Advertisement

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 111–124 | Cite as

Enhancing learning: a study of how mobile devices can facilitate sensemaking

  • Yvonne RogersEmail author
  • Kay Connelly
  • William Hazlewood
  • Lenore Tedesco
Original Article

Abstract

Mobile technologies are increasingly being promoted as tools to enhance learning. They can be used to augment ongoing activities, such as exploring outdoors, by enabling users to move back and forth between the physical environment and a variety of digital resources and representations. In so doing, they have the potential to facilitate sensemaking activities, where people seek to find structure in an uncertain situation through using a combination of information, communication and computation. However, continuous switching of attention between different representations and activities can be distracting. Our research is concerned with how mobile devices can be used to engender collaborative sensemaking activities during scientific tasks. We present two studies showing how different versions of a mobile learning application, LillyPad, were used by teams to make sense of their ongoing observations, when measuring the effects of different planting methods for an environmental restoration site. The findings show marked differences in the amount and type of sensemaking. We discuss reasons for this in terms of task demands and workload, information type and distribution of devices.

Keywords

Collaboration Mobile learning Mobile technologies Sensemaking 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the Eli Lilly and Company Foundation, the Rotary Club of Indianapolis and the Pervasive Technology Labs, Indiana University for funding the project. We are indebted to Andrew J. Kurtz and Josh Hursey for programming and helping with the design of the application. Thanks also to Bob E. Hall, Kara Salazar and Polly Baker at IUPUI, Tammy Toscos, Allen Lee, CJ Fleck, Nick Gentille and Anne Stephenson at IUB and Paul Marshall at the OU for their various contributions. Finally, we thank all the team leaders, students and volunteers who participated in the measuring days.

References

  1. 1.
    Roschelle J, Pea R (2002) A walk on the wild side: how wireless handhelds may change CSCL. In: Proceedings of CSCL 2002. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 51–60Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Russell D, Jeffries R, Irani L (2008) Sensemaking for the rest of us. In: CHI’08 workshop proceedings. Available via ACM digital library http://dmrussell.googlepages.com/sensemakingworkshoppapers. Accessed 9 Aug 2008
  3. 3.
    Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RF (2006) Making sense of sensemaking I: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schoenfeld AH (1992) Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sensemaking in mathematics. In: Grouws D (ed) Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning. MacMillan, New York, pp 334–370Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gordon DN, Edelson DC, Pea RD (1996) Supporting students’ science inquiry through scientific visualization activities. Presented as part of “Scientific Visualization Tools in Science Classrooms” at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Newman D, Torzs F (1991) A world in the classroom making sense of seasonal change through talk and technology. Center for Technology in Education, Technical report no. 11Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chi M (1997) Why is self explaining an effective domain for general learning activity? In Glasser R (ed) Advances in instructional psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loh B, Radinsky J, Gomez L et al (2001) Developing reflective inquiry practices: a case study of software, the teacher and students. In: Crowley SK, Chunn CS, Okada T (eds) Designing for science: implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan TW, Roschelle J, Hsi S et al (2006) One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: an opportunity for global research collaboration. Res Pract Technol Enhanc Learn 1(1):3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laws P (1997) Millikan lecture 1996: promoting active learning based on physics education re-search in introductory courses. Am J Phys 65(1):13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Layman JW, Krajcik JS (1990) The use of microcomputer-based laboratories in constructing science concepts. Presentation at the National Science Teachers Association, Area Convention, Washington, DC, 13–15 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gay R, Rieger R, Bennington T (2002) Using mobile computing to enhance field study. In: Miyake N, Hall R, Koschmann T (eds) CSCL 2: carrying forward the conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 507–528Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grant WC (1993) Wireless coyote: a computer-supported field trip. Commun ACM 36(2):57–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hine M, Rentoul R, Specht M (2004) Collaboration and roles in remote field trips. In: Attewell J, Savill-Smith C (eds) Learning with mobile devices: research and development. Learning and Skills Development Agency, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers Y, Price S, Randell C et al (2005) Ubi-learning: integrating outdoor and indoor learning experiences. Commun ACM 48(1):55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharples M, Corlett D, Westmancott O (2002) The design and implementation of a mobile learning environment. Pers Ubiquit Comput 6:220–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soloway E, Norris C, Blumenfeld P et al (2001) Log on education: handheld devices are ready-at-hand. Commun ACM 44(6):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soloway E, Norris C, Blumenfeld P et al (1996) Learning theory in practice: case studies of learner-centre design. In: Proceedings of CHI. ACM Press, New York, pp 189–196Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yeh R, Liao C, Klemmer S et al (2006) ButterflyNet: a mobile capture and access system for field biology research. In: Proceedings of CHI’06. ACM Press, New York, NY, pp 571–580Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Järvelä S, Laru J, Näykki P (2007) How people collaborate to learn in different contexts scaffolded by the mobile tools. In: Arnedillo-Sánchez I, Sharples M, Vavoula G (eds) Proceedings of beyond mobile learning workshopGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rost M, Holmquist LE (2008) Tools for students doing mobile fieldwork. In: Proceedings of WMUTE’08. IEE, Computer Society, pp 74–81Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spigol D, Milrad M (2008) Combining physical activities and mobile games to promote novel learning practices. In: Proceedings of WMUTE’08. IEE, Computer Society, pp 31–38Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hsi S (2002) The electronic guidebook: a study of user experiences using mobile web content in a museum setting. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, Växjö, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Semper R, Spasojevic M (2002) The electronic guidebook: using portable devices and a wireless web-based network to extend the museum experience. In: Proceedings of museums and the web, Boston, MA, March 2002Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Price S, Rogers Y, Stanton D, Smith H (2003). A new conceptual framework for cscl: supporting diverse forms of reflection through multiple interactions. In: Wasson B, Ludvigsen S, Hoppe U (eds) Designing for change in networked learning environments. Proceedings of the international conference on computer supported collaborative learning 2003, pp 513–522Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rogers Y, Connelly K, Tedesco L et al (2007) Why it’s worth the hassle: the value of in situ studies when designing UbiComp. In: Krumm J et al (eds) UbiComp 2007, LNCS 4717. Springer, Berlin, pp 336–353Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sugimoto M, Hosoi K, Hashizume H (2004) Caretta: a system for supporting face-to-face collaboration by integrating personal and shared spaces. In: Proceedings of CHI’2004. ACM Press, New York, pp 41–48Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yvonne Rogers
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kay Connelly
    • 1
  • William Hazlewood
    • 1
  • Lenore Tedesco
    • 3
  1. 1.Indiana UniversitySchool of InformaticsBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of ComputingOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  3. 3.Center for Earth and Environmental ScienceIndiana University-Purdue UniversityIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations