Under Which Conditions Are Physical versus Virtual Representations Effective? Contrasting Conceptual and Embodied Mechanisms of Learning

Autor/inn/en	Rau, Martina A.; Herder, Tiffany
Titel	Under Which Conditions Are Physical versus Virtual Representations Effective? Contrasting Conceptual and Embodied Mechanisms of Learning
Quelle	In: Journal of Educational Psychology, 113 (2021) 8, S.1565-1586 (22 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Rau, Martina A.) ORCID (Herder, Tiffany)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0022-0663
DOI	10.1037/edu0000689
Schlagwörter	Manipulative Materials; Schemata (Cognition); Undergraduate Students; Scientific Concepts; Nuclear Physics; Molecular Structure; Energy; Visual Aids; Computer Simulation; Cues; Learning Processes + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Hilfsmittel; Cognition; Schema; Kognition; Atomphysik; Kernphysik; Energie; Anschauungsmaterial; Computergrafik; Computersimulation; Stichwort; Learning process; Lernprozess
Abstract	Abundant prior research has compared effects of physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual learning. However, most prior research has been based on conceptual salience theory; that is, it has explained mode effects by the manipulative's capability to draw students' attention to conceptually relevant (visual or haptic) features. Yet, research based on embodied schema theory suggests that other mechanisms, which do not rely on students' explicit attention to specific features, also affect students' learning from manipulatives. This paper presents a study that contrasts predictions by different theoretical perspectives by comparing multiple versions of physical and virtual manipulatives. Specifically, we conducted a lab experiment with 119 undergraduate students who learned about 3 concepts related to atomic structure using 1 of 4 versions of energy diagram manipulatives. The 4 versions varied the representation mode (i.e., physical vs. virtual) and the actions students used to manipulate the representation (i.e., via actions that draw attention or activate embodied schemas). We assessed students' learning via reproduction and transfer posttests and interviews that measured the quality of students' explanation and the gestures they used while explaining the concepts. Our results suggest that embodied schema theory accounts for effects on the reproduction posttest, whereas conceptual salience theories account for effects on the transfer posttest. Further, when physical manipulatives offered relevant haptic cues, we found an advantage of physical manipulatives on transfer. We interpret these results based on the complexity of embodied schema and conceptual salience learning mechanisms and the complexity of the assessment tasks. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01