Peephole Technology for Mobile Collaborative Learning:

An In- Classroom Exploratory Study

Sebastian Simon

, Iza Marfisi-Schottman

and Sébastien George

LIUM, Le Mans Université, 72085 Le Mans, Cedex 9, France

Keywords: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, Problem Based Learning, Augmented Reality, Peephole

Interaction.

Abstract: Technology to support Mobile Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (MCSCL) is a compromise

between screen space and mobility. While MCSCL usually leverages small portable screens, such as tablets

or smartphones, large interactive tabletops have been found to effectively support collaborative learning. In

this case study, we strike a compromise by using small portable screens on a large static surface by using

dynamic peephole interactions. The proposed technology allows learners to augment static surfaces, such as

paper maps, by sliding a tablet or a smartphone on it. An exploratory study was conducted on eight groups of

four K12 students. Results point to enhanced cognitive awareness among group members.

1 INTRODUCTION

Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL)

has emerged in the last 30 years from the idea that

computing devices can enrich the learning experience

of groups of learners or professionals (Stahl et al.,

2006). However, the shape and size of computing

devices used for CSCL varies. Large tabletops have

been extensively used in research projects but remain

niche in everyday classes, due to their high cost

(currently 1200 € and above) as well as their

immobility. Mobile CSCL (MCSCL), focuses on the

use of more affordable and mobile devices, such as

smartphones and tablets, for collaborative situated

learning settings such as field trips. However, mobile

devices lack the screen space that a typical CSCL

device, such as a tabletop, can provide to access and

manipulate virtual artefacts.

Augmented Reality (AR) can be used to transform

available surfaces into interactive working areas. Yet,

classic camera-based AR technology requires the

device to be held at a certain distance from the

augmented surface.

This results in two issues: Extended use can lead

to muscle fatigue (Pereira et al., 2013) and holding

the device with both hands can make it challenging to

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3218-2032

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0812-0712

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2046-6698

interact with virtual or physical objects at the same

time, especially for children.

Additionally, using AR in a group setting poses

its own set of challenges. If a person holds a single

device, others in the group have to gather around this

person to view the augmented content. Alternatively,

if all group members use their own device, this

reduces awareness of what other group members or

the teacher are doing (social & behavioral

awareness).

AR goggles, such as Microsoft’s HoloLens, could

address these issues but remain expensive hardware

for educational contexts (4000 € per item) and

introduce other problems such as motion sickness

(Kaufeld et al., 2022). Those devices also rely on

additional controllers, voice or gestures for

interaction.

In this paper, we present an exploratory study

with a low-cost mobile 2D dynamic peephole

interaction. This type of interaction enables the use

of mobile devices, with smaller screens, to view and

interact with augmentations on a surface. Mehra et al.

(2006) distinguish static from dynamic peephole

interactions. Static peephole interactions require the

user to drag and scroll the content on the available

screen via touch gestures or a computer mouse to

Simon, S., Marﬁsi-Schottman, I. and George, S.

Peephole Technology for Mobile Collaborative Learning: An In- Classroom Exploratory Study.

DOI: 10.5220/0012621700003693

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2024) - Volume 1, pages 103-114

ISBN: 978-989-758-697-2; ISSN: 2184-5026

103

access content beyond the display’s size (e.g. in

Google Maps), whereas dynamic peephole

interactions enable users to access content by moving

and pointing the device itself to the physical position

to which virtual content is associated. In the latter, the

device effectively becomes a mobile window into a

virtual overlay of the environment. SPART, short for

on-Surface Positioning for Augmented RealiTy (see

figure 1), offers a dynamic peephole interaction

which allows to physically place a mobile device on

a surface and navigate the virtual space by sliding it

on the surface.

This is a very promising type of interaction, since

research on screen sizes suggest that smaller screens

have the potential to benefit collaboration further, as

large tabletops tend to attract user’s attention to the

screen at the demise of social awareness of other team

members - even when attention to the screen is not

required. Smaller screens seem to distract users less

and lead to a more goal oriented usage (Zagermann et

al., 2016). On the other hand, peephole interactions

provide a large working space, an important

affordance of tabletops.

Figure 1: SPART, a horizontal, dynamic peephole

interaction.

Yet, little research has been conducted on this

particular dynamic peephole interaction setup,

primarily because it cannot be enacted using

traditional AR technology.

Consequently, a device enabling such a setup was

developed (Simon et al., 2024). In order to compare

SPART to a static peephole interaction in

collaborative group work, we then conducted a study

on eight groups of four K12 students during an

educational activity on tectonics (during a geography

lesson).

This paper is focused on this exploratory study,

initially introducing existing work, before detailing

what aspects of collaborative learning have been

examined during the study and describing in detail the

activity design and the deployed research method. We

then present observations and results. Finally, we

discuss study limitations and conclude with future

developments in terms of activity design, technology

and research perspectives.

2 PREVIOUS WORK

Among the most cited papers for dynamic peephole

interactions in collaboration is Sanneblad et al.’s

work (2006) on a device to facilitate routing activities

with a tablet in front of a projected, vertical map. The

authors note that absolute positioning, as required for

the peephole interaction, is not trivial to implement.

In their setup, a stationary Mimio XI system

(commercial ultrasound & infrared location setup for

digital whiteboards, 700 €) was connected to a laptop.

In a preliminary user study, this setup was compared

to a static peephole interaction as used in current map

navigation (zoom and drag). Users’ efficiency on the

vertical dynamic peephole setup was significantly

lower compared to the traditional map application.

The authors observed ergonomic deficits as users

simultaneously had to hold a tablet and interact with

it. When given the choice between the prototype and

the typical zoom and pan map application (static

peephole interaction), users picked the latter,

mentioning the fear of breaking the device and ease

of use as reasons for their preference.

A more similar study to the horizontal peephole

setting proposed in SPART, was carried out by Rohs

et al. (2007). They tested map navigation using a

phone’s camera tracking either its position relative to

a map or just with spatial awareness (without a

printed map underneath). Both of these dynamic

peephole interactions performed significantly better

than the static peephole interaction enacted by a

mobile phone with joystick navigation (Nokia N80)

in a usability study with 18 participants who had to

find the cheapest parking spot on a static map.

Nevertheless, the dynamic peephole interactions

suffered from technological setbacks (robustness of

positioning) which underlines the technological

challenges in providing a reliable dynamic peephole

interaction (Rohs et al., 2007).

Furthermore, in a study using projector phones to

compare a spatially aware (thus dynamic) peephole

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

104

interaction with a traditional tablet map application,

Kaufmann and Ahlström (2013) found that, without

previous usage training, a phone projecting only part

of a global map that could be navigated by rotating

the phone on its axis, performed just as well as classic

pan and zoom applications in terms of efficiency with

benefits for spatial memory. In addition, positive task

performance was observed by Miyazaki et al. (2021)

with minimal upfront training for classic (camera

based) six degrees of freedom AR augmentation in a

study with 13 participants in a map search task.

Finally, many commercial applications propose

dynamic peephole interactions by using camera-

based AR, the internal gyroscope or magnetometer of

mobile devices to provide augmentations (e.g. for

stargazing). These sensors provide sufficient angle

accuracy for handheld augmentations (Hürst &

Bilyalov, 2010). However, as pointed out in the

introduction, these are inadequate for supporting

collaboration, since they need to be held by one

person and at a minimum distance from the

augmented object.

In a nutshell, several studies have demonstrated

the feasibility of a SPART-like interaction but its

setup is neither portable nor affordable in the

educational context, all while the little conducted

research points towards benefits for collaboration.

Therefore the research questions for the study of this

paper, having previously developed a functional

SPART prototype (Simon et al., 2024) is: Does the

SPART interaction provide support for collaborative

sequences in a small group setting of K12

students? What is the role of SPART in those

sequences?

3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Collaboration is a widely used term across different

domains and consequently, visions of it differ. This

section presents the underlying conceptual model of

this study. By exposing the conceptual aspects and

their behavioral cues, we can identify the interaction

patterns in our data which are part of the collaborative

learning process.

This paper is based on an extended definition of

collaboration by Roschelle & Teasley (1995):

Collaboration is a coordinated activity and a result

of the intention to maintain a common problem

perception in order to find a solution to a problem.

This definition encompasses asynchronous

collaborations and accounts for the difficulty to

maintain a cognitively challenging exchange over a

long period of time, resulting in “reflective pauses”

during which participants do not actively engage in

the main activity (Wise et al., 2021). Indeed,

collaboration is a dynamic phenomenon: Bigger

groups dynamically split into subgroups and reunite

to keep track on overall progress.

Collaboration, as a problem solving strategy, is

deployed in both collaborative work and

collaborative learning. Stahl defines Collaborative

Learning as collaborative meaning making

(developing a common understanding of a problem)

and collaborative knowledge building (Stahl, 2021).

Figure 2: Collaboration model (Simon et al., 2022).

Meaning making and knowledge building are

parallel and intricate high level processes (figure 2:1).

Effective knowledge building typically requires some

initial shared meaning making, but the process of

meaning making reappears throughout the activity

and can be observed through interactions of

questioning and explaining, or when a group decides

to “go back” to discuss previous information (Clark

& Brennan, 1991).

A central, observable process of knowledge

building is transitivity (Vogel et al., 2023).

Transitivity refers to the ability of participants to not

only understand another group member’s idea but to

actively build and develop those ideas with their own

knowledge and resources.

On a lower level (figure 2:2), both meaning

making and knowledge building require group

members to participate and coordinate their

contributions within the group and implement

strategies to achieve or validate objectives. To do so,

group members have to develop awareness of what

their peers do, know and feel. Meaning making can

indeed be seen as a process of building collective

cognitive awareness (who knows what) and a shared

understanding of the problem itself.

Awareness is not only required in establishing a

common cognitive state of the group but also in

determining social and behavioral group members’

states (Ma et al., 2020). Barron introduced the

concept of a social space (relationships, social

presence etc.) in addition to the cognitive space

(holding a common perception of the problem and

possible solutions) that has to be taken care of while

collaborating (Barron, 2003). To that end,

Peephole Technology for Mobile Collaborative Learning: An In- Classroom Exploratory Study

105

collaborative awareness processes, grouped into

social, behavioral and cognitive processes (Ma et

al., 2020) support both the relational and cognitive

space, while being components of both meaning

making and knowledge building (figure 2:3).

In order for those processes to take place, a

number of behavioral and cognitive information has

to be exchanged among participants, requiring active

participation (the second process category in figure

2:2) of group members in the construction of both a

social and cognitive space. The social space is

nurtured by social-behavioral engagement, for

instance “positive interactions such as respect and

support for each other” (Isohätälä et al., 2020).

Participation targeting the cognitive space can be, for

instance, observed through contributions such as

stating hypothesis on how to resolve the problem or

clarifications on the problem itself.

The third collaboration process category (figure

2:2) refers to coordination. It describes the ability of

the group to develop, apply and revise solution

strategies, also known as group processing (Johnson

& Johnson, 2009) as well as self-organization. On an

individual level, members have to time interventions,

identify missing information and contributions have

to be organized, classified and ranked to deploy

successful group level strategies to achieve goals.

Together, the three main collaborative processes

of participation, awareness, and coordination

support meaning making and knowledge building

(Mateescu et al., 2019) and constitute cross-domain

concepts of collaboration, that can be observed and

evaluated during collaborative learning activities

(Simon et al., 2022).

As Dillenbourg (2001) points out, these

collaborative processes do not necessarily emerge

naturally within a group. They depend on

collaborative conditions which can be considered as

input of the collaborative learning process (figure

2:4). These input conditions consist of

 participants’ existing collaborative skills

(Hesse et al., 2015) (figure 2:5)

 the environment in which the activity takes

place (figure 2:6)

 tools used by group members to accomplish the

activity. Tools may or may not support

successful collaboration. For example, some

tools have been shown to introduce an

additional cognitive load (Kirschner et al.,

2018).

The concepts presented above form a process-

oriented collaboration model that is summarized in

figure 2. In accordance to our hypothesis, we use this

model to analyze the video material of the exploratory

experiment presented in the next section.

4 METHODS

The following subsections describe the design of the

learning activity and the SPART prototype in addition

to the experimental setting and procedure.

4.1 Activity Design

The activity was designed in an iterative approach

with a geography teacher in a French middle school.

The content was created so that the activity would fit

the current curriculum on tectonics.

Students had to investigate the movements of

tectonic plates. In order to provide room for

collaborative learning as defined by Stahl (2021), we

structured the activity in several tasks with fading

scaffold. We attributed students the role of research

assistants of geographer Jason Morgan, presenting his

theory of tectonic plates in 1967 at the national

geophysical congress. Students were given data of

ocean floor age and seismic activity graphs (figure 3)

and the goal to provide Morgan with compelling

evidence for the relative tectonic plate movements. In

order to encourage collaboration, we intentionally

integrated elements of positive identity

interdependence (research teams), positive outside

enemy interdependence (the backstory features

Harold Jeffreys, a prominent critic of the tectonic

plate theory), and an ill-defined problem (“find

evidence to prove a theory”).

Figure 3: Ocean floor age overlay (basemap), partly colored

(left) seismic activity overlay with profiles (right).

The activity was structured in four tasks: Initially,

groups had to read and understand the assignment.

The second task consisted of coloring the map

depending on the ocean floor’s age (figure 3, left).

Thirdly, students explored the seismic graphs by

classifying them depending on seismic intensity.

Finally, students had to define the direction of the

plates’ movements and explain “incoherent” ocean

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

106

floor data in front of the coast of Chile (old and recent

plates side by side). For this to succeed, students had

to digest hints, spatial data and emit hypothesis they

would validate with the available data to provide

Jason Morgan with a speech on evidence for the

relative movement of tectonic plates.

Students were provided a static map containing

the outlines of geographic ages, coloring pens and

paper based vertical seismic data for a number of

fixed positions (figure 3, right) alongside a map with

the age of the ocean floor layers printed on it (figure

3, left). This data was also accessible through the

tablet application. Students could therefore pick their

preferred medium. Groups with the dynamic

peephole interface (named “SPART” groups) had the

layer map attached to a rigid support to provide

accurate overlay (as in figure 4), whereas groups with

static peephole interactions (“Control” groups) were

given a tablet and the base map separately.

The application on the tablet provided two

overlays that could be changed with the click on a

button: one with numbers about the age of the ocean

floor, and another with the seismic activities (see

figure 3 right). On the second overlay, students could

click buttons to get the vertical profile of seismic

activities at the specific position (see figure 3, right).

In the paper version, the vertical profiles’ had to be

looked up on another sheet of paper.

During the first two sessions, none of the groups

managed to complete the activity. Consequently, we

introduced additional hints in the task assignment.

4.2 SPART Prototype

In order to study horizontal peephole interactions on

a static surface, we designed SPART, a system to

augment any surface located under mobile devices

(such as of-the-shelf smartphones or tablets). Among

the various concepts, a mechanical prototype

SPART-ME (50 € material cost, 02/2024) reached

technological maturity first and was therefore used in

this study.

The device consists of a frame for the smartphone

or tablet to which are attached two strings. Attached

to the support are two reels with potentiometers at two

points outside the working area to measure the

distance of each string to the device. The result of the

mechanical trilateration is then sent by a Bluetooth

enabled microcontroller to the attached device which

can display the augmentation layer depending on its

physical position. This version of SPART-ME can

augment an A3 sheet with an average accuracy of 0,5

cm and a refresh rate of 20 Hz. The technical

implementation is detailed in another article (Simon

et al., 2024).

Figure 4: The SPART-2 group during the colouring task.

Due to the strength of the string retraction

mechanism, tablets and smartphones have to be held

when far from the mechanism (increasing retraction

force) in this version of SPART.

4.3 Setting & Procedure

The study included a convenience sample of 32

students aged 12 to 14 in a public middle school in

France. Students worked in groups of 4 in a classroom

designed for natural sciences (see figure 5).

Experiments were conducted in the end of November

2022. Group one and two of the first, second and

fourth run (which we call group 1/2/4-SPART and

1/2/4-Control in this paper) had 60 minutes, while

groups 3-SPART and 3-Control only had 45 minutes

due to lesson restrictions.

Group composition was orchestrated by the

teacher in an effort to create homogenous groups in

terms of task performance. 1/3/4-SPART and 1/3/4-

Control were mixed groups (two boys, two girls). 2-

SPART consisted of four girls while 2-Control

consisted of four boys.

The classrooms, as illustrated in figure 5, are

structured in work islands (figure5:3) that allow

students (figure 5:8) to stand, or sit on elevated chairs.

Students in this study were standing, aligned and

facing one of two cameras (figure 5:1).

We filmed from two angles: One camera faced the

group to capture facial and gestural expressions

(figure 5:1) while the second camera targeted the

table (figure 5:2).

Peephole Technology for Mobile Collaborative Learning: An In- Classroom Exploratory Study

107

Figure 5: Cameras and experimental setup (SPART).

At the beginning of each experiment, participants

were shown the functionalities of the tablets and

given a short introduction to the activity.

Every group had a tablet, a copy of the task

assignment with all map layers printed in color, as

well as seismic data printed as graphs for specific

locations (as in figure 3, right). All information was

available as a paper version and on the tablets so

students were free to use either or both in parallel.

At the end of the experimentation, students were

asked whether the group had worked together before

and about their perception of SPART in their work.

Additionally, having identified one high-performing

group, we interviewed the most engaged student on

his experience during 30 min. During the interview,

he was shown video extracts of the experimentation

and invited to describe them before being asked more

targeted questions (e.g. “What was your intention

behind this move?”).

5 ANALYSIS

In section 4, we highlighted the three central

processes of collaborative learning, namely

coordination, awareness and participation, (figure

2:2). Consequently, in this section, we analyze video

material with a focus on these three processes. We

then highlight contributions to the social space, as

collaboration tends to fail without it (Bannon, 2006)

(figure 2:3). Finally, we step up to the abstraction

level of meaning making and knowledge building

(figure 2:1).

5.1 Coordination

Among the eight groups, little coordination (e.g.

changing strategies, searching for missing

information), beyond linearly following the

exercises, was found. 4-SPART was an exception and

also the only group to correctly identify lateral and

vertical tectonic plate movements as well as

differences in speed (thus successfully completing the

assignment).

4-SPART showed signs of awareness for the

potential limit of time and tool access. Two students

proposed to advance individually on follow up

exercises during the coloring activity, after noticing

that the coloring activity could be conveniently

carried out by two students (“...You can be two at

coloring together”, steps away from the table and

joins partner in reading next task). When stuck, the

group decided to rebuild common ground by

rereading the initial, global assignment and by

reconsidering all previously collected evidence

following suggestions of the interviewee. When the

interviewee was asked about the early parallelization

of work, he stated that he commonly employed the

strategy in group works to “gain time”. And that

“there was not enough space for everybody around

the table anyways”. Among the other groups, such

behavior was not observed.

In control groups and SPART groups alike, the

tablet itself did not seem to play a major role for this

collaborative aspect. SPART introduced a

coordination difficulty for the coloring task. SPART

groups that used the attached map for coloring, had to

move the tablet out of its position were the age of the

layer was indicated when coloring the underlying

layer at the same position on the map.

SPART groups spent overall more time on the

coloring and classification tasks compared to control

groups, confirming the time overhead in the

integration of the tool into the activity (figure 6).

Consequently, those groups had less time for

hypothesis building and validation, with the

exception of 4-SPART, having spent significantly

less time coloring than other SPART groups. This

group used the separately provided, smaller map with

the age of the ocean floor printed on it for coloring.

Hence, the group did not have to move the tablet

every time. Against our interpretation of a particular

smart use of this alternate map, the interview revealed

that the group initially thought that the map attached

to SPART was present for illustrative purposes only.

1-SPART just marked the color of a layer with a

stroke while using the tablet, before coloring the

whole layer without using the tablet afterwards. This

approach avoided the tablet being in the way of

coloring (as encountered by 2-SPART and 3-

SPART). The group however was not able to turn its

approach into a time advantage due to meticulously

coloring the entire map.

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

108

While SPART groups were slower in completing

the tasks, there were little problems with the

interaction itself. The interviewee described the

interaction as “natural” and “simple to use”.

Figure 6: Time spent by SPART-groups (orange) and

Control groups (blue).

Occasionally, users tried to drag the overlay with

their fingers before remembering they had to move

the tablet instead. The only difficulty that we noticed

was that users had to hold the device in order to

prevent it from sliding towards the reels. No

considerable overhead in cognitive load was

noticeable or reported.

5.2 Awareness

SPART seemed to work as a visual cue for group

members engaging in personal work or activities

unrelated to the main task. Indeed, having

interviewed one of the 4-SPART students, the student

outlined the role of SPART to follow his team

member’s activity at a distance, both during phases of

cooperation and transition back to collaborative

phases.

In 1-SPART, two boys got carried away by a

discussion about computer games (figure 7).

However, at least one of the two regularly had a

glimpse at SPART. After twenty minutes, the two

girls decided they had invested enough effort and

ordered the boys to do the remaining exercises.

Interestingly, the boys were aware of the exercises’

results carried out by the girls and were able to

conduct the following tasks without re-iterating over

the previous work.

Figure 7: Girls working with SPART while boys converse

off-topic (yellow: tablet position).

Inversely, in group 4-Control, monopolization of

the device was an issue, since other group members

temporarily couldn’t follow one group member

holding the tablet in his hands while walking around.

Similar situations arose when members held the tablet

(in control conditions) in a specific direction, thus

blocking access of other members (2,3,4-Control).

In addition, we noticed that the strength of the

SPART retraction mechanism required students to

hold the tablet in position. While not ideal in tool

usage, members helped each other holding the tablet

in place and manipulating it conjointly. 4-SPART

showed consistently recurring behavioral awareness

as two or three members of the group interchangeably

manipulated the tablet to move it into position,

displaying profiles and changing layers.

Cognitive awareness was rare: Group members

rarely referred to their peers’ skills or knowledge. 4-

SPART was an exception in a sequence where one of

the boys (A) remembered a previous lesson and

another group member (B) remembered that A had

kept a cardboard model of a tectonic plate movement

that they introduced to refresh and illustrate

knowledge about tectonic plate movements.

Concerning social awareness, groups globally

functioned well in terms of timing for oral

interventions except for a member of 4-SPART who

occasionally tried to contribute his ideas at the same

time other members were talking. When he was the

only one talking, peers sometimes did not react to his

propositions or ideas.

5.3 Participation

In terms of oral contributions, we measured subject

related utterances per group. 4-SPART had 30% more

utterances than the other groups and balanced

participation. 3-Control showed a fully asymmetric

participation pattern in the first half of the

experiment: only one person was working and

monopolizing resources (tool access and space). Girls

in 4-Control contributed considerably less than their

Peephole Technology for Mobile Collaborative Learning: An In- Classroom Exploratory Study

109

male counterparts, both in terms of oral and nonverbal

participation. The discrepancy in participation was

accompanied by monopolization which manifested in

one of the boys taking the tablet and interacting with

it separately from the rest of the group.

Participation in 1-SPART and 1-Control was

unbalanced: the first half was completely dominated

by the two girls and the second half by the two boys.

2-SPART was characterized by participative

symmetry but little oral contributions.

The overall median value did not significantly

vary between Control and SPART groups.

In general, due to the limited space around the

table, one group member was consistently limited in

his/her access to the tablet (Control and SPART). In

the interview, awareness for the lack of space and tool

access was confirmed by the participant, adding “…it

is important for everybody to equally access the tool,

everybody should have a turn on it”. Beyond

awareness for the importance of equity in

participation he stated that he takes an active role in

regulating access by pointing out unbalanced access

to resources. “This was not the case in this activity. I

remember talking a lot, B talked a lot, the others were

a little more passive, but I think everybody had the

possibility to participate”.

5.4 Socializing

We noticed asymmetric relationships in 3-Control, 2-

Control, 1-Control and 1-SPART. All of them were

present since the beginning of the activity, pointing to

existing social discrepancies among students.

Student exclusions manifested in restricting

member’s tool access, especially in control groups by

orientating the tablet away from a person.

4-SPART showed an intact social space:

Members showed motivation, joked while staying

task-focused or made fun of each other without

demeaning overtone. In this environment fell the

brainstorming phase about lateral tectonic plates’

movements which resulted in the correct hypothesis

(and its validation): Just before one of the students

emitted the theory of subduction in front of the

Chilean coast, the group at 52:43 was missing an

appealing theory. Jokingly, another student says “the

plates extend so much that it [the older, missing layer]

has just disappeared!” other group members laugh,

triggering hand movements of another student to

mimic an explosion. Gesturing continues, this time

his left hand slides from right to left (as the previous

tablet movement) while he says, half seriously “it

went underneath…”, then exclaiming: “It went

underneath!”

Interactions in 2-Control initially were

characterized by task distribution by the dominant

member, occasionally judging team members (“wait!

you’re sc*** it up!”, “idiot” etc.) or restricting access

(“Can I write?” – “No”). During the final phase, all

members could propose their hypothesis, but no

consensus (nor strategy to achieve one) was found to

decide on one common theory. The group did not

show transactive interactions or strategies to validate

or falsify the hypothesis. The contribution of two

students was restrained to reading the assignment.

One of them stated that he “didn’t understand any of

this”. His statement was not followed by other group

members trying to explain the topic to him and his

further interventions were limited to off-topic

contributions. Good task performance of this group

can be attributed to the good individual task

performance of the dominant member and the person

filming giving advice, which consisted of

intermediate task validation concerning plate limits

(“You’re missing one”) and correction at 30:09 as

well as motivational speech at 47:44 (“you’re nearly

there, you are on the right track”). The intervention

highlights the importance of strategically placed

feedback on task performance and motivation, since

the group itself did not provide positive peer feedback

and exhibited asymmetric group relationships. Since

this study was conducted in a classroom setting,

teacher interventions also happened in 4-Control at

60m04. The teacher intervened based on the wrongly

placed arrows for horizontal plate movement. 1-

Control and 1-SPART assisted at a general

intervention by the teacher having identified

problems of other student groups finding tectonic

plate limits and pointing students at seismic activity

to correctly identify those limits.

5.5 Meaning Making

Groups had access to a paper version of all

visualizations. However, in the case of SPART, all

groups exclusively used SPART instead of the paper

version throughout the experiment. In the case of

control groups, the use of paper versions was more

prominent. In one sequence, one member of 4-

SPART moved the tablet in the direction of the South

Pacific plate. Previously he had identified a

“problem” in the data, consisting of the fact that the

South Atlantic plate pushes in the opposite direction.

The same person identified the lateral subduction

movement ten minutes later. In general, SPART

seemed to be the privileged way of exploring the

available information.

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

110

5.6 Knowledge Building

The complete loop of emitting, discussing then

testing and finally validating hypothesis could not be

observed beyond the 4-SPART group. Tablets were

however used as tools for attempted knowledge

building in 2-control, 1- SPART, 2-SPART and 3-

SPART. 3-SPART discovered a complementary

feature (implemented and intended for scaffolding a

group in case of difficulties) for displaying a gradient

map of the ocean floor age on their own and used it to

check their own coloring and movement hypothesis.

This feature was later requested explicitly in the

interview by a member of 4-SPART (who had not

found it).

4-SPART used the possibility to display vertical

profiles on the map extensively to check hypothesis

(mountain chains among plate limits, subduction

along earthquakes etc.). The following sequence is

the sequel to the previous sequence illustrating the

discovery of the subduction movement by 4-SPART:

A: “it went underneath!” […]

A: “that’s why there are mountains!”

uses his hands as plates sliding one under another

B: (slides tablet over Chilean coast with age layer

overlay) But look, there is no information at all?

(points on tablet). I’m sure the plate is somewhere

else”.

A: “I’m sure this is it. See, there is a mountain chain”

B: “Yes that’s maybe it?” Students chatter indistinctly

A: “Wait, wait, wait, my theory starts to strengthen”

Moves tablet over the sketched buttons to change the

overlay to the seismic overlay with profile access,

then slides it over South America, opens a profile on

the Chilean coast.

A: “See, the line [of earthquakes in the graph]?”

B: “So the yellow [colored, recent tectonic plate] goes

under the green [colored, older tectonic plate] …”

A: “That’s why it disappeared.”

C: “Strange. That would have resulted in…”

A: “And we could use that to support …”

Moves tablet to another profile icon, opens the profile

A: “…this. We can see clearly the line [of

earthquakes descending in depth] there.”

C: “But those are the earthquakes…”

A: “Exactly! When the plate moves, it creates

friction. And thus earthquakes.”

To illustrate and identify the speed difference

between different plates, the group used a cardboard

model from previous lessons.

Interestingly, even the colored map was only

occasionally used by 4-SPART. Instead, group

members used the tablet’s white ocean floor overlay

(see figure 4 left) containing the ocean floor’s age in

numbers. When asked about it in the interview, the

interviewee explained it by the difficulty of having an

additional level of abstraction (“I had to remember

what the colors meant”) that didn’t seem to provide

meaningful information to the group. Another

mentioned advantage was the size of the overlay with

more details that the A4 printed version this group

used for the coloring task.

6 RESULTS

Having presented our observations on the collected

eight hours of dual-perspective video material, we

present, in the following sections, our interpretation

of the role of SPART for the observed collaborative

sequences during group work.

Initially, we examine the role of SPART for

collaborative processes identified in section 6.1-6.3

(figure 2:1,2). We further explore its possible impact

as a memorization and communication support before

hypothesizing its role as support to learn how to

collaborate and its induced cognitive load. Finally, we

discuss the activity design and possible

improvements.

6.1 The Role of SPART

The following subsections describe the possible role

of SPART for collaborative processes (awareness,

participation and coordination) from the tool

perspective, based on the observations presented

previously, and its potential beyond this study.

6.1.1 Awareness, Coordination &

Participation

Our analysis points towards SPART supporting

behavioral awareness processes and collaborative

group dynamics. Indeed, SPART seems to enact a

visual anchor for other group members, both in

synchronized collaborative sequences, as well as in

settings with subgroups or reflection phases. The

tablet’s position allows to deduce roughly on what

parts the rest of the group is working. On several

occasions, we observed students engaging in off-topic

conversations and seamlessly picking up their peer’s

work.

We further observed the fact that SPART seems

to reduce tool monopolization by one member

because it is functionally bound to the surface it is

placed on. Students in the control condition made use

of the freedom the tablet provided to carry it around

and introduced monopolization by a single student.

Peephole Technology for Mobile Collaborative Learning: An In- Classroom Exploratory Study

111

We could not find evidence for support on other

collaborative dimensions such as coordination or

collaborative conditions. If increased awareness led

to increased participation or coordinative efforts, this

was not noticeable.

6.1.2 Communication Support

Our observation leads us to believe that SPART could

support nonverbal communication. Indeed, location

and movement of the tablet communicate meaning.

The position shows the current working area of the

group. Moving the tablet underlines the user’s

intention and ideas on task hypothesis, validation or

information retrieval. This hypothesis was

strengthened by interactions during the moment 4-

SPART verified and validated the subduction

hypothesis (and preceding exercises: identifying

limits of tectonic plates, speed of moving plates and

hypothesizing about vertical movements). The

conversation sequence illustrates the role of

nonverbal communication assisted by the visual aid

SPART provides. The particular context of tectonic

plates would be an interesting topic for a study on the

nonverbal affordances of a rigid body force

simulation for nonverbal communication in SPART

to confirm the importance of nonverbal

communication for collaboration.

6.1.3 Memorization Support

SPART’s particular advantage seems to be the link

between location and information (e.g. for fast

access of profiles as shown in figure 4). Literature

suggests that its appeal is rooted in the spatial and

gestural memory that the interaction draws on

(Kaufmann & Ahlström, 2013). Once adopted,

information retrieval is fast and focused. As such, it

seems particularly useful for use with maps or high-

level visualizations.

Association of information to locations is used in

other contexts such as techniques for enhancing

memory capacities (mnemonics): McCabe (2015) has

shown the beneficial use of maps for building high

capacity mental structures (mind palaces). Such an

approach could benefit collaborative activities in the

educational sector. We noticed students having

forgotten previous lessons on geography who

consequently were disadvantaged in the activity. If

content can be delivered through collaborative mind

walks, this might benefit individual memory retrieval

as shown by McCabe (2015). SPART can assist mind

walks by providing access to collaborative artefacts

created during previous collaborative activities

(photos, sketches etc.) tied to the exact map position

for better recall performance (contextualization).

The second distinctive feature SPART allows for

are overlays, fitting the physical layer. While this

can be achieved with multiple views of the same,

printed map, having just a partial overlay in form of a

tablet that can be easily moved, increases practicality.

Students used and asked for the possibility of

intermediate visualizations. In a previous workshop

with K12 educators, educators noted the potential of

SPART for students to access as many intermediate

visualizations between abstraction (e.g. a map) and

reality as necessary to improve their map reading

skills. This aligns with the spontaneous suggestion of

our interviewee wishing for a gradient map and 3-

SPART exploiting the feature.

6.1.4 Learning to Collaborate

Based on some limitations of SPART, such as the

strong retraction mechanisms (pulling the tablet back

when too far from the mechanism), we see potential

for gesture based collaboration, requiring the joined

engagement of multiple users to use a functionality

and consequently increase overall participation

(activities which physically require all members to

participate through positive interdependence),

coordination (physical coordination required) and

awareness (Morris et al., 2006). Such collaborative

activities could be destined to raise explicit student

awareness (meta-awareness) on the functioning and

importance of collaborative processes and skills.

6.1.5 Reduced Cognitive Load

While cognitive load associated to the tool use

seemed low, it still adds to the collaborative cognitive

load required for the activity. Students already

overwhelmed or missing collaborative skills did not

benefit from the introduction of SPART.

Groups with collaborative skills and solid

knowledge on tectonics seemed to benefit from the

use of SPART, while groups lacking organization and

collaborative skills could not overcome those

shortcomings with SPART.

This confirms the general consensus that a tool

can enhance collaboration but that it is not as

important a condition for successful collaboration as

collaborative skills and an open and productive social

environment. SPART however is an interaction type.

It can be used in conjunction with the majority of

existing collaborative functionalities that have been

developed for tabletops (task related or to regulate

collaborative processes directly), all while providing

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

112

a large and mobile work space with a convenient way

of accessing virtual content (Simon et al., 2024).

6.2 Activity Design

The activity design is the result of a collaboration

between the teacher (and his constraints to teach the

topic) and our work group (with the goal to create a

purposeful use of SPART). The coloring and

classification task are examples of the pedagogical

dimension guiding students towards the

understanding of tectonic plates. If the activity was to

be redesigned, the coloring task and classification

would probably be compressed into a virtual,

automated coloring activity where students could

freely pick a color scheme of their choice and autofill

the ocean floor layers or keep the original map in

order to foster coordination and discussion rather than

cooperative coloring.

7 LIMITATIONS

The study was carried out in varying conditions. 1-

SPART and 1-Control worked in the classroom

alongside their classmates, whereas [2-4]-

SPART/Control where placed in empty classrooms to

improve sound recording quality for analysis. In

addition, 3-SPART and 3-Control had only 45

minutes compared to 60 minutes for the other groups.

Since students knew each other, they had predefined

relationships which impacted their group behavior.

Camera (wo)men interacted with students and some

groups received advice from the teacher.

Furthermore, available desk space was

insufficient for four students. Tensions may have

arisen from the difficulty to work around the tablets.

The prototype, physically linking the tablet to the

surface, limited possible interactions (string

retraction force). In addition, the activity design

naturally centered the hypothesis building task

around one part of the map, thus favoring interaction

with SPART for the person standing at this position.

Interviews with all groups would have provided

a more comprehensive view on internal processes

than the single interview but could not be conducted

due to time constraints.

Finally, video material was analyzed by a single

researcher, who also conducted the subsequent

interview, thus exposing him to confirmation bias

during the questions.

8 CONCLUSION

In this comparative study, we explored the impact of

the dynamic horizontal peephole interaction SPART

on collaborative learning.

Previous research on dynamic peephole

interactions is scarce due to technological challenges

and high costs.

The study was conducted in a French middle

school with 32 students and a subsequent sequential

analysis. We presented our observations and

interpretation on the role of SPART for the

collaborative processes of awareness, participation

and coordination and higher level processes such as

meaning making and knowledge building.

The results point towards benefits for awareness

for high performers and SPART being a support for

knowledge building. SPART seemed to draw low

cognitive load among users, was robust and natural to

use. It provides a collaborative and mobile platform.

A number of interesting perspectives for future

investigations have been identified: support for mind

walks, increased task awareness and learning of

collaboration.

Low device cost (50 €) and portability in the latest

prototype versions open the door to large scale

experiments and potential future adoption beyond the

educational sector. Experiments are underway to

confirm this study’s findings in mobile setting.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is part of the SituLearn project, supported

by the French National Agency for Research,

reference ANR-20-CE38-0012. Thanks, Guy Theard,

for testing this and consequent prototypes with your

students. Thanks to Guillaume Boucher for the

illustration of SPART. All other illustrations are the

author’s work.

REFERENCES

Bannon, L. J. (2006). Forgetting as a feature, not a bug: The

duality of memory and implications for ubiquitous

computing. CoDesign, 2, 3–15.

Barron, B. (2003). When Smart Groups Fail. Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in

communication. In Perspectives on socially shared

cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC, US:

American Psychological Association.

Peephole Technology for Mobile Collaborative Learning: An In- Classroom Exploratory Study

113

Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P.

(2015). A Framework for Teachable Collaborative

Problem Solving Skills. In Educational Assessment in

an Information Age. Assessment and Teaching of 21st

Century Skills: Methods and Approach (pp. 37–56).

Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Hürst, W., & Bilyalov, T. (2010). Dynamic versus static

peephole navigation of VR panoramas on handheld

devices. In Proceedings of the 9th International

Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, 1–

8. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing

Machinery.

Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2020).

Convergences of joint, positive interactions and

regulation in collaborative learning. Small Group

Research, 51, 229–264.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational

psychology success story: Social interdependence

theory and cooperative learning. Educational

Researcher, 38, 365–379.

Kaufeld, M., Mundt, M., Forst, S., & Hecht, H. (2022).

Optical see-through augmented reality can induce

severe motion sickness. Displays, 74, 102283.

Kaufmann, B., & Ahlström, D. (2013). Studying spatial

memory and map navigation performance on projector

phones with peephole interaction. In Proceedings of the

SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing

Systems, 3173–3176. New York, NY, USA:

Association for Computing Machinery.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirschner, F., & Zambrano R.,

J. (2018). From Cognitive Load Theory to

Collaborative Cognitive Load Theory. International

Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative

Learning, 13, 213–233.

Ma, X., Liu, J., Liang, J., & Fan, C. (2020). An empirical

study on the effect of group awareness in CSCL

environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 0,

1–16.

Mateescu, M., Pimmer, C., Zahn, C., Klinkhammer, D., &

Reiterer, H. (2019). Collaboration on large interactive

displays: A systematic review. Human-Computer

Interaction, 36, 1–35.

McCabe, J. A. (2015). Location, Location, Location!

Demonstrating the Mnemonic Benefit of the Method of

Loci. Teaching of Psychology, 42, 169–173.

Mehra, S., Werkhoven, P., & Worring, M. (2006).

Navigating on handheld displays: Dynamic versus

static peephole navigation. ACM Transactions on

Computer-Human Interaction, 13, 448–457.

Morris, M. R., Cassanego, A., Paepcke, A., Winograd, T.,

Piper, A. M., & Huang, A. (2006). Mediating Group

Dynamics through Tabletop Interface Design. IEEE

Computer Graphics and Applications, 26, 65–73.

Pereira, A., Miller, T., Huang, Y.-M. & Rempel, D. (2013).

Holding a tablet computer with one hand: Effect of

tablet design features on biomechanics and subjective

usability among users with small hands. Ergonomics,

56, 1363–1375.

Rohs, M., Schöning, J., Martin, R., Essl, G., & Krüger, A.

(2007). Map navigation with mobile devices: Virtual

versus physical movement with and without visual

context. In Computing (p. 153).

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The Construction of

Shared Knowledge in Collaborative Problem Solving.

In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer Supported

Collaborative Learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin,

Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Simon, S., Marfisi-Schottman, I., & George, S. (2022). A

Conceptual Framework for Creating Mobile

Collaboration Tools. In I. Hilliger, P. J. Muñoz-Merino,

T. De Laet, A. Ortega-Arranz, & T. Farrell (Eds.). In

Educating for a New Future: Making Sense of

Technology-Enhanced Learning Adoption (pp. 601–

607). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Simon, S., Marfisi-Schottmann, I., & George, S. (2024).

Spart—An Affordable Mobile Augmented Reality

Alternative to Interactive Tabletops in Education. In

Mobile Learning Proceedings. Porto, Portugal: IADIS

International Association for Development of The

Information Society.

Stahl, G. (2021). Investigation 1. Advancing a CSCL

Vision. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Theoretical Investigations:

Philosophical Foundations of Group Cognition (pp. 3–

26). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-

supported collaborative learning: An historical

perspective. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning

Sciences, 20.

Vogel, F., Weinberger, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2023).

Transactivity and Knowledge Co-Construction in

Collaborative Problem Solving. In Proceedings of the

16th International Conference on Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning - CSCL 2023, 337–346.

Montréal, Québec, Canada: International Society of the

Learning Sciences.

Wise, A., Antle, A., & Warren, J. (2021). Design Strategies

for Collaborative Learning in Tangible Tabletops:

Positive Interdependence and Reflective Pauses.

Interacting with Computers, 33.

Zagermann, J., Pfeil, U., Rädle, R., Jetter, H.-C., Klokmose,

C., & Reiterer, H. (2016). When Tablets meet

Tabletops: The Effect of Tabletop Size on Around-the-

Table Collaboration with Personal Tablets. In

Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems, 5470–5481. New York,

NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery.

CSEDU 2024 - 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

114