Leap Pad/Tag Reading System

2,177 views

Published on

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

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,177
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
15
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Leap Pad/Tag Reading System

  1. 1. LeapPad/Tag Reading System: An Analysis Based on the Multimedia Learning Principals Presented by: Janine Corbin Huaye Li Alyce Brookfield October 2010
  2. 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 *Tag Reading System superseded the Leap Pad.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. 3. Spatial Contiguity Principle The LeapPad has a perfect layout for the reading learners. Pictures and words are presented right after each other.
  4. 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. 5. Coherence Principle Right on the target. No extraneous words or pictures will come out. There are sound effects.
  6. 6. Modality Principle Illustrations and Narration come together
  7. 7. Redundancy Principle Eliminates extraneous cognitive load. Advantages of LeapPad: •Graphics/narration •Coordination Experimental Research •Miller (1937) •Mayer&Moreno (1998)
  8. 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. 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. 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. 11. Voice Principle Different words have different accents Is this really a problem for children? (Reinking, D. 2005)
  12. 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. 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. 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. 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.

×