Advertisement

Design Considerations for Haptic-Enabled Virtual Reality Simulation for Interactive Learning of Nanoscale Science in Schools

  • Mary WebbEmail author
  • Megan Tracey
  • William Harwin
  • Ozan Tokatli
  • Faustina Hwang
  • Ros Johnson
  • Natasha Barrett
  • Chris Jones
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1044)

Abstract

This paper reports on a study which investigated whether the addition of haptics (virtual touch) to a 3D virtual reality (VR) simulation promotes understanding of key nanoscale concepts in membrane systems for students aged 12 to 13. We developed a virtual model of a section of the cell membrane and a haptic enabled interface that enables students to interact with the model and to manipulate objects in the model. Students, in two schools in England, worked collaboratively in pairs on activities designed to develop their understanding of key concepts of cell membrane function. Results of pre-and post-tests of conceptual knowledge and understanding showed significant knowledge gains but there were no significant differences between the haptic and non-haptic condition. However, findings from observation of the activities and student interviews revealed that students were very positive about using the system and believed that being able to feel structures and manipulate objects within the model assisted their learning. We examine some of the design challenges and issues affecting the perception of haptic feedback.

Keywords

Haptics Virtual reality Cell biology Science learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are pleased to acknowledge support for this work from the Leverhulme Foundation project ‘3D Learning in a Rich, Cooperative Haptic Environment’. We are also pleased to thank our colleagues on this project Jon Rashid, Carleen Houbart, Phil James, Richard Fisher, and Simon Bliss as well as all the students who participated.

References

  1. 1.
    Tokatli, O., et al.: Haptic interactions to support biology education: navigating the cell. Euro haptics, Imperial College, London (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Webb, M., et al.: The potential for haptic-enabled interaction to support collaborative learning in school biology. In: Resta, P., Smith, S. (eds.) Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017, pp. 927–935. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Austin (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tuckey, H., Selvaratnam, M.: Studies involving three-dimensional visualisation skills in chemistry: a review. Stud. Sci. Educ. 21, 99–121 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilbert, J.K.: Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science and science education. In: Gilbert, J.K. (ed.) Visualization in Science Education. MMSE, vol. 1, pp. 9–27. Springer, Dordrecht (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3613-2_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Webb, M.: Impact of IT on science education. In: Voogt, J., Knezek, G. (eds.) International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. SIHE, vol. 20, pp. 133–148. Springer, Boston (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73315-9_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shams, L., Seitz, A.R.: Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends Cogn. Sci. 12, 411–417 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paivio, A.: Mental imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychol. Rev. 76, 241 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paivio, A.: Intelligence, dual coding theory, and the brain. Intelligence 47, 141–158 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learn. Instr. 22, 449–457 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., Zambrano, R.J.: From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collaborative Learn. 13, 213–233 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learn. Instr. 4, 295–312 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flores, F., Tovar, M.E., Gallegos, L.: Representation of the cell and its processes in high school students: an integrated view. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 269–286 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malińska, L., Rybska, E., Sobieszczuk-Nowicka, E., Adamiec, M.: Teaching about water relations in plant cells: an uneasy struggle. CBE-Life Sci. Educ., 15, ar78 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hellenkamp, B., et al.: Precision and accuracy of single-molecule FRET measurements—a multi-laboratory benchmark study. Nat. Methods 15, 669–676 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deng, D., et al.: Crystal structure of the human glucose transporter GLUT1. Nature 510, 121 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campbell, J.L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., Pedersen, O.K.: Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociol. Methods Res. 42, 294–320 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Culbertson, H., Schorr, S.B., Okamura, A.M.: Haptics: the present and future of artificial touch sensation. Ann. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 1, 385–409 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lukas, S., Philipp, A.M., Koch, I.: Switching attention between modalities: further evidence for visual dominance. Psychol. Res. PRPF 74, 255–267 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Webb
    • 1
    Email author
  • Megan Tracey
    • 1
  • William Harwin
    • 2
  • Ozan Tokatli
    • 2
  • Faustina Hwang
    • 2
  • Ros Johnson
    • 3
  • Natasha Barrett
    • 2
  • Chris Jones
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Education, Communication and SocietyKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  3. 3.The AbbeyReadingUK

Personalised recommendations