Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Learning Physics through Play Project (LPP) engaged 6–8 year old students (n = 43) in a series of scientific investigations of Newtonian force and motion including a series of augmented reality activities. We outline the two design principles behind the LPP curriculum: 1) the use of socio-dramatic, embodied play in the form of participatory modeling to support inquiry; and 2) progressive symbolization within rich semiotic ecologies to help students construct meaning. We then present pre- and post-test results to show that young students were able to develop a conceptual understanding of force, net force, friction and two-dimensional motion after participating in the LPP curriculum. Finally, we present two case studies that illustrate the design principles in action. Taken together the cases show some of the strengths and challenges associated with using augmented reality, embodied play, and a student invented semiotic ecology for scientific inquiry.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We have adapted the term ‘ambitious math instruction’ from (Lampert et al. 2010) which was used to refer to instruction that simultaneously targets conceptual understanding, procedural fluency and productive dispositions towards the domain.

  2. Note that in previous presentations, this project was referred to as the Semiotic Pivots and Activity Spaces for Elementary Science (SPASES) Project NSF Award # DRL-0733218.

  3. All names are pseudonyms.

  4. The initial implementation of LPP allowed for all artwork to be substituted except for the ball. Students were, however, able to imagine the ball as a letter and referred to it as such throughout this activity. To avoid this challenge, however, future iterations will support a replacement of all visual elements in the system.

  5. Large and medium are labels that the students chose to apply to those different forces.

  6. They were asked to poke the soccer ball with a stick, rather than kick it, to better simulate an impulse force and to provide better control over the direction of the force.

References

  • Acredolo, C., Adams, A., & Schmid, J. (1984). On the understanding of the relationships between speed, duration, and distance. Child Development, 55, 2151–2159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1976). A theory of play and fantasy. In J.S. Bruner, A. Jolly and K. Sylva (Eds.), Play—its role in development and evolution (pp 119–129). New York: Basic Books.

  • Bransford, J. (Ed.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: National Academies Press.

  • Bullock, M., Gelman, R., & Baillargeon, R. (1982). The development of causal reasoning. In W. J. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., D'Angelo, C. M., & Schleigh, S. P. (2011). Comparison of students' knowledge structure coherence and understanding of force in the Philippines, Turkey, China, Mexico, and the United States. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(2), 207–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with Tools and Inscriptions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 187–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in Classroom Mathematical Practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, P. (2009). The classrooms all young children need: Lessons in teaching from Vivian Paley. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  • Danish, J. A. (2009). BeeSign: A Design Experiment to Teach Kindergarten and First Grade Students About Honeybees From a Complex Systems Perspective. San Diego, CA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. Putfall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an Epistemology of Physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2), 105–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing Graphing: Meta-Representationsal Expertise in Children. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing Mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(1489–1522).

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., & Hall, R. P. (1997). Practicing representation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 361–367.

  • Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1984). Current activity for the future: The Zo-ped. New Directions for Child Development, 23, 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, A. (2002). Disrupting representational infrastructure in conversations across disciplines. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(3), 179–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–148.

  • Kato, H. (2006). The youthful energy for integration of engineering and arts: An augmented reality toolkit and its applications for ART. Joho Shori (45), 362–367.

  • Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines, 129–141.

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). Reasoning about structure and function: Children’s conceptions of gears. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Inventing data structures for representational purposes: Elementary grade students’ classification models. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2, 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In R. W. Damon, K. Lerner, A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In E. D. Amsel & J. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Carpenter, S., & Penner, D. E. (2000). The inter-related development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 325–360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, F. (2001). Development of concepts of interrelationships among duration, distance, and speed. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 466–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of Developmental Constraints on Children’s Science Instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (1997). On the Complex Relation Between Cognitive Developmental Research and Children’s Science Curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 151–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minstrell, J., & Stimpson, V. (1995). A classroom environment for learning: Guiding students’ reconstruction of understanding and reasoning. In R. Glaser & L. Schauble (Eds.), The contributions of instructional innovation to understanding learning. Boulder, CO: Paper presented at the Conference on Curriculum and Assessment Reform in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemirovsky, R. (2003). Three Conjectures concerning the Relationship between Body Activity and Understanding Mathematics. Paper presented at the PME 27, Honolulu, Hawai-I.

  • Nemirovsky, R., Tierney, C., & Wright, T. (1998). Body Motion and Graphing. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 119–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolopoulou, A. (1993). Play, cognitive development, and the social world: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Human Development, 36(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., Wright, T., & Tierney, C. (2001). Experiencing change: The mathematics of change in multiple environments. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 85–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). “When I come down, I’m in a domain state”: Grammar and Graphic Representation in the Interpretive Activity of Physicists. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 328–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1952). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, NY, US: W. W. Norton & Co, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseberry, A. S., Warren, B., Ballenger, C., & Ogonowski, M. (2005). The generative potential of students’ everyday knowledge in learning science. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter, & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and everyday knowledge in learning science (pp. 55–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 102–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. M. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegler, R. S., & Liebert, R. M. (1975). Acquisition of formal experiment. Developmental Psychology, 11, 401–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., & Medina, R. (2010). The temporal development of representational practices: Implications for theory and analysis of situated learning. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-43), January 5- 8, 2010, Kauai, Hawaii (CD-ROM). New Brunswick: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. (1993a). Intermediate Causal Models: A missing link for successful science education? In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 177–252). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, B. (1993b). Thinker tools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoachim, C. M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2003). Cause and effect in the mind of the preschool child. Park City: Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Cognitive Development Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S., Steinmeier, C., Wang, J., & Tucker, S. (2011). Learning science through knowledge-building and augmented reality in museums. In G. S. Hans Spada, N. Miyake, N. Law (Ed.), Connecting Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL2011 Conference Proceedings. Volume I — Long Papers (pp. 9–16). HongKong, China: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Youngquist, J., & Pataray-Ching, J. (2004). Revisiting “Play”: Analyzing and Articulating Acts of Inquiry. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31, 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (DRL-0733218). This project would also not be possible without the help from members of our team who are not authors on this paper Fabian Wagmister, Jeff Burke and Alessandro Marianantoni. Finally we would like to thank Sylvia Gentile who taught the lessons and led the students in some remarkable discussions of force and motion.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Noel Enyedy, Girlie Delacruz & Melissa Kumar

  2. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Joshua A. Danish

Authors
  1. Noel Enyedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua A. Danish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Girlie Delacruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Melissa Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noel Enyedy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Enyedy, N., Danish, J.A., Delacruz, G. et al. Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. Computer Supported Learning 7, 347–378 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9150-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9150-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation