This impulse is a continuation (or part 2) of my first post about my visit to the Children’s museum FRida & FreD. For the Gamification Course this semester we visited CoSA and looked at different parts of their exhibition. I talked to a staff member there and was able to find out that they actually work together with the Children’s museum FRida & FreD but have a slightly older target group. It was interesting to see how they approached the same concept of making complex topics tangible through interactive installations for different age groups. This exhibition gave me further insights into tangible information and learning. What was great is that I was able to see and test examples from many different subject areas such as finance, medicine, microbiology, tech (specifically the automotive industry) and STEM topics in general. Especially the STEM topics were something that really peaked my interest. Last semester I made a small prototype about tangible chemistry experiments without needing the actual laboratory.
Looking into more exhibitions was equally inspiring and insightful as I was also able to discover some approaches I didn’t enjoy so much, or thought weren’t conceptually great. The entire finance section for example I found quite boring and upon talking to some of my colleagues I discovered that they felt the same way. While some principles and ideas might have seemed nice on paper and were technically interactive, I felt that the way the content itself was displayed was not very creative or clever. The topics were still not always easy to understand and most „storylines“/games/stations took way too long. This was a helpful reminder that its not just the form that matters but its also the content itself that has to be adjusted. Simply placing it into a new medium, making it interactive by adding screens, buttons, voice control or an avatar does not make a topic easier to grasp or more fun. This highlighted for me that designing for engagement requires an alignment of content, format, and interaction method, not just “gamification”.
This was something the other part of the exhibition did much better. The stations were way more digestible in terms of length and information structure. An approach I found really great was the medical area that allowed kids to use actual operation and laboratory tools on fake scenarios and substances. I know this would have been something I would have loved as a child (and still really enjoyed now to be honest). From what I could see the kids there also enjoyed this immensely and stayed engaged throughout the whole process. Additionally what was executed nicely here, I think, was the storytelling. Apart from the cool interactions and real tools, the lengthy process never got boring. Diagnosing a patient and building a race-car were the two areas that did this best because there were constantly new steps and aspects to discover.
Both museum visits really reinforced my interest in tangible learning environments. However what I am still wondering is whether I can really find a new angle or topic that hasn’t been done yet. The setting of a museum is really interesting and it might also be fun to look into other target groups. Another interactive museum space I enjoyed was the exhibition on democracy in the Graz Museum. I feel like with these three I have a broad spectrum of target groups and topics to draw inspiration from and it might be worth looking into more.
Tag: tangible interfaces
Impulse #1 – a museum!
For my first Impulse-Post I have chosen my visit to the Children’s Museum FRida & FreD in Graz. One of the topics I am considering for my masters thesis is tangible interfaces and embodied interaction. I already looked into this topic last semester and have considered children and the setting of learning and (STEM Education) as an interesting target group and subject. Tangible Interfaces allows for a many different approaches, angles which I have been finding hard to narrow down. I visited the museum with two friends of mine that had come to visit. Both of them worked on the exhibition as interaction and graphic designers so it was really interesting to get their perspective on the production and development of such an installation. The Exhibition was about Data Security and designed in a medieval aesthetic. This setting created many fun metaphors for otherwise abstract and (especially for children) hard-to-grasp topics. Choosing a medieval theme for a modern issue is a really interesting approach in my opinion but although I was skeptical at first and wasn’t sure if it would translate well, I really liked the outcome. I found the analogies surprisingly clear, the only thing I can’t say for sure is that kids fully understood the meaning, as I wasn’t able to talk to any (we went just before closing hours). I was however able to ask the staff and they had mostly positive feedback!
I think „play“, learning through making and exploration/curiosity are additional interesting keywords here, and have prompted me to look into this a bit further. What I will say is that in some parts the exhibition did rely on screens, which is something I would consider removing, if possible as I felt this sometimes took away from the immersive „magical“ feeling that was created. Another interesting part that sparked my interest was the storytelling. While the different stations alone were interesting I really liked the fact that there was an overall „quest“ and a companion that appeared at every station. This gave the whole experience a slightly more structured and guided feeling.
The biggest take-away for me (apart from the inspiring and creative interactions I got to try out), is that I have two options on how to approach this topic. I either need to pin down a very specific topic to explore in this thesis or I could go in a more general direction with an explorative thesis-approach where I ask a research question that is something along the lines of „how can interactive installations be designed to be more tangible for children?“. From there I could experiment with creating design guidelines or principles that can be generally applied to tangible interfaces/interaction. With the other option would have to pick a really specific topic and focus on making this tangible through existing methods. So I could either focus on the system and methods themselves or on the topic (like Data Security in the case of the exhibition).
Exhibition PDF: https://fridaundfred.at/wp-content/uploads/Ff_Damals-1410_Paedagogisches-Handbuch.pdf
tangible interfaces (a cool example): https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3490149.3502252
learning through making: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-017-0172-6
Blogpost #6 – Prototype Video
Enjoy my little Chemistry Prototype :))
Blogpost #5 – Prototype
In my previous blog post (#3), I explored the value of tangible interfaces and embodied interaction, especially when applied to scientific concepts. I took a look at constructivist and kinesthetic learning theories and discussed how meaningful, hands-on engagement can help people and especially children understand and retain information more effectively than traditional textbook-based approaches. Building on this I tinkered around with a lo-fi tangible prototype: an interactive chemistry simulation that allows users (kids) to explore real chemical reactions in a safe, accessible, and playful way.
One of the challenges in kinesthetic learning (or hands-on learning in general), especially in the context of science education, are the physical restrictions: there is messiness, the danger of working with certain substances, and the financial or spatial limitations of traditional labs. The prototypes approach is to offer a digital-physical hybrid that provides the sensory and experiential engagement of a real experiment without the need for actual chemicals or laboratory space. Of course this is really stripped down to the most basic parts, but the bigger idea is to use technology to make knowledge tangible and engaging and not just shift everything from a textbook to a screen – because where’s the fun in that?
Making the prototype
I started by developing the concept of my prototype. I knew I wanted it to deal with some kind of scientific topic and while reading the paper about kinesthetic learning I figured that making experiments with chemicals more accessible could be an interesting starting point, since that is something that I always found most interesting in chemistry class and would have wanted to do more. The idea is to simulate the feeling of experimenting through look, sound and haptics. I chose a simple experiment where different substances react with water and started by creating my digital setup for which I created some simple visuals in processing. I initially wanted to trigger the sounds with Max9. This worked great, however I ran into the problem, that I couldn’t simultaneously trigger the MaxPatch and the Processing sketch. So I decided to add the sound directly into processing with a sound library, which worked really nicely. I then did some more experimenting with the visuals and sounds and added some information text for each chemical reaction for more context as to what is happening (it is still about education after all, even if the shapes and colors are a lot of fun to look at). I then hooked the whole thing up to a MakeyMakey and crafted really simple physical representations out of paper for the chemical substances I was simulating. To make them conductive I used tinfoil and after a bit of experimenting I was able to make my own little Natrium-Explosion in my room without dying – how cool!
Conclusion
It was really interesting diving into prototyping with a vague idea at this point in the project, as this is not an approach I am used to. I liked that it pushed me to just start, try things and experiment. This really helped me get rid of high standards for this early stage. While I think I do enjoy the topic, I might have to still dabble in my other two ideas just to figure out where I see the most potential and have the most fun. I think I will need a lot more experimenting to see what I want to do, but this is definitely a good start.
Blogpost #3 – tangible science
In this post I want to dive deeper into tangible interfaces and embodied interaction especially in terms of learning and understanding new scientific topics and abstract concepts. The goal here is to gain a better understanding of how and why [inter]active engagement is beneficial in learning and understanding and how this is important in interaction design.
Two key theories I have discovered and make a good base for a project like this are constructivist learning and kinesthetic learning.
In constructivist learning the teacher isn’t the main focus and learning is centered around building new knowledge on past experience and previous learnings. Its important that students actively participate and go through a meaningful process of learning („meaning-making”, rather that learning by heart from a textbook): „The central tenet of constructivism is that human learning is constructed and that learners construct new knowledge on the basis of prior learning“. This active participation with the environment and the experience means that the learners stay engaged all throughout, constantly applying knowledge, having to think critically and adapt and modify their knowledge. [1]
What this active engagement can mean is seen in kinetic learning, where sensory-motor elements have been researched in relation to education and learning. What was found is that learning, retention, application, engagement and focus can be enhanced by such approaches: „By engaging in experiential, hands-on activities, learners are encouraged to explore, experiment, and adapt to the demands of the learning environment.“ There are different concepts and approaches which kinesthetic learning uses. These could be interesting base concepts for future interaction projects, or at least starting points for prototypes:
Hands-On Experiments and Labs
Role-Playing and Simulation
Manipulatives and Tactile Learning Tools
Field Trips and Outdoor Learning
Project-Based and Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
Movement and Active Breaks
Kinesthetic learning can be applied to many different topics and subjects reaching from STEM to languages or arts and music. A nice example of the hands on approach is employing these methods in abstract subjects like math. Numbers, values and metrics can be made a lot more tangible and applicable to real world scenarios in hands on experiments with physical representations. I feel like the value of new learning approaches really becomes very clear here, as math is a very stigmatized (often hated) subject, yet it’s mostly taught in only one (very theoretical) way [2]. A nice example for grasping values more easily was a case study where the carbon footprint of certain foods was actually represented in their weight (Each model’s weight mirrors its carbon footprint, from 50 grams for half a kilo of potatoes to 13 kilograms for half a kilo of beef) [3].
Like I already said, the implications for interaction design are great and learning concepts like these are not only a great foundation for projects but are also becoming increasingly more relevant. There are many interesting sources to be found, especially from psychological research standpoint. It will be interesting to see how these findings can be turned into actual learning concepts and products.
[1] Constructivist learning
Chand, Satish Prakash. “Constructivism in education: Exploring the contributions of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bruner.” Children 10 (1995).
[2] Kinesthetic Learning
Oladele, Oluwaseyi. “Kinesthetic Learning: Hands-On Learning and Active Engagement.” ResearchGate, 2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385619069_Kinesthetic_Learning_Hands-On_Learning_and_Active_Engagement.
[3] Case Study
Wong, Chia-Hao, Chen Ling, Yuchen Yang, and Masahiko Inami. “Case Study: Leaf+—Supporting Tangible User Interface Prototyping for Soft Materials.” In Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–7. New York: ACM, 2024. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3623509.3635272.
Blogpost #2 – new topics to explore
Throughout the process of writing the past blogposts, researching the topic of loneliness and connection and just generally moving along in the masters degree I’ve decided to change directions a bit in terms of my topic and approach to the thesis. While I still find it really interesting how human connection is formed, why we’re lonely, how this can be dealt with and what role interaction design can play in all this, I want to take a look at other topics that have peaked my interest. What I’ve found myself always coming back to in recent months are interfaces and interface design, especially tangible interfaces and multi sensory or haptic displays that challenge the increasing use of screens that has been happening over the past few years.
I have identified three topics connected to this interest that I would like to take a closer look at.
Tangible interfaces & education
Like I said I’m especially interested in how I could design interfaces that are more physical, less screen-based (more touch, movement, play, spaces etc.). What I would mostly want to look at is how these interfaces could make abstract or complex concepts more understandable. One context I’m interested in is science (education), not through a textbook, but through interactive, embodied experiences that help people grasp things like time, scale, systems, or cause-and-effect in a hands-on way. This could be interesting for museums or learning spaces for children. A first prototype here could be a very simple, tactile experiment to translate a scientific concept into a physical interaction, something you can touch or manipulate and therefore understand in a more meaningful way.
Material engagement & making
Another topic I want to explore is the value of making things with our hands in an increasingly digital world. How can interaction design support or encourage craft, manual skill, and material engagement? OR how can interacting through physical craft and creation support our mental health? I’m interested in the psychology behind this: how slowing down, working with tools or materials, or creating something by hand can support well-being or mental clarity. Interesting keywords here are play theory, flow theory, and the mental health benefits of active engagement. I wonder: what would a design look like that invites people to slow down and focus through physical making? Could “inconvenience” be a design goal in a positive sense (This is something I also discussed in my Glitch-Workshop during international design week)? A project here might be a simplified or slower interface that’s not as efficient or powerful as for example a phone, but rather something that rewards mindfulness and encourages active engagement and slowing down.
The future of communication & interaction
A third idea floating around in my head is about the future of communication technologies. Specifically: how can we design new ways of interacting with one another that support connection, but without the overwhelming side effects of today’s always-online, screen-heavy tech? I could explore how technology can be designed to be meaningful and less distracting. Maybe more ambient, multi-sensoric, or embodied communication? I don’t know yet how to prototype this or exactly what type of project this could lead to, but even diving into different types of communication and how we use them (screen-based/digital vs. physical, synchronous vs. asynchronous, passive vs. active) could help me define where to design. This is something I already partly touched upon during my bachelors thesis and found very interesting, especially since there is quite a bit of research but not too many innovative solutions.
The next challenge is figuring out how to structure my exploration from here. I think I’ll use the next few blogposts to dive deeper into each of these themes. I’m still unsure what the final prototype might be (an educational tool, a communication medium, or a kind of interactive craft) but I’m hoping that following these ideas will help me arrive at something more concrete and meaningful.