Multimedia Platform Development for Parental Involvement in

Learning of Children Attending Kindergarten

Iterative Cicles of Development

Dionísia Laranjeiro

, Maria João Antunes

and Paula Santos

CIDTFF, Dep. Education and Psychology, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

CIC.Digital/Digimedia, Dep. Communication and Arts, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Keywords: Parental Involvement, Multimedia Platform, Prototype Development, Kindergarten.

Abstract: Several studies have shown the importance of parental involvement in learning and development of

kindergarten children, but also mention existing barriers, such as lack of time. The proliferation of access to

the Internet and use of web tools can facilitate communication between parents and educators, reduce barriers

and promote parental involvement and participation in children's learning. The study carried out is a design-

based research, which aims to develop a multimedia platform that promotes communication and information

sharing among educators, parents and children, facilitating parental involvement in learning. The design-

based research methodology understands the development of products in iterative cycles of analysis,

technological development, testing and evaluation with users, evolving towards an increasingly robust

intervention. This paper presents the results of preliminary studies, the first cycle of development of the

platform, composed of functional specifications, paper prototype and usability tests, ending with an

introduction to the second cycle of development. This is the current development phase, consisting of a

functional prototype, which is in use for evaluation by users in four kindergartens.

1 INTRODUCTION

Parental involvement (PI) is a very broad issue that

implies the participation of parents in children’s

formal learning process, taking part in school-related

activities. In pre-school education, four types of PI

can be distinguished: participation in school, when

parents do activities in the classroom; involvement at

home, activities such as reading or cooking with the

child, visiting museums or libraries; participation in

the community, like being a member of PTA;

involvement in learning, which presupposes talking

to child’s teacher about his/her progress, discuss it

with the child, helping and ensuring that the child

does homework (Reynolds and Shlafer, 2010).

There are several studies that recognize the

importance of PI for the success of children's

learning, pointing it as an important factor in the

acquisition of skills and the results achieved (Epstein,

1995; Harris and Goodall, 2008). PI has a significant

effect on child's adaptation to school and success in

learning, regardless of other factors, such as social

class (Desforges and Abouchaar, 2003). Involvement

at home plays an important role in student

achievement and positive attitudes toward school

(Melhuish et al., 2008). Expectations that parents

transmit to their children about what they

academically aspire to them have strong influence on

their success (Fan and Chen, 2001). With regard to

preschool children, PI also has an impact on general

development, cognitive development and school

readiness (Hilado, Kallemeyn and Phillips, 2013).

Positive relationships between educators and parents

have an effect on children's social skills (Diamond et

al., 2013). Some studies have found a relationship

between PI in kindergarten and the performance of

children in reading and mathematics (Sonnenschein,

Stapleton and Metzger, 2014). An essential element

for PI is school-family communication. Effective

communication is associated with academic success

(Lunts, 2003). When parents communicate

constructively with teachers and participate in school

activities, they have a greater understanding of what

their children should learn and how they can improve

their formal education at home (Stevenson and Baker,

1987). Parent collaboration in school community is

also related to better results and better student

behaviour (Epstein, 1995). Success at a later stage of

208

Laranjeiro, D., Antunes, M. and Santos, P.

Multimedia Platform Development for Parental Involvement in Learning of Children Attending Kindergarten - Iterative Cicles of Development.

DOI: 10.5220/0006324602080219

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 2, pages 208-219

ISBN: 978-989-758-240-0

life, particularly in employment, is established in the

preschool years, which are the basis for acquiring

study and work skills. This requires strong

partnerships between services, family and child

(Plowman et al., 2011). The importance of PI is

recognized in governmental guidelines for early

childhood education in several countries (European

Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat, 2014). In

Portugal, Curriculum Guidelines for Pre-school

education request educators to involve parents,

referring the need to establish bilateral and positive

communication, promote good relationships and

encourage the participation of families in the

educational process (Silva et al., 2016). However, PI

has logistical, emotional or cultural constraints. The

report Learning in families (2009) presents results of

a survey to parents of pre-school and elementary

school children, identifying barriers to PI and

indicating lack of time as the most important. Other

barriers encountered were costs associated with

transportation or babysitting and difficulties in

communicating with teachers (Lunts, 2003; Grant,

2009). A study conducted at 1205 kindergartens, to

ascertain PI over the years, has shown that the quality

of interaction between parents and educators

decreases, although participation in home-based

activities is consistent over time. It suggests that

activities requiring physical presence in school are

more difficult to maintain (Izzo et al., 1999).

Today, we witness the use of technology in

everyday life, for a variety of purposes, from work to

entertainment, communication and personal

organization. Technological tools, such as websites,

social networks, blogs or e-mail, create new channels

of communication and information sharing, and can

improve the relationship between educators and

parents. The importance of ICT for PI in learning is

mentioned by several authors (Grant, 2011;

Olmstead, 2013; Bouffard, 2014). Horizont Report

Europe (2014), which examines trends and challenges

of technology in education, point to social networks

as a fast trend to accelerate the adoption of

technologies in schools, as they provide dialogue

between students, teachers, parents and instituitions,

helping parents to stay informed and giving feedback

to teachers. On the other hand, children grow up well

acquainted with technologies such as computers,

Internet, videogames, tablets and mobile phones,

using them to play, learn and communicate. Digital

educational resources can be part of learning

activities promoted by parents or educators, and can

be shared between them, using online tools. Relevant

organizations have recommendations for the

introduction of ICT in education (UNESCO, 2011),

such as UNESCO's Policy Brief for use of ICT in pre-

school education (Kalas, 2012), or NAEYC's position

statement (2012), which advocates the integration of

interactive media and technology as learning tools in

pre-school education.

2 METHODOLOGY

Given the relevance of the theme and verifying the

existence of specific needs of this target audience,

researchers set up a design-based research, in which

it was intended to investigate, develop and evaluate a

multimedia platform, to answer the question: what are

the functionalities, contents and dynamics that a

multimedia platform must have to promote PI in

learning of children attending kindergarten?

The term design-based research covers a group of

research methodologies based on design and

development, with some variations (van den Akker et

al., 2006). So, it is needed to highlight some specific

characteristics of this methodology: it includes

activities of analysis, design of educational prototype,

evaluation and revision (Coutinho, 2006); scientific

knowledge influences development, which is then

tested in the field, bringing empirical data to improve

the product and validate knowledge; the development

process is interactive and iterative, until it reaches a

satisfactory approximation of the ideal intervention;

it allows to exploit the potential of ICT, in order to

solve a real problem in education (van den Akker,

1999); It is based on rigorous and reflective research

to build knowledge and principles that can guide

future developments and studies (Reeves, 2000); The

user is involved in the entire process, from

preliminary studies to evaluation, in order to obtain a

higher quality intervention (Nieveen and Folmer,

2013). This type of research can bring specific

knowledge of a context, but be transferable and

relevant to other learning environments (Richey,

Klein and Nelson, 2008).

This research is carried out with a development

team (designer and programmer) of the multimedia

company Criamagin®, a research team from the

University of Aveiro and four classrooms of three

kindergartens in Aveiro, including four educators and

94 parents. In this way, the target audience (parents

and educators) is involved in all phases of

development, from needs assessment and definition

of functional specifications to usability tests,

utilization and evaluation.

Several authors present models for the

operationalization of design-based research.

Although the models vary in detail, they have

Multimedia Platform Development for Parental Involvement in Learning of Children Attending Kindergarten - Iterative Cicles of

Development

209

similarities, synthesized by Plomp (2013) in three

stages: preliminary studies, development and

evaluation. For this study, the model was adapted as

follows: Stage I - Preliminary studies, consisting of

literature review and search for state-of-art platforms,

characterization of participants, survey the needs of

educators and parents. Stage II - Iterative

development of the platform, consisting of cycles of

analysis, design, evaluation and revision of the

prototype, until reaching the final product, involving

the target audience in all process. Three development

cycles are planned: First cycle - functional

specifications, paper prototype and usability tests;

Second cycle - functional prototype, pilot

implementation in kindergartens and use by educators

and parents, for tests and evaluation; Third cycle -

final product, use in kindergartens. Stage III - Final

evaluation of the impact of the product on PI in

children's learning. This moment helps to verify the

success of the product, i.e., to ascertain the practical

results and contributions to the theory, as well as,

suggestions for future studies.

Design-based research uses mixed methods to

collect data, analyse and refine the intervention (The

Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). Thus, a

combination of different forms of data collection is

used in this study, such as interviews, questionnaires,

e-research, usability tests and observation. Content

analysis and descriptive statistical analysis were used

to analyse data. Next sections present the results of

preliminary studies, the first cycle of development

and the beginning of the second cycle of

development.

3 PRELIMINARY STUDIES

Preliminary studies started with a questionnaire to

parents (n = 59) and interviews to educators (n = 4) to

include both perspectives and needs in a platform that

should improve communication and promote PI in

learning. Also, a literature review was done to find

out research about PI with technological tools, to

predict good practices and learn from projects already

implemented. Researchers searched for existing

platforms and identified their main features, to

understand market trends.

Results of parent’s questionnaires showed that

parents value some features: news and events

calendar, photo and videos gallery of children’s

projects and private messaging with the educator. The

greater advantage of the platform is to access updated

information on the work carried out in kindergarten.

A general concern is the protection of personal

information, in particular, sharing photos where

children are identified.

Results of interviews with educators indicate that

the platform must gather official information of

kindergarten and direct contacts of parents. Also, it

should integrate specific areas, such as child/group

history, activities developed, suggestions of activities

to do with children and links to educational resources.

The biggest advantages are celerity and automation of

communication; promotion of parent’s feedback;

separation of professional contact from personal

social networks. The constraints are lack of time for

maintenance and parent’s fear of privacy issues.

From the research of existing platform for PI,

researchers summarize the most common features:

private groups, individual/group messaging; image

gallery; events calendar. Platforms best suited to

preschool, focus on disseminating information

(happened or planned), but lack the provision of

strategies or suggestions that parents can explore at

home, contributing more actively to their child's

learning. Literature review presents some research

projects which promoted PI in kindergarten through

technological tools. Some results are: active

participation and higher feed-back from parents;

awareness about the work developed in kindergarten;

improvement of relationships between parents and

educators; parents' ability to extend home learning

based on the information shared; reading comments

with children contributed to collaborative and

constructive learning (Hong and Trepanier-Street,

2004; Näsänen, Oulasvirta and Lehmuskallio, 2009;

Faria and Ramos, 2011; Knauf, 2016). A detailed

presentation of the preliminary studies, with a critical

discussion of the results found at this stage, can be

consulted in Laranjeiro, Antunes and Santos (2017).

4 FIRST CYCLE OF

DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Conceptual Structure

Based on the contributions of the preliminary studies,

the first cycle of development started, with the

definition of functional specifications of the platform,

which resulted in a paper prototype, subjected to a

formative evaluation, with usability tests by the users,

later on. Functional specifications are detailed

descriptions of the functionalities that will be

included in the platform, to meet the needs of the

users and the objectives of the product (Garrett,

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

210

2011). This is an essential document for teamwork as

it is a starting point for a joint understanding of the

product. Until the specifications are written, there are

many development possibilities, derived from

brainstorming sessions, team opinions and user

surveys. The project manager must clearly define

what will be done, limit the scope of the project,

excluding what will not be done, and set priorities and

responsibilities in development. Functional

specifications were written following three

principles: specific, objective and positive description

(say what the system should do, instead of focusing

on what should not happen), avoiding

misinterpretation (Garrett, 2011). With specifications

defined, researchers set out the conceptual structure

of the platform. The structure is presented in an

architecture diagram, which is a flowchart showing

the organization and interconnection of different

areas (Garrett, 2011). The unit of the diagram is the

node, which corresponds to a sort of information. The

structure is hierarchical, composed of categories and

subcategories, forming a navigation that is consistent

and easy to learn by the user.

The architecture diagram (Figure 1) presents the

structure of the platform. Starting from the homepage,

it is divided into four main nodes. Within each node,

specific contents and functionalities are presented.

The diagram shows the nomenclature used in buttons

and menus.

4.2 Functional Specifications

The platform is divided into four areas: personal area,

where functionalities and contents are available to

each user, individually and privately; group area,

where content is published and shared by all members

of the group, educator and parents; kindergarten area,

where the educator provides institutional information

to parents; support area, where users can contact the

team, as well as find more information about the

project.

General Specifications - the left side menu

appears in all pages, giving access to three areas

(personal, group, kindergarten). Each area contains

submenu buttons, using the nomenclature defined in

the architecture diagram. The logo of the project is

placed in the header. Group name and user’s photo

must always be present, in an upper area of the site.

In the central block, below the heading, is placed the

writing area, where users can write posts. Below the

writing area, posts of group members appear in

chronological order. Group members can comment a

post. On the right side menu, there are news of the

institution, calendar of events and support area.

Writing Area – in all pages there is a writing area,

where users can write posts, to share content with

other group members. Users can choose where they

want to publish the post: messages, agendinha,

activities, educational resources. By default, users

write messages that appear at the homepage. If they

want to choose another area, they have to click on the

correspondent tab. If they choose ‘Educational

Resources’ tab, they can insert links to web pages,

apps, educational games and other resources that will

appear in Educational Resources Area. In each post,

they must include title, link, description (required)

and images (optional). If they choose the ‘Activities’

tab, they will insert content in the ‘Suggestions’ area.

Here, they can choose typology: Books and stories;

Songs, Handicrafts, Games and playtime, Outdoors,

Other. Each contribution consists of title and

description (required), link and images (optional). If

Figure 1: Architecture diagram.

Multimedia Platform Development for Parental Involvement in Learning of Children Attending Kindergarten - Iterative Cicles of

Development

211

they choose ‘Agendinha’ tab, they can insert events,

using subcategories - exhibitions, cinema, theatre,

music and other shows. Each contribution is

composed by title and description (required), link,

images, date (optional).

Homepage - at homepage, all contents published

appear in chronological order, regardless of the area

where they are associated. Thus, there is a

chronological presentation of all posts, but at the

same time, there is an organization by type:

agendinha, suggestions, educational resources.

Gallery - area where parents and educators can

share photos, videos and audio files. Possibility of

creating albums within the gallery, associating name,

description and date, for organization of contents.

Upload of contents into an album and possibility to

edit description. Chronological listing of albums and

contents. Ability to comment and reply to comments

about a content.

Educational Resources – area where users can see

the list of links inserted by group members. The list

appears divided by typologies (websites, apps, games,

others). Within each typology, links appear from the

most recent to the oldest. Possibility for each member

to mark a link as a favourite. Ability to comment and

answer to comments on each item.

Suggestions – area where users can see all

suggestions of activities inserted by group members.

The list appears divided by typologies: Books and

stories; Songs, Handicrafts, Games and playtime,

Outdoors, Other. Activities appear from the most

recent to the oldest. Possibility for each member to

mark an activity as a favourite. Ability to comment

and answer to comments on each content.

Agendinha - area where users can see all events

inserted by group members. The list appears divided

by typologies: exhibitions, cinema, theatre, music and

other shows. Events appear from the most recent to

the oldest. Possibility for each member to mark an

event as a favourite. Ability to comment and answer

to comments on each item.

Members - area presenting the list of group

members, with photograph and name. Photos connect

to the public profile page, which displays personal

information - photography, name, publications on the

platform and direct connection to private messaging.

Events - kindergarten calendar, where educators

can highlight activities already done or to be carried

out in the future, for example, Mother's Day,

Christmas. Each contribution consists of a title, a

description, date (required) and images (optional).

This functionality is visible to all members, but only

available for editing by educators, who have

permissions to insert, edit and delete events.

News - news are composed of title, text (required)

and image (optional). They serve to communicate

official information from the kindergarten. News are

listed from the most recent to the oldest. This

functionality is visible to all members, but only

available for editing by educators.

Information - area where educators can upload

temporary files (.pdf or .jpg) to parents, such as

weekly menu and weekly planning. Possibility of

associating title and description to the file. List from

the most recent to the oldest. This functionality is

visible to all members, but only available for editing

by educators.

Documentation - area where educators can upload

files (.pdf or .jpg) to parents, such as – regulations,

school calendar, pedagogical plan, other. Possibility

of associating title and description to the file. List

from the most recent to the oldest. This functionality

is visible to all members, but only available for

editing by educators.

Private Messages - area where private messages

can be read and written. Ability to create message and

choose the recipients from the list of group members

- educator, member, several members or the whole

group. Ability to respond to a message.

Favourites – accessing this area, users can view

all the posts they saved as favourites, listed and

divided by categories - agendinha, educational

resources, suggestions.

Notifications - users can receive notifications by

e-mail. They can customize notifications by

frequency - choosing to receive a daily or weekly

summary; members - receiving notifications from the

educator, a specific member or all members; and

areas - choosing to receive notifications about events,

educational resources, suggestions or messages. In

the personal area, users can see and delete

notifications. Unread notifications are written in bold,

to be distinguished from the others.

Child’s History - in this private area, parents have

access to information sent by the educator about their

child - images, files (e.g., pdf document with annual

evaluation), or text messages. The information is

stored in chronological order, constituting a portfolio

or history of the child, related to his/her development

and achievements in kindergarten. When accessing

the child's history area, the educator has a drop-down

menu to choose the parent and, after this step, share

private information about the child.

Support - area with explanations about the portal,

how it works, what functionalities are available, how

to participate, conditions of use. It also has a contact

form to development team to address suggestions,

debug and help.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

212

Backoffice - in addition to the profile of educator and

the profile of parent, there is a third profile, the

administrator’s, that belongs to the development team

of Criamagin, responsible for managing the platform.

The administrator has access to a Backoffice area, to

monitor platform data, access usage statistics and

manage rooms and users. The administrator creates

access to the members of kindergarten, which means

creating groups, registering users with e-mails

(previously provided by the kindergarten), and

associating users to a created group. Users receive an

email confirming registration, with instructions to

enter and to start using the platform.

4.3 Paper Prototype and Usability

Tests

With the definition of the functional specifications

and the architecture diagram, a paper prototype of the

platform was elaborated (Figure 2), to test the

usability and the overall design with the user, at an

initial phase of development. Usability is formally

defined in standard ISO 9241, as the ability of a

product to be used with effectiveness, efficiency and

satisfaction by specific users to achieve their

objectives in a context (ISO, 1998). It is a quality

attribute that measures whether the interface is easy

to learn and use, whether the features are easy to

remember, the type and number of user errors, and

speed of task execution (Berns, 2004).

A paper prototype is a recommended technique

for making usability studies, in the beginning of the

development, because its implementation is fast and

economic. It allows the team to gather data about

usability, at a very early stage of a project, and to

improve the user experience. At this stage, it is still

possible to change the approach to the problem,

change the set of resources specified for

development, and even change the interface

architecture. These changes are no longer feasible in

terms of costs and deadlines when the product is

tested at a later stage of development (Nielsen, 2003).

At this global design definition phase, the topics

to be evaluated with the user are Relevance (content

validity), Consistency (construct validity) and

Practicality (to check if users expect to use the

product in the context for which it was created)

(Nieveen and Folmer, 2013). The study of usability in

the global design phase doesn’t focus on graphic or

layout, but test general understanding, navigation,

concepts, buttons and menus nomenclature, contents

associated to each area, choices to display

information on each page, identification of missing

features and resources (Nielsen, 2003). For these

tests, there is no need to have all functionalities

implemented, but a horizontal representation, a first

level that presents the features and allows the users to

perform/simulate tasks (Rubin and Chisnell, 2008). A

balanced usability test can be performed with five

potential users. Five users discover 80% of the

problems, including in this percentage the biggest

problems. The fifth user typically observes the same

results and does not add much new information. In

case there are different categories of users, for

example, teachers and students, it is advisable to test

with three potential users of each group (Nielsen and

Sova, 2003).

Figure 2: Paper Prototype.

Multimedia Platform Development for Parental Involvement in Learning of Children Attending Kindergarten - Iterative Cicles of

Development

213

Researchers have created a paper prototype,

simulating the main areas of the platform to be tested

by users. It was necessary to create a fictional room,

with members of both profiles (educators and

parents), to better understand the interactivity,

navigability, dynamics and contents generated in the

platform.

4.3.1 Usability Tests Planning

The test plan is based on the recommendations of

Rubin and Chisnell (2008), and describes what will

be done during the test, discriminating objectives,

participants and procedures. Usability test objectives

are: to probe the relevance, consistency and

practicality expected of the use of the product, by two

groups of users (parents and educators); to understand

whether both groups of users can use the product

equally well; to identify obstacles to use. Tests

followed a common set of procedures: presentation of

the study to the participant, noting that it’s not the

user that is being tested, but the product, and that his

participation is important; filling out a small

questionnaire about knowledge and experience with

Internet communication tools; usability test,

consisting of a “walk through” (Wharton et al., 1994)

of the paper screens and the accomplishment of tasks

proposed by the moderator, simulating click action on

the screen with the finger touch on the paper.

Researchers encourage the use of the "Think aloud"

protocol (Someren, Barnard and Sandberg, 1994) by

the participant, to facilitate researcher’s annotations.

Tests ended with an interview related to attitudes

regarding the use of the platform, to know the opinion

and perceive the interest and expectation of users.

About the participants, eight individual tests were

carried out with four educators and four parents,

representing both groups of users of the platform. The

instruments were pre-tested with a mother from

another kindergarten.

With these tests, researchers intended to collect

two types of data: performance data - errors and

completed tasks; understanding of structure and

navigation; preference data - ease of use and learning,

nomenclature, perceived utility, expectations.

Usability tests results of paper prototype are

presented in the next section, suggesting changes and

improvements to implement in the functional

prototype.

4.3.2 Usability Tests Results

The usability assessment was done with four

educators (E1 to E4) and four parents (P1 to P4).

According to the data collected in the questionnaire,

all of them use Internet services every day, but have

different levels of participation in social networks,

from observation (e.g., P2 and P3 only read posts) to

full social interaction (e.g., P4 and E4

read/write/answer posts, share images/videos; belong

to Groups; use instant messaging).

Initial Considerations

After ended the questionnaire, participants described

the main screen, on paper, pointing out the different

areas, giving suggestions and expressing doubts.

From this first part of the test, researchers were able

to verify the general understanding of the platform

and hear the first opinions of the eight participants.

Everyone understood the general layout, identifying

the menu area, the writing area, and the body of the

site, where users' posts appear. They understood the

division of the menu into three sub-levels (personal,

group and kindergarten). Some considerations were

retained for possible implementation in the second

cycle of development.

E1 thinks that the tabs above the writing area are

confusing, as well as the use of the word ‘Messages’.

She was unsure if it was intended to private messages

or messages to the homepage. She suggested to put

the writing area of each section only in that section,

that is, if the user is at the homepage, the posts he

writes appear only there. The tabs were not

understood by P2, who described it as buttons to

change pages.

E3 asked if ‘Child’s History’ is only accessible to

the child's parents, showing concern about privacy.

She also suggested that parents could share with the

educator what their children do at home, in this

private area.

P3 noticed that the posts did not have date and

time details.

Three parents asked about the possibility of

blocking members.

Results of Tests with Tasks List

After the initial description, the prototype was

evaluated based on a task list. According to the

question asked, participants pointed out with the

finger and explained the procedure to accomplish the

task. As they finished the task, they moved forward,

changing the page of the prototype.

Table 1 presents the tasks questions associated

with the functionality and the participants who were

able to successfully complete the task (x). Those who

did not understand the task or performed it with error

have the space blank. Visually, the table gives an

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

214

overview of the functionalities best understood and

the ones that caused major errors. Analysing the table,

tasks that caused major problems are associated with

the areas: edit profile, educational resources,

activities, information and favourites. Participants

made comments during the tasks, which were taken

into account for the second cycle of development.

In task two, E1 said that "Edit profile" should be

written next to the photo. Three parents said there

should be a button in the personal area to edit the

profile.

In task four, P4 pointed out that a submit button is

missing. He asked if he should just press the ENTER

key.

In task six, E4 found an error. The structure did

not have a back button. Without it, he gets stuck in

private messages. He also suggested that it should be

possible to send private messages to multiple

members at the same time.

In task eight, E4 didn’t identify the news because

he was looking for a button named news.

Task 11 was not achieved by any participant due to

the nomenclature educational resources. Four

participants suggested changing the name to links,

useful links, or interesting links.

In task 12, the same happened. None of the

participants understood what were suggestions of

activities, confusing the purpose of this area (sharing

stories, songs, arts and crafts...), with educational

resources (links to websites, apps, videos) and

activities done in the kindergarten classroom. E1 said

she did not agree on the division by typology, because

the activities they do may include various types - a

book becomes a theatre, a song, music, etc. E3 has

proposed taking out the word Suggestions because

what makes sense is to share activities that they are

doing at school or at home. P3 has identified another

error, a link to return to homepage is missing.

Task 13 was well understood, although P4

confused agendinha with events. Three participants

considered that agendinha and events could be

together. Two educators did not like the term

agendinha (little agenda), it should be agenda. E1

thinks that, like in resources and activities, it

shouldn’t be divided into categories, because it is one

more step. She thinks it’s better that the user simply

Table 1: Tasks and performance of the users.

Task Functionality E1 E2 E3 E4 P1 P2 P3 P4

1 Who is the user who owns this page? Profile x x x x x x

Imagine this is your personal page. How can you

change your photo and profile information?

Edit profile x x x x

Do you think there's new information you

haven’t seen yet? Where can you check?

Notifications x x x x x x x x

Imagine you want to comment on the second

post. What should you do?

Comment x x x x x x x x

Now you want to add a photo and insert a

comment to share with the group.

Write post x x x x x x x x

6 Send a private message to the educator. Send messages x x x x x x x x

7 Do you have unread messages? From who? Received msg. x x x x x x x x

8 Access the news from kindergarten. News x x x x x x x

9 Add the news to favourites. Add favourites x x x x x x x x

10 Access photos about outdoor activities. Gallery x x x x x x x

Share with other parents a website with very

funny activities.

Educational

resources

12 Check for interesting book suggestions to read. Suggestions x

Share, with the other parents, information about

a play that will happen at the Congress Centre.

Agendinha x x x x x x x

14 Check the date of Kindergarten's party. Events x x x x x x x x

Check the menu and weekly activity plan of the

kindergarten classroom.

Information x x

Open the rules of kindergarten to check the

periods in which it closes.

Documentation x x x x x x x x

17 See the profile of the mother Anna. Members x x x x x x x x

You are at home/classroom and want to do an

educational activity with your child/class. Show

some contents you’ve saved.

See favourites x x x x

See the information the educator shared with

you about your child’s development.

Child’s history x x x x x x x x

Multimedia Platform Development for Parental Involvement in Learning of Children Attending Kindergarten - Iterative Cicles of

Development

215

enters the event and describes what it is.

Task 15 caused errors and several considerations.

Three participants feel that there is no distinction

between documentation and information. Three

participants see no advantage in having this area, as

information can be published in activities or news. E2

thinks information should disappear and be replaced

by two new buttons, one for menus and another for

planning. Educators and parents agree that menus are

important to get parents to consult the platform.

Task 18 also caused some errors. Participants

were not considering favourites as a tool to keep

information to show children, but for their own use.

However, once they understood it, the possibility was

very well accepted.

Final Interview

Finally, an interview was made to understand the

attitude towards the platform, perceive their interest

and expectation of use.

Everyone considered the platform intuitive, easy

to learn and use. Three participants mentioned that the

kind of interaction is familiar.

All educators said they will use the tool to

communicate with parents privately and share

information with everyone. All parents said they will

use the platform to communicate with the educator,

two consider sharing information with other parents.

All educators think they will use the platform to

do learning activities with children in the classroom.

With regard to parents, two of them said they will use

it to do activities with their child. P2 said it depends

on available content and P3 said she does not know,

due to lack of time.

Regarding the frequency of consultation and

participation in the platform, responses varied, with

educators tending to consider daily use and parents

considering weekly use. Two participants mentioned

that if the application is easily accessed by mobile

phone they will use much more than if the access is

on a computer.

4.4 Evaluation Moment – End of First

Cycle of Development

The evaluation with users of the paper prototype

served to ascertain the relevance of the content,

platform consistency and expected practicality,

helping to predict the use of the platform by educators

and parents. It allowed the research team to check the

overall understanding of the platform by both profiles

and to identify some improvements and changes to

the initial prototype. It also allowed to identify

attitudes towards the use of the platform. Thus,

regarding the performance of the users, researchers

can conclude that most of the functionalities were

well identified.

There were mistakes and doubts that happened,

recurrently, in same tasks: Change Profile,

Educational Resources, Suggestions, Information and

Favourites. Researchers also identified navigation

failures, such as lack of back button. From this

evaluation, it was decided to proceed with some

changes: Add new buttons: edit profile, return to

homepage, send comments, back in private messages;

Rename Educational resources to Educational links;

Remove Information area and create Menu area;

Writing area will have no tabs; Join Events and

Agenda, instead of being a calendar, it will be a

chronology of posts; Activities will be an area to

share comments and photos about classroom projects;

Educational Links, Activities and Agenda will not

have subdivisions. It is one more step and it is not

valued. It will be a chronology of posts, to keep up

with the work developed in kindergarten.

Regarding the user's attitude toward the platform,

answers to the interview indicate that users value the

platform and intend to use it. Educators want to have

an active role, with a daily use for sharing

photographs and comments on the activities they do

with the children, while parents point to a weekly use,

more directed towards communicating with the

educator than for sharing with other parents or

carrying out educational activities with children.

Access through mobile devices seems to be a

condition for more frequent use.

To conclude, tests on the paper prototype have

identified small changes that could also be

implemented at a later stage of development, such as

back buttons or nomenclature. However, this

evaluation led to rethinking areas of the platform that

would be difficult to change later, due to complexity,

development time and costs. As these changes were

identified at this stage, they will optimize the

programming work of the functional prototype and

allow the inclusion of functionalities according to

user’s suggestions, such as: join agenda and events,

writing area without tabs; Links and activities

available chronologically, without subdivisions.

5 SECOND CYCLE OF

DEVELOPMENT

It was defined the launch of the functional prototype

(Figure 3) on 15

of September, because researchers

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

216

wanted to present it to parents at the beginning of the

school year in kindergartens. Having a small team and

short development time, it was necessary to define

priorities and choose the features to develop for the

launch.

Figure 3: Functional prototype.

Thus, it was decided to have a version that included a

Backoffice, for managing rooms and users (listing,

creation and elimination of rooms and association of

users) in September. In Frontoffice, it was privileged

the development of the following functionalities:

Personal Area: Child’s history, to share private

information between parents and educators;

Favourites, to save posts of greater interest;

Notifications, to inform when there is new

information and encourage the consultation of

information; Group Area: sharing activities, events

and educational links, by all members of the group.

Kindergarten: news from kindergarten.

Since the platform contains personal data of children,

each user only accesses the information of the

classroom attended by his child, having a login and

password for identification. Other functionalities and

system security measures will be implemented at a

later stage of development.

6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Design-based research methodology refers that the

inclusion of the target audience in the process of

developing an educational technology product is an

essential condition to meet their needs, and have a

product closer to the ideal intervention. Researchers

could corroborate it at different stages of their

investigation. In preliminary studies, numerous

possibilities of development were presented to

parents and educators. Results of this stage helped

define the functional specifications and the

architecture diagram. In the first cycle of

development, usability tests allowed to redirect,

simplify, and even eliminate previously specified

functionalities.

Now, the project is in the second cycle of

development. Functional prototype is already in use

and test in four kindergarten classrooms, evolving to

a final product, based on the formative evaluation of

users. At the end of this stage, researchers will be able

to determine which functionalities a multimedia

platform should have to promote PI in learning of

children who attend kindergarten.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article reports research developed within

the PhD Program Technology Enhanced Learning

and Societal Challenges, funded by Fundação para a

Ciência e Tecnologia, FCT I. P. – Portugal, under

contract # PD/00173/2014. The first author has a

grant from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia

(FCT) and the European Social Fund (ESF) under the

III Community Support Framework (SFRH/BDE/

95701/2013)

REFERENCES

van den Akker, J. (1999) ‘Principles and Methods of

Development Research’, in Science, S. and Dorrecht,

B. M. (eds) Design Approaches and Tools in Education

and Training, pp. 1–22. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-

4255-7.

van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S. and

Nieveen, N. (2006) Educational design research.

London: Routledge.

Berns, T. (2004) ‘Usability and user-centred design , a

necessity for efficient e-learning !’, International

Journal od the Computer, the Internet and

Management, 12(2), pp. 20–25.

Bouffard, S. (2014) ‘Tapping Into Technology : The Role

of the Internet in Family – School Communication’,

(July 2008), pp. 1–5.

Coutinho, C. P. (2006) ‘Aspectos metodológicos da

investigação em tecnologia educativa em Portugal

(1985-2000)’, in Para um balanço da investigação em

educação de 1960 a 2005: teorias e práticas: actas do

Colóquio da AFIRSE. Lisboa.

Desforges, C. and Abouchaar, A. (2003) The impact of

parental involvement, parental support and family

education on pupil achievements and adjustment: A

literature review. Nottingham.

Diamond, K. E., Justice, L. M., Siegler, R. S. and Snyder,

P. A. (2013) Synthesis of IES Research on Early

Intervention and Early Childhood Education. doi:

Multimedia Platform Development for Parental Involvement in Learning of Children Attending Kindergarten - Iterative Cicles of

Development

217

NCESR 2013-3001.

Epstein, J. L. (1995) ‘School/family/community

partnerships: Caring for the children we share’, Phi

delta kappan, 76(9), p. 701.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat (2014)

Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in

Europe. Luxenbourg.

Fan, X. and Chen, M. (2001) ‘Parental involvement and

students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis.’,

Educational psychology review, 13(1), pp. 1–22.

Faria, Á. and Ramos, A. (2011) ‘Redes sociais no jardim de

infância para aprender e partilhar com a família e a

comunidade’, in XI Congresso Internacional Galego-

Portugués de Psicopedagoxía. Universidade da

Coruña, pp. 3–13.

Garrett, J. J. (2011) The Elements of User Experience :

User-Centered Design for the Web and Beyond, Second

Edition, Jesse James Garrett. doi: 10.1145/

889692.889709.

Grant, L. (2009) Learning in Families : A review of

research evidence and the current landscape of

Learning in Families with digital technologies, General

Educators Report. Bristol. Available at: http://e-

learningcentre.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Learning_in_

Families_educators_report_Futurelab_for_BECTA.pdf.

Grant, L. (2011) ‘“I’m a completely different person at

home”: using digital technologies to connect learning

between home and school’, Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 27(4), pp. 292–302. doi:

10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00433.x.

Harris, A. and Goodall, J. (2008) ‘Do parents know they

matter? Engaging all parents in learning’, Educational

Research, 50(3), pp. 277–289. doi: 10.1080/

00131880802309424.

Hilado, A. V., Kallemeyn, L. and Phillips, L. (2013)

‘Examining Understandings of Parent Involvement in

Early Childhood Programs.’, Early Childhood

Research & Practice, 15(2). Available at:

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v15n2/hilado.html.

Hong, S. B. and Trepanier-Street, M. (2004) ‘Technology:

A Tool for Knowledge Construction in a Reggio Emilia

Inspired Teacher Education Program’, Early Childhood

Education Journal, 32(2), pp. 87–94. doi:

10.1007/s10643-004-7971-z.

ISO (1998) ISO 9241-11 Ergonomic requirements for office

work with visual display terminals ( VDTs ) - Part 11 :

Guidance on usability.

Izzo, C. V, Weissberg, R. P., Kasprow, W. J. and Fendrich,

M. (1999) ‘A longitudinal assessment of teacher

perceptions of parent involvement in children’s

education and school performance.’, American Journal

of Community Psychology, 27(6), pp. 817–839. doi:

10.1023/A:1022262625984.

Kalas, I. (2012) ‘ICTs in early childhood care and

education’. Available at: http://iite.unesco.org/pics/

publications/en/files/3214720.pdf.

Knauf, H. (2016) ‘Interlaced social worlds : exploring the

use of social media in the kindergarten the

kindergarten’, Early Years, 5146(June). doi:

10.1080/09575146.2016.1147424.

Laranjeiro, D., Antunes, M. J. and Santos, P. (2017)

‘Development of a multimedia platform for parental

involvement in learning of children attending

kindergarten - Preliminary Studies’, in To be Published

in Proceedings of INTED2017.

Lunts, E. (2003) ‘Parental Involvement in Children â€

Education : Connecting Family and School by Using

Telecommunication Technologies’, Meridian: A

Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 6(1).

Melhuish, E. C., Phan, M. B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P.,

SirajBlatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2008) ‘Effects of

the home learning environment and preschool center

experience upon literacy and numeracy development in

early primary school’, Journal of Social Issues, 64(1),

pp. 95–114.

NAEYC (2012) ‘Technology and interactive Media as

Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children

from birth through age 8’. Washington DC. Available

at: http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/PS_technology

_WEB.pdf.

Näsänen, J., Oulasvirta, A. and Lehmuskallio, A. (2009)

‘Mobile Media in the Social Fabric of a Kindergarten’,

in Conference on Human Factors in Computing

Systems - Proceedings, pp. 2167–2176. doi:

10.1145/1518701.1519031.

Nielsen, J. (2003) Paper Prototyping: Getting User Data

before you code, Nielsen Norman Group. Available at:

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/paper-prototyping/.

Nielsen, J. and Sova, D. (2003) 234 Tips and Tricks for

Recruiting Users as Participants in Usability Studies,

Nielsen Norman Group. Available at: www.

nngroup.com/reports/how-to-recruit-participants-

usability-studies.

Nieveen, N. and Folmer, E. (2013) ‘Formative evaluation

in Educational Design Research’, in Educational

Design Research. Enschede, pp. 152–169. Available at:

http://international.slo.nl/publications/edr/.

Olmstead, C. (2013) ‘Using Technology to Increase Parent

Involvement in Schools’, TechTrends, 57(6), pp. 28–

37. doi: 10.1007/s11528-013-0699-0.

Plomp, T. (2013) ‘Educational Design Research: An

Introduction’, in Educational Design Research.

Enschede: Netherlands Institute for Curriculum

Development, pp. 10–51.

Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., McPake, J., Stephen, C. and

Adey, C. (2011) ‘Parents, pre-schoolers and learning

with technology at home: some implications for

policy’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4),

pp. 361–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00432.x.

Reeves, T. C. (2000) ‘Enhancing the Worth of Instructional

Technology Research through “Design Experiments”

and Other Development Research Strategies’, in

Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association. Available at: http://it.coe.uga.edu/

~treeves/AERA2000Reeves.pdf.

Reynolds, A. J. and Shlafer, R. (2010) ‘Parent involvement

in early education’, in Handbook of school-family

partnerships. Routledge, pp. 158–174.

Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D. and Nelson, W. A. (2008)

‘Developmental research: studies of instructional

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

218

design and development’, in Handbook of research on

educational communications and tecnology, pp. 1099–

1130.

Rubin, J. and Chisnell, D. (2008) Handbook of Usability

Testing, Second Edition: How to Plan, Design, and

Conduct Effective Tests. 2nd editio, The Handbook of

Usability Testing. 2nd editio. Indianopolis: Wiley

Publishing, Inc.

Silva, I. L., Marques, L., Mata, L. and Rosa, M. (2016)

Orientações Curriculares para a Educação Pré-

Escolar. Lisboa: Ministério da Educação/Direção-

Geral da Educação.

Someren, M. W. va., Barnard, Y. F. and Sandberg, J. A. C.

(1994) The Think aloud method- a practical guide to

modelling cognitive processes.

Sonnenschein, S., Stapleton, L. M. and Metzger, S. R.

(2014) ‘What Parents Know About How Well Their

Children Are Doing in School’, The Journal of

Educational Research, 107(2), pp. 152–162. doi:

10.1080/00220671.2013.788987.

Stevenson, D. L. and Baker, D. P. (1987) ‘The Family-

School Relation and the Child’s School Performance’,

Child Development, 58(5), pp. 1348–1357.

The Design-Based Research Collective (2003) ‘Design-

Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for

Educational Inquiry’, Educational Researcher, 32(1),

pp. 5–8.

The New Media Consortium (2014) Horizon Report

Europe > 2014 Schools Edition.

UNESCO (2011) Transforming education: The power of

ICT policies. Education Sector UNESCO. Available at:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002118/21184

2e.pdf.

Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C. and Polson, P. (1994)

The Cognitive Walkthrough Method: A Practioner’s

Guide. Boulder, Colorado.

Multimedia Platform Development for Parental Involvement in Learning of Children Attending Kindergarten - Iterative Cicles of

Development

219