Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

RFID interactive tabletop application with tangible objects: exploratory study to observe young children’ behaviors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Numerous academic and industrial studies and developments concerning interactive tabletops are paving the way for new educational applications. We have developed an interactive tabletop application equipped with RFID technology. This tabletop, called TangiSense, is based on a multi-agent system that allows users to associate information with behaviors to manipulate tangible objects. The application involves the recognition of basic colors. With the application, children are required to manipulate tangible objects. Their task involves recognizing objects that have “lost” their dominant color and placing these objects in appropriate colored areas. A tangible magician object automatically analyzes the filled zones and provides children and their teacher with virtual and vocal feedback. This application has been evaluated in a field study with children 3–5 years of age. The initial results are promising and show that such an application can support interaction and collaboration, and subsequently educational situations, among young children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.rfidees.fr/.

  2. http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid33/la-presentation-des-programmes-a-l-ecole-maternelle.html.

  3. For this “in-the-field” experiment, we will not consider the children’s performance, since they are allowed to search for the right result alone or with the help of their teacher. Instead, only children’s behaviors were studied to determine whether an interactive game system can foster interaction and collaboration and therefore, encourage learning situations.

  4. Expected frequency is obtained by calculating the product of the corresponding marginal frequencies of value a (variable A) and b (variable B) for each cell of a contingency table. The expected frequency is defined as the product-frequency. In independent cases, the observed frequency is equal to the expected frequency. For each cell, the association rate is obtained by calculating the difference between the observed frequency and the expected frequency. This difference is then divided by the expected frequency. For full theoretical demonstrations, see Le Roux and Rouanet [45] or Corroyer and Wolff [18].

  5. The speakers were removed due to space constraints. The table needed to be integrated into the classroom with minimal movement of furniture and objects.

References

  1. Alibali MW, diRusso AA (1999) The function of gesture in learning to count: more than keeping track. Cogn Dev 14:37–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amar D, Goléa M,Wolff M, Gattegno M, Adrien J-L (2012) Apports des tablettes tactiles pour jeunes adultes présentant une déficience mentale ou un trouble autistique: études de cas. In: 24th French speaking conference on human-computer interaction. Ergo’IHM 2012. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 3–6

  3. Ampofo-Boateng K, Thomson JA, Grieve R, Pitcainr T, Lee DN, Demetre JD (1993) A developmental and training study of children’s ability to find safe routes to cross the road. Br J Dev Psychol 11(1):31–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arfib D, Filatriau J-J, Kessous L (2009) Prototyping musical experiments for TangiSense, tangible and traceable table. In: Sound and music conference (SMC’09). Porto, Portugal, pp 258–263

  5. Bakker S, Antle A, van den Hoven E (2012) Embodied metaphors in tangible interaction design. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16:433–449. doi:10.1007/s00779-011-0410-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barbé J, Chatrenet N, Mollard R, Bérard P, Wolff M (2012) Physical ergonomics approach for touch screen interaction in an aircraft cockpit. In: 24th French speaking conference on human–computer interaction. Ergo’IHM 2012. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 12–19

  7. Barbé J, Wolff M, Mollard R (2013) Human centred design approach to integrate touch screen in future aircraft cockpits. In: Kurosu M (ed) Human-computer interaction. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on interaction modalities and techniques, Part IV. Lecture notes in computer science 8007, HCI international 2013. Springer, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 21–26 July 2013

  8. Battocchi A, Gal E, Ben Sasson A, Pianesi F, Venuti P, Zancanaro M, Weiss PL, Kessler B (2008) Collaborative puzzle game—an interface for studying collaboration and social interaction for children who are typically developed or who have autism spectrum disorder. In: 7th ICDVRAT with ArtAbilitation. ICDVRAT/University of Reading, UK, pp 127–134

  9. Bellifemine F, Poggi A, Rimassa G (2001) Developing multi-agent systems with a FIPA-compliant agent framework. Softw Pract Exp 31(2):103–128

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Benford S, Schnadelbach H, Koleva B, Gaver B, Schmidt A, Boucher A, Steed A, Anastasi R, Greenhalgh C, Rodden T, Gellersen H (2003) Sensable and desirable: a framework for designing physical interfaces. Technical report, University College London

  11. Bernard JM (2003) Analysis of local or asymmetric dependencies in contingency tables using the imprecise Dirichlet model. In: Zaffalon (ed) ISIPTA’03: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on imprecise probabilities their applications, Switzerland, vol 18, pp 46–61

  12. Bonnard Q, Jermann P, Legge A, Kaplan F, Dillenbourg P (2012) Tangible paper interfaces: interpreting pupils’ manipulations. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces (ITS’12), New York, NY, USA, pp 133–142

  13. Buisine S, Besacier G, Najm M, Aoussat A, Vernier F (2007) Computer-supported creativity: evaluation of a tabletop mind-map application. In: Harris D (ed) HCII’07: engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 22–31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Burnett A (1962) Montessori education today and yesterday. Elem School J 63(2):71–77

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Chalghoumi H, Kalubi J-C, Rocque S (2008) Les technologies de l’information et de la communication dans l’éducation des élèves qui ont des incapacités intellectuelles : rôle des perceptions, de la formation, et du niveau de qualification des enseignants en adaptation scolaire. Revue Francophone de la déficience Intellectuelle 19:72–79

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clay A, Wolff M, Mollard R (2014) User-designed movement interactions: an exploratory study for natural interactions. EJA 4(5–6):453–472

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cohé A, Dècle F, Hachet M (2011) tbox: a 3d transformation widget designed for touch-screens. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’11. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 3005–3008. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979387

  18. Corroyer D, Wolff M (2003) L’analyse statistique des données pour la Psychologie: concepts et méthodes de base. Armand Colin

  19. Darses F, Wolff M (2006) How do designers represent to themselves the users’ needs? Appl Ergon 37(6):757–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Decle F (2009) Approches directes et planifiées de l’interaction 3D sur terminaux mobiles (Thèse no. d’ordre: 3836). École doctorale de mathématiques et d’informatique, Université Bordeaux 1, France

  21. Do-Lenh S, Kaplan F, Dillenbourg P (2009) Paper-based concept map: the effects of tabletop on an expressive collaborative learning task. In: BCS-HCI’09: Proceedings of the 23rd British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: celebrating people and technology. british Computer Society, Swinton, UK, UK, pp 149–158

  22. Fiebrink R, Morris D, Morris MR (2009) Dynamic mapping of physical controls for tabletop groupware. In: CHI’09: 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 471–480

  23. Finkenzeller K (2003) RFID handbook: fundamentals and applications in contactless smart cards and identification. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Fishkin KP (2004) A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8(5):347–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fyhri A, Bjornskau T, Ulleberg P (2004) Traffic education for children with a tabletop model. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 7(4–5):197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Glover D, Miller D, Averis D, Door V (2005) The interactive whiteboard: a literature survey. Technol Pedag Educ 14(2):155–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hachet M, Decle F, Knödel S, Guitton P (2009) Navidget for 3d interaction: camera positioning and further uses. Int J Hum Comput Stud 67(3):225–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harris A, Rick J, Bonnett V, Yuill N, Fleck R, Marshall P, Rogers Y (2009). Around the table: are multiple-touch surfaces better than single-touch for children’s collaborative interactions? In: O’Malley C, Suthers D, Reimann P, Dimitracopoulou A (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL’09), vol 1. International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp 335–344

  29. Hays WL (1994) Statistics. Harcourt Brace College, Fort Worth

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hernández-Serrano M, González-Sanchez M, Munoz-Rodríguez J (2009) Designing learning environments improving social interactions: essential variables for a virtual training space. Proc Soc Behav Sci 1(1):2411–2415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Higgins S, Mercier E, Burd E, Hatch A (2011) Multi-touch tables and the relationship with collaborative classroom pedagogies: a synthetic review. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 6(4):515–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoc J-M (2001) Towards ecological validity of research in cognitive ergonomics. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 2(3):278–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hodge S, Anderson B (2007) Teaching and learning with an interactive whiteboard: a teacher’s journey. Learn Media Technol 32(3):271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Horn MS, Crouser RJ, Bers MU (2012) Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(4):379–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ishii H (2008) Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on tangible nd embedded interaction, New York, NY, USA, pp xv–xxv

  36. Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI '97). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 234–241

  37. Kelly AR, Wallace JR, Cerar K, Randall N, McClelland P, Mindy Seto A (2010). Solar scramble: an educational children’s game for collaborative multi-touch digital tabletops. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on design of communication (SIGDOC ‘10). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 27–32

  38. Kennewell S, Tanner H, Jones S, Beauchamp G (2008) Analysing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. J Comput Assist Learn 24(1):61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kruger R, Carpendale S, Scott SD, Greenberg S (2003) How people use orientation on tables: comprehension, coordination and communication. In: GROUP’03: Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work. ACM Press, pp 369–378

  40. Kubicki S, Borgiel K, Lepreux S, Wolff M, Kolski C (2012) Réflexions autour des tables interactives: expérience utilisateur, utilisabilité, évaluation. Le travail humain 75:229–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kubicki S, Lebrun Y, Lepreux S, Adam E, Kolski C, Mandiau R (2013) Simulation in contexts involving an interactive table and tangible objects. Simul Model Pract Theory 31:116–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2011) Evaluation of an interactive table with tangible objects: application with children in a classroom. In: 2nd workshop on child computer interaction “UI Technologies and Educational Pedagogy”, at CHI’2011

  43. Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Lebrun Y, Santos PD, Kolski C, Caelen J (2009) New human–computer interactions using tangible objects: application on a digital tabletop with RFID technology. In: Jacko JA (ed) Human–computer interaction. LNCS 5612. Springer, Berlin, pp 446–455

  44. Laviole J, Hachet M (2012) Papart: Interactive 3d graphics and multi-touch augmented paper for artistic creation. In: 2012 IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces (3DUI), pp 3–6

  45. Le Roux B, Rouanet H (2004) Geometric data analysis: from correspondence analysis to structured data analysis. Kluwer, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lebrun Y, Adam E, Kubicki S, Mandiau R (2010) A multi-agent system approach for interactive table using RFID. In: PAAMS 2010, 8th international conference on practical applications of agents and multiagent systems, Salamanca, Spain, vol 70, pp 125–134

  47. Lucchi A, Jermann P, Zufferey G, Dillenbourg P (2010) An empirical evaluation of touch and tangible interfaces for tabletop displays. In: TEI’10: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. ACM Press, pp 177–184

  48. Manches A, O’Malley C (2012) Tangibles for learning: a representational analysis of physical manipulation. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16:405–419. doi:10.1007/s00779-011-0406-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Marco J, Cerezo E, Baldassarri S (2013) Bringing tabletop technology to all: evaluating a tangible farm game with kindergarten and special needs children. Pers Ubiquit Comput 17(8):1577–1591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Marshall P (2007) Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In: TEI’07: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction. ACM Press, pp 163–170

  51. Martin PE (2000) Pupitre du 21ème siècle pour la classe du 21ème siècle. Revue de l’Enseignement Public et Inf 97:89–98

    Google Scholar 

  52. Martínez R, Collins A, Kay J, Yacef K (2011) Who did what? Who said that?: Collaid: an environment for capturing traces of collaborative learning at the tabletop. In: ITS’11: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM Press, pp 172–181

  53. Mertz C, Vinot GL (1999) Touch input screens and animations: more efficient and humanized computer interactions for ATC(O). In: Proceedings 10th international symposium on aviation psychology, Columbus, OH, USA pp 615–621

  54. Piper AM, Hollan JD (2009) Tabletop displays for small group study: affordances of paper and digital materials. In: CHI’09: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, pp 1227–1236

  55. Plos O, Buisine S, Aoussat A, Mantelet F, Dumas C (2012) A universalist strategy for the design of assistive technology. Int J Ind Ergon 42(6):533–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rosch E (1973) Cognitive reference points. Cogn Psychol 7:532–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rubin KH, Coplan R, Chen X, Buskirk A, Wojslawowicz JC (2005) Peer relationships in childhood. In: Bornstein M, Lamb M (eds) Developmental psychology: an advanced textbook, 5th edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 469–512

  58. Sapounidis T, Demetriadis Stavros N (2013) Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: exploring cross-age children’s preferences. Pers Ubiquit Comput 17(8):1775–1786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Shaer O, Strait M, Valdes C, Wang H, Feng T, Lintz M, Ferreirae M, Grote C, Tempel K, Liu S (2012) The design, development, and deployment of a tabletop interface for collaborative exploration of genomic data. Int J Hum Comput Stud 70(10):746–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Shaer O, Valdes C, Liu S, Lu K, Chang K, Xu W, Haddock T, Bhatia S, Densmore D, Kincaid R (2014) Designing reality-based interfaces for experiential bio-design. Pers Ubiquit Comput 18(6):1515–1532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sluis RJW, Weevers I, van Schijndel CHGJ, Kolos-Mazuryk L, Fitrianie S, Martens JBOS (2004) Read-It: five-to-seven-year-old children learn to read in a tabletop environment. In: IDC’04: Proceedings of the 2004 conference on interaction design and children: building a community. ACM Press, pp 73–80

  62. Sommer R, Sommer B (1980) A practical guide to behavioral research: tools and techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  63. Soute I, Kaptein M, Markopoulos P (2009) Evaluating outdoor play for children: virtual vs. tangible game objects in pervasive games. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on interaction design and children, IDC’09. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 250–253

  64. Straker L, Coleman J, Skoss R, Maslen B, Burgess-Limerich R, Ploock C (2008) A comparison of posture and muscle activity during tablet computer, desktop computer and paper use by young children. Ergonomics 51:540–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sylla C, Branco P, Coutinho C, Coquet E (2012) TUIs vs. GUIs: comparing the learning potential with preschoolers. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16:421–432. doi:10.1007/s00779-011-0407-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Taylor M, Carlson SM, Maring BL, Gerow L, Charley CM (2004) The characteristics and correlates of fantasy in school-age children: imaginary companions, impersonation, and social understanding. Dev Psychol 40(6):1173–1187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Thomson JA, Ampofo-Boateng K, Pitcairn TK, Grieve R, Lee DN, Demetre JD (1992) Behavioral group training of children to find safe routes to cross the road. Br J Educ Psychol 62:173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Tse E, Schöning J, Huber J, Marentette L, Beckwith R, Rogers Y, Mühlhäuser M (2011) Child computer interaction: 2nd workshop on UI technologies and educational pedagogy. In: CHI EA’11: 29th of the international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp 2445–2448

  69. Tse E, Schöning J, Rogers Y, Shen C, Morrison G (2010) Next generation of HCI and education: workshop on UI technologies and educational pedagogy. In: CHI EA’10: 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pp 4509–4512

  70. Vandi C, Rico-Duarte L, Thibault T, Rougeaux M, Tijus C (2011) Seniors et Tablettes Interactives. Livre Blanc de la Délégation aux Usages de l’Internet

  71. Wendland J, Maggi A, Wolff M (2010) Maternal strategies for regulating their children’s behavior in Brazilian mothers of German and Italian descent. Interam J Psychol 44(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wolff M (2003) Apports de l’analyse géométrique des données pour l’analyse de l’activité. PUF, Ch. Formalismes de modélisation pour l’analyse du travail et l’ergonomie, Paris, pp 195–227

  73. Wolff M, Gattegno MP, Adrien J-L, Gabeau C, Isnard P (2014) Contribution of tablets to the support of children and adolescents with autistic disorders. EJA 4(5–6):261–282

    Google Scholar 

  74. Xie L, Antle AN, Motamedi N (2008) Are tangibles more fun? Comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: TEI’08: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on tangible and embedded interaction. ACM Press, pp 191–198

  75. Young JG, Trudeau M, Odell D, Marinelli K, Dennerlein JT (2012) Touch-screen tablet user configurations and case-supported tilt affect head and neck flexion angles. Work J Prevent Assess Rehab 41:81–91

    Google Scholar 

  76. Zaman B, Vanden-Abeele V, Markopoulos P, Marshall P (2012) Editorial: the evolving field of tangible interaction for children: the challenge of empirical validation. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(4):367–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Zuckerman O, Gal-Oz A (2013) To TUI or not to TUI: evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs. graphical user interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Stud 71(7–8):803–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Zuckerman O, Arida S, Resnick M (2005) Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI’05. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 859–868

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partially financed by the French Ministry of Education, Research and Technology, the Nord/Pas-de-Calais Region, the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), the FEDER program, the International Campus on Safety and Intermodality in Transportation (the Plaiimob project), and the French National Research Agency (ANR TTT and IMAGIT projects, financial IMAGIT support: ANR-10-CORD-017). The authors would like to thank the partners with whom we collaborated on the TTT and IMAGIT projects: LIG, RFIdées, and the CEA. We would also like to thank the Inspector of Education, Mrs. Thery, Mrs. Petit, Mrs. Grechez, and Miss Dudkowiak for their assistance given for the development and evaluation of the application, and also the parents and all of the children at the school in Caullery (F-59191).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ENI Brest, UMR 6285, Lab-STICC, 29200, Brest, France

    Sébastien Kubicki

  2. Université Paris Descartes, 75270, Paris Cedex 06, France

    Marion Wolff

  3. ESTIA/PEPSS, 64210, Bidart, France

    Marion Wolff

  4. UVHC, LAMIH, 59313, Valenciennes, France

    Sophie Lepreux & Christophe Kolski

  5. CNRS, UMR 8201, 59313, Valenciennes, France

    Sophie Lepreux & Christophe Kolski

Authors
  1. Sébastien Kubicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marion Wolff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sophie Lepreux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christophe Kolski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sébastien Kubicki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kubicki, S., Wolff, M., Lepreux, S. et al. RFID interactive tabletop application with tangible objects: exploratory study to observe young children’ behaviors. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19, 1259–1274 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-015-0891-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-015-0891-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation