Expressive pen-based interfaces for math education

Mathematics students almost exclusively use pencil and paper--that is, they learn without computational support. In this research, 16 high school students varying in ability from low to high participated in a comparative assessment of geometry problem solving using: (1) pencil and paper, (2) an Anoto-based digital stylus and paper interface, (3) a pen tablet interface, and (4) a graphical tablet interface. Cognitive Load Theory correctly predicted that as interfaces departed more from familiar work practice, students experienced greater cognitive load and corresponding reductions in their expressive fluency and planning. The results of this study indicate that students' communication patterns and meta-cognitive control can be enhanced by pen-based interfaces during math problem solving activities. In addition, low-performing students do not automatically reap the same advantage as high performers when new interface tools are introduced, which means intervention may be required to avoid expanding the achievement gap between groups unless intervention is undertaken.

[1]  Fred Paas,et al.  Mental Effort and Performance as Determinants for the Dynamic Selection of Learning Tasks in Air Traffic Control Training , 2004 .

[2]  M. Alibali,et al.  Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture , 2000 .

[3]  Susan M. Wagner,et al.  Explaining Math: Gesturing Lightens the Load , 2001, Psychological science.

[4]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Tangible multimodal interfaces for safety-critical applications , 2004, CACM.

[5]  Chunyuan Liao,et al.  PapierCraft: a command system for interactive paper , 2005, UIST.

[6]  R. Mayer,et al.  A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory , 1998 .

[7]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Measurement as a Means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory , 2003 .

[8]  Sharon L. Oviatt,et al.  Human-centered design meets cognitive load theory: designing interfaces that help people think , 2006, MM '06.

[9]  Sharon Oviatt,et al.  Multimodal interactive maps: designing for human performance , 1997 .

[10]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  Rapid cognitive assessment of learners' knowledge structures , 2006 .

[11]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Measuring Self-Regulated Learning , 2000 .

[12]  J. Sweller,et al.  Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes , 1995 .

[13]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions , 2005 .

[14]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Limitations of Student Control: Do Students Know When They Need Help? , 2000, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[15]  R. Krauss,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article GESTURE, SPEECH, AND LEXICAL ACCESS: The Role of Lexical Movements in Speech Production , 2022 .

[16]  Chunyuan Liao,et al.  PapierCraft: A System for Interactive Paper , 2005 .

[17]  Slava Kalyuga,et al.  The Expertise Reversal Effect , 2003 .

[18]  Fred Paas,et al.  A comparison of approaches to learning task selection in the training of complex cognitive skills , 2006, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  Sharon L. Oviatt,et al.  Quiet interfaces that help students think , 2006, UIST.

[20]  Sharon K Tindall-Ford,et al.  When two sensory modes are better than one , 1997 .

[21]  Sharon L. Oviatt,et al.  When do we interact multimodally?: cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns , 2004, ICMI '04.

[22]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere , 2006 .