Received: 14 April 2020 | Accepted: 12 September 2020

DOI: 10.1002/cae.22342

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

A framework utilizing augmented reality to improve

critical thinking ability and learning gain of the students in
Physics

Harun Faridi | Neha Tuli | Archana Mantri | Gurjinder Singh |

Shubham Gargrish

Chitkara University Institute of

Engineering and Technology, Chitkara
University, Punjab, India
Correspondence
Gurjinder Singh, Chitkara University
Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Chitkara University, Punjab 140401, India.
Email: gurjinder.singh@chitkara.edu.in
Funding information
AR/VR research laboratory of Chitkara
University Punjab, India
Abstract
Physics is a branch of science that deals with different properties of energy and
matter. Most of the principles of Physics are based on Mathematics, Me-
chanics, Optics, Electricity, Magnetism, and Thermodynamics. It is often dif-
ficult for students to grasp concepts as they cannot visualize the phenomena,
resulting in compounding the problem of lack of interest in STEM subjects.
Augmented reality (AR) can be effective in providing better visualization and
interaction with real‐like three‐dimensional virtual objects that can ease the
learning experience. In this paper, an AR‐based learning environment is de-
veloped to help students understand concepts of the magnetic field, electric
current, electromagnetic waves, Maxwell's equations, and Fleming's rules for
electromagnetism. An experimental study was conducted to determine the
impact of AR intervention on student's learning and critical thinking cap-
abilities. The study was conducted among 80 engineering students, who were
distributed into two different groups: the AR teaching group (N = 40) and the
conventional teaching group (N = 40). The AR teaching group was instructed
through the AR‐based learning environment while the conventional teaching
group students were taught using a conventional teaching approach. The ex-
perimental results indicate that the AR‐based learning environment has a
significant positive impact on the critical thinking and learning gain of the
students. The AR experience helped the students in visualizing the abstract
concepts of Physics and enhanced their understanding.

KEYWORDS
augmented reality, critical thinking, engineering education, learning environment, learning gain

1 | INTRODUCTION pen, paper, and two‐dimensional (2D) images in which

Traditional teaching is a process when a teacher leads the
students to acquire knowledge through recitation tech-
niques and memorization. Conventional methods of
teaching are normally based on text, videos, projection,
real‐time learning practice and experience of 3D contents
are absent. From recent studies, it has been observed that
3D animated content provides a more immersive ex-
perience to the learners. Also with the current change in
the pedagogical style of engineering education, learning

Comput Appl Eng Educ. 2020;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cae © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC | 1
2 |
through games, digital platforms, and modern techniques
is more beneficial to the students as it raises students’
attention and enthusiasm during the learning activity
[32,35]. Augmented reality (AR) has the capability to
provide an engaging and interactive learning experience
to the students. AR is an experience that augments the
real world with virtual components, thereby enhancing
the learning experience of the students by super-
imposing graphics, videos, text, and audio in the real‐
world scenario [1,21]. The process makes the learning
process more tangible and hands‐on, even for abstract
content. It is envisaged that by using AR, the students
would be able to better achieve learning outcomes
through engagement and interactivity with the learning
content [3,16,30].
Critical thinking is the process of analyzing the facts
and ideas about logical reasoning and decision making
skills. This type of thinking is essential for students to
solve complex problems in science learning [10,20]. AR‐
based learning media is required for students to think
more critically than with other learning media. The stu-
dents can interact with virtual components by simply
drag, drop, grab, and flip operations, which overcome the
limitations of the conventional teaching system. Physics
is the fundamental subject for engineering courses as it
forms a necessary base for most of the concepts and
theories of engineering. Sometimes, students found it
difficult to imagine the concepts so there is a need for a
learning tool that can help students to visualize concepts
and phenomena [23]. In this study, an AR application is
developed which will help students to understand the
concepts of electromagnetism. The AR‐based learning
environment (ARLE) is developed by focusing on the
following learning objectives:
• To learn by doing instead of reading.
• To get a basic knowledge of abstract concepts in
Physics.
• To visualize the phenomena in 3D and interact with
virtual objects.
An interactive ARLE is developed that aimed to
analyze the impact of AR on the learning gain and critical
thinking ability of the students. The main aim of ARLE is
to provide the basic knowledge of the behavior of mag-
netic field lines, current, DC operated motor, and work-
ing of a generator in Physics. The magnetic field, current,
and force exerted in the current‐carrying conductor plays
an important role in the case of the DC motor and gen-
erator. It is a mobile application that helps the students to
visualize the basic principle of a DC motor, generator,
and also enables the students to interact with virtual
objects. Additionally, students would be able to
FARIDI ET AL.
understand the significance of Maxwell's equations like
Gauss's law in magnetism. It allows the students to in-
teract with virtual components, such as bar magnet,
current‐carrying conductor, galvanometer, and power
supply. The ARLE is developed specifically to enhance
student's learning and training skills, which will further
improve the conceptual understanding, critical thinking
ability, and knowledge retaining capabilities of the stu-
dents [31]. With the help of ARLE, students can experi-
ence the fundamental concepts of Physics. The following
research questions are addressed in the paper:
1. Is there any impact of AR‐based intervention on the
learning gain of the students in comparison with the
conventional teaching method?
2. Is there any impact of AR on the critical thinking
ability of the students as compared to the traditional
teaching method?
This paper is formatted as follows: Section 2 describes
the literature review of AR in the educational field.
Section 3 represents the methodology to deploy the ARLE
system on engineering students and Section 4 describes
the result analysis of the ARLE‐based study. Discussion
and conclusions are drawn in Section 5.
2 | LITERATURE REVIEW
AR and virtual reality (VR) are generally applied in
education for enhancing the learning experience and
knowledge of the students. In the existing literature,
numerous research papers have been presented to eval-
uate the influence of AR on learning skills, engagement,
and cognition [6,10,12]. Table 1 shows the comparison of
various existing AR and VR applications in engineering
education. The comparison of existing AR and VR ap-
plications is done by keeping in mind understanding the
design approach and different evaluation techniques for
determining the effectiveness of the learning environ-
ment. In engineering education, there are several AR/
VR‐based experiences available, but there is limited study
in the field of Physics that shows the abstract phenomena
to students. AR‐based interaction techniques have been
applied to teach the concept of magnetism, but still, they
lack in terms of interaction. In the existing research, it
was found that the magnetic field has been visualized
using the AR technique but still, it is a static experience
with no 3D model and real‐time interaction [24]. Dünser
et al. [15] taught the basic concept of magnetism in
Physics by using hand‐held devices and AR applications,
which suggest that AR helps to experience intangible
concepts in Physics. Sonntag et al. [34] generated the
TABLE 1 Comparison of various existing approaches
FARIDI

Reference Topic Approach Study design Findings Evaluation technique

ET AL.

Chang et al. [10] Principle of electromagnetism Augmented reality (AR)‐ Randomized AR learning approach has significantly improved Pre and postknowledge test
based flipped learning the critical thinking ability, and students
approach for science learning motivations
projects
Franklin Virtual reality (VR)‐based VR environment approach to Case study AR and VR technologies can help the students to Interaction‐based
et al. [17] demonstration for learning about the increase learning motivations performance analysis and
electromagnetism fundamental of Physics observation
Ozdemir Effect of AR on the learning process AR‐based mobile application Case study AR has increased students’ academic Meta‐analysis method
et al. [29] achievement and performance in Science‐ and
Engineering‐based education
Özdemir Factor affecting and problems to Case study on various Case study It has analyzed that students facing difficulty The right‐hand rule
et al. [40] understand Fleming rules concepts of Physics understanding the Fleming rules, to know the diagnostic test and
behavior of the magnetic field. It was found unstructured interview
that there are few studies on the
electromagnetic concepts using AR
González Virtual laboratory experience on VR‐based mobile application Randomized Practical experiences of electromagnetism and Saber prostyle pre and
et al. [18] the topic of electromagnetism approach the interaction of charged particles with posttest
electric or magnetic fields were not present in
this research paper
Choi et al. [13] Visualizing electric field and Vector field approach in Case study In this study, it was found that there is a need to Questionnaire and interview
magnetic field by using Mathematics visualize the magnetic fields to get practical method
Mathematica experience of the phenomenon
Cerrato et al. [8] A study on AR tools to measure the AR‐based study approach Case study AR technology has a measurable and positive Survey and Questionnaire
spatial ability of the students impact on students’ spatial ability method
Astra et al. [2] A Physics book equipped with AR AR‐based learning Randomized AR has increased student performance and Pre and posttest method
technology that teaches about application to understand learning ability
optical instruments an optical phenomenon
Sirakaya To identify students attitude in the AR application in inquiry‐ Randomized Students have a positive attitude towards AR General survey‐based model
et al. [33] direction of AR based learning approach
Gusmida Learning media using AR to explain AR approach is used to teach Case study In the present paper, it was observed that high‐ Validation test analysis
et al. [19] the kinetic theory of gases the abstract concepts of school students find it difficult to understand
Physics the fundamental concepts of Physics because
there are several concepts in Physics which
cannot be seen with the naked eye
|
3
4 | FARIDI ET AL.

magnetic induction line virtually and the magnetic model

is designed based on the teaching application. Matsutomo

Pre and posttest method

Evaluation technique
et al. [28] further improved the model by distributing and
plotting the induction line by using a computer‐generated
bar magnet. Ibanez et al. [23] developed an AR applica-
Survey method

Meta‐analysis
tion that can efficiently improve the basic understanding
of electromagnetic concepts and their phenomena. The
author observed that AR applications can help to achieve
a higher level of understanding as compared to web‐
based applications. In previous research, several learning‐
Using AR it is easy to learn about solar systems
Research outcomes suggested that AR helps in
learning and motivation. These approaches

based environments, simulations, and games were

increasing levels of independent thinking,
AR and VR have a great impact on student

created by utilizing AR techniques that demonstrate

help to break the boundaries of formal

computer‐generated 3D models to the students for

learning different and complex topics in a constructive
creativity, and critical thinking

way [11,14,22,26,39]. AR technology also reduces teacher

load, making the learning process easier [25]. AR
applications can prove to be useful in simulating the
complicated theoretical concepts (for e.g., interactive
experiment of inquiry‐based microparticles [7]) and dif-
ficult to perform experiments (for e.g., convex imaging‐
education

based experiment [4]).

Study design Findings

3 | METHODOLOGY
Randomized
Case study

Case study

3.1 | Participants

Students with an Electrical Engineering background

were chosen as a research sample. A total of 80 en-
AR, web camera, and virtual
The potential of AR in engineering AR‐based learning approach
VR‐based learning approach

gineering students participated in the research study. All

the participants have no or very little knowledge of AR
technology. Table 2 presents the participants' details. To
3D modeling

avoid the influence of the teacher, the same faculty

member taught the class for both groups.
Approach

3.2 | Material
To learn about earth and sun, and

The proposed ARLE is a marker‐based learning applica-

tion that provides interactive and enhanced knowledge
about Electrical Engineering concepts like electric motor
and generator, electromagnetism, working of the gal-
vanometer, voltmeter, and ammeter, and Gauss's law
day and night
Martín‐Gutiérrez VR in education

(i.e., Maxwell equations). It consists of interactive 3D

education
(Continued)

Topic

TABLE 2 Participants details

AR teaching Conventional
Gender group teaching group
Bower et al. [5]

Wu et al. [38]
et al. [27]

Male 32 34
Reference
TABLE 1

Female 8 6
Total 40 40
FARIDI ET AL.
models of bar magnets, solenoid carrying current, gal-
vanometer, and the closed surface of a sphere, cube, and
torus. It uses markers and device cameras for the detec-
tion of 3D objects and augmenting virtual objects over
that. The 3D models and animations are designed and
developed by using Autodesk Maya. The Unity 3D soft-
ware is used to develop the application using C#. In
Figure 1 the flowchart of ARLE is shown which defines
the arrangement of actions performed throughout the AR
system gameplay. As shown in Figure 1, AR visualization
starts as soon as the camera detects the marker and
students can visualize the AR content of a particular
learning activity depending upon the type of marker.
Each learning activity has different paper markers.
In the ARLE, students can generate the magnetic
field, exert the force in a conductor and change the
supply DC voltage by simply clicking the button showing
in a developed AR application. They can interchange the
position of a bar magnet to observe the behavior of a
magnetic field generated by the North and South Pole of
the bar magnet. Both audio and video instructions are
provided to help students interact with the ARLE. In the
user interface of ARLE, there are five options given to
learners for selecting the AR learning activity. After se-
lecting the learning activity, the AR view related to the
F I G U R E 1 Flowchart of the AR‐based
learning environment. AR, augmented
reality
| 5
learning activity appears on the user screen as shown in
Figure 2. A second input button corresponds to the
generator visualization. By selecting this input, the AR
view appears on the user screen as shown in Figure 3.
Similarly, selecting the third and fourth input AR view of
“Maxwell's equation” and “Solenoid carrying current”
appears on the user screen as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
The user would be able to change the voltage supply and
experience the effect of change in voltage in the case of
the motor as shown in Figure 4. Figure 6 represents the
concept of Gauss's law in magnetism and the magnetic
field generated due to the current‐carrying solenoid can
be visualized as shown in Figure 5. The entire system is
developed as a mobile application. The 3D models of a
bar magnet, conductor, battery, galvanometer, sphere,
cube, and torus are used as game objects. These game
objects are operated by C# script, which describes the
behavior of gameplay.
3.3 | Experiment design
The learning activity was conducted in a Physics research
laboratory. Initially, the students were given a basic in-
troduction about the fundamentals of Physics such as the
6 | FARIDI ET AL.

FIGURE 2 Augmented reality view for DC motor

FIGURE 3 Augmented reality view for a generator

FIGURE 4 Augmented reality view for the Gauss law in magnetism

FARIDI ET AL.
FIGURE 5 Augmented reality view of
the solenoid
FIGURE 6 Experiment design. ARLE, AR‐based learning
environment
Maxwell equations, magnetism, Gauss's law in magnet-
ism, Fleming's rule, the basic principle of motor and
generator, and galvanometer in the introductory session
to familiarize them with the subject matter. During the
introductory session, students were also informed about
the process of experimental research. This learning ac-
tivity is based on voluntary participation, so students
participated as per their interest. Also, it was informed to
the students that the scores of pretest and posttest
would not be considered for the general evaluation of the
course. After the introductory session, the students were
divided randomly into two groups: the AR teaching group
| 7
and the conventional teaching group. The process of the
randomized division of students into two groups was ta-
ken care of by the faculty member who did not know
about the experimental study, thus ensuring complete
randomized distribution of students.
After the division of students, a pretest was conducted
individually to evaluate the basic knowledge of the phe-
nomenon and to check the equal learning ability of both
groups on the same subject. In the pretest, students were
provided a questionnaire consisting of 15 multiple choice
questions related to the subject matter in which they
had to answer each question by selecting the correct
answer among four. The time limit given to the students
to accomplish the pretest was 20 min. The perfect score
for the pretest was 15. The AR teaching group con-
sisted of 40 students who were trained with the help of
ARLE and the conventional teaching group also con-
sisted of 40 students who were taught with the conven-
tional lecture‐based approach. To avoid the influence of
the teaching style of the teacher, the same teacher taught
both the groups. The teacher was aware of the different
interventions given to both groups, and the same teacher
was in charge of the student's assessment. Throughout
the learning procedure, the AR teaching group provided
training to understand the principles of the motor and
generator, Maxwell's equations, electricity, magnetism,
and Fleming's rule using the ARLE approach. The stu-
dents were also instructed in understanding the behavior
of the magnetic field and a current‐carrying conductor
with the help of ARLE. Previous studies suggest that it is
challenging to know the direction and behavior of mag-
netic field lines generated due to the current‐carrying
solenoid [23,40]. In this study, we overcame this problem
by using the ARLE approach as shown in Figure 5. The
learning activity lasted for 60 min for each group. After
the learning activity, the students of both groups were
told to take the posttest. The posttest consists of 10
multiple choice questions of 1 mark each and 5 multiple
choice questions of 2 marks each with a maximum score
8 |
of 20. The time limit to complete the posttest was 20 min
for both the groups. After the posttest, students were
asked to fill the Critical Thinking Questionnaire. Also,
the students of the AR teaching group were interviewed
to give their feedback and suggestions about the ARLE.
Figure 6 describes the research design to accomplish the
process.
3.4 | Measuring instruments
The measurement instruments used in this study consist
of a knowledge test and a Critical Thinking Ques-
tionnaire. The knowledge test was used to measure the
knowledge of students on the fundamentals of Physics
and the Critical Thinking Questionnaire was used to
evaluate the critical thinking skills of the students.
The knowledge test was conducted in pretest and
posttest design. The pretest was designed to evaluate
the student's knowledge before the experiment and
the posttest was designed to test the student's knowl-
edge after the intervention. The pretest consists of 15
multiple choice questions with a maximum score of 15
and the posttest consist of 15 multiple choice questions
with a maximum score of 20. Both pretest and posttest
were designed by the teacher having 6 years of ex-
perience in a related field.
Critical thinking is the process of analyzing, synthe-
sizing, and evaluating the facts to form a judgment and
conclusion. It comprises of Interpretation, Analysis,
Evaluation, Inference, And Explanation. The term In-
terpretation is used to express the meaning of a variety of
experiences, judgments, beliefs, rules, events, and pro-
cedures. The analysis is the process of identifying the
relationships among concepts, descriptions, statements,
and questions. The term Evaluation denotes calculat-
ing the credibility of representations, descriptions of a
student's perception and experiences. The term Inference
denotes identifying reasonable conclusions and forming
the hypothesis. The term Explanation denotes presenting
the results of particular reasoning. It means to be able to
give a picture of concepts to justify that reasoning in
TABLE 3 Descriptive statistics of pretest, posttest, and critical thinking
N Mean SD
Variable Statistic Statistic Statistic
Pretest 80 11.375 3.062
Posttest 80 13.925 3.129
Critical thinking 80 8.187 1.501
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error.
FARIDI ET AL.
terms of perceptions and experience. The questionnaire
for measuring the critical thinking abilities of students
was modified from the questionnaire developed by Chai
et al. [9]. It consists of six items (like “I will think about
whether what I have learned in this learning activity is
correct or not” and “In this learning activity, I will try to
understand the new knowledge from a different point of
view”) and students were asked to respond on 10 point
scale ranging from 1 to 10.
4 | R E S U LTS AN D A N A LY S I S
The data collected from the experimental study were
analyzed with the SPSS software to determine the out-
come of the study. Before applying a statistical test on the
data collected, the normality of data is tested. Table 3
presents descriptive statistics for pretest, posttest, and
critical thinking which suggests that data is normally
distributed, so an independent sample t‐test can be ap-
plied to determine the difference between the two groups.
4.1 | Analysis of knowledge test
Initially, a t‐test was conducted to determine the
knowledge of students about the fundamentals of Physics
before the experiment. Table 4 presents t‐test analysis of
the pretest which suggests that there is no significant
difference between the mean score of two groups as per
the p > .05.
After the experiment, Levene's test was conducted to
determine the equality of variances in posttest scores for
both groups. The p value of the Levene's test is greater
than .05 and with an F‐value of 0.574, which indicates
that there is inadequate data to conclude on the differ-
ence in variances for the two groups. So, an equal var-
iance was assumed between the groups. Now, a t‐test was
conducted to determine the difference in knowledge of
the two groups after the interventions. Table 5 presents
the t‐test analysis of posttest scores. The mean value of
posttest scores for the AR teaching group is 15.70 and
Skewness Kurtosis
Variance
Statistic Statistic SE Statistic SE
9.377 0.413 0.269 −0.804 0.532
9.792 −0.076 0.269 −0.974 0.532
2.256 −0.812 0.269 −0.019 0.532
FARIDI ET AL. | 9

TABLE 4 t‐Test analysis of pretest

95% Confidence interval

of the difference

Dependent variable Group N Mean SD t df p Lower Upper

Pretest AR teaching group 40 11.30 3.039 −0.218 78 .828 −1.521 1.221
Conventional teaching 40 11.45 3.121
group

Abbreviations: AR, augmented reality; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error.

TABLE 5 t‐Test analysis of posttest

95% Confidence interval

of the difference

Dependent variable Group N Mean SD t df p Cohen's d Lower Upper

Posttest AR teaching group 40 15.70 2.533 6.14 78 .000 1.373 2.398 4.701
Conventional teaching 40 12.15 2.636
group

Abbreviations: AR, augmented reality; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error.

that for the conventional teaching group is 12.15 with a
p < .05, which suggests that there is a significant differ-
ence between the knowledge gain of the two groups.
Cohen's d value for the posttest is 1.373, which shows a
large effect size. From the posttest analysis, it was found
that the AR intervention has a great impact on students
learning and knowledge development.
4.2 | Analysis of critical thinking ability
The mean value of the critical thinking score for the AR
teaching group is 8.75 and for conventional teaching, the
group score is 7.62 with a p < .05, which indicates that
there is a significant difference in the critical thinking
abilities of the two groups. Cohen's d value for critical
thinking ability is 0.807, which shows a large effect size.
The analysis of the Welch t‐test for critical thinking
ability indicates that AR intervention has a positive im-
pact on the critical thinking abilities of the students in
learning abstract concepts.

Firstly, Levene's test was used to determine the equality

of variance in the critical thinking abilities of the two
groups. The p value for Levene's test is less than .05 with
an F‐value of 8.704, which suggests that the variance is
not equal for both the groups. So, an equal variance was
not assumed between the groups. Now, a Welch t‐test
was conducted to analyze the difference between the
critical thinking ability of both the groups. Table 6 pre-
sents the Welch t‐test analysis for critical thinking skills.
5 | D I S C U S S I O N A ND
C O N C L US I ON
The main motive behind this study was to evaluate the
impact of ARLE on student's learning gain and the cri-
tical thinking abilities of the engineering students. In this
study, an ARLE was developed, which aimed to provide
an active learning experience to the students on the

TABLE 6 Welch t‐test analysis of critical thinking ability

95% Confidence interval

of the difference

Dependent variable Group N Mean SD t df p Cohen's d Lower Upper

Critical thinking AR teaching group 40 8.75 1.103 3.594 68.22 .001 0.807 0.501 1.748
ability Conventional teaching 40 7.62 1.643
group

Abbreviations: AR, augmented reality; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error.
10 | FARIDI
fundamentals of electromagnetism. An experimental
study was conducted in which students were divided into
two groups and provided different teaching interventions.
One group taught with ARLE and others with a con-
ventional teaching approach. The experimental results
suggest that ARLE has a positive impact on student's
learning gain and critical thinking abilities when com-
pared with the conventional teaching approach. In terms
of knowledge, the mean value of the posttest score of the
AR teaching group is 15.70 compared to the posttest score
of the conventional teaching group is 12.15, which sug-
gests that AR intervention has a significant positive im-
pact on the learning gain of engineering students. Using
ARLE, students interacted with 3D virtual content, which
provided a visualization of different concepts of Physics.
This helps students to understand the core concepts ea-
sily which further enhanced their knowledge retention
capabilities and practical learning abilities. These out-
comes strengthen the already existing research completed
by Ibanez et al. [22], Chang et al. [10], Singh et al. [32].
Besides this, it was observed that there is a difference
in the critical thinking abilities of the two groups. The
mean value of critical thinking for the AR teaching group
is 8.7 and that for the control group is 7.6 which indicates
that AR intervention has significantly enhanced the cri-
tical thinking ability of students. The main reason for this
improvement could be that students were fully engaged
with the subject matter during the learning activities that
efficaciously enhanced their learning motivation. The
students have stated that they visualized the abstract
concepts of Physics using ARLE, which helped them to
understand the concepts. ARLE provided an immersive
experience to the students through which they were able
to visualize the magnetic field, flow of current, and im-
pact of increasing the electric potential. All these abstract
concepts are difficult to imagine during conventional
teaching, due to which students lose attention in the
class. However, while learning with AR, the student can
visualize and interact with 3D virtual animated content,
which raises the attention, interaction, and motivation of
the student [36,37].
Overall, this study supports the fact that AR en-
hances the knowledge, attention, and practical skills of
the student. Students are excited and motivated to learn
through digital teaching platforms and environments.
During this pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019, AR
and VR technology can help teachers and academians to
develop effective learning environments and provide an
immersive learning experience to the students. It takes a
lot of time and money for developing an AR/VR learn-
ing environment, but academic institutions should help
researchers and academians in developing this as it
ET AL.
would be a useful resource for students and teachers
during online teaching.
ACKN OWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank all the members of
the AR/VR Research Laboratory of Chitkara University
Punjab, India, who helped in developing the learning
environment.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
ORCID
Harun Faridi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3483-3054
Neha Tuli http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1540-5978
Archana Mantri http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1036-3214
Gurjinder Singh http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0108-3042
Shubham Gargrish http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
9251-097X
RE FER E NCES
1. H. Altinpulluk, Determining the trends of using augmented
reality in education between 2006‐2016, Educ. Inf. Technol. 24
(2019), 1089–1114.
2. I. M. Astra, and F. Saputra, The development of a Physics
Knowledge Enrichment Book “optical Instrument Equipped with
Augmented Reality” to improve students’ learning outcomes,
J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1013 (2018), 012064.
3. C. Avilés‐Cruz, and J. Villegas‐Cortez, A smartphone‐based
augmented reality system for university students for learning di-
gital electronics, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 27 (2019), 615–630.
4. R. I. Barraza Castillo, V. G. Cruz Sánchez, and
O. O. Vergara Villegas, A pilot study on the use of mobile aug-
mented reality for interactive experimentation in quadratic
equations, Math. Probl. Eng. 2015 (2015), 1–13.
5. M. Bower et al., Augmented Reality in education—cases, places
and potentials, Educ. Media Int. 51 (2014), 1–15.
6. S. Cai et al., Applications of augmented reality‐based natural
interactive learning in magnetic field instruction, Interact.
Learn. Environ. 25 (2017), 778–791.
7. S. Cai, X. Wang, and F.‐K. Chiang, A case study of augmented
reality simulation system application in a Chemistry course,
Comput. Human. Behav. 37 (2014), 31–40.
8. A. Cerrato, G. Siano, and A. De Marco, Experience augmented
reality: From education and training applications to assessment
procedures, Qwerty 13 (2018).
9. C. S. Chai et al., Assessing multidimensional students’ percep-
tions of twenty‐first‐century learning practices, Asia Pacific
Educ. Rev. 16 (2015), 389–398.
10. S.‐C. Chang, and G.‐J. Hwang, Impacts of an augmented reality‐
based flipped learning guiding approach on students’ scientific
project performance and perceptions, Comput. Educ. 125 (2018),
226–239.
FARIDI ET AL.
11. K.‐H. Cheng, and C.‐C. Tsai, Affordances of augmented reality
in science learning: Suggestions for future research, J. Sci. Educ.
Technol. 22 (2013), 449–462.
12. T. H. C. Chiang, S. J. H. Yang, and G.‐J. Hwang, Students’
online interactive patterns in augmented reality‐based inquiry
activities, Comput. Educ. 78 (2014), 97–108.
13. Y. D. Choi, and H. J. Yun, Vector field platform for visualizing
electric and magnetic fields in matter using Mathematica,
J. Korean Phys. Soc. 74 (2019), 530–541.
14. Á. Di Serio, M. B. Ibáñez, and C. D. Kloos, Impact of an aug-
mented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art
course, Comput. Educ. 68 (2013), 586–596.
15. A. Dünser et al., Creating interactive Physics education books
with augmented reality, Proc. 24th Aust. Comput. Interact.
Conf. OzCHI 2012.
16. A. Echeverría et al., Exploring different technological platforms
for supporting co‐located collaborative games in the classroom,
Comput. Human. Behav. 28 (2012), 1170–1177.
17. J. Franklin, and A. Ryder, Electromagnetic field visualization in
virtual reality, Am. J. Phys. 87 (2019), 153–157.
18. J. D. González et al., Impact of the use of virtual laboratories of
electromagnetism in the development of competences in en-
gineering students, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1247 (2019), 012018.
19. R. Gusmida, and N. Islami, The development of learning media
for the kinetic theory of gases using the ADDIE Model with
augmented reality, J. Educ. Sci. 1 (2017), 1.
20. H. Heflin, J. Shewmaker, and J. Nguyen, Impact of mobile
technology on student attitudes, engagement, and learning,
Comput. Educ. 107 (2017), 91–99.
21. K. T. Huang et al., Augmented versus virtual reality in education:
An exploratory study examining science knowledge retention when
using augmented reality/virtual reality mobile applications,
Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 22 (2019), 105–110.
22. M.‐B. Ibanez et al., Support for augmented reality simulation
systems: The effects of scaffolding on learning outcomes and
behavior patterns, IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 9 (2016), 46–56.
23. M. B. Ibáñez et al., Experimenting with electromagnetism using
augmented reality: Impact on flow student experience and edu-
cational effectiveness, Comput. Educ. 71 (2014), 1–13.
24. F. Mannus et al., Augmenting magnetic field lines for school
experiments, 2011 10th IEEE Int. Symp. Mix. Augment. Real.,
IEEE, 2011, pp. 263–264.
25. A. Mart et al., Supporting teacher orchestration in ubiquitous
learning environments: A study in primary education, IEEE
Trans. Learn. Technol. 8 (2015).
26. J. Martín‐Gutiérrez et al., Augmented reality to promote colla-
borative and autonomous learning in higher education, Comput.
Human. Behav. 51 (2015), 752–761.
27. J. Martín‐Gutiérrez et al., Virtual technologies trends in educa-
tion, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13 (2017), no. 2,
469–486.
28. S. Matsutomo et al., Real‐time visualization system of magnetic
field utilizing augmented reality technology for education, IEEE
Trans. Magn. 48 (2012), 531–534.
29. M. Ozdemir et al., The effect of augmented reality applications in
the learning process: A meta analysis study, Eurasian J. Educ.
Res. 18 (2018), 1–22.
30. S. Park, and C. Kim, Boosting learning‐by‐teaching in virtual
tutoring, Comput. Educ. 82 (2015), 129–140.
| 11
31. D. Prit Kaur, A. Mantri, and B. Horan, A framework utilizing
augmented reality to enhance the teaching–learning experience
of linear control systems, IETE J. Res. 2063 (2018), 1–10.
32. G. Singh et al., Evaluating the impact of the augmented reality
learning environment on electronics laboratory skills of en-
gineering students, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 27 (2019),
1361–1375.
33. M. Sirakaya, and E. Kiliç Çakmak, Investigating student atti-
tudes towards augmented reality, Malaysia Online J. Educ.
Tech. 6 (2018), no. 1, 30–44.
34. D. Sonntag et al., Hybrid learning environments by data‐driven
augmented reality, Procedia Manuf. 31 (2019), 32–37.
35. S. Tumkor, Personalization of engineering education with the
mixed reality mobile applications, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 26
(2018), 1734–1741.
36. Y.‐H. Wang, Using augmented reality to support a software
editing course for college students, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 33
(2017), 532–546.
37. X. Wei et al., Teaching based on augmented reality for a tech-
nical creative design course, Comput. Educ. 81 (2015), 221–234.
38. H.‐K. Wu et al., Current status, opportunities and challenges of
augmented reality in education, Comput. Educ. 62 (2013), 41–49.
39. M.‐T. Yang, and W.‐C. Liao, Computer‐assisted culture learning
in an online augmented reality environment based on Free‐Hand
Gesture Interaction, IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 7 (2014),
107–117.
40. E. Özdemir, and M. Coramik, Reasons of student difficulties
with right‐hand rules in electromagnetism, J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 17
(2018), 320–330.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Harun Faridi has completed Masters of
Technology from Chitkara University,
Punjab in the field of Augmented Reality
for Engineering Education. He is a Game
Development faculty at iNurture Educa-
tion Solution. His research interest includes Augmen-
ted Reality, Virtual reality in Education, Creative UI/
UX designing and 2D and 3D game development.
Neha Tuli is an Assistant Professor in
Chitkara University, Punjab, India. She is
PhD in Computer Science and Engineer-
ing in the area of Augmented Reality for
Early Childhood. Her areas of expertise
are Serious Educational Games, Augmented Reality/
Virtual Reality in Education, Usability, UI/UX.
Archana Mantri is Vice‐Chancellor of
Chitkara University, Punjab, India. She
received PhD in Electronics and Commu-
nication Engineering with more than 30
years of experience in Research, Develop-
ment, Training, Academics, and Administration of
12 | FARIDI
Institutes of Higher Technical Education. Her areas of
expertise are Project Management, Problem‐ and
Project‐Based Learning, Curriculum Design & Develop-
ment, Pedagogical Innovation and Management. Her
areas of interest include Change Management, Educa-
tion Technology, Cognitive Sciences, Predictive Analy-
sis, Technical Writing, Assessment Technologies,
Augmented Reality, and Electronics & Communication
Engineering. She is on the board of international experts
in Indo‐Universal Collaboration of Engineering Educa-
tion and advises in the areas of Pedagogical Innovations.
She has worked on various contract research assign-
ments in the areas of Innovation Management, Accred-
itation and Quality Enhancements. Currently, she is
supervising several PhD scholars in the areas of Virtual
Reality and Augmented Reality. She is a senior member
of IEEE.
Gurjinder Singh received his PhD
degree in Engineering & Technology
from Chitkara University, Punjab, India
in 2020. He received his Master's and
Bachelor's degree in Electronics and
Communication Engineering from Punjab Technical
University, Jalandhar, Punjab, India in 2014 and
2009, respectively. He is an Assistant Professor at
ET AL.
Chitkara University, Punjab, India and having more
than 10 years of experience in teaching and research.
His research interests include Augmented and
Virtual Reality Applications, Human–Computer In-
teraction, Human Cognition, Engineering Education,
Interactive Learning Environment, and Embedded
Systems.
Shubham Gargrish is pursuing her
PhD from Chitkara University, Rajpura,
Punjab, in the area of Augmented
Reality for School Education. She is an
Assistant Professor at the Chitkara
Institute of Engineering and Technology. Her re-
search interests include Embedded Systems,
Human–Computer Interaction and Computer Vision.
How to cite this article: Faridi H, Tuli N, Mantri
A, Singh G, Gargrish S. A framework utilizing
augmented reality to improve critical thinking
ability and learning gain of the students in Physics.
Comput Appl Eng Educ. 2020;1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22342
FARIDI ET AL. | 13

AP P E N D I X A : P R E T E ST

1. The direction of the magnetic field

a. Back to front b. Front to Back c. North to South d. South to North

2. The objects are repelled or attracted by one another because of

a. Sound b. Magnetism c. Light d. Air

3. The source of magnetism is

a. Frequency domain b. Split Ring c. Charged Particles d. Magnetic Dipoles

4. The direction of the magnetic force can be determined by using

a. The right‐hand rule b. Right Rotation Rule c. Left rotation rule d. Left‐hand rule

5. The direction of induced current can be determined by using

a. Left rotation rule b. Fleming's rule c. Right‐hand rule d. Left‐hand rule

6. Maximum force appear in a conductor when the conductor is

a. Perpendicular to the b. Parallel to the c. In backward d. All of these

magnetic field magnetic field direction

7. The thumb indicates the direction of

a. Current b. The motion of the c. Magnetic field d. None of these

conductor

8. The forefinger represents in fleming left‐hand rule

a. Magnetic field b. Current c. The motion of d. None of these

conductor

9. Electrical energy can be converted into mechanical energy by using

a. Motor b. Windmill c. Generator d. Transformer

10. For which purpose an electrical motor used

a. Electric fans b. Refrigerator c. Washing Machine d. All of these

11. Which device is used to change the direction of current within a circuit

a. Carbon brush b. Coil c. Commutator d. Permanent magnet

12. The carbon strips used to pass electric current to the coil are known:

a. Commutator b. Magnet c. Battery d. Brushes

14 | FARIDI ET AL.

13. Draw the magnetic field lines generated due to current‐carrying solenoid
Ans:

14. The force appears in a wire placed in a magnetic field increases when

a. The current in the b. The strength of the c. All of the above d. None of these
wire increases magnetic field
increases

15. The amount of magnetic flux through any closed surface is equal to

a. Infinite b. Zero c. Finite d. None of these

APPENDIX B: POSTTEST

1. …………………………is a vector quantity

a. Relative permeability
b. Magnetic field intensity
c. Flux density
d. Magnetic potential
2. A magnetic field exist around
a. Iron
b. Copper
c. Aluminium
d. Moving charge temporary magnet
3. When an iron piece is placed in a magnetic field
a. The magnetic lines of force will bend away from their usual paths in order to go away from the piece
b. The magnetic lines of force will bend away from their usual paths in order to pass through the piece
c. The magnetic field will not be affected
d. The iron piece will break
4. Temporary magnets are used in
a. Loud‐speakers
b. Generators
c. Motors
d. All of the above
5. One Maxwell is equal to……
a. 10 weber
b. 12 weber
c. 15 weber
d. 20 weber
6. Which of these is not a flux unit
a. Maxwell
b. Tesla
c. Weber
d. All of the above
7. Flux unit is same as
a. Reluctance
b. Resistance
FARIDI ET AL. | 15

c. Permeance
d. Pole strength
8. A permanent magnet
a. Attracts some substances and repels others
b. Attracts all paramagnetic substances and repels others
c. Attracts only ferromagnetic substances
d. Attracts ferromagnetic substances and repels all others
9. A coil of wire is placed in a changing magnetic field. If the number of turns in the coil is decreased, the voltage
induced across the coil will
a. Increase
b. Decrease
c. Constant
d. None of these
10. Magnetism of a magnet can be destroyed by
a. Heating
b. Hammering
c. By inductive action of another magnet
d. By all above methods
11. A square cross‐sectional magnet has a pole strength of 1 × 10 Wb and cross‐sectional area of 20 mm × 20 mm. What
is the strength at a distance of 100 mm from the unit pole in air?
a. 63.38 N/Wb
b. 633.8 N/Wb
c. 6,338 N/Wb
d. 63,380 N/Wb
12. What will be the current passing through the ring‐shaped air‐cored coil when number of turns is 800 and ampere
turns are 3,200?
a. 2 A
b. 3 A
c. 6 A
d. 8 A
13. The diagram shows two poles of a magnet.

X is the position of a wire carrying a current perpendicularly into the paper.

Which direction does the wire move?

A ↓
B →
C ←
D ↑
16 | FARIDI ET AL.

14. A student investigated the behavior of the magnetic effect of a current‐carrying wire and drawn the following
graph with experiment results. Write your interpretation of the graph.

15. What is the magneto‐motive force (mmf) of a wire with 8 turns carrying 3 A of current?
a. 2,400 At
b. 240 At
c. 24 At
d. 2.4 At

A P P E N D I X C : Q UE S T I O N N A I R E FO R M E A S U RI NG C R I TI C AL TH I NK IN G A BI LI T Y

1. I will think about whether what I have learned in this learning activity is correct or not.
2. I will judge the value of the new information or evidence presented to me.
3. In this learning activity, I will try to understand the new knowledge from a different point of view.
4. In this learning activity, I will evaluate different opinions to see which one is more reasonable.
5. In this learning activity, I can tell which information is acceptable.
6. During the learning activity, I will identify facts that are supported by evidence.