Education Tech Research Dev (2020) 68:1121–1147

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09730-y

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real

situations

Wu‑Yuin Hwang1 · Lixinin Zhao1,2 · Rustam Shadiev3   · Li‑Kai Lin1 · Timothy K. Shih1 ·

Hong‑Ren Chen4

Published online: 10 December 2019

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Abstract
In this study, we designed geometry learning activities so that students could apply newly
learned knowledge to solve real-life problems, such as estimating the distance to real
objects they find in their local community, measuring objects’ length, width, and height,
and calculating objects’ surface area. Our participating students were divided into three
groups, and each group used different tools in different contexts for the measurements and
calculations: the students in control group A used traditional tools, such as rulers, paper,
and pencil, and their learning activities took place in the local community; the students
in control group B used traditional tools as well, but their learning activities took place in
classroom; the students in the experimental group learned geometry in a local community
setting using a tablet PC-based ubiquitous geometry (UG) system that we developed for
this study. We tested the difference in geometry learning performance, such as geometry
reasoning and spatial estimation abilities, among the three groups. We also investigated the
perceptions of students in the experimental group toward the UG system. Furthermore, stu-
dent behaviors toward measuring objects using the UG system and their relationship with
geometry reasoning and spatial estimation abilities were explored. Our results showed that
the geometry learning performance of the students in the experimental group was signifi-
cantly better than that of the students in the other two groups. Our results also showed that
the students in the experimental group had high learning motivation and intention to use
the UG system. Further analysis revealed that the students who measured more objects in
the real world using our system had better geometry reasoning and spatial estimation abili-
ties. However, only the students who measured objects correctly had high learning gains.
The results suggest that the learning activities supported by the UG system were benefi-
cial for enhancing geometry reasoning and spatial estimation abilities because the students
were able to apply newly learned knowledge to the real world. Based on the results, we
give some advice on the design of learning activities.

Keywords  Ubiquitous geometry learning · Authentic contexts · Geometry reasoning

ability · Spatial estimation ability

* Rustam Shadiev
rustamsh@gmail.com
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 1122 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

Introduction

Recent developments in information technology have contributed to the emergence of new

literacy practices in mobile contexts, also known as ubiquitous learning. Ubiquitous learn-
ing is defined as learning anywhere and anytime and is characterized by learning across
multiple contexts and through content interaction. For example, scholars (Buckley et  al.
2019; Chang et al. 2016; Starcic et al. 2013) argued that classroom learning can be easily
extended to situational contexts in the real world with the support of mobile technologies,
and learners can have more opportunities there to use newly learned knowledge meaning-
fully and extensively to solve real-life problems. Numerous studies have been carried out
on mobile-geometry learning (Chang et al. 2016; de Ravé et al. 2016; Hwang et al. 2015a).
The results of these studies have demonstrated that mobile technology facilitates geometry
learning. However, we found two major issues associated with these studies that should
be addressed. The first issue relates to the objects that students used for their learning and
the second is the environments in which students practiced their skills. That is, in related
studies, the objects were not real but digital, so the students practiced their skills in virtual
environments instead of in the real world (Chang et al. 2016; de Ravé et al. 2016; Starcic
et al. 2013).
Therefore, in the present study, we aimed to address these major issues. To this end, we
designed geometry learning activities that were supported by a ubiquitous geometry (UG)
system. During the learning activities, the students applied newly learned knowledge to the
real world by solving problems with the support of the system, such as estimating the dis-
tance to real objects they found in the local community, measuring objects’ length, width,
and height, and calculating objects’ surface area.

Related work

In this section, we discuss the related theories and studies to build a theoretical frame-
work for the present study. As shown in Fig.  1, the theoretical framework of the current
study includes (1) geometry reasoning and spatial estimation abilities (2) situated geometry
learning (3) ubiquitous/mobile-assisted geometry learning, and (4) learner perceptions,
motivation, and behavior.

Learning

The word “geometry” originates from the ancient Greek word “land survey.” The basic
concept involved is closely concerned with the questions of shape, size, and distance (Van
de Walle et  al. 2007). In the field of geometry, geometry reasoning and spatial estima-
tion abilities are two important skills (Putri and Syahputra 2019). Battista et  al. (2018)
pointed out that these skills can be developed in our daily life activities; they allow us
to narrate the external environment and contribute to improving creative mathematical
thinking skills. Duval (1998, p. 45) defined geometry reasoning as “any move, any trial
and error, any procedure to solve a difficulty.” More specifically, Dvual (1998) argued that
any process that enables a learner to draw new information from a given one is consid-
ered reasoning. According to Hershkowitz (1998), the main functions of reasoning are to
understand, explain, and convince; she further suggested that geometry reasoning includes

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1123

Fig. 1  Theoretical framework

proving, expanding knowledge, and explaining. Lowrie and Logan (2018) said that geom-
etry reasoning ability (GRA) provides learners with a method to understand, represent, and
describe the surrounding environment. Massa et  al. (2005) referred to spatial estimation
ability (SEA) as the capacity to understand, reason, and remember the spatial relations
among objects in space and to manipulate them. Buckley et al. (2019) regarded SEA as the
capability of a learner to convert real objects into mental images. Indeed, SEA allows us to
correctly recognize and transform the shape, size, and location of real objects, as well as
measure them, without using measuring tools. Jones et al. (2012) pointed out the impor-
tance of hands-on training in improving GRA and SEA. Thus, geometry curriculum needs
to incorporate both the acquisition of new knowledge and its application to the real world
by solving real-life problems through practice.
In the field of geometry, Duval’s cognitive model was proposed, describing how learn-
ers learned geometry (1998). According to this model, geometry learning involves three
types of cognitive processes, that is, visualization, construction, and reasoning. The first
type in the model is known as the visualization process; it is when a learner who is able
to recognize all the possible figural units (2D or 3D) and their various configurations, for
example, an object’s shape recognition (Paraskevi 2013). The second type in the model is
the construction process: the construction of geometrical objects or measuring parameters
of geometrical objects with the use of particular tools, for example, a ruler (Jones 1998).
The third type is the reasoning process—a learner uses symbols, literacy, and languages for
the extension of knowledge, explanations, and proofs. According to the model, a form of
reasoning can be any move, any trial and error, and any procedure used to solve a difficulty.
Duval (1998) suggested that these three types of cognitive processes are closely connected
and that their synergy is cognitively necessary for proficiency in geometry. The following
is an example for explaining the cognitive processes that take place during geometry prob-
lem solving: After a student learned a geometry concept (e.g., figures), he/she tries to solve
related problems, such as finding an object with a shape corresponding to one of the figures
he/she learned about, measuring its width and length, and then calculating its surface area.
The student needs to visualize a figure (e.g., rectangle) and then try to find an object with

13
 1124 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

corresponding shape (e.g., a shelf in the classroom). This is how the visualization cog-
nitive process takes place. After that, the student needs to measure its width and length.
He/she needs to use a ruler for the measurement (construction cognitive process). Finally,
the student needs to calculate the surface area of the shelf using the formula learned in
class and report the results to the teacher and other students (reasoning cognitive process).
This example also shows how geometry reasoning and spatial estimation abilities relate to
Duval’s cognitive processes of visualization, construction, and reasoning. During the visu-
alization cognitive process, the student converts a figure from the textbook into a mental
image and then tries to find an object in the real world with a similar shape. After a suitable
object has been found, the student tries to convert its shape into a metal image to compare
it with a corresponding figure from the textbook. Therefore, the student keeps spatial rela-
tions between a figure from the textbook and an object in the real world. This visualization
that occurs within the cognitive process continues until the student is finally satisfied with
his/her choice of an object. SEA plays an important role in this process because students
with better SEA can find the required object faster and their choice of an object will be
better. Similarly, GRA can be useful during the construction and reasoning cognitive pro-
cesses because with better GRA, the student can measure and calculate more efficiently
and then reason about the calculations more effectively.

Situated geometry learning

According to the theory of situated learning, learning is context related and hence should
not be separated from the context (Brown et  al. 1989). Lave (2019) argued that normal
learning is embedded within activity, context, and culture. It is unintentional rather than
deliberate. Brown et  al. (1989) suggested that situated learning places the learner in the
center of an instructional process, and here, the major elements in  situated learning are
content (the facts and processes of the task), context (the situations, values, and environ-
mental cues), community (the group where the learner creates and negotiates), and partici-
pation (the process by which the learner works together with others to solve a problem).
That is, knowledge needs to be presented to the learner in authentic contexts, that is, the
settings and situations that would normally involve that type of knowledge (Lave 2019).
In addition, learning should be based on social interactions and collaboration. In this case,
learners are involved in a “community of practice” (Brown et al. 1989). All of these com-
ponents are essential and may foster learning (Lave 2019).
Chang et al. (2016) claimed that GRA and SEA can be enhanced more effectively when
learning is extended to situational contexts in the learners’ daily lives. One example is
when learners are instructed about angle concepts during geometry class and apply new
knowledge to the real world by solving real-life problems in surrounding contexts outside
of school, for example, they measure the angles of objects they see on their way home from
school (Crompton 2015). Buckley et  al. (2019) argued that if learners participate in the
geometry activities related to their daily lives, they will be able to understand geometry
concepts better, and their GRA and SEA can be improved more effectively. The reason for
this is because when students acquire knowledge and skills by interacting with surround-
ing contexts, they can establish reasonable and meaningful interpretations of the acquired
knowledge, as well as connect this knowledge with daily life situations (Hwang et  al.
2012). However, the current geometry curriculum in many elementary schools concerns
the learning of abstract concepts that are disconnected from the real world (Starcic et al.
2013). That is, the interdependence of the context, situation, and learning is disregarded,

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1125

and thus, learners acquire decontextualized knowledge that cannot be easily retrieved in
the real world (Crompton 2015). So learners mainly learn in class, grasp abstract geometry
concepts, and use traditional tools such as paper, pencil, and ruler; this approach puts too
much emphasis on the accuracy of numeric calculations and the details of the measurement
(Garrett and Davis 2003). It also rarely connects geometry learning processes with learn-
ers’ real-life environments. Under these circumstances, learners consider knowledge as the
final product of education rather than a tool to be used dynamically to solve real-life prob-
lems (de Ravé et al. 2016). As a result, the learning process becomes less meaningful, and
learners have low motivation to learn (Buckley et al. 2019).

Ubiquitous learning

The situated learning theory provides theoretical support for ubiquitous learning, which
enables learners to overcome the restriction of time and location and access learning
resources anywhere and anytime (Chen and Chen 2018; Shadiev et al. 2019). In addition,
mobile technology can detect students’ location, actions, and objects around them and then
link their learning to surrounding contexts (Shadiev et  al. 2017). Alioon and Delialioğlu
(2019) claimed that learners could break away from the restraints of traditional classroom
teaching and textbooks, thereby being able to discover, explore, verify, and apply knowl-
edge in real situations. A number of studies on ubiquitous learning have been carried out
in different disciplines, and positive results have been obtained (Bano et al. 2018; Cerratto
Pargman et  al. 2018; Chen and Chen 2018; Kanagarajan and Ramakrishnan 2018). For
example, in the field of the natural sciences, ubiquitous learning has helped learners under-
stand natural ecology and phenomena (Bano et al. 2018; Cerratto Pargman et al. 2018). In
the field of language learning, ubiquitous technology was used by learners to apply newly
acquired knowledge to describe objects, people, situations, and scenarios of their local
community and to make learning healthy and happy (Shadiev et al. 2018). In the domain
of social sciences, mobile technologies were useful for students to strengthen their memory
and an understanding of history and culture during their museums and historic site visits
(Chen and Chen 2018). In the field of mathematics learning, a ubiquitous learning envi-
ronment called “adaptive U-learning math path system” was created and could enhance
students’ mathematical achievement by linking mathematics learning and campus daily life
(Kanagarajan and Ramakrishnan 2018).

Mobile‑assisted geometry learning

In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of published literature on mobile-
assisted geometry learning. Chang et al. (2016) applied a mobile learning system to facili-
tate spatial geometry learning. In their study, high school students learned in the classroom
about coordinate systems, the relationship between lines and planes, and the intersections
among shapes by using the system. The system listed some questions related to geome-
try, and students had to answer these questions. Chang et  al. (2016) found that the sys-
tem was useful in improving the spatial ability of students. In the study of Hwang et  al.
(2015a), 20 sixth-grade students learned geometry concepts outside of school. The students
received geometry questions on their tablet computers and had to answer those questions
using physical objects in the surrounding context. Learning was organized as a peer assess-
ment process combined with some elements of competition. The system recorded students’
learning progress, peer assessments, and competition results. Hwang et al. (2015a) found

13
 1126 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

that students’ geometry learning performance (i.e., estimation and reasoning) improved sig-
nificantly after using the mobile learning system. Crompton (2015) applied context-aware
ubiquitous learning to support fourth grade students’ understanding of angle concepts and
measuring angles. The students learned angle concepts outside of school using a learning
system on iPads; they took pictures of different objects and used the various dynamic tools
of the system to measure the angles of objects. The results demonstrated that context-aware
ubiquitous learning was useful in avoiding many common errors and misconceptions that
students usually experience. In addition, student understanding of angles and their meas-
urement improved. de Ravé et  al. (2016) developed a mobile augmented reality system
(DiedricAR) for ubiquitous descriptive geometry learning. The students learned about spa-
tial relationships and visualization using the DiedricAR system installed on smartphones
and/or tablets. The results indicated that the overall impression of the application was posi-
tive. The students who used the application outperformed those who learned through the
traditional method (i.e., based on lectures backed up by the blackboard and practical exer-
cises) on spatial ability tests.

Learner perception, motivation, and behavior

The importance of researching student perceptions toward technological intervention,

learning motivation, and learning behavior to use a technology has been emphasized in
earlier studies. For example, Murray and Barnes (1998) suggested that perceptions toward
technology assisting with the learning process, learning motivation, and learning behavior
need to be evaluated on a pedagogical basis.
The technology acceptance model (TAM) is a theoretical model for explaining how stu-
dents come to accept and use a piece of technology. According to Venkatesh and Davis
(2000), a number of factors influence student decisions about how and when to use a piece
of technology. Notable, the following major factors were identified in the adoption of a
technology (Venkatesh and Davis 2000): perceived ease-of-use is the degree to which a
student believes that using a technology would be free of physical and mental effort; per-
ceived usefulness is the degree to which a student believes that using a piece of technology
would enhance his/her learning performance; and behavioral intention is hypothesized to
be a major determinant of whether or not a student actually uses a technology for learning
in the future.
In addition to TAM, the ARCS model focuses on motivation (Li and Keller 2018). It
is suggested that motivation has several effects on student learning behavior and directs
behavior toward particular goals. The essential components of the ARCS model are as fol-
lows: attention refers to the learner’s interest in taking in the knowledge/skill being taught
and solving problems; relevance must be established by using the knowledge/skills and
problems to be solved; confidence refers to establishing positive expectations for achieving
success to learn and solve problems; and satisfaction is the sense of accomplishment that
learners must obtain from their learning experience. Li and Keller (2018) argued that any
learning experience will not be successful without the proper motivation for learners.
Hwang et  al. 2015b claimed that educators and researchers need to analyze learning
behavior because it reveals the link between the use of a piece of technology for learning
and learning performance. Scholars have suggested that some learning behaviors and their
frequencies have a strong correlation with learning performance. Therefore, it is crucial to
identify what important learning behaviors are and stimulate them to foster learning perfor-
mance efficiently (Shadiev et al. 2014).

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1127

Research motivation, purposes, and questions

Our review of the related studies revealed two main issues. The first issue relates to the
objects that students use for their learning, and the second relates to the environments in
which students practice their skills. That is, in related studies, the objects were not really
physical but digital ones, so students practiced their geometry skills in virtual environ-
ments instead of the real world (Chang et al. 2016; de Ravé et al. 2016; Starcic et al. 2013).
Learning with digital objects is not always the same as learning with real, physical objects.
The same claim is true about the differences to learn in the real world and digital one. The
students in Varnalis-Weigle’s (2016) study reported that they had different learning expe-
riences when using physical objects compared with when they used digital ones: certain
physical elements of real objects such as depth, size, texture, and interactive complexities
did not translate well into the digital environment. Paris (2002) also noted the importance
of size attributes when comparing learning with physical objects versus digital ones. He
argued that physical objects vary widely in terms of their original size, whereas digital
objects are constrained by the size of the computer screen. Thus, the experience of measur-
ing the length, width, and height of huge physical objects (e.g., a house) in the real world
will be quite different from that in the digital environment. Varnalis-Weigle (2016) dem-
onstrated that some other results were in favor of learning with physical objects; that is,
scholars found that students spent more time learning with digital objects compared with
learning with physical ones, yet the students experienced higher levels of learning engage-
ment when they used physical objects.
In the current study, we aimed to address these critical issues. To this end, we designed
learning activities in situational contexts, that is, the students learned geometry in class and
practiced their skills using meaningful and interesting physical objects in the real world.
The UG system was designed for assisting learning activities. We carried out an experi-
ment to test whether students who participated in our learning activities supported by the
UG system would perform better than the students who did not. Informed by the TAM and
ARCS theories, we also measured how students accept our system and their learning moti-
vation. Finally, we investigated student learning behaviors when using the UG system and
their relationship with geometry learning performance. The following three research ques-
tions were addressed: (1) Do students who participate in our learning activities supported
by the UG system perform better than students who do not? (2) What are students’ accept-
ance of the UG system and their learning motivation to use the UG system? (3) What are
the learning behaviors when using the UG system and their effects on geometry learning
performance?

Methods

The current study is a quasi-experiment because we employed an experimental design

without random assignment to groups (Fraenkel et  al. 2014). An intervention can be
tested with a quasi-experiment to determine whether the intervention influences the out-
comes (Fraenkel et al. 2014). We employed a group comparison research methodology
(Creswell 2014). Fraenkel et al. (2014) argued that such a methodology is powerful, and
in it, researchers look at the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable.
In the present study, the students participated in a learning activity using different ways

13
 1128 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

to measure objects and calculate the objects’ areas in different locations. We compared
the learning outcomes of the students in the three groups to test the effectiveness of our
intervention.

The ubiquitous geometry system

The UG system used for tablet PCs with G-sensors was designed to be used in the cur-
rent study. The students tried to find objects with flat surfaces in the shape of a triangle,
rectangle, parallelogram, rhombus, or trapezoid in their local community, measure their
width and length, calculate surface areas, and estimate the distance to objects using the
UG system.

Measuring real objects

The UG system measuring interface looks like a camera (Fig. 2). The system uses stu-
dent height, changes the tablet PC angle, and utilizes trigonometric functions to calcu-
late the length and height of real objects, as well as distance to objects. According to
the different measuring purposes, small adjustments need to be made in the measuring
steps. The UG system shows tip text in the bottom of the screen to notify a student about
how to operate it. The system gives feedback on students’ operations to reduce their
confusion and anxiety. Compared with a traditional measurement using a ruler, the UG
system is easy and convenient to use when one needs to measure big objects (e.g., a
building) or long distances to objects (e.g., more than one meter).

Fig. 2  Height measuring interface

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1129

Calculating area

The students can use the UG system to calculate the real object’s surface area; they need
to take a picture of an object first, and then, the system provides the object’s length and
height. After that, the students can calculate the object’s surface area (Fig. 3). Students can
calculate the surface area manually by writing a solution on the drawing board (on the right
side of the user interface), input the object length and height values and an equation (below
object picture) along with calculation result, and then submit their answer. The system will
verify the student’s answer and say whether it is correct or not. At the bottom of the user
interface, the system provides images of common geometry figures (e.g., triangle, rectan-
gle, parallelogram, rhombus, and trapezoid) and the corresponding surface area calculation
formulas to help students who cannot do it independently. Moreover, the whole calculating
process is recorded by the system for students’ later review and reflection.

Geometry map

Figure 4 shows the geometry map user interface. The GPS of the system is able to detect
the student’s location. After the student’s location has been detected, he/she uses the “Add
Objects” function to tag it on a geometry map (because an object locates in the same loca-
tion) along with object name, shape type, photo, measuring method, and results. When
other students browse a geometry map on the UG system, they can find objects tagged by
other students. After clicking on a tag, they can get complete information related to the
tagged objects (Fig. 4, right side). If some information, such as the measuring method or
results, is incorrect, the students may leave comments and suggestions for improvement.
This geometry map helps students connect geometry measurements and calculations to
outdoor, real situations. After the students share an object location and measurement infor-
mation with their classmates, other students can find these objects using the map, learn or
get some inspirational ideas from included information, or confirm whether it is correct or
not.

Fig. 3  Calculating area interface

13
 1130 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

Fig. 4  Geometry map interface

Our system was useful in facilitating the important cognitive processes outlined in
Duval’s cognitive model of geometry learning (Duval 1998). For example, the measuring
real objects function facilitated construction cognitive processes. This function was useful
for students to measure the width and length of objects in the real world, especially those
of big sizes, such as buildings, which would be impossible to measure by ruler. Calculating
the area function contributed to fostering the reasoning cognitive process. With this func-
tion, students could calculate the surface areas of objects they were interested in. Finally,
the visualization cognitive process was enhanced by the geometry map function. That is,
the locations of students and parameters of captured objects on the geometry map helped
students better visualize the objects that students wanted to learn about.

Participants, learning activities, and experimental procedure

We selected 75 fifth-grade primary school students in Taiwan to participate in our study.

The participants were selected based on the following criteria: they were taught by the
same teacher and had learned the same learning materials. All the participants had the
same learning curricula and were tested on their prior knowledge of the experimental topic.
The students were from 11 to 12 years old; 36 of them were boys, and 39 were girls.
The experimental procedure is shown in Fig.  5. The students were assigned to three
groups (Table  1): the experimental group (n = 26), control group A (n = 25), and control
group B (n = 24). Creswell (2014) and Fraenkel et  al. (2014) suggested selecting a sam-
ple from the population as large as possible because a larger sample ensures less poten-
tial error; they further argued that in an experiment, a researcher needs at least 15 par-
ticipants in each group. In our study, the number of participants in each group was higher
than 15, so our sample size met the minimum requirement proposed by Creswell (2014)
and Fraenkel et  al. (2014). After three groups had been identified, a pretest was carried
out to measure student prior knowledge. After that, the students participated in learning
activities. At the end of learning activities, a post-test was administered to measure student
learning achievement. After the post-test, we administered a questionnaire survey to the
experimental group students about their learning motivation and UG system acceptance.

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1131

Fig. 5  Experimental procedure

Table 1  Participants Groups Male Female Total

Experimental group 13 13 26
Control group A 12 13 25
Control group B 11 13 24

Furthermore, we conducted face-to-face interviews with the experimental group students

to explore their geometry learning experiences in the real world. This subjective evidence
coupled with objective evidence would allow for the triangulation of the main findings and
render the conclusions richer, more nuanced, and more reliable (Creswell 2014).
During the geometry learning process, the students applied geometry concepts to solve
real-life problems. That is, they found objects with flat surfaces in the shape of a triangle,
rectangle, parallelogram, rhombus, or trapezoid, measured their width and length, calcu-
lated the surface areas, and estimated the distance to the objects using geometry tools. The
difference between the three groups was in the way the students participated in the learn-
ing activities and the tools they used to measure various objects and calculate their areas.
Detailed explanations regarding the control and treatment conditions are presented below.

Experimental group

The students in the experimental group used tablet PCs equipped with the UG system, and
their learning activities took place in the real world, that is, the students’ local community.
The students measured objects with a flat surface in the real world, for example, width and
length, calculated their surface areas, estimated the distance to objects, and conducted peer
evaluations and peer competition with the assistance of the UG system.

13
 1132 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

Control group A

The students in control group A used traditional tools, such as rulers, paper, and pencils,
and their learning activities also took place in the real world, that is, the students’ local
community. The students also measured objects with a flat surface in the real world, cal-
culated their surface areas, and estimated the distance to the objects with the assistance
of the ruler. All the measurements and calculations were recorded on paper, and then, the
students were engaged in peer evaluation and peer competition.

Control group B

The students in control group B used the same traditional tools as the students in con-
trol group A (i.e., rulers, paper, and pencils); however, measuring objects in the real world
and peer evaluation and peer competition were not required. For example, the students in
control group B were able to measure objects drawn in their textbooks or objects in the
classroom.
A summary of the learning activities is presented in Table 2, and details of the activi-
ties are presented as follows. The experiment lasted 5 weeks. All the students attended four
lessons per week, and each lesson was 40 min. In the first 2 weeks of the present study, all
the students learned basic concepts related to different geometry objects (i.e., triangles,
parallelograms, rhombuses, and trapezoids) and how to calculate their surface area. This is
because they had no such prior knowledge, and receiving this knowledge would facilitate
their learning. In addition, all the students learned how to measure objects using different
measuring tools, for example, a ruler, and deepened their understanding and memory of
geometry concepts through the actual measurement process, such as measuring the side
length and further calculating the surface area of different target objects to consolidate
and verify their learning. After that, all the students in the experimental group and control
group A were engaged in peer evaluation during the third and fourth weeks. Finally, all the
students in the experimental group and control group A participated in peer competition
during the fifth week. In contrast, the students in control group B had traditional paper-
based practice and peer evaluation, and peer competition was not required.
In the peer evaluation, students were asked to give feedback on peers’ completed
assignments. In the experimental condition, the students used the system with three dif-
ferent mechanisms, “text feedback,” “voice feedback,” and “feedback on the calculation
process.” Using the system, the students could type textual feedback to inform their peers
about misconceptions or mistakes in their completed assignments. If the students liked
giving verbal feedback instead of textual, the system allowed them to record their voice
output and share it with their peers as voice feedback. Finally, the students could modify
the content completed by peers if their peers made any mistakes or miscalculations. All
modifications were shown in different colors from the original one so that peers could see

Table 2  Learning activities and their schedule

Week Experimental group Control group A Control group B

1–2 Measurement with UG Measurement with rulers Traditional paper-based practice

3–4 Peer evaluation with UG Peer evaluation with rulers
5 Peer competition with UG Peer competition with rulers

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1133

where the modifications were. In control group A, the students had similar activities; how-
ever, they used a pen and paper. That is, the students could write textual feedback for peers
on a paper or give them verbal feedback face to face. Furthermore, they could correct the
mistakes of peers on their completed assignment sheets using pens of different colors. In
the peer competition, for the experimental condition, the system randomly selected ques-
tions from assignments (e.g., calculate the surface area of real objects surrounding the stu-
dents), and the students had to answer as many questions as possible within 6  min. The
students’ answers could be checked automatically by the system. The competition scores of
the students were obtained by the number of correct answers minus the number of wrong
answers, and competition score ranking was shown to the students to motivate them to
practice their skills more. For control group A, peer competition was carried out in pen-
and-paper format. That is, the instructor gave questions to the students, and they had to
answer them within a limited time. Score calculation and ranking were then done manually
by the instructor.
The students in the three groups learned geometry using these different tools in different
learning environments after class on a voluntary basis. Therefore, we did not control for
their learning time.

Instruments and data collection

In the current study, the following instruments were employed: (a) a pre- and post-test, (b)
a questionnaire survey, (c) records of geometry learning behavior, and (d) interviews. In the
following, we explain what these instruments measured and their reliability and validity.

Pre‑ and post‑test

A pretest to measure prior knowledge before the quasi-experiment and post-test to measure
learning achievement after the quasi-experiment were designed. Both tests included two
parts: (I) GRA and (II) SEA. Examples of the test items are shown in the “Appendix”.
The GRA part of the tests was divided into two sections: (1) calculate the problem and
(2) advanced questions. The difference between simple and advanced questions is that less
figure parameters were provided to a student, which made the calculation of the figure’s
surface areas more difficult. Examples of simple and advanced questions are presented in
the “Appendix”. For example, the students were asked to calculate the area of the painted
area in both simple and advanced questions; however, the parameters of the painted area
were provided in a simple question format, whereas the parameters of the painted area in
advanced questions were not provided, so students had to find them based on the param-
eters of adjacent objects. Each section of the tests included 10 geometry-related problems.
Students could get two and an half points for each correctly solved problem, that is, a maxi-
mum of 25 points for one section.
The SEA part of the tests included 16 items. One example of an SEA question is shown
in the “Appendix”. For example, the students were asked to calculate the distance to an
object and its length and width. Students could get 10 points for each item if it was com-
pleted correctly, that is, a maximum 160 points for the whole SEA test. The test items of
SEA tested students’ estimation ability through observing actual objects (e.g., door, win-
dow, and cabinet) surrounding them and finding object length, width, and distance, which
are different from GRA.

13
 1134 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

These tests were developed by the experienced primary school mathematics teachers
(i.e., with teaching experience in mathematics for more than 5 years) and were based on
real objects surrounding the students, which were also related to the learning material from
the textbook. It is suggested that teacher-made tests based on textbook material are gener-
ally valid and reliable (Kinyua and Okunya 2014). However, to add more confidence to the
validity of the tests, we subjected the initial draft of these tests to the scrutiny of an expert
in the field. Some items were modified based on expert advice before the final versions of
the tests were produced.
The learning gain, that is, the difference between the pretest and post-test scores, was
also investigated to test whether using different interventions could enhance learning gains
significantly no matter what the student’s prior knowledge was. The results of such an
investigation can show the strengths of the intervention.

Questionnaire survey

Our questionnaire survey consisted of two parts. With the first part, we aimed to evaluate
student perceptions toward the UG system. It included the following four dimensions: ease
(of UG system) use, or the degree to which a student believes that using the UG system
would be free of physical and mental effort; perceived usefulness (of UG system), or the
degree to which a student believes that using it would enhance his/her learning perfor-
mance; perceived usefulness of spatial estimation, or the degree to which a student believes
that using the UG system can improve his/her SEA; and behavioral intention to use UG
system, or what is hypothesized to be a major determinant of whether or not a student actu-
ally uses the UG system for learning in the future. With the second part, we explored stu-
dent learning motivation, and it included the following four dimensions: attention being
aroused and sustained because of learning activities supported by the UG system; rele-
vance of learning activities supported by the UG system; confidence to complete the learn-
ing activities supported by the UG system; and satisfaction of the outcomes from the learn-
ing activities supported by the UG system. Items in all the above-mentioned dimensions of
the questionnaire were scored using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (strongly agree)
and 1 (strongly disagree).
The first part of the questionnaire was developed based on the TAM (Venkatesh and
Davis 2000), and the second part was designed based on the ARCS model of motivation
(Li and Keller 2018). Both the TAM and ARCS theories have been successfully employed
in a wide array of educational research areas (Hwang et al. 2012, 2015a, b; Shadiev et al.
2014, 2018, 2019). Researchers have demonstrated that TAM- and ARCS-based question-
naires are valid and reliably measure students’ perceptions toward the intervention (Ven-
katesh and Davis 2000) and motivation (Li and Keller 2018), respectively.
We tested the internal consistency of our questionnaire survey by employing Cronbach’s
α. The value (α > 0.7) demonstrated that the reliability of the questionnaire was acceptable
(Creswell 2014; Fraenkel et al. 2014).

Records of geometry learning behavior

The UG system recorded the geometry learning behaviors of the students. All the recorded
data were synchronously uploaded to the server. We analyzed learning behaviors to explore
their impacts on GRA and SEA. Four types of geometry learning behaviors were recorded:
(1) the total number of objects measured—refers to objects in which parameters such

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1135

as length and height were measured and their surface area calculated; (2) the number of
objects for which the area was measured correctly—refers to objects in which the area was
measured and the correctness of the results was confirmed by the system; (3) scores on
assignments—scores that the students received for measuring real-life objects; and (4) the
number of measured objects in the real world—refers to how many objects were measured
by the students in the real world.
The learning behaviors of the students in control group A and control group B were
extracted manually from their completed assignment sheets. Because the students in these
two groups used traditional tools, such as rulers, paper, and pencils, they recorded meas-
urements of object parameters and calculations of object surface areas on their papers.
Therefore, the above-mentioned variables were derived by two researchers from the com-
pleted assignment sheets, and the number of objects measured correctly was validated
by the instructor. For scores on the assignments variable, the students in control group B
measured real-life objects in the classroom, whereas students in control group A measured
real-life objects in the real world. Regarding the number of measured objects in the real
world, the students in control group A and control group B indicated in their assignment
sheets the locations of the objects in classroom they measured (for control group B) or in
the real world (for control group A), as well as their measurement and calculation results.

Interviews

We carried out one-on-one semistructured interviews with the students in the experimental
group to explore their geometry learning experiences in the real world and to find rea-
sons to subjectively explain the findings. The general recommendations of Creswell (2014)
were considered for carrying out the interviews, the data collection, and the analysis of the
data. Each interview took approximately 30 min. The researcher asked the students about
their learning and UG system usage experiences during the learning activity. The students
were also asked to share their perceptions regarding the usefulness of the activity in being
supported by the UG system in fostering their learning. The data analysis was based on a
grounded theory approach. All the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The
text segments that contained information related to the research focus were coded, codes
with similar meanings were aggregated, and then, categories to produce a framework with
which to report the results were formed. For example, the following are three categories
that were formed from the data: feedback to others (i.e., the students studied the content
created by their peers and provided feedback if any mistakes were identified), learning
from others (i.e., the students learned something new by studying the content created by
their peers), and measurements with UG (i.e., the students measured objects in the real
world using UG). Two coders were involved in the coding process. Differences in the cod-
ing and categorization were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached.
The inter-rater reliability was evaluated by calculating Cohen’s kappa, and the result was
high (Kappa > 0.85).

Statistical analyses

The differences among the three groups on the pretest were tested with an analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA). To reduce the threats to the conclusion validity, we ensured that all the
assumptions of this variance test, such as every independent sample distributed normally,
did not rich a significant level (F = 1.42, p > .05) and that the observation results of every

13
 1136 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

subject did not depend on other observations. Statistically significant effects in ANOVA
were followed up with a Bonferroni post hoc analysis to assess which groups were different
from others (Creswell 2014).
A significant difference among the three groups on the pretest was revealed. Therefore,
we used the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to evaluate the differences in the post-test
scores of the students in three groups by controlling the significant impact of prior knowl-
edge. We also ensured that all assumptions of ANCOVA were met. The variance test of the
post-test scores among the three groups did not reach a significant level (F = 1.42, p > .05).
Pearson’s correlation analysis was performed to analyze the relationship of GRA and SEA
with the research variables related to student learning behaviors. We set the p value at 0.05
because an alpha level of less than 0.05 is accepted in most educational research as statisti-
cally significant.

Results

The effectiveness of learning activities supported by the UG system on geometry

learning

Geometry reasoning ability

The results of the descriptive statistics and ANOVA analysis related to the pretest are pre-
sented in Table  3. The results showed a significant difference (F = 8.46, p < .01) among
the three groups on the pretest. The Bonferroni post hoc analysis results show that the
scores of control group A (M = 28.92; SD 9.95) were significantly higher than scores of the
experimental group (M = 19.15; SD 8.33), p = .001, and the control group B (M = 21.25;
SD 8.26), p = .010. The results also show that there was no difference between the experi-
mental group and control group B on the pretest scores, p = 1.000.
The results of the descriptive statistics and ANCOVA related to the post-test are shown
in Table 3. According to the results, the post-test scores of the three groups were signifi-
cantly different (F = 14.71, p < .001). The Bonferroni post hoc analysis results show that

Table 3  Descriptive statistics and results of comparison of pre-test scores (ANOVA) and post-test scores
(ANCOVA) on geometry learning for the three groups
Group Pre-test Post-test ANOVA ANCOVA
Mean SD Mean SD F Bonferroni F Bonferroni

Experimental group 19.15 8.33 48.73 23.87 8.46** Control 14.71*** Experimental
group group > con-
A > experi- trol group A
mental
group
Control group A 28.92 9.95 44.20 22.24 Control Experimental
group group > con-
A > control trol group B
group B
Control group B 21.25 8.26 26.25 21.98

**p < .01; ***p < .001

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1137

the post-test scores of the experimental group (M = 48.73; SD 23.87) were higher than
those of control group A (M = 44.20; SD 22.24), p < .001, and control group B (M = 26.25;
SD 21.98), p < .001. There was no difference in the post-test scores between control group
A and control group B, p = .323. The results suggest that the GRA of the experimental stu-
dents was significantly enhanced after using the UG system.

Spatial estimation ability

The descriptive statistics and results of the ANOVA for the three groups are shown in
Table  4. The results show that the SEA of the three groups was significantly different
(F = 4.42, p < .05). The Bonferroni post hoc analysis results show that experimental group
(M = 157.45; SD 60.35) performed significantly better than control group B (M = 99.99;
SD 76.76), p = .010. However, no significant difference was found between the experimen-
tal group and control group A (M = 130.49; SD 67.48), p = .489, as well as between control
group A and control group B, p = .367.
The findings related to the effectiveness of using the learning system on geometry rea-
soning and SEA, particularly the functions of the system related to peer sharing, review,
and assessment, can be found in the interview data analysis. According to the students,
peer sharing, review, and assessment could help peers and the students themselves during
the learning process. The students mentioned that when watching the homework content of
their peers, they could find some of their misconceptions or mistakes in measuring objects
or problem solving processes. The following are some extracts from the interviews (cat-
egory: feedback to others): “You have a problem with measuring the side length, please do
it again,” “The TV is not only 3 cm, please check it,” “Why is the cabinet so narrow, please
measure it again,” and “Your photographing is crooked, and the measurement length may
be incorrect.” Furthermore, some students mentioned that peer sharing, review, and assess-
ments also helped them to correct their own mistakes and improve their problem solutions
(category: learning from others): “When I am wrong, others can help me correct it so that
I will know where I am wrong,” “I can train my speech skills while teaching others,” and
“I can see how other students’ calculations are done, how correct are they, and then help
myself correct my own mistakes.”
The Pearson correlation analysis results indicate that GRA (post-test score) and SEA
had a significantly positive correlation for the experimental group (r = 0.48, p < .05), con-
trol group A (r = 0.47, p < .05), and control group B (r = 0.43, p < .05). These results sug-
gest that students who had better GRA had better SEA as well. Therefore, considering that
the GRA scores of control group A on the pretest were significantly higher than that of
experimental group, the SEA scores of control group A on the pretest theoretically should
have been better than that of the experimental group. Therefore, considering the learning
gains, the effects of our learning activities supported by the system theoretically should be

Table 4  Descriptive statistics and Groups Mean SD F Bonferroni

results of ANOVA analysis of
spatial estimation ability
Experimental group 157.45 60.35 4.42* Experimental
group > control
group B
Control group A 130.49 67.48
Control group B 99.99 76.76

*p < .05

13
 1138 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

better considering the two other control conditions. So our results suggest that measuring
real objects by using the UG system was more effective in improving student SEA com-
pared with the traditional method.

Perceptions toward the UG system

The results of the questionnaire survey analysis are shown in Table 5. The results show that
the experimental group had positive perceptions of the UG system. That is, they perceived
that the system was easy to use (M = 4.28; SD 0.57) and useful for geometry learning
(M = 4.21; SD 0.56) and estimation (M = 3.86; SD 0.64). In addition, most students showed
their intention to use the system in the future for geometry learning (M = 4.55; SD 0.50).
According to the table, the mean values for attention (M = 4.23; SD 0.52), relevance
(M = 4.22; SD 0.57), confidence (M = 4.02; SD 0.67), and satisfaction (M = 4.49; SD 0.45)
were also high; these results indicate that the experimental group had positive beliefs
regarding the usefulness of the learning activities supported by the UG system to facilitate
their learning motivation.
The results of the questionnaire were supported by the results obtained from the inter-
views. From the interviews, we found that the students in the experimental group had
positive perceptions of UG. The students mentioned that UG enabled the measurement of
objects and calculations of their surface areas more effectively. In addition, the students
said that they were more motivated to use UG compared with traditional tools. For exam-
ple, the following are some extracts from the interviews (category: measurements with
UG): “It is easier to take the step-by-step measurements…,” “If I use the ruler, I have less
willingness… It is possible that the tool was more appealing because it made the process of
measuring objects easier,” and “with UG, big objects can be measured easily…”

Geometry learning behaviors

Table  6 shows the results of Pearson’s correlation analysis. According to the results, all
four variables of geometry learning behavior were positively correlated with the GRA
and SEA post-test scores (p < .05). However, the learning gain scores (i.e., the difference
between the pretest and post-test scores) were significantly correlated with “the number of
objects for which the area was correctly measured” variable only (p < .01).

Table 5  Results of the Dimension Mean SD Cronbach’s α

questionnaire survey
The system acceptance
 Ease of use 4.28 0.57 0.79
 Usefulness 4.21 0.56 0.75
 Usefulness of estimation 3.86 0.64 0.83
 Intention of use 4.55 0.50 0.75
Learning motivation
 Attention 4.23 0.52 0.75
 Relevance 4.22 0.57 0.74
 Confidence 4.02 0.67 0.78
 Satisfaction 4.49 0.45 0.72

13
 Table 6  Results of Pearson’s correlation analysis of the relationship of GRA and SEA with research variables related to student learning behaviors
Variables The total number of objects which Scores for homework The number of measured objects in The number of objects which
area was measured assignments the real world area was measured correctly

Geometry reasoning ability

 Post-test 0.40* 0.48* 0.43* 0.62**
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real…

 Gain score 0.39 0.38 0.32 0.55**

Spatial estimation ability 0.42* 0.55** 0.48* 0.59**

*p < .05, **p < .01
1139

13
 1140 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

Discussion and implications

Scholars have suggested that connecting geometry learning with real situations and visual-
izing abstract geometry concepts is helpful for students in better understanding geometry
concepts (Battista et  al. 2018). This conclusion was verified by the evidence obtained in
the current study. Because of the inadequacy of traditional geometry education in many
schools, it is difficult to connect geometry concepts with real objects for elementary school
students (Crompton 2015; de Ravé et al. 2016; Garrett and Davis 2003; Starcic et al. 2013).
Therefore, we developed the UG system with the aim of supporting learning activities for
measuring objects in real situations, making geometry learning more interesting and mean-
ingful, and improving learning motivation and performance.
A geometry learning performance analysis of the three groups showed that the experi-
mental group (i.e., learning activities supported by the UG system and that took place in
the local community) had better performance compared with control group A (i.e., learning
activities supported by traditional tools and that took place in local community) and con-
trol group B (i.e., learning activities supported by traditional tools and that took place in
the classroom). These positive effects were attributed to the advantages of the UG system.
First, the system recorded student learning process, such as measuring objects’ behaviors
and geometric calculations. The students reviewed recorded information and reflected on
their geometry learning process. Second, the system provided instant feedback on student
measuring results and directions on measuring steps so that the students could understand
geometry concepts and formulas and better measure real objects. Third, the students shared
their experiences to measure real objects with classmates, and then, their classmates pro-
vided comments or suggestions for improvement.
The interviews revealed that the learning activities supported by the UG system helped
the experimental group students focus on the relationships between the measurement
results and the size of the real objects instead of spending a lot of time on object measure-
ment and paying attention to measurement details, like the control students did. Further-
more, the learning activities supported by the system did not require too much attention to
the measurement process, which was useful in helping students understand measurement
units and geometry concepts better. In addition, the experimental group students could not
only easily measure large objects like walls or buildings by using the UG system, but they
could also avoid dangers in the measuring process, such as climbing up a wall or building.
This, according to students, was another advantage of the system and affected their learn-
ing motivation. However, because the current study did not conduct a pretest of the SEA,
we had conservative inferences on how the measurement of real objects can affect the SEA.
To sum up, the system helped the experimental students measure objects in real life
more easily and efficiently. The system was also useful in making calculations, and it pro-
vided corrective feedback if a student made any mistakes. Furthermore, the system allowed
the students to reflect on their own measurements and calculations for further improve-
ment and development. However, the system enabled the students to analytically analyze
the measurements and calculations of others to provide them with relevant comments or
suggestions. In contrast, the students in the two control groups had no such system to facili-
tate their geometry learning. According to Duval’s cognitive model of geometry learning,
these processes are referred to as visualization, construction, and reasoning (Duval 1998).
The system facilitated the problem-solving processes of the students. That is, the students
had to visualize objects of their interest (visualization cognitive processes), and the system
enabled the students to measure the parameters of geometrical objects using a digital ruler

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1141

provided by the system (construction cognitive processes). After that, the students were
able to make calculations, explain their calculations, and show proofs. If there was a mis-
take, the system indicated it to the students, and then, they tried to improve their problem
solution (reasoning cognitive processes). The students had to visualize the objects meas-
ured by others (visualization cognitive processes), read these measurements and calcula-
tions made by others, and then provide relevant comments or suggestions for improvement
(reasoning cognitive processes).
Earlier studies on mobile-assisted geometry learning also demonstrated positive results
regarding the usefulness of mobile technology on geometry learning. However, the stu-
dents in some of these studies learned in the classroom rather than in the real world, and
the objects they measured were not real but digital (Chang et al. 2016; de Ravé et al. 2016;
Starcic et al. 2013). In the present study, we addressed these major limitations.
Murray and Barnes (1998) argued that technology needs to be evaluated on a pedagogi-
cal basis. This is because several factors can influence student acceptance of a piece of
technology (Venkatesh and Davis 2000). Our questionnaire survey results showed that the
students thought that the UG system was easy to use and useful for geometry learning.
Furthermore, the students perceived that the system could enhance their learning inter-
ests and motivation. These findings suggest that the students accepted our technology for
learning. In the interviews, most of the students said that using the system to measure real
objects was helpful in understanding and remembering geometry concepts. Moreover, the
students mentioned that they preferred “to learn geometry by doing” rather than receiving
the teacher’s one-way lecture. We found that the usefulness of estimation (i.e. how well
the UG system measured the object) was perceived as the lowest of all variables although
it was not scored too low (M = 3.86; SD 0.64). A few students admitted that it was some-
how difficult for them to measure real objects and calculate their area because of a lack
of SEA confidence. On the other hand, the students mentioned in the interviews that our
learning activities supported by the UG system enhanced their attention and interest and
were relevant to geometry learning and their daily lives. Moreover, the learning activities
supported by the UG system made them confident; the perceptions of most students in
the experimental group were higher (confidence dimension of the questionnaire). Likewise,
most experimental students expressed their high satisfaction with the learning activities
supported by the UG system (satisfaction dimension of the questionnaire). This suggests
that the experimental students believed that our learning activities supported by the UG
system were useful in facilitating their learning motivation.
The results of the analysis of geometry learning behaviors showed that all four types of
behaviors were positively correlated with GRA and SEA. We found that only “the num-
ber of objects for which the area was correctly measured” variable was significantly cor-
related with a learning gain. That is, although the UG system can generally enhance stu-
dents’ motivation to participate in learning activities no matter what their scores are, only
the students who measured objects correctly could improve their GRA and SEA. In the
measuring process, students need to think about geometry concepts and use their insights
and imagination while looking for objects with parallelograms or trapezoid shapes in real
life, and the students can easily measure huge structures using the UG system, for example,
buildings or walls. If the students can get proper guidance and correct their answers during
the learning process, they can correct their thought process and consolidate their under-
standing of geometry concepts, enhancing their learning performance. On the other hand,
if they carry out measuring activities at random just because of their interests and for con-
venience and hence do not identify that either their measuring method or results are correct
or wrong, their learning cannot be improved.

13
 1142 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

We argue that the experience of measuring real-life objects and sharing these experi-
ences with others can improve students’ motivation and facilitate the comprehension of
geometry concepts better. However, it is more important to guide students during measur-
ing objects and to ensure that the students measure these objects correctly. In the exper-
imental group, through record sharing, we observed some participants studied and then
commented on peers’ records on the map and asked the authors of the original records
to explain more or correct their measurements, which was very valuable and meaningful
to improve their cognition and measurement through reflection. Therefore, it is vital for
students to give insightful suggestions and should be looked at more in future studies. The
results indicate that learning activities should incorporate some elements focused on how
to guide students to understand the relation between geometry concepts and measurement
behaviors and how to make students pay more attention to a change of the measurement
results and know what is wrong and right to increase the number of objects whose area was
correctly measured, hence cultivating a correct way of thinking.
The importance of exploring learning behaviors has been emphasized in earlier studies.
Therefore, we explored geometry learning behaviors and their relationships with learning
performance. Our results are in line with those obtained by other scholars (Hwang et al.
2015b; Shadiev et al. 2014). However, these previous studies focused on different domains,
that is, mathematics (Hwang et al. 2015b) and programming (Shadiev et al. 2014) learn-
ing. Furthermore, the students in these earlier studies learned in different learning environ-
ments, that is, multi-touch tabletop (Hwang et  al. 2015b) and web-based (Shadiev et  al.
2014) methods.

Limitations

Some limitations of the current study need to be acknowledged. For example, the relatively
small sample size of our participants and short-term intervention limits us from making
broader generalizations with the results. Nevertheless, to address this limitation, we trian-
gulated the data from different sources and tested the differences on the post-test scores of
the students in three groups by controlling for the significant impact of prior knowledge.
Each of these approaches add to the validity of the results. For example, the triangulation
of the main findings helps render richer, more nuanced and reliable conclusions (Creswell
2014), and an ANCOVA is more conservative than an ANOVA because it accounts for a
higher degree of freedom (Fraenkel et al. 2014). Nevertheless, we suggest that future stud-
ies involve more participants and have their intervention last for longer to see whether the
results will be different.
Another limitation relates to the reliability of the instruments used. For example, we
ensured the validity of the tests but not their reliability. In addition, the reliability of the
questionnaire was only acceptable (α > 0.7), which is lower compared with a good (α > 0.8)
or excellent (α > 0.9) reliability (Creswell 2014; Fraenkel et  al. 2014); this may have
affected the results. Therefore, future studies may consider addressing these issues as well.
All three groups in our quasi-experiment were taught by the same instructor. There-
fore, the fidelity of implementation within each group, given that it was the same person,
is somewhat questionable. We believe that the instructor was able to teach from a situ-
ated perspective with one group and then abandon that situated perspective entirely for
the control group because of the instructor’s teaching experience, which was more than
5  years. However, this assumption is not objective, so future research should provide

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1143

evidence that the instructor can move between perspectives depending on the group and
do so in a way that meets with the conditions the researchers are hoping to achieve.
There is still some room for improvement in the design of the research, the UG sys-
tem, and ubiquitous learning activities in general. In the future, the UG system needs to
be improved, and researchers may focus on enhancing other important geometry skills
by using mobile technology. UG can be used very well in different learning environ-
ments. However, it is more suitable to use UG for measuring medium- and large-size
real objects because the measurement will be based on using gyroscope sensors and
trigonometric functions. Geometry features are calculated based on the rotation angle of
a tablet; therefore, the measurement accuracy of small objects will be reduced because
of the short rotational distance of a tablet. Although there were these above-mentioned
limitations, another valuable way to use our results more meaningfully would be to stim-
ulate sharing and discussion among students. The reason is because the actual measure-
ment of the objects surrounding students can motivate them to explore and verify the
correct answers. In future studies, we will also design some competition/collaboration
activities or learning games to enhance and sustain student interest in conducting more
meaningful measurements and discussions.
The participants of the current study were primary school students from Taiwan,
and this may affect the generalizability of the results to populations of different back-
grounds. That is, this limitation prevents us from making inferences about populations
from other educational settings and/or cultural contexts. Therefore, the results of the
present study need to be treated with caution.

Conclusion

In the current study, we designed learning activities supported by the UG system on

tablet PCs to help elementary students learn geometry concepts and apply them within
the real world. The objective of the current study was to explore the feasibility of our
approach on GRA and SEA. Our results showed that student geometry learning perfor-
mance was enhanced because of the learning activities supported by the UG system.
The experimental group students had positive perceptions of the system and had high
learning motivation. The results also indicated that the learning activities helped stu-
dents improve their geometry reasoning and spatial estimation abilities. Furthermore,
our results related to geometry learning behaviors showed how educators and research-
ers may need to design UG learning activities and guide students to participate in them
effectively. Therefore, based on our results, our learning activities were beneficial for
the students and enhanced their geometry learning performance. In addition, the UG
system developed in the current study can provide excellent technological support for
ubiquitous geometry learning in real situations. Furthermore, our results can help edu-
cators and researchers understand the use of authentic learning experiences in geometry
and how these can be supported by technology.

Compliance with ethical standards 

Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

13
 1144 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

Appendix

Geometry reasoning ability test

Section 1: Calculate the problem (50%)

Item example: Please calculate the area of the painted area.

Section 2: Advanced questions (50%)

Item example: How many square meters is the painted area?

Spatial estimation ability test

Item example: Please calculate the distance, length, and width of the cabinet.

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1145

References
Alioon, Y., & Delialioğlu, Ö. (2019). The effect of authentic m-learning activities on student engage-
ment and motivation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 655–668.
Bano, M., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Aubusson, P. (2018). Mobile learning for science and
mathematics school education: A systematic review of empirical evidence. Computers & Educa-
tion, 121, 30–58.
Battista, M. T., Frazee, L. M., & Winer, M. L. (2018). Analyzing the relation between spatial and geo-
metric reasoning for elementary and middle school students. Visualizing mathematics (pp. 195–
228). Cham: Springer.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educa-
tional Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.
Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2019). Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in
geometric problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2),
341–362.
Cerratto Pargman, T., Nouri, J., & Milrad, M. (2018). Taking an instrumental genesis lens: New insights
into collaborative mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 219–234.
Chang, K. E., Wu, L. J., Lai, S. C., & Sung, Y. T. (2016). Using mobile devices to enhance the interactive
learning for spatial geometry. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4), 916–934.
Chen, C. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2018). Exploring the effect of learning styles on learning achievement in a
u-Museum. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(5), 664–681.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Crompton, H. (2015). Using context-aware ubiquitous learning to support students’ understanding of geom-
etry. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(13), 1–11.
de Ravé, E. G., Jiménez-Hornero, F. J., Ariza-Villaverde, A. B., & Taguas-Ruiz, J. (2016). DiedricAR: A
mobile augmented reality system designed for the ubiquitous descriptive geometry learning. Multime-
dia Tools and Applications, 75(16), 9641–9663.
Duval, R. (1998). Geometry from a Cognitive Point of View. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspec-
tives on the teaching of geometry for the 21st century: An ICMI study (pp. 37–51). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2014). How to design and evaluate research in education.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Garrett, A. W., & Davis, O., Jr. (2003). A time of uncertainty and change: School mathematics from World
War II until the new math. A history of school mathematics, 1, 493–520.
Hershkowitz, (1998). Reasoning in geometry. In C. Mammana & V. Villani (Eds.), Perspectives on the
teaching of geometry for the 21st century: An ICMI study (pp. 29–83). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hwang, W. Y., Lin, L. K., Ochirbat, A., Shih, T. K., & Kumara, W. G. C. W. (2015a). Ubiquitous geometry:
Measuring authentic surroundings to support geometry learning of the sixth-grade students. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 52(1), 26–49.

13
 1146 W.-Y. Hwang et al.

Hwang, W. Y., Shadiev, R., Tseng, C. W., & Huang, Y. M. (2015b). Exploring effects of multi-touch tab-
letop on collaborative fraction learning and the relationship of learning behavior and interaction with
learning achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 459–473.
Hwang, W. Y., Shadiev, R., Wang, C. Y., & Huang, Z. H. (2012). A pilot study of cooperative programming
learning behavior and its relationship with students’ learning performance. Computers & Education,
58(4), 1267–1281.
Jones, K. (1998). Theoretical frameworks for the learning of geometrical reasoning. Proceedings of the Brit-
ish Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 18(1&2), 29–34.
Jones, M. G., Gardner, G. E., Taylor, A. R., Forrester, J. H., & Andre, T. (2012). Students’ accuracy of
measurement estimation: Context, units, and logical thinking. School Science and Mathematics,
112(3), 171–178.
Kanagarajan, S., & Ramakrishnan, S. (2018). Ubiquitous and ambient intelligence assisted learning envi-
ronment infrastructures development: A review. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1),
569–598.
Kinyua, K., & Okunya, L. O. (2014). Validity and reliability of teacher-made tests: Case study of year 11
physics in Nyahururu District of Kenya. African Educational Research Journal, 2(2), 61–71.
Lave, J. (2019). Learning and everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, K., & Keller, J. M. (2018). Use of the ARCS model in education: A literature review. Computers & Edu-
cation, 122, 54–62.
Lowrie, T., & Logan, T. (2018). The interaction between spatial reasoning constructs and mathematics
understandings in elementary classrooms. In K. Mix & M. Battista (Eds.), Visualizing mathematics
(pp. 253–276). Cham: Springer.
Paraskevi, M. (2013). Geometrical figure apprehension: cognitive processes and structure. Doctoral disser-
tation. University of Cyprus.
Massa, L. J., Mayer, R. E., & Bohon, L. M. (2005). Individual differences in gender role beliefs influence
spatial ability test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(2), 99–111.
Murray, L., & Barnes, A. (1998). Beyond the “wow” factor—evaluating multimedia language learning soft-
ware from a pedagogical viewpoint. System, 26(2), 249–259.
Paris, S. G. (2002). Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. London: Routledge.
Putri, S. K., & Syahputra, E. (2019). Development of learning devices based on realistic mathematics edu-
cation to improve students’ spatial ability and motivation. International Electronic Journal of Math-
ematics Education, 14(2), 393–400.
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2017). Review of research on mobile language learning in
authentic environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3–4), 284–303.
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Liu, T. Y. (2018). A study of the use of wearable devices for healthy and
enjoyable English as a foreign language learning in authentic contexts. Educational Technology &
Society, 21(4), 217–231.
Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., Yeh, S. C., Yang, S. J. H., Wang, J. L., Lin, H., et al. (2014). Effects of unidi-
rectional vs. reciprocal teaching strategies on web-based computer programming learning. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 50(1), 67–95.
Shadiev, R., Liu, T. Y., & Hwang, W. Y. (2019). Review of research on mobile-assisted language learning in
familiar authentic environments. British Journal of Educational Technology. https​://doi.org/10.1111/
bjet.12839​.
Starcic, A. I., Cotic, M., & Zajc, M. (2013). Design-based research on the use of a tangible user interface
for geometry teaching in an inclusive classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5),
729–744.
Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., Bay-Williams, J. M., Wray, J., & Rigelman, N. R. M. (2007). Elementary
and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally. London: Pearson Education.
Varnalis-Weigle, A. S. (2016). A comparative study of user experience between physical objects and their
digital surrogates. Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies, 3(1), 1–21.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four
longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Wu‑Yuin Hwang is currently a distinguished Professor of the Graduate Institute of Network Learn-
ing Technology, National Central University, Taiwan. The major research interests of Dr. Hwang include

13
Exploring the effects of ubiquitous geometry learning in real… 1147

Human–Computer Interaction for Collaboration, Multimedia tools/Systems Design and Knowledge

Construction.

Lixinin Zhao  is currently reading for the Ph.D. at the Department of Computer Science and Information
Engineering, National Central University, Taiwan. His current research interest is in e-learning.

Rustam Shadiev  is a professor in the School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, China. He
is also a distinguished professor of Jiangsu province, China. His research interests include computer- and
mobile-assisted learning and instruction, HCI for collaboration, and Speech-enabled language translation
technology for cross-cultural education.

Li‑Kai Lin  is currently reading for the M.Sc. at the Graduate Institute of Network Learning Technology,
National Central University, Taiwan. His current research interest is in e-learning.

Timothy K. Shih  is a Professor at the National Central University, Taiwan. Prof. Shih’s current research
interests include Multimedia Computing and Distance Learning.

Hong‑Ren Chen  is a Professor at the National TaiChung University of Education, Taiwan. Prof. Hong-Ren
Chen is currently interested in e-learning.

Affiliations

Wu‑Yuin Hwang1 · Lixinin Zhao1,2 · Rustam Shadiev3   · Li‑Kai Lin1 · Timothy K. Shih1 ·

Hong‑Ren Chen4
Wu‑Yuin Hwang
wyhwang1206@gmail.com
Lixinin Zhao
jaulisin@163.com
Li‑Kai Lin
y2j0025qq@gmail.com
Timothy K. Shih
timothykshih@gmail.com
Hong‑Ren Chen
hrchen.ntcu@gmail.com
1
National Central University, Zhongli, Taiwan
2
Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
3
Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China
4
National Taichung University of Education, Taichung, Taiwan

13