Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

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.

  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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).

  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.

  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).

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ciolfi, L. (2004). Understanding spaces as places: Extending interaction design paradigms. Cognition, Technology and Work, 6(1), 37–40.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cuendet, S., Bonnard, Q., Do-Lenh, S., & Dillenbourg, P. (2013). Designing augmented reality for the classroom. Computers & Education, 68, 557–569.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5–8.

    Article  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.

  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.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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).

  31. Gilbert, N. J., & Driscoll, M. P. (2002). Collaborative knowledge building: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 59–79.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

  34. Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive-inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6(2), 199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaplan, F., & Dillenbourg, P. (2010). Scriptable classrooms. In Classroom of the future: Orchestrating collaborative spaces (pp. 141–162). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

  46. Linn, M., & Eylon, B. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York: Routledge.

    Book  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.

    Article  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.

  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).

  51. Makitalo-Siegl, K., Zottmann, J., Kaplan, F., & Fischer, F. (2010). The classroom of the future. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Book  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.

    Article  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).

  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.

  55. Mor, Y., & Winters, N. (2007). Design approaches in technology-enhanced learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 61–75.

    Article  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).

  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.

    Article  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.

  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.

    Article  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.

  66. Resta, P., & Laferriere, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013). Classroom orchestration: Synthesis. Computers & Education, 69, 523–526.

    Article  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).

  69. Sandoval, W. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (1997). Evolving explanations in high school biology. ERIC Clearinghouse.

  71. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  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.

    Article  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).

  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.

    Chapter  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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).

  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.

    Article  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.

  90. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–104.

    Article  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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Tissenbaum.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tissenbaum, M., Slotta, J.D. Developing a smart classroom infrastructure to support real-time student collaboration and inquiry: a 4-year design study. Instr Sci 47, 423–462 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09486-1

Download citation

Keywords

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