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

• 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