Abstract
The focus of the current study is to understand which unique features of an immersive virtual reality environment have the potential to improve learning relative motion concepts. Thirty-seven undergraduate students learned relative motion concepts using computer simulation either in immersive virtual environment (IVE) or non-immersive desktop virtual environment (DVE) conditions. Our results show that after the simulation activities, both IVE and DVE groups exhibited a significant shift toward a scientific understanding in their conceptual models and epistemological beliefs about the nature of relative motion, and also a significant improvement on relative motion problem-solving tests. In addition, we analyzed students’ performance on one-dimensional and two-dimensional questions in the relative motion problem-solving test separately and found that after training in the simulation, the IVE group performed significantly better than the DVE group on solving two-dimensional relative motion problems. We suggest that egocentric encoding of the scene in IVE (where the learner constitutes a part of a scene they are immersed in), as compared to allocentric encoding on a computer screen in DVE (where the learner is looking at the scene from “outside”), is more beneficial than DVE for studying more complex (two-dimensional) relative motion problems. Overall, our findings suggest that such aspects of virtual realities as immersivity, first-hand experience, and the possibility of changing different frames of reference can facilitate understanding abstract scientific phenomena and help in displacing intuitive misconceptions with more accurate mental models.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barab SA, Dede C (2007) Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: an emerging type of curricula. J Sci Educ Technol 16(1):1–3
Barfield W, Hendrix C (1995) Experiments investigating presence. In: Proceedings of the meeting of the virtual reality annual international symposium, Chapel Hill, NC
Beichner RJ (1994) Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. Am J Phys 62:750–762
Bell JT, Fogler HS (1998) Virtual reality in the chemical engineering classroom. In: Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education annual conference, Seattle, WA
Camp C, Clement J, Brown D, Gonzalez K, Kudukey J, Minstrell J, Schultz K, Steinberg M, Veneman V, Zietsman A (1994) Preconceptions in mechanics: lessons dealing with student’s conceptual difficulties. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque
Cemenasco AF, Bianchi CC, Tornincasa S, Bianchi SD (2004) The WEBD project: a research of new methodologies for a distant-learning 3D system prototype. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 33(6):403–408
Champagne AB, Klopfer LE, Anderson JH (1980) Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics. Am J Phys 48:1074–1079
Chumbley AE, Chumbley LS (2007) WebSEM: an assessment of K-12 remote microscopy efforts. Scanning 29(1):20–26
Clancey WJ (1993) Situated action: a neuropsychological interpretation: response to Vera and Simon. Cogn Sci 17:87–116
Cobb S, Neale H, Crosier J, Wilson JR (2002) Development and evaluation of virtual learning environments. In: Stanney KM (ed) Handbook of virtual environments: design, implementation, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah
Cockayne W, Darken RP (2003) The application of human ability requirements to virtual environment interface design and evaluation. In: Diaper D, Stanton N (eds) Handbook of task analysis for human–computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah
Cuevas A, Trevisi S (2001) Sunpath, internet-based solar engineering education. Renew Energy 22(1–3):99–104
Cutnell JD, Johnson KW (1995) Physics. Wiley, New York
Dede C (2000) Emerging influences of information technology on school curriculum. J Curriculum Stud 32(2):281–303
Gordon J (1996) Tracks for learning: metacognition and learning technologies. Aust J Educ Technol 12(1):46–55
Halliday D, Resnick R, Walker J (1993) Fundamentals of physics. Wiley, New York
Hestenes D (1995) What do graduate oral exam tell us? Am J Phys 63:1069
Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G (1992) Force concept inventory. Phys Teach 30:141–158
Hoffman HG, Hullfish KC, Houston S (1995) Virtual reality monitoring. Human Interface Technology Laboratory Technical Report, P-95-1, Seattle, WA
Hsu QC (2005) A direct circuit experiment system in non-immersive virtual environments for education and entertainment. Comput Appl Eng Educ 13(2):146–152
Kozhenikov M, Dhond R (2012) Understanding immersivity: image generation and transformation processes in 3D immersive environments. Front Psychol 3:1–10
Kozhevnikov M, Garcia A (2011) Visual-spatial learning and training in collaborative design in virtual environments. In: Wang X, Jen-Hung J (eds) Collaborative design in virtual environments. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 17–26
McDermott LC, Rosenquist ML, van Zee EH (1987) Student difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: examples from kinematics. Am J Phys 55(6):503–513
Metz K, Hammer D (1993) Learning physics in a computer microworld: in what sense a world? Interact Learn Environ 3:1–15
Monaghan JM, Clement J (1999) Use of computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts. Int J Sci Educ 21:921–944
Monaghan JM, Clement J (2000) Algorithms, visualization, and mental models: high school students’ interactions with relative motion simulations. J Sci Educ Technol 9:311–325
Pan CX, Smith S (2008) 3D stereo vision system effectiveness for engineering design and graphics education. Comput Appl Eng Educ 16:256–267
Saltiel E, Malgrange JL (1980) Spontaneous’ ways of reasoning in elementary kinematics. Eur J Phys 1:73–80
Seidel RJ, Cox KE (2003) Management issues in implementing education and training technology. In: O’Neil HF, Perez RS (eds) Technology applications in education: a learning view. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 323–340
Sequeira M, Leite L (1991) Alternative conceptions and history of science in physics teacher education. Sci Educ 75:45–56
Thornton RK (1997) Using large-scale classroom research to study student conceptual learning in mechanics and to develop new approaches to learning. In: Tinker RF (ed) Microcomputer-based labs: educational research and standards. Springer, Berlin
Trowbridge DE, McDermott LC (1981) Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension. Am J Phys 49:242–253
Ueno N, Arimoto N, Yoshioka A (1992) Learning physics by expanding the metacontext of phenomenon. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA
Winn W, Hoffman H, Hoolander A, Osberg K, Rose H (1997) The effect of student construction of virtual environments on the performance of high- and low-ability students. In: Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago
Zeltzer D (1992) Autonomy, interaction and presence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 1:127–132
Zietsman AI, Hewson PW (1986) Effect of instruction using microcomputer simulations and conceptual change strategies on science learning. J Res Sci Teach 23:27–39
Acknowledgments
This research has been supported in part by US National Science Foundation grant EEC-0935006.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Epistemological Belief Questionnaire
Make a cross on the vertical lines that represent your opinions
-
1.
Objects, which are moving in the real world, have one true velocity.
-
2.
There is one true velocity.
-
3.
The movement of the same object can be different from different perspectives.
-
4.
Some objects (e.g., houses, trees, etc.) cannot move relative to you.
-
5.
An object can be seen moving and not moving from different views.
Appendix 2: Relative Motion Problem Solving Questionnaire (an extract of two problems)
Please try to answer the following questionnaires. If you are not able to answer a question, please write “don’t know.”
-
1.
In the figure below, you are in the gray car. Your speedometer reads 40 km/h.
-
(a)
What is your car’s speed, relative to a very low flying helicopter going exactly in the same direction as your car, at a speed of 200 km/h relative to the ground?
Answer: _________________km/h.
-
(b)
A white truck is traveling toward you. If the truck’s speedometer reads 40 km/h, what is the truck’s speed relative to the helicopter?
Answer:_________________km/h.
-
2.
Two cars are driving along a rectangular road, as shown in the figure below. They are both driving with the same speed.
Circle the tip of the arrow that represents the velocity of the white car from gray car’s frame of reference.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kozhevnikov, M., Gurlitt, J. & Kozhevnikov, M. Learning Relative Motion Concepts in Immersive and Non-immersive Virtual Environments. J Sci Educ Technol 22, 952–962 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9441-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9441-0