Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Learning Technology (ISSN: 2306-0212) |
Authors:Nor Faradila Othman1
, Mas Nida Md. Khambari1, Wong Su Luan1, Rahmita Wirza O.K Rahmat1,and Mohd Najwan Md1,
1: Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Abstract:
This qualitative study explored the role of augmented reality (AR) enhanced mobile applications called WAVEAR, in triggering secondary school students’ interest in learning Physics. We conducted this case study in a central Malaysian school, focusing on 20 students from a single Secondary 4 class. We used the Interest-Driven Creator (IDC) theory, complemented by Loewenstein’s Information Gap as the framework to frame this study. Data were collected through classroom observations, in-depth interviewing, and document analysis of the students’ learning module that was used during the physics lesson. We interpreted and triangulated the diverse data collected to achieve a rich and meaningful analysis. The result revealed that the use of WAVEAR could promote interest formation among students by triggering their curiosity to learn. The use of WAVEAR achieved this by (i) generating early interest in learning, and (ii) bridging the knowledge gaps. This study highlights AR’s potential as a tool that could initiate students’ interest in physics lessons and provide a foundation for deeper engagement in subsequent learning.
Keywords: Augmented Reality, Interest Formation, Interest-Driven Creator (IDC) Theory, Mobile Learning Application, Physics Education.
I. INTRODUCTION
Interest is vital in learning. It serves as a fundamental force that drives students to excel in academic [1][2], particularly in subjects that require a deep understanding of abstract concepts, such as physics. Physics is often considered a challenging subject due to its abstract and theoretical nature. Therefore, secondary school students often attribute their declining interest in the science stream to physics [1][3]. In Malaysia, declining in secondary-school science stream students physics has been associated with reduced enrolment in science-related programmes at the tertiary level [1][4][5].
The topic of waves presents a particular challenge because students are required to visualize dynamic phenomena such as wave propagation, reflections, refractions, diffractions and interference. These processes may be difficult to understand through static textbook illustrations alone. Augmented reality (AR) offers a potential suitable instructional approach because it enables students to observe and interact with dynamic representations of abstract physics phenomena, offering an engaging and interactive educational experience that can captivate students in innovative ways [6][7][8].
Previous research has shown that AR can enhance students’ motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes across academic disciplines [9]. Nevertheless, declining participation in STEM, particularly physics, remains a concern internationally [10][11][12][13]. While these studies demonstrate the broader educational benefits of AR, they provide less explanation of how particular AR features initiate students’ interest in specific physics content.
AR adoption in developing-country schools offers opportunities to make abstract learning content more interactive and accessible, but its implementation also involves practical challenges, including device availability, internet connectivity, technical infrastructure, and institutional support [14]. In the present study, WAVEAR was implemented in a Malaysian Digital Maker Champion School where students had access to mobile devices and digital learning facilities, providing a feasible setting for AR integration into regular physics lesson and offering contextual insights relevant to similar developing countries.
WAVEAR was designed as a curriculum-aligned mobile AR application for the Malaysian Form Four waves topic. Its interactive visualizations and simulations allow students to explore wave phenomena that are difficult to observe through static representations. Guided by the triggering stage of the IDC Interest Loop and Loewenstein’s Information-Gap Theory, this study investigates how the interactive and visual features of WAVEAR spark students’ initial curiosity and support the recognition of gaps between their existing knowledge and new physics content. The research question guiding this study was: How does the implementation of the WAVEAR mobile learning application trigger students’ interest in learning physics?
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Triggering Interest
Interest plays an eminent role in students’ academic performance, particularly in fields like physics [15] that need great cognitive participation. Researchers define interest as a psychological state of interaction with specific content, demonstrating its essential role in enhancing attention, improving learning outcomes, and enhancing long-term memory of knowledge [16][17]. However, fostering interest in subjects such as physics, often perceived as abstract and challenging, remains a persistent issue globally, as students exhibit diminished enthusiasm for science-related courses [18][19][3]. Physics education has encountered significant challenges, since students frequently perceive it as irrelevant to their daily lives or too complex due to its theoretical nature [13][20]. This perspective is evident in secondary school classrooms, where declining interest in physics usually results in low enrolment rates in advanced science streams, as seen in the Malaysian setting [5][21]. Dealing with this requires instructional interventions that not only increase knowledge but also stimulate curiosity, a required phase that aids in academic participation [22][23]. Although interest and motivation are closely related, they are not interchangeable. Motivation is a broader construct concerning the forces that initiate and sustain goal-directed behaviour, whereas interest is more specific as it indicates learners’ ongoing relationship with subject, marked by curiosity and genuine attraction to return to it [15][20][24]. Thus, a student can be motivated to complete a physic task without developing interest in physics itself. In this study, interest was operationalised through students’ content-specific attention, curiosity, willingness to explore physics content, and expressed attraction toward further exploration, evidenced through classroom observations, interview accounts, and written module responses. Consequently, previous AR studies reporting improvements in motivation do not fully explain how AR triggers students’ content-specific interest in learning physics.
B. The Interest-Driven Creator Theory and Triggering Interest
The Interest-Driven Creator (IDC) Theory was introduced to address evolving need of education, from conventional learning to more innovative learning. It intended to instill creativity in learning process. Developed in 2018 [2], the theory focuses on a cyclical process consisting of three interrelated loops: the interest loop, the creation loop, and the habit loop. These loops describe how learners develop initial curiosity, deepen their engagement, and eventually transform their interest into sustained creative practices and habits.
In this paper, the focus lies only on the interest loop. The Interest Loop serves as the foundation of the IDC theory and outlines three stages: triggering, immersing, and extending. Stimulating and engaging experiences spark learners’ curiosity in the triggering stage, capturing their attention and motivating further exploration. Then, the immersing stage ensues, during which learners deeply engage with the content, frequently experiencing a state of flow as they engage in meaningful and challenging activities. Finally, the extending stage encourages learners to apply their newfound interest to other contexts, broadening their understanding and sustaining their motivation over time.
The interest loop in IDC offers a valuable framework for conceptualizing how student interest in learning can be systematically triggered, immersed, and extended. Since it marks the time when students first spark their interest in learning, the “triggering interest” phase of IDC is crucially important [2]. Curiosity drives this first interaction most of the time when students come across something unique or surprising that sparks a need to fill in cognitive gaps [15]. Therefore, the act of sparking interest is strongly related to creating learning opportunities like problems, questions, or events that fascinate students [24].
The immersing stage within the Interest Loop plays a pivotal role in deepening students’ engagement with learning materials, and the integration of Flow Theory significantly enhances this process. Flow, as conceptualized by Csikszentmihalyi in 1990, describes a state of optimal experience, characterized by intense focus, intrinsic motivation, and a balance between challenge and skill [25]. During this stage, students move beyond initial curiosity (triggering) into a state of sustained engagement, facilitated by well-designed learning experiences. In the WAVEAR augmented reality (AR) app, flow is created by the fact that it is interactive and immersive, and it offers real-time simulations of physical concepts like wave reflection, refraction, and interference. These simulations captivate students, drawing them into a state of deep focus by presenting visually stimulating and contextually relevant content.
The IDC theory aligns well with technology-driven educational approaches, such as AR applications, which can effectively trigger interest, sustain immersion, and inspire creative exploration. By prioritizing learners’ interests and promoting active engagement, the IDC framework offers valuable insights into designing educational interventions that foster motivation, creativity, and lifelong learning habits.
C. AR in Educational Context
Augmented Reality (AR) has the ability to enhance educational experiences by creating immersive, interactive, and varied learning environments. Numerous studies indicate that augmented reality can greatly improve student performance across various subjects, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Studies show that augmented reality can enhance learning by superimposing digital content onto real-world settings, aiding students in visualizing complex ideas and improving their grasp of challenging topics like physics [7]. Students exposed to AR-based physics simulations, for instance, exhibited notable increases in both conceptual understanding and academic achievement [6]. Likewise, recent study underlined that AR could provide original approaches to show difficult scientific events, thus improving understanding and memory of knowledge [26].
Apart from enhancing academic performance, AR has proved to increase student involvement and drive as well. AR can make the learning process more interesting, fun, and relevant by letting students engage in real-time interactions with learning resources [27]. AR’s capacity to combine virtual components with real-world activities, produces an active learning environment that promotes interest and raises student involvement [28].
In addition to that, AR offers instantaneous feedback and a sense of control over learning activities, which helps students to develop a closer relationship to the content and motivates them to investigate subjects further [29]. This dynamic connection is congruent with the ideas of experiential learning, which stresses active involvement as a key component of good education.
The sense of control provided by AR contributes to active involvement by allowing students to navigate content at their own pace and according to their preferences. Experiential learning theory highlights the importance of active involvement in constructing meaningful educational experiences [30]. AR applications align with this framework by enabling learners to interact with virtual simulations, manipulate variables, and observe outcomes, which promotes active engagement with the learning material [31]. For example, AR simulations in science education can transform abstract concepts such as wave interference into interactive, visual experiences that students can observe and experiment with firsthand, reinforcing both understanding and curiosity.
This dynamic connection between AR and experiential learning underscores its potential as a transformative tool in education. By integrating active involvement, real-time feedback, and learner autonomy, AR supports the principles of excellent education, fostering not only better academic outcomes but also sustained interest in learning [32].
D. The Role of AR in Triggering Interest
Previous AR studies differ in both functionality and evaluation focus. AR research has reported benefits for academic performance and engagement [9][33], relatively few studies have explored its potential to stimulate interest [34], particularly in the context of abstract topics like physics. XploreRAFE+ [35] combined AR with gamified English-learning activities and reported curiosity and positive perceptions; other gamified studies examined epistemic curiosity and motivation [36], and attitudes in an interest-driven language-learning environment [37]. In physics education, AR has also been examined primarily in relation to learning engagement [38]. In contrast, WAVEAR combines marker-triggered three-dimensional representations, multimodal content, contextual phenomena, and manipulable wave simulations aligned with the Malaysian Form Four waves curriculum. Rather than evaluating general motivation, attitudes, or engagement, the present study qualitatively examines how these AR features trigger content-specific interest through students’ observable attention and exploration, interview accounts of curiosity, and written responses in the learning module.
Accordingly, the contribution of this study lies not simply in demonstrating that AR is engaging, but in explaining how specific WAVEAR affordances contribute to the initial triggering of interest in secondary-school physics.
TABLE I DIFFERENCES AMONG THE THREE TYPES
| Study | Context & functionality | Evaluation focus |
|---|---|---|
| XploreRAFE+ [35] | Gamified AR mobile learning for English. | Curiosity and positive perceptions; language-learning context rather than physics-wave interest triggering. |
| Gamified AR studies [36][37] | Gamified and interest-driven language-learning activities. | Epistemic curiosity, motivation, and attitudes; emphasis on gamification and broader affective outcomes. |
| Physics AR study [38] | AR-supported physics learning. | Learning engagement rather than the initial mechanism of content-specific interest. |
| WAVEAR (present study) | Marker-triggered 3D, multimodal contextual phenomena, and manipulable wave simulations aligned with Form Four curriculum. | Content-specific attention, curiosity, and exploration; IDC Trigger + Information-Gap lens explains how specific affordances initiate interest. |
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Research Context
The study was conducted among Form Four students at a secondary school located in central of Malaysia. This school was dubbed as the Digital Maker Champion School by the Malaysian Ministry of Education at the time of this study. As such, the school provided sophisticated technological tools to support their students’ learning. On a day-to-day basis, students at this school routinely used technology such as mobile devices and the Internet as part of their learning activities. In terms of mobile phones ownership, the majority of these students own mobile phones. Thus, students were familiar with the use of technological devices in their lessons.
B. WAVEAR System Design and the IDC Interest Loop
WAVEAR is a marker-based AR mobile application developed using Unity and the Vuforia Software Development Kit to support the Malaysian Form Four Secondary School Standard Curriculum (KSSM). Its operational design integrates three components: printed image markers embedded in the learning module, camera-based marker recognition through the mobile device, and digital AR content displayed on the mobile-device screen. Once a marker is recognised, the corresponding AR content is activated, allowing students to observe and manipulate three-dimensional representations, animations, audio-visual content, and interactive simulations through on-screen controls. WAVEAR visualises progressive waves, reflection, refraction, diffraction, and interference. In interactive simulations, students can manipulate variables such as frequency, amplitude, and wavelength and observe the resulting changes in wave behaviour in real time; the visualisations can also be examined from different viewing angles. Developed for Android and iOS devices, this marker-based configuration uses students’ mobile devices and the printed learning module without requiring specialised AR hardware, supporting feasible classroom implementation at the study site.
The learning activities were organised around the IDC Interest Loop, but the present paper analyses only the triggering stage. Triggering activities were placed before formal explanation and used contextual AR phenomena, such as ripples in a swimming pool and sound echoes in a cave, to create perceptual novelty and expose gaps in students’ existing knowledge. Subsequent simulation manipulation and open-ended module tasks formed the broader lesson sequence; evidence from these later activities was considered in this paper only when it illuminated how initial interest had been triggered.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the marker embedded in the printed learning module activates the corresponding animated wave representation on the mobile-device screen, allowing students to compare static wavefront information with its dynamic AR visualisation.
C. Lesson Implementation
Over four weeks, WAVEAR was integrated into six 90-minute physics lessons, giving 540 minutes of total classroom instruction. The 540 minutes therefore represents the overall lesson duration rather than continuous exposure to WAVEAR. The lessons covered Fundamental of Waves, Reflection, Refraction, Diffraction, and Interference, as summarised in Table II.
TABLE II. LEARNING ACTIVITIES OF FORM 4 WAVE MODULE AND WAVEAR APPS
| Lesson | Subtopic | Duration | Learning Activities |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fundamental of Waves | 90 Minutes | Contextual scenario, AR simulations, observation tasks. |
| 2 | Reflection of Waves | 90 Minutes | AR simulations, real-world scenarios, observation tasks, wave reflection drawings, open-ended questions. |
| 3 | Refraction of Waves | 90 Minutes | AR simulations, real-world scenarios, observation tasks, wave refraction drawings, open-ended questions, problem solving. |
| 4 | Diffraction of Waves | 90 Minutes | AR simulations, real-world scenarios, observation tasks, wave diffraction drawings, open-ended questions, problem solving. |
| 5 and 6 | Interference of Waves | 180 Minutes | AR simulations, real-world scenarios, observation tasks, wave interference drawings, superposition simulations open-ended questions, problem solving. |
Each 90-minute lesson followed a broadly consistent sequence. Approximately 10 minutes were used for set induction, during which the researcher introduced a contextual phenomenon through WAVEAR to activate prior knowledge and create perceptual novelty. In the Fundamental of Waves lesson, for example, scanning the swimming-pool marker generated AR ripples that students could manipulate before the formal explanation. This was followed by approximately 20 minutes of teacher explanation and 30 minutes of AR marker scanning and simulation exploration, during which students manipulated variables and observed the resulting wave behaviour. A further 20 minutes were used for drawings, AR observations, open-ended questions, problem-solving, and WAVEAR module tasks, followed by approximately 10 minutes of lesson reflection. Thus, about 40 minutes of each lesson were explicitly allocated to AR-supported induction and simulation exploration, with additional WAVEAR use during the activity phase when required. The researcher acted as teacher and participant observer, guiding students through the module and AR activities, while the regular physics teacher remained in the classroom as an independent observer and assisted when needed. Within the triggering focus of this study, the contextual AR induction was intended to attract attention and expose an information gap, while subsequent scanning and exploration allowed students to pursue the curiosity generated by that initial encounter. These moments provided the observational and interview evidence used to examine how WAVEAR triggered interest.
D. Data Collection
To address the research question, qualitative methods were utilized. Three types of data were collected during the lessons, namely observational data and field notes, interview recordings, and documents for triangulation and analysis purposes [39]. The observations were conducted in order to gain insights into the students’ behaviors, engagement, and interactions in their natural learning environment, which is essential for understanding the practical implications of implementing educational technologies [39]. As such, observations in this study were focused on how students interacted with WAVEAR during the lessons, seeking obvious indicators of interest, involvement, and inquiry. Additionally, field notes were recorded on the students’ responses that includes their remarkable expressions and attitude towards AR elements such as interactive simulations, 3D models, and augmented visuals, which were meant to explore the students interest formation on physics subject. This is important to capture detailed and contextualised data on the nuances of students’ engagement and interactions, providing a richer understanding of their learning experiences and behaviours [40].
Following the observations, semi-structured interviews were conducted to further investigate students’ interests while using WAVEAR application. These interviews aimed to solicit the causes of their curiosity, how the AR technology inspired them, and how it made learning more interesting for them. Interviews are an essential qualitative method technique as they allow researchers to gather in-depth, personalised insights directly from participants, capturing their thoughts, feelings, and perspectives [40]. According to Kvale and Brinkmann, semi-structured interviews offer flexibility by combining predetermined questions with open-ended responses, enabling a deeper understanding of complex phenomena such as interest formation [41]. Additionally, this approach helps to uncover themes that may not emerge through observations alone [42].
In addition to these, documents such as the students’ written answers in their AR-embedded Physics module were collected for analysis. According to Bowen, documents are important in qualitative research as they provide a stable, non-reactive source of data that can be revisited for in-depth analysis, offering insights into participants’ knowledge, understanding, and reflections [43]. This step is meant to examine how students interacted with the AR material through their written thoughts and responses to open-ended questions. Furthermore, the collection of such data could furnish more information on how AR supported students’ grasp of Physics and whether it helped maintain their interest over time. In line with ethical considerations and humans-subject safeguarding, informed permission was acquired from each student and their parents or guardians. Students were also advised they could withdraw their participation in the study at any time. In addition to that, they were guaranteed that their privacy and confidentiality were rigorously safeguarded by means of anonymising all the data.
E. Data Analysis
This study employed a purely qualitative approach. No quantitative pre or post-test were administered because the research questions sought to understand the process through which interest was triggered rather than to measure the degree of change in interest score. The data were analysed thematically, guided by the research question. The analysis was informed by the triggering stage of the IDC Interest Loop and Loewenstein’s Information-Gap Theory, which served as sensitising lenses that guided the analytical focus without constraining what could emerge from the data. The codes were developed inductively from recurring patterns across the observational field notes, interview transcripts and the students’ written response in the learning module, then grouped into broader themes. Findings across all three data sources were triangulated to strengthen the credibility of the analysis.
IV. FINDINGS
In response to the research question, the data analysis revealed two key themes, namely (i) AR generates early interest in learning, and (ii) AR bridges knowledge gaps. Each theme is organised around an interpretive claim, supporting qualitative evidence, and verification through convergence across the data sources. These themes are discussed in the following sections.
A. Theme 1: AR Generates Early Interest in Learning
1) Visual Novelty Directs Attention toward Physics Content
The first category indicates that WAVEAR triggered early interest when dynamic AR representations gave students an immediate reason to inspect the wave content. In this study, students displayed increased fascination and enthusiasm when WAVEAR was introduced. Field notes recorded these responses especially during the initial moments of the wave chapter, indicating that the first encounter with WAVEAR sparked students’ curiosity.
During the initial pool-ripple activity, one student exclaimed, “Look, I can touch the waves!”, while other students discussed how the ripples varied when they shifted their angle of view and leaned forward while concentrating on their screens (Field Note 3).
At the beginning of the lesson, students scanned the pool image in the module and connected the activity to the topic of waves. Compared with previous classes in which WAVEAR was not used, students appeared more attentive, asked further questions, and actively scanned the markers. These behaviours indicated that WAVEAR captured students’ attention and encouraged them to explore the physics content.
Interview responses further supported the observation findings. Student 9 contrasted textbook images with WAVEAR’s interactive 3D images and explained that the interaction made the student want to “explore more.” Students 7 and 17 similarly described curiosity about what would appear next and what would happen in the next class. One representative response was:
“I’m interested in learning with AR because before, reading from a textbook was boring. You couldn’t interact with the images, but with WAVEAR, we can scan the images and see them pop up in 3D. We can interact with them, which makes me want to explore more.” (Interview, Student 9)
The convergence between the field-note observations and interview accounts supports the interpretation that visual novelty and interactivity triggered students’ early curiosity. This is consistent with studies reporting that AR can increase attention and exploratory activities [38][9] and that interactive representations can pique students’ interest [34][28]. Research has also linked interactive elements and real-time feedback with early interest in learning [6][29]. A physics-focused AR study likewise demonstrates that AR environments can support active interaction with physics learning content [44]. Within the IDC framework, the important point for the present study is that the encounter initiated attention and further exploration, which corresponds to the triggering stage of the Interest Loop [45].
2) Multimodal Interaction Converts Novelty into Exploratory Curiosity
A second category appeared in the sound-wave activity, where students recorded their voices and explored the reflected sound pattern rather than only viewing a predefined animation. Beyond visual novelty, students were particularly excited by the sound-wave activity. They recorded their voices and explored how the sound wave reflected off a virtual wall in the app. This response was also reflected in Student 9’s interview:
“I had fun with the activity where we scream at the wall and hear our voice reflected back. I was excited to connect the concept of echoes to physics.” (Interview, Student 9)
The sound-wave activity further illustrates how WAVEAR’s interactive and multimodal features supported early interest and curiosity by making abstract concepts tangible and engaging [38][9]. This is consistent with research showing that multimodal AR experiences can support engagement with scientific content [8][9]. Within the IDC perspective, these early responses are consistent with the triggering stage, which initiates further interaction with the content [45].
A. Theme 2: Bridging Knowledge Gaps in Learning
1) Visualisation connects prior knowledge with new concepts
The first knowledge-gap category occurred when WAVEAR prompted students to compare a new wave representation with something they already knew. AR appeared to help students link prior knowledge with new wave concepts by providing visual representations of ideas that had previously been difficult to visualise. This was evident during the wave-refraction activity, where students drew on their earlier knowledge of light refraction.
After the fundamental ideas of wave refraction were introduced, students used WAVEAR to simulate waves moving across different media. Field Note 5 recorded one student saying, “Oh, that’s how the direction bends, I cannot visualize light refraction when I look at the textbook before,” while another said, “Look, the wave slows down in the denser part!” The field note described how the simulation made the concept more concrete and understandable by allowing students to visually examine ideas that had previously been abstract.
Interview data further supported this observation. Student 8 described how WAVEAR helped connect the theory with everyday wave phenomena:
“Sometimes, learning something new is difficult, but when I used the app, I could connect the theory with everyday events, like waves in real life. That made it easier to understand than just reading the theory in a book.” (Interview, Student 8)
2) Contextual Visualisation Reconnects Unexplained Experience With Physics Concepts
A second knowledge-gap category appeared when students used AR to reinterpret familiar real-world phenomena. For some students, the connection extended beyond prior classroom knowledge to personal experience. Student 12 linked the AR simulation of wave diffraction to a memory of waves near a bay:
“When I was younger, I lived near a bay. The waves outside the fortress were stronger, but inside, it was calmer. I didn’t know why that happened, but when I used the app, the simulation helped me connect my memory with the theory.” (Interview, Student 12)
These interview accounts support the observation that AR helped bridge knowledge gaps by providing visual representations that connected new concepts with students’ existing knowledge and experience. This aligns with earlier research indicating that AR can help learners integrate new knowledge with existing mental models [31][46] and provide dynamic representations of scientific phenomena that are difficult to visualise [47].
Research has also described AR as a scaffold for expanding prior knowledge through interactive learning experiences [48]. Across the observation and interview evidence in this theme, WAVEAR helped students connect abstract wave concepts with what they already knew or had experienced, consistent with the IDC emphasis on meaningful engagement with content [45]
In theoretical terms, these episodes are compatible with the information-gap account of curiosity: recognising that an existing explanation is incomplete can create a reason to seek further information [49]. The significance for this study is therefore not that WAVEAR ‘closed’ a knowledge gap by itself, but that it made the gap perceptible and gave students an immediate means to investigate it.
In summary, through this study we found that AR effectively generates early interest in learning by sparking students’ curiosity through its audio, video, and simulation features. It bridges knowledge gaps by providing contextualized learning experiences and visual representations of abstract concepts, which help students integrate new information with their existing knowledge. Together, these processes illustrate how WAVEAR functioned as a triggering mechanism within the IDC’s interest loop.
This study reveals how AR technology can spark student interest in learning physics. The WAVEAR app successfully engaged students by offering a fresh, interactive way to delve into intricate physics ideas. This aligns with earlier studies that highlight how AR enhances the engagement and accessibility of learning experiences [50][6]. By filling knowledge gaps and enabling students to engage with the material in a significant manner, AR offered a distinctive learning experience that conventional methods were unable to provide. Being able to see, interact with, and explore 3D models of wave phenomena made physics feel more real and less theoretical, sparking a greater curiosity in the topic.
V. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
This study adds to the growing body of research on AR in education by highlighting its effectiveness in triggering students’ interest in physics subjects in secondary school. By generating early interest, and filling knowledge gaps, AR demonstrates significant potential as a pedagogical tool to enhance student engagement in STEM subjects. Future research could explore the long-term impact of AR on sustained interest and its applicability to other areas of science education.
While WAVEAR successfully triggers students’ initial interest by providing interactive, 3D visualizations of physics concepts, further development could focus on increasing the level of interactivity. Features such as real-time wave interactions, where waves interact with real objects, and students can observe the outcomes, could deepen their understanding and sustain their interest. Additionally, integrating AR features with gamified elements, such as challenge-based learning or real-world problem-solving tasks, could further captivate students and maintain their curiosity over longer periods.
Other than that, as it is evident that WAVEAR gives positive impact on student interest in the waves chapter, it is recommended that similar AR tools be developed for other challenging topics in the physics curriculum, such as electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics. These chapters are given by the students during the interview session. Extending the use of AR across a range of physics topics can help students build a consistent interest in the subject as a whole, potentially increasing overall engagement and enrollment in advanced physics courses.
Reference
[1] L. Steidtmann, T. Kleickmann, and M. Steffensky, “Declining interest in science in lower secondary school classes: Quasi-experimental and longitudinal evidence on the role of teaching and teaching quality”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(9), 1470-1498. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21794
[2] T. W. Chan, C.K. Looi, B. Chang, W. Chen, L.H. Wong, et al., “IDC Theory: Interest-Driven Creator Theory”. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(1), 1-23. 2018.
[3] S. Sjoberg, and C. Schreiner,“The ROSE project: An overview and key findings”. University of Oslo. 2010.
[4] H. Shahar, and M. F. M. Salleh, “Declining interest in physics among secondary school students: Implications for tertiary level science enrolment in Malaysia”. Journal of Science Education and Research, 35(2), 45-58. 2021.
[5] M. Kok, “The Challenge of Promoting STEM Education in Malaysia”. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 44(2), 87-101. 2021
[6] M. B. Ibanez, and C. Delgado-Kloos, “Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review”. Computers & Education, 123, 109-123. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002
[7] M. Billinghurst, and A. Duenser, “Augmented reality in the classroom. Computer”, 53(8), 20-27. 2020.
[8] R. Lindgren, and M. Johnson-Glenberg, “Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality”. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 540-550. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20937213
[9] M. Akcayir, and G. Akcayir, “Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature”. Educational Research Review, 20, 1-11. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100368
[10] M. M. Keller, K. Neumann, and H. E. Fischer, “The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 586–614. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21378
[11] Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. PISA 2015 results (Vol. I). OECD Publishing. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en
[12] A. Krapp, and M. Prenzel, “Research on interest in science: Theories, methods, and findings”. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 27–50. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.518645View
[13] J. Osborne and J. Dillon, “Science Education in Europe: Critical Reflections” . Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-37. 2018.
[14] J. W. Sánchez-Obando and N. D. Duque-Méndez, “Augmented reality strategy as a didactic alternative in rural public schools in Colombia,” Computer Applications in Engineering Education, vol. 31, pp. 552–573, 2023. doi: 10.1002/cae.22598.
[15] K. A. Renninger, and S. E. Hidi, “The power of interest for motivation and engagement”. New York, NY: Routledge. 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771045
[16] G. Schraw, and S. Lehman, “Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research”. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455
[17] L. Linnenbrink-Garcia, E. A. Patall, and R. Pekrun, “Adaptive motivation and emotion in education: Research and principles for instructional design”. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 141–148. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219869903
[18] R. Subramaniam, “On the declining interest in physics among students, from the perspective of teachers,’ International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 615-632, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.500338
[19] H. Brakhage, A. Gröschner, M. Gläser-Zikuda, and G. Hagenauer, “Fostering Students’ Situational Interest in Physics: Results from a Classroom-Based Intervention Study,” Research in Science Education, vol. 53, pp. 993–1008, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s11165-023-10120-x.
[20] P. Potvin, and A. Hasni, “Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research”. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 85–129.
[21] K. W. Lau, and I. Shaari, “Factors influencing students’ enrolment in Malaysian science stream education: A systematic review”. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(8), 387–403. 2020.
[22] S. Hidi, and K. A. Renninger, “The Four-Phase Model of Interest Development”. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. 2006.
[23] J. M. Harackiewicz, J. L. Smith, and S. J. Priniski, “Interest matters: The importance of promoting interest in education.” Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 220–227. 2016.
[24] S. Hidi, and K. A. Renninger, “Interest development and its relation to curiosity: A comparison of two major motivation constructs”. Educational Psychology Review, 31(4), 781-807. 2019.
[25] M. Csikszentmihalyi, “Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (1st ed.)”. New York, NY: Harper & Row. 1990).
[26] C. Moro, Z. Stromberga, and A. Stirling, “The effectiveness of AR in higher education: A meta-analysis”. Educational Research Review, 34, 100431. 2021.
[27] S. Tzima, G. Styliaras, and A. Bassounas, “Augmented Reality Applications in Education: Teachers’ Point of View”. Education Sciences, 9(2), 99. 2019
[28] S. Cai, X. Wang, and F. K. Chiang, “A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course”. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 31-40. 2014.
[29] S. Kucuk, R. M. Yilmaz, and Goktas, Y. “Augmented reality for learning English: Achievement, attitude, and cognitive load levels of students”. Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 135-147. 2014.
[30] D. A. Kolb, “Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development”. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1984.
[31] T. S. Cheng, and C.C. Tsai, “Affordances of augmented reality in science learning: Suggestions for future research”. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(4), 449-462. 2013.
[32] G. Chen, H. Wang, A. Liang, M. Oubibi, and Y. Zhou, “From detached observer to immersive participant: An augmented reality-based experiential learning approach to promote academic performance and learning behaviors in science education,” Computers in Human Behavior Reports, vol. 19, Art. no. 100756, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100756.
[33] M. F. Santos, J. L. Sa, and M. Fradinho, “AR as a tool for engaging students in STEM disciplines: A case study in physics education”. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(4), 416-432. 2022.
[34] W. Huang, Y. Wang, and Chang, S. “Augmented reality-based learning in STEM education: A meta-analysis”. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 1293-1310. 2021.
[35] C. Wang, Y. Liu, and L. Zhang, L. “Exploring interest formation in English learning through XploreRAFE+: A gamified AR mobile app”. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 14(2), 45-60. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.1402.04
[36] Y.Zhao, and X. Li, “Effects of gamifying questions on English grammar learning mediated by epistemic curiosity and language anxiety”. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1123-1136. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12678
[37] L.Chen, and H. Wang, “An AR-based gamified English course in vocational college through interest-driven approach”. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(2), 45-63. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00359-4
[38] H. Y. Chang, C. Y. Hsu, and P. T. Yu, “Using augmented reality to promote learning: A study of learning engagement in a physics course. Computers in Human Behavior”, 111, 106415. 2020.
[39] S. B. Merriam, and E. J. Tisdell, “Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.)”. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 2016.
[40] J. W. Creswell, and C. N. Poth, “Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.)”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2018.
[41] S. Kvale, and S. Brinkmann, “InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.)”. Sage. 2015
[42] M. Q. Patton, “Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.)”. Sage. 2015.
[43] G. A. Bowen, “Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal”, 9(2), 27-40. 2009.
[44] S. Cai, C. Liu, T. Wang, E. Liu, and J.-C. Liang, “Effects of learning physics using Augmented Reality on students’ self-efficacy and conceptions of learning,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 235–251, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13020
[45] L.-H. Wong, T.-W. Chan, W. Chen, C.-K. Looi, Z.-H. Chen, C. C. Y. Liao, R. B. King, and S. L. Wong, “IDC theory: interest and the interest loop,” Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, vol. 15, article 3, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-0123-2
[46] H.-K. Wu, S. W.-Y. Lee, H.-Y. Chang, and J.-C. Liang, “Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education,” Computers & Education, vol. 62, pp. 41–49, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024
[47] J. Bacca, S. Baldiris, R. Fabregat, S. Graf, and Kinshuk, “Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications,” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 133–149, 2014.
[48] I. Radu, “Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1533–1543, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0747-y
[49] G. Loewenstein, “The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 75–98, 1994.
[50] J. Garzón, J. Pavón, and S. Baldiris, “Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings,” Virtual Reality, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 447–459, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00379-9
Authors
Nor Faradila Othman
was xxxx.
Mas Nida Md. Khambari
was bornxxxx
Wong Su Luan
was xxxx.
Rahmita Wirza O.K Rahmat
was bornxxxx
Mohd Najwan Md
was bornxxxx