Bridging Technology and Education: How Immersion and ‎Usefulness Drive Mobile AR Use in Medical and Health Science ‎Education

  • Authors

    • Paul Arun Kumar J Faculty of Management, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India
    • Subathra K Faculty of Management, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Kattankulathur, Tamil Nadu, India
    https://doi.org/10.14419/hd0qr920

    Received date: July 4, 2025

    Accepted date: August 1, 2025

    Published date: November 3, 2025

  • Augmented Reality; MARAM; Technology Acceptance; Perceived Usefulness; Immersion; Intention to Use

  • Abstract

    Using the Mobile Augmented Reality Acceptance Model, this study examines the motivations of current health science and medical ‎educators to incorporate MAR in their teaching methods. The MARAM augments the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by offering ‎proportional benefits, enjoyment, and ease of use, mobile self-efficacy, information seeking, flow, and novelty. Additionally, this study ‎examines MARAM validity. This study aimed to evaluate how well students learnt when the same material was presented in an augmented ‎reality environment. Professors from medical institutes received 370 questionnaires; 325 of them were determined to include information ‎that was appropriate for the study. Structural equation modeling with partial least squares is used to test the relationships among variables. Consumers are much more likely to use mobile augmented reality if they think it will save them time, be convenient, be fun, and ‎give them confidence. Additionally, empirical findings indicate that flow and information-seeking tendencies have a significant impact on ‎usage intention, whereas the role of novelty is comparatively minimal. These findings further emphasize the roles of immersion and perceived usefulness as mediators of the favorable outcomes from AR purchasing.

  • References

    1. Agrawal, S., Simon, A., Bech, S., Bærentsen, K., & Forchhammer, S. (2019). Defining immersion: Literature review and implications for research on immersive audiovisual experiences. Journal of Audio Engineering Society, 68(6), 404-417. https://doi.org/10.17743/jaes.2020.0039.
    2. Akçayır, M., &Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the litera-ture. Educational research review, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002.
    3. Akçayır, M., &Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the litera-ture. Educational research review, 20, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002.
    4. Akçayır, M., &Akçayır, G. (2016). How mobile augmented reality is applied in education: A systematic literature review. *Educational Technology & Society, 19*(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002.
    5. Alqurashi, E. (2016). The impact of self-efficacy on students' online learning. International Journal of Education and Development using Infor-mation and Communication Technology, 12(1), 4-19.
    6. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.
    7. Arici, F., Yildirim, P., Caliklar, Ş., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2019). Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and bib-liometric mapping analysis. Computers & education, 142, 103647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103647.
    8. Atti, L. M. (2024). The Effect of Ethical Behavior Strategy on Job Voice, Work Ethics as an Interactive Variable: An Applied Study in the Basra South Oil Company. International Academic Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, 11(1), 01-12. https://doi.org/10.9756/IAJOBHRM/V11I1/IAJOBHRM1101.
    9. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: a systematic review of research and applications.
    10. Baker, R. K., & others. (2019). The impact of immersive environments on learning: A systematic review. Educational Technology Research and De-velopment, 67(5), 1-23.
    11. Bakhsh, S., Khan, M. A., & Khan, M. A. (2017). The impact of self-efficacy on mobile technology adoption: A study of university students. Inter-national Journal of Educational Management, 31(4), 582-596.
    12. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career development international, 13(3), 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476.
    13. Barsom, E. Z., Graafland, M., &Schijven, M. P. (2016). Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical train-ing. Surgical endoscopy, 30(10), 4174-4183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4800-6.
    14. Bhuvanesh, G., Gopinath, N., Sharvesh, M., & Suganya, S. (2023). Detection and Classification of Rice Leaf Diseases Using Image Pro-cessing. International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Emerging Technology, 14(1), 208-216.
    15. Chbaly, H., & Brunet, M. (2022). Enhancing healthcare project definition with Lean-led design. Sustainability, 14(3), 1588. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031588.
    16. Chen, M. K., Liu, X., Sun, Y., & Tsai, D. P. (2022). Artificial intelligence in meta-optics. Chemical Reviews, 122(19), 15356-15413. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.2c00012.
    17. Cheng, T. E., Lam, D. Y., & Yeung, A. C. (2006). Adoption of internet banking: an empirical study in Hong Kong. Decision support sys-tems, 42(3), 1558-1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.01.002.
    18. Coskun, A., &Mardikyan, T. (2016). The effects of self-efficacy on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in online learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 1-10.
    19. Crum, M., Poist, R., Carter, C. R., & Liane Easton, P. (2011). Sustainable supply chain management: evolution and future directions. International journal of physical distribution & logistics management, 41(1), 46-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600031111101420.
    20. Csikszentmihalyi, M., &Csikzentmihaly, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (Vol. 1990, p. 1). New York: Harper & Row.
    21. Cummings, J. J., &Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user pres-ence. Media psychology, 19(2), 272-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740.
    22. CWA Authors. (2023). Novelty effect: How to ensure your research ideas are original and new. Retrieved from https://www.cwauthors.com/article/novelty-effect-how-to-ensure-your-research-ideas-are-original-and-new.
    23. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
    24. De Sá, M., & Churchill, E. (2012, September). Mobile augmented reality: exploring design and prototyping techniques. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (pp. 221-230). https://doi.org/10.1145/2371574.2371608.
    25. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. science, 323(5910), 66-69. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167311.
    26. Dervin, B. (1992). From the mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. Qualitative research in information management, 9(1), 61-84.
    27. Sánchez, K., & Martínez, R. (2025). From Crisis to Resilience: Managing Tourism Destinations through Disasters and Recovery. Journal of Tour-ism, Culture, and Management Studies, 2(2), 12-25.
    28. Du, Z., Liu, J., & Wang, T. (2022). Augmented reality marketing: A systematic literature review and an agenda for future inquiry. Frontiers in psy-chology, 13, 925963. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.925963.
    29. Jovanović, N., Petrović, M., & Ilić, M. (2025). Building Excellence in Education through Evidence-Based Practice. National Journal of Quality, Innovation, and Business Excellence, 2(2), 12-23.
    30. Georgiou, Y., & Kyza, E. A. (2018). Relations between student motivation, immersion and learning outcomes in location-based augmented reality settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.011.
    31. Grethlein, J., Huitink, L., & Tagliabue, A. (2020). Narrative immersion: Some linguistic and narratological aspects. In Experience, Narrative, and Criticism in Ancient Greece: Under the Spell of Stories (pp. 1-20). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848295.003.0002.
    32. Haldar, R. (2023). Novelty in research: A common reason for manuscript rejection! Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 67(3), 227-230. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1059_22.
    33. Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & management, 41(7), 853-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.08.014.
    34. Hubert, M., Blut, M., Brock, C., Backhaus, C., & Eberhardt, T. (2017). Acceptance of smartphone‐based mobile shopping: Mobile benefits, cus-tomer characteristics, perceived risks, and the impact of application context. Psychology & Marketing, 34(2), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20982.
    35. Ibáñez, M. B., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2018). Augmented reality for STEM learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.002.
    36. Imam, A., & Ilori, M. E. (2022). Challenges of Reprographic Information Resources within the Library and Some Selected Private Business Centers in Three Universities in Ogun State, Nigeria. Indian Journal of Information Sources and Services, 12(2), 10-15. https://doi.org/10.51983/ijiss-2022.12.2.3236.
    37. Kapoor, S. I., & Menon, R. (2025). Assessing the Impact of Microfinance on Entrepreneurship in Developing Economies. International Academic Journal of Innovative Research, 12(2), 20-25. https://doi.org/10.71086/IAJIR/V12I2/IAJIR1213.
    38. Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. M. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS quarterly, 781-804. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148754.
    39. VONGPATCHIM, P., JUMANI, Z. A., & RANGSUNGNOEN, G. (2025). Women and Corporate Sustainability: Do ESG Scores Truly Reflect Sustainability?. Quality-Access to Success, 26(208).
    40. Keller, J., Roitzheim, C., Radtke, T., Schenkel, K., & Schwarzer, R. (2021). A mobile intervention for self-efficacious and goal-directed smartphone use in the general population: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9(11), e26397. https://doi.org/10.2196/26397.
    41. Kim, Y., &Ciu, Y. (2019). The effect of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on continued intention to use e-learning: The moderating role of perceived enjoyment. Journal of Information Technology Applications & Management, 26(4), 1-18.
    42. Kristian, B., Maritta, H., & Denis, H. (2014). Supporting Common Criteria Security Analysis with Problem Frames. Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable Applications, 5(1), 37-63.
    43. Küçük, S., Yılmaz, R., & Göktaş, Y. (2014). Augmented reality for learning English: Achievement, attitude and cognitive load levels of stu-dents. Education and Science, 39(176). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3595.
    44. Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. Journal of the American society for information science, 42(5), 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199106)42:5<361::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-#.
    45. Leckie, G. J., Pettigrew, K. E., & Sylvain, C. (1996). Modeling the information seeking of professionals: A general model derived from research on engineers, health care professionals, and lawyers. The Library Quarterly, 66(2), 161-193. https://doi.org/10.1086/602864.
    46. López, M. J., & others. (2021). Emotional responses and engagement in immersive virtual reality: The role of immersion. Computers in Human Be-havior, 115, 106608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106608.
    47. Lytridis, C., Tsinakos, A., & Kazanidis, I. (2018). ARTutor—an augmented reality platform for interactive distance learning. Education Scienc-es, 8(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010006.
    48. Ma, M., Jain, L. C., & Anderson, P. (Eds.). (2014). Virtual, augmented reality and serious games for healthcare 1 (Vol. 1). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54816-1.
    49. Meyer, H. R. (2022). Novelty of your Article. [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5tMoMahH7Y.
    50. Moghavvemi, S., Sulaiman, A., Jaafar, N. I., & Kasem, N. (2018). Social media as a complementary learning tool for teaching and learning: The case of youtube. The International journal of management education, 16(1), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.12.001.
    51. Mombeuil, C., & Uhde, H. (2021). Relative convenience, relative advantage, perceived security, perceived privacy, and continuous use intention of China’s WeChat Pay: A mixed-method two-phase design study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102384.
    52. Mustapha, A., &Obid, S. (2015). Perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intention to use e-filing: A study of Malaysian taxpayers. Inter-national Journal of Business and Society, 16*(1), 103-118.
    53. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & J. L. Sullivan (Eds.), Coping: The Psychology of What Works (pp. 239-263). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_16.
    54. Nakamura, Y., & Lindholm, M. (2025). Impact of Corn Production on Agriculture and Ecological Uses of Olive Mill Sewage using Ultrafiltration and Microfiltration. Engineering Perspectives in Filtration and Separation, 13-17.
    55. Nikolopoulou, K., & Gialamas, V. (2019). High school pupils' attitudes and self-efficacy of using mobile devices. Education and Information Tech-nologies, 24(1), 1-21.
    56. Pálsdóttir, Á. (2008). Information behaviour, health self-efficacy beliefs and health behaviour in Icelanders' everyday life. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 13(1).
    57. Pantelidis, P., Pazarskis, M., Drogalas, G., & Zezou, S. (2018). Managerial decisions and accounting performance following mergers in Greece. Investment Management & Financial Innovations, 15(1), 263. https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.15(1).2018.22.
    58. Park, S. Y., Kim, J., & Kim, H. (2012). The role of self-efficacy in the adoption of mobile learning technologies. Computers & Education, 59(2), 732-740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.007.
    59. Peukert, C., Pfeiffer, J., Meißner, M., Pfeiffer, T., & Weinhardt, C. (2019). Shopping in virtual reality stores: The influence of immersion on system adoption. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 755-788. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1628889.
    60. Purnomo, M. H., & Lee, J. (2013). Factors influencing students' behavioral intention to use online learning: A study of higher education in Indone-sia. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(5), 564-568.
    61. Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., &Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher educa-tion: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778.
    62. Researcher Life. (2023). Novelty in Research: What It Is and How to Know Your Work is Original. Retrieved from https://researcher.life/blog/article/novelty-in-research-what-it-is-and-how-to-know-your-work-is-original/.
    63. Savolainen, R. (1995). Everyday life information seeking: Approaching information seeking in the context of “way of life”. Library & information science research, 17(3), 259-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/0740-8188(95)90048-9.
    64. Setiawan, I., &Widanta, A. (2021). The effects of perceived ease of use, usefulness, enjoyment and trust on intention to use online platforms. Inter-national Journal of Data and Network Science, 5(1), 1-10.
    65. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 104, 333-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.
    66. Sweetser, P., & Wyeth, P. (2005). GameFlow: a model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 3(3), 3-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.004.
    67. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
    68. Texas A&M University Libraries. (2023). Research Guides: AI-Based Literature Review Tools: Home. Retrieved from https://tamu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1289555
    69. Tsai, Y., Chang, C., & Chen, Y. (2022). The impact of perceived ease of use on user acceptance of technology: A meta-analysis. Computers in Hu-man Behavior, 126, 106972.
    70. Tuama, M. J. (2023). The Role of Simultaneous Engineering in Reducing Costs and Improving Product Quality-An Applied Study in Wasit State Company for Textile Industries. International Academic Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1), 26-36. https://doi.org/10.9756/IAJSS/V10I1/IAJSS1004.
    71. Urbach, N., &Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 11(2), 2.
    72. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
    73. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quar-terly, 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
    74. Vo Kim, N., Le Thanh, T., Ho Tien, D., & Nguyen Thanh, V. (2022). A conceptual model for studying the immersive mobile augmented reality ap-plication-enhanced experience. Heliyon, 8(8), e10069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10141.
    75. Wang, Y., Meister, D., & Wang, Y. (2008). Relative advantage and perceived usefulness: the adoption of competing ICTs. DIGIT 2008 proceed-ings, 6.
    76. Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behaviour research. Journal of documentation, 55(3), 249-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007145.
    77. Xusheva, N., Tursunov, M., Khamrakulova, R., Maksudov, R., Jumanazarov, U., Yuldasheva, D., Tillaeva, R., &Alibekov, U. (2025). Modelling environmental perceptions using critical discourse analysis and philological interpretations. International Journal of Aquatic Research and Environ-mental Studies, 5(1), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.70102/IJARES/V5I1/5-1-14.
    78. Yoon, S. H., Lee, K. H., Kim, J. Y., Lee, Y. K., Ko, H., Kim, K. H., ... & Kim, Y. H. (2020). Chest radiographic and CT findings of the 2019 nov-el coronavirus disease (COVID-19): analysis of nine patients treated in Korea. Korean journal of radiology, 21(4), 494-500. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.0132.
    79. Zhang, Y., Zhao, L., & Xu, Z. (2014). The impact of perceived usefulness on the acceptance of information technology in hospitality education. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 6(1), 1-10.
    80. Zhu, E., Hadadgar, A., Masiello, I., &Zary, N. (2014). Augmented reality in healthcare education: an integrative review. PeerJ, 2, e469. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.469.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    J, P. A. K., & K, S. (2025). Bridging Technology and Education: How Immersion and ‎Usefulness Drive Mobile AR Use in Medical and Health Science ‎Education. International Journal of Accounting and Economics Studies, 12(SI-1), 403-411. https://doi.org/10.14419/hd0qr920