Virtual and Augmented reality are prime examples of interactive real time technologies that integrate physical and virtual objects in a real 3D space. These technologies carry enormous educational potential and cover a range of concepts that resonate with learning theory. Though many studies have shown the importance of books as traditional learning tools especially in Science learning, in fact sometimes books can make children feel bored. The authors, teachers, or designers nowadays should try to adapt these newly invented technologies while developing teaching materials. The form of virtual and augmented reality was utilized on the development of the science book used in current study where its purpose was to help increase students’ attitude on science learning and reading comprehension of science concepts even for people having low spatial abilities. It is believed applying virtual and augmented reality technologies on the development of a unique science book will give numerous benefits toward many individuals such as children, teachers, and instructional designers.

A true-experimental research design, with pretest and post test, was used to investigate the influence of instructional design methodology on learner achievement and attitude. The sample for this study consisted of 80 students enrolled in fifth grade elementary school. Three questionnaires administered before and two questionnaires after an instructional intervention were used for data collection. The analysis of this study was conducted using Descriptive Statistics, Paired Sample T-Test, Independent T-Test, Two-way ANOVA, One-way ANCOVA and Pearson Correlation. Statistical analysis revealed that using mixed reality as learning supplement of the printed book could improve students’ learning outcome and attitude especially for low spatial ability students. In addition, an analysis of the differences of learning outcomes and learning attitude between the two groups with different spatial abilities (students with high vs. low spatial ability) are provided and discussed. Finally, recommendations for future practices and research are discussed.

Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2008). Learning directly from screen? Oh-no, I must print it! Metacognitive analysis of digitally presented text learning. In Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research (pp. 1-7).
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Arzubiaga, A., Rueda, R., & Monzó, L. (2002). Family matters related to the reading engagement of Latino children. Journal of Latinos and Education,1(4), 231-243.
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence, 6(4), 355-385.
Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S. Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented Reality Trends in Education: A Systematic Review of Research and Applications. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133-149.
Balog, A., Pribeanu, C. (2010). The role of perceived enjoyment in the students’ acceptance of an AR teaching platform: A structural equation modeling approach. Studies in Informatics and Control, 19 (3), 319-330.
Billinghurst, M., Kato, H., & Poupyrev, I. (2001). The Magic Book — Moving seamlessly between reality and virtuality. IEEE Computers, Graphics and Applications, 21(3), 2-4.
Black, A. A. (2005). Spatial ability and earth science conceptual understanding. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 402.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay, 20-24.
Branoff, T. (1998). The Effects of Adding Coordinate Axes to a Mental Rotations Task in Measuring Spatial Visualization Ability in Introductory Undergraduate Technical Graphics Courses. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 62(2), 16-34.
Breakwell, G. M., & Beardsell, S. (1992). Gender, parental and peer influences upon science attitudes and activities. Public Understanding of Science, 1(2), 183-197.
Brown, S. A. (1976). Attitude goals in secondary school science. University of Stirling. Department of Education.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, C. J. (2006). The design, development and evaluation of a virtual reality based learning environment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(1), 39-63.
Chen, N. S., Teng, D. C. E., & Lee, C. H. (2011). Augmenting paper-based reading activity with direct access to digital materials and scaffolded questioning. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1705-1715.
Chien, C. H., Chen, C. H., &Jeng, T. S. (2010). An interactive augmented reality system for learning anatomy structure. In T. Athanasios (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists (pp. 370-375). Hong Kong, China: International Association of Engineers.
Clark, A. T., Power, T. J., Blom-Hoffman, J., Dwyer, J. F., Kelleher, C. R., & Novak, M. (2003). Kindergarten reading engagement: An investigation of teacher ratings. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 20(1), 131-144.
Clark, D. (2006). Motivation in e-learning. Brighton, UK: Epic. Retrieved March, 16, 2009.
Contero, M., Naya, F., Company, P., Saorín, J. L., 쎭s, &Conesa, J. (2005). Improving visualization skills in engineering education. Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 25(5), 24-31.
Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345–374.
Crawley, F. E., & Black, C. B. (1992). Causal modeling of secondary science students' intentions to enroll in physics. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 585-599.
Dalgarno, B. (2004). A classification scheme for learner-computer interaction. In Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 240-258).
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10-32.
Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented reality system on students' motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586-596.
Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(1), 7–22.
Field, B.W. (2007). Visualization, intuition, and mathematics metrics as predictors of undergraduate engineering design performance. Journal of Mechanical Design 129(7), 735– 743.
Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93-114.
Francis, L. J., & Greer, J. E. (1999). Measuring attitude towards science among secondary school students: The affective domain. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(2), 219–226.
Freitas, R., & Campos, P. (2008, September). SMART: a SysteM of Augmented Reality for Teaching 2 nd grade students. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction-Volume 2 (pp. 27-30). British Computer Society.
Fusco, D. (2001). Creating relevant science through urban planning and gardening. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 860-877.
Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 518-533.
Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to Science: A Review. Studies in Science Education, 2, 1-41.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10th anniversary ed.) New York: Basic Books.
Germann, P. J. (1988). Development of the attitude toward science in school assessment and its use to investigate the relationship between science achievement and attitude toward science in school. Journal of research in science teaching, 25(8), 689-703.
Giaquinto, M. (2007). Visual thinking in mathematics: An epistemological study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). The significant role of multimedia in motivating EFL learners' interest in English language learning. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), 4(4), 57.
Guay, R. B. (1976). Purdue Spatial Visualization Test. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research Foundation.
Guay, R. B., McDaniel, E., & Angelo, S. (1978). Analytic factor confounding spatial ability measurement. McDaniel (Eds.), Correlates of Performance on Spatial Aplitude Tests, Purdue University, 116-128.
Hartzell, G. (2002). Paperlion. School Library Journal, 48(9), 37.
Hays, T. A. (1996). Spatial abilities and the effects of computer animation on short-term and long-term comprehension. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 139–155.
Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (1992). The present state of interest research. The role of interest in learning and development, 433-446.
Höffler, T. N. (2010). Spatial ability: Its influence on learning with visualizations—a meta-analytic review. Educational psychology review, 22(3), 245-269.
Huang, K. L., Chen, K. H., & Ho, C. H. (2014). Enhancing learning outcomes through new e-textbooks: A desirable combination of presentation methods and concept maps. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5).
Hyun, E. (2004). A study of 5- to 6-year-old children’s peer dynamics and dialectical learning in a computer-based technology-rich classroom environment. Computers & Education, 44(1), 69-91.
Johnson, J. E. & Christie, J. F. (2009). Play and digital media.Computers in the Schools, 26(4), 284-289.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. New Media Consortium. 6101 West Courtyard Drive Building One Suite 100, Austin, TX 78730.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of computer assisted learning, 7(2), 75-83.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking Technology: Toward a Constructivist Design Model. Educational technology, 34(4), 34-37.
Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011). Reading Engagement: A Comparison between E-Books and Traditional Print Books in an Elementary Classroom.Online Submission, 4(2), 5-22.
Kind, P., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. (2007). Developing attitudes towards science measures. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 871-893.
Kirner, C., Cerqueira, C. S., & Kirner, T. G. (2012). Using Augmented Reality Artifacts in Education and Cognitive Rehabilitation.
Knulst, W. P., Kraaykamp, G., van den Broek, A., & de Haan, J. (1996). Reading habits: 50 years of research on reading and threats to reading: cultural foundations.
Koong Lin HC, Hsieh MC, Wang CH, Sie ZY, Chang SH (2011). Establishment and usability evaluation of an interactive AR learning system on conservation of fish.Turk Online J EduTechnol,10(4):181–187.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kreijns, K., Van Acker, F., Vermeulen, M., & Van Buuren, H. (2013). What stimulates teachers to integrate ICT in their pedagogical practices? The use of digital learning materials in education. Computers in human behavior,29(1), 217-225.
Lanham, R. (1995). Digital Literacy. Scientific American 273 (3), 160–161.
Liu, Z. (2005). Reading behavior in the digital environment: Changes in reading behavior over the past ten years. Journal of documentation, 61(6), 700-712.
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Daniel Strahl, J., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Does technology integration “work” when key barriers are removed?. Educational Media International, 45(3), 195-213.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitude and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–346). New York: Random House.
M. Fjeld, K. Lauche, M. Bichsel, F. Voorhorst, H. Krueger & M. Rauterberg. (2002). Physical and Virtual Tools: Activity Theory Applied to the Design of Groupware. In B. A. Nardi& D. F. Redmiles (eds.) A Special Issue of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): Activity Theory and the Practice of Design, Volume 11 (1-2), pp. 153-180.
Mantzicopoulos, P., & Patrick, H. (2010). “The seesaw is a machine that goes up and down”: Young children's narrative responses to science-related informational text. Early Education and Development, 21(3), 412-444.
Mantzicopoulos, P., & Patrick, H. (2011). Reading picture books and learning science: Engaging young children with informational text. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 269-276.
Marinak, B. A. &Gambrell, L. B. (2008). Intrinsic motivation and rewards: What sustains young children’s engagement with text? Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(1), 9-26.
Martı´n-Gutie´rrez J, Luı´sSaorı´n J, Contero M, Alcan˜iz M, Pe´rezLo´pez DC, Ortega M (2010). Design and validation of an augmented book for spatial abilities development in engineering students.Comput Graph, 34(1):77–91
Martín-Gutierrez, J., Trujillo, R. E. N., & Acosta-Gonzalez, M. M. (2013). Augmented Reality Application Assistant for Spatial Ability Training. HMD vs Computer Screen Use Study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 49-53.
McGlinn, J. M., & Parrish, A. (2002). Accelerating ESL students' reading progress with Accelerated Reader. Reading Horizons, 42(3), 2.
McKenzie, J., & Darnell, D. (2003). The eyeMagic book. A report into augmented reality storytelling in the context of a children's workshop. Retrieved from http://www.mindspacesolutions.com/demos/eyeMagicWorkShopReport.pdf.
McNabb, M., Hawkes, M., & Rouk, Ü. Critical Issues in Evaluating the Effectiveness of Technology.
Michael, W. B., Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., & Zimmerman, W. S. (1957). The description of spatialvisualization abilities.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 17, 185-199.
Milgram, P., &Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321-1329.
Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A., & Esterly, E. (2003). Persuasion online or on paper: a new take on an old issue. Learning and Instruction,13(5), 511-532.
Noh, Z., Sunar, M. S., & Pan, Z. (2009). A review on augmented reality for virtual heritage system. In Learning by Playing. Game-based Education System Design and Development (pp. 50-61). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
O'hara, K., &Sellen, A. (1997, March). A comparison of reading paper and on-line documents. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 335-342). ACM.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implication. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
Pantelidis, V. S. (1995). Reasons to use virtual reality in education. VR in the Schools, 1(1), 9.
Pantelidis, V. S. (2010). Reasons to use virtual reality in education and training courses and a model to determine when to use virtual reality. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 2(1-2), pp-59.
Pellegrino, J. W., Alderton, D. L., & Shute, V. J. (1984). Understanding spatial ability. Educational Psychologist, 19(4), 239-253.
Pence, H. E. (2010). Smartphones, smart objects, and augmented reality. The Reference Librarian, 52(1-2), 136-145.
Piaget, J. (1967). Biology and knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pinho, M. S. (2004). Realidade Virtual. PUC. Rio de Janeiro.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Piovesan, S. D., Passerino, L. M., & Pereira, A. S. (2012). Virtual Reality as a Tool in the Education. International Association for Development of the Information Society.
Pribeanu, C., &Iordache, D. D. (2008). Evaluating the motivational value of an augmented reality system for learning chemistry (pp. 31-42). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Rajecki, D. W. (1990). Attitudes. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
Reid, N. (2006). Thoughts on attitude measurement. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24(1), 3–27.
Salmi, H., Sotiriou, S., & Bogner, F. (2009). Visualising the Invisible in Science Centres and Science Museums: Augmented Reality (AR) Technology. Web-Based Learning Solutions for Communities of Practice: Developing Virtual Environments for Social and Pedagogical Advancement, 185.
Schiefele, U. (1998). Individual interest and learning, what we know and what we don’t know. In Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon conference on interest and gender (pp. 91-104). IPN Kiel, Germany.
Schwartz, D. L., & Heiser, J. (2006). Spatial representations and imagery in learning (pp. 283-298).na.
Shelton, B. E., & Hedley, N. R. (2002). Using augmented reality for teaching earth-sun relationships to undergraduate geography students. Proceedings of the First IEEE International Augmented Reality Toolkit Workshop, Darmstadt, Germany, 8-pp. doi: 10.1109/ART.2002.1106948.
Shrigley, R. L. (1990). Attitude and behavior are correlates. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 97-113.
Slavick Frank, M., M. Jones, R., H. Krockover, G., P. Lang, M., C. McLeod, J., J. Valenta, C., & A. Van Deman, B. (2002). Cycles on Earth and in Space. In Harcourt science. Orlando: Harcourt School.
Sorby, S. A. (2009). Educational research in developing 3D spatial skills for engineering students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3).
Stanney, K. M., & Salvendy, G. (1995). Information visualization; assisting low spatial individuals with information access tasks through the use of visual mediators. Ergonomics, 38(6), 1184-1198.
Sullivan, L. M., & D'Agostino, R. B. (2002). Robustness and power of analysis of covariance applied to data distorted from normality by floor effects: non-homogeneous regression slopes. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 72(2), 141-165.
Vandenberg, S. G., &Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599–604.
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., &Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250-270.
Wang, S. K. & Reeves, T. C. (2007). The effects of a web-based learning environment on student motivation in a high school earth course. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(2), 169-192.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, A. T., Klauda, S. L., Mcrae, A., & Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools 45(5), 432-445.
Winn, W. (1993). A conceptual basis for educational applications of virtual reality (Technical Report TR-93-9). Seattle, Washington: Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington.
Yang, J. C., Huang, Y. T., Tsai, C. C., Chung, C. I., & Wu, Y. C. (2009). An automatic multimedia content summarization system for video recommendation. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (1), 49-61.
Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Revised Purdue Spatial Visualization Tests: Visualization ofRotations (The Revised PSVT:R). Manuscript in preparation.
Yue, J. (2004). Spatial visualization by orthogonal rotations. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Expositions, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Yue, J. (2006). Spatial visualization by isometric drawing. Proceedings of the2006 IJME-INTERTECH Conference, Union, New Jersey.
Yue, J. (2007). Spatial visualization by realistic 3D views. Proceedings of the American Society for engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Expositions, Honolulu, Hawaii.