You are here:

Design Models and Their Implication for Interface Design of Children’s Educational Software
PROCEEDINGS

, , Concordia University, Canada

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Quebec City, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-63-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

This position paper synthesizes the results of a literature review on interface design theories, and suggests how they might be applied to the design of interfaces to be used by children. Three design theories are described including User-Centered design, Learner-Centered design and Performance-Centered design in an attempt to contrast their similarities and differences and their application to the design of educational software for children. Given that design theories are goal-oriented and prescriptive, the paper demonstrates that it is the goal of the theory rather than the processes associated with it that determines the ultimate interface design. While guidelines for the design of software interfaces do exist, they are on their own of little value; they can only be effective when applied during the design process while employing a specific design theory.

Citation

Aslan, O. & Carliner, S. (2007). Design Models and Their Implication for Interface Design of Children’s Educational Software. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2007--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1384-1393). Quebec City, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2007 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Clark, R.C., & Mayer, R.E. (2003). E-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
  2. Cooper, A. (2004). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Indianapolis, Indiana: Sams publishing.
  3. Cooper, A., & Reimann, R. (2003). About Face 2.0: The essential of interaction design. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing Inc.
  4. Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21, 1–25.
  5. Dayton, T., McFarland, A., & Kramer, J. (1998). Bridging user needs to object oriented GUI prototype via task object design. In L.E. Wood, (Ed.) User interface design: Bridging the gap from user requirements to design (pp. 15-56). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  6. DeBell, M., and Chapman, C. (2003). Computer and Internet Use by Children and Adolescents in the United States, 2001 (NCES 2004-014). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
  7. Gery, G. (1995). Attributes and behaviors of performance centered design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8 (1), 47-93.
  8. Gilutz, S, Bekker, M., Druin, A., Fisch, S. & Read, J. (2003). Children’s on-line interface: Is usability testing worthwhile? Proceeding of the 2003 conference on Interaction design and children, Preston, England: ACM Press.
  9. Gilutz, S. & Nielsen, J. (2002). Usability of websites for children: 70 design guidelines. Fremont, CA: Nielson Norman Group.
  10. Graefe, T.M. (1998). Transforming representations in user-centered design. In L.E. Wood, (Ed.) User interface design: Bridging the gap from user requirements to design (pp. 57-79). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  11. Hanna, L., Risden, K., & Alexander, K. (1997). Guidelines for usability testing with children. Interactions, 4 (5), 9-14.
  12. Hanna, L., Risden, K., Czerwinski, M., & Alexander, D. (1999). The role of usability research in designing children’s computer products. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology (pp. 4–26). San Francisco, CA:
  13. Holzinger, A., & Motschig-Pitrik, R. (2005). Considering the Human in Multimedia: Learner-Centered Design (LCD) & Person-Centered e-Learning (PCeL). Retrieved June 25th, 2007 from http://user.medunigraz.at/andreas.holzinger/holzinger/papers%20en/A33_Holzinger%20 & %20Motschnig%20(2005.
  14. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of Constructivist, Inquiry-Based teaching. Educstional Psychologiest, 41 (2), 75-86.
  15. Ludolph, F. (1998). Model-based user interface design: Successive transformations of a task/object model. In L.E. Wood, (Ed.) User interface design: Bridging the gap from user requirements to design (pp. 81-107). Boca Raton,
  16. Neilsen, J. (1996). International usability engineering. In E. Del Galso & J. Neilsen (eds.) International user interface (pp. 1-19). New York: NY: John Wiley& Sons.
  17. Norman, D.A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books
  18. Newburger, E. (2001). Home Computers and Internet Use in the United States: August 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau Special Study P23-207). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
  19. Preece, J., Rogers, Y. & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond human-computer interaction. New York, NY: John Wiley& Sons Inc.
  20. Quintana, C., Fretz, E., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). Evaluation criteria for scaffolding in learner centered design. CHI’00, April 01-06, 189-190.
  21. Reece, G.A., Bol, L., & Morrison, G.R. (1996). A Formative Evaluation of a Computer-Based Instruction Tutorial with Application to Electronic Performance Support Systems. ACM 14th International Conference on Systems Documentation, 95-109.
  22. Reeves, W. (1999). Learner-centered design: A cognitive view of managing complexity in product, information and environmental Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication Inc.
  23. Soloway, E. & Pryor, A. (1996). The next generation in human-computer interaction. Communication of the ACM, 39 (4), 16-18.
  24. Soloway, E., Guzdial, M, & Hay, K.E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1 (2), 36-48.
  25. Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E.J. (1999). What is human performance technology? In H.D. Stolovitch & E.J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology: Improving individual and organizational performance worldwide (2nd. Ed, pp. 3-23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.
  26. Strobel, J. & Idan, E. (2006). Integrating scaffolds into goal-based Scenarios: The case of an interactive game on biodiversity for children. Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Interaction design and children IDC '06, AMC Press. 37-39.
  27. Wallace, R. (1999). Learners as users, users as learners: What’s the difference? Retrieved August 27 from http://www.msu.edu/~mccrory/pubs/HCIC_LCDboaster.htm
  28. Watkins, R., & Leigh, D. (2001). Performance improvement: More than just bettering the here-and-now. Performance Improvement, 42 (6), 10-15.
  29. Wood, L.E. (1998). User interface design: Bridging the gap from user requirements to design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  30. Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Ed.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13-39). New York: Academic Press.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References