Autobiographically Designing Mixed Reality for Lecturers

Sebastian Felix Rauh

1,2 a

, Jos

e Garcia Estrada

1 b

, Horst Orsolits

1 c

and Robert Fellner

1 d

UAS Technikum Wien, Vienna, Austria

EECS MID, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Keywords:

Autobiographical Design, Mixed Reality, Section View, Educational Artefact Design, Expert User Study.

Abstract:

The implementation of educational artefacts based on new technologies depends on the skills and motivation

of lecturers in the ﬁeld. Aside from early adopters, lecturers often rely on best practices and exempliﬁcations

for their speciﬁc subject of teaching. In this work, we present how we applied end-user programming tools

for Mixed Reality and the area of technical drawing, construction, and Computer Aided Design. With this

approach, we created MACARONI, a Mixed Reality technical drawing section view tool. In an expert user

study, we collected insights on how lecturers at our institution perceive Mixed Reality as teaching tool, exem-

pliﬁed by MACARONI. Also based on the evaluation of our solution by the participating lecturers, we reﬂect

on autobiographical design for the purpose of tapping in technologies for others. We argue that it helps to

showcase the technology and how it can be applied for those lecturers, who did not consider using the tech-

nology before.

1 INTRODUCTION

Mixed Reality (MR)

has been used for teaching in

various disciplines, for example in engineering (Or-

solits et al., 2022), archaeology (Lohﬁnk et al., 2022)

and architecture (Darwish et al., 2023). In a literature

review Ashtari et al. (2020) identiﬁed that the thresh-

old to design and develop respective educational arte-

facts still is high. Also, they state that the develop-

ment and design process of such applications often re-

mains fuzzy as insights on the use of current VR and

MR authoring tools are missing. In addition, to the

best of our knowledge, designing or choosing educa-

tional artefacts for higher education usually remains

with the lecturers. This is conﬁrmed by experts in the

area of VR and MR (XR) stating that funding, lack

of expertise to select suitable tools, and time, which

lecturers have to invest, inhibit using XR in higher ed-

ucation (Probst and Orsolits, 2023), which can lead to

some lecturers refusing to adapt new technology.

The creation or selection of educational artefacts,

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8677-2148

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1452-8012

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1915-1063

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0721-4131

We understand Mixed Reality as it was deﬁned by Mil-

gram and Kishino (1994), including only Augmented Real-

ity and Augmented Virtuality.

as well as integrate them within their lecture concept,

is just one of many tasks lecturers have to address

during their every work day. Most lecturers therefore

can be considered to be end-user developers (see e.g.,

(Ko et al., 2011)) who learn the skills necessary to ad-

dress a problem during the very process of problem-

solving.

In this work, we present MACARONI, a Mixed

Reality technical drawing section view tool, which

has been developed to exemplify MR for teaching

technical drawing, construction and CAD. Lecturers

were invited to participate in an expert user study,

to give feedback on the design and its potential use.

The study also allows us to collect insights on how

MR teaching may look like in the selected application

area of technical drawing, construction and Computer

Aided Design (CAD).

This work is structured as follows: We provide

theoretical background, followed by the presentation

of the educational artefact MACARONI. Next we in-

troduce the design of our expert study and the ap-

proach to analyse the collected data. Finally, we

present insights in the results of the study, followed

by a discussion.

462

Rauh, S., Garcia Estrada, J., Orsolits, H. and Fellner, R.

Autobiographically Designing Mixed Reality for Lecturers.

DOI: 10.5220/0012690400003693

In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2024) - Volume 1, pages 462-469

ISBN: 978-989-758-697-2; ISSN: 2184-5026

2 BACKGROUND

Employing MR for CAD education and related sub-

jects has been successfully exercised by scholars:

Kraus et al. (2022) present their design ﬂow of creat-

ing MR applications for teaching structural design. In

their user study, they could identify that even though

XR is yet not established as teaching material, their

user group (civil engineering students) reported sig-

niﬁcant potential for teaching structural design. Ac-

cording to the authors, XR as teaching material has

not received enough attention by the research commu-

nity and therefore see potential in improving didactics

and learning-success orientation.

Serdar (2016) motivates the use of MR for im-

proving students skills to visualise objects in tech-

nical problems. Even though, engineering drawing

courses can be employed to help students extending

their skill set in that regard, lecture time usually is

limited. A user study with students could show that

MR may support students further for this task. Also

for assembly drawings, Laviola et al. (2022) propose

an MR application which overlays a printed technical

drawing with the ﬁnal assembly. They conducted a

usability evaluation and plan to evaluate learning ef-

fects in future work.

Technology exploration and design initially is

guided by the ﬁrst-person experience of the design-

ing person(s) (in this work, the MR creators). Dur-

ing early stages, these persons have to understand the

opportunities and limits, the selected materials come

with, ﬁnd ways to address basic and advanced prob-

lems and may need to acquire further materials as

well. This is especially challenging in the case of

end-user developing, which lecturers often are con-

fronted with. End-user developers often need to make

ad-hoc decisions to be able to continue, for example

by choosing a development tool (Ashtari et al., 2020).

Current advances in MR authoring and design tools

already made it easier for a layperson to start creating

their own MR solution (e.g., (Puggioni et al., 2020)),

but these tools still have limits or require acquiring

expert knowledge from various areas. Lecturers ﬁnd

themselves in a tension between achieving their imag-

ined design solution and the limited time available for

skill acquisition and implementation. Also, Amhag

et al. (2019) report that lecturers need to be able to

anticipate the pedagogical value which lies in digital

educational artefacts to be motivated to start working

with them.

It is unavoidable that the word “reality”

inﬂu-

To acknowledge the fact that what humans perceive as

“real” is highly individual, we refer to “realism” and related

termini in quotes.

ences the expectations from new users. We observed

students ﬁrst learning about XR, describing the tech-

nology as enabling an experience that is “like the

real thing” and “being there”. However, it is not

straight forward to deﬁne what users will perceive

as “real”. The literature seems to centre around a

concept that the experience with computer-generated

imaging meets the users’ expectations of “what real-

ity is” (Goncalves et al., 2021). Scholars discussed

factors such as conforming to users’ expectations,

and adequate, non-lagging viewpoint changes (Sut-

cliffe and Gault, 2004), and including virtual objects,

sounds, and scenes as part of what a user will con-

sider when judging the level of “realism”. Some

work argues that perceived “realism” depends on the

physiological state of the user and not on the appli-

cation’s graphics quality (Lipp et al., 2023; Molina

et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2012).

3 METHOD AND SETUP

3.1 MACARONI

Figure 1: What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get (WYSIWYG)-

editor Vuforia Studio, used during the design of MACA-

RONI. Shown is the ﬁnal design of the 3D content: The

assembly (MR-content) is placed above an imaged-based

marker, later printed on paper to augment it with the assem-

bly.

For the presented study, a Mixed Reality technical

drawing section view application (MACARONI) was

developed and designed using a What-You-See-Is-

What-You-Get (WYSIWYG)-editor

(see Figure 1).

The goal was to exemplify creating MR educational

artefacts for subjects in the area of industrial engineer-

ing.

The MACARONI-alpha (i.e. the foundation of

MACARONI) was created as part of a bachelors’ the-

sis in the ﬁeld of mechatronics and robotics under

the supervision of the ﬁrst author. The student had

extended learning experience in the area of techni-

cal drawing, construction and CAD, since these sub-

PTC Vuforia Studio

Autobiographically Designing Mixed Reality for Lecturers

463

(a) 0° (b) -45° (c) -90°

Figure 2: Moving the section pane by tilting (rolling) the tablet PC. The further the tablet PC is moved from the 0° position

(portrait mode), the further the section pane is moved to the left. Therefore, in the -90° position, there is no section through

the assembly.

jects are taught and applied in this ﬁeld of study in

all semesters previous to the bachelors’ thesis. Re-

ﬂecting on this experience to inform the design and

development of the application was part of the task,

and the student was encouraged to consider their own

experience whenever a design decision was to be mo-

tivated. In a time span of about four months, the

student explored the possibilities and limits of the

WYSIWYG-editor within the task of creating an MR

section view application with spatial interaction. The

results were exempliﬁed in the MACARONI-alpha.

To extend spatial interaction in smartphone-based MR

from changing the perspective on the displayed con-

tent (by moving the smartphone around the scene) to

moving a section plane through the model by rotating

the smartphone was introduced as shown in Figure 2.

The ﬁrst author reﬁned the MACARONI-alpha by

cleaning up the interface and user ﬂow. The result-

ing MR-content, MACARONI (see Figure 3), allows

users to explore a 3D Object by moving the smart-

phone through the environment.

MACARONI can be accessed by using a content

viewer app of the used framework

, which is available

for common mobile operating systems. It generally

is intended to serve two purposes: First, it exempli-

ﬁes what current WYSIWYG-editors for smartphone-

MR are capable of. We wanted to demonstrate the

capabilities of such editors to give lecturers insights

to what they can achieve with software which allows

to predominantly work with graphical programming

(by dragging and dropping items to add and logically

connect them). Second, it introduces an approach for

Vuforia View

spatial interaction by moving the section view via ro-

tating the device accordingly. This shall provide a

more tangible mode of interaction compared to input

elements on the touchscreen, such as sliders or arrow

buttons. Also, we saw it as a preview on the capabili-

ties of smartphone-based MR in general.

3.2 Expert User Study

In order to understand the personal stance of lecturers,

we conducted an expert user study which consisted of

a familiarisation with the app MACARONI, followed

by expert interviews.

3.2.1 Participants

Five lecturers (one female and four male participants)

at our institution who have experience in teaching

technical drawing, construction, and/or CAD partic-

ipated in the study. One assigned themselves to the

age group of 18-30, three to the age group of 31-40,

and one to the age group of 41-50.

3.2.2 Procedure

The overall duration of the study on average was 30

minutes per participating lecturer. The participating

lecturers received an explanation of the study and pro-

vided consent. The participating lecturer’s identiﬁ-

cation was anonymised. Participating lecturers were

asked to ﬁll a pre-questionnaire collecting basic de-

mographic data, self-declared experience with XR as

well as the years of teaching in the ﬁeld. This was fol-

lowed by an exploration task. Once the task was com-

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

464

pleted, a semi-structured interview was carried out.

3.2.3 Exploration Task

The study coordinator asked the participating lec-

turer to scan a printed QR-code code with the con-

tent viewer app, which was opened on a tablet PC

(Samsung Galaxy Tab 7). The participating lecturers

were asked to turn around the paper to ﬁnd a techni-

cal drawing of an assembly and to point the camera

at it. This initiated the displaying of the MACARONI

content. The study coordinator asked the participat-

ing lecturers to explore MACARONI until they felt

like they understood the features of all four 2D in-

teraction elements (see Figure 3) and mentioned that

rotating the tablet PC should be considered. The par-

ticipating lecturers were encouraged to use thinking

aloud, to explain what they are doing, but also add

further thoughts on MACARONI while using it. They

were informed that questions in general will not be

answered during the exploration, but that the study

coordinator will help if they express any problems to

keep the exploration running. The study coordinator

was equipped with a form to structure the observa-

Figure 3: The ﬁnal design of MACARONI (screenshot from

the WYSIWYG-editors preview). Toggle (1) changes the

direction of the section, dropdown box (2) allows selecting

the axis on which the section plane is moved, the checkbox

(3) enables the section view. If section view is enabled, the

ﬂoating button (4) is displayed which ﬁxes the section plane

at the current position, so the user can inspect the current

section without accidentally changing the section plane’s

position.

tion of the participating lecturer. On this form, the

duration of the exploration was noted, but also there

were bullet points for noting observational data, and

whether and why the study coordinator had to sup-

port the participating lecturer. Furthermore, there was

a dedicated space for adding other observations. If

the participating lecturers had agreed to, screen and

audio recording was activated on the tablet PC dur-

ing the exploration to collect further insights. When

the participating lecturers were satisﬁed with explor-

ing the app, they handed back the tablet PC and the

screen recording was saved.

The app exploration was followed by a semi-

structured interview to collect knowledge about how

the current technical drawing, construction, and CAD

lectures are structured. We also wanted to understand

if and how MACARONI could be used in the lectures,

the potential for improvement of MACARONI and

any further discussion topics. During the interview,

MACARONI was shut off, but the technical drawing

was still in front of the participating lecturers. The in-

terview was audio recorded, if agreed to, and closed

with a debrieﬁng.

After the participating lecturer was dismissed, the

study coordinator reﬂected on the session and took

additional notes.

3.3 Data Processing and Evaluation

Approach

Both, the screen and audio recording from the ex-

ploration and the voice recording of the interviews,

were transcribed using an ofﬂine speech recognition

model

and dedicated transcription software

. The

resulting ﬁles (*.srt) were edited

to ﬁx errors in the

automatic transcription. This set of tools allowed us

to transcribe and edit completely ofﬂine to protect the

personal data of the participating lecturers.

The resulting transcripts are optimised by the

speech recognition model automatically, hence ele-

ments speciﬁc to spoken language (as opposed to

written language), such as ﬁlling words (e.g., “um”),

stuttering or hesitation, are not fully represented in

the data. We decided that these are not necessary

in the interview transcripts for our analysis for two

reasons: On the one hand, in the interviews, the

study coordinator guided the interviews and would

have noted conspicuous hesitations in the interview

reﬂection. On the other hand, the interviews were

held in German, and for the purpose of presenting

OpenAI Whisper

Buzz

Subtitle Edit

Autobiographically Designing Mixed Reality for Lecturers

465

the data were translated into English. Since, based

on our experience, elements speciﬁc to spoken lan-

guage appear to differ in-between languages and often

can not be matched without changing semantics, we

excluded them from the transcripts. In contrast, the

screen recordings of the app use were annotated with

information on the user behaviour, which could be

observed in the video but also from the recorded au-

dio and therefore may also reﬂect elements speciﬁc to

spoken language when it appeared to be adding to the

data corpus. We decided for manually re-adding these

annotations, because their exploration could also de-

liver insights on how lecturers comprehend MR in ac-

tion.

We employed reﬂexive thematic analysis follow-

ing a deductive approach (Braun and Clarke, 2006).

In order to identify the circumstances the participat-

ing lecturers are in when teaching and the potential

they see in using MR for teaching technical draw-

ing, construction, and CAD, but also the related chal-

lenges, we examined the data according to the follow-

ing themes:

Teaching Style. How are the related lectures struc-

tured and what theoretical body is guiding it?

Expectations on Mixed Reality and App. What do

participating lecturers expect from smartphone-

based MR?

Stance on Mixed Reality. What do the participating

lecturers in general think about MR as a concept

for providing educational artefacts?

4 RESULTS OF THE EXPERT

USER STUDY

The participating lecturers rated their experience in

XR (referred to as VR/MR/AR) ranging from “no ex-

perience” (2) over “already tested” (2) to “occasional

use” (1). None stated that they used it “often” or “reg-

ularly”. One participating lecturer described this ex-

perience to be in the area of “rating construction and

design in VR”. The other two participating lecturers

explained that they had played games in XR, one of

which used a Google cardboard

. One reported that

they had experienced symptoms of simulation sick-

ness (dizziness) while playing in VR.

In the following, participating lecturers are re-

ferred to by using PL and their random ID (e.g.,

PL71).

A cardboard based do-it-yourself kit which can hold a

smartphone to use VR apps.

4.1 Teaching Style

Domain-speciﬁc culture inﬂuences the educator’s

teaching style, for example by associating visualiza-

tions to known software (“Deﬁnitely looks like Solid-

Works.”, PL36). Some participating lecturers empha-

sised the need to see things with the lenses of an engi-

neer: “what is interesting for me in technical drawing

is the link between what I see there and how it is pre-

sented here” (PL36).

According to the participating lecturers, the sub-

jects of interest are taught early in the study pro-

grammes (up to the third semester). However, an

important driver in students’ progress is own initia-

tive: Students are given homework and are asked to

prepare themselves by watching instructional videos

on the use of CAD software, usually on material cre-

ated by the software manufacturer. Normally the soft-

ware is selected by the head of the programme. The

learning process consists on starting with 2D drawing

and increase the complexity, integrating 3D Objects.

There was one participating lecturer who only used

2D views (PL71). All participating lecturers conﬁrm

that some students struggle with spatial cognition.

4.2 Expectations on Mixed Reality and

the App

When observing the participating lecturers while

exploring MACARONI, we noticed they seem to

transfer the interaction concepts from their everyday

smartphone use to MR. For example, all participat-

ing lecturers tried touch gestures (e.g., pinch to zoom

or swiping) or direct interaction with the 3D object

by clicking on it on the touch-screen or asking if it is

possible to directly interact. Four participating lectur-

ers required help from the study coordinator for un-

derstanding how to rotate the device in order to move

the section view through the 3D model (PL36, PL71,

PL214, Pl681). During every app exploration phase,

the study coordinator had to hint that not just the de-

vice can be moved to change perspective on the de-

picted assembly, but also the technical drawing the

assembly is projected to can be rotated for this pur-

pose.

The participating lecturers predominately inter-

acted naturally with the 2D interaction modes pro-

vided, specially in the beginning of the exploration.

The used application only contains few 2D interac-

tion modes, which are overlaid over the MR view-

port and employ heavily used interaction elements on

2D interfaces. Namely, there is one checkbox, one

drop-down box and one toggle. In addition, there is a

play/pause button ﬂoating over the viewport (see Fig-

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

466

ure 3. Even though the way these interaction modes

work was clear to the participating lecturers, there

were varied reactions, with a participating lecturer

stating “do not ﬁnd the control system entirely plausi-

ble” (PL214). One participating lecturer requested an

“undo-button” to reset the application (PL473). This

was left out by design, since there is no intended ini-

tial state of the section. In general, all participating

lecturers agree that MACARONI adds to the portfolio

of educational artefacts, but does not replace another

educational artefact entirely.

4.3 Stance on Mixed Reality

Participating lecturers agree that one advantage of

MR in the context of technical drawing, construction,

and CAD is that students can explore 3D objects in

the students’ three-dimensional (Euclidean) environ-

ment and interact with it.

Engagement and some presence-like phenomena

by in-action-expressions of joy of use or other positive

feedback during use have been indicated by the partic-

ipating lecturers, e.g., “I think it’s cool. That’s nice”

(PL473), after concluding that they must have seen all

features of MACARONI. We also noted, that one par-

ticipating lecturer (PL214) was brieﬂy experiencing

some tracking issues, which left them “unimpressed”

(wording from observational data by the study coor-

dinator). They just continued after the tracking has

settled again.

Some participating lecturers already plan improv-

ing the spatial cognition with other educational arte-

facts, namely 3D printed objects (PL214) and XR

(PL36). Along with the list of improvements col-

lected from all ﬁve participating lecturers this indi-

cates that the participating lecturers see potential in

MR and understand its capabilities to the extent that

they can think beyond the given example by MACA-

RONI.

5 DISCUSSION

CAD tools are among the toolbox available for tech-

nical drawing, design and construction. The capa-

bility is there to generate advanced visualizations of

products or buildings before anything has been phys-

ically created or built. Students learn technical draw-

ing starting with free-hand and 2D drawing and pro-

gressing in CAD from 2D to 3D objects and 3D object

editing and manipulation. Our lecturers have identi-

ﬁed several challenges to achieve their learning goals

related to spatial cognition. The students can struggle

to extract information from 2D to create a 3D object.

It could be argued that digital experiences in day-to-

day life had a minor component of 3D spatial navi-

gation, and therefore appears to had little impact on

acquiring the specialized learning required for CAD

work.

The MR app MACARONI presented in this paper

runs in a tablet PC. It was interesting to see the partici-

pating lecturers transferring behaviours from their use

of smartphones to the interaction with the app. They

appear to ﬁnd some manipulation operations not in-

tuitive enough, which should be taken into account

for future improvements. The focus on using 2D in-

teraction modes by the participating lecturers could

be due to a sense of familiarity but also highlights a

shortcoming for the app. This focus may also have

let to missing an “undo” option, since it is common

practice in application design to include a possibility

to revert to previous states. It might be something to

re-consider if the app is to be comparable with CAD

use. Finally, adding an onboarding sequence to the

app, explaining how to control it, might help further

understanding both, the 2D interaction and the 3D in-

teraction, MACARONI offers.

MR, despite not being a new technology any

more, is still relatively unexplored by many lecturers

(see also (Ashtari et al., 2020)). This might be a rea-

son behind the struggle by some participating lectur-

ers with the app. Nonetheless, there were comments

about ”realism”. It might be that it being an MR

application, it creates some expectation in the users

on the level of “realism”. We did not perceive the

comments to be entirely critical but more a consider-

ation of possibilities, for example known from high

level rendering and powerful graphic cards which can

support photorealism and high-ﬁdelity visualizations,

and their impact on the user experience, both positive

and negative. The participating lecturers praised the

user experience of the MR application, though.

The participating lecturers see a role for the app

in complementing their lectures. Handing out the MR

application, as proposed by Serdar (2016), might help

to improve 3D imagination, which the participating

lecturers noted to be one of the major problems to be

addressed during the lectures. Based on the reported

homework, an application such as MACARONI may

allow lecturers to focus more on other topics, which

was mentioned by participating lecturers during the

interview. An interesting outcome of the interviews

was ﬁnding that there were lecturers already consid-

ering XR for addressing learning aspects.

We applied an autobiographical design approach

(see e.g., (Cochrane et al., 2022; Neustaedter and Sen-

gers, 2012)) in two iterations, each taken out by one of

two different MR creators (the bachelor student and

Autobiographically Designing Mixed Reality for Lecturers

467

the ﬁrst author). This approach turned out to work

well for introducing lecturers who did not make up

their mind on MR educational artefacts, yet. There-

fore, it serves well to introduce colleagues to a new

technology supporting them in their teaching, by ex-

emplifying MR in application.

We believe that gathering opinion from experts

was useful to understand the overlap of our own per-

ception of MR as an educational tool with a broader

perception of the target group of lecturers of the se-

lected subjects. This also provided feedback on how

to improve MACARONI. The selected, solely quali-

tative approach provided extensive insights into how

designing and developing educational artefacts and

how using them in the lectures my unfold at our in-

stitution. Conclusions drawn on the applicability of

MACARONI are certainly difﬁcult to be generalised

or transferred to other institutions or different teach-

ing contexts. Certainly, an argument would be to try

the app with lecturers in similar positions in other in-

stitutions, but it is beyond the scope of our current

funding.

We consider the presented themes to be subject to

work, to draw a clearer picture of how the MR design

space is shaped by facilitating lecturers in the prac-

tice. We invite scholars to extend these themes and/or

assign further sub-themes based on their experience.

6 CONCLUSION

Designing computer supported educational artefacts

for lecturers comes with several challenges: the com-

munication between different domains (MR experts

and experts in the subject ﬁeld), the personal teach-

ing style, the individual appreciation of the underly-

ing technology of the solution, and the perceived need

to change lecturing approaches. These and other fac-

tors need to be carefully mitigated by the educational

artefact creation team. Since we created MR content

for others, they are to decide how and when to use our

application, and therefore need to be included in the

design process to channel the outcome.

In order to understand how lecturers at our institu-

tion, in their role as facilitators for new computer sup-

ported educational artefacts, might apply predesigned

educational artefacts, we provided MACARONI, an

MR application for displaying sections in CAD as-

semblies and evaluated the resulting design with ﬁve

lecturers, teaching technical drawing, construction,

and/or CAD at our institution. We could identify that

for new technology, with little to no expectations and

experience by the lecturers, this approach can help to

introduce MR to the ﬁeld. We also learned that for

lecturers who already had the chance to consider MR

for their teaching, there might be the risk, that con-

crete ideas are not met by the implementation of the

predesigned educational artefact. Still, the MR appli-

cation overall was received well by the experts par-

ticipating in the study. We also could employ it as a

discussion starter on teaching technical drawing, con-

struction, and/or CAD and how MR can be supportive

in this task.

We hope to encourage other researchers with this

paper to further investigate and extend the presented

themes. Future work will aim at addressing some of

the improvement recommendations in usability and

navigation and carry out a wider evaluation with stu-

dents, in order to understand how our design unfolds

in the practice of teaching, and speciﬁc learning ex-

periences. Ideally, we would like to evaluate the app

with lecturers in other institutions (teaching techni-

cal drawing, construction, and/or CAD) to obtain a

broader evaluation, allowing for generalising results

beyond the context of our institution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Loris Ivani

c for de-

veloping the MACARONI-alpha. Also, the authors

thank the participating lecturers for their time and

providing valuable insights.

This work was supported by the city of Vienna

(MA 23 – Economic Affairs, Labour and Statistics)

through the research project INVIS (MA23 project

29-11).

REFERENCES

Amhag, L., Hellstr

om, L., and Stigmar, M. (2019). Teacher

Educators’ Use of Digital Tools and Needs for Digital

Competence in Higher Education. Journal of Digital

Learning in Teacher Education, 35(4):203–220.

Ashtari, N., Bunt, A., McGrenere, J., Nebeling, M., and

Chilana, P. K. (2020). Creating Augmented and Vir-

tual Reality Applications: Current Practices, Chal-

lenges, and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2020

CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sys-

tems, CHI ’20, pages 1–13, New York, NY, USA. As-

sociation for Computing Machinery.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis

in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,

3(2):77–101.

Cochrane, K., Cao, Y., Girouard, A., and Loke, L.

(2022). Breathing Scarf: Using a First-Person Re-

search Method to Design a Wearable for Emotional

Regulation. In Sixteenth International Conference on

Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

468

’22, pages 1–19, New York, NY, USA. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Darwish, M., Kamel, S., and Assem, A. (2023). Extended

reality for enhancing spatial ability in architecture

design education. Ain Shams Engineering Journal,

14(6):102104.

Goncalves, G., Monteiro, P., Coelho, H., Melo, M., and

Bessa, M. (2021). Systematic review on realism

research methodologies on immersive virtual, aug-

mented and mixed realities. IEEE access : practical

innovations, open solutions, 9:89150–89161.

Ko, A. J., Abraham, R., Beckwith, L., Blackwell, A., Bur-

nett, M., Erwig, M., Scafﬁdi, C., Lawrance, J., Lieber-

man, H., Myers, B., Rosson, M. B., Rothermel, G.,

Shaw, M., and Wiedenbeck, S. (2011). The state of

the art in end-user software engineering. ACM Com-

puting Surveys, 43(3):21:1–21:44.

Kraus, M. A.,

Custovi

c, I., and Kaufmann, W. (2022).

Mixed Reality Applications for Teaching Structural

Design. In Structures Congress 2022, pages 283–

295, Atlanta, Georgia. American Society of Civil En-

gineers.

Laviola, E., Gattullo, M., Boccaccio, A., Evangelista, A.,

Fiorentino, M., Manghisi, V. M., and Uva, A. E.

(2022). Mixed Reality in STEM Didactics: Case

Study of Assembly Drawings of Complex Machines.

In Rizzi, C., Campana, F., Bici, M., Gherardini, F., In-

grassia, T., and Cicconi, P., editors, Design Tools and

Methods in Industrial Engineering II, Lecture Notes

in Mechanical Engineering, pages 157–164, Cham.

Springer International Publishing.

Lipp, N., Strojny, P., Strojny, A.,

Spiewak, S., Argasi

nski,

J., and Korzeniowski, P. (2023). Are you aroused

enough to see the difference? The role of physio-

logical arousal in perceiving realism of virtual scene.

In 2023 IEEE international symposium on mixed and

augmented reality adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), pages

681–684. IEEE.

Lohﬁnk, M.-A., Miznazi, D., Stroth, F., and M

uller, C.

(2022). Learn Spatial! Introducing the MARBLE-

App - A Mixed Reality Approach to Enhance Archae-

ological Higher Education. In 2022 IEEE Interna-

tional Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality

Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), pages 435–440.

Milgram, P. and Kishino, F. (1994). A Taxonomy of Mixed

Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Transactions on In-

formation Systems, E77-D(12).

Molina, E., Jerez, A. R., and G

omez, N. P. (2020). Avatars

rendering and its effect on perceived realism in virtual

reality. In 2020 IEEE international conference on ar-

tiﬁcial intelligence and virtual reality (AIVR), pages

222–225. IEEE.

Neustaedter, C. and Sengers, P. (2012). Autobiographi-

cal design in HCI research: designing and learning

through use-it-yourself. In Proceedings of the Design-

ing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’12, pages

514–523, New York, NY, USA. Association for Com-

puting Machinery.

Orsolits, H., Rauh, S. F., and Garcia Estrada, J. (2022).

Using mixed reality based digital twins for robotics

education. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium

on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-

Adjunct), pages 56–59, Singapore, Singapore. IEEE.

Probst, J. M. and Orsolits, H. (2023). Experts’ View on

AR/VR in Engineering Education at Universities. In

Auer, M. E., Pachatz, W., and R

utmann, T., editors,

Learning in the Age of Digital and Green Transition,

Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, pages 1010–

1022, Cham. Springer International Publishing.

Puggioni, M. P., Frontoni, E., Paolanti, M., Pierdicca, R.,

Malinverni, E. S., and Sasso, M. (2020). A Content

Creation Tool for AR/VR Applications in Education:

The ScoolAR Framework. In De Paolis, L. T. and

Bourdot, P., editors, Augmented Reality, Virtual Real-

ity, and Computer Graphics, Lecture Notes in Com-

puter Science, pages 205–219, Cham. Springer Inter-

national Publishing.

Serdar, T. (2016). Mixed Reality Tools in Engineering

Drawing Course. In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference

& Exposition Proceedings, page 25733, New Orleans,

Louisiana. ASEE Conferences.

Sutcliffe, A. and Gault, B. (2004). Heuristic evaluation of

virtual reality applications. Interacting with comput-

ers, 16(4):831–849.

Yu, I., Mortensen, J., Khanna, P., Spanlang, B., and Slater,

M. (2012). Visual realism enhances realistic response

in an immersive virtual environment-part 2. IEEE

Computer Graphics and Applications, 32(6):36–45.

Autobiographically Designing Mixed Reality for Lecturers

469