Green Touch - ITS 12


Published on

Presented at the Interactive Tabletops & Surfaces 2012 conference

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Green Touch - ITS 12

  1. 1. A Collaborative Environment for Engaging Students in Scientific Inquiry
  2. 2. How can interactive surface technologies be used to help college students learn complex concepts through collaborative inquiry?
  3. 3. Design Strategy
  4. 4. Outline • GreenTouch • Evaluation Methodology • Findings • Implications for design
  5. 5. Learning through scientific inquiry
  6. 6. Design Goals Learning Goals • L1 Developing observation and data collection skills • L2 Interpreting field data through critical examination • L3 Forming hypotheses based on exploratory analysis Design Goals • G1 Allowing novices to collect, curate, and explore scientific phenology data. • G2 Reducing the mental workload associated with accessing and manipulating large amounts of heterogeneous data. • G3 Providing fluid transition between data collection, data exploration, and hypothesis forming. • G4 Fostering learning through discussion and reflection.
  7. 7. Design Principles • Reduce complexity • Support reflection • Designing for large amounts of data • Utilize ecology of devices
  8. 8. Green Touch
  9. 9. Invoke conversation through prompts Heterogeneous data collection Contextual Information
  10. 10. Movie
  11. 11. 3-Tier Evaluation Study Metrics & indicators Methods Iteration Spring’11 (n=43) Usability  Accuracy  Completion rates  Errors  Satisfaction  Time on task  Logging  Observations  Questionnaires  Debrief Mobile:  Navigation  Situated reference  Comments  Summary Surface:  Cloud metaphor  Lenses Fall‘11 (n=35) Usefulness  Accuracy  Number and quality of hypotheses  Participation  Satisfaction  Time on task (all of the above)  Video analysis  Interviews Mobile:  Ruler  Sample data  Data checks Surface:  Drawer  Visualization Spring‘12 (n=54) Impact (all of the above)  Talk categories  User actions  Information artifacts (all of the above)  Discourse analysis Surface:  Advanced statistics tools
  12. 12. Evaluating Impact 54Students in a college Botany course Data Collection 25Pairs, 4Singletons Exploratory Analysis 24groups
  13. 13. Mobile Evaluation Question Mean (SD) Using the app made my observations better. 4.19 (0.96) Using the app made me consider the relationship between climate and phenology. 3.66 (0.82) Using the app let me collect data faster than without the app. 4.52 (0.95) Using the app made it easier to collect heterogeneous data. 4.37 (1.06) I enjoyed using this app to collect data. 3.49 (1.05) I was confident in the accuracy of the data I gathered. 3.39 (1.03) Turn- Takers 52% Driver- Navigator 32% Driver Passenger 16% CollaborationSatisfaction
  14. 14. User Feedback It allowed me to observe the plants in ways that I normally wouldn’t I would like to collect data on Emerald Ash Borers and this app may be very helpful for that. I liked the definitions and examples of the information we were collecting It is easier to deal with than a notebook, especially because it was always rainy or overcast I really liked manipulating the data and exploring the ways in which it was possible to visually compare it. It made the analysis much less time consuming and probably more accurate I would love to use it for my independent study. If I could use it instead of other current methods I always would It’s super appealing for people like me teaching the same class year after year, and a lot of the questions we’re asking you can’t start to address them until you got 10 years of data, this will enable me to build a really cool dataset.
  15. 15. Mobile Findings • Effective co-located collaboration motivated through opportunities for discussion. • Consistent and accurate data collection guided through situated reference. • There is a need for striking balance between structured guidance and free form data collection
  16. 16. Tabletop Evaluation Turn- Takers 43% Driver- Navigator 48% Driver- Passenger 9% Collaboration Insight 8% Syntax 8% Brief Response 15% Coordination 29% Problem Solving 31% Other 4% Reflection 5% Peer Teaching 0% Nature of Discussion
  17. 17. Problem Solving & Insight Scores Score Percentage 5 5% 4 36% 3 27% 2 27% 1 0% Vertical 9/24 Horizontal 15/24
  18. 18. Tabletop Findings • Reality-based metaphors effective for mediating complexity • Side-by-side comparison and spatial interaction were essential mechanisms for problem- solving • Pairs collaborated effectively through turn taking and role switching mediated by large surface and established through continouos coordination
  19. 19. Implications for design • Reducing complexity – Incremental addition of complexity – Seamless integration of quantitative and qualitative data – Fluid transition between data sets • Providing space for reflection – Drawers moderately effective – Formal articulation through note taking – not effective – Alternative modalities: pen and voice • Designing for large amounts of data – Supporting spatial interaction • Using ecology of devices – Careful use of metaphors
  20. 20. Contributions • Our findings provide empirical evidence for the feasibility and value of utilizing ecology of devices for helping college students learn complex concepts through collaborative inquiry • Highlight mechanisms for collaborative learning – Spatial interaction – Side by side comparison – Opportunities for discussion – Coordination talk – Role switching • Implication for design of collaborative inquiry
  21. 21. Thank you! ConsueloValdes, Orit Shaer, Acknowledgements: Kristina Jones, MarcyThomas, Janet McDonough, and Alden Griffith HHMI and Wellesley College Science Center. Questions?