Flipping the Flipped Classroom: A Study of the Effectiveness of Video Lectures Versus Constructivist Exploration Using Tangible User Interfaces

In this study, we show results that suggest tangible user interfaces (TUIs) may be used to prepare students for future learning. In a previous study, we found that students who used interactive tabletops before studying a text significantly outperformed participants who read a text first and used tabletops subsequently. These findings demonstrate that discovery-learning approaches are better suited to TUIs than traditional “tell-and-practice” approaches. In our current effort, we generalize our findings to a different population, a different learning material, and a different topic. In this study, we employ the tangible interface, Combinatorix (Fig. 1), which enables small groups of students to work collaboratively and discover concepts in probability. Our system supports students' explorations of principles in combinatorics (i.e., permutations and combinations) that serve as foundations for learning about probability. We describe the design of Combinatorix, as well as an experiment that examined the interaction between focused lectures and free exploration. We found that students who first explored the topic on a tangible interface and then watched a video lecture significantly outperformed students who watched a lecture first and then completed a hands-on activity. We discuss how the “functional fixedness” induced by the video lecture limited the students' learning of probability, and conclude with guidelines for implementing interactive tabletops in classrooms.

[1]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms , 1997, CHI.

[2]  Paulo Blikstein,et al.  Digital Fabrication and Making' in Education: The Democratization of Invention , 2013 .

[3]  J. Roschelle,et al.  Misconceptions Reconceived: A Constructivist Analysis of Knowledge in Transition , 1994 .

[4]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[5]  Ross Bencina,et al.  reacTIVision: a computer-vision framework for table-based tangible interaction , 2007, TEI.

[6]  Paulo Blikstein,et al.  GoGo Board: Augmenting Programmable Bricks for Economically Challenged Audiences , 2004, ICLS.

[7]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[8]  Paul Marshall,et al.  Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? , 2007, TEI.

[9]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[10]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Chapter 3: Rethinking Transfer: A Simple Proposal With Multiple Implications , 1999 .

[11]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Comparing the Benefits of a Tangible User Interface and Contrasting Cases as a Preparation for Future Learning , 2015, CSCL.

[12]  K. Duncker,et al.  On problem-solving , 1945 .

[13]  Patrick Jermann,et al.  A tabletop learning environment for logistics assistants: activating teachers , 2008 .

[14]  Dor Abrahamson,et al.  Understanding Chance: From Student Voice to Learning Supports in a Design Experiment in the Domain of Probability , 2005 .

[15]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Physical space and division of labor around a tabletop tangible simulation , 2009, CSCL.

[16]  Uri Wilensky Modeling Rugby: Kick First , Generalize Later? , 1996 .

[17]  B. Skinner Programmed Instruction Revisited. , 1986 .

[18]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implica-tions , 1999 .

[19]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Phylo-Genie: engaging students in collaborative 'tree-thinking' through tabletop techniques , 2012, CHI.

[20]  Orit Shaer,et al.  G-nome surfer: a tabletop interface for collaborative exploration of genomic data , 2010, CHI.

[21]  Manu Kapur Productive Failure , 2006, ICLS.

[22]  Dor Abrahamson,et al.  Embodied design: constructing means for constructing meaning , 2009 .

[23]  Eric Rosenbaum,et al.  Scratch: programming for all , 2009, Commun. ACM.

[24]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Preparing for Future Learning with a Tangible User Interface: The Case of Neuroscience , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[25]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Interactive tabletops in education , 2011, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[27]  Nikol Rummel,et al.  A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes , 2007, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[28]  Orit Shaer,et al.  A collaborative environment for engaging novices in scientific inquiry , 2012, ITS '12.

[29]  Joan Garfield,et al.  Difficulties in Learning Basic Concepts in Probability and Statistics: Implications for Research. , 1988 .

[30]  E. Fischbein,et al.  The Evolution with Age of Probabilistic, Intuitively Based Misconceptions. , 1997 .

[31]  Dale Dougherty,et al.  The Maker Mindset , 2013 .

[32]  Carmen Batanero,et al.  WHAT IS THE NATURE OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' CONCEPTIONS AND MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT PROBABILITY? , 2005 .

[33]  David Hammer,et al.  Multiple Epistemological Coherences in an Eighth-Grade Discussion of the Rock Cycle , 2006 .

[34]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The Transfer of Scientific Principles Using Concrete and Idealized Simulations , 2005, Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[35]  C. Steele A threat in the air. How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[36]  Gerald R. Fast Using analogies to overcome student teachers' probability misconceptions , 1997 .

[37]  Paulo Blikstein,et al.  Gears of our childhood: constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future , 2013, IDC.

[38]  John Clement,et al.  The Use of Analogies and Anchoring Intuitions to Remediate Misconceptions in Mechanics. , 1987 .

[39]  Anne Marie Piper,et al.  Tabletop displays for small group study: affordances of paper and digital materials , 2009, CHI.

[40]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Inventing to Prepare for Future Learning: The Hidden Efficiency of Encouraging Original Student Production in Statistics Instruction , 2004 .

[41]  Patricia Anne Jendraszek Misconceptions of probability among future teachers of mathematics , 2008 .