Tangible interfaces: when physical-virtual coupling may be detrimental to learning

Tangible user interfaces (TUIs) have been the focus of much attention recently in the HCI and learning communities. Although TUIs seem to intuitively offer potential to increase the learning experience, there have been questions about whether they actually impact learning positively. TUIs offer new ways of interactions and it is essential to understand how the design choices made for these new interactions affect learning. One element that is key in the learning process is how and when feedback is provided. In this article, we focus on the effect of co-located immediate process-level feedback on learning. We report the results of a study in which 56 participants used a TUI to complete tasks related to the training of spatial skills. Half of the students accomplished the tasks with immediate and co-located feedback from the system, while the other half of the students did not receive any feedback. Results show that participants who did not receive feedback manipulated less, reflected more, and in the end learned more than those who received feedback.

[1]  Jiao Jian-li.  Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies , 2008 .

[2]  Lera Boroditsky,et al.  Are things that are hard to physically move also hard to imagine moving? , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  Lenh Hung Son Do.  Supporting Reflection and Classroom Orchestration with Tangible Tabletops , 2012 .

[4]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Are Tangible Interfaces Really Any Better Than Other Kinds of Interfaces , 2007 .

[5]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The functions of multiple representations , 1999, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Larry Ambrose,et al.  The power of feedback. , 2002, Healthcare executive.

[7]  Susan Goldin.  Hearing gesture : how our hands help us think , 2003 .

[8]  Heather Brasell,et al.  The effect of real‐time laboratory graphing on learning graphic representations of distance and velocity , 1987 .

[9]  Roy B. Clariana,et al.  Applying a connectionist description of feedback timing , 2000 .

[10]  A. Kluger,et al.  Feedback Interventions , 1998 .

[11]  S. Ainsworth.  DeFT: A Conceptual Framework for Considering Learning with Multiple Representations. , 2006 .

[12]  Chen-Lin C. Kulik,et al.  Timing of Feedback and Verbal Learning , 1988 .

[13]  Mark Fiala,et al.  ARTag, a fiducial marker system using digital techniques , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[14]  Danae Stanton Fraser,et al.  Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies , 2004 .

[15]  Jiajie Zhang,et al.  Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Paul E. Levy,et al.  Moving from Cognition to Action: A Control Theory Perspective , 1994 .

[17]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

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

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

[20]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Spanning seven orders of magnitude: a challenge for cognitive modeling , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Let's get physical: The learning benefits of interacting in digitally augmented physical spaces , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[22]  Patrick Jermann,et al.  Task Performance vs. Learning Outcomes: A Study of a Tangible User Interface in the Classroom , 2010, EC-TEL.

[23]  D. Schwartz,et al.  Tool use and the effect of action on the imagination. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  Sara Price,et al.  The effect of representation location on interaction in a tangible learning environment , 2009, TEI.

[25]  Sara Price,et al.  Towards a framework for investigating tangible environments for learning , 2008, Int. J. Arts Technol..

[26]  J. Hattie.  INFLUENCES ON STUDENT LEARNING , 1999 .