Future technology workshop: A collaborative method for the design of new learning technologies and activities



We describe the future technology workshop (FTW), a method whereby people with everyday knowledge or experience in a specific area of technology use (such as using digital cameras) envision and design the interactions between current and future technology and activity. Through a series of structured workshop sessions, participants collaborate to envisage future activities related to technology design; build models of the contexts of use for future technologies; act out scenarios of use for their models; re-conceive their scenarios in relation to present-day technologies; list problems with implementing the scenarios; explore the gap between current and future technology and activity; and end by listing requirements for future technology. The method has been used successfully with children and adults to explore new technology–activity systems, including interacting with digital photographs and informal science learning.


Activity Collaborative design Envisioning Role-play Scenarios 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arvidsson, F., Ihlström, C., & Lundberg, J. (2002, August). Vision of future news—Consensus or conflict? Proceedings of the 25th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (CD-ROM). Bautahøj, Denmark.Google Scholar
  2. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Bo, G. (2005). MOBIlearn: Project final report. Retrieved 14th June 2007 from: http://www.mobilearn.org/results/results.htm.
  4. Bødker, S. (1999). Scenarios in user-centred design: Setting the stage for reflection and action. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. New York: IEEE (January).Google Scholar
  5. Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, DOI 10.1225/3510.
  6. Bruseberg, A., & McDonagh-Philp, D. (2001). New product development by eliciting user experience and aspirations. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 55, 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchenau, M., & Fulton, J. (2000). Experience prototyping. Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems 2000. ACM Press, pp. 424–433 (August).Google Scholar
  8. Delbecq, A. L., Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
  9. Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callahan, D., & Platt, M. (1999). Children as our technology design partners. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology (pp. 51–72). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1991). Cardboard computers: Mocking-it-up or hands-on the future. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 169–196). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, D., & Taylor, J. (2004). The role of user scenarios as the central piece of the development jigsaw puzzle. In J. Attewell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of MLearn2004: Mobile learning anytime everywhere. London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency.Google Scholar
  12. Gaver, W. W., Dunne, A., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Cultural probes. Interactions Magazine, 1, 21–29.Google Scholar
  13. Haley, D., Nuseibeh, B., Sharp, H., & Taylor, J., (2004, September). The conundrum of categorizing requirements: Managing requirements for learning on the move. Proceedings of 12th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’04) (pp. 309–314). New York: IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  14. Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. (1992). From experience: Developing new product concepts via the lead user method: A case study in a “low tech” field. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., et al. (2003). Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with Families. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2003) (pp. 17–24). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  17. Iacucci, G., Iacucci, C., & Kuutti, K. (2002). Imagining and experiencing in design, the role of performances. Proceedings of NordiCHI (pp. 167–176). Aarhus: Denmark, October.Google Scholar
  18. Iacucci, G., Kuutti, K., & Ranta, M. (2000). On the move with a magic thing: Role playing in concept design of mobile services and devices. In Proceedings DIS2000, Designing Interactive Systems (pp 193–202). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ihlström, C., Svensson, J., & Åkesson, M. (2005). Participatory design of future every day IT artifacts-Engaging readers and publishers in designing the e-newspaper. In Proceedings of the 28th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (CD-ROM), Norway.Google Scholar
  20. Inkpen, K. (1999). Designing handheld technologies for kids. Personal Technologies Journal, 3(1–2), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. (1987). Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.Google Scholar
  23. Kensing, F. (1987). Generation of visions in systems development. In P. Docherty, K. Fuchs-Kittowski, P. Kolm, & L. Mathiasen (Eds.), Systems design for human and productivity—Participation and beyond (pp. 285–301). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  24. Kensing, F., & Madsen, K. H. (1991). Generating visions: Future workshops and metaphorical design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 155–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centred design. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 55, 587–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Muller, M. J. (1991). PICTIVE—An exploration in participatory design. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology (pp. 225–231). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mwanza, D., Taylor, J., Sharp, H. & Vavoula, G. (2003). Methods for abstracting design requirements for a mobile e-Learning environment. In C. T. Blake & K. Lack, (Eds.), Proceedings of CALRG Conference 2003 (p. 8). The Open University: http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=3399.
  29. Osborne, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination. New York: Schribeners and Sons.Google Scholar
  30. Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2003). Scenario-based design. In J. A. Jacko, & A. Sears (Eds.), The human–computer interaction handbook. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. Salvador, T., & Sato, S. (1998). Focus troupe: Mini workshop on using drama to create common context for new product concept end-user evaluations. Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference (pp. 197–199). Seattle: CPSR.Google Scholar
  32. Sanders, E. B.-N. (2000). Generative tools for co-designing. Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000 (pp. 3–12). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1999). Kids as informants: Telling us what we didn’t know or confirming what we already knew? In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology (pp. 27–50). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  34. Schwartz, P. (1997). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human–computer interaction (2nd ed.). Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  36. Sharp, H., Taylor, J., Lober, A., Frohberg, D., Mwanza, D., & Murelli, E., (2003). Establishing user requirements for a mobile learning environment. Proceedings of Eurescom Summit 2003, Evolution of Broadband Services. Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
  37. Sharples, M. (1987). The design of a user-friendly system. In A. Jones, E. Scanlon, T. O’Shea (Eds.), The computer revolution in education: New technologies for distance learning (pp. 65–79). Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
  38. Sharples, M. (2006). Socio-cognitive engineering. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.) Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (pp. 542–547). Hershey: Idea Group Reference.Google Scholar
  39. Sharples, M., Davison, L., Thomas, G. V., & Rudman, P. D. (2003). Children as photographers: An analysis of children’s photographic behaviour and intentions at three age levels, Visual Communication, 2(3), 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharples, M., Jeffery, N., du Boulay, J. B. H., Teather, D., Teather, B., & du Boulay, G. H. (2002). Socio-cognitive engineering: A methodology for the design of human-centred technology. European Journal of Operational Research, 136(2), 310–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, C. (1998). Transforming user-centered analysis into user interface: The design of new-generation products. In L. E. Wood (Ed.), User interface design. Bridging the gap from user requirements to design (pp. 275–304). Boca Raton: CRC.Google Scholar
  42. Svanæs, D., & Seland, G. (2004). Putting the users center stage: Role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’2004) (pp. 479–486). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  43. Taylor, J. (2004). A task-centred approach to evaluating a mobile learning environment for pedagogical soundness. In J. Attewell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of MLearn2004: Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere, Learning and Skills Development Agency. London, UK.Google Scholar
  44. Thomas, J. (1985). Force field analysis: A new way to evaluate your strategy. Long Range Planning, 18(6), 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vavoula, G. N., Lonsdale, P., Mwanza, D., Scanlon, E., & Hardy, P. (2005b). D.33.3 Reacting to research. MELISSA JEIRP Project Deliverable 33.3 for Kaleidoscope European Netowrk of Excellence.Google Scholar
  46. Vavoula, G. N., Lonsdale, P., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Jones, A., & Hardy, P. (2005a). D.33.2 Report on empirical work with mobile learning & literature on mobile learning in science. MELISSA JEIRP Project Deliverable 33.2 for Kaleidoscope European Network of Excellence.Google Scholar
  47. Vavoula, G. N., Sharples, M., Cross, J., & Baber, C. (2003). SpyCam and RoboCam: An application of the future technology workshop method to the design of new technology for children. Proceedings of HCI International 2003 (pp. 1071–1075). Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  48. Vavoula, G. N., Sharples, M., & Rudman, P. D. (2002). Developing the ‘future technology workshop’ method. In M. M. Bekker, P. Markopoulos, M. Kersten-Tsikalkina (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 65–72). Eindhoven: The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  49. Virzi, R. A. (1990). Low-fidelity prototyping. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (p. 265). Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  50. Waycott, J. (2004). The appropriation of PDAs as learning and workplace tools: an activity theory perspective. PhD thesis, The Open University, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Museum Studies DepartmentUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Learning Sciences Research InstituteUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations