Tangible User Interfaces and Contrasting Cases as a Preparation for Future Learning
In this paper, we describe an experiment that compared the use of a Tangible User Interface (physical objects augmented with digital information) and a set of Contrasting Cases as a preparation for future learning. We carried out an experiment (N = 40) with a 2 × 2 design: the first factor compared traditional instruction (“Tell & Practice”) with a constructivist activity designed using the Preparation for Future Learning framework (PFL). The second factor contrasted state-of-the-art PFL learning activity (i.e., students studying Contrasting Cases) with an interactive tabletop featuring digitally enhanced manipulatives. In agreement with prior work, we found that dyads of students who followed the PFL activity achieved significantly higher learning gains compared to their peers who followed a traditional “Tell & Practice” instruction (large effect size). A similar effect was found in favor of the interactive tabletop compared to the Contrasting Cases (small-to-moderate effect size). We discuss implications for designing socio-constructivist activities using new computer interfaces.
KeywordsLearning Collaboration Tangible User Interfaces Contrasting Cases Preparing for Future Learning
We gratefully acknowledge grant support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for this work through the CAREER Bifocal Modeling grant (NSF # 1055130).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical IRB (institutional review board) of Harvard and Stanford University. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Bertrand Schneider and Paulo Blikstein declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Cuendet, S., Dehler-Zufferey, J., Ortoleva, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015). An integrated way of using a tangible user interface in a classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 183–208.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Kynigos, C. (2007). Half-baked logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design. Informatics in Education-International Journal, 6, 335–358.Google Scholar
- Olson, I. C., & Horn, M. S. (2011). Modeling on the table: agent-based modeling in elementary school with NetTango. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 189–192). ACM.Google Scholar
- Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. (1928). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
- Piper, A. M., & Hollan, J. D. (2009). Tabletop displays for small group study: affordances of paper and digital materials. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1227–1236). ACM.Google Scholar
- Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2015). Unraveling students’ interaction around a tangible Interface using multimodal learning analytics. International Journal of Educational Data Mining, 7(3), 89–116.Google Scholar
- Schneider, B., Strait, M., Muller, L., Elfenbein, S., Shaer, O., & Shen, C. (2012). Phylo-Genie: engaging students in collaborative ‘tree-thinking’ through tabletop techniques. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3071–3080). ACM.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. C&I, 22(2), 129–184.Google Scholar
- Shaer, O., Strait, M., Valdes, C., Feng, T., Lintz, M., & Wang, H. (2011). Enhancing genomic learning through tabletop interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2817–2826). ACM.Google Scholar
- Skinner, B. F. (1986). Programmed instruction revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(2), 103–110.Google Scholar
- Thille, C., Mitchell, J., & Stevens, M. (2015, September 22). What we’ve learned from MOOCs. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2015/09/22/moocs-are-no-panacea-they-can-help-improve-learning-essay
- Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In C. Moore & P. J. Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: its origins and role in development (pp. 103–130). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
- Wise, A. F., Antle, A. N., Warren, J., May, A., Fan, M., & Macaranas, A. (2015). What kind of world do you want to live in? Positive interdependence and collaborative processes in the tangible tabletop land-use planning game Youtopia. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning—Volume 1 (pp. 236–243). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar