Immersive Literary Learning through Augmented Reality: Evaluating Cognitive Engagement Using a Rasch Measurement Approach
DOI: https://doi.org/10.65840/jllcd.v3i1.38
augmented reality learning, literary psychology, Rasch model, cognitive engagement, measurement validity, immersive education, educational assessment
Abstract
This study examines the measurement quality and cognitive engagement of students in augmented reality–based literary psychology learning using a Rasch model framework. A total of 52 undergraduate students participated in the implementation of an Augmented Reality Psychology Sastra (ARPS) application, which integrates visual-interactive features with literary psychological concepts. Data were collected through a 24-item dichotomous quiz designed to capture multiple levels of cognitive processing, including conceptual understanding, character interpretation, and inferential reasoning. Rasch analysis revealed acceptable measurement properties, with person reliability of 0.78 and item reliability of 0.91, indicating consistent responses and stable item calibration. Item fit statistics showed that all items functioned within acceptable limits (0.88–1.22), supporting construct validity. However, the Wright Map indicated a targeting mismatch, with mean person ability exceeding item difficulty (+0.42 logits), suggesting that the instrument was relatively easy for most participants. Person fit analysis further confirmed response consistency, with only 5.8% misfit cases. These findings suggest that augmented reality enhances cognitive performance through immersive and multimodal learning experiences, while also highlighting the need for more complex items to improve measurement sensitivity at higher ability levels. The study contributes to the integration of immersive learning technologies and psychometric validation in literary education contexts.
References
Akçayır, M., & Akçayır, G. (2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002
Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 133–149.
Boone, W. J. (2020). Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(4), es9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-05-0098
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814698
Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9477-5
Eagleton, T. (2008). Literary theory: An introduction. Blackwell.
Engelhard, G. (2013). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Routledge.
Garzón, J., Pavón, J., & Baldiris, S. (2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis of augmented reality in educational settings. Computers & Education, 128, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.013
Garzón, J., & Acevedo, J. (2021). Meta-analysis of the impact of augmented reality on students’ learning gains. Educational Research Review, 33, 100411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100411
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
Kane, M. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4), 328.
Linacre, J. M. (2002). What do infit and outfit mean-square values mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.
Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2019). Immersive virtual reality and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 31(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09487-9
Makransky, G., Petersen, G. B., & Klingenberg, S. (2021). Can immersive virtual reality simulations facilitate learning? A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 151, 103860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103860
Makransky, G., Borre-Gude, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2023). Immersive virtual reality and learning: A meta-analysis of immersion and cognitive load effects. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09725-4
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295
Parong, J., Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., MacNamara, A., Homer, B. D., & Plass, J. L. (2021). Learning in immersive virtual reality: Effects of immersion on learning, cognitive load, and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000473
Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: A meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18, 1533–1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0747-y
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778
Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 37–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology. Arthritis Care & Research, 57(8), 1358–1362. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23108
Wellek, R., & Warren, A. (1949). Theory of literature. Harcourt.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. MESA Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Akhmad Fauzan, Achmad Fauzan, Lahan Adi Purwanto, Feisal Aziez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Journal of Language, Literature, and Cultural Dynamics is licensed under a 