A study was conducted at University Tenaga Nasional to compare engineering students’ preferences in using augmented reality technology user interface (UI) applications to solve selected engineering problems. The study utilized a cross-sectional design and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test approach within a controlled environment to analyse the difference in rankings of engineering applications. The study also measured learnability and assessed the software quality using questionnaire for user interaction satisfaction. The multiple function UI was found to be statistically significant more effective than the tangible user interface (TUI) for engineering students. The study provides reliable evidence that multiple function UI is a better option in engineering education than TUI.
PapagiannisH. Augmented human: how technology is shaping the new reality. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, 2017.
2.
OprişICostinaşSIonescuCS, et al. Step-by-step augmented reality in power engineering education. Comput Appl Eng Educ2018; 26: 1590–1602.
3.
DiaoPHShihNJ. Trends and research issues of augmented reality studies in architectural and civil engineering education–A review of academic journal publications. Appl Sci (Basel)2019; 9: 1840.
4.
SchiffelerNStehlingVHaberstrohM, et al. Collaborative augmented reality in engineering education. In: Lecture notes in networks and systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 719–732.
5.
Criollo-CSAbad-VásquezDMartic-NietoM, et al. Towards a new learning experience through a mobile application with augmented reality in engineering education. Appl Sci (Basel)2021; 11: 4921.
6.
Alvarez-MarinAVelazquez-IturbideJA. Augmented reality and engineering education: a systematic review. IEEE Trans Learn Technol2021; 14: 817–831.
7.
RehmanZ. Trends and challenges of technology-enhanced learning in geotechnical engineering education. Sustainability2023; 15: 7972.
8.
KerawallaLLuckinRSeljeflotS, et al. “Making it real”: exploring the potential of augmented reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Real2006; 10: 163–174.
9.
ChangGMorrealeP, ofMedicherlaP. Applications augmented reality systems in education. In: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 29 March-2 April 2010, pp. 1380–1385.
10.
LeeK. The future of learning and training in an augmented reality. Insight2012; 7: 31–42.
11.
TangYMAuKMLeungY. Comprehending products with mixed reality: geometric relationships and creativity. Int J Eng Bus Manag2018; 10: 184797901880959.
12.
HuangKTBallCFrancisJ, et al. Augmented versus virtual reality in education: an exploratory study examining science knowledge retention when using augmented reality/virtual reality mobile applications. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2019; 22: 105–110.
13.
ZhangHCuiYShanH, et al. Hotspots and trends of virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality in education field. In: 2020 6th International Conference of the Immersive Learning Research Network (iLRN). 21-25 June 2020, IEEE, 2020, pp. 215–219.
14.
KoçakÖYilmazRMKüçükS, et al. The educational potential of augmented reality technology: experiences of instructional designers and practitioners. J Edu Future2019; 15: 17–36.
15.
HasaniLMSensuseDI Kautsarina, et al. User-centered design of e-learning user interfaces: A survey of the practices. In: 2020 3rd International Conference on Computer and Informatics Engineering (IC2IE). 15-16 September 2020, IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–7.
16.
CzerkawskiBBertiM. Learning experience design for augmented reality. Res Learn Technol29. Article No: 2429. Epub ahead of print2021.
17.
MystakidisSChristopoulosAPellasN. A systematic mapping review of augmented reality applications to support STEM learning in higher education. Educ Inf Technol2022; 27: 1883–1927.
SidhuMSAliK. Computer aided simulation of a 4BL engineering problem using Matlab. Aust J Basic Appl Sci2013; 7: 381–387.
20.
MaqablehWAl-HamadASidhuM. Evaluation of AR-4BL-MAST with multiple markers interaction technique for augmented reality based engineering application. Int J Comput Inf Eng2016; 10: 1625–1631.
21.
SidhuMSYingJG. Experiencing new learning, interaction and visualization process using augmented reality technology. TEM J2017; 6: 222–231.
22.
YingJGSidhuMS. Analyzing 4BL mechanisms in an augmented reality environment. Adv Sci Lett2018; 24: 1528–1531.
23.
VinogradovO. Fundamentals of kinematics and dynamics of machines and mechanisms. London: CRC Press, 2020.
24.
Valencia-SeguraLEVillarreal-CervantesMGCorona-RamirezLG, et al. Optimum synthesis of four-bar mechanism by using relative angle method: a comparative performance study. IEEE Access2021; 9: 132990–133010.
25.
GrabskiJKSopaMMrozekA. Application of the path-repairing technique and virus optimization algorithm for the dimensional synthesis of four-bar mechanisms. Arch Civ Mech Eng23. Article No: 134. Epub ahead of print2023.
26.
GunckelKLTolbertS. The imperative to move toward a dimension of care in engineering education. J Res Sci Teach2018; 55: 938–961.
27.
Hernández-de-MenéndezMVallejo GuevaraATudón MartínezJC, et al. Active learning in engineering education. A review of fundamentals, best practices and experiences. Int J Interact Des Manuf (IJIDeM)2019; 13: 909–922.
28.
Van den BeemtAMacLeodMVan der VeenJ, et al. Interdisciplinary engineering education: a review of vision, teaching, and support. J Eng Educ2020; 109: 508–555.
29.
ChenJKolmosADuX. Forms of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education: a review of literature. Eur J Eng Educ2021; 46: 90–115.
30.
Ortega-SánchezMMoñinoABergillosRJ, et al. Confronting learning challenges in the field of maritime and coastal engineering: towards an educational methodology for sustainable development. J Clean Prod2018; 171: 733–742.
31.
WognumNBilCElghF, et al. Transdisciplinary systems engineering: implications, challenges and research agenda. Int J Agile Syst Manag2019; 12: 58.
32.
Caño de las HerasSKensington-MillerBYoungB, et al. Benefits and challenges of a virtual laboratory in chemical and biochemical engineering: students’ experiences in fermentation. J Chem Educ2021; 98: 866–875.
33.
StiegerJThelenACBachU, et al. Challanges of large group study courses in engineering education. In: Automation, communication and cybernetics in science and engineering 2013/2014. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 503–511.
34.
MaqablehWSidhuM. Interactive four-bar linkage 3d-simulation using augmented reality. In: The 6th International Conference on Information Technology, 8-10 May 2013, ICIT, 2013, pp. 1–9.
35.
TullisTAlbertW. Measuring the user experience: collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. 2nd ed. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2014.
36.
SinghMSinghMP. Augmented reality interfaces. IEEE Internet Comput2013; 17: 66–70.
37.
AriyanaYWuryandariAI. Virtual interaction at virtual environment applied for Augmented Reality. In: 2012 International Conference on Cloud Computing and Social Networking (ICCCSN). 26-27 April 2012, IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–7.
38.
ProManageTR. Meet the industry 4.0 application: ProManage AR (augmented reality), https://youtu.be/qw65E4pp__k (2019, accessed June 15, 2023).
39.
LongoFNicolettiLPadovanoA. Smart operators in industry 4.0: a human-centered approach to enhance operators’ capabilities and competencies within the new smart factory context. Comput Ind Eng2017; 113: 144–159.
40.
AzumaRBaillotYBehringerR, et al. Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput Graph Appl2001; 21: 34–47.
41.
ArdinyHKhanmirzaE. The role of AR and VR technologies in education developments: Opportunities and challenges. In: 2018 6th RSI International Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (IcRoM). 23-25 October 2018, IEEE, 2018, PP. 482–487.
42.
WangYZhangSYangS, et al. Mechanical assembly assistance using marker-less augmented reality system. Assem Autom2018; 38: 77–87.
43.
PoojaJVinayMPaiVG, et al. Comparative analysis of marker and marker-less augmented reality in education. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference for Innovation in Technology (INOCON). 6-8 November 2020, IEEE. pp. 1–4.
44.
RoseSPotterDNewcombeM. Augmented reality: a review of available augmented reality packages and evaluation of their potential use in an educational context. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2010.
45.
AkçayırMAkçayırG. Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: a systematic review of the literature. Educ Res Rev2017; 20: 1–11.
46.
KrestanovaACernyMAugustynekM. Review: development and technical design of tangible user interfaces in wide-field areas of application. Sensors (Basel)2021; 21: 4258.
47.
IqbalMZManginaECampbellAG. Current challenges and future research directions in augmented reality for education. Multimodal Technol Interact2022; 6: 75.
48.
BeerFRussell JohnstonEJrCornwellPJ, et al. Vector mechanics for engineers: dynamics. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Education, 2020.
49.
NielsenJ. Usability engineering. Oxford: Morgan Kaufmann, 2010.
50.
SagarKSahaA. A systematic review of software usability studies. Int J Inf Technol. Epub ahead of print2017.
51.
International Standard Organization (ISO). ISO/IEC 9126 Software Product Evaluation - Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for the User.
52.
Zeng L. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2009; 25: 707–708.
53.
ChinJPDiehlVANormanLK. Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ‘88. New York: ACM Press, 1988, pp. 213–218.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
