Smart things are present in children's life, from smart watches to smart toys. Designing smart things with children can help them understand the inner working of smart things and reflect on the usage of technology. This paper stems from action research around smart-thing design with children, conducted across three years, in diverse countries and with different children, and mainly for outdoors' environments. The analysis of data gathered across the research enabled authors of this paper to distil practical guidelines for smart-thing design toolkits for children, which helped children design for a given environment and reflect across design. They might help other researchers organise smart-thing design with children, encompassing different design stages, and make them reflect in design, in relation to the chosen environment.
Actions were the smart-thing design workshops, in which children used the toolkit for designing and reflecting in design. In other words, in line with the perspective adopted by the workshop but with children as main actors, actions aimed at making children explore the possible usages of technology, reflect on technology and critically develop technology for nature environments.
Data were uniformly gathered and analysed, leading to the reflections which are the focus of this paper. The reflections are shaped as lessons concerning gameful smart-thing design for children, which we hope can spark interest in the community of researchers willing to engage in design of technologyenhanced nature environments.
12 (8F, 4M) 27 (10F, 17M) 4 (1F, 3M) 7 (3F, 4M) When Summer 2018 Summer 2019 Autumn 2019 Summer 2020 and
Autumn In presence
Athens, Milan, Bolzano In presence Bolzano In presence Bolzano At a distance, in Ioannina, Milan, Bolzano presence
At a distance First Author, et al.
The in2i.tiaDlreesfeirgenncMeforadmeelwork for structuring the design process in workshops with children was the one by Smith
et al. [2015a]. This was adapted to the requirements for smart thing design with children across the COVID-19 pandemic
and actioAnsr,eafesrienntecreamctiovdeetlafnogribsltersucetvuorlivnegdtihnethdeeswigonrkpbroycResizsviinetwaol.rk[1s7h,o1p8s, 3w6i]t.h children is by Smith
et al. [
Salerno 20 (7F, 13M)
Total n. of participant children: 70 (29F, 41M) years of action research.
In the resulting model, smart-thing design starts with the exploration of smart things, so as to In thefraemsuillitainrigsefrcahmieldwroernk, smart thing design starts with the exploration of smamrtatdheinogfs—,soinapsuttodfeamviicleiasrise children with the design language and what smart things are with thewdeitshigcnelratnaignuapgreopaenrdtiwesh,aot usmtpaurtt dtheivnigcsesarwe imthadoethoefr—pinrpoupterdteievsic,easnwditthhicnegrstaoinf pthroepcehrtoisees,nonuatptuurtedevices with other proenpverirtioensm,aenndt,the.ign.g,stroefeasnorenbveinrcohnems.enItt.stIetpstsetphsr othurgohutghhetihdeeiartiidoenaotifosnm,warhtetnhidnigse,rwenhteindedaisffaerreenbtrainstormed over, andidceoanscaerpetubarlaiisnastitoonrm,wedheonvcehr,iladnrednccoonncveeprtguealoisnatainonid,ewa.hIetnmcohvieldsrtehnencocnhviledrrgeen oinntoanthiedeparoagnrdamming and play it out. It moves then children into the programming and prototyping of their ideas of smart prototyptihnigngosf ftohreitrhiedecahsoosefnsmenavrtirtohninmgesn.At. lAlsltlasgteasgeasreairneteinrttweritnweidnewditwhimthumltiupllteiprlee reecftlieocntisotinmsutilmi, furloi,m peers and experts afrliokme. SpeeeerFsigaunrde e1x.pAellrtsstaaglieksea.rSeemeaFdieg“utraeng1i.bAlel”l asntadgceosnanreectmedadbey “mtaenagnisbolef”thaentdoocloknitn,eecxtpeldaibnyed next.
means of the toolkit, explained next. 3.2 A Toolkit for Smart Thing Design
The framework itself is centred around a gami ed toolkit for designing smart things with children, namely SNaP, which evGoelnveedrawti vitehttohoelkfritasmaerweovrekryaloofntgenacutsioend-irnesdeearscighncypcrolecse.sFsiegsurtoe 2farceicliatpasteatllhethiedmeaatiionnacsttiaognes oafnd the main componesmntasrot-fththinegtodoelskiigtsn,wwhhicehrewaesrperuosgerda minmthinegaacntidonpsr.ototyping toolkits are employed in the related stages of smart-thing design. These tools can serve as a common “design language” for designers, researchers and users in the design process. Game cards, in particular, have been and expanded on them through a physical version of SNaP, and companion programming technology. These children were able to take up others’ ideas and programmed them to completion.
⌅ Hybrid design should promote collaborations (e.g., asynchronous), taking care of ethical considerations, and include children across frontiers.
GUIDELINES FOR SMART-THING DESIGN TOOLKITS
and a tangible, play design material, e.g., [
used to engage non-experts in a wide range of design processes, acting as sources of inspiration 5 5.1
ToolkiGtsawmiethcCarodms pcoannenbtes oufseSdmatort mThoitnivgaste participants towards the design goal and help them
understand its context. Examples are scenario and mission cards of Tiles [
Cards for Cchairlddrsena,reinppaarrttiocuflaarb,noeaerddtgoabme eh,avpehmysoirceacloonrcdreitgeitraelp,rweshenictahtigounsidtehsanchcailrddrsefnor(a1d)utlotseifxtphleoirreaicmaridssto and hence components of smart things, (2) to brainstorm and ideate with cards, (3) and finally engage children in the programming and prototyping parts. For example, Know-Cards include input and output cards to conceptualise ideas of smart things. The game board embeds different reflection lenses that that represent speci c electronic components for understanding and designing IoT devices [8]. There are also cards that children explore while designing, e.g., “does your idea make sense for the mission of making represent inppuetospalnedinoutetprauctst fworitshpnecaitucrepreolgermamenmtsin?g”.pSlaetfeorFmigsu,sruec2h afosrMtahkeefriarsntdlSecvrealtcohf ctahredsb[o3a8r,d40g]a.mHoew,feovrer, these cards deoxnpolot rsiunpgptohritncghicldarredns ianntdheteicdheantoiolongpyarct,aardnsd athnedyfaorre ssttarircttilnygrethlaeteiddetoataiovneroyfsspmecairtcttheicnhgnso.logy. enables children to automatically generate a basic program to start from in the block-based or elements that are easy for children to match with technology for children, and yet su ciently general to apply to Makecode programming environment (available at makecode.microbit.org/). See Figure 3. The 9 program is generated from the input and output cards which are part of children’s conceptualisation of a smart thing. Then children can continue exploring how to make their ideas evolve through programming and prototyping, besides reflecting in such stages, as well, on the technology under design. 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 programming environment of children’s choice, e.g., with visual blocks of Makecode. The following guideline is thus
4. ⌅LDeessisgonwnisthacnhidldrCenosnhoculludsenioconmspass diverse design stages, centred around a design toolkit: (1) exploration and familiarisation with smart thing design; (2) ideation and conceptualisation of smart thing ideas; (3) Aloprnoggrathmrme eingyeaandrsprooftotryepsienagrocfhs,mcahrtiltdhrinegniduesaes.d the SNaP toolkit. Across all years, data were uniformly gathered and classified, e.g., in relation to children's usages of SNaP. Data were doetshninotgatlowoalyksitisnvfoolrvechailsdtrruecntu.rTehdeexmplaoirnatlieosnsostnasgea.rIet iesxitmrapcotretadnat,nhdoewleavbeor,rathteatdtihne tphreocreesmsiasi nstirnugctpuarerdt so of this paper. that children become familiar with the components of the things under design before they move on to the next design stages [49]. In smart thing design with SNaP, the exploration and familiarisation stage was structured by
the SNaP toolkit, as follows. The exploration stage employed SNaP cards for input and output devices, and it asked children to play and match them with devices for programming and prototyping, e.g., via quizzes. Last but not least,
Games or game elements help motivate and guide children in the design of their smart things. the exploration stage o ered children many sca olding examples, to freely tinker with. For instance, in Summer
In the research reported in this paper, design was made gameful with the SNaP toolkit, offering 2020, children had SNaP boards with ideas of smart things and matching programs to tinker with in the Makecode children a fun and not-intimidating way to explore the design process. Children, being in proggreanmemrainlgfaemnviilrioanrmwe nitth[3p0l]a,ye.ign.,gthbeoyacrodulgdacmhaensg,eetahseitlhyregsrhaoslpdefodr hthoewtetmopuersaetuSreNianPpu’st dbeovaicredasnadnmdakitesthe smamrtethcihnagnriecasc,t awnhdenththeeyewnveirreonmmoentitvwataesdhototintrsytetaod orefaccohld.the winning condition even in cases of no former experience, e.g., to make the town park more attractive for their peers.
⌅ The exploration stage should make children familiar with smart things (i.e., what they are composed of) and the design toolkit. Many sca olding examples need to be o ered, which children can tinker with. The design process should be structured as a game or with game elements so as to motivate and guide children in design. 4.1.3 Ideation and conceptualisation. During ideation and conceptualisation of smart thing ideas, divergent and convergent thinking enable children to open up their design process, consider new perspectives and subsequently
discard aspects during their attempt to reach a design solution [23]. Ideation and conceptualisation should guide children accordingly, and tangibly so. For instance, in the research reported in this paper, that was supported by the SNaP toolkit,
In games, story-lines or narratives, when present, help motivate players towards the game goal,
and especially its game boards for rstly ideating as many ideas as possible (divergent thinking) and then re ecting
and immerse them into the game. In the same vein, briefings were used in design with children
on atno icdoematmouconnicceaptetutahliesed(ecsoingvnerggoenatl,thei.ngk.,in[g7)]..TIanngSiNbleaPou–tfcroammeesdwdeeresicghnil,dtrhene’sdbeosiagrdns,goonael pwearschsihlda,rwedhich
convceipatuthaleissetdoarny-idlienaeooffa sSmNaartPt,hwinhgetorecaasrrmyoisnsiino nthcealarsdtsdoesfigSnNstaaPget.urned the goal into objectives for
smart things. For instance, in Summer 2019, th6e story-line started as follows: “we need to help
the Mayor of our town to design a new nature park with smart things for your peers” [
In SNaP-framed design, the mechanics and aesthetics of the toolkit helped children navigate through the design process and contextualise design in the chosen environment, e.g., the Talvera park of Bolzano represented in Figure 2, right side. The closed rule-bound nature of games stimulates an awareness of structure and function, and it can transform spontaneous decisions into more formal understanding. Children, when playing for the second time with SNaP, were in fact able to remember the game rules and levels which helped them proceed with design with no help from adults, indicating their understanding of the process. The game mechanics and aesthetics should be designed so as to offer a familiar rule-bound structure, which smoothly guides children along design and helps them become aware of its stages in relation to the given environment. 4.4.
In SNaP-framed design, roles for players were partly bound by the game mechanics, which
helped make children own their ideas, clarify adults' roles in design, and reflect with others
with specific roles. Without clearly specified roles, adults can greatly influence children's
design activities even without meaning it. The mechanics of the toolkits for supporting design
could thus be used to specify or negotiate the roles of all participants so as to embed them
clearly for all into the design process, as in the case of SNaP-framed design. Adults' roles, in
particular, should be defined according to children's varying requirements and benefits. For
instance, in in-presence workshops with SNaP, adults' role was part of the game rules and
guided seemingly by these, so that scaffolding was gradually decreasing as per children's
learning of design, one of the expected benefits of their participation in design. Their learning
was assessed by triangulating and processing different data, e.g., learning questionnaire data
and the evolution of children’s smart things over time [
Player roles should be defined in relation to design roles, so as to clarify responsibilities and tasks in design, e.g., playing the expert of a design heuristics. In particular, the role of adults should be adapted to the requirements of children and their expected benefits in design, e.g., engagement and learning in smart-thing design. 4.5.
Toolkits should have lenses that help children critically reflect on specific aspects of the things under design, in relation to the environment and technology-related risks. For instance, SNaP has different reflection lenses, e.g., related to the consistency of the smart thing under design for the chosen mission or safety-related risks for the environment or people for which/whom the smart thing is designed. Lenses should come with questions and probes that help children reflect critically and elaborate on their solutions. Moreover, reflection lenses should adaptable and embed children’s own reflections in design.
Tangible and adequate reflection lenses, with questions and probes, should be embedded in playful toolkits for children, in relation to “things” of the environment and risks technology can bring therein, besides able to capture children’s own reflections in design. Authors of this paper acknowledges the contribution of all participant children across three years of work, besides their parents or teachers. Financial support was granted through the SNaP, GEKI and EMPATHY projects.