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

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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 -

5. 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

6. 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

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

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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