A Theoretical Model of Children’s Storytelling using Physically-Oriented Technologies (SPOT)

This paper develops a model of children’s storytelling using Physically-Oriented Technology (SPOT). The SPOT model draws upon literature regarding current physical storytelling technologies and was developed using a grounded theory approach to qualitative research. This empirical work focused on the experiences of 18 children, ages 5-6, who worked with an existing multimedia physical storytelling technology in order to tell stories. Pairs of children worked over five weeks to tell stories using StoryRooms, a physical storytelling technology developed at the University of Maryland’s HumanComputer Interaction Lab (HCIL). The SPOT model suggests that the each unique child and context together determine the best degree of control over the technology, the degree of control over story content, and the physical activity for each situation. Together, these characteristics of technology, story content, and physical activity produce a unique storytelling experience. The SPOT theoretical model provides a basis to propose technology design guidelines that will support the creation of new multimedia physical storytelling technologies. Grounded theory of storytelling experience Page 1 1.0 Introduction Storytelling is beneficial for children in many ways, including as a means of expression and communication (Engle, 1999; Paley, 1990). Many technological advances for supporting storytelling are currently being developed. As much as storytelling has always been a part of children’s lives, technology is becoming a critical and pervasive part of children’s lives today-from the necessity of using a cell phone to call home to the need for keyboarding skills in classrooms. Druin and Solomon (1996) believe that many technologies, including multimedia authoring tools used for storytelling, can be beneficial to children. In addition to the traditional mouse, monitor, and keyboard computer often found in classrooms and homes, technology is often embedded in items that children interact with on an everyday basis (Montemayor et al., 2004), including in stuffed animals (Druin et al., 1999; Maddocks 2000, Strommen 1998, Umaschi 1997), Lego blocks (Martin et al., 2000), musical instruments (Lamb & Buckley 1984; Roh & Wilcox, 1995) and even toilets (Druin, 2002). From this ubiquity of technology, a critical question arises for designers of technology: What is the best way for technology to support storytelling for children? Storytelling technologies, especially those created specifically for young children, can include components to support children’s physical exploration of the world. Young children’s early cognitive development is enhanced by interactions with the physical world (Brosterman, 1997; Bruner, 1966; Papert, 1980). By creating storytelling technologies that encourage young children to explore their physical world, storytelling technologies can be enhanced. Given recent technological advances in wireless and embedded technologies, the capability now exists to enable children to explore their Grounded theory of storytelling experience Page 2 physical world using technologies that do not constrain children to a keyboard and screen. This type of physical exploration was suggested by Cassell (2004) and Druin and Solomon (1996) as a positive direction for multimedia storytelling technologies. Physical interaction with multimedia technology such as a child running around, sitting in, and squeezing the ears of a giant computerized stuffed animal named Noobie (Druin and Solomon, 1996) is now being applied to storytelling technologies in exciting ways. This paper begins with an examination of existing physical storytelling technologies to set a context for the theoretical work described in this paper. The research methods and the SPOT theoretical model will then be presented. This paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of this research and theory as it relates to designing future multimedia physical storytelling technologies. 2.0 Defining the Constructs During the course of this paper, the phrase “physical storytelling technology” is used often. It is important to examine each of these terms individually and how they function together as a construct. “Physical”, for the purposes of this paper, refers to an object that young children can interact with using gross motor skills (using large muscles, such as those in the arms) as opposed to a fine motor function (using small muscles, such as those in the fingers). The physical development of young children progresses from large to small muscle groups (Allen & Marotz, 1994). Although many young children will already have welldeveloped fine motor control, using gross motor skills may produce more successful interactions between children and technology. Researchers such as Montemayor et al. (2004) and Pinhanez et al. (2000) discuss physicality as it relates to designing children's Grounded theory of storytelling experience Page 3 technology. Defining “physical” as requiring gross motor activity helps to maintain a developmentally appropriate orientation in working with young children. Determining a working definition for “storytelling” is difficult. Common themes among researchers’ varying definitions of storytelling include the concepts of a sequence of events involving the passage of time and the conveying of meaning, and that a story is communicated intentionally (Labov, 1972; Engle, 1999; Peterson & McCabe, 1991, Well, 1986). There is also debate about whether storytelling is an exclusively oral activity (Peterson & McCabe, 1991), or a written account (Engle, 1999). For the purpose of this theory, “storytelling” is any effort by a child or children to intentionally communicate using a narrative. A sequence of events and the passage of time are not included in this definition due to the young age of the children. In addition, all of the stories collected in the current study were orally told; however, this was again due to the young nature of the participants and is not meant to imply that stories cannot be written. “Technology” today is no longer necessarily defined only by a traditional conception of a computer. Weiser (1991) foresaw a future where technology “disappeared” and became essentially an extension of people and their environment, which is referred to as ubiquitous computing. Likewise, some researchers have noted a trend in Human-Computer Interaction research towards “tangible and mobile interfaces” (Joiner et al., 2003, p. 145). It is this kind of ubiquitous, tangible, and mobile computing that defines “technology” in this paper. Therefore, for this discussion, a “physical technology” is a ubiquitous computing technology that requires a child to interact in a gross motor manner. While traditional conceptions of “multimedia” may not have included a physical component, a key Grounded theory of storytelling experience Page 4 component of multimedia environments was that they were interactive (Druin & Solomon, 1996). As multimedia moves into the 21st century, this interaction might also include the manipulation of computationally enhanced physical objects that are embedded in the user’s environment (Druin & Solomon, 1996). These “physical technologies” have been referred to elsewhere as “tangible non-screen-and-keyboard based technology” (Cassell, 2004) and “tangible technology” (Stanton et al., 2002). A “physical storytelling technology” refers to any physical technology that is designed specifically as a tool for children to use when storytelling. Some researchers (Cassell, 2004; Alborzi et al., 2000) have discussed the potential importance of a physical component in storytelling technologies. 3.0 Prior Research and Conceptual Framework There are many different types of storytelling technologies currently available for children. One category of storytelling technologies is virtual storytelling environments, such as the Hayes-Roth Improvisational Puppet System which allows children to manipulate puppet-like characters on a screen (Hayes-Roth, 1995). Other virtual environments use the internet as a tool to allow children who are geographically distant from one another to collaborate in storytelling. Huffaker (2004) explored the use of message boards, webblogs, and instant messaging in storytelling. Other internet-based storytelling technologies include MOOSE Crossing, a virtual environment in which children can construct and interact using a programming language designed specifically for children (Bruckman, 1997); StoryBuilder, an on-line storytelling tool which allows children to add to stories written by children in a comic-book style (Antle, 2003); and Renga, a system that allows children to contribute sentences to a story in a round-robin Grounded theory of storytelling experience Page 5 manner (Cassell, 2004; Cassell & Ryokai, 2001). While these virtual storytelling technologies support children as storytellers, adding a physical component may offer children, especially young children, enhanced storytelling experiences. Physical technologies designed to support children’s efforts in storytelling do exist, and many include discrete concrete objects, such as stuffed animals, robots, and toys that children use to aid in storytelling. In addition to physical interactions, these multimedia technologies often also include auditory and visual interfaces. Computationally enhanced stuffed animals that promote storytelling include Rosebud (Glos & Cassell, 1997; Cassell, 2004), Actimates Barney (Strommen, 1998), and SAGE (Umaschi, 1997). One technology that integrates stuffed animals with video storytelling is Swamped! (Johnson, 1999; Pinhanez et al., 2000). PETS, the “Personal Electronic Teller of Stories” (Druin, 1999; Montemayor, 2000), uses a robot to tell stories with children. Telltale (Annany, 2001; Cassell, 2004) uses a physical worm whose individual body segments are used to store audio sections of a story that can then be physically combined to tell a story. Techn