Abstract
Despite many years of research in CSCL, computers are still scarcely used in classrooms today. One reason for this is that the constraints of the classroom environment are neglected by designers. In this contribution, we present a CSCL environment designed for a classroom usage from the start. The system, called TapaCarp, is based on a tangible user interface (TUI) and was designed to help train carpenter apprentices. A previous study (Cuendet and Dillenbourg 2013) showed that the tangible nature of TapaCarp helped integrate it in the classroom environment, but that this did not guarantee a meaningful learning activity. In this article, we describe the process that led us to design a new learning classroom activity for the particular context of dual carpentry apprenticeships. One innovative aspect of the activity is that TapaCarp is used only for a small part of it. This contrasts with the mainstream CSCL approach that assumes that the system must be used from beginning to end of the activity. This new activity was used in a classroom study with 3 classes of carpenter apprentices over two days for each class. Despite its many steps, the activity proved usable and fostered many connections to the workplace, which was one of its main purposes. The teacher and the students were positive and showed high engagement in the activity. The learning gain results were mixed: the performance of the students improved from day 1 to day 2, but the learning gain measured with a pre-test/post-test mechanism did not show any significant difference compared to that of a control group.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131–152.
Alcoholado, C., Nussbaum, M., Tagle, A., Gomez, F., Denardin, F., Susaeta, H., Villalta, M., & Toyama, K. (2011). One mouse per child. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
Anderson, D., Frankel, J.L., Marks, J., Agarwala, A., Beardsley, P., Hodgins, J., Leigh, D., Ryall, K., Sullivan, E., & Yedidia, J.S. (2000). Tangible interaction + graphical interpretation: a new approach to 3d modeling. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH.
Blikstein, P. (2008). Travels in Troy with Freire, chapter 14, Sense Publishers.
Bonnard, Q., Zufferey, G., Mazzei, A., Cuendet, S., Li, N., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Chilitags, robust fiducial markers for augmented reality.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics: Didactique des mathmatiques, 1970-1990: Springer.
Butterworth, G., & Light, P. (1982). Social Cognition, Univ of Chicago Pr (Tx): first edition edition.
Cuendet, S. (2013). Tangible Interfaces for Learning. PhD thesis, IC, Lausanne.
Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012a). Designing Augmented Reality for the Classroom: Computers and Education. Special Issue on Augmented Reality for Learning.
Cuendet, S., Bumbacher, E. W., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012b). Tangible vs. virtual Representations: when Tangibles Benefit the Training of Spatial Skills. In Proc NordiCHI (p. 2012).
Cuendet, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). The Benefits and Limitations of Distributing a Tangible Interface in a Classroom. In CSCL 2013. Best paper award.
Cuendet, S., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2012c). Tangible interfaces: when physical-virtual coupling may be detrimental to learning. In Proceedings of the 2012 British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.
Dillenbourg, P., & Evans, M. (2011). Interactive tabletops in education. International Journal Of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 491514, 6.
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 523.
Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2010). Technology for classroom orchestration. In In New Science of Learning. Springer Science+Business Media.
Dillenbourg, P., Jrvel, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning In Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., Jong, T., Lazonder, A., & Barnes, S. (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Learning, (pp. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Dillenbourg, P., Nussbaum, M., Dimitriadis, Y., & Roschelle, J. (2012). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers & Education.
Dimitriadis, Y., Asensio-prez, J.I., Hernndez-leo, D., Roschelle, J., Brecht, J., Chaudhury, S.R., Digiano, C., & Patton, C.M. (2007). From socially-mediated to technology-mediated coordination: A study of design tensions using group scribbles.
Do-Lenh, H.S. (2012). Supporting Reflection and Classroom Orchestration with Tangible Tabletops. PhD thesis, EPFL, Lausanne.
Do-Lenh, S., Jermann, P., Cuendet, S., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). Task performance vs. learning outcomes: a study of a tangible user interface in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 5th European conference on Technology enhanced learning conference on Sustaining TEL: from innovation to learning and practice. EC-TEL’10, p. 7892, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.
Fitzmaurice, G.W., & Buxton, W. (1997). An empirical evaluation of graspable user interfaces: towards specialized, space-multiplexed input. In CHI ’97: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. p. 4350, New York, NY, USA. ACM Press.
Gaillard, L. (2012). Perspectives de la formation - scnarios 20112020 pour le degr secondaire ii. Technical report, Office fdral de la formation professionnelle et de la technologie OFFT.
Girouard, A., Solovey, E.T., Hirshfield, L.M., Ecott, S., Shaer, O., & Jacob, R.J.K. (2007). Smart blocks: a tangible mathematical manipulative. In Proc. of TEI.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). Hearing gesture: How our hands help us think: Harvard University Press.
Ha, V., Inkpen, K., Mandryk, R., & Whalen, T. (2006). Direct intentions: the effects of input devices on collaboration around a tabletop display. In First IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems, 2006. TableTop 2006, page 8 pp.
Horn, M.S., Solovey, E.T., Crouser, R.J., & Jacob, R.J. (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. CHI ’09, p. 975984, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’06, p. 437446, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Hornecker, E., Marshall, P., Dalton, N.S., & Rogers, Y. (2008). Collaboration and interference: awareness with mice or touch input. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. CSCW ’08, pp. 167–176, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Kim, M.J., & Maher, M.L. (2008). The impact of tangible user interfaces on designers’ spatial cognition. HumanComputer Interaction, 23(2), 101–137.
Manches, A., & O’Malley, C. (2012). others Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation. Personal Ubiquitous Comput, 16(4), 405419.
Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction. pp. 163–170. ACM.
Marshall, P., Fleck, R., Harris, A., Rick, J., Hornecker, E., Rogers, Y., Yuill, N., & Dalton, N.S. (2009). Fighting for control: children’s embodied interactions when using physical and digital representations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’09, p. 21492152, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Moraveji, N., Ringel Morris, M., Morris, D., Mary, C., & Riche, N. (2011). Classsearch: Facilitating the development of web search skills through social learning. In Proc. of CHI.
O’Malley, C., & Stanton Fraser, D. (2004). Literature review in learning with tangible technologies. Technical report, FutureLab.
Parkes, A.J., Raffle, H.S., & Ishii, H. (2008). Topobo in the wild: longitudinal evaluations of educators appropriating a tangible interface. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’08, p. 11291138, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R.A. (Eds.) (2005). Grounding Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language, and Thinking: Cambridge University Press.
Price, S., Falcão, T.P., Sheridan, J.G., & Roussos, G. (2009). The effect of representation location on interaction in a tangible learning environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. TEI ’09, pp. 85–92, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Quarles, J., Lampotang, S., Fischler, I., Fishwick, P., & Lok, B. (2008). Tangible user interfaces compensate for low spatial cognition. In 3D User Interfaces, 2008. 3DUI 2008. IEEE Symposium on (pp. 11–18).
Rogers, Y., & Lindley, S. (2004). Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: which way is best?. Interacting with Computers, 16(6), 1133–1152.
Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Estrella, G., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2009). From handheld collaborative tool to effective classroom module: embedding cscl in a broader design framework. In Proc. of CSCL.
Roschelle, J.M., Pea, R.D., Hoadley, C.M., Gordin, D.N., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Future of Children.
Schwartz, D.L., Chase, C.C., Oppezzo, M.A., & Chin, D.B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775.
Shaer, O., & Hornecker, E. (2009). Tangible user interfaces: Past, present and future directions (preprint). Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact, 3(1-2), 23–27.
Sharlin, E., Watson, B., Kitamura, Y., Kishino, F., & Itoh, Y. (2004). On tangible user interfaces, humans and spatiality. Personal Ubiquitous Comput, 8(5), 338346.
Song, H., Guimbretire, F., Hu, C., & Lipson, H. (2006). ModelCraft: capturing freehand annotations and edits on physical 3D models. In Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. UIST ’06, p. 1322, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Speelpenning, T., Antle, A.N., Doering, T., & van den Hoven, E. (2011). Exploring how tangible tools enable collaboration in a multi-touch tabletop game. In Proceedings of the 13th IFIP TC 13 international conference on Human-computer interaction - Volume Part II. INTERACT’11, p. 605621, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer-Verlag.
Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 315337, 1.
Tuddenham, P., Kirk, D., & Izadi, S. (2010). Graspables revisited: multi-touch vs. tangible input for tabletop displays in acquisition and manipulation tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’10, p. 22232232, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Vygotsky, L.S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Zhang, J., & Norman, D.A. (1994). Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87–122.
Zufferey, G., Jermann, P., Lucchi, A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2009). Tinker Sheets: Using Paper Forms to Control and Visualize Tangible Simulations. In Proc. of TEI.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and comments. This research is funded by the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cuendet, S., Dehler-Zufferey, J., Ortoleva, G. et al. An integrated way of using a tangible user interface in a classroom. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 10, 183–208 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9213-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9213-3