Abstract
As emerging technologies become increasingly inexpensive and robust, there is an exciting opportunity to move beyond general purpose computing platforms to realize a new generation of K-12 technology-based learning environments. Mixed-reality technologies integrate real world components with interactive digital media to offer new potential to combine best practices in traditional science learning with the powerful affordances of audio/visual simulations. This paper introduces the realization of a learning environment called SMALLab, the Situated Multimedia Arts Learning Laboratory. We present a recent teaching experiment for high school chemistry students. A mix of qualitative and quantitative research documents the efficacy of this approach for students and teachers. We conclude that mixed-reality learning is viable in mainstream high school classrooms and that students can achieve significant learning gains when this technology is co-designed with educators.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Baker DR, Piburn MD (1997) Constructing science in middle and secondary school classrooms. Allyn and Bacon, Boston
Birchfield D, Ciufo T et al (2006) SMALLab: a mediated platform for education. ACM SIGGRAPH, Boston
Birchfield D, Mechtley B et al (2008a) Mixed-reality learning in the art museum context. ACM SIG Multimedia, Vancouver
Birchfield D, Thornburg H et al. (2008b) Embodiment, multimodality, and composition: convergent themes across HCI and education for mixed-reality learning environments. J Adv Hum Comput Interact (in press)
Brooks FP, Ouh-Young M et al (1990) Project GROPE-Haptic displays for scientific visualization. Comput Graph (ACM) 24(4):177–185. doi:10.1145/97880.97899
Brown A, Palinscar A (1989) Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In: Resnick L (ed) Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 393–452
Brown JS, Collins A et al (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42
Chemical Education Research Group Iowa State University (2008) Chemistry experiment simulations and conceptual computer animations. http://www.chem.iastate.edu/group/Greenbowe/sections/projectfolder/simDownload/index4.html. Retrieved 26 Nov 2008
Cuthbertson A, Hatton S et al (2007) Mediated education in a creative arts context: research and practice at Whittier Elementary School. 6th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Aalborg
Dede C, Salzman M (1997) Using virtual reality technology to convey abstract scientific concepts. In: Jacobson MJ, Kozma RB et al (eds) Learning the sciences of the 21st century: research, design, and implementing advanced technology learning environments. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Dede C, Salzman M (1999) Multisensory immersion as a modeling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. In: Roberts N, Feurzeig W, Hunter B et al (eds) Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education. Springer-Verlag, New York
Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge
Driver R, Asoko H et al (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educ Res 23(7):5–12
DuFour R, DuFour R et al (2006) Learning by doing: a handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree, Bloomington
Ekstrom RB, French JW et al (1979) Cognitive factors: their identification and replication. Multivar Behav Res Monogr 79(2):3–84
Fauconnier G, Turner M (2002) The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books, New York
Garcia-Ruiz MA, Gutierrez-Pulido JR (2005) An overview of auditory display to assist comprehension of molecular information. Interact Comput 18:853–868. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2005.12.001
Gee JP (2007) What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Hatton S, Birchfield D et al (2008) Learning metaphor through mixed-reality game design and game play. AMC Sandbox, Los Angeles
Haury DL (1993) Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC clearinghouse for science, mathematics, and environmental education, Columbus, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359 048)
Hermann T, Hunt A (2005) Guest editor’s introduction: an introduction to interactive sonification. IEEE Multimedia 12(2):20–24. doi:10.1109/MMUL.2005.26
Hestenes D (1992) Modeling games in the Newtonian world. Am J Phys 60:732–748. doi:10.1119/1.17080
Hestenes D (1996) Modeling methodology for physics teachers. International Conference on Undergraduate Physics, College Park
Hollan J, Hutchins E et al (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human–computer interaction research. ACM Trans Hum Comput Interact 7(2):174–196. doi:10.1145/353485.353487
Hord S (1997) Professional learning communities: communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, TX
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1984) Cooperative learning. Interaction Book Co, New Brighton
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1989) Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Interaction Book Company, Edina
Johnson DW, Johnson H (1991) Learning together and alone: cooperation, competition, and individualization. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Johnson-Glenberg MC (2000) Training reading comprehension in adequate decoders/poor comprehenders: verbal versus visual strategies. J Educ Psychol 92(4):722–782. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.772
Kara Y, Yesilyurt S (2008) Comparing the impacts of tutorial and edutainment software programs on students’ achievements, misconceptions, and attitudes toward biology. J Sci Educ Technol 17(1):32–41. doi:10.1007/s10956-007-9077-z
Lapp D, Cyrus VF (2000) Using data-collection devices to enhance students’ understanding. Math Teach 93(6):504–510
Lave J, Wenger E (1990) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Llewellyn D (2005) Constructing an understanding of scientific inquiry. Teaching high school science through inquiry: a case study approach. Corwin Press, Rochester
Megowan C (2007) Framing discourse for optimal learning in science and mathematics. PhD, College of Education, Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Tempe, p 247
Megowan C, Zandieh MJ (2005) A case of distributed cognition (or, many heads make light work). 27th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education
Mesch U, Johnson DW et al (1988) Impact of positive interdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement. J Soc Psychol 28:845–852
Miner C, Della Villa P (1997) DNA music. Sci Teach 64(5):19–21
National Research Council (U.S.) (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington
Ohno S, Ohno M (1986) The all pervasive principle of repetitious recurrence goerns not only coding sequence construction but also human endeavor in musical composition. Immunogenetics 24:71–78. doi:10.1007/BF00373112
Pallant A, Tinker R (2004) Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. J Sci Educ Technol 13:51–66. doi:10.1023/B:JOST.0000019638.01800.d0
Perkins K, Adams W et al (2006) PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. Phys Teach 44(1):18–23. doi:10.1119/1.2150754
Radford L, Demers S et al (2003) Calculators, graphs, gestures and the production of meaning. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, University of Hawaii
Roediger HL, Karpicke JD (2006) Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychol Sci 17(3):249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Roth W-M, Woszczyna C et al (1996) Affordances and constraints of computers in science education. J Res Sci Teach 33(9):995–1017. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199611)33:9<995::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-Q
Sawanda D, Piburn M et al (2002) Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: the reformed teaching observation protocol. Sch Sci Math 102(6):245–253
Sheppard K (2006) High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid–base phenomena. Chem Educ Res Pract 7(1):32–45
Slavin R (1995) Cooperative learning: theory research, and practice. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
Slavin R (1996) Research on cooperative learning and achievement: what we know, what we need to know. Contemp Educ Psychol 21:43–69. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0004
Tinker R, Xie Q (2008) Applying computational science to education: the molecular workbench paradigm. Comput Sci Eng 10(5):24–27. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2008.108
von Glasersfeld E (1996) Introduction: aspects of constructivism. In: Fosnot CT (ed) Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York
Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. The Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Watson JM, Chick HL (2001) Factors influencing the outcomes of collaborative mathematical problem solving: an introduction. Math Think Learn 3(2 and 3):125–173. doi:10.1207/S15327833MTL0302&3_02
Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge that these materials document work supported by the National Science Foundation CISE Infrastructure grant under Grant No. 0403428 and IGERT Grant No. 0504647 and work supported by the MacArthur Foundation under a grant titled “Gaming SMALLab: a game-like approach to embodied learning.” We extend our gratitude to the students, teachers, and staff of Coronado High School for their overwhelming commitment to collaboration and exploration in support of learning. We also thank Arthur Glenberg for his invaluable insights and advice in the analysis of the evaluation data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix
Appendix
The next example builds on the classroom’s inquiry practice as the teacher attempts to help students deepen their conceptual understanding. The transcript comes from the second day of classes and starts after the teacher has divided students into four teams: acid, base, pH, and questions teams. During this dialog, the teacher first prompts students with simple questions and then encourages students to ask questions of one another.
[The teacher asks the base team to make a decision. After a short team discussion one girl team member uses the orange ball to select a base molecule. With hesitancy, the girl is reluctant to drop the base into the flask, and her teammates encourage her to “just drop it in there.” She asks if she can put two molecules in. The teacher says, Yes, and the student adds another molecule to the water.]
Speaker | Response (with notes) | Category |
|---|---|---|
Teacher: | Okay, now lets stop for a minute, okay. pH team, what do you notice? [Lots of responses from different students can be heard.] | |
S1: | That there’s more light blues than dark blues. | |
Teacher: | Okay, all these things that you guys are noticing, you should write down. We have more light blues than dark blues. | |
S2: | What base was it that she added? | |
Teacher: | [Student 3], what bases did you add? | |
S3: | NaOH and umm… I don’t remember. | |
(multiple students): | Mg(OH)2. | |
Teacher: | Mg(OH)2. So sodium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide. [Students are writing this down.] Okay, we added two bases, so how many hydroxides are there? And I shouldn’t be asking these questions. Question team? [Some students laugh.] Come up with questions. | Eliciting better questions |
S4: | How come the pH went up? Is that a good question? Teacher: That is a very good question. [Lots of students are responding with explanations simultaneously. Teacher points to a student.] Okay. We’ve got—what, say that again, [Student 5]. | |
S5: | ‘Cause there’s more hydroxide. | |
Teacher: | Excellent. | |
Teacher: | [Student 6], what’d you say? | |
S6: | It’s less acidic. | Refines conceptual model |
Teacher: | Okay, it’s less acidic. It’s less acidic because of what Ashley said—there’s more hydroxides floating around. ‘Kay, question team, more questions. | |
S7: | Why are there more light blues than dark blues? | |
Teacher: | Okay, why are there more light blues than dark blues? | |
(two students together): | What does light blue and dark blue stand for? | |
S7: | Light blue is OH−. | |
Teacher: | Let’s stop it just for a minute. [Teacher pauses the scenario.] It makes it a little easier to read. The big blues are what? | |
(many students) together: | OH−s. | |
Teacher: | The dark little blue is… | |
(many students): | Mg. | |
Teacher: | And the lighter little blue is… | |
(multiple students): | Na. | |
S8: | Oh—Mg has 2 OH−s. | |
Teacher: | Mg has 2 OH−s, so that answers your question. | |
S9: | Wait, what is that one? Dark blue? | |
Teacher: | This one right here? | |
S9: | Yes. | |
Teacher: | That is an Mg. … Mg positive 2. [Student 10], why does it have a positive 2? | |
S10: | ‘Cause that’s its charge. | Refines conceptual model |
Teacher: | Ah ha, and why does it have that charge? Do you remember? Do you remember what group it’s in? | |
S11: | [exclaims] Group 2! [Group 2 refers to groupings on the periodic table.] | |
Teacher: | Right, it’s in Group 2. This is actually good because it’s review for the final, too. | Refines conceptual model |
By the end of this dialogue, the teacher was able to engage the students in meaningful questioning. An added benefit, he also helped them improve their conceptual model to incorporate elements not explicitly built into the scenario itself, e.g., they related the concept of atomic charge back to the periodic table.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tolentino, L., Birchfield, D., Megowan-Romanowicz, C. et al. Teaching and Learning in the Mixed-Reality Science Classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 18, 501–517 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9166-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9166-2