Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: exploring cross-age children’s preferences

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores children’s opinions and preferences regarding two isomorphic user interfaces that can be used for introductory programming activities, a tangible and a graphical one. The first system (tangible) comprises 46 cube-shaped blocks that represent simple programming structures and can be interconnected to form the programming code. The second system (graphical) presents on-screen the same programming space to the user (icons similar in appearance and operation with the tangible blocks). These two operationally equivalent user interfaces were given to three children groups of different ages (5–6, 7–8 and 11–12 years) to program the behavior of a Lego NXT robot. Children in dyads were let to interact with both systems, and during the activity, data were collected regarding children’s first-sight preference, enjoyment and easiness-to-use. The quantitative and qualitative analysis followed indicated that the tangible interface was more attractive especially for girls, and it was more enjoyable and finally characterized as easier to use only by younger children who were less experienced with computers. On the contrary, for older (11–12 years old) children, the tangible even though was more enjoyable, it was not considered as the easiest-to-use user interface. Taking into account the lack of empirical evidences related to the tangible user interfaces, this study discusses not only the potential usability advantages but also the disadvantages of tangible user interfaces for children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Orit S, Eva H (2009) Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Found Trends Human Comput Interact 3(1–2):1–137

    Google Scholar 

  2. Price S, Rogers Y, Scaife M, Stanton D, Neale H (2003) Using ‘Tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interact Comput 15(2):169–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Falcão TP, Price S (2009) What have you done! The role of interference in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning. In: Proceedings 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning, Rhodes, pp 325–334

  4. Fishkin KP (2004) A Taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Pers ubiquitous Comput 8(5):347–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Xie L, Antle A N, Motamedi N (2008) Are tangibles more fun? Comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings 2nd international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, Bonn, pp 191–198

  6. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kelleher C, Pausch R (2005) Lowering the barriers to programming: a taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Comput Surv 37(2):83–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kahn K (1999) A computer game to teach programming. In: Proceedings of the national educational computing conference, pp 127–135

  9. Pausch R, Burnette T, Capehart A, Conway M, Cosgrove D, DeLine R, Durbin J, Gossweiler R, Koga S, White J (1995) Alice: a rapid prototyping system for 3D graphics. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 15(3):8–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Maloney J, Resnick M, Rusk N, Silverman B, Eastmond E (2010) The scratch programming language and environment. Trans Comput Educ 10(4):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nusen N, Sipitakiat A (2011) Robo-blocks: a tangible programming system with debugging for children. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on computers in education. Chiang Mai, pp 1–5

  12. Fitzmaurice G, Ishii H, Buxton W (1995) Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the CHI’95 conference on human factors in computing systems, Denver, pp 442–449

  13. Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings. CHI97 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, pp 234–241

  14. McNerney TS (2004) From turtles to tangible programming bricks: explorations in physical language design. Pers ubiquitous comput 8(5):326–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sapounidis T, Demetriadis S (2009) Tangible programming interfaces: a literature review. In: Proceedings 4th Balkan conference in informatics, Thessaloniki, pp 70–75

  16. Newton-Dunn H, Nakano H, Gibson J (2003) Block jam: a tangible interface for interactive music. J New Music Res 32(4):383–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schweikardt E, Gross MD (2006) roBlocks: a robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In: Proceedings 8th international conference on multimodal interfaces, pp 72–75

  18. Zuckerman O, Arida S, Resnick M (2005) Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In: Proceedings. SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Portland, pp 859–868

  19. Anderson D, Frankel JL, Marks J, Leigh D, Sullivan E, Yedidia J, Ryall K (1999) Building virtual structures with physical blocks. In: Proceedings 12th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, Asheville, pp 71–72

  20. Stanton D, Bayon V, Neale H, Ghali A, Benford S, Cobb S, Ingram R, O’Malley C, Wilson J, Pridmore T (2001) Classroom collaboration in the design of tangible interfaces for storytelling. In: Proceedings. CHI01 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Seattle, pp 482–489

  21. Terrenghi L, Kranz M, Holleis P, Schmidt A (2006) A cube to learn: a tangible user interface for the design of a learning appliance. Pers ubiquitous comput 10(2):153–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wyeth P, Purchase H (2002) Designing technology for children: moving from the computer into the physical world with electronic blocks. Inform Technol Child Educ Ann 1:219–244

    Google Scholar 

  23. Horn MS, Solovey ET, Crouser RJ, Jacob RJK (2009) Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In: Proceedings 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, pp 975–984

  24. Suzuki H, Kato H (1993) AlgoBlock: a tangible programming language, a tool for collaborative learning. In: Proceedings 4th European logo conference, pp 297–303

  25. Horn MS (2009) Tangible computer programming: exploring the use of emerging technology in classrooms and science museums. PhD dissertation, Tufts University

  26. Marshall P (2007) Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In: Proceedings 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, Baton Rouge, pp 163–170

  27. Xu D (2007) Design and evaluation of tangible interfaces for primary school children. In: Proceedings 6th international conference on interaction design and children, Aalborg, pp 209–212

  28. O’Malley C, Fraser S (2004) Literature review in learning with tangible technologies. Report 12, NESTA Futurelab, Bristol

  29. Horn MS, Jacob RJK (2006) Tangible programming in the classroom: a practical approach. In: Proceedings human factors in computing systems, Montréal, pp 869–874

  30. Antle AN (2007) Designing tangibles for children: what designers need to know. In: Proceedings. CHI’07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, pp 2243–2248

  31. Marshall P, Cheng P C H, Luckin R (2010) Tangibles in the balance: a discovery learning task with physical or graphical materials. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, Cambridge, pp 153–160

  32. Schneider B, Jermann P, Zufferey G, Dillenbourg P (2011) Benefits of a tangible interface for collaborative learning and interaction. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 4(3):222–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Triona LM, Klahr D (2003) Point and click or grab and heft: comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students’ ability to design experiments. Cogn Instruct 21(2):149–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Klahr D, Triona LM, Williams C (2007) Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. J Res Sci Teach 44(1):183–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Manches A, O’Malley C, Benford S (2010) The role of physical representations in solving number problems: a comparison of young children’s use of physical and virtual materials. Comput Educ 54(3):622–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Olkun S (2003) Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. J Comput Math Sci Teach 22(1):43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Finkelstein ND, Adams WK, Keller CJ, Kohl PB, Perkins KK, Podolefsky NS, Reid S, LeMaster R (2005) When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys Rev Special Topics Phys Educ Res 1(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  38. Zacharia ZC (2007) Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. J Comput Assist Learn 23(2):120–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zacharia ZC, Olympiou G (2011) Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learn Instr 21(3):317–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Horn M, Crouser R, Bers M (2011) Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(4):379–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zaman B, Vanden Abeele V, Markopoulos P, Marshall P (2012) Editorial: the evolving field of tangible interaction for children: the challenge of empirical validation. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(4):367–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sapounidis T, Demetriadis S (2011) Touch your program with hands: qualities in tangible programming tools for novice. In: Proceedings 15th Panhellenic conference on informatics (PCI), Kastoria, pp 363–367

  43. Ullmer B, Ishii H, Jacob RJK (2005) Token constraint systems for tangible interaction with digital information. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 12(1):81–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Read JC (2008) Validating the fun toolkit: an instrument for measuring children’s opinions of technology. Cognit Techhnol Work 10(2):119–128

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Fails JA, Druin A, Guha ML, Chipman G, Simms S, Churaman W (2005) Child’s play: a comparison of desktop and physical interactive environments. In: Proceedings of conference on interaction design and children, Boulder, pp 48–55

  46. Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors of the paper wish to warmly thank the experimental elementary school of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the Dumbo kindergarten in Langada, Thessaloniki Greece; especially the teachers and the directors of the schools, for the hospitality offered; Dimitra Baltzi for her support; Dr. Aristotle Kazakopoulos for the equipment provided; Dr. Dimitrios Stamovlasis for his constructive comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Theodosios Sapounidis & Stavros Demetriadis

Authors
  1. Theodosios Sapounidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stavros Demetriadis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodosios Sapounidis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sapounidis, T., Demetriadis, S. Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: exploring cross-age children’s preferences. Pers Ubiquit Comput 17, 1775–1786 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0641-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0641-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation