Educational Technology International

The Korean Society for Education Technology (한국교육공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Unpacking the Potential of Tangible Technology in Education: A Systematic Literature Review

  • Received : 2018.09.07
  • Accepted : 2018.10.15
  • Published : 2018.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The main purposes of this study were (a) to analyze the research trend of educational use of tangible technology, (b) to identify tangible learning mechanisms, and potential benefits of learning with tangible technology, and (c) to provide references and future research directions. We conducted a systematic literature review to search for academic papers published in recent five years (from 2013 to 2017) in the major databases. Forty papers were coded and analyzed by the established coding framework in four dimensions: (a) basic publication information, (b) learning context, (c) learning mechanism, and (d) learning benefits. Overall, the results show that tangible technology has been used more for young learners in the kindergarten and primary school contexts mainly for science learning, to achieve both cognitive and affective learning outcomes, by coupling tangible objects with tabletops and desktop computers. From the synthesis of the review findings, this study suggests that the affordances of tangible technology useful for learning include embodied interaction, physical manipulations, and the physical-digital representational mapping. With such technical affordances, tangible technologies have the great potential in three particular areas in education: (a) learning spatial relationships, (b) making the invisible visible, and (c) reinforcing abstract concepts through the correspondence of representations. In conclusion, we suggest some areas for future research endeavors.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Ewha Womans University Research Grant of 2016.

References

  1. Antle, A. N. (2013). Exploring how children use their hands to think: An embodied interactional analysis. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(9), 938-954.
  2. Baranauskas, M. C. C., & Posada, J. E. G. (2017, June). Tangible and shared storytelling: Searching for the social dimension of constructionism. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 193-203). ACM.
  3. Barneva, R. P., Gelsomini, F., Kanev, K., & Bottoni, P. (2018). Tangible technology-enhanced learning for improvement of student collaboration. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(3), 284-302.
  4. Carbonell Carrera, C., Avarvarei, B. V., Chelariu, E. L., Draghia, L., & Avarvarei, S. C. (2017). Map-reading skill development with 3D technologies. Journal of Geography, 116(5), 197-205.
  5. Choi, J. (2006). A study on new interface in the design of the ubiquitous age focused on tangible user interface. Journal of the Korean Society of Design Culture, 12(1), 59-70.
  6. Cuendet, S., Dehler-Zufferey, J., Ortoleva, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015). An integrated way of using a tangible user interface in a classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(2), 183-208.
  7. Davenport, J. L., Silberglitt, M., Boxerman, J., & Olson, A. (2014). Identifying affordances of 3D printed tangible models for understanding core biological concepts. In Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (pp. 1583-1585). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  8. de Abreu, F. M., & Barbosa, A. (2017, September). Creative engagement: Multimodal digital games in children's learning environment in Macau SAR. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Digital Arts (pp. 47-54). ACM.
  9. De Raffaele, C., Buhagiar, G., Smith, S., & Gemikonakli, O. (2017, October). Designing a table-top tangible user interface system for higher education. In Smart Systems and Technologies (SST), 2017 International Conference on (pp. 285-291). IEEE.
  10. De Raffaele, C., Smith, S., & Gemikonakli, O. (2016, December). Teaching and learning queueing theory concepts using Tangible User Interfaces. In Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE), 2016 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 194-201). IEEE.
  11. De Raffaele, C., Smith, S., & Gemikonakli, O. (2016, October). The aptness of Tangible User Interfaces for explaining abstract computer network principles. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016 IEEE (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
  12. De Raffaele, C., Smith, S., & Gemikonakli, O. (2017, April). Explaining multithreaded task scheduling using tangible user interfaces in higher educational contexts. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2017 IEEE (pp. 1383-1390). IEEE.
  13. Devi, S., & Deb, S. (2017, February). Exploring the potential of tangible user interface in classroom teaching-Learning. In Computational Intelligence & Communication Technology (CICT), 2017 3rd International Conference on (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
  14. Djambong, T., & Freiman, V. (2016, October). Task-based assessment of students' computational thinking skills developed through visual programming or tangible coding environments. In Proceedings of the IADIS: International Association for Development of the Information Society (pp. 41-51). ACM.
  15. Fan, M., Antle, A. N., & Cramer, E. S. (2016, February). Exploring the Design Space of Tangible Systems Supported for Early Reading Acquisition in Children with Dyslexia. In Proceedings of the TEI'16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 689-692). ACM.
  16. Fishkin, K. P. (2004). A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 347-358.
  17. Guia, E., Lozano, M. D., & Penichet, V. M. (2015). Educational games based on distributed and tangible user interfaces to stimulate cognitive abilities in children with ADHD. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 664-678.
  18. Harfield, A., Tongpliew, N., & Choothong, A. (2013, January). Bridging distance with distributed tangible technologies: An educational game for learning to tell the time. In Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), 2013 5th International Conference on (pp. 184-186). IEEE.
  19. Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006, April). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems (pp. 437-446). ACM.
  20. Huang, Y. M., & Lin, P. H. (2017). Evaluating students' learning achievement and flow experience with tablet PCs based on AR and tangible technology in ulearning. Library Hi Tech, 35(4), 602-614.
  21. Ishii, H. (2008, February). Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction (pp. xv-xxv). ACM.
  22. Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997, March). Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 234-241). ACM.
  23. Jacob, R. J., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L. M., Horn, M. S., Shaer, O., Solovey, E. T., & Zigelbaum, J. (2008, April). Reality-based interaction: a framework for postWIMP interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 201-210). ACM.
  24. Jadan-Guerreroa, J., Guerrerob, L. A., & Sharmac, T. (2016, December). Improving the interaction of Down syndrome students through the use of RFID technology. In Microwave Conference (LAMC), IEEE MTT-S Latin America (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
  25. Johannes, K., Powers, J., Couper, L., Silberglitt, M., & Davenport, J. (2016). Tangible models and haptic representations aid learning of molecular biology concepts. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA.
  26. Kanev, K., Kimura, S., Kobayashi, N., & Yamauchi, K. (2007). Employment of physical objects as interactive interface components. In Proceedings of CLIHC2007 held in conjunction with the 11th IFIP TC 13 Conference on HumanComputer Interactions (INTERACT'2007) (pp. 10-14).
  27. Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroombased intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245-255.
  28. Kleiman, J., Pope, M., & Blikstein, P. (2013, June). RoyoBlocks: An exploration in tangible literacy learning. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 543-546). ACM.
  29. Klemmer, S. R., Hartmann, B., & Takayama, L. (2006, June). How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems (pp. 140-149). ACM.
  30. Kobeissi, A. H., Sidoti, A., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., & De Gloria, A. (2017, July). Building a tangible serious game framework for elementary spatial and geometry concepts. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on (pp. 173-177). IEEE.
  31. Ku, D. T., Huang, Y. H., & Hus, S. C. (2015). The effects of GBL and learning styles on Chinese idiom by using TUI device. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 505-515.
  32. Kuzuoka, H., Yamashita, N., Kato, H., Suzuki, H., & Kubota, Y. (2014, October). Tangible earth: tangible learning environment for astronomy education. In Proceedings of the second international conference on Human-agent interaction (pp. 23-27). ACM.
  33. Lee, D. & Chung, J. (2012). A factor analysis of augmented reality presence. The Treatise on The Plastic Media, 15(3), 137-142.
  34. Lee, E., Lee, C., Lee, K., Lee, K., Hong, Y., Park, E., & Kim, H. (2009). Introduction to Early Childhood Education (revised edition). Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press.
  35. Lee, S. (2017). Present and future of virtual reality technology based on embedded cognition. The Studies in Korea Literature, 54, 39-63.
  36. Lucchi, A., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010, January). An empirical evaluation of touch and tangible interfaces for tabletop displays. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction (pp. 177-184). ACM.
  37. Manches, A.D. (2010) The effect of physical manipulation on children's numerical strategies: evaluating the potential for tangible technology. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham.
  38. Marshall, P. (2007, February). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction (pp. 163-170). ACM.
  39. Nacher, V., Garcia-Sanjuan, F., & Jaen, J. (2016, July). Evaluating the usability of a tangible-mediated robot for kindergarten children instruction. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on (pp. 130-132). IEEE.
  40. Nah, S. & Lee, Y. (2016). The Visual communication by Augmented Reality. Journal of Digital Convergence, 14(11), 507-512.
  41. Oh, H., Kim, J., Morales, C., Gross, M., Eisenberg, M., & Hsi, S. (2017, March). FoldMecha: exploratory design and engineering of mechanical papercraft. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 131-139). ACM.
  42. Ohm, J. (2009). Play and early childhood education. Seoul: Gyomoon Publishers.
  43. O'Malley, C., & Fraser, D. S. (2004). Literature review in learning with tangible technologies. Bristol, UK: NESTA Futurelab.
  44. Palaigeorgiou, G., Karakostas, A., & Skenderidou, K. (2017, July). FingerTrips: learning geography through tangible finger trips into 3D augmented maps. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on (pp. 170-172). IEEE.
  45. Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017, April). Reviewing the affordances of tangible programming languages: Implications for design and practice. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2017 IEEE (pp. 1811-1816). IEEE.
  46. Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). The impact of user interface on young children's computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 171-193.
  47. Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., & Silverman, B. (1998, January). Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 281-287). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
  48. Sakr, M., Jewitt, C., & Price, S. (2014). The semiotic work of the hands in scientific enquiry. Classroom Discourse, 5(1), 51-70.
  49. Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2016). Flipping the flipped classroom: A study of the effectiveness of video lectures versus constructivist exploration using tangible user interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(1), 5-17.
  50. Schneider, B., Wallace, J., Blikstein, P., & Pea, R. (2013). Preparing for future learning with a tangible user interface: the case of neuroscience. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(2), 117-129.
  51. Shaer, O., & Hornecker, E. (2010). Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, 3(1-2), 1- 137.
  52. Shim, J., Kwon, D., & Lee, W. (2017). The effects of a robot game environment on computer programming education for elementary school students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60(2), 164-172.
  53. Shin, E. & Oh, Y. (2016). Hands-on exhibition and Tangible User Interface (TUI) - A study on audience attitude about forms in interactive display media. Journal f Korean Society of Media & Arts, 14(4), 73-90.
  54. Sinha, M., & Deb, S. (2016, December). e-TLX (enhanced Tangible Learning eXperience)-An HCI tool for augmented teaching interaction. 2016 IEEE Eighth International Conference on In Technology for Education (T4E), (pp. 248-249). IEEE.
  55. Skulmowski, A., Pradel, S., Kuhnert, T., Brunnett, G., & Rey, G. D. (2016). Embodied learning using a tangible user interface: the effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a spatial learning task. Computers & Education, 92, 64-75.
  56. Song, J. (2012). Embodied cognition and interface studies. Journal of Digital Design, 12(1), 251-260.
  57. Starcic, A. I., Cotic, M., & Zajc, M. (2013). Design based research on the use of a tangible user interface for geometry teaching in an inclusive classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 729-744.
  58. Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). "I want my robot to look for food": Comparing Kindergartner's programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293-319.
  59. Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3-20.
  60. Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education, 12, 203-219.
  61. Sylla, C., Pereira, I. S. P., Coutinho, C. P., & Branco, P. (2016). Digital manipulatives as scaffolds for preschoolers' language development. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 4(3), 439-449.
  62. Tsong, C. K., Samsudin, Z., Yahaya, W. A. J. W., & Chong, T. S. (2013, April). Making digital objects tangible: A case study for tangibility in preschoolers' multimedia learning. 2013 IEEE Symposium on Computers & Informatics (ISCI), (pp. 22-227). IEEE.
  63. Velamazan, M. (2016, October). Superbleeper: A tangible system for electronic music & embodied mathematics. In Proceedings of the Audio Mostly 2016 (pp. 278-284). ACM.
  64. Veronica, A., Cecilia, S., Patricia, P., & Sandra, B. (2016, October). ITCol. Tangible nteraction for Collaboration: Experiments Carried Out. In Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS), 2016 International Conference on (pp. 172-179). IEEE.
  65. Wang, Y. H., Young, S. S., & Jang, J. S. R. (2013). Using tangible companions for enhancing learning English conversation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2).
  66. Wyeth, P. (2007, June). Agency, tangible technology and young children. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 101-104). ACM.
  67. Xu, D., Read, J. C., Sim, G., & McManus, B. (2009, June). Experience it, draw it, rate it: capture children's experiences with their drawings. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 266-270). ACM.
  68. Yang, E. & Ryu, J. (2018). The effect of segmentation principle on usability and cognitive load in augmented reality. Journal of Educational Research, 40(1), 49-71.
  69. Zhang, X., Kim, S., & Song, S. (2010). A study on the cases of tangible user interface for library system-based on the semantics of "fun" by Blythe-. The Treatise on The Plastic Media, 13(1), 11-19.
  70. Zuckerman, O., Arida, S., & Resnick, M. (2005, April). Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital Montessori-inspired manipulatives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 859-868). ACM.