Wouter Sluis-Thiescheffer
ABSTRACT
This paper describes a study which compares the outcome of two early design methods for children: brainstorming and prototyping. The hypothesis is that children will uncover more design ideas when prototyping than when brainstorming, because prototyping requires the use of a wider range of Intelligences according to Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences. The protocols were coded using Design Rationale Theory: distinguishing between Options (design solutions) and evaluation Criteria. The results show that as expected children provided more Options in sessions that appeal to a wider range of intelligences. However, unexpectedly children provided more Criteria in the session that appealed mostly to one intelligence.
- Anderson, J. Cognitive Psychology and it's implications New York: Worth Publishers (2000)Google Scholar
- Bekker, M., Beusmans, J., Keyson, D and Lloyd, P KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children, Interacting with Computers, 15(3) (2003) 187--202Google ScholarCross Ref
- Breeuwsma, G. De constructie van de levensloop, Amsterdam: Boom (1994)Google Scholar
- Cohen, J., A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, (1960) 37--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cross, N., Christiaans, H., and Dorst, K. Analysing Design Activity, John Wiley & Sons, (1997).Google Scholar
- Dindler, C, et al. Mission from Mars: a method for exploring user requirements for children in a narrative space. In: Proc Interaction design and children, (2005) p.40--47 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callahan, D., & Platt, M. Children as our technology design partners. A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children's technology San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann (1999) pp. 51--72 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fern, E. F. Advanced Focus Group Research Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGA (2001)Google Scholar
- Gardner, H. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, New York: Basic, (1983).Google Scholar
- Gottfredson, L. S. (Ed.) Intelligence and social policy. In: Intelligence, 24 (1) (1997)Google Scholar
- Grice, H. P. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, Peter, and J. L. Morgan (eds).Syntax and semantics: Speech acts New York: Academic.V3 (1975) pp41--58.Google Scholar
- Heary, C. and Hennessy, E. The Use of Focus Group Interviews in Pediatric Health Care Research, In: Pediatric Health Care (2001) Special Issue on Methodology.Google Scholar
- Hennesy, E. and Heary, C., Exploring Children's Views through Focus Groups, In: Green, S. M. and Hogan, D. M. (eds) Researching Children's Experiences: Approaches and Methods, SAGA., chpt 13, (2004) pp236--252Google Scholar
- Hertzum, M., Jacobsen, N. E., The Evaluator Effect: A Chilling Fact About Usability Evaluation Methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, (2001) 421--443.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Langford J and McDonagh D (eds.) Focus groups: supporting effective product development. London: Taylor and Francis, (2003).Google Scholar
- MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Moran, T. Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis. In J. M. Moran & T. P. Carroll (Eds.), Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (1996) pp. 21--51 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Muller, M. J. Participatory Design: The third space in HCI. In: Jacko, J. A. and Sears, A. (eds) The human-computer interaction handbook, Mahwah: LEA chpt 54 (2003) pp 1051--1068 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Olson GM, Olson JS, Storrøsten M, Carter MR, Herbsleb J, Rueter H The structure of activity during design meetings. In: Moran TP, Carroll, JM (eds.) Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ (1996) pp 217--239 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Osborn, A. F. pplied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving (Third Revised Edition). New York, NY: Charles Scribner's & Sons (1963)Google Scholar
- Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. Kids as Informants: Telling Us What We Didn't Know or Confirming What We Knew Already? In A. Druin (Ed.), The Design of Children's Technology San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. (1999) pp.27--50 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schön D. The Reflective Practitioner - How professionals think in action. Avebury, Aldershot, (1991)Google Scholar
- Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., Vargas-Hernandez, N., "Metrics for Measuring Ideation Effectiveness", Design Studies, V24 (2), (2003) pp. 111--134.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Teele,. S. Teele inventory for multiple intelligences. Redlands, California, Sue Teele & Associates, (1992).Google Scholar
- Audacity, a Free Audio Editor and Recorder. Retrieved July 30, 2006 from: http://audacity.sourceforge.netGoogle Scholar
Index Terms
- Comparing early design methods for children
Recommendations
How to optimize early design methods with children?
IDC '07: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Interaction design and childrenEarly design methods with children are often evaluated on how well the children are involved, rather than on how effective the design session was. In my PhD I developed a framework on the basis of the theory of multiples by H. Gardner. The framework ...
Toward a Technology-based Tool to Support Idea Generation during Participatory Design with Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders
ASSETS '18: Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and AccessibilityOur research explores the development of a novel technology-based prototype to support children and designers during brainstorming, one of the most challenging activities within Participatory Design (PD). This paper describes a proof-of-concept ...
Development and application of a framework for comparing early design methods for young children
When designing with young children, designers usually select user centred design methods based on the children's required level of engagement and the inspiration expected to be created according to the designer. User centred design methods should be ...
Comments