Advertisement

Supporting Learning with Interactive Surfaces and Spaces

Chapter

Abstract

In recent years, educational research on interactive surfaces such as tablets, tabletops, and whiteboards, and spaces such as smart rooms and 3D sensing systems has grown in quantity, quality, and prominence. Departing from the mouse-and-keyboard form of input, users of these systems manipulate digital information directly with fingers, feet, and body movements, or through a physical intermediary such as token, pen, or other tractable object. Due to their support for natural user interfaces, direct input and multiple access points, these educational technologies provide significant opportunities to support colocated collaborative and kinesthetic learning. As hardware becomes affordable, development environments mature, and public awareness grows, these technologies are likely to see substantial uptake in the classroom. In this chapter, we provide a foothold on the current technology development and empirical literature, highlighting a range of exemplary projects that showcase the potential of interactive surfaces and spaces to support learning across age groups and content domains. We synthesize across the existing work to formulate implications of these technological trends for the design of interactive educational technologies, the impetus for academic research based on such systems, and the advancement of future educational practice.

Keywords

Collocated collaborative learning Interactive surfaces Interactive spaces Kinesthetic learning Natural user interface 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this chapter was supported, in part, by a National Science Foundation grant (IIS 0736151) awarded to Michael A. Evans. The views expressed in this chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, the National Science Foundation. We thank Dor Abrahamson and David Birchfield for providing action shots of the Mathematical Imagery Trainer and SMALLab, respectively.

References

  1. Abrahamson, D., & Trninic, D. (2011). Toward an embodied-interaction design framework for mathematical concepts. In Proceedings of IDC ‘11 (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  2. Antle, A. N., Bevans, A., Tanenbaum, J., Seaborn, K., & Wang, S. (2011). Futura: Design for collaborative learning and game play on a multi-touch digital tabletop. In Proceedings of TEI ‘11 (pp. 93–100). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 7, 84–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(3), 455–467.Google Scholar
  5. Bachour, K., Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). An interactive table for supporting participation balance in face-to-face collaborative learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(3), 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beauchamp, G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools: Towards an effective transition framework. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benford, S., Bederson, B. B., Akesson, K.-P., Bayon, V., Druin, A., Hansson, P., et al. (2000). Designing storytelling technologies to encouraging collaboration between young children. In Proceedings of CHI ‘00 (pp. 556–563). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. Birchfield, D., & Megowan-Romanowicz, C. (2009). Earth science learning in SMALLab: A design experiment for mixed reality. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), 403–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buxton, B. (2011, December). Multi-touch systems that I have known and loved. Bill Buxton Home Page. Retrieved from http://billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html.
  10. Church, T., Hazlewood, W. R., & Rogers, Y. (2006). Around the table: Studies in co-located collaboration. In Adjunct Proceedings of the PERVASIVE ‘06 (pp. 173–177). Vienna: Austrian Computer Society.Google Scholar
  11. Dietz, P., & Leigh, D. (2001). DiamondTouch: A multi-user touch technology. In Proceedings of UIST ‘01 (pp. 219–226). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. *Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 491–514.Google Scholar
  13. Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In M. S. Khine & M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 525–552). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. 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 EC-TEL ‘10 (pp. 78–92). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Eden, H. (2002). Getting in on the (inter)action: Exploring affordances for collaborative learning in a context of informed participation. In Proceedings CSCL ‘02 (pp. 399–407). ISLS.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, M. A. (2009). Interactive Technologies for Embodied Learning of Language Arts & Mathematics (ITEL*LAM): Developing lesson plans and educational applications for elementary and middle school classrooms using the iPod Touch. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology International Conference, Louisville, KY, October 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, M. A., Feenstra, E., Ryon, E., & McNeill, D. (2011). A multimodal approach to coding discourse: Collaboration, distributed cognition, and geometric reasoning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2), 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, M. A., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2011). Social interactions and instructional artifacts: Emergent socio-technical affordances and constraints for children’s geometric thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(2), 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleck, R., Rogers, Y., Yuill, N., Marshall, P., Carr, A., Rick, J., et al. (2009). Actions speak loudly with words: Unpacking collaboration around the table. In Proceedings of ITS ‘09 (pp. 189–196). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Shen, C., & Balakrishnan, R. (2007). Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. In Proceedings of CHI ‘07 (pp. 647–656). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  21. Glover, D., Miller, D., Averis, D., & Door, V. (2005). The interactive whiteboard: A literature survey. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2), 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Han, J. Y. (2005). Low-cost multi-touch sensing through frustrated total internal reflection. In Proceedings of UIST ‘05 (pp. 115–118). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris, A., Rick, J., Bonnett, V., Yuill, N., Fleck, R., Marshall, P., et al. (2009). Around the table: Are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children’s collaborative interactions? In Proceedings of CSCL ‘09 (pp. 335–344). ISLS.Google Scholar
  24. Hatch, A., Higgins, S., Joyce-Gibbons, A., & Mercier, E. (2011) NumberNet: Using multi-touch technology to support within and between group mathematics learning. In Proceedings of CSCL ‘11 (pp. 176–183). ISLS.Google Scholar
  25. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213–225.Google Scholar
  26. *Higgins, S. E., Mercier, E. M., Burd, E., & Hatch, A. (2011). Multi-touch tables and the relationship with collaborative classroom pedagogies: a synthetic review. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 515–538.Google Scholar
  27. Holland, S., Marshall, P., Bird, J., Dalton, S., Morris, R., Pantidi, N., et al. (2009). Running up Blueberry hill: Prototyping whole body interaction in harmony space. In Proceedings of TEI ‘09 (pp. 93–98). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoppe, U., Lingnau, A., Machado, I., Paiva, A., Prada, R., & Tewissen, F. (2000). Supporting collaborative activities in computer integrated classrooms—The NIMIS approach. In Proceedings of groupware CRIWG ‘00 (pp. 94–101). IEEE.Google Scholar
  29. 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 CHI ‘09 (pp. 975–984). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Dalton, N., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Collaboration and interference: Awareness with mice or touch input. In Proceedings of CSCW ‘08. New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  31. Inkpen, K. M., Ho-Ching, W. l., Kuederle, O., Scott, S. D., & Shoemaker, G. B. D. (1999). “This is fun! We’re all best friends and we’re all playing”: Supporting children’s synchronous collaboration. In Proceedings of CSCL ‘99 (pp. 252–259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: Towards seamless interfaces between people, bits, and atoms. In Proceedings of CHI ‘97 (pp. 234–241). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jamil, I., O’Hara, K., Perry, M., Karnik, A., & Subramanian, S. (2011). The effects of interaction techniques on talk patterns in collaborative peer learning around interactive tables. In Proceedings of CHI ‘11 (pp. 3043–3052). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jorda, S., Geiger, G., Alonso, M., & Kaltenbrunner, M. (2007). The reacTable: Exploring the synergy between live music performance and tabletop tangible interfaces. In Proceedings of TEI ‘07 (pp. 139–146). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kerawalla, L., Pearce, D., Yuill, N., Luckin, R., & Harris, A. (2008). “I’m keeping those there, are you?” The role of a new user interface paradigm—Separate control of shared space (SCOSS)—In the collaborative decision-making process. Computers in Education, 50(1), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kershner, R., Mercer, N., Warwick, P., & Kleine Staarman, J. (2010). Can the interactive whiteboard support young children’s collaborative communication and thinking in classroom science activities? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Khandelwal, M., & Mazalek, A. (2007). Teaching table: A tangible mentor for pre-K math education. In Proceedings of the TEI ‘07 (pp. 191–194). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kharrufa, A., Leat, D., & Olivier, P. (2010). Digital mysteries: Designing for learning at the tabletop. In Proceedings of ITS ‘10 (pp. 197–206). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kharrufa, A., Olivier, P., & Leat, D. (2010). Learning through reflection at the tabletop: A case study with digital mysteries. In Proceedings of EDMEDIA ‘10 (pp. 665–674). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  40. Koschmann, T. (1995). Medical education and computer literacy: learning about, through, and with computers. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 70(9), 818–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kourakis, S., & Parés, N. (2010). Us hunters: Interactive communication for young cavemen. In Proceedings of IDC ‘10 (pp. 89–97). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  42. Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative ­technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lim, C., Song, H.-D., & Lee, Y. (2012). Improving the usability of the user interface for a digital textbook platform for elementary-school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lui, M., Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2011). Scripting collaborative learning in smart classrooms: Towards building knowledge communities. In Proceedings CSCL ‘11 (pp. 430–437). ISLS.Google Scholar
  45. Lyons, L. (2007). Scaffolding cooperative multi-device activities in an informal learning environment. In Proceedings of IDC ‘07 (pp. 189–192). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marco, J., Cerezo, E., Baldassarri, S., Mazzone, E., & Read, J. C. (2009). Bringing tabletop technologies to kindergarten children. In Proceedings of HCI ‘09 (pp. 103–111). Swinton: British Computer Society.Google Scholar
  47. Martínez, R., Collins, A., Kay, J., & Yacef, K. (2011). Who did what? Who said that?: Collaid: An environment for capturing traces of collaborative learning at the tabletop. In Proceedings of ITS ‘11 (pp. 172–181). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  48. Miller, D., Glover, D., & Averis, D. (2004). Matching technology and pedagogy in teaching mathematics: Understanding fractions using a ‘virtual manipulative’ fraction wall. Paper presented at BERA Conference ‘04, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  49. Moher, T. (2006). Embedded phenomena: Supporting science learning with classroom-sized distributed simulations. In Proceedings of CHI ‘06 (pp. 691–700). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  50. Moher, T., Uphoff, B., Bhatt, D., Silva, B. L., & Malcolm, P. (2008). WallCology: Designing interaction affordances for learner engagement in authentic science inquiry. In Proceedings of CHI ‘08 (pp. 163–172). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  51. Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levačić, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE) project. London challenge (Research Report No. 816). London: Department for Education and Skills, Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  52. Nelson, M. R. (2008). E-books in higher education: Nearing the end of the era of hype? EDUCAUSE Review, 43(2), 40–42.Google Scholar
  53. Nemirovsky, R. (2005). Mathematical places. In R. Nemirovsky, A. S. Roseberry, & J. Solomon (Eds.), Everyday matters in science and mathematics: Studies of complex classroom events (pp. 45–94). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  54. Norman, D. A. (2010). Natural user interfaces are not natural. Interactions, 17(3), 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face ­collaborative scaffolding. Computers in Education, 52(1), 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Malley, C., & Fraser, D. S. (2004). Literature review in learning with tangible technologies (Futurelab Series Report 12). Futurelab.Google Scholar
  57. Piper, A. M., & Hollan, J. D. (2009). Tabletop displays for small group study: Affordances of paper and digital materials. In Proceedings of CHI ‘09 (pp. 1227–1236). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  58. Piper, A. M., O’Brien, E., Morris, M. R., & Winograd, T. (2006). SIDES: A cooperative tabletop computer game for social skills development. In Proceedings of CSCW ‘06 (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pontual Falcão, T., & Price, S. (2009). What have you done! The role of ‘interference’ in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning. In Proceedings of CSCL ‘09 (pp. 325–334). ISLS.Google Scholar
  60. Pontual Falcão, T., & Price, S. (2011). Interfering and resolving: How tabletop interaction facilitates co-construction of argumentative knowledge. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(4), 539–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Price, S., Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Stanton, D., & Neale, H. (2003). Using ‘tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interacting with Computers, 15(2), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Raffle, H. S., Parkes, A. J., & Ishii, H. (2004). Topobo: A constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In Proceedings of CHI ‘04 (pp. 647–654). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  63. Rick, J., Francois, P., Fields, B., Fleck, R., Yuill, N., & Carr, A. (2010). Lo-fi prototyping to design interactive-tabletop applications for children. In Proceedings of IDC ‘10 (pp. 138–146). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  64. Rick, J., Harris, A., Marshall, P., Fleck, R., Yuill, N., & Rogers, Y. (2009). Children designing together on a multi-touch tabletop: An analysis of spatial orientation and user interactions. In Proceedings of IDC ‘09 (pp. 106–114). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rick, J., Marshall, P., & Yuill, N. (2011). Beyond one-size-fits-all: How interactive tabletops support collaborative learning. In Proceedings of IDC 111 (pp. 109–117). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  66. *Rick, J., Rogers, Y., Haig, C., & Yuill, N. (2009). Learning by doing with shareable interfaces. Children, Youth & Environments, 19(1), 321–342.Google Scholar
  67. Rogers, Y., Lim, Y.-K., Hazlewood, W. R., & Marshall, P. (2009). Equal opportunities: Do shareable interfaces promote more group participation than single users displays? Human Computer Interaction, 24(2), 79–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 235–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Chaudhury, S. R., Dimitriadis, Y., Patton, C., & DiGiano, C. (2007). Ink, improvisation, and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets. IEEE Computer, 40(9), 38–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scott, S. D., Grant, K. D., & Mandryk, R. L. (2003). System guidelines for co-located collaborative work on a tabletop display. In Proceedings of ECSCW 103 (pp. 159–178). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  72. Shaer, O., & Hornecker, A. (2010). Tangible user interfaces: Past, present, and future directions. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1–2), 1–137.Google Scholar
  73. Shaer, O., Strait, M., Valdes, C., Wang, H., Feng, T., Lintz, M., et al. (2012). The design, development, and deployment of a tabletop interface for collaborative exploration of genomic data. Inter­national Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70, 746–764.Google Scholar
  74. Shen, C., Vernier, F. D., Forlines, C., & Ringel, M. (2004). DiamondSpin: An extensible toolkit for around-the-table interaction. In Proceedings of CHI ‘04 (pp. 167–174). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  75. Sluis, R. J. W., Weevers, I., van Schijndel, C. H. G. J., Kolos-Mazuryk, L., Fitrianie, S., & Martens, J. B. O. S. (2004). Read-It: Five-to-seven-year-old children learn to read in a tabletop environment. In Proceedings of IDC ‘04 (pp. 73–80). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Smith, F., Hardman, F., & Higgins, S. (2006). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teacher-pupil interaction in the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Steir, R., & Pierroux, P. (2011). “What is ‘the concept’?” Sites of conceptual formation in a touring architecture workshop. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 6(3), 138–156.Google Scholar
  78. Stewart, J., Bederson, B. B., & Druin, A. (1999). Single display groupware: A model for co-present collaboration. In Proceedings of CHI ‘99 (pp. 286–293). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  79. Tan, D. S., Pausch, R., Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2002). Kinesthetic cues aid spatial memory. In Extended Abstracts of CHI ‘02 (pp. 806–807). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  80. Weiser, M. (1999). The computer for the 21st century. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Revue, 3(3), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wigdor, D., & Wixon, D. (2011). Brave NUI world: Designing natural user interfaces for touch and gesture. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  82. Zaman, B., Abeele, V. V., Markopoulus, P., & Marshall, P. (2012). Editorial: the evolving field of tangible interaction for children: the challenge of empirical validation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zeleznik, R., Bragdon, A., Adeputra, F., & Ko, H.-S. (2010). Hands-On Math: A page-based multi-touch and pen desktop for technical work and problem solving. In Proceedings of UIST ‘10 (pp. 17–26). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  84. Zufferey, G., Jermann, P., Lucchi, A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). TinkerSheets: Using paper forms to control and visualize tangible simulations. In Proceedings of TEI ‘09 (pp. 377–384). New York, NY: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning Sciences and TechnologiesSchool of Education, Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational TechnologySaarland UniversitySaarbrueckenGermany

Personalised recommendations