Improving Student Understanding of Complex Spatial Arrangements with Virtual Reality
Publication: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 144, Issue 2
Abstract
This study investigates the use of virtual reality tools to aid student comprehension of complex spatial arrangements in structural engineering. The research focuses specifically on structural buckling response because of the breadth of buckling modes that can occur and the traditional difficulty of conveying information about the spatial nature of buckling behavior to students. This mixed-methods study analyzes pretest and posttests covering topics that require spatial visualization skills as well as surveys and interviews of the students using the virtual reality tools. Quantitative results indicate that students are able to identify and visualize buckling modes more accurately after the virtual reality experience. Qualitatively, students express an improved understanding, increased enthusiasm for the topic, and greater desire for other topics to be presented using virtual reality tools. Both instructors and students note the advantages of using virtual reality to explain and understand the complex deformation modes of buckling structural members. Students feel they have a stronger understanding of concepts after the experience and, on average, show a statistically significant improvement on the posttest evaluating their understanding.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by a University of Michigan (UM) Third Century Initiative grant and US NSF Grant No. CMMI-1344372. The MIDEN implementation work was conducted by Jeff Morris, Ted Hall and Eric Maslowski of UM’s 3D Laboratory. Special thanks to Dr. Leah Bricker for her guidance in the field of education research. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors or the other indivduals mentioned here.
References
Agresti, A., and Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences, 4th Ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Auerbach, C., and Silverstein, L. (2003). An introduction to coding and analysis, New York University Press, New York.
Birchfield, D., and Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2009). “Earth science learning in SMALLab: A design experiment for mixed reality.” Comput.-Supported Collab. Learn., 4(4), 403–421.
Brown, A. L. (1992). “Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings.” J. Learn. Sci., 2(2), 141–178.
Chaturvedi, S. K., and Dharwadkar, K. A. (2011). “Simulation and visualization enhanced engineering education—Development and implementation of virtual experiments in a laboratory course.” Proc., ASEE Annual Conf. and Exposition, American Society of Engineering Education, Washington, DC.
Chiu, J., DeJaegher, C., and Chao, J. (2015). “The effects of augmented virtual science laboratories on middle school students’ understanding of gas properties.” Comp. Educ., 85, 59–73.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2003). “Design experiments in educational research.” Educ. Res., 32(9), 9–13.
Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D., DeFanti, T., Kenyon, R., and Hart, J. (1992). “The CAVE: Audio visual experience automatic virtual environment.” Commun. ACM, 35(6), 64–72.
Dey, A. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK.
Fogarty, J., and El-Tawil, S. (2015). “Exploring structural behavior and component detailing in virtual reality.” Proc., ASCE Structures Congress, Portland, OR.
Haladyna, T., Downing, S., and Rodriguez, M. (2002). “A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment.” Appl. Meas. Educ., 15(3), 309–334.
Johnson-Glenberg, M., Birchfield, D., Tolentino, L., and Koziupa, T. (2014). “Collaborative embodied learning in mixed realty motion-capture environments: Two science studies.” J. Educ. Psychol., 106(1), 86–104.
Koretsky, M., Kelly, C., and Gummer, E. (2011). “Student perceptions of learning in the laboratory: Comparison of industrially situated virtual laboratories to capstone physical laboratories.” J. Eng. Educ., 100(3), 540–573.
Lee, E.-J., and El-Tawil, S. (2008). “FEMvrml: An interactive virtual environment for visualization of finite element simulation results.” Adv. Eng. Software, 39(9), 737–742.
Leydans, J., Moskal, B., and Pavelich, M. (2004). “Qualitative methods used in assessment of engineering education.” J. Eng. Educ., 94(1), 13–25.
Miles, M., Huberman, A., and Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook, 3rd Ed., SAGE Publications, Los Angeles.
Oliver, D., Serovich, J., and Mason, T. (2006). “Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research.” Social Forces, 84(2), 1273–1289.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd Ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ragan, E. D., Huber, K., Laha, B., and Bowman, D. A. (2012). “The effects of navigational control and environmental detail on learning in 3D virtual environments.” IEEE Virtual Reality, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Society, Washington, DC.
Schnabel, M., and Kvan, T. (2003). “Spatial understanding in immersive virtual environments.” Int. J. Archit. Comput., 4(1), 435–448.
Sorby, S. (1999). “Developing 3-D spatial visualization skills.” Eng. Des. Graphics J., 63(2), 21–32.
Sorby, S. (2001). “A course in spatial visualization and its impact on the retention of women engineering students.” J. Women Minorities Sci. Eng., 69(3), 6–13.
Sorby, S., and Baartmans, B. (2000). “The development and assessment of a course for enhancing the 3-D spatial visualization skills of first year engineering students.” J. Eng., 89(3), 301–308.
Tversky, B., Morrison, J., and Betrancourt, M. (2002). “Animation: Can it facilitate?” Int. J. Human Comput. Stud., 57(4), 247–262.
Velez, M. C., Silver, D., and Tremaine, M. (2005). “Understanding visualization through spatial ability differences.” IEEE Visualization, VIS 2005, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Computer Society, Washington, DC, 511–518.
Veurink, N. L, and Sorby, S. A. (2011). “Raising the bar? Longitudinal study to determine which students would benefit most from spatial training.” Proc., 117nd ASEE Annual Conf. and Exposition, ASEE, American Society of Engineering Education, Washington, DC.
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., and Benbow, C. (2009). “Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance.” J. Educ. Psychol., 101(4), 817–835.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume 144 • Issue 2 • April 2018
Copyright
©2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 29, 2016
Accepted: Jun 7, 2017
Published online: Nov 17, 2017
Published in print: Apr 1, 2018
Discussion open until: Apr 17, 2018
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.