Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating Students’ Ideas About Buoyancy and the Influence of Haptic Feedback

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While haptics (simulated touch) represents a potential breakthrough technology for science teaching and learning, there is relatively little research into its differential impact in the context of teaching and learning. This paper describes the testing of a haptically enhanced simulation (HES) for learning about buoyancy. Despite a lifetime of everyday experiences, a scientifically sound explanation of buoyancy remains difficult to construct for many. It requires the integration of domain-specific knowledge regarding density, fluid, force, gravity, mass, weight, and buoyancy. Prior studies suggest that novices often focus on only one dimension of the sinking and floating phenomenon. Our HES was designed to promote the integration of the subconcepts of density and buoyant forces and stresses the relationship between the object itself and the surrounding fluid. The study employed a randomized pretest–posttest control group research design and a suite of measures including an open-ended prompt and objective content questions to provide insights into the influence of haptic feedback on undergraduate students’ thinking about buoyancy. A convenience sample (n = 40) was drawn from a university’s population of undergraduate elementary education majors. Two groups were formed from haptic feedback (n = 22) and no haptic feedback (n = 18). Through content analysis, discernible differences were seen in the posttest explanations sinking and floating across treatment groups. Learners that experienced the haptic feedback made more frequent use of “haptically grounded” terms (e.g., mass, gravity, buoyant force, pushing), leading us to begin to build a local theory of language-mediated haptic cognition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amin TG, Jeppsson F, Haglund J (2015) Conceptual metaphor and embodied cognition in science learning: introduction to the special issue [Special issue]. Int J Sci Educ 37(5–6):745–758

  • Barsalou LW (2008) Grounded cognition. Ann Rev Psychol 59:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou LW, Niedenthal PM, Barbey AK, Ruppert JA (2003) Social embodiment. Psychol Learn Motiv 43:43–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bivall Persson P, Ainsworth S, Tibell L (2011) Do Haptic representations help complex molecular learning? Sci Educ 95:700–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell L, Lynott D (2009) Hard to put your finger on it: Haptic modality disadvantage in conceptual processing. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the cognitive science society

  • Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong T (2006) Computer simulations: technological advances in inquiry learning. Science 312(5773):532–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong T, Van Joolingen WR (1998) Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Rev Educ Res 68:179–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong T, Linn MC, Zacharia ZC (2013) Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science 340:305–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey J (1902) The child and the curriculum. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver R, Squires A, Rushworth P, Wood-Robinson V (1994) Making sense of secondary science: research into children’s ideas. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver R, Leach J, Millar R, Scott P (1996) Young people’s images of science. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitts P, Posner M (1967) Human performance. Brooks/Cole, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs RW (2005) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ginns IS, Watters JJ (1995) An analysis of scientific understandings of preservice elementary teacher education students. J Res Sci Teach 32:205–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg AM (1997) What memory is for? Behav Brain Sci 20:1–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Halford GS, Brown CA, Thompson RM (1986) Children’s concepts of volume and flotation. Dev Psychol 22:218–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han I, Black JB (2011) Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Comput Educ 57:2281–2290

  • Hardy I, Jonen A, Möller K, Stern E (2006) Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students’ understanding of “floating and sinking”. J Educ Psychol 98:307–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G (1992) Force concept inventory. Phys Teach 30:141–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood D, Parker J (2001) Describing the cognitive landscape in learning and teaching about forces. Int J Sci Educ 23(11):1177–1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh H, Shannon SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 15(9):1277–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson RD, Kitchen R, Golledge R (2002) Multimodal virtual reality for presenting geographic information. In: Fisher P, Unwin D (eds) Virtual reality in geography. Taylor & Francis Inc, New York, pp 382–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones MG, Minogue J, Tretter T, Negishi A, Taylor R (2006) Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter? Sci Educ 90:111–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones MG, Childers G, Emig B, Chevrier J, Tan H, Stevens V, List J (2014) The Efficacy of haptic simulations to teach students with visual impairments about temperature and pressure. J Vis Impair Blind 108(1):55–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz D (1989) The world of touch (trans: L. Krueger). Erlbaum, Hillsdale. (Original work published 1925)

  • Kennedy CA, Wilson M (2007) Using progress variables to interpret student achievement and progress. In: BEAR Report Series, 2006-12-01. University of California, Berkeley

  • Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ (2002) Touch. In: Healy AF, Proctor RW (eds) Experimental psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 147–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatzky RL, Lederman SJ, Matula DE (1993) Haptic exploration in the presence of vision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 19:726–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn AS (1993) Preschoolers’ reasoning about density: Will it float? Child Dev 64:1637–1650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozulin A (1990) Mediation: psychological activity and psychological tools. Int J Cogn Educ Mediate Learn 1:151–159

  • Lakoff G, Johnson M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (1987) Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cogn Psychol 19:342–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL (1990) Haptic classification of common objects: knowledge driven exploration. Cogn Psychol 22:421–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman W, Summers C, Klatzky R (1996) Cognitive salience of haptic object properties: role of modality-encoding bias. Perception 25:983–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin JC, Crockett CD, Sadler PM (2003) Density on dry land. Sci Teach 70(6):46–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Loverude ME, Kautz CH, Heron PRL (2003) Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. I. Research on student understanding. Am J Phys 71:1178–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RE (2005) Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: Mayer R (ed) Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 31–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer RE, Moreno R (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 38(1):43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMurray CA (1921) Teaching by projects: a basis for purposeful study. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Minogue J, Jones MG (2006) Haptics in education: exploring an untapped sensory modality. Rev Educ Res 76(3):317–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minogue J, Jones MG (2009) Measuring the impact of haptic feedback using the SOLO taxonomy. Int J Sci Educ 31:1359–1378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minogue J, Jones MG, Broadwell B, Oppewal T (2006) The impact of haptic augmentation on middle school students’ conceptions of the animal cell. Virtual Real 10:293–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novint Technologies, Inc., http://www.novint.com/

  • Parker J, Heywood D (2000) Exploring the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogic content knowledge in primary teachers’ learning about forces. Int J Sci Educ 22(1):89–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J (1954) The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner M (1999) Conceptual construction of fields through tactile interface. Interact Learn Environ 7:31–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revesz G (1950) The psychology and art of the blind. Longmans Green, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy D (2005a) Semiotic schemas: a framework for grounding language in the action and perception. Artif Intell 167:170–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy D (2005b) Grounding words in perception and action: computational insights. Trends Cogn Sci 9:389–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy D, Reiter E (2005) Connecting language to the world. Artif Intell 167:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönborn KJ, Bivall Persson P, Tibell L (2011) Exploring relationships between students’ interaction and learning with a haptic virtual biomolecular model. Comput Educ 57:2095–2105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smetana L, Bell RL (2006) Simulating science. School Sci Math 106:267–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Wadsworth B (1989) Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development. Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe EN, Minogue J, Jones MG, Cowley J, Krebs D (2009) Haptic feedback and students’ learning about levers: unraveling the effect of simulated touch. Comput Educ 53:667–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams RL, Chen M, Seaton JM (2003) Haptics-augmented simple-machine educational tools. J Sci Educ Technol 12:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiser M, Smith CL (2009) How does cognitive development inform the choice of core ideas in the physical sciences? In: Commissioned paper presented at the national research council conference on core ideas in science, Washington, DC. Retrieved from the National Academies website: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Wiser_Smith_CommissionedPaper.pdf

  • Yin Y (2005) The influence of formative assessments on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, California

  • Yin Y, Tomita MK, Shavelson RJ (2008) Diagnosing and dealing with student misconceptions: floating and sinking. Sci Scope 31(8):34–39

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Elementary Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    James Minogue

  2. Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI), The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    David Borland

Authors
  1. James Minogue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Borland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Minogue.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Guided-Inquiry Prompts

Investigating Students’ Ideas about Buoyancy Simulation for Learning Exercises

Exploration

  1. (a)

    Spend some time exploring the interface and familiarize yourself with its functionalities. Remember to press and hold the round button on the device to grab the objects.

    • Adjust the various Object Controls including the Density and Width sliders.

    • Try using the Density Sliders in the Liquid Controls.

  • Be sure to take notice of how the Object Attributes (volume and mass) change as you move these sliders. Also pay attention to the volume and mass of the water being displaced and the forces being displayed.

  1. (b)

    Experiment with various combinations of Objects and Liquids. Observe what happens.

Exercise 1

  • Select “Custom” in the Object Controls and “Water” in the Liquid Controls. Adjust the Density slider for the object.

    • What is the relationship between the object’s density and its mass given a constant volume (i.e., width)?

    • What happens to the mass of the object if you adjust its volume/width? Does the density change?

Exercise 2

  • Select “Ice” in the Object Controls and keep the Liquid Controls on “Water.”

    • What do you notice about the density of the ice cube and the density of the liquid? Does the ice sink or float?

    • What happens when you submerge the ice cube (grab it by using the round button on the device) and let it go?

    • What happens if you adjust the Width slider in the Object Controls?

    • Can you change the type of liquid (using the Liquid Controls) to make ice sink? Why did the ice sink?

Exercise 3

  • Select “Cork” in the Object Controls and set the Liquid Controls back on “Water.” Set the object’s width at 6.00 cm.

  • Press the button on the haptic device to grab and place the cork in the water. What do you notice about the forces being displayed and the amount of water being displaced?

  • Now move the Width slider over to 8.00 cm. Again, press the button on the haptic device to grab and submerge the cork. How does this impact the forces being displayed and amount of water displaced?

Exercise 4

  • Select “Brick” in the Object Controls and keep the Liquid Controls on “Water.” Grab the brick block and place it in the water. Keep hold of it with the button.

    • What do you notice about the mass of the displaced water in relation to the mass of the object?

    • What do you notice about the magnitude of the displayed forces?

    • Adjust the width of the brick block and submerge it. How does this impact the relationship between the mass of the displaced water and the mass of the object?

Exercise 5

  • Find an object that floats in water. Grab it and submerge it.

    • What do you notice about the mass of the displaced water in relation to the mass of the object?

    • What do you notice about the magnitude of the displayed forces?

    • Adjust the width of the object and submerge it. How does this impact the relationship between the mass of the displaced water and the mass of the object?

Appendix 2

See Table 3.

Table 3 Why Things Sink and Float (WTSF) assessment scheme
Full size table

Appendix 3: Close-Ended Questions

Please answer each of the below questions by circling the correct response.

  • Density is defined as:

    1. (a)

      mass multiplied by volume

    2. (b)

      volume divided by mass

    3. (c)

      mass divided by volume

    4. (d)

      weight multiplied by volume

  • The supporting force exerted by a fluid on an object immersed in it is called __________.

    1. (a)

      buoyant force

    2. (b)

      viscosity

    3. (c)

      lift

    4. (d)

      density

  • What determines whether an object will sink or float?

    1. (a)

      whether the buoyant force is larger than the object’s mass

    2. (b)

      whether a buoyant force acts on the object

    3. (c)

      the direction of the buoyant force on the object

    4. (d)

      whether gravity acts on the object in the fluid

  • Look at the two pictures below. They show what happened when two solid blocks were each put in a jar containing a liquid. Based just on what you can see in the pictures, what can you say about the blocks and the jars?

    figure a
    1. 1.

      The liquid in the jars must be water.

    2. 2.

      The block in jar 1 weighs more than the block in jar 2.

    3. 3.

      The block in jar 1 is floating lower in its liquid than is the block in jar 2.

    4. 4.

      The block in jar 1 must be made of metal, and the block in jar 2 must be made of wood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Minogue, J., Borland, D. Investigating Students’ Ideas About Buoyancy and the Influence of Haptic Feedback. J Sci Educ Technol 25, 187–202 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9585-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9585-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation