My slaid viva presentation for Master

1. A NEW METHOD FOR COLLECTING AND GATHERING DATA
USING SMARTBOARD APPLICATION IN THE FIELD OF
INTERACTION DESIGN AND CHILDREN (IDC)
LAILI FARHANA BINTI MD IBHARIM
M20092001236
SUPERVISOR: DR. –ING MAIZATUL HAYATI BINTI MOHAMAD YATIM
FACULTY OF ART, COMPUTING AND CREATIVE INDUSTRY
1

2. This Presentation Will Tell Us About…
Research Introduction And Background
Research Goal
Research Objectives & Questions
Research Framework
Literature Review
Development Of Application
Research Methodology
Instruments Used
Results & Findings
Discussion
Main Research Contribution
Future Work
Summary
2

3. INTRODUCTION
• Data collection and data gathering: To collect sufficient, accurate
and relevant data so that, a set of stable requirements can be
produced (Preece, Rogers & Sharp, 2006). (page 1)
• Smartboard: large physical display panel that can function as an
ordinary whiteboard, a projector screen, an electronic copy board
or as a computer projector screen on which the computer image
can be controlled by touching or writing on the surface of the panel
instead of using a mouse or keyboard (Barber, Cooper & Meeson,
2007). (page 17)
• Usability: Usability is a combination of the effectiveness, efficiency
and satisfaction with which specified users achieve specified goals
in a particular environment (Alan Dix et al, 2004). (page 29)
3

4. RESEARCH PROBLEMS
• A method of collecting and gathering data is used by researchers in
their studies especially with children is quite challenging and
difficult.
• Smartboard is a new technology use in Malaysia education field. No
specific research or findings to prove the effectiveness of
Smartboard in order to collect and gather data.
• We cannot measure the usability and children acceptance with
Smartboard as a new medium to learn without concrete research
and findings.
* Dissertation page 4
4

5. RESEARCH GOAL
To identify the usability of Smartboard
application as a tool to collect and gather data
for usability testing with children
5

6. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES &
QUESTIONS
OBJ 1: To identify Smartboard’s features, functions and interactions that are suitable for the children’s
activity to collect and gather data.
1. What is the best feature and function in Smartboard that can be used to collect and gather data?
2. How interaction between students, teachers and the Smartboard in collecting and gathering data
session?
OBJ 2: To measure Smartboard’s usability and user acceptance for its effectiveness, efficiency and
satisfaction elements.
3. What is the limitation and problem when using Smartboard?
4. How usability in term of easy to use in Smartboard application can be measured?
5. How children can express their satisfaction when using the Smartboard?
OBJ 3: To suggest a new method to collect and gather data using Smartboard.
6. What is the best method and instrument to collect and gather data from children?
7. Is children drawing on the Smartboard able to give information and easy to interpret?
8. Is Smartboard suitable to be used as an instrument to collect and gather data from children?
* Dissertation page 5 & 6
6

7. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
Theoretical Stage
Methodology Stage
(Developed by Laili Farhana, 2011 & DDDE Model adapted from KS Ivers, 1998)
*Dissertation page 11-12 7

8. LITERATURE REVIEW
IWB technology
Effectiveness of IWB in class
Learning theory applied
Advantages of Smartboard as data collecting and gathering tool (page 17-22)
List of methods used by other researchers that involved with children
Method and instrument guidelines for children
Child artifact
(page 23-29)
Usability aspects and requirements
Usability principle
Usability evaluation of Smartboard
Usability testing with children using Smartboard
(page 29-35)
Interdisciplinary field of interaction design
Types of interaction
User Centered Design (UCD) : role of children as designer
(page 35-40)
8

9. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT
(DDDE Model adapted from KS Ivers, 1998)
* Dissertation page 42 9

10. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT
PART PHASE DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION Decide User: children aged 7 to 12 years old
DESIGNING AND (page 43-47) Method: 1) drill and practice 2) game.
DEVELOPMENT Hardware: Computer, projector, Smartboard
PHASE Software: SMART Notebook 10
Content: 'Introduction of Icon‘.
Design Storyboard and Flowchart
(page 48-52)
Develop 5 Interaction Design Principles suggested by Don Norman (1988) :
(page 52-57) visibility, feedback, constraints, consistency & affordance.
User Interface Guidelines (Hanna et al, 1998) : activity, instruction
& screen layout
Questionnaire on usability testing of icon by (Azhar, 2011)
EVALUATION Evaluate Tested on three children aged 8, 10 and 12 years old
(page 57-59) Researcher observed on how the children play with all the
activities.
Researcher and children explored all the functions and features
which have been provided together.
Interview session (feeling and problems)
Peers and experts reviews (suggestion for improvement) 10

11. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
PILOT USABILITY
STUDY TESTING
11

12. METHODOLOGY: PILOT STUDY
• Objective : To evaluate the understanding of the participants about
the instrument items that have been used.
• Measurement : Validity (face, criterion, content & internal) and
reliability (triangulation technique: theoretical, source &
investigator) of the instruments.
• Participant : Children (5 girls and 4 boys) between ages five to
eleven years old to learn about children's behavior, attitudes and
perceptions, gender, ages and experience
• Instruments : Set of handout activity : i) drawing ii) mix-and-match
and Interview
* Dissertation page 62&63 12

13. METHODOLOGY: USABILITY
TESTING
• Participant: 9 primary school children aged between 7 to 12
years old from Tanjung Malim area
• Location: animation lab at Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
• Method: Usability Testing Guidelines for Children (Hanna, Risden
& Alexender,1997) (page 65-66)
• Instruments: 1) observation, 2) interview, 3) questionnaire, and
4) child’s artifacts
* Dissertation
page 63-66
13

14. INSTRUMENTS USED
INSTRUMENT DESCRIPTION
Observation Intensive use, fun and creativity test (Masuch, Yatim & Gadegast, 2007)
(IMETC 2011) Observation framework (Colin Robson,2002) : Space, actor, activity, objects, acts,
(page 67-69) events, times, goals, feeling
Observation criteria : Facial, speech, body language, movement & attitude
Interview Participant: children involved in Usability Testing
(page 69-73) Peer: post graduate students who have experiences in designing children
multimedia products and conducting research with children
Expert: lecturers of Multimedia Department, Faculty of Art, Computing and
Creative Industry (MaCSS 2011)
Questionnaire To identify the background of the lecturers whose conduct research on
(page 74) computer applications for children. In addition, this questionnaire aims to look at
the data collection methods and types of data are often being collected for
research with children.
This questionnaire consists of five items to be answered.
Child’s Artifact Children’s ability and experience to draw and write on the Smartboard about
(page 74-75) their ideas based on the task given (drawing icon on Smartboard)
Drawing checklist : Creativity, message, shape & colour and perspective 14

15. RESULTS & FINDINGS
OBJ1: To identify Smartboard’s features, functions and interactions that are
suitable for the children’s activity to collect and gather data.
QUES INSTRUMENT SUMMARY
No 1 OBSERVATION: To identify the features The activities in the form of direct interaction
and functions from most enjoyable are more fun and easier
activity (page 85-87) Skills and creativity factors would affect the
ease or difficulty of this activity.
INTERVIEW (EXPERTS): Opinion about
the most enjoyable and comfortable
activity (page 87-90)
No 2 OBSERVATION: The interaction between Simple functions and easy tools for effective
the participants with the Smartboard interaction. In addition, it should have closure
(page 91-92) and engagement elements will make children
feel more comfortable, secure and confident
INTERVIEW (EXPERTS): Suggestion about with what they do.
types of interaction apply on Smartboard
(page 92-93) 15

16. RESULTS & FINDINGS
OBJ2: To measure the Smartboard’s usability and user acceptance for its
effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction elements.
QUES INSTRUMENT SUMMARY
No. 3 INTERVIEW (PARTICIPANTS) : Problem and The main limitation is the use of tools on
difficulties they faced when using the the Smartboard.
application. (page 94-95)
INTERVIEW (PEERS): Suggestions about the 7 tips for Smartboart application
things that are needed to put on highly
attention while using Smartboard (page 95-96)
INTERVIEW (EXPERTS): Opinions about things Avoid complicated activity and tool uses.
that we have to avoid when using the
Smartboard. (page 96-98)
No. 4 OBSERVATION (EFFICIENCY): Measured based Six participants have completed each
on the time taken for each participant to finish activity were below from the researchers
the activities. (page 99) estimated time (7 minutes). 16

17. RESULTS & FINDINGS
OBJ2: To measure the Smartboard’s usability and user acceptance for its
effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction elements.
QUES INSTRUMENT SUMMARY
No. 4 OBSERVATION (EFFECTIVENESS): Measured Matching: All participants got full marks
based on marks or scores for each participant. (Very good)
(page 100) Drag & Drop: 6 participants got full marks
and none got 0 (Good)
Pairing : All participants got score above 5
(Very good)
No. 5 OBSERVATION (SATISFACTION): To see their Positive form of expression that was
levels of satisfaction when handling the dominating the participants
activities in the Smartboard
(page 101-102)
INTERVIEW (PARTICIPANTS): Their feelings Almost all of the participants are satisfied
when they are handling the activities in the and happy. They also never give up
Smartboard application. easily.
(page 102-103) 17

18. RESULTS & FINDINGS
OBJ3: To suggest a new method to collect and gather data by using the
Smartboard
QUES INSTRUMENT SUMMARY
No. 6 QUESTIONNAIRES (EXPERTS):
1. The number of lecturers who are using Highest : Observation
several of methods in research Lowest : Experiment
2. The number of lecturers who are using
various types of data collected in research Highest : Video recording
(page 104-105)
INTERVIEW (EXPERTS): How to identify their The exact selection of method is very
past experience while conducting research with important to obtain the necessary data.
the children. For children, the suitable data collected
(page 106-110) is more in an artifacts form
OBSERVATION: Types of method and types of All participants prefer Pairing activity
data prefer by participants according to activity which use test and observation method
in the Smartboard application. (page 110-111) that produce data in score form. 18

19. RESULTS & FINDINGS
OBJ3: To suggest a new method to collect and gather data by using the
Smartboard
QUES INSTRUMENT SUMMARY
No. 7 OBSERVATION: Comparison between paper 4 categories in drawing checklist
based and Smartboard based drawing for the identified.
‘Exit’ icon
(page 112-114)
No. 8 INTERVIEW (EXPERTS): Their personal opinions Smartboard technology can be accepted
on the usability of the Smartboard to replace as an alternative method to collect and
the conventional methods gather data.
(page 115-117)
19

20. DISCUSSION
1. Scoring Calculator has the best feature and function in Smartboard that we can
use to collect and gather data. (page 119)
2. Using the tools in the wrong way is a major limitation in the use of Smartboard
application. (page 120)
3. Direct interaction makes children feel enjoyable and comfortable (MaCCS 2011)
(page 121)
4. Similarity and familiarity of Smartboard application with real world makes it well
functioned. (IMETC 2011) (page 122)
5. Collecting and gathering data from children can be easy by using Smartboard
application. (IMETC 2011) (MaCCS 2011) (page 123)
6. Children show good behaviour and attitude while using Smrtboard application.
(IMETC 2011) (page 124)
7. Children feel satisfied and excited while using Smartboard application (page 125)
8. Smartboard meets the needs of researchers in conducting research (MaCCS
2011) (page 126-127)
9. Digital drawing gives less information rather than paper-based drawing (page
127-128) 20

21. MAIN RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION
An analysis of children's needs in understanding their
attitudes towards the learning environment including the
appropriate forms of interaction involving children and the
Smartboard. (page 47)
A list of guidelines of using Smartboard to collect and gather
data for research in the field of child. (Appendix D)
A list of methods and instruments to be used with
Smartboard technology to collect and gather data from
children (page 130)
21

22. FUTURE WORK
• Further research on efficiently and
comfortably factors in using Smartboard
technology with a proper guidance and
training
• Extend the scope of this method and test it
with different types of users and devices
* Dissertation page 131 22

23. SUMMARY
This study has successfully introduced a new
method that can be applied in the study of
interaction design with children (IDC)
• able to meet the requirements in a study and remains
accurate and reliable in providing the relevant data.
• encourage children to be active in disseminating
information.
• expected to meet the nature of research setting for
collecting and gathering data from children (who have
curiosity in bringing new technology) for education and
entertainment research purposes.
* Dissertation page 132-133 23

24. MAIN REFERENCES (MAIN)
• Ackermann, E. (2004). Constructing Knowledge and Transforming the World. M. Tokoro and L. Steels (Eds.). A Learning Zone of One’s Own: Sharing Representations and Flow in
Collaborative Learning Environments. Amsterdam: IOS Press, Pt. 1, Ch. 2, pp. 15-37.
• Barber, D., Cooper,L., & Meeson, G. (2007). Learning and Teaching with Interactive Whiteboard: Primary and early year. UK: Learning Matters Ltd.
• Chamber, M. (2007). Usability, Usability Requirement & User Experience Goal. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.articlesbase.com/internet-articles/usability-usability-
requirements-and-user-experience-goals-89539.html
• Cooper, A. & Reiman, R. (2003). About Face 2.0: The Essential of Interaction Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Cuthell, J. P. (2005). The Impact of Interactive Whiteboards on Teaching, Learning And Attainmen. In Proceedings of SITE 2005 (pp. 1353 – 1355) AACE Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved May 1,
2011 fromhttp://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/changemanage/iwb/Impact%20of%20IWB.pdf
• Diaper, D. (1989). Task observation for human-computer interaction. In Diaper, D. & Stanton, N. A. (Eds.), Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 210-237). New Jersey:
Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. D. & Baele, R. (2004). Human –Computer Interaction (3rd Ed). UK: Prentice Hall.
• Donker, A., & Markopoulos, P. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of usability evaluation methods for children. PC-HCI2001, Patras, Greece.
• Dumas, J. S. & Redish, J. C. (1999). A Practical Guide to Usability Testing (Revised Edition). England: Intellect Ltd.
• Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callaghan, D., & Platt, M. (2007). Children as our technology design partners. In A. Druin (Ed.), The Design of Children's technology
(pp. 51 - 72). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
• Edwards, H. & Benedyk, R. (2007). A Comparison of Usability Evaluation Methods for Child Participants in A School Setting. In proceeding of The 6th International Conference for
Interaction Design and Children (pp. 9-15) Aalborg, Denmark.
• Gage, J. (2005). How to Use An Interactive Whiteboard Really Effectively in Your Primary Classroom. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.
• Hanna, L., Risden, K., Czerwinski, M., Alexander, K.J. (1998). The Role of Usability Research in Designing Children’s Computer Products. In: The Design of Children’s Technology. Druin, A.
(Ed.), San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
• Institut Pendidikan Guru. (2010). Modul Perkembangan Kreativiti dalam Pendidikan Prasekolah. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
• Kersten-Tsilkalkina, M., & Bekker, M. (2001). Evaluating usability and pleasure of children's products. International Conference on Affective Human Factors Design, Singapore.
• Landay, J. A. & Myer, B. A. (1995). Interactive sketching for the early stages of user interface design. Pennsylvania, USA: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science.
• Masuch, M., Maizatul H.M.Y. & Gadegast, P. (2007). Developing Software for Children:Experiences from Creating a 3D Drawing Application. Germany: University of Magdeburg.
• Markopoulos, P. & Bekker, M. M. (2002). How To Compare Usability Testing Methods With Children Participants. Netherlands: Technical University of Eindhoven.
• Moussouri, T. (2004). Kids in Evaluation. Retrieved April 23, 2011 from http://www.visitors.org.uk/files/Kids%20in%20Evaluation%20-%20T%20Moussouri.pdf
• Piaw, C.Y. (2006). Asas Statistik Penyelidikan. Kuala Lumpur: McGraw-Hill.
• Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H. (2006). Interaction Design Beyond Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.). USA : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Read, J., MacFarlane, S., & Casey, C. (2001). Measuring the usability of text input methods for children. In People and Computers XV Interaction without Frontiers: Joint proceedings of
IHM 2001 and HCI 2001, pp. 559 - 572.
• Robson, C.(2002) Real World Research (2nd Ed). Oxtford: Blackwell Publishing.
• Rubin, J. & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design and Conduct Effectiveness Tests (2nd Ed.). Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing.
• Shneiderman, B., & Plaisant, C., (2010) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (5th Ed.) Pearson Higher Education.
• SMART Technology Inc (2006). Interactive Whiteboards and Learning Improving Student Learning Outcomes And Streamlining Lesson Planning. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from
http://www2.smarttech.com/NR/rdonlyres/2C729F6E-0A8D42B89B32F90BE0A746D8/0/Int_Whiteboard_Research_Whitepaper_Update. pdf
• User-Centered Design: Testing And Evaluation.(n.d). Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://ergotmc.gtri.gatech.edu/ddt/UsernCentered_Design/UCD_TestEvaluatin _TE_T.htm
• Zaharias, P., & Poylymenakou, A. (2009). Developing a usability evaluation method for e-learning applications: beyond functional usability. International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 25(1), 75–98.
24

25. RESEARCH PAPER PUBLICATION
Chapter in book
Laili Farhana, M.I. & Maizatul, H.M.Y. (in press). A Usability Study With Children And Smartboard Technology: Improving
Our Methods In Data Collecting And Gathering Technique. In M.I. Rozhan (Eds.), Open education: Towards a
ubiquitous learning environment. Malaysia: Pearson Custom Publishing.
International Proceedings
• Presented
Laili Farhana, M.I. & Maizatul, H.M.Y. (2011). A Usability Study With Children And Smartboard Technology: Improving
Our Methods In Data Collecting And Gathering Technique. In: Proceedings of 5th International Malaysian
Educational Technology Convention 2011. Kuantan, Malaysia
• Accepted
Laili Farhana, M.I. & Maizatul, H.M.Y. (2011). A New Method For Collecting And Gathering Data Using Smartboard
Application In The Field Of Interaction Design And Children (IDC). In: Proceedings of International Educational
Technology Conference 2011. Istanbul, Turkey.
Laili Farhana, M.I. & Maizatul, H.M.Y. (2011). A New Method For Collecting And Gathering Data Using Smartboard
Application In The Field Of Interaction Design And Children (IDC). In: Proceedings of International Conference on
Education and New Learning Technologies 2011. Bercelona, Spain.
National Proceedings
Laili Farhana, M.I. & Maizatul, H.M.Y. (2011). A Usability Study With Children And Smartboard Technology For Data
Collecting And Gathering Technique From Expert Point Of View. In: Proceedings of 1st Multimedia & Creative
Content Symposium 2011. Tg. Malim: UPSI.
Maizatul, H. M. Y. , Amily, S. S., Nur Saadah, F., Nadia, A. A. Z., Laili Farhana, M. I., Azhar, A. & Suhairun, N. S. (2010).
Managing Icon Presentation In Children Software: Interpretation From Children Perspectives. In: Proceedings of
Seminar Sehari Penyelidikan, pp. 1-10,Tg. Malim : FPE.
25

26. THANK YOU
Q & A SESSION
26