Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
sticking the three stickers into the spaces on the form in the appropriate order. A
question in the bottom of the form asked which intervention the children would
choose to read again. For this particular question, the children could only choose one
sticker to answer this question. All of the children completed the 'fun sorter'
questionnaire and, from our observation, seemed to enjoy the activity (Fig. 2).
The 'fun sorter' instrument provided insight into the reading intervention the
children enjoyed the most, the reading intervention children found the easiest to use
and the reading intervention that contained the most interesting stories. Additionally,
we found out which reading intervention children would select to read again.
Fig. 2.
Images from the Experiment
5
Results and Discussions
The Fun Sorters completed by the children were coded in an ordinal manner 1-3 for
each of the criteria Fun, Ease of use, and Best content. For example, 3 represented
most fun and 1 least fun. The last question in the 'fun sorter' (I would choose to read
from) was scored according to how many children chose that intervention. Table 1
shows, for each criterion, how many children ranked each intervention highest.
Table 1.
Frequency each intervention was ranked first in the fun sorter
TT
EB
PB
Fun
11
7
0
Ease of use
2
11
5
Best content
12
6
0
Child choice
13
5
0
The mean scores for fun were TT = 2.61, EB = 2.27, PB = 1.11. A Friedman test
revealed statistical significant difference in perceived fun on the different reading
interventions, χ
2
= 22.33, p<0.0005. Post hoc Wilcoxon tests revealed the PB were
ranked significantly lower than both TT and EB, but the difference between the EB
and the TT was not significant. Children found 'Trees of Tales' the most enjoyable
reading experience of the three interventions tested. This could be due to the visual
and interactive elements in the application that encourages children to build the scene
of the stories in a playful sense.
The mean scores for ease of use were TT = 1.83, EB = 2.39, PB = 1.78. A
Friedman test revealed that there was no significant difference in perceived ease of
use among the three interventions. However, table. 1 illustrates that only two children
