Enabling people to lower barriers with a codesign prototyping approach: sex education for upper-elementary students at home

Abstract

Through using prototyping as a communication medium in co-design, disparate participants may find common ground on how to deal with complex issues. Due to Korea's Confucian cultural society, there is a lack of conversation about sex between parents and children at home. Therefore, it is necessary to find a way to construct an atmosphere at home to talk about sensitive issues, like sex, especially through co-design. We conducted two co-design workshops by using prototyping as a 'Make Tools' medium: The first prototyping was for a storytelling booklet and the second one was for a board game, along with parents' guidelines. We found hindrances coming from parents in both workshops, showing parents' interventions and concerns over this sensitive topic, hindering children moving on with the sessions. However, insights into overcoming these limitations identify as follows. 1) Children's empowerment over parental interventions and 2) finding common ground to lower barriers among participants.

Children and Young People’s Involvement in Designing Applied Games: Scoping Review

“…Some considered participatory design as the overall research area and co-design as the method [ 56 , 60 , 77 , 82 ]. Others positioned the 2 as separate methods [ 62 , 66 ], while others used terms interchangeably [ 75 , 85 ]. The most common definition of “participatory design” was to “involve end users in the design process” [ 45 , 48 , 68 , 72 , 86 ], which some interpreted strongly because end users fully and equally participated throughout the whole design and development process [ 68 , 70 ], while others read it weakly as “invit[ing] users to contribute ideas” [ 71 ].…”

“…Overall, 17% (8/47) of studies aimed to understand CYP needs and preferences around gaming, and a further 15% (7/47) of studies aimed to understand CYP’s perception and concerns around the context or technology of the study. Overall, 6% (3/47) of studies focused on improving the user experience of existing products or prototypes, and finally, 4% (2/47) of studies explicitly aimed to create guidelines on how to conduct co-design with CYP (other studies did produce recommendations or guidelines but did not state this as the intended goal behind user involvement [ 47 , 62 , 64 , 73 , 82 ]).…”

“…In total, 17 studies [ 45 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 70 , 71 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 79 ] reported the prototyping stage . These prototyping stages included sessions in which CYP were involved in the design and development of game ideas [ 52 , 58 , 75 ], game characters or narrative [ 49 , 62 , 71 ], and generated alternative ideas to an existing idea [ 63 , 77 ].…”

“…In total, 17 studies [ 45 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 70 , 71 , 74 , 75 , 77 , 79 ] reported the prototyping stage . These prototyping stages included sessions in which CYP were involved in the design and development of game ideas [ 52 , 58 , 75 ], game characters or narrative [ 49 , 62 , 71 ], and generated alternative ideas to an existing idea [ 63 , 77 ]. Prototyping was seen to afford a sense of ownership in the resulting designs for CYP [ 62 ], often challenging researchers’ assumptions on end users, and often leading to in-depth reflection from participants [ 55 , 70 , 71 ].…”

“…Overall, 17% (8/47) of studies aimed to understand CYP needs and preferences around gaming, and a further 15% (7/47) of studies aimed to understand CYP's perception and concerns around the context or technology of the study. Overall, 6% (3/47) of studies focused on improving the user experience of existing products or prototypes, and finally, 4% (2/47) of studies explicitly aimed to create guidelines on how to conduct co-design with CYP (other studies did produce recommendations or guidelines but did not state this as the intended goal behind user involvement [47,62,64,73,82]). In summary, the included studies stated a wide range of reasons for involving users, with the overwhelming majority focusing on directly informing design and development, from formative research on user needs, preferences, concerns, and contexts (15 studies) to feedback on features and functionality (18 studies), directly making a game (20 studies), or improving user experience (3 studies).…”