Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Information Architecture
In the past few years, I've read a number of articles on information architecture which try to give meaning to the symbols used. I gotta say that Jessie James Garret's explanation is by far, the best I've seen. After reading his explanation I can actually see how mapping out a site's architecture could actually be helpful in a project's early stages! Until now, it just seemed like something I'd be able to do only once I had the site/application already designed.
I downloaded one of the symbol libraries and used it in powerpoint. The links were made automatically, but were still able to be modified. Since I usually have to fight with a program to get it to flowchart the way I'd like, this really seemed like magic!
I downloaded one of the symbol libraries and used it in powerpoint. The links were made automatically, but were still able to be modified. Since I usually have to fight with a program to get it to flowchart the way I'd like, this really seemed like magic!
Please clarify
In his paper, Information Interaction Design: A Unified Field Theory of Design, Nathan Shedroff defines and discusses "Information Interaction Design." In a nutshell:
"The process of creating is roughly the same in any medium," (p.1) I have a hard time equating the process of taking part in an impromptu conversation, with the process of say, writing a novel, which gives the producer of the interaction a great deal more time deliberate.
He illustrates his "continuum of Interactivity" by placing certain activities on the continuum. He starts by saying that reading a book and watching TV are passive activities - and I agree - but then he goes on to say that painting and TV production is interactive. I thought is was strange to discuss the degree of interaction of both the audience AND the producer; his illustration confuses me because the former activities are activities of an audience, while the later are activities of the producers. I guess I'm looking for a clearer definition of "interaction."
- Information Design: organization of data into information
- Interaction Design: the creation of the interactive experience. Look to the performing arts for richest development in this area
- Sensorial Design: addresses influence and interaction that the creation/presentation of of media has with the five senses.
"The process of creating is roughly the same in any medium," (p.1) I have a hard time equating the process of taking part in an impromptu conversation, with the process of say, writing a novel, which gives the producer of the interaction a great deal more time deliberate.
He illustrates his "continuum of Interactivity" by placing certain activities on the continuum. He starts by saying that reading a book and watching TV are passive activities - and I agree - but then he goes on to say that painting and TV production is interactive. I thought is was strange to discuss the degree of interaction of both the audience AND the producer; his illustration confuses me because the former activities are activities of an audience, while the later are activities of the producers. I guess I'm looking for a clearer definition of "interaction."
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Response: Anchored Instruction: Why We Need It and How Technology Can Help
Bransford begins this article by explaining why we need anchored instruction. In short the reason is transferability. He explains how logarithms were able to make life so much easier for astronomers of the 1600s. It's really a great example of how learning can address a real need.
And I totally agree that students "treat the knowledge as ends rather than means to an important ends." It's true classroom learning tends to remain separate from a student's list of tools for life.
The astronomers' learning context held such meaning for them because it was actually part of their real life - their work-life, probably. But most examples of anchored instruction that Bransford uses, and that I've come across elsewhere, are contrived. The contexts aren't ones that would naturally be in the student's life. Students first need to step out of himself, taking on some kind of artificial role, then take part in the learning context. Once completed, the student still needs to integrate that learning into their own reality - essentially the knowledge remains an end in itself. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of anchored instruction is great. And that placing knowledge acquisition into some kind of context is better than teaching that knowledge with no context at all - at least the students are getting to see their learning in action rather than an isolated (inert) element. I wonder, however, in what situations can we place learning so that it truly addresses a students' reality?
And I totally agree that students "treat the knowledge as ends rather than means to an important ends." It's true classroom learning tends to remain separate from a student's list of tools for life.
The astronomers' learning context held such meaning for them because it was actually part of their real life - their work-life, probably. But most examples of anchored instruction that Bransford uses, and that I've come across elsewhere, are contrived. The contexts aren't ones that would naturally be in the student's life. Students first need to step out of himself, taking on some kind of artificial role, then take part in the learning context. Once completed, the student still needs to integrate that learning into their own reality - essentially the knowledge remains an end in itself. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of anchored instruction is great. And that placing knowledge acquisition into some kind of context is better than teaching that knowledge with no context at all - at least the students are getting to see their learning in action rather than an isolated (inert) element. I wonder, however, in what situations can we place learning so that it truly addresses a students' reality?
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Lollipops & Learning: Design Document
Analysis
Background and Problem Description
Motivation has been found to be integral to reading instruction (Colker, Date not provided, p 1). Unfortunately, the current literacy models employed by educational institutions treat literacy skills as ends in themselves, reinforcing these skills outside of the natural context of reading and writing (Powell, 2005, p 249). One way to motivate learners is to teach them to appreciate the aesthetic value of literacy as portrayed by reader response theory.
Martinez summarizes the perspective of reader response theory as embracing “the notion that literacy involves more than comprehending the literary object; that reading involves perceiving the complex relationships offered by multiple perspectives” (2000, p 166). According to this theory readers bring to every reading a stance, or “mental set”: either an aesthetic stance or an efferent one. In educational settings, learners are generally asked to take on an efferent stance in which “attention focuses on accumulating what is to be carried away at the end of the reading” (Rosenblatt, p. 73). For example students are asked to provide the main idea of a given paragraph or story or to retain details of a text.
By reading with an aesthetic stance “attention will shift inward, will center on what is being created during the actual reading. A much broader range of elements will be allowed to rise into consciousness, not simply the abstract concepts that the words point to, buy also what those objects or referents strip up of personal feelings, ideas, and attitudes. The very sound and rhythm of the words will be attended to.” (Rosenblatt, p 73)
According to reader response theory reading is made up of “transactions,” the give and take of both the reader and the text at a particular time and under particular circumstances. Readers bring a predominantly aesthetic stance or efferent stance to a reading and the transaction (or multiple transactions) within (Rosenblatt, p 73, p 75).
In his research on the effects of readers’ implicit models of reading Shraw found when readers hold this transactional model of reading as a belief, “they generate more critical and personal responses without sacrificing their understanding of important text propositions.” He goes on to suggest “that those with a transactional epistemology were more likely to engage a text, rather than merely process it” (Wineburg, 1991 as sited in Schraw, 1996, p301)
While it is the efferent stance that is most widely utilized within educational institutions, it is the aesthetic stance that enables a reader to be moved by a reading. “Aesthetic reading, by its very nature has an intrinsic purpose, the desire to have a pleasurable, interesting experience for its own sake” (Rosenblatt, p 83).
If we can teach young learners how they can interact with a reading and utilize the aesthetic stance, they are likely to value reading experiences and become motivated to continue reading on their own. As reading (or being read to) becomes an experience to savor, the increased exposure is likely to increase the other skills required for proficient literacy.
Target Audience/Learners
Children between the ages of 5 and 8 are the primary target audience for this animated instructional unit. The unit will be geared to children without significant learning disabilities. The targeted learners are also without physical disabilities which would prevent interaction with the text. Additionally, since research suggests that children who read with adults attain better levels of comprehension, we should consider parents/guardians and teachers to be a secondary audience (Gimbert and Cristol, 2004, p 208).
Review of Existing Projects/Research and Their Shortcomings & Media Review
Research aimed at studying the best way to integrate technology into English language arts is quite limited (McNabb, 2005, p 113). This of course is the greatest shortcoming of the existing research. However, the research that has been done suggests that Cued Animations and Sound Effects (CASE) should be supportive of the story, and should be limited even then (Trushell, 2005, p 59, p 64). While relevant sounds do not hinder learning, they also do not enhance it (Moreno et al, 2002, p 163)
Additionally, interactive media allows for venturing beyond the single page via the use of hypertext and hypermedia. Conventional reading strategies apply only a single page of a website. While there is some evidence indicating significant differences between this multi-linear way of reading and conventional linear readings, little is known about the cognitive processes involved with venturing beyond this first page (McNabb, 2005, p 114).
Design
Learner Characteristics
The learners of this unit will be male and female English language learners between the 5 and 8. They are beginning readers without disabilities (learning, physical, developmental) significant enough to prevent interaction with the text. As young children, they have short attention and are unfamiliar with abstract concepts.
Content Analysis
To be successful in teaching young learners to utilize the aesthetic stance we will need to use well written texts that appeal to their senses. Imagery and rhythm and fantasy are all things that would enhance the aesthetic reading of a text. The computer narration (which can be turned on/off) should be as realistic as possible and utilize voice inflection to give life to additional emphasis.
The exercises included should elicit the personal nature of the student’s transaction with the text. Text can evoke emotion and the learners should be encouraged to relive the experience. Rosenblatt suggests that a question/answer atmosphere tends to shut down aesthetic experience, so students should be encouraged to extend the experience by nonverbal means: drawing, playacting, painting etc. (p 84). Simulating the full tactile experience that these exercises evoke would be difficult, if not impossible. However the program may encourage the symbolic use of color in relation to a given text. It could also help the students to relive the rhythmic aspects of a text.
Goal, objectives, evaluation
Goal
Increase readers’ motivation to read.
Objectives
1: Enhance the readers’ aesthetic appreciation of given text.
2: Provide readers’ with the tools to “relive” given text.
Evaluation
Empirical evaluation of the unit would be difficult. One way to evaluate successful achievement of the objectives would be to provide learners with questionnaires both before beginning the unit and at completion. The questionnaires would ask about the reader’s personal response to a given text. Recalling Rosenblatt’s suggestion that the question/answer environment tends to close down the aesthetic experience, this kind of evaluation would most likely be a poor measure. Rosenblatt suggests that, “A most eloquent verbal sign that the story or poem is being aesthetically experienced is the child’s “Read it again” (Rosenblatt, p78). This could hardly be considered an empirical measure. Qualitative means are the best way to measure achievement of the objectives.
Measuring achievement of the overall goal (Increase readers’ motivation to read) would also be difficult to measure empirically. In addition, true success in achieving this goal can not be measured in the short term. Instead, effective evaluation would require longitudinal study in order to see if changes in motivation sustained.
Description of delivery platform (Hardware, Software)
Delivery would most likely be via CD (for those with limited bandwidth) or downloadable software.
Relevant theories
In addition to literacy based theories we will also need to consider theories regarding cognitive architecture. The research surrounding short term memory and cognitive load will be key. The cognitive load research regarding the modality effect and the redundancy effect will be of particular use. For example, Moreno et al found “the disadvantage of redundant verbal explanations over spoken explanations disappeared when presentations were made sequential. (2002, p 162). This should be kept in mind as the various options available are designed.
Background and Problem Description
Motivation has been found to be integral to reading instruction (Colker, Date not provided, p 1). Unfortunately, the current literacy models employed by educational institutions treat literacy skills as ends in themselves, reinforcing these skills outside of the natural context of reading and writing (Powell, 2005, p 249). One way to motivate learners is to teach them to appreciate the aesthetic value of literacy as portrayed by reader response theory.
Martinez summarizes the perspective of reader response theory as embracing “the notion that literacy involves more than comprehending the literary object; that reading involves perceiving the complex relationships offered by multiple perspectives” (2000, p 166). According to this theory readers bring to every reading a stance, or “mental set”: either an aesthetic stance or an efferent one. In educational settings, learners are generally asked to take on an efferent stance in which “attention focuses on accumulating what is to be carried away at the end of the reading” (Rosenblatt, p. 73). For example students are asked to provide the main idea of a given paragraph or story or to retain details of a text.
By reading with an aesthetic stance “attention will shift inward, will center on what is being created during the actual reading. A much broader range of elements will be allowed to rise into consciousness, not simply the abstract concepts that the words point to, buy also what those objects or referents strip up of personal feelings, ideas, and attitudes. The very sound and rhythm of the words will be attended to.” (Rosenblatt, p 73)
According to reader response theory reading is made up of “transactions,” the give and take of both the reader and the text at a particular time and under particular circumstances. Readers bring a predominantly aesthetic stance or efferent stance to a reading and the transaction (or multiple transactions) within (Rosenblatt, p 73, p 75).
In his research on the effects of readers’ implicit models of reading Shraw found when readers hold this transactional model of reading as a belief, “they generate more critical and personal responses without sacrificing their understanding of important text propositions.” He goes on to suggest “that those with a transactional epistemology were more likely to engage a text, rather than merely process it” (Wineburg, 1991 as sited in Schraw, 1996, p301)
While it is the efferent stance that is most widely utilized within educational institutions, it is the aesthetic stance that enables a reader to be moved by a reading. “Aesthetic reading, by its very nature has an intrinsic purpose, the desire to have a pleasurable, interesting experience for its own sake” (Rosenblatt, p 83).
If we can teach young learners how they can interact with a reading and utilize the aesthetic stance, they are likely to value reading experiences and become motivated to continue reading on their own. As reading (or being read to) becomes an experience to savor, the increased exposure is likely to increase the other skills required for proficient literacy.
Target Audience/Learners
Children between the ages of 5 and 8 are the primary target audience for this animated instructional unit. The unit will be geared to children without significant learning disabilities. The targeted learners are also without physical disabilities which would prevent interaction with the text. Additionally, since research suggests that children who read with adults attain better levels of comprehension, we should consider parents/guardians and teachers to be a secondary audience (Gimbert and Cristol, 2004, p 208).
Review of Existing Projects/Research and Their Shortcomings & Media Review
Research aimed at studying the best way to integrate technology into English language arts is quite limited (McNabb, 2005, p 113). This of course is the greatest shortcoming of the existing research. However, the research that has been done suggests that Cued Animations and Sound Effects (CASE) should be supportive of the story, and should be limited even then (Trushell, 2005, p 59, p 64). While relevant sounds do not hinder learning, they also do not enhance it (Moreno et al, 2002, p 163)
Additionally, interactive media allows for venturing beyond the single page via the use of hypertext and hypermedia. Conventional reading strategies apply only a single page of a website. While there is some evidence indicating significant differences between this multi-linear way of reading and conventional linear readings, little is known about the cognitive processes involved with venturing beyond this first page (McNabb, 2005, p 114).
Design
Learner Characteristics
The learners of this unit will be male and female English language learners between the 5 and 8. They are beginning readers without disabilities (learning, physical, developmental) significant enough to prevent interaction with the text. As young children, they have short attention and are unfamiliar with abstract concepts.
Content Analysis
To be successful in teaching young learners to utilize the aesthetic stance we will need to use well written texts that appeal to their senses. Imagery and rhythm and fantasy are all things that would enhance the aesthetic reading of a text. The computer narration (which can be turned on/off) should be as realistic as possible and utilize voice inflection to give life to additional emphasis.
The exercises included should elicit the personal nature of the student’s transaction with the text. Text can evoke emotion and the learners should be encouraged to relive the experience. Rosenblatt suggests that a question/answer atmosphere tends to shut down aesthetic experience, so students should be encouraged to extend the experience by nonverbal means: drawing, playacting, painting etc. (p 84). Simulating the full tactile experience that these exercises evoke would be difficult, if not impossible. However the program may encourage the symbolic use of color in relation to a given text. It could also help the students to relive the rhythmic aspects of a text.
Goal, objectives, evaluation
Goal
Increase readers’ motivation to read.
Objectives
1: Enhance the readers’ aesthetic appreciation of given text.
2: Provide readers’ with the tools to “relive” given text.
Evaluation
Empirical evaluation of the unit would be difficult. One way to evaluate successful achievement of the objectives would be to provide learners with questionnaires both before beginning the unit and at completion. The questionnaires would ask about the reader’s personal response to a given text. Recalling Rosenblatt’s suggestion that the question/answer environment tends to close down the aesthetic experience, this kind of evaluation would most likely be a poor measure. Rosenblatt suggests that, “A most eloquent verbal sign that the story or poem is being aesthetically experienced is the child’s “Read it again” (Rosenblatt, p78). This could hardly be considered an empirical measure. Qualitative means are the best way to measure achievement of the objectives.
Measuring achievement of the overall goal (Increase readers’ motivation to read) would also be difficult to measure empirically. In addition, true success in achieving this goal can not be measured in the short term. Instead, effective evaluation would require longitudinal study in order to see if changes in motivation sustained.
Description of delivery platform (Hardware, Software)
Delivery would most likely be via CD (for those with limited bandwidth) or downloadable software.
Relevant theories
In addition to literacy based theories we will also need to consider theories regarding cognitive architecture. The research surrounding short term memory and cognitive load will be key. The cognitive load research regarding the modality effect and the redundancy effect will be of particular use. For example, Moreno et al found “the disadvantage of redundant verbal explanations over spoken explanations disappeared when presentations were made sequential. (2002, p 162). This should be kept in mind as the various options available are designed.
