Zoning in on Physics:Virtual Reality & Learning Disabilities in Science Education

By:Margie JoyceJoe McCahillYuqing Peng

Kathryn Spence

EDRS 590Prof. KhalatbariApril 26, 2001

Abstract:

In this preliminary research study, we investigate the potential benefits of a

Virtual Reality (VR) learning environment in teaching abstract science concepts to

learning disabled high school students. The focus of this paper centers on a George

Mason University instructional design and development project, Project DEVISE

(Designing Environments for Virtual Immersive Science Education) and its prototype,

“Zoning in on Physics.” The project is part of the Steppingstones to Technology Grant

Program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education,

Technology and Media Services for Individuals with Disabilities.

Introduction:

Many scientific domains deal with abstract and multi-dimensional phenomena

that people have difficulty comprehending because the scientific models have no real-life

referents. Developing effective pedagogical strategies for teaching complex science

concepts, therefore, have proven challenging. (Dede, Salzman, Loftin, & Sprague, 1999)

Teachers need to rely on their students’ ability to make sense of these abstract concepts

from the resources available (e.g. textbooks and manipulatives). These challenges are

compounded in a LD (Learning Disability) classroom where many learners read science

text at only half the fluency of non-LD students. In fact, research has shown that what

distinguished the LD student from his/her peers is a struggle with verbal aptitude

including reading fluency, text comprehension and abstract reasoning from texts (Scruggs

& Mastropieri, 1994). Because of these characteristics, students with learning disabilities

are not likely to learn concepts best in textbook-oriented classrooms.

Despite these findings, textbook-oriented learning is still the predominant

approach in science classrooms, particularly at the secondary level. Although research

shows that hands-on, activities-oriented materials, like manipulatives, are the most

effective strategies to teach LD students (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994) as they typically

place fewer demands on language and literacy abilities, there are not the panacea. When

students move into secondary level science, reliance upon manipulative activities to

enhance learning becomes more problematic for several reasons: Some phenomena that

are studied in secondary science classes (e.g. absence of gravity) cannot easily be

"manipulated" in traditional classroom activities. Since some phenomena can neither be

directly observed nor physically manipulated in classroom activities (e.g., lines of

electromagnetic force, a non-friction environment), students can only participate by

observing effects of these phenomena or observing models. Although in some cases

different models can be constructed, students observing these models still lack the sense

of active participation with the scientific phenomena that they may have achieved with

foundational hands-on science activities. Castellani, 1999)

Findings in LD and secondary science education noted above give much

credence to the development of instructional programs such as computer-based

simulation and multi-sensory virtual reality environments because they are able to

provide an interface that allows learners to immerse themselves in a synthetic

environment where they can participate first-hand in learning activities that seem real—

something that textbooks and hands-on activities have difficulty delivering. Imagine the

following scenarios, for example:

Scenario 1: Michael begins doodling on his notebook while listening to his teacher explains Newton's Laws of Motion. "An object at rest stays at rest, an object in motion, stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside source…" As he looks at the illustrations in his textbook and the teacher attempts to explain the concept on the whiteboard, he starts daydreaming of hanging out with his friends. Noticing that Michael is distracted, the teacher asks: “Michael, tell me what is Newton's First Law.” Michael shrugs.

Scenario 2: Michael and Joe are sitting at the computer. Michael has control of the mouse and Joe is by his side giving Michael the directions to add more force to the shuttle on the screen in order to see what happens. The shuttle takes off and keeps going along a rough surface until it eventually come to a stop. “It stopped because of the friction of the road,” Joe notices. Now let’s see what happens in space, in a completely friction-free environment. Michael sets the force, then lets the shuttle go. With confidence, he states “ I bet this sucker goes on forever in a straight line, until it hits something. No friction, baby!”

The above scenarios, based on real life events, are meant to illustrate the power of

emerging technologies over traditional text-based and lecture approaches in reaching

students who ordinarily struggle with abstract science concepts. The comparative

advantage of the computer simulation over the text-based instruction is it actively

engaged the student in participating with something that seemed real. VR researchers

propose that the 3D representations of objects and phenomena in virtual reality

environments enhance the meaningfulness of the data allowing learners to interpret

information with all their senses—auditory, visual, haptic—which potentially deepens

learning and recall. Also virtual reality provides for student motivation and its delivery

can potentially be distributed in any classroom around the country. (Dede, Salzman,

Sprague) Research has shown that the potential of multi-sensory immersion for learning

scientific concepts can provide learners with “experiential metaphors and analogies that

aid in understanding complex phenomena remote to their everyday experience and help

displace ‘common sense’ misconceptions with alternative, more accurate mental

models.” (Dede et. al.) Allowing the students to make the abstract more concrete where

they can isolate variables to see the results, uninhibited by the real world is a major

advantage over traditional science instruction.

Using a VR learning environment for instruction, teachers are able to control the

stimuli for

individual

needs and

learning

styles. They

are also able

to provide a

learning environment with multiple view points or “frames of reference” which has the

potential to make more salient information that learners might not notice in another frame

of reference. (See illustration 1.1 and 1.2) As a result, students are able to fill in gaps in

their knowledge and become more flexible in their thinking. (Dede, 1997)

All this said, there are some major caveats in implementing VR into the

classroom. First and foremost is the cost associated to developing and implementing a

virtual reality learning environment. Equipment such as high-end Silicon Graphic

computers, head-mounted displays or 3D glasses and surround sound are not found in

your average high school classroom, not to mention the advanced programming skills

needed to develop the virtual worlds. Even for the most rudimentary delivery of a VR

environment, computers need a very powerful CPU (central processing unit), a

significant amount of RAM (random access memory) and a sophisticated graphic card.

Illustration 1.1

Snapshot of Zoning in on Physics. The shuttle in a non friction, space environment, with a global, 3rd person perspective.

Illustration 1.2

Snapshot of Zoning in on Physics. The shuttle is in a high friction environment with a frontal view giving a 1st person perspective

At this point, technology in the classroom has yet to catch up to the innovative ideas

being formulated about VR.

George Mason University’s ProjectDEVISE attempts to bridge that gap by

using graduate student designers and programmers to design and develop a VR

environment that can be delivered over a computer that runs Windows 95/98 with the

most basic system requirements. In this research paper, we evaluate the implementation

of this Virtual Reality prototype, “Zoning in on Physics,”(ZIOP) formally known as

Motion Magic to ascertain if it indeed provides the kind of learning value and

motivational incentives postulated by VR researchers for our target audience.

Sample Population

The research was conducted in five different classrooms with a total of 79 high

school students. 56 students were enrolled in an Active Physics course at Centreville

High School, Fairfax County, Virginia and 23 high school students were enrolled in a

Basic Science course at Butte High School, Silverbow County, Montana. There was a

total of 52 male students and 27 female students who participated in the study. 48 of the

students were classified to have a Learning Disability. (Four ESL students were included

in this category due to a lack of verbal skills.) The remaining 31 students who

participated were non-LD students.

InstrumentThe survey consisted of four parts. The first part of the survey, Background

Questionnaire (see appendix), asked information on the student: including gender, age,

grade level, and if they had any particular conditions that might effect the virtual reality

session (e.g. color blindness, uncorrected vision problems, and seizure disorders). The

Student Questionnaire (see appendix) consisted of 10 questions using a Lichert scale to

assess the students’ attitudes toward science and computers. The Follow-Up

Questionnaire (see appendix) included seven questions assessing the students’ perception

of “Zoning in on Physics.” We wanted to ascertain how difficult it was to navigate

through the program (ZIOP), if the students thought the program was useful in

understanding physics concepts, if they had fun, etc. The Follow-up Questionnaire also

included five qualitative questions asking what the students liked most and least about

ZIOP, and what types of changes they would make. The fourth part was also qualitative.

Each student was given a Scratch Sheet (see appendix), essentially a blank sheet of paper

in which they were instructed to ”jot down thoughts and ideas” about the prototype. The

students were encouraged to write any perceptions they had, albeit positive or negative.

Data CollectionThe first evaluation was held on February 27 and 28, 2001 at Centreville High

School. The teacher had already distributed parental permission forms. After class began

we explained the purpose of the study and what would be happening in the next 80

minutes. The teacher assigned each student a letter and a computer. Each student was to

write the number and letter on all of the paper work that day. This was done so that each

of the questionnaires could be correlated and privacy maintained. The experimenters

handed out the Background Questionnaire. The students were given 10 minutes to

complete and return them.

The group was given the Student Questionnaire to assess attitudes towards school

and computers. These were then collected and each student was given a Scratch Sheet

and moved to their assigned computers. The experimenters handed the groups a work

sheet to go with the Zone of the virtual environment being tested. One person in each

group acted as a scribe, the other a navigator and the third the pilot. They then went

through each of the exercises for their Zone. While completing the Zone exercise the

experimenters assisted with technical difficulties and answered questions about the

purpose. They also took notes and observed reactions and comments made. When a

group completed a Zone they then went to another zone to see how it worked. Although

the ZIOP program is intended to be progressive, different groups started in different

zones. The data for each class was kept together in envelopes and then the experimenters

each took a packet to code and correlate the data. The teacher provided information on

each of the students classified as LD or non-LD and ESL. We had complete information

from all groups except the first class in which the Background Information could not be

correlated with the other questionnaires. Most of the groups completed two zones.

About 15 minutes before the class ended the students returned to their assigned seating

and completed the Follow-Up Questionnaire.

The second evaluation was held on March 26 and 27, 2001 at Butte Public High

School in Butte, Montana. The two-day evaluation was conducted as described above;

however extended over a two 50 minute class periods with only one evaluator. Students

worked in pairs and completed 2 of the 3 Zones. Students in this evaluation did not have

time to complete the qualitative section of the Follow-Up Questionnaire.

Trends: Full sample population

The first thing we wanted to learn from our student testers was their opinions

about the program in general. The Student Questionnaire was designed to gauge how

much they like or don’t like several related subject matter areas including: school, science

education, computers, etc. In particular, one of the questions asked was if students ‘liked

coming to school’. Not surprisingly, this question registered the lowest mean response of

any of the questions asked. The second lowest mean response was in response to the

question ‘I like learning about physics’ and the third lowest response was to the question

‘Science is one of my favorite subjects.’ A trend does arise here in the data and it

becomes clear the students do not have favorable attitudes towards school, science or

physics education. It seems that we are working with a somewhat hostile audience. They

don’t like school and they don’t like physics.

When looking at which questions students identified with most strongly, another

trend appears. The highest mean response, indicating the strongest association of the

students with the statement presented was in response to the statement, ‘I like learning

new things’. That might indicate that the audience is eager to learn new things and that

maybe the medium, or the traditional scholastic environment is partially responsible for

the disinterest in of students for the lessons presented to them. The second strongest

response registered was in response to the question, ‘I like computer games’. This is

supported by the third and fourth strongest sentiment registered which is ‘I like working

with a computer’ and ‘I like when we use a computer in school’. So, this might be telling

us that developing a computer-based education program is the right way to try to get kids

more interested in learning.

The second half of the survey analysis focused on the attitudes the students had

regarding their experiences with the ‘Zoning in on Physics’ prototype. The general

sentiment expressed by the students was twofold. First, they definitely liked the concept

of the Zoning in on Physics program as an alternative to traditional physics education.

Secondly, the students seemed to feel the program could have done a better job in the

‘wow’ factor of the program; students were not strongly engaged by the program. These

characteristics are indicated by the fact that the strongest sentiments registered have to do

with their eagerness or interest in using the computer to learn physics. For example, the

first and second highest mean answers were given to the statements, ‘I had fun using

Zoning in on Physics’ and ‘Zoning in on Physics would help me learn physics’,

respectively. This disparity between student interest in the prototype and their

subsequent evaluation of the prototype can be seen when comparing these scores to the

lowest scores registered. The lowest scores registered were for those questions asking

students to give their opinions on the functionality or usability of the prototype. Two of

the three lowest scores were for the questions ‘I liked the graphics of Zoning in on

Physics’ and ‘Zoning in on Physics kept my attention during the activity’

Trends: Male/Female comparative analysis:

After looking at trends that existed in the sample population at large, we broke the

dataset into smaller cohort groups for cross-comparisons. The first of two cuts of the data

compared the responses of males against females. Some of the trends found in the data

were as expected. For example, males had the strongest response to the question, ‘I like

computer games’ while females had the lowest mean response among all sub-groups

considered, to the same question. Maybe more interesting was the fact that when the

question ‘I like using computers in school’ was asked, female responses averaged

significantly lower than males. Female scores were also much lower then the average for

all students. This might suggest that the computer as a medium has a much stronger

appeal for males than females in general. A design consideration relevant to this

tendency is for the designers to increase essentially the femininity or feminine presence

in the program. Which is not to say make it pink or put flowers in the interface, but it is

to say that further research could be performed to determine what styles of interface and

program architecture are most pleasing and effective for female audiences. It seems that

we have the room to move here and design disproportionately with the preferences of the

female audience in mind without losing the already strong interests of the male

demographic. A related note is the fact that female responses registered much higher

than males when asked if they ‘liked working with a computer’ and they also scored

higher when asked if they ‘use a computer at home often’. This might indicate several

sociological phenomena occurring here and indicates a place for further analysis.

When aggregating responses by gender, new trends appeared when analyzing the

responses to the student Zoning in on Physics prototype Student Questionnaire. When

students were asked if they thought Zoning in on Physics would help them learn physics,

males were much more likely than females to feel this to be true. This seems to back up

what we already know; that given a chance to learn physics with or without a computer

boys, who tend to have a stronger affinity for gadgetry and technology in general, are

more likely to feel learning with the computer would be helpful. Interestingly though

was the fact that when asked if they ‘had fun’ using the prototype or whether the ‘like the

graphics’ in the prototype, female responses indicated stronger agreement with those

sentiments than did the responses of the males. So, this appears very encouraging,

indicating that the females do have an interest in something like Zoning in on Physics and

they had fun using it. This also indicates that females appreciate or are more aware of the

aesthetic or graphic design of the user interface. With further analysis this knowledge

may have great strength as a way to make the user experience for the female student more

fun and more effective.

Trends: LD/Non-LD comparative analysis:

The second sub-group comparison considered the differences in attitudes held by

students classified learning disabled (LD) and the rest of the sample population. It was

found that students with learning disabilities show more apprehensiveness towards

computer aided science education but also greater eagerness to give the technology a try.

For example, students not classified LD were more likely to say they ‘liked computer

games’ and that they were ‘good at computer games’ than were students with learning

disabilities. The students without learning disabilities were also more likely to say they

‘use a computer at home’ and/or that they ‘use a computer to help with their homework.’

This indicates that students with learning disabilities may be less interested in using

technology and also less confident or familiar with using technology. A design

consideration might be that educational programs targeted at students with LD need to

address their specialized needs in design and layout.

On a very encouraging note, the differences in attitudes LD and non-LD students

shrink or disappear, even juxtapose themselves when the students were asked to rate the

Zoning in on Physics game. For example, when students were asked if ‘Zoning in on

Physics made these physics concepts easier to understand’, the difference in mean

responses is statistically insignificant between the LD/Non-LD cohorts. Furthermore,

students with learning disabilities were actually more likely than non-LD students to feel

that ‘Zoning in on Physics would help me learn physics’. Similar to the trends found in

the comparative analysis by gender, the disparity in confidence or skills LD students have

when compared to non-LD students is somewhat counter-balanced by an increase in

eagerness or interest LD students have about learning with this medium. For example,

LD students were much more likely then non-LD students to say they ‘had fun using

Zoning in on Physics’. They were also more likely to feel Zoning in on Physics ‘kept

their attention’ during the exercise. They also were also much more likely to say that they

‘liked the graphics’ in the Zoning in on Physics prototype.

Data Analysis Conclusions

The data analysis showed some very promising trends. It appears that the

prototype is addressing student needs. Students want and need multimedia as part of their

educational diet. They have positive feelings about working on computers in general.

Even when considering educational content on computers, they remain interested. This is

great news for ProjectDEVISE. Probably the most enlightening part of the analysis was

the story told about those users not represented by the demographic majority. In

particular, learning disabled students showed a disproportionate eagerness and interest in

using computers to teach complex science concepts. Even though a T-Test proved LD

students were statistically less likely to express confidence in their skills working with

technology at alpha=.005, another T-Test proved they were statistically more likely to say

that they had fun working with the prototype, at alpha=.005. This is very encouraging

when considering the objectives of Project DEVISE. Moreover, our research is showing

that our prototype, designed for the LD-student, is a hit with the non-LD student as well.

Data Analysis Recommendations:

Because this study was only conducted once, our first recommendation is to

repeat this test using the same instrument to gain a clearer and more statistically grounded

understanding of the interpretations of the target audience. A second or even third

iteration of this formative evaluation session would strengthen the foundation on which

these assumptions and recommendations are founded. A second recommendation is to

increase the specialization of the design to address particular likes and dislikes of the

learning disabled student-user. A clear message of ‘design for the periphery’ is seen in

the trends presented by the data analysis. Overall, this study suggests that not only do LD

students have the desire for more VR-based educational programs, they also get a greater

sense of accomplishment or satisfaction out of the programs they use.

Due to the limitations of the prototype at this point in development, however, we

were not able to test for learning outcomes. Further research will be needed to ascertain if

learning is enhanced for student using “Zoning in on Physics” versus those learning

science through the traditional text-based environment. A pre-test and post-test with a

control group would be needed. Nonetheless, the results of this evaluation has shown

motivational factors associated to the VR experiences are positive and as we all know,

that is half the battle.

References

Behrmann, M., Sprague, Debra. (2001). “Zoning in On Physics: Creating Virtual Reality Environments to Aide Students with Learning Disabilities.” In Press.

Castellani, J. (1999) ProjectDEVISE, George Mason University Steppingstones Grant Proposal, http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/EDIT792/proposal.html

Dede C., Salzman, M. Loftin, B. and Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory Immersion as a Modeling Environment for Learning Complex Scientific Concepts, Published in Roberts, N., Fuerzeig, W. and Hunter B. (Eds.) Computer Modeling and Simulation in Science Education.

Dede, C., Salzman, M., and Loftin, B. (1996) ScienceSpace: Virtual realities for learning complex and abstract scientific concepts. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, (pp. 246-253). New York: IEEE Press.

Dede C., Salzman, M., Loftin, B., and Ash, K. (1997). Using virtual reality technology to convey abstract scientific concepts. In M.J. Jacobson & R.B. Kozma (Eds.), Learning the Sciences of the 21st Century: Research, Design, and Implementing Advanced Technology Learning Environments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scruggs, T., Mastropieri, M., & Boon. R. (1998). "Science Education for Students with Disabilities: A Review of Recent Research." Studies in Science Education 32, 21-44.Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1995). Prospects for scientific visualization as an educational technology. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4 (3), 249-279.

Scruggs, T.and Mastropieri, M (1994). Text-based vs. activities-oriented science curriculum: Implications for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 72-85.