Considerations and Methods for Usability Testing with School Children
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like543 views
The document outlines methods and considerations for conducting usability testing with children, emphasizing that traditional adult-focused approaches are often inadequate. It discusses a systematic literature review aimed at understanding the motivations, practical, methodological, and ethical issues involved in involving children aged 5-17 in usability studies. The findings highlight the need for age-appropriate methods and environments to ensure meaningful participation from children in design processes.
![Ethical considerations
Meaningful participation
In the IDC [Interaction Design and Children] literature very few researchers
have documented how they have concerned themselves with the rights and
feelings of children within the context of research using participatory design.
(Read et al., 2014)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/presentation-160503093417/85/Considerations-and-Methods-for-Usability-Testing-with-School-Children-12-320.jpg)
Considerations and Methods for Usability Testing with School Children
- 1. CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODS FOR USABILITY TESTING WITH CHILDREN M A L E N E H J O R T B O E A N D E R S E N , M D . S A I F U D D I N K H A L I D , A N D E V A I R E N E B R O O K S D E P A R T M E N T A N D L E A R N I N G A N D P H I L O S O P H Y , F A C U L T Y O F H U M A N I T I E S , A A L B O R G U N I V E R S I T Y 1st EAI International Conference on Design, Learning & Innovation MAY 2–3, 2016 | ESBJERG, DENMARK
- 2. Outline • Scope and Goal • Methods • Data Collection • Data Analysis and Synthesis • Findings • Discussion and Conclusion
- 3. Scope and Goals • Scope • User-centered design approach including methods are designed for adults and are not necessarily appropriate to investigations including children. • The needs, skills, terminologies, and desires of children are essentially different from those of adults. • Goals: A systematic literature review to synthesize: • (1) the motivation for conducting usability tests with children • (2) the methodological, practical, and ethical considerations when involving children in usability studies (taking point of departure from Read, 2015).
- 4. Methods • Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and PRISMA flow diagram • Databases - Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Scopus • Keywords usability testing, usability evaluation, children, interaction design, methods, and guidelines • exclusion criteria • if (1) the article is not about children aged 5-17 years of age, or • (2) the primary focus of the article is on usability tests of a specific product, and not on the methods or considerations focusing on the involvement of children in the testing process. • Analysis and Synthesis. constant comparative method (Glaser, 1965).
- 5. Methods cont. Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram 9 articles, published between 1997 and 2015.
- 7. Qualitative Analysis and Synthesis • Categories • 1) the motivation for involving children as test persons in design processes, • 2) definitions of usability, • 3) Considerations/concerns (Read, 2015): • 3.1 Practical considerations around arranging studies and recruiting children, • 3.2 Methodological concerns in terms of ensuring that children can contribute in meaningful ways, • 3.3 Ethical considerations around the meaning of the childrens participation. • ”In practical terms, the classic workaround is to carry out evaluations in schools or in afterschool clubs.” (p.64)
- 8. Usability Testing with Children: Methods & Theories According to Khanum and Trivedi’s (2013) review: • The theory of behaviour settings (Roger Garlock Barker in late 1940s): states that ”there are specific, identifiable units of the environment, the physical and social elements, which are combined into one unit, which have very powerful influences on human behaviour” Inspection Methods (without end users) Test Methods (with end users) Heuristic Evaluation or Expert evaluations Think Aloud Cognitive Walkthrough Field observation Action Analysis Questionnaire
- 9. The Motivation to Involve Children as Participants in Design Processes • Roles: • User • Tester • Informant • Design partner • Underlying dimensions: • relationship to adults (indirect, including feedback, dialogue, and elaboration) • relationship to technology (ideas, prototypes and products) • goals for the inquiry (questioning impact of technology, and improved usability/design) • (Druin, 2002; Guha et al., 2004)
- 10. Practical Considerations • Guidelines for usability testing with children (Hanna, 1997) • Usability engineers • Laboratories • How to set up child-friendly test environments • Age groups • “Children under 12 years of age are not able to think aloud” • Children, interactive technology change (Markopoulos & Bekker, 2003; Read et al., 2008) • Mobile technologies • Time span • Additional guidelines needed
- 11. Methodological Considerations • Think aloud test is mostly used • Think aloud • Constructive interaction • Selection of participants • Evaluations beyond the restrictions of locations and time • Transformation of power, confidence, motivation and feeling of comfort • (Read et al., 2008)
- 12. Ethical considerations Meaningful participation In the IDC [Interaction Design and Children] literature very few researchers have documented how they have concerned themselves with the rights and feelings of children within the context of research using participatory design. (Read et al., 2014)
- 13. Discussion and conclusion • Not many studies include younger children as a participant group • Cooperative Inquiry • Bags of Stuff technique • Mixing Ideas technique (e.g. Guha et al., 2004; Borum et al., 2015) Aalborg University: PhD course on CCI addressing methodologies, methods and techniques for younger children
Editor's Notes
- #10: Qualitative analysis where we identified themes: the motivation for involving children as test persons in design processes, definitions of usability, practical considerations, methodological considerations, and ethical considerations. The child’s role as a test person was first discussed in the literature of the late 1980s and early 1990s by Allison Druin Papert: children as builders, scientists and learners that led to the early inclusion of children in the technology design process child computer interaction community (CCI)
- #11: Hanna et al. set some guidelines for usability testing with children, based on their work as usability engineers at Microsoft Several of the studies have applied the guidelines developed by Hanna and her colleagues. preschool (2-5 years), elementary school (6-10 years) and middle-school (11-14 year) Extroversion and verbalization skills Markopoulos and Bekker question some of the advice or guidelines described by Hanna et al. nothing stays the same, and in the dynamic area of interactive technology and children, change is inevitable and rapid children have shorter attention spans than they used to, but modern young children can often concentrate for only very short periods—as short as 10 minutes—and even older children find sessions beyond 30 minutes problematic
- #12: constructive interaction is the variation that identifies the most problems process of selecting the participants: “Constructive interaction with pairs of children knowing each other identified more problems (on all severities) and specifically more critical problems Children are becoming independent and gaining increasing autonomy in accessing, personalizing and owning interactive digital systems
- #13: to acknowledge the children for their participation know the purpose of their involvement how their ideas will be used and what happens if some of their ideas contribute to the success of the company or the investigation that the more meaningful participation is for children the more beneficial the activity is across all aspects