Designing Tangible Interactive Learning Aids for a Pre-primary School Teaching Environment: A Sustainable Approach Pradeep Yammiyavar1, Anmol Srivastava1, Shobha Shashidhara2 Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati1, Ankura Foundation, Bengaluru2
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected] Abstract: Pre-primary school instruction and teaching methods in Indian schools are classified into two categories, as dictated by existing resources. While schools with more resources have adopted teaching aids that follow Bloom’s Taxonomy, schools with fewer resources have been left behind in enhancing student’ experience as well as raising teachers’ satisfaction levels. All of this is reflected in the quality of students and teachers’ output. Although numerous devices are available at the high school level and above, a survey revealed that few teaching aids are accessible for pre-primary schools in India. This paper presents a way to incorporate simple and inexpensive technology to embed intelligence into objects, which in turn can be used in classrooms to enhance the learning experience. We adapted two tangible interactive objects and prototyped and tested them in three local schools. We show how these devices can constitute a sound educational pedagogy by demonstrating how they embody Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. The methodology discussed in this paper presents possibilities for further work in the area of embedding intelligence into objects, leading towards cognitive development in children in a learning environment. We posit that designing such learning aids contributes to sustainability. Keyword: Tangible interaction, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Multiple Intelligences, Pedagogy, Children
1
Introduction
Interest in in the field of tangible interactions and embodied cognition has been increasing lately. Many experiments in these areas suggest that the use of tangible devices helps enhance student learning (Marshall, 2007). With the increasing use of sensors and actuators in educational toys, studies have started to focus on children’s use of interactive products that are not only entertaining but also educational. This branch of human–computer interaction, which is known as child–computer interaction, focuses on
Pradeep Yammiyavar, Anmol Srivastava and Shobha Shashidhara how to embed intelligence in objects that can be used by children for a more engaging and joyful learning experience. Although many studies have been conducted on developing interactive tangible devices for pre-primary schoolchildren in Western countries, our understanding of how these types of products are used in other countries and cultural settings is lacking (Jamil et al., 2012). In India, although there exist many private and central-government–funded schools, for which costs and technology are not barriers, many other schools cannot afford such technology. Major findings such as those obtained by Campbell et al. (2013) showed that factors such as resource limitations, a limited infrastructure and limited knowledge of technology’s potential are obstacles in the successful adoption of technology in the field of education. Since financial costs and the availability of required materials are practical considerations for a developing country such as India, design intervention is required to create novel technologies and methods that complement the pedagogy used in schools lacking resources. We posit that compared to ephemeral devices, which are not only costly but also ecologically unsuitable, the design approach in such learning devices needs to be sustainable. This paper proposes a sustainable approach that can be used to embed intelligence in everyday objects for use in pre-primary classrooms. We conceptualised and designed two prototypes that we tested across three pre-primary schools in Guwahati, India.
2
Prior Research
With the advent of tiny sensors and actuators embedded in everyday objects, computing has assumed a ubiquitous form. Various examples can be quoted from diverse areas such as museum tours, conferences, and storytelling. Over the past three decades, efforts have been made by researchers to explore the possibility of embedding intelligence into children’s physical world (Montemayor et al., 2004). O’Malley (as cited in Antle et al., 2011) presented a report summarising studies that have included prototypes, applications, and evaluations of tangibles as learning tools for children. Antle (2007) presented different cognitive developmental theories that can be used in designing tangibles for children. Antle (2009) also examined the effect of embodied interactions on cognitive development in children. Marshall et al. (2009) presented various frameworks on tangible and embodied interactions, and investigated the behaviour of children during their use of physical and digital representations. Antle et al. (2011) studied design features that are critical for enabling interactions that support children’s learning. Kolb’s experiential learning theory, Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, and, more recently, Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences provide a platform on which we can connect learning, intelligence, and experience. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences is considered one of the most influential learning theories. According to the theory, a person’s intelligence consists of eight distinct types, to which they can relate their internal strengths and capabilities. These categories of intelligences are (a) linguistic (understanding of different words and languages), (b) musical (understanding of sound and music), (c) logical–mathematical (the ability to apply logic, critical thinking and number crunching), (d) spatial (the ability to understand forms,
Design of Tangible Interactive Learning Aids for Pre-primary School Teaching Environment: A Sustainable Approach shapes, colours and space, and visualise them in the mind), (e) bodily–kinaesthetic (having control over physical actions and bodily movements), (f) intrapersonal (understanding oneself), (g) interpersonal (social skills), and (h) naturalistic (awareness of the environment and classification skills; Becker, 2005). Becker (2005) outlined how this learning theory is embodied in good educational games. Karthwohl (2002) presented an overview of a revised version of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive domain. The revised levels from simple to complex thinking are Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate, and Create. Nobel (2004) presented a detailed study on integrating the revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy with Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences for curriculum planning. He also suggested how the theory of multiple intelligences and the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy can be used as important tools to strengthen intellectual capabilities and challenge children’s critical thinking abilities.
3
Prototypes
We consciously developed these prototypes to be inexpensive, sustainable and with the consideration of underprivileged schools in Indian scenario. They also involved group interactions among children. Since such devices are unavailable on the market, we had to conceive them and create prototypes. This section presents two prototypes embedded with intelligence which can be used to teach pre-primary schoolchildren. We constructed these prototypes from readily available everyday materials such as aluminium foil, cardboard, tires and a bicycle wheel. The first prototype is called an ‘interactive board’, and the second is a ‘round piano’. In the following section, we describe the steps involved in developing these prototypes, which had to be produced with embedded activity in order to enable experimentation with schoolchildren.
3.1 Interactive Board We constructed the interactive board by using easily accessible materials such as cardboard, aluminium foil and a microcontroller (Arduino Uno). By using the capacitive sensing library by Arduino (Paul Badger, n.d.) and several pieces of aluminium foil, we created capacitive touch sensors.
Figure 1
Interactive board prototype created from readily available materials, connected to a computer through the Arduino board.
Pradeep Yammiyavar, Anmol Srivastava and Shobha Shashidhara We placed four such sensors composed of aluminium foil at an equal distance from each other on a round cardboard base with a diameter of 53 cm. We connected the sensors with the Arduino board, which transmitted the data serially to the computer whenever touch was sensed on either of the four sensors. The software (Processing, version 2.0) then read these data values in order to play the sound that was triggered when a particular sensor was touched. The main objective of this prototype was to teach the alphabet through sound to children in nursery schools. Since it was a prototype, it consisted of only four consonants (i.e. A, B, C, and D). Figure 1 shows the steps involved in creating the first prototype as well as the final version.
3.2 Round Piano We constructed the round piano by using a bicycle wheel. We installed eight sensors composed of aluminium foil at an equal distance around the circumference of the wheel. We then connected these sensors to a microcontroller. Once the sensors were pressed or touched, the speakers mounted on the device produced musical notes. The main objective of this prototype was to teach various musical notes to children in upper-kindergarten (UKG) class. We developed applications for both prototypes by using Processing 2.0 and Arduino IDE. Figure 2 shows the construction of this prototype.
Figure 2
4
Round piano prototype with an Arduino board mounted at the centre in order to allow the rotation of the wheel with touch-sensitive aluminium foil on the sides.
Study Description
Our main objective was to find the interplay between Bloom’s taxonomy and the theory of multiple intelligences when children interact with tangible devices. In order to understand how students interact with these devices, and how they would derive learning content on their own by using these instruments, we conducted a study in three schools in Guwahati, India, over three full days. Observations were made by recording the behaviours of 30 children (10 from each school) in an age group of three to four years (i.e. nursery class) and 30 children (10 from the first school, and 20 from the second) in
Design of Tangible Interactive Learning Aids for Pre-primary School Teaching Environment: A Sustainable Approach an age group of four to six years for the UKG class. We also interviewed 10 teachers, and qualitatively analysed the data.
4.1 Methodology Each group of children from the nursery consisted of 10 students from the same class who were guided by their class teacher. The nursery class students were given the interactive board prototype. We provided the second prototype to a group of eight students from the same UKG class under the supervision of their class teacher. We recorded videos and took photographs for each session in order to capture the physical behaviours and learning activities of the students. After they completed the activities, we interviewed the class teachers; the interview was recorded for content analysis. The activity allotted for the interactive board to the nursery class involved touching a specific consonant, one student at a time, and singing along with the song that played through the computer. The song taught the students how to enunciate the letters as well as various objects and animals related to alphabets. We also instructed the children to perform actions and mimic the sounds of animals and objects mentioned in the song. When the song was nearly finished, we asked the children to turn around while standing in one place, and then to sit and stand quickly while clapping. We then asked them to reproduce and show what they had learned through actions (e.g. a balloon is round, and therefore, they moved their hands by forming a big circle in the air). Figure 3 shows the activity performed by the children using the interactive board.
Figure 3
Children performing the assigned activity by using the interactive board.
The second prototype, the round piano, was allotted to the UKG children. In our first survey, we left the children alone with the device after explaining its functionality. We then observed their behaviours and video-recorded the event. In the second survey of this prototype, we observed three groups of eight children interacting with the device, and asked them to stand near a particular key. We then allotted a particular musical note (e.g.
Pradeep Yammiyavar, Anmol Srivastava and Shobha Shashidhara ‘Sa’, ‘Re’, ‘Ga’ or ‘Ma’) to each child, and asked them to sing the different notes as they pressed the keys. Figure 4 shows this activity. We asked the first group of children to create music on their own. In the second group, children were asked to sing the notes whenever they pressed the keys.
Figure 4
5
Children interacting with the round piano by touching the sides with touch-sensitive aluminium foil.
Analysis and Findings
5.1 Analysis We conducted our analysis by qualitatively analysing the audio and video data, which we obtained by recording interviews with teachers and children’s activity. Several observations were noted regarding the overall behaviour of the class and children who had completed the activity. Video data was collated to identify the vital aspects of the classroom dynamics and gain insight into how the children coordinated amongst each other and interacted with the devices. We video-recorded a series of activity sessions conducted during the study and reviewed the recordings repeatedly. They were then interpreted as discussed in a study on interaction analysis by Jordan et al. (1995). The collected data showed the different levels of thinking involved in learning, as described by Bloom’s Taxonomy. Similarly, the children displayed different types of intelligence when using the prototypes through this process. Further, using the content analysis technique described by Bruce (2001), we transcribed the audio data recorded when conducting the interviews and identified keywords highlighting intelligence and types of learning upon repeated listening. The steps involved in this process are described in the following section.
Design of Tangible Interactive Learning Aids for Pre-primary School Teaching Environment: A Sustainable Approach
5.2 Findings Figure 5 shows important actions, with a description of the scene and the type of intelligence being displayed by the children when operating the prototype. The dashed white circles in the photographs indicate these actions in the clips.
Figure 5
Interaction process analysis of the round piano.
Regarding the two boys shown in the last three images in Figure 5, we enquired from their class teachers about their attitude in class. We found that these boys are usually silent, and do not socialise much because they are new to class. However, they were
Pradeep Yammiyavar, Anmol Srivastava and Shobha Shashidhara relatively observant compared to the other students. Their observant nature is mentioned in the fifth row of Figure 5 as ‘naturalist’. The teachers also informed us that these boys did not show much inclination towards musical activities conducted in school. This indicates that they became interested in operating the device which was presented to them. The class teachers confirmed this inference as well. We found that children explored the elasticity of the tire by pressing hard on it and knocking on it. This indicates a direction to explore the materiality of the tangible interfaces. The children eventually lost interest in the prototype after 16 minutes and returned to their places, thereby showing that the device should be more engaging because children have a short attention span. We also observed that the group of children that was taught the musical notes sang them repeatedly after they returned to their seats, and some of them pretended to be pianists. Figure 6 shows the expression and action of a girl captured in one of our videos after the activity.
Figure 6
A girl acting as a pianist after operating the round piano.
The interaction process analysis for the first prototype is shown in Figure 7. The children took some time to understand the device. After we provided them with instructions, they adapted quickly. We observed that the children were relatively inquisitive in touching the board. Whenever the song was played upon touching the board, they felt exhilarated. In addition, if one child touched the board, another would do the same, thus interrupting the song that was being played. Upon observing this, we instructed the children to press a letter only after the song ended. Upon completion of the song, we observed that many children were willing to press the letters, and nearly all of them pushed their hands forward. We also noted that the involvement of the teacher or researcher was necessary for the children to perform the activity. After the activities, we interviewed the class teachers and principals of these schools to determine the effectiveness of the devices for learning, in addition to how well they suit their current pedagogy and practices. The response of each teacher was labelled R1, R2,…, R8 and placed on the horizontal axis of the table, and the vertical axis indicated the type of intelligence, as shown by their statements. Similarly, we then quantified all other responses through content analysis. Table 1 shows the number of intelligences, as indicated by the teacher responses. Table 2 shows the quantified data obtained using this method. Figure 8 shows a radar plot that was constructed based on the data obtained from a content analysis conducted on similar responses from the interview. We can infer that the effectiveness of the prototypes is most likely based on the type of multiple intelligences embodied in the device.
Design of Tangible Interactive Learning Aids for Pre-primary School Teaching Environment: A Sustainable Approach During our sessions, we observed that, because children can be rough with technological tools, schools are occasionally reluctant to purchase such products. We suppose that this is another reason technology has not been applied in Indian pre-primary schools. However, our prototypes were relatively durable, and were able to sustain rough usage without resulting in any disruption in their working process. One important suggestion we received from a teacher, thereby increasing the opportunities for sustainable performance, was that the song that is being played should not only be in English. He suggested that the devices support different types of vernacular languages. Overall, the teachers were satisfied with the effectiveness of the devices, and stated that they could readily adopt such types of equipment as a teaching aid.
Figure 7
Interaction process analysis of the interactive board.
Pradeep Yammiyavar, Anmol Srivastava and Shobha Shashidhara Table 1
Teacher responses indicating different types of intelligences emerging as the children interact with these prototypes. Only two of eight responses are shown for brevity.
Intelligence/Response
R1
R6
Linguistics
‘…matching of capital letters and lowercase letters…’
‘…children know the alphabets; they can see and touch it. It also comes with a sound…’
Spatial
‘…draws attention because it is big and has large letters…’
‘…children know the alphabets; they can see and touch it. It also comes with a sound…’
Bodily–Kinaesthetic
‘children will like it…game way of learning’
Musical
‘…children love music… this utilises it’ ‘…children know alphabets; they can see and touch it. Plus sound comes…’
Interpersonal
‘…children can stand in a circle…forward counting; backward counting…these games can be played’.
Intrapersonal
‘…the fear will go away at the time of learning’
Logical–Mathematical
‘…matching of capital letters and lowercase letters…’
Naturalist
‘…they can learn different types of animal names and sounds…’
Table 2
Word count of intelligence types as indicated by the teachers; obtained from content analysis of interview data
Intelligence
Word Count
Linguistics
9
Spatial
9
Bodily–Kinaesthetic
6
Musical
8
Interpersonal
3
Intrapersonal
5
Logical–Mathematical
8
Naturalist
7
Design of Tangible Interactive Learning Aids for Pre-primary School Teaching Environment: A Sustainable Approach
Figure 8
6
Radar plot showing the types of intelligence embodied in the prototypes.
Implications of these Device on Child Development and Classroom Dynamics
Through our research, we wanted to understand the implications of our devices for children and overall classroom dynamics. We posited that the heuristic of embedding intelligence in learning aids could be developed eventually. This is a critical factor from the perspective of educational psychologists and educators. Studies (Grob-Zakhary, n.d.) have shown that the preschool years are critical for brain development in children, and that children start developing areas that are key to executive functions when they reach the age of three. These are critical cognitive processes such as problem-solving, sustaining attention, monitoring performances as well as planning and directing various activities, which shape how they will turn out in school (Kanani, 2014). A presentation on sensitive periods of childhood by Dr. Randa Grob-Zakhary, CEO of the Lego foundation, showed that the ‘sensitivity of brain development’ is maximised towards numbers, peer social skills, conceptualisation, language, emotional control, habits as well as vision and hearing for children between three and five years, which are the preschool years. After this period, this sensitivity begins decreasing as they advance towards their school years. By age 7, this sensitivity becomes limited to only a few things (GrobZakhary, n.d.). This study shows that during these initial years, specifically between the ages of three and five, a significant amount of learning can occur in children if this learning is nurtured properly. Devices with embedded intelligence can therefore be introduced to children aged three to five.
Pradeep Yammiyavar, Anmol Srivastava and Shobha Shashidhara We adopted a matrix combining Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, as suggested by Nobel (2004), to understand various activities and higher-order cognitive processes that combine when children use tangible learning aids. Figure 9 shows the analytical result obtained from interaction and content analysis, mapped onto the matrix grid. It shows how children utilised various intelligences and derived learning contents when interacting with these devices.
Figure 9
Matrix showing the interplay of multiple intelligences and Bloom’s Taxonomy when children interact with these prototypes. The vertical axis shows multiple intelligences, and the horizontal axis displays the six levels of thinking from Bloom’s Taxonomy.
The proposed matrix provides insight into how tangibles can be designed to obtain greater depth towards achieving cognitive and sensorimotor activities that leads to learning. The matrix shows that engaging children in various activities by using tangibles invokes different levels of thinking as well as intellect. This analysis shows that children
Design of Tangible Interactive Learning Aids for Pre-primary School Teaching Environment: A Sustainable Approach tend to explore new areas when they interact with such devices. Introducing such tangibles can also help nurture quiet students in class (Figure 5).
7
Inferences
During our activity sessions, we found that any break in interaction suddenly resulted in a child losing interest in the task. Designers need to understand that wherever children are involved, they should be careful not to interrupt the stimulus signal where the interaction is taking place. Thus, any tangible device designed for child learning must not cause any disruption in attention when children are interacting with such devices.
8
Conclusion
This study showed that introducing tangible learning aids with embedded intelligence at a preschool level (three to five years) can prove beneficial for children. The findings also suggest that the introduction of these devices can help teachers plan better activities in class, thereby assisting them in imparting improved instructions to students. We also found that it is possible to construct tangible devices suited to underprivileged schools by using simple everyday materials. If designed properly, these devices can be used as an efficient and sustainable instructional medium. Unlike flat-screen-displayed contents on devices such as tablets and mobile phones, tangible devices specifically built with embedded intelligence offer a superior learning approach. Our findings also indicated that there is considerable scope to introduce design interventions for developing suitable instructional technology for preschools.
Acknowledgements We are thankful to all the children and teachers who participated in our study. Due permission was obtained to record videos and take photographs.
References 1
Marshall, P. (2007). “Do tangible interfaces enhance learning?” Proc., 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI ‘07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 163-170.
2
Jamil, I., Perry, M., O’Hara, K., Karnik, A., Marshall, M.T., Jha, S., Gupta, S., and Subramanian, S. (2012). “Group interaction on interactive multi-touch tables by children in India”. Proc., 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ‘12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 224-227.
3
Campbell, K., Mehr, H., and Mayer, B. (2013), Education Technology in India: Designing Ed-Tech for Affordable Private Schools, India.
4
Montemayor, J., Druin, A., Chipman, G., Farber, A., and Guha, M.L. (2004). “Tools for children to create physical interactive storyrooms”, Computers in Entertainment, 2(1), 12-12.
Pradeep Yammiyavar, Anmol Srivastava and Shobha Shashidhara 5
Antle, A.N., (2007). “Designing tangibles for children: what designers need to know?” Proc., CHI ‘07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ‘07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2243-2248.
6
Antle, A.N. (2009). “Lifelong Interactions: Embodied child computer interaction: why embodiment matters”. Interactions, 16, 27-30.
7
Marshall, P., Fleck, R., Harris, A., Rick, J., Hornecker, E., Rogers, Y, Yuill, N., and Dalton, N.S. (2009). “Fighting for control: children’s embodied interactions when using physical and digital representations”. Proc., SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2149-2152.
8
Antle, A.N., Wise, A.F., and Nielsen, K. (2011). “Towards Utopia: designing tangibles for learning”. Proc., 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ‘11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 11-20.
9
Becker, K. (2005). “How Are Games Educational? Learning Theories Embodied in Games”. Proc., Digital Games Research Association’s 2nd International Conference, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada, 4-4.
10
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). “A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview”. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
11
Jordan, B., and Henderson, A. (1995). “Interaction Analysis: Foundations Practice”. Journal of Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.
12
Berg, B.L. (2000). Qualitative Research Methods for Social Science, Ally and Bacon, USA.
13
Noble, T. (2004). “Integrating the revised Bloom’s taxonomy with multiple intelligences: A planning tool for curriculum differentiation”. The Teachers College Record, 106(1), 193-211.
14
Arduino Playground. (2013). Capacitive Sensing Library, (Dec. 11, 2013)
15
Forbes (2014). “The Transformative Power of Play And Its Link To Creativity”, (Feb. 22, 2014)
16
Lego Foundation (2014). “Re-defining play and re-imagining learning – a global call to action”, http://www.legofoundation.com/ (Feb. 22, 2104)
