Collaborative Multimedia Learning Environments Scott Pobiner Harvard University Graduate School of Design 7 Sumner Rd. Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[email protected]
Abstract I use the term “collaborative”, to identify a way that enables conversation to occur in, about, and around the digital medium, therefore making the “digital artifacts” contributed by all individuals a key element of a conversation as opposed to consecutive, linear presentations used by most faculty at the Design School.
Installations of collaborative multimedia in classrooms at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design show an enhancement of the learning process via shared access to media resources and enhanced spatial conditions within which these resources are engaged. Through observation and controlled experiments I am investigating how the use of shared, collaborative interfaces for interaction with multiple displays in a colocal environment enhances the learning process. The multiple spatial configurations and formats of learning mandate that with more effective interfaces and spaces for sharing digital media with fellow participants, the classroom can be used much more effectively and thus, learning and interaction with multimedia can be improved. Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). CHI 2006, April 22–27, 2006, Montreal, Canada. ACM 1-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Keywords Collaborative Multimedia Learning System, Shared Interfaces, Multiple Displays, Rich Control Interfaces, Beneficial Interruption, Digital Artifacts
ACM Classification Keywords H.5.3. Group and Organization Interfaces, H.5.2 User Interfaces: Evaluation/methodology, Interaction styles, Protoyping, User-Centered Design, H.1.2 User/Machine Systems: Software Psychology, I.3.6 Methodology and Techniques: Interaction techniques, K.3.1 Computer Uses in Education: Collaborative learning, Computerassisted instruction, Computer-managed instruction
Introduction Today, computers are used at all academic levels and the use of personal computing technologies within classrooms continues to grow as new and better uses are found for them within the classroom. This doesn’t seem to be a trend, but rather a long-term change in how the computer is perceived in relation to learning [1, 2]. This perspective of computing in education seems to identify the personal computer as an opportunistic technology that enables the independent user to learn faster and to access more resources [3]. Many of these opportunities come at a cost, however [4, 5]. As the personal computer becomes more portable, and interaction with computers becomes more of an independent experience, co-located human-to-
2
human interaction (HHI) will begin to suffer by implicitly and explicitly limiting the channels of communication that can be used.
SpatialMedia
For clarity, throughout the remainder of this paper these resources will be known as “outputs” and each participant’s laptop computer will be known as an “input”.
The notion of a “rich-control interface” builds on the rich application development which is becoming popular with the development of more powerful development tools that integrate high levels of interactivity, more common to desktop applications with the data management and flexibility of the Internet.
Figure 1: One possible configuration of room 109
In an attempt to investigate these issues further I have lead the design and construction of a classroom (hence known as Room 109) at the Harvard Graduate School of Design under Professor Spiro Pollalis. Within this space, I have developed an accompanying software and hardware system that allows for up to 7 co-local participants with laptops to share four display resources (3 ceiling mounted projectors and one, optional plasma screen or floor mounted projector). The concept for the project is that if anyone can share the display of their laptop computer (or the laptops that others have) with a group at any point in a discussion, then interaction between people can occur via face-to-face communication as well as through the sharing of visual digital resources. Hence, the term, Collaborative Multimedia Learning System is used to signify a collaborative way in which a group of users might interact with a system and with each other collaboratively and through the use of their own personal laptops (i.e. without a secondary hardware control device). This device is a “rich-control interface” that allows one to control a room but also provides more in-depth contextual information that what is commonly found in a control interface. There are three primary design components to the system described below; Software, Hardware Implementation, and Spatial. Each component plays an important role in helping to provide an environment that enables both face-to-face and “face-to-digital” interaction amongst a group.
Figure 2: Design Organization & Methodology
Software Design It was very important to design an interface that could provide beneficial interruption to typical the linearity of a class without causing undue confusion or undermining the goals of the course. This interruption can be viewed as a way of redefining roles between learners and instructors but also as a way for instructors to
Figure 3: SpatialMedia interface as it appears on a user’s screen.
3
guide the flow of a class discussion.
In the context of this research, the “digital environment” is the aggregation of all displays visible within a classroom including one’s own laptop screen.
Prior research indicates that, from an interaction point of view, the kind of sharing described here is very different from that of a group of individuals sitting around a single display, [6,7,8] That in mind, I worked to develop a single interface which could be used on individual laptops to change the digital environment, and therefore the discussion within an entire group. It was useful to be able to see, but not necessarily interact with, the displays of others in the room by projecting those displays on a large surface but to also query the displays of others by switching the signal.
Lecture
protocol). The coordination of the interaction between the interface described above and the serial communication with the matrix switch is handled via this server’s remote-procedure call (RPC) middleware that sends pre-coded messages to the RS-232 control port on the matrix switch. Thus, the WACI can accommodate requests from any laptop in the room and tell the matrix switch which display device to send video-input signals to. Another, key component of the system is the simultaneous use of multiple displays. This configuration is somewhat common in large auditoriums but, given that room 109 is not a large room, the experience is quite different. Each of the three ceiling mounted projectors can be repositioned, making it possible to both have side-by-side displays from different sources and to “paint” three different surfaces with displays from one or more input. Spatial Design
Critique
Figure 5: SpatialMedia System Diagram Workshop
Seminar Figure 4: The primary spatial typologies for room 109 at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design
Hardware Implementation The hardware component of the system is provided through a small network of cables that provide video input to the system. The interface files reside on two servers. The primary server is a “thin-client”, an inexpensive server known as a “Web-Accessible Control Interface” (WACI) [9] that can receive network requests (html, asp, swf, etc.) and also is capable of sending signals through two serial ports (via RS-232
Room 109 has been designed as a “flexible space” that can be reconfigured to suit multiple spatial typologies. This was a design requirement because all of these typologies exist already within the Graduate School of Design (GSD) and are implemented in courses in Room 109. This spatial & organizational constraints made the Graduate School of Design at Harvard a particularly good place in which to study multiple classroom typologies because of its unique situation as a school where Design is studied. At the GSD, students learn via direct interaction with the faculty (studios, workshops, collaborations, and critiques) as well as in more common typologies (seminars and lectures). It is quite common for a seminar (which is a small group) and a lecture (a larger group) to occur consecutively,
4
making flexibility of the system paramount in room 109. It is difficult though, to provide digital display resources for small and large groups with different goals. A seminar will often use digital media sparingly for presentation in order to maintain the discursive qualities of the group, a lecture on the other hand, will often have a single presentation with limited interaction between members of the group. The tradeoffs are often experiential [10] there is an opportunity to effect beneficial change with better interfaces. This gets to one of the core points of my thesis. How can one improve interaction amongst group members in an environment such as a classroom where interaction is typically mandated by a single person (the instructor)? In an age of personal technologies, the flow of information is hardly ever singular [11] engaging that information cannot be solely the responsibility of the instructor. That said, it is common (even in group discussions) for digital media to be shared linearly (i.e. slide presentations one after another). This is hardly beneficial in an environment where collaboration and shared ideas are valued before, during, and after a discussion.
Experimentation & Findings Experimentation Through collaboration with Professors at the GSD I have consulted on the spatial organization of their classes and observed the use of the system and the space. The findings described below are from observations made by myself and Professor Pollalis who has used this system extensively while teaching three courses [12,13,14]. Other users have included small design teams [15], various lectures, and workshops [16] that have taken place in room 109.
I have also organized controlled experiments within which I hope to garner more specific information about the system’s design and the general value of using multiple displays in such a space. The findings for the above experiments and observations are still preliminary and will be compiled in the final publication of my dissertation. Findings One of the most important findings is that participants in courses, critics in juried reviews, as well as Professors do find it valuable to be able to change the digital environment in-line with a conversation without having to stop to change inputs. Students have instant access to their own and Internet multimedia files for presentations and supporting their arguments, they can also use the system to access the screens of others for comparison. Therefore, all participants enjoy clearer presentations and discussions. Also of note is that there is an integration of the presenter/participant, as any participant can jump in and make a short presentation. Thus the hierarchy is broken. Professor Pollalis state that “the system enhances the class experience because it allows me to move the discussion more gracefully between examples of work and precedents” [14]. This seems to be particularly valuable at a school of design where the visual representation of work is valued very highly. Another finding is that the role of the instructor changes when using the system. When students and other participants are able to manipulate the digital and spatial environment of a classroom in real-time, the instructor no longer is required, nor able, to mandate the flow of the discussion. This seems to be
5
particularly interesting as it suggests a significant change in the pedagogy of a class session. Attached to this point is the fact that in order for the system to be used effectively, an instructor must allow students to have some level of control. As the project gets more publicity, I continue to get a broader group of faculty engaged in the project in order to validate this point. “Speech is enhanced with multi-media in an immediate way.” [14] Thus, as stated above, users of the system can maintain eye-contact and conversations without stopping to set up a projector. This has value in the transition between users and suggests that multimedia can play a larger role in the activities of a course session. Finally, the capacity to share one’s (or another’s) entire screen rather than a singular image (i.e. powerpoint presentations) has a value in the pedagogy as well. In presentations, students are able to share the interface of the software used to do work as well as the work itself. A student who designs a piece of way-finding software [12], for example, can share the final work as well as other tools and code used to write the software. This suggests that the entire interface of a computer can play a more real-time role in a course session as well. More time and a larger set of use-cases is needed to prove the value of this methodology of classroom design although my observations do suggest that there is great potential in sharing media in this way.
Also, the continued diversity of classroom typologies and arrangements in room 109 will enhance these findings. Professor Pollalis as well as others have also suggested that the classroom, in this context, is immediately connected to the outside world because of the networked interface to the system. Although this is not a central goal of the project, the effect is certainly something to be investigated further.
Conclusions: The Forest for the Trees Currently, the individual digital experience cannot be effectively integrated into co-local environments where more than one person is using a personal computer while simultaneously trying to maintain a discussion. Such can be said for “artifacts” of person-to-person conversation such as hand-drawn sketches, gestures, tones of voice, and a multitude of other conversation methods commonly used in classrooms. On the other hand, the individualized workspace that the computer provides is a unique and special presence in classrooms that is becoming a highly valued resource to students, scholars, and colleagues. Therein lies the conflict, where the channels of communication are abruptly halted by the necessity to change one’s focus from a group conversation to a singular screen. The computer is therefore providing somewhat of a paradoxical value to its users. It enables a world of information to be explored, categorized, and searched via a powerful and relatively easy-to-learn / easy-to-use system. On the other hand, it is challenging the very notion of classrooms and learning in groups.
Future Work Continued research and user-testing on the design of the interface is needed in order to validate its design.
So it seems that the interface of the computer is beginning to present the design, technology, and
6
education communities with a relatively novel and challenging situation. How can we maintain the independence of the user without inhibiting face-to-face communication? Perhaps an equally crucial question to ask is, how can we improve the digital interfaces that we have AND improve the environments in which we use these interfaces to guarantee our shared computing experience is more powerful than that of our individual experience or to at least level the playing field for human-to-human interaction? I hope to develop some answers to these questions as I continue my research.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank members of my committee for their excellent guidance. Particularly Professor Spiro Pollalis for his guidance and support. I would also like to thank fellow members of the Doctor of Design Community and at Harvard University Graduate School of Design and Alyson Liss for their critique and participation in my research work.
[7]
[8]
[9] [10]
[11]
[12]
Citations [1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Skinner, B.F., The technology of teaching. The Century psychology series. 1968, New York,: AppletonCentury-Crofts. ix, 271. Papert, S., Mindstorms : children, computers, and powerful ideas. 1980, New York: Basic Books. viii, 230. Schofield, J.W., Computers and classroom culture. 1995, Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. xii, 271 p. Sloan, D., The Computer in education : a critical perspective. 1985, New York: Teachers College Press. 129 p. Beynon, J. and H. Mackay, Computers into classrooms : more questions than answers. 1993, London ; Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press. viii, 245. Ryall, K., et al., Exploring the effects of group size and table size on interactions with tabletop shared-
[13]
[14]
[15] [16]
display groupware, in Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 2004, ACM Press: Chicago, Illinois, USA. p. 284-293. Ware, C. and W. Knight, Orderable dimensions of visual texture for data display: orientation, size and contrast, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 1992, ACM Press: Monterey, California, United States. p. 203-209. McGrath, J.E. and A.B. Hollingshead, Groups interacting with technology : ideas, evidence, issues, and an agenda. 1994, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. ix, 181. Aurora Multimedia Inc. "Web Accessible Control Interface". Multimedia Hardware, 2003-Present Chism, N.V.N. and D. Bickford, The importance of physical space in creating supportive learning environments. New directions for teaching and learning ; no. 92. 2002, San Francisco [Calif.]: Jossey-Bass. 107. Manovich, L., The language of new media. 1st MIT Press pbk. ed. Leonardo. 2002, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. xxxix, 354. Pollalis, S. (Professor), GSD 1305: A Bridge and a Pavilion in Bilbao, in Department of Architecture Studio Course. Fall 2004, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA. Pollalis, S. (Professor), GSD 1309: Harvard in Cyprus, in Department of Architecture - Studio Course. Fall 2005, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA. Pollalis, S. (Professor), GSD 9206A03: Visual decision support systems for buildings under emergency, in Department of Architecture - Seminar Course. Spring 2005, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA. Boykin, M., et al., Reclaiming the Edge, in CrossDisciplinary (Urban Design). 2005. Terzidis, K., GSD 2311: Algorithmic Architecture Workshop / Lecture, in Department of Architecture. Fall 2005, Harvard University: Cambridge, MA.
