Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- 14 Video Games and Learning
- 15 Embodiment and Embodied Design
- 16 Tangible and Full-Body Interfaces in Learning
- 17 Augmented Reality in the Learning Sciences
- 18 Mobile Learning
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
16 - Tangible and Full-Body Interfaces in Learning
from Part III - Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 March 2022
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- 1 An Introduction to the Learning Sciences
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Methodologies
- Part III Grounding Technology in the Learning Sciences
- 14 Video Games and Learning
- 15 Embodiment and Embodied Design
- 16 Tangible and Full-Body Interfaces in Learning
- 17 Augmented Reality in the Learning Sciences
- 18 Mobile Learning
- Part IV Learning Together
- Part V Learning Disciplinary Knowledge
- Part VI Moving Learning Sciences Research into the Classroom
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter builds on growing trends such as the maker movement, programmable children’s toys like LEGO Mindstorms, and gaming consoles with movement sensors like the Nintendo Wii and the Microsoft Kinect. These technologies include fabrication and construction technologies such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and milling machines; embedded computing where small computational devices – such as motion sensors or LED lights – are inserted into physical artifacts; novel materials such as conductive threads or materials with shape memory; optics and tracking with cameras and GPS position sensing. In recent years, computing technologies have increased in power, decreased in cost, and become dramatically smaller. These features enable wearable devices that can be integrated with children’s crafts, tools, and playgrounds. The chapter reviews technologies including virtual reality, body augmentation, programmable toys like LEGO Mindstorms, and manipulatives that are responsive to body movement.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences , pp. 321 - 339Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Abrahamson, D., Gutiérrez, J. F., Lee, R. G., Reinholz, D., & Trninic, D. (2011). From tacit sensorimotor coupling to articulated mathematical reasoning in an embodied design for proportional reasoning. Presented at AERA 2011. Retrieved from https://edrl.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Abrahamson-et-al.AERA2011-EmbLearnSymp.pdfGoogle Scholar
Alexander, J., Barton, J., & Goeser, C. (2013). Transforming the art museum experience: Gallery One. The annual conference of Museums and the Web. Retrieved from https://mw2013.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/transforming-the-art-museum-experience-gallery-one-2/Google Scholar
Antle, A. (2009). Embodied child-computer interaction: Why embodiment matters. ACM Interactions, (March/April), 27–30.Google Scholar
Antle, A. (2013). Research opportunities: Embodied child-computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 30–36.Google Scholar
Antle, A. N., Corness, G., & Droumeva, M. (2009). What the body knows: Exploring the benefits of embodied metaphors in hybrid physical digital environments. Interacting with Computers, 21(1–2) (January), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, A. (1999). The impact of playground design on the play behaviors of children with differing levels of physical competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(1), 75–98.Google Scholar
Berthouze, N., Kim, W. W., & Patel, D. (2007). Does body movement engage you more in digital game play? and why? In Paiva, A. C. R., Prada, R., & Picard, R. W. (Eds.), Affective computing and intelligent interaction (pp. 102–113). Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Buechley, L., & Perner-Wilson, H. (2012). Crafting technology: Reimagining the processes, materials, and cultures of electronics. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 19(3), Article 21.Google Scholar
Carreras, A., & Pares, N. (2009). Designing an interactive installation for children to experience abstract concepts. In Macías, J. A., Saltiveri, A. G., & Latorre, P. M. (Eds.), New trends on human–computer interaction (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Casas, X., Herrera, G., Coma, I., & Fernández, M. (2012). A kinect-based augmented reality system for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. In GRAPP/IVAPP (pp. 440–446).Google Scholar
Castañer, M., Camerino, O., Pares, N., & Landry, P. (2011). Fostering body movement in children through an exertion interface as an educational tool. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 236–240.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, M., & Nishioka, A. (1997). Orihedra: Mathematical sculptures in paper. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1, 225–261.Google Scholar
Grudin, J. (1990). The computer reaches out: The historical continuity of interface design. Proceedings of CHI’90, 261–268.Google Scholar
Hodgkins, P., Caine, M., Rothberg, S., Spencer, M., & Mallison, P. (2008). Design and testing of a novel interactive playground device. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 222(4), 559–564.Google Scholar
Hourcade, J. P. (2015). Child-computer interaction. Iowa City, IA: Author. Retrieved from http://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~hourcade/book/index.phpGoogle Scholar
Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), Article 3.Google Scholar
Kourakis, S., & Pares, N. (2012). We hunters: Interactive communication for young cavemen (Special Issue on Interaction Design and Children). International Journal of Arts and Technology, 5(2–3–4), 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Nuñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Landry, P., & Pares, N. (2014). Controlling and modulating physical activity through interaction tempo in exergames: A quantitative empirical analysis. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments, 6(3), 277–294.Google Scholar
Moher, T., Wiley, J., Jaeger, A., Silva, B. L., & Novellis, F. (2010). Spatial and temporal embedding for science inquiry: An empirical study of student learning. Proceedings International Conference of the Learning Sciences. June, Chicago, 1, 826–833.Google Scholar
Mora, J., Pares, N., & Rodriguez, N. (2012). Analysis of an embodied interaction installation for museum to enhance learning of the nanoscale. In Workshop designing interactive technology for teens, NordiCHI 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Mora-Guiard, J., Crowell, C., Pares, N., & Heaton, P. (2017). Sparking social initiation behaviors in children with autism through full-body interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 11(4), 62–71.Google Scholar
Mueller, F., Agamanolis, S., & Picard, R. (2003). Exertion interfaces: Sports over a distance for social bonding and fun. Proceedings of CHI’03, 561–568.Google Scholar
Price, S., & Rogers, Y. (2004). Let’s get physical: The learning benefits of interacting in digitally augmented physical spaces. Journal of Computers and Education, 15(2), 169–185.Google Scholar
Resnick, M., Martin, F. L., Berg, R., & Borovoy, R. (1998). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with. Proceedings of CHI’98 (pp. 281–287).Google Scholar
Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Gabrielli, S., Harris, E., & Smith, H. (2002). A conceptual framework for mixed reality environments: Designing novel learning activities for young children. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 11(6), 677–686.Google Scholar
Roussos, M., Johnson, A., Moher, T., Leigh, J., Vasilakis, C., & Barnes, C. (1999). Learning and building together in an immersive virtual world. Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 8(3), 247–263.Google Scholar
Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Schaper, M. M., Iversen, O., Malinverni, L., & Pares, N. (2019). FUBImethod: Strategies to engage children in the co-design of full-body interactive experiences. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies; 132, 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaper, M., Santos, M., Malinverni, L., Zerbini, J., & Pares, N. (2018). Learning about the past through situatedness, embodied exploration and digital augmentation of cultural heritage sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 114, 36–50.Google Scholar
Soler-Adillon, J., Ferrer, J., & Pares, N. (2009). A novel approach to interactive playgrounds: The interactive slide project. Proceedings of IDC 2009, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zaman, B., Abeele, V. V., Markopoulos, P., & Marshall, P. (2012). Editorial: The evolving field of tangible interaction for children: The challenge of empirical validation. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar