IMVU

My friend Genevieve, who's also doing an Instructional Tech grad program, introduced me to IMVU (3-D online immersive chat.) I explored it with the intention of figuring out its capabilities for the academic environment. I believe it has great potential as a tool, particularly as a replacement for traditional chat where used in online/distance learning. The customization capabilities and dynamic and immersive nature, as well as the ease-of-use and full-screen capabilities, make this a medium which seems much more likely to keep the attention of online learners, and keep them more engaged in synchronous discussions, than traditional chat in online portals.

Thoughts on Project Management

Last week we had an enthusiastic and knowledgeable guest speaker on the topic of Project Management. I wasn't surprised to learn that project management in the realm of instructional design isn't particularly different from project management in any other realms. Project management is a major component of my job as a consultant. I've been contemplating getting certified in project management through PMI (here's the link if anyone else wants to check it out: http://www.pmi.org/CareerDevelopment/Pages/Our-Credentials.aspx). It takes a daunting number of documented hours to get their PMP, or Project Management Professional, certification, but getting their "Certified Associate in Project Management" credential looks easier for someone like me who currently has a major project management component to my job, but would have a hard time proving the vast number of hours of experience required to become a full PMP. I wonder whether any of the ITEC classes are accepted by PMI as coursework towards their certification? I'll have to look into that.

A Flickr Five-Frame Story...

... entitled, "Each of these Characters Had Something to Tell Me"

More on "The Design of Everyday Things"

This week my group focused on a chapter of "The Design of Everyday Things" which discussed knowledge, and made a point of delineating knowledge in the head (the sort of knowledge most people think of when they think of this concept) from knowledge in the world (stored in the systems around us.)

The chapter, in discussing knowledge in the head, talked about mnemonics while discussing workarounds for the design (good or bad) that forces us all to remember an endless string of numbers, passwords, codes, etc. Mnemonics (memory aids) are a source of great interest to me; I've been using mnemonics my whole life, before I even new they had names or categories. When I'm working in the IT realm and am teaching people about creating strong passwords, I always recommend mnemonics (for instance, I tell them to think of something they like... let's say they like pineapple. The word "pineapple" alone is a weak password, but they can make it into a stronger password by substituting numbers or symbols that are similar to the letters (another old-fashioned mnemonic technique.) So then it becomes something like "p1N3@ppL333", a quite strong password that the user can still easily remember because of its inherent mnemonic devices.

Another mnemonic device I like is called "The Method of Loci," also called the "Roman Room" method. In order to remember several concepts or facts, you visualize each concept or fact in a different place in a familiar room (this is particularly helpful if you have to give a presentation; you can visualize each thing you're trying to remember in a different spot in the actual room where you'll be presenting.) So when you glance at, say, the back row, you remember to make your final, closing point.

I'm a big proponent of working mnemonics into instructional design-- I think anything we can do to help our learners remember the concepts is all the better. I hadn't thought much about them lately, so I'm pleased that this chapter brought them back to the forefront of my mind.

Bad Design, or, the Futon Frame I Wish I'd Never Purchased

"Hey," my spouse said. "Let's get this futon frame I saw for sale online. It will be so useful in the office." And with those words, my adventure in the land of bad design, the parameters of which are outlined in Donald A. Norman's "The Design of Everyday Things," began.

According to Norman, several criteria are important in good design (or its opposite as described here, bad design.) The first we will consider is affordances, "the perceived and actual properties of the thing...how the thing could possibly be used." Okay, so far, so good. The futon frame looked like it was intended to have a cushion be placed on it, and then to be sat on, and indeed, if one looks up the purposes of futons, one finds that, indeed, people generally recline on them. So in terms of affordances, at least, the futon frame was right-on.

Next we have the concept of "constraints." In good design, the end-user should be constrained from using the product in a harmful or non-productive way. Unfortunately, this futon frame lacked a key constraint. It was incredibly difficult to put together and the included directions were laughably incomplete (more on that later), but even worse, it was easily possible to assemble the pieces backwards, in such a way that the frame looked almost right, but
forced the seated user to lean forward at a slight angle. I know this because we initially built the frame in this incorrect manner. There were indentations in which to slide thick, round, pre-attached pegs... the pegs fit perfectly, the back appeared to slide into place, and we thought we were on the right track. Until we finished putting it together, added a cushion, and attempted to sit on it. A constraint to prevent the pegs (and therefore frame) from sliding in backwards would have saved us a great deal of time and frustration.

Now, on to the concept of "mapping." "Mapping refers to the relationship between controls and their results. For instance, if you pushed down on something, you would expect it to go down. If you push down on this futon frame, because you want it to slide into horizontal, or bed, position, what happens? Well, it doesn't go down. It doesn't do anything. So then you might try pushing it forward, as to move it into horizontal position is to want to move it both down and away from you. Still nothing happens. Finally, as you lurch and push and pull in every direction, you learn that you must pull it both up and towards you (each of which is the opposite of the direction you actually want it to move) to get it to move down and away from you. Bad mapping.
The principle of "feedback," or information returned to the end user about how things are faring in his or her interaction with an object, is more germane to the world of technology, so I won't apply it to the futon frame. But that leads me to my final example of how the futon frame is the very paragon of bad design.

According to Norman, "conceptual models " allow us to predict the results of our actions. Sometimes our conceptual models end up different than the designer's conceptual models. The designer can help convey their conceptual model through inclusion of directions, which explain the designer's viewpoint of how the device ought to be used, or in this case, put together. Unfortunately, I previously disposed of the directions which came with the futon, not realizing I'd have the opportunity to share them with anyone. Luckily, they were so basic (and incomprehensible) that I was easily able to reproduce them for you here. They included no text, no written instructions, no clear presentation whatsoever of the designer's conceptual model. Instead, they were merely a series of hand-drawn images, each including a stick figure and a piece of the futon frame. I leave you with my faithfully reproduced image below, as an excellent example of how to botch design.

Thoughts on Daniel Pink's "A Whole New Mind"

It seems difficult to fathom that there was a time when scientists thought one side of the brain was dominant or superior to the other, but Pink's "A Whole New Mind" makes a good case that the left brain has historically received an unfair share of the praise, while the right brain has been relegated to a supporting role. He uses recent research and examples to bring the right brain into its rightful role as the equal of the left brain, as the originator of big-picture thinking, creativity, synthesis, design, empathy, and a host of other concepts without which the left brain's systematic processing of facts would be useless.
The importance of the right brain aside, it was interesting to consider the right-brain concepts that the author identified as being particularly important in the new millennium, such as design, play, story, symphony, and empathy. The class split into groups and each group developed a presentation on one topic; my group did "empathy." Thinking about the empathy chapter in detail, I considered empathy in terms of how we can use it as instructional designers. I believe an awareness of the end-users' feelings can only help us as we attempt to design effective instructional solutions for them. It is not enough for us to consider what they should know, but also empathize with their motivations, feelings about the topic, and desires for instructional techniques. Instructional design, in my opinion, should begin with considering students' learning modalities and multiple intelligences (my current focus in my own research and projects,) which I now realize fits well in Pink's 21st-Century concept of right-brained "empathy". Instructional design, individually customized for the student, is my new favorite "Whole New Mind", 21st-century concept.

Thoughts on “Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles: Implications for Investments in Technology and Faculty”

The article “Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles: Implications for Investments in Technology and Faculty” by Chris Dede of Harvard University outlines neomillennial learning styles, and the overarching theme seems to be immersion. He posits that this newest generation of learners is so steeped in immersive technology (via online gaming, wireless devices, social networks unrestricted by complications of location or proximity, etc) that schools should make every effort to overhaul classroom learning to take advantage of both the technologies available and students’ growing preference for it. I agree. Student’s learning styles and preferred modes of learning should be respected, if a school’s ultimate goal is to increase the likelihood of learning. Plus, these new technologies provide potential for personalization, customization, individualization, and educational opportunities well beyond the scope of the initially planned lesson. And if, as has been posited elsewhere, learners learn more by doing than by seeing or hearing, then these immersive technology tools, utilized in an educational environment, can only increase teacher and learner satisfaction by means of more thoroughly acquired educational objectives.

Another interesting point made by the article is that, since students frequently take on a different persona (or at least a persona amplified in one of the aspects of his or her personality), these virtual and or immersive environments allow students to gain a greater understanding of the concept of “identity,” whether individual or group. This fits in well with the theory of “empathy” put forward by Daniel H. Pink in another text we’re reading for class, called “A Whole New Mind.” Pink posits that only people who excel in empathy, or in understanding and feeling what another person is feeling, can truly prosper in the true millennium. Perhaps immersive technology, rather than keeping people apart by virtue of keeping them from interacting in person, will actually bring people together by pushing them to develop greater abilities in the fields of empathy and identification.

Thinking about Stephen Downes' article, "Educational Blogging"

The article sought to describe the myraid of ways in which blogging can be used for educational purposes in a school setting. As such, it was a useful resource that I may refer back to if/when I need to evaluate the usage of blogs in public schools. The article then moves beyond the merely informational and contains an interesting look at problems that can arise when schools sponsor blogs, particularly regarding what happens when student bloggers cross legal, ethical, or otherwise troublesome lines. The author also considers whether the need to write a blog to satisfy a teacher interferes with the more "pure" nature of blogging, which is in some people's estimation supposed to be a free-form method of expression like journaling, but might instead become a very specifically-focused practice in writing what the student assumes the teacher wishes to read. I believe the answer to all of this is to stop trying to define blogging so narrowly, as many of the educational bloggers and others quoted by the author seem to be trying to do, and accept that, as with all Web 2.0 technologies, blogging is dynamic, will mutate, and can be used for all sorts of different purposes, some of which will appear in the future. Educators can use blogging within assignments however they wish, students will respond as they are inspired to do, and we can all watch and participate and enjoy this new tool.

George Siemens discusses "The Conflict of Learning Theories with Human Nature'

I appreciate the comments George Siemens left on my recent post, "Thoughts on George Siemens' 'Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime of the Self-Amused?" I look forward to writing on the topic further once I've had some time to reflect on and respond to his comments. In the meantime, since we're discussing Connectivism, here's a video where he talks about "The Conflict of Learning Theories with Human Nature."

In reviewing the article entitled “Learning for the 21^st Century” produced by the Partnership for 21^st Century Skills ( a partnership comprised mostly of corporations), I was disappointed at how closely the recommendations for change hewed to the dominant paradigm as brought about by No Child Left Behind, a federal program which emphasizes assessment, set curricula, and penalties for under-performing schools. I realize that the article must be considered in the context in which it was written, in 2002. At this time, No Child Left Behind was a relatively new program. However, educators and academics alike were already railing at the program at that time as misguided in its focus on rigid assessment of knowledge acquired through rote learning, and the manner in which that assessment severely limited educators’ ability to expand students’ horizons beyond this strict curricula. With the tests to teach to, and funding so closely tied to assessment results, no school could afford to take chances with straying from the routine.

The authors suggest that No Child Left Behind is “a good start” but then immediately stress the importance of engaging educators. It is my understanding, from conversations with my peers in the ITEC program who work as public school teachers, that No Child Left Behind has done nothing to engage educators, their creativity, or their natural abilities to adapt curriculum on the fly to suit the knowledge, capabilities, and desired learning directions of the students. Instead, it forces them into delivery of rote curriculum that cannot stray from the subject matter that will be tested.

No Child Left Behind is fundamentally at odds with the 6 steps for learning that the author outlines in the article, and therefore the two programs are mutually exclusive. The article recognizes, and enumerates, all the skills that are necessary to “Teach and Learn in a 21^st Century Context” and “Teach and learn 21^st Century Skills,” but fails to give any really concrete examples as to how this 21^st Century Context, emphasizing globalization, technology, and creating a framework for future learning, can be integrated into a program that emphasizes rote learning, subsequent assessment, and penalties for schools who don’t assess well .

I’m not questioning accountability. I’m not questioning assessment. Both have a role in education; quality control exists for a reason. But when quality control is utilized in the business world, it is used to support design and development, and not vice versa. With No Child Left Behind, it seems the curriculum has been designed in reverse. Design and development exist only to fulfill the dictates of QC (the desired outcome of the standardized tests.) The cart is not only before the horse, it is sideways in the ditch.

I understand working within the confines of the “system,” and within established guidelines, and I understand that sometimes the easiest way to get your ideas heard by those in power is to frame them as an addendum, rather than an overhaul. However, in this case, this acquiescence to No Child Left Behind, a program almost universally reviled among educators, is to fall short of the radical changes which are actually needed in our public schools. Our students need to be taught to think, not simply to memorize. They need to be taught to adapt on the fly, not fall back on a small and strict subset of knowledge. They need to be taught about adaptation, and imagination, and creativity, and intellectual freedom—all concepts which are squeezed out of the day-to-day interactions of educators and students in a structure which places so much value on the test results of a few subsets of knowledge. Evolution in the classroom, including preparation of our students for the challenges of the new century, starts with the abolishment of No Child Left Behind.

Class divisions among users of Web 2.0 technologies?

One of the commenters on my Web 2.0 posting, Genevieve, posted an interesting link to an article which discusses class divisions in MySpace vs. Facebook. It makes me curious... are other, more educationally-focused Web 2.0 technologies also subject to class divisions? For instance, would we see higher-income schools using different technologies than lower-income schools? I suspect the answer is yes, but I wonder if anyone has done a study to determine which tools are utilized and preferred by which group, and why? I'll do some research in this area, but if anyone can point me to articles or studies on the topic, I'd appreciate it. I believe it's our responsibility as instructional designers to promote equity in educational environments, and if that means championing or making available certain technologies to low-income schools or organizations, I'm all for it.

Thoughts on George Siemens' "Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime for the Self-Amused?"

While reading George Siemens' "Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime for the Self-Amused?," I was most struck by his point about the dynamic and ever-changing nature of knowledge and learning in this day and age. Siemens responds to another academic's critique of his previously published writing, which hypothesized the existence of a new learning theory called Connectivism (which emphasizes the social, networked, technologically-linked-in, and ever-changing nature of learning.) Siemens points out that the other academic's review of the static text (and, Siemens alleges, subsequent misunderstanding of it), perfectly illustrates the theory of Connectivism. Since the reviewer did not consider the text in light of changes in the world of technology and education since the initial article was written, Siemens makes the point that the reviewer "missed the boat" in understanding that change is one of the key tenets of connectivism. Connectivism cannot be considered as a static theory; it will be different tomorrow than it is today. This is certainly convenient for Siemens-- it will be difficult to scientifically evaluate a theory that is ever-changing, and therefore he risks few serious challenges to his theory. At that same time, it will be difficult for this theory to move from the realm of "soft" science and gain long-term acceptance if it is too difficult to produce scientific evidence to support it. It will be quite interesting over the next few years to see if Connectivism takes deeper root within the realm of learning theory, or if, by its very nature, it will morph into a different theory entirely.

Thoughts on Web 2.0

Out of the ashes of Web 1.0, which was commercial (anyone remember pets.com?), basic, less focused on interactivity, and more focused on force-feeding content to the viewer, has risen Web 2.0. Web 2.0 has an increased focus on connecting people and making them responsible for providing their own content, and not just to products they might buy or information they might acquire. That’s not to deny that Web 2.0 has its commercial aspects as well… sites which were originally ad-free have taken on targeted advertising; businesses are using Web 2.0 technologies to connect users who are interested in their products. But it's undeniable that there is a marked difference in initial intent of Web 2.0 sites. Their intent is to connect, empower, share, and provide the platforms to make all of this possible. Out of Web 1.0 technologies like email, chatting, and the personal web site (when's the last time you saw a website with "Hello World" written in that famous early web font in black on a gray background?) come sites like MySpace , Friendster, and Facebook today. These social networking sites include many of the messaging capabilities that were previously separate from the realm of the personal webpage, and also provide an easy platform for the end user to express and explain him or herself. There's no need to write those tags and painstakingly dictate the placement and size of your personal pictures; you now hit the "upload" button and your social networking site displays them for you. Did your friends and family grow weary of your oversized emails bearing glad tidings and 7 MB worth of low-resolution image attachments of your trip to Topeka? Now you upload them to Flickr or the like and they can check them out at will with less waiting and strain on their own workstation's resources. Did you want to share your thoughts with the world but grew weary of formatting them? No problem-- blog hosting sites like this one take care of that for you; you type and they do the rest; no fees required. Were you worried you'd never be discovered by Hollywood, or at least by the 378 other people with an intense interest in your ability to do backflips? Now you can film yourself performing and post it to YouTube. In a fame-obsessed culture (the simultaneous rise of reality TV and reality web being no coincidence), it is no wonder Web 2.0 has taken off. In this world, anyone can grow up to be famous. And isn't that less stressful than growing up to be president, anyhow?