Presentation on the Future Technology Workshop method given at Educatioal Futures ESRC Seminar Series, Nottingham, 5 July 2010

1. Designing Educational Futures with the Future Technology Workshop method Giasemi Vavoula (University of Leicester) with Mike Sharples (University of Nottingham)

3. Types of new products (Meyers et al. 1989):

4. Incremental / continuous products: improvements, upgrades, line extensions

5. Discontinuous products: radically new products that involve dramatic leaps in terms of user familiarity and use

6. Both types of new products influence future educational scenarios

8. Requirements for method Minimal participant training Collaborative Direct input to design Cost-effective to run Relates people and technology Open-ended Pragmatic

9. Existing methods

10. Future Technology Workshop (FTW) The Future (evolution / adoption of technology) The Present The Future (discontinuity) The Future (evolution / adoption of practice)

11. FTW: the method Aim: reach an informed understanding of how people might interact with technology in the future, by exploring the possibilities represented by all 4 boxes in the grid Seven sessions with defined outcomes and defined tools for capturing data Carried out typically as a half-day event 6-20 participants, familiar with the domain of interest but not generally technology experts

12. FTW Session 1: Imagineering

13. FTW Session 2: Modelling

14. FTW Session 3: Role Play

15. FTW Session 4: Retrofit

16. FTW Session 5: Everyday

17. FTW Session 6: Futurefit

18. FTW Session 7: Requirements

19. 2 start 1 Box 3 Session 4 Box 4 Sessions 1-3 3 5 Box 1 Session 5 4 Box 2 Session 6 6 Box 4 Session 7 4 Near Past Present Near Future Far Future 7 end FTW: sessions flow diagram

20. How it works...

21. FTW Application Example 1:‘Capturing and sharing visual events’ Children as Photographers project (Sharples et al., 2003) Five workshops with children 10-13 / adults (Vavoula et al., 2002; 2003) Exploring and focusing on concepts / designs

23. Produced concepts:

24. Spy cameras: miniature cameras hidden on the body to capture everyday events or relay images to others

25. Robot cameras: camera attached to person / animal / object with images viewed at a distance

26. Requirements:

27. Ability to view the world through eyes of others (people/animals)

28. Ability to capture that view

29. Ability to intervene / control that view

30. Ability to share instantly

31. Ability to share all senses

32. Record of personal experience over lifetime

33. ‘Always on’

34. Fast enough to capture the moment instantly

35. Discreet / secret / unobtrusive technology

36. Durable / portable / reliable

38. Wireless mini colour camera mounted on sunglasses

39. Camera transmits colour composite video signal to portable computer (Panasonic Toughbook) with wirelessly connected handheld screen

40. Camera and view screen carried separately, each within 100 metres range from base station

41. Configurations / scenarios

42. Collaborative space exploration

43. Spy explorations

44. Map drawing

46. Feedback

47. “It was just like, you didn’t have to worry about holding it or nothing it was just, always on you and easy to use, because if you wanted to take a photo just tell them, just push the button” (boy, age 13)

48. “I liked that you could see what they were seeing instead of ... just looking at them and trying to imagine what they could see” (girl, age 11)

49. Overall assessment

50. Mostly impressive were the ability to see what someone else sees in real time; to control where someone else goes; need to trust; choice when to take photograph

52. Concept

53. Camera that can attach to variety of objects (sunglasses, wristwatches)

54. Prototype

55. ‘RoboCam’ where miniature camera is mounted on top of remote controlled model car; camera image received on computer monitor or small screen TV

56. Further testing scenarios

57. Blindfolded treasure hunt (SpyCam)

59. Note: workshops took place between 2000-2002

60. No camera phones, no IM, no flickr, no Facebook...

61. Question: did that lead to an actual commercial product?

62. … errr….

64. Focus on general requirements rather than concept design

65. Participants: first-aid volunteers at UK OU

66. Concepts produced:

67. Diagnostic machine: kit that assesses person in need when applied and assists first-aid worker to report incident appropriately

68. FTW transcripts analysed to identify current and future tools and artifacts and their uses

70. Focus on envisioning the future of a research area (informal science learning)

71. Priming session summarising literature review of the area

72. Participants: researchers and external experts

73. Concepts produced:

74. Whisperers: agents sitting on user’s shoulder and whisper information about social context

75. Zoom and time travel: while moving in urban setting, person can zoom into a micro view to understand how it is constructed; or can travel back in time to view environment in the past

76. Requirements fed into force-field analysis to identify ‘helpers’ and ‘hinderers’

77. Concepts examined against learning theories to identify fit

79. Focus on improving the student experience

80. Participants: Masters students

81. Concepts produced:

82. Virtual programmable museum: tutor can bring to life past exhibitions; students can experiment with exhibition variables and conduct online visitor studies

83. Robo-visitors: robots sitting in museums awaiting remote user instructions to explore museum on their behalf

84. Requirements fed into student exercise to design a future learning experience for Museum Studies students

86. Focus on developing research projects to explore the implications of live digital content and media on visitors and institutions

87. Participants: engineers, curators, digital heritage experts

90. “When people are relaxed they tend to think in a more free-form way. I enjoy the brainstorming that goes on, which often begins with fun and laughter, but which then begins to focus and home in on some really interesting ideas”

91. “the need to represent the imagined situation by means of a kind of ‘art work’ and a short play helped to make the imagination activity more concrete and more live. The fact that they play had to represent the situation imagined by another group stimulated me to pay more attention to other people’s visions than i would have done otherwise”

92. “The whole thing is very coherent – each stage leads to the next – and at the end it feels as though a cycle has been completed ... I think it makes good use of the expertise and skills of the group involved – so that the whole is more than the parts”

93. “it’s a very useful method for thinking ‘outside the box’ but also grounds that thinking back in reality, theory, etc.”

94. Negative

95. “(I liked) the distraction of the materials and the social engagement ... But it did distract from the ‘issues’”

97. It is cost-effective

98. Yields engineerable outcomes that can directly inform design while not assuming fixed patterns or contexts of use

99. Framework for creativity, focused on socio-technical system rather than the technology

100.  And also

101. Pipe cleaners good for representing wired communications

103. Thanks to ... Chris Baber (University of Birmingham) Josie Taylor (Open University) Patrick McAndrew (Open University) Daisy Mwanza (Open University) Peter Lonsdale (Keele University) James Cross (prototypes developer) ALL FTW participants!

104. For more see: Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M., (2007). Future Technology Workshop: a collaborative method for the design of new learning technologies and activities. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(4), pp. 393-419.