Earth science learning in SMALLab: A design experiment for mixed reality



Conversational technologies such as email, chat rooms, and blogs have made the transition from novel communication technologies to powerful tools for learning. Currently virtual worlds are undergoing the same transition. We argue that the next wave of innovation is at the level of the computer interface, and that mixed-reality environments offer important advantages over prior technologies. Thus, mixed reality is positioned to have a broad impact on the future of K-12 collaborative learning. We propose three design imperatives that arise from our ongoing work in this area grounded in research from the learning sciences and human-computer interaction. By way of example, we present one such platform, the Situated Multimedia Arts Learning Lab [SMALLab]. SMALLab is a mixed-reality environment that affords face-to-face interaction by colocated participants within a mediated space. We present a recent design experiment that involved the development of a new SMALLab learning scenario and a collaborative student participation framework for a 3-day intervention for 72 high school earth science students. We analyzed student and teacher exchanges from classroom sessions both during the intervention and during regular classroom instruction and found significant increases in the number of student-driven exchanges within SMALLab. We also found that students made significant achievement gains. We conclude that mixed reality can have a positive impact on collaborative learning and that it is poised for broad dissemination into mainstream K-12 contexts.


K-12 learning Mixed reality Collaboration Teaching experiment Social computing Human-computer interaction Science learning 



We gratefully acknowledge that these materials document work supported by the MacArthur Foundation under the grant titled Gaming SMALLab: A game-like approach to embodied learning and by the National Science Foundation under CISE Infrastructure Grant No. 0403428 and IGERT Grant No. 0504647. We extend our gratitude to the students, teachers, and staff of Coronado High School.


  1. Arizona Department of Education. (2005). Arizona Academic Standards: Science Strand 6—Earth and Space Science, from
  2. Asllani, A., Ettkin, L., & Somasundar, A. (2008). Sharing knowledge with conversational technologies: Web logs versus discussion boards. International Journal of Information Technology and Management, 7(2), 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birchfield, D., Ciufo, T., Minyard, G., Qian, G., Savenye, W., Sundaram, H., et al. (2006). SMALLab: A mediated platform for education. Paper presented at the ACM SIGGRAPH, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Birchfield, D., Mechtley, B., Hatton, S., & Thornburg, H. (2008). Mixed-reality learning in the art museum context. Paper presented at the ACM SIG Multimedia, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
  5. Blackboard Inc. (2008). Blackboard: Educate, innovate, everywhere. Retrieved 07/25/2008, from
  6. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, A., & Palinscar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393–452). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, D., & Stroup, W. (1993). General systems theory: Toward a conceptual framework for science and technology education for all. Journal for Science Education and Technology, 2(3), 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Shauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cuthbertson, A., Hatton, S., Minyard, G., Piver, H., Todd, C., & Birchfield, D. (2007). Mediated education in a creative arts context: Research and practice at Whittier Elementary School. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children.Google Scholar
  12. Dede, C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2003). Designing for motivation and usability in a museum-based multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  13. Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., & Ruess, K. (2002). Motivation, usability and learning outcomes in a prototype museum-based multi-user virtual environment. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  14. diSessa, A. (1991). Local sciences: Viewing the design of human-computer systems as cognitive science. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 162–202). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning commuities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  17. EU Community Report, I. S. T. I. P. (2004). A multisensory environment design for an interface between autistic and typical expressiveness.Google Scholar
  18. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning on-line. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hatton, S., Birchfield, D., & Megowan-Romanowicz, M. C. (2008). Learning metaphor through mixed-reality game design and game play. Paper presented at the AMC Sandbox.Google Scholar
  21. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 732–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hestenes, D. (1996). Modeling methodology for physics teachers. Paper presented at the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  23. Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
  24. Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1984). Cooperative learning. New Brighton, MN: Interaction Book Co.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, H. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning. In J. Thousand, A. Villa & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning. Baltimore: Brookes Press.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, W., & Battiste, V. (2006). NASA Ames Flight Deck Display Research Laboratory: Boeing 777 Cockpit Simulator, 2008, from
  30. Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leh, A. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and social presence in a distance learning environment. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(2), 109–128.Google Scholar
  32. Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the Web. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  33. Lutgens, F., Tarbuck, E., & Tasa, D. (2004). Foundations of earth science (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Mesch, U., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1988). Impact of positive interdependence and academic group contingencies on achievement. Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 845–852.Google Scholar
  35. Moodle. (2008). Moodle—A free, open source course management system for online learning. Retrieved 07/25/2008, from
  36. Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Dieterle, E., Dede, C., & Erlandson, B. (2007). Robust design strategies for scaling educational innovations: The River City MUVE case study. The Educational Design and Use of Computer Simulation.Google Scholar
  37. Nesson, C., Nesson, R., & Koo, G. (Producer). (2007). CyberOne: Law in the Court of Public Opinion. Podcast retrieved from
  38. Pares, N., Carreras, A., Durany, J., Ferrer, J., Freixa, P., Gomez, D., et al. (2004). MEDIATE: An interactive multisensory environment for children with severe autism and no verbal communication. 3rd International Workshop on Virtual Rehabilitation (IWVR’04).Google Scholar
  39. Pares, N., Masri, P., vanWolferen, G., & Creed, C. (2005). Achieving dialogue with children with severe autism in an adaptive multisensory interaction: The MEDIATE project. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 11(6), 734–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raitman, R., Augar, N., & Zhou, W. (2005). Employing wikis for online collaboration in the e-learning environment: Case study. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Information Technology and Applications, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  41. Rick, J., Guzdial, M., Carroll, K., Holloway-Attaway, L., & Walker, B. (2002). Collaborative learning at low cost: CoWeb use in English composition. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  42. Slavin, R. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory research, and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  43. Slavin, R. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sukthankar, R. (2005). Towards ambient projection for intelligent environments. Paper presented at the Computer Vision for Interactive and Intelligent Environment, Madonna di Campiglio, Italy.Google Scholar
  45. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wren, C. R., Basu, S., Sparacino, F., & Pentland, A. (1999). Combining audio and video in perceptive spaces. Paper presented at the Managing Interactions in Smart Environments, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts, Media and EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.School of Educational Innovation and Teacher PreparationArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations