UTILIZING INTERACTIVE TABLETOPS FOR EDUCATIONAL

GAMES

Won Moon

Korea Institute of Science and Technology, 39-1 Seongbuk-gu, Hawolgok-dong 136-791, Seoul, South Korea

Joong-Ho Lee, Ji-Hyung Park

Korea Institute of Science and Technology, 39-1 Seongbuk-gu, Hawolgok-dong 136-791, Seoul, South Korea

University of Science and Technology, 39-1 Seongbuk-gu, Hawolgok-dong 136-791, Seoul, South Korea

Keywords:

Interactive tabletops, Pedagogy, Educational games, Human-computer interaction.

Abstract:

There exists a multitude of different platforms for educational games. As technology continues to mature,

various new devices will arise, some of which may yield substantial beneﬁts for such educational applications.

In this paper, we discuss the potential effectiveness of one particular device for educational games, interactive

tabletops. We introduce what we believe are the key reasons why interactive tabletops are appropriate for this

domain. In addition, we present two of the games we have developed for evaluating our claims. Although we

have not yet conducted a complete user evaluation, we will provide some of our impressions from preliminary

trials.

1 INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the advances in interactive tabletop

technology has proliferated the use of digital table-

tops. Although tabletop computing is not a new tech-

nology, it has not experience true acceptance and ap-

plication due to limited functionality and expensive

and complicated construction. However, recent ad-

vances such as the DiamondTouch surface (Dietz and

Leigh, 2001) and FTIR (Han, 2005), in addition to our

own new multi-touch technology, mitigates the afore-

mentioned limitations by allowing for the low-cost

construction of robust multi-touch surfaces. Conse-

quently, these technologies have precipitated tremen-

dous growth in applications for interactive tabletops.

In particular, we are interested in pedagogical appli-

cations in the form of educational games and whether

or not interactive tabletops would be an effective plat-

form in this regard.

The educational beneﬁts of games have been well

documented and extensively investigated in research

(Schwartzman, 1997; Garris et al., 2002). Empiri-

cal evidence has shown that games can promote mo-

tivation, thereby causing students to become more in-

tensely involved in a particular learning activity and

ultimately allowing them to retain more knowledge

(Cordova and Lepper, 1996). Additionally, games en-

courage active learning where students are actively

involved in the learning process, as opposed to pas-

sive learning where students follow the instruction

of a teacher. Literature suggests that active learning

strategies can have a much more signiﬁcant effect on

knowledge acquisition than those of the passive ilk

(Bonwell and Eison, 1991).

The effectiveness of games on the learning experi-

ence, however, cannot be measured simply in terms of

the game itself. The particular device which presents

the game to the user should be a signiﬁcant consid-

eration as it also contributes to the overall learning

experience. There exist a number of platforms for ed-

ucational games; however, in this work we are not

interested in providing a comparative study between

the various types. Instead, we want to focus our at-

tention on one particular platform, interactive table-

tops. More speciﬁcally, we want to explore the po-

tential beneﬁts of applying educational games to this

technology. In addition to discussing how interactive

tabletops can enhance the effectiveness of educational

games, we will describe the two games (Block Earth

and Wave Touch) that we have designed and imple-

mented on our newly developed multi-touch tabletop

surface. Since we have not yet conducted a complete

478

Moon W., Lee J. and Park J. (2010).

UTILIZING INTERACTIVE TABLETOPS FOR EDUCATIONAL GAMES.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pages 478-483

DOI: 10.5220/0002858204780483

 SciTePress

user evaluation in regard to these games we will, in-

stead, provide some preliminary observations.

2 BACKGROUND

The intuitiveness and the engaging effect touch-based

interfaces afford are indicative of its allure among

users. Touch interaction allows users to feel more di-

rectly connected to the interface and its this tangible

quality that helps the interaction feel more ”natural”

and ”compelling” (Forlines et al., 2007). Although

these types of interfaces may seem new, they have

been researched and developed dating back as far as

1972 (Smith and Sherwood, 1976). However, not

until recently, research regarding touch-based tech-

nology has been stagnated. With new developments

such as the DiamondTouch surface (Dietz and Leigh,

2001) and FTIR (Han, 2005), as well as the release of

the iPhone and Microsoft Surface, research in touch-

based interfaces has ﬁnally started gaining momen-

tum. Notably, there has been a marked increase in

research pertaining to tabletop computing. One of the

main draws of tabletop interfaces is the social nature

of them. Tabletop interfaces allow multiple users to

come together in an intimate fashion and work col-

laboratively on a shared medium. Intrinsically, this

type of environment promotes social interaction and

enhances collaborative work among a group of users

(Stewart et al., 1999; Rogers and Lindley, 2006).

As previously indicated, the recent advances in

touch-based technologies have signiﬁcantly reduced

the construction costs of interactive tabletops, allow-

ing for more widespread accessibility. As a result, a

myriad of different applications have been explored,

ranging from business to gaming, along with research

regarding usability (Abednego et al., 2009). How-

ever, we’re particularly interested in the pedagogical

applications of interactive tabletops. Over the past

few years, there have been numerous works regard-

ing these types of applications. DigiTile (Rick and

Rogers, 2008) helps students learn about concepts of

math and art by leveraging collaboration. Likewise,

the suite of learning applications, ClassiﬁcationTable

(Morris et al., 2005), MatchingTable (Morris et al.,

2005), and PoetryTable (Morris et al., 2005), rely on

the collaborative and social affordances of interactive

tabletops to teach students foreign language. Teach-

ing Table (Khandelwal and Mazalek, 2007) utilizes an

augmented tabletop environment to teach math fun-

damentals to children, ages three to ﬁve. In this ap-

plication, children engage in several different activi-

ties, which involve moving around numbered blocks

on top of a tabletop to accomplish certain mathe-

matical tasks. Similarly, Read-It (Sluis et al., 2004)

teaches young children how to read through the use

of tangible objects on top of an interactive tabletop.

There have also been educational tabletop games to

help autistic children. SIDES (Piper et al., 2006) is a

four-player cooperative tabletop game aimed at help-

ing children with Aspergers Syndrome improvegroup

working skills.

3 INTERACTIVE TABLETOPS

FOR ENHANCING

EDUCATIONAL GAMES

Interactive tabletops have the potential to greatly en-

hance the overall effectiveness of educational games.

An obvious digital affordance of tabletop technology

is the support of computing power. A tabletop in-

terface is typically built on top of a computer so it

can exploit the processing capabilities of the CPU and

GPU and, thusly, provide rich graphical information

to the user. Aside from this obvious advantage, there

are other more salient reasons why interactive table-

tops can serve as an effective platform for educational

games. These reasons are related to tabletop inter-

action modalities, collaborative properties of tabletop

environments, and motivational stimulation.

3.1 Tabletop Interaction

Interactive tabletops afford immersive interaction en-

vironments in which users can participate. Users ac-

tively engage with these interfaces through a plethora

of interaction modalities, most of which involve some

form of physicality. One of the more distinct and rec-

ognizable modalities is touch interaction, or in other

words, direct manipulation. Instead of using indi-

rect methods such as keyboards and mice, which are

standard on conventional computers, users manipu-

late interface objects by directly touching them on

the tabletop surface. This modality is much more in-

tuitive and engaging than pushing buttons on a key-

board or clicking on a mouse. In a sense, the indirect-

ness of a mouse and keyboard cultivates a state of de-

tachment between the user and their actions, whereas

touch interaction promotes a greater sense of control

and awareness. Interactive tabletops can also allow

for users to interact with applications via tangible ob-

jects on top of the tabletop surface (Khandelwal and

Mazalek, 2007; Sluis et al., 2004). These unortho-

dox interaction techniques blur the line between the

physical world and the digital world, which contribute

to the immersive and engaging effect of interactive

UTILIZING INTERACTIVE TABLETOPS FOR EDUCATIONAL GAMES

479

tabletops.

The relevance that these interaction modalities

have on education pertains to the concept of active

learning. Active learning entails active participation

of a student in the learning process. So instead of pas-

sively listening to a teacher, learning is better served

by engaging in activities that force the student to ac-

tively think about the material (Bonwell and Eison,

1991). Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that in-

teractive tabletops improve learning by utilizing in-

teraction modalities that encourage active learning.

In fact, past research afﬁrms this notion (Price and

Rogers, 2004). When students use interactive table-

tops they are physically engaged with the interface.

They become more engrossed in the environment,

which in turn intensiﬁes their involvement with the

educational activity. Presumably, students will exhibit

higher levels of attention and critical thinking allow-

ing them to learn more from the experience than they

would have from conventional methods.

3.2 Collaborative Experience

One of the key pedagogical beneﬁts that interac-

tive tabletops afford is the ability to incite collabo-

rative environments. Empirical evidence has shown

that large interactivedisplays, positioned horizontally,

encourage groups of people to work together in a

”socially cohesive and conducive way” (Rogers and

Lindley, 2006). The physical orientation of the table-

top forces users to arrange themselves in a face-to-

face fashion around the interface, allowing them to

easily converse and refer to pertinent information.

This arrangementis akin to organizationaround meet-

ing room tables and is conducive to natural and ﬂuid

group work.

So then how exactly do collaborative environ-

ments contribute to the learning experience? One

can say that part of the reason is due to the assistive

nature of the environment. When students work in-

dividually they must rely on themselves and on the

tools that are presented to them to develop an under-

standing of a concept. When students work collab-

oratively, however, they can beneﬁt from the assis-

tance of others to arrive at an understanding. Studies

have found that collaborative interaction increases the

amount of common knowledge that is shared by the

participants as well as the amount of overall knowl-

edge that is acquired by each individual (Jeong and

Chi, 2007). Moreover, collaboration can potentially

bolster motivation and ultimately provide a more en-

riching learning experience (Inkpen et al., 1999; Jung

et al., 2002). Passive learning environments and indi-

vidualized learning tend to instill a sense of boredom

within students. As a result, their attention may wa-

ver during the course of the experience causing them

to attain less knowledge. In contrast, collaborative

environments introduce a social element that induces

more active involvement (e.g. working together to

achievea goal). Although it is conceivablethat certain

participants may be left out of the activity by more

socially active members, this is less of a concern with

games since teamwork can be coerced. Several prac-

tical applications attest to validity of the aforemen-

tioned claims by demonstrating the effectiveness of

collaboration on education (Rick and Rogers, 2008;

Morris et al., 2005; Piper et al., 2006).

3.3 Motivational Enhancement

Motivation is a critical psychological factor in the

learning process. Students who exhibit higher lev-

els of motivation in a particular learning activity learn

and retain more from the experience (Cordova and

Lepper, 1996). This notion is sensible because mo-

tivational stimulation correlates with a deeper de-

sire to learn, whereby increasing engagement and the

poignancy of the knowledge acquired. Ostensibly,

students that have more motivation typically put forth

more effort in the learning process. Therefore, an-

other way interactive tabletops can improve learn-

ing is through enhancing motivation. As previously

stated, the collaborative environments of interactive

tabletops increase the motivation of students. More-

over, these interfaces can potentially bolster motiva-

tion through the novelty of its touch technology. Al-

though somewhat of a speculative assertion, touch-

based interfaces appear to conjure astonishment from

its users, especially young children, which may be

part of the reason why Apple’s iPhone has been so

wildly popular. Due to their futuristic appeal, inter-

active tabletops may elicit more interest and curiosity

from users than conventional devices. In turn, users

may feel more inclined to interact with these types of

interfaces.

4 INTERACTIVE TABLETOP

GAMES

In order to eventually gauge the legitimacy of our

assertions, we developed two example applications

called, Block Earth and Wave Touch. We imple-

mented these games on our newly developed multi-

touch surface, which allows for the simultaneous in-

teraction of multiple users. These particular games

were developed speciﬁcally for children; however,

participants of any age may beneﬁt from them.

CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education

480

Figure 1: Block Earth.

4.1 Block Earth

Block Earth is a simple game which teaches users

general geographical information. More speciﬁcally,

users develop a familiarity of the world by exploring a

world map and learning about the location and shape

of various different countries and continents. The me-

chanics of the game are simple, each user maintains

control of a particular color and, alternatively, places

blocks on the map to uncover hidden locations. At

the beginning of a game there exists an assortment

of colored blocks placed randomly on the map, with

each color corresponding to a particular user. Alter-

natively, each user receives a randomly shaped block

and must place it diagonally abutted to a block of their

assigned color, or they may choose to pass their turn.

If the block that was placed overlays one of the hidden

cities on the map, the user will receive a score equiv-

alent to the citys population. In addition, an informa-

tion panel will appear containing relevant information

about the speciﬁc city (Figure 1). A player wins by at-

taining a certain amount of points. There is no risk of

user alienation since each player will alternate turns,

therefore, everyone will be able to actively participate

in the game.

4.2 Wave Touch

Wave Touch is another simple game but in this case

users learn about historical artifacts pertaining to their

culture. In essence, players are immersed in an

underwater-esque environment and must uncover hid-

den treasures scattered throughout the background.

When a player discovers and selects on a piece of

treasure, information about that treasure will be pre-

sented. In the current implementation, the types of

treasures presented concern Korean heritage; how-

ever, the game can be tailored to any culture. Play-

ers can movearound in the environment using various

touch gestures. Dragging a single ﬁnger around the

interface causes the scene to be translated in the di-

rection of the ﬁnger motion. Using two ﬁngers, play-

ers can zoom in or out by applying pinch or reverse

pinch gestures. In addition, each point of contact on

the interface will generate a realistic water ripple ef-

fect (Figure 2).

Wave touch supports competitive and collabora-

tive game environments. Players can choose modes

which allow them to compete individually or work

together to ﬁnd treasure artifacts. In the competi-

tive mode, each player will alternate turns and receive

scores based on the type of treasure they ﬁnd. Oc-

casionally, a player may select a ”fake treasure,” in

which case they will be awarded no points. In the

collaborative mode, all players can interact simulta-

neously to uncover treasure items.

5 PRELIMINARY IMPRESSIONS

AND FUTURE WORK

Although the actual design of educational games is a

signiﬁcant issue (i.e. game elements should be care-

fully engineered to conform to speciﬁc educational

purposes), that was not our underlying concern with

this particular research, which is why the design of

our games may appear rather shallow. Instead, our

sole purpose was to ascertain the potential effective-

ness of interactive tabletops as a platform for educa-

tional games (i.e. whether or not this research line

warrants further investigation).

UTILIZING INTERACTIVE TABLETOPS FOR EDUCATIONAL GAMES

481

Figure 2: Wave Touch.

We have just recently ﬁnished developing the two

aforementioned games, so we have not had an op-

portunity to conduct a full-ﬂedged user evaluation.

We have, however, had several participants experi-

ment with the games and provide us with some ini-

tial feedback. Almost all participants commented on

how pleasing the multi-touch interface was, with sev-

eral remarks alluding to its attractiveness and ease of

use. Everyone appeared quite engrossed in the appli-

cations, largely in part due to the touch interaction.

There was almost unanimous agreement preferring

this type of interface to conventional computers for

group activities. Several participants enjoyed the so-

cial atmosphere afforded by the tabletop environment.

With the Wave Touch game, we overheard a lot of

enthusiasm and cooperation between the participants

with remarks such as ”Oh there it is!!” and ”I just saw

it! Go up, go up!” There were also minor discussions

sparked by game content (e.g. in Block Earth, when

surprised about the population size of a particular city,

users would comment on that subject). Essentially,

these preliminary reactions demonstrate the dynamic

atmosphere that interactive tabletops can provide and

reinforce some of our claims about why they can en-

hance the effectiveness of educational games.

In the near future, we plan to conduct an extensive

user evaluation to properly assess the value of inter-

active tabletops for educational games. It may also be

worthwhile to explore other issues such as potential

limitations and challenges. In addition, we are think-

ing of ways to reﬁne Block Earth and Wave Touch to

provide deeper educational worth instead of merely

superﬁcial content.

6 CONCLUSIONS

In our work, instead of concentrating on a speciﬁc

educational game intended for a distinct pedagogi-

cal purpose, we were more concerned about interac-

tive tabletops as a platform for these types of games.

We wanted to elucidate a rationalization of why in-

teractive tabletops would be an effective platform

for educational games. In this work, we hypothe-

sized that interactive tabletops enhance educational

games through touch interaction, collaboration, and

motivational stimulation. The touch-based interaction

modality of tabletops provides users with a more intu-

itive and engaging interaction technique, which helps

promote a more immersive and exciting environment.

The physical layout of interactive tabletops naturally

allows groups of people to work collaboratively on

a task. Studies have proven that this type of intimate

interaction on a large, horizontal display fosters effec-

tive collaboration, which in turn improves the learn-

ing process. All of these factors combine to cultivate

an environment that can stimulate motivation among

users.

To examine the validity of these claims we de-

veloped two educational games called, Block Earth

and Wave Touch. Block Earth teaches young chil-

dren about general geographical information, such as

country and continent locations. Wave Touch teaches

children about information pertaining to their her-

itage, such as famous historical artifacts. In the near

future, we plan to conduct an extensive user evalua-

tion with these games. That said, preliminary impres-

sions have indicated that our assertions regarding the

beneﬁts of interactive tabletops for educational games

hold some merit.

CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education

482

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by Korea Institute of Sci-

ence and Technology.

REFERENCES

Abednego, M., Lee, J., Moon, W., and Park, J. (2009). I-

grabber: Expanding physical reach in a large-display

tabletop environment through the use of a virtual grab-

ber. In Proceedings of ITS 2009, pages 67–70. ACM

Press.

Bonwell, C. and Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Cre-

ating excitement in the classroom. Technical report,

George Washington University. ASHEERIC Higher

Education Report No. 1.

Cordova, D. and Lepper, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation

and the process of learning: Beneﬁcial effects of con-

textualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 88(4):715–730.

Dietz, P. and Leigh, D. (2001). Diamondtouch: A multi-

user touch technology. In Proceedings of UIST 2001,

pages 219–226. ACM Press.

Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Shen, C., and Balakrishnan, R.

(2007). Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop dis-

plays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on

Human factors in computing systems, pages 647–656.

ACM Press.

Garris, R., Ahlers, R., and Driskell, J. (2002). Games, mo-

tivation, and learning: A research and practice model.

Simulation and Gaming, 33(4):441–467.

Han, J. (2005). Low-cost multi-touch sensing through frus-

trated total internal reﬂection. In Proceedings of UIST

2005, pages 115–118. ACM Press.

Inkpen, K., Ho-Ching, W., Kuederle, O., Scott, S., and

Shoemaker, G. (1999). This is fun! were all best

friends and were all playing: supporting childrens

synchronous collaboration. In Proceedings of the

1999 conference on computer support for collabora-

tive learning. International Society of the Learning

Science.

Jeong, H. and Chi, M. (2007). Knowledge convergence

and collaborative learning. Instructional Science,

35(4):287–315.

Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., and Leem, J. (2002). Effects

of different types of interaction on learning achieve-

ment, satisfaction and participation in web-based in-

struction. Innovations in Education and Teaching In-

ternational, 39(2):153–162.

Khandelwal, M. and Mazalek, A. (2007). Teaching table:

a tangible mentor for pre-k math education. In Pro-

cessings of the 1st international conference on Tangi-

ble and embedded interaction, pages 191–194. ACM

Press.

Morris, M., Piper, A., Cassanego, A., and Winograd, T.

(2005). Supporting cooperative language learning: Is-

sues in interface design for an interactive table. Tech-

nical report, Stanford University.

Piper, A., O’Brien, E., Morris, M., and Winograd, T. (2006).

Sides: a cooperative tabletop computer game for so-

cial skills development. In Proceedings of the 2006

20th anniversary conference on computer supported

cooperative work, pages 1–10. ACM Press.

Price, S. and Rogers, Y. (2004). Lets get physical: The

learning beneﬁts of interacting in digitally augmented

physical spaces. Computers and Education, 43(1-

2):137–151.

Rick, J. and Rogers, Y. (2008). From digiquilt to digitile:

Adapting educational technology to a multi-touch ta-

ble. In Proceedings of TABLETOP2008, pages 73–80.

IEEE Press.

Rogers, Y. and Lindley, S. (2006). Collaborating around

large interactive displays: Which way is best to meet.

In Proceedings of CHI 2006, pages 1201–1210. ACM

Press.

Schwartzman, R. (1997). Gaming serves as a model for

improving learning. Education, 118(1):9–18.

Sluis, R., Weevers, I., Schijndel, C., Kolos-Mazuryk, L.,

Fitrianie, S., and Martens, J. (2004). Read-it: ﬁve-to-

seven-year-old children learn to read in a tabletop en-

vironment. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on

interaction design and children, pages 73–80. ACM

Press.

Smith, A. and Sherwood, B. (1976). Educational uses of the

plato computer system. Science, 192:334–352.

Stewart, J., Bederson, B., and Druin, A. (1999). Single dis-

play groupware: a model for co-present collaboration.

In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human

factors in computing systems, pages 286–293. ACM

Press.

UTILIZING INTERACTIVE TABLETOPS FOR EDUCATIONAL GAMES

483