Brownies idc2013- v2
59
Brownies or Bags-of-Stuff Domain Expertise in Cooperative Inquiry with Children
description
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.
Transcript of Brownies idc2013- v2
Brownies or Bags-of-StuffDomain Expertise in Cooperative Inquiry with Children
Jason C. YipTamara Clegg
Elizabeth Bonsignore Helene Gelderblom
Emily RhodesAllison Druin
Science inquiry as fun and engaging
The need for life-relevant learning
Designing technology for life-relevant learning environments
Participatory DesignMethod: 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 expertsKidsteam
Subject expertsKitchen Chemistry
Research questions?
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?
Comparative Case Study Method
KidsteamKitchen Chemistry
Design experts Subject experts
Design expertsKidsteam
Afterschool program
Two-week all-day summer camp
Twice a week
Children (7-11 years old) and adult design researchers
Afterschool or summer program
One-week or all-day
Children (8-13 years old) and facilitators
Subject expertsKitchen Chemistry
Stickies
Three design sessions per case
Bags-of-StuffLayered Elaboration
Data Collection
Artifacts andprototypes
Analytic memos
Photos andvideos
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 FindingsSimilaritiesDifferencesSimilar, but different
Bags-of-Stuff Low-tech prototyping
SimilaritiesFamiliar interfacesScaffolds and guidelines
DifferencesSubject 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
SimilaritiesWanted more “child” like feel and wanted tagging to be like a game
DifferencesDesign experts wanted more social interactions and organizational tools
Subject experts emphasized multitasking between cooking and using the technology
Similar, but different
Narrative in tagging appTagging
Layered Elaboration Mixing ideas without erasing
SimilaritiesCustomized greetings and themes
Help for food investigations
Integrated media to input data
DifferencesKidsteam generated more ideas
Design expertsKidsteam
Subject expertsKitchen Chemistry
DifferencesDesign experts generated more ideasDesign experts were more comfortable
with design techniqueand giving negative feedback
Similar, but differentBUTTONS IDEAS
Design experts had more open and
unconstrained ideas
Subject experts focused on
pragmatic and practical ideas
Summary
Focus on the practical and
pragmatic
Contextual details
References
Unobtrusive devices
Multi-taskingSubject expertsKitchen Chemistry
Wild ideas
Open and unconstrained ideas
Specific features
Aesthetics
Opinions
Design expertsKidsteam
Subject expertsKitchen Chemistry
Insight into
their perspective in the context
Design expertsKidsteam
Possibilities for technology and design
Design expertsKidsteam
Subject expertsKitchen Chemistry
Ideal: Work with
both….
What if…You CANNOT have both?
ImplicationsChoice in techniques matters
Co-designers who are not asked to
criticize may not criticize.
ImplicationsDesigners can focus on usability
through observation of the partners
Building relationships with children
Relationships as design experts
Relationships as subject experts
Relationships matter in co-design
University of MarylandLuca Columbo Ben BedersonElizabeth Foss Alex QuinnMona Leigh Guha
University of MichiganChris Quintana and Alex Kuhn
Kidsteam children and Kitchen Chemistry children and the local school
Acknowledgements
@jasoncyip @tlclegg @ebonsign @HeleneGelder @emily3rhodes @adruin
Future work
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
