Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Brownies or Bags-of-Stuff
Domain Expertise in Cooperative Inquiry with Children
Jason C. Yip
Tamara Clegg
Elizabeth Bonsignore
Helene Gelderblom
Emily Rhodes
Allison Druin
Science inquiry as fun and engaging
The need for life-relevant learning
Designing technology for life-relevant
learning environments
Participatory Design
Method: Cooperative Inquiry
A dilemma…
DESIGN experts are not
SUBJECT experts
A website for American civics?
We recognize that working
only with design
expert children could
be limiting.
SUBJECT experts are not
DESIGN experts
However, Cooperative
Inquiry is not always a
simple process.
Our approach: Both design / subject
expertise
Design experts
Kidsteam
Subject experts
Kitchen Chemistry
Research
questions
What are the affordances
and constraints of designing
learning technologies with
children with subject
expertise / design
...
Comparative Case Study Method
Kidsteam
Kitchen
Chemistry
Design experts Subject experts
Design experts
Kidsteam
Afterschool program
Two-week all-day
summer camp
Twice a week
Children (7-11 years
old) and adult ...
Afterschool or
summer program
One-week or all-
day
Children (8-13
years old) and
facilitators
Subject experts
Kitchen Chem...
Stickies
Three design sessions per case
Bags-of-StuffLayered Elaboration
Data Collection
Artifacts and
prototypes
Analytic
memos
Photos and
videos
Data analysis
Grounded theory approach with
constant comparative analysis
Open coding for aspects of usability,
interaction, device specific features, and
design ideas
Collaborative axial coding session to
compare and contrast codes
Validity - Three external reviewers not close
to the project examined the codes and data
Brief Findings
Similarities
Differences
Similar, but different
Bags-of-Stuff
Low-tech prototyping
Similarities
Familiar interfaces
Scaffolds and guidelines
Differences
Subject experts focused on
references and information
retrieval
Design experts made no
mention of this
Similar, but different
Mobility
Gamification
Stickies
Ideation and evaluation
StoryKit
33Zydeco
Similarities
Wanted more “child” like feel and
wanted tagging to be like a game
Differences
Design experts wanted more social
interactions and organizational
tools
Subject experts emphasized
multitaskin...
Similar, but different
Narrative in tagging app
Tagging
Layered Elaboration
Mixing ideas without erasing
Similarities
Customized greetings and themes
Help for food investigations
Integrated media to input data
Differences
Kidsteam generated more ideas
Design experts
Kidsteam
Subject experts
Kitchen Chemistry
Differences
Design experts generated more ideas
Design experts were more comfortable with
design technique
and giving nega...
Similar, but different
BUTTONS IDEAS
Design experts had more open and
unconstrained ideas
Subject experts focused on pragm...
Summary
Focus on the practical and pragmatic
Contextual
details
References
Unobtrusive
devices
Multi-taskingSubject experts
Kitche...
Wild ideas
Open and unconstrained ideas
Specific
features
Aesthetics
Opinions
Design experts
Kidsteam
Subject experts
Kitchen Chemistry
Insight into
their
perspective in
the context
Design experts
Kidsteam
Possibilities
for technology
and design
Design experts
Kidsteam
Subject experts
Kitchen Chemistry
Ideal:
Work with both….
Implications
Choice in techniques matters
Co-designers who are not asked to
criticize may not criticize.
Implications
Designers can focus on usability through
observation of the partners
Building relationships with children
Relationships as design experts
Relationships as subject experts
University of Maryland
Luca Columbo Ben
Bederson
Elizabeth Foss Alex Quinn
Mona Leigh Guha
University of Michigan
Chris Qu...
Comparative examinations
between subject and design
partners to see if other distinctions
exist in other contexts.
Adolescents and how knowledge
of content and subject matter
influences the co-design process.
Examining child partners with
different domain-expertise at
different times
Brownies idc2013- v2
Brownies idc2013- v2
Brownies idc2013- v2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Brownies idc2013- v2

349 views

Published on

Abstract:

Researchers often utilize the method of Participatory Design to work together with users to enhance technology. In particular, Cooperative Inquiry is a method of Participatory Design with children that involves full partnership between researchers and children. One important challenge designers face in creating learning technologies is that these technologies are often situated in specific activities and contexts. While children involved in these activities may have subject expertise (e.g., science inquiry process), they may not have design expertise (e.g., design aesthetics, usability). In contrast, children with design expertise may be familiar with how to design with researchers, but may not have subject expertise. Little is known about the distinction between child design and subject experts in Cooperative Inquiry. In this paper, we examine two cases – involving children with design expertise and those with subject expertise – to better understand the design process for both groups of children. The data from this study suggests that similarities do exist between the two cases, but that design and subject knowledge does play a significant role in how children co-design learning technologies.

Published in: Design, Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Brownies idc2013- v2

  1. 1. Brownies or Bags-of-Stuff Domain Expertise in Cooperative Inquiry with Children
  2. 2. Jason C. Yip Tamara Clegg Elizabeth Bonsignore Helene Gelderblom Emily Rhodes Allison Druin
  3. 3. Science inquiry as fun and engaging
  4. 4. The need for life-relevant learning
  5. 5. Designing technology for life-relevant learning environments
  6. 6. Participatory Design Method: Cooperative Inquiry
  7. 7. A dilemma…
  8. 8. DESIGN experts are not SUBJECT experts
  9. 9. A website for American civics?
  10. 10. We recognize that working only with design expert children could be limiting.
  11. 11. SUBJECT experts are not DESIGN experts
  12. 12. However, Cooperative Inquiry is not always a simple process.
  13. 13. Our approach: Both design / subject expertise Design experts Kidsteam Subject experts Kitchen Chemistry
  14. 14. Research questions
  15. 15. What are the affordances and constraints of designing learning technologies with children with subject expertise / design expertise? How can the results of designing with the two groups be combined to inform design practice that involves either group?
  16. 16. Comparative Case Study Method Kidsteam Kitchen Chemistry Design experts Subject experts
  17. 17. Design experts Kidsteam Afterschool program Two-week all-day summer camp Twice a week Children (7-11 years old) and adult design researchers
  18. 18. Afterschool or summer program One-week or all- day Children (8-13 years old) and facilitators Subject experts Kitchen Chemistry
  19. 19. Stickies Three design sessions per case Bags-of-StuffLayered Elaboration
  20. 20. Data Collection Artifacts and prototypes Analytic memos Photos and videos
  21. 21. Data analysis
  22. 22. Grounded theory approach with constant comparative analysis
  23. 23. Open coding for aspects of usability, interaction, device specific features, and design ideas
  24. 24. Collaborative axial coding session to compare and contrast codes
  25. 25. Validity - Three external reviewers not close to the project examined the codes and data
  26. 26. Brief Findings Similarities Differences Similar, but different
  27. 27. Bags-of-Stuff Low-tech prototyping
  28. 28. Similarities Familiar interfaces Scaffolds and guidelines
  29. 29. Differences Subject experts focused on references and information retrieval Design experts made no mention of this
  30. 30. Similar, but different Mobility Gamification
  31. 31. Stickies Ideation and evaluation
  32. 32. StoryKit
  33. 33. 33Zydeco
  34. 34. Similarities Wanted more “child” like feel and wanted tagging to be like a game
  35. 35. Differences Design experts wanted more social interactions and organizational tools Subject experts emphasized multitasking between cooking and using the technology
  36. 36. Similar, but different Narrative in tagging app Tagging
  37. 37. Layered Elaboration Mixing ideas without erasing
  38. 38. Similarities Customized greetings and themes Help for food investigations Integrated media to input data
  39. 39. Differences Kidsteam generated more ideas
  40. 40. Design experts Kidsteam Subject experts Kitchen Chemistry
  41. 41. Differences Design experts generated more ideas Design experts were more comfortable with design technique and giving negative feedback
  42. 42. Similar, but different BUTTONS IDEAS Design experts had more open and unconstrained ideas Subject experts focused on pragmatic and practical ideas
  43. 43. Summary
  44. 44. Focus on the practical and pragmatic Contextual details References Unobtrusive devices Multi-taskingSubject experts Kitchen Chemistry
  45. 45. Wild ideas Open and unconstrained ideas Specific features Aesthetics Opinions Design experts Kidsteam
  46. 46. Subject experts Kitchen Chemistry Insight into their perspective in the context
  47. 47. Design experts Kidsteam Possibilities for technology and design
  48. 48. Design experts Kidsteam Subject experts Kitchen Chemistry Ideal: Work with both….
  49. 49. Implications Choice in techniques matters Co-designers who are not asked to criticize may not criticize.
  50. 50. Implications Designers can focus on usability through observation of the partners Building relationships with children
  51. 51. Relationships as design experts
  52. 52. Relationships as subject experts
  53. 53. University of Maryland Luca Columbo Ben Bederson Elizabeth Foss Alex Quinn Mona Leigh Guha University of Michigan Chris Quintana and Alex Kuhn Kidsteam children and Kitchen Chemistry children and the local school Acknowledgements @jasoncyip @tlclegg @ebonsign @HeleneGelder @emily3rhodes @adruin
  54. 54. Comparative examinations between subject and design partners to see if other distinctions exist in other contexts.
  55. 55. Adolescents and how knowledge of content and subject matter influences the co-design process.
  56. 56. Examining child partners with different domain-expertise at different times

×