MarineXR: Comparing the Impact of Two Different Ocean AR Experiences on Student Motivation and Engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Augmented realty is increasingly used as a learning tool in educational settings. There are a wide variety of different AR implementations ranging from simple 3D model viewers to more interactive and dynamic content such as videos and animations. We developed two different types of AR experiences around ocean education: (1) a "tap-to-place" highly-immersive narrated experience that uses the principles of gamification, simulation, role-playing to engage students in scientific concepts around basking sharks and (2) a species learning modules that use realistic and animated 3D representations of marine and freshwater species to teach students about their physiology, morphology and ecology. We conducted a controlled experimental study comparing the impact of each experience on motivation and student engagement. We tested each module in a large, first-year environmental sciences class under remote learning conditions (~200 students). We measured how motivation, engagement, engrossment, and cognitive load differed between the two groups within the context of their attitudes towards science (as assessed by the Modified Attitudes Towards Science instrument). The results of the study and its consequences will be discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".