|
BUTTERFLY DISCOVERY: THE CREATION OF AN INTERACTIVE WEB-BASED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR THE FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL
HISTORY
By
JENNIFER L. SABO
A SUMMARY OF PROJECT OPTION IN LIEU OF THESIS
PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2004
Copyright 2004
by
Jennifer L. Sabo
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank the following people for their advice and assistance with the creation of
the Butterfly Discovery game:
Jamie Creola,
Dr. Jaret Daniels,
Dr. Betty Dunckel,
Christine Eliazar,
Dr. Thomas Emmel,
Sarah Fazenbaker,
Jeff Gage,
Dale Johnson,
Darcie MacMahon,
Bill Paine,
Dr. Craig Roland,
James Schlachta,
Dr. Graig Shaak,
Dr. Andrei Sourakov,
Dr. Glenn Willumson
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................ .............v
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................vi
INTRODUCTION................................................................................ ...1
THE BUTTERFLY DISCOVERY GAME......................................................3
Overarching Concepts.................................................................3
Goals of the Game...................................................... ....................3
Playing the Game........................ .............................. ....................4
Design of the Game.......................................................................6
A JUSTIFICATION FOR INCORPORATING INTERACTIVITY IN EDUCATIONAL
WEBSITES ...................................................... ................ ................... ......12
Defining Interactivity on the Web..................................................... 12
Educational Theory and its Influence on Butterfly Discovery..... ....................13
Interactive Frameworks..................................................................18
Creative Play/ Production................................................................ 23
EVALUATION.................................................................................. ..24
Formative Evaluation...................................................................24
Summative Evaluation for Remediation Purposes.................................24
Final Summative Evaluation.............................................................27
Conclusions ...................................... ............................ ...... ....27
APPENDIX ....................................... ........................... ..............30
1. Interview Questions- Version 1.................................................... 30
2. Interview Questions- Version 2...................................................31
3. Summative Evaluation Data........................................................32
REFERENCE LIST...............................................................................35
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Dage
1 Version 1- Build a Butterfly........................................................... 6
2 Version 2- Body Stage...............................................................................
3 Version 2- My Butterfly Stage................................................. ............8
4 Version 3- Splash Page (animated) ....................................................9
5 Version 3- Body Stage......................................................... .........10
6 Version 3- My Butterfly Stage...........................................................10
Summary of Project Option in Lieu of Thesis
Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master of Arts
BUTTERFLY DISCOVERY: THE CREATION OF AN INTERACTIVE WEB-BASED
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR THE FLORIDA MUSEUM OF NATURAL
HISTORY
By
Jennifer L. Sabo
August 2004
Chair: Glenn Willumson
Major Department: Art and Art History
Learning is most often associated with school or workplace training. Much of
what we learn across our lifespan, however, is learned outside the classroom or office
during free-choice learning. Free-choice learning enables the learner to control what they
learn, how they learn it, and the context in which learning occurs. Museums are very
effective in promoting free-choice learning and can increase learning possibilities for
their constituents by creating interactive web-based learning environments designed to
meet their visitors' educational needs. With this in mind, I created Butterfly Discovery.
Butterfly Discovery is an interactive, web-based educational game, developed for
the Florida Museum of Natural History's McGuire Center for Lepidoptera Study. Its
intended audience is children, ages 7-12. It was designed as both a pre-visit resource (to
help children who will be going to the museum gain prior knowledge), and a post-visit
resource (to reinforce the knowledge gained from a museum visit).
Through the incorporation of interactivity, Butterfly Discovery enables users to
personalize the information presented, construct their own knowledge, and create strong,
meaningful connections. Butterfly Discovery accomplishes this by allowing users to
navigate through the seven screens of the game, in order to "discover" a new species of
Lepidoptera through creative play and then to write about it. Although there is an
intended path for users to follow to gain the game's maximum educational value, users
may choose their own path through the game. Overall, Butterfly Discovery stimulates
interest in Lepidoptera and science in general, introduces biodiversity in Lepidoptera,
introduces Lepidoptera body structure, increases writing skills, allows children to play
creatively, and stimulates interest in the Florida Museum of Natural History's Butterfly
Rainforest.
The data collected during the final summative evaluation lead to the conclusion
that the Butterfly Discovery game is effective in reaching its intended educational goals in
its target audience. All study participants created a butterfly and 79% wrote about it.
Many children, enthusiastically said the game was fun. Seventy-nine percent of
participants said they now know more about butterflies then they did before playing the
game. Finally, all participants want to go to the butterfly center when it opens: 82% want
to go "a lot."
INTRODUCTION
"Learning is at its peak when individuals can exercise choice over what and when they
learn and feel that they control their own learning" (Falk and Dierking, 2000).
Learning is most often associated with school or workplace training. Much of
what we learn across our lifespan, however, is learned outside the classroom or office
during free-choice learning. Free-choice learning is "self-directed, voluntary, and guided
by an individual's needs and interests" (Institute for Learning Innovation, 2002). Free-
choice learning is very effective because it enables the learner to control what they learn,
how they learn it, and the context in which learning occurs. Museums are one type of
institution that promotes free-choice learning. They do this by engaging visitors'
curiosity, challenging them to think in new ways, and allowing them to interact with and
often control the environment in which they are learning. This increases visitor
confidence, and thereby increases the possibility that learning will occur.
Research has shown that children learn better when they feel in control and
confident in their environment (Falk and Dierking, 2000). One way museums can offer
more control to children is to create interactive web-based learning environments
designed for their educational needs. With this in mind, I developed an interactive,
educational web-based game, called Butterfly Discovery, as my thesis project. This game
provides children a feeling of control over their environment and stimulates children's
curiosity by challenging them to "discover" a new species of Lepidoptera in a playful
environment.
THE BUTTERFLY DISCOVERY GAME
Butterfly Discovery is an interactive, web-based educational game, designed for
the Florida Museum of Natural History's McGuire Center for Lepidoptera Study. Its
intended audience is children, ages 7-12. The game was designed as both a pre-visit
resource (to help children who will be going to the museum gain prior knowledge), and a
post-visit resource (to reinforce the knowledge gained from a museum visit). It can,
however, stand alone as an educational activity. In order to help teachers justify its use in
the classroom, Butterfly Discovery was designed to meet several of the Sunshine State
Standards (Florida's student achievement standards) in Language Arts and Science.
Overarching Concepts
1. Children will discover the many similarities and differences among species of
Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) while "discovering" a new species.
2. Children will speculate that the species they "discovered" is one of the estimated
100,000 undiscovered butterflies and moths in the world.
Goals of the Game
1. Stimulate interest in Lepidoptera and science in general,
2. Introduce biodiversity in Lepidoptera,
3. Introduce Lepidoptera body structure,
4. Increase writing skills,
5. Allow children to creatively play (see page 23 for a discussion on creative play/
production),
6. Stimulate interest in the Florida Museum of Natural History's Butterfly Rainforest.
Playing the Game
Butterfly Discovery consists of seven screens through which the user navigates to
"discover" a new species of Lepidoptera and write about it. Although there is an
intended path for users to follow in order to gain the game's maximum educational value,
users may choose their own path through the game. Users may also choose whether or
not to read the educational text provided on each screen.
1. Screen one introduces users to the number of species of Lepidoptera that exist in
the world and the number believed to still be un-discovered.
2. Screen two gives users their assignment: to create a picture of a new species of
Lepidoptera they "discovered" by choosing its body, wing shape, and pattern, and
then to write about it.
3. Screen three begins by presenting the user information about Lepidoptera bodies.
After reading the text or electing to ignore it, users click on the "Choose a body"
button. This removes the informational text and brings up the eight body choices.
Users choose a body, which is immediately shown in the right box, and are then
directed to the next screen, "Wing Shape".
4. Screen four begins by presenting the user information about wing shapes. After
reading the text or electing to ignore it, users click on the "Choose a wing shape"
button. This removes the informational text and brings up the eight wing shape
choices. Users choose a wing shape, which is immediately shown in the right
box, adding to the body chosen in the previous stage. Users are then directed to
the next screen, "Pattern".
5. Screen five begins by presenting the user information about coloring and patterns.
After reading the text or electing to ignore it, users click on the "Choose a
pattern" button. This removes the informational text and brings up the eight
pattern choices. Users choose a pattern, which is immediately shown in the right
box, adding to the body and wing shape chosen in the previous two stages. Users
are then directed to the next screen, "About your Butterfly".
6. Screen six begins by presenting the user information about the similarities and
differences among species of Lepidoptera. After reading the text or electing to
ignore it, users click on the "See butterflies like yours" button. This removes the
informational text and reveals the completed butterfly in the right box. In the left
box actual butterflies with the selected body, wing shape, and color pattern are
shown. Users can choose to roll over these images in order to learn more about
these real butterflies. Users are then directed to the next screen, "My Butterfly".
7. Screen seven keeps the completed butterfly in the right box and presents the user
a series of writing prompts in the left box. In this section, users can choose a
name for their butterfly, decide where it lives, and determine how it defends itself.
In addition, screens three through seven have a start over button. Screens three through
six also have help buttons that give users instructions if needed. Finally, screen seven has
a print button that allows users to print their butterfly's picture along with their writings
about it.
Design of the Game
There are two important concepts to remember when creating an online
educational game. First, it is a very long process, which began for me in early October
when I approached the Florida Museum of Natural History with my proposal. Second, it
requires the participation of many people. Although I created the actual game, Butterfly
Discovery would not have been possible without a number of people who assisted by
providing exhibit text, scientific information, reference sources, photographs, and
professional advice. Numerous meetings and emails took place over the course of eight
months before the final version was completed. The following describes the process of
creating Butterfly Discovery.
1h* I \1 -- I^^Xrfll
| oo -
Figure 1: Version 1-Build a Butterfly
Figure 1: Version 1- Build a Butterfly
Before any code was written or any component of the game designed, I met with
the Office of Museum Technology (OMT) to discuss my ideas and to learn about the
Museum's restrictions. I then began to develop the first version of Butterfly Discovery,
which was originally called Build a Butterfly. This version incorporated many of the
elements I felt were integral to the game's learning goals. The game allowed users to
choose body parts (taken from real butterflies) from a selection of possible choices and
write about their final butterfly. It also gave information about butterfly body structure
and the species from which the selected body parts came. The overall idea for Build a
Butterfly (and Butterfly Discovery) was to enable participants to personalize the
information presented by allowing them to interact with the material and make choices to
create their unique final product. Through this, the learners could make the learning
experience their own, rather then a generic experience shared by all users (Falk and
Dierking, 2000).
While working on version 1, I had a large meeting with the Museum's exhibition
coordinators, OMT coordinators, the Director of the McGuire Center, and the McGuire
Center's photographers/ scientists, where we discussed ideas for the game as a group.
After this meeting it was decided I would meet with the individual departments on an as-
needed basis during the development process. This interaction was integral to the
creation of Butterfly Discovery, especially as the game became more complex.
Figure 2: Version 2- Body Stage Figure 3: Version 2- My Butterfly Stage
Before making changes from version 1 to version 2, I had a very important
meeting with Dr. Craig Roland, the education specialist on my thesis committee. After
much discussion, I decided to change the name of the game from Build a Butterfly to
Butterfly Discovery, in part to recognize that the game was not just about making a
butterfly, but also about butterfly diversity and discovery. I also decided that the screen
in version 1 was too crowded. Because there was so much information in such a small
area, learners were unable to focus on one portion of the game at a time. It was at this
point I decided to make the game several screens that could be navigated by the user.
Each screen would focus on one main idea, and would be intentionally kept short and
easy to read, usually with less then 50 words per screen (Serrell, 1996). This helped keep
the attention of the audience and met the educational needs and reading skills of 7-12
year olds. Because version 2 was several screens long, I decided to put users in control
of their learning by layering information through the stages of the game. This way
learners can self-select the complexity and depth of information they need and desire at
that time (Falk and Dierking, 2000).
t :O' I........ ... .... l.. .....
l*f a',.ntpm IcixajblOJ ,bjL erfl~ rnn
| |- hJ L ,*- .. iOF |r% >, F ,, l rr eln. ..
tSF 0" c.1 ....',oi'i F
IIc C''f 'n"- lu Tli 11 ioo a fi04 r
^ u~ t.'-*rlirffl
H |Cho-ea od
My Butr'fty
I" !
I ______
L i
Because of the increased complexity of version 2, I met with Dr. Thomas Emmel,
Director of the McGuire Center, in order to gain ideas on additional information to
include in the game, concepts to include on the "My Butterfly" screen, additional
pictures, and resources to research the butterflies we were including as choices. I also
met with my thesis committee for a review of the game and advice on how to improve it.
At this time we determined that the game would benefit from evaluation. I was referred
to Dr. Betty Dunckel, the Associate Director for Education at the Florida Museum of
Natural History. Dr. Dunckel assisted me in developing an Institutional Review Board
application and determining the best method for evaluating Butterfly Discovery. Dr.
Dunckel also introduced the idea of having the educational text presented automatically
when the user enters a screen. I had originally had this information included as a rollover
users could choose to read or ignore. We believed that by making the information
automatic, more users would read and process it.
Butterfly
Discovery
Become a scientist and
discover your own
Start
SbuStterflyv
Figure 4: Version 3- Splash Page (animated)
1 nfy In* -oo l obA nBi,- iifnnit C.aM Lw 4'0- I uedly OwltF V-0.5 AwenIl.0 ROOt Crc A Q-6
Nt-ll mi-a. i
SI
-"".u---- -
." ."," : ":
..... 7
1-L
Figure 5: Version 3- Body Stage Figure 6: Version 3- My Butterfly Stage
Version 3 (the final version) of Butterfly Discovery built upon the changes made
in version 2. A meeting with my thesis committee, during which we reviewed the game
thus far and discussed new ideas, convinced me to add an animated splash page to pique
children's interest. In addition, I decided to cut down the introduction text from version 2
and spread it out over two pages in order to enhance readability. Also, the instructions
from version 2 were taken out and a help button was added to each screen. Furthermore,
the vocabulary words were changed to rollover definitions rather then requiring users to
go to a separate page for definitions. Finally, the "About Your Butterfly" stage was
changed to make the described species display their information as rollovers, rather then
buttons that attach movies that must then be closed. This decreased the number of times
children must click during the game and makes navigation easier.
After meeting with my thesis committee, I also met with Ms. Jamie Creola, the
McGuire Center Educator. Ms. Creola and I made two significant changes to the game.
First, the game's navigation was changed. New navigational tools were developed that
point out and describe the next stage of the game. These directional tools appear after the
Bodies
Lle 3' ir'eCS LeldiapIlrA de 6 IN
TI. i. r.d-s ra.e In.e p"r.
I A 'pi3 w.- 2dn.V
* A ,MXi i'r.e nIjol DOJ'
' a 3.'lO .r. i rn :t rii.i r" )
RTe, ., rd.a. .er, l ie.. O -.elu ke
VK.uM.id' C3oea 3 probo dly I.l3t Irn. 1U
1-i 'Mra "0I O1IIN ,l.' toes 1.3'i-,
Aaa-
Choose a body
-
user has made a choice on the current stage. This helps children orient themselves in the
game. Also, the "My Butterfly" screen was cut from five writing areas to three and now
includes writing prompts to help children write about their butterfly.
In addition to the previous meetings, I also continued to evaluate Butterfly
Discovery and to read educational technology literature. Because of this, the game was
also changed. Originally each screen presented the informational text on the right and
choices on the left when the user entered to screen. Now only the informational text
appears when the user enters the screen. This helps focus the user's attention to the
informational text. The choices appear after a button is clicked to remove the
informational text. This button, which was also in version 2, was enhanced with an
image and border to make it more noticeable. Finally, five additional webpages were
linked to the game: butterfly facts, vocab, activities, resources, and credits.
A JUSTIFICATION FOR INCORPORATING INTERACTIVITY
IN EDUCATIONAL WEBSITES
Defining Interactivity on the Web
Before creating an interactive web-based learning environment, one must
carefully examine the concept of interactivity. This was extremely important to me as I
began my thesis project. I found that many people use the words "interactivity" and
"interactive" in a variety of contexts to mean a number of different things, but that it was
necessary to determine a meaning for interactivity that would guide my project before
any code was written.
For the purposes of this web-based learning environment, the term "interactivity"
describes the communication and interrelation between two things, usually between a
user and a computer running a software program (interface). The user and interface have
a "conversation", where the user responds to the interface, which processes the inputted
information, which responds to the user, who processes the presented information, and so
on in a circular fashion. A simple incorporation of interactivity in web-based learning
environments allows the user to make menu selections and click on objects in order to
navigate the site (Chou, 2003). During the dawn of the internet, interactivity was limited
to just that. New technology and research, however, have enabled programmers and
educators to increase the levels of interactivity incorporated into web-based learning
environments, and therefore increase the learning potential for internet learners using
these sites. Basic interactivity (clicking on objects and menus) can now used to set the
stage for more complex educational interactions, which require higher degrees of
communication and provide opportunities for enhanced thinking and learning, such as
those in web-based learning environments (Chou, 2003). Therefore, a more exacting
definition of "interactivity" focuses on the quality of thinking and learning taking place
between the user and their established schema in addition to the technical frameworks
that support this mental interaction.
Educational Theory and its Influence on Butterfly Discovery
Educational theory, including research by John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Lev
Vygotsky, emphasizes the importance of experiences that challenge and stimulate a
learner as necessary in promoting learning and knowledge. Commonly known as
constructivism, this theory asserts that learning "is not a simple addition of items into
some sort of mental data bank but a transformation of schemas in which the learner plays
an active role and which involves making sense out of a range of phenomena" (Hein,
1998). Interactive educational websites follow a constructivist approach in that they
enable learners to make choices and facilitate an internal dialogue of reflective thought
between the learner and the material presented. This leads to either the accommodation
of existing schema (the organizational network of concepts in the mind) to fit the new
knowledge being learned or the creation of new schema.
While constructivist activities can be both planned and natural experiences (Ohl,
2001), interactive web-based learning environments must be designed to follow
constructivist theory. They should have many entry and exit points, require the learner to
be physically and mentally active, and allow for multiple outcomes that need only "make
sense within the constructed reality of the learner" (Hein, 1998). Overall they provide
learners the ability to actively constructing their own knowledge. Often constructivist
activities, especially those considered discovery learning, allow learner to explore the
material in an order that is chosen by them, including viewing objects or information over
and going back to previous components. These activities will have a set path only if this
facilitates learning by providing guidance (Hein, 1998).
Constructivist theory greatly influenced the design of Butterfly Discovery. While
doing initial research for the game, I was struck by the number of websites about
Lepidoptera that were designed for children, but were simply endless pages of text.
Although these websites were great sources for reference, they did not challenge or
stimulate the learner and did not require the learner to be active in the learning process.
Following constructivist theory, I felt it was important to make learners physically and
mentally active in the learning process and chose to incorporate interactivity into the
game in order to achieve this. Butterfly Discovery was therefore designed to guide
learners to the completed production yet still allow them to explore the material in a self-
selected order. In this way, learners actively engage with the material in the game, read
information, and make choices. Along the way they use the knowledge they are
discovering to create a final production (the finished butterfly). The idea that there would
be multiple outcomes to the game that only made "sense within the constructed reality of
the learner" (Hein, 1998) was very important because the final product of the game was
not a real butterfly, but instead a product constructed by the learner during the learning
process.
Butterfly Discovery was also influenced by cognitivism. Cognitivists believe that
people learn material by actively processing information to create a network of
relationships between the new information and long-term prior knowledge (Deubel,
2003). Butterfly Discovery was designed to help increase the quality of information
processing by museum visitors through its use as either a pre- or post-visit resource. As a
pre-visit resource, Butterfly Discovery acts as an advance organizer that can be used
before a museum visit to help activate the prior knowledge of the learner. The game also
enables learners to discover new knowledge about Lepidoptera. In this way, Butterfly
Discovery increases the familiarity and meaningfulness of the museum visit and helps
learners make sense of the information they discover there. As a post-visit activity,
Butterfly Discovery can reinforce the knowledge gained from a museum visit (now
considered prior knowledge), in order to increase learning from the museum. The game
can also be used as an educational activity for classes that are unable to visit the museum,
helping children create networks of knowledge about Lepidoptera from the information
discovered in the game and other information learned in class.
Incorporating interactivity into web-based learning environments can increase the
quality of processing of new information leading to enhanced understanding. Research
has shown that interactivity can increase performance in learners by enabling them to
referentially process information. In referential processing, information is processed
though more then one channel, usually through both verbal and non-verbal channels.
Butterfly Discovery facilitates referential processing through both verbal (through the use
of text) and non-verbal (through the use of images) channels. Because information
processed referentially is stored in separate areas of the brain (both verbal and visual),
learners create a greater number of cognitive paths to the information, which enables
them to later retrieve it more easily (Najjar, 1996). In this way, interactivity allows
learners to have greater access to stored information and this, in turn, increases the
game's benefit as a pre-visit tool because visitors can more easily retrieve the information
they processed from the game and use it to create new associations in the McGuire
Center gallery.
Butterfly Discovery was also influenced by the theory of flow. Educational
technology and free-choice literature frequently refer to Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's
theory of flow and its effect on motivation and learning. A flow experience can be
described as an optimal experience that is intrinsically enjoyable. During flow
experiences, learners lose their self-consciousness and have an altered sense of time; their
attention is completely focused on a limited stimulus field. Flow experiences have been
shown to promote exploratory behavior and give learners a perceived sense of control
over their interactions (Falk and Dierking, 2000; King, 2003). Flow experiences have
also been shown to increase motivation. This is important because many educational
theorists believe motivation plays a key role in the creation of knowledge and learning.
Learners who view their learning as worthwhile and have intrinsic feelings of success
work harder and generally achieve greater understanding (Deubel, 2003; Ohl, 2001).
Because flow experiences are intrinsically enjoyable, learners are more likely to complete
the activity, to return later, and to follow up their interest in other ways (Durbin, 2003).
It is important to note that the conditions necessary for an individual to experience
flow differ from person to person. For example, some people are able to experience flow
while reading a book, while others experience flow watching a movie. Overall, however,
research has shown that educational activities provide opportunities for flow when they
have a clear goal with many entry points that allow learners to be challenged at a variety
of different skill levels and to self-select the level that meets their needs. It is also
important that the learner's skills just match the educational challenge and that feedback
is immediate and appropriate (King, 2003). Interactivity can be incorporated into web-
based educational environments to meet the described conditions.
Research into the theory of flow and my own educational flow experiences
impressed upon me the importance of creating an environment designed to facilitate flow
experiences and therefore increase learning potential. With this in mind, all three
versions of the game were designed with clear educational goals and give the user
immediate feedback after they make a selection. In addition, versions two and three have
many entry points and paths through the game (compared to version one that had one
designated path). Also, users can self-select whether to read the informational text that is
presented automatically on each page depending on their skills, needs, and interests.
Because they have choice and control, the learner's skills will match the challenge.
Finally, by incorporating interactivity into educational websites, developers can
create an environment that reduces a learner's fear of public failure. Learners are more
willing to be creative and try various solutions because they know they are not being
watched or judged by others. "If users engage in a simulation one-on-one, fear of making
mistakes and having others know about them is eliminated because only the computer
knows how the simulation is going" (Deubel, 2003).
Interactive Frameworks
In order for complex educational interactions to occur in web-based learning
environments, learners must actively study and analyze information, build hypotheses,
and solve problems. Through this, learners are able to combine the knowledge gained
from the web-based learning environment with their prior knowledge and previous
experiences to form a cohesive understanding of the subject matter (Deubel, 2003).
Many authors (Chou, 2003; Schaller & Allison-Bunnell, 2003; Ohl, 2001) have studied
the use of interactivity to promote learning and have concluded that an ideal web-based
learning environment should incorporate four interactive dimensions: bi-directional
communication, user choice, playfulness, and feedback. "Using interactivity (where
visitors have the power to influence outcome) and participation (where visitors can feel
involved) can broaden the base of people who feel that the website has something for
them that fits in with their own needs and learning styles" (Durbin, 2003).
Bi-directional communication channels enable a two-way communication
between two people to occur. This social interaction helps learners construct knowledge
by allowing them to ask and receive answers to their questions. Bi-directional
communication channels could include the incorporation of streaming video, chat rooms,
listservs, surveys, or simply the inclusion of the webmaster's email address for comments
with a response by the webmaster (Chou, 2003). While bi-directional communication
channels would ideally be integrated into all web-based learning environments, they are
often not feasible for museums because they are too labor and time intensive. In
addition, bi-lateral communication on the web poses many privacy and inappropriate
communication concerns when dealing with children and young-adults. Because of this,
museums should attempt to simulate two-way, person-to-person communication by using
narrative devices in the plot or story, visual and interface design (this could include the
use of characters that appear to "talk" to the user or a system where users are able to
compare their answers with those of others, including experts), and creating an
appropriate underlying information architecture (Schaller & Allison-Bunnell, 2003).
Web-based learning environments should also incorporate user choice, allowing
for alternatives in color, speed, language and other non-informational choices, as well as
a number of subject-oriented options. The learner should be offered opportunities to
make productive, influential decisions in the learning process. This "means going
beyond offering menus of choices to select from, and involves providing an infrastructure
for helping the users to construct their own chain of inference and meaning" (Schaller &
Allison-Bunnell, 2003). Environments should be designed to allow learners to
experience the consequences of their decisions immediately. Finally, information should
be accessible in a non-sequential, non-linear way. Users should be able to enter the site
at a variety of points and have the opportunity to choose their own direction through the
information once in the site (Chou, 2003).
In addition, an aspect of playfulness should be incorporated into web-based
learning environments, especially those intended for children. This includes integrating
curiosity-arousing devices such as games, jokes, and hands-on activities (Chou, 2003).
Rather then simply reading endless pages of informational text, users should be offered
something in which to participate. By manipulating objects and ideas, users construct
their own knowledge and create strong mental connections. Allison-Bunnell & Schaller
(2003) described four playful interactions that facilitate learning and can be incorporated
into web-based learning environments.
Role-play: learners become someone different from himself or herself and do
something they normally couldn't do (i.e. break natural or societal laws, visit
past or future places, meet different types of people, etc).
Simulation: learners manipulate a model of the real world to explore a
system or concept
Puzzle/Mystery: learners analyze evidence to determine a logical solution
Creative Play/ Production: users create something original (a picture, story,
etc) based on the concepts learned along the way. The Butterfly Discovery
game is an example of creative play/ production.
Finally, web-based learning environments should provide immediate, appropriate
feedback to the user (Ohl, 2001). Feedback is the information presented to the user after
the user inputs a choice into the environment. Feedback can then be described as
"occurring when a learner actively adapts to information being presented by a form of
technology, which in turn adapts to the learner" (Chou, 2003). Interactivity is addressed
in two ways: in terms of the communication between the user and the content, during
which the user is analyzing the information and making choices; and the user and the
interface, when the user is presented with information and then inputs a choice into the
environment. The interface then "reads" this choice and responds accordingly to the
user, beginning the cycle anew.
Interactive Frameworks Appropriate for an Educational Museum Website and
their use in Butterfly Discovery
Interactive Framework
Bi-directional
communication
User choice
I
___________________________________________________________________________ I
Comments
* A two-way "conversation"
* Frequently not feasible due to time, labor, or privacy
constraints
* Can be simulated in the environment's design
* Not used in the Butterfly Discovery game
* Not necessary for the game's educational goals
* Could be incorporated into the website, however, this
was not done because of the difficulty in continuing
the communication
* Privacy concerns for intended age range
* Users should have many options for both
informational and non-informational choices
* Should include many modalities of information
* Subject-oriented choices should allow users to
construct their own meaning and should allow
information to be accessed in a non-linear, non-
sequential way
* There should be immediate consequences for all
subject-oriented choices
* In Butterfly Discovery, user is able to control the speed
of their progress through the stages (non-
informational)
* Game is accessible in a non-sequential, non-linear way
because the user must choose where to go next
o Evaluation showed that while most children used
the game in the intended sequence, some did the
stages in other orders
* Users are able to choose the depth of knowledge they
wish to gain by choosing to read or ignore the
informational text
I
Playfulness
Feedback
* Gives users something to do rather then see, arouses
curiosity and entertains
* Many types available:
o Games
o Jokes
o Role play
o Simulation
o Puzzle/ mystery
o Creative play/ production
o Question and answer
Used in Butterfly Discovery to arouse children's
curiosity
* Game is participatory and hands-on, allowing users to
construct their own knowledge and create strong
connections
* Creative play/ production was chosen because research
has shown children prefer it and teachers often use it
as assignments
* Presented after the user makes a choice
* Users should be able to experience the consequences
of their decisions immediately
Butterfly Discovery allows users to experience the
consequences of their decisions immediately.
Feedback is the visual image presented after a choice
(Chou, 2003; Schaller & Allison-Bunnell, 2003; Ohl, 2001)
I
Creative Play/ Production
A survey by Schaller and Allison-Bunnell (2002) found that children prefer
creative play/ production and role-playing activities to simulation and puzzle/mystery
(described on page 20). Creative play/ production (like the Butterfly Discovery game)
consists of drawing a picture, writing a story, making a movie, etc. It allows the user to
"create something original based on the things you learn along the way" (Schaller and
Allison-Bunnell, 2002). Creative play/ production helps develop skills (especially
observation and decision-making), and is exploratory in nature, allowing for personal
choice and interaction. In addition, creative play inspires interest, curiosity, awe and
wonder, and helps learners associate curiosity and learning with enjoyable experiences.
Studies show that users often complete creative production activities in web-based
learning environments, rather then simply abandoning them (Schaller and Allison-
Bunnell, 2002).
Children often need to be motivated to learn. Research has shown that children
respond favorably to goal-based environments that offer an extrinsic purpose and allow
for interaction and choice. A goal-based environment is a structured learning program
whose goals (and extrinsic motivators) stem from the activity itself (solve a crime, create
an artwork, etc) and reinforce the learning goal of the activity. "They create an
environment for both doing and thinking" (Schaller and Allison-Bunnell, 2002). For the
Butterfly Discovery game, the extrinsic purpose is the creation of a unique butterfly that
children can write about and print out. "Creative play (and constructivism) support user-
created outcomes that allow more personal choice and involvement...and permit learners
to create their own outcomes" (Schaller and Allison-Bunnell, 2002).
EVALUATION
Formative Evaluation
Formative evaluation for Butterfly Discovery occurred on an informal basis with
my peers and colleagues. Frequently I asked peers to play the game and observed their
interactions with it. After completing the game, I asked players to discuss ideas or
difficulties they had with the game. I also met with Dr. Betty Dunckel and Ms. Jamie
Creola from the Florida Museum of Natural History to gain professional museum
educators' perspectives on the game and constructive criticism on ways to improve it.
Changes to the game from these meetings are described on pages 7-11.
Summative Evaluation for Remediation Purposes
In order to determine any final changes that needed to be made to version 3, I
performed one day of summative evaluation for remediation purposes at the Florida
Museum of Natural History. Eleven subjects, ages 7-12, were asked to play the Butterfly
Discovery game. Before they began, they were asked the two questions listed under
"Pre-test" (see Appendix 1, page 30). As they played the game, I noted how they
interacted with the game and with their parents (if applicable). I paid particular attention
to how they used the navigation tools, whether the appeared to read the informational
text, and whether they appeared to have difficulties. After the participants completed the
game, I asked them a series of questions about any difficulties they had while playing the
game, what they did and did not enjoy, what they learned, and how I could improve the
game. I used the participants' answers, especially those concerning what the participants
felt they had learned, and the notes I took during the evaluation to verify that Butterfly
Discovery was meeting its educational goals. Although I determined that most of the
learning goals were being met, I discovered from this evaluation that there were some
issues that still needed to be resolved. I developed a list of concerns that needed to be
addressed before the game would be considered finished.
* Reading level might be too high for 7-8 year olds
* Make less text, make text bigger if possible
* Make yellow text boxes into buttons
* Change word "continue" to something else
* Make sure butterfly is part of button on bodies, patterns, wings, etc
* Put instructions on "About Your Butterfly" page
* Put in HELP screens
* Make it clearer to press button to "choose wings, etc", make button stand out
more
* Many participants stopped reading once they started making the butterfly, make
text more interesting, reduce amount of text, etc
* Put word camouflage on "My Butterfly" writing prompt, some children wanted to
use camouflage to describe how their butterfly defends itself, but didn't know
how to spell it
*Change interview questions
o Change rating scale,
o Make less open ended questions
o Make a checklist of things they did (rolled over, appeared to read text,
wrote about butterflies, used prompts, etc)
After this evaluation, I fixed many of the problems children had and added help
screens to make the game more clear. Following these changes, I felt that Butterfly
Discovery was complete. Interestingly, after completing this evaluation I began to
rethink the evaluation process and how I would complete the final summative evaluation.
I felt that watching the participants play the game resulted in good data, but that some of
the questions I used in the evaluation were either useless (9 out of 11 participants said
they had no problems playing the game although at times it appeared that some did have
difficulties) or too difficult to analyze due to the disparity in answers (especially for
"what do you think the main idea of the game is?"). Because of this I decided to reformat
the worksheet I used to evaluate study participants (see Appendix 2, page 31). The new
worksheet was changed in three ways. First, the new worksheet includes a checklist of
items, which will be checked off if the subject does the action (such as look at vocab, roll
over butterflies, etc). Also, closed questions were added in place of many open-ended
questions for the purpose of standardizing answers. The choices for these questions
were taken from the answers given during this evaluation. Finally, the rating scale was
changed from 1-4 to none- a little- a lot. This seemed much easier for children to
understand.
Final Summative Evaluation
The final summative evaluation took place on three weekend days in May at the
Florida Museum of Natural History. Weekends were chosen because school was still in
session and children in the target age range would be absent from the museum's visitors
during the week. A total of 38 eligible subjects were approached. Subjects were
considered eligible if they were in the target age range (7-12) and had at least one parent
or guardian available to sign the Institutional Review Board permission form. Five
subjects declined to participate. 33 subjects participated in the evaluation. The final
summative evaluation was used to determine if Butterfly Discovery succeeded in meeting
its intended learning goals. No changes were made to the game following the final
summative evaluation.
Once again the evaluation consisted of the participants playing the game. Before
they began, they were asked the two questions listed under "Pre-test" (see Appendix 2,
page 31). As they played, I used the checklist under "During the Game" on the
evaluation worksheet to note what components the participant chose to use or do. I also
noted whether they asked for advice from their parents. After the participants completed
the game, I asked them a series of questions about the game. The data resulting from this
evaluation can be found in Appendix 3, page 32.
Conclusions
The data collected during the final summative evaluation leads me to the
conclusion that the Butterfly Discovery game is effective in reaching its intended
educational goals in its target audience. Butterfly Discovery:
1. Stimulated the children's interest in Lepidoptera and science in general,
2. Introduced children to biodiversity in Lepidoptera,
3. Introduced children to Lepidoptera body structure,
4. Increased children's writing skills,
5. Allowed children to creatively play, and
6. Stimulated interest in the Florida Museum of Natural History's Butterfly
Rainforest.
One hundred percent of the participants created a butterfly and 79% wrote about
it. Eighty eight percent of participants appeared to read the writing prompts on the "My
Butterfly" section, even though some then chose to not write about their butterfly. Not
surprisingly, an overwhelming majority preferred creating the butterfly to writing about it
(82% : 12%). Many children enthusiastically said the game was fun. Seventy nine
percent of participants said they now know more about butterflies then they did before
playing the game. Although learning about butterfly parts, learning about diversity, and
having fun were ranked very high on the "What was the point of the game" question, the
highest ranked answer was to be creative (91%). When asked what the most interesting
thing they learned from the game was, 36% said something about butterfly diversity.
Finally, all participants want to go to the butterfly center when it opens, 82% want to go
"a lot".
Areas of consideration: I was slightly surprised to find that the number of
participants that read the informational text dropped sharply after they made their first
choice (intro text was 91%, body was 82%, wing and pattern were 52%, about your
butterfly was 58%). Also, while 73% of participants rolled over the butterfly specimen
on the "About your butterfly" section, with most (63% of that) rolling over all three, only
45% appeared to read the information presented on these rollovers. In addition, few
children were inclined to change their mind and choose more then one body, wing shape,
or pattern. Finally, I believe the targeted age range for this game should actually be 9-12,
since many 7-8 year olds had difficulties with reading and navigation.
APPENDIX 1
Interview Questions- Version 1
Age of participant:
Use the reverse side to note the interactions between the child and the game and any
difficulties they discussed during their participation.
Pre-test
1. Are you interested in butterflies? Rate 1 2 3 4
2. How much do you know about butterflies? Rate 1 2 3 4
Post-test
3. Did you have any problems playing the game?
4. What was your favorite part of the game? Why?
5. What was your least favorite part of the game? Why?
6. What do you think the main idea of the game is?
7. What was the most interesting information you learned from the game?
8. What information is new to you?
9. How can I improve the game?
10. Has the game made you more interested in butterflies? Rate 1 2 3 4
11. How much do you know about butterflies? Rate 1 2 3 4
12. Do you want to go to the butterfly center when it opens? Rate 1 2 3 4
APPENDIX 2
Interview Questions- Version 2
Age of participant:
Pre-test
1. How interested are you in butterflies?
2. How much do you know about butterflies?
During game (appeared to read)
Rolled over vocab Chc
Read intro information Rea
SRead body information Rol
SChose more then 1 body Rea
SRead wing shape information Rea
SChose more then 1 wing shape Wri
SRead pattern information Suc
Post-test
3.
4.
5.
Not at all
Nothing
A little
A little
A lot
A lot
)se more then 1 pattern
Ld about your butterfly information
led over butterflies 1 2 3
id the butterfly information on rollovers
Id the prompts on my butterfly
ote about their butterfly
cessfully built a butterfly
What was your favorite part of the game? Why?
What was the hardest part (or what part didn't you like) of the game? Why?
What was the point of the game? (can choose more then 1)
To learn about butterfly parts (bodies, wings, etc)
To learn about the diversity (variety) of butterflies
To have fun
To be creative
To make you like butterflies more
Other:
What was the most interesting thing you learned from the game?
Has the game made you more interested in butterflies? No A little A lI
Do you know more about butterflies after playing the game? Yes N
Do you want to go to the butterfly center when it opens? No A little A l
ot
o
ot
APPENDIX 3
Final Summative Evaluation Data
Ages of participants
(7)5
(8) 10
(9)8
(10)4
(11)3
(12)3
AVERAGE: 8.969 = 9
Pre-test
1. How interested are you in butterflies?
Not at all
1=3%
A little
16 = 48.5%
A lot
16 = 48.5%
2. How much do you know about butterflies? Nothing
6=18%
During game
10 = 30%
30 = 91%
27 = 82%
2=6%
17 = 52%
7 = 21%
17 = 52%
10 = 30%
19 = 58%
24 = 73%
15 = 45%
29 = 88%
26 = 79%
33 = 100%
A little
A lot
26 = 79% 1 = 3%
Used vocab rollovers
Read intro information
Read body information
Chose more then 1 body
Read wing shape information
Chose more then 1 wing shape
Read pattern information
Chose more then 1 pattern
Read "About your Butterfly" information
Rolled over butterflies
(1) 3 people (13%) (2) 6 people (25%) (3) 15 people (63%)
Read the butterfly information on rollovers
Read the prompts on my butterfly
Wrote about their butterfly (at least 1 answer)
Successfully built a butterfly
Post-test
1. What was your favorite part of the game? Why?
Making the butterfly: 27 = 82%
Choosing the wing: 2
Choosing the pattern: 8
"It's like making your own species"
"It was lots of fun"
"I like making new things"
"You can create anything you want"
"It's fun and you get to be creative. I like creating things"
"It let's you be creative and choose what you wanted to pick"
Writing about the butterfly (name): 4 = 12%
Finding out about their butterfly: 1 = 3%
Other: 1 = 3%
2. What was the hardest part (or what part didn't you like) of the game? Why?
Writing about it: 19 = 58% (5 didn't like, 14 said hardest part of game)
How it defends itself: 6
What its name is: 4
Where it lives: 2
"Writing about it, because it includes thinking"
Some said it was "hard to come up with an answer"
Reading: 5 = 15%
Deciding what to pick (on body parts): 4 = 12%
No answer: 3 = 9%
Liked all: 3 = 9%
3. What was the point of the game? (can choose more then 1)
** The answers were not the same for all kids, even though numbers were similar
29 = 88% To learn about butterfly parts (bodies, wings, etc)
29 = 88% To learn about the diversity (variety) of butterflies
28 = 85% To have fun
30 = 91% To be creative
17 = 52% To make you like butterflies more
13 = 39% Other:
7- To learn more about/ teach about butterflies
3- To make a butterfly
3- other
"So kids can have more fun in the museum"
4. What was the most interesting thing you learned from the game?
Variety/ diversity of butterflies: 12.= 36%
"There are many types of butterflies that are undiscovered"
Body parts: 4 = 12%
The info on the writing prompts: 3 = 9%
Where butterflies live: 3 = 9%
Didn't learn anything: 1 = 3%
Blank: 4 = 12%
Other answers: 6 = 18%
"There are types [of butterflies] that look like something you imagine"
5. Has the game made you more interested in butterflies?
No: 2 = 6% A little: 17 = 52% A lot: 14 = 42%
6. Do you know more about butterflies after playing the game?
Yes: 26 = 79% No: 7 =21%
7. Do you want to go to the butterfly center when it opens?
No: 0 A little: 6 = 18% A lot: 27 = 82%
8. Needed help/ talked with parent (some had more then 1 of following): 17 = 52%
Reading (little help with words): 3 = 9%
Reading (needed parent to read to them): 3 = 9%
Navigation: 9 = 27% (usually only on first page)
Spelling/ writing: 6 = 18%
Ages needing help:
(7)5
(8)7
(9)3
(10)1
(11) 1
AVERAGE AGE NEEDING HELP: 8.2
REFERENCE LIST
Chou, Chien (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning
systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 34(3), 265-79.
Deubel, Patricia (2003). An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to
instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
12(1), 63-90.
Durbin, Gail (2003). Using the web for participation and interactivity. Consulted
November 24, 2003. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2003/papers/durbin/durbin.html
Falk, John H. and Dierking, Lynn D. (2000). Learning From Museums: Visitor
Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Hein, George E. (1998). Learning in the Museum. New York, NY: Routledge.
Institute for Learning Innovation. (2002). Free-choice learning. Consulted June 30,
2004. http://www.ilinet.org/freechoicelearing.html
King, Andrew B. (2003). Speed Up Your Site: Web Site Optimization. Indianapolis, IN:
New Riders Publishing.
Najjar, L.J. (1996). Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5, 129-150.
Ohl, Todd Michael (2001). An interaction-centric learning model. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 311-32.
Schaller, David T. and Allison-Bunnell, Steven (2002). How do you like to learn?
Comparing user preferences and visit length of educational web sites. Consulted
December 11, 2003. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/schaller/schaller.html
Schaller, David T. and Allison-Bunnell, Steven (2003). Practicing what we teach: How
learning theory can guide development of online educational activities. Consulted
November 24, 2003. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2003/papers/schaller/schaller.html
Serrell, Beverly (1996). Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach. Walnut Creek, CA:
AltaMira Press.
I certify that I have read this document and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
project in lieu of thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.
SGlenn Willumson, Chair
Associate Professor of Art History
I certify that I have read this document and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
project in lieu of thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.
Craig Roland
Associate Professor of Art Education
I certify that I have read this document and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a
project in lieu of thesis for the degree of Master of
Graig Shaak
Associate Director of the Flori a Museum of Natural History
This project in lieu of thesis was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Fine
Arts and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master
of Arts.
August 2004
Marcia J. Issacson
Director, School of Art & Art History
Donald E. McGlothlin
Dean, College of Fine Arts
833F 18g4160
i2/19/06 3473q -
|
