Vol. 17 No. 2 (2026)
Special Issue: SI_TGEO

Misconceptions in Planetary Geography: A Formative Expert Evaluation of a Serious Game Integrating Augmented Reality and Artificial Intelligence

PDF
Anastasia Georgiou
National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of Pedagogy & Primary Education, Athens, Greece
Christina Koutouveli
National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of Pedagogy & Primary Education, Athens, Greece
Kosmas Gazeas
National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of Physics, Athens, Greece
Vlasios Kasapakis
University of the Aegean, Department of Cultural Technology & Communication, Lesvos, Greece
Apostolia Galani
National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Department of Pedagogy & Primary Education, Athens, Greece
Mars-Level Gameplay Board Illustrating the Spatial Progression and Challenge Nodes Within the Planetary Geography Framework
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.a.geo.17.2.098.113
Categories

Published 2026-04-05

Keywords

  • planetary geography,
  • serious games,
  • augmented reality (AR),
  • design-based research (DBR),
  • geographical misconceptions,
  • expert evaluation
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Georgiou, Anastasia, Christina Koutouveli, Kosmas Gazeas, Vlasios Kasapakis, and Apostolia Galani. 2026. “Misconceptions in Planetary Geography: A Formative Expert Evaluation of a Serious Game Integrating Augmented Reality and Artificial Intelligence”. European Journal of Geography 17 (2):S.98-S.113. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.a.geo.17.2.098.113.

Copyright (c) 2026 Anastasia Georgiou, Christina Koutouveli, Kosmas Gazeas, Vlasios Kasapakis, Apostolia Galani

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Received 2025-12-14
Accepted 2026-03-28
Published 2026-04-05

Abstract

Geography education increasingly requires planetary-scale reasoning but teachers often lack tools to make abstract concepts—such as the greenhouse effect—accessible to young learners. This study evaluates AcademIa of ARistarchus, an artificial intelligence/augmented reality (AR) hybrid serious game developed through design-based research (DBR) that positions planetary geography as a pedagogical lens. By extending core geographical concepts into planetary contexts, the tool helps students understand Earth as a complex system. A purposive panel of six experts evaluated the prototype through a structured walkthrough informed by adapted game user experience satisfaction scale and handheld augmented reality usability scale, semi-structured interviews, and a targeted review of documented misconceptions. Initial quantitative feedback using a 5-point Likert instrument showed consistent agreement (above 4.0) across engagement, usability, and perceived learning value. Qualitative findings indicated that comparative planetology—contrasting Earth, Venus, and Mars—makes the greenhouse effect more tangible, while AR visualisations address key challenges related to scale. The rule-based feedback agent, Aristarchus, further supports conceptual change by diagnosing misconceptions. Expert feedback led to concrete refinements, including improved instructional videos. Overall, the study proposes a transferable model for scaffolding macroscale spatial reasoning and operationalising comparative analysis as a mode of geographical inquiry. Rather than claiming definitive effectiveness, this formative evaluation demonstrates how DBR-driven expert review can systematically inform design prior to classroom implementation, offering a replicable protocol for technology-enhanced geography interventions.

Highlights:

  • Conceptualises planetary geography as a lens for comparative atmospheric studies.
  • Implements a hybrid DBR model integrating AR visuals and a tutoring agent.
  • Provides a validated protocol for scaffolding macroscale spatial reasoning.

 

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Bampasidis, G., & Galani, A. (2025). Teaching geo-space through socioscientific issues: When earth geography meets space geography. In Curricular changes in geography education: Meeting social and societal challenges of tomorrow (pp. 115-128). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-96551-7_9
  2. Baines, K. H., Atreya, S. K., Bullock, M. A., Grinspoon, D. H., Mahaffy, P. R., Russell, C. T., Schubert, G., & Zahnle, K. (2015). The atmospheres of the terrestrial planets: Clues to the origins and early evolution of Venus, Earth, and Mars. In S. J. Mackwell, A. A. Simon-Miller, J. W. Harder, & M. A. Bullock (Eds.), Comparative climatology of terrestrial planets (pp. 137–168). University of Arizona Press.
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  4. Carbonell Carrera, C., & Bermejo Asensio, L. A. (2017). Augmented reality as a digital teaching environment to develop spatial thinking. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 44(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2016.1145556
  5. Chang, C. H., Pascua, L., & Ess, F. (2018). Closing the “hole in the sky”: The use of refutation-oriented instruction to correct students’ climate change misconceptions. Journal of Geography, 117(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2017.1287768
  6. Chang, C. H., & Kidman, G. (2021). Considering geographical and environmental education at scales. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 30(2), 91-94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2021.1912969
  7. Fraile-Jurado, P., & Periáñez-Cuevas, N. (2023). Enhancing motivation strategies in a mandatory university geography course. European Journal of Geography, 14. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.p.fra.14.2.064.075
  8. Gautier, C., Deutsch, K., & Rebich, S. (2006). Misconceptions about the greenhouse effect. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(3), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-54.3.386
  9. Gruenewald, D. A. (2008). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 308–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802193572
  10. Haberle, R. M. (2013). Estimating the power of Mars’ greenhouse effect. Icarus, 223(1), 619–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2012.12.022
  11. Huckle, J., & Wals, A. E. (2015). The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development: business as usual in the end. Environmental Education Research, 21(3), 491-505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1011084
  12. 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
  13. Iyer, R. S., Ndulue, C., Meier, S., & Orji, R. (2025). Smartphone Games Heuristics (SmGH)–Towards a standard set of platform-centric heuristic for smartphone games evaluation. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(8), 5057–5078. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2356911
  14. Kidman, G., & Chang, C. H. (2025). Planetary pedagogies: reimagining geography and environmental education in the anthropocene. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 34(3), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2025.2519879
  15. Lambert, D., & Morgan, J. (2010). Teaching geography 11–18: A conceptual approach. Open University Press.
  16. Larsen, T. B., & Harrington, J. A., Jr. (2018). Developing a learning progression for place. Journal of Geography, 117(3), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2017.1337212
  17. Larsen, T., Gerike, M., & Harrington, J. (2022). Human-environment thinking and K-12 geography education. Journal of Geography, 121(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221341.2021.2005666
  18. Leppink, J., Paas, F., Van der Vleuten, C. P., Van Gog, T., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1058–1072. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0334-1
  19. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.
  20. Maude, A. (2016). What might powerful geographical knowledge look like? Geography, 101(2), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2016.12093987
  21. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
  22. Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007). An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75414
  23. Phan, M. H., Keebler, J. R., & Chaparro, B. S. (2016). The development and validation of the game user experience satisfaction scale (GUESS). Human Factors, 58(8), 1217–1247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816669646
  24. Reinfried, S. (2006). Conceptual change in physical geography and environmental sciences through mental model building: The example of groundwater. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 15(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.2167/irgee185.0
  25. Semken, S., Ward, E. G., Moosavi, S., & Chinn, P. W. U. (2017). Place-based education in geoscience: Theory, research, practice, and assessment. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(4), 542–562. https://doi.org/10.5408/17-276.1
  26. Shepardson, D. P., Choi, S., Niyogi, D., & Charusombat, U. (2011). Seventh grade students’ mental models of the greenhouse effect. Environmental Education Research, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903564549
  27. Skarstein, F., & Wolff, L. A. (2020). An issue of scale: The challenge of time, space and multitude in sustainability and geography education. Education Sciences, 10(2), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020028
  28. Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
  29. Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2008). International handbook of research on conceptual change (Vol. 259). Routledge.
  30. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments: Twenty years of research and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
  31. Young, M. (2008). From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07308969
  32. Zisi, C., & Klonari, A. (2022). Investigating Greek kindergartners’ spatial abilities: Are they the best they can be?. European Journal of Geography, 13(3), 001-018. https://doi.org/10.48088/ejg.c.zis.13.3.001.018