Date post: | 22-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Children's Participation in a Media Content
Creation Community: Israeli Learners in a
Scratch Programming Environment
Ina BlauDepartment of
Education & Psychology,
Chais Research Center, OUI
Oren ZuckermanIDC Herzliya
School of Communications
Andrés Monroy-HernándezMIT Media Lab
Scratch: Online Community of Interactive Projects
• Browse
• View projects
• Download
Scratch: Online Community of Interactive Projects
Project creation:
• Create
• Share
• Remix
Scratch: Online Community of Interactive Projects
Social participation:
• Write comments
• Add friends
• Add to galleries
• Mark as love-it
• Add to favorites
Background 1
• Scratch - constructionist, social environment (Papert, 1980; Resnick, 2007 )
• Participation patterns (Jenkins, 2006; Monroy-Hernández & Resnick, 2008)
Background 2
• Motivation for contribution (Rafaeli & Ariel, 2008; Rafaeli, Raban & Ravid, 2007)
• Uses and gratification (Rubin, 1994)
Study hypotheses
1. Project creation and social participation measures would
not correlate
2. Individual investment in the community would positively
correlate with community feedback both on a user and a
project level
3. There would be no significant gender differences in
participation patterns and project complexity
Method: Participants
65 Israeli Scratch users,
mostly elementary school students
35 girls (53.8%)
Age range: 9-17
(Mean: 11.5)
(Median: 11)
Method: Instrument and Procedure
• Israeli Scratch online community logs in July, 2008
• Project creation: number of original and remixed projects per user
• Social participation: number of comments, friends, favorites, posting in galleries, and "love-its" rating
• Project complexity: mean of a project’s scripts and sprites
Community feedback: • User level: number of participants defined a user as their friend
• Project level: User's projects viewed, commented, marked-as-favorite, downloaded, remixed, or marked-as-love-it
Projects created by Israeli Scratch community(July 2008)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Users
Nu
mb
er
of
pro
jec
ts
80% / 17% / 3%
<100 / >100 / >1000
Results - Individual investment
• Project creation: Medium-high correlations within different measures of project participation investment (original projects, remixed projects)
• Social participation: Medium-high correlations between most of social participation measures (favorites, friends, galleries, comments, love-its)
• As hypothesized, measures of the project creation are not correlated with social participation
• Suggestion: Different participation patterns may fulfill different Scratch users' needs (future research needed)
Results: Individual investment and community feedback – in the user level
• As hypothesized, all participants received community feedback (in the form of befriended)
• 7 predictors (number of views, downloads, user's friends, galleries a user
participated in, comments made, favorites and "love-its" added to other projects)
accounted for 81.1% of variance in community feedback
Results: Individual investment and community feedback – in the project level
• As hypothesized: project feedback positively correlates with social-participators investment
• Opposite to the hypothesis: project feedback negatively correlates with project-creation investment
• It seems that social participants give feedback to projects of their friends.
Results: Gender
• No statistically significant gender differences are found in participation patterns or project complexity.
• It seems that Scratch opens similar possibilities to both genders in programming, learning and participation.
Conclusion
• Project creators and social participators are different users
• Community feedback:– In the user level: all participants receive feedback - as befriended – In the project level: a project feedback positively correlates with
social participation investment, but negatively correlates with project creation investment
=> it seems feedback based on friendship and not project quality
• No gender differences
Motivation for participation?
Design for participation?