Published: 2008-11-27
ISBN:
ISSN: 1650-3686 (print), 1650-3740 (online)
The use of haptics is growing in the area of science education. Haptics appears to convey information to students in a manner that influences their learning and ways of thinking. This document outlines examples of how haptics has been employed in science education contexts and gives a more detailed description of an education oriented evaluation of a haptic protein-ligand docking system. In molecular life science; students need to grasp several complex concepts to understand molecular interactions. Research on how haptics influences students’ learning show strong positive affective responses and; in the protein-ligand docking case; that reasoning with respect to molecular processes is altered. However; since many implications of using haptics in education are still unknown; more research is needed.
CR Categories: H.5.1 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Multimedia Information Systems—Artificial; augmented; and virtual realities; H.5.2 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: User Interfaces—Haptic I/O; K3.1 [Computer Uses in Education]: Computer-assisted instruction— [H.3.4]: Systems and Software—Performance evaluation (efficiency and effectiveness)
Haptics; molecular visualization; science education research; protein-ligand docking
BAYAZIT; O. B.; SONG; G.; AND AMATO; N. M. 2000. Ligand binding with obprm and haptic user input: Enhancing automatic motion planning with virtual touch. Tech. Rep. TR00-025; Department of Computer Science; Texas A&M University; Texas; USA; October.
BIVALL PERSSON; P.; COOPER; M. D.; TIBELL; L. A.; AINSWORTH; S.; YNNERMAN; A.; AND JONSSON; B.-H. 2007. Designing and evaluating a haptic system for biomolecular education. In Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality 2007; IEEE; 171–178.
BROOKS JR.; F. P.; OUH-YOUNG; M.; BATTER; J. J.; AND KILPATRICK; P. J. 1990. Project GROPE - haptic displays for scientific visualization. In SIGGRAPH ’90: Proceedings of the 17th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques; ACM Press; New York; NY; USA; 177–185.
DAUNAY; B.; MICAELLI; A.; AND RGNIER; S. 2007. 6 DOF haptic feedback for molecular docking using wave variables. In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; 840–845.
DRUYAN; S. 1997. Effect of the kinesthetic conflict on promoting scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34; 10 (December); 1083–1099.
GINSBURG; H. P. 1997. Entering the Child’s Mind: The Clinical Interview In Psychological Research and Practice. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.
GOODSELL; D. S.; AND OLSON; A. J. 1990. Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins: Structure; Function; and Genetics 8; 3; 195–202.
HARVEY; E.; AND GINGOLD; C. 2000. Haptic representation of the atom. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Visualisation 2000; 232–235.
JONES; M. G.; ANDRE; T.; SUPERFINE; R.; AND TAYLOR; R. 2003. Learning at the nanoscale: The impact of students’ use of remote microscopy on concepts of viruses; scale; and microscopy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40; 3 (March); 303–322. Haptic feedback; physical paper and clay models.
JONES; M. G.; MINOGUE; J.; TRETTER; T. R.; NEGISHI; A.; AND TAYLOR; R. 2006. Haptic augmentation of science instruction: Does touch matter? Science Education 90; 1 (January); 111–123.
KVALE; S. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Publications; Inc; Thousand Oaks.
K?RENEK; A.; ?C ERNOHORSK; M.; AND KABEL?C ; Z. 1999. Haptic visualization of molecular model. In WSCG’99 Conference Presentation; V. Skala; Ed.; vol. 1; 133–139.
LAI-YUEN; S. K.; AND LEE; Y.-S. 2005. Computer-aided molecular design (camd) with force-torque feedback. In Ninth International Conference on Computer Aided Design and Computer Graphics; IEEE Computer Society; Los Alamitos; CA; USA; 199–204.
LEE; Y.-G.; AND LYONS; K. W. 2004. Smoothing haptic interaction using molecular force calculations. Computer-Aided Design 36; 1 (January); 75–90.
MINOGUE; J.; AND JONES; M. G. 2006. Haptics in education: Exploring an untapped sensory modality. Review of Educational Research 76; 3; 317–348.
MORRIS; G. M.; GOODSELL; D. S.; HUEY; R.; AND OLSON; A. J. 1996. Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: Parallel applications of autodock 2.4. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 10; 10; 293–304.
MORRIS; G. M.; GOODSELL; D. S.; HALLIDAY; R. S.; HUEY; R.; HART; W. E.; BELEW; R. K.; AND OLSON; A. J. 1998. Automated docking using a lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. Journal of Computational Chemistry 19; 14; 1639–1662.
NAGATA; H.;MIZUSHIMA; H.; AND TANAKA; H. 2002. Concept and prototype of protein-ligand docking simulator with force feedback technology. Bioinformatics 18; 1; 140–146.
OUH-YOUNG; M.; PIQUE; M.; HUGHES; J.; SRINIVASAN; N.; AND BROOKS JR; F. P. 1988. Using a manipulator for force display in molecular docking. In Proceedings of IEEE Robotics and Automation Conference 3; 1824–1829.
REINER; M. 1999. Conceptual construction of fields through tactile interface. Interactive Learning Environments 7; 1 (April); 31–55.
SANKARANARAYANAN; G.; WEGHORST; S.; SANNER; M.; GILLET; A.; AND OLSON; A. 2003. Role of haptics in teaching structural molecular biology. In Proceedings of the 11th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (IEEE HAPTICS’03); 363–366.
SUBASI; E.; AND BASDOGAN; C. 2008. A new haptic interaction and visualization approach for rigid molecular docking in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 17; 1; 73–90.
WEGHORST; S. 2003. Augmented tangible molecular models. In IWSM’03-’04: The Fourth International Workshop on Spatial Media and the Sixth International Conference on Humans and Computers.
WOLLACOTT; A. M.; AND MERZ JR.; K. M. 2007. Haptic applications for molecular structure manipulation. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling 25; 6 (March); 801–805.
WU; H.-K.; KRAJCIK; J. S.; AND SOLOWAY; E. 2001. Promoting understanding of chemical representations: Students’ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38; 7 (September); 821–842.
