Advertisement

Developing a smart classroom infrastructure to support real-time student collaboration and inquiry: a 4-year design study

  • Mike TissenbaumEmail author
  • James D. Slotta
Original Research

Abstract

K-12 classroom settings are not yet incorporating emerging technologies such as ubiquitous computing, augmented reality, nor even touch surfaces, despite the significant impact that such media have made in many other aspects of our lives. Unfortunately, classroom environments have not generally evolved to support students in the new modes of collaboration, idea sharing, and inquiry that characterize many of our research-based innovations. Responding to this challenge, our research was conducted by a multi-disciplinary design team including educational researchers, a high school physics teacher, and technology designers. We embarked on a series of design-based research projects to investigate a smart classroom infrastructure that scaffolds students and teachers in new forms of collaboration and inquiry, including a substantive role for large projected displays and small touch surfaces, as well as a dependency on students’ physical location within the room. This paper describes our designs, including: (1) the role of large displays for communicating aggregate and ambient information, (2) the role of real-time communication between students, (3) the application of intelligent software agents to enact real-time pedagogical logic, (4) support for learning across contexts, and (5) orchestration of inquiry roles, materials and environments. These designs are particularly relevant for the Learning Sciences community, as they offer insight into how the orchestrated classroom can support new forms of collaborative, cooperative and collective inquiry. One important outcome of this work is a set of design principles for supporting smart classroom research.

Keywords

Smart classrooms Computer supported collaborative learning Distributed intelligence Future learning spaces Learning communities Design-based research Technology enhanced learning environments 

Notes

References

  1. Alavi, H. S., Dillenbourg, P., & Kaplan, F. (2009). Distributed awareness for class orchestration. In Learning in the synergy of multiple disciplines (pp. 211–225). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  3. Barab, S., Makinster, J. G., Moore, J. A., & Cunningham, D. J. (2001). Designing and building an on-line community: The struggle to support sociability in the inquiry learning forum. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 71–96.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1.Google Scholar
  5. Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practice. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 269–292.Google Scholar
  6. Bortolaso, C., Bach, C., & Dubois, E. (2011). Co-design of interactive museographic exhibits: The MIME case study. In ReThinking technology in museums (pp. 37–48).Google Scholar
  7. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Children’s learning in the age of digital culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bybee, R. W. (2004). Scientific inquiry and science teaching. In Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Charles, E. S., Whittaker, C., Dugdale, M., & Guillemette, J. (2015). College level active learning classrooms: Challenges of using the heterogeneous ecology. In Proceedings of the orchestrated collaborative classroom workshop (pp. 39–44).Google Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.Google Scholar
  12. Ciolfi, L. (2004). Understanding spaces as places: Extending interaction design paradigms. Cognition, Technology and Work, 6(1), 37–40.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 18–27.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.Google Scholar
  15. Cotner, S., Loper, J., Walker, J. D., & Brooks, D. C. (2013). ‘It’s Not You, It’s the Room’—Are the high-tech, active learning classrooms worth it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(6), 82–88.Google Scholar
  16. Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 557–569.Google Scholar
  17. Dede, C. (2004). If design-based research is the answer, what is the question? A commentary on Collins, Joseph, and Bielaczyc; diSessa and Cobb; and Fishman, Marx, Blumenthal, Krajcik, and Soloway in the JLS special issue on design-based research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 105–114.Google Scholar
  18. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5–8.Google Scholar
  19. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL? (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  20. Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.) (2011). Trends in orchestration: Second research and technology scouting report. Report on orchestration trends of the European Stellar Network of Excellence in TEL. https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00722475/document.
  21. Dillenbourg, P. (2012). Design for classroom orchestration, position paper. In P. Dillenbourg, Y. Dimitriadis, M. Nussbaum, J. Roschelle, C. K. Looi & J. Asensio (Eds.), Design for classroom orchestration. Computers and Education, 69, 523–526.Google Scholar
  22. Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Design for classroom orchestration. Computers and Education, 69, 485–492.Google Scholar
  23. Dillenbourg, P., Jarvela, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. Jong, A. Lazonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning (pp. 3–19). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Dillenbourg P., & Jermann P. (2007). Designing integrative scripts. In: Fischer F., Kollar I., Mandl H., Haake J. M. (eds) Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning. Computer-supported collaborative learning (Vol. 6). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Dimitriadis, Y. (2012). Supporting teachers in orchestrating CSCL classrooms. Research on E-Learning and ICT in Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1083-6_6.Google Scholar
  26. DiSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19, 1–21.Google Scholar
  28. Facer, K. (2014). What is space for? Towards a politics and a language for the human in education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(1), 121–126.Google Scholar
  29. Fong, C., & Slotta, J. D. (2018). Supporting communities of learners in the elementary classroom: The common knowledge learning environment. Instructional Science, 46(4), 533–561.Google Scholar
  30. Fuks, H., Moura, H., & Cardador, D. (2012). Collaborative museums: An approach to co-design. In ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 681–684).Google Scholar
  31. Gilbert, N. J., & Driscoll, M. P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 59–79.Google Scholar
  32. Graham, S. (1998). The end of geography or the explosion of place? Conceptualizing space, place and information technology. Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 165–185.Google Scholar
  33. Gray, J., & Szalay, A. (2007). eScience—A transformed scientific method. In Mountain view: Presentation to the Computer Science and Technology Board of the National Research Council.Google Scholar
  34. Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6(2), 199.Google Scholar
  35. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.Google Scholar
  36. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.Google Scholar
  37. Hoadley, C. M., Kilner, P. G. (2005). Using technology to transform communities of practice into knowledge-building communities. ACM SIGGROUP Bulletin, 25(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
  38. Hoadley, C. M., & Pea, R. D. (2002). Finding the ties that bind: Tools in support of a knowledge-building community. In Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 321–353). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hug, B., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (2005). Using innovative learning technologies to promote learning and engagement in an urban science classroom. Urban Education, 40(4), 446–472.Google Scholar
  40. Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). Scriptable classrooms. In Classroom of the future: Orchestrating collaborative spaces (pp. 141–162). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.Google Scholar
  42. Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.Google Scholar
  43. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3), 313–350.Google Scholar
  44. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495–523.Google Scholar
  45. Kuhn, A., Cahill, C., Quintana, C., & Soloway, E. (2010, April). Scaffolding science inquiry in museums with Zydeco. In CHI’10 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3373–3378). ACM.Google Scholar
  46. Linn, M., & Eylon, B. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Linn, M. C., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J. D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students’ learning about ‘rats in space’ and ‘deformed frogs’. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 61–84.Google Scholar
  48. Lipponen, L. (2002, January). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 72–81). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  49. Litts, B., & Ramirez, D. (2014). Making people fail: Failing to learn through games and making. Proceedings GLS, 10, 160–166.Google Scholar
  50. Lui, M., Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2011). Scripting collaborative learning in smart classrooms: Towards building knowledge communities. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) (Vol. 1, pp. 430–437).Google Scholar
  51. Makitalo-Siegl, K., Zottmann, J., Kaplan, F., & Fischer, F. (2010). The classroom of the future. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080.Google Scholar
  53. McCarthy, J. F., McDonald, D. W., Soroczak, S., Nguyen, D. H., & Rashid, A. M. (2004). Augmenting the social space of an academic conference. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative workCSCW’04 (Vol 6(3), p. 39).Google Scholar
  54. Moher, T., Hussain, S., Halter, T., & Kilb, D. (2005, April). RoomQuake: Embedding dynamic phenomena within the physical space of an elementary school classroom. In CHI’05 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1665–1668). ACM.Google Scholar
  55. Mor, Y., & Winters, N. (2007). Design approaches in technology-enhanced learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 61–75.Google Scholar
  56. National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  57. National Science Teachers Association. (2011). Quality science education and 21st century skills. Arlington, VA: Author. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/21stcentury.aspx.
  58. Nilsson, P., Sollervall, H., & Spikol, D. (2010). Mathematical learning processes supported by augmented reality. In 34th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  59. Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., Mcfarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Computers and Education, 52(1), 147–153.Google Scholar
  60. Oh, S., & Woo, W. (2009). CAMAR: Context-aware mobile augmented reality in smart space. Proceedings of IWUVR, 9, 48–51.Google Scholar
  61. Partnership for 21st Century Skills, P21 (2009). Framework for 21st century learning. http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.
  62. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Learning, 2(1), 51–74.Google Scholar
  63. Peters, V. L., & Slotta, J. D. (2010, June). Analyzing student collaborations in a wiki-based science curriculum. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 119–120). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  64. Quintana, C., Zhang, M., & Krajcik, J. (2005). A framework for supporting metacognitive aspects of online inquiry through software. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 235–244.Google Scholar
  65. Rekimoto, J., Ayatsuka, Y., & Hayashi, K. (1998, October). Augment-able reality: Situated communication through physical and digital spaces. In Second international symposium on wearable computers, 1998. Digest of Papers (pp. 68–75). IEEE.Google Scholar
  66. Resta, P., & Laferriere, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65–83.Google Scholar
  67. Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis. Computers & Education, 69, 523–526.Google Scholar
  68. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Shechtman, N. (2006). Co-design of innovations with teachers: Definition and dynamics. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on learning sciences (pp. 606–612).Google Scholar
  69. Sandoval, W. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223.Google Scholar
  70. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1997). Evolving explanations in high school biology. ERIC Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  71. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.Google Scholar
  72. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Schön, S., Ebner, M., & Kumar, S. (2014). The Maker Movement. Implications of new digital gadgets, fabrication tools and spaces for creative learning and teaching. eLearning Papers, 39, 14–25.Google Scholar
  74. Sharples, M. (2013). Shared orchestration within and beyond the classroom. Computers and Education, 69, 504–506.Google Scholar
  75. Simon, B., Miklós, Z., Nejdl, W., Sintek, M., & Salvachua, J. (2003, May). Smart space for learning: A mediation infrastructure for learning services. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on world wide web (pp. 20–24).Google Scholar
  76. Slotta, J. D. (2010). Evolving the classrooms of the future: The interplay of pedagogy, technology and community. In K. Makitalo-Siegl, F. Kaplan, J. Zottmann, & F. Fischer (Eds.), The classroom of the future orchestrating collaborative learning spaces (pp. 215–242). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.Google Scholar
  77. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science: Web-based inquiry in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  78. Slotta, J. D., & Najafi, H. (2013). Supporting collaborative knowledge construction with Web 2.0 technologies. In Emerging technologies for the classroom (pp. 93–112). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Slotta, J., & Peters, V. (2008, June). A blended model for knowledge communities: Embedding scaffolded inquiry. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on international conference for the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 343–350). Madison: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  80. Slotta, J., Quintana, R., & Moher, T. (2018). Collective inquiry in communities of learners.  In F. Fischer, C. Hmelo-Silver, P. Reimann, & S. Goldman (Eds.), The international handbook of the learning sciences. Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Slotta, J. D., Tissenbaum, M. & Lui, M. (2011, April). Researching the classroom of the future: Frameworks and formalisms. In Designing technology to support collaboration in the classroom. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  82. Soller, A., Martínez, A., Jermann, P., & Muehlenbrock, M. (2005). From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(4), 261–290.Google Scholar
  83. Spikol, D., Milrad, M., Maldonado, H., & Pea, R. (2009, July). Integrating co-design practices into the development of mobile science collaboratories. In Ninth IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies, 2009. ICALT 2009 (pp. 393–397). IEEE.Google Scholar
  84. Tissenbaum, M., Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2012). Co-Designing Collaborative Smart Classroom Curriculum for Secondary School Science. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(3), 327–352.Google Scholar
  85. Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2014). Developing an orchestrational framework for collective inquiry in smart classrooms: SAIL smart space (S3). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  86. Tissenbaum, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2015). Scripting and orchestration of learning across contexts: A role for intelligent agents and data mining. In Seamless learning in the age of mobile connectivity (pp. 223–257). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  87. Tsovaltzi, D., McLaren, B., Rummel, N., Scheuer, O., Harrer, A., Pinkwart, N., et al. (2008). Using an adaptive collaboration script to promote conceptual chemistry learning. In Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 709–711).Google Scholar
  88. van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R., & Manlove, S. (2005). Co-Lab: Research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(4), 671–688.Google Scholar
  89. Vogel, B., Spikol, D., Kurti, A., & Milrad, M. (2010, April). Integrating mobile, web and sensory technologies to support inquiry-based science learning. In 2010 6th IEEE international conference on wireless, mobile and ubiquitous technologies in education (WMUTE) (pp. 65–72). IEEE.Google Scholar
  90. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.Google Scholar
  91. Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–104.Google Scholar
  92. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.Google Scholar
  93. Xie, C., Tinker, R., Tinker, B., Pallant, A., Damelin, D., & Berenfeld, B. (2011). Computational experiments for science education. Science, 332(6037), 1516–1517.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations