[DG: Teaching & Learning] User Goals
|
View:
New views
13 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
[DG: Teaching & Learning] User Goals
by Clay Fenlason-3
::
Rate this Message:
I was looking at the "Learning Capabilities" spreadsheet [1] again
this morning, and was glad to see it being fleshed out. I did however note a tendency for the "user goals" to creep into feature requests and implementation assumptions as the list grows longer, which starts to dilute its effectiveness. Since I warned on the T&L call a few weeks ago that I would be pushing back on this kind of thing, I now feel free ;) I know it's hard to avoid the sort of language that assumes common web tools, since we all live and breathe in this space, but let me urge the effort once again, and offer a few examples to illustrate the point. Near the top of the sheet the user goals take the form of "I need to see who's in my class" and "I want to learn the names of all my students/peers." Simple and universal needs with no technological or functional assumptions. Near the bottom there are now user goals like "Allow me to use common keyboard shortcuts" and "Allow me to listen to class readings with a screen reader." For such things it would be better to place them among the "capabilities" columns and try to trace them back to the essential, non-technical need. Maybe that's going to be the right exercise for most of us who take these technical tools as second nature: first lay out what seem to us the capabilities in the middle of the sheet, and then try to work back to the left what the underlying, non-technical user goal is. If that can't be done that may be a sign of something. ~Clay [1] https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlfbHxo2qpHEdHRuSnowVGMwWE9HY1MtVjFpY1dtS0E&hl=en _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] User Goals
by Robin Hill-3
::
Rate this Message:
I agree completely. Articulating the pedagogical goals rather than the
mechanics is a worthy exercise; in fact, it's the whole point. And more difficult than it seems, so I invite others to point out the hidden assumptions in my stated objectives, as well. Clay Fenlason wrote: > I was looking at the "Learning Capabilities" spreadsheet [1] again > this morning, and was glad to see it being fleshed out. I did however > note a tendency for the "user goals" to creep into feature requests > and implementation assumptions as the list grows longer, which starts > to dilute its effectiveness. Since I warned on the T&L call a few > weeks ago that I would be pushing back on this kind of thing, I now > feel free ;) I know it's hard to avoid the sort of language that > assumes common web tools, since we all live and breathe in this > space, but let me urge the effort once again, and offer a few > examples to illustrate the point. > > Near the top of the sheet the user goals take the form of "I need to > see who's in my class" and "I want to learn the names of all my > students/peers." Simple and universal needs with no technological or > functional assumptions. > > Near the bottom there are now user goals like "Allow me to use common > keyboard shortcuts" and "Allow me to listen to class readings with a > screen reader." For such things it would be better to place them > among the "capabilities" columns and try to trace them back to the > essential, non-technical need. Maybe that's going to be the right > exercise for most of us who take these technical tools as second > nature: first lay out what seem to us the capabilities in the middle > of the sheet, and then try to work back to the left what the > underlying, non-technical user goal is. If that can't be done that > may be a sign of something. > > ~Clay > > [1] > > _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing > list pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to > pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of > "unsubscribe" -- Robin Hill, Ph.D. hill@... 307-766-5499 Instructional Computing Services http://www.uwyo.edu/ctl Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning University of Wyoming _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] User Goals
by Luke Fernandez-2
::
Rate this Message:
An interesting exercise....which begs the question (which I think Clay
alludes to at the end of his post) as to whether pedagogical goals can, in all instances, be articulated in ways that are abstracted from the technologies we use for teaching and learning. A case in point is that many instructors (especially in the humanities) view reading and writing as fundamental skills that they seek to impart to their students. But reading and writing are themselves techniques and presume the use of the written word which is itself a technology. In the first monday article that Michael circulated Lane seems to be lamenting as Thoreau did that we are becoming tools of our tools. But technology is so embedded in the teaching of some disciplines that it would be difficult to get away from this circularity. Cheers, Luke On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robin Hill <hill@...> wrote: > I agree completely. Articulating the pedagogical goals rather than the > mechanics is a worthy exercise; in fact, it's the whole point. And more > difficult than it seems, so I invite others to point out the hidden > assumptions in my stated objectives, as well. > > > Clay Fenlason wrote: >> I was looking at the "Learning Capabilities" spreadsheet [1] again >> this morning, and was glad to see it being fleshed out. I did however >> note a tendency for the "user goals" to creep into feature requests >> and implementation assumptions as the list grows longer, which starts >> to dilute its effectiveness. Since I warned on the T&L call a few >> weeks ago that I would be pushing back on this kind of thing, I now >> feel free ;) I know it's hard to avoid the sort of language that >> assumes common web tools, since we all live and breathe in this >> space, but let me urge the effort once again, and offer a few >> examples to illustrate the point. >> >> Near the top of the sheet the user goals take the form of "I need to >> see who's in my class" and "I want to learn the names of all my >> students/peers." Simple and universal needs with no technological or >> functional assumptions. >> >> Near the bottom there are now user goals like "Allow me to use common >> keyboard shortcuts" and "Allow me to listen to class readings with a >> screen reader." For such things it would be better to place them >> among the "capabilities" columns and try to trace them back to the >> essential, non-technical need. Maybe that's going to be the right >> exercise for most of us who take these technical tools as second >> nature: first lay out what seem to us the capabilities in the middle >> of the sheet, and then try to work back to the left what the >> underlying, non-technical user goal is. If that can't be done that >> may be a sign of something. >> >> ~Clay >> >> [1] >> > https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlfbHxo2qpHEdHRuSnowVGMwWE9HY1MtVjFpY1dtS0E&hl=en >> _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing >> list pedagogy@... >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to >> pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of >> "unsubscribe" > > -- > Robin Hill, Ph.D. hill@... 307-766-5499 > Instructional Computing Services http://www.uwyo.edu/ctl > Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning University of Wyoming > > > _______________________________________________ > pedagogy mailing list > pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" > pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by jrnorman
::
Rate this Message:
Well, don't I just love the academic discourse :-)
Go gently with me because I am not a professional - but can't we apply the same thinking to your reading and writing example Luke? We may talk in terms of "the goal is to read this article", but that is vaguely absurd as a goal. The goal is to discover, absorb (and perhaps later critique) the _work of the author_, most conveniently done by reading the paper. A secondary goal might be to familiarise yourself with the craft of writing an academic paper so that you can become proficient as an academic (or potential academic), but that is rarely the primary goal. Similarly with writing. The task is to express yourself, demonstrate mastery of something, communicate ideas. Imaginative instructors may accept all sorts of channels/media for such expression/communication, but currently writing is one of the most common. Again a secondary goal _may_ be proficiency in an important academic skill, but a choice of medium does not make use of the medium the goal. Can't wait to see where we go with that one :-) John On 4 Nov 2009, at 17:29, Luke Fernandez wrote: > An interesting exercise....which begs the question (which I think Clay > alludes to at the end of his post) as to whether pedagogical goals > can, in all instances, be articulated in ways that are abstracted from > the technologies we use for teaching and learning. > > A case in point is that many instructors (especially in the > humanities) view reading and writing as fundamental skills that they > seek to impart to their students. But reading and writing are > themselves techniques and presume the use of the written word which is > itself a technology. In the first monday article that Michael > circulated Lane seems to be lamenting as Thoreau did that we are > becoming tools of our tools. But technology is so embedded in the > teaching of some disciplines that it would be difficult to get away > from this circularity. > > Cheers, > > Luke > > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robin Hill <hill@...> wrote: >> I agree completely. Articulating the pedagogical goals rather than >> the >> mechanics is a worthy exercise; in fact, it's the whole point. And >> more >> difficult than it seems, so I invite others to point out the hidden >> assumptions in my stated objectives, as well. >> >> >> Clay Fenlason wrote: >>> I was looking at the "Learning Capabilities" spreadsheet [1] again >>> this morning, and was glad to see it being fleshed out. I did >>> however >>> note a tendency for the "user goals" to creep into feature requests >>> and implementation assumptions as the list grows longer, which >>> starts >>> to dilute its effectiveness. Since I warned on the T&L call a few >>> weeks ago that I would be pushing back on this kind of thing, I now >>> feel free ;) I know it's hard to avoid the sort of language that >>> assumes common web tools, since we all live and breathe in this >>> space, but let me urge the effort once again, and offer a few >>> examples to illustrate the point. >>> >>> Near the top of the sheet the user goals take the form of "I need >>> to >>> see who's in my class" and "I want to learn the names of all my >>> students/peers." Simple and universal needs with no technological >>> or >>> functional assumptions. >>> >>> Near the bottom there are now user goals like "Allow me to use >>> common >>> keyboard shortcuts" and "Allow me to listen to class readings >>> with a >>> screen reader." For such things it would be better to place them >>> among the "capabilities" columns and try to trace them back to the >>> essential, non-technical need. Maybe that's going to be the right >>> exercise for most of us who take these technical tools as second >>> nature: first lay out what seem to us the capabilities in the >>> middle >>> of the sheet, and then try to work back to the left what the >>> underlying, non-technical user goal is. If that can't be done that >>> may be a sign of something. >>> >>> ~Clay >>> >>> [1] >>> >> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlfbHxo2qpHEdHRuSnowVGMwWE9HY1MtVjFpY1dtS0E&hl=en >>> _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing >>> list pedagogy@... >>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >>> >>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to >>> pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of >>> "unsubscribe" >> >> -- >> Robin Hill, Ph.D. hill@... 307-766-5499 >> Instructional Computing Services http://www.uwyo.edu/ctl >> Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning University of Wyoming >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pedagogy mailing list >> pedagogy@... >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... >> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >> > _______________________________________________ > sakai-ux mailing list > sakai-ux@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-ux > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to sakai-ux-unsubscribe@... > with a subject of "unsubscribe" _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by Luke Fernandez-2
::
Rate this Message:
Although the virtues of reading and writing as a means of
communication have been challenged as far back as Plato I’m not sure that it’s always my bailiwick as a technologist to do that. I guess the question is whether there is a point where we should take the technological needs which our faculty articulate at face value. We’re trying to puzzle this out here at Weber as we try to develop a rubric for choosing our next LMS. More concretely, can we do it using some derivative of the needs that are being enumerated on Clay’s spreadsheet? Or do we resort to the more traditional/conventional/functional edutools rubric which many schools use and which our LMS selection committee seems (perhaps at our own peril) to be gravitating towards? Cheers, Luke On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, John Norman <john@...> wrote: > Well, don't I just love the academic discourse :-) > > Go gently with me because I am not a professional - but can't we apply > the same thinking to your reading and writing example Luke? We may > talk in terms of "the goal is to read this article", but that is > vaguely absurd as a goal. The goal is to discover, absorb (and perhaps > later critique) the _work of the author_, most conveniently done by > reading the paper. A secondary goal might be to familiarise yourself > with the craft of writing an academic paper so that you can become > proficient as an academic (or potential academic), but that is rarely > the primary goal. > > Similarly with writing. The task is to express yourself, demonstrate > mastery of something, communicate ideas. Imaginative instructors may > accept all sorts of channels/media for such expression/communication, > but currently writing is one of the most common. Again a secondary > goal _may_ be proficiency in an important academic skill, but a choice > of medium does not make use of the medium the goal. > > Can't wait to see where we go with that one :-) > > John > > On 4 Nov 2009, at 17:29, Luke Fernandez wrote: > >> An interesting exercise....which begs the question (which I think Clay >> alludes to at the end of his post) as to whether pedagogical goals >> can, in all instances, be articulated in ways that are abstracted from >> the technologies we use for teaching and learning. >> >> A case in point is that many instructors (especially in the >> humanities) view reading and writing as fundamental skills that they >> seek to impart to their students. But reading and writing are >> themselves techniques and presume the use of the written word which is >> itself a technology. In the first monday article that Michael >> circulated Lane seems to be lamenting as Thoreau did that we are >> becoming tools of our tools. But technology is so embedded in the >> teaching of some disciplines that it would be difficult to get away >> from this circularity. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Luke >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robin Hill <hill@...> wrote: >>> I agree completely. Articulating the pedagogical goals rather than >>> the >>> mechanics is a worthy exercise; in fact, it's the whole point. And >>> more >>> difficult than it seems, so I invite others to point out the hidden >>> assumptions in my stated objectives, as well. >>> >>> >>> Clay Fenlason wrote: >>>> I was looking at the "Learning Capabilities" spreadsheet [1] again >>>> this morning, and was glad to see it being fleshed out. I did >>>> however >>>> note a tendency for the "user goals" to creep into feature requests >>>> and implementation assumptions as the list grows longer, which >>>> starts >>>> to dilute its effectiveness. Since I warned on the T&L call a few >>>> weeks ago that I would be pushing back on this kind of thing, I now >>>> feel free ;) I know it's hard to avoid the sort of language that >>>> assumes common web tools, since we all live and breathe in this >>>> space, but let me urge the effort once again, and offer a few >>>> examples to illustrate the point. >>>> >>>> Near the top of the sheet the user goals take the form of "I need >>>> to >>>> see who's in my class" and "I want to learn the names of all my >>>> students/peers." Simple and universal needs with no technological >>>> or >>>> functional assumptions. >>>> >>>> Near the bottom there are now user goals like "Allow me to use >>>> common >>>> keyboard shortcuts" and "Allow me to listen to class readings >>>> with a >>>> screen reader." For such things it would be better to place them >>>> among the "capabilities" columns and try to trace them back to the >>>> essential, non-technical need. Maybe that's going to be the right >>>> exercise for most of us who take these technical tools as second >>>> nature: first lay out what seem to us the capabilities in the >>>> middle >>>> of the sheet, and then try to work back to the left what the >>>> underlying, non-technical user goal is. If that can't be done that >>>> may be a sign of something. >>>> >>>> ~Clay >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >>> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlfbHxo2qpHEdHRuSnowVGMwWE9HY1MtVjFpY1dtS0E&hl=en >>>> _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing >>>> list pedagogy@... >>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >>>> >>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to >>>> pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of >>>> "unsubscribe" >>> >>> -- >>> Robin Hill, Ph.D. hill@... 307-766-5499 >>> Instructional Computing Services http://www.uwyo.edu/ctl >>> Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning University of Wyoming >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pedagogy mailing list >>> pedagogy@... >>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >>> >>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... >>> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> sakai-ux mailing list >> sakai-ux@... >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-ux >> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to sakai-ux-unsubscribe@... >> with a subject of "unsubscribe" > > _______________________________________________ > pedagogy mailing list > pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" > pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by Clay Fenlason-3
::
Rate this Message:
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Luke Fernandez <luke.fernandez@...> wrote:
> I guess > the question is whether there is a point where we should take the > technological needs which our faculty articulate at face value. My experience is that this is most often counterproductive. I think this is why UCD starts with user *research* as opposed to simply asking the users what they want. The important considerations are very often the ones we are not conscious of, let alone those we're able to articulate well, not to mention articulate a solution that will also work for other people and fit well with other technical solutions in the same space, and so forth. It takes talent to synthesize sets of needs and come up with good answers, and that talent is not aided by leaping into implementation details too quickly. My underlying aim is to see us build something helpful and useful, not do a product comparison (and maybe that's why you are coming at this from a different angle). We've got designers ready to do work, and they're the ones with the sort of talent I indicated above. We need to help them cut through to what's essential, not get distracted by incidental detail. I think we're all familiar with conversations where someone confronts us with their issue, we start to raise possibilities or workarounds and press on details of what they're asking for, until they finally throw up their hands and say, "Look, I just want something that will <insert simple thing here> and not be a PITA, and if you can give me that I'll be happy." When they get to the point of putting it that way, then I think we're getting somewhere. ~Clay _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by Robin Hill-3
::
Rate this Message:
Since I take this seriously, having spent years teaching computer
science students to separate design from implementaion, maybe I can illustrate the process and the difficulty with a spreadsheet entry of my own. ======== From the point of view of an instructor (of a logic course): 1. I want an Example Bank. Bad-- no functional description. 2. I want a set of tagged text records in an associative array. Bad-- assumes a particular mechanism. 3. I want to maintain my examples in a personal blog that allows labels on postings. Bad-- assumes a particular tool. 4. I want examples that I can look up and use. Bad-- too general and vague. 5. I want to save example of statements and reasoning when encountered in daily life, and I want to retrieve them based on their properties when composing course materials. Good! ======== Clay is welcome to comment, especially if this is NOT what he has in mind. Clay Fenlason wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Luke Fernandez > <luke.fernandez@...> wrote: > > I guess the question is whether there is a point where we should > > take the technological needs which our faculty articulate at face > > value. > > My experience is that this is most often counterproductive. I think > this is why UCD starts with user *research* as opposed to simply > asking the users what they want. The important considerations are > very often the ones we are not conscious of, let alone those we're > able to articulate well, not to mention articulate a solution that > will also work for other people and fit well with other technical > solutions in the same space, and so forth. It takes talent to > synthesize sets of needs and come up with good answers, and that > talent is not aided by leaping into implementation details too > quickly. > > My underlying aim is to see us build something helpful and useful, > not do a product comparison (and maybe that's why you are coming at > this from a different angle). We've got designers ready to do work, > and they're the ones with the sort of talent I indicated above. We > need to help them cut through to what's essential, not get distracted > by incidental detail. > > I think we're all familiar with conversations where someone confronts > us with their issue, we start to raise possibilities or workarounds > and press on details of what they're asking for, until they finally > throw up their hands and say, "Look, I just want something that will > <insert simple thing here> and not be a PITA, and if you can give me > that I'll be happy." When they get to the point of putting it that > way, then I think we're getting somewhere. > > ~Clay _______________________________________________ pedagogy > mailing list pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to > pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of > "unsubscribe" -- Robin Hill, Ph.D. hill@... 307-766-5499 Instructional Computing Services http://www.uwyo.edu/ctl Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning University of Wyoming _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by nato
::
Rate this Message:
Luke:
What concerns me about the whole endeavor of a functional comparison of learning systems is all the major players meet some of the criteria, none of them perfectly. In other words, you won't be able to make a clear decision on a purely functional basis. What I don't see so often is institutions making decisions driven by their mission and values. If I were add to your rubric, it would include entries like: I need my online learning system design and development to be driven primarily by pedagogical needs. I need my online learning system to be around for the long haul. I need my online learning system to increase my collaboration and sharing with my peer/neighbor institutions. I need my online learning system to cost less and deliver more over time. I need my online learning system to demonstrate how it supports student learning. I need my online learning system to directly support my institutional values. I need my online learning system to reflect and augment current practices in teaching and learning. I need my online learning system to directly support local educational practices. I need the maintenance and support of my online learning system to directly enhance teaching and learning at my institution. I need my online learning system to quickly and easily reflect my local teaching and learning needs and priorities. I need my online learning system to integrate with technologies that haven't been invented yet. And so on. Given how often each institution will change learning platforms, questions like these will matter more over time than purely functional comparisons. -- Nate On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Luke Fernandez wrote: > Although the virtues of reading and writing as a means of > communication have been challenged as far back as Plato I’m not sure > that it’s always my bailiwick as a technologist to do that. I guess > the question is whether there is a point where we should take the > technological needs which our faculty articulate at face value. We’re > trying to puzzle this out here at Weber as we try to develop a rubric > for choosing our next LMS. More concretely, can we do it using some > derivative of the needs that are being enumerated on Clay’s > spreadsheet? Or do we resort to the more > traditional/conventional/functional edutools rubric which many schools > use and which our LMS selection committee seems (perhaps at our own > peril) to be gravitating towards? > > Cheers, > > Luke > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, John Norman <john@...> > wrote: >> Well, don't I just love the academic discourse :-) >> >> Go gently with me because I am not a professional - but can't we >> apply >> the same thinking to your reading and writing example Luke? We may >> talk in terms of "the goal is to read this article", but that is >> vaguely absurd as a goal. The goal is to discover, absorb (and >> perhaps >> later critique) the _work of the author_, most conveniently done by >> reading the paper. A secondary goal might be to familiarise yourself >> with the craft of writing an academic paper so that you can become >> proficient as an academic (or potential academic), but that is rarely >> the primary goal. >> >> Similarly with writing. The task is to express yourself, demonstrate >> mastery of something, communicate ideas. Imaginative instructors may >> accept all sorts of channels/media for such expression/communication, >> but currently writing is one of the most common. Again a secondary >> goal _may_ be proficiency in an important academic skill, but a >> choice >> of medium does not make use of the medium the goal. >> >> Can't wait to see where we go with that one :-) >> >> John >> >> On 4 Nov 2009, at 17:29, Luke Fernandez wrote: >> >>> An interesting exercise....which begs the question (which I think >>> Clay >>> alludes to at the end of his post) as to whether pedagogical goals >>> can, in all instances, be articulated in ways that are abstracted >>> from >>> the technologies we use for teaching and learning. >>> >>> A case in point is that many instructors (especially in the >>> humanities) view reading and writing as fundamental skills that they >>> seek to impart to their students. But reading and writing are >>> themselves techniques and presume the use of the written word >>> which is >>> itself a technology. In the first monday article that Michael >>> circulated Lane seems to be lamenting as Thoreau did that we are >>> becoming tools of our tools. But technology is so embedded in the >>> teaching of some disciplines that it would be difficult to get away >>> from this circularity. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Luke >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robin Hill <hill@...> wrote: >>>> I agree completely. Articulating the pedagogical goals rather than >>>> the >>>> mechanics is a worthy exercise; in fact, it's the whole point. And >>>> more >>>> difficult than it seems, so I invite others to point out the hidden >>>> assumptions in my stated objectives, as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> Clay Fenlason wrote: >>>>> I was looking at the "Learning Capabilities" spreadsheet [1] >>>>> again >>>>> this morning, and was glad to see it being fleshed out. I did >>>>> however >>>>> note a tendency for the "user goals" to creep into feature >>>>> requests >>>>> and implementation assumptions as the list grows longer, which >>>>> starts >>>>> to dilute its effectiveness. Since I warned on the T&L call a few >>>>> weeks ago that I would be pushing back on this kind of thing, I >>>>> now >>>>> feel free ;) I know it's hard to avoid the sort of language that >>>>> assumes common web tools, since we all live and breathe in this >>>>> space, but let me urge the effort once again, and offer a few >>>>> examples to illustrate the point. >>>>> >>>>> Near the top of the sheet the user goals take the form of "I need >>>>> to >>>>> see who's in my class" and "I want to learn the names of all my >>>>> students/peers." Simple and universal needs with no technological >>>>> or >>>>> functional assumptions. >>>>> >>>>> Near the bottom there are now user goals like "Allow me to use >>>>> common >>>>> keyboard shortcuts" and "Allow me to listen to class readings >>>>> with a >>>>> screen reader." For such things it would be better to place them >>>>> among the "capabilities" columns and try to trace them back to >>>>> the >>>>> essential, non-technical need. Maybe that's going to be the right >>>>> exercise for most of us who take these technical tools as second >>>>> nature: first lay out what seem to us the capabilities in the >>>>> middle >>>>> of the sheet, and then try to work back to the left what the >>>>> underlying, non-technical user goal is. If that can't be done >>>>> that >>>>> may be a sign of something. >>>>> >>>>> ~Clay >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> >>>> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlfbHxo2qpHEdHRuSnowVGMwWE9HY1MtVjFpY1dtS0E&hl=en >>>>> _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing >>>>> list pedagogy@... >>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >>>>> >>>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to >>>>> pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of >>>>> "unsubscribe" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Robin Hill, Ph.D. hill@... 307-766-5499 >>>> Instructional Computing Services http://www.uwyo.edu/ >>>> ctl >>>> Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning University of Wyoming >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> pedagogy mailing list >>>> pedagogy@... >>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >>>> >>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... >>>> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sakai-ux mailing list >>> sakai-ux@... >>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-ux >>> >>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to sakai-ux-unsubscribe@... >>> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pedagogy mailing list >> pedagogy@... >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... >> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >> > _______________________________________________ > pedagogy mailing list > pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... > with a subject of "unsubscribe" _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by Janet Buchan
::
Rate this Message:
I am with Nate and the hope that institutions will make decisions based on mission and values, not just perceived functionality needs. However, as the institutional needs for learning technology will continue to change rapidly in response to changing student and industry needs, the choice of an LMS that is in itself responsive to current and future needs. Which is why Clay's spreadsheet is a good indicator that 'systems' such as Sakai are hopefuly heading in the right direction. It is not what is on the spreadsheet at present that is important, but the fact that a world-wide community with a common interest and variety of learning, teaching and collaboration needs can collaborate together to create a collaborative learning environment for the future.
The simple fact that the term Collaborative Learning Environment is used to describe Sakai, and not Learning Management System gives some indication of its intended purpose. At our university Sakai forms the foundation for our online learning environment, but is not the entire system. We have integrated it with some existing applicaions and are also introducing others as needed (eg an ePortfolio tool). The essence is for the system to be dynamic & responsive to our local needs, as far as resourcing will allow (!). (just my penny's worth after a fair bit of reflection on the CSU Sakai experience in writing a chapter for a book on Free & Open Source Software for e-learning - due out early 2010). Janet Buchan Charles Sturt University, NSW ________________________________ From: pedagogy-bounces@... on behalf of Nate Angell Sent: Thu 5/11/2009 6:52 PM To: Luke Fernandez Cc: Sakai UX; pedagogy Learning Subject: Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals Luke: What concerns me about the whole endeavor of a functional comparison of learning systems is all the major players meet some of the criteria, none of them perfectly. In other words, you won't be able to make a clear decision on a purely functional basis. What I don't see so often is institutions making decisions driven by their mission and values. If I were add to your rubric, it would include entries like: I need my online learning system design and development to be driven primarily by pedagogical needs. I need my online learning system to be around for the long haul. I need my online learning system to increase my collaboration and sharing with my peer/neighbor institutions. I need my online learning system to cost less and deliver more over time. I need my online learning system to demonstrate how it supports student learning. I need my online learning system to directly support my institutional values. I need my online learning system to reflect and augment current practices in teaching and learning. I need my online learning system to directly support local educational practices. I need the maintenance and support of my online learning system to directly enhance teaching and learning at my institution. I need my online learning system to quickly and easily reflect my local teaching and learning needs and priorities. I need my online learning system to integrate with technologies that haven't been invented yet. And so on. Given how often each institution will change learning platforms, questions like these will matter more over time than purely functional comparisons. -- Nate On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Luke Fernandez wrote: > Although the virtues of reading and writing as a means of > communication have been challenged as far back as Plato I'm not sure > that it's always my bailiwick as a technologist to do that. I guess > the question is whether there is a point where we should take the > technological needs which our faculty articulate at face value. We're > trying to puzzle this out here at Weber as we try to develop a rubric > for choosing our next LMS. More concretely, can we do it using some > derivative of the needs that are being enumerated on Clay's > spreadsheet? Or do we resort to the more > traditional/conventional/functional edutools rubric which many schools > use and which our LMS selection committee seems (perhaps at our own > peril) to be gravitating towards? > > Cheers, > > Luke > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, John Norman <john@...> > wrote: >> Well, don't I just love the academic discourse :-) >> >> Go gently with me because I am not a professional - but can't we >> apply >> the same thinking to your reading and writing example Luke? We may >> talk in terms of "the goal is to read this article", but that is >> vaguely absurd as a goal. The goal is to discover, absorb (and >> perhaps >> later critique) the _work of the author_, most conveniently done by >> reading the paper. A secondary goal might be to familiarise yourself >> with the craft of writing an academic paper so that you can become >> proficient as an academic (or potential academic), but that is rarely >> the primary goal. >> >> Similarly with writing. The task is to express yourself, demonstrate >> mastery of something, communicate ideas. Imaginative instructors may >> accept all sorts of channels/media for such expression/communication, >> but currently writing is one of the most common. Again a secondary >> goal _may_ be proficiency in an important academic skill, but a >> choice >> of medium does not make use of the medium the goal. >> >> Can't wait to see where we go with that one :-) >> >> John >> >> On 4 Nov 2009, at 17:29, Luke Fernandez wrote: >> >>> An interesting exercise....which begs the question (which I think >>> Clay >>> alludes to at the end of his post) as to whether pedagogical goals >>> can, in all instances, be articulated in ways that are abstracted >>> from >>> the technologies we use for teaching and learning. >>> >>> A case in point is that many instructors (especially in the >>> humanities) view reading and writing as fundamental skills that they >>> seek to impart to their students. But reading and writing are >>> themselves techniques and presume the use of the written word >>> which is >>> itself a technology. In the first monday article that Michael >>> circulated Lane seems to be lamenting as Thoreau did that we are >>> becoming tools of our tools. But technology is so embedded in the >>> teaching of some disciplines that it would be difficult to get away >>> from this circularity. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Luke >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robin Hill <hill@...> wrote: >>>> I agree completely. Articulating the pedagogical goals rather than >>>> the >>>> mechanics is a worthy exercise; in fact, it's the whole point. And >>>> more >>>> difficult than it seems, so I invite others to point out the hidden >>>> assumptions in my stated objectives, as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> Clay Fenlason wrote: >>>>> I was looking at the "Learning Capabilities" spreadsheet [1] >>>>> again >>>>> this morning, and was glad to see it being fleshed out. I did >>>>> however >>>>> note a tendency for the "user goals" to creep into feature >>>>> requests >>>>> and implementation assumptions as the list grows longer, which >>>>> starts >>>>> to dilute its effectiveness. Since I warned on the T&L call a few >>>>> weeks ago that I would be pushing back on this kind of thing, I >>>>> now >>>>> feel free ;) I know it's hard to avoid the sort of language that >>>>> assumes common web tools, since we all live and breathe in this >>>>> space, but let me urge the effort once again, and offer a few >>>>> examples to illustrate the point. >>>>> >>>>> Near the top of the sheet the user goals take the form of "I need >>>>> to >>>>> see who's in my class" and "I want to learn the names of all my >>>>> students/peers." Simple and universal needs with no technological >>>>> or >>>>> functional assumptions. >>>>> >>>>> Near the bottom there are now user goals like "Allow me to use >>>>> common >>>>> keyboard shortcuts" and "Allow me to listen to class readings >>>>> with a >>>>> screen reader." For such things it would be better to place them >>>>> among the "capabilities" columns and try to trace them back to >>>>> the >>>>> essential, non-technical need. Maybe that's going to be the right >>>>> exercise for most of us who take these technical tools as second >>>>> nature: first lay out what seem to us the capabilities in the >>>>> middle >>>>> of the sheet, and then try to work back to the left what the >>>>> underlying, non-technical user goal is. If that can't be done >>>>> that >>>>> may be a sign of something. >>>>> >>>>> ~Clay >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> >>>> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlfbHxo2qpHEdHRuSnowVGMwWE9HY1MtVjFpY1dtS0E&hl=en >>>>> _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing >>>>> list pedagogy@... >>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >>>>> >>>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to >>>>> pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of >>>>> "unsubscribe" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Robin Hill, Ph.D. hill@... 307-766-5499 >>>> Instructional Computing Services http://www.uwyo.edu/ >>>> ctl >>>> Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning University of Wyoming >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> pedagogy mailing list >>>> pedagogy@... >>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >>>> >>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... >>>> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sakai-ux mailing list >>> sakai-ux@... >>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-ux >>> >>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to sakai-ux-unsubscribe@... >>> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pedagogy mailing list >> pedagogy@... >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... >> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >> > _______________________________________________ > pedagogy mailing list > pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... > with a subject of "unsubscribe" _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by jrnorman
::
Rate this Message:
The EduTools approach to purchasing decisions is widely used because
it gives the appearance of objectivity and is relatively easy and low- cost to operate. In my personal opinion, this is a naive approach to purchasing that explains a great deal of the subsequent unhappiness in large IT deployments. Much information is lost in mapping to the 'feature boxes' and the boxes themselves are often defined from a base of a particular implementation. Given the cost of adoption, and the later costs of switching if the wrong choice is made (or the cost of trying to justify the decision that _was_ made), the value of investing in the process of selection cannot be under-estimated. I genuinely believe that there is tremendous value in identifying these technology-neutral faculty (and student) goals and then dispassionately (and ideally with users) assessing how readily the product facilitates those goals, and that this is the right approach to making a choice. Unfortunately, the process can take time and investment and can be challenged as open to subjective analysis. The good news is that the subjective analysis may be the way in which institutional culture is allowing into the decision and much of the investment in investigation will be valuable and reusable when you come to deploying the chosen system. HTH John On 4 Nov 2009, at 18:15, Luke Fernandez wrote: > Although the virtues of reading and writing as a means of > communication have been challenged as far back as Plato I’m not sure > that it’s always my bailiwick as a technologist to do that. I guess > the question is whether there is a point where we should take the > technological needs which our faculty articulate at face value. We’re > trying to puzzle this out here at Weber as we try to develop a rubric > for choosing our next LMS. More concretely, can we do it using some > derivative of the needs that are being enumerated on Clay’s > spreadsheet? Or do we resort to the more > traditional/conventional/functional edutools rubric which many schools > use and which our LMS selection committee seems (perhaps at our own > peril) to be gravitating towards? > > Cheers, > > Luke > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, John Norman <john@...> > wrote: >> Well, don't I just love the academic discourse :-) >> >> Go gently with me because I am not a professional - but can't we >> apply >> the same thinking to your reading and writing example Luke? We may >> talk in terms of "the goal is to read this article", but that is >> vaguely absurd as a goal. The goal is to discover, absorb (and >> perhaps >> later critique) the _work of the author_, most conveniently done by >> reading the paper. A secondary goal might be to familiarise yourself >> with the craft of writing an academic paper so that you can become >> proficient as an academic (or potential academic), but that is rarely >> the primary goal. >> >> Similarly with writing. The task is to express yourself, demonstrate >> mastery of something, communicate ideas. Imaginative instructors may >> accept all sorts of channels/media for such expression/communication, >> but currently writing is one of the most common. Again a secondary >> goal _may_ be proficiency in an important academic skill, but a >> choice >> of medium does not make use of the medium the goal. >> >> Can't wait to see where we go with that one :-) >> >> John >> >> On 4 Nov 2009, at 17:29, Luke Fernandez wrote: >> >>> An interesting exercise....which begs the question (which I think >>> Clay >>> alludes to at the end of his post) as to whether pedagogical goals >>> can, in all instances, be articulated in ways that are abstracted >>> from >>> the technologies we use for teaching and learning. >>> >>> A case in point is that many instructors (especially in the >>> humanities) view reading and writing as fundamental skills that they >>> seek to impart to their students. But reading and writing are >>> themselves techniques and presume the use of the written word >>> which is >>> itself a technology. In the first monday article that Michael >>> circulated Lane seems to be lamenting as Thoreau did that we are >>> becoming tools of our tools. But technology is so embedded in the >>> teaching of some disciplines that it would be difficult to get away >>> from this circularity. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Luke >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robin Hill <hill@...> wrote: >>>> I agree completely. Articulating the pedagogical goals rather than >>>> the >>>> mechanics is a worthy exercise; in fact, it's the whole point. And >>>> more >>>> difficult than it seems, so I invite others to point out the hidden >>>> assumptions in my stated objectives, as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> Clay Fenlason wrote: >>>>> I was looking at the "Learning Capabilities" spreadsheet [1] >>>>> again >>>>> this morning, and was glad to see it being fleshed out. I did >>>>> however >>>>> note a tendency for the "user goals" to creep into feature >>>>> requests >>>>> and implementation assumptions as the list grows longer, which >>>>> starts >>>>> to dilute its effectiveness. Since I warned on the T&L call a few >>>>> weeks ago that I would be pushing back on this kind of thing, I >>>>> now >>>>> feel free ;) I know it's hard to avoid the sort of language that >>>>> assumes common web tools, since we all live and breathe in this >>>>> space, but let me urge the effort once again, and offer a few >>>>> examples to illustrate the point. >>>>> >>>>> Near the top of the sheet the user goals take the form of "I need >>>>> to >>>>> see who's in my class" and "I want to learn the names of all my >>>>> students/peers." Simple and universal needs with no technological >>>>> or >>>>> functional assumptions. >>>>> >>>>> Near the bottom there are now user goals like "Allow me to use >>>>> common >>>>> keyboard shortcuts" and "Allow me to listen to class readings >>>>> with a >>>>> screen reader." For such things it would be better to place them >>>>> among the "capabilities" columns and try to trace them back to >>>>> the >>>>> essential, non-technical need. Maybe that's going to be the right >>>>> exercise for most of us who take these technical tools as second >>>>> nature: first lay out what seem to us the capabilities in the >>>>> middle >>>>> of the sheet, and then try to work back to the left what the >>>>> underlying, non-technical user goal is. If that can't be done >>>>> that >>>>> may be a sign of something. >>>>> >>>>> ~Clay >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> >>>> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlfbHxo2qpHEdHRuSnowVGMwWE9HY1MtVjFpY1dtS0E&hl=en >>>>> _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing >>>>> list pedagogy@... >>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >>>>> >>>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to >>>>> pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of >>>>> "unsubscribe" >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Robin Hill, Ph.D. hill@... 307-766-5499 >>>> Instructional Computing Services http://www.uwyo.edu/ >>>> ctl >>>> Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning University of Wyoming >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> pedagogy mailing list >>>> pedagogy@... >>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >>>> >>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... >>>> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sakai-ux mailing list >>> sakai-ux@... >>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-ux >>> >>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to sakai-ux-unsubscribe@... >>> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pedagogy mailing list >> pedagogy@... >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy >> >> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... >> with a subject of "unsubscribe" >> _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by Michael Feldstein-2
::
Rate this Message:
An interesting turn in an interesting conversation.
I've been advising my local community college to take an approach to platform evaluation that actually looks a little bit like usability testing (though far less formal, in their case). Basically, I have suggested that they pick a couple of personas (or real people that fit the personas, since they don't have the staff to put in the time required to construct and test against actual personas). The idea is you get, say, a faculty member who just wants to do basic web enhancement of a course, a faculty member who wants to teach a full distance learning course using materials developed previously for another platform, a non-traditional, non-tech-savvy student, and so on. You don't want too many of these personas (though it is preferable to have multiple examples of them if you're using real people as proxies); maybe three to five. Then you work through with them the tasks that they need to perform in the LMS in their roles. (Again, in a resource strapped institution, the best way to do this sometimes is just to pilot with these folks and elicit the right feedback from them as they go.) This wouldn't cover everything, but it could cover the important tasks that the critical mass of users will need to perform regularly. You supplement the list by figuring out which long tail tasks are important to your particular institution. For example, maybe you're an engineering school, so there are particular types of assignments (involving drawing, solving equations, etc.) that you need to make sure a system supports. I think it would be a great service if the community (or communities--we could collaborate with Moodle or ALT or Sloan-C or WCET or whoever) if some kind of protocol could be created as a starting point for schools who are evaluating platforms. It would also be an interesting frame of reference for interrogating the value of a proposed feature in a platform. Does it fulfill the needs of one or more of our personas? Does it provide a new affordance that would be useful to them, effectively causing us to suggest expanding the evaluation protocol? I'm guessing that we could get the raw materials to construct such a protocol pretty effectively by doing exit interviews with a handful of schools who have piloted Sakai (or any other LMS, for that matter). What were the teachers and students trying to do, and why? What was important to them in terms of just being able to get through the semester productively and effectively? - m On 11/5/2009 6:51 AM, John Norman wrote: The EduTools approach to purchasing decisions is widely used because it gives the appearance of objectivity and is relatively easy and low- cost to operate. In my personal opinion, this is a naive approach to purchasing that explains a great deal of the subsequent unhappiness in large IT deployments. Much information is lost in mapping to the 'feature boxes' and the boxes themselves are often defined from a base of a particular implementation. Given the cost of adoption, and the later costs of switching if the wrong choice is made (or the cost of trying to justify the decision that _was_ made), the value of investing in the process of selection cannot be under-estimated. I genuinely believe that there is tremendous value in identifying these technology-neutral faculty (and student) goals and then dispassionately (and ideally with users) assessing how readily the product facilitates those goals, and that this is the right approach to making a choice. Unfortunately, the process can take time and investment and can be challenged as open to subjective analysis. The good news is that the subjective analysis may be the way in which institutional culture is allowing into the decision and much of the investment in investigation will be valuable and reusable when you come to deploying the chosen system. HTH John On 4 Nov 2009, at 18:15, Luke Fernandez wrote:Although the virtues of reading and writing as a means of communication have been challenged as far back as Plato I’m not sure that it’s always my bailiwick as a technologist to do that. I guess the question is whether there is a point where we should take the technological needs which our faculty articulate at face value. We’re trying to puzzle this out here at Weber as we try to develop a rubric for choosing our next LMS. More concretely, can we do it using some derivative of the needs that are being enumerated on Clay’s spreadsheet? Or do we resort to the more traditional/conventional/functional edutools rubric which many schools use and which our LMS selection committee seems (perhaps at our own peril) to be gravitating towards? Cheers, Luke On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, John Norman john@... wrote: --
 Michael Feldstein | Principal Product Manager | +1.818.817.2925 Oracle Academic Enterprise Solutions Group 23A Glendale Road, Glendale, MA 01229 _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by cdcoppola
::
Rate this Message:
That's a great idea Michael. The practice of making important software decisions based solely on written responses to questions and passive demonstrations simply doesn't leverage modern possibilities. Providing tools like the ones your suggesting to help schools take advantage of *using* software in the evaluation process could be very helpful.
On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:56 AM, michael feldstein wrote:
_______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
|
|
Re: [DG: Teaching & Learning] [DG: User Experience] User Goals
by Luke Fernandez-2
::
Rate this Message:
Thanks for these insights (and my apologies for fracturing a
discussion with was initiated around development concerns). I hope that (after our school’s made our next LMS decision) my present worries will prove unfounded. But currently I’m concerned that on our campus the strategic and community concerns that Nate enumerates will be eclipsed by the Edutools functional discussion which John very reasonably calls into question. On these listservs it’s easy for us to see the problem. But when one is attempting to host these conversations on campus and make them as inclusive as possible it’s a constant challenge to frame the discussion in a balanced fashion much less engage in the far more ambitious (and interesting) process of uncovering and clarifying the less conscious user desires that Clay and Michael F. make mention of. I hope that at Weber we can carry this off with at least some consideration of the great suggestions you've all raised here. Cheers, Luke On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Christopher D. Coppola <chris.coppola@...> wrote: > That's a great idea Michael. The practice of making important software > decisions based solely on written responses to questions and passive > demonstrations simply doesn't leverage modern possibilities. Providing tools > like the ones your suggesting to help schools take advantage of *using* > software in the evaluation process could be very helpful. > /chris > -- > rSmart > Chris Coppola | 480-463-4280 > blog: coppola.rsmart.com > On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:56 AM, michael feldstein wrote: > > An interesting turn in an interesting conversation. > > I've been advising my local community college to take an approach to > platform evaluation that actually looks a little bit like usability testing > (though far less formal, in their case). Basically, I have suggested that > they pick a couple of personas (or real people that fit the personas, since > they don't have the staff to put in the time required to construct and test > against actual personas). The idea is you get, say, a faculty member who > just wants to do basic web enhancement of a course, a faculty member who > wants to teach a full distance learning course using materials developed > previously for another platform, a non-traditional, non-tech-savvy student, > and so on. You don't want too many of these personas (though it is > preferable to have multiple examples of them if you're using real people as > proxies); maybe three to five. Then you work through with them the tasks > that they need to perform in the LMS in their roles. (Again, in a resource > strapped institution, the best way to do this sometimes is just to pilot > with these folks and elicit the right feedback from them as they go.) This > wouldn't cover everything, but it could cover the important tasks that the > critical mass of users will need to perform regularly. You supplement the > list by figuring out which long tail tasks are important to your particular > institution. For example, maybe you're an engineering school, so there are > particular types of assignments (involving drawing, solving equations, etc.) > that you need to make sure a system supports. > > I think it would be a great service if the community (or communities--we > could collaborate with Moodle or ALT or Sloan-C or WCET or whoever) if some > kind of protocol could be created as a starting point for schools who are > evaluating platforms. It would also be an interesting frame of reference for > interrogating the value of a proposed feature in a platform. Does it fulfill > the needs of one or more of our personas? Does it provide a new affordance > that would be useful to them, effectively causing us to suggest expanding > the evaluation protocol? > > I'm guessing that we could get the raw materials to construct such a > protocol pretty effectively by doing exit interviews with a handful of > schools who have piloted Sakai (or any other LMS, for that matter). What > were the teachers and students trying to do, and why? What was important to > them in terms of just being able to get through the semester productively > and effectively? > > - m > > > On 11/5/2009 6:51 AM, John Norman wrote: > > The EduTools approach to purchasing decisions is widely used because > it gives the appearance of objectivity and is relatively easy and low- > cost to operate. > > In my personal opinion, this is a naive approach to purchasing that > explains a great deal of the subsequent unhappiness in large IT > deployments. Much information is lost in mapping to the 'feature > boxes' and the boxes themselves are often defined from a base of a > particular implementation. > > Given the cost of adoption, and the later costs of switching if the > wrong choice is made (or the cost of trying to justify the decision > that _was_ made), the value of investing in the process of selection > cannot be under-estimated. > > I genuinely believe that there is tremendous value in identifying > these technology-neutral faculty (and student) goals and then > dispassionately (and ideally with users) assessing how readily the > product facilitates those goals, and that this is the right approach > to making a choice. Unfortunately, the process can take time and > investment and can be challenged as open to subjective analysis. The > good news is that the subjective analysis may be the way in which > institutional culture is allowing into the decision and much of the > investment in investigation will be valuable and reusable when you > come to deploying the chosen system. > > HTH > John > > On 4 Nov 2009, at 18:15, Luke Fernandez wrote: > > > > Although the virtues of reading and writing as a means of > communication have been challenged as far back as Plato I’m not sure > that it’s always my bailiwick as a technologist to do that. I guess > the question is whether there is a point where we should take the > technological needs which our faculty articulate at face value. We’re > trying to puzzle this out here at Weber as we try to develop a rubric > for choosing our next LMS. More concretely, can we do it using some > derivative of the needs that are being enumerated on Clay’s > spreadsheet? Or do we resort to the more > traditional/conventional/functional edutools rubric which many schools > use and which our LMS selection committee seems (perhaps at our own > peril) to be gravitating towards? > > Cheers, > > Luke > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, John Norman <john@...> > wrote: > > > Well, don't I just love the academic discourse :-) > > Go gently with me because I am not a professional - but can't we > apply > the same thinking to your reading and writing example Luke? We may > talk in terms of "the goal is to read this article", but that is > vaguely absurd as a goal. The goal is to discover, absorb (and > perhaps > later critique) the _work of the author_, most conveniently done by > reading the paper. A secondary goal might be to familiarise yourself > with the craft of writing an academic paper so that you can become > proficient as an academic (or potential academic), but that is rarely > the primary goal. > > Similarly with writing. The task is to express yourself, demonstrate > mastery of something, communicate ideas. Imaginative instructors may > accept all sorts of channels/media for such expression/communication, > but currently writing is one of the most common. Again a secondary > goal _may_ be proficiency in an important academic skill, but a > choice > of medium does not make use of the medium the goal. > > Can't wait to see where we go with that one :-) > > John > > On 4 Nov 2009, at 17:29, Luke Fernandez wrote: > > > > An interesting exercise....which begs the question (which I think > Clay > alludes to at the end of his post) as to whether pedagogical goals > can, in all instances, be articulated in ways that are abstracted > from > the technologies we use for teaching and learning. > > A case in point is that many instructors (especially in the > humanities) view reading and writing as fundamental skills that they > seek to impart to their students. But reading and writing are > themselves techniques and presume the use of the written word > which is > itself a technology. In the first monday article that Michael > circulated Lane seems to be lamenting as Thoreau did that we are > becoming tools of our tools. But technology is so embedded in the > teaching of some disciplines that it would be difficult to get away > from this circularity. > > Cheers, > > Luke > > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Robin Hill <hill@...> wrote: > > > I agree completely. Articulating the pedagogical goals rather than > the > mechanics is a worthy exercise; in fact, it's the whole point. And > more > difficult than it seems, so I invite others to point out the hidden > assumptions in my stated objectives, as well. > > > Clay Fenlason wrote: > > > I was looking at the "Learning Capabilities" spreadsheet [1] > again > this morning, and was glad to see it being fleshed out. I did > however > note a tendency for the "user goals" to creep into feature > requests > and implementation assumptions as the list grows longer, which > starts > to dilute its effectiveness. Since I warned on the T&L call a few > weeks ago that I would be pushing back on this kind of thing, I > now > feel free ;) I know it's hard to avoid the sort of language that > assumes common web tools, since we all live and breathe in this > space, but let me urge the effort once again, and offer a few > examples to illustrate the point. > > Near the top of the sheet the user goals take the form of "I need > to > see who's in my class" and "I want to learn the names of all my > students/peers." Simple and universal needs with no technological > or > functional assumptions. > > Near the bottom there are now user goals like "Allow me to use > common > keyboard shortcuts" and "Allow me to listen to class readings > with a > screen reader." For such things it would be better to place them > among the "capabilities" columns and try to trace them back to > the > essential, non-technical need. Maybe that's going to be the right > exercise for most of us who take these technical tools as second > nature: first lay out what seem to us the capabilities in the > middle > of the sheet, and then try to work back to the left what the > underlying, non-technical user goal is. If that can't be done > that > may be a sign of something. > > ~Clay > > [1] > > > > https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlfbHxo2qpHEdHRuSnowVGMwWE9HY1MtVjFpY1dtS0E&hl=en > > > _______________________________________________ pedagogy mailing > list pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to > pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of > "unsubscribe" > > > -- > Robin Hill, Ph.D. hill@... 307-766-5499 > Instructional Computing Services http://www.uwyo.edu/ > ctl > Ellbogen Center for Teaching and Learning University of Wyoming > > > _______________________________________________ > pedagogy mailing list > pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... > with a subject of "unsubscribe" > > > > _______________________________________________ > sakai-ux mailing list > sakai-ux@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-ux > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to sakai-ux-unsubscribe@... > with a subject of "unsubscribe" > > > _______________________________________________ > pedagogy mailing list > pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... > with a subject of "unsubscribe" > > > > _______________________________________________ > sakai-ux mailing list > sakai-ux@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-ux > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to sakai-ux-unsubscribe@... > with a subject of "unsubscribe" > > > -- > > > <oracle_sig_logo.gif> > Michael Feldstein | Principal Product Manager | +1.818.817.2925 > Oracle Academic Enterprise Solutions Group > 23A Glendale Road, Glendale, MA 01229 > _______________________________________________ > pedagogy mailing list > pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... > with a subject of "unsubscribe" > > _______________________________________________ > pedagogy mailing list > pedagogy@... > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... > with a subject of "unsubscribe" > pedagogy mailing list pedagogy@... http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/pedagogy TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to pedagogy-unsubscribe@... with a subject of "unsubscribe" |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
