skip to main content
10.1145/1999030.1999043acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesidcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Beyond one-size-fits-all: how interactive tabletops support collaborative learning

Published:20 June 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Previous research has demonstrated the capacity of interactive table-tops to support co-located collaborative learning; however, these analyses have been at a coarse scale---focusing on general trends across conditions. In this paper, we offer a complimentary perspective by focusing on specific group dynamics. We detail three cases of dyads using the DigiTile application to work on fraction challenges. While all pairs perform well, their group dynamics are distinctive; as a consequence, the benefits of working together and the benefits of using an interactive tabletop are different for each pair. Thus, we demonstrate that one size does not fit all when characterizing how interactive tabletops support collaborative learning.

References

  1. A. C. Armstrong. The fragility of group flow: The experiences of two small groups in a middle school mathematics classroom. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27:101--115, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. S. Benford, B. B. Bederson, K.-P. Akesson, V. Bayon, A. Druin, P. Hansson, J. P. Hourcade, R. Ingram, H. Neale, C. O'Malley, K. T. Simsarian, D. Stanton, Y. Sundblad, and G. Taxén. Designing storytelling technologies to encouraging collaboration between young children. In Proceedings of CHI '00, pages 556--563, New York, 2000. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. X. Cao, S. E. Lindley, J. Helmes, and A. Sellen. Telling the whole story: Anticipation, inspiration and reputation in a field deployment of TellTable. In Proceedings of CSCW '10, pages 251--260, New York, 2010. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Collins, J. S. Brown, and S. E. Newman. Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick, editor, Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, pages 453--494. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. P. Dietz and D. Leigh. DiamondTouch: A multi-user touch technology. In Proceedings of UIST '01, pages 219--226, New York, 2001. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. P. Dillenbourg. What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg, editor, Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches, pages 1--19. Elsevier, Oxford, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Do-Lenh, F. Kaplan, and P. Dillenbourg. Paper-based concept map: The effects of tabletop on an expressive collaborative learning task. In Proceedings of HCI 2009, pages 149--158, New York, 2009. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. R. Fleck, Y. Rogers, N. Yuill, P. Marshall, A. Carr, J. Rick, and V. Bonnett. Actions speak loudly with words: Unpacking collaboration around the table. In Proceedings of ITS '09, pages 189--196, New York, 2009. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Harris, J. Rick, V. Bonnett, N. Yuill, R. Fleck, P. Marshall, and Y. Rogers. Around the table: Are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children's collaborative interactions? In Proceedings of CSCL '09, pages 335--344. ISLS, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. A. Hatch, S. Higgins, A. Joyce-Gibbons, and E. Mercier. NumberNet: Using multi-touch technology to support within and between-group mathematics learning. In Proceedings of CSCL 2011. ISLS, 2011. to appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. U. Hinrichs and S. Carpendale. Gestures in the wild: Studying multi-touch gesture sequences on interactive tabletop exhibits. In Proceedings of CHI 2011, pages 3023--3032, New York, 2011. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. E. Hornecker. "I don't understand it either, but it is cool": Visitor interactions with a multi-touch table in a museum. In Proceedings of TABLETOP '08, pages 121--128, Los Alamitos, CA, 2008. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. E. Hornecker, P. Marshall, N. Dalton, and Y. Rogers. Collaboration and interference: Awareness with mice or touch input. In Proceedings of CSCW '08, New York, 2008. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. B. Jordan and A. Henderson. Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1):39--103, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. J. Kaput. Linking representations in the symbolic systems of algebra. In S. Wagner and C. Kieran, editors, Research agenda for mathematics education: Research issues in the learning and teaching of algebra, pages 167--194. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. Computers & Education, 50(1):193--206, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Kharrufa, D. Leat, and P. Olivier. Digital mysteries: designing for learning at the tabletop. In Proceedings of ITS '10, pages 197--206, New York, 2010. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. K. K. Lamberty and J. L. Kolodner. Exploring digital quilt design using manipulatives as a math learning tool. In P. Bell, R. Stevens, and T. Satwicz, editors, Proceedings of ICLS 2002, pages 552--553, Mahwah, NJ, 2002. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. E. I. Mansor, A. De Angeli, and O. De Bruijn. The fantasy table. In Proceedings of IDC '09, pages 70--79, New York, 2009. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. J. Marco, E. Cerezo, S. Baldassarri, E. Mazzone, and J. C. Read. Bringing tabletop technologies to kindergarten children. In Proceedings of HCI '09, pages 103--111, Swinton, UK, 2009. British Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. P. Marshall, R. Fleck, A. Harris, J. Rick, E. Hornecker, Y. Rogers, N. Yuill, and N. S. Dalton. Fighting for control: Children's embodied interactions when using physical and digital representations. In Proceedings of CHI '09, pages 2149--2152, New York, 2009. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. P. Marshall, E. Hornecker, R. Morris, S. Dalton, and Y. Rogers. When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation for different kinds of shareable surfaces. In Proceedings of TABLETOP '08, Washington, DC, 2008. IEEE Computer Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. P. Marshall, R. Morris, Y. Rogers, S. Kreitmayer, and M. Davies. Rethinking 'multi-user': An in-the-wild study of how groups approach a walk-up-and-use tabletop interface. In Proceedings of CHI 2011, pages 3033--3042, New York, 2011. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. K. O'Hara. Interactivity and non-interactivity on tabletops. In Proceedings of CHI 2010, pages 2611--2614, New York, 2010. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. M. Piper and J. D. Hollan. Tabletop displays for small group study: Affordances of paper and digital materials. In Proceedings of CHI '09, pages 1227--1236, New York, 2009. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. M. Piper, E. O'Brien, M. R. Morris, and T. Winograd. SIDES: A cooperative tabletop computer game for social skills development. In Proceedings of CSCW '06, pages 1--10, New York, 2006. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. T. Pontual Falcão and S. Price. What have you done! The role of 'interference' in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning. In Proceedings of CSCL '09, pages 325--334. ISLS, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J. Rick, A. Harris, P. Marshall, R. Fleck, N. Yuill, and Y. Rogers. Children designing together on a multi-touch tabletop: An analysis of spatial orientation and user interactions. In Proceedings of IDC '09, pages 106--114, New York, 2009. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. Rick and Y. Rogers. From DigiQuilt to DigiTile: Adapting educational technology to a multi-touch table. In Proceedings of TABLETOP '08, pages 79--86, Los Alamitos, CA, 2008. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. J. Rick, Y. Rogers, C. Haig, and N. Yuill. Learning by doing with shareable interfaces. Children, Youth & Environments, 19(1):321--342, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Y. Rogers, Y.-K. Lim, W. R. Hazlewood, and P. Marshall. Equal opportunities: Do shareable interfaces promote more group participation than single users displays? Human-Computer Interaction, 24(2):79--116, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. J. Roschelle. Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In T. Koschman, editor, CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm, pages 209--248. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. K. Schmidt. The problem with "awareness". JCSCW, 11(3--4):285--298, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. R. J. W. Sluis, I. Weevers, C. H. G. J. van Schijndel, L. Kolos-Mazuryk, S. Fitrianie, and J. B. O. S. Martens. Read-It: Five-to-seven-year-old children learn to read in a tabletop environment. In Proceedings of IDC '04, pages 73--80, New York, 2004. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. J. Stewart, B. B. Bederson, and A. Druin. Single display groupware: A model for co-present collaboration. In Proceedings of CHI '99, pages 286--293, New York, 1999. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. L. Suchman and R. Trigg. Understanding practice: Video as a medium for reflection and design. In J. Greenbaum and M. Kyng, editors, Design at Work, pages 65--89. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. L. S. Vygotsky. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. R. K. Yin. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, third edition, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Beyond one-size-fits-all: how interactive tabletops support collaborative learning

    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
      IDC '11: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children
      June 2011
      275 pages
      ISBN:9781450307512
      DOI:10.1145/1999030

      Copyright © 2011 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: 20 June 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate172of578submissions,30%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader