Perspective Chapter: iPEAR-MOOC

Abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) has been developing rapidly in the past years, and the acceptance of this technology is growing amongst the users of smartphones and tablets. Educational applications and resources that use AR technology are also growing in both number and quality. However, most educators lack sufficient digital skills and are unaware of the pedagogical approaches necessary to use the available digital tools to advance their teaching practices and their professional development. An international team of researchers from the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (Germany), NTNU (Norway), AETMALab (Greece), Akto (Greece) and Eucen (Spain) started an EU-funded project to explore the possibilities of engaging higher education students by combining AR And peer learning. As part of the project, a MOOC started in October 2022 (https://imoox.at/course/ipear) to share the iPEAR approach created by the project group. In this 4-week course, students learn about AR tools, pear learning, and how to implement the combination of both into their seminars. Participants work in peer groups to create a first augmentation and provide a pedagogical background for their projects. The chapter will describe the experiences with and results from the MOOC.

1. Introduction

In September 2020, the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), together with their partners NTNU (Norway), AETMALab (Greece), Akto (Greece), and Eucen (Spain), successfully applied for funding of the project “Inclusive Peer Learning with Augmented Reality (iPEAR)” in the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union.

The project started in September 2020 and will finish at the end of August 2023. The aims of these Erasmus+ projects in the cooperation partnership strand are the development of projects with European partners to, amongst others, include sustainability, inclusion, digitalization, and innovation in higher education. These projects are not entirely research ones but include a practical approach to ensure their findings have a long-term impact.

As part of its activities, the project created a MOOC used for dissemination of the iPEAR approach, to create interest in the use of AR and peer learning in higher education and to provide a safe space to try out AR initially.

1.1 Literature review

As stated earlier, the project started in 2020 with the aim to carry out a new approach to use Augmented Reality in higher education by combining it with peer learning. At the start of the project, a literature review was carried out which identified that a wide range of literature existed on the usage of Augmented Reality in higher education.

Already in 2013, Chang et al. [1] identified the potential of AR technologies but stated that research was needed on the pedagogical issues of using AR. As Garzón et al. [2] point out in their meta-analysis of 46 empirical studies, Augmented Reality is becoming popular due to its positive effects on teaching and learning.

Kaur et al. [3] stated that Augmented Reality could fulfill the goal of visualizing interactive course content and thus enhance student motivation.

In an attempt to research how images can support learning about the past, Topouzova [4] investigates the use of AR and digital storytelling.

Yeh et al. [5], explore the usage of various multimodal modes in communication with the usage of Augmented Reality.

Furthermore, various authors have researched the impact of peer learning in higher education.

As early as 1997, Mazur [6] viewed peer instruction as a means of educational innovation and provided a manual for using it. Amongst, others, Bunting [7] identifies key elements of high-quality peer learning, such as “frequent, timely, and constructive feedback” (p. 3).

Crouch and Mazur [8] gave some evidence that peer-to-peer instruction enhances students’ conceptual understanding of science and Crouch et al. [9] state that it increases course satisfaction and comprehension. Sakulwichitsintu et al. [10] even provide a framework for peer learning to enhance the online experiences of students.

However, at that moment in time, a gap was identified in the literature on combining Augmented Reality with peer learning in higher education.

2. Background

2.1 Background of the iPEAR-project

Research has shown that “learning friends” make a difference. Students and educators, especially in the remote setting of the recent pandemic, have chosen the inclusive visual language of the internet using all forms of visuals: emoji, videos, 3D animation, QR codes, and Augmented Reality whenever possible. Visual reading and thinking are inclusive for two reasons: It helps students facing learning challenges [11] and it conveys meaning by providing a concise and memorable micro-learning experience.

Relating to the gap in the literature stated earlier, the iPEAR team wanted to carry out research on how to use Augmented Reality in the combination with peer learning and to find out how this approach will enhance student motivation and engagement.

For this purpose, 22 interviews with educators from Greece, Norway, and Germany and 214 survey data from students were collected in 2020 and 2021.

The UN Goal 4 on Quality education [12] emphasizes inclusive and equitable education by defining it as a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures, and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences.

The iPEAR pedagogy does exactly that: it aims to support student’s needs and their individual learning approaches by emphasizing the benefits of peer learning combined with visual learning in the form of Augmented Reality.

The preliminary findings of the iPEAR-project give evidence that the educational intervention can serve its purpose.

The research report will be published as a compendium of best practices, which will be presented at a conference in Athens in June 2023.

2.2 Background of the iPEAR-MOOC

As stated earlier, the MOOC is included in the dissemination of the project iPEAR. The motivation to create the MOOC was to give students and educators an incentive to try out the iPEAR-approach in a guided and safe environment so that ideas would be created to include it into their own teaching and learning.

As neither the FAU nor the partner universities were able to provide a platform for the planned MOOC with the means available, research was carried out to find the best provider for the project.

After careful consideration, iMooX was chosen, which is an Austrian platform, approved by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research in January 2020. (originally offered by the TU Graz together with the University of Vienna). iMooX was welcomed by the European MOOC Consortium (EMC), the leading platform for MOOCs in Europe, in 2021 and as of January 2023 offers 120 online courses at the university level with approximately 86.649 students enrolled.

In contrast to US competitors, all contents on iMooX are not only accessible free of charge but also freely reusable. iMooX uses Creative Commons licenses, which means that all content offered on iMooX can be used for one’s own teaching purposes and may also be reused free of charge.

Deriving from research on MOOC participation and the experience of the authors in taking part in several MOOCs the aim was to create a MOOC that is of a high academic standard in combination with a practical feature. To avoid “the loneliness of the long-distance learner” [13] and the known practice of participants leaving MOOCs after a few weeks, the MOOC was designed to be both time-efficient for educators who work full-time whilst being looked after by the course team.

Thus, the following criteria were set for the MOOC:

1. The duration of the course is set to 4 weeks, which are resembled by four units. During these 4 weeks, the course will be supported by the course team. However, participants can choose to finish the course within 3 months but without the course team being present.

2. The workload is approximately 2 hours per week.

3. The MOOC will consist of text, pictures, videos, and documents that can be downloaded.

4. Two synchronous virtual sessions will take place via ZOOM.

5. The forums should be closely monitored, with a response time of 24 hours the longest.

6. Several quizzes will be included, as well as a midterm and final evaluation.

7. A final assignment in form of a small AR-project will be requested to gain the certificate at the end of the course.

The MOOC will run twice with an iterative process of learning from the first one and embedding the findings and project ideas into the second one. The first MOOC started in October 2022 and was open until January 2023. However, only the first 4 weeks were supported by the course team. Afterward, participants could still finish the course or even start it but without support.

The second MOOC will start in April 2023. The results of both MOOCs, alongside the outputs of the whole iPEAR project will be presented at a conference in Athens in June 2023.

2.3 The content of the iPEAR MOOC

As stated in the previous chapter, the total duration of the MOOC was 4 weeks, with each week resembling one unit. These units presented the main outputs of the research project iPEAR, namely the iPEAR approach, a toolkit for peer learning with Augmented Reality and the iPEAR pedagogy to enhance student motivation and engagement.

In each unit, the participants were offered a summary of the tasks expected both as text to read and to download. The content of the relevant unit was provided by a video created by the project members of the FAU, external videos and text documents. Furthermore, optional reading lists were prepared for the first three units.

2.3.1 Unit 1: Familiarize with iPEAR

The unit informed the students about the structure of the MOOC and the iPEAR project’s aims of combining peer learning in higher education with the use of Augmented Reality (AR).

Furthermore, an introduction was given on how to use the MOOC and what was expected by the participants. In detail, each week the participants received a task sheet. Furthermore, it was expected that they watch a video on the topic of the unit, read a text on the topic of the unit, answer a quiz or do an activity and communicate via the MOOC forum. If all these tasks were marked as completed, the participants got a badge designed by the course team in advance.

The material could be read on the screen or printed out to allow different learning styles.

It was explained that the tasks and activities would develop from small in Unit 1 to “big” in Unit 4, following our systematic introduction to AR in peer learning.

It was explained that in order to complete the MOOC, the participants had to develop a small iPEAR project suggesting an AR activity for students in a peer learning setting and describing the pedagogical concept they were using. To ensure that the project was feasible in the times stated as workload for the MOOC (2 hours per week), the project could be limited to half a page of text describing the pedagogical concept (in bullet points) and an AR experience created and uploaded to the Assignment folders in the final unit (week four).

Participants were asked to introduce themselves in the unit’s forum and to find peers by posting a picture on the iPEAR padlet. Considering European data protection laws, participants were informed about their responsibilities when using websites outside the MOOC. In total 100 participants posted in the forum and another 85 used the padlet to introduce themselves and find peers to work on their assignments.

As in all four units of the MOOC, a video created by the FAU project members introduced the unit’s content. In this case, the explanation of the iPEAR project and approach to using Augmented Reality and peer learning in higher education.

At the end of the week, the course team offered a live Zoom Meeting, where they introduced the course and themselves briefly and answered questions of the participants. The meeting was recorded and then implemented in the MOOC for those participants who could not take part.

A final playlist of all videos of the MOOC can be found on YouTube [14]. This playlist includes the trailer of the MOOC, the four videos produced for each week, and the recorded Zoom session at the end of the first week.

Additionally, an optional reading list was offered for participants who wanted to know more about the authors mentioned in our videos and documents (1, 2, and 3).

2.3.2 Unit 2: Tools for building educational AR experiences

In this unit, participants learned about AR tools that can be used in educational settings or that are especially designed for educational purposes. Technically, they were introduced to WebAR and mobile AR applications.

All tools that were described in the iPEAR-Toolkit can be downloaded from the iPEAR website [15]. However, for the tasks and activities of this unit, it is not necessary to download the whole toolkit, as we presented all the necessary information about two AR-tools in great detail within the MOOC.

Therefore, participants were asked to familiarize themselves with ARTutor and Scavenger. ARTutor has been developed by the AETMA-Lab of the International Hellenistic University (IHU), a partner of FAU in the iPEAR project. For both tools, several documents were provided in both English and Greek.

The participants were asked to explore those together with their peers, whom they met in Unit 1. Obviously, some participants came from the same student cohorts, which made it easier for them to find peers to work with.

As in every unit, we invited the participants to contact us via the Forum of Unit 2, if they had any questions or needed further information.

As a special event, we invited the students to watch a live presentation of the use of HoloLens at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) from their IMTELLab in Norway. The presentation was also recorded so that those participants who could not take part live would not miss the experience.

Again, a task sheet was provided in English and Greek, which could be read on screen or downloaded and used as a checklist.

2.3.3 Unit 3: iPEAR case studies

During the first 1.5 years of the project, iPEAR case studies were carried out at the partner universities, where teachers were trying out the iPEAR-approach with their students. Amongst others, these case studies included the field of Art & Design, Christian Archaeology, Media Education, Theate- and Media science and Arts.

In Unit 3, those case studies were presented in a video. Another video explained the pedagogical approach of using Augmented Reality and peer learning in education.

Additionally, two documents were provided to download, where the case studies and the pedagogical approach were explained in greater depth.

In this week, the participants were asked to conceptualise an AR scenario based on the iPEAR pedagogy and to discuss it with their peers. We asked the participants to include the following content in their concept:

• the subject they had in mind

• the learning situation (seminar or other)

• how many students were taking part

• the room and technical equipment they have at their disposal

• their idea

• the technical equipment needed to realize their concept

• BYOD or not?

• how they would prepare students for the task

• how they would lead students through the task if necessary

The concept was supposed to cover approximately 5 minutes of their seminar (or other lecture) or a whole session or more. We left this decision entirely up to the participants with the hope that this freedom of choice would encourage them to try the iPEAR-approach.

Furthermore, they could also choose to offer their students an AR experience that they are going to work with, or they could even give them the task to create their own AR experience in order to show or prove something to the teacher and to the whole group.

We alerted the participants that they would need this pedagogical concept in the following week and also in Unit 4 to finalize and upload their iPEAR-project as their final assignment.

Lastly, we asked the participants to think out of the box for creative strategies that could motivate, engage, and empower their students. As before, we encouraged them to post any questions and thoughts to the forum of Unit 3 in order to discuss their methodological approach.

2.3.4 Unit 4: iPEAR project presentation

In this final week, the participants were asked to use the pedagogical concepts they created in Unit 3 and to add a short AR activity to it. The concept and AR activity together formed their own iPEAR-project, which represented their final assignment. To prepare the AR activity, the participants could choose the tools they worked with in Unit 2 (AR Scavenger, ARTutor), or a different tool from the iPEAR-toolkit. As mentioned, this toolkit was available for download.

We reminded the participants that their concept could be short and precise (e.g., up to half a page and bullet points were fine). Thus, we wanted to ensure that the participants did not see this as an academic paper and would be able to carry out the task within the 2-hours workload we anticipated for each week.

Nevertheless, we asked the participants to upload both the document with their pedagogical approach and the final version of their augmentation. The participants had a choice of sending a link or QR-Code of a video or screen recording.

As we asked the participants to find peers in the beginning, we did not expect each group to have individual augmentation. However, we asked them to state the name of the group and their peers.

2.3.5 Forums

A way to minimize the already mentioned “loneliness of the long-distance student” as stated by Middleton [13] is to create an active community via online forums. In the MOOC, we were asking students to introduce themselves briefly in the forum of Unit 1. To emphasize our support, we answered each post with a personal note. With more than 100 students following our request, it was time intensive. Nevertheless, we are convinced that this helped build trust and kept the students engaged. As Salmon [16] already stated, weaving the posts of participants in a thread fosters active communication within a cohort.

3. Evaluation

Two evaluations were carried out, one mid-term and a final evaluation at the end of week 4. The participation was anonymous.

However, in order to get a certificate for the MOOC, both evaluations had to be filled in (amongst other tasks).

In the following, the most interesting results are discussed.

3.1 Midterm evaluation

With this evaluation after 2 weeks, our main focus was set on finding out whether the participants were able to use the MOOC as intended. This means that they knew how to use the MOOC, found peers, and felt appropriately supported by the course team.

As only 12% of the participants felt not familiar with the course structure, but 40% considered themselves as familiar, it can be concluded that we need to improve it to make it easier to understand. One idea is to have an extra overview posted at the beginning using visual aids to enhance participants´ acceptance.

Regarding the support by the course team, a very high percentage of 85% was reached, which is satisfactory. However, we will take the suggestions of how to improve the guidance we received with qualitative data into consideration and apply them into our second MOOC. Nevertheless, this result shows that our efforts of informing participants of their tasks, communicating with them, and responding to questions within 24 hours were effective. We believe that the rate can be even further improved. Thus, our intent is to intensify the contact via the forum in Week 3, where the postings declined.

As stated beforehand, we asked the participants to find peers. To support them, we suggested using the padlet we created and the forum in Unit 1. Due to the easy way of uploading a photo or picture to the padlet, 79 participants used this option. Others were members of the same student cohort at the International Hellenistic University (IHU) and AKTO Arts and Design College.

However, only 40% of the participants stated that they were able to find peers to work with. As the iPEAR-approach, which is taught in this MOOC, uses Augmented Reality in a combination with peer learning, it is essential for participants to find peers. Thus, this number is not satisfactory and we have to find ways to improve it. For the next MOOC, we are planning to find alternative platforms where the participants feel safe to post and thus find peers.

Additionally, we wanted to know if the participants found the given material interesting. The result shows room for improvement, as only 31% of the participants found the material very interesting. It is also assumed that thus, continuing the course is easier for the participants.

Regarding the timing of the tasks and units, 40% of the participants stated it as very good and 29% as good. Another 27% found it satisfying, so in total 99% could work relatively well with the given structure.

However, 48% stated in another question that they did not have enough time to follow. This seems like a contradiction and has to be explored further.

3.2 Final evaluation

In the final evaluation, we asked whether the participants actually understood how to use Augmented Reality in relation with our peer pedagogy concept. Obviously, the result of 98% meets our expectations fully.

Another 98% were reached regarding the helpfulness of the design we provided. Thus, this result is very satisfactory for the course team, as it shows that the instructions and tools offered were understandable and easy enough to be implemented within the 2 hours working load set per week. This means that we achieved our goal of creating an approach that is attractive to educators and thus will be beneficial for spreading the use of Augmented Reality in peer learning.

Interestingly, the participants found the provided material more interesting in the second part of the course, with 38% considering it interesting and 38% even very interesting. One could conclude that in the third and fourth weeks, the pedagogical approach was explained and that might have made it more interesting. Another way to interpret the results could be that by the end of the course, the participants had access to and probably read all material to finish their final assignment and thus were able to see the whole offer.

Regarding the timely distribution of the tasks, the result of the final evaluation was also better than the one of the midterm evaluation. Again, there are various ways of interpreting the improvement. It could be due to a better understanding of the tools and pedagogy of the iPEAR-approach and thus it became easier to fulfill the tasks in time. A negative interpretation would be that by this time, those participants who found it insufficient already had dropped out. Due to the anonymity of the evaluations, we can only assume the reasoning behind.

3.3 Qualitative answers

For the final evaluation, we also asked the students to give qualitative feedback. Overall, the feedback could be divided into very positive comments and some constructive criticism. The latter is highly appreciated by the course team, as it will help us to improve the second version of the MOOC, which will start later this year.

As for the positive feedback, the participants stated that they found the subject great, interesting, and even entertaining. The comments valued the MOOC as a great experience and one comment went so far to say that everything was perfect.

The participants were satisfied how the information was given and pointed out that the care given was great, as in the course, the team was accessible. Regarding the feedback, the creation of the AR experiences was the best part for some of the participants.

However, others pointed out the innovative concept of peers caring for and helping each other as a very interesting learning method.

Lastly, the AR tools provided were considered as very interesting and the material in total as very satisfactory.

Nevertheless, constructive criticism was stated, which included the fields of accessibility, organization and structure, peer learning, material and AR tools.

Regarding the accessibility, requests were made to make inclusive seminars and to offer different languages. The course material with the instructions for using the AR-tools was offered in English and Greek. However, the course itself was presented in English.

In relation to the organization and the structure of the MOOC, participants mentioned that it was too short and should have included more interactivity. Furthermore, a greater number of synchronous meetings with the tutors was requested.

Additionally, the suggestion was made to include a chat system to help with peer-to-peer connections. This is a highly interesting feature, which we will take into consideration for the second MOOC, as one of the issues participants was not satisfied with the methods offered for peer finding (padlet and forum). As the MOOC is running on the platform iMooX, which is Moodle-based, a chat function should be possible.

Furthermore, some participants found the instructions not clear sometimes and several participants were asking for more explanatory videos.

4. Conclusion

Jordan [17] states that usually less than 10% of participants finish a MOOC. With 575 participants in this first round of the MOOC and 52 final assignments, this rate can be confirmed.

However, as the participants needed to create a project with Augmented Reality accompanied by a description of the pedagogical approach taken, the number of participants who finish the course is satisfactory.

Due to the novelty of the iPEAR approach and the diversity of the participants´ backgrounds, reaching from students to photographers to teachers, the numbers are satisfactory for the course team. As already stated, One of the goals of the MOOC is to disseminate the iPEAR approach of peer learning with Augmented Reality in education.

One of the most significant request in the participants’ feedback was to include more videos. Therefore, screencasts will be produced to explain the usage of the two AR-Tools better than with simple text documents. Furthermore, the participation in the forums decreased from 199 entries in Week 1 to 14 in the third week, with a slide rise to 27 in the final week. Obviously, the number in the final week results because of questions regarding the final assignment.

However, the chosen format of facilitation with active support has proven to be successful for the project’s dissemination.

Thus, the MOOC is currently adjusted to implement the findings of the evaluations of the participants and experiences of the team and will run a second time in April 2023.

Acknowledgments

We thank the following individuals for their expertise and engagement in the project: Dr. Chryssa Themelis, Prof. Dr. Ekaterina Prasolova-Førland, Dr. Mikhail Fominykh, Prof. Dr. Avgoustos Tsinakos, Dr. George Terzopoulos, Alexandros Despotopoulos, Carme Royo, Dr. Diana Trevino, Vesna Boskovic and our student helper Michaela Raab.

The project iPEAR – Inclusive Learning with Augmented Reality is co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.