Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 501–517 | Cite as

Teaching and Learning in the Mixed-Reality Science Classroom

  • Lisa Tolentino
  • David Birchfield
  • Colleen Megowan-Romanowicz
  • Mina C. Johnson-Glenberg
  • Aisling Kelliher
  • Christopher Martinez
Article

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.

Keywords

Inquiry learning Interactivity Digital media Mixed-reality Chemistry Titration 

Supplementary material

10956_2009_9166_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (29 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 29 kb)

References

  1. Baker DR, Piburn MD (1997) Constructing science in middle and secondary school classrooms. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  2. Birchfield D, Ciufo T et al (2006) SMALLab: a mediated platform for education. ACM SIGGRAPH, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Birchfield D, Mechtley B et al (2008a) Mixed-reality learning in the art museum context. ACM SIG Multimedia, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  4. 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)Google Scholar
  5. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 393–452Google Scholar
  7. Brown JS, Collins A et al (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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, AalborgGoogle Scholar
  10. 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, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Dourish P (2001) Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Driver R, Asoko H et al (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educ Res 23(7):5–12Google Scholar
  14. DuFour R, DuFour R et al (2006) Learning by doing: a handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekstrom RB, French JW et al (1979) Cognitive factors: their identification and replication. Multivar Behav Res Monogr 79(2):3–84Google Scholar
  16. Fauconnier G, Turner M (2002) The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gee JP (2007) What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatton S, Birchfield D et al (2008) Learning metaphor through mixed-reality game design and game play. AMC Sandbox, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  20. 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)Google Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hestenes D (1992) Modeling games in the Newtonian world. Am J Phys 60:732–748. doi:10.1119/1.17080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hestenes D (1996) Modeling methodology for physics teachers. International Conference on Undergraduate Physics, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hord S (1997) Professional learning communities: communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1984) Cooperative learning. Interaction Book Co, New BrightonGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1989) Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Interaction Book Company, EdinaGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnson DW, Johnson H (1991) Learning together and alone: cooperation, competition, and individualization. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lapp D, Cyrus VF (2000) Using data-collection devices to enhance students’ understanding. Math Teach 93(6):504–510Google Scholar
  32. Lave J, Wenger E (1990) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Llewellyn D (2005) Constructing an understanding of scientific inquiry. Teaching high school science through inquiry: a case study approach. Corwin Press, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  34. Megowan C (2007) Framing discourse for optimal learning in science and mathematics. PhD, College of Education, Division of Curriculum and Instruction, Tempe, p 247Google Scholar
  35. 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 EducationGoogle Scholar
  36. Mesch U, Johnson DW et al (1988) Impact of positive interdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement. J Soc Psychol 28:845–852Google Scholar
  37. Miner C, Della Villa P (1997) DNA music. Sci Teach 64(5):19–21Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council (U.S.) (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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):245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sheppard K (2006) High school students’ understanding of titrations and related acid–base phenomena. Chem Educ Res Pract 7(1):32–45Google Scholar
  47. Slavin R (1995) Cooperative learning: theory research, and practice. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. von Glasersfeld E (1996) Introduction: aspects of constructivism. In: Fosnot CT (ed) Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. The Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa Tolentino
    • 1
  • David Birchfield
    • 1
  • Colleen Megowan-Romanowicz
    • 2
  • Mina C. Johnson-Glenberg
    • 3
  • Aisling Kelliher
    • 1
  • Christopher Martinez
    • 1
  1. 1.Arts, Media and Engineering ProgramArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.School of Educational Innovation and Teacher PreparationArizona State University Polytechnic CampusMesaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations