|
|
The participation of children in the design of new technology: a discussion paper
By Ben Williamson, Learning Researcher, Futurelab
Page 3 of 7 |
experiences, and which scaffold them sufficiently to develop further skills, experience and knowledge, is at the core of the approaches described in the second section.
1.2 Theories of social participation in technological cultures that suggest children's involvement is important
1.2.1 Children's participation in technological cultures
The US Just Kid report (2002) which suggests only 5% of organisations developing interactive media for children involve the user group within the research and development process at all, points to some larger issues concerning children's social participation in a technological culture.
Recent years have seen vast surges in the presence of technology both at school and in the home, as well as in community and youth centres, city learning centres, and even, in the shape of mobile phones especially, on the person. In the UK, many schools are being connected to high speed broadband internet, and digital media projects are flourishing. In addition to this, a very large number of children play video games at home, with or without friends, and chat rooms have boomed in popularity.
1.2.2 Democratic work processes
Despite these high levels of access, however, we need to caution against assuming that children's use of computers in or out of school offers them participation in either new social practices or higher levels of control over their own learning processes. Indeed, many of the learning materials delivered online are often little more (sometimes nothing more) than point-and-click, rote exercises, and arguably less useful than most traditional classroom activities. Technology alone is not enough to promote children's increased participation in learning processes.
Amongst others, Bannon (1990) argued that 'our present-day design and utilization of information technology. has tended to restrict, rather than expand human potential' (260). More recently, Feenberg (1999) has suggested that 'advanced societies enrol their members in ever wider technical networks which. constrain behaviour significantly' (128). From these perspectives, interaction with new technology is mediated through the demands of the interface itself, offering to the user 'fixed' opportunities rather than the freedom and elasticity to innovate to their own purposes. From the learners' perspective, this is manifested as a kind of 'reactive' interactivity rather than real user control (Buckingham and Scanlon, 2003). From a teacher's perspective, many of these such resources are often felt to stifle rather than promote classroom creativity and innovation. What might be suggested, therefore, are new approaches which promote forms of democratic participation in the design of technology. As many commentators have pointed out, democratisation in technology is about recognising participant interests, or the demands of users, and challenging the kinds of institutionalised 'technocracy' that precludes these interests from consideration in technological developments (Bjerknes and Bratteteig 1995; Feenberg 1999).
Furthermore, Bjerknes and Bratteteig (1995) argue in respect of technology design for the workplace, an argument that can be interestingly applied to educational settings, that there must be a connection between the democratic process of design, and the democratic result produced:
The democratic result should be a workplace - and a working life - in which everybody has a voice and in which all voices are heard and have an impact. A democratic process is a process in which everybody has a voice and in which all voices are heard and have an impact (90).
Not only is democratic design imperative, Bjerknes and Bratteteig argue, but it should lead to broader forms of democratic participation across the workplace after the design intervention.
1.2.3 Democratic classrooms
In a school context, a notable example of these processes of democratic participation in action is the Room 13 initiative at Caol Primary School in Fort William, Scotland. Room 13 is entirely run by a management team of children aged 8 to 11 years from the school, who arrange their finances, raise funds from local businesses, ensure the studio is kept tidy, employ an artist-in-residence, present at national conferences, and arrange exhibitions of Room 13 art at public galleries. The studio is open to any children from the school, who are free to come and go as long as their normal class teachers approve and they agree to catch up with any work missed. Children from Room 13 have won several major art awards for young people, and have also been awarded a NESTA grant to expand their operations, including opening associated studios in other local primary schools. Room 13 is a wholly participative and democratic learning community where children learn art skills, and, additionally, where they engage with philosophy, organise cross-cultural exchanges with schools from abroad, and have developed their own business plan to insure their future existence (www.room13scotland.com).
Another example of similar processes can be found in Bath, England, where a recent initiative named 5x5x5 has seen five nursery schools partnered with artists and cultural centres to explore the possibilities arising from child-led activities. Already the organisers report that the inquisitiveness of the young children involved leads to creative learning which closely matches published national guidelines.
Democratic participation in the design of learning experiences, then, does not necessarily mean that curricula need to be toppled. Rather, they need to be framed within the context of children's authentic activities so that children see their learning as a process in which they have a say, not one in which learning activities are prescribed according to abstract goals.
In working with children on the design of new media and technology, clearly the democratic ideal is for children, as well as teachers, researchers, and designers, to participate equally and share their expertise for the benefit of all. This kind of equity is, as Knudtzon (2003) argues, difficult to manage when children and adults have already developed specific social roles demanded of them by educational institutions, the home, workplace and, more broadly, social and cultural politics. The extent to which it is possible to work as equal participants in democratic forms of design is, then, contended, and initiatives such as Room 13and 5x5x5 remain, at present, novelties.
The next section defines the characteristics of the most influential participative design practices to date, before examining the appropriateness of democratic approaches to the design of new technology with and for children.
(CONTINUE...)
|
|
