Child computer interaction

Child Computer Interaction: Workshop on UI Technologies and Educational Pedagogy

Abstract Given the growth of Child Computer Interaction research and of the rapid adoption of interactive technologies as teaching tools, next generation HCI technologies play an important role in the future of education. Educators rely on technology to improve/adapt learning to the pedagogical needs of learners, thus the HCI community needs to examine how these concepts can be matched to contemporary paradigms in Educational pedagogy. The classroom is a challenging environment for evaluation, thus new interaction techniques need to be established to prove the value of new HCI interactions in the educational space. This workshop provides a forum to discuss key HCI issues facing next generation education ranging from whole class interactive whiteboards, small group interactive multi-touch tables, and individual personal response systems in the classroom and fits into the CHI 2011 featured community Child Computer Interaction.

Keywords Next generation HCI, Child-Computer Interaction, Education, pedagogy, multitouch, gestures, large displays,

Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).

CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

ACM 978-1-4503-0268-5/11/05

.

Edward Tse SMART Technologies Calgary, AB, Canada [email protected] Johannes Schöning DFKI GmbH Saarbruecken, Germany [email protected] Jochen Huber Technische Universität Darmstadt Darmstadt, Germany [email protected] Lynn Marentette Union County Public Schools Monroe, NC, USA [email protected]

Richard Beckwith Intel Corporation Beaverton, Oregon, USA [email protected] Yvonne Rogers The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, MK7 6AA [email protected] Max Mühlhäuser Technische Universität Darmstadt Darmstadt, Germany [email protected]

2

ACM Classification Keywords H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous.

Topics of Interest Focus will be on emerging UI technologies and their potential impact on education

• Gestural input, multitouch, large displays multi-display interaction, response systems

• Mobile Devices/mobile & pervasive learning

• Tangible, VR, AR & MR, Multimodal interfaces, universal design, accessibility

• Console gaming, 3D input devices, 3D displays

• Co-located interaction, presentations, tele-presence, interactive video

• Child Computer Interaction, Educational Pedagogy, learner-centric, adaptive “smart” applications

• Empirical methods, case studies, linking of HCI research with educational research methodology

• Usable systems to support learning and teaching: Ecology of learning, any where, anytime, (UX of cloud computing to support teaching and learning)

Workshop Plan Before the workshop We will publish the workshop proceedings on our web site, and highlight the contributions of the previous year. This will attract higher quality submissions for the

workshop, and will increase the exposure of the workshop before and after the actual event.

The call for papers and participation will be distributed in several research communities, including Tabletops and Interactive Surface, UIST, IUI, and industry trade shows. We also plan to promote the workshop through the CHI website, last year’s workshop site, and our Facebook group. The previous year’s workshop was very successful and we expect word of mouth to attract others to our workshop.

At the workshop The workshop will have interdisciplinary appeal. We expect participation by scientists working in all areas covered by the conference, as well as those from several other disciplines (e.g. education sector, cognitive science, information visualization, interaction design, psychology). We intend to take advantage of the disciplinary diversity at the workshop to begin a dialog and set the stage for future cooperation. Industry scientists and engineers working in application areas (e.g. interactive technology and novel interfaces for education) will also be encouraged to attend the workshop. The workshop will include 10-12 presentations, several demos, and a panel discussion. We will especially encourage young scientists and Ph.D. students to submit papers. To promote exchange of ideas, a dedicated discussant will be appointed for each paper. This person will have the task of preparing comments and questions and moderating the discussion about the paper. All participants will receive the papers before the workshop and are asked to prepare one discussion question for each paper. This question can relate to a particular strength, to open areas of the paper, or to ideas for future work.

3

In addition to the workshop organizers, we have already prepared a list of additional program committee members. PC members and the organizers will advertise the workshop in different related mailing lists and will proactively ask potential participants to submit a paper. The workshop webpage (http://ChildComputerInteraction.edwardtse.com) will be used to advertise the workshop and will provide all related information regarding focus, submission and attendance. Our goal is to have at least three reviews for each submission, so that the PC members can use their own background as well as the perspectives of at least three other researchers to make the decisions regarding the final program of the workshop. We would like to include papers of workshops in the supplementary proceedings of CHI 2011 if possible. This will attract higher quality submissions for the workshop, and will increase the exposure of the workshop before and after the actual event. We plan to publish revised versions of selected papers in a special journal issue, e.g. an article in the Interactions Magazine.

A single day workshop is expected to provide sufficient time for prospective presentations and discussions. At this year’s workshop, we want to further deepen the exchange of ideas and support the direct discussion between the participants. Presentations will be given consecutively. The following discussion phase is subdivided into two parts: (1) encounter sessions, where presenters spread out in the room, giving the audience the possibility to directly approach and talk to them (comparable to the discussions during poster sessions) and (2) plenary sessions, where both presenters and participants engage in an open, moderated discussion. The plenary session also gives

the opportunity to note down important aspects, which can serve as input for the wrap up session in the afternoon. This results in the following agenda:

• 10 min. – Introduction and motivation for workshop

• 30 min. – Quick group introduction activity

• 20 min. – Collection of key interests from workshop attendees.

Mid Morning break

• 1 hour – Paper presentations from workshop attendees about HCI design challenges in creating technologies for education

• 30 min. – Encounter session

• 30 min. – Plenary session

Lunch break

• 1 hour – Video sharing about educational practices and technology applications.

• 30 min. – Encounter sessions

• 30 min. – Plenary session

Short Afternoon break

• 1 hour – Team wrap up session to summarize the workshop’s outcomes and produce a workshop poster.

4

Organizers To capture the broadest range of opinions in our workshop, we constructed a team of experts with unique background experiences.

Edward Tse is a Project Research Leader at SMART Technologies. He helped in transitioning the SMART Table from a research concept to a commercial product and continues to lead development of new educational product concepts and product innovations.

Johannes Schöning is a senior researcher German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence DFKI in Saarbrücken, Germany. His research interests include spatial information systems, intelligent user interfaces, Mobile augmented reality and DIY multi-touch surfaces.

Jochen Huber is a doctoral researcher at Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany. He is involved with the research training group on e-learning funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). His interests include designing novel interaction techniques for mobile learning scenarios and interaction with large multimedia information spaces.

Lynn Marentette is a school psychologist who also has a background in HCI, ubiquitous computing, games, and educational technology. She works in educational settings that have rapidly become “technology rich”.

Richard Beckwith is a Research Psychologist with Intel Labs' Interaction and Experience Research division. Before Intel, he was a Research Associate Professor at Northwestern University. He did his PhD work at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Yvonne Rogers is a professor of Human-Computer Interaction in the Computing Department at the Open University in the UK. Her research focuses on augmenting and extending everyday, learning and work activities with a diversity of interactive and novel technologies.

Max Mühlhäuser is a professor of Computer Science, leading the tele-cooperation group at Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany. He has over 300 publications in the areas of ubiquitous computing (systems, HCI, and security aspects), E-learning, and distributed multimedia software engineering.

Program Committee The workshop organizers will serve as the program committee. Each workshop organizer will review a number of submissions to determine the final selection of papers.

Workshop organizers are also expected to publicize the event in more scientific communities, and they will play an important role in making the selection from the submitted papers, based on peer reviews. Our goal is to review each submission from a pedagogical and HCI perspective. PC members will then consolidate their reviews into a final program for the workshop.

Main Contact

Edward Tse

SMART Technologies 3636 Research Road NW Calgary, AB, Canada, T2L 1Y1 [email protected]


Abstract Given the growth of Child Computer Interaction research, next generation HCI technologies play an important role in the future of education. Educators rely on technology to improve and adapt learning to the pedagogical needs of learners. Hence, this community needs to understand how current technology concepts match with current pedagogical paradigms. The classroom is a high stakes environment for experimentation, thus new interaction techniques need to be validated to prove their pedagogical value in the educational setting. This workshop provides a forum to discuss key HCI issues facing next generation education. With a particular focus on child computer interaction, these issues comprise inter alia the interaction with whole class interactive whiteboards, small group interactive multi-touch tables, and individual personal response systems (e.g. mobile devices) in the classroom.

Keywords Next generation HCI, Child-Computer Interaction, Education, pedagogy, multi-touch, gestures, large displays

Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).

CHI 2011, May 7–12, 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

ACM 978-1-4503-0268-5/11/05.

Edward Tse SMART Technologies Calgary, AB, Canada [email protected] Johannes Schöning DFKI GmbH Saarbruecken, Germany [email protected] Jochen Huber Technische Universität Darmstadt Darmstadt, Germany [email protected] Lynn Marentette Union County Public Schools Monroe, NC, USA [email protected]

Richard Beckwith Intel Corporation Beaverton, Oregon, USA [email protected] Yvonne Rogers The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, MK7 6AA [email protected] Max Mühlhäuser Technische Universität Darmstadt Darmstadt, Germany [email protected]

ACM Classification Keywords H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous.

General Terms Design, Human Factors

Introduction and Motivation Interactive whiteboards and other electronic learning tools and materials have experienced exponential growth across many countries in recent years. This has resulted in a growing acceptance of digital content for delivering lessons in the classroom. Interactive technologies have also been increasingly successful in education due to the proliferation of lesson relevant content easily accessed through the Internet. Building on the discussions of our last CHI workshop on the Next Generation of HCI and Education1, there is a growing need to understand how these emerging technologies (e.g. walls, tables, and mobiles devices in Figure 1) will be leveraged in educational environments, particularly regarding child computer interaction. As this next generation of HCI technology arrives in the classroom, educators are expecting researchers and practitioners to determine how this technology will align with contemporary educational pedagogy.

Emerging technologies will support many pedagogically relevant practices. For example. multi-touch whiteboards and interactive tables (Figure 1) can be used by teachers to aid communication and collaboration. In this context, gestures serve as consequential communication [Gutwin, et al., 1998] so

1 http://www.dfki.de/EducationCHI2010/

a teacher scaling a calendar with two fingers is also directing attention to course materials. Similarly, instruction is very much linked to speech actions in real time, and modern speech processing is opening up a number of exciting opportunities. Technology can assist or hinder educational practices. In this workshop we take the approach that next generation HCI technologies will have a significant role in learning if the technology is applied in a pedagogically appropriate way and rigorously evaluated in the field.

Below we begin the discussion with perspectives of educational pedagogy, cognitive and physical design challenges, multi-user content development, and revisit evaluation within in an educational setting.

Educational Pedagogy The paradigm shift from teacher-centric to learner-centric pedagogy [Astin, 1984, Johnson et al., 1998, Freire, 1970] is being mirrored by teaching technologies that support the activities of a single teacher to those that support individual learners and small group activities. Student-teacher and student-student negotiation is a key aspect of self reflection [Vygotsky, 1978]. Digital technologies have the potential to support self reflection by enforcing agreement for global actions and encouraging negotiation when learners do not agree.

A recent study reported by Piper et al [Piper 2009] on the effect of a multi-touch table in a small group collaborative learning setting for a neuroscience class at UCSD demonstrated that the multi-touch table encourages students to experiment more with problem solutions. Computer systems are ideal for providing real-time feedback and validation to learners in a

collaborative environment. This feedback can provide a sense of personal significance that is a part of constructivist learning [Rendon, 1994, Bruner, 1996]. Educational pedagogy has long since recognized the value of active involvement in learning [Montessori, 1912, Astin, 1984]. Technologies that respond to these actions such as mixed reality, direct manipulation, and multi-touch interfaces are only beginning to be applied to schools, and much of their potential to advance educational pedagogy requires further exploration by the research community.

Design Challenges When developing interfaces for children in an educational setting a whole new series of design challenges arise. For example:

• Child Ergonomics and Cognitive Development • Ecological Validation • Mobile and Pervasive Learning Child Ergonomics and Cognitive Development It is well known that childrens’ cognitive and social skills develop over time [Piaget, 1972, Bruckman et al., 2003]. New HCI techniques will need to revisit the

cognitive skills of children especially in the 4 to 12 year age ranges. Cognitive skills such as memory load must be appropriate for developmental level. Similarly, response time varies with age thus appropriate interaction times are important. Developing literacy skills also need to be considered in interface design where icons are used in addition to text. Collaborative user interfaces can be seamless to encourage discussion, or they can be obtrusive to enforce collaboration.

Physical motor skill development impacts how next generation HCI devices are used. For example, fine motor skills are not fully developed in younger children thus precise object positioning can be a challenge. Interface designers need to consider appropriate target selection mechanisms, appropriately sized widgets, and simpler methods of manipulation (e.g. crossing).

Ecological validation There is a large gap between the development of a research prototype and its regular use within a classroom. Namely, prototypes typically only cover a single piece of content that can be used over a very short period of time. This results in studies that are

Figure 1: Samples of Next generation HCI technologies being applied to Educational Pedagogy. Shape drawing on the iPad (left), the multitouch SMART Table (middle) and an interactive whiteboard (right). (middle, right) SMART Technologies. All rights reserved.

often too brief and too narrow to determine a technology’s educational value.

HCI developers need to consider not only the user interface needs of teachers, but also the content and curriculum standards that educators work within. Great educational technology often fails due to a lack of suitable content. Designers need to also consider the ease of creating and acquiring new content for any new technology that they create. The content available on the Internet has great potential but is often ignored in UI prototypes.

Mobile and Pervasive Learning Education is increasingly becoming a mobile ecosystem with devices that learners can take home and collaborate remotely. Learners are becoming familiar with touch sensitive interaction at an early age, multitouch tablets are introducing children to computing even before they have fully developed motor skills.

The future classroom will feature a number of surfaces suited for group learning. Learners need ways to share personal work with others over vertical, horizontal, and virtual environments. Technology designers should consider the connected nature of mobile devices in a pervasive computing educational setting.

The future class is also composed of a diverse set of learning environments: whole class, small groups, field trips, personal learning, and more. This emphasizes the need to synergize with efforts from the learning science and pedagogical communities to establish meaningful evaluation metrics and design guidelines.

References [1] Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A

developmental theory. College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

[2] Bruckman A, Bandlow A (2003) Human–computer interaction for kids. In: Jacko J et al (eds) Handbook of human computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey, 428–440

[3] Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York : Herder & Herder.

[4] Gutwin, C. and Greenberg, S. 1998. Effects of awareness support on groupware usability. Proc. CHI 98, ACM Press, 511-518.

[5] Jerome Bruner (1996) The Culture of Education, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[6] Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26–35.

[7] Montessori, M. (1912). The Montessori Method. New York: Frederick Stokes Co.

[8] Piaget J. (1972) Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Hum. Dev. 15, 1-12.

[9] Piper, A.M., Hollan, J., (2009) Tabletop Displays for Small Group Study: Affordances of Paper and Digital Materials, ACM CHI 2009.

[10] Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative higher education, 19(1), 33-51.

[11] Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Internalization of Higher Cognitive Functions. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press

Call for Participation


in conjunction with CHI 2011, Vancouver

Topic: Given the emergence of Child Computer Interaction and the ubiquitous application of interactive technology as an educational tool, there is a need to explore how next generation HCI will impact education in the future. Educators are depending on the interaction communities and to deliver technologies that will improve and adapt learning to an ever-changing world.

In addition to novel UI concepts, the HCI community needs to examine how these concepts can be matched to contemporary paradigms in educational pedagogy. The classroom is a challenging environment for evaluation, thus new techniques need to be established to prove the value of new HCI interactions in the educational space. This workshop provides a forum to discuss key HCI issues facing next generation education.

We invite authors to present position papers about potential design challenges and perspectives on how the community should handle the next generation of HCI in education. Topics of interest include:

• Gestural input, multitouch, large displays, multi-display interaction, response systems

• Mobile Devices/mobile & pervasive learning

• Tangible, VR, AR & MR, Multimodal interfaces, universal design, accessibility

• Console gaming, 3D input devices, 3D displays

• Co-located interaction, presentations, tele-presence, interactive video

• Child Computer Interaction, Educational Pedagogy, learner-centric, adaptive “smart” applications,

• Empirical methods, case studies, linking of HCI research with educational research methodology

• Usable systems to support learning and teaching: Ecology of learning, any where, anytime, (UX of cloud computing to support teaching and learning)

Submission: The deadline for workshop paper submissions is Dec 20, 2010. Interested researchers should submit a 4-page position paper in the ACM CHI adjunct proceedings style to the workshop management system. Acceptance notifications will be sent out February 20, 2011. The workshop will be held May 7, 2011 in Vancouver, Canada. Please note that at least one author of an accepted position paper must register for the workshop and for one or more days of the CHI 2011 conference.

Website: http://ChildComputerInteraction.edwardtse.com

Contact: Edward Tse, SMART Technologies, [email protected]

Child computer interaction

Documents

Transcript of Child computer interaction