Kori M. Inkpen, Wai-ling Ho-Ching, Oliver Kuederle, Stacey D. Scott, Garth B.D. Shoemaker

EDGE Lab, School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University

Abstract: As computers become integrated in our everyday lives, it is important that we do not limit computer-based collaboration to distributed settings. As the demand for collaborative applications grows, it is imperative that we investigate how to effectively support co-located collaboration and fully understand the consequences of this style of interaction. This paper presents preliminary results from a research study which examined pairs of elementary school children playing a puzzle solving game in various collaborative setups. Children's activity and engagement levels when playing on a computer with multiple input devices was compared to other traditional collaborative settings (paper-based, common desktop configuration). Preliminary qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed three main benefits of providing each child with access to a mouse and a cursor: (a) children exhibited a significantly higher level of engagement; (b) children tended to be more active; and (c) children significantly preferred playing on a computer equipped with multiple input devices and cursors.

Keywords: multiple input devices, single display groupware, co-located collaboration, children, education, games, groupware, gender

Introduction

The dominant paradigm in computer interaction assumes that one computer is dedicated to one user at any one time. This ignores the fact that in many social environments, such as school or the workplace, people are often required to communicate and work collaboratively. The research area of Single Display Groupware (SDG) (Stewart et al., 1999) attempts to address this problem by finding effective ways to allow groups of two or more people to collaborate using a shared computer display.

SDG applications could have a strong impact on many areas. Education, in particular, is an area well suited to this style of collaboration. Cooperative learning is a priority in many classrooms and emphasized by current curriculum standards (NCTM, 1989). In public schools children are often required to work together on computers. While this situation can be limiting for some activities, many children do enjoy working and playing together on a single computer. These practical and social issues reinforce the need for research in the area of SDG.

The study presented in this paper investigated children’s interactions while playing a cooperative puzzle solving game in various collaborative set-ups. The game required the children to recognize and complete a pattern using alien faces with different attributes. We assessed the children’s level of engagement and activity as they played a paper-based version of the game and a computer-based version with either one or two mice. Our preliminary results show benefits from providing children with multiple input devices and simultaneous cursors.

This paper presents a summary of recent work in the area of SDG followed by a discussion of the experiment performed, and results obtained. Preliminary conclusions are drawn from the data, and future paths of investigation are suggested.

Related literature

As mentioned previously, most computers found in homes, schools and workplaces are designed to accommodate single user interactions. A large amount of research and development in CSCW and CSCL perpetuates this notion by focusing on the one-person/one-computer paradigm, facilitating collaboration through networked distributed workstations. Single Display Groupware (SDG) is a class of applications that support multiple users interacting in a co-located environment on a single shared display with multiple input-devices (Stewart et al. 1999). By effectively supporting face-to-face interactions, SDG will allow users to interact more naturally and comfortably around the computer. An early SDG environment was the Multi-Device, Multi-User, Multi-Editor (MMM) developed at Xerox PARC (Bier & Freeman, 1991). MMM supported synchronous use of up to three mice, allowing users to focus on a shared task without having to shift between personal and shared displays. However, the MMM technology is no longer supported. Other researchers have also investigated technical issues surrounding support for multiple input devices (Bricker et al., 1995; Myers et al., 1998). Hourcade and Bederson (1999) recently developed an architecture to support the development of Java SDG applications.

Beyond the technical issues of enabling multiple input devices, previous research has suggested that supporting co-located collaboration can provide positive achievement and social benefits for children in educational learning environments. Inkpen et al. (1995) found that children were more motivated to play a commercial problem-solving computer game and were more successful in the game when playing together on a single machine as opposed to playing on side-by-side computers or by themselves. Inkpen et al. (1997) and Stewart et al. (1998) have also shown increased achievement and motivational benefits by providing better support for children’s collaborative interactions in a computer environment.

Method

The study involved pairs of children playing a puzzle-solving activity using three different experimental set-ups: (1) a paper-based version of the game with physical pieces; (2) a computer-based version of the game with one mouse and one cursor; and (3) a computer-based version of the game with two mice and two cursors.

Participants and setting

The study took place in a public elementary school on the east side of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The school is located in a lower-economic, culturally diverse area of Vancouver. The participants included forty children (22 girls and 18 boys) between the ages of nine and eleven from three grade four and five classes. Parental consent was obtained for all children who participated in the study. The study ran for three consecutive days in April 1999 in a small conference room that was located in the school library. The research area included two experimental set-ups, each consisting of an IBM-compatible PC, a video camera with two lavaliere microphones to capture the children’s interactions, and a scan-converter to capture the computer screen. The two experimental set-ups were configured back-to-back so children working on one computer could not easily see the other computer.

Alien pattern game

Figure 1. Sample puzzle screen from the computer version of the Alien Pattern game.

Figure 2. A pair of children playing the paper-based version of the Alien Pattern game.

Experimental Variables

A repeated measures design was used in this study with two independent variables: gender and collaborative condition. Both males and females participated in this study but only same-gender pairs were used. The collaborative conditions included (1) paper-based, (2) one-mouse/one-cursor, and (3) two-mouse/two-cursors. In the paper-based condition, pairs of children played using the paper version of the alien puzzle game. In the one-mouse/one-cursor condition, pairs of children played the alien puzzle game on a computer with one mouse and one cursor. In the two-mouse/two-cursors condition, pairs of children played the alien puzzle game on a computer with two mice and two cursors. All pairs of children played the paper-based version of the game first and the order of the remaining two conditions was counterbalanced. This allowed all children to become familiar with the game before playing the computer-based version to minimize the effect that learning may have had on the computer-based conditions. It also provided information on how each pair of children interact given a medium that affords multiple people interacting simultaneously.

The dependent variables analyzed for the two computer conditions were engagement and activity. Engagement was measured by the amount of off-task behaviour exhibited by the children, gathered through video analysis. Behaviour classified as off-task were actions unrelated to the game, including, looking around the room; talking to the other pair; playing with the microphone; and non-game-related discourse. Activity was measured as the number of actions exhibited by each partner and by the pair as a whole, collected through computer logs and video analysis. Actions included moving alien faces and pressing the "check-answer" button. Other quantitative data gathered included background information for the children (e.g. do they have a computer at home, how often do they play video or computer games, whether they prefer to play alone or with friends), and a post-session questionnaire, providing feedback on the session (e.g. preference of collaborative condition, reasons for this preference, and whether they would like to play the game alone or with friends). Qualitative observations were also gathered through video analysis.

Procedure

The children were randomly assigned a partner of the same gender from their class. Two pairs of children at a time were excused from regular class activities for one hour to take part in the study. The study began with welcoming remarks from the researchers, followed by the children filling out a short background questionnaire. The paper-based alien game was then described to the children and they were asked to play the game for ten minutes. All children played the same set of puzzles in the paper-based version. Following this, the children were told that they would be playing the same game two more times using a computer. It was explained that one computer had two mice while the other computer had one mouse, and that it was up to the children to decide how they would coordinate their play. One pair of children was randomly selected to begin with the one-mouse/one-cursor setup while the other pair began with the two-mouse/two-cursors setup. A random assignment procedure was also used to select which puzzle set each pair would use in their first computer condition (out of two possible sets). The children were allowed to play for ten minutes. After the ten-minute session, the pairs of children switched computers and played the game for another ten minutes using the alternate collaborative setup and puzzle set. Following the last experimental condition, the children filled out a post-session questionnaire and engaged in casual discussion with the researchers before returning to class.

Results

Off-task behaviour

To analyze the amount of off-task behaviour, a mixed ANOVA was performed, with collaborative condition as the within-subjects variable and gender, order of condition, and order of puzzle set as the between-subjects variables. Results revealed a statistically significant main effect for the amount of time the children were not engaged in playing the game, F(1,32)=9.835, p<.01, with a power of 86%. Children in the one-mouse/one-cursor condition exhibited significantly more off-task behaviour than did children in the two-mouse/two-cursors condition as shown by the distributions in Figure 4. None of the between-subjects variables produced significant effects.

Qualitative observations from the video analysis revealed four main reasons for the children’s off-task behaviour: boredom, frustration, monitoring the other pair’s progress, and the occurrence of distracting events. Monitoring the other pair’s progress and the occurrence of distracting events appeared to be independent of experimental condition while boredom was observed primarily in the one-mouse/one-cursor condition. In most cases, boredom appeared to be a result of a child not having control of the mouse. 82% of the off-task instances were committed when a child didn't have control of a mouse. The degree of boredom, in some cases, was quite extreme (e.g. children not participating at all when their partner was controlling the mouse). Frustration while solving difficult puzzles appeared to be the primary reason for off-task behaviour in the two-mouse/two-cursors condition. In the paper-based version of the game, only four instances (15 seconds) of off-task behaviour were observed.

Figure 3. Two boys playing in the one-mouse/one-cursor condition (left) and two girls playing in the two-mouse/two cursor condition (right).

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. Histogram distributions showing the amount of time children exhibited off-task behaviour in (a) the one-mouse/one-cursor condition and (b) the two-mouse/two-cursors condition.

Level of activity

The number of object placements and "check-answer" button clicks were recorded to investigate the level of activity for each child in the two computer-based conditions. A mixed ANOVA was performed, with collaborative condition as the within-subjects variable and gender, order of condition, and order of puzzle set as the between-subjects variables. Results revealed a statistically significant interaction effect between the collaborative condition and which condition the children played first as shown in Figure 5. A comparison of the simple main effects revealed that children who played using the one-mouse/one-cursor condition first, had a significant increase in their activity level when they played using the two-mouse/two-cursors setup in their follow-up session, F(1,17)=59.147, p<.001, with a power of 100%. In contrast, children who played using the two-mouse/two-cursors condition first, displayed no significant change in their activity level when they played in the follow-up one-mouse/one-cursor condition, F(1,21)=1.414, ns, with a power of 20%.

Figure 5. Interaction effect between the collaborative conditions and the assigned order of those conditions.

Qualitative observations from the video analyses revealed that when children played using two mice, both children were constantly interacting with the game. Both children tended to keep their hand on the mouse and continually interacted with it, either as a pointing device or to move puzzle pieces. When the children were forced to share a single mouse, some pairs found other ways to provide input such as pointing at the screen or giving verbal suggestions to their partner. Although these actions do indicate activity, they were not be captured by the computer logs.

Post-session feedback

Children’s preferences concerning the three collaborative conditions are shown in Table 1. A Chi square analysis revealed that significantly more children preferred playing on the computer equipped with two mice over the other two setups, c ²(2,N=40)=24.35, p<.001. Nineteen of the twenty-eight children who preferred playing on the computer with two mice explicitly attributed this preference to the fact that two mice were available. In the background questionnaire, 67.5% of the children stated that they preferred to use computers with friends as opposed to alone. In the post-session questionnaire, this percentage rose significantly to 82.5% when they were asked whether they would prefer to play the alien pattern game alone or with a friend, Z=-2.683, p<.01 (Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test).

Table 1. Number of children who preferred each collaborative setup.