Brownies or bags-of-stuff?

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.

Is Participatory Design Associated with the Effectiveness of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion? A Meta-Analysis

“…First, users may need to be more than just a member of the target group; for example, they need sufficient subject-domain or design expertise to create a successful partnership with game designers [74]. This expertise may help avoid the risk of users focusing on irrelevant aspects, or on ideas that conflict with the pedagogical goals of the game [28,36].…”

“…As a second hypothesis, codesign techniques (eg, storyboarding and paper prototyping) may need to be adjusted to the level of user design experience, users’ cognitive abilities, and stage of game development [74,75]. This was not described in most included studies, but may be associated with the quality of idea generation [75], and may overcome several barriers influencing codesign, such as users tending to think along familiar lines instead of exploring new avenues, or forgetting or being afraid to bring up ideas when generating ideas in a group [75].…”

“…Different methods in PD, such as Informant Design [80], Bonded Design [75], and Co-design or Cooperative Inquiry [74], vary in the roles participants take in the process [75]. In Informant Design, users are asked to provide input and feedback at some, but not all, development stages.…”

Connecting game design with problem posing skills in early childhood

“…The teaching intervention consisted of 24 sessions with game design activities addressed as problem posing situations. The present research focused on game design sessions that included mainly low‐tech prototypes (Yip et al ., ) ie, use of clay, paper, cartons, pencils, crayons and other types of stationery. The use of low‐tech prototypes has been proposed in order to initiate young children to the design processes before their introduction to technology design sessions.…”

“…Previous studies in the field of participatory design, and more specifically of child‐computer interaction, have focused on game design with students of this age (Read & Markopoulos, ). Their scope focused on the role of children in the design of such complex systems (Yip et al ., ), the facilitation of cross‐generational teams (Triantafyllakos, Palaigeorgiou, & Tsoukalas, ) and the evaluation of the process as a design and cognitive performance (Fitton & Read, ).…”