Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Facilitated model-based reasoning in immersive virtual reality: Meaning-making and embodied interactions with dynamic processes

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the affordances of virtual reality (VR) simulations for facilitated model-based reasoning. Thirty-four undergraduate students engaged with simulated scientific models in head-mounted displays and their facilitator in a co-located mixed-presence configuration. We coded the facilitator–participant interactions using the Structure–Behavior–Function framework to examine how the simulation and learning activity supported meaning-making and model-based reasoning. We inductively analyzed the exchanges for key themes relating to how the learner–facilitator pairs interrogated the model. Findings showed that the model’s function was most frequently examined, followed by structure, then behavior. Productive engagement patterns included spontaneously observing the model’s structural components, which at times led to more in-depth student-driven inquiries. Learners attended to components’ behavior in the form of immediate situated feedback while demonstrating their conceptual understanding. A “compare and contrast” pattern through multiple simulated states allowed dyads to elaborate on the model’s function. However, mental workload and prior knowledge were mediating factors. Further, pairs leveraged the simulation environment to access conceptual content. Lastly, predictions about the model’s system dynamics led to shifts between different levels of reasoning through structure, behavior, and function. We discuss affordances that made the VR simulation an effective mediating representation for a facilitator and learner to interrogate complex scientific models together. This work extends the possibility space for embodied learning in VR, addressing a broader range of difficult-to-teach abstract concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

This project includes datasets that contain identifiable videos of individuals and cannot be openly shared. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Toronto and Carleton University. The authors confirm that no known conflicts of interest are associated with this publication. 

References

  • Alibali, M. W. & Nathan, M. J. (2018). Embodied Cognition in Learning and Teaching. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman & P. Reimann (Eds.) International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 75–85). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617572-8

  • Ares, N., Stroup, W. M., & Schademan, A. R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Cognitive and neural contributions to understanding the conceptual system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(2), 91–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1281–1289. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W., Barbey, P. M., Barbey, A. K. & Ruppert, J. A. (2003). Social embodiment. In: B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 43, pp. 43–92). Elsevier Science.

  • Chinnici, J. P., Yue, J. W., & Torres, K. M. (2004). Students as “human chromosomes” in role-playing mitosise and meiosis. The American Biology Teacher, 66, 135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chheang, V., Saalfeld, P., Huber, T., Huettl, F., Kneist, W., Preim, B. & Hansen, C. (2019). Collaborative Virtual Reality for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery Training. IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/aivr46125.2019.00011

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Roscoe, R., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0603_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, M. P. (2006). Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Science Education, 90(6), 1073–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. A. (2015). Teaching the big ideas of biology with operon models. The American Biology Teacher, 77(1), 30–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Angelo, C. M., Rutstein, D. W., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E. & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning (SRI Education). http://www.sri.com/sites/default/files/publications/simulations-for-stem-learning-full-report.pdf

  • Danish, J. A. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 100–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danish, J. A., Saleh, A., Andrade, A., & Bryan, B. (2016). Observing complex systems thinking in the zone of proximal development. Instructional Science, 45(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9391-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (1995). The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educational Technology, 35(5), 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323, 66–69. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5910/66?ijkey=rBJnxiYJ6o

  • Dede, C. J., Jacobson, J. & Richards, J. (2017). Introduction: Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education. In D. Liu, C. Dede, R. Huang & J. Richards (Eds.), Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education (pp. 1–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5490-7_1

  • Dede, C., Salzman, M. C., & Bowen Loftin, R. (1996). ScienceSpace: Virtual realities for learning complex and abstract scientific concepts. Proceedings of the 1996 Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium (VRAIS 96), 246.

  • de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubé, A. K., & McEwen, R. N. (2015). Do gestures matter? The implications of using touchscreen devices in mathematics instruction. Learning and Instruction, 40, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubovi, I., & Lee, V. (2019). Comparing the effectiveness of supports for collaborative dialogic sense-making with agent-based models. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 88–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. ets.org.

  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enyendy, N., & Yoon, S. (2021). Immersive environments: Learning in augmented + virtual reality. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. F. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (pp. 389–406). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuda, M., Hajian, S., Jain, M., Liu, A. L., Obaid, T., Nesbit, J. C., & Winne, P. H. (2022). Scientific inquiry learning with a simulation: Providing within-task guidance tailored to learners’ understanding and inquiry skill. International Journal of Science Education, 44(6), 1021–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2062799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furberg, A. (2016). Teacher support in computer-supported lab work: Bridging the gap between lab experiments and students’ conceptual understanding. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-016-9229-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furberg, A., & Arnseth, H. C. (2009). Reconsidering conceptual change from a socio-cultural perspective: Analyzing students’ meaning making in genetics in collaborative learning activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 157–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furberg, A., Kluge, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2013). Student sensemaking with science diagrams in a computer-based setting. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9165-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerry, L., Ens, B., Drogemuller, A., Thomas, B. & Billinghurst, M. (2018). Levity: A Virtual Reality System That Responds to Cognitive Load. Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, LBW610, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188479

  • Gibson, W., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with Qualitative Data. SAGE Publications, Ltd.

  • Glenberg, A. (1999). 4 Why mental models must be embodied. In G. Rickheit & C. Habel (Eds.), Advances in Psychology (Vol. 128, pp. 77–90). North-Holland.

  • Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottsacker, M., Norouzi, N., Kim, K., Bruder, G. & Welch, G. (2021). Diegetic Representations for Seamless Cross-Reality Interruptions. 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 00, 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1109/ismar52148.2021.00047

  • Greenwald, S. W., Corning, W., Funk, M., & Maes, P. (2018). Comparing learning in virtual reality with learning on a 2D screen using electrostatics activities. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(2), 220–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, S. W., Corning, W., McDowell, G., Maes, P. & Belcher, J. (2019). ElectroVR: An Electrostatic Playground for Collaborative, Simulation-Based Exploratory Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL '19), Volume 2, 997–1000.

  • Greenwald, S. W., Wang, Z., Funk, M. & Maes, P. (2017). Investigating Social Presence and Communication with Embodied Avatars in Room-Scale Virtual Reality. Immersive Learning Research Network (ILRN 2017), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60633-0_7

  • Gugenheimer, J., Mai, C., McGill, M., Williamson, J., Steinicke, F. & Perlin, K. (2019). Challenges Using Head-Mounted Displays in Shared and Social Spaces. Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3299028

  • He, Z., Du, R., & Perlin, K. (2020). CollaboVR: A Reconfigurable Framework for Creative Collaboration in Virtual Reality. IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 00, 542–554. https://doi.org/10.1109/ismar50242.2020.00082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007a). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007b). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701413401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerald, J. (2015). The VR Book: Human-Centered Design for Virtual Reality. Association for Computing Machinery and Morgan & Claypool.

  • Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2018). Immersive VR and education: Embodied design principles that include gesture and hand controls. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 5, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D. A., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., & Snow, E. L. (2015). If the gear fits, spin It!: Embodied education and in-game assessments. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), 7(4), 40–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krist, C., Schwarz, C. V., & Reiser, B. J. (2019). Identifying essential epistemic heuristics for guiding mechanistic reasoning in science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 160–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krokos, E., Plaisant, C., & Varshney, A. (2019). Virtual memory palaces: Immersion aids recall. Virtual Reality, 23(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, P., Jacobson, M., & Goldwater, M. (2018) Learning nanoscience concepts through a nanoscale experience. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018 (Volume 1), pp. 200–207. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.

  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). RoutledgeFalmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315012940

  • Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Students’ learning with the Connected Chemistry (CC1) curriculum: Navigating the complexities of the particulate world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enacted misconceptions: Using embodied interactive simulations to examine emerging understandings of science concepts. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lui, M., Chong, K.-Y.A., Mullally, A., & McEwen, R. (2021). Model-based reasoning with immersive VR simulations: Patterns of use grounded in time and 3D space. In E. de Vries, Y. Hod, & J. Ahn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS ‘21) – Volume 1 (pp. 402–409). Bochum, Germany: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lui, M., McEwen, R., & Mullally, M. (2020). Immersive virtual reality for supporting complex scientific knowledge: Augmenting our understanding with physiological monitoring. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2181–2199. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludvigsen, S., & Steier, R. (2019). Reflections and looking ahead for CSCL: Digital infrastructures, digital tools, and collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(4), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09312-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1992). What is Communication? Communication Theory, 2(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1992.tb00042.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mai, C., Bartsch, S. A. & Rieger, L. (2018). Evaluating Shared Surfaces for Co-Located Mixed-Presence Collaboration. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282894.3282910

  • Makransky, G., & Lilleholt, L. (2018). A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markauskaite, L., Kelly, N., & Jacobson, M. J. (2020). Model-based knowing: How do students ground their understanding about climate systems in agent-based computer models? Research in Science Education, 50(1), 53–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEwen, R., Atcha, A., Lui, M., Shimaly, R., Maharaj, A., Ali, S., & Carroll, S. (2020). Interlocutors and Interactions: Examining the Interactions Between Students With Complex Communication Needs, Teachers, and Eye-Gaze Technology. Human-Machine Communication, 1, 113–131. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.1.7

  • Moher, T., Johnson, A., Ohlsson, S. & Gillingham, M. (1999). Bridging strategies for VR based learning. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 536–543. https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303153

  • Moore, M. (1997). Theory of Transactional Distance. In Keegan, D. (1997). (Ed.). Theoretical Principles of Distance Education. Routledge, pp. 22–38.

  • Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems review. Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, M. J. (2021). Foundations of Embodied Learning: A Paradigm for Education. Routledge.

  • Nelson, B. C. (2007). Exploring the use of individualized, reflective guidance in an educational multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9039-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9048-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R. (2019). Co-design as infrastructuring with attention to power: Building collective capacity for equitable teaching and learning through Design-Based Implementation Research. In J. Pieters, J. Voogt, & N. Pareja Roblin (Eds.), Collaborative Curriculum Design for Sustainable Innovation and Teacher Learning (pp. 387–401). Springer International Publishing.

  • Paul, A. M. (2021). The Extended Mind: The Power of Thinking Outside the Brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. N., & Grotzer, T. A. (2000). Models and moves: Focusing on Dimensions of Causal Complexity To Achieve Deeper Scientific Understanding. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED441698

  • Pouw, W. T., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehn, D. A., Moore, E. B., Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2013). Tools for high-tech tool use: A framework and heuristics for using interactive simulations. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 31–55.

  • Roschelle, J. (1996). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 209–248). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roussou, M., & Slater, M. (2020). Comparison of the effect of interactive versus passive virtual reality learning activities in evoking and sustaining conceptual change. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 8(1), 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roussou, M., Oliver, M., & Slater, M. (2006). The virtual playground: An educational virtual reality environment for evaluating interactivity and conceptual learning. Virtual Reality, 10(3–4), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-006-0035-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherr, R. E., Close, H. G., Close, E. W., Flood, V. J., McKagan, S. B., Robertson, A. D., Seeley, L., Wittmann, M. C. & Vokos, S. (2013). Negotiating energy dynamics through embodied action in a materially structured environment. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 9(2), 020105. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevstper.9.020105

  • Slater, M. (2002). Presence and The Sixth Sense. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11, 435–439. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474602760204327

  • Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, L. (Ed.). (2014). The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition. Routledge.

  • Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanski, K. M., Gardner, G. E., & Seipelt-Thiemann, R. L. (2016). Development of a Lac Operon Concept Inventory (LOCI). CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-07-0162

  • Steier, R., Kersting, M., & Silseth, K. (2019). Imagining with improvised representations in CSCL environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(1), 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09295-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, J. V. (2018). Learning and embodied cognition: A review and proposal. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(2), 128–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-Based Research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, K., & Reimann, P. (2010). Patterns of use of an agent-based model and a system dynamics model: The application of patterns of use and the impacts on learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 54(2), 392–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tretter, T. R., Jones, M. G., & Minogue, J. (2006). Accuracy of scale conceptions in science: Mental maneuverings across many orders of spatial magnitude. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10), 1061–1085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: Can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. E., & Macrander, C. A. (2015). Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2), 396–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson, M. H., Shareff, R., Laina, V., & Gravel, B. (2018). Epistemic gameplay and discovery in computational model-based inquiry activities. Instructional Science, 46(1), 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9430-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. K., & Huang, Y. L. (2007). Ninth-grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Science Education, 91(5), 727749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S. A., Goh, S.-E., & Park, M. (2018). Teaching and learning about complex systems in K–12 science education: A review of empirical studies 1995–2015. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 285–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, L., Xie, T. & Liu, G. (2018). Affordances of Virtual Reality for Collaborative Learning. Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Information, Media and Engineering (ICIME), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/icime.2018.00011

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, ON, M5S 1V6, Canada

    Michelle Lui

  2. School of Interactive Arts & Technology, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, BC, Canada

    Kit-Ying Angela Chong

  3. Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Martha Mullally

  4. University of Toronto, Victoria University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Rhonda McEwen

Authors
  1. Michelle Lui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kit-Ying Angela Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martha Mullally
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rhonda McEwen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Lui.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lui, M., Chong, KY.A., Mullally, M. et al. Facilitated model-based reasoning in immersive virtual reality: Meaning-making and embodied interactions with dynamic processes. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 18, 203–230 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09396-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09396-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation