Mobile Phones as Mediating Tools Within Augmented Contexts for Development (Invited Talk

Stockholm University, Sept 2010)

Stockholm University, Dept. of Computer and Systems Science, DSV, (http://bit.ly/alh26G)

September 3rd, 2010

This seminar is sponsored by the NordicLEAF (Learning Environments and Activities of the Future) research network:

http://www.nordicleaf.info/

John CookLearning Technology Research Institute

Slides available: http://www.slideshare.net/johnnigelcook

Email: john.cook@londonmet.ac.uk Home page: http://staffweb.londonmet.ac.uk/~cookj1/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/johnnigelcook Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/johnnigelcook

Johnnigelcook or Jonni Gel Cook!

Acknowledgements

• Carl Smith and Claire Bradshaw are members of the LTRI team who developed and evaluated the CONSENS work presented in this talk.

• CONTSENS was funded by EC Leonardo Lifelong Learning Programme.

Structure

1. Four Arguments and an Example

2. Future: re-examination of Design Research?

3. Questions

In this talk I will discuss the following four arguments (a1-a4) and use an example to illustrate an extension to a Vygotskian concept.

(a1) Design Research argument

(a2) User Generated Contexts argument (macro view of context)

(a3) Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) argument

(a4) Augmented Context for Development argument (micro view of context)

Design Research (a1)

• Cook (2002) consider repeated cycles– empirical work, – theory/model development– tool/artifact refinement

• Plomp (2009, p. 17) an approach that– interventionist characteristic – process oriented – contributes to theory building

Design Research (a1)

• Question arises from Design Research perspective:– How do we design for embedded and

distributed contexts?

• Build intelligent tools (E.g. Cook, 1994; Cook, 1998; Cook, 2001)

• Augment the context (E.g Cook, 2010)

User Generated Contexts argument (a2)

• The nature of learning is being ‘augmented’– Citizens/users are now actively engaged in

generating their own content and contexts for learning

– Calling this User Generated Contexts (UGC)

• UGC is a macro view of ‘context’ (Cook, Pachler and Bachmair, accepted)

User Generated Contexts argument (a2)

• Situated Learning– learning that takes place in the same 'context' in which it is applied– there is a link between meaning-making and situation/site of

practice– (Lave and Wenger; for discussion see Pachler, Bachmair and Cook,

2010)

• But for me you can get – contexts within contexts – you can learn across contexts– and this blurs things

• “Context” is a slippery notion

User Generated Contexts argument (a2)

• Users of mobile digital devices are being ‘afforded’ synergies of knowledge distributed across local, augmented and virtual:– people – communities – location– time (life-course)– social contexts and sites of practice (like socio-cultural

milieus)– networks– systems, structures and media

User Generated Contexts argument (a2)

• Engage in the constant action and negotiation of a mutual understanding of their learning situations

• Affiliated in increasingly loose configurations• Enabled external representations of knowledge

– beyond the 'here and now' – to be drawn on and constructed to augment

• individual learners' internal conceptualisations of knowledge • social uses that are made of knowledge in specific sites (of

learning)

User Generated Contexts argument (a2)

• Dynamic knowledge building• Rootedness in social interaction, literacy and

attention• Cognitive reflection leading to

– meaning being emergent– rather than predetermined– (Issue: what can we design for? What do we leave to

run time? Tightly/loosely coupled?)

Back to the future

www.ukzn.ac.za/cae/pfi/sqd/lev.htm

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (a3)

• Development is a socially negotiated and appropriative process involving the internalization of cultural products.

• This is what Vygotsky called a Zone of Proximal Development

“It is the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by

independent problem solving and the level of potential problem solving as determined

through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more

capable peers.” (Vygotsky, 1978/1930, p. 86, my bold)

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and appropriation argument (a3)

Augmented Context for Development argument (a4)

• The new contexts for learning in the 21st Century (a2) have brought about the need to re-conceptualize or extend theories from the past

• Particularly if we want to design (a1) at micro context level

• Vygotsky’s notion of a Zone of Proximal Development (a3), – which was developed in the context of 20th Century

Industrial Revolution – needs to be extended to what I am calling Augmented

Context for Development (Cook, 2010)

Augmented Context for Development argument (a4)

• In the example described below, we aimed to promote improved visualization and co-construction within a ZPD

• Following the running of the trial, the interactions between two students were analysed and mapped to the theory

• Video analysis was thus used to look for evidence of, and provide an elaboration of, Augmented Contexts for Development

Temporal underpinning of Augmented Contexts for Development is fundamental

“Attention should be given first place among the major functions in the psychological structure underlying the use of tools … the child is able to determine for herself the “centre of gravity” of her perceptual field; her behaviour is not regulated solely by the salience of individual elements with it … In addition to reorganizing the visual-spatial field, the child, with the help of speech, creates a time field that is just as perceptible and real to him as the visual one. The speaking child has the ability to direct his attention in a dynamic way. He can view changes in his immediate situation from the point of view of activities, and he can act in the present from the viewpoint of the future.”

(Vygotsky, 1978/1930, p. 35-36, original italics, my bold.)

Time fields

• Time fields are created in context through tools, interactions and the internal reconstruction of these functions.

• A time field is a personal construct of an individual that is in particular based on the visual-spatial environment, speech, gestures and the current focus of attention (the latter will be influenced by historical factors that include the task and personal interest as well as socio-cultural factors).

Centre of gravity

• When all of these elements of the time field construct come together, we get what Vygotsky calls the centre of gravity of a time field

• The centre of gravity becomes the focus of attention and is directed by a learner in a dynamic way as problem solving progresses and development and understanding takes place

Centre of gravity

• The centre of gravity has a temporal dimension that guides activity across contexts, allowing the learner to dynamically direct attention so as to take into account the past (history), present activities and future planned desires and goals

Example: Cistercian abbey (Fountains)

Qualitative analysis: process and explanatory perspective, looking at the inner features of the

situation (Cook, 2010)

Screen shot of Carl Smith’s wire-frame movie reconstruction of Nine Alters (http://cistercians.shef.ac.uk/)

Students interacting @ Cistercian Chapel in CONTSENS

Evaluation results

• All the users made extremely positive comments about what they thought of the mobile learning course, describing it as– “more fun” than expected, “I enjoyed it”, “interesting”,

2 said it was “very interesting, it was a “good idea”, “good!”, a “fantastic experience”, and “very stimulating lots of good ideas”.

– 80% rated it as being useful for learning the subject– 60% thought the mobile device enhanced the learning

experience

Evaluation results

• On the negative side, three found that having to look at the mobile devices were a distraction from engaging with the archaeology/site itself, and one would like more archaeological and historical explanation.

• However, 80% agreed that the mobile learning experience was fun, and 9 out of the 10 users (90%) would take another mobile learning course if it was relevant to their learning needs and would recommend mobile learning as a method of study to others, which is a good indication that most of them had a positive experience (the other user answered ‘uncertain’ to both of these questions).

“The ability to be in a particular position but get a variety of views/different visual perspective was a very useful opportunity. The whole thing also got everyone talking in a way I hadn't experienced on field trips to Fountains before.”

Transcribed interaction

[play video clip] (Lots of pointing at screen and abbey; student 1 is female, student 2 is male).Student 1: So those windows, up there isn’t it, still? Is that right? So those have all changed since then.Student 2: Yeah there was like another stage between this one and this one. Student 1: High up.Student 2: With three vaults.Student 1: There’s three on that side at the moment and three on that side.Student 2. YesStudent 1: So three have come down haven’t they, along with the window.Student 2: And from this? (points screen). That one is equal to that one, and actually we can not see that one (points). We can see three vaults there …Student 1: There must have been …Student 2: That’s the big one there. Can you see that? (points at screen)Student 1: Do mean with the pillar?Student 2: Yeah, you can see it’s this way (?) but it’s stopped there.Student 1: That’s right (makes gestures for a pillar and they both stare into the space where the missing pillar should be).

Elements of Augmented Context for Development

• The physical environment (Cistercian abbey)• Pedagogical plan• Tool: Visualisation/augmentation oriented approach

creates umbrella ‘Augmented Context for Development’ for location based mobile devices (acts as substitute for ‘more capable peer’)

• Co-constructed ‘temporal context for development,’ created within wider Augmented Context for Development through– Interpersonal interactions using tools (e.g. language, mobiles

etc) and signs– Intrapersonal representations of the above functions

Future

• Design Research work in the context of mobile learning is still in its early days

• What does the shift in the use of mobile devices for informal, formal and work-based learning mean for the collection and analysis of data and what methods might we employ in a systematic, iterative and interventionist Design Research effort?

Future

• How do we employ the theoretical frame of the ‘Augmented Contexts for Development’ in a systematic process of identifying, generating and determining directions for design and research cycles?

• Specifically, are the notions of communication, ‘more capable peer’, perception, attention and temporality useful ways forward for Design Research into mobile learning?

Future

• How can the positive and deficit aspects of attention be designed for in the mobile learning environment? For example, a ‘fancy’ interface may distract from learning

• Has the Augmented Context for Development that we (the design and research team) have created for the students acted as part of a substitute for what Vygotsky calls the ‘more capable peer’?

Future

• During their continuing learning activities, what will the learning trail left behind by learners tell us as they move from one learning context to the next? – How does this relate to lower granularity

developmental events (the time fields)? – How can we improve our understanding of how

elements of context can be maintained over time, so as to scaffold a perceived continuity of learning?

Future

• What are the implications of the above conceptually driven notion of Augmented Contexts for Development for the emerging field of mobile augmented reality (which tends to be driven by commercial developments)?

Questions?

References• Cook, J. (2010). Mobile Phones as Mediating Tools Within Augmented

Contexts for Development. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(3), 1-12, July-September.

• Cook, J. (2002). The Role of Dialogue in Computer-Based Learning and Observing Learning: An Evolutionary Approach to Theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 5. Paper online: www-jime.open.ac.uk/2002/5

• Cook, J. (2001). Bridging the Gap Between Empirical Data on Open-Ended Tutorial Interactions and Computational Models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 85–99.

• Cook, J. (1998). Mentoring, Metacognition and Music: Interaction Analyses and Implications for Intelligent Learning Environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 9(1-2), 45–87.

• Cook, J. (1994). Agent Reflection in an Intelligent Learning Environment Architecture for Musical Composition. In Smith, M., Smaill, A. and Wiggins, G. (Eds.), Music Education: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Edinburgh 1993 (pp. 3–23). London: Springer-Verlag.

References• Cook, J., Pachler, N. and Bachmair, B. (accepted). Ubiquitous

Mobility with Mobile Phones: A Cultural Ecology for Mobile Learning. E-Learning and Digital Media. Special Issue on Media: Digital, Ecological and Epistemological.

• Pachler, N., Bachmair, B. and Cook, J. (2010). Mobile Learning: Structures, Agency, Practices. New York: Springer.

• Plomp, T. (2009). Educational Design Research: An Introduction. In Tjeerd Plomp & Nienke Nieveen (Eds.), An Introduction to Educational Design Research. Enschede: The Netherlands: SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.

• Vygotsky, L. (1978 / 1930). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Edited by M. Cole et al., Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.