Conference PaperPDF Available

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


Abstract and Figures

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.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: How Interactive Tabletops
Support Collaborative Learning
Jochen Rick
Dept. of Ed. Tech.
Saarland University
D-66123 Saarbrücken
Paul Marshall
University of Warwick
Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK
Nicola Yuill
School of Psychology
University of Sussex
Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK
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 per-
spective 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 fitall when char-
acterizing how interactive tabletops support collaborative learning.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
H.5.2 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: User
Interfaces—user-centered design
General Terms
Design, Human Factors
Interactive tabletops, collaborative learning, case study
With the advent of commercially available systems such as the Mi-
crosoft Surface and the SMART Table, user studies of multi-touch
tabletop interaction are progressing apace. Previous research finds
that interactive tabletops are enjoyable to use [7], promote play-
fulness [19, 20, 26], support awareness [13], encourage equity of
participation [9], and can promote learning [10, 17, 25, 27, 30,
34]. These studies have tended to be controlled comparative stud-
ies. Tabletop interfaces are compared to other interaction mecha-
nisms, such as with desktop computers [7], vertical displays [31],
non-digital materials [25], or a different tabletop interface [9, 28,
30]. The goal here is to hold other factors constant between con-
ditions to test potential statistical regularities in behaviour related
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. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee.
IDC 2011, June 20–23, 2011, Ann Arbor, USA.
Copyright 2011 ACM 978-1-4503-0751-2...$10.00.
to using the tabletop system. Thus, the factors to be compared are
decided upon a priori.
A second strategy has been to apply qualitative analytic approaches
such as video interaction analysis [14] and ethnography to study,
in detail, interactions between people and with the material envi-
ronment when using tabletop systems. The goal here has been to
draw regularities from a corpus of specific instances [36]. Work
has focused on how people approach, share, and come to under-
stand how to use tabletop systems in real-world contexts and some
of the problems that can result [3, 11, 12, 23, 24], on the physical
mechanisms used to mediate conflicts at the table [21], and on the
general mechanisms for learning at the tabletop [8, 27].
Individual differences between groups working in the same situa-
tion are often underemphasized. For controlled experiments, this
is to highlight differences between conditions. In video-analytic
or ethnographic studies, specific episodes are selected from a large
sample and regularities are drawn out in how people use this tech-
nology. To summarize, previous research has been carried out us-
ing a largely nomothetic approach—constructing a generalized un-
derstanding based on a large sample set (although not necessar-
ily generalized beyond a specific context of use). In this paper,
while we rely on detailed video analysis of interactions between
users of an interactive tabletop, we take an idiographic approach
constructing specific understanding of compelling cases. Our inter-
est is in children’s collaborative learning with tabletop interfaces.
We purposefully select three dissimilar cases to emphasize how dif-
ferent group dynamics influence how children collaborate using in-
teractive tabletops. Through this analysis we demonstrate diver-
sity in the ways that interactive tabletops can support collaborative
DigiTile is an adaptation of DigiQuilt [18] to the DiamondTouch
[5] interactive tabletop [29]. Like DigiQuilt, it is a construction
kit for learning about math and art by designing colorful mosaic
tiles. In addition to being aesthetically pleasing, these tiles lend
themselves to mathematical analysis. The designs embody fraction
concepts and can be symmetrical. For instance, the design in Figure
1 is half red and half yellow; it also has horizontal and vertical
lines of symmetry. While DigiQuilt was designed for a single user,
DigiTile was designed for two concurrent users positioned side-by-
side in front of the interactive tabletop.
DigiTile’s interface is split into four main areas (Figure 1). The
central tile (a) is a square grid (2-by-2, 3-by-3, 4-by-4, or 5-by-5)
Figure 1: Screenshot of DigiTile, with main areas marked
of snaps. Pieces can be dragged into these snaps to create a col-
orful tile. Both users are provided with their own palette area (b)
on the left and right side to choose pieces of different colors and
shapes. Pressing on a color button changes the color of the pieces
on that palette. For this study, each palette contained three different
shapes: a snap-sized square, a half triangle, and a quarter triangle.
To provide feedback on fraction tasks, each color button displays
the portion of the central tile corresponding to that color in three
representations separated by equal signs: 1) as a fraction with a
lowest common denominator, 2) as a reduced fraction, and 3) as a
decimal. In the case where the first two are identical, only one frac-
tion is shown (e.g., in Figure 1, the red and yellow buttons display
2= 0.5). Users can drag pieces to one of the five work snaps (c).
There, multiple pieces can be assembled and rotated. When pieces
are dragged out of a work snap, a copy is automatically created;
thus, the assembly and rotation work does not have to be repeated.
To clear a work snap, the user presses the eraser button below that
snap. A scrollable bar contains a graphical history (d) of how the
tile was created. By clicking on a thumbnail, users can revert to an
older version of the tile.
Participants, age 8 to 9, were selected from the same classroom.
DigiTile sessions were conducted in the back of that classroom
during normal class time. The sessions occured during a “Maths
Week,” where more emphasis was given to Mathematics; as such,
the learning goals of fraction understanding fit in well with the stan-
dard curriculum. All sessions were video taped from two angles:
one on the learners and one on the display. These were edited to-
gether for analysis. The three sessions analyzed in this paper were
purposefully chosen using the following criteria: good audio and
video quality, success on completing the tasks, and to showcase
various styles of working together. Two researchers iteratively an-
alyzed the video. The cases are a synthesis of their interpretations.
At the beginning of each session, the researcher demonstrated how
to move and rotate pieces, change their color, and use the graphical
history. Participants briefly tried out these features. After this intro-
duction, each pair attempted the same three tasks (i.e., challenges
that they needed to complete by working together). For each task,
the children were given a printout stating the task; the researcher
also read the task description aloud. Once students completed a
task, the researcher set them to work on the next task. After 30
minutes, the researcher ended the session, even if it meant that the
third task went unfinished. While they observed sessions, both the
classroom teacher and researcher took a hands-off approach, only
intervening a few times.
The first task was to replicate the pattern in Figure 1. The children
were provided with a printout of the pattern, including grid lines, to
guide their work. The purpose of the task was mainly to serve as an
introductory exercise to familiarize students with the interface and
working together on the DiamondTouch. While this task was com-
pleted by all, matching the pattern was not trivial; all pairs made
errors placing pieces. Most participants found it difficult to orient
a triangle to fill a gap. The interaction pattern of orienting a piece,
dragging it to the intended location, realizing that it did not fit, and
dragging it back for further rotation was common.
At the end of the first task, the researcher asked, “What fraction
of the square is red and what fraction is yellow?” Most pairs were
able to come up with the correct answer on the first try; if not,
the researcher helped them to realize it was one half. As a follow
up, the researcher asked, “What percentage of the square is red
and what percentage is yellow?” These questions were asked to
draw the participants’ attention to the different representation of
the fractions on the color buttons. This was important as the next
two tasks focused on fraction understanding.
For the second task, the researcher asked the participants to “make
the square three eighths orange and three eighths brown. Some of
the square can be left blank. That means you don’t have to fill it all
in if you don’t want to. This was a relatively easy fraction chal-
lenge for several reasons: 1) it only required figuring out one frac-
tion (3
8); 2) as it makes use of empty space, the likelihood of chil-
dren interfering with each other’s work was minimized; 3) the task
could be completed using only square pieces (6 out of 16 snaps).
For the third task, the researcher asked the participants to “make
the square one tenth red, four tenths green, two tenths blue, and
three tenths yellow. Now, this one is a bit different to the last one.
In this one, none of the squares should be left blank.” The third
task is significantly more challenging than the second for several
reasons: 1) it uses a larger grid (5-by-5 versus 4-by-4 for the pre-
vious tasks); 2) it requires four different fractions; 3) participants
had to use triangular pieces (e.g., 1
10 is most easily composed of
two squares and one half triangle); 4) it requires using unreduced
fractions (e.g., 4
10 for green); 5) as the whole tile must be filled in,
the chances for clashes between users or accidental destruction of
previous progress is increased, particularly towards completion of
the task when the tile fills up.
Common fraction misconceptions were observed. First, students
often fail to realize that a larger denominator indicates a smaller
fraction (e.g., 3
16 <3
8). In such cases, students mistakenly try to
take away pieces to achieve the larger fraction. Second, students
sometimes fail to realize that the position of pieces does not affect
the fraction. Third, students do not realize that they can multi-
plying a pattern of pieces to multiply the numerator of the frac-
tion. For instance, on the second task, a student might find that
two square pieces equals 1
8but not realize that therefore six square
pieces equals 3
8. Fourth, students do not realize that two fractions
can be equivalent. This is particularly problematic in the third task
where teams observe 1
5blue and fail to realize that they have ac-
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of the Pairs
Pair Amy & Ben Chris & Dave Emily & Ford
% of time with matching colors
Task 1 0% 69% 27%
Task 2 0% 97% 12%
Task 3 0% 93% 6%
verbal declarations / exchanges per minute
Task 1 0.8 / 0.5 2.4 / 3.1 0.8 / 0.8
Task 2 3.3 / 1.4 2.8 / 4.4 0.3 / 0.9
Task 3 4.7 / 1.7 2.2 / 2.4 1.0 / 1.2
complished the goal of 2
10 blue. As these cases demonstrate, stu-
dents engage these misconceptions by working with DigiTile on
these tasks.
A previous article reported the quantitative results of this field study:
It detailed the learning gains in fraction understanding made by Di-
giTile users over a comparison group, using standardized pre- and
post-tests [30]. Here, we report on the qualitative findings based
on video analysis. We present three cases as a case study [38] of
how individual group dynamics affect children’s collaboration on
interactive tabletops. The children are given corresponding-gender
pseudonyms in alphabetical order based on case order and position
at the tabletop (left to right in the figures). To further protect par-
ticipants and aid comprehensibility, figures based on the video are
presented as sketches.
Before detailing the cases, we preview the major differences be-
tween pairs. While these differences are qualitative, they are cor-
roborated by simple quantitative analysis of the interaction. Ta-
ble 1 shows what percentage of time the colors of the two palettes
matched and the rate at which pairs engaged in verbal declara-
tions (the partner does not respond) and exchanges (the partner re-
Amy & Ben All three tasks were designed to be split up by color.
Amy and Ben choose to strictly divide the task, never using
the same color. While they work on different parts of the
task, they use narration (a running commentary on their ac-
tions) to communicate; this manifests as a high rate of verbal
Chris & Dave They choose to work together on the same part of
the task. Whenever they move on to a new part, Dave switches
both palettes to that color. Because of their joint focus, they
are able to discuss strategies before executing them; this man-
ifests as a high rate of verbal exchanges.
Emily & Ford Like Amy and Ben, they choose to split up the task
by color; however, their verbal communication is minimal.
It is so noticeably lacking that the teacher prompts them to
communicate to solve the challenge in the first and third task.
While this prompting sparked bursts of verbal communica-
tion, their overall rate was still relatively low.
While the collaboration styles diverged, all three pairs were suc-
cessful, demonstrating increasing competency throughout the ses-
sion and succeeding on the tasks. All three accomplished the first
two tasks and made significant progress on the third. Chris and
Dave were the only pair to finish the third task. Amy and Ben
briefly completed the challenge, but failed to realize it as they had
problems understanding the equivalence of unreduced fractions.
While Emily understood how to complete the third task, Ford’s
contributions accidentally stopped her from finishing the task in
the allotted time frame; at several points, at least three out of the
four parts were solved.
Each case begins with an introduction to the pair’s dynamic. Then,
one episode of collaborative learning is detailed for each of the
fraction tasks. These episodes were chosen to exemplify the differ-
ences between the pairs.
5.1 Amy & Ben: Dividing the Task
Amy and Ben strictly divide each task by color. While all three
tasks were explicitly designed to allow for parallel work, the re-
searcher never gives any indication that they need to divide the
task. Amy and Ben chose that strategy for themselves from the be-
ginning. Although they work on different parts of the task, they
communicate well, speaking often and regularly checking in on
what the partner is doing. They do not get frustrated with each
other, even when the task seems difficult or a technology malfunc-
tion makes their actions interfere with each other. Occasionally,
they will even share a laugh about it.
One remarkable feature is that they tend to mirror each other: mak-
ing eye contact, replicating the same tile pattern, or expressing the
same body language. When the researcher asks them what per-
centage of the tile is red, they have to think about it. Ben guesses
“twenty percent.” Amy doubts it, “Is it? No. Uh. I don’t know.”
They make eye contact and simultaneously answer “fifty percent.”
That mirroring is most evident in the second task, where they fre-
quently place the same tile pattern (when reflected across a verti-
cal line of symmetry). In all, such physical mirroring occurs ten
times; in contrast, there is not one instance of mirroring for the
other pairs. At one such occasion, Ben states, “One eighth. .. I’ve
got an eighth.” Amy giggles and replies, “so do I.” Neither knows
where to go from there. They simultaneously scratch their heads.
After some more experimenting and narration, Amy discovers three
eighths with orange. She announces, “Oh [surprised], I’ve done
mine.” Five seconds later, Ben has mirrored hers to accomplish
three eighths brown (Figure 2).
The third task proves to be more difficult with initial progress be-
ing slow. Finally, Amy stumbles onto 1
10 working in green; she
uses two squares and a half triangle. She announces, “I’ve got one
tenth.” Ben replies, “What? How did you get a tenth?” He exam-
ines her side of the board. She admits, “I don’t know. I think that’s
one tenth [points]. Isn’t it?” Ben points to her green button, which
displays 1
10 , and replies, “It says so.” Amy proceeds to replace the
green pattern with a red one. Meanwhile, Ben narrates, “We need
three of those.” He replicates her pattern three times in yellow (Fig-
ure 3). Successful, he announces, “Three tenths.” “Is that what you
needed,” Amy enquires. “Yeah.” Here Ben demonstrates compe-
tence in the multiplication principle, which he was unable to use
during the second task.
While they choose to work on independent parts of the task, they
communicate well through both physical (as exemplified by the
mirroring) and verbal (as exemplified in the exchanges from the
third task) means. So, while they do not share a joint task focus
Figure 2: Ben mirrors Amy to complete Task 2
Figure 3: Amy checks the fraction as Ben completes 3
(something often considered essential to collaboration [6]), they
manage to communicate andlearn together. Furthermore, the phys-
ical mirroring they exhibit is an indicator of group flow, a state
where the group is performing at thepeak of its abilities [1].
5.2 Chris & Dave: Sharing the Task
Chris and Dave work well together, but both contribute different
properties to their group dynamic. Chris is intense in both his ver-
bal and body language. His emotions, ranging from excitement to
doubt and frustration, are readily apparent. Dave is more relaxed.
While Chris talks significantly more, Dave usually takes the leader-
ship in physically placing pieces. Unlike Amy and Ben, Chris and
Dave choose to share the task. They work together on one color at
a time.
As evident in the second task, Chris and Dave often take turns ac-
tively moving pieces and observing / commenting. Dave starts by
adding four triangular pieces to the second row. Chris comments,
“That’s one eighth. Dave narrates, “[I’ll] do it again underneath
Figure 4: Chris explains Task 2 solution to Dave
here,” as he places triangular pieces in the row below it. Chris
wants to reserve the lower rows for orange pieces and starts mov-
ing the pieces up one row. Dave agrees and they end up with the
top two rows containing half triangles. Chris announces, “That’s
one fourth. It’s got to be three eighths.. .I think the squares [in-
dicating the central tile] need to be bigger.” Chris wants to keep
the brown pieces confined tothetop half, but wants another row to
place more pieces. He comes up with a solution, rotating a brown
piece around to fill in the gaps left by the existing triangles: “No,
but we could still do this.” Dave agrees. Both place brown pieces
into the gaps rapidly. At one point, Chris notices that the interface
shows 3
8. Dave does not notice and places another piece, thereby
changing it. Chris exclaims, “Three eighths. Take that [pointing to
a triangle] off. He removes the piece himself and they have the
brown part of the challenge. Dave changes both palettes to orange.
Dave claims, “Now, we just need to do the same. .. ” as he is about
to place orange triangles. Chris counters, “Hold on. Wait, wait,
wait, wait. Hold on, hold on, ‘cause you can do squares [moving
an orange square onto the board].” Dave agrees, “Oh yeah. Let’s
do squares then. It’s easier.” After they have placed six orange
squares, Chris notices that they are done. He is surprised that the
orange pattern is not the same as the brown pattern. He steps back
and shrugs while looking around. After twelve seconds, he real-
izes why both patterns represent the same fraction. He explains
it to Dave, “Oh yeah. Look! ‘Cause when you switch that round
[Figure 4], it’s three eighths.
The third task proves more difficult. After several failed attempts
to accomplish 1
10 red, Chris claims, “Oh! I know how to do it.
He starts over and fills in one column with red half triangles. He
explains that he’ll fill another column, but Dave notices that the
current arrangement is one tenth. Proudly Dave proclaims, “We’ve
done it.” Surprised, Chris accepts it: “That is one tenth.” Both are
noticeably excited. Encouraged verbally by Chris, Dave quickly
adds two columns of blue triangles. They are thrilled to discover
that it is two tenths as expected. With broad smiles, both exclaim,
“Yes!” Dave switches both palettes to yellow. As in the previous
task, Chris is worried that they will run out of space for yellow,
given that there are only two empty columns. Dave understands
his concern and comes up with a solution. He rotates a yellow half
triangle to fill in the gap made by the red and blue triangles. Once
he realizes what Dave is doing, Chris gives his approval: “Yeah.
Figure 5: Chris and Dave accomplish 3
10 on Task 3
You’ve got it.” Dave fills in the gaps in the center column with yel-
low triangles. Dave is planning to continue in the empty columns,
but Chris motions him to the remaining gaps in the blue and red
columns: “That means, just do it over there [gesturing to the trian-
gular gaps].” They fill in the empty spaces together. Reading the
display, Chris announces, “Boom! Three tenths” (Figure 5).
Chris and Dave’s interaction is a textbook example of collabora-
tion: they share a joint task focus, are able to smoothly alternate
between engaging the task and reflecting on it, and are invested in a
successful outcome. Because of the joint focus, each is able to halt
the physical activity to verbally negotiate the next step (something
that Amy and Ben do not do). They often also take different roles:
actor and observer. This role division is particularly well suited
to DigiTile as one can manipulate the tile representation while an-
other observes the fraction representation. As the examples above
demonstrate, the observer is able to notice unexpected progress,
leading to quicker task progress and gains in domain understand-
5.3 Emily & Ford: Working in the Same Space
Emily and Ford are generally cordial, but not particularly friendly
with one another. Unlike the other pairs, they seldom communicate,
either verbally or physically. Another marked difference is that
Emily is noticeably ahead of Ford in fraction understanding. By a
strict definition, their interaction is not collaboration. Instead, we
characterize it as working in thesame space on the same task.
When they start working on the second task. Both work indepen-
dently with a different color on their respective halves. Emily picks
brown; Ford picks orange. They work independently. He gets stuck
using quarter triangles. After some experimenting, Emily figures
out that six squares solve 3
8brown. She stops working. Soon after
she stops working, Ford notices. He inquires, “[Are] you done?”
Emily nods. Ford continues to work on orange with the small trian-
gles as Emily looks on. Ford fails to understand that he could just
replicate her pattern. At one point, she squints with concentration.
A few seconds later, she approaches him. “Hey Ford. You see how
I used six pieces to do my part (Figure 6). You could use the same
thing.” He accepts, “Oh, yeah. As he quickly places blocks to
mirror her, she continues, “but you don’t need to put it in the same
Figure 6: Emily explains Task 2 solution to Ford
pattern, so you could put it over there [motions].” Ford accepts and
creates a different pattern to complete the task. Thus, she coaches
him to understand the shape and location independence principle.
Before task three, the researcher encourages them to talk. Again,
both of them work independently and mostly in silence. They seem
to quite systematically try out different combinations of shapes.
Emily works on yellow; Ford works on red. Then, Ford discov-
ers that 1
10 can be made with two wholes and a half triangle. He
pauses. Emily glances at Ford’s side of the board, noticing that
Ford has completed red (top of Figure 7). She proceeds to imme-
diately duplicate his pattern three times to achieve 3
10 (bottom of
Figure 7), thereby demonstrating her mastery of the multiplication
principle. While this example is similar to that of Amy and Ben’s
(i.e., Amy and Ford discover 1
10 ; Ben and Emily use it to achieve
10 ), there is, remarkably, no verbal communication. Ford has no
awareness that Emily has appropriated his finding or that she un-
derstands a principle that will be useful for solving the rest of the
Given the limited communication, it is even more difficult to char-
acterize this pair’s work as collaboration than for Amy and Ben;
however, their interaction is still a successful example of collabo-
rative learning: Both learners benefit from working together. As
evidenced by the former example, Ford benefits by working with
a more knowledgeable peer who can, at times, act as a tutor. As
evidenced by the latter example, it is not a one way street: Emily is
able to appropriate a discovery made by Ford.
As these three cases demonstrate, collaborative learning using an
interactive tabletop takes different forms, even for children from
the same classroom working on the same task with the same ap-
plication. When trying to characterize how interactive tabletops
support collaborative learning, one size does not fit all. Table 2
summarizes the differences between the pairs
6.1 Benefits of Working Together
One oft-cited model of how two people engage in learning is Vy-
gotsky’s [37] zone of proximal development (ZPD). The range be-
tween tasks that a person can accomplish by themselves and those
Figure 7: Emily uses Ford’s solution to 1
10 red for 3
10 yellow
that they can accomplish with the other’s help is the ZPD. Vygotsky
based this model of learning on observations of how mothers play
with their young children. Inherent to this model is an inequity
between participants as Vygotsky is concerned with the learning
and ZPD of the child, rather than that of the mother. Of the three
cases, this model only applies to Ford and Emily. Emily is notice-
ably more proficient in all three tasks. For the first two tasks, her
actions provide Ford with a model of how to accomplish his part.
Occasionally, she provides explicit verbal guidance. In these ex-
changes, Emily acts as the tutor to Ford’s pupil. Ford benefits by
working with a more capable peer. Emily benefits by articulating
her understanding, a valuable meta-cognitive skill [4].
While Emily is ahead of Ford, it is not by that much; hence, she
cannot always articulate her understanding. Her mental effort in
assisting Ford is particularly visible towards the end of the second
task. In the third task, the tutor / pupil relationship breaks down.
Emily ignores Ford’s confusion and seems annoyed when his work
on blue interferes with her progress on green. When prompted by
the teacher to assist Ford, Emily does try to explain fraction equiv-
alence to Ford, but her explanation is not well formed and ineffec-
tive. Even though he fails to understand, she makes no effort to
follow up, perhaps because her own understanding is still tenuous.
For such a challenging task, the ZPD created by Emily working
with Ford is insufficient to allow Ford to accomplish the task. We
should also remember that Emily is not a trained tutor; she mainly
chooses to help Ford when it directly benefits her (e.g., avoiding
inactivity at the end of the second task).
A different model of collaboration is Roschelle’s [32] convergent
conceptual change: as two learners work with a tool that embodies
the domain concepts, their conceptual understanding tends to con-
verge with each other and the domain concepts. Unlike the zone
of proximal development, this theory allows for the learners to be
comparable in skills and content understanding. The criterion for
useful collaboration is that both learners are able to generate ideas
and evaluate them. As the tool allows them to test their theories,
correct concepts are more likely to endure than misconceptions. In
his characterization, Roschelle places emphasis on learners having
to work together (i.e., a joint task focus) to choose which ideas they
want to evaluate. This is a fitting description of how Chris and Dave
work. They discuss their conflicts and negotiate which ideas they
will test. They fluidly transition between the roles of suggesting
ideas and evaluating them.
Roschelle based his theory on observations of pairs using desktop
software with only one entry point—a shared mouse. Furthermore,
his software ran one simulation at a time. In contrast, interactive
tabletops allow users to interact concurrently and DigiTile allows
users to work on different parts (i.e., colors) of the task concur-
rently. The pairs from the first and last case chose to divide the task
and work in parallel. For Ford and Emily, this allowed them to work
independently. Do-Lenh et al. [7] report on a study comparing the
same jigsaw task being performed on an interactive tabletop and a
desktop machine. As groups in the tabletop condition worked inde-
pendently, they had little need to share their individual understand-
ing. As a result, groups using a desktop machine learned more,
even though the tabletop interface was preferred. While interactive
tabletops can fail to support collaborative learning because there
is less impetus to interact and compromise, Amy and Ben demon-
strate that this is not inherently the case. While they worked in
parallel, they consistently shared ideas and converged on correct
6.2 Benefits of Using an Interactive Tabletop
Two oft-cited benefits of interactive tabletops are their ability to
support the awareness of other’s actions and the ability to support
concurrent input. While other studies have demonstrated these ben-
efits in general, we further show how individual group dynamics
impact how these benefits support collaborative learning.
Interactive tabletops are large horizontal displays that users engage
through direct manipulation. As the surface is large, actions tend
to be large enough that fellow users are able to be aware of them
even if they occur in their peripheral vision. In contrast, staying
aware of another’s mouse cursor in single display groupware [35]
requires more direct attention. As the objects are directly manipu-
lated, it is easy for a user to transition between interacting with the
application and gesturing to communicate with others at the table.
Thus, tabletop interfaces improve indirect and direct communica-
tion respectively. In a study that compared mouse and touch input
for collaborating on a planning task, awareness of others’ activity
was increased in the touch condition [13]. The touch condition also
led to an increase in awareness work, defined by Schmidt [33] as
Table 2: Summary of Learning and Interaction by Pair
Pair Amy & Ben Chris & Dave Emily & Ford
benefits of working together
Learning Theory [no established theory] Convergent Conceptual
Change Zone of Proximal Development
Advantages They can work independently,
but still share their findings
with each other.
By running experiments and
reflecting verbally on the
results, they are able to
converge on a better domain
The more advanced student
acts as a model to help scaffold
her partner through tasks that
would have been too difficult
for him.
benefits of using an interactive tabletop
Awareness While they divide the task,
communication channels
remain open through narration
and being visually able to
check the other’s progress.
Learners switch smoothly
between acting and observing,
thereby enabling verbal
exchanges centered on the
shared task goal.
The less advanced student is
aware of the progress of his
partner. Thus, these actions can
model the domain skills.
Concurrent Input They are able to smoothly split
up the task to explore their
solutions to the problem
They smoothly transition
between actor and observer. At
times, they simultaneously
place pieces.
The more advanced student is
unable to dominate the
interaction, allowing the
partner to make contributions.
reciprocal practices of monitoring others and designing actions so
as to render visible certain aspects of activity.
For Ford and Emily, there was little explicit verbal or physical com-
munication; however, both were aware of what the other was doing,
which facilitated collaborative learning. For Ford, awareness of the
activity of a more able peer provided a model that enabled him to
perform at a level above that at which he would have been able to
on his own. During the second task, Ford soon noticed that Emily
had ceased her efforts, which caused him to inquire as to whether
she had finished. It was perhaps this question that prompted Emily
to monitor Ford’s progress and ultimately provide him assistance
in completing the task. During the third task, Ford stopped adding
pieces when he completed 1
10 red. Likely triggered by his pause,
Emily glances over and then appropriates his discovery. Chris and
Dave’s activity was much more focused and integrated. The table-
top interface provided them a shared workspace enabling them to
form a “common ground” of understanding and supporting a close
coupling of actions, deictic dialogue, and gestures. As DigiTile
provided multiple linked representations [15] of the fraction con-
tent, one could manipulate the central-tile representation while the
other monitored the displayed fraction. As is common in tabletop
tasks [8], Amy and Ben continuously provided narration. Between
that verbal narration and the ability to see visual actions, Amy and
Ben were aware enough of each other to both execute their own
actions while still engaging their partner.
Unlike most educational technology (e.g., desktop computers, hand-
held devices, and even electronic whiteboards), interactive table-
tops allow multiple users to interact simultaneously. This has sev-
eral benefits. First, it empowers every participant. If Emily and
Ford had worked on a desktop machine, it seems likely that Emily
would have dominated the team; as is, Ford, though a less skilled
partner, was actively able to contribute. At the beginning of the
third task, his discovery of 1
10 even directly helped Emily make
progress. Second, it enables working in parallel. Both the pairs
of Emily and Ford and Amy and Ben demonstrate how working
in parallel can be effective for collaborative learning. Third, unin-
tentional interference of actions can provide an impetus for groups
to engage with each other [8, 27]. As Chris and Dave work on the
same part, they must negotiate their actions to prevent those actions
from interfering with each other. For the other pairs, unintentional
interference of actions only became a problem towards the end of
the third task. When it arrives, neither Amy and Ben nor Emily
and Ford deal with it as well as Chris and Dave have been doing.
That is perhaps one reason why Chris and Dave are the only team
to successfully complete the third task.
6.3 Implications of Diverse Group Dynamics
Whereas the conventional approach to the evaluation of tabletop
systems has been to look for generalities in interactions with and
around the table, we have deliberately focused on what was id-
iosyncratic and related to individual group dynamics. What this has
highlighted is the diversity of ways that interacting with the Digi-
Tile system can facilitate (and hinder) collaborative learning. Ac-
knowledging the importance of group dynamics has implications
for both the design and evaluation of such systems.
From a developer’s perspective, the question is whether to embrace
or spurn such diversity. All three of our cases focus on successful
pairs. DigiTile works for these pairs, at least partially, because it
supports a variety of collaboration styles. On the one hand, design-
ers might thus benefit learning by supporting such diversity. On
the other hand, other projects have demonstrated the value of en-
couraging (or even enforcing) particular collaborative behaviours
[2, 16, 22]. For instance, if the system only allowed one person
at a time to interact [9], this could focus the attention of the other
person on the relevant activity. That would create an incentive for
pairs to share a task focus, something considered beneficial for col-
laborative learning [6]. Such an interface might support Emily and
Ford to coordinate more closely and for Emily to take a more active
role in mentoring Ford; alternatively, it could have led to adverse
While all pairs were successful, Chris and Dave were the best ex-
ample of collaborative learning—fully completing the third task
and displaying a joint task focus. The system could be changed
to more subtly encourage their collaboration style. In this study,
special effort was given to allow pairs to split up the tasks. All
three challenges were designed to be split across different colors
and half of the pairs used a software version where each palette
only contained three colors (red, orange, green vs. brown, yellow,
blue). It was hoped that such a condition would enforce collabora-
tion through splitting the task; as it turned out, pairs did not need
that incentive to divide the tasks. Considering that all the pairs
chosen for this qualitative analysis based on their task performance
and diversity of collaboration styles were in the other condition, it
may have been a pedagogically poor choice to even encourage such
splitting; however, both conditions showed similar improvements
in learning gains [30]. A useful middle ground between supporting
diversity and encouraging ideal behavior is to allow the teacher (or
even the learners) to select the software features that best support
the relative competence and social dynamics of the group.
In addition to having implications for the design of systems, such
diversity has implications for how we analyze these interactions.
For instance, previous work has shown that tabletops encourage
a higher equity of participation than other interfaces [9, 22, 28].
While equity of participation is a good indicator of successful group
work, it is not an absolute good. Chris and Dave demonstrate how
a group can work well together even when one person dominates
the action (i.e., low equity of physical participation). Enforcing eq-
uitable physical contributions (e.g., by enforced turn taking) would
have only disrupted theirsuccessful group dynamics.
While it is interesting to consider how design features can explicitly
address group dynamics, it is worth noting that other design choices
can have significant implicit effects on those dynamics and the ef-
fectiveness of the system. Based on this study, DigiTile was altered
to include a pie chart representation of the fractions. That repre-
sentation is particularly useful for realizing that larger denomina-
tors imply smaller fractions, while larger numerators imply larger
fractions. This could have helped Amy and Ben realize that they
needed to add pieces to move from 1
8to 3
8. It could have helped
Emily to better explain fraction equivalence to Ford. Also, the soft-
ware could be aware of the specific challenge and provide support
based on that. For instance, when Amy and Ben completed the
third task, DigiTile could have announced their success. While they
might have been surprised by their success, such a scenario could
have led to them to reflect on fraction equivalence.
This work was done as part of the ShareIT project funded by the
EPSRC, grant number EP/F017324/1. We thank the schools we
worked with and the children who participated in this study. We
thank MERL for loaning us the DiamondTouch. We especially
thank Kim Bryant for sketching the figures.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[10] A. Hatch, S. Higgins, A. Joyce-Gibbons, and E. Mercier.
ClassCalc: Using multi-touch technology to support within
and between-group mathematics learning. In Proceedings of
CSCL 2011. ISLS, 2011. to appear.
[11] U. Hinrichs and S. Carpendale. Gestures in the wild:
Studying multi-touch gesture sequences on interactive
tabletop exhibits. In Proceedings of CHI 2011, New York,
2011. ACM Press. to appear.
[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.
[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.
[14] B. Jordan and A. Henderson. Interaction analysis:
Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 4(1):39–103, 1995.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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, New York, 2011. ACM Press.
to appear.
[24] K. O’Hara. Interactivity and non-interactivity on tabletops.
In Proceedings of CHI 2010, pages 2611–2614, New York,
2010. ACM Press.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[30] J. Rick, Y. Rogers, C. Haig, and N. Yuill. Learning by doing
with shareable interfaces. Children, Youth & Environments,
19(1):321–342, 2009.
[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.
[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.
[33] K. Schmidt. The problem with "awareness". JCSCW,
11(3–4):285–298, 2002.
[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.
[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.
[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.
[37] L. S. Vygotsky. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1978.
[38] R. K. Yin. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, third edition, 2003.
... With our design, learners needed to use the tangible land stamps in specific two-to three-step sequences. However these sequences could be enacted by learners in different ways, which could be facilated through spatial placement or instructions (e.g. with each learner using tools placed near them, with tools split across learners, or a single learner using tools), enabling flexible and dynamic possibilities for interaction, which was highlighted as important in (Jamil et al., 2017;Rick et al., 2011). The specific enactment of two learners working together interdependently was determined by learners but was encouraged by using social and physical design elements as demonstrated in the roles condition. ...
... First, in contrast to other work, in which prompts were necessary as scaffolding to support explanation-giving (Yannier et al., 2013), with our System explanations emerged as a result of interactional processes enabled by our tightly coupled (contigent) input system design and strengthened by physical-social assignment of input tools. Second, another advantage of tightly coupled tool design is that learners can physically interact in flexible ways (Jamil et al., 2017) and socially interact in different ways (Rick et al., 2011;Woodward et al., 2018) and these different forms of interaction can be explicitly supported by the way that tools are presented to learners. And lastly, these role-based constraints can easily be modifed during learning tasks, making our design flexible in how it can be adapted to respond to group dynamics and the needs of individual learners. ...
Full-text available
This mixed methods study examined the impact of two design strategies on interactional processes in a collaborative tangible-tabletop land-use planning simulation. Twenty pairs of fifth grade children used the simulation to create a world they would want to live in. To investigate the impact of positive interdependence half the pairs were assigned one of two roles, each with an associated set of tangible ‘land-use’ stamp tools. All pairs were given access to pause and reflect tools. Quantitative results showed that children in the positive interdependence condition gave more one-way explanations to their partners than control pairs. They also had fewer but longer instances of bilaterally resolved conflict. Qualitative findings indicated the importance of pause and reflect tools for provoking explanations and resolving conflict. This study has revealed important considerations for the instantiation of positive interdependence and reflective pauses in collaborative tabletop learning systems, showing both quantitative and qualitative differences in the interactional processes that result from these design strategies. CCS CONCEPTS. Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing.
... We did not further classify this last category due to the heterogeneity in products examined. Examples include a pet robot (Segura, Cramer, Gomes, Nylander, & Paiva, 2012), a multimodal collaborative music environment (Zhou, Percival, Wang, Wang, & Zhao, 2011), an interactive tabletop (Rick, Marshall, & Yuill, 2011) and a digital clay interface (Follmer & Ishii, 2012). We also classified non-use of a product (n = 16), for instance developing an educational toolkit (Wyeth & MacColl, 2010), under other products. ...
Full-text available
Child-Computer Interaction (CCI) is a steadily growing field that focuses on children as a prominent and emergent user group. For more than twenty years, the Interaction Design for Children (IDC) community has developed, extended, and advanced research and design methods for children’s involvement in designing and evaluating interactive technologies. However, as the CCI field evolves, the need arises for an integrated understanding of interaction design methods currently applied. To that end, we analyzed 272 full papers across a selection of journals and conference venues from 2005 to 2020. Our review contributes to the literature on this topic by (1) examining a holistic child population, including developmentally diverse children and children from 0 to 18 years old, (2) illustrating the interplay of children’s and adults’ roles across different methods, and (3) identifying patterns of triangulation in the methods applied while taking recent ethical debates about children’s involvement in design into account. While we found that most studies were conducted in natural settings, we observed a preference for evaluating interactive artifacts at a single point in time. Method triangulation was applied in two-thirds of the papers, with a preference for qualitative methods. Researchers used triangulation predominantly with respect to mainstream methods that were not specifically developed for child participants, such as user observation combined with semi-structured interviews or activity logging. However, the CCI field employs a wide variety of creative design methods which engage children more actively in the design process by having them take on roles such as informant and design partner. In turn, we see that more passive children’s roles, e.g., user or tester, are more often linked to an expert mindset by the adult. Adults take on a wider spectrum of roles in the design process when addressing specific developmental groups, such as children with autism spectrum disorder. We conclude with a critical discussion about the constraints involved in conducting CCI research and discuss implications that can inform future methodological advances in the field and underlying challenges.
... As regards the interplay of the external script and the main effect of the device-student ratio we want to investigate, the biggest question lies here: In CSCL, students need to interact with both the mobile devices and other group members properly to get a decent learning performance. As is reported in former research, Fleck et al. (2009) and Rick et al. (2011) found that a multi-input tabletop interface sometimes would not promote learning because learners were entirely engaged in their tasks. External scripts seem to have the potential that they could scaffold the group members to achieve effective interaction and collaboration. ...
In collaborative learning, the intuition “the more device, the merrier” is somehow widely acknowledged, but little research has investigated the relationship between device-student ratio and the learning outcome. This study aims to investigate not only the main effect of different device-student ratio, also to identify the moderators in the learning context including task complexity, external script availability and students’ familiarity to the collaboration settings. A three-round quasi-experiment was conducted in a primary school in mainland China, 130 fifth-grade students from four classes participated. Group worksheet including conceptual understanding and problem-solving tasks were used to collect participants’ inquiry performance. Repeated measures ANOVA was employed in data analysis. Findings indicate that 1:m device-student ratio could be beneficial, and external scripts, and prior collaboration experience could moderate such effect. The different effect of 1:m device-student ratio to 1:1 is only significant in the situation when students are faced with relatively simple task, and the effect size is larger when external script is present. When the task is more complicated, such effect of device-student ratio would only emerge after a period of collaboration. This finding challenged the intuition that one-to-one device-student ratio could be better. Related discussions and recommendations to teaching were made.
... Also, tabletop geometry has been shown to encourage equitable participation among users as well as simultaneous individual interactions with the digital content [32,33]. Previous research highlights several benefits of using interactive tabletops: improving collaborative learning [37,55], supporting reflection-type conversations [32], enhancing social interaction [18], fostering creativity as well as engagement [10,17]. However, people with visual impairments can struggle to engage with such large surfaces [23,39]. ...
Interactive tabletops offer unique collaborative features, particularly their size, geometry, orientation and, more importantly, the ability to support multi-user interaction. Although previous efforts were made to make interactive tabletops accessible to blind people, the potential to use them in collaborative activities remains unexplored. In this paper, we present the design and implementation of a multi-user auditory display for interactive tabletops, supporting three feedback modes that vary on how much information about the partners' actions is conveyed. We conducted a user study with ten blind people to assess the effect of feedback modes on workspace awareness and task performance. Furthermore, we analyze the type of awareness information exchanged and the emergent collaboration strategies. Finally, we provide implications for the design of future tabletop collaborative tools for blind users.
... From the perspective of Computer Supported Cooperative Learning (CSCL), computer systems can and should be designed to elicit functional interaction between users (Jeong and Hmelo-Silver 2016), providing opportunities for individuals to work cooperatively by engaging them in joint tasks, and promoting collaborative learning by encouraging resource sharing and communication (Duckworth et al. 2013;Jeong and Hmelo-Silver 2016). Tabletop displays, in particular, can be used in collaborative learning to enhance awareness of self-movement and others' actions (Rick et al. 2011). Furthermore, multi-user environments encourage a wide variety of action styles including working in parallel, working sequentially in tightly coupled activities, competitive play, and working independently (Duckworth et al. 2015). ...
Full-text available
Upper-limb virtual rehabilitation (VR) in adult acquired brain injury (ABI) is based largely on systems administered on a one-to-one basis. Multi-user interaction between co-located participants may offer advantages over single-user methods. The present study examined the feasibility of deploying a co-located VR system (Resonance) in a clinical setting. Following a baselining period, 5 patients with ABI completed 12 Resonance sessions over 4–6 weeks. Feasibility criteria included recruitment, intervention delivery, attrition, user experience, and suitability of outcome measures. Individual participant motor proficiency (box and blocks task) was examined using a time-series analysis with reliable change indices and curve fitting. All feasibility criteria were satisfied, with positive reports of user experience. Repeated collection of outcome measures was successfully integrated into the training schedule. Time-series analysis was successfully conducted, providing a detailed account of individual training-related change. Within a clinical setting, it was feasible to deliver Resonance and regularly monitor motor function. User feedback regarding the co-located VR intervention was generally positive, but expectations regarding the level of immersion may need to be managed. Individual time-series analysis is recommended as an adjunct to group-based analysis in future VR research. These findings can inform the design of a clinical trial.
... Our design approach draws from principles of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), a sub-field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI), to understand how computers can mediate and support collaborative work in a group environment (see [17] for a detailed discussion). The ability of tabletop displays to support awareness of others' actions is often cited as one of the main benefits of collaborative face-to-face learning [18]. We considered how participants might observe, communicate, and learn from others who are involved in playful activities [19]. ...
Full-text available
In this paper we explore how social aspects of group interaction and the physical affordances of interactive technology may be exploited to enhance the participation of people with a disability in creative, artistic activity. Participation per se is conceptualized using a current framework known as the family of Participation Related Constructs—fPRC, an ecological approach derived from a biopsychosocial health model. Taking an integrative approach, we blend current theory on participation, interaction design and community art to explore how group play and performance can foster inclusive participation in the arts and contribute to a positive change in personal (and collective) wellbeing. We describe two interactive arts projects called Resonance and Wheelchair DJ that provide examples of participation and performance in communities with a disability and reflect upon the workshop models that facilitate the creative expression of individuals and the group. We conclude with a discussion on the potentially transformative effects of participation in the arts by people with a disability and our gaps in our understanding of how to evaluate the notion of participation as a means—a medium through which person-related attributes and creative activity are developed in the longer-term.
Attention, contingency and control work together to support shared understanding and co-construction of ideas. Shared meaning is apparent from interactions with caregivers in infancy, and cooperation in peer play becomes specially frequent around 5–6 years, dependent on the structure of an environment. An augmented toy doubled the incidence of cooperative play, supporting a transition between attention bids and collaboration. More tightly-constrained designs such as SCoSS provide collaboration support through separate control in a shared task space, helping awareness and contingency, providing a shared resource for discussion, and constraining children to reach agreement before carrying on. Collaboration can be achieved in diverse ways, considering individual and cultural differences and loosely- or tightly-controlled joint activity.
Collaboration is an important skill for children to learn. In this paper we present a small-scale study exploring how technology can be used to elicit collaboration between children. We developed a prototype of a tablet-based robot (‘surfacebot’) that tried to perform a specific task, while children acted as tutors by giving feedback on the surfacebot’s actions. The surfacebot used the feedback to improve its actions by means of reinforcement learning. A pilot study with an early prototype showed that children were engaged and provided consistent feedback to the surfacebot, but showed little collaboration. Instead they made individual decisions and took turns in providing feedback. Based on these observations we made several changes to the prototype that were meant to stimulate collaboration between the children. In our main study with the revised prototype, we measured collaboration using an annotation scheme based on a collaborative problem solving framework. The results suggest that the revisions of the prototype indeed led to more extensive collaborative behavior, with 4 of the 9 participating pairs of children establishing a division of roles that necessitated perspective taking and mutual exchange of information.
This paper draws upon the theory of embodied cognition to provide a robust account of how gestural interactions with and around multi-touch tabletops can play an important role in facilitating collaborative meaning-making, particularly in the context of science data visualizations. Embodied cognition is a theory of learning that implies that thinking and perception are shaped by interactions with the physical environment. Previous research has used embodied cognition as a theoretical framework to inform the design of large touchscreen learning applications such as for multi-touch tabletops. However, this prior work has primarily assumed that learning is occurring during any motion or interaction, without considering how specific interactions may be linked to particular instances of collaborative learning supported by embodiment. We investigate this question in the context of collaborative learning from data visualizations of global phenomena such as ocean temperatures. We followed a user-centered, iterative design approach to build a tabletop prototype that facilitated collaborative meaning-making and used this prototype as a testbed in a laboratory study with 11 family groups. We qualitatively analyzed learner groups’ co-occurring utterances and gestures to identify the nature of gestural interactions groups used when their utterances signaled the occurrence of embodiment during collaborative meaning-making. Our findings present an analysis of both touchscreen and above-the-surface gestural interactions that were associated with instances of embodied cognition. We identified four types of gestural interactions that promote scientific discussion and collaborative meaning-making through embodied cognition: (T1) gestures for orienting the group; (T2) cooperative gestures for facilitating group meaning-making; (T3) individual intentional gestures for facilitating group meaning-making; and (T4) gestures for articulating conceptual understanding to the group. Our work illustrates interaction design opportunities for affording embodied cognition and will inform the design of future interactive tabletop experiences in the domain of science learning.
Full-text available
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Full-text available
We present the iterative design, implementation, and validation of a collaborative learning application for school children designed for a digital tabletop. Digital mysteries, is based on the mysteries paper-based learning technique. Our work is distinctive in that the design process, the design choices, and the implementation framework are all grounded in theories of both collaborative interaction and learning. Our hypothesis was that, if well utilized, the digital table-top's unique affordances would allow for the creation of collaborative learning tools that were better than traditional paper-or computer-based tools. The two main design goals for the digital version are supporting externalization of thinking and higher-level thinking skills. The evaluation of the final version provided evidence that use of the application increases the probability that effective learning mechanisms will occur and encourages higher-level thinking through reflection. We conclude the paper with design guidelines for tabletop collaborative learning applications.
Full-text available
This paper presents a study that investigated collaborative activity in a tangible tabletop environment to support learning about the physics of light. In co-located groups of three, children performed exploratory activities, using tangible artefacts, to find out about light. Analysis suggests that the environment can support various collaborative activities, but of central interest, demonstrated the role of peer interference in learning activities. Verbal negotiation and synchronization of actions emerged as conflict-resolution strategies and an implicit agreement by the children for sharing the physical and virtual resources of the system was noticed. The physicality and 'present at hand' nature of the input devices contributed to balanced levels of participation, particularly through action. Overall, the interference-prone tabletop environment contributed to creating a highly collaborative environment in which individual exploration was discouraged, leading the group through a productive process of collective exploration and knowledge construction.
This chapter discusses video as a medium for reflection and design. The work of video-based interaction analysis involves a continual interweaving of multiple activities: (1) viewing and re-viewing video records both individually and in groups, (2) generating activity or content logs for each record, (3) conducting detailed sequential analyses of selected portions of the records, (4) integrating multiple records of the same activity, (5) identifying conceptual categories and gathering collections of instances, and (6) juxtaposing multiple analytic perspectives on the same activity. Most video-based analysis of activity makes use of a preconceived coding scheme, carried along largely unchanged from one study to the next. One approach, in contrast, is to craft and refine conceptual framework through the ongoing work of analysis. A basic strategy is to use multiple perspectives, drawing on designers, people informed about interaction analysis and those able to unravel the intricacies of practice in a given domain. Although use of these methods to date has been primarily in the context of traditional research, it is believed they can be developed in the service of cooperative design.
At a very early stage in the course of CSCW, it became evident that categories such as'conversation'or'workflow'were quite insufficient for characterizing and understanding the ways in which cooperative work is coordinated and integrated. It quickly became obvious that cooperating actors somehow, while doing their indi-vidual bits, take heed of the context of their joint effort. More specifically, the early harvest of ethnographic field studies in CSCW (e. g., Harper et al., 1989b; Harper et al., 1989a; Heath and Luff, 1991) indicated that cooperating actors align and integrate their activities with those of their colleagues in a seemingly'seamless'manner, that is, without interrupting each other, for instance by asking, suggesting, requesting, ordering, reminding, etc. others of this or that. As a placeholder for these elusive practices of taking heed of what is going on in the setting which seem to play a key role in cooperative work, the term'awareness'was soon adopted. Not surprisingly then, the concept of'awareness'has come to play a central role in CSCW, and from the very beginning CSCW researchers have been exploring how computer-based technologies might facilitate some kind of'awareness'among and between cooperating actors. For many years, a significant effort was devoted to exploring the potential bene-fits of'media space'technologies for these purposes, i. e., an array of continually open computer-integrated audio-video links between dispersed actors (e. g., Mantei et al., 1991; Gaver et al., 1992; Bly et al., 1993). It was presumed that audio and video would offer a'rich'medium through which actors could interact in ways that were'virtually'as unrestricted and fluently as ordinary face-to-face encounters and that the mere provision of a'media space'between actors in different locations would enable them to cooperate approximately as if they were in the same physical space. Unfortunately, however, the expected benefits from these technologies never materialized. Something was obviously amiss in the understanding of'awareness'underlying this line of research (cf., e. g., Gaver, 1992; Heath and Luff, 1993). In response to these experiences as well as to findings emerging from the growing body of ethnographic studies of cooperative work, the research focus has shifted away from face-to-face interaction as the presumed paradigm of human interaction.