Development of an Interactive Immersion Environment for Engendering Understanding about Nanotechnology: Concept, Construction, and Implementation

The advent of nanoscientific applications in modern life is swiftly in progress. Nanoscale innovation comes with the pressing need to provide citizens and learners with scientific knowledge for judging the societal impact of nanotechnology. In rising to the challenge, this paper reports the developmental phase of a research agenda concerned with building and investigating a virtual environment for communicating nano-ideas. Methods involved elucidating core nano-principles through two purposefully contrasting nano "risk" and "benefit" scenarios for incorporation into an immersive system. The authors implemented the resulting 3D virtual architecture through an exploration of citizens' and school students' interaction with the virtual nanoworld. Findings suggest that users' interactive experiences of conducting the two tasks based on gestural interaction with the system serve as a cognitive gateway for engendering nano-related understanding underpinning perceived hopes and fears and as a stimulating pedagogical basis from which to teach complex science concepts.

[1]  Hyoung J. Cho,et al.  Classroom modules for nanotechnology undergraduate education: development, implementation and evaluation , 2011 .

[2]  Konrad J. Schönborn,et al.  A Case-Based Study of Students' Visuohaptic Experiences of Electric Fields around Molecules: Shaping the Development of Virtual Nanoscience Learning Environments , 2013 .

[3]  Xuhui Sun,et al.  From Top-Down to Bottom-Up to Hybrid Nanotechnologies: Road to Nanodevices , 2006 .

[4]  Ulf-Dietrich Reips,et al.  Why Semantic Differentials in Web-Based Research Should Be Made from Visual Analogue Scales and Not from 5-Point Scales , 2012 .

[5]  Konrad J. Schönborn,et al.  An Interactive and Multi-sensory Learning Environment for Nano Education , 2012, HAID.

[6]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  Carl A. Batt,et al.  Numbers, scale and symbols: the public understanding of nanotechnology , 2008 .

[8]  Mel Slater,et al.  A Framework for Immersive Virtual Environments (FIVE): Speculations on the Role of Presence in Virtual Environments , 1997, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[9]  Grant E. Gardner,et al.  Students’ Risk Perceptions of Nanotechnology Applications: Implications for science education , 2010 .

[10]  Ghazi Alkhatib.  Network and Communication Technology Innovations for Web and IT Advancement , 2012 .

[11]  Michael D. Cobb,et al.  Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust , 2004, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[12]  Justin Dillon,et al.  Pupils' understanding of combustion , 1992 .

[13]  Allan G. Harrison,et al.  Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry , 2000 .

[14]  Jian Wang,et al.  Integration of eye-gaze, voice and manual response in multimodal user interface , 1995, 1995 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century.

[15]  J. Besley,et al.  Current research on public perceptions of nanotechnology , 2010, Emerging health threats journal.

[16]  Abderrahmane Kheddar,et al.  Pseudo-haptic feedback: can isometric input devices simulate force feedback? , 2000, Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2000 (Cat. No.00CB37048).

[17]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  The Sense of Presence within Auditory Virtual Environments , 1996, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[18]  Cody Sandifer,et al.  Technological novelty and open‐endedness: Two characteristics of interactive exhibits that contribute to the holding of visitor attention in a science museum , 2003 .

[19]  H. Kastenholz,et al.  Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  M. Gail Jones,et al.  Learning at the nanoscale: The impact of students' use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy , 2003 .

[21]  V. Albe,et al.  Nanosciences and nanotechnologies learning and teaching in secondary education: a review of literature , 2010 .

[22]  Omar Banimelhem,et al.  An Energy-Balanced Cluster-Based Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks , 2013, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Web Eng..

[23]  Antti Laherto,et al.  Nanoscience education for scientific literacy : Opportunities and challenges in secondary school and in out-of-school settings , 2012 .

[24]  Chris Dede,et al.  The design of immersive virtual learning environments: Fostering deep understandings of complex scientific knowledge. , 2000 .

[25]  Gaojie Chen,et al.  Relay Selection in Distributed Transmission Based on the Golden Code Using ML and Sphere Decoding in Wireless Networks , 2011, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Web Eng..

[26]  J. Gilbert,et al.  How Might Adults Learn About New Science and Technology? The Case of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology , 2013 .

[27]  Tassos A. Mikropoulos,et al.  Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999-2009) , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[28]  P. K. Imbrie,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure Undergraduates’ Nanotechnology Awareness, Exposure, Motivation, and Knowledge , 2008 .

[29]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[30]  Antti Laherto.  An analysis of the educational significance of nanoscience and nanotechnology in scientific and technological literacy , 2010 .

[31]  Huann-shyang Lin,et al.  Validation and Exploration of Instruments for Assessing Public Knowledge of and Attitudes toward Nanotechnology , 2013 .

[32]  Zahira Merchant,et al.  The learner characteristics, features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, and college chemistry instruction: A structural equation modeling analysis , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[33]  Mel Slater,et al.  The Influence of Body Movement on Subjective Presence in Virtual Environments , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[34]  Konrad J. Schönborn,et al.  A Model of Factors Determining Students’ Ability to Interpret External Representations in Biochemistry , 2009 .

[35]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  Six views of embodied cognition , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[36]  Shawn Y. Stevens,et al.  The Big Ideas of Nanoscale Science & Engineering: A Guidebook for Secondary Teachers , 2009 .

[37]  Hanoch Hauptman,et al.  The synergetic effect of learning styles on the interaction between virtual environments and the enhancement of spatial thinking , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[38]  M. G. Jones,et al.  Conceptual Boundaries and Distances: Students' and Experts' Concepts of the Scale of Scientific Phenomena , 2006 .

[39]  William Sims Bainbridge,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology , 2002 .

[40]  Paul Richard,et al.  Multi-modal virtual environments for education with haptic and olfactory feedback , 2006, Virtual Reality.

[41]  Mohammed A. Omar,et al.  Energy-Aware Manufacturing Using Information Technology Tools: A Knowledge Based System Approach , 2014, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Web Eng..

[42]  C. Maher,et al.  An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data☆ , 2003 .

[43]  Shawn Y. Stevens,et al.  A Rubric for post-secondary degree programs in nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2009 .

[44]  Miguel Mira da Silva,et al.  A Business Motivation Model for IT Service Management , 2014, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des..

[45]  Chris Dede,et al.  Immersive Interfaces for Engagement and Learning , 2009, Science.

[46]  Graham J. Mytton,et al.  Enhancing the transition from a Foundation Degree to the third year of an Undergraduate Degree , 2011 .