This study, involving a computer-based training application coupled with a haptic input device, offered insight into how haptic feedback influences visual attention in learning applications. Data was collected from 33 students (ages 11–14) who completed a learning module on lever principles. This data consists of paper-based pre- and post-test scores, embedded module test scores and eye movement data. Embedded test scores were significantly higher in the non-haptic condition. Eye movement data revealed differential influences of haptic feedback. A path analysis of gaze movements indicated that haptic feedback was associated with increased frequencies of movements between zones of interest surrounding lever components but there were no significant increases in the frequencies of eye movements between the levers and the numeric force readout. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
2.
BaraF.GentazE.ColéP.Sprenger-CharollesL. (2004). The visuohaptic and haptic exploration of letters increases the kindergarten-children's understanding of the alphabetic principle. Cognitive Development, 19, 433–449.
3.
BayraktarS. (2002). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 173–188.
4.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L.CockingR. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
5.
BurdeaG. C. (1996). Force and touch feedback for virtual reality. New York: John Wiley.
6.
ClarkJ. M.PaivioA. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–208.
7.
ConoverW. J. (1980). Practical nonparametric statistics. NY: Wiley.
8.
de JongT.van JoolingenW. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68, 179–201.
9.
DuchowskiA. T. (2003). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
10.
GoertzR. C. (1952). Fundamentals of general purpose remote manipulators. Nucleonics, 10, 36–42.
11.
GottmanJ. M.RoyA. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U. Press.
12.
HellerM. A. (1991). The psychology of touch. HellerM. A.SchiffW.Hillside, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
HendersonJ. M. (1992). Visual attention and eye movement control during reading and picture viewing. In RaynerK.Eye movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and reading (pp. 260–283. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
14.
JacobsonR. D.KitchenR.GolledgeR. (2002). Multimodal virtual reality for presenting geographic information. In FisherP.UnwinD.Virtual reality in geography (pp. 382–401). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, Inc.
15.
JonesM. G.AndreT.SuperfineR.TaylorR. (2003). Learning at the nanoscale: The impact of students use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses, scale, and microscopy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(3), 303–322.
16.
JonesM. G.MinogueJ.TretterT. R.NegishiA.TaylorR. (2006). Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter? Science Education, 90(1), 111–123.
17.
KatzD. (1989). The world of touch (KruegerL., Trans.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1925).
18.
KlatzkyR. L.LedermanS. J.MatulaD. E. (1993). Haptic Exploration in the presence of vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(4), 726–743.
19.
LedermanS. J.KlatzkyR. L. (2004). Haptic identification of common objects: Effects of constraining the manual exploration process. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(4), 618–628.
20.
LinnM. C. (2003). Technology and science education: Starting points, research programs, and trends. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 727–758.
21.
LinnM. C. (2004). Using ICT to teach and learn science. In HollimanR.ScanlonE.Mediating science learning through information and communications technology (pp. 9–26. London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
22.
MayerR. E. (2003). Elements of a science of e-learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 297–313.
23.
MinogueJ.JonesM. G.BroadwellB.OppewallT. (2006). The impact of haptic augmentation on middle school students conceptions of the animal cell. Virtual Reality, 10(3–4), 293–305.
24.
RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1992). Eye movements and scene perception. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 342–376.
25.
RenklA.AtkinsonR. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22.
26.
SathianK. (1998). Perceptual learning. Current Science, 75, 451–456.
SteinbergR. N. (2000). Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate? Physics Education Research, American Journal of Physics Supplement, 68, 16–24.
29.
SwellerJ. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12 (2), 257–285.
30.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177.
31.
WilliamsR. L.ChenM.SeatonJ. M. (2003). Haptics-augmented simple-machine educational tools. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 1–12.
32.
ZachariaZ. (2003). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions of science teachers regarding the educational use of computer simulations and inquiry-based experiments in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 792–823.
