Learning Environments – Week 10 – Mind Map

Got all the post its from our group meeting, typed them up and created some mind maps… grouping is coming along but I’m thinking about applying the learning theories to the environment I was observing previously.

333MindMap_1333MindMap_2333MindMap_3

Watson

No divide between man and brute

Locke

Experience Sense Perception
Blank slate
Association
“Smoothing of paths” – learning
Learning with the World
Embodied cognition
Learn through senses
Experiential learning

Montessori

Student centered teaching
Clock metaphor – wind it instead of moving its arms
Play
Very precise language: long-thick
Self-directed
Don’t force it. Don’t correct it.
Natural curiosity
Stimuli
Make “spontaneous observers”
Guidance needed
Sense training
Experience their senses
Experiential learning
Intrinsic motivation
Mixed age grouping

Dewey

Experiential learning
Thoughts are creative & novel – can’t be communicated
Are you learning the right thing? Correct answer & actually knowing
Extrinsic – Intrinsic
“Is there anything but a problem?”
No grades
Relevance
Materials
Play
Constructivism

Piaget

Social speech – communication
Student self-discovery
Egocentric speech – useless
Children – no real social life
Teacher = guide
Developmental stages
Law of nature – universal
Peer to peer learning
Mixed age students
Elder to younger
Master – apprentice

Basso

Immersive, experiential, embodied
People learn from physical spaces
External vs internal cognition
Knowledge passed from elders
Emotional Intelligence
Wisdom from reflection and hard work
Culture, language, and physical space
Study -> Smooth <- Resilient
Exterior to Interior

Vygotsky

It was Piage himself who demonstrated “logic of action precedes logic of thought”
Egocentric speech IS useful
MKO more knowledgable other
Human and nature
ZPD
Egocentric speech – intellectual tool
Social scaffolding
Motivation to Learn
Intrinsic
Extrinsic

Lave & Wenger

Legitimate peripheral participation (LPP)
Knowledge lives outside of us / amongst us
Newcomers need old-timers.
For COP, LPP to be optimal, newcomers must have access to meaningful tasks
Technology must be invisible but visible
No center, COP alway evolving – knowledge is more complex
Formal vs. informal indoctrination
Old timers must be open to newcomers perspective

Skinner

Behavioral Engineering
Walden Two – “self-control”
Operant Conditioning
Mixed age grouping
Extrinsic to Intrinsic motivation
Relevance
Metacognition
Reinforcement
Rapid feedback
Social
Priming
Metacognition
Developmental readiness
Language
Content relevance
Teacher’s role

Cole & Griffin

Relevance
Language is a technology of mediation
Social, interpersonal
Language gives you the world twice

Hutchins

Literally external cognition
Embodied cognition
Collective intelligence – social education
McDermott & Ralley

Gestures and Intelligence

Ingenuity
Students vs readers – disconnect – good at the wrong thing

Brown

Active constructors
Multple ZPDs
Reciprocal teaching
Community of learners
Cross-age teaching
Comprehension monitoring device
Metacognition
Jigsaw
Group’s learning achievements are greater than individuals
Impoverished artificial learning environments conflicts with natural instincts

Gilmore

Creation
Children are capable linguistically
Spontaneous language creation
Learning is social
Play
Anti-Piaget

Notes on Methods 2

Next quarter I am going to start taking notes on the computer again… even though there seems to be a little extra learning when writing things down on a paper, the study and referencing back to them is a nightmare.

On one hand no copy/pasting means that I have to actually re-read and re-type the notes. On the other hand, it is really tedious to search.

Maybe a notebook that holds all the notes in chronological order might help, even though I’ve used several in the past, and they simply became a to do list where I crossed things out as they were completed. Plus it is still tedious to search through written notes.

SO – going to try to take notes directly onto the blog, making them more multimedia with links and diagrams. Let’s see

Tech 4 Learners – Week 10 – 2 Min Video Assignment

Working on a 2 minute video presentation of our prototype for ‘A’ at OMS.

https://youtu.be/Q0PdrKxJVHc

Narration: 

Meet Achu.

Achu is twelve years old, full of smiles, and loves art, basketball and HotWheels videos.

Achu’s vocabulary is plenty big, but he doesn’t always use it, instead choosing to repeat the words of others instead of what he really thinks.

Our goal for this work was to support Achu in sharing more of his own thoughts. Let’s call this “spontaneous language creation.”

We believe that if we can help Achu to generate more spontaneous language, over time, he might find it easier to express himself and share his perspectives with the people around him.

So we set out to design a tool that would allow him to do that.

For the first prototype we decided to draw on Achu’s interests and build a system where he could watch and engage in basketball or HotWheels video.

Narrate it when thoughts came to mind or when he was prompted.

Then replayed the video with his recorded narration to show him the value of his words.

Their entertainment value, usefulness.

Even their coolness.

And we found…

Achu was engaged!

He started using more new words!

Car, Fell Down, Score.

And he enjoyed hearing his voice in the replay of the video.

But we still thought we could do better.

We wanted to see if we could increase his level of engagement and the complexity of his spoken ideas by drawing more on his strengths and core motivations.

Knowing that Achu is kind and caring, our new hypothesis was that he would be more engaged and motivated, if he had to help someone else.

Playing off the idea that people are more motivated to work hard when someone else depends on their teaching.

It’s called the protege effect.

Meet Tom, the blind, talking cat.

He introduces himself.

Becomes your friend, then asks for your help,

It worked!

All of a sudden, there was something at stake, a character that needed help.

By chunking the video and having Achu explain what happens in each video chunk to Tom the Cat, we tapped into Achu’s strength of empathy and he was motivated to take on the challenge of spontaneous language creation.

We saw engagement, positive affect, and complex explanations.

Thanks Achu, for helping!

 

Tech 4 Learners – Week 10 – Assignment Lessons Learned

Assignment

Response

Team SAL: Soren, Alex, Lucas 

Lessons Learned

  • Time with the intended user and rigorous user testing are critical to success. Every interaction our team had with our OMS student yielded more ideas and insights.
  • It can be challenging to figure out whether an idea is not good or whether its implementation was the issue. It’s quite possible that a user will not engage well with a prototype even though the basis of the prototype is a worthwhile idea. Consequently, it is important to identify the critical learning mechanism to be tested and give the learner different ways to engage with it.
  • What would be motivating to us is not necessarily as motivating to other learners. For example, while our team might be excited to narrate videos, our OMS learner was much more motivated to help a blind cat understand the video.
  • It is important to use a learner’s strength to help him improve upon his weakness. With our OMS learner, we found greater success when we played off of his strength (caring for others) to motivate him to talk.
  • The Wizard of Oz technique enabled our team to rapidly test, change, and evolve our prototype. The freedom to build just part of our prototype and simulate the rest of the prototype experience also allowed us to test several backup ideas, which helped us gather additional insight on our learner’s motivations and interests. 
  • We realized how important it is to record and review testing sessions. By closely analyzing when our learner showed engagement, we were able to pinpoint the specific mechanisms through which our prototype encourages participation and positive affect. 
  • The “protege effect” – or more broadly the task of teaching someone else – is a powerful motivator. Our strongest prototype turned our learner into a teacher that would explain videos to a blind cat who couldn’t see them. Our learner was quite responsive as he saw real purpose in generating words to help the needy creature.

Qualitative Research – Week 10 – Group Meeting

Met with Ana and James at the Starbucks in down town Palo Alto to talk about our propositions and main hypothesis of what we observed in terms of Tech Adoption and iHub.

Here are some of the updates:

Abstract (Ana):

Problem statement:

  • How do third party organizations facilitate productive technology adoption practices between schools and education technology companies?
  • How does iHub facilitate education technology innovation?
  • How does iHub facilitate collaboration between educators and entrepreneurs to promote education technology innovation?

Propositions:

  1. (Lucas): iHub’s activities revolve mainly around teachers
    1. iHub’s emphasis is on supporting teachers
    2. iHub focuses mainly on supporting teachers
    3. iHub primarily focuses on supporting teachers more so than other stakeholders
    4. iHub focuses on supporting teachers rather than entrepreneurs
  2. (James): Having a focus on teachers grants organizations access into schools
    1. Fostering relationships with teachers facilitates technology innovation
    2. iHub’s relationships with teachers facilitate startups’ access to schools
    3. iHub’s relationships with teachers grant startups classroom access
  3. (Ana): iHub feels they have to do more than #1 and #2 room for improvement

 

Context (Lucas):

  • What are SVEF and iHub?

Methods (James):

  • No literature review/research of topic
  • 1-hour observation
  • Field notes
  • Interview guide peer-reviewed by classmates
  • Two 1-hour interviews
    • Together with observation = methodology triangulation
  • Transcriptions
  • Coding and propositions

Limitations (Lucas):

  • Interview and observations had little correlation
  • Limited previous knowledge of what the company did
  • Findings (everyone):

Conclusion:

iHub successfully brings together educators and entrepreneurs, but we don’t know if this is actually having a positive impact on ______

HCI 547 – Week 9 – Class Notes

lorrie-oct2013pwquilt-small

Good talk by Lorrie Cranor from Carnegie Mellon University entitled “Conducting Usable Privacy and Security Studies: It’s Complicated”

Main take-away: warning messages are mostly ignored and are starting to be designed differently. They must stand out over system messages in the case of browser vulnerability and other risks that are related to the person’s identity and privacy.