Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Virtual Reality Simulation: Effects on Academic Performance Within Two Domains of Writing in Science

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role textbooks can play on writing complexity and lexical density as a proxy for critical thinking and ultimately learning, in relation to argumentative and summative writing when integrated with a virtual reality experience. In this study, differences in writing complexity and lexical density scores were measured across four different pedagogical modalities: VR alone, VR followed by textbook readings, textbook readings followed by VR, and textbook readings alone. Adult students, recruited from non-science-based higher education programs, responded to two prompts related to content found in the VR environments and discussed in the textbooks. The authors hypothesized that exposure to a virtual marine environment prior to responding to the writing prompts would enhance both argumentative and summative writing products, when compared to participants who only had access to the textbook experiences. Participants who were exposed to the VR environment then a textbook demonstrated significantly greater writing complexity and lexical density scores than those who had access to VR alone, or access to the text alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akaygun, S., & Jones, L. L. (2014). Words or pictures: a comparison of written and pictorial explanations of physical and chemical equilibria. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 783–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baram-Tsabari, A., & Osborne, J. (2015). Bridging science education and science communication research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baus, O., & Bouchard, S. (2014). Moving from virtual reality exposure-based therapy to augmented reality exposure-based therapy: a review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, S., Wang, X., & Chiang, F. K. (2014). A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 31–40.

  • Campbell, N., Urry, L., Cain, M., Wasserman, S., Minorsky, P., & Reece, J. (2004). Biology. New York, NY: Pearson.

  • Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016a). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education, 25(3–4), 277–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016b). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & McdDowell, L. (2013). The effects of writing-to-learn activities on elementary students’ conceptual understanding: learning about force and motion through writing to older peers. Science Education, 97(5), 745–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., Allen, L. K., Snow, E. L., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). Incorporating learning characteristics into automatic essay scoring models: what individual differences and linguistic features tell us about writing quality. Journal of Educational Data Mining, 8(2), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeAnda, S., Poulin-Dubois, D., Zesiger, P., & Friend, M. (2016). Lexical processing and organization in bilingual first language acquisition: guiding future research. Psychological Bulletin, 142(6), 655–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. In The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education (Vol. 1, p. 133). “Carol I” National Defence University.

  • Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Education & Psychology, 101(3), 577–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, L. W., & Steinberg, E. R. (Eds.). (2016). Cognitive processes in writing. Routledge.

  • Guell, X., Gabrieli, J. D., & Schmahmann, J. D. (2017). Embodied cognition and the cerebellum: perspectives from the dysmetria of thought and the universal cerebellar transform theories. Cortex.

  • Hemberger, L., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., & Shi, Y. (2017). A dialogic path to evidence-based argumentive writing. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(4), 575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Villanueva, M. G., & Yoon, S. (2014). Moving from “fuzzi-ness" to canical knowledge: the role of writing in developing cognitive and representational resources. Writing as learning activity, 17.

  • Ihemedu-Steinke, Q. C., Erbach, R., Halady, P., Meixner, G., & Weber, M. (2017). Virtual reality driving simulator based on head-mounted displays (In Automotive user interfaces (pp. 401–428)). Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. L. (2013). The application of cognitive diagnostic approaches via neural network analysis of serious educational games (doctoral dissertation).

  • Lamb, R. (2014). Examination of allostasis and online laboratory simulations in a middle school science classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 224–234.

  • Lamb, R. L. (2016). Examination of the effects of dimensionality on cognitive processing in science: a computational modeling experiment comparing online laboratory simulations and serious educational games. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. L., & Annetta, L. (2013). The use of online modules and the effect on student outcomes in a high school chemistry class. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 603–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R., Akmal, T., & Petrie, K. (2015a). Development of a cognition-priming model describing learning in a STEM classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 410–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R., Annetta, L., & Vallet, D. (2015b). The interface of creativity, fluency, lateral thinking and technology while designing serious educational games in a science classroom.

  • Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Meldrum, J., & Vallett, D. (2012). Measuring science interest: Rasch validation of the science interest survey. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 643–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R., Cavagnetto, A., & Akmal, T. (2016). Examination of the nonlinear dynamic systems associated with science student cognition while engaging in science information processing. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 187–205

  • Lamb, R., Antonenko, P., Etopio, E., & Seccia, A. (2018a). Comparison of virtual reality and hands on activities in science education via functional near infrared spectroscopy. Computers & Education, 124, 14–26.

  • Lamb, R., Firestone, J., Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., & Hand, B. (2018b). A computational mode of student cognitive processes which solving a critical thinking problem in science. The Journal of Education Research, 1–12.

  • Lamb, R., Hand, B., & Yoon, S. (2017). Examination of cognitive processing of science writing tasks. Journal of Psychology and Brain Studies, 1(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, R. L., Vallett, D., & Annetta, L. (2014). Development of a short-form measure of science and technology self-efficacy using Rasch analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 641–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinonen, T., Keune, A., Veermans, M., & Toikkanen, T. (2016). Mobile apps for reflection in learning: a design research in K-12 education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(1), 184–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. S. (2014). Science and non-science undergraduate students’ critical thinking and argumentation performance in reading a science news report. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1023–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, J. M., O’Connor, E., Shaw, R., & Burton, L. (2015). Applying cognitive science to critical thinking among higher education students (In The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 391–407)). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manz, E. (2015). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 553–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Fabiani, P., Benesova, W., Meneses, M. D., & Mora, C. E. (2015). Augmented reality to promote collaborative and autonomous learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 752–761.

  • Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2014). Reading comprehension and its underlying components in second-language learners: a meta-analysis of studies comparing first-and second-language learners. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 409–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meritt, J., Gibson, D., Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2015). Teacher training using interactive technologies: performance and assessment in second life and simschool (In E-Learning systems, environments and approaches (pp. 181–198)). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., Trevors, G., Duffy, M., Ranellucci, J., & Foy, M. J. (2016). Testing the TIDE: examining the nature of students’ epistemic beliefs using a multiple methods approach. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(2), 264–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muwonge, C. M., Schiefele, U., Ssenyonga, J., & Kibedi, H. (2017). Self-regulated learning among teacher education students: motivational beliefs influence on the use of metacognition. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 27(6), 515–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2015). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelger, S., & Nilsson, P. (2018). Observed learning outcomes of integrated communication training in science education: skills and subject matter understanding. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. (1990). Quantitative and qualitative perspectives on student motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, vol 128. Boston, MA.

  • Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the common core standards in mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, T. J., Fischer, L., Wiley, D., & Hilton, J., III. (2014). The impact of open textbooks on secondary science learning outcomes. Educational Research, 43(7), 341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2016). The challenge of challenging text On developing readers: readings from educational leadership (EL essentials), 100.

  • Somasundaran, S., Riordan, B., Gyawali, B., & Yoon, S. Y. (2016). Evaluating argumentative and narrative essays using graphs. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers (pp. 1568-1578).

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, E. S., Sherman, E. M. S, & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms and commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Thornhill-Miller, B., & Dupont, J. M. (2016). Virtual reality and the enhancement of creativity and innovation: under recognized potential among converging technologies?. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 102–121.

  • Townsend, D. (2015). Who’s using the language? Supporting middle school students with content area academic language. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 58(5), 376–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, H. (2012). Re-writing the writing script: teachers and children translating curriculum in everyday practice. In Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: University of.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. Y., Bennett, W., Mendez, C. A., & Hand, B. (2010). Setting up conditions for negotiation in science. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(3).

  • Watson, S. M., Michalek, A. M., & Gable, R. A. (2016). Linking executive functions and written language intervention for students with language learning disorders. International Journal of School and Cognitive Psychology, 3(3).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard L. Lamb.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human Subject Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Prompt 1 argumentative writing

Mr. Sheldon’s class was discussing the relationships present in ecosystems such as ocean reefs. Five different kinds of information were given to students, including the roles of energy, chemical elements, producers, consumers, and decomposers. The information is shown in the chapters on ecosystems. First, look at all of this information and then answer the questions below.

Write a letter to Tiffany, a fellow graduate student in your program, to explain your answers to the questions below by illustrating the relationships between energy, elements, and organisms. Use as much of the information available in the chapters on ecosystems you think you need to back up your claims. Do not forget to explain how the evidence is related to your claims.

What are some possible ways in which an ecosystem can be disrupted and what consequences might be associated with the removal or addition of elements or organisms in an ocean reef ecosystem?

Prompt 2 summary writing

Write a letter to Brian, a fifth grade student who has an enthusiasm for science. Recently, in his science class, he learned about ecosystems. He is eager to learn more about ecosystems.

Unfortunately, Brian had a minor car accident before his class was taught the unit on ecosystems. Let us suppose you are his neighbor and you want to help him. You think writing a letter to help him understand the unit is a good idea. In this writing activity, you are asked to describe and explain ecosystems, specifically ecosystems within ocean reefs. Here are a few rules you need to remember.

1. You are writing a letter rather than a formal scientific explanation.

2. Brian is younger than you and his knowledge of science is not as developed as yours.

Particularly, you may need to choose vocabulary words and terminology carefully to help him understand. For example, he might not be able to understand a word such as photosynthesis; therefore, you should restate technical terms to ensure comprehension for students on a fifth grade level. You may also draw pictures in order to effectively express your ideas. Your drawings may help Brian further understand your explanation. Remember that scientists always use multiple representations.

Standard 1: Scientists like explanations that clearly state causes and effects.

Standard 2: Scientists like explanations that are coherent.

Standard 3: Scientists like explanations that provide evidence.

Standard 4: Scientists like explanations that link evidence to claims.

Just as a reminder your letter should include multiple aspects reef ecosystems.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lamb, R.L., Etopio, E., Hand, B. et al. Virtual Reality Simulation: Effects on Academic Performance Within Two Domains of Writing in Science. J Sci Educ Technol 28, 371–381 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09774-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09774-y

Keywords

Navigation