Interactive Multimodal Molecular Set – Designing Ludic Engaging Science Learning Content

  • Tine Pinholt Thorsen
  • Kasper Holm Christiansen
  • Kristian Jakobsen Sillesen
  • Torben Rosenørn
  • Eva Petersson Brooks
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8514)


This paper reports on an exploratory study investigating 10 primary school students’ interaction with an interactive multimodal molecular set fostering ludic engaging science learning content in primary schools (8th and 9th grade). The concept of the prototype design was to bridge the physical and virtual worlds with electronic tags and, through this, blend the familiarity of the computer and toys, to create a tool that provided a ludic approach to learning about atoms and molecules. The study was inspired by the participatory design and informant design methodologies and included design collaboratorium sessions, interviews and observations. The results indicated that bridging the physical and digital worlds can support learning where the affordances of the technologies can be described in terms of meaningful activity: exploration, reasoning, reflection, and ludic engagement. Here, the electronic tags facilitate the application and provide the students to articulate knowledge through different modes; images, gestures, and 3D objects


Human-computer interaction multimodality ludic engagement learning abstract concepts pedagogy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Undervisningsministeriet. Aftale af 28. Maj 2013 mellem Regeringen (Venstre of Det Konservative Folkeparti) og Socialdemokraterne, Dansk Folkeparti, Socialistisk Folkesparti, Det Radikale Venstre of Kristeligt Folkeparti om reform af de gymnasielle uddannelser (2013),
  2. 2.
    Reiche, P.: The Skylanders Story Successfully Combining Toys and Video Games. In: Proceedings of the Games Innovation Conference. IGIC IEEE International, Rochester (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kain, E.: Skylanders Giants-Review: Basically Diablo for the Kids, but with Toys. Forbes (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halliday, M.A.K.: An introduction to functional grammar. Arnold, London (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kress, G., van Leeuwen, T.: Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge, London (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petersson, E., Brooks, A.: Virtual and Physical Toys – Open-ended Features towards Non-formal Learning. CyberPsychology and Behavior 9(2), 196–199 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wertsch, J.V.: Mind as Action. Oxford University Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook, G.: Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petersson Brooks, E.: Ludic Engagement Designs: Creating Spaces for Playful Learning. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2013, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8011, pp. 241–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petersson, E.: Non-formal Learning through Ludic Engagement with in Interactive Environments. Doctoral dissertation, Malmoe University, School of Teacher Education, Studies in Educational Sciences (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaver, W., Bowers, J., Boucher, A., Gellerson, H., Pennington, S., Schmidt, A., et al.: The rift Table: Designing for Ludic Engagement. In: CHI EA 2004 - CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 885–900. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petersson, E.: Editorial: Ludic Engagement Designs for All. Digital Creativity 19(3), 141–144 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gao, Y., Petersson Brooks, E.: Designing Ludic Engagement in an Interactive Virtual Dressing Room System – A Comparative Study. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8014, pp. 504–512. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cuban, L.: Oversold and Underused. Computers in the Classroom. Harvards University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    John, P., Sutherland, R.: Affordance, Opportunity and the Pedagogical Implications of ICT. Educational Review 57(4), 405–413 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Selwyn, N.: Realising the Potential of New Technology? Assessing the Legacy of New Labour’s ICT agenda 1997–2007. Oxford Review of Education 34(6), 701–712 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Papert, S.: The Children’s Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. Basic Books, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stahl, G., Koschman, T., Suthers, D.: Computer-supported Collaborative Learning: A Historical Perspective. In: Sawyer, R.K. (ed.) Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 409–426. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loveless, A.M.: Creativity, Technology and Learning – a Review of Recent Literature, Futurelab Series, No. 4 Update (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petersson Brooks, E., Borum, N., Rosenørn, T.: Designing Creative Pedagogies through the Use of ICT in Secondary Education. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences 112, 35–46 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bordieu, P.: The Forms of Capital. In: Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood, New York, pp. 241–258 (1986)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murray, J.H.: Inventing the Medium. Principles of Interaction Design as a Cultural Practice. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bangor, A.W., Miller, J.T.: Multimode Interfaces: Two or More Interfaces to Accomplish the Same Task. In: Kortum, P. (ed.) HCI Beyond the GUI. Design for Haptic, Speech, Olfactory, and Other Nontraditional Interfaces, pp. 359–389. Elsevier, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Want, R., Fishkin, K.P., Gujar, A., Harrison, B.L.: Bridging Physical and Virtual Worlds with Electronic Tags. In: Proceedings from CHI 1999, pp. 370–377 (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kress, G.: Multimodality. A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Routledge, London (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., Eisenberg, M.: Design Principles for Tools to Support Creative Thinking. In: NSF Workshop Report on Creativity Support Tools, Washington, DC, pp. 25–36 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    White, R.W., Roth, R.A.: Exploratory Search. Beyond the Query–Response Paradigm. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services Series 1(1), 1–98 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spinuzzi, C.: The Methodology of Participatory Design. Technical Communication 52(2), 163–174 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scaife, M., Rogers, Y., Aldrich, F., Davies, M.: Designing For or Designing With? Informant Design For Interactive Learning Environments. In: Proceedings CHI 1997, Proceedings of the ACM SIGGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 343–350. ACM, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eason, K.D.: Information Technology and Organizational Change. Taylor and Francis Group, London (1987)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bødker, S., Buur, J.: The Design Collaboratorium: A Place for Usability Design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 9(2), 152–169 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mygind, H., Vesterlund Nielsen, O., Exelsen, V.: Basiskemi C, 1st edn. Haase & Søns Forlag, Copenhagen (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fontana, A., Frey, J.: The Interview: From Neutral Stance to Political Involvement. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Reseach, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Inc., New York (2005)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dey, I.: Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Flanagan, J.: The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin 51(4), 327–358 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tine Pinholt Thorsen
    • 1
  • Kasper Holm Christiansen
    • 1
  • Kristian Jakobsen Sillesen
    • 1
  • Torben Rosenørn
    • 2
  • Eva Petersson Brooks
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Design. Learning and Innovation, Department of Architecture and Media TechnologyAalborg UniversityEsbjergDenmark
  2. 2.Centre for Design. Learning and Innovation, Department of Learning and PhilosophyAalborg UniversityEsbjergDenmark

Personalised recommendations