• Save
A child’s job is to play, we should let them pamela wong direction first 09.09.10
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

A child’s job is to play, we should let them pamela wong direction first 09.09.10

on

  • 576 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
576
Views on SlideShare
573
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://www.linkedin.com 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

A child’s job is to play, we should let them pamela wong direction first 09.09.10 A child’s job is to play, we should let them pamela wong direction first 09.09.10 Presentation Transcript

  • A child’s job is to play, we should let them...Pamela WongDirection First AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • BackgroundSensory food research on children Little consensus in literature on the most effective research approach and question types to use AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • BackgroundSensory food research on children Consensus that children require specialised research approaches Children respond to research in more limited ways than adults Researchers have adapted methods to ask them questions in simpler ways AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • BackgroundToday’s children live in a digital world... Children are exposure to more products, ideas and technology than previous generations...  Average internet use 30 to 60 mins per day, less TV, radio  90% play video/computer games  Use several technologies simultaneously (e.g. Surfing & SMS) Multi-tasking with media technology is cognitively demanding We know children respond to research in more limited ways, but are we underestimating the digital native’s capabilities? AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • BackgroundQuestionnaire scales in food sensory research Standard liking scale for adults 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dislike Neither Like extremely like nor extremely dislike AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • BackgroundQuestionnaire scales in food sensory research1. P&K liking scale for children Developed by Peyram and Kroll (USA) for semi-literate children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Super Really Bad Just a Maybe Just a Good Really Super bad bad little bad good or little good good maybe good bad Uses child-oriented language and labels every scale point AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • BackgroundQuestionnaire scales in food sensory research2. Facial scale for children• Expressions represent degree of dislike or like Angry, Sad or Dislike?• Perhaps more applicable today due to widespread use of emoticons? AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • BackgroundQuestionnaire scales in food sensory research3. Star scale for children Number of stars represent degree of dislike or like Dislike a lot Like a lot Rewarding stars for more liked products AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • The StudyResearch Objectives Which types of questions would perform best with children? Would interactive or computer/video game inspired methods create a world that was as immersive, leading to better quality data? Could we make being a part of research a more fun and enjoyable experience, like playing a game? AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Research MethodologyOver 500 Australian children aged between 7 and 10 years old participated in the onlinestudy (June 2010) over 3 stages:Stage 1: N=97Traditional questionnaire• Essentially a plain, ‘black & white’ questionnaire placed online• Non-interactive, no Flash AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Research MethodologyStage 1: Traditional Dislike a lot Like a lot AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Research MethodologyOver 500 Australian children aged between 7 and 10 years old participated in the onlinestudy (June 2010):Stage 1: N=97 Stage 2: N=167Traditional questionnaire Interactive questionnaire• Essentially a plain, ‘black • Graphically enhanced & white’ questionnaire audio-visually interactive placed online question scales• Non-interactive, no Flash • Flash technology on GMI Interactive AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Research MethodologyStage 2: Interactive AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Research MethodologyOver 500 Australian children aged between 7 and 10 years old participated in the onlinestudy (June 2010):Stage 1: N=97 Stage 2: N=167 Stage 3: N=248Traditional questionnaire Interactive questionnaire Interactive & gaming• Essentially a plain, ‘black • Graphically enhanced questionnaire & white’ questionnaire audio-visually interactive • Avatar-like character placed online question scales • Graphically enhanced• Non-interactive, no Flash • Flash technology on GMI audio-visually interactive Interactive question scales • Flash technology on GMI Interactive AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Research MethodologyStage 3: Interactive & Gaming AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • FindingsWhich scale performed the best?  All 4 question scales performed similarly in terms of discriminating power and range of scale used  Slight advantage to the standard liking scale for adults AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Mean liking/9 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ice Cream 14 Taste of Chocolate 4 Double choc half coat Findings 3 White choc half coat 9 Water 11 Bread 12 Milk 7 Savoury snack 1 Green Colour 8 Honey 13 Taste of Mint 2 Orange Colour2010 6 Wholegrain savoury snack 5 Gingerbread 16 Taste of Peanut Butter 15 Taste of Cinnamon Stage19pt Stage1Star Stage1P&K 17 Taste of Lemon Stage1SmileyAMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
  • FindingsWhich approach was the easiest and most fun? E F  Kids found each approach and scale easy and fun to use A U S N  Visual scales were generally seen as easier P&K and even more fun to use Y P&K P&K P&K Standard Standard P&K Standard P&K Standard Standard Standard AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • FindingsWhy did children rate everything as fun? Were these results affected by the tendency for children to acquiesce? Were the scales in fact, not as fun as we expected them to be for these kids? These children spent up to an hour a day on the internet... What we thought was an engaging and fun environment may not be as exciting as where they play AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Findings1. Consistency of responses AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Findings2. Ability to follow instructions Fun elements were somewhat distracting...  Didn’t follow instructions  More inconsistent answers Perhaps kids struggle with instructions when distracted? AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Next steps Type of question scales used in children’s research may be less important...  Whilst scales have been debated extensively, they are only one aspect of the research approach  All scales performed as well as each other Perhaps we need to move beyond scale research, and explore asking children to make choices AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Next steps Researchers may need to investigate other ways to gather better quality information from children...  Technology has progressed to enable collection of better depth of information, such as through online discussion boards and communities  Technology is progressing to enable collection of different types of information, such as biometric data (recognition of the role of emotions in decision making). AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010
  • Next steps If a child’s job is to play, should let them?  Problem with acquiescence in children may be avoided by being online  But, did we introduce new research effects?  Interactive and gaming elements distracted from the main focus  Children played with their answers when we created a playful environment, which may not be what we want in research AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2010