Advertisement

Interactive tabletops in education

  • Pierre Dillenbourg
  • Michael Evans
Article

Abstract

Interactive tabletops are gaining increased attention from CSCL researchers. This paper analyses the relation between this technology and teaching and learning processes. At a global level, one could argue that tabletops convey a socio-constructivist flavor: they support small teams that solve problems by exploring multiple solutions. The development of tabletop applications also witnesses the growing importance of face-to-face collaboration in CSCL and acknowledges the physicality of learning. However, this global analysis is insufficient. To analyze the educational potential of tabletops in education, we present 33 points that should be taken into consideration. These points are structured on four levels: individual user-system interaction, teamwork, classroom orchestration, and socio-cultural contexts. God lies in the details.

Keywords

tabletop tangible ubiquitous 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper introduces a special thread of papers in ijCSCL that originates from a workshop ‘Tabletops for Education’ organized by P. Dillenbourg and C. Shen at in the Second Alpine Rendez-Vous, in Garmish-Partenkirchen (Germany) in December 2009. This workshop was funded by STELLAR, a European Network of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning.

This article was supported, in part, by a National Science Foundation Grant (IIS 073615) awarded to Michael A. Evans.

References

  1. Africano, D., Berg, S., Lindbergh, K., Lundholm, P., Nilbrink, F., & Persson, A. (2004) Designing tangible interfaces for children’s collaboration. Proceedings of CHI 2004, April 24–29, 2004, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  2. Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind: Creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachour, K., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). An interactive table for supporting participation balance in face-to-face collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(3), 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 153–172. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00078-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costanza, E. & Huang, J. (2009). Designable visual markers. Proceedings ACM CHI2009. Boston, MA, USA, April.Google Scholar
  6. Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused. Computers in the classroom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Kaplan, F. & Dillenbourg, P. (2011) Paper interface design for classroom orchestration. CHI, (To appear).Google Scholar
  8. Dietz, P., & Leigh, D. (2001). DiamondTouch: A multi-user touch technology. In Proceedings of UIST’01 (pp. 219–226). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P. & Hong, F. (2008). The nechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 525–552). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Dillenbourg, P., & Traum, D. (2006). Sharing solutions: Persistence and grounding in multi-modal collaborative problem solving. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillenbourg, P., Zufferey, G., Alavi, H., Jermann, P., DoLenh, S., Bonnard, Q., et al. (2011) Classroom orchestration: The third circle of usability. Proceedings of the 9th Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, Hong-Kong, (To appear).Google Scholar
  13. Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  14. Do-Lenh, S., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Paper-based Concept Map: The Effects of Tabletop on an Expressive Collaborative Learning Task. In Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on HCI 2009: Celebrating People and Technology (Cambridge, United Kingdom, September 01–05, 2009). British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. British Computer Society, Swinton, UK, 149–158.Google Scholar
  15. Eden, H. (2002). Getting in on the (inter)action: Exploring affordances for collaborative learning in a context of informed participation. In Proceedings CSCL ‘02 (pp. 399–407). ISLS.Google Scholar
  16. Eden, H., Scharff, E., & Hornecker, E. (2002). Multilevel design and role play: Experiences in assessing support for neighborhood participation in design. In Proceedings of DIS ‘02 (pp. 387–392). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, M. A., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2011). Social interactions and instructional artifacts: Emergent socio-technical affordances and constraints for children’s geometric thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, M. A., Ryon, E., Feenstra, A., & McNeill, D. (2009a). Discourse coding from a multimodal approach: Distributed cognition & geometric problem solving in young children. Paper presented at the Alpine-Rendezvous Workshop, November 30–December 2, 2009, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, M. A., & Wilkins, J. L. M., Ehrich, R. W., McNeill, D., & Quek, F. (2009b). Second graders geometric reasoning with peers and manipulatives: Requirements for a multi-touch, tabletop learning technology. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA, April 13–17.Google Scholar
  20. Evans, M. A., Wilkins, J. L. M., Motto, A., Brunger, A., & Crider, J. (2011). Group meaning in mathematical discourse: A multimodal analysis of prek students using multi-touch virtual manipulatives. Paper to be presented at the International Conference for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. July 4–9, 2011, Hong Kong, China.Google Scholar
  21. Evans, M. A., Wilkins, J. L. M., Motto, A., Brunger, A., & Crider, J. (2011a). Group meaning in mathematical discourse: A multimodal analysis of prek students using multi-touch virtual manipulatives. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol 11, pp.806-810). July 4–9, 2011, Hong Kong, China.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, M. A., Feenstra, E., Ryon, E., & McNeill, D. (2011b). A multimodal approach to coding discourse: Collaboration, distributed cognition, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenberg, S., Gutwin, C., & Cockburn, A. (1996) Awareness Through Fisheye Views in Relaxed-WYSIWIS Groupware. Proceedings of Graphics Interface (pp. 28–38), Toronto, Canada, May 21–24. Morgan Kauffman.Google Scholar
  24. Hatch, A., Higgins, S., & Mercier, E. (2009). SynergyNet: Supporting Collaborative Learning in an Immersive Environment STELLAR Alpine Rendez-Vous Workshop 2009: “Tabletops for Education and Training” December 2–3, 2009, GarmischPartenkirchen.Google Scholar
  25. Hoppe, H. U., Lingnau, A., Machado, I., Paiva, A., Prada, R., & Tewissen, F. (2000). Supporting collaborative activities in computer integrated classrooms - the NIMIS Approach Proc. of 6th International Workshop on Groupware, CRIWG 2000. IEEE CS Press, Madeira, Portugal.Google Scholar
  26. Inkpen, K M., Ho-Ching, W., Kuederle, O., Scott, S., Shemaker, G. B.D. (1999), “This is fun! We're all best friends and we're all playing”, Supporting Children's Synchronous Collaboration. In Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) ‘99. Dec. 1999. Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Jermann, P., Zufferey, G. & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Tinkering or sketching: Apprentices’ use of tangibles and drawings to solve design problems. In Times of Convergence. Technologies Across Learning Contexts, Proceedings of ECTEL2008 (pp. 167–178). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2008.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplan, F., Do Lenh, S., Bachour, K., Kao, G., Gault, C., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Interpersonal computers for higher education. In P. Dillenbourg, J. Huang, & M. Cherubini (Eds.), Collaborative artefacts and interactive furniture (pp. 129–146). Springer: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series.Google Scholar
  29. Kharrufa, A., Leat, D., & Olivier, P. (2010a). Digital mysteries: Designing for learning at the tabletop. In Proceedings of ITS ‘10 (pp. 197–206). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kharrufa, A., Olivier, P., & Leat, D. (2010b). Learning through reflection at the tabletop: A case study with digital mysteries. In Proceedings of EDMEDIA 2010 (pp. 665–674). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  31. Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koschmann, T. (1999). Computer support for collaboration and learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 495–497.Google Scholar
  33. Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li, S., Lv, J., Xu, Y., & Jia, Y. (2007). EyeScreen: A gesture interface for manipulating on-screen objects. In J. A. Jacko (Ed.), HCI International 2007 - 12th International Conference - Part III 2007. pp. 710–717.Google Scholar
  35. Lucchi, A., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). An empirical evaluation of touch and tangible interfaces for tabletop displays. In Proceedings of the Fourth international Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied interaction (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, January 24–27, 2010). TEI ‘10. ACM, New York, NY, 177–184.Google Scholar
  36. McNeill, D. (2006). Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., Mcfarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Computers in Education, 52, 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nystrand, M., Wu, L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. (2003). Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olkun, S. (2003). Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 22(1), 43–56.Google Scholar
  40. Pangaro, G., Maynes-Aminzade, D., & Ishii, H. (2002) The actuated workbench: Computer-controlled actuation in tabletop tangible interfaces, Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, October 27–30, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  41. Piper, B., Ratti, C., & Ishii, H. (2002). Illuminating Clay: A 3-D tangible interface for landscape analysis. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2002), Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 2002. ACM Press, New York, pp. 355–362.Google Scholar
  42. Rick, J., & Rogers, Y. (2008). From DigiQuilt to DigiTile: Adapting educational technology to a multi-touch table. In Proceedings of TABLETOP’08 (pp. 79–86). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.Google Scholar
  43. Rick, J., Marshall, P., & Yuill, N. (2011). Beyond one-size-fits-all: How interactive tabletops support collaborative learning. In Proceedings of IDC ‘11. New York: ACM Press, (to appear)Google Scholar
  44. Rogers, Y. (2006) Moving on from Weiser’s vision of of calm computing: Engaging UbiComp experiences. In: P. Dourish and A. Friday (Eds.) Ubicomp 2006 Proceedings, LNCS 4206, pp. 404–421, Springer-Verlag,Google Scholar
  45. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schellens, T., van Keer, H., Valcke, M., & deWever, B. (2005). The impact of role assignment as scripting tool on knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups. In T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, & T.-W. Chan (Eds.), Computer-Supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 years (pp. 557–566). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 1, 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schneider, B., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). Benefits of a tangible interface for collaborative learning and interaction. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. Google Scholar
  49. Shaffer, D. (2005). Epistemic games. Innovate, 1(6). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=79.
  50. Shen, C., Vernier, F., Forlines, C., & Ringel, M. (2004). DiamondSpin: An extensible toolkit for around-the-table interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 167–174.Google Scholar
  51. Shen, C., Vernier, F. D., Forlines, C., & Ringel, M. (2004). DiamondSpin: An extensible toolkit for around-the-table interaction. Proc. of CHI‘04, pp. 167–174.Google Scholar
  52. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  53. Stefik, M., Bobrow, D. G., Foster, G., Lanning, S., & Tatart, D. (1987). WYSIWIS Revised: Early experiences with multiuser interfaces. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 5(2), 147–167. April.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stewart, J., Raybourn, E., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (1998). When two hands are better than one: Enhancing collaboration using single display groupware. In Proceedings of Extended Abstracts of Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 98) ACM Press, pp. 287–288Google Scholar
  55. Streng, S., Stegmann, K., Wagner, C., Böhm, S., Hussmann, H., & Fischer, F. (2011). Supporting argumentative knowledge construction in face-to-face settings: From ArgueTable to ArgueWall, Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2011.Google Scholar
  56. Sugimoto, M. (2009). Design of systems for supporting collaborative learning augmented with physical artefacts. In P. Dillenbourg, J. Huang, & M. Cherubini (Eds.). Interactive Artifacts And Furniture Supporting Collaborative Work And Learning, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Volume 10, 1–2.Google Scholar
  57. Sugimoto, M., Hosoi, K., & Hashizume, H. (2004). Caretta: A system for supporting face-to-face collaboration by integrating personal and shared spaces. In Proceedings of CHI ‘04, pp. 41–48.Google Scholar
  58. Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Underkoffler, J., & Ishii, H. (1999). Urp: A luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design. In Proceedings of CHI‘99, pp. 386–393.Google Scholar
  61. Watanabe, K., Takeuchi, T., Inoue, T., & Okada, K. (2008). Tangible tabletop interface that supports cooperative learning in face-to-face environment. Proceedings of ICCE 2008, pp. 463–467.Google Scholar
  62. Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Winfield, L., Glassmire, J., Colgate, J. E., & Peshkin, M. (2007). T-PaD: Tactile pattern display through variable friction reduction, world haptics conference, pp. 421–426, Second Joint EuroHaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (WHC‘07), 2007.Google Scholar
  64. Zufferey, G., Jermann, P., Lucchi, A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). TinkerSheets: Using paper forms to control and visualize tangible simulations. In Proceedings of TEI‘09, Third International Conference on Embedded and Tangible Interaction, Cambridge (UK), February 16–18, 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EPFLLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations