Laura Marie Leventhal, Computer Science Dale Klopfer, Psychology Guy Zimmerman, Computer Science

1. Empowering Student Learning in the Geologic Sciences with Three Dimensional Interactive Animation and Low Cost Virtual Reality Laura Marie Leventhal, Computer Science Dale Klopfer, Psychology Guy Zimmerman, Computer Science Charlie Onasch, Geology

2. Overview • Research in context • Spatial cognition • Use of 3DIA tools for • Standard task • Profile task • Summary Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

3. What Can I Say • I am not a geoscientist or chemist  • Area HCI • Research focuses • Spatial cognition (perception, wayfinding) • Underrepresented groups • Our team • CS, HCI, Psychology, Geology Leventhal

4. Geoscience Learning and Innovative Representations • Our premise • Student understanding of concepts thought to involve processing of spatial information • Can be improved using three dimensional animation and interactive animation tools • Especially for those students with lower spatial ability • Tools should be useful in large or small size lab sections Leventhal

5. Evidence • Research • Multimedia learning • Geoscience education • Spatial perception • HCI • Interesting results • Benefits, especially to persons of low SA • Dual presentations • Highly interactive • Interactive control • Interactive manipulation Leventhal

6. Pitfalls? • Ha ha – I am an HCI person so here it is • Designing for problem (user, task) • Tempting to build latest technology without data support • Might be a good projects but poor task match • Design of usable systems is difficult • Evaluation is difficult • Determining causality in a complex environment Leventhal

7. Spatial Cognition • Why do we care about spatial perception and spatial cognition? • Much of human functioning is tied to processing of spatial information • Spatial cognition is “old” by evolutionary standards Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

8. Spatial Cognition and STEM Education • Why do we care about spatial cognition in STEM education? • Many tasks require the processing of spatial information • Reported in many areas of science, including chemistry • Learners with low spatial skills may be systematically disadvantaged • People show vast individual differences • Gender does not predict these differences uniformly Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

9. Spatial Cognition and Visual Computerized Presentations • Why do we care about spatial cognition in HCI? • There are similar patterns of behaviors between functioning in the real world and in computerized presentations • Visualization • Wayfinding and navigation • Information preferences Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

10. What is “Spatial Ability” • Generally refers to skill in representing, transforming, generating, and recalling symbolic, nonlinguistic information • Involves multiple processes • No clear agreement what the cognitive processes are Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

11. Some correlates of SA include… • Mental rotation • Ability to rotate a 2D or 3D object accurately and rapidly • Spatial Visualization • the ability to manipulate visual patterns without regard to speed of task solution • Measured via standardized psychometric tests Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

12. Our Focus • 3D Interactive Animations (3DIA) • 3DIA = • 3DMA • 3DCA Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

13. 3DIA??? • How does 3DIA impact performance on tasks that involve • Mental rotations • Visualization • Structure of research • Develop/test a 3DIA tool that allows “Lows” to improve performance on standardized test? • Develop/test 3DIA tool that improves performance of “Lows” on geologic problem solving task Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

14. Standard Task Involving Mental Rotation • Cube Comparison Task - CCT • Task is to determine if the two cubes could be the same • Complexity of rotation can be varied • Can discriminate between “lows” and “highs” relative to mental rotation Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

15. Our Research - Cube Comparison Task Subjects can manipulate cube in 3D with tool Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

16. Summary of Findings from 3DIA CCT studies • HCI result of interest • The interactive rotational tool moderates ability differences and differences due to stimulus complexity in reaction time. • Similar to paper and pencil • Lower spatial ability subjects do worse than higher ability subjects • Lower spatial ability subjects do differentially better with more complex stimuli. Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

17. Why Care about 3DIA CCT? • Spatial skills needed in the CCT similar to those used in other tasks • Generation of a profile from a topographic map • Taught in many geoscience curriculae • Earlier studies suggest that • Task differentially more difficult with increasing stimulus complexity • Task differentially more difficult for lower spatial ability subjects Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

18. A topographic map Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

19. The profile task: determine the elevations changes along the path A Resulting profile B B A Map with profile line Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

20. 3DIA and Profile Task • Can a 3DIA tool help? • Higher complexity problems • Low ability subjects Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

21. Software for Studies • Integrated web site • Section 508 certified • Accesssible by NDSL • Available at SERC • http://voyager.cs.bgsu.edu/topo Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

22. Demonstration of training software for studies Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

23. Lab Study Experimental Design • IVs • Spatial ability • Presence/absence of 3DIA tool • 3 levels of problem complexity • 1st 1/2 vs. 2nd 1/2 of trials • DVs • Accuracy • Reaction Time and number of slices rotated • Performance with real topo maps • Strategy Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

24. Study 2 Accuracy Results Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

25. Study 2 Results Number of Slice Events Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

26. Study 2 Topo Test Results • Accuracy for Naturalistic Test • Significant improvement on the second 1/2 of the test items • Significant interaction between tool availability and half of test. • Non-rotaters were better the first 1/2 but rotaters were better the second 1/2 Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

27. What Does this Mean? • 3DIA tool improves accuracy. • Differential for low spatial ability subjects on more difficult problems • Tool use drops in second 1/2 of task but accuracy does not • Subjects may have learned how to do task via tool • Other findings • Validated that problem complexity influences performance • Validated that spatial ability influences performance Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

28. What is Next? • Ran approximately 80 Geology 104 students through task plus 3DIA tutorial • Evaluating data • Building • Additional component for learning about building profiles with tablet pc • Website dissemination with 3DIA tutorial and integrated feedback • 3DIA Tools for other geoscience problems • Visualization of substrata structure Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

29. Thanks to… CERMACS This work was supported by funding from National Science Foundation (Award ID 0536739) Bowling Green State University Faculty Research Committee Department of Computer Science Department of Psychology Department of Geology College of Arts and Sciences Office of Undergraduate Research Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

30. Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

31. Identity Test • The Identity test requires individuals to discriminate objects of similar shapes with similar features. • Consists of two 90 second blocks with 48 trials in each block. • Does not require mental manipulations of the images. Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

32. Cards Test • The Cards test requires individuals to mentally rotate an object to see if it matches another object or not. • Consisted of two 180 second blocks with 80 trials in each block. (Image below has 8 trials) • Does not require identification of the object. • Objects are 2D Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

33. Paper Folding Test • The Paper Folding test requires that an individual both manipulate the initial object and then mentally undo the manipulation to it. • Consisted of two 180 second blocks with 10 trials in each block. Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

34. Further variations of Study 2 - Geology Pilot Sp 07 • 1/2 of students in conventional lab experience. • 1/2 of students • saw powerpoint tutorial with chimes added • 1 added slide demonstrating by animation the process of building a topo map from a 3D surface (by filling or by painting) • completed profile matching task from Study 2 • all rotaters • x participants • All students completed Topo Test on paper and pencil Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

35. Further variations of Study 2 - Geology Pilot Su 07 (1) • 1/2 of students in conventional lab experience • 1/2 of students • saw web-based version of tutorial with no sound • 1 added slide demonstrating by animation the process of building a topo map from a 3D surface (by painting) • 1 added slide with 3DIA painting demonstration • 2 added slides showing the relationship between a 3D surface and a topographic map by increasing levels of detail in the topographic map • completed profile matching task from Study 2; all rotaters • 9 participants Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

36. Further variations of Study 2 - Geology Pilot Su 07 (2) • All students completed an extended Topo Test on paper and pencil • Extended Topo test included profile matching task and topo - 3D surface matching trials • Given in a pre/post test format. Short overview of topographic maps provided for pre test • Pre test given before web-based tutorial • All students completed a background questionnaire Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

37. Summer Geology 104 Pilot • No measure of SA • All rotaters • Tutorial with 3DIA, increasing detail topo to 3D surface presentation • Pretest before profile task • Pilot test of background questionnaire Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

38. Summer Geo Pilot Results (1) • Acc • Significant effect of pType • RT • Significant effect of half, pType • n of Slice Events • almost significant effect of half, significant effect of pType Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

39. Summer Geo Results (2) • TopoTest • tool use group slightly better but result is not significant • Have not yet looked at correlations of DVs with background data • Conclude • Pattern of results similar to Study 2 Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

40. Compare Summer to Study 2 Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

41. Main Effects Acc pType experiment (Study 2 vs. Summer Geo) Main Effects RT half, pType Main Effects, n of slce half, pType Interactions Acc half x pType x expType Interactions RT half x expType half x pType half x pType x expType Interactions n of slice half x expType Compare Study 2 to Summer Geo Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

42. Interpret Summer Geo vs. Study 2 • Accuracy of Summer higher, differential improvement by problem type • RT of Summer faster, all faster second half, differential drop by problem type • Summer used tool much more in first half than Study 2 and much less than Study 2 in second 1/2 • Influence of SA not known Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman

43. Role of New Tutorial • In general Summer Geo students did better on the task and more effectively used the tool, especially in the second 1/2 of the trials • This is given that there were some low SAs in the Summer Geo Pilot group we think • Conclude that even with the layout problems in the tutorial materials and some timing glitches, the changes and additions to the tutorial make it more effective Leventhal, Klopfer, Onasch, Zimmerman