A comparison of two analytical evaluation methods for educational computer games for young children

Authors:
Mathilde M. Bekker;Ester Baauw;Wolmet Barendregt
Affiliations:
Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Industrial Design, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands;Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Industrial Design, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands;Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Industrial Design, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Venue:
Cognition, Technology and Work
Year:
2008

Citing 0
Cited 4

Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers

Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers
Developmentally situated design (DSD): making theoretical knowledge accessible to designers of children's technology

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
A comparison of benchmark task and insight evaluation methods for information visualization

Information Visualization - Special issue on Evaluation for Information Visualization
Participatory evaluation of an educational game for social skills acquisition

Computers & Education

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In this paper we describe a comparison of two analytical methods for educational computer games for young children. The methods compared in the study are the Structured Expert Evaluation Method (SEEM) and the Combined Heuristic Evaluation (HE) (based on a combination of Nielsen’s HE and the fun-related concepts from Malone and Lepper) with both usability and fun heuristics for children’s computer games. To verify SEEM’s relative quality, a study was set up in which adult evaluators predicted problems in computer games. Outcomes based on thoroughness (whether the analytical method finds all problems), validity (whether the analytical method uncovers problems that are likely to be true) and appropriateness (whether the method is applied correctly) are compared. The results show that both the thoroughness and validity of SEEM are higher than the thoroughness and validity of the Combined HE. The appropriateness scores indicate that SEEM gives evaluators more guidance when predicting problems than the Combined HE does.