Viva presentation3

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)



Text of Viva presentation3


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 Smartboards features, functions and interactions that are suitable for the childrens 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 Smartboards 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 7 (Developed by Laili Farhana, 2011 & DDDE Model adapted from KS Ivers, 1998) *Dissertation page 11-12 8. LITERATURE REVIEW 8 IWB technology Effectiveness of IWB in class Learning theory applied Advantages of Smartboard as data collecting and gathering tool List of methods used by other researchers that involved with children Method and instrument guidelines for children Child artifact Usability aspects and requirements Usability principle Usability evaluation of Smartboard Usability testing with children using Smartboard Interdisciplinary field of interaction design Types of interaction User Centered Design (UCD) : role of children as designer (page 17-22) (page 35-40) (page 29-35) (page 23-29) 9. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT 9 (DDDE Model adapted from KS Ivers, 1998) * Dissertation page 42 10. APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT PART PHASE DESCRIPTION APPLICATION DESIGNING AND DEVELOPMENT PHASE Decide (page 43-47) User: children aged 7 to 12 years old Method: 1) drill and practice 2) game. Hardware: Computer, projector, Smartboard Software: SMART Notebook 10 Content: 'Introduction of Icon. Design (page 48-52) Storyboard and Flowchart Develop (page 52-57) 5 Interaction Design Principles suggested by Don Norman (1988) : 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 (page 57-59) Tested on three children aged 8, 10 and 12 years old 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 11 PILOT STUDY USABILITY TESTING 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 12* Dissertation page 62&63 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) childs artifacts 13 * Dissertation page 63-66 14. INSTRUMENTS USED INSTRUMENT DESCRIPTION Observation (IMETC 2011) (page 67-69) Intensive use, fun and creativity test (Masuch, Yatim & Gadegast, 2007) Observation framework (Colin Robson,2002) : Space, actor, activity, objects, acts, events, times, goals, feeling Observation criteria : Facial, speech, body language, movement & attitude Interview (page 69-73) Participant: children involved in Usability Testing 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 (page 74) To identify the background of the lecturers whose conduct research on 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. Childs Artifact (page 74-75) Childrens ability and experience to draw and write on the Smartboard about 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 Smartboards features, functions and interactions that are suitable for the childrens activity to collect and gather data. QUES INSTRUMENT SUMMARY No 1 OBSERVATION: To identify the features and functions from most enjoyable activity (page 85-87) The activities in the form of direct interaction are more fun and easier 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 the participants with the Smartboard (page 91-92) Simple functions and easy tools for effective interaction. In addition, it should have closure and engagement elements will make children feel more comfortable, secure and confident with what they do.INTERVIEW (EXPERTS): Suggestion about types of interaction apply on Smartboard (page 92-93) 15 16. RESULTS & FINDINGS OBJ2: To measure the Smartboards usability and user acceptance for its effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction elements. QUES INSTRUMENT SUMMARY No. 3 INTERVIEW (PARTICIPANTS) : Problem and difficulties they faced when using the application. (page 94-95) The main limitation is the use of tools on the Smartboard. INTERVIEW (PEERS): Suggestions about the things that are needed to put on highly attention while using Smartboard (page 95-96) 7 tips for Smartboart application INTERVIEW (EXPERTS): Opinions about things that we have to avoid when using the Smartboard. (page 96-98) Avoid complicated activity and tool uses. No. 4 OBSERVATION (EFFICIENCY): Measured based on the time taken for each participant to finish the activities. (page 99) Six participants have completed each activity were below from the researchers estimated time (7 minutes). 16 17. RESULTS & FINDINGS OBJ2: To measure the Smartboards usability and user acceptance for its effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction elements. QUES INSTRUMENT SUMMARY No. 4 OBSERVATION (EFFECTIVENESS): Measured based on marks or scores for each participant. (page 100) Matching: All participants got full marks (Very good) 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 levels of satisfaction when handling the activities in the Smartboard (page 101-102) Positive form of expression that was dominating the participants INTERVIEW (PARTICIPANTS): Their feelings when they are handling the activities in the Smartboard application. (page 102-103) Almost all of the participants are satisfied and happy. They also never give up e