Laru, J. & Järvelä, S. (2004). Scaffolding different learning activities with mobile tools in three everyday contexts. In P. Gerjets, P. A. Kirschner, J. Elen & R. Joiner (Eds.), Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Proceedings of the EARLI SIGs Instructional Design and Learning and Instruction with Computers (pp.11-21). Tübingen: Knowledge Media Research Center.

1. J. LARU & S. JÄRVELÄ
SCAFFOLDING DIFFERENT LEARNING ACTIVITIES
WITH MOBILE TOOLS IN THREE EVERYDAY
CONTEXTS
Abstract. The aim of the study is to apply the theoretical framework of collaborative learning and
distributed cognition for developing mobile tools which scaffolds people’s everyday learning and
information searching and processing needs. This study includes experimental case studies conducted in
natural settings with randomly sampled or conveniently selected subjects. Contexts of the case studies
varies from the urban pedestrian street to the main library of the university. Both qualitative and
quantitative methods and multiple data collection techniques are used to get information how these tools
could be used for scaffolding everyday activities in different contexts. Multiple contexts give more
accurate picture how mobile devices can be used as cognitive tools to scaffold activities from
collaboration to topical information delivery. Preliminary results shows that subjects used mobile devices
versatilely as cognitive tools, but not always in that manner that researchers expected.
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the most significant mechanism today through which learning is transformed
is technology. Over the history, a range of artifacts have been produced which
modify the way how people learn in various situated practises (e.g. Invention of the
chart). Especially representational tools, such as calculators and mindmaps, have
changed our daily practises in many spheres of life quite dramatically (Saljö, 2003).
The new technologies provide opportunities for creating learning environments that
extend the possibilities of old technologies (books, blackboards, television, radio)
and offer new possibilities for multiple social interaction (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 1999). Over a twenty years ago Alan Kay (see Barnes, 2001) dreamed of
what he called Dynabook. Kay planned Dynabook to include such features as flat
panel display and wireless communications. Nowadays ideas of Dynabook have
been realised as mobile technology that has become integrated in daily activities,
especially in mobile phones which have been widely used in many countries. For
example, in the Nordic countries one can say that mobile telephony is approaching
ubiquity (Mifsud, 2003). Mobile telephones, personal digital assistants and laptops
can be generally named as daily handheld devices.
Handhelds have emerged as one of the recent technologies for supporting learning;
that is because they offer new opportunities for individuals to learn anytime,
anywhere. Handhelds enable people to access Internet resources and run
experiments in the field, capture, store and manage everyday events as images and
sounds, and communicate and share the material with colleagues and experts
throughout the world (Sharples, 2002).
11

2. J. LARU & S. JÄRVELÄ
Handheld computers will become a compelling choice of technology for learning
because they will enable a transition from occasional, supplemental use to a
frequent, integral use (Soloway et al., 2001). The early evaluations have suggested
that there are positive effects on learning with handhelds (Crawford & Vahey, 2003;
Lundby, Smordal, Larsen, & Fjuk, 2002) and recently this phenomena, called
mobile learning, has received increased intrest among the researchers. The simplest
way to define mobile learning is “learning trough mobile devices” (Quinn, 2000). It
has been questioned if mobile learning is only a commercial trick or passing fad
(Karran, McManus, & Pohjonen, 2003) and the most important question is whether
mobile learning has a sufficient pedagogical definition (Järvelä, 2002).
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
One of the advantages of using technology is its capacity to create new opportunities
to bring real world problems into the classroom for students to explore and solve. It
is said that interactive technology can help to create an active environment in which
students not only solve problems, but also find their own problems (Goldman, Zech,
Biswas, & Noser, 1999). The authenticity of the learning situations and tasks is
assumed to be an important factor that can facilitate higher order learning (Brown,
Collins, & Duguid, 1989).
In this study technology is used to scaffold learning in authentic real world contexts.
Wireless cognitive tools can bring new methods to promote learning in Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning. In this context scaffolding can be discussed in
terms of the scaffolding process of collaboration, cognitive scaffolding and
motivational scaffolding. In cognitive scaffolding of CSCL, we consider the
cognitive mechanism of social and individual aspects of knowledge building
(Anderson, Greeno, Reder, & Simon, 2000; Scardmalia & Bereiter, 1996). In
motivational scaffolding of CSCL, students should be helped to see the value of the
learning task from their personal point of view and, for instance, of its potential
application outside of the school context (Brophy, 1999). In this study different
cognitive tools are utilized to scaffold informal and formal learning situations in
different field studies.
2.1. Collaboration and Knowledge building
Collaborative learning and knowledge building is seen as one of the most
meaningful ways to support individual learning mechanisms with the help of the
social and interactive learning (Bereiter & Scardmalia, 1989; Dillenbourg, 1999).
Collaboration necessitates that participants are engaged in a co-ordinated effort to
solve a problem or perform a task together. This coordinated, synchronous or
asychronous activity is the result of a continued attempt to construct and maintain a
shared conception of a problem (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995).
12

3. SCAFFOLDING DIFFERENT LEARNING ACTIVITIES WITH MOBILE TOOLS
The benefits of the technology for collaboration and knowledge building comes
from the advantage of effective thinking tools available (Bereiter & Scardmalia,
1989) and shared knowledge resource as computer database available. For example,
knowledge building environment, such as CSILE can be an environment for
building, articulating, exploring, and structuring knowledge. The collaborating
partners can use the environment for writing notes, creating charts, and reading and
commenting on each other's productions in a communal database. In order to foster
active production of knowledge, students or collaborating partners themselves are
responsible for producing all knowledge in the database. (Hakkarainen, Lipponen, &
Järvelä, 2002)
Nature of the learning task is one crucial determinant of successful collaboration
(Arvaja, Häkkinen, Eteläpelto, & Rasku-Puttonen, 2000). If learning tasks are too
obvious and simple there is no space for questions, negotiations and arguments.
Another big challenge of CSCL is to provide real group tasks and contexts that
stimulate questioning, explaining and other forms of knowledge articulation and
demanding collaborative activities. (Järvelä, Häkkinen, Arvaja, & Leinonen, 2003)
Roschelle & Pea (2002) are critical towards traditional CSCL environments that are
bound with the constraints of the computer lab or specially implemented computers
in the classroom. Wireless technology and ubiquitous computing could provide
possibilities to found stimulating contexts and tasks and create new kind of learning
tasks. Mobile technologies not only help children to collaborate in a more active
way within real physical world, as well as as the physical world being augmented
trough digital technology, but also provide opportunities to design for multiple kinds
of collaborations to support learning (Price, Rogers, Stanton, & Smith, 2003).
Location-aware computing is currently emerging and it will have impacts to CSCL
research area. Ubiquitous and pervasive computing and geoinformation will create
new possibilities to implement collaborative learning environments. It will be
possible to point a mobile device at an object (e.g. Building, tree, bust stop) or peer
people and obtain information or start to collaborate (floating discussion thread)
(National Research Council, 2003). First educational implementations of the
location-aware computing have been conducted on museum or enviromental
learning settings (Okada, Yamada, Tarumi, Yoshida, & Moriya, 2003; Proctor,
2003).
2.2. Distributed cognition
People’s actions are intertwined with the artifacts of their work; their team
member’s roles, responsibilities, and actions; and even their cultural and historical
setting(Olson & Olson, 2003). Different artefacts are constantly used for structuring
activity, for saving mental work, or for avoiding error, and they are adapted
creatively almost without notice. (Pea, 1993)
13

4. J. LARU & S. JÄRVELÄ
Our intelligent behaviour is result from the distributed cognition (or distributed
intelligence (Pea, 1993)) - where are both social and material dimensions. The social
dimension of distributing cognition comes from its construction in activities or
trough people’s collaborative efforts to achieve shared aims. The material dimension
originates in the situated invention of uses for aspects of the environment or the
exploitation of the affordances of designed artefacts. (Pea, 1993; Pea, 1993; diSessa,
2001; Norman, 1993). DiSessa reminds that material intelligence does not reside in
either the mind or the materials alone – nonreader cannot read book, she or he
doesn't even know how to use book. According to diSessa (2001) social and material
dimensions stands only in conjunction with what we think and do with our minds.
Third dimension behind our intelligent behaviour is mental or cognitive that couples
external and internal activities.
Norman (1993) suggests that information in the world could be thought of as kind of
storehouse of data. The physical structures available in the world will help us to
remember things and make selections. On the other hand, our living environment
offers many examples of “smart tools” that we are using to mediate activities and
augment our thinking e.g. measure or calculate (Pea, 1993; Norman,
1993).Thousands of software tools are used daily by mathematicians, medical
researchers, physicists and so on collect, sort, analyze and present data. There are
even metatools that are used to build other tools, for example programming
languages and game editors (diSessa, 2001).
2.3. Technology as a cognitive tool for individual and social learning
The most pervasive and the most self-explanatory cognitive tool is language which
distinguishes humans from animals. Language amplifies the thinking of the learner
and gives possibilities to express and share ideas and beliefs. Throughout our
history, different mechanical tools are developed to amplify and facilitate physical
work. Those tools provided humans enormous mechanical advantage. (Bereiter &
Scardamalia,1993; Jonassen, 2000).Besides mechanical tools humans have
developed and implemented different cognitive tools throughout our civilized
history. In the broadest view cognitive tools may be provided by any medium and
those tools help learners transcend limitations of their minds and share the cognitive
burden of carrying out the tasks (e.g. memory, thinking, problem solving). (Pea,
1985; Salomon, 1993)
The information revolution has extended that advantage by extending functionality
and speed of tools and giving new possibilities to develop and implement those
tools. Its argued that cognitive tools not merely amplify but reorganize how learners
think (Pea, 1985). (Jonassen, 2000) uses term mindtools instead of cognitive tools.
Mindtools are cognitive tools of the knowledge society - software applications (e.g
databases, spreadsheets, semantic network programs, expert systems, system
modelling tools, microworlds, hypermedia authoring) that have been adapted or
developed to fuction as intellectual partners with the learner in order to engage and
14

5. SCAFFOLDING DIFFERENT LEARNING ACTIVITIES WITH MOBILE TOOLS
facilitate critical thinking and high-order learning. When learners are using
mindtools to represent what they know it necessarily engages them in variety of
critical, creative and complex thinking. (Jonassen & Carr, 2000)
Until today mobile devices have been used almost merely for communication.
According to (Reeves & Laffey,1999) the utilization of technology in teaching can
be seen as a dimension which starts from information delivery and ends with
cognitive tools. Just as Reeves states, newest mobile devices (e.g. smartphones,
pda's) have become versatile cognitive tools which have rich educational
possibilities. Roschelle & Teasley (1995) have envisioned the revolution of the
Wireless Internet Learning Devices (WILD). According to them, pervasive WILD
classrooms should support computational media with cognitively empovering
representations and network communication both among local peers and to distant
servers just like traditional computer labs. Roschelle & Pea (2002) highlights that
there may arise more differentiated places for information and knowledge, and
highly differentiated devices with different characterists may prolifetare and special
purpose information appliances may emerge.
3. AIMS
(1) To apply the theoretical framework of collaborative learning and
distributed cognition to develop such technological tools which scaffold people’s
everyday learning and information searching and processing needs.
(2) To evaluate in experimental case studies how the tools can be used for
scaffolding everyday activities in different contexts.
Case: Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
FLE3mobile TiernaJack SmartLibrary
Scaffolding Scaffolding Scaffolding
Mobile support: collaborative citizens situated processes of
knowledge information studying and
building needs information
searching
Context: Work Downtown University
Informal Informal/ Informal/
Type of learning: Random Formal
15
Figure 1. Research Design

6. J. LARU & S. JÄRVELÄ
4. METHODS
This study includes three experimental case studies conducted in natural settings
with randomly sampled or conveniently selected subjects. Case studies are
particularly well suited for mobile human computer interaction research focusing on
describing and explaining different phenomena and producing rich data from those
(Kjeldskov & Graham, 2003).
Concurrent, triangulating mixed method approach has been used to collect rich
research data (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Both qualitative and quantitative
methods has been used in attempt to confirm, cross-validate and corroborate
findings within different cases. Although data collection has been concurrent,
priority between two methods was given to qualitative approach because multiple
qualitative data collection techniques are used. Used data collection techniques
varied in different cases, but semi-structured discussions are always used. (Creswell,
2003)
Qualitative data collection methods were different observations, questionnaires with
structured questions and semi-structured discussions. Quantitative data collection
techniques were questionnaires, logged information and statistics from discussion
databases of FLE3mobile.
5. CASE STUDIES
5.1. CASE 1: FLE3mobile – Scaffolding collaborative knowledge building in
geographically distributed team
The special mobile knowledge building tool, FLE3mobile was used in an
experimental case study in the northern Finland in June 2002 (Laru & Järvelä,
2003). The subject of the study were 10 distance learning specialists of which 4
worked as managers, 1 as teacher, 1 as designer, 1 as computer helpdesk / support
and 3 as production assistants. 5 subjects worked in the university while the other 5
worked in the learning centre in rural area. Distance between working places was
over 200km. All subjects had a joint goal for collaboration and an authentic need to
plan and coordinate a virtual Master’s Programme in Information Sciences.
Due to distance subjects were used to take phone calls, arrange videomeetings and
send emails to arrange their everyday activities when there wasn’t acute need for the
face-to-face contact. Even though subjects had used different tools to scaffold
activities before experimental study they weren’t fully satisfied to the situation
(Goman & Laru, 2003). There was a clear need for a tool which would enhance
communication and collaboration between subjects. Answer for this need was
experimental FLE3mobile tool which was used to scaffold coordination of
collaboration of the subjects in a specific period of their work. Used tool was based
on Future Learning Environment (http://fle3.uiah.fi) and made to be compatible with
16

7. SCAFFOLDING DIFFERENT LEARNING ACTIVITIES WITH MOBILE TOOLS
restrictions of the PocketIE (www-browser of the PocketPC handhelds) by
modifying the original user interface. (Laru & Järvelä, 2003)
5.2. CASE 2: TiernaJack - Scaffolding people’s situated information needs at the
downtown context
This case study describes TiernaJack, a free-cost information service which was
meant to give both additional and topical information about Tierna-time activities at
the downtown area of the Oulu during Christmas 2004. TiernaJack service was one
of the first implementations of the Sonera’s iJack™ service all over the world.
iJacks were located at the local restaurant and in the corridor leading to the local
Fashion store, so all citizens were able to use the service without any costs with their
own or loaned devices. TiernaJack was advertised with two A1-sized posters located
in proximity to short-range wireless connectivity provided by the iJacks. Interested
people were able to download download special content to their own mobile phones;
pictures, an animation, tierna-history and a schedule containing information of the
events of the Tierna-time. (Havana, Laru, Vanninen, & Väinämö, 2004)
5.3 CASE 3: SmartLibrary II – Scaffolding library patrons to find books and other
resources with location-aware mobile tool
SmartLibrary service was developed to help users to find books and other material
from library. The help is provided in form of map-based guidance to the target
bookshelf on a PDA and is integrated to the online catalog of library, so that books
retrieved from the catalog can be located. (Aittola, Ryhänen, & Ojala, 2003)
Next generation version of the SmartLibrary service with enhanced features will be
launched at spring 2004. When new version of the smartlibrary is available,
extensive and multidisclipnary user evaluation with real users will be conducted.
First results from collected user evaluation data of the new version of the
SmartLibrary service will be available at early summer 2004.
6. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The first case study showed that it’s not possible to change daily routines and work
culture by one experiment. Collaboration between workgroups was formal and
hierarchic, so knowledge building tool implemented wasn’t best possible solution to
support interaction between them. Total amount of the messages exchanged between
the participants was only 20; although the subjects didn’t use handhelds for building
knowledge they versatilely used devices as cognitive tools. For example, many of
the subjects used handhelds to write down personal notes. In general, the subjects
were eager to test the handhelds, and wanted to investigate how those devices could
be useful in their work. (Laru & Järvelä, 2003)
17

8. J. LARU & S. JÄRVELÄ
Preliminary results of the second study shows that subjects had a positive attitude to
a tested TiernaJack service. Despite of the fact that TiernaJack had some usability
and technological problems, subjects had feeling that tested service is useful and
meaningful for their information needs when they are spending time at downtown
context. Because it was possible to download the topical content from iJack service
to appropriate mobile phones, almost all subjects told that it would be a good
substitute for a newspaper in the future. Interestingly the subjects valued more clear
textual information than pictures or animations that was offered within the content.
General attitude was that service can be a useful way to get information at
downtown contexts, but the offered content has to be meaningful and important to
person itself.
Third case study hasn’t started yet. User evaluations will start when the second
generation version of the SmartLibrary software is ready for implementation. User
evaluation of the first generation software in the main library of University of Oulu
showed that SmartLibrary helps the library users to find books easier in comparison
to conventional shelf classification (Aittola, Ryhänen, & Ojala, 2003). Main interest
in conducted user evaluation was to compare between traditional and tested self-
location methods. There wasn’t qualitative research interest to produce clear picture
how used tool would scaffold library patrons. In third case study multiple data
collection methods will be used to get rich research data about how location-aware
library service scaffolds learning and information searching activities. First results
from collected user evaluation data of the second generation version of the
SmartLibrary service will be available at early summer 2004.
In this study three different empirical cases have shown how mobile tools can be
used to scaffold user learning and information search activities in the different
contexts. Multiple contexts give more accurate picture how mobile devices can be
used as cognitive tools to scaffold activities from collaboration to topical
information delivery. In order to progress in this research theory-based pedagogical
ideas for implementation of mobile tools as well multidisciplinary collaboration for
the realistic design of the future mobile applications is needed.
AFFILIATIONS
Mr. Jari Laru*, Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education,
P.O.BOX 2000, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland. Telephone: +358 8 553
3653, Telefax: +358 8 553 3744, Email: jari.laru@oulu.fi
Prof. Sanna Järvelä, Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education,
P.O.BOX 2000, FIN-90014 University of Oulu, Finland. Telephone: +358 8 553
3657, Telefax +358 8 553 3744, Email: sanna.jarvela@oulu.fi
* Corresponding author
18

9. SCAFFOLDING DIFFERENT LEARNING ACTIVITIES WITH MOBILE TOOLS
REFERENCES
Aittola, M., Ryhänen, T., & Ojala, T. (2003). SmartLibrary - Location-Aware Mobile Library Service.
Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. 5th International Symposium,
Mobile HCI 2003, Udine, Italy.
Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking,
and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(11-13).
Arvaja, M., Häkkinen, P., Eteläpelto, A., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2000). Collaborative processes during
report writing of a science learning project: The nature of discourse as a function of task
requirements. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(4) 455-466.
Barnes, S. (2001). Alan Kay: Transforming the Computer Into a Communication Medium. Retrieved
10/31, 2003 from http://www.ieee.org/organizations/history_center/cht_papers/Barnes.pdf.
Bereiter, C., & Scardmalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L. B. Resnick
(Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 512). Hillsdale
(N.J.): Erlbaum.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). In Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and
implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). In How people learn: brain, mind, experience,
and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.from http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/.
Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing
appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educational Psychologist, 34 75-85.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(1) 32-42.
Crawford, V., & Vahey, P. (2003). Palm Education Pioneers Program: March 2002 Evaluation Report.
Retrieved 10/31, 2003 from http://www.palmgrants.sri.com/PEP_R2_Report.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). In Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks (Calif.): SAGE, cop.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). In Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Amsterdam:
Pergamon, Elsevier: Science.
diSessa, A. A. (2001). In Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy (pbk. ed.). Cambridge, MA:
The MIT Press.
Goldman, S., Zech, L., Biswas, G., & Noser, T. (1999). Computer technology and complex problem
solving: Issues in the study of complex cognitive activity. Instructional Science, 27(3-4) 235-268.
Goman, H.,& Laru, J. (2003). In Langattomat päätelaitteet hajautetun asiantuntijuuden ja yhteisöllisen
tiedonrakentelun tukena. Published in working paper serie: Työpapereita 1/2003. NATURPOLIS
Kuusamo, Koulutus- ja kehittämispalvelut, Kuusamo. Retrieved 2/20, 2004 from
http://www.naturpolis.fi/julkaisut/tyopaperit/Laru_Goman.pdf.
Hakkarainen, K., Lipponen, L., & Järvelä, S. (2002). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported
collaborative learning. In T. D. Koschmann et al. (Ed.), CSCL 2: carrying forward the conversation
(pp. 568). Mahwah (N.J.): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Havana, T., Laru, J., Vanninen, V., & Väinämö, S. (2004). User experience evaluation plan for the field
trial II. Research papers of the SmartRotuaari project. Not published.
Järvelä, S. (2002). Oppimisen teoriasta teknologiaan - teknologia ihmisen oppimisen ja älykkään
toiminnan tueksi? In Kasvatus: Suomen kasvatustieteellinen aikakauskirja (pp. 383-383-389).
Jyväskylä: Kasvatustieteiden tutkimuslaitos.
Järvelä, S., Häkkinen, P., Arvaja, M., & Leinonen, P. (2003). Instructional support in CSCL. In P.
Kirchner, J. Strijbos & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL in higher educationin press.
Jonassen, D., & Carr, C. (2000). Mindtools: Affording multiple knowledge representations in learning.. In
S. P. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools; Vol. 2: No more walls: theory change, paradigm
shifts, and their influence on the use of computers for instructional purposes (pp. 165-196). Mahwah:
(N.J.): Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jonassen, D. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
Karran, McManus, & Pohjonen. (2003). Mobile Learning: Passing Fad or Pedagogy of the Future. In H.
Kynäslahti, P. Seppälä & M. Ahonen (Eds.), Professional Mobile learning (pp. 139). Helsinki: Edita,
IT Press.
19

10. J. LARU & S. JÄRVELÄ
Kjeldskov, J., & Graham, C. (2003). A Review of Mobile HCI Research Methods. In L. Chittaro (Ed.),
Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services: 5th International Symposium,
Mobile HCI 2003 Udine, Italy, September 8-11, 2003 Proceedings (pp. 317-335). Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag.
Laru, J., & Järvelä, S. (2003). Applying Wireless Technology For Coordinating Collaboration In
Distributed University Teachers' Team. In B. Wasson, R. Baggetun, U. Hoppe & S. Ludvigsen
(Eds.), International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning CSCL2003
COMMUNITY EVENTS Communication and Interaction (pp. 77-79). Bergen,Norway: InterMedia.
Lundby, K., Smordal, O., Larsen, A., & Fjuk, A. (2002). Networked PDA's in a Community of Learners.
CSL 2002, 548-550.
Mifsud, L. (2003). Learning '2go': Making Reality of the Scenarios? MLEARN 2003: Learning with
Mobile Devices, 44-45.
National Research Council. (2003). In IT Roadmap to a Geospatial Futurethe National Academies Press.
Norman, D. A. (1993). In Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the age of the
machine. Reading (Mass.): Addison-Wesley.
Okada, M., Yamada, A., Tarumi, H., Yoshida, M., & Moriya, K. (2003). Digital-EE II: RV-Augmented
Interface Design For Networked Collaborative Environmental Learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen
& U. Hoppe (Eds.), Wasson,B.; Ludvigsen,S.; Hoppe,U. (pp. 265-274). Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2003). HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION: Psychological Aspects of
the Human Use of Computing. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1) 491-516.
Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond ampilification: Using computers to reorganize human mental functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 20 167-182.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practises of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.),
Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations (pp. 275). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Price, S., Rogers, Y., Stanton, D., & Smith, H. (2003). a New Conceptual Framework For CSCL -
Supporting diverse forms of reflection through multiple interactions. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen &
U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments. Proceedings os the
International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003. Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Proctor, N. B., J. (2003). Tate Modern Multimedia Tour Pilots 2002 - 2003. MLEARN 2003: Learning
with Mobile Devices, 54-55.
Quinn, C. (2000). mLearning:Mobile,Wireless,In-Your-Pocket Learning. Retrieved 10/31, 2003 from
http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm .
Reeves, T., & Laffey, J. (1999). Design,Assesment, And Evaluation of a Problem-based Learning
Environment in Undergraduate Engineering. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(2/99)
219-232.
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change
computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1)
145-168.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem
solving. In C. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 303). Berlin:
Springer.
Saljö, R. (2003). Representational tools and the transformation of learning. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen &
U. Hoppe (Eds.), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments (pp. 1-2). Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Salomon, G. (1993). In Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scardmalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1996). Adaptation and understanding: A case for new cultures of
schooling. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International perspectives on the design of technology-supported
learning environments (pp. 396). Mahwah (N.J.): Erlbaum.
Sharples, M. (2002). Disruptive devices: mobile technology for conversational learning. International
Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life Long Learning, 12(5/6) 504-520.
Soloway, E., Norris, C., Blumenfield, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2001). Handheld Devices
are Ready at Hand. Communications of the ACM, 44(6) 15-20.
20

11. SCAFFOLDING DIFFERENT LEARNING ACTIVITIES WITH MOBILE TOOLS
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). In Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks (Calif.): Sage.
21