Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

From Following to Understanding: Investigating the Role of Reflective Prompts in AR-Guided Tasks to Promote Task Understanding

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding short reflective questions to AR instructions improves measured task understanding and increases voluntary information seeking.

desk verdict A competently run, honestly reported AR study whose headline 'understanding' gain rests on an undisclosed quiz that likely overlaps with the prompt content; the behavioral info-seeking result is the cleaner finding. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13258 v1 pith:7RR45VYH submitted 2025-01-22 cs.HC

Nandi Zhang , Yukang Yan , Ryo Suzuki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords augmentedrealityreflectivepromptstaskunderstandinginstructionfollowingepistemiccuriosityinformationseekingguidanceuserstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether prompting people to reflect while they follow augmented-reality instructions can move them from passive step-following to genuine task understanding. In a within-subject study, 16 novices performed coffee-making and circuit-assembly tasks with standard AR instructions in one condition and the same instructions plus short reflective questions in the other. Tasks with reflective prompts produced significantly higher quiz scores measuring objective understanding, a 0.66 standard deviation increase, and a 68.75% rise in clicks on optional explanation keywords, with no significant change in cognitive load or usability. The authors take this as evidence that small, well-timed questions can deepen comprehension inside an otherwise instruction-following medium.

What carries the argument

The operative mechanism is the reflective prompt: a short, non-interactive question overlaid in AR text below an instruction step, appearing three seconds after the step. Three prompt types survived the formative co-design: challenging assumptions ('Is this step necessary?'), connecting actions to outcomes ('What are we trying to achieve with this step?'), and hypothetical scenarios ('What if we pour all the water at once?'). The prompts were attached to seven of thirteen coffee steps and five of eight circuit steps, and the system measured information seeking through clicks on predefined clickable keywords that revealed extra explanation. The mechanism works by interrupting automatic execution just long enough for users to notice or articulate questions they would otherwise skip.

What would settle it

Compare the same two conditions using quiz items whose wording provably does not echo the prompt questions, or move the quiz to a new context days later; if the gain disappears or concentrates only on items that reuse prompt vocabulary, the claimed understanding effect is largely priming. A reader could also inspect the unreported quiz items for direct overlap with 'Is this step necessary?', 'What are we trying to achieve?', and 'What if...?' wording.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that embedding reflective prompts into AR task instructions improves how well users understand the task, not just how well they execute it. The evaluative evidence is a paired comparison in which each of 16 participants did one task with and one without prompts; quiz scores, normalized per task and excluding questions participants already knew, rose by 0.66 standard deviations in the reflective condition (t(15)=2.33, p<.05, d=0.582). Participants also clicked on optional explanation keywords 68.75% more often in the reflective condition (reflective M=0.538 vs non-reflective M=0.32, t(15)=2.943, p<.05, d=0.736). The authors report no significant differences in cognitive load or system usability, and most participants (15/16) described the prompts as non-intrusive; perceived understanding was significantly lower with prompts only for the circuit-assembly task.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the post-task quizzes measure transferable task understanding rather than recall of the prompt-like phrasing, and because the quiz items are not reported, the reader cannot check how much the prompts and quiz overlap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AR instruction systems can adopt short, ignorable reflective questions as a lightweight way to raise measured understanding without raising cognitive load or lowering usability.
  • Click-through on optional explanation keywords can serve as an observable proxy for epistemic curiosity in AR guidance studies.
  • Prompt placement matters: the design guidelines advise tying prompts to the current step, avoiding high-load moments, and keeping the tone conversational and brief.
  • If the effect generalizes, reflective prompts belong in tasks where the paper's reflection values--safety, quality, efficiency, customizability, and skill--make understanding valuable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension not settled by the paper: because the quiz items are not reported and the prompts themselves model words like 'necessary' and 'achieve', some of the quiz gain may be wording priming; a replication with novel quiz items and delayed transfer questions would test this.
  • Extension: the success-rate gap (94.8% vs 68.8%) was not statistically significant in this sample, so a larger replication is needed before treating improved task success as an established outcome of reflective prompts.
  • Extension: participants said errors and deviations naturally triggered reflection, so an adaptive version that fires prompts at error-prone moments is a testable next step that the current fixed-step system does not evaluate.
  • Extension: the authors' guidelines imply a system with user-selectable modes for efficient versus reflective guidance; a direct next experiment would ask whether voluntary mode choice preserves the quiz gain or requires forced prompts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether embedding reflective prompts into AR task instructions improves users' understanding of the task being performed. The authors first conduct a formative survey and co-design sessions (N=9) to select three prompt types: Challenging Assumptions, Connection to Outcomes, and Hypothetical Scenarios. They then run a within-subject evaluation (N=16) comparing AR instructions with and without these prompts on coffee-making and circuit-assembly tasks. The main quantitative results are a significant increase in quiz scores (interpreted as objective understanding) and in voluntary clicks on optional explanation keywords, with no measured increase in cognitive load or loss of usability. Qualitative interviews and pre/post questionnaires are used to support design guidelines for reflective AR instructional systems.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the contribution is valuable for AR instruction design: it provides a concrete, co-designed prompt taxonomy, a within-subject evaluation with effect sizes, and design guidelines grounded in both quantitative and qualitative data. The paper's strengths include counterbalanced task/condition assignment, standardized clickable keyword explanations, normalization of quiz scores within tasks, and an explicit treatment of limitations. The main risk is that the objective-understanding measure is the sole quantitative basis for the headline claim and its items are not disclosed, so the claim is not currently independently verifiable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, §4.5, Fig. 5] The objective-understanding measure is not verifiable and may be aligned with the intervention. The quizzes are described as assessing 'basic conceptual understanding, factual memory recall, and knowledge transfer' and as testing whether participants 'remember the task procedure and understand the rationale behind the actions,' but no quiz items are reported. The reflective prompts themselves ask questions such as 'Is this step necessary?', 'What are we trying to achieve with this step?', and 'What if we pour all the water at once?' (Fig. 5), which map directly onto the quiz's stated constructs. Participants in the reflective condition were therefore cued with the very concepts the quiz later rewards, so the significant quiz gain (t(15)=2.33, p<.05, d=0.582) could reflect priming or wording overlap rather than improved task understanding. This is load-bearing for the central claim. Please include the full quiz instruments, a mapping of each item to the prompt types, and a reanalysis that excludes or separately reports items overlapping with prompt content. At minimum, the interpretation of the quiz as 'objective understanding' should be softened, especially because Limitation 6.5.1 concedes that quizzes mainly capture recall and procedural knowledge rather than deeper transferable understanding.
  2. [§4.5, Task Success] The chi-square test of independence is applied to paired within-subject data, violating the independence assumption; each participant contributed one success/failure observation per condition, so the two conditions are not independent samples. A paired test such as McNemar's test should be used. In addition, the reported success rates (94.8% vs. 68.8%) are inconsistent with 16 tasks per condition, which would be 93.75% (15/16) and 68.75% (11/16). Please correct the rates and re-run the appropriate test.
  3. [§4.5, Subjective Understanding] The Task B comparison is described as a paired sample t-test (t(7)=3.035, p<.05), but no participant performed Task B in both conditions: half of the participants did Task B with reflective prompts and half without. This is an independent-samples comparison of n=8 per group, not a paired comparison. The same issue applies to the Task A subjective-understanding comparison. Please revise the statistical description and re-report these results with the correct test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 vs. §4.5] The summary of findings in Fig. 1 reports that reflective prompts increase information-seeking behaviors 'from 0.32 to 0.54, p<.01', while §4.5 reports M=0.538, SD=0.324 for the reflective condition and p<.05. Please align the reported mean and p-value across the figure and the text.
  2. [§4.3] The procedure for excluding quiz items that participants marked as known before the study is described only in aggregate ('an average of 1.1 questions per participant per quiz'). Please report the number of excluded items per condition and confirm that exclusion rates did not differ systematically between conditions.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains a typo ('connect the cathode ... to to the negative rail'); please correct it.
  4. [§4.5, Keyword Interaction] The click-rate metric is defined as the number of clicks in steps with reflective prompts divided by the number of clickable keywords in those steps, but the non-reflective condition has no reflective prompts. Please clarify how the denominator was defined for the non-reflective condition so the comparison is interpretable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical within-subject study with no derivation chain, fitted parameters, or load-bearing self-citations; quiz-overlap concerns are construct-validity threats, not construction-level circularity.

full rationale

This manuscript makes an empirical claim rather than a formal derivation, so the circularity patterns that require a claimed result to reduce to its inputs by construction do not arise. The central comparison is a within-subject experiment (N=16) between AR instructions with and without reflective prompts; the outcome variables (quiz scores, keyword click rates, NASA-TLX, SUS) are measured, not derived from the intervention. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no equation equates an output to an input, and no load-bearing self-citation appears: the reference list contains no cited work by the authors that is used to justify the intervention's validity. Two concerns raised in the surrounding discussion are genuine but are not circularity in the sense used here. First, the quizzes are said in Section 4.3 to "assess how well participants remember the task procedure and understand the rationale behind the actions," and the reflective prompts (Section 3.3.2, Figure 5) ask about necessity, purpose, and hypothetical alternatives; because the quiz items are not reported, one cannot verify whether quiz gains are partly priming from prompt wording. This is an unverified construct-validity threat, not a demonstrated reduction: the paper does not define "understanding" as "correctly answering the prompt-like items" and then present that definition as a result. The paper's own Limitation 6.5.1 concedes that "quizzes are effective for assessing factual recall and procedural understanding" but have "limitations in capturing deeper cognitive engagement and real-world applicability," which further frames the quiz as an imperfect proxy rather than as an identity. Second, the keyword-interaction rate is computed as clicks "in steps with reflective prompts" divided by the number of clickable keywords in those steps; this is a denominator restriction that could affect comparability, but it is not a construction-level equivalence because click counts are observed behaviors, not re-expressions of prompt presence. The discrepancy between Figure 1's p<.01 and Section 4.5's p<.05 for the click-rate result is a reporting inconsistency, not circular evidence. Accordingly, no circular step meets the required standard of being quotable and reducible by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on measurement and design assumptions rather than on fitted numerical parameters or invented entities. No numbers are fit to data; the key unstated premises are the validity of quiz scores as a measure of understanding, the validity of keyword click rate as a measure of information-seeking, the adequacy of counterbalancing, and the accuracy of self-reported prior knowledge.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quiz scores are a valid measure of task understanding, including transferable knowledge.
    Section 4.3 defines quizzes as the objective understanding measure, but quiz items are not listed, so the overlap between prompt content and quiz content cannot be checked.
  • domain assumption Clickable-keyword click rate is a valid behavioral measure of epistemic curiosity and information-seeking.
    Section 4.3 and Section 4.5 use click rate as evidence of information-seeking; participants may click for other reasons, and the metric appears to be computed only for steps associated with reflective prompts.
  • domain assumption Counterbalancing removes order and carryover effects.
    Section 4.3 describes counterbalancing of task and condition, but with N=16 and one task per condition per participant, no order-effect analysis is reported.
  • domain assumption Self-reported prior knowledge accurately identifies quiz questions the participant already knew.
    Section 4.3 excludes quiz questions that participants marked as known before the study; this self-report is susceptible to demand characteristics and inaccurate memory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Following to Understanding: Investigating the Role of Reflective Prompts in AR-Guided Tasks to Promote Task Understanding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7RR45VYH

@misc{pith2026250113258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Following to Understanding: Investigating the Role of Reflective Prompts in AR-Guided Tasks to Promote Task Understanding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7RR45VYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13258}
}
read the original abstract

Augmented Reality (AR) is a promising medium for guiding users through tasks, yet its impact on fostering deeper task understanding remains underexplored. This paper investigates the impact of reflective prompts -- strategic questions that encourage users to challenge assumptions, connect actions to outcomes, and consider hypothetical scenarios -- on task comprehension and performance. We conducted a two-phase study: a formative survey and co-design sessions (N=9) to develop reflective prompts, followed by a within-subject evaluation (N=16) comparing AR instructions with and without these prompts in coffee-making and circuit assembly tasks. Our results show that reflective prompts significantly improved objective task understanding and resulted in more proactive information acquisition behaviors during task completion. These findings highlight the potential of incorporating reflective elements into AR instructions to foster deeper engagement and learning. Based on data from both studies, we synthesized design guidelines for integrating reflective elements into AR systems to enhance user understanding without compromising task performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Example of an AR instruction (in black texts) with a reflective prompt (in blue texts) for a coffee-making task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Formative study prototype system layout displaying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. As shown in Image (a), participants performed Task [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure summarizes reflection prompt types identified from the literature and evaluated for AR instruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The three types of reflective prompts we concluded with the co-design session, with example prompts and the prompts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Image (a), (b), (c), and (d) are screenshots of the participants’ view in the Apple Vision Pro. Participants can click [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Quiz score distribution comparing non-reflective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Opinions on reflective prompts. This Likert scale chart shows participants’ responses to six statements about the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: This horizontal bar chart displays mean ratings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A range of representative reflective AR instruction scenarios organized by five core reflection values (Safety, Quality, Efficiency, Customizability, and Skill). Each scenario shows physical tasks with virtual guidance (indicated in blue), with a sample reflective pro…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Muhammad Abbas, Farooq Ahmed Jam, and Tariq Iqbal Khan. 2024. Is it harmful or helpful? Examining the causes and consequences of generative AI usage among university students. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 21, 1 (2024), 10. 16 From Following to Understanding: Investigating the Role of Reflective Prompts in AR-Guided T...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Rakefet Ackerman. 2019. Heuristic cues for meta-reasoning judgments: Review and methodology. Psihologijske teme 28, 1 (2019), 1–20

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    João Alves, Bernardo Marques, Miguel Oliveira, Tiago Araújo, Paulo Dias, and Beatriz Sousa Santos. 2019. Comparing spatial and mobile augmented reality for guiding assembling procedures with task validation. In 2019 IEEE international conference on autonomous robot systems and competitions (ICARSC) . IEEE, 1–6

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Daniel Andersen, Chengyuan Lin, Voicu Popescu, Edgar Rojas Munoz, Maria Eu- genia Cabrera, Brian Mullis, Ben Zarzaur, Sherri Marley, and Juan Wachs. 2018. Augmented visual instruction for surgical practice and training. In 2018 IEEE Workshop on Augmented and Virtual Realities for Good (V AR4Good). IEEE, 1–5

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    David P Ausubel. 1968. A Cognitive view. Educational psychology (1968)

    work page 1968

  6. [6]

    Maria Bannert. 2006. Effects of reflection prompts when learning with hyperme- dia. Journal of Educational Computing Research 35, 4 (2006), 359–375

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Hamsa Bastani, Osbert Bastani, Alp Sungu, Haosen Ge, Ozge Kabakcı, and Rei Mariman. 2024. Generative ai can harm learning. A vailable at SSRN 4895486 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Andrea Bellucci, Alberto Ruiz, Paloma Díaz, and Igancio Aedo. 2018. Investigating augmented reality support for novice users in circuit prototyping. In Proceedings of the 2018 international conference on advanced visual interfaces . 1–5

    work page 2018

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Daniel Ellis Berlyne et al. 1954. A theory of human curiosity. (1954)

    1954

  2. [10]

    Frank Biocca, Charles Owen, Arthur Tang, and Corey Bohil. 2007. Attention issues in spatial information systems: Directing mobile users’ visual attention using augmented reality. Journal of Management Information Systems 23, 4 (2007), 163–184

    2007

  3. [11]

    David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. 2013. Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Routledge

    2013

  4. [12]

    Richard E Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage

    1998

  5. [13]

    Michael W Boyce, Charles P Rowan, Paul L Shorter, Jason D Moss, Charles R Amburn, Christopher J Garneau, and Robert A Sottilare. 2019. The impact of surface projection on military tactics comprehension. Military Psychology 31, 1 (2019), 45–59

    2019

  6. [14]

    Evelyn M Boyd and Ann W Fales. 1983. Reflective learning: Key to learning from experience. Journal of humanistic psychology 23, 2 (1983), 99–117

    1983

  7. [15]

    Stephen D Brookfield. 2017. Becoming a critically reflective teacher . John Wiley & Sons

    2017

  8. [16]

    Josef Buchner, Katja Buntins, and Michael Kerres. 2022. The impact of augmented reality on cognitive load and performance: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 38, 1 (2022), 285–303

    2022

  9. [17]

    Sonia Castelo, Joao Rulff, Erin McGowan, Bea Steers, Guande Wu, Shaoyu Chen, Iran Roman, Roque Lopez, Ethan Brewer, Chen Zhao, et al. 2023. Argus: Visual- ization of ai-assisted task guidance in ar. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Bo Chang. 2019. Reflection in learning. Online learning 23, 1 (2019), 95–110

    2019

  11. [19]

    Chih-Hung Chen. 2020. Impacts of augmented reality and a digital game on students’ science learning with reflection prompts in multimedia learning. Edu- cational Technology Research and Development 68, 6 (2020), 3057–3076

    2020

  12. [20]

    Tosti HC Chiang, Stephen JH Yang, and Gwo-Jen Hwang. 2014. An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students’ learning achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 17, 4 (2014), 352–365

    2014

  13. [21]

    Heeryung Choi, Jelena Jovanovic, Oleksandra Poquet, Christopher Brooks, Srećko Joksimović, and Joseph Jay Williams. 2023. The benefit of reflection prompts for encouraging learning with hints in an online programming course. The Internet and Higher Education 58 (2023), 100903

    2023

  14. [22]

    Arthur L Costa and Bena Kallick. 2008. Learning through reflection. Learning and leading with habits of mind 16 (2008), 221–235

    2008

  15. [23]

    Marilyn Wood Daudelin. 1996. Learning from experience through reflection. Organizational dynamics 24, 3 (1996), 36–48

    1996

  16. [24]

    Elizabeth A Davis. 2000. Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22, 8 (2000), 819–837

    2000

  17. [25]

    Abhiraj Deshpande and Inki Kim. 2018. The effects of augmented reality on improving spatial problem solving for object assembly. Advanced Engineering Informatics 38 (2018), 760–775

    2018

  18. [26]

    John Dewey. 2022. How we think. DigiCat

    2022

  19. [27]

    Hitesh Dhiman and Carsten Röcker. 2024. Does the Medium Matter? A Compar- ison of Augmented Reality Media in Instructing Novices to Perform Complex, Skill-Based Manual Tasks. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interac- tion 8, EICS (2024), 1–28

    2024

  20. [28]

    Ahmet EJDER, Isa HASKOLOGLU, and Ali Kemal DÜZGÜN. 2012. Augmented reality in military training and education. Defense Resources Management in the 21st Century (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Michele Fiorentino, Antonio E Uva, Michele Gattullo, Saverio Debernardis, and Giuseppe Monno. 2014. Augmented reality on large screen for interactive main- tenance instructions. Computers in Industry 65, 2 (2014), 270–278

    2014

  22. [30]

    Markus Funk, Thomas Kosch, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2016. Interactive worker assistance: comparing the effects of in-situ projection, head-mounted displays, tablet, and paper instructions. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous c...

    2016

  23. [31]

    Graham Gibbs. 1988. Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit (1988)

    1988

  24. [32]

    Lin Guo. 2022. How should reflection be supported in higher education?—A meta- analysis of reflection interventions. Reflective Practice 23, 1 (2022), 118–146

    2022

  25. [33]

    Shuang He, Yanhong Jia, Zhe Sun, Chenxin Yu, Xin Yi, Yuanchun Shi, and Yingqing Xu. 2019. AR assistive system in domestic environment using HMDs: Comparing visual and aural instructions. InVirtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Multimodal Interaction: 11th International Confere...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Lei Hou, Xiangyu Wang, Leonhard Bernold, and Peter ED Love. 2013. Using animated augmented reality to cognitively guide assembly. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 27, 5 (2013), 439–451

    2013

  27. [35]

    Min Jeong Kang, Ming Hsu, Ian M Krajbich, George Loewenstein, Samuel M McClure, Joseph Tao-yi Wang, and Colin F Camerer. 2009. The wick in the candle of learning: Epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and enhances memory. Psychological science 20, 8 (2009), 963–973

    2009

  28. [36]

    Takashi Kawai, Jukka Häkkinen, Takashi Yamazoe, Hiroko Saito, Shinsuke Kishi, Hiroyuki Morikawa, Terhi Mustonen, Jyrki Kaistinen, and Göte Nyman. 2010. Ergonomic evaluation of ubiquitous computing with monocular head-mounted display. In Multimedia on Mobile Devices 2010 , Vol....

    2010

  29. [37]

    Celeste Kidd and Benjamin Y Hayden. 2015. The psychology and neuroscience of curiosity. Neuron 88, 3 (2015), 449–460

    2015

  30. [38]

    Patricia M King and Karen Strohm Kitchener. 1994. Developing Reflective Judg- ment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and Jossey-Bass Social and Behavioral Science Series. ERIC

    1994

  31. [39]

    David A Kolb. 2014. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press

    2014

  32. [40]

    Ulrike-Marie Krause and Robin Stark. 2010. Reflection in example-and problem- based learning: Effects of reflection prompts, feedback and cooperative learning. Evaluation & research in education 23, 4 (2010), 255–272

    2010

  33. [41]

    Justin Kruger and David Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: how diffi- culties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and social psychology 77, 6 (1999), 1121

    1999

  34. [42]

    Sevda Küçük, Samet Kapakin, and Yüksel Göktaş. 2016. Learning anatomy via mobile augmented reality: Effects on achievement and cognitive load.Anatomical sciences education 9, 5 (2016), 411–421

    2016

  35. [43]

    Ah-Fur Lai, Chih-Hung Chen, and Gon-Yi Lee. 2019. An augmented reality-based learning approach to enhancing students’ science reading performances from the perspective of the cognitive load theory.British Journal of Educational Technology 50, 1 (2019), 232–247

    2019

  36. [44]

    Ting-ling Lai. 2006. The effect of using peer discussion, learning journals and question prompts to support reflection in a distance learning environment. (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Eva Lampen, Jonas Teuber, Felix Gaisbauer, Thomas Bär, Thies Pfeiffer, and Sven Wachsmuth. 2019. Combining simulation and augmented reality methods for enhanced worker assistance in manual assembly. Procedia Cirp 81 (2019), 588–593

    2019

  38. [46]

    J LaViola, B Williamson, Conner Brooks, Sergiu Veazanchin, Robert Sottilare, and Pat Garrity. 2015. Using augmented reality to tutor military tasks in the wild. In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training Simulation & Education Conference, Orlando, Florida

    2015

  39. [47]

    Q Vera Liao, Milena Pribić, Jaesik Han, Sarah Miller, and Daby Sow. 2021. Question-driven design process for explainable AI user experiences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.03483 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Xiao-Fan Lin, Gwo-Jen Hwang, Jing Wang, Yue Zhou, Wenyi Li, Jiachun Liu, and Zhong-Mei Liang. 2023. Effects of a contextualised reflective mechanism-based augmented reality learning model on students’ scientific inquiry learning perfor- mances, behavioural patterns, and higher...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Chia-Chi Mao, Chien-Hsu Chen, and Chung-Chong Sun. 2017. Impact of an augmented reality system on learning for army military decision-making pro- cess (MDMP) course. In Advances in Ergonomics Modeling, Usability & Special Populations: Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International...

    2017

  42. [50]

    Muhsin Menekse, Saira Anwar, and Zeynep Gonca Akdemir. 2022. How do different reflection prompts affect engineering students’ academic performance and engagement? The Journal of Experimental Education 90, 2 (2022), 261–279

    2022

  43. [51]

    Antonio Meola, Fabrizio Cutolo, Marina Carbone, Federico Cagnazzo, Mauro Fer- rari, and Vincenzo Ferrari. 2017. Augmented reality in neurosurgery: a systematic review. Neurosurgical review 40 (2017), 537–548

    2017

  44. [52]

    Jack Mezirow et al. 1990. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood . Jossey-Bass Publishers San Francisco

    1990

  45. [53]

    Kou Murayama, Lily FitzGibbon, and Michiko Sakaki. 2019. Process account of curiosity and interest: A reward-learning perspective. Educational Psychology 17 CHI ’25, April 26-May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan Zhang, Yan, and Suzuki Review 31 (2019), 875–895

    2019

  46. [54]

    F Obermair, J Althaler, U Seiler, P Zeilinger, A Lechner, L Pfaffeneder, M Richter, and Josef Wolfartsberger. 2020. Maintenance with augmented reality remote support in comparison to paper-based instructions: Experiment and analysis. In 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference o...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Martin T Orne. 2017. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. In Sociological methods. Routledge, 279–299

    2017

  48. [56]

    Jarkko Polvi, Takafumi Taketomi, Atsunori Moteki, Toshiyuki Yoshitake, Toshiyuki Fukuoka, Goshiro Yamamoto, Christian Sandor, and Hirokazu Kato

  49. [57]

    Ed Powell. 2005. Conceptualising and facilitating active learning: teachers’ video- stimulated reflective dialogues. Reflective Practice 6, 3 (2005), 407–418

    2005

  50. [58]

    Mei Pu and Zheng Zhong. 2018. Development of a situational interaction game for improving preschool children’performance in English-vocabulary learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 international conference on distance education and learning . 88–92

    2018

  51. [59]

    Iulian Radu and Bertrand Schneider. 2019. What Can We Learn from Augmented Reality (AR)? Benefits and Drawbacks of AR for Inquiry-based Learning of Physics. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Associ...

    2019

  52. [60]

    Umair Rehman and Shi Cao. 2016. Augmented-reality-based indoor navigation: A comparative analysis of handheld devices versus google glass. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 47, 1 (2016), 140–151

    2016

  53. [61]

    Kathleen Roskos, Carol Vukelich, and Victoria Risko. 2001. Reflection and learning to teach reading: A critical review of literacy and general teacher education studies. Journal of Literacy Research 33, 4 (2001), 595–635

    2001

  54. [62]

    Donald A Schön. 2017. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge

    2017

  55. [63]

    smart glasses

    Alireza Sedighi, Sophia M Ulman, and Maury A Nussbaum. 2018. Information presentation through a head-worn display (“smart glasses”) has a smaller influ- ence on the temporal structure of gait variability during dual-task gait compared to handheld displays (paper-based system a...

    2018

  56. [64]

    Robin Stark and Ulrike-Marie Krause. 2009. Effects of reflection prompts on learning outcomes and learning behaviour in statistics education. Learning Environments Research 12 (2009), 209–223

    2009

  57. [65]

    Arthur Tang, Charles Owen, Frank Biocca, and Weimin Mou. 2003. Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 73–80

    2003

  58. [66]

    Lev Tankelevitch, Viktor Kewenig, Auste Simkute, Ava Elizabeth Scott, Advait Sarkar, Abigail Sellen, and Sean Rintel. 2024. The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–24

    2024

  59. [67]

    Amanda Wain. 2017. Learning through reflection. British Journal of Midwifery 25, 10 (2017), 662–666

    2017

  60. [68]

    Chao-Hung Wang, Wei-Jen Lo, and Mao-Jiun J Wang. 2022. Usability evaluation of augmented reality-based maintenance instruction system. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 32, 3 (2022), 239–255

    2022

  61. [69]

    Zhuo Wang, Xiaoliang Bai, Shusheng Zhang, Mark Billinghurst, Weiping He, Yang Wang, Dong Han, Gong Chen, and Jianghong Li. 2021. The role of user- centered AR instruction in improving novice spatial cognition in a high-precision procedural task. Advanced Engineering Informatic...

    2021

  62. [70]

    Amelia C Warden, Christopher D Wickens, Daniel Rehberg, Francisco R Ortega, and Benjamin A Clegg. 2023. Fast, accurate, but sometimes too-compelling support: The impact of imperfectly automated cues in an augmented-reality head- mounted display on visual search performance. IE...

    2023

  63. [71]

    Nicolas Wenk, Joaquin Penalver-Andres, Rara Palma, Karin A Buetler, René Müri, Tobias Nef, and Laura Marchal-Crespo. 2019. Reaching in several realities: motor and cognitive benefits of different visualization technologies. In 2019 IEEE 16th International Conference on Rehabil...

    2019

  64. [72]

    Thomas D Wilson. 2024. Curiosity and information-seeking behaviour: a re- view of psychological research and a comparison with the information science literature. Journal of Documentation 80, 7 (2024), 43–59

    2024

  65. [73]

    Guande Wu, Jing Qian, Sonia Castelo Quispe, Shaoyu Chen, João Rulff, and Claudio Silva. 2024. ARTiST: Automated Text Simplification for Task Guidance in Augmented Reality. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–24

    2024

  66. [74]

    Zhen Yang, Jinlei Shi, Wenjun Jiang, Yuexin Sui, Yimin Wu, Shu Ma, Chunyan Kang, and Hongting Li. 2019. Influences of augmented reality assistance on performance and cognitive loads in different stages of assembly task. Frontiers in psychology 10 (2019), 458057

    2019

  67. [75]

    Michelle Yeh and Christopher D Wickens. 2001. Display signaling in augmented reality: Effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Human Factors 43, 3 (2001), 355–365

    2001

  68. [76]

    Ke-yu Zhai, Yi-ming Cao, Wen-jun Hou, and Xue-ming Li. 2020. Interactive Mixed Reality Cooking Assistant for Unskilled Operating Scenario. In Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Industrial and Everyday Life Applications: 12th International Conference, V AMR 2020, Held as Par...

    2020

  69. [77]

    Barry J Zimmerman. 2002. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice 41, 2 (2002), 64–70. 18

    2002

  70. [2017]

    IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 7 (2017), 2118–2128

    Handheld guides in inspection tasks: Augmented reality versus picture. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 7 (2017), 2118–2128

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.