Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation Lindgren Robb, Tscholl Michael, Wang Shuai, Johnson Emily Presented By Aditi Mallavarapu

Overview of System Interactive Simulation involving embodied Interaction Physics concepts of planetary motion and gravitation Middle school students Overall I like the concept presented in this paper. Was involved in a number of Physics lab CAVE2 demos and was hoping some collaboration with the Physics department to create some kind of educational simulations. -Arthur

Science and Simulation Attitudes Learning Outcomes and Engagement Research Questions Science and Simulation Attitudes Learning Outcomes and Engagement Degree of Immersion and Physical Interaction Learning Outcomes for students engaged with science content differ with the degree of immersion and physical Interaction.

Embed learners in a realistic representation of planetary astronomy Novelty Whole-body, immersive, mixed reality simulation game - “Participatory Learning” Integrates floor- and wall-projections with a laser-based motion tracking system Embed learners in a realistic representation of planetary astronomy -Learning through enacted predictions of how objects move though space -

MEteor - Task Objective (4 levels) Phase 1:Virtual Spring launcher Utilize bodies to predict asteroid movements (through gravitational forces of other planets) Phase 1:Virtual Spring launcher Use bodies as asteroid to load the spring launcher set the initial launch parameters (position, speed, and angle) to hit the goal Phase 2: Initiate the launch Stepping forward in the spring launcher Moving through the simulation in the path they expect the asteroid will travel Success: Predict movement in advance Move naturally with correct trajectory Level 1: mechanics of the launcher : hit the target Level 2: large planet to left Level 3: Small planet in from of the target Level 4: make it go around the planet

MEteor - Feedback Real time feedback cues to adjust speed and location Adjacent wall instructions and Performance measures – after action Also the task itself reminds me of a project from the 2010 Video Game class - Arthur

Research Design Control Study (n= 113) Seventh grade Whole body Simulation (n=58) Desktop Simulation (n=55)

Conceptualization Degree of Immersion and Physical Interactions Perspective Enactment (Whole body) vs bird’s view (desktop view)

Hypothesis Embodied Interaction with simulation facilitates learning Embodied Interactions with simulation has positive affect on attitudes about simulation Hypothesis Enactment with bodies physicalize the systems and allow to build new knowledge – develop intuitions and facilitate reasoning Increase in feeling of agency and positive attitudes about simulation experience. Learning measured as developing intuitions and reasoning

a short survey that included science attitude and efficacy items. Study Design Pre a short survey that included science attitude and efficacy items. Post questions about forces and motion, planetary astronomy concepts, + science attitudes and efficacy. I also found it interesting they found an existing set of survey questions specifically aimed at the concepts in their simulation. Maybe not unexpected, given the lecture on to use existing surveys when possible and that this was an educational simulation. Nice that the questions were included in the paper - Arthur

Operationalization Force Concept Inventory (FCI) 12 Questions Conceptual of force and motion Asks them articulate relationship between force and motion of object Physics in space 3 Questions Gravity and mass of Objects in space Learning via reasoning (post) Modified Attitudes Towards Science Inventory (MATSI) enjoyment of science, value of science in society, and self-concept in science Attitude and efficacy (towards simulation and science) (pre+post) Presence and Engagement Questions Feeling towards simulation and self-relatability to science Academic behavior and success

Conceptual answers measuring learning through post tests Metrics: 6 Point Likert scales for attitude and efficacy, presence and engagement questions Conceptual answers measuring learning through post tests

Analysis – Learning Multivariate analyses for learning (reasoning) and engagement: (to control for type 1 error) Concepts: Learning Tests on scores from 12 FCI questions Tests on scores from 12 FCI questions + 3 Physics questions Engagement questions “I enjoyed the simulation game.” “The simulation helped me learn” The authors designed the engagement questions in a leading fashion, was that the reason of their high/ good results. Or are such questions common considering the young population? - Aditi

Analysis Learning and Engagement Desktop Whole Body F Effect Size M (SD) R Squared 12 FCI 3.00 (1.58) 3.67 (1.60) 5.05 * 0.04 12 FCI + 3 Physics 4.13 (1.74) 4.84 (1.78) 4.67 * Engagement 4.69 (1.15) 5.26 (0.87) 7.94 ** 0.07 Learning aid 4.30 (1.11) 5.00 (0.88) 14.85 *** 0.12 p< 0.05 , **p < 0.01, *** p< 0.001 Would administrating the conceptual tests as pre and post would have informed them of learning gains (a better measure for success) through the simulation than just conceptual post test? – Aditi When differing in scales each category defined above, so you need to normalize the scales before comparing the M and SD per category per group? – Aditi They don’t call out on which tests they performed, I am assuming they did a simple regression / ANOVA ? - Aditi

Analysis – Science Efficacy 3 Pre and 3 post Likert scale questions: (Leading as well) Differences in perceptions: Independent T-tests for pre and post responses (no significant differences) Change in perceptions: ANCOVA Three pre-survey questions: I enjoy talking to other people about science. 2. It is likely that science will NOT be part of my job someday. 3. I usually understand what we are talking about in science class. Three post-survey questions: I like science. 2. It is likely that doing science will be part of my job someday. 3. No matter how hard I try, I CANNOT understand science.

Science Efficacy Desktop Whole Body F Effect Size M (SD) 𝜼 𝟐 4.96 (0.98) 4.67 (0.9) 4.84 * 0.43 *p< 0.05

Analysis: Presence and Engagement 10 items(6-point Likert scale questions): concentration, immersion, challenge, and autonomy/control Confirmatory factor analysis: 𝜒 2 (29) = 32.77, p = 0.29; CFI = 0.99; GFI = 0.94; SRMSR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.04. Tests to compare across groups

Presence and Engagement Desktop Whole Body F Effect Size M (SD) R- Squared Concentration 4.52 (1.17) 4.92 (0.94) 4.12 * 0.04 Immersion 3.91 (0.96) 4.45 (0.96) 8.9 ** 0.07 Challenge 4.32 (1.09) 4.72 (0.99) 4.33 * Autonomy/ Control 4.65 (0.98) 4.65 (0.95) 0.73 0.01 *p< 0.05, **p < 0.01 I think that the pools that attitudes and efficacy questions were chosen from (enjoyment of science, value of science in society, and self-concept in science) are interesting. -Nina

Discussion A study to explore the effect of using mixed reality to immerse student in learning physics on learning gain, level of engagement, and attitude toward science. – Nina