skip to main content
10.1145/3279720.3279724acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageskoli-callingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The lone wolf dies, the pack survives?: Analyzing a Computer Science Learning Application on a Multitouch-Tabletop

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 November 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Learning Regular Expressions has been an unavoidable, mostly repetitive and unpleasant experience for many students of theoretical computer science. In this paper, we present the results of our research on learning regular expression in an innovative environment. Using large multitouch tabletop displays provides us the opportunity to design a serious game to convey this topic as a collaborative learning experience for four players in extracurricular setting. In this paper, we introduce our platform, the developed game and the underlying didactical approach as well as our study design. The results of the study are presented and discussed, focussing on interaction events and timing and latencies affected by interaction outcome. Lastly, the outlook provides our ideas of benefits for collaborative serious game design and further approaches of designing and research CS learning applications.

References

  1. Manfred Amelang and Dieter Bartussek. 2001. Differentielle Psychologie und Persönlichkeitsforschung. W. Kohlhammer Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Anders Bruun, Kenneth Eberhardt Jensen, Dianna Hjorth Kristensen, and Jesper Kjeldskov. 2017. Escaping the Trough: Towards Real-World Impact of Tabletop Research. International Journal of HumanâĂŞComputer Interaction 33, 2 (2017), 77--93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Raymond B Cattell. 1945. The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. The American Journal of Psychology 58, 1 (1945), 69--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and S E Newmann. 1989. Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. 18 (01 1989), 453--494.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Robert M. Gagne. {n.d.}. Mastery Learning and Instructional Design. Performance Improvement Quarterly 1, 1 ({n. d.}), 7--18. arXiv: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1988.tb00003.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Lewis R Goldberg. 1990. An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor structure. Journal of personality and social psychology 59, 6 (1990), 1216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Lasse Hakulinen. 2011. Using serious games in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, 83--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Felix Heidrich, Martina Ziefle, Carsten RÃűcker, and Jan Borchers. 2011. Interacting with smart walls: A multi-dimensional analysis of input technologies for augmented environments.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kathleen Hogan and Michael Pressley. 1997. Scaffolding student learning: Instructional approaches and issues. Advances in learning teaching. (07 1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Oliver P John and Sanjay Srivastava. 1999. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research 2, 1999 (1999), 102--138.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Thomas W. Malone. 1980. What Makes Things Fun to Learn? Heuristics for Designing Instructional Computer Games. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL Symposium and the First SIGPC Symposium on Small Systems (SIGSMALL '80). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 162--169. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Beatrice Rammstedt and Oliver P John. 2005. Kurzversion des big five inventory (BFI-K). Diagnostica 51, 4 (2005), 195--206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Andreas Schäfer, Jan Holz, Thiemo Leonhardt, Ulrik Schroeder, Philipp Brauner, and Martina Ziefle. 2013. From boring to scoring âĂŞ a collaborative serious game for learning and practicing mathematical logic for computer science education. Computer Science Education 23, 2 (June 2013), 87--111.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Sahar S. Shabanah, Jim X. Chen, Harry Wechsler, Daniel Carr, and Edward Wegman. 2010. Designing Computer Games to Teach Algorithms. IEEE, 1119--1126. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The lone wolf dies, the pack survives?: Analyzing a Computer Science Learning Application on a Multitouch-Tabletop

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        Koli Calling '18: Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
        November 2018
        207 pages
        ISBN:9781450365352
        DOI:10.1145/3279720
        • Conference Chairs:
        • Mike Joy,
        • Petri Ihantola

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 22 November 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate80of182submissions,44%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader