Cited By
View all- Landoni MHuibers TMurgia EPera M(2024)Good for Children, Good for All?Advances in Information Retrieval10.1007/978-3-031-56066-8_24(302-313)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2024
Emma stop that, it's my turn now - Comparing Peer Tutoring and Thinking Aloud for Usability-Testing with Children in a school setting
Pages 442 - 447
Abstract
The subject of this study was to explore children's ability to offer verbal feedback during usability evaluation studies. The aim is to find out whether the use of the method Peer Tutoring or Thinking Aloud can identify more usability findings in usability tests with second graders than observation. 13 Second graders tested an interactive game using two evaluation techniques. The findings indicate that the majority of verbal remarks were identified with the method of Thinking Aloud and that participants also provided more higher quality remarks. More usability findings could be identified than in a purely observational situation. Unexpectedly, the Peer Tutoring method was less beneficial for the identification of usability problems since the participants struggled to cooperate successfully.
References
[1]
Benedikte S. Als, Janne J. Jensen and Mikael B. Skov. 2005. Comparison of think-aloud and constructive interaction in usability testing with children. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children (IDC '05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/1109540.1109542
[2]
Ester Baauw and Panos Markopoulos. 2004. A comparison of think-aloud and post-task interview for usability testing with children. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children: building a community (IDC '04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 115–116. https://doi.org/10.1145/1017833.1017848
[3]
Afke Donker and Panos Markopoulos. 2002. A comparison of think-aloud, questionnaires and interviews for testing usability with children. Proceedings People and Computers XVI - Memorable Yet Invisible. Springer, London. 305-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0105-5_18
[4]
Libby Hanna, Kirsten Risden, and Kirsten Alexander. 1997. Guidelines for usability testing with children. interactions 4, 5 (Sept./Oct. 1997), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/264044.264045
[5]
Johanna Höysniemi, Perttu Hämäläinen and Laura Turkki. 2003. Using peer tutoring in evaluating the usability of a physically interactive computer game with children. Interacting with Computers. 15, 2 (April 2003), 203-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00008-0
[6]
Ilse E. H. van Kesteren, Mathilde M. Bekker, Arnold P. O. S. Vermeeren, and Peter A. Lloyd. 2003. Assessing usability evaluation methods on their effectiveness to elicit verbal comments from children subjects. Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Interaction design and children (IDC '03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/953536.953544
[7]
Janine Liebal and Markus Exner. 2011. Usability für Kids - Ein Handbuch zur ergonomischen Gestaltung von Software und Websites für Kinder. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag. Wiesbaden, Germany.
[8]
Panos Markopoulos and Mathilde Bekker. 2002. How to Compare Usability Testing Methods with Children Participants. Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children (IDC'02).
[9]
Jakob Nielsen. 1992. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '92). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1145/142750.142834
[10]
Svetlana Ognjanovic and Jason Ralls. 2013. Don't talk to strangers! peer tutoring versus active intervention methodologies in interviewing children. CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2337–2340. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468761
[11]
Philippe P. Piernot, Ramon Felciano, Roby Stancel, Jonathan Marsh and Marc Yvon. 1995. Designing the PenPal: Blending hardware and software in a user-interface for children. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’95, 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223973
[12]
Tinybop. About Tinybop. Retrieved from https://tinybop.com/about.
[13]
Lea Wöbbekind, Thomas Mandl, and Christa Womser-Hacker. 2021. Construction and first testing of the UX Kids Questionnaire (UXKQ): A tool for measuring pupil's user experience in interactive learning apps using semantic differentials. Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2021 (MuC '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 444–455. https://doi.org/10.1145/3473856.3473875
[14]
Diana Xu, Emanuela Mazzone, and Stuart MacFarlane. 2006. In search for evaluation methods for children's tangible technology. Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Interaction design and children (IDC '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 171–172. https://doi.org/10.1145/1139073.1139079
[15]
Bieke Zaman and Vero Vanden Abeele. 2010. Laddering with young children in User eXperience evaluations: theoretical groundings and a practical case. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1145/1810543.1810561
Index Terms
- Emma stop that, it's my turn now - Comparing Peer Tutoring and Thinking Aloud for Usability-Testing with Children in a school setting
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
A comparison of think-aloud and post-task interview for usability testing with children
IDC '04: Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children: building a communityWe describe an experimental study of different strategies for obtaining verbalization data, when conducting a usability test with children. Two software products were evaluated by 25 children of ages 9-11, at their school, using think aloud and post-...
Comparison of think-aloud and constructive interaction in usability testing with children
IDC '05: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and childrenConstructive interaction provides natural thinking-aloud as test subjects collaborate to solve tasks. Since children may face difficulties in following instructions for a standard think-aloud test, constructive interaction has been suggested as ...
A comparison of usability evaluation methods for child participants in a school setting
IDC '07: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Interaction design and childrenThis study assesses three usability evaluation methods (Active Intervention, Peer Tutoring and Cross-Age Tutoring) with children aged 6--8 years old within a school setting, using an interactive, educational multimedia product. Cross-Age Tutoring ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2023
593 pages
ISBN:9798400707711
DOI:10.1145/3603555
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 03 September 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Short-paper
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
MuC '23
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 32Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)18
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 18 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Landoni MHuibers TMurgia EPera M(2024)Good for Children, Good for All?Advances in Information Retrieval10.1007/978-3-031-56066-8_24(302-313)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2024
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format