• Like
Ict design for an aging population
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Ict design for an aging population

  • 101 views
Published

 

Published in Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
101
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Intrinsic Motivation and Design of ICT for the Ageing PopulationTanya Goldhaber
  • 2. The Ageing Population The UK in the last 25 years: Population over 65: 1.7 million (+1%) Population under 16: 3.4 million (-2%) The current elder care model will not work Not enough financial capital Not enough human capital In the coming years: People who can provide care << People who need care This is a global problem http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=949 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/populationestimates/flash_pyramid/default.htm2 Engineering Design Centre
  • 3. Care Networks
  • 4. Ideal Situation + = +4 Engineering Design Centre
  • 5. What actually happens5 Engineering Design Centre
  • 6. Then vs. Now6 Engineering Design Centre
  • 7. The big problem - =7 Engineering Design Centre
  • 8. Motivation and Technology Adoption “Fun” Novice Effort Useful Learning8 Engineering Design Centre
  • 9. INTRINSIC MOTIVATION9 Engineering Design Centre
  • 10. Research QuestionsCan interfaces be redesigned to be moreintrinsically motivating by applying principles frommotivation research?Can this help address the problem of healthcare forthe ageing population?10 Engineering Design Centre
  • 11. Theories of Intrinsic Motivation: Self-Determination Theory
  • 12. Theories of Intrinsic Motivation: Flow Theory
  • 13. Theories of Intrinsic Motivation: Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction
  • 14. Theories of Intrinsic Motivation: The 2x2 Achievement Goal Framework
  • 15. Theories of Intrinsic Motivation: Overview
  • 16. Games as Methods: Why games are intrinsically motivating Self-Determination Theory Competence Autonomy Relatedness Flow Theory Challenge matched to skills Clear goals Fast and relevant feedback Theory of Intrinsically Motivating Instruction: Curiosity Fantasy Challenge16 Engineering Design Centre
  • 17. Method
  • 18. Method Inventories used: Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI): Autonomy Competence Interest/Enjoyment Pressure/Tension Perceived Competence (PC) Player Experience of Need Satisfaction (PENS): Autonomy Competence Interest/Enjoyment New questions: Desire for future play/use Feelings of capability for future play/use Voluntary use when mandatory play has stopped
  • 19. Results Mean Score Values by Condition 6 5 Free Choice Play Time (min) IMI Pressure/Tension 4 IMI Interest/Enjoyment Mean Score IMI Autonomy 3 IMI Perceived Competence Perceived Competence 2 PENS Interest/Enjoyment PENS Perceived Competence 1 PENS Autonomy 0 Push Button Angry Birds Angry Birds Advanced Condition
  • 20. Mean Score Fr ee C ho Results ic e Pl ay IM Ti m 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 IP e re (m ss in IM ur ) II e/ nt Te er ns es io t/E n nj oy IM m IP IM en er IA t ce ut ive on d om Pe C y rc om ei pe ve te PE d nc N Co e S m PE In pe N te te reInventory S nc Pe st /E e rc nj ei oy ve m d en Co t m pe PE te N nc S e Mean Score Values by Inventory Au to no m y Angry Birds Push Button Angry Birds Advanced
  • 21. ResultsOne-way ANOVAs (between conditions) Sum of Mean Squar es df Sq uare F Sig. IMI Between 25.800 2 12.900 .306 .739 Pressure/Tension G roups IMI Between 528.200 2 264.100 1 .738 .195 Interest/Enjoyment G roups IMI Autonomy Between 228.867 2 114.433 2 .288 .121 G roups IMI Perceived Between 160.067 2 80.033 2 .492 .102 Com petence G roups Perceived Between 150.867 2 75.433 3 .023 .065 Com petence G roups PENS Between 45.267 2 22.633 .561 .577 Interest/Enjoyment G roups PENS Pe rceived Between 121.362 2 60.681 4 .103 0.0 28* Com petence G roups PENS Aut onom y Between 106.867 2 53.433 2 .677 .087 G roups Free Choice Play Between 5.373 2 2.687 1 .405 .263 Time G roups Com puter Between .350 2 .175 1 .673 .207 Experience G roups Touchs creen Between 2.400 2 1.200 2 .250 .125 Experience G roups
  • 22. Results: Correlation Table Negative Positiv e Correlation Correlation IMI IMI Perceived PENSIMI Pressure/Tension Autonomy Competence Interest/Enjoyment PENS Free IMI IMI IMI Perceived Perceived PENS PENS Perceived Choice Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy Competence Competence Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy Competence Play Time IMI IMI IMI Perceived Perceived PENS PENS IMI Autonomy Pressure/Tension Interest/Enjoyment Competence Competence Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy PENS IMI Perceived IMI IMI IMI Perceived PENS PENS Touchscreen Perceived Competence Pressure/Tension Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy Competence Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy Experience Competence PENS Perceived IMI IMI IMI Perceived Perceived PENS PENS Computer Touchscreen Perceived Competence Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy Competence Competence Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy Experience Experience Competence PENS PENS IMI IMI IMI IMI Perceived Perceived PENS Perceived Interest/Enjoyment Pressure/Tension Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy Competence Competence Autonomy Competence PENS Perceived IMI IMI Perceived Perceived PENS PENS Computer Competence Interest/Enjoyment Competence Competence Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy Experience PENS Free IMI IMI IMI Perceived Perceived PENS PENS Autonomy Perceived Choice Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy Competence Competence Interest/Enjoyment Competence Play Time Free Choice Play IMI PENS Time Interest/Enjoyment Autonomy PENS Computer Perceived Perceived Experience Competence Competence Touchscreen IMI Perceived Perceived Experience Competence Competence PENS IMI Perceived Perceived Condition Perceived Competence Competence Competence
  • 23. New Questions Confidence in future game play: I feel that given more time I could become better at playing this game I could improve at playing this game. Confidence in future use of tablet computers: I believe I could learn to use a tablet computer. Desire for future game play: I would want the opportunity to get better at this game. I would like to get better at playing this game. I would like to play this game again. Desire for future use of tablet computers: I would like to use a tablet computer again in the future. Disappointment at end of game play: I was disappointed when I had to stop playing the game. I was relieved when I could stop playing the game.
  • 24. Results: Mean Scores for New Questions Mean Score Values for New Questions 6.00 5.00 Desire for future use 4.00 Desire for future play Mean Score Confidence in future play 3.00 Confidence in future use 2.00 Disappointment with play 1.00 stopping 0.00 Push Button Angry Birds Angry Birds Advanced Condition
  • 25. Results: ANOVA for new questionsOne-way ANOVAs (between conditions) Sum of Mean Squa res df Square F Sig.Desire for future Between 13.067 2 6.533 2 .090 .143use G roupsDesire for future Between 17.156 2 8.578 3 .215 .056play G roupsConfidence in Between .717 2 .358 .184 .833f uture play G roupsConfidence in Between 2.867 2 1.433 .600 .556f uture use G roupsDisappointm ent Between 7.317 2 3.658 1 .340 .279with play G roupsst opping
  • 26. Results: Correlations for New Questions Negative Positiv e Correlation Correlation Desire for future use Desire for f uture play Confidence in fut ure play Confidence in future use Disappointment with play stopping IMI Pressure/Tension IMI Interest/ Enjoyment IMI Interest/ Enjoyment IMI Interest/ Enjoyment IMI Interest/ Enjoyment IMI Interest/ Enj oyment IMI Autonomy IMI Autonomy IMI AutonomyIMI Percei ved Competence IMI Perceived Competence IMI Per ceived Comp etence IMI Perceived Competence Perceived Competence Percei ved Competence Perceived Competence Perceived Competence Perceived CompetencePENS Interest/ Enjoyment PENS Interest/ Enjoyment PENS Interest/ Enjoyment PENS Interest/ Enj oyment PENS Interest/ Enjoyment PENS Perceived PENS Per ceived PENS Perceived PENS Perceived Competence PENS Perceived Competence Competence Competence Competence Conditi on Condition PENS Autonomy PENS Autonomy PENS Autono my PENS Autonomy Free choice play time Free choice pl ay ti me Free choice play time Touchscreen Exper ience Desire for fu ture use Desire for future use Desi re for future use Desire for future play Desir e for future pl ay Desire for futur e playConfidence in future play Confidence in future pl ay Confidence in future pl ay Confi dence i n future playConfidence in futur e use Confidence in future u se Disappoi ntment with play Di sappointment with play stopping stopping
  • 27. Results: ANOVAs for Total Scores (Post-hoc) Multiple ComparisonsDepen dent Variable (I) Condition (J) Conditi on Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.Total Score: Tukey HSD Push Button Angry Birds -22.22222 14.78769 .306O ld questi ons only Angry Birds 23.30000 14.39328 .256 Advanced Angry Birds Push Button 22.22222 14.78769 .306 Angry Birds 45.52222 14.78769 .013 Advanced Angry Birds Push Button -23.30000 14.39328 .256 Advanced Angry Birds -45.52222 14.78769 .013Total Score: Tukey HSD Push Button Angry Birds -23.87407 17.02614 .354O ld and new questions Angry Birds 27.31667 16.57203 .244 Advanced Angry Birds Push Button 23.87407 17.02614 .354 Angry Birds 51.19074 17.02614 .015 Advanced Angry Birds Push Button -27.31667 16.57203 .244 Advanced Angry Birds -51.19074 17.02614 .015Total Score: Tukey HSD Push Button Angry Birds -.36667 2.77840 .990New questions only Angry Birds 4.01667 2.77840 .332 Advanced Angry Birds Push Button .36667 2.77840 .990 Angry Birds 4.38333 2.77840 .272 Advanced Angry Birds Push Button -4.01667 2.77840 .332 Advanced Angry Birds -4.38333 2.77840 .272
  • 28. Future Work More in-depth statistical analyses. Factor analysis Two-way ANOVA Development of inventory to be used in future studies based on results of this study. Testing of novel user interfaces using methods developed in this study.28 Engineering Design Centre
  • 29. Thank you Questions?Many thanks to: