skip to main content
10.1145/3577190.3614140acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesicmi-mlmiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploring Feedback Modality Designs to Improve Young Children's Collaborative Actions

Published:09 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Tangible user interfaces offer the benefit of incorporating physical aspects in the interaction with digital systems, enriching how system information can be conveyed. We investigated how visual, haptic, and audio modalities influence young children’s joint actions. We used a design-based research method to design and develop a multi-sensory tangible device. Two kindergarten teachers and 31 children were involved in our design process. We tested the final prototype with 20 children aged 5-6 from three kindergartens. The main findings were: a) involving and getting approval from kindergarten teachers in the design process was essential; b) simultaneously providing visual and audio feedback might help improve children’s collaborative actions. Our study was an interdisciplinary research on human-computer interaction and children’s education, which contributed an empirical understanding of the factors influencing children collaboration and communication.

References

  1. Dimitra Anastasiou and Eric Ras. 2017. A Questionnaire-Based Case Study on Feedback by a Tangible Interface. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Workshop on Intelligent Interfaces for Ubiquitous and Smart Learning (Limassol, Cyprus) (SmartLearn ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3038535.3038540Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Lisa Anthony, Quincy Brown, Jaye Nias, and Berthel Tate. 2013. Examining the Need for Visual Feedback during Gesture Interaction on Mobile Touchscreen Devices for Kids. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (New York, New York, USA) (IDC ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485775Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mauro Ávila Soto, Elba Valderrama-Bahamóndez, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2017. TanMath: A Tangible Math Application to Support Children with Visual Impairment to Learn Basic Arithmetic. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (Island of Rhodes, Greece) (PETRA ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 244–245. https://doi.org/10.1145/3056540.3064964Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mauro Ávila Soto, Elba Valderrama-Bahamóndez, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2017. TanMath: A Tangible Math Application to Support Children with Visual Impairment to Learn Basic Arithmetic. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (Island of Rhodes, Greece) (PETRA ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 244–245. https://doi.org/10.1145/3056540.3064964Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. David Barrett and Alison Twycross. 2018. Data collection in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing 21, 3 (2018), 63–64. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2018-102939Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Tilde Bekker, Janienke Sturm, and Berry Eggen. 2010. Designing playful interactions for social interaction and physical play. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 14, 5 (01 Jul 2010), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0264-1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kelly L. Boles, Livia Macedo, Chris Proctor, and Paulo Blikstein. 2018. Manipul8: An Interactive Experience to Inspire Pattern-Based Algebraic Thinking and Representational Fluency. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Trondheim, Norway) (IDC ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 501–504. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3210763Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Stephen A. Brewster, Peter C. Wright, and Alistair D. N. Edwards. 1993. An Evaluation of Earcons for Use in Auditory Human-Computer Interfaces. In Proceedings of the INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (CHI ’93). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169179Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Emily S. Cramer and Alissa N. Antle. 2015. Button Matrix: How Tangible Interfaces Can Structure Physical Experiences for Learning. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Stanford, California, USA) (TEI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680566Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. N. Dahlbäck, A. Jönsson, and L. Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies — why and how. Knowledge-Based Systems 6, 4 (1993), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(93)90017-N Special Issue: Intelligent User Interfaces.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Julie Ducasse, Marc J-M Macé, Marcos Serrano, and Christophe Jouffrais. 2016. Tangible Reels: Construction and Exploration of Tangible Maps by Visually Impaired Users. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2186–2197. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858058Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Elena Duran, Ganesh V. Iyer, and Leah F. Rosenbaum. 2017. Geometris: A Collaborative Embodied Geometry Game. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI EA ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 214–217. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3048413Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. G. Fessakis, E. Gouli, and E. Mavroudi. 2013. Problem Solving by 5–6 Years Old Kindergarten Children in a Computer Programming Environment: A Case Study. Computers & Education 63 (2013), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Joseph M Furner and Nancy L Worrell. 2017. The Importance of Using Manipulatives in Teaching Math Today. Transformations 3, 1 (2017), 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Tobias Grosse-Puppendahl, Sebastian Beck, and Daniel Wilbers. 2014. Rainbowfish: Visual Feedback on Gesture-Recognizing Surfaces. In CHI ’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI EA ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 427–430. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2574787Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Lynne Hall, Colette Hume, and Sarah Tazzyman. 2016. Five Degrees of Happiness: Effective Smiley Face Likert Scales for Evaluating with Children. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Manchester, United Kingdom) (IDC ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930719Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Chris Harrison, John Horstman, Gary Hsieh, and Scott Hudson. 2012. Unlocking the Expressivity of Point Lights. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1683–1692. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208296Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Juan Pablo Hourcade, Ewelina Bakala, Anaclara Gerosa, and Flannery Hope Currin. 2023. Stories and Voice Agents to Inspire Preschool Children’s Social Play: An Experience with StoryCarnival: Inspiring Preschool Children’s Social Play. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Chicago, IL, USA) (IDC ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585088.3593893Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Hiroshi Ishii. 2008. The Tangible User Interface and Its Evolution. Commun. ACM 51, 6 (jun 2008), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1349026.1349034Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits and Atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’97). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258715Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Patrick Jermann and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2008. Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education 51, 1 (2008), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Günther Knoblich, Stephen Butterfill, and Natalie Sebanz. 2011. Chapter three - Psychological Research on Joint Action: Theory and Data. In Advances in Research and Theory, Brian H. Ross (Ed.). Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 54. Academic Press, 59–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00003-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Varsha Koushik, Darren Guinness, and Shaun K. Kane. 2019. StoryBlocks: A Tangible Programming Game To Create Accessible Audio Stories. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland UK) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300722Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Meng Liang, Yanhong Li, Thomas Weber, and Heinrich Hussmann. 2021. Tangible Interaction for Children’s Creative Learning: A Review. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Virtual Event, Italy) (C&C ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 14, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3465262Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Yoga Liu, Rung-Huei Liang, Ya-Han Lee, Yaliang Chuang, and Lin-Lin Chen. 2017. Designing the Expressiveness of Point Lights for Bridging Human-IoT System Communications. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design and Semantics of Form and Movement, Miguel Bruns Alonso and Elif Ozcan (Eds.). IntechOpen, Rijeka, Chapter 12. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71131Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Andrew Manches and Claire O’Malley. 2012. Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16, 4 (01 Apr 2012), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0406-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Andrew Manches, Claire O’Malley, and Steve Benford. 2009. Physical Manipulation: Evaluating the Potential for Tangible Designs. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (Cambridge, United Kingdom) (TEI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/1517664.1517688Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. David Mellor and Kathleen A. Moore. 2013. The Use of Likert Scales With Children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 39, 3 (10 2013), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst079 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/jpepsy/article-pdf/39/3/369/3407451/jst079.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Roxana Moreno and Richard E Mayer. 1999. Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and Contiguity.Journal of Educational Psychology 91, 2 (1999), 358.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Sukhvinder S. Obhi and Natalie Sebanz. 2011. Moving together: toward understanding the mechanisms of joint action. Experimental Brain Research 211, 3 (15 May 2011), 329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2721-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jean Piaget. 1970. Piaget’s Theory. Vol. 1. Wiley New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Ana Cristina Pires, Ewelina Bakala, Fernando González-Perilli, Gustavo Sansone, Bruno Fleischer, Sebastián Marichal, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2022. Learning maths with a tangible user interface: Lessons learned through participatory design with children with visual impairments and their educators. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 32 (2022), 100382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100382Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Ana Cristina Pires, Filipa Rocha, Antonio José de Barros Neto, Hugo Simão, Hugo Nicolau, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2020. Exploring Accessible Programming with Educators and Visually Impaired Children. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference (London, United Kingdom) (IDC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394437Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Sara Price, Nikoleta Yiannoutsou, and Yvonne Vezzoli. 2020. Making the Body Tangible: Elementary Geometry Learning through VR. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education 6, 2 (Aug. 2020), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-020-00071-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Lisa M. Rühmann, Nuno Otero, and Ian Oakley. 2016. A Tangible Tool for Visual Impaired Users to Learn Geometry. In Proceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (TEI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2856536Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Alpay Sabuncuoglu. 2020. Tangible Music Programming Blocks for Visually Impaired Children. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Sydney NSW, Australia) (TEI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1145/3374920.3374939Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Eva-Lotta Sallnäs, Kirsten Rassmus-Gröhn, and Calle Sjöström. 2000. Supporting Presence in Collaborative Environments by Haptic Force Feedback. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 7, 4 (dec 2000), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1145/365058.365086Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Barbora Siposova and Malinda Carpenter. 2019. A new look at joint attention and common knowledge. Cognition 189 (2019), 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.03.019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Karanya Sitdhisanguan, Nopporn Chotikakamthorn, Ajchara Dechaboon, and Patcharaporn Out. 2012. Using tangible user interfaces in computer-based training systems for low-functioning autistic children. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16, 2 (01 Feb 2012), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0382-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Hanneke Hooft van Huysduynen, Linda de Valk, and Tilde Bekker. 2016. Tangible Play Objects: Influence of Different Combinations of Feedback Modalities. In Proceedings of the TEI ’16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (TEI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839462.2839492Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Xiuqi Zhu, Min Fan, Zhuohao Wu, Jiayi Lu, and Yukai Liu. 2023. Co-Space: A Tangible System Supporting Social Attention and Social Behavioral Development through Embodied Play for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference (Chicago, IL, USA) (IDC ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 608–613. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585088.3593911Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Lauren Zito, Jennifer L. Cross, Bambi Brewer, Samantha Speer, Michael Tasota, Emily Hamner, Molly Johnson, Tom Lauwers, and Illah Nourbakhsh. 2021. Leveraging Tangible Interfaces in Primary School Math: Pilot Testing of the Owlet Math Program. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 27 (2021), 100222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100222Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Exploring Feedback Modality Designs to Improve Young Children's Collaborative Actions

      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 Conferences
        ICMI '23: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction
        October 2023
        858 pages
        ISBN:9798400700552
        DOI:10.1145/3577190

        Copyright © 2023 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: 9 October 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate453of1,080submissions,42%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)107
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format