Back to Home



 


Our design process was highly iterative. We have divided our process into five parts.

Theoretical Perspectives and Sources
Design Inspirations and Iterations
Designer Interviews
Focus Group
User Studies

 

Theoretical Rationales and Sources
Software Evaluation
Intrinsic Motivation and Instructional Effectiveness
Apprenticeship
Visual Design/Human Computer Interaction
Constructivism

Software Evaluation
We do not claim to have chosen the "best" software, however, there are certain criteria and guidelines to be aware of when evaluating the suggested titles. The highlighted elements of each software title, the exploration of the innovations, and the categories of information were all chosen using principles extracted from extensive reading in the area of software evaluation, both contemporary works and those written at the time the software was produced.

Ambron, Sueann & Hooper, Kristina. Learning with Interactive Multimedia: Developing and Using Multimedia Tools in Education. Richmond, Washington: Washington Press, 1990.

Blease, Derek. Evaluating Software. Dover, New Hampshire: Croom Helm, 1986.

Druin, Allison & Solomon, Cynthia. Designing Multimedia Environments for Children: Computers, Creativity, and Kids. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.

Druin, Allison, Ed. The Design of Children's Technology. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1999.

Giacquinta, Joseph B. Beyond Technology's Promise. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Papert, S. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, 1980.

Taylor, Robert. The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York: Teacher's College Press, 1980.

Only the Best: The Annual Guide to the Highest Rated Educational Software and Multimedia, 1997.

"The Software Lineup: What Reviewers look for When Evaluating Software." Electronic Learning. v. 2 n. 2 p. 45-48 Oct. 82.

<top>

Intrinsic Motivation and Instructional Effectiveness
We designed the site to be used frequently. We have included multiple representations and displays of information to encourage users to return to view and add information. The quality of growth and change incorporated into the site is implemented to convey a need to visit the site multiple times. Instructional and motivational issues were considerations for the overall design of the content and the presentation of information.

Malone, T.W. & Lepper, M.R. "Intrinsic Motivation and Instructional Effectiveness in Computer-based Education." In R.E. Snow & M.J.Farr (Eds.) Aptitude, Learning and Instruction. Volume 2: Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 243-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987.

<top>

Apprenticeship
Through interviews, videoclips, and contact information, the site is an expert source for educational software. The people, product and the process of milestone software for children is revealed to students and fellow designers alike. These elements are included in order to promote further discussion of quality designs and to provide expert advice, knowledge and opinions to more inexperienced designers.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1991). "Cognitive Apprenticeship: Making Thinking Visible." American Educator (Winter), 6-11, 38-46.

Lave, Jean and Wenger, Etienne. "Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation." IRL Palo Alto, 1990.

Applebaum, Herbert. The Concept of Work. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.

<top>

Visual Design/Human Computer Interaction
We have been cognizant of our visual design and the interaction between the user and the site. Our goal is that the software titles be the focus as opposed to the site itself. The site is to serve as a clear vessel through which to become immersed in the specific software information. Design and navigation principles of simplicity and ease of use were of the utmost importance so that the user does not become overwhelmed with navigational or visual site concerns, they are left to concentrate on the individual titles.

Neilson, Jakob. Principles of Interaction Design.

Norman, Don. The Design of Everyday Things.

Tufte, Edward R. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, Connecticut: Graphics Press, 1990.

<top>

Constructivism
Our guiding overall theory is the idea of learning through constructing. We highly encourage the community to build on the site by adding their own reviews, collaborating or suggesting new titles, or appending information to existing titles. Through this method, we believe that people create a better understanding of the ideas and products and the site itself.

Bruckman, Amy, Resnick, Michael, & Martin, Fred. "Pianos Not Stereos: Creating Computational Construction Kits." Interactions, vol. 3, no. 6, (September/October 1996).

Kafai, Yasmin & Resnick, Michael. "Introduction." In Constructionism in Practice. 1995.

<top>


Design Inspirations and Iterations

<top>


Designer Interviews
We conducted interviews with Debra Lieberman, Liz Russell, Kristina Hooper Woolsey, Tim Lenoir, Don Rawitsch, Wayne Studer, Ann McCormick. Interviews with Debra Lieberman, Liz Russell, Kristina Hooper Woolsey and Ann McCormick were conducted in person. Interviews with Wayne Studer and Don Rawitsch were conducted via telephone.

General Questions

  1. What is your background? Specifically, how did you become interested in educational software?
  2. How would you define the beginning of the educational software industry?
  3. When do you think that educational software became a separate discipline from video gaming? Why do you think that distinction developed?
  4. Which groups or companies were influential in shaping the nascent field?
  5. What were the differences between commercial fields (MECC, Apple) and research institutions (UC San Diego, Bank Street) producing educational software during the beginning of the industry?
  6. Which companies and/or institutions were doing research to develop the content and implementation of their titles? What kinds?
  7. Was there a distinction between designers with CS backgrounds and designers with cognitive psychology/education backgrounds? Was one more prevalent than another or was it a collaborative effort?
  8. What were the major conferences and resources of the time?
  9. Can you provide a list of titles on which titles have you have worked?
  10. What are your favorite educational software titles, and why?

Specific Questions:

  1. Why was the software developed?
  2. What are the educational goals of the software?
  3. What was the inspiration for the design?
  4. What role did technology play in the design - how did software serve to attain the educational goals better than other mediums? Was it designed by a group or an individual?
  5. What was the process of the development of the software?
  6. What was the production time? Were you working within a deadline?
  7. What background research was conducted?
  8. How was the content designed?
  9. How was the interface designed?
  10. Were user studies conducted?
  11. Is there a particular learning theory that was incorporated into the design?
  12. Were there technological limitations that affected the design that would not be constraints today?
  13. What do you feel is the "innovation" that this title brought to the field of educational software design?
  14. Which parts of the software should be recognized and implemented today?
  15. Has and software since emulated parts of this title?

<top>

Focus Group
Before beginning the design of the interface, we wanted to determine if users were interested in our project. We hoped to gain insight into the following questions:

  1. Is there a general interest in our project?
  2. Who would potential users be?
  3. What is the breadth/depth of knowledge about the history of educational software?
  4. What information categories would be particularly useful to users?
  5. How much access to past software titles would be helpful?
  6. What search methods would be most useful?
  7. What menu categories would be most useful?
  8. Is there any additional feedback, including ideas for design and content?
  9. Are users interested in providing feedback on the design of the archive?


 Scope of Study:
We distributed 30 personal emails to designers and students of multimedia. We located students at the following programs:

Stanford: Learning, Design and Technology
Harvard: Technology in Education
Columbia: Instructional Technology and Media
NorthWestern: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Texas A& M: Instructional Technology SFSU: Interactive Technology

In addition, we distributed the list to the CHI-Kids mailing list, which includes a readership of over 300 individuals.

Our preliminary survey can be located at: http://www.stanford.edu/~ckmartin/classics/survey1.fft

Findings:

  • 88% use research to design materials for children.
  • Most of our users know very little (32%) to some (39%) about the history of educational software.
  • 100% of users expressed an interest and need for our product.

    Specific comments included:
    "(This would be a) good tool for development staff to use to enlighten them about what has gone before. A good way to validate, confirm, change my personal opinions about what is good and why…"

    "I've heard of older software and would love a way to look it up. I find that research papers don't give examples of what software LOOKS LIKE, and this sounds like a way that I can find out more."

    "Absolutely, since while I was in this field of study in graduate school, I don't remember having access to anything like this and it probably would have been extremely useful at the time.

    "This is a great idea! Some of the earlier titles were OUTSTANDING in their simplicity, were designed by teachers, were less glitzy in multimedia...and would be great to review."

"Historical overviews, composed when it is still possible to get ahold of the people involved are rare in most areas where computers are involved, and have a potential for providing useful views on the contemporary development and thus what the future might or must hold."

Detailed results can be viewed at: http://www.stanford.edu/~kemery/classics/userstudy.htm

<top>


User Studies
Most of our user studies have been done in an informal context with both students of interaction design and with experts in the field of educational software design and interaction design. The visual design, the categorization and portrayal of information, and the navigation of the site all went through multiple iterations based on feedback from users. Within CS 377C [Interaction Design] and ED 229D [Learning Design & Technology] students critiqued all of the areas of the site listed above based on observational walk-throughs.

Findings:
Incorporation of Collaborative Aspects
Though the initial idea was to build and archive of relevant information about educational software, the user studies illustrated that the collaborative element of the site was equally important. The feedback showed an enthusiasm and desire to add to the information already present. Thus, we implemented not only a contribute page, where people can share their own information or suggestions/nominations, but also an area within the reviews of each software title where people can post their own memories or thoughts about a certain title.

Simple Categorization of Information throughout the Site
We became aware of the need to condense information into succinct parts to keep the user from being overwhelmed with the bulk of information available in the site. Paring down categories to encourage certain paths made it possible to find detailed information only when it was desired. We questioned the users to determine their preferences and natural mappings of the categories we wished to include, and formatted our overall site structure from these suggestions.

Simple Navigational Elements
Our initial idea was to have the information represented visually through the faded and highlighted boxes. Users found this to be innovative and exciting, but also wished to have a more traditional method to search and view information. Thus, we implemented a navigation bar on the left which helped to give access and comfort to all levels of users, from the novice students who do not recognize the images, to the expert designers who see their own picture in the grid.

Spare use of Color
We attempted to represent information by subtle color differences among the boxes on the main navigation page. The faded colors proved to be too light to distinguish differences and users were confused about the relationships between and among images. The images are not agreed back to the same color and highlight only when rolled over. We have added a comment section in the lower left of the web-browser window to delineate the different categories of images, e.g. "software: Rocky's Boots".

<top>