Forms of Visibility and Intrusion in Learning Izdihar Jamil Computer Science Department University of Bristol Bristol BS8 1UB UK +44117 331 5402
[email protected] ABSTRACT
In this paper, we investigated the forms of visibility and intrusion present during learning and offer initial findings based on our observations at two secondary schools. We have identified that visibility and intrusion exists in various forms of interactions in learning and could have negative consequences in learning if they are left unmanaged. We propose the usage of interactive surface as a tool to manage visibility and intrusion to enhance the learning experience. Keywords
Interactive surface, visibility and intrusion management, children and learning. INTRODUCTION In classrooms, students use horizontal surfaces or normal table as their work surface to carryout most of their activities. Tables in classrooms act as a passive tool where no form of interactivity exists between students and tables. Tables serve as a form of convenience where it is used as a working and storage surface as well as a resting place by students. Most common objects present on the table such as textbooks, exercise books, activity sheets, pencil case and stationery can broadly be classified as active or passive objects. Active objects such as books or activity sheets are those that the student is actively engaged with or worked on while passive objects such as pencil cases, stationery etc are those that are not often worked on. Object visibility, especially of active objects plays an important role in the learning process. For example, when working on an activity sheet (like solving a math problem) students tend to cover their work with the non-dominant hand to limit visibility to others. While on other occasions they may share the object with others giving full visibility to the active object. To protect and mediate visibility and to manage intrusion (explicit or implicit requests for visibility from others) students often keep active object within their private space. Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol, Woodland Road. Technical Report. March 2009.
Sriram Subramanian Computer Science Department University of Bristol Bristol BS8 1UB +44117 331 5235
[email protected] However, in passive tables, visibility and intrusion management tends to become time-consuming and temporarily disengage the students from their activity and may result in lack of focus, engagement and motivation to continue with their learning if such intrusion occurs several times. In effect visibility and intrusion management can impact on the learning process both for the owner and intruder. With the advent of digital tables such as the Microsoft surface™ and DiamondTouch™, interactive surfaces offer new opportunities to enhance learning. For example, several studies [1, 2] with children working collaboratively show positive results on their learning experience when coupled with interactive surface. In order to examine the feasibility of interactive surfaces in enhancing learning through improved visibility management we carried out an observation study of how students currently manage visibility and intrusion in secondary schools today. Visibility management refers to a method in which active object is visible to the owner and invisible or has reduced visibility to others. Intrusion management looks into reducing the number of unwanted attention on active object. The four key questions that guided this observation are 1) What forms do visibility and intrusion exist in the learning process and what are its impact? 2) Is there a demand for visibility and intrusion management in order to aid learning? 3) Does the learning styles in classroom offer some form of potential for interactive surface to be incorporated? 4) Will the interactive surface when united with the visibility and intrusion management play a key role in creating an enhanced learning for students? In this paper, we present the findings from our observation which will serve as a starting point in identifying the need for visibility and intrusion management on interactive surface for students. PREVIOUS WORK
Many of the classrooms in secondary schools opt for the side by side seating arrangement as outlined by [8] where students tend to face the front and forms of teacher centered learning. By sitting in a side by side arrangement, different working styles can be advocated such as the same problem same area (SPSA), view engaged (VE) and same problem different area (SPDA) [8]. This form of seating plan allows teachers to have clear and visible view of the student’s
working area i.e. passive table and can gauge their understanding from facial expression and possibly body language. One issue that arises when using passive table as a working space is privacy of object or information. The demand for privacy in a personal working space has been identified by Razavi and Inverson [5]. Chan et al [6] demonstrated how user can view private information with full visibility while other users have no visibility by introducing a virtual plane which lies above the tabletop. Privacy is similar to the information fragmentation concept [7] in which users tends to work separately when dealing with personal information and then consolidate the information and workspace with other users. Using interactive surface as a form of working and learning tool showed positive result on the learning experience [1, 2, 4] . OBSERVATION STUDIES
We observed students from the age of 11-14 years old (Year 7-9) from two secondary schools over 3.5 days for a total of sixteen lessons, ranging from forty to fifty minutes per lesson. The lead author acted as a passive and nonintrusive observer during lessons and recorded any forms of visibility, intrusion and sharing that occurred in both the student-student and student-teacher interactions. The observations were recorded with pen on paper approximately every 5 minutes. The purpose of this observation is to investigate the possible usage of interactive surface coupled with visibility and intrusion management to enhance learning. We present our results in 4 broad categories – configurations and environment; visibility management, intrusion management and sharing. Configuration And Environment Table Configuration
We observed five different types of table configurations present: 1) Single Table-Single User (S). Front facing, one user per table; 2) Double Table-Double User (D). Front facing, two users per table; 3) Group Table-Group User (G). Between two to eight users may sit together in joined tables. Some users are facing the front and some are sitting around the table; 4) Long table (L). A group of users sit facing the front on a long table such as in the Science lab in on of the school observed; 5) U-Shape (U). Tables are arranged in a U shaped format. Various combinations of these configurations were found but the most common table configuration in our observation is the S+D style. Visibility is in more demand when students sit with another; either in a pair or group configuration and the possibility for intrusion to occur is more when compared to the individual configuration. We describe the learning environment in the form of learning style, task type and work area. Teaching Style
Of the 16 lessons observed, 15 used whiteboards and opted for the sensory stimulation [9] a traditional form of learning
style in which teachers used a lot of visual and audio stimulation such as writing on the whiteboard, reading from textbooks and listening to recorded audio to provoke the learning process and engagement within students. Only in one occasion students were asked, as a group to translate their knowledge into a practical demonstration. Students acted-out their knowledge to be seen and assessed by the teacher and other students. At the end of the presentation, the teacher and other students gave feedback and commented on the work. On all occasions there was constant teacher-student discussion and feedback throughout the lesson. Sharing of information often happened in the class setting with students either voicing opinions or writing on the whiteboard to share information for others to see and hear. Task type
All of the 16 lessons started with class discussions and brainstorming sessions, before proceeding to the writing tasks. Students were encouraged to work individually on most tasks. Writing work can be either in the form of copying information from the whiteboard or completing exercises in textbooks or activity sheets. One of the teachers noted that while in primary schools, teachers are mostly concerned with interactivity for social and cognitive skills development whereas in secondary classes students are geared towards major exams such as GCSE and A-Levels in UK. Thus students are often placed in small groups and work on team-building activities in primary schools while in secondary students they are expected to work independently rather than in partners or groups. Work area
Tables in classroom generally act as a passive working space for the students in a number of ways. •
Active object. Tables are mainly used by students as their working space or performing necessary actions on the active object to achieve their targets.
•
Storage. Tables served as storage facility when passive object such as pencil case, calculator, books and bags are placed on top,
•
Resting tool. When students are involved with the class discussion or when the teaching is busy explaining a new concept to the students, objects on the table become passive. Students tend to rest their hands, from the elbow forward on the table.
•
Barrier. Tables serve as a form of barrier that divides one student’s territory from another.
Visibility
Students have the tendency to work on active objects within an area that is closest to them, performing autonomous task. Active objects mostly reside in a private working space and can sometimes move to a personal space when there is partner activity or discussion, in line to what Scott et all found in [10].
The angle of the object can vary, starting from a 0 to 45 degree from the owner depending on the writing style of the student. Books or activity sheet, are often seen as active object while pencil case and calculator are used as passive object i.e. they are not being actively worked on. The need for visibility management can be seen prominently when students sit closely to each other. When students are actively involved in class discussion or when the teacher is teaching, there seemed to be more visibility on the active objects, possibly due to the fact that the objects are not being worked on and the status of the object changed temporarily from active to passive object during that situation. Interestingly, there seems to be an invisible line that separates between each student’s working area from their partner’s even though there was no physical barrier of separation. Active objects are surrounded by passive objects. The covering of active objects seemed to occur naturally, perhaps unaware by the students. The visibility of the active object to others is usually less when students are working on it. Students seem to cover the active objects from other students using various methods. There was a need to have the information visible to another student who was sitting at a different place in the class. Students also have the information visible only to the teacher when they wanted some feedback or guidance on their work. C
C B A
A
Figure 1: Object A is a representation of the active object located close towards the student in their private territory. Students covering their work using their hands and a passive object B which is placed on the invincible line situated in between the students. Object C are other passive object located on the table Method of blocking visibility
Classes of visibility
We also observed three classes of visibility -full, medium and low or none. •
Full. User has full visibility of objects while others have none.
•
Medium. User shares some visibility of object with others-others can view part of the object.
•
Low or none. Other individuals have high visibility on object-others can view most part or full part of the object.
During lessons, classes of visibility alternate between the medium or low visibility. Full object visibility, although aimed for by students, is rarely achieved due to the limitations of passive table. Sharing
The frequency of active object sharing such as work book is relatively low as students are expected to complete given tasks individually. There were occasions when students lifted their work books such that the information on it was shared either with another student across the room or with the teacher. Even though the book was lifted such that other students in the classroom can view it, the information was only directed to a particular audience. However, sharing of information and the exchange of ideas between students and teacher exist during class discussion through out the learning session. Intrusion
Unwelcome intrusion led to a negative impact on a student’s learning and was seen happening several times during observation. Intrusion caused both the intruder and victim to be temporarily disengaged with learning as they try to resolve the issue. In one lesson, a teacher specifically reminded the students the need for working individually and not looking around to see other people’s work as it can distract them from concentrating and finishing their work. Forms of Intrusion
We saw four forms of intrusion that appeared during lessons.
We observed four methods that students used to block object visibility to others.
•
Peeping. Students leaning forward and using just their eyes to peep into other student’s active object.
•
Using own body. This is the most common way that students used to reduce visibility of their active object. Objects would be covered either by using hands or by tilting the body forward.
•
Reaching over. Student reached over other student’s private work space and accessed the active object without first informing the student.
•
•
Using object. Pencil case or calculator is placed on the invincible separation line.
Snatching. Active object was snatched from the personal work space without permission.
•
•
Tilting object. Objects are brought closer to the student’s chest and are tilted toward an angle of 45 degree so that clear visibility on object such as books are achieved.
Verbal. Student used conversation to distract and intrude on other student’s learning.
Intrusion Prevention
•
Using words. Verbal action is used to ask another student to reduce visibility on the active object. For example, one student said to another student using a clear stern voice “Turn around!” when she looked at her work.
Using words. Verbal form of prevention was used by students to stop the intrusion from continuing- “Do you mind?”, “Don’t copy mine!” and “Don’t talk to me!”.
•
Using actions. Students pulled the active object that was taken from them without permission and moved it towards their private working space.
•
DISCUSSION
With most classes expecting students to work individually, there is a need for active object to be visible only to the owner and invisible to others. Intrusion of active objects frequently leads to a disruption in learning as well as lost of concentration and focus. In some cases, it leads to a minor verbal argument between students. This is a form of unhealthy element that can have some form of detrimental effect on learning. Visibility and Intrusion management is a complex and dynamic activity in most classrooms. Students are actively engaged in this activity and employ a lot of social protocols to engage in these. Designing an interactive surface to completely eliminate the possibility of intrusion can lead to unforeseen consequences that might affect the social dynamics of a classroom. There needs to be some form of compromise that inherits the properties of interactive surface and at the same time, cleverly manages visibility of active object such that intrusion can be mitigated and thus contribute to a better learning experience. One important finding from our observation that should be taken into consideration is that there is a big gap between the benefits that the interactive surface can produce and the reality of the learning experience that exist in classroom. Learning tends to focus on individual working independently on active object rather than working in a group. Also, teachers tend to be more comfortable using the whiteboard as a teaching tool rather than using computers or other forms of technology. Thus using interactive surface for secondary school students poses new challenges in terms of acceptance from teachers and a greater need for tools and benefits to garner their interest in using this technology in learning. Since, students spend most of their learning time working on active object on tables. This highlights the potential of using interactive surface as a form of augmented table to improve their learning experience. A form of visibility management seems to be important in creating a healthy and effective learning. Students and teachers can reduce the number of times intrusion occurs by managing the visibility of active object using enhanced features implemented on interactive surface. Turning passive table into an interactive surface and implementing visibility and intrusion management on the surface may offer untapped potential to improve the learning experience CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
Observation results show 1) Visibility and intrusion exist during the learning process 2) There is a need for visibility and intrusion management to be implemented to improve the learning experience 3) Possible potential in using interactive surface as a form of augmented table in classroom to manage visibility and intrusion 4) the interactive surface when coupled with visibility and intrusion management may lead to a form of enhanced learning.
To investigate these issues further, we plan to carryout more detailed observations on visibility management in secondary schools and reflect on the role of active student interactions in terms of learning before looking at designing novel interactive hardware to explicitly facilitate learning in secondary schools. We plan to explore the possibility of using revolving polarizes [11] to manage visibility to flexibly allow individual as well as group activities in classrooms. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the staff, teachers and students who were involved in our observation and our sponsors for funding this research. REFERENCES
1.
Piper, A. M., O'Brien, E., Morris, M. R., and Winograd, T. 2006. SIDES: a cooperative tabletop computer game for social skills development. In Proceedings of CSCW '06, pp 1-10. 2. Sluis, R. J., Weevers, I., van Schijndel, C. H., KolosMazuryk, L., Fitrianie, S., and Martens, J. B. 2004. Read-It: five-to-seven-year-old children learn to read in a tabletop environment. In Proceedings of IDC 2004, pp 73-80. 3. Morris, M.R., Piper, A. M., Cassanego, A., Winograd, T. 2005. Supporting cooperative language learning: Issues in interface design for an interactive table. Stanford CS Technical Report CSTR 2005-08 9/22/05 12/15/05. 4. Khandelwal, M. and Mazalek, A. 2007. Teaching table: a tangible mentor for pre-k math education. Proceedings of TEI '07. pp 191-194. 5. R Razavi, M. N. and Iverson, L. 2006. A grounded theory of information sharing behavior in a personal learning space. Proceedings of CSCW '06, pp 459-468. 6. Li-Wei Chan; Ting-Ting Hu; Jin-Yao Lin; Yi-Ping Hung; Jane Hsu, 2008. "On top of tabletop: A virtual touch panel display, Proceedings of TABLETOP 2008. pp.169-176. 7. Karger, D. R. and Jones, W. 2006. Data unification in personal information management. Commun. ACM 49, 1 (Jan. 2006), 77-82. 8. Tang, A., Tory, M., Po, B., Neumann, P., and Carpendale, S. 2006. Collaborative coupling over tabletop displays. Proceedings of CHI '06, pp 11811190. 9. University, O.B. Theories of Learning. [cited 2009 7/03]; Available from: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd/2_learntch/the ories.html. 10. Scott, S. D., Sheelagh, M., Carpendale, T., and Inkpen, K. M. 2004. Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. Proceedings of CSCW '04, pp 294-303. 11. Sakurai, S.; Kitamura, Y.; Subramanian, S.; Kishino, F., 2008, Visibility control using revolving polarizer," TABLETOP 2008, pp.161-168.
