Smart City Learning Solutions, Wearable Learning, and User Experience Design

  • Brenda BannanEmail author
  • Jack Burbridge


This chapter provides an overview of an applied research and development process for engineering smart city learning solutions that incorporates a user experience (UX) design and research approach that has been leveraged in an emergency response and management context. The four phase model represents an iterative, progressive and agile prototype design process applicable for generating, refining, deploying and scaling wearable devices and Internet of Things (IoT) solutions to improve learning and performance at the city services level. The described User Experience (UX) integrative design and research process was employed in the development of an emergency management and response smart city solution prototyping process in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. Insights and lessons learned related to designing for user experience in smart city learning solution research and development through prototyping a specific wearable technology learning system will be addressed in the chapter.


Smart city solutions Smart city learning Wearable learning User experience design 


  1. Angelidou, M. (2017). The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(4), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bannan, B., Burbridge, J., Dunaway, M. & Skidmore, D. (2017). Global cities teams challenge blueprint for smart public safety in connected communities. Accessed 6 June 2018.
  3. Bernal, G., Colombo, S., Baky, M.A. & Casalegno, F. (2017). Safety++. Designing IoT and wearable systems for industrial safety through a user-centered design approach. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA ‘17) conference, Island of Rhodes, Greece.
  4. Buchem, I. (2013). Personal learning environments in smart cities: Current approaches and future scenarios. Accessed 6 June 2018.
  5. Cassandras, C. G. (2016). Smart cities as cyber-physical social systems. Engineering, 2, 156–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dibitonto, M., Tazzi, F., Leszczynska, K., & Medaglia, C. M. (2018). The IoT design deck: A tool for the co-design of connected products. In T. Ahram & C. Falcão (Eds.), Advances in usability and user experience. AHFE 2017. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 607). Cham: Springer. Scholar
  7. Educause Review. (2016). The internet of things in higher education. Retrieved from
  8. Giovannella, C. (2014). Smart learning eco-systems: “Fashion” or “beef”?. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 10(3). Italian e-Learning Association. Retrieved 7 June 2018 from
  9. Global City Teams Challenge. (2018). Retrieved 7 June 2018 from
  10. Haji, F. A., Da Silva, C., Daigle, D. T., & Dumbrowski, A. (2014). From bricks to buildings: Adapting the Medical Research Council framework to develop programs of research in simulation education and training for the health professions. Simulation Healthcare, 9(4), 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hartson, R., & Pyla, P. S. (2012). The UX book: Process and guidelines for ensuring a quality user experience. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  12. Huang, R. H., Yang, J. F., & Hu, Y. B. (2012). From digital learning environments to smart learning environments. Open. Education Research, 1, 75–84.Google Scholar
  13. Hwang, G. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments - a context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1, 4. Scholar
  14. International Conference on Smart Learning Environments Call for Papers. 2016. Retrieved 7 June 2018 from
  15. Kieffer, S. (2015). ECOVAL: Ecological validity of cues and representative design in user experience evaluations. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(9), 149–172.Google Scholar
  16. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking: Understand-improve-apply. New York: Springer Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  17. Ratti, C., & Claudel, M. (2017). The city of tomorrow: Sensors, networks, hackers, and the future of urban life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rowland, C., Goodman, E., Charlier, M., Light, A., & Lui, A. (2015). Designing connected products: UX for the consumer internet of things. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc..Google Scholar
  19. Sawyer, T. L., & Deering, S. (2013). Adaptation of the US army's after-action review for simulation debriefing in healthcare. Simulation in Healthcare, 8(6), 388–397. Scholar
  20. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. UNESCO. (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Zheng, J., Yang, L. T., Lin, M., Ning, H., & Ma, J. (2016). A survey: Cyber-physical-social systems and their system-level design methodology. Future Generation Computer Systems.
  23. Zhuang, R., Fang, H., Zhang, Y., et al. (2017). Smart Learning Environments, 4(6).

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Technologies, George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.District of Columbia Singe Point of Contact to FirstNet, Office of the Chief Technology OfficerWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations