Brownies or Bags-of-Stuff
Domain Expertise in Cooperative Inquiry with Children
Jason 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…
Growing into design domain experts
(or design experts for short)
We recognize that working only with design
expert children could be limiting.
Growing into subject domain experts
(or subject experts for short)
Ourexperts
approach: Both design
/ subject
Subject
experts
Design
Kidsteam
expertise
Kitchen Chemistry
We do not yet know the degree of
difference between children design
experts and subject experts.
Comparative Case Study Method
Three design sessions per case
Bags-of-Stuff
Stickies
Layered Elaboration
Afterschool program
Two-week all-day summer
camp
Twice a week
Children (7-11 years old)
and adult design
researchers
Design experts
Kidsteam
Afterschool program
One-week all-day
Children (8-13 years old)
and facilitators
Subject experts
Kitchen Chemistry
Findings
Results
Implications
Take aways
Similar design themes with specific
differences.
Mobility
Personalization
Tagging
Social
Games
Narrative
Bags-of-Stuff
Similar feedback
Stickies
KC Less prone to give negative feedback
Layered Elaboration
KC generated less design ideas
Focus on the practical
and pragmatic
Subject experts
Kitchen Chemistry
Open and unconstrained
ideas
Design experts
Kidsteam
Contextual
details
References
Unobtrusive
devices
Subject experts
Multi-tasking
Kitchen Chemistry
Focus on the practical and pragmatic
Wild ideas
Specific
features
Aesthetics
Opinions
Open and unconstrained
ideas
Design experts
Kidsteam
Ideally…
Could work with both
Subject experts
Design experts
Kitchen Chemistry
Kidsteam
Insight into their
perspective in the
context
Subject experts
Kitchen Chemistry
Possibilities for technology
and design
Design experts
Kidsteam
What if…
You can’t have both?
Implications
Choice in techniques matters
Co-designers who are not asked to criticize may
not criticize.
Designers can focus on usability through
observation.
Building relationships with children
TAKE AWAY
Brownies & Bags-of-Stuff
Perspectives of both context experts and
designers are beneficial for technology design
Questions
@jasoncyip
@tlclegg
@ebonsign
@HeleneGelder
@emily3rhodes
@adruin
Yip, J., Clegg, T., Bonsigore, E., Gelderblom, H., Rhodes, E., and Druin, A. (Accepted)
Brownies or Bags-of-Stuff? Domain Expertise in Cooperative Inquiry with Children. Paper to
be presented at the Interaction, Design, and Children Annual Conference, New York, NY.
Coding and 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
Data Collection
Artifacts and paper prototypes
Field notes
Photos and video recordings of all sessions
Research questions
What are the affordances and constraints of
designing learning technologies with children with
subject expertise / design expertise?
Research questions
How can the results of designing with the two
groups be combined to inform design
practice that involves either group?
Design a legislative website
for and with children?
Challenges in Cooperative Inquiry also exist in
working only with subject
children.
expert
Bags-of-Stuff
Low-fidelity prototyping
Similarities
Familiar interfaces
Process displays
Scaffolds and guidelines
Sensors
Differences
KC focused on references and information
retrieval
Kidsteam made no mention of this
Similar, but different
Mobility: KC focus on intrusion
Gamefication: KT out of context
Social: KC more details
Bags-of-Stuff take away
Kidsteam and KC designers addressed
similar design issues in the low fidelity
prototypes.
Participation in KC did influence the
design decisions and justifications.
Stickies
Evaluation and Design Ideation
Similarities
Wanted more integrated
media and
usability and audio recording issues
Wanted more “child” like
tagging to be like a game
feel and wanted
Differences
Kidsteam wanted more social
interactions and organizational
tools
KC emphasized that multitasking
between cooking and using the technology is
important
Similar, but different
Customization and control: Kidsteam focused on
aesthetics; KC focused on interaction
Narrative in tagging app: KC was more vocal
than Kidsteam about narrative features
Tagging: Kidsteam expressed specifics; KC
emphasized generalities
Stickies take away
Kidsteam gave more opinions when
evaluating the interaction, design, and
usability of the apps.
Practical constraints regarding the
design sessions may have played a role in
how the children generated their design
ideas.
Layered Elaboration
Feedback and Idea Generation
Similarities
Customized greetings and themes
Help for food investigations
Integrated media to input data
Differences
Kidsteam generated more
ideas, were
more comfortable with design
technique, and giving negative
feedback
Similar, but different
Buttons on the interface
Kidsteam had more open and
unconstrained ideas
KC focused on pragmatic and practical
ideas
Layered Elaboration
take away
The Kidsteam children’s relationship was
based on designing technology –
familiarity with techniques, jokes, and
openness
Relationships within Kitchen Chemistry
were based on designing food
investigations
Charlie’s disbelief in co-design
Implications
What if you can only work with subject
expertise children for a short period of time?
Future work
Comparative examinations between subject
and design partners to see if other distinctions exist.
Adolescents and how knowledge of content and
subject matter influences the co-design process.
Examining child partners with different
expertise at different times
domain-
Building relationships as
design experts
Building relationships as
subject experts