Physical manipulation: evaluating the potential for tangible designs

ABSTRACT

In order to design tangible technologies that are effective in supporting children's learning, it is important to understand what advantages or limitations are afforded by physical manipulation. This paper highlights some of the perceptual and manipulative properties of physical representations with respect to their effect on the problem space and describes how, for certain problem types, these may benefit children's strategies and learning. These arguments are discussed in relation to ongoing research into children's use of physical materials to solve numerical problems, and comparative performance using virtual materials. The paper uses this research to suggest ways in which tangible designs may support learning in this area by building on the advantages of physical manipulation whilst avoiding limiting exploration by constraining the range of actions and possible learning opportunities provided.

REFERENCES

• 1: Alibali, M. W. and DiRusso, A. A. The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development, 14 (1). 37--56.
• 2: Anderson, J. R. Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48 (1). 35--44.
• 3: Alissa N. Antle, The CTI framework: informing the design of tangible systems for children, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, February 15-17, 2007, Baton Rouge, Louisiana [doi>10.1145/1226969.1227010]
• 4: Edwards, L. Metaphors and Gestures in Fraction Talk 4th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain, 2005.
• 5: Ellis, S. and Siegler, R. S. Planning as Strategy Choice: Why Don't Children Plan When They Should? in Friedman, S. and Scholnick, E. K. eds. The Developmental Psychology of Planning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, 183--208.
• 6: Fuson, K. C. Research on whole number addition and subtraction. in Grouws, D. ed. Handbook of research teaching and learning, Macmillan, New York, 1992b, 243--275.
• 7: Gagné, R. M. The conditions of Learning. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, 1980.
• 8: David Golightly , David J. Gilmore, Breaking the Rules of Direct Manipulation, Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 Interantional Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, p.156-163, July 14-18, 1997
• 9: Iverson, J. M. and GoldinMeadow, S. What's communication got to do with it? Gesture in children blind from birth. Developmental Psychology, 33 (3). 453--467.
• 10: Kaput, J. Overcoming Physicality and the Eternal Present: Cybernetic Manipulatives. in Sutherland, R. ed. Exploiting Mental Imagery with Computers in Education, Springer, Oxford, 1993.
• 11: Kelly, S. D., Singer, M., Hicks, J. and Goldin-Meadow, S. A helping hand in assessing children's knowledge: Instructing adults to attend to gesture. Cognition and Instruction, 20 (1). 1--26.
• 12: Madhur Khandelwal , Ali Mazalek, Teaching table: a tangible mentor for pre-k math education, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, February 15-17, 2007, Baton Rouge, Louisiana [doi>10.1145/1226969.1227009]
• 13: Kirsh, D. and Maglio, P. On Distinguishing Epistemic from Pragmatic Action. Cognitive Science, 18 (4). 513--549.
• 14: Klahr, D. and Robinson, M. Formal assessment of problem-solving and planning processes in preschool children. Cognitive Psychology, 13 (1). 113--148.
• 15: Larkin, J. H. Display-based problem-solving. in Klahr, D. and Kotovsky, K. eds. Complex information processing; The impact of Herbert A. Simon, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989.
• 16: Larkin, J. H. and Simon, H. A. Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth 10000 Words. Cognitive Science, 11 (1). 65--99.
• 17: Lesh, R., Post, T. and Behr, M. Representations and Translations among Representations in Mathematics Learning and Problem Solving. in Janvier, C. ed. Problems of representation in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1987, 33--40.
• 18: Mandler, G. and Shebo, B. J. Subitizing -- an Analysis of Its Component Processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 111 (1). 1--22.
• 19: Paul Marshall, Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?, Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, February 15-17, 2007, Baton Rouge, Louisiana [doi>10.1145/1226969.1227004]
• 20: Martin, T. and Schwartz, D. Physically Distributed Learning: Adapting and Reinterpreting Physical Environments in the Development of Fraction Concepts. Cognitive Science, 29. 587--625.
• 21: McNeil, N. M. and Jarvin, L. When theories don't add up: Disentangling the manipulatives debate. Theory into Practice, 46 (4). 309--316.
• 22: Norman, D. A. Things that make us smart. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA:, 1993.
• 23: Kenton P. O'Hara , Stephen J. Payne, Planning and the user interface: the effects of lockout time and error recovery cost, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.50 n.1, p.41-59, Jan. 1999 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.1998.0234]
• 24: O'Hara, K. P. and Payne, S. J. The effects of operator implementation cost on planfulness of problem solving and learning. Cognitive Psychology, 35 (1). 34--70.
• 25: O'Malley, C. and Stanton Fraser, D. Report 12: Literature Review in Learning with Tangible Technologies. Futurelab ed. Futurelab Series, Bristol, 2004.
• 26: Pape, S. J. and Tchoshanov, M. A. The role of representation(s) in developing mathematical understanding. Theory into Practice, 40 (2). 118--127.
• 27: James Patten , Hiroshi Ishii, A comparison of spatial organization strategies in graphical and tangible user interfaces, Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing augmented reality environments, p.41-50, April 2000, Elsinore, Denmark [doi>10.1145/354666.354671]
• 28: Sara Price, A representation approach to conceptualizing tangible learning environments, Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, February 18-20, 2008, Bonn, Germany [doi>10.1145/1347390.1347425]
• 29: Price, S., Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Stanton, D. and Neale, H. Using 'tangibles' to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interacting with Computers, 15 (2). 169--185.
• 30: Rogers, Y. and Scaife, M. How can interactive multimedia facilitate learning? in Lee, J. ed. Intelligence and multimodality in multimedia Interfaces: Research and applications, AAAI. Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1998.
• 31: Schwartz, D., Bransford, J. D. and Sears, D. Efficiency and Innovation in Transfer. in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, Information Age Publishing, 2005, 1--51.
• 32: Spelke, E. S. Principles of Object Perception. Cognitive Science, 14 (1). 29--56.
• 33: Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V. and DeLoache, J. S. Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18 (1). 37--54.
• 34: Valenzeno, L., Alibali, M. W. and Klatzky, R. Teachers' gestures facilitate students' learning: A lesson in symmetry. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28 (2). 187--204.
• 35: Christof van Nimwegen , Herre van Oostendorp , Daniel Burgos , Rob Koper, Does an interface with less assistance provoke more thoughtful behavior?, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning sciences, p.785-791, June 27-July 01, 2006, Bloomington, Indiana
• 36: Christof van Nimwegen , Herre van Oostendorp , Hermina J. M. (Tabachneck-) Schijf, Externalization vs. Internalization: The Influence on Problem Solving Performance, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, p.311-315, August 30-September 01, 2004
• 37: Wilson, M. The case for sensorimotor coding in working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8 (1). 44--57.
• 38: Zhang, J. External representations in complex information processing tasks. in Kent, A. ed. Encyclopedia of library and information science, Marcel Dekker, New York, 2000.
• 39: Zhang, J. J. The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21 (2). 179--217.
• 40: Zhang, J. J. and Norman, D. A. Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks. Cognitive Science, 18 (1). 87--122.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

Keywords:
physical manipulation, problem solving, tangibles