Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating Students’ Explanations about Friction Concepts after Interacting with a Visuohaptic Simulation with Two Different Sequenced Approaches

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

Abstract

The current study investigates the differences in students’ explanations of friction concepts after the use of the visuohaptic simulation with two different of sequenced approaches: enhanced visual first to enhanced visual and haptic feedback second (V → V + H), and haptic enhanced first to enhanced visual and haptic feedback second (H → V + H). Participants were students from a midwestern university who participated as part of their physics course assignments during the Fall of 2017 (n = 29). Participants first received a lecture about friction concepts, followed by the pretest. Then, they participated in a laboratory session where they interacted with the visuohaptic simulation and completed the posttest. Participants answered two conceptual questions at the different stages of the study, the first conceptual question was regarding the role of the objects’ weight in friction, and the second conceptual question was regarding the role of the objects’ size in friction. Results suggest three major findings: (a) the visuohaptic simulation had a positive influence in students’ conceptual knowledge; (b) students in the H → V + H sequenced approach outperformed the students in the V → V + H approach; and (c) the role of the object weight in friction resulted in an intuitive concept for the students, while the role of the object size in friction resulted in a counterintuitive concept for the students. Possible explanations of our findings are further discussed.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamson, D., & Lindgren, R. (2014). Embodiment and embodied design. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (second edi ed., pp. 358–376). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M. T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers in Education, 53(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 62(1), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, D. T., & Etkina, E. (2007). Using conceptual metaphor and functional grammar to explore how language used in physics affects student learning. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 3(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.010105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C., Salzman, M., Loftin, R. B., & Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory immersion as a modeling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. In W. Feurzeig & N. Roberts (Eds.), Modeling and simulation in science and mathematics education (pp. 282–319). New York, NY: Springer.

  • Dollar, A., & Steif, P. (2006). Learning modules for statics. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(2), 381–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dove, G. (2014). Thinking in words: language as an embodied medium of thought. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(3), 371–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). A framework for characterizing features of students’ epistemological reasoning in science. In Young people’s images of science(pp. 112–117). Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

  • El Saddik, A. (2007). The potential of haptics technologies. IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Magazine, 10(1), 10–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, J. P., & Barner, K. E. (1999). Design of a haptic data visualization system for people with visual impairments. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, 7(3), 372–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, K. S., & Stanney, K. M. (2004). Deriving haptic design guidelines from human physiological, psychophysical, and neurological foundations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 24(2), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2004.1274059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, I., & Black, J. B. (2011). Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Computers in Education, 57(4), 2281–2290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M., & Magana, A. (2015). Haptic technologies to support learning. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational technology (pp. 331–332). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. In Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). In J. Green (Ed.), Talking science: language, learning, and values. New York: Ablex publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwerse, M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2008). Language comprehension is both embodied and symbolic. In M. de Vega, A. Gelnberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and embodiment: debates on meaning and cognition (pp. 309–326). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0015

  • Magana, A., & Balachandran, S. (2017a). Students’ development of representational competence through the sense of touch. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(3), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9682-9

  • Magana, A., & Balachandran, S. (2017b). Unpacking students’ conceptualizations through haptic feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magana, A., Sanchez, K. L., Shaikh, U. A. S., Gail Jones, M., Tan, H. Z., Guayaquil, A., & Benes, B. (2017). Exploring multimedia principles for supporting conceptual learning of electricity and magnetism with visuohaptic simulations. Computers in Education Journal, 8(2), 8–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magana, A., Serrano, M., & Rebello, N. S. (2019). A sequenced multimodal learning approach to support students’ development of conceptual learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12356.

  • Mayer, R. (2009). Multimedia learning. Multimedia learning (second edi ed.). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811678.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McLinden, M., & McCall, S. (2003). Learning through touch: supporting children with visual impairments and additional difficulties.(book review). ACE Bulletin, 113.

  • Mejia, J., Goodridge, W., Call, B., & Wood, S. (2016). Manipulatives in engineering statics: supplementing analytical techniques with physical models. In ASEE 123rd Annual Conference and Exposition. New Orleans, Louisiana: ASEE Conferences. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25673

  • Meltzer, D. E. (2004). Investigation of students’ reasoning regarding heat, work, and the first law of thermodynamics in an introductory calculus-based general physics course. American Journal of Physics, 72(11), 1432–1446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meteyard, L., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2007). Motion detection ald motion verbs: language affects low-level visual perception. Psychological Science, 18(11), 1007–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meteyard, L., Zokaei, N., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Visual motion interferes with lexical decision on motion words. Current Biology, 18(17), R732–R733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minogue, J., & Borland, D. (2016). Investigating students’ ideas about buoyancy and the influence of haptic feedback. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9585-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, J. L., & Steif, P. (2008). Student thinking about static equilibrium: Insights from written explanations to a concept question. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4), 481–490 Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00994.x.

  • O’Malley, M., & Gupta, A. (2008). Haptic interfaces. In HCI Beyond the GUI (pp. 25–73). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374017-5.00002-X.

  • Okamura, A. M. (Johns H. U., Richard, C. (Eti I. )., & Cutkosky, Mark R. (Stanford U. (2002). Feeling is believing : using a force-feedback. English Education, vol(July), 91no3pp345–349.

  • Rubin, A. (2012). Satistics for evidence-based practice and evaluation (Student ed.). Cengage Learning, Inc.

  • Rueschemeyer, S.-A., Glenberg, A. M., Kaschak, M., Mueller, K., & Friederici, A. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up contributions to understanding sentences describing objects in motion, Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 183. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00183

  • Schönborn, K. J., Bivall, P., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2011). Exploring relationships between students’ interaction and learning with a haptic virtual biomolecular model. Computers in Education, 57(3), 2095–2105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steif, P. (2004). An articulation of the concepts and skills which underlie engineering statics. In 34th Annual Frontiers in Education, (pp. 559–564). Savannah, GA: IEEE https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2004.1408579.

  • Steif, P., & Dantzler, J. A. (2005). A statics concept inventory: development and psychometric analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(4), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00864.x.

  • Steif, P., & Dollar, A. (2003). A new approach to teaching and learning statics. In ASEE 110rd Annual Conference and Exposition (pp. 22–25). Nashville, TN

  • Steif, P., & Dollar, A (2005). Reinventing the teaching of statics. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(4).

  • Steif, P., LoBoue, J., Fay, A., Burak, K., & Spencer, S. (2007). Inducing students to contemplate concept-eliciting questions and the effect on problem solving performance. In ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition . Honolulu, Hawaii.

  • Steif, P., Lobue, J. M., Kara, L. B., & Fay, A. L. (2010). Improving problem solving performance by inducing talk about salient problem features. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01050.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streveler, R. A., Litzinger, T. A., Miller, R. L., & Steif, P. (2008). In the engineering sciences: overview and future research directions. Journal of Engineering Education, (July), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00979.x.

  • Streveler, R. A., Brown, S., Herman, G. L., & Montfort, D. (2015). Conceptual change and misconceptions in engineering education: curriculum, measurement, and theory-focused approaches. In Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 83–102). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.008.

  • Walsh, Y., Magana, A., Yuksel, T., Krs, V., Ngambeki, I. B., Berger, E. J., & Benes, B. (2017). Identifying affordances of physical manipulatives tools for the design of visuo-haptic simulations. In ASEE 124rd Annual Conference and Exposition. Columbus, Ohio

  • White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. In Probing understanding (pp. 44–64). New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Yuksel, T., Walsh, Y., Ngambeki, I. B., Berger, E. J., & Magana, A. (2017). Exploration of affordances of visuo-haptic simulations to learn the concept of friction. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–9). Indianapolis: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190471

  • Yuksel, T., Walsh, Y., Magana, A. J., Nova, N., Krs, V., Ngambeki, I., Berger, E., Benes, B. (2019). Visuohaptic experiments: exploring the effects of visual and haptic feedback on students’ learning of friction concepts. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27(6), 1376–1401. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22157.

  • Zacharia, Z. C. (2015). Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation: a literature review of two different lines of research across K-16. Educational Research Review, 16, 116–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part from U.S. National Science Foundation under the award EEC #1606396. Any Opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer and Information Technology, Purdue University, 401 N. Grant Street, Knoy Hall of Technology, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA

    Yoselyn Walsh, Alejandra J. Magana & Shi Feng

  2. School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA

    Alejandra J. Magana

  3. School of Industria Design, Tecnologico de Costa Rica, Cartago, Costa Rica

    Yoselyn Walsh

Authors
  1. Yoselyn Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alejandra J. Magana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shi Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandra J. Magana.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

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.

Consent

This study was deemed as exempted per the Institution’s IRB and therefore consent was not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Appendices

Appendix A

Table 4 Language themes
Full size table

Appendix B

Table 5 Classification of students’ answers
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walsh, Y., Magana, A.J. & Feng, S. Investigating Students’ Explanations about Friction Concepts after Interacting with a Visuohaptic Simulation with Two Different Sequenced Approaches. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 443–458 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09829-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09829-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation