Brownies or bags-of-stuff?: domain expertise in cooperative inquiry with children
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136 · see citing works
The role of children in the design of new technology
(2002) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449290110108659 · Cited by 1,071 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The Kidsteam design group represents our study’s ‘design experts’.”
BackgroundMethod
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 306 · see citing works
“[42] describe PD as a “method” of enhancing technology for children by designing with children.”
MethodDeSmet, A., Thompson, D., Baranowski, T., Palmeira, A., Verloigne, M., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2016) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.4444 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
How Ideas make it through to Designs: Process and Practice
Read, J. C., Fitton, D., Sim, G., & Horton, M. (2016) · Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/2971485.2971560 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yip, J., Clegg, T., Bonsignore, E., Gelderblom, H., Rhodes, E., & Druin, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2013-06-24
- Pages
- 201-210
- OpenAlex
- W2021123264
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 5.79
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- participatory design, cooperative inquiry, design expertise, subject matter expertise, children as designers, educational technology design
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.
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