Optimus Studio Blog

There is a principle in interface design that goes something like “the fewer clicks to get to a point, the better”. So why is it, after so many years of development on online learning systems, that I have to click on the ‘Reply’ button when I want to make a comment on a peer’s work? This one little, tiny detail stifles participation because the user has to ‘change states’ in order to go from ‘reader’ to ‘participant’. Yet this system is made ONLY for participants. So why should I have to modify how the screen is organized in order to easily, quickly and readily comment on a posting? This is not how an intelligent techology should function. The system should be built to encourage my participation from the start and simply allow the user to make the determination as to whether he/she wishes to contribute to a particular post or not.

Now some blogging systems have it right (unfortunately, not WordPress). Don’t get me wrong… I like this system. In fact, this system has made it possible for me to ‘jump on board’ without extensive training and get right into this new publication medium. However, the systems that are properly laid out let the reader, after skimming through the profound posting by the author, immediately post his/her statements directly below the posting. This lets the user (1) see the information previously written as direct reference for the posting and (2) encourages participation on that particular blog. A single click takes the user one step further away from the material and, consequently, sends a subliminal message to the user that he/she must be a part of a ‘unique club’ in order to contribute words to this blog. Web 2.0 (or the moniker associated with social networking) is built upon the principles of “empowering citizen media…, democratiz[ing] culture, buid[ing] authentic communit[ies] (and) creat[ing] citizen media” (Keen, 2006, The second generation of the Internet has arrived. It’s worse than you think.). In order to properly address the issue of ‘building authentic communities’, the system must allow for the user to make his/her thoughts readily known without the need to take an additional step. Conversations, in the traditional sense of two people talking, are not likely to have deliberate breaks interwoven within the stream on dialogue to denote entry and exit points. You wouldn’t say to somebody “say ‘reply’ in order to respond to my statement”, so why should you have to do the same in an environment which is meant to encourage continuous dialogues?

-Cameron

Where is the de-facto standard? Is it Blackboard? Moodle? WebCT (absorbed by Blackboard)? Why is it so difficult to develop a standard that is universally applicable yet scalable to accomodate the needs of a wider audience. Certainly Moodle has this capability, but the user base is limited initially by the stigma associated with ‘open source’ and ‘unsupported’. Blackboard has some great features but the mention of cost and academia in the same sentence send the majority running to their plan books.

Basically, I think there are some developments that need attention. In the coming year I will make the best darned effort that I can to develop some modules that will reinforce the extensibility of Moodle to the degree that what the user needs is available without a steep learning curve. I’d like a ticket-based assignment management system that is synchronized with a calendar (patent-pending). That’s what I think is severely limited. That’s the point of entry for my foray into the development of Moodle modules.

-Cameron

Today marked the end of semester one! In rounding out the semester, I felt it was important to have my oldest students reflect upon their time in my class and, more importantly, their performance. By being aware of how they did in a previous session of my class, the students were more likely to reflect positively -or- negatively on their performance and construct solutions for future improvement. This activity brought my position as a leader to the forefront since it became obvious beyond a shadow-of-a-doubt that my students needed some reinforcement on basic arithmatic skills. Specifically, my students were having trouble being confident about basic addition.

After twelve weeks of ‘hard’ work, my students were required to present their work to a panel of judges (made up mostly of various staffers from around the building). Each judge rated the students on a five-point scale (five being superior and one inferior). After the three judges graded my student’s work, I had my students add the totals together. Long story short — I had one student give me a sum which couldn’t possibly be correct and I found out, after light questioning, that the student had neglected to line up the decimals, and that confidence on the addition of two digits in the ones place plagued ALL of my students. In my illustrious wisdom, I relayed a story about my experience with gross idiocy and how it can negatively effect opinions on a particular subject.

Another abridged tale — in tenth grade I had enrolled in an ‘Academy’ where, after a disappointing Freshman year, I was encouraged by my father to take the easier courses so that I could ‘ease’ into my new surroundings. This ended up being severely detrimental to my high school career. In my english class we were asked by my new teacher if (this is serious now) anybody was not completely certain about the definition of a noun. That one inane question did it for me. I was through with this place. Even now (ten years later) I am plagued by that one point in time (which is obvious since I have devoted precious time on my Friday evening to discuss this matter in my blog). I hated that place before I stepped foot in the door and that one experience certainly didn’t help the situation. The rest of the year continued to be a series of disappointments and I haven’t forgotten how that one simple statement made me feel. My intelligence was insulted (indirectly, of course) and I had NO desire to continue at that school. Be that as it may, I had no choice in the matter and nine months slipped through my fingers and the dejected feelings have served me well.

So much for ‘abridged’

At any rate, this little situation needed some immediate attention before I let a dozen students leave my room thinking that a lack of confidence in this area was acceptable. Smith and Williams, in their article Ostracism by Cell Phone Text Messages, state that “even the slightest hint of ostracism is sufficient to sound a warning of alarm in humans, possibly because detection of ostracism has evolved as a mechanism to ward off threats to survival” (2004). After one student supplied the first answer (which was grossly incorrect), I took it upon myself to draw attention to this issue and reiterate the importance of being able to compute simple arithmatic in one’s head. My example on the board mirrored the one that was relevent to the situation at hand. After I reviewed how the supplied answer was wrong, I asked the class to give me the correct answer. One student very sheepishly answered in a question and I shot back (as never before) and said “NO! The answer is six. Be confident. Don’t inflect up at the end of your response. Be certain and KNOW that you are right.” It became immediately obvious that I had ostracised this one student by pointing out the error in a curt manner in front of all the other students. While I knew that it might’ve been better for the self-esteem of this student to gently respond; I knew at that one moment if I didn’t emphasize how important this bit of information was to them then I’d lose them to the greater evil — insecurity. Confidence gets MANY people far in life and I wanted to emphasize how important it was for them to be aware of this mistake and to know that they still need to become more certain if they wish to be successful.

-Cameron

The MIT Media Lab and Nicholas Negroponte have created a low-cost laptop that (ideally) will change the face of global computing trends in markets that would otherwise not benefit from such an innovation (namely, ‘third world’ countries). The device has been developed and crafted to support ‘mesh networks’ (the antennae are raised and, when there are multiple machines in one location, the systems multiply the signal thus making it possible to build a no-configure wireless sharing network), low power drainage (2 watts versus the typical 45 to 65 watts) and a 2 mil plastic casing (versus the typical .7 mil). All of these innovations aside, the real beauty in this device is not the numerous technological marvels crammed inside this lime green powerhouse but, rather, the social implications that could be derived from this device.

This diatribe reminds me of an episode of the West Wing where Josh and Tobey are hammering out an affordable AIDS treatment drug for Africa. The pharmaceutical companies spend hours discussing how they are being fiscally responsive to the need for medicine in that part of the world. Conversely, Josh and Tobey argue that their pricing structure is far outside the rates imposed on other nations and feel that the pharm companies are simply not doing enough to facilitate a feasible solution. Ultimately, the conversation veers towards one undeniable, irrefutable fact… that regardless of the AIDS treatment package they offer the Africans the drugs will never be fully effective. This ineffectiveness is not due to any reason other than that those living in tribal locations do not own precision time pieces (at least the majority would not). The drugs require that each recipient take them at measured intervals. Regardless of the fiscal solution hammered out in Washington those infected with HIV and AIDS will not be able to effectively treat themselves due to a logical limitation in cultural resources.

In regards to the Laptop for developing nations, it’s my belief that regardless of the tool being distributed and available there must be an infrastructure in place to support this development. Building an infrastructure without resources is like asking a builder to make the outside of the house and you’ll worry about filling in the foundation later. This ‘building’ scenario requires that foundations be developed, tested and implemented prior to the deployment of an effective technology. Building a house without proper research is typically not done and is generally a bad idea. The same principle applies to developing educational solutions in a country with atypical educational structures and even more unpredicatble standards and precedents.

On that note I will sign off for the evening. Do I think that the $100 ($150?) laptop is a great idea? I certainly do. Just as others have voiced their concerns on the NYTimes Reader’s Opinions section, I am certain that with the proper guidance and initiative the One Laptop Per Child initiative will leave no child behind.

Two days of a convention and I’m beat! It’s been rewarding, boring, exciting and motivating - cumulatively. Today’s discussion on Knowledge by David Weinberger (my first blog link… I feel like a part of the community already) made me think about how we are not encouraging thinking as much as we should in our schools. By ‘our schools’ I mean the public institutions which provide our students with the tools and skills to go out and address the socio-politico-economical issues they will need to face. I attended numerous private schools and, by my own admission without sounding too condescending, our daily instruction encouraged the types of thinking and creativity necessary to go out and be leaders in our present and (possibly) future economic environments. My students are not so lucky and the limitations imposed by the antiquated infrastructure do not lend themselves nicely to continued success outside the classroom. To paraphrase a comment made by a fellow conference attendee: “We are preparing our students to sit in a classroom and not how to become the independent thinkers they need to evolve into in order to thrive in our current economic climate”.

Now, the hard part (for me) is to find a way to ‘bridge this gap’* in my own classroom. Should I make it so each person has an equal opportunity to simply ‘learn’ the material or should I constantly encourage mastery? The divide, without introducing elements of technology, are already extensive and prevalent in my classroom. I’ll re-evaluate the situation come next semester.

Overall, I had a great time. I’d like to continue, but this little foray into the new Web 2.0 paradigm-cum-pedagogical innovation has taken up close to an hour of my time. In my next post, I will work to narrow down my topic and focus on the reflective element this tool lets me exploit.

Till then,
-Cameron