An evaluation-driven design approach to develop learning environments based on full-body interaction
- 399 Downloads
The development of learning environments based on full-body interaction has become an increasingly important field of research in recent years. However, the design and evaluation strategies currently used present some significant limitations. Two major shortcomings are: the inadequate involvement of children in the design process and a lack of research into what meanings children construct within these learning environments. To tackle these shortcomings we present an evaluation-driven design approach, which aims at analyzing situated interpretations made by children. These interpretations are then used to guide and optimize design in an iterative process of design and assessment. This evaluation-driven design method was applied in the development of the EcoSystem Project, a full-body interaction learning environment for children aimed at supporting learning about environmental relationships. The application of this iterative approach proved to be highly effective both in facilitating continuous improvements in the proposed design and in reducing misconceptions by children using the environment. Moreover, experimental evaluation reported significant learning gains in children. This suggests both the potential of using full-body interaction to support learning and the effectiveness of our evaluation-driven approach in optimizing design solutions through the analysis of children’s interpretations.
KeywordsFull-body interaction Learning environments Design-based research Participatory design Evaluation Assessment
- Ackermann, E. K. (2004). Constructing knowledge and transforming the world. In M. Tokoro & L. Steels (Eds.), A learning zone of one’s own: Sharing representations and flow in collaborative learning environments. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
- Ackermann, E. K. (2007). Experience of artifacts: People’s appropriations/object’s affordances. In M. Larochelle (Ed.), Ernst von Glasersfeld, Key works on radical constructivism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Adachi, T., Goseki, M., Muratsu, K., Mizoguchi, H., Namatame, M., & Sugimoto, M. (2013). Human SUGOROKU: Full-body interaction system for students to learn vegetation succession. In Proceeding of the 2013 conference on interaction design and children—IDC’13 (pp. 364–367).Google Scholar
- Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Bevans, A. (2013). Balancing justice: Comparing whole body and controller-based interaction for an abstract domain. Internation Journal of Arts and Technology, 6(4), 1–21.Google Scholar
- Antle, A. N., Droumeva, M., & Corness, G. (2008). Playing with the sound maker: Do embodied metaphors help children learn? In Proceeding of the 2008 international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’08 (pp. 178–185).Google Scholar
- Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Carreras, A., & Parés, N. (2004). Designing an interactive installation for children to experience abstract concepts. In New trends on human–computer interaction (pp. 33–42).Google Scholar
- Charoenying, T., Gaysinsky, A., & Ryokai, K. (2012). The choreography of conceptual development in computer supported instructional environments. In Proceeding of the 2012 international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’13 (Vol. 4, pp. 162–167).Google Scholar
- Druin, A. (2002). The Role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
- Eco, U. (1975). Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
- Edge, D., Cheng, K., & Whitney, M. (2013). SpatialEase: Learning language through body motion (c). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’13) (pp. 469–472).Google Scholar
- Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Learning through gesture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 595–607.Google Scholar
- Grønbæk, K., Iversen, O. S., Kortbek, K. J., Nielsen, K. R., & Aagaard, L. (2007). Interactive floor support for kinesthetic interaction in children learning environments. In INTERACT 2007 (pp. 361–375).Google Scholar
- Johnson-glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D., & Megowan-romanowicz, C. (2010). Semi-virtual embodied learning-real world stem assessment. In L. Annetta & S. Bronack (Eds.), Serious educational game assessment: Practical methods and models for educational games, simulations and virtual worlds (pp. 225–241). Rotterdam: Sense Publications.Google Scholar
- Johnson-glenberg, M. C., Koziupa, T., & Birchfield, D. (2011a). Games for learning in embodied mixed-reality environments: Principles and results (pp. 129–137).Google Scholar
- Johnson-glenberg, M. C., Koziupa, T., & Birchfield, D. (2011b). Games for learning in embodied mixed-reality environments: Principles and results. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Games + Learning + Society Conference (GLS’11) (pp. 129–137).Google Scholar
- Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Charalampos, M. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new direction. Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (p. 216).Google Scholar
- Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kynigos, C., Smyrnaiou, Z., & Roussou, M. (2010). Exploring rules and underlying concepts while engaged with collaborative full-body games. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC’10 (p. 222). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1810543.1810576.
- Lucht, M., & Steffi, H. (2013). Applying HOPSCOTCH as an exer-learning game in english lessons: Two exploratory studies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 767–792. Retrieved from http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/736/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11423-013-9308-3.pdf?auth66=1385030919_d2e250cf1098acb01a5d6addac9dffca&ext=.pdf.
- Lucignano, L., Cuendet, S., Schwendimann, B. A., Shirvani Boroujeni, M., Dehler, J., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). My hands or my mouse: Comparing a tangible and graphical user interface using eye-tracking data. In Fablearn 2014 (No. EPFL-CONF-204226). Google Scholar
- Malinverni, L., Lopez Silva, B., & Pares, N. (2012). Impact of embodied interaction on learning processes: Design and analysis of an educational application based on physical activity. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children (IDC’12) (pp. 60–69).Google Scholar
- Malinverni, L., & Pares, N. (2014). Learning of abstract concepts through full-body interaction: A systematic review. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 100–116.Google Scholar
- Malinverni, L., & Pares, N. (2015). The medium matters: The impact of full-body interaction on the socio-affective aspects of collaboration. In IDC’15 Proceedings of the 2015 conference on interaction design and children. ACM. doi:10.1145/2771839.2771849.
- Markopoulos, P., Read, J., MacFarlane, S., & Höysniemi, J. (2008). Evaluating children’s interactive products. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
- Muller, M. J., & Druin, A. (2003). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In Human–computer interaction: Development process (Vol. 4235, pp. 1–70).Google Scholar
- Nathan, M., & Robinson, C. (2001). Considerations of learning and learning research: Revisiting the “media effects” debate. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(1), 69–88.Google Scholar
- Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
- Overton, W. F. (2004). Embodied development: Ending the nativsim-empiricism debate. In C. Garcia Coll, E. Bearer, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Nature and nurture: The complex interplay of genetic and environmental influences on human behavior and development (pp. 201–223). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
- Price, S., & Jewitt, C. (2013). A multimodal approach to examining “embodiment” in tangible learning environments. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction (TEI’13) (pp. 43–50).Google Scholar
- Reeves, T., & Okey, J. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202).Google Scholar
- Revelle, G. (2013). Applying developmental theory and research to the creation of educational games. In Digital games: A context for cognitive development. New directions for child and adolescent development (pp. 31–40). doi:10.1002/cad.
- Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Paolo, E. A. Di, Rohde, M., & Jaegher, H. De. (2007). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social. Horizons (April).Google Scholar
- Schaper, M., Malinverni, L., & Pares, N. (2014). Participatory design methods to define educational goals for full-body interaction. In Proceedings of the 11th conference on advances in computer entertainment technology (ACE’14) (p. 4). ACM. doi:10.1145/2663806.2663867.
- Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In Embodied interaction (pp. 1–26).Google Scholar
- Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–36. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12613670.
- Zuckerman, O., & Resnick, M. (2003). A physical interface for system dynamics simulation. In CHI’03 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 810–811). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/765891.766005.