Learning Resources with Augmented Reality

Authors Lázaro V. O. Lima , Cristiana Araújo , Luis Gonzaga Magalhães , Pedro R. Henriques

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.68 MB
  • 8 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Lázaro V. O. Lima
  • Centro ALGORITMI, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
Cristiana Araújo
  • Centro ALGORITMI, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
Luis Gonzaga Magalhães
  • Centro ALGORITMI, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
Pedro R. Henriques
  • Centro ALGORITMI, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal

Cite AsGet BibTex

Lázaro V. O. Lima, Cristiana Araújo, Luis Gonzaga Magalhães, and Pedro R. Henriques. Learning Resources with Augmented Reality. In First International Computer Programming Education Conference (ICPEC 2020). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 81, pp. 15:1-15:8, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2020)


Preparing teachers and students for a connected and programmed world depends on how we develop and reinvent teaching tools. The society has realized and is absorbing Computational Thinking and its related skills. The pragmatics shows that a person only acquires a new way of thinking or a new way of behaving if he is trained with the appropriate devices. Computational Thinking should be training from an early age to acquire important skills; in that way, the interpretation and design of algorithms/programs will become much easier. However, the development of Computational Thinking requires the creation and use of appropriate Learning Resources (LR). We will discuss how an ontology can be used to specify what is involved in Computer Programming and how these concepts and Computational Thinking concepts are related. We believe that this formal description will guide the choice of convenient LR. In that context, we intend to investigate the impact of Augmented Reality on them. After presenting the ontological approach, the paper will focus on the process of shaping Computational Thinking through Augmented Reality. We aim at creating AR-based LR prototypes to validate the idea we present here. We are convinced that an attractive way to improve fundamental skills is necessary to practice and use these tools with young students, but LRs must be attractive, motivating and effective.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computing methodologies → Mixed / augmented reality
  • Computational Thinking
  • Learning Resource
  • Augmented Reality
  • Teacher Support Tools


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Cristiana Araújo, Lázaro Lima, and Pedro Rangel Henriques. An Ontology based approach to teach Computational Thinking. In Célio Gonçalo Marques, Isabel Pereira, and Diana Pérez, editors, 21st International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), pages 1-6. IEEE Xplore, November 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE48397.2019.8970131.
  2. Ana Azevedo, Cristiana Araújo, and Pedro Rangel Henriques. Micas, a Web Platform to Support Teachers of Computing at School. In A. J. Osório, M. J. Gomes, and A. L. Valente, editors, Challenges 2019: Desafios da Inteligência Artificial, Artificial Intelligence Challenges, pages 625-641. Universidade do Minho. Centro de Competência, 2019-05. Google Scholar
  3. Ronald T. Azuma. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4):355-385, 1997. URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355.
  4. Rona Bušljeta. Effective use of teaching and learning resources. Czech-Polish Historical and Pedagogical Journal, 5(2):55-70, 2013. Google Scholar
  5. Su Cai, Enrui Liu, Yang Yang, and Jyh-Chong Liang. Tablet-based ar technology: Impacts on students’ conceptions and approaches to learning mathematics according to their self-efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1):248-263, 2019. Google Scholar
  6. Wen-Hung Chao and Rong-Chi Chang. Using augmented reality to enhance and engage students in learning mathematics. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 5(12), 2018. Google Scholar
  7. Cheng-Yu Chung and I-Han Hsiao. An exploratory study of augmented embodiment for computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces: Companion, pages 37-38. ACM, 2019. Google Scholar
  8. Xiaozhou Deng, Qiao Jin, Danli Wang, and Fang Sun. Arcat: A tangible programming tool for dfs algorithm teaching. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pages 533-537. ACM, 2019. Google Scholar
  9. Thomas R. Gruber. Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, pages 907-928. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. Google Scholar
  10. Alan R Hevner, Salvatore T March, Jinsoo Park, and Sudha Ram. Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28(1):6, 2008. Google Scholar
  11. Cagin Kazimoglu, Mary Kiernan, Liz Bacon, and Lachlan Mackinnon. A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47:1991-1999, 2012. Google Scholar
  12. L Klopfenstein, Andriy Fedosyeyev, and Alessandro Bogliolo. Bringing an unplugged coding card game to augmented reality. INTED Proceedings, pages 9800-9805, 2017. Google Scholar
  13. Divna Krpan, Saša Mladenović, and Biserka Ujević. Tangible programming with augmented reality. In 12th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, 2018. Google Scholar
  14. CODE ORG. Available in: "https://code.org/", 2015. Access date: set 2019. Google Scholar
  15. Mark Petrorvich, Mamta Shah, and Aroutis Foster. Augmented Reality Experiences in Informal Education. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), pages 815-819, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/tale.2018.8615396.
  16. Jake A Qualls and Linda B Sherrell. Why computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5):66-71, 2010. Google Scholar
  17. Iulian Radu and Blair MacIntyre. Augmented-reality scratch: a children’s authoring environment for augmented-reality experiences. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pages 210-213. ACM, 2009. Google Scholar
  18. Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay S Silver, Brian Silverman, et al. Scratch: Programming for all. Commun. Acm, 52(11):60-67, 2009. Google Scholar
  19. Chin-Hung Teng, Jr-Yi Chen, and Zhi-Hong Chen. Impact of augmented reality on programming language learning: Efficiency and perception. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(2):254-271, 2018. Google Scholar
  20. Joan Ernst Van Aken. Management research as a design science: Articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management. British journal of management, 16(1):19-36, 2005. Google Scholar
  21. Jeannette M Wing. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3):33-35, 2006. Google Scholar
  22. Jeannette M. Wing. Computational thinking - What and why? The Link Magazine, 2011. URL: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why.
  23. Jeannette M. Wing. Computational thinking benefits society. 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in Computing, 2014(3):33, 2014. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.
  24. Danny Yaroslavski. How does lightbot teach programming. Retrieved January, 29:2016, 2014. Google Scholar