Examining whether touch sensory feedback is necessary for science learning through experimentation: A literature review of two different lines of research across K-16

Educational Research Review

Volumn 16, Issue , 2015, Pages 116-137

  Zacharia, Zacharias C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

Haptics; Physical labs; Science education; Simulations; Touch sensory input; Virtual labs

Indexed keywords

EID: 84945120121     PISSN: 1747938X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.001     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Baddeley A.D. Working memory. Science 1992, 255:556-559.
2. Baddeley A. Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2003, 4:829-839. 10.1038/nrn1201.
3. Baddeley A.D., Hitch G. Working memory. The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory 1974, 47-89. Academic Press, New York, NY. G.H. Bower (Ed.).
4. Bara F., Gentaz E., Pascale C., Sprenger-Charolles L. The visuo-haptic and haptic exploration of letters increases the kindergarten-children's understanding of the alphabetic principle. Cognitive Development 2004, 19:433-449. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.05.003.
5. Barsalou L.W. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1999, 22(04):577-660. 10.1017/S0140525X99002149.
6. Barsalou L.W. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology 2008, 59:617-645. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.
7. Barsalou L.W., Niedenthal P.M., Barbey A.K., Ruppert J.A. Social embodiment. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 2003, 43:43-92. 10.1016/S0079-7421(03)01011-9.
8. Bayazit O.B., Song G., Amato N.M. Ligand binding with OBPRM and user input. Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation 2001, 954-959. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.
9. Bivall P., Ainsworth S., Tibell L.A.E. Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning?. Science Education 2011, 95:700-719. 10.1002/sce.20439.
10. Bivall P., Cooper M.D., Jonsson B.-H., Ynnerman A., Ainsworth S., Tibell L.A.E. Designing and evaluating a haptic system for biomolecular education. IEEE-Virtual Reality, 07 2007, 171-178. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. 10.1109/VR.2007.352478.
11. Brooks F.P., Ouh-Young M., Batter J.J., Kilpatrick P.J. Project GROPE - haptic displays for scientific visualization. ACM Computer Graphics 1990, September, 24(4):177-185. 10.1145/97879.97899.
12. Burton H., Sinclair R.J. Attending to and remembering tactile stimuli: a review of brain imaging data and single-neuron responses. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 2000, 17:575-591. 10.1097/00004691-200011000-00004.
13. Chan M.S., Black J.B. Direct-manipulation animation: Incorporating the haptic channel in the learning process to support middle school students in science learning and mental model acquisition 2006, June, (Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana, USA).
14. Chini J.J., Madsen A., Gire E., Rebello N.S., Puntambekar S. Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 2012, 8:010113. 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010113.
15. Cox R. Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction 1999, 9:343-363. 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00051-6.
16. Dede C., Salzman M., Loftin R.B., Ash K. The design of immersive virtual learning environments: fostering deep understandings of complex scientific knowledge. Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning 2000, 361-414. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. M. Jacobson, R.B. Kozma (Eds.).
17. Fernald G.M. Remedial techniques in basic school subjects 1943, McGraw-Hill, New York.
18. Finkelstein N.D., Adams W.K., Keller C.J., Kohl P.B., Kohl K.K., Podolefsky N.S., et al. When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 2005, 1:1-8. 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103.
19. Fischer M.H., Zwaan R.A. Embodied language: a review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2008, 61:825-850. 10.1080/17470210701623605.
20. Gibbs R.W. Embodiment and cognitive science 2005, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
21. Gire E., Carmichael A., Chini J.J., Rouinfar A., Rebello S., Smith G., et al. The effects of physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual learning about pulleys. Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS 2010) 2010, Vol. 1:937-944. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Chicago IL.
22. Glenberg A.M. What memory is for. Creating meaning in the service of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1997, 20:1-55. 10.1017/S0140525X97470012.
23. Hallman G., Paley I., Han I., Black J. Possibilities of haptic feedback simulation for physics learning. Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications 2009 2009, 3597-3602. AACE, Chesapeake, VA.
24. Han I. Embodiment: a new perspective for evaluating physicality in learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2013, 49(1):41-59.
25. Han I., Black J.B. Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Computers & Education 2011, 57(4):2281-2290. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.012.
26. Jaakkola T., Nurmi S. Fostering elementary school students' understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2008, 24:271-283. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.x.
27. Jaakkola T., Nurmi S., Veermans K. A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2011, 48:71-93. 10.1002/tea.20386.
28. Jones M.G., Andre T., Superfine R., Taylor R. 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 2003, 40:303-322. 10.1002/tea.10078.
29. Jones M.G., Minogue J., Tretter T.R., Negishi A., Taylor R. Haptic augmentation of science instruction: does touch matter?. Science Education 2006, 90:111-123. 10.1002/sce.20086.
30. de Jong T. Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science 2010, 38:105-134. 10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0.
31. de Jong T., Linn M.C., Zacharia Z.C. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 2013, 340:305-308. 10.1126/science.1230579.
32. Klahr D., Triona L.M., Williams C. Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2007, 44:183-203. 10.1002/tea.20152.
33. Klatzky R.L., Lederman S.J. Touch. Experimental psychology 2002, 147-176. Wiley, New York, NY. A.F. Healy, R.W. Proctor (Eds.).
34. Klatzky R.L., Lederman S.J., Reed C. 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 1987, 116:356-369. 10.1037/0096-3445.116.4.356.
35. Kontra C., Lyons D.J., Fischer S.M., Beilock S.L. Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science 2015, 26(6):737-749. 10.1177/0956797615569355.
36. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Philosophy in the flesh 1999, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
37. Lazonder A.W., Ehrenhard S. Relative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives for conceptual change in science: how falling objects fall. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2014, 30(2):110-120.
38. Loomis J.M., Lederman S.J. Tactual perception. Handbook of perception and human preferences 1986, 1-41. Wiley, New York. K. Boff, L. Kaufman, S.J. Lederman (Eds.).
39. Low R., Sweller J. The modality principle. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2005, 147-158. Cambridge University Press, New York. R. Mayer (Ed.).
40. Luciano C., Banerjee P., DeFanti T. Haptics-based virtual reality periodontal training simulator. Virtual Reality 2009, 13(2):69-85.
41. Manches A., O'Malley C. Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 2012, 16(4):405-419. 10.1007/s00779-011-0406-0.
42. Marras I., Papaleontiou L., Nikolaidis N., Lyroudia K., Pitas I. Virtual dental patient: a system for virtual teeth drilling. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo 2006, 665-668.
43. McDermott L.C., The Physics Education Group Physics by inquiry 1996, Wiley, New York.
44. McNeil N., Jarvin L. When theories don't add up: disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice 2007, 46(4):309-316. 10.1080/00405840701593899.
45. Millar S. Memory in touch. Psicothema 1999, 11:747-767.
46. Minogue J., Jones M.G. Haptics in education: exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research 2006, 76:317-348. 10.3102/00346543076003317.
47. Minogue J., Jones M.G. Measuring the impact of haptic feedback using the SOLO taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education 2009, 31:1359-1378. 10.1080/09500690801992862.
48. Minogue J., Jones M.G., Broadwell B., Oppewall T. The impact of haptic augmentation on middle school students' conceptions of the animal cell. Virtual Reality 2006, 10(3-4):293-305. 10.1007/s10055-006-0052-4.
49. Olympiou G., Zacharia Z.C. Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: an effort to improve students' conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education 2012, 96(1):21-47.
50. Pohlenz P., Gröbe A., Petersik A., von Sternberg N., Pflesser B., Pommert A., et al. Virtual dental surgery as a new educational tool in dental school. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 2010, 38(8):560-564.
51. Pouw W.T.J.L., Gog T., Paas F. An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Education Psychology Review 2014, 26:51-72.
52. Reiner M. Conceptual construction of fields through tactile interface. Interactive Learning Environments 1999, 7(1):31-55. 10.1076/ilee.7.1.31.3598.
53. Reiner M. Sensory cues, visualization and physics learning. International Journal of Science Education 2009, 31:343-364. 10.1080/09500690802595789.
54. Renken M.D., Nunez N. Computer simulations and clear observations do not guarantee conceptual understanding. Learning and Instruction 2013, 23:10-23. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.08.006.
55. Schönborn K.J., Bivall P., Tibell L.A. Exploring relationships between students' interaction and learning with a haptic virtual biomolecular model. Computers & Education 2011, 57(3):2095-2105.
56. Smith L., Gasser M. The development of embodied cognition: six lessons from babies. Artificial Life 2005, 11:13-29. 10.1162/1064546053278973.
57. Sweller J. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 1994, 4:295-312. 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5.
58. Sweller J., van Merrienboer J.J.G., Paas F.G.W.C. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 1998, 10:251-296. 10.1023/A:1022193728205.
59. Toth E.E., Ludvico L.R., Morrow B.L. Blended inquiry with hands-on and virtual laboratories: the role of perceptual features during knowledge construction. Interactive Learning Environments 2012, 1-17. 10.1080/10494820.2012.693102.
60. Toth E.E., Morrow B., Ludvico L. Designing blended inquiry learning in a laboratory context: a study of incorporating hands-on and virtual laboratories. Innovative Higher Education 2009, 33:333-344. 10.1007/s10755-008-9087-7.
61. Triona L.M., Klahr D. Point and click or grab and heft: comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction 2003, 21:149-173. 10.1207/S1532690XCI2102_02.
62. Vidal F.P., John N.W., Healey A.E., Gould D.A. Simulation of ultrasound guided needle puncture using patient specific data with 3D textures and volume haptics. Computer Animation and Virtual Worlds 2008, 19(2):111-127.
63. Wiebe E.N., Minogue J., Jones M.G., Cowley J., Krebs D. Haptic feedback and students' learning about levers: unraveling the effect of simulated touch. Computers & Education 2009, 53:667-676. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.004.
64. Williams R.L., Chen M., Seaton J.M. Haptics-augmented simple-machine educational tools. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2003, 12:1-12. 10.1023/A:1022114409119.
65. Wilson M. The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2001, 8(1):44-57. 10.3758/BF03196138.
66. Wilson M. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2002, 9:625-636. 10.3758/bf03196322.
67. Winn W., Stahr F., Sarason C., Fruland R., Oppenheimer P., Lee Y.-L. Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2006, 43:25-42. 10.1002/tea.20097.
68. Zacharia Z.C. The impact of interactive computer simulations on the nature and quality of postgraduate science teachers' explanations in physics. International Journal of Science Education 2005, 27:1741-1767.
69. Zacharia Z.C. Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 2007, 23:120-132. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00215.x.
70. Zacharia Z.C., Anderson O.R. The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students' conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics 2003, 71:618-629.
71. Zacharia Z.C., Constantinou C.P. 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. American Journal of Physics 2008, 76:425-430. 10.1119/1.2885059.
72. Zacharia Z.C., de Jong T. The effects on students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction 2014, 32:101-158.
73. Zacharia Z.C., Loizou E., Papaevripidou M. Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2012, 27:447-457. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.004.
74. Zacharia Z.C., Michael M. Using physical and virtual manipulatives to improve primary school students' understanding of concepts of electric circuits. New Developments in Science and Technology Education 2015, Springer, NY. Z. Smyrnaiou, M. Riopel (Eds.).
75. Zacharia Z.C., Olympiou G. Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction 2011, 21:317-331. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001.
76. Zacharia Z.C., Olympiou G., Papaevripidou M. Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2008, 45:1021-1035. 10.1002/tea.20260.