Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation: A literature review of two different lines of research across K-16

Abstract The focus of this paper is on the contribution that active touch sensory feedback offered through physical or virtual (with haptic feedback) manipulatives, makes to students' learning through science experimentation. Both theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence are presented. The theoretical perspectives were drawn from two types of theories, namely embodied cognition and additional (touch) sensory channel , which were associated with the use of physical and virtual manipulatives for learning purposes. The empirical evidence was drawn from two different lines of research. The first line of research involves studies that have focused on comparing physical manipulatives and virtual manipulatives (without the provision of haptic feedback), whereas the second involves studies that have focused on comparing virtual manipulatives with and without the provision of touch sensory (haptic) feedback. Both theories supply strong arguments for providing touch sensory feedback during science experimentation, whereas the empirical research outcomes show that providing touch sensory feedback is not always a prerequisite for learning science through experimentation. Those instances for which touch sensory feedback does appear to be a necessity for learning science through experimentation are identified. However, science education studies are limited within the aforementioned research areas. In addition, their findings are inconsistent, especially for the research focused on comparing virtual manipulatives with and without haptic feedback. The latter makes it difficult to arrive at a solid framework that depicts when and how touch sensory feedback should be offered to students for learning science through experimentation. The article concludes with suggestions for future research that would contribute towards development of such a framework.

[1]  A. Baddeley Working memory: looking back and looking forward , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[2]  Lara M. Triona,et al.  Hands on What? The Relative Effectiveness of Physical versus Virtual Materials in an Engineering Design Project by Middle School Children , 2007 .

[3]  Lara M. Triona,et al.  Point and Click or Grab and Heft: Comparing the Influence of Physical and Virtual Instructional Materials on Elementary School Students' Ability to Design Experiments , 2003 .

[4]  Lena A. E. Tibell,et al.  Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning , 2011 .

[5]  Zacharias C. Zacharia,et al.  The Impact of Interactive Computer Simulations on the Nature and Quality of Postgraduate Science Teachers’ Explanations in Physics , 2005 .

[6]  Eva Erdosne Toth,et al.  Designing Blended Inquiry Learning in a Laboratory Context: A Study of Incorporating Hands-On and Virtual Laboratories , 2009 .

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

[8]  Eva Erdosne Toth,et al.  Blended inquiry with hands-on and virtual laboratories: the role of perceptual features during knowledge construction , 2014, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[9]  Claire O'Malley,et al.  Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation , 2011, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[10]  Z. Zacharia,et al.  The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on science teachers' conceptual understanding of physics , 2002 .

[11]  Andreas Pommert,et al.  Virtual dental surgery as a new educational tool in dental school. , 2010, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[12]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Whither structured representation? , 1999, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[13]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  Physical Experience Enhances Science Learning , 2015, Psychological science.

[14]  Noah S. Podolefsky,et al.  When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment , 2005 .

[15]  John B. Black,et al.  Direct-manipulation animation: incorporating the haptic channel in the learning process to support middle school students in science learning and mental model acquisition , 2006 .

[16]  Z. C. Zacharia,et al.  Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[17]  R. Gibbs Embodiment and Cognitive Science: Concepts , 2005 .

[18]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Conceptual Construction of Fields Through Tactile Interface , 1999, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[19]  Susanna Millar,et al.  Memory in touch , 1999 .

[20]  A. Glenberg,et al.  What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[21]  Sadhana Puntambekar,et al.  Exploration of Factors that Affect the Comparative Effectiveness of Physical and Virtual Manipulatives in an Undergraduate Laboratory , 2012 .

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

[23]  J. Sweller COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY, LEARNING DIFFICULTY, AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN , 1994 .

[24]  Franck Vidal,et al.  Simulation of ultrasound guided needle puncture using patient specific data with 3D textures and volume haptics , 2008 .

[25]  James Minogue,et al.  Measuring the Impact of Haptic Feedback Using the SOLO Taxonomy , 2009 .

[26]  Marios Papaevripidou,et al.  Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students , 2012 .

[27]  H Burton,et al.  Attending to and Remembering Tactile Stimuli: A Review of Brain Imaging Data and Single-Neuron Responses , 2000, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[28]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Embodied Language: A Review of the Role of the Motor System in Language Comprehension , 2008, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[29]  Maggie Renken,et al.  Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding , 2013 .

[30]  Sadhana Puntambekar,et al.  The effects of physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual learning about pulleys , 2010, ICLS.

[31]  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 .

[32]  T. Jong Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought , 2010 .

[33]  Robert L. Williams,et al.  Haptics-Augmented Simple-Machine Educational Tools , 2003 .

[34]  W. Pouw,et al.  An Embedded and Embodied Cognition Review of Instructional Manipulatives , 2014 .

[35]  Ard W. Lazonder,et al.  Relative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives for conceptual change in science: how falling objects fall , 2014, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[36]  R. Klatzky,et al.  There's more to touch than meets the eye: The salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. , 1987 .

[37]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[38]  Cedric Linder,et al.  Equipment issues regarding the collection of video data for research. , 2005 .

[39]  Michael Gasser,et al.  The Development of Embodied Cognition: Six Lessons from Babies , 2005, Artificial Life.

[40]  Grace M. Fernald,et al.  Remedial Techniques in Basic School Subjects , 1943 .

[41]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Sensory Cues, Visualization and Physics Learning , 2009 .

[42]  Anders Ynnerman,et al.  Designing and Evaluating a Haptic System for Biomolecular Education , 2007, 2007 IEEE Virtual Reality Conference.

[43]  Margaret Wilson The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[44]  A. Glenberg What memory is for: Creating meaning in the service of action , 1997, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[45]  Linda Jarvin,et al.  When Theories Don't Add Up: Disentangling he Manipulatives Debate , 2007 .

[46]  Insook Han Embodiment: A New Perspective for Evaluating Physicality in Learning , 2013 .

[47]  G. Olympiou,et al.  Physical versus Virtual Manipulative Experimentation in Physics Learning. , 2011 .

[48]  G. Olympiou,et al.  Blending Physical and Virtual Manipulatives: An Effort to Improve Students' Conceptual Understanding through Science Laboratory Experimentation , 2012 .

[49]  M. Gail Jones,et al.  The impact of haptic augmentation on middle school students’ conceptions of the animal cell , 2006, Virtual Reality.

[50]  Eric N. Wiebe,et al.  Haptic feedback and students' learning about levers: Unraveling the effect of simulated touch , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[51]  Nancy M. Amato,et al.  Ligand binding with OBPRM and user input , 2001, Proceedings 2001 ICRA. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.01CH37164).

[52]  Konrad J. Schönborn,et al.  Exploring relationships between students' interaction and learning with a haptic virtual biomolecular model , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[53]  Thomas R. Tretter,et al.  Haptic Augmentation of Science Instruction: Does Touch Matter? , 2006 .

[54]  G. Lakoff Philosophy in the flesh , 1999 .

[55]  Constantinos P. Constantinou,et al.  Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum: The case of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature , 2008 .

[56]  Greg Hallman,et al.  Possibilities of Haptic Feedback Simulation for Physics Learning , 2009 .

[57]  Marios Papaevripidou,et al.  Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature , 2008 .

[58]  Ioannis Pitas,et al.  Virtual Dental Patient: a System for Virtual Teeth Drilling , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo.

[59]  William Winn,et al.  Learning Oceanography from a Computer Simulation Compared with Direct Experience at Sea. , 2006 .

[60]  Tomi Jaakkola,et al.  Fostering elementary school students' understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities , 2008, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[61]  Zacharias C. Zacharia,et al.  The Effects on Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electric Circuits of Introducing Virtual Manipulatives Within a Physical Manipulatives-Oriented Curriculum , 2014 .

[62]  Thomas A. DeFanti,et al.  Haptics-based virtual reality periodontal training simulator , 2009, Virtual Reality.

[63]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  Project GROPEHaptic displays for scientific visualization , 1990, SIGGRAPH.

[64]  Z. Zacharia,et al.  Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education , 2013, Science.

[65]  Zacharias C. Zacharia,et al.  Using Physical and Virtual Manipulatives to Improve Primary School Students’ Understanding of Concepts of Electric Circuits , 2016 .

[66]  John B. Black,et al.  Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[67]  R. Cox Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences , 1999 .

[68]  E. Gentaz,et al.  The visuo-haptic and haptic exploration of letters increases the kindergarten-children's understanding of the alphabetic principle , 2004 .

[69]  M. G. Jones,et al.  Haptics in Education: Exploring an Untapped Sensory Modality , 2006 .

[70]  Tomi Jaakkola,et al.  A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation‐laboratory contexts , 2011 .