Envisioning pervasive learning environments:

supporting ubiquitous collaboration

Angela Carell1, Michael Prilla1, Carsten Ritterskamp

1

1 Information and Technology Management, Institute for Applied Work Sciences, Ruhr

University of Bochum

44780 Bochum, Germany

{angela.carell, michael.prilla, carsten.ritterskamp}@rub.de

Abstract. Pervasive learning imposes several needs on computer supported

learning environments. With respect to collaborative learning and principles as

co-constructing knowledge, such environments have to account for the

ubiquitous read and write access of learning content. Moreover, this access

must not be limited to a certain set of devices or applications. Instead, learners

have to be able to read and edit content from wherever they are with whatever

device capable of accessing the internet. In this paper, we present some

requirements for such learning environments and present our own approach in

implementing corresponding features in our CSCL environment Kolumbus 2.

Keywords: Knowledge co-construction, web-based learning, co-ownership,

device independent access.

1 Introduction

The relationship between pervasive learning technology and paradigms of learning is

twofold. On the one hand, the rapid increasing use of mobile devices offers new

opportunities for learning: the widespread dissemination of these technologies is a

major prerequisite for realizing the vision of “acquiring and accessing knowledge

anytime, anyplace”. On the other hand, technology support for learning has to fit to

underlying learning theories.

In this position paper we argue that ubiquitous computing technologies offer great

opportunities to support pervasive collaborative learning. In what follows, we look at

the key concepts of collaborative learning, derive fundamental requirements to

technology support from these concepts and outline our efforts in implementing a

prototypical learning environment that meets these requirements.

1.1 Constructivist learning and knowledge co-construction

In the early 1990s, a new paradigm of computer supported learning has emerged,

which is based on a constructivist viewpoint of learning and in which learning is

Carell, A., Prilla, M.; Ritterskamp, C. (2007), Envisioning pervasive learning environments: supporting ubiquitous collaboration, In: Pervasive 2007. The 5th International Conference on Pervasive Computing (Workshop-Paper). May 13-16.

regarded as an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge. Hence,

computer supported collaborated learning encompasses two key-concepts which are

highly interwoven: the degree of task structuring and the way of co-constructing

knowledge.

The former concept reveals that collaborative learning is only minimally structured in

advance by the teacher [4]. The students are requested to formulate their learning

goals, to choose, and to implement appropriate learning approaches. In this process,

the teacher is no longer the ’sage at the stage but the guide at the side’. Therefore,

collaborative learning is, to a great extent, a way of self-directed learning in groups.

The latter concept focuses on knowledge co-construction. It refers to the Vygotskijan

cultural-historical theory [7] and reconsiders collaborative learning as a specific way

of interaction between two or more learners [3]. As it is seen as a mutual engagement

and continuous attempt to construct and maintain a shared concept of a problem or

task [6], collaborative learning activities are much more interwoven and intertwined

than in cooperative learning and are constituted by discussing ideas and exchanging

arguments. Given the strong impact of self-direction and knowledge co-construction

on learning, we cannot influence the conditions regarding the occurrence of learning

directly: as Dillenbourg concluded, supporting collaborative learning rather has to

account for situations where learning is most likely to occur [1].

To the design of learning environments suitable for collaborative learning, these

findings have at least two implications. First, if learning is about the co-construction

of knowledge, computer supported learning scenarios not only have to ensure access

to other people’s texts but also have to allow users to edit and comment such content.

Second, if we cannot determine when learning will occur, we have to ensure that

access to the supporting technologies is not constricted to a predetermined set of

situations: providing ubiquitous and device-independent access to the learning

environment becomes a crucial success factor.

1.2 The evolution of computer-supported learning: from isolated applications to

ubiquitous networked environments

To support the idea that ubiquitous device-independent access to learning

environments enhancing knowledge co-construction is the next stage in the evolution

of CSCL-systems, we provide a brief look at the progression of these systems. For the

purpose of this paper, we propose to distinguish three categories of computer-

supported learning applications and environments, each category describing a

different generation of computer-supported learning. Special attention will be paid to

the question how changes in the theoretical perspective on learning led to different

system designs.

First generation: classic computer-based training

To first generation computer-supported learning, learning is neither a collaborative

activity nor does it occur in arbitrary situations. Consequently, applications are

designed to support single user learning at arranged times. These systems usually

offer no functionalities to support knowledge construction; they aim at the

presentation of prefabricated, proprietary content instead. Educational software for

language acquisition is a typical example for this category.

Second generation: web-based learning environments

Second generation learning environments just have set out for ubiquity: learning is

understood as a collaborative activity occurring in groups and therefore cooperative

web-based environments providing support for communication and knowledge co-

construction have begun to replace proprietary single user systems. However,

interacting with these environments usually requires users to utilize web browsers and

editing content needs word processors, both running on personal computers: even

though the notion of learning “anyplace and anytime” is already present in the

discussion on CSCL, collaborative learning is still bound to desktop PCs and

consequently tied to a certain place. Amongst several others, prior versions of our

own CSCL environment – Kolumbus 2 – belong to the second generation of web-

based learning environments [2].

Third generation: ubiquitous networked learning environments Systems falling in this currently emerging category acknowledge that learning may

pervade any activity from everyday and working life. Collaborative learning and

knowledge co-construction, which often draw on creativity and sudden inspiration,

cannot be separated from daily routine: Borrowing a term from aspect-oriented

software development, learning is a cross-cutting concern to all sorts of an

individual’s activities. Given these conditions, overcoming the spatial access

restrictions second generation systems impose by requiring a desktop PC is crucial.

As we cannot assume the permanent availability of a particular client technology,

device-independency has to be a primary goal at design time.

1.3 Pervasive learning: a scenario

To exemplify our understanding how third generation learning environments support

pervasive collaborative learning, we refer to the following scenario.

Imagine three students (A, B and C) working collaboratively on a position paper for a

university course: A is currently working at home, accessing the learning environment

using a standard browser on her desktop PC. Just a few minutes before, B has been

summarizing relevant literature using a public internet terminal at the university’s

library and now is on her way home. At the same time, C might be promenading,

reflecting on a problem she has not found the solution to so far. Now assume that A

has a question concerning B’s summary and needs an immediate reply. She may ask

her question by annotating B’s summary and assigning a tag to it that marks the

annotation to be an urgent question. A third generation learning environment may

now notify B via SMS that A has asked a question concerning her summary and is

able to transmit the corresponding annotation’s content applying the same channel. B

can now answer the question using her cell phone: she sends an SMS containing her

answer and an identifier – provided by the system – relating the reply to A’s question.

In A’s view on the shared content, B’s answer will be represented as an annotation to

her question. A can now continue her work and adds new content to the shared

workspace. After A has completed her work, the learning environment may inform C

– who has configured her personal notification service accordingly – that A has added

new content to the system. C may now decide to have a quick look at A’s work. She

does so by accessing the system from a public wifi hotspot using her PDA. As the

learning environment has detected that C is browsing the content using a PDA, it

provides her with a user interface that has been optimized for small handheld devices.

Finally, after reading A’s content, C may find the solution to the problem she was

reflecting upon. Still using her PDA, she takes some notes and uploads them to the

system.

With the advent of such pervasive learning environments, the idea of computer-

supported “learning anyplace, anytime” may come true. In what follows, we will have

a closer look at requirements specific to these third generation environments.

Afterwards, we comment on our own efforts in implementing such a system.

2 Third generation learning environments: implications for

design

Facing the needs imposed by the co-construction of knowledge during learning

activities, pervasive learning applications have to account for accessing and editing

content from wherever a user wants. Therefore, the editing of learning content has to

be decoupled from both specific input devices and particular applications using e.g.

local storages. In pervasive learning, it is no longer sufficient to access content via a

mobile device and to be dependent on an application like a certain word processor

needed to edit or add content. Consequently, resulting learning applications have to

serve different devices and provide a means for editing content using these devices.

With respect to mobile access, content in learning applications has to be prepared for

being displayed on different screen sizes and the interaction of the environment has to

be adapted to the needs of devices such as PDAs or mobile phones. In our opinion,

standards such as CSS play a major role in such design efforts, as they provide a

valuable means to integrate several end user devices.

Regarding the production of content, editing has to be done in the learning

application, including both functions of a word processor and functionality supporting

learners in communication and interaction. Moreover, awareness of the action of

others is an important issue when co-constructing knowledge.

Thinking towards pervasive learning environments, notifications depicting events

have to be available without regarding particular communication channels bound to

e.g. desktop applications. Instead, applications should be aware of the device a user

uses to access and edit content and provide notifications suitable for such devices.

Summing up, device-independent support for content delivery, content

construction, communication and coordination lies at the very heart of third

generation learning environments (cf. Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden

werden.). In what follows, we present a system called Kolumbus 2, which was

developed to face the needs described above.

Figure 1: Device independent read/write content access with Kolumbus 2.

3 Learning applications on the web as a means for pervasive

knowledge co-construction

With respect to knowledge co-construction in pervasive learning, a new generation of

learning applications, providing flexible mechanisms for accessing and editing

content as well as being aware of others’ actions, is needed. In this section, we present

a prototypical extension of our CSCL environment Kolumbus 2, being capable of

fulfilling the needs described above. Prior to the presentation of the system, major

prerequisites and concepts are described.

Supporting knowledge co-construction

Kolumbus 2 is a web-based CSCL environment built upon a variety of widespread

technologies such as Open Source frameworks, Java Enterprise and AJAX

technologies. For example, Apache Tomcat is used as an application server, content is

stored in a MySQL database and TinyMCE is the basis for the environment’s unique

editor view (see below). A modularized architecture based on the well-known MVC

architectural pattern allows for device-independent data handling and rendering of

device-specific user interfaces; a server-based template engine supports the generation

of customized views on the content. Besides several features similar to other web-

based learning environments, Kolumbus 2 provides four major mechanisms suitable

for ubiquitous knowledge co-construction. These features are co-ownership, the

combination of reading and writing perspectives on content combined with a word

processor application on the web and a device independent notification platform.

Co-ownership [5] describes a situation, in which two or more users are authors

(that is, owners) of a content unit and in which decisions concerning manipulating

these units are subject to a group decision. This concept is built upon a negotiation

mechanism enabling and mediating such group decisions. With respect to knowledge

co-construction, co-ownership provides a means to transform common learning

processes such as the joint development of learning content into group activities. In

the context of pervasive learning, co-ownership enables users to instantly take part in

group processes and receive immediate feedback of others.

At the heart of Kolumbus 2’s architecture lies the usage of different perspectives

on content. In its past development state [2], the system provided two perspectives

focused on the structure of learning units (“Treeview”) and their content respectively

(“Paperview”). As stated above, just accessing content is not enough when knowledge

is to be co-constructed ubiquitously. Consequently, we combined the ubiquitous read

access with another perspective called “Kolumbus CoWriter” or “Editorview”

allowing for the editing of learning content (see Figure 2). This third perspective and

its functionality enables user to access and contribute to content from whatever

internet-enabled device they want to use. “Kolumbus CoWriter” provides a word

processor as part of the learning application, adopting the popular notion of

applications on the web from sites like Google Docs&Spreadsheets. With such an

application being part of a pervasive learning environment, content access and

manipulation is possible from wherever a user wants.

Figure 2: Kolumbus 2 CoWriter.

Currently, we are developing a mechanism capable of serving different

communication channels for notifying users of actions performed by other learners.

Among these channels, e-mail and instant messaging play an important role as well as

SMS to notify users on their mobile phone. With such a broad variety of notification

channels, the user can be given hints of others’ actions nearly everywhere.

4 Research and Evaluation Agenda

Currently, we are planning two experiments to test two of our key-features for

pervasive knowledge co-construction. For each experiment, the test persons are

recruited from the Bachelor Program of Computer Science at our university. The

students are arbitrarily assigned to an experimental group.

Co-Ownership: As we mentioned above, with this feature we provide a means to

transform an individual learning process to a group learning one, letting users

instantly participate in such processes. Hence, we assume the concept of co-

ownership to lead to a higher extent of knowledge exchange between the group

members. To test this hypothesis, groups of three students have to asynchronously

prepare a presentation and a paper on given topics related to software engineering.

We divide the groups in two conditions of collaborative writing: In the condition “co-

ownership”, each change of content in a shared document has to be negotiated. The

negotiation process is supported by Kolumbus 2. The students have the choice of

accepting the changed content, refusing the changes (with or without making a

comment) or abstaining from voting. In the condition “shared-ownership”, a group

member can change the content without others’ agreements. Data for surveying the

knowledge exchange process is gathered in a pre-post-design by means of a written

questionnaire as well as by log-file analysis. We expect that in the condition “co-

ownership” the group members are more aware of the individual knowledge of each

other, remember more details of the compiled text and show a higher commitment to

the final text.

“Kolumbus CoWriter”: As described above, Kolumbus 2 provides different views

for different collaborative tasks. We assume the students to inherently choose the

most convenient view for a given task. To test this hypothesis, groups of three

students jointly have to prepare a documentation of a software engineering process

during five days time. To accomplish this task, the students have to solve three

different problems: to structure the content, to read the contributions of the other

group member, and to write a text. Data on the experiment is gathered by event-

logging and by a written questionnaire after finishing it. We expect that the students

will predominantly use the “Treeview“ for content structuring, the “Paperview” for

text reading, and the “Editorview” for text writing.

With these experiments we hope to detect useful hints on how to adopt the features

of Kolumbus 2 to the requirements of pervasive learning processes.

5 Summary: our way to next generation pervasive learning

applications

In this paper, we described a prototypical extension of our CSCL environment

Kolumbus 2, providing several features of the next generation pervasive learning

environments. We believe that future design of such environments must not stop on

the level of displaying content on multiple devices. Instead, suitable interaction design

for environments has to become a major criterion. In our opinion, standards such as

CSS play a major role in such design efforts, as they provide a valuable means to

integrate several end user devices. We strongly believe that the capability of

applications supporting pervasive learning starts at design time.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Kolumbus 2 development team and the

participants of the Beyond Writely project for their efforts in implementing the

features described in this paper. For further information on Kolumbus 2 visit

http://www.kolumbus2.de

References

1. Dillenbourg, Pierre (1999): Introduction: What Do You Mean By „Collaborative

Learning“? In: Dillenbourg, Pierre (ed.) (1999): Collaborative Learning.

Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 1-19.

2. Herrmann, T.; Kienle, A.: KOLUMBUS: Context-oriented communication

support in a collaborative learning environment. In: van Weert, T.J.; Munro,R.K.

(eds.): Informatics and the Digital Society. Social, Ethical and Cognitive Issues

(2003). Kluwer, pp. 251-260.

3. Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring Foundations for Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning. In G. Stahl (eds.): Computer Support for Collaborative

Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002,

Boulder USA, Jan. 7–11, pp. 72–81. Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

4. Damon, W. & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinction among three approaches to

peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, pp. 9-19.

5. Prilla, M., Ritterskamp, C.: Collaboration Support by Co-Ownership of

Documents. In Hassanaly, P.; Herrmann, T.; Kunau, G., Zacklad, M. (eds.):

Cooperative Systems Design. Seamless Integration of Artifacts and

Conversations - Enhanced Concepts of Infrastructure for Communication.

Proceedings of COOP 2006 (2006), IOS Press, pp. 255-269.

6. Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in

collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (eds.): Computer-Supported

Collaborative Learning, pp. 69–97. Berlin: Springer.

7. Vygotskij, L. S. (1934/2002). Denken und Sprechen. Psychologische

Untersuchungen. Hg. und neu übersetzt von J. Lompscher und G. Rückriem.

Weinheim: Beltz. [Thought and Language. New and accurate translation by J.

Lompscher and G. Rückriem]