skip to main content
10.5555/1671011.1671028acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesbcs-hciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Paper-based concept map: the effects of tabletop on an expressive collaborative learning task

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 September 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Augmented tabletops have recently attracted considerable attention in the literature. However, little has been known about the effects that these interfaces have on learning tasks. In this paper, we report on the results of an empirical study that explores the usage of tabletop systems in an expressive collaborative learning task. In particular, we focus on measuring the difference in learning outcomes at individual and group levels between students using two interfaces: traditional computer and augmented tabletop with tangible input.

No significant effects of the interface on individual learning gain were found. However, groups using traditional computer learned significantly more from their partners than those using tabletop interface. Further analysis showed an interaction effect of the condition and the group heterogeneity on learning outcomes. We also present our qualitative findings in terms of how group interactions and strategy differ in the two conditions.

References

  1. J. P. Birnholtz, T. Grossman, C. Mak, and R. Balakrishnan. An exploratory study of input configuration and group process in a negotiation task using a large display. CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 91--100, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. J. S. Bruner. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1966.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. C. Buchs, F. Butera, and G. Mugny. Resource interdependence, student interactions and performance in cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24:291--314, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. P. Dietz and D. Leigh. Diamondtouch: A multi-user touch technology. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'01), pages 219--226, |2001|. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. P. Dillenbourg. What do you mean by collaborative learning? P. Dillenbourg (Ed) Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, pages 1--19, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Do-Lenh, A. Sharma, F. Kaplan, and P. Dillenbourg. Multi-finger interactions with papers on augmented tabletops. In International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction. ACM, February 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Forlines, D. Wigdor, C. Shen, and R. Balakrishnan. Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 647--656, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. V. Ha, K. M. Inkpen, R. L. Mandryk, and T. Whalen. Direct intentions: the effects of input devices on collaboration around a tabletop display. Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems, 2006. TableTop 2006. First IEEE International Workshop on, pages 8 pp.+, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. Y. Han. Low-cost multi-touch sensing through frustrated total internal reflection. Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 115--118, 2005. 1095054 115--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. E. Hornecker, P. Marshall, N. S. Dalton, and Y. Rogers. Collaboration and interference: awareness with mice or touch input. CSCW '08: Proceedings of the ACM 2008 conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 167--176, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. L. Kerawalla, D. Pearce, N. Yuill, R. Luckin, and A. Harris. "i'm keeping those there, are you?" the role of a new user interface paradigm - separate control of shared space (scoss) - in the collaborative decision-making process. Comput. Educ., 50(1):193--206, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. R. Lewis. Ibm computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 7(1):57--78, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Manches, C. O'Malley, and S. Benford. Physical manipulation: evaluating the potential for tangible designs. In TEI '09: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pages 77--84, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. P. Marshall. Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? TEI '07: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, pages 163--170, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. P. Marshall, E. Hornecker, R. Morris, N. Sheep Dalton, and Y. Rogers. When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. In 3rd IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems, 2008. TABLETOP 2008., pages 33--40, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. C. Müller-Tomfelde and C. Schremmer. Touchers and mousers: commonalities and differences in co-located collaboration with multiple input devices. CHI '08: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 1149--1152, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. A. Nacenta, D. Pinelle, D. Stuckel, and C. Gutwin. The effects of interaction technique on coordination in tabletop groupware. GI '07: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2007, pages 191--198, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Oviatt, A. Arthur, and J. Cohen. Quiet interfaces that help students think. UIST '06: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pages 191--200, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. U. S. Pawar, J. Pal, R. Gupta, and K. Toyama. Multiple mice for retention tasks in disadvantaged schools. CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 1581--1590, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H. S. Raffle, A. J. Parkes, and H. Ishii. Topobo: a constructive assembly system with kinetic memory. In CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 647--654, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. J. Rekimoto. Smartskin: an infrastructure for freehand manipulation on interactive surfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'02), pages 113--120, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Y. Rogers, Y. Lim, W. Hazlewood, and P. Marshall. Equal opportunities: Do shareable interfaces promote more group participation than single users displays? Human-Computer Interaction, 24(2), 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Y. Rogers and S. Lindley. Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: which way is best? Interacting with Computers, 16(6):1133--1152, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. K. Ryall, C. Forlines, C. Shen, and M. R. Morris. Exploring the effects of group size and table size on interactions with tabletop shared-display groupware. CSCW '04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 284--293, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Scott, R. Mandryk, and K. Inkpen. Understanding children's collaborative interactions in shared environments. Journal of Computer-Aided Learning, 19(2):220--228, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. L. Setlock, S. Fussell, and C. Nuwirth. Taking it out of context: collaborating within and across cultures in face-to-face settings and via instant messaging. Proceedings of the ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, pages 604--613, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. Stewart, B. B. Bederson, and A. Druin. Single display groupware: a model for co-present collaboration. In CHI '99: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 286--293, New York, NY, USA, 1999. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. D. S. Tan, D. Gergle, R. Mandryk, K. Inkpen, M. Kellar, K. Hawkey, and M. Czerwinski. Using job-shop scheduling tasks for evaluating collocated collaboration. Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 12(3):255--267, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. E. Tse, C. Shen, S. Greenberg, and C. Forlines. How pairs interact over a multimodal digital table. CHI '07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 215--218, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. B. Ullmer and H. Ishii. The metadesk: models and prototypes for tangible user interfaces. ACM Symposium on User interface Software and Technology, (UIST97), pages 223--232, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. J. Underkoffler and H. Ishii. Illuminating light: a casual optics workbench. In CHI '99: CHI '99 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pages 5--6, New York, NY, USA, 1999. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. N. Webb. Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13:21--39, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. P. Wellner. Interacting with paper on the digital desk. Communications of the ACM, 36(7):87--96, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. X. Zhang and M. Takatsuka. Put that there now: Group dynamics of tabletop interaction under time pressure. IEEE Tabletop, 2007, pages 37--43, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Paper-based concept map: the effects of tabletop on an expressive collaborative learning task

          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 Other conferences
            BCS-HCI '09: Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Celebrating People and Technology
            September 2009
            532 pages

            Publisher

            BCS Learning & Development Ltd.

            Swindon, United Kingdom

            Publication History

            • Published: 1 September 2009

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate28of62submissions,45%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader