AN INVESTIGATION OF TWO METHODS TO ACCESS COMPUTERS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN Jonathan C.W. Jones, Research Scholar Faculty Mentor: Dr. David McNaughton - Associate Professor of Special Education Graduate Student: Mr. John McCarthy The Pennsylvania State University Abstract The goal of the study was to compare two approaches to selection techniques in augmentative and alternative communication systems: Traditional and Zoom-In selection. The study compared normally developing children’s accuracy rate between the two highlighting techniques. Results indicated no significant differences between the two techniques, even though the Zoom-In selection was hypothesized to be more effective. Experience with computers, parental prompting, and age may have played a role in the children’s accuracy rates between the two highlighting techniques. Further research is required to investigate these techniques with a larger number of children. Introduction There are over 2 million Americans with disabilities who are unable to use speech to communicate their daily wants and needs (American Speech-Language Hearing Association, ASHA 1991). Both developmental and acquired disabilities are the main causes of severe communication disorders (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998). Congenital causes include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism, and developmental apraxia of speech. Acquired causes include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis (MS), traumatic brain injury, stroke, and spinal cord injury. Many of these individuals may benefit from the use of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), the use of methods other than speech to communicate a message. Examples of AAC include the use of sign language, picture communication systems, or computer-based voice output devices. AAC can enable individuals to participate in a wide variety of educational, social, and vocational activities. Light (1989) argued that AAC can help individuals with communication disorders to establish their wants and their needs, exchange information and give them a more fulfilling life by increasing their social closeness with others. Without AAC, many individuals with severe disabilities have no way to communicate with others; as a result they are isolated and excluded from full participation in society A practical example of an AAC user is found in Light (1993): Laurie was a 4 year, 11 month old girl, diagnosed with cerebral palsy with severe spastic quadriparesis with athetosis. She had one consistent voluntary motor response that was a head rotation to the right. She had a moderate delay in her comprehension of language, a consistent and reliable yes/no response and she used a communication display of line drawings and photographs to augment her communication. Given her limited repertoire of movements Laurie was unable to use a keyboard to access a computer; Light (1993) suggested Laurie needed an adapted means of access. For children with severe physical disabilities, like Laurie, the task of communication can be a frustrating and time consuming ordeal. Acquiring access to computers allows for a larger vocabulary and increased interaction with others. However, many children who have physical disabilities are not able to use the keyboard to access computers. They require some alternative means of access. There are many alternative methods of access for individuals with disabilities,
Transcript
AN INVESTIGATION OF TWO METHODS TO ACCESS COMPUTERS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
Jonathan C.W. Jones, Research Scholar
Faculty Mentor: Dr. David McNaughton - Associate Professor of Special Education Graduate Student: Mr. John McCarthy
The Pennsylvania State University
Abstract The goal of the study was to compare two approaches to selection techniques in augmentative and alternative communication systems: Traditional and Zoom-In selection. The study compared normally developing children’s accuracy rate between the two highlighting techniques. Results indicated no significant differences between the two techniques, even though the Zoom-In selection was hypothesized to be more effective. Experience with computers, parental prompting, and age may have played a role in the children’s accuracy rates between the two highlighting techniques. Further research is required to investigate these techniques with a larger number of children.
Introduction There are over 2 million Americans with disabilities who are unable to use speech to communicate their daily wants and needs (American Speech-Language Hearing Association, ASHA 1991). Both developmental and acquired disabilities are the main causes of severe communication disorders (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998). Congenital causes include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism, and developmental apraxia of speech. Acquired causes include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis (MS), traumatic brain injury, stroke, and spinal cord injury.
Many of these individuals may benefit from the use of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), the use of methods other than speech to communicate a message. Examples of AAC include the use of sign language, picture communication systems, or computer-based voice output devices. AAC can enable individuals to participate in a wide variety of educational, social, and vocational activities. Light (1989) argued that AAC can help individuals with communication disorders to establish their wants and their needs, exchange information and give them a more fulfilling life by increasing their social closeness with others. Without AAC, many individuals with severe disabilities have no way to communicate with others; as a result they are isolated and excluded from full participation in society
A practical example of an AAC user is found in Light (1993): Laurie was a 4 year, 11 month old girl, diagnosed with cerebral palsy with severe spastic quadriparesis with athetosis. She had one consistent voluntary motor response that was a head rotation to the right. She had a moderate delay in her comprehension of language, a consistent and reliable yes/no response and she used a communication display of line drawings and photographs to augment her communication. Given her limited repertoire of movements Laurie was unable to use a keyboard to access a computer; Light (1993) suggested Laurie needed an adapted means of access. For children with severe physical disabilities, like Laurie, the task of communication can be a frustrating and time consuming ordeal. Acquiring access to computers allows for a larger vocabulary and increased interaction with others. However, many children who have physical disabilities are not able to use the keyboard to access computers. They require some alternative means of access. There are many alternative methods of access for individuals with disabilities,
including alternative keyboards (e.g. large print keyboards by The Key Connection, Inc.), eye-tracking (e.g. an inferred sensor that follows the users eye gaze), and head-pointers (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998).
For individuals with more severe physical disabilities, scanning is one method of alternative access to the computer. In electronic scanning, a set of items is presented and each item is sequentially highlighted in some way (e.g. a highlighted box around image). An individual "chooses" an item by responding when the desired item is highlighted. After the individual selects the targeted item, this information is conveyed to the computer. Utilizing a switch, the individual chooses the item they want by pressing a button or by giving some other prearranged signal (see figures 1, 1.2, and 2). Figure 1 - Figure 1.2 –
Figure 2 - Big Buddy Button, TASH International, Inc.
There are three primary scanning selection set patterns, according to Beukelman and Mirenda (1998): circular, linear, and group – item scanning techniques. In the case example about Laurie, an automatic linear scanning technique was used for Laurie to access the computer. Linear scanning, in which target items are highlighted one at a time across a row of items, is comparatively straightforward and is probably the easiest to learn of the three scanning techniques. Peterson, Reichle, and Johnston (2000) said that linear scanning is very predictable as it requires only a single discretely produced motor response to activate or deactivate the cursor. Nevertheless, because items are presented one at a time in a particular order, it may be inefficient if the selection set contains many items (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998). The speed and timing of scanning must be personalized according to the AAC user’s physical, visual, and cognitive capabilities (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998).
Although scanning may appear "easy" to typical adults, it is important not to underestimate the challenges it may pose for young children or individuals with cognitive disabilities. Peterson, et al, (2000), stated that scanning is cognitively difficult, slow, and demands both memory and attention resources. Light and Lindsay (1991) suggested that scanning technologies could be improved by, framing the process differently: either, modifying the teaching instruction, or modifying the task and make it easier for the child (Light & Lindsay, 1991).
Case (1985) argued that the most effective approaches to teaching are those which begin with the child’s conceptualization of the problem and which build between this representation and the one required to successfully meet the task demands. Case (1978) further suggested that in order for instruction to be optimally effective, it should maximize the familiarity of the situation for the student, highlight the relevant cues, and minimize the number of items of information that the student must coordinate.
In the case of Laurie, an attempt was made to modify instruction since the technology did not exist to modify the task. In order to maximize her familiarity with the task, an analogy was developed, in story format, comparing scanning to a game of tag or “catch me” (Light, 1993). The analogy served to form a bridge between her incomplete representations of the problem and the successful scanning strategy. Laurie was encouraged to watch where “it” (the cursor) was at all times. She knew in the game of tag, she had to watch the child who was “it” at all times. The computer model utilized in this example allowed Laurie to independently experiment with language and increase her educational experience. There have been a few investigations of the performance of typically developing children accessing computers via linear scanning or row-column scanning (Light, 1993; Horn & Jones, 1996; & Peterson, et al. 2000). Most studies found that children could learn either type of scanning, however linear was typically easier and row-column was more difficult.
Although there has been limited research to investigate instructional techniques to improve the performance of children as they learn to make use of scanning, an alternative approach is to change the scanning task itself so that it more closely resembles a child's conceptualization of being "offered" an item. In order to investigate this idea, a new scanning technique (developed at The Pennsylvania State University), "zoom-in highlighting" was developed. In traditional scanning, the targeted item in the array is highlighted briefly by a red box (see figure 3). In "zoom-in highlighting", the item grows in size (as if it is being "offered" and moving towards the child for him/her to select) on the computer screen (see figure 4).
Figure 3 – Traditional scanning
The Offer
Computer communicates the offer
The Selection
Child makes selection Computer communicates child’s selection
Figure 4 – Zoom-In Scanning
The Offer
Computer communicates the offer And animates the item by enlarging it.
The Selection
Child makes selection Computer communicates child’s selection And animates the item by zooming in presenting the item selected.
To date, no research has studied ways to make scanning more transparent for children. Because of the lack of research, the current study investigated the following research question: Are typically developing children more accurate with scanning systems that use traditional highlighting or zoom-in highlighting? Higginbotham (1995) argues that no disabled communicators are the first logical choice to serve as subjects because they may contribute to our understanding of the cognitive processes underlying the acquisition of symbol and device performance competencies. Many individuals using AAC devices may not differ with respect to
learning a specific cognitive task (Higginbotham, 1995). Higginbotham also suggested that the use of no disabled individuals can help to provide group level data on basic learning strategies as well as the difficulties associated with a particular system or technology (Higginbotham, 1995). However, we cannot assume that the findings from studies using no disabled subjects are generalizable to the population of AAC system users and eventually research does need to be extended to individuals with disabilities (Bedrosian, 1995).
Methodology
Participants Four typically developing children (age 2-3) were recruited from local daycare centers and preschools. A letter explaining the study and its purpose was distributed to parents along with a consent form. In order to participate, the children had to be between the ages of 2-3, have no known speech, language, hearing, visual, or motor impairments, and have a signed parental consent form. Two groups were created: a traditional highlighting group and zoom-in highlighting group. Two children were randomly assigned to each group. Research Design This pilot study compared the relative effectiveness of 2 different highlighting choices. A randomized group design was chosen for the purpose. Randomized group designs are appropriate for comparing the relative effectiveness of two different interventions (Borg & Gall, 1989). Materials With traditional highlighting (linear scanning) the cursor highlights the selected item and moves across the items in the row until the child selects an item by pressing and releasing a switch. In Zoom-in highlighting, the child selects an item that is presented to them in a large format, as if someone was handing them the item right in front of them.
The materials used to do this study were as follows: Dell Laptop Computer, Switch Click USB, ClickIt for Windows (used for traditional scanning), and an html Java Script web page (used for Zoom-In Scanning). Procedures Data collection sessions were approximately 20-30 minutes. Sessions took place in the child’s home (each child used a computer to do a play activity and pressed a switch to select different animals represented by pictures on the computer). In step 1, the child was taught how to use the scanning system to pick a target animal out of three animals displayed on the computer screen. Step 2, the instructor presented the child’s with 3 animal pictures and asked the child to pick a picture, the child would then be told to select the matching picture on the computer screen. The child was then told to get the computer picture by ”hitting” the button. Each child got 9 trials; 3 cycles each with 3 items to choose from. If the child selected the correct animal, the instructor provided positive feedback. If the child did not select the correct animal, the instructor modeled the correct scanning procedure. After each cycle, the child would get a sticker for completing that cycle. Regardless of right or wrong answers the computer moved to the next cycle of 3 items until all 9 trials were exhausted. Both Traditional and Zoom-In Highlighting were tested. The accuracy of the children’s responses were compared to find any significant differences between them. For further explanation, the dialogue used by the instructor can be found in Appendix A (for traditional) and Appendix B (for zoom). Measures Accuracy of the children’s selections was calculated as a percentage score.
Results Figure 5 displays the percentage rate and overall accuracy of each of the four children tested for each of the highlighting methods. Children 2 and 4 were both tested using the Traditional highlighting. Children 1 and 3 used the Zoom-In highlighting. Figure 5 - Results
Child 2 (girl 3 years old)
Child 4 (girl 3.9 years old)
Child 1 (boy 2.11 years old)
Child 3 (boy 2.11 years old)
Traditional Traditional Zoom-In Zoom-In
Trials Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
1 pig pig dog NR dog NR duck duck 2 duck dog duck NR pig NR pig pig 3 dog pig pig pig dog NR dog NR 4 dog pig dog pig duck NR pig pig 5 pig pig duck duck dog NR duck duck 6 duck duck dog dog Pig NR dog NR 7 dog dog dog dog duck NR pig pig 8 pig pig duck duck dog pig duck NR 9 duck duck pig pig pig pig duck duck
Traditional There was significant variation across the two children in the traditional scanning technique. Child 2 selected 6 out of 9 items correctly, yielding a 67% accuracy rate. Child 4 selected 6 out of 9 items correctly, yielding a 67% accuracy rate. Combined both children selected 12 out of 18 items correctly, yielding a mean accuracy rate of 67% for the traditional scanning. Care should be taken in interpreting this mean given the significant variation across the two children. Zoom-In There was also significant variation across the two children in the zoom in scanning technique. Child 1 selected 1 out of 9 items correctly, yielding an 11% accuracy rate, below chance levels of accuracy. During the session it was observed that this child 1 required his mother’s approval and encouragement in pushing the button to make a selection. Child 3 selected 6 out of 9 items correctly, yielding a 67% accuracy rate. Child 3 also needed approval and mom prompted her with cues to push the button and select the correct item. Combined, both children selected 7 out of 18 items correctly, yielding a mean accuracy rate of 39% for Zoom-In scanning. This accuracy level is at chance level. The mean should be interpreted with care given the variation in performance across the children.
Discussion
In this pilot study there was significant variation across the four participants. Two of the children performed with moderate levels of success (67% accuracy) (Child 2 and Child 3); the other two children performed at or below chance levels of accuracy suggesting that the scanning task was difficult for them.
It was hypothesized that the zoom-in technique would be more transparent to the children and therefore they would perform more accurately with this technique. However, the results indicated that there were no reliable differences in the children’s performances across the scanning techniques. There are a number of potential explanations that may account for these results.
The results the current study confirm several findings in the Light (1993) journal. Like Light (1993), this research found, to access the computer requires the child to master not only the demands of operating the switch, but also the demands of interacting with the visual display set and of anticipating the timing of switch activation (Light, 1993). More over, the research results agreed, the successful strategy in scanning required the coordination of two operations: monitoring cursor movement through the visual array of pictures; and timing activation of the switch to make a selection (Light, 1993). Although Light (1993) also suggested that modifying the task by enhancing the scanning pattern should also improve performance, additional investigation with closely – followed experimental procedures will be necessary to investigate the situation.
Results of this pilot study showed no reliable differences between the children’s performances with the two types of scanning. However it is difficult to interpret these results given the small number of participants in the study S the presence of confounding variables. These confounding variables included the differences in the children’s ages, experience with computers, and parental prompts. These confounding variables may have influenced the children’s performances. In addition the small number of subjects also contributes to not being able to make a general comparison between the two types of selection methods. Limitations of study
This study represented a first step in exploring the complex problem of computer access for young children with significant disabilities. There are a number of limitations that should be considered.
First the study involved only 4 children. It is not possible to reliably interpret the results with so few participants. Future research is required with a larger number of participants using experimental groups that are matched for age and prior computer experience.
The study involved non-disabled children. Higginbotham (1995) proposed that research with no disabled participants can serve as an important first step in determining the learning demands of different technologies designed for individuals with disabilities. However as Peterson et al. (2000) and Bedrosian (1995) argued one cannot necessarily generalize the results to a population of children with either cognitive or physical disabilities. For example, in the current study, the typically developing children had experience not only in using the computer, but also in seeing many models of adults and other children using the computer in the same way. Children with severe disabilities, even if given access to computers at a young age, do not have the same kind of models available to them as a result their performance may vary from that of typically developing children.
Ultimately, scanning is a tool to enhance communication effectiveness. The current study had children choosing animals to “catch” on the screen. Functionally, children with disabilities who use scanning to control AAC systems face different task requirements. They would need to think of the message they want to communicate (e.g., “I…like…dogs”) and then remember this message as they use scanning to construct it item by item. First it may be that the zoom-in scanning technique did not simplify the task requirement s of scanning for the children. Light (1993) found that in order to access the computer via scanning, the child must master not only the demands of operating the switch, but also the demands of interacting with the visual display set and of anticipating the timing of switch activation (Light, 1993). The successful strategy in scanning required the coordination of two
operations: monitoring cursor movement through the visual array of pictures; and timing activation of the switch to make a selection (Light, 1993). The zoom-in technique attempted to redesign the scanning task to make the “offer” of the scanned item more apparent to the child and to provide more obvious feedback when the child activated the switch. It may be that the zoom-in design did not successfully meet these objectives. Alternatively it is possible that the zoom-in design did meet the objectives but that these changes were not sufficient to reduce the learning demands of scanning. Additional research is required to explore the impact of redesigning scanning to reduce the learning demands. Light (1993) suggested that modifying the task by enhancing the scanning pattern should improve performance, but the results of the current study suggest that presentation method may not make a difference, particularly with children who have extensive computer experience from a young age.
The study had only 4 participants; these children showed significant variation in their performances. It is possible that a number of confounding factors impacted their performances and possibly masked any differences between the scanning techniques. Factors that may have influenced the children’s performances include: age, prior computer experience, parental involvement, and script changes.
Age appeared to be a contributing factor to the children’s performance because there is a significant language growth that occurs from age 2 to age 3.
Prior computer experience also appeared to be a contributing factor to the performance of each child. Both child #2 and child #4 had some experience with computers and the use of a mouse, which could have contributed to their high accuracy rate for the Traditional scanning technique.
Parental involvement appeared to be a contributing factor for child #1 and child #3. During the testing it seemed that after the children were given instruction they looked to there parent for either permission or encouragement to go ahead and “hit” the button. Finally, the frequent changes to the instructional script may have also contributed to the accuracy rate of the children. After the testing of each child was complete revisions were made to the script, these changes could have contributed to increase comprehension or could have decreased the children’s comprehension. Future Directions
Because of the small number of subjects in the current study, it is difficult to draw conclusions to the general population. More research is urgently needed to draw more general conclusions. Results should be replicated among persons with disabilities in order to draw any clinical inference. Like Peterson et al. (2000) suggest, future research is needed to investigate scanning performance during more typical communication interactions.
Future research should include children using language in functional situations such as requesting an object or activity, commenting, or sharing information.
We have numerous challenges ahead of us as a field if we are to ensure that young children with communication disabilities attain the power of communication, language, and literacy in their lives (Light & Drager, 2003). Providing access to computers at an early age is critical if these children are to achieve their full potential.
References American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA), (1993). Report: Augmentative and
alternative communication. 33 (Suppl. 5), 9-12. Angelo, J. (1991). Comparison of Three Computer Scanning Modes as an Interface Method for
Persons with Cerebral Palsy. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy. Volume 46. P. 217-222
Bedrosian, J. (1995). Limitations in the Use of No disabled Subjects in AAC Research.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Volume 11, March 1995. P. 6-10 Beuklman, D., & Mirenda, P (1998). Augmentative and Alternative Communication:
Management for learners with severe disabilities, 2nd edition. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Borg, W., and Gall, M. (1989) Educational Research An Introduction. 5th edition. New York:
Longman. Case, R. (1978). Piaget and beyond: Toward a developmentally based theory and technology of
instruction. In R. Glasser (Ed.) Advances in instructional Psychology. Volume 1, 167-228. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Eribaum Associates Publishers.
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. Toronto, ON: Academic Pres, Inc. Horn, E, Jones, H., and Hamlett, C. (1991). An Investigation of the Feasibility of a Video Game
System for Developing Scanning and Selection Skills. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. Volume 16, No. 2 – 1991. P. 108-115
Horn, E, and Jones, H. (1996). Comparison of Two Selection Techniques Used in Augmentative
and Alternative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Volume 12, March 1996. P.23-31
Higginbotham, J. (1995). Use of No disabled Subjects in AAC Research: Confessions of a
Research Infidel. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Volume 11, March 1995. P. 2- 5. (AAC Research Forum)
Light, Janice (1993). Teaching Automatic Linear Scanning for Computer Access: A Case Study
of a Preschooler with Severe Physical and Communication Disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology. Volume XII Number 2 Fall 1993. P. 125 – 134
Light, J., Beukelman, D., and Reichle, J. (2003), Communicative Competence for Individuals
Who use AAC From Research to Effective practice. Chapter 7 – Supporting Competent Motor Control of AAC Systems. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Light, J. and Drager, K. (in press). Improving the Design of Augmentative and Alternative
Technologies for Young Children. Assistive Technology
Light, J. and Lindsay, P. (1991). Cognitive Science and Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Volume 7, June 1991. P. 186-203.
Peterson, K. , Reichle, J., and Johnston, S. (2000). Examining Preschooler’s Performance in Linear and Row-Column Scanning Techniques. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Volume 16, March 2000. P. 27-36
Ratcliff, A. (1994). Comparison of Relative Demands Implicated in Direct Selection and
Scanning: Considerations from Normal Children. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Volume 10, June 1994. P67-74
Appendix A TRADITIOAL SCRIPT
Symbol screening: Show me the… (Set 1 & set 2): Circle- Pass Fail Hand used: R L
SAY: [present PCS duck, pig, and dog] I pick an animal. I want the dog. Look up here. (point to computer) You will see some animals. Let’s pick the dog. Watch me. Wait… [LOAD page #1] I Look… [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [Wait for dog to highlight] I hit the button [exaggerated, hit the switch] I picked the dog! SAY: Let’s try another one. [present PCS duck, pig] I pick an animal. I want the pig. SAY: Look up here. (point to computer) You will see some animals. Let’s pick the pig. Watch me. Wait… [Close Window. Open Page #1 again] I Look… [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [Wait for pig to highlight] I hit the button [exaggerated, hit the switch] I picked the pig! SAY: Let’s try another one. [present PCS duck, pig] I pick an animal. I want the duck. SAY: Look up here. (point to computer) You will see some animals. Let’s pick the duck. Watch me. Wait… [Close Window. Open Page #1 again] I Look… [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [Wait for duck to highlight] I hit the button [exaggerated, hit the switch] I picked the duck!
SAY: Your turn. Pick an animal [present PCS duck, pig, and dog]. (If no response: The duck (point), pig (point), or dog (point)) (If still no response: Let’s pick the pig) SAY: It’s your turn. I can’t help you [shake head]. You pick the [target]. Wait… [LOAD random page] [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [If right] You wanted the [target]. You picked the [target]! [If wrong] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh you picked the [actual] [If no response] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh! Model for wrong or NR: Watch me pick the [target] [Close window. Open window. Select]
SAY: Your turn. Pick an animal [present PCS two remaining animals]. (If no response: The [1st item left] or the [2ndk item left] (point)?) (If still no response: Let’s take the [choose one]) SAY: It’s your turn. I can’t help you [shake head]. You pick the [target]. Wait… [LOAD random page] [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [If right] You wanted the [target]. You picked the [target]! [If wrong] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh you picked the [actual] [If no response] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh! Model for wrong or NR: Watch me pick the [target] [Close window. Open window. Select]
SAY: The [remaining item]. SAY: It’s your turn. I can’t help you [shake head]. You pick the [target]. Wait… [LOAD random page] [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [If right] You wanted the [target]. You picked the [target]! [If wrong] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh you picked the [actual] [If no response] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh! Model for wrong or NR: Watch me pick the [target] [Close window. Open window. Select]
SAY: Your turn. Pick an animal [present PCS duck, pig, and dog]. (If no response: The duck (point), pig (point), or dog (point)) (If still no response: Let’s pick the pig) SAY: It’s your turn. I can’t help you [shake head]. You pick the [target]. Wait… [LOAD random page] [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [If right] You wanted the [target]. You picked the [target]! [If wrong] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh you picked the [actual] [If no response] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh! Model for wrong or NR: Watch me pick the [target] [Close window. Open window. Select]
SAY: Your turn. Pick an animal [present PCS two remaining animals]. (If no response: The [1st item left] or the [2ndk item left] (point)?) (If still no response: Let’s take the [choose one]) SAY: It’s your turn. I can’t help you [shake head]. You pick the [target]. Wait… [LOAD random page] [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [If right] You wanted the [target]. You picked the [target]! [If wrong] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh you picked the [actual] [If no response] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh! Model for wrong or NR: Watch me pick the [target] [Close window. Open window. Select]
SAY: The [remaining item]. SAY: It’s your turn. I can’t help you [shake head]. You pick the [target]. Wait… [LOAD random page] [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [If right] You wanted the [target]. You picked the [target]! [If wrong] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh you picked the [actual] [If no response] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh! Model for wrong or NR: Watch me pick the [target] [Close window. Open window. Select]
SAY: Your turn. Pick an animal [present PCS duck, pig, and dog]. (If no response: The duck (point), pig (point), or dog (point)) (If still no response: Let’s pick the pig) SAY: It’s your turn. I can’t help you [shake head]. You pick the [target]. Wait… [LOAD random page] [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [If right] You wanted the [target]. You picked the [target]! [If wrong] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh you picked the [actual] [If no response] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh! Model for wrong or NR: Watch me pick the [target] [Close window. Open window. Select]
SAY: Your turn. Pick an animal [present PCS two remaining animals]. (If no response: The [1st item left] or the [2ndk item left] (point)?) (If still no response: Let’s take the [choose one]) SAY: It’s your turn. I can’t help you [shake head]. You pick the [target]. Wait… [LOAD random page] [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [If right] You wanted the [target]. You picked the [target]! [If wrong] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh you picked the [actual] [If no response] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh! Model for wrong or NR: Watch me pick the [target] [Close window. Open window. Select]
SAY: The [remaining item]. SAY: It’s your turn. I can’t help you [shake head]. You pick the [target]. Wait… [LOAD random page] [Press CTRL + Enter to start scan] [If right] You wanted the [target]. You picked the [target]! [If wrong] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh you picked the [actual] [If no response] You wanted the [target]. Uh-oh! Model for wrong or NR: Watch me pick the [target] [Close window. Open window. Select]
Appendix B ZOOM-IN SCRIPT
SAY: Look up here. (point to computer) You will see some animals. Let’s catch the dog. I will help you. Wait… [LOAD page #1] Look… [Mouse over animals as they are scanned] [Wait for dog to animate] Push the button FEEDBACK (CORRECT): You caught the dog FEEDBACK (does not release button): You have to let go. You caught the dog FEEDBACK (does not press button): Let's do it together. [model with child] You caught the dog
SAY: Let’s try another one. SAY: Look up here. (point to computer) You will see some animals. Let’s catch the pig. I will help you. Wait… [Close Window. Open Page #1 again] Look… [Mouse over animals as they are scanned] [Wait for pig to animate] Push the button FEEDBACK (CORRECT): You caught the pig. FEEDBACK (does not release button): You have to let go. You caught the pig FEEDBACK (does not press button): Let's do it together. [model with child] You caught the pig
SAY: Let’s try another one. SAY: Look up here. (point to computer) You will see some animals. Let’s catch the duck. I will help you. Wait… [Close Window. Open Page #1 again] Look… [Mouse over animals as they are scanned] [Wait for duck to animate] Push the button FEEDBACK (CORRECT): You caught the [selected item] FEEDBACK (does not release button): You have to let go. You caught the duck. FEEDBACK (does not press button): Let's do it together. [model with child] You caught the [selected item] Great job. Pick a sticker! [allow child to choose a sticker] SAY: [present PCS two remaining animals]. SAY: Pick an animal (If no response: The [1st item left] or the [2ndk item left] (point)?) (If still no response: Let’s take the [choose one]) SAY: Remember I can’t help you. Remember…Wait…Look… (point to computer) Push the button (point to switch) to catch the [selected item] (show PCS of selected item) Wait… [LOAD random page] [Mouse over animals as they are scanned] After selection OR two cycles with no response… SAY: Did you catch the [selected item]? (wait 5 sec. & record response) OK. Let's try another one. SAY: The [remaining item]. SAY: Remember I can’t help you. Remember…Wait…Look… (point to computer) Push the button (point to switch) to catch the [selected item] (show PCS of selected item) Wait… [LOAD random page] [Mouse over animals as they are scanned] After selection OR two cycles with no response… SAY: Did you get the [selected item]? (wait 5 sec. & record response) SAY: OK! Pick a sticker. [allow child to choose a sticker]
SAY: [present PCS two remaining animals]. SAY: Pick an animal (If no response: The [1st item left] or the [2ndk item left] (point)?) (If still no response: Let’s take the [choose one]) SAY: Remember I can’t help you. Remember…Wait…Look… (point to computer) Push the button (point to switch) to catch the [selected item] (show PCS of selected item) Wait… [LOAD random page] [Mouse over animals as they are scanned] After selection OR two cycles with no response… SAY: Did you get the [selected item]? (wait 5 sec. & record response) OK. Let's try another one. SAY: The [remaining item]. SAY: Remember I can’t help you. Remember…Wait…Look… (point to computer) Push the button (point to switch) to catch the [selected item] (show PCS of selected item) Wait… [LOAD random page] [Mouse over animals as they are scanned] After selection OR two cycles with no response… SAY: Did you get the [selected item]? (wait 5 sec. & record response) SAY: OK! Pick a sticker. [allow child to choose a sticker] SAY: OK! Pick a sticker. [allow child to choose a sticker] SAY: Thanks for your help today! We’re all done.
