Enhancing Teaching and Learning of Art Appreciation Through Augmented Reality in Art Education: A Conceptual Framework

Art appreciation is an important aspect of art education, emphasises students’ capability of interpreting and appraising works of art in a critical and meaningful way. However, the traditional teaching approach, which is centred on teachers and the use of static visual materials often restrict students’ level of understanding and involvement. In line with educational technology in the 21st century, augmented reality (AR) has emerged as an innovative approach that has the potential to enhance the learning experience through the integration of the digital element into the real world. This conceptual article seeks to develop a conceptual framework to explain how AR can enhance the teaching and learning of art appreciation in art education. Discussion based on the literature review shows that AR enhances interactivity, motivation, and students’ understanding of visual concept. The proposed conceptual framework connects AR elements, the interactive learning process and the outcome of art appreciation. This article contributes to the theory development in art education based on technology, also opens up space for future empirical studies.

Augmented reality, art appreciation, art education, conceptual framework, digital learning

1. Akcayir, M., & Akcayir, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence, 6(4), 355–385.https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bacca-Acosta, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education. A Systematic review `of research and applications. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133–149 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Burton, J. M. (1994). The arts in school reform: Other conversations. Teachers College Record, 95(4), 477–493 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Billinghurst, M., & Duenser, A. (2012). Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer, 45(7), 56–63. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6171143 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado Kloos, C. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Efland, A. D. (2002). Art and cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum.Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Feldman, E. B. (1994). Practical art criticism. Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2019). Meta-analysis of augmented reality in education. Educational Research Review, 27, 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.04.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hamblen, K. A. (1987). Approaches to art criticism. Art Education, Vol. 40, No. 5. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning. Computers & Education, 123, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Parsons, M. (1987). How we understand art. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18, 1533-1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0747-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Winner, E., Goldstein, T. R., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Art for art’s sake? The impact of arts education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264180789-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Chang, H. Y., & Liang, J. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers and Education, 62, 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study