1 / 16

Children's Participation in a Media Content Creation Community: Israeli Learners in a Scratch Programming Environment

Ina Blau Department of Education & Psychology, Chais Research Center, OUI . Children's Participation in a Media Content Creation Community: Israeli Learners in a Scratch Programming Environment. Oren Zuckerman IDC Herzliya School of Communications. Andrés Monroy-Hernández

myrna
Télécharger la présentation

Children's Participation in a Media Content Creation Community: Israeli Learners in a Scratch Programming Environment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ina Blau Department of Education & Psychology, Chais Research Center, OUI Children's Participation in a Media Content Creation Community: Israeli Learners in a Scratch Programming Environment Oren Zuckerman IDC Herzliya School of Communications Andrés Monroy-Hernández MIT Media Lab

  2. Scratch: Online Community of Interactive Projects • Browse • View projects • Download

  3. Scratch: Online Community of Interactive Projects • Project creation: • Create • Share • Remix

  4. Scratch: Online Community of Interactive Projects • Social participation: • Write comments • Add friends • Add to galleries • Mark as love-it • Add to favorites

  5. Background 1 • Scratch - constructionist, social environment • (Papert, 1980; Resnick, 2007 )‏ • Participation patterns • (Jenkins, 2006; Monroy-Hernández & Resnick, 2008)‏

  6. Background 2 • Motivation for contribution • (Rafaeli & Ariel, 2008; Rafaeli, Raban & Ravid, 2007)‏ • Uses and gratification (Rubin, 1994)‏

  7. Study hypotheses Project creation and social participation measures would not correlate Individual investment in the community would positively correlate with community feedback both on a user and a project level There would be no significant gender differences in participation patterns and project complexity

  8. Method: Participants 65 Israeli Scratch users, mostly elementary school students 35 girls (53.8%) Age range: 9-17 (Mean: 11.5)‏ (Median: 11)

  9. 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

  10. Projects created by Israeli Scratch community(July 2008) 80% / 17% / 3% <100 / >100 / >1000

  11. 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)‏

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. Motivation for participation?Design for participation?

More Related