Comparing early design methods for children

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.

[1]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[2]  Joseph D. Langford,et al.  Focus Groups: Supporting Effective Product Development , 2002 .

[3]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Kids as informants: telling us what we didn't know or confirming what we knew already? , 1998 .

[4]  Michael J. Muller,et al.  Participatory design: the third space in HCI , 2002 .

[5]  G. Breeuwsma,et al.  De constructie van de levensloop , 1994 .

[6]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Analysing design activity , 1996 .

[7]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[8]  E. Hennessy,et al.  The use of focus group interviews in pediatric health care research. , 2002, Journal of pediatric psychology.

[9]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. , 1987 .

[10]  Richard M. Young,et al.  Options and Criteria: Elements of design space analysis , 1991 .

[11]  David V. Keyson,et al.  KidReporter: a user requirements gathering technique for designing with children , 2003, Interact. Comput..

[12]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  The Structure of Activity During Design Meetings , 1996 .

[13]  Edward F. Fern,et al.  Advanced focus group research , 2001 .

[14]  John R. Anderson.  Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications , 1980 .

[15]  Allison Druin,et al.  Chapter 3: Children as Our Technology Design Partners+ , 1998 .

[16]  Linda S. Gottfredson,et al.  Foreword to “intelligence and social policy” , 1997 .

[17]  Donald A. Sch.  The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[18]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Design rationale: concepts, techniques, and use , 1996 .

[19]  Martin Ludvigsen,et al.  Mission from Mars: a method for exploring user requirements for children in a narrative space , 2005, IDC '05.

[20]  B. Bederson,et al.  Children as our technology design partners , 1998 .

[21]  Mark O'Brien.  Focus Groups Supporting Effective Product Development Joe Langford and Deana Mcdonagh (Editors) , 2003 .

[22]  Sheila Greene,et al.  Exploring Children's Views through Focus Groups , 2005 .

[23]  H. Gardner,et al.  Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences , 1983 .

[24]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[25]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[26]  Siobhan Chapman.  Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[27]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  The Evaluator Effect: A Chilling Fact About Usability Evaluation Methods , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..