Using Multi-Touch Display Technology to Support Remedial Phonics Instruction Techniques in Collaborative Learning Environments Daniela McGivern, Dr Matthew Butler, Dr Michael Morgan, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
[email protected]
Abstract: This research examines phonics instruction on multi-touch display technology for collaborative learning. The paper provides a brief discussion of technology, collaborative learning and literacy instruction and then focuses on the design of a Phonics application using collaborative learning interactions. The paper discusses the methodology of a multi-phase evaluation of the usability and the instructional design of the application. A survey was used for the usability study and a focus group consisting of experts in the field of literacy was used to gather data on instructional effectiveness. The major findings of the research are explored, followed by the conclusions and further research opportunities arising from the study.
Introduction This research examines literacy and literacy education, in particular phonics instruction, and also looks recent advancements in human-computer interaction (HCI) that provides an opportunity to assist in this area. Recent advancements in HCI technologies have enabled the development of large-scale display devices that encourage group participation on more intuitive interfaces. Cuypers et al. (2008) writes that newer technologies are emerging that allow multiple persons to interact at the same time through the use of multi-touch screens and that multi-touch screens further enhance pedagogic practices in collaborative learning as it offers social technology. Research has shown that tabletop displays have been useful in a range of areas including education and have demonstrated that there are a number of models of interactive tabletop technologies (Inkpen, 1999, Sluis et al. 2004, Piper et al. 2006, Khandelwal & Mazalek, 2007, Piper & Hollan, 2009). In the last thirty years, computer and software technology have become more affordable and accessible at home and in the classroom. Literacy learning in early childhood education is changing as a result of new technologies. Multi-sensory activities on computers can be used to capture children’s attention; this then stimulates and reinforces their learning in imaginative and exciting ways (Bald 2007). Desktop computer technologies, the internet and interactive whiteboard technology (IWB) have made it possible to expand phonics learning by providing access to web-based learning and multimedia products at home and in school curriculums. Vertical displays, IWBs, are moving closer towards interactive and collaborative learning by enabling learning that encompasses whole class participation that engages student participation by offering a range of applications (BECTA 2003). There are a number of literacy applications developed for desktop computers and IWBs such as Jolly Phonics, Fast Phonics First and more recently ABC Reading Eggs, that engage and motivate students in learning to read. However, this participation is teacher controlled and interactions can only occur one at the time by either the teacher or the student. As stated by Rogers and Lindley (2004, p. 1135) groups working together often use the IWB for ‘show and tell’, where one member interacts and the others observe. While the small screen display of the personal computer offers some interaction, mouse and keyboard, this single point of input doesn’t encourage collaborative classroom learning as it offers one-on-one instruction when teaching reading skills and strategies (Morgan & Butler 2009).
- 56 -
Education is an area that is suitable as a social environment for collaborative learning where children enjoy working and playing together. Collaborative interaction in classroom learning provides intrinsic motivation that is a significant aspect for learning new skills (Inkpen et al. 1999, Scott, Mandryk & Inkpen 2003). A number of models of interactive tabletop technologies such as tabletop displays, augmented tabletop systems and multi-touch display technology have been useful in a range of areas including education that promotes and enables children to learn in a collaborative environment by providing direct stimulation to motivate learning. Recent studies that have focused on multi-touch display technology have demonstrated that multi-touch display technology promotes collaborative learning in a classroom environment by providing a shared digital workspace which is capable of registering multiple simultaneous user inputs (Khaled et al., 2009, Morgan & Butler, 2009, Piper & Hollan, 2009). While most children learn to talk naturally without formal instruction reading is a skill that needs specific instruction (Patton & Holmes, 1998). Indeed the ability to read is an important lifelong skill that enables learning. There have been many approaches as to how reading is taught, including phonics, (Hill, 2006), the whole-language approach, (Goodman, 1981), and whole-word method, (Bielby, 1999). In Australia, the whole-language approach has dominated for a time; however the phonics approach has been increasingly used for remedial literacy instruction. Due to it’s well defined instructional method and the ‘manipulatives’ currently used as teaching aides, for example flash cards, the phonics method has been selected as the basis for the proposed collaborative multi-touch application. According to a US Government report (2002) there are five essential components required; phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency and reading comprehension strategies. This research focused primarily on the first two elements. 1. 2.
Phonemic awareness involves identifying and manipulating individual sounds, as phonemes, in spoken words. Phonics is defined as the understanding that there is a predictable relationship between phonemes, the sounds of spoken language, and graphemes, the letters and the spelling that represents those sounds in written language (USDOE, 2002).
Crucially for the learning of reading, phonics relates to how we can associate speech sounds with written symbols and how we hear and recognize different sounds (Roach, 1992). Phonics is like a puzzle that promotes active investigation that focuses on sound-letter relationships that encourage children to construct knowledge and an understanding of language (Hill, 2006, p.208). Therefore, a phonics application has been developed that; 1) focuses on the two key component skills of the phonics techniques, 2) places the practice of these skills into a collaborative social context.
Design of the Application The phonics application has been designed to use multi-touch display technology to teach school children phonemic awareness and phonics. These learning skills are the basic building blocks on how to decode/ recode words and is considered to be a good starting point for children, who through learner collaboration, begin to understand how to read. The main interaction screen of the phonics application is shown in the figure below (see Figure 1). The screen resolution: 1600px x 1200px maximises screen space enabling easy access up to 4 players.
- 57 -
Single Team - Two Player Game Double Team - Four Player Game
Figure 1: Prototypes of the Phonics game screen The game begins by selecting either a 2 players or 4 players game. Learners can type in their name, providing themselves with an identity. The application loads a screen that is divided into two sections where each player is represented by a different colour with matching text-tiles and each side displays the game level, player name and score and in the centre there displays the player number and a digital timer. Players are encouraged to simultaneously talk, touch and manoeuvre text letter tiles (see Figure 2). Single Team - Two Player Game
Double Team – Four Player Game
Figure 2: The Single Team and Double Team phonics application in action. In order to ensure that both players are engaged in the phonics task and to facilitate collaboration on the learning task, the sub-components of the task were identified and distributed amongst the players (two players, although a four player version has also been developed involving two teams of two players each). The basic task involves filling letters missing from words. One learner chooses an image, revealing its associated word with one or more letters missing. Touching the image also plays the sound of the word. This learner verbally requests the missing letter sounds after listening to the word. The other learner possesses a randomly generated series of letter tiles that can be used to complete the word. Touching the letter plays its letter sound, allowing the learner to identify the missing letter requested by their partner. This learner passes the correct letter tile over, ensuring both learners are involved in the task. This is designed so both learners must focus on how the correct letter sounds in the context of the word and verbalize this understanding. After completing the five words, or after a designated time period (2 minutes), the roles are reversed to ensure the learners actively participate in
- 58 -
both aspects of the learning exercise.
Overview of the Methodology The system development research approach as defined by Nunamaker and Chen (1990), stresses the importance of constructing a conceptual framework for the research where the problems are identified through a sequence of stages. The conceptual framework model is based on the literature evaluation where it was found that research is just beginning to emerge in the use of multi-touch display technology and collaborative learning in many areas of education. However, there is very little research into the effectiveness of the use of multi-touch displays, collaboration, and remedial phonics instruction to improve phonemic awareness and phonics learning. This process then looks at how the system architecture is set, analysed and how the prototype is designed as well as any development issues. It looks at the ‘advantages and disadvantages of the concepts, the frameworks and the chosen design alternatives’ (Nunamaker and Chen, 1990, p.635). The final stage is applied once the system is built. It will test the systems performance and usability. The data gathered will provide system information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the developed system. Based on findings in the literature review, a phonics game application has been designed and developed to provide an effective reading program to aide and assist in reading instruction. Three experimental phases are summarised using an experimental design process model that demonstrate data collection instruments (see Figure 3). The first phase, Usability evaluation, was a usability analysis involving university students the second phase, Expert evaluation, involved teachers and university academics in the fields of literacy, early childhood studies and educational technology, and the final phase, User participation, was beyond the scope of this project and is not discussed in this paper.
Phase One
Literature Review
Application
Experimental Design
Data Collection Ethics Application
Research Question
Phase One: Usability Participants
Design/Create Application
Update Application
Phase Two: Expert Participants
Update Application Below this line is beyond the scope of this project
Phase Three: User Participants
Figure 3: Experimental Design Process Model
- 59 -
Usability Survey
Data and Formatting Ethics Application Focus Groups themes and questions Data and Formatting
The first phase, the Usability Survey, was designed to gathered data using both quantitative and qualitative collection methods to test a number of aspects of the phonics application on the multi-touch display. This included the interactive and collaborative nature of the phonics application on the multi-touch display. After using the multi-touch application in pairs for 10 to15 minutes, participants were asked to complete the survey assessment questions. The survey was divided into four sections that analysed: Look and Feel of the Application, Usability, Multi-touch Display Technology and General observations. The survey consisted of sixteen Likert-scaled questions, eleven alternate ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response questions that allowed short answer comments and four openended questions at the close of each section. 19 people participated in this first phase of the research study, testing the application and completing the accompanying survey (n = 19). In the context of investigating issues of collaboration and task analysis, survey analysis is presented relating to the following specific survey questions: •
Quantitative: Did you find that the multi-touch technology encourages discussion? Did you find that the multi-touch technology encourages collaboration?
•
Qualitative: Did you find you interacted verbally with your partner about the task at hand? Please comment on the suitability of the multi-touch technology.
Regarding the quantitative data, participants rated the ability of the technology to encourage discussion and collaboration highly. Both were ranked on a 5-point Likert, 1 representing “poor” to 5 representing “excellent”. Regarding encouragement of discussion, a mean score of 3.89 was obtained, while encouragement of collaboration scored higher with a mean score of 4.26. These results suggest that the technology may indeed be suitable for collaborative exercises and promote discussion between participants. Qualitative comments provide greater insight into the participants’ perceptions of these aspects. Of the 19 participants in total, 14 provided a qualitative response regarding verbal interactions during the task. All comments made provided an insight into the types and nature of verbal collaborations that were performed. This included such teamwork as asking for letters, helping each other in identifying letters and sounds, and general discussion regarding the task. This suggests that verbal collaboration was indeed fostered. The most positive comments received were the general remarks regarding the suitability of the technology. Again, 14 of the 19 participants provided a qualitative response, with all but 2 being positive. The most encouraging comment regarding collaboration overall was from one participant who indicated “It felt natural to help out your team mate to complete their word”. Other comments indicated that interaction with the technology was intuitive and that collaboration with their partner well fostered. This is a crucial aspect of the technology, indicating that collaboration between participants can be made to feel like a natural part of the process. The sole negative comments did not suggest any particular flaws with the use of multi-touch technology, but rather focused on technical problems in the application that emerged with use for example the reliability of the physics effect on the letter tiles. With such positive comment from a range of participants both somewhat familiar and unfamiliar with the technology, this is encouraging and a research area ripe for further exploration. Observation during the experiment supports the qualitative comments made by the participants. Instinctively on commencing the activity each pair would begin interactions with the table and start talking to each other about the exercise. Very few times would participants be silent while working on the activity, suggesting that the task breakdown certainly encouraged collaboration on the shared device.
Phase Two The second phase, an expert analysis, used a qualitative approach in data collection that was followed by a thematic analysis of the data, aimed at evaluating the suitability and to resolve any existing problems prior to testing on children. The focus group was attended by five participants: the first two participants were Special Education teachers, with Primary training from an inner city suburban primary school and three were Monash
- 60 -
University academic staff: two from the Faculty of Education, one in Early Childhood Education, the other from Technology and Learning and the final participant from the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT), in particular from Education Technology Development. In a separate session, an additional participant, an educational technology coordinator from a local school, under went the same processes as the focus group. In addition to the original focus group themes and questions a number of new themes emerged from these discussions. The final themes developed focused on Multi-touch Technology, Direct Manipulation and Phonics (new), Multi-touch Technology and Collaboration, Application Interface, Screen Orientation and Group Dynamics (new), and Phonics Education Issues (new).
Multi-touch Technology Multi-touch Technology refers to the multi-touch display table and how users may interact with it. Overall the group was extremely positive about the potential of multi-touch technology in classrooms. When asked about the idea of having children gathered around the multi-touch display; would it be beneficial in terms of education: SE: I work with early childhood, usually, preschool. …I think that is the most exciting things, in terms of technology for children as they can all gather around it, touching it, be doing it together… Several participants highlighted the benefits in terms of high interaction and collaborative learning, as demonstrated by the above comment.
Direct Manipulation and Phonics This section looks at how children will find directly manipulation on the interface of the touch surface using their fingers. In general the group were very supportive of the concept of direct manipulation of objects on the screen rather than using a mouse and pointer. The consensus seemed to be that the direct manipulation of objects would reduce cognitive load for young learners. ## JB: In terms of direct manipulation, was it easier for young children to touch the screen and manipulating objects rather than using a mouse and cursor? ##JB: If it was better than using a mouse, that’s a question I would say…one hundred percent… When asked about manipulating the objects, touching them instead of using a mouse: GA: I like that idea, rather than the hands on...prefers the direct manipulation- frustration skills that can come inherent at the same time (with learning mouse skills). SE: It is quite hard for them to use the mouse One participant indicated that it was particularly important for remedial learners to reduce all possible sources of difficulty and frustration in order for them to effectively focus on the learning task. GA: yes, I am thinking about the young ones who get so frustrated in their learning to start off with ...that is what we look for in special Ed, we take out some of the obvious difficulties for them, they just need to be focused directly on their specific they are learning, and at this stage, say letter name or what matches to go with the word…
Multi-touch Technology and Collaboration Multi-touch Technology and Collaboration refers to how the multi-touch display encourages users to work collaboratively. The response of the group to a large shared digital workspace was very positive. All members of the group expressed the view that the face-to-face setting for the interactions would allow learners to collaborate more. In reference to whether the multi-touch encouraged discussion? ##JB: It does in the format that you showed me, because if you have got two children sitting on either side, they naturally have to talk to each other, because they can’t complete this task essentially on their own… …and, as what most people would do, is ask each other for help: Oh can you give me a letter A or D. ..and if
- 61 -
children were doing this, and you were sounding out, for example ‘dog’ …d…d…og. The kids could ask, ‘Can you touch that again?’ …when facing each other they will communicate better… The application was considered appropriate in relation to collaborative interaction. KH: It' s bright, it' s clear it' s not too busy on the screen, the kids are able to focus exactly where they need to be, because kids easily get distracted in a busy…busy classroom, with too much around them so if that is the focus in an area, there are other learning centre… When asked if the table should be made bigger, allowing for more students to work together, the response was: KH: Class rooms are not big enough to hold it with all the seating arrangements and have everything else The current size of the table was considered acceptable.
Application Interface This section refers to the phonics application itself, the interface, the letter tiles and the font type. The group expressed strong support for the interface design initially. They indicated that it was appropriate for the target audience with bright colours and clear graphics. After further discussion and some prompting, many comments were recording about how the interface could be improved and also some alternate design approaches that could be employed. Therefore the comments presented will focus on areas suggested for possible improvement or redesign that could be used in future research for Phase Three of the study. In regards to the application interface: Would there be anything you would like to see e.g. bigger tiles, letters? KH: I would like to see the letters be given the options of cursive and or the print that they have in their readers so, like for example, the ‘a’, they typed ‘a’ on computers is not the ‘a’ they learn to write in print, actually that ‘a’ they rarely see, because now it’s either cursive, with the hook, or that funny shape there. (Arial font) This was referencing the current screen font – Century Gothic. Four phonics instructional packages were analysed for this study, but only one, Jolly Phonics, carried a cursive font. Even the highly regarded ABC Reading Eggs demonstrates variations of print san serif and serif fonts, but not cursive.
Screen Orientation and Group Dynamics The topic of screen orientation and group dynamics refers to how will children cope with the screen orientation and what is the best method for group dynamics: face to face or side by side. An important point of discussion, particularly for the literacy experts, involved the alignment of the distribution of learners and interface elements around the screen with the left to right reading convention. After an extended discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of various arrangements the consensus of the group was that children would be better working side by side together rather than opposite for the following reasons: GA: ...I think that it is to the kids’ detrimental learning, because the one from this side is not seeing the word formed correctly because they are looking at it from upside-down. SE: I think the side-by-side is better, because they will still look at each other, they will still be side-toside and look at each others faces and the left to right ‘thing’ is quite critical. It is important to see ‘where did that letter go?’, ‘what did it create?’
Phonics Education Issues This discussion examined whether the designed application presented the appropriate levels of challenge/difficulty in the tasks presented, i.e. in the task of word breakdown, missing letter combinations and letter/sound associations. There are currently six levels in the phonics application. When asked about the idea of the current game levels which are: first letter missing, third letter missing and second letter is missing, then the first two letters missing, last two letters missing and finally, all letters missing.
- 62 -
KH felt that the steps were logical but required more letter/sound word associations. For example: ...when they learn phonics, when you teach ‘s’, you teach it as, ‘who can think of words that start with ‘s’ snake, six, seat’, …that is how you teach phonics with the first sound as it is the easiest for them to hear, the next is the last and the hardest is in the middle. The conclusions drawn from these and other comments were that the missing letter approach was targeted at the correct level and built on the increase level of difficulty at the appropriate speed, however the word list could include more repeats of similar words to allow more practice of the same sounds. Another issue discussed was the removal of duplicate letters for different sounds represented by the same letter shape. Overall, the participants consider the phonics application on the multi-touch display was visually appealing and that it encouraged natural discussion and collaboration between children. They also believed that the multi-touch was educational for children and that it was easy to use, innate, through direct manipulation. However, there is a need to improve several aspects of the design in order to increase the instructional effectiveness of the package before an evaluation involving children was commenced.
Conclusions and Further Research This paper has discussed how a phonics application when used in conjunction with a large-scale multitouch technology may provide a suitable platform for collaborative learning activity. The Usability testing results produce means scores above neutral (3) where it was found that users worked collaboratively and interacted verbally. Issues that arose during this testing phase related to programming issues such as lack of inertia when moving letter tiles and system errors. This testing enabled the programmer to fix the problems and improve the phonics application for Phase Two data collection. The Focus Group evaluation was an expert analysis that explored the collaborative aspects and the suitability of the phonics application on the multi-touch display. The application was considered to be visually appealing and that it would prompt a natural discussion between learners. The experts believe that the application was educational, interactively engaging and easy to use. This phase generated a number of suggestions for design improvement, therefore, increasing the instructional effectiveness of the package and preparing it for the next phase of analysis that is planned to involve children. The multi-touch display has enabled remedial phonics instruction involving collaboration as participants are able to access the same representations at the same time. Education is an area that is suitable for the use of this technology as its social environment promotes collaborative learning where children enjoy working and playing together. The horizontal surface format of the multi-touch display provides an affordance that enables role swapping in a learning environment. Further research has been identified as a result of the above findings. The first step would be to test a revised phonics application including the phonics elements and learning tasks on school children, in teams of two and four, becoming Phase Three. This would provide an empirical evaluation of the instructional effectiveness of using multi-touch technology for learning phonics. Currently, the phonics application has only taken into consideration the first two of five components: phonemic awareness and phonics that make up an effective reading program. Three other elements: vocabulary development (spelling), reading fluency and reading comprehension could be incorporated into the next phase of this research, as part of a PhD. In conclusion, some important lessons were learnt when designing an educational application for the multi-touch display. The phonics application was designed with young children in mind. Prior to testing the application on children it was important to conduct two other tests. Phase One: Usability Survey, tested the usability of the application and Phase Two: Expert Analysis, to evaluate the learning and collaborative aspects of the phonics application. These lessons will be used to revise and improve the design of the phonics application before further testing.
References Bald, J 2007, Using Phonics to Teach Reading and Spelling, Paul Chapman Publishing, London. Bielby, N. (1999). Teach Reading: Key Stage 2 (illustrated ed.). Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes (Publishers) Ltd. British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) 2003, What the research says about interactive whiteboards, viewed 14 May 2009, http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf.
- 63 -
Cuypers, T, Schneider-Barnes, J, Taelman, J, Luyten, K, & Bekaert, P. (2008). Eunomia: Toward a Framework for Multi-Touch Information Displays in Public Spaces. BCS-HCI ' 08 Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction - Volume 2 British Computer Society Swinton, UK. Goodman, Kenneth S., & Goodman, Yetta M. (1981). A Whole-Language, Comprehension-Centered Reading Program. Program in Language and Literacy Occasional Paper Number 1. Hill, S. (2006). Developing early literacy: assessment and teaching (1st Edition ed.). Prahran: Eleanor Curtain Publishing. Inkpen, K. M., Ho-Ching, W.-l., Kuederle, O., Scott, S. D., & Shoemaker, G. B. D. (1999). This is fun! we' re all best friends and we' re all playing: supporting children' s synchronous collaboration. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer support for collaborative learning, Palo Alto, California. Khaled, R, Barr, P, Johnston, H & Biddle, R 2009, ‘Let' s clean up this mess: exploring multi-touch collaborative play’. Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, 4-9 April 2009, ACM, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 4441-4446. Khandelwal, M., & Mazalek, A. (2007). Teaching table: a tangible mentor for pre-k math education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 191-194. Morgan, M & Butler, M 2009, ‘Considering Multi-touch Display Technology for Collaboration in the Classroom’, 22 June 2009, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2009, Honolulu, HI, USA, AACE, pp. 674-683. Nunamaker, J., & Chen, M. (1990). Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 631-640. Patton, S., & Holmes, M. (1998). The Keys to Literacy. Washington DC: Council for Basic Education. Piper, A. M., O' Brien, E., Morris, M. R., & Winograd, T. (2006). SIDES: a cooperative tabletop computer game for social skills development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Banff, Alberta, Canada. 1-10. Piper, A. M., & Hollan, J. D. (2009). Tabletop displays for small group study: affordances of paper and digital materials. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA. 1227-1236. Rogers, Y & Lindley, S 2004, ‘Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: which way is best?’, Interacting with Computers, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1133-1152. Scott, SD, Grant, KD & Mandryk RL 2003, ‘System guidelines for co-located, collaborative work on a tabletop display’, in K Kuutti, EH Karsten, G Fitzpatrick, P. Dourish and K Schmidt (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 14-18 September 2003, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 159-178. Sluis, R. J. W., Weevers, I., Schijndel, C. H. G. J. v., Kolos-Mazuryk, L., Fitrianie, S., & Martens, J. B. O. S. (2004). Read-It: five-to-seven-year-old children learn to read in a tabletop environment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children: building a community, Maryland. 7380. U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (USDOE). (2002). Guidance for the Reading First Program viewed 4 April 2009, http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/guidance.pdf.
- 64 -
