The Role of Children in the Design of New Technology  by Allison Druin

• Abstract: “This paper suggests a framework for understanding the roles that children can play in the technology design process, particularly in regards to designing technologies that support learning. Each role, user, tester, informant, and design partner has been defined based upon a review of the literature and my lab’s own research experiences.
  
  This discussion does not suggest that any one role is appropriate for all research or development needs. Instead, by understanding this framework the reader may be able to make more informed decisions about the design processes they choose to use with children in creating new technologies. This paper will present for each role a historical overview, research and development methods, as well as the strengths, challenges, and unique contributions associated with children in the design process” (Druin, 2002).
   

• Main takeaway: Just like working with adults, there is a scope to their knowledge, and asking them to work outside of that is not helpful or appropriate. Working within children’s ability is essential, and when that happens, the amount we can learn from children is amazing!
   

• Favorite Quote: “But we can expect children to tell us what excites and bores them, what helps them learn, and what can be used in their homes or schools. We can expect children to be creative, honest collaborators. Children can also help us adults to think beyond the traditional needs of the workplace. Instead of productivity, efficiency, or cost saving, they can help adults think about tools that can let people laugh, enable creativity, and support collaborative learning”(Ibid, p. 30).

​​

Examining Adult-Child Interactions in Participatory Design by Jason Yip et. al.

• Abstract: “Prior studies have focused on child interactions in participatory design (PD) with adults and children, but less is known about what specific adult-child interactions constitute a partnership. In this study, we unpack what constitutes an “equal partnership” in PD between adults and children. On the basis of prior literature, we created a new framework that examines the complementary roles between children and adults. Next, we analyzed a case study of a year-long intergenerational design team of children (ages 7-11) and adults.
  
  From this analysis, we determined that design partnerships are composed of four dimensions that span from unbalanced to balanced interactions: facilitation, relationship building, design-by-doing, and elaborating together. Finally, to demonstrate its utility, we analyzed two focal codesign sessions using our framework. Our analysis suggests that an equal partnership in PD is not a single static interaction but a development over time of design interactions influenced by context, experience, and participants” (Yip, Sobel, Pitt, et. al., 2017).
   

• Main takeaway: Relationships between children and adults are almost always (and necessarily) unbalanced. Children require the boundary setting and supervision of adults to grow into healthy and functioning adults. It is, therefore, difficult in adult-child PD, because that unbalanced relationship has to be temporarily balanced for true PD to take place. By implementing the four dimensions explained in the paper, achieving that balance is possible!
   

• Favorite Quote: “Children need to feel comfortable that adults take their ideas and designs seriously [16,26]. Our findings support that balanced relationships are a necessary component in design partnerships” (Ibid, p. 6).

The Evolution of Engagements and Social Bonds During Child-Parent Co-Design by Jason Yip et. al. 

• Abstract: “Partnering with parents and children in the design process can be important for producing technologies that take into consideration the rich context of family life. However, to date, few studies have examined the actual process of designing with families and their children. Without understanding the process, we risk making poor design choices in user-interactive experiences that take into account important family dynamics. The purpose of this investigation is to understand how parent-child relationships in families shape co-design processes and how they are reshaped through co-design.
  
  We document the evolutionary process and outcomes that exist in co-design partnerships between researchers and families. We found that parents’ engagement patterns shifted more slowly than that of children’s from observing and facilitating to design partnering practices. Our analysis suggests the importance of establishing and nurturing social bonds among parents, children, and researchers in the co-design process” (Yip, Clegg, Ahn, et. al., 2016).
   

• Main takeaways: Following the article before, a balanced relationship for PD is especially difficult when working with children and their familes. Different PD methods and techniques need to be used when working with families, and can require a longer time span to create new social bonds between all design partners.
   

• Favorite Quote: “Although most of the children quickly acted as a design partner [18], we observed parents enacting multifaceted interactions, from passive observer and parental manager to full design partner. This is not unusual behavior; parents often need to act as managers and facilitators of their children’s activities in many contexts to support their children’s developmental goals [14]. But design partnerships with parents and children demand a shift in authoritative interactions between adults and children [18]” (Ibid, p. 9).
   

Brownies or Bags-of-Stuff? Domain Expertise in Cooperative Inquiry with Children by Jason Yip et. al.

• 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” (Yip, Clegg, Bonsignore, et. al., 2013).
   

• Main Takeaway: Some children are pros at designing. They have worked with organizations like KidsTeam multiple times, and are familiar with the language and process. Some children have no experience with designing, but have in-depth knowledge of the technology or focus of the design. Both are helpful and important, but different techniques are necessary for working with one or the other, or both.
   

• Favorite Quote: “We recommend if possible, that researchers developing learning technologies for specific contexts work with both subject and design expert children to triangulate the data and design findings” (Ibid, p. 9).