Abstract

Designing Children’s Multimedia 65
The success of cooperative inquiry can be seen through the Kidpad and Pad++
software (among others) born from the approach (Druin et al., 1999). These were
originally conceived as storytelling technologies. The methodology and approach
has been both emulated and modified in this pilot study. This pilot study’s original
research aim was to identify what children find engaging about educational multimedia
they use in schools, and how their sociocultural experiences of communications
technologies influenced their writing. Child-centered design was used in this case
study as a way to access children’s underlying knowledge about communications
technology, and identify what children like, want, and what they find engaging
in technology. Children and adults see things differently. Child-centered design
can make a contribution to what designers, technologists, and educators regard
as “quality” educational multimedia through making explicit that which children
regard as quality. The decision to include cooperative inquiry as part of the pilot
study methodology emerged from the nature of the research aim (Cohen, Morrison,
& Manion, 2004; Yin, 2003). Contextual inquiry and participatory design sessions
were used, while technology immersion did not fit this particular research aim or
context. The norm is for design teams to carry out the inquiry. Here the method
was adapted and tested for its usefulness with a sole researcher. Some of Druin’s
contextual inquiry techniques were not possible to carry out as a single researcher
in the classroom.
Druin recommends that more than one adult should always be on a team, otherwise
it becomes “school-like.” The classroom was the context of the study, and had the
reverse effect on the children. It became less school-like because they were free to
create as and how they wished (albeit within the parameters of the activity). Working
in such an open-ended, exploratory way is something students do not often get
a chance to spend three hours on, during a typical school day. Despite claims that
when carried out in the classroom, creative freedom is constrained, my experience
was the opposite (Cooper & Brna, 2004; Rode et al., 2003). Instead of viewing the
classroom as a constraint on creativity, the research was a creative opportunity.
In addition to concerns over creativity, there is the practical issue of logging the
large amounts of simultaneous data being generated. I was both interactor and
notetaker. Ten years ago, Druin’s team found video cameras a hindrance. To fulfill
these competing demands, I used the video setting on a small digital camera that
did not disrupt children at work with flashes. Although sometimes muffled by the
cacophony of the large group, the camera captured the sound and the interaction.
Reflective listening in my conversations with children meant that I could reify their
statements and ensure the sound recording was audible. The drawback of the camera
was that it could only capture 3-minute video clips, so timing was an important
issue that had to be remembered. Adult-adult interaction was made possible by the
presence of the teacher, the teaching assistant, and myself, but it was of a different
nature because of our different roles.
Copyright © 2007, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission
of Idea Group Inc. is prohibited.