Advertisement

An integrated way of using a tangible user interface in a classroom

  • Sébastien Cuendet
  • Jessica Dehler-Zufferey
  • Giulia Ortoleva
  • Pierre Dillenbourg
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Despite many years of research in CSCL, computers are still scarcely used in classrooms today. One reason for this is that the constraints of the classroom environment are neglected by designers. In this contribution, we present a CSCL environment designed for a classroom usage from the start. The system, called TapaCarp, is based on a tangible user interface (TUI) and was designed to help train carpenter apprentices. A previous study (Cuendet and Dillenbourg 2013) showed that the tangible nature of TapaCarp helped integrate it in the classroom environment, but that this did not guarantee a meaningful learning activity. In this article, we describe the process that led us to design a new learning classroom activity for the particular context of dual carpentry apprenticeships. One innovative aspect of the activity is that TapaCarp is used only for a small part of it. This contrasts with the mainstream CSCL approach that assumes that the system must be used from beginning to end of the activity. This new activity was used in a classroom study with 3 classes of carpenter apprentices over two days for each class. Despite its many steps, the activity proved usable and fostered many connections to the workplace, which was one of its main purposes. The teacher and the students were positive and showed high engagement in the activity. The learning gain results were mixed: the performance of the students improved from day 1 to day 2, but the learning gain measured with a pre-test/post-test mechanism did not show any significant difference compared to that of a control group.

Keywords

Tangible user interfaces Classroom orchestration Scripting SWISH Vocational training Carpenters Spatial skills 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and comments. This research is funded by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI).

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcoholado, C., Nussbaum, M., Tagle, A., Gomez, F., Denardin, F., Susaeta, H., Villalta, M., & Toyama, K. (2011). One mouse per child. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D., Frankel, J.L., Marks, J., Agarwala, A., Beardsley, P., Hodgins, J., Leigh, D., Ryall, K., Sullivan, E., & Yedidia, J.S. (2000). Tangible interaction + graphical interpretation: a new approach to 3d modeling. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH.Google Scholar
  4. Blikstein, P. (2008). Travels in Troy with Freire, chapter 14, Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bonnard, Q., Zufferey, G., Mazzei, A., Cuendet, S., Li, N., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Chilitags, robust fiducial markers for augmented reality.Google Scholar
  6. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics: Didactique des mathmatiques, 1970-1990: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Butterworth, G., & Light, P. (1982). Social Cognition, Univ of Chicago Pr (Tx): first edition edition.Google Scholar
  8. Cuendet, S. (2013). Tangible Interfaces for Learning. PhD thesis, IC, Lausanne.Google Scholar
  9. Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012a). Designing Augmented Reality for the Classroom: Computers and Education. Special Issue on Augmented Reality for Learning.Google Scholar
  10. Cuendet, S., Bumbacher, E. W., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012b). Tangible vs. virtual Representations: when Tangibles Benefit the Training of Spatial Skills. In Proc NordiCHI (p. 2012).Google Scholar
  11. Cuendet, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). The Benefits and Limitations of Distributing a Tangible Interface in a Classroom. In CSCL 2013. Best paper award.Google Scholar
  12. Cuendet, S., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012c). Tangible interfaces: when physical-virtual coupling may be detrimental to learning. In Proceedings of the 2012 British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.Google Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal Of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 491514, 6.Google Scholar
  14. Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In In New Science of Learning. Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  16. Dillenbourg, P., Jrvel, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning In Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., Jong, T., Lazonder, A., & Barnes, S. (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Learning, (pp. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dillenbourg, P., Nussbaum, M., Dimitriadis, Y., & Roschelle, J. (2012). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education.Google Scholar
  18. Dimitriadis, Y., Asensio-prez, J.I., Hernndez-leo, D., Roschelle, J., Brecht, J., Chaudhury, S.R., Digiano, C., & Patton, C.M. (2007). From socially-mediated to technology-mediated coordination: A study of design tensions using group scribbles.Google Scholar
  19. Do-Lenh, H.S. (2012). Supporting Reflection and Classroom Orchestration with Tangible Tabletops. PhD thesis, EPFL, Lausanne.Google Scholar
  20. Do-Lenh, S., Jermann, P., Cuendet, S., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). Task performance vs. learning outcomes: a study of a tangible user interface in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 5th European conference on Technology enhanced learning conference on Sustaining TEL: from innovation to learning and practice. EC-TEL’10, p. 7892, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Fitzmaurice, G.W., & Buxton, W. (1997). An empirical evaluation of graspable user interfaces: towards specialized, space-multiplexed input. In CHI ’97: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. p. 4350, New York, NY, USA. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gaillard, L. (2012). Perspectives de la formation - scnarios 20112020 pour le degr secondaire ii. Technical report, Office fdral de la formation professionnelle et de la technologie OFFT.Google Scholar
  23. Girouard, A., Solovey, E.T., Hirshfield, L.M., Ecott, S., Shaer, O., & Jacob, R.J.K. (2007). Smart blocks: a tangible mathematical manipulative. In Proc. of TEI.Google Scholar
  24. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ha, V., Inkpen, K., Mandryk, R., & Whalen, T. (2006). Direct intentions: the effects of input devices on collaboration around a tabletop display. In First IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems, 2006. TableTop 2006, page 8 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Horn, M.S., Solovey, E.T., Crouser, R.J., & Jacob, R.J. (2009). Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’09, p. 975984, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  27. Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’06, p. 437446, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  28. Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Dalton, N.S., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Collaboration and interference: awareness with mice or touch input. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. CSCW ’08, pp. 167–176, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  29. Kim, M.J., & Maher, M.L. (2008). The impact of tangible user interfaces on designers’ spatial cognition. HumanComputer Interaction, 23(2), 101–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Manches, A., & O’Malley, C. (2012). others Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation. Personal Ubiquitous Comput, 16(4), 405419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction. pp. 163–170. ACM.Google Scholar
  32. Marshall, P., Fleck, R., Harris, A., Rick, J., Hornecker, E., Rogers, Y., Yuill, N., & Dalton, N.S. (2009). Fighting for control: children’s embodied interactions when using physical and digital representations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’09, p. 21492152, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  33. Moraveji, N., Ringel Morris, M., Morris, D., Mary, C., & Riche, N. (2011). Classsearch: Facilitating the development of web search skills through social learning. In Proc. of CHI.Google Scholar
  34. O’Malley, C., & Stanton Fraser, D. (2004). Literature review in learning with tangible technologies. Technical report, FutureLab.Google Scholar
  35. Parkes, A.J., Raffle, H.S., & Ishii, H. (2008). Topobo in the wild: longitudinal evaluations of educators appropriating a tangible interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’08, p. 11291138, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  36. Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R.A. (Eds.) (2005). Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Price, S., Falcão, T.P., Sheridan, J.G., & Roussos, G. (2009). The effect of representation location on interaction in a tangible learning environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. TEI ’09, pp. 85–92, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  38. Quarles, J., Lampotang, S., Fischler, I., Fishwick, P., & Lok, B. (2008). Tangible user interfaces compensate for low spatial cognition. In 3D User Interfaces, 2008. 3DUI 2008. IEEE Symposium on (pp. 11–18).Google Scholar
  39. Rogers, Y., & Lindley, S. (2004). Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: which way is best?. Interacting with Computers, 16(6), 1133–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Estrella, G., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2009). From handheld collaborative tool to effective classroom module: embedding cscl in a broader design framework. In Proc. of CSCL.Google Scholar
  41. Roschelle, J.M., Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.N., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Future of Children.Google Scholar
  42. Schwartz, D.L., Chase, C.C., Oppezzo, M.A., & Chin, D.B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shaer, O., & Hornecker, E. (2009). Tangible user interfaces: Past, present and future directions (preprint). Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact, 3(1-2), 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sharlin, E., Watson, B., Kitamura, Y., Kishino, F., & Itoh, Y. (2004). On tangible user interfaces, humans and spatiality. Personal Ubiquitous Comput, 8(5), 338346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Song, H., Guimbretire, F., Hu, C., & Lipson, H. (2006). ModelCraft: capturing freehand annotations and edits on physical 3D models. In Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. UIST ’06, p. 1322, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  46. Speelpenning, T., Antle, A.N., Doering, T., & van den Hoven, E. (2011). Exploring how tangible tools enable collaboration in a multi-touch tabletop game. In Proceedings of the 13th IFIP TC 13 international conference on Human-computer interaction - Volume Part II. INTERACT’11, p. 605621, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  47. Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 315337, 1.Google Scholar
  48. Tuddenham, P., Kirk, D., & Izadi, S. (2010). Graspables revisited: multi-touch vs. tangible input for tabletop displays in acquisition and manipulation tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’10, p. 22232232, New York, NY, USA. ACM.Google Scholar
  49. Vygotsky, L.S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Zhang, J., & Norman, D.A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zufferey, G., Jermann, P., Lucchi, A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Tinker Sheets: Using Paper Forms to Control and Visualize Tangible Simulations. In Proc. of TEI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sébastien Cuendet
    • 1
  • Jessica Dehler-Zufferey
    • 1
  • Giulia Ortoleva
    • 2
  • Pierre Dillenbourg
    • 1
  1. 1.CHILI LabEPFLLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.TECFAUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options