Yanhong Li
Zhenhan Gao
Sven Mayer
Heinrich Hussmann
ABSTRACT
Understanding how to contribute to group work is challenging, especially for young children. To have a productive group process, we need to know the mechanism of positive interdependence, which is a fundamental element of successful collaboration. Unfortunately, although there are many suggestions for promoting positive interdependence with tangible technologies, there are few guidelines for structuring children’s interdependent collaboration. Therefore, we designed two tangible games, UnitRry and CollabMaze, using weak and strong goal interdependent designs. We conducted two user studies with 32 children. Our investigation revealed three main findings. First, weak and strong goal interdependent interfaces had high enjoyment and interdependence. Second, tangible interfaces help young children have more idea communication and need less time to solve the tasks. Finally, young children using tangible interfaces were more engaged in the tasks. In the long run, our results can improve the design of tangible interfaces for young children’s collaboration and help them have a better collaborative experience. Furthermore, our findings showed the value of tangible technologies compared with tablet applications in facilitating children’s collaboration.
- Diana Africano, Sara Berg, Kent Lindbergh, Peter Lundholm, Fredrik Nilbrink, and Anna Persson. 2004. Designing Tangible Interfaces for Children’s Collaboration. In CHI ’04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vienna, Austria) (CHI EA ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 853–868. https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.985945Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Abrar Almjally, Kate Howland, and Judith Good. 2020. Comparing TUIs and GUIs for Primary School Programming. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 521–527. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366851Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alissa Antle and Alyssa Wise. 2013. Getting down to details: Using learning theory to inform tangibles research and design for children. Interacting with Computers 25 (01 2013), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iws007Google Scholar
- Lim Kok Cheng, Chen Soong Der, Manjit Singh Sidhu, and Ridha Omar. 2011. GUI vs. TUI: Engagement for Children with No Prior Computing Experience. electronic Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology 3, 1 (July 2011).Google Scholar
- César A Collazos, Luis A Guerrero, José A Pino, and Sergio F Ochoa. 2003. Collaborative scenarios to promote positive interdependence among group members. In International Conference on Collaboration and Technology. Springer, 356–370.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pierre Dillenbourg and Michael Evans. 2011. Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 6, 4 (01 Dec 2011), 491–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-011-9127-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Min Fan, Alissa N. Antle, Carman Neustaedter, and Alyssa F. Wise. 2014. Exploring How a Co-Dependent Tangible Tool Design Supports Collaboration in a Tabletop Activity. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Supporting Group Work (Sanibel Island, Florida, USA) (GROUP ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1145/2660398.2660402Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael S. Horn, Erin Treacy Solovey, R. Jordan Crouser, and Robert J.K. Jacob. 2009. Comparing the Use of Tangible and Graphical Programming Languages for Informal Science Education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA) (CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 975–984. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518851Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eva Hornecker. 2005. A Design Theme for Tangible Interaction: Embodied Facilitation. In ECSCW 2005, Hans Gellersen, Kjeld Schmidt, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, and Wendy Mackay (Eds.). Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 23–43.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hiroshi Ishii. 2008. Tangible Bits: Beyond Pixels. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (Bonn, Germany) (TEI ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, xv–xxv. https://doi.org/10.1145/1347390.1347392Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Karl Smith. 1998. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan 47 (Jan. 1998). https://doi.org/10.5926/arepj1962.47.0_29Google Scholar
- David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson. 2009. An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational Researcher 38, 5 (2009), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057Google ScholarCross Ref
- David W. Johnson and Ardyth A. Norem-Hebeisen. 1979. A Measure of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology 109, 2 (1979), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1979.9924201Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roger T Johnson and David W Johnson. 2008. Active learning: Cooperation in the classroom. The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan 47 (2008), 29–30.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karel Kreijns, Paul Kirschner, and Wim Jochems. 2003. Identifying the Pitfalls for Social Interaction in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments: A Review of the Research. Computers in Human Behavior 19 (05 2003), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00057-2Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marjan Laal. 2013. Positive Interdependence in Collaborative Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 93 (2013), 1433–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.058 3rd World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational Leadership.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marjan Laal and Seyed Mohammad Ghodsi. 2012. Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 31 (2012), 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091 World Conference on Learning, Teaching & Administration - 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marjan Laal and Mozhgan Laal. 2012. Collaborative learning: what is it?Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 31 (2012), 491–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.092 World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Administration - 2011.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yanhong Li, Meng Liang, Julian Preissing, Nadine Bachl, Michelle Melina Dutoit, Thomas Weber, Sven Mayer, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2022. A Meta-Analysis of Tangible Learning Studies from the TEI Conference. In Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Daejeon, Republic of Korea) (TEI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490149.3501313Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anna Loparev, Lauren Westendorf, Margaret Flemings, Jennifer Cho, Romie Littrell, Anja Scholze, and Orit Shaer. 2017. BacPack: Exploring the Role of Tangibles in a Museum Exhibit for Bio-Design. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Yokohama, Japan) (TEI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3025000Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Marshall. 2007. Do Tangible Interfaces Enhance Learning?. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) (TEI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heracles Michailidis, Eleni Michailidi, Stavroula Tavoultzidou, and George Fragulis. 2021. Teaching young learners a foreign language via tangible and graphical user interfaces. SHS Web of Conferences 102 (01 2021), 01014. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202110201014Google ScholarCross Ref
- Claire O’Malley and Danae Fraser. 2004. Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies. NESTA Futurelab Rep. 12 (01 2004), 1–48.Google Scholar
- Christina Pollalis, Elizabeth Joanna Minor, Lauren Westendorf, Whitney Fahnbulleh, Isabella Virgilio, Andrew L. Kun, and Orit Shaer. 2018. Evaluating Learning with Tangible and Virtual Representations of Archaeological Artifacts. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Stockholm, Sweden) (TEI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 626–637. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173225.3173260Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joshua Premo, Andy Cavagnetto, and William B. Davis. 2018. Promoting Collaborative Classrooms: The Impacts of Interdependent Cooperative Learning on Undergraduate Interactions and Achievement. CBE—Life Sciences Education 17, 2 (2018), ar32. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0176Google Scholar
- Janet C. Read and Stuart MacFarlane. 2006. Using the Fun Toolkit and Other Survey Methods to Gather Opinions in Child Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Tampere, Finland) (IDC ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1145/1139073.1139096Google ScholarDigital Library
- Glenda Revelle, Oren Zuckerman, Allison Druin, and Mark Bolas. 2005. Tangible User Interfaces for Children. In CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Portland, OR, USA) (CHI EA ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2051–2052. https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1057095Google ScholarDigital Library
- Theodosios Sapounidis and Stavros Demetriadis. 2013. Tangible versus Graphical User Interfaces for Robot Programming: Exploring Cross-Age Children’s Preferences. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 17, 8 (dec 2013), 1775–1786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0641-7Google ScholarDigital Library
- Florian Scharf, Thomas Winkler, and Michael Herczeg. 2008. Tangicons: Algorithmic Reasoning in a Collaborative Game for Children in Kindergarten and First Class. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Chicago, Illinois) (IDC ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 242–249. https://doi.org/10.1145/1463689.1463762Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bertrand Schneider, Patrick Jermann, Guillaume Zufferey, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2011. Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 4, 3 (2011), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2010.36Google ScholarDigital Library
- Orit Shaer and Eva Hornecker. 2010. Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Now Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
- Ehud Sharlin, Benjamin Watson, Yoshifumi Kitamura, Fumio Kishino, and Yuichi Itoh. 2004. On tangible user interfaces, humans and spatiality. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8 (09 2004), 338–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0296-5Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barbara Smith and Jean MacGregor. 1993. What is Collaborative Learning?Wash Cent News 7 (01 1993).Google Scholar
- Karl A. Smith. 1989. Craft of teaching cooperative learning: An active learning strategy. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE (1989), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.1989.69400 1989 Frontiers in Education Conference ; Conference date: 15-10-1989 Through 17-10-1989.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tess Speelpenning, Alissa N. Antle, Tanja Doering, and Elise van den Hoven. 2011. Exploring How Tangible Tools Enable Collaboration in a Multi-touch Tabletop Game. In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2011, Pedro Campos, Nicholas Graham, Joaquim Jorge, Nuno Nunes, Philippe Palanque, and Marco Winckler (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 605–621.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Francisco Zamorano Urrutia, Catalina Cortés Loyola, and Mauricio Herrera Marín. 2019. A Tangible User Interface to Facilitate Learning of Trigonometry. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) 14, 23 (December 2019), 152–164. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/217244Google Scholar
- Elisabeth MAG Van Dijk, Andreas Lingnau, and Hub Kockelkorn. 2012. Measuring enjoyment of an interactive museum experience. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimodal interaction. 249–256.Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Verhaegh. 2012. Assessment and development of cognitive skills using tangible electronic board games : serious games on the TUI TagTiles. Ph.D. Dissertation. Industrial Design. https://doi.org/10.6100/IR739271Google Scholar
- Alyssa Friend Wise, Alissa Nicole Antle, Jillian Warren, Aaron May, Min Fan, and Anna Macaranas. 2015. What kind of world do you want to live in? Positive interdependence and collaborative processes in the tangible tabletop land-use planning game Youtopia. In Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning(Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL), Oskar Lindwall, Paivi Hakkinen, Timothy Koschmann, Pierre Tchounikine, and Sten Ludvigsen (Eds.). International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS), 236–243.Google Scholar
- Lesley Xie, Alissa N. Antle, and Nima Motamedi. 2008. Are Tangibles More Fun? Comparing Children’s Enjoyment and Engagement Using Physical, Graphical and Tangible User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (Bonn, Germany) (TEI ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1145/1347390.1347433Google ScholarDigital Library
- Diana Xu. 2005. Tangible User Interface for Children - An Overview. In in Proceedings of the SIXTH Conference in the Department of Computing. 579–584.Google Scholar
- Oren Zuckerman, Saeed Arida, and Mitchel Resnick. 2005. Extending Tangible Interfaces for Education: Digital Montessori-Inspired Manipulatives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Portland, Oregon, USA) (CHI ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 859–868. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055093Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oren Zuckerman and Ayelet Gal-Oz. 2013. To TUI or not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs. graphical user interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies Volume 71 (04 2013), Pages 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.04.003Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Tangible Interfaces Support Young Children’s Goal Interdependence
Recommendations
A Meta-Analysis of Tangible Learning Studies from the TEI Conference
TEI '22: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied InteractionTangible learning has received increasing attention. However, in the recent decade, it has no comprehensive overview. This study aimed to fill the gap and reviewed 92 publications from all the TEI conference proceedings (2007–2021). We analysed previous ...
Designing a Tangible Interface to “Force” Children Collaboration
IDC '22: Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children ConferenceTangible technology provides opportunities to design collaborative interactions which allow children to engage in highly collaborative activities. Unfortunately, there are few guidelines on structuring children’s interdependent collaboration with ...
Tangible Interaction for Children’s Creative Learning: A Review
C&C '21: Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Creativity and CognitionCreativity is an important part of children’s education. Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) provide new possibilities for creative learning. In this review, we gave an overview of recent studies that supported children’s creative learning using TUIs. ...
Comments