Transcript Document
Using Virtual 3-D Technology to
Improve Learners’ Spatial and
Science Skills: Teaching VSEPR
Theory in Second Life®
A STUDY
Dr. Wendy L. Keeney-Kennicutt
Presidential Professor for Teaching Excellence, Piper Professor of 2010
Associate Director, First Year Chemistry Program, TAMU
[email protected]
Ms. Zahira Merchant
Educational Psychology, TAMU
[email protected]
1
Premise
to investigate if Second Life can enhance
– learning of a chemistry concept:
3-D shapes of molecules (VSEPR* theory)
– Spatial ability – translating 3-D images into
2-D pictures and back again
* Valence Shell Electron Pair Repulsion Theory
2
My Second Life Space
on 12th Man Island
(maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/12th%20Man/215/237/26)
3
Classroom Use
Classroom Area – for reviews and office hours
Clicker
System
Movie Screen
Streaming Desktop
Blackboard
Notice Board
Quiz
System
Seats that allow
students to raise
their hands
4
TAMU Islands
TAM Health Science
Center (4 Islands)
Communication
Island - coming
Dr. K’s
Chemistry
Corner
AgriCulture
Aggie Orientation
Ecosystem
TAMUGalveston
(2 Islands)
TAMU Faculty are using
SL to do
Meetings
Simulations
HSC Nursing*
Ag Crisis Comm*
Ecosystems*
Student Talks*
Guest speakers
Tech Writing
Office hours & Reviews
Learning modules
Pre-Teacher training*
Architecture Projects
Streaming live events
Viz lab student films
* Funded projects
5
Study Design
Quasi-experimental pre-posttest control group
research design study
– 2 classes of Chem 101 students with same
instructor (me)
– ~ 240 students in each class
– all assessments with HW worth 40/700 pts.
Experimental group: 3 activities in SL (6wks)
Control group: same 3 activities using two 2-D
rotated images (SL screen shots)
See blog: chemist-in-sl.blogspot.com
6
Study Design
Blog: chemist-in-sl.blogspot.com
7
Pre-Testing
Spatial Ability
– Card Rotations Test (2-D) from ETS: paper
Educational Testing Service
http://www.ets.org/
– Purdue Spatial Visualization Test (3-D): online
Bodner, George M, and Roland B Guay. “The Purdue Visualization of
Rotations Test.” The Chemical Educator 2.4 (1997) : 1-17.
Chemistry Content
– VSEPR theory: online
Science logic
– Test of Logical Thinking (TOLT): online
http://ken.tobinweb.net/Papers/TOLT.pdf
8
Pre-Testing
On-line tests prepared by us with Qualtrics
PSVT (20 items, 10 min)
Free!
Lots of research uses them!
TOLT (10 items, 38 min)
9
Pre-Testing
CRT
– 20 items with 8 parts each
– 10 items per page, 3 min per page
– Students must identify if each figure, when compared
to the main figure on the left, is the
Same - S (rotated in the plane), or
Different – D (flipped over and rotated)
10
Pre-Testing
VSEPR test – developed by me
– Tested on 3 faculty and ~100 past students
– 36 questions, 4 parts, 45 min
(angle, content knowledge, shape id, chemical examples of shape)
– Reliability: 0.90 (Cronbach’s alpha) based on post test data
11
Post-Testing
Spatial Ability
– Card Rotations Test
– Purdue Spatial Visualization Test
Chemistry Content
– VSEPR theory on-line test
Presence questionnaire + Demographics
– Included qualitative aspect
HW & Laboratory module on VSEPR theory
Exam questions - same for both groups
12
Intervention #1
The Molecule Game
Experimental
– Develop SL skills beyond SL
&TAMU orientations
(inventory, chat,
interacting with
objects, taking
photos)
– Begin seeing
molecules in 3-D
Control
– Answer same questions from SL screen shots (2 views)13
Intervention #1
The Molecule Game
Control
– Students answer the same questions using SL screen
shots (2 views)
14
Intervention #1 Feedback
The Molecule Game
87% written directions were clear
(N=71)
69% watched video & found it
helpful (N=67)
86% MG is useful to learn
SL skills (N=49)
85% MG ran smoothly (N=13)
15
Intervention #2
The Chemist as Artist
Experimental
– Develop more SL skills
– Interact and draw 2 views
each of 3 molecules in
sandbox with photos
(link, move, copy, rotate)
⇒
Control
– Draw given 2 views of 3 molecules
(5 different sets – screen shots)16
Intervention #2
The Chemist as Artist
Control - Draw given 2 views of 3 molecules
(5 different sets – screen shots)
17
Intervention #3
Tower of VSEPR
Experimental
– Rez 11 molecules
– Measure bond angles,
determine geometries,
Lewis dot structures,
draw structures
Control
– Do same homework from 2 views
of each SL molecule (5 sets)
18
Intervention #3
Tower of VSEPR HW
19
Student Acceptance
Student Issues Solutions
– On-line test compliance gave pts/reminders
– SL learning curve videos/ppt in SL/RL
– not virtual world savvy SL/RL office hours
– some think SL is creepy TAMU Island
20
Preliminary Results
Before interventions, the control (C) and
experimental (E) groups were the same as
measured by:
C (N=137)
Mean (SD)
E (N=153)
Mean (SD)
TOLT (max=10)
6.43 (2.10)
6.14 (2.24)
PVRT (max=20)
12.36 (3.48)
11.86 (3.70)
VSEPR Content
Test (max=45)
7.08 (3.56)
7.39 (3.77)
TEST
21
Preliminary Results
The two groups were different on CRT pre-test
but NOT post-test. The E group showed a small
but significantly larger gain.
CRT
(max=160)
Control
Mean (SD)
Experimental
Mean (SD)
Pretest
107.9 (30.4)
100.3 (27.9)
0.027 (2-tailed)
Posttest
127.2 (29.5)
123.8 (22.5)
0.28
Gain
(over 6 wks)
p
19.3 (20.4)
23.5 (17.8)
0.029 (1-tailed)
p<0.001
p<0.001
Cohen’s d=0.22
Cohen’s d=0.64 Cohen’s d=0.93
22
Preliminary Results
PVRT – no significant differences were seen between
the pretest and posttest for either group.
Exam 3 score on VSEPR – no significant differences
VSEPR HW and Laboratory – no significant
differences
VSEPR content test
– Overall, no significant differences were seen on
posttest
Control: 18.41 ± 7.60 Experimental: 18.67 ± 8.73 23
Preliminary Results
More on VSEPR test: On Part 1
(determining angle from drawing), the
E group did significantly better (max=4)
VSEPR Pt 1
(max=4)
Control
Mean (SD)
Experimental
Mean (SD)
Pretest
1.01 (0.57)
1.07 (0.47)
0.26 (2-tailed)
Posttest
1.74 (1.20)
2.01 (1.19)
0.03 (1-tailed)
Cohen’s d=0.24
Gain
(over 6 wks)
p
0.74 (1.20)
0.94 (1.14)
0.075 (1-tailed)
p=0.004
p<0.001
Cohen’s d=0.18
Cohen’s d=0.78 Cohen’s d=1.04
24
Preliminary Results
Even more on VSEPR test: If you include
all pre/post students, the results are even
more significant, BUT
On average, students are recognizing <2/4 of angles
.
VSEPR Pt 1
(max=4)
Control
Mean (SD)
Experimental
Mean (SD)
Pretest
1.03 (0.58)
1.04 (0.51)
0.82 (2-tailed)
Posttest
1.55 (1.17)
1.82 (1.19)
0.019 (2-tailed)
Cohen’s d=0.24
Gain
(over 6 wks)
p
0.52 (1.17)
0.78 (1.16)
0.023 (2-tailed)
P<0.001
p<0.001
Cohen’s d=0.22
Cohen’s d=0.56 Cohen’s d=0.85
25
Preliminary Results
Let’s look at the questions one by one.
Here is the
question verbage:
26
Question 1 of 4
Gain-C (-0.04 ± 0.49; N=194)
Gain-E (0.005 ± 0.44; N=209)
p < 0.16
(1-tailed)
100
Percent
80
Confidence–Pre
C=74% E=75%
Confidence–Post
C=77% E=82%
60
40
Control-Pre
Control-Post
Experiment-Pre
20
Experimental-Post
0
30o
45o
60o
90o 109o 120o 150o 180o
Bond Angle
27
Question 2 of 4
Gain-C (0.25 ± 0.47)
Gain-E (0.33 ± 0.49)
60
Confidence–Pre
C=58% E=75%
Confidence–Post
C=63% E=60%
50
Percent
p < 0.043 (1-tailed)
40
Confidence–Pre
C=53% E=72%
Confidence–Post
C=75% E=76%
Control-Pre
30
Control-Post
20
Experiment-Pre
Experimental-Post
10
0
30o
45o
60o
90o 109o 120o 150o 180o
Bond Angle
28
Question 3 of 4
Percent
Gain-C (0.08± 0.44)
Gain-E (0.15 ± 0.49)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Confidence–Pre
C=46% E=57%
Confidence–Post
C=74% E=75%
p < 0.064 (1-tailed)
Confidence–Pre
C=61% E=59%
Confidence–Post
C=65% E=62%
Control-Pre
Control-Post
Experiment-Pre
Experimental-Post
30o
45o
60o
90o 109o 120o 150o 180o
Bond Angle
29
Question 4 of 4
Gain-C (0.23± 0.49)
Gain-E (0.29 ± 0.47)
p < 0.086 (1-tailed)
90
80
Confidence–Pre
C=68% E=66%
Confidence–Post
C=70% E=68%
70
60
50
40
30
Confidence–Pre
C=34% E=42%
Confidence–Post
C=75% E=74%
Control-Pre
Control-Post
Experiment-Pre
Experimental-Post
20
10
0
30o
45o
60o
90o
109o 120o 150o 180o
30
Comments
Disheartening!!
31
More Preliminary Results
We
analyzed two questions posed to
the Experimental group:
1. Is it a good idea to use Second Life in
future chemistry classes?
(Quantitative analysis)
2. Please explain your answer.
(Qualitative analysis)
32
Is it a good idea to use Second Life in
future classes?
35
30
Percentage
N = 219
30%
25
23%
20
18%
18%
15
10
11%
5
0
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Agree
33
Please Explain Your Answer….
Main Theme - Perceived Usefulness
Perceived Usefulness
70
Percentage
60
1. Visualization (38%)
58%
2. Time Consumption
(29%)
50
35%
40
3. Interactivity (17%)
30
20
7%
10
0
Yes
Subthemes:
No
Unsure
4. Other methods such
as text books, 2-D
images, paper pencil
were just as useful
(16%)
N = 100
Other themes: Perceived ease of use & gaming experience
34
Results - Perceived Usefulness
Comments
1. It helped a lot with the VSEPR theory by allowing me
to visualize the molecules so when I’m drawing them on
paper I can see the molecule in my mind’s eye. This
allowed me to draw 3D molecule faster and easier.
2. I found that it took a lot of time to learn how to
manipulate the molecules in Second Life.
3. It allows you actually see and interact with a molecule
4. I feel it would be easier to lecture about this material
and show students more examples.
35
Future Work/Questions
Did my attempt to show
the correct molecular shape
by giving 2 views of a
molecule to the control group
skew the CRT results?
Do students taking a regular general chem class increase
their CRT scores naturally?
If so, do they keep their higher CRT scores over time?
Can we really assume that students
can see that this angle is 90o,
without training them? Not!
36
Acknowledgements
Zahira and I thank all my students who
had to endure all our assessments….
Thank you and any questions?
37