Dissemination of Results
Call for Participation
Technical University of
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State
Lewis & Clark
| Media Lab Europe
This two-day workshop is aimed at providing
designers with a richer framework for the design of user interfaces
that promote learning, focusing on learning as a problem in design rather than
a problem in psychology or education The goal for the workshop is to
develop a conceptual foundation for characterizing different types of
learning challenges, drawing implications of different learning
challenges for design, and exploring principles for design to meet
those challenges in a variety of design situations. The 16 workshop
participants will be selected with a view to creating a diversity of
perspectives and backgrounds to ensure that a broad spectrum of
learning and design situations are considered.
and issues for discussion include:
challenges posed by different learning outcomes or contexts.
From a learning perspective, what are the similarities and
differences between, for example, students learning science
process and content in a classroom setting, shoppers learning to
use a new automatic checkout scanner at the supermarket, and
internet users learning better search strategies?
challenges posed by meeting different learning challenges.
From a design-for-learning perspective, what are the similarities
and differences between designs for meeting these different
challenges in different design settings and learning contexts? For
example, what might designs to help students understand
information search strategies have in common with an interface
designed to allow an internet user do so in the course of
completing a search task?
elements and examples. What specific elements can be designed
and implemented to meet different learning challenges? For
example, how can multiple views and multiple representations be
used to support concept formation and categorization? What other
design techniques might be used?
Professional issues. From different
professional perspectives, e.g., research, education, design
practice, what professional issues do these questions raise? What
recommendations can be made to different professions with respect
to designing for learning?
The workshop is
organized around a friendly design competition aimed at providing a
tangible context for discussing and answering these and other
important questions. The anticipated outcome of the design contest is
a set of design mockups or prototypes that CHI attendees may review
and comment upon during the CHI poster sessions. These designs will be
presented in conjunction with a workshop poster describing the more
- Develop a general framework for understanding how to design
software technology that promotes learning
- Place current design understanding in this framework
- Identify issues and areas about the design of learning
technologies areas requiring new design understanding
- Bring together researchers and practitioners from a variety of
fields in order to consolidate specific lessons related to
learning into a general framework for design
- Develop a set (or sets) of principles for design and/or design
recommendations for designing software that promotes learning
- Poster for CHI 2003 poster session
- Workshop report for SIGCHI bulletin
- Proposed article for Communications of the ACM or interactions
- A description of the framework for the design space of designing
for learning that describes
- Dimensions of the design space (e.g., learning setting,
target audience, type of learning)
- Learning challenges given different dimensions in the design space
- Design elements or properties that promote or impede
- Factors that constrain different design elements
- Strategies, elements, and recommendations for design
- Prototypes or design mockups that can be reviewed and commented
on by other CHI attendees
Learning is essential to life as we know it. The
rate of social and technological change has increased to a point where
an individual must constantly acquire new skills and knowledge in
order to maintain their place in society. Once, an apprenticeship
served before age 14 offered sufficient learning to last a lifetime.
Today, society presumes 12 years of schooling in general knowledge,
followed by 4-12 years of specialized education or on-the-job
apprenticeship. Much of the knowledge acquired is often obsolete even
before this education is complete.
Fortunately, the computing technology that is a
driving force behind these social changes offers a means of meeting
the very need it creates. User interfaces and technologies can be
designed to promote "deep learning" ¾
learning that goes beyond knowing how to use the tool to understanding
the concepts and skills necessary to do the task. However, even for
designers of learning technologies, design for learning is, in
many ways, still a non-systematic “craft.” For designers of general
technologies, design for learning is largely a black art.
designers in other communities have explored issues surrounding
learning and computational tools for learning and teaching, primarily
- Understanding learning as a psychological process. Simply
defining "learning" is challenging. A plethora of learning theories
have yielded competing approaches to supporting learning, e.g., behaviorist
theories and "learning machines" , information
processing theories and intelligent tutors [1, 2, 4], social
constructivism and scaffolded software approaches [9-11, 13].
- Developing technology to support specific types of learning.
A variety of approaches have been employed to meet the needs of
particular learning challenges in particular design situations,
e.g., learning new content and
processes [5-7, 12, 15, 16] in classroom settings, learning the use of modern
technology itself  .
- Adapting educational settings to take advantage of
computational technology. Since classrooms are the most easily
recognized learning setting, many efforts have focused on developing new curricula
and educational approaches that incorporate technology 
and teacher professional development.
However, these other communities focus primarily on psychological
theories of learning or support for educators and specific educational
settings. The focus of this workshop, in contrast, is on the needs of
design and designers.
Specifically, the workshop will explore the following questions:
- What are the primary dimensions of the problem space of
designing for learning? What aspects of learning design problem
and tasks might impose different constraints on the design?
- How does the learning setting and context affect design? For
example, how would design considerations differ given the
following learning settings:
- Educational: More formal guided learning where learning
is the primary goal. For example, learning in a classroom
- Instruction-less: Self-directed learning where learning
is a (semi-)conscious goal. For example, learning to use a new
automatic teller system.
- Incidental: Learning that is necessary to achieve some
other goal or that occurs while accomplishing some task. For
example, learning better ways of searching the internet while
making travel reservations.
- What other issues arise from the learning context and how do
these issues affect design? For example:
- How is a design affected by collaborative versus individual
learning, or the need for collective versus individual
- How does the content domain affect design?
- How does the type of learning outcome affect design, e.g.,
learning physical skills versus abstract concepts?
- What are the specific design characteristics or strategies that
fosters or supports learning and why are these characteristics
effective for learning?
- How do these characteristics differ across dimensions of the
- How do these characteristics strategies relate to specific
- What properties of design elements should be manipulated to
- Can a design strategy be implemented in different ways for
different design situations or learning contexts?
- How may such design knowledge be articulated and transmitted to
software designers and developers?
Each participant will be assigned to a design
team and a birds-of-a-feather (BOF) group. Each design team will be
composed of 3-5 individuals with different professional perspectives
and interests, e.g., research, education, design. These teams are
charged with developing prototypes or mockups as part of the design
competition. They will also be expected to report on issues
encountered and insights gained while doing so. BOF groups, in
contrast, are composed of individuals with shared professional
interests and perspectives. They are charged with providing
specialized views on the issues raised and provide an opportunity for
participants to engage in more detailed professional discussion.
Participants will be asked to join particular design teams and BOF
groups based on their expressed interests.
Workshop sessions will alternate between plenary,
design breakout and BOF discussion sessions. Time is allowed both for
design teams and BOF groups to report back to the workshop, as a
whole, and for the workshop to reflect on consolidated synthesized
versions of these reports. Note that provisions are made for an
individual to provide assistance in synthesizing information in
parallel with workshop discussions.
Each design team will be asked to design a specific technology to
help users negotiate the Copenhagen
(Denmark) metro area transit system. Among the challenges posed by
this system is a complex (some would say, insidious) system of
ticketing. This system is based on geographic zones and punch cards
that are issued in 5 colors (in both adult and child versions).
Ticketing involves a calculation of the number of zone "rings"
to be traversed, the scheduled time from the start of the first leg to
the start of the final leg of the journey, and the number and ages of individuals
traveling. This calculation is used to
determine the requisite number and color of tickets to be punched.
Colors and punches are additive, e.g., 3 yellow = 1 gray, which is valid for 1
adults in 6 or more zone rings for 2 hours or 3 adults in 3 or fewer
zone rings for 1 hour (and various other combinations including
permutations allowing substitution of children for adults and dogs for
Each design team will be assigned to one of three design
desired learning outcome
(understanding the ticketing system) is the same in all scenarios, in order to
provide common ground for discussion.
However, that learning is embedded differently in design
and learning contexts in different scenarios.
This is a friendly competition: Eavesdropping,
espionage, selling of team secrets and theft of other teams'
insights are strongly encouraged.
As composite lists of learning challenges, design
elements or properties and general issues are
developed they will be posted on the walls. Teams and
individuals are encouraged to annotate and contribute to
these postings at any time during the workshop.
The learner should come to understand the zone-pricing system used by
the Copenhagen metro area transit system.
Note that the actual learner may differ from the user for whom the design is
intended. You must design for the intended user, but keep the learning
needs of the actual learner in mind.
1. Educational Setting (Mr. Kobalevsky)
The design team is designing instructional materials about Copenhagen, focusing on the
transit system unit.
||Mr. Kobalevsky's 9th grade class
from Wap Wap, Michigan who will be going to Copenhagen on a
class trip. There is no public transit system in Wap Wap and the
students may not have prior experience with ticketing for such,
e.g., distance-dependent pricing, time-dependent tickets,
multiple trip discounts.
|Same as intended user.
2. Instruction-less Setting (Ms. Thibodeaux)
The design team is designing a web page for the official site explaining ticket purchase and
||Residents and visitors of Copenhagen
making their travel plans.
|Ms. Thibodeaux, a city planning consultant
hired by the city of Wap Wap, Michigan, to develop a design for the pricing system for
their new public transit
system. Ms. Thibodeaux
is using the Copenhagen web site to understand the Copenhagen pricing system
3. Incidental Setting (Ali)
The design team is designing a kiosk interface for purchasing
tickets to be placed at all train stations and key transfer points.
Reliance upon a help system should be minimized.
||Residents and visitors of Copenhagen.
|Ms. Mahmoud, the mayor of Wap Wap, Michigan
who is in Copenhagen for a conference on "Sustaining Multi-National
Communities." Ms. Masarif will be in the Copenhagen area for a week
and will be traveling about the city. However, the Wap Wap city budget
requires that she keep expenses to a minimum, so she will be using the
public transit system. (Besides, the public transit system is, in fact,
the most convenient option for her).
Resulting designs or design fragments will be
evaluated (or at least reviewed) by CHI participants during the CHI
Note: The format (F) column indicates the format of
||Design team breakout
||Birds-of-a-feather group breakout
WA refers to the workshop assistant for whom
free registration is requested.
Sunday, April 6, 2003
||9 - 9:15
Workshop format, game plan
||9:15 - 9:30
Review of the zone-pricing system used by
the Copenhagen metro area transit system
Focus on learning challenges in the given design scenario
|Lists of learning challenges
||10:30 - 10:45
||10:45 - 11:00
||Design Team Reports
Design team introductions and reports on learning challenges
|Collected and reviewed lists of
||11:00 - 12:00
Focus on design elements or properties that might address the
learning challenges identified in the given design scenario
|Lists of design elements or
WA: Compiling composite lists of learning challenges
||12:00 - 12:15
||Design Team Reports
Design team reports on design elements or properties
|Collected and reviewed lists of
design elements or properties
||12:15 - 13:30
||Group Lunch (including
||13:30 - 13:45
||Review and Reflection
Presentation and discussion of composite lists of learning
challenges (WA presenting)
||13:45 - 14:45
||WA: Compiling composite lists of
design elements and properties
||14:45 - 15:00
||Review and Reflection
Presentation and discussion of composite lists of design
elements and properties (WA presenting)
||15:00 - 15:30
||BOF Discussion Session
Focus on learning challenges and their implications from
specific professional perspectives (e.g., research, visual
|Lists of professional issues
surrounding learning challenges
||15:30 - 15:45
||15:45 - 17:00
||BOF Discussion Session (Con't)
Focus on design elements or properties and their implications
from specific professional perspectives
|Lists of professional issues
surrounding design elements or properties
||17:00 - 17:15
BOF reports on learning challenges and/or design elements or
|Collected and reviewed lists of
professional issues surrounding learning challenges and design
elements or properties
||17:15 - 17:30
||Reflection and Wrap-up
(WA and Organizers: Compiling composite lists of BOF
reports in the evening)
Monday, April 7, 2003
||9 - 9:45
||9:45 - 10:00
WA Present BOF lists and Review Design Team lists
||10:00 - 10:30
What have we learned? Changes to lists?
||10:30 - 10:45
||10:45 - 12:30
||12:30 - 14:00
||Lunch as desired -- arrange for
small tables at one restaurant so groups can re-arrange/confer
||14:00 - 15:00
||BOF Discussion Session
Focus on workshop outcome (e.g., key research or design
issues, strategies or recommendations for design)
|List of issues and recommendations
||15:00 - 15:15
||Collected and reviewed lists of
issues and recommendations
||15:15 - 15:30
||Future Work Discussion
||Action items for disseminating and
extending workshop results
||15:30 - 15:45
||15:45 - 16:30
||Design Session (Wrap-up)
||Design (fragment) prototypes or mockups
||16:30 - 17:25
||Design Presentations and
Team reflections on design and workshop outcome
|Lists of team insights and
||17:25 - 17:30
Poster and design sketches for CHI 2003 poster session
Workshop report for SIGCHI bulletin
Articles targeted for publications such as Communications
of the ACM, interactions, Design Studies and/or
other venues identified by workshop participants
The following technological support is requested:
Participation will be strictly limited to 16
participants, including the two organizers.
Selection will be based on submitted position papers of 2500 words
or less covering the applicant's understanding and views on the topic
and a brief description of the applicant's background. The primary selection criteria will be
Insightfulness of the position paper
Demonstrated understanding of the problems of designing for
Commitment to work in the area
Secondary selection criteria will be aimed at creating diversity
among participants across
Professional perspective, e.g., researcher, practitioner, educator,
Intellectual background (disciplinary background, cultural and
subcultural influences, etc.)
Learning setting of interest (e.g., educational,
instruction-less, incidental, etc.)
Philosophies on learning and design
Workshop participants will be expected to accept the following
Prior to the workshop:
At the conference:
Participate in the creation of a poster for the CHI 2003 poster
Participate in the CHI 2003 poster session,
including the presentation of design sketches
After the workshop:
Learning is essential to life as we know it. The rate of social and technological change has increased to a point where an individual must constantly acquire new skills and knowledge in order to maintain their place in society. It is imperative that the complex technological tools that drive this change also help users acquire new knowledge and skills. This two-day workshop is aimed at developing a conceptual framework for the design of user interfaces that promote learning, focusing on learning as a problem in design rather than a problem in psychology or education. The workshop is organized around a friendly design competition aimed at providing a tangible context for discovering and discussing theoretical as well as applied issues.
Workshop participants will be selected with a view to creating a diversity of perspectives and backgrounds to ensure that a broad spectrum of learning and design issues are considered. Design mockups or prototypes resulting from
the competition will be presented for review by CHI attendees at the CHI poster sessions.
16 participants will be selected on the basis of a 2500 word position paper. Priority will be given to individuals demonstrating a strong commitment to work in the topic area. Position papers should describe the applicant's understanding of the topic, current work or plans for work in the topic area and include a brief description of the intellectual background of the applicant (e.g., intellectual, cultural or subcultural influences). Position papers must be submitted electronically (preferably as URL's) to email@example.com by
Jan. 17, 2002.
See http://www.sjul.org/learning03 for further information
Susanne Jul, University of Michigan
I am completing my PhD in Computer Science at the
University of Michigan. My dissertation develops a conceptual framework
for the design of navigational support in electronic spaces. This work
decomposes the navigational design space and identifies specific
constraints that navigational cognition imposes on design. I hope to
apply this approach of analyzing a complex cognitive task as a problem
in design in order to derive design knowledge to the cognitively more
complex task of learning, in the near future. My particular interest is
in producing application development tools, such as application
frameworks, that foster the development of applications that promote
Prior to returning to school, I spent six years in
the software industry, first as a software engineer, later as a user
interface designer and manager. I have been active in the CHI community
since 1990, as author and reviewer for both conferences and journals. I
have served the UIST conference as registration chair, demos chair and
program committee member. At the CHI conference in 1997, I co-chaired
the Basic Research Symposium and the Workshop on Navigation in
Electronic Worlds. I have organized numerous workshops for the Danish
Scout Corps, and am currently active in developing and presenting
training workshops for the American Red Cross. As a regular visitor to
Copenhagen, I am painfully aware of some of the pitfalls the ticketing
system of its transit system presents to the uniformed user.
I am currently a research scientist with the School
of Education at the University of Michigan, where I work with the Center
for Highly Interactive Computing in Education (hi-ce) and the College of
Engineering. My research interests include the application of
human-computer interaction, software engineering, and information
visualization principles to the design of educational technology. My
recent work has focused on articulating a learner-centered design
approach for educational software. This has involved exploring,
developing and assessing educational software and software-based
"scaffolding features", and on developing different design
guidelines for educational software.
My Ph.D. (Computer Science) dissertation at
Michigan focused on support for learners engaging in complex new
practices, specifically science inquiry practices. I have been active in
the CHI community since 1992, serving as a reviewer, session chair and
author. I have also published papers in conferences such as the
International Conference of the Learning Sciences and the Annual
Conference of the American Educational Research Association, and
presented learner-centered software design tutorials at the
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies and the
Mobile HCI conference.
In addition to the two organizers, free registration is requested
for a student to to serve as workshop assistant. The student's primary
responsibility will be to consolidate and compose information
generated by design teams and BOF groups, and to present this
synthesized information for review. This individual is not
included in the count of workshop participants.
Anderson, J.R. The Architecture of Cognition. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.
Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M. and Simon, H. Radical Constructivism
and Cognitve Psychology. in Ravitch, D. ed. Brookings, Papers On
Educational Policy 1998, Brookings Institute Press, Washington
Blumenfeld, P.C., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., Marx, R.W. and Soloway,
E. Creating Usable Innovations in Systemic Reform: Scaling Up
Technology-Embedded Project-Based Science in Urban Schools.
Educational Psychologist, 35 (3). 149-164.
Card, S.K., Moran, T.P. and Newell, A. The Psychology of
Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ, 1983.
Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D.N. and Pea, R.D., Creating Science
Learning Tools From Experts' Investigation Tools: A Design
Framework. in Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, (Oak Brook, IL, 1997).
Loh, B., Radinsky, J., Russell, E., Gomez, L.M., Reiser, B.J. and
Edelson, D.C., The Progress Portfolio: Designing Reflective Tools
for a Classroom Context. in Human Factors in Computing Systems:
CHI '98 Conference Proceedings, (Los Angeles, 1998),
Metcalf, S.J., Krajcik, J. and Soloway, E. Model-It: A Design
Retrospective. in Jacobson, M.J. and Kozma, R.B. eds. Innovations
in Science and Mathematics Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, 2000, 77-115.
Norman, D.A. Cognitive Engineering. in Norman, D.A. and Draper,
S.W. eds. User Centered System Design, Lawrence Erlbaum
Papert, S. The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of
the Computer. Basic Books, New York, 1993.
Piaget, J. The Construction of Reality in the Child. Basic Books,
Quintana, C., Carra, A., Krajcik, J. and Soloway, E.
Learner-Centered Design: Reflections and New Directions. in
Carroll, J.M. ed. Human Computer Interaction in the New
Millennium, ACM Press, New York, 2001, 605-626.
Quintana, C., Eng, J., Carra, A., Wu, H. and Soloway, E.,
Symphony: A Case Study in Extending Learner-Centered Design
Through Process-Space Analysis. in Human Factors in Computing
Systems: CHI '99 Conference Proceedings, (Pittsburgh, 1999),
Reiser, B.J., Why Scaffolding Should Sometimes Make Tasks More
Difficult for Learners. in Proceedings of CSCL 2002, (Boulder, CO,
2002), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 255-264.
Skinner, B.F. Cumulative Record: Definitive Edition. B.F.
Skinner Foundation, Morgantown, WV, 1959.
Slotta, J.D. and Linn, M.C. The Knowledge Integration Environment:
Helping Students Use the Internet Effectively. in Jacobson, M.J.
and Kozma, R.B. eds. Innovations in Science and Mathematics
Education: Advanced Designs for Technologies of Learning, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey, 2000, 193-226.
Wallace, R., Soloway, E., Krajcik, J., Bos, N., Hoffman, J.,
Hunter, H.E., Kiskis, D., Klann, E., Peters, G., Richardson, D.
and Ronen, O., ARTEMIS: Learner-Centered Design of an Information
Seeking Environment for K-12 Education. in Human Factors in
Computing Systems: CHI '98 Conference Proceedings, (Los Angeles,
1998), Addison-Wesley, 195-202.