Learning technology was born to be WILD: How wireless handhelds may change education

Jeremy RoschelleSRI International

And the WILD Team: John Brecht, Mark Chung, Chris DiGiano, Sarah Lewis, Judy Li, Charlie Patton, Deborah Tatar, Phil Vahey, Wenming Ye

Roy PeaStanford University

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

What is WILD?Wireless Internet Learning Devices

A Theme at SRI’s Center for Technology In Learning, and now at Stanford University, too

Since 1997 at SRI: CILT Ubiquitous Computing Theme Palm Educational Pioneer Grants NSF SimCalc Connected Devices

project TeamLab Assessment Prototype Texas Instruments New Collaborative

Products NSF “Wireless Handhelds for

Improving Reflection on Learning”

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Why go WILD?

“Innovation and Adoption”

(2002) Exploratorium

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

WILDs will be compellingSchools now spend $121/student on tech

Wireless Handhelds + More affordable+ Ready at hand+ 1:1 device/ student+ Anytime, anywhere+ Simple, reliable

Wired Desktops Expensive Schedule in advance 3-6 students/ device Prepared school rooms Complex, crashing

Enables a transition from occasional, supplemental use at school to frequent, integral use…………………….

Time on Task

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Wireless: What does that include? IR (Infrared beaming, 1-2 ft with Palms, can be

more with specialized equipment) Bluetooth (~ 1 mbps: Personal Area Networking,

30 ft.)

802.11b (“Wi-Fi”: ~10 Mbps, 300 ft.) 802.11a (~50 Mbps, 300 ft.)

NOTE: IEEE standards for 802.11.b and 802.11.a only since September 1999

NOTE: Free “symbiotic grid” movement in metro areas

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

“Honey, who shrunk the computer?”No! Think really differently

We argue that change is coming and fast:

In kinds of systems we can and will build

In kinds of activity structures they readily support

In evolving theoretical focus and research needed

In stakeholders to be involved

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Overview of our talk

Examine a series of early, generative WILD prototypes across the field

Abstract some categories of surfacing trends Suggest an integrative vision Speculate on where we go from here and

some of the key needs for broad adoption

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Example 1: ClassTalk (patented 1989)

Teacher presents questionStudents respond individually

Instant histogram results; better assessment data to guide instruction

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Expands to Image Map:Take the pulse assessment broadly useful for imagery, visualizations, maps, graphs…

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

2: ProbeWare/Sensor-Based ScienceNumber One PEP Grant type: Water Quality

Kids get “out of the box”

http://palmgrants.sri.com

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Example 3: Participatory SimulationsDevices mediate physical interactions to explore scientific concepts

Work at MediaLab, Utah, Northwestern, CSCL 2002

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Example 4: The Ghost LandscapeExploratorium adds cognitive overlay to outdoor exploration as a visitor’s position is sensed in the environment and location-specific information provided

CootIn the fall through late winter, coots appear. They are black and have very strange looking bright green striped feet. Coots are competitive feeders and divers. They are noisy and aggressive with each other. When more than one coot is in the same area, they will usually be chasing each other around the surface of the pond. It is either a male courting a female or two males fighting over a female that you are seeing.

(http://www.exploratorium.edu/lagoon)

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Example 5: CILT Datagotchi BrainstormEnvisioning Opportunistic Arrangement of Multiple Devices

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Example 6: NetCalcEmergent group explorations by aggregating individual work

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Characteristic 1: Geospatial information exchanges

Examples: Exploratorium ProbeWare

What’s Different? Focus of attention not within screen Geography matters Allowing users to add value via perspective, data

Why important? All the world’s a stage Knowledge butterfly net

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Characteristic 2: Semiotic spatial overlays

Examples Image Map SimCalc / NetCalc Datagotchi

What’s Different? Handhelds seem good at topological representation (space) Handhelds somewhat impoverished for typological rep’s

(linguistic) Why important?

Lemke: a lot of the action is in the interplay of typological and topological; we should attend to shifting affordances

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Characteristic 3: Aggregating coherently

Examples: ClassTalk ProbeWare NetCalc

What’s Different? Emphasis on quick, summary snapshots of

learning performance that can help guide teaching

Not ILS’s! Flexible activity structures So what?

Fundamental issue: individual and collective

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Characteristic 4: Conducting classroom performances

Examples: ClassTalk Participatory Simulations NetCalc

What’s different? “Sage on the Stage” undercut by personal communicators “Guide on the Side” no longer necessitated by bulky

monitors ----> where is the teacher now?

So what? Theatrical and musical metaphors: choreography, staging,

directing, jazz leader

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Characteristic 5: Act becomes Artifact

Examples: Exploratorium NetCalc ProbeWare

What’s Different? Ability to capture patterns of physical interactions to

support reflection Ability to leave digital traces of experience and interactions

behind for others to use (distributed expertise, data-mining) So What?

HEDOs: Adds layers of interpretation to place, add human stories to exhibits (Stevens/Hall)

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Early impressions suggest…“collaborative activity spaces” like Bee Hives

Suggests a metaphor of “Bee Hives” -- Distributed systems w/ periodic coordination

Taking knowledge away, leaving impressions behind

“Face to Face in Place” Spatial semiotics New exchange modes:

peer to peer, beaming points, multicast, ad hoc

Gesturally-mediated communication

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Evolution in major theory debates(Tim Koschmann, 1997 book on CSCL)

Control: Tutor vs. Tool vs. Tutee (1980’s) Representation: Modeling the learning vs. mediating

conversations among learners (1990’s) Coupling (Morrison & Goldman; Wenger) (2000’s?)

How tightly/loosely should individual, team, group work be coupled?

How designed/emergent should learning activities be? How locally/globally should learning objects be located? How private/public should learning work be? How rigidly/loosely should roles be orchestrated? How should act and artifact be related? How to couple the social and technological planes?

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Coupling within and amongsocial and informatic planes

Agent Objective

Outcome

Others

Roles Rules

ToolAgent Objective

Outcome

Others

Roles Rules

Tool

And can the participants understand the informatics?How can the informatics align with the social?

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

What are some major needs to close the gaps between emerging trends and common realities?

Broad range of learning applications and curricula that fit the new form-factor Thanks to Elliot and the Hi-CE group at U.M. Also Wilensky and Stroup; Kaput and Roschelle

Take-the-pulse assessments that are not only useful for guiding instruction but in contributing toward accountability

Integral engagement of teachers in developing tools, curriculum, assessment and support

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

New stakeholders

Current: Very prominently math and science Mostly a research community

Future: expanding scope and partners Disabilities Language Arts Informal Learning Community Centers Research / Industry / Practitioner alliances

QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

The Usual Cautions: Any technology is but part of a system

Only one element in a coordinated, systemic approach to educational improvement

Standards, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, teacher development, school culture and school-home connections are fundamentally part of any systemic change

…and instrumental in the roles technology can play and its likely effectiveness

See my talk at www.minds.tv (NCTET 2002 National Summit on Educational Technology Policy)

What people learn(Content)

How people learn(Cognition)

Content standards

Instructional workforce capacity

Coherence across levels & incentives

Why people learn(Socio-cultural context)

How learning is organized(Education Systems)

Student level

Teacher level

School/district level

Policy level

(From Nora Sabelli, SRI International)

AERA 2002, New Orleans (Pea and Roschelle)

Wireless Interactive Learning Devices… Time for New Inquiry in Work with Schools

First things first: new, early, speculative but emerging very rapidly Handhelds will have very different affordances for learning and teaching What we know still matters, but large needs to think theatrically about

augmented spaces: Learners in architected places

Thinking about system coupling: Private-public, interpersonal-informatic, designed-emergent, individual-group,

local-global…. Thinking towards making a difference:

A broader scope of learners’ and teachers’ needs and R&D partners

COME to “International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education in Sweden, August 29-30, 2002 http://lttf.ieee.org/wmte2002/