Orchestrating Learning in a One-to-One Technology Classroom

  • Jitti Niramitranon
  • Mike Sharples
  • Chris Greenhalgh
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

One-to-one technology classrooms equip each child with a computing device that provides personalised learning tools. One-to-one learning is showing promise in classrooms due to support for individual and small group learning through the affordances of mobile learning devices such as portability, low cost and communication features. However, there are problems of management of the technology-enabled classroom, lack of support for collaborative and whole class working, design of lessons that switch easily between activities, and difficulty in re-use of lesson components. In this chapter we describe the SceDer system to orchestrate learning with one-to-one technologies. Sceder provides an authoring system for teachers to design lessons, an interchange language (COML) to describe lesson sequences and resources, and a delivery system that enables the teacher to manage collaborative one-to-one learning in the classroom. The system has been tested in school classrooms and has demonstrated its effectiveness in managing fluid transitions between individual, group, and whole class learning activities.

Keywords

Collaborative Learning Tuple Space Collaboration Script Technology Classroom Educational Technologist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anastopoulou, S., Sharples, M., Wright, M., Martin, H., Ainsworth, S., Benford, S., et al. (2008). Learning 21st century science in context with mobile technologies. In B. C. Traxler John. Riordan (Ed.), Mlearn 2008 conference (pp. 12–19).Google Scholar
  2. Asensio-Pérez, J., Bote-Lorenzo, M., Vega-Gorgojo, G., Dimitriadis, Y., Gómez-Sánchez, E., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. (2008). Adding mash-up based tailorability to VLEs for scripted collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on mash-up personal learning environments(mupple08) (Vol. 388, pp. 14–17).Google Scholar
  3. Britain, S. (2004). A review of learning design: Concept, specifications and tools. JISC report, 20.Google Scholar
  4. Chan, T. W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, K., Sharples, M., Brown, T., et al. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dalziel, J. (2003). Implementing learning design: The learning activity anagement system (LAMS). In Proceedings of the ascilite 2003 conference, Adelaide (p. 25).Google Scholar
  6. Dalziel, J. R. (2006). Lessons from LAMS for IMS learning design. In Sixth international conference on advanced learning technologies (p. 1101–1102).Google Scholar
  7. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  8. Dillenbourg, P., & Crivelli, Z. (2009). A model of collaborative learning scripts instantiated with mobile technologies. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferraris, C., Martel, C., & Vignollet, L. (2007). LDL for collaborative activities. In L. Botturi & T. Stubbs (Eds.), Handbook of visual languages in instructional design: Theories and practices (pp. 226–253). Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Chapter XII.Google Scholar
  10. Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H., & Haake, J. M. (2007). Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (Vol. 6). Boston, MA: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giemza, A., Weinbrenner, S., Engler, J., & Hoppe, H. U. (2007). Tuple spaces as a flexible integration platform for distributed learning environments. Supporting Learning Flow Through Integrative Tech-nologies, 313-320.Google Scholar
  12. Hernández-Leo, D., Villasclaras-Fern_andez, E., Jarrín-Abellán, I., Asensio-Pérez, J., Dimitriadis, Y., Ruiz-Requies, I., et al. (2006). COLLAGE, a collaborative learning design editor based on patterns. Educational Technology & Society, 9(1), 58–71.Google Scholar
  13. Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (1999). An analysis of learner arguments in a collective learning environment. In Proceedings of the 1999 conference on computer support for collaborative learning.Google Scholar
  14. Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., et al. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koper, R., & Tattersall, C. (2005). Learning design: A handbook on modelling and delivering networked education and training. Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Koschmann, T. (1996). CSCL, theory and practice of an emerging paradigm: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Laurillard, D., Oliver, M., Wasson, B., & Hoppe, U. (2009). Implementing Technology-Enhanced learning. Technology-Enhanced Learning: Principles and Products, 289–306.Google Scholar
  19. Liu, T. C., Liang, J. K., Wang, H. Y., Chan, T. W., & Wei, L. H. (2003). Embedding educlick in classroom to enhance interaction. In Proceedings of international conference on computers in education (ICCE) (p. 117–125).Google Scholar
  20. Lowery, R. C. (2005). Teaching and learning with interactive student response systems: A comparison of commercial products in the higher education market. In Annual meeting of the southwestern social science association and its affiliates, march (p. 2326).Google Scholar
  21. Miao, Y., Hoeksema, K., Hoppe, H. U., & Harrer, A. (2005). CSCL scripts: Modelling features and potential use. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Learning 2005: The next 10 years! (pp. 423–432). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  22. Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. A Report for NESTA Futurelab. ISBN: 0–9548594.Google Scholar
  23. Niramitranon, J., Sharples, M., & Greenhalgh, C. (2006). COML (Classroom orchestration modelling language) and scenarios designer: Toolsets to facilitate collaborative learning in a One-to-One technology classroom. Selected Papers from the Kaleidoscope Convergence Workshop: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  24. Niramitranon, J., Sharples, M., & Greenhalgh, C. (2009) (Paper accepted). Designing and orchestrating collaborative learning in a one-to- one classroom. In The 17th international conference on computers in education, ICCE 2009, Hongkong.Google Scholar
  25. Niramitranon, J., Sharples, M., Greenhalgh, C., & Lin, C. (2007). SceDer and COML: Toolsets for learning design and facilitation in one-to- one technology classroom. In U. S. Hirashima T.Hoppe (Eds.), ICCE'07 (pp. 385–391). Netherlands: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nussbaum, M., Alvarez, C., McFarlane, A., Gomez, F., Claro, S., & Radovic, D. (2009). Technology as small group face-to-face collaborative scaffolding. Computers & Education, 52(1), 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pinkwart, N., Hoppe, H. U., Milrad, M., & Perez, J. (2003). Educational scenarios for cooperative use of personal digital assistants. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change CSCL. In Proceedings of CSCL (Vol. 2) Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  29. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Estrella, G., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2009). From handheld collaborative tool to effective classroom module: Embedding CSCL in a broader design framework. In Proceedings of computer supported collaborative learning practices (pp. 395–403). Rhodes, Greece: ISLS.Google Scholar
  30. Roschelle, J., Schank, P., Brecht, J., Tatar, D., & Chaudhury, S. R. (2005). From response systems to distributed systems for enhanced collaborative learning. In Proceeding of the 13th international conference on computers in education (ICCE 2005) (pp. 363–370).Google Scholar
  31. Roschelle, J., Tatar, D., Chaudbury, S. R., Dimitriadis, Y., Patton, C., DiGiano, C., et al. (2007). Ink, improvisation, and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets. Computer, 40(9), 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharples, M. (2000, April). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers & Education, 34(3–4), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Es, R., & Koper, R. (2006). Testing the pedagogical expressiveness of IMS LD. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 9(1), 229.Google Scholar
  34. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Mcscl: Mobile computer supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 42(3), 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zurita, G., Nussbaum, M., & Shaples, M. (2003). Encouraging face-to-face collaborative learning through the use of handheld computers in the classroom. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 193–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jitti Niramitranon
    • 1
  • Mike Sharples
    • 1
  • Chris Greenhalgh
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning Sciences Research InstituteUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamEngland

Personalised recommendations