Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 4855–4893 | Cite as

Designing visualizations of temporal relations for children: action research meets HCI

  • Tania Di Mascio
  • Rosella Gennari
  • Laura Tarantino
  • Pierpaolo Vittorini


The diffusion of ICT products in everyday life is bringing into the realm of technological artifacts new users and their demands, which translate into novel design/research issues, like in the case of children-oriented Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) systems. In this paper we report our experience within the framework of the EU project TERENCE, which developed an adaptive learning system supporting 7–11 years old children characterized by “poor text comprehension”, a cognitive disability related to reading activities. In particular we discuss how our design approach allowed us to overcome the inadequacy of existing consolidated techniques for visualization of temporal relations and data gathering, which turned out not to comply with constraints typical of children-oriented TEL systems. We show how the definition of a novel children-oriented data gathering technique allowed us to carry out a study on the children mental model of time and, based on it, to design a children-oriented integrated “read-n-play” visual environment able to force the acquisition of the capability of reasoning about temporal events within a story. Since the aim of the stimulation is to drive children towards a mature mental model of time, the challenge was to overcome the drawbacks of adult-oriented techniques by building on concepts already possessed by children, while at the same time retaining some basic features of adult-oriented temporal visualization to favor the transition.


Children-oriented design Temporal relations Visualization Action research Games 


  1. 1.
    Aigner W, Miksch S, Muller W, Schumann H, Tominski C (2007) Visualizing time-oriented data, a systematic view. J Comput Graph 31(3):401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen JF (1983) Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commun ACM 26(11):832–843CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arfè B, Oakhill J, Pianta E (2014) The text simplification in TERENCE. In: Di Mascio T et al (eds) Methodologies and intelligent systems for Technology Advanced Learning, vol 292, Advances in intelligent systems and computing. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baskerville RL (1999) Investigating information systems with action research. J Commun Assoc Inf Syst 3 (Article 4). doi: 10.1038/sj.ejis.3000298
  5. 5.
    Baskerville RL, Heje JP (1999) Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice. J Account Manag Inf Technol 9(1):1–23Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baskerville RL, Wood-Harper AT (1996) A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. J Inf Technol 11(3):235–246. doi:10.4135/9781849209687, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bekker M, Beusmans J, Keyson D, Lloyd P (2003) KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children. Interacting Comput 15(3):187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bruckman A, Bandlow A, Forte A (2002) HCI for kids. In: Jacko J, Sears A (eds) Handbook of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 428–440Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brusilovsky P (2007) Adaptive navigation support. In: The adaptive web. Springer LNCS 4321: 263–290Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cain K (2009) Making sense of text: skills that support text comprehension and its development. Perspect Lang Lit 35(2):11–14Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cain K, Oakhill JV (2007) Comprehension problems in oral and written language. Guildford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cain K, Oakhill JV, Elbro C (2003) The ability to learn new word meanings from context by school-age children with and without language comprehension difficulties. J Child Lang 30(3):681–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Catarci T, Fernandes Silva S (2000) Visualization of linear time-oriented data: a survey. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on web information systems engineering. ACM Press, pp 310–319Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cecilia MR, Di Mascio T, Tarantino L, Vittorini P (2014) Designing TEL products for poor comprehenders: evidences from the evaluation of TERENCE. J Inter Des Archit 23:50–67Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chi EH et al (1998) Visualizing the evolution of web ecologies. In Proceedings of ACM CHI’98, Los Angeles, pp 400–407Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chittaro L, Combi C (2001) Representation of temporal intervals and relations: information visualization aspects and their evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on temporal representation and reasoning. IEEE Press, pp 13–20Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Collalto A (2009). La visualizzazione delle relazioni temporali nell’ambito delle comunicazioni nei bambini con problemi di comprensione. Dissertation, University of L’AquilaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davison RM, Martinsons MG, Kock N (2004) Principles of canonical action research. J Inf Syst 14:65–86. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00162, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de la Prieta Pintado F, Di Mascio T, Gennari R, Marenzi I, Vittorini P (2014) User-centred and evidence-based design of smart games for poor text comprehenders: the TERENCE experience. J Technol Enhanc Learn 6(3):212–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Di Giacomo D, Cofini V, Di Mascio T, Cecilia MR, Fiorenzi D, Gennari R, Vittorini P (2014) The silent reading supported by adaptive learning technology: influence in the children outcomes. Comput Hum Behav. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.053
  21. 21.
    Di Mascio T, De Gasperis G, Florio N (2012) TATOT: a viewer for annotate stories. In: Proceedings of ITAIS 2012. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  22. 22.
    Di Mascio T, Gennari R, Melonio A, Tarantino L (in press) Supporting children in mastering temporal relations of stories: the TERENCE learning approach. J Distance Educ TechnolGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Mascio T, Tarantino L (2015) Designing for children: blending HCI and action research. In: Bottoni et al (eds) Proceedings of 11th biannual conference of the Italian SIGCHI chapter. ACM, NY, USA, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Di Mascio T, Tarantino L (2015) Towards children-oriented visual representations for temporal relations. In: Di Mascio et al (eds) Methodologies and intelligent systems for technology enhanced learning. Springer International Publishing 374, pp 81–89Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dix A (2012) Action research in HCI. Accessed 12 June 2015
  26. 26.
    Druin A (2002) The role of children in the design of new technology. Behav Inf Technol 21(1):1–25Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Druin A, Bederson B, Boltman A, Miura A, Knotts-Callahan D, Platt M (1998) Children as our technology design partners. In: Kaufmann M (ed) The design of children’s technology. Inc. San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 51–72Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fails JA, Karlson A, Shahamat L, Shneiderman B (2006) A visual interface for multivariate temporal data: finding patterns of events across multiple histories. In: Wong PC, Keim DA (eds) Visual analytics science and technology. IEEE Press, pp 167–174Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gay LR, Airasian P (2000) Education research: competencies for analysis and application. Merrill, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Geva E, Massey-Garrison A (2013) A Comparison of the language skills of ELLs and monolinguals who are poor decoders, poor comprehenders, or normal readers. J Learn Disabil 46(5):387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gough P, Tunmer W (1986) Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial Spec Educ 7(1):6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gulliksen J, Göransson B, Boivie I, Blomkvist S, Persson J, Cajander A (2003) Key principles for user-centred system design. J Behav Inf Technol 22(6):397–409. doi:10.1080/01449290310001624329, CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hajnicz E (1996) Time structures: formal description and algorithmic representation. LNCS Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hayes GR (2011) The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Trans Comput Hum Inter 18(3) Article 15, 20 pages. doi: 10.1145/1993060.1993065
  35. 35.
    Hibino S, Rundensteiner EA (1997) User interface evaluation of a direct manipulation temporal visual query language. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on multimedia. ACM Press, pp 99–107Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hourcade JP (2007) Interaction design and children. In: Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction 1(4): 277–392. doi: 10.1561/1100000006
  37. 37.
    Jensen JJ, Skov MB (2005) A review of research methods in children’s technology design. In: Proceeding of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children. ACM New York, NY, USA, pp 80–87. doi: 10.1145/1109540.1109551
  38. 38.
    Jong MS, Lee J, Shang J (2013) Educational use of computer games: where we are, and what’s next. In: Huang R, Spector JM (eds) Reshaping learning, New Frontiers of Educational research. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 299–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kock N (2014) Action research: its nature and relationship to human-computer interaction. In: Soegaard M, Dam RF (eds) The encyclopedia of human-computer interaction, 2nd Ed. The Interaction Design Foundation, Aarhus. Available online at:
  40. 40.
    Kumar V, Furuta R, Allen RB (1998) Metadata visualization for digital libraries: interactive timeline editing and review. In: Proceedings of ACM digital libraries, Pittsburgh, USA, pp 126–133Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lewin K (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics. J Hum Relat 1:5–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lewin K (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics II. J Hum Relat 1:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mackinlay JD, Robertson GG, Card SK (1991) The perspective wall: detail and context smoothly integrated. In Proceding of ACM CHI’91, New York, pp 173–179Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    McColgan K, McCormack T (2008) Searching and planning: young children’s reasoning about past and future event sequences. Child Dev 79(5):1477–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McKay J, Marshall P (2001) The dual imperatives of action research. J Inf Technol People 14(1):46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nation K (2005) Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In: Hulme C, Snowling MJ (eds) The science of reading. Blackwel, Oxford, pp 248–265Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nesset V, Large A (2004) Children in the information technology design process: a review of theories and their applications. Libr Inf Sci Res 26(2):140–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nielsen J (1994) Usability laboratories: a 1994 survey. Behav Inf Technol 13(1):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Oakhill J, Cain K, Bryant P (2003) The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: evidence from component skills. Lang Cogn Process 18(4):443–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Oosterholt R, Kusano M, de Vries G (1996) Interaction design and human factors support in the development of a personal communicator for children. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 96, Vancouver, BC, pp 450–457Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Paivio A (1991) Dual-coding theory: retrospect and current status. Can J Psychol 45(3):255–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Plaisant C, Milash B, Rose A,Widoff S, Shneiderman B (1996) Lifelines: visualizing personal histories. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI’96. Vancouver, Canada, pp 221–227Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Prensky M (2003) Digital game-based learning. J Comput Entertain 1(1):21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Przybylski AK, Rigby CS, Ryan RM (2010) A motivational model of video game engagement. Rev Gen Psychol 14(2):154–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Read JC, Markopoulos P (2013) Child–computer interaction. J Child-Comput Inter 1:2–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Redish JG, Bias RG, Bailey R, Molich R, Dumas J, Spool JM (2002) Usability in practice: formative usability evaluations-evolution and revolution. In: Proceedings of CHI’02 Extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, pp 885–890Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rekimoto J (1999) TimeScape: a time-machine for the desktop environment. In Proceedings of ACM CHI’99 extended abstracts, Pittsburgh, PA USA, pp 180–181Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Siew ST, Yeo AW, Zaman T (2013) Participatory action research in software development: indigenous knowledge management systems case study. In: Masaaki K (ed) Human-centred design approaches, methods, tools, and environments. Lecture notes in computer science. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Slegers K, Gennari R (2011) State of the art of methods for user analysis and context of use. Technical Report of the TERENCE project, deliverable D1.1. University of L’Aquila, Italy. Available online at:
  60. 60.
    Snowling M, Hume C (2008) The science of reading: a handbook. WileyGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Susman GI, Evered RD (1978) An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. J Adm Sci Q 23:582–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Trist E, Bamforth K (1951) Social and psychological problems of long-wall coal mining. Hum Relat 4:3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Vaajakallio K, Lee J, Mattelmaki T (2009) “It has to be a group work!”: co-design with children. In: Proceedings of the 8th conference on interaction design and children, (IDC’09), ACM, New York (NY), USA, pp 246–249Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Valeriani A (1986) Ermeneutica retorica ed estetica nell’insegnamento verso l’oriente del testo. Andromeda, TeramoGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Vellutino F, Fletcher J, Snowling M, Scanlon D (2004) Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades? J Child Psychol Psychiatry 45(1):2–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Verhagen M (2005) Drawing TimeML relations with T-BOX. In: Katz G, Pustejovsky J, Schilder F (eds) Annotating, extracting and reasoning about time and events. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 10–15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tania Di Mascio
    • 1
  • Rosella Gennari
    • 2
  • Laura Tarantino
    • 1
  • Pierpaolo Vittorini
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienze dell’Informazione e MatematicaUniversità degli Studi dell’AquilaL’AquilaItaly
  2. 2.Computer Science FacultyFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzano-BozenItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Medicina clinica, sanità pubblica, scienze della vita e dell’ambienteUniversità degli Studi dell’AquilaL’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations