International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) – eISSN: 1865-7923 – Vol 16 No 16 (2022) Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i16.31741 Evanthia Roumba, Iolie Nicolaidou() Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus iolie.nicolaidou@cut.ac.cy Abstract—Augmented Reality (AR) books show potential to increase young learners’ reading motivation, which is important given children’s declining reading motivation over the school years. Previous studies measured reading motivation only in higher education and only after users’ experience with AR. Few empirical studies focused on primary education children and those examined attitudes, not motivation. This study aimed to: a) examine how young children’s motivation changes through the experience of reading AR books and b) document their atti- tudes and behaviors after this experience. The theoretical framework was based on Keller’s ARCS model of motivation. Participants in this pre-test post-test case study were 40 fourth and fifth graders. Data sources included validated ques- tionnaires and an observation protocol of children’s behavior while interacting with AR books. Children’s motivation had a statistically significant increase in attention (t39 = –3.07, p < 0.01), confidence (t39 = –2.44, p < 0.05) and satisfac- tion (t39 = –3.26, p < 0.01). Children showed a high level of enthusiasm with AR technology when interacting with the first AR book, which notably decreased with the second book. The children maintained positive attitudes and behaviors towards AR. The study showed that even through short-term interactions, AR books have the potential to increase young students’ reading motivation. It adds to our knowledge concerning the use of AR books by primary school children, who are under-represented in the literature. Directions for future research are drawn. Keywords—augmented reality, reading motivation, attitudes, behaviors, primary school, young children 1 Introduction Advances in technology provide the opportunity to better support learners’ cognitive needs and to create student-centered learning environments [1] that enhance students’ motivation to learn. Examples of innovative student-centered learning environments include web-based interactive learning environments [2], [3], gamified applications for mobile devices [4], applications employing the Internet of Things [5], immersive virtual reality applications, and augmented reality (AR) applications. These emerging technologies allow for immersive and experiential learning within a classroom [6] while at the same time being motivational for learners to use. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 16, 2022 59 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i16.31741 mailto:iolie.nicolaidou@cut.ac.cy Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers Technological advances have affected students’ reading. Technology-enabled reading has become increasingly popular. AR applications with educational features offer young readers an exciting experience [7], and augmented reality is expected to increase students’ learning attitudes [8]. Digital technologies enable modern reading to be more convenient and are expected to increase children’s reading interest [4], [9] and enhance early childhood literacy [10]. However, parental concerns associate digital books with leading children to lose interest in print books [11]. Augmented reality books combine physical books with the interactive potential provided by digital media, such as 3D graphics accessible using a QR Code and a mobile device. They constitute a playful and engaging way for enhancing teaching and learning [1] that at the same time addresses parental concerns. Augmented reality books have been recently shown to improve reading comprehension compared to print books in a small scale study with 34 children aged 7 to 9 [12] and in a study with 89 secondary school students [13]. Data suggests a reduction in the number of readers worldwide and a decreasing amount of time spent on reading [14]. For example, the percentage of middle school students who read on a daily basis declined significantly during the last decades [15]. Studies show that even though kindergarten children have high motivation for reading [16], many children’s motivation to read declines over the school years [17]. Lee and Zantall (2017) also found that motivation and reading behavior decrease from elementary to middle school [18]. Similarly, the relation of students’ attitudes and beliefs about read- ing with actual reading is weaker for middle school students compared to elementary school students, as shown by meta-analyses, which is another indication of declining motivation for reading over the school years [19]. Therefore, it is crucial to examine whether augmented reality books’ affordances increase young children’s motivation for reading. The present study focuses on a) examining how young children’s motivation for learning changes and b) documenting their attitudes and behaviors after reading two AR books. What is unique in this study is that it focuses on young children, a target population underrepresented in this field. Moreover, the study implements a pre-post experimental methodology to measure the effect of AR on children’s motivation, which was not encountered in any other study in the field at this age group. 1.1 Related work Earlier contributions explored the problem of low or declining motivation for read- ing by suggesting intervention programs that did not necessarily use technology [20], [21] and interventions that involved e-reading on screens [22] and AR textbooks [23] that indicated that technologically supported interventions have the potential to increase students’ reading motivation. Previous studies focused on the impact of AR tools in dif- ferent levels of formal education and different application domains. Studies focused on the effect of AR tools on university students’ foreign language learning and vocabulary [24], [25], on middle school students’ performance in biology [26] and science [27], on primary school students’ storytelling skills [28] and on kindergarten students’ art education [29]. Only a small percentage (16%) of reviewed studies in the field of AR applications were conducted in primary education, based on a meta-analysis of papers published between 2001–2019 [30]. With respect to AR books, in particular, several 60 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers research studies focused on the use of AR books by university students [31]–[35] to examine their cognitive load, motivation, and attitudes [33], [34] to examine their learn- ing in Biology [35], and to examine their motivation and improvement in academic performance [31], [32]. The majority of previous studies measured attitudes and behav- iors, such as acceptance, adoption, and confidence towards AR books targeting adults, for example, university students [33] or future teachers [6], [36] or parents [37]–[39]. The studies that targeted parents examined their interaction with young children while reading AR books [37], [39]. The most commonly used methods for data collection in studies that used augmented reality in educational settings were questionnaires [40]. Fewer research studies focused on the use of AR books by young children, and those primarily focused on their interaction with and attitudes towards AR books [1], [41]–[44] and did not address their reading motivation. Related work involving primary school students investigated how young children interact with augmented reality storybooks using observational methods [34], [35]. Dunser and Hornecker (2007) had a deliberate sample of good readers in their study and were interested in studying how interactiv- ity supports collaborative learning. Their methodology included individual interviews post-experience [41]. Dunser and Hornecker (2007) showed that AR books that allow children to engage with the content interactively might be a suitable learning medium to support low-ability readers [42]. Following up on this direction, Meletiou-Mavrotheris et al. (2020) exploited the affordances of AR to address the underachievement of Euro- pean youth in reading skills [1]. Their study focused on teachers and upper primary and lower secondary school students. Results from 100 students, the vast majority of whom were aged 11–12, showed relatively positive attitudes towards reading in general and through using AR. Working with younger children, Yilmaz et al. (2017) examined pre- school students’ attitudes towards augmented reality picture books [43]. Lastly, a study that explored the potential of AR books to influence the reading atti- tudes of 8–9-year-old children showed that the majority of young children who had positive attitudes towards reading before their first experience with an AR book enjoyed reading an AR book. Quantitative data analysis showed the majority of children claim- ing that they would read books with a higher frequency if those were AR books [45]. However, qualitative data analysis revealed contradictory findings, as a significant number of children that cannot be dismissed (40%, 12/30) seemed to find “reading enhanced with the AR experience” unattractive [45], signaling the need for further studies on young children’s attitudes and motivation to use AR books. 1.2 Necessity of study Previous studies that measured reading motivation in relation to AR books were only conducted in higher education and measured motivation only after users’ experience with AR [25], [32], [34]. The only study identified in the literature that measured moti- vation pre and post an AR experience with children was a recent study by [46], which focused on lower primary school children’s geometry performance and not reading. Even though measuring motivation or attitudes once, appears to be common practice [45], [47], there are limitations in this approach as it misses a baseline measurement and therefore cannot detect changes in students’ motivation nor compare students’ motivation before and after an AR experience. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 16, 2022 61 Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers The present study focuses on young children, a target population underrepresented with respect to research in AR books. It furthermore uses a pre-post experimental methodology, which allows establishing a baseline and comparing children’s motiva- tion before and after the AR experience, an element that is missing from previous stud- ies. As a second aim, in line with previous studies that investigated participants’ reading habits and attitudes in upper primary and lower secondary school [1] or pre-school [43] relying on post-surveys administered to students at the end of the program or interven- tion, the present study documents primary school children’s attitudes and behaviors after an AR experience. 2 Methodology This study examines changes in children’s motivation for learning after reading Augmented Reality books and documents their attitudes and behaviors after the AR experience. 2.1 Research design The research design of the study was a pre-test post-test case study. 2.2 Research questions a) How does the motivation of 4th and 5th-grade students change after reading Augmented Reality books? b) What are 4th and 5th-grade students’ attitudes and behaviors after reading Augmented Reality books? 2.3 Participants, sampling, and ethical concerns The study was conducted according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The study followed American Psychological Association (APA) ethical standards and General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) guide- lines. Its protocol is in accordance with the guidelines provided by the University Ethics Committee, and it was approved by the country’s National Bioethics Com- mittee (ΕΕΒΚ ΕΠ 2019.01.158, Sep13th 2019) and by the country’s National Center for Educational Research and Evaluation (7.15.06.15. 1/3, October 25th, 2019). After receiving approval for conducting the study by the Director of Primary Education and by the principals of two public primary schools located in the second major city of the country (convenience sampling), all 4th and 5th-grade students’ parents received a letter explaining the aim of the study and inviting their children to participate in the study. The requirements of the study included children’s participation in two individual 2-hour meetings with the researcher scheduled in non-school time over approximately two weeks. The total number of children who received an invitation letter was 180. 62 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers A total of 40 students (22%, 40/180) responded positively and accepted the invitation by having their parent or guardian sign an informed consent form to participate in the study voluntarily. Therefore, participants of the study included 20 4th grade students (12 boys; 8 girls) and 20 5th grade students (11 boys; 9 girls). 2.4 Data sources Three data sources were used for this study: a) a questionnaire measuring motivation, b) a questionnaire measuring attitudes and behaviors, and c) an observation protocol of children’s behavior while engaging with AR books, which was combined with timing children’s behavior. The first data source was a reliable questionnaire to measure three dimensions of motivation: attention, confidence, and satisfaction [34], based on Keller’s ARCS model of motivation [48]. It consisted of 10 items, accompanied by a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Completely disagree to Completely agree. Example statements are the following: “I pay attention to read the AR book continuously” (attention) [34], “I believe that reading with the aid of AR technology can be helpful for better under- standing the content of the book” (confidence) [34], and “I am dissatisfied with the experiences of the AR book reading” (satisfaction) [34]. The last statement, which was negatively phrased, was scored reversely. The motivation instrument had an overall reliability alpha value of 0.88. Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension measured was as follows: Attention scale = 0.82 (four items), Confidence scale = 0.80, (three items), and Satisfaction scale = 0.76 (three items) [34]. The motivation questionnaire was admin- istered pre- and post. The second data source was a questionnaire measuring attitudes (perceived con- trol and perceived usefulness) and behaviors (behavior of learning and behavior of AR learning) [34]. The questionnaire consisted of four items for perceived control, four items for perceived usefulness, five items for learning behavior, and four items for the behavior of AR learning. A five-point Likert scale was used, ranging from 1 (Completely disagree) to 5 (Completely agree). Example statements are the follow- ing: “I think the AR book is easy to use” (Perceived control) [34], “The AR book can help me understand the content more clearly” (Perceived usefulness) [34], “I hope to read more information regarding the topic of the AR book” (Behaviour of learning) [34] and “I hope to have more opportunities to learn using AR technology” (Behaviour of AR learning) [34]. “The overall reliability alpha value was 0.87. The overall reliabil- ity alpha values were 0.75, 0.77, 0.89, and 0.82 for each scale, respectively, indicating satisfactory internal consistency of the survey” [34]. The third data source was an observation protocol of children’s behavior while engaging with AR books, which was combined with timing their behavior. Behaviors that were recorded for each child were the following: a) reads fluently or has difficulty reading, b) appears concentrated or appears bored, c) reluctantly turns pages or appears motivated to read the next page, d) interrupts the reading process to ask a question that is relevant/irrelevant to the content or does not interrupt the process, and e) appears excited with AR. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 16, 2022 63 Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers 2.5 Data collection Each child had two individual meetings with the first author of the study. During the first meeting, participating children were asked to complete the motivation ques- tionnaire as a pre-test. They were then asked to read an AR book whose theme focused on some of the most important world’s monuments. Children read a second AR space- themed book focusing on the Sun and other planets in the second meeting and then answered the same motivation questionnaire as a post-test. They also completed an attitudes and behaviors questionnaire. Children used a smartphone on which the AR application accompanying the book was pre-installed. They accessed 3D models of monuments in the first book and 3D models of planets in the second book, which included sound, using QR codes printed in these books. During both meetings, the first author timed children’s active reading. Active reading time is operationalized as the time children spent reading the book, excluding any visible interruptions of their reading. If children interrupted their reading for any reason, such as asking a question, the timer was paused during that time. The first author also completed an observation protocol for each child. The first author acted as a passive observer in the study without participating or affecting the process in any way. She only answered children’s clarify- ing questions, if there were any, concerning the statements included in the instruments. She did not participate in the process of reading the book, which was an activity that children engaged in individually at their own pace. The duration of each meeting was approximately 1.5 hours. The time in-between the two meetings varied from one to two weeks. 2.6 Data analysis All quantitative data were input into a statistical package (IBM SPSS Statistics 25). For the analysis of RQ1, each dimension of motivation (attention, confidence, and sat- isfaction) was calculated as the composite score consisting of children’s answers in the three or four relevant Likert-scale items. Students’ answers in negatively phrased statements were reversed before calculating the composite score. Pre-test and post-test motivation scores were compared using paired samples t-tests. An alpha level of 0.05 was set a priori for these statistical analyses. The same procedure was followed for the dimensions of the questionnaire measur- ing attitudes (perceived control and perceived usefulness) and behaviors (behavior of learning and behavior of AR learning). Descriptive statistics (M, SD) were used for the study’s second research question to report children’s attitudes toward AR books. 3 Results 3.1 RQ1 changes in motivation after reading augmented reality books The first research question attempted to examine changes in children’s motivation after reading two AR books. Table 1 shows children’s motivation in three dimensions (attention, confidence, satisfaction) before and after reading AR books. 64 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers Table 1. Children’s motivation in three dimensions (attention, confidence, satisfaction) before and after reading AR books Pre-test Post-test M SD M SD Attention 3.91 0.68 4.17** 0.56 Confidence 4.06 0.86 4.35* 0.58 Satisfaction 3.74 1.13 4.16** 0.77 Notes: * indicates p<0.05; ** indicates p<0.01. Children’s motivation to learn had a statistically significant increase in all three dimensions of attention, confidence and satisfaction. Specifically, their attention increased from M = 3.91 (SD = 0.68) to M = 4.17 (SD = 0.56) [t39 = –3.07, p = 0.004]. Similarly, their confidence increased from M = 4.06 (SD = 0.86) to M = 4.35 (SD = 0.58) [t39 = –2.44, p = 0.019], and, the most note-worthy change was found for satisfaction, which increased from M = 3.74 (SD = 1.13) to M = 4.16 (SD = 0.77) [t39 = –3.26, p = 0.002], respectively. Children spent on average 48 minutes actively reading the first book (M = 48.26, SD = 10.53, min = 29, max = 80) during their first meeting and 46 minutes reading the second book (M = 46.25, SD = 9.34, min = 29, max = 75) during their second meeting with the researcher. Using the Spearman’s rho coefficient, correlation analysis was con- ducted between the time students spent reading AR books and their responses to specific questions revolving around their attention, happiness, and satisfaction while reading such books. A statistically significant moderate positive correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.33, p = 0.033, N = 40) was found between the total time children spent actively reading AR books (M = 94.52 minutes, SD = 18.80) and their response concerning continuous atten- tion while reading AR books (M = 4.13, SD = 0.72). A statistically significant moderate positive correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.4, p = 0.010, N = 40) was also found between the total time children spent actively reading AR books (M = 94.52 minutes, SD = 18.80) and their reported happiness while reading AR books (M = 4.23, SD = 0.77). Finally, a statistically significant moderate positive correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.35, p = 0.027, N = 40) was found between the total time children spent actively reading AR books (M = 94.52 minutes, SD = 18.80) and their reported over- all satisfaction after reading AR books (M = 4.17, SD = 0.77). These findings indi- cate that the more time children spent actively reading AR books, the greater their reported attention, happiness, and satisfaction from reading AR books. 3.2 RQ2 children’s attitudes and behaviors after reading augmented reality books The second research question focused on measuring children’s attitudes and behav- iors after the AR book reading experience. As Table 2 shows, children’s attitudes towards the AR books were positive, as their perceived control (M = 4.13, SD = 0.66) and perceived usefulness (M = 4.15, SD = 0.54) mean scores exceeded 4 out of 5. This finding indicates strong agreement with statements regarding children’s ability to control the technology and use it unassisted without difficulty (perceived control) and strong agreement with statements regarding the usefulness of AR books for children’s iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 16, 2022 65 Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers understanding of the topic of the books (perceived usefulness). The children had positive behavior towards AR books, as the same finding was observed for the behavior of learning (M = 4.03, SD = 0.68) and behavior of AR learning (M = 4.22, SD = 0.71), both of which were evaluated positively. Table 2. Children’s attitudes and behavior after reading AR books Attitudes and Behaviors Dimensions Post AR Experience M SD Attitudes Perceived control 4.13 0.66 Perceived usefulness 4.15 0.54 Behaviors Behavior of learning 4.03 0.68 Behavior of AR learning 4.22 0.71 Children generally thought that AR technology was easy to use (37/40, 93.5%) and that they could learn how to use it in a short time (33/40, 83%). They agreed or strongly agreed that AR books are helpful for learning (36/40, 34/40, 87.5%) and can help them better understand the content (37/40, 36/40, 91%). AR helped children think of differ- ent ideas (35/40, 33/40, 85%); thus, they considered AR an alternative learning method (33/40, 34/40, 84%). After reading AR books, children wanted to learn and read more information about the topics of the books, specifically about the world’s monuments (33/40, 83%) and about space (32/40, 80%). They hoped to have an opportunity to learn more about AR technology (33/40, 83%), to read additional AR books on different top- ics (36/40, 90%), and expected more AR applications in learning (33/40, 83%). Based on the results of the observation protocol, during children’s reading in the first and second meeting, almost all children read comfortably (37/40, 92.5%), they seemed focused while reading the book (35/40, 87.5%), and they were eager to turn the pages and read more (35/40, 87.5%). They asked questions and some children made comments that were relevant to the topic of either the first book (19/40, 47.5%) or the second book (16/40, 40%). The enthusiasm with AR was measured by recording the frequency of children’s gestures, facial expressions, and exclamations. Examples of behaviors that indicated enthusiasm with AR included: e.g., the child raising their eyebrows showing surprise, the child saying “wow”, the child saying “wow, cool, I’ve never seen anything like this”, etc. The maximum number of behaviors showing enthusiasm reported for a sin- gle child was 5. There was more enthusiasm with AR in the first book, as 44 instances of enthusiasm were recorded compared to 18 instances of enthusiasm recorded in the second book. One indication of enthusiasm was recorded for 11 children, two indica- tions of enthusiasm for 12 children, and two indications of enthusiasm for three chil- dren. Four and five indications of enthusiasm were recorded for only one child. 4 Discussion Earlier studies explored the problem of children’s low or declining motivation for reading by suggesting intervention programs at different grade levels [20]–[22]. The use of AR applications in an educational environment for enhancing motivation is 66 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers a relatively recent development [23]. Further studies are needed to ensure they are utilized in the most effective way [13]. This study aimed to examine how young chil- dren’s reading motivation changes through the experience of reading Augmented Real- ity books and to document their attitudes and behaviors after the experience of reading two AR books. With respect to the study’s first aim, children’s motivation significantly increased in all three dimensions of attention, confidence and satisfaction. The highest change from pre-test to post-test was found for satisfaction. This finding is corroborated with the results of a previous quasi-experimental study that used AR books in science in formal education and also found their positive impact on students’ satisfaction [23]. The results of the first research question of our study showed that even a short-term use of augmented reality books increases young children’s motivation for reading. This is a significant finding in light of studies showing that even though kindergarten children have high motivation for reading [16], many children’s motivation to read declines over the school years [17]. Previous studies [25], [32], [39] assessed motivation only once, missed a baseline measurement, and could not detect changes in students’ moti- vation nor compare students’ motivation before and after an AR experience. Our study overcame this limitation and showed that AR books, as emerging technologies, have the potential to positively affect young students’ motivation to read and potentially contribute to an increase in children’s reading interest [4]. This finding is in accordance with the existing research literature showing the positive impact of the augmented read- ing approach on students’ motivation [32], [34], [37], [43] and reading interest [9]. More specifically, the study’s findings with young children agree with the results of Cheng (2017), who used the same instruments for measuring motivation and attitudes of higher education students, and found that, in general, university students had stron- ger motivation and more positive attitudes towards their learning experiences when reading an AR book [34]. Children’s increased motivation for reading over time is a significant finding in relation to the positive correlation found in this study between the time children spent actively reading books and their self-reported attention, happiness, and satisfaction from reading AR books. The findings of this study indicate that the more time children spent actively reading AR books, the higher their reported motiva- tion. This corroborates findings from the literature that reported positive relationships between motivation and reading activity [49]. The study’s second research question documented positive attitudes towards reading in general and towards reading using AR in particular. Findings agree with previous studies that showed relatively positive attitudes with children who were older than the participants in our study, e.g., lower secondary school students [1] and higher education students [34], as well as younger than the participants in our study, e.g., pre-school stu- dents [43]. Therefore, the study adds to our knowledge concerning the use of AR books by primary school children, which was missing from the literature in which young children are under-represented. Our study showed a high level of enthusiasm with AR technology when children interacted with the first AR book, which notably decreased when children interacted with the second AR book. This potentially indicates a novelty effect, also reported in studies with pre-primary and secondary school children [13], [44]. Bursali and Yilmaz (2019) suggested that “to mitigate this effect, it may be beneficial for the students to be iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 16, 2022 67 Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers allowed to interact with this technology for a period of time before the start of the actual application or intervention” [13]. In conclusion, after reading AR books, children’s motivation for learning increased. They seemed to have positive attitudes towards AR in general and the learning behavior with AR in particular. 4.1 Limitations A weakness of the study is the limited generalizability of its findings due to the self-selected nature and relatively small size of the sample of children who interacted with AR books. The study was based solely on quantitative data. Qualitative data in the form of individual, semi-structured interviews with children and their parents or teachers would help triangulate the study’s findings. The study’s short duration was another limitation. 4.2 Instructional implications AR books combine traditional books with digital tools that are easy for young chil- dren to access even without the help of an adult (teacher or parent). Educators who lack the technological background or training to integrate advanced technological tools in the curriculum [50] may prefer to use AR books as supporting tools for children in typical primary school classrooms. Children can use AR books in their native language or as part of learning a second language, individually or in small groups. AR books can be used in a typical classroom setting, without the need of additional equipment other than a device that can read a QR code, such as a tablet or a mobile phone, which children can bring to school as part of a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiative. Therefore, mainstream adoption of already-developed AR books might be feasible in formal primary education reasonably soon, especially considering the proliferation of mobile touchscreen technologies to which children have access [51]. The study contributes valuable insights into the growing body of AR-enhanced learning and AR-enhanced reading. In line with relevant literature, our study high- lighted some of the potential benefits of using AR for educational purposes and infor- mal learning, which can be helpful for the development of educational AR products targeting young children [7]. 4.3 Future research directions When children are meant to experience a book’s story on their own, which is a typical scenario in upper primary school, it is important to verify that concepts are appropriate for the targeted age level of children and that children can understand these concepts [41]. This study did not examine children’s level of understanding of the story. Future research can focus on examining students’ understanding and learning perfor- mance through AR books, especially in light of studies indicating that AR books and app books increased children’s interest in storybooks but decreased their reading con- centration [9]. Other directions for future research may focus on technology-facilitated 68 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers collaboration among children while reading AR books and on providing AR books that adapt to different learning styles [52]. The results of the study by Agorou et al. (2018) indicated the need for further research with struggling readers [45]. The majority of the present study’s participants (37/40, 92.5%) were fluent readers. Recent studies [1], [53]–[55] have shown that AR activities can be beneficial for different types of learners, including students who may experience reading difficulties. Learning gains were reported both with respect to reading compre- hension as well as with respect to motivation for reading [1], [53]–[55]. Longitudinal, quasi-experimental studies including a control group focusing on struggling readers are needed to advance our understanding of how AR technology can best benefit different types of learners with respect to their motivation for reading, reading comprehension, concentration, and collaboration skills. 5 Acknowledgment The Authors express their thanks to all children who voluntarily participated in this study amidst the difficult circumstances of school closures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 6 References [1] M. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, A. R. Carrilho, C. Charalambous, K. Mavrou, and C. Christou, “Teacher training for ‘augmented reading’: The living book approach and initial results,” Education Sciences, vol. 10, no. 5, Art. no. 5, May 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci10050144 [2] Y. Kim and D. Smith, “Pedagogical and technological augmentation of mobile learning for young children interactive learning environments,” Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 4–16, Jan. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1087411 [3] I. Nicolaidou, E. Stavrou, and G. Leonidou, “Building primary-school children’s resil- ience through a web-based interactive learning environment: Quasi-experimental pre-post study,” JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, vol. 4, no. 2, p. e27958, Jun. 2021, https://doi. org/10.2196/27958 [4] X. Li and S. K. W. Chu, “Exploring the effects of gamification pedagogy on children’s reading: A mixed-method study on academic performance, reading-related mentality and behaviors, and sustainability,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 160–178, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13057 [5] S. Theodosi and I. Nicolaidou, “Affecting young children’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors for ultraviolet radiation protection through the internet of things: A quasi-exper- imental study,” Computers, vol. 10, no. 11, Art. no. 11, Nov. 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ computers10110137 [6] G. Gómez-García, F.-J. Hinojo-Lucena, S. Alonso-García, and J.-M. Romero-Rodríguez, “Mobile learning in pre-service teacher education: perceived usefulness of ar technology in primary education,” Education Sciences, vol. 11, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Jun. 2021, https://doi. org/10.3390/educsci11060275 iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 16, 2022 69 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10050144 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10050144 https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1087411 https://doi.org/10.2196/27958 https://doi.org/10.2196/27958 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13057 https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10110137 https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10110137 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060275 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060275 Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers [7] C. Oranç and A. C. Küntay, “Learning from the real and the virtual worlds: Educational use of augmented reality in early childhood,” International Journal of Child-Computer Interac- tion, vol. 21, pp. 104–111, Sep. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.06.002 [8] A. K. Dubé and R. Wen, “Identification and evaluation of technology trends in K-12 education from 2011 to 2021,” Educ Inf Technol, Aug. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10639-021-10689-8 [9] L. Wang, H. Lee, and D. Y. Ju, “Impact of digital content on young children’s reading interest and concentration for books,” Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–8, Jan. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1502807 [10] A. Bhadra et al., “ABC3D—Using an augmented reality mobile game to enhance literacy in early childhood,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops (PerCom Workshops), Sydney, Australia, Mar. 2016, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOMW.2016.7457067 [11] N. Kucirkova and R. Flewitt, “Understanding parents’ conflicting beliefs about chil- dren’s digital book reading,” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, p. 1468798420930361, Jun. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420930361 [12] D. Danaei, H. R. Jamali, Y. Mansourian, and H. Rastegarpour, “Comparing reading compre- hension between children reading augmented reality and print storybooks,” Computers & Education, vol. 153, p. 103900, Aug. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103900 [13] H. Bursali and R. M. Yilmaz, “Effect of augmented reality applications on secondary school students’ reading comprehension and learning permanency,” Computers in Human Behav- ior, vol. 95, pp. 126–135, Jun. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.035 [14] J. C. Garcia-Sanchez, “Augmenting reality in books: A tool for enhancing reading skills in Mexico,” Pub Res Q, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 19–27, Mar. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12109-017-9499-2 [15] J. M. Twenge, G. N. Martin, and B. H. Spitzberg, “Trends in U.S. Adolescents’ media use, 1976–2016: The rise of digital media, the decline of TV, and the (near) demise of print,” Psy- chology of Popular Media Culture, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 329–345, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1037/ ppm0000203 [16] L. Mata, “Motivation for reading and writing in kindergarten children,” Reading Psychol- ogy, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 272–299, May 2011, https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.545268 [17] A. Wigfield, J. R. Gladstone, and L. Turci, “Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension,” Child Development Perspectives, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 190–195, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184 [18] J. Lee and S. S. Zentall, “Reading motivation and later reading achievement for students with reading disabilities and comparison groups (ADHD and typical): A 3-year longitudinal study,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 50, pp. 60–71, Jul. 2017, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.001 [19] J. R. Toste, L. Didion, P. Peng, M. J. Filderman, and A. M. McClelland, “A meta- analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K–12 students,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 420–456, Jun. 2020, https://doi. org/10.3102/0034654320919352 [20] E. Tovli, “ ‘The Joy of reading’—An intervention program to increase reading motivation for pupils with learning disabilities,” Journal of Education and Training Studies, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 69–84, Oct. 2014. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v2i4.496 [21] E. Nevo and V. Vaknin-Nusbaum, “Enhancing motivation to read and reading abilities in first grade,” Educational Psychology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 22–41, Jan. 2020, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01443410.2019.1635680 70 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10689-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10689-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1502807 https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOMW.2016.7457067 https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420930361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103900 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.035 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9499-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9499-2 https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000203 https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000203 https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.545268 https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.11.001 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352 https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v2i4.496 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1635680 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1635680 Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers [22] A. Liman Kaban and S. Karadeniz, “Children’s reading comprehension and motivation on screen versus on paper,” SAGE Open, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2158244020988849, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020988849 [23] J. Casteleiro-Pitrez, “Augmented reality textbook: A classroom quasi-experimental study,” IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 258–266, Aug. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2021.3122887 [24] Y.-J. Chang, C.-H. Chen, W.-T. Huang, and W.-S. Huang, “Investigating students’ per- ceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of English learning using aug- mented reality,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, Jul. 2011, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2011.6012177 [25] E. Solak and R. Cakir, “Exploring the effect of materials designed with augmented reality on language learners’ vocabulary learning,” Journal of Educators Online, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 50–72, Jul. 2015. https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2015.2.5 [26] T.-C. Huang, C.-C. Chen, and Y.-W. Chou, “Animating eco-education: To see, feel, and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning environment,” Computers & Education, vol. 96, pp. 72–82, May 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.008 [27] D. Karagozlu, N. N. Kosarenko, O. V. Efimova, and V. V. Zubov, “Identifying students’ Atti- tudes regarding augmented reality applications in science classes,” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol. 14, no. 22, Art. no. 22, Nov. 2019, https:// doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i22.11750 [28] K. Kumpulainen, J. Byman, J. Renlund, and C. C. Wong, “Children’s augmented storying in, with and for nature,” Education Sciences, vol. 10, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Jun. 2020, https://doi. org/10.3390/educsci10060149 [29] Y. Huang, H. Li, and R. Fong, “Using augmented reality in early art education: A case study in Hong Kong kindergarten,” Early Child Development and Care, vol. 186, no. 6, pp. 879–894, Jun. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1067888 [30] M. Tezer, E. P. Yıldız, A. R. Masalimova, A. M. Fatkhutdinova, M. R. Zheltukhina, and E. R. Khairullina, “Trends of augmented reality applications and research throughout the world: Meta-analysis of theses, articles and papers between 2001–2019 years,” Interna- tional Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol. 14, no. 22, Art. no. 22, Nov. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i22.11768 [31] J. Cabero-Almenara, J. Barroso-Osuna, C. Llorente-Cejudo, and M. del M. Fernández Martínez, “Educational uses of augmented reality (AR): Experiences in educational science,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 18, Art. no. 18, Jan. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184990 [32] J. Cabero-Almenara and R. Roig-Vila, “The motivation of technological scenarios in aug- mented reality (AR): Results of different experiments,” Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 14, Art. no. 14, Jan. 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142907 [33] J.-J. Chen, Y. Hsu, W. Wei, and C. Yang, “Continuance intention of augmented reality text- books in basic design course,” Education Sciences, vol. 11, no. 5, Art. no. 5, May 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050208 [34] K.-H. Cheng, “Reading an augmented reality book: An exploration of learners’ cognitive load, motivation, and attitudes,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 33, no. 4, Art. no. 4, Aug. 2017, https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2820 [35] C. Weng, S. Otanga, S. M. Christianto, and R. J.-C. Chu, “Enhancing students’ biol- ogy learning by using augmented reality as a learning supplement,” Journal of Edu- cational Computing Research, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 747–770, Jul. 2020, https://doi. org/10.1177/0735633119884213 iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 16, 2022 71 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020988849 https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2021.3122887 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2011.6012177 https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2015.2.5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.008 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i22.11750 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i22.11750 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060149 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060149 https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1067888 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i22.11768 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184990 https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142907 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11050208 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2820 https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119884213 https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119884213 Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers [36] I.-E. Lasica, M. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, and K. Katzis, “Augmented reality in lower secondary education: A teacher professional development program in Cyprus and Greece,” Education Sciences, vol. 10, no. 4, Art. no. 4, Apr. 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10040121 [37] K.-H. Cheng and C.-C. Tsai, “The interaction of child–parent shared reading with an aug- mented reality (AR) picture book and parents’ conceptions of AR learning,” British Jour- nal of Educational Technology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 203–222, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjet.12228 [38] K.-H. Cheng and C.-C. Tsai, “Children and parents’ reading of an augmented reality picture book: Analyses of behavioral patterns and cognitive attainment,” Computers & Education, vol. 72, pp. 302–312, Mar. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.003 [39] K.-H. Cheng, “Exploring parents’ conceptions of augmented reality learning and approaches to learning by augmented reality with their children,” Journal of Edu- cational Computing Research, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 820–843, Oct. 2017, https://doi. org/10.1177/0735633116686082 [40] H. Altinpulluk, “Determining the trends of using augmented reality in education between 2006–2016,” Educ Inf Technol, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1089–1114, Mar. 2019, https://doi. org/10.1007/s10639-018-9806-3 [41] A. Dünser and E. Hornecker, “An observational study of children interacting with an aug- mented story book,” in Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73011-8_31 [42] A. Dünser and E. Hornecker, “Lessons from an AR book study,” in Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, New York, NY, USA, Feb. 2007, pp. 179–182. https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227006 [43] R. M. Yilmaz, S. Kucuk, and Y. Goktas, “Are augmented reality picture books magic or real for preschool children aged five to six?,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 824–841, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12452 [44] S. H. Bibi, R. M. Munaf, N. Z. Bawany, A. Shamim, and Z. Saleem, “Smart Learning Companion (SLAC),” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol. 15, no. 16, Art. no. 16, Aug. 2020, https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i16.14477 [45] A. Agorou, E. Kallinikou, E. Kyriacou, K. Miltiadous, and I. Nicolaidou, “The potential of augmented reality books to influence reading attitudes of 8–9 year-old children: An explor- atory study,” EDULEARN18 Proceedings, pp. 1978–1984, 2018. https://doi.org/10.21125/ edulearn.2018.0560 [46] A. M. F. Yousef, “Augmented reality assisted learning achievement, motivation, and creativ- ity for children of low-grade in primary school,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 966–977, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12536 [47] C. Herodotou, E. A. Kyza, I. Nicolaidou, A. Hadjichambis, D. Kafouris, and F. Terzian, “The development and validation of the GMOAS, an instrument measuring secondary school stu- dents’ attitudes towards genetically modified organisms,” International Journal of Science Education, Part B, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 131–147, Sep. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693. 2011.637580 [48] J. M. Keller, “ARCS Model of Motivation,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learn- ing, N. M. Seel, Ed. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2012, pp. 304–305. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_217 [49] E. Kirchner and M. L. Mostert, “Aspects of the reading motivation and reading activity of Namibian primary school readers,” Cogent Education, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 1411036, Jan. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1411036 72 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10040121 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12228 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12228 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.003 https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116686082 https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116686082 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9806-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9806-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73011-8_31 https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227006 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12452 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i16.14477 https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2018.0560 https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2018.0560 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12536 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.637580 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.637580 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_217 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_217 https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1411036 Paper—Augmented Reality Books: Motivation, Attitudes, and Behaviors of Young Readers [50] S. Poultsakis, S. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, and S. Psycharis, “The management of digital learning objects of natural sciences and digital experiment simulation tools by teach- ers,” 1, vol. 1, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Jun. 2021, https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.02.002 [51] S. Papadakis, “Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research (A.M.L.E.R.): Mobile learning as an educational reform,” 1, vol. 1, no. 1, Art. no. 1, Mar. 2021, https://doi. org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.01.001 [52] I. Katsaris and N. Vidakis, “Adaptive e-learning systems through learning styles: A review of the literature,” 1, vol. 1, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Oct. 2021, https://doi.org/10.25082/ AMLER.2021.02.007 [53] N. A. B. Ahmad, “Learning literacy using augmented reality (LiTAR): An application of learning through expository, social and technical-scientific using augmented reality as learning strategy,” IJARBSS, vol. 8, no. 11, p. Pages 1772-1778, Dec. 2018, https://doi. org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i11/5353 [54] R. Cakir and O. Korkmaz, “The effectiveness of augmented reality environments on indi- viduals with special education needs,” Educ Inf Technol, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1631–1659, Mar. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9848-6 [55] J. Quintero, S. Baldiris, R. Rubira, J. Cerón, and G. Velez, “Augmented reality in educational inclusion. A systematic review on the last decade,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 10, 2019, Accessed: Jan. 18, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01835 7 Authors Evanthia Roumba is a postgraduate research associate at the Department of Com- munication and Internet Studies at the Cyprus University of Technology. She holds a MSc degree in New Technologies for Communication and Learning from the same university. She also has a Bachelor’s degree in Primary Education from the Department of Educational Sciences of the University of Cyprus. Her research interests focus on the integration of emerging learning technologies, such as augmented reality applications, in primary education and studying their impact on children’s learning behaviors and daily study routines. (email: roumbaevanthia@gmail.com). Iolie Nicolaidou is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication and Internet Studies at the Cyprus University of Technology, P.O. Box 50329, 3603, Limassol, Cyprus. She holds a Ph.D. degree in Educational Technology from Concor- dia University in Canada. She has a Master’s degree in Educational Media and Tech- nology from Boston University (2002), where she studied as a Fulbright scholar, and a BA in Primary Education from the University of Cyprus (2000) with a specialization in Natural Sciences. Her expertise is in the design, implementation and evaluation of emerging technologies (e.g. web-based learning environments, serious games, gamified apps, simulations) for learning and social change with a focus on applications designed for science, health, formal (K-12) and informal education. (email: iolie.nicolaidou@ cut.ac.cy). Article submitted 2022-04-16. Resubmitted 2022-06-20. Final acceptance 2022-06-24. Final version published as submitted by the authors. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 16, 2022 73 https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.02.002 https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.01.001 https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.01.001 https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.02.007 https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2021.02.007 https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i11/5353 https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i11/5353 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9848-6 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01835 mailto:roumbaevanthia@gmail.com mailto:iolie.nicolaidou@cut.ac.cy mailto:iolie.nicolaidou@cut.ac.cy