Shared Insights between Studies
Every activity, in which furniture is used, can be analyzed to determine what furniture features support that activity. This theory can be employed to play activities and furniture. A method of collecting data was established to identify features in furniture that facilitate play activities in four studies. First, a survey of childrenrsquo;s furniture images was conducted by the investigator to identifying ten primary categories of activity specific furniture. Each category was analyzed as a whole, first for common features, then to identify any novel features when no common features were present. The second study utilized images from the first study with the intention of identifying features supportive of unique furniture usage, different from the intended primary function (play). Parents and designers organized 36 images in the context of toys and furniture. This process forced the subjects to visually compare each image to the two terms, encouraging them to pull from their mental models of what makes the image toy-like or furniture-like in appearance and function. Parents and designers perceptions of furniture use were to be confirmed or refuted by the third study. Childrenrsquo;s actual play events using furniture were relayed to the investigator in the third study. Traces of childrenrsquo;s play activities were observed while parents described how the children used furniture in their play activities. The descriptions of play activities with furniture also revealed furniture features supportive of the play. Several activities confirmed the perceptions of the subjects from study two, but a few perceptions were not supported – primarily the thought that conventional adult furniture would not be interesting to children or be used in an unusual manner. The third study showed this to be false, that children will play with nearly any furniture if allowed by the parent. Even thoughchildren understand the primary use of furniture, they are not restricted by the construct that furniture has a single use. This information led to further analysis of conventional furniture, to identify additional furniture features that made everyday furniture playable. This was further supported by the fourth study, borrowed from a NIDRR research project of indoor play, which revealed play activities children prefer related to play type. Childrenrsquo;s preferences of playthings were also analyzed to understand their dominant features. This method of research involved a series of studies that built upon information gathered from an earlier study while also validating information gathered in the following studies. Creating a series of studies that compliment each other can provide a means for evaluating data while producing richer results. These four studies produced a collection of furniture features and play activities to be compiled into a list of features that designers could incorporate into designs of furniture for children.
Furniture Typology and Furniture Language
Both Furniture Typology and Furniture Language studies use visual cues to interpret how children will use furniture. Several of the furniture features identified in the Furniture Typology study were confirmed by the Furniture Language study. The context of toy and furniture prompted the parent and designer subjects in the Furniture Language study to think of the objects in different manner, and yielded a different variation of furniture features that supported play activities as well as the primary function identified in the Furniture Typology study. These two studies confirmed that a single piece of furniture can be perceived as having multiple functions, including play functions.
Furniture Language and Trace Observation In-home Interviews
Usual and unusual uses of furniture were discussed by parents in the Trace Observation Interview and by parents and designers in the Furniture Language study. Trace Observation subjects relayed data to the interviewer of how their children play with furniture at home. Occasionally the results between the two studies did not match. Subjects of the Furniture Language study expressed a disinterest in the furniture items, saying these items were too boring and likely to be used only for their primary intended purpose, but the Trace Observation subjects revealed that children frequently use standard furniture in their play activities. Children do not seem to view these conventional furniture pieces as boring. Interestingly several of the parents in the Trace Observation study wouldnrsquo;t be bothered by their children using furniture in the home for heavy play, except that they felt the furniture would not be durable enough to handle the stress of play and furniture is too expensive to replace. Parents are also concerned with their childrenrsquo;s safety, but safety did not drive the conversations about how
children will use furniture.
Furniture in the homes of the Trace Observation study was generally standard in type. Some children had tents, several had play kitchens, but not many had large abstract furniture for the purpose of play as seen in the Furniture Language study. During the Furniture Language study, parent subjects divulged, that although the furniture for play was interesting to them they would be unable to sacrifice the space at home to have a piece of furniture that had little purpose other than entertaining children.
Features for toy-like items from the Furniture Language study included attributes like: colorful, soft, round, smaller scale than normal furniture, abstract, etc. Interestingly, parent from the Trace Observation study consider furniture with these features great for children, but they do not want to see this type of furniture in the common rooms. Parents were very attuned with the deacute;cor of the home and found childrenrsquo;s furniture to be an eyesore. They said they were constantly moving thechildrenrsquo;s furniture around
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
分享见解之间的研究
通过每个活动使用的家具,可以分析确定哪些家具的功能支持这个活动。这个理论可以用来设计活动和家具。收集数据的方法建立了识别家具功能的四个研究的促进活动。首先,调查儿童家具的图片是由研究者确定10个主要类别的活动具体的家具。分析了每个类别作为一个整体,共同的特征,然后确定任何新颖的特性,当没有共同的特征。第二项研究从第一项研究的目的是利用图像识别功能支持独特的家具使用,不同于预期的主要功能(玩)。父母和设计师组织36张照片在玩具和家具。这个过程迫使受试者每幅图直观地比较这两个术语,鼓励他们将从他们的心智模式的形象玩具或在外观和功能的家具。父母和设计师对家具的使用被第三个研究证实或反驳。孩子们的实际使用家具被打事件传递给第三个研究的研究员。跟踪观察儿童游戏活动的父母描述了孩子们在他们的游戏活动二手家具。活动家具也处处透露着家具的描述功能支持。几个活动确认受试者的认知研究两个,但不支持一些看法——主要是认为传统的儿童或成人家具不会有趣被用于一个不寻常的方式。第三个研究显示这是错误的,孩子们会玩几乎所有家具如果所允许的父母。甚至通过孩子了解家具的主要用途,它们不是家具的构造有一个限制使用。这个信息导致传统家具的进一步分析,确定额外的家具功能使日常家具可玩。这是进一步支持的第四个研究中,借用NIDRR研究项目的室内游戏,显示相关活动的孩子喜欢玩游戏类型。儿童玩具的喜好也进行分析,以了解他们的主要功能。这种方法的研究涉及到一系列的研究,从早期研究中收集的信息,同时验证信息聚集在以下研究。创造的一系列研究,赞美对方可以提供一个意味着评估数据而产生丰富的结果。这四个研究生产家具功能和游戏活动的集合被编译成一个功能列表,设计师可以纳入儿童家具的设计。
语言类型学家具和家具
家具家具类型学和语言研究利用视觉线索理解儿童如何使用的家具。
一些家具的特性确定家具被证实的类型学研究家具语言学习。玩具和家具的环境促使父和设计主题家具语言学习思考的对象在不同的方式,并产生了不同家具的变化特性,支持活动和玩耍主要功能确定家具的类型学研究。这两项研究证实,单一的家具可以被视为有多个函数,包括播放功能。
家具的语言和跟踪观察家庭采访
平时和父母讨论了不同寻常的家具使用的痕迹观察访谈和父母和设计师在家具的语言学习跟踪观察对象传递数据到面试官的孩子玩与家具在家里。偶尔两者之间的研究结果不一致。家具语言研究的主题表达了对家具物品,不感兴趣说这些东西太无聊和可能只用于他们的主要目的目的,但跟踪观察受试者显示,儿童经常使用标准的家具在他们的游戏活动。孩子们似乎并不把这些传统家具是无聊。有趣的是一些父母的痕迹不会被打扰的观察研究他们的孩子使用家具在家里重玩,只是他们觉得家具处理不够持久玩的压力和家具太贵来取代。父母也担心和孩子的安全,但安全并未推动对话如何儿童使用的家具。
家具的房屋跟踪观察研究是通常的标准类型。
一些儿童帐篷,几个厨房玩,但不是很多抽象家具为目的的语言学习扮演的家具。家具语言学习期间,父对象透露,虽然家具玩很有趣,他们将无法牺牲的空间家里一件家具,几乎没有娱乐的孩子以外的目的。
玩具家具商品的语言特点研究包括属性如:色彩艳丽、柔软,圆的,规模较小比普通家具、文摘等。有趣的是,父母从跟踪观察研究考虑家具与这些特性的孩子,但他们不希望看到这种类型的家具常见的房间。父母是非常和谐的装饰家里,发现儿童家具是一个眼中钉。他们说不断移动儿童家具在自由空间或使空间显得更加时尚不是幼稚。
包容孩子的面试
儿童主要在孩子采访中谈到了他们的游戏活动。当他们说他们喜欢的不同的方式玩他们很少提到的家具项目除了在安静的玩耍的时间。在安静的时间孩子们谈论豆袋椅坐在看电影或他们的床上,躺在玩填充动物玩具和阅读。
当孩子做了拼贴面试他们会描述的一部分他们喜欢的特性如:弹性表面,跳很高在球和游泳或水。物品等感官焦点慢慢地灯,失重,或感觉的东西刷他们的皮肤被孩子非常可取的。它是很难知道如何重要特征如颜色或气味的孩子。孩子也被吸引到体育活动在自由发挥他们的谈话。他们还证实了渴望更小的空间,可以在更大的空间包括堡垒,帐篷,一个树屋和存储房间(他们的玩具和水上摩托车)。他们不喜欢几个孩子描述活动(包括一些接触运动)和材料他们避免(木操场)因为他们受到伤害在这些活动中,或用这些材料。孩子也有偏爱物品,塑料圆角,软泡沫或有弹性,说明他们会不受伤在这些物品。
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[25914]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
