Looking Inside the Wires: Understanding Museum Visitor Learning with an Augmented Circuit Exhibit

ABSTRACT

Understanding electrical circuits can be difficult for novices of all ages. In this paper, we describe a science museum exhibit that enables visitors to make circuits on an interactive tabletop and observe a simulation of electrons flowing through the circuit. Our goal is to use multiple representations to help convey basic concepts of current and resistance. To study visitor interaction and learning, we tested the design at a popular science museum with 60 parent-child dyads in three conditions: a control condition with no electron simulation; a condition with the simulation displayed alongside the circuit on the same screen; and an augmented reality condition, with the simulation displayed on a tablet that acts as a lens to see into the circuit. Our findings show that children did significantly better on a post-test in both experimental conditions, with children performing best in the AR condition. However, analysis of session videos shows unexpected parent-child collaboration in the AR condition.

References

1. Shaaron Ainsworth. 2006. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 16, 3: 183-- 198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
2. Sue Allen. 2004. Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education 88, S1: S17--S33. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20016
3. Kikuo Asai, Yuji Sugimoto, and Mark Billinghurst. 2010. Exhibition of Lunar Surface Navigation System Facilitating Collaboration Between Children and Parents in Science Museum. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Virtual-Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry (VRCAI '10), 119--124. https://doi.org/10.1145/1900179.1900203
4. Brigid Barron, Caitlin Kennedy Martin, Lori Takeuchi, and Rachel Fithian. 2009. Parents as Learning Partners Figure 12. A demonstration of Tangible Spark. in the Development of Technological Fluency. International Journal of Learning and Media 1, 2: 55-- 77. https://doi.org/10.1162/ijlm.2009.0021
5. E. Beheshti, A. Aljuhani, and M.S. Horn. 2014. Electrons to light bulbs: Understanding electricity with a multi-level simulation environment. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1--8. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044047
6. Elham Beheshti, Mmachi Obiorah, and Michael S. Horn. 2015. "Let's Dive into It!": Learning Electricity with Multiple Representations. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '15), 263--266. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771892
7. Minda Borun, Margaret B. Chambers, Jennifer Dritsas, and Julie I. Johnson. 1997. Enhancing Family Learning Through Exhibits. Curator: The Museum Journal 40, 4: 279--295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.21516952.1997.tb01313.x
8. Joshua Chan, Tarun Pondicherry, and Paulo Blikstein. 2013. LightUp: An Augmented, Learning Platform for Electronics. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '13), 491--494. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485812
9. Michelene T. H Chi, Rod D Roscoe, James D Slotta, Marguerite Roy, and Catherine C Chase. 2012. Misconceived Causal Explanations for Emergent Processes. Cognitive Science 36, 1: 1--61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551--6709.2011.01207.x
10. Judy Diamond. 1986. The Behavior of Family Groups in Science Museums. Curator: The Museum Journal 29, 2: 139--154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.21516952.1986.tb01434.x
11. Matt Dunleavy, Chris Dede, and Rebecca Mitchell. 2008. Affordances and Limitations of Immersive Participatory Augmented Reality Simulations for Teaching and Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 18, 1: 7--22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008--9119--1
12. Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and National Research Council. 2009. Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. National Academies Press.
13. John Howard Falk and Susan Foutz. 2007. In Principle, in Practice: Museums as Learning Institutions. Rowman Altamira.
14. N. D. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C. J. Keller, P. B. Kohl, K. K. Perkins, N. S. Podolefsky, S. Reid, and R. LeMaster. 2005. When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 1, 1: 10103. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010103
15. John R. Frederiksen, Barbara Y. White, and Joshua Gutwill. 1999. Dynamic mental models in learning science: The importance of constructing derivational linkages among models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36, 7: 806--836. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10982736(199909)36:7<806::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2--2
16. Susan R. Goldman. 2003. Learning in Complex Domains: When and Why Do Multiple Representations Help? Commentary. Learning and Instruction 13, 2: 239--44.
17. Tina A Grotzer and Margot Sudbury. 2000. Moving Beyond Underlying Linear Causal Models of Electrical Circuits. In annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
18. T. Hall and L. Bannon. 2006. Designing ubiquitous computing to enhance children's learning in museums. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 22, 4: 231--243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365--2729.2006.00177.x
19. Michael Horn, Zeina Atrash Leong, Florian Block, Judy Diamond, E. Margaret Evans, Brenda Phillips, and Chia Shen. 2012. Of BATs and APEs: An Interactive Tabletop Game for Natural History Museums. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12), 2059--2068. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208355
20. Michael S. Horn, R. Jordan Crouser, and Marina U. Bers. 2011. Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404--2
21. Robert B. Kozma. 1994. Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development 42, 2: 7--19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087
22. Gaea Leinhardt, Kevin Crowley, and Karen Knutson. 2003. Learning Conversations in Museums. Taylor & Francis.
23. Gaea Leinhardt, Karen Knutson, and Kevin Crowley. 2003. Museum Learning Colloborative Redux. The Journal of Museum Education 28, 1: 23--31.
24. Leilah Lyons, Michael Tissenbaum, Matthew Berland, Rebecca Eydt, Lauren Wielgus, and Adam Mechtley. 2015. Designing Visible Engineering: Supporting Tinkering Performances in Museums. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '15), 49--58. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771845
25. Joyce Ma, Lisa Sindorf, Isaac Liao, and Jennifer Frazier. 2015. Using a Tangible Versus a Multi-touch Graphical User Interface to Support Data Exploration at a Museum Exhibit. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '15), 33--40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680555
26. Taylor Martin and Daniel L. Schwartz. 2005. Physically Distributed Learning: Adapting and Reinterpreting Physical Environments in the Development of Fraction Concepts. Cognitive Science 29, 4: 587--625. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_15
27. Tom Moher, Brian Uphoff, Darshan Bhatt, Brenda López Silva, and Peter Malcolm. 2008. WallCology: Designing Interaction Affordances for Learner Engagement in Authentic Science Inquiry. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08), 163--172. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357082
28. Roger Osborne. 1983. Towards Modifying Children's Ideas about Electric Current. Research in Science & Technological Education 1, 1: 73--82. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514830010108
29. Sasha Palmquist and Kevin Crowley. 2007. From teachers to testers: How parents talk to novice and expert children in a natural history museum. Science Education 91, 5: 783--804. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20215
30. Miriam Reiner, James D. Slotta, Michelene T. H. Chi, and Lauren B. Resnick. 2000. Naive Physics Reasoning: A Commitment to Substance-Based Conceptions. Cognition and Instruction 18, 1: 1--34. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1801_01
31. Cody Sandifer. 2003. Technological novelty and openendedness: Two characteristics of interactive exhibits that contribute to the holding of visitor attention in a science museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40, 2: 121--137. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10068
32. B. Schneider, J. Wallace, P. Blikstein, and R. Pea. 2013. Preparing for Future Learning with a Tangible User Interface: The Case of Neuroscience. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 6, 2: 117--129. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2013.15
33. Stephan Schwan and Roland Riempp. 2004. The cognitive benefits of interactive videos: learning to tie nautical knots. Learning and Instruction 14, 3: 293--305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.005
34. Pratim Sengupta and Uri Wilensky. 2009. Learning Electricity with NIELS: Thinking with Electrons and Thinking in Levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 14, 1: 21--50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-009--9144-z
35. Pratim Sengupta and Uri Wilensky. 2011. Lowering the Learning Threshold: Multi-Agent-Based Models and Learning Electricity. In Models and Modeling, Myint Swe Khine and Issa M. Saleh (eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 141--171.
36. D. M. Shipstone. 1984. A study of children's understanding of electricity in simple DC circuits. European Journal of Science Education 6, 2: 185--198. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528840060208
37. Kurt Squire and Eric Klopfer. 2007. Augmented Reality Simulations on Handheld Computers. Journal of the Learning Sciences 16, 3: 371--413. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413435
38. Margaret H. Szymanski, Paul M. Aoki, Rebecca E. Grinter, Amy Hurst, James D. Thornton, and Allison Woodruff. 2007. Sotto Voce: Facilitating Social Learning in a Historic House. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 17, 1: 5--34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-007--9067-y
39. A. Tarciso Borges. 1999. Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education 21, 1: 95-- 117. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290859
40. Susan A. Yoon, Karen Elinich, Joyce Wang, Christopher Steinmeier, and Sean Tucker. 2012. Using augmented reality and knowledge-building scaffolds to improve learning in a science museum. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 7, 4: 519--541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-0129156-x
41. Susan A. Yoon and Joyce Wang. 2013. Making the Invisible Visible in Science Museums Through Augmented Reality Devices. TechTrends 58, 1: 49--55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0720--7
42. JSARToolKit library. Retrieved from https://github.com/artoolkit/jsartoolkit5
43. Three.js library. Retrieved from http://threejs.org/
44. TopCode library. Retrieved from http: //users.eecs.northwestern.edu/?mhorn/topcodes/

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)