Learning differences and eye fixation patterns in virtual and physical science laboratories

This project analyzed high school students' performance and eye movement while learning in a simulation-based laboratory (SBL) and a microcomputer-based laboratory (MBL). Although the SBL and the MBL both used computers to collect, graph, and analyze data, the MBL involved manual manipulation of concrete materials, whereas the SBL displayed everything on a monitor. Fifty senior high school students at three urban public high schools in Taipei were randomly assigned to the MBL and SBL settings. The participants conducted the Boyle's Law experiment with an accompanying worksheet and completed pre- and post-conceptual tests. FaceLAB and ASL MobileEye were used to record each participant's eye movements in the SBL and MBL settings, respectively. The results showed that lower achievers improved significantly from the pre-to post-conceptual tests. The SBL group tended to carry out more experiments. Moreover, the MBL group's performance on the worksheet was moderately correlated with their post-test. However, this correlation was not found for the SBL group. Furthermore, at the beginning of the laboratories, the SBL group had a higher percentage of fixations with longer fixation duration, which implies more attention to and deeper cognitive processing of the equipment and running experiments, while the MBL group focused on the worksheet. This study concludes that, for e-learning like SBLs, students tend to start off doing an experiment, and then think about the questions on the worksheets, whereas for physical laboratories like MBLs, they tend to think before doing. We compared students' learning and eye moving in virtual and physical labs.They pay attention to and have cognitive processing of different zones.In simulation-based labs, students tend to act before thinking.In physical labs, students tend to think before doing.Worksheet affects learning outcomes in physical labs, but not in virtual labs.

[1]  Jorge Trindade,et al.  Science learning in virtual environments: a descriptive study , 2002, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[2]  Rolf Plötzner,et al.  Students' difficulties in learning from dynamic visualisations and how they may be overcome , 2009, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[3]  Susan Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Gesture offers insight into problem-solving in adults and children , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  Chris Panagiotakopoulos,et al.  Exploring the Phenomenon of "Change of Phase" of Pure Substances Using the Microcomputer-Based-Laboratory (MBL) System , 2008 .

[5]  Lorenz Hucke,et al.  The Link of Theory and Practice in Traditional and in Computer-Based University Laboratory Experiments , 2002 .

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

[7]  C. Chinn,et al.  Epistemologically Authentic Inquiry in Schools: A Theoretical Framework for Evaluating Inquiry Tasks , 2002 .

[8]  T. Jong,et al.  The Relation between Prior Knowledge and Students' Collaborative Discovery Learning Processes. , 2005 .

[9]  Heather Brasell,et al.  The effect of real‐time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity , 1987 .

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

[11]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics , 2010 .

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

[13]  Campbell J. McRobbie,et al.  Role of the Microcomputer-Based Laboratory Display in Supporting the Construction of New Understandings in Thermal Physics , 2004 .

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

[15]  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 .

[16]  M. Linn,et al.  Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? , 1991 .

[17]  Tamara Sumner,et al.  Self-Directed Learning and the Sensemaking Paradox , 2011, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[18]  Han-Chin Liu,et al.  The Impact of Learner’s Prior Knowledge on Their Use of Chemistry Computer Simulations: A Case Study , 2008 .

[19]  Richard K. Lowe,et al.  An Eye Tracking Comparison of External Pointing Cues and Internal Continuous Cues in Learning with Complex Animations , 2010 .

[20]  T. L. Kelley The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. , 1939 .

[21]  Eileen Kowler,et al.  The role of saccades in the perception of texture patterns , 1992, Vision Research.

[22]  Georgios Olympiou,et al.  Making the invisible visible: enhancing students’ conceptual understanding by introducing representations of abstract objects in a simulation , 2013 .

[23]  Ying-Tien Wu,et al.  Development and Implications of Technology in Reform-Based Physics Laboratories. , 2012 .

[24]  M. Posner,et al.  Orienting of Attention* , 1980, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[26]  D. Gitelman,et al.  Covert Visual Spatial Orienting and Saccades: Overlapping Neural Systems , 2000, NeuroImage.

[27]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention , 1987, Neuropsychologia.

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

[29]  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 .

[30]  P. Calvo,et al.  Handbook of cognitive science : an embodied approach , 2008 .

[31]  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..

[32]  Huei-Tse Hou,et al.  Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[33]  A. Inhoff,et al.  Chapter 2 – Definition and Computation of Oculomotor Measures in the Study of Cognitive Processes , 1998 .

[34]  Edward E. Cureton,et al.  The upper and lower twenty-seven per cent rule , 1957 .

[35]  Zacharias C. Zacharia,et al.  Enhancing Fourth Graders' Ability to Interpret Graphical Representations through the Use of Microcomputer-Based Labs Implemented within an Inquiry-Based Activity Sequence. , 2007 .

[36]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning , 2000 .

[37]  Wen Hua Chang,et al.  A Comparison of Students’ Approaches to Inquiry, Conceptual Learning, and Attitudes in Simulation‐Based and Microcomputer‐Based Laboratories , 2014 .

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

[39]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[40]  T Ishida,et al.  Temporal properties of information extraction in reading studied by a text-mask replacement technique. , 1989, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[41]  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 .

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

[43]  Theodore F. Wiesner,et al.  Comparison of Student Learning in Physical and Simulated Unit Operations Experiments , 2004 .

[44]  Dimitris Psillos,et al.  Enhancing the Linking of theoretical Knowledge to Physical Phenomena by Real-time Graphing , 2002 .

[45]  Lana Trey,et al.  How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies , 2008, Comput. Educ..

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

[47]  Sufen Chen,et al.  The view of scientific inquiry conveyed by simulation-based virtual laboratories , 2010, Comput. Educ..

[48]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Influence of levels of information as presented by different technologies on students' understanding of acid, base, and ph concepts , 1994 .

[49]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[50]  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 .

[51]  Hsiao-Ching She,et al.  The impact of multimedia effect on science learning: Evidence from eye movements , 2009, Comput. Educ..