• Smart Media Journal
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.106-113
• /
• 2018

Brand identity (BI) is a key asset that affects consumers' psychological cognition of products and services. In the initial planning stage of the BI design development for a company, a unique approach strategy is required. In the final evaluation stage, a reasonable design evaluation method involving potential consumers needs to be prepared. However, conventional brand identity design evaluation processes tend to depend on the results of surveys, and in many cases it is impossible to be free from the distorting phenomenon of survey respondents' psychological manifestation which is often revealed in the process of the surveys. In this context, this research has explored whether the method of utilizing EEG data of the subjects along with the conventional survey method of preference could be helpful in the process of evaluating the brand identity design. To achieve that, we correlated the subject's preference survey results with the subject's EEG data. 'Attractiveness' and 'concentration' were used as variables. As a result, it was found that there was a high correlation between the results of preference survey on 'attractiveness' and the results of 'EEG' on 'concentration'. Therefore, in addition to the existing conventional qualitative evaluation methods, we confirmed that design evaluation methods using EEG are useful for evaluating tacit knowledge objects such as the BI design.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.37 no.2
• /
• pp.371-382
• /
• 2017

The texts in the national science curriculum documents are expected to be interpreted in the same meaning as that of the authors. In this study, the science achievement standards in national curriculum documents were examined through an analysis of the differences between the interpretations of Korean language education experts and science education experts. Three Korean language education experts designed and utilized an analysis framework on science curriculum standards from their viewpoints while three science education experts utilized TIMSS cognitive domain framework to analyze the 2009 Korean revised science curriculum achievement standards. The differences between interpretations of both groups were analyzed qualitatively through interviews. First of all, the two groups seemed to have different meanings for terms such as "explain," "analyze," "define," and "cause and effect." The science achievement standards described by general verbs like "explain" were interpreted in various ways. The verb "explain" that appears many times in the science achievement standards seem to be representing the "describe" subsections in the framework of Korean language education expert rather than the "explain" subsections of the framework of science education experts. Science education experts seemed to focus on prepositional phrases, which indicate inquiry process, while Korean language education experts seemed to focus on objective phrases. Moreover, the science education experts would interpret the achievement standards based on their background knowledge while the Korean language education experts would interpret them based on the structure of the sentences. This study suggests that achievement standards should specifically indicate the levels and scopes of cognitive domain as well as the knowledge domain. Also, integrations of achievement standards in cognitive domains of Korean language and science subjects should be considered.