MLEARN 2003: learning with mobile devices...Evaluation of a mobile learning organiser 60 and concept mapping tools Mike Sharples, Tony Chan, Paul Rudman and Susan Bull Early footsteps

MLEARN 2003learning with mobile devices

www.LSDA.org.uk/events/mlearn2003

Conference organiser

book of abstractsfor the second annual MLEARN conference

19–20 May 2003

edited by Jill Attewell, Giorgio Da Bormida,

Mike Sharples and Carol Savill-Smith

MLEARN 2003learning with mobile devices

www.LSDA.org.uk/events/mlearn2003

Conference organiser

book of abstractsfor the second annual MLEARN conference

19–20 May 2003

edited by Jill Attewell, Giorgio Da Bormida,

Mike Sharples and Carol Savill-Smith

Published by the Learning and Skills Development Agency

www.LSDA.org.uk

Feedback should be sent to:Information ServicesLearning and Skills Development AgencyRegent Arcade House19–25 Argyll StreetLondon W1F 7LS.Tel 020 7297 9144Fax 020 7297 [email protected]

Registered with the Charity Commissioners

Designers: Dave Shaw and Joel QuarteyCover illustrator: Joel QuarteyCover photographs used with the permission of Creatas (Stockbyte:Student daze) and IPM Group (‘My friend’ e-book reader)Printer: Stephen Austin and Sons Ltd, Hertford, Hertfordshire

1421/05/03/550

ISBN 1 85338 855 6

© Learning and Skills Development Agency 2003

Unless otherwise stated, the copyright for individual papers isretained by the author(s). You are welcome to copy this publication for internal use within your organisation. Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical,chemical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright owner.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and are not necessarily held by the Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Further information

For further information about the issues discussed in this publication please contact:Jill Attewellm-Learning Programme managerLearning and Skills Development Agency.Tel 020 7297 [email protected]

This publication was supported by the Learning and Skills Council

as part of a grant to the Learning and Skills Development Agency

for a programme of research and development.

Contents

Foreword

Introduction 1

m-Learning and social inclusion: 2focusing on the learners and learningJill Attewell and Carol Savill-Smith

Evaluating non functional requirements in mobile learning 4contents and multimedia educational softwareGianna Avellis, Antonio Scaramuzzi and Anthony Finkelstein

Self-produced video to augment peer-to-peer learning 6Eva Brandt, Per-Anders Hillgren and Erling Bjarki Björgvinsson

Individualised revision material for use on 8a handheld computerSusan Bull and Eileen Reid

Take a bite: producing accessible learning materials 10for mobile devicesJo Colley

Using participatory design in development of 12mobile learning environmentsKarin Danielsson, Ulf Hedestig, Maria Juslin and Carl Johan Orre

Using mobile devices for the classroom of the future 14Peter Dawabi, Martin Wessner and Erich Neuhold

A ‘learning space’ model to examine the suitability 16for learning of mobile technologiesPhilip Glew, Giasemi N Vavoula, Chris Baber and Mike Sharples

A wireless and adaptive navigation site to educate 18ICT college studentsPaul Graham

Using portable technology in UK schools 20for teaching and learningBob Harrison

Knowledge management within M-Learning environments 22John Hayes

Collaboration and roles in remote field trips 24Nick Hine, Marcus Specht and Rosaleen Rentoul

A framework for managing rights for mobile learning content 27Renato Iannella and Oliver Bremer

Learning can happen anywhere: 28a mobile system for language learningVaida Kadyte

Designing for learning or designing for fun? 30Setting usability guidelines for mobile educational gamesMaria Kambouri, Siobhan Thomas and Gareth Schott

Mobile learning as a tool for inclusive lifelong learning 32Terry Keefe

Text messaging in practice 34Lilian Kennedy and David Sugden

A context awareness architecture 36for facilitating mobile learningPeter Lonsdale, Chris Baber and Mike Sharples

SMILE: the creation of space for interaction through 38blended digital technologyRose Luckin, Diane Brewster, Darren Pearce, Richard Siddons-Corby and Benedict du Boulay

GCSE revision with mobile phones: 40developing a Java-based quiz gameWolf Luecker and Chris Ash

Learning tools for Java-enabled phones: 42an application to actuarial studiesMaría Cruz Mayorga-Toledano and Antonio Fernández-Morales

Learning ‘2go’: making reality of the scenarios? 44Louise Mifsud

Exploring the potential of a game implementation 46for m-PortalAlice Mitchell and Kris Popat

Mobile learning as a service offering 48with near-term technologiesChris Noessel

Motivation in mobile modern foreign language learning 50Hamish Norbrook and Paul Scott

Fragmentation in mobile learning 52Marika Pehkonen, Antti Syvänen and Hanne Turunen

Tate Modern multimedia tour pilots 2002–2003 54Nancy Proctor and Jane Burton

Usability and accessibility of PDAs in education 56Peter Rainger

Evaluating a low specification wirelessly connected 58Palm Pilot as a means of supporting learning: a pilot study from the University of BristolAndy Ramsden

Evaluation of a mobile learning organiser 60and concept mapping toolsMike Sharples, Tony Chan, Paul Rudman and Susan Bull

Early footsteps and next steps: 62‘m-learning’ with disengaged young peopleGeoff Stead

Designing scalable, effective M-Learning 64for multiple technologiesAndy Stone and David Livingstone

A task-centred approach to evaluating a 66mobile learning environment for pedagogical soundnessJosie Taylor

MLearning: making reality from hype 68Steve Tonge

m-Learning: evaluating the effectiveness and cost 70John Traxler

A critical approach to an adaptive user interface design 72Teija Vainio and Mikko Ahonen

Wireless all the way: user’s feedback on education 74through online PDAsPetra Wentzel and Patris van Boxel

Mobile cinematic presentations in a museum guide 76Massimo Zancanaro, Oliviero Stock and Ivana Alfaro

Author index 79

Acknowledgements

Conference chairs

Jill Attewell, m-learning project coordinator

Giorgio Da Bormida, MOBIlearn project coordinator

Professor Mike Sharples, University of Birmingham

Conference programme committee

Dr Theodoros N Arvanitis, MOBIlearn project, University of Birmingham, UK

Jill Attewell, m-learning project coordinator, Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA), UK

Giancarlo Bo, MOBIlearn project, GIUNTI Ricerca, Italy

Giorgio Da Bormida, coordinator of the MOBIlearn project, GIUNTI Ricerca, Italy

Dr Ingo Dahn, Department of Computer Science, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany

Kevin Donovan, Development Adviser ILT, Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA), UK

Dr Michael Gardner, Institute for Socio-Technical Innovation and Research (Chimera), University of Essex, UK

Terry Keefe, ICT Research and Development, UfI Learndirect, UK

Dr Paul Lefrere, Institute of Educational Technology (IET), Open University, UK

John O’Donoghue, the Learning Lab, University of Wolverhampton, UK

Dr Vanessa Pittard, Department for Education and Skills (DfES), UK Government

Dr Carol Savill-Smith, m-learning project, Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA), UK

Professor Mike Sharples, MOBIlearn project, University of Birmingham, UK

David Traub, Epiphany Partners, USA

Foreword

Welcome to MLEARN 2003, the second annual MLEARN conference. I amdelighted the two Information Society Directorate-General supportedmobile learning projects – m-learning and MOBIlearn – have collaboratedto organise this conference. In addition to disseminating their ownwork it provides a showcase for everyone carrying out research anddevelopment work in the fascinating new area of mlearning.

The Information Society Directorate-General is playing a key role inimplementing the ’vision’, set by Europe's heads of state in Lisbon in 2000, to make Europe the world's most competitive and dynamiceconomy, characterised by sustainable growth, more and better jobsand greater social cohesion, by 2010. The eEurope action planrecognises that to realise this vision advanced and easily accessibleInformation Society Technologies (IST) will have to permeateEuropean business and society. Strategies being employed by theDirectorate-General to achieve this include stimulating research intoInformation Society Technologies which can be integrated into thecitizen’s everyday environment, business and administration andsupporting initiatives that encourage and enable all European citizensto benefit from, and participate in, the Information Society.

Those working in mlearning share a vision of citizens enabled to take part in learning activities in any location at any time and toengage in that learning singly or collaboratively at a pace that suitstheir particular circumstances and needs. This complements thevision of the IST programme that our surroundings can be theinterface to a universe of integrated services enabling EU citizens to access IST services wherever they are, whenever they want, and in the form that is most ‘natural’ for them.

The Technology Enhanced Learning Unit concentrates on promotingthe value that information technologies and new media add tolearning processes, through the research projects funded under the IST programmes. Our work marries technological, cognitive,pedagogical and organisational aspects, with the emphasis ontechnology as facilitator of the learning process, across different formaland informal learning contexts, whether in schools, universities, industry,or for lifelong learning. Our specific vision is that of empoweringindividuals and organisations to build the competences needed forthem to perceive and exploit the ubiquitous learning opportunities oftomorrow's knowledge society. I am therefore particularly pleased tofind commercial companies, including experts in content development,represented among the conference presenters and delegates.

I hope you will find the MLEARN 2003 conference stimulating,rewarding and informative and that you will all meet again atMLEARN 2004, which the m-learning and MOBIlearn projects are planning to hold in Rome next year.

Patricia Manson

Head of Unit, Technology Enhanced LearningEuropean Commission Information Society Directorate-General

Introduction

On behalf of the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) a warm welcome to MLEARN 2003 – Learning with mobile devices.LSDA has led the organisation of this conference in collaboration with colleagues from the MOBIlearn project. LSDA is the coordinatingpartner of the m-learning project, which is developing and evaluatingprototype mobile learning products, services and support mechanismsfor young adults who are not currently engaged in education or training,many of whom have literacy and numeracy development needs.LSDA is a strategic national resource for the development of policy,practice and research in post-16 education and training in the UK. Our work is supported by the UK government’s Department forEducation and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council in England.

I am very happy that we have been so successful in achieving ourmain aim for the conference, that of bringing together practitioners,developers and researchers from educational and commercialorganisations around the world who share an interest in learning with mobile devices.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to theconference programme committee for all their hard work in puttingtogether the very exciting conference programme. This includesresearch papers and sessions in which developers present anddiscuss their achievements and work in progress. Alongside theconference sessions you will find exhibition stands showcasing thework and products of various organisations active in mobile learning.

Summaries of all conference sessions can be found in this book of abstracts and full papers will be published in the MLEARN 2003conference proceedings. Contributors were asked to submit abstractsaround the themes of: researching and/or evaluating mobile learning;innovation in concept, design and pedagogy; supporting andengaging the mobile learner; ambient intelligence; the developmentof content and learning materials; learning management systems; the development of international standards; contextual learning;situated collaborative learning and blended learning. As a result wehave a varied and interesting range of content for both the conferenceand later publication, thus ensuring continuing debate after the event.

I hope you will enjoy the conference, find it inspiring and take the opportunity to network and to share and discuss new ideas and developments in mobile learning.

Kate Anderson

Director of ResearchLearning and Skills Development Agency, UK

Book of abstracts 1

m-Learning and Social Inclusion – Focussing on Learners and Learning

Jill AttewellLearning and Skills Development

AgencyRegent Arcade House, 19-25 Argyll

Street, London W1F 7LSEmail: [email protected]

Carol Savill-SmithLearning and Skills Development

AgencyRegent Arcade House, 19-25 Argyll

Street, London W1F 7LSEmail: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper describes how technologies in thehands of young adults (16-24), now and in thenear future, might be used to engage them inlearning activities, start to change their attitudesto learning and contribute towards improvingtheir literacy, numeracy and life chances. Theauthors are part of the m-learning project.

Keywords:m-Learning, mobile phones, handheld

devices, social inclusion, basic skills

1. Our starting pointIn 1999 in the UK one in five adults was found

to have “less literacy than is expected of an 11-year-old" (Moser, 1999). Two years later UKgovernment figures revealed that "of the580,000 or so 16-year-olds who leave schooleach year, around 150,000 are below Level 1 inboth Maths and English” and “22% of theseyoung people do not go on to training or workafter they leave school” (DfEE, 2001). Thestatistics illustrate that this is an intractableproblem and imaginative and innovativeapproaches are needed to bring aboutimprovements. One such approach could be m-learning.

2. Early investigationsThe m-learning project includes several

research strands. In phase one the LSDAresearch included:

• Research reviews focussing on the use ofmobile phones, palmtop computers andcomputer games

• A survey of 746 young adult mobile phoneusers across the UK exploring users’attitudes towards their mobiles and initialreactions to a phone-based game whichmight help them with reading, spelling ormaths.

Research by other project partners hasfocussed on technologies, standards, learnerand knowledge modelling, small-scale usertrials of learning materials and userinterfaces/microportals.

3. Our findingsThe research review highlighted the

universal spread of the mobile. Theoverwhelming majority in our target age inproject partner countries (UK, Italy andSweden) own mobiles (Brown et al, 2002).Internationally many developing countries areleap-frogging conventional fixed line telephonyto adopt mobiles (Townsend, 2000) and withinthese countries mobile users are not only thewealthy but include some very poor andexcluded groups (Mutula, 2002).

The personal nature of the phone, itsconstant presence on or about the user’sperson, the types of communication it enablesand its importance to teenage identity andfriendships (Ling et al, 1999; Eldridge et al,2001) all support our belief that its popularity isnot just a short-term fad. The role of mobilesand messaging in friendship, gifting givingrituals and the sharing of phones and content(Taylor et al, 2002) highlights their potential asa collaborative learning platform.

It is frequently suggested that SMS inhibitsthe learning of correct spelling and grammar.

2 MLEARN 2003: learning with mobile devices

However young people who would not normallywrite messages are often enthusiastic textersand there are suggestions that the verbal skillsof some usually reticent teenage boys areimproving as they chat on their mobiles (Plant,2001). This encourages us to believe thatmobile devices are uniquely placed to contributeto improving young people’s literacy.

The LSDA survey found that the greatestinterest in using mobile phones for improvingskills was expressed by girls, 16-19 year oldsand young adults educated to Levels 2 or 3(GCSE or A-level, or the equivalent). But theseyoung adults stressed that learning games mustbe appealing, relevant and fun, even addictive(in the case of maths) if they were to sustaininterest, indicating that getting the design andcontent of learning games right is crucial.

Almost half of young people expressed aninterest in using phone-based games to improvetheir spelling and reading (49%) and maths(44%). A few also expressed in using phone-based games for learning a foreign language orfor English as a foreign language.

4. Further explorationIn the current phase of the project we are

working with community, voluntary andeducation organisations, and the young peoplethey support, to explore:

• How different groups of young adultsinteract with, and experience, the learningmaterials and systems designed by theproject

• Whether their enthusiasm for learningappears to be improved by their mobilelearning experiences

• Whether learning gains are made, includingyoung adults’ perceptions of their progress

• Different models of learning and support, egcollaborative learning, individual learning(with or without peer support), onlinetutoring, blended learning and standaloneunits of learning etc

• How m-learning might contribute toaddressing government targets forimproving basic skills and engagement ineducation and training.

5. ReferencesBrown, G and Dhaliwal, J (2002). Mobile Youth -

2002 Report. w2f Limited. London, UK.

DfEE (2001). Skills for Life - The NationalStrategy for Improving Adult Literacy andNumeracy Skills. Department for Educationand Employment. Nottingham, UK.

http://www.dfes.gov.uk/readwriteplus/bank/ABS_Strategy_Doc_Final.pdf [accessed on24 September 2002]

Eldridge, M and Grinter, R (2001). StudyingText Messaging in Teenagers. Paperpresented to the Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems (CHI), 31March - 5 April 2001, Seattle, USA. 4.http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~palen/chi_workshop/ [accessed on 14 January 2002]

Ling, R and Yttri, B (1999). "Nobody Sits atHome and Waits for the Telephone toRing": Micro and Hyper-CoordinationThrough the Use of the Mobile Telephone.Telnor. Oslo, Norway. R&D R 30/99.

Moser, C (1999). Improving Literacy andNumeracy - A Fresh Start. Department forEducation and Employment. Sudbury, UK.

Mutula, S M (2002). “The Cellular PhoneEconomy in the SADC Region: Implicationsfor Libraries". Online Information Review 26(2): 79-91.

Plant, S (2001). On the Mobile - The Effects ofMobile Telephones on Social and IndividualLife. Motorola.

Taylor, A S and Harper, R (2002). Age-OldPractices in the 'New World': A Study ofGift-Giving Between Teenage MobilePhone Users. Paper presented to theConference on Human Factors inComputing Systems (CHI), 20 - 25 April2002, Minneapolis, USA. 8.

Townsend, A M (2000). “Life in the Real-TimeCity: Mobile Telephones and UrbanMetabolism". Journal of Urban Technology7 (2): 85-104.

The m-learning project is supported by the ECInformation Society Technologies Programme.See website at http://www.m-learning.org

Book of abstracts 3

Evaluating Non Functional Requirementsin Mobile Learning Contents and Multimedia Educational Software

Gianna Avellis, Antonio ScaramuzziTECNOPOLIS CSATA

SP.per Casamassima Km.3 70100Valenzano/Bari/ItalyEmail:[email protected],[email protected]

Anthony FinkelsteinUniversity College London, Dept. Of

Computer ScienceGower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK

Email: a. [email protected]

Abstract

We developed a scheme for representingcritical non functional requirements , andapply it to the domains of Mobile LearningContents and Multimedia EducationalSoftware to validate it.

Keywords: Non Functional Requirements(NFRs), Mobile Learning Contents (MLC),Multimedia Educational Software (MES).

1. Background

Mobile Learning is so new that we are onlybeginning to see the potential of mobiledevices in training and performance support.

The small screen size of mobile devices (aNFR) makes some people question their worthas e-Learning delivery tools. Some critics alsopoint to the restricted input capabilities(another NFR) of some of these devices,questioning students’ ability to enter largeamounts of text into a device to take notes oranswer an essay-type question.

Many of these devices, however, areextremely adaptable (a NFR) and can beattached to a full-size folding keyboard thatmakes entering large amounts of informationevery bit as fast (a NFR) as with aconventional computer.

Furthermore, users cannot appraise MLCbecause they are not able to evaluate theircharacteristics, potentialities, and limits(Avellis & Capurso, 1999a).

2. A Scheme for Critical NFRRepresentation

There is a need to develop techniques toexpress NFRs, which include qualityrequirements (Finkelstein, 1994).

This underlines the centre of thedevelopment process, the "generation of avalue model", such as in classical engineeringdisciplines. That is, a key component of thesystem development process is achieving amodel of what is valued in the resultingsystem. In this view, quality characteristics arenot externally imposed on a developmentprocess but "constructed" within it.

The scheme developed to express NFRs isbased on the work done by (Conklin &Begeman, 1988) on the "issue-position-arguments" model, where in our scheme an“issue”, that is a problem to solve, is a NFR orquality characteristics /sub-characteristics toevaluate, an “argument", that is a supportingjustification is a procedure which helps todetermine which design alternative to chooseto implement the related non-functionalrequirements. Finally, "position", that is asolution to the problem, is either a statementof NFR, which gives a quality goal to besupported by the final design, or des ignalternatives. Statement is an ascertainableproperty (possibly measurable characterising aNFR). The set of links is given in the following:


Figure 1 - Non Functional Requirements Representation scheme

achieves(strong, medium/weak/negative)activityprocessdescriptioncharacteristicprocedureis-sugges

In the following we give some examples ofthe application of the scheme above to MLCand MES.

A NFR related to MLC can be “the MLCshould fit the subject/topics and learningobjectives of my course”.

The activity related to this example is“evaluate the educational aim of the MLCpackage”, which strongly achieves the qualitycharacteristics “educational features” .

“Educat iona l features” q u a l i t ycharacteristics has several sub-characteristicsto be taken into account, such as “instructionalcharacteristics”, which is suggested by therequirement statement “appropriateness oflearning objectives suitable for age andcompetence of target users” and is measuredby the procedure ”verify that content andlearning objectives are consistent with thenational curricula requirements”.

The last example is the NFR “the MESpackage should be easy to operate”.

The activity related to the second exampleis “understanding the usage of a MESpackage”, which achieves in medium form thequality characteristics of “usability”.

This in turn, can be further specialised intothe sub-characteristics ”ease of use”, which is

suggested by the requirement statement “theway software operates” and severalprocedures to measure usability ”What are theIT skills required to operate the software? Ison-screen help available? Are directions clearand accurate? Are directions available at alltimes? Is management of assessmentinstruments easy?”.

3. References

Avellis, G. & Capurso, M. (1999a). ERMESEvaluation Methodology to SupportTeachers in Skills Development, In Tuomi,E., Salonen, M., Saarinen P., Sinko, M(Eds.), Proceedings of IFIP WG3.1, WG3.5, Hameenlinna:12-19, Finland.

Conklin, J. & Begeman, M.L. (1988). gIBIS: AHypertext Tool for Exploratory PolicyDiscussion, ACM Transactions on OIS, 6 (4), 303-331.

Finkelstein, A. (1994). Quality Arguments:Product and Process Interaction, InProceedings of SQM ’94.

Book of abstracts 5

Self-produced video to augment peer-to-peer learning

Eva BrandtSpace Studio

Interactive Institute Beijerskajen 8,S-20506 Malmö

[email protected]

Per-Anders HillgrenErling Bjarki Björgvinsson

School of Art and Communication,Malmö University

Beijerskajen 8, S-20506 Malmö, [email protected],

[email protected]

Abstract

This paper describes how self-producedvideos, made with a digital video camera andlater viewed on handheld mobile computers,support informal learning at an Intensive CareUnit. The learning process supported is peer-to-peer learning where colleagues use mobile IT tocommunicate and learn from each other. Thehandheld computers are equipped with barcodereaders, which give easy access to the learningvideos. These handy and mobile computers alsomake it possible to configure where and whenthe learning situation is going to take place. Thestaff themselves decide the content and how toproduce the videos. Examples are given of howthe spatial work environment is important infacilitating both the production and usage of thevideos. The success of the peer-to-peer learningprocess seems to be that the person on thevideo and the colleagues watching it all sharethe same social and cultural community ofpractice.

Keywords: Peer-to-peer learning, self-produced learning material, video-films,handheld computers, barcodes, context andhealth care.

1. Peer-to-peer learning

We are inspired by Lave and Wenger's notionof situated learning and how communities ofpractice are established and maintained (Laveand Wenger, 1991). We have developed amobile IT concept to support informal learningbetween colleagues. It is based upon viewing

the staff as peers in a learning process wheremany communicate with many, and where theythemselves produce learning materials for eachother. The learning concept contradicts moreconventional learning schemes where thecontent of the learning material is fixed andconducted in a format where one personteaches many others.

2. Mobile computers with video

2.1 The KLIV project

For two and a half years the KLIV researchproject has studied how learning at an intensivecare unit can be supported with mobile devices(Björgvinsson and Hillgren, 2002, Brandt et al,2002). KLIV is the Swedish acronym for'continuous learning within healthcare', and is aproject carried out in close collaborationbetween the Intensive Care Unit at theUniversity Hospital in Malmö and the InteractiveInstitute. The research showed that theIntensive Care Unit’s daily oral learning was avast resource in the development of the staff'sprofessional competences. This is in line withOrr’s observation of the importance fortechnicians to share oral stories to sustain anddevelop their community memory (Orr, 1996).The staff now augment the oral resource byproducing short videos around patient care andmedical devices with a digital video camera.Passarge and Binder, who involved machinesetters in documenting their best practice onvideo, have influenced our work (Passarge andBinder, 1996). Their videos were used for


learning out in the workplace environmentviewed on a traditional stationary computer witha laser disc placed on a mobile small table. Inour present research, the staff themselvesproduce the videos. There are no professionalcameramen involved. Another difference is thatthe videos are viewed on handheld computersby scanning a barcode card placed at strategicplaces in the work environment. In the movie acolleague shows how the task is carried outincluding practical tips gained from experience.The process of making the video films is acollaborative learning process in itself startingwhen the films are to be recorded. Here thepeople involved start reflecting on how the taskis best carried out. The reflection continueswhen they together with colleagues to review thevideo.

2.2. Self produced learning material

The advantage of producing their ownlearning material is that the content reflectsexperiences made when working at the unit: forexample what to be observant about and whatcan be difficult to do. The people that figure in avideo are from their own work environment andthey know what most staff members need toknow. This makes it possible to tailor the videosso that only what seems highly necessary isincluded.

The fact that the videos are produced wherethe tasks are carried out also makes them easierto make. The situation seems to help 'guiding'the staff in how to carry out the tasks and whatto emphasise.

2.3. Using mobile video

The staff appreciated that the movies arecontained on small mobile computers becausethey are flexible and give them the possibility toconfigure the learning situation themselves. Itmakes it possible to seamlessly incorporatethem as support in their work context. Anexample of this is when two physiotherapistsuse a video about the process of assemblingextra equipment to a ventilator. They start theirsession by moving a critical part of theequipment to a stationary computer to compareit with the video available there. When they feelconfident about this part they go out to wherethe ventilator is and start the process of puttingthe equipment together. The equipment initiallygives them clues about how to go about, butsuddenly they get stuck. After some time theyget help from the same video but this time via ahandheld computer. In the first part they movethe equipment to the video and in the secondpart they move the video to the equipment. Both

are examples of ways to configure context forthe learning situation. However, the notion ofcontext is not only a matter of space and time.The context is as much a matter of socio-cultural circumstances where, for example, thefact that it is a known colleague acting in thevideo creates a confidence in what is told.

3. Conclusion

The KLIV project has shown that selfproduced learning materials in the form of shortvideos augmented peer-to-peer learning amongcolleagues at the intensive care unit. Thecollaborative production and use of the videofilms has made their work practice visible formore colleagues and thereby accessible forreflection, which contributes to a continuousimprovement of their work practice. Watchingthe videos on mobile and handheld computersprovides the possibility of configuring thelearning situation independent of a specificplace. This was highly valued by the staff.Using cards with barcodes gives easy access toa specific video and was appreciated too. Thespatial work environment is important infacilitating the production and usage of thevideos. Most importantly what makes the videosrelevant seems to be the shared social andculture context. The highly collaborative makingof the videos contributes to the content beingparticularly relevant.

4. References

Björgvinsson, E B and Hillgren, P-A (2002).Readymade design at an Intensive CareUnit. Participatory Design Conference,Malmö.

Brandt, E et al. (2002). PDA´s, Barcodes andVideo-films for Continuous Learning at anIntensive Care Unit. In the proceedings forthe NordiCHI conference. Århus.

Lave, J and Wenger, E (1991). Si tua tedLearn ing : Leg i t imate per iphera lparticipation. Cambridge (England), NewYork, Cambridge University Press.

Orr, J (1996) Talking about machines: anethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY:ILR Press.

Passarge, L and Binder, T (1996) SupportingReflection and Dialogue in a Community ofMachine Setters: Lessons Learned fromDesign and Use of a Hypermedia TypeTraining Material. AI & Society, 10: 79-88.London: Springer Verlag.

Book of abstracts 7

Individualised Revision Material for Use on a Handheld Computer

Susan Bull and Eileen ReidUniversity of Birmingham

Educational Technology Research Group,Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering,

University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K.Email: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper introduces an adaptive learningenvironment for use on a PC and a handheldcomputer. At the end of the PC session, revisionmaterial tailored to the needs of the individualand appropriate for viewing on a handheldcomputer are recommended for synchronisationto the handheld device. Thus the student hasaccess to additional individualised mobilerevision material for use at times and locationswhere it would not normally be possible orconvenient for them to study, but where theymight nevertheless welcome this opportunity.

Keywords: learner model, revision material.

1. Introduction

With some exceptions (e.g. Ketamo, 2002),there has so far been little consideration of thepotential for individualisation in mobile learning.

Figure 1. The PC-based tutoring system

This paper addresses this issue, presentingan adaptive learning environment for use on adesktop PC and handheld computer, designedas a support for an undergraduate mathematicscourse. Students use the PC version of thesystem to review and practise material taughtduring lectures, and to obtain individualisedfeedback on their responses (Fig 1). They maythen take away tailored revision material ontheir handheld computer for later consultation.

2. Learner Modelling

As the student answers questions in the PCcomponent of the system, it automatically buildsa model of their knowledge and of theirmisconceptions. This learner model is used inpart in the conventional manner, as informationto allow system adaptation to the needs of theindividual. It is also used at the end of thesession to suggest suitable mobile revisionmaterial that the student can synchronise totheir handheld computer: material that istailored to their specific current learningrequirements. This enables the student tocontinue learning away from the PC, at timesand locations where individualised interactionswould not normally be possible, but where thestudent might nevertheless welcome theopportunity for further study. Roy et al (2002)also argue for learning materials based onstudent responses to questions. In addition todividing the interaction between the desktop PCand handheld computer, our system extendsthis notion by offering tailored revision materialsaccording to a student's learner model, thematerials aiming not only to help the learner


understand areas of difficulty, but also explicitlyaddressing their misconceptions. The learnermodel can also be synchronised for viewing.

3. Mobile Revision Material

If a student appears to be having only minordifficulties, the mobile revision material (Fig 2) isquite brief, having the function of reminding thelearner. However, more detail is provided if the

Figure 2. Tailored mobile revision material

Figure 3. Mobile open learner model: overview

Figure 4. Mobile open learner model: details

learner model contents indicate more seriousproblems or misconceptions, and if possibleincludes descriptions referring to conceptsalready known, to support explanations.

The mobile learner model can also supportrevision as it may be viewed. The learner maysee an overview of responses in the form of agraph illustrating their performance (Fig 3), andalso specific textual descriptions of topics theyknow, and explanations of likely misconceptions(Fig 4). The open learner model is designed tohelp students plan their learning, and promptreflection on the learning process. It is based ona study exploring the contents students desirein a mobile open learner model (Bull, 2003).

When a student returns to the PC, they aregiven a brief test on the revision material inorder to update the learner model to ensure thatthe new PC interaction will be adaptedappropriately for their current understanding.

4. Summary and Further Work

In-depth maths tutoring takes place on a PC,where it is easier to interact with informationand obtain a well-structured overview of eachtopic. The mobile revision material based on thestudent's performance, and the mobile versionof the learner model, are intended as anadditional interaction to the main computersession for review at a convenient time andplace on a handheld computer. All mobilelearning content is tailored to the specific needsof the individual.

Future work will involve evaluation ofeducational and usability issues of the desktopPC system, the mobile revision materials, thetwo versions of the open learner model, and theeffectiveness of uniting the two components ofthe learning environment in a single system.

5. References

Bull, S. (2003). User Modelling and MobileLearning, to appear in UM03: Proceedingsof the Ninth International Conference,Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Ketamo, H. (2002). MLearning forKindergarten's Mathematics Teaching, IEEEInternational Workshop on Wireless andMobile Technologies in Education, IEEEComputer Society, 167-168.

Roy, S., Trinder, J. & Magill, J. (2002). PortableLearning and Assessment - TowardsUbiquitous Education, European Workshopon Mobile and Contextual Learning,University of Birmingham, 70.

Book of abstracts 9

Take a bite: Producing Accessible Learning Materials for Mobile Devices

Jo ColleyCambridge Training and Development (CTAD)

Lincoln House, The Paddocks347 Cherry Hinton Road, Cambridge

CB1 8DHE-mail:[email protected]

Abstract

Writing basic skills materials for use on ahandheld device is challenging. The m-learningproject is attempting to meet the challenge byproducing a set of innovative games, materialsand activities which will not only motivatereluctant young learners but also give them anopportunity to improve their basic maths andEnglish skills in a way which complements theirdisconnected, mobile lifestyles.

Evaluation is another important area,especially relating to cognitive, meta-cognitiveand affective changes which may come about inlearners as a result of using their materials andsystems. Various techniques and activities, egVXML and SMS, are being used to discover howthe target group approach and experiencelearning using mobile devices in terms ofdeveloping their skills and motivation for learningin general.

Keywords: basic skills, games, learningmaterials, evaluation

1. Developing Content

What are the pedagogical issues affecting thecreation of basic skills materials to be used onan electronic device?

There has been considerable research intothe positive benefits of improving basic skillsusing a computer: issues such as maintainingprivacy, avoiding stigma, working at your ownpace have been well rehearsed. The challengethat the m-learning project sets itself isattempting to maintain these benefits whilstshrinking the materials themselves down to fitcomfortably and accessibly in a hand-helddevice.

The project’s aim is to capitalise on theobvious benefits of using the technology whilstdeveloping innovative materials which maintaina clear perspective on the learning goal.Materials produced by the m-learning partnerscombine sound basic skills pedagogy withground breaking use of new technologies anddevices.

We are currently in phase 2 of the project.We have been able to trial several differentapproaches with a wide range of learners. Now,with many lessons learned and remarkableimprovements in technology, we are busydeveloping a new generation of materials andtemplates to help us take these lessons onestep further.

2. Working with palmtops

Fig1. IPAQ showing m-learning material

Palmtops have the advantage of a relativelylarge screen so that graphics, animations andvideo-clips are feasible. Scaled–down quizzeson sports themes were devised and provedpopular in trials. Palmtops also link the learnerwith the internet and, therefore, with apotentially rich field of other learning materials.However, they are expensive: more executivetoy than simple, practical communication


device. They do not feature large in thelandscape of a mobile youth lifestyle.

3. Working with mobile phones

Mobile phones are used by anenormous number of young peopleas part of their social and culturallife. They are relatively cheap andeasy to use. However, designingcontent that can either provide orst imulate learning requiresingenuity, knowledge of thetechnological constraints and theability to think inside a fairly small

box. The m-learning partners are working onmaterials that permit interaction betweenlearners. Ways in which attitude to learning canbe assessed via a mobile are also beinginvestigated.

4. Themed learningHow can we make these tiny bits of content

part of a larger whole? In phase one wedeveloped themes of content (in conjunctionwith trial sites and project partners), spanning allthe available technologies. These themes were:

• An Urban Soap opera involving twoyoung characters moving into a new flat.The characters were introduced using aFlash movie (iPAQ), and daily updates tothe story were available via the phone(VoiceXML). Matching learning activitieswere delivered via the iPAQs.

• Football refereeing. This was timed tocoincide with the World Cup. Animatedquizzes on the iPAQs were used, as wasa daily quiz of five questions via thephone (VoiceXML).

In the second phase we are extending this tocover more themes, as well as a wider rangeof technologies

5. Working together

Whilst the use of a mobile or palmtop mightseem, on the surface, to be an extremelyisolated, individualistic activity, research hasshown that young people communicate witheach other quite successfully in the process ofusing the devices. Thus, materials, especiallygames (see the work of Prensky, 2001) can bedeveloped that are usable by groups as well asby individuals.

They are a key feature in many activitiescarried out by young people: makingarrangements, passing on information, passingon gifts in the form of jokes or graphics, sharing

and comparing ringtones, texting each otherusing a still developing new language.

6. Evaluating progress

Being able to evaluate progress made inlearning via a mobile device has its own set ofchallenges, especially when the devicesthemselves are used in the evaluation process.The project has looked at which other aspectsof the learning process also need to beevaluated:

• How do mobile devices motivatelearners to progress to other learningopportunities?

• Do materials presented on mobiledevices attract a different type of learner,one who is less likely to go for a moreconventional approach?

• Is it possible to identify changes inattitude to learning when mobile devicesare used, and can the devicesthemselves be used in the evaluationprocess?

In phase one the trials were limited. Theywere conducted in four separate centres andinvolved the presentation of materials to 34learners (19 males, 15 females).

The small scale and limited timescale of thepilot precluded any attempt to producequantitative results, such as a measurement oflearning gains. The evaluation methodologywas therefore qualitative and based on:

o learner observationo interviews with learnerso questionnaires completed by

learners and their tutors.

For phase two we are trialling materials witha much larger group of learners, and need to beable to show more measurable gains. The m-They ar(developed th.3t.00emtionionac 0s)]TJTc 0.50 64 gemerhap0139ro0 - 0 Tsw7 TD 0.some results, s completed463sygaM -1mes (. still 5eveloping65nna 1 Tf 0.73with

Participatory Design in Development of Mobile Learning Environments

Karin Danielsson, Ulf Hedestig, Maria Juslin and Carl Johan OrreDepartment of InformaticsUmeå University, Sweden

kdson/uhstig/mjuslin/[email protected]

Abstract

The paper explores the concept ofParticipatory Design in development of mobilelearning environments. Access to learners’reflections and interaction patterns throughpersonal technologies has been attained. Thestudy brings us towards the justification ofLearner Centred Design, LCD, since traditionalmethods in User centred design, UCD, arelimited in scope to support development ofeducational technologies. In our case LCD givesa deeper level of contextual understandingthrough user involvement.

Keywords: Participatory Design, PersonalTechnologies, Mobility and Learning.

1. IntroductionObservations of student interaction in mobile

learning environments can offer challenges todesigners who strive to develop supportiveresources, as the students’ learning activitiesare distributed both in time and space (Hedestiget.al 2002). It is essential to understand theusers and their social context. Development oflearning environments are traditionallycharacterized by a teacher centred perspective(Carroll et. al 2002). Our point of departure isbased on previous work with a focus onstudents’ interaction patterns in their everydayactivities.

The users involved in the study are off-campus students within higher education whohave good or great knowledge of personaltechnologies. A bottom-up approach is suitableto obtain an understanding of the mechanismswithin the students’ learning context.

2. Personal technologies inlearning settings

Since the late 90s there has been anincreased use of mobile phones among all agegroups (Ling and Vaage, 2000). Recently therehas been a growing interest in the use ofpersonal technologies in education and anumber of pilot projects tried to find out howpersonal technologies can be integrated intolearning settings (Chen, Myers and Yaron 2002,Roschelle and Pea 2002, Lundby 2002). Theproject undertakes the study of personaltechnologies and those various subsets oftechnology embraced by the definition, i.emobile technologies and Internet technologies(Sharples, 2000). The aim of the project is tounderstand existing communication patternsand use of mobile artefacts amongundergraduate students and how thisknowledge can be used to inform design oflearning environments for distance anddecentralised education. The project hasadopted a bottom-up approach, that is, to viewlearning from a student’s perspective (Hedestig,Orre, 2002).

3. Participatory Design in LearningSettings

One method that supports a bottom-upapproach is Participatory Design (PD).According to the method users are seen asexperts in a specific context of developmentand therefore PD contemplates a moresubstantial process of users and designersworking together during an extended period ofengagement. This, to exchange perspectives,to learn about each other’s skills and values,and jointly identify an appropriate set ofrequirements (Carrol et al 1998, Kensing &Munk-Madsen 1995).


PD scenarios can be used to characterizeworkflow and breakdowns, and further beemployed as conversational props in user-developer workshops. Users need notunderstand the underlying design orimplementation in order to provide highlyspecific change requests when these are givenin the form of a scenario. In the work withscenarios designers also have the opportunity toarticulate and confront their design suggestionsand models towards real users, and thereby,test and evaluate their relevance for the specificcontext (Carroll et al 1998).

However, User-Centred Design (UCD) andPD have had limited impact on the design ofeducational technologies. One reason is thatlearning settings have not yet been able todevelop strategies for technology use andpedagogical models. An alternative approach toUCD is Learner-Centred Design (LCD). Theapproach is a movement beyond usability issuesand instead explores the challenges ofdeveloping computer systems that supportpeople in a learning environment, i.e. thelearners’ development of expertise in new andunknown work practices (Soloway et al 1996).Within LCD the goal is instead to help learners(novices in a given work practice) to learn newpractice.

In our project we adopt an LCD perspective,which contains learner involvement throughvarious techniques and/or workshops such asinterviews and development of scenarios. Ourapplication of PD strives towards a sequentialdevelopment to support learner involvement inorder to be able to grasp the complexinterdependency between learning, users andtools.

4. ConclusionsOur study shows that there is a prominent

difference between traditional UCD approachand LCD. Firstly, users within UCD arehomogeneous while learners are to be seen asa heterogeneous group. The learners might notshare a common culture or level of expertise inthe work practice and this diversity must betaken into account in the development process.Secondly, within LCD the goal is to help learners(novices in a given work practice) to learn newpractices. Thus the primary goal when we areset to develop educational software should be tosupport the learning process rather than, apredisposed process to accomplish a specifictask as articulated by UCD. Thirdly, to take intoaccount the private use of personal technologieswhile integrating these technologies in publiclearning settings.

Finally, our studies show that the students’knowledge of personal technologies defines

them as expert users, and that theirparticipation illuminates situations andinteraction patterns that reveal concealed useof personal technologies in the learningenvironment. Knowledge that level out therelation between learners and designers andstress a deeper level of user involvement in thedesign of mobile learning environments.

5. ReferencesCarroll, J.M., Chin, G., Rosson, M.B., Neale,

D.C. (2002) The Development ofCooperation: Five Years of ParticipatoryDesign in the Virtual School, in Human-Computer Interaction in the NewMillennium, Carroll, J.M. ed., ACM Press,Addison-Westley, NY, USA, pp. 373-395.

Carrol, J.M., Rosson, M.B., Chin Jr, G.,Koenneman, J. (1998) “RequirementsDevelopments in Scenario-Based Design”in IEEE transactions of SoftwareEngineering, Vol. 24, No. 12, December,pp. 1156- 1170.

Chen, F., Myers, B., Yaron, D (2002) UsingHandheld Devices for Tests in Classes.Human-Computer Interaction Institute,School of Computer Science, CarnegieMellon, University, PA. CMU-HCI-00-101

Hedestig U. Kaptelinin V. Orre C.J. (2002)Supporting Decentralized Education withPersonal Technologies, E-LEARN,Montreal.

Kensing F. Munk-Madsen A. (1995)Participatory Design: Structure in theToolbox, Datalogiske Skrifter, No 56, 1995,Roskilde University, Denmark.

Ling, R, Vaage, O.F., (2000) Internett ofmobiltelefon- ikke lenger bare for de få.Samfunnspeilet, nr 6. Statististisksentralbyrå.

Lundby, K (ed) (2002) Knowmobile: Knowledgeaccess in distributed training, Mobileopportunities for medical students,InterMedia, Report 5, University of Oslo.

Roschelle, J., Pea, R (2002) A Walk on theWILD Side: How wireless Handhelds MayChange CSCL, In G Stahl (ed)Proceedings of Computer Support forCollaborative Learning 2002, LawrenceErlbaum Ass, Hillsdale, N:J.

Sharples, M (2000) The design of personalmobile technologies for lifelong learning,Computer & Education, 34 p 177-193.

Soloway, E., Pryor, A. (1996) The nextGeneration, In H u m a n - C o m p u t e rInteraction, Communications of the ACM,39, 4, 1996.

Book of abstracts 13

Using Mobile Devices for the Classroom of the Future

Peter Dawabi, Martin Wessner, Erich NeuholdFraunhofer Integrated Publication and Information Systems Institute (IPSI)

Dolivostr. 15, 64293 DarmstadtEmail: {dawabi, wessner, neuhold}@ipsi.fraunhofer.de

AbstractFace-to-face learning scenarios are

characterised by rich forms of cooperationincluding natural speech, gesture and othervisual communication. However, with a growingnumber of participants the cooperation needs tobe coordinated and the individual participation inthe cooperation decreases.

Using mobile devices like PDAs, interactivityand cooperation in such scenarios can beenhanced. But the design of such a technicalsystem must also carefully preserve thetraditional advantages of face-to-face scenarios.We present ConcertStudeo, a platform whichsupports interactions such as brainstorming,quiz, voting and others by using wirelesslyconnected PDAs in combination with anelectronic blackboard. The design andimplementation of the system and evaluationsare described. We discuss advantages andconstraints of using ConcertStudeo as aninnovative face-to-face learning approach.

Keywords: Interaction and cooperationsupport, Computer-Supported CollaborativeLearning (CSCL), face-to-face learning, PDA

1 IntroductionThe focus of this paper lies on face-to-face

learning scenarios such as workshops orclassroom trainings. Advantages of thesescenarios in comparison to individual ordistributed learning are based on richercommunication including gestures, mimics, bodylanguage etc. With a growing number ofparticipants communication problems can ariseleading to fewer contributions per participant.

In this paper we describe how a technicalsystem can improve face-to-face learning

scenarios with respect to enhanced interactivityand cooperation.

2 Requirements for a Face-to-faceLearning Support

A technical system for face-to-face scenariosneeds to keep as many advantages of thetraditional scenario as possible and providefunctionality to enhance the interactivity andcooperation (Roschelle and Pea 2002a, 2002b).In this section the advantages of traditionalsystems are summarised and supplemented bynew requirements to enhance interactivity andcooperation.

3 Interaction and CooperationDesign

We discuss designing enhanced interactivityand cooperation for face-to-face scenarios.Using the brainstorming method as an examplewe tackle design questions such as: How canthe process be structured? Which information isvisualised on the blackboard, which on thelearners mobile device? What actions arecarried out when and by whom?

4 The ConcertStudeo PlatformWe present ConcertStudeo (Wessner et al.

2003; IPSI 2003), a platform providingconfigurable tools for spontaneous and plannedinteractions such as brainstorming, quiz, votingand other typical face-to-face methods.

The design and implementation of thesystem is explained in detail.

5 Experiences and OutlookPractical experiences of the usage of

ConcertStudeo in a course at the TechnicalUniversity Darmstadt (Germany) are presented.Furthermore we talk about the lessons learnedfrom the usages in such academic settings. In


particular we discuss the need to carefullyintegrate the usage of ConcertStudeo in theinstructional design of a lesson.

Finally we give an outlook to the furtherdevelopment of ConcertStudeo.

Figure 1. The usage of ConcertStudeo in auniversity course

6 References

Roschelle, J., Pea, R. (2002a) A walk on theWILD side: How wireless handhelds maychange CSCL. Proceedings of the Conferenceon Computer Supported Collaborative Learning(CSCL) 2002 (pp. 51-60), Boulder, CO, USA

Roschelle, J. & Pea, R. (2002b). To unlock thelearning value of wireless mobile devices,understanding coupling. Proceedings of theIEEE International Workshop on wireless andmobile technologies in Education (WMTE’02)(pp. 2-6), Växjö, Sweden

IPSI (2003). ConcertStudeo – Interaction andcooperation in face-to-face learning. Atwww.ipsi.fraunhofer.de/concert/projects/studeo,28 March 2003.

Wessner, M., Dawabi, P., Fernandez, A (2003).ConcertStudeo – A new approach to face-to-face learning. To appear in: Proceedings of theConference on Computer SupportedCollaborative Learning (CSCL 2003).


A ‘learning space’ model to examine the suitability for learning of mobiletechnologies

Philip Glew, Giasemi N. Vavoula, Chris Baber, Mike SharplesUniversity of Birmingham

Educational Technology Research GroupElectronic, Electrical, and Computer Engineering, Birmingham, B15 2TT

{j.p.glew, g.vavoula, c.baber, m.sharples}@bham.ac.uk

Abstract

Mobile Learning is an emergingparadigm that has yet to be clearly defined.To better understand the nature of mobilelearning we propose a multi-dimensionallearning space model that can be extendedas new technologies and new ways of usingexisting technologies are developed. Thepotential use of a specific technology for aparticular type of leaning within the space isevaluated by using the Quality FunctionDeployment (QFD) set of tools. It is hopedthat the model will help to identify andclassify types of learning facilitated bymobile environments and to exploreparticular combinations of learning andtechnology.

Keywords: learning space, mobile technology,Quality Function Deployment, m-learning, e-learning.

1. Three dimensional learning space

We propose a 3-dimensional learning spacedefined by the axes (1) type of learning, (2)software application, and (3) technology. Axis1, ‘Type of Learning’ portrays three types oflearning: curriculum – supported learning,problem-led learning, and serendipitouslearning (sometimes called learning ondemand). Axis 2, ‘Software Application’, liststhe software applications that could beavailable to meet different learning needs. Axis3, ‘Technology’ lists the technology that cansupport the user’s learning requirements.

This learning space can be broken down intoa series of matrices that enable the learningactivity and pedagogy facilitated by thatparticular space to be defined. The breakdown is done as follows: for each type oflearning we examine three aspects: (a)communications, (b) context and contentmanagement, and (c) learning organisation.We then identify different activities thatconcern each aspect. For example, forlearning organisation the activities includemind-mapping, recording of learning events,and time- and place-stamping of learningevents. For each of the three aspects of eachtype of learning we then produce a two-dimensional matrix, where the activities formthe rows and candidate technologies tosupport them form the columns. The suitabilityof the technology for the learning is thenquantified using Quality Function Deployment,(QFD) (Lowe and Ridgeway, 2000).

2. Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

QFD is as a set of development toolsdesigned to bring quality control concepts intothe process of new product development. Inthis paper we describe an adaptation of themethod for the evaluation of differenttechnologies and/or applications to facilitateparticular types of learning.

The “House of Quality” matrix is the mostwidely used form of QFD (Hauser et al.,1998),The general format of the "House of Quality" ismade up of six major components:1. Customer requirements: defines the

customer needs


2. Technical requirements: describes theproduct

3. Planning matrix: quantifies the importanceof a particular functionality

4. Interrelationship matrix: quantifies thesuitability of the technology for thepurpose

5. Targets: quantifies the relative merits of atechnology for an application

6. Roof: Indicates if devices could be usedtogether

In our case, we produced the differentcomponents with regard to different types oflearning, more specifically curriculum-supported learning, problem-led learning, andserendipitous learning. The result of theanalysis can be used to evaluate the relativemerits of different technologies or applicationsfor different types of learning.

Table 1 contains the interrelationships matrixproduced for the learning organisation aspect

of curriculum-supported learning. The firstcolumn corresponds to the ‘Customerrequirements’ – in this case user/learnerrequirements – for the organisation of learningwhen curriculum supported learning is takingplace. The ‘Technology’ row indicates differentdevices that might be used to supportcurriculum-supported learning:• Handheld1: Handheld computer without

communications technology• Handheld2: Handheld computer with

communications technology• Com1: Mobile phone without multimedia

functionality• Com2: Mobile phone with multimedia

functionality• Laptop1: Laptop or tablet pc without

communications technology• Laptop2: Laptop of tablet pc with

communications technology

Table 1: Interrelationships matrix for learning organisation in curriculum-supported learning

The interrelationships matrix in this caseindicates how well the device will support thelearner requirements. A grading scheme isapplied where the values are: High (code H,score 9), Medium (code M, score 3), Low(code L, score 1), and Not/Applicable (codeN/A, score 0). The end column titled ‘PlanningMatrix’ gives a weighting to each of the learnerrequirements indicating how important theyare thought to be. These values have beeninformed by a review of the literature. Eachvalue in the interrelationships matrix is nowmultiplied by the corresponding value in theplanning matrix and the values in a column areadded to give the final figure in the Targetsrow. The numbers in the targets row give arelative measure of the suitability of aparticular device for ‘Learning Organisation’. Itshould be noted that the ‘Roof’ of the ‘Houseof Quality’, which is used to indicate wheredevices could complement each other, is notshown here for simplicity.

This is only one of the matrices that willneed to be consulted when considering the‘Learning Organisation, Curriculum-SupportedLearning’ learning space. The result of acomplete analysis is a series of numbers thatcan be used to evaluate the relative merits ofdifferent technologies or applications fordifferent types of learning.

It is hoped that this approach will enabledevelopers and teachers to design learningprogrammes that make effective use of mobiletechnologies and applications.

3. ReferencesHauser, J.R. & Clausing, D. (1988). The

House of Quality, Harvard BusinessReview, May-June, pp 63-73.

Lowe, A.J. & Ridgway K. (2001). QualityFunction Deployment. On-line athttp://www.shef.ac.uk/~ibberson/qfd.html.Accessed on 04/04/03.

Technology Handheld1 Handheld2 Com1 Com2 Laptop1 Laptop2 PlanningMatrix

Mind Map L M L M L H 4

RecordLearningEvents

L M M M L H 4

Time stamplearningevents

M M L L M H 3

Place stamplearningevents

N/A M M M N/A H 2

Targets 17 39 25 33 17 117


A wireless and adaptive navigation site to educate ICT college students

Paul GrahamNorth Tyneside College

Embleton Avenue, Wallsend, NE28 [email protected]

Abstract

This paper describes a "wireless and adaptiveweb site" developed for use by ICT students at acollege in North Tyneside so they can look atcourse information anytime and anywhere. Thesite uses Adaptive Navigation Support (ANS)techniques usually found within AdaptiveHypermedia Systems (AHS) that personalizesthe students web experience by highlightinglinks of interest through direct guidance, hidingof irrelevant links, and sorting of links. Throughthese techniques and with the use of usermodels and a Markov model we cut down thecost and effort and improve the time it takesstudents to navigate the site.

Keywords: Adaptive, wireless, ICT, learning.

1. IntroductionNavigation on wireless devices is

cumbersome and time consuming due to limitedscreen size and bandwidth. As a result, methodsare needed to facilitate the navigation based onuser-models to enable users to gain fast andefficient access to relevant information.

In this paper we discuss a ‘wireless andadaptive site’ developed for a mobile device thatpersonalises the web experience for ICTstudents at North Tyneside College.

In a recent survey by the Learning SkillsDevelopment Agency (LSDA) it was reportedthat 85% of the 16 to 24 year olds intervieweduse the Internet, 54% are in education, but only4% of them used the ‘Internet’ on their mobilephones (LSDA, 2002). It is our aim to bring thethree together and produce a personalised website that contains course information that can beaccessed any time and anywhere using awireless device.

2. Web personalisationTo improve the web experience we must

have some idea of what motivates each visitorand what their interest and goals are. Forexample, a student looking for the location oftheir class. We call this behaviour "goal-directed browsing", as the visitor's behaviour issingle-minded. The visitor is not interested indiversions, they are only interested in findingtheir goal, and therefore personalisation wouldbe used to directly link to the information soughtby predicting the user's current goal. Throughpersonalisation we can help solve disorientationand information overload by improving the sitesnavigation by applying Adaptive NavigationalSupport techniques (ANS) usually found withinAdaptive Hypermedia Systems (AHS). Thesetechniques help students to find what they arelooking for by personalising their experience inrespect to their knowledge, background andgoals by highlighting links of interest, hidingirrelevant links, and by sorting links.

3. Adaptive Hypermedia SystemsThe goals of adaptive hypermedia systems

are "to build a model of the goals, preferences,and knowledge of each user, and use thismodel throughout the interaction with the user,in order to adapt to the needs of that user"(Brusilovsky, 2001).

Our system uses typical AHS functions andmaintains a model of the user's knowledge bykeeping attributes such as ‘has the user readabout this concept’ by observing their actionswhilst they are ‘browsing’ the site.

A user model is also applied to classify allnodes (pages) into several groups according tothe user's current knowledge, interests or goals.


The system uses this user model tomanipulate links to guide users towardsinteresting and relevant information using atechnique which Brusilovsky calls AdaptiveNavigation Support (Brusilovsky, 1996).Depending on the class of the node a link leadsto, the link could be specially annotated,ordered, disabled, or removed. The manipulationof links is done in the following ways within oursystem:

• Direct guidance: A "next" or "continue" link isshown. The destination of this link is the nodethat the system determines to be mostappropriate.

• Sorting of links: A list of links is sorted andpresented from most relevant to least relevant.This technique is usually found in goaloriented educational systems (Hohl, Böckerand Gunzenhäuser, 1996).

• Link hiding: Links leading to inappropriate ornon-relevant information are hidden.

4 User Modelling

In our work, we model the navigationalbehaviour of a user by observing whatdocuments they view and store the informationin one of three stereotypical user models:beginner, intermediate or expert. We use thisstereotypical model to build a model of the goalsand preferences of each student, and use thismodel throughout the interaction with thestudent, in order to adapt to their needs.

We train user models so that if a visitor is newto a particular part of the system, but anothervisitor with the same user model has (eitherbeginner, intermediate or expert), then a reliableprediction about future navigation can beassumed with the help of the Markov model.

The Markov model comes from Markovchains, which are sequences of randomvariables in which the future variable isdetermined. A Markov model contains a singlevariable, the state, and specifies the probabilityof each state and of transiting from one state toanother (Anderson, Domingos and Weld, 2002).

Using this model, the students' goal ispredicted and an 'index page of predicted links'is dynamically produced and displayed on theirwireless device which the user can access atany time allowing for a fast and efficient way toaccess the work they are looking for.

5 Hybrid systemHowever, automated approaches may not

always correctly predict the user's goal asdiscussed by Perkowitz and Etzioni (2000). Thebest approach, as used in our system, is to usea hybrid system where personalisations are

generated automatically and the web designeroptionally provides guidance to enable a correctmodel is used.

The use of the hybrid system can be usefulwhen the models have to be slightly changed.For example, an assignment is given out andthe tutor would like it to be seen by all theirstudents as soon as possible. Here you canchange the popularity of the file so that it isdisplayed in the 'index page of predicted links'even if it has not been viewed before.

6 ConclusionIn conclusion, web sites that are designed

for viewing on wireless devices require carefulcontent management as these devices arecharacterised by their high operating costs,limited screen size and limited navigationcapability (Jari, Harri and Multisilta, 2000). Byusing personalisation and adaptation it is hopedthat students don’t waste time and effort lookingthrough course material and that the goal (theinformation they are looking for) is reached asquickly and efficiently as possible without therisk of presenting the user with potentiallyuseless information.

7 ReferencesAnderson, C, Domingos, P, Weld, D (2002).

“Rational Markov Models and theirapplication to Adaptive Web Navigation”.KDD-02 The Eighth ACM SIGKDDInternational Conference on KnowledgeDiscovery and Data Mining, July 2002.

Brusilovsky, P (1996). “Methods andTechniques of Adaptive Hypermedia” inUser Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction6, 87-129

Brusilovsky, P (2001). “Adaptive Hypermedia”.User modeling and user-adapted interaction,11:87-110

Jari, L, Harri, K, Multisilta, D (2000). “WirelessApplication Protocol (WAP): Technologyplatform for wireless learning environments”.IASTED Internat ional Conference:Computers and advanced technology ineducation, Cancun, Mexico, May 2000.

Hohl, H, Böcker, H-D, and Gunzenhäuser, R(1996). “HYPADAPTER: An AdaptiveHypertext System for Exploratory Learningand Programming, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction”, 6(2-3), 131-155.

Learning Skills Development Agency (2002). Apresentat ion for Onl ine Educa.http://www.m-learning.org/reports.html[accessed on 2 April 2003]

Perkowitz, M and Etzioni, O (2000). “Towardsadaptive web sites: Conceptual frameworkand case study”. Artificial IntelligenceJournal, 118(1-2).


Using Portable Technology in UK Schools for Teaching and Learning

Bob HarrisonEducation Adviser

Toshiba Information Systems UK LtdToshiba Court, Weybridge Business Park,

Addlestone Road, Weybridge, Surrey KT15 2ULEmail: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper outlines the presentations to bemade by 2-3 schools in the Toshiba E-Ambassadors scheme, in order to provideinsight into some of the opportunities andchallenges faced by teachers and learners in amobile learning environment

Keywords: Toshiba, portable computers,portable ICT

1. Introduction

As with any form of ICT, positive impactsrelating to portable ICT devices depend on waysin which they are used. There are potentialbenefits for learners, teachers, parents andemployers. Improvements in cognitive capacity,creative or critical thinking, will inevitably bereliant on the capacity of learners and teachersto use ICT as an effective pedagogical tool inpursuit of wider learning objectives

2. School Presentations

Presentations will be given by 2-3 schools inthe Toshiba E-Ambassadors scheme which useportable technologies (ie laptop and notebookcomputers). Such presentations will seek tobuild on the knowledge gained in recentresearch reports published by BECTa, namelyon teaching and learning and portability (BECTa,2003), and the impact of Information andCommunication Technologies on pupil learningand attainment, commonly referred to asImpaCT2 (BECTa 2002).

2.1 Variety of formats demonstrated

o Djanogly City Technology College,Nottingham.

o The Arnewood School, New Miltono Leigh City Technology College, Kent

The teachers and learners from 2-3 UKschools will demonstrate a variety of formatswhen using portable learning devices

2.2 Teaching and learning

Insights into the opportunities and challengesfaced by teachers and learners will be outlinedand discussed. These discussions will bepredicated on the recent DfES report“Transforming the Way We Learn - A Vision forICT in Schools” (DfES, 2002).

The workshop will provide participants tointeract with learners and teachers using mobiletechnology in a variety of learningenvironments, where “portable devices do notdominate in the same way desktop computerscan, and may be more readily integrated intoclassroom use across the curriculum with theminimum of disruption to existing practices”(Moseley and Higgins, 1999)

2.3 “Hands-On Experience”

“Hands-on” experience will be provided tothe audience related to the themes provided inthe conference literature, such as contextuallearning, situated collaborative learning andblended learning. These raise issues for usinga mobile learning environment with real people,in real time, in real mobile learning situations.


The session will demonstrate the benefits ofportability for users, ie for learners, teachers,parents. They will also provide an insight intothe factors required for effective use of portableICT.

3. Outline of the “Best PracticeResearch Programme”

Toshiba has recently introduced a “Best PracticeResearch Programme” to support teachers intheir efforts to raise achievement in asustainable way and enable teachers to conductsmall-scale research into their own practiceabout how ICT can affect learning in theclassroom. Some outcomes of this researchprogramme will be outlined alongside theBECTA case studies from the E Ambassadorspresenting.

4. References

BECTa (2002). ImpaCT2. The Impact ofInformation and Communication Technologieson Pupil Learning and Attainment

BECTa (2003). What the research says aboutportable ICT devices in Teaching and Learning

BECTa/TC Trust (2003). Wireless Networking inSchools"

DfES (2002). Transforming the way we learn- avision for the future of ICT in schools

Freedom to Learn (2003).. Toshiba website.http://www.freedomlearning.co.uk [accessed on28 March 2003]

Moseley, D and Higgins, S (1999). WaysForward with ICT: Effective Pedagogy usingInformation and Communications Technology forLiteracy and Numeracy in Primary Schools.University of Newcastle, Newcastle, UK.


Knowledge Management within M-learning Environments

J HayesSchool of Computing and Technology

University of DerbyKedleston Road, Derby DE22 1GB

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

In education a key function is to impartknowledge. Likewise within business,knowledge has been recognised as a key toproviding strategic advantage within modernorganisations. Is it possible then that we canderive solutions to managing knowledge withinm-learning environments from lessons learnedin the world of business? Can we extend thiscompetitive advantage which has been seen inthe business world to propel m-learning forwardsproviding the best experience for the end useras well as serious competitive advantage foreducational technology and platform instigators?This paper examines how we can useknowledge management principles that havebeen successful in business to enhance andexploit the full potential of m-learningenvironments.

Keywords: learning, m-learning, knowledgemanagement,

1. Introduction

In using m-learning as a delivery platform, welose many of the social opportunities peoplehave to engage in face-to-face interactions.Many of the social, cultural, language andcontextual cues found in teacher-to-student andstudent-to-student communication are misplaced(Walther, 1996; Oblinger et al, 1998).Consequently a requirement for successful m-learning delivery is to manage these problemsthereby encouraging trust, knowledge sharing,collaboration and community within the m-learning space. What we need to do therefore islook elsewhere to see where these types of

problems have already been tackled. One suchplace is the world of business where manyorganisations have already been through thisprocess in their Knowledge Management (KM)initiatives.

In the business world organisations havebeen driving to improve efficiency andeffectiveness in the creation and sharing ofknowledge for some time (Nonaka andTakeuchi, 1995). M-learning must also enterthis transition zone if it is to combat many of theissues that this type of learning medium is likelyto create. In applying the concepts, tools andtechniques of KM to the conveyance ofknowledge within m-learning environments wecan potentially remedy m-learning exploitationconcerns. Where before the meaningfuldissemination of knowledge within theenvironment proved complex we can now usethe tools and techniques of KM to help promotea sense of community, build solid collaborationbetween students and teachers, and foster trustand knowledge sharing.

2. Applying KM

In applying KM to m-learning environmentswe need to consider the tools and techniqueswhich would be used to facilitate this transfer.Sophisticated m-learning environment tools willbe required to cater for the demands of amobile learner. Enhancing the learningexperience through greater interactivity canpotentially contribute to increased levels of trustand commitment amongst learners. As m-learning technologies steadily increase intechnological sophistication, enhancement willbe seen in the level of interactivity amongstlearners. Mobile computing picture messaging,video, online forums, mobile weblogs, instant


messaging and interactive media such as mobilewhiteboards for example will all add to a senseof identity, commitment and trust. This in turnwill encourage collaboration and a willingness toshare knowledge between mobile learners (Luffet al, 1998).

The techniques of KM also need to beconsidered in m-learning environment provision.Both process and space management willconstitute key elements in the development andultimate achievement of producing an effectivem-learning environment. Within processmanagement we will see an evolution of supportfor the mobile learner in the creation ofstructures encouraging knowledge generation,sharing and use. Organisational structureshould give users an appreciation of theknowledge interdependencies easily (Fagrell etal, 1999). Within space management, we willwant to see an environment that fosterscollaborative relationships between learners.Such an environment will also need to breakdown barriers created through language anddisparities between learner perception of wantsand needs. What is required is theestablishment of social capital, the creation ofmultiple weak ties between individuals and theformation of a sense of ‘place’ within whicheverything can happen (Lester, 2003).

One of the biggest problems in corporate KMis that of fear of loss of control and influence insharing knowledge with others. M-learningenvironments need to be designed in such away therefore that will foster knowledge sharing.As learning is typically a competitive experience,learners need to be shown the benefits ofcollaboration in learning. The new generation ofmobile learners in particular will bring with themextensive experience of the platform, as well asan inherent interest in these new technologies.This may form a useful catalyst in the formationand utilisation of mobile technology deliveryplatforms for learning.

3. m-Learning in Practice

M-learning environments are now beginningto move away from the traditional KM view of arepository of knowledge. This can be seen inthe transition toward more sophisticated forms ofm-learning environment provision. IBM’sPervasive Web Lectures for PDA’s offered asimple example of presentation knowledgedissemination amongst partners and employees(IBM, 2001). The move towards collaborativeknowledge manipulation has been seen withrecent initiatives by Unbound Medicine, whichhas lead to the adoption of m-learning platformsby the healthcare market for domain specific

knowledge propagation between medicalpractitioners (Unbound, 2002). Such systemstypically encourage knowledge sharing throughforum areas, promote question and answerupload from learners and give access tocomplex (medical) knowledge on the move.

4. Summary

The successful exploitation of KM principleswithin m-learning environments is paramount ifm-learning is to enhance the overall teachingand learning experience. Through theutilisation of KM tools and techniques asapplied to m-learning environments we willbegin to see benefits for both learners andinstructors.

5. References

Fagrell H, Kristoffersen S and Ljungberg F(1999). Exploring Support for KnowledgeManagement in Mobile Work. I nProceedings of the Sixth EuropeanConference on Computer-SupportedCooperative Work.

IBM (2001). Pervasive Web Lectures, DeliverOnce, Delivery Many - Lecture Services. Athttp://www.ibmweblectureservices.ihost.com/pervasive_wls/index.html, 31 March2003.

Lester J (2003). Integrating and Evolving aMob: The Growth of a Smart Mob into aWireless Community of Practice. InProceedings of the 10

th International

Conference on Human-ComputerInteraction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Luff P and Heath C (1998). Mobility inCollaboration. In Proceedings of the ACMConference on Computer SupportedCooperation Work. ACM Press.

Oblinger D, Rush, S (eds) (1998). The FutureCompatible Campus: Planning, Designingand Implementing Information Technologyin the Academy. Anker.

Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995). T h eKnowledge Creating Company. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

Unbound Medicine (2002). CogniQ PersonalK n o w l e d g e M a n a g e m e n t . Athttp://www.unbound.com, 31 March 2003.

Walther J (1996). C o m p u t e r - m e d i a t e dCommunication: Impersonal, interpersonaland hyperpersona l i n te rac t ion .Communication Research.


Collaboration and Roles in Remote Field Trips

Nick Hine, Marcus Specht* and Rosaleen RentoulUniversity of Dundee

Division of Applied Computing, Dundee, United Kingdom* Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, Institute for Applied Information Technology, St Augustine,

BONN, Germany[nhine, ros]@computing.Dundee.ac.uk

[email protected]

Abstract

In order to ensure that classroom basedpupils benefit from the experience of a field tripbeing undertaken by their peers, investigationsare underway within the RAFT project to providea cooperative learning environment spanningthe field trip and the classroom. Various rolesare being explored to ensure that all participantsare fully engaged in the event. The backgroundto this investigation is the need to embed theexperience within the curriculum, and to explorethe event within the peer based learning,situated learning (Lave and Wenger 1991) andvicarious learning pedagogic principles.

Keywords: Field Trips, Cooperative Learning

1. Introduction

The Remote Accessible Field Trip (RAFT)project is implementing a method of spanningfield trips and classroom based learningsituations in order to provide an integrated eventfor the set of pupils involved. This will take thepractice of mLearning into the realms of fullycooperative and collaborative learning.

In order to ensure that all pupils are fullyengaged in the event, the project team isexploring a range of roles that could be taken bythe pupils. The scope of these roles is beingexplored, together with the qualities that will bedeveloped within the pupils taking these roles.

2. Method

A variety of scenarios are being explored,focusing on the areas of Biology, Art andHistory. The curriculum is being consideredwithin the secondary education systems ofCanada, Scotland, Germany and Slovakia.

Prototype systems are being constructedbased on innovative classroom technologiesand on mobile devices in the field. A variety ofsimple scenarios are being enacted with schoolpupils to explore the nature of the roles thatmight be necessary, and the functionalityrequired of the systems to enable these roles tobe enacted. In addition trial field trips havetaken place in order to explore the interactionsbetween the classrooms and the field trip andthe capabilities of the current wide areastechnologies, whilst anticipating the capabilitiesof the future infrastructures.

This paper will report on this work, and willhighlight the nature of the collaboration beingexplored and the place of roles within themLearning situation.

3. AcknowledgementsThis work is part funded by the Commission

of the European Community under the IST 5th

Framework Programme.

4. References

Barker, S., Slingsby, D. and Tilling, S. (2002).Teaching biology outside the classroom. Isit heading for extinction? A report onbiology fieldwork in the 14 – 19 curriculum.FSC Occasional Publication 72.


Department for Education and Skills NGfL(2002). Transforming the Way We Learn Avision for the future of ICT in SchoolsDfES/0008/2002.

Johnson, R.T. and Johnson, D. W. (1994). AnOverview of Cooperative Learning. InThousand, J., Villa, R. and Nevin, A. (Eds)(1994). Creativity and CollaborativeLearning: The Practical Guide toEmpowering Students and Teachers.Brookes Press, Baltimore.

Lave. J and Wenger, E. (1991). SituatedLearning Legi t imate Per ipheralParticipation. Cambridge University Press.

Tinzmann, M. B., Jones, B. F., Fennimore, T. F.,Bakker, J., Fine, C. and Pierce, J. (1990).What is the Collaborative Classroom?NCREL, Oak Brook.

Topping K and Ehly S (1998). Peer-AssistedLearning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,London & Mahwah, New Jersey


A Framework for Managing Rights for Mobile Learning Content

Renato IannellaIPR Systems Pty Ltd

316 Brisbane Corso

Yeronga, QLD, 4104 [email protected]

Oliver BremerNokia

PO Box 100FIN-00045 NOKIA GROUP

Finland

[email protected]

Abstract

Managing rights over mobile content for learningprovides unique challenges involving the applicationof Digital Rights Management, Mobile technologiesand eLearning standards. Part of the effective

management of any content (even in the wired fixedspace) is the degree of treatment of intellectualproperty rights. Within the eLearning sector, rightsmanagement of content enables reuse, fair use, returnon investment, attribution, royalties, and usagecontrol. Applying these features to the mobile spaceposes serious questions for interoperability. Standardsare now emerging from the mobile sector to managevery simple rights. Moving to a complete architecture

supporting end-to-end management of elearningcontent will involve additional research and integrationof the standards from both the learning and mobilesectors.

Keywords: Digital Rights Management, OpenMobile Access Abstract Framework (OMAF), OpenMobile Alliance (OMA), Learning Object Management

Systems, Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL)

1. Introduction

The issues and solutions of managing the rightsover eLearning content has become increasinglyurgent as all players in the value chain – from creator

to consumer – realise the impact and balancingneeded between copyright and access to content.Solutions for the Internet are emerging (Iannella,2003) but delivery over the mobile space open upentirely new possibilities yet face additionalconstraints and requirements.

A number of “Abstract Frameworks” have beenproposed to manage the complex models for learningcontent management systems. The key to effective

management of rights in such frameworks is theubiquitous understanding of rights information at themany layers and across the many modules. Withoutthis, DRM services cannot be guaranteed.

2. Mobile Rights Language

The Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) released a rightsexpression language (REL) specification for rightsmanagement of mobile content, based on the OpenDigital Rights Language (OMA, 2002). The OMA RELis a smaller subset, or profile, of the complete ODRLsince mobile devices and their expected types of

content are limiting. The OMA REL has chosen the

core semantics for the permissions and constraintsthat should be applicable to mobile eLearningcontent. With the release of the OMA REL, mobiledevices will now be appearing that can understand,and importantly, honour, the rights informationattached to the mobile content. This will providesome of the assurances that rights holders arelooking for in DRM solutions.

3. Discussion

There are a number of issues to address for thesuccess of DRM for mobile eLearning content. Someof the outcomes include:

• Does the semantics of the OMA REL coverthe initial requirements of the eLearningmobile community?

• Can Internet-based DRM systems betransformed to handle mobile content?

• Can DRM be directly supported (andspecified) as an integral part eLearningframeworks?

• Are there additional (or modified) technologies

that are missing from the overall frameworkand requiring standardisation?

One of the first activities is to develop and/orintegrate DRM into existing eLearning frameworks toprovide the necessary infrastructure for theseservices. The eLearning community has some robuststandards for content description and packagingwhich would need semantic additions to support the

behaviour of rules covering rights information.Overlaying the mobile architectures and

protocols, such as the OMA REL, will provide insightinto current levels of support for DRM functions.Additionally, mobile standards for content notificationand distribution will need to be investigated againstthe framework.

The final result should include an enhanced

eLearning framework that caters for the managementof rights over mobile content and addresses some ofthe outstanding issues still required.

4. References

Iannella, R. (2003) Trading Learning Objects.Proceedings of the EDUCAUSE in AustralasiaConference, 6-9 May 2003, Adelaide, Australia

Open Mobile Alliance (2002). Rights Expression

Language Version 1.0. OMA DownloadSpecification, 13 September 2002.


Learning Can Happen Anywhere: A Mobile System for Language Learning

Vaida KadyteTurku Centre for Computer Science, Abo Akademi University

Institute for Advanced Management Systems Research, Mobile Commerce Laboratory,Abo Akademi University

Lemminkainengatan 14 B, 20520 Abo, FinlandEmail: [email protected]

Abstract

The Societal trend towards learning duringleisure time and the rapid development ofadvances in mobile technology trigger the visionof enabling consumers to learn anytimeanywhere. However, there have been relativelyfew attempts systematically to explore learningopportunities presented by mobile devices. Thisarticle investigates the importance of startingfrom the mobile user’s perspective with aconceptual framework when developing mobileapplications for learning. The results of a mobilecommerce expert survey, carried out by IAMSRResearch in five different countries, illustratesthe impact of cultural differences in userbehaviour on the potential success of mobilelearning applications. Time, information andlocation dimensions delineate the impact onusers' contexts and the selection of innovativemobile technology, with our results suggestingthe design of a mobile system for languagelearning.

Keywords: mobile system, overlappingcontexts, leisure and learning

1. Leisure and Learning SocietyIt is both evident and ironic that progress in

information technology has denoted more workin our society (Leggiere, 2002). The rising levelof education is another powerful variableshaping very dist inct consumer andorganisational behaviour (Falk and Dierking,2002). Learning during leisure time has becomevery pervasive in our knowledge society, whichis more likely to be characterised as time-poorand money rich (Lindskog and Brege, 2003).

2. Conceptual FrameworkHigh added-value applications in mobile

commerce is becoming one of the most populartopics of interest in IS research, and is a coreactivity for many businesses operating in thewireless world. Different scholars exploringmobile markets in different countries are likelyto have different perceptions on what kind ofmobile services will be most popular.Conversely, they share quite similar views onthe mobile products service success: designingfrom the customer’s perspective. To develop anin-depth understanding of the widespreadsuccess of mobile applications, we need toappreciate the conditional elements of SystemTheory. Analysing relationships between thedifferent success factors of information systemartefacts, we present a conceptual frameworkthat can be used to design the mobile systemfor users to learn a language. Within thisframework, a special emphasis is given tojustify the most appropriate context of mobilelearning. The area which has been researchedthe most in mobile context studies is thephysical location of the mobile user. The mainconclusion which has been derived from thesestudies is that context of use should begoverned by the overall user’s ecosystem(Groot and Welie, 2002), rather than affected bythe physical location alone.

3. Contexts of Mobile LearningFiguring out the right contextual model is a

starting point for designing any mobile systemfor consumers. We discovered that a typicalmobile user is involved in a number of differentoverlapping contexts, thus any activity andexperience that results is influenced by theinteractions between these contexts. Thedefinition of an overlapping context is not new


(Falk and Dierking, 2002), though it has notbeen emphasized in information systemsresearch. Our suggestion is that threeoverlapping contexts – the Personal Mobile, theLearning Community and Cultural - contribute tothe design of experiences that people havewhen engaging in mobile learning.

We have chosen to describe the freedom oflearning as a process, evolving within differentdimensions of time, information and location.Our basic assumption is that the nature of time,information and place has implications for thelearning society, which is eager to transfer andshare it effectively by the help of mobilecommunication technology. The three underlyingparameters of mobile communication assists inanalysing different contexts of use in mobilelearning.

The contextual model presented in this paperemphasises on one hand the personal attributesof the user operating in a mobile context and, onthe other hand, the community attributes whichare essential for the virtual learning context.Another important aspect which needs to beconsidered when designing a mobile system is acultural context of use. We present the results ofa mobile commerce expert survey, carried outby Institute for Advanced Management SystemsResearch (IAMSR) in five different countries,which suggests that cultural differences in usagebehaviour characterise the potential success ofmobile learning applications. The respondentsfrom Finland and Honk Kong judged differentlytheir perceptions of mobile learning, having theirorigins in different cultural contexts and well-defined educational systems.

The overlapping of contexts opens up avariety of different features and attributes thatinfluences the correct definition of the userrequirements and appropriate design of theoverall mobile system.

4. Innovat ion with VoiceTechnology

The sharing of extensive information within anon-specified time frame does not require theco-presence and co-location between thesender and receiver. Using voice technology toprovide a rich media content for the user solvesthe current limitations of input and outputmechanisms of mobile devices. Moreover it isan innovative solution in terms of mobility andcontextual learning.

The main results of the study could betranslated into a general prototype of mobilesystem for learning Finnish language – as perFigure 1 below.

Figure 1 – Screenshot of the serviceinterface (Nokia 7650 mobile device)

The system above has a multilingual content,but the information used is in a single languagespecified by the user when subscribing to theprofile. Through mobile headphones a‘Language Learning Guide’ is able to explainthe main grammar rules within the vocabularysection, in order to introduce each of thecontextual topics according to the personalprofile that each user subscribes to in advance;push technology enables the user to post themost recent news in a teacher’s and groupsections, where SMS alerts are expected to beused for retrieving problematic or time-criticalinformation.

In an ideal case, the user may freely movewithin the different environments in accordanceto the context of the selected topic, and listen tothe correct pronunciation of the languagethrough his/her personal earphones. Animplementation of such a mobile system,designed to meet the particular needs of leisurestudents, requires further research before afreedom of learning can be realised.

5. ReferencesFalk J H, Dierking L D (2002). Lessons Without

Limits: How Free-Choice Learning isTransforming Education . Institute forLearning Innovation

Groot B, Welie M (2002). Leveraging theContext of Use in Mobile Service Design.Conf. proc. of 4

th International Symposium,

Mobile HCI 2002, Pisa, Italy, September 18-20, 2002, Springer pp. 334-338.

Leggiere P (2002). What Happened to theLeisure Society? Journal Across the Board,July/August 2002.

Lindskog H, Brege S (2003). The Importance ofTime-rich and Time-poor ConsumerBehaviour for the E-commerce. Conf. proc.of the 24

th McMaster World Congress,

Canada January 15-17, 2003.


Designing for learning or designing for fun? Setting usability guidelines for mobileeducational games

Maria KambouriNational Research and Development

Centre in Adult Literacy and NumeracyInstitute of EducationUniversity of London20 Bedford Way

London WC1H OAL, [email protected]

Siobhan Thomas and Gareth SchottInstitute of EducationUniversity of London20 Bedford Way

London WC1H OAL, [email protected]@ioe.ac.uk

Abstract

While this paper looks at the definitions ofheuristics and usability as they apply to digitalgames, its primary focus is expanding theusability dialog into the arena of mobileeducational games. It seeks to define thedifferences between conventional game designand educational game design and to answer thequestion of whether it is necessary to modifyexisting game usability criteria when designingeducational games for mobile devices.

Keywords: mobile educational games, mobilelearning, games, heuristics, usability, learning,education, motivation

Usability guidelines for mobileeducational games

This paper attempts to outline and evaluatethe game industry’s approach to usabilitytesting. It considers the potential application andappropriateness of industry practice to thedevelopment of mobile educational games and,in order to account for the differences betweenconventional game design and mobile gamedesign, it argues for an expansion to thedefinition of game heuristics.

The development of a set of educationalgame heuristics, or usability guidelines, is auseful undertaking not only because it serves tocreate a guide for the investigation of usability

issues, but also because, once identified, gameheuristics can help developers avoid usabilityproblems in the first place.

Heuristics is grounded in a process ofinductive reasoning. Heuristic principles aredeveloped through problem solving—situationsare examined, experiences are drawn on, andusable solutions are uncovered through trialand error. Usability, therefore, is, in a sense,the extent to which heuristics can successfullyoperate.

Heuristic evaluation—traditionally, evaluationin which a small team of independentevaluators compare user interfaces with a set ofusability guidelines, the “heuristics”—has beenrecognised as an effective method for theformative evaluation of educational software(Quinn, 1996; Squires & Preece, 1999; Albion1999). Heuristic evaluation using six evaluatorsuncovers 75 percent of usability problems(Nielsen, 1994) and is considered a cost-effective method of evaluation that yieldsreliable results for minimum investment (Quinn,1996).

But, while heuristics has gained someattention as a beneficial tool in the educationalsoftware arena for examining user interfaces,usability, in general, is still a relatively foreignconcept in the game development community(Federoff, 2002). Furthermore, acomprehensive list of heuristics dealing with theusability of digital educational games, not tomention those available on mobile platforms, isvirtually nonexistent.


Recent discussions of game heuristics havemade some useful connections betweenNielsen’s and Malone’s heuristics, andCsikszentmihalyi’s flow theory, and conventionalgame development theory and practice(Federoff, 2002; Mayra 2002). This paperexpands the usability dialog, beginning wherethese discussions have left off, and draws oninterviews with educational game developers,game design theory, and educational softwaredesign guides to compile a list of usabilityguidelines intended to be useful for thedevelopment and evaluation of mobileeducational games. Within the paper, we willlook at the tensions that arise when curriculum isintroduced into conventional gaming practiceand discuss the implications these tensionshave for educational games. Further, we willcontextualise the guidelines by providing apractical account of how key usabilityconsiderations can be used in the analysis ofboth conventional and mobile educationalgames.

It has become increasingly apparent thateducational games succeed when the finebalance between designing for function andperformance (learning), and designing for playerpleasure (fun) is attained. What makes aneffective educational game, whether — and how— curriculum should be incorporated, and whataspects of a game should be evaluated arefundamental questions that need to beaddressed by educationalists using games inlearning situations. Setting usability guidelines isan important first step in this process.

References

Albion, Peter R (1999). Heuristic evaluation ofeducational multimedia: from theory topractice. 16th Annual conference of theAustralasian Society for Computers inLearning in Tertiary Education, ASCILITE

Csikszentmihalyi, Mikaly (1991). Flow: ThePsychology of Optimal Experience. New York:Harper Perennial.

Federoff, Melissa A. (2002) Heuristics andUsability Guidelines for the Creation andEvaluation of Fun in Video Games.

Nielsen, J., and Mack, R. L. (Eds.) (1994).Usability Inspection Methods. John Wiley &Sons, New York, NY.

Squires, D. and J. Preece (1999). "Predictingquality in educational software: Evaluating forlearning, usability and the synergy betweenthem." Interacting with Computers 11: 467-483.


Mobile Learning as a Tool for Inclusive Lifelong Learning

Terry KeefeICT Research Manager

UfiDearing House

1 Young StSheffield


Abstract

This paper and presentation describes Ufi’spurpose and objectives in developing an M-learning capability; the work we have done sofar; and how we propose to test the applicabilityof M-learning to an inclusion agenda. Itdiscusses the need for a cautious approach tothe assumptions and claims about mobiletechnologies and their users. The work carriedout already on feasibility are placed in thecontext of a managed approach to ICTarchitecture investment and development.Finally it describes our pilot and evaluationbased approach aimed at proving feasibility,testing assumptions, and identifying deliveryoptions.

Keywords: SFL (Skills for Life), Inclusion,Mobile Technology, ICT architecture, Lifelonglearning, feasibility, evaluation, assumptions

1. Introduction

1.1. Objectives

Ufi’s remit is to extend the lifelong learninghabit. The aim of the work we are doing is to:• establish technical feasibility;

• identify learning contexts and preferences;

• explore how to use mobile technologies tosupport lifelong learning;

• identify the means and methods fordelivering m-learning in a commerciallysustainable way.

The focus of our work will be on Skills for Lifecontent, and will include a games perspectiveas part of the engagement objective.

1.2. Starting Assumptions

Our short intensive experience in e-learninghave demonstrated two things. First usingtechnology to deliver learning opportunities is ahugely effective way of engaging nonparticipant, excluded populations. Second, thisis new territory. Assumptions and claims mustbe tested before risking significant investment.Our starting position is:

• mobile devices are popular within ourinclusion target groups. They are morelikely to encourage a positive responsethan unfamiliar desktop technologies;

• mobile devices will have the capability ofdelivering high quality, multi-media contentat affordable prices within the next twoyears;

• e-learning content will not automaticallytranslate from a desktop to a mobiledelivery medium. It will lack functionalityand the learning experience will not besuitable for a mobile context;

• there will be surprises. All assumptions,including those above, need to be treatedwith appropriate caution.


However, we need to be brave andinnovative. There are always sound reasons fornot doing new things, but opportunities are notrealised through inertia.

2. Mobile Learning Projects

In order to make realistic decisions aboutwhat we can achieve and the investmentneeded we must: develop mobile capability,evaluate the mobile and learning experience,and implement an m-learning offering within thelearndirect service.

2.1. Mobile capability

Ufi’s ICT strategy is to build a multi channelarchitecture. This includes hardware, backendsystems, development tools and methods, andstandards. Our approach is:

• establish feasibility;• build the architecture model;• demonstrator pilots to identify issues and

develop knowledge and awarenessinternally.

We built simple demonstrators of learndirectcontent on a range of mobile technologies. Weare now building mobile capability into our ICTarchitecture.

2.2. The mobile experience

Activit ies aimed at developing ourunderstanding of mobile users learningbehaviour and preferences are : involvement inthe MOBIlearn project where we are responsiblefor gathering content and conductingevaluations; and working with the Institute ofEducation to develop an evaluation regimewhich will operate within a mobile context.

2.3. Implementation

By the end of this feasibility and evaluationprocess Ufi will have:

• proven technology and methods fordelivering content through mobiletechnologies;

• a reliable indication of the potential of mobiletechnologies to further our inclusionobjectives;

• a knowledge of what content is best suitedto meet those objectives;

• a route for turning this knowledge into aneffective, and commercially affordable,mobile learning service.

This activity will enable Ufi to assess andrespond to the wider opportunities for m-learning, supported by greater knowledge ofmobile learning and the technological capabilityto deliver that content.


Text Messaging in Practice

Lilian KennedyThomas Danby College

Roundhay Road, Leeds, LS7 3BGEmail:[email protected]

David SugdenDewsbury College

Halifax Road, Dewsbury WF13 2ASEmail: [email protected]

Abstract

Further Education (FE) tutors who areinterested in the practical application of textmessaging to learning and communications willbe interested in the work of these twopractitioners who actively encourage its use withstudents.

Students appear to appreciate the additionalcommunication channel with their tutor that textmessaging opens up. However, experimentswith texting students formative assessmentquestions produced some interesting results andsome unforeseen problems. Feedback from thestudents will help to inform our approach indesigning future SMS quizzes.

Keywords: FE, pedagogy, game, ambientlearning, communication skills

1. The basic technicalities

It is generally accepted that young people inthe UK are hooked on text messaging (BBC,2001a). The rise in the use of text messagingwas partly due to the perception that it ischeaper to text than to make a phone call on thephone. Students were also hooked on this formof asynchronous communication (BBC, 2001b).Having sent a text message, you couldanticipate the reply and look forward to itpopping up on your phone at any time. This wassomehow more special than just talking tosomeone at the end of the phoneline.

Teachers are trying to discourage thepresence of mobile phones in class because toomany students are being distracted by incoming

text from boyfriends/girlfriends instead ofconcentrating on their lessons (BBC, 2001c).The annoying ringtones adopted by some usersset at the loudest volume possible for theirphones to emit is another major disruption tothe class. Students sometimes even leave thelesson to answer a call.

But, do we fight this trend or should we workwith it and embrace it to our own advantage?History has shown that resistance is futile. Youcan never turn back the tide of technology,especially for communication (BBC, 2001a).

There is no doubt that the use of textmessaging can improve our communications,not just with hard to reach students, but alsowith their parents (BBCi, 2002).

This workshop aims to showcase examplesof text messaging in practice by exploring casesavailable on websites as well as the experienceof the two presenters.

There will be a demonstration on how tosend bulk messages to students through a textmessaging web site, and how tutors wouldaccess the replies.

There will be an overview of the variousways in which an institution could go aboutimplementing text messaging facilities for thetutors, from buying their own servers andsoftware to using a commercial supplier(Kennedy, 2002). The pros and cons of this willbe discussed.

2. Lesson plans and pedagogy


David Sugden will discuss the merits of usingtext messaging as a means of communicatingwith the students. This has increased their useof email and improved overall communication.Its use with formerly special needs students hasincreased their conf idence in theircommunication skills. There is evidence fromother sources that it improves student motivationand organisation (Mayer, 2002).

The downside (depending on how you look atit) of all this increased communication is anevolution of the written word to make it fit forpurpose. Text messages are characteristicallyonly 160 characters long. Spelling and grammarhave had to evolve to accommodate theconstraints of the medium (BBCi, 2001).

Now, that language is set to exist in its ownright with the encouragement of phone operatorslike Orange, who have recently announced thewinner of their text poetry competition (TheGuardian, 2002). This is an example on how thetechnology can be embraced or harnessed forour own purposes.

Lilian Kennedy has worked with tutors toincorporate learning games into the scheme ofwork. Additionally, text messaging is used tocommunicate with NVQ students to increaseretention and improve motivation. The results ofthese experiments with students will bediscussed.

Examples will include the use of textmessaging in education to aid revision (BBCi,2002) and as an enticement to access furtherinformation on a website.

There will be a demonstration of how to sendbulk text messages to students and what to lookout for when deciding on a provider of theservice. We will look at how a tutor receivesreplies and how these can be used to assessstudent learning (Kennedy, 2002).

Even when you think you are using textmessaging for sound pedagogic reasons, it canbackfire on you. Students in Arts and Mediawere reminded of a tutorial session through textmessaging one week and not the next. Theyused this as an excuse for forgetting the secondtutorial, complaining that the tutor had not sentthem a text to remind them. Other pitfalls ofusing text messaging will be discussed toprepare those embarking on their ownexperiments with SMS and students (BBC,2001b).

There will be an opportunity to brainstorm forfurther ways to incorporate the use of SMS intolessons, and everyone attending should comeaway with lots of ideas to try out.

3. References

BBC (2001a). The Joy of Text, FCTS + FGRS09/06/01http://www.bbc.co.uk/joyoftext/facts/index.shtml,accessed 04/04/03

BBC (2001b). The Joy of Text, FCTS + FGRS ,09/06/01,http://www.bbc.co.uk/joyoftext/facts/pros_cons.shtml, accessed 04/04/03

BBC (2001c). The Joy of Text, FCTS + FGRS ,09/06/01,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/joyoftext/facts/generation_txt.shtml, accessed 04/04/03

BBCi (2001). The Joy of Text, FCTS + FGRS09/06/01,http://www.bbc.co.uk/joyoftext/facts/abbreviations.shtml, accessed 04/04/03

BBCi (2002a). Schools News Text, 08/02,http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/sms/, accessed04/04/03

BBCi (2002b). Text messaging - new streetwise wayto r ev i se f o r exams , 14 /02 /02http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/commercial/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2002/02_february/gcse_bitesize_text_messaging.shtml, accessed

04/04/03

Kennedy, L (2002). Using Lycos for SMS, 31/05/02,http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?page=13&resID=2982, accessed 26/02/03

Mayer, I (2002). Using text messaging to improvestudent organisation and motivation, 24/06/02,

http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?page=13&resID=2762, accessed 26/02/03

The Guardian (2002). Orange SMS shorthandpoetry competition: the shortlist, 05/12/02,http://www.guardian.co.uk/mobile/article/0,2763,854212,00.html, accessed 04/04/03


A context awareness architecture for facilitating mobile learning

Peter Lonsdale, Chris Baber, Mike SharplesUniversity of Birmingham

Electronic, Electrical, and Computer Engineering, Birmingham, B15 2TT{p.lonsdale, c.baber, m.sharples}@bham.ac.uk

Abstract

The MOBIlearn architecture (EU IST-2001-37187) supports a wide range of services andapplications for learners using mobile computingdevices such as phones, PDAs, and laptops.The display limitations of these devices meanthat it is crucial to deliver the right content at theright time. One way of doing this is to usecontextual information to derive content that isrelevant to what the user is doing, as well aswhere and how they are doing it. Here wepresent an architecture for a context awarenesssubsystem to be implemented within theMOBIlearn achitecture.

Keywords: context awareness, elearning,mobile computing, mlearning

1. Mlearning in MOBIlearn

The MOBIlearn project focuses on providing ageneric, reusable architecture to supportlearning on mobile devices. The displaycapabilities of these devices are limited whencompared to desktop alternatives, and soprovisions must be made for tailoring contentand options. Context awareness continues tobe a highly desirable feature for mobilecomputing devices (for a recent review seeChen and Kotz, 2000), and in MOBIlearncontextual information is used to provide filteredcontent appropriate to users’ goals, settings, andresources. For our purposes, ‘content’ includesnot only actual learning content but alsoapplicable services (such as collaboration tools)and options (such as interaction preferences).

1.1. Context awareness for mlearning

Context awareness in MOBIlearn isimplemented as a context awarenesssubsystem (CAS) that selects content reflectingthe requirements of a specific individual andthen presents this content with minimal usereffort.

Two potential advantages of this system overconventional approaches are:

1) The need to define search terms andperform content search is reduced

2) The system is usable whilst the personis engaged in other activity

The utility of this approach has alreadybeen demonstrated by Bristow et al (2002) whoshowed that simple sensor input indicating userstatus could provide effective context-dependent content management.

For example, a user walking past the librarysees a link to the library homepage on a head-up display, and if they stand still they arepresented with a brief version of the page itself.If they then sit down, they see the page in full.

In broad terms, the aim of the CAS is toprovide a means by which users of mobiledevices can maintain their attention on theworld around or the task at hand, whilstproviding timely and effective computer support.The CAS provides a mechanism by whichrelevant content can be selected, filtered, andpassed to the user. Users can then either lookat the content or select other content from thefiltered set.


2. Architecture

The CAS comprises a central context engineusing a set of context features – obtained fromreal-world data such as location, activity, anddevice capabilities – to derive a context state.This context state is used to perform exclusionof any unsuitable content (e.g. high resolutionweb pages that cannot be displayed on a PDA)and then ranking of the remaining content todetermine the best n options.

Content is to be drawn from a repository oflearning objects, appropriately marked-up forcontent using XML or similar and an agreedmark-up standard such as the IEEE learningobjects meta-data schema (IEEE StandardsDepartment, 2002).

3. Current status and next steps

The CAS is currently implemented as a pre-prototype demonstrator with a CLIPS productionsystem as the context engine linked to auser/debugging interface in Tcl/Tk.

The next steps for the MOBIlearn contextawareness subsystem involve using sensorsthat can provide real-world context features on amobile device such as a tablet PC or iPaq. Wealso intend to explore alternative implementationmethods such as agent-based systems toengender a flexible, reusable context awarenesssubsystem.

4. References

Bristow, H. W., Baber, C., Cross, J. and Wooley,S. (2002) Evaluating contextual informationfor wearable computing. In Proceedings ofthe Sixth International Symposium onWearable Computers, New York: IEEEComputer Society.

Chen, G. and Kotz, D. (2000) A survey ofcontext-aware mobile computing research.Technical Report TR2000-381, DartmouthCollege.

IEEE Standards Department (2002) Draftstandard for learning objects metadata. IEEEStandards Department.


SMILE: The Creation Of Space For Interaction Through Blended DigitalTechnology

Rose Luckin, Diane Brewster, DarrenPearce, Richard Siddons-Corby,

Benedict du BoulayIDEAS Lab; School of Cognitive and

Computer Science (COGS) University ofSussex

Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QH

Email:[email protected];

[email protected];[email protected];

[email protected]@cogs.susx.ac.uk

Abstract

Interactive Learning Environments at SussexUniversity is a course in which students aregiven mobile devices (XDAs) with PDAfunctionality and full Internet access for theduration of the term. They are challenged todesign and evaluate learning experiences, bothrunning and evaluating learning sessions thatinvolve a blend of technologies. Data ontechnology usage was collected via backups, e-mail and web-site logging as well as video andstill photography of student-led sessions. Initialanalysis indicates that large amounts oftechnical support, sol id pedagogicalunderpinning and a flexible approach to bothdelivery context and medium are essential.

Keywords: XDA, Pedagogy, conversationalframework

1. Creating Learning Environments

SMILE (Sussex Mobile Interactive LearningEnvironment) is an initiative at the University ofSussex to introduce mobile wireless devices(XDAs) into the curriculum. Eighteen mobiledevices, with PDA functionality and full Internetaccess, were used as part of a re-designedcourse on Interactive Learning Environments.Students were allocated devices for the termand were expected to use them ‘as their own’.Students were set the challenge of designingand evaluating learning experiences using ablend of technologies. Key findings from this

project focus on the use a variety oftechnologies to create a coherent interface tosocial and cognitive interaction possibilities.

2 Pedagogical Framework

Initial results on the use of mobiletechnology, such as those reported in Mlearn2001, 2002 and in the 2002 IEEE workshop(Milrad, Hopper and Kinshuk, 2002) have beenencouraging. Researchers have suggested, forexample, that mobile learning enhancesautonomous and collaborative learning (CereijoRoibás and Sánchez, 2002), and that it can beapplied to a wide age range of students(Inkpen, 2000; Perlin and Fox, 1993; Sharples,Corlett and Westmancott, 2002 and Soloway,Norris, Blumenfield, Fishman, Krajcik and Marx,2001).

However, there are still questions about thenature of the pedagogical framework that mighteffectively ground mobile learning experiences.At Sussex we are placing emphasis uponcommunication between individual learnersusing a blend of novel and traditionaltechnologies through which learners and tutorscan interact. We are exploring the applicabilityof Laurillard’s conversational framework(Laurillard, 2001) as a foundation for the designof our interactive learning environment; anapproach already seen as potentially useful tomobile learning technology development(Sharples, 2003). The course content materialis available through lecture material delivered inboth face-to-face sessions and on-line, multiple


narrative media including paper and software,and through small group collaborations withface-to-face meetings and on-line discussions.Students are encouraged to use standarddesktop computing as well as the fullfunctionality of their mobile devices. Their briefis to use the most suitable technology to bothstudy as individuals and to collaborate in thedesign and evaluation of learning experiencesfor their peers. Our brief as tutors has been tointroduce and maintain the technologyinfrastructure in such a way that it enablesinteractivity and learning without becoming thecentral focus of the activity

3 Evaluation

Evaluation will be through multiple datasources including video and still photography offace-to-face sessions. In addition to this, emailtraffic between those involved on the course hasbeen monitored, with a view to identifyingpatterns in email activity arising from the use ofthe devices. Access to the course web-site hasalso been logged for each user. Of particularinterest is the way in which the material on theweb-site was accessed during the on-linelecture. This information is not only useful asresearch data but also provides empiricalsupport for student evaluation as well asenabling a high degree of tracking of bothlearner performance and the learning process.

Initial analysis indicates that (i) large amountsof time and skilled effort were needed to installand maintain the mobile infrastructure, (ii) theeffective collaborative use of mobile technologydepends on a prior underpinning of face-to-facecontact (between tutors, between students andbetween students and tutors) and (iii) soundpedagogy. We will describe the structure of thecourse, the technology, data collection andanalysis methodologies and highlight the keyemergent findings from the project. We willindicate the ways in which a conversationalframework can be adapted to inform the designof multi-technology learning experiences.

Figure 1. XDA device used on the course

4 References

Inkpen, K M (2000). Designing HandheldTechnologies for Kids. Personal Technologies,3(1/2), 81-89.

Laurillard, D (2001) Rethinking University Teaching,

RoutledgeMilrad, M Hopper, H U and Kinshuk (eds) (2002).

Proceedings IEEE International Workshop onWireless and Mobile Technologies in Education,August 29-30, 2002, Växjö, Sweden. IEEEComputer Society 2002

Perlin, K, and Fox, D (1993). Pad: An AlternativeApproach to the Computer Interface, Proceedings

of SIGGRAPH '93 (Vol. 93, pp. 57-64). New York,NY.

Cereijo Roibás, A. and Arnedillo Sánchez, I (2002)Pathways to m-learning. Proceedings of the FirstEuropean Workshop on Mobile and ContextualLearning, Birmingham, UK, June 2002 pp 53-56

Sharples, M. (2003) Disruptive Devices: MobileTechnology for Conversational Learning.International Journal of Continuing Engineering

Education and Lifelong Learning, 12, 5/6, pp.504-520..

Sharples, M, Corlett, D and Westmancott, O (2002)The Design and Implementation of a MobileLearning Resource. Personal and UbiquitousComputing, 6, pp. 220-234.

Soloway, E, Norris, C, Blumenfield, P, Fishman, B,Krajcik, J, and Marx, R (2001). Handheld Devices

are Ready at Hand. Communications of the ACM,44(6), 15-20.


GCSE Revision with Mobile PhonesDeveloping a Java-based Quiz Game

Wolf LueckerAsh Luecker Ltd

109-123 Clifton StreetLondon EC2A 4LD, UK


Chris AshAsh Luecker Ltd

109-123 Clifton StreetLondon EC2A 4LD, UK


Abstract

Ash Luecker are currently developing arevision aid for GCSE students, using the formatof a multiple choice quiz game. This project triesto engage the vast number of teenage mobilephone users in the learning process by offeringa fun and accessible application to download toa range of popular phones. Programmed usingthe J2ME (Java) platform, this tool will beavailable to students from April 2003. In thissession we will explore both the technologicaland design issues involved in developing Javagames for low-end mobile phones as well asexamine the opportunities for learning on thisplatform.

Keywords: Mobile phones, Java, games,curriculum revision

1. Why mobile learning games?

The proliferation of mobile phones amongstchildren in their teens has risen immensely inthe last few years. Furthermore, according to theInternational Telecommunications Union’s reporton mobile Internet access (Srivastava et al,2002), teenagers appear to be the most avidusers of the mobile Internet. Whilst most of thetime online is spent downloading ring tones,desktop pictures and arcade games, a majorbroadcaster in the UK has recently used thewide availability and community-buildingproperties of mobiles for educational purposes.As part of the revision process for exams, SMSmessages were sent out which tested pupils’

knowledge on key GCSE subjects. This methodof revision proved to be highly successful.Following on from that particular example, thenext logical step may be to combine the rise ofmobile gaming with wider pedagogicalprinciples.

2. The technological andcommercial context

Games applications developed using theJava programming language have becomecommonplace in the mobile communicationsarena in 2003. More and more Java-enabledphones are being released and sold, whichhave varying capacity in terms of memory anddisplay size. Nokia, the world’s biggestmanufacturer of mobile phones, now has about20 different models capable of running Javaapplications on sale worldwide. These rangefrom the bottom-of-the-range models explicitlyaimed at the younger market (3410, 3510i) tosophisticated PDA replacements like the Nokia7650. Other manufacturers like Siemens, SonyEricsson and Motorola have adopted thestandard and are building Java into theirproducts. Java is an open standard and verypowerful programming environment, with awealth of experience available from its use onthe Internet since the mid-1990s.

3. Basic development issues

Producing a stimulating quiz game for asmall screen device like the Nokia 3410 – themost popular entry-level phone boughtpredominantly by teenagers – involves a whole


range of issues for the developer, the mostimportant of which we will be addressing in thissession. With a memory allocation of around 50KB per application, graphics have to be usedvery sparingly and the amount of data foreditorial content is limited. The monochromescreen has dimensions of 96 by 65 pixels,roughly a 10

th of the available screen ‘real

estate’ of the average PC Internet browserwindow. The processor speed of the 3410phone is also negligible in modern computingterms. Although Java is a very powerfullanguage, these limitations can hamper thedevelopment of a meaningful learningexperience and need to be addressed in acreative and thoughtful way.

Ash Luecker approach this project withconsiderable experience in designing anddeveloping learning games. Members of theteam will be available to answer questions ontechnology issues, the commercial mobilegaming market and possibilities for mobilelearning content.

4. References

Srivastava L et al. (2002).The Internet for a Mobile Generation. ITUInternet Report. InternationalTelecommunications Union, Geneva.


Learning tools for Java enabled phones.An application for Actuarial studies

María Cruz Mayorga-ToledanoDep. de Derecho Privado Especial.

University of Málaga, SpainFacultad de Económicas, Campus El

Ejido s.n. 29071 Málaga, SpainEmail: [email protected]

Antonio Fernández-MoralesDep. de Estadística y Econometría.

University of Málaga, SpainFacultad de Económicas, Campus El

Ejido s.n. 29071 Málaga, SpainEmail: [email protected]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore thepossibilities of Java midlets (small applicationsthat can be stored in a mobile phone) aslearning tools in higher education, via anexperience we are developing for the Actuarialdegree of Málaga University.

Keywords: midlets, mlearning, highereducation

1. Introduction

Mobile phone devices are becomingtremendously popular within the communities ofuniversity students in our country, Spain, as wellas in the countries of our near environment.Although the main use of these devices is forsocial purposes, far less attention has beengiven to their use as a support for learning tools.In an previous paper, Mayorga-Toledano (2002),we study the possibilities of integrating in highereducation strategies the use of interactive testsdesigned for WAP phones. In this paper weexplore the educative use of Java midlets fortwo courses in the Actuarial degree of MálagaUniversity.

2. An educative application of Javamidlets in higher education

Java technologies for mobile phones areopening new opportunities for the development

of educative applications in the field ofmlearning. Java midlets are small applicationsthat can be stored in the mobile phone, andshow two important advantages with respect toWAP applications, which we explore in anearlier paper: (i) once the midlet is stored, it canbe used offline, without connection costs, and(ii) the popularity of Java games makes thistechnology very familiar to the students. Theformer can alleviate the problems noticed byCher Ping and Chwee Beng (2002) or Loh(2000) when using mobile devices for m-learning through the WAP protocol.

We are developing educative midlets for twocourses in the Actuarial degree of MálagaUniversity: Banking, Insurance and SecuritiesMarket Law (B.I.S.M.L.), and Actuarial Statistics(AcStat). These midlets are integrated into ablended learning strategy, that includes virtual(web based activities and midlets) and nonvirtual elements.

Figure 1. Main screen of the midlet


The midlets we are developing aredeliberately simple and lightweight. They sharea similar structure and interface, but theircontents are specific for the two courses.

A recent study about e-learning thatcombines web and mobile devices, Ring (2001),states that the latter are best used to supportparticular aspects of learning, like alerts,remainders, multiple choices tests, or glossaries.The contents of our midlets are very similar tothe ones mentioned in that study.

The midlet for the Law course includes aGlossary, a Calendar and interactive tests (seeFigure 1). The main features of the tests are thefollowing: (i) reduced number of questions inevery test, (ii) questions and answers areexpressed in a deliberately simple, althoughstrictly correct, language, (iii) the answers areeasily selected with the phone keys, and (iv)immediate feedback, the user knows in real timeif his/her choice is correct.

Figure 2. Example of a test

The calendar module includes very usefulinformation for the students, like the dates ofexams, the Internet address of the course foradditional on line resources, calendar of classes,etc., (Figure 2).

Figure 3. Calendar

The AcStat midlet has the same modules asthe one of the Banking, Insurance and Securities

Market Law one, but it also includes a list of themain mathematical functions used in thecourse, classified by lessons.

Figure 4. Example of the functions module

3. References

Cher Ping, L and Chwee Beng, L (2002).Mediating E-Discussions with WAPTechnology: The Experience of theNational Institute of Education (Singapore),Techknowlogia, 4(2).

Mayorga-Toledano, M (2002). Interactive testsfor WAP devices. An application for Lawcourses in Tourism Studies, in A. Méndez,J.A: Mesa and I. Solo (eds.) Educationaltechnology. Junta de Extremadura

Loh, C S (2000) Learning tools for knowledgenomads, Educational Technology, 4(6), pp.5-14.

Ring, G (2001) Case Study: Combining Weband WAP to Deliver E-Learning, LearningCircuits, American Society for Training andDevelopment (ASTD), June 2001.


Learning “2go”:Making reality of the scenarios?

Louise MifsudAgder University CollegeSchool of Management

Dept. of Information SystemsService Box 422

4604 KristiansandNORWAY


Abstract

This paper discusses the role of mobile andhandheld technologies in education, exploring inwhich arenas handhelds are being used, andhow and why are they used. Does access to thetechnology make technology an integral part ofdaily life, and learning? How is it changingclassroom culture? The paper draws onpreliminary findings from a pilot study at a 6

th

grade class, a University of Michigan - Hi-CE1

project school. This study gives indications ofwhat can be achieved with handheld technologyin education - a transition from disruptivetechnology to useful and enhancing educationaltechnology. The study focuses on the schoolarena as it been the focus of much debate withregards to educational technology.

Keywords: Handhelds, learning culture,integral to daily learning, disruptive technology

1. Possibilities

Mobile and handheld computers offer newpossibilities in education. Computer technologyhas been criticised for being segregated fromongoing aspects of children’s lives, beingrelegated to the “computer rooms” in schools,and making PCs anything but personal. It has,however, been argued that flexible access to

1 Center for Highly Interactive Computers in

Education at the University of Michigan, USA, http://www.handheld.hice-dev.org/

handheld technology will provide tools to helpchildren construct knowledge throughout theirdaily activities, making such technology anintegral part of daily learning (Soloway 2001).

2. Mobile Learning Technologies inEducation

There have been many scenarios describingthe use of handheld technology both in an outof the classroom. The difference between thelearning that goes on in school and out hasoften been addressed (Lave & Wenger 1991,Resnick 1987). The National Council ofResearch Report How People Learn (Bransfordet al, 2000) emphasises that bringing studentand teachers in contact with the broadercommunity can enhance their learning, whilethe OECD report “Learning to Change: ICT inSchools” illustrates that ICT has established anew complementarity between formal learningin school and informal learning outside.Learning has also been described as being“locked” in the schools’ formal setting (Somekh2002).

Miettinen (1999) has pointed out that schoollearning is characterised by memorisation andreproduction of school texts whereby teachertalk dominates, and students’ activity is largelylimited to answering questions formulated bythe teacher. In such a learning culture, if onedraws on examples of mobile telephony inclassrooms, one can say that handheld devicescan be regarded as an “intruder” in the learning


culture, a disturbance (Mifsud 2002), and assuch, a disruptive technology.

3. From Scenario to Reality?

The aim of the pilot study was to find out inwhich arenas handhelds are used, how and whyare they used? In what role can handhelds play?Inkpen (1999) points out that handheld computertechnology for children is not a new idea.

The pupils in this study are twelve years old(sixth grade, 24 students, using PalmTM III, at anIntermediate School in Michigan; USA). Theclass is a Hi-CE project class. The teacher hasbeen using the handhelds in teaching for threeyears; the pupils started using their handhelds atthe beginning of the school year in September2002. Classroom observations and interviewswith pupils and teachers (informal interviews)were undertaken. The pupils were also asked todraw a concept-map

2 depicting where, what and

why they used their handheld computer.Inkpen (1999) points out that one of the main

advantages of handheld devices is their ease ofintegration into a child’s world and that theproducts themselves become a part of thechildren’s culture. All the pupils in the studyshowed that they used the handheld in arenasother than school, such as home and in the car,with games hitting most scores, in situationswhich the pupils described as potentially“boring”. Students also reported using theirhandheld on their way to school, both forfinishing assignments and games, especially inthe case where the students lived far away fromthe school. In this particular classroomhandhelds appeared to be an integral part of thecurriculum. By integral I mean used whenneeded and in context.

It has been suggested that access on its ownwill not fulfil the promise which many believe liesin the use of ICT in school (Bransford et al2000). The teacher in the study pointed out thatshe did not fully integrate until she became morefamiliar with the many ways to use the Palm. “Itjust sort of came natural as I became moreknowledgeable…” She did not always decidewhich technology should be used, although shedid make suggestions at times. The studentscould decide how to solve the task at hand,

2Concept-mapping was used as a means of

expressing ideas quickly, and to provide evidence

from each of the pupils. According to the ImpaCT2study, concept maps “consist of putting words thatrepresent concepts in boxes and linking these bymeans of words or phrases, so that the connectionscan be read”.http://www.becta.org.uk/research/reports/docs/ImpaCT2_strand_2_report.pdf

using whatever they decided was mostappropriate, from role-play to animation tools.The teacher also reported “letting go of somecontrol”, which indicates of a change in theclassroom culture. This research indicates thathandhelds can transition from disruptive touseful, enhancing technology as an integral partof school and life.

4. References

Bransford, J, Brown, A L, & Cocking, R (2000)How People Learn. National ResearchCouncil, Washington DC. NationalAcademy Press

Inkpen, K M (1999) Designing HandheldTechnologies for Kidshttp://www.cs.sfu.ca/~inkpen/Papers/hcscw_inkpen.pdf

Lave, J and Wenger, E.(1991) Situated Learning:Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge

University Press, USA

Miettinen, R (1999) “Transcending traditionalschool learning: Teachers’ work andnetworks of learning” in Engeström, Y,Miettinen, R, Punamäki, R, (1999) (Eds)Perspectives on Activity Theory. USA:Cambridge University Press.

Mifsud, L, (2002) “Alternative Learning Arenas –Pedagogical Challenges to Mobile Learning inEducation”. WMTE Proceedings 2002: IEEEpublication

OECD report (2001) Learning to Change: ICT inSchools.

Resnick, L (1987) “Learning in school and out” inEducational Researcher, 1987, Vol 16 No 9,

pp 13-20

Rochelle, J M et al (2000) “Changing How andWhat children Learn in School withComputer-Based Technologies” in TheFuture of Children: Children and ComputerTechnology, Vol 10 No 2, Fall/Winter 2000http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=69809

Soloway, E et al (April 2001) Learning in thePalm of your Handhttp://www.handheld.hice-dev.org/readyAtHand.htm

Somekh, B (2002) ”Unlocking Learning fromf o r m a l s e t t i n g .http://www.itu.no/Aktiviteter/Konferanser/2GO-foredrag/1035466042_97/view

Wenger, E (1999) Communities of Practice:Learning, Meaning and Identity. UK:Cambridge University Press


Exploring the potential of a game implementation for m-Portal

Alice MitchellUltralab, Anglia Polytechnic University

Bishop Hall Road, Chelmsford CM1 1SGEmail:[email protected]

Kris PopatUltralab, Anglia Polytechnic University

Bishop Hall Road, Chelmsford CM1 1SGEmail:[email protected]

Abstract

m-Portal is Ultralab’s contribution to m-Learning, a 3-year pan-European project fundedunder the EU IST Programme. m-Learningaddresses literacy and numeracy skills needs ofdisadvantaged young adults.

m-Portal forms the interface layer to the m-Learning system: a learner managementsystem, a virtual tutor and skills-based learningmaterials. Our aim is a user-friendly portal layerthat is powerful, empowering and engages thelearner.

Findings from field research with targetaudiences led us to investigate the outreachpotential and possible learning gains of mobilegames. There are strong indications that a role-play game implementation of m-Portal would bea valuable future development.

Keywords: mobile role-play games, learning

1 Introduction

m-Portal is Ultralab’s contribution to m-Learning, a 3-year pan-European project fundedby the European Commission under the ISTProgramme and led by the UK’s Learning andSkills Development Agency (LSDA). m-Learningaddresses the basic literacy and numeracy skillsneeds of disadvantaged young adults who maylack access to a computer – but do use a mobilephone.

m-Portal forms the interface layer to the m-Learning system with tools that allow learners to

create their own microportal and pages. Thesystem as a whole also includes a learnermanagement system, a virtual tutor and literacyand numeracy based learning materials andthemes.

A key benefit of m-learning is its potential formaking learning opportunities availableanywhere, anytime. Ultralab seeks to exploitthis benefit via a user-friendly portal layer that ispowerful, empowering and encourages activeparticipation on the part of the learner.

2 Developers’ Challenges

Challenges faced by the developers include:

• What kinds of interface andfunctionality can effectively engagetarget audiences and raise theirawareness of learning needs andopportunities?

• How can m-Porta l be a ‘liberatingstructure’ (de Bono, 1992) that canpromote attitudinal change andqualities such as: adaptability, self-confidence, curiosity, creativity –qualities that may be lacking owing toexposure to curriculum approach thathas become ‘far too mechanistic’(Barlex, 2003).

3 Our Field Research: GamesCulture

Our field research strongly indicated that agames implementation for mPortal would beworth exploring. Computer games engageusers in spatial learning and cognitiveprocessing and promote computer literacy


(McClurg & Chaille, 1987, Pillay et al, 1999),whereby decision-complexity is more importantthan state-space complexity as a determiningfactor in solving a game (Jap van den Herik eta l , 2002) – highly relevant to mobileenvironments.

We set out to investigate the outreachpotential of mobile games and to explore thepossible learning gains. We sought from targetaudiences knowledge and insights concerning:

• the influence that games may have onthe young adults’ perceptions of amobile device in terms of value andattractiveness;

• factors that interface between the gameand the user with reference to theparticular device;

• ‘learnability’: games are normally self-contained; do we break necessary rulesby making games that link to othermaterial?

• the signs that youngsters will spendages learning rules of games when theydon’t seem to want to spend that timelearning other things.

4 Interim Findings

This paper reports interim findings from theUltralab games-oriented research; these supportthe authors’ view that a role-play gameimplementation of m-Portal would be a valuablefuture development.

5 References

Barlex, D (2003) Creativity in Crisis. Reportfrom a joint seminar held 10 September2002, Des ign and Techno logyAssociation/Nuffield Foundation

De Bono, E (1992) Serious Creativity: Using thePower of Lateral Thinking to Create NewIdeas. Harper Collins Business

van den Herik, J H, Uiterwijk, J W H M, vanRijswijck, J (2002). Games solved: now andin the future, Artificial Intelligence 134: 2777-311

McClurg, P A & Chaille, C (1987). Computergames: Environments for developing spatialcogn i t ion? Educational ComputingResearch, 3 (11), 95 - 111.

Pillay, H, Brownlee, J and Wilss, L (1999).Journal of Research on Computing inEducation, 32 (1), 203 - 217


opportunity map for service concepts. Whereservices did not already exist to fill anintersection, new components were developed.These components were illustrated using thepersonas and scenarios.

A map of each stakeholder’s relationship tothe service, also known as a service ecology,was developed to illustrate the value exchangeof the proposed system.

An umbrella service was conceived anddeveloped, under which clients could customizewhich of the components they would like to use.

Three of the components were prototypedand informally tested in an academic setting.

3. Component testingExperience prototypes of three components

for the proposed service were built to test: SMSreference, Body Learning, and LocationInformation.

3.1. SMS ReferenceIn this service, users were given a cell phone

and access to a service number for two weeks.During this time, they could send SMS requeststo the service number for automated dictionary,reverse-dictionary, thesaurus, and translationlookups. Responses were sent via SMS back tothem. They were also given 4 opportunities touse the built-in camera to photograph somethingin their environment and ask free-form questionsabout it to a human operator, who would sendtheir research results to the learner’s cell phonevia SMS or email.

3.2. Body LearningAn iPAQ PDA augmented with an

accelerometer allows for the device to detect itstilt. Eventually this could be used for motiontracking for certain types of skill learning. In anearly exploration of this potential was made bybuilding a live stargazer module, which matchedthe tilt of the PDA against a star map, enablingdirect comparison with the night sky. Userscould adjust the opacity of the constellationmaps to test their memory, and use the star mapto browse individual features of theconstellations.

3.3. Genius LociAs location-based information begins to pile

up and overlap, personalized filtering theinformation for topics of interest becomesparamount (Sheth, 1994). In this prototype,information based information was denselypopulated throughout a building. Learners builtinterest profiles using simple questionnaires andpreference wizards, and these profiles filtered

the information for them over the course of aweek.

4. Testing Results

At the time of this abstract, the prototypeswere in production. Qualitative results of theprototypes will be included in the presentation ifaccepted.

5. References

Davachi L, Maril A, Wagner AD. When keepingin mind supports later bringing to mind:neural markers of phonological rehearsalpredict subsequent remembering. Journalof Cognitive Neuroscience 2001;13:1059-70.

Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger (1991).Situated Learning : Legitimate PeripheralParticipation. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Cambridge University Press.

Regan, Melissa. "Tomorrow's Teaching andLearning" (2001). Online posting. 8January 2001. Tomorrow's Professor. 26F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 3http://cis.stanford.edu/structure/tomprof/listserver.html.

Rifkin, Jeremy (2001). Age of Access:Everything is a Service. London. PenguinBooks.

Sheth, B (1994). A learning approach topersonalized information filtering. Master'sthesis, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Department of ElectricalEngineering and Computer Science. 1994.http://agents.www.media.mit.edu/groups/agents/publications/newt-thesis/main.html


Motivation in mobile modern foreign language learning

Hamish NorbrookBBC English

PO Box 76, Bush House, London WC2B 4PH

Email:[email protected]

Paul ScottBBC English

PO Box 76, Bush House, London WC2B 4PH


Abstract

Few people want to sit down and learn aforeign language. Mobile technologies mayencourage them - but how? Being able to testyourself on some irregular verbs while on a busmay help pass the time. But challengingsomeone else - maybe beating them andearning some virtual currency - could be fun.Especially if you could then earn even more byexplaining where they went wrong. The BBC isstarting to help mobile learners but - based onprevious experience - the way people learn maynot correspond with current expectations.

Keywords: modern languages, English,motivation

1. Motivation and the learner

Motivation is seen by teachers and studentsalike as an important element in the success (orotherwise) of any attempt to learn a foreignlanguage. Indeed, according to Dörnyei (2001),it is ...one of the key learner factors thatdetermine the rate and success of L2attainment. Most studies concentrate onsuccess rather than its opposite - demotivation -although (Johnstone, 1999, pp146-147) ananalysis of what stops people from continuingwith their studies may be more useful for thematerials developer.

Language learning is essentially a social activity(Warschauer, 1999, pp94-97). Within a school,it takes places in locations that serve now asanalogies for virtual spaces. They includelearning centres, classrooms and cafes. There isalso a need for spaces for the non-motivated

pupil. In language learning this may, accordingto Albero, develop in a virtual setting into a"language space" (espace langues). Currentuses of new technologies, which have seen ashift from pure CALL (Computer AssistedLanguage Learning) to Network BasedLanguage Learning, already include conceptssuch as tandem learning (Ushioda, 2000,pp121-128), which link motivation directly withanother goal, autonomy.

2. Mobile delivery and motivation

What effect will mobile delivery have? Forlanguage learners, portability and immediacymay be more useful than localisation - althoughteachers experimenting with an earliergeneration of technology, video, showed howapparently unimportant features such as slowmotion could be used to teach the continuousform of the English verb. It is now possible(Stone, Briggs and Smith, 2002, pp147-151) totake the mobile phone user on a complexjourney where a series of interactive SMSexchanges may be required to achievecompletion of a task or goal - which couldinclude collaborative tasks designed to requireunderstanding of an element of a syllabus.

There is a question of whether existing taskbased/process language syllabuses will besufficient to cover knowledge/competency inwhat is in effect a non-structured distanceeducation environment. The past twenty yearshave seen "can do" statements (such as thosefound in the Council of Europe's EuropeanLanguage Portfolio) replacing definitions oflanguage forms: an ability to use language is -arguably - as important as an ability to analyseit. Existing tools such as Computer Mediated


Communication and message boards are, asmentioned by Lewin and Donner, situated bylearners within the speech - writing continuum,with texting combining the speech-likeinformality of e-mail with the ability to createclosed codes accessible to others in a group.

The BBC is already using SMS in conjunctionwith English teaching radio programmes inFrancophone Africa, and other projects areplanned. SMS provides in some areas of theworld (Rheingold, 2002, p158) a very cost-effective means of communication. Initial resultswill be discussed. Research will however beneeded on various aspects of mobile learningmodels (Norbrook, 2001), including whether self-established small group activities - using theconcept of the shared mobile - or individualised /joint activities such as quizzes provide thegreater motivation for learners. An importantelement within any mobile learning environmentwill be the community, and it will important tosee whether trust and reputation models play arole, with credit accumulating to members whosupport others.

3. References

Albero, B (2001) Les "Espaces Langues": unpotentiel d'évolutions des pratiquesd'enseignements et des pratiquesd'apprentissage. Les Langues Modernes, 2001,No 4, University of Grenoble

Council of Europe: European LanguagePortfolio:http://culture2.coe.int/portfolio/inc.asp?L=E&M=$t/208-1-0-1/main_pages/../&L=E&M=$t/208-1-0-1/main_pages/levels.html

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in theLanguage Classroom. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press

Johnstone, R (1999) Research on LanguageLearning and Teaching 1997-1998 LanguageTeaching, 32, 3, Cambridge University Press

Lewin, B and Donner, Y (2002) A quantitativeanalysis of usage in Computer-MediatedCommunication English Today, 18, 3, July 2002

Norbrook, H (2001) New technologies and theEnglish teacher Modern English Teacher, 10, 1

Rheingold, H (2002). Smart Mobs. PerseusPublishing

Stone, A Briggs, J and Smith, C (2002). SMSand Interactivity - some Results from the Field

and its Implications on Effective Uses of MobileTechnologies in Education. Proceedings of theIEEE International Workshop on Wireless andMobile Technologies in Education IEEEComputer Society, Los Alamitos, California

Ushioda, E (2000) Tandem language learningvia e-mail: from motivation to autonomy.ReCALL 12 (2) Cambridge University Press

Warschauer, M (1999). Electronic Literacies:Language, Culture and Power in OnlineEducation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ


Fragmentation in mobile learning

Marika PehkonenHypermedia Laboratory

FIN-33014 University ofTampere

[email protected]

Antti SyvänenHypermedia Laboratory


antti.syvä[email protected]

Hanne TurunenHypermedia Laboratory


[email protected]

AbstractOur research interest is targeted to learning

situations, which are made reachable bybringing mobility to learning. Learning withmobile devices is a highly fragmented processand this should be taken into account indesigning as well as in developing evaluationmethods for m-learning materials andenvironments.

Fragmentation is understood as experiencebecoming fragmented when amount of incominginformation and number of communicationsources are increasing. This paper addressesthis issue by describing a tentative list ofcomponents of m-learning, and by emphasisingthe need for viewpoints of learning as afragmented process and user experiences as anoverarching elements of m-learning.

Keywords: m-learning, fragmented learningprocess, evaluation

1. Introduction

A learner’s own experiences andobservations in authentic learning contexts arecentral topics as mobile learning is becomingmore common. As a starting point for the studywe see mobile devices as pervasive mediumthat can help to combine work, studying andleisure in a meaningful way (Ahonen, Joyce,Leino and Turunen, 2002). Thus we consider m-learning as a life-long activity that takes place incontinually changing communities, mixes witheveryday life, and requires a long-range use ofmobile devices. It should also be seen as a life-wide and life-deep process (Drake, 1999) wherepeople repeatedly enhance their knowledge andskills (Sharples, 2002; Sharples, 2000).

We see that m-learning emphasises informallearning process. However learning takingplace in multiple situations may cause anincreasingly fragmented learning process assome preliminary research results indicate (egRegan, 2000).

2. Components of m-learning

In order to successfully study informallearning, research should focus on actuallearning projects or deliberate learning activities(Livingstone, 2000). The following model of m-learning components has been developedespecially to take notice of flexible (Collis andMoonen, 2001) and informal learning practices.The model will be utilised for developingevaluation methods for m-learning materialsand environments. It also gives a pedagogicalapproach for building m-learning learnerprofiles, applications and materials.

1. Continuity and adaptability betweenlearning contexts; how to supportspontaneous learning?

2. Learning as a personal process; are them-learning products taken personally?

3. Contextuality in learning; is the contextof learning better recognised in learningprocess?

4. Accessibility; what is the adequate skilllevel for m-learning?

5. Support for time and learningmanagement; how to support learner’sself-monitor ing and regulatoryprocesses?

6. Flexible interaction; how to enhancecommunication between peer-learners?


3. The fragmented experience of m-learning

Four m-learning experts have evaluated thismodel. One important notion made by the expertwas that fragmentation applied especially to thecomponent of “continuity and adaptability”. Thelearning process is constructed from manyseparated phases. If the phases are contentuallytoo fragmented they can disturb the learningprocess.

The viewpoint of fragmented learning processand user experience in m-learning alsoencompasses fields of usability and experiencedesign to be able to control the facts that affectto the fragmenting. The final design solutionsshould take notice of the critical details of the m-learning application that contributes to theoverall user experience. Experience is adynamic, complex and subjective phenomenonthat depends upon multiple attributes of designthat are interpreted through filters of personal,social and cultural significance (Fulton Suri2002).

4. Future work

The components of m-learning areoperationalised into on-line self-ratingquestionnaires including items concerningfragmentation in learning. The questionnaire isadopted for two target groups representingFinnish comprehensive school students (N=90)and adult learners (N=100) who have real m-learning experiences. Explorative factor analysiswill be conducted to find possible connectionsbetween fragmentation and other measuredlearning attributes. At the moment thequestionnaire is validated, and it will be used infall in a pre-post test research frame.Fragmentation is evaluated also by interviewingthe teachers and making observations of theperformed learning tasks.

5. References

Ahonen, M, Joyce, B, Leino, M and Turunen, H( 2 0 0 2 ) M o b i l e L e a r n i n g -a Different Viewpoint. In: Kynäslahti H (ed.)M o b i l e L e a r n i n g . I T - P r e s s .Helsinki. 2003.

Collis, B and Moonen, J (2001) Flexible learningi n a d i g i t a l w o r l d :experiences and expectations. Kogan.London.

Drake, C (1999) Values Education and Life-wideL e a r n i n g . Paper for the 16th

Annual Conference of the Hong KongEducational Research Association. Athttp://www.livingvalues.net/pdf/lvlearning.pdf10 February 2003.

Fulton Suri, J (2002) Designing Experience:Whether to Measure Pleasure orJust Tune In? In: Green W S and Jordan WJ (eds.) Pleasure With Products:Beyond Usability. Taylor & Francis. 161-174.

Livingstone, D (2000) Exploring the Icebergs ofA d u l t L e a r n i n g : F i n d i n g s o fthe First Canadian Survey of InformalLearning Practices. NALL WorkingPaper #10-2000. Ontario Institute for Studiesi n E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o fToronto.

Regan, M (2000). In Search of the LearningB u b b l e . A thttp://studio.tellme.com/newsletter/dialed20001102.h tml 10 February 2003.

Sharples, M (2000) The Design of PersonalMobi le Technologies for Li felongLearning. Computers and Education, 34,1 7 7 - 1 9 3 . A thttp://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/sharplem/papers/handler%20comped.pdf 10 February2003.

Sharples, M (2002) Disruptive Devices: MobileTechno logy f o r Conve rsa t i ona lLearning. Paper accepted for publication inI n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l o fContinuing Engineering Education and Life-long Learning special issue onCollaborative Learning in NetworkedE n v i r o n m e n t s . ( D r a f t ) A thttp://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/handler/ePapers/ijceell.pdf 10 February 2003.


Tate Modern Multimedia Tour Pilots 2002-2003

Nancy Proctor, New ProductDevelopment Manager

Antenna AudioJ307/9 Tower Bridge Business Complex

100 Clements RoadLondon SE16 4DG


Jane Burton, Curator of InterpretationTate Modern

BanksideLondon SE1 9TG


Abstract

This session will report and discuss thedeployment of Multimedia Tour Systems by TateModern in 2002 and 2003, using handheldcomputers (PDAs) on a wireless network in thegalleries. Developed in collaboration withAntenna Audio, these projects have pilotedinteractive, contextual educational content andapplications for visitors. The informationgathered to date is the first step to providing ablue-print that will help to inform handheldtechnologies for museums and other institutionsin the coming years.

Keywords: Wireless, PDA, InteractiveLearning, Access for Deaf People

1. Tate Modern Multimedia

Tours

Audio guides have been part of theinterpretation and education strategy since TateModern opened in May 2000. Havingestablished a reputation for delivering excellentaudio tours (with award winning tours forchildren and for the visually impaired), TateModern would like to remain at the cutting edgeof educational technology by helping to shape anew generation of multimedia tours.

Preliminary research into multimedia sawTate develop a Multimedia Tour Pilot incollaboration with Antenna Audio, which wastested in the galleries from July throughSeptember 2002. Tate and Antenna Audio arenow collaborating on a second phase pilot in

2003 which will expand the wireless networkand applications developed in 2002 to focus oninteractive educational programmes andcontextual learning for younger visitors, aged16-25, to Tate Modern’s permanent collectiongalleries.

1.1. Multimedia Tour Pilot 2002

In July 2002, Tate Modern, London launcheda unique, interactive audio-visual tour of itsgalleries. Using the latest developments inwireless technologies and handheld computing,this three-month pilot project was the first of itskind in any museum in the world. The tour wassponsored by Bloomberg, and developed inassociation with Antenna Audio. The equipmentused in the pilot was loaned by HewlettPackard.

Unlike the existing audio tours currently usedin UK museums, the Multimedia Tour allowedbackground information about the works ondisplay to be provided to visitors in a variety ofdifferent media on a portable screen-baseddevice. Visitors could see video and still imagesthat gave additional context for the works ondisplay, and could listen to an expert talk aboutdetails of a work, while the details weresimultaneously highlighted on their screen.Interactive screens encouraged visitors torespond to the art on view, for instance byanswering questions or by layering a collectionof sound clips to create their own soundtrack fora work.


Figure 1 A visitor to Tate Modern learns

about Duchamp's Fountain during the 2002Multimedia Tour Pilot.

The location-sensitive wireless networkmeant that visitors no longer needed to spendtime searching the multimedia tour to find therelevant information for a room, because thenetwork pinpointed their exact location in thegallery and feeds the correct information to themat the right time. Because this information camefrom a central server, rather than being stored inthe memory of the hand-held device, practicallylimitless content could be provided, and couldeasily be kept up-to-date. A further benefit ofconnecting the tour to a network is that visitorscould request the central server to sendadditional information about the art they haveseen to their home email address. It also meantthat Tate could broadcast messages to usersduring the tour, and send automated alerts whenthe film or other programmed events were aboutto start.

1.2. Multimedia Tour Pilot 2003

Tate and Antenna Audio are now building onthe results of the 2002 pilot to create a secondstage pilot with a view to producing a productthat can be rolled out for full public use in thegalleries over an extended period of time. Theinformation gathered to date is the first step toproviding a blue-print that will help to informhandheld technologies for museums and otherinstitutions in the coming years. Thedevelopment of this second stage projectincludes a particular focus on the interactivepotential of the devices. The areas indicatedbelow will be key areas of research:

• The facility for visitors to communicatedirectly with the gallery eg: posing andanswering questions

• The facility for visitors to page each other inpeer-to-peer communication

• The facility for visitors to access onlinedatabases while in the gallery, and to e-mailthemselves further information on objectsand artists on the tour in order to follow upon artists and artworks of interest throughthe Tate website.

• Improvement of processing speeds, tourinterface, operating system stability, andlocation-sensitive content delivery systems.

In terms of content, the 2002 pilot tourexplored a variety of contrasting approaches todelivering information about the art on display.We now want to pinpoint the most successfulmethods and refine them to create specificallytailored multimedia learning models for visitors.

2. References

BAFTA (2002) British Academy of Film andTelevision Arts Interactive EntertainmentWinners 2002. Technical Innovation.http://www.bafta.org/5_ie/winners2002.htm#ti

CIMI (2002) HANDSCAPE - Handheld Accessto the Museum Landscape .http://www.cimi.org/wg/handscape/handscape_long_desc_1201.html

Fisher, Susie (2002) Tate Modern MultimediaTour Evaluation, unpublished findings.

Tate (2002) Unpublished survey results.Research period 25 July to 02 Sept 2002.


Usability and Accessibility of PDAs in Education

Peter RaingerTechDis, USIE, EDB,

University of Sussex,Brighton BN1 9RG


Abstract

PDAs are a reasonably new and emergingtechnology that is rapidly evolving, though theiruse as an educational tool or assistivetechnology has only just started. The paperlooks at the accessibility and usability of theactual devices (from the physical characteristicsto the graphical user interface and devicecontrols or input methods). It also suggestspossible uses for them as an assistivetechnology.

Keywords: Accessibility, Usability, PDA,Education

1. Introduction

Those providing PDAs to students withineducation have a duty "to make reasonableadjustments to ensure that people who aredisabled are not put at a substantialdisadvantage compared to people who are notdisabled in accessing further, higher and LocalEducation Authority-secured education.”(SENDA, 2002)

Therefore consideration must be made forstudents who have a disability or specificlearning difficulty.

This paper investigates the different issues for awhole range of disabilities and looks at differentstrategies, software or hardware solutions toinaccessibility problems.

2. Different PerspectivesThe paper looks at the accessibility andusability of a PDA from two perspectives:

2.1. The Accessibility and Usability of

the PDA Device

For example a student with a severe visualimpairment may find it difficult to read thecomparatively small text on a PDA display andfind the information it presents inaccessiblethus making the device unusable in its originalform.

2.2. The Use of a PDA as an AssistiveTechnology

For example a student with a time managementand organisational difficulty might benefit fromthe diary and calendar functions native to mostPDAs; thereby providing functional technologyassistance to someone with a disability.

3. PDA AccessibilityThese two possible strands of a PDAsfunctionality are not mutually exclusive since itis necessary that a PDA is functionallyaccessible to be of use as an assistivetechnology.

The paper will cover:

• Changes to the user interface• Entering text into a PDA.• Using a PDA to support reading or

referencing.• Using a PDA to support writing.• Using a PDA for time management and

organisation.


4. Final Thoughts

The development of PDAs has been so fastsince their evolution beyond PIM systems andlittle analysis has been made of the functionalityof some PDAs for disabled people.

Though much advancement has been made onthe accessibility of desktop computers withincreasing amounts of assistive technology, theswift monthly development of new PDA modelshas meant little has been learnt fromretrospective analysis.

5. References

SENDA (2002),Special Educational Needs and Disability Acthttp://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/20010010.htm


Evaluating a low specification wirelessly connected palm pilot as themeans of supporting learning. A pilot study from the University of Bristol

Andy RamsdenLearning Technology Adviser

Learning Technology Support ServiceUniversity of Bristol

8-10 Berkeley SquareBristol, BS8 1HH, UK

[email protected]

Abstract

This paper disseminates the findings of a pilotstudy into the use of wirelessly connected lowspecification palm pilots to deliver the equivalentlearning materials as those provided through avirtual learning environment. The study is basedon a sample of undergraduate students who arebeing taught Economics at the University ofBristol.

The aim of the study was to assess if theconcept of was feasible, and then answer twofundamental questions; do students perceive aneed for the mobile learning, and is it scaleableto a large number of students. In both cases, thejury is still deciding.

Keywords: evaluation user experiencerequirements

1. Background to the study

The paper disseminates the findings of asmall pilot study into the use of low specificationpalm pilots, with wireless connectivity as ameans of delivering the same functionality as aVirtual Learning Environment. The term lowspecification implies an entrance model device,such as a Palm Pilot M105. The rationale forusing low specification devices was to reflect onconcerns from other studies (Ultralab) that anincreasing reliance on ICT in education iscreating a widening inequality between people

who can buy into the technology and thereforethe educational opportunity compared to thosewho can not

The aims blend the technical aspects ofdelivering learning material to a PDA with thesupport issues and identifying if it contributes tothe learning experience. In particular, howeffective is mobile learning from the perspectiveof the student? and how scalable is it to a largenumber of students? This embraces the viewsforwarded by Kristiansen (2001) who suggeststhe challenge of further developing mobilelearning has more to do with educational designand organisation than with the technology. Theterms of reference of the study do not explicitlyrequire the evaluation of a pedagogical modelfor mobile learning.

The pilot study is based on a group of 13undergraduate students studying IntroductoryMicroeconomics (subsid) at the University ofBristol. The course is supported by the inclusionof learning materials in Blackboard’s VirtualLearning Environment. These learningmaterials were converted into an accessibleformat for the wirelessly connected palm pilots.The case study lasted 6 months, and involvedvarious tasks that the students were required tocomplete. The project was part funded by theLearning Technology Support Service at theUniversity of Bristol and by TechLearn, underthe auspices of the widening access withwireless technologies call.


2. The methodology

The methodology that will be discussed isdivided into 2 distinct areas;

• Mapping the features of the VLE courseto those needed to be accessed via thePDA. The lecturers current use will becross referenced with the literature(Mason (1998), O’Leary (2001)) to ensurethat the common VLE features are beingused. In addition, reference will be madeto the design aspects that need to beconsidered when developing usable webpages that can be accessed via a PDA(Kacin 1999, Neilson 2000).

• A description of the tasks that thestudent’s undertook during the study.

3. The findings

The paper will argue from a technicalperspective that the low specification technologycan adequately deliver the functions andfeatures of a virtual learning environment. Inpart icular , content del ivery, courseannouncements, email and discussion boards.

However, with respect to studentsperceptions of the role mobile learning has toplay in their education, and the managementissues in successfully scaling the deployment toa large group is less clear. For instance,students questioned what the technology addedcompared to what they could already access,and they suggested often toted anywhere /anytime paradigm of mobile learning was notforthcoming due to technological constraints.However, further scrutiny of the studentcharacteristics and the intentions of the lecturersuggests that mobile learning does have a roleto play in face to face taught courses as somestudents are adopting a more sophisticatedstrategy to blend their use of different devices tomeet their needs.

The discussion will also use the findings ofthe management log to suggest that thepotential benefits of mobile learning are unlikelyto be realized if the support mechanisms are notadequately provided. The findings suggest that asignificant resource is required to supportrelatively few students using low specificationhardware, with few obvious economies of scale.

Before concluding the paper will draw outsome policy implications for successfullyembedding the technology into the learningexperience, and raises need for further areas ofstudy.

4. References

Kacin, M, (1999) Optimizing web pages forhandheld devices, PalmPower Magazine,http://www.palmpower.com/issuesprint/issue199902/avantgotips.html

Kristiansen (2001), Telenor mLearning Wapproject, From e-learning to m-learning, Chapter4 mLearning Initiatives in 2001,http://learning.ericsson.net/leonardo/thebook/chapter4.html

Mason, R, (1998) Models of Online Courses,ALN Magazine Volume 2, Issue 2 – October1988, available inhttp://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JUL01_Issue/article02.html

Nielsen, J., (2000). Designing Web Usability.Indiana: New Riders Publishing

O’Leary, R, (2000) Virtual LearningEnvironments, LTSN Generic Centre,www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre

Ultralab, mLearning Project,http://www.ultralab.ac.uk/projects/m-learning/background.html


Evaluation of a Mobile Learning Organiser and Concept Mapping Tools

Mike Sharples, Tony Chan, Paul Rudman, Susan BullEducational Technology Research Group

Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of Birmingham

EdgbastonBirmingham B15 2TT

Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

We describe a Mobile Learning Organiserthat has been trialled with university students.The aim was to investigate whether anintegrated set of learning tools would be useful,which tools would be adopted, and the contextsin which the tools would be used. The resultsshow no single favoured application. The mostfrequent activities were reading email, notetaking, managing deadlines and appointments,and listening to music. The main reportedlimitation, apart from battery life, weight, andprocessor speed, was the loss of wireless LANconnectivity, and thus usefulness, when outsidethe university department.

A comparative evaluation was also carriedout between one of the learning organiser tools -a tree structured concept map - and a moretraditional style free-format concept map. Theresults suggest that each concept mapping toolmay be suited to different tasks and type of user.

Keywords: learning organiser, iPAQ, wirelessLAN, learning tools, concept maps

1. Equipment and software

Mobile office organisers are becomingindispensable tools for many professionals.Learners at university, college or school have asbroad a range of demands for self-organisationas professionals, but their requirements aresomewhat different: to attend classes, meetcourse deadlines, read and understand teachingmaterial, revise for exams, and manage

individual and group projects. This paperdescribes a project to evaluate software for aPersonal Learning Organiser (see Holme &Sharples, 2002).

Eighteen students taking an MSc in HumanCentred Systems at the University ofBirmingham were loaned an iPAQ handheldcomputer with a wireless LAN sleeve anddocking cradle. The sleeve provides high speedaccess to web pages, course material andemail within the university department. Thedocking cradle enables those with computers athome to synchronise their calendar, notes anddocuments, and to transfer software.

Students were given three types of software:

(1) An integrated suite of learning toolsdeveloped at the University of Birmingham,comprising: a Time Manager with a timetableshowing teaching periods for the day andcourse deadlines; a Course Manager withcourse material in Microsoft Reader format; aCommunication Centre for email, textmessages and contacts; Map-it!, a conceptmapping tool to create a visual map of notesand documents. Students could downloadmaterial for teaching modules, includingPowerPoint slides and supplementary texts,through the wireless LAN connection.(2) The standard set of PocketPC applications,including email, Internet Explorer, WindowsMedia Player, and pocket versions of Word andExcel.(3) Software that the students downloaded. Itwas made clear that they could use the devicefor their own personal use and entertainment.


2. Evaluation: Learning Organiser

Students completed detailed questionnairesabout their iPAQ use after 4 and 16 weeks. After4 weeks, 64% (n=17) were using the iPAQ atleast once a day. This fell to 42% (n=14) after 16weeks (possibly due to course requirements atthe time). There was no single favouredapplication. The most frequent activities wereemail, note taking, managing appointments anddeadlines, and listening to music.

The most popular tools are shown below, withthe first figure being the percentage of studentsreporting ‘useful’ or ‘very useful’ after 4 weeks,and the second, the percentage after 16 weeks.email (76%, 79%); timetable and deadlines(59%, 64%); web browser (65%, 64%); instantmessaging (59%, 50%); course materials (59%,43%); supplementary materials (53%, 43%);concept mapper (35%, 14%). Logbooks showedlocations of use to differ quite widely acrossusers (Bull, 2003). The popularity of email,messaging and timetable (despite these alsobeing available on desktop machines) suggeststhe importance of mobile organisation andcommunication tools to enable students tomanage their learning. The main reportedlimitation, apart from battery life, weight, andprocessor speed, was the loss of connectivity,and thus usefulness, outside the department.

3. Evaluation: concept map tools

Due to the low use of the concept map tool, acomparative evaluation was also carried out ofMap-it! and another concept mapping tool:Concise Concept Mapper (CCM) also developedat the University of Birmingham (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Screenshots of HandLeR Map-It! And

Concise Concept Mapper

A concept map is a tool for recording andorganising information through visual semanticassociation. The exercise of structuring ideas tocreate a concept map can encourage reflectionand understanding. While both mapping tools

described here are optimised for pen-basedinteractions on a small screen, they havesignificantly different operation.

HandLeR Map-It! (Chan and Sharples, 2002)uses a logical tree structure whereby one nodeis shown as central with linked surroundingnodes. Navigation is by clicking on one of theouter nodes which brings it to the centre,displaying the topics related to it. Clicking onthe centre node displays any documentassociated with the node. The user adds a newnode by selecting a document from the file list,which attaches it to the central node.

CCM uses a free-form concept map basedon user-positioned nodes and links (Rudman etal., 2002). Interaction is by pen gestures, e.g.dragging a box moves it to follow the pen. If thepen reaches the edge of the screen, it scrollsthe map in the direction of the arrow. A zoomfacility displays a compressed version of theentire map, giving an overview of its structure.To add a new node at an unoccupied place, theuser taps at that point, opening an input areafor the node's text. This node may be attachedto the map by dragging it over another node.

The results suggest that each tool mayperform best in different situations. CCMperforms better for note taking and organisinginformation with no obvious structure; it is alsomore suited to experienced users. On the otherhand, Map-It! is better at presenting highlystructured information and organisingdocuments by semantic relations; it is alsomore suitable for novice or occasional users.

4. References

Bull, S. (2003). User Modelling and MobileLearning. To appear in UM2003: Proceedingsof the Ninth International Conference, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.

Chan T.K.S., Sharples M. (2002). A ConceptMapping Tool for Pocket PC Computers. InProceedings of IEEE International Workshop onMobile and Wireless Technologies inEducation, Vaxjo, Sweden, 163-164.

Holme, O. & Sharples, M. (2002).Implementing a Student Learning Organiser onthe Pocket PC Platform. In Proceedings of theEuropean Workshop on Mobile and ContextualLearning, Birmingham, UK, 44-46.

Rudman P.D., Sharples M., Baber C. (2002).Supporting Learning in Conversations usingPersonal Technologies. In Proceedings of theEuropean Workshop on Mobile and ContextualLearning, Birmingham, UK, 44-46.


Early footsteps and next steps: ‘m-learning’ with disengaged youngpeople

Geoff SteadCambridge Training and Development (CTAD)

Lincoln House, The Paddocks347 Cherry Hinton Road, Cambridge

CB1 8DHE-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

In phase 1 of the m-learning project we builtsample learning materials to run on a widevariety of mobile devices. Some were based onexisting PC-based materials, and othersdeveloped especially for the mobile platforms.We trialled these with 4 groups of young adultswho had dropped out of mainstream education.These materials will be demonstrated, eg videoclips made by some learners who decided to‘improve’ the learning materials by filming theirown versions! We will also discuss our selectionof technologies, as well give general feedbackfrom the trials.

We are currently developing a newgeneration of materials and templates to help usmaximise the many different ways that mobiledevices can talk to each other, with a specialemphasis on the technologies most likely to bemainstream within the year. These will beintroduced and discussed.

Keywords: mobile learning, technology,feedback, iPAQ, SMS, MMS, VoiceXML,learning materials, mobile phones, collaboration

1. The projectM-learning is a three-year pan-European

collaborative research and developmentprogramme supported by the European Union.The consortium is a partnership of organisations(LSDA, CTAD and Ultralab from the UK,Lecando from Sweden and CRMPA from Italy)combining skills in pedagogy and technology.

The project is developing prototype productsand innovative approaches to delivering learning

experiences through the medium of handhelddevices e.g. mobile phones and palmtop orpocket computers. The prototype products andservices developed are being designed toassist in the development and achievement oflifelong learning objectives. The primary targetaudience is young adults who are not currentlyengaged in education or training, includingthose who are unemployed or homeless, andhave literacy or numeracy development needs.

2. Early stepsWe are half way through the project. In the

first (completed) phase we developed prototypelearning materials for SMS, iPAQ, HTML(miniBrowsers) and VoiceXML, which wetrialled successfully with four groups ofdisadvantaged learners across the UK.

3. PlatformsMobile phones were selected as one

platform as they are the communication tool ofchoice for the target group of learners and arelatively inexpensive hardware option.

Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) were thesecond platform since they provided greatercomputing power to support multimediaapplications in a small device, and it wasanticipated that the technologies of PDAs andmobile phones would soon converge, as indeedhappened during the course of the project.Specifically we used the iPAC, but most contentwas developed to run on a browser within theiPAC so that they would be platformindependent.


Fig1. IPAQ showing m-learning material

4. ContentA range of numeracy and literacy materials

was created. Learning outcomes were mappedto the new adult literacy and numeracystandards for England and Wales (entry level 3and level 1) to ensure that learning activitieswere both relevant and trackable from a contentpoint of view.

For mobile phones, Voice XML was used todeliver interactive stories or quizzes and asimple database system was used to receiveregistrations and send instructions and SMSreminders to learners.

iPAQs were used to deliver browser-basedmaterials (HTML and multimedia, such as Flashmovies), as well as PocketPC-specificapplications. The materials included soapstorylines, animations, quizzes and interactiveinformation.

.

Fig2. IPAQ materials: Urban Soap

4.1. Additional contentAdditional content focussed on developing

specific skills (series of iPAQ games), or offeringsome unmanaged scope for constructive work(iPAQ tools for drawing, writing, listening,creating music, reference).

The learners were also given access to avideo camera and in one trial took part in a‘commissioning’ exercise where they committedto make some film for the project.

5. Main findings from phase trialsM-learning is seen as a viable means of

delivering learning materials. Learners havebeen enthusiastic and motivated to maintaintheir participation throughout the trial period andhave felt empowered to offer both favourableand critical comments on their learningexperience.

6. Next stepsIn the second phase of the m-learning

project, we need to roll out the learningexperience to a far larger number of students,so we have focused much of our developmentenergies towards technologies that they alreadyhave – primarily phones.

7. New contentSome of the most powerful lessons learned

from our trials are feeding directly into ourcurrent designs and content plans. Theseinclude:

• Collaboration• Gifting• User control• Quick reward

8. TechnologiesWe have also reviewed the technologies we

are developing content for, and are now using:

SMS – text messagesMMS – multimedia messages, including

students using camera phonesVoice XML – dialogs over the phoneWAP, MiniBrowser – a collections of

technologies letting you browse websites fromsmall screen derives

None of these technologies are particularlyrich by themselves, but combined together inthe right way, can provide an engaging andbeneficial experience for even the mostresistant learner.

Fig3. Visualisation of VoiceXML dialog


Designing Scalable, Effective M-Learning for Multiple Technologies

Andy StoneSchool of Computing & Info Systems

Kingston UniversityPenrhyn Road

Kingston Upon ThamesKT1 2EE

[email protected]

David LivingstoneSchool of Computing & Info Systems

Kingston UniversityPenrhyn Road

Kingston Upon ThamesKT1 2EE

[email protected]

Abstract

Mobile learning requires a combination offactors in order to be successful. These includean awareness of the constraints that networktechnologies impose; form factor constraints ofmobile devices; and the efficacy of thepedagogical material in use. This paper attemptsto reconcile these issues by first presenting asummary of work undertaken to date by theauthors, drawing from both reviews of theliterature and their own research findings. Aframework will then be presented whichconsiders how technical constraints (i.e. networkquality of service, and device dependency) maybe reconciled with delivering learning objectswithout losing pedagogical meaning.

Keywords: blended learning, learning objects,mobile learning, ubiquitous computing

1. Introduction and structure

Mobile learning requires a combination of factorsin order to be successful. These include:

- an awareness of the constraints that thenetwork technologies impose

- the form factor constraints of the mobiledevices in question

- the efficacy of the pedagogical material inquestion when used in situ.

At the time of writing, there are a plethora ofnetwork technologies which have the potential todeliver content which could be used to support

learners. However, these all have differingconstraints, both in terms of technical andpedagogical issues. In parallel to this, it isessential to consider the influences on provisionof educational content, i.e. the growingconsensual move towards the development andprovision of reusable learning objects.

This paper attempts to reconcile these twoissues by presenting a summary of workundertaken to date by the authors, drawingfrom both reviews of the literature and their ownresearch findings (some of these previouslyunpublished). Original research to be publishedin this paper includes findings from interviewswith 3G trial users (Stone et al, 2003), andstudent-centred research examiningperceptions of how m-learning could be ofoptimal use to them. This is set against abackdrop of the evolution of mobile networkinfrastructures, and what they can offer in termsof bandwidth, applications, and services.

2. Scope of paper

The scope of this paper ranges from 2Gtechnologies which learners already use inconjunction with traditional e-learning solutionsavailable to them (Stone et al, 2002) to 4Gnetworks, which have the potential to facilitateubiquitous mobile learning (Prasad & Munoz,2003 and Wang 2001). However, withoutlearning objects which have the potential to beas flexible as the infrastructures available to thelearners, the expected outcomes will inevitably


be sub-optimal. The framework described belowwill attempt to address this issue.

3. A framework for designingscalable, effective M-Learning formultiple technologies

In order to reconcile the variety of issuesmentioned in the previous sections, we shallpresent a framework which can be used toinform both providers of educational content,and suppliers and users of mobile networks anddevices, ways in which the efficacy of their m-learning strategies can be deployed andevaluated.

This will consider how technical constraints (i.e.network quality of service, and devicedependency) need to be reconciled withdelivering learning objects without losingpedagogical meaning (e.g. Cowen, 2002).Emerging standards such as CC/PP and UAProf(Gimson, 2002) are envisaged as being used toexpress these respective considerations, andare expected to underpin ubiquitous computingapplications as could be achieved through 4Gnetworks and services.

This framework will then be illustrated throughan example scenario which considers the abovepoints , wi th recommendat ions andconsiderations at each stage. We intend todemonstrate that regardless of the technologybeing considered (from simple SMS and touch-tone interactivity in 2G technology, to morecomplex scenarios involving variable quality ofservice in both 3G and 4G environments, e.g.Ma et al 2000, and Cowen 2002), it should bepossible to deliver successful m-learningsolutions based on a foundation which is bothstable (in terms of providing consistent learningoutcomes) and supple (where variable contentdelivery in terms of network quality of service,device constraints, and flexibility of originalcontent is involved, the effects on pedagogy canbe known and addressed in advance).

4. References

Cowen, A (2002). Deli-style profile resolution:approaching device independence. mpulsem a g a z i n e , F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 2 .http://www.cooltown.hp.com/mpulse/0202-deli.asp (last accessed Wed 2 April, 2003)

Gimson, R (ed.) (2003) Context Overview forDevice Independence; W3C Working Draft,1 3 D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 .http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-di-dco-20021213/ (last accessed Wed 2 April, 2003)

Ma, W-Y, Bedner, I, Chang, G, Kuchinsky, Aand Zhang H J (2000). A Framework forAdaptive Content Delivery in HeterogeneousNetwork Environments. Hewlett-PackardL a b o r a t o r i e s W h i t e P a p e r .(http://cooltown.hp.com/dev/wpapers/adcon/MMCN2000.asp - last accessed Wed 2April, 2003)

Ramjee, P and Munoz L (2003). WLANs andWPANs Towards 4G Wireless. UniversalPersonal Communications Series, ArtechHouse. ISBN 1580530907

Stone, A (2002). Mobile Telephony andLearning: Nuisance or Potent ia lEnhancement?. Proceedings of 2002 IEEEInternational Symposium on Technology andSociety: Social Implications of Informationand Communication Technology, Raleigh,North Carolina, USA, June 2002, pp262-266; ISBN 0-7803-7284-0

Stone, A, Alsop, G, Briggs, J and Tompsett C(2002). M-learning as a means ofsupporting learners: tomorrow's technologiesare already here, how can we mosteffectively use them in the e-learning age?Proceedings of Networked Learning 2002Conference, Sheffield, March 2002; ISBN 0-9028-3141-0.http://www.shef.ac.uk/nlc2002/proceedings/papers/38.htm (last accessed Wed 2 April,2003)

Stone, A and Briggs, J (2002). ITZ GD 2 TXT –How To Use SMS Effectively In M-Learning.Mlearn 2002: Proceedings of the EuropeanWorkshop on Mobile and ContextualLearning, University of Birmingham, June2002, pp11-14. ISSN 1463-9408

Stone, A, Stewart, D, Livingstone, D and LynchK (2003). 3G Telephony on the Isle of Man:Implications for Individual Notions of Time,Space, and Place. Geography, Vol 88, No 3,July 2003; ISSN 0016-7487

Wang, J (2001). Broadband Wire lessCommunications: 3G, 4G and Wireless LAN(The Kluwer International Series inEngineering and Computer Science); 2001,Kluwer Academic Publishers; ISBN079237391X.


A Task-centred Approach to Evaluating a Mobile Learning Environmentfor Pedagogical Soundness

Josie TaylorIET UserLab

The Open University, Milton Keynesj.taylor @open.ac.uk

Abstract

This focus of this paper is how to evaluate thepedagogical soundness of a mobile learningenvironment in which many users (both teachersand learners) may not have previouslyencountered mobile technology, so may beuncertain as to how best to deploy it to achievetheir goals. Drawing on concepts from ActivityTheory and the socio-cognitive engineeringmethod described by Sharples, (2000) anapproach is described which enables anenriched view of users’ current and futureactivities, which in turn will allow us tounderstand the range of actions andopportunities for mobile learners, and seek waysof extending this range to support what learnerswant to do – even if they themselves do not yetknow what that is.

Keywords: learning, socio-cognitive engineering;activity theory; pedagogy; evaluation; mobileenvironments;

1. IntroductionA major goal of the worldwide European-ledresearch and development project MOBIlearn is:

‘…the creation of a virtual network for thediffusion of knowledge and learning via a mobileenvironment where, through common themes, itis possible to demonstrate the convergence andmerging of learning supported by newtechnology, knowledge management, and newforms of mobile communication’ (MOBIlearnAnnex 1, p 7).

The project aims to evaluate the pedagogiceffectiveness of the learning environment thusdeveloped to ensure that it is sound. Althoughthere are tried and tested methods forpedagogic evaluation of specific applications of

technology for learning (eg see Draper et al,1997; Scanlon et al, 2000), there are noexisting comprehensive frameworks for broaderformative evaluation in the mobile environment,largely due to its novelty – relatively fewteachers and learners have experience ofworking in this way, so we are simultaneouslyintroducing new ways of engaging in learningwith new artifacts as well as evaluatingtechnical and pedagogic effectiveness. Thisrequires careful consideration so as not to skewthe evaluation data gathered from users, whomay find themselves fascinated by the newdevices in a way which they may findinteresting, and even fun, but which producesno lasting valuable impact on their workpractices. They may simply then avoid usingthe technology ‘in anger’ once the evaluationstudy is complete.

Therefore, to make progress in achievingour goals, we must develop a thoroughunderstanding of:

• the learning opportunities presented by thenew mobile technology

• its (potential) impact on the way peopleperform learning tasks

• its (potential) impact on human socialprocesses and interactions

• how these in turn are changed or modifiedby the technology

In the rest of this paper we briefly indicatehow it is possible to develop this understandingdriven by task-centred user requirements ratherthan technological advances, so describing anapproach which underpins our evaluationstrategy for MOBIlearn.

2. Understanding activitiesAddressing this issue, we have adopted the

socio-cognitive engineering method for systemdesign (Sharples 2000; Sharples et al, 2001)


which describes a two-stage process: first, thatof activity analysis which sets constraints onthe system design and analyses how peoplework and interact with their current tools andtechnologies; and, second, a stage of design ofnew technology integrated into theuser’s/learner’s environment and activitystructures. One such technique for engaging inactivity analysis is the Future TechnologyWorkshop (Vavoula et al, 2002). In theseworkshops, participants are encouraged toconsider the range of, and benefits of, theirexisting activities before being supported inthinking about how those activities could bemore effective when supported by newtechnologies and services. This allowsparticipants to approach the concept of a newactivity structure in a way which has their goalsat the forefront of the discussion, rather thanhave their aims and objectives subsumedbeneath the glamour and glitz of new technologyfor its own sake. In addition to this method, anactivity theoretic view (eg see Mwanza, 2001)informs our analysis of the environment in whichthe activities are taking place, other potentialcollaborators in the activity, and the ways inwhich organisational requirements can impingeon those activities.

Through this enriched view of users and theircurrent and future activities, in which learning isviewed as a distributed activity, we can betterunderstand the range of actions andopportunities which are on offer to mobilelearners, and seek ways of extending this rangeto support what learners want to do – even ifthey themselves do not yet know what that is.This broadening of the scope of the ‘learningsystem’ enables a much deeper understandingof users’ needs, and the constraints whichgovern their behaviour.

From the evaluator’s point of view, then, thetask is to evaluate the effectiveness with whichlearners are able to achieve their goals, andcomplete learning activities, irrespective of thespecific devices which might have been used indoing so. Indeed, the same or similar activitiescould be instantiated in a variety of differentways depending on availability of technicalsupport (e.g. access to wireless LAN) and userpreferences. In so doing, we will necessarily beevaluating the validity of the tasks themselvesas vehicles for learning.

3. ConclusionThe evaluation framework for the MOBIlearn

project is driven both top-down and bottom-up.The theoretical perspectives of Activity Theoryand constructivism, here represented by thesocio-cognitive method, allow us to analyselearners in their appropriate contexts and to

understand the nature of their learning tasks,and how they go about them. The FutureTechnology Workshops provide us with muchuseful data on the views of potential mobilelearners and what they see as crucial elementsin their learning activities. At the same time,usability studies are, of course, essential. Asthe MOBIlearn system is being developed,standard usability testing is being performed oncomponent software and devices, in parallelwith higher-level evaluations of pedagogicbenefit. A key issue for the project in the futurewill be to ensure that the two levels can meetintelligently in the middle with a mutuallyinforming discourse. We believe that the task-centred approach will facilitate this marriage.

4. ReferencesDraper, S, Brown, M I, Henderson, F P and

McAteer, E (1996). Integrative Evaluation:An Emerging Role for Classroom Studies ofCAL. Computers and Education, 26 (1-3),17-32.

MOBIlearn Technical Annex (2002) Next-generation paradigms and interfaces fortechnology supported learning in a mobileenvironment exploring the potential ofambient intelligence, IST-2001-37187

Mwanza, D, (2001) ‘Changing Tools,Changing Attitudes: Effects of introducing acomputer system to promote learning atwork’ in Dillenbour, P l, Eurelings, A, andHakkiarainen, K, (2001) EuropeanPerspectives on Computer-SupportedCollaborative Learning, Euro-CSCL, 2001,Maastricht, Netherlands

Scanlon, E, Jones, A, Barnard, J, Thompson,J and Calder, J, (2000), ‘Evaluatinginformation and communicationtechnologies for learning’, EducationalTechnology & Society 3(4) 2000 ISSN1436-4522

Sharples M, (2000) The Design of PersonalMobile Technologies for Lifelong Learning.Computers and Education, 34, 177-193.

Sharples, M, Jefferey, N, du Boulay, J B H,Teather, D, Teather B, and du Boulay, G H,(2002) Socio-cognitive engineering: amethodology for the design of human-centred technology. European Journal ofOperational Research, 136:310-323, 2002.

Vavoula, G N, Sharples, M, and Rudman, P D(2002), Developing the 'Future TechnologyWorkshop' method. In M. M. Bekker, P.Markopoulos & M. Kersten-Tsikalkina(eds.), Proceedings of the InternationalWorkshop on Interaction Design andChildren (IDC2002), Aug 28-29, Eindhoven,the Netherlands. Shaker Publishing, pp 65-72.


MLearning – Making Reality from Hype

Steve TongeMobile Specialist

Complete Learning LtdThe Manor, Haseley Business [email protected]

Abstract

As a learning organisation Complete Learninghas recognised the need to develop and deliverlearning content across a mobile platform. Wemust ensure that we are able to offer our clientsa total learning solution that offers supportirrespective of time or location.

As a result of such demands we havedeveloped a series of training modules for CiscoSystems, fondly known as ‘Knowledge Nuggets’.

The success of the Knowledge Nuggets hasenabled us to dedicate a resource team tofurthering mobile services for a much wideraudience.

The emergence and adoption of 2.5G and 3Gtechnologies will enable further benefits tomLearning.

Keywords: Knowledge Nuggets, LearningSupport Tool, Blended Solutions, Engaging andInnovative

1. Making Reality from Hype

PDA’s and mobiles are more than just usefulgadgets to store personal information on, or playthe occasional games of solitaire.

Used wisely the mobile device can act as asupportive learning tool that offers gems ofknowledge at the point of need or equipsindividuals with information to ensure that theygain competitive advantage.

Learning material that is accessed across amobile platform is an ideal way to complementinstructor led and eLearning programmes. Farfrom replacing the classroom environment,

mLearning provides investment protection byproviding the means to obtain information whichotherwise would be lost from memory. Instantaccess to learning content irrespective oflocation is the key to providing a completelearning solution.

2. The Mobile Challenge

Our clients have become increasinglydemanding and as a learning provider we mustensure that we offer them a total provensolution. We have as a direct result of thesedemands developed a way to deliver learningcontent across a mobile platform (ref Figure 1 –Screenshot of a Mobile Device).

Figure 1. Screen of mobile device

3. Knowledge Nuggets

Cisco Systems are one of the market leadersin the establishment and continuing growth ofthe Internet and they’re not the easiest peopleto impress; therefore it was with a mixture ofexcitement and trepidation that we, CompleteLearning launched ‘Knowledge Nuggets’, a


mobile support tool that provides trainingmodules with vital information regardless oflocation.

The content display is clear and you canselect audio depending on your needs. Thesupportive text allows you to map your trainingto suit your needs and timescales. We have sofar developed seven modules for Cisco, eachrelease supported by real enthusiasm – onemanager commented ‘this content rocks!’

The success of the Knowledge Nuggets hasenabled us to dedicate a resource team tofurthering mobile services for a much wideraudience. As a result we are actively developingour mobile strategy to support educationalservices by providing learning content acrossmobile platforms.

4. Our Vision

We recognise the need to develop learningcontent to assist in a variety of subject areas in away that it’s easily accessed; it’s engaging andenables retention. More and more people arereliant on mobile technology, and we atComplete Learning are working to use thisplatform to increase knowledge.

We are enthusiastically creating a diverserange of learning products that work towards atotal solution to complement eLearning andclassroom-based training.

Mobile learning is not exclusive to businessesor professionals; therefore the continuingdevelopment of content such as GCSE supportmodules and professional development moduleswill support an increasing audience with whatthey want to learn and importantly when theywant to learn it.

The emergence and adoption of GPRS(2.5G) and UMTS (3G) technologies will enablefurther benefits to mLearning. Download timeswill be reduced and the user experience will beadvanced through more enriched content.

Complete Learning is ideally placed tocontinue to provide mLearning the content forwhich mobile technology has been longawaiting.


m-learning – Evaluating the Effectiveness and the Cost

John TraxlerNational ICT Research Centre

Priorslee CampusTelford

ShropshireTF2 9NT

[email protected]

Abstract

The EU m-learning Project managed byLSDA is developing a mobile system for adultbasic skills in which learners access content anddiscussion transparently across a range ofmobile and computing devices. For anycommercial exploitation, it is necessary toexplore and assess the factors that determinethe various developmental efforts and theirrespective educational benefits. This papersuggests a way to integrate and apply work onmultimedia educational software cost-estimation,cost models of networked learning, the Laurillardconversational framework and blended learningdevelopment tools. These factors must underpinany objective economic evaluation of m-

learning and establish the foundations forunderstanding the basis of commercialexploitation.

Keywords: cost-benefit, software cost-estimation, conversational framework, media-mix

1. Introduction

Mobile learning is currently at a stage ofsmall-scale projects working to establish aspectsof technical feasibility in specific educationalsettings. (The EU m-learning Project

1 co-

1EC Directorate-General Information Society IST 2000-

25270

ordinated by LSDA is an exception to thisgeneralisation.)

If these projects are successful in both theeducational and technical sense, and act as thefocus for a consensus of what constitutesmobile learning, then the next phase must belarge-scale social use and commercialexploitation. This will only take place on asustainable basis if there is an understanding ofthe relations between the costs of mobilelearning, in all their different forms, and theeducational, and perhaps social, benefits.Hence, commercial exploitation is a question ofeducational cost-benefit analysis and inparticular that part of educational cost-benefitanalysis that deals with large-scale orindustrialised educational systems explored forexample by Rumble (1997) and Peters (1998).However, mobile learning is a technical systemwith significant computing components and somuch can learned by looking at the literature ofsoftware engineering, especially software cost-estimation and project management,summarised in Pressman (2000) andSommerville (1992).

2. Software Cost EstimationFor commercial and industrial software

developers, there has always been aconsiderable economic advantage in being ableto predict and control the effort and thus thecost of software development. This openingsection looks at methods for predicting theeffort and hence cost of developing programs.


3. Educational Effort EstimationThis section looks at an application of

software cost estimation techniques toeducational software and identifies thoseunderlying characteristics of multimediaeducational packages that drive educationalsoftware development costs upwards ordownwards. This is the work of Dr. Ian Marshalland his collaborators at the University of Abertay(1995a, 1995b). We will see that thesecharacteristics are fundamental to differentconceptions of teaching and learning, and areshared by many components of m-learningsystems.

4. Analysing m-learning – theConversational Framework

The previous section identified potential “cost-drivers” for the didactic components of m-l e a r n i n g systems. It was, however, anincomplete account of m-learning economicsbecause it failed to address other components ofsuch systems. It also failed to address theeducational effectiveness of the variouscomponents. This section will look at a moregeneral framework developed by Laurillard(1993) that allows us categorise and understandthe activities within m-learning.

5. Using the ConversationalFramework - Media Advisor andCRAM

The previous section provided a theoreticalmodel for discussing the costs and choicesinvolved in developing an m-learning system.This section looks at two current attempts tocombine Laurillard’s conversational frameworkwith data relating to a range of developmentalactivities. They provide examples of how aneconomic analysis of m-learning might proceed.This is a significant step towards a transparentprocedure for optimising the elements usedwithin a teaching system and a considerableimprovement on the pragmatic “media-mix”solutions of Reisner and Gagne (1983).

6. Human FactorsThis section looks briefly at some factors that

complicate this apparently rational andsystematic analysis of the economics of m-learning, namely the preferences, attitudes andbehaviour of teachers and learners, and howthey are currently manifest in e-learning.

7. ConclusionThis paper has attempted to develop a

rational and systematic framework for assessingthe effectiveness, efficiency and economics ofm-learning. Existing work already shows how to

increase the efficiency and effectiveness of anycommercial exploitation. Increased exploitationwill improve on this.

8. ReferencesLaurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University

Teaching. RoutledgeMarshall, I. M., Sampson, W. B., & Dugard, P. I.

(1995). Predicting the developmental effortof multimedia courseware. Information andSoftware Technology, 36(5), 251-258

Marshall, I. M., Sampson, W. B., & Dugard, P. I.(1995) . Mul t imedia courseware: .Association for Learning TechnologyJournal, 3(1), 110-117.

Peters, O. (1998). Learning and Teaching inDistance Education: Analyses andInterpretations from an InternationalPerspective (F. Lockwood, Ed.). London:Kogan Page.

Pressman, R. (2000). Software Engineering - aPractitioner's Approach, (5

th ed . ) .

Maidenhead, England: McGraw-Hil lPublishing Company.

Reisner, R. A., & Gagne, R. M. (1983).Selecting Media for Instruction, New Jersey:Prentice Hall International.

Rumble, G. (1997). The Costs and Economicsof Open and Distance Learning (F.Lockwood, Ed.). London: Kogan Page.

Sommerville, I. (1992). Software Engineering,London: Addison-Wesley.


A Critical Approach to an Adaptive User Interface Design

Teija VainioHypermedia LaboratoryUniversity of Tampere

33014 University of Tampere [email protected]

Mikko AhonenHypermedia LaboratoryUniversity of Tampere

33014 University of Tampere [email protected]

Abstract

In our study we present a critical approach tousability issues and usability evaluationparticularly involving adaptive user interfacedesign for mobile learning environments. Wedescribe some design challenges for adaptiveuser interfaces and key usability issues in theMOBIlearn project. In addition, we comparethese challenges with three different learningapproaches.

Our hypotheses are that the learningapproach used in most usability studies is notclearly defined, and, influences of differentlearning approaches are not considered enoughin usability evaluation. Our aim is to developusability of such mobile systems that are basedon more than one learning approach.

Keywords: adaptive user interface, usability,learning approaches

1. Adaptive user interfaces

Studies of web-based educational systemsand mobile learning environments have recentlystarted to focus on systems that are calledadaptive. Adaptive systems can be seen as analternative to the “one-size-fits-for-all” approach(Brusilowsky, Stock and Strapparava, 1999). Anadaptive user interface can be defined as “asoftware artifact that improves its ability tointeract with a user by constructing a user modelbased on partial experience with that user”(Langley, 1999). The term adaptation refers to asystem’s capability to dynamically change its

behaviour in order to keep the quality of serviceabove a certain level. In many cases adaptationis seen as a part of context-aware systems. Thesystem that adapts itself according to the userrefers to adaptivity. Furthermore, if the usershave to change the system behaviour it isreferring to adaptability.

Adaptive user interfaces can be focused, egto a task of information or content-basedfiltering, task of recommendation, task of socialor collaborative filtering, and task of optimising(Langley, 1999).

2. Adaptive user interfaces,usability and different learningapproaches

We see adaptive user interface design as avital part of usability design of an application ora service. We argue that the learningapproaches, which are based on the usabilitydesign including adaptive user interface designand adaptive system design should be definedmore clearly.

We examine three learning approaches inour study: formal learning, problem-basedlearning and workplace learning. Our aim is tostudy design challenges of adaptive userinterfaces and some key usability issues inmobile learning environments. Our study isbased on the MOBIlearn project, which is theresearch and development project in EU ISTProgramme. Furthermore, in traditional usabilitytesting the long-term usage is underestimated.

In some recent studies argue that currentadaptive (hypermedia) systems are based on “a


stereotypical user model with limited levels ofuser differentiation” and some additionalresearch is suggested to be done in theevaluation of the educational effectiveness ofsystem adaptation (Triantafillou et al, 2002).

Also the psychological effects of an interfaceadaptation on user performance have beenstudied earlier. Two competing possible effectsof using adaptive user interfaces can be found:social facilitation and “chocking”. The formerrefers to consequences, which occur becausethe user performance is monitored by theinterface. The latter, “chocking”, refers toconsequences caused by the interface, whichadapts to user’s performance (Jettmar andNass, 2002).

In our study we examine examples of existingadaptive user interfaces for mobile learners andsome key usability issues. Our aim is to developusability of adaptive user interfaces in mobilelearning systems that are based on more thanone learning approach. We will conclude withsome guidelines for adaptive user interfacedesign. Furthermore, we will study some designchallenges of mobile learning architecture andrelated adaptivity themes.

3. References

Brusilowsky, P, Stock, O, and Strapparava, C(eds) (2000). Adaptive Hypermedia andAdaptive Web-Based Systems. Proceedingsof the International Conference, AH 2000.Trento, Italy. Springer.

Langley, P, (1999). User modeling in adaptiveinterfaces. Proceedings of the SeventhInternational Conference on User Modeling(pp. 357-370). Banff, Alberta: Springer.

Jettmar, E, and Nass, C (2002). Adapt iveTesting: Effects on User Performance.Letters chi, volume No. 4, Issue No. 1 (pp.129-134). Banff, Minneapolis, Minnesota,USA, 20-25 April 2002.

Triantafillou, E, Pomportsis, A, Georgiadou, E,AES-CS: Adaptive Educational Systembades on Cognitive Styles. In Brusilovsky, P,Henze, N and Millán, E (eds): Proceedings ofthe Workshop on Adaptive Systems for Web-based Education, held in conjunction withAH'2002, Málaga, Spain. (pp.1-12)


Wireless All the Way:User's Feedback on Education through Online PDAs

Petra WentzelVrije Universiteit Amsterdam

De Boelelaan 11051081 HV Amsterdam

Email:[email protected]

Patris van BoxelVrije Universiteit Amsterdam

De Boelelaan 11051081 HV Amsterdam


Abstract

Technological advances in mobile computingdevices and wireless internet promise torevolutionise the delivery of educationalmaterials. We report on the process ofdeveloping a series of geoinformatics coursemodules which ultimately will be distributed in awireless learning environment. In the earlystages of the project, students were involved todiscuss their current use of mobile technologies(mobile phones, laptops,…) and reflect on thepotential of GPRS/GPS-enabled pocket PC'sboth for private use and study/fieldwork. Theeducational demands placed on the delivery oftime/place independent course materials and thespecific issues with regards to the use of mobiledevices in fieldwork are the focus of thispresentation.

Keywords: wireless fieldwork, wireless coursedesign and delivery, user feedback, pda's

1. Wireless Education forGeo-informatics

In recent years, ICT has been adopted bymany academic disciplines as a solution toincreasing demands from students forindividualised learning paths and learning styles.The fields of Geography and Geoinformatics,with their emphasis on fieldwork andmultidisciplinary teamwork, pose a uniquechallenge for conventional ICT infrastructure ineducational institutions. However, recenttechnological advances in mobile computing

devices and broadband wireless internetpromise to revolutionise the delivery of(individualised) ICT services in this field. Thisleads to a need to analyse the consequenses ofthese developments for the design,organisation and presentation of educationalmaterials.

2. The GIPSY project

GIPSY (Geo-Information for IntegratingPersonal learning environments by web andmobile ICT SYstems) is a two year runningcollaborative project between three Dutchuniversities, each with well-establishedGeography departments. The institutions arejointly developing two multidisciplinary moduleson geo-information.The design of course materials in this project isbased on the didactical principles that:

1. they should fit in with the growing demandof students to be able to work throughindividual learning paths (time and locationindependent);

2. students in this field should be able to studyand work in multidisciplinary teams

2.1. Developing a wireless hardware/software architecture

The need for ICT to support theserequirements is evident. Both modules will bedeveloped within a web-based environment,with data transmission being supported by


broadband internet between the threeinstitutions. The more innovative aspect of theweb-based support is based on currentdevelopments in mobile communication (GSM,GPRS, UTMS). The project will investigate howeducational materials can be distributed in smallentities ("byte chunks) by mobile technology andfull online devices such as pocket PC's orpersonal digital assistants (PDA's). Another areaof investigation is how wireless technologies canbe used to assist students carrying out fieldworkin remote areas (and support the delivery oflocation-based services) and what type ofmobile devices are most useful in this kind ofenvironment. We are currently designing anddeveloping a wireless fieldwork architecture,interface and functionality and carrying out acomparison of PDA GIS software packages.These will undergo extensive testing in thesummer of 2003.

2.2 User's feedback on wireless educationand fieldwerk

As more and more universities are gainingsome experience with the use of wirelesstechnologies, they also need to identify therequirements these place on the design ofeducational materials, the type of educationalactivities which may be supported and the waymobile devices may be used in combination withmore established technologies such as mobilephones, laptops and desktop PC's for thepurpose of study and fieldwork.

The educational sub-project in GIPSY hastherefore in the first phase of the project decidedto engage youngsters between 16-22 years(who are mobile technology enabled andpotential future participants of mobile learning)to take part in a series of student panels todiscuss possible applications of wireless devicesin education. Both high school students anduniversity students with a background ingeography and/or affinity with fieldwork wereasked to take part (about 40 in total). During thepanel sessions, participants are interviewedabout their current use of mobile phones,palmtops, PC's and laptops, both for private andeducational purposes. They are asked to try outthe state-of the-art 'XDA' (the first combinedpocket PC and GPRS device on the consumermarket with a colour screen) and asked to reflecton the functionalities and user-friendliness of fullonline devices in the context of theirschool/study work and/or fieldwork. They alsoare asked to evaluate customized educationalsoftware applications such as assessmentsoftware and geographic mapping software(ArcPad) on the XDA.

The insight we are gaining in the project onthe thoughts and ideas of students themselveson the future deployment of such devices,provides a useful context when starting out withthe design of educational materials. Thedidactical constraints and opportunities whichare placed on the design of such materials canbe a good starting point for other universitieswhen venturing into this area themselves.

3. References

Kasesniemi, E.-L. and P. Rautiainen (2002forthcoming). Mobile Culture of Children andTeenagers in Finland. Perpetual Contact:Mobile Communication, Private Talk, and PublicPerformance. J. E. Katz and M. Aakhus.Cambridge, United Kingdom, CambridgeUniversity Press.

Sharples, M., Corlett, D. and Westmancott,O. ( for thcoming) The Design andImplementation of a Mobile Learning Resource.Paper accepted for publication in Personal andUbiquitous Computing


Mobile Cinematic Presentations in a Museum Guide

Massimo Zancanaro, Oliviero Stock, Ivana AlfaroITC-irst

38050 Povo, Trento, Italy{zancana|stock|[email protected]}

Abstract

In this paper we introduce the idea ofenhancing the audio presentation of amultimedia museum guide by using the PDAscreen to travel throughout a fresco and identifythe various details in it. During the presentation,a sequence of pictures is synchronized with theaudio commentary and the transitions amongthe pictures are planned according to cinematictechniques. Preliminary studies and pilot testsshow encouraging results and interestingeffects.

Keywords: Multimedia Museum Guides,

Cinematography

1. IntroductionMany research projects are exploring the new

possibilities offered by Personal DigitalAssistants (PDAs) in a museum setting (see forexample, Grinter et al, 2002 and Cheverst2000). Usually, these multimedia guides usestatic images, while others employ pre-recordedshort video clips about museum exhibits. In aprevious work (Not et al, 1998), we exploreddifferent techniques to automatically buildmultimedia, location-aware presentations in amuseum setting. The advent of more powerfuldevices has allowed researchers to experimentwith new forms of multimedia, in particular time-based media such as animations.

In this paper we introduce the idea ofenhancing the audio presentation (dynamicallyassembled pre-recorded or synthesized speech)of a complex fresco by using the PDA screen totravel throughout the fresco itself and identifydetails. Our hypothesis is that the use of thistype of animation to present the description of apainting allows the visitor to better identify thedetails introduced by the audio counterpart ofthe presentation. In this manner, both theefficiency and the satisfaction dimensions of the

system usability are increased (Nielsen, 1994)while also providing an enhanced learningexperience for the visitor. At present, we havecompleted a first prototype for the famous XVcentury fresco “The Cycle of the Months” atTorre Aquila in Trento, Italy. It illustrates theactivities of aristocrats and peasants throughoutthe year and covers all four walls of a tower. Itintroduces a number of characters as well asmany different activities from falconry to wineharvesting. A web-based demo of theprototype is available at the following URLaddress: http://peach.itc.it/preview.html.

2. Cinematic PresentationsThe language of cinematography (Metz,

1974), including shot segmentation, cameramovements and transition effects, is employedin order to plan the animation and tosynchronize the visual and the verbal parts ofthe presentation.

Figure 1. Screen of mobile device

In building the animations, a set of strategiessimilar to those used in documentaries werethus employed. Two broad classes ofstrategies have been identified. The first classencompasses constraints, imposed by thegrammar of cinematography, while the seconddeals with conventions normally used in guiding


camera movements in the production ofdocumentaries. For instance, a strategy in thefirst class would discourage a zoom-inimmediately followed by a zoom-out, while adifferent strategy in the second class wouldrecommend the use of sequential scene cuts,rather than a fade-out effect, to visuallyenumerate different characters in a scene. It isworth noting that in the latter strategy it is oftennecessary to make reference to the discoursestructure of the audio part of the presentation,such as enumeration of properties, backgroundknowledge, and elaboration of relatedinformation. In order to formally use discoursestructure, we employ the Rhetorical StructureTheory (Mann and Thompson, 1987).

3. Mobile PresentationsThe guide is implemented on a PDA, which

by means of infrared sensors is capable ofidentifying its position within the frescoed Towerof the castle. Interaction with the system is bothproposed by the system itself and accepted bythe user, thus sharing the responsibility ofinformation access. When the system detectsthat the visitor is in front of one of the four walls,a picture of that wall is displayed on the PDAand, after a few seconds, if the user has notchanged her position the panel she is facing ishighlighted (see figure 2). At this point, thevisitor can click on the panel and receive amultimedia presentation of the panel she haschosen. This modality has been chosen in orderto allow the visitor to retain control of aninherently proactive guide.

Figure 2. Mixed-responsibility in frescoselection

4. EvaluationPreliminary studies and pilot tests show

encouraging results and interesting effects.All users became acquainted with the system

very quickly. Most of them used the PDA as a“3D mouse”, pointing directly to the infraredemitters to speed up the localization. In thefuture, we will propose a new interface wherethe user can be explicitly involved in the processof localization.

Most of the users complained before actuallyusing the system that a video sequence on aPDA would distract their attention from the realartwork. After a short interaction with thesystem, however, they appreciated thepossibility of quickly localizing small details onthe fresco. This demonstrates that use ofcinematic techniques in a multimedia guide canbe effective, particularly when explaining acomplex painting.

A formal study will start next May in TorreAquila that will involve approximately 80subjects. The purpose of the study is that ofinvestigating the correlation, if present, betweenrhetorical devices and the visual attention of theguide user. We will study how the applicationof the rhetorical transitions described aboveaffect user attention by observing the patternsof eye movements to and from the fresco andthe guide.

5. AcknowledgmentThis work has been supported by the

PEACH and TICCA projects funded by theAutonomous Province of Trento.

6. References

Cheverst K., Davies N., Mitchell K., Friday A.and Efstratiou C., Developing a Context-awareElectronic Tourist Guide: Some Issues andExperiences Proceedings of CHI 2000, pp 17-24, Amsterdam, 2000.

Grinter R. E., Aoki P. M., Hurst A.,.Szymanski M. H, Thornton J. D. and WoodruffA., Revisiting the Visit: Understanding HowTechnology Can Shape the Museum Visit. InProc. ACM Conf. on Computer SupportedCooperative Work, New Orleans, LA, 2002, toappear.

Metz C., Film Language: a Semiotics of theCinema. Oxford University Press, New York,1974.

Mann W.C. and Thompson S., RhetoricalStructure Theory: A Theory of TextOrganization, In L. Polanyi (ed.), The Structureof Discourse, Ablex Publishing Corporation,1987.

Nielsen J., Usability Engineering, MorganKaufmann, San Francisco, 1994.

Not E., Petrelli D., Sarini M., Stock O.,Strapparava C., Zancanaro M. (1998)Hypernavigation in the Physical Space:Adapting Presentations to the User and theSituational Context. In New Review ofHypermedia and Multimedia, vol. 4.



Author index

76 Alfaro, I72 Ahonen, M40 Ash, C

2 Attewell, J4 Avellis, G

16, 36 Baber, C6 Björgvinsson, E B6 Brandt, E

27 Bremer, O38 Brewster, D

8, 60 Bull, S 54 Burton, J

60 Chan, T10 Colley, J

12 Danielsson, K14 Dawabi, P38 du Boulay, B

42 Fernández-Morales, A4 Finkelstein, A

16 Glew, P18 Graham, P

20 Harrison, B22 Hayes, J12 Hedestig, U

6 Hillgren, P-A24 Hine, N

27 Iannella, R

12 Juslin, M

28 Kadyte, V30 Kambouri, M32 Keefe, T34 Kennedy, L

64 Livingstone, D36 Lonsdale, P38 Luckin, R40 Luecker, W

42 Mayorga-Toledano, MC44 Mifsud, L46 Mitchell, A

14 Neuhold, E48 Noessel, C50 Norbrook, H

12 Orre, C J

38 Pearce, D52 Pehkonen, M46 Popat, K54 Proctor, N

56 Rainger, P58 Ramsden, A

8 Reid, E24 Rentoul, R60 Rudman, P

2 Savill-Smith, C4 Scaramuzzi, A

30 Schott, G50 Scott, P

16, 36, 60 Sharples, M38 Siddons-Corby, R24 Specht, M62 Stead, G76 Stock, O64 Stone, A34 Sugden, D52 Syvänen, A

66 Taylor, J30 Thomas, S68 Tonge, S70 Traxler, J52 Turunen, H

72 Vainio, T74 van Boxel, P16 Vavoula, G

74 Wentzel, P14 Wessner, M

76 Zancanaro, M

ISBN 1 85338 855 6

m-Learning and MOBIlearn are projects supported by the European Commission Directorate-General Information SocietyIST-2000-25270 (m-learning)IST-2001-37187 (MOBIlearn)

MLEARN 2003 brings together people whoare interested in developing opportunities,systems and materials for learning withmobile phones, palmtop PCs and otherhandheld wireless devices – whether they are practitioners, designers oflearning materials, hardware and softwaretechnology developers, or researchers.

This book of abstracts contains summariesof all the papers presented and discussedat the conference.

Documents

MLEARN 2003: learning with mobile devices...Evaluation of a mobile learning organiser 60 and concept mapping tools Mike Sharples, Tony Chan, Paul Rudman and Susan Bull Early footsteps