Experience-Based Constructionism as a Basis for HCI Education: A Case Study

References

• Adajian, T. (2016). The definition of art. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2016 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/art-definition/
   Google Scholar
• Apiola, M., Lattu, M., & Pasanen, T. A. (2010). Creativity and intrinsic motivation in computer science education: Experimenting with robots. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 199–203). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1822090.1822147
   Google Scholar
• Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2014, July). Social awareness in HCI. Interactions, 21(4), 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/2621933
   Google Scholar
• Baranauskas, M. C. C., & Posada, J. E. G. (2017). Tangible and shared storytelling: Searching for the social dimension of constructionism. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 193–203). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3079743
   Google Scholar
• Bødker, S. (2006). When second wave HCI meets third wave challenges. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human–Computer Interaction: Changing Roles (pp. 1–8). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182476
   Google Scholar
• Bødker, S. (2015, August). Third-wave HCI, 10 years later—Participation and sharing. Interactions, 22(5), 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2804405
   Google Scholar
• Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Churchill, E. F., Bowser, A., & Preece, J. (2013, March). Teaching and learning human–computer interaction: Past, present, and future. Interactions, 20(2), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/2427076.2427086
   Google Scholar
• Costello, B., & Edmonds, E. (2007). A study in play, pleasure and interaction design. In Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (pp. 76–91). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1314161.1314168
   Google Scholar
• Cressey, D. (2017, April). Age of the Arduino. Nature, 544(7648), 125–126. https://doi.org/10.1038/544125a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.
   Google Scholar
• Duarte, E. F., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2018a). Interart: Learning human–computer interaction through the making of interactive art. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human–computer interaction. Theories, methods, and human issues (pp. 35–54). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91238-7_4
   Google Scholar
• Duarte, E. F., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2018b). Revisiting interactive art from an interaction design perspective: Opening a research agenda. In Proceedings of the 17th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 35:1–35:10). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274192.3274227
   Google Scholar
• Duarte, E. F., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2020). Pincello: An affordable electronics kit for prototyping interactive installations. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human–computer interaction. Human values and quality of life (pp. 243–261). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Duarte, E. F., Maike, V. R. M. L., Hayashi, E. C. S., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2018, March). First steps towards socioenactive interactive art (Tech. Rep. No. IC-18-02). Institute of Computing, University of Campinas. Retrieved from http://www.ic.unicamp.br/reltech/2018/18-02.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Duarte, E. F., Maike, V. R. M. L., Mendoza, Y. L. M., Brennand, C. V. L. T., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2019, November). “The magic of science:” Beyond action, a case study on learning through socioenaction. In Anais do XXV Workshop de Informática na Escola (WIE 2019) (pp. 501–510). Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação (SBC). https://doi.org/10.5753/cbie.wie.2019.501
   Google Scholar
• Edmonds, E. (2014). Human computer interaction, art and experience. In L. Candy & S. Ferguson (Eds.), Interactive experience in the digital age: Evaluating new art practice (pp. 11–23). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04510-8_2
   Google Scholar
• England, D. (2016). Art.chi: Curating the digital. In D. England, T. Schiphorst, & N. Bryan-Kinns (Eds.), Curating the digital: Space for art and interaction (pp. 1–7). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28722-5_1
   Google Scholar
• Golbeck, J. (2017, February). ‘Back off, man. I’m a scientist.’: Using fiction to teach beginners HCI. Interactions, 24(2), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/3029599
   Google Scholar
• Grandhi, S. (2015, October). Educating ourselves on HCI education. Interactions, 22(6), 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/2834811
   Google Scholar
• Grudin, J. (2012). A moving target: The evolution of human–computer interaction. In J. A. Jacko (Ed.), Human computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications (3rd ed., pp. xxvii–lxi). CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, S. R., Tatar, D. G., & Sengers, P. (2007). The three paradigms of HCI. In alt.chi Session at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–18). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Hewett, T. T., Baecker, R., Card, S., Carey, T., Gasen, J., & Mantei, M. (1992). ACM SIGCHI curricula for human–computer interaction (Technical report). USAAssociation for Computing Machinery (ACM).
   Google Scholar
• Hornbaek, K., & Oulasvirta, A. (2017). What is interaction? In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 5040–5052). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025765
   Google Scholar
• Jenny Preece, Y. R., & Sharp, H. (2015). Interaction design: Beyond human–computer interaction (4th ed.). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kaipainen, M., Ravaja, N., Tikka, P., Vuori, R., Pugliese, R., Rapino, M., & Takala, T. (2011, September 13). Enactive systems and enactive media: Embodied human-machine coupling beyond interfaces. Leonardo, 44(5), 433–438. https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoo, B. K. S. (2011). User interface design pedagogy: A constructionist approach. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 7(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2011010101
   Google Scholar
• Korte, L., Anderson, S., Pain, H., & Good, J. (2007, June). Learning by game-building: A novel approach to theoretical computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(3), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/1269900.1268802
   Google Scholar
• Koutsabasis, P., & Vosinakis, S. (2012). Rethinking HCI education for design: Problem-based learning and virtual worlds at an HCI design studio. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 28(8), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2012.687664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, K. (2000). Semiotics in information systems engineering. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Michalko, M. (2010). Thinkertoys: A handbook of creative-thinking techniques. Potter/TenSpeed/Harmony.
   Google Scholar
• Muller, L., Edmonds, E., & Connell, M. (2006). Living laboratories for interactive art. CoDesign, 2(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880601008109
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J., & Majgaard, G. (2014). Constructionist prototype programming in a first semester HCI course for engineering students. In P. Isaías & K. Blashki (Eds.), Human–computer interfaces and interactivity: Emergent research and applications (pp. 50–71). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6228-5
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Civitas Books.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism: Research reports and essays, 1985–1990 (pp. 1–11). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Reardon, S., & Tangney, B. (2015, December). Smartphones, studio-based learning, and scaffolding: Helping novices learn to program. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocha, H. V., & Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2003). Design e avaliação de interfaces humano-computador. Unicamp.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y. (2012). HCI theory: Classical, modern, and contemporary. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 5(2), 1–129. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00418ED1V01Y201205HCI014
   Google Scholar
• Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Stamper, R. K. (1973). Information in business and administrative systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Stephanidis, C., Salvendy, G., Antona, M., Chen, J. Y. C., Dong, J., Duffy, V. G., Fang, X., Fidopiastis, C., Fragomeni, G., Fu, L. P., Guo, Y., Harris, D., Ioannou, A., Jeong, K., Konomi, S., Krömker, H., Kurosu, M., Lewis, J. R., Marcus, A., … Zhou, J. (2019). Seven HCI grand challenges. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(14), 1229–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1619259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabel, O. L., Jensen, J., Dybdal, M., & Bjørn, P. (2017, October). Coding as a social and tangible activity. Interactions, 24(6), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137099
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• True, N., Peeters, J., & Fallman, D. (2013). Confabulation in the time of transdisciplinarity: Reflection on HCI education and a call for conversation. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human–computer interaction. Human-centred design approaches, methods, tools, and environments (pp. 128–136). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• VanGundy, A. B. (1984). Brain writing for new product ideas: An alternative to brainstorming. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1(2), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008097
   Google Scholar
• Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0991-94
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, S. (2003). Science and art – Looking backward/looking forward. Retrieved from http://www.artcenter.edu/williamson/neuro/exhibit/f_body_wilson.html
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, R. J., & Mehta, R. (2017). Sensory experiences and consumer creativity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1086/693161
   Google Scholar