AR Technologies in Engineering Education: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Khaled Takrouri
,
Edward Causton
,
Benjamin Simpson

Over the past decade, the use of AR has significantly increased over a wide range of applications. Although there are many good examples of AR technology being used in engineering, retail, and for entertainment, the technology has not been widely adopted for teaching in university engineering departments. It is generally accepted that the use of AR can complement the students’ learning experience by improving engagement and by helping to visualise complex engineering physics; however, several key challenges still have to be addressed to fully integrate the use of AR into a broader engineering curriculum.

  • augmented reality
  • AR
  • engineering education

1. Introduction

XR, also known as extended reality, refers to a combination of real and virtual environments where interaction between humans and machines is established through computer-generated technology and compatible hardware [1]. Currently, the most common “X” representations are virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR). VR creates a digital environment where the user is wholly immersed in a virtual world. AR overlays (augments) digital content into the user’s real-world environment. MR aims to blend both virtual and real-world environments where both coexist and interact with each other [2]. In engineering, the use of AR has been a key part of the industry 4.0 concept that focuses on advanced technologies in manufacturing systems and factories [3]. The use of AR has been utilised in many ways by industry including visualising complex assemblies, facilitating training programmes, and developing maintenance programmes and manufacturing lines [4]. In engineering education, the use of AR is significantly increasing compared to other STEM subjects [5]. AR is being used as part of course material (i.e., [6][7]), to visualise engineering laboratories (i.e., [8][9]), in collaborative projects [10], for communication skills such as industry presentations [11], and to enhance students’ spatial cognition [12][13]. In the past ten years, several forms of AR have been studied: using handheld (i.e., [14][15]), handsfree (i.e., [16][17]), and special hardware kits [18][19]. In addition, AR can be integrated with several digital technologies such as gamification [20][21], IOT [22][23], machine learning [24], FEA [25], and CFD [6] to produce more realistic, interactive, and scientifically credible AR experiences.

2. AR in Engineering Education Applications

Figure 1 shows the engineering fields where AR has been implemented in an engineering curriculum. Most of the uses were in mechanical, electrical, and civil engineering. The use of AR to date can be divided into three categories: first, delivering principles of engineering in selected topics within the curriculum, for example, HVAC systems [26][27], hydraulic transmission [28], Unified Modelling Language (UML) [29], hydraulics laboratory [22], CAD design [13][30][31][32][33][34], manual material handling (MMH) laboratories [16][17], oscilloscope training [35][36], or circuit analysis [21][24]. Such studies focus on developing AR experiences and then finding the impact the experience has on the student’s understanding. AR also allows users to observe an internal structure that cannot be observed in standard laboratory environments such as the simulation of electron movements [37] or the behaviour inside a nuclear core that students would usually have to imagine from limited observable data [7]. Secondly, AR experiences can be used to visually enhance the engineering learning material and make the laboratory components and some equipment more portable and accessible [38][39][40][41]. These studies tend to focus on enhancing the teaching material and evaluating the students’ interest and motivation towards the lectures. Thirdly, AR can be used to display digital instructions to physical spaces to teach students how to complete a task using hands-free mixed-reality AR devices [16][17][42][43].

Digital 02 00011 g004
Figure 1. AR applications in engineering education.

3. Tool and Technology

For software, the options for developing AR experiences in an engineering context can be divided into three categories: (i) the use of mobile application development and 3D modelling tools [44] (such as Unity, Vuforia, Arkit, or ARcore), (ii) the use of in-house development tools, and (iii) the use of already developed AR experiences [41]. For hardware, the use of AR experiences can also be divided into three categories: (i) handheld smart devices, (ii) head mounted devices [16][17][26][29][42], and (iii) special hardware kits [7][18][19][45][46][47][48][49][50]. A summary of the software and hardware technologies is shown in Figure 2.

Digital 02 00011 g005

Figure 2. Tools and technology used for AR in engineering education.

 Using image targets is the common way to develop AR in engineering education experiences. These augmentations either use a barcode to launch the AR experience or are in the form of AR textbooks. This is due to how easy it is to use and support image markers with all commercial AR SDKs. The use of surface markers and holograms is less common compared to image markers and, in this context, was mostly used with HMDs or special hardware kits. Although the use of AR mainly focuses on visually enhancing the student learning experience, recently, the use of AR is being associated with another industry 4.0 technology, the internet of things (IOT) which being used for AR in engineering education [6][22][23][42][51].

The hardware technology used to experience AR content has significantly improved over the past decade. Experiences constructed between 2010 and 2012 [8][50] required several trackers, an HMD, a personal computer (PC), and a camera to view an image marker experience. Today, users can view high-quality image marker experiences only using their smart devices. While the use of handheld smart devices is most common among AR education applications, the use of hands-free AR is becoming more popular as the Microsoft HoloLens 2 availability is increasing. The use of AR HMDs has shown great benefits in terms of safety, cost, and engineering training. In the aviation industry, for example, the use of HMDs can save manufacturers significant amounts of money and provide an updated safe training experience. However, in engineering education, the use of AR HMDs can still be considered expensive especially if more than one headset is needed for each laboratory session. The augmented reality sandbox [18][19][52] is an example of using specialist hardware to generate a mixed reality experience. The sandbox hardware [18][19][52] consists of a computer with a high-end graphics card running Linux, a Microsoft Kinect 3D camera, a digital video projector with a digital video interface, and a sandbox with a Kinect camera mounted above the box. 

4. Users' Feedback

Feedback from students is a key factor to assess the success of the implementation of AR experiences as they are the primary users of the proposed technology.  The students’ feedback has been assessed from different perspectives. Generally, survey questions can be categorised as follows:

  • Motivation and interest: how did the AR material affect the student motivation toward the presented material?
  • Learning material: is the presented material suitable for AR and does it improve the student’s understanding?
  • Ease of use for the whole AR experience in classroom and remotely.
  • Educational added value.
  • Overall experience, and positive/negative attitude toward the use of the technology.

In addition to the previously listed categories, particular attention to other aspects of the AR experience was given attention by some AR researchers. These survey elements could significantly enhance the overall evaluation methods for AR-based technologies. These categories are as follows:

  • Previous knowledge: questions to indicate users’ familiarisation with the proposed technology [8][37].
  • UI/UX: to test interface appearance [8], on-screen dimensions [53], navigation and interaction [26].
  • Software solutions: installation and running [8], third-party providers [41], application stability [53].
  • Digital Assets: feedback on the produced AR media [8][30][41][54].
  • Hardware used: hands-free, hand-held, and eco-system.
  • Comparative analysis between hands-on and AR lab [45].

The AR literature reports only limited feedback from educators and most of the educators’ feedback was recorded from a student’s perspective when using the technology and not from an educator’s point of view. There remain many unknowns when it comes to the use of AR technology in education including “How much time does it take a lecturer to develop an AR experience [43]?”, “What previous knowledge is required to develop an AR experience?”, “How much testing, debugging, and optimisation does an AR experience require”, and “How does the use of AR affect lecturers’ work and cognitive loads?”.

5. Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) Analysis

This section summarises the findings in the form of a SWOT analysis.
Strengths
  • AR technology uniquely provides students the ability to observe internal structure, complex engineering physics (such as fluid flows, heat distributions, currents, and magnetic fields), guidance to complete hands-on tasks, and link real-world applications with taught material in a safe interactive environment.
  • Affordable software and hardware that can be used to develop and consume AR experiences are increasingly available.
  • The ‘WOW factor’ associated with the use of these technologies encourages student engagement.

Weaknesses

  • There is a lack of AR digital assets for engineering principals developed by educators.
  • There has been very little integration of AR experiences into engineering curricula.
  • There have been very few studies on the long-term educational impact on both students and educators.

Opportunities

  • Student achievement could be improved because of better engagement, motivation, enhanced visualisations, and improving the students overall learning experiences.
  • AR technology could be a vehicle for other industry 4.0 concepts to be included in education.
  • AR offers a means to customise the learning experience for students based on their capabilities and their learning preferences.

Threats

  • Lack of skills to develop AR experiences from engineering students and educators.
  • Limited commercialisation of developed AR engineering applications.
  • Educators not adopting the AR applications, due to the lack of AR digital assets.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/digital2020011

References

  1. Doolani, S.; Wessels, C.; Kanal, V.; Sevastopoulos, C.; Jaiswal, A.; Nambiappan, H.; Makedon, F. A review of extended reality (xr) technologies for manufacturing training. Technologies 2020, 8, 77.
  2. Fast-Berglund, Å.; Gong, L.; Li, D. Testing and validating Extended Reality (xR) technologies in manufacturing. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 25, 31–38.
  3. Santi, G.M.; Ceruti, A.; Liverani, A.; Osti, F. Augmented Reality in Industry 4.0 and Future Innovation Programs. Technologies 2021, 9, 33.
  4. Reljić, V.; Milenković, I.; Dudić, S.; Šulc, J.; Bajči, B. Augmented Reality Applications in Industry 4.0 Environment. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5592.
  5. Mystakidis, S.; Christopoulos, A.; Pellas, N. A systematic mapping review of augmented reality applications to support STEM learning in higher education. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 1883–1927.
  6. Solmaz, S.; Van Gerven, T. Automated integration of extract-based CFD results with AR/VR in engineering education for practitioners. Multimedia Tools Appl. 2022, 81, 14869–14891.
  7. Tsujita, K.; Endo, T.; Yamamoto, A. Application of Augmented Reality to Nuclear Reactor Core Simulation for Fundamental Nuclear Engineering Education. Nucl. Technol. 2017, 185, 71–84.
  8. Mejías Borrero, A.; Andújar Márquez, J.M. A Pilot Study of the Effectiveness of Augmented Reality to Enhance the Use of Remote Labs in Electrical Engineering Education. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2012, 21, 540–557.
  9. Yazykova, L.; Muzyleva, I.; Gorlach, A.; Gorlach, Y. Laboratory for Electrical Engineering Using Mixed Reality. In Proceedings of the 2020 2nd International Conference on Control Systems, Mathematical Modeling, Automation and Energy Efficiency (SUMMA), Lipetsk, Russia, 11–13 November 2020; pp. 663–668.
  10. Schiffeler, N.; Stehling, V.; Haberstroh, M.; Isenhardt, I. Collaborative Augmented Reality in Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation, Bengaluru, India, 3–6 February 2019; pp. 719–732.
  11. Topal, B.; Sener, B. Augmented reality for enhanced student industrial design presentations. In Proceedings of the DS 82: The 17th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE15), Great Expectations: Design Teaching, Research & Enterprise, Loughborough, UK, 3–4 September 2015; pp. 644–649.
  12. Bell, J.E.; Cheng, C.; Klautke, H.; Cain, W.; Freer, D.J.; Hinds, T.J. A study of augmented reality for the development of spatial reasoning ability. In Proceedings of the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 24–27 June 2018.
  13. Dakeev, U.; Pecen, R.R.; Yildiz, F.; Luong, Y. Augmented Reality Computer-aided Design Education (ARCADE) Tool to Improve Student Motivation, Engagement, and Spatial Cognition. In Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual, 26–29 July 2021.
  14. Dinis, F. VR/ AR game based applications to civil engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Athens, Greece, 25–28 April 2017.
  15. Pan, X.; Sun, X.; Wang, H.; Gao, S.; Wang, N.; Lin, Z. Application of an assistant teaching system based on mobile augmented reality (AR) for course design of mechanical manufacturing process. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 9th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED), Kanazawa, Japan, 9–10 November 2017; pp. 192–196.
  16. Guo, W.; Kim, J.H. How Augmented Reality Influences Student Workload in Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Copenhagen, Denmark, 19–24 July 2020; pp. 388–396.
  17. Guo, W. Improving Engineering Education Using Augmented Reality Environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 15–20 July 2018; pp. 233–242.
  18. Theodossiou, N.; Karakatsanis, D. The Augmented Reality Sandbox as a tool for the education of Hydrology to Civil Engineering students. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (EUCEE): Challenges for the Third Milenium, Barcelona, Spain, 5–8 September 2018; pp. 5–8.
  19. Louis, J.; Lather, J. Augmented Reality Sandboxes for Civil and Construction Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC), Kitakyushu, Japan, 27–28 October 2020.
  20. Salman, F.H.; Riley, D.R. Augmented reality crossover gamified design for sustainable engineering education. In Proceedings of the 2016 Future Technologies Conference (FTC), San Francisco, CA, USA, 6–7 December 2016; pp. 1353–1356.
  21. Urbano, D.; de Fátima Chouzal, M.; Restivo, M.T. Evaluating an online augmented reality puzzle for DC circuits: Students’ feedback and conceptual knowledge gain. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2020, 28, 1355–1368.
  22. Neges, M.; Wolf, M.; Kuska, R.; Frerich, S. Framework for Augmented Reality Scenarios in Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation, Düsseldorf, Germany, 21–23 March 2018; pp. 620–626.
  23. Cem Sahin, D.N. Wireless Communications Engineering Education via Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Erie, PA, USA, 12–15 October 2016.
  24. Alhalabi, M.; Ghazal, M.; Haneefa, F.; Yousaf, J.; El-Baz, A. Smartphone Handwritten Circuits Solver Using Augmented Reality and Capsule Deep Networks for Engineering Education. Sci. Educ. 2021, 11, 661.
  25. Matsutomo, S.; Mitsufuji, K.; Hiasa, Y.; Noguchi, S. Real time simulation method of magnetic field for visualization system with augmented reality technology. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2013, 49, 1665–1668.
  26. Zoghi, B.; Bhutra, G.; Parameswaran, A. A Novel use for Wearable Augmented Reality in Engineering Education. Comput. Educ. J. 2018, 9, 1–6.
  27. Xie, Y.; Yang, H. Virtual lab modules for undergraduate courses related to building energy systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual, 26–29 July 2021.
  28. Liu, J.; Kuang, Y.; Li, D.; Xu, J. Design of Hydraulic Component Teaching Subsystem Based on Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Educational Technology (ICET), Beijing, China, 18–20 June 2021; pp. 172–176.
  29. Reuter, R.; Hauser, F.; Muckelbauer, D.; Stark, T.; Antoni, E.; Mottok, J.; Wolff, C. Using Augmented Reality in Software Engineering Education? First insights to a comparative study of 2D and AR UML modeling. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Grand Wailea, HI, USA, 8–11 January 2019.
  30. Cukovic, S.; Devedzic, G.; Ghionea, I.; Fiorentino, M.; Subbaraj, K. Engineering Design Education for Industry 4.0: Implementation of Augmented Reality Concept in Teaching CAD Courses. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Augmented Reality for Technical Entrepreneurs (ARTE’16), Bucharest, Romania, 1 April 2016; pp. 11–16.
  31. Spasova, N.; Ivanova, M. Towards Augmented Reality Technology in CAD/CAM Systems and Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, Romania, 23–24 April 2020; pp. 496–503.
  32. Serdar, T.; Aziz, E.-S.S.; Esche, S.K.; Chassapis, C. Integration of augmented reality into the CAD process. In Proceedings of the 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 23–26 June 2013; pp. 1–10.
  33. Wang, X.; Chen, C.; Li, Z. Augmented Reality and Quick Response Code Technology in Engineering Drawing Course. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), Beijing, China, 13–16 October 2020; pp. 1493–1498.
  34. Hung, J.; Weinman, D. Enhanced Student Learning Experience in Technical Drawing and CAD through Augmented Reality and Micro-credentials. In Proceedings of the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Tampa, FL, USA, 15–19 June 2019.
  35. Alptekin, M.; Temmen, K. Teaching an Oscilloscope through Progressive Onboarding in an Augmented Reality Based Virtual Laboratory. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 8–11 April 2019; pp. 1047–1054.
  36. Singh, G.; Mantri, A.; Sharma, O.; Dutta, R.; Kaur, R. Evaluating the impact of the augmented reality learning environment on electronics laboratory skills of engineering students. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2019, 27, 1361–1375.
  37. Yüzüak, Y.; Yiğit, H. Augmented reality application in engineering education: N-Type MOSFET. Int. J. Electr. Eng. Educ. 2020.
  38. Daling, L.; Kommetter, C.; Abdelrazeq, A.; Ebner, M.; Ebner, M. Mixed reality books: Applying augmented and virtual reality in mining engineering education. In Proceedings of the Augmented Reality in Education, Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine, 13 May 2020; pp. 185–195.
  39. Arulanand, N.; Babu, A.R.; Rajesh, P. Enriched Learning Experience using Augmented Reality Framework in Engineering Education. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 127, 937–942.
  40. Mohamed, S.; Rais, S.S.; Ab. Ghani, M.A.H.; Ahmad, N.; Md Enzai, N.I. Development of Augmented Reality (AR) for Innovative Teaching and Learning in Engineering Education. Asian J. Univ. Educ. 2021, 16, 99–108.
  41. Fuchsova, M.; Korenova, L. Visualisation in Basic Science and Engineering Education of Future Primary School Teachers in Human Biology Education Using Augmented Reality. Eur. J. Contemp. Educ. 2019, 8, 92–102.
  42. Borgen, K.B.; Ropp, T.D.; Weldon, W.T. Assessment of Augmented Reality Technology’s Impact on Speed of Learning and Task Performance in Aeronautical Engineering Technology Education. Int. J. Aerosp. Psychol. 2021, 31, 219–229.
  43. Chlebusch, J.; Köhler, I.; Stechert, C. Reasonable Application of Augmented Reality in Engineering Education. In Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference 2020, Online, 26–29 October 2020.
  44. Kaviyaraj, R.; Uma, M. Augmented Reality Application in Classroom: An Immersive Taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 2022 4th International Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT), Tirunelveli, India, 20–22 January 2022; pp. 1221–1226.
  45. Odeh, S.; Shanab, S.A.; Anabtawi, M.; Hodrob, R. Remote augmented reality engineering labs. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Marrakech, Morocco, 17–20 April 2012; pp. 1–6.
  46. Kaur, D.P.; Mantri, A.; Horan, B. A framework utilizing augmented reality to enhance the teaching–learning experience of linear control systems. IETE J. Res. 2021, 67, 155–164.
  47. Kumar, A.; Mantri, A.; Dutta, R. Development of an augmented reality-based scaffold to improve the learning experience of engineering students in embedded system course. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2021, 29, 244–257.
  48. Dong, S.; Behzadan, A.H.; Chen, F.; Kamat, V.R. Collaborative visualization of engineering processes using tabletop augmented reality. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2013, 55, 45–55.
  49. Chen, H.; Feng, K.; Mo, C.; Cheng, S.; Guo, Z.; Huang, Y. Application of augmented reality in engineering graphics education. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on IT in Medicine and Education, Guangzhou, China, 9–11 December 2011; pp. 362–365.
  50. Behzadan, A.H.; Iqbal, A.; Kamat, V.R. A collaborative augmented reality based modeling environment for construction engineering and management education. In Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Phoenix, AZ, USA, 11–14 December 2011; pp. 3568–3576.
  51. Calderón, R.R.; Izquierdo, R.B. Machines for Industry 4.0 in Higher Education. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE World Conference on Engineering Education (EDUNINE), Bogota, Colombia, 15–18 March 2020; pp. 1–4.
  52. Waters, K.A.; Hubler, J.; Sample-Lord, K.M.; Smith, V.; Welker, A.L. Employing Augmented Reality Throughout a Civil Engineering Curriculum to Promote 3D Visualization Skills. In Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual, 26–29 July 2021.
  53. Gutiérrez, J.M.; Fernández, M.D.M. Applying Augmented Reality in Engineering Education to Improve Academic Performance & Student Motivation. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 2014, 30, 625–635.
  54. Kaur, D.P.; Mantri, A.; Horan, B. Enhancing Student Motivation with use of Augmented Reality for Interactive Learning in Engineering Education. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 172, 881–885.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback