october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 A number of technical problems arose during the case study. The most notable problem was related to difficulties in QR code execution. The QR code recognition engine in TangiLearn sometimes failed to response due to the low capacity computers used in the kindergarten. We also observed that the visual marker technology lacked of mobility due to the fact that the participants could not move the tangible objects too far from the camera. This problem must be addressed in the full-scale experimental research; otherwise, interest to use the full-scale TangiLearn among the children will be affected. Apart from that, some participants seemed to have difficulties in aligning the visual markers to the camera. However, the issue of physical alignment of visual markers was not totally a bad thing. According to Antle (2007a), orientating the visual marker to camera can also serve as a beneficial training to the preschoolers. It enhances their spatial experience as well as drilling their motor skills. 11. CONSIDERATIONS AND REFINEMENTS FOR TangiLearn After detailed analysis, we realized that there should be design considerations for tangible objects. If tangible objects are arbitrarily used, they may be disadvantaged by multimedia objects, or vice versa. The whole display could be cluttered in TangiLearn. The choice of tangible objects for use in TangiLearn highly affected the children’s rating of enjoyment level. The children tended to rate high level of enjoyment for toys. Level of enjoyment went lower for common objects such as books, plates, and erasers. Among all the common objects, animal objects captured more attention from the participants than those household utilities such as spoons and scissors. This may be because the children were more emotionally tied to animals. Famous branded commercial characters such as “Barbie doll,” “Ben 10,” and “Transformers” should not be used as these objects tended to attract children more than any other objects. They might divert their attention from actual learning, and ended up playing around with the toys. The size of tangible objects chosen should be suitable to preschoolers. If tangible objects are too huge, they will not only block the view of the children to the computer screen, but will also take up a large portion of the space of the display table, and thus giving a very heavy “packed” feeling to the children. Besides, huge tangible objects will tend to be the frequent choice of the children. However, if tangible objects are too small, the sense of holding the tangible objects becomes weaker. From observation, the best size of tangible objects are the size of slightly bigger than the hand palms of the preschoolers, and all tangible objects should be set around this size for consistency. Similarly, the size of the table for displaying tangible objects should not be too large to ensure reachability of points of contact amongst preschoolers. If not, visual search for the desired tangible objects will be affected. Tangible objects used should be gender-free. In the case study, we intentionally placed a robotic model, “Transformer” as one of the tangible objects in TangiLearn. It ended up that the boys competed to play with it. Girls in turn argued why there was no “Barbie” doll available for them. A good multimedia learning system should be able to meet the learning preferences of both male and female learners. Apart from that, the participants were also found tended to choose tangible objects that have more striking color. The colour should be balanced among the tangible objects so that every object has equal chance to be chosen by the preschoolers for learning. After the case study, we do agree with the guidelines suggested by Pederson, Sokoler, and Nelson (2000) and Antle (2007a, 2007b). According to Pederson and associates, the physical objects chosen for representing digital objects should be the “right” objects in a sense that human is able to grasp, to reason about, essence to the user’s tasks, and meaningful in the use situation. According to Antle, three areas of cognition, namely symbolic reasoning, embodied and spatial cognition should be the criteria for choosing objects as physical instantiation to digital objects. To develop a truly usable tangible multimedia, we plan to apply these guidelines in the final version of TangiLearn system. We were also informed of the change required for the research procedures and setting. We confirmed several alterations on the experimental protocol decisions. The first alteration is to limit the total number of learning objects (both virtual and tangible) to 7 objects in each learning scene, in compliance with Miller’s (1956) idea that they are the limits that a person can remember at one time (Chau, Toh, & Zarina, 2012b). The second alteration is the number of topics covered. While reducing the number of learning objects in each scene, there should be more topics for learning. Such alteration could relieve their load in each learning session while Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 447
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2012, volume 11 Issue 4 maintaining the amount of learning contents. The third alteration is the elimination of the treatment using conventional multimedia system for participants using TangiLearn. As a controlled system, it should be conducted on different group of participants. This was because the result revealed a very large difference in the participants’ level of enjoyment on TangiLearn and conventional multimedia learning systems. After lengthy duration of time for exploring TangiLearn, the participants seemed to feel bored navigating the conventional multimedia learning system due to similarity of learning contents. On the technical side, due to the problem of execution of QR code flash library in TangiLearn, we plan to replace the QR code with other alternative technology. Among the technologies shortlisted for choice is RFID technology (Chau, Zarina, Wan Ahmad Jaafar, Toh, & Lili, 2012). 12. CONCLUSION This case study sought to uncover the possible role that tangible objects in multimedia learning played in impacting preschoolers’ learning performance and level of enjoyment. Despite the technical problems, the overall results of the study were highly positive in terms of the enjoyment, the feasibility and usability of TangiLearn system. On the whole, we have successfully elicited ideas from the preschoolers, and the results provided us insightful information about the areas that require refinements in the final full-scale research on tangible multimedia. REFERENCES Africano D., Berg S., Lindbergh K., Lundholm P., Nilbrink F., & Persson A. (2004). Designing tangible interfaces for children's collaboration. Proceeding from CHI ’04: The Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Albert Shanker Institute. (2009). Preschool curriculum: What's in it for children and teachers. Washington, USA. [Online]. Available: http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Early%20Childhood%2012-11- 08.pdf Alliance for Childhood. (2000). Fools gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. College Park, MD: Author. [Online]. Available: http://drupal6.allianceforchildhood.org/fools_gold Antle, A. N. (2007a). Designing tangibles for children: What designers need to know. CHI '07: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2243-2248. Antle, A. N. (2007b). The CTI framework: Informing the design of tangible and spatial interactive systems for children. Proceedings from TEI'07: First International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, ACM Press, 195-202. Blanchard, J., & Moore, T. (2010). The digital world of young children: Impact on emergent literacy. The white paper. Research presented by the Pearson Foundation. College of Teacher Education and Leadership, Arizona State University. [Online]. Available: http://www.pearsonfoundation.org/downloads/EmergentLiteracy-WhitePaper.pdf Challenger Concept. (2009). Schools of Malaysia directory: Your guide to children’s schooling and upbringing. Selangor: Challenger Concept (M) Sdn Bhd. Chau, K. T., Toh, S. C., & Zarina Samsudin. (2011). Tangible multimedia technology: A research proposal for bringing tangibility into multimedia learning amongst preschool children. Proceedings of the 5th International Malaysian Educational Technology Convention (IMETC 2011), Kuantan, Malaysia. Chau, K. T., Toh, S. C., & Zarina Samsudin. (2012a). Enriching multimedia expression with tangible objects: the learning benefits for preschoolers. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. (in press). Chau, K. T., Toh, S. C., & Zarina Samsudin. (2012b). Designing tangible multimedia for preschool children based on multimedia design theories. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 3(8), August 2012 Edition), 1-4. Chau K. T., Toh S. C., & Zarina Samsudin. (2012c). Bringing tangibility into multimedia learning: From the past TUI researches to tangible multimedia for preschool children. International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Science (IJITCS). (in press). Chau K. T., Toh S. C., Zarina Samsudin, & Wan Ahmad Jaafar Wan Yahaya. (2012). Bringing tangibility into multimedia learning: Technology for tangible-multimedia objects binding. The Proceedings of the International Conference on Quality Of Teaching & Learning (ICQTL 2012), Terengganu, Malaysia. Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 448
Page 2 and 3:
THE TURKISH ONLINE JOURNAL OF EDUCA
Page 4 and 5:
Dear Colleagues, TOJET: The Turkish
Page 6 and 7:
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Annotation retrieval TOJET: The Tur
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Stage 2 Process Stage 3 Output Stag
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Learning effectiveness TOJET: The T
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix A: Questionnaire TOJET: Th
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 TOJET: The Turk
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Computer Use Transformational Leade
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Diverger TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
clarify their misconceptions. TOJET
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
*p < .05 TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
section to the user. TOJET: The Tur
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Statement Analysis TOJET: The Turki
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Appendices TOJET: The Turkish Onlin
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409: TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
Page 412 and 413: TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 414 and 415: TOJEET: The Turkish Online Journal
Page 426 and 427: eactions TOJET: The Turkish Online
Page 470: TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal o
show all

october 2012 - TOJET the Turkish online journal of educational ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?