Advertisement

Exploring the Relationship Between Attentional Capture and Prior Knowledge in a Science-Based Multi-user Virtual Environment: an Individual Growth Model Analysis

  • M. Shane TutwilerEmail author
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, we investigate trends in the relationship between what students know and the types of data that capture their attention over time in a science-based multi-user virtual environment. Longitudinal analyses of the patterns of data collected by 143 middle school students (nested within 5 teachers) showed that student prior knowledge was marginally (p < .10) related to variation in the attentional value (visibility and location) of data they collected over time, explaining about 2% of said variation. By contrast, accounting for the clustering of students by teacher was statistically significantly (p < .05) related to variation in trends in attentional values and explained 36% of said variation.

Keywords

Multi-user virtual environments MUVEs Longitudinal analysis Attention Perception 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded in part by National Science Foundation grants 1118530 0845632 and by IES grant R305A080514.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study (as outlined in the manuscript).

Supplementary material

10956_2019_9766_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)
10956_2019_9766_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 15 kb)
10956_2019_9766_MOESM3_ESM.docx (320 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 319 kb)

References

  1. Allen, R. (2006). Priorities in practice: the essentials of science, grades K–6. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, R. S. J. d., Ocumpaugh, J., Gowda, S. M., Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S. J. (2014). Extending log-based affect detection to a multi-user virtual environment for science. In V. Dimitrova, T. Kuflik, D. Chin, F. Ricci, P. Dolog, & G. Houben (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 8538. User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization (pp. 290-300). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Börner, K., & Penumarthy, S. (2003). Social diffusion patterns in three-dimensional virtual worlds. Inf Vis, 2(3), 182–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, J. A., Tutwiler, M. S., Metcalf, S. J., Kamarainen, A., Grotzer, T. A., & Dede, C. J. (2016). A multi-user virtual environment to support students’ self-efficacy and interest in science: a latent growth model analysis. Learn Instr, 41, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, J. (2009). Exploring the complexity of inquiry learning in an open-ended problem space. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, J., Dede, C., & Dieterle, E. (2008). Immersive learning environments in K-12 education. In International handbook of Information Technology in Education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Colosi, J. C., & Zales, C. R. (1998). Jigsaw cooperative learning improves biology lab courses. Bioscience, 48(2), 118–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Courter, C. J., Grotzer, T. A., Derbiszewska, K. M., Powell, M., Tutwiler, M. S., Kamrarainen, A., Metcalf, S., Dede, C. (2014). A case study contrasting students’ explorations behaviors of a complex causal scenario in a virtual world: mapping proximity and goal-directed behaviors in EcoMUVE. National Association for the Research of Science Teaching (NARST) Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, Spring 2014.Google Scholar
  9. De Baz, T. (2001). The effectiveness of the jigsaw cooperative learning on students' achievement and attitudes toward science. Sci Educ Int, 12(4), 6–11.Google Scholar
  10. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910), 66–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem-based learning: a meta-analysis. Learn Instr, 13(5), 533–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dukas, G. (2009). Characterizing student navigation in educational multiuser virtual environments: a case study using data from the River City project. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  13. Grotzer, T. A. (2012). Learning causality in a complex world: Understandings of consequence. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Grotzer, T. A., & Derbiszewska, K. (2011). Causal dynamics assessment. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College.Google Scholar
  15. Grotzer, T. A., & Tutwiler, M. S. (2014). Simplifying causal complexity: how interactions between modes of causal induction and information availability lead to heuristic-driven reasoning. Mind Brain Educ, 8(3), 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grotzer, T. A., Tutwiler, M. S., Kamarainen, A. M., Derbiszewska, K., Metcalf, S. J., Dede, C. J. (2016). Students’ reasoning tendencies about the causal dynamics of ecosystems and the impacts of MUVE vs. non-MUVE instructional contexts. Presented at the annual meeting for the American education research association (AERA), Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. Hagmayer, Y. (2016). Causal Bayes nets as psychological theories of causal reasoning: evidence from psychological research. Synthese, 193(4), 1107–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrington, M. C. R. (2011). Empirical evidence of priming, transfer, reinforcement, and learning in the real and virtual trillium trails. IEEE Trans Learn Technol, 2(2), 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haruehansawasin, S., & Kiattikomol, P. (2018). Scaffolding in problem-based learning for low-achieving learners. J Educ Res, 111(3), 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hume, D. (1777). Enquiries concerning the human understanding, and concerning the principles of morals. L.A.Selby-Bigge (Ed) 1902.Google Scholar
  21. Kafai, Y., Queintero, M., & Feldon, D. (2010). Investigating the ‘why’ in Whypox: causal and systematic explorations of a virtual epidemic. Games & Culture, 5(1), 116–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.Google Scholar
  23. 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. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi‐user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56–68.Google Scholar
  25. Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B., Schifter, C. C., & Kim, Y. (2013). Improving science assessments by situating them in a virtual environment. Education Sciences, 3(2), 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Melloni, L., van Leeuwen, S., Alink, A., & Muller, N. G. (2012). Interaction between bottom-up saliency and top-down control: how saliency maps are created in the human brain. Cereb Cortex, 22(12), 2943–2952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Metcalf, S., & Kamarainen, A. M. (2011). EcoMVE content knowledge assessment. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College.Google Scholar
  28. Metcalf, S., Kamarainen, A., Tutwiler, M. S., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2011). Ecosystem science learning via multi-user virtual environments. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 3(1), 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Metcalf, S. J., Tutwiler, M. S, Kamarainen, A., Grotzer, T. A., & Dede, C. J. (2013). Multi-User virtual environments to promote middle school ecosystem science learning and attitudes about science. San Francisco, CA American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: history, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, B. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual environment. The Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. Penumarthy, S. and Börner, K. (2006). Analysis and visualization of social diffusion patterns in three-dimensional virtual worlds. In R. Schroeder & A.-S. Axelsson (Eds.), Computer supported cooperative work: Avatars at work and play: Collaboration and interaction in shared virtual environments (Vol. 34, chapter 3, pp. 39–61). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educ Psychol, 42(2), 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Snow, J. C., Allen, H. A., Rafal, R. D., & Humphreys, G. W. (March 2009). Impaired attentional selection following lesions to human pulvinar: evidence for homology between human and monkey. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 106(10), 4054–4059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walther, D., Itti, L., Reisenhuber, M., Poggio, T., & Koch, C. (2002). Attentional selection for object recognition––a gentle way. Proc., 2nd workshop on biologically motivated computer vision BMCV200: 472–479.Google Scholar
  38. Wickens, C. D., & McCarley, J. (2008). Applied attention theory. BocaRaton, FL: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  39. Wickens, C., McCarley, J., & Steelman-Allen, K. (2009). NT-SEEV: a model of attention capture and noticing on the flight deck. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 769–773). SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations