Sensor Augmented Virtuality Laboratories: Investigating the Impact of User Interface on Student Learning in Secondary Science

• In Event: 63.031 - Connecting Virtual Tools and Physical Activities to Enhance Science Learning

Abstract

Students often struggle to connect observable levels of scientific phenomena and underlying molecular mechanisms affecting what is directly observable (Finklestein et al., 2005). Mixed-reality technologies can help students connect levels by combining virtual and real settings to augment learning (Lindgren & Johnson-Glenberg, 2013). For example, sensor-augmented virtual laboratories (SAVL) use real-world input from sensors to control virtual phenomena in simulations (Milgram & Kishino,1994). Past studies with SAVL in middle school classrooms demonstrated benefit for conceptual understanding of gases (DeJaegher, Chiu, & Chao, 2014) and added benefit over physical lab instruction (Chao et al., 2014). Because research demonstrates the benefit of virtual approaches to understanding gas laws (Levy & Wilensky, 2009), this work compares SAVL to a virtual simulation without augmented physical controls using the Frame, a tablet computer built into a box housing probeware connected to external physical inputs (i.e. syringe, thermistor, spring; Figure 1).

We address the following:
1. What differences, if any, exist between students using the Frame and students using virtual labs in terms of conceptual understanding of gas properties?
2. What differences, if any, exist between students using Frame and students using virtual labs on conceptual retention over time?

This study combines embodied cognition (Barsalou, 2008) and Knowledge Integration (KI; Linn, 2006) learning approaches. Embodied approaches suggest students using physical senses (e.g. feeling seeing, hearing) can improve conceptual understanding (e.g. Abrahamson et al., 2012). KI encourages students to elicit experiential knowledge, add normative ideas, and sort and refine connections between existing and new ideas to develop deeper conceptual understandings (Linn & Eylon, 2006). Tactile interaction afforded by the Frame can elicit students’ experiential ideas while the visualization can help students incorporate scientifically normative ideas into experiential understandings. These ideas are activated simultaneously with the Frame lab, therefore, we hypothesize students will develop more cohesive understandings about the examined phenomena.
206 high school students (9th-12th grades) across 12 chemistry classes and four teachers participated in this study. Classes were randomly assigned to either the Frame (n=106) or virtual lab (n =100) groups. Pre/post/delayed assessments were evaluated using a KI rubric (Table 1) and ideas inventory. Two independent raters coded all data (ķ =.767 to.892; Cohen, 1968).

Preliminary analysis of 6 assessment questions reveal overall gains from pre (M=3.34, SD = 1.17) to post (M=3.80, SD = 0.90) along with lasting gains in the delayed measure (M=3.72, SD = 1.10) suggesting learning progress. ANCOVA examined average KI scores across conditions, controlling for pretest. Analysis showed no statistically significant difference in students’ performance posttest measures across conditions F(1, 203) = .007, p=0.933; the same was true of the delayed posttest F(1, 203) =0.057, p =0.811. Further investigation of affective differences or differences in interaction behaviors across conditions is necessary to more fully understand the impact of SAVL. This work contributes to an emerging body of literature involving mixed-reality environments and student learning outcomes (e.g. Johnson-Glenberg, Birchfield, Tolentino, and Koziupa, 2014).

Authors

• Crystal J. DeJaegher, University of Notre Dame

• Jennifer L. Chiu, University of Virginia

• Jie Chao, University of Virginia