Alissa N. Antle
Yumiko Murai
Alexandra Kitson
Yves Candau
ABSTRACT
There has been an increasing focus on teaching youth about design ethics as part of technical literacy. Biowearables are an emerging technology in which devices worn on children's bodies are used to track, monitor and provide feedback about their biological processes. In this paper we describe an online critical making workshop designed to enable students in middle school years to develop technical literacy skills that include reflection on issues related to design ethics. We investigated if and how our workshop enabled eleven youth, aged 12-14, to reflect through processes of making their own biowearable, on potential negative impacts of biowearables on their developing senses of identity, agency, autonomy and authenticity. The workshop elements included facilitated activities using custom created biowearable-tangible kit and ethics cards. Through qualitative coding and thematic analysis of moments of reflection captured with video, chat, and design journals we gathered evidence of the feasibility of promoting critical making as a means to cultivate technical literacy in youth. Our findings suggest the potential of teaching design ethics through critical making workshops and reveal a range of ways that reflection on ethical issues can be supported during making. We interpret our empirical evidence to further explore how workshop elements supported, or failed to support, learning outcomes and generalize our interpretations to propose preliminary guidance about workshop mechanisms that might be used to support ethical reflection during making.
- Edith Ackermann. 1996. Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning. Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World, 39–50.Google Scholar
- Safinah Ali, Blakeley H Payne, Randi Williams, Hae Won Park, and Cynthia Breazeal. 2019. Constructionism, ethics, and creativity: Developing primary and middle school artificial intelligence education. In International Workshop on Education in Artificial Intelligence K-12 (EDUAI’19), 1–4.Google Scholar
- Emily Anthes. 2016. Mental health: There's an app for that. Nature News 532, 7597, 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/532020aGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Alissa N. Antle and Alexandra Kitson. 2021. 1,2,3,4 Tell me how to grow more: A position paper on children, design ethics and biowearables. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 30, Elsevier, 100328.Google Scholar
- Alissa N. Antle, Alexandra Kitson, Yumiko Murai, John Desnoyers-Stewart, Yves Candau, Azadeh Adibi, Katrien Jacobs, and Zoe Dao-Kroeker. 2021. Opportunities and scaffolds for critical reflection on ethical issues in an online after school biowearable workshop for youth. In Proceedings of the FabLearn Europe 2021 Conference, Virtual, May 31 – June 2 2021, ACM Press, 14 pages.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. A. Baker. 2020. Four Ironies of Self-quantification: Wearable technologies and the quantified self. Science and Engineering Ethics 26, 3, 1477–1498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00181-wGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2013. What is" critical" about critical design? In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 3297–3306.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gökçe Elif Baykal, Maarten Van Mechelen, Marie-Louise Wagner, and Eva Eriksson. 2021. What FabLearn talks about when talking about reflection-A systematic literature review. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 28, 100256.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tilde Bekker and Alissa N. Antle. 2011. Developmentally situated design (DSD): A design tool for child-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 2531–2540. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979312Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bronwyn Bevan. 2017. The promise and the promises of Making in science education. Studies in Science Education 53, 1, 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sasha Burwell, Matthew Sample, and Eric Racine. 2017. Ethical aspects of brain computer interfaces: a scoping review. BMC Medical Ethics 18, 1, 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0220-yGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Jeffrey K.H. Chan. 2018. Design ethics: Reflecting on the ethical dimensions of technology, sustainability, and responsibility in the Anthropocene. Design Studies 54, 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.09.005Google ScholarCross Ref
- Monica M. Chan and Nathan Holbert. 2020. Insights on online mobile maker portfolio: Process documentation in K-12 constructionist learning environments. In Proceedings of Constructionism, 366–373.Google Scholar
- Eva Eriksson, Ole Sejer Iversen, Gökçe Elif Baykal, Maarten Van Mechelen, Rachel Smith, Marie-Louise Wagner, Bjarke Vognstrup Fog, Clemens Klokmose, Bronwyn Cumbo, Arthur Hjorth, Line Have Musaeus, Marianne Graves Petersen, and Niels Olof Bouvin. 2019. Widening the scope of FabLearn Research: Integrating Computational Thinking, Design and Making. In Proceedings of the FabLearn Europe 2019 Conference (FabLearn Europe ’19), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3335055.3335070Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kath Fisher. 2003. Demystifying critical reflection: Defining criteria for assessment. Higher Education Research & Development 22, 3, 313–325.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rowanne Fleck and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2010. Reflecting on reflection: Framing a design landscape. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction, 216–223.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christopher Frauenberger, Alissa N. Antle, Monica Landoni, Janet C. Read, and Jerry Alan Fails. 2018. Ethics in interaction design and children: A panel and community dialogue. In Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’18), ACM Press, 748–752. https://doi.org/10.1145/3202185.3210802Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patricia I Fusch and Lawrence R Ness. 2015. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 20, 9, 1408.Google Scholar
- William Gibson and Andrew Brown. 2009. Working with Qualitative Data. SAGE.Google Scholar
- Joshua P Gutwill, Nina Hido, and Lisa Sindorf. 2015. Research to practice: Observing learning in tinkering activities. Curator: The Museum Journal 58, 2, 151–168.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Erica Rosenfeld Halverson and Kimberly Sheridan. 2014. The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review 84, 4, 495–504.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Idit Harel and Seymour Papert. 1991. Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
- Tristan Harris. Tristan Harris | Speaker | TED. Retrieved April 1, 2022 from https://www.ted.com/speakers/tristan_harrisGoogle Scholar
- Juan Pablo Hourcade, Alissa N Antle, Lisa Anthony, Jerry Alan Fails, Ole Sejer Iversen, Elisa Rubegni, Mikael Skov, Petr Slovak, Greg Walsh, and Anja Zeising. 2018. Child-computer interaction, ubiquitous technologies, and big data. ACM Interactions 25, 6, 78–81.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juan Pablo Hourcade, Anja Zeising, Ole Sejer Iversen, Mikael B Skov, Alissa N Antle, Lisa Anthony, Jerry Alan Fails, and Greg Walsh. 2018. Child-Computer Interaction SIG: Ubiquity and Big Data–A Changing Technology Landscape for Children. In Extended Abstracts of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 1–4.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Netta Iivari and Kari Kuutti. 2018. Critical design in interaction design and children: Impossible, inappropriate or critical imperative? In Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 456–464.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Judy Illes. 2017. Neuroethics: Anticipating the Future. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Judy Illes, Alissa Antle, Hayami Lou, Holly Longstaff, Vasiliki Rahimzadeh, Patrick J McDonald, and H F Machiel Van der Loos. 2019. Involving children with neurodevelopmental disorders in biomedical research. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health 3, 3, 143–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30022-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Christian Dindler. 2017. Child as protagonist: Expanding the role of children in participatory design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 27–37.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ole Sejer Iversen, Rachel Charlotte Smith, and Christian Dindler. 2018. From computational thinking to computational empowerment: a 21st century PD agenda. In Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1 (PDC ’18), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210592Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yasmin Kafai. 2006. Constructionism. In Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Yasmin B. Kafai. 2016. From computational thinking to computational participation in K–12 education. Commun. ACM 59, 8, 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2955114Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yasmin B. Kafai and Chris Proctor. 2021. A revaluation of computational thinking in K–12 education: Moving toward computational literacies. Educational Researcher: 0013189X211057904. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211057904Google Scholar
- Anna Keune and Kylie Peppler. 2017. Maker portfolios as learning and community-building tools inside and outside makerspaces. Philadelphia, PA, International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- Susan Lechelt, Yvonne Rogers, and Nicolai Marquardt. 2020. Coming to your senses: Promoting critical thinking about sensors through playful interaction in classrooms. In Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children, ACM Press, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394401Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kung Jin Lee, Wendy Roldan, Tian Qi Zhu, Harkiran Kaur Saluja, Sungmin Na, Britnie Chin, Yilin Zeng, Jin Ha Lee, and Jason Yip. 2021. The show must go on: A conceptual model of conducting synchronous participatory design with children online. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 1–16.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrés Lucero and Juha Arrasvuori. 2010. PLEX cards: A source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fun and Games, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1823818.1823821Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mike Petrich, Karen Wilkinson, and Bronwyn Bevan. 2013. It looks like fun, but are they learning? In Design, Make, Play. Routledge, 68–88.Google Scholar
- Matt Ratto. 2011. Critical making: Conceptual and material studies in technology and social life. The Information Society 27, 4, 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matt Ratto and Garnet Hertz. 2018. Critical making and institutional learning: Making as a bridge between art, science, engineering, and social intervention. Leonardo Electronic Almanac.Google Scholar
- Richard M Ryan and Edward L Deci. 2017. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
- Phoebe Sengers, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph'Jofish’ Kaye. 2005. Reflective design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, 49–58.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Petr Slovák, Christopher Frauenberger, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2017. Reflective practicum: A framework of sensitising concepts to design for transformative reflection. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 2696–2707.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Laurence Steinberg and Kathryn C. Monahan. 2007. Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology 43, 6, 1531–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mariya Stoilova, Rishita Nandagiri, and Sonia Livingstone. 2021. Children's understanding of personal data and privacy online – a systematic evidence mapping. Information, Communication & Society 24, 4, 557–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1657164Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guglielmo Tamburrini. 2009. Brain to computer communication: Ethical perspectives on interaction models. Neuroethics 2, 3, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-009-9040-1Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ulrich Gasper. 2018. Children at Play: Thoughts about the impact of networked toys in the game of life and the role of law.Google Scholar
- Maarten Van Mechelen, Gökçe Elif Baykal, Christian Dindler, Eva Eriksson, and Ole Sejer Iversen. 2020. 18 Years of ethics in child-computer interaction research: a systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 161–183. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394407Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. 1980. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Richard Wetzel, Tom Rodden, and Steve Benford. 2017. Developing ideation cards for mixed reality game design. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association 3, 2.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alyssa Friend Wise, Alissa N Antle, and Jillian L Warren. 2021. Design strategies for collaborative learning in tangible tabletops: Positive interdependence and reflective pauses. Interacting with Computers 33, 3, 271–294.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yumiko Murai, Alissa N. Antle, Alexandra Kitson, Azadeh Adibi, Yves Candau, John Desnoyers-Stewart, Katrien Jacobs, and Zoë Dao-Kroeker. 2021. Scaffolding online distributed critical making: lessons learned. In Proceedings of FabLearn Europe. Virtual, May 31 – June 2 2021, ACM Press, 14 pages.Google Scholar
- Zoë Dao-Kroeker, Alissa N. Antle, Alexandra Kitson, Yumiko Murai, and Azadeh Adibi. 2021. Designing bio-tech ethics cards: Promoting critical making during an online workshop with youth. In Proceedings of Conference on Interaction Design for Children, Virtual June 26-30, ACM Press, 450-455.Google Scholar
- Brilliant Labs. Retrieved April 1 2022 from https://www.brilliantlabs.ca April 1 2022.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Designing Biotech Ethics Cards: Promoting Critical Making During an Online Workshop with Youth
IDC '21: Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children ConferenceThere are ethical concerns surrounding how youth interact with biowearable technology and the potential effects it has on their psychological and physiological health. We need to give youth the tools to critically reflect and explore ethical issues ...
Opportunities and Scaffolds for Critical Reflection on Ethical Issues in an Online After School Biowearable Workshop for Youth
FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021: FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021 - An International Conference on Computing, Design and Making in EducationThe rapid adoption of biowearables, such as smartwatches, raises ethical issues as youth are increasingly being tracked, monitored and given feedback on a growing number of measures. To address this pressing need, we investigated how to support youth to ...
Facilitating Online Distributed Critical Making: Lessons Learned
FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021: FabLearn Europe / MakeEd 2021 - An International Conference on Computing, Design and Making in EducationThe global pandemic has brought numerous challenges for educators who take a maker-centered approach, whose instruction involves direct engagement with materials through collaborative and exploratory social interactions. Many educators have found ...
Comments