Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Future technology workshop: A collaborative method for the design of new learning technologies and activities

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We describe the future technology workshop (FTW), a method whereby people with everyday knowledge or experience in a specific area of technology use (such as using digital cameras) envision and design the interactions between current and future technology and activity. Through a series of structured workshop sessions, participants collaborate to envisage future activities related to technology design; build models of the contexts of use for future technologies; act out scenarios of use for their models; re-conceive their scenarios in relation to present-day technologies; list problems with implementing the scenarios; explore the gap between current and future technology and activity; and end by listing requirements for future technology. The method has been used successfully with children and adults to explore new technology–activity systems, including interacting with digital photographs and informal science learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arvidsson, F., Ihlström, C., & Lundberg, J. (2002, August). Vision of future news—Consensus or conflict? Proceedings of the 25th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (CD-ROM). Bautahøj, Denmark.

  • Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bo, G. (2005). MOBIlearn: Project final report. Retrieved 14th June 2007 from: http://www.mobilearn.org/results/results.htm.

  • Bødker, S. (1999). Scenarios in user-centred design: Setting the stage for reflection and action. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. New York: IEEE (January).

  • Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, DOI 10.1225/3510.

  • Bruseberg, A., & McDonagh-Philp, D. (2001). New product development by eliciting user experience and aspirations. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 55, 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchenau, M., & Fulton, J. (2000). Experience prototyping. Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems 2000. ACM Press, pp. 424–433 (August).

  • Delbecq, A. L., Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druin, A., Bederson, B., Boltman, A., Miura, A., Knotts-Callahan, D., & Platt, M. (1999). Children as our technology design partners. In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology (pp. 51–72). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehn, P., & Kyng, M. (1991). Cardboard computers: Mocking-it-up or hands-on the future. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 169–196). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, D., & Taylor, J. (2004). The role of user scenarios as the central piece of the development jigsaw puzzle. In J. Attewell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of MLearn2004: Mobile learning anytime everywhere. London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W. W., Dunne, A., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Cultural probes. Interactions Magazine, 1, 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haley, D., Nuseibeh, B., Sharp, H., & Taylor, J., (2004, September). The conundrum of categorizing requirements: Managing requirements for learning on the move. Proceedings of 12th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’04) (pp. 309–314). New York: IEEE Computer Society Press.

  • Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. (1992). From experience: Developing new product concepts via the lead user method: A case study in a “low tech” field. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9, 213–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, H., Mackay, W., Westerlund, B., Bederson, B., Druin, A., Plaisant, C., et al. (2003). Technology probes: Inspiring design for and with Families. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2003) (pp. 17–24). New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacucci, G., Iacucci, C., & Kuutti, K. (2002). Imagining and experiencing in design, the role of performances. Proceedings of NordiCHI (pp. 167–176). Aarhus: Denmark, October.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacucci, G., Kuutti, K., & Ranta, M. (2000). On the move with a magic thing: Role playing in concept design of mobile services and devices. In Proceedings DIS2000, Designing Interactive Systems (pp 193–202). New York: ACM Press.

  • Ihlström, C., Svensson, J., & Åkesson, M. (2005). Participatory design of future every day IT artifacts-Engaging readers and publishers in designing the e-newspaper. In Proceedings of the 28th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (CD-ROM), Norway.

  • Inkpen, K. (1999). Designing handheld technologies for kids. Personal Technologies Journal, 3(1–2), 81–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. (1987). Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kensing, F. (1987). Generation of visions in systems development. In P. Docherty, K. Fuchs-Kittowski, P. Kolm, & L. Mathiasen (Eds.), Systems design for human and productivity—Participation and beyond (pp. 285–301). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kensing, F., & Madsen, K. H. (1991). Generating visions: Future workshops and metaphorical design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 155–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centred design. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 55, 587–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M. J. (1991). PICTIVE—An exploration in participatory design. In S. P. Robertson, G. M. Olson, & J. S. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology (pp. 225–231). New York: ACM Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mwanza, D., Taylor, J., Sharp, H. & Vavoula, G. (2003). Methods for abstracting design requirements for a mobile e-Learning environment. In C. T. Blake & K. Lack, (Eds.), Proceedings of CALRG Conference 2003 (p. 8). The Open University: http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/getfile.cfm?documentfileid=3399.

  • Osborne, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination. New York: Schribeners and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2003). Scenario-based design. In J. A. Jacko, & A. Sears (Eds.), The human–computer interaction handbook. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvador, T., & Sato, S. (1998). Focus troupe: Mini workshop on using drama to create common context for new product concept end-user evaluations. Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference (pp. 197–199). Seattle: CPSR.

  • Sanders, E. B.-N. (2000). Generative tools for co-designing. Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000 (pp. 3–12). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1999). Kids as informants: Telling us what we didn’t know or confirming what we already knew? In A. Druin (Ed.), The design of children’s technology (pp. 27–50). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P. (1997). The art of the long view: Planning for the future in an uncertain world. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human–computer interaction (2nd ed.). Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, H., Taylor, J., Lober, A., Frohberg, D., Mwanza, D., & Murelli, E., (2003). Establishing user requirements for a mobile learning environment. Proceedings of Eurescom Summit 2003, Evolution of Broadband Services. Heidelberg, Germany.

  • Sharples, M. (1987). The design of a user-friendly system. In A. Jones, E. Scanlon, T. O’Shea (Eds.), The computer revolution in education: New technologies for distance learning (pp. 65–79). Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M. (2006). Socio-cognitive engineering. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.) Encyclopedia of human-computer interaction (pp. 542–547). Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M., Davison, L., Thomas, G. V., & Rudman, P. D. (2003). Children as photographers: An analysis of children’s photographic behaviour and intentions at three age levels, Visual Communication, 2(3), 303–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M., Jeffery, N., du Boulay, J. B. H., Teather, D., Teather, B., & du Boulay, G. H. (2002). Socio-cognitive engineering: A methodology for the design of human-centred technology. European Journal of Operational Research, 136(2), 310–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. (1998). Transforming user-centered analysis into user interface: The design of new-generation products. In L. E. Wood (Ed.), User interface design. Bridging the gap from user requirements to design (pp. 275–304). Boca Raton: CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svanæs, D., & Seland, G. (2004). Putting the users center stage: Role playing and low-fi prototyping enable end users to design mobile systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’2004) (pp. 479–486). New York: ACM Press.

  • Taylor, J. (2004). A task-centred approach to evaluating a mobile learning environment for pedagogical soundness. In J. Attewell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of MLearn2004: Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere, Learning and Skills Development Agency. London, UK.

  • Thomas, J. (1985). Force field analysis: A new way to evaluate your strategy. Long Range Planning, 18(6), 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vavoula, G. N., Lonsdale, P., Mwanza, D., Scanlon, E., & Hardy, P. (2005b). D.33.3 Reacting to research. MELISSA JEIRP Project Deliverable 33.3 for Kaleidoscope European Netowrk of Excellence.

  • Vavoula, G. N., Lonsdale, P., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Jones, A., & Hardy, P. (2005a). D.33.2 Report on empirical work with mobile learning & literature on mobile learning in science. MELISSA JEIRP Project Deliverable 33.2 for Kaleidoscope European Network of Excellence.

  • Vavoula, G. N., Sharples, M., Cross, J., & Baber, C. (2003). SpyCam and RoboCam: An application of the future technology workshop method to the design of new technology for children. Proceedings of HCI International 2003 (pp. 1071–1075). Crete, Greece.

  • Vavoula, G. N., Sharples, M., & Rudman, P. D. (2002). Developing the ‘future technology workshop’ method. In M. M. Bekker, P. Markopoulos, M. Kersten-Tsikalkina (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 65–72). Eindhoven: The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Virzi, R. A. (1990). Low-fidelity prototyping. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (p. 265). Santa Monica, CA.

  • Waycott, J. (2004). The appropriation of PDAs as learning and workplace tools: an activity theory perspective. PhD thesis, The Open University, UK.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Museum Studies Department, University of Leicester, 105 Princess Road East, Leicester, LE1 7LG, UK

    Giasemi N. Vavoula

  2. Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Mike Sharples

Authors
  1. Giasemi N. Vavoula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mike Sharples
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giasemi N. Vavoula.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vavoula, G.N., Sharples, M. Future technology workshop: A collaborative method for the design of new learning technologies and activities. Computer Supported Learning 2, 393–419 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9026-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9026-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation