Conference PaperPDF Available

Tangibles vs. Mouse in Educational Programming Games: Influences on Enjoyment and Self-Beliefs

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Computer Science (CS) and related skills such as programming and Computational Thinking (CT) have recently become topics of global interest, with a large number of programming games created to engage and educate players. However, there has been relatively limited work to assess 1) the efficacy of such games with respect to critical educational factors such as enjoyment and programming self-beliefs; and 2) whether there are advantages to alternative, physically embodied design approaches (e.g., tangibles as input). To better explore the benefits of a tangible approach, we built and tested two versions of an educational programming game that were identical in design except for the form of interaction (tangible programming blocks vs. mouse input). After testing 34 participants, results showed that while both game versions were successful at improving programming self-beliefs, the tangible version corresponded to higher self-reports of player enjoyment. Overall, this paper presents a comparison between the efficacy of tangible and mouse design approaches for improving key learning factors in educational programming games.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Tangibles vs. Mouse in Educational
Programming Games: Influences on
Enjoyment and Self-Beliefs
Abstract
Computer Science (CS) and related skills such as
programming and Computational Thinking (CT) have
recently become topics of global interest, with a large
number of programming games created to engage and
educate players. However, there has been relatively
limited work to assess 1) the efficacy of such games
with respect to critical educational factors such as
enjoyment and programming self-beliefs; and 2)
whether there are advantages to alternative, physically
embodied design approaches (e.g., tangibles as input).
To better explore the benefits of a tangible approach,
we built and tested two versions of an educational
programming game that were identical in design except
for the form of interaction (tangible programming
blocks vs. mouse input). After testing 34 participants,
results showed that while both game versions were
successful at improving programming self-beliefs, the
tangible version corresponded to higher self-reports of
player enjoyment. Overall, this paper presents a
comparison between the efficacy of tangible and mouse
design approaches for improving key learning factors in
educational programming games.
Author Keywords
Physical Embodiment; Embodied Interaction;
Tangibles; Educational Programming Game;
Programming Self-Beliefs.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other
uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).
CHI'17 Extended Abstracts, May 06-11, 2017, Denver, CO, USA
ACM 978-1-4503-4656-6/17/05.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053115
Edward F. Melcer
New York University
Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA
eddie.melcer@nyu.edu
Victoria Hollis
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
hollis@ucsc.edu
Katherine Isbister
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA
katherine.isbister@ucsc.edu
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g.,
HCI): Miscellaneous.
Introduction
The application of technology to virtually every field has
made Computer Science (CS) and related skills such as
programming and Computational Thinking (CT) crucial
21st century skills to develop. This has recently become
a topic of global interest with notable initiatives and
calls from the National Science Foundation [4],
president of the United States of America [7], and UK's
Year of Code [47]. To address this need, industry and
academia have created numerous animation
programming environments (e.g., Logo [27], Scratch
[34], and Blockly [6]) as well as educational
programming games (e.g., Mazzy [20], BOTS [14, 15],
and Machineers [23]).
However, development of games to teach CS has
ultimately lagged behind the design of educational
games in general [13], and little is known about
whether CS-focused games actually improve important
educational factors for STEM learning (such as
engagement, enjoyment, and programming self-beliefs
[1, 38]) or if they simply function as chocolate-covered
broccoli. Even the breadth of design choices explored in
existing educational programming games has been
shown to be fairly narrow. For instance, a recent survey
[13] found that most educational CT/programming
games have similar playable characters (robot), genre
(puzzle), number of players (single player), and form of
interaction (touchpad/mouse and keyboard). All of this
becomes problematic when trying to determine the
validity of such designs for CS education and whether
there are more effective alternative designs.
In contrast to the ubiquity of mouse/keyboard input,
recent research suggests that body-based, physically
embodied designs provide affordances that aid in the
meaning-making process and offer greater learning
benefits than traditional keyboard and mouse input [26,
30, 32, 46]. One common physically embodied design
approach utilized in HCI and Learning Science
communities is the use of tangibles/physical
manipulatives, which have demonstrated many
potential benefits over traditional desktop applications.
The primary advantages of tangibles is that they allow
for learning concepts to be embedded directly into the
physical material and design of an object, as well as
through the embodied interactions learners have by
manipulating these objects [30, 33]. Tangibles have
been found to result in benefits for a wide range of
factors such as engagement [11], interest [2], and
collaboration [41] in non-programming domains.
To compare the efficacy of tangible and mouse design
approaches, we created two versions of an educational
programming game called Bots & (Main)Frames (see
Figure 1) that differed only in the form of interaction
(tangible programming blocks vs. mouse input). This
was done to isolate the impact of tangible and mouse
designs in an educational game when all other
mechanics, aesthetics, etc. are identical. The game
itself was designed to incorporate common design
characteristics of educational programming games (i.e.,
players program a virtual robot to solve puzzles), but
also provides a comparison point between the two
versions for different forms of interaction. The mouse
version of Bots & (Main)Frames mirrors the prototypical
design where players use a mouse to program by
clicking buttons representative of programming
commands (see Figure 2). In lieu of mouse controls,
Figure 1: The Bots & (Main)Frames
game. The UI is identical for both
the mouse version and tangibles
version.
the tangibles version instead utilizes tangible
programming blocks that players physically hook
together to create a program (see Figure 3).
We had a total of 34 novice programmers (i.e., having
less than 6 months of programming exposure) play
both versions of the game and compared outcomes for
crucial educational factors such as enjoyment and
programming self-belief (comprised of programming
self-concept, interest, and aptitude).
Related Work
Tangibles and Computational Concepts
There has been some work in the tangible and
embodied interaction community on the creation of
tangibles to teach computing concepts such as roBlocks
[36, 37] and Electronic Blocks [44, 45] where learners
connect physical sensor, actuator, and logic blocks to
explore programming and physical computing concepts;
Note Code [22] where learners program, play, and
connect buttons on noteboxes to play musical
sequences; Thingy Oriented Programming [12] where
users program wirelessly connected objects by
recording sequences of actions and reactions using
tangible objects; and TanProRobot 2.0 [43] where
children use physical blocks to program a toy car.
Notably, concepts covered by these tools focus more on
physical computing, electronics, and music than actual
programming or games. In a closer vein, Strawbies
[16] utilizes wooden tiles to program a game character
to solve mazes, but has only been evaluated through
qualitative descriptions of play sessions at local schools.
Physical Embodiment in Educational Games
In a meta-review dissecting embodiment strategies,
Melcer and Isbister [25] identified five forms of physical
embodiment commonly used in educational games:
Direct Embodied, Enacted, Manipulated, Surrogate, and
Augmented. Notably, they also found that the
Manipulated form of embodiment frequently uses
tangibles to teach computational concepts [26]. We
similarly employed the affordances of Manipulated
embodiment (e.g., applying embodied metaphors and
interactions to physical objects [3], and utilizing
physical form to better represent learning concepts [18,
31]) in the design of the blocks for our tangibles
version of Bots & (Main)Frames.
Programming Self-Beliefs
Self-beliefs play an important role in academic
development and learning outcomes [5]. Programming
in particular presents many challenges to learners' self-
beliefs as the radical novelty [9] of the concepts and
material can evoke strong negative feelings [17, 21,
35], creating barriers to learning [38]. To better assess
and understand these complex affective issues, Scott
and Ghinea [39] used the Control-Value Theory of
Achievement Emotions [28, 29] to develop and validate
an instrument that assesses programming self-beliefs.
Underlying the self-beliefs model of their instrument
are three core constructs/subscales: 1) programming
self-concepta composite of self-perceptions that are
formed through experience with and interpretations of
one’s environment [24]; 2) programming interestthe
extent to which an individual enjoys engaging with a
set of tasks [39]; and 3) programming aptitudebased
on Dweck’s [10] notion of mindsets where students
have either a growth mindset (i.e., belief that their
capacities can be improved through practice) or a fixed
mindset (i.e., belief that their capacities are inherent).
Students with a growth programming aptitude tend to
maintain practice when they encounter difficulty while
Figure 2: Buttons used to program
in the mouse version of Bots &
(Main)Frames.
Figure 3: Tangible programming
blocks used to program in the
tangible version of Bots &
(Main)Frames.
those with a fixed programming aptitude do not [40].
For the programming aptitude subscale, lower scores
indicate a greater growth mindset.
Bots & (Main)Frames Game Design
Bots & (Main)Frames (see Figure 1) is designed to
reflect typical aspects of educational programming
games. The game objective is to program a virtual
robot to reach all of the red tiles in a maze from a given
starting point, using a limited number of commands in
each level. Players are able to program the robot to
move forward, rotate 90 degrees left or right, use a
loop (repeat one command a specified number of
times), or use a function. Each level is designed to
increase in complexity and programming commands
needed to solve it. In the mouse version of Bots &
(Main)Frames, players click UI buttons to program (see
Figure 2). In the tangibles version, players instead
physically connect wooden blocks to program
commands (see Figure 3). The UI and gameplay is
identical to the mouse version in Figure 1, except that
buttons are disabled and programming commands that
appear on screen are instead created by configurations
and connections of the tangible programming blocks.
The tangible programming blocks utilize fiducial
tracking from the ReacTIVision framework [19] in order
to detect which blocks are connected and program the
virtual robot in game. Loop and Function/Use Function
blocks are also designed to utilize physical form to
represent corresponding programming concepts
(similar to [16, 22, 43, 44]). Loops have an additional
slot for players to slide in the command that will be
repeated (Figure 4), and Function/Use Function blocks
are connected by a chain to better illustrate the flow of
code execution from one function to another (Figure 5).
Methodology
Based on research illustrating the effectiveness of
tangibles for enhancing engagement and motivation [8,
11, 42], we hypothesized that: 1) both versions of Bots
& (Main)Frames would improve programming self-
beliefs for novice programmers, but that the tangibles
version would show relatively greater improvements;
and 2) that the tangibles version would be considered
more enjoyable to play than the mouse version.
Experimental Design and Procedure
To test the first hypothesis (H1), we used a between-
group study design where participants were randomly
assigned to a mouse or tangibles condition. In the
pretest survey, participants completed a demographic
questionnaire (collecting age, gender, academic major,
years of prior video game experience, and years of
prior programming experience) and validated subscales
from the programming self-beliefs questionnaire (i.e.,
programming self-concept, interest, and aptitude) [39].
After submitting the pre-test scales, participants were
randomized into either the mouse or tangibles
condition, played 10 levels of the corresponding game
version of Bots & Main(Frames), and again submitted
responses to the programming self-beliefs
questionnaire (experimental phase).
To test the second hypothesis (H2) regarding perceived
enjoyment, we used a within-subjects design where
participants also played 10 levels of the other version
of Bots & (Main)Frames (comparison phase). The levels
were modified to be of similar difficulty to levels in the
experimental phase but still require novel solutions.
Lastly, participants filled out a questionnaire that rated
gameplay enjoyment on a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (very unenjoyable) to 7 (very enjoyable) for
Figure 4: A Loop programming
block where players insert a
command that will be repeated a
specified number of times.
Figure 5: Function and
corresponding Use Function
programming blocks connected by
a chain.
Figure 6: The experimental design to compare self-beliefs and enjoyment across mouse and tangible versions of Bots & (Main)Frames.
After submitting a pre-test survey, participants were randomized to a condition, played either the mouse version or tangibles version
and then supplied post-test responses to the programming self-beliefs questionnaire. Participants then played the other game version
and provided comparison ratings of enjoyment.
both game versions, and answered questions about
their play experience in a concluding in-person
interview. For the full experiment design, see Figure 6.
Participants
A total of 34 university participants (ages 17-35,
median: 18.5) were randomly allocated to one of two
conditions. The mouse game condition consisted of 18
(5 male) participants and the tangibles game condition
consisted of 16 (8 male) participants. All participants
had 6 months or less of programming experience and
worked collaboratively in pairs of two for each test.
Only two pairs knew each other before the study. The
pair programming approach was used to examine
collaboration differences between conditions, however
(due to space concerns) the analysis will be excluded
from this paper and presented in future work.
Quantitative Results
We analyzed pre- and post-game questionnaires to
assess changes in programming self-beliefs subscales
between- and within-participants, and ratings of
enjoyment for both game versions. We found that all
participants, regardless of game version, improved on
the 3 subscales of programming self-beliefs. However,
the tangibles received higher enjoyment ratings.
Participant Characteristics
A series of t-tests and Chi-Squared tests found no
significant condition difference in pre-existing
experience or demographic characteristics (all ps
>.05). However, there were pre-test condition
differences for ratings of programming interest in the
tangible condition (Mean: 11.92, SD: 1.82) compared
to the mouse condition (Mean: 9.91, SD: 3.41),
t(26.373)=-2.194, p=.037. Due to this difference, the
statistical tests we used to assess condition differences
control for pre-test ratings of programming interest.
Programming Self-Beliefs: General Improvements on
Programming Self-Beliefs Subscales
A series of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests found overall
significant changes in median pre-post scores for the
three subscales across both conditions: programming
self-concept (z=-3.687, p<.001), programming interest
(z=-4.062, p<.001), and programming aptitude (z=-
2.876, p=.004) (see Figure 7). However, there were no
significant differences in scores between conditions.
Figure 7: Median scores on
programming self-belief subscales:
self-concept, interest & aptitude.
Across both conditions there were
significant improvements in scores
for each subscale. NOTE: Lower
programming aptitude scores
indicate stronger growth mindset.
Enjoyment Ratings: Tangibles Version Rated as
Significantly more Enjoyable than the Mouse Version
After playing both games, participants supplied
enjoyment ratings for both the mouse version and
tangibles version. Ratings were given on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (very unenjoyable) to 7 (very
enjoyable). A Wilcoxon signed-rank test shows that,
across all participant ratings, the tangibles version had
higher median post-test ratings of enjoyment (Median:
7.0) compared to the enjoyment ratings of the mouse
version (Median: 6.0), z=-4.451, p<.001 (see Table 1).
Enjoyment Ratings
Mean
SD
Median
5.59
1.31
6.0
6.62
0.74
7.0
Table 1: Enjoyment ratings for each game across all 34
participants. Ratings of enjoyment were significantly higher for
the tangibles version, relative to the mouse version.
Discussion
This study revealed two important results regarding the
impact of puzzle-based educational programming
games and tangibles on crucial educational factors.
First, the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests used to evaluate
the efficacy of mouse and tangible input for improving
programming self-beliefs shows an improvement in
median pre-post scores for programming self-concept,
programming interest, and programming aptitude
(lower programming aptitude scores indicate more ideal
growth mindset). Our results partially confirm H1 since
both versions of Bots & (Main)Frames improve
programming self-beliefs for novice programmers.
However, there were no condition differences showing
greater improvement for the tangibles version. This
rejects part of H1 and suggests that both mouse and
tangibles can be used in educational programming
games to enhance self-beliefs for novice programmers.
Second, we found that median enjoyment ratings
across all participants were significantly higher for the
tangibles version relative to the mouse version. This
confirms H2 and suggests tangibles are more enjoyable
to use than mouse input for novice programmers.
Furthermore, since enjoyment has been shown to
improve long term interest in learning about science
[1], the use of tangibles could also potentially improve
long-term interest and compliance with programming.
Conclusion and Future Work
Our results show that while puzzle-based educational
programming games in general may improve players'
programming self-beliefs, the use of alternative forms
of physical input and interaction (e.g., tangibles) prove
more effective for important learning factors such as
enjoyment. However, there are many directions for
future work due to the small sample size and limited
analysis. For instance, our data suggested potential
greater benefits for non-STEM academic majors and
females using the tangibles version, but the sample
size was too small to perform an analysis of such
potential interaction effects. We also need to perform
an in-depth qualitative analysis to examine whether the
tangible approach better aids in collaborative aspects of
learning programming concepts. Additionally, it would
be useful to examine both conditions' impact on
remaining programming self-beliefs subscales such as
programming anxiety and debugging self-efficacy.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Connor Harada for his help
running studies as well as Kyle and Kaitlyn Kliewer for
their assistance in building the tangible blocks.
References
1. Ainley, M. and Ainley, J. 2011. Student engagement with
science in early adolescence: The contribution of
enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning
about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 36,
1 (2011), 412.
2. Antle, A.N. et al. 2008. Playing with The Sound Maker: Do
Embodied Metaphors Help Children Learn? Proceedings of
the 7th international conference on Interaction design and
children - IDC ’08 (2008), 178.
3. Bakker, S. et al. 2012. Embodied metaphors in tangible
interaction design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
(2012).
4. Barr, D. et al. 2011. Computational Thinking: A Digital
Age Skill for Everyone. Learning & Leading with
Technology. 38, 6 (2011), 2023.
5. Blackwell, L.S. et al. 2007. Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A
longitudinal study and an intervention. Child development.
78, 1 (2007), 246263.
6. Blockly: A visual programming editor:
https://developers.google.com/blockly/. Accessed: 2016-
10-09.
7. Computer Science For All: 2016.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-
science-all. Accessed: 2016-09-21.
8. Conradi, B. et al. 2011. Flow of electrons: an augmented
workspace for learning physical computing experientially.
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on
Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces - ITS ’11 (2011), 182
191.
9. Dijkstra, E.W. and others 1989. On the cruelty of really
teaching computing science. Communications of the ACM.
32, 12 (1989), 13981404.
10. Dweck, C.S. 2000. Self-theories: Their role in motivation,
personality, and development. Psychology Press.
11. Gnoli, A. et al. 2014. Back to the future: Embodied
Classroom Simulations of Animal Foraging. Proceedings of
TEI ’14 (2014), 275282.
12. Güldenpfennig, F. et al. 2016. Toward Thingy Oriented
Programming: Recording Marcos With Tangibles.
Proceedings of the TEI’16 (2016), 455461.
13. Harteveld, C. et al. 2014. A Design-Focused Analysis of
Games Teaching Computer Science. Proceedings of
Games+ Learning+ Society 10 (2014).
14. Hicks, A. et al. 2014. Building Games to Learn from Their
Players: Generating Hints in a Serious Game. Intelligent
Tutoring Systems: 12th International Conference, ITS
2014, Honolulu, HI, USA, June 5-9, 2014. Proceedings. S.
Trausan-Matu et al., eds. Springer International
Publishing. 312317.
15. Hicks, A. 2012. Creation, evaluation, and presentation of
user-generated content in community game-based tutors.
Proceedings of the International Conference on the
Foundations of Digital Games - FDG ’12 (2012).
16. Hu, F. et al. 2015. Strawbies: Explorations in Tangible
Programming. Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC ’15
(2015), 410413.
17. Huggard, M. 2004. Programming trauma: Can it be
avoided. Proceedings of the BCS Grand Challenges in
Computing: Education. (2004), 5051.
18. Ishii, H. 2008. Tangible bits: beyond pixels. Proceedings
of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and
Embedded Intreaction (TEI ’08) (2008).
19. Kaltenbrunner, M. and Bencina, R. 2007. reacTIVision: a
computer-vision framework for table-based tangible
interaction. Proceedings of the 1st international
conference on Tangible and embedded interaction.
(2007), 6974.
20. Kao, D. and Harrell, D.F. 2015. Mazzy: A STEM Learning
Game. Foundations of Digital Games (2015).
21. Kinnunen, P. and Simon, B. 2010. Experiencing
programming assignments in CS1: the emotional toll.
Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on
Computing education research (2010), 7786.
22. Kumar, V. et al. 2015. Note Code A Tangible Music
Programming Puzzle Tool. Proceedings of TEI ’15 (2015),
625629.
23. Lode, H. et al. 2013. Machineers: playfully introducing
programming to children. CHI ’13 Human Factors in
Computing Systems (2013), 26392642.
24. Marsh, H.W. and Martin, A.J. 2011. Academic self-concept
and academic achievement: Relations and causal
ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 81, 1
(2011), 5977.
25. Melcer, E. and Isbister, K. 2016. Bridging the Physical
Divide: A Design Framework for Embodied Learning
Games and Simulations. CHI’16 Extended Abstracts
(2016), 22252233.
26. Melcer, E. and Isbister, K. 2016. Bridging the Physical
Learning Divides: A Design Framework for Embodied
Learning Games and Simulations. Proceedings of the 1st
International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG (2016).
27. Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and
powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
28. Pekrun, R. 2006. The control-value theory of achievement
emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for
educational research and practice. Educational psychology
review. 18, 4 (2006), 315341.
29. Pekrun, R. and Stephens, E.J. 2010. Achievement
emotions: A control-value approach. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass. 4, 4 (2010), 238255.
30. Pouw, W.T.J.L. et al. 2014. An Embedded and Embodied
Cognition Review of Instructional Manipulatives.
Educational Psychology Review. 26, 1 (2014), 5172.
31. Price, S. 2008. A representation approach to
conceptualizing tangible learning environments.
Proceedings of TEI 08 (2008).
32. Price, S. et al. 2010. Action and representation in tangible
systems: implications for design of learning interactions.
Proceedings of TEI 10 (2010), 145152.
33. Price, S. et al. 2008. Towards a framework for
investigating tangible environments for learning.
International Journal of Arts and Technology. 1, 3/4
(2008), 351368.
34. Resnick, M. et al. 2009. Scratch: Programming for All.
Communications of the ACM. 52, (2009), 6067.
35. Rogerson, C. and Scott, E. 2010. The fear factor: How it
affects students learning to program in a tertiary
environment. Journal of Information Technology
Education. 9, 1 (2010), 147171.
36. Schweikardt, E. and Gross, M. 2008. The robot is the
program: interacting with roBlocks. Proceedings of TEI 08
(2008).
37. Schweikardt, E. and Gross, M.D. 2006. roBlocks: a robotic
construction kit for mathematics and science education.
Proceedings of the 8th international conference on
Multimodal interfaces (2006), 7275.
38. Scott, M.J. and Ghinea, G. 2013. Educating programmers:
A reflection on barriers to deliberate practice. Proceedings
of the 2nd Annual HEA STEM Conference (2013).
39. Scott, M.J. and Ghinea, G. 2014. Measuring enrichment:
the assembly and validation of an instrument to assess
student self-beliefs in CS1. Proceedings of the tenth
annual conference on International computing education
research (2014), 123130.
40. Scott, M.J. and Ghinea, G. 2014. On the domain-
specificity of mindsets: The relationship between aptitude
beliefs and programming practice. IEEE Transactions on
Education. 57, 3 (2014), 169174.
41. Shelley, T. et al. 2011. Evaluating the Embodiment
Benefits of a paper-based TUI for Spatially Sensitive
Simulations. Extended Abstracts of the 2011 Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2011), 1375.
42. Skulmowski, A. et al. 2016. Embodied learning using a
tangible user interface: The effects of haptic perception
and selective pointing on a spatial learning task.
Computers & Education. 9293, (2016), 6475.
43. Wang, D. et al. 2016. A Tangible Embedded Programming
System to Convey Event-Handling Concept. Proceedings
of TEI’16 (2016), 133140.
44. Wyeth, P. 2008. How Young Children Learn to Program
With Sensor, Action, and Logic Blocks. Journal of the
Learning Sciences. 17, 4 (2008), 517550.
45. Wyeth, P. and Purchase, H.C. 2002. Tangible
programming elements for young children. CHI ’02
extended abstracts on Human factors in computing
systems - CHI ’02 (2002), 774.
46. Yannier, N. et al. 2016. Adding Physicality to an
Interactive Game Improves Learning and Enjoyment :
Evidence from EarthShake. ACM Transactions on
Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). 23, 4 (2016).
47. Year of Code and £500,000 Fund to Inspire Future Tech
Experts Launched: 2014.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/year-of-code-and-
500000-fund-to-inspire-future-tech-experts-launched.
Accessed: 2016-12-14.
... For example, Barrett et al. (2015) and Stull and Hegarty (2016) describe advantages of physical representations for learning of spatial concepts as a result of their direct encoding of spatial information that is accessible via touch (e.g., bond angles in chemical molecules). Some authors further emphasize that the presence of haptic cues alone is not sufficient, but that students' manipulations of the haptic features need to be associated with the to-be-learned concepts (Manches et al. 2010;Melcer et al. 2017). ...
... In addition, several of the reviewed articles refer directly to the activation of embodied action schemas. For example, Bakker et al. (2012) and Melcer et al. (2017) motivate the design of tangible user interfaces in their capability to engage students in recurring sensorimotor experiences that activate embodied metaphors. Yannier et al. (2016) propose that interactions with physical representations can trigger affordances for action that activate embodied schemas. ...
Article
Full-text available
In most STEM instruction, students interact with visual representations, which can be presented in either in a physical or a virtual mode or in a blended form that combines both modes. While much research has compared the effects of physical and virtual representations on students’ learning, the field is far from being able to predict when and why one representation mode is more effective than the other. One reason why making such predictions is particularly difficult is that multiple different theories have been used to explain differences between representation modes. The goal of this article is twofold. First, it presents a survey of the literature to examine which theoretical perspectives have been used to motivate comparisons of representation modes and what predictions they make about their effectiveness. A review of 54 articles reveals five theoretical perspectives: physical engagement, cognitive load, haptic encoding, embodied action schemas, and conceptual salience. While the first two make general predictions about the effectiveness of representation modes, the last three make concept-specific predictions. Second, this article compares these predictions to examine how they conflict and align. This comparison identified several conflicts between theories that predict opposite effects, as well as several alignments where theories make the same predictions but based on different mechanisms. Further, this comparison revealed common confounds in experimental designs of the reviewed studies. The article concludes with recommendations for research to address the identified conflicts and with recommendations for instructors and designers of blended technologies for appropriate choices of representation modes.
... Melcer et al. presented a comparison between the efficacy of tangible and mouse design approaches for improving key learning factors in educational programming games. The results showed that while both game versions were successful at improving programming self-beliefs, the tangible version was considered as more enjoyable [10]. In fact, many research approaches focus on using TUIs for educational purposes based on the assumption that they can provide hands-on experience, which may have positive learning outcomes [11][12][13][14], for instance, when manipulating 3D chemical molecules [15] or learning heart anatomy [16]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Tangible user interfaces (TUIs) integrate computer systems with the physical world as they allow interaction through physical objects and the human kinesthetic system. They have been studied in various domains, both by the designing and piloting of innovative applications, as well as by comparatively analyzing TUI against GUI interaction. In the human-robot interaction (HRI) field, TUIs are considered a promising approach as they make effective use of physical object affordances, but research is rather inconclusive about whether TUIs offer improved efficiency, lower error rates, increased intuitiveness, engagement, and user satisfaction. In this study, two prototype UIs were designed and evaluated to compare a TUI with a 2D mouse-based UI for remotely operating two agricultural robots used for vineyard spraying. Two different user groups played the role of the operator: computer experts and farmers leading to an experiment with a 2×2 setup, where two different types of UIs were evaluated by two different user groups. The formulated research questions concern the efficiency, accuracy, and user evaluation for each UI and for each group individually and combined. Analysis has shown that there were no statistically significant differences comparing the alternative UIs for each group in terms of time to complete the task, even though computers experts were faster, as expected. Also, the number of collisions, as well as the percentage of unsprayed and double sprayed area, revealed no significant differences, either for user groups or UIs. The TUI received more positive evaluations in terms of user preference, and users reported lower perceived error rates, especially in the case of farmers, who were also more willing to use the TUI in their daily job.
... Generally, it seems that haptic feedback may promote the overall learning, as it has a positive influence on the learners' recall and memory and the haptic elements furthermore serve as additional retrieval cues which can help the learners to understand abstract concepts [4]. However, it should be kept in mind, that just the availability of haptic elements may not be enough to enhance learners' learning, the haptic elements should rather make a meaningful contribution to the overall learning process [5]. This paper is dedicated to this problem. ...
... There have even been educational interactive narratives designed specifically to teach issues related to ethics (Hodhod et al. 2009), although they have yet to be evaluated for effectiveness. Interactive storytelling (and educational games in general Keehl and Melcer 2019;Melcer et al. 2017; have also been shown to increase engagement/motivation and learning for more rote topics with clearly defined answers and educational outcomes, such as in the areas of STEM (Rowe et al. 2011;Weng et al. 2011;Zhang et al. 2019). However, past work has not fully examined the capabilities of choice-based interactive storytelling games in teaching more ambiguous concepts such as moral reasoning and ethical decision-making. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Responsible conduct of research (RCR) is an essential skill for all researchers to develop, but training scientists to behave ethically is complex because it requires addressing both cognitive (e.g., conceptual knowledge and moral reasoning skills) and socio-affective (e.g., attitudes) learning outcomes. Both classroom- and web-based forms of RCR training struggle to address these distinct types of learning outcomes simultaneously. This chapter presents a pair of experiments providing initial evidence that playing a single brief session of Academical, a choice-based interactive narrative game, has positive effects on all three key RCR learning outcomes. Our results highlight that utilizing a choice-based interactive storytelling game is a uniquely effective way to holistically address RCR learning outcomes that drive ethical research behaviors.
... These tangible games are playful experiences created using a hybrid of physical and digital interactive elements, and are becoming more prevalent and sophisticated with modern emerging technologies such as AR, VR, and wearables [16], [17]. Notably, the hybrid interfaces of tangible games can be designed in a variety of unique ways depending on how the application intersects with current technological capabilities (e.g., tabletop interfaces or AR), which can lead to a diverse range of tangible games [33]-such as hybrid board and card games [10], [19], tangible tabletop games [24], [25], alternative controller games [12], [30], hybrid AR/tangible games [1], [22], [23], and hybrid VR tangible games [3]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Tangible games afford an engaging and often unique form of hybrid play (i.e., physical-digital elements), but there is currently limited work explicitly exploring how these games can be designed to provide spatial affordances that implicitly encourage collaboration. In this paper, we present a novel col-laborative tangible game, titled Mad Mixologist, and investigate how making a simple change in the location of game objects within the tangible play space can lead to significantly different collaborative interaction strategies. The results from our group comparison study indicate that 1) players with exclusively direct access to multiple relevant resources (i.e., a digital instruction and a physical object) were more likely to assume responsibility for completing tasks in a shared play space and 2) distributing these same task-relevant resources across multiple players created ambiguity over whether the player with the digital or physical resource should engage with the shared play space. This study demonstrates one possible way in which the physical design of a tangible game can be arranged to implicitly encourage players to develop more collaborative interaction strategies, specifically by distributing exclusive resources across players. Overall, this study highlights and reinforces the connection between spatial affordances and social interactions via embodied facilitation within the context of collaborative tangible games.
... For example, the game uses puzzles to develop an understanding of the meaning of logical equality and functions in programming. Another example game is Bots and (Main)Frames [37], which is a set of two educational programming games that look at the efficacy of tangible or physically embodied game design, and mouse game design. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper focuses on tracing player knowledge in educational games. Specifically, given a set of concepts or skills required to master a game, the goal is to estimate the likelihood with which the current player has mastery of each of those concepts or skills.The main contribution of the work is an approach that integrates machine learning and domain knowledge rules to find when the player applied a certain skill and either succeeded or failed. This is then given as input to a standard knowledge tracing module (such as those from Intelligent Tutoring Systems) to perform knowledge tracing. We evaluate our approach in the context of an educational game called Parallel to teach parallel and concurrent programming with data collected from real users, showing our approach can predict students skills with a low mean-squared error. We also provide results from our initial deployment of our system in a classroom environment.
... There have even been educational interactive narratives designed specifically to teach issues related to ethics [17], although they have yet to be evaluated for effectiveness. Interactive storytelling (and educational games in general [23,34,35]) have also been shown to increase engagement/motivation and learning for more rote topics with clearly defined answers and educational outcomes, such as in the areas of STEM [53,70,73]. However, past work has not fully examined the capabilities of choice-based interactive storytelling games in teaching more ambiguous concepts such as moral reasoning and ethical decision-making. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Concepts utilizing applied ethics, such as responsible conduct of research (RCR), can prove difficult to teach due to the complexity of problems faced by researchers and the many underlying perspectives involved in such dilemmas. To address this issue, we created Academical, a choice-based interactive storytelling game for RCR education that enables players to experience a story from multiple perspectives. In this paper, we describe the design rationale of Academical, and present results from an initial study comparing it with traditional web-based educational materials from an existing university RCR course. The results highlight that utilizing a choice-based interactive story game is more effective for RCR education, with learners developing significantly higher engagement, stronger overall moral reasoning skills, and better knowledge scores for certain RCR topics.
... Besançon et al. [3] evaluated the comparative performance and usability of mouse-based, touch-based, and tangible interaction for manipulating objects in a 3D virtual environment. Melcer et al. [13] presented a comparison between the efficacy of tangible and mouse design approaches for improving key learning factors in educational programming games. Results showed that while both game versions were successful at improving programming self-beliefs, the tangible version was considered as more enjoyable. ...
Chapter
This paper presents an experiment where participants used two different interfaces of an application designed for controlling the movements of two vineyard spraying agricultural robots. The goal of the application was to evaluate users’ efficiency and perceived satisfaction while controlling the robots’ movements using a mouse-based and a tangible interface. In a controlled experiment conducted at the Software Quality and Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory of the Computer Engineering and Informatics Department of Patras University 32 participants, experienced in using mouse-based interfaces, used both interfaces. During the experiment, the users interacted with a simulation of the robot movements, without moving and colliding the actual robots, while the robot speed and behavior were based on actual data from our field experiments. The experiment followed a within-group design and for the tangible interface, the Wizard of Oz method was used. For data collection, eye-tracking glasses were used to capture the interaction with the tangible interface combined with recording devices. The hypotheses tested included efficiency measured in time to complete a task, accuracy measured in unsprayed or double-sprayed areas and robot collisions, and perceived user satisfaction measured with a short custom questionnaire. Results indicated that no statistically significant differences were found related to interface efficiency and accuracy, but users liked using the tangible version of the application the most.
... Examples of preserved upgrades observed in our corpus include powerups, weapons, custom character items, skill levels, and achievements. Prior work has shown that the use of such upgrades can have significant impact on enjoyment (Ketcheson et al. 2015;Melcer et al. 2017;Melcer and Isbister 2018) and challenge (Lange-Nielsen 2011), allowing players to customize their overall experience (Denisova and Cook 2019). Notably, Smith et al. (2008) combined the use of upgrades, specifically power-ups, and inventory into one category they referred to as Collectible Items in their framework. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Failure is a central aspect of almost every game experience, driving player perceptions of difficulty and impacting core game user experience concepts such as flow. At the heart of failure in many game genres is player death. While techniques such as dynamic difficulty adjustment have addressed tweaking game parameters to control the frequency of player death occurrence, there is a surprisingly limited amount of research examining how games handle what happens when a player actually dies. We posit that this is a rich, underexplored space with significant implications for player experience and related techniques. This chapter presents our exploration into the space of player death and rebirth through the creation of a generalized taxonomy of death in platformer games—one of the genres that features player death and respawning most heavily. In order to create this taxonomy, we collected and catalogued examples of death and respawning mechanics from 62 recent platformer games released on the digital distribution platform Steam after January 2018. Games selected varied equally across positive, mixed, and negative overall reviews in order to provide a broader range of mechanics, both good and bad. We observed gameplays of each individual game and noted the processes of death and rebirth, respectively. A grounded theory approach was then employed to develop the taxonomy of game death and respawning, resulting in five notable dimensions: (1) obstacles, (2) death conditions, (3) aesthetics, (4) changes to player progress, and (5) respawn locations. Finally, we discuss how the different dimensions and mechanics highlighted in our taxonomy have implications for key aspects of player experience, as well as how they could be used to improve the effectiveness of related techniques such as dynamic difficulty adjustment.
... The pilot study results highlighted that a choice-based interactive story game design may prove to be an effective RCR education tool, with significantly higher engagement and comparable or better scores for tests of RCR topics. However, the sample size is notably small for sufficiently evaluating the efficacy of an educational game [25]. Therefore, future work will need to further validate these results with a larger sample size to fully prove the hypotheses, e.g., [26]. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Concepts utilizing applied ethics, such as responsible conduct of research (RCR), can prove difficult to teach due to the complexity of problems faced by researchers and the many underlying perspectives involved in such dilemmas. To address this issue, we created Academical, a choice-based interactive storytelling game for RCR education that enables players to experience a story from multiple perspectives. In this paper, we describe the design rationale of Academical, and present results from an initial pilot study comparing it with traditional web-based educational materials from an existing RCR course. The preliminary results highlight that utilizing a choice-based interactive story game may prove more effective for RCR education, with significantly higher engagement and comparable or better scores for tests of RCR topics.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We introduce the concept of Thingy Oriented Programming (TOP), which is an experimental and alternative approach to prototyping simple electronics applications and systems that involve networks of sensors and actuators. TOP enables the users to define or 'program' (wirelessly) connected objects. While this approach allows powerful physical and interactive applications, no professional skills are needed since TOP-programs are defined by recording sequences of tangible interactions (i.e., interaction macros). Our primary target groups are designers who want to augment their physical prototypes with interactivity in little time, as well as end-users who are interested in enhancing specific tasks in their (smart) homes (e.g., creating a switch which turns on/off the lights by clapping twice the hands). A third target group is comprised of children and their educators in computer science and electronics. We describe the TOP concept including use scenarios, demonstrate a proof-of-concept prototype and explain our next intended steps.
Article
Full-text available
Can experimenting with three-dimensional (3D) physical objects in mixed-reality environments produce better learning and enjoyment than flat-screen two-dimensional (2D) interaction? We explored this question with EarthShake: a mixed-reality game bridging physical and virtual worlds via depth-camera sensing, designed to help children learn basic physics principles. In this paper, we report on a controlled experiment with 67 children, 4-8 years old, that examines the effect of observing physical phenomena and collaboration (pairs vs. solo). A follow-up experiment with 92 children tests whether adding simple physical control, such as shaking a tablet, improves learning and enjoyment. Our results indicate that observing physical phenomena in the context of a mixed-reality game leads to significantly more learning and enjoyment compared to screen-only versions. However, there were no significant effects of adding simple physical control or having students play in pairs vs. alone. These results and our gesture analysis provide evidence that children's science learning can be enhanced through experiencing physical phenomena in amixed-reality environment.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Due to a broad conceptual usage of the term embodiment across a diverse variety of research domains, existing embodied learning games and simulations utilize a large breadth of design approaches that often result in seemingly unrelated systems. This becomes problematic when trying to critically evaluate the usage and effectiveness of embodiment within existing designs, as well as when trying to utilize embodiment in the design of new games and simulations. In this paper, we present our work on combining differing conceptual and design approaches for embodied learning systems into a unified design framework. We describe the creation process for the framework, explain its dimensions, and provide examples of its use. Our design framework will benefit educational game researchers by providing a unifying foundation for the description, categorization, and evaluation of designs for embodied learning games and simulations.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Existing embodied learning games and simulations utilize a large breadth of design approaches that often result in the creation of seemingly unrelated systems. This becomes problematic when trying to critically evaluate the usage and effectiveness of embodiment within embodied learning designs. In this paper, we present our work on combining differing conceptual and design approaches for embodied learning systems into a unified design framework. We describe the creation process for the framework, explain its dimensions, and provide two examples of its use. Our embodied learning games and simulations framework will benefit HCI researchers by providing a unifying foundation for the description, categorization, and evaluation of embodied learning systems and designs.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We present the design of Note Code -- a music programming puzzle game designed as a tangible device coupled with a Graphical User Interface (GUI). Tapping patterns and placing boxes in proximity enables programming these "note-boxes" to store sets of notes, play them back and activate different sub-components or neighboring boxes. This system provides users the opportunity to learn a variety of computational concepts, including functions, function calling and recursion, conditionals, as well as engage in composing music. The GUI adds a dimension of viewing the created programs and interacting with a set of puzzles that help discover the various computational concepts in the pursuit of creating target tunes, and optimizing the program made.
Conference Paper
Learning programming has positive effect on children's development, and Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) is a convenient way for teaching young children programming. TanProRobot 2.0 is a tangible system as well as a small-scale distributed embedded system designed for children at grades 1-2 to learn programming concepts. The system consists of three parts: tangible programming blocks, a robot car and several manipulatives. The input and output of the system are both tangible. Children can program the robot car to act certain actions by arranging the programming blocks. Also, children can interact with the car with manipulatives. TanProRobot 2.0 aims to introduce event handling concept and sensors to children. Through a user study with 11 children, we found that TanProRobot 2.0 is an interesting programming system for children, and it is easy to learn and to use. Furthermore, it could help children get a preliminary understanding of event handling concepts.
Conference Paper
In this demo we present Strawbies, a realtime tangible programming game designed for children ages 5 to 10. Strawbies is played by constructing physical programs out of wooden tiles in front of an iPad. This interaction is made possible with the use of an Osmo play system that includes a mirror to reflect images in front of the iPad through the front-facing camera. We combined this system with the TopCodes computer vision library for fast and reliable image recognition. Here we describe a set of principles that guided our iterative design process along with an overview of testing sessions with children that informed our most recent instantiation of Strawbies.
Article
Tangible User Interfaces offer new ways of interaction with virtual objects, yet little research has been conducted on their learner-friendly design in the context of spatial learning. Although frameworks such as Embodied Cognition stress the importance of sensory perception and movement, studies have found that high interactivity can be overwhelming and may lead to a lower learning performance. In a 2 × 2 factorial design participants (n = 96) learned heart anatomy using a 3D model that was either controlled using a mouse or a tangible object, i.e. a motion tracked plastic model of the virtual heart. Secondly, we varied the interaction mode featuring either a selective pointing mode in which only the label that the user currently activated was displayed or permanent display of all labels. Retention performance, cognitive load scores, and motivation measures indicate that the tangible object leads to significantly higher learning outcomes. The effect of the label display mode is different for the two input devices: The performance with selective pointing in the mouse condition is better than the performance with permanent display in the mouse condition; in the TUI condition this is exactly the other way around. Based on these results, we propose extensions for Embodied Cognition and Cognitive Load Theory.
Conference Paper
This paper presents a method for generating hints based on observed world states in a serious game. BOTS is an educational puzzle game designed to teach programming fundamentals. To incorporate intelligent feedback in the form of personalized hints, we apply data-driven hint-generation methods. This is especially challenging for games like BOTS because of the open-ended nature of the problems. By using a modified representation of player data focused on outputs rather than actions, we are able to generate hints for players who are in similar (rather than identical) states, creating hints for multiple cases without requiring expert knowledge. Our contributions in this work are twofold. Firstly, we generalize techniques from the ITS community in hint generation to an educational game. Secondly, we introduce a novel approach to modeling student states for open-ended problems, like programming in BOTS. These techniques are potentially generalizable to programming tutors for mainstream languages.