Understanding technology-rich learning spaces

Intro

ductio

n

In th

e last few

years, a

substa

ntia

l amount o

f funding

has been

allocated

to sch

ools

and universities

in the

world

, but

especia

lly the

UK,

for

creatin

g new

‘tech

nology-rich

’ lea

rning spaces.

These

new

spaces

have b

een proposed

as ex

amples o

f future p

laces fo

r supportin

g and en

hancin

g in

form

al a

nd fo

rmal lea

rning,

collaboratio

n, crea

tivity and socia

lising [4].

However,

little is

known as to wheth

er these

claim

s are

bein

g

realized

in actu

al p

ractice. T

his resea

rch is exa

mining

how and wheth

er they

are

used

, focusin

g on the

interd

epen

den

ce of

physica

l space,

furnitu

re and

technology co

nfig

uratio

n.

Background

Severa

l stu

dies

of tech

nology

situated

in ed

ucatio

nal

settings

have

been

carried

out

that

focus

on

understa

nding how tech

nology a

ffects users’ everyd

ay life a

nd vice versa

; and w

heth

er the tech

nology serves

the p

urposes it w

as d

esigned

for. Fin

dings fro

m th

ese stu

dies h

ave b

een m

ixed. Fo

r example, B

rignull et a

l. [1]

implem

ented

Dyn

amo,

a

large

multi-u

ser intera

ctive surfa

ce to en

able th

e sharin

g and exch

ange

of a

wide va

riety of d

igita

l med

ia, in

the co

mmon ro

om

of a h

igh sch

ool a

nd rep

ort th

at u

sers appropria

ted th

e functio

nality o

f the d

isplay in

a w

ay th

at w

as co

nsisten

t with

the

space’s

previo

us

use.

Moreo

ver, it

did not

Copyrig

ht is h

eld by th

e author/o

wner(s).

Nadia Pantid

i

Yvonne Rogers

The Open

Unive

rsity, The Open

Unive

rsity,

Walto

n Hall.

Walto

n Hall.

Milton

Keyn

es, M

K7 6AA

Milton

Keyn

es, M

K76AA

k.pantid

i@open.ac.u

k y.ro

gers@

open.ac.u

k

Hugh Robinson

The Open

Unive

rsity,

Walto

n Hall.

Milton

Keyn

es, M

K7 6AA

h.m

.robinson

@open

.ac.uk

Abstra

ct A n

umber o

f novel te

chnolo

gy-rich

learning sp

aces have

bee

n develo

ped over th

e last few

years. M

any cla

ims h

ave

bee

n m

ade in

term

s of h

ow th

ey can su

pport an

d en

hance

learning,

collaboratio

n,

community

particip

atio

n,

and

creativity.

This

line of research

is

investig

atin

g whether

such learning space

s are livin

g up to

such c laim

s. The

approach

is ethnographic; a

number o

f field stu

dies h

ave

bee

n co

nducte

d exa

mining how

people use th

e sp

aces in

practice

. Findings so

far h

ave sh

own th

at th

e positio

ning of

the te

chnolo

gy, fle

xibility an

d a se

nse o

f ownersh

ip and

control o

ver the te

chnolo

gy are

key issu

es.

Keywords

Tech

nology- rich

lea

rning

spaces,

ethnographic

approach, d

esigned

and actu

al u

se

2010 CRC PhD Student Conference

Page 74 of 125

2

support

other

uses

that

the

research

ers exp

ected.

Sim

ilarly, M

cDonald et a

l. [3], situ

ated

three p

roactive

disp

lays

in an academ

ic conferen

ce to augmen

t the

particip

ants’

intera

ctions;

specifica

lly to en

hance

the

feeling o

f community, fa

cilitate so

cial n

etworkin

g an

d

future co

llaboratio

ns. Fin

dings fro

m th

is study sh

owed

that p

eople a

ppropria

ted th

e technology b

y extending

its use in

an in

nova

tive and fu

n w

ay w

hich

conflicted

with

the

common practices

and socia

l conven

tions

alrea

dy in

place a

nd th

us, led

to n

egative co

mmen

ts about

the

applica

tion.

More

dramatica

lly, a stu

dy

evaluatin

g the

use

of intera

ctive whiteb

oards

in UK

schools

found no

significa

nt

impact

on the

pupils’

perfo

rmance

relatin

g

to

the

use

of

intera

ctive whiteb

oards [2

].

Much resea

rch to

date h

as focused

on sin

gle tech

nology

interven

tions,

where

a public

disp

lay

or

intera

ctive whiteb

oard has b

een placed

in a pre-existin

g sp

ace to

serve a sp

ecific purpose/fu

nctio

nality. H

owever, th

ere are

learning spaces

that have

been

desig

ned

fro

m

scratch

to be ‘tech

nology-rich

’ and w

here th

eir spatia

l and tech

nologica

l desig

n is

inten

ded

to be

much

broader (e.g

. Saltire C

enter, C

ILASS). A

n asso

rtmen

t of new

technologies a

nd fu

rnitu

re have b

een co

nfig

ured

to

create n

ew lea

rning sp

aces. T

his resea

rch fo

cuses o

n

how su

ccessful th

ese multi-p

urpose sp

aces h

ave b

een

in supportin

g what

they

were

desig

ned

for.

The

questio

ns a

ddressed

are:

§ What a

re the d

ifferences b

etween

anticip

ated

and actu

al u

se (if any)?

§ What is th

e nature o

f the in

teractio

nal w

ork in

these n

ovel sp

aces?

§ How do peo

ple

beh

ave

and intera

ct with

the

space?

§ How do peo

ple in

teract w

ith ea

ch other a

nd th

e tech

nology?

§ What

insig

hts

emerg

e for

the

use

of

the

technology

by

understa

nding the

use

of the

physica

l space?

To address

these

questio

ns,

in situ

eth

nographic

studies h

ave b

een ca

rried out o

n th

ree multi-p

urpose

technology-rich

settin

gs,

called

Dspace,

Qspace,

Cspase.

Dspace

was

desig

ned

as

a tech

nology-rich

space set in

a library o

n a u

niversity ca

mpus. It w

as crea

ted as

a crea

tive play

area

for

visitors

to exp

erimen

t with

and exp

lore

new

idea

s and share

knowled

ge;

a

space

that

brin

gs

togeth

er new

tech

nologies a

nd id

eas o

n how th

ey could be u

sed fo

r lea

rning and tea

ching now or in

the fu

ture. Q

space, is a

large sp

ace th

at w

as d

esigned

to su

pport a

variety o

f planned

learning activities (e.g

. worksh

ops) to

enable

groups of individ

uals

to come

togeth

er with

in a high

technology

enviro

nmen

t to communica

te their

idea

s and g

enera

te their d

esigns in

a crea

tive way. It is a

blank

space

that

can be

re-shaped

physica

lly and

technologica

lly dep

ending on the

activity

that takes

place.

The

space

was

delib

erately

desig

ned

to be

technologica

lly-rich as a m

eans o

f promotin

g crea

tivity and supportin

g collaboratio

n in innova

tive ways.

Cspace, w

as d

esigned

as a

study sp

ace fo

r studen

ts to work to

geth

er both durin

g la

b sessio

ns a

nd in

their o

wn

time.

It is

a

flexible

technology-rich

workin

g

enviro

nmen

t that

allows

multip

le ‘stu

dy’

activitie

s inclu

ding

teaching,

programming,

hardware

experim

entatio

n, a

nd fa

cilitated

discu

ssions.

Methodology

The m

ethod used

is ethnographic in

volvin

g particip

ant

observa

tion and sem

i-structu

red in

terviews. A

series of

ethnographic

studies

was carried

out in the

differen

t settin

gs

throughout

the

last

18 months

and will

2010 CRC PhD Student Conference

Page 75 of 125

3

contin

ue

for

another

6 months.

The

collected

data

consist

of

fieldnotes

(made

durin

g or

after

the

observa

tional sessio

ns),

audio and vid

eo reco

rdings,

still pictu

res and documen

ts. The d

ata is a

nalyzed

and

interp

reted in

terms o

f preva

iling th

emes a

nd ten

sions

occu

rring betw

een desired

, actu

al an

d anticip

ated

use.

Findings

As

a resu

lt of

the

ethnographic

approach,

a rich

descrip

tion has

been

achieved

providing a unique

understa

nding of th

e three

settings’ everyd

ay u

se. In

gen

eral,

findings

from all

settings

show how peo

ple

appropria

te tech

nology-rich

lea

rning

spaces

quite

differen

tly from w

hat th

e desig

ners o

r managers h

ave

planned

or anticip

ated

. Additio

nally,

a more

in dep

th

examinatio

n of the

findings

provid

es a selectio

n of

interd

epen

den

t vignettes th

at o

ffer insig

hts o

n critica

l issu

es such as th

e use o

f technology, th

e appropria

tion

of th

e physica

l space, g

roupwork a

nd in

divid

ual w

ork,

priva

te and public

aspects

of

intera

ction and the

community o

f users.

Reg

arding the

use

of

the tech

nology,

the

insig

hts

emerg

ing so far

suggest

that

for

technology-rich

lea

rning spaces

to be

successfu

l, they

need

to be

flexible

(supportin

g flu

id tra

nsitio

ns

from individ

ual

work to

group w

ork a

nd fro

m p

ublic to

priva

te use),

lightweig

ht (users

movin

g betw

een the

spaces’

and

their

own devices)

and accessib

le (providing to the

users

the

optio

n to contro

l, take

ownersh

ip over

the

technology). Fo

r insta

nce, field

work d

ata sh

owed

that

Cspace w

as set u

p in

a way th

at o

ffered th

e studen

ts the freed

om to

choose h

ow a

nd w

hen

to u

se it. The

technology in

the sp

ace co

nsisted

both of la

ptops/ta

blet

PCs

and SmartB

oards

provid

ing users

the

optio

n to

switch

betw

een in

dividual a

nd group w

ork, a

nd also

to

share (p

ublic) o

r not (p

rivate) th

eir work w

ith others.

Moreo

ver, the tech

nology w

as ‘o

ut th

ere’ for a

nyo

ne to

walk in

and use it a

nd stu

den

ts were a

llowed

to ‘p

lug

and play’

with

their

perso

nal devices

(laptops,

mp3

players, m

obiles) a

nd co

mbine th

em w

ith th

e existing

technology o

f the sp

ace (fig

ure 1

). This tech

nologica

l flexib

ility, among other

things,

contrib

uted

to the

Cspace b

ecoming a

‘hot sp

ot’; a

cosy lea

rning sp

ace

where

studen

ts feel

comforta

ble

experim

entin

g with

tech

nology

and at

the

same

time

engaging in their

everyday so

cial a

nd work a

ctivities.

Figure 1. O

n th

e le

ft studen

ts are collab

oratin

g by u

sing th

e SmartB

oard

for sh

ared con

tent a

nd th

e la

ptops an

d ta

blet P

Cs

for p

rivate use; on

the rig

ht, on

e of th

e stu

den

ts is usin

g his

iPhone an

d his

perso

nal tablet

PC in com

binatio

n with

the

existin

g te

chnolo

gy.

In con

trast, Q

space p

roved

to be ra

ther tech

nologica

lly

inflexib

le. The

majority

of

activities

invo

lving

technology, d

urin

g th

e event o

bserved

, were lim

ited to

the m

anagers o

f the sp

ace m

anipulatin

g th

e lights via

a

disp

lay in

terface. T

he a

ctual u

sers did not a

ppropria

te

or intera

ct with

the

technology,

as they

didn’t

have

direct a

ccess to it. T

he rea

son fo

r this is th

at b

efore a

ny

use o

f the sp

ace th

e managers a

re pre-settin

g how th

e tech

nology ca

n be u

sed dep

ending on th

e need

s of th

e even

t or th

e users. In

additio

n, u

sers are d

iscouraged

fro

m usin

g their

own laptops

or

other

devices

in

combinatio

n w

ith th

e spaces’ existin

g tech

nology. In

a

2010 CRC PhD Student Conference

Page 76 of 125

4

way,

the

technology

was patro

lled and used

by

the

managers, a

nd it w

as o

nly ‘p

ost h

oc’ a

vailable to

the

actu

al u

sers.

Another critica

l elemen

t for su

ccessful tech

nology-rich

lea

rning sp

aces seem

s to be th

e physica

l arra

ngem

ent

of the

technology

in the

space;

specific

spaces

or

physica

l layo

uts

bea

r esta

blish

ed asso

ciatio

ns

and

etiquettes th

at can

affect th

e way u

sers intera

ct with

or

appropria

te the tech

nology. Fo

r example, in

Dspace it

was found that desp

ite the

abundance

of tech

nology

and th

e many m

otiva

ting cu

es and clu

es, its use w

as lim

ited.

The

technology

was

not

experim

ented

or

played

with

in the

ways

planned

for [5].

A plausib

le exp

lanatio

n fo

r this, b

ased

on th

e collected

data, h

as to

do w

ith th

e positio

ning of th

e technology in

the sp

ace;

most o

f the d

evices were p

laced

on sh

elves (Figure 2),

creatin

g th

e impressio

n th

at th

ey were fo

r disp

lay o

nly,

thus d

iscouraging poten

tial u

sers from in

teractin

g w

ith

them

.

Figure 2

. A colle

ction of m

obile p

hon

es for u

sers to in

teract

with

and exp

erim

ent a

re disp

layed on sh

elves.

Conclu

sion

This

paper

discu

sses briefly

a selectio

n of fin

dings

emerg

ing fro

m a series o

f ethnographic stu

dies ca

rried

out in

three n

ove

l technology-rich

learning sp

aces. O

ur

findings so

far su

ggest th

at fo

r these sp

aces to

support

inform

al and form

al lea

rning, collaboratio

n, crea

tivity

and so

cialisin

g, issu

es such as th

e spatia

l arra

ngem

ent,

flexibility a

nd accessib

ility of th

e technology n

eed to b

e consid

ered. Fu

ture w

ork in

volves fu

rther in

situ stu

dies

to a va

riety of sim

ilar settin

gs w

ith th

e aim

to develo

p a

set of d

esign guidelin

es and co

ncern

s for th

ose invo

lved

in develo

ping ‘lea

rning sp

aces’ a

nd ‘cla

ssrooms o

f the

future’.

References

[1] B

rignull, H

., Izadi, S

., Fitzpatrick, G

., Rogers, Y

., and Rodden

, T. T

he in

troductio

n of a sh

ared

intera

ctive surfa

ce into a co

mmunal sp

ace. P

roc. C

SCW 2004, A

CM

Press (2

004).

[2]

Hen

nessy,

S.,

Dea

ney,

R.,

Ruthven

, K.,

and

Winterb

otto

m, M

. Ped

agogica

l strateg

ies for u

sing th

e

intera

ctive whiteb

oard to

foster lea

rner p

articip

atio

n in

sch

ool scien

ce. Lea

rning, Media and Tech

nology,

32

(3), (2

007), 2

83–301.

[3]

McD

onald,

D.W

., McC

arth

y, J.F.,

Sorocza

k, S.,

Nguyen

, D.H.,

and Rashid, A.M

. Proactive

disp

lays:

Supportin

g awaren

ess in flu

id so

cial en

vironmen

ts. ACM

Transactio

ns on

Computer- H

uman In

teractio

n, 1

4 (4

), Article 1

6, (2

008).

[4] O

blinger, D

. Learning Spaces. E

ducause, 2

006.

[5] Pantid

i, N.,

Robinson, H.M

., and Rogers,

Y. Can

technology-rich

spaces

support

multip

le uses?.

Proc.

British

CHI G

roup Annual C

onferen

ce on HCI (2

), BCS

(2008), 1

35-138.

2010 CRC PhD Student Conference

Page 77 of 125