LA EDUCACIÓN EMOCIONAL COMO ESTRATEGIA EDUCATIVA

The goal was to extend the guidance provided by the Task Tokens by assigning roles for each task. Thus, the original task sequence (reading, clarifying, summarizing and questioning) is maintained (see Figure 6.4). In the reading phase all learners have the role of a ‘reader’. For the other tasks three different roles are assigned to different group members: (1) recorder, (2) teacher and (3) student. Therecorderwrites a protocol of every noteworthy information that is verbalized in the collaborative process (independent of the task). The notes could be in the form of keywords or sentences. The responsibilities of teacherand student depend on the task. In the clarifying phase all group members can ask and answer clarifying questions. In the summarizing phase the

6.2 Role Assignment 123

# 11 Reader Questioner _(teacher) Recorder Student Reader Questioner _(student) Listener _(teacher) Recorder Reader Recorder Summarizer _(student) Teacher

!"#$%% &''()*+$*,%

!"#$% &'()%&$)*+(%

Reading Clarifying Summarizing Questioning

-&'.%% &''()*+$*,%

Reader Teacher Recorder Student

Reader Student Teacher Recorder

Reader Recorder Student Teacher

!"#$%% &''()*+$*,%

!"#$% &'()%&$)*+(% Reading Clarifying Summarizing Questioning

-&'.%% &''()*+$*,%

Figure 6.4: Functionality of the Task Tokens (task assignment) vs. Ludo (task and role assignment).

student summarizes the text and the teacher subsequently gives feedback on the summary (similar to the M.U.R.D.E.R. script presented in section 3.2.1). In the questioning phase the teacher asks questions, which the student has to answer. The teacher then assesses the correctness of the student’s answer. If the student is not able to answer the question, the teacher provides the correct answer.

To facilitate task and role assignment, the user interface obviously needs to be more complex compared to the Task Tokens, which only conveyed tasks. In this sense, an important underlying question is how much guidance can be carried out by an application without overloading its user interface. Therefore, it was particularly important to carefully design the user interface and get early feedback on its usability. We therefore created two user interface concepts, which we implemented as paper prototypes. Both concepts metaphorically relate to popular games. The first concept is ‘Spin the Bottle’ where roles are assigned by rotating arrows. The second concept is called ‘Draw a Card’. What both concepts have in common is a fixed, central visualization of the task sequence. This replaces the central depot of the Task Tokens. In contrast to the Task Tokens, which are moved out of the central depot to open an editing window, the position of the task representations is fixed. The reason is that the editing window is now attached to theroleof the recorder instead of the accordingtask.

Spin the Bottle

The first prototype is Spin the Bottle. In the center of the table there is a guiding widget which assigns both tasks and roles (see Figure 6.5, bottom left). The task sequence is shown in the inner circle. The current phase is highlighted by a yellow frame. Due to the results of the Task Token study, in which the automatic task assignment performed best, the order of the tasks is fixed. The only way of interacting with the circular element is switching to the next task, which is done by tapping on the circle’s center. The arrows, which originate from the center, randomly assign the roles of teacher, student and examiner to the group members.

Draw a Card

The second prototype is ‘Draw a Card’. Again, there is a central widget, which shows the task sequence (see Figure 6.5, bottom right). In addition, there is a card stack. Instead of rotating

124 6 Guiding Widgets and GUI Concepts for Shareable User Interfaces

Figure 6.5: Spin the Bottle (left) and Draw a Card (right) in the paper prototype study.

arrows, each learner has to drag a card from the central card stack and drag it into her personal card slot. Consequently, a major difference is that the roles are distributed one after another compared to the simultaneous role assignment in Spin the Bottle.

6.2.2

Paper Prototype Study

Spin the Bottle and Draw a Card were implemented as paper prototypes and compared in a user study. The goal was to get qualitative feedback on the quality of the metaphors, the acceptance of the roles as well as the comprehensibility of the concepts. Five groups of three (N=15) with an average age of 23 participated in the study. A within-subject design with counterbalanced order was used to rule out learning effects. The experimenter explained the general idea of reciprocal teaching, the tasks and roles as well as the functionality of the prototype. After each condition, questionnaires were filled out. In the end the group discussed benefits and drawbacks of both prototypes and suggestions for improvement.

6.2 Role Assignment 125

While the participants mentioned many pros and cons of both approaches, there was no clear trend. For example, some participants argued that drawing cards one after another creates a higher awareness of the partners’ roles. Others said they only looked at their own card but were aware of all arrows in Spin the Bottle. Furthermore, the usability as well as the quality of metaphor was rated fairly equal. Consequently, the amount of participants who overall favored Spin the Bottle was about the same as those preferring Draw a Card. In addition, we noticed that many participants lifted the card from the central stack, although they were instructed how to interact with the paper prototype. Finally, many participants suggested to change the name of roles to better refer to the learning activities. Instead of using the names ‘teacher’ and ‘student’ across phases two through four (as suggested in section 6.2.1, cf. Figure 6.4), it would be more helpful to use the role name ‘questioner’ in the clarifying phase as well as ‘summarizer’ and ‘listener’ in the summarizing phase. As this general suggestion of improvement is not restricted to any particular concept, the role names were revised accordingly (see Figure 6.6).

# 11

Reader Questioner _(teacher) Recorder Student Reader Questioner _(student) Listener _(teacher) Recorder Reader Recorder Summarizer _(student) Teacher

!"#$%% &''()*+$*,%

!"#$% &'()%&$)*+(% Reading Clarifying Summarizing Questioning

-&'.%% &''()*+$*,%

Reader Teacher Recorder Student Reader Student Teacher Recorder Reader Recorder Student Teacher

!"#$%% &''()*+$*,%

!"#$% &'()%&$)*+(% Reading Clarifying Summarizing Questioning

-&'.%% &''()*+$*,%

Figure 6.6: Revised role names (original names in brackets).