Theodosios Sapounidis
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
This study explores children's opinions and preferences regarding two isomorphic user interfaces that can be used for introductory programming activities, a tangible and a graphical one. The first system (tangible) comprises 46 cube-shaped blocks that represent simple programming structures and can be interconnected to form the programming code. The second system (graphical) presents on-screen the same programming space to the user (icons similar in appearance and operation with the tangible blocks). These two operationally equivalent user interfaces were given to three children groups of different ages (5---6, 7---8 and 11---12 years) to program the behavior of a Lego NXT robot. Children in dyads were let to interact with both systems, and during the activity, data were collected regarding children's first-sight preference, enjoyment and easiness-to-use. The quantitative and qualitative analysis followed indicated that the tangible interface was more attractive especially for girls, and it was more enjoyable and finally characterized as easier to use only by younger children who were less experienced with computers. On the contrary, for older (11---12 years old) children, the tangible even though was more enjoyable, it was not considered as the easiest-to-use user interface. Taking into account the lack of empirical evidences related to the tangible user interfaces, this study discusses not only the potential usability advantages but also the disadvantages of tangible user interfaces for children.
- Orit S, Eva H (2009) Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Found Trends Human Comput Interact 3(1---2):1---137 Google Scholar
- Price S, Rogers Y, Scaife M, Stanton D, Neale H (2003) Using `Tangibles' to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interact Comput 15(2):169---185Google Scholar
- Falcão TP, Price S (2009) What have you done! The role of interference in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning. In: Proceedings 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning, Rhodes, pp 325---334 Google Scholar
- Fishkin KP (2004) A Taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Pers ubiquitous Comput 8(5):347---358 Google Scholar
- Xie L, Antle A N, Motamedi N (2008) Are tangibles more fun? Comparing children's enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings 2nd international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, Bonn, pp 191---198 Google Scholar
- Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books Inc., New York Google Scholar
- Kelleher C, Pausch R (2005) Lowering the barriers to programming: a taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Comput Surv 37(2):83---137 Google Scholar
- Kahn K (1999) A computer game to teach programming. In: Proceedings of the national educational computing conference, pp 127---135Google Scholar
- Pausch R, Burnette T, Capehart A, Conway M, Cosgrove D, DeLine R, Durbin J, Gossweiler R, Koga S, White J (1995) Alice: a rapid prototyping system for 3D graphics. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 15(3):8---11Google Scholar
- Maloney J, Resnick M, Rusk N, Silverman B, Eastmond E (2010) The scratch programming language and environment. Trans Comput Educ 10(4):1---15 Google Scholar
- Nusen N, Sipitakiat A (2011) Robo-blocks: a tangible programming system with debugging for children. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on computers in education. Chiang Mai, pp 1---5Google Scholar
- Fitzmaurice G, Ishii H, Buxton W (1995) Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the CHI'95 conference on human factors in computing systems, Denver, pp 442---449 Google Scholar
- Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings. CHI97 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, pp 234---241 Google Scholar
- McNerney TS (2004) From turtles to tangible programming bricks: explorations in physical language design. Pers ubiquitous comput 8(5):326---337 Google Scholar
- Sapounidis T, Demetriadis S (2009) Tangible programming interfaces: a literature review. In: Proceedings 4th Balkan conference in informatics, Thessaloniki, pp 70---75Google Scholar
- Newton-Dunn H, Nakano H, Gibson J (2003) Block jam: a tangible interface for interactive music. J New Music Res 32(4):383---393Google Scholar
- Schweikardt E, Gross MD (2006) roBlocks: a robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. In: Proceedings 8th international conference on multimodal interfaces, pp 72---75 Google Scholar
- Zuckerman O, Arida S, Resnick M (2005) Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In: Proceedings. SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Portland, pp 859---868 Google Scholar
- Anderson D, Frankel JL, Marks J, Leigh D, Sullivan E, Yedidia J, Ryall K (1999) Building virtual structures with physical blocks. In: Proceedings 12th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, Asheville, pp 71---72 Google Scholar
- Stanton D, Bayon V, Neale H, Ghali A, Benford S, Cobb S, Ingram R, O'Malley C, Wilson J, Pridmore T (2001) Classroom collaboration in the design of tangible interfaces for storytelling. In: Proceedings. CHI01 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Seattle, pp 482---489 Google Scholar
- Terrenghi L, Kranz M, Holleis P, Schmidt A (2006) A cube to learn: a tangible user interface for the design of a learning appliance. Pers ubiquitous comput 10(2):153---158 Google Scholar
- Wyeth P, Purchase H (2002) Designing technology for children: moving from the computer into the physical world with electronic blocks. Inform Technol Child Educ Ann 1:219---244Google Scholar
- Horn MS, Solovey ET, Crouser RJ, Jacob RJK (2009) Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In: Proceedings 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, pp 975---984 Google Scholar
- Suzuki H, Kato H (1993) AlgoBlock: a tangible programming language, a tool for collaborative learning. In: Proceedings 4th European logo conference, pp 297---303Google Scholar
- Horn MS (2009) Tangible computer programming: exploring the use of emerging technology in classrooms and science museums. PhD dissertation, Tufts University Google Scholar
- Marshall P (2007) Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In: Proceedings 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, Baton Rouge, pp 163---170 Google Scholar
- Xu D (2007) Design and evaluation of tangible interfaces for primary school children. In: Proceedings 6th international conference on interaction design and children, Aalborg, pp 209---212 Google Scholar
- O'Malley C, Fraser S (2004) Literature review in learning with tangible technologies. Report 12, NESTA Futurelab, BristolGoogle Scholar
- Horn MS, Jacob RJK (2006) Tangible programming in the classroom: a practical approach. In: Proceedings human factors in computing systems, Montréal, pp 869---874 Google Scholar
- Antle AN (2007) Designing tangibles for children: what designers need to know. In: Proceedings. CHI'07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, pp 2243---2248 Google Scholar
- Marshall P, Cheng P C H, Luckin R (2010) Tangibles in the balance: a discovery learning task with physical or graphical materials. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction, Cambridge, pp 153---160 Google Scholar
- Schneider B, Jermann P, Zufferey G, Dillenbourg P (2011) Benefits of a tangible interface for collaborative learning and interaction. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 4(3):222---232 Google Scholar
- Triona LM, Klahr D (2003) Point and click or grab and heft: comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school students' ability to design experiments. Cogn Instruct 21(2):149---173Google Scholar
- Klahr D, Triona LM, Williams C (2007) Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. J Res Sci Teach 44(1):183---203Google Scholar
- Manches A, O'Malley C, Benford S (2010) The role of physical representations in solving number problems: a comparison of young children's use of physical and virtual materials. Comput Educ 54(3):622---640 Google Scholar
- Olkun S (2003) Comparing computer versus concrete manipulatives in learning 2D geometry. J Comput Math Sci Teach 22(1):43---56Google Scholar
- Finkelstein ND, Adams WK, Keller CJ, Kohl PB, Perkins KK, Podolefsky NS, Reid S, LeMaster R (2005) When learning about the real world is better done virtually: a study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Phys Rev Special Topics Phys Educ Res 1(1):1---8Google Scholar
- Zacharia ZC (2007) Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. J Comput Assist Learn 23(2):120---132Google Scholar
- Zacharia ZC, Olympiou G (2011) Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learn Instr 21(3):317---331Google Scholar
- Horn M, Crouser R, Bers M (2011) Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(4):379---389 Google Scholar
- Zaman B, Vanden Abeele V, Markopoulos P, Marshall P (2012) Editorial: the evolving field of tangible interaction for children: the challenge of empirical validation. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(4):367---378 Google Scholar
- Sapounidis T, Demetriadis S (2011) Touch your program with hands: qualities in tangible programming tools for novice. In: Proceedings 15th Panhellenic conference on informatics (PCI), Kastoria, pp 363---367 Google Scholar
- Ullmer B, Ishii H, Jacob RJK (2005) Token constraint systems for tangible interaction with digital information. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 12(1):81---118 Google Scholar
- Read JC (2008) Validating the fun toolkit: an instrument for measuring children's opinions of technology. Cognit Techhnol Work 10(2):119---128 Google Scholar
- Fails JA, Druin A, Guha ML, Chipman G, Simms S, Churaman W (2005) Child's play: a comparison of desktop and physical interactive environments. In: Proceedings of conference on interaction design and children, Boulder, pp 48---55 Google Scholar
- Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55(1):68---78Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: exploring cross-age children's preferences
Recommendations
Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools
This paper presents a cross-age study exploring children's performance on robot introductory programming activities with one tangible and one isomorphic graphical system. Both subsystems are parts of an innovative system, namely the PROTEAS kit. The ...
Exploring Children Preferences regarding Tangible and Graphical Tools for Introductory Programming: Evaluating the PROTEAS Kit
ICALT '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning TechnologiesThis paper investigates children preferences regarding tangible and graphical tools for introductory programming. The study makes use of the PROTEAS (PROgramming TangiblE Activity System) kit, an ensemble including one graphical and two tangible ...
A comparison of spatial organization strategies in graphical and tangible user interfaces
DARE '00: Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing augmented reality environmentsWe present a study comparing how people use space in a Tangible User Interface (TUI) and in a Graphical User Interface (GUI). We asked subjects to read ten summaries of recent news articles and to think about the relationships between them. In our TUI ...
Comments