Instructions for camera ready copy
Camera Ready Deadline (Papers & Notes): Friday 22nd April 2016
IDC2016 is innovating a new practice for papers and notes. This is that we require all camera ready papers and notes to include, directly before the acknowledgements, a sub heading entitled:
SELECTION AND PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN
Under this subheading, the authors of the paper should describe how children were selected (if there were no children simply write – no children participated in this work), what consent processes were followed (i.e. did they consent and if so what they were told), and anything especially interesting in terms of how the children participated – two examples can be seen below.
So that others can make sense of the cultural positioning of the work that is in the paper, we also want authors to ‘describe’ the context of participation – i.e. private versus state school, rural vs. inner city, country, demographic info etc… For more hints on this see the website. In terms of cultural positioning, do not add detail for details’ sake – only add what is relevant to the research interpretation.
This subsection should not exceed 125 words – even if this detail is elsewhere in the paper we still want to see this paragraph. NOTE – this is being added after review as it is an innovation on which we want feedback at the conference – it also places our conference as leading in terms of good practice in this regard. It may be that in IDC2017, this will be a compulsory element from the beginning.
In this study 40 children aged 9 -10, from two state schools in semi-rural areas in the UK were recruited. Prior to the study University ethical approval was obtained. Selection was by virtue of them being in the school class that was invited to do the work. The headteacher consented for the parents but children were told about the aims of the research and when the research was finished they were reminded again and asked if their data could be used. The protocols followed were from CHECk 1 and 2 (Read et.al…)
140 children participated, this was a convenience sample (Cresswell, 1983) from children attending the museum, which cost $25 dollars per person to attend, during the hours of the study. As they came with parents’ consent was devolved to the parents but each child had the apparatus explained to them as they used it. Postcards were handed out to the children with details of the project so they could read about it later. It was estimated but not counted, that around 25% of the children were of Hispanic origin, the remaining 75% were predominantly white Caucasian.