Panel Discussion at the 5th IEEE international conference on advanced

G1:1 or G one-on-one , stands for Global digital classrooms with One student learning with One computing device. Also, 1:1 implies one times one equal to one, whereas the first one denotes the student and the second one denotes the computing device, and that the last one means that the student uses the device so neatly and snugly as if the device were an integral part of the student.

In next few years, a growing number of students will possess some kind of portable computing devices equipped with wireless communication capabilities. These devices will be used frequently and integrally in the classroom and elsewhere in the course of instruction, become as indispensable learning tools like pencils and chalkboards, yet enable students to learn more quickly, more deeply, and with more fun.

There are two premises. First, in next ten years or so, most parents and teachers, in K-12 or universities, will encounter more and more compelling examples or stories around them about the use of such devices for enhancing learning and teaching. Second, again, in next ten years and so, the prices of these learning devices will become affordable to the majority of parents or college students, and wireless services and access to the Internet will be ubiquitously available in and out of schools or universities.

The panel will discuss these premises in terms of the potential for change in how, where and when students learn and whether such change is likely to be greater in the next ten years than in any previous time in the past 200 years of formal school history or the even longer history of university education. The panel will specifically focus on the responsibility of researchers to guide this change.

Another issue of discussion will be the development of global network to leverage the impact factor. In practical terms, the panelists will discuss the emergence of a Global Network of Component Exchange Centers. Typically researchers are research product producers, but we believe that they should also play a role of research product consumers in the sense that their research products can be tested and used widely by the larger G1:1 community. In this way, G1:1 will become a network of impacts. For this purpose, Component Exchange Centers (CECs) will need to be developed for some types of components. With network of CECs, research groups over the world will benefit by rapid research and development, sharing components, being able to combine research results, etc.

A component in this respect usually refers to a piece of software, a unit of digital text material (in short, material), and perhaps a piece of hardware (probably together with some communication protocols). C omponents for one-on-one educational computing will typically include:

• Components of theories
• Components of activity models
• Components of methodologies
• Components of digital materials
• Software components
• Hardware devices

Assuming a G1:1 member is specialized in at least one type of components, being a CEC of components of their expertise allows a G1:1 member to have substantial contribution to the G1:1 community by providing one or more services, perhaps of different levels as listed below:

• Building an information site or an inventory of components
• Building its own library of components
• Coordinating with other research centers to develop common language or standards of components, if needed, to facilitate communications among G1:1 members
• Exchanging components with other CECs

The panel will discuss the experiments being carried out in Asia Pacific Component Exchange Center and open up dialog for collaboration around the world.

The Role of G1:1

The G1:1 working group brings together leading worldwide experts in CSCL to seek shared impact on the future of learning platforms. Members of this group have tremendous insights in the future but little time to spend together.

How might we efficiently harness this reservoir of deep insight toward shaping the trajectory of future academic and commercial efforts?

The Future of CSCL

Researchers and developers are attracted to CSCL for the opportunity to make a difference in learning: to make learning more engaging, rewarding, and effective.

What ideas, applications, and concepts hold promise for reaching massive scale and changing the face of learning in the next 10 years? What are the technical and market drivers that have the most impact on which possibilities become realities?

"Predictions are difficult, especially about the future? -- Yogi Berra

Will mobile phones be the most common learning device? Tablet PCs? Desktop computers? Will the press for improved test scores drive adoption or perhaps will students!| excitement about games leak over into the educational realm? Will classroom learning still be important or will students spend more time learning at home, in the cafe, in a virtual school?

Although predicting the answers to these and related questions is a difficult business, by using a scenario-based planning (SBP) process the G1:1 working group could draw on their multiple perspectives to explore, systematically a) which drivers will have the most impact on the future, b) which represent inexorable trends, and c) which entail major uncertainties. Working from these, the group could develop scenarios of possible futures of the CSCL world. Each corner case represents a maximally different future. We don!|t expect that any of these will become our exact future, but by thinking about four different futures, we broaden our point of view.

Why Develop Scenarios?

Scenarios are alternative stories about the future !V in this case, the future of learning with collaborative technology. Stories are a great way to share what experts know and can see about the future, both certainties and uncertainties. Stories communicate well across boundaries in national culture.

Further, by testing future plans against a systematically developed set of plausible future stories, leaders (whether in research, policy-making, or product development) can weatherproof their own particular directions for tomorrow!|s R&D against an uncertain future environment for learning. Moreover, seeing the commonality among such a set of alternate futures provides leaders with an enriched understanding of scope of possible change !V those things they should count on, and those things they shouldn!|t. This is a much different approach than trying to decide on a !¡±most likely!¡L future.

SRI International originally developed the scenario-based planning method in the 1970s. Scenario development can be a fun, rewarding, and productive short term exercise. It is something G1:1 can do well together and the resulting stories would be distinctive and interesting to a wide audience.

G1:1 members are invited to attend. Leaders at funding agencies, corporations, and networks for excellence are also invited to apply to Jeremy Roschelle (Jeremy.Roschelle@sri.com) or Tak Wai Chan (chan@lst.ncu.edu.tw).

May 29: 4 pm -- 8 pm
May 30: 8 am -- 6 pm

1. Intro to Scenario-Based Planning
2. Discussion of driving forces and uncertainties in CSCL
3. Four teams each work to create a scenario from their assigned !¡±corner case.!¡L
4. Teams work to describe a !¡±killer app!¡L that would become wildly successful if their scenario became true.
5. Group listens to and reflects on presentations of stories and killer apps

Jeff Huang, SRI International: jeff.huang@sri.com
Robin Chuo-Bin Lin, SRI International: robin@cl.ncu.edu.tw

March 21-22, 2004
International Trends, Experience and Collaborative Research Models of Digital Technology Support for Learning
A G1:1 public workshop, hosted by Ministry of Education, National Science and Technology Program for e-Learning, Center for Science and Technology of Learning, National Central University

March 24-25, 2003
International Workshop for Mobile Learning
Program of The International Workshop For Mobile Learning

Transportation

Venue

Yingo tour

The 3rd year (2005)

• Mohamed Ally, Athabasca University, Canada
• Nicolas Balacheff, Laboratoire Leibniz, France
• Marie Bienkowski, SRI, USA
• John Brecht, SRI, USA
• Tak-Wai Chan, National Central University, Taiwan
• William Chang, National Science Foundation, USA
• Yam-San Chee, National Institute of Education, Singapore
• John Cherniavsky, National Science Foundation, USA
• Pierre Dillenbourg, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, Swiss
• KWOK L F, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
• Ulrich Hoppe, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
• May Hou, Norfolk State University, USA
• Timothy Koschmann, Southern Illinois University, USA
• Dave Liu, National Central University, Taiwan
• Chee-Kit Looi, National Institute of Education, Singapore
• Muriel Ney, Laboratoire Leibniz, France
• Hiroaki Ogata, University of Tokushima, Japan
• Charles Patton, SRI, USA
• Roy Pea, Stanford University, USA
• Jeremy Roschelle, SRI International, USA
• Mike Sharples, University of Birmingham, UK
• Shelley S C Young, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan
• Fu-Yun Yu, National Cheng-Kung University, Taiwan

The 2nd year (2004)

• Alice Agogino, University of California, USA
• Mohamed Ally, Athabasca University, Canada
• Nicolas Balacheff, Laboratoire Leibniz, France
• William Chang, National Science Foundation, USA
• John Cherniavsky, National Science Foundation, USA
• Ran-Fun Chiu, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, USA
• Ulrich Hoppe, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
• Sherry Hsi, The Exploratorium, USA
• Fu-Kwun Hwang, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan
• Patrick Jermann, EPFL ¡V CRAFT, Switzerland
• Kinshuk, Massey University, New Zealand
• Robert Lewis, Lancaster University, UK
• Oscar Lin, Athabasca University, Canada
• Heidy Maldonado, Stanford University, USA
• Marcelo Milrad, Vaxjo University, Sweden
• Cathie Norris, University of North Texas, USA
• Hiroaki Ogata, University of Tokushima, Japan
• Jeremy Roschelle, SRI International, USA
• Mike Sharples, University of Birmingham, UK
• Elliot Soloway, University of Michigan, USA
• Miguel Nussbaum, Universidad Catolica, Chile