Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research involving tangible interaction and children has often focused on how tangibles might support or improve learning compared to more traditional methods. In this paper, we review three of our research studies involving tangible computer programming that have addressed this question in a variety of learning environments with a diverse population of children. Through these studies, we identify situations in which tangible interaction seems to offer advantages for learning; however, we have also identify situations in which tangible interaction proves less useful and an alternative interaction style provides a more appropriate medium for learning. Thus, we advocate for a hybrid approach—one that offers teachers and learners the flexibility to select the most appropriate interaction style to meet the needs of a specific situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Antle A, Droumeva M, Ha D (2009) Hands on what? Comparing children’s nouse-based and tangible-based interaction. In: Proceedings interaction design and children 2009, Como, pp 80–88

  2. Bers MU (2008) Blocks to robots: learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. Teachers College Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bers MU, Horn MS (2009) Tangible programming in early childhood: revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies. In: Berson IR, Berson MJ (eds) High-tech tots: childhood in a digital world. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clements D (1999) The future of educational computing research: the case of computer programming. Inf Technol Child Educ 1:147–179

    Google Scholar 

  5. Conway, M, Pausch, R, Gossweiler, R, Burnette, T (1994) Alice: a rapid prototyping system for building virtual environments. In: Proceedings CHI 1994. ACM Press, Boston, pp 295–296

  6. Cuban L (2001) Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fails, J, Druin, A, Guha, M, Chipman, G, Simms, S, Churaman, W (2005) Child’s play: a comparison of desktop and physical interactive environments. In: Proceedings: interaction design and children 2005, Boulder, pp 48–55

  8. Fernaeus, Y, Tholander, J (2006) Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space. In: Proceedings CHI 2006. ACM Press, Montreal, pp 447–456

  9. Horn, M, Jacob, RJK (2007) Designing tangible programming languages for classroom use. In: Proceedings tangible and embedded interaction 2007. ACM Press, Baton Rouge, pp 159–162

  10. Horn, MS, Solovey, ET, Crouser, RJ, Jacob, RJK (2009) Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming interfaces for informal science education. In: Proceedings CHI 2009. ACM Press, Boston, pp 975–984

  11. Hornecker, E, Buur, J (2006) Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In: Proceedings: CHI 2006. ACM Press, Montreal, pp 437–446

  12. Kelleher C, Pausch R (2005) Lowering the barriers to programming: a taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Comput Surv 37(2):83–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Levy S, Mioduser D (2008) Does it “want” or “was it programmed to…”? Kindergarten children’s explanation of an autonomous robot’s adaptive functioning. Int J Technol Des Educ 18:337–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marshall P (2007) Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In: Proceedings tangible and embedded interaction 2007, Baton Rouge, pp 163–170

  15. Marshall P, Price S, Rogers Y (2003) Conceptualising tangibles to support learning. In: Proceeding interaction design and children 2003, Preston, pp 101–109

  16. McNerney T (2004) From turtles to tangible programming bricks: explorations in physical language design. J Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8:326–337

    Google Scholar 

  17. Montemayor J, Druin A, Farber A, Simms S, Churaman W, D’Amour A (2002) Physical programming: designing tools for children to create physical interactive environments. In: Proceedings CHI 2002. ACM Press, Minnesota, pp 299–306

  18. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Papert S (2000) What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Syst J 39(3–4):720–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Philips SU (1972) Participant structures and communicative competence: warm springs children in community and classroom. In: Cazden CB, John VP, Hymes DH (eds) Functions of language in the classroom. Teachers College Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Portsmore M, Rogers C, Cyr M (2000) Integrating the Internet, LabVIEW, and LEGO bricks into modular data acquisition and analysis software for K-College. In: Proceedings American Society for engineering education annual conference & exposition, St. Louis

  22. Rader C, Brand C, Lewis C (1999) Degrees of comprehension: children’s understanding of a visual programming environment. In: Proceedings CHI 1999. ACM Press, Atlanta, pp 351–358

  23. Resnick M (2007) Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learn Lead Technol 35(4):18–22

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rogers Y, Scaife M, Gabrielli S, Smith H, Harris E (2002) A conceptual framework for mixed reality environments: designing novel learning activities for young children. Presence 11(6):677–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Scharf F, Winkler T, Herczeg M (2008) Tangicons: algorithmic reasoning in a collaborative game for children in kindergarten and first class. In: Proceedings interaction design and children 2008, Evanston, pp 242–249

  26. Schneiderman B (1992) Designing the user interface, 2nd edn. AddisonWesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schweikardt E, Gross M (2008) The robot is the program: interacting with roblocks. In: Proceedings tangible and embedded interaction 2008, Bonn, pp 167–168

  28. Smith A (2008) Handcrafted physical syntax elements for illiterate children: initial concepts. In: Proceedings interaction design and children 2008, Evanston

  29. Underkoffler J, Ishii H (1999) Urp: a luminous-tangible workbench for urban planning and design. In: Proceedings CHI 1999. ACM Press, Pittsburgh, pp 386–393

  30. Wing J (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 24(6):33–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wyeth P (2008) How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks. J Learn Sci 17(4):517–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Robert Jacob and our collaborators at the Tufts University Human–Computer Interaction Laboratory. Work at the Boston Museum of Science was the result of a collaboration with Taleen Agulian, Dan Noren, Lucy Kirshner, Erin Solovey, Bill Rogers, and Tim Moore. We also thank Rachael Fein and Emily Lin for their invaluable assistance in our kindergarten classroom research. We thank all students in the DevTech research group, especially Elizabeth Kazakoff, Louise Flannery, and Ken Lee. Finally, we thank the National Science Foundation for its support of this research through grants IIS-0414389 and DRL-0735657. Any opinions, findings, or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science and the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    Michael S. Horn

  2. Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA

    R. Jordan Crouser & Marina U. Bers

Authors
  1. Michael S. Horn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Jordan Crouser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marina U. Bers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Horn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Horn, M.S., Crouser, R.J. & Bers, M.U. Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16, 379–389 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0404-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation