Measuring the Impact of Haptic Feedback Using the SOLO Taxonomy

The application of Biggs’ and Collis’ Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes taxonomy in the evaluation of student learning about cell membrane transport via a computer‐based learning environment is described in this study. Pre‐test–post‐test comparisons of student outcome data (n = 80) were made across two groups of randomly assigned students: one that received visual and haptic feedback, and one that relied on visual feedback only as they completed their virtual investigations. The results of the Mann–Whitney U‐test indicated that the group mean difference scores were significantly different statistically (p = .043). Practically speaking, this study provides some early evidence suggesting that the haptic augmentation of computer‐based science instruction may lead to a deeper level of processing. The strengths and weaknesses of this current diagnostic approach and a novel approach based on a non‐verbal model of cognition are discussed in light of their potential contributions to the teaching and learning of science.

[1]  C. Davis.  Touch , 1997, The Lancet.

[2]  Edmund A. Marek.  Understandings and Misunderstandings of Biology Concepts , 1986 .

[3]  Elementary school science for the '90s , 1990 .

[4]  Barbara Y. White,et al.  A Microworld-Based Approach to Science Education , 1992 .

[5]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Haptic classification of common objects: Knowledge-driven exploration , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  R. Klatzky,et al.  Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  Arthur Louis Odom,et al.  Secondary & College Biology Students' Misconceptions About Diffusion & Osmosis. , 1995 .

[8]  Barry J. Wadsworth.  Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development , 1984 .

[9]  Lawrence W Barsalou,et al.  Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. , 2003, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[10]  Edmund A. Marek,et al.  A cross‐age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion , 1991 .

[11]  M. Tsui,et al.  Applying the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy on Student's Learning Outcomes: An empirical study , 2002 .

[12]  John M. Kennedy,et al.  Space, haptics and the blind , 1992 .

[13]  Grigore C. Burdea,et al.  Force and Touch Feedback for Virtual Reality , 1996 .

[14]  John Kenneth Salisbury,et al.  Haptic rendering: programming touch interaction with virtual objects , 1995, I3D '95.

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

[16]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Involvement of visual cortex in tactile discrimination of orientation , 1999, Nature.

[17]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends , 2003 .

[18]  Elliot W. Eisner,et al.  On the Differences Between Scientific and Artistic Approaches to Qualitative Research , 1981 .

[19]  Amos Dreyfus,et al.  The Pupil and the Living Cell: A Taxonomy of Dysfunctional Ideas about an Abstract Idea. , 1989 .

[20]  Vincent Hayward,et al.  Haptic interfaces and devices , 2004 .

[21]  T. A. Romberg,et al.  Collis-Romberg Mathematical Problem Solving Profiles. , 1992 .

[22]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Feeling with the mind's eye , 1997, Neuroreport.

[23]  D. Ardaç,et al.  Effectiveness of multimedia-based instruction that emphasizes molecular representations on students' understanding of chemical change , 2004 .

[24]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Cognitive processes and performance , 1986 .

[25]  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 .

[26]  Rebecca Richards-Kortum,et al.  Formative and Summative Assessment of the IGERT Program in Optical Molecular Bio‐Engineering at UT Austin , 2003 .

[27]  Gaurav S. Sukhatme,et al.  Touch in Virtual Environments: Haptics and the Design of Interactive Systems , 2001 .

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

[29]  Kevin F. Collis,et al.  A technique for evaluating skills in high school science , 1986 .

[30]  Kevin F. Collis,et al.  Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy , 1977 .

[31]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

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

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

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

[35]  Allison M. Okamura,et al.  Feeling is Believing: Using a Force‐Feedback Joystick to Teach Dynamic Systems , 2000 .

[36]  Fernando Flores,et al.  Representation of the cell and its processes in high school students: An integrated view , 2003 .

[37]  J. Biggs,et al.  Teaching For Quality Learning At University , 1999 .

[38]  D. Scott.  Perceptual learning. , 1974, Queen's nursing journal.

[39]  S. Lederman.  Tactual roughness perception: Spatial and temporal determinants. , 1983 .

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

[41]  Kenneth Tobin,et al.  Research on Science Laboratory Activities: In Pursuit of Better Questions and Answers to Improve Learning , 1990 .

[42]  Christine D. Wilson,et al.  Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[43]  Pinchas Tamir,et al.  Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena , 1991 .

[44]  D. Gopher,et al.  Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. , 1999 .