Transcript Interaction Design for Collective Construction of

Interaction Design for Collective
Construction of Knowledge in
eLearning: the Process of Learners’
Contribution
Niki Lambropoulos
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering
London South Bank University
[email protected]
Agenda

Background





Research




HCI in Education
Situated Learning
LPP in On-line Learning Communities
Interaction Design (a user as a learner)
The EEEP Study
Implications for Interaction Design
Conclusion & Future Trends
References
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Easy/Natural to use
Which design does not require manual or instructions?
Don Norman, p. 76-77. The Design of Everyday Things (1998)
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
HCI in Education: the user as
a learner


Co-evolution of Education & Technology
Factors for Human-Computer Interaction




Users
Social Aspect
Design
Evaluation
Reasons: rapid change of technology – from a small number of users to everyone
- shift from Interface to Interaction - context specific – users’ involvement
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Interaction Design (ID)






Sociability
Usability as an attribute (Notess, 2001)
Educational Interaction Design
Sociability
Pedagogical Usability
Pedagogical Usability Engineering as a
process
Learnability


System
Purpose of learning
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
On-line Learning Communities


Situated Learning
LPP in On-line Learning Communities



Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Community Knowledge Building
The Role of the Dialogue
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
EEEP Focus Group



Aim: Identify the Greek Teachers’ context
Greek Teachers: 14 subjects as the focus group to explore
sociability and usability in the Greek context, EEEP – 65
members in July, 2004
Data Analysis
 Discourse Analysis
 Interaction Design Evaluation
Criteria Catalogue
EEEP Levels of Participation
4.5
Number of Participants
4
3.5
3
2.5
Series1
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Zero
Low
Medium
High
Participation Levels
EEEP conference on Broadband and Satellite communications in schools, Oct 06
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Results: Purposes




Organisation and founding members define the
initial purposes (interests, needs, targets,
common visions)
The main community purposes need to appear
on the interface before the registration
processes
Initial activity is information-based than
interactions-based
Intention and motivation for sharing knowledge
(what tools to use?)
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Results: Common Reasons
for lurking
o
o
o
o




Uncomfortable in public
Fear of public, judgement
Learning about the group
Information needed for participation
Active Lurking
Active Waiting/Observation
Transfer of knowledge outside the community
Transfer of knowledge in the classroom and make
choices e.g. on educational software
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Results


Consensus Knowledge Building
 learn from the active members (42,9%)
 moderator (21,4%)
Result: specific suggestions for changes in the
educational system (what tools to use?)
Socio-emotional relationship for affective learning
 42,9% developed negative feelings
 35% stressed the importance of active participation
(what tools to use?)
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Results: Practices I







The first week of registration defines members’ initial
intention
A good moderator is of great importance
Cooperation via personal communication
New suggestions based on the previous messages
Community Support
Feedback: if the feedback is positive the
communication continues, if negative, s/he returns to
the previous observational and active lurking
Projects support discussions
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Results: Practices II

Active Observation of Discussions
 First contact with the community
 Active lurking for active observation
 Aporia, hesitation, doubt, insecurity

negotiation of meaning, agreement & alignment
Familiarisation with the community
 Finding the minimum level of agreement with community
 Find interesting information - topics
Personal Judgment
 Interest & agreement on expressing interest for a topic
 Define personal enquiries
 Decisions on what to do next: Reply or stay off scene


(what tools to use?...)
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Matching Usability and Sociability





A. Before Registration: Acquiring
information - Informative Front Page
B. Registration: minimum agreement with
the community; encourage and motivate the
newcomers, building profiles.
C. After Registration: Search for existing
discussion topics, sub-groups
D. Maintenance: Environment of trust and
support
Participation Process for each post
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Conclusions - Trends

Learning Factors in On-line Learning




Educational Interaction Design


Know your users as learners, know their tasks
Define Quality in On-line Learning


Cognitive (Constructivist Learning)
Psychological (Affective Learning)
Social (Socio-cultural Learning)
Usability Engineering
More Research is Needed
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Conclusions for the…


Policy Makers: know the needs of the
community and be based on both
Sociability and Usability (ID) and
Pedagogical Usability for methods and
tools
Members and the social contribution
paradox: public participation is not
prerequisite although necessary
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Thank you…

For your attention!
Any questions and/or
suggestions?
Niki Lambropoulos
[email protected]
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
References
References
Introduction
Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2004). Teacher Professional Development, Technology, and Communities of Practice: are we putting
the cart before the horse? In S. A. Barab, R. Kling & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of
Learning (pp. 120-153). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Neal, L. (2003). Q&A With Diana Laurillard. from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=14-1
Notess, M. (2001). Tutorial: Usability, user experience, and learner experience eLearn Magazine (8), 3.
Shneiderman, B. (2000). Creating Creativity: User Interfaces for Supporting Innovation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction, 7(1), 114–138.
Karat, J., & Karat, C.-M. (2003). The evolution of user-centred focus in the human-computer interaction field. IBM Systems Journal.
Norman, D., and Spohrer, J. (1996). Learner Centered Education. Communication of the ACM. 39, (4), pp. 24-27.
Feldstein, M. (2002). What Is "Usable" e-Learning? eLearn Magazine. ACM.
Muir, A., Shield, L., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2003). The Pyramid of Usability: A Framework for Quality Course Websites, In the
Proceedings of EDEN 12th Annual Conference of the European Distance Education Network, The Quality Dialogue: Integrating
Quality Cultures in Flexible, Distance and eLearning. Rhodes, Greece: p. 188-194.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2004). Usability and Pedagogical Design: are Language Learning Websites Special? Paper
presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland.
Squires, D., & Preece, J. (1999). Predicting Quality in Educational Software: Evaluating for learning, usability and the synergy
between them. Interacting with Computers, 11(5), 467-483.
Zaharias, P. (2005). E-Learning Design Quality: A Holistic conceptual framework. In C. Howard, J. Boettcher, L. Justice, K. Schenk,
P. L. Rogers & G. A. Berg (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Distance Learning. New York, NY: Idea Publishing.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Faulkner, X. (2000). Usability Engineering. New York, NY: Palgrave, MacMillan
Keywords
User-Centred Design
Learner-Centred Design
Pedagogical Usability (metrics)
Pedagogical Usability Engineering (process)
Quality in On-line Learning
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05
Pedagogical Usability Engineering
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Know the user/learner to identify user/learner characteristics.
Know the task to identify user/learner background.
Capture user/learner requirements to identify user/learner
requirements.
Set pedagogical usability goals for usability specification.
Design for initial design.
Apply guidelines and heuristics for feedback for design.
Create prototypes for user/learner testing.
Evaluate with user/learner to acquire feedback for redesign,
checking whether the learning objectives have met.
Redesign and evaluate with user/learner to finish the product.
Evaluate with users/learners and produce report to acquire
feedback for future systems.
Centre of Interactive Systems Engineering LSBU Interaction Design - ICODL 2005 – Hellenic Open University – Patra 11/11/05