Abstract
We report on the design and development of HandWaver, a mathematical making environment for use with immersive, room-scale virtual reality. A beta version of HandWaver was developed at the IMRE Lab at the University of Maine and released in the spring of 2017. Our goal in developing HandWaver was to harness the modes of representation and interaction available in virtual environments and use them to create experiences where learners use their hands to make and modify mathematical objects. In what follows, we describe the sandbox construction environment, an experience within HandWaver where learners construct geometric figures using a series of gesture-based operators, such as stretching figures to bring them up into higher dimensions, or revolving figures around axes. We describe plans for research and future development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We recognize that spatial inscriptions are made possible by 0 and 1 s inscribed on computer disks, but such inscriptions, from the user’s perspective, are secondary to the three-dimensional inscriptions one can interact with in virtual spaces.
- 2.
Volumetric video describes capturing real-world objects from multiple perspectives so that complete three dimensional models of those objects can be rendered in virtual or augmented reality environments (Ebner, Feldmann, Renault, & Schreer, 2017).
- 3.
We have found that the Leap Motion sensor is both reasonably priced and functional for our purposes. This sensor can be mounted to the front of an HTC Vive headset and provides a sixty-degree field of view for tracking gestures.
- 4.
With phone-based virtual reality viewers, it is possible to view a virtual world from different vantage points that can be accessed by teleportation or to experience visually immersive simulated movements (e.g., roller coaster rides), but what happens in the virtual world does not depend on a user’s position in the physical world.
- 5.
A frame rate of 90 frames per second is necessary to ensure that the virtual worlds we view through spatial displays are real enough for our visual system.
- 6.
This tool is still under development.
References
Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences (online first edition).
Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the learning sciences, 21(2), 247–286.
Barrett, T. J., Stull, A. T., Hsu, T. M., & Hegarty, M. (2015). Constrained interactivity for relating multiple representations in science: When virtual is better than real. Computers & Education,81, 69–81.
Bock, C., & Dimmel, J. K. (2017). Explorations of volume in a gesture-based virtual mathematics laboratory. In E. Galindo & J. Newton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 371–374) Indianapolis, IN: Hoosier Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators.
Bruce, C. D., & Hawes, Z. (2015). The role of 2D and 3D mental rotation in mathematics for young children: What is it? Why does it matter? And what can we do about it? ZDM Mathematics Education,47(3), 331–343.
Chen, C. L., & Herbst, P. (2013). The interplay among gestures, discourse, and diagrams in students’ geometrical reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics,83(2), 285–307.
Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Coxeter, H. S. M. (1938). Regular skew polyhedra in three and four dimension, and their topological analogues. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society,2(1), 33–62.
Davis, B. (2015). Gumm(i)ing up the works? Lessons learned through designing a research-based “app-tutor”. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Technology if Mathematics Teaching, Faro, Portugal.
de Freitas, E., & Sinclair, N. (2012). Diagram, gesture, agency: Theorizing embodiment in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics,80(1–2), 133–152.
Dimmel, J. K., & Herbst, P. G. (2015). The semiotic structure of geometry diagrams: How textbook diagrams convey meaning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,46(2), 147–195.
Duval, R. (2014). Commentary: Linking epistemology and semio-cognitive modeling in visualization. ZDM Mathematics Education,46(1), 159–170.
Ebner, T., Feldmann, I., Renault, S., & Schreer, O. (2017). 46‐2: Distinguished Paper: Dynamic real world objects in augmented and virtual reality applications. In SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers (Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 673–676).
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development,47(4), 47–61.
Franklin, P. (1919). Some geometrical relations of the plane, sphere, and tetrahedron. The American Mathematical Monthly,26(4), 146–151.
Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2011). The writing revolution: Cuneiform to the internet (Vol. 25). Wiley.
Hallowell, D. A., Okamoto, Y., Romo, L. F., & La Joy, J. R. (2015). First-graders’ spatial-mathematical reasoning about plane and solid shapes and their representations. ZDM Mathematics Education,47(3), 363–375.
Harris, R. (1986). The origin of writing. Open Court Publishing.
Harris, R. (1989). How does writing restructure thought? Language & Communication,9(2–3), 99–106.
Hart, V., Hawksley, A., Matsumoto, E. A., & Segerman, H. (2017a). Non-euclidean virtual reality I: Explorations of H3. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.04004.
Hart, V., Hawksley, A., Matsumoto, E. A., & Segerman, H. (2017b). Non-euclidean virtual reality II: Explorations of H2 X E. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.04862.
Herbst, P., Fujita, T., Halverscheid, S., & Weiss, M. (2017). The learning and teaching of geometry in secondary schools: A modeling perspective. Taylor & Francis.
Hettinger, L. J., & Riccio, G. E. (1992). Visually induced motion sickness in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 1(3), 306–310.
Hollebrands, K. F. (2007). The role of a dynamic software program for geometry in the strategies high school mathematics students employ. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 164–192.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development,58(2), 137–154.
Kennedy, J., & McDowell, E. (1998). Geoboard quadrilaterals. The Mathematics Teacher,91(4), 288–290.
McNeil, N. M. (2008). Limitations to teaching children 2 + 2 = 4: Typical arithmetic problems can hinder learning of mathematical equivalence. Child Development,79, 1524–1537.
Newton, K. J., & Alexander, P. A. (2013). Early mathematics learning in perspective: Eras and forces of change. In Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning (pp. 5–28). Springer Netherlands.
O’Halloran, K. L. (2005). Mathematical discourse: Language, symbolism and visual images. London and New York: Continuum.
Pólya, G. (1969). On the number of certain lattice polygons. Journal of Combinatorial Theory,6(1), 102–105.
Poonen, B., & Rodriguez-Villegas, F. (2000). Lattice polygons and the number 12. The American Mathematical Monthly,107(3), 238–250.
Sandoval, W. (2014). Science education’s need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education,98(3), 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21107.
Scott, P. R. (1987). The fascination of the elementary. The American Mathematical Monthly,94(8), 759–768.
Senner, W. M. (Ed.). (1991). The origins of writing. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Sinclair, N. (2014). Generations of research on new technologies in mathematics education. Teaching mathematics and its applications,3, 166–178.
Sinclair, N., & Bruce, C. D. (2015). New opportunities in geometry education at the primary school. ZDM Mathematics Education,47(3), 319–329.
Taylor, H. A., & Hutton, A. (2013). Think3d!: training spatial thinking fundamental to STEM education. Cognition and Instruction,31(4), 434–455.
Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American mathematical society,30(2), 161–177.
Ustwo. (2014). Monument Valley [computer game]. Available at: https://www.monumentvalleygame.com/mv1.
Utley, J., & Wolfe, J. (2004). Geoboard areas: Students’ remarkable ideas. Mathematics Teacher,97(1), 18.
Whiteley, W., Sinclair, N., & Davis, B. (2015). What is spatial reasoning? In B. Davis (Ed.), Spatial reasoning in the early years: Principle, assertions, and speculations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Zuckerman, O., & Gal-Oz, A. (2013). To TUI or not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in tangible versus graphical user interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(7), 803–820.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dimmel, J., Bock, C. (2019). Dynamic Mathematical Figures with Immersive Spatial Displays: The Case of Handwaver. In: Aldon, G., Trgalová, J. (eds) Technology in Mathematics Teaching. Mathematics Education in the Digital Era, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19740-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19741-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)