Objectives and Theoretical Framework
Although national goals emphasize science for all, many learners find school science to
be boring, irrelevant, and disconnected from their lives [1, 7, 19]. Often school science is
presented with abstract facts that are disconnected from learners’ interests and goals. Learners
need scientifically meaningful experiences, that is experiences in which learners engage in
scientific practices in ways personally meaningful for them [9]. One such way to provide these
experiences is designing learning environments that engage learners in science in the context of
their lives in ways that help them to have scientific experiences that are personally meaningful.
We call these learning environments life relevant learning (LRL) environments. By our
definition, a LRL environment is a learning environment designed to engage diverse learners in
science by pursuing personally meaningful goals. Researchers have been successful at
developing learning environments that help learners relate science to their lives and pursue
interesting scientific endeavors [2, 5, 13, 17]. For example, learners in impoverished
neighborhoods were able to learn science and engage in scientific practices to plant gardens and
address pollution problems in their neighborhoods [6]. Thus, they were able to experience the
value of science for addressing deep needs in their communities.
While transformative for learners, these learning environments can be challenging to
implement and sustain. Supporting learners cognitively and practically in scientific inquiry in the
context of their interests poses significant cognitive load on facilitators [18]. Following learners’
interests requires dynamic and structured means of experimentation [12]. Also, learners need
help focusing on and engaging in science in everyday contexts (e.g., cooking, sports). These
contexts are often physically active, making it easy for learners to get distracted by the physical
aspects of the environment without considering the scientific aspects of their physical
engagement [14].
Technology Support for LRL
As well, technology offers affordances for addressing these challenges by supporting
learners’ scientific practice and by enabling fun and interesting new experiences for young
learners. However, the role and design of technology in LRL activities has not been fully
considered. Currently, the design of technology for science learning has been focused on
supporting learners’ scientific practices. For example, Quintana et al. [23] point out several
software systems that have been successful at helping learners overcome difficulties engaging in
scientific practice by scaffolding the processes of scientific inquiry, such as articulating the
important aspects of their experiences, making quantitative observations, and making plans for
experiments. However, most technology systems that provide scaffolds for science inquiry have
been designed for formal science classrooms. Few studies examine what technological tools are
needed to support science learning in the context of learners’ personal interests. For example,
Rogers et al. [24] have started designing mobile technologies for helping learners collect and
reflect upon scientific data (e.g., light and moisture measurements) outside of school in their
everyday lives. However, we argue that such technological designs need to capitalize on
learners’ interests and keep them engaged scientifically in these contexts in order to design LRL
technologies that promote scientifically meaningful experiences.
In this paper, we offer an approach to designing supporting technologies for LRL
environments. We advocate for participatory design as a means of engaging learners in the
development and design of their learning activities and supporting tools (Druin, 2002). Our
design philosophy focuses on actively engaging numerous stakeholders in setting design goals,
planning prototypes, and making decisions, ensuring the final design meets the needs of the end
users (e.g., Carroll et al., 2000; Druin, 2002; Könings et al., 2010). Therefore, we ask the
question, how to best design technology that supports learners’ scientific inquiry and helps them
have personally meaningful scientific experiences. In what follows, we present our initial work
in designing both an LRL environment, called Kitchen Science Investigators and the supporting
technology. Second, we explain our reasons for using participatory design as a means to develop
learning activities and technological tools. We outline the results from one initial design session.
From this, we present the methodological steps we adopted to co-designing early prototypes,
what features learners find important in the technology for their personal interests and what
implications can be made for designing LRL environments and technology.
Methodology
Our work begins to consider the out-of-school context, where learners’ scientific
practices and their interests and goals are paramount. Specifically, we (researchers) initially
designed and developed a LRL environment, Kitchen Science Investigators (KSI) and supporting
technology to promote meaningful scientific experiences for learners. KSI is an out-of-school
(i.e., summer camp or afterschool) learning environment where participants engage in scientific
practice in the everyday context of cooking. We designed software in KSI to address some of
the challenges of engaging learners scientifically in LRL environments. The software prompts
and scaffolds learners through asking scientific questions, planning experiments, collecting data,
and drawing conclusions in the context of cooking.
The data presented in this paper were taken from data collected in an enactment of the
KSI program, run throughout the 2007-2008 school year. We offered the program afterschool
one day a week as part of a larger afterschool initiative by a local YWCA to engage teen girls in
science and technology related activities. The participants in the study were from the same
suburban middle school where the population was 99% African American. Participation varied
over the 9-month period, but we had 15-20 consistent participants (7-9 6th graders, 7-10 8th
graders, one 7th grader). A team of 3 facilitators led the KSI sessions: the author, and two other
learning sciences researchers supported by the school program coordinator. In every session,
video recordings of each group were collected and transcribed. In addition, after each session,
facilitators recorded post-observation field notes that captured the significant learning events that
occurred during the session.
Data we used in this analysis was collected as part of a larger study focusing on which
aspects of the learning environment influenced participants’ development of scientific reasoning
identities. First, interview data was coded to pinpoint specific scientific experiences in KSI that
were meaningful for learners as evidenced by their reporting of them or their reports of
extending particular KSI experiences in meaningful ways. Parent and teacher interviews were
also triangulated with learners’ reports to further validate the meaning of these experiences for
learners. Next, the relevant KSI experiences (as reported in interview data) were pinpointed in
observation data. Videotapes and transcripts of those KSI sessions were analyzed to understand
learners’ scientific practices in those experiences, using Chinn and Malhotra’s [7] framework for
scientific inquiry practices. I then looked across cases for emergent themes in the types of
scientific experiences that were personally meaningful for learners. Within each theme, I looked
to understand the context of learners’ scientific participation (i.e., who participated with learners,
what stimulated the experiences, what made them meaningful) the help learners needed engaging
scientifically in these contexts, and the role of technology in each experiment. I then used this
analysis to draw design recommendations for LRL technologies.
After KSI, we employed a participatory design approach [7] to design children’s
technologies with and for children in an intergenerational group named Kidsteam. During the
2010-2011 school year, we held a design session with Kidsteam to develop supporting
technology a similar LRL environment, Kitchen Chemistry (KC). The group consists of children
between ages six to eleven as well as several adult design researchers. The design team begins
during the summer in a two-week day camp and later meets twice a week in an afterschool
program during the following school year. Throughout the year, Kidsteam works with different
partners to develop, evaluate, and co-design new technologies for children.
We focus on the first design session with Kidsteam and compare our findings with our
prior work in KSI. In this session, 8 of the 9 children were present with 10 adults. We began the
session by asking the design partners in a whole group setting, “what cooking questions do you
have?” As a large group discussion, the adult and children designers generated a list of questions
from their interests (Figure 1). Based on this list, we asked the children and adults to create a
low-tech prototype that would help answer their science questions. We employed a low-tech
prototyping technique called, “Bags of Stuff” (Figure 2). In this technique, the children and
researchers were split into four groups, with each group having 1 – 3 child partners per group
and at least 2 adults. Each group is asked to create models or sketches of new technologies using
pre-determined art supplies found in large bags. During the time the groups were developing
their low-tech prototypes, we took field notes, photos and recorded the session on video. Once
these models are created, the children and adults come together again in a whole discussion
group to present their designs. As the groups present to the full team, we write on a large
whiteboard “the big ideas” that were present. We employed a constant comparative method
(Strauss & Corbin, 2007) to identify emergent patterns in the different designs. From these lowtech prototypes and presentations, we observed similar trends and patterns that we interpret as
important in designing technology for LRL environments.
Results and Discussion
What did we learn from initial KSI implementation?
In our initial implementation of KSI we found three themes across the data that learners
needed support with and how technology could be used to help them. First, we found that
learners had difficulty making choices as to what they were interested in and how to create a
scientific investigation from their interests (Explain here). Second, learners needed support
making connections between their interests and the science learning connections behind this.
(Explain here). Lastly, learners had difficulty articulating the science phenomena they were
learning. (Explain here more)
What did we learn from Kidsteam and participatory design?
Looking across the data from the PD session, we found five main themes within the
artifacts the design partners created. First, the design partners focused on familiar interfaces.
They developed low-tech prototypes reflecting microwaves, iPads ©, and Nintendo DS ©. We
argue that for technology to support LRL and learners’ personal interests, the interface and the
interaction need to be seamless with their own background and usage of technology. Second,
similar to the first theme of familiar interaction, our design session emphasized mobility as
important to answering their exploration of cooking science. The partners wanted to be able to
not only capture their cooking science experiences, but also be able to share their experiences
with others who may not have been there.





Their focus on microwaves. That seemed to be a point of reference for many of their
questions early on, and a point of reference for their designs.
Process Display: They talked about how technology could display different processes that
they could not necessarily see – like how their food is digested, what their food looks like
as it cooks, how to cook their foods.
Creating choosers: Several of the devices they talked about involved making choices
about what they desired in their foods. Cianna wanted a taste chooser, Michael and Bella
wanted to choose the desired levels of doneness for their food (e.g., well done, medium
rare), Matthew made a ball he could throw that would go get the food he wanted.
Mobility: There was an emphasis in mobility, whether it was them being mobile with
mobile devices/sensors (e.g., taste sensor, iPad), or their food being mobile (e.g., the food
ball), or their being able to transport their experiences with others by sharing their
experiences with people who were not there. They also focused on familiarity (e.g.,
works like a DS).
Sensors: There seemed to be a focus on their inventions detecting something about the
food, like temperature or taste.
Connections with KSI and Kidsteam design session
We argue that PD is a viable method for developing supportive technologies for LRL
environments. First, from our experience in KSI, learners needed a way to articulate their
interests in ways that help to develop science investigations. From the PD session, Kidsteam
participants asked for technologies that could help them make choices in what they desired to
cook (e.g., creating choosers). In this case, the Kidsteam members
Second,