Keywords

1 Background

Computers are widely used in various situations throughout the society, and various kinds of user interfaces have been proposed. Tangible User Interface (TUI) has been studied widely so far, because a computer can be controlled by touching a physical object directly by hand and the user can use a computer intuitively. Because of this advantage, TUI can be employed in the field of the learning. However, learning systems using TUI are not popular, because the effects of the types of user interfaces on human learning are not well known.

2 Purpose

In this paper, we focused on the effects of Tangible User Interface and Graphical User Interface on human learning process and aims to investigate how the types of user.

3 Related Works

Various user interface are adopted to learn same subject. For example, Light-bot [1] is a system of learning programing with Graphical User Interface (GUI). Light-bot allows the users to learn programming with PC screen and mouse. On the other hand, Osmo coding [2] is a system of learning programming with TUI. The user with Osmo coding can program the movements of the character on the screen by arranging the function panels by hand. Though they share the same goal of learning programming, they adopt the different interfaces and the effects of the user interfaces on human learning are not considered. We, therefore, focus on what type of user interface is suitable for the leaning subjects (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Experiment system (TUI)

Full size image

Some research have been done about the difference among the devices using in learning. Akahori [3] investigated the features of human learning among PC, tablet, and paper. The subjects with paper got the best results in the foundational problems. The subject with using tablet obtained the good results in the practical problems. The subject with PC got the worst results. In this way, the types of devices are caused the difference effects in learning, but they did not make it clear the effects of the types of interface in learning process (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Experiment system (GUI)

Full size image

4 Experiment

4.1 Objective of Experiment

We conducted the experiment to clarify the effect of TUI and GUI on human learning processes according to the types of user interfaces.

4.2 Procedure

The types of the user interface used in this experiment are GUI and TUI for learning. We chose logical circuit building as learning tasks that are easy to be implemented the tasks in the same appearance with GUI and TUI. The subjects are required to build a logical circuit watching a truth table by connecting some logic circuit. The three logical symbol used in this experiment was the “AND”, the “OR” and the “NOT”. In addition, the lead wire objects and the lamp objects, to connect among each gate and to confirm the output of the circuit respectively, were also prepared.

In GUI condition, all operations for the logic circuit are “click” and “drag” on the icons with a mouse. In TUI, each logic gate is represented as a cube- shaped block which is grasp-able. The circuit can be created by arranging the blocks in 2-dimensional place.

The subjects asked to “think aloud”, and, their behavior and verbal protocol data were recorded by VCR.

4.3 Methods

The subjects asked to solve the problem of the logic circuit. The instruction manual about each interface and about the logic circuit are printed on the paper and the subjects were permitted to read them at any time during the experiment. The experiment was conducted for 6 weeks (6 times) for one subject and the subjects were asked to solve 6 problems in one hour per every week.

The tasks were gradually got difficult over the weeks. In the first week, we conducted the personality test to know whether each subject usually consider things logically or intuitively and divided all subjects equally into each condition to eliminate the effects of the personality types. After the second week, the subjects learned about the logic circuits and asked to build logic circuits from truth tables. In only the second week, they created truth tables from the given logic circuits to accustom the tasks.

The problems of 3th are make logic circuit from truth table. Logical symbol of 3th is 2 pieces, 4th is 3 pieces, 5th and 6th are no specified pieces for increase the difficulty level.

The problems of 6th are used 2 lamps of output. The problems of 6th are application problems.

5 Methods of Analysis

We analyzed the obtained data from two aspects. The subjects’ behavior data are analyzed based on Contextual Control Model proposed by Hollnagel. We also conducted the verbal protocol analysis.

5.1 A Contextual Control Model

We analyzed the behavior of the subject based on a Contextual Control Model proposed by Hollnagel [4].

We classify the behaviors of the subject into 5 modes of Contextual Control Model as follows:

  • Scramble control: The state that the user has no idea of what to do to solve the problem.

  • Explorative control: Their sub-goal is not clear and not to go toward the goal directly but to just try to find something tentatively.

  • Opportunistic control: Though the subjects think looking at only one or a few sub-goals toward the goal, they do not know what kind of action should be done to achieve them.

  • Tactical control: Subjects think several sub-goals sweeping some part of path to the goal and knows what kind of action is needed to achieve sub-goals though they have not found the whole path for the goal yet.

  • Strategic control: The path toward the goal is established more detail than tactical control, and subjects know what action are required to achieve it.

We focus on the frequency of each mode. Which mode the subjects stay is determined by the logic circuit itself they built and the state of its validation, and is done by following three steps. In the first step, the mode were determined by whether the subject tried to build the whole circuit or only the parts. In the second step, it was done by he/she validate all connections among its inputs and outputs. In the third step, it was determined by the how many times he/she validated the connection between one input and one output.

6 Results of the Analysis

6.1 Probability of Occurrence of Mode by COCOM

We analyzed the subjects’ mode transition based on COCOM by dividing the whole period of the experiment into 3 stages to focus on their learning process as follows:

Initial stage::

The third week

The subjects learn the basis of the logic circuits.

Latter stage::

The 4th and 5thweeks

The subject becomes accustomed to solve the problems of the logic circuit.

Practical stage::

The 6th (using 2 lams)

The subjects are asked to solve some advanced problems.

Here, no Scramble mode were observed because we did not restrict the time to solve one problem. Furthermore, we do not adopt the Strategic control mode in our analysis because it appeared in solving only very easy problems.

Tables 1 and 2 show the rates of which the subjects stayed each mode with each interface in each stage. Though, in the initial stage, the subjects with TUI and GUI stayed the same mode, in the latter and practical stage the rates of the modes they stayed were changed. While, with GUI, the subjects stayed the tactical control mode many times in the initial stage, they gradually increased to stay the opportunistic control mode in latter stage and practical stage (Table 1). On the other hand, with TUI, though in initial stage their behavior was very similar to the condition with GUI, the modes they stayed appeared evenly in later stage and practical stage (Table 2).

Table 1. Probability of occurrence of mode with GUI
Full size table
Table 2. Probability of occurrence of mode with GUI TUI
Full size table

This means that, in initial stage, the subject with both interfaces thinks and creates a logic circuit logically. It must be caused because the subject does not have accustomed to the relationship between the logic circuits and the truth tables and can adopt only the manner they have already learned.

In later stage and practical stage, the different behaviors were observed between the conditions. The subject with GUI only uses and persists in the manners of already learned approaches. And, when he/she faces to some difficulties, he/she tries to establish a simple and local sub-goal and, tries to accomplish it by trials and errors. The subject with TUI, on the other hand, tries to solve the problem from various viewpoints.

6.2 Protocol Analysis

To investigate why the difference of their behavior occurred between both conditions, we focused on their strategies in problem solving using the verbal protocol analysis.

During solving one problem, they repeated that they adopted one strategy to approach the goal, and if it did not work well, then they abandoned it and try to adopt another strategy. The strategies they tried to adopt can be classified into three types as follows:

  • Strategy 1: Trying to achieve a local solution

  • Strategy 2: Trying to discover new rules

  • Strategy 3: Trial and error.

Table 3 shows a typical example of a Strategy 1. At No.2, the subject talked “This is no good” because the obtained result was different from the expected one. Actually, observing from No.1 to No.3, it can be said that the subject establish a local sub-goal and try to accomplish it. This can also confirmed At No. 7. The subject talked “I have done it” and this indicates that he kept the local sub-goal, and finally accomplished it. After it, he kept adopting the same strategy. In this way, in Strategy 1, the subject established the local sub-goal by considering the truth table, and tried to create the logic circuit while predicting the result, and, if the obtained the results were wrong, he/she repeated the same process until they reached the correct result.

Table 3. Subject C the 6th 4th question
Full size table

Table 4 shows a typical example of the Strategy 2. At No.1 and No.2, the subject talked “I want all lights are “ON”” and “Try “OR””. Here, the subject decided which gates he would use without estimating the results. Then, he tried to a circuit. Here, looking at the talk of No. 8, “How does it work if I reverse these gates?” clearly shows that he build the circuit to know how it worked and tried to obtain a new rules or knowledge about the logic circuit. In this way, in Strategy, the subjects tried to acquire new knowledge or rules by build a circuit as a trial.

Table 4. Subject F the 5th 5th question
Full size table

Table 5 shows the typical example of the Strategy 3. At No.1 to No.3, the subject decided which logic gates he would use in advance to considering the behavior circuit. Then, he just built the circuit only with the gates. In this way, the subject, in strategy 3 made the logic circuit by trial and error without predicting result.

Table 5. Subject E The 5th 4th question
Full size table

In Tables 6 and 7 shows the frequency rates of each strategy in each condition. These table indicates, while the subjects learned with GUI tend to adopt Strategy 1 (Table 6) mainly and increase the Strategy 3 as the leaning proceeded, the subjects with TUI adopted all strategies and the rates of Strategy 2 are significantly higher and the rate of Strategy 3 are significantly lower than with GUI.

Table 6. Frequency rates of strategies (GUI)
Full size table
Table 7. Frequency rates of strategies (TUI)
Full size table

These mean that when we learn with GUI, we keep considering by predicting the results with only the already obtained knowledge, and, if we cannot apply the knowledge because of being difficult problems, we just repeat the process of the trials and errors.

On the other hand, when we learn with TUI, we use various strategies and think from various viewpoints. If we face to some difficulties, we try to find new rules or knowledge to overcome the difficulties. Actually, the correction rates with TUI in the practical stage is high despite no subjects with GUI could complete questions in the practical stage.

In addition to this, we also found the relationships of the transition patterns among the modes of COCOM and the strategies. In adopting the Strategy 1, the subjects almost repeat the transition between the opportunistic control and the tactical control mode. In Strategy 2, they frequently moved from explorative control mode to other 3 modes. In Strategy 3, they just stayed the opportunistic control mode.

7 Conclusions

We investigated the types of user interfaces effect the human learning by using the cognitive model and protocol analysis, and found that there are some differences in learning process and strategy between GUI and TUI.

The subject with TUI solved the problem by building a new rule. The subject with GUI solved the problem by using already-obtained knowledge.

The type of user interface determines the common strategy in all stage and it causes the different behaviors in learning process. The subject with TUI solved the problem by stayed evenly 3 modes, and the subject with GUI solved the problem by stayed one mode.