Week 3


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Week 3

  1. 1. Architecture Technology Education Architecture of Learning Environments E19.2017 (Image: Zarazoga Digital Mile, accessed from http://www.interactivearchitecture.org/zaragoza-digital-mile.html)
  2. 2. WEEK 3 Human Computer Interaction Components Design Principles for authoring dynamic, reusable learning objects* Software Design Principles What are learning objects and why are they important? Object-based programming languages? Smalltalk? Squeak, Scratch, etc
  3. 3. <ul><li>What is HCI? (excerpted from wikipedia: </li></ul><ul><li>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-Computer_Interaction ) </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;Human-computer interaction is a discipline concerned with the design, evaluation and implementation of interactive computing systems for human use and with the study of major phenomena surrounding them.” </li></ul><ul><li>Specifically, HCI is concerned with: </li></ul><ul><li>▪ methodologies and processes for designing interfaces (i.e., given a task and a class of users, design the best possible interface within given constraints, optimizing for a desired property such as learnability or efficiency of use) </li></ul><ul><li>▪ methods for implementing interfaces: (e.g. software toolkits and libraries ; efficient algorithms ) </li></ul><ul><li>▪ techniques for evaluating and comparing interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>▪ developing interaction techniques </li></ul><ul><li>▪ developing descriptive and predictive models and theories of interaction </li></ul>“ Fundamental” Human Computer Interaction issues
  4. 4. Squeak http://www.squeakland.org/ <ul><li>“ Squeak is a highly portable, open-source Smalltalk with powerful multimedia facilities. Squeak is the vehicle for a wide range of projects from educational platforms to commercial web application development.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Squeak is based on Smalltalk which was created more than 35 years ago. Smalltalk defined the term object orientation and is the first language in which everything is built from objects. Smalltalk is deeply inspired by ideas from Simula , Sketchpad and Lisp . Even today, Smalltalk sets the bar for object oriented dynamically strongly typed interactive languages and environments. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Unlike the standard static, file-based approach of other languages such as Ruby or Python , Squeak offers a true uniform fully reflective environment - real live objects . In this environment, when a change is made to an object, its behavior changes immediately without having to restart the system. You can even modify or create objects while the application is running.” </li></ul><ul><li>Alan Kay based this educational work with Squeak on a number of different sources. His Scientific American article details his theories, based in part on Jerome Bruner's groundbreaking ideas of constructivist learning as well as Seymour Papert's important work in using computers to find new ways to reach children with powerful ideas of math and science. </li></ul>Think objects
  5. 5. Logo programming for kids: “Scratch” Source: http://vistasmalltalk.wordpress.com/2007/05/16/mits-scratch-programming-language/ Components Loose Coupling History of ideas: Alan Kay, Seymour Papert, Mitchell Resnick
  6. 6. Logo, StarLogo, and Netlogo http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/community/ <ul><li>NetLogo is a cross-platform multi-agent programmable modeling environment. NetLogo was authored by Uri Wilensky in 1999. </li></ul><ul><li>NetLogoGreenHouse by Aaron Unger </li></ul><ul><li>A simple model of how sunlight, albedo, CO2 and clouds all work together to change the global earth temperature. </li></ul>LOGO Paradigm functional, educational Appeared in 1967 Designed by Wally Feurzeig & Seymour Papert Developer Wally Feurzeig & Seymour Papert Influenced by Lisp Influenced Smalltalk, Etoys
  7. 7. Elements/Components/Modules <ul><li>Structural principles describe: </li></ul><ul><li>how the parts are laid out , </li></ul><ul><li>how they fit together , </li></ul><ul><li>and what kinds of uses the built structure can support. </li></ul><ul><li>Think of playing with LEGO!! </li></ul><ul><li>In general: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>キ Modularization of components </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>キ Cohesion within modules: Loose coupling between modules </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>( for flexibility of re-coupling, re-purposing, and independence of functioning ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Procedural simplicity rather than complexity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adaptability of the design for: change, reuse, or re-purposing </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Universal Design in Education requires: <ul><li>Multiple means of representation to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple means of expression , to provide learners alternatives for articulating their knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple means of engagement , to tap into interests, offer appropriate challenges and increase motivation. </li></ul><ul><li>Question: Can we design to accommodate all learners? </li></ul><ul><li>Question: What is the relationship between the user, the structure, and the content? </li></ul>
  9. 9. Principles…. What are they? Standards? Codes? Rules? Beliefs? Traditions? Guidelines? Opinions? Are There Fixed Rubrics? Bottom-line… .how do we PLAN for building effective technologies? And what does effective mean? For whom? For what purposes?
  10. 10. Universal Design in Education (??): Principles and Applications While the proposed notion of “Universal Design” includes a broad range of users with different characteristics—gender, race/ethnicity, age, stature, disability, learning styles, experience levels…one must ask…… is it possible to design educational technology and environments for the optimal access and use of all individuals and groups ? Source: http://www.cartoontraining.co.uk/cartoon-group.jpg
  11. 11. Week 4: Issues Folksonomies Authority Findability
  12. 12. Folksonomies: Tagging <ul><li>Semantic tags generated by individuals to make meaning of information </li></ul><ul><li>---allow personal connections to meaning </li></ul><ul><li>But is this about categorization? Bottom-up, socially generated? </li></ul><ul><li>---Peter Morville quotes Dave Sifry: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>“ Unlike rigid taxonomy schemes that people dislike, the ease of tagging for personal organization with social incentives leads to a rich and discoverable folksonomy . Intelligence is provided by real people from the bottom-up to aid social discovery. And with the right tag search and navigation, folksonomy outperforms more structured approaches to classification.” (http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000057.php) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. Tagging- Social Tagging <ul><li>Tags have 3 points of information (from Vanderwal.net) : </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1- The person tagging </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2- Object being tagged </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3- The tag used on the object </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on Social Aspect: </li></ul><ul><li>---Creating social connections </li></ul><ul><li>---Sharing meanings, information </li></ul><ul><li>However, is the information FINDABLE ? </li></ul>
  14. 14. FINDABILITY <ul><li>For information to be findable, are hierarchical categorization structures better? </li></ul><ul><li>Google Search is robust because, as Peter Morville points out, it relies on: </li></ul><ul><li>* Full Text. Matching keywords in the query and content. </li></ul><ul><li>* Information Architecture. Analyzing the internal link structure and hand-crafted metadata of each web site. </li></ul><ul><li>* Free Tagging. Leveraging the links between web sites. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Question: <ul><li>Looking for information- would you go to: </li></ul><ul><li>Del.icio.us? </li></ul><ul><li>Wikipedia? </li></ul><ul><li>Google? </li></ul><ul><li>WHY? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the relationship between searching and browsing? </li></ul>
  16. 16. Authority <ul><li>How do we establish the authority of the information? </li></ul><ul><li>Morville mentions these tendencies: </li></ul><ul><li>1. Anchoring- to be influenced by the first information we find. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Confirmation- we subconsciously seek data that supports our existing point of view . </li></ul>