Individual paper on the readings

From VMT

Return to Designing Social Interaction Software

[edit] Readings Paper

by Brent Bailey

I found the articles all to be relevant to concepts in HCI. At times the process applied in the classroom and the articles were difficult to apply to each other. This mainly was due to the teaching concepts. I do highly like the idea of having a class where the educational value is from community learning and discussion and not the teacher. I think the issue is that this type of teaching concept, unless introduced at a young age is radically different than the traditional teaching methods.

That being said, I think a real interesting thing surfaces about teaching paradigms. Teaching and classroom edict to students in college are a similar concept like that of a consumer. Students measure school (perhaps inaccurately) on what they have been offered type of concept. It seems, even if students do not learn very much or do very well in a course, if a lot of hand outs are performed and lectures stick to the syllabus then although they may be disappointed they still “paid” for the class. This is definitely flawed because the real value should be what is retained, what makes it to long term memory. This is why I like this teaching style, and at the same time understand the general difficulty and disappointment that is shared upon those who have spent years being taught differently and in turn learning to judge the value of that method in a particular way.

In your paper, Groupware Goes to School I think this is abstractly tied into the concept of CSCW and CSCL. By the time students are in college they are more like consumers, paying for something and expecting something in return. I think this is interesting because I believe how a student, or at least most must be in command of their future much more than when in high school. The learning method changes, because the value system has changed for the student. I think coalescing the two concepts of CSCW and CSCL into one will hopefully resolve the educational concept that seems to erode when a student reaches a certain age and level of responsibility.

The paper was relevant in ascribing how a model needs to change in the educational system where information is not delivered in a liner, cyclical nature. The concept applied in Synergeia shows how educating students to self realize their need to learn and contribute is much more important. Imploring software tools that motivate a student to participate and share knowledge is an interesting concept. Using software to display the knowledge building and participation of individuals is a very useful tool in education and spontaneous problem solving. I think the one important thing that must be retained is how individualistic learning styles can be and that the software should not punish or promote one style over the other.

I think the Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities article is interesting as it applies to I think a relevant issue that is ongoing in Philadelphia. I know the school that Microsoft is helping to fund has met some issues because Microsoft wants to staff the entire school with Microsoft certified teachers. The main issue is between the two schools of thought, one being that having a school with a completely different teaching method and heavily relying on technology would require teachers that are highly specialized. The other school of thought in this matter is that the students and teachers will lack any commonality if they are not familiar with the local community. The issue going on with Microsoft is very similar to this article as Bill Gates mantra is that the United States educational system is antiquated. I would most definitely suggest applying an article about this situation in future classes, as it not only covers the concepts but is very relevant to us on a local level.

In Share Globally, Adapt Locally a comment that really sticks out is, “We are interested in helping teachers to create learning environments that stimulate the construction and evolution of understanding through student exploration using multiple conceptual representations” This concept to have teachers Locate, Search, Adapt, Organize and Share in a way that consistently challenges the students to continue to learn and not just regurgitate information from a book the teacher recited throughout the class.

The only thing I think that could have been improved in getting the concepts better deployed is if there is more of a conceptual accord for the teachers to follow. The teaching style encouraged in this article assumes the teacher is very good at creative, abstract thought. The ability to take abstract, creative learning techniques and apply them in a way that successfully transfers knowledge from course subject matter to student is a challenge. I think that an issue not covered enough in these articles is the idea that what is antiquated in teaching methods and what should be done differently in approaching teaching methods is beyond the classroom. Parents are like consumers and tend to either reinforce or discourage concepts that children bring home with them. Furthermore, teachers are dictated by education institutions and often these boards and other administrative positions are about a bottom line that does not nurture changes in educational teaching methods. Programs such as no child left behind I think do not focus on changing and updating teaching concepts as much as it does in trying to reach statistical expectations.

I think the Internet as discussed in this article will play a very important role in not only teaching teachers how to facilitate these new collaborative teaching methods but it will also encourage teachers to discover new creative ways to teach. A tool such as the Internet that allows the sharing, exploring and reading about other teaching methods and their results, will bring to the surface the most useful concepts.

Five Reasons for Scenario-Based Design was discussed in Human Computer Interaction 1, but it was not listed in its entirety. I find most work of John Carroll to be very useful and an authority on such subjects. Interesting enough however his concepts in UML seem to be considered passé and too in-depth. Understanding the difference between thinking and doing in the identifying of scenarios is a very important thing when defining and shaping the scope of a system. In UML this is again true but Carroll’s issue is that his scenarios actually go to deep to where there is too many possibilities, basically like an unwanted schism.

When it comes to scenario identifying in HCI concepts I think Carroll identifies and clearly explains the need for such. Having these scenarios allows for a system to be built that fits the ambiguous and dynamic rigor that the users will demand and require of it. The only real difficulty I think that although is mentioned in this article but not enough is how a scenario has many views and depending on the level in which you focus the problem/situation can appear differently.

The Cognitive walkthrough resources I found were too one dimensional. They were useful in identifying what the focus and intent of walkthroughs are for, but actual examples or possible problems in interpretation were not covered at all. Usually I measure the completeness of subject matter on a subject base on how much Google searching I must do in addition to and with Cognitive Review issues I found myself allocating outside resources often.

Another topical issue I can relate to the one dimensional quality of the articles is that they also oddly enough do not cover what they preach. That is I think the idea really covered in this is not only on how to build a very well dimensioned, stable concept that works for the user, but also to discover new ways in which to reach the user and captivate them. This issue is interesting to me because I think that in order to really appreciate the idea of teaching and demonstrating in new ways it also requires demonstrating these concepts in new ways. All of these articles contained poor figures and lengthy body paragraphs. In some weeks this delivery of information was very relevant by providing written articles but on other weekly discussions I think using new teaching concepts would of worked very well. Going to YouTube and typing in OLPC brings up many very interesting news articles that cover communities around the world that are using collaborative software to leapfrog their children’s educational understandings.

I think using something like a video or a blog that covers this information would definitely impact students more as again it is applying the same concepts that are being preached. I think if VMT is to be such a discussion point to your classes, then it should also be balanced with a similar project or concept that most students would be familiar with and could then more personally relate to the problems of VMT. I think One Laptop Per Child should most definitely be a relevant discussion in future HCI courses.

Return to Designing Social Interaction Software