Learning Technology and Child–Computer Interaction

Abstract

Learning technology research focuses on the design, development, and/or use of technologies that support learning, whereas CCI research focuses on the design, development, and/or use of technologies that support children’s lives (with a heavy emphasis on learning). Therefore, learning technology and CCI research can be described as research that focuses on the design, development, and/or use of technologies that support learning and/or children’s lives. In this chapter, we provide an introduction to CCI and learning technologies as interdisciplinary fields of research, provide good working definitions and discuss their commonalities, synergies, and complementarities.

2.1 Definitions and Commonalities

One valid question someone might ask is why this short book focuses on learning technology and CCI. Why not just use some of the previously published books or papers in experimental methods and studies in human-factors IT-related fields (e.g., Hornbæk, 2013; Gergle & Tan, 2014; Ross & Morrison, 2013)? After all, learning technology is closely related to the learning and education sciences, and CCI is closely related to interaction design and HCI. What are the commonalities of learning technology and CCI that require a shared technical note? Do we have enough commonalities to justify a book on the subject?

The truth is that books on experimental methods from neighboring research communities (e.g., the learning sciences and the social sciences), and especially those from human-factors IT-related fields (e.g., HCI and information systems), can indeed be used to support researchers in learning technology and CCI. However, those books are not tailored to address how technology can support the learning process or to take account of the uniqueness of the child as an end-user. Instead, they see learning as just one process among others and the child as just one of many end-users. Therefore, this book aims to cover CCI and learning technology more comprehensively than books that focus on HCI, LS, or software engineering, with a unique focus on child-centered and learner-centered perspectives.

Another interesting question concerns whether CCI and learning technology (and the respective child-centered and learner-centered perspectives) can go together. First of all, let us consider how the main publication venues, organizations, and societies of these two fields see themselves, their commonalities, and their differences.

In terms of learning technology, Computers & Education journal¹ (the top-ranked educational technology journal according to Google metrics²) welcomes research on “knowledge and understanding of ways in which digital technology can enhance education” and “on the pedagogical uses of digital technology, where the focus is broad enough to be of interest to a wider education community.” Another reputable but more technical journal, IEEE Transactions in Learning Technology,³ welcomes research on “advances in learning technologies and their applications, including but not limited to: online learning systems; intelligent tutors; educational games; simulation systems for education and training; collaborative learning tools; learning with mobile devices; wearable devices and interfaces for learning …” The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) is the oldest professional association for instructional designers and an academic and professional association that promotes educational uses of technology. The AECT defines educational technology as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources” (Richey, 2008, p. 24). Another reputable scholar who has served as AECT president and is editor emeritus of the Educational Technology Research & Development (ETR&D), Spector (2015, p. 10), describes educational technology as the “application of knowledge for the purpose of improving learning, instruction and/or performance.” By looking closely at the definitions of these leading journals, scholars, and the AECT, we see that the focus is on the design, development, and use of learning technology, with some venues focusing on the use and others on the design/development. For example, we regularly see Computer Science departments focusing on design and development, whereas education/learning sciences departments tend to focus on use (without this being an absolute rule). In reality, however, these different aspects need to be studied jointly and iteratively.

The initiation of CCI as a field of research stems from the 1960s (Giannakos et al., 2020a, b), when pioneering researchers such as Seymour Papert, Edith Ackermann, Marvin Minsky, and Alan Kay explored the design of computer systems for children. In 2002 the research community established the International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC), which is an annual venue for research on “the latest research findings, innovative methodologies and new technologies in the areas of inclusive child-centered design, learning and interaction.” The International Journal of Child–Computer Interaction (IJCCI), which is the only journal focusing explicitly on CCI, welcomes research on knowledge concerning “the phenomena surrounding the interaction between children and computational and communication technologies” (Giannakos et al., 2020a, b, p. 1).

Therefore, it is safe to say that learning technology research focuses on the design, development, and/or use of technologies that support learning, whereas CCI research focuses on the design, development, and/or use of technologies that support children’s lives (with a heavy emphasis on learning). If we try to unfold the scope of those two communities, we realize that there are two pillars: the focus area and the developmental stage/age of the end-user. The focus area of learning technology (e.g., learning, teaching, competence development, assessment, and cognition) is a subgroup of CCI, which covers all the focus areas of learning technology, plus others such as sociability, healthcare, and play. The developmental stage/age of the end-user in CCI (from toddlerhood to adolescence) is a subgroup of learning technology, which covers all the end-user groups of CCI, including university students, lifelong learners, and other adult learners. Based on these considerations, learning technology and CCI research can be described as research that focuses on the design, development, and/or use of technologies that support learning and/or children’s lives. To clarify the commonalities and differences between learning technology and CCI, we have made a Venn diagram (Fig. 2.1).

Fig. 2.1

Venn diagram depicting the relationship between CCI and learning technology. (Note: The size of the diagram and the various spaces and sets does not correspond to the amount of research in each field)

Besides the obvious differences stemming from the difference in focus (in learning technology, the user as a learner; in CCI, the user as a child), we see a substantial overlap in the research methods employed and the amount of research that is suitable for both venues. For instance, research in learning technology in K-12 schools or kindergarten and preschool settings is welcomed in CCI research communities and venues. Similarly, research in CCI that focuses on computing/programming education, game-based learning, and constructionism/making in childhood is welcomed in learning technology research communities and venues. A recent analysis of the research themes that have been published in the main CCI venues (i.e., the IDC and IJCCI), makes evident the inherent connection between CCI and learning technology (Giannakos et al., 2020b). Therefore, the methodological similarities, substantial overlaps between the research communities, and common thematic areas justify a book that considers CCI and learning technology together. Figure 2.2 shows the volumes and relationships of CCI themes (based on the keywords of published papers); the central role of learning technology (e.g., education as a central theme) is clear.

Fig. 2.2

Network map of the keywords of articles published in the two main CCI venues (IDC and IJCCI), 2013–2018. (from Giannakos et al., 2020b; licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0)

2.2 Synergies and Complementarities

As described above, there are various similarities between CCI and learning technology research, and this is why it makes sense to describe the implementation of their experimental studies together. At the same time, there are differences that prospective researchers should take into consideration. The main difference is that one adopts a child-centered perspective and the other a learner-centered perspective. Although these perspectives are not mutually exclusive, it is not always possible or desirable to maintain both (e.g., when conducting learning-at-scale studies in learning technology). The two perspectives also affect the role and participation of the end-user in research and experimentation. The learner (as a user) demonstrates a higher degree of “autonomy” in the experimentation, while the child (as a user) requires significantly more contextual interpretation of the results and investigation to be carried out jointly with their support sphere (i.e., learning facilitators, such as teachers, parents, and therapists).

These differences result in differences in the methods employed and how they are implemented. For example, it is very common in learning technology studies to collect learner-generated data, develop learners’ trajectories, and/or explore that data in different ways. This has led learning technology research to focus on the various analytics produced and to explore the role of the various technological processes and resources in supporting learning. A consequence of this paradigm shift (some might say acute need or development in the field) is the “conception” of learning analytics (Siemens, 2013), defined as “the measurement, collection, analysis and reporting of data about learners and their contexts, for purposes of understanding and optimizing learning and the environments in which it occurs” (LAK, 2011). Although child-produced analytics are also used in CCI research, this development has affected CCI to a lesser extent, since the growth of learning analytics stems from the increase in online learning that has taken place during the last decade, particularly in post K-12 settings (e.g., higher education and learning in the workplace).

In CCI, however, children’s roles and participation in experimentation has been studied extensively (Markopoulos et al., 2021). Children’s roles in the design and evaluation of technology vary according to the maturity of technology prototypes (e.g., low to high fidelity), the expected end-user of the products (e.g., an auxiliary user, or children as primary or secondary users), and the children’s ages and abilities (Giannakos et al., 2020a, b). These roles were initially described using three dimensions: the relationship to adults, the relationship to technology, and the goals of the inquiry. Four initial roles for children in the design process have been defined: users, testers, informants, and design partners (Druin, 2002). This distinction between roles has prevailed in CCI research with further efforts to engage children even more intensively in the design process (Iversen et al., 2017). Therefore, methodological approaches have been designed that embrace the fact that children are central participants in experimentation and not just users of the technology (e.g., Frauenberger et al., 2015). Another particularity of CCI research is that in many cases it is neither practical nor possible to collect data directly from the child (the end-user). Therefore, CCI research is often supported by proxy data collections and experiments that include data collection from the children’s support sphere (e.g., surveys or interactions with teachers or parents). This might also need researchers’ participation during the intervention to obtain insights that cannot be captured via interactions and that teachers or parents have difficulties in “sensing.”

In order to clarify potential differences in the approaches employed, Fig. 2.3 gives an overview of three approaches, each with an example and some potential advantages and disadvantages. The first approach is typical for studies that investigate how the child or the learner can autonomously use a technology, this approach is also appropriate for learning-at-scale studies (e.g., a large MOOC or LMS-based intervention); the second approach is used with technologies that are designed for the learner/child and someone from their support sphere as joint primary users (e.g., an intervention to provide technology to support classroom teachers or parents); the third is commonly found when technologies require user insights in the early phases of the design (e.g., an intervention to capture the requirements or define the nature of the services, rather than specific implementation details).

Fig. 2.3

Three different approaches employed in CCI and learning technology research: (1) autonomously use a technology; (2) technologies that are designed for the learner/child and someone from their support sphere as joint primary users; and (3) technologies require user insights and participation in the early phases of the design

Before concluding this section, we want to emphasize that there is no “good” or” bad” approach here. The aforementioned approaches have been developed and used to meet different objectives and needs. Therefore, when someone asks which approach to use, the answer is that it depends on the purpose and context. Consider the nature of CCI research and the challenges it involves; for example, primary school children have not yet fully developed some skills (including language and reading abilities and abstract thinking), and their thinking processes are based on mental representations that relate to concrete events, objects, and experiences. Under those circumstances, it is natural that we should see a number of research endeavors that focus on methods that are participatory and contextually rich. On the other hand, with the increasing interest in “autonomous,” “context-independent,” and “at-scale” learning technologies (e.g., MOOCs and LMSs), it is also natural to see research endeavors that focus on producing large amounts of educational data to account for different contexts. Of course, synergies between the different approaches do exist, and all the aforementioned approaches are relevant for both CCI and learning technology research.

Advancing our understanding and the appropriate approaches and methodological processes in relation to children’s and learners’ roles and participation in research, as well as furthering their engagement in the design process, is at the top of both the CCI and the learning technology research agendas (e.g., Giannakos et al., 2020a, b; DiSalvo et al., 2017). Therefore, continuing to develop and advance synergies on the methodological front between CCI and learning technology is a way to cross-fertilize and accelerate progress.