prior research on the impact of technology integration on
students’ motivation in both structured and unstructured learning
contexts (Chen and Chan, 2019; Taskiran, 2019). This supports the
idea that secondary school students hold positive perceptions toward
the incorporation of technology in the classroom.
05
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
TABLE 2 Purposes of smartphone usage.
Group
Communication
CG (N = 66)
EG (N = 64)
Information search
Play games
Educational purposes
Learn English
4.2 (M)
3.8 (M)
2.8 (M)
2.5 (M)
1.3 (M)
1.3 (SD)
1.1 (SD)
1.3 (SD)
0.9 (SD)
0.8 (SD)
4.3 (M)
3.9 (M)
3.2 (M)
2.6 (M)
1.4 (M)
1.3 (SD)
1.1 (SD)
1.4 (SD)
1.0 (SD)
0.7 (SD)
TABLE 3 Perception toward the use of technology in language learning based on a 5-point Likert scale: (1) completely disagree to (5) completely agree,
reverse coding (7, 9, 12, 13, 15).
n = 130 α = 0.86
CG (n = 66)
EG (n = 64)
Items
M
SD
M
SD
1. I am interested in learning English through technology
3.6
1.0
3.6
0.9
2. I believe using technology can have a positive impact on learning English
3.8
0.8
3.9
0.9
3. Using technology can improve my learning progress
4.0
0.8
4.1
0.8
4. Using technology would increase my interest in learning English
4.1
0.9
4.2
0.9
5. I believe computers and tablets should be used in the classroom to learn more effectively
3.9
1.0
4.1
0.8
6. I believe smartphones should be used in the classroom to learn more effectively
3.6
1.2
3.7
0.9
7. I believe the use of smartphones can be distracting
3.1
1.1
2.9
1.2
8. Using technology and smartphones would improve the effectiveness of learning English outside the classroom
3.6
1.1
3.8
1.0
9. The use of technology could distract me in my English class
2.8
1.2
2.6
1.1
10. My learning outcomes would be higher by combining traditional teaching with new technologies
3.8
1.0
3.7
1.1
11. My learning progress in English would be higher if we used technology more often in the classroom
3.8
1.1
4.0
1.0
12. I believe using technology might prevent us from covering all the lessons included in the curriculum
2.2
1.0
2.5
1.4
13. I would get bored using technology in the classroom
2.3
0.8
2.2
1.0
14. Using technology and smartphones in the classroom would make my lessons more engaging and enjoyable
3.9
1.2
4.1
1.2
15. I think I would not learn as much using technology in the classroom
2.3
1.0
2.1
1.3
TABLE 4 Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
−0.356b
−0.020b
−1.277b
−0.529c
−0.261b
−1.433b
−0.590c
−1.181b
Asymp. Sig.
0.238
(2-tailed)
Z
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
−0.025b
−0.347 c
−1.324b
−1.944c
−0.268b
−1.465c
−1.297c
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
(a) Wilcoxon signed-ranked test, (b) based on negative ranks, and (c) Based on positive ranks.
post-test, where the EG students (M = 88.0, SD = 13.2) obtained higher
scores compared to the CG (M = 74.2, SD = 16.0). Therefore, no
significant difference between both groups can be attributed to the
learning materials, paper- and AR-based.
5.2 The effect of using AR technology on
grammar learning (H2)
The data shown in Table 5 related to H2 revealed no significant
difference in the results of the pre-post-test between the EG and the
CG. The results of the independent samples t-test indicate that both
materials, the paper-based and the AR-based activities, helped the
students improve their grammar skills. In the initial assessment, CG
participants (M = 35.9, SD = 20.0) showed slightly lower performance
compared to the EG students (M = 32.0, SD = 19.2) in terms of
grammar performance. This pattern persisted in the subsequent
Frontiers in Education
5.3 The effect of using AR technology on
student motivation and self-perceptions
(H3)
As indicated in Table 6 concerning H3, EG participants achieved
higher scores in terms of student satisfaction (M = 4.2), interest
06
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
5.4 Qualitative analysis
(M = 4.3), and perceived usefulness (M = 4.1) compared to the
CG. Additionally, the EG displayed an enhanced perception of their
learning progress (M = 3.4) in contrast to the CG group, despite this
disparity not aligning with the previously discussed results. Although
CG participants did not interact with AR technology during the
intervention, their responses to the three items related to technology
(#6–8), demonstrated an underlying interest. The EG and CG both
expressed an interest in deepening their comprehension of the
potential uses of AR (#9 and #10).
In relation to H3, an independent samples t-test was conducted to
examine students’ motivation and interest. As the results in Table 7
indicate, the instructional methods had a significant impact on
student motivation (t (130) = 4.2, p < 0.001, 95% CI [1.14, 0.04]). The
results indicated that participants who were exposed to AR technology
expressed higher levels of motivation. This finding is consistent with
previous research, emphasizing the positive effects associated with the
integration of AR technology in the classroom (Santos et al., 2016; Sun
and Gao, 2020).
During the final session, all enrolled students actively engaged in
a semi-structured discourse centred on the advantages and limitations
associated with the integration of AR technology in language learning.
The discussion was led by one of the researchers while the other
recorded and annotated key observations. Subsequently, both
researchers collaborated in the systematic categorization of the
articulated concepts into distinct thematic patterns. This thematic
analysis yielded five significant themes, as illustrated in Table 8.
Particularly noteworthy was the students’ recognition of novelty and
relevance as prominent benefits of this technological application
(P 51). Consequently, these students exhibited a positive disposition
towards embracing AR technology within an educational
context (P 93).
These findings harmonize with earlier research (Garzón et al.,
2020; Lau and Wen, 2021) emphasizing the advantages of
incorporating AR into gaming scenarios by integrating real-world
TABLE 5 T-test results about grammar performance.
t
df
Sig.
Mean Diff
Std. Error
Diff.
95% CI of the Diff
Lower
Upper
Grammar
Equal variance assumed
−1.205
61.2
0.18
6.531
5.123
−16.94
3.491
Pre-Test
Equal variance not assumed
−1.134
57.4
0.19
6.531
5.151
−16.723
3.52
Grammar
Equal variance assumed
−1.299
62
0.16
7.302
5.127
−18.014
3.116
Post-Test
Equal variance not assumed
−1.299
61.9
0.16
7.302
5.126
−18.012
3.119
TABLE 6 Interest, motivation and self-perception of learning.
n = 130 α = 0.86
CG (n = 66)
EG (n = 64)
Items
M
SD
M
SD
1. I liked the activity
2.8
1.1
4.2
0.8
2. I found this activity very interesting
3.0
1.2
4.3
0.8
3. I believe the activity was useful to learn English grammar
2.7
1.3
4.1
0.9
4. It was easy for me to concentrate on the English content through this method
3.6
0.9
3.8
1.1
5. I have learned English grammar (comparative forms)
3.4
0.82
4.5
0.7
6. (GC) My interest would be higher in AR-based classes
3.9
0.9
–
–
7 (GC) I would learn more with AR technology
3.6
0.7
–
–
8. (GC) I enjoyed learning grammar through this method (handbook)
2.7
1.3
–
–
–
–
2.2
1.1
6. (EG). My interest would be higher using the traditional method (handbook)
7. (EG). I would learn more with the traditional method (handbook)
–
–
2.1
0.7
8. (EG) I enjoyed learning grammar through this method (AR technology)
–
–
4.3
0.9
9. I would like to use AR in my English lessons in the future
3.8
1.1
3.9
0.8
10. I would like to learn more about AR in education
3.9
1.2
4.1
1.1
TABLE 7 T-test results about student motivation and learning method.
t
df
Sig.
Mean Diff
Std. Error
Diff.
95% CI of the Diff
Lower
Upper
Motivation and
Equal variance assumed
−4.206
63
0.00
−0.733
0.184
−1.14
−0.406
interest
Equal variance not assumed
−4.21
62.9
0.00
−0.733
0.184
−1.14
−0.406
Frontiers in Education
07
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
TABLE 8 Thematic analysis: benefits and limitations.
Benefits
Theme
p
Comments (Selection)
Relevance
51
I believe AR and VR are really important as some of us are already familiar with them thanks to videogames
It is important to integrate them into our education system and combine them with other more traditional methods
Novelty
93
Using AR technology is good because it’s a different and new way to learn grammar or vocabulary
Easiness
42
It’s easier to understand the terms when you can watch different videos and play online games
Usefulness
18
I found the AR-based lessons very useful because I could apply the terms I learned to different online activities
Multimedia
76
It was my first time using a smartphone to learn English using AR and I enjoyed it
Interaction
What I liked the most about AR technology is that it combines different types of activities, such as links to websites, songs and
3D images
For me learning grammar or the word volcano through activities and images is not enough and I want to watch different
examples of it and learn about the real world
Limitations
Teacher’s
84
preparation and
I liked the fact that we could use our smartphones to learn English because they are not allowed in our school, and I believe
that most teachers do not want to change their traditional methods
willingness
I am not sure if teachers know about this technology and how to use it in our lessons
Lack of resources
32
I had some problems when I scanned some of the images, so I had to check it with a classmate who used a different
smartphone, and it worked well
I also know some other classmates who had problems with the internet connection when they were doing the AR activities
locations and objects, thereby facilitating the enhancement of language
skills in a natural setting. Furthermore, the students accentuated the
value and user-friendliness of digital tools such as the AR-based
lesson. The Scope app, in particular, garnered praise for its intuitive
usability, with students swiftly mastering the download and utilization
of the AR application named Scope (P42). Additionally, they expressed
enjoyment in exploring the classroom to scan various components
(triggers) and actively participating in multimedia activities and
online games that enriched their comprehension of sea life
terminology (P76). These outcomes substantiate previous research
affirming the advantages of AR technology in the classroom, including
its capacity to boost student motivation and engagement, foster
multimedia interaction, and cultivate collaborative learning
experiences (Lara-Prieto et al., 2015; Qiu et al., 2023).
Nevertheless, participants predominantly underscored the
primary constraints linked to their educators’ reluctance in adopting
these emerging technologies in the classroom (P84). According to the
students’ accounts, this reluctance stemmed from their instructors’
limited familiarity with the potential benefits and their insufficient
training in utilizing such tools, consistent with prior research (Solak
and Cakir, 2015; Chen and Chan, 2019). Participants also voiced
concerns about the shortage of digital resources and unreliable
connectivity in certain locations. Consequently, these technical
limitations resulted in complications during online activities (P 32).
Existing research (Chen and Chan, 2019; Jamrus and Razali, 2019;
Belda-Medina and Calvo-Ferrer, 2022) has extensively discussed these
limitations associated with reluctance and distrust regarding the
integration of emerging technologies among in-service teachers.
performance in secondary education. The results confirmed H1,
which posited that students hold positive attitudes toward technology
use in language learning. Despite classroom restrictions on
smartphone usage in one of the schools, students collectively
supported the use of technological tools and electronic devices,
aligning with prior research (Küçük et al., 2014; Küçük et al., 2016;
Green, 2019; Taskiran, 2019). Participants believed that incorporating
tablets and smartphones could enhance their language learning
progress. While most students embraced these tools positively, some
expressed concerns about potential classroom distractions,
emphasizing the need for effective technology integration strategies in
educational institutions.
Despite previous research (Garzón, 2021; Qiu et al., 2023)
highlighting the advantages of utilizing AR in vocabulary acquisition
across different educational levels, the outcomes did not support H2,
which proposed a positive influence of AR technology on grammar
learning. Earlier studies (Green, 2019) have previously advocated for
the effectiveness of integrating AR-based materials, particularly among
elementary-level students. However, our findings suggest that the
effectiveness of AR on grammar learning may rely on various factors,
such as the specific design of AR interventions, characteristics of the
tools used, educational levels, contextual settings, and engagement
frequency. Therefore, further research is required to determine whether
AR technology significantly impacts grammar development.
In relation to H3, regarding the impact of AR technology on
motivation, the findings demonstrate students’ interest in this
immersive technology. These results align with previous research that
supports the positive influence of AR technology on student
motivation (Lara-Prieto et al., 2015; Chen and Chan, 2019; BeldaMedina, 2022). The qualitative analysis highlighted young learners’
willingness to integrate AR technology into education. However,
challenges have emerged, including educators’ lack of preparedness
and reluctance to incorporate AR. This emphasizes the need for
comprehensive awareness-building and training for secondary
6 Discussion
The primary aim of this study was to investigate the impact of AR
technology integration on student motivation and grammar
Frontiers in Education
08
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
education instructors, covering both the pedagogical potential of AR
technology and its effective integration within the educational context,
as emphasized in earlier works (Solak and Cakir, 2015; Taskiran, 2019).
teaching methods, the findings are instrumental for educators and
technology integrators. The equal performance in grammar learning
across both groups indicates that while AR does not necessarily
surpass traditional methods in effectiveness, it introduces a valuable
dimension of engagement and motivation without compromising
educational outcomes. This aspect is crucial for educational
stakeholders aiming to enhance student engagement without risking
academic performance. The relevance of this research lies in its clear
demonstration that AR can maintain, and potentially increase, student
interest and satisfaction in learning environments. The data from the
experimental group (EG), which showed heightened motivation and
positive perceptions towards AR technology, underscore the potential
of immersive technologies to enrich the educational experience. These
findings suggest that when students are engaged and motivated, they
are more likely to participate actively and benefit from the educational
content provided, regardless of the medium.
For curriculum developers and educational policy makers,
these results advocate for the integration of AR as a complementary
tool rather than a replacement for traditional methods. Such
integration should be carefully designed to harness the
motivational benefits of AR while reinforcing the core educational
objectives, especially in subjects as foundational as language
learning. Additionally, this study highlights the importance of
preparing teachers through targeted training that not only focuses
on the operational aspects of AR but also on its pedagogical
integration into the curriculum.
The implications for future research are significant. It is
recommended that further studies investigate the long-term effects of
AR integration on various aspects of language learning beyond
grammar and motivation, such as comprehension and writing skills.
Expanding the scope of research to include diverse educational
settings and longer intervention periods can provide deeper insights
into how AR can be most effectively employed in education.
This study has several limitations, particularly in relation to the
sample size and context, as well as the AR tool used. The specific
educational environment and characteristics of the AR software
employed may have an impact on these constraints, highlighting the
need for more comprehensive research on its influence on grammar
learning. Additionally, the participant pool was limited to secondary
students from two public schools with different smartphone usage
policies, indicating the need for future research in more diverse
settings. Extending the study beyond 4 weeks could provide valuable
insights into the long-term effects of AR technology on
language education.
7 Conclusion and implications
The results highlighted the positive attitude of secondary students
towards technology integration (H1), despite existing restrictions on
smartphone use in one of the participating schools. This finding offers
teachers a unique opportunity to utilize students’ readiness to accept
technology in language education. However, it is crucial to address
concerns regarding potential distractions caused by these devices by
developing clear guidelines and policies for smartphone and tablet
usage in educational settings, educating both students and teachers on
responsible and purposeful technology use, as expressed in previous
research (Shrivastava et al., 2014). It is also important to guide how to
integrate technology effectively for educational purposes. This
emphasizes the importance of considering the perspectives of
secondary school teachers, who initially had reservations due to the
ban on smartphones but actively participated in the implementation
process. This underscores the significance of offering continuous
professional development opportunities for educators, in line with
prior research (Garzón, 2021; Belda-Medina, 2021; Belda-Medina and
Calvo-Ferrer, 2022).
In relation to the impact of AR technology on grammar learning
(H2), the findings provide a nuanced perspective. Several studies
have pinpointed the positive effect of using AR on vocabulary
acquisition (Santos et al., 2016; Chen and Chan, 2019), but there is a
scarcity of studies on its impact on other language skills and
components. Although students exposed to AR technology
demonstrated increased motivation and interest in language learning
(H3), there was no statistically significant difference in grammar
performance compared to those using traditional materials. This
suggests that while AR technology excels in enhancing student
motivation, it may benefit from supplementary support or
integration with traditional methods to enhance grammatical
proficiency. Moreover, the heightened motivation could be attributed
to the ‘novelty factor’ associated with AR technology, but its
sustained effect needs further exploration. Educators should consider
these mixed results when incorporating this technology into the
language classroom, ensuring that it aligns with specific
educational objectives.
A significant implication derived from the study concerns to
the readiness and training of in-service teachers. The perceptions
of students highlight the crucial role of instructors’ familiarity with
AR technology and pedagogical training in its successful
implementation (Perifanou et al., 2022). Therefore, educational
institutions and authorities have a responsibility to prioritize
comprehensive initiatives aimed at raising awareness and providing
training for educators. These programs should cover both technical
skills and pedagogical strategies to ensure that educators are wellprepared and confident in utilizing AR technology in language
learning (Belda-Medina, 2022).
This study has provided crucial insights into the implementation
and effects of AR technology in secondary education English grammar
learning. Despite the lack of statistically significant differences in
grammar proficiency between the AR-enhanced and traditional
Frontiers in Education
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in
the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed
to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for
the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included
in this article.
09
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
Author contributions
Conflict of interest
VM-G: Formal analysis, Investigation, Software, Resources,
Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
JB-M: Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Funding
acquisition, Writing – original draft preparation.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
Funding
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study is
part of a research project titled ‘The integration of AR in language
learning (EDUC-AR)’, financed by the Generalitat Valenciana, Spain
(Reference number: CIAICO/2022/079).
References
Akçayır, M., and Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with
augmented reality for education: a systematic review of the literature. Educ. Res. Rev. 20,
1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
Ji, H. E., and Shin, H. W. (2019). Young foreign language Learners' engagement and
motivation in augmented reality-based vocabulary learning. Multimed. Assist. Lang.
Learn. 22:9:31. doi: 10.15702/mall.2019.22.3.9
Antonioli, M., Blake, C., and Sparks, K. (2014). Augmented reality applications in
education. J. Technol. Stud. 40, 96–107. doi: 10.21061/jots.v40i2.a.4
Kacetl, J., and Klímová, B. (2019). Use of smartphone applications in English language
learning—a challenge for foreign language education. Educ. Sci. 9:179. doi: 10.3390/
educsci9030179
Balog, A., and Pribeanu, C. (2010). The role of perceived enjoyment in the students’
acceptance of an augmented reality teaching platform: a structural equation modelling
approach. Stud. Inform. Control. 19, 319–330. doi: 10.24846/v19i3y201011
Kaur, D. P., Mantri, A., and Horan, B. (2020). Enhancing student motivation with use
of augmented reality for interactive learning in engineering education. Proc. Comput.
Sci. 172, 881–885. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.127
Belda-Medina, J. (2021). ICTs and Project-Based Learning (PBL) in EFL: Pre-service
Teachers’ Attitudes and Digital Skills. International Journal of Applied Linguistics \
u0026amp; English Literature. 10, 63–70.
Khan, T., Johnston, K., and Ophoff, J. (2019). The impact of an augmented reality
application on learning motivation of students. Adv. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2019, 1–14.
doi: 10.1155/2019/7208494
Belda-Medina, J. (2022). Using augmented reality (AR) as an authoring tool in EFL
through mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. Teach. Engl. Technol. 22,
115–135,
Küçük, S., Kapakin, S., and Göktaş, Y. (2016). Learning anatomy via mobile augmented
reality: effects on achievement and cognitive load. Anat. Sci. Educ. 9, 411–421. doi:
10.1002/ase.1603
Belda-Medina, J., and Calvo-Ferrer, J. R. (2022). Integrating augmented reality in
language learning: pre-service teachers’ digital competence and attitudes through the
TPACK framework. Educ. Inf. Technol. 27, 12123–12146. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11123-3
Küçük, S., Yilmaz, R., Baydas, Ö., and Göktas, Y. (2014). Augmented reality
applications attitude scale in secondary schools: validity and reliability study. Egit. Bilim.
39, 383–392. doi: 10.15390/EB.2014.3590
Belda-Medina, J., and Marrahi-Gomez, V. (2023). The impact of augmented reality
(AR) on vocabulary acquisition and student motivation. Electronics 12:749. doi: 10.3390/
electronics12030749
Lara-Prieto, V., Bravo-Quirino, E., Rivera-Campa, M. Á., and
Gutiérrez-Arredondo, J. E. (2015). An innovative self-learning approach to 3D printing
using multimedia and augmented reality on mobile devices. Proc. Comput. Sci. 75,
59–65. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.206
Buchner, J., Buntins, K., and Kerres, M. (2022). The impact of augmented reality on
cognitive load and performance: a systematic review. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 38,
285–303. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12617
Lau, S. Y., and Wen, Y. (2021). “A systematic literature review of augmented reality
used in language learning” in Contextual Language Learning: Real Language Learning
on the Continuum from Virtuality to Reality. eds. L. Yu-Ju and S. Grant (Singapore:
Springer), 171–186.
Chen, R. W., and Chan, K. K. (2019). Using augmented reality flashcards to learn
vocabulary in early childhood education. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 57, 1812–1831. doi:
10.1177/0735633119854028
Lin, Y. J., and Wang, H. C. (2023). Applying augmented reality in a
university English class: learners’ perceptions of creativity and learning
motivation. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 17, 291–305. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2022.
2040513
Damopolii, I., Paiki, F. F., and Nunaki, J. H. (2022). The development of comic book
as marker of augmented reality to raise students’ critical thinking. TEM J. 11, 348–355.
doi: 10.18421/TEM111-44
Demirdag, M. C., Kucuk, S., and Tasgin, A. (2024). An investigation of the effectiveness
of augmented reality technology supported English language learning activities on
preschool children. Int. J. Hum. Comput., 1–14. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2024.2323278
Marrahí-Gómez, V., and Belda-Medina, J. (2022). The application of augmented
reality (AR) to language learning and its impact on student motivation. Int. J. Engl.
Linguist. 2, 07–14. doi: 10.32996/ijls.2022.2.2.2
Dirin, A., and Laine, T. H. (2018). User experience in mobile augmented reality:
emotions, challenges, opportunities and best practices. Computers 7:33. doi: 10.3390/
computers7020033
Martin-Gutierrez, J., Guinters, E., and Perez-Lopez, D. (2012). Improving strategy of
self-learning in engineering: laboratories with augmented reality. Procedia Soc. Behav.
Sci. 51, 832–839. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.249
Gamlo, N. (2019). The impact of Mobile game-based language learning apps on EFL
Learners' motivation. Engl. Lang. Teach. 12, 49–56. doi: 10.5539/elt.v12n4p49
Min, W., and Yu, Z. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of augmented reality in language
learning. Sustain. For. 15:7235. doi: 10.3390/su15097235
Garzón, J. (2021). An overview of twenty-five years of augmented reality in education.
Multimodal Technol. Interact. 5:37. doi: 10.3390/mti5070037
Nami, F. (2020). Educational smartphone apps for language learning in higher
education: students’ choices and perceptions. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 36, 82–95. doi:
10.14742/ajet.5350
Garzón, J., Baldiris, S., Gutiérrez, J., and Pavón, J. (2020). How do pedagogical
approaches affect the impact of augmented reality on education? A meta-analysis and
research synthesis. Educ. Res. Rev. 31:100334. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100334
Nincarean, D., Alia, M. B., Halim, N. D. A., and Rahman, M. H. A. (2013). Mobile
augmented reality: the potential for education. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 103, 657–664.
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.385
Green, M. (2019). Smartphones, distraction narratives, and flexible pedagogies:
students’ mobile technology practices in networked writing classrooms. Comput.
Compos. 52, 91–106. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2019.01.009
Nizam, S. M., Abidin, R. Z., Hashim, N. C., Lam, M. C., Arshad, H., and
Majid, N. A. A. (2018). A review of multimodal interaction technique in augmented
reality environment. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol 8, 1460–1469. doi: 10.18517/
ijaseit.8.4-2.6824
Gudoniene, D., and Rutkauskiene, D. (2019). Virtual and augmented reality in
education. Balt. J. Mod. Comput.Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 7, 293–300. doi: 10.22364/
bjmc.2019.7.2.07
Osuna, J. B., Gutiérrez-Castillo, J., Llorente-Cejudo, M., and Ortiz, R. V. (2019).
Difficulties in the incorporation of augmented reality in university education:
visions from the experts. J. New Approac. Educ. Res. 8, 126–141. doi: 10.7821/
naer.2019.7.409
Jamrus, M. H. M., and Razali, A. B. (2019). Augmented reality in teaching and
learning English reading: realities, possibilities, and limitations. Int. J. Acad. Res.
Progress. Educ. 8, 724–737. doi: 10.6007/IJARPED/v8-i4/6696
Frontiers in Education
10
frontiersin.org
Marrahi-Gomez and Belda-Medina
10.3389/feduc.2024.1359692
Papanastasiou, G., Drigas, A., Skianis, C., Lytras, M., and Papanastasiou, E.
(2019). Virtual and augmented reality effects on K-12, higher and tertiary
education students’ twenty-first century skills. Virtual Reality 23, 425–436. doi:
10.1007/s10055-018-0363-2
Schorr, I., Plecher, D. A., Eichhorn, C., and Klinker, G. (2024). Foreign language
learning using augmented reality environments: a systematic review. Front. Virtual Real.
5:1288824. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2024.1288824
Shadiev, R., and Liang, Q. (2024). A review of research on AR-supported language
learning. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 18, 78–100. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2023.2229804
Pardede, P.. (2019). Mixed methods research designs in EFL. EFL theory and practice:
Voice of EED UKI (proceeding of EED collegiate forum 2015–2018).
Shrivastava, A., Shrivastava, M., and Muscat, O. (2014). Classroom distraction due to
mobile phones usage by students: college teachers’ perceptions. Int. J. Comput. Eng. Inf.
Technol. 3, 638–642.
Parmaxi, A., and Demetriou, A. A. (2020). Augmented reality in language learning: a
state-of-the-art review of 2014–2019. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 36, 861–875. doi: 10.1111/
jcal.12486
Skarbez, R., Smith, M., and Whitton, M. C. (2021). Revisiting Milgram and Kishino's realityvirtuality continuum. Front. Virtual Real. 2:647997. doi: 10.3389/frvir.2021.647997
Pellas, N., Fotaris, P., Kazanidis, I., and Wells, D. (2019). Augmenting the learning
experience in primary and secondary school education: a systematic review of recent
trends in augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Reality 23, 329–346. doi:
10.1007/s10055-018-0347-2
Solak, E., and Cakir, R. (2015). Exploring the effect of materials designed with
augmented reality on language Learners' vocabulary learning. J. Educ. 12, 50–72. doi:
10.9743/JEO.2015.2.5
Perifanou, M., Economides, A. A., and Nikou, S. A. (2022). Teachers’ views on
integrating augmented reality in education: needs, opportunities, challenges and
recommendations. Future Int. 15:20. doi: 10.3390/fi15010020
Sun, Y., and Gao, F. (2020). An investigation of the influence of intrinsic motivation
on students’ intention to use mobile devices in language learning. Educ. Technol. Res.
Dev. 68, 1181–1198. doi: 10.1007/s11423-019-09733-9
Qiu, X. Y., Chiu, C. K., Zhao, L. L., Sun, C. F., and Chen, S. J. (2023). Trends in VR/
AR technology-supporting language learning from 2008 to 2019: a research perspective.
Interact. Learn. Environ. 31, 2090–2113. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1874999
Taskiran, A. (2019). The effect of augmented reality games on English as foreign language
motivation. E-learning and digital. Media 16, 122–135. doi: 10.1177/2042753018817541
Tsai, C. C. (2020). The effects of augmented reality to motivation and performance in
EFL vocabulary learning. Int. J. Instr. 13, 987–1000. doi: 10.29333/iji.2020.13460a
Saltan, F., and Arslan, Ö. (2016). The use of augmented reality in formal education: a
scoping review. Eurasia J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed. 13, 503–520. doi: 10.12973/
eurasia.2017.00628a
Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., and Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status,
opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Comput. Educ. 62,
41–49. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024
Santos, M. E. C., Lübke, A. I. W., Taketomi, T., Yamamoto, G., Rodrigo, M. M. T.,
Sandor, C., et al. (2016). Augmented reality as multimedia: the case for situated
vocabulary learning. Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanc. Learn. 11, 4–23. doi: 10.1186/
s41039-016-0028-2
Yeh, H. C., and Tseng, S. S. (2020). Enhancing multimodal literacy using augmented
reality. Lang. Learn. Technol. 2020, 27–37.
Yuen, S. C. Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., and Johnson, E. (2011). Augmented reality: an
overview and five directions for AR in education. J. Educ. Tech. Dev. Exch. 4:11. doi:
10.18785/jetde.0401.10
Savela, N., Oksanen, A., Kaakinen, M., Noreikis, M., and Xiao, Y. (2020). Does
augmented reality affect sociability, entertainment, and learning? A field experiment.
App. Sci. 10:1392. doi: 10.3390/app10041392
Frontiers in Education
11
frontiersin.org