LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Fitton, Daniel Bowen; Read, Janet C; Dempsey, John Paul (2015)
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects: I140
There is growing interest in maker technologies around how they can be included in school curriculums to engage children with science subjects and about their use to explore new creative possibilities. Given that maker technologies are currently unfamiliar to most children across the world this work sought to use these technologies to investigate whether technology experience has an influence on design within a making context. A study was carried out with 29 participants aged 8-9 that involved a design task and a scaffolded making task based around a physical game using Arduino. Half of the participants completed the making task first then the design task, the other half completed the design task first then the making task. The design ideas created were then coded on 5-point scales for complexity of construction and novelty of concept, the coders also looked for evidence of transference from the making task to the design ideas. Results indicated that completing the making task prior to the design task increased the mean complexity of construction score. No clear evidence was found of elements from the making task being transferred into the design ideas. In addition to the specific findings about technology influence on design, the paper offers more general insights for those working within this space.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [5] Bødker, S., Kensing, F., and Simonsen, J., 2004. Participatory it design, designing for business and workplace realities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
    • [6] Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., and Crockett, A., 2008. The lilypad arduino: Using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In CHI2008 (Florence,Italy), ACM Press, 423 - 432.
    • [7] Druin, A., 1999. Cooperative inquiry: Developing new technologies for children with children. In CHI99 ACM Press, 592 - 599.
    • [8] Fitchett, C. and Greenberg, S., 2001. The phidget architecture: Rapid development of physical user interfaces. In Proc.
    • [9] Marco, J., Baldassarri, S., and Cerezo, E., 2010. Bridging the gap between children and tabletop designers. In IDC '10 ACM Press, 98 - 107.
    • [10] Mccall, L., 2009. What is maker culture? - DIY Roots, Retrieved May 15, 2015, Yahoo! Voices: http://web.archive.org/web/20120611065504/http://voices.ya hoo.com/what-maker-culture-diy-roots-2810966.html?cat=46
    • [11] Mikhak, B., Lyon, C., Gorton, T., Gershenfeld, N., Mcennis, C., and Taylor, J., 2002. Fab lab: An alternate model of ict for development. In 2nd international conference on open collaborative design for sustainable innovation.
    • [12] Papert, S., 1988. The conservation of piaget: The computer as a grist to the constructivist mill. In Constructivism in the computer age, G. Forman and P. Pufall Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 3 - 13.
    • [13] Read, J.C., 2007. Validating the fun toolkit: An instrument for measuring children's opinions of technology. Cognition Technology and Work.
    • [14] Read, J.C., 2009. Warp speed design: A rapid design method for use with children. In CHI 2009 ACM Press, Boston, US, 4681 - 4686.
    • [15] Read, J.C., Fitton, D., and Horton, M., 2013. Theatre, playdoh and comic strips: Designing organic user interfaces with young adolescent and teenage participants. Interacting with Computers 25, 2, 183-198.
    • [16] Read, J.C., Gregory, P., Macfarlane, S.J., Mcmanus, B., Gray, P., and Patel, R., 2002. An investigation of participatory design with children - informant, balanced and facilitated design. In IDC2002, Shaker Publishing, Eindhoven, 53 - 64.
    • [17] Roussou, M., Kavalieratou, E., and Doulgeridis, M., 2007. Children designers in the museum: Applying participatory design for the development of an art education program. In IDC2007 (Aalborg, Denmark), ACM, 77-80.
    • [18] Scaife, M., Rogers, Y., Aldrich, F., and Davies, M., 1997. Designing for or designing with? Informant design for interactive learning environments. In CHI '97 ACM Press, Atlanta, 343-350.
    • [19] Stager, G.S., 2013. Papert's prison fab lab: Implications for the maker movement and education design. In IDC2013, ACM, 487-490.
    • [20] Stringer, M., Harris, E., and Fitzpatrick, G., 2006. Exploring the space of near-future design with children. In Nordichi 2006 ACM Press, Oslo, 351 - 360.
    • [21] Svanaes, D. and Seland, G., 2004. Putting the users center stage: Role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. In CHI2004. ACM, 479-486.
    • [22] Thompson, G., 2014. The maker movement connects to the classroom: A hands-on approach to stem engages students, but how does project-based learning connect with standardized testing? THE Journal, 41, 4, 9.
    • [23] Verhaegh, J., Soute, I., Kessels, A., and Markopoulos, P., 2006. On the design of camelot, an outdoor game for children. In IDC 2006 (Tampere, Finland), ACM, 9 - 16.
    • [24] Winograd, T., 1995. From programming environments to environments for designing. Communications of the ACM 38, 6, 65-74.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    47
    47%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article