# Designing Pedagogically Effective Haptic Systems for Learning: A Review
## 3 Haptics Applications for Learning
### Stem
#### 3.1.2 Biology  
Frequently, learning biology requires understanding concepts that are invisible to the naked eye and impossible to experience via touch. Attempting to learn about \"invisible\" concepts can initially be abstract and hard to visualize for some learners. By capitalizing on the principles of Embodied Cognition, haptic technology provides a tangible solution to this problem by enabling the user to physically interact with micro-scale learning material and create a perceptually rich mental model. A study conducted by [PERSON] et al. investigated the ability of haptic augmentation to influence learning outcomes in students being taught microbiology [19]. Three types of haptic and non-haptic interface devices were compared in their teaching ability as opposed to traditional instruction: the PHANToM haptic joystick (a sophisticated haptic desktop device), Microsoft's Sidewinder (a haptic gaming joystick), and a classic computer mouse (no haptic feedback). In [19], the PHANToM haptic joystick provided the user with the most immersive haptic experience due to the higher degree of sensitivity. The other haptic device that was compared in the study was the Microsoft's Sidewinder, a less-expensive joystick initially developed for use in commercial gaming. The PHANToM device provided a robust 6-degrees-of-freedom movement while the less expensive Sidewinder provided 2-degrees-of-freedom. A computer mouse was used as the nonhaptic interface. Cognitive and affective measures were used to determine student learning differences; upon completion of the three different instructional models, testsmeasuring students' knowledge of content and attitude toward the learning modules were employed. Students who had experienced haptic feedback stated that they had \"participated more fully in the investigations than those students who had only visual feedback\" [19]. It was shown that students who had received haptic feedback used more analogies to describe the learning content during following discussions compared to the students who only received visual feedback. Furthermore, the students receiving haptic feedback also included more tactile-related terminology in post-experiment discussions. This finding suggests that the students who received haptic feedback may have had more embodied experiences with the learning material [19]. Interestingly, an increase in the sensitivity of the haptic tool positively correlated with the number of tactile terms students used when describing a virus. This data suggests that the sensitivity of a haptic tool may directly affect the level of embodiment experienced by the user, potentially leading better learning outcomes [11]. The researchers attribute the students' descriptive differences to \"the more perceptually immersive environment\", speculating that the \"perceptually immersive environment not only makes the material especially interesting and engaging but also improves the students' ability to personally connect with material and construct mental models of the abstract concepts based on actual concrete experiences\" [19]. Another study completed by [PERSON] et al. [20] explored how the use of a haptic controllable atomic force microscope, called the Nano Manipulator, influenced high school students' understanding of viruses. The nanomanipulator provided the students with tactile feedback from the properties of the microscopic object being studied and allowed the students to investigate and manipulate objects that are nanometer-size. Adding haptic feedback to traditional microscopy allotted the user with an ability to interact with nanoscale objects in a physical, hands-on way. Results concluded that through the haptic microscope experience, students' conceptions of the microscale adenovirus shifted from 2-D representations to resemble more 3-D-like representations, suggesting a better understanding of adenovirus morphology [20].