Category: exam readings

Categories
exam readings learning theory tech design

Exam reading: “Practices of distributed intelligence”

Today’s reading ties together several themes from other texts on my reading list: using visualizations & networked tools for understanding science, distributed cognition, activity theory, and participatory learning.

This is my last (!) exam reading- I’m on to taking my final exam this weekend. Next step will be fleshing out my project ideas, so more about that later…

Roy D. Pea. “Practices of Distributed Intelligence.” In Gavriel Simon (ed.) Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Summary: Distributed intelligence framework has implications for educational tech., both computational and social. Knowledge is socially constructed through collaborative efforts, as well as distributed into tools (which are in turn designed by social decision process); however, people are the ones that perform cognition. Intelligence connects means to ends via behavioral or mental adaptations. Object affordances “link perception and action;” objects are designed to be “smart” and simplify our cognition (we don’t notice this when we get used to using them). This includes symbol systems- calculus, numbers, etc. Environmental cues (in objects) help us get from diffuse desires to concrete goals and plans for action. Discusses history of dist. intelligence: AT (people shape/are shaped by their environments in dialectical fashion), computers reorganize (not just augment) mental functions. Some key tools: science visualization tools, “guided participation,” situated cognition. We should teach students to use tools (esp. computers) with the idea that they will change what they need to know, rather than just increase task efficiency. Some trade-offs with this approach: access to activity vs. understanding its foundations, static task definitions vs. dynamic definitions (more difficult to design for dynamic tasks). The main idea is to teach students to use tools (alone or in groups), rather than for individual testing.

Comments: Ties to distributed cognition, visualization, activity theory, and participatory learning. While focus is on school settings, some of these concepts could apply to informal learning situations (e.g., affordances in tools/devices, distinction between doing an activity and actually understanding the concepts behind it).

Links to: Roth (AT); Nersessian (discusses dist. cog. and mental models)

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings information representation visuals

Exam readings: diagrams as boundary objects

For today, two takes on the concept of “boundary objects:” concepts, texts, machines, diagrams, etc. that serve as meeting points between different social worlds.These focus on diagrams (natch): infrastructure schematics and Gantt charts.

Lucy Suchman. “Embodied Practices of Engineering Work.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 7(1&2): 4–18, 2000.

Summary: Uses ethnomethodology (EM) and activity theory (AT; doesn’t use the triangle) to describe design practices in civil engineering. Her focus is the use of CAD and paper diagrams in planning; these diagrams connect EM & AT. EM is phenomenological & descriptive of artifacts in use and work practices; it’s not used to build generalizable theory. AT focuses on how tools mediate and are in turn created by social work practices; it’s also ultimately not generalizable b/c of its focus on specific situations (framework, not theory). Her research comes from conversations with/tutorial of the process of designing a road by an engineer. The CAD display is complex: 2-D and 3-D views, puts plans onto 3-D topographical layer than lets engineers take viewing sections through it, and includes natural and built infrastructural features (old infrastructure, new project, and temporary elements needed to support construction). Engineers also use paper: maps (taking collective notes, getting sense of big picture) and notes. Two key practices bring together these elements: “professional vision” (mental simulation of the project site, as aided by the CAD tools), and embodiment of engineers (gestures, hand motions to indicate third dimension, etc.). Paper and CAD have different affordances, so engineers use both. Concludes by describing similarities/differences between EM and AT.

Comments: This paper touched on AT, but was not strictly an AT analysis (more an EM-based description). Point seems to have been to use her case study as a way to draw parallels between the two methodologies.

Links to: Roth (AT description); Sharples et al. (more standard? AT analysis)

Elaine K. Yakura. “Timelines as Temporal Boundary Objects.” The Academy of Management Journal. 45(5): 956-970, 2002.

Summary: Yakura looks at timelines (Gantt charts) in work environments as “temporal boundary objects:” they render time concrete and serve as points of synthesis and negotiation among different groups in a business (e.g., programmers, managers, clients). They also embody elements of narrative (beginning, middle, end) that helps people envision milestones as well as project completion. They are “monotemporal” (mechanistic & standardized view of time), in contrast to “pluritemporal” (multiple cultural/occupational groups mark time with different activities), and serve as sites of negotiation and translation among different groups. Three functions of timelines are for scheduling, synchronization, and time allocation for various tasks; these categories are not interpreted the same by all groups involved in a project, so the timeline is a site of discussion. Presents a case study of timeline use, discussion, and renegotiation (as unforeseen events required updating it); the case study illustrates pluritemporalism & use as a boundary object.

Comments: Example of a visualization as a boundary object between different groups. Timelines aren’t intended as permanent artifacts, but Yakura points out that they’re treated as reality even while undergoing revision; they also symbolize a tangible work product between milestones/when tasks are in process.

Links to: Suchman (paper maps as boundary objects in engineering)

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings learning theory visuals

Exam readings: using visuals to understand science

More on the use of diagrams in understanding science. First, a paper which suggests that a key process of science education is a process of learning how to take observations, make diagrams (or other descriptions), and then communicate about those diagrams with other people. This is a relatively simple concept, but one which is often not emphasized in science education (at least, it’s not emphasized how these skills will help students learn science. The second paper is tangentially connected to this idea. It’s about the challenges in incorporating data visualization tools into community science projects- tools that many scientists have no trouble interpreting, but that members of the public do.

Wolff-Michael Roth and Michelle K. McGinn. “Inscriptions: Toward a Theory of Representing as Social Practice.” Review of Educational Research. 68(1): 35-59, 1998.

Summary: The authors use the concept of inscriptions (=physical graphical displays; distinct from mental representations) to argue for a social, rather than purely individually cognitive, view of activity. Their focus is on emphasizing the conscious consideration of inscription-creating practices during science learning; I’m skipping the discussion of pedagogy/classroom practice. Inscriptions are used in several ways in discussions: talked about, talked over (e.g., used as backgrounds), serve as boundary objects for discussion among different groups, have rhetorical functions (demonstrative), and serve as pedagogical devices. Inscriptions are materially embodied signs: mobile (immutable while moving); can be incorporated into different contexts, rescaled, combined, reproduced easily; can be merged with geometry (i.e., mathematicized/ gridded); and can be “translated” into other inscriptions. The relationship between inscription and inscribed is traditionally thought of as correspondence or “truth;” current thought is that inscriptions are a result of distinct social practice, so distinct from the thing inscribed. Inscriptions’ creation practices determine whether they’ll be accepted by a community; this is grounded in social practice and suggests that inscriptions can’t be properly interpreted outside the context of their use. Also discuss their use as boundary objects with different functions in face-to-face vs. dispersed settings (though they mention that networked presentation tools are allowing a fuller range of discussion using inscriptions among dispersed groups).

Comments: Focus is on formal education environments and framing science practice as a series of creating, interpreting, and sharing inscriptions. Their background discussion helps tie together some of my other readings on communities of participation, distributed cognition, and visualizations.
Links to: various things…

Stephanie Thompson and Rick Bonney. “Evaluating the Impact of Participation in an On-line Citizen Science Project: A Mixed-methods approach.” in J. Trant and D. Bearman (eds.) Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings, Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, published March 1, 2007.

Summary: Report on assessment of participant use of eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology online bird sighting tracking software. In eBird, participants enter information about their bird sightings either from a list or on a map; this data is then pooled with other observations. Users can use several tools for data visualization of all bird observations, either selecting one species to focus on or selecting all observations from a particular area. Tools include maps and various types of charts. This project has educational goals, but in entirely self-instructed and –directed (instructions and a FAQ are available). In 2005, CLO conducted a new user survey, which surveyed users on registration and again eight weeks later; this included a standard demographic questionnaire, an assessment of users’ understanding of the “View and Explore Data” tools, and a “Personal Meaning Mapping” about conservation (a short-answer assessment approach). For the data analysis tools, they found that most users who responded didn’t select the correct tools to answer the question asked. In addition, many people didn’t answer this question, probably because they hadn’t used or weren’t comfortable with these tools. The authors suggest that more active instruction in how to use the tools is probably needed.

Comments: This paper mainly presents an example of the challenge in incorporating data visualization tools into an informal learning setting.

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings networks

Exam readings: what makes an online community?

“Community” is a well-discussed term in the online realm- are online communities really communities? If so, how do they work (e.g., language-based, activity-based, social network-based)? And what is a community, anyway (village, workplace, civic organization, fandom)?

One of the issues that’s come up in my readings is how varying definitions of what a community is interact with different frameworks for how learning occurs. For example, the “communities of practice” framework says that people learn as an effect of the process of becoming members of a community. How a concept like this intersects with online communities, without the kind of face-to-face interactions that characterize traditional communities, is an interesting question. These three readings touch on this in varying ways.

Steven Brint. “Gemeinschaft Revisited: A Critique and Reconstruction of the Community Concept.” Sociological Theory 19(1): 1-23, 2001.

Summary: The concept of “community” is fuzzy and has fallen out of favor in sociology; replaced by oversimplified ideas of “interaction rituals,” social networks (focus on material benefits to participants), and social capital (focus on motives). Brint proposes a new definition of community: an aggregate of people with common activities & beliefs, bound together principally by values, concerns, affect & loyalty. The motives for interaction are central (though rational or financial motives can be a part, the ones listed are primary-work or interest groups/clubs mainly bound by rational means, so not communities), and groups can be any size, or dispersed. He provides a framework for differentiating subtypes at different levels of interaction: 1) ultimate context (geographic or choice-based), 2) primary motivation (activity or belief-based), and 3) either frequency of interaction (for geog. communities) or location of other members (for choice communities; dispersed groups here get 4th level of interaction, depending on whether they ever meet in person). The key is that these organizational features predict organization & “climate” features of the different types of communities (though he states that these are hypotheses), e.g., monitoring, levels of investment, pressure for conformity. However, there are factors of environmental context (e.g., geography, tolerance as a norm) and community-building (e.g., hazing, meeting places, enforced appearance) that will also be important in shaping communities.

Comments: Discusses the implications of this framework for liberal vs. socialist models of community; suggests that “community” persists as an ideal even though our typical experiences of it tend to be non-egalitarian and non-validating. However, he speculates that virtual or “imaginary” communities, experiences are closer to this ideal of egalitarian & validating community; perhaps these communities will be freer of vice and less judgmental of members. I’m not sure how this last idea really holds up in online communities- there’s certainly a lot of demoninzing of the “other” that goes on online…

Links to: Lave & Wenger (community/participatory knowledge)

Molly M. Wasco, Samer Faraj, and Robin Teigland. “Collective Action and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice.” Journal for the Association of Information Systems. 5(11-12): 494-513, 2004.

Summary: The authors describe a model for “electronic networks of practice:” informal groups that primarily exchange information online. They call ENPs a special case of communities of practice, in which there are no formal controls and participation isn’t face to face (CPs would lie on the other end of a continuum of such groups). One distinction in ENPs is that individuals’ use of collective knowledge is “non-rival” and “non-excludable” (though individuals can “free-ride” on others’ contributions). In their model, macrostructural properties (e.g., medium of communication, network size and access) determine structural ties (generalized patterns of exchange- generally non-reciprocal bet. individuals). Structural ties affect the relational strength of ties (e.g., obligation, identification, trust-between network as a whole and individuals); these influence creation of understanding and community norms. Relative strength of ties affects both social controls (reputation, status, flaming, shunning, banning) and knowledge contribution. Knowledge contribution both influences and is influenced by individual motivations and resources; it also feeds back onto structural ties (this is the mechanism for re-creating, strengthening, and expanding the network).

Comments: The authors end with discussion of the model’s limitations (e.g., need to make modifications if there are F2F interactions, formal incentives for participation, reciprocal relationships that develop over time). They also see a need for looking at individual roles-many times, an active core of participants does most of the work.

Links to: Lave & Wenger (communities of practice); Preece & Schneiderman (discussion of process of enrollment & individual participation)

Jennifer Preece and Ben Shneiderman. “The Reader-to-Leader Framework: Motivating Technology-Mediated Social Participation.” Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction. 1(1): 13-32, 2009.

Summary: Describes how people get involved in social media by gradually increasing the extent of their participation. The authors’ framework tries to incorporate various related areas of research with the goal of providing a unifying framework for future research. At each of the successive stages of participation (reader, contributor, collaborator, leader), numbers of participants decrease; people can also jump stages, move backwards, or terminate participation. Readers can be attracted with ads, word of mouth; good interface design and reading user-generated content keep them coming back. Contributors add to the communal effort without the intention of getting too involved. Reputation systems (with communal ranking or tagging) and ethos garnered from association with credible figures help drive increasing participation.  Collaborators develop common ground with others and work on mutual creations (short or long-term). Satisfying discussions, building social capital, collectivism are all contributing factors. Leaders promote, mentor, set policy; they need good editing & synthesis tools, recognition, and opportunities to contribute meaningfully. Well-defined and focused groups are likely to have stronger group identity & participation. Final section focuses on future research needs (e.g., research at each stage, metrics for assessment).

Comments: Authors suggest using data logging/tracking for research, which has ethical implications. Also suggest that young people care less about privacy; I’m not sure this is a generational shift or just young people being dumb.

Links to: Lave & Wenger (LPP); Von Ahn & Dabbish (getting people involved with GWPs); Howe (crowdsourcing); Brint (discusses online communities)

Categories
exam readings pedagogy tech design

Exam readings: computer-based learning

Today’s two readings weren’t exactly what I expected, being more focused on general ideas about how to use electronic technologies in the classroom than on concrete recommendations for augmenting learning electronically. That said, both articles are relatively dated (apparently, anything from the grunge era is now dated, and that includes journal articles), so I should have probably expected them to be less than up-to-date…

Roy D. Pea. “Augmenting the Discourse of Learning With Computer-Based Learning Environments.” in Erik De Corte, Marcia C. Linn, Heinz Mandl, and Lieven Verschaffel (eds.) Computer-Based Learning Environments and Problem Solving, pp 313-343. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992.

Summary: Pea’s focus in this paper is on using electronic technologies to augment “learning conversations” that help students become participants in communities of practice. Basically, he is interested in the social aspects of cognition. In the communities of practice view, learning is integral to becoming a member of a community and maintaining membership; participation in the community, rather than information transfer, is what facilitates learning. Conversation is a key part of this process; learning conversations involve creation of communication and interpretation of meanings- constructing common ground among participants. In science, students need to be able to “talk science,” rather than just listening to lectures and reading textbooks. Learning language and other symbols (e.g., diagrams) and being able to “converse” with them is a large part of enculturation; this involved discussion of how different representations relate to one another and to the physical world. Enculturation/increasing participation occurs via appropriation and interpretation of language and symbols. Computer tools for learning can’t teach discourse directly, but can provide tools for developing skill in working with representations, as well as augmenting learning conversations. Discusses a case study of developing a system for creating interactive optics diagrams. One key suggestion is that such tools should create affordances that facilitate: production of visualizations, allow interpretation, and create “sense-making” (causal) narratives.

Comments: Background might be useful, but majority of paper is centered on classroom applications, and not as many concrete recommendations for design of such environments as I’d thought there would be (one case study).

Links to: Lave & Wenger (comm. of practice); Roth & McGinn (also focus on science learning via representations); Scardimalia & Bereiter (using computers more for communication in education)

Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter. “Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 3(3): 265-283,1994.

Summary: The authors want to restructure schools as collective knowledge-building communities (KBCs). In these computer-supported intentional learning environments (CSILEs), patterns of discourse would mimic those of KBCs in the real world. Their ideas come from metacognitive learning, expertise-building via progressive problem-solving, and KBCs (here, schools would provide social support and a collective knowledge pool). They discuss ways schools inhibit this type of learning (e.g., individual focus, formal/demonstrable knowledge, lack of support for progressive problem-solving). The idea is to reframe general discourse around collaborative processes of research facilities (e.g., journal articles represent advances in knowledge, peer review is a way to validate this). While educational technology generally supports individualized learning & drill/test, they propose a different focus. CSILEs would include: a central database in which students would post “new knowledge,” features that let students comment on/build on contributions of others (structures communication around problems and building knowledge of the group, explicit discussions of metacognition, small-group discussions, and tools to support different media and students who contribute different dimensions of knowledge. General idea is that information access alone is not sufficient; you need both computer tools to explicitly build these communities and teacher strategies for promoting participation.

Comments: Less helpful for concrete ideas than I’d assumed-perhaps because dated? Focus is on schools, rather than informal learning. Might be able to extrapolate from these ideas, but not sure how this concept would translate to an informal setting.

Links to: Lave & Wenger?

Categories
exam readings learning theory pedagogy tech design

Exam readings: mental models and wireless devices

Not really related, but these two readings are on mental models (pretty theoretical) and things to think about when incorporating wireless devices into the classroom (more practical):

Nancy J. Nersessian. “Mental Models in Conceptual Change.” in Stella Vosniadou (ed.) International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, pp. 391-416. New York: Routledge, 2008.

Summary: Nersessian’s main idea is to outline a framework of how mental models work, and using that to support conceptual change (Kuhnian “paradigm shifts” in science & for science learners)- she spends most time on the former. One mechanism for change is building new mental models & conceptual structures. Aspects of mental model framework are debated; one constant is that mental representations are organized into some sort of units with a relational structure. Approach assumes that: “internal” & “external” are valid categories; internal symbolic structure is iconic (perceptual, properties based on those of objects in external world) rather than rule-based or linguistic; skill in modeling is partially biological, partially from learning in social/natural contexts. Discusses four different strands in research: “discourse models” derived primarily from language/instruction (we mentally manipulate these ideas by models, not words); spatial simulation (which seems to be perceptually-based, but not entirely visual); “mental animation” (more advanced-requires causal/behavioral knowledge); and internal-external coupling (we should define external representations as part of our extended cognitive capacities). Idea of embodied representation is that perceptual experience is fundamentally tied to mental modeling processes. Entire system has both modal and amodal aspects; some concepts & processes are grounded in context, others aren’t. For conceptual change, need to explicitly run people through model-changing activities; abstract activities can provide support in the form of mental inventories of affordances and constraints in different domains.

Comments: Specific tools that participate in coupled internal-external representational systems are “cognitive artifacts.” These include writing & diagrams; function as external and social memory supports. Ties together the cognitive model approach with theories of social and distributed cognition.

Links to: Rapp & Kurby (perceptual vs. amodal models of cognition); Lave & Wenger (social cognition); Zhang & Norman (internal-external coupling)

Jeremy Roschelle, Charles Patton, and Roy D. Pea. “To Unlock the Learning Value of Wireless Mobile Devices, Understand Coupling.” Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2002.

Summary: The authors feel that handheld computers (wireless internet learning devices-WILDs) could become ubiquitous in classrooms, but conceptual issues need to be resolved before using them on large scale. The issue they focus on is “coupling” between social & informatic worlds with different expectations. Challenges are political, organizational, pedagogical: e.g., how/who to control messaging tech, how to regulate roles in shared info space, how should learning resources be stored & accessed, who decides about privacy levels, and how integrated or segregated should students’ learning environments be. Big issue is who will make these decisions- suggest that these things need to be worked out, or will risk rejection of these tools by students, teachers, or others. They focus on three main design problems. 1) Curricular activity spaces vs. personal learning connections: students perceive devices as comm. tools, teachers want to use to augment classroom activities (students may need separate devices for class). 2) Integrated vs. synchronized educational databases: what info will be centralized & who will have access to it. 3) Broad vs. narrow technological mediation of discourse: face-to-face interaction still important; may want to take minimal mediation route,

Comments: The authors outline some critical issues to take into account before using these devices in a classroom setting. Some of these things to think about would apply to informal settings as well, e.g., how much mediation ,what info is being stored by system (if any). Probably tangentially related to my project.

Links to: Sharples et al. (these concerns relate to AT framework for understanding learning tool use); Borgmann et al. (cyberlearning)

Categories
exam readings information representation visuals

Exam reading: “Visual explanations”

This second book by Tufte is probably more applicable to the narrative study of images (though now I’m wishing I’d put “Understanding Comics” on my reading list).

Edward Tufte. Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 1997.

Summary: This book focuses on strategies for presenting information about change: motion, process, cause/effect. Quantities can be represented by labels, encodings (e.g., color-coding), and self-representing scales (e.g., penny in a photo); maps do this by location on grid & size of marker. Creators should place data in appropriate context to assess cause/effect, make quant. comparisons, consider alternative explanations, and assess potential errors in numbers. “Numbers become evidence by being in relation to” other numbers, objects, etc. change can be inferred from multiple, layered views (incorporates parallelism of space or time, lets viewer make comparisons). Discusses principle of “smallest effective difference”- make all distinctions as subtle as possible, but still visible. Also “disinformation design:” suppressing content and preventing reflective analysis by “visual masking” of important features with unimportant ones (e.g., cigarette warning labels). This is not necessarily intentional: can occur through faulty parallelism, trying to emphasize everything, or false clusters created by proximity. Ends by discussing complex narrative forms of data display, or “confections.” These juxtapose tangentially related visual elements in collage fashion; he emphasizes that a purposeful arrangement of these renders them meaningful (in contrast to just slapping them together because).

Comments: Tufte discuses magic diagrams as ways to show action sequences and time; comics do similar things. He briefly discusses the design of customizable computer interfaces as an example of visual narrative (one example used is dynamic museum guides). He applies his standard design ideas (high information-rich content, make clear & sufficient computer commands visible)- I wonder if that last suggestion will change as more people get used to usingapps on wireless devices with few controls?

Links to: Kostelnick & Hassett (discuss the social context of design, rather than design principles); Nersessian, Gilbert (cognition & visuals)

Categories
exam readings information representation transparency visuals

Exam reading: “Visual display of quantitative info”

For a “traditional” (i.e., not community- or critical theory-based) approach to design of graphics, I’m including two books by Edward Tufte on my reading list. There’s a certain set of information visualization people that love his work, but a set of critical theorists and rhetoricians that regards it as arhetorical and emphasizing words (and data) over visual elements. Anyway, here’s the first book on my list:

Edward Tufte. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2001.

Summary: Tufte views infographics as “paragraphs about data;” however, design is universal- like mathematics rather than language. Graphics reveal data at several levels (overview to fine-grained), should be transparent, avoid distorting data, be information-dense, encourage comparisons, and be closely integrated with text, statistics, and datasets. Tufte briefly discusses the history and various types of graphics (data maps, time-series, “space-time narrative,” & relational graphics). Has chapters dedicated to graphical integrity (e.g., avoid distortions of area or scale, provide context), “data-ink” ratio=”data-ink”/total ink used to print graphic (higher better) and “chartjunk”-decorative features that don’t add interpretive info. Graphical elements should serve >1 function (e.g., position, size, color, and shape of data points can all reveal different dimensions). Also discusses data density= number of entries in data matrix/area of data graphic – idea is to try to maximize data density (maps as example of type with high data density); graphics can be smaller than we may think. Likes “small multiples”: multiple small graphics with the same format, but providing comparisons bet. changing variables (likens these to movie frames). Graphical elegance=simple design + complex data. Discusses appropriate uses of words to tables to graphics.

Comments: Outlines several reasons for continued problems with graphics: lack of quantitative training for artists, idea that statistical data are boring, idea that graphics are unsophisticated. Ideas that graphics should be transparent and conventions are universal don’t fit with rhetoric of design (though does recognize deliberate “distortion” of data as rhetorical decision). He gives several ideas for simplifying/modifying current forms; assumes people will accept these if they see them enough (resistence to new formats can be easily overcome by designers).

Links to: Kostelnick & Hassett (rhetorical design); Tversky (different emphasis on maps as data viz)

Categories
exam readings networks pedagogy tech design

Exam readings: networked tech and STEM learning

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)

Categories
exam readings networks tech design

Exam reading: “Games with a purpose”

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)