DESIGNING EDUCATIONAL FUTURES WITH

THE FUTURE TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP

METHOD

Giasemi Vavoula (University of Leicester)

with Mike Sharples (University of Nottingham)
Introduction
 Future (educational) scenarios invariably feature
references to new technologies / products /
services
 Types of new products (Meyers et al. 1989):
 Incremental / continuous products:
improvements, upgrades, line extensions
 Discontinuous products: radically new products that
involve dramatic leaps in terms of user familiarity and
use
 Both types of new products influence future
educational scenarios
 But discontinuous products likely to shape
educational futures in the end
New Product Development
Process
Market Research

New Product
Fuzzy Front End Commercialisation
Development

Design

Opportunity identification
& analysis
... and User
Idea generation / screening
Concept development Oriented Design:
… can increase collaboration in development
effort
… can have a positive effect on idea generation
… can result in a superior product or service
… can lead to products that are more readily
adopted by users due to better appropriateness
Requirements for method
 Minimal participant training
 Collaborative
 Direct input to design
 Cost-effective to run
 Relates people and technology
 Open-ended
 Pragmatic
Existing methods

Method Minimal Collabo- Direct Cost- Relates Open- Pragmatic

participant rative input to effective people with ended
training design to run technology
Focus
 X X  X X 
groups
Future
  X   X 
Worskhops
Strategic
Visioning   X    X
Workshops
Role-play
  X  X X 
games
SPES  X X  X X 
Lead User
Workshops    X X X 
Future Technology Workshop
(FTW)
The Future (evolution /
The Present adoption of technology)

CURRENT FUTURE
TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY
CURRENT ACTIVITY 1. Everyday 2. Familiar activities
technology-mediated supported by new
activity technology
FUTURE ACTIVITY 3. New activities that 4. New activities with
current technology new technologies
might support
The Future
(discontinuity)
The Future (evolution /
adoption of practice)
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
FTW Session 1: Imagineering
At a Participants envision future activities in relation to the design task
glance
Duration 10-15 mins (to produce adequately rich & diverse set of ideas)
Techniqu Brainstorming
es
Purpose Set the scene; get participants to think in terms of future
Outcome List of new activities they‟d like to do in the future; Outlook set to
s think of the future
Placemen Far future
t in time

CT FT

CA 1 2

FA 3 4
FTW Session 2: Modelling
At a Participants create low-tech prototypes of future activity contexts
glance
Duration 40-50 mins (time for small groups to conceptualise/create
prototypes)
Techniqu Low-tech prototyping workshop
es
Purpose Imagine far future; produce models of useful / meaningful
technology and activity context
Outcome Models and written descriptions; Videos of modelling
s activities/presentations; Facilitators notes
Placemen Far future
t in time

CT FT

CA 1 2

FA 3 4
FTW Session 3: Role Play
At a Participants build scenarios about use of models and act them out
glance
Duration 30 mins (to build and enact scenarios)
Techniqu Scenario building and Role Play
es
Purpose Bring future into present by „acting‟ as if future was now; Engage
in future activities and make conceptions more tangible
Outcome Videos of performed scenarios; Facilitator notes
s
Placemen Far future
t in time

CT FT

CA 1 2

FA 3 4
FTW Session 4: Retrofit
At a Participants modify scenarios to make use of existing technology
glance only
Duration 30 mins (to modify and enact scenarios)
Techniqu Scenario building and Role Play
es
Purpose Bring future into present everyday life; think how futuristic
activities might be adopted into current life
Outcome Videos of performed scenarios; Facilitator notes; List of identified
s technological gaps
Placemen Present
t in time

CT FT

CA 1 2

FA 3 4
FTW Session 5: Everyday
At a Participants list current activities and problems in carrying them
glance out
Duration 10-15 mins (to produce diverse list of activities and problems)
Techniqu Group discussion
es
Purpose Think about current practices and how they could be improved
Outcome List of current activities performed with current technology; List of
s related problems
Placemen Present and recent past
t in time

CT FT

CA 1 2

FA 3 4
FTW Session 6: Futurefit
At a Participants modify models to support current and future activity
glance and try to „sell‟ them
Duration 50-60 mins (to modify models and „sell‟ them)
Techniqu Brainstorming, Scenario building, Performing
es
Purpose Think what future technology might support current activity;
Implicit requirements derived from way models are „sold‟
Outcome List of near-future technologies to support current activities;
s Implicit requirements
Placemen Near future
t in time

CT FT

CA 1 2

FA 3 4
FTW Session 7: Requirements
At a Participants list requirements for future technology
glance
Duration 15-20 mins (to examine models / scenarios and list requirements)
Techniqu Focus group discussion
es
Purpose Explicate requirements for future technology
Outcome Explicit list of requirements for future technology
s
Placemen Near future
t in time

CT FT

CA 1 2

FA 3 4
FTW: sessions flow diagram
2
start

Box 3 Box 4
Session 4 Sessions 1-3
3
5
4 Box 1
Box 2
Session 5
Session 6
6
4 Box 4
Session 7

Near Past Present Near Future Far Future

7

end
How it works...
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
FTW Application Example 1:
„Capturing and sharing visual
events‟
 4 FTWs, 2 with children 10-13, and 2 with adults
 Produced concepts:
 Spy cameras: miniature cameras hidden on the body to capture everyday
events or relay images to others
 Robot cameras: camera attached to person / animal / object with images
viewed at a distance
 Requirements:
 Ability to view the world through eyes of others (people/animals)
 Ability to capture that view
 Ability to intervene / control that view
 Ability to share instantly
 Ability to share all senses
 Record of personal experience over lifetime
 „Always on‟
 Fast enough to capture the moment instantly
 Discreet / secret / unobtrusive technology
 Durable / portable / reliable
 Cheap
FTW Application Example 1:
„Capturing and sharing visual
events‟
 Prototype ‘Spycam’ (Vavoula et al. 2003)
 Wireless mini colour camera mounted on sunglasses
 Camera transmits colour composite video signal to
portable computer (Panasonic Toughbook) with
wirelessly connected handheld screen
 Camera and view screen carried separately, each
within 100 metres range from base station
 Configurations / scenarios
 Collaborative space exploration
 Spy explorations
 Map drawing
 Etc.
FTW Application Example 1:
„Capturing and sharing visual
events‟
 „Spycam’ trials with 32 children at holiday camp

 Feedback
 “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)
 “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)
 Overall assessment
 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
 Children found FTW concepts enjoyable, fascinating new activities
 FTW Application Example 1:
„Capturing and sharing visual
events‟
 Second iteration: FTW on
„capturing visual events remotely,
without being noticed‟
 Concept
 Camera that can attach to variety of
objects (sunglasses, wristwatches)
 Prototype
 „RoboCam‟ where miniature camera is
mounted on top of remote controlled
model car; camera image received on
computer monitor or small screen TV
 Further testing scenarios
 Blindfolded treasure hunt (SpyCam)
 Collaborative mystery solving
(RoboCam)
 FTW Application Example 1:
„Capturing and sharing visual
events‟
 Activities with prototypes thoroughly enjoyed by children (potential end
users)
 Note: workshops took place between 2000-2002
 No camera phones, no IM, no flickr, no Facebook...
 Question: did that lead to an actual commercial product?
 … errr….
 But a similar toy concept did eventually reach the market...
 FTW Application Example 2:
„Train first-aid volunteers‟
 Context: EU IST Project MOBIlearn: mobile
technologies for learning
 Focus on general requirements rather than
concept design
 Participants: first-aid volunteers at UK OU
 Concepts produced:
 Diagnostic machine: kit that assesses person in
need when applied and assists first-aid worker to
report incident appropriately
 FTW transcripts analysed to identify current
and future tools and artifacts and their uses
 Translated into system requirements; then into
general requirements for MOBIlearn system
(e.g. “incorporate „scanners‟ for capturing and
storing information”)
 FTW Application Example 3:
„informal science learning in mobile
settings‟
 Context: Kaleidoscope NoE JEIRP „MELISSA‟
 Focus on envisioning the future of a research area
(informal science learning)
 Priming session summarising literature review of the
area
 Participants: researchers and external experts
 Concepts produced:
 Whisperers: agents sitting on user‟s shoulder and
whisper information about social context
 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
 Requirements fed into force-field analysis to identify
„helpers‟ and „hinderers‟
 Concepts examined against learning theories to
identify fit
 Outcome: a well-informed vision of requirements for
future informal science learning research
 FTW Application Example 4:
„student requirements for taught PG
programmes‟
 Context: Masters in Museum Studies
 Focus on improving the student
experience
 Participants: Masters students
 Concepts produced:
 Virtual programmable museum: tutor
can bring to life past exhibitions;
students can experiment with exhibition
variables and conduct online visitor
studies
 Robo-visitors: robots sitting in museums
awaiting remote user instructions to
explore museum on their behalf
 Requirements fed into student
exercise to design a future learning
experience for Museum Studies
students
 Outcome: analysis ongoing; expecting
to input to School and College
 FTW Application Example 5:
„requirements for the Live!Museum‟
 Context: AHRC / BT Pilot Research
Networkworking
„LIVE!Museum: visitor and institutional
contexts for digital labelling and in-
gallery connectivity‟
 Focus on developing research
projects to explore the implications of
live digital content and media on
visitors and institutions
 Participants: engineers, curators,
digital heritage experts
 Work in progress – but seems to be
going well!
FTW – Other applications
 ReFLEx: requirements for tools for discovering
learning materials and resources by semantic
associations
 Olney guides: outreach project, to teach and
inspire about technology innovation and
design
 Beyond Mobile Learning CSCL workshop:
tools for collaborative learning about media
making
 ...
What participants say...
 Positive
 “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”
 “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”
 “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”
 “it‟s a very useful method for thinking „outside the box‟ but also grounds that
thinking back in reality, theory, etc.”
 Negative
 “(I liked) the distraction of the materials and the social engagement ... But it did
distract from the „issues‟”
 “The fun bit can be a disadvantage because people can get carried away in
playfulness and fail to connect the significance of activities to the design process”
Conclusions
 Successfully used with children and adults
 It is cost-effective
 Yields engineerable outcomes that can directly
inform design while not assuming fixed patterns or
contexts of use
 Framework for creativity, focused on socio-
technical system rather than the technology
  And also
 Pipe cleaners good for representing wired
communications
 Feathers good for wireless communications
The Future of the Future
Technology Workshop
 Future Learning Experience Workshop
 Shiftthe focus completely off the technology,
through the activities it enables, and onto the user
experience
 Comments, ideas, personal experiences?
Email me at gv18@le.ac.uk
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!
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.