Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 64, Issue 6, pp 1337–1360 | Cite as

An evaluation-driven design approach to develop learning environments based on full-body interaction

  • Laura Malinverni
  • Marie-Monique Schaper
  • Narcís Pares
Development Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Full-body interaction Learning environments Design-based research Participatory design Evaluation Assessment 

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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 childrenIDC’13 (pp. 364–367).Google Scholar
  4. Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., & Baber, C. (2011). An evaluation of multimodal interactions with technology while learning science concepts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(2), 266–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01017.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antle, A. N. (2013). Research opportunities: Embodied child–computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 30–36. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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 childrenIDC’08 (pp. 178–185).Google Scholar
  8. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berg, C., & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students’ abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free response instruments. Science Education, 78(6), 527–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carreras, A., & Parés, N. (2004). Designing an interactive installation for children to experience abstract concepts. In New trends on humancomputer interaction (pp. 33–42).Google Scholar
  13. 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 childrenIDC’13 (Vol. 4, pp. 162–167).Google Scholar
  14. Clearfield, M. W. (2004). The role of crawling and walking experience in infant spatial memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89(3), 214–241. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S. (2007). Fictional inquiry—Design collaboration in a shared narrative space. CoDesign, 3(4), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Druin, A. (2002). The Role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  18. Eco, U. (1975). Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forsythe, D. E. (1993). Engineering knowledge: The construction of knowledge in artificial intelligence. Social Studies of Science, 23(3), 445–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596. doi:10.1002/wcs.55.Google Scholar
  23. Glenberg, A. M., Brown, M., & Levin, J. R. (2007). Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(3), 389–399. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Learning through gesture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 595–607.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Hanna, L., Risden, K., & Alexander, K. (1997). Guidelines for usability testing with children. Interactions, 4(5), 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harrison, S., Sengers, P., & Tatar, D. (2011). Making epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as successor science. Interacting with Computers, 23(5), 385–392. doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iversen, O. S., & Dindler, C. (2013). A Utopian agenda in child–computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 24–29. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2012.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iverson, J. M. (2010). Developing language in a developing body: The relationship between motor development and language development. Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 1–25. doi:10.1017/S0305000909990432.Developing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jewitt, C. (2013). Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. In S. Price & C. Jewitt (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of digital technology research (pp. 250–265). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. doi:10.1007/BF02299477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim, M. J., & Maher, M. L. (2008). The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative design. Design Studies, 29(3), 222–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Kontra, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Embodied learning across the life span. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 731–739. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01221.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. 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 childrenIDC’10 (p. 222). New York: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1810543.1810576.
  41. 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.
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. Markopoulos, P., Read, J., MacFarlane, S., & Höysniemi, J. (2008). Evaluating children’s interactive products. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  47. Muller, M. J., & Druin, A. (2003). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In Humancomputer interaction: Development process (Vol. 4235, pp. 1–70).Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Nesset, V., & Large, A. (2004). Children in the information technology design process: A review of theories and their applications. Library & Information Science Research, 26(2), 140–161. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2003.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books Inc.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reeves, T., & Okey, J. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 191–202).Google Scholar
  57. 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.
  58. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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.
  61. Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In Embodied interaction (pp. 1–26).Google Scholar
  62. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.
  64. 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.

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Malinverni
    • 1
  • Marie-Monique Schaper
    • 1
  • Narcís Pares
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations