Trust, Privacy and Relationships in ‘Pervasive Education’: Families’ Views on Homework and Technologies

  • Katie Fraser
  • Tom Rodden
  • Claire O’Malley
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4480)


Extensive educational research discusses the potential for information and communication technologies in supporting homework, but most has focused on providing content. The research in this paper focuses instead on the issues around managing homework and balancing home and school through the capabilities of ubiquitous technologies. As part of our requirements capture we presented three families with demonstrators of ubiquitous computing systems. Our technologies provoked reactions to situated and embedded information capture and access, and locational information capture through mobile devices. The subtlety and complexity of roles and relationships of different family members raised issues around trust and privacy in relation to children’s homework practices. We consider how these drove acceptance of the technologies, and how the contrasts between family and educational relationships produced different requirements for technologies managing information transfer inside and outside the home. Overall, we highlight how respect for these concerns can inform the design of pervasive technologies, particularly within the domestic and educational contexts bridged.


Ubiquitous Computing Pervasive Computing Ubiquitous Technology Domestic Context Homework Task 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Crabtree, A., et al.: Finding a Place for UbiComp in the Home. In: Dey, A.K., Schmidt, A., McCarthy, J.F. (eds.) UbiComp 2003. LNCS, vol. 2864, pp. 208–226. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Brien, J., Rodden, T.: Interactive systems in domestic environments. In: Proceedings of DIS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, ACM Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mateas, M., et al.: Engineering ethnography in the home. In: Proceedings of CHI, ACM Press, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hong, J.I., et al.: Privacy risk models for designing privacy-sensitive ubiquitous computing systems. In: Proceedings of DIS, Cambridge, MA, USA, ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards, W.K., Grinter, R.E.: At home with ubiquitous computing: Seven challenges. In: Abowd, G.D., Brumitt, B., Shafer, S. (eds.) UbiComp 2001. LNCS, vol. 2201, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abowd, G.D., Mynatt, E.D.: Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Transactions on CHI 7(1), 29–58 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mynatt, E.D., et al.: Digital family portraits: Supporting peace of mind for extended family members. In: Proceedings of CHI, Seattle, WA, USA, ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dalsgaard, T., et al.: Mediated intimacy in families: Understanding the relation between children and parents. In: Proceedings of International Conference for Interaction Design and Children, Tampere, Finland, ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vetere, F., et al.: Mediating intimacy: designing technologies to support strong-tie relationships. In: Proceedings of CHI, ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mynatt, E.D., Irfan, E., Rogers, W.: Increasing the opportunities for aging in place. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Universal Usability, Arlington, Virginia, USA, ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    LaMarca, A., Consolvo, S., Beckmann, C.: Some Assembly Required: Supporting End-User Sensor Installation in Domestic Ubiquitous Computing Environments. In: Davies, N., Mynatt, E.D., Siio, I. (eds.) UbiComp 2004. LNCS, vol. 3205, pp. 107–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green, H., et al.: Personalisation and digital technologies. Nesta Futurelab, pp. 1–29 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor, J., et al.: An E-learning Research Agenda. EPSRC, ESRC and E-Science, pp. 1–9 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ainsworth, S., et al.: Cyberinfrastructure for Education and Learning for the Future: A Vision and Research Agenda. In: Bernat, A., Smith, J., Rothschild, D. (eds.) Computing Research Association, pp. 1–40 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacKinnon, K.A., Yoon, S., Andrews, G.: Using “Thinking Tags” to improve understanding in science: A genetics simulation. In: Proceedings of CSCL, Boulder, CO, UK (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazalek, A., Davenport, G., Ishii, H.: Tangible Viewpoints: A physical approach to multimedia stories. In: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia Conference, Juan-les-Pins, France, ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McNerney, T.: From Turtles to Tangible Programming Bricks: Explorations in physical language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8(5), 326–337 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Malley, C., Stanton Fraser, D.: Learning with Tangible Technologies. In: Literature Review Report, Nesta Futurelab, Bristol, UK (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Price, S., et al.: Using ’tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interacting with Computers 15, 169–185 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharples, M.: The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers and Education 34, 177–193 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Proctor, T.: Data security threats in the home environment. In: Home-Oriented Informatics and Telematics. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, vol. 178, Springer, Boston (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewin, C., Mavers, D., Somekh, B.: Broadening access to the curriculum through using technology to link home and school. The Curriculum Journal 14(1), 23–53 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Valentine, G., Holloway, S., Bingham, N.: The digital generation?: Children, ICT and the everyday nature of social exclusion. Antipode 34, 296–315 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Palen, L., Dourish, P.: Unpacking ’Privacy’ for a Networked World. In: Proceedings of CHI, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Selwyn, N.: The National Grid for Learning: Panacea or Panopticon? British Journal of Sociology of Education 21(2), 243–255 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Land, R., Bayne, S.: Screen or monitor? In: Rust, C. (ed.) Improving student learning using learning technology, pp. 125–138. OCSLD, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greenfield, A.: Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. New Riders, Berkeley (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luckin, R., et al.: Using mobile technology to create flexible learning contexts. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 22, 1–21 (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hughes, M., et al.: Exchanging knowledge between home and school to enhance children’s learning in literacy and numeracy. In: Proceedings of ERNAPE Conference, Poland (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brin, D.G.: The transparent society: Will technology force us to choose between privacy and freedom? Perseus Books, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Iachello, G., et al.: Developing privacy guidelines for social location disclosure applications and services. In: Proceedings of Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS), Pittsburgh, PA, USA, ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Solomon, Y., Warin, J., Lewis, C.: Helping with homework? Homework as a site of tension for parents and teenagers. British Educational Research Journal 28, 603–622 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Davies, S.G.: Re-engineering the right to privacy: How privacy has been transformed from a right to a commodity. In: Agre, P.E., Rotenberg, M. (eds.) Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, The MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Such, E., Walker, R.: Being responsible and responsible beings: Children’s understanding of responsibility. Children and Society 18, 231–242 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Williams, S., Williams, L.: Space invaders: The negotiation of teenage boundaries through the mobile phone. The Sociological Review 53(2), 314 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Solomon, Y., et al.: Intimate talk between parents and their children: Democratic Openness or Covert Control. Sociology 36(4), 965–983 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Suchman, L.: Do categories have politics? Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2(3), 177–190 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suchman, L.: Plans and situated actions: The problem of human machine communication. In: Pea, R., Brown, J.S. (eds.) Learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives, University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boehner, K., Hancock, J.T.: Advancing Ambiguity. In: Proceedings of CHI, Quebec, Canada, ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aoki, P.M., Woodruff, A.: Making space for stories: Ambiguity in the design of personal communication systems. In: Proceedings of CHI, Portland, Oregon, USA, ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    ’Student ID badges raise privacy issues’. Fox News (2005),,2933,149814,00.html Access 14 November 2005
  42. 42.
    Boyle, M., Greenberg, S.: The language of privacy: Learning from video media space analysis and design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12(2), 328–370 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gaver, B., Dunne, T., Pacenti, E.: Cultural Probes. Interactions 6(1), 21–29 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katie Fraser
    • 1
  • Tom Rodden
    • 2
  • Claire O’Malley
    • 1
  1. 1.Learning Sciences Research Institute 
  2. 2.Mixed Reality Laboratory, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham 

Personalised recommendations