1. A USABILITY STUDY WITH CHILDREN AND SMARTBOARD TECHNOLOGY:
IMPROVING OUR METHODS IN DATA COLLECTING
AND GATHERING TECHNIQUE
Laili Farhana Md Ibharim & Maizatul Hayati Mohamad Yatim
Faculty of Arts, Computing and Creative Industry
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
35900, Tanjong Malim
Perak, Malaysia
2. Problem We Face
• A method of collecting and gathering data
used by researcher in their studies against
children is sometimes a bit messy and the
results are less accurate.
• Method use not appropriate to the
environment and the acceptance of children.
• Usability issues using technology with
children.
3. Solution We Offer
A new method how to collect and gather data
for children using Smartboard technology.
• Objective of this paper is :
To evaluate the usability of Smartboard
application as a new tool to collect and gather
data for usability testing with children.
5. Development Of Smartboard
Application
• Refer to DDD-E model
• Using SMART Notebook 10
• The application is mainly about to introduce
icon design and its function to early age
children.
• The combination of drill & practice and game
approach implemented in 6 activities. (fun
and interest element injected)
6. Usability Testing
• Participant • Location
• Nine children aged 7 to 12 years old.
• This level of age are concrete
operations and formal operational for
children's development. (Jean Piaget)
•Animation Lab of Sultan Idris Education
University, Malaysia.
•Convenient place to conduct usability
testing with complete facilities and
requirements
7. Usability Testing (cont)
• Method : Intensive use, fun and creativity test
& Usability Testing Guidelines.
• Instrument : Observation with video recorder.
• Strategy :
Session Time Activity / Test
1 7 minutes X 9
participants
Participants play with the application one by one
continuously in a separate room. All inputs (child
artifact and questionnaire saved in each
individual file). Researchers do observation on
participants and record it using video recorder.
2 Researchers collect all the data and analyze it
9. Result 1 : Efficiency
• Efficiency measured based on time taken for
each participant to finish the activities.
Summary : Six participants have completed each activity were below from the
researchers estimated time (7 minutes).
10. Result 2 : Effectiveness
• Effectiveness measured based on marks or
scores for each participants in Matching, Drag
and drop and Pairing activity.
• Summary:
Matching activity : All participants got full marks (Very good)
Drag & Drop activity : 6 participants got full marks and none got 0 (Good)
Pairing : All participants got score above 5 (Very good)
11. Result 3 : Satisfaction
• Five categories of expression recorded by the researcher
for each participant to see their level of satisfaction when
handling the activities on Smartboard.
Summary: Researchers can see the positive form of expression that was
dominating the participants while handling the activities on Smartboard
Category Notes
Facial Expression Positive: Happy, excited, focus, laugh, confident, eager to try, smile
Negative: Confuse, uncomfortable, not sure, not satisfy, frowning
Speech Expression Positive: Asking for confirmation (example: “buat kat sini?”), asking to do again (example: “nak buat
lagi”), feel happy when success (example: “Yes!”, “dah!”)
Negative: Confuse (example: “eh?”, “aik?”), giving up (example: “susahnye..”, “takpelah..”,
“aahhhh!!!”), unsatisfied (example: “ eh..bukanlah..” , “nak tukar”)
Body Language
Expression
Positive: Face the board confidently, handling tools in the right way, step backward and forward
(thinking), finger tap on the board (thinking)
Negative:Touch head/nose/eye, eyes always staring at the teacher, body sway gently to left and
right, head moving, hand swinging, one hand on the board and other hand to stomach and waist,
Movement Expression Positive: Fast, direct, immediately action, free movement around the board, efficient
Negative: Hesitate
Attitude Expression Positive: Active, motivated, make effort, high confidence level, perfectionist, creative
Negative: Too alert, too detail, afraid to try, giving up easily.
12. No.1 : Similarity and familiarity of Smartboard
application with real world make it function
well.
No.2 : Collecting and gathering data from children
can be easy using Smartboard application.
No.3 : Children show good behavior and attitude
while using Smartboard application.
No.4 : Multimodal interaction enhances children
performance in giving idea and information.
Findings
13. Summary
Smartboard is very helpful in collecting and gathering data
from children through activities that allow them to
communicate, give ideas and opinions openly and clearly.
Advantage to researchers in the field of children to obtain
data for their studies through the Smartboard as compared
to the common methods such as questionnaires and
interviews.
The applicability of this study is to prove that Smartboard
as a tool to gather and collect data to create new methods
of study in children to be more interesting, effective and
accurate.
14. References
• 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.
• 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.
• Ivers, K.S. & Barron, A.E. (2006). Multimedia Projects in Education: Designing, Producing and Assessing (3rd Ed.).
USA: British Library.
• Microsoft. (2011). Icons. Retrieved March 22, 2011 from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/aa511280.aspx#guidelines
• Hanna, L., Risden, K., Czerwinski, M., & Alexander, K.J. (1998). The Role of Usability Study in Designing Children’s
Computer Products. In: The Design of Children’s Technology. Druin, A. (Ed.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers:
San Francisco, CA, USA.
• Masuch, M., Yatim, M., & Gadegast, P. (2007). Developing Software for Children: Experiences from Creating a 3D
Drawing Application. In: Gross, T. (ed.). Mensch & Computer 2007: Konferenz fur interactive und
cooperative Medien. Munchen: Oldenburg Verlag.pp. 179 – 188.
• Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H. (2006). Interaction Design Beyond Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.). USA :
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
• Robson, C. (2002). Real World Study (2nd Ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
• Rubin, J. & Chisnell, D. (2008). Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design and Conduct Effectiveness Tests
(2nd Ed.).Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing.
