Downloaded 14 times
Uploaded byShital Desai
Intuitive Interaction in Children
This document outlines a research proposal to investigate the role of embodiment in intuitive interaction for children. It will involve two experiments. Experiment 1 will identify aspects of embodiment that contribute to intuitive use in children using observations and interviews with child participants. Experiment 2 will then examine how these embodied aspects can facilitate interaction, using a different toy. The research aims to develop a framework for designing intuitive products for children and reduce their cognitive load during use.
More Related Content
Similar to Intuitive Interaction in Children
Intuitive Interaction in Children
- 1. Intuitive Interaction in Children ShitalDesai Assoc. Prof. AletheaBlackler : PrincipalSupervisor Prof. Vesna Popovic :AssociateSupervisor
- 2. Outline • Introduction • LiteratureReview • Research Problem • Research Design • Contributions and Outcomes 2
- 3.
- 4. Introduction • For aproduct and an interface to be intuitive to use, it should adapt to the context of use (Moran et al., 2001). • Intuitive-ness is a human quality developed over time (Dane et al., 2012) . 4
- 5. Introduction • Intuitive-use isan unconscious application of one’s prior knowledge (Mohs et al., 2006). • People use knowledge gained from their experiences using other products and features in order to intuitively interact with interfaces (Blackler et al., 2007). • Intuitive-ness is an attribute of an object (Norman, 2002). 5
- 6. Introduction • Physical materialscan assist in building existing intuitions in children (Clement., 1994). • Intuitional foundations will develop if the objects are familiar to children. 6
- 7. Literature Review Embodied Intuitive Use Intuitive Interaction Embodied Cognition Infant Psychology Dynamic Systems NeuroscienceRobotics Situated Cognition Distributed Cognition 7
- 8. Literature Review Embodied Intuitive Use Intuitive Interaction Embodied Cognition CognitionIntuition 8 Decision Making
- 9. Intuitive Interaction • PriorKnowledge. • Familiarity. • Image Schemas. • Diversity in prior knowledge with age. • Diversity in familiarity with age. 9
- 10. Intuitive Interaction • PriorKnowledge • Prior experience with similar products and features enables intuitive use of features. • Familiarity • Make function, location and appearance familiar for known features. • Use familiar things to demonstrate function, appearance and location of less known features. • Consistency and Redundancy. 10
- 11. Intuitive Interaction • ImageSchemas- • Derived from sensori-motor knowledge from every day experiences (Hurtienne et al., 2007). Basic Space Container Identity Multiplicity Scale Process Force Attribute Container 11
- 12. Intuitive Interaction • Diversityin familiarity with respect to age. (Lawry et. al, 2011) • Older adults are familiar with products that they own. • Younger adults demonstrate higher levels of familiarity with the current interaction paradigm as compared to older adults. • Diversity in prior knowledge with respect to age. (Brandenburg et al., 2012) • Children were slower than adults with no prior knowledge who were slower than adults with prior knowledge. 12
- 13. Intuitive Interaction Continuum ofknowledge in Intuitive Use adapted from Israel et al., (2009) 13 Culture Tools Expertise Sensorimotor Innate EncodingRetrieval DegreeofSpecialisation Max Max
- 14.
- 15. Embodied Cognition Real World RealTime Evolutionary Clark (2013) Lungarella (2003) Thelen (2010 Brooks (1999) Eelen et al., (2013) Kirsh (2013) Turner (2013) Hayles (2013) Anderson (2005) 15
- 16. Embodied Cognition Practical Environmental Kirsh (2013) Papert(1994) Kuniyoshi et al. (2004) Corr (2008) Bassilli (2013) Nathan (2008) Social Hutchins (2000) Saloman (1997) Cole et al., (1980) 16
- 17. Design Aspects ofEmbodiment Social Real World Real Time Evolutionary Practical Environmental Familiarity and Experiential Knowledge Scaffolds Affordance Emergence 17
- 18. Familiarity and Experiential Knowledge •Tangible interfaces are devices that give physical form to digital information (Ishii, 2008). • Natural mappings provide familiarity with the natural world (Klemmer et al., 2006). • Use of familiar objects in physical manipulations (Resnick, 1998). • Familiarity and experiential knowledge results in intuitive use of products. 18
- 19. Affordances • Property ofthe world that enables organisms to control their actions (Gibson, 1996). • Properties of objects and actors in the world (Snapp-childs et al., 2013). • Affordances of the familiar objects allow re- purposeful use of objects (De Valk et al, 2013). 19
- 20.
- 21.
- 22. Research Problem • Embodimentprovides natural and intuitive form of interaction (Ishii, 2008). • The term embodiment has been increasingly used in interaction design to mean bodily action and physicality. 22
- 23. Research Problem • Useof physical body movements as the basis for interactional metaphors that relate to abstract representations which in turn facilitate intuitive use (Antle et al., 2013) . • Aspects contributing to intuitive embodied mappings? 23
- 24. Research Questions • MainResearch Question: • What is the role of embodiment in intuitive use in children? • Sub-questions: • What are the aspects of embodiment that contribute to intuitive use in children? • How can these aspects facilitate interaction in children? 24
- 25. Research Design Literature Review Experiment 1 •Pilot Study • Data Collection • Data Analysis Experiment 2 • Pilot Study • Data Collection • Data Analysis Findings and Conclusions 25
- 26. Data Collection Methods •Mixed Method Approach Observations with verbal protocols Interviews Questionnaires 26
- 27. Data Collection Methods •Pairing children in constructive interaction • Trans-generational pairing. • Acquaintance based pairing. • Same gender pairing. 27
- 28. Overview of Experiments Experiment1 Investigate aspects of embodiment that contribute to intuitive use in children. Experiment 2 Investigate the ways in which the aspects of embodiment can facilitate interaction in children. 28
- 29. Experiment 1 Investigate aspectsof embodiment that contribute to intuitive use in children. Pre-experiment Experiment Post-experiment Location home QUT People and Systems Lab and local state schools Participants 80-100 children (40-50 pairs) from local state schools (prep- grade 5) Duration 10 minutes 30 minutes 10-20 minutes Data Collection Technique Questionnaire Observations Semi-structured retrospective Interview Data Analysis Tool Excel, SPSS Observer XT, SPSS Atlas.Ti, SPSS Toy Selected Jenga 29
- 30. Experiment 2 Investigate theways in which the aspects of embodiment identified in experiment 1 can facilitate interaction in children. Pre-experiment Experiment Post-experiment Location home QUT People and Systems Lab and local state schools Participants 80-100 children (40-50 pairs) from local state schools (prep- grade 5) Duration 10 minutes 30 minutes 10-20 minutes Data Collection Technique Questionnaire Observations Semi-structured retrospective Interview Data Analysis Tool Excel, SPSS Observer XT, SPSS Atlas.Ti, SPSS Toy Selected Will be decided based on Experiment 1 outcomes. Examples are Cubelets, Mackey Mackey 30
- 31. Looking Forward YEAR 1 LITERATUREREVIEW LOW RISK ETHICS APPROVAL ( approval no.: 1300000826) EDUCATION QLD APPROVAL (approval no.: 550/27/1392 PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT YEAR 2 EXPERIMENT 1 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS EXPERIMENT 2 PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT YEAR 3 EXPERIMENT 2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS THESIS WRITEUP 31 PUBLISHING
- 32. Research Contributions • Newtheory of embodied intuitive interaction. • Better understanding of how children interact with products. • New research and design methods. • Knowledge that is transferrable to other areas. 32
- 33. Research Outcomes • Designframework to develop intuitive products for children. • Children will be able to use their inherent intuitions and subsequently build upon them while interacting with products and features. • This will result in less cognitive load. • Children will not give up on products designed for them. 33
- 34.
- 35. Sample Size Estimation k= 2 n = 63.76561 f = 0.25 sig.level = 0.05 power = 0.8 35
- 36. Sample Size Estimation n= 50.1508 d = 0.5 sig.level = 0.05 power = 0.8 36
- 37. Sample Size Estimation MethodEffect Size Significanc e (p) Power Sample Size/grou p One Way ANOVA 0.25 0.05 0.8 63.76561 One tailed t- test 0.5 0.05 0.8 50.1508 Correlatio n 0.3 0.05 0.8 84.74891 Chi- Square 0.3 0.05 0.8 87.20955 37
- 38.