## 3 Materials and Methods
### Observational Findings  
In addition to making quantitative observations, researchers also closely monitored the behavior of the participants during the experiment.  
An important difference between reading comprehension groups was whether they used their voice to read aloud. The high reading comprehension group (HighAR and HighVIDEO) tended to remain silent during most of the test. On the other hand, those with low reading comprehension (LowAR and LowVIDEO) made more verbal comments about what they observed and heard. It is worth mentioning that these comments were not always accurate but it seemed that the children interpreted the visuals to build a narrative that was not necessarily attached to audio. Also, part of this last group read aloud (the instructions and the questionnaire) and on multiple occasions they showed difficulties with speed (slow and halting reading). Additionally, in the case of one specific participant, researchers observed omission or swapping of syllables (signs of dyslexia).  
Regarding the lesson format and the use of speaking out loud, a difference was observed in topics. The VIDEO group would usually talk about what they heard while the AR group commented on what they heard and what they saw.  
As for the perceived interest in the lesson format, nearly all of the participants in the VIDEO group observed the visuals at all times (see Figure 4). However, the time spent viewing images in the AR group seemed to be very variable but one trend observed was that the more the participant progressed in the lesson, the less time he or she would spend observing the models. About half of the participants in the AR group tended to observe the model and then listen to the lesson. They seemed to interpret the order in which the elements were shown in the application (marker scanning first and audio snippet player second) as the order they were expected to follow. Another common sequence was Scan \(>\) project \(>\) play audio \(>\) observe image \(>\) finish part.  
Other interesting observations associated with the AR group trial were made regarding participants' attitudes towards AR. Contrary to what has been found in preschool children [35], in this study, few primary school children showed visible excitement or great interest towards this technology, despite its certain novelty and unfamiliarity. This attitude was also perceived from the time spent exploring the image and from the children's initiative to interact with the object.  
In terms of interactions, there were four participants who did not show much interest in interacting with the models. These participants would usually be students with high reading comprehension (HighAR group) or students within the group that was already familiar with QR codes and smartphones. Those who did explore the models' response to different gestures mostly resorted to using pinch, drag and rotation. There was frustration when performing pinch because the Augment AR viewer application does not recognize this gesture; consequently, after seeing there was no response, the participants would usually follow up with the gesture double tap or drag. Drag in Augment app is the gesture most similar to zoom.  
Another relevant point has to do with the differences displayed in Table 4. Children with low reading comprehension (LowAR) were the most likely to interact with AR models (see Figure 5) but the opposite was generally found for children with high comprehension (HighAR). This suggests that this active interaction may have a counterproductive effect on comprehension in primary school children in general, actually representing a distraction rather than providing support that would help them to follow a reading or audio.