The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 25 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
25 Own interpretation · 11 Sources not found · 10 Own result · 6 No full text of the sources · 4 No basis given · 3 Not checked yet · 3 Own method
In the paper
“Based on our experience with design-based learning for industrial design students at the University of Technology, where we apply the Reflective Transformative Design Process (RTDP, Hummels and Frens [11]), the activity of reflection forms an important part of the learning process.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2. The Reflective Design-based Learning (RDBL) framework: overview and grounding in literature
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hummels and Frens [11] 11. C.C.M. Hummels, J.W. Frens, Designing for the unknown : a design process for the future generation of highly interactive systems and products, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Ideo 2015, Definition of design thinking; Retrieved April 2015, 2008, pp. 204-209. http://www.ideo.com/about/.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Examining the worksheets used in the usability test showed that the worksheets support children in reflecting at different levels, e.g. about more simple or more complex issues.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.2. Insights on teaching design thinking through design-based learning at school
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During a number of stakeholder workshops, we noticed that even though most involved stakeholders were enthusiastic about design-based learning, many were hesitant about its suitability in schools, because it is often unclear which particular learning goals (usually set by the government) are targeted.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.4. Learning goals and assessment (dimension C in Fig. 1)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was observed in the usability test that making a link to an appealing context and environment and building up how to think about it helped children go through the process more smoothly.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.2. Insights on teaching design thinking through design-based learning at school
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Led, for example, can only be connected in one way, leaving little room for tinkering.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.1. Insights on teaching digital literacy using digital toolkits at school
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the course of the work we uncovered specific properties of the context that lead to design challenges for a RDBL approach for primary and secondary education.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 3.1. First and second design explorations of creating integrated design-based learning activities with focus on design of digital toolkit
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Different from engineering design challenges, such as often used in DBL activities in engineering departments (e.g.[10]), the RDBL approach focuses on more open-ended design problems.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.2. The elements of a design process (dimension A in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. S.M. Gómez Puente, M.van Eijck, W. Jochems, Professional development for design-based learning in engineering education: a case study, vol. 40, no. 1, 2015. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, our cases explored only fairly short design-based activities.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 6. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, we concluded that children need support for reflection (item B) in different formats for the various phases of the design process (item A).”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.2. Insights on teaching design thinking through design-based learning at school
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on a research through design approach, in which we analysed the process and outcome of three design explorations, we have developed a basic framework, called RDBL, for describing important elements to consider when implementing design thinking and digital literacy through a design-based learning approach in primary and secondary education.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 7. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 40
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These sessions made us realize that design-based learning in the classroom can only be successful when integrating various criteria coherently into the entire process.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.1. The Reflective Design-based Learning framework
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Applying this approach over the last 10 years, we have experienced it supports the development of various 21st century skills; next to digital literacy the approach also enhances collaboration, problem solving, creativity and critical thinking.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Arduino is more modular, but more difficult to use to quickly create a conceptual design.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.1. Insights on teaching digital literacy using digital toolkits at school
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The manner in which support for learning is provided differs: at primary school there is more structure and more classactivities, while in secondary school we see a shift to selfdirected learning.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 7.1. A framework for RDBL for primary and secondary education
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subsequently, working together had them practice discussion about design considerations and negotiating about contributions from all children.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.2. Insights on teaching design thinking through design-based learning at school
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“littleBits supports creating conceptual designs in a short amount of time, and also teaches some aspects of digital literacy, linked to learning goals of Science and Technology.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.1. Insights on teaching digital literacy using digital toolkits at school
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, designbased learning usually targets a number of learning goals at the same time, for example a group working on designing an energyawareness lamp might learn about energy usage and properties of light, while at the same time improving meta-level skills such as collaboration and problem-solving.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.4. Learning goals and assessment (dimension C in Fig. 1)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the usability tests with children it was observed children were challenged both on the conceptual design level and in learning about lower level topics.”
- Also stated in: § 5.1. Insights on teaching digital literacy using digital toolkits at school · plain
“This was also observed by the teacher in the third usability test.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.1. Insights on teaching digital literacy using digital toolkits at school
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5.1. Insights on teaching digital literacy using digital toolkits at school · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Makey Makey is less modular, e.g. it only has one input sensor to link to concepts of learning goals.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.1. Insights on teaching digital literacy using digital toolkits at school
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More structure is needed for younger pupils, at least at first, to guide them through the design process.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2. The Reflective Design-based Learning (RDBL) framework: overview and grounding in literature
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This led to the development of the RDBL framework (see Fig. 1), aimed to outline the complex web of stakeholders and criteria that need to be considered for design-based learning in the classroom, particularly when using technology tools such as electronics toolkits, programming environments and digital fabrication techniques.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.1. The Reflective Design-based Learning framework
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In this section we lay out the motivation for the Reflective Design-based Learning (RDBL) framework, which extends the existing Design-based Learning (DBL) model presented by Gomez et al. [9] by adding a specific Reflective learning component (The 'R' in RDBL) and more attention to the digital properties of the learning environment.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2. The Reflective Design-based Learning (RDBL) framework: overview and grounding in literature
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gomez et al. [9] 9. S.M. Gómez Puente, M.W. Eijck, W.M.G. van & Jochems, Empirical validation of characteristics of design-based learning in higher education, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 29 (2) (2013) 491-503.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This is in line with the assumption that design processes are not so much rational problem solving processes [12], but rather reflection-on-action processes, as described by Schön [13].”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2. The Reflective Design-based Learning (RDBL) framework: overview and grounding in literature
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [12] 12. H.A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1969.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Schön [13] 13. D.A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York, 1983.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, good support needs to be provided about how to plan, manage and assess the progress in design-based learning processes for teachers.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 7.2. Challenges in applying design-based learning using digital toolkits at school
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RDBL can be applied to understand the relationships between the various requirements and can be used to create and evaluate solutions for a school context.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In DBL processes, traditional forms of teaching (such as wholeclass instructions) form only a minor part of the teacher's tasks.The major role of the teacher in DBL is to 'coach' [18] the student by scaffolding the process, asking questions [9], inspiring the student, guiding reflection [18].”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] 18. J.L. Kolodner, Learning by design TM : Iterations of design challenges for better learning of science skills, Jpn. Bull. Cognit. Sci. (2002). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] 9. S.M. Gómez Puente, M.W. Eijck, W.M.G. van & Jochems, Empirical validation of characteristics of design-based learning in higher education, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 29 (2) (2013) 491-503.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By combining digital literacy skills with design-based learning activities, we can also address teaching children to be critical about how and when to apply digital solutions.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.4. Learning goals and assessment (dimension C in Fig. 1)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Blikstein [25] describes that what you show and expose in a digital toolkit influences where the learning challenges are.This is called selective exposure and is related to Resnick and Silverman's [22] suggestion to choose your building blocks (or black boxes) carefully.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Blikstein [25]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Resnick and Silverman's [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The digital toolkits need to support learning goals at different levels to appeal to children with different motivations for learning about technology.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 7.2. Challenges in applying design-based learning using digital toolkits at school
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Children have different motivations for learning about technology.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While existing platforms such as LittleBits and Makey Makey provide support for sharing lessons, it is difficult for teachers and schools to get started and plan a process for how to adopt and integrate an extensive RDBL approach in schools.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 6. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As an additional factor that may specifically apply to a younger target group, Resnick and Silverman [22] illustrate how the design brief should be appealing and meaningful for the child.”
- Also stated in: § 2.5. Design brief and project characteristics (dimension D in Fig. 1) · plain
“Also, children should be able to understand the context of the design challenge and the importance of finding a solution [23].It should provide diverse opportunities in terms of learning goals and should have the right balance between being open, but still providing some scoping and direction [23].”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.5. Design brief and project characteristics (dimension D in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Resnick and Silverman [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] 23. M. Resnick, B. Silverman, Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids, in: Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children Conference, ACM, Boulder, CO, New York, NY, USA, 2005, pp. 117-122. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2.5. Design brief and project characteristics (dimension D in Fig. 1) · plain
In the paper
“As described by Gomez et al. [9], design briefs in higher education usually deliberately describe ill-defined problems, to which there can be numerous solutions.This enhances creativity and problem-solving skills.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.5. Design brief and project characteristics (dimension D in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gomez et al. [9] 9. S.M. Gómez Puente, M.W. Eijck, W.M.G. van & Jochems, Empirical validation of characteristics of design-based learning in higher education, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 29 (2) (2013) 491-503.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Pupils can be interested in technology for different reasons, e.g. they might be fundamentally interested or have a careeroriented or human-oriented interest [5].”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] 5. Youngworks Motivaction, BètaMentality 2011-2016 Jongeren boeien voor bèta en techniek, BetaMentality 2011-2016 Getting children interested in science and technology, November 2010.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This practice is also common in other approaches.For example, in Kolodner's [18] learning-by-design approach, learners create design diaries to reflect on their learning activities, and use whiteboarding to collectively reflect on the progress and key learning insights of a group of learners.Similar to RTDP, Stables and Kimbell [19] describe the learning process as switching between 'imagining and”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.3. Collaborative learning and reflection process (dimension B in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kolodner's [18] 18. J.L. Kolodner, Learning by design TM : Iterations of design challenges for better learning of science skills, Jpn. Bull. Cognit. Sci. (2002).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stables and Kimbell [19] 19. K. Stables, R. Kimbell, Evidence through the looking glass: developing performance and assessing capability, in: 13th International Conference on Thinking: Curious Minds Think and Learn by Exploring the Unknown, Norrköping, Sweden, June 17-21, 2007.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a reflective design-based learning approach with the right tools and materials, children of these different categories can all find an angle that fits their interest.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through our explorations we furthermore found that it is also important to support teachers in creating design challenges that are related to school related learning goals and in creating learning activities related to the steps of the design process and the level of design thinking of the children.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 6. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The complexity of the design problem, and thus the design thinking skills practised need to be adjusted to the appropriate level.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 7.1. A framework for RDBL for primary and secondary education
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the reflective design process is an iterative process that combines learning with designing, that follows steps that support diverging and converging and getting an understanding of the context of use, and that examines open-ended design problems that require coming up with a good combination of a product with specific working principles that has value for the user.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.2. The elements of a design process (dimension A in Fig. 1)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, in our design research exploration, our view might have been subject to bias: Many of the stakeholders involved were already interested in this approach.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 6. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“the rubrics do not contain process management skills, or framing skills [17].”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 6. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] 17. K. Dorst, The core of 'design thinking' and its application, Des. Stud. 32 (2011) 521-532. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The reasoning required for such open-ended design problems is described by Dorst [17] who considers the WHAT (the thing) and the HOW (the working principle) which together lead to the VALUE (that which is aspired).”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.2. The elements of a design process (dimension A in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dorst [17] 17. K. Dorst, The core of 'design thinking' and its application, Des. Stud. 32 (2011) 521-532. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Additionally, as described by Douma et al. [24], such kits should take into account varying interests children may have.Some children are more interested in applying technological solutions to conceptual design decisions, while others are more interested in understanding details about the fundamental concepts of programming or electronics.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Douma et al. [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“They mention three core principles in construction kits that support learning: immediate feedback, fluid experimentation and open exploration.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Resnick and Rosenbaum [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Resnick and Silverman [22] state the importance of construction kits being easy to understand (which they call low floor), but also general enough so that they can be used for diverse things (which they call wide walls).”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Resnick and Silverman [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The learning goals have to be adjusted to the appropriate level for the children.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 7.1. A framework for RDBL for primary and secondary education
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Furthermore, they mention it is important to decide on the basic building block of the toolkit, as this influences what is explored and learned.For example, having a building block that contains a motor, children do not have to learn how the motor itself works, but can create things with the motor as one of the components.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Resnick and Silverman [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some differences can be seen when applying it to the last two classes of the primary school and the first two classes at secondary schools.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 7.1. A framework for RDBL for primary and secondary education
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Teachers (item E) need support to develop and adapt design challenges (item D) with relevant and feasible learning goals (item C).”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.2. Insights on teaching design thinking through design-based learning at school
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, creating good design-based learning solution to teach digital literacy and design thinking at schools requires considering a wide range of issues described in the RDBL framework.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 7.2. Challenges in applying design-based learning using digital toolkits at school
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We have adapted the model provided by Gomez et al. [9] to describing design-based learning at primary and secondary school level, and added components that are specific to the role of digital materials in a design-based learning approach.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 7.1. A framework for RDBL for primary and secondary education
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] 9. S.M. Gómez Puente, M.W. Eijck, W.M.G. van & Jochems, Empirical validation of characteristics of design-based learning in higher education, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 29 (2) (2013) 491-503.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“He argues that to allow children to create powerful ideas, rather than focusing only on learning to program, construction toolkits have to consider what the basic building blocks are that allow children to create tangible solutions.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Blikstein [25]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In the reflective transformative design process (RTDP, Hummels and Frens [11]), developed as a method for design education at universities, reflection plays a central role.Design students conducting RTDP reflect on their actions both during the process and in between various steps, to support and facilitate the students' learning process.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.3. Collaborative learning and reflection process (dimension B in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hummels and Frens [11] 11. C.C.M. Hummels, J.W. Frens, Designing for the unknown : a design process for the future generation of highly interactive systems and products, in: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Ideo 2015, Definition of design thinking; Retrieved April 2015, 2008, pp. 204-209. http://www.ideo.com/about/.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simple tools to support basic programming can provide children with the opportunity to create interesting designs, without having to know the details of programming.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Additionally such briefs are often connected to industry, enhancing the authenticity of the described problem and enabling engagement of real stakeholders (role models for the students) in the process [9].”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.5. Design brief and project characteristics (dimension D in Fig. 1)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] 9. S.M. Gómez Puente, M.W. Eijck, W.M.G. van & Jochems, Empirical validation of characteristics of design-based learning in higher education, Int. J. Eng. Educ. 29 (2) (2013) 491-503.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have neither been able to explore in detail what the best manner in which to teach design thinking, nor what different levels of design thinking skills for different years in the schools need to be assessed.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 6. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To support children's reflection process, the manual needed prompt questions for reflection.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 5.2. Insights on teaching design thinking through design-based learning at school
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the RDBL approach needs to address and consider the relationships between a wide variety of elements (see Fig. 1) in a school context in order to be successfully applied.”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 2.6. Teacher's and children's role (dimension E in Fig. 1)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Little is known about the requirements for embedding design-based learning of digital literacy skills in a school's curriculum.
“However, little is yet known about the requirements for embedding design-based learning of digital literacy skills in a school's curriculum.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Digital toolkits are essential in the RDBL approach.
“Such toolkits are essential in the RDBL approach.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Applying digital literacy topics to design challenges relevant to children's world increases their intrinsic motivation to understand technology.
“This helps to increase their intrinsic motivation to understand about technology.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Children have different motivations for learning about technology.
“to appeal to children with different motivations for learning about technology.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > Acknowledgements
“Nina Maaden, who designed the SA modules used in design exploration 3”
§ Teaching children digital literacy through design-based learning with digital toolkits in schools > 4.1. Design exploration ''Dolly 2.0'': RDBL for primary education
“To facilitate this learning activity, a toolkit, called 'Dolly 2.0', was developed that contained transparent objects, each with some electronics components that demonstrated an action-reaction principle (such as sound, temperature, colour and vibration).These objects were called Sensor Actuator (SA) modules.”
Citations
Cites
(2014) · Palgrave Macmillan eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137399595.0007 · Cited by 8,328
Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI
Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240704 · Cited by 2,634
The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application
Dorst, K. (2011) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 · Cited by 1,897
Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention
Blikstein, P. (2013) · FabLab · doi:10.14361/transcript.9783839423820.203 · Cited by 672
Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research
Höök, K., & Löwgren, J. (2012) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/2362364.2362371 · Cited by 540
Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids
Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005) · Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children · doi:10.1145/1109540.1109556 · Cited by 434
Whitehead, J., & Peckham, M. (2022) · doi:10.4324/9781003092582-18 · Cited by 367
(2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203108352-15 · Cited by 207
Gears of our childhood: constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future
Blikstein, P. (2013) · Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children · doi:10.1145/2485760.2485786 · Cited by 188
The five resources of critical digital literacy: a framework for curriculum integration
Hinrichsen, J., & Coombs, A. (2014) · Research in Learning Technology · doi:10.3402/rlt.v21.21334 · Cited by 169
Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference
(2020) · doi:10.1145/3392063 · Cited by 121
Designing a multi-slate reading environment to support active reading activities
Chen, N., Guimbretière, F. V., & Sellen, A. J. (2012) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/2362364.2362366 · Cited by 61
(2002) · doi:10.11225/jcss.9.338 · Cited by 49
Hummels, C. C., & Frens, J. J. (2008) · TU/e Research Portal · Cited by 47
(2013) · TU/e Research Portal · Cited by 41
Professional development for design-based learning in engineering education: a case study
Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2015) · European Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1080/03043797.2014.903228 · Cited by 38
Design-Based Learning in Classrooms Using Playful Digital Toolkits
Scheltenaar, K. J., van der Poel, J. E. C., & Bekker, M. M. (2015) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24589-8_10 · Cited by 14
Self-citation(2007) · Goldsmiths (University of London) · Cited by 8
DIGITAL FABRICATION IN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS IDEAS FOR A CONSTRUCTIONIST WORKSHOP SETTING
Dittert, N., & Krannich, D. (2013) · doi:10.14361/transcript.9783839423820.173 · Cited by 5
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Retrieved April 2015, 2008, pp. 204-209. http://www.ideo.com/about/.
- Frederik, 2008, Ontwerpen onderwijzen (Teaching design), NVOX, 33, 19
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Child as Protagonist: Expanding the Role of Children in Participatory Design
Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children · doi:10.1145/3078072.3079725 · Cited by 333
“[4] have introduced a design tool kit to support children’s design thinking, while Smith et al.”
MethodRafi, M., JianMing, Z., & Ahmad, K. (2019) · Information Discovery and Delivery · doi:10.1108/idd-07-2019-0049 · Cited by 143
The State of Makerspace Research: a Review of the Literature
Mersand, S. (2020) · TechTrends · doi:10.1007/s11528-020-00566-5 · Cited by 142
“Bekker et al. (2015) identified the importance of matching learning goals, interests, age, activities, and relevance with the tools provided to participants, developing a Reflective Design Based Learning Framework for teaching design thinking skills with digital toolkits.”
MethodDigital literacy: a review in the South Pacific
Reddy, P., Sharma, B. N., & Chaudhary, K. (2021) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s12528-021-09280-4 · Cited by 120
“According to Bekker et al. (2015), the new digital technologies have introduced new digital tools for higher education teaching and learning purposes.”
BackgroundEmpowering children through design and making
Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2018) · Participatory Design Conference · doi:10.1145/3210586.3210600 · Cited by 114
“Making is seen to arouse children’s interest in STEM subjects and to give them the desperately needed 21st century skills and competencies [23, 56, 57].”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Bekker, T., Bakker, S., Douma, I., van der Poel, J., & Scheltenaar, K.
- Affiliations
- Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Bekker, Tilde
- Venue
- International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 29-38
- ISSN
- 2212-8689 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2193148224
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 80.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2024-09-01)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
- TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Municipality of Eindhoven (2014/00881)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Literacy, Media, and Education
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Education › Digital Storytelling and Education
- Keywords
- digital literacy, design thinking, design-based learning, digital toolkit, children, K-12 education, educational technology, teacher support, curriculum integration
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
