Just finished my annotations for my final reading list! I’ll keep posting them here over the next few days, but this calls for a plankton party!
Yes, it makes just as much sense of this clip (watch for the AT-AT teddy bears):
h/t Bioephemera
Ode to rabbit
by Sonia Stephens
You perhaps do not appreciate the elegant placement
Of the single dropping left under your favorite chair.
The nipped power cords disturb you, though I merely
Highlight your dependence on electronic devices.
The midnight water-bottle clicking, the five a.m. newspaper tearing
Remind you of my insatiable hunger
And that I have not been fed for six entire hours.
Come! Bring cardboard boxes that I might gnaw
Or I will chew the sweet gumminess off your envelopes,
And feast upon the buttons of your remote control.
Look upon my works, O human, and sigh at my cuteness.
I am bunny.
Two related readings on networked technologies and science: the first a NSF task report on cyberlearning, and the second on “collaboratories”-collaborative laboratories.
Christine L. Borgman, Hal Abelson, Lee Dirks, Roberta Johnson, Kenneth R. Koedinger, Marcia C. Linn, Clifford A. Lynch, Diana G. Oblinger, Roy D. Pea, Katie Salen, Marshall S. Smith, and Alex Szalay. “Fostering Learning in the Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge.” Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 2008.
Summary: Task force report designed to give NSF guidance on cyberlearning: “networked computing and communication technology to support learning.” Their focus is on using CL to support STEM education in a lifelong, customized setting- redistributing learning over space & time. The authors believe there’s a high potential now because of new technologies, increased understanding of learning processes, demand for solutions to educational problems. Some examples: Web tech & breaking down location barriers, open & multimedia educational resources, new techs. making learning affordable & accessible, cloud computing, customizable content, and an enthusiastic audience (though schools aren’t up to speed on digital techs.) Key potential problems: responsible data use/data overload, scaling technologies for large communities, how to apply software & other resources. Several issues require action: data management, open/accessible resources need to be guaranteed, NSF needs strategy of funding projects that produce resources for both education & research. They have 5 main recommendations, including a “platform perspective” (shared & interoperable designs), resources developed should be open & freely shared.
Comments: Apparently, while the public doesn’t respect education, we do like electronic gadgets- so the idea is to use these to educate people. This reference will mainly be useful for giving me a sense of the state of the field. They do ask one question that’s interesting: should we train people to work in interdisciplinary teams, or increase the versatility of individuals? (trend seems to be to work in teams…)
Links to: Finholt (collaboratories)
Thomas Finholt. “Collaboratories.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 36(1): 73-107, 2002.
Summary: “Collaboratories”=collaborative laboratories or “labs without walls;” joint science work has historically depended on physical proximity, esp. science with large instruments (or specific study sites). While one answer has been residencies, the problems of this structure have remained, primarily barriers to access or research. Science has been moving toward large, complex distributed projects- can consider these a types of distributed intelligence. Collaboratories require two types of IT: increased communication + better access to instruments and data (data sharing/data viz. tools, remote-use instruments). Finholt discusses history of such projects, from “memex” concept & ARPAnet to current projects in various disciplines. These still involve a small number of participants; libraries and datasets have more use. Other lessons: people can use them sporadically and still be useful, easily integrated software is more accepted (e.g., web-based), some types of activity are naturally more collaboratory (data coll. vs. idea generation), and there are new expectations for participants. Challenges: moving from shared space to virtual space introduces new demands: must make implicit interactions explicit (e.g., pointing, gaze detection), willingness to collaborate and adopt tools is also issue.
Comments: Points out that increased communication can lead to Balkanization as well as broader communication (social exclusivity); benefits are highest for students & non-elite scientists, drawback might be these projects becoming pools for marginalized scientists (e.g., e-journals have lower status). F2F interactions still crucial for establishing contacts; meetings still important- these projects will augment, rather than replace current practice.
Links to: Howe (crowdsourcing)
People teaching computers to do stuff. Actually, I’ve played one of these games (though a 1-person variety). It was kind of fun…
Luis Von Ahn and Laura Dabbish. “Designing Games With A Purpose.” Communications of the ACM. 51(8): 58-67, 2008.
Summary: Games with a purpose (GWAPs) involve people performing tasks that can’t be automated, e.g., image tagging, collecting facts, etc. Related to open-source software movement, non-game crowdsourcing, and gamelike interfaces in business apps. The authors first describe three categories for these games: 1) “output-agreement:” players see same input & must produce same output (e.g., give same label to photo); 2) “inversion-problem:” one player describes something, other guesses it (sim. to 20 Questions); 3) “input-agreement:” players are given inputs and must describe them to see if they have the same input or not (e.g., both describe a music clip and then guess if the other player’s clip matches yours). For enjoyable play, need to add features to these templates: time limits, scorekeeping, high scores, randomness, leveling up. They describe mechanisms to guard against player collusion, e.g., cross-checking, random matching of players; games can also be modified for n¹2 players. Games are evaluated by throughput * enjoyability (average lifetime play)= “expected contribution;” this doesn’t capture popularity or word of mouth. They point out that their examples focus on similarity/matching- need a different template for gathering diversity.
The goal of GWAPs is to capture large datasets for developing programs with advanced perceptual capabilities.
Comments: Focus here is on machine learning, rather than human (“useful computation as a side effect of enjoyable game play”-61), but one could potentially link such a system to an educational tool, for a crowdsourced informational resource.
Links to: Brown & Adler (general online learning); Howe (crowdsourcing)
Tara J. Fenwick. “Expanding Conceptions of Experiential Learning: A Review of the Five Contemporary Perspectives on Cognition.” Adult Education Quarterly 50: 243-272, 2000.
Summary: Fenwick summarizes & contrasts five current theories of experiential/informal learning. She argues that traditional theory is based on an experience + individual reflection model, which neglects embodied activity and communal processes; these theories include both individual and sociocultural processes. 1) Constructivist: individuals construct meaning from experience to produce knowledge; knowledge is a set of mental constructs. 2) Psychoanalytic: interested in how the unconscious shapes the self; knowledge is driven by passionate tensions. 3) Situative: Adaptive learning through participation; knowledge is based on situated effectiveness, rather than theoretical. 4) Critical-cultural: Focus on power effects and identity; knowledge is emancipation from passive acceptance of identity and dominant cultural critiques. 5) Enactivist: cognition and the environment are simultaneously enacted; cognition is embodied action; knowledge is collective, not individual.
Comments: I’ve left off the critiques for this summary, but she basically looks at each theory through the lens of the other four (mostly based on other researchers’ criticism, but enactivist ideas are pretty new, so for these she uses the looking through the lens approach.) Basically, this is an overview and useful for me in comparing and contrasting. The most relevant frameworks for my research are probably constructivist (more traditional, and a lot of the digital media research seems to build off of this) and situative (e.g., Lave & Wenger). The enactivist approach is newest; not sure if I’ve seen much in that vein at this point…
Links to: Lave & Wenger, others (community participation); Zhang & Norman (constructivist/cognitive)
I’ll be giving a talk on Friday at a panel about using visual media to promote sustainability, here at UCF.
I would have posted this over the weekend, but I spent the entire time basically glued to the computer working on my 2nd candidacy exam. Which I am told I just passed 🙂
Here’s the relevant info:
PANEL PRESENTATION: Fostering Sustainability Education through Film and Photography
Exploring the Use of Film to Inform and Persuade in the Area of Environmental Ethics
Stephen M. Fiore, Brittany C. Sellers, and Elizabeth K. Phillips
Department of Philosophy (SM) and Department of Psychology (BS, EP)
Using Photography and Flagship Species to Promote Conservation
Sonia H. Stephens
Department of English
3:30pm to 5:00pm * Friday, November 12th * 2010
ROOM PSY 226 * Department of Philosophy, Psychology Building
Sponsored by: Department of Philosophy Ethics Center Initiative and the Center for Humanities and Digital Research Digital Narrative Group
This panel presents two unique projects at UCF united in their attempts to understand attitudes towards the environment and how media influences these attitudes. The first presentation describes a program of research and education centered on using a blend of film and socio-cognitive theory to impact personal change related to environmental ethics. The overarching goal of our research is to understand how documentary films can inform individuals about environmental issues and the degree to which they lead to attitude change, taking into account individual time perspectives. As such, we link research in the cognitive and learning sciences with the use of story and film from the humanities. Implications for this research include furthering our understanding of the role of narrative film in influencing behavior and, more broadly, the development of socio-cognitive theory on how narrative can aid in behavior modification via attitude change in the area of environmental ethics.
Our second presentation focuses on the ways that photography is used in the conservation movement to create personal connections between people and threatened species. Photography can be used rationally to document ecological changes, but it is even more powerful when used to make emotional or ethical arguments for conservation. Photos are effective rhetorical tools because they mediate between our inner & outer realities, helping us reconcile what is with what we think should be. One way the conservation movement uses photography is to bring public awareness to “flagship species-” charismatic species that call attention to larger conservation issues. This presentation explores the rhetorical choices made by conservation organizations in selecting which species to focus on, how photos are formatted, and what types of arguments these photographs ultimately make.
Activity theory seems to be popular in the educational community. I’ll be reading a few articles that involve it, but I’m still not sure how/if it will fit in with my overall project goals, as it’s used more in formal pedagogical design than for informal learning. Here are two readings that involve it:
Wolff-Michael Roth. “Activity Theory and Education: An Introduction.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 11(1): 1-8, 2004.
Summary: Introduction to a special issue; focuses on several key points about AT. Interest in AT has been increasing in educational circles; the core idea is that individuals have power to transform their communities through their activities (Marxist basis). First, the triangle model (subject, object, community, within tools/means, division of labor, rules) is dynamic, not static (see below for model). The subject & object are in a dialectical relationship; a contradiction between the subject’s mental image and the physical object drives action (e.g., a sculptor will keep sculpting until the sculpture matches her mental image). There’s also overall change- any human activity results in change in all elements in the system (e.g., learning through participation also constitutes participation as having effects on the wider group). Second, individuals produce outcomes, but participation also produces the structure of the community (and his/her overall position as a member of the community)- production drives the historical trajectory of the system. Third, internal contradictions drive the internal system activity- the main one being tensions between individual production and societal production (e.g., crime-fundamental contradiction between societal constraints and the individual actions that are best for society). There are four types of contradictions: within each system component, between components, between system objects of different activity systems, and between system components of different activity systems.
Comments: Gives some examples of contradictions that are present in educational settings, but would have been nice if these examples were explicitly matched up to the 4 types of contradictions. Mentions directions for future research (e.g., what is the nature of change in activity systems); also mentions that dialectical approach might fit poorly with western dualistic systems. This framework is applicable to HCI, but have to put more thought into how it might fit with other stuff.
Links to: Suchman, Sharples et al. (AT examples)
Mike Sharples, Josie Taylor and Vavoula, Giasemi. “A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age.” in Richard Andrews and Caroline Haythornthwaite (eds.) The Sage Handbook of E-learning Research, pp. 221–247. London: Sage, 2007.
Summary: The authors use a conversational model and activity theory as a framework for mobile learning (informal, either using mobile tech. or learning while mobile). They frame it as interaction between a learner and technology to advance knowledge. First, conversation, negotiation, and interpretation drive overall learning (“conversation”-sharing of understanding w/in a pervasive medium- this defn. includes human-machine interaction); it’s about becoming informed about others’ representations. 2-level model for learning: acting (problem solving/model building) & description (demonstration/explanation) + constant internal representation. Within this model, teachers/experts don’t really derive authority through expertise, but rather through negotiation (they recognize that this model doesn’t quite apply to a classroom setting). Second, their AT framework describes how tool use helps people learn includes 1st triangle (subject/learner, object/task, community) plus 2nd triangle which mediates 1st (rules/norms, division of labor, tools-physical + signs). The tools (both semiotic and technical) constrain & support learners in goal of transforming their knowledge/skills. Dialectical interaction between nodes in the triangle drives learning; the idea is to use this as a framework to pinpoint “tensions” in the user-tool system that inhibit learning. Agency in learning is a system property, not that of individuals. They describe a case study of mobile technology use in a museum using this framework.
Comments: Mention digital divide, but point out that mobile technologies are being adopted in many places w/o traditional infrastructure. AT framework seems more like a model than a predictive theory, unless the prediction is that when all components are working, learning will occur. The conversational model sets up learning as a process of negotiation, and the AT model describes how tool use facilitates this. The AT aspect seems to be more as an analysis tool that helps design technologies to enhance “conversations” in informal learning settings (not replace traditional learning).
Links to: Roth, Suchman (activity theory)
This chapter covers current ideas on how memory works and also why visuals are effective for learning:
David N. Rapp and Christopher A. Kurby. “The ‘Ins’ and ‘Outs’ of Learning: Internal Representations and External Visualizations.” In John K. Gilbert, Miriam Reiner, and Mary Nakhleh (eds.) Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education, pp. 29-52. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008.
Summary: This chapter primarily discusses how people learn from visualizations (structure of memory); also provides suggestions for applying research in this area to teaching. Cognitive science & learning research suggests a few things about learning, e.g., external models should match what we want people to remember, and info that’s too abstract may be difficult to apply in specific situations. They discuss three categories of internal representations: visual memory (short-term & long-term recall), visual images (internally-generated & often speculative), and knowledge representations (most complex, focus is on causes and motivations of simulations rather than on just the images.) Sci. viz. should aim to affect viewers’ knowledge representations, and through them, higher-order concepts & processes. They take a “perceptual” view of memory (idea that concepts are linked to the sensory mode by which they’re learned; embodied cognition), as opposed to an “amodal” view (memory concepts aren’t systematically related to real-world experience.) Two models for learning suggest that the mode of learning will influence how memories are represented and how they’re ultimately recalled: “dual-coding” (memories are either verbal or visual; more complex concepts are harder to render visually, so harder to recall) and the “working memory” model (working memory contains acoustic and visuospatial components; relying solely on one or the other can overload the system and lead to poor recall.) The authors suggest that these two models help create a rationale for incorporating multimodal (including visual) components for learning.
Comments: Basically, this chapter provides support for the idea that multimedia (including touch) will create better learning outcomes (though they do touch on the question of whether concepts learned in one mode will transfer to others.) Interpretation of visuals is based on prior knowledge (scaffolding)- cultural aspects are important- this makes analogy & use of conventions helpful. They include touch and sound as well as images in their idea of “visualizations” (basically, like multisensory modalities.)
Links to: Lave & Wenger (not as social as L&W, but some social stuff here); Zhang & Norman (discuss process of having external & internal representations converge, but not explicitly distributed cog.); Burnett (core list; cognition & image-worlds)
I’m jumping from a cognitive science approach to visuals back to a more social & rhetorical approach with this chapter. Like my last two readings, this one provides yet another framework for analyzing scientific visuals, but the approach is pretty different (which is great, because I feel like I really need a break from the framework stuff at the moment.)
Also, I believe this is one of the longest titles in one of my readings…
Luc Pauwels. “A Theoretical Framework for Assessing Visual Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communications.” in Luc. Pauwels (ed) Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science, pp. 1-25. Hanover: Dartmouth College Press, 2006.
Summary: Pauwels’ aim is to establish a framework for analyzing scientific visualizations that includes: the nature of the referent, type of medium, methodology for creation, and uses of the resulting image. The nature of scientific referents falls on a continuum from material/physical to mental/conceptual: directly observable, visible with tools, non-visual phenomena, explanations of non-visual data trends, postulated phenomena and metaphors. Representations can include multiple types of referents (e.g., photo with arrows for non-visual process), and each representation expresses a reality that shapes the image’s interpretation. Illustrations should be both representative of their subject matter and valid examples of the subject (e.g., a photo of a specific bird vs. a stylized drawing of that species.) Production processes all have intertwined social, technological, and cultural aspects (affordances, conventions, and constraints.) Different referents will have “appropriate” conventions for presentation; conventions also vary with the purpose of the illustration (further analysis, teach concepts, etc.) The upshot is that representations have multiple purposes/motivations and may be interpreted differently (e.g., can be used as boundary objects.)
Comments: Scientific illustrations are less a transparent “window” than a carefully selected and stylized rhetorical presentation (though P. doesn’t use “rhetoric”.) Discusses the need for greater awareness of all aspects of his framework for scientific illustrators (and also public)- e.g., awareness of implications of disciplinary conventions for image format. Physical representations are inherently social objects, unlike mental representations. Visual media have one important constraint- that they depict a specific example, rather than words, which can specify a range (e.g., a specific drawing of a flower vs. “this flower has 6-8 petals”)- the viewer has to decide how significant each element of the illustration is (if they even have the awareness to judge this.) Verbal descriptions or use of conventions can help with this problem.
Links to: Kostelnick & Hassett (conventions & rhetorical uses of images); Gilbert (categories of scientific illustrations)
We had a traumatic day this week- the maintenance guys came in to the apartment to check the fire alarms, furnace, and stove (yes, we do have a furnace in Orlando, and yes, we have used it.) Noe was peacefully sleeping when this occurred, and she tends to freak out when unexpected loud things happen and she’s napping. And the fire alarm is really loud.
To make matters worse, there were two maintenance guys (the appearance of multiple people at once bugs her ,) with a ladder (she hates ladders, for some reason). It was not fun for her at all. There was mad dashing, thumping, and hiding in a box. Finally, I locked her into her cage so she wouldn’t accidentally dash underfoot.
She got Petromalt and veggie treats after it was over, of course. But we were not allowed to pet her for several hours. I fear that she blamed me for the whole experience…