Abstract:

Research on the use of augmented reality (AR) to promote learning in higher education is in its infancy. The aim of the study was to adapt AR technology into a pharmacy laboratory course to be possibly used in the future.

16 voluntary pharmacy students participated in the study while performing a laboratory work of antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The participants were divided into groups. One group carried out the work with the aid of AR. The control group followed the instructions on paper. The AR equipment provided electronic interactive laboratory protocol in the field of vision. In due course, the AR guided the student to insert correct volumes of reagents for critical steps in the workflow. The student’s choices of reagents and tools were recorded and guided with Quick Response code reader. Occasionally, the AR asked to answer orally to laboratory work related questions. Before the work, students answered six learning-related questions. After the work, the students had the possibility to correct their written answers. An expert evaluated the answers in points. Bias were excluded by re-evaluating the given points in a group of experts. AR group students were asked to explore self-efficacy and anxiety towards technology in a Likert scale [1] before and after the work. In more detailed was examined one student from AR and one from control group. Selection was made based on the equal background information of these students.

The AR student (AR-S) was constantly in interaction with the AR equipment while choosing correct reagents, tools and inserting volumes of reagents. The AR prevented the AR-S to use incorrect volumes of nutrient broth and wrong nutrient broth stock. The control group student (C-S) made in turn an error by preparing a 10-fold more concentrated bacterial suspension. The C-S was using own notes besides the paper instructions, thus, increasing the risk of errors compared to the AR, where all the instructions are located into one source. AR-S and C-S answered to all learning-related questions. The AR-S received higher score in evaluation. The AR-S corrected answers for two questions, one related to the interpretation of results and one related to asepsis and rational use of tools. The answering to the latter question was supported by the oral questions in the AR equipment. Revising the answers increased evaluation score by one point. The C-S did not correct answers. The responses to the self-efficacy related items were above the neutral level (point 3), indicating that AR-S was confident about using the equipment effectively. Most of the anxiety related items were evaluated below point 3, manifesting that AR-S did not hesitate to use the AR. The direction of agreement remained the same after the work, with one exception. In case of the item “I question why I need to use this new technology in the future” the response changed from neutral (point 3) to less questioning (point 2), showing the competence of AR equipment. The present study encourages adapting AR technology wider into traditional laboratory courses.

Acknowledgement:
Sciar Company Ltd is thanked for collaboration in AR technology. University of Helsinki is thanked for support via the Digi Leap funding and the project CELLS (UH/716/05.01.07/2018).

References:
[1] C.G.P. Bellini, et al. “Self-efficacy and anxiety of digital natives in face of compulsory computer-mediated tasks: A study about digital capabilities and limitations”. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 59, pp. 49-57, 2016.

Keywords:

Augmented reality, AR, mixed reality, interactive, laboratory skills, higher education.