Designing for children: blending HCI and Action Research

ABSTRACT

The growing diffusion of digital technology in everyday life is bringing into the realm of technological products new users with novel demands, which translate into novel design/research issues, like in the case of children-oriented Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) systems. It is recognized the need for developing empirically grounded guidelines that take into account the context in which children-oriented technology is going to be used. Action Research (AR) appears as a useful approach able to assist in practical problem solving while at the same time expanding scientific knowledge by generating/testing new theories/methods. In this paper we report on our experience within an AR project aimed at conceiving a novel children-oriented data gathering techniques and using it for the context-of-use analysis of the TERENCE project, which developed a TEL system for children.

References

1. Baskerville, R. L. 1999. Investigating Information Systems with Action Research. J. of Communications of Association for Information System, 3, (Article 4). DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1038/sj.ejis.3000298.
2. Baskerville, R. L. and Heje, J. P. 1999. Grounded action research: a method for understanding IT in practice. J. of Accounting, Management and Information Technologies. 9, 1--23. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1016/S0959-8022(98)00017-4.
3. Baskerville, R. L. and Wood-Harper, A. T. 1996. A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. J. of Information Technologies, 11, 3, 235--246. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.4135/9781849209687.
4. Cain, K. and Oakhill, J. V. 2007. Comprehension Problems in Oral and Written Language. Guildford Press, New York.
5. Davison, R. M., Martinsons, M. G., and Kock, N. 2004. Principles of canonical action research. J. Information System. 14, 65--86. DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00162.
6. Di Mascio T, Gennari R, Melonio A, and Tarantino L. 2014. Engaging "New Users" into Design Activities: The TERENCE Experience with Children. In Caporarello, L. et al. (Eds.) Smart Organizations and Smart Artifacts. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organization, 7, 241--250, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
7. Di Mascio T., Gennari R., Melonio A., and Tarantino L. In press. Supporting children in mastering temporal relations of stories: the TERENCE learning approach. International J. on Distance Education Technology.
8. Dix A., 2012. Action Research in HCI http://alandix.com/blog/2012/12/10/action-research-in-hci/last visit: June 12, 2015.
9. Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A. Knotts-Callahan, D., and Platt, M. 1998. Children as our technology design partners. In The design of children's technology, M. Kaufmann Ed. Inc. San Francisco, CA, USA, 51--72.
10. Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B., Boivie, I.. Blomkvist, S., Persson, J., and Cajander Å. 2003. Key principles for User-Centred System Design. J. of Behaviour and Information Technology, 22, 6, 397--409. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1080/01449290310001624329.
11. Hanna, L., Risden, K. and Alexander, K. 1997. Guidelines for usability testing with children. J. of Interactions, 4, 5, 9--14. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/264044.264045.
12. Hayes, G. R. 2011. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction. 18, 3, Article 15, 20 pages. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1993060.1993065
13. Hourcade, J. P. 2007. Interaction design and children. In Foundations and Trends in Human--Computer Interaction, 1, 4, 277--392. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1561/1100000006.
14. Jong, M. S., Lee, J. and Shang, J. 2013. Educational use of computer games: where we are, and what's next. In Reshaping Learning, New Frontiers of Educational Research, Huang, R. and Spector, J. M. (Eds.), 299--320 Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
15. Kock, Ned (2014): Action Research: Its Nature and Relationship to Human-Computer Interaction. In: Soegaard, Mads and Dam, Rikke Friis (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.. Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation. Available online at https://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/action_research.html
16. McKay, J. and Marshall, P. 2001. The dual imperatives of action research. J. Information Technology and People. 14, 1, 46--59.
17. Norman, D. 1998. The design of everyday things. Doubleday, New York.
18. Prensky, M. 2003. Digital game-based learning. J. of Computational Entertainment. 1, 1, 21--31.
19. Przybylski, A. K., Rigby, C. S. and Ryan, R. M. 2010. A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology. 14, 2, 154--166.
20. Siew S. T., Yeo A. W., and Zaman T. 2013. Participatory Action Research in Software Development: Indigenous Knowledge Management Systems Case Study. In Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction. Human-Centred Design Approaches, Methods, Tools, and Environments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8004, 470--479. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
21. Slegers, K. and Gennari, R. 2011. State of the art of methods for user analysis and context of use. Technical Report of the TERENCE project, deliverable D1.1. University of L'Aquila, Italy.
22. Susman, G. I. and Evered, R. D. 1978. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. J. of Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582--603.
23. Vaajakallio, K., Lee, J. and Mattelmaki, T. 2009. "It has to be a group work!": Co-design with children. In Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Interaction Design and Children, (IDC'09), 246--249, ACM, New York (NY), USA.
24. Valeriani, A. 1986. Ermeneutica retorica ed estetica nell'insegnamento verso l'oriente del testo. Andromeda, Teramo, Italy.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

    • Interaction paradigms

  • Interaction design

    • Interaction design process and methods

      • User centered design