Category: exam readings

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings learning theory research methods/philosophy

Exam reading: “Expanding conceptions”

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)

Categories
exam readings learning theory pedagogy

Exam readings: Activity theory

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)

Activity system model from http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/edpy597mappin/modules/module15.html

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)

Categories
exam readings learning theory visuals

Exam reading: “Ins and outs of learning”

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)

Categories
exam readings information representation science studies visuals

Exam reading: “Framework for visual science”

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)

Categories
exam readings learning theory visuals

Exam readings: Using visualizations in science education

These two readings are from the literature on science education, about the importance of visualizations for science. These two authors focus on different topics in the broad area of visualizations and science education.

Barbara Tversky. “Prolegomenon to Scientific Visualizations.” in John K. Gilbert (ed.) Visualization in Science Education, pp 29-42. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.

Summary: Tversky uses the analogy of scientific visualizations (and viz in general) as maps to aid understanding. Effective maps select important information and even distort it for emphasis (schematize it); abstract relationships are often thought of in spatial terms (e.g., good=up), and this mapping seems to hold meaning/be non-arbitrary. While maps are composed of elements (icons + morphograms [simple schematic shapes that are vocabulary-like: lines, arrows, etc.]) and the spatial relations between them, trees and graphs are composed of elements in an order or subset relationship (metaphorically, not directly spatial.) She gives a few examples of how we interpret maps (e.g., bar graphs suggest containers & make comparisons; line graphs suggest links & convey trends.) Tversky outlines two cognitive design principles: congruence (structure/content of viz should correspond to desired mental structure/content) and apprehension (structure/content should be readily & accurately perceived and comprehended.) She discusses two types of narrative in science viz: structure and process (the latter being more complex to depict.) For her, visual narratives should use analogy as well as present facts. While clarity and brevity are good in many situations, complexity sparks discovery and insight, so there are places for multiple types of diagrams.

Comments: Tversky’s general goal is to make use of schematic cognitive structures in the mind for design. She suggests several strategies for conveying concepts about process, including animations, arrows, and series of diagrams (as well as verbal descriptions.) She feels that animations are poorer in analogy, etc. than comic book format is (b/c animation mainly allows temporal links.) Perhaps interactivity would help address some of this concern about making different types of links.

Links to: Tufte 1, 2 (ideas about simplicity); Zhang & Norman (discussion of distributed cognition)

John K. Gilbert. “Visualization: An Emergent Field of Practice and Enquiry” in Science Education.” In John K. Gilbert, Miriam Reiner, and Mary Nakhleh (eds.) Visualization: Theory and Practice in Science Education, pp. 3-24. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008.

Summary: Gilbert discusses three levels of representation for scientific models: macroscopic, sub-microscopic (e.g., atoms, cells,) and symbolic (qualitative abstractions). External visualizations are used to create internal mental models; a key skill for full understanding is metavisualization, the ability to acquire, monitor, integrate, and extend from visualizations. He suggests two ways of classifying models: purpose (e.g., viz can be larger, smaller, show only processes, etc. of the subject) and dimensionality (e.g., 3-D ball & stick chem. models, 2-D diagrams, 1-D equations.) For metavisualization, people need to be able to understand the representation conventions for different dimensions, be able to translate between modes, construct their own representations, and solve problems using analogy by visualizations. He discusses challenges for mastery of conventions at different levels: macro representations are often taught in labs (they correspond with visible world); sub-micro level creates particular challenges for 3-D structures, but there’s a range of strategies for 2-D structures (e.g., diagrams, animations); and at the symbolic level one issue is differentiating between multiple systems (e.g., for chemical equations.) A key problem is being able to translate between levels (macro-micro-symbolic) or dimensions.

Comments: Traditional approach to mental models (internal vs. external), rather than distributed cognition. A lot of summary of classification systems and lists of skills needed to be visually literate. Goes into some detail about teaching strategies for developing metavisualization skills, which is not my main area of focus (except that multimedia may be good for this purpose.)

Links to: Zhang & Norman (distributed cognition view)

Categories
exam readings knowledge work networks public participation in science

Exam reading: “Crowdsourcing”

This book was more substantial and less rah-rah than I’d originally suspected it would be. There’s a fair amount of discussion of the different types of crowdsourcing, which includes public participation in science as well as the more profound stuff like t-shirt design 🙂

Jeff Howe. Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business. New York: Crown Business Press, 2009.

Summary: Howe discusses the rise of the “reputation economy”: unpaid work for recognition within a community, as an outgrowth of cheap production, underemployed creativity, and online communities. He calls crowdsourcing a “perfect meritocracy;” it fosters collaboration (as its own reward) and community formation. He does discuss drawbacks: shifts in business models/professions (photography, journalism), globalization & flattening of work hierarchies, and the possibility of ushering in cultural mediocrity (though he thinks the last is unlikely.) Overall, he suggests it’s away to utilize human talent better (idea is that people would still have day jobs, and collaborative projects would provide a creative outlet.) Howe outlines several types of crowdsourcing: collective intelligence (group innovation for problem solving; need diversity, and interaction can lead to a limiting consensus), crowd creation (making things, rather than applying existing expertise; need interaction for this), crowd voting/ranking, crowd finance (e.g., microloans.) For success, you need the right crowd and incentives, some professional employees (crowds are great at gathering data/brainstorming, but bad at analysis & organization), an overall frame and guidance for participants, and breakdown of tasks into doable pieces. Mentions 90% rule: 89% of everything is crap/10% is good/1% is great.

Comments: I’m still trying to decide whether crowdsourcing is a brilliant way to achieve meaningful personal expression or a clever ploy by the capitalist system to get free labor. I don’t want to be too negative about these efforts, because they do have great potential to add to the human experience. It seems like crowdsourcing operates much like academia is traditionally supposed to: open exchange of ideas, focus on interesting problems, etc., except that in academia people get paid for their work (I also wonder if there are also connections here to the current diminishing status of experts in a crowdsourcing world, which goes along with reduction in academic pay…) While academia left out a big group of people who now have potential to use this process, there’s still a majority without access to these technologies or who do not have time for this sort of collaboration that are being left out. Perhaps it’s best to think of these projects as a good place to start, rather than an endpoint.

Links to: Lave & Wenger (participants can be seen as LPPers); Liu (core list-politics of knowledge economy)

Categories
discourse community/community of practice exam readings knowledge work learning theory

Exam reading: “Minds on fire”

I had a strong reaction to this paper, probably because I’ve been thinking about these issues from a different perspective than the authors. This paper ties into some of my core T&T readings, like “Laws of Cool” and “Datacloud,” that address the knowledge economy and the future of work. However, here the focus is on learning.

John Seely Brown, and Richard P. Adler. “Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.” Educause Review Jan/Feb 2008.

Summary: Main idea is that an educated workforce with opportunities for lifelong learning is necessary to maintain competitive centers in a globalized world. The need for education for multiple careers and constant re-skilling (my term; they use more positive vocabulary) can be facilitated by Web-based free education & Web 2.0 networking technologies. The Web facilitates social, collaborative learning: work in small groups, “learning to be” a participant plus traditional “learning about” a subject, problem-based collaboration. Idea of legitimate peripheral participation: learners gain both explicit (factual) and implicit (social) knowledge at once. The authors look at online tools for learning: Second Life, “e-science,” informal discussions in social networking sites (I would argue that several of their suggestions aren’t good examples.) Discuss similarities between “long tail” niche marketing being supported by more popular commerce- the Web facilitates this setup- and how online education can be similar (once niche courses are developed, they’re out there forever.) Overall idea is to provide an environment that both facilitates and promotes lifelong learning; they call this “demand-pull” rather than “supply-push” approach.

Comments: Authors do not discuss what to do about the digital divide, the social dislocation associated with constant retraining, how hypothetical developers of free online courses would actually be employed themselves, how to evaluate accurate vs. inaccurate content, erosion of expertise and traditional methods of validating knowledge, etc. Basically, this reads like a Web 2.0 cheerleading piece for non-centralized/distributed education systems, and does not address a wide range of major economic and social justice issues (granted, this is probably not their intent.) The fact that the authors lump in non-online examples into their “online tools for learning” section suggests that they are stretching for examples.

Links to: Howe (discusses crowdsourcing-ultimate result of this educational style? or at least linked); Lave & Wenger (LPP)

Categories
exam readings information representation learning theory visuals

Exam readings: Distributed cognition and visualizations

For today, here are two related papers on distributed cognition (the idea that our thinking processes are intimately tied up with our environments, rather than being just internal) and images. The first paper presents a framework for understanding visualizations as part of distributed cognition, and the second applies that framework to studying interactive visualizations.

Jiajie Zhang, and Donald. A. Norman. “Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks.” Cognitive Science 18(1): 87-122, 1994.

Summary: In this paper, the authors present their theory of distributed cognition to describe how people conceptualize and perform tasks. Tasks are modeled using both internal and external components to create “distributed” representations. There are three basic problems in this view: the distributed representation of information, interaction between internal and external representations, and the nature of external representations. They discuss the “representational effect:” how different representations of the same information can have different cognitive effects (e.g., Roman vs. Arabic numerals and ease of calculation.) At issue here is that there are both internal and external “rules” in all problem representations; some formats contain more explicit or more easily understood external “rules,” which makes it easier to mentally interact with them. They outline a methodology for representational analysis that breaks done representations into component parts (skipping over details of this.) While external representations are aids to memory, they have additional functions: structuring (internal) cognition and providing information that does not need to be internalized in order to form a mental representation (affordances), and changing the fundamental nature of tasks.

Comments: The authors’ model of cognition suggests that differences among external representations will influence internal representations, or how information is learned. Practical implications include applicability of their ideas to effective design of representations. Not sure I will apply their methodology to my work, but theoretical approach is useful.

Links to: Kostelnick & Hassett (take rhetorical, rather than cognitive, approach to representation, point out that efficiency is usually not the driving force behind design); Liu et al. (argument to apply these ideas to info visualization)

Zhicheng Liu, Nancy J. Nersessian, and John T. Stasko. “Distributed Cognition as a Theoretical Framework for Information Visualization.” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 14.6 (2008): 1173-1180.

Summary: The authors suggest using distributed cognition as a framework for information visualization research (not well-developed enough to serve as theory at this point-lacks predictive, prescriptive aspects.) Distributed cognition holds that cognition arises from the interaction of the mind with objects in the environment, rather than as just internal symbol processing as in the traditional view of cognition. The mind works by building an internal representation of an object that coordinates all the viewer’s external observations of the object; bringing the internal and external representations into agreement. Using this framework, we can look at interaction with data representations as the “propagation of representation states in a cognitive system through coordination;” i.e., as the process of building mental models. The act of manipulation helps us understand things (e.g., Tetris.) The authors also discuss the importance of testing how info visualization systems work in practice to help create mental models, rather than testing just ease of use or how well people like using a particular visualization.

Comments: Includes a discussion of Zhang’s and Norman’s “Representations” paper, which I’m also reading. The authors mention importance of linking research in interactive visualization to current cognitive science and perception research. This paper suggests both that interactivity is a useful property for building understanding and that holistic evaluation of mental models is appropriate for evaluating such interactions; they mention “social visualization:” sharing visualizations over the Web for exploring data representations.

Links to: Zhang & Norman

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

Exam reading: Situated learning

Jean Lave & Etienne Wenger’s Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation is a foundational text for several key concepts.

Summary: Their main thesis is that learning occurs as “legitimate peripheral participation” in communities of practice: it’s not only situated/place-based (negotiated meanings, relational character of knowledge), but an integral part of the social fabric. Knowledge is comprehensive & activity-based (vs. received), and there’s a mutually constitutive relationship between actors, activities, and the world. The traditional approach of learning as internalization is too cerebral; they see learning as a process of increasing participation in the comm. of practice. Their focus is on the “person-in-world,” rather than the solitary learner or abstract knowledge domains. They also take a historical approach; e.g., comms. are constantly renewing themselves through the admission of newcomers and centripetal movement of newcomers into full participation. They discuss several aspects of traditional apprenticeships as case studies: technology use, recruitment, power relations, and organization of activity. The learning process is a set of steps of conferring legitimacy on the newcomer; learning starts as observation of community, who to emulate, etc., while doing peripheral tasks like running errands (core tasks come later.)

Comments: Authors suggest that more research is needed on defining “communities of practice” and power relations within communities. They summarize with a few ways their approach differs from traditional approaches: person becomes practitioner, situated learning becomes LPP in comm. of practice, knowing is inherent in identity transformation, and the social world is always reproducing itself while changing (there’s a conflict between continuity and shifting membership- “displacement contradiction”). They also discuss technology use: tech has both “invisible” (unproblematic/easily integrated use) and “visible” (salience/utility for task) components- these together create the degree of technological “transparency” (tech. that are both easy to use and the user can understand the significance of tech. within the community are transparent.) Their ideas tie into the idea of discourse community (and they do discuss language), but they’re more interested in language as a way to talk about the community than as a vehicle for information transmission.

Links to: foundational text for a lot of stuff…

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

Exam reading: The rhetoric of visual conventions

On to my next exam reading list, which is focused on discourse communities, and the use of new media technologies and visuals in these communities.

Charles Kostelnick  and Michael Hassett’s Shaping Information: The Rhetoric of Visual Conventions wasn’t exactly what I expected. It presents a rhetorical view of visual design, in a framework of discourse communities. I think I was expecting more specific recommendations from this book, but it does provide a good link between the visual and community-focused materials on my list:

Summary: The authors attempt to construct a framework for analyzing visual rhetoric, based on conventions used in various genres, the social forces that shape those conventions, and the situation-specific interpretation of conventions by users/readers. Visual conventions frame our understanding of the world; they make design coherent and provide shortcuts for interpretation by readers. Three types of factors shape conventions: discourse community (e.g., disciplinary, cultural), rhetorical (e.g., pragmatic, imitation), and practical (e.g., cost, laws). Conventions are generated within discourse communities (and learning conventions is required for joining those communities); they’re mutable but can appear permanent. There are different levels of understanding conventions, e.g., using a physics formula on a t-shirt to evoke “geekiness;” increasing centrality in a specialist d.c. leads to more complex understanding of codes. Conventions have shifting “currency” (size of user pool + frequency of use); designers must make rhetorical choices about what to use. Finally, conventions can be hard to see, because they’re usually deployed with other conventions, and especially in specialist discourse can seem “natural.”

Comments: Emphasis is on the discourse community process as the basis for discussion of convention use in different genres; there’s a large social aspect to visual design for the authors. They discuss the ways conventions can either simplify or complicate the act of perception, but do not include a lot of detail from empirical studies; they do include a chapter on the types of convention “breakdown” that can occur (designers and users are in different d.c.’s, conflict with other conventions in the same work, etc.). They also discuss evolution of conventions, framed by the ways that the discourse communities that gave rise to those conventions changed.

Links to: Tufte 1, 2 (K&H would call his a specific type of rhetoric)