J. EDUCATIONAL COMPUTING RESEARCH, Vol. 51(3) 355-368, 2014
LOCATION-BASED LEARNING THROUGH
AUGMENTED REALITY
TE-LIEN CHOU
National Taiwan University of Science and Technology
LIH-JUAN CHANLIN
Fu-Jen Catholic University
ABSTRACT
A context-aware and mixed-reality exploring tool cannot only effectively
provide an information-rich environment to users, but also allows them to
quickly utilize useful resources and enhance environment awareness. This
study integrates Augmented Reality (AR) technology into smartphones to
create a stimulating learning experience at a university in northern Taiwan.
Some 100 freshmen volunteered for application testing. Students’ reactions to
AR mobile campus exploration experiences are assessed based on three
facets: functionality, personal satisfaction, and effectiveness of learning.
Findings of the study indicate positive reactions as follows: 4.18 (SD = 0.48)
for functionality, 4.25 (SD = 0.60) for personal satisfaction, and 4.35 (SD =
0.59) for effectiveness of learning. From open-ended feedback, three positive
reactions and one suggestion are inducted. Based on our findings, we suggest
utilizing the proposed AR mobile touring system for wider educational
purposes. It is hoped that the findings of this study provide a reference for
further development and implementation of mobile AR learning systems.
INTRODUCTION
According to a report by UNESCO (2013), within the next 15 years, mobile appli-
cations will proactively guide and support learners through activities appropriate
355
� 2014, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.3.e
http://baywood.com
to different settings and facilitate useful and lasting personal learning. The ever-
evolving development of smartphones and the popularity of information
technology have not only influenced the development of campus networks, but
have also changed learning settings. The evolution of high-resolution cameras, big
screens, and embedded GPS and compass technologies in mobile devices have
brought about a new era in the mobile learning context (Bernardos, Corredera,
Ramon, & Cano García, 2011). Service providers can leverage both existing
information and facilities layout for the design of innovative information
environments that respond to users’ shifting information needs (Hahn, 2012;
Lázaro, 2012).
With the advancement of mobile technology, augmented reality (AR) is increas-
ingly used in mobile devices to satisfy location-based needs in specific learning
settings. AR allows specific elements in a physical environment to be supple-
mented by virtual computer-generated sensory input. The implementation of AR
helps people understand more detailed information about an environment
(Forsyth, 2011). When applied in specific contextual learning activities, location-
based information is critical for supporting students’ outdoor learning. AR can be
utilized to create rich information applications by using the geographical position
of a mobile device. Researchers have designed applications to provide students
learning content based on their real-time locations (Dow & Huang, 2011; Novak,
Wang, & Callaghan, 2012).
Augmented reality (AR) applications on smartphones can be particularly useful
during student orientation when they are expected to both make a transition to the
life on an unfamiliar campus and to be able to quickly navigate among different
buildings that contain a multitude of academic departments and administrative
offices (Boticki, Hoic-Bozic, & Budiscak, 2009; Jaramillo, Quiroz, Cartagena,
Vivares, & Branch, 2010; Kurkovsky, Koshy, Novak & Szul, 2012; Mar et al.,
2012). Extending the real world with a layer of virtual information, AR enables
seamless connection between digital and physical worlds; supports just-in-time,
context-based, and ubiquitous learning; and can help to build knowledge-rich
environments (Hwang, Chu, Lin, & Tsai, 2011; Novak et al., 2012). Previous
studies have identified AR simulation environments as an effective medium for
enhancing collaborative learning (Liu, Tan, & Chu, 2010; Wang, Lin, Tsai, Duh,
& Liang 2012). Due to its unique characteristics, AR could be one of the advance
technologies applied to education (Billinghurst & Dünser, 2012).
Related literature has addressed the effectiveness of AR for situated learning.
Bernardos et al. (2011) conclude that AR assists users’ learning of location-based
information by making information accessible, facilitating navigation of environ-
ments, and offering flexible, interactive, and appealing features. Wasko (2013)
summarizes students’ learning outcomes by investigating the enjoyment (motiva-
tion, interest, challenging, problem-solving, and critical thinking) they experience
during AR exploration. Berthold, Steiner, and Albert (2012) emphasize self-
regulated learning skills developed from using AR in project-based medical
356 / CHOU AND CHANLIN
training, including memorizing, elaboration, organization, planning, self-moni-
toring, and time management. Mar et al. (2012) suggest the use of AR has satisfied
students’ needs in supporting learning and motivational elements in both formal and
informal exploratory activities. With regard to location-based and real-time learning
needs, Chang and Liu (2013) and Novak et al. (2012) conclude that AR provides
situated learning opportunities and helps learners construct their understanding
through just-in-time, context-based elements in knowledge-rich environments.
Integrating AR technology into smartphones provides learners with a user-
centered, visualized operation and context-aware personal campus navigation
experiences. This study explores how an AR mobile touring system was devel-
oped and evaluated among users. Specifically, the study explores (a) students’
experiences using the functions provided by the AR mobile touring system, (b)
students’ satisfaction with location-based learning, and (c) the effectiveness of
using the tool for learning.
METHODOLOGY
This study adopts application prototyping and questionnaire survey methodol-
ogies to elicit feedback from college freshmen. First, in order to study how
students use an information-rich and self-guided AR tool during campus orien-
tation, a prototype mobile campus touring system employing AR technology was
developed at Fu-Jen Catholic University. Formative evaluation was employed
during the development phase to gather users’ feedback and suggestions. The final
version of the AR touring system was adjusted accordingly. The system was then
introduced to 100 volunteer freshmen. Overall reactions toward the systems were
gathered through a questionnaire.
Development and Application
The development of the mobile campus touring system applied the freeware
tool Layar as it supports the majority of smartphone platforms, including iOS,
Android, Symbian, and Blackberry. Hoppala was used as the data server to store
relevant geospatial information for effective guidance. Photoshop was used in
designing tags for AR points of interests (POIs), Audacity was used for audio tour
recordings, and a camera was used for taking photos of POIs to supplement
descriptions. The system was tested in both Android and iOS smartphone plat-
forms for comparability (Table 1).
The system structure consisted of two databases and three interfaces. The
developer or the administrator used both Layar and Hoppala accounts via the Web
to implement the mobile campus touring system. To run the system, users had to
download the Layar application to their smartphones and search for the Fu-Jen
Catholic University mobile campus touring system to start navigation. Via WIFI
or 3G Internet connections, and GPS and compass sensory technology, real-time
LOCATION-BASED LEARNING / 357
geospatial information on the campus was displayed on the screens of users’
smartphones (Figure 1).
When the sensors of both the GPS and the compass were triggered, associated
POIs (such as departments, libraries, dining areas, sport fields, or dorms) within
the searchable radius then appeared on the screen in the form of AR tags overlaid
on a physical surrounding object. Users further scanned 360 degrees for a specific
POI and then tapped on the designated AR tag for further actions, such as text
description, audio touring guide, phone numbers for either direct phone calls or
text messaging, directions, social network sharing, and so on (Figure 2). The
system operations included scanning, radius-setting, searching, accessing, filtering,
browsing, action-selecting, directions, and sharing (Figure 3).
Assessment
At the end of application testing, summative data were collected. Volunteer
recruitment for experimentation and evaluation of the system was conducted
358 / CHOU AND CHANLIN
Table 1. Tools for Development of Campus Touring System
Items Tools
Development OS
Internet browser
Audio recorder
Image creator
Interface platform
Database platform
Smartphone models
Smartphone OS platforms
Windows XP/Windows Vista PC
Firefox
Audacity
Photoshop
Layar
Hoppala
HTC Aria/Samsung Galaxy II/Apple iPhone 4
Android/iOS
Figure 1. System structure of AR mobile touring system.
among freshmen through invitations in freshmen classes and DMs on school
bulletin boards (both electronic and physical) during the first month of the
semester. A total of 100 students signed up to participate in the study. Each student
was asked to complete a task sheet in which 13 tasks were given (such as describ-
ing directions and names about specific locations, providing background informa-
tion about specific buildings, and demonstrating one’s understanding about
assessing specific important information from the AR mobile touring system). To
accomplish the tasks given, students were requested to familiarize themselves with
both the operation and the use of special functions embedded in their smartphone
for retrieving relevant location-based information. After completing the task
sheet, students responded immediately to a set of questionnaire items to express
their reactions to their learning experience. Each student learned independently
and responded individually. It took each individual about 20 to 30 minutes to
finish the tasks and fill out questionnaire items.
The questionnaire contained 25 items. It assessed students’ learning reactions
after exploring the location-based information embedded in the system. The struc-
ture of the questionnaire items was framed based on theoretical issues addressed in
related studies (Bernardos et al., 2011; Berthold et al., 2012; Chang & Liu, 2013;
Jaramillo et al., 2010; Mar et al., 2012; Novak et al., 2012; Nurminen, Jarvi, &
Lehtonen, 2014) and the needs of users (formative assessment in the prototype
version of the system) (Table 2). The first section of the questionnaire covered
basic information about students (gender, college, activities via cell phones, and
experiences finding locations). The second section of the questionnaire assessed
students’ learning and reactions to the AR mobile touring system, including the
functionality of the AR mobile touring system (stability, content categorization,
positioning, audio guide, and textual guidance), personal satisfaction (enjoyment,
interest in interactions, personal importance, and exploration enjoyment) with the
LOCATION-BASED LEARNING / 359
Figure 2. System configuration structure.
360 / CHOU AND CHANLIN
Fig
ure
3.U
ser
ap
plic
atio
n.
location-based learning experiences, and perceived effectiveness of using the tool
for learning (tagging sufficient information, helpfulness in learning, and guidance
to target locations). A Likert’s 5-point scale was adopted to obtain summative
data. Data from a total of 100 participants were collected and processed using
SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
FINDINGS
Prior Experience Among Subjects
Of the 100 volunteers, 37 were males (37 %) and 63 were females (63%). Most
students used their cell phones for various activities, including making phone calls
and text messaging (100%), calculating (77%), playing games (61%), and setting
personal calendars (61%). Most of their campus exploration experiences included
asking passersby (61%), following instincts (60%), and using signposts (59%).
Only 23 students (23%) used online maps, and only 3 students (3%) used
smartphone guidance. According to their responses, the AR mobile touring system
was a new experience for them.
LOCATION-BASED LEARNING / 361
Table 2. Structure of Questionnaire Items
Category of items Type of data to be obtained Source
Background information
and prior experiences
Facet I:
Functions of AR mobile
system
Facet II:
Personal satisfaction
Facet III:
Effectiveness of using
the tool for location-
based learning
Open-ended reactions
Gender, college, activities via
cell phones, and experiences
following directions.
Stability of functions in exploration
(categorization, positioning, audio
guide, and directions).
Enjoyment, interest in use of
real-time interactions, personal
importance and joy in exploring
various features.
Effectiveness in tagging sufficient
information, providing helpful
learning, and guiding to target
locations.
Descriptions, learning experiences
that occurred when exploring the
AR mobile learning tool.
Relevant information
from target users
Bernardos et al. (2011);
Chang & Liu (2013);
Liu (2013); Berthold et al.
(2012); Novak et al.
(2012); Mar et al. (2012);
Jamarillo et al. (2010);
Nurminen et al. (2014)
Functions of the AR Mobile Touring System
From students’ responses to questionnaire items, the mean score for the function
of AR mobile touring was 4.18 (SD = 0.48). As shown in Table 3, the majority of
students strongly agreed that “3. This system is easy to handle”; “5. The audio tour
guide provides me with deeper information about various points of interest”; and
“8. Categorization of information helps me to identify targets.” Most mean scores
were above 4.00. From these results, most students were positive about functions
such as positioning, quick response, ease of use and handling.
Personal Satisfaction With Learning
From the questionnaire responses, the mean score for personal satisfaction with
learning was 4.25 (SD = 0.60). As shown in Table 4, the majority of students
strongly agreed that “9. I enjoy navigating the campus touring system for real-time
interaction with the environment”; “10. This campus touring system gives me the
freedom to interact with the new environment by myself”; “12. I like the social
networking features provided by the system”; “13. I enjoy using this campus
touring system to explore the school”; “14. I will recommend this system to
362 / CHOU AND CHANLIN
Table 3. Functions of AR Mobile Touring
Strongly
disagree �Strongly
Agree
Item 1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD
1. This system switches
functions smoothly
2. This positioning function
runs stably
3. This system is easy to
handle
4. This system responds to
my requests quickly
5. The audio tour guide
provides me with deeper
information about various
points of interest
6. Text should be biggera
7. The audio tour guide in
the system is important
to me
8. Categorization of
information helps me to
identify targets
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
2
1
0
3
0
5
13
0
20
18
13
20
10
23
34
10
41
42
24
31
31
34
23
31
37
39
63
46
59
33
28
58
4.13
4.19
4.50
4.20
4.49
2.15
3.62
4.44
0.80
0.76
0.72
0.86
0.67
1.10
1.09
0.81
The average score for the function of AR mobile touring 4.18 0.48
Note: Likert’s 5-point scale (n = 100); aReversed item.
others”; and “15. Google direction guidance in the system is important to me.”
Most mean scores were above 4.00. Based on these results, most students enjoyed
using these real-time, self-guided, and social networking campus navigation
services. They felt satisfied using the tool for location-based learning.
Effectiveness of Learning
Based on responses related to the effectiveness of learning, the mean score was
4.35 (SD = 0.59). As shown in Table 5, the majority of students strongly agreed
that “17. This system provides me with correct information about buildings”; “18.
The information integrated with the physical objects helps me become familiar
with the environment”; “19. The use of visuals provides helpful representations
LOCATION-BASED LEARNING / 363
Table 4. Personal Satisfaction in Learning
Strongly
disagree �Strongly
Agree
Item 1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD
9. I enjoy navigating the
campus touring system
for real-time interaction
with the environment
10. This campus touring
system gives me the
freedom to interact with
the new environment by
myself
11. The experience of mobile
learning triggers my
interest to explore the
campus
12. I like the social
networking features
provided by the system
13. I enjoy using this campus
touring system for
learning through
exploration
14. I will recommend this
system to others
15. Google direction
guidance in the system is
important to me
16. Social network capability
is very important to me
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
8
2
3
2
2
7
7
13
31
17
16
14
13
22
33
31
28
31
30
28
35
24
57
55
32
50
51
58
50
45
4.43
4.40
3.82
4.22
4.29
4.38
4.33
4.03
0.79
0.75
1.01
0.82
0.84
0.80
0.78
1.07
The average score for the personal joyfulness in learning 4.25 0.60
Note: Likert’s 5-point scale (n = 100).
for comprehension”; “22. AR tagging provides enough contextual descriptions”;
“23. The direction guidelines on the system take me to the target locations
accurately”; and “24. This system provides me everything I need for touring the
campus.” Mean scores were all above 4.00. From these results, most students were
pleased with the AR campus touring system for it helps them become familiar with
the campus (Table 5).
364 / CHOU AND CHANLIN
Table 5. Effectiveness of Learning
Strongly
disagree �Strongly
Agree
Item 1 2 3 4 5 Mean SD
17. This system provides me
with correct information
about buildings
18. The information
integrated with the
physical objects helps
me become familiar with
the environment
19. The use of visuals
provides helpful
representations for
comprehension
20. The mobile learning
system integrated with
AR tags reinforces my
spatial memories.
21. The use of visuals is
intuitive.
22. AR tagging provides
enough contextual
descriptions.
23. The direction guidelines
on the system take me
to the target locations
accurately.
24. This system provides
me everything I need
four touring the campus.
25. This campus touring
system provides an
efficient context-aware
learning experience
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
3
5
6
8
12
18
23
11
8
14
19
33
38
37
33
27
33
35
31
36
61
54
51
49
49
54
56
50
40
4.55
4.46
4.39
4.31
4.24
4.39
4.46
4.22
4.11
0.61
0.64
0.69
0.76
0.84
0.76
0.69
1.02
0.89
The average score for the effectiveness of learning 4.35 0.59
Note: Likert’s 5-point scale (n = 100).
Open-Ended Feedback
From open-ended feedback, students gave three major positive feedbacks and
one suggestion. About the positive feedback, the majority of the users highly
valued the augmented information. They enjoyed gaining awareness and using
this personal mobile learning module to acquaint themselves with the new envi-
ronment. They felt this service offered immediate information to satisfy their
timely needs. As for the suggestion, seven users responded negatively toward the
font size of the system. They felt it was difficult to read descriptions on the small
screen of their smartphone.
DISCUSSION
In this study, students’ experiences in three facets of the AR mobile touring
system were evaluated, including the function of the AR mobile system, personal
satisfaction, and the effectiveness of using the tool for situated learning. Even
though only 3% of students had experience using smartphone direction guidance
and 25% of students had used an online map for campus exploration, the majority
of students reacted positively to the functions of the AR mobile campus touring
system. Similar findings have been reported in related studies showing that most
students appreciate the exploration of various functions embedded in AR for
location-based learning (Lee, 2012; Novak et al., 2012; Rockwell et al., 2014).
Integrating functions of AR and geographical positioning in a mobile device
creates a new experience for users exploring rich location-based information. In
our study, students’ valued the functions of the AR mobile system highly. The
enriched environment information system helped freshmen become familiar with
the new environment.
Students perceived high levels of personal satisfaction with the experiences of
both real-time interaction and self-guided navigation in the campus touring
system. As noted by Pribeanu and Iordache (2010), AR technology encourages
students to learn theoretical knowledge through practical experiences learned
from constructive activities. In our study, we found that students were satisfied
with the proposed self-guided AR system. These freshmen felt freedom to explore
the unfamiliar campus with both joyfulness and ease.
Students also highly valued the effectiveness of using the tool for location-based
learning. With the capability to enhance seeing, hearing, and feeling from diverse
input, students learn efficiently from AR experiences (van Krevelen & Poelman,
2010). In our study, most students considered the tool helpful in reaching a target
location efficiently and providing opportunities for helpful and effective learning.
There are limitations in the current study, given the fact that only a limited num-
ber of users participated in the study and variations in individual or gender
differences were not analyzed. Bao, Xiong, Hu, and Kibelloh (2013) suggest
that computer self-efficacy and individual differences might play a role in a
LOCATION-BASED LEARNING / 365
self-exploration learning mobile environment. Kay and Lauricella (2011) and
Schumacher and Morahan-Martin (2001) address gender differences in computer
attitudes, ability, and use. Other studies also suggest that a great deal of techno-
logical effort is needed to merge AR applications in support of multiuser collab-
oration in real time (Carmigniani et al., 2011; Yang, 2012). Mobile devices are
limited by some major factors, including small input interfaces and small displays
(Novak et al., 2012). Putting rich information onto the screen of a mobile device
creates a big challenge in structuring and sequencing needed information in a
timely fashion. Further innovation is still needed to fulfill users’ specific needs.
CONCLUSIONS
This study utilizes Augmented Reality (AR) technology and smartphones to
implement a mobile campus touring system. Throughout the development and
evaluation of the AR mobile touring system, students’ reactions to the use of sys-
tem were gathered. The majority of the users highly valued the use of visualized
augmented information in the AR campus touring system. They also appreciated
gaining situated awareness and using the AR mobile campus touring system to
acquaint themselves with the new environment. Different from other touring
systems, this AR campus navigation application offers immediate information to
satisfy students’ timely needs.
The use of the AR mobile tool provided students with context-aware location-
based learning experiences. However, some research limitations and develop-
mental issues should be well considered. Future studies of gender differences and
self-efficacy issues might be investigated in relation to learning outcomes. We
expect that this AR mobile touring system can allow freshmen to readily experi-
ence interactive learning. It is also hoped that, in the future, the use of AR can be
applied in more learning settings on campus as an innovative alternative for bring-
ing experiential and ubiquitous learning to students.
REFERENCES
Bao, Y., Xiong, T., Hu, Z., & Kibelloh, M. (2013). Exploring gender differences on general
and specific computer self-efficacy in mobile learning adoption. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 111-132.
Bernardos , A. M., Corredera, C., Ramon, J., & Cano García, J. (2011). Mobile indoor
augmented reality: Exploring applications in hospitality environments. PECCS
2011—International conference on Pervasive and Embedded Computing and
Communication Systems (pp. 232-236).
Berthold, M., Steiner, C. M., & Albert, D. (2012, July). How to augment simulated
environments by services supporting self-regulated learning? A baseline study.
in advanced learning technologies (ICALT), 2012 IEEE 12th International Confer-
ence (pp. 700-701). IEEE.
366 / CHOU AND CHANLIN
Billinghurst, M., & Dünser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer,
45(7), 56-63.
Boticki, I., Hoic-Bozic, N., & Budiscak, I. (2009). A system architecture for a context-
aware blended mobile learning environment. Journal of Computing and Information
Technology, 2, 165–175.
Carmigniani, J., Furht, B., Anisetti, M., Ceravolo, P., Damiani, E., & Ivkovic, M. (2011).
Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools and
Applications, 51(1), 341-377.
Chang, Y. H., & Liu, J. (2013). Applying AR technique to enhance situated heritage learn-
ing in a ubiquitous learning environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 12(3), 21-32.
Dow, C.-R., & Huang, L.-H. (2011, December 5). Context-aware and LBS learning sys-
tems using ubiquitous teaching assistant (u-TA): A case study for service-learning
courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education. doi:10.1002/cae.21552
Forsyth, E. (2011). AR U feeling appy? Augmented reality, apps, and mobile access to
local studies information. Aplis, 24(3), 124-132
Hahn, J. (2012). Mobile augmented reality applications for library services. New Library
World, 113(9/10).
Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Lin, Y. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). A knowledge acquisition
approach to developing mindtools for organizing and sharing differentiating knowl-
edge in a ubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education, 57, 1368-1377.
Jaramillo, G. E., Quiroz, J. E., Cartagena, C. A., Vivares, C. A., & Branch, J. W. (2010).
Mobile augmented reality applications in daily environments. Revista EIA, 14, 125-134.
Kay, R. H., & Lauricella, S. (2011). Gender differences in the use of laptops in higher
education: A formative analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3),
361-380.
Kurkovsky, S., Koshy, R., Novak, V., & Szul, P. (2012). Current issues in handheld aug-
mented reality. The 2nd international conference on Communications and Information
Technology (ICCIT): Information Technology and Cloud Computing, Hammamet,
Tunisia (pp. 68-72).
Lázaro, R. M. (2012, January 23–25). Augmented reality as a tool to bring young users to
the public libraries—The case of the libraries of the city of Barcelona. Proceedings of
the 20th international conference on Information Science, Amsterdam (pp. 226-229).
Lee, K. (2012). Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends, 56(2), 13-21.
Liu, T.-Y., Tan, T.-H., & Chu, Y.-L. (2010). QR code and augmented reality-supported
mobile English learning system. Lecture Notes on Computer Science, 5960, (pp. 7-52).
Mar, B. I., Gustavo, R. G., Davinia., H. L., Mario, M. O., Patricia, S., Josep, B., & Carlos,
D. K. (2012). Discovering the campus together: A mobile and computer-based learning
experience. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 35(1), 176-188.
Novak, D., Wang, M., & Callaghan, V. (2012). Looking in, looking out: A discussion of the
educational affordances of current mobile augmented reality technologies. In J. Jia
(Ed.), Educational stages and interactive learning: From kindergarten to workplace
training. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Nurminen, A., Jarvi, J., & Lehtonen, M. (2014, June 16-19). A mix reality interface for real
time tracked public transportation. 10th ITS European Congress, Helsinki, Finland.
Pribeanu, C., & Iordache, D. D. (2010). From usability to user experience: Evaluating the
educational and motivational value of an augmented reality scenario. In A. Tzanavari,
LOCATION-BASED LEARNING / 367
& N. Tsapatsoulis (Eds.), Affective, interactive and cognitive methods for elearning
design: Creating an optimal educational experience (pp. 244-258). New York, NY:
Information Science Reference.
Rockwell, G., Henry, C., deJong, E., Lucky, S., Illovan, M., Gouglas, S., et al. (2014). Cam-
pus mysteries: Serious walking around. The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies
Association, 7(12), 1-18
Schumacher, P., & Morahan-Martin, J. (2001). Gender, Internet and computer attitudes and
experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 95-110.
UNESCO. (2013). The future of mobile learning. Implications for policy makers and
planners. Retrieved April 18, 2014, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/
002196/219637e.pdf
van Krevelen, D. W. F., & Poelman, R. (2010). A survey of augmented reality technologies,
applications and limitations. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 9(2), 1-20.
Wang, H. Y., Lin, T. J., Tsai, C. C., Duh, B. L., & Liang, J. C. (2012). An investigation of
students’ sequential learning behavioral patterns in mobile CSCL learning systems.
Proceedings of 12th IEEE international conference on Advanced Learning Technol-
ogies (pp. 53-57).
Wasko, C. (2013). What teachers need to know about augmented reality enhanced learning
environments. TechTrends, 57(4), 17-21.
Yang, S. C. (2012). Mobile applications and 4G wireless networks: A framework for
analysis. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(5), 344–357.
Direct reprint requests to:
Dr. Lih-Juan ChanLin
Department of Library and Information Science
Fu-Jen Catholic University
No. 510 Zhongzheng Rd., Xinzhuang Dist.,
New Taipei City 24205, Taiwan
e-mail: [email protected]
368 / CHOU AND CHANLIN