Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the Notion of Friction Through Gestural Interaction with a Remotely Controlled Robot

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Embodied interaction with tangible interactive objects can be beneficial for introducing abstract scientific concepts, especially for young learners. Nevertheless, there is limited comparative evaluation of alternative interaction modalities with contemporary educational technology, such as tablets and robots. In this study, we explore the effects of touch and gestural interaction with a tablet and a robot, in the context of a primary education physics course about the notion of friction. For this purpose, 56 students participated in a between-groups study that involved four computationally enhanced interventions which correspond to different input and output modalities, respectively: (1) touch-virtual, (2) touch-physical, (3) hand gesture-virtual, and (4) hand gesture-physical. We measured students’ friction knowledge and examined their views. We found that the physical conditions had greater learning impact concerning friction knowledge compared to the virtual way. Additionally, physical manipulation benefited those learners who had misconceptions or limited initial knowledge about friction. We also found that students who used the more familiar touchscreen interface demonstrated similar learning gains and reported higher usability compared to those using the hand-tilt interface. These findings suggest that user interface familiarity should be carefully balanced with user interface congruency, in order to establish accessibility to a scientific concept in a primary education context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Ollie Sphero Robot: http://www.sphero.com/ollie

  2. Tynker: https://www.tynker.com

References

  • Abrahamson, D. (2014). Building educational activities for understanding: an elaboration on the embodied-design framework and its epistemic grounds. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 637–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, J. B. (2010). An embodied/grounded cognition perspective on educational technology. In New science of learning (pp. 45–52). Springer New York.

  • Black, J. B., Segal, A., Vitale, J., & Fadjo, C. L. (2012). Embodied cognition and learning environment design. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, 198–223.

  • Card, S. K., English, W. K., & Burr, B. J. (1978). Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics, 21(8), 601–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, M. S., & Black, J. B. (2006, June). Direct-manipulation animation: Incorporating the haptic channel in the learning process to support middle school students in science learning and mental model acquisition. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences (pp. 64–70). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N., Danish, J. A., Delacruz, G., & Kumar, M. (2012). Learning physics through play in an augmented reality environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 7(3), 347–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fadjo, C. L. (2012). Developing computational thinking through grounded embodied cognition. New York: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fadjo, C. L., Hallman Jr, G., Harris, R., & Black, J. B. (2009). Surrogate embodiment, mathematics instruction and video game programming. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 2787–2792). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  • Frei, P., Su, V., Mikhak, B., & Ishii, H. (2000, April). Curlybot: designing a new class of computational toys. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 129–136). ACM.

  • Gallagher, S., & Lindgren, R. (2015). Enactive metaphors: learning through full-body engagement. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M., Gutierrez, T., Levin, J. R., Japuntich, S., & Kaschak, M. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children’s reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 424–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, I. (2013). Embodiment: a new perspective for evaluating physicality in learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, I., & Black, J. B. (2011). Incorporating haptic feedback in simulation for learning physics. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2281–2290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaakkola, T., Nurmi, S., & Veermans, K. (2011). A comparison of students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation-laboratory contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, R. J., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L. M., Horn, M. S., Shaer, O., Solovey, E. T., & Zigelbaum, J. (2008, April). Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 201–210). ACM.

  • Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2017). Embodied science and mixed reality: how gesture and motion capture affect physics education. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Birchfield, D. A., & Savio-Ramos, C. (2016). Effects of embodied learning and digital platform on the retention of physics content: centripetal force. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1819.

  • Khan, S. A., & Black, J. B. (2014). Reactivation of multimodal representations and perceptual simulations for meaningful learning: a comparison of direct embodiment, surrogate embodiment, and imagined embodiment. Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. Theory s of Group Processes, 33–58.

  • de Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: an embodied perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 501–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontra, C., Lyons, D. J., Fischer, S. M., & Beilock, S. L. (2015). Physical experience enhances science learning. Psychological Science, 26(6), 737–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. AMC, 10, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, D., Kang, S., Lu, C., Han, I., & Black, J. (2009, June). Case studies of developing programming skills via embodied experiences in an after-school LEGO Robotics Program for elementary school students. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 2209–2216). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  • Lindgren, R., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. (2013). Emboldened by embodiment: Six precepts for research on embodied learning and mixed reality. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 445–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, R., Tscholl, M., Wang, S., & Johnson, E. (2016). Enhancing learning and engagement through embodied interaction within a mixed reality simulation. Computers & Education, 95, 174–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, C. M., Kang, S., Huang, S. C., & Black, J. B. (2011, June). Building student understanding and interest in science through embodied experiences with LEGO Robotics. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 2225–2232). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

  • Malinverni, L., & Pares, N. (2014). Learning of abstract concepts through full-body interaction: a systematic review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melcer, E. F., & Isbister, K. (2016, May). Bridging the physical divide: a design framework for embodied learning games and simulations. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on in Computing Systems (pp. 2225–2233). ACM.

  • Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulos, K., & Kameas, A. (2017). Teaching programming in secondary education through embodied computing platforms: robotics and wearables. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(2), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, S. (1999). Memory in touch. Psicothema, 11(4).

  • Minogue, J., & Borland, D. (2016). Investigating students’ ideas about buoyancy and the influence of haptic feedback. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(2), 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montessori, M. (1966). The secret of childhood, trans. MJ Costello (Notre Dame, IN: Fides, 1966), 20.

  • Nemirovsky, R., Rasmussen, C., Sweeney, G., & Wawro, M. (2012). When the classroom floor becomes the complex plane: addition and multiplication as ways of bodily navigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(2), 287–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oviatt, S., Cohen, A., Miller, A., Hodge, K., & Mann, A. (2012). The impact of interface affordances on human ideation, problem solving, and inferential reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 19(3), 22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, D., Isaac, J., Babu, S. V., D’Souza, N., Leonard, A. E., Jörg, S., ... & Daily, S. B. (2016). Programming moves: design and evaluation of applying embodied interaction in virtual environments to enhance computational thinking in middle school students. In Virtual Reality (VR), 2016 IEEE (pp. 131–140). IEEE.

  • Phamduy, P., DeBellis, M., & Porfiri, M. (2015). Controlling a robotic fish via a natural user interface for informal science education. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 17(12), 2328–2337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (2013). The construction of reality in the child (Vol. 82). Routledge.

  • Pouw, W. T., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raffle, H. S., Parkes, A. J., & Ishii, H. (2004). Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 647–654). ACM.

  • Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in low-income children’s numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development, 79(2), 375–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M. (2001). Closing the fluency gap. Communications of the ACM, 44(3), 144–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3.4), 443–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., & Silverman, B. (1998). Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 281–287). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

  • Segal, A. (2011). Do gestural interfaces promote thinking? Embodied interaction: congruent gestures and direct touch promote performance in math. New York: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skulmowski, A., & Rey, G. D. (2018). Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3(1), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skulmowski, A., Pradel, S., Kühnert, T., Brunnett, G., & Rey, G. D. (2016). Embodied learning using a tangible user interface: the effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a spatial learning task. Computers & Education, 92, 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, H. S., Pusic, M., Nick, M. W., Sarpel, U., Plass, J. L., & Kalet, A. L. (2014). The cognitive impact of interactive design features for learning complex materials in medical education. Computers & Education, 71, 198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, C., Smith, B., & Buschkuehl, M. (2017). Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cognition: nondigital and digital approaches. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21(2), 149–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard university press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2008). Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the physics by inquiry curriculum: the case of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 425–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & De Jong, T. (2014). The effects on students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits of introducing virtual manipulatives within a physical manipulatives-oriented curriculum. Cognition and Instruction, 32(2), 101–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharia, Z. C., Loizou, E., & Papaevripidou, M. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai, S., Milgram, P., & Buxton, W. (1996). The influence of muscle groups on performance of multiple degree-of-freedom input. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 308–315). ACM.

  • Zhu, K., Ma, X., Wong, G. K. W., & Huen, J. M. H. (2016). How different input and output modalities support coding as a problem-solving process for children. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 238–245). ACM.

  • Zuckerman, O., & Gal-Oz, A. (2013). To TUI or not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs. graphical user interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(7), 803–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, O., Arida, S., & Resnick, M. (2005). Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 859–868). ACM.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, Ionian University, Corfu, Greece

    Alexandros Merkouris, Konstantinos Chorianopoulos & Vassilios Chrissikopoulos

  2. School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece

    Betty Chorianopoulou

Authors
  1. Alexandros Merkouris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Betty Chorianopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Konstantinos Chorianopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vassilios Chrissikopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandros Merkouris.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Merkouris, A., Chorianopoulou, B., Chorianopoulos, K. et al. Understanding the Notion of Friction Through Gestural Interaction with a Remotely Controlled Robot. J Sci Educ Technol 28, 209–221 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9760-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9760-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation