Real and ideal perception of the intelligent classroom environment of future teachers

Real and ideal perception of the intelligent classroom environment of future teachers Carlos Hervás-Gómez * University of Seville, Spain Purificación Toledo-Morales University of Seville, Spain Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Volume 1, Issue 1, 92 - 112 http://www.estej.com/ Received: December 13, 2017 ▪ Accepted: January 13, 2018 Abstract: The proliferation of information and communication technology tools in the last years has led many teachers to review the way they teach and structure their learning environments. The growth of technological applications in teaching and the training of future teachers is not only gaining momentum; it is also becoming an important part of the current educational scene. The objectives of this study were to adapt and validate the Real and Ideal Intelligent Classroom Questionnaires (REQSC) and (IEQSC), and to determine if there were significant differences in the perception that future teachers had of the real and ideal environment of intelligent classrooms. A quantitative methodology was used, applying the statistical software SPSS 23 for the factor analysis. The results indicated that both questionnaires showed a valid and reliable internal consistency. The real and ideal perceptions of the use of technology as a learning tool and access to information make it clear that it is currently being used correctly. It is important that future teachers acquire adequate skills for their use and research in different topics. Keywords: Classroom Environment; Information and Communication Technology; Technological Education; Technological Innovations; Higher Education. To cite this article: Hervás-Gómez, C., & Toledo-Morales, P. (2018). Real and ideal perception of the intelligent classroom environment of future teachers. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(1), 86-106. Introduction "Intelligent" is a new concept that was created to describe the technological, economic and social developments caused by those technologies that are based on sensors, new ways of connecting and exchange of information. In most cases, it is not so much the individual technological developments, but rather the interconnection, synchronization and arranged use of different technologies what constitutes an intelligent behavior (Giannakos, Sampson & Kidziński, 2016). According to Bhagat, Wu & Chang (2016), with the recent advances in information and communication technology (ICT), in the twenty-first century, the Internet is very important for *Corresponding author: Carlos Hervás-Gómez. University of Seville. Faculty of Education. Dpt. of teaching and Educational Organization C/ Pirotecnia s/n - 41013 Seville, Spain Email: [email protected] Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education | 93 accessing training from anywhere. The use of the Internet in higher education has grown at an exponential rate. There is a high level of Internet use, particularly in university education. The Internet not only provides access to the major learning contents; it also offers the chance to interact with other people, as it allows to share one´s own ideas and participate in discussion forums all around the world. The integration of the Internet in a face-to-face learning environment has shown to have a positive effect on academic performance (Kemp & Grieve, 2014). Thereby, the development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is influencing all the aspects of our society. The field of Education is not an exception (Lee, Lee & Park, 2013), and the most important change is the emergence and development of e-learning. In this regard, Lee, Zo & Lee (2014) state that e-learning, as it overcomes the limitations of time and space, provides a learning environment that allows to learn at any time and place (Sykes, 2014). According to Oliver, Herrington & Mcloughlin (2014), the use of technology in teaching and learning has already been shown to provide many opportunities to teachers and learners. These opportunities include, among other things, increased access to learning, increased flexibility for learners and enhanced learning outcomes in domain-specific knowledge outcomes. With the advancement of ubiquitous technologies and learning practices, e-learning is becoming the intelligent learning (Noh, Ju & Jung, 2011). Other authors claim that the rapid progress of wireless communication, sensors and mobile technologies have allowed students to learn in an environment that combines the resources of learning, from both the real world and the digital world, considering it as a new learning style known as “contextsensitive ubiquitous learning” (Hwang, Chu, Chen & Cheng, 2014). However, as stated by Li, Kong & Chen (2015), despite the dramatic growth and evolution of e-learning, ICT has not brought significant changes in the real-current context of educational centers. Although a variety of ICT tools have been incorporated into the classroom, their use has not stimulated 94 | HERVÁS-GÓMEZ & TOLEDO-MORALES novel changes in learning practices; the use of these tools is still rather discrete and limited to enhance learning methods. Nowadays, intelligent design is considered a new paradigm that arises from the combination of advanced teachings with information and communication technology. Within ICT, there are basically three concepts of intelligent learning: e-learning, m-learning, and u-learning. Therefore, we are facing a new classroom environment that emerges from the convergence and combination of advanced teachings with intelligent ICT. In this regard, according to Hedberg (2014), any mobility teaching must accept the idea of the reflexive teaching practice that involves the students in significant learning in environments that are not limited to the classroom. The research problem was to assess the practical classroom environment with the use of existing technologies in the university context. Literature review According to Aldridge, Dorman & Fraser (2004), the study of classroom environments has received increased attention from researchers, teachers, school administrators and administrators of school systems. The concept of environment, as applied to educational settings, refers to the atmosphere, ambience, tone, or climate that pervades the particular setting. Lizzio, Wilson & Simons (2002) state that a good perception of the environment influences the students in their motivation to study, and that the perceptions of learning environments influence the learning results. In the current society of information, the low levels of literacy, such as reading, writing and calculus, would be replaced by high levels literacy, such as critical thinking, communication, exchange and complex problem solving. These new learning skills are not achieved only with the support of innovation in content learning and learning approaches, but also with the support of learning environments. In this line, Hall, Ramsay & Raven (2004) analyzed the changes in the learning approach through specific changes in the learning environment. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education | 95 the classroom environment in the society of information in which we are immersed, i.e. the environment of the intelligent classroom. In its inception, the expression “intelligent classroom” was used to differentiate it from the computer classroom. It is frequently used to refer to classrooms equipped with interactive whiteboards to facilitate real-time interaction between teachers and students, and the realization of teachinglearning activities (Zhao, 2006). In their study, Li & Kong (2014) indicated that the most attractive characteristic of the intelligent classroom is the integration of all kinds of interactive technologies, context-sensitive technologies and intelligent digital devices into the teaching-learning activities. Ramamuruthy & Rao (2015) consider that the rapid development of technology has boosted the creation of new devices for all of life´s sectors, regardless of age. In this fast-advancing era of technology, many individuals have high-tech devices, such as laptops, tablets, iPads and smart phones. University students are especially enthusiastic about using smart phones. Thus, they are becoming increasingly passive in the classroom, as they are attached to their smart phones. This situation raises the question of whether learning is really taking place while the students are too busy with their smart phones in the classroom. With the advances in person-computer interaction, it is possible nowadays for the users to employ their body movements, such as sliding, pushing and moving, to interact with the content of the computer or smart phone without the traditional input devices (e.g. mouse and keyboard). Thus, according to Kumara, Wattanachote, Battulga, Shih, & Hwang (2015), the integration of applications based on body movements into the classroom makes the learning experience of students very active and entertaining. In the last years, studies about augmented reality began to be published. Specht, Ternier & Greller (2011) indicate that, until very recently, most augmented reality applications were only available for large computers. The introduction of augmented reality applications for smart phones has 96 | HERVÁS-GÓMEZ & TOLEDO-MORALES enabled new experiences for daily users. Due to the increase in smart phone generalization, augmented reality is becoming a ubiquitous product for mobile leisure and learning. With this omnipresent availability, mobile augmented reality makes it possible to define and design innovative learning settings in real environments. Thus, Wojciechowski & Cellary (2013) assessed the attitude of students towards learning in environments of augmented reality. They adapted the TAM questionnaire to explain the determining factors that foster the use of the ARIES system; this system is used to build learning environments of augmented reality based on 3D images. These studies about the intelligent classroom show that intelligent technology is enhancing the emergence of inquiry-based learning, collaborative learning, group learning, mobile learning and ubiquitous learning (Lin, Huang & Cheng, 2010). Li, Kong & Chen (2015) summarize the characteristics of the intelligent classroom into the following points:  The intelligent classroom is a learning environment rich in technology that combines the physical and virtual worlds, has the capacity to know the context and can automatically adjust the parameters of the environment, such as light and temperature.  The intelligent classroom could provide the learning contents, the interaction of support and the tools of constructive learning for all kinds of teaching and learning activities, including personalized learning, group learning, inquiry learning, collaborative learning, mobile learning and virtual learning. The intelligent classroom suitable for learning is focused on the students, providing them with the support of adaptive learning for an active learning, and the activities of constructive learning.  The intelligent classroom has the capacity to store, compile, calculate and analyze the large amounts of data from the students to optimize the pedagogical decisions. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education | 97  The intelligent classroom is an open learning environment that brings the students to a genuine learning context. It can stimulate the motivation of students to learn, involve them and give them effective, practical learning experiences. Methodology Research Goal The goals proposed in this study were:  To adapt and validate the instrument created by Li, Kong & Chen (2015), in order to demonstrate that the Real Environment Questionnaire for Intelligent Classrooms (REQSC) and the Ideal Environment Questionnaire for Intelligent Classrooms (IEQSC) are valid and reliable instruments for the evaluation of the environment in practical technological classrooms in the university context.  To describe and compare the real and ideal classroom environments perceived by university students from the Degree of Elementary Education in the digital practical lectures of the subject Information and Communication Technology, with the aim of establishing similarity versus difference in the perceptions that the three student groups have about real and ideal environments. Participants The first group of participants was used to translate into Spanish and adapt the questionnaire to the university educational context. The questionnaires were piloted with 80 teachers in initial formation of the last year (fourth year). A second group of teachers in initial training was used to collect the information using the two final questionnaires. The sample consisted of all the students registered in the fourth year of the Degree in Elementary Education at the University of Seville (Spain) in the academic year 2016/2017, all of whom studied the core subject Information and Communication Technology, whose practical lectures are taught in the computer classrooms of the Faculty of Education. There were three class-groups, 98 | HERVÁS-GÓMEZ & TOLEDO-MORALES which made up a total of 125 students, of whom 49 were from group 1, 43 from group 2 and 33 from group 3. The sample was almost entirely constituted by one gender, with 122 females (97.6%) and 3 males (2.4%). The total sample of students was used, first of all, to validate the questionnaire about the real and ideal environment perceived by the students in the computer classrooms. Then, the sample was used to gather information about the perceptions that the students from the Degree in Elementary Education at the University of Seville had about the real and ideal environment in the practical lectures of the subject Information and Communication Technology. Instruments For the collection of data, the Real Environment Questionnaire of Smart Classrooms (REQSC) and Ideal Environment Questionnaire of Smart Classrooms (IEQSC) were used. Both of these questionnaires were produced from the translation and validation of the instrument created by Baoping, Siu Cheung & Guang (2015) after its translation into Spanish and adaptation to the Spanish educational context in teachers in initial formation, taking into account the three environment dimensions proposed by Moos (1974), which have been valued the most in the different questionnaires and scales created to measure classroom environment. The questionnaires used in this study are two Likert-type scales of 35 items each, grouped into 10 factors integrated by intelligent classrooms (see Table 1); each of these scales gathers the information that the students show about their real perception of the classroom environment and the characteristics that the ideal classroom should have. The questionnaires also include a brief explanation of the goal of the instrument and how it must be completed, in two sections: basic information of the participants, questions about the real perception of the classroom environment and questions about the ideal perception of the classroom environment. All the items have a positive connotation and use a measuring scale that ranges from 1 to 5, where 1 is “never”, 2 is "seldom", 3 is "sometimes", 4 is "often" and 5 is “always”. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education | 99 Table 1 Factors of the Real and Ideal Environment Questionnaires of Intelligent Classrooms (REQSC and IEQSC). Factors Description Moos´s Scheme (1974) Physical design The characteristics of an intelligent classroom with respect to the classroom space, furniture and technological infrastructure. Maintenance and Change System Flexibility The extent of the comfortable support for users of the classroom environment. Maintenance and Change System Technology usage The extent to which students use information technology as a tool to learn and to access information. Maintenance and Change System Learning data The extent to which the information technology was used to acquire and compute the learning data of the users. Personal development Differentiation The extent to which teachers cater for students differently on the basis of ability, rates of learning and interests. Personal development Research The extent to which skills and processes of inquiry and their use in problem solving and research are emphasized. Personal development Cooperation The extent to which students cooperate with one another on learning tasks. Personal development Students cohesiveness The extent to which students know, help and are supportive of one another. Relationship Equity The extent to which students are treated equally by the teacher. Relationship Learning experience The extent of students’ satisfaction and some special learning experience in the intelligent classroom. Maintenance and Change System Data analysis All the data obtained from the classroom environment questionnaires were processed and analyzed using the statistical software SPSS v.23. The validity and reliability of REQSC and IEQSC were analyzed and then a descriptive and comparative analysis of the perceptions that the students had of the real and ideal environments of the computer rooms was carried out. Findings Reliability and validity of the questionnaires The results of Cronbach´s alpha for each factor and the exploratory factor analysis of the real and ideal environments of both questionnaires are shown in Table 2. As can be seen, the values 100 | HERVÁS-GÓMEZ & TOLEDO-MORALES obtained for the total score of REQSC and IEQSC were 0.877 and 0.886, respectively, which indicated that both questionnaires showed a quite acceptable internal consistency, suggesting that both of them were reliable instruments for measuring the real and ideal environments perceived by students who used the computer classrooms. As shown in Table 2, the internal consistency of each dimension (factor) and items of REQSC are extremely high (α > 0.70); the values for each of the factors ranged between 0.759 and 0.806. Likewise, the values of Cronbach´s alpha for each of the factors and items of IEQSC ranged between 0.792 and 0.823. The items of the factors were higher than 0,7, which reflected that the structure of the factors has not changed. Table 2 Cronbach's α coefficient for the factors and items of the questionnaires of the Real and Ideal Environment of Smart Classrooms (REQSC) and (IEQSC). Factors and items Real Ideal Factor 1: Physical design, Real α = 0.784, Ideal α = 0.799 The classroom is adapted for the use of Tablet, PC and other resources, and it is comfortable. The lighting is suitable for reading material on screen or paper. From anywhere in the class and without obstacles I can see at the same time the teacher and the projection of the subject. The class is quiet: I can hear what teachers and classmates say clearly. 0.872 0.872 0.873 0.874 0.881 0.879 0.880 0.884 Factor 2: Flexibility, Real α = 0.806, Ideal α = 0.813 The classroom climate is controlled with temperature and humidity sensors. The classroom can become a theater, a group work space or any other educational setting. I can only access the platform and the virtual secretary using my UVUS user. 0.877 0.878 0.880 0.878 0.879 0.896 Factor 3: Technology usage, Real α = 0.775 , Ideal α = 0.820 I enjoy studying or doing work using computers or technological devices. I send my work to teachers using computers or digital resources. I get information related to the studies through the computer or other resources. I use the computer to read the documents and materials of the subjects. 0.876 0.875 0.872 0.875 0.883 0.886 0.881 0.891 Factor 4: Learning data, Real α = 0.782 , Ideal α = 0.823 I can find my background, my activities (practices that I must do) and discussion forums on various digital platforms (e.g. virtual teaching). I have my own digital folder for the different subjects (drive, Dropbox ...) 0.872 0.873 0.885 0.880 Factor 5: Differentiation, Real α = 0.769 , Ideal α = 0.813 I can learn at my own pace in the classroom. I can choose what tasks to do in the classroom. I can choose the different subjects to study in the course. 0.870 0.867 0.874 0.884 0.881 0.883 Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education | 107 Figure 3. Perception of the Ideal Environment of the three class groups Discussion Considering the perceptions of the students, and meeting the objectives proposed in the presented study, it can be concluded that there is a large difference between the students´ perceptions of the real and ideal environments in the digital classrooms, especially in the factors “physical design”, “flexibility”, “differentiation”, “cooperation”, “equity” and “learning experience”; the average score was below 3 for the perception of the real environment in the factors “physical design”, “flexibility” and “differentiation”. The highest scores for the real environment were obtained in the perception of technology usage, research and, with the highest score of all, students´ cohesiveness. 108 | HERVÁS-GÓMEZ & TOLEDO-MORALES On a general level, there are large differences regarding how the students of the three classgroups perceived the real and ideal classroom environments. Students perceive the need to improve the real environment, since the results of the ideal environment questionnaire put high levels in eight of the ten dimensions. Students do not perceive comfortable the real classroom environment. With respect to “differentiation”, this is the factor that obtained the lowest levels in the perception of the real environment in the three class-groups. The factor “cooperation” of the real environment was perceived with high values. The dimension “learning experience” was perceived in the real classroom environment with levels above 2.5. The students perceived the need for a change in the real environment in the item “The resources and programs are easy to use” The differences in the perception of the real and ideal intelligent classroom environment among the students of the three university groups are clearly seen. There are no large differences in the scores obtained for the three groups, as they all perceived the same level of changes needed. The three groups show the highest scores of the real environment in the factors “students cohesiveness”, “research” and “technology usage”, suggesting that the real environment needs to be improved, which is why such high values were obtained in the perception of the ideal environment. The values obtained on a global level for the ideal environment in the different factors are very high, which means that important changes must be done in the real classroom environment. Conclusion The main conclusion is that the questionnaires REQSC and IEQSC are valid and reliable for assessing the perceptions of students about the real and ideal environments of ICT classrooms. The obtained results show that there are significant differences between the real and ideal environments perceived by the three groups of students from the Degree in Elementary Education of Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education | 109 the University of Seville, who consider it necessary to improve the real environment of computer classrooms. With regard to the physical design of the classroom, it is necessary to improve the space, the furniture and the infrastructure, as they perceive that the ICT classrooms are not adapted to the use of technological resources such as Tablets, laptops and others; they also consider that these classrooms are not comfortable for working, that the lighting is not appropriate for reading the contents of the subject on the screen and even on paper, and that the lack of silence in these rooms does not allow them to hear what the teacher or their classmates say. The furniture, the devices and the software used in the classroom need to be well designed to facilitate the learning of students. The flexibility of the classroom is not perceived by the students as comfortable for working with technology, especially regarding the climate of the classroom; they see that it is not controlled by temperature and humidity sensors, and that it is not a suitable space for group work or educational settings. With respect to differentiation, all the students perceive that the teachers do not treat them differently based on their skills, academic results or interests. The learning data indicate the use of technologies as learning and information access tools. As in the study by Dogan and Camurcu (2007), the students perceive that it is necessary to improve the educational platforms that they use for their training and that they should have the possibility to use digital folders for the different subjects. Regarding cooperation, the students consider it necessary to improve the use of videocalls to carry out group assignments. They also perceive that the teachers should treat them all differently in order to improve the relationship with them (Latham, Crockett, McLean & Edmonds, 2012). As in the studies by Özyurt, Özyurt, Baki & Güven (2013) and Yang, Leung, Yue & Deng (2013), the students show a positive attitude about the learning experience in the ICT classroom; they 110 | HERVÁS-GÓMEZ & TOLEDO-MORALES perceive that, even though the multimedia resources used need to be improved, these motivate them to learn, the programs are easy to use and these help them improve their learning. The real and ideal perceptions of the use of technologies as learning and information access tools demonstrate that, currently, the students are using them correctly, that they have the proper skills to conduct research of different topics and that they can work in groups and get mutual help. However, the introduction of novel technologies in the classrooms, such as augmented reality or flipped classroom, suggest that it is necessary to pay special attention to the importance that their use will have in educational centers, which affects the training of future teachers in their didactic use. Universities must pay attention to the satisfaction of the demands for teacher education, and provide the ICT classrooms with the most innovative and necessary technological resources to create didactic materials as teachers. References Aldridge, J. M., Dorman, J. P., & Fraser, B. J. (2004). Use of multitrait-multimethod modelling to validate actual and preferred forms of the Technology-Rich Outcomes-Focused Learning Environment Inventory (Troflei). Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 4, 110–125. Baoping, L., Siu Cheung, K., & Guang, C.(2015). Development and validation of the smart classroom inventory. Smart Learning Environments, 2(3). http://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-015-0012-0 Bhagat, K. K., Wu, L. Y., & Chang, C. (2016). Development and validation of the perception of students towards online learning. Journal of Education Technology & Society, 19(1), 350–359. Dogan, B., & Camurcu, A.Y. (2008). Association Rule Mining from an Intelligent Tutor. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 36(4), 433-447. http://doi.org/10.2190/ET.36.4.f Giannakos, M. N., Sampson, D. G., & Kidziński, Ł. (2016). Introduction to smart learning analytics: foundations and developments in video-based learning. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 1-9. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-016-0034-2 Hall, M., Ramsay, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students. Accounting Education, 13(4), 489-505. http://doi.org/10.1080/0963928042000306837 Hedberg, J. G. (2014). Extending the Pedagogy of Mobility. Educational Media International, 51(3), 237-253. http://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2014.96844 Hwang, G. H., Chu, H. C., Chen, B., & Cheng, Z. S. (2014). Development and evaluation of a web 2.0-Based ubiquitous learning platform for schoolyard plant identification. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 12(2), 83-103. http://doi.org/10.4018/ijdet.2014040105 Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education | 111 Kemp, N., & Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (1278), 1-11. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278 Kumara, G. W., Wattanachote, K., Battulga, B., Shih, T. K., & Hwang, W.-Y. (2015). A Kinect-Based Assessment System for Smart Classroom. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 13(2), 34-53. http://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.2015040103 Lathama, A., Crocketta, K., McLeana, D., & Edmondsb, B. (2012). A conversational intelligent tutoring system to automatically predict learning styles. Computers & Education, 59 (1), 95–109. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.11.001 Lee, J., Lee, H., & Park, Y. (2013). The Smart Classroom: Combining Smart Technologies with Advanced Pedagogies. Educational Technology, 53(3), 3-12. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1014084 Lee, J., Zo, H., & Lee, H. (2014). Smart Learning Adoption in Employees and HRD Managers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1082-1096. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12210 Li, B.P., & Kong, S.C. (2014). Technology intelligence of the smart learning environment: a content analysis of publications in the past decade. Paper presented at The 18th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education, East China Normal University, China. Li, B.P., Kong, S.C., & Chen, K.G. (2015). Development and validation of the smart classroom inventory. Smart Learning Environments, 2 (3), 3-18. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-015-0012-0 Lin, Y. T., Huang, Y. M., & Cheng, S. C. (2010). An automatic group composition system for composing collaborative learning groups using enhanced particle swarm optimization. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1483-1493. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.014 Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (1), 27-52. http://dx.doi.org/1010.1080/03075070120099359 Moos, R.H. (1974). The Social Climate Scales: an overview. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Noh, K.S., Ju, S.H., & Jung, J.T. (2011). An exploratory study on concept and realization conditions of smart learning. Korean Journal of Digital Policy & Management, 9(2), 79-88. http://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/ArticleFullRecord.jsp?cn=DJTJBT_2011_v9n2_79&order num=7 Oliver, R., Herrington, J., & Mcloughlin, C. (2014). Exploring the Development of Students’ Generic Skills Development in Higher Education Using A Web-based Learning Environment. Education, (May 2014). Özyurt, Ö., Özyurt, H., Baki, A., & Güven, B. (2013). Integration into mathematics classrooms of an adaptive and intelligent individualized e-learning environment: implementation and evaluation of UZWEBMAT. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 726–738. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.013 Ramamuruthy, V., & Rao, S. (2015). Smartphones Promote Autonomous Learning in ESL Classrooms. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 3(4), 23-35. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085930.pdf Specht, M., Ternier, S., & Greller, W. (2011). Dimensions of Mobile Augmented Reality for Learning: A First Inventory. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 7(1), 117-127. http://hdl.handle.net/1820/4008 112 | HERVÁS-GÓMEZ & TOLEDO-MORALES Sykes, E.R. (2014). New Methods of Mobile Computing: From Smartphones to Smart Education. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 58(3), 26-37. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1651858928?accountid=14744 Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers and Education, 68, 570-585. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.014 Yang, Y., Leung, H., & Yue, L. (2013). Generating a two-phase lesson for guiding beginners to learn basic dance movements. Computer & Education, 61(1), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.006 Zhao, J.T. (2008). Research university faculty perceptions of smart classroom technologies (Intellectual Property Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 3-15. http://search.proquest.com/docview/305356528 View publication statsView publication stats