Augmented reality-supported artistic anatomy instruction and studio-based figure drawing performance: a quasi-experimental embedded mixed-methods study

Jurnal Riset Tindakan Indonesia August 24, 2026 Volume 11, Number 1 9 authors

Abstract

This study examined the effects of augmented reality (AR)-supported artistic anatomy learning on fine arts students’ figure drawing performance in higher education and explored students’ perceptions of the usability, engagement, and pedagogical value of AR in studio-based anatomy learning. A quasi-experimental embedded mixed-methods design was employed with an experimental group receiving AR-supported artistic anatomy instruction and a control group receiving conventional instruction. Participants were 63 undergraduate fine arts students (31 experimental; 32 control). Data were collected through pre-test and post-test figure drawing tasks, a student perception questionnaire, and qualitative discussions with selected students and lecturers. Students’ drawings were assessed using a rubric covering proportion, perspective, anatomical structure, gesture, and spatial coherence. The AR-supported group showed greater improvement than the conventional group, with the largest descriptive post-test differences in perspective and spatial coherence. Students also reported high usability, engagement, and pedagogical value. Qualitative findings indicated that rotation, scaling, and multi-angle exploration helped students examine three-dimensional bodily form before translating it into two-dimensional drawings. These findings extend AR-supported anatomy research into fine arts studio pedagogy and indicate that AR can function as a complementary visual-spatial learning tool when its affordances are aligned with discipline-specific drawing tasks.

Authors

  1. Arif Budiman

    Department of Fine Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang

  2. Ary Ramadhan

    Department of Fine Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang

  3. Nessya Fitryona

    Department of Fine Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang

  4. Angga Elpatsa

    Department of Fine Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang

  5. Syerlie Annisa

    Department of Fine Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang

  6. Aditya Hanum Widarsa

    Department of Fine Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang

  7. Harry Prasetyo

    Department of Fine Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang

  8. Dini Faisal

    Department of Fine Arts, Universitas Negeri Padang

  9. Agariadne Dwinggo Samala

    Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Padang

Keywords

Augmented realityArtistic anatomyFine arts higher educationFigure drawingStudio-based learningTask-technology fit

References

  1. Akkus, I., & Arslan, P. (2022). The effects of augmented reality in the technical drawing course on engineering students’ spatial ability and academic achievement. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 7. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1020075
  2. Al-Amri, S., Hamid, S., Noor, N. F. M., & Gani, A. (2023). A framework for designing interactive mobile training course content using augmented reality. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(20), 30491–30541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-023-14561-4
  3. Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2023). Integrated TTF and self-determination theories in higher education: The role of actual use of massive open online courses. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1108325. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1108325
  4. Álvarez-Marín, A., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. (2021). Augmented reality and engineering education: A systematic review. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 14(6), 817–831. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2022.3144356
  5. Baltaci, S., & Çetin, S. (2022). The effect of augmented reality on achievement and spatial visualization skills in technical drawing course. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 7. https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1047477
  6. Bölek, K. A., De Jong, G., & Henssen, D. (2021). The effectiveness of the use of augmented reality in anatomy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94721-4
  7. Cevikbas, M., Bulut, N., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Exploring the benefits and drawbacks of AR and VR technologies for learners of mathematics: Recent developments. Systems, 11(5), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11050244
  8. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  10. Faqih, K. M. S., & Jaradat, M.-I. R. M. (2021). Integrating TTF and UTAUT2 theories to investigate the adoption of augmented reality technology in education: Perspective from a developing country. Technology in Society, 67, 101787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101787
  11. Fahrni, S., & Sabatasso, S. (2025). 3D modelling in anatomy teaching: State of the art and pilot investigations for its application. Translational Research in Anatomy, 41, 100444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tria.2025.100444
  12. García-Robles, P., Cortés-Pérez, I., Nieto-Escámez, F. A., García-López, H., Obrero-Gaitán, E., & Osuna-Pérez, M. C. (2024). Immersive virtual reality and augmented reality in anatomy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anatomical Sciences Education, 17(3), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2397
  13. Ghobadi, M., Shirowzhan, S., Ghiai, M. M., Mohammad Ebrahimzadeh, F., & Tahmasebinia, F. (2023). Augmented reality applications in education and examining key factors affecting users’ behaviors. Education Sciences, 13(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13010010
  14. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.
  15. González-Zamar, M.-D., & Abad-Segura, E. (2020). Implications of virtual reality in arts education: Research analysis in the context of higher education. Education Sciences, 10(9), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090225
  16. Hui, J., Zhou, Y., Oubibi, M., Di, W., Zhang, L., & Zhang, S. (2022). Research on art teaching practice supported by virtual reality technology in primary schools. Sustainability, 14(3), 1246. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031246
  17. Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
  18. Li, G., Luo, H., Chen, D., Wang, P., Yin, X., & Zhang, J. (2025). Augmented reality in higher education: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from 2000 to 2023. Education Sciences, 15(6), 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060678
  19. Mao, Y., & Ling, J. (2025). Innovative applications of virtual reality in art and design education. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.4018/JCIT.382567
  20. Mayer, R. E. (2021). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  21. Minouei, M., Omid, A., Mirzaei, A., Mahdavifard, H., & Rahimi, A. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual reality on medical students’ academic achievement in anatomy: Systematic review. BMC Medical Education, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06402-1
  22. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., Pinedo, L., & Fernández-Castilla, B. (2023). Effects of rubrics on academic performance, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 35(4), 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09823-4
  23. Sakti, H. G., & Abdurrahman. (2026). Powtoon animation effects on ICT learning interest: A madrasah experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Educational Studies, 4(1), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.58218/jes.v4i1.3563
  24. Salimi, S., Asgari, Z., Mohammadnejad, A., Teimazi, A., & Bakhtiari, M. (2024). Efficacy of virtual reality and augmented reality in anatomy education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Anatomical Sciences Education, 17(9), 1668–1685. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2501
  25. Samala, A. D., Usmeldi, Taali, Daineko, Y., Indarta, Y., Nando, Y., Anwar, M., Jaya, P., & Almasri. (2023). Global publication trends in augmented reality and virtual reality for learning: The last twenty-one years. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 13, 109–128. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v13i2.35965
  26. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  27. Wati, S. R., Bektiarso, S., Hilmi, M. I., & Budiarso, A. S. (2026). Augmented reality based on contextual problem scenarios on problem solving ability and cognitive level of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.58218/jes.v4i2.3124
  28. Yang, Y., Du, W., Mavrikis, M., & Geraniou, E. (2025). Spatial skill development through augmented reality in mathematics education: A scoping review. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-025-00187-8
  29. Yusuf, F. (2025). Investigating the impact of augmented reality-integrated project-based learning on university students’ creative innovation, computational thinking, and academic resilience. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 9. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202537068