skip to main content
10.1145/3172944.3172994acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Public Access

Supporting Spatial Skill Learning with Gesture-Based Embodied Design

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 March 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Prior research has shown that spatial abilities are crucial for STEM achievement and attainment. The connection between the digital and physical worlds provided by embodied interaction has been shown to enhance performance and engagement in educational contexts. Spatial reasoning is a domain that lends itself naturally to embodied, physical interaction; however, there is little understanding of how embodied interaction could be incorporated into educational technology designed to train spatial reasoning skills. We propose several guidelines for gestural interaction design in spatial reasoning education games based on an empirical study with students at a local afterschool program using a custom-built computer game for training spatial skills. We present a series of gesture sets derived from an iterative design approach that are easy for children to acquire, show sufficient congruency to specific spatial operations, and enable robust recognition from the system. We also compared children's behaviors when playing the game with our gestural interface and a traditional mouse-based interface and found that children take more time but fewer steps to complete game levels when using gestures.

References

  1. Dor Abrahamson and Robb Lindgren. 2014. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Chapter Embodiment and embodied design.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lawrence W. Barsalou. 2010. Grounded Cognition: Past, Present, and Future. Topics in Cognitive Science 2, 4 (2010), 716--724.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. E. L. Bjork and R. A. Bjork. 2011. Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society. Worth Publishers, New York, NY, USA, Chapter Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning, 56--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jack Shen-Kuen Chang. 2017. The Design and Evaluation of Embodied Interfaces for Supporting Spatial Ability. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 681--684. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. P. G. Clifton, J. S.-K. Chang, G. Yeboah, A. Doucette, S. Chandrasekharan, M. Nitsche, T. Welsh, and A Mazalek. 2016. Design of embodied interfaces for engaging spatial cognition. Cognitive Research 1, 24 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Hubert L. Dreyfus and Stuart E. Dreyfus. 1999. The Challenge of Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Embodiment for Cognitive Science. In Perspectives on Embodiment: The Intersections of Nature and Culture, Gail Weiss and Honi Fern Haber (Eds.). Routledge, 103--120.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Efraim Fischbein. 1987. Intuition in Science and Mathematics: An Educational Approach. Springer, Dordrecht, Holland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Corinne Holmes, Steven A. Marchette, and Nora Newcombe. 2017. Multiple Views of Space: Continuous Visual Flow Enhances Small-Scale Spatial Learning. (02 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniel Kahneman. Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. (????).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Robb Lindgren and Mina Johnson-Glenberg. 2013. Emboldened by Embodiment. Educational Researcher 42, 8 (2013), 445--452.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Robb Lindgren and J. Michael Moshell. 2011. Supporting Children's Learning with Body-based Metaphors in a Mixed Reality Environment. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Marcia C. Linn and Anne C. Petersen. 1985. Emergence and Characterization of Sex Differences in Spatial Ability: A Meta-Analysis. Child Development 56, 6 (1985), 1479--1498.0.1145/3030024.3038265Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Ting Zhang, Yu-Ting Li, and Juan P. Wachs. 2016. The Effect of Embodied Interaction in Visual-Spatial Navigation. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 7, 1, Article 3 (Dec. 2016), 36 pages. 2160--6455 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Supporting Spatial Skill Learning with Gesture-Based Embodied Design

        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
          IUI '18: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
          March 2018
          698 pages
          ISBN:9781450349451
          DOI:10.1145/3172944

          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 ACM 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: 5 March 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper

          Acceptance Rates

          IUI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate43of299submissions,14%Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader