Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality and their

effect on learning style in the creative design

process
Tilanka Chandrasekera, Oklahoma State University, USA
So-Yeon Yoon, Cornell University, USA

Abstract
Research has shown that user characteristics such as preference for using an interface can
result in effective use of the interface. Research has also suggested that there is a
relationship between learner preference and creativity. This study uses the VARK learning
styles inventory to assess students learning style then explores how this learning preference
affect the use of Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) in the creative design
process.

Key words
augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, Learning styles, Design education, Creativity.

Introduction
Individuals use interfaces in different ways for different purposes. Research has shown that
user characteristics such as preference for using an interface can result in effective use of
the interface. Factors such as cognitive style, gender, and preference have been shown to
impact creativity and the ideation process (Baer, 1997; Baer & Kaufman, 2008; Lubart, 1999;
Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001).
Furthermore, there is a relationship between learner preference and creativity (Atkinson,
2004; Eishani, Saa’d, & Nami, 2014; Friedel & Rudd, 2006; Kassim, 2013; Ogot & Okudan,
2007; Tsai & Shirley, 2013). The purpose of this study is to explore how user characteristics
(i.e. learner preferences) affect the use of Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) in
the creative design process. While VR can be interpreted as immersive three-dimensional
computer-generated environments (Bryson, 1995), AR can be conceptualized as overlaying
virtual objects over the physical environment (Fischer et al., 2006). Researchers have
investigated how AR and VR can be used in design and design education, but there is a gap
in knowledge about how these interfaces affect the cognitive process of designing.
The VARK Learning Styles inventory was used to measure learner preferences for visual,
auditory, read/write, and kinaesthetic learning styles. The VARK is considered to be a valid
learner preferences tool and it has been used by many researchers (Bell, Koch, & Green,
2014; Drago, & Wagner, 2004; Lau, Yuen, & Chan, 2015). It was used in this study because it
focuses on kinaesthetic and visual learning styles, which relate to the characteristics of the
interfaces that are investigated in this study. The rationale in this study was that learners
with a preference for kinaesthetic learning will prefer to use an interface that provides more
Page | 55
tactility, while those who have a preference for visual learning will prefer to use an interface
that provides more visual cues.
Learning styles are thought of as a user’s preference for using a certain modality as a
means to learn. The main hypothesis of the study stems from the fact that the learner
preference correlates to the acceptance of that particular technology, thereby affecting the
creative design process through intrinsic motivation (see Figure 1).

Learner preferences Creative Design Process

AR/VR

VARK Learning Style Inventory

• Visual

• Auditory Technology Acceptanace

• Read/Write

• Kinesthetic

Figure 1. Effect of learner preferences on using AR and VR in the creative design process.

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR)

VR has been extensively used in educational environments. As AR technology is becoming
more accessible, it is being more often adapted for mainstream use. While VR can generally
be interpreted as an immersive three-dimensional computer-generated environment, AR
can be thought of as overlaying of the virtual over the physical environment.
VR is a simulated three-dimensional environment which either emulates the real world or
acts as an imaginary world. Even though the majority of virtual environments cater to the
visual sense, virtual environments can cater to the auditory, haptic, olfactory, and even the
taste sense. VR is commonly used as an entertainment, education, and research tool. It
offers a wide variety of options and opportunities in conducting research, especially in
human behaviour research, since virtual environments can be controlled according to the
need of the researcher.
AR has been defined as a variation of VR (Azuma, 1997). While VR completely immerses the
user inside a computer-generated environment where the user cannot relate to the physical
environment, AR allows the overlaying of virtual elements onto the physical environment.
AR can be considered a hybrid of virtual and physical environments and therefore
supplements reality rather than replacing it. Given the similarities and overlapping of
certain characteristics between these two interfaces (AR and VR), there is a critical need to
identify advantages or disadvantages of one over the other for its use in a specific domain.
AR is an interface that offers tangible interaction (Ishii, 2007) and is often referred to as
tangible user interface (TUI). There for the tangible nature of AR might appeal to

Page | 56
kinaesthetic users as compared to the visual nature of VR, which might appeal more to the
visual learners.

Even though AR has existed for several decades, there is a gap in the knowledge about how
human factors affect the use of AR (Huang, Alem, & Livingston, 2012). Better understanding
of user experience factors in AR environments is important for a number of reasons. With
the emergence of new hardware that has the capability of supporting AR applications,
interest in how to use this technology efficiently has been increasing. Such studies are only
currently becoming feasible because of the recent maturation of the technology. Extensive
studies of this type will allow the development of specific and general design and usage
guidelines for AR technology not only in design education and design practice but in other
fields of study as well. Moreover, understanding human perception of AR will accelerate
the introduction of such technologies into mainstream use beyond the current novelty value
of AR.

Effects of User Characteristics on the Design Process

Digital interfaces affect the design process in a number of ways, such as the way the
individual use it, the familiarity with the tools and the intrinsic qualities of the tool. It is
important to understand how these interfaces affect the design process and thereby the
people using them. The purpose of this study is to explore digital interfaces and user
preferences for learning.
Research on using digital media in design education has for the most part focused on the
development of the technology. Whatever user evaluation has been done has focused on
technical aspects rather than using a human-centred approach (Gab bard & Swan, 2008).
Nevertheless, both system and user performance measurements are important aspects for
AR because the technology coordinates the physical environment and the computer-
generated overlaid environment (Grier et al., 2012).
In his 10 books on architecture, Vitruvius stated that an architect should be a good writer, a
skilful draftsman, versed in geometry and optics, expert at figures, acquainted with history,
informed on the principles of natural and moral philosophy, somewhat of a musician, not
ignorant of the law and of physics, nor of the motions, laws, and relations to each other, of
the heavenly bodies (as cited in D’Souza, 2009, p. 173). Apart from these basic technical
skills, an architect is assumed to have or acquire imagination and be creative and must gain
artistic and intellectual abilities as well (Potur & Barkul, 2007). Isham (1997, p. 2) stated,
“The ability to concisely communicate a highly complex and creative design solution has at
its creative core visualization skills (internal imaging) that allow designers to mentally
create, manipulate and communicate solutions effectively.”
These different characteristics that make a designer may depend on the designer’s innate
skills and intelligences as well as the learning method. Thurstone (1938) described
intelligence as a combination of factors such as associative memory, number facility,
perceptual speed, reasoning, spatial visualization, verbal comprehension, and word fluency.
He further identified three factors of spatial ability, mental rotation, spatial visualization,
and spatial perception. D’Souza (2006) stated that designers use the seven types of
intelligences which Gardener (1983) discusses – logical, kinaesthetic, spatial, interpersonal,
Page | 57
intrapersonal, verbal, and musical intelligence – and suggested the addition of graphical,
suprapersonal, assimilative, and visual intelligences to the types of intelligences so that the
framework for design intelligence is more comprehensive.
According to Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory, individuals have a distinctive capacity
to succeed in a particular field, and the method of educating these individuals should foster
these intelligences. The idea of learning styles suggests that individuals have a particular
way of learning that works best for them. For example, some individuals learn more easily
from visual activities and some learn more easily from hands-on activities. Educators should
identify the learning style best suited for the student.
Understanding the learner preferences of the individual is important when selecting the
instructional medium. In this study, emphasis is on learner preference instead of
intelligences because this study focuses on the modality through which information is
provided to the students (i.e., through the AR or VR interface).

Learning Styles
Researchers have attempted to identify how individuals learn and have provided a number
of categorizations. The term “learning styles” was first used in an article by Thelen in 1954,
and thereafter has been defined by many. Ausubel, Novak, and Hanesian (1968) defined it
as “self-consistent, enduring individual differences in cognitive organization and
functioning” (p. 203), while Keefe (1979) defined it as “cognitive, affective, and physiological
traits that serve as relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and
respond to the learning environment” (p. 2). A general definition of learning styles was
provided by James and Gardner (1995) as the different patterns of how individuals learn.
A number of researchers have presented theoretical frameworks that explain these learning
styles. Curry’s (1983) onion model explores different learning style theoretical frameworks
and provides four main categories: personality learning theories, information processing
theories, social learning theories, and multidimensional and instructional theories.
According to the onion model, some learning theories focus on the personality of the
individual (such as the Myers-Briggs indicator), information processing theories describe
how individuals perceive and process learning activities. Kolb’s (1984) model of information
processing is an example of this type of theory. Social learning theories describe an
individual’s interaction with the environment. The fourth type attempts a more holistic
view of learning through analysing multiple dimensions. In his multiple intelligence theory,
Gardner described several dimensions of learning, such as inter personal, intra personal,
visual-spatial, bodily-kinaesthetic, linguistic, and logical (Gardner, 1983).
While many of these theories propose using learning styles as a mechanism to better meld
instructional modalities to cater to the individual, the rationale in identifying learning styles
in this study is to understand the user preference for digital interfaces and the efficient use
of that digital interface in the creative design process. Dunn (1993) stated that

if individuals have significantly different learning styles, as they appear to

have, is it not unprofessional, irresponsible, and immoral to teach all

Page | 58
 students the same lesson in the same way without identifying their unique
strengths and then providing responsive instruction? (p. 30)

Therefore, the logical question that remains is not whether educators should instruct
students in different ways but which methods are best for which students.

Learning Styles in Design Education

Learning styles that are applicable to design are defined by the way designers observe and
solve design problems. Design educators have explored design students’ learner
preferences and styles by observing learner preferences of design students (Demirbas &
Demirkan, 2003; Kvan & Jia, 2005). Newland, Powell, and Creed (1987) identified four types
of design learners by using Kolb’s learner styles as a starting ground. Durling, Cross, and
Johnson (1996) observed cognitive styles using the Myers-Briggs type indicator (Briggs,
1976) to identify the connection between teaching and learning in design schools.
Students of different disciplines have shown preferences for a certain type of learning style.
For example, using the VARK questionnaire, Lujan and DiCarlo (2006) found that medical
students prefer multiple learning styles. Felder and Silverman (1988) stated that the
learning styles of most engineering students are mismatched with teaching styles of most
engineering professors and recommended that professors use different methods to
facilitate the learner preference of the students. The learner preference of students from a
certain discipline may be similar for a number of reasons, such as shared interests or similar
aptitude. In design education, students tend to be more visual and to enjoy working with
physical objects such as building prototypes. These preferences and aptitudes may
predispose them to a certain learner preference.
Researchers have stated that the most important facet of design and design education is
self-reflection, in which a designer would revisit and reflect on the design decisions that
have been made (Newland, Powell, & Creed, 1987). Trial and error problem solving
encourages and facilitates this type of self-reflective design ideation in enhancing the
creative design process (Harnad, 2006). The fact that trial and error type of problem solving
plays a major role in a design students’ academic career might influence their learner
preference as well.

Creativity, Motivation, and Acceptance

Motivation is generally understood as a personal drive to accomplish. Motivation can be
intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is defined as doing something for one’s own
satisfaction (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1987) and extrinsic motivation is defined as “the
motivation to work on something primarily because it is a means to an end” (Amabile, 1987,
p. 224).
Researchers have studied the connection between intrinsic motivation and creativity
(Amabile, 1985; Collins & Amabile, 1999; Hennessey, & Amabile, 1998; Koestner, Ryan,
Bernieri, & Holt, 1984) as well as motivation and creativity in the context of design (Casakin
& Kreitler, 2010; Kreitler, & Casakin, 2009) and found that when motivation is less, creative
Page | 59
output decreases (Collins & Amabile, 1999). Runco (2005, p. 609) stated that “creative
potential is not fulfilled unless the individual is motivated to do so, and creative solutions
are not found unless the individual is motivated to apply his or her skills.”
Research has shown that extrinsic motivation for using assistive technology is captured by
the PU construct in the TAM (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis 2000; Venkatesh & Speier,
2000). Furthermore, Venkatesh, (2000) stated that intrinsic motivation is related to PEU.
Because technology acceptance is affected by perceived ease of use and perceived ease of
use is affected by intrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation would appear to affect
technology acceptance (see Figure 2).
Intrinsic
Motivation Perceived ease of use
Attitude
Behavioral Actual
towards
intention to use system use
using

Extrinsic Perceived Usefulness

Motivation

Figure 2. Effect of motivation on the technology acceptance model (TAM).

Perceived ease of use is a predictor of intrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation enhances
creativity. Through this link I examine whether perceived ease of use is related to creativity.
Anasol, Ferreyra-Olivares and Alejandra (2013) proposed that the learning experience of
kinaesthetic learners could be enhanced through the tangibility of user interfaces. They
further stated that virtual environments can be used as extensions of traditional physical
classrooms, motivating visual or aural learners. Therefore, they suggest that user
preference would affect the use of VR and AR interfaces in design and thereby affect the
creative design process (see Figure 3).

Intrinsic
Motivation Perceived ease of use
Attitude
Behavioral Actual
towards
intention to use system use
using

Extrinsic Perceived Usefulness

Motivation

Figure 3. Effect of learner preference through digital modalities.

Measuring Learning Styles: VARK Learning Styles Inventory

The VAK (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) and VARK (visual, aural, reading and writing,
kinaesthetic) learning style inventories have been used in many studies (Bell, Koch, & Green,
2014; Drago, & Wagner, 2004; Lau, Yuen, & Chan, 2015; Marcy, 2001; Wehrwein, Lujan, &
DiCarlo, 2007). Fleming (2001; Fleming & Mills, 1992) attempted to establish perceptual
modes as a measurable construct through the VARK inventory, which focuses on the
individual preferences of using different perceptive modalities in obtaining and retaining
information efficiently.

Page | 60
Aural learners prefer receiving information through discussions, seminars, lectures, and
conversations. Visual learners obtain information efficiently through pictures and other
visual means such as charts, graphs, and other symbolic devices instead of words. Learners
who prefer obtaining information through text are identified as readers/writers. These
learners prefer textbooks, taking notes, readings, and printed handouts. Kinaesthetic
learners prefer to learn through practical examples which also may involve other perceptual
modes. They prefer practical examples, hands-on approaches in problem solving, and trial
and error solutions to problems. Those who prefer obtaining information through multiple
sources are identified as multi-modal. The VARK Learning styles inventory has gained
immense popularity because of its face validity and simplicity, which Leite, Svinicki, and Shi
(2010) confirmed using factor analysis to compare four multitrait-multimethod models to
evaluate the dimensions in the VARK. They stated that the estimated reliability coefficients
were adequate.

Method
This study employs a quantitative research design using analysis of subjective survey data.
The study explores the research questions mainly by closely examining the responses of a
small number of participants. The independent variable (i.e., the interaction environment)
had two levels: AR environment and VR environment. The design of the study included
learner preference as a moderating variable and the dependent variable of technology
acceptance.
This research seeks to answer the following questions:

How does type of user interface (AR/VR) and learner preference affect the creative design
process?
RQ1.1: How does interface type affect technology acceptance?
RQ1.2: How does learner preference interact with media type to affect technology
acceptance?
Hypotheses for RQ1.1-1.2
• H1: The type of user interface used in design problem solving affects the
perceived ease of use (PEU) of the user interface.
• H2: The type of user interface used in design problem solving affects the
perceived usefulness (PU) of the user interface.
• H3: The type of user interface used in design problem solving affects the
behavioural intention to use (IU).
• H4: The learner preference of the user moderates the PEU of the user
interface.
• H5: The learner preference of the user moderates the PU of the user
interface.

Page | 61
 • H6: The learner preference of the user moderates the IU of the user
interface.
Two design problem-solving interfaces were employed: an AR interface and a VR interface.

Both interfaces used a tabletop webcam and fiducial marker-based system. Thirty
volunteers participated in the study. After approval by the institutional review board, the
participants were chosen by purposeful sampling (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). After
announcing the research opportunity to design students (juniors and seniors) at a
Midwestern university in the US, students were offered a chance to participate in the study.
They were informed that there would be monetary incentive of $25 for participating.
Volunteers were provided with copies of the informed consent form. The participants were
then randomly assigned to one of the two interaction environments, AR/VR. Table 1 shows
the demographic information of the participants.

Table 1. Demographics in the Two Groups

Gender Age Academic
M F 18-25 30-35 Senior Junior
AR 0 15 15 0 6 9
VR 1 14 14 1 8 7

Figure 4. Floor plan of the office space.

The design problem was formulated in consideration of two main factors. The first was to
provide a simple problem which would encourage the participants to focus on object
manipulation, spatial and logical iterations, context, and user-behaviour issues, while also
keeping in mind visual appeal, composition, environmental considerations, and ergonomic
factors. The second consideration was previous studies that were conducted for a similar
purpose.
Page | 62
All 30 participants responded to two questionnaires based on the technology acceptance
model (post-test) and the VARK learning styles inventory (pre-test) to better understand
how the interface affects the design process and human perception. In this study, the task
was to arrange furniture within a small (15’ X 10’) office space (Figure 4). The floor plan was
rectangular and had openings for windows and doors.

There were three main differences in the AR and VR environments. Firstly, in the VR
environment a regular PC mouse was used as the interaction device and the manipulation
was accomplished by dragging along the axis, while in the AR environment the fiducial
markers were used in order to move and rotate the objects. Secondly, in the VR
environment the screen transparency was set to 0 and in the AR environment it was set to
100. Thirdly, while in the AR environment each piece of furniture was assigned to a single
marker, but in the VR environment all markers were printed on a single sheet, then moved
and rotated using the PC mouse. The AR working environment is pictured in Figure 5 and
the VR working environment is pictured in Figure 6.

Figure 5. The augmented reality working environment.

Figure 6. The virtual reality working environment.

Page | 63
Analysis and Discussion
Previous studies have shown that creativity is affected by intrinsic motivation. Furthermore,
intrinsic motivation has been shown to be driven by the Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) of an
assistive technology. PEU is one of the factors emphasized in the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM). In order to determine how the interface type affects learner preference,
Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), Perceived Usefulness (PU), and Intention to Use (IU) were
compared between the two interface types for two learning styles; visual and kinaesthetic
learning styles.
Multivariate statistical software (SPSS version 20) was used to obtain descriptive statistics
and to perform statistical analyses. A series of statistical tests were performed to test the
research hypotheses. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare
the dependent variables (PU, PEU, and IU) between the two interface types. A two-way
ANOVA was performed to explain the interaction between interface type and learner
preference. To assess the relationship between PU and IU as well as PEU and IU, bivariate
correlation coefficients (Pearson’s r) were computed.

Reliability and Validity of the Instrument

The TAM instrument was adopted from an established TAM scale. The tool measures the
subjective perceptions of technology use and has been previously validated in a number of
studies (Davis, 1989; Davis, 1993; Dishaw & Strong, 1999; Igbaria, 1993; Igbaria, Schiffman,
& Weickowski, 1994). Internal consistency of the measures in the TAM instrument was
assessed by Cronbach’s alpha (α) computed using SPSS. Cronbach’s alpha ranges between 1
and 0, and internal consistency is considered greater as the value approaches 1. In the
instrument used in this study, the PEU subscale consisted of nine items (α = .813), and the
PU subscale consisted of 5 items (α = .58). In order to improve the α level for the PU
subscale, one item was removed, which improved the Cronbach’s α value to 0.65. DeVellis
(1991) stated that an α value of 0.60 to 0.65 is undesirable but acceptable. The IU subscale
consisted of two items (α = .79).
The VARK questionnaire (Fleming & Mills, 1992) is an established learning style evaluation
tool and was used without any modification, so checking the reliability or validity of the tool
was not necessary.

Comparison of the Dependent Variables (PU, PEU and IU) between the
Interface Types
A one-way ANOVA analysed the difference between interface type and the dependent
variables. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for PEU, IU, and PU by interface type.
ANOVA results for PU, IU and PEU are presented Table 3.

Page | 64
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Virtual and Augmented Reality Interfaces

Dependent Variable Independent Variable Mean SD

Perceived Usefulness VR 4.83 1.08

(PU) AR 5.90 0.60

Behavioural Intention to VR 4.70 1.33

Use (IU) AR 6.20 0.80
Perceived Ease of Use VR 5.52 0.95
(PEU) AR 6.23 0.26
Note: N = 15 (In each group)

Table 3. ANOVA Summary Table for Interface Type

Dependent
Source SS df MS F p
Variable
Between Groups 8.533 1 8.533 11.213 .002
Perceived
Within Groups 21.308 28 0.761
Usefulness
Total 29.842 29
Between Groups 16.875 1 16.875 13.979 .001
Behavioural
Intention to Within Groups 33.800 28 1.207
Use
Total 50.675 29
Between Groups 3.793 1 3.793 7.804 .009
Perceived Ease
Within Groups 13.608 28 0.486
of Use
Total 17.401 29

The difference between the two interface types was significant for all three dependent
variables: PU, F(1,28) = 11.21, p = .002); IU, F(1,28) = 13.979, p = .001); and PEU, F(1,28) =
7.804, p = .009). All three dependent variable means were significantly higher in the AR
interface type, PU: M = 5.90, SD = 0.60; PEU: M = 6.23, SD = 0.26; and IU: M = 6.20, SD =
0.80, compared to the VR interface type, PU: M = 4.83, SD = 1.08; PEU: M = 5.52, SD = .95;
and IU: M = 4.70, SD = 1.33.
Comparison of the Dependent Variables between Interface Type and Learner
preference
In order to understand the interaction between interface type (independent variable) and
learner preference (moderating variable) on the dependent variables (PU, PEU and IU), a
two-way ANOVA was performed for each of the dependent variables. See Table 4 & 5.
Page | 65
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Usefulness
Learner
Interface Type Mean Std. Deviation N
Preference
Visual 4.25 .50000 3
Aural 6.08 .52042 3
VR Read/Write 4.81 .42696 4
Kinaesthetic 4.94 1.06800 4
Multimodal 2.50 . 1
Visual 6.15 .54772 5
Aural 5.67 .14434 3
AR Read/Write 5.25 .00000 3
Kinaesthetic 6.42 .80364 3
Multimodal 5.75 . 1

Table 5. Two-Way ANOVA Summary Table for the Effect of Learner Preference and Interface
Type on Perceived Usefulness
Source SS df MS F p
Interface Type 10.127 1 10.127 26.849 .000
Learner preference 6.249 4 1.562 4.142 .013
Interaction 7.956 4 1.989 5.273 .005
Error 7.544 20 .377
Total 893.875 30
Note. R2 = .747 and adjusted R2 = .633

The effect of the interaction between the interface type and learning style on the PU is
significant, F(4,20) = 5.273, p < .005. The main effect for interface type on PU is also
significant, F(1,20) = 26.85, p < .001. Furthermore, the main effect of learner preference on
PU is significant, F(4,20) = 4.142, p < .013.

Table 6. Differences in Perceived Usefulness between Augmented and Virtual Reality

Interface by Learner preference

Learner Preference Mean Difference SE p

Page | 66
Visual -1.900* .449 .000
Aural .417 .501 .416
Read/Write -.437 .469 .362
Kinaesthetic -1.479* .469 .005
Multimodal -3.250* .869 .001
*p < .01
The pairwise comparisons suggested that the mean PU score was significantly higher in the
AR environment than the VR environment for kinaesthetic learners. Furthermore, the mean
PU was significantly higher in the AR environment than the VR environment for visual
learners. For PEU and IU, the interaction between interface type and learner preference
was not significant (p = 0.092 and 0.074 for PEU and IU, respectively).
Because the multimodal learner category only had two participants (one for each interface
type), the two participants were removed from the data set and the two-way ANOVA was
rerun to observe any difference in the results. Removing these two participants made no
difference in the results obtained for the interaction between learner style and interface
type on PU, PEU, or IU.

Relationships between Perceived Usefulness and Behavioural Intention to

Use as well as Perceived Ease of Use and Behavioural Intention to Use
To investigate the relationship of PEU and PU on the IU as suggested by the TAM, bivariate
correlations (Pearson’s r) were calculated. As expected and predicted by the TAM, all PU,
PEU, and IU were positively but not strongly correlated (see Table 7).

Table 7. Correlations among Variables

Perceived Usefulness(PU) Behavioural

Intention to
Use(IU)

Behavioural Pearson’s r .689**

Intention to Use (IU) Sig. (2-tailed) .000

Perceived Pearson’s r .480** .589**

Ease of Use (PEU) Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .001
Note: N = 30 ** p < .001

Page | 67
Summary of Findings
In this study, two research questions were investigated: How does interface type affect
technology acceptance? And how does learner preference interact with the interface type
to affect technology acceptance? Hypotheses H1 through H6 were tested.
H1: The type of user interface used in design problem solving affects the Perceived
Ease of Use (PEU) of the user interface.
H2: The type of user interface used in design problem solving affects the Perceived
Usefulness (PU) of the user interface.
H3: The type of user interface used in design problem solving affects the Intention to
Use (IU).
According to results of the ANOVA, the difference between the two interface types was
statistically significant for all three dependent variables, PU, IU, and PEU. All three variables
had a higher value in the AR interface. The conclusion is that participants found AR to be
easier to use and more useful and were more inclined to use it in the future than VR. Null
hypotheses for H1-H3 were rejected.
H4: The learner preference of the user moderates the PEU of the user interface.
H5: The learner preference of the user moderates the PU of the user interface.
H6: The learner preference of the user moderates the IU of the user interface.
According to the results of the two-way ANOVA, the interaction between the interface type
and learner preference was significant for PU. As expected, the PU score was significantly
higher in the AR environment than the VR environment for kinaesthetic learners. Contrary
to expectations, the mean PU was also significantly higher in the AR environment than the
VR environment for visual learners. The null hypothesis for H5 was rejected.
Research has shown that extrinsic motivation for using assistive technology is captured by
the PU construct in the TAM (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis 2000; Venkatesh & Speier,
2000). Furthermore, Venkatesh, (2000) stated that intrinsic motivation is related to PEU.
PEU is a measurement of intrinsic motivation that enhances the creative design process. PU
is a means of measuring extrinsic motivation. For PEU and IU, the interaction between
interface type and learner preference was not significant. From these results the conclusion
cannot be made that learner preference moderates the creative design process in a given
interface type. Therefore, the null hypotheses for H4 and H6 were not rejected.
As expected and as proposed in the TAM, this study found positive correlations between IU
and PU as well as IU and PEU. This result validates previous results and the methodology
used in this study.
Participants rated PU, PEU, and IU higher for the AR interface. The conclusion is that
kinaesthetic and visual learners found the AR environment more useful than the VR
environment.

Page | 68
Conclusions
The main research question of the study focused on a relationship between user preference
and creativity in the design process when using Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality
(VR). The AR environment was operationalized as an interface that offered tangible
interaction, as compared to VR which functioned within the Windows, Icons, Menus and
Pointers (WIMP) paradigm.
This study provided information on how user preference affects the use of different
interfaces. The results suggest that participants perceived AR to be easier to use, more
useful and were more inclined to use it in the future than VR. As expected, kinaesthetic
learners found the AR environment more useful than the VR environment. However,
contrary to expectations, visual learners found the AR environment more useful than the VR
environment. The AR interface used in this study was similar to the VR interface in every
way except for the method of interaction and interface transparency. However, the
interaction in the AR interface was achieved by using a fiducial marker, which may not be
the ideal method of interaction for AR. This might be a factor to explain the unexpected
result that visual learners found AR to be more useful than VR. True tangible interaction for
AR may be achieved by using devices such as a leap motion controller that provide tangible
interaction with virtual objects. From these results, the conclusion cannot be made that
learner preference moderates the creative design process in a given interface type.
This study has theoretical, methodological, and practical implications. The implications of
the study provide designers and design educators with insights into the selection of
different types of interfaces that affect the creative design process. Furthermore, the
results of the study offer suggestions to developers of instructional and educational media
and materials to create content for different types of interfaces. The theoretical framework
established the connection between Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) and creativity through
intrinsic motivation. While learner preference did not significantly affect creativity,
technology acceptance was higher for the AR environment, and learner preference affected
Perceived Usefulness (PU). These theoretical implications can contribute practical insights
to multiple domains on using different interface types in the design process.
From a practical standpoint, the findings of this study contribute to helping designers and
design educators use interfaces such as AR and VR in the design process. The results of the
current study show how learner preference moderates user acceptance of different
interface types and may affect the creative design process. Even though there was no
relationship between creativity in the design process and learner preference under the AR
and VR interfaces, the learners’ PU, PEU, and Behavioural Intention to Use (IU) were all
significantly higher in the AR interface than in the VR interface. This finding is consistent
with previous findings on AR and user acceptance (Chandrasekera, Yoon & Balakrishnan,
2012). These theoretical implications can contribute practical insights to multiple domains
on using different interface types in the design process.

Page | 69
Limitations
The current study was designed with numerous methods of limiting errors and enhancing
the validity of the research protocol in investigating how user learner preferences affect the
use of Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) in the creative design process.
However, as in all research of an exploratory nature, there are some unavoidable
limitations.
First, the participants were college students in a design program at one Midwestern college
in the United States. Most of the students were living in the same region. The study
focused on design and the design process, and the students that were recruited were design
students who were in their junior and senior years of study. Even though the participants
were randomly assigned to the AR or VR group, six seniors and nine juniors were in the AR
group, while eight seniors and seven juniors were in the VR group. This unequal distribution
might have affected the results of the study because the senior students are more
experienced in the design process than the junior students. Another major limitation was
the unequal gender distribution: 29 out of 30 participants were female.
The second limitation was the small number of participants recruited in the study. One of
the reasons for the small sample size was obtaining participants for the research study. The
entire data collection took place from December, 2014 to April, 2015. Although an incentive
was offered, the need to dedicate some time out of their busy and limited schedules
contributed to the students’ decision to refrain from participating in the study.

References

Amabile, T. M. and S. S. Gryskiewicz (1987). Creativity in the R&D laboratory. Greensboro,

NC :Center for Creative Leadership.

Amabile, T. M. (1987). The motivation to be creative. Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond

the basics, 223-254.

Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on

creative writers. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 48(2), 393-399.

Anasol, P.-R., Ferreyra-Olivares, E., & Alejandra, P. (2013). Stories of the virtual mind. In
Proceedings of the Creative Science 2013 (CS'13), 18-27.

Atkinson, E. S. (2004). A comparison of the relationship between creativity, learning style

preference and achievement at GCSE and degree level in the context of design and
technology project work. Paper presented at the DATA International Research Conference.

Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Page | 70
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual
Environments, 6(4), 355-385.

Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on

creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 25-31.Baer, J. & J. C. Kaufman (2008). Gender
differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 75-105.

Bell, B., Koch, J., & Green, B. (2014). Assessing Learning Styles of Pharmacy Students Using
the VARK Questionnaire. Unpublished presentation, Butler University.

Briggs, K. C. (1976). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo: Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.

Bryson, S. (1995). Approaches to the successful design and implementation of VR

applications. Virtual Reality Applications, 3-15.

Casakin, H. & S. Kreitler (2010). Motivation for creativity in architectural design and
engineering design students: implications for design education. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 477-493.

Chandrasekera, T., Yoon, S. Y., & Balakrishnan, B. (2012). Digital orthographic projections in
architectural representation: Augmented reality based learning. Paper presented at the 16th
Biannual Conference of the Design Communication Association Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Collins, M. A. & T. M. Amabile (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

Handbook of creativity (pp. 297 – 312). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. Paper presented at
the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Montreal,
Quebec, April 11-15).

D'Souza, N. S. (2006). Design Intelligences: A Case for Multiple Intelligences in Architectural

Design (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee).

D'Souza, N. (2009). Revisiting a vitruvian preface: The value of multiple skills in

contemporary architectural pedagogy. Architectural Research Quarterly, 13(2), 173-182.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319-340.

Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user

perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-machine studies, 38(3),
475-487.

Demirbaş, O. & H. Demirkan (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning
styles. Design Studies, 24(5), 437-456.

Page | 71
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.Dishaw, M. T. & Strong, D.M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with
task–technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36(1), 9-21.

Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with
task–technology fit constructs. Information & management, 36(1), 9-21.

Drago, W. A. & Wagner. R. J. (2004). VARK preferred learning styles and online education.
Management Research News, 27(7), 1-13.

Dunn, R. (1993). Learning styles of the multiculturally diverse. Emergency Librarian, 20(4),
24-32.

Durling, D., Cross, N., & Johnson, J. (1996). Personality and learner preferences of students in
design and design-related disciplines. Paper presented at the IDATER 1996 Conference,
Loughborough, Loughborough University.

Eishani, K. A., Saa’d, E. A., & Nami, Y. (2014). The relationship between learning styles and
creativity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 52-55.

Felder, R. M. & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering

education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.

Fischer J., Cunninham, D., Bartz, D., Wallraven, C., Bulthoff, H., Stasser, W. (2006).
Measuring the discernability of virtual objects in conventional and stylized augmented
reality. In Proceedings of Eurographics Symposium on Virtual Environments (2006), pp. 53–
61.

Fleming, N. D.& C. Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To
Improve the Academy, 11, 137–143.

Fleming, N. D. (2001). Teaching and Learning Styles: VARK Strategies. Honolulu Community
College, Honolulu, 2001, p. 128.

Friedel, C., & Rudd, R. (2006). Creative thinking and learning styles in undergraduate
agriculture students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(4), 102.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Collecting research data with questionnaires and
interviews. Educational research: An introduction, 227-261.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences: NY: Basics.

Grier, R., Thiruvengada, H., Ellis, S., Havig, P., Hale, K., & Hollands, J. (2012). Augmented
Reality–Implications toward Virtual Reality, Human Perception and Performance.

Harnad, S. (2006). Creativity: method or magic? Hungarian Studies, 20(1), 163-177.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Reality, intrinsic motivation, and creativity.
American Psychologist, 53, 674–675.

Page | 72
Huang, W., Alem, L., & Livingston, M. (2012). Human factors in augmented reality
environments. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Igbaria, M. (1993). User acceptance of microcomputer technology: an empirical test.

Omega, 21(1), 73-90.

Igbaria, M., Schiffman, S. J., & Wieckowski, T. J. (1994). The respective roles of perceived
usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer technology. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 13(6), 349-361.

Isham, D. D. (1997). Developing a computerized interactive visualization assessment. The

Journal of Computer-Aided Environmental Design and Education 3(1). Online. Scholarly
Communications Project, University Libraries, Virginia Tech. Retrieved July 7, 2015 from:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JCAEDE/v3n1/

Ishii, H. (2007). Tangible user interfaces. In A. Sears & J.A. Jacko (Eds.), The human-computer
interaction handbook. Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications, (pp.
469–487). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

James, W. B., & Gardner, D. L. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance learning.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1995(67), 19-31.

Kassim, H. (2013). The relationship between learning styles, creative thinking performance
and multimedia learning materials. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 229-237.

Keefe, J. (1979). Learning style: An overview. NASSP's Student learning styles: Diagnosing
and proscribing programs (pp. 1-17). Reston, VA. National Association of Secondary School
Principle. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/styles.html#sthash.SbepFXmt.dpuf

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's behavior:
The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and
creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233-248.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and

development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kreitler, S., & Casakin, H. (2009). Motivation for creativity in design students. Creativity
Research Journal, 21(2-3), 282-293.

Kvan, T., & Jia, Y. (2005). Students' learning styles and their correlation with performance in
architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26(1), 19-34.

Lau, W. W., Yuen, A. H., & Chan, A. (2015). Variable-Centered and Person-Centered
Approaches to Studying the VARK Learning Style Inventory New Media, Knowledge Practices
and Multiliteracies (pp. 207-216). NY: Springer.

Page | 73
Leite, W. L., Svinicki, M., & Shi, Y. (2010). Attempted validation of the scores of the VARK:
Learning styles inventory with multitrait–multimethod confirmatory factor analysis models.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(2), 323-339.

Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Creativity research

handbook (pp. 339–350). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2006). First-year medical students prefer multiple learning
styles. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(1), 13-16.

Marcy, V. (2001). Adult learning styles: How the VARK Learning Styles Inventory can be used
to improve student learning. Perspectives on Physician Assistant Education, 12(2), 117-120.

Newland, P., Powell, J. A., & Creed, C. (1987). Understanding architectural designers'
selective information handling. Design Studies, 8(1), 2-16.

Ogot, M., & Okudan, G. E. (2007). Systematic creativity methods in engineering education: a
learning styles perspective. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 566-576.

Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on
team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 225.

Potur, A., & Barkul, O. (2007). Rethinking the entrance to architectural education: A critical
overview. Proceedings of the DesinTrain Congress, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Runco, M. A. (2005). Motivation, competence, and creativity. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 609–623). New York: Guilford

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6),
933-958.

Tsai, K. C., & Shirley, M. (2013). Exploratory Examination of Relationships between Learning
Styles and Creative Thinking in Math Students. International Journal of Academic Research
in Business and Social Sciences, 3(8), 506-519.

Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric Monographs. Chicago:

Unviersity of Chicago Press.

Thelen, H. A. (1954). Dynamics of groups at work. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic

motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems
Research, 11(4), 342-365.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.

Venkatesh, V., & Speier, C. (2000). Creating an effective training environment for enhancing
telework. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(6), 991-1005.
Page | 74
Wehrwein, E. A., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2007). Gender differences in learning style
preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Advances in Physiology Education,
31(2), 153-157

Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story
writing, and hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 15(4), 297-310.

Page | 75