1. OPTIMISING CHILDREN’S OUTCOMES
(OCO)
Technical Presentation
Erika Fisher, Camilla Mahon, Hannah Rogers &
Gabriella Kavanagh

2. THE APPLICATION
 Apple iPad Application
 Aim of the application is to monitor and manage
classroom behaviour
 Monitors
 Students’ eye-contact with the blackboard
 Noise levels of the classroom
 Complies data into easy to read graphs
 Allows teachers to examine class performance
throughout the day
 Each child will have a profile
 Data from the App can be emailed to parents

3. THE TECHNOLOGY
Axure and Adobe Illustrator
Axure
 A wireframing, rapid prototyping and specification
software tool aimed at web and desktop
applications
 Why we chose Axure
 Previous knowledge using the system
 Creates detailed, realistic prototypes
 Acts out user requests (buttons, type, etc.)

4. Adobe Illustrator
 A vector based graphics editor developed by Adobe
 We will be using Illustrator to create graphics for
our app
 Why we chose Adobe Illustrator
 Creates good quality graphics
 Strong knowledge with using the system
 Less restricting than other programmes, such as
Photoshop

5. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Eye-Tracking
 A study examined student’s attention in class and
gaze and focus patterns
 Results showed students’ focused more on the
blackboard than the instructor [1]
Noise Levels
 Studies have shown that high levels of ‘classroom
acoustics’ can have an adverse effect on students’
academic performance [2]
 Research illustrates that children’s performance at
school including cognitive abilities such as memory
and reading ability as well as motivation can be
negatively affected by noise [3]

6. THE DESIGN PRINCIPLES
(INTERFACE DESIGN)
Nielsen’s Heuristics and Pressman’s Principles
 How we plan to apply interface design rules to our
prototype
Nielsen’s Heuristics
 They are called "heuristics" because they are more
in the nature of rules of thumb than specific
usability guidelines [4]
Pressman’s Principles
 An agile yet disciplined framework for building web
applications [5]

7. NIELSEN’S HEURISTICS
(EXAMPLES)
 Help users
recognize, diagnose
and recover from errors
 Error messages should
be expressed in plain
language, precisely
indicate the
problem, and
constructively suggest
a solution

8. NIELSEN’S HEURISTICS
(EXAMPLES)
 User control and
freedom
 Users often choose
system functions by
mistake and will need
a clearly marked
"emergency exit" to
leave the unwanted
state without having to
go through an
extended dialogue

9. PRESSMAN’S PRINCIPLES
(EXAMPLES)
 Navigability
 The user should be
able to understand
how to move about the
WebApp without
having to search for
navigational links

10. THE USER GROUP & THE USABILITY TESTING
 Primary school teachers
 Paper Interface Testing
 Participants completed tasks
 Participants gave us feedback about our
concept, the design and the ease of usability
 After each round of usability testing we received
feedback from participants and amended out
prototype accordingly
 From this process we made significant
adjustments, such as changing graphing of
behaviour to present data in a clearer way

11. USER GROUP
Persona Example
 Sarah Smith, 28 year old primary school teacher.
She is organised and always keeps on top of tasks.
Owns many computer gadgets so is computer
literate. Motivated by innovation and using a
modern and technical approach to learning, she
believes it’s the way forward and is excited to learn
more about Optimising Children’s Outcomes (OCO)
using a monitoring system.

12. PAPER USABILITY TESTING
Test Stage 1
Homescreen
 Feedback
 Change search bar to
class list (as nothing
under it – too much
white space)
 Include profile picture
of child?
 Changes
 Convert to List

13. PAPER USABILITY TESTING
Test Stage 2
Homescreen
 Feedback
 Divide List to allow it to
look more obviously
like a button
 Changes
 Change list layout
 Include button arrows

15. PAPER USABILITY TESTING
Additional Feedback
 iPad not widely accessible, as opposed to a
smartphone
Changes
 Switch from iPad app to iPhone app

16. REFERENCES
[1] Rosengrant, D., Hearrington, D., Alvarado, K., & Keeble,
D. (2012). Following student gaze patterns in physical
science lectures. AIP Conference Proceedings,
1413(1), 323-326. doi:10.1063/1.3680060
[2] Ching Yee, C., & McPherson, B. (2005). Noise Levels in Hong
Kong Primary Schools: Implications for classroom listening.
International Journal Of Disability, Development &
Education, 52(4), 345-360.
doi:10.1080/10349120500348714
[3] Shield, B. M., & Dockrell, J. E. (2008). The effects of
environmental and classroom noise on the academic
attainments of primary school children. Journal Of The
Acoustical Society Of America, 123(1), 133-144.
doi:10.1121/1.2812596
[4] Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of
user interfaces, Proc. ACM CHI'90 Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1-5
April), 249-256.
[5] Pressman, R. (2000). Software engineering principles. (5th
ed.). Mcgraw Hill Higher Education.