Successfully reported this slideshow.
Understanding technology-rich learning
                                  support other uses that the researchers expected.                  How do people inter...
                                  continue for another 6 months. The collected data          walk in and use it and stud...
                                  way, the technology was patrolled and used by the               out in three novel tec...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5



Published on

CRC PhD Conference, Open University

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. Understanding technology-rich learning spaces Nadia Pantidi Yvonne Rogers Introduction In the last few years, a substantial amount of funding 2010 CRC PhD Student Conference The Open University, The Open University, Walton Hall. Walton Hall. has been allocated to schools and universities in the Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA Milton Keynes, MK76AA world, but especially the UK, for creating new ‘technology-rich’ learning spaces. These new spaces Page 74 of 125 have been proposed as examples of future places for Hugh Robinson supporting and enhancing informal and formal learning, The Open University, collaboration, creativity and socialising [4]. However, Walton Hall. little is known as to whether these claims are being Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA realized in actual practice. This research is examining how and whether they are used, focusing on the interdependence of physical space, furniture and Abstract technology configuration. A number of novel technology-rich learning spaces have been developed over the last few years. Many claims have Background been made in terms of how they can support and enhance Several studies of technology situated in educational learning, collaboration, community participation, and settings have been carried out that focus on creativity. This line of research is investigating whether understanding how technology affects users’ everyday such learning spaces are living up to such claims. The life and vice versa; and whether the technology serves approach is ethnographic; a number of field studies have the purposes it was designed for. Findings from these been conducted examining how people use the spaces in studies have been mixed. For example, Brignull et al. practice. Findings so far have shown that the positioning of [1] implemented Dynamo, a large multi-user the technology, flexibility and a sense of ownership and interactive surface to enable the sharing and exchange control over the technology are key issues. of a wide variety of digital media, in the common room of a high school and report that users appropriated the Keywords functionality of the display in a way that was consistent Technology-rich learning spaces, ethnographic with the space’s previous use. Moreover, it did not approach, designed and actual use Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
  2. 2. 2 support other uses that the researchers expected. How do people interact with each other and the Similarly, McDonald et al. [3], situated three proactive technology? displays in an academic conference to augment the What insights emerge for the use of the participants’ interactions; specifically to enhance the technology by understanding the use of the feeling of community, facilitate social networking and physical space? future collaborations. Findings from this study showed To address these questions, in situ ethnographic that people appropriated the technology by extending studies have been carried out on three multi-purpose its use in an innovative and fun way which conflicted technology-rich settings, called Dspace, Qspace, with the common practices and social conventions Cspase. Dspace was designed as a technology-rich already in place and thus, led to negative comments space set in a library on a university campus. It was about the application. More dramatically, a study created as a creative play area for visitors to evaluating the use of interactive whiteboards in UK experiment with and explore new ideas and share 2010 CRC PhD Student Conference schools found no significant impact on the pupils’ knowledge; a space that brings together new performance relating to the use of interactive technologies and ideas on how they could be used for whiteboards [2]. learning and teaching now or in the future. Qspace, is a Page 75 of 125 large space that was designed to support a variety of Much research to date has focused on single technology planned learning activities (e.g. workshops) to enable interventions, where a public display or interactive groups of individuals to come together within a high whiteboard has been placed in a pre-existing space to technology environment to communicate their ideas serve a specific purpose/functionality. However, there and generate their designs in a creative way. It is a are learning spaces that have been designed from blank space that can be re-shaped physically and scratch to be ‘technology-rich’ and where their spatial technologically depending on the activity that takes and technological design is intended to be much place. The space was deliberately designed to be broader (e.g. Saltire Center, CILASS). An assortment of technologically-rich as a means of promoting creativity new technologies and furniture have been configured to and supporting collaboration in innovative ways. create new learning spaces. This research focuses on Cspace, was designed as a study space for students to how successful these multi-purpose spaces have been work together both during lab sessions and in their own in supporting what they were designed for. The time. It is a flexible technology-rich working questions addressed are: environment that allows multiple ‘study’ activities including teaching, programming, hardware What are the differences between anticipated experimentation, and facilitated discussions. and actual use (if any)? What is the nature of the interactional work in Methodology these novel spaces? The method used is ethnographic involving participant How do people behave and interact with the observation and semi-structured interviews. A series of space? ethnographic studies was carried out in the different settings throughout the last 18 months and will
  3. 3. 3 continue for another 6 months. The collected data walk in and use it and students were allowed to ‘plug consist of fieldnotes (made during or after the and play’ with their personal devices (laptops, mp3 observational sessions), audio and video recordings, players, mobiles) and combine them with the existing still pictures and documents. The data is analyzed and technology of the space (figure 1). This technological interpreted in terms of prevailing themes and tensions flexibility, among other things, contributed to the occurring between desired, actual and anticipated use. Cspace becoming a ‘hot spot’; a cosy learning space where students feel comfortable experimenting with Findings technology and at the same time engaging in their As a result of the ethnographic approach, a rich everyday social and work activities. description has been achieved providing a unique understanding of the three settings’ everyday use. In general, findings from all settings show how people 2010 CRC PhD Student Conference appropriate technology-rich learning spaces quite differently from what the designers or managers have planned or anticipated. Additionally, a more in depth Page 76 of 125 examination of the findings provides a selection of interdependent vignettes that offer insights on critical issues such as the use of technology, the appropriation of the physical space, groupwork and individual work, private and public aspects of interaction and the community of users. Figure 1. On the left students are collaborating by using the SmartBoard for shared content and the laptops and tablet PCs Regarding the use of the technology, the insights for private use; on the right, one of the students is using his emerging so far suggest that for technology-rich iPhone and his personal tablet PC in combination with the learning spaces to be successful, they need to be existing technology. flexible (supporting fluid transitions from individual work to group work and from public to private use), In contrast, Qspace proved to be rather technologically lightweight (users moving between the spaces’ and inflexible. The majority of activities involving their own devices) and accessible (providing to the technology, during the event observed, were limited to users the option to control, take ownership over the the managers of the space manipulating the lights via a technology). For instance, fieldwork data showed that display interface. The actual users did not appropriate Cspace was set up in a way that offered the students or interact with the technology, as they didn’t have the freedom to choose how and when to use it. The direct access to it. The reason for this is that before any technology in the space consisted both of laptops/tablet use of the space the managers are pre-setting how the PCs and SmartBoards providing users the option to technology can be used depending on the needs of the switch between individual and group work, and also to event or the users. In addition, users are discouraged share (public) or not (private) their work with others. from using their own laptops or other devices in Moreover, the technology was ‘out there’ for anyone to combination with the spaces’ existing technology. In a
  4. 4. 4 way, the technology was patrolled and used by the out in three novel technology-rich learning spaces. Our managers, and it was only ‘post hoc’ available to the findings so far suggest that for these spaces to support actual users. informal and formal learning, collaboration, creativity and socialising, issues such as the spatial arrangement, Another critical element for successful technology-rich flexibility and accessibility of the technology need to be learning spaces seems to be the physical arrangement considered. Future work involves further in situ studies of the technology in the space; specific spaces or to a variety of similar settings with the aim to develop a physical layouts bear established associations and set of design guidelines and concerns for those involved etiquettes that can affect the way users interact with or in developing ‘learning spaces’ and ‘classrooms of the appropriate the technology. For example, in Dspace it future’. was found that despite the abundance of technology and the many motivating cues and clues, its use was References 2010 CRC PhD Student Conference limited. The technology was not experimented or [1] Brignull, H., Izadi, S., Fitzpatrick, G., Rogers, Y., played with in the ways planned for [5]. A plausible and Rodden, T. The introduction of a shared interactive explanation for this, based on the collected data, has to surface into a communal space. Proc. CSCW 2004, ACM Page 77 of 125 do with the positioning of the technology in the space; Press (2004). most of the devices were placed on shelves (Figure 2), creating the impression that they were for display only, [2] Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., and thus discouraging potential users from interacting with Winterbottom, M. Pedagogical strategies for using the them. interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32 (3), (2007), 283–301. [3] McDonald, D.W., McCarthy, J.F., Soroczak, S., Nguyen, D.H., and Rashid, A.M. Proactive displays: Supporting awareness in fluid social environments. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction, 14 (4), Article 16, (2008). [4] Oblinger, D. Learning Spaces. Educause, 2006. Figure 2. A collection of mobile phones for users to interact with and experiment are displayed on shelves. [5] Pantidi, N., Robinson, H.M., and Rogers, Y. Can Conclusion technology-rich spaces support multiple uses?. Proc. This paper discusses briefly a selection of findings British CHI Group Annual Conference on HCI (2), BCS emerging from a series of ethnographic studies carried (2008), 135-138.