Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter?

Science Education

Volumn 90, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 111-123

  Gail Jones, M ^a   Minogue, James ^b   Tretter, Thomas R ^c   Negishi, Atsuko ^d   Taylor, Russell ^d  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b The College of New Jersey   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645672561     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20086     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Burdea, G. (1996). Force and touch feedback for virtual reality. New York: Wiley.
2. Brooks, F. P., Ouh-Young, M., Batter, J. J., & Kilpatrick, P. J. (1990). Project GROPE-Haptic displays for scientific visualization. ACM Computer Graphics, 24, 177-185.
3. Clark, C., & Jorde, D. (2004). Helping students revise disruptive experimentally supported ideas about thermodynamics and tactile models: Computer visualizations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1-23.
4. Druyan, S. (1997). Effect of the kinesthetic conflict on promoting scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1083-1099.
5. Ferk, V., & Vrtacnick, M. (2003). Students' understanding of molecular structure representations. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1227-1245.
6. Foley, B. (2000). Visualization tools: Models, representations and knowledge integration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
7. Glasson, G. E. (1989). The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstration laboratory methods on science achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 121-131.
8. Jacobson, R. D., Kitchen, R., & Golledge, R. (2002). Multimodal virtual reality for presenting geographic information. In P. Fisher & D. Unwin (Eds.), Virtual reality in geography. London: Taylor and Francis.
9. Heller, M. A. (1982). Visual and tactual perception: Intersensory cooperation. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 339-344.
10. Jones, M. G., Andre, T., Superfine, R., & Taylor, R. (2003). Learning at the nanoscale: The impact of students' use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 303-322.
11. Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., Whelan, S. M., & Hecht, H. (1992). Influence of animation on dynamical judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 669-689.
12. Kaufmann, D. R., Patel, V. L., & Magder, S. A. (1996). The explanatory role of spontaneously generated analogies in reasoning about physiological concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 369-386.
13. Kilpatrick, P. J. (1976). The use of kinesthetic supplement in an interactive system. Ph.D dissertation, Computer Science Department. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
14. Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Reed, C. (1987). There's more to touch than meets the eye: The salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 356-369.
15. Kozma, R. B. (2000), Students collaborating with computer models and physical experiments. In C. Hoadley (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 314-322). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L., (1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 342-368.
17. Lederman, S., & Klatzky, R. (1999). Sensing and displaying spatially distributed fingertip forces in haptic interfaces for teleoperation and virtual environment systems. Presence, 8, 86-103.
18. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Loucks-Horsley, S., Kapitan, R., Carlson, M., Kuerbis, P., Clark, R., Melle, G., Sache, T., & Walton, E. (1990). Elementary school science for the '90s. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
20. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 141-159). Norwood, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 319-334.
22. Naps, T. L., Chair, Working Group on Visualization. (1996, June). An overview of visualization: Its use and design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 192-200).
23. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
24. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2004). Science standard course of study and grade level competencies. Retrieved July 18, 2004, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/science/standard/
25. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representation, a dual-coding approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26. Pittman, K. M. (1999). Student-generated analogies: Another way of knowing? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1-22.
27. Reiner, M. (1999). Conceptual construction of fields through tactile interface. Interactive Learning Environments, 7, 31-55.
28. Salisbury, K., Brock, D., Massie, T., Swaruo, N., & Zilles, C. (1995). Haptic rendering: Programming touch interaction with virtual objects. In Proceedings of the 1995 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics (pp. 123-130).
29. Sathian, K. (1998). Perceptual learning. Current Science, 75, 451-456.
30. Sorid, D., (2000, March 23). Giving computers a sense of touch. The New York Times on the web. Retrieved July 27, 2003 from http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/ vr2000/nytimes.html
31. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
32. Taylor, M. M., Lederman, S. J., & Gibson, R. H. (1974). Tactual perception of texture. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception, Vol. 3: Biology of perceptual systems. New York: Academic.
33. Vesilind, E., & Jones, M. G. (1996). Hands-on: Science education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 375-385.
34. Wadsworth, B. (1989). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development. New York: Longman.
35. Wu, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students' use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 821-842.