Making Digital Objects Tangible: A Case Study for ...

2013 IEEE Symposium on Computers & Informatics

Making Digital Objects Tangible: A Case Study for Tangibility in Preschoolers Multimedia Learning Chau Kien Tsonga*, Zarina Samsudinb, Wan Ahmad Jaafar Wan Yahayac & Toh Seong Chongd Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia a *[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

that many parties could hardly visualize how digital multimedia objects could be configured for tangibility. To convince them of the possibility of such adaptation, we produce this paper with the objective of discussing 1) the use of tangible objects in Tangible User Interface (TUI) system as a reference for setting tangibility in multimedia, 2) a proposed framework for tangible multimedia, and 3) a case study.

Abstract―For preschoolers, the major drawback in digital multimedia systems is the lack of concrete components that allows them to learn naturally and tangibly. Piaget posits that children age below 7 years can best cognizant concrete objects. Hence, there exists a large learning gap between preschoolers and digital multimedia. Literature reviews shed light on the idea that tangible objects could serve as an excellent means to materialize the sense of tangibility in multimedia learning. We produce this paper with an objective to discuss how digital multimedia objects can be configured for tangibility. Review on past examples of Tangible User Interface (TUI) systems arguably concluded that all components of multimedia can be made tangible. Adopting the idea from TUI researches, a “tangible multimedia learning system” for preschoolers has been developed for case study. Its finding demonstrated that the system offers profound effects on the preschoolers’ learning performance and enjoyment level.

II. TUI SYSTEMS AS A REFERENCE FOR MAKING MULTIMEDIA OBJECTS TANGIBLE Due to the lack of researches in the adoption of tangibility in multimedia, we divert our focus on past researches of Tangible User Interface (TUI), the pioneering research in the field of tangible interface, to visualize how tangibility could be formulated in multimedia. The scope of TUI researches is wide and diversified, thus this paper is not meant to be exhaustive. We picked multimedia associated TUI systems particularly relevant to children learning for discussion.

Index Terms― Tangible multimedia, preschoolers, tangibility.

I. INTRODUCTION For preschoolers, the major drawback in digital multimedia learning systems is the lack of concrete elements that allow them to learn naturally and tangibly. Piaget [1, 2] posits that preschoolers age 7 or below, whose cognitive orientation and capacity are in a state of preoperational level, learn most when they are engaged with concrete activities. In this respect, to further elevate the capability in transfer of knowledge, multimedia should be adapted, and adopt “tangibility” in learning by making its digital components tangible. Elsom-Cook stated, “… in going beyond a multimedia delivery system, our next level must be a system that permits physical interaction with the information channels” [3]. The question now, how we could make multimedia objects tangible? To answer this, we may examine past researches. Extensive reviews on past researches render us the idea that tangible objects can serve as effective candidates to materialize the sense of tangibility. With tangible objects in hand, the children can concretize the abstract concepts that they never see before. Zuckerman & Resnick [4] asked, “How do we ‘concretize the abstract’? A physical, tangible interface can help. Children can touch it, can tinker with it …” (p. 811). Adaptation of tangible objects into genuine multimedia learning for preschoolers remained absent. This may be due to the fact

978-1-4799-0209-5/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

A. Making Interactivity Tangible Interactivity is an essential component in digital multimedia [3]. It has been found “tangible” in TUI based VideoTable system [5] and PaperButtons [6] using real button.

Fig. 1. Tangible button VideoTable [adapted from 5]

The VideoTable was an electronic augmented meeting table used for organizing video files. A real push button was permanently attached to a controlling card called VideoCard. By pushing the button, the playback of video files would be triggered. For PaperButtons, real buttons were attached on papers. B. Making Graphics Tangible EEWWW [7], which used for learning human body, renders us the idea of making graphics tangible. It consists of an actual

219

2013 IEEE Symposium on Computers & Informatics

anatomy model of the human body attached with a free-moving handheld fork as navigational tool. The handheld fork is installed with a sensor. By pointing the fork on specific part of the model, corresponding information about the body parts in the form of graphical slice plane will be presented on computer monitor. EEWWW demonstrates how physical anatomy model complements computer graphics meaningfully for learning. Another example, Phantom [8] provides haptic interface for “touching” virtual objects. It is done through an electromechanical arm equipped with a thimble at its tip. By holding the thimble, forces that mimic the physical sensation of real objects surface (e.g. wall or rock surface) observed in digital objects will be transmitted back to fingers, and thereby, the digital graphic is “felt”. Phantom has demonstrated how the tactile information of a virtual object can be “concretized”.

Fig. 3. (a) TellTale [adapted from 9]. (b) Jabberstamp [adapted from 10]

Adopting the idea from the systems above, we may attempt to make sound “tangible” in a way that people feel “real”. By “real”, we mean a sense like what is observed in our daily activities. Sound in real-life is not generated from generic output devices (e.g. speakers), but from the mouths of living beings, or the objects themselves when sudden forces are acted on them (e.g. squeezing paper, breaking bottle, and hitting something). One way to materialized this in digital multimedia is to embed sound into object itself. Children have to do something tangibly on the object before sound is played. Such “real” sound sufficiently offers acoustic information pertaining to the properties of an object [11], and gives a sense of “realism”, or “tangibility” in our context, that complements the visual properties of the object meaningfully. D. Making Animation and Video Tangible The central feature of animation and video is movement. In our opinion, tangibility in the context of animations and videos should be that “actual movement” of tangible objects complemented by multimedia expressions significantly. We argue that solely constitute actual movement as the determinant of the tangibility of animation and video is too vague, and simplifying too much things. If everything is merely turned into actual movement, the object will end up as animatronics machine. To date, we are unable to discover appropriate examples for tangible animation and video. The closest is Curlybot [12], which is an autonomous two-wheeled machine capable of recording the movements created by the children and play back repeatedly on request. We argue that Curlybot is merely a “partial” tangible animation on the ground that there is insignificant use of digital multimedia expressions. Applying tangibility in both video and animation will be of great challenge in view that many contents of animation and video are impossible to be represented in tangible form (e.g. materials in liquid and gaseous form).

Fig. 2. (a) EEWWW [adapted from 7] (b) Phantom [adapted from 8]

C. Making Sound “Tangible” Sound is something not physically embodied in nature, thus, transforming sound into “tangible” form is impossible. Two TUI based system, TellTale [9] and Jabberstamp [10] illustrated how a tangible representation of sound could be “set”. TellTale is used for oral language practice. It is a caterpillar-like toy whose body is made up of five segments connected to each other. Each segment was embedded with a voice recorder. By pressing the segments, children can record and play back their own voice. The segments can then be detached from one another, and rearranged in any order to hear the entire recorded voice in the sequence they arrange. Jabberstamp is an electronically augmented self-inking rubber stamp. To use this system, first, the children drew whatever they liked on a piece of normal paper; then they were required to place the Jabberstamp chop onto their drawing. When they press and hold the Jabberstamp, they can start recording voice. Anyone who touches the chop on the paper using the small trumpet can later hear the children’s voice played back and thereby retelling the stories they created. Using this method, it gives an illusion to the young children that the paper talks. Besides, children can convey certain meaning in their drawings, which is usually not understood by adults. Overall, sound from TellTale and Jabberstamp are considered “real” in a sense that first, it was not played from generic speaker, second, certain actions are required from the children.

E. Making Text “Tangible” Like sound, text itself cannot be made tangible. Adopting the idea from Video-based document tracking [13] and Troll [14], we suggest paper to be used as a means to give text a “tangible” form. In real world, paper is one of the most common objects in daily activities. For preschoolers, the sense of tangibility is particularly strong when they scribble on paper using pen. Flipping the pages in Troll and Video-based document tracking booklet allows the children to read the contents on the tangible booklet and LCD screen at the same time. Other

220

2013 IEEE Symposium on Computers & Informatics

than that, cubes are also a good item for stimulating tangibility sense because they are easy to hold and move. Display Cube [15] and Haptic Wheel [31] are exemplary. Summing up the TUI examples, it can be concluded that all digital multimedia objects can be made tangible using tangible objects, despite some are tricky and could not be perfectly “represented”.

from the objects itself after the users have done something. For animation and video, its tangibility can be achieved by performing actual movement and digital multimedia expressions in tandem. Text can be made tangible by using paper or cubes with text displayed on. For interactivity, real buttons can be placed on tangible objects.

III. VISUALIZING A TANGIBILITY FRAMEWORK IN MULTIMEDIA LEARNING FOR PRESCHOOLERS Successful examples of the use of tangible objects in TUI system are abundant. This drives us to conceive a framework for tangibility in multimedia learning that outlines the basic structure of tangible multimedia as grounding guidelines and reference for relevant researches in future. Proposing such framework is of great need in view that stimulating the primary senses of the human sensory is a new direction of learning nowadays. Our framework proposes tangible objects as a means to manifest the sense of tangibility in multimedia. Via tangible objects, multimedia objects are “externalized” from digital world, and thus gain their “tangibility” (Fig. 4). For a system that is designed based on this framework, we propose to term it as “tangible multimedia”.

Fig. 5. Taxonomy of Tangible Multimedia

One possible way of manifesting tangibility in multimedia context is by displaying an array of tangible objects directly mapped to the corresponding virtual objects in multimedia systems in front of computer (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Merging tangible objects and digital objects Fig. 4. Tangibility Framework: Externalization of multimedia objects via tangible objects [16]

In compliance with the characteristics of digital multimedia that they should be delivered as a well integrated entity through a single computer monitor [19], all objects in tangible multimedia should be unified in a way that they are equally important, concordant, and complement each other meaningfully to achieve the overall tangibility useful for learning. In other words, tangible multimedia should be researched as a single coherent whole. If tangible objects are isolated from the whole system, the research will turn out to be a TUI research, such as those done by [20, 21, 22], rather than research of tangibility in multimedia context. At the outset, tangible multimedia compliant with the proposed framework exposes several limitations that may affect its efficacy. One of the limitations is that tangible objects arranged in front of computer may lead to a situation of physical clutter in display in the view of preschoolers. Other than that, huge tangible objects may take up a large portion of space that may block the preschoolers’ view to the computer screen. Under this circumstance, we propose multimedia design principles and

Although many TUI systems are linked to multimedia, they are not rightfully tangible multimedia because they loosely relate tangible objects to digital multimedia objects, deemphasize the role of multimedia design principles, and even could discard the use of the entire multimedia objects in their system. Their interest is on how tangible objects can be designed as a natural form of interface for better human-computer interaction [17, 18]. For them, multimedia objects are merely testing materials used for evaluating the usability of tangible objects. In this framework, we propose tangible object to be regarded as a category of multimedia objects on its own. In other words, taxonomy of tangible multimedia is to be defined as the combination of six multimedia objects, namely graphic, animation, text, audio, video and tangible objects (Fig. 5). For graphics, it can be made tangible using real-life objects such as pen, clock, and fruits. For sound, it can be made tangible, or more accurately “real” by setting the sound generated

221

2013 IEEE Symposium on Computers & Informatics

theories, particularly those related to the use of the tangible objects, as well as learning theories, to be part of the framework.

of the aforesaid objects in English were the learning outcomes of the TangiLearn. The learning activities were designed in such a way that the participants were required to grasp and move the tangible fruits, household items, and toy animals to trigger corresponding multimedia objects in TangiLearn. The tangible objects were used as live learning objects to trigger digital contents, as additional live resources aid to provide tactile information, and as concrete scaffolding tools in physical world. We attempted to achieve meaningful coupling of tangible and digital components meaningfully for learning. To ensure that they were leveraged, Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning [28] were applied for the design of TangiLearn. Consistent with the level of cognitive development of young children [1], abstract materials or concepts like “melt”, “minus”, “think” etc. will not be introduced. The tangible and multimedia objects binding were implemented using Flash AS3.0 and Quick Response (QR) code markers library, thus QR markers were required to be attached on every tangible object. As a consequence, the participants need to align them to the computer camera precisely.

Fig. 7. Multimedia design and learning theories as part of the framework

Well-established multimedia design theories such as Mayer’s cognitive theory of multimedia learning and dual-coding theories may be considered to be deployed to overcome the physical complexity problem. However, one problem in applying these theories is that they only take into account visual and auditory sensory channels. Formal design guidelines that address the tactile sensory channel in multimedia context are lacking. We look forward researches on design guidelines covering the three human sensory channels in multimedia. IV. CASE STUDY By reference to the proposed framework, a prototype of tangible multimedia system, TangiLearn was developed. A oneday case study pertaining to the use of such system has been conducted on six preschoolers aged 6 in a kindergarten in Kuala Lumpur. This case study was our first evaluation aimed to gather preliminary evidence that tangible multimedia can enhance preschoolers’ learning experience, hence, we set the preschoolers’ achievement scores and level of enjoyment of using the TangiLearn as evaluation metrics necessary to view TangiLearn as a good educational system. Unstructured observation, interview and quizzes were also deployed for data collection whereas basic descriptive statistics were used for analysis. We did not include a control group. The full comparative experimental research covering 250 students is being planned [23]. In TangiLearn, topics of general knowledge in English were chosen. This was because young children learn best when their literacy experiences are tied to something interesting, particularly when integrated into knowledge-building learning activities [24]. [25] said the study of plantations and animals should begin in the lowest grades. [26] stated that a site within 15minute walk from the children’s school is the source for materials for science learning. In view of this, for the purpose of the case study, real fruits, household items, and toy animals were deployed as tangible objects to complement the digital multimedia objects in TangiLearn. In line with National Preschool Curriculum of Malaysia, which emphasizes the mastery of language skills for preschool students [27], mastery of key terms

Fig. 8. Tangible and virtual objects in TangiLearn

The participants’ performance in quiz indicated that TangiLearn was an educationally valuable system. To attribute the preschoolers’ knowledge to the efficacy of the TangiLearn they use, the preschoolers’ prior knowledge and English level were verified by the pre-quiz and language background form filled out by their parents before the treatment. The differences of score in pre-quiz (conducted before the treatment) and postquiz (after the treatment) are used as a measure of the knowledge of participants acquired from the treatment. Table 1 reveals that the participants improved significantly in post-quiz, which suggested that they successfully learned from the system. Table 1. The Post-quiz & Pre-quiz Results (N=6; Question=15) Type of quiz Post-quiz

Pre-quiz

222

Grade Distinction Merit Pass Distinction Merit Pass

No. of Students 3 3 0 0 0 6

Mean 11.83

6.83

2013 IEEE Symposium on Computers & Informatics

Smileyometer [29] were used to gauge the participants’ level of enjoyment. We adopted the idea of Zaman and Abeele [30], and referred the enjoyment to “joy-of-use” of using TangiLearn. The self-report instrument was made child-friendly by the use of smiley pictorial face to represent five different levels of enjoyment. The case study revealed that most of the participants rated “enjoyed very much” in their level of enjoyment (Table 2). Observation further rendered us insights into preschoolers’ responses in the quantitative results. From the preschoolers’ reactions, TangiLearn was novel for them. They liked tinkering with the tangible objects, and attempted different degree of alignments to the computer. During interview, they also indicated that they liked the part where tangible objects were bound up with multimedia objects. They said they were analogous to grasping the digital objects.

various sensors are utilized interchangeably. We plan to deploy spatial sensor attached on tangible objects for spatial activities. With spatial sensor, the preschooler will be required to perform simple gestural operation to trigger virtual objects (Fig. 10(b)).

Fig. 10. (a) Implementation of RFID (b) Spatial Sensor on tangible objects

For example, in planets learning session, by requesting the preschoolers to grasp and move the tangible globe from left to right, the virtual earth will be spin accordingly (Fig. 11(a)). With concrete experience of such object in hand, they gain better the concept of earth, and thus could comprehend it correctly. In learning musical instruments, we deploy a toy guitar coupled with virtual guitar. Acquiring know-how to play the guitar is not the main objective of the session, but to teach the preschoolers the relevant key terms and understand the use of the instrument. To do this, a few force sensors are attached on the tangible guitar’s strings (Fig. 11(b)). When “strum the guitar” text displayed on computer screen, the preschooler will be required to strum the tangible string, which lead to the display of animated virtual string and relevant guitar tone (Fig. 11(c)). We believe this could enhance preschooler’s ability to comprehend the object they learned.

Table 2. Results of the Smileyometer Rating Evaluation Items 1 2 3 4 5

I feel comfortable to use TangiLearn. I like TangiLearn. I’m interested in TangiLearn. I enjoyed using TangiLearn very much. I like the way the tangible objects help me in learning.

Rating 5 5 4 5 5

V. THE DESIGN OF TANGIBLE MULTIMEDIA: REFINEMENTS TO TANGILEARN Numerous problems encountered in the case study prompted us to explore alternative technology for implementing the tangible-multimedia binding. The most notable problem was related to the requirement of exact orientation of markers to the camera by preschoolers. Considering the choice of technology should rely on its practicability to the students as learning aids, we plan to refine the implementation by deploying sensors technology, which comprises RFID readers, force sensors, spatial sensors, and electronic sliders in the final experimental research [23].

Fig. 11. (a) Spatial sensor attached on globe in TangiLearn (b) Two force sensors attached on guitar (c) Strumming the sensor enhanced guitar

TangiLearn is designed with the target to realize the complete set of tactile and spatial experience of preschoolers in multimedia context, as prescribed in the proposed tangibility framework. With the refinements, TangiLearn is expected to bridge the learning gap faced by the preschoolers in multimedia learning. An on-going iterative cycle of testing and refinements has been planned and the refined system will be evaluated in the next comparative study until a robust system is developed. One problem with the use of sensors technology is the lengthy wired connection between tangible objects and computer which could confuse the young preschoolers.

Fig. 9. Devices deployed in TangiLearn

To overcome the problem of alignment, RFID will be deployed for tangible objects identification. It is done in a way that RFID tag is embedded into tangible objects (Fig. 10(a)). The sole deployment of RFID reader is insufficient to deliver a strong sense of tangibility to the preschoolers. Therefore,

VI. CONCLUSION The paper represents an effort to delineate the possible way of configuring tangibility in digital multimedia. Through litera-

223

2013 IEEE Symposium on Computers & Informatics

ture perusal on selected TUI systems, we are not only informed that the implementation of tangibility in multimedia is feasible, but also able to visualize how tangible multimedia could look like. The success of such innovative approach in multimedia settings will contribute to the existing research base of educational multimedia. It creates the potentials to suggest an alternative to the conventional multimedia learning system. As a newly explored area, we have problem to determine the basic structure of a tangible multimedia system, as such, a relevant framework is visualized in this paper as grounding reference for researches in future. Preliminary evidence gathered in the case study provided a good view of the Malaysian preschoolers’ level of acceptance of such system.

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17] [18]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

[19]

The work presented in this paper was financially supported by Institute of Postgraduate Studies and Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

[20]

REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8] [9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[21]

J. Piaget, The origins of intelligence in children. New York, USA: University Press, 1952. J. Piaget, The principles of genetic epistemology. New York: Basic Books, 1972. M. Elsom-Cook, Principles of interactive multimedia. UK: McGraw-Hill, 2001. O. Zuckerman, and M. Resnick, “System blocks: A physical interface for system dynamics learning,” Proceedings of the 21st International System Dynamics Conference, 810-811. USA: ACM Press, 2003. T. Sokoler, H. Edeholt, and M. Johansson, “VideoTable: A tangible interface for collaborative exploration of video material during design sessions,” Proceedings from CHI 2002, 2002, pp. 656-657, E. R. Pedersen, T. Sokoler, and L. Nelson, “PaperButtons: Expanding a tangible interface,” Proceedings from DIS ‟00: The 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, 2000, pp. 216-223. E. D. Guzman, F. W. Ho-Ching, T. Matthews, T. Rattenbury, M. Back, and S. Harrison, “EEWWW!!: Tangible interfaces for navigating into the human body,” Proceedings from CHI ‟03, 2003, pp. 806 – 807. J. K. Salisbury, “Making graphics physically tangible,” Communications of the ACM, 42(8), 1999, pp. 74-81. M. Ananny, “Supporting children‟s collaborative authoring: Practicing written literacy while composing oral texts,” Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002, pp. 595–596. H. Raffle, C. Vaucelle, R. Wang, and H. Ishii, “Jabberstamp: embedding sound and voice in traditional drawings,” Proceedings from IDC ‟07: The 6th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 2007, pp. 137-144. A. Manches, C. O'Malley, and S. Benford, “Physical manipulation: Evaluating the potential for tangible designs,” Proceedings from TEI ‟09: The 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, 2009, pp. 77-84. P. Frei, V. Su, B. Mikhak, and H. Ishii, “Curlybot: Designing a new class of computational toys,” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2000, pp. 129-136. J. Kim, S. M. Seitz, and M. Agrawala, “Video-based document tracking: unifying your physical and electronic desktops,” Proceedings from UIST

[22] [23]

[24]

[25]

[26] [27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

224

‟04: The 17th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 2004, pp. 99-107. A. Soro, M. Deriu, and G. Paddeu, “Natural exploration of multimedia contents,” Proceedings of MoMM2009: The 7th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia, 2009, pp. 382-385. M. Kranz, D. Schmidt, P. Holleis, and A. Schmidt, “A display cube as a tangible user interface,” Proceedings of the Seventh Internation Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Switzerland: Springer, 2005. K. T. Chau, S. C. Toh, Zarina Samsudin, Wan Ahmad Jaafar Wan Yahaya, and Lili Budiman, “Visualizing a framework for tangibility in multimedia learning for preschoolers,” The International Journal of Multimedia & Its Applications (IJMA) Vol.4, No.5, October 2012, 2012. P. Dourish, Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. USA: MIT Press, 2001. P. Marshall, S. Price, and Y. Rogers, Conceptualising tangibles to support learning. Interaction Design and Children, 2003, pp. 101–109. K. Nahrstedt, and R. Steinmetz, Multimedia fundamentals volume 1: media coding and content processing. US: Prentice Hall, 2002. A. N. Antle, M. Droumeva, & D. Ha, “Hands on what? Comparing children‟s mouse-based and tangible-based Interaction,” Proceedings from IDC ‟09: The 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 2009, pp. 80-88. Z. Xie, Comparing children's enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. Master dissertation. School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University, Canada, 2008. D. Xu, Tangible user interface for children: An overview [Technical report]. Preston, UK: University of Central Lancashire, 2005. K. T. Chau, S. C. Toh, and Zarina Samsudin, “Tangible multimedia technology: A research proposal for bringing tangibility into multimedia learning amongst preschool children,” Proceedings of the 5th International Malaysian Educational Technology Convention (IMETC 2011), Kuantan, Malaysia, 2011. Albert Shanker Institute, “Preschool curriculum: What's in it for children and teachers,” Washington, USA, 2009. Available: http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Early%20Childhood%201211-08.pdf D.L. Haury and P. Rillero, “How does or should the use of hands-on materials vary with age?” Perspectives of Hands-On Science Teaching. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1994. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/eric/eric8.htm D. Tredway, “The local environment: A learning experience,” Science and Children, 20(1), 16-17, 1982. Challenger Concept, “Schools of Malaysia directory: Your guide to children‟s schooling and upbringing,” Selangor: Challenger Concept (M) Sdn Bhd, 2009. R.E. Mayer, “Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning,” In Mayer, R.E. (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, pp. 1-16. New York: Cambridge, 2009. J. C. Read, S. J. MacFarlane, and C. Casey, “Endurability, engagement and expectations: Measuring children's fun,” Proceedings from IDC'02. ACM Press, 2002. B. Zaman, and V.V. Abeele, “How to measure the likeability of tangible interaction with preschoolers,” 2004. Available: http://soc.kuleuven.be/com/mediac/cuo/admin/upload/Zaman_Abeele_ch iformat.pdf A. Bianchi, I. Oakley, J.K. Lee, D.S. Kwon, and V. Kostakos, “Haptics for tangible interaction: A vibro-tactile prototype,” Proceedings from TEI ’11: The Fifth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied, 283-284, 2011.

2013 IEEE Symposium on Computers & Informatics

225