Interfaces Tangíveis e o Design de Ambientes Educacionais para Co-construcao de Narrativas

In the school context, particularly in Brazil, the technologies are typically developed or adopted without an e ective consideration of the main stakeholders, their diversity, and their sense making. Storytelling is an authentic and personally relevant activity that has shown bene ts for children, such as the development of creativity, imagination, manipulation of abstract concepts, and in some cases, the development of logical thinking. Storytelling is also an activity that can be enhanced by the use of computational systems, for example, extending the capabilities of expression and communication of children. These features make storytelling an activity aligned with the constructionist ideas, making it a valuable for learning contexts. This thesis presents a contribution in the Human-Computer Interaction eld (HCI), speci cally in the Interaction Design eld as it presents a model for the creation of narratives, instanced in contemporary tangible technologies. A system for the co-creation of narratives was designed, developed and tested using the Semio-Participatory model of Design, which involves the participation of di erent stakeholders in practices conducted along the interactive system development process. The proposed model was used to de ne a low cost tangible computing environment, for inclusive schools, that followed the principles of Design for A ectibility and Universal Design. In the use of the environment, technology has a supported role for the creations to children. In this environment children use physical objects such as toys and RFID cards to interact with the computational system and be able to create and express their ideas, feelings and emotions through a story. The experimentation of the tangible computing environment with teachers and children during two semesters has shown positive results in terms of acceptance, motivation, and joy, with stories as diverse in theme as in resources used to create the stories, showing its potential to be used in educational spaces.

O framework BME foi adotado por duas razões principais: primeiro para que as crianças pudessem dar uma estrutura dramática às suas próprias histórias, e estas não fossem apenas diálogos entre os personagens, ou simples ações com objetos da cena; segundo, para que denissem os elementos de interação nas histórias, ações a serem executadas quando  Besides important to emphasize the interests, identity and culture in a certain research area over time [73], the analysis of institutional archives, as journal articles and other media, is important for readers, authors, publishers and advertisers to better and more objectively understand their eld of interest. Moreover this kind of analysis may provide a glimpse of trends, modes of thought and the potential future for the area.
Accessibility has been considered a major concern of the Computing eld, supposedly the most eective discipline for adapting the user interfaces to the varied needs of users, including those that are challenged to interact with computing systems despite their disadvantage physical condition [16].
The design of accessible software applications is considered very hard to achieve, due to several reasons: there is a proliferation of platforms through which people may interact with computer-based services and applications; modalities of interaction are being extended from the keyboard to include speech, gesture, touchscreen, etc.; the users also represent a wide diversity in their abilities usually not known to developers. Thus, it is dicult to anticipate every mode of interaction dierent people may use, providing accessibility to every platform and application. Moreover, as discussed by Cerf [16], although general purpose tools to cope with specic human condition, such as screen readers for blind users or automatic caption for deaf users may be useful, no automatic adapting tool will make a poorly designed interface accessible.
Given the complexity of the problem, this work investigates the subject by getting a picture of the eld, based on an analysis of the content of the Universal Access in Human- Therefore, this paper aims at providing a roadmap on work in the eld, pointing out its trends, and showing the origin of major authors. This information may be helpful for researchers and practitioners who are starting work in the eld, and even for experts who want to build on it. The paper is organized with a section situating the context of this research, followed by a description of the systematic review process; a section on the ndings is followed by a categorization of results, analysis and discussion to nally conclude.

The Study Context, Representation and Method
The International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction is currently in its 7th edition, and has been part of the biannual HCI International, the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (now in its 15th edition). The HCII gathers other 9 related conferences addressing the thematic areas of Human-Computer Interaction, and Human Interface and the Management of Information. Thus, it represents a wide audience from academia, research institutes, industry and governmental agencies, and comprehensive content in the eld, judged to be of high scientic quality. These papers address the latest research and development eorts and highlight the human aspects of design and use of computing systems.
The volumes analyzed in this work [75], [38], and [74] correspond to the 4th, 5th and 6th editions of UAHCI, and contain papers in the thematic area of Universal Access

Data Representation
For an overview of the themes present in the conferences analyzed, we use the expressive power of representations known as tagclouds (tag clouds). A tagcloud is a visual representation of a set of words, typically tags (labels), which gained notoriety when it was used in social software sites such as del.icio.us" or icker". Each word is highlighted within the cloud according to its importance within the set of words, and gain enhancement through manipulation of visual characteristics, such as font size, color, weight, etc.
[10]. For Rivadeneira et. al. [61], this format is useful for quickly providing the most prominent terms and relative importance of a specic word within the analyzed set. Also, it provides a general impression of the whole words set and the "essence" of the data rep- For further analysis, tables and graphs were used (e.g. to show the relative frequency of words that stood out in a particular conference).

The Review Process
The review process is composed by 5 steps as briey described. In the rst step, all the papers published in all the conference editions were considered. A general specic strategy was adopted to generate visualizations for the whole set of papers (general level) as well as for specic sub-topics (specic level). In the second step, the conferences were analyzed in isolation, starting from an overview and detailing their respective sections. In a similar way, an analysis was conducted to identify the most active authors in the eld during the period, and the origin of the dierent contributions. In the fourth step, terms were organized into categories of interests: user proles, technologies, and methods. In order to identify trends, we computed the frequency of appearance for some pre-dened terms. The result was organized by years, sections, and overall (considering the three conferences). Finally in the fth step, all the information produced in the previous steps were crossed and analyzed. The analysis was supported by a tool that allows, among other things, to identify all papers that have some term of interest in their titles; the tool indicates the amount of papers that satisfy the query and the percentage that such amount represents of the total. An example of this search can be seen in  Summarizing the adopted process, the tagclouds provided key terms to be searched with the tool, revealing some movements in the conferences focuses.

Results and Discussion
To get a rst impression on the whole UAHCI content, all the editions were taken together generating a general tagcloud covering the titles of the whole set of 834 papers. Figure   2.2 illustrates this gisting. The essence of the data represented in the cloud of Figure 2 Mais que isso, a tecnologia tem se tornado onipresente em nosso cotidiano (por exemplo, brinquedos, eletrodomésticos, carros, livros, roupas e móveis) [23]. Há muito tempo os computadores também vêm sendo incorporados ao contexto escolar, em todo o mundo, como instrumento de ensino e aprendizagem para os mais diversos assuntos [4], e também como objeto de estudo por alunos que querem aprender conceitos teóricos e práticos sobre informática e computação [20].
Outros foram realizados com objetivos especícos para, por exemplo: identicar lacunas e oportunidades de pesquisa nas áreas de acesso universal à tecnologia [7]    who are trying to understand the dierences in users' responses when they interact to TUI and to Graphical User Interface (GUI). While statistics on impacts on productivity and cognitive development are important information, a research opportunity that still oers ground for further investigation is related to the type of feelings that those interfaces can evoke. As Norman [53] argues, attractive things work better. Since usability and the ecacy of objects or systems are not always enough to determine their success or appreciation, we must also consider the aectibility -i.e., the aective or emotional aspects of interaction [30]. In this sense, this work reports on our endeavors to understand the feelings of comfort, motivation and joy that the dierent interface styles TUI and GUI may evoke.
Xie et al. [87] have found that, although children's self-reports of enjoyment are similar for TUI and GUI, they took longer and had more diculty completing puzzles when interacting with GUI. As Ishii et al [36] explain, GUI can be powerful, but they are not consistent with our interactions with the rest of the physical world. The study from Patten and Ishii [56] suggest that TUI provides better opportunity, when compared to GUI, for task recall and problem solving.
Besides the work of Xu [88] comparing enjoyment in children when interacting with TUI and GUI, Horn et al. [33] investigated other facets of aectibility aspects. They found that TUI was more inviting, more supportive of active collaboration, and more childfocused than the mouse-based interface. GUI and TUI were equivalently apprehendable and engaging. Those feelings, however, have been treated isolatedly in each separate research. This leads us to the research question that guided our study: what are the relations between the feeling of Joy, Motivation and Comfort when using TUI and GUI?
Historically, the Xerox Company introduced the rst generation of Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) in 1981 [37]. The GUI allows the user to view digital information through one or more screens, and interact with it via remote controls such as keyboards, mouse 64 and more recently through touch screens [36].
Ten years later, in 1991, Mark Weiser, employee of Xerox company, published an article with a new vision entitled Ubiquitous Computing"; in this vision, he tries to make the computer, as it is traditionally known, hidden from the user, almost invisible. One way to achieve this invisibility of computers is with an interface type called Tangible User Interface (TUI), which has been investigated in deep by authors like Ishii [36], [37] and [35].
The TUI allows users to manipulate physical objects, and through this manipulation the computer is able to change its internal state, subsequently causing a response or feedback to the user [24], [78] and [87]. In other words, TUI makes a connection between physical objects with digital elements, thus providing the possibility of directly manipulating these elements [22].
We agree with the authors Doering et al. [22], who say that the TUI does not t all situations; however, we also agree with the benets that this type of interface may have in specic contexts, such as education. This idea is shared by authors such as: Garzotto and Gonella [26], Horn et al. [33], Strawhacker and Sullivan [76], Sylla [78] and Xu [88].
While many agree on the potential of TUI, there is still a great research opportunity on the investigation of the aective responses that GUI and TUI might evoke. In this sense, the research question that we presented and that guides our work should manage this opportunity.
The aspects of aective responses that we cover in our study are related to the feelings of Comfort, Motivation and Joy. Bernstein [11] denes Motivation as an inner state that energizes an individual toward fulllment of a goal. We understand that this should be an important response from users, as it should make the users continue using the application and fullling its tasks (e.g. an educational goal). Hence, motivation should not only stimulate users but also should indicate the success or failure of an application or type of application/interaction style.
Some authors (e.g. [12]; [63]) who study emotional responses adopt the PAD emotional state model. PAD stands for Pleasure, Arousal and Dominance. In our context we can associate arousal (excitement in the use of an application) with the Motivation of use.
Pleasure could be associated with the feeling of Joy, as Joy is dened by the Oxford Dictionary [82] as a feeling of great pleasure and happiness.
Another aspect of Dominance is the feeling of Comfort (e.g., when we dominate/feel powerful over an application, we usually feel comfortable in the use of it). For sake of simplicity, we provided easier denitions for each of these feelings, as we show in the next section.
This work investigates the relations between the feelings of joy, motivation and comfort of dierent user proles when using TUI and GUI. The paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we describe the study context and method. In section 3 we present the results and we discuss them in section 4. Section 5 concludes this paper.

Participants
Besides the students enrolled in the discipline, we managed to include other participants, who contributed as end user evaluators of the projects. In total, we had one hundred and nine people participating.
In the rst semester of 2013 (2013A) we had a total of 69 people involved, with an average age of 23 years old (a maximum age of 59 years old and a minimum age of 14).
In the second semester of 2013 (2013B) there was a total of 40 people. The average age was of 23 years old (a maximum age of 52 years old and a minimum age of 15). The age distribution of the whole set can be seen in

Method
In both semesters, the students from the HCI course were asked to choose an existing GUI application and modify it in a way that it would receive external events as inputs. Such external events should be in the form of physical objects being presented to the camera.
In other words, their primary task was to take a GUI application and develop its TUI version.
In one semester the students were invited to choose an application among the many available for the Scratch 1 platform. In the other semester, the students chose among the applications available for Kodu 2 platform. Both Scratch and Kodu oers mainly educational solutions and underneath both lays the purpose of bringing programming language closer to children's world. Our objective was to investigate the aective responses from users towards the GUI and TUI versions of a same application. The platform of the original GUI version should have no or little impact on the results. In order to control also this factor we had the two courses working with a dierent platform (Scratch and Kodu ). After developing the TUI applications, the designers were asked to invite other end users to interact with both GUI and TUI versions. After interacting with both versions, designers and end users answered a questionnaire.

Materials and Procedure
As a result of the method described, for each GUI version of an application (be it from Scratch or Kodu ), there was a correspondent TUI version of it.
After interacting with both versions, designers and end users answered a questionnaire composed by three questions (Table 4.1). The central idea of the questionnaire was to determine, if it existed, any dierence between the two versions, GUI and TUI, with respect to the feelings that were evoked in relation to Motivation, Comfort and Joy.
In 2013A, the students, divided into 10 groups, had to select a Scratch 1.4 application from the projects repository of SAPOScratch 3 . In 2013B, the students were divided into 5 groups; they selected an application made in Microsoft Kodu to make the same procedure requested in the 2013A group.
In both semesters, the groups should use the computer vision framework called Reac-TIVIsion 4 [41] to implement the TUI version. ReacTIVision is a framework for, among other things, the fast and robust tracking of Fiducial markers attached onto physical objects. This implies that with the TUI version, the user must use dierent Fiducial markers to associate objects to interact with the system (the markers must be attached to physical objects). Fiducial marks are gures that represent unique codes that can be identied by the computer.  With which version did you feel more Comfortable?
(which application evokes a greater sense of comfort in use) With which version did you feel more Motivated?
(which application evokes a greater desire to continue using it)  The codes to associate objects to interact with the system course, this output could be projected onto the glass table (shown in Figure 4.2b) where students interacted, but that was not a requirement of the project.
In 2013A, each group of students had to implement a Java application that commu- In the next section we present the results of answers to the questionnaire and discuss possible interpretation for them. In order to make it clearer to the reader, we will refer to the projects created in 2013A as ScratchP , and the projects created in 2013B as KoduP .

Comfort Feeling
For the sake of simplicity, the questionnaire dened to the users the feeling of comfort as: The application that evokes a greater sense of comfort in use. Surely it is a simplistic denition for a feeling, but this provides a common basis to all users. Our intention is to align particippants' idea on the feeling of comfort when making a decision regarding the application that best evokes that feeling.

Motivation Feeling
The questionnaire dened the feeling of motivation as: The application that evokes a greater desire to continue using it, for the sake of simplicity.
As we can see in Figure  With respect to the behavior of dierent ages people, we can see that the TUI version was always selected as the version that best evokes the feeling of motivation, for all age ranges. The GUI version seems to lose its ability to motivate groups of older participants.
The option of Indierence starts among the least preferred choices (   Scratch. In other words, the result indicates that for the older group -compared to other age groups -the TUI version is the one that least evokes the feeling of joy when using Scratch.

Summarized Discussion
In the previous section, we examined each of the three feelings separately; now we want to see the relationship between these selections on two or three feelings simulta-neously.  In Figure 4.6b, we see that there are two other options that attract attention: a) relative only to ScratchP is TUI-TUI, which tells us that 13 (18.84%) of the participants in the rst semester agree that the second version that best evokes the feeling of Motivation and Comfort is the TUI version; b) in relation only to KoduP is GUI-GUI, which tells us that 10 (25.00%) of the participants of the second semester agree that the second version that best evokes these feelings is the GUI version. But independent of the application, the best combination is TUI-GUI, with more than 31.00% of the participants in each semester. In Figure 4.6c and 4.6d, we can see the Indierent option between the combination that is highlighted, and it appears replacing the TUI version (i.e. Figure 6c: the best combination TUI-TUI, the following TUI-Indierent; Figure 4.6d: the best combination GUI-TUI, the following GUI-Indierent).

Conclusion
The research question we wanted to answer was: what are the relations between the feelings of Joy, Motivation and Comfort when using TUI and GUI? In this sense, our objective in this research was to better understand the relationships between the feelings of Comfort, Motivation and Joy evoked in users when interacting with GUI and TUI applications. In order to achieve this objective, we gathered the participation of more than one hundred people over the period of two semesters experimenting applications The results were analyzed both in a general view and also in the perspective of different ages groups. Under the general view, the interaction type to evoke most Comfort was GUI, but TUI seems to be the preferred type in regards to Motivation and Joy (although sometimes Indierence was also chosen in relation to Joy  [3]. Assim, contar histórias é uma ação já inserida no dia-a-dia das crianças, não apenas em seus relacionamentos com outras pessoas, mas também em suas cada vez mais frequentes e intensas interações com a tecnologia.
A pergunta de pesquisa que procuramos responder foi como as tecnologias atuais, especialmente as TUI, podem ser um aliado para o processo educativo de contar histórias?.  Using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in the classroom can be benecial for education due to motivational factors [18]. Tangible User Interfaces (TUI), which augment the real physical world by coupling digital information to everyday physical objects and environments [37], have shown an even stronger eect on engagement and motivation than traditional GUI-based systems, and thus have the potential to promote learning [78].
Challenges of using ICT in the classroom include distraction of students, acceptance by teachers, and inclusion of students with special needs. Regarding distrac-tion, an advantage of a special-purpose TUI over general purpose ICT such as laptops, tablets or smartphones is that special-purpose TUI seems to have a lower potential to distract students from classroom activities due to a lack of applications for browsing, chatting, etc.
Regarding teacher acceptance, when teachers feel that they do not dominate the technology or that their students are more procient than themselves, teachers are often reluctant to incorporate technology into teaching activities [13]. As to inclusive education, students with certain special needs require assistive technology to be able to use many types of software and hardware.
In this paper we present and describe a storytelling application that uses the TUI paradigm and that can be used in dierent school subjects. Our application has been designed using a socially aware approach [8], [6], and addresses the challenges of dis-traction, acceptance and inclusion. Regarding distraction and acceptance, storytelling is seen as favorable to learning by theories such as constructionism [21]. Mediating storytelling with TUI has been described as a powerful way to supply the storytelling process with aor-CHAPTER 6. A TUI-BASED STORYTELLING FOR PROMOTING INCLUSION 87 dances and intuition, promoting engagement and minimizing pre-liminary training and learning [72]. Inclusive aspects are treated by the universal design paradigm we considered in the design solution.
In this work, results of the acceptance for the designed storytelling application are discussed based on pilot and actual case studies; acceptance is investigated using as instrument the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) form [12]. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the context and method used in the pilot and in the case study, Section 3 presents the results of the two studies, Section 4 discusses the results, Section 5 concludes.

The Pilot and Case Studies: Context and Method
The work reported in this paper is based on one pilot study and one case study.      shy. However, she discussed the part of the story she wanted to create with her classmates and her teacher, designed the image that represent the part of the story using crayons, used the system to insert her drawing (as will be described later), and, most importantly, told her part of the story to the whole group. The second situation happened with a girl who has cerebral palsy which impedes speech and body movement. In order to tell her part of the story, she accepted help from her teacher for making her own drawing and using the system. When it came to telling her story, she made a great eort to do it.
During the activity, she expressed happiness and desire for communication. According to her teachers, the nal storytelling part was very dicult for her, especially in the presence of a group of strangers as we were at that moment.

Method
In both studies, the participants were divided into small groups of three or four and given the task to tell a story through a sequence of scenes (three or four) created by them using dierent physical resources (markers, colored pencils, clay, paper sheets ...) (Fig. 6.4a), and capturing them through the system (Fig. 6.4b).
Figure 6.4: Example of a created scene and the system capture process To complete the task, the participants were asked to execute four sequential activities ( Fig. 6.5): dene the general topic to be presented with their respective subtopics; create, with dierent physical resources, each subtopic as if it were a slide; transfer these slides to RFID cards through the system; and nally tell the story for the whole group.   i.e. hidden for example under a table or in a grocery bag (Fig. 6.7b). In still other installations, we made an eort to hide other devices such as a monitor (Fig. 6.7c), or the camera within a lamp shade, (Figs. 6.7a, b). The intention behind these eorts is to make story and storytelling the focus, placing the technology in the backstage. can be seen in Fig. 6.8. In the rst step ( Fig. 6.8a), the user brings the card with the command to create a slide close to the reader. This action causes the system to turn on the webcam. Then the user places previously created content (e.g. a drawing or small gurines) under the camera (Fig. 6.8b). Subsequently (Fig. 6.8c), the user brings a card without an associated content close to the reader, and the system takes a picture and assigns the image to the card. Finally (Fig. 6.8d), when the user brings this new card To tell a story in interaction mode 1, it is required to assign dierent RFID cards to dierent moments of the history (for example to scenes for the beginning, the middle, and the end of the story) and to use these cards to actually tell the story. The narration can be performed at the same moment of telling the story, or recorded and associated to each card of the scenes.

Results
In this section we present the results of the participants' emotional self-assessment according to the SAM. Fig. 6.9 shows the numerical values we assigned to the possible values of the SAM scales. To answer this question, knowing that not all participants completed the form, we applied a variance analysis that supports dierent sample sizes and that does not assume restrictions on the data, e.g. normality. Specically, we used the KruskalWallis Test on the original data set for each dimension resulting in three tests.
If applying the KruskalWallis Test on a certain dimension yields a p-value less than 5%, then there is one or more activities that evoke dierent level of (P)leasure, (A)rousal or (D)ominance in the participants. Only in this case, we proceed to apply a multi-   As mentioned in Section 2, this study is based on one pilot study and one case study.
In the following, we will present the results obtained in the interHAD group.
It is possible to observe in Table 6  The results obtained in the CECI center are presented following the following. In     Fig. 6.11).
There are four combinations of dimension and activity where teachers had a higher level of agreement, namely regarding (P)leasure and (A)rousal to Create and Transfer content (smaller boxes in Fig. 6.11).
Finally, it is also possible to observe in Fig. 6.11 that the teachers did not experience the same (P)leasure and (A)rousal along the four activities. Specically, we found two similar activities for the dimensions (P)leasure and (A)rousal. In the case of (P)leasure, the rst group is formed by the Dene activity and the second group is formed by Create, Tell and Transfer. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the level of (P)leasure evoked during the Dene activity is dierent than the level of (P)leasure evoked during the other activities. Similarly, in terms of (A)rousal, it is possible to observe two groups. The rst is formed by the Create and Dene activities and the second is formed by Create, Tell and Transfer. Therefore, there exists a dierence in terms of (A)rousal when comparing elements of these two groups with exception of the Create activity that belongs to the two groups.

Summary and Discussion
The discussion is divided into two parts, the rst dealing with InterHAD group and the second related to the CECI center. For all four activities in the InterHAD group ( Besides all this, we observed a real desire among the teachers to use the system permanently in the institution with their students. They explicitly expressed the poten-tial of the tool for activities in the context of an inclusive school, and highlighted some elements such as: allow to combine dierent types of designs and storytelling by the students with varying degrees of skill and physical needs; the use of technolo-gy selected for reasons of inclusion, for example the RFID reader that does not re-quire ne motor skills; the invisibility of technology, leaving the focus on the story and not the devices; and allow combining of images and sounds created by the stu-dents themselves, thus creating a greater degree of motivation among students, and freedom to work all kinds of themes in the stories.

Conclusion
In this paper we presented a storytelling system that is based on the TUI paradigm and that targets the promotion of inclusion of preschool children in the classroom. The system supports dierent storytelling interaction modes that enable various levels of complexity of the storytelling process. An important aspect of such a system is teacher's acceptance.
As a preliminary approach to acceptance, we presented the results of a pilot study and a case study and analyzed the results of the study participants' self-reported levels of pleasure, arousal and dominance, using the SAM instrument. The pilot study among graduate students with an HCI research focus established a baseline and showed that the system potentially has a high acceptance rate. Although not explicitly investigated, this study also showed the system's potential for inclusion, since we received positive comments from the (universal) accessibility specialists among the participants.
The actual case study was conducted with 18 teachers of a day care center who teach children between four and ve years, including children with special needs. Results provided evidence of a high acceptance rate among these teachers. The participants reported high levels of pleasure and arousal. We detected greater variance in the Dominance dimension. Although we do not see this variance as critical, the Dominance dimension will require more attention during future activities using the more complex interaction modes of the system. We detected dierences in Pleasure and Arousal levels along the four activities within the system (Dene, Create, Transfer and Tell). Future work includes establishing and testing hypotheses for these dierences, as well as their quantication, relating them to the system design elements.
Other future work includes the use of the additional interaction modes and case studies involving preschool children in order to evaluate the acceptance of the more complex modes of storytelling, the acceptance by preschool children (detailed analy-sis of the activity with the students will be reported in a future article), and more as-pects related to inclusion. We will furthermore perform an analysis using dierent data sources and instruments such as the principles of Design for Aectability [32].

Chapter 7
A socio-constructionist environment to create stories using tangible interfaces

Introduction
Literature has shown diverse benets of storytelling for children [64], and its importance as an authentic and personally relevant activity [21]. These qualities create a relationship between storytelling and Seymour Papert's Constructionism ideas [54], making it ideal for promoting knowledge construction.
We understand as constructionist an environment aligned to the Constructionism theory developed by Seymour Papert. A constructionist environment uses the capacity of children for creation as a strategy for learning; it encourages the user to be active, and provide sucient freedom to the user so that s/he can create concrete or conceptual objects that are of personal interest to them. This type of environment can be used individually or jointly with others (partners). Constructionist environments that favor working together, sharing a common interest and knowledge construction with others are the environments that we name socio-constructionists.
Tangible user interfaces (TUI) augment the real physical world by coupling digital information to everyday physical objects and environments [37]. By using a tangible interface children can manipulate digital information through the interaction with concrete physical objects.
Reviewing the literature [27] and [7], specically ACM digital libraries, Springer, IEEE, ScienceDirect, we have identied a set of related work. Some projects provide individual experiences on the interaction with the environment (e.g. [40], [86]). In general, the proposals give children freedom to create dierent elements of the story (e.g. [1], [44], [84]). Some open the possibility of working with partners ( [2], [83], [51]), fundamental characteristic to be considered in a socio-constructionist environment. To our knowledge, none of the projects that were identied as related work, especially the socio-constructionists, provides mechanisms for users to program their own interaction events in their own stories.
In this work we have invested research eorts in designing and building a socioconstructionist environment based on tangible user interfaces (TUI), to allow children of inclusive school contexts to create, share and tell stories for themselves and collaboratively.
This article presents and discusses some of the main results of the creation of the environment and its use in an educational context. The paper is organized as follows: the next section presents an overall view of CPES: a Collaborative Programmable Environment for Storytelling; the following sections illustrate its use with a case study conducted in a public educational institution, and discuss results; nally we conclude pointing out further aspects to be investigated.

The proposed environment
The process of narrative construction with CPES involves the following steps (  the elements of the story, or they may be planned, for example, following a dramatic structure (Framework BME). In any case, the user has various system' resources to create elements of her stories such as: characters, sound eects, scenes, and animations of the characters at the time she is telling the story. The Mode 3: Scriptwriter is, in fact, the combination of Mode 2 Storytelling, with the ability to program commands on CPES to be executed in response to some external action in the environment. The last mode, Mode 4 -Scriptwriter Plus, increases the use of sensors on the audience to use their reactions as a trigger to execute commands on CPES.
The fullest conguration of the CPES environment can be seen in Figure 7   Creation devices: These devices are those that allow the user to create new scenarios, characters, sound eects or voiceovers.
The devices available for creation are the camera and microphone (Figure 7.3a). In addition to these two elements there are devices that provide a green background to handle the size of the real characters, reducing them or increasing them, making them compatible with a toy (Figure 7.3g or a child (Figure 7.3h). The green color is a technological resource to capture the gure that is automatically deleted by the control program (Chroma key special eects technique).  Just as an example to illustrate the simplest operation, let's see how to create a slide for a story. In the rst step, the user brings the card with the command to create a background close to the reader (to be read). This action causes the system to turn on the webcam. Then the user locate the image/object under the camera (it can be a physical construction, such as a scene created with clay). Subsequently, the user brings a card without an associated content close to the reader, and the system takes a picture and assigns the image to the card. Finally, when the user brings this new card close to the reader, the system displays the picture taken and plays an associated sound, if it has one.

Experimenting the environment -A case study
As our design method involves the active participation of dierent stakeholders, we had a

Participants
We worked in the educational unit Children Living Center CECI from DEDIC, with twenty children between 4 and 5 years old, and with eighteen teachers between 26 to 50 years old.

Method
Ten (10) workshops were conducted along the semester, with teachers of the educational unit, and with children and their responsible teacher (in some cases there was more than a teacher with children).
All workshops were lmed with the permission of the institution, the teachers, and Besides the lms, after each workshop, teachers completed the SAM (Self-Assessment Manikin) instrument [12]. SAM is a nonverbal instrument of self-assessment of emotions, specically the level of pleasure, arousal and dominance, associated with the aective reaction of a person to a stimulus, in this case, the environment for storytelling.
In some of the workshops with teachers, parents and managerial people, we also worked with artifacts of the semio-participatory model of design [8] (Figure 7 At the end of semester, we asked teachers to anonymously express their level of acceptance of the environment, indicating whether the environment has helped to motivate children to collaborate in the process of creating and telling stories; and whether they consider that the environment favors the process of knowledge building and developing new personal and social skills.

Results
The results reported in this work, are grouped into three parts: the results related to the semio-participatory workshops, a brief description of some stories created by participants and nally the results of the self-assessment instrument (SAM). Although the teachers were free to use any type of resource that is in the school to create their story elements, all of them chose to use play dough to create the characters, and some elements in the scenarios, combined with drawings / text, and using sheets of paper to delineate the edges of the scene. At the time of using CPES to create the story, some teachers decided to remove the camera from the base (lamp, Creating Story in  with a little girl in a wheelchair appearing alone in a park. As a ball comes near the wheelchair, she seeks who is the owner of that ball, because she did not want to be alone in the park. Finally, a boy and a girl come looking for the ball, but as they approached, realized that the girl wanted to play, so they decided to play the three together. At the time of telling the story, the narration was made with live narration (before the teachers learned to associate the narrative to each scene), with active participation of the audience expressing feelings such joy / acceptance, anger / rejection to certain scenes.
In short, all the stories created expressed emotions and values in its content, making the audience feel and express their emotions in response. As we were working with very young children, the strategy used with them was dierent from that used with the teachers. We previously selected the theme of three classic stories, then children were asked in which of the three stories they wanted to participate. Once the three groups of partners was formed, they had to decide who would be responsible for creating the beginning, the middle and the end of the story, and how they would proceed.
The interesting was not only the fact that each child was able to create her part, and in the end, all have created the story. The remarkable was that all children added new elements to the story; they expressed emotions and created dierent endings to the classic versions of the stories. This shows clearly, creativity and motivation for their stories.
At the time of creating the story in CPES, we observed that some of the children (those who had already created their stories in CPES) oered spontaneously to explain and collaborate with new groups to help them create the rst elements of the stories.  We highlight in Mode 2, the use of characters and physical objects for animation control. The teachers / children create these characters using the green elements. The physical objects are associated with the characters, for placing them in the correct orientation and position in each scene in the screen. At the time of telling the story, the children and the teachers create animations by moving the characters in the screen using the corresponding physical objects. This is used when they want to indicate which of the characters was speaking at a given time.
All children were able to create and participate in the construction of narratives; all of them managed to be characters in their stories and interacted with characters from children's stories, characters that they drew, or toys that became characters. Some of the children were disguised to better represent their role in the story. Others changed their size to appear larger peers in the scenes. and the wolf blowing the house" are drawings clipped from a print; the aggressive wolf" is a hand puppet; the house" is a toy, and she herself" is a character that interacts with the other characters, even hiding behind the house.

Discussion
Denitely, and from our experience with this and other projects evolving the prototype of CPES environment, experimenting it with the users was one of the most relevant aspects for achieving a result with a high degree of acceptance. By working side by side with children and teachers and seeing their interaction with the system, the way they made sense of it, we could identify and improve many of the requirements of the initial version of the system. The informal comments after each workshop allowed, for example, directly perceive the feelings that were identied by the SAM instrument and relate them to possible diculties with concepts in the process of creating narratives through the system. It was also possible to receive suggestions to improve responses: for example, in an early version of the prototype, the control program requested exactly one minute for recording each narration / eect. This time in many cases was not adequate; then a recommendation that was adopted was that the user might stop recording at any time he wanted to. Moreover, it was possible to identify dierent uses and contexts not imagined before the workshops; for example, creating interactive tutorialsfor cooking recipes, sports rules, and even the creation of basic melodies. Our eort to hide the technology was another important point because it allowed a softer" approach for all users, especially for users with little or no ability with the computer. In addition, the users felt free to imagine, plan and develop creative stories, situating themselves as characters. Finally, our eorts to consider accessibility elements were rewarded with the joy and the eorts of children with disabilities.

Conclusion
Although literature has shown benets of storytelling in educational scenarios, we argue that contemporary technologies have not yet been explored in its full potential in educational contexts, to take advantage of the innate ability of children to tell stories.
The work reported in this paper has shown it is possible to create a socio-constructionist environment with acceptance of both teachers and children of dierent age and skills, which produces greater motivation and cooperation among all. With CPES, children could create more complex and rich stories, working their emotional and social aspects. Through the active participation of teachers and children it was possible to improve the system response to commands initially proposed, and add others that arose as a direct need in the workshops.
Further work involves the use of other devices to enhance the user experience, such as accelerometers within toys, keyboards to create dialogues between characters, use voice synthesizers to make audible the typed dialogues. Designing a tangible socio-constructonist environment for building narratives

Introduction
The benets of the storytelling activity for children are well known. Moreover, the use of tangible elements such as toys and children's drawings, make it easier for children to play, build their ideas, and advance their stories in more creative ways [64]. This aspect motivates us to explore the relationship between storytelling and Tangible User Interfaces (TUI), which may be dened as interfaces allowing to augment the real physical world by coupling digital information to everyday physical objects and environments [37].
This alignment between TUI and storytelling is important for several reasons: with TUI the users can immediately start telling stories without much training or prior knowledge on technology [72] and [27]. TUI-based environments have the potential to engage children along learning activities [78] by evoking strong feelings of joy and motivation [28], especially important in learning processes. TUI, particularly those constructed with RFID technology, are an alternative to make computers more accessible as they provide a less abstract interface [55].
There is also a potential of TUI as solutions towards the promotion of an inclusive education. The goal of admitting in the same classroom all the students, including those with disabilities or high skills is being supported by dierent organizations worldwide such as the UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization).
In our country, the eorts towards the inclusive education are being conducted by our

Ministry of Education [48].
Considering the above, we have invested research eorts in the investigation, design and implementation of a socio-constructionist environment based on tangible computer interfaces, to allow children of school contexts to create, share and tell stories for themselves and collaboratively. This article presents and discusses some of the main results of the creation of the environment and its use in real contexts.
With the idea of facilitating the construction of stories in more creative ways, the 117 environment makes use of children's own designs / pictures and sounds, including their self-projection. As these elements (designs, pictures, sounds) alone do not tell a story, a framework called BME (Beginning, Middle and End) [47] is used to give a dramatic structure to the stories. Moreover, the BME framework allows the use of interactive elements, which in the environment are translated into some events programmed by the user. In addition to the mentioned requirements, the environment should be aordable by school contexts of lower socio-economic levels. Moreover, we have considered the principles of universal design [17] to cope with inclusive environments requirements.
Last but not less important, acknowledging the importance of emotion in the storytelling activities, we applied the principles of design for Aectibility [31] in the environment design. The design for Aectibility is explicitly concerned with the aective responses of stakeholders, both during the process of creation as well as in the use of the design product.
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the concept of a socio-constructionist environment, and shows some works related to storytelling. In Section 3, we present the proposed environment, starting from its conception to a rst implementation.
In Section 4 we present results obtained with the experimentation of our environment in a real context with teachers and 9 to 10 years old children.

Background to the Work
The theory of Constructionism [54] was developed by Seymour Papert in the early 70's, encompassing two aspects of the theory of education science: a view of learning as a reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge, and the idea that learning is most eective when the learner experiences the construction of a product meaningful to him/her. We are naming socio-constructionist the environment which besides encouraging the user to be active, and providing sucient freedom to the user to create concrete or conceptual objects that are of personal interest to them, also favours working together, sharing a common interest and knowledge construction with others (partners) [29].
It is important to observe the dierence to the concept of having collaborators in the work; while a collaborator may temporarily help with the construction of a part of the job, he/she does not necessarily feel fully committed to the nal product. In the socioconstructionist approach, this commitment is shared by all partners who want to realize their creation. To illustrate this, imagine a group of children organized to create a story about a matter of common interest; in the process of story creation, they need help for creating a story element (e.g. a character) and seek the assistance of another child of other group, who is good at drawing. This last child does not necessarily share commitments regarding the history as a whole, although has a real interest in building its character.
Reviewing the academic literature [27] and [7], based on the digital libraries of ACM, Springer, IEEE, ScienceDirect we have identied a set of related works, some summarized in   [77] presents a new device that allows children to combine in many ways, dierent story elements to create multiple stories. To make this possible, the dierent elements of the story are previously associated with physical objects (blocks); the device identies the blocks and sends the information for the stories engine, which is responsible for taking the combination made by children and generating the nal story.
Vaucelle& Jehan (2002) [83] and Williams (2010) [85],       • The Output Devices should allow send" information to the user, which includes visual and auditory information. Other senses might be included such as smell or touch (devices already available experimentally).
• The Creation Devices should allow the user to create new elements for a story, for example, new images, sounds, text.
• The selection of controls should allow the user to activate certain features such as: visual aids and / or sound resources; or can for execute a command or sequence of commands. Creation Devices (camera with stand, small piece of green material, large piece of green cloth, and microphone), Selection Controls (RFID card reader with their respective set of cards), Animation / Narration Controls (physical objects with ducial marks, small piece of green material, and microphone), Output Devices (LCD monitor, speakers and printer), Monitoring Sensor (microphone), Computer with software of control of CPES (computer).
Some technological resources in CPES do not require much presentation; others require an explanation, such as: the RFID cards and the reader, the elements of green color, and the physical objects with ducial marks. Some elements are seemingly decorative, but in fact, have the task of trying to hide the technology (invisibility of technology"), such as LCD decoration shaped like a theatre, and the lamp with support of the camera. The RFID cards allow the use of the deck of cards" metaphor. Some reasons to support the decision of using RFID cards are: the RFID cards allow full customization with drawings of children, and / or embossed marks, especially useful for people with low vision. Also, to use a RFID card, we only need to put it near the reader without even touching the reader; it enables people with ne motor problems to participate in the narrative construction using CPES. The reader has another important feature regarding accessibility; it beeps and ashes a light every time that the users make a correct reading of a card. This element is important for visually impaired or hearing problems users.
Within each RFID card, there is a chip and an antenna that captures the radio frequency eld that the RFID reader produces. By a physical phenomenon of energy transfer from the reader, the chip inside the card is activated, and transmits, for example, its identication number (unique to each card) to the reader, which sends the information to the CHAPTER 8. DESIGNING A TANGIBLE SOCIO-CONSTRUCTONIST 127 computer to be processed. The type of processing depends on the function associated with that particular card.
The green elements (Figure 8.7-g and Figure 8.7-h) are used to create characters.
Examples of this use can be seen in Figure 8.8.

Participants
We worked with nineteen children between 9 and 10 years old, and with fourteen teachers between 30 to 50 years old. The average age of the group of teachers is 42 years.

Method
Seven (7) workshops were conducted along the semester, with teachers of the educational unit, and with children and their responsible teacher. The teachers attended a nal workshop to work on semio-participatory practices as a closing activity and conclusion of the proposed work.
We lmed all workshops resulting in 15 hours of recording. All the practices had the written consent of all participants or their respective representatives in the case of children.
The videos allow us to observe the behaviour of the system environment, demands for improvements and for new functionalities.
In addition to lming at the end of each workshop, all participants (children and teachers) lled the the SAM (Self-Assessment Manikin) instrument [12]. SAM ( Figure   8.10) is a nonverbal instrument of self-assessment of emotions, specically the level of pleasure, arousal and dominance, associated with the aective reaction of a person to a stimulus, in this case, the CPES environment.         proposed.
Once we determine the frequency for each option of the scale, we proceeded to calculate the percentage for each frequency, and nally took these percentages to a set of bar graphs    At the end of the workshops, the teachers were asked to evaluate their experience with CPES, by writing their opinions on: the overall level of acceptance of CPES, and by accepting or not two statements, using a Likert scale.
As a result, all teachers assigned the highest value for the acceptance of CPES, and agreeded with the following statements: The use of combined system with a Beginning, Middle, and End (Framework BME) structure, produces greater motivation and cooperation among children, creating more complex and rich stories in emotional and social aspects, when compared to the stories created without the environment". It can be said The objective of the workshop is to identify the stakeholders, and discuss on which layer or layers they should be located. As an artefact in the workshop, the diagram is printed as a poster, and hung on a wall; the workshop participants identify, discuss, locate and relocate the stakeholders in the diagram using post-its. The outcome of the workshop can be seen in Figure 8.24.
The Operation layer presents stakeholders who directly manipulate the system. The Contribution layer claries stakeholders who are directly responsible the solution or are directly aected by the system. The Source layer presents stakeholders who provide information to the problem or its solution, or make use of it. In the Market layer are partners and competitors. In the Community layer are those formal representatives who

Discussion and Conclusion
Literature has shown some works on storytelling supported by computational technology.
However, we did not identify evidence of the possibility of allowing children to program their own interactive elements. A possible explanation for this commonality may be related to the diculty of programming, especially for very young children. We have proposed an environment that allows children to program events, and all programming is done through tangible objects with ducial marks and RFID cards. Although the workshops did not experience in depth this feature of programming, children and teachers were able to program the examples presented to them as demonstrations.
In this paper, we argued that TUI can be proposed to be a cost eective technology to create an intellectually rich and socially engaging way of involving children in the process of narrative construction. We presented the design of a socio-constructionist environment that also draws on other important concepts like aectibility and universal design.
To meet our goal, we had to devise various modes of interaction so that the system could be used by a wider range of users, balancing user skill with the interactivity level oered by the environment. The system design was a result of semio-participatory practices involving the participation of dierent stakeholders (researchers, teachers, students) in workshops conducted to reect on and discuss both the design and the use of the system.
An environment that implement all the modes of interaction of the model, meets the four essential properties of digital environments ideal for creating narratives. According Murray [52], these properties are: Procedural, Participatory, Spatial and Encyclopaedic.
The rst property is satised with the possibility to program sequences of actions (procedures) associated with the interaction elements of the story (events). The second property is satised because the event programming allows the computer to respond to certain actions (events) every time they occur when the story is told; even in mode 2, the child's ability to animate characters with physical objects, can full this second property. These two features dene the environment as interactive. The third characteristic is directly related to the ability to navigate in a space; in this case, the stories are created by scenes, that represent places and situations in stories; the scenes can be freely navigable using the already mentioned collision events. The fourth property is satised when we recognize the storage capacity of CPES and power of expression that has the child, having access to all the elements of the story created by him or shared by others.
As Murray says, these four characteristics give the writer the opportunity to tell stories from dierent points of view and build stories intertwined to form a dense network. At this point we highlight the use of the BME Framework to support children in planning creating micro-stories that maintaining a general structure of Beginning, Middle and End. In turn, each micro-history can be divided into micro-stories forming recursive and complex structures for the general story.
The development of dierent workshops with teachers and with children along the dierent versions of the CPES system evolution, allowed us to incorporate extremely valuable contributions of the dierent participants (teachers and children) regarding their views on design decisions made and on functions that should be oered. The workshops allowed us to reach a product that is accepted by teachers and children, and is used by a variety of users (children from 4 years old, teachers with 50 years old) and is aimed to be used in an inclusive school.
The workshops also allowed observing the creativity of teachers and children, collaboration between partners and between groups of partners. An explanation for this collaboration is that CPES naturally does not restrict users, allowing the use of dierent resources to create their story elements; the latter feature takes advantage of the ability of children to use the physical elements of classroom and of their daily lives, to create the elements of the story.
We must highlight the importance of using a structure for planning and creating stories (BME Framework), as well as the importance of the having dierent modes of interaction for dierent age groups of children (results of SAM).
The designed environment uses low-cost technology easily accessible to public schools in our demanding socio-economic context. In addition, we selected technologies that
As sequências e os eventos fazem referência a outros cartões (comandos, personagens,  (Table B.1) allows us to describe in a more formal way, the language created to use the RFID reader as interaction device in the CPES system.
Let's start the explanation saying that any RFID card represents one and only one of the elements found in quotes ("..."). Note that there is "blankCard", which is used when the card used has not, yet, a denite action in CPES. That said, we can say that each time an item appears in quotation marks, it means that CPES is waiting that the user approaches to the reader, the RFID card with those dened function.
The items written between the symbols (<...>) represent the name of a rule in the grammar (<rule name>:==expression) and for understanding its meaning it is necessary to analyze the expression of the rule. In total there are 34 rules in the grammar of CPES, and within the expression of each, we can see two symbols (|) and ("") representing (or) and (nothing) respectively.
Of the rst rule we can say, in CPES the commands can be of two types, system commands or user commands. If we continue analyzing the rules, the second rule says that system commands can be of six dierent types, while the user commands are only four types (third rule).
We want to call attention to the card with the action "cancelFinishCmd", because according to the grammar, this card cannot be copied, deleted, locked, or have other actions. The reason is that this card is used to cancel the running operation. An example of a complete rule we can see in the copy command card. When the user wants to copy a card, s/he must rst bring to the reader the card with the copy command ("copyCard"), then bring any card command (<CommandCard>) and nally a blank card (<BlankCard>) where the copied information is assigned. In any of the last two steps, the user can cancel the operation using the card ("cancelFinishCmd"). At every step, the system provides information to help users, showing graphically the next action ( Figure B.1) together with as the audio of the sentence, generated by a voice synthesizer or customized by the same user.
All the cards canhave an audio-description (ideal for people with visual impairment), which can be consulted any time the user wants ("hearDescription"). The audiodescriptions are the sole responsibility of the users ("createDescription" and "delete