We have had the most experience operating the Classroom 2000 prototype that was used in a graduate HCI course, and the objective and qualitative results of the next two subsections refer to that class. The 10-week class met twice a week for 90 minute lectures [1]. There were 25 graduate students in the class representing a wide variety of disciplines across the Georgia Tech campus. We were unable to supply enough units to provide each student with a pen-based electronic notebook. The number of units varied throughout the course from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 12 working units. The technology in the class was phased in incrementally, beginning with the LiveBoard, followed by audio recording and, finally, student electronic notebooks. By the third week of class, students were taking electronic notes. Four students were selected (from among 8 volunteers) to take notes using ClassPad on the electronic notebook for the remainder of the quarter, which consisted of 10 lectures. Four students chose not to take notes electronically the entire class. The remaining students used the other units on a first-come, first-served basis, averaging 2.9 times each.
Students kept a journal of their notes and reactions to the technology throughout the course. At the end of the course, 24 of the 25 students filled out a questionnaire that investigated their reactions to the use of the technology in the class. The objective questions asked about overall impressions of the use of technology in the class and then specifically about the ClassPad note-taking application and the use of the LiveBoard with Web-based review notes. These questions were rated on the following scale: 1 (strongly disagree); 2 (disagree); 3 (neutral); 4 (agree); and 5 (strongly agree). We asked questions about overall impression, ease of use, whether the technology made aspects of the class more effective, how the technology affected class participation and whether the technology contributed to learning the particular subject matter of the course (in this case HCI). Table 2 summarizes the results of the objective portion of the questionnaire.
| Topic (# of questions) | Avg. (sigma) | |
| O | Was desirable technology (11) | 3.67 (.98) |
| Was easy to use (2) | 3.02 (1.23) | |
| Increased effectivenss of class (9) | 3.62 (.99) | |
| Improved class participation (2) | 3.40 (.88) | |
| Contributed to learning subject (2) | 3.94 (.86) | |
| N | Was desirable technology (1) | 3.13 (1.03) |
| Was easy to use (3) | 3.13 (1.14) | |
| Increased effectiveness of class (1) | 2.88 (.90) | |
| Helped me take fewer notes (2) | 2.85 (.87) | |
| L | Was desirable technology (2) | 3.87 (.82) |
| Was easy to use (3) | 3.68 (1.09) | |
| Increased effectiveness of class (1) | 3.29 (1.04) | |
| Helped me take fewer notes (2) | 2.88 (1.00) |
The results show an overall positive reaction to the prototype. The strongest positive reaction is in how the prototype was perceived to contribute to learning the particular subject matter, and this is not surprising. The course was on HCI and the students were themselves experiencing a new interface in the classroom. In addition, the project work was based on developing and evaluating ideas for new Classroom 2000 prototypes, and the students appreciated the authenticity of redesigning a system they were currently using.
One of the initial goals of Classroom 2000 was to examine the effect of personal interfaces in the classroom. Our initial observations show that the students were most negative toward the personal electronic notebooks (see the next section for qualitative justification). The LiveBoard and Web notes together comprised the most desirable technology from the students' perspective.
Future Computing Environments