We all have a voice in design

In Norman's (2004) epilogue, he states that we all are designers. From rearranging the items on our desk to suit our needs and personalities (try walking into two different departments at my school and you'll find all of the books aligned "just so" on the shelves of the math teachers and stacked randomly in piles on a social teacher's desk!!) to the way we arrange the furniture in our house. Even on shared computers I have a tendency to move certain items around on the desktop to find oft-used items more easily all with family pictures as the wall paper and in the screen saver. All of this customization is an attempt to make common objects more personal. With this in mind Norman (p218) asks a great question "How can mass-produced objects have personal meaning?". As an up-and-coming educational technologist, I would like to ask "How can mass-produced learning managements systems and online learning have personal meaning?" It is in the attempt or allowance of students to discover their own personal learning styles and activities that best suit them as learners. Just as Norman (p220) states determining a desirable arrangement of belongings is more of a journey than an action, so would be students who are constantly evolving as learners.





As a visual learner I offer a graph to see how stakeholders share roles in the customization process.

To extend this idea to learning and teaching with technology, the same five options exist. However I doubt there will be many "Make your own learning" consumers. The real opportunity lies in the Customized Mass product that involves the designer or teacher in equal partnership as the student.

Beyond being designers, and again, in the spirit of extension, I would like to extend this statement to a encompass a broader spectrum and say that we all have a voice in design, although at times not having direct input to design. Just as we have opportunities to use our voice in the design of our individual objects and web spaces. Web 2.0 is a perfect example of how we can all be involved in the design process by customizing a mass produced object like a web page and turning into our own personal space through the use of simply adding our pictures or as elaborately as developing our own online life using avatars or in going so far as experiencing Second Life. Vicente (2004) agrees with Norman on this point. Vicente calls all users to join voices with those who cry out for usable products (p290)in the hopes that the "Wizards" will listen and bow to market pressure in the way they do business.(p291). We have a voice and it speaks through our wallets. We have another voice that speaks through the ballots we pull on election day (p291).

Vicente (p301) collected evidence of people's perceptions of technology in the health-care field. To summarize, he found people believe technology can allow more time for human interaction, we can't keep up with all of the changes, it creates a burden an one that is not like to disappear or lessen while at the same time it is heralded as the hope for the future. I would argue that these perceptions would not be limited to the health-care field but could be easily extended to education. Technology is infused into almost every area, subject and at all levels in education.

So what voice should teachers and learners have in their technology and its use? Whatever it may be Vicente (p304) calls not only for a mass of voices but for strong voices to stand out above the crowd. Leadership in the area of educational technology will be needed to assimilate the will of the people and change educational technology for the better. These leaders will need experience in technology and teaching, but also the intestinal fortitude to question current authorities, create new ideas, and most importantly, to make the connection among ideas, societal needs, technological capabilities and financial constraints. To do so these future leaders, who will lead us in the future not just be the leaders to come, will need to take "the Human Factor" into greater consideration than ever before.

The Real Power of Technology

Technology, weapons and other tools of society are created by people, for people, for the needs of people and of course are used and misused by people. Technologies are latent items in that they have no desires, no political views, no ulterior motives but offer possibilities to either assist and promote human kind or to in some hands, be used to destroy or kill. The key to this statement is "in some hands". The best we can hope for is that technology is in the hands of Adam Smith's (1759) "man whose public spirit is prompted altogether by humanity and benevolence and who will endeavour to establish the best that the people can bear"
I couldn't agree more with Vicente in this chapter. First in his introduction (p248) he opins that with the ever accelerating proliferation of technology that we often forget that it is people who have control over technology; not the other way around. Although we feel that our lives would end without our cell phone, email, GPS or automatic coffee makers, the power of these technologies is truly in our hands. We are the ones who decide which technology to use, how to use it and when it no longer serves our needs.
The Walkerton incident is a clear example of the failures of a top-down political system. But was it really top-down? Certainly water quality was government mandated, but controlled at the lower levels by the people not in the provincial government but by those at the site itself. Smith's (1759) claim about "the best that the people can bear" is evidenced through the Ontario government's tailoring of their policies to their constituents wishes (Vicente, p 266). Society is no longer ruled in fiefdoms or autocracies, but it is the people who put bottom-up pressure on governments to make appropriate decisions and, unlike in the Walkerton incident, follow through in the implementation, supervision and controlling of such decisions.
Enter Rasumussen's (1997) framework of hierarchy of Risk Management in Dynamic Society. While this hierarchy illustrates some of the different levels of risk management, I believe it illustrates the communication network necessary for risk management to exist. Furthermore, public opinion solely at the government level could be inaccurate as it is the public that decides on which products to purchase from which companies and the workers themselves, at the bottom of this hierarchy are members of the public themselves.
Moreover, should this hierarchy be so hard and steadfast? Can or should communication jump levels and allow the worker to communicate with the company, bypassing staff and management? People may not speak with their mouths in many cases, but with their hands with what they use and with their wallets with what they buy. Vicente supports this opinion stating "Interdependencies across levels are critical functioning of the system" (p270).
With the above being said, could the Walkerton incident occur at a school with the implementation of technology? Could unskilled, uninformed, albeit well-intentioned teachers be given carte-blanche rule over technology and its use in a classroom, school or jurisdiction and then the technology be not used or, even worse, mis-used? While teachers' practices are indirectly monitored sporadically via external assessments such as the provincial achievement tests and diploma examinations, how long can teachers go un-monitored in their class room until disaster strikes? Isn't this the root cause of such pendulum swings in education usually due to a lack of feedback and people inadvertently crossing a perceived safety boundary? By implementing a Rasmussen's (1997) framework as a guideline for creating a technology communication network, it may be possible to learn as we progress in the hopes of averting problems. Perhaps the time has come for teacher quality standards implemented by provincial governments to include the appropriate use of technology in the hopes of preventing disaster before it strikes.

I'll close in agreement with Vicente (p278):

The real power isn't in software or hardware alone, but how people use it.

The true promise of the Technological Age isn't just in the things that we build, but how we use those things as tools to help our quality of life.

References

Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk Management in a Dynamic Society". Safety Science22, p 183 - 213. As cited in Vicente 2004.

Smith, A. (1759). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Indianapolis, Ind. Liberty Fund, 1984. As cited in Vicente (2004).

Vicente, K. (2004). The Human Factor. Vintage, Random House. Toronto.

Parallel Worlds

While I may never work in the medical field, I tried to make as many connections as I could to the teaching profession as I read Vicente's (2004) chapter 7: Management Matters: Building Learning Organizations. I also tried to connect what he has written in previous chapters to this current chapter.
He summarised very well the need for management to be designed as well as the hard products a company may produce. I particularly appreciated his call that management needs industry specific knowledge (p190). This deepened my belieft that it will our jobs as educational technologist not only to be leading in the classroom but to be leading at the department, school and system level as the technological advances in education begin and continue to accelerate for the years to come. There will be a need for those with research and experience based Ed Tech specific knowledge to be able to lead this revolution in education. Furthermore, I agree with Vicente's claim (p190) that management is an indispensable aspect of technological system design and it is just as real and important as the creation of hardware and software. He continues (p191) to further strengthen his position and my beliefs that the design of hardware and software aims to achieve an affinity with human nature at the physical and psychological levels, but the design of management structures should aim to achieve an affinity with human nature at the organizational level.

While reading, I kept questioning in my mind about the possibility and plausibility of the types of error and and safety reporting systems in place in the medical field and attempting to make parallel connections to the field of education. Are these possible in Education? Are they feasible? Would they benefit teachers, administrators, students and parents? I'd like to argue now that they would.
The features of the ASRS reporting system were that it was voluntary, confidential, non-punitive, objective and independent. Why couldn't we have this same system established in education. I am certain many teachers, including myself, have left a classroom thinking that they could have taught that lesson better, been more patient or empathetic with a student, not raised their voice or disempowered a student. But who would admit to this? Vicente (p161) gave a reason; overbearing, intimidating attitude make people keep quiet and not question authority. Teachers and medical personnel are in that position of power and authority and by admitting their mistake they risk losing their power, authority and possibly their job.
Could we implement this at the teacher training level? Student and first year teachers are overwhelmed, much like interns, with the amount of work, the amount of learning and the pressures associated with being just one-step ahead of their charges at all times. I believe they are in a prime position to make mistakes with a child's life and learning hanging in the balance. I believe that a system such as the ASRS for new and student teachers would be extremely beneficial for them so ensure that they not only reflect upon their actions, but get the support and help needed so that the mistake does not reoccur. As Vicente (p214) calls, we need to look beyond blaming individuals and focus on the multiple underlying system failures which shape individual behaviours.
The Walker family (Vicente, p221) resisted the urge not to punish and blame the nurses that killed their daughter but to use their mistake as an opportunity to help others believing this would be "their daughter's legacy". Do parents feel the same way when teachers make mistakes in the classroom? I can assure you that they do not. I can recall numerous parents charging me with the duty of fixing their child as another teacher broke them in grade 4 fractions!!
Such a reporting systems would be of great benefit to all stakeholders. Teachers, like the nurses described on page 225, could be an increased sense of fulfillment and accomplishment. Teachers could begin to work together towards improving student learning by reflecting on their practice. Noques (2008) called this act the most important act a teacher can perform for the betterment of their practice and students. There is far too much at stake to keep repeating mistakes when the knowledge on how to do better already exists.

References
Noques, C. (2008) The Reflective Practitioner. Presented at the University of Calgary CLL Summer Institute series "International Trends in Leadership". Calgary, July 2008.
Vicente, K. (2004)The Human Factor: Revolutionising the Way We Live with Technology. Vintage Canada, Random House. Toronto.

Working Together

Vicente uses the very real life and actual events of numerous plane crashes as examples and metaphor to illustrate what can occur in teams when they fail to communicate.
Cool Hand Luke (1967) uses the expression "What we have here is a failure to communicate" and can be viewed in this scene on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o

This video also illustrates the effect that authoritarian leadership has on members of a team. While the Warden tries to explain in a rather benevolent fashion that Luke's beating is due to the fact that "Some men cannot be reached" this should definitely not be the case in a team oriented atmosphere of Computer-based learning tools development.

Vicente continues to illustrate his point with the surgical team example in which one member views himself as more important than another. However, for the overall survival of the patient (or project in our case) all members must be viewed as vital, important and valuable. I'd like to state right now that our group is made up of four talented individuals, each bringing vast and varied experiences that interweave well in our project development thus far.

It is when members view them selves as more important or valuable than others and when these people rely on fear-invoking authoritarian styles of leadership that lines of communication are broken and the proverbial patient dies.

The necessity to communicate outside of our team with our users and clients is also a critical element to keeping our patient/project alive. We can use our prototype as a design tool to gather information and feedback from our users to make our customers strong co-designers (p370). Our challenge then is to communicate the experience that our new system will offer. Including our users as co-designers will help to establish and maintain trust while simultaneously develop buy-in from our clientele. The prototype testing process should also flush out design flaws as we receive feedback from our users. This relates well to Vicente's argument that all shareholders are important to a project's success.

This ties in well with my own personal beliefs of classroom instruction. I believe that teachers are not the sole sources of knowledge and that we can allow student input to the direction and modifications of their learning. Respecting student's abilities and experiences as valuable creates an environment of trust and collaborative learning.

Returning to Vicente's plane crash examples, communication need not stem from the original holder of information. It is all members' responsibilities to seek out information about the actions of others within our project. This is why we have enabled to "update" feature in our wiki to inform each other of recent changes to our project.

While the wiki affords us time and space to reflect deeply on our process, face-face meetings allow for rapid iterations and resolving arguments within our design team(Citation Required Here). Just as Vicente's anaesthesiologist experience real-life pressure and stress trying to save the dummy patient, instant feedback has been important to the smooth development of our LMS.

Furthermore, the dynamic and authentic assessment scenario of the practice dummy related well to Norman's Visceral, behavioural and reflective levels of design as working on that patient will be an experience not long forgotten by Vicente's anaesthesiologist. Working closely with our users in as close to real situations in our prototype may evoke memories and emotions from our users that in turn will uncover deeply hidden design and technical flaws in our LMS.

References

Cool Hand Luke (1967) Jalem Productions.

Norman, D. A. (2004) Emotional Design: Why we Love(or hate) everyday things. Basic Books. New York.

Vicente, K. (2004) The Human Factor: Revolutionizing the Way We Live with Technology. Vintage, Random House. Toronto

XXXXXXX, X. (####) AAAAAAAAA. Chapter 17: Prototyping as a design tool.

Why do we trust technology?

Much like a concept map begins at some random point then branches off to make other connections, I would like to begin by making connections between the two aspects of design presented in Chapter 1.
Between the Principles of Usability and Design

Visibility of System Status - Visibility and Affordance
It is vitally important for our product's success to inform the users that a particular action is taking place. This can be achieved by constant feedback through the use of easily understood icons and feedback messages.
Match between system and the real world - Mapping and Consistency of language
Being user centered implies that we understand the user, their language, their level of expertise with computing and a common assumption to their experiences. However difficult this may be heuristically, by performing representative testing with representative users under representative conditions (RBWD&UG, Chap2) we can begin to approach our user's understanding and expectations of our product. Again it is crucial that we map our tools and layout in an easy to understand, intuitively feasible manner that uses language that anyone, including a lawyer could understand.
User Control and Freedom - Constraints
Norman (Chap 5) spoke about trust. Our users will trust us to allow them to work within safe limits yet protect them from making critical errors that could cause them loss of information, position, or communication.
Consistency and Standards - Consistency of layout and constraints
Trust is built on consistency. Users will need to see that the product works, it consistently delivers the same message for the same action, and consistently protects them from harm.
Help user to recognise, diagnose and recover from errors - Constraints, Feedback and visibility
Feedback is extremely important in helping users to recognise when they have attempted to do something that could cause them grief later. However, should they pursue this avenue they would still need a "chicken exit" much like at a fun house at a local fair. Chicken exits are usually labelled clearly and easily found prior to a patron going deeper into the scary sections of the house.
Error Prevention - Mapping, consistency, constraints, feedback, affordance
Directly linked to helping users recognise, diagnose and recover from errors is making sure that we can prevent them from occurring. Again by employing user centered design principles and making a valid attempt to understand the user, we can map our tools in such a manner that is representative of real life situations and intuitively easy to understand even for a first time user. Furthermore, consistently protecting users from errors with the use of feedback built into our constraints will be critical to our product's success
Recognition not recall - Affordance, visibility and mapping
users are busy, they have but a moment to learn how to use a product let alone use it on a daily basis. If a user has to spend time and energy trying to recall how particular functions are performed, they will not use our product. By allowing users to come each time as if they are a "blank slate", and recognising items that are somehow related to their life we can make a user's experience that much easier and satisfactory.

All the while that we create our design, we must be active in a recursive, or cyclic iterative state to ensure that we develop alternative designs to meet our users needs. However, as we develop the need for A, may we also create a need for B. Then as we satisfy B could be then iteratively create a need for C?

One note kept resonating with me as I read Norman's Chapter 5 and Reese's Chapter 1 -

Our product is Interaction Design.

We are charged with creating a product that by definition allows users to be highly productive in their lives (Reese, p13). Furthermore Norman (p157) clarified our product in my mind to create a technology that supports social interaction. We are creating a technology that builds and fosters trust and emotional bonding.

We are not creating a program nor ore we creating something that is not already out there. We are creating an experience. We must create that experience to be as useful, supportive, enjoyable and pleasurable as possible. How can we achieve this?
Again by focusing on the user and their experiences. By fostering trust through applying the design principals of visibility, feedback, constraints, and consistency. Why do we trust our parents? They were visible when we were on the highest rung of the monkey bars. They provided feedback prior to an accident. Hopefully they were consistent in that message until we had proven our ability to go further (Much like how many programs hide the more involved functions but readily display the more common and safe ones).

I left this reading with many more questions to which I will hopefully discover the answers. Are people's mistrust of machines a manifestation of their mistrust of people or themselves? Norman's (p151) question, "if we love talking on the phone why don't we love our phones?" lead me to ask how can we get our users to fall in love with our product?
Norman (P157) quoted Linda Stones description of current human nature as "Continuously divided attention". Can we and if so, how can we plan to deal with, reduce or all-together avoid this human trait?

References
Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional Design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. Basic Books, New York.
Preece, Rogers and Sharp (2002) What is interaction design? In Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction.
U.S. Department of Human and Health Services. (2006) Research-Based Web Design and Usability Guidelines. Chapter 2.

Oooh... so that's why I love or hate everyday websites

As part of Designing Web-Based Instruction I completed an online personality index. While it was not required, I did two different ones to verify results from two different indices. What I found confirmed some of my suspicions. I am definitely a visual learner, I am an active learner, I am slightly intuitive with a predisposition for relationships, abstraction and mathematics - go figure, no pun intended; I am a math teacher - and I prefer sequential models over random thinking - I knew this before as I tend to think best when I jot my ideas down in lists, and hated concept maps. But the more I think about things the more I tend to begin drawing (literally) connections between ideas. I have recently become slightly better as concept mapping - but only after I have my trusty lists complete. (Moses, 2008).
Optimizing the User Experience further deepened my personal beliefs as well as preferences. This chapter read like an excellent check list for developing web-based learning environments. All the while confirming what I like or hate about certain websites.
Certainly graphics are a major aspect of developing user-centered learning environments. Guidelines 2:4 &2:5 suggestion to refrain from requiring users to do mental calculations was in consensus with Vicente's( 2004) suggestion to do the same. Whether it be for mortgages(USDH&HS, 2006 p12) or for monitoring a nuclear power plant, (Vicente, p133) graphics are a powerful yet unobtrusive information delivery method. Being a visual learner, I can certainly concur with this recommendation.
I wholeheartedly agree with Guideline 2:5 "Do not require users to remember information from place to place on a Web site". The challenge now is to design for this suggestion. How will I organise the page to display new information while connecting it with previously needed or used information? This is re-iterated ironically on page 19 with guideline 2:13 "Do Not Require Users to Multitask While Reading". I found myself thinking back to guideline 2:5 as I was reading 2:13. This was definitely something to remember as a "what-not-to-do" as I develop my course shells.
While "Format Information for Reading and Printing" appears to be a final consideration, perhaps it needs to be a-priori one. To design with the user in mind is to recognise that not everyone will want to read items off of a computer screen. It will be advantageous for myself as a designer to consider this as I put large amounts of text (although undesirable, sometimes altogether unavoidable). Taking this into consideration before-hand will probably save me a tonne of work afterwards. Instead of creating something that will eventually need to be re-formatted, why not put it in that format to start (USDH&HS, p16, 18,20)? Good idea.





References
Moses, S. (2008) Typical of Me. Discussion thread entry as part of University of Calgary EDER 679.06 Designing Web-Based Instruction. Retrieved electronically October4, 2008 from https://d2l.cbe.ab.ca/d2l/orgTools/ouHome/ouHome.asp?d2l_stateGroups=grid~gridpagenum~mycoursesstategroup&d2l_stateScopes=OrgUnitSession~GridPageNum~Search~PageNum%5EOrgUnitUser~LCS~MyCoursesStateGroup%5EUser~Grid~PageSize~HtmlEditor~HPG&d2l_statePageId=389&d2l_state_grid=mcg17957~0~~Asc~~0&d2l_state_gridpagenum=mcg17957_pgN~0&d2l_state_mycoursesstategroup=mcg17957_tree~37239%2C31819&ou=68439.
United Staes Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Research-Based Web Design &Usability Guidelines. Retrieved October 4, 2008 electronically from http://www.usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html.
Vicente, K.(2004) The Human Factor: Revolutionizing the Way We Live withTechnology. Vintage Canada, Random House. Toronto.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

I wholeheartedly agreed with Norman’s question about the dreary way that number facts are presented. This was in direct correlation to Vicente’s example of the nuclear reactor operators’ dilemma in analyzing a dizzying array of numbers and dials. Vicente’s presentation of Beltracchi’s temperature-entropy diagram is an excellent example of the power of image over text for delivering a message clear, concisely and quickly.
The diagram above displays what I have been showing to parents on parent-teacher interview night with respect to their student’s “learning zone”. For some students, their learning zone is wide; hence they can learn or are motivated to try homework even when it is perceived as too easy or too hard. For some, their zone is quite narrow, avoiding practice they perceive as unnecessary, redundant basics or questions that are too difficult even to attempt after first glance. It is my job to open their minds to open their Learning/Effort/Motivation zone. By focusing on the learner and their individual learning backgrounds, styles, desires, and abilities enhances my teaching practice.
Focusing on the learners in developing learning tasks, and in my particular case, the learning shell, will enhance my design skills and thought processes.


Following Leo Fender’s example (Vicente, p78) I will endeavour to watch real users really using my product, and take their feedback under serious consideration.
Perhaps their feedback will give me insights into how to provide feedback to them. Will I annoy them with beeps and buzzers? Will I chastise them with high pitched boings as they answer incorrectly? Extrapolating from Norman (p103) I would hope to use pleasurable sound coding to indicate an error. It is my suspicion that a pleasurable sound may lead to users perceiving lower stress and also a willingness to try again, even after receiving corrective feedback. Corrective feedback need not be punitive, only informative.
What stemmed from a mess of green and red on my foolscap, eventually became this interconnected map of ideas that leads me to my next goal in teaching and learning. As a math teacher, I often strive to teach the beauty of mathematics, the interconnected ness of method and madness, of numbers and language. This encourages me to motivate students to see the broader, more holistic view of numeracy, numbers and mathematical problems; as the Japanese say “See the whole mountain”. In doing so, this would lead me to follow Vicente’s (p88) advice to “tailor products not just to the body but to the mind”. I would like now to extend that for a long term goal as a designer, to reach beyond just the body and mind, but to reach into a student or user’s nature, spirit and psyche. Maybe then I will have created something truly educative.