Advertisement

Immersive Learning for Scale and Order of Magnitude in Newtonian Mechanics

  • Trevor BrownEmail author
  • Jason LomsdalenEmail author
  • Irene Humer
  • Christian EckhardtEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1044)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding on the role of immersive learning in regards to one’s intuition on the order of magnitude and scale, by using projectile motion as an example of Newton mechanics. We developed a semi-tangible virtual reality (VR) application that serves as virtual learning environment (VLE). In this application, participants throw objects and explore the effects of different conditions, such as variations in gravity and air density. A questionnaire was conducted prior to and following the VR experience. Its purpose was to assess the participant’s skill in estimating an object’s behavior in varying conditions and their perception of the immersive experience. The VLE aimed to immersively train the participants to improve their perception of the scale and order of magnitude of key variables in Newtonian Physics. Our studies have shown that a semi-tangible virtual reality application improves the intuition of the scale and order of magnitude for the given Newtonian sample system and provide a highly immersive experience.

Keywords

Immersive learning Newton Newtonian mechanics Order of magnitude Scale Perspective Virtual Reality Learning Environment VR VLE 

References

  1. 1.
    Brown, D., Clement, J.: Classroom teaching experiments in mechanics. In: Duit, R., Goldberg, F., Niedderer, H. (eds.) Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, pp. 380–397. IPN, Kiel (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pan, Z., Cheok, A.-D., Yang, H., Zhu, J., Shi, J.: Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kondo, K.: Augmented Learning Environment using Mixed Reality Technology. National Institute of Multimedia Education (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abdoli-Sejzi, A.: Augmented reality and virtual learning environment. Comput. Graph. 30 (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adams, W., et al.: A study of educational simulations Part I - engagement and learning. J. Interact. Learn. Res. 19 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hong, R.: Immersion in reading and film as a function of personality. BSc thesis, Department of Psychology, University College London, U (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jennett, C., et al.: Measuring and defining the experience of immersion in games. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 66, 641–661 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cairns, P., Cox, A.-L., Nordin, A.-I.: Immersion in digital games: review of gaming experience research. In: Angelides, M.C., Agius, H. (eds.) Handbook of Digital Games, pp. 337–361. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chinta, R.: Measurements of Game Immersion through Subjective Approach. urn:nbn:se:bth-14825 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cox, A., Cairns, P., Bianchi-Berthouze, N., Jennett, C.: The Use of Eyetracking for Measuring Immersion (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    IJsselsteijn, W.-A., de Kort, Y.-A.-W., Poels, K.: The Game Experience Questionnaire. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dede, C.J., Salzman, M.C., Loftin, R.B.: virtual realities for learning complex and abstract scientific concepts, VRAIS (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dede, C.J., Salzman, M., Loftin, R.B.: The development of a virtual world for learning Newtonian mechanics. In: Brusilovsky, P., Kommers, P., Streitz, N. (eds.) MHVR 1996. LNCS, vol. 1077, pp. 87–106. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61282-3_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Linden, A., van Joolingen, W.: A serious game for interactive teaching of Newton’s laws. In: VRCAI 2016 Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Europe Symposium on Simulation and Serious Gaming, pp. 165–167 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaufmann, H., Meyer, B.: Physics education in virtual reality: an example. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. Spec. Issue 2, 117–130 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tomara, M., Tselfes, V., Gouscos, D.: Instructional strategies to promote conceptual change about force and motion: a review of the literature. Themes Sci. Technol. Educ. 10(1), 1–16 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winn, W.: The impact of three-dimensional immersive virtual environments on modern pedagogy. HITL Technical report R-97-15. Discussion paper for NSF Workshop. Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 30 May 1997Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shute, V., Ventura, M., Kim, Y.J.: Assessment and learning of qualitative physics in Newton’s playground. J. Educ. Res. 106, 423–430 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaufmann, H., Meyer, B.: Simulating educational physical experiments in augmented reality. In: SIGGRAPH Asia ’08 ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 Educators Programme (2008). Article No. 3Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clark, D.B., Nelson, B.C., Chang, H.-Y., Martinez-Garza, M., Slack, K., D’Angelo, C.M.: Exploring Newtonian mechanics in a conceptually-integrated digital game: comparison of learning and affective outcomes for students in Taiwan and the United States. Comput. Educ. 57(3), 2178–2195 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    San Chee, Y.: Virtual reality in education: rooting learning in experience. Invited talk. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Virtual Education 2001, Dongseo University, Busan, South Korea, pp. 43–54. Symposium Organizing Committee (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Desai, S., Blackler, A., Popovic, V.: Intuitive interaction in a mixed reality system. In: Design Research Society, Brighton, UK, 27–30 June 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Desai, S., Blackler, A., Popovic, V.: Intuitive use of tangibles Toys. In: IASDR (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gardner, M., Elliott, J.B.: The Immersive Education Laboratory: understanding affordances, structuring experiences, and creating constructivist, collaborative processes, in mixed-realitysmart environments. Trans. Futur. Intell. Educ. Environ. 1, 1–13 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA

Personalised recommendations