Can Augmented Reality Create an Authentic Science Discovery Learning Environment?

Margaret M. Thayer Boise State University ED TECH 504-4173 Spring 2010 Final Synthesis Paper

M. Thayer 2

Abstract Inquiry-based instruction is considered a desirable goal in science education today to promote scientific literacy. Inquiry-based science instruction is often considered to reflect constructivist teaching principles, and one constructivist-based approach, discovery learning, is often used to createor even considered synonymous withinquiry-based instruction. Some researchers assert that emerging technologies are uniquely capable of enabling inquiry-based science environments by creating authentic science learning environments, and perhaps more importantly, by engaging students in scientific discovery. This paper discusses interpretations of inquiry, student engagement in learning, and authentic science learning environments before considering the ability of augmented reality (AR) technology to engage students and generate an environment for authentic scientific inquiry and discovery. Three pilot studies of ARs use in science education are described followed by a discussion of the studies findings. Although it is questionable whether these pilot studies generated an authentic science inquiry environment for learning, all three studies demonstrated genuine student engagement and discovery, with students taking ownership of their projective role-playing responsibilities as scientists and other inquiring professionals.

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 3

Introduction Inquiry-based instruction is widely hailed as the most desirable goal in science education, particularly since the U.S. National Science Educational Standards (NSES) were published in 1996 with an emphasis on the inquiry-based approach (National Research Council, 1996). Interpretations of the definition and practice of scientific inquiry abound, but inquiry-based science instruction is generally considered to reflect constructivist teaching principles. One constructivist-based approach, discovery learning, is often used to createor even considered synonymous withinquiry-based instruction. Yet some educators question the efficacy of the constructivist approach in general and discovery learning in particular, largely based on varying interpretations of the educators role in these approaches. Others point out the difficulty of assessing student performance in constructivist environments. Some researchers assert that emerging technologies are uniquely capable of enabling inquiry-based science education by creating authentic learning environments, and perhaps more importantly, by engaging students in scientific discovery. This paper explores the ability of one type of emerging technology, augmented reality (AR), to generate an authentic scientific discovery learning environment.

Scientific Discovery and Inquiry Both discovery and inquiry-based learning emerged from the constructivist school of thought generated by the ideas of John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky. Discovery learning as a theoretical approach is attributed to Jerome Bruners 1960 text The Process of Education. Discovery learning, like constructivism itself, has many interpretations in both definition and application. The essence of discovery learning theory is that learning is best accomplished through active engagement in scientific discovery. Castronova (2002) identified

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 4

two notable attributes of discovery learning: (a) it is process rather than content oriented, and (b) failure and feedback are important elements. Advocates of discovery and inquiry learning seek to engage learners in the same authentic science activities that real scientists engage in. However, the many interpretations of this goal place the educator and learner roles on a continuum from learner-driven pure discovery to educator-driven guided discovery. Some researchers consider discovery learning to be a broad category that encompasses several instructional approaches. For example, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) grouped constructivism, discovery, inquiry, and problembased learning (PBL) into one category they defined as minimally guided instruction. Prince and Felder (2007) described PBL, project-based learning, case-based teaching, and just-in-time teaching as variants of guided discovery. However, Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2006) made clear distinctions among these various approaches. Even among those educators who endorse discovery learning theory, confusion arises about the educators role in facilitating inquiry. The NSES (National Research Council, 1996, Chapter 2) define inquiry by the following eight characteristics: 1. Making observations; 2. Posing questions; 3. Examining books and other sources of information to see what is already known; 4. Planning investigations; 5. Reviewing what is already known in light of experimental evidence; 6. Using tools to gather, analyze, and interpret data; 7. Proposing answers, explanations, and predictions; and 8. Communicating the results.

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 5

Leonard and Penick (2009) point out that the NSES-defined activities are done by students, not educators; they suggest that the educators role is to create a safe and stimulating environment for exploration that promotes communication, creativity, and intellectual freedom (p. 41). Ketelhut, Nelson, Clarke, and Dede (2010, p. 57) state that some educators equate hands-on activities with inquiry because it is active learning, yet Mayer (2004, p. 15) notes that the constructivist view of active learning may be erroneously interpreted as behaviorally active rather than cognitively active. Leonard and Penick (2009, p. 43) demonstrate by example that hands-on activities do not generate inquiry-based science if the activity does not include the critical requirements of inquiry scienceparticularly the requirement that the learner pose a research question. Largely because of its many interpretations, discovery learning has its share of proponents and detractors. Educational researchers have almost universally deemed the pure discovery approach as ineffective, and those who equate all discovery learning approaches with this unguided instruction are strong critics of discovery learning theory. Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) reviewed decades of research on minimally guided instructional approaches and concluded that all of these approaches are likely to be ineffective. Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, and Chinn (2006) offered a rebuttal of the Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark article by distinguishing the characteristics of the various minimally guided approaches and explaining why inquiry learning (PBL in particular) could effectively foster deeper learning through instructional scaffolding and guidance. Although Mayers 2004 paper Should there be a three strikes rule against pure discovery learning? was a scathing indictment of pure discovery, it was also ironically a glowing endorsement of guided discovery. Mayer stated (p. 16) that scientific research on problem-solving methods clarified Bruners vision of discovery learning: Students

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 6

need enough freedom to become cognitively active in the process of sense making, and students need enough guidance so that their cognitive activity results in the construction of useful knowledge. Since a single metric for scaffolding instruction in science education is unlikely to ever reach consensus, Mayers interpretation of Bruners vision may offer educators a reasonable (if subjective) goal. The Role of Engagement in Science Learning Some science educators consider the most important contribution of constructivist approaches such as discovery learning to be in engaging students to learn about science. According to Prince and Felder (2007), all forms of inductive instruction present students with a challenge, and many research studies have demonstrated that grappling with such a challenge is motivational to students (p. 14). Many educational researchers also see a natural fit between constructivist approaches and educational technologies, and technology is frequently regarded as motivational for todays digital natives. Brill and Park (2008) described how society is transitioning from the Information Age, which has focused on information access and delivery, to the Interaction Age, which will center on engagement and interaction. They analyzed traits of digital natives and discussed how certain features of emergent technologies might offer heightened and sustained engagement in learning (p. 74). In considering the concept of engagement, they cited numerous studies showing that engaged learning design produced greater interest, effort, motivation, attention, and similar characteristics in learners. By analyzing three studies that highlighted characteristics of engaged learning environments, they identified three common features (p. 75): 1. Evidence of student responsibility for and ownership of learning, 2. Emphasis on flexible collaboration, and

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 7

3. Extensive use of various human and nonhuman resources to support learning. The Role of Authenticity in Science Learning Another goal of constructivist approaches is to generate authentic learning experiences, i.e., those in which students engage in activities that replicate or simulate real-life activities. Among science educators, this goal translates into an activity that engages students in authentic scientific inquiry (Hume, 2009). Hume explored classroom teachers understandings of this term and determined that many teachers did not have a full understanding of the many problemsolving approaches and methods that scientists use to engage in inquiry (p. 40). Hume concluded that teachers could benefit from more exposure to actual scientific practice to promote their own scientific literacy as well as that of their students. Chinn and Malhotra (2002) asserted that authentic scientific inquiry in education should be evaluated based on whether students have learned how to reason scientifically. In their comprehensive and extensive study, they argued that many student tasks typically deemed to promote scientific inquiry did not generate authentic scientific reasoning, but instead, the simple inquiry tasks often found in science textbooks (p. 176). They contrasted the cognitive processes and epistemologies of both authentic and simple inquiry tasks. The cognitive processes they identified as characteristic of authentic inquiry are summarized as follows: 1. Generating a research question, 2. Designing studies (including selecting and controlling variables), 3. Making observations, 4. Explaining results (including finding flaws and using indirect reasoning), 5. Developing theories (including coordinating results from multiple studies), and 6. Studying research reports.

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 8

The epistemological differences identified by Chinn and Malhotra between simple and authentic scientific inquiry are summarized as follows: 1. Gathering facts versus theoretical modeling based on evidence, 2. Establishing local versus global consistency between data and theories, 3. Assuming methodology reliability versus validating the methodology, 4. Changing a hypothesis in response to anomalous data versus identifying legitimate reasons for anomalous data, 5. Using simple algorithmic (x + y = z ) and causal strategies of reasoning versus acknowledging uncertainty, and 6. Communicating via simple collaboration and group discussion versus constructing knowledge through social processes and institutions. Chinn and Malhotra concluded that many classroom inquiry tasks not only failed to help students learn scientific reasoning, but they also fostered a false, nonscientific, and simplistic view of scientific reasoning (p. 196). Chinn and Malhotra concluded that authentic experimentation in schools would require complex models of data and three developments to promote authentic scientific reasoning: curricula that incorporate reasoning tasks, instruction that fosters a better understanding of the reasoning strategies used by scientists, and instructional strategies that ensure students learn authentic reasoning strategies. Augmented Reality in Science Education One emerging technology with the potential to generate authentic environments for scientific discovery and inquiry is augmented reality (AR). The definition of AR is a bit murky; Brill and Park (2008) described AR as the blending of computer-generated virtual objects/environments with real objects/environments that can be used to enhance or annotate

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 9

what can be discerned by the human user (p. 73). Milgram and Kishino (1994) created a taxonomy of mixed-reality displays along a reality-virtuality continuum that placed AR closest to the real world on one end, and augmented virtuality closest to the virtual world on the other. In the three pilot studies summarized below, AR is delivered via a mobile device that superimposes information from the virtual world onto a real-world setting where students engage in roleplaying and attempt to solve a problem presented to them by researchers. The 2010 Horizon Report predicts that ARs mainstream adoption in education will be in two to three years (Johnson, Levine, Smith, & Stone, 2010). The descriptions of the three pilot AR studies are followed by a discussion of ARs ability to engage students and its potential to generate an authentic environment for inquiry-based science discovery. Pilot Study 1. Squire and Jan (2007) analyzed three case studies of the place-based AR game Mad City Mystery set near Lake Mendota in Madison, Wisconsin. In this game, students from Madison elementary, middle, and high schools adopted one of three team roles (medical doctor, environmental scientist, or government official) to investigate a fishermans mysterious death near the lake. Each participant was given only some of the information needed to form a hypothesis about the death, so the participants had to collaborate with their team members and consider multiple factors and causes of death. The game was designed with no single correct solution to the mystery; the researchers assessed the participants use of inquiry and argumentation skills through observation of their behavior and dialogue. Mad City Mystery was designed with a post-progressive pedagogy based on game theory that was intended to immerse students in authentic scientific inquiry and scientific argumentation. The authors stated (p. 24) that the combination of game structures and physical space created a hybrid third space that was neither completely fantastic nor completely real,

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 10

enabling students to engage in plausible scientific investigations that (1) have significance (or authenticity) to them while (2) serving as cognitive scaffolding for activity. Teacher observers reported that some typically poor-performing students were engaged for an extended period of time through the game play. The authors noted that the games familiar location allowed the participants to activate some of their prior knowledge of Madison and the Lake Mendota area. They acknowledged four limitations to the study: 1. The games short duration did not correspond to that of a real science investigation. 2. The students were not engaged in a real-world problem, which constrained the inquiry. 3. The assessments did not yield data that could be used to judge student performance (learning). 4. The investigators and game facilitators roles were so integral that supervision was likely necessary to support learning. The authors suggested that this type of AR simulation game could be used as a springboard for deeper inquiry-based activities. They also concluded that game-based approaches would require a different orientation toward learning that would involve embracing fantasy, failure, and divergent learning goals (p. 26). Pilot Study 2. Klopfer and Squire (2008) analyzed four case studies involving the Environmental Detectives AR simulation game. In the study, high school and first-year college students used handheld computers to participate in the games simulated toxic spill scenario. The participants were given 90 minutes to engage in collaborative problem-solving to reveal the source of the toxin. The researchers were primarily interested in game design implications, which they derived through observations of the students behavior. None of the groups

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 11

discovered the toxins source, but this educational failure yielded some important observations for future game design. Most notably, the researchers suggested that failure could be built into a pedagogical AR model in which students who played the game but failed could then apply what they learned from their failure(s) to later iterations of the game. Pilot Study 3. In the most recent of the three AR studies, Dunleavy, Dede, and Mitchell (2009) considered the AR game Alien Contact! whose scenario was an alien (extraterrestrial) invasion of Earth. Middle- and high-school students interacted with virtual characters and collected digital objects in an attempt to determine why the aliens landed. They used a handheld computer and Global Positioning System device in a place-independent simulation that could be superimposed on any physical setting (such as a school playground or athletic field). Team members role-played as a chemist, cryptologist, computer hacker, or government agent to solve geo-spatial navigation, mathematical, and literacy problems. The researchers collected data and conducted interviews with teachers and students to generate their preliminary conclusions. The authors did not address student learning or assessment, but instead focused on technology and game design drawbacks and affordances. Some practical limitations emerged, such as technology failures, noisy physical environments, and outdoor lighting that made it difficult for students to see the computer screen. The game required extensive scaffolding due to the number of different skills to be learned and problems to solve, and participating teachers indicated they could not have managed the activity without the researchers involvement. Some students were so immersed in the game that they walked unaware into busy streets, and others experienced cognitive overload due to the number and complexity of problems to solve. The most promising result was high student engagement, especially among students who did not usually engage in

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 12

the classroom setting. Other affordances included student engagement in physical activity, and the ability to use this place-independent game in multiple physical environments. Discussion The three pilot AR studies described in this paper suggest that AR holds promise to promote scientific discovery, inquiry, and cognitively active learning. Although all three studies revealed numerous technology and game design problems, they also afforded a high level of student engagement and motivation. All three games engaged participants in a motivating challenge that demonstrated the three characteristics of engaged learning identified by Brill and Park. As noted by Dunleavy, Dede, and Mitchell (2009), in situated learning environments the unit of analysis is neither the individual nor the setting, but the relationship between the two, as indicated by the students level of participation (p. 9). These three AR games also engaged learners in the uncertainty and sometimes failure expected of real science with a focus on process over contentall characteristics promoted by the discovery learning approach. Although it can be argued that students were not engaged in authentic science inquiry because they did not pose their own research question, students were required to engage in many of the cognitive, if not epistemological, processes of authentic inquiry identified by Chinn and Malhotra. Participants were required to generate questions to solve the problem imposed upon them, and the games exposed learners to the process of scientific reasoning. The complex and subjective nature of assessing learning in simulated game play makes the widespread use of AR difficult to justify; therefore, AR game play might be best suited to engage students initially in scientific discovery (and failure) with follow-up classroom activities to promote inquiry about the failures and to assess learning.

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 13

Perhaps most intriguing of ARs affordances is student role-playing in the hybrid third space identified by Squire and Jan. The combination of real and virtual identities resulted in students taking ownership of their game role; students could not disappear in a virtual identity because the game design required each student to inhabit the role of a professional with part of the responsibility for the teams success. Dunleavy, Dede, and Mitchell (2009) labeled this roleplaying phenomenon as projective identity (p. 15). This projective identity generated a sense of authenticitya sense that the learners were engaged in real science. Additional research might reveal whether projective identity experiences in science can encourage students to pursue science educations and careers.

References Brill, J. M., & Park, Y. (2008). Facilitating engaged learning in the Interaction Age taking a pedagogically-disciplined approach to innovation with emergent technologies. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 7078. Castronova, J. A. (2002). Discovery learning for the 21st century: What is it and how does it compare to traditional learning in effectiveness in the 21st century? Action Research Exchange, 1(1), 112. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001 Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(1), 722. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9119-1
2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 14

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99107. Hume, A. (2009). Authentic scientific inquiry and school science. Teaching Science, 55(2), 35 41. Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 horizon report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 5668. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01036.x Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 7586. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental DetectivesThe development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(2), 203228. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9037-6 Leonard, W. H., & Penick, J. E. (2009). Is the inquiry real? Working definitions of inquiry in the science classroom. Science Teacher, 76(5), 4043. Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59(1), 1419. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14 Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems Vol. E77, 13211329.

2010 Margaret M. Thayer

M. Thayer 15

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=1 Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 1420. Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 529. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z

2010 Margaret M. Thayer