International Journal of Mathematical Education in

Science and Technology

ISSN: 0020-739X (Print) 1464-5211 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmes20

An assessment of geometry teaching supported

with augmented reality teaching materials to
enhance students’ 3D geometry thinking skills

Emin İbili, Mevlüt Çat, Dmitry Resnyansky, Sami Şahin & Mark Billinghurst

To cite this article: Emin İbili, Mevlüt Çat, Dmitry Resnyansky, Sami Şahin & Mark Billinghurst
(2019): An assessment of geometry teaching supported with augmented reality teaching materials
to enhance students’ 3D geometry thinking skills, International Journal of Mathematical Education
in Science and Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0020739X.2019.1583382

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1583382

View supplementary material

Published online: 11 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmes20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2019.1583382

An assessment of geometry teaching supported with

augmented reality teaching materials to enhance students’
3D geometry thinking skills
Emin İbili a , Mevlüt Çatb , Dmitry Resnyanskyc , Sami Şahind and Mark Billinghurstc
a Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Healthcare Management, Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences

University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey; b The Turkish Ministry of National Education, Mathematics Teacher,
Aksaray, Turkey; c School of Information Technology & Mathematical Sciences, The University of South
Australia, Adelaide, Australia; d Education Faculty of Gazi University, Department of Computer Education and
Instructional Technology, Gazi, Turkey

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of this research was to examine the effect of Augmented Received 30 September 2018
Reality (AR) supported geometry teaching on students’ 3D thinking
skills. This research consisted of 3 steps: (1) developing a 3D think-
ing ability scale, (ii) design and development of an AR Geometry
Tutorial System (ARGTS) and (iii) implementation and assessment
of geometry teaching supported with ARGTS. A 3D thinking abil-
ity scale was developed and tested with experimental and control
groups as a pre- and post-test evaluation. An AR Geometry Tutorial
System (ARGTS) and AR teaching materials and environments were
developed to enhance 3D thinking skills. A user study with these
materials found that geometry teaching supported by ARGTS sig-
nificantly increased the students’ 3D thinking skills. The increase in
average scores of Structuring 3D arrays of cubes and Calculation of
the volume and the area of solids thinking skills was not statistically
significant (p > 0.05). In terms of other 3D geometric thinking skills’
subfactors of the scale a statistically significant difference was found
in favour of the experimental group in pre-test and post-test scores
(p < 0.05). The biggest difference was found on ability to recognize
and create 3D shapes (p < 0.01).The results of this research are par-
ticularly important for identifying individual differences in 3D think-
ing skills of secondary school students and creating personalized
dynamic intelligent learning environments.

1. Introduction
Traditional geometry teaching based on two-dimensional drawings are not so success-
ful when teaching three-dimensional geometrical objects [1,2]. Drawings representing 3D
views are typically two-dimensional and often cannot help students to understand the rules
of representation and component properties. Component properties such as edge length,
number of edges; the same kind of inter-component relationships such as equal edges, cor-
ner and edge relationships constitute the structure of the object [3]. The components of the

CONTACT Emin İbili eminibili@aku.edu.tr

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 E. İBILI ET AL.

object prisms may be the same, but different prisms and polyhedra arise because a com-
ponent is very diverse. In a clearer sense, the same component (edge, corner, surface and
angle) may not be the same in every prism [3]. Pavlovičová and Švecová [4] reported that
students were not able to find the same edge-forming components in 3D object nets draw-
ings and did not grasp component properties. For this reason to understand 3D objects
correctly, it is necessary to examine the properties and components of the 3D object. This
skill will also help students improve their skills of comparison. Thus they can understand
that similar objects have different characteristics and objects are grouped by using similar
properties. Also, visualization and grasping of 3D object nets, properties and components
are important skills for professional use in real life. Moreover, when the three-dimensional
features and components of a geometrical object are perceived together, both from similar
and different angles may be understood among one object and other objects ([5]). If the
components of the 3D object are understood in the context of different angles, the special
characteristics which are given from a component to the 3D object may also be understood
[3]. On the other hand, calculations and formulas may not always be sufficient to com-
pare two different volumes or areas [3]. When the teaching of those geometrical concepts
grounded in three dimesnions is limited by formulas, students may not be able to compare
the volume of two cylinders formed by folding one piece of paper along its edge. This exam-
ple emphasizes the need for spatial configuration and visualization skills, suggesting that
geometry should be taught with methods other than memorization [3]. Moreover, Gutiér-
rez [6] emphasizes the need for students to manipulate objects in the physical, mental and
computer environments in order to develop 3D object comparison skills. In order to raise
learners’ propensity for application of geometry concepts in real-life scenarios on a larger
scale, skills in visualization and abstract geometric thinking need to be further developed
in a more practical sense. It is necessary to reveal the potential and limitations of devel-
oping 3D geometric thinking skills in the classroom by closely following advancements in
educational technologies.
Basic science teaching – particularly in the fields of mathematics and physics – consists
of the teaching and learning of abstract concepts. For this reason, students need to reach a
cognitive level capable of learning abstract concepts [7]. In particular, visual–spatial skills
need to be gained for an accurate understanding of geometry; this includes abilities such
as spatial thinking, visualization and imagination in order to effectively comprehend and
work with three-dimensional shapes. Nowadays many students have problems and diffi-
culties in learning geometry, and some students are not confident in geometry classes [8].
One of the reasons for this is that the teaching of geometry is limited to using teacher’
drawings, verbal explanations and pictures in books. Teacher evaluations are also based on
paper tests that usually measure students’ cognitive levels [9], however, spatial ability is not
a static quality, but rather a dynamic process, requiring new types of assessment.
The focus of recent research has been on the thinking and visualization ability of
students and the use of new technology for assisting the teaching of geometry. First, stu-
dents’ thinking styles were researched and their thinking levels were categorized, enabling
success to be achieved with the same education in students who are at different ability
levels [10,11]). According to Pittalis and Christou [12], 3D geometric thinking skills are
required for students to visualize, interpret and form representations of 3D figures. Pittalis,
Mousoulides and Christou [5] have formed a 3D thinking ability model which includes
most of the previous research about student ability for 3D geometric thinking. 3D thinking
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3

skills test includes the following six dimensions. These dimensions are described in the
Methodology section [5]:

1. Ability to recognize and create 3D shapes

2. Ability to draw and translate representations of different views of 3d solids
3. The ability to structure 3d arrays of cubes
4. Ability to determine the propertıes of 3d geometric shapes
5. Ability to calculate the volume and area of 3d solids
6. Ability to compare features of 3D shapes.

Spatial ability can be further enriched by the development of new technologies such as
Augmented Reality (AR) [13], which involves the overlay of virtual images on the real
world. AR has become popular in schools and classrooms due to its useful characteristics
[8], such as being able to allow users to naturally interact with digital materials. It also helps
students to relate their learning experiences to the real world and create new meanings for
them [14]. AR helps the students to create their own knowledge structure and to actively
participate, by offering individual learning opportunities with new interaction possibilities
[15,16]. AR builds bridges between abstract and concrete representations by utilizing the
physicality of the real environment surrounding the learner. In this way, students are able to
experience knowledge- and skill-building through interaction within a real environment
[17,18]. Abstract concepts, shapes and objects that cannot be found in the real world can
be obtained by displaying three-dimensional virtual information at relatively little cost to
the user. It has been noted that AR successfully encourages students to get into a habit of
using their imagination and creativity to understand learning content [19]. Furthermore,
AR technology demonstrates a capacity to help students relate their learning experiences to
the real world and create new meanings for each individual learner [14]. Using AR-based
learning tools, students are able to create their own knowledge structure and to actively
participate in the learning process, by offering individual learning opportunities with new
interaction possibilities [15,16].
AR helps bring together different people to enrich their learning with different stu-
dent perspectives or experiences [20]. In addition, it allows for students to create their
own knowledge structure by allowing them to progress at their own pace and in the
way that they prefer [21]. Furthermore, less time is wasted on the part of students and
teachers in making drawings or to prepare other physical manipulations. These facili-
ties offer more learning time and more experiences especially for students with attention
deficit, memory impairment or different individual learning difficulties; so that teachers
can design multi-level instructional strategies for the classroom [22]. Finally, it provides
students with a learning environment based on their learning speed and their own learning
style [23].
Previous research has shown that AR education systems could be very useful for
teachers in future. However, it is necessary to determine the problems that might arise
in classroom use, and to explore the effect of the AR teaching system on students’
3D thinking skills. Previous research has been limited to examining the effect of AR
assisted geometry teaching on geometric achievement, spatial ability or student motiva-
tion [20,24,25]. There has been little research on which type of 3D geometric thinking
skills has benefited from AR education. For this reason, the purpose of this research
4 E. İBILI ET AL.

is to examine the effect of AR-supported geometry teaching on students’ 3D thinking

skills.
This research has two important innovations. First, in this research virtual buttons were
used to enable students to interact with AR learning materials. The virtual buttons were
designed by using a matrix method, so that the users were able to have natural interaction
with AR learning materials from different perspectives. In addition, the need to use mul-
tiple AR tracking markers has been avoided. Another innovation is to explore the effects
of AR on 3D thinking ability. As seen in previous research, although technology plays an
active role in geometry learning, research on its specific effects remains limited [26].
The results of this research will shed light on the creation of personalized AR learning
environments to account for the individual differences in the students’ 3D thinking ability,
and on the design of virtual buttons for teachers, software developers and researchers who
will conduct future work in this field.

2. Related work
In this section, we review related work from earlier explorations of 3D geometry and AR,
and the limitations of the use of AR in education. We also present our research hypotheses
that are explored later in the paper.

2.1. 3d geometry and augmented reality

The coexistence of virtual objects and real environments using AR allows students to visu-
alize complex spatial relationships and abstract concepts [27]. AR teaching environments
enable students to learn more deeply by increasing the attention and motivation of the
students and by providing a different perspective for the systems or objects that are dif-
ficult to learn [28,29]. AR teaching environments improve the spatial skills of students,
give students practical application skills, and provide conceptual and inquiry based under-
standing [30]. Geometry teaching with mobile Augmented Reality systems improves the
spatial skills of students and their ability to understand descriptive geometry [31]. AR helps
students to perform spatial visualization tasks, such as mentally manipulating, rotating
and inverting objects [32]. AR enhances spatial visualization and mental rotation skills. In
addition, natural interaction reduces cognitive load and helps the user to establish a con-
nection between the visualization and rotation skills [33]. Cognitive activities that are not
directly related to the learning goal create an extra cognitive load. For example, interacting
with virtual manipulators by using a mouse and keyboard in geometry teaching creates an
extra cognitive load and can reduce learning outcomes. However, AR may allow natural
sensory interaction with virtual contents through actions that mirror real-world interac-
tion such as motion, body language, sound, gaze, touch and so on. The extra cognitive
load that prevents students from using the system is reduced by using natural interaction
interfaces [34]. Such interfaces may enable the user to feel the interaction between the
environment, the user and the system as a natural interaction while performing a certain
task [35].
AR-based geometric objects incorporate real-life scenarios, allowing geometry to be
associated with real life [36]. For example, AR can be a convenient method for letting
a student know how to imagine an object and how to start studying [37]. According to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5

Chang and Liu [38], AR creates a successful situational learning environment because it
creates a reliable representation for real knowledge in the real world. AR can also provide a
dynamic image of 3D shapes and an intuitive and natural interaction by allowing the user
to interact with 3D shapes through hand gestures. Students develop their own awareness
of the relationships of the forms by interacting with the shape and making the knowledge
easily memorable or permanent [8]. The easy interaction of teachers and students with 3D
materials supports a constructive learning environment and facilitates integration of this
technology into the classroom [13]. AR applications allow 3D content to be viewed from
different perspectives, and allows the users to freely explore the information at their own
pace [16,24]. In flipped classroom learning environments, AR contributes to the learning
success of learners, motivation for learning, critical thinking tendency and improvement
of group self-efficacy [39].

2.2. Limitations of use of AR in education

However, AR learning environments have some limitations. One of these is that AR teach-
ing practices must be pursued in the context of appropriate guidance and meaningful
tasks, otherwise the educational impact of AR applications and the attitudes of students
may be adversely affected [40]. Wojciechowski and Cellary [41] emphasized that the pos-
itive student attitude towards AR technology is about it being a new technology, but this
may disappear in the future. The contribution of AR technology to the learning process
depends to a large extent on the quality of content and so interactive learning envi-
ronments with 3D content for AR learning environments should be developed. Some
researchers have stated that if AR learning environments do not solve the learning dif-
ficulties of pupils, this may prevent the learning process, and pupil motivation may fall
[16,40]. For this reason, it is important that the teacher should have enough time for the
students in AR-supported teaching, and the teachers should be educated about the use
of AR.
Some researchers have emphasized that if pupils are not motivated by a suitable environ-
ment and teacher, the success of the application will be reduced, the pupils will have a lack
of interest in the subject and judge the technology negatively [40,42,43]. Ibili [16] found
that an AR-supported teaching method had a positive effect on the attitudes of students
with negative attitudes towards mathematics and that there was no positive or negative
effect on students with positive attitudes. Fonseca et al. [40] also pointed out that students
should be able to generalize the information gained from their experiences in the AR envi-
ronments, so that students should be warned that any misinformation will be permanently
learned.
Students who have been supported by AR have improved their spatial skills and have
increased their knowledge and motivation. It is also seen that students and teachers find the
use of AR technology easy and satisfying. However, when the related literature is examined,
there is little research on the contribution of AR-supported teaching to student 3D thinking
skills.
Based on this research, in this paper the following hypotheses were tested:

1. AR-supported geometry teaching helps students to develop the ability to recognize

and create 3D shapes.
6 E. İBILI ET AL.

2. AR-supported geometry teaching helps students to develop the ability to draw and
translate representations of different views of 3D participations.
3. AR-supported geometry teaching helps students develop the ability to configure 3D
arrays of cubes.
4. AR-supported geometry teaching helps students to develop the ability to specify the
properties of 3D geometric shapes.
5. AR-supported geometry teaching helps students to develop ability to calculate the
volume and area of 3D events.
6. AR-supported geometry teaching helps students to develop the ability to compare
features of 3D shapes

3. Methodology
3.1. Development of the 3D thinking skills test
Geometry education emphasizes the development of spatial thinking skills, and under-
standing of geometrical shapes and properties [44]. The purpose of geometry education
using three-dimensional principles is to more deeply develop students’ abstract and prac-
tical geometric thinking skills. The fifth- to eighth-grade geometry curriculum includes
the 3D thinking skills of Pittalis, Mousoulides and Christou [5], shown also in Table 1.
The six dimensions presented by Pittalis, Mousoulides and Christou [5] are outlined
below:

1. Ability to recognize and create 3D shapes: In this dimension, students have the ability
to recognize and construct the nets of 3D geometric objects and decide whether or
not to construct an object when the net is folded.

Table 1. 3D skill objectives in the 5–8 grade curriculum according to the 3D thinking skill attributes of
Pittalis, Mousoulides and Christou [5].
Grades and objectives: 6 Dimensions: 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 Geometric objects are taught using faces, corners and number of * * * *
edges. In this way, skills in object comparison are developed.
By calculating the surface expansions and area calculation, the
calculation skills are reinforced.
6 Isometric chequer-patterned unit cubes are used for the * * *
completion and formation of the cube or rectangular prism.
The ability to make connections between prisms, to make
comparisons, and to measure the volume of geometric bodies
with unit cubes is reinforced.
7 Development of manipulation skills- is introduced. In this respect, * *
the ability to recognize and work with isometric views of
objects, using spatial rotation and multi-angle views of three-
dimensional objects, as well as the creation of the 3D structure
of given objects are reinforced.
8 Three-dimensional circular cylinders and vertical cones are * * * * * *
included in the geometry teaching program. Topics relating
to the properties, nets and surface areas of geometric objects;
prism construction using unit cubes; shape completion,
comparison, using multiple angle views are included in the 8th
grade mathematics’ curriculum. The curriculum also includes
topics relating to unit cubes, area and volume calculation.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

2. Ability to draw and translate representations of different views of 3d solids: This

subdimension examines the ability to draw three-dimensional object’s perpendic-
ular or parallel projection views and to convert different representations to each
other.
3. The ability to structure 3d arrays of cubes: In this skill, the student can find the number
of unit cubes needed to transform an object into a prism with unit cubes, find the
number of unit cubes required to create a 3D prism and calculate the number of unit
cubes to fit in an empty box.
4. Ability to determine the propertıes of 3d geometric shapes: This subdimension con-
sists of the ability to identify prisms and pyramids, and interpret their properties and
components.
5. Ability to calculate the volume and area of 3d solids: In this skill, the student can cal-
culate the volume and surface area of the object by using unit cubes and nets, and can
compare different volumes. In the calculation of volume and area of 3D objects, both
the visualization skill and the calculations have to be complementary to each other.
6. Ability to compare features of 3D shapes: In this subdimension, the ability of students
to compare elements and features of different 3D shapes such as corners, faces and
edges are evaluated.

In order to be able to evaluate student learning progress, a 3D thinking skills scale was
developed following the method of Pittalis, Mousoulides and Christou [5]. In addition, the
researchers proposed to development of their 3D thinking skills to future researchers. First
of all, 55 initial questions were written by the researchers working together with expert
teachers and academician. The initial test included one or two questions according to
expert views for each learning objectives in the six dimensions of the model of Pittalis,
Mousoulides and Christou [5]. These were sent to other experts (academicians and teach-
ers) who were asked to evaluate the adequacy of the questions, if they were scientific, clear
and understandable, the degree of difficulty and substance discrimination using an evalua-
tion form prepared by the researcher. Each question was assessed in terms of these criteria
as (a) appropriate, (b) needs to be modified and (c) the question does not fulfil the purpose
and should be removed from the scale. As a result of the evaluation, a total of 4 questions
were removed and the pilot tests were conducted among 85 8th-grade students. The stu-
dents were found to have difficulty in reading and 4 items were re-edited and 1 question
was removed from the test and remaining 50 were kept for the validity test using confir-
matory factor analysis (CFA). The results of the CFA model are presented in the Results
section.
The final sample of the research consisted of 460 students (257 female and 203 male)
who graduated from the 8th grade in 11 schools in Turkey. The scales were applied in the
classroom with paper output during the last two weeks of the 2016–2017 education period.

3.2. Development of the Augmented Reality Geometry Tutorial System (ARGTS)

First, 70 AR training scenarios were prepared for the targeted teaching in the MEB [45]
secondary school curriculum. During the preparation of the scenarios, the related research
was examined and the scenarios which the students could learn by structuring the infor-
mation were prepared. Then, in the direction of these scenarios, teaching materials were
8 E. İBILI ET AL.

Figure 1. Determination of user-selected button with matrix structure.

designed with 3DSMax and transferred to Unity3D program. Virtual buttons were used
to support the users’ natural interaction with the AR teaching materials. The virtual but-
tons were used to switch between the scenes and to view AR training materials. The aim of
transitions between scenes by virtual buttons was so that users could use this application
with Head Mounted Display (HMD) devices, as well as mobile phones and so have more
visualization options. The matrix system was used to increase the usability of the virtual
buttons and to decide which buttons the user selected (Figure 1).
As shown in the Figure 1(a), the most important problem with using multiple virtual
buttons was to determine which of the selected buttons that was user was choosing; if more
than one virtual button was selected. As shown in the Figure 1(b–d), the algorithm was
designed with the aim of predicting the decision of the user and thus a prototype model
was created for the use of multiple virtual buttons. This algorithm basically performs the
following operations:

• The number of virtual buttons on the Unity scene is determined by the algorithm when
executed according to each individual scene within Unity.
• Each virtual button is named, as shown in Figure 2, according to the matrix structure,
with special connections being created for the related functions.
• The direction of user hand movement is detected by the software and the selected button
is determined according to the direction of the user’s hand movement.
• The number of selected buttons in the matrix, their locations, the last selected button,
and timing are used to detect the direction of hand movement.
• In registering a selection of a function, a virtual button must remain pressed for a
minimum of 2 s.
• The last button of the matrix is used for transition between scenes.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9

Figure 2. Matrix method used for naming virtual buttons.

Note: VB = Virtual Button, r = VB Row Number, c = VB Column Number, VBcr:Last VB Name, Previous Scene VB or Main
Scene VB.

Figure 3. AR sample scenes.

An example of the prototype operation used for various activity scenes is shown below
(Figure 3).
As can be seen from Figure 3 (a), the user first selects the solid model representing the
task that he would like to try – in this case, the triangular prism net. Through interaction
with the appropriate virtual button, the user is directed to the scene related to the triangular
prism activity (Figure 3b). This allows the user to see what he would like to see between dif-
ferent triangular prism nets on the left side of the markers. The user can navigate through
the scenes with a virtual button on the top right of the screen. Designed using web page
10 E. İBILI ET AL.

logic, this application also has a homepage scene. The user can access the scenes and con-
tents from the homepage where different topics such as Figure 3(c) and Figure 3(d) are
available.

4. Results
4.1. Demographic profile results
A course on 3D geometric objects was used by the same teacher in two experiments and two
control groups for about four weeks. Teaching courses were started and finished in the same
week. The teacher used a projector, real 3D objects, textbook and his own drawings in the
control group. For Experimental Group, the teacher used the ARGTS software and a text
book. The students in both groups were tested before and after using the 3D thinking skills
scale described in Section 3. Demographic information of students in the experimental and
control groups is presented in Table 2.
When the model regression coefficients were compared according to gender, no sig-
nificant difference was found between female and males (χ 2 = 30.21, p = 0.98) and the
model was unchanged in terms of gender (Figure 4). So the model obtained when all the
criteria was considered is an acceptable model (Table 3).

Table 2. Demographic profiles.

N = 103 Category Frequency Percentage %
Gender Male 43 41.75
Female 60 48.25
Use ARGTS with student’s Own Tablet or Phone No 13 25
Yes 39 75
Computer Experience (Year) <1 16 30.8
1–3 20 38.5
>3 16 30.8
Validity and reliability results of a multiple-group measurement scale for 3D Geometric Thinking Measurement Scale.

Figure 4. Confirmatory factor analysis by gender (males on the left).

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 11

Table 3. Results of model adaptation.

Test Result Criterion Evaluation
χ 2 /df 1.68 (p = 0.069) < 2 (p > 0.5) [46] High compliance
CFI 0.990 > 0.9 [47] High compliance
NFI 0.975 > 0.9 [47] High compliance
RMSEA 0.038 < 0.05 [48] High compliance

Table 4. Descriptive results and regression coefficients of 3D

Thinking Skills
Mean SS Regression ratio
Properties (9) 4.55 2.79 62
Structuring (8) 5.15 2.75 56
Manipulation (9 6.10 2.67 55
Nets (11) 5.50 2.33 53
Calculation (7) 4.42 2.60 51
Comparison (6) 3.68 2.63 3.68

Because of the space limitations shorter names were given the 6 dimensions. The names
in the CFA model and the counterpart of the model of Pittalis, Mousoulides&Christou [5]:
Nets: Ability to recognize and create 3D shapes.
Manipulation: Ability to draw and translate representations of different views of 3d solids.
Structuring: The ability to structure 3d arrays of cubes.
Properties: Ability to determine the properties of 3d geometric shapes.
Calculation: Ability to calculate the volume and area of 3d solids.
Comparison: Ability to compare features of 3D shapes.
When model estimates were examined to test the significance of the predicted variables
measured by the measuring tool of the 3D Thinking Skill in Figure 4, all the regression
coefficients were significant (p < 0.001) (Table 4). In order to compare the overall level
of achievement for the measurement items, all the items were converted to a scale of 10
(Table 4).
The results show that the highest average is the Manipulation skill (6.10), and the lowest
average is the Comparison skill (3.68). The highest variability of measurements was in
Properties (SS = 2.79) and the lowest variance was in Nets (SS = 2.33). The 3D thinking
Skill Test’ Item difficulty and discrimination indices are given in Table 5.
As shown in Table 5, the difficulty level of questions is average, and the discrimina-
tion is greater than 0.3. The average item difficulty index of the test consisting of 50 items
(P) is 0.53. The average discriminant index (D) is 0.75; The KR-20 reliability coefficient
was found to be 0.820. The binary correlation coefficients for 3D geometric thinking skills
subscales are shown in Table 6.
According to this, all of the correlations are moderate and significant (p < 0.01). The
highest correlation was between Properties (0.65) and Comparison (0.64). The lowest cor-
relation was observed between the Manipulation and the Calculation skills (0.53). Whether
there is a relationship between 3D thinking skills and gender was examined by using an
independent samples t-test and the results are shown in Table 7.
12 E. İBILI ET AL.

Table 5. 3D thinking Skill Test’ Item difficulty and discrimination indices

Item no. P D
Recognition and construction of nets
Identification of cuboids nets 29 0.63 0.48
40 0.54 0.61
Identification of pyramid nets 33 0.40 0.32
35 0.38 0.40
Identification of a cylinder net 23 0.36 0.36
39 0.67 0.48
Identification of cubs nets* 10 0.48 0.45
36 0.68 0.52
41 0.69 0.49
Identification of the parallel surfaces of the opened cube nets * 22 0.53 0.48
Identification of steep cones nets * 24 0.68 0.47
Manipulation of 3D shapes Representation modes
Translation of an orthogonal view to isometric 46 0.43 0.37
Translation of a side projection view to an orthogonal one 28 0.68 0.56
Recognition of parallel edges of a cube drawn in an isometric view 7 0.65 0.59
Recognition of perpendicular edges of a cube drawn in an isometric view 6 0.45 0.60
Enumeration of the triangular, rectangular, and the total count of faces of a 3 0.67 0.43
triangular pyramid drawn in a transparent view.
15 0.62 0.65
16 0.65 0.66
17 0.68 0.61
Enumeration of the triangular faces of a triangular prism drawn in a transparent 21 0.61 0.65
view
Structuring 3D arrays of cubes
Enumeration of the cubes needed to transform an object to a cuboid 4 0.63 0.54
12 0.58 0.66
Enumeration of the cubes and cuboids that fit in a box (the box is not empty) 1 0.64 0.44
19 0.52 0.54
Enumeration of the cubes that fit in an not empty box 14 0.57 0.72
32 0.44 0.42
Enumeration of the cubes that fit in an open empty box 5 0.67 0.43
the number of cubes that can fit into a closed prism presented as open nets 2 0.49 0.44
Recognition of 3D shapes’ properties
Recognition of cuboids 43 0.57 0.46
Recognition of cuboids that have a specific number of vertices 48 0.60 0.58
Recognition of cuboids that have a specific number of edges 47 0.55 0.72
Recognition of cuboids that have a specific number of faces 49 0.55 0.72
Recognition of pyramids 44 0.57 0.55
Enumerating the edges of pyramids 27 0.36 0.45
Enumerating the vertices of pyramids 25 0.57 0.71
Enumerating the faces of pyramids 26 0.46 0.61
Enumerating the height of pyramids* 20 0.31 0.34
Calculation of the volume and the area of solids
Calculation of the area of a solid constructed by unit-sized cubes 13 0.50 0.58
Calculation of the area of cuboids presented as open nets 8 0.52 0.48
Calculation of the volume of cuboids presented as open nets 11 0.41 0.27
37 0.38 0.52
Comparing the capacity of rectangular and cylinder reservoirs. 38 0.32 0.34
Calculation of the volume of cylinders presented as open nets* 9 0.55 0.52
Calculation the heights of prisms presented as volume* 18 0.56 0.64
Comparison of 3D shapes Properties
Right/wrong statements referring to the elements and properties of three 42 0.47 0.52
solids
45 0.39 0.31
Exploration of the Euler’s rule in 34 0.46 0.57
Extension of the Euler’s rule to prisms 50 0.38 0.40
Comparison of element lengths in prism and pyramids * 30 0.32 0.35
31 0.69 0.51
* added to the model by authors to ensure compliance to the curriculum of the sample.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 13

Table 6. Binary correlation coefficients for 3D Thinking Skill scale sub-dimensions.

Nets Manipulation Structuring Properties Calculation Comparison
Nets 1
Manipulation 0.61** 1
Structuring 0.57** 0.64** 1
Properties 0.63** 0.62** 0.61** 1
Calculation 0.54** 0.53** 0.60** 0.57** 1
Comparison 0.56** 0.56** 0.54** 0.65** 0.55** 1
** 0.01 significance level.

Table 7. T-test results of gender average scores of 3D thinking skill scores.

Averages

Female (N = 257) Male (N = 203) t p

Nets (11) 5.63 5.33 1.38 0.20
Manipulation (9) 6.32 5.81 2.04 0.04*
Structuring (8) 5.03 5.29 −1.00 0.32
Properties (9) 4.51 4.59 −0.30 0.77
Calculation (7) 4.44 4.41 0.11 0.91
Comparison (6) 3.69 3.67 0.09 0.93
*0.05 significance level.

When the results are examined in Table 7, it seems that there is a significant difference
in favour of women for the Views (t = 2.04, p < 0.05). It seems that there is no difference
between genders in terms of other thinking skills.

4.2. Experimental study results

In order to determine the effectiveness of the ARGTS-assisted geometry teaching, the
3D thinking skills post-test scores of the groups were compared, taking into considera-
tion the average scores of the 3D thinking skills tests before the experimental study. The
pre-test aimed at measuring the level of the students 3D thinking skills before taking the
geometry course, while the post-test aimed at measuring the level of the students 3D think-
ing skills after completing the geometry courses. For this reason a covariance analysis
(ANCOVA) was applied. The homogeneity assumptions of normality, linearity, homogene-
ity of variances and regression slopes were tested before the ANCOVA was performed. The
normality assumption was examined according to the coefficients of skewness and kurtosis
result of the data The skewness and kurtosis was between 2.0 and −2.0 for the pre-test and
post-test scores ([49]).
Using scatter graphs for the objective variables in order to control the assumption of
linearity, we confirmed that the relations between pre-test and post-test variables were
linear with regard to each other. The assumption of variance homogeneity was not vio-
lated F (1, 103) = 1.22, p = 0.32. Moreover, the result indicated that the assumption
of homogeneous regression slopes was satisfied, F (1, 103) = 7.50, p = 0.01). No sig-
nificant difference existed between the two groups with regard to the pre-test scores,
[t (103) = −0.85, experimental:52 = 22.22, control:51 = 21.00, p > 0.05]. However, the adjusted
average post-test scores showed that students in the experimental group (M adj = 29.56,
SD = 8.19) performed significantly better than those in the control group (M adj = 24.29,
14 E. İBILI ET AL.

Table 8. Pre-test and post-test results accordıng to Subfactors of the scale.

Control group (N = 51) Experimental group (N = 52)

3D thinking level Test M SD M SD t p

Nets Pre-test 3.86 2.18 4.21 1.98 –0.87 0.384
Post-test 4.76 2.16 5.89 1.89 –2.82 0.006**
Manipulation Pre-test 5.26 1.71 5.14 2.62 0.27 0.789
Post-test 5.4 2.44 6.44 1.97 –2.39 0.019*
Structuring Pre-test 4.14 2.32 4.4 2.16 –0.6 0.548
Post-test 4.78 2.39 5.42 2.3 –1.39 0.169
Properties Pre-test 2.31 1.79 2.67 2.09 –0.94 0.348
Post-test 2.88 2.15 3.78 2.39 –2.02 0.046*
Calculation Pre-test 2.99 1.68 3.38 2.19 –1.02 0.311
Post-test 3.73 1.9 4.38 1.88 –1.74 0.085
Comparison Pre-test 2.43 1.72 2.4 1.99 0.06 0.951
Post-test 2.75 1.56 3.65 1.93 –2.62 0.010*
**: 0.01 significance level, *: 0.05 significance level.

29.56

22.22

24.29

21.00

6.44
5.89 5.14 5.42
4.21 4.40 4.38
5.40 3.78 3.38 3.65
4.76 5.26 4.78 2.67
3.86 4.14 2.40
2.99 3.73
2.31 2.88 2.43 2.75

Pre-test Post test Pre-test Post test Pre-test Post test Pre-test Post test Pre-test Post test Pre-test Post test Pre-test Post test
Nets (11) Manipulation (9) Structuring (8) Properties (9) Calculation (7) Comparison (6) Total (50)
Control Group Experimental Group

Figure 5. Pre-test and post-test results accordıng to Subfactors of the scale.

SD = 8.07). The experimental and control groups’ 3D thinking skills are shown in Table 8
and Figure 5 for the pre-test and post-test scores obtained from the subfactors of the scale.
According to the results of the 3D thinking skills tests given in Table 7 and Figure
2, before the experimental study the experiment and control group students were equal
in terms of 3D thinking skill level (p > 0.05). After 4 weeks of experimental study, the
increase in average scores of Structuring 3D arrays of cubes and Calculation of the vol-
ume and the area of solids thinking skills was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In
terms of other 3D geometric thinking skills’ subfactors of the scale a statistically signif-
icant difference was found in favour of the experimental group in pre-test and post-test
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 15

scores (p < 0.05). The biggest difference was found on ability to recognize and create 3D
shapes (p < 0.01). In addition, a statistical difference was found in favour of the experi-
mental group for the whole scale (p < 0.05). So, it can be said that the geometry teaching
supported by AR increased the students’ 3D thinking skills.
Whether there was a relationship between 3D thinking skills and gender was examined
by using an independent samples t-test. There was only significant difference in post-test
Structuring scores in favour of females [t (103) = −2.04, female:43 = 5.50, male:60 = 4.56,
p < 0.05], but there was no difference between genders in terms of other 3D thinking skills.

5. Discussion
The aim of this research was to examine the effects of Augmented Reality-assisted geom-
etry teaching on students’ 3D thinking skills. The results of the research show that AR-
supported geometry teaching is an effective teaching method for improving the students’
3D thinking skills. The effects of AR-assisted geometry learning on the subcomponents of
3D thinking skills are discussed below.
At the end of four weeks of experimental study, the students who participated in the AR-
supported learning environment found that the 3D shape recognition skill increased more
than the control group. This shows that AR-supported geometry learning can be effective
in increasing students’ 3D thinking skills.
It was found that after 4 weeks of experimental application, AR-assisted geometry
instruction increased the ability of students in the test group to recognize and create 3D
shapes more than in the control group. In addition to virtual manipulatives, AR may col-
lect information from multiple sources and present it together within the real environment.
Thus, the student’s attention can be directed toward the virtual manipulatives as well as to
the represented concept. However, there are indications that using physical materials may
also serve to distract students’ attention away from geometric concepts toward other fac-
tors of interest (Wigdor et al., 2011). Therefore, the combination of real and virtual may be
effective in increasing the ability of students to recognize and create 3D shapes. Further-
more, interactive animations demonstrating the nets of shape solids may provide a way
to construct 3D objects in space is on the user’s imagination and to understand how the
solids are formed [37]. In this way, students are offered the opportunity for discovery and
in-depth learning of geometrical properties of varying shapes [35]. The fact that students
have the opportunity to experiment as much as they need to in order to understand the
formation of solid objects have facilitated the understanding of solid structural elements
and their properties [4]. Moreover, students may develop their own knowledge relating to
shape nets by interacting with the figure through the ARGTS [8]. Using this approach, stu-
dents should gain a deeper understanding of 3D objects and their parallel surfaces within
a geometry classroom setting.
The thinking ability about the manipulation of 3D shape representations by students
who participating in the AR-supported learning environment were found to be sig-
nificantly compared to the control group. According to this result, it can be said that
AR-supported geometry teaching is effective in increasing this student skill. AR applica-
tions have enabled 3D materials to display content from different perspectives and have
enabled users to freely explore the information at their own pace [20]. Quintero et al. [13]
emphasized the importance of AR-based visual elements for students’ development of 3D
16 E. İBILI ET AL.

geometric thinking skills and understanding transitions between representations. Bruce

and Hawes [50] stated that an activity-based geometry teaching with 3D manipulations
can enhance the mental rotation skills of the students. Dixon [51] stated that teaching
geometry with virtual manipulations is more effective, especially on reflection and rota-
tion skills, which are subdivisions of transformation geometry, and that visualization skills
can be enhanced through experience. Therefore, it can be said that AR-supported geometry
teaching helps with better learning by understanding the appearance of 3D objects in differ-
ent directions and seeing various examples [28,29]. In addition, the combination of virtual
objects and real environments allows students to visualize complex spatial relationships
and abstract concepts [27].
The ability to structure 3D arrays of cubes and to calculate the volume or area of 3D
solids for the experimental group using AR was increased compared to the control group
of students. However, this increase is not statistically significant. Olkun [1] has stated that
students are partially successful in simple three-dimensional prism tasks but more difficult
tasks with complex structures require better visualization ability. Similarly, Markopoulos
et al. [3] stated that students use memorized formulas for solving problems and have diffi-
culty in problems that require visualization skills. Vasilyeva et al. [52] also emphasized that
students did not use spatial relations and formulas or calculations together in volume and
space problems. Researchers have reported that students use formulas and calculations
without trying to look at the spatial direction for solutions when the problem has a for-
mula. The training program has emphasized either formula or spatial solutions in volume
and area problems, but has not shown that these approaches can be used together. Pereira
et al. [53] emphasized that the modelling approach in geometry teaching is one of the fac-
tors assisting in visualization. However, 3D geometry must be perceived as a whole with
visualizations and algebraic representations. In this research, it has shown that students
have reached correct solutions by using counting skills and formulas without using visu-
alization and recognition skills, that so this situation has caused limitations in evaluating
the effect of AR on their ability.
It has been found that participating in an AR-supported learning environment was effec-
tive in improving students’ ability to determine the properties of 3d geometric shapes.
Pereira et al. [53] pointed out that the most fundamental mistakes of students are about
geometric shapes and the relationships of their properties’ to each other, which is due to
theorems and definitions that involve abstract thought and that have been given on paper
in the traditional geometry. Therefore, it can be said that AR-supported teaching is a suc-
cessful bridge between shapes, formulas and geometric official language. To understand 3D
objects correctly, it is necessary to examine the properties and components of the object
substructures. When a 3D solid’s features and components are grasped together, similar
aspects and different aspects with other 3D solids can be understood [5]. When the differ-
ent aspects of a 3D solid are understood, each component creates a special characteristic for
that object [3]. AR teaching materials allow shapes to be seen from different viewpoints, to
examine their shape properties (edge, angle, etc.), to recognize differences and similarities,
and to see transformations of shapes [54]. For this reason, it can be said that AR-supported
geometry teaching facilitates the conceptualization and association of solids’ properties
and components [55].
Students who participated in the AR-supported learning environment had improved
thinking ability to compare the features of 3D shapes compared to the control group.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 17

Thus, it can be said that AR-supported geometry teaching is effective in increasing these
abilities of students. Gutiérrez [6] stated that for the development of 3D comparison skills,
computer-aided training, concrete material-assisted training and 2D representation should
be considered together in the teaching process. Markopoulos et al. [3] found that the major-
ity of students easily and accurately calculated the volume of a cylinder with given a base
and height size information; but found that a majority of them answered incorrectly about
the volume of two separate cylinders obtained by wrapping one sheet of paper vertically or
horizontally. In order to be able to compare the two cylinders students need the ability to
recognizing the object properties, its nets and to be able to compare its properties [3]. As
seen in the results of this research, AR has undertaken an effective role in the development
of these three skills.
In addition, Sinclair et al. [26] emphasized that to support the hierarchical definitions
of geometric concepts, students should be presented with different shapes and prototypes
in different positions. When students are confused about concepts and definitions or they
want to prove or they want to make comparisons, they are going to use instructional soft-
ware. Fujita and Jones[56]) have found that students can draw geometric objects correctly
but they use existing prototypes instead of hierarchical definitions in the definition of
shapes. Thus it can be said that AR teaching materials form a strong prototype in the minds
of students and that students can classify geometric shapes or compare them by using these
prototypes.

6. Implications and limitations

This research could be useful for future studies that focus on the benefit of AR-based
teaching environments, in particular Augmented Reality tools for geometry education.
These results will provide important clues for future researchers, educational AR software
developers, teachers and curriculum developers. For example, AR teaching materials for
geometry teaching has had a limited impact on student thinking ability for structuring
3D arrays of cubes and calculating the volume or area of 3D solids. The results of this
research show that the students prefer to reach the correct answers by using formulas and
calculations without trying spatial solutions. For this reason, when designing future AR
environments, algebraic representations and 2D representation drawings must be used
together.
On the other hand, the research shows that AR teaching materials form a strong
prototype in students’ minds which can be used for classifying or matching geometric
shapes. This result shows that using effective message design techniques are important
when designing AR teaching materials, so students can better use comparison or clas-
sification skills. For example, the presentation of opposite samples and different sides of
shapes will improve the perception of students. In addition, this research is an exam-
ple of the use of virtual buttons when designing AR-based environments. The results
show that AR-assisted geometry instruction has a positive contribution to students’ 3D
thinking skills. For this reason, it is reasonable to say that virtual buttons did not con-
stitute an extra cognitive load on the students’ working memory. The perceived natural
interaction between the natural interaction interfaces, environment, student and sys-
tem may be effective in the absence of extra cognitive load. However, future researchers
18 E. İBILI ET AL.

are advised to conduct further research into the integration of virtual buttons into AR
environments.
This research also has limitations, including:

1. The 3D thinking skills test consists of multiple-choice answers. For this reason, it
cannot measure the students’ 3D object creating and drawing abilities
2. The research data was measured only from the 8th grade students’ 3D thinking skill
test and their demographic data.
3. ARGTS is limited to being available only on Android-compatible mobile devices.
4. The teacher could not intervene with the students’ devices, the lack of student teacher
or student–student collaborative study is seen as a limitation of the AR teaching
system.

7. Conclusion and future research

The aim of this research was to examine the effect of AR supported geometry teaching on
students’ 3D thinking skills. This research consisted of three steps. (1) Developing a 3D
thinking ability scale, (2) Design and development of an AR Geometry Tutorial System
and (3) Implementation and assessment of Geometry Teaching supported with ARGTS.
In order to be able to evaluate students, a 3D thinking skills scale was developed following
the approach of Pittalis et al. [5]. For the second step, a combination of the Vuforia SDK,
Unity3D, 3D Studio Max and image editing software was used to develop the Augmented
Reality Geometry Tutorial System (ARGTS). Virtual buttons were created to interact with
the AR teaching materials.
In order to determine the effectiveness of the ARGTS-assisted geometry teaching on 3D
thinking skills, a course was carried out and 3D thinking skills pre-test and post-test scores
of the groups were compared. As a result, the AR-supported geometry teaching was found
to significantly increase the students’ 3D thinking ability. However, when the effect of the
AR-supported geometry training on the subcomponents was examined, its effect on the
ability to structure 3D arrays of cubes and calculate the volume or area of 3D solids was
limited.
Virtual buttons have a natural interaction because of their AR content and provide a
strong potential for future applications. In addition, the following recommendations are
suggested for the future researchers:

• It may be beneficial to conduct further research on the use of AR applications by teach-

ers in the classroom; specifically, how instructional materials may be shared easily and
instantaneously on all available devices by teachers inside the classroom, as well as for
collaborative study purposes between teacher–student and student–student.
• Presentation of the teachers in the analytic reports that allow students to see their own
developments will increase the potential for use of AR teaching software in the future.
• It is recommended to compare effectiveness of AR assisted geometry teaching with
quantitative and qualitative data obtained from different samples, cultures and coun-
tries.
• It is recommended to plan semi-experimental studies on the effect of natural interaction
on cognitive load in AR teaching environments.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 19

The results of this research will shed light on using AR for education for software devel-
opers, designers of virtual buttons, researchers working in this area and designers who are
creating personalized AR learning environments for students’ to improve their 3D thinking
abilities.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research was supported by the postdoctoral research programme (BİDEB 2219) of The
Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).

ORCID
Emin İbili http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6186-3710

References
[1] Olkun S. When does the volume formula make sense to students? Hacettepe University
Education Faculty Journal. 2003;25(25).
[2] Battista MT. Levels of sophistication in elementary students reasoning about length. Interna-
tional Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. 2003;2:73–80.
[3] Battista MT. The development of geometric and spatial thinking. Second Handbook of
Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. 2007;2:843–908.
[4] Pavlovičová G, Švecová V. The development of spatial skills through discovering in the geomet-
rical education at primary school. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;186:990–997.
[5] Pittalis M, Mousoulides N, Christou C. Students’3D geometry thinking profiles. Proceedings
of CERME. 2010;6:816–825.
[6] Gutiérrez Á. Exploring the links between Van Hiele levels and 3-dimensional geometry.
Structural Topology. 1992.
[7] Martin-Gonzalez A, Chi-Poot A, Uc-Cetina V. Usability evaluation of an augmented reality
system for teaching Euclidean vectors. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2016;53(6):627–636.
[8] Le HQ, Kim JI. An augmented reality application with hand gestures for learning 3D geometry.
In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp) (pp.
34–41). IEEE; 2017, February.
[9] Lin HCK, Chen MC, Chang CK. Assessing the effectiveness of learning solid geometry by using
an augmented reality-assisted learning system. Inter Learn Environ. 2015;23(6):799–810.
[10] Gül ÇY, Karataş İ. Investigation of correlation among the 8th grade students’ achievement
on transformation geometry, spatial ability, levels of geometry understanding and attitudes
towards mathematics. Karaelmas Journal of Educational Sciences. 2015;3(1).
[11] Fidan Y, Türnüklü E. Examination of 5th grade students’ levels of geometric thinking in terms
of some variables. Pamukkale University Journal of Education. 2010;27(27):185–197.
[12] Pittalis M, Christou C. Coding and decoding representations of 3D shapes. The Journal of
Mathematical Behavior. 2013;32(3):673–689.
[13] Quintero E, Salinas P, González-Mendívil E, et al. Augmented reality app for calculus: A
proposal for the development of spatial visualization. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015;75:301–305.
[14] Finkelstein N, Adams W, Keller C, et al. Hightech tools for teaching physics: The physics
education technology project. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 2006;2(3):110–121.
[15] Rosli HW, Baharom F, Harun H, Daud AY, Mohd H, Darus NM. Using augmented reality
for supporting learning human anatomy in science subject for Malaysian primary school. In
20 E. İBILI ET AL.

Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT (INTEGRATION 2010); 2010, pp.

44–51.
[16] İbili, E. Development, implementation and assessment of the effect augmented reality on
geometry teaching materials for geometry classes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi
University, Ankara, Turkey; 2013.
[17] Dunleavy M, Dede C, Mitchell R. Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory
augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J Sci Educ Technol. 2009;18(1):
7–22.
[18] Lave J, Wenger E, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Vol.
521423740. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
[19] Klopfer E, Yoon S. Developing games and simulations for today and tomorrow’s tech savvy
youth. TechTrends. 2005;49(3):33–41.
[20] İbili E, Şahin S. Investigation of the effects on computer attitudes and computer self-efficacy
to use of augmented reality in geometry teaching. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic
Journal of Science & Mathematics Education. 2015;9(1).
[21] Saitta EK, Gittings MJ, Geiger C. Learning dimensional analysis through collaboratively
working with manipulatives. J Chem Educ. 2011;88(7):910–915.
[22] Lin X, Hu X, Hu Q, et al. A social network analysis of teaching and research collaboration in a
teachers’ virtual learning community. Br J Educ Technol. 2016;47(2):302–319.
[23] Hamilton, K, Olenewa J. Augmented reality in education [PowerPoint slides]; 2010. Retrieved
from Lecture Notes Online Web site: http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/k3hamil
ton-478823-augmented-reality-in-education.
[24] Gün ET, Atasoy B. The effects of augmented reality on elementary school students’ spatial
ability and academic achievement. Education and Science. 2017;42(191).
[25] Billinghurst M, Duenser A. Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer (Long Beach Calif).
2012;45(7):56–63.
[26] Gutiérrez A. Children’s ability for using different plane representations of space figures. New
Directions in Geometry Education. 1996: 33–42.
[27] Arvanitis TN, Petrou A, Knight JF, et al. Human factors and qualitative pedagogical evalua-
tion of a mobile augmented reality system for science education used by learners with physical
disabilities. Pers Ubiquitous Comput. 2009;13(3):243–250.
[28] Hsiao KF, Rashvand HF. Integrating body language movements in augmented reality learning
environment. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences. 2011;1(1):1.
[29] Kerawalla L, Luckin R, Seljeflot S, et al. “Making it real”: exploring the potential of augmented
reality for teaching primary school science. Virtual Real. 2006;10(3–4):163–174.
[30] Cheng KH, Tsai CC. Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for
future research. J Sci Educ Technol. 2013;22(4):449–462.
[31] De Ravé EG, Jiménez-Hornero FJ, Ariza-Villaverde AB, et al. Diedricar: a mobile augmented
reality system designed for the ubiquitous descriptive geometry learning. Multimed Tools Appl.
(2016);75(16):9641–9663.
[32] Kaur N, Pathan R, Khwaja U, Murthy S. GeoSolvAR: Augmented reality based solution for
visualizing 3d solids. IEEE 18th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies
(ICALT); 2018, July pp. 372–376.
[33] Hoe ZY, Lee IJ, Chen CH, et al. Using an augmented reality-based training system to promote
spatial visualization ability for the elderly. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2017: 1–16.
[34] Bujak KR, Radu I, Catrambone R, et al. A psychological perspective on augmented reality in
the mathematics classroom. Comput Educ. 2013;68:536–544.
[35] Wigdor D, Wixon D. Brave NUI world: designing natural user interfaces for touch and gesture.
Elsevier; 2011.
[36] Radu I, Doherty E, DiQuollo K, McCarthy B, Tiu M. Cyberchase shape quest: pushing geom-
etry education boundaries with augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 430–433). ACM; 2015, June.
[37] González NAA. How to include augmented reality in descriptive geometry teaching. Procedia
Comput Sci. 2015;75:250–256.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 21

[38] Chang YH, Liu J. Applying AR technique to enhance situated heritage learning in a
ubiquitous learning environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology.
2013;12(3):21–32.
[39] Chang SC, Hwang GJ. Impacts of an augmented reality-based flipped learning guid-
ing approach on students’ scientific project performance and perceptions. Comput Educ.
2018;125:226–239.
[40] Fonseca D, Villagrasa S, Martí N, et al. Visualization methods in architecture education using
3D virtual models and augmented reality in mobile and social networks. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences. 2013;93:1337–1343.
[41] Wojciechowski R, Cellary W. Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES aug-
mented reality environments. Comput Educ. 2013;68:570–585.
[42] Champeny L, Borgman CL, Leazer GH., et al. Developing a digital learning environment: an
evaluation of design and implementation processes. In Digital Libraries, 2004. Proceedings of
the 2004 Joint ACM/IEEE Conference on (pp. 37–46). IEEE; 2004, June.
[43] Georgina DA, Olson MR. Integration of technology in higher education: A review of faculty
self-perceptions. The Internet and Higher Education. 2008;11(1):1–8.
[44] Karakırık E. Dinamik Geometri ve Sketchpad ile Geometri Öğretimi. In: Karakırık E, editor.
Matematik eğitiminde Teknoloji Kullanımı. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım; 2011.
[45] Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Education, Board of Education. Elementary-
Secondary mathematics Lesson curriculum (1-8. sınıflar). Ankara: M.E.B; 2018.
[46] Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. Routledge; 2016.
[47] Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal.
1999;6(1):1–55.
[48] Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ):
Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006.
[49] West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems
and remedies; 1995.
[50] Bruce CD, Hawes Z. The role of 2D and 3D mental rotation in mathematics for young children:
what is it? Why does it matter? And what can we do about it? ZDM. 2015;47(3):331–343.
[51] Dixon JK. Computer use and visualization in students’ construction of reflection and rotation
concepts. School Science & Mathematics. 1997;97(7):352–358.
[52] Pittalis M, Christou C. Types of reasoning in 3D geometry thinking and their relation with
spatial ability. Educ Stud Math. 2010;75(2):191–212.
[53] Pereira LR, Jardim DF, da Silva JM. Modelling plane geometry: the connection between
geometrical visualization and algebraic demonstration. J Phys Conf Ser. (2017, Decem-
ber;936:012068.
[54] Sinclair N, Crespo S. Learning mathematics in dynamic computer environments. Teach Child
Math. 2006: 437–444.
[55] Wright, V. (2016). Visualisation and analytic strategies for anticipating the folding of nets.
Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.
[56] Fujita T, Jones K. Learners’understanding of the definitions and hierarchical classifica-
tion of quadrilaterals: towards a theoretical framing. Research in Mathematics Education.
2007;9(1):3–20.
22 E. İBILI ET AL.

Appendix 1 Example of the 3D thinking skill test’ questions.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 23