For the trials of the second iteration prototype, the Activboard hardware was integrated into a large custom made table (Figure 5.13). The table was made large enough (185cm×140cm, and active display area of160cm×120cm) and rigid enough to provide the same physical affordances as a normal collaborative table. The table was installed in a local high school where I ran six sets of trials with six groups of three students (age range 11-13 years). Three new mysteries, of different levels of difficulty, were created for this purpose and assigned to groups based on advice from the teacher and her knowledge of the achievement levels of the students. The trials at this stage aimed at validating the design decisions, spotting weaknesses in the design, evaluating the interaction technique, and provide guidelines for the final design. All the trials where video recorded and the analysis was conducted by repeatedly watching the recorded sessions and reflecting on them. A fully detailed analysis is reserved for the final design.
5.5.4.1 Interaction technique
Students did not have any difficulty learning and using the interface, including the crossing-based polar gates interaction technique. With directions from the teacher, students typically spent 5-10 minutes to learn about mysteries in general, and features of the Digital Mysteries application in particular. Students worked from all sides of the table, demonstrated a degree of mobility (around the table) and used the orientation technique to rotate slips in different directions. Students even created multiple sticky tapes by repeated crossing without being informed of this capability. No requirements for further improvements on the interaction techniques could be identified.
Figure 5.13: A custom made tabletop with a Promethean Activboard embedded inside it.
5.5.4.2 Externalization and task structure
Grouping stage: Students were required to create groups, but no limitations were enforced as to the number and naming of the groups. Consequently, the number of groups created and their assigned names varied significantly between the groups. Four of the six student groups created only one or two new groups, while another group of students created five new groups in addition to the red herrings and background information groups. Group names also ranged from “g1” and “g2”, to more descriptive names such as “reasons 4 being late”. The sticky tape tool was very popular and most students used it with some enthusiasm to associate strongly related slips. Different student groups used notes to different extents, with one group using none and another creating 8 notes during the session. When used, the notes gave a clear picture of what the students were thinking of. However, this was more true for groups identified as higher achieving by the teacher, while low achieving students created fewer groups, used less analytical names, made fewer relations, and wrote fewer notes. This observation showed a clear correlation between the extent of using the tools (level of externalization) and the attainment level of the students.
Sequencing stage: A clear need for improvement in the sequencing stage was made evident by the weak performance of most of the groups in this stage. Only two groups created appropriate sequences (with some branches). One group created a linear sequence without any branching, and
the other three groups did not create any kind of sequence. Two of these three groups created piles of slips with sticky tapes on them, and the third left the slips unattended in their groups. Nevertheless, this showed that the application made the distinction between higher and lower achieving groups (as previously identified by the teacher) readily observable.
5.5.4.3 Collaboration
An examination of the percentages of interaction times for each student for the six groups showed that for two groups two participants dominated the sessions with percentages slightly exceeding 50%. No participant showed a percentage of less than 10% although in two groups two participants came close to (about 12%). Nevertheless, there was no evidence from the video logs of the six sessions that any of the groups seemed to make note, or take account for the participation pie chart. The small size and the location of the participation pie chart is one possible reason for this.
5.5.4.4 Scaffolding, feedback, and reflection
The role that the technology played in maintaining the students’ interest was very obvious. Stu- dents expressed their full engagement in the process and their surprise that the task actually lasted 45 to 60 minutes. The instructions given at the beginning of each stage were found to be very useful in maintaining the students focus on what was required from them at each stage, but the need for simplifying the instructions even further was identified (Figure 5.11). The help feature, on the other hand, was not used by any of the groups. Consequently, I specifically asked one of the lower achieving groups who were struggling with the exercise to use the help feature, but the students went over the tips quickly without paying attention to their contents or benefiting from using them.
5.5.4.5 Other observations
None of the groups used the save/restore functions. When the teacher asked the students about their answer to the mystery, they did not seem to fully agree on one and only found the need to discuss a common answer upon the teacher’s request. Finally, the students utilized the physical affordances of the digital table just as they would a normal table. Students lent on the table and moved around it freely during the task.