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.