Virtual Reality and Haptics: Lessons for the Classroom

In my ETEC 533 class we are discussing how embodied learning can be achieved by portable, hand-held and virtual reality (VR) technologies.  As part of this module we were asked to research one or more of these topics and reflect on our findings.  I chose to discuss and reflect upon the areas of virtual reality and haptics as these are areas that I am yet to see incorporated into the secondary classroom.

For my response I will use the following as a guiding question:

How could you use what is developed in these studies to design learning experiences for younger learners that incorporates perception/motion activity and digital technologies?

Dede, Salzman, Loftin & Sprague (1999) used virtual reality systems such as Newton World, and PaulingWorld and MaxwellWorld to enable interactions such as visualizing molecular structures, electrostatic fields, kinematics and dynamics and study their impact on science learning.  Dede et al. (1999) express that these VR worlds offer distance students new levels of immersion, a three-dimensional frame of reference, multisensory cues and the potential for increased motivation.  The authors explain that when multisensory immersion is applied to scientific models learners can benefit from the experiential analogies and metaphors that unfold and thus more accurately understand complex phenomena.

In similar research Jones, Minogue, Tretter, Negishi and Taylor (2005) focused on adding haptics feedback to a science inquiry program involving viruses and nanoscale science concepts.  By using the expensive an Sensable PHANToM desktop haptics system and low-cost Microsoft Sidewinder force feedback joystick students could minutely control and feel their interactions with interactive simulations.  By comparing student responses and field notes concerning these technologies to those of students who used simply a mouse Jones et al. (2005) discuss that varying touch sensations in a learning environment can lead to variations in student learning.  The authors extend this idea beyond the novelty of experience and conclude that a students’ ability to touch and feel while learning may expand their understanding and provide new, engaging hands on experiences.

Although very interesting and very much cutting-edge I don’t think that these technologies have a great deal to offer your average, non-distance educator.  My personal view is that these somewhat expensive technologies are best used when access to “the real thing” is limited.  I would compare this to the Integrated Laboratory Network studied earlier; access to expensive spectrometry equipment is limited thus increasing the need for alternative access.  If my students have access to all the equipment, materials and hands-on activities they need in my chemistry classroom to reach curriculum objectives I may have little need to explore virtual reality simulations and haptics technologies.  With this in mind the applications of these technologies elsewhere can serve to highlight and elaborate on some issues of direct relevance to the science classroom.

From the above articles I will highlighted four important areas that this type of research highlights for your average secondary classroom teacher such as myself.  We may not have access to the computing power and gadgets Dede et al. (1999) and Jones et al. (2005) had access to but their research can teach your common classroom teacher some valuable lessons.

Firstly, the research highlights numerous benefits to learning when “hands on” activities are provided and context is clear.  Virtual environments serve students best when an activity can be experienced in a way similar to real life experiences like interacting and experiencing the movement of balls and coiled springs in the NetwonWorld 3D environment.  Jones et al. (2006) explain that “feeling” feedback can serve to embody experiences and improve a students’ ability to connect with material, this in turn helps “construct mental models of the abstract concepts based on actual concrete experiences” (p. 121).  Classroom teachers should use this idea to focus on making learning activities within their classroom real and hands on for the learner.  VR and multisensory computer equipment may not be needed if you are able to put a physics lesson in context through real life experiences and hands on interactions.

This advanced research also shows the importance of varying viewpoints.  As Dede et al. (1999) explained the ability to be within an electrostatic field or interacting with planetary bodies has huge implications for the science classroom.  However, I point out that varying frames of reference can and should be a goal in our classrooms as well.  For example, when exploring the cell and organelle structure and function students could design a 3D model of craft materials (or my favourite, edible food such as candy, Jello, etc.) in an effort to model and interact with these abstract, often difficult to see scientific concepts.

Lastly, I think these technologies highlight a very exciting aspect of education: the future.  As Dede et al. (1999) points out we live in a complex, knowledge-based society and the complex interactions we deal with are exemplified in these complex scientific models such as interrelationships, non-linearities and feedback loops.  The authors explain that virtual reality and other model-based methods of learning and interacting will become increasingly important and receive major focus in future educational standards in order to prepare students for modern life.  I agree that the importance and relevance of modeling is a key lesson to be learned here, but so is a comfort and prevalence of technology in Western life.  Beyond the benefits of modelling and interacting in virtual worlds I think preparing students for a future where these interactions are common place is also crucially important.

References:

Jones, G.M., Minogue, J., Tretter, T.R., Neigishi, A., & Taylor, R.  (2006).  Haptic augmentation of science instruction:  Does touch matter?  Science Education, 90, (1), 111-123.

Dede, C., Salzman, M., Loftin, B., and Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory Immersion as a Modeling Environment for Learning Complex Scientific Concepts. In W. Feurzeig, and N. Roberts (Eds.), Computer modeling and simulation in science education. New York: Springer-Verlag.