Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching and Learning in the Mixed-Reality Science Classroom

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

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.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker DR, Piburn MD (1997) Constructing science in middle and secondary school classrooms. Allyn and Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Birchfield D, Ciufo T et al (2006) SMALLab: a mediated platform for education. ACM SIGGRAPH, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Birchfield D, Mechtley B et al (2008a) Mixed-reality learning in the art museum context. ACM SIG Multimedia, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS, Collins A et al (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver R, Asoko H et al (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educ Res 23(7):5–12

    Google Scholar 

  • DuFour R, DuFour R et al (2006) Learning by doing: a handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekstrom RB, French JW et al (1979) Cognitive factors: their identification and replication. Multivar Behav Res Monogr 79(2):3–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier G, Turner M (2002) The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee JP (2007) What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatton S, Birchfield D et al (2008) Learning metaphor through mixed-reality game design and game play. AMC Sandbox, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes D (1992) Modeling games in the Newtonian world. Am J Phys 60:732–748. doi:10.1119/1.17080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hord S (1997) Professional learning communities: communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1984) Cooperative learning. Interaction Book Co, New Brighton

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1989) Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Interaction Book Company, Edina

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DW, Johnson H (1991) Learning together and alone: cooperation, competition, and individualization. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapp D, Cyrus VF (2000) Using data-collection devices to enhance students’ understanding. Math Teach 93(6):504–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave J, Wenger E (1990) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn D (2005) Constructing an understanding of scientific inquiry. Teaching high school science through inquiry: a case study approach. Corwin Press, Rochester

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner C, Della Villa P (1997) DNA music. Sci Teach 64(5):19–21

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (U.S.) (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard K (2006) High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid–base phenomena. Chem Educ Res Pract 7(1):32–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin R (1995) Cooperative learning: theory research, and practice. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld E (1996) Introduction: aspects of constructivism. In: Fosnot CT (ed) Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. The Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Arts, Media and Engineering Program, Arizona State University, 699 South Mill Avenue, Room 395, Tempe, AZ, 85287-8709, USA

    Lisa Tolentino, David Birchfield, Aisling Kelliher & Christopher Martinez

  2. School of Educational Innovation and Teacher Preparation, Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus, 7271 E. Sonoran Arroyo Mall, Mesa, AZ, 85212, USA

    Colleen Megowan-Romanowicz

  3. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, 950 S. McAllister, Room 237, Tempe, AZ, 85287-1104, USA

    Mina C. Johnson-Glenberg

Authors
  1. Lisa Tolentino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Birchfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Colleen Megowan-Romanowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mina C. Johnson-Glenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aisling Kelliher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christopher Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Tolentino.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 29 kb)

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9166-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation