Advertisement

Reward Conditions Modify Children’s Drawing Behaviour

  • Siti Rohkmah Mohd ShukriEmail author
  • Andrew Howes
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10645)

Abstract

Children like to draw, but how do they draw on a touch-screen device and to motivational context for action? Despite the fact that many children choose to draw on tablets there have been few studies about their drawing behaviour. To answer this question, we conducted an empirical study to examine how children aged between 5 to 11 years old adjust their drawing actions on touch surfaces according to extrinsic rewards. The present study suggests that drawing with reward conditions modify drawing behaviour. In essence, we are proposing that children are more motivated to draw better when the reward is harder to achieve than when it is easier. This shows that traces and marks left on screen could be quantified more accurately to understand children’s behaviour better. The purpose of the study is to emphasize the benefit of rewarding effect as feedback to children’s performance when using touch-based tool.

Keywords

Children’s drawing Reward Motivation Touchscreen 

References

  1. 1.
    Alvarez, A.L., Booth, A.E.: Motivated by meaning: testing the effect of knowledge-infused rewards on preschoolers’ persistence. Child Dev. 85(2), 783–791 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony, L., Brown, Q., Nias, J., Tate, B., Mohan, S.: Interaction and recognition challenges in interpreting children’s touch and gesture input on mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pp. 225–234. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bijleveld, E., Custers, R., Aarts, H.: Adaptive reward pursuit: how effort requirements affect unconscious reward responses and conscious reward decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 141(4), 728 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M., Ford, M.T.: Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140(4), 980 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gollwitzer, P.M., Bargh, J.A.: The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior. Guilford Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Helbig, H.B., Ernst, M.O.: Optimal integration of shape information from vision and touch. Exp. Brain Res. 179(4), 595–606 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelley, H.H., et al.: Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process. General Learning Press, Morristown (1972)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kluger, A.N., DeNisi, A.: The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lange-Küttner, C., Reith, E.: The transformation of figurative thought: implications of Piaget and Inhelder’s developmental theory for children’s drawings. Harvester Wheatsheaf (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laszlo, J., Bairstow, P.: Kinaesthesis: its measurement, training and relationship to motor control. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 35(2), 411–421 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin, L., Atkinson, R.K., Christopherson, R.M., Joseph, S.S., Harrison, C.J.: Animated agents and learning: does the type of verbal feedback they provide matter? Comput. Educ. 67, 239–249 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, Q., Luo, J., Wu, Z., Shen, F., Sun, Z.: Characterization of NE motor development: dynamic analysis of childrens drawing movements. Hum. Mov. Sci. 40, 163–175 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McKnight, L., Fitton, D.: Touch-screen technology for children: giving the right instructions and getting the right responses. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 238–241. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohd Shukri, S.R., Howes, A.: How do children adapt strategies when drawing on a tablet? In: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1177–1182. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Rourke, E., Haimovitz, K., Ballweber, C., Dweck, C., Popovic, Z.: Brain points: a growth mindset incentive structure boosts persistence in an educational game. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3339–3348. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Price, S., Jewitt, C., Crescenzi, L.: The role of ipads in pre-school children’s mark making development. Comput. Educ. 87, 131–141 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ronimus, M., Kujala, J., Tolvanen, A., Lyytinen, H.: Children’s engagement during digital game-based learning of reading: the effects of time, rewards, and challenge. Comput. Educ. 71, 237–246 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shadmehr, R., de Xivry, J.J.O., Xu-Wilson, M., Shih, T.Y.: Temporal discounting of reward and the cost of time in motor control. J. Neurosci. 30(31), 10507–10516 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tu, H., Ren, X., Zhai, S.: Differences and similarities between finger and pen stroke gestures on stationary and mobile devices. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 22(5), 22 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vatavu, R.D., Cramariuc, G., Schipor, D.M.: Touch interaction for children aged 3 to 6 years: experimental findings and relationship to motor skills. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 74, 54–76 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhai, S., Kristensson, P.O., Appert, C., Andersen, T.H., Cao, X.: Foundational issues in touch-screen stroke gesture design-an integrative review. Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5(2), 97–205 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer and Information Sciences DepartmentUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASPerakMalaysia
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations