Advertisement

Mathland: Constructionist Mathematical Learning in the Real World Using Immersive Mixed Reality

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 840)

Abstract

Mathematical experiences are intrinsic to our everyday lives, yet mathematics education is mostly confined to textbooks. Seymour Papert used the term ‘Mathland’ to propose a world where one would learn mathematics as naturally as one learns French while growing up in France. We built a Mixed Reality application that augments the physical world with interactive mathematical concepts to enable constructionist mathematical learning in the real world. Using Mathland, people can collaboratively explore, experience and experiment with mathematical phenomena in playful, applied and exploratory ways. We implemented Mathland using the Microsoft Hololens and two custom controllers to afford complete immersion through tangible interactions, embodiment and situated learning. Our preliminary study with 30 participants shows that a considerable percentage of participants found Mathland to not only be engaging (83%), but also efficacious in the areas of collaborative learning (92.8%), problem solving (96.6%) and mathematics education (90%).

Keywords

Virtual/augmented reality Education/learning Play Tangible Wearable computers Embodied interaction Situated learning 

References

  1. 1.
    Lyons, I.M., Beilock, S.L.: Mathematics anxiety: separating the math from the anxiety. Cereb. Cortex. 22, 2102–2110 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, H., Beilock, S.L.: The math anxiety-math performance link and its relation to individual and environmental factors: a review of current behavioral and psychophysiological research. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 10, 33–38 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellis, J., Fosdick, B.K., Rasmussen, C.: Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PLoS One 11, e0157447 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weeden, K.A., Thébaud, S., Gelbgiser, D.: Degrees of difference: gender segregation of US doctorates by field and program prestige. Sociol. Sci. 4, 123–150 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maloney, E.A., Beilock, S.L.: Math anxiety: who has it, why it develops, and how to guard against it. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 404–406 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beilock, S.L., Willingham, D.T.: Math anxiety: can teachers help students reduce it? Ask the cognitive scientist. Am. Educ. 38, 28 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dowker, A., Sarkar, A., Looi, C.Y.: Mathematics anxiety: what have we learned in 60 years? Front. Psychol. 7, 508 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perkins, D.: The many faces of constructivism. Educ. Leadersh. 57, 6–11 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papert, S.: Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books Inc., New York (1980)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Research Council: Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Draper, R.J.: School mathematics reform, constructivism, and literacy: a case for literacy instruction in the reform-oriented math classroom. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 45, 520–529 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Papert, S., et al.: Logo Philosophy and Implementation. Logo Computer Systems Inc., Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J., Glaser, R.: Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cogn. Sci. 5, 121–152 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Belcher, J.: From the mind’s eye to 3D animation: teaching electromagnetism with learning technology. Last Retrieved August 1, 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Victor, B.: Kill Math. http://worrydream.com/KillMath/
  16. 16.
    Cordova, D.I., Lepper, M.R.: Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. J. Educ. Psychol. 88, 715 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stock, P.: Armadillo Run. https://www.armadillorun.com/
  18. 18.
    Lee, K.: Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends 56, 13–21 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salzman, M.C., Loftin, R.B., Dede, C., McGlynn, D.: ScienceSpace: lessons for designing immersive virtual realities. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 89–90. ACM (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fantastic Contraption. http://fantasticcontraption.com/
  21. 21.
    Kaufmann, H.: Construct3D: an augmented reality application for mathematics and geometry education. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pp. 656–657. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shapiro, L.: Embodied Cognition. Routledge, Abingdon (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M., Simon, H.A.: Situated learning and education. Educ. Res. 25, 5–11 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lakoff, G., Núñz, R.: Where Mathematics Come From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. Basic Books, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldin-Meadow, S., Cook, S.W., Mitchell, Z.A.: Gesturing gives children new ideas about math. Psychol. Sci. 20, 267–272 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J., Charoenying, T., Negrete, A., Bumbacher, E.: Fostering hooks and shifts: tutorial tactics for guided mathematical discovery. Technol. Knowl. Learn. 17, 61–86 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zuckerman, O., Arida, S., Resnick, M.: Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 859–868. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bujak, K.R., Radu, I., Catrambone, R., MacIntyre, B., Zheng, R., Golubski, G.: A psychological perspective on augmented reality in the mathematics classroom. Comput. Educ. 68, 536–544 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmalstieg, D., Fuhrmann, A., Hesina, G., Szalavári, Z., Encarnaçao, L.M., Gervautz, M., Purgathofer, W.: The studierstube augmented reality project. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 11, 33–54 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Slater, M., Wilbur, S.: A framework for immersive virtual environments five: speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 6, 603–616 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kim, Y., Park, N.: Elementary education of creativity improvement using Rube Goldberg’s invention. In: Park, J., Kim, J., Zou, D., Lee, Y. (eds.) Information Technology Convergence, Secure and Trust Computing, and Data Management. LNEE, vol. 180, pp. 257–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5083-8_32Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolfe, M.F., Goldberg, R.: Rube Goldberg: Inventions! Simon and Schuster, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miller, A., Rosenbaum, C., Blikstein, P.: MagneTracks: a tangible constructionist toolkit for Newtonian physics. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, pp. 253–256. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hestenes, D., Wells, M., Swackhamer, G.: Force concept inventory. Phys. Teach. 30, 141–158 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., Kafai, Y.: Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM 52, 60–67 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnson-Glenberg, M.C., Birchfield, D.A., Tolentino, L., Koziupa, T.: Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: two science studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 106, 86 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MIT Media LabCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations