Constructing an Embodied Interaction for Concept Mapping

  • Andreea Danielescu
  • Caroline Savio-Ramos
  • John Sadauskas
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 374)

Abstract

Creating learning experiences that are meaningful and motivational is crucial in learning. Research demonstrates that effectively organizing ideas via concept maps allows students to view prior knowledge with new perspectives. Recently, embodied computation has emerged as an effective means of meeting educational objectives due to its intuitive, gesture-based control and to its promotion of associating knowledge with physical events. Unfortunately, a majority of systems tailored for such interaction are expensive prototypes. However, the release of depth cameras has brought embodied interaction into the commercial realm, allowing users’ bodies to “become” controllers. This research presents a novel, low cost system that provides embodied interaction with a computer and depth camera, through which learners can create concept maps with gestures. Current work involves defining intuitive gestural controls. Future work will involve evaluating the system for use in a classroom with the aim to create opportunities to easily incorporate embodiment into collaborative learning.

Keywords

embodied learning computer supported collaborative learning concept mapping gestural interaction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Burleson, W., Selker, T.: Creativity and Interface. Communications of the ACM 45(10), 89 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barenholz, H., Tamir, P.: A comprehensive use of concept mapping in design instruction and assessment. Research in Science & Technological Education 10(1), 37–53 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leake, D., Maguitman, A., Reichherzer, T.: Understanding knowledge models: Modeling importance of concept importance in concept maps. In: Proc. 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Novak, J., Cañas, A. (The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them. Technical Report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01 Rev 01 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glenberg, A.M.: How reading comprehension is embodied and why that matters. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 4(1), 5–18 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martínez-Cañas, R., Ruíz-Palomino, P.: Concept Mapping As a Learning Tool For The Employment Relations Degree. Journal of International Educational Research 7(5), 23–28 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jonassen, D.H., Carr, C., Yueh, H.: Computers as Mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends 43(2), 24–32 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishii, H., Ulmer, B.: Tangible Bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proc. CHI (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cavallo, D., Sipitakiat, A., Basu, A., Bryant, S., Welti-Santos, L., Maloney, J., Chen, S., Amussen, E., Solomon, C., Ackerman, E.: RoBallet: Exploring learning through expression in the arts through constructing in a technologically immersive environment. In: Proc. International Conference of the Learning Sciences, pp. 105–112 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geyer, F., Pfeil, U., Hochtl, A., Budzinski, J., Reiterer, H.: Designing reality-based interfaces for creative group work. In: Proc. ACM Creativity & Cognition (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilensky, U.: Embodied Learning: Students enacting complex dynamic phenomena with the HubNet Architecture. In: Proc. Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Dijk, J., Vos, G.W.: Traces in creative spaces. In: Proc. ACM Creativity & Cognition (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Birchfield, D., Johnson-Glenberg, M.C.: A next gen interface for embodied learning: SMALLab and the geological layer cake. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-mediated Simulation 2(1), 49–58 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson-Glenberg, M., Birchfield, D., Savvides, P., Megowan-Romanowicz, C.: Semi-Virtual Embodied Learning – Real World STEM Assessment. Serious Educational Game Assessment: Practical Methods and Models for Educational Games, Simulations and Virtual Worlds. pp. 225-241 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alibali, M., Spencer, R., Knox, L., Kita, S.: Spontaneous Gestures Influence Strategy Choices in Problem Solving. Psychological Science 22(9), 1138–1144 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson, M.: Perceiving Imitatible Stimuli: Consequences of isomorphism between input and output. Psychological Bulletin 127 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glenberg, A.M.: Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors We Live By. University Of Chicago Press (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beach, K.: Becoming a Bartender: The Role of External Memory Cues in a Work-directed Educational Activity. Applied Cognitive Psychology 7(3), 191–204 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cook, S.W., Mitchell, Z., Goldin-Meadow, S.: Gesturing makes learning last. Cognition 106, 1047–1058 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreea Danielescu
    • 1
  • Caroline Savio-Ramos
    • 2
  • John Sadauskas
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Mary Lou Fulton Teachers CollegeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations