What have you done! the role of 'interference' in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning

Falção, Taciana Pontual; Price, Sara

doi:10.3115/1600053.1600103

Cited by 37 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, there is a growing deployment of this technology in educational institutions such as schools, colleges and universities. The work by (Cao et al 2010) and (Falcão et al 2009) further highlights the potential of digital tabletops within educational contexts. (Higgins et al 2011) have proposed a typology of the features of digital tabletops that could potentially promote learning and pedagogical benefits:…”

Section: Interactive Tabletops As Educational Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Users can directly interact with the digital tabletop using their fingers without the need of external devices-a form of natural interaction. If needed, other types of touch techniques can be incorporated, such as using tangibles (Falcão et al 2009), or styli (Ha et al 2006), thus extending the capabilities of this technology to suit various purposes.…”

Section: Interactive Tabletops As Educational Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the students can organise themselves into small groups around digital learning materials on the multi-touch tabletop to facilitate face-to-face discussion (Dillenbourg et al 2011;Higgins et al 2011). Collaboration around a digital tabletop has also been shown to support task-based and reflection-type conversations Jamil et al 2011) as well as to foster creativity and engagement (Falcão et al 2009;Cao et al 2010). Hence fostering collaboration is desirable since collaborative learning provides an opportunity for children to practice higher level thinking skills (Webb 1982a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Collaborating around Digital Tabletops

Jamil

Montero

Perry

et al. 2017

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a study of children collaborating around interactive tabletops in three different countries: the United Kingdom, India and Finland. Our data highlights the key distinctive physical strategies used by children when performing collaborative tasks during this study. Children in the UK tend to prefer static positioning with minimal physical contact and simultaneous object movement. Children in India employed dynamic positioning with frequent physical contact and simultaneous object movement. Children in Finland used a mixture of dynamic and static positioning with minimal physical contact and object movement. Our findings indicate the importance of understanding collaboration strategies and behaviours when designing and deploying interactive tabletops in heterogeneous educational environments. We conclude with a discussion on how designers of tabletops for schools can provide opportunities for children in different countries to define and shape their own collaboration strategies for small group learning that take into account their different classroom practices.

show abstract

Section: Interactive Tabletops As Educational Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Interactive Tabletops As Educational Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Collaborating around Digital Tabletops

Jamil

Montero

Perry

et al. 2017

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Piper and Hollan compared the affordances of presenting educational material on a tabletop display and presenting the same material using traditional paper [36]. Falcão and Price studied collaborative activity on a tangible tabletop to learn about the physics of light [37]. Finally, we would like to highlight that some authors have already pointed out that one of the most promising uses of these interfaces is to assist learning through exploration [38].…”

Section: Interactive Tablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible learning itinerary vs. linear learning itinerary

Martín-SanJosé

Juan

Gil-Gómez

et al. 2014

Science of Computer Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The latest video game and entertainment technology and other technologies are facilitating the development of new and powerful e-Learning systems. In this paper, we present a computer-based game for learning about five historical ages. The objective of the game is to reinforce the events that mark the transition from one historical age to another and the order of the historical ages. Our game incorporates natural human-computer interaction based on video game technology, Frontal Projection, and personalized learning. For personalized learning, a Flexible Learning Itinerary has been included, where the children can decide how to direct the flow of their own learning process. For comparison, a Linear Learning Itinerary has also been included, where the children follow a determined learning flow. A study to compare the two different learning itineraries was carried out. Twenty nine children from 8 to 9 years old participated in the study. The analysis of the pre-tests and the post-tests determined that children learned the contents of a game about historical ages. The results show that there were no statistically significant differences between the two learning itineraries. Therefore, our study reveals the potential of computer-based learning games as a tool in the learning process for both flexible and linear itineraries.

show abstract

“…Where they are used with tangibles (e.g. Falcao and Price, 2009) the physical artifacts support additional cues to awareness. Group members may use them as external thinking props to explain a principle, an idea or a plan to the others that is more effective than using equivalent digital representations (Brereton and McGarry, 2000;Fitzmaurice et al, 1995;Fjeld, 2002;Hornecker and Buur, 2006).…”

Section: Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms for collaboration

Yuill

Rogers

2012

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-user interfaces are said to provide 'natural' interaction in supporting collaboration, compared to individual and non-co-located technologies. We identify 3 mechanisms accounting for the success of such interfaces: high awareness of others' actions and intentions, high control over the interface and high availability of background information. We challenge the idea that interaction over such interfaces is necessarily 'natural' and argue that everyday interaction involves constraints on awareness, control and availability. These constraints help people interact more smoothly. We draw from social developmental psychology to characterize the design of multi-user interfaces in terms of how constraints on these mechanisms can be best used to promote collaboration. We use this framework of mechanisms and constraints to explain the successes and failures of existing designs, then apply it to three case studies of design, and finally derive from them a set of questions to consider when designing and analysing multi-user interfaces for collaboration.

show abstract

What have you done! the role of 'interference' in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning

Cited by 37 publications

References 29 publications

Collaborating around Digital Tabletops

Collaborating around Digital Tabletops

Flexible learning itinerary vs. linear learning itinerary

Mechanisms for collaboration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About