The Classroom of the Future - Orchestrating collaborative learning spaces
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Classroom of the Future
Orchestrating collaborative learning spaces
A workshop organized by Kati Mäkitalo-Siegl, Frédéric Kaplan, Jan Zottmann, Pierre
Dillenbourg and Frank Fischer, January 24, 25, 26 2007 at Villars, Switzerland and spon-
sored by Kaleidoscope CSCL SIG. Booklet edited by Frédéric Kaplan and Kati Mäkitalo-
Siegl.
1
What will the classroom of the future be like? In different scientific fields and practice con-
texts, new theories and technologies are emerging, that might be able to help to improve
teaching and learning in collaborative spaces that we call classrooms. Thus far, there is hardly
any concerted multi-disciplinary effort towards designing the classroom of the future. This
workshop is aimed at making a first step in that direction in bringing together researchers,
designers, and teachers to share ideas on emerging theoretical and technological develop-
ment related to the future classroom and plan the future classroom in an innovative and
imaginative way.
2
Table of Contents
Imaged Futures and History of Schooling! 4
The Classroom of the Past and the Classroom of the Future! 6
Spaces, Places and Future Learning: An Overview of Futurelab’s Current Thinking and
Work in Rethinking Learning Spaces! 8
Making the Classroom a Playground for Knowledge! 11
New Learning Experience with New Technologies! 15
Supporting Children’s Small Group Storytelling with Single Display Groupware! 22
Sitting around Simple Objects! 29
Media Enriched Scenarios: An Approach to Evolve Schools by Empowering Teachers!36
Contextual Collaboration in Classrooms! 40
Designing the Connected Classroom! 41
Digital Culture Heritage to Support Learning in Communities! 42
Evolving the Classrooms of the Future: The Interplay of Pedagogy, Technology and
Community! 45
Participants to the Workshop! 48
3
Imaged Futures and History of
Schooling
Rosamund Sutherland, University of Bristol, UK and Joanna Sutherland, Ha-
worth Tomkins Architects, UK
Over the next fifteen years the “Build-
ing Schools for the Future (BSF)” pro-
gramme aims to rebuild or renew every
secondary school in England. Through
this investment the government intends
to drive educational reform, with the
use of ICT being an integral part of
this reform. But what is a School of the
Future and how will it be different
from the schools of the past and the schools of today? Within this paper we will take a
critical look at the types of buildings and learning
environments that are being created by the BSF and other similar programmes. We
will focus on the relationship between the vision and intentions behind the designs and
the ways in which the new buildings are being used as learning and community
spaces. The presentation will centre around a dialogue between an architect and an
educationalist, both experienced in their own fields. Joanna Sutherland was the project
architect on the Classrooms of the Future Project in Sandy, Bedfordshire and has re-
cently completed a school theatre in Oxford. Rosamund Sutherland has carried out
research on teaching and learning with ICT for over 20 years. Currently she is in-
volved in a project to build a new 11-19 school in South Bristol (The Merchants’
Academy) to be opened in September 2008.
4
The presentation will start with a discussion of the educational and design principles
that informed the Classrooms of the Future and the Merchants’ Academy Project in
order to highlight the different perspectives of architects and educationalists. Joanna
and Rosamund will then reflect on visits they have recently made to a range of ‘flag-
ship’ schools, focusing on such questions as: What type of spaces are being designed?
How are these spaces being used? What is the role of ICT in the design and configu-
ration of these spaces? How do students and teachers experience these spaces? How
is learning characterised in these spaces? The presentation will end with a discussion
about the viability of architects and educationalist working in partnership, and the
benefits and constraints of such a partnership. They will also discuss their views about
whether or not a School of the Future can break with the past in a radical way or
whether there is necessarily a more continuous evolution between designs of the past
and designs of the future.
5
The Classroom of the Past and
the Classroom of the Future
Andreas Schratzenstaller, University of Munich, Germany
The Classroom of the Future promises novelty and quite readily serves as the innova-
tive projection of ways to improve today’s troubled school reality. It does, however,
evolve out of an opaque gap in the sense that, yes, it does know the direction, but does
not really state where it’s bound to start from. The future – and the Classroom of the
Future is no apparent exception – can only be constructed by semantically linking it to
the present and the Classroom of the Present indeed provides a multitude of junctions.
It combines anything within its four walls reaching from strikingly antiquated meth-
ods or structures to rather modern and state of the art scenarios of teaching. For the
Classroom of the Future to accept and utilize the strengths and weaknesses of the
Classroom of the Present it is important to understand where it comes from and how
benefit can be gained from this experience. Basically coming into existence in the
18th century the classroom dissociated itself rather soon from contemporary educa-
tional theory. During the “age of pedagogy”, as Campe once called the 18th century,
the classroom neither in its structure nor in the methods used was predominantly
aligned with, say, Rousseauian thoughts, but was dominated by disciplinary concepts.
Enabling the individual in its contemporary realization meant controlling and disci-
plining the individual. This initial flaw of a failed dialogue between theory and prac-
tice is still crucial today. The lessons of the past are neither learned when the Class-
room of the Present resembles classrooms of the 19th century nor when new media
are implemented regardless of given circumstances, like focusing collaborative
knowledge building exclusively on virtual learning arrangements.
6
Following the historical development of the classroom through to the 20th century and
via approaches of educational reform to the contemporary classroom this introductory
presentation is interested in how architecture, interior design and methodological con-
siderations form the classroom and also tries to track the influence ways of coopera-
tion and media use had on classroom planning. It is in this context that the pavilion
movement appears to be the first initiative successfully bringing together representa-
tives of different domains to plan and then actually realize schools and classrooms
which fitted the needs of what was then considered to be modern teaching. As this
movement is situated in the first decades of the 20th century it is both timewise and in
its approach remarkably similar to what the Classroom of the Future Workshop at the
Alpine Rendez-Vous has been aiming at in the early 21st century.
7
Spaces, Places and Future
Learning: An Overview of Fu-
turelab’s Current Thinking
and Work in Rethinking
Learning Spaces
Tash Lee, Futurelab, UK
At the present time we are witnessing a massive in-
vestment in the design and build of new schools to
equip the UK education system for the 21st century.
The economically and architecturally ambitious
Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme is
setting out to rebuild or renew every secondary
school in England over the next 10 to 15 years. But
how much of this effort has been inspired by an
equally wide-reaching educational vision? Already, evidence from the Commission
for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) is suggesting that the design qual-
ity of recently built schools is not good enough to achieve the Government’s aim of
transforming children’s education. If the design quality is insufficient – what is the
quality of the educational strategy underpinning that design?
The design of these schools will shape the ways in which we think about, experience
and conduct education in this country for the next 50 to 100 years. The educational
visions upon which they are built will be solidified in bricks and mortar, the learning
8
relationships they envisage will be captured in concrete and glass. The institutions
created now will physically encapsulate and determine the ideas it is possible to have
about education, learning and learning relationships until the dawn of the next century.
That is a long time to spend working in institutions that do not engage with the educa-
tional challenges of the 21st century and which do not exploit the resources that it has
to offer.
That is a long time to spend working in institutions that do not engage with the educa-
tional challenges of the 21st century and which do
not exploit the resources that it has to offer.
In November 2006, Futurelab hosted a two-day con-
ference which brought together a diverse gathering
of teachers, policy makers, academics, designers,
architects and IT developers to discuss the need to
think imaginatively about the learning spaces of the
future. The aim of ‘Spaces, Places and Future
Learning’ was to challenge our preconceptions of
the environments in which we learn; to imagine
learning taking place anywhere, in the school,
home, work and community; and to reflect on the
possibilities for transforming those learning spaces
with innovative tools such as computer games and
mobile, tangible and embedded technology.
The first part of the presentation will explore some
of the key thinking, debates and outcomes from the
conference and then drawing on Futurelab’s (2006)
report ‘What if...? Re-imagining learning spaces’
will present a series of future scenarios - alternative
(some radical) visions of the school of the future to
provoke thinking and debate. The second part of the
9
presentation will report on one of Futurelab’s current projects – Fountaineers.
Fountaineers is a whole school project in which primary pupils are co-researchers, co-
designers, owners and engineers of an interactive and programmable, intelligent water
fountain. With current debates about what a 21st century education should look like
Fountaineers aims to demonstrate that children and teachers have enormous scope to
influence the reconfiguration of their buildings and outdoor spaces - and particularly
to use the environment to model new learning habits and more adventurous, curious
mindsets.
As people pass by, the intelligent fountain will respond to their behaviour in different
ways using programs created by pupils. For example, it may act as a speedometer, re-
sponding to the speed at which they run past or as part of a performance reacting to
children’s voices and movements. In both its design and use, the fountain will enable
children and adults to engage with, and learn from their environment; learn between
lessons and across spaces; and take part in a range of collaborative learning experi-
ences.
The presentation will discuss the Fountaineers project in more detail and our progress
to date. It will provide practical advice and describe the tools and processes employed
in the participatory design process as well as sharing the challenges and opportunities
that have arisen so far and what the future might hold for the project.
About Futurelab:
Futurelab is passionate about transforming the way people learn. Tapping into the
huge potential offered by digital and other technologies, we are
developing innovative learning resources and practices that sup-
port new approaches to education for the 21st century. A not-for-
profit organisation, Futurelab is committed to sharing the lessons learnt from our re-
search and development in order to inform positive change to educational policy and
practice.
10Making the Classroom a Play-
ground for Knowledge
Stefano Baraldi, Natural Interaction / University of Florence, Italy
Among the many definitions, a classroom could be described as a shared social space
with an objective: education. Once designed around the concept of the assimilation of
knowledge through rote learning, classrooms have now become the place for a di-
rected social interaction, a space and a time dedicated to the transmission of stimuli
related to different areas of the human knowledge that lead to a collaborative con-
struction of a personal and shared understanding.
In which way could new interactive technologies and ambient intelligence be de-
signed and applied in the classroom of the future, effectively supporting the education
process? The ubiquitous availability of internet access and CSCW tools have proved
very effective in supporting distributed collaboration, however these tools do not
really seem to be suitable to a face-to-face scenario like the classroom, where social
activity follows a natural flow without the mediation of communication devices. In the
latest years CSCW research has taken steps forward in handling the co-located sce-
nario through the introduction of SDG (Single Display Groupware), where the atten-
tion of a group is directed towards a single shared area representing information and
input coming from multiple user is handled simultaneously. Nonetheless the word
“work” in the CSCW acronym is somehow in contrast with the concept of “learning”.
When a group works the objective is to “produce” something new, this leads to more
specialized applications with a structured flow of information, divided into different
stages and with a final outcome. Instead, learning is more about playing with existent
information, arranging and assembling, making questions and finding answers. Going
through this process, at every stage, is already fulfilling the education objective.
11Concept Mapping formalism for knowledge building on an interactive table
Examples of multiple interaction on the tabletop using the tabulaTouch device
Pointing, tangible and touchless interaction in public spaces
For this reason it is not possible to design the future classroom solely equipping the
place with interactive devices. A clever interaction design should be applied in order
to create interfaces and applications that can co-exist with the natural flow of interac-
tion between the three actors involved in classroom activities: the teacher, the students
and the cognitive artifacts created and shared during the lesson.
12We should address the design of interactive spaces in the classroom considering three
aspects: the physical devices that can be used as a mean of input, the visualization of
the artifacts used during the activities and finally the overall intelligence that makes
the classroom “smart” in capturing and archiving the interactions of the actors during
the learning process.
Sensing technologies have already pushed the limit of activities that can be detected in
a room space. The use of cameras and computer vision algorithms as the main sensor
have proved to be very effective in creating transparent interfaces that disappear in
the room. At Natural Interaction we are particularly interested in realizing interfaces
that can build a direct communication with the user, recognizing his intentions
through natural gesture understanding, and providing coherent feedback in order to
create a relation of trust and pleasure. This is particularly important in classrooms: if
roomware applications have to be used on a daily basis “pretty” interfaces are not
enough, the magic must quickly fade away leaving users a natural feeling in using
them.
To this regard, in a classroom scenario, the augmented table concept is particularly
interesting because tables are the preferred objects for group conversation and sharing
of ideas. Tables have a clear affordance: they provide a space for objects (often paper
documents) to be manipulated by multiple users. Augmenting tables is achieved
transforming their surface into a visualization and sensing device, where digital media
can be presented and objects can be directly manipulated by the users. In the last year
research on tabletop devices has made huge leaps, making it possible to realize inter-
active surfaces that can sense multiple fingers contacts using computer vision. The
technology has become more affordable and the development of interfaces easier. The
overall affordance of the traditional table interaction is retained and enhanced: planar
digital objects behave on the augmented surface similarly to sheets of paper and can
be grabbed, moved, rotated and transformed coherently with a subset of physics laws.
The advantage of this kind of interface is to lower cognitive load on fundamental ac-
tions, and let the users focus on a new set of expressive actions and semantic analysis
that is at the basis of a new interaction framework.
13Advancing in our research we believe that, instead of creating many different applica-
tions to use on augmented tables, a single environment should always be running
based on a set of clear and effective metaphors as the building blocks for application
design. For example: the first gap to fill is the separation between the physical and the
digital world: how cognitive artifacts can be introduced into the system and how they
could be later extracted. This is very important in an environment where multiple in-
teractive surfaces could be present and data should be “transportable” between them.
A feasible solution is provided by physical tags (like RFID tags, or visual codes
printed on paper), that can become the physical simulacrum of cognitive artifacts.
Both the teacher and the students should be able to bring their own tags (concepts re-
lated to a particular topic like names, places, names of people etc.) and put them “on
the table” recalling the digital representation. Digital artifacts can then be arranged
collaboratively according to some visual formalism like Concept Maps, a cognitive
structure that is receiving a lot of attention from the scientific community because of
the advantages it brings towards a shared group cognition of a topic.
Also, work done on tables retains a temporary nature because their surface is continu-
ously used for different activities. The classroom intelligence should make every pro-
duction persistent, searchable and available on other interactive surfaces in the class-
room, or on the web for later analysis and discussion. Connections to local wikis and
Wikipedia as a source repository is straightforward.
These are only some examples of how the classroom of the future could become
smarter, providing exciting new ways of interacting with knowledge and stimulating
all the actors involved into an active process of mean making.
14New Learning Experience with
New Technologies
Albrecht Schmidt and Paul Holleis, University of Munich, Germany
1. MOTIVATION
New information and communication technologies have a great potential to change
the way we learn and teach. Mobile multimedia technologies, support for ubiquitous
capture and sharing, physicality of user interfaces, easy means for communication,
and access to a multitude of original information are prime example that may impact
learning and teaching significantly. However technology alone, as the history of teach-
ing over TV or video shows, is not sufficient.
It is important to keep in mind that learning and teaching is in most cases about com-
municating a concept that needs to be understood by the learner. Understanding differs
greatly from consumption and mere reproduction. Efficient teaching supports and
eases understanding of new material, but understanding is not possible without the
learner actively participating.
2. GOALS AND POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT
Technologies offer means for learning and can be deployed in different ways. From
our perspective the following goals 1 are essential in education and hence we seek to
support those.
1 These goals are not generic, there may be environments and learning tasks where reproduction of in-
formation is the central goal and understanding and reflection is not valued, however these will not be
taken into account here.
152.1 Increase Motivation for Pupils, Students, and Teachers
Motivation is the single most important point in learning from our perspective. With-
out appropriate motivation learning is likely to fail. Motivation can range from curios-
ity, social norms, and peer pressure to even fear. Learning as an implication of want-
ing to know is in our eyes most interesting. Technology can help to increase and sat-
isfy natural curiosity. Similarly technology can support awareness within a peer group
which also increases motivation.
2.2 Provide Means for Understanding and Reflection
In many areas there is a shift from learning to be able to recall to learning to under-
stand. With ubiquitous access factual knowledge looses values, e.g. every one can
lookup the distance between a geo-stationary satellite and the earth, but understanding
why it is always seen at the same angle is much more difficult. Tangible visualization
is one example where learners can explore concept and create understanding - this is
an internal process of the learner.
2.3 Improve Social Abilities of Pupils and Students and Increase Communi-
cation
Learning is most often not an activity in isolation. The notion of a school or a univer-
sity, a classroom or laboratory is inherently connected to a group of people learning.
In many ways teaching and learning is tied to a group process and interaction within a
group. Learning in a group has many functions and relates to motivation and reflec-
tion. Traditionally computer rooms have hindered these social interactions. New tech-
nologies, in particular embedded large screen displays and mobile systems, can in-
crease and improve communication and cooperative learning.
2.4 Make Learning and Teaching more Efficient
Reducing the time and money spend on learning and teaching is attractive and impor-
tant. Creating technologies that reduce the time we need for learning is a key target
16but it must kept in mind that learning is a complex and individual process that can
only be speeded up within certain limits.
However technologies offer great opportunities to make access to information, reflec-
tion and documentation much cheaper. Simple things like having a projection screens
and access to the internet provides cheap means to show diagrams, original pictures
and maps at minimal cost. Creating multimedia exercise books, where students record
their work, is even with current technologies (e.g. phone, table pc, blog software) very
cheap and efficient, too.
3. EXAMPLES AND CASE STUDIES
We have explored different issues in teaching and learning with a particular focus on
smaller children. In the first two examples we look at physicality which is a property
that increases novelty (which helps to increase motivation) and additionally brings
new means for collaboration. In the third we explored how to make the classroom
mobile. The final example is on fine grain interaction tracking to improve support for
the leaner and teacher.
3.1 Interaction Cube
The interaction cube is a novel learning device. It is a self contained computer with
six displays and acceleration sensors. In one mode of operation on one side is a ques-
tion (textually or visually) displayed and possible answers on all others. The learners
have to find the right answer and shake the cube to indicate their choice. Here it be-
comes interesting that by varying the time and amplitude needed to indicate the selec-
tion, basically how strong and long one has to shake the cube, the way children inter-
act with it can be influenced. The more physical effort is involved the more learners
think before the select their answer. In figure 1 the cube is displayed. A video can
be found at our web page2 . A more detailed description can be found in [1].
2 http://www.hcilab.org/documents/videos.htm
17! !
"#$%&'!()!*+,'&-.,#/+!.%0'!#+!.//1'&-,#2'!%3'! "#$%&'!4)!5%36#/+!-+7!$-8'!7'3#$+9!
! !
!
Figure 1 : Interaction cube in cooperative use
!
!
! !
"#$%&'!()!*+,'&-.,#/+!.%0'!#+!.//1'&-,#2'!%3'! "#$%&'!4)!5%36#/+!-+7!$-8'!7'3#$+9! !!!!! !
! "#$%&'!:)!;%3.2 Learning Cushion and Racing Game
We developed a cushion with built-in sensors that can be used as a generic input de-
vice. We combined this novel controller with a racing game. The cars are controlled
by motion of the full body. At stop signs a multiple choice question is presented and
again using the body movement the answer can be given. Here we see that children
value the bodily experience while learning and the novelty effects seems to last longer
than in traditional non physical user interfaces. In figure 2 the cushion and the game is
displayed. A video can be found at our web page. The details are described in [2].
3.3 Mobile Phones take the Classroom Everywhere: Blogging Experiment
With current mobile phones that include cameras multimedia records of experiments
can be easily created. Using (mobile) blogging to document a biology experiment can
involve children more with such a task. The ease of documentation (basically just us-
ing the camera phone) does not add an additional hurdle but provides a good way of a
long lasting description. In an experiment in 2000 we used traditional digital cameras
to explore such usage with young children3 . Using an application that requested the
pupils to do certain tasks at certain time can more structure this process, e.g. in the
style of a treasure hunt game. We have developed a software for mobile phones that
can support such blogging, see [3].
3.4 Tracking Eye Gaze to Increase Reflection for Learners and Teachers
Currently we work on a system that tracks the reading behavior of learners. Using a
commercial eye tracker we analyze what and how students read. Based on this infor-
mation we hope to identify part of an electronic document that is really easy to read
and parts that are difficult to understand. Similarly we hope to find out which figures
increase the understanding for the learner. By providing feedback to teachers how
their material is read and viewed we hope to help them to reflect on their teaching ma-
terials. We have explored similar means for interaction tracking through monitoring
the mouse on Web based teaching materials using JavaScript.
3 http://www.hcilab.org/documents/videos.htm
194. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Our experience shows that there is a great potential to create new learning experiences
with new technologies. We can move classical learning more into exploration and dis-
covery and make the classroom more a concept than a physical room. Here mobile
technologies are key to move the classroom to the object of study. By these means
learning can become more engaging and hence motivation can be increased.
Novelty of methods and tools is good to increase the motivation. Moving learning
technologies into the physical domain and make the classroom mobile at times pro-
vides many new opportunities for creating novelty. This should be exploited.
Creating electronic exercise books, that may be structured, semi-structured or in free
form has become so easy, similarly to blogging. Having them electronically stored
provides many options for future uses (revising or even access in later life). Such ex-
ercise books can be customized to suit individual needs by utilizing personalization
concepts. Using technology to monitor use and provide feedback to improve teaching
becomes more and more feasible. The example of assessing reading materials implic-
itly by eye gaze tracking is just one example. Sensor network technologies and bio-
sensor offer a vast field for these applications. Telling how exciting certain material is,
based on pulse and galvanic skin response, is a further option that also shows the pri-
vacy concerns attached.
However with all the technologies at hand it should be remembered that learning re-
quires understanding and that there is a big difference between consuming and under-
standing. Technologies may fail if they do not reflect on the goals, as has been seen in
history with ideas of teaching by television.
Finally one further question remains. It is at the center of new teaching and learning
technologies. What do we need to teach in the future? Focusing on the means for
teaching without reflecting what we need to teach is likely to fail. On the other hand
when we know what we want to teach it is very likely to find a technology that effi-
ciently supports this!
20REFERENCES
[1] L. Terrenghi, M. Kranz, P. Holleis, A.
Schmidt. A Cube to Learn: a Tangible User
Interface for the Design of a Learning Ap-
pliance. The Third International Confer-
ence on Appliance Design 2005 (3AD) in
Bristol, UK, July 2005
[2] P. Holleis, M. Kranz, A. Winter, A.
Schmidt. Playing with the Real World. The
Journal of Virtual Reality and Broadcasting,
April 2006.
[3] A. Schmidt, E. Rukzio, E. Vodvarsky, A.
De Luca. JaGD - A Photo Oriented Learn-
ing and Gaming Platform for Mobile
Phones.Adjunct Proc. of Ubicomp 2005
(Poster)
21Supporting Children’s Small
Group Storytelling with Sin-
gle Display Groupware
Giulia Gelmini, University of Nottingham, UK
PROBLEM SPACE
Research has demonstrated the benefits of small group work on pupils’ social, emo-
tional and cognitive achievement [1, 8, 9, 10, 12]. Moreover, small group work in
primary classrooms has been increasingly promoted by government agencies1. In the
U.K., special emphasis is put on the importance of working with others: a number of
key skills are stressed across the National Curriculum including the ability to contrib-
ute to small-group discussion, to work effectively with others, consider different per-
spectives as well as listen, understand and respond appropriately to others 2.
Despite this growing emphasis on group work, there seems to be a discrepancy be-
tween academic research arguing for the benefits of small group work in the class-
room on one side, and the reality of everyday practice where small group work is of-
ten looked at by practitioners as challenging. Teachers’ concerns about the difficulties
of implementing group work in classrooms include: loss of control, ‘free rider’ epi-
sodes, class management, failure to get everyone involved [4, 6]. Galton et al. [4]
showed that a general trend in U.K. primary classrooms is for pupils to sit in groups,
but not to actually work as groups. This means that, although classroom seating is of-
ten arranged in order to support group work, children engage in predominantly indi-
1 http://www.eurydice.org/
2 http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/foundation_stage
22vidual work. In this paper, we look at the impact of a StoryTable, a system designed to
support collaborative storytelling, on small group processes and outcomes.
RESEARCH OVERVIEW
An example where the use of technology has been considered as a mediating artefact
in primary school classrooms is Pogo [2], a suite of distributed technological artefacts
to support classroom collaborative storytelling. KidStory [11] is another project ex-
ploring the use of technology for classroom. Both projects focus on children collabo-
ration at the classroom level. They emphasise how distributed tools facilitate peer col-
laboration, allowing for different roles to emerge.
However, these studies do not specifically address small group collaboration with re-
spect to the challenges described above. Hence, we set off to investigate how technol-
ogy could be applied to small group work in order to: (1) encourage equal participa-
tion and (2) encourage on-task behaviour
STORYTABLE
StoryTable is a large tabletop shared interface where a variety of different virtual ob-
jects (widgets) can be dragged and dropped across the screen. The system can be de-
fined a Single Display Groupware, in that it supports group collaborative work on a
single display. It is unique with respect to three main features:
Hardware: Unlike standard desktop applications, StoryTable employs a larger (79 cm
diagonal) touch-screen.
Software: the system is able to detect multiple, concurrent user inputs as well as de-
termining exactly who and where each user is touching. (Diamond Touch [3])
GUI: the interface presents some graphical representations which are aimed at sup-
porting story structuring and different contributions integration. Children can play
with different characters and backgrounds and record individual story parts into a mi-
crophone. Each story part is ‘stored’ into a ‘Snippet’, which is a graphical representa-
tion of the recorded audio snippet. When a child records his story bit into a Snippet,
23Fig. 1 The StoryTable GUI interface
Fig. 2 Children’s storytelling with StoryTable.
the Snippet takes a colour which identifies the child; this allows each child to identify
who created which story part. The audio content of each Snippet can be erased and re-
recorded. A total of 6 Snippets can be recorded. Each Snippet can be positioned onto
the PlayList, which is composed of 6 slots, each accommodating one Snippet; when
children want to listen to a sequence of Snippets, they need to position them onto the
PlayList.
24We conducted a case study involving 2 children (a boy and a girl, 8 years old): they
were first instructed to use the system, then they were given some time to practice sto-
rytelling with the system, and finally asked to create a story together with the system,
a story together without the system, and one individual story each without the system.
Physical props (story characters and settings) were provided for storytelling without
the system.
RESULTS
Story-telling: outcomes
Girl Boy Together, No Story- Together,
alone alone Table StoryTable
Nb of episodes 12 5 Boy: 0 Boy: 3
Girl: 0 Girl: 3
41 7 Boy: 0 Boy: 3
Girl: 41 Girl: 7
Table 1
Table 1 shows that how the boy’s active involvement in the story-telling outcome in
the StoryTable condition is higher than in any other condition. Participation is more
equally distributed among the two children, both in terms of number of sentences and
episodes.
Story-making: process
The process of story-making was also analysed. Children’s utterances were coded ac-
cording to Halliday’s taxonomy of linguistic functions [5]: regulatory utterances are
25used to regulate others’ behaviours (e.g. ‘Pass me my glasses’, ‘It’s your turn’), heu-
ristic utterances are directed at exploring the environment (e.g. ‘We have 4 characters
we can play with’), and imaginative utterances are aimed at creating imaginary story
worlds (e.g. ‘The princess is locked in the tower’). The proportion of Imaginative ut-
terances over heuristic and regulatory utterances is considered as a measure of on task
behaviour: the higher the ratio, the more children are focused on the storytelling task.
Collaborative Collaborative
Story without Story with Sto-
StoryTable ryTable
Regulatory boy 4 4
girl 1 1
Heuristic boy 2 2
girl 0 0
Imaginative boy 0 11
girl 25 25
Ratio: Imagina- boy 0/6 11/7
tive / Imagina-
tive + Heuristic + girl 25/6 21/22
Regulatory
Table 2
As Table 2 shows, the number of imaginative utterances over the total number of
(Imaginative + Heuristic + Regulatory) utterances increases dramatically for the boy
and decreases slightly for the girl across collaborative conditions (StoryTable VS no
StoryTable). This indicates that the boy is more focused on the task in the StoryTable
condition.
26DISCUSSION
This paper outlined some of the main problems with classroom work when children
are divided into small groups. StoryTable, a tabletop display system is described, and
the results of an exploratory study involving children creating stories together are de-
scribed. Children using StoryTable appeared to be more motivated to actively partici-
pate and more focused on the task both as to the collaborative processes and the out-
comes.
These results reflect Inkpen et al.’s finding [7] that children are more motivated to re-
main on task when playing together on a single machine, where simultaneous access
is possible.
Further research is needed in order to identify what features in the task as well as in
the StoryTable functionalities and interface are to be held accountable for these re-
sults. Specifically, potential features to be explored are:
- the use of a tabletop display where multiple, simultaneous access is possible;
- the use of a limited number of resources (in StoryTable, the limited number of avail-
able Snippets);
- the graphical representation of different story bits (Snippets) constituting a whole
story (in StoryTable, the PlayList);
- the coupling of a story bit with its author (in StoryTable, the author of each recorded
Snippet was identified by the colour of the snippet).
Finally, when all group members are actively contributing to a product, it is necessary
to promote reflection on each contribution in order to generate a coherent product.
More research is needed in order to investigate how to encourage participation whilst
ensuring that the product group work is a coherent integration of everyone’s contribu-
tion.
27REFERENCES
[1] Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the tions for practice, In School Psychology Re-
classroom: Conditions for productive small view, 20, pp. 110-121.
groups. In Review of Educational Research,
[9] O’Donnell, A.M. & King, A. (1999)
64(1), 1-35.
Cognitive perspectives on peer learning.
[2] Decortis, F., Rizzo, A., and Saudelli, B. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2003). Mediating effects of active and dis-
[10] Pellegrini, A.D. & Blatchford, P.
tributed instruments on narrative activities.
(2000) The Child at School: Interactions
In Interacting with Computers. Volume 15,
with peers and teachers, New York: Oxford
Issue 6 , pp. 801-830
University Press.
[3] Dietz, P.H.; Leigh, D.L. (2001) Dia-
[11] Stanton, D., Bayon, V., Neale, H.,
mondTouch: A Multi-User Touch Technol-
Ghali, A., Benford, S., Cobb, S., Ingram, R.,
ogy. In Proceedings of ACM UIST.
Wilson, J., Pridmore, T., & O'Malley, C.
[4] Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., (2001) Classroom Collaboration in the De-
Wall, D. & Pell, (1999), Inside the primary sign of Tangible Interfaces for Storytelling.
classroom: 20 years on. London: Rout- In Proceedings of CHI.
ledge.
[12] Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A.S. (1996).
[5] Halliday, M., (1973). Explorations in the Group processes in the classroom. In D.
functions of language, London: Arnold. Berliner and R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of
Educational Psychology, New York: Mac-
[6] Hastings, N. & Chantrey-Wood, K.
millan.
(2002), Reorganizing primary classroom
learning, Open University Press
[7] Inkpen, K.M., Ho-Ching, W., Kuederle,
O., Scott, S.D. & Shoemaker, G.B.D.
(1999). "This is fun! We’re all best friends
and we’re all playing": Supporting chil-
dren’s synchronous collaboration. Proceed-
ings of CSCL 99.
[8] Nastasi, B.K. & Clements, D.H. (1991),
Research on cooperative learning, implica-
28Sitting around Simple Objects
Frédéric Kaplan, Khaled Bachour, Son DoLenh, Gloria Kao Pierre Dillenbourg
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland
Among many others, there are two interesting paradoxes concerning the place of tech-
nology in the classroom. First, technology encounters difficulties to enter in the
school if it is labeled as educational. Technology has importantly affected all the
other aspects of our daily life from work to leisure, but paradoxically classrooms still
look much like they did 30 years ago. It’s not the case that teachers are intrinsically
technophobes. Most of them surf on the web, have a mobile phone, use mp3 players,
play with their children on a game console at home. It’s just that most of time such
technologies do not seem to find their place in the context of the classroom especially
if they are labeled as educational. There is a deeply rooted belief that educational
technology is mainly a distractor and that learning occurs better in simple, non techno-
logical environments through natural, face-to-face interactions. Indeed, and this is our
second paradox, some educational technologies can actually degrade casual social
learning. Individual-centered computer interactions (searching for information on the
web, interacting with a tutoring system or consulting a CD-room on a laptop or on one
of the classroom computers) have a tendency to withdraw the user from the social
space, as reading a book does. Interactions with such systems is private in the sense
that when one interacts with such systems, the others cannot tell precisely what he is
doing, how far along he is with his activity. Interacting with the system, he is not part
of the classroom community anymore. Although the presence of such technology is
meant to enrich individual learning experiences, it can also result in a degradation of
spontaneous casual social interactions, which are also known to be important in the
class.
29We believe that to have an chance of entering the classroom, educational technology
should therefore have a context of use larger than the strict educational
domain.We also believe that technological devices in the class should be public, i.e.
controlled through visible commands and producing shareable results. Finally we be-
lieve that technology should primarily augment natural interaction, adding new me-
dia features or offering additional tools that enrich the experience of interacting in
novel ways (Dillenbourg 2005). To do so, we have to design technological devices
that are both discreet and spectacular: discreet in the sense that they do not disturb
spontaneous natural interactions and integrate in a seamless manner in the classroom
physical and social environment (Tang, 1991), and spectacular by the effects they can
produce, like the hidden machinery of the theater stage.
What do you find in today’s classroom: tables, chairs, lamps, a black or white board
and sometimes books on shelves, various props and maybe, somewhere in the back of
class, a computer. Learning occurs around these simple objects. This is true for a
whole range of learning situations from class teamwork, to group projects, to more
casual forms of interaction occurring in informal settings. Therefore, simple objects
will be our starting point.
REFLECT: A TABLE THAT MIRRORS CONVERSATIONS
REFLECT is a table that monitors, via embedded microphones, the conversation tak-
ing place around it. In the middle of the table, a LED display presents participants
with a real-time visualization of structure of their interaction. The table acts as a group
mirror (Dillenbourg et al, 2002), simply showing what’s going on during the conversa-
tion. The current prototype displays the relative amount of speaking of each partici-
pants sitting around the table. It shows who has been taking the “floor” by represent-
ing a more or less extended colored zone around each speaker (see also Donath et al
1997, Basu 2002, DiMicco 2005). As such, this metaphorical representation is not a
normative one. Given the particular context of the meeting, it is maybe relevant that
one of the participant keeps the floor for a longer time than the others (e.g. he reports
about an experiment he just made). The display has therefore the same social function
30a
128 LED array
Mics
b
1
2
3
Reflect is a table equipped with a 128 LED display and microphones (a). The current prototype is seen used by a
group of students in a collaborative task (b). Three different moments in the conversation are shown: The first corre-
sponds to one participant speaking (1), the second to another speaker dominating the conversation for ten minutes
(2), the third to a balanced conversation (3). This prototype has been designed and built at EPFL.
31as a mirror : giving back a representation that may or or may not lead to some regula-
tory feedback process (in the same way that looking at the mirror before going to
work in the morning may or may not change our mind about what to wear). We are
currently extending the richness of the representation by investigating automatic ways
to detect conversation episodes through the recognition of specific micro-events (turn
taking, back-channel feedback like acknowledgment) using only prosodic features
(Ward and Tsukahara 2000).
REFLECT is an example of what we call a “mid-tech” approach based on simple,
cheap and robust pieces of technology. We have deliberately chosen not to equip the
table with a large and expensive hi-resolution tactile display. We believe that highly
detailed feedback is likely to be counter-productive for the group self-regulation. Stu-
dents should not view these tables as a computer display, but as furniture. Despite
their interactive nature, these tables should be primarily used as normal tables.
DOCKLAMP: A TANGIBLE GROUPWARE EMBEDDED IN AN INTERAC-
TIVE LAMP
Why should a lamp produce only light? With the recent advances in LED projector
miniaturization, it is now possible to consider lamps that could project not only light
but also images and videos. DOCKLAMP is a smart lamp that can act notably as a
lamp but also as a novel type of interface permitting augmented interaction on a table-
top. The lamp’s head is equipped with a tiny beamer and a camera and the lamp’s ba-
sis is a mini-pc, with a WIFI antenna.
One of the first software we developed for this system permits users to share displays
just by pressing a button on the lamp’s base. In a prototypical situations, six students
work together on shared projects sitting around a table. They actively discuss a par-
ticular plan for the project presented by one of them. Instead of using a standard video
projector, they use the lamp to project the presenter’s laptop. The image of the presen-
tation is projected on the tabletop; its orientation can easily be changed by turning the
head of the lamp. This type of projection fosters group discussion and prevents the
feeling of passivity associated with projected presentations. As the discussion goes on,
one of the student using his own laptop has just found a relevant resource on the
32a
b
c
DockLamp: 3 initial prototypes (a), projection using the lamp (b), unfolding the lamp and turing its
head (c). Design: EPFL / Martino d’Esposito (Ecole Cantonale d’Art de Lausanne), Construction of
physical prototype: Ecole Technique - Ecole des Metiers de Lausanne
33Internet. Instead of turning his laptop around to show the information to the other par-
ticipants, he just pushes the central button of the lamp to project his own laptop on the
tabletop. This is a public gesture, understood by the others as “I’m interrupting to
show you something relevant”. As the lamp is also equipped with a camera, we are
currently exploring novel ways of interacting with the projected image using a multi-
finger detection system. This opens the possibility for many augmented reality appli-
cations such as interaction with projected buttons, contextual pop-up menus, manipu-
lation of projected images using several fingers, interaction with projected virtual
characters, mixed reality games, etc. (Crowley et al 2000). Last but not least, this
smart lamp can also be simply used as a lamp.
These two projects embody our current philosophy for addressing the challenge of
enriching learning experiences using technological artifacts: to take simple everyday
objects already present in learning spaces and enrich them with discreet and spectacu-
lar features. Both devices have an application scope larger than the strict educational
domain and can be used seamlessly while engaged in face-to-face natural interaction.
This is why we believe they could find their place in the classrooms of the future.
Acknowledgements
We thank Annick Plancherel who has been working on the software of the DOCK-
LAMP.
34REFERENCES
Basu, S. (2002) Conversational Scene ternational Journal of Man-Machine Stud-
Analysis. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Insti- ies, 34 ( 2 ) p. 143-160
tute of Technology.
Ward, N.; Tsukahara, W.: Prosodic features
Crowley, J., Coutaz, J. and Bérard, F. Per- which cue back-channel responses in Eng-
ceptual user interfaces: things that see lish and Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 32:
(2000), Communications of the ACM, 1177-1207 (2000).
43(3), p. 54 - 64
Dillenbourg, P., Ott, D., Wehrle, T., Bour-
quin, Y., Jermann, P., Corti, D. & Salo, P.
(2002). The socio-cognitive functions of
community mirrors. In F. Flückiger, C.
Jutz, P. Schulz and L. Cantoni (Eds). Pro-
ceedings of the 4th International Confer-
ence on New Educational Environments.
Lugano, May 8-11, 2002.
Dillenbourg, P. (2005) Designing biases
that augment socio-cognitive interactions,
in Bromme, R. Hesse, F. and Spada, H. Bar-
riers and biases in computer-mediated
knowledge communication, Springer,
p.243-264
DiMicco, J. M. (2005) Changing Small
Group Interaction through Visual Reflec-
tions of Social Behavior. PhD thesis, Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology.
Donath, J., Karahalios, K., and Viégas, F.
Visualizing Conversation. Journal of Com-
puter Mediated Communication 2 (4),1997.
Tang, J. ( 1991 ): Findings from Observa-
tional Studies of Collaborative Work. In-
35Media Enriched Scenarios: An
Approach to Evolve Schools by
Empowering Teachers
Andreas Lingnau, Knowledge Media Research Center, Tübingen, Germany
In the last decade, several official programmes were conducted in most industrial
countries to equip schools, make computers accessible to every pupil and achieve a
complete connection to the Internet for schools. But just providing the technological
environment does not mean that this potential is put to a good use and enhances in-
struction in schools.
The Second PISA-Study (OECD, 2004) has shown that not only in Germany the ma-
jority of pupils at the age of 15 never experienced computers in schools as expedient
tools for everyday life or learning purposes, although they are well experienced in us-
ing computers at home. The scientists who delivered the PISA study come to the con-
clusion that the reason for this lack of knowledge is amongst others an insufficient use
of computers in schools and in some countries deficient equipment.
One reason why the introduction of computers in the classroom failed in many cases
is the lack of a scenario which takes into account the individual needs of both, teach-
ers and learners. For a successful tool development process it is necessary to bring to-
gether teachers, researchers and software developers to guarantee that the “product”
which will be introduced to the classroom will cover the expertise of all three groups
in a complementary way and fulfil the expectation of the teacher regarding usability,
flexibility and domain specific content.
36Added value gained by the use of information technology is for example the unre-
strained availability of notes taken during class, which can be stored persistently,
whereas notes on the chalk board are usually lost after the lesson was finished (Hoppe,
1999). A more profound enhancement can be achieved by the use of computer-based
simulation and modelling tools, which can be used creatively, collaboratively and in-
teractively (see fig. 1). In some cases they could also be an addition to conventional
instruction, where real experiments (e.g. in physics or chemistry) are either too dan-
gerous, expensive, or just not practical (Kuhn, 2006).
In this talk an approach of augmenting grown structures of teaching by using innova-
tive technology and collaborative software tools designed for the special needs of
teachers and learners will be presented. Starting with experiences from the European
project NIMIS (1998-2000) which focused on the domain of literacy in primary
schools in the project SEED (2001-2004) examples were given for using technology
without redefining well suited pedagogic methods or changing the learning content.
Together with a community of secondary school teachers we have elaborated on class-
room experiments which give an added value for both teachers and learners.
Figure 1 Using collaborative modelling tools in a German language lesson
37Finally a third project, which started in 2006, will be introduced. Using the comple-
mentary design strategy elaborated in the SEED project, a small group containing of
researchers, teachers and software developers are aiming at developing a complete
learning platform for pupils with learning disability (mental retardation). This will be
delivered to and used in all schools for pupils with learning disability (mental retarda-
tion) in the German federal state of Baden-Württemberg, bundled with recommenda-
tions how to set-up learning scenarios and enrich already existing computer class-
rooms with innovative hardware.
38REFERENCES
H. U. Hoppe, W. Luther, M. Mühlenbrock,
W. Otten, F. Tewissen (1999). Interactive
Presentation Support for an Electronic Lec-
ture Hall - a practice report. In Advanced
Research in Computers and Communica-
tions in Education. G. Cumming et al.
(Eds.). IOS Press 1999. pp. 923-930.
M. Kuhn, H.U. Hoppe, A. Lingnau, A.
Wichmann. Computational modelling and
simulation fostering new approaches in
learning probability. Innovations in Educa-
tion & Teaching International (IETI). 43,2.
2006. pp. 183-194.
OECD (2004). Learning for Tomorrow's
World: First Results from PISA 2003.
OECD.
39Contextual Collaboration in
Classrooms
Martin Wessner, Fraunhofer IPSI, Germany
The talk will cover some recent research and developments at Fraunhofer IPSI. With
ConcertStudeo we developed a system which uses an electronic whiteboard and hand-
helds in order to support collaboration, testing and feedback in the classroom. In the
L³ project and recently in the APOSDLE project we developed the concept of contex-
tual collaboration in (virtual) learning environments and a collaboration platform.
Contextual collaboration includes support for selecting tools, material, peers, proc-
esses depending on the knowledge a system has about the current situation.
40Designing the Connected
Classroom
Jeffrey Huang, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland
In this talk I will discuss the lessons learned from designing "connected classrooms"
i.e., classrooms that link to other locations. Through concrete case studies, I will iden-
tify the problems of designing spaces for learning, in the increasingly frequent situa-
tion where the audience, the lecturer, or the guests are not all physically present, and
present and review potential architectural solutions. Specific issues addressed include
location and choreography of input and output devices in the classroom, the articula-
tion of identities and presence of remote participants, and micro-synchronicity.
Jeffrey Huang is the Director of the Media and Design Laboratory at the Swiss Federal In-
stitute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL), and a Full Professor at the School of Computer and
Communications Sciences, and the School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engi-
neering. His research investigates the possibility of combining physical architecture and in-
formation structures to create new, convergent architectures. Recent projects include a pro-
totype physical/virtual consulate for knowledge exchange in Boston, interactive wallpapers
in Beijing, and classrooms of the future in Washington DC. Huang was professor at Harvard
University, Visiting Fellow at the D.SCHOOL at Stanford University, and Designer-in-
Residence at Fuji Xerox Research Lab in Palo Alto. A native of Rome, Italy, and a Swissciti-
zen of Chinese origins, Huang received his Master's and Doctoral degrees from Harvard
University, where he was awarded the Gerald McCue Medal.
41Digital Culture Heritage to
Support Learning in Commu-
nities
Lily Diaz-Kommonen, University of Art & Design Helsinki, Finland
Cultural heritage is a broad term used to refer to forms of cultural and artistic expres-
sion inherited from the near or distant past of a given country or cultural area. As pre-
cious evidence, cultural heritage is seen both as a record and manifestation of human
presence throughout history. The use of digital practices in the creation, recording, and
preservation of cultural heritage artifacts now makes it possible to also create digital
cultural heritage.
Tangible heritage includes the multiple physical expressions created by human cul-
tures. Intangible heritage – also referred to as living heritage – refers to “practices and
representations, expressions, as well as the knowledge and skills that communities,
groups and individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage.”1 This heritage
comprising oral traditions, myths, and narratives, rituals, as well as festive events, is
also being created and rendered using digital media.
In my paper I want to elaborate on the use of digital cultural heritage to support edu-
cational processes in the classroom. I propose that the use of these digital resources in
combination with virtual institutions such as museum websites and other types of cul-
tural heritage forums, enables educators to take advantage of informal and unstruc-
tured learning opportunities. This is done through the use of collaborative methods
that bring together diverse Communities of Practice (CoPs).
1 http://whc.unesco.org/en/about (August 25, 2006)
42You can also read
