Week 5

Thank you Dr. Foreman for showing me how to use Flckr - I will hopefully get my pictures up in the next few days. I think that assuming that R-directed thinking "will rule" the future is a bit extreme. Though I do agree with Pink that we need to shift our thinking some, we can't afford to let go of L-directed thinkers. The L-directed thinking often forms the groundwork for a person to be able to proceed into the R-directed arena of thinking and doing.

I like the ideas he has about looking at the world differently and doing things that enhance a less reductionist type of thinking. I don't know if it is safe to assume that directing our thinking differently will automatically lead to more and/or continued prosperity for our nation. There are a lot of other things, like social, educational, and other kinds of equity that we need to look at too to make us more creative, productive and successful!

Week 4 - Reflection on class

I left town last Friday morning and just returned - a very much needed break - and so I am now finally getting around to my weekly blog . . .

I was intrigued by Leslie's presentation and have been thinking and thinking about the implications of using what she called locative media. As a science educator, I envision so much that could be done with this in terms of field science - taking students on a tour of a particular habitat, stargazing from a particular location, or even some type of scavenger hunt. The possibilities seem endless! I really want to learn more about this stuff! I found myself talking about it quite a bit with friends I was visiting.

Since I will be talking about GIS/GPS on the March 1st, I will say more then about ideas I've had concerning geo-spatial/place-based/locative media learning and things that I am aware of where GIS and/or GPS have been used for student projects.

In terms of everyday things, it was fun to hear what different people had to say about their chosen objects. I have never thought in much depth about the design of the stuff around me with respect to constraints or mappings or visibility, etc, however, analyzing an object in light of these principles more clearly reveals the specific flaws in a design. Though I have definitely faced my share of frustrating contraptions and instructions over the years, I had never put terms or definitions to those attributes of the object that vexed me. I am enjoying Norman's book and see very clearly how what he speaks of is so important to designing instruction to truly meet the needs of a learner. Because of what I've read and what we've discussed, I don't think that I will continue to look at the stuff around me in quite the same way.

An Everyday Thing

The object I’ve chosen is the remote control provided by Comcast for operating a television when a type of premium cable service is provided. Basically, the remote is handed to a person when the installer finishes setting things up and they explain to use the “All On” button to turn things on and off and then quickly run through some of the other buttons very quickly. So, as a stand-alone product in the hands of an inexperienced user, the remote is less than ideal in its design.

The affordance of the remote control, or what it is for, is clear – it is used to control the operation of the television. Also, the conceptual model one has of a remote matches the remote itself; a hand-held gadget with buttons on it to indicate things like channels, volume, and power. It seems that one’s conceptual model of the remote and how it operates should match easily. But, this remote is not so straightforward and easy to operate as it appears. When other aspects of the design are considered we find that sometimes the conceptual model works and sometimes it doesn’t in directing us how to use the device.

Problems begin to arise when thinking in terms of constraints. On the one hand, the remote has buttons and buttons are usually for pushing, so the mechanics of the remote’s operation are clear. On the other hand, the remote has 45 buttons on it, and though the result of pushing some of them is clearly understandable for a person who has had experience with televisions and remote controls, over half do not make sense in terms of their function as related to operating the television.

For example, there are two buttons, one labeled “+” and one “-“ with the word “Page” printed underneath each. One might understand “+” means go forward a page, whereas “-“ would mean the opposite. But “Page” in relation to operating a television doesn’t make sense on the surface.

A remote control such as this does give the user feedback; when one pushes a button there is a corresponding action, but one can’t always predict the result of the action without repeated practice.

In terms of visibility, the buttons one would push are highly visible, but the message that some of them attempt to convey are not really understandable to the user. For example, several questions are raised in relation to the message some of the buttons give, like: Why have buttons for play, fast forward, reverse, record, etc, like one would see on a VCR on a remote control for the television? Do these buttons mean that I will be able to control a VCR that is hooked up to my TV with the remote or is there some other function they serve? When attempting to operate a VCR with them, nothing happens. What about the buttons labeled “A”, “B”, and “C”? Why are they different colors? Why is the “A” in a triangle and the “B” and “C” in circles? The questions keep multiplying.

This leads to consideration of the principle of mappings. There are some apparent mappings, such as a +/- button with “VOL” printed on it and another +/- button with “CH” printed on it. An average user would probably infer that “VOL” means volume and “CH” means channel and that the +/- for “VOL” would either raise or lower the volume, and for “CH”, would advance to the next channel or go back to the previous one. However, as pointed out earlier, there is not an intuitive mapping from the labeling of all the buttons to their actions.

Finally, I would point out that with repeated use one can master much of what the remote control does, but I’ll admit, I don’t quite get all of it. I have looked at the instructions online and it seems that I need a manual to understand parts of the manual!

Week 3 - Clearing up the Confusion

After yesterday night's class, I felt better about the content of the Development of Instructional Design. It really helped to hear each group present about different parts of the article and it became clear that I was not alone in my frustration in terms of deciphering the reading.

It seems that instructional systems design and learning theory are still finding the ideal way to connect with one another, but indeed are connecting. I was just speaking with colleagues at work today about a particular curriculum that had been developed using a systems approach. One of our major questions about the curriculum as educators was about how pedagogy was addressed in the design and development (it is not yet apparent at this point from the introductory information we have on the curriculum).

I think it's one thing to take content only and using a system design a means to deliver it and a far different thing to take content and all that has been learned and researched about human development, learning, etc and then design the instruction using a system. I say this because though one may assume the latter, I have seen plenty of curriculum in my life that did not seem to consider learning theory or development much, if at all.
I'm glad that educators are learning more about learning and psychologists are learning more about education - I agree that it will greatly improve the design of instruction in the long run.

Frustrated!

I thought I might use my blog to express some frustration with our assignment. I found the article assigned to be very cumbersome and poorly written. I have read through the article twice and have become more confused as to how to really map it out. I am coming up with something, but it is not very satisfying. Is anyone else experiencing similar frustration with this???

Dr. Foreman asked that I try to contact some of the agencies I mentioned on February 1. I will try contacting 826 and the other organizations in the next few days.

Backtracking to week one - January 25, 2007

I realized that I had not commented on our opening class exercise. I think that the point was to remind us that each individual has a unique way of interpreting words or drawings, much like we do with art when we view it. In instructional design, a more universal language of expression must be used so that the audience of the instruction knows what is wanted of them in terms of learning and/or doing.

Week 2 - Learning about Web 2.0

I learned quite a bit on Thursday evening in class. To mention just a few things I learned: 1) if you produce a podcast and put it on a server, you can freely upload it to iTunes, 2) as registered students, we all have server space with the university, 3) when using Flckr you can attach notes to your photos so if you want to specify who an individual is or what a location or thing is, you can and when you roll over it you will see the note, and 4) going to www.freevlog.org, we can get a description of how to set up a video blog.
A lot of information was presented and it seems a bit overwhelming but for myself I know that once I start using some of these Web 2.0 technologies, I will catch on.
I have been thinking about possible non-profits and wanted to put out a few suggestions: One is 826 at 826 Valencia - the tutoring space/Pirate store, another is YouthSpeaks, Project Open Hand, and PAWS. Does anyone have interest in any of these?
Talk to me in class.