towards understanding human-media interaction: the effect of human's absence vs....

Danish Journal of Psychology Sciences , August, 2015, Pages: 51-69

51

51

Towards Understanding Human-Media Interaction: The Effect of Human's Absence vs. Computer's Voice on Detecting Young Users’

Behavioural Interaction Development through a Digital-Playground®

Adel M. Agina1, Dr. Piet A. Kommers 2, Prof. Dr. Dirk Heylen 3

1PhD Researcher University of Twente, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics & Computer Science (EEMCS)/ Human-Media-Interaction, P. O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, the Netherlands

Tel: +218911555810/Fax: +31534891104 [email protected]

Webpage: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=e8TU3t8AAAAJ&hl=en

2 University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, P. O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands Tel: +31534893576/Fax: +31534891104

[email protected] Webpage: http://www.utwente.nl/bms/mco/en/emp/kommers

3 University of Twente, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics & Computer Science (EEMCS)/ Human-Media-

Interaction, P. O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands Tel: +31534893315/Fax: +31534893315

[email protected] Webpage: http://wwwhome.ewi.utwente.nl/~heylen/Home.html

A r t i c l e I n f o r m a t i o n A b s t r a c t

Article history: Received: 6 June Received in revised form: 24 July Accepted: 27 July Available online: August Keywords: Compulsory-Interaction Inner-interaction Spontaneous-Interaction Undesirable-Interaction Digital-Playground Corresponding Author: Adel M. Agina [email protected] © 2015 Danish Journals All rights reserved

Agina, Kommers and Steehouder (2011) introduced a study to explore the effect of the external regulator's absence on children's speech use, manifested self‐regulation, and task performance during learning tasks. The effect was explored through a special computer‐based methodology that relied on special Digital‐Playground®. The designed Digital‐Playground® was essentially used to ran the entire experiment without any sign of Human‐Human‐Interaction (HHI) either before, during, or after the progression. Technically, no instructor, teacher, parents, experimenter, caregiver, or any other human was engaged as no previous training was offered to the young users on how to use the environment or what should they do either before, during, or after the experiment. In terms of Human‐Media Interaction (HMI), that experimental design was very motivational reason to introduce the present study that basically aiming to analyzing the effect of human's absence vs. computer's voice on young user's behavioural interaction development. The designed Digital‐Playground® introduced the voice of computer by two different but related modes. First, through the two different computer's interactional voices of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent) and, second, by applying them (spoken vs. silent) through three different units of computer's task feedback (spoken vs. visualization‐representation vs. no task feedback). The two units, accordingly, yielded three different modalities of interaction (Direct‐ vs. Visual‐ vs. Silent). To analyze the resulted interaction, four different measurements were used. First, a set of common rules to capture the interaction during the progression, second, a set of new developed principles to count the occurrences of the interaction, third, a set of new developed principles to calculate the degree of the task performance as a function of interaction and, forth, A computer‐based friendly‐chat questionnaire to evaluate the degree of the interaction with the Digital‐Playground (i.e., satisfaction). The analytical reflection of the critiques on the previous work showed that, the interaction, by nature, is diversity and has many forms (Compulsory vs. Undesirable vs. Inner vs. Spontaneous) in which each of which has a different behavioral development and mechanism. The analysis of the final outcomes showed that the compulsory‐ and undesirable‐interaction are highly affected by the proposed three computer's interactional modalities (Direct vs. Visual vs. Silent) and the mode of the computer’s interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent). However, neither the young users' task performance nor their satisfaction has affected either by the computer’s spoken task feedback or by the computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent). To our knowledge so far, the analytical reflection and the final outcomes have never seen before.

To Cite This Article Adel M. Agina , 1PhD Researcher University of Twente, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics & Computer Science (EEMCS)/ Human-Media-Interaction, P. O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, the Netherlands, Danish journal of Psychology Sciences, Vol. 2, 51-69, 2015


52

52

1. Introduction Children’s play, which is better defined as “young users' use” in terms of Human-Media-Interaction[HMI]), often takes place at playgrounds (Moreno, van Delden, Reidsma, Poppe & Heylen, 2012). Playgrounds can take many forms ranging from the traditional school or park playground to novel interactive digital playgrounds. Digital playgrounds differ from traditional ones in that they are augmented with different kinds of technologies that can enhance engagement, entertainment, social interaction, physical exertion and immersion (Bichard & Waern, 2008; Seitinger, 2006). However, the literature, so far, still lacks researches that use such an edutainment digital-playground that acts as a stand-alone environment to prevent Human-Human-Interaction (HHI) either before, during, or after the progression to explore the extent the HMI can be used as close as possible to natural HHI. Agina, Kommers and Steehouder (2011) introduced a computer-based methodology that relied on special Digital-Playground®. The designed Digital-Playground was essentially used to ran the entire experiment without any sign of Human-Human-Interaction (HHI) either before, during, or after the progression. Technically, no instructor, teacher, parents, experimenter, caregiver, or any other human was engaged as no previous training was offered to the young users on how to use the Digital-Playground or what should the young users do either before, during, or after the experiment. In terms of Human-Media Interaction (HMI), that experimental design was very motivational reason to introduce the present study that basically aiming to analysing the effect of human's absence vs. computer's voice on young user's developmental interaction behavior. Despite the different and various outcomes concerning young user's development, the previous work so far still relies on Human-Human Interaction (HHI). HHI is usually used in the form of a real human who acts as an external instructor, advisory, regulator or most often the experimenter, himself, always interfered to help the participants either before, during, or after the progression. Remarkably, all the previous work, especially with young users, the external regulator is inevitable either before (How to train the young users to use the stimulus material?), during (What should young users do during the progression especially when they are seeking help instructions?), or after (How can young users be able to answer the associated questionnaire without HHI?) whereas the literature has drastically demonstrated that the self-report measures do not necessarily give a reliable picture of the users' exact process they actually engage in (e.g., Winsler, Abar, Feder, Schunn, and Rubio, 2007). Therefore, given the cognitive fact that the use of HHI with the young users during the progression distorts, if not entirely destroys, the natural mechanism of interaction, the given three processes “before”, “during”, and “after” remain as the most significant challenge especially with young users. Thus, the present study considers those processes to analyze the developmental interaction behavior (how does the interaction occur?) and clarifies the mechanism of the interaction (how does the interaction work?). 1.1 Practical Critiques on the Previous Work: Interaction, by Nature, is Diversified The current section is an analytical reflection to clarify the nature diversity of interaction based on the fact that, the literature still relies on the use of HHI either before, during, or/and after the progression (e.g., Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005; Girbau, 2002; Muraven, 2010; Tang, Bartsch, & Nunez, 2007; Winsler, Abar, Feder, Schunn, & Rubio, 2007). This section also shows why the nature of human interaction is not what the researchers thought it should be. 1.1.1 The Compulsory-Interaction vs. Undesirable-interaction To date, researchers in most reported studies, especially concerning young user's development, usually supported their participants with explicit instructions. Those instructions are mainly in the form of spoken encouragement cues during the progression to enable the participants to talk aloud. The researchers considered this 'loudly-speech' as a sing/factor that the participants use to describe their thoughts and feelings with the environment (i.e., the participants' interaction). Therefore, the researchers are also prompting (actually, forcing) their participants to continue talking to themselves loudly when the participants keep silent for long periods (i.e., the researchers believed that the participants' interaction with the environment will be lost if they stop talking to themselves!). At the end, if the participants talk about the subject matter, the researchers considered that as task-related speech and task-unrelated speech if the participants talk about something else. This practice, however, places artificial constraints on the entire situation, changes the cognitive processes and task activities required, and distorts the natural emergence of the young users' interaction (i.e., the young user's interaction will be negatively affected and will not be clear). Thus, the present study considered that as compulsory-interaction (task-related speech) and undesirable-interaction (task-unrelated speech). In terms of human nature, instructing or motivating the participants to think and talk loudly during the progression is obviously an actual compulsory-interaction. Technically, the participants were clearly forced/obligated/compelled to interact with the environment regardless whether they like it or dislike it. In other words, their free-well to make their own choice to talk about the environment has drastically been forced to be disabled (i.e., they must talk) and that is why the interaction has classified as compulsory-interaction in case the participant's speech is task-related and undesirable-speech in case of task-unrelated speech.


53

53

1.1.2 The Compulsory-Interaction and Undesirable-interaction vs. Inner-interaction In terms of both HMI and human nature, the participant's inner-speech (i.e., inner-interaction) is clearly versus the compulsory- and undesirable- interaction. This fact leads to realize that why the participants are usually producing the compulsory- and undesirable interaction because both make a collision with their free will. onsequentially, the present study defines the inner-interaction as “the participants' nonverbal-thinking about the current task when they act alone and without HHI either before, during, or after the progression”. This definition means that the inner-interaction is completely differ from one task to another based, essentially, on the task complexity (simple vs. complex level) and task precision (correct vs. incorrect answer). The present study analyses how the young users' inner-interaction with the Digital-Playground. Occurs and how can it be evaluated at each task and how can it be distinguished and differentiated from the other types of interaction. In terms of task performance, if the young user, on one hand, completes a task simply to receive a grade and the grade is not what he thought it should be, then he will be disappointed and provide less effort in the next task (i.e., less interaction will be showed/gained in the next task). On the other hand, the young user who completes a task to satisfy his curiosity and receives an average grade will provide more efforts in the next task to quench his curiosity or master a skill (e.g., Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1994). This conclusion, to a great extent, makes a ‘collision/contradiction’ with the fact that whether the young user's task precision (i.e., correct vs. incorrect answer) is an actual and real measurement of the higher vs. lowest interaction respectively for both compulsory- and inner-interaction. Based on that, choosing the level of the task complexity (simple vs. complex) is also under questioning in terms of HMI! The present study takes seriously this point into account and consideration. In terms of compulsory-interaction, the researchers, on one hand, have to be sure that the participants are actually reporting the exact status of their actual interaction and without being cognitively distorted or overloaded. This problem always remains and undeniable given the fact that, the compulsory-interaction leads the participants, especially young users, to a great extent to produce the compulsory-interaction. In specific, the participants, especially young users, should not feel they are taking part in a social intervention before, during, or after the progression. This sense, in terms of HMI, should be avoided or, at least, reduced to a minimum (Bernardini, 1999), which is also critical in terms of how can HMI be used as close as possible to natural HHI. On the other hand, there is another undeniable reason for concern: if the young users keep silent for a long time the compulsory-interaction, to a great extent, becomes useless and invaluable because significant parts of the cognitive process may not be investigated and might change the status of the actual compulsory-interaction. However, the use of the recommended reminder “Keep Talking” by another human (teacher, instructor, parents, experimenter, … etc), using the common question “What are you thinking?” or reminding the participants to think aloud by any way/mean (e.g., Krahmer & Ummelen, 2004) during the progression has a clear collision with HMI as it may interrupts the participants' actual inner-interaction especially if the participants are young users at an early age where losing and splitting their attention is very easy to occur either before, during, or after the progression! 1.1.3 Compulsory-Interaction vs. Spontaneous-Interaction Remarkably, many researches in the literature studied this problem in terms of participants' speech (private vs. social) and thinking aloud which is usually the behavior under study (Daugherty, White, & Manning, 1994). Drastically, thinking aloud has always considered as a high level of the participants' interaction because, suppose, the participants are spontaneously talking to themselves and loudly thinking about their exact thoughts and feelings regarding the given task. In terms of human nature, however, this ‘‘thinking aloud”, as a method of eliciting data, is not the same as the natural “thinking aloud” in the everyday sense, which entails something other than sitting people down next to a tape recorder and asking (i.e., forced) them to talk or/and think loudly (Jääskeläinen, 1999). Stated differently, the pure thinking aloud, by nature, should spontaneously be occurred and without any HHI. In terms of HMI, thinking aloud, based on its natural mechanism, can be considered as the spontaneous-interaction, which is completely differ from the compulsory-interaction, and inner-interaction. Accordingly, the present study defines the spontaneous-interaction as “the participants' spontaneous verbal-thinking about the current task when they act alone and without HHI either before, during, or after the progression”. In more specific, the participants who were asked to talk to themselves or think aloud, as a part of the research method, will not talk to themselves or think aloud spontaneously. Instead, they talk to themselves and think aloud because they have been previously forced to do so. Practically, they have been compelled/forced/obligated to interact with the Digital-Playground, which can be clearly considered as a compulsory-interaction. Therefore, the presence of another person, as an external regulator such as the teacher, experimenter, parents … etc., creates the problem of separating the compulsory-interaction from the spontaneous-interaction given the fact that both of them have the same mechanism of occurrence (i.e., both of them are verbal and task-related speech). Accordingly, it is a question that whether young users, especially at an early age, are able to assimilate the meaning of the common recommended reminder “keep talking” or the common question “What are you thinking?” during the progression to correctly verbalizing their thoughts and feelings or show their actual level of interaction! The current study takes this issue into account and


54

54

consideration by exploring how the spontaneous-interaction occurs and how can it be counted, distinguished and differentiated from the compulsory-interaction. 1.2 The Rational of the Present Study: Why the present study should be raised? To date, the previous researches still relay on a human (i.e., teacher, instructor, experimenter, etc) as an external guidance/regulator not only to control the experiment but also to control the delivery of the interactional voices of encouragement cues especially during the progression. Therefore, they relied on HHI to offer the training session on how to use the stimulus material before the actual experiment starts. In terms of HMI, however, no study yet tries to analyzing the effect of the computer, as an external regulator, on young users' interaction especially when they act alone in an isolated computer-based environment (Digital-Playground.). Accordingly, the present study aimed to analyzing the effect of computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues on young users' interaction (compulsory-, vs. undesirable- vs. inner- vs. spontaneous-interaction), task performance as a function of inner-interaction, and satisfaction (i.e., the extent the young users interact with the Digital-Playground when they act alone and without any HHI either before, during, or after the experiment as shown in Figure (1).

Figure 1. The study general scheme The study general scheme, as shown in Figure (1), raises an important question: whether the computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues would lead young users to produce different types of interaction. Therefore, whether the computer, per se, will be able to, first, counting the occurrence of the inner-interaction, second, calculating the task performance as a function of inner-interaction and, third, shows clearly the mechanism of the spontaneous-interaction (i.e., how does spontaneous-interaction occurs?). At the end, how the computer measures the degree of the young users' interaction (i.e., satisfaction) without using HHI? Simply put, the rational of the present study lies behind the issue of whether young users can act alone in an isolated computer-based environment (Digital-Playground.) and whether the computer, per se, is able to apply the three processes “before”, “during”, and “after” the progression with young users at an early age. Simply, how can the HMI be used as close as possible to natural HHI with young users but without HHI?! The present study aimed to make the computer, as an instrument through the Digital-Playground (V. 1.0 ®), to control the entire experiment before, during, and after the progression to analyzing the actual interaction in terms of HMI. 2. The Research Scheme The proposed research model was basically relying on two opposite modes of computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent) with three different interactional units of computer's task feedback (spoken vs. visual vs. no task feedback). The model assumed two equal groups of young users. Each group started with one of the three proposed modalities (Direct- vs. Visual- vs. Silent-interaction). The two groups should equally follow the same three units of the computer's task feedback but in a reverse order as shown in Figure (2).


55

55

Figure 2. The proposed research model

2.1 Modality-1: Direct-Interaction In the unit of the spoken computer’s task feedback for both groups/conditions, the computer verbally encouraged young students every 10 seconds during each task to think and talk (i.e., to show more interaction) while they progressed through a set of computer's spoken interactional voice of encouragement cues (Table 1). The time 10 seconds was given based on the average the teachers encouraged their students (users) in the classroom. Computer also verbally and clearly informed the young user whether the task was correctly or incorrectly answered (“Your answer is correct / Your answer is incorrect”).

Table 1. The computer’s spoken interactional mode of encouragement cues during the Modality-1

The Original Spoken Interactional Mode

(As verbalized during the progression.)

English Translation

(The translation was based on the meaning)

The alternatives of the common question "What are you thinking?"

I am listing, I am listing. Where is the answer? If you understand the question, then where is the answer? You are silent, is there anything difficult?

The alternatives of the recommended reminder "Keep Talking"

Clearly, the task is very easy; then the answer is easy too. You know the answer, say it. Anything you want to say about the answer.

The pilot investigation, which was conducted prior to the present research, showed that young users were unable to assimilate or even perfectly respond to the common recommended reminder ‘‘Keep talking” or the common question “What are you thinking?”. Based on that, the teachers, who closely cooperated with the researcher, developed an alternative set of computer's spoken interactional voice of encouragement cues based on their experience in the classroom as illustrated in Table (1). The computer was randomly using that set during the progression to encourage young users to interact while they acting alone with the Digital-Playground.. 2.2 Modality-2: Visual-Interaction In the unit of the visual computer's task feedback for both groups, the computer showed happy or unhappy icons/faces for the correct and incorrect answers respectively without any computer's spoken interactional voice of encouragement cues as shown in Figure (3).


56

56

(Right Answer) (Wrong Answer)

Figure 3. Modality-2: the visualization-representation of the task feedback

These conventional icons were very familiar to all participants as the signs used by their teachers for the “good” and ‘‘not good” achievements in the classroom activities and in their home-assignment as well. When the young user answered correctly or incorrectly, a happy or unhappy face was respectively presented in the middle of the screen for five seconds while the Princess and Superman followed the same reaction (i.e., the Princess and Superman were also showed happy and happy reaction too) as shown in Figure (3). 2.3 Modality-3: Silent-Interaction In the unit of the computer's no task feedback (i.e., silent) for both groups, the computer presented the choice of the next task-level (choose simple/complex level) instantly after finishing the current task (i.e., no spoken or visual feedback about the previous task and without the spoken computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues during the progression). In simple words, there was nothing more than selecting the task complexity (simple/complex level) of the next task and answering the actual task itself till the end of the given tasks as shown in Figure (4).

Figure 4. Modality-3: the Silent-Interaction

3. The Study Expectations and Main Questions

3.1 First Expectation and Question Young users who start with Modality-1 (Direct-Interaction) gain higher compulsory-interaction than the other

young users. What is the influence of the computer's interactional voice (spoken vs. silent encouragement cues) on the young

users' compulsory-interaction?

3.2 Second Expectation and Question Young users who start with Modality-1 (Direct-Interaction) gain higher inner-interaction than the other young users. What is the influence of the computer's interactional voice (spoken vs. silent encouragement cues) on the young

users' inner-interaction?

3.3 Third Expectation and Question Young users who start with Modality-1 (Direct-Interaction) achieve better task performance than the other

young users. What is the influence of the computer's interactional voice (spoken vs. silent encouragement cues) on the young

users' performance?

3.4 Forth Expectation and Question Young users who start with Modality-1 (Direct-Interaction) gain higher level of satisfaction than the other young users.


57

57

Do the young users interact with the stimulus material? To what extent? Given the fact that the spontaneous-interaction should occur spontaneously, it is quite hard to state any expectation or a question about that. The present study takes, seriously, in hand where, when and how the young users' spontaneous-interaction occurs (if it occurs already). 4. Material and Methods The present study was an attempt to analyzing the interaction through the effect of human's absence vs. computer's voice on young users' interaction through a computer-based methodology. This methodology is completely relying on computer before, during, and after the progression. The methodology used special Digital-Playground that works through a special model. The model has been developed through a number of pilot studies prior to this research. To our knowledge so far, this kind of methodology has never been used before as it has never used to analyze the interaction in terms of HMI. The present study used the same experimental design, material, participants, tasks, experimental conditions, procedure, and results to mainly analyzing the young users' interaction in two directions. First, analyzing the young users' developmental interaction behavior (how does the interaction occur?). Second, clarifying the mechanism of the interaction (how does the interaction work?). 4.1 Materials The present study uses the environment (Digital-Playground) version 1.0® (see Agina, Kommers, Steehouder, 2011), which involves two different modes of computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent). The Digital-Playground® applied the two modes with three different instructional units of computer's task feedback (spoken vs. visualization-representation vs. silent). Each instructional unit encouraged interaction on a different modality (direct vs. visual vs. silent). 4.2 Participants The participants were 40 young users (Mage = 5.4 years) from Al-Dahra preschool, which is one of the public preschools at the center of Tripoli/Libya. The teachers, with closely co-operation with the researcher, distributed the participants into two equivalent groups. Each group involved 20 participants (10 boys and 10 girls). All the participants spoke Libyan as their native language, which is a hybrid of Arabic and Italian and was also the language used by the computer. The school medical records were revised for all the participants to ensure that there is no sign for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or similar challenges such as the Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) or problems with hearing or vision such as color blindness. In simple words, all the participants were healthy young users and all of them already experienced the use of the computer in different manners.

4.3 The Proposed Tasks Each unit of the computer's task feedback (spoken vs. visual vs. silent) involved seven tasks. In each unit, there were one puzzle, two numbers-matching tasks (simple and complex), two tasks of social activities (simple and complex), and two picture-arrangement tasks (simple and complex). The puzzle tasks were simple but not inviting young student to interact (unmotivated tasks according to the teachers’ judgment. As an effort to avoid the external intervention and undesirable cognitive processes during the progression, the tasks were introduced based on the young users’ classroom daily progression (i.e., each unit starts with two tasks of numbering matching followed by two tasks of picture-arrangement, two tasks of social activities and ended by one puzzle). The tasks in the three units have the same type but no task is similar to another one. Most importantly, whatever the young users decided to choose next about the task complexity (simple/complex level), the computer introduced the tasks in the sequence of simple, complex, simple, complex and so on. The computer allowed the child 60 seconds to choose the task level and another 60 seconds to answer, which is the regular time given by the teachers at the school to the young users to act and react. The system was implemented to follow the same behavior to avoid young users to bother because of the time allotment during the progression.

4.4 The Experimental Conditions To study the influence of the computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent), the three units of the computer's task feedback (spoken vs. visual vs. silent) were offered to the participants in a reverse order (i.e., two different orders) as shown in Figure (5).


58

58

Figure 5. Applying the proposed model through the experimental conditions and proposed tasks

In first order (Group-1 in Figure 5), the young users started with the Direct-Interaction Modality (i.e., the spoken computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues with spoken task feedback: your answer is correct/incorrect), followed by the Visual-Interaction Modality (i.e., the spoken computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues with the computer's interactional visualization-representation of the task feedback), and ended by the Silent-Interaction Modality (i.e., no computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues with no task feedback :- user does not know whether the answer is correct or incorrect). In the second order (Group-2 in Figure 5), the young users started in a reverse order: they started with the Silent-Interaction Modality, followed by the Visual-Interaction Modality, and ended by the Direct-Interaction Modality.

4.4.1 Measuring the Young Users' Compulsory-Interaction and Undesirable-Interaction The young users' compulsory-interaction was captured by any utterance about the task, explanation or comments about the answer or question, or ongoing process (this is the same of what already so-called task-related speech in developmental research concerning young human [e.g., Winsler et al., 2005]). Therefore, only the short sentences (i.e., murmuring such as ‘‘offfff’’, ‘‘aha’’, ‘‘wow’’, ‘Omm’ and so on, whispers, and inaudible lip movements) were also counted as compulsory-interaction too. Any other utterances were ignored and considered as undesirable-interaction (this is the same of what already so-called task-unrelated speech in developmental research concerning young users). Table (2) shows a number of actual examples of the compulsory- and undesirable-interaction utterances the young users had during the progression.


59

59

Table 2. Examples of the young users' compulsory- vs. undesirable-interaction utterances

Examples of the Young Users' Compulsory-Interaction

There is nothing difficult and the answer is easy. If I intentionally make the answer incorrectly, what will happen? I am trying to understand this question. When I get the answer I will touch it by my finger… I do not know it yet. Seems my current answer is incorrect. OFFF… What is wrong with us, you tell me why it is wrong? EY-YAH… always incorrect. Do not tell me this answer is incorrect. This is the answer. How superman got his clothes? Why there is a ball nearest to superman? I will tell dad to get this game at home. Why the teacher does not introduce us the questions by computer? Suppose the princess stands at the other side. There is no mouse.

4.4.2 Counting the Young Users' Inner-Interaction After each task during the progression, the young users had have to make a decision whether they want to proceed next with a more simple task by touching the letter “SEAN” (sounds as: SEAN) on the green board or more complex task by touching the letter “SAD” (sounds as: SAD') on the yellow board as shown in Figure (6).

Figure 6. Counting the occurrence of the inner-interaction (the correct decisions)

Those decisions, which were developed through a pilot study prior to the current research, were considered and counted as “the correct interactional decisions of the young user's manifested inner-interaction” based on four devolved principles as illustrated in Figure (7).


60

60

Figure 7. The principles of counting the young user's inner-interaction (the correct interactional decisions)

Figure (7) shows the scheme of how each principle works and how can each principle be counted as a correct or incorrect decision for each single task to finally count the total occurrence of the young user's inner-interaction during the progression. Table (3), therefore, illustrates the list of the four principles of the manifested inner-interaction and why using each principle (i.e., the rational of each principle).

Table 3. The four main principles of evaluating the young user's inner-interaction (the correct interactional decisions)

Principle

The Principle Context

The Rational of the Proposed Principle

1

A user chooses a simple task after he could not complete the previous task because of time.

Because the user realizes that the time does not work on his behalf and wants to take another correct try with the next task as a simple level.

2

A user chooses a complex task after he completed the previous task correctly for whatever the level of the previous task was.

Because the user realizes that he can challenge another task especially if his answer was correct AND the task level was complex.

3

A user decides to continue with the complex task after he completed the previous task correctly.

Because the user realizes that he can challenge any coming task for whatever the next level is (simple or complex).

4

A user decides to continue with the simple tasks after he completed the previous task incorrectly.

Because the user realizes that he should not go further with more complex tasks UNLESS he can answer the simple task(s) first.

4.4.3 Evaluating the Task Performance as a Function of the Young User's Inner-Interaction The computer was automatically scored the task performance as correct/incorrect for each task and related the final judgment to the choice of task complexity choice that the young user made (more simple/complex level) before presenting the actual task itself (Figure 8).


61

61

Figure 8. Evaluating the task performance as a function of inner-interaction

In specific, the score was related to the degree of the young user's inner-interaction (Table 3) for the presented current task itself. However, if the young user did not answer during the task allotted time (60 seconds), the computer was considered that as incorrect answer (this is exactly as the teachers followed in the classroom). The scoring system involves three grades (0, 1, and 2). Those grades were developed based on a pilot study prior to the present research as shown in Figure (9). For the sake of the clarity and simplicity, the scoring system will be, hereafter, named as TP-SCOR01 where the associated 01 indicated the release/version number.

Figure 9. The TP-SCORE01

Table (4) illustrates the scores of the TP-SCORE01 and the rational of each proposed score (i.e., when the system should use such a score and why the system uses that score).


62

62

Table 4. The scoring system for the task performance used by the system (TP-SCORE01)

Score

The Score Context

The Rational of the Proposed Score

0

For the correct answer at the simple level and incorrect answer at the complex level IF AND ONLY IF the current task level choice was a simple-level AND REGARDLESS the previous task answer.

Because the simple task can be easily answered even with a low degree of interaction as it is a natural response to answer the complex task incorrectly even with a high degree of interaction. Thus, the system scored zero point.

1

For the mid-level IF AND ONLY IF the young user answers the current task correctly. Reminder: the mid-level means that the participant did not make a choice about the task level (simple/complex) and waits for the system's default choice.

Because of the probability that, the young user may intentionally deselect the task level to examine what the system is going to present without making a choice, which is a degree of interaction that hardly to be instantly known (i.e., it is impossible to know whether the young user was really followed that behavior). Thus, the system scored one point if the young user’s answer is correct regardless the task actual level (simple/complex). Otherwise, the game scored zero point.

2

For the correct answer at the complex level and incorrect answer at the simple level IF AND ONLY IF the current task level choice was a complex level and the previous answer was correct.

Because the young user already regulated himself to face a complex task based on the correct answer of the previous task, which is naturally requiring a high degree of interaction to make this decision, the incorrect answer of the simple task is ineffective on the young user’s manifested interaction. Thus, the game scored two points even if the current task is simple and the child’s answer is incorrect. Otherwise, the game scored zero point.

4.4.4 Evaluating the Young Users' Degree of Interaction (Satisfaction) during Progression After completing the 21 tasks, the young users under both conditions were given the opportunity to describe their satisfaction about the Digital-Playground and the experimental settings (they were full free to react or to refuse). This process was through a friendly-chat questionnaire with the Princess and Superman that involved eight simple questions. The current study uses the friendly chat questionnaire version 1.0®. In specific, Superman started the questionnaire by informing the child that he (Superman) and the Princess would like to chat with him (the young user) about the game because he (the young user) showed a high degree of intelligence and could help to improve the game (this is regardless of the actual young user's achievement and as a motivation for the young users to react exactly as the teachers followed in the classroom). First, Superman asked the young user whether he would like to chat with them (the Princess and Superman) by touching the correct (agree) or incorrect (disagree) sign in the middle of the screen (Figure 10).

Figure 10. The Friendly-Chat Questionnaire

If the young user agreed, the Princess first told the child that whenever he did not understand the point, he (the young user) should touch her or Superman once again to repeat the explanation. For the next question, Superman asked the child to touch the correct sign once again within two minutes, which was the allotment time for each question. If the child agreed to answer by touching the correct sign, Superman asked a series of


63

63

questions. When the child either declined to chat or finished the questionnaire, the Princess moved the game to the reward session, which was the last session. Each young user was rewarded with a piece of chocolate (Kit-Kat/Mars), which were the favorites among the participants as their teachers reported. The Princess and Superman thanked the participant and informed him that he did a very nice job with high performance and told him that when the room light comes on, he will find the chosen chocolate with the teacher in the meeting room. 4.5 Data gathering - The system gathered data on factors such as the exact time the young user spent to start, the chosen task level,

the actual task level, the response time in milliseconds, the task precision (correct/incorrect answer) and task score and the manifested inner-interaction score for each young user.

- Video data were gathered and reviewed to classify and tabulate the utterances of all types of interaction. - The answers of the friendly-chat questionnaire was reviewed for all young users to ensure their responses. 5. Procedure 5.1 Settings The school has a special experimental room ready for any experiment with young users and their teachers. This room was located in a quiet corner, involved a child-sized chair, an external 17-inch touch-screen (to avoid any possible coordination problems for the young users) connected to a laptop computer, and two hidden portable video cameras. The first camera captured the entire environment, and the second offered a clear view of the task on the screen and the child’s face as shown in Figure (6) and Figure (8). An extra small microphone was connected to the second camera for better audio recording. Young users were kept unaware of the cameras and the microphone to avoid a problem of splitting attention that could lead to undesirable cognitive processes during the progression (i.e., undesirable-interaction).

5.2 The Welcome Session Each young user attended a five-minute welcome session in the preschool’s meeting room but did not receive any training on how to use the Digital-Playground or what exactly he should do. Instead, the young users were only told that the 'game' required a smart player to complete the tasks and that they should follow the instructions given by the computer after putting the headphone instantly and no more instructions were given to the young users. Young users were also told and became aware that neither their teacher nor the researcher would tell the answers or even know the tasks. All sessions were held in the morning at 9:30 AM to avoid differences due to fatigue. The actual experiment ran with two young users from each group per day (i.e., first two young users from the first group followed by two young users from the second group and so on). The entire experiment required ten days to be accomplished. 6. Results The initial research goal was to analyzing the effect of human's absence versus computer's voice on young users' interaction in two directions. First, analyzing the young users' developmental interaction behavior (how does the interaction occur?). Second, clarifying the mechanism of the interaction (how does the interaction work?). The present study also analyzing the task performance as a function of inner-interaction and the degree the young users interact with the Digital-Playground (i.e., satisfaction). The effect was examined when young users talk and think (i.e., interact) while acting alone during the progression through three different modalities of the computer's interaction (Direct vs. Visual vs. Silent). This was done by finding the differential effect between the two types of instructional conditions of the computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent) in a laboratory condition (school classroom) through an isolated computer-based environment (Digital-Playground) without the influence of HHI before, during, or after the progression. 6.1 The Effect of the Computer’s Interactional Voice of Encouragement Cues (Spoken vs. Silent) on

Young Users' Compulsory-Interaction (the first research question) The first research question addressed was concerned the influence of the computer’s interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent) on young users’ compulsory-interaction during the three different modalities of the computer's voice (Direct vs. Visual vs. Silent). As shown in Table (5), young users in Group-1 were more productive concerning the compulsory-interaction (49 utterances: 86%) than young users in Group-2 (12 utterances: 24%). In contrast, young users in Group-2 were more productive concerning undesirable-interaction (39 utterances: 76%) than young users in the Group-1 (8 utterances: 14%).


64

64

Table 5. The production of the young users’ compulsory-interaction vs. undesirable-interaction, by group

Young Users' Interactions (Compulsory vs. Undesirable)

Group-1 (n = 20) [57 Utterances]

Group-2 (n = 20) [51 Utterances]

Total of [108 Utterances]

Compulsory-Interaction

49 (86%)

12 (24%)

61 (56%)

Undesirable-Interaction

8 (14%)

39 (76%)

47 (44%)

To examine the effect of the computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent) on the young users' production of the compulsory-interaction vs. undesirable-interaction in the two groups, a chi-square test of independence was performed (Table 5). The result showed that the relation between these variables was clearly significant, χ2 (df = 1, N = 108) = 40.186, p < 0.001. This means that the computer’s interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent ) have a significant effect on the production of young users compulsory-interaction vs. undesirable-interaction during the three different modalities as shown in Table (6).

Table 6. The effect of the computer’s interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent) on young

users’ compulsory-interaction vs. undesirable-interaction during the three modalities, by group

How often did young users in both groups produce Compulsory- vs. Undesirable-interaction?

Group-1 (n = 20)

(Starts with Modality-1)

Group-2 (n = 20)

(Starts with Modality-3)

The Young Users' Interaction intensity

Total = 108 Utterances Modality-1*25

utterances

Modality-2*19

utterances

Modality-3*13

utterances

Total 57

utterances

Modality-3*15

utterances

Modality-2* 10

utterances

Modality-1* 26

utterances

Total 51

utterances

Compulsory-Interaction 61 Utterances (56%)

25

(100%)

11

(58%)

13

(100%)

49

(86%)

3

(20%)

No

utterance

9

(35%)

12

(24%)

Undesirable-Interaction

47 Utterances (44%)

No

utterance

8

(42%)

No

utterance

8

(14%)

12

(80%)

10

(100%)

17

(65%)

39

(36%)

* Modality-1: Direct-Interaction / Modality-2: Visual-Interaction / Modality-3: Silent-Interaction

The results, as shown in Table (6), confirmed the first expectation that young users who start with the direct-interaction gain higher compulsory-interaction (49 utterances: 86%) than the other young users (12 utterances: 24%).

6.2 The Effect of the Computer’s Interactional Voice of Encouragement Cues (Spoken vs. Silent) on

Young Users' Inner-Interaction (the second research question) The second research question addressed was concerned the influence of the computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent) on young users’ interaction during the three different modalities of the computer’s voice (Direct vs. Visual vs. Silent). Table (7) shows that, the young users in Group-1 outperformed the young users in Group-2 in the total of the inner-interaction (325 and 182 correct interactional decisions respectively). This is as expected in the second expectation.


65

65

Table 7. The difference in the manifested inner-interaction, by group

How often did young users in both groups gain the correct decisions (inner-interaction)?

The manifested inner-interaction (correct decisions) during:

Modality-1

(201 Decisions)

Modality-2

(169 Decisions)

Modality-3

(137 Decisions)

Totals

(507 Decisions)

Group

Group-1

Group-2

Group-1

Group-2

Group-1

Group-2

Group-1

Group-2

inner-interaction

126

(63%)

75

(37%)

109

(64%)

60

(36%)

90

(65%)

47

(35%)

325

(64%)

182

(36%) 6.3 The Effect of the Computer’s Interactional Voice (Spoken vs. Silent) on Young Users' Task

Performance (the third research question) The third research question addressed was concerned the influence of the computer’s interactional voice (spoken vs. silent) on young users’ performance during the three different type of the computer's modalities (Direct vs. Visual vs. Silent). To find out the influence, both ANOVA and ANCOVA were used respectively. The ANOVA, after controlling the task precision (i.e., task score [TP-SCORE01] as shown in Table 4), revealed no significant effect, F(3.85) = 0.15, p > .05, η² = .04, indicating as not expected in the third expectation that young users who started with the Direct-Interaction modality achieve better task performance than the other young users. To ensure the effect of the participants' gender, an ANCOVA was performed with condition (boys vs. girls) for each group to determine the effect of the gender (as a co-variant variable) on young users’ task performance. The quantitative explanatory variables were the young user’s task precision (correct and incorrect task answer) and young user’s age. The result revealed no significant condition effect for the young users who started with the Direct-Interaction modality, F(1.13) = 0.40, p > .05, as no significant condition effect for the young users who started with the Silent-Interaction modality, F(3.21) = 0.05, p >.05. The correlation between the young users' task precision (correct and incorrect task answer) and applying the principles of the correct decisions (Table 4) were (r = .01, ns) and (r = .02, ns) for both groups respectively.

6.4 The Effect of the Computer’s Interactional Voice (Spoken vs. Silent) on Young Users' Satisfaction (the

forth research question) The forth research question was addressed concerned whether young users who start with the Direct-Interaction modality gain higher degree of satisfaction (i.e., interaction) when acting alone in an isolated computer-based environment (Digital-Playground). Table (8) clarifies that young users showed almost the same degree of satisfaction when they act alone and without HHI. At both groups, young users showed no complain (100%) to use the Digital-Playground with no difficulties to select the task level (100%). Therefore, all young users were also agreed to use the Digital-Playground in the future (100%) and to recommend it as well (100%). However, (15%) of young users in Group-1 and (10%) of Group-2 were disliked the Digital-Playground where all young users (100%) in both groups were disagreed about the presence of their teacher during the progression. Therefore, two young students (5%) of Group-1 started the game after the first minute of the Game-Introduction where all young user in Group-2 started the game at the first minute. However, no young user at both groups refused to continue the game until the last session. The Mann Whitney U-test shows that the difference in the median values between the two conditions in the status of the “Agree/Disagree” is not great enough to exclude the possibility that the difference is due to random sampling variability. This means that there is no statistical significant difference between the two conditions (p = 1) indicates, as not expected, that young students who start with the Direct-Interaction modality gain higher level of satisfaction than the other young users when they act alone in an isolated computer-based environment (Digital-Playground).


66

66

Table 8. The young users' answers on satisfaction questions after completing the 21 tasks, by group

The Friendly-Chat Questionnaire

Group-1 (n = 20)

Group-2 (n = 20)

(1) The game is easy to use.

100%

100%

(2) It is easy to select the task level.

100%

100%

(3) All tasks are difficult.

25%

25%

(4) The task time is enough.

90%

85%

(5) You will play this game once again.

100%

100%

(6) You will recommend this game.

100%

100%

(7) You like this game.

85%

90%

(8) You want the teacher [name] to be with you.

Zero%

Zero%

7. Discussion and Conclusion The result of the present study shows that the young users' compulsory- and undesirable interaction are highly affected by the proposed three computer's interactional modalities (Direct vs. Visual vs. Silent) and the mode of the computer’s interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent). However, either the young users’ task performance or their satisfaction has affected either by the computer’s spoken task feedback or by the computer's interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent).

7.1 The Overall Production of Young Users' Interaction In sum, the significant effect of the computer’s interactional voice of encouragement cues (spoken vs. silent) is very clear. It increases the young users' compulsory-interaction more than the undesirable-interaction during the three modalities as shown in Figure (11). However, both the compulsory- and undesirable-interaction are not natural given the fact that the participants were forced to interact with the environment. Both the Modality-2 (visual-interaction) and Modality-3 (silent-interaction) increase the undesirable-interaction more than compulsory-interaction. In specific, young users in both groups produced more compulsory-interaction than undesirable-interaction during the Modality-1 (Group-1: 25+0 and Group-2: 17+9 respectively). In Modality-2, young users in Group-1 produced 11-utterances of compulsory-interaction and 9-utterances of undesirable-interaction more than Modality-3 (13+0 utterances respectively). This is in contrast with the young users in the Group-2 (10+0 and 12+3 in Modality2 and Modality-3 respectively). Remarkably, the interaction production of the young users in Group-1 during the Modality-1 was entirely compulsory-interaction (25 utterances: 100%). This is in contrast with the compulsory-interaction production of Group-2 (only 9 utterances mixed with 17-utterances of undesirable-interaction). This result confirmed the first expectation that the young users who started with the Direct-Interaction produce more compulsory-interaction (25+11+13=49 utterances) than the other young users (9+3=12 utterances). The overall results from this study show that young users who start with Modality-1 followed by Modality-2 and ended by Modality-3 (Group-1) outperform young users who start with Modality-3 followed by Modality-2 and ended by Modality-1 (Group-2) in which young users show higher production of the compulsory-interaction and higher degree of the manifested inner-interaction (325 and 182 correct decisions respectively). The effect can mainly be understood as producing a higher intensity of the compulsory-interaction than the undesirable-interaction with a higher degree of manifested inner-interaction.


67

67

Figure 11. The overall production of young user' interaction

7.2 Compulsory-Interaction vs. Spontaneous-Interaction Our subsequent investigation shows that when young users start with Modality-1 (the Direct-Interaction), they continue to talk to themselves (i.e., continue interacting) even during Modality-2 (the Visual-Interaction) and Modality-3 (the Silent-Interaction). This finding supports the previous work (e.g., Lee, 1999; Winsler et al., 2007 and many others). In contrast, when young users start with Modality-3, they are spontaneously talking to themselves and without any previous instructions or any kine of encouragement cues to do so. This is clearly spontaneous-interaction (or thinking aloud as known in developmental research) despite the low intensity (3 utterances – see Figure 9). This finding emphasizes that the compulsory-interaction is not the same as spontaneous-interaction in terms of how it occurs (i.e., they have different mechanism). This conclusion is practically clarifying the previous work's warns (e.g., Diaz & Berk, 1995 ; Krahmer & Ummelen, 2004) that: there are likely conditions under which giving young users instructions to use speech can hinder their natural performance (given the fact that the silent, as a unit, is the natural situation not only for the young but all users during the progression). On one hand, the present study shows the difference in the mechanism of the occurrence between the compulsory-interaction and spontaneous-interaction, which is a highest level of the actual HMI. Spontaneous-interaction, by nature, should occur spontaneously and without previous instruction to do so (i.e., spontaneous-interaction is the natural mental behavior). On the other hand, this finding indicates that some of the proposed tasks are already motivated enough for young users to loudly think and talk (i.e., to fully interact) without any previous encouragement cues or HHI to do so.

7.3 Reflection on the Computer-based Methodology Young users in the present study show almost the same level of satisfaction to simultaneously interact while they act alone. They provide evidence that they can interact with an isolated computer-based learning environment (Digital-Playground) without the need of HHI either before, during, or after the progression despite they are at an early age. This finding has never seen before, which, in turn, emphasizes that the methodology used by Agina and his colleagues (2011) eliminates the need of HHI even if the results as not as expected in some expectations. This is in contrast with all the previous methodologies (e.g., Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005; Tang et al., 2007; Winsler et al., 2007 and many others) that supports instructing or guiding the participants either before, during or/and after the performance as HHI. From a practical point of view, the present study, in terms of HMI, can be seen as the first application of the previous work (e.g., McClelland et al., 2007; Sektnan et al., 2010), which suggested that attention must be given to specific aspects of young users' environment that may influence the successful mastery of early academic skills. The participants should not feel any kind of social interaction or external intervention/regulation (i.e.,


68

68

HHI) that leads to increase both the undesirable- and compulsory-interaction more than the inner-interaction and, hence, causes cognitive overload that leads the production of the undesirable-interaction to be higher. In other words, interaction with others (e.g., teachers, experimenter … etc.) during the progression distorts the young users' cognitive processes and the production of the participants' inner-interaction. Instead, the young users should, indirectly and without splitting their attention, be encouraged to fully interact (i.e., to simultaneously think and talk while they acting alone). Technically, the Digital-Playground used in the present study has, to a great extent, solved that problem despite many parts of it still need to be upgraded while others may or may not need to be re-programmed.

7.4 Technical Reflection Remarkably, calculating the task performance as a function of inner-interaction is not presented as a regular as the previous work did. To our knowledge, this process has never seen before. However, the principles of the task performance (i.e., the TP-SCORE01) need to be upgraded given the fact that the system still returns the statement/value “Otherwise, the game scored zero point” whenever there is inapplicable value. Technically speaking, this statement/value means that there are many other principles (i.e., possibilities) were not listed in which the computer does not recognize them yet!. In more specific, although, the proposed methodology uses new principles as a new measurements of the inner-interaction and task performance as a function of inner-interaction, both measurements still need to be revisiting in terms of counting all the occurrences of the possible inner-interaction. This should be achieved into two main directions. First, the Digital-Playground needs to be updated to measure the extent that each young user applies each single principle of the correct decisions (i.e., each principle of the manifested inner-interaction). This is very sensitive factor in terms of the gender effect on overall performance. Second, the measurement of the task performance as a function of the inner-interaction (i.e., the TP-SCORE01) has to be definitely revisiting and extending to cover all the possibilities that the computer scores them by zero whenever it is inapplicable. Accordingly, the next study should take this point into account to develop more cohesive and precise principles and measurements with more specific scores. Most importantly and remarkable result concerning the feedback of all young users in both groups regarding the presence of their teacher (i.e., the need of HHI) during the progression is that, all the young users (100%) were disagreed. This is very motivated result that indicates, to a great extent, the usability of the Digital-Playground® despite many parts still need to be revisited while other need to be upgraded.

7.5 Limitations Despite the fact that some of the findings of the present study deviate from the previous studies, it is important to realize that, some of these results should be taken cautiously because of the small sample size involved. This limitation will be taken into account in the future work (mainly, to elaborate on these findings) and to investigate the other instructional sequences of the task feedback with other different and various parameters. Therefore, the effect of each instructional order/sequence/unit/modality on the task complexity (simple/complex level), task precision (correct/incorrect task answer) and the effect of the task type (puzzle, matching tasks, social activities, picture-arrangement, … etc) on the young users' compulsory-interaction, undesirable-interaction, inner-interaction, spontaneous-interaction, and task performance should also be deeply investigated. Given the fact that the inner-interaction has counted during the selection of the task complexity (more simple/complex task next) and before the computer starts the delivery of the interactional voice of encouragement, the present study does not actually determine the extent the inner-interaction has affected by the computer's interactional voice of encouragement (spoken vs. silent) and whether the second has really an effect or not. The same critique can be m about the effect of the different computer's task feedback on the inner-interaction. Many other limitations and critiques can be stated to lead the future work. The results of the satisfaction's questionnaire, remarkably, do not actually and precisely show the differences between the tow groups. This is probably due to a ceiling effect that means the questionnaire may not sufficiently discriminate and it has to be more accurate. Possible explanations of this ceiling effect can be stated in the fact that young users always show motivation to use computer, the computer, per se, is an appealing machine not only for young but all users, and the fact that young users are usually not used to express critiques in the school as they do at home. Many other reasons can be stated that, in turn, can lead the future work.

7.6 Recommendations for the Next Work The main recommendation of the present study is that the future research should take into account that young user are able to be fully interacted (i.e., they can simultaneously think and talk while they acting alone and without HHI either before, during, or after the progression). This means that the elicitation and distinguishing the young users' compulsory-interaction from their spontaneous-interaction will be more obvious and easier given the fact that both have the same mechanism of occurrence. Therefore, the manifested inner-interaction (i.e., the correct interactional decisions) and spontaneous-interaction can be definitely increased and improved to


69

69

be close as possible as to natural HHI and without the actual need of HHI. Accordingly, distinguishing young users' interaction (compulsory vs. undesirable) from their actual inner-interaction and spontaneous-interaction utterances will be easier and more obvious in which the future research should take the use of the standalone computer-based environments into account and consideration. This recommendation leads the future work to consider the importance of investigating the thinking aloud protocols with young users especially when they act alone in an isolated computer-based environment (Digital-Playground) and without HHI. From a practical point of view, the outcomes of the present study is highly recommending the investigation of the effect of the human's voice versus computer's voice on young users' interaction, task performance as a function of the inner-interaction, and satisfaction in an isolated computer-based environment (Digital-Playground).

7.7 The Next Work Given the present study's analytical reflection and the final outcomes, especially the result that all young users (100%) in both groups were disagreed about the presence of their teacher during the progression (i.e., no HHI needed), the analyses of the effect of the teacher's voice vs. computer’s voice (i.e., HHI vs. HMI) on the young users' behavioral interaction development, task performance as a function of the inner-interaction, and satisfaction rises as necessary as inevitable. This investigation will be the next study, which is currently under consideration. 8. References

1- Agina, A. M., Kommers, P. A. & Steehouder, F. (2011). The effect of the external regulator's absence on young student's

speech use, manifested self-regulation, and task performance during learning tasks. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1118-1128.

2- Bernardini, S. (1999). Using think-aloud protocols to investigate the translation process: Methodological aspects. Bologna: University of Bologna.

3- Bichard, J.P., Waern, A.: Pervasive play, immersion and story: designing interference. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts, DIMEA 2008, New York, NY, USA, pp. 10–17 (2008).

4- Diaz, R. M., & Berk, L. E. (1995). A Vygotskian critique of self-instructional training. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 369–392.

5- Fernyhough, C., & Fradley, E. (2005). Private speech on an executive task: Relations with task difficulty and task performance. Cognitive Development, 20, 103–120.

6- Girbau, D. (2002). A sequential analysis of private and social speech in children’s dyadic communication. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 52, 110–118.

7- Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J., & Gottfried, A. W. (1994). Role of parental motivational practices in children’s academic intrinsic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 104–113.

8- Jääskeläinen, R. (1999). Tapping the process: An explorative study of the cognitive and affective factors involved in translating. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.

9- Krahmer, E., & Ummelen, N. (2004). Thinking about thinking aloud: A comparison of two verbal protocols for usability testing. Netherlands: Tilburg University.

10- Lee, J. (1999). The effects of five-year-old preschoolers’ use of private speech on performance and attention for two kinds of problems-solving tasks. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences (Vol. 60(6-A), p. 1899).

11- McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ 705 literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 947–959.

12- Moreno, A., van Delden, R., Reidsma, D., Poppe, R. and Heylen, D. (2012). An Annotation Scheme for Social Interaction in Digital Playgrounds. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012.

13- Muraven, M. (2010). Building self-control strength: Practicing self-control leads to improved self-control performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2010), 465–468.

14- Seitinger, S. (2006). An ecological approach to children’s playground props. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children, IDC 2006, New York, NY, USA, pp. 117–120.

15- Sektnan, M., McClellanda, M., Acocka, A., & Morrisonb, J. (2010). Relations between early family risk, children’s behavioral regulation, and academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.02.005.

16- Tang, C. M., Bartsch, K., & Nunez, N. (2007). Young children’s reports of when learning occurred. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 149–164.

17- Winsler, A., Fernyhough, C., McClaren, E. M., & Way, E. (2005). Private speech coding manual. Unpublished manuscript. George Mason University: Fairfax, VA, USA. Available at: http://classweb.gmu.edu/awinsler/Resources/PsCodingManual. pdf

18- Winsler, A., Abar, B., Feder, M. A., Schunn, C. D., & Rubio, D. A. (2007). Private speech and executive functioning among high-functioning children with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1617–1635.

towards understanding human-media interaction: the effect of human's absence vs....

Documents