A presentation on Leap Pad/Tag Reading System. This technology is analyzed according to the multimedia principles and compared to picture books

1. LeapPad/Tag Reading System:
An Analysis Based on the Multimedia Learning Principals
Presented by:
Janine Corbin
Huaye Li
Alyce Brookfield
October 2010

2. LeapPad/Tag Reading System
*An electronic interactive children’s book
for children aged 4-8.
*Purpose to help with reading and literacy
skills.
*Produce by LeapFrog Enterprises from
1998-2008.
*Average Cost: $50/unit + $15/book
*A form of computer assisted instruction.
*Tag Reading System superseded the
Leap Pad.
*Leap Track (Campuzano et al. 2009)
Tag Reading
System
LeapPad

3. Spatial Contiguity Principle
The LeapPad has a perfect layout for the
reading learners.
Pictures and words are presented right
after each other.

4. Temporal Contiguity Principle
Another beauty of LeapPad is when you use your
pencil touch the pictures on the book, you can
find the words and pictures are presented
simultaneously.

5. Coherence Principle
Right on the target.
No extraneous words or pictures
will come out.
There are sound effects.

6. Modality Principle
Illustrations and Narration come
together

7. Redundancy Principle Eliminates extraneous cognitive
load.
Advantages of LeapPad:
•Graphics/narration
•Coordination
Experimental Research
•Miller (1937)
•Mayer&Moreno (1998)

8. Segmenting Principle
Individual Pace
versus
fast and continuous
Disadvantage:
-Continuous
Experimental Research
•Mayer&Chandler (2001)
•Mayer&Dow (2003)
Make this a pause button

9. Pretraining Principle
An introduction to the story is provided
But
*Key story elements are not given
*Key words are not defined
*Readers are not prompted to use a
specific decoding or comprehension
strategy
Olivia is a precocious pig.
This story is a day in the life of
Olivia. It doesn’t follow a problem
and solution format.
Make connections between Olivia’s
life and yours as you read.

10. Signaling Principle
Yes, there are no digital animations
to distract me! (Reinking, D. 2005)
But:
*Should I listen to the entire page?
Or read it word by word?
*Should I access the comprehension
questions?
*What word did I just read?
*What are the key words on the
page?
*Is it important that I know the
meaning of that word?
*Am I really ready to move on? (Florida
Center For Reading Research, 2003)
A beneficial change:

11. Voice Principle
Different words have different
accents
Is this really a problem for
children? (Reinking, D. 2005)

12. Personalization Principle
Comprehension questions are
asked using the first person
But
Introduction to story does not make
direct comments to the learner
Do you think…?

13. Individual Difference Principle
Normal Bottom-Up Process of Learning to Read: (Blok et al., 2002)
1. Pre-Reading: A a
2. Decoding: A or a /ah/ and /c/ /a/ /t/ cat
3. Fluency/Comprehension: The cat lives in the hat (Time: 5 seconds)
LeapPad/Tag designed for:
1. Pre-Reading
2. Decoding ⇔ Fluency/Comprehension
But:
LeapPad/Tag only supports: (Romig et al., unknown)
low end users ⇒ ⇑ fluency, basic comprehension (oral retell)
high end users ⇒ ⇑ fluency, basic comprehension (oral retell) and
late-stage decoding (phonics)
Thus, need Leap Track, Leap Desk, Leap Mat
(Ogura et al., 2007)

14. Compared to Books
Principle LeapPad/Tag compared to Picture Books
Spatial Continguity LeapPad/Tag = Picture Books
Temporal Continguity LeapPad/Tag = Picture Books
Coherence LeapPad/Tag < Picture Books
Modality LeapPad/Tag (potential for improvement) > Picture Books
Redundance LeapPad/Tag (potential for improvement) = Picture Books
Segmenting LeapPad/Tag (potential for improvement) = Picture Books
Pretraining LeapPad/Tag (potential for improvement) = Picture Books
Signaling LeapPad/Tag (potential for improvement) = Picture Books
Personalization LeapPad/Tag (potential for improvement) > Picture Books
Voice LeapPad/Tag < Picture Books
Individual Difference LeapPad/Tag (potential for improvement) > Picture Books

15. Bibliography
•Blok H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M.E., and Overmat, M. (2002). Computer-Assisted Instruction in Support of
Beginning Reading Insruction: A Review. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 101-130.
•Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, R., and Rall, K. (2009). Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics
Software Products: Findings From Two Student Cohorts (NCEE 2009-4041). Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
•Florida Center For Reading Research. (2003, October). LeapTrack Assessment & Instructional System.
Retrieved from: http://www.fcrr.org/reports.htm
•www.leapfrog.com
•Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., and Reifsneider, D. (2009). Technology in schools: What the research says: An
update. Culver City, CA: Commissioned by Cisco.
•Mayer, R.E., & Chandler, P.(2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster
deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806-813
•Mayer, R.E., & Dow, G., Mayer, S. (2003). Multimedia learning in an interaction foster deeper understanding
of multimedia learning in an interactive self-explaining environment: What works in the design of agent-based
microworlds? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 806-81
•Mayer, R.E.,& Moreno,R. (1998). A spilt attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing
system in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2). 312-320.
•Miller, W. (1937). The picture crutch in reading. Elementary English Review, 14, 263-264.
•Ogura, P., Coco, L., Bulat, J. (2007). Using innovative technology to foster reading development among young
children with severe cognitive impairments. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 4(1)Article 3.
•Reinking, D. (2005). Multimedia learning if reading. In Mayer, R.E. (Ed.) The cambridge handbook of
multimedia learning (pp. 355-374). New York: Cambridge University Press.
•Romig, N., Yan, B., Zhao, Y. (Unknown). Impact of inexpensive interactive technology on early literacy
development. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.