Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Advantages of mobile Augmented Reality (mAR) application-based learning versus textbook-based learning were already shown in a previous study. However, it was unclear whether the augmented reality (AR) component was responsible for the success of the self-developed app or whether this was attributable to the novelty of using mobile technology for learning. OBJECTIVE: The study's aim was to test the hypothesis whether there is no difference in learning success between learners who employed the mobile AR component and those who learned without it to determine possible effects of mAR. Also, we were interested in potential emotional effects of using this technology. METHODS: Forty-four medical students (male: 25, female: 19, mean age: 22. 25 years, standard deviation SD: 3. 33 years) participated in this study. Baseline emotional status was evaluated using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire. Dermatological knowledge was ascertained using a single choice (SC) test (10 questions). The students were randomly assigned to learn 45 min with either a mobile learning method with mAR (group A) or without AR (group B). Afterwards, both groups were again asked to complete the previous questionnaires. AttrakDiff 2 questionnaires were used to evaluate the perceived usability as well as pragmatic and hedonic qualities. For capturing longer term effects, after 14 days, all participants were again asked to complete the SC questionnaire. All evaluations were anonymous, and descriptive statistics were calculated. For hypothesis testing, an unpaired signed-rank test was applied. RESULTS: For the SC tests, there were only minor differences, with both groups gaining knowledge (average improvement group A: 3. 59 SD 1. 48; group B: 3. 86 SD 1. 51). Differences between both groups were statistically insignificant (exact Mann Whitney U, U=173. 5; P=. 10; r=. 247). However, in the follow-up SC test after 14 days, group A had retained more knowledge (average decrease of the number of correct answers group A: 0. 33 SD 1. 62; group B: 1. 14 SD 1. 30). For both groups, descriptively, there were only small variations regarding emotional involvement, and learning experiences also differed little, with both groups rating the app similar for its stimulating effect. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to show significant effects for mAR on the immediate learning success of the mobile learning setting. However, the similar level of stimulation being noted for both groups is inconsistent with the previous assumption of the success of mAR-based approach being solely attributable to the excitement of using mobile technology, independent of mAR; the mAR group showed some indications for a better long-term retention of knowledge. Further studies are needed to examine this aspect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): 00012980; http: //www. drks. de/drksweb/navigate. do? navigationId=trial. HTML&TRIALID=DRKS00012980 (Archived by WebCite at http: //www. webcitation. org/ 6tCWoM2Jb).
Noll et al. (Thu,) studied this question.