I intend to conduct a quasi-experiment in my research between 2 classrooms, one group delivered with ICT tools and the other with augmented reality (Aurasma app as supplemental material ) to find out which group has enhanced the achievement and creative thinking skills among students much more?
I wonder If I asked them to utilize the Aurasma app in their home then what should I teach them in the classroom although I stated clearly that the second group will be taught through an augmented reality app? I think there will be an overlapping between the two concepts: (the mobility of AR) and (the flipped learning) in case if I taught them with AR within the daily lesson.
I will be grateful for who can clarify this ambiguity?
My best regard
I think you need to give each group a "fair" chance to succeed. In particular, if you provide inadequate instruction in either group, that itself may be the reason for any difference that you find, rather than anything about the technology. So, if each of your two approaches has a standard or best practices means of delivery, you should follow that.
I think you need to give each group a "fair" chance to succeed. In particular, if you provide inadequate instruction in either group, that itself may be the reason for any difference that you find, rather than anything about the technology. So, if each of your two approaches has a standard or best practices means of delivery, you should follow that.
The first group will be more inventive than the second, because the application Aurasma makes creativity for students and the first will achieve this result on its own.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cognitive Science
- Thinking