The way in which experimental data is collected and the results reported can negatively impact humans, animals, organisations, and the physical world (Hofstee 2006; Olivier 2004; Welman &
Kruger 2001). Guidelines to minimise the potentially negative impact of research are available and I list some of them here. First, research should be conducted in an honest manner (Olivier 2004). For example, research results are not to be fabricated, falsified or modified to fit the expected outcomes (Hofstee 2006). Second, human participants should not be subjected to physical harm, be embarrassed, or lose their privacy (Cooper & Schindler 2006). Cooper and Schindler (2006) also suggests that the potential benefits that the study holds and the rights of the participants should be explained to them and informed consent obtained. As shown in Appendix A, I completed a research ethics training course to familiarise myself with research ethics concepts and principles.
Cooper and Schindler (2006) define ethics as the norms that direct the researcher’s moral choices.
Yet, individuals may have differing and conflicting views on acceptable norms (Cooper & Schindler 2006). Also, Olivier (2004) puts it that the researcher may conduct his work with the best of
intentions but at the same time not be aware of all the consequences that may follow. A researcher has an opportunity to identify and correct ethical issues by presenting the project objectives and methodology to experienced researchers. It is for these reasons (among others) that ethics committees are established at universities and research institutions (Olivier 2004).
Participants were introduced to the researcher and research assistants at the onset of each science fair workshop. They were then briefed on the research objectives and the technology used, explained the activities to follow, and what their role was. Adults who assumed responsibility for the children then gave signed consent. I also ensured that the children assented to the activities. The responsible adults were invited to watch the workshop proceedings. I ensured that a teacher was always present during activities involving kindergarten children. Appendix B contains an ethics checklist with declaration, and the ethics committee’s approval to conduct the research. An example of the participant instructions and consent form is given in Appendix C.
Participants remained with the TekkiKids study for two years. The research objectives were therefore explained once with this being at the initial introductions. On this occasion, the participants also assented to the research and informed consent was obtained. The objective of a particular session would occasionally deviate from the original plan. When this happened, the changes were explained to the children at the onset of a session. The TekkiKids project manager affirms in Appendix D that the children had assented to the research. He also states in it that the parents had given their consent. Appendix E shows the invitation to participate given to the children as well as the consent form completed by the child’s legal guardian.
I endeavoured to maintain participant privacy by storing data separate from personally identifying information. Participant identifying information was captured on paper and filed in my locked office.
I stored data on secure servers where my login credentials and password denied access to unauthorised persons. Participant information will be destroyed simultaneously with the publication of this thesis. Images and data were anonymised before being published in research literature.
I was therefore careful to treat the participants with sensitivity and not isolate them physically from their peers. I also considered the psychological impact and the ethical implications of my actions.
Finally, I kept participant identifying data confidential and strived to ensure their anonymity.
5.4 Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented the philosophical stance that underpinned my research. My ontological view was biased towards nominalism, my epistemological assumption that was biased towards interpretivism, and my assumptions regarding human nature was a balance between the
deterministic and voluntaristic views. I also discussed the Design Science Research methodology and my motivation for selecting Vaishnavi and Kuechler’s (2008) general methodology. I explained the methods applied to each process step in this methodology. I then distinguished between the evaluation metrics applied to the interim and the final artefacts. The inclusion of children as evaluation participants was motivated and I explained their roles as users, testers, and informants. I discussed the mechanisms by which I collected and analysed data. Finally, I motivated why ethical guidelines are necessary and how I addressed them.
CHAPTER 6
DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Theoretical background
Chapter 5 Research methodology
Chapter 6
Design, implementation, and evaluation
Chapter 7 Primary research contribution
Chapter 8 Conclusion
Chapter 4
Literature review: Tangible programs Chapter 3
Literature review: Tangible objects
Figure 6-1 Document structure
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I discuss the design, implementation, and evaluation of a series of tangible programming environments that were developed with the aim of answering the secondary research questions stated in Chapter 1. I reiterate them here:
a. What program elements are suitable for a tangible programming environment in which the programmer can incorporate personally meaningful tangible objects?
b. How can a user associate personally meaningful tangible objects with program elements?
c. How can the arrangement of these personally meaningful objects be interpreted as program statements?
I will apply the new knowledge gained here to answer in Chapter 7 the primary research question, namely:
In the context of existing tangible programming environments and considering how tangible objects are currently used when interacting with data, what are the constructs to incorporate into a model for creating tangible programming environments in which the relative positions of personally meaningful objects define the program, and how do these constructs interact and relate to one another?
The research reported here is my own. Portions of this chapter were presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed proceedings. Page iii lists my publications since 2010. The papers published during the course of this research each addresses a particular problem. All papers were peer-reviewed and are included in conference proceedings. Smith (2008c) is an exception since it was presented at a conference but no proceedings were published. The relevant publications for the first iteration are Smith (2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008c, 2010b) and Smith, Kotzé and Gelderblom (2011a). Results of the second iteration are reported in Smith (2008a, 2008c, 2009c, 2009d, 2010b), Smith, Foko and Van Deventer (2008), and Smith et al. (2011a). Knowledge gained in the third iteration are reported in Smith (2008c, 2009d, 2009e, 2010b, 2014b), Smith et al. (2008), Smith et al.
(2011a), and Smith and Gelderblom (2013a, 2013b). Smith (2009b) gives an overview of the first four iterations. For the fourth iteration, the relevant publication is Smith (2010a). Smith (2014a) reports on the fifth iteration while my initial model for tangible programming environments is described in Smith and Gelderblom (2016).
I now describe two related projects to which I made intellectual contributions. These are the StoryBeads (Reitsma 2011; Reitsma et al. 2013; Smith, Reitsma, Hoven, Kotzé & Coetzee 2011b) research project and the Tactuslogic (Smith, Springhorn, Mulligan, Weber & Norris 2011c) tangible programming environment. The StoryBeads research project is relevant since it deals with personal and community-wide meaning that an object holds. The project outcome both confirmed and influenced my decision to use personally meaningful objects in a tangible program. Finally, the
Tactuslogic project served as a test bed for a tabletop tangible program and confirmed the artefact design approach I followed in the fifth iteration.
The design of a tangible programming environment was refined through five iterations. Figure 6-2 summarises this design progression. The first three iterations (these being GameBlocks I, GameBlocks II, and RockBlocks) interpret tangible programs and produce results that affect the physical domain. Iterations four and five (Dialando and T-Logo) produce results in the digital domain.
Output
Figure 6-2 The five design iterations and their properties
Figure 6-3 graphically relates the five iterations to the section numbers in which they are discussed.
This figure is based on the Design Science Research process model (Vaishnavi & Kuechler 2013) and makes explicit for each iteration the design knowledge that supported the Suggestion step and the new knowledge that emerged. I will use portions of this graphic to introduce each iteration and insert iteration-specific text in the Design Knowledge and New Knowledge blocks.
I based my artefacts on three Gestalt principles as summarised in Figure 6-3. The Gestalt principle of good continuation was applied to the first, second, third, and fourth iterations. The Gestalt principle of grouping by common region was considered but discarded in the fifth iteration. For the fifth
iteration I designed and successfully implemented a tangible programming environment based on the Gestalt principle of grouping by proximity.
Operational principles
Figure 6-3 The five iterations in context of the Design Science Research methodology
Based on Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2013)
The initial design was informed by knowledge that the test participants would be children with abundant energy. I therefore designed the programming objects to be as large as possible and encourage whole body movement when the user constructed a program (Smith 2006). The result was that children had to use both hands to manipulate the object and they also had to constantly shift position around the programming area on the floor. However, evaluation results revealed that the children considered the objects as being too large. The object size was progressively reduced in consecutive iterations to the point where many objects can be held in the palm of the hand. Across the iterations, there was thus a progression from the floor-based design using large objects to a table-top version and smaller objects.
This chapter is structured as follows: The sections each describe a single iteration where Section 2 discusses the first iteration that I call GameBlocks I and Section 3 covers the second iteration called GameBlocks II. This is followed by Section 4 in which the RockBlocks (the third iteration) is explained.
The fourth iteration (Dialando) is covered in Section 5. The fifth and last iteration, called T-Logo, is discussed in Section 6. Section 7 concludes this chapter.