Advertisement

Prompting Connections Between Content and Context: Blending Immersive Virtual Environments and Augmented Reality for Environmental Science Learning

  • Amy M. Kamarainen
  • Meredith Thompson
  • Shari J. Metcalf
  • Tina A. Grotzer
  • Michael Shane Tutwiler
  • Chris Dede
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 840)

Abstract

Outdoor field trip experiences are a cornerstone of quality environmental science instruction, yet the excitement and distractions associated with field trips can overwhelm learning objectives. Augmented reality (AR) can focus students’ attention and help them connect the concept rich domain of the classroom with the context rich experiences in the field. In this study, students used an immersive virtual pond, and then participated in a field trip to a real pond augmented by mobile technologies. We are interested in understanding whether and how augmenting a field trip with information via handheld mobile devices can help students connect concepts learned in the classroom with observations during the field trip. Specifically, we are curious about how augmentation allows students to “see the unseen” in concepts such as photosynthesis and respiration as well as apply causal reasoning patterns they learned about in the classroom while using an inquiry-based immersive virtual environment, EcoMUVE. We designed an AR supported field trip with three different treatments: (1) a ‘visual’ treatment in which students were prompted to consider content or perspectives from EcoMUVE using videos and animations (2) a ‘text’ treatment in which students were prompted to consider content or perspectives from EcoMUVE using text and images, and (3) a ‘control’ treatment that did not specifically prompt students to think about content or perspectives from EcoMUVE. We used a mixed-methods research approach and collected data based on pre, mid, and post surveys; student responses to prompts captured in the notes and log files during the field trip; a post-field-trip survey; and performance on an in-class written assignment. On the field trip, we found that students in all three treatments more frequently referred to visible factors and direct effects than to invisible factors and indirect effects. There were few discernible differences between the text and visual prompted treatments based on responses in the notes and log files captured during the field trip. After the field trip, students exposed to the prompted treatments were more likely to describe invisible factors such as wind, weather, and human impacts, while students exposed to the control treatment continued to focus on visible features such as aquatic plants. These findings provide insights to designers who aim to support learning activities in outdoor and immersive learning environments.

Keywords

Immersive learning Augmented reality Outdoor education Science learning Field trip Environmental science Ecosystems Design Scaffolding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our appreciation to Lindsay Evans, Jared B. Fries, Ihudiya Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Shruthi Lakshmi Saravanan, and Mayer Chalom for their assistance in coding the data. EcoMOBILE research was supported by National Science Foundation grant no. 1118530 and by Qualcomm Wireless Reach Initiative. AR activities were developed using FreshAiR by MoGo Mobile, Inc. TI Nspire graphing calculators with Vernier probes were provided by Texas Instruments, Inc. All opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Shelton, B.E., Hedley, N.R.: Using augmented reality for teaching earth-sun relationships to undergraduate geography students. In: First IEEE International Workshop, Augmented Reality Toolkit, 8-p. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klopfer, E.: Augmented Reality: Research and Design of Mobile Educational Games. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Research Council: Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. National Academies Press, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bitgood, S.: School field trips: an overview. Visit. Behav. 5(2), 3–6 (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garner, L., Gallo, M.: Field trips and their effects on student achievement and attitudes: a comparison of physical versus virtual field trips to the Indian river lagoon. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 34(5), 14–17 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gottfried, J.: Do children learn on field trips? Curator: Mus. J. 23, 165–174 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knapp, D., Barrie, E.: Content evaluation of an environmental science field trip. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 10(4), 351–357 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ballantyne, R., Packer, J.: Nature-based excursions: school students’ perceptions of learning in natural environments. Int. Res. Geograph. Environ. Educ. 11(3), 218–230 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manzanal, R.F., Rodriguez Barreiro, L., Casal Jimenez, M.: Relationship between ecology fieldwork and student attitudes toward environmental protection. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36(4), 431–453 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bogner, F.X.: The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspective. J. Environ. Educ. 29(4), 17–29 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falk, J.H.: Field trips: a look at environmental effects on learning. J. Biolog. Educ. 17(2), 137–142 (1983). RoutledgeMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orion, N., Hofstein, A.: Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 31(10), 1097–1119 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eberbach, C., Crowley, K.: From everyday to scientific observation: how children learn to observe the biologist’s world. Rev. Educ. Res. 79(1), 39–68 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., Mitchell, R.: Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 18(1), 7–22 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kamarainen, A.M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D., Tutwiler, M.S., Dede, C.: EcoMOBILE: integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Comput. Educ. 68, 545–556 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perry, J., Klopfer, E., Norton, M., Sutch, D., Sandford, R., Facer, K.: AR gone wild: two approaches to using augmented reality learning games in zoos. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Learning Sciences (ICLS), The Netherlands (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Squire, K., Jan, M.: Mad city mystery: developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 16(1), 5–29 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Squire, K., Klopfer, E.: Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. J. Learn. Sci. 16(3), 371–413 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartz, D.L., Tsang, J.M., Blair, K.P.: The ABCs of How We Learn: 26 Scientifically Proven Approaches, How They Work, and When to Use Them. WW Norton & Company, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Antonioli, M., Blake, C., Sparks, K.: Augmented reality applications in education. J. Technol. Stud. 40, 96–107 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Billinghurst, M.: Augmented reality in education. New Horiz. Learn. 12(5), 314 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Metcalf, S., Kamarainen, A., Tutwiler, M.S., Grotzer, T., Dede, C.: Ecosystem science learning via multi-user virtual environments. Int. J. Gaming Comput.-Mediat. Simul. (IJGCMS) 3(1), 86–90 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grotzer, T.A., Kamarainen, A., Tutwiler, M.S., Metcalf, S., Dede, C.: Learning to reason about ecosystems dynamics over time: the challenges of an event-based causal focus. Bioscience 63(4), 288–296 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kamarainen, A.M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Dede, C.: Exploring ecosystems from the inside: how immersive multi-user virtual environments can support development of epistemologically grounded modeling practices in ecosystem science instruction. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 24(2–3), 148–167 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Creswell, J.W., Creswell, J.D.: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G.: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159–174 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carey, J.W., Morgan, M., Oxtoby, M.J.: Intercoder agreement in analysis of responses to open-ended interview questions: examples from tuberculosis research. Cult. Anthropol. Methods 8(3), 1–5 (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Perkins, D.N., Jay, E., Tishman, S.: Beyond abilities: a dispositional theory of thinking. Merrill-Palmer Q. 39, 1–21 (1993)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grotzer, T.A., Tutwiler, M.S., Kamarainen, A.M., Derbiszewska, K.M., Metcalf, S.J., Dede, C.J.: Students’ reasoning tendencies about the causal dynamics of ecosystems and the impacts of MUVE vs. non-MUVE instructional contexts. In: The Next Phase of Research in Complex Systems in Science Education, American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference, Washington D.C, April 2016Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grotzer, T.A., Basca, B.B.: How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students’ understanding? J. Biol. Educ. 38(1), 16–29 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy M. Kamarainen
    • 1
  • Meredith Thompson
    • 2
  • Shari J. Metcalf
    • 1
  • Tina A. Grotzer
    • 1
  • Michael Shane Tutwiler
    • 3
  • Chris Dede
    • 1
  1. 1.Harvard Graduate School of EducationCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.University of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations