Maria Knobelsdorf, University of Dortmund, Germany - Didaktik der ...

the educational programs and rationales are strongly linked to the
academic disciplines, but nevertheless are having a strong selfview
of their unique role and importance for secondary education.
(However, readers interested only in the actual method might skip
this section. It gives an additional explanation and motivation for
experiments as a method and why they are suggested in this specific
form)
So far, the role of computing in school is still somewhat unclear.
Based on the discussion above – the duality of structure and function,
and associated perceptions of a dichotomy between user and
designer, and of Insider-Outsider – we define this role as supporting
learners to develop along this continuum from Users~Outsiders~function
to Designers~Insiders~duality. Learners
should explore different steps between use and design. (And,
experiments are likely to be one of the teaching methods supporting
this development.)
Interestingly, we can find several accounts within our discipline
which – at least partially – refer to similar goals. Some of them
will be briefly outlined within our framework of duality.
First of all, the abstraction and theorizing of the work in computing
biographies suggest a pattern of four different roles, which
can be used to describe different biographical stages and development
processes. The following is based on the thesis of
Knobelsdorf [17] p. 135ff. The empirically and theoretically
derived four biographical steps (or roles), are:
1) checking out or trial; 2) use or apply; 3) configure or modify;
and 4) create or produce.
1. Trial: Focus is on getting to know the digital artifact (DA),
trying out typical applications. Often motivated by curiosity.
DA is perceived in a playful fashion, as a toy to tinker with.
2. Use: Focus is on function; that is interacting with the DA in a
way that is useful for a certain task or within a given context;
and is therefore motivated by this need (which is external or
unrelated to the artifact itself). The DA is consequently perceived
as a medium, a communication device or a tool.
3. Configure: Focus is on adapting the DA to the user's need, by
changing parts of the hardware or software. Motivation is
based either on the desire to adapt the system to the individual
need, or by coping with errors. Corresponding to these different
motivations, the DA can be perceived as mysterious
and incomprehensible, or as a kind of magical artifact with
potentially unlimited possibilities.
4. Create: Focus is on extending the DA by individually or selfbuilt
items. Motivated by a need induced from use-context,
or by the desire or joy of being creative. DA is perceived as a
tool for creativity (a computer scientist might say, as a universal
machine).
Note, together with a change of the interaction pattern, the perception
of the artifact changes as well; but this correlation is not
causality. However, it seems possible that inducing a change in
interaction might cause a change in perception, too.
The second related area is design / end user programming. For
example Fischer and Giaccardi [12] propose Meta-Design. Metadesign
recommends a different role of design and designers,
because at design-time not all user issues and needs occurring at
use-time could be foreseen and fulfilled in a suitable manner.
Therefor users need to be designers, too – at least in part. They
also describe a continuum between end user usage and professional
design: 1) Passive consumer, 2) well-informed consumer,
3) end-user, 4) power user, 5) domain designer, 6) meta-designer
47
[12]. Note this continuum (again) develops as an increase of
awareness, understanding, and changing structure.
They also argue: “Cultures are substantially defined by their
media and their tools for thinking, working, learning, and collaborating.
[…] The importance of meta-design rests on the fundamental
belief that humans (not all of them, not at all times, not in all
contexts) want to be and act as designers in personally meaningful
activities. Meta-design encourages users to be actively engaged in
generating creative extensions to the artifacts given to them and
has the potential to break down the strict counterproductive barriers
between consumers and designers” ([12], section 6.2). Reframing
these arguments in terms of computer science education
suggests that it is not only about avoiding usage problems or
having proper tools at hand, but also about being actively engaged,
creative, being able to shape one’s own (immediate) environment,
and being able to develop oneself. The difference here is
that the authors may believe that meta-designers as professionals
need an excellent education; while maybe they believe that users
can act as designers without being (digitally) educated. But based
on e.g. the above described biographical results, such a selfeducation
process seems to be possible only for some people.
A third example puts these ideas discussed even further. It was
already postulated in the 1970es by Kay and Goldberg [16]. The
Dynabook should allow people to change the DA they are using,
and this would produce: “a metamedium, whose content would be
a wide range of already-existing and not-yet-invented media.”
This requires that the “burden of system design and specification
is transferred to the user. This approach will only work if we do a
very careful and comprehensive job of providing a general medium
of communication which will allow ordinary users to casually
and easily describe their desires for a specific tool.” In terms of
our framework such a description would mean to create a suitable
idea of structure from understanding the need for new or changed
function. Note, this is a design process, and no direct translation
from function to structure would be possible. So while from the
perspective of the discipline (or the authors of [16] at that time)
the idea was that ‘ordinary users’ will be capable of doing so - I
think in light of current developments such users would need to be
educated to be able to engage in such interaction with DA. And,
they would need to be educated in CS.
The authors also contrast two types of media or tools: Those with
fixed purposes, and those with the ability to be adapted to new
needs and ideas. While the first type, like cars and TV’s aim at
anticipating users’ needs, the other type (like paper and pencil)
“offer[s] many dimensions of possibility and high resolution;
these can be used in an unanticipated way by many, though tools
need to be made or obtained to stir some of the medium’s possibilities
while constraining others” [16].
While the aforementioned ideas (users as designers) focused on
personal development and self-fulfillment, here now the perspective
is widening towards development of the society and culture as
such. The vision is – so to speak– to unleash the full power of the
universal machine. From an educational point of view, it’s not
only about personal development, but also on participation: being
able to participate in the discourse about advancement of society,
and being able to take part in these developments.
Of course there are different degrees of such participation – again
from user to – maybe – meta-designer. Nevertheless, an educated
person should be able to understand what is going on.
While [12] and [16] the role of tool development and professional
design was considered, now the necessity of people, and their
education should be considered. In summary, the grand vision