m Learning Resources

8/14/2019 m Learning Resources

1/15

The Design and Implementation of a MobileLearning Resource

Mike Sharples, Dan Corlett and Oliver WestmancottEducational Technology Research Group, Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering,University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Abstract: The convergence of mobile communications and handheld computers offers the opportunity to develop technology that willassist individuals and groups to learn anytime, anywhere. We describe the theory-informed design, implementation and evaluation of ahandheld learning device. It is intended to support children to capture everyday events such as images, notes and sounds, to relate them toweb-based learning resources, to organise these into a visual knowledge map, and to share them with other learners and teachers. Aworking prototype system, for children aged 911, is discussed and evaluated, as an exemplar of personal mobile systems for life-longlearning.

Keywords: Collaborative learning; Handheld learning device; Interactive learning environments; Knowledge map; Mobile learning

1. Background

Over the past ten years, educational researchersand practitioners, policy makers and politicianshave mapped out a new landscape of learning asa situated and life-long activity. The deningfeatures of Contextual Life-long Learning(CoLL) [1] are that:

. learning is not conned to pre-specied timesor places, but happens whenever there is abreak in the ow of routine daily performanceand a person reects on the current situation,resolves to address a problem, to share an idea,or to gain an understanding;

. formal education cannot provide people withall the knowledge and skills they need toprosper throughout a lifetime. Therefore,people will need continually to enhancetheir abilities, in order to address immediateproblems and to participate in a process of

continuing vocational and professional devel-opment.

A consequence of this reconceptualisation of learning is that the environments where CoLLoccurs cannot be pre-specied, but are createdthrough the activity of learning. Nor can theenvironment be decomposed into elements thatare independent of the learner [2], but insteadare dynamically constructed by learners inter-

acting with their surroundings. For example, astudent on an archaeology eld trip nds a pieceof pottery and thereby creates a micro-environ-ment for learning that is fundamentally bound toa context that includes time, location and thestudents knowledge, skills and available re-sources.

The last decade has also seen a revolution incommunications and computing technology,with the installation of digital cellular phonenetworks, and the development of mobilecomputers and digital cameras. These threetechnologies are now converging, into PersonalDigital Assistants (PDAs) that can enable peopleto access Internet resources and run experimentsin the eld, capture, store and manage everydayevents as images and sounds, and communicateand share the material with colleagues andexperts throughout the world. By happy co-incidence, there is a natural alliance betweenlearning as a contextual activity and the newpersonal mobile technology, so that it is becom-ing feasible to equip learners with powerful toolsto support learning anytime, anywhere.

Although the component technologies tosupport CoLL are now available, we havefound no detailed discussion of the design of personal mobile technologies for life-long learn-ing. Companies including IBM, Microsoft andHewlett Packard are promoting anytime, any-

Ownership and Copyright

# Springer-Verlag London LtdPersonal and Ubiquitous Computing (2002) 6:220234

educational technology portal and forum www.mostafa-gawdat.net


2/15

where learning with laptop computers. A studycommissioned by Microsoft of school studentsgiven laptop computers found that they usedcomputers at home for a wider variety of learningtasks than a comparable control group withdesktop machines [3]. A project by Philips hasdeveloped a prototype personal communicator

and organiser for children, based on the results of participatory design sessions with children aged712 [4]. Druin and colleagues are developing, incollaboration with Alburquerque elementaryschool children, a generic interface for childrenusing a pan and zoom metaphor [5]. A team atSimon Fraser University led by Inkpen [6] iscarrying out a participatory design study withchildren to develop handheld computers forcollaborative learning. The Classroom 2000project at Georgia Institute of Technology [7]has developed technology to enable students in alecture theatre to read slides from the screenonto PDAs. Projects to design mobile technol-ogies for adult learning include FieldNote fromthe University of Kent which integrates hand-held tools for data collection and re-use,including a GPS device, into a system thatenables eldworkers to capture and share in-formation [8]. Fischer and colleagues are inves-tigating software systems to support life-longlearning that allow users to learn as they designartefacts following their unique interests andneeds, but these are developed for desktopmachines not mobile devices [9]. Sharples [1]

sets out a general framework for the design of mobile technology for lifelong learning and givesa brief overview of the HandLeR project.

This paper provides a detailed account of aproject at the University of Birmingham todevelop a Handheld Learning Resource (whichwe have given the generic name HandLeR) thatcan assist people of all ages in their personallearning throughout a lifetime. This is anambitious aim and to make the project moremanageable we have specied three scenariosthat span the range of users and types of learning.

The scenarios are summarised below:. An 11 year old child is on a school eld trip.

She captures images of an historic site,annotates these with notes and sketches andorganises them into a visual idea map. Thechild extends the idea map by adding pagesfrom an internet guide to the site and itshistory, accessed through a high-speed wirelessnetwork around the building. She then merges

parts of her map with those of the otherchildren to create both a personal and a groupwebsite of the visit.

. A radiologist is in her rst year of specialisttraining in neuroradiology. She attends a casemeeting and receives the MR (MagneticResonance) images for a case through awireless network to a tablet computer. Shemarks up the images and describes the caseusing terms from a structured Image Descrip-tion Language and then compares her descrip-tion and diagnosis with those of fellowtrainees and the consultant radiologist. Shecan call up a database of related cases, viewingthe images and their structured descriptions.At home, she reviews the days work, discussesdifcult cases with remote colleagues by voiceand shared data, and posts queries to a bulletinboard for discussion the next day.

. A senior citizen is recalling and organising alifetime of memories. He revisits favouriteplaces and old friends and captures snippets of conversation and images through a handheldor wearable camcorder that automatically addstime and location data to each item. Later, hearranges these into a digital album, addingspoken commentary and images from localwebsites.

These scenarios can be seen as snapshots of acontinuing process of technology-mediated con-

textual learning. A central aim of our research isto enable learners to integrate these learningepisodes across time, to support their growth andtransformation of knowledge.

Research is already in progress at theUniversity of Birmingham to develop a MagneticResonance Imaging (MRI) Tutor (in collabora-tion with De Montfort University, University of Sussex and the Institute of Neurology) [10] and awearable camera that will capture images as theuser moves around, add time and location dataand enable users to annotate and share theimages. This paper describes a project to realisethe rst scenario, of providing technology tosupport children learning on a eld trip. The aimof the project was to produce a functioningdemonstrator of a HandLeR that will enablechildren, aged 911, to capture learning eventsin the eld, to annotate, share and organise theminto resources for learning, and to communicatedirectly with other learners or teachers. Thispaper describes the design and implementation

22

The Design and Implementation of a Mobile Learning ResourceThe Design and Implementation of a Mobile Learning Resource



3/15

of the system and reports a small formativeevaluation of it with children aged 10 and 11.

2. Design Methodology

The project followed a methodology of socio-cognitive engineering [11] which aims to analysethe complex interactions between people andcomputer-based technology and then transformthis analysis into usable, useful and desirablesocio-technical systems (technology in its socialcontext). The methodology has been successfullyapplied to the design of a broad range of humancentred technologies, including a Writers Assis-tant [12] a training system for neuroradiologists[13], and a system to support requirementscapture from customers for electronic test equip-ment. Socio-cognitive engineering draws on the

knowledge of potential users and involves themin the design process, but it is critical of thereliability of user reports and it extends beyondindividual users to give an analytic account of cognitive processes and social interactions, stylesand strategies of working, and language andpatterns of communication, so as to form acomposite picture of human knowledge andactivity that can inform system design. Our aimis to design human-centred systems that arebased on a sound understanding of how peoplethink, learn, perceive, work, communicate andinteract.

Figure 1 shows an overview of the designprocess. It starts by specifying the generalrequirements and constraints for the system to

be designed. It sets out the type of activities to besupported by the new technology (such aslearning and knowledge management), thedomain (personal contextual learning) and anygeneral constraints (such as time and budgetavailable for the system design). This providesparameters for two parallel studies: an investiga-

tion into how the specied activities arecurrently performed in their normal contexts,and a theory-based investigation of the under-lying cognitive and social structures and pro-cesses. The outcomes of these two studies aresynthesized into a Task Model whose aim is todescribe the activity system [14] that mayinclude the main actors with their tools andresources, their physical, social and culturalcontext, external representations such as notesand diagrams, the rules and conventions thatinuence the activity, the distribution of labour,

and the terminology and patterns of discourse.The Task Model provides the bridge to acycle of iterative design that includes: specifyinga design concept; generating a space of possiblesystem designs; specifying the functional andnon-functional aspects of the system; imple-menting and deploying the system. Althoughthis cycle is based on a conventional process of interactive systems design, it gives equal empha-sis to cognitive and organizational factors as wellas task and software specications. The outcomeis an implemented technology with guidelinesfor its use. When deployed, this will create atransformed socio-technical system with newactivities to be supported and problems to beaddressed.

Fig. 1. Overview of the ow and main products of the design process.

Mike Sharples et al.



4/15

3. General Requirements

The general requirements for technologies tosupport contextual life-long learning [1] are thatthey should be:

. highly portable, so that they can be availablewherever the user needs to learn;

. individual, adapting to the learners abilities,knowledge and learning styles and designed tosupport personal learning, rather than generalofce work;

. unobtrusive, so that the learner can capturesituations and retrieve knowledge without thetechnology obtruding on the situation;

. available anywhere, to enable communicationwith teachers, experts and peers;

. adaptable to the context of learning and thelearners evolving skills and knowledge;

. persistent, to manage learning throughout alifetime, so that the learners personal accu-mulation of resources and knowledge will beimmediately accessible despite changes intechnology;

. useful, suited to everyday needs for commu-nication, reference, work and learning;

. easy to use by people with no previousexperience of the technology.

These requirements provided initial constraintson the design. The requirement for a highly

portable device means that the technologyshould be light and capable of being carriedand operated on the move. This suggested a pentablet computer, with a high resolution colourscreen. The technology to capture sounds andimages and to communicate should either bebuilt into the device or distributed around thebody (for example as a buttonhole camera and aheadset). The latter would require either afestoon of wires (conicting with the require-ment to be unobtrusive) or wireless connectionsbetween the components (the technology forthis is now available, but expensive).

The requirement for it to be highly portableand available anywhere, indicates wireless com-munication, either through cellular telephone orwireless Local Area Network (LAN). WirelessLAN technology provides high speed, up to 11Mb/s, and relatively inexpensive communica-tions. With a maximum range of about 100metres from a base station it is suited to usewithin a building or campus. For locations such

as parks, museums and historic buildings that areregular venues for school eld trips then wirelessLAN is a feasible means of wireless communica-tion.

The requirement that it should be persistent,to enable a learner to accumulate and managelearning throughout a lifetime, dictates either

that a child should be equipped with a singledevice for a lifetime of learning (not an optionwhere hardware is developing so rapidly) or thatthe learning environment is separated from itsphysical instantiation on a particular device.

This latter approach is taken by standardpersonal computer operating systems and appli-cations where, for example, Microsoft Ofce2000 can run on a wide variety of desktop orportable computers. A persons learning envir-onment could reside on a web server and couldbe synchronised with a handheld or desktop

computer (in a similar manner to synchronisinga personal organiser such as the Palm Pilotthrough a single button press). The advantage of this approach is that a child could run their ownpersonal learning environment on a gamesconsole or interactive TV at home, a desktopcomputer in school and a handheld device on aeld trip or a journey between home and school.A museum or eld centre might provide a lowspecication handheld device for visitors whichwould enable them to capture learning events,synchronise their learning environment andcommunicate with their teacher or colleagues.

To adapt to a learners changing skills andknowledge, the system must be able to maintaina prole or model of the learner which candetermine the way in which the accumulatedknowledge and learning material is stored andthen presented back to the learner in newcontexts. This presents a major research chal-lenge. Most attempts at developing computermodels of a learners knowledge have concen-trated on specic topic areas and learning over ashort period of time. Research into cognitive andskill development over long periods [15] indi-cates that learning is not simply a monotonicaccumulation of facts and knowledge, butinvolves deep conceptual change and reconcep-tualisation. A life-long aid must either be able todetect, model and support such reorganisationsof knowledge, or provide tools for the learner tomanage this process.

Lastly, for the system to be useful and easy touse, the technology must present an appropriate

22




5/15

and intuitive system image [16]. A system imageis the combination of product design, interface,and interaction design that hides the complexityof the internal electronics and programming andpresents a notional machine which matchesthe users tasks and understanding. The tele-phone system, for example, masks most of its

complex electronics and communications behindthe system image of a speaking tube. A centralissue is what should be the system image of mobile technology for contextual life-long learn-ing. The traditional desktop metaphor basedon ofce equipment such as les and folders isnot appropriate for people learning in manylocations and contexts. The system image,interaction design and interface for HandLeRhave been derived from a task model informed bytheories of situated learning and interview-baseddesign studies with 9 and 10 year old children.

4. Theory of Use

The Theory of Use analyses theories of learning,cognition and social interaction that couldinform the system design. For a more detaileddiscussion of a Theory of Use for personallearning technologies see [1]. We can summarisecontextual life-long learning in terms of 3 Csof effective learning: construction, conversationand control.

Successful learning is constructive process

[17] that involves seeking solutions to problemsand relating new experiences to existing knowl-edge. Central to learning is conversation, withteachers, with other learners, with ourselves aswe question our concepts, and with the world aswe carry out experiments and explorations andinterpret the results [18]. Learning is mostsuccessful when we are in control, carrying outan active and continuing cycle of experimenta-tion and reection [19].

A theory of learning which combines theseaspects within an all-encompassing framework isPasks Conversation Theory [18]. ConversationTheory is an elaborate and difcult constructthat spans epistemology, educational technology,and cybernetics. It describes learning in terms of conversations between different systems of knowledge. Pask was careful not to make anydistinction between people and interactivesystems such as computers with the greatadvantage that the theory can be applied equallyto human teachers and learners, or to computer-

based teaching or learning support systems.What follows is a distillation (and, inevitably,a gross simplication) of the theory, sufcient toprovide a basis for system design.

Let us begin with a person engaged in someactivity in the world, such as carrying out anexperiment, or solving a problem, or exploring a

park or museum. As the person performs theactivity he or she tries out new actions, reectson how these work and makes decisions aboutwhat to do next (Fig. 2). The person is activelyconstructing an understanding of the activities.There is continual interaction and adjustmentbetween the persons thoughts and actions. Togain from that experience, to perform itdifferently or better in future, the learner needsto form a description of themselves and theactivities, to explore and extend that descriptionand to carry forward the understanding to afuture activity. That is the minimum require-ment for any person, or any system, to learn: itmust be able to converse with itself about what itknows.

A more effective form of learning is whenpeople can converse with each other, byinterrogating and sharing their descriptions of the world. Suppose that two people forexample a student and a teacher, or two students are working together on a project. Both peopleare interacting with the world and conversing atthe level of actions look here, whats this?,do that. They are also conversing at the levelof descriptions by exchanging reective descrip-tions of their knowledge: what do you think of this?; why do you do that?

We can say that the two people share anunderstanding if Person A can make sense of Bsexplanations of what B knows, and person B canmake sense of As explanation of what A knows.Thus, it is through mutual conversation that we

Fig. 2. A framework for conversational learning.




6/15


7/15

would talk to them, followed by it beingintelligent and having a personality. The chil-dren also drew pictures of what they thought thata personal handheld or wearable computershould look like. There were many instances of talking computers and computers with personal-ities; physical attributes such as arms, legs, eyes

and ears were also commonplace. A selection of these is shown in Fig. 5.

6. Task Model

The Task Model draws together ndings fromthe theory of use and eld studies to form acomposite picture of the activities and contextsthat the technology might support and raisesissues, including limitations, conicts and break-downs in traditional ways of working thattechnology could address.

The studies for HandLeR (including a relatedinvestigation of adult learners [20]) have sug-gested the need for a system that can supportpersonal learning projects across multiple con-texts, including school, home and outdoors. Itshould offer facilities for capturing and annotat-ing everyday events, relating new experience tostored knowledge through appropriate external

representations, conversing with peers and ex-perts, and managing personal learning projects.

The eld studies raised an important issueregarding ownership of personal learning tech-nologies and their data. One of the teacherssuggested that the most useful application for aHandLeR would be the inclusion of a personal

prole of the child. Different levels of the prolecould exist to allow different people (teachers,children, and parents) to see different informa-tion. To the children, a HandLeR is a means toundertake personal learning projects, free of theinuence of adults. To teachers, it can be ameans of monitoring the childrens progress inlearning and gathering diagnostic information.

A HandLeR can be seen as a boundaryobject [21] an object or construct that is claimedby a group of actors with divergent viewpoints. Alibrary, for example, provides a shared space andsystem of classication that can serve peoplesdisparate needs. Alternatively, a boundary objectmay provide a common irritant, a garden hedgebetween two disputatious neighbours. Personallearning technologies, because they interposebetween informal and formal contexts of learn-ing, may become a focus for conict betweenchildren and teachers (when children bring theirpersonal computers in to the classroom) andbetween differing approaches to pedagogy (sup-porting individual learning projects or deliveringa common curriculum). These issues cannot berelegated to user preferences or contexts or use,

since they lie at the heart of the system design.In designing HandLeR, we have taken theapproach that the primary owner of the data(though not necessarily the physical device) isthe learner and that the user prole is a means bywhich a learner can congure the software andcreate a sense of ownership of the system.

7. Design Concept

Whereas the Task Model provides an account of how people currently perform the requiredactivities, the Design Concept envisions howthese activities might be performed with the aidof new tools and technologies, to addresslimitations in current modes of working or offernew opportunities.

The Design Concept for HandLeR is in-formed by the Conversational Framework out-lined in Section 4. The system distinguishesbetween operations at the levels of action and

Fig. 5. Childrens Drawings of computers of the future.




8/15

description. Operations for action enable alearner to capture and annotate events asimages, sounds and written notes, to performexperiments and to converse with teachers andlearners. Operations for description enable thelearners to manage the captured learning events,relate them to previous actions, merge them with

learning resources available on the web, and tocreate a composite map of current and previousknowledge. The two distinct modules promote adeliberate cycle of action and reection.

7.1. Learning Objects and Idea Map

The outcome of each captured event is stored asa learning object [22]. Learning objects aresmall items of learning material, such as a test, asimulation, or a lecture. They are generallystored in a structured XML format with metadatatags that describe attributes of the learning suchas topic and prerequisites. The objects can bedeposited in a bank of learning resources andthen retrieved to satisfy a specic learning query,or they can be assembled into a teachingprogramme.

Learning objects were designed to providereusable components of computer-based instruc-tion, but the general approach, of storing,annotating and retrieving small items of learningapplies equally to contextual learning. Themetadata tags will need to be extended toinclude, for example, a more detailed denition

of context of learning than the broad LTSCterms such as Primary Education. This wouldinclude the time and physical location of thelearning, and possibly other elements such as co-learners present. Given sufciently sophisticatedtechnology such as GPS and wireless commu-nication, some context information could begenerated automatically. This would providebasic data to enable indexing and retrieval of the experiential learning objects.

The learning objects can be accessed andpresented along any of the contextual dimen-sions: for example as a timeline, or a spatial mapof where the learning events occurred. Thesystem also provides the means to interact withthe learning objects at the level of descriptions,by linking them by conceptual relation into anidea map, showing nodes representing learningobjects connected by links indicating conceptualrelations. This notation (and similar ones such asconcept maps [23] and mind maps [24]) havebeen widely used in education to visualise and

explore the conceptual relations between itemsof learning. The idea map might be generatedautomatically based on similarity between thetype and content of the learning objects (forexample, keyword matching of the content of notes). Generally, though, learners will createexplicit links between objects, building up a

personal map of their learning. Since thelearning objects are XML entities, the map alsoenables a learner to create a personal website ona learning topic by creating, adding and linkinglearning objects.

7.2. System Architecture

The system architecture provides a schematic of the main components of the system and theirinterconnections (see Fig. 6). The Internet andHTTP protocol provides a common communica-tions backbone for the system, allowing thecomponents of the system to be physicallydistributed, so that a learner may operate avariety of mobile or xed devices to accesspersonal learning resources stored in a xedserver, or may load a copy of the resources onto apersonal machine for learning in the eld.

The user interacts with a set of learning tools such as an integrated camera, notebook,sketchpad, and mobile phone that enable thecapture and annotation of learning events, themanagement of learning resources, and conver-sation with other learners and teachers. The

personal learning resources consist of links tolearning objects organised into an idea map, andalso the users learning prole, personal details,calendar and contacts list. The individuallearning objects are XML pages that willtypically be distributed across the Internet.Some will have been created by the learner,some by co-learners, and some will be providedas teaching resources. The metadata information

22

Fig. 6. System Architecture.




9/15

must be sufciently detailed to distinguishbetween accredited teaching materials and theresults of an individuals contextual learning, andalso identify the owner and give permission toshare or modify the objects. The learningmanager stores a local cache of learning objectsand deploys software agents to search for, lter

and organise the objects. The communicationsmanager creates direct voice and data commu-nication with other learners and handles thesharing of resources.

7.3. System Image

A central problem that the Design Concept mustsolve is how to present a coherent, appropriateand attractive system image. The only ubiquitoustechnology for learning is a notebook and pen.These could provide a basis for a system image,

but a minimalist blank notebook is unlikely toappeal to young learners. Another possibility is avirtual world metaphor that presents a simu-lated environment with familiar locations andobjects to support learning, such as a library,lab and classroom. One fundamental pro-blem with the virtual world metaphor is therepresentation of abstract items such as minds,concepts and ideas. It also imposes a traditionaltypology of teaching tools and locations that maypreclude new contexts for learning.

An appropriate system image must explain

itself and be instantly recognisable by any user. Itshould distinguish between activities at the levelof action and description. The metaphor shouldbe consistent across the system tools. It shouldalso be timeless, unaffected by changes in fashionand working practice. The system image devel-oped for the childrens HandLeR is that of anavatar with a humanoid body. It provides easily

recognisable body parts that either act as directlinks to the main tools (eyes for the camera,mouth for communication) or can hold recogni-sable icons (notebook, palette for painting). Italso offers an animate agent that could act as aguide or mentor to the learner. The avatar couldbe any human-like image such as an image of a

pop or sports star. For simplicity and generalappeal we chose a cartoon rabbit for the initialprototype (Fig. 7).

The intention was that the avatar shouldprovide an intuitive means for the child tointeract with HandLeR at the level of actions:capturing, annotating and communicating every-day events. It also provides a convenient inter-face object, the rabbits brain, to link to the ideamap.

7.4. Physical Concept Models

The physical appearance of the device is animportant aspect of the design concept. Thedevice should be light enough to be held in oneoutstretched hand. It should be possible tooperate it on a at surface or while carrying it.It should be capable of operation by left and righthanded people. It should have simple controls tooperate the tools such as camera or phone, and itshould look appealing to the intended users. Aphysical concept model for pre-teen children wasproduced in solid foam (Fig. 8). It is designed toresemble a video games controller, with curvededges for ease of holding with either hand, atouch panel screen, and two large buttons tooperate the integral camera, sound recorder andcommunications.

Fig. 7. Rabbit avatar annotated with button actions. Fig. 8. Physical concept model of a childrens HandLeR.




10/15

8. Design Space, Specicationand Implementation

The Design Concept produces a general archi-tecture and set of constraints on the design, butdoes not specify how these will be implemented.It leaves many possible options for implementing

the system architecture and for designing theinterface and user interaction.The systems architecture shown in Fig. 5 was

implemented as a set of modules communicatingvia HTTP (Fig. 9). A Java client handles theuser interaction and manages copying of imagesand text between modules. It also providescustom tools for interacting with the rabbitavatar and the idea map. The personal learningresources, including node and link informationfor the idea map, are stored as an SQL database.A proxy web server retrieves individual learningobjects, stored as local or Internet web pages. AnFTP and HTTP server manages the transfer andsharing of the learning resources.

We employed the OVID (Object, View andInteraction Design) design methodology toexplore and rene a space of possible designsand to implement the design choices. OVID hasbeen developed by the IBM Ease of Use Group[25] to bring rigour to the design of interactivesystems and to provide a bridge between inter-face design and programming. The aim of OVIDis to assist a designer to create interfaces thatmeet user requirements and are easy to use.

OVID ts within the more general methodol-ogy of socio-cognitive engineering, providing aprincipled approach to system specication andimplementation. The main steps to designingwith OVID are Requirements Analysis; Model-ling; Design; Prototyping, Evaluation and Im-plementation. OVID supports iterative design, soany of these steps may be revisited to revise andrene the design. A detailed description of thedesign and implementation of HandLeR in

OVID, and the benets and limitations of theOVID method for designing novel interactivesystems is given in Corlett [26].

The Modelling stage is central to OVID. It isinformed by the Analysis (within the context of socio-cognitive engineering this includes theGeneral Requirements, Theory of Use, Field

Studies and Task Model) and in turn it informsthe rest of the design. Using a subset of theUnied Modelling Language (UML), OVIDincrementally builds a model starting with theusers perceived model of his or her environment.A designers model is then drawn up whichidenties the task objects and the views whichwill be associated with them. Interaction andstate diagrams with state tables are drawn toensure completeness of the design. This model isnally augmented with the necessary systemdetails to become the implementers model.

We began the modelling by creating a spaceof possible designs in the form of storyboards,sketches and outline specications. These werediscussed in relation to the requirements anddesign concept, with designs being rejected andamalgamated until the process produced a smallset of specications for the system tools andoperations. These main system tools for drawing,writing and communicating were modelled interms of recognisable objects (such as pens,erasers and paintbrushes) and activities throughsingle sentence task descriptions such as childwrites in topic book.

An issue that arose during this stage was howto classify and group the tools. Some tools servemultiple functions; for example, the pad could beused for writing notes or drawing idea maps. Itwas decided to organise the tools according totheir purpose in supporting learning, and tocreate a generic container topic book that thatcan be used to assemble and annotate notes,drawings and images.

The interface was designed to provide explicitsupport for conversation at the levels of actionand reection (see Fig. 10). The main screen(Fig. 10a) shows the rabbit avatar and a seriesof buttons for help, search, adding items to thetopic book and communicating with otherdevices. Applications selected by tapping onthe avatars body parts appear on the right of thescreen (Fig. 10b). These enable the user tocapture images from the camera, browse webpages, and create and annotate images, notes anddrawings in the topic book.

22

Fig. 9. Implementation of the systems architecture.




11/15

Tapping on the avatars brain opens theidea map to organise, share and reect on thecaptured learning objects (Fig. 10c). The screenshows (on the right) a history list of itemscreated in the topic book and web pages browsed.The idea map was designed to be easy to operateon a tablet computer. Although the interactionis more constrained than other idea map toolssuch as Inspiration [27], it only requires two basicoperations (drag and tap) to build and explorethe map. Dragging an item from the history listattaches it to the central box in the idea map. Tomove through the map, the user repeatedly tapson one of the outer boxes which brings it to thecentre and shows the items linked to it. Tappingon the central box opens its associated learningobject (web page or topic book item).

A tap on the icon in the lower right of thescreen opens a dialogue box to connect toanother person. Selecting from a list brings upthe other users avatar (Fig. 10d), which can betapped to select the users prole (the heart), or adirect voice connection (the mouth). An aim for

a future version of the software is to show andcapture a view from the other persons camera(by clicking on the avatars eyes) and to shareitems from the idea map (by dragging them overthe users icon).

The main interface and idea map for theprototype system were implemented in Java, withcalls to standard software applications to providethe main tools. The camera is controlled throughthe PictureWorks Live software and the topicbook is Microsoft FrontPage Express. Each of these tools has its own interface which createsinconsistency. A more developed system wouldrequire custom-designed tools with consistentappearance and interaction.

The hardware for the prototype systemconsisted of:

. a Fujitsu Stylistic LT Pen Tablet computercontaining a 8.4 inch 800x600 SVGA displaywith a touch sensitive screen and a 233MHzIntel Pentium processor running the Windows98 operating system;

Fig. 10. The main HandLeR screen, showing a) avatar and interaction buttons, b) annotating an image, c) idea map, d)communication link with another user.

a

c

b

d




12/15

. a 3Com Home Connect camera in a custom-built bracket connected by a USB lead to thecomputer;

. a Lucent Technologies IEEE 802.11b standardPCMCIA card, providing wireless connectionto a local area network with data rates of up to11 Mbs;

. a PCMCIA Nokia CardPhone, enablingdirect voice communication from the compu-ter to a mobile phone or to another computer,and data connection at 9.6 Kbs.

Figure 11 shows the computer with camera andwireless LAN card. The Wireless LAN caneither link the computer to a xed networkthrough a base station, or it can be congured inan ad hoc network that enables a group of people

with handheld computers to exchange data athigh speed up to a range of about 100 metres.

9. User Testing and Evaluation

The development method of socio-cognitiveengineering is intended to promote testingthroughout the system lifecycle. The GeneralRequirements provide a set of constraints on thedesign process and criteria against which tovalidate the nished system. To produce theTask Model requires successful integration of theTheory of Use and Field Studies. If these conict(for example, if the theory of learning predictslearner behaviour that does not occur inpractice) then further work is needed toreconcile them. The Design Concept can bevalidated by checking that it supports thoseactivities and cognitive processes that wereidentied as being important or problematic inthe Task Model (such as support of learning

projects across multiple contexts). The OVIDmethod species a series of tests at each step inthe design and implementation sequence. Lastly,the Task Model provides a reference point tocompare the way tasks are performed withexisting technology against how it can be carriedout with the new tools. The methods that were

used to study and assess the original tasks can beused to compare with the transformed activities.The prototype system largely, but not entirely,

satises the General Requirements. The hard-ware is portable, in a single package that can becarried in one hand. It is easy to direct thecamera and capture an image while watching thecomputer screen, though the display can bedifcult to see in bright sunlight. The pen tabletcan be operated by cradling the machine on onehand and tapping or writing with the other (Fig.12), but the weight of the device, 1.5 Kg, meantthat some children sat or squatted and balancedit on a knee. Hardware based on a PDA such asthe Compaq iPAQ would be more portable, butwould sacrice the 800x600 SVGA screen for a240x320 display. Further work is needed todetermine whether a display of that size cansupport useful learning, but digital cameras andidea map tools [28] are already available for PDAdevices.

23

Fig. 11. Hardware for HandLeR prototype.

Fig. 12. A child interacting with the HandLeR device.




13/15

As an individuallearning resource, the Hand-LeR software is intended to support a wide rangeof learning activities and abilities, rather thanadapt to specic learners. It can support childrenwith differing approaches to learning, for exam-ple by providing pre-prepared resources and ideamaps or enabling learners to construct their own.

The system is relatively unobtrusive and canbe used in settings (such as eld trips or informalconversations) where a laptop computer andcamera would intrude on the activity. Aparticular advantage is being able to capture animage without having to hold the device in frontof the face.

Communication is available anywhere withinrange of a cellular telephone system and theinterface enables a call to be made by a single tapon the mouth of the other partys avatar. It hasproved difcult to adjust the audio settings to

enable good quality voice conversation, but anacceptable conversation in relatively quietsurroundings can be carried out with the built-in microphone and speaker. Data communica-tion by mobile phone at 9600 baud is too slow forinternet access or transfer of images. With thedevices in peer communication through thewireless LAN cards images and data can betransferred rapidly up to approximately 100metres line of site. Indoors or obstructed bybuildings, the effective range of communicationdrops to about 10 metres.

The current version is not adaptable to thelearners changing needs and abilities, nor is itdesigned to be persistent. We have research inprogress to develop mobile technology for long-term learning projects [20].

The prototype system was evaluated for ease of use and usefulness through a combination of methods. These included: videotaped observa-tions of three 11-year-old children using an earlyprototype; usability questionnaires with 29children aged 10; and a day trial of the system,using an earlier hardware conguration based ona larger Fujitsu Stylistic 2300 tablet computer,with six 11-year old children and their teachercarrying out a guided activity to explore canals incentral Birmingham (this was videotaped by theBBC for a Tomorrows World science pro-gramme).

The children in the observation study suc-cessfully completed the tasks set for them such ascreating a topic book, making a drawing,capturing an image and a movie, and setting up

a phone call from the HandLeR to a mobilephone. Although they had suggestions to im-prove the interface, they found the layout andmain functions easy to operate.

For the questionnaire study, the children weregiven printouts of the main HandLeR interfaceand asked to identify the functions associated

with parts of the avatar. Each function wascorrectly identied by more than 50% of thechildren, apart from the feet (for internet access)and the watch (for a diary). In general, thechildren said that the design of the avatar wasattractive and colourful but some of themcommented that the cartoon rabbit was toobabyish. The children suggested a variety of alternatives, including animals, aliens, robotsand cyborgs. We can conclude that if an avatar isused as the means of representing the user on thescreen, then the user should be able to choose

from a suite of images, designed in collaborationwith children and appropriate for different ages.A more fundamental problem is that althoughthe avatar metaphor could be extended toprovide animated help and guidance, it couldeasily become contrived and overloaded withtools. Alternatives should be considered, such asthe Pad interface based on a camcorder meta-phor of pan and zoom [29].

For the day eld trial, the children weredivided into two groups of three and presentedwith a mission on the HandLeR screen, whichwas to explore the canals in central Birmingham,answer two questions, and return with evidenceto support their answers. For one team, thequestions were What were canal boat used forin the 1850s? and How were the boats poweredin the 1850s? The other team were asked similarquestions about modern-day canal boats. Visualevidence that they could collect from exploringtheir surroundings included disused warehousesand canal bridges with notches caused by towropes, as well as working boats and water bussigns. They could also refer to pre-cached webpages that were linked to the HandLeR ideamap. The groups were encouraged to conversevia the mobile phone link and share information.

The eld trial was successful, in that thechildren accomplished their tasks, despite havingto perform for the BBC camera crew. They wereable to navigate the topic map to nd back-ground information, make notes, capture stilland moving images as evidence, and hold voiceconversations between the devices. The main




14/15

difculty was in handwriting recognition. Thesoftware, PenX V1.66 by CommunicationIntelligence Corporation, did not recognisecursive script, and the children found it im-possible to balance the tablet on one hand andwrite with the other. By sitting down and restingthe pad on their lap, they were able to make

short notes. Other problems with the prototypehardware included its weight and short batterylife.

10. Conclusions

A main conclusion from the trials is that furtherevaluation of the usefulness of mobile technol-ogy for learning should be delayed until technol-ogy has been developed that is easy and intuitiveto use. The prime purpose of the systemdescribed in this paper is to augment the qualityand scope of personal learning, not to deliverinstruction, so it cannot simply be assessed bymeasuring prescribed learning gains. As withpersonal management software such as diariesand meeting organisers, the benets come fromenabling people to manage their lives moreeffectively. A successful learning organisershould t into the daily activities of informallearning. It should allow people to capture andrecall an object or event that they wouldotherwise forget, integrate disparate sources of information into coherent schemas, assist in

performing experiments and solving problems inthe everyday world, and augment conversationsby providing a way to exchange and sharerelevant information. We have projects under-way to investigate these aspects of informallearning and develop a generic systems archi-tecture and interface for personal learningorganisers.

Another nding from the current project isthe importance and complexity of context.Mobile learning is more strongly mediated byits context than classroom instruction. Contextinvolves the familiar dimensions of time andlocation, but also includes the learners trajec-tory, goals and motivation, the surroundingresources, co-learners, and other available con-versants. Consider, for example, a visitor to amuseum or historic site. Their current learninggoals and activities will depend, inter alia, onwhere they are located and the time of day (themuseum may offer scheduled events), the routethey have taken and what they have already seen

on the way, their interests and motivation tolearn, whether the museum objects are accom-panied by captions or teaching material, andwhether a more knowledgeable person is nearand available. A mobile learning resourceshould, ideally, t seamlessly into this complexpattern of learning opportunities and resources.

The project described in this paper hasdeveloped a proof of concept for mobile learning,informed by a relevant theory of learning andeld tested with 11-year-old children. It hasshown that a handheld or wearable device, withappropriate learning tools and resources, anintuitive interface and high-speed communica-tion could offer a new generation of portablelearning organisers for people of all ages.

References

1. Sharples, M. (2000). The Design of Personal MobileTechnologies for Lifelong Learning. Computers andEducation, 34(177193)

2. Roth, W.-M. (2000). Learning environments research,lifeworld analysis, and solidarity in practice. LearningEnvironments Research, 2(3), 225247

3. Walker, L., Rockman, S., & Chessler, M. (2000). AMore Complex Picture: Laptop Use and Impact in theContext of Changing Home and School Access (Thirdin a Series of Research Studies on Microsofts AnytimeAnywhere Learning Program). San Francisco: Rockmanet al

4. Oosterholt R, Kusano M, de vries G. Interaction designand human factors support in the development of apersonal communicator for children. Proceedings of CHI96. ACM/Addison Wesley 1996; 450457

5. Druin A, Stewart J, Proft D, Bederson BB, Holland JD.

KidPad: A design collaboration between children,technologists, and educators. Proceedings CHI 97.ACM/Addison-Wesley 1997; 463470

6. Inkpen KM. Designing handheld technologies for kids.Personal Technologies 2000; 3(1/2):8189

7. Abowd G. Classroom2000: an experiment with theinstrumentation of a living educational environment.IBM Systems Journal 1999; 38:508530

8. Ryan, N. S., Morse, D. R., & Pascoe, J. (1999).FieldNote: a Handheld Information System for theField. Paper presented at the TeleGeo99, 1st Interna-tional Workshop on TeleGeoProcessing, Lyon.

9. Fischer G, Scharff E. Learning Technologies in Supportof Self-Directed Learning. J Interactive Media inEducation 1998; 98(4)

10. Sharples, M., Jeffery, N., Teather, D., Teather, B., & du

Boulay, G. (1997). A Socio-Cognitive EngineeringApproach to the Development of a Knowledge-basedTraining System for Neuroradiology, World Conferenceon Articial Intelligence in Education (AI-ED 97) (pp.402409). Kobe, Japan

11. Sharples, M., Jeffery, N., du Boulay, J. B. H., Teather, D.,Teather, B., & du Boulay, G. H. (2002). Socio-cognitiveengineering: a methodology for the design of human-centred technology. European Journal of OperationalResearch, 136(20):310323

12. Sharples, M., Goodlet, J., & Pemberton, L. (1992).Developing a Writers Assistant. In J. Hartley (Ed.),

23




15/15

Technology and Writing: Readings in the Psychology of Written Communication (pp. 209220). London: JessicaKingsley

13. Sharples, M., Jeffery, N. P., du Boulay, B., Teather, B. A.,Teather, D., & du Boulay, G. H. (2000b). StructuredComputer-based Training and Decision Support in theInterpretation of Neuroradiological Images. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 60 (30),263228

14. Engestrom Y. Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orien-ta-Konsultit, Helsinki 1987

15. Eraut M. Developing Professional Knowledge andCompetence. Falmer Press, London 1994

16. Norman DA. Cognitive engineering. In: Norman DA,Draper SW (Eds) User Central System Design. LawrenceErlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 1986; 3161

17. Brown A, Campione J. Psychological theory and designof innovative learning environments: On procedures,principles, and systems. In: Schauble L, Glaser R (Eds)Innovations in Learning: New Environments for Educa-tion. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ 1996; 289325

18. Pask AGS. Conversation Theory: Applications inEducation and Epistemology. Elsevier, Amsterdam 1976

19. Kolb D. Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ 1994

20. Vavoula, G. N., & Sharples, M. (2001). Studying theLearning Practice: Implications for the Design of aLifelong Learning Support System. In T. Okamoto & R.Hartley & Kinshuk & J. P. Klus (Eds.), Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced LearningTechnologies (ICALT 2001) (pp. 379380). Madison,USA: IEEE Computer Society

21. Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured

solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distrib-uted problem solving. In L. Gasser & M. N. Huhns(Eds.), Distributed Articial Intelligence (pp. 3754).London: Pitman

22. LTSC. IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committeewebsite. http://ltsc.ieee.org 2001

23. Novak JD, Gowin DB, Johansen CT. The use of conceptmapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior highschool teachers. Science Education 1983; (67):625645

24. Buzan T. Use Your Head (revised ed.). BBC Books,London 1989

25. Roberts, D., Berry, D., Isensee, S., & Mullaly, J. (1998).Designing for the User with Ovid: Bridging UserInterface Design and Software Engineering. London:Macmillan Technical Publishing

26. Corlett D. Innovating with OVID. Interactions 2000;7:1926

27. Inspiration Software Inc. Inspiration: visual thinkingand learning software. http://www.inspiration.com/ 2001

28. Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumeneld, P., Fishman, B.,Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2001). Handheld Devices areReady at Hand. Communications of the ACM,44(6),1520.

29. Perlin K, Fox D. Pad: An alternative approach to the

computer interface. Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 93.ACM, New York 1993;93:5764

Correspondence to: M. Sharples, Educational TechnologyResearch Group, Department of Electronic, Electrical andComputer Engineering, University of Birmingham, Edgbas-ton B15 2TT, UK. Email: [email protected]

Mike Sharples et al


Documents

m Learning Resources