We propose a novel principled approach and the toolset to support collocated team-based educational design. We scaffold teams of teachers as designers creating rapid high-level course designs. We provide teachers with an ecology of digital and non-digital devices, an embedded design pattern library and a design dashboard. The toolset is situated within a purpose-built educational design studio and includes a set of surface devices that allow teachers to manipulate iconic representations of a course design and get real-time design analytics on selected parameters. The contribution of the paper is a description of the rationale for, implementation and evaluation of, an innovative toolset that sits in an ecology of resources to support collocated educational design.

1. Roberto Martinez-Maldonado
Peter Goodyear
Multi device Support for
Colocated Collaborative Design
for Learning
@RobertoResearch

2. F2F interaction is great
for tasks like:
Collaboration
Ideation
Storytelling
Problem solving
Negotiation
Designing
Collective thinking
Team work
Projects
WICKED PROBLEMS
…

3. Many times teams fail
for varied reasons like:
Inadequate tools,
Social conflicts,
Ill-defined tasks
Personal differences,
Limited resources
….
and other situations hard
to explain
…

4. Supporting
collaboration is not
new:
Collaborative Work (CSCW)
and Learning to Collaborate and by
Collaborating
(CSCL)

5. Historical work on CSCW spaces
(iLand) Streitz et al,, 1997
Bowers& Martin, 1991 Heat & Luff, 1991
(Roomware) Streitz et al,, 2000

6. Understanding collaboration
is getting even more complex
… as interactive surfaces become more accessible and pervasive

7. Yao et al., 2006
CSCW spaces-more recent work
Wigdor et al., 2006
Luff et al., 2015
Marquardt, 2013

8. Understanding collaboration
is still a key first step for designing
better systems

9. Analysis Problem 1: Oversimplification,
Quantification, Too much Focus
(e.g. only on tools)

10. Analysis Alternative: Ethnography
Problem: Quite expensive
What happens if:
we are not ethnographers?
we don’t have the resources?
parts of the analysis need to be
automated?
we need to provide support on the
fly?
we need to combine quantitative
methods?
 …..

11. Our contribution
A toolset that sits in an ecology of resources to
support collocated educational design (OZCHI’ 16).
A holistic analysis approach to support the
selection of analytical tools and interpretation of
results (CHI’ 16*)
*Martinez-Maldonado, R., Goodyear, P., J.Kay, Thompson, K., and Carvalho (2016) An Actionable
Approach to Understand Group Experience in Complex, Multi-surface Spaces. SIGCHI
Conference: Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2016, 2062-2074.

12. Our Analysis
Framework
(4 pieces)

13. Physical component
the place in which activity
unfolds, the physical and digital
space and objects; the input
devices, screens, software,
material tools, awareness tools,
artefacts, etc.

14. Social component
types of groupings (e.g. dyads,
trios, groups, networks of
people);
scripted roles;
divisions of labour, etc,

15. Epistemic component
implicit and explicit knowledge-
oriented elements that shape
the participants’ tasks and
working methods

16. Enactment
of the
Designed Tasks

17. ACAD framework: Design -> Runtime

18. Our 3+1 components ACAD framework

19. Background: JiAnn Falleta
Collocated
Educational
Design

20. TASK: Educational Design
An educational design describes the tasks, materials,
pedagogies and social dynamics for educators and their
students aimed at providing learning opportunities in
students’ face-to-face or online activities, over a particular
time period

21. The studio
CSCL Slide

22. Design patterns Pattern catalogue
Editing learning tasks Learning workflows

24. DEMOGRAPHICS
Four teams (A, B, C and D),- 4 male and 8 female
Expertise teaching (4 advanced, 5 competent and 3 novice)
and educational design (5 advanced)
Tool experience: 8/12 participants had used an interactive
tabletop 7/12 an interactive 5/12 had used both and all used
tablets
Goal: produce two high-level competing candidate designs
Roles (Lecturer-L, Learning Designer-LD and Quality Assurance
Officer-QAO)

25. A B C D
User
experience
Set, Social, Epistemic
Tools use
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Attention
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Space and
mobility
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Process
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Roles
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Teams
Analyses Components
Co-configuration
ACAD
ANALYSIS

26. 1- Usability
Inspired by: Berkman and Karahoca. 2012. A direct touch table-top display as a
multi-user information kiosk: Comparing the usability of a single display groupware
either by a single user or people cooperating as a group. IwC, 24, 5 (September 1,
2012), 423-437.
Umux

27. A B C D
User
experience
1 frustrated
3 inefficiency
1 frustrated No issues reported
1 frustrated
2 inefficiency
Set, Social, Epistemic
Tools use*
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Attention*
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Space and
mobility
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Process
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Roles
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Teams
Analyses Components
Co-configuration
ACAD
ANALYSIS

28. Method 1
2-3- Tools usage and attention

29. A B C D
User
experience
1 frustrated
3 inefficiency
1 frustrated No issues reported
1 frustrated
2 inefficiency
Set, Social, Epistemic
Tools use Tabletop
Tabletop (1 member
only)
Tabletop, IWB and
Wall
Tabletop, IWB,
dashboard and Wall
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Attention Projector
Dashboard, IWB,
Projector
IWB, Wall
Dashboard,
Projector, IWB, Wall
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Space and
mobility
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Process
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Roles
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Teams
Analyses Components
Co-configuration
ACAD
ANALYSIS

30. 5- Space and
Mobility
Inspired by : Marquardt, Hinckley
and Greenberg. 2012. Cross-device
interaction via micro-mobility and f-
formations. In UIST '12, 13-22

31. A B C D
User
experience
1 frustrated
3 inefficiency
1 frustrated No issues reported
1 frustrated
2 inefficiency
Set, Social, Epistemic
Tools use Tabletop
Tabletop (1 member
only)
Tabletop, IWB and
Wall
Tabletop, IWB,
dashboard and Wall
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Attention Projector
Dashboard, IWB,
Projector
IWB, Wall
Dashboard,
Projector, IWB, Wall
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Space and
mobility
Fixed: SxS at the
tabletop
Fixed: 1 f2f and
2 sxd at the tabletop
Variable: sxs at all
the large devices
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Process
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Roles
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Teams
Analyses Components
Co-configuration
ACAD
ANALYSIS
Variable: 1 at IWB,
f2f/sxs at the tabletop,
sxs at the Wall

32. 6- Processes

33. A B C D
User
experience
1 frustrated
3 inefficiency
1 frustrated No issues reported
1 frustrated
2 inefficiency
Set, Social, Epistemic
Tools use Tabletop
Tabletop (1 member
only)
Tabletop, IWB and
Wall
Tabletop, IWB,
dashboard and Wall
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Attention Projector
Dashboard, IWB,
Projector
IWB, Wall
Dashboard,
Projector, IWB, Wall
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Space and
mobility
Fixed: SxS at the
tabletop
Fixed: 1 f2f and
2 sxd at the tabletop
Variable: sxs at all
the large devices
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Process Linear work
Linear work +
meta-analysis
Parallel and Linear
work
Parallel, Iterative
work +
meta-analysis
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Roles
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Teams
Analyses Components
Co-configuration
ACAD
ANALYSIS
Variable: 1 at IWB,
f2f/sxs at the tabletop,
sxs at the Wall

34. Strategies1

35. A B C D
User
experience
1 frustrated
3 inefficiency
1 frustrated No issues reported
1 frustrated
2 inefficiency
Set, Social, Epistemic
Tools use Tabletop
Tabletop (1 member
only)
Tabletop, IWB and
Wall
Tabletop, IWB,
dashboard and Wall
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Attention Projector
Dashboard, IWB,
Projector
IWB, Wall
Dashboard,
Projector, IWB, Wall
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Space and
mobility
Fixed: SxS at the
tabletop
Fixed: 1 f2f and
2 sxd at the tabletop
Variable: sxs at all
the large devices
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Process Linear work
Linear work +
meta-analysis
Parallel and Linear
work
Parallel, Iterative
work +
meta-analysis
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Roles Low differentiation Strict enactment
Loose enactment
Strong Leader
Strict enactment,
Distributed
workload
Set, Social,
Epistemic
Teams
Analyses Components
Co-configuration
ACAD
ANALYSIS
Variable: 1 at IWB,
f2f/sxs at the tabletop,
sxs at the Wall

36. Conclusions
(Based on the
cases)
Each team worked differently
The design was enacted in different ways.
The most effective teams used a limited
range of tools. The most creative ones,
were the more messy.
Social (e.g. roles) and epistemic
(process) components radically
shaped the activity

37. We need more holistic approaches to
understand collaborative activity in its
full complexity
Not just an agglomeration of methods:
making sense of the intertwined
dimensions that shape group work is key
Some analysis methods can be
automated, semi-automated or elicited
Design is only a proposal
(see Instrumental Genesis)
Conclusions

38. We are hiring!
3 PHD positions
available in areas of
DATA SCIENCE & HCI
At Sydney (University of Technology Sydney)
https://utscic.edu.au/research/phd/

39. Thanks! Acknowledgments:
Peter Goodyear
Judy Kay
Kate Thompson
Lucila Carvalho
Anonymous reviewers
Laia (video editing)
Contact:
@RobertoResearch
Roberto.MartinezMaldonado.net