Analysis of Intervention Effects of Prototyping Utilizing UI Stencils in Elementary School Students

Abstract

This study examines the impact of using stencils in paper prototyping on work time, subjective burden, and idea generation among Japanese sixth-grade students, focusing on the role of personality traits, specifically openness. Two groups were involved: Group 1 used stencils after a lecture, and Group 2 worked freehand without prior instruction. Results showed no significant difference in work time; however, a reduction in subjective burden was noted in the stencil group. While no significant correlation was found between openness and the number of stencil icons used, children with higher openness scores engaged more intensively, suggesting that stencils influence the quality and depth of engagement. The findings highlight the importance of tailored educational approaches to enhance learning outcomes.

1. Introduction

Recent studies have investigated the relationship between personality traits and UI design in digital environments. Previous research has shown that personality influences user preferences for specific interface features [1] and that levels of conscientiousness affect users’ responses to UI indicators [2]. In the context of e-learning, it has been suggested that personality traits are associated with user interface design parameters, which can enhance retention and recall skills [3]. However, the impact of developers’ and designers’ personality traits during the design phase has been rarely examined or studied. Moreover, although e-learning and electronic learning tools are being actively integrated into educational settings, there is little understanding of the perspectives and thoughts of the children who use these tools.

Prototyping is the process of shaping ideas and concepts in the early stages of product development, allowing them to be tested on a trial basis. The UI/UX design process is particularly crucial for the User Interface (UI), as it is directly controlled by the user. Specifically, UI is the part of the product directly operated by the user, while User Experience (UX) refers to the overall experience provided by this interaction. Prototyping allows us to examine specifically how UI design influences UX and identify areas for improvement.

Prototyping is a technique used in the early stages of product development to test and evaluate concepts or designs before creating the final product. In this process, both UI and UX are essential. UI involves the visual and operational aspects of the product and encompasses the design of the interface that users directly interact with. UX, on the other hand, refers to the overall experience that users gain through the interface, including aspects such as ease of use and satisfaction. During the prototyping process, these elements closely collaborate to shape the final user experience. Specifically, methods such as paper prototyping enable users to quickly experiment with UI layouts and flows at a low cost, facilitating the visualization and modification of ideas in the early design stages.

UI and UX are crucial elements in application and software development. The appearance and user experience of a product are essential for delivering a superior user experience. However, using existing tools for sketching UI designs often demands specialized knowledge. Currently, there are only a few inexpensive, quick, and visually appealing methods available for sketching and designing UI without requiring extensive tool-specific learning.

Many studies on UI/UX design focus on personality traits, primarily examining the relationship between users’ personality traits and design elements.

However, the influence of personality traits on developers and designers during the design stage has been rarely investigated or examined. Furthermore, although electronic learning tools are actively integrated into educational settings, there is little understanding of the perspectives and ideas of the children who will be using these tools.

Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate how prototyping enhances the effective application of UI/UX design. We conducted paper prototyping using stencils with 6th-grade elementary school students in Japan and examined the effects of stencil functions on both execution time and mental burden. We investigated the impact of stencil functions on both execution time and mental load. Additionally, we explored the correlation between the participants’ children’s personality traits and both the execution time and mental burden of prototyping.

This study investigates the effects of using stencils in paper prototyping on elementary school students, focusing on the impact of personality traits on work time, mental burden, and idea generation. Additionally, the study discusses the implications of these findings for prototyping practices. This quantitative research evaluates how stencil interventions affect work time and mental load and contributes practically to education in user-centered design.

The structure of this manuscript is as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of related works, focusing on prototyping techniques and the role of personality traits in design processes. Section 3 describes the methodology, including the creation of the stencil and details of the participants and procedures. Section 4 presents the results of the study, evaluating the effects of stencils on work time, mental burden, and idea generation. Section 5 discusses the implications of these findings for prototyping practices, particularly in educational settings. Finally, Section 6 offers concluding remarks and practical recommendations for incorporating user-centered design in education.

2. Related Works

2.1. Prototyping Techniques

According to Somerville (2011), a prototype is an early version of a software system used to demonstrate a concept, experiment with design methods, and gain insights into a problem and its solution [4]. Prototyping techniques are classified into low-fidelity and high-fidelity prototypes. High-fidelity prototypes accurately replicate the elements intended for implementation in the product [5]. Low-fidelity prototypes comprise sketches, paper prototypes using graph paper, and clickable prototypes where users interact by clicking or tapping on screen elements, whereas high-fidelity prototypes involve code-based prototypes. High-fidelity prototypes are better suited for external sharing and feedback and are more realistic in terms of both visual design and functionality. However, they are time-consuming to build and require specialized knowledge to operate applications for sketching UI designs [6]. In contrast, low-fidelity prototypes are cost-effective, quick to develop, easily modifiable to accommodate changes, and can be created without specialized knowledge [7,8,9,10].

According to Tran (2018), high-fidelity prototypes, although valuable for testing technical feasibility, can be time consuming to build and may raise excessive expectations for testers. Therefore, it is recommended to use them primarily for technical feasibility testing, while the initial exploration of content and design issues can be performed using paper prototypes [8]. While paper prototypes offer visual representations of a system’s appearance, not all freehand prototypes are visually superior. In fact, freehand prototypes can sometimes lead to confusion during validation with users and clients [11]. Conversely, paper prototyping typically involves the use of stencils made of materials such as plastic or cardboard, which can result in more substantial, detailed, and clear mock-up [7,12]. Anirban et al. conducted a study on the effectiveness and willingness to use three types of stencils [11]. They found that the frequency of icon usage and the shape of the stencils, which facilitate smooth writing, significantly impact their usefulness, usability, and the time required for work [11].

Stencils are particularly suitable for prototyping, especially for young individuals without specialized coding education. In a study by Hagimine et al. (2015), which investigated the educational impact of introducing paper prototyping as a subject for eighth-grade students, 79.4% of the students found learning about application development useful in their daily lives. The study also revealed a significant increase in students’ awareness of the technology around them before and after the class [13]. While the use of stencils in paper prototyping is known to play an important role in the design process, the subjective usefulness of stencils, their contribution to overcoming prototyping challenges, the time spent in prototyping, and their impact on created artifacts have not been thoroughly analyzed [14].

2.2. Quantitative Evaluation of Personality Traits

It is essential to consider that the effectiveness of intervention technologies supporting prototyping may vary depending on personality traits when evaluating the effectiveness of product development and educational programs. Different personality traits can result in diverse reactions to technology and tools, varied learning approaches, and varying levels of creativity in generating new ideas.

The five-factor model, including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness, along with the Big Five model, which comprehensively represents personality structure [11,15], has gained widespread acceptance and amassed substantial empirical support. Various scales have been developed, with the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) by Gosling et al. (2003) being one of the most prominent. TIPI, widely adopted and translated into multiple languages, has been utilized in numerous countries [16]. The inventory comprises 10 items derived from the Big Five model and is designed to offer a comprehensive assessment of personality traits while minimizing participant burden [17].

In a survey of medical students in China, integrity scored the highest at 5.31, which was followed by cooperativeness at 5.07 [18]. In Greece, a survey of individuals aged 17 to 75 revealed that cooperativeness ranked the highest at 42.82 [19] In Greece, a study involving individuals aged 17 to 75 revealed that cooperativeness scored the highest at 42.82 [19]. A survey conducted across 56 countries, involving 17,837 general community residents, including university students, and focusing on the Big Five personality traits, revealed significant differences in openness between participants from South America and East Asia compared to those from other regions [20].

The Japanese version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J) is commonly employed to assess personality traits in Japanese individuals and has demonstrated adequate internal consistency, validity, and reliability [15,21].

In Soga’s (1999) study involving 2693 young Japanese subjects, assessed using the Five-Factor Personality Test for Elementary School Children (FFPC), the highest scores were observed for cooperativeness (19.18), controllability (16.69), emotionality (16.90), openness (16.81), and extraversion (17.11) [22]. Likewise, in Hayashibara’s (2020) study with 239 elementary school students, employing the Five-Factor Personality Test for Elementary School Children (FFPC), mean scores for the Big Five traits were as follows: cooperation (19.17), control (17.39), emotionality (17.05), openness (17.09), and extraversion (16.27) [23]. On average, cooperativeness tended to score the highest [23]. In a survey employing the TIPI-J, conducted on participants aged between their 20s and 70s, cooperativeness scored highest across all age groups. Additionally, cooperativeness was found to increase with age, while openness was higher in males than females [24].

2.3. Use of Personality Trait Tests in Education

Various aspects of personality traits have been explored in research on education. Studies examining the relationship between personality and academic performance have found that the Big Five traits, along with gender, field of study, and university entrance scores, influence outcomes [25]. Additionally, a machine learning approach has been proposed to quantitatively evaluate personality education by assessing students’ positivity in text data and tracking changes over time [26]. There has also been research on the relationship between children’s personality traits and classroom environments, suggesting that fostering traits like “agreeableness” and “conscientiousness”, combined with authoritative parenting, contributes to creating a positive classroom climate [27].

Research has also identified extraversion and conscientiousness as key predictors of academic success [28]. Moreover, extraverted children tend to enjoy physical activity more, which may positively affect their development [29].

Extraverted children are more likely to actively participate in group activities and collaborative prototyping, which may lead to increased feedback and more opportunities for improvement. Conversely, children with higher levels of neuroticism may be less willing to try new things due to a fear of failure, limiting the learning they can gain from the prototyping process. Considering the influence of personality traits can provide valuable insights into effective educational interventions and the support needed when using prototyping.

2.4. Positioning and Contribution of This Study

Prototyping is essential in the design process, and employing UI stencils in paper prototyping is a cost-effective and practical method [30,31]. Investigating the ideas of school-age students during the design stage may help integrate user and non-expert perspectives, given the widespread adoption of electronic-based information technology applications for learning via the Internet in educational institutions. Specifically, the use of stencils may facilitate the incorporation of user and non-expert perspectives into the widespread adoption of electronic-based information technology applications designed for learning in educational institutions [32,33,34,35]. Specifically, determining how stencil usage alters the prototyping process could enhance the efficiency of the design process. Hence, conducting a quantitative study to assess how these interventions affect work time and mental workload is crucial.

Furthermore, users’ personality traits may affect the effectiveness of prototyping interventions and their support tools. However, most existing studies have focused on the relationship between service users’ personality traits and the evaluation of user interfaces and designs with limited attention given to designers’ personality traits [1,36,37,38]. This study examines how personality traits influence the prototyping process, including execution time, mental burden, and creative thinking, among non-designer users, particularly school-aged children. Given the widespread adoption of electronic learning tools in modern educational settings, the educational use of prototyping is crucial for maximizing learning outcomes.

This study investigates the impact of paper prototyping with stencils on elementary school students, considering its effects on work time, mental burden, and idea generation based on personality traits. Furthermore, it discusses the implications of these findings for prototyping practice. This study contributes practically to user-centered design education.

3. Methods

3.1. Creation of the Stencil

The stencil was designed to enable users to draw icons and other graphics on the paper prototype’s screen. Forty icons were selected for the stencil based on their frequency of use in typical UI design (Figure 1,

Table 1. Icons used in the stencil.

Shape
	Rounded rectangle		Rounded rectangle	Rounded square	Circle
General
	Volume	Shooting	Location	Search	Evaluation	Delete
	Phone	Mic	Back	Shuffle	Upload	Download
	Data	Power	Notification
Settings
	Setting	Tools	Wi-Fi	Button
Communication
	Human	Operator	Chat
AI
	AI Function
Documentation
	Folders	Notes	Clipboard	Writing
Shopping
	Clothes	Shopping bags	Shopping carts	Boxes	Prices
Playback
	Rewind	Playback	Pause	Fast Forward

). Forty stencils were created, including icons for (a) buttons and frames, (b) general use, (c) settings, (d) communication functions, (e) documents, (f) shopping, and (g) music and video playback. The most frequently used icons for buttons and frames (a) are positioned at the top of the stencil, while the remaining icons are categorized accordingly.

(a)

Four icons represent button frames: a rounded rectangle, a narrower rounded rectangle, a rounded square, and a circle.

(b)

There were 15 universally usable icons: a speaker for volume control, a camera for shooting, an inverted droplet for location information, a magnifying glass for searching, a thumbs-up for evaluation, a trash can for deletion, a telephone receiver, a microphone, a counterclockwise arrow for going back, a cloud, and a right-pointing arrow. Additionally, there was a telephone receiver for the telephone, a standing microphone for the microphone, a counterclockwise arrow for the back operation, two right-pointing arrows crossing for shuffle, an upward-pointing arrow on a cloud for upload, a downward-pointing arrow on a cloud for download, a bar graph for data, a short vertical rectangle above the circle for power supply, and a bell-shaped icon for notifications.

(c)

There were four settings-related icons: one with two gears in a row, one with a circle in each of three vertical and horizontal lines representing tools, one with multiple quarter circles superimposed representing Wi-Fi, and one with a circle in each of two vertical ovals representing buttons.

(d)

Four icons were related to communication functions: one depicting a human upper body, one representing an operator wearing a headset, one depicting a chat with two callouts, and one representing processing and review.

(e)

Four document-related items were included: one depicting a folder, one depicting a notebook with the upper right corner of the vertical paper folded, one depicting a clipboard in the form of a binder, and one depicting writing with a pencil.

(f)

Five shopping-related icons were included: one depicting clothing in the form of a T-shirt, one depicting a shopping bag resembling a paper bag with handles, one depicting a shopping cart with integrated wheels and a basket, one depicting a cardboard box, and one depicting a price.

(g)

There were four icons for music and video playback functions: one for rewind (double arrowheads), one for fast forward, one for playback (single arrowhead pointing to the right), and one for pause (square).

The stencil used in this study was created by processing a 1 mm MDF plate with a 30 W CO2 laser cutter. Each stencil took 5 min and 30 s to process.

3.2. Participants

A total of 86 sixth-grade elementary school students in Japan participated in the survey. They were divided into three groups based on their class affiliation: Group 1 included 28 students (57% boys, 39% girls, and 4% non-response), Group 2 included 29 students (52% boys, 48% girls), and Group 3 included 29 students (17% boys, 12% girls). Since the data for Group 2 were incomplete at the time of the survey, only the data from Group 1 and Group 3 were included in the analysis. The collected data were analyzed statistically using Excel.

3.3. Procedure

The stencils described in Section 3.1 were distributed to Group 1. After receiving an introductory lecture on stencil usage and the intended use of the icons, participants were instructed as follows: “Based on today’s discussion, please imagine an IT service you would create. Draw an image of this service in the space provided below”. Participants were also asked to provide the service name, intended users, and screen layout. The frame for filling in the image layout was as shown in Figure 2.

Conversely, Group 2 did not receive stencils or an introductory lecture. Instead, they were provided with an assignment handout and asked to draw the service name, user, and screen layout. The drawing area for the screen layout was approximately 11 cm × 14 cm, and participants were instructed to use either a pencil or a Sharpie pen and an eraser for drawing. The activity took place in a school classroom using the same desks and chairs as those used by the previous participants.

Both groups were requested to report their prototyping time in minutes upon completion along with their perceived burden level using an open-ended scale ranging from 0 to 100. Furthermore, the Japanese version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI-J) was utilized to collect data on personality traits [15]. TIPI-J consists of two questions for each of the Big Five personality factors, totaling ten items. Responses were provided on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = strongly agree) (

Table 2. Ten questions on personality traits.

1.	Are you active and outgoing?
2.	Do you find yourself frustrated with others and prone to conflict?
3.	Are you firm and strict with yourself?
4.	Do you find yourself worrying easily and getting upset easily?
5.	Do you like new things and have unusual ways of thinking?
6.	Are you reserved and quiet?
7.	Are you a considerate and kind person?
8.	Are you sloppy and careless?
9.	Are you calm and stable?
10.	Do you think you are a mediocre person, lacking in ideas?

).

4. Results

Three responses from Group 1 and Group 2 were deemed invalid. There were 54 valid responses (31 males and 23 females), resulting in a valid response rate of 95%. Group 1 had 25 respondents, while Group 2 had 29.

Participants’ responses to the TIPI-J were rated on a 7-point scale. The mean scores for extraversion, cooperation, diligence, neuroticism, and openness were 4.18, 3.82, 3.5, 4.48, and 4.04 for Group 1, and 4.57, 4.10, 3.48, 4.47, and 4.26 for Group 2, respectively. The overall scores were 4.39, 3.97, 3.49, 4.47, and 4.16 (

Table 3. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of TIPI-J.

		Group 1	Group 2	All
		(n = 25)	(n = 29)	(n = 54)
Extroversion	M	4.18	4.57	4.39
	SD	1.36	1.32	1.36
Cooperativeness	M	3.82	4.10	3.97
	SD	1.29	1.03	1.16
Industriousness	M	3.5	3.48	3.49
	SD	1.02	1.20	1.12
Neuroticism	M	4.48	4.47	4.47
	SD	1.41	1.16	1.28
Openness	M	4.04	4.26	4.16
	SD	1.35	0.92	1.14

).

As shown in

Table 4. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for question items.

		Group 1	Group 2	All
		(n = 25)	(n = 29)	(n = 54)
Number of stencil icons	M	8.28	5.93	7.02
	SD	5.46	5.76	5.74
Work Time	M	15.28	16.66	16.02
	SD	9.20	9.34	9.30
Burden level	M	44.80	61.45	44.80
	SD	24.19	27.66	27.40
Usefulness of knowledge	M	5.20	—	5.20
	SD	0.80	—	0.80
Usefulness of stencil	M	5.40	—	5.40
	SD	1.13	—	1.13

, the mean number of stencil icons included in the composition of the screens was 8.28 for Group 1 and 5.93 for Group 2, resulting in an overall mean of 7.02. The mean working times (in minutes) were 15.28 for Group 1 and 16.66 for Group 2, resulting in an overall mean of 16.02. The mean subjective burden was 44.80 for Group 1 and 61.45 for Group 2. The mean usefulness of UI knowledge was 5.2 for Group 1, and the mean usefulness of the stencil was 5.4 for Group 1.

5. Analysis

5.1. Testing for Significant Differences in the Use of Stencils

To determine significant differences in working time, subjective burden, and the number of stencil icons between Group 1, which used stencils and received a prior lecture, and Group 2, which worked freehand without prior instruction, an unpaired two-tailed t-test was conducted at a significance level of 5%. There was no significant difference in mean working time (t = 0.53, p = 0.59, df = 51). Conversely, there was a significant difference in subjective burden (t = −2.31, p = 0.02, df = 52) (

Table 5. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) and t-test results for groups with and without stencil.

	Group 1		Group 2
	(n = 25)		(n = 29)
	M	SD	M	SD	t-Value	p-Value	Significant Difference
Work Time	15.28	9.2	16.66	9.34	−0.53	0.59	―
Burden Level	44.8	24.19	61.45	27.66	−2.31	0.02	*
Number of stencil icons	8.28	5.46	5.93	5.76	1.5	0.13	―

). One asterisk (*) indicates that a significant difference was confirmed at the 5% level.

The correlation coefficient between work time and subjective burden was examined for Group 1 and Group 2. A weak correlation (r = 0.32) was observed in Group 2, which did not receive stencils or pre-lecture sessions. Figure 3 displays a scatter plot with work time on the x-axis and subjective burden on the y-axis.

5.2. Testing the Correlation Coefficient between Openness and Each Factor

Openness is conceptualized as a trait characterized by uniqueness in thought, curiosity, and a tendency to transcend common sense boundaries, influencing ideas in paper prototyping [22]. Therefore, we examined the correlation between openness and working time, subjective burden, and the number of stencil icons used (

Table 6. Comparison of correlation coefficients between openness and work time, subjective burden, and number of stencil icons used.

	M	SD	Correlation Coefficient
Openness	4.16	1.14	—
Work time	16.02	9.3	0.19
Burden level	44.8	27.4	0.05
Number of stencil icons	7.02	5.74	0.05

).

No significant correlation was found between openness and working time (r = 0.19), subjective burden (r = 0.05), or the number of stencil icons used (r = 0.05). Figure 4 illustrates the scatter plot of working time against openness, Figure 5 illustrates the scatter plot of subjective burden against openness, and Figure 6 illustrates the scatter plot of the number of stencil icons used against openness.

A two-tailed uncorrelated t-test was conducted at a 5% significance level, dividing the groups based on an openness score of 4.16 or higher (N = 25) and those with an openness score below the mean (N = 29). The analysis revealed no significant correlation between working time, subjective burden level, or the number of stencil icons used (

Table 7. Mean and SD and t-test results for work time, subjective burden, and number of stencil icons used in the high and low openness groups.

	High Openness Group		Low Openness Group
	(n = 25)		(n = 29)
	M	SD	M	SD	t-Value	p-Value	Significant Difference
Work Time	18.16	10.92	14.17	7.13	1.53	0.13	―
Burden Level	58	27.53	50.07	26.75	1.04	0.30	―
Number of stencil icons	6.68	6.37	7.31	5.13	0.38	0.7	―

). However, the group with higher openness tended to work longer and experience a higher burden level compared to the group with lower openness.

6. Discussion

6.1. Evaluation of the Impact and Usefulness of Stencil Usage

The group that used the stencil showed significantly lower subjective burden compared to the group that did not use the stencil (Group 1). Additionally, the group that used the stencil was asked to rate the usefulness of the UI tools on a scale of 1 to 10. The correlation coefficient between subjective burden and the usefulness of the UI tools (stencils) was 0.13, indicating a very weak correlation, suggesting that the stencils were useful in this study. The correlation coefficient for the usefulness of the UI tool (stencil) was 0.13. Although there was no significant difference in working time and the number of stencil icons used, the mean working time was 15.28 in the stencil group and 16.66 in the stencil-unused group, and the mean number of stencil icons used was 8.28 in the stencil group and 5.93 in the stencil-unused group. The mean number of stencil icons used was 8.28 in the stencil group and 5.93 in the stencil-unused group.

However, the use of stencils influenced the content of ideas in the group that used stencils. In the group that used stencils, many respondents cited applications based on existing services (such as Nintendo Switch, Akinator, etc.) as examples. In contrast, in the group that did not use stencils, free ideas related to water and time (e.g., an application that tracks wasted time throughout one’s life) were more common. While the mean number of stencil icons used was higher in the group that used stencils, there was no indication of less information being conveyed in the group that did not use stencils. Instead, the depictions aimed to enhance understanding of the purpose and usage context.

The group that used stencils spent less time on prototyping compared to the non-stencil group, which aligns with the findings from Chowdhury‘s (2019) study [11]. However, this does not necessarily imply a difference in idea generation. It is possible that the non-stencil group required more time due to working more inventively. By comparing changes in motivation and subjective satisfaction before and after the activity, we can identify trends in how stencils and knowledge affect children’s motivation and idea generation.

6.2. Comparison of National and Participant Averages for Personality Traits

Comparable data on personality traits for Japanese children were not available. Therefore, to understand the demographics of the participants in this study, we extracted data from a large-scale survey conducted in Japan by Kawamoto et al. in 2015, using the TIPI-J questionnaire for participants in their twenties, and compared these data with the average for participants in this study. Personality characteristics were then compared and analyzed (

Table 8. Big Five scores of participants compared to national averages.

		The National Average for Women in Their 20s (a)	The National Average for Men in Their 20s (b)	The National Average for Overall in Their 20s (c)	Average for Female Participants (d)	Average for Male Participants (e)	Average for Overall Participants (f)	Difference for Females (a–d)	Difference for Males (b–e)	Difference for Overall (c–f)
		(n = 95)	(n = 81)	(n = 176)	(n = 23)	(n = 31)	(n = 54)
Extroversion	M	4.15	3.81	3.99	3.98	4.69	4.39	0.17	−0.88	−0.40
Cooperativeness	M	4.97	4.65	4.82	4.11	3.87	3.97	0.86	0.78	0.85
Industriousness	M	3.57	3.49	3.53	3.76	3.29	3.49	−0.19	0.20	0.04
Neuroticism	M	4.33	3.98	4.17	4.70	4.31	4.47	−0.37	−0.33	−0.30
Openness	M	3.85	4.05	3.94	3.72	4.48	4.16	0.13	−0.43	−0.22

(a) The national average for women in their 20s. (b) The national average for men in their 20s. (c) The national average for overall in their 20s. (d) Average for female participants. (e) Average for male participants. (f) Average for overall participants. (a–d) The national average for women in their 20s − Average for female participants = Difference for females. (b–e) The national average for men in their 20s − Average for male participants = Difference for males. (c–f) The national average for overall in their 20s − Average for overall participants = Difference for overall.

).

Overall, participants showed higher extraversion but lower cooperation compared to the national average. Specifically, the national average for extraversion was 3.99, while participants scored an average of 4.39, indicating a difference of −0.40. In contrast, for cooperation, the national average was 4.82, whereas participants scored an average of 3.97, resulting in a difference of −0.85, which was significantly lower than the national average. Diligence scores were nearly identical (national average 3.53, participant average 3.49), while participants showed a slightly higher tendency toward neuroticism, scoring an average of 4.47 compared to the national average of 4.17.

Regarding openness, the national average was 3.94, whereas the participant average was 4.16, indicating a difference of −0.22, which was slightly higher than the national average. Gender comparisons revealed that females exhibited slightly lower extraversion and significantly lower cooperativeness compared to the national average. Participants showed higher neuroticism levels, while openness was similar to the national average. In contrast, males demonstrated markedly higher extraversion but lower cooperation and industriousness compared to the national average. Neuroticism was higher than the national average, whereas openness was above average.

The results confirmed that participants tended to have more extroverted and less cooperative personality traits compared to the national average with this trend being particularly pronounced among male participants. Kawamoto et al. suggested that a linear age effect is valid for cooperativeness, and that it tends to increase with age, which is a finding that may be applicable here [24].

6.3. Relationship Between Personality Traits and Work Time, Subjective Burden Level, and Number of Stencil Icons Used

No correlation was found between openness and work time or subjective burden level. However, when comparing mean values, there was a tendency for both work time and subjective burden level to decrease with stencil intervention regardless of openness. Furthermore, when openness was divided into two groups (average openness of 4.16 or higher, N = 25; average openness of less than 4.16, N = 29), the group with higher openness tended to work longer and experience a higher burden level compared to the group with lower openness.

Openness is conceptualized as being characterized by unique thinking, curiosity, and a lack of adherence to common sense [22]. However, this curiosity often requires longer work times, potentially leading to a slight increase in the subjective burden. Additionally, a study investigating the personality traits influencing integrated learning time in elementary school students found that cooperativeness and industriousness influenced integrated learning achievement, while extraversion, neuroticism, and openness did not [23]. In our study, however, neither industriousness nor cooperativeness were correlated with work time, subjective burden, or the number of stencil icons used.

6.4. Relationship Between Personality Traits and Content of Conception

The applications designed by the students were categorized into nine categories: creative support, welfare, daily life support, entertainment, learning support, communication support, health care, shopping support, and others by the participants and researchers. In the “creative support” category, respondents who wanted to draw pictures suggested functions such as drawing, posting, and viewing pictures, as well as a feature for random collaborative drawing. Another popular idea in this category was creating tier tables for various games and adding images. For welfare, popular ideas included applications that are usable without WIFI, checking the availability of evacuation sites, and providing voice confirmation (e.g., directions) for blind people. Additionally, ideas targeted at elderly people included inputting their problems into a search box to find solutions (

Table 9. Categorization of the apps conceived by the students.

Genre	Number of People	Contents
Creative support	10	The application can “create original music”, “draw pictures”, and “create several different documents” when you type in a request like this. etc.
Welfare	9	“The elderly to enter their problems in the search box and find ways to solve”, and “the blind to confirm the availability of evacuation centers by voice”. etc.
Lifestyle support	7	The application can suggest “hairstyles and makeup ideas that suit you” and “If you enter the name of the station, it will guide you to your destination,” etc.
Entertainment	6	The user can “fill it with his/her favorite music, photos, videos” and “listen to new music”. etc.
Learning support	6	“If you take a picture of any problem, it will teach you how to solve it” and “AI allows you to have fun and learn everyday English as if you were talking to a real foreigner.”
Communication support	4	“Read out the typed characters and written documents” and “I can interact online without any inconvenience as if I were in the office.” etc.
Health care	3	“It tells you about healthy foods and exercises that are suitable for the person,” and “It analyzes your play and tells you what needs to be improves.” etc.
Shopping support	2	“When you want to buy clothes, you can check the clothes on your smartphone without wearing them,” etc.
Others	7	“AI that can do anything” and “all functions included” etc.

).

Table 10. Genres of the conceived apps in each personality trait high group.

Extraversion High Group (N32)		Coordination High Group (N38)		Diligence High Group (N32)		Neuroticism High Group (N30)		Openness High Group (N25)
Creative support	4	Creative support	8	Creative support	8	Creative support	2	Creative support	5
Welfare	5	Welfare	7	Welfare	4	Welfare	9	Welfare	4
Lifestyle support	4	Lifestyle support	7	Lifestyle support	6	Lifestyle support	5	Lifestyle support	3
Entertainment	3	Entertainment	2	Entertainment	4	Entertainment	4	Entertainment	1
Learning support	5	Learning support	5	Learning support	2	Learning support	3	Learning support	3
Communication support	2	Communication support	2	Communication support	2	Communication support	1	Communication support	2
Health care	3	Health care	3	Health care	3	Health care	0	Health care	2
Shopping support	2	Shopping support	1	Shopping support	0	Shopping support	1	Shopping support	2
Others	4	Others	3	Others	3	Others	5	Others	3

presents the applications conceived by genre for each of the five personality traits. The high neuroticism group generated numerous welfare-related application ideas, while one participant suggested a communication support application, and none suggested a health care application. Moreover, eight participants in both the highly cooperative and highly industrious groups proposed ideas related to creative support, which was the highest number of participants in each genre. These findings suggest a potential relationship between personality traits and idea tendencies, highlighting the need for further investigation through extensive surveys and detailed text analysis.

In this study, work time and subjective burden were quantitatively measured and analyzed. However, since quantitative evaluation alone may not fully capture the effects of the intervention, conducting post-intervention interviews could provide a more comprehensive understanding.

7. Conclusions

This study aims to investigate the effects of using stencils in paper prototyping among elementary school students with a particular focus on how personality traits influence work time, mental burden, and idea generation. By examining these factors, valuable insights can be gained into how customized educational tools can enhance learning outcomes. The findings of this study highlight the practical importance of integrating personality-aware approaches into user-centered design education.

The influence of personality traits of developers and designers during the design phase has rarely been investigated or examined. In addition, although electronic learning tools have been actively incorporated into educational settings, the perspectives and ideas of children who use these tools are rarely understood.

This study explored the impact of stencil use on elementary school students’ ability to create IT service prototypes, comparing the results between groups that used stencils and received introductory lectures versus those that worked freehand without prior instruction. The findings demonstrated that the stencil group experienced a significantly lower subjective burden, highlighting the utility of stencils in reducing perceived workload. However, there was no significant difference in working time or the number of stencil icons used between the groups.

Interestingly, the use of stencils influenced the nature of the ideas generated. The stencil group tended to base their ideas on existing services, while the non-stencil group produced more unique and inventive concepts. This suggests that while stencils aid in easing the process and structuring ideas, they may also limit creative thinking to some extent.

Personality traits, particularly openness, were examined for their correlation with working time, subjective burden, and stencil usage. No significant correlations were found, although participants with higher openness tended to work longer and experience a higher burden. This aligns with the notion that higher openness, characterized by curiosity and unique thinking, may require more time and effort, thus increasing perceived burden. Comparing the participants’ personality traits with national averages revealed higher extraversion and lower cooperativeness among the study group, especially among male participants. These traits may influence how students approach and engage with creative tasks, suggesting that personality factors should be considered when designing educational tools and activities.

The use of stencils significantly reduced subjective burden, suggesting that structured tools like the UI stencils used in this study may alleviate cognitive load during the prototyping process. In educational settings, educators can introduce similar interventions to create more supportive learning environments. For instance, structured tools may be particularly effective for students with high levels of neuroticism who may hesitate to engage in open-ended tasks. Additionally, promoting collaboration among students with different personality traits could lead to diverse outcomes, enriching the overall learning experience.

While this experiment was conducted as a single instance, future research should investigate the long-term effects of stencil use on creativity and learning retention. Expanding the study to include participants from diverse age groups, cultural backgrounds, and personality traits would help evaluate the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, although this study focused on the intervention effects of tools in paper prototyping, examining the impact of other personality traits, such as conscientiousness and agreeableness, at different stages of the design process could provide deeper insights into optimizing educational tools for various learners.

In conclusion, while stencils are beneficial in reducing subjective burden and structuring the creative process, educators should balance their use with opportunities for freehand work to foster creativity and innovation in students. Additionally, understanding personality traits can help tailor educational approaches to individual needs, enhancing the overall learning experience.