Haptics, VR, and Ubiquitous Learning

Haptics refer to the study of touch and human interaction with the external environment through touch (Minogue and Jones, 2006). It has been shown from previous researches that "active manipulation of both real and virtual objects and events potentially leads to a more complete understanding of them" (p 341). However, there has not been extensive research on "the efficacy of haptically augmented instruction" in education. Can one learn mathematics by touch? To further extend this line of research, can one learn mathematics by smell, feeling, art (music), etc.? These are important questions to consider as educators are well aware that students learn using different methods.

The Ambient Wood project (Rogers et al, 2005) reminds me of a similar project that was done for the Museum of Anthropology at UBC. One of the student projects at BCIT was to design and implement a mobile device which a visitor at the museum can carry around, and at certain spots, the device can be activated to show relevant information or a movie clip related to the specific spot. I am not sure how successful this project is but it seems that the Ambient Wood project provides the students with a platform where they can integrate the knowledge from the PDA’s with their reflective thinking and further discuss with other students. Ubiquitous computing is not new, but what I find interesting and innovative is the integration to social learning. Individual learning on different computing platforms have not worked because it is too isolated for us social beings. It is the same for courses I find from this program, i.e. what sets it apart from other distance ed. Programs is the social dimension that we can all interact and learn from one another.

There has already been a number of discussions on how iPhone can be used in education (E.g. http://www.learning2007.com/iphone1). Classroom Response System (CRS) that makes use of proprietary "clickers" or generic Bluetooth device (http://www.skylight.science.ubc.ca/node/25) are being used and researched in many institutions. One of the projects I envision is to use a GPS enabled multimedia cell phone that allows learning to take place anytime anywhere in different contexts, even at different parts of the city, or even any parts of the world on a larger scale – this is yet another potential use of WILD (Wireless Internet Learning Device) (Roschelle, 2003). As learners find themselves in different locations / contexts, different learning contents are “pushed” to their cell phone to reinforce their learning. Learners can also record and upload their new learning experiences in a central repository to help other learners learn in an cooperative virtual environment. I foresee that lots of research areas can come out from this area: who are the users, what level / types of learning is best achieved with this technology, what kind of infrastructure, backend / frontend, user interface, database, etc.

As an example, learning math should not be confined in the classroom devoid of any context or application. As students learn their principles of mathematics in the classroom, their learning can be continuous whether in the accountant's office, during checkout at a supermarket, or even in the skytrain as the train moves at different velocities, etc. Learners can also contribute their learning experiences as they gain insights on how their understanding of mathematics help them in new contexts which then can be uploaded for other learners. If one thinks of how different vendors want to push a coupon when one passes by a coffee shop, one can think of learning can similarly be pushed to a learner in different locations or contexts.

Extending the concept of learning in a physical world to a virtual world has been another exciting area of research especially when one thinks of cognition is the interaction between a person and its environment (Winn, 2003). Can a virtual environment provide a similar, if not better, environment for the learner? Cognition first occurs with the entire body, not just the brain. This level of interaction is called “embodiment”. The environment should be understood in two ways. The first is called “Umwelt”. The premise is that since "all knowledge is constructed by the student and that every student's understanding of the environment is idiosyncartic", it follows that "there can be no objective, fixed standard against which to access what a person knows" (p12). How a student behaves in a learning environment is completely unpredictable since each student’s experience is different. This level of interaction is called “embeddedness”. On the other hand, an artificial environment is completely predictable based on a student’s input. By viewing that the students are coupled in a learning environment rather than embedded (passively) in it allows one to see the dynamic adaptation of the student to the environment. This level of interaction is called “adaptation”. This can be powerful through the “presence” created by the artificial environment and the student’s being “confronted by compelling evidences that can neither be predicted from nor explained by their current conceptions” (p 16). Thus “cognition is embodied in physical activity, that this activity is embedded in a learning environment, and that learning is the result of adaptation of the learner to the environment and the environment to the learner. The conceptual framework assumes that embodiment, embeddedness, and adaptation are completely interdependent.”

References:

Minogue, J. & Jones, M.G. (2006). Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 317-348.

Rogers, Y., Price, S., Randell,C., Stanton, D, Weal, M., & Fitzpatrick, G. (2005). Ubi-learning integrates indoor and outdoor experiences. Communications of the ACM, 49(1), 55-61.

Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), pp. 260-272.

Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114.

Knowledge Diffusion and Social Construction of Knowledge

According to Bielaczyc and Collins (1999): "The defining quality of a learning community is that there is a culture of learning in which everyone is involved in a collective effort of understanding. There are four characteristics that such a culture must have: (1) diversity of expertise among its members who are valued for their contributions and given support to develop, (2) a shared objective of continually advancing the collective knowledge and skills, (3) an emphasis on learning how to learn, and (4) mechanisms for sharing what is learned." 1
In what ways do the networked communities you examined represent and depart from this characterization of learning communities? What implications does this have for your practice?

1) Diversity of expertise among the students: in Globe, students from all over the world participate in this learning environment and interact with scientists who act as mentors. In World Forum, students take on different personalities like John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, etc. and contribute their ideas. This role playing allows the students to see other’s point of views as well as assuming the role / expertise of the personality. They also engage with teachers, explorers and mentors in their learning process. In MicroObservatory, students work with one another as well as with scientists. Teachers also pair up with others to create new projects for the students and conduct research in astronomy to promote the discipline.

2) Shared objective: through the use of online communities, the students in both Globe and World Forum work towards a common goal. In Globe, each student tries to contribute their knowledge about their environment such as soil temperature and moisture, state of local water body, characterization of the top meter of soil, etc. In World Forum, each student tries to resolve controversial statements (Flash Point), or environmental and social issues (Arctic Alerts), and reports on natural and geographical information (Explorer / Scientist Reports). The goal is to inform and to debate issues that are relevant to all participating students. In MicroObservatory, students collaborate with others who have taken images of the sky and analyse them. They collect data individually and share them to "reveal the secrets of some of nature wonders".

3) Emphasis on learning how to learn: in Globe, teachers are trained and prepared to help students to learn. Other support such as that provided by National Science Education Standards, National Geophysical Data Center, NASA, NSF, etc. contribute to a learning space that promotes learning. Students are challenged in the process when scientists are very much involved with the students as well as the teachers. In World Forum, teachers use different methods in their teaching, such as questioning (most popular for novice students), feedback, cognitive structuring. Students also learn to differentiate their own perspectives as well as other people’s perspectives, sometimes from a neutral point of view too. In NetObservatory, students are given control of the remote telescope that are often used for sophisticated astronomical research. This exposes the students to develope a sense of appreciation of the complexity of research, and problem based learning. Access to such tools provides the students the capabilities to further explore the area of astronomy.

4) Mechanisms for sharing what is learned: both Globe and World Forum use the online community to share their findings. Some students are required to log on everyday and this can become a challenge. Similarly for students and teachers participating in the NetObservatory, the internet allows them to share their findings as well as collaborate on investigative research projects.

I really like the role playing in World Forum where students get to take on the role of a well known character. Students can do research on the character and try to be consistent from this character’s point of view in the debate and discussion. It also allows the students to know that there are more than one point of view in almost any subject or topic. Online communities which are readily available to students should be incorporated into the students’ learning activities. By allowing the students to reflect, research, and then contribute their ideas through online communities, they are able to dig deeper into the subject of discussion. Also because the students can share what they learn anytime of the day, it does not restrict the student’s learning to only specific part of the day.

Having scientists, mentors, and other “non-teachers” participate makes the learning so much more relevant and “real” to the students. Teachers can also use the help to guide the student’s learning too. However, gaining access to these experts may not be easy to come by!

Wiseweb and Illuminations Math Applets

Wiseweb can be accessed at http://www.fi.uu.nl/wisweb/en/

I tried a number of the applets on alebra courseware on linearity. There is no documentation or help on how to use these applets. But after playing around with the applet, I was quite impressed with the visualization. Some of the applets do provide some hints, such as Shooting Balls, whose goal is to shoot all the balls in a grid with as few shots as possible. The Algebra tree allows one to create an equation using a graphical format and the final equation or value is shown as output. Students can see how paranthesis is used in the expression. The Tic Tac Go game is a easy game to review mulitplication, addition, and subtraction. Again little documentation is provided. The Fraction Times allows one to understand fraction through visualization how a circle is divided according to the portions of a fraction value. Again minimal documentation is provided and it can take some time to figure out how to use the applet. Overall, the website provides many interesting visualization of basic mathematical concepts. Students need to be given sufficient help to use the website. Otherwise, they will find it frustrating to use.

Illumination can be accessed at http://illuminations.nctm.org/

The Cube Nets activity which requires mental manipulation of folding a 3 dimension cube is interesting. Instructions are clear. There are a number of activities categorized under different grades. The animation is quite good. I tried a Fire lesson for Grade 9-12, which shows how likely a forest fire will spread based on the probablity how much the fire will spread. There are also complete lessons categorized under different grades and topics (such as number and operations, algebra, geometry, measurement, data analysis and probability). Each lesson includes learning objectives, materials, and instructional plan. The website is well suited for teachers to use the material in class.

Paper Review

Finkelstein, N.D., Perkins, K.K., Adams, W., Kohl, P., & Podolefsky, N. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physics Education Research,1(1), 1-8.

Findings from this paper show that students made "greater conceptual gains when using computer to prepare for laboratory than those who used the textbook and solved additional problems on the topic." Using simulations that are properly designed , students tend to "mess about" more than using real equipment, and make better use of instructor time which would have otherwise used to fix up the real equipment.

Srinivasan, S., Perez, L. C., Palmer,R., Brooks,D., Wilson,K., & Fowler. D. (2006). Reality versus simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15 (2), 1-5. Available UBC E-journals.

In this paper, students compared the use of MATLAB (software simulation) and TIMS (hardware system) to create circuits. For novices studens, it is interesting to note that they regard simulations, or anything other than the real system is fake. They did not find that using simulations as "authentic experience". Thus simulations do remove some authenticity in the learning process.

Math and Visualization

Why is visualization necessary (or not) for student understanding of math or science? What are the multiple ways that students' understanding could be represented with this dynamic visualization software and what are the implications for teaching practice? What are some ways that a students' understanding could be challenged with dynamic visualization software? What are the social opportunities and potential cognitive opportunities that may emerge from interaction with this software? How are the specific features of the software connected to these opportunities?

http://www.ies.co.jp/math/java/index.html

Visualization is extremely important for students learning and trying to understand math. Math is an abstract discipline. No one can "see" math but one can see how math can be used to real life. The problem with abstract concept is that each student may understand the abstract concepts under his / her past experience, and may not be the same as what is intended. Visualization allows the students and the teacher to have a common ground for further discourse. It is similar to making thinking visible in Geode.

Visualization via applications has been one of the most popular ways for teachers to introduce different math concepts. From counting apples to calculating height of buildings via trigonometry functions, or calculating time of arrival based on moving speed of a vehicle, etc. students can "see" how math principles can be used. This can be achieved through actual participation in solving a practical real life problem, or watching a video of a problem (such as Jasper), and then solving it, whether individually or collaboratively.

Another way for students to understand math is through graphics and animation on the computers. Sine waves, exponential functions, geometry, etc. can easily be manipulated using software such as the site indicated above. Visualization on the computers also allows a student to manipulate different variables to see the effect of the changes. Students can also observe "patterns" in such manipulations to deduce what changes and what stays the same, and come up with reasons for the behavior. An example of this is the Sum of Three Angles lesson under Angle and Parallel Lines in the Middle School (Geometry) section. As the student moves the triangle to the right or left, it is shown that the bottom left and right angles don’t change. Not only the “bigger” triangle doesn’t change, the “smaller” triangle preserves the same angles. The lesson Problem about Angles (1) in the same section introduces a problem to the student, and also provides a hint button to provide additional information. No description is provided but by manipulating the graphics, the student can see how the angles remain the same as one moves the red dot. The creative use of animation reduces significantly the amount of explanation that is required and this can be positive to a lot of students.

For students who are confident in deducing math principles, having the abilities to manipulate graphical representations and to see the effect of these changes instantaneously on the screen will be useful to them. However for students who may require extra help, such tools may seem cold and unfriendly. The hints provided in some lessons are useful, but in cases where the students still do not grasp the principles after exhaustion of the hints, additional help from the teachers or other students should be supplemented. Learning math does require one to process the concepts individually, but there are often cases where collaborative learning helps reinforce the student understanding and comprehension of the subject. The problem with many of the software visualization systems is that the students are left on their own in the learning, and it misses out on the collective engagement and knowledge sharing with peers.

Challenges in Student Understanding of Earth Science

What are several challenges students have with understanding earth science?

- engage students in the learning process
- construct knowledge that supports subsequent re-use of the knowledge

What experiences are planned for students learning earth science with WorldWatcher? How do student activities exemplify the objectives? Did the learning environment address the issues or objectives for which it was created?

- meaningful context: real world decisions about the use of natural resources
- inquiry based: computer based and lab inquiry activities, combined with discussions, lectures, readings, written assignments, and oral presentations in an integrated approach that supports robust learning of concepts and practices
- use of technology: software tools allow sutdents to investigate scientific data and to interact with dynamic representations of science processes in the same way that environmental scientists do.

In what ways would you teach the Planetary Forecaster curriculum- differently or the same? What part of the WorldWatcher environment would you change or customize?

The WordWatcher requires special software to be downloaded and installed on the computer which can be complicated for students or school support staff. If this program can be made web-based and even integrated with publicly accessible application such as Google Earth, I believe the students will find even more relevance in understanding earth science.

Judge the relative value of using WorldWatcher for learning about earth science. Select one or two of the process questions that resonate with you and your ongoing critical awareness of the implications technology has for students, teaching practice, curriculum development, and schools, and include your responses as entries in your inquiry e-folio.

Process question 1: What are the pedagogical design principles that shaped the development of the Geode Initiative (previously known as WorldWatcher)?

Please see the previous post on LfU design.

Process question 2: Explain the reasons for integrating digital technology as a key part of this learning experience.

The Progress Portfolio is valuable to allow student's reflective inquiry. It allows the students to record and monitor their investigations. It is a way to allow students to make their thinking visible. One of the activities allow the students to invent their own worlds. They can create the topography of their worlds and also specify the elevation data set. This allows the students to apply what they have learned from an actual world to a new world that has never been studied before, and they need to justify their understanding of knowledge.

LfU - Learning-for-Use

Traditional approaches to teaching often results in shallow understanding because the main tools of teaching are memorization and recitation of facts. When it comes to actual application of the knowledge in a real setting, the context is usually different than that which the learner first studied, and the learner finds it difficult to see the connection.

Learning-for-use (LfU) is a model which provides a framework for education lesson design. It is based on 4 principles:

1. Constructivism - understanding is incrementally constructed from experience and communication.
2. Knowledge construction is a goal-directed process - implication: learning must be (and can only be) initiated by the learner.
3. The context where learning takes place is directly connected to how or whether the knowledge is going to be used
4. Learner must know how to distinguish declarative and procedural knowledge, and know how to transform from the former to the latter.

To design a curriculum based on the LfU model, there are 3 steps:

• Motivation - addresses principle 2
• Knowledge construction - addresses principle 1
• Knowledge refinement - addresses principle 3 and 4

These 3 steps parallel the Learning Cycle (Abraham, 1998):

• exploration
• invention (or term introduction)
• discovery

Reference:

Edelson, D.C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,38(3), 355-385.

Abraham, M.R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds). International handbook of science education (pp. 513-524). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.