Using a Participatory Design Approach to Create and Sustain an

Innovative Technology-rich STEM Classroom

One School's Story

Mary L. Stephen, Sharon M. Locke and Georgia L. Bracey

Center for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Research, Education, and Outreach,

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, IL, U.S.A.

Keywords: Participatory Design, Co-design, Technology-rich STEM Classroom, Learning Environment, Innovation,

Stakeholders.

Abstract: This paper describes the design and implementation of a technology-rich STEM classroom in a secondary

school associated with a comprehensive U.S. Midwestern university. Built to address a waning interest in

STEM and STEM careers, this classroom offers multiple technologies and an engaging, flexible physical

space that together create an innovative learning environment. A participatory design approach was utilized

in order to maximize the use and sustainability of the classroom. Students, teachers, and administrators from

the secondary school worked in collaboration with university faculty and staff and with Herman Miller®, an

international design company that conducts learning-space research. In addition to the design process, this

paper outlines successes and challenges encountered in implementation, as well as strategies used in

addressing the challenges, providing guidance for other educational organizations seeking to infuse

advanced technologies into classroom design and instruction.

1 INTRODUCTION

In February 2012, McCoy High School

(pseudonym), a public high school in the U.S.

Midwest, opened a high-technology classroom

designed to be an innovative environment for

teaching and learning in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This STEM

classroom was created in response to a call for an

increasing focus on STEM education in U.S.

schools, as articulated in several high-profile

national reports (National Research Council, 2011;

National Science Board, 2010; PCAST, 2010).

These reports emphasize that STEM education is the

foundation for many of the high-growth sectors of

the economy. In response to these reports and to a

growing number of federal and state initiatives, local

school administrators and teachers are looking for

practical solutions to enhance the quality of STEM

instruction, and this issue is not limited to the U.S.

(Berguard et al., 2012; Joyce and Dzoga, 2011;

Marginson et al., 2013).

Many schools are turning to computing

technologies as a means to improve STEM

education because there is a growing consensus that

students should be exposed to the advanced

technologies and tools used by practicing scientists

and engineers (Cohen and Patterson, 2012).

McCoy's STEM classroom provides students who

are living in an urban, high-poverty community with

access to some of the latest technologies and tools of

STEM as part of their learning experience, with the

long-term goal of raising student achievement and

inspiring students to pursue STEM university

degrees and careers. The classroom incorporates

design elements that reflect recent understandings of

effective ways to promote and support STEM

learning, and includes features that the STEM

teachers and students feel are important for

facilitating learning.

In this paper, we describe the design,

development, and implementation of McCoy High

School's STEM classroom. We discuss some of the

challenges encountered during the process, including

approaches taken to meet these challenges, and

finally highlight factors contributing to the success

of the project.

L. Stephen M., M. Locke S. and L. Bracey G..

Using a Participatory Design Approach to Create and Sustain an Innovative Technology-rich STEM Classroom - One School’s Story.

DOI: 10.5220/0004849900300038

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2014), pages 30-38

ISBN: 978-989-758-022-2

 2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

2 BACKGROUND & VISION

The newly constructed STEM classroom is a part of

McCoy High School, a public high school located

within the local city public school district and

sponsored by a nearby public university. The school

is located in an economically depressed, post-

industrial, Midwestern city which is part of a large

urban metropolitan area. All of the school’s 115

students are African-American, and approximately

90% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price

lunches. The school has limited resources and, prior

to construction of the STEM classroom, had access

to only two outdated computer labs that often were

not fully operational. The school recently completed

a third year on academic watch. In the United States,

a school is placed on academic watch if it does not

meet proficiency performance standards in

academic, attendance, and graduation rate targets

defined by the state for four consecutive years.

Students in districts with a high poverty level are

especially at risk of being unprepared for university

science and mathematics courses (Darling-

Hammond, 2010). As students advance in grade

level, mathematics and science test scores markedly

decline. In the McCoy High School district, only

47% of 7

graders and just 8% of 11

graders meet

performance standards for science on state

examinations. Furthermore, schools in low-income

communities often do not have the materials,

laboratories, and equipment to teach mathematics

and science effectively, and many teachers lack the

necessary training in their subject areas.

In early 2011, the university received a large

donation to design and construct a high-technology

STEM classroom at the high school, with some of

the funds designated for teacher professional

development and onsite technology support

personnel. The university’s STEM Center was

charged with overseeing the classroom’s design and

construction, and it played a key role in gathering

together the design team and establishing the

project’s vision.

The overall vision for the new classroom was

developed by experts in STEM education at the

university. The stated purpose of the new learning

space was to provide students with access to state-

of-the-art technology, equipment, and curricula and

to support teachers in providing students with hands-

on, minds-on science learning. Then, taking a wider

view, the team envisioned the classroom as a

resource for the entire school district and as a model

for excellence in STEM education far beyond the

local setting.

The largest portion of the classroom was viewed as a

“learning studio,” in which movable, flexible seating

would enable group work and student-centered

discussion. Integrated into the physical space would

be state-of-the-art computing and communications

technologies and scientific equipment, providing

opportunities for authentic learning rarely afforded

in low-income communities.

The team also proposed a separate, smaller

facility adjoining the main classroom, modeled after

the fabrication laboratory, or “FabLab,” concept.

Originating at the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, educational FabLabs allow students to

design objects on a computer using CAD software

and then see their creations printed in three-

dimensions. FabLabs enhance the learning of a

variety of subjects ranging from geometry to

engineering, to art and design, and help students see

the connections between STEM and the creative

process (Blikstein, 2013). Another goal for the space

was to enable teachers to move easily between the

main classroom and fabrication area as needed to

ensure student engagement and achievement of

learning goals.

A final, yet essential, component of the project

was the provision of teacher training and support to

ensure that the STEM teachers would be fully

empowered to integrate the new resources into their

teaching. It was intended that university faculty,

master educators, and an on-site educational

technology specialist would work in partnership

with the high school teachers over an extended

period of time to ensure that the technology and

equipment would be used effectively and with the

greatest benefit for student learning.

3 DESIGN PROCESS

The design process for the STEM classroom was

participatory, using input from multiple units within

a university, business representatives, and the

ultimate users of the space, the school’s teachers and

students. Participatory design was initially

introduced in the design of computer systems and

technologies in the early 1970s. Today, the concept

of participatory design is more flexible and

applicable in a range of fields employing a variety of

techniques (Crabtree, 1998). A major constant in

participatory design is the involvement of users in

the design process. According to Baek & Lee (2008,

pp. 173), “a participatory design process relies on

the collective generativity of stakeholders; in other

UsingaParticipatoryDesignApproachtoCreateandSustainanInnovativeTechnology-richSTEMClassroom-One

School'sStory

words, it uses the collective ability of stakeholders to

generate or create thoughts and imaginings.”

The classroom design and construction involved

a large team of individuals representing several units

of the university and three businesses. The

university’s STEM Center director articulated the

vision for the space through team meetings, and each

unit took responsibility for different aspects of the

design. The university’s Instructional Technology

Services (ITS) assigned two representatives to

develop plans for configuring the room to maximize

the use of computing technology. Installation of

computer projection and videoconferencing systems

and networking capabilities was completed by an

outside contractor. The university’s Facilities

Management assigned an architect to design the

physical space and to manage the construction

schedule and work of carpenters, painters, and

electricians.

At an early stage, the university contacted

Herman Miller®, known for their innovative

furniture designs and interest in research on learning

spaces, to request that the project become part of

Herman Miller’s Learning Studio Research

Program. Consequently, McCoy High School

became the first secondary school accepted into this

program. This formal partnership brought additional

resources to the project including interior design

expertise. Herman Miller® and an interior design

company worked with the project team to turn the

vision into reality, providing possible room plans,

furniture options, and color schemes.

The participatory design process ensures that all

users play a meaningful role in the design as “either

an informant or co-designer” (Bowen, 2010) in order

that the end result will better meet their needs and

uses. Diverse perspectives, especially those of

teachers and students, are important when designing

educational environments (Kӧnings et al., 2007).

According to Woolner (2009, p.15), “Importantly, it

seems that the potential for longer term influence is

bound up with recognising and understanding the

inextricable linking of actor and setting, as this

applies to the wide range of school users throughout

and beyond the period of change. If this shared

understanding can be developed through

participatory design, this should satisfy the needs of

architects and educationalists (e.g., Dudek, 2000 and

Clark, 2002, respectively) who have called for more

involvement of users in school design and

recognition of the practical contribution of the

physical setting to teaching and learning.”

Thus, a critical aspect of the process of designing

the STEM classroom involved participation by its

end users. The school’s three STEM teachers and six

student representatives provided feedback on their

needs and their vision for an effective learning

space. Meetings of the STEM Director and the high

school team explored teachers’ and students’

opinions on everything from the educational

activities that would take place in the space to

possible designs to the aesthetics and feel of the

learning environment. Feedback was summarized

and conveyed to the larger group and incorporated

into the design whenever feasible. A summary of

key comments from the teachers and students is

shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Teacher & Student Comments.

Four overarching principles guided the design

team and are reflected in the final product:

 Fosters creativity and innovation

 Meets the needs of the school

 Appeals to students and teachers

 Integrates innovative technologies

The next section focuses on how these principles are

reflected in the final design of the classroom.

Space and Furnishings

 Colorful

 Bright lighting

 Movable furniture for flexible seating

arrangements

 Café-height chairs

Technology

 Work spaces for robotics and other design

tasks

 High-speed wireless

 Many electrical outlets

 Separate printer room to reduce noise

levels

 Experimental technologies

 Durable equipment

Teaching Environment

 Communication is facilitated by multiple

writing surfaces

 Open spaces to move in and form student

groups

 Option of two instructors/classes in the

room simultaneously

 Respectful attitude towards the room and

ment

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

4 CLASSROOM FEATURES

The overall design of the classroom encourages

student-centered instruction and group work. The

room contains a variety of tables and chairs that are

easy to reconfigure for large and small group

activities. Movable whiteboards and writable walls

provide a large amount of writing and design space

(Figure 2).

Figure 2: McCoy High School STEM Classroom. Photo

courtesy of HermanMiller®.

Computer and information technologies are central

to this learning environment (Figure 3) and can be

easily configured for independent and group

projects. Laptop computers and tablets can be

plugged into the network via floor ports in multiple

locations throughout the room, and in turn can be

projected onto one of several screens. Additional

technology features of the room include a four-

screen video wall, an LCD SMART Board, 52-inch

TV monitor, HD document camera, and ceiling-

mounted video cameras to record classroom

activities. Sets of iPads, laptops, Botball robotics

kits, a programmable humanoid robot, TI-Nspire

calculators, and student response systems are

available for individual and collaborative work.

Additionally, the FabLab contains a 3-D printer and

computers with design software to enable students to

work with engineering design projects.

The first meeting to begin the design process

was in April 2011, and the ribbon-cutting and

official opening of the STEM classroom took place

in February 2012. In late 2012, The Educational

Interiors Showcase awarded the STEM classroom

one of its top awards for classroom design, noting

the space’s “good use of technology" and its "variety

of collaboration/presentation spaces and seating

options within the classroom.”

Figure 3: STEM Classroom Technologies.

5 IMPLEMENTATION

Teaching practice is a product of both the teacher

and the teaching environment (Wilson, 2011). Once

the room design was completed and construction

started, teachers began to consider the question of

what they needed to learn in order to make effective

use of the new technologies for teaching and

learning. They realized that using the technologies

within the new space could not only impact current

practices, but would require teachers to be open to

changing the way they currently teach.

5.1 Researching the Implementation

In conjunction with the design and implementation

of McCoy's STEM classroom, researchers from the

University’s STEM Center designed a research

study to understand and document how the STEM

teachers capitalized on the potential of the space and

available technologies to adopt new or modify

existing pedagogical strategies. The research

explored factors and challenges that influenced

when and how teachers use the room and its

technologies. This included examining teachers’

concerns and attitudes about using the space over the

course of its implementation. It was hoped that

findings from this research could be used to

optimize the usability of the learning space.

Because of the uniqueness of this complex and

dynamic setting, the researchers chose a single case-

study design with mixed methods of data collection

and analysis. The intention in using this design is



Laptop computers

 iPads

 Graphing calculators

 Robotics kits

 Humanoid robots

 Digital cameras

 Document camera

 Multiple flat panel displays

 Video wall

 Classroom recording system

 High definition video conferencing

 3D printer

 Large format printer

 Desktop computers with 3D design

software

UsingaParticipatoryDesignApproachtoCreateandSustainanInnovativeTechnology-richSTEMClassroom-One

School'sStory

that the story developed may provide unusual

insights that challenge or reinforce a reader’s

existing beliefs and promote broader understanding

of the issues involved (Patton, 1990; Stake, 1998;

Yin, 2009).

Two of the math and science teachers at the

school agreed to participate in the research study.

Initially, the study followed three teachers; however,

one of the teachers left McCoy High School shortly

after the research study began. Demographically, the

two teachers who are the focus of the study are very

different. Teacher A, an African American female in

her 60s with extensive experience as an IT

professional, participated in the design meetings.

She had taught for five years at McCoy High School

at the time the room was designed. Teacher B, a

Caucasian male in his 20s, also participated in the

design meetings. He recently had been hired and

began his first year of teaching during the year the

room was constructed. In addition, two key

administrators at the school agreed to participate

through interviews, and 30% of the students agreed

to participate through focus groups and by

completing surveys about the features of the room,

the technologies, and their teachers’ teaching styles.

Data sources include guided and open-ended

interviews with teachers and administrators, student

focus groups, and observation of sessions in both the

STEM classroom and in regular classrooms.

Additional data that inform the study were gathered

from survey instruments including pre and post

student and teacher questionnaires designed as part

of the Herman Miller® Learning Spaces Research

Program and periodic administration of the Stages of

Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) (George et al., 2006)

to STEM teachers. SoCQ is used to create profiles of

individuals’ evolving levels of concern throughout

the process of adopting an innovation.

The data enabled the researchers to identify

challenges encountered by the teachers when using

this new space and when incorporating new

technologies and pedagogical strategies into their

teaching. The following section identifies these

challenges along with ways these challenges were

approached.

6 CHALLENGES TO

IMPLEMENTATION

1. Lack of Familiarity with Many of the

Technologies Available and ways they might

Effectively be Integrated into Teaching

Approach: Numerous researchers have identified

teachers’ confidence and skill in using technologies

combined with ability to see value in using

technologies as major factors influencing teacher

adoption of available technologies (Bingimlas, 2009;

Buabeng-Andoh, 2012; Gaffney, 2010; Mumtaz,

2000). One way to build teacher confidence and skill

is through professional development. Effective

professional development is ongoing, uses peer

coaching, and includes teachers in planning

activities (Garet et al., 2001; Gulamhussein, 2013).

At McCoy High School, professional

development began during the construction phase

and continues today, with the STEM teachers

playing a leading role in identifying the type and

pace of the activities. Because of other demands on

their time, the teachers asked that training focus on

one new technology at a time. This would enable

them to become familiar with the technology and

consider how best to use it with students.

The teachers visited other schools’ high-tech

classrooms and participated in national conferences,

such as the National Science Teachers Association

(NSTA) and International Society for Technology in

Education (ISTE), as they sought ideas for using the

new technologies in their own teaching. Vendor

demonstrations occurred, and teachers were given

iPads to familiarize themselves with the technology

and begin to plan how they might use them in

teaching. Teachers from other schools who were

experienced with particular technologies led hands-

on sessions to introduce teachers to new

technologies, such as TI-Nspire graphing calculators

and 3-D printers, and shared information on ways

they use the technologies with students. An

education faculty member from the university

worked with the teachers to develop and test lessons

incorporating the new technologies and features of

the space. Teachers observed and critiqued the

lessons for each other. These master technology

teachers along with university personnel are an

ongoing resource for the teachers.

2. Need for Regular Communication Among a

Diverse Group of Stakeholders. Stakeholders

Included the School Director, STEM Teachers,

University Personnel and Researchers

Approach: According to Rogers (1962), effective

communication channels play a central role in the

diffusion of innovations. Communication and

sharing of information among the stakeholders

involved in the implementation phase proved at

times to be problematic as other responsibilities and

duties took precedence and delayed email or phone

responses. To ensure that all stakeholders are

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

informed on issues related to use of the STEM

classroom, periodic meetings occur with key school

administrators, STEM teachers, STEM Center

director and researchers, and a representative from

the University’s education department. Albronda, De

Langen, and Huizing (2011) report that group

meetings appear to be an “effective means of

informing and interaction” among stakeholders

during adoption of an innovation. The meetings,

which are ongoing, provide an opportunity for

sharing information, celebrating successes,

discussing issues specific to the STEM classroom,

planning ways to address STEM teachers’

professional development needs, identifying

teachers’ needs with respect to the STEM classroom

and the technologies, scheduling research

observations and interviews, sharing of school

initiatives by school administrators, and discussing

how teachers are using the space and technologies.

3. Limited Technical Support

Approach: "Because technology is inherently

unreliable and can break down at any time, teachers

may choose not to use it in their teaching unless

there is a strong need for it and reliable support"

(Zhao and Frank, 2003, p.809). Although teachers

and school administrators had input regarding the

choice of technologies for the space, the university

completed the purchasing and installation. As the

teachers began to use the technologies during their

first year in the new space, Teacher B, who had a

reputation for being able to fix technology problems,

assumed the role of technology support person in

addition to his teaching responsibilities, and

described this role as a "burden." However, during

the second year, the university hired a part-time

technical support person--again with teacher input--

to keep the equipment running and provide just-in-

time assistance when the classroom is in use.

4. Classroom Management Issues

Approach: A major concern of the teachers was

how to handle behavior problems and prevent

damage to the technologies in the new space. One

teacher addressed this by only bringing upper

division students into the space during the first year

and limiting the features and equipment that could

be used. The teachers developed some general rules

that all users agreed to abide by with respect to

putting technologies properly away at the end of

sessions and keeping the space clean. Participants in

student focus groups described how they felt

responsible for keeping the room and the equipment

in good condition. One student responded to the

question, "Who takes care of this room?" by saying,

"I feel like we all do. I feel like it's a community

effort... everybody kind of contributes to cleaning up

the room."

5. Equitable use of the Space

Approach: As STEM teachers began to bring their

classes into the new space, concerns developed

around the fair and practical use of the room. Even

though a listing of time

slots was made available as

a sign-up sheet on Google Docs, one teacher tended

to monopolize the schedule so other classes were

rarely able to use the room. If a time slot was empty,

other STEM teachers would often move their classes

in without signing up, resulting in two classes

arriving at the room at the same time. Together, the

teachers developed a protocol to ensure that each

student in the school uses the space and its

technologies at least once a week, and that every

STEM class has a lesson taught in the classroom

every week. They devised a better way of scheduling

their time in the classroom, and even found ways for

two classes to occasionally use the space

simultaneously. Also, technologies such as iPads,

laptops, and calculators can be used in a teacher’s

regular classroom when not needed in the STEM

classroom.

6. Professional and Personal Concerns

Approach: The time required to keep up with rapid

changes in technology is an important factor in its

use (Zhao and Frank, 2003), and teachers often

worry about how to do this in addition to their other

teaching duties. For example, Teacher A identified

“other responsibilities/priorities and time to learn” as

major obstacles to implementing new technologies.

There also appeared to be a question of what

personal value the new technologies would have.

"Personal feelings of uncertainty, whether one can

succeed with this innovation, and whether the

supervisor will support the efforts," are common

concerns of teachers faced with adopting an

innovation (Hall, 2010, p. 243). Teacher B found

balancing responsibilities of being a first-year

teacher, assuming the role of the school’s IT

specialist, and exploring what teaching with new

technologies would require from him to be

challenging.

Several aspects of the implementation process

addressed these concerns. First, the school provided

time and substitute teachers, giving the STEM

teachers opportunities to visit other high-tech

schools and to attend conferences. Other events such

as an open house and various newspaper articles

celebrated the STEM classroom and its success,

giving the teachers and students a sense of pride.

UsingaParticipatoryDesignApproachtoCreateandSustainanInnovativeTechnology-richSTEMClassroom-One

School'sStory

Teacher A commented, "There's a lot of visibility... I

think kids were proud to see us in the paper. I think

it’s always good to highlight the good, and so I think

that overall it’s been a really positive thing. I get

more positive all the time."

7 DISCUSSION

Using a participatory design process that included

students as well as teachers has led to a sense of

ownership of the room by both groups. Teachers

and students depict traditional classrooms as

‘teacher space’ while they view the STEM

classroom as ‘community space’ with both teachers

and students equally responsible for maintaining the

room. In focus groups, students enthusiastically

discussed how pleased they were to see their

suggestions integrated into the actual classroom

along with ideas they had not even considered, such

as the video wall. On their own initiative, they have

created projects relating to the use of the room and

its technologies as a "legacy” for future students.

One major aspect of the room that both teachers

and students praise is the room’s flexibility. The

furniture can easily be rearranged to accommodate

different teaching styles and activities. Students

appreciate being able to display their work in

different ways using a variety of devices. Teachers

regularly comment on students’ pride in the room

and how being in the room seems to positively affect

students’ willingness to stay on task and learn.

The room appears to be having an impact on

teachers’ teaching style as well. Teachers describe

their teaching approach in the STEM classroom as

being ‘less dictatorial’ and more relaxed than when

they are in a traditional classroom. One STEM

teacher who had been somewhat reluctant to use the

technologies in the room observed that anticipated

classroom management problems did not materialize

to the extent expected. Consequently the teacher

became more open to identifying technologies in the

room that might be used next in teaching. In the

STEM classroom, this same teacher encouraged

students to learn new features of technologies and

share their expertise. The other STEM teacher

described how having so many different

technologies available made it easier to

accommodate students’ different. Although the

teachers are not yet using all of the available

technologies, it is anticipated that all will be in use

by the end of the second year in the room.

The design and implementation process for the

STEM classroom is ongoing. Often stakeholders’

involvement ends once construction has been

completed. However, an important aspect of the

process described in this paper is that university and

STEM Center personnel continue to be actively

involved during the implementation phase in a

variety of ways, including participation in the

periodic meetings, facilitation of professional

development requests, and continuation of the

research study. The presence of a technology

specialist has alleviated technological problems and

allowed the teachers to focus on ways to integrate

the technologies into teaching and learning.

Administrators and STEM teachers continue to

identify additional resources needed in the room and

in their professional development. The room itself

was not designed to be static, but rather to continue

to evolve as users experiment with different ways to

teach and learn in the space. The presence- of

mobile technologies in particular will enable

upgrading the technologies as newer devices become

available.

One final consideration is the importance of

leadership. Byrom and Bingham (2001) identified

strong, supportive leadership as one of the most

important factors in teachers’ willingness to adopt

innovations. The leadership role played by

stakeholders from the university--especially the

Director of the university’s STEM Center--was

crucial during design and construction of the

classroom and continues during implementation.

The leadership of McCoy High School also

played an important role. The construction and

implementation coincided with the appointment of a

new director for the school. In discussing the room,

the director stated that continued student input

would be very important to the success of the room.

She stressed to the teaching staff that because the

room contains the best and the latest of technologies,

activities within the STEM classroom should be

project-based, utilizing the technologies and features

of the room to the fullest. She emphasized the

importance of seeking out appropriate professional

development to achieve this goal. Throughout the

implementation process she has encouraged the

teachers to decide how best to use the space and

technologies and to play a major role in designing

the content and pace of their professional

development. She has arranged substitute teachers

when these activities conflicted with their teaching

schedules.

The director takes great pride in the room and

has made it integral to setting future priorities for the

school. She has been instrumental in publicizing to

parents, community members, media and university

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

personnel what teachers and students are

accomplishing in the room. In describing the impact

on the students, the director said of the STEM

classroom it will “...change lives. We have an

advantage of educating minority and underprivileged

students with this advanced technology. They are

going to have more options because of the STEM

experience at the high school level.”

The successful implementation of a technology-

rich educational environment requires a participatory

process that doesn't end when construction is

complete. Keeping the stakeholders actively

involved and attending to the concerns of the

teachers and students greatly increase the usability

and sustainability of this type of project.

REFERENCES

Albronda, B., De Langen, F., and Huizing, B., 2011. The

influence of communication on the process of

innovation adoption. Innovative Management Journal,

4(1), May 2011, pp.20-29.

Baek, J. S., and Lee, K. P., 2008. A participatory design

approach to information architecture design for

children. CoDesign: International Journal of

CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4(3), pp.173-191.

Bergaud, C., Kurop, N., Joyce, A., and Wood, C. eds.,

2012. The e-Skills Manifesto. Brussels: European

SchoolNet.

Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful

integration of ICT in teaching and learning

environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia

Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology

Education. 5(3), pp.235-245.

Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ’making’ in

education: The democratization of invention. In: J.

Walter-Herrmann and C. Büching. eds. 2013.

FabLabs: Of machines, makers and inventors.

Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag Publishers. pp.

203-222.

Bowen, S., 2010. Critical theory and participatory design,

Computer Human Interaction (CHI 2010). Atlanta,

Georgia, 10-15 April, 2010. New York: Association of

Computing Machinery (ACM).

Buabeng-Andoh, C., 2012. Factors influencing teachers’

adoption and integration of information and

communication technology into teaching: A review of

the literature. International Journal of Education and

Development using Information and Communication

Technology. 8(1), pp.136-155.

Byrom, E., and Bingham, M., eds. 2001. Factors

influencing the effective use of technology for teaching

and learning: Lessons learned from the SEIR_TEC

Intensive Site Schools, 2

ed. [pdf]. Greensboro,

North Carolina: SouthEast Initiatives Regional

Technology in Education Consortium (SEIR_TEC).

Available from: <www.seirtec.org/

publications/lessons.pdf> [Accessed 25 September

2013].

Clark, H., 2002. Building education: The role of the

physical environment in enhancing teaching and

research. London: Institute of Education.

Cohen, C., and Patterson, D., 2012. Teaching strategies

that promote science career awareness. [pdf]. Seattle,

WA: Northwest Association for Biomedical Research.

Available from: <https://www.nwabr.org/sites/default/

files/pagefiles/science-careers-teaching-strategies-

PRINT.pdf>. [Accessed 27 September 2013].

Crabtree, A., 1998. Ethnography in participatory design.

Proceedings of the 1998 Participatory Design

Conference. Computer Professionals for Social

Responsibility. Seattle, Washington, 12-14 November

1998, pp.93-105.

Darling-Hammond, L., 2010. The flat world and

education: How America’s commitment to equity will

determine our future. New York: New York. Teachers

College Press.

Dudek, M., 2000. Architecture of schools. Oxford:

Architectural Press.

Gaffney, M., 2010. Enhancing teachers’ take-up of digital

content: Factors and design principles in technology

adoption.[pdf] Australia: Educational Services

Australia, Ltd. Available from: <http://

www.ndlrn.edu.au/verve/_resources/Enhancing_Teach

er_Takeup_of_Digital_Content_Report.PDF>.

[Accessed 25 September 2013].

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birmin, B. F.,

and Yoon, K. S., 2001. What makes professional

development effective? Results from a national sample

of teachers. American Educational Research Journal,

Winter 2001, 38(4), pp.915-945.

George, A. A., Hall, G. E., and Stiegelbauer, S. M., 2006.

Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of

concern questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL.

Hall, G. E., 2010. Technology’s Achilles heel: Achieving

high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on

Technology in Education, 42(3), pp.231–253.

Gulamhussein, A., 2013. Teaching the teachers: Effective

professional development in an era of high stakes

accountability.[pdf] Alexandria, VA: Center for Public

Education. Available from: <http://

www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/

Staffingstudents/Teaching-the-Teachers-Effective-

Professional-Development-in-an-Era-of-High-Stakes-

Accountability/Teaching-the-Teachers-Full-

Report.pdf>. [Accessed 25 September 2013].

Joyce, A. and Dzoga, M., eds., 2011. Science, technology,

engineering and mathematics: Overcoming challenges

in Europe. Brussels: Belgium: European Schoolnet.

Available from: <http://www.ingenious-science.eu/

c/document_library/get_file?uuid=3252e85a-125c-49c

2-a090-eaeb3130737a&groupId=10136>. [Accessed

25 September 2013].

Kӧnings, K. D., van Zundert, M. J., Brand-Gruwel, S., and

van Merriёnboer, J. J. G. (2007). Participatory design

in secondary education: Its desirability and feasibility

UsingaParticipatoryDesignApproachtoCreateandSustainanInnovativeTechnology-richSTEMClassroom-One

School'sStory

according to teachers and students. Educational

Studies, 33, pp.445-465.

Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., and Roberts, K.,

eds. 2013. STEM country comparisons, International

comparisons of science, technology, engineering and

mathematics. [pdf] Victoria, Australia: Australia’s

Council of Learned Academies. Available from:

<http://www.acola.org.au/PDF/SAF02Consultants/SA

F02_STEM_%20FINAL.pdf>. [Accessed 1 October

2013].

Mumtaz, S., 2000. Factors affecting teachers’ use of

information and communications technology: A

review of the literature. Journal of Information

Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), pp.319-342.

National Research Council, 2011. Successful K-12 STEM

education. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press.

Patton, M. Q., 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research

methods, 2

ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and

Technology (PCAST) Report to the President, 2010.

Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in Science,

Technology, Engineering and Mathmatics (sTEM) for

America’s future. Available from:

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/micros

ites/ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf>. [Accessed: 22

March 2012].

National Science Board, 2010. Preparing the next

generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and

developing our nation’s human capital. Washington,

CC: National Science Board.

Rogers, E., 1962. Diffusions of Innovations. New York:

Free Press.

Sanoff, H., 2006. Multiple views of participatory design,

Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural

Research, 2(1), March 2008. Published earlier in

METU JFA 2006, 23(2), 131-143.

Stake, R., 1998. Case Studies. In: N.K. Denzin, and Y. S.

Lincoln, eds. 1998. Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp.86-109.

Wilson, S. M., 2011. Effective STEM teacher preparation,

induction, and professional development. [online]

Workshop on Successful STEM Education May 2011.

Available from: <http://www7.nationalacademies.org/

bose/1STEM_Schools_Wilson_Paper_May2011.pdf>.

[Accessed 29 September 2013].

Woolner, P., 2009. Building schools for the future through

a participatory design process: Exploring the issues

and investigating ways forward. British Educational

Research Association (BERA), Manchester, England.

2-5 September, 2009. Available from: <http://

www.ncl.ac.uk/cflat/news/documents/WoolnerBSFber

apaper.pdf>. [Accessed 30 September 2013].

Yin, R. K., 2009. Case study research: Design and

methods. 4

ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zhao, Y., and Frank, K. A., 2003. Factors affecting

technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective.

American Educational Research Journal, Winter

2003, 40(4), pp.807–840.

CSEDU2014-6thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation