Tiny Tabletops: A Research Agenda

Everyday computing technology is transitioning from desktop computing to interactive surfaces. At the forefront of this technological revolution are multi-touch tablets. Each year, tablets become more affordable, more capable and more widespread. Now is the time for research to shape how they will be used to support learning. In this position paper, I propose a learning sciences research agenda for tablets around the proposition that tablets can be used as tiny tabletops. There has already been extensive work documenting how interactive tabletops support co-located collaborative learning. Tablets and tabletops share many of the fundamental properties, such as direct input and multiple access points, but the interactive surface of tablets is significantly smaller. How does that affect the use? That is the question that guides my current research. In this paper, I connect my current work on the Proportion tablet application to my previous work on the DigiTile tabletop application to provide a concrete case of a tiny tabletop research agenda. From Desktop Computing to Interactive Surfaces Desktop computing—controlling a graphical user interfaces with a keyboard and mouse—was developed in the 1960s and came to prominence in the 1980s. Input technology and processing power to interpret more complex data (e.g., real-time image processing) has improved since then, leading to technologies that support natural user interfaces—where the computer processes complex input to correctly interpret user intent to create a more intuitive interface (Wigdor, & Wixon, 2011). Interactive surfaces of various sizes (handhelds, tablets, tabletops and whiteboards) are a particularly prominent category of these technologies. Modern day touch devices are highly accurate, fast and able to simultaneously capture concurrent input (i.e., multi-touch). Interactive surfaces have two critical advantages over desktop computing: direct input and multiple access points. Direct input means that an end user can directly manipulate the software interface and applications using touch, pen and / or by moving tangible objects. In comparison to using a mouse to control a cursor, the cognitive distance between intent and execution is shortened. In situations with multiple participants, a potential learning benefit is that hand, arm and body movements are visible. Multiple access points means that multiple concurrent interaction points are sensed by the hardware and utilized by the software. This enables multi-point gestures (e.g., pinching to zoom out) and using two hands simultaneously. Furthermore, access points can be distributed among multiple participants, thereby enabling collaboration. Figure 1. Supporting co-located collaborative learning with interactive surfaces. From Tabletops to Tablets One of the most consistent findings in education is that collaboration makes learning more active, engaging, and effective (Cohen, 1994; Webb, & Palincsar, 1996). With many students and one teacher, peer-to-peer co-located collaboration is well suited to the average classroom. Unfortunately, PCs—the most prevalent classroom computing technology—are ill equipped to support such collaboration. Because of their support for direct input and multiple access points, interactive surfaces have expanded how technology can support co-located users (Figure 1). In particular, research has demonstrated the benefits of using interactive tabletops to support colocated collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, & Evans, 2011; Higgins, Mercier, Burd, & Hatch, 2011). (a) Recreate this Pattern (b) 4x4 Fraction Challenge (c) 5x5 Fraction Challenge Interactive tabletops have a long and prominent history in research (Buxton, 2011). As a result, researchers have been able to investigate their potential to support learning. In contrast, multi-touch tablets are fairly new, with the Apple iPad arriving in 2010. Currently, there is little published research on how they can support learning. Market analysts predict that the market for multitouch tablets will overtake PCs (desktops and laptops combined) as early as 2013 (UPI.com, 2012). Already, there is significant commercial interest in introducing tablets into the classroom as electronic textbooks. The argument usually made is that electronic books will be significantly better (more up-to-date, more engaging, easier to manage and cheaper) that they will soon justify the initial hardware investment. If these devices are going to enter the classroom, now is the time for researchers to come up with models of how they can be used to support constructivist learning. Here, I propose that learning sciences researchers take their cue from the existing body of research on interactive tabletops and investigate their potential to support co-located collaborative learning. After all, tablets are very similar to tabletops: Both are interactive surfaces that support direct input and multiple access points. The major difference is that tablets are significantly smaller (e.g., the iPad tablet has a 9.7” diagonal display, whereas the Microsoft Surface tabletop has a 40” diagonal display). Can tablets similarly enable co-located collaborative learning? If so, how does the smaller screen size affect the collaboration? To give a clear illustration of how tabletop research can inform tablet research, I summarize my work on the DigiTile tabletop application (Figure 1a) and show how it influenced the research on the Proportion tablet application (Figure 1b). Figure 2. Using DigiTile to complete various challenges. The DigiTile Tabletop Application DigiTile is an adaptation of DigiQuilt (Lamberty, Adams, Biatek, Froiland, K., & Lapham, 2011) to the DiamondTouch (Dietz, & Leigh, 2001) interactive tabletop (Rick, & Rogers, 2008). Like DigiQuilt, it is a construction kit for learning about math and art by designing colorful mosaic tiles. In addition to being aesthetically pleasing, these tiles lend themselves to mathematical analysis. The designs embody fraction concepts and can be symmetrical. While DigiQuilt was designed for a single user, DigiTile was designed for two concurrent users positioned side-by-side in front of the interactive tabletop (Figure 1a). Learners move pieces from the left and right palette to the central tile as they work on various mathematical challenges. The fraction of the tile that is a certain color is displayed on the button for that color. For instance, is shown on the red button in Figure 2a. In a study, learners worked on three tasks. First, to familiarize them with the interface, they replicated the pattern in Figure 2a. Second, using a 4-by-4 tile, they were to create a tile that was three-eighths orange and three-eighths brown (one dyad’s solution is shown in Figure 2b). Third, using a 5-by-5 tile, they were to create a tile that was one-tenth red, two-tenths blue, three-tenths yellow and four-tenths green (one dyad’s partial solution is displayed in Figure 2c). In comparison to a control group, DigiTile users showed significant gains in fraction understanding after a 30-minute session (Rick, Rogers, Haig, & Yuill, 2009). To investigate how children collaborated at the tabletop, the video data of successful groups was analyzed for distinguishing patterns (Rick, Marshall, & Yuill, 2011). Surprisingly, successful groups had vastly different group dynamics. One dyad worked independently, but shared their findings with each other through continuous narration and physical mirroring. Another dyad shared a unified task focus, taking turns actively moving pieces and observing / commenting. A third dyad worked largely independently in the same space, occasionally actively collaborating. While DigiTile supported different group dynamics, there were also common elements. First, the large space of the tabletop allowed learners to work concurrently (and independently if they chose to do so). Second, even when children were not seeking to actively communicate, partners were able to be aware of their actions through peripherally monitoring their movements and draw inspiration from them. Third, children were able to augment verbal communication with pointing gestures to better communicate ideas. Fourth, users switched smoothly between acting and observing. (c) Relative Lines 5 8