Mike Sharples – Evaluating MyArtSpace

18 10 2007

M-learning application:
– Should guide students towards development and contrasting of their own ideas
– Should connect with the classroom

MyArtSpace – students acted as curators of their own museum visit which they then explored in the classroom. Convergence of physical, virtual and online spaces.

Teacher sets an ‘enquiry topic’ – e.g. ‘What was the role of women during the D-Day landings,’ or ‘Was the D-Day landing a success or a failure?’

At the museum, students were lent high-end Nokia phones (N80). Students could use phones to ‘collect’ an object… phones automatically collated the collected materials – automatically sent to a website. Could see who else collected the same object, make notes etc.

(Shown video of students at D-Day Museum).

Students thinking about ‘evidence’ collected at the museum. Students edit some of the photos.

==Lifecycle Evaluation==
Micro-level: Usability Issues
–Technology usability
–individual and group activities

Meso Level: Educational Issues
–e.g. learning experience as a whole
Macro Level: Organisational Issues
–e.g. what happemed after?

Organizational Level
What was suppsed to happen? What did happen? What’s the difference? A summary:

The technology worked surprisingly well. Automatic sending to websites, took about 5 minutes to get acquainted, with some minor usability problems, students liked the technology, and students enjoyed the experience more than their previous musem visit. Students indicated that the phones made the visit more interactive, and engaged better with the learning task.

==Usability Factors==
+ Appropriate form factor – mobiles worked well
+ Collecting and creating items was an easy and natural process
– Mobile phone connection didn’t always work: some ‘black spots’.
– Text annotations weren’t always connected logically (with photos, for example)
– Integration of media with presentation tools not quite perfect.

==Educational Issues==
+ Supports curriculum topics in literacy and media studies
+ Encourages meaningful and enjoyable pre- and post- visit lessons
+ Encourages children to make active choices in what is notmally a passive experiences
– teacher preparation: teachers didn’t always understand the experience and run appropriate pre-visit lesson
– Where to impose constraints: straucture and restrict the collecting activity, or learn from organising the material back in the classroom
– Support for collaborative learning didn’t really work

==Organisational Issues==
+ Museum Appeal
+ Student engagement – students spent longer on a MAS visit 90 mins vs 20 mins
– Problems of museum staff engagement
– Business model? Maintaining phones, messaging, data charges…

==Future==
The developers, SEA, has developed a commercial service, OOKL.

Issues around taking photos in a museum… glass reflection… curatorship? Protecting materials? Copyright?

Cost of transfer of data? Unlimited wireless transfer plans being taken up by museums.

Sharing depended on the teacher: could look at each others’ presentations, post-visit.

Installing the java applet to different phones proved too difficult: too many different models.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: