#8: Fact from Fiction

It scares me that people nowadays find more comfort in a tiny screen than in talking to one another. What is it about the pull of a Facebook news feed or a Fox News video that is so attention-grabbing? The Information Diet: A Case for Conscious Consumption was an appropriate literary introduction to EDIT 781, Designing for Information Using. The book offers a warning for all information users: many of us consume too much of the wrong type of information and have a poor information diet, which affects our physical and mental health and relationships with others. Churnalized, sensationalized, ad-filled media ruins our ability to search, filter, create, and synthesize data from its original source. By developing better information consumption habits, we can achieve Clay Johnson’s mantra: “Consume deliberately. Take in information over affirmation” (p. 77). 

As I was reading, I found myself thinking about the difference between data and information. Data precedes information:

WKID pyramid (Doyle, 2014).

I also thought about data literacy versus information literacy. I found it interesting that Wikipedia suggests the two topics be merged. So what is the difference between these two literacies? Johnson devotes a whole chapter to data literacy: “the ability to process, sort, and filter vast quantities of information.” To be data literate, Johnson prescribes the skills of searching, filtering, creating, and synthesizing data into useful information. With reference to the PICKLE design principle, the future-ready skill of information using is “the ability to access and use information, data, and facts.” The DDLS process of information using adds an additional skill to Johnson’s data literacy skills: 1) searching; 2) sorting (filtering); 3) creating; 4) COMMUNICATING; and 5) synthesizing.  

Modern students must learn to balance conscious consumption with creation of information. A Google search for information is useless if it is not appropriately filtered, used to create understanding, communicated to others, and synthesized. Youtube user Pick Up Limes echoes Johnson’s warnings: “When we consume more than we create, we tend to feel drained of energy, a little disheartened...but when we shift that ratio to make sure that we create more than we consume, that’s when we tend to feel a bit more happy and motivated.” What high school teacher has not felt disheartened by the apathetic Gen Z students, staring at their Instagram feeds or playing Mario Kart? While these mind-numbing activities may be appropriate for down-time at home, it is the schools that students must learn the critical thinking skills associated with good information using. With all this data available at our fingertips, how can we learn to filter fact from fiction? 

References

Doyle, M. (2014, May 27). What is the difference between data and information. Retrieved from https://www.dqglobal.com/2014/05/27/what-is-the-difference-between-data-and-information/

Johnson, C. A. (2012). The information diet: A case for conscious consumption. O'Reilly Media.

Pick Up Limes (2018, September 25). A healthy imbalance [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/8a170TTaPt0?t=109

#7: A Designer's Job: Play, Build, Collaborate

During the final class of EDIT 780, Principles of School-Based Design, the teachers became the “students” of the sixth and final design principle: “Students as Designers.” This role reversal from designing as the teacher (first principle = “Teachers as Designers”) to learning as the student helped us to understand the perspective of the “customers” of the design process. Teachers design with students in mind. We utilized content (the six principles of design) to construct a meaningful outcome (a comprehensive video treatment). Our instructor comprehensively scaffolded our ability to design by providing us with skills instruction (a camcorder recording “how to” video), a Google Slides storyboard  template, and a place to collaborate online synchronously. We used Flip Video cameras, which feature minimalist video recording capabilities, to capture clips. These tools were carefully selected to allow us students to create something meaningful, while keeping in mind the affordance requirements of the tasks:

• Balancing pre-class planning with busy lives
• Limited class time to create a product
• A video recording device with a simple user interface
• Differing tech literacy levels of group members

As I reflect on the video production tasks and the creative spirit of design article (McDonald, 2011), I am reminded of concepts that we have been reading about and discussing for the past eight weeks. Designers use imagination to consider the world of coulds, just as a child uses imagination during play to turn actions and decisions into behaviors and understanding. A designer is creation-oriented when building, testing, and retesting ideas, just as many of our design processes (SPD, ABCS, AeCTS) and the last principle iterate the constructivist approach to good learning. Finally, designers engage in inter-disciplinary action when collaborating and connecting with others. Each interaction helps the designer to further develop a design idea, perhaps even causing the development of a new way of thinking or speaking. Similarly, students must be situated in the context of a specific community in order to experience community learning. Learning is social, based on exposure to multiple narratives and roles. The more conceptual representations students can experience, the more the students are able to shape their understanding of the concept.

Being a part of the Doodles crew does not mean letting go of everything I have developed during my teaching career. It does mean that I am on the lookout for tasks and tech that better meet the diverse needs of my students. It does not mean that I do not lesson plan. It does mean that I consider how to situate concepts in an authentic contexts and tasks. It does not mean that I design all the time. It does mean that I reflect on what works and what does not, and adjust accordingly.

References

McDonald, J. K. (2011). The creative spirit of design. TechTrends, 55(5), 53.x

#6: Matching Tasks & Tools

How do I know which tool will be the most beneficial to my students when learning about Roman history? What technology will help them to best mediate or connect with all the information out there? This week I read about affordance analysis (Bower, 2008), which is a design methodology to help educators match learning goals with e-learning tools. An object or tool’s “affordance” is its utility--its functionality in the learning process. The emphasis on a tool’s use or ability (or usability) is huge here--what can students DO with it? How can it help the students to DO (insert task here)?

The process of affordance analysis can be used to select--or rule out--technologies that are most beneficial--or most irrelevant--in our classrooms. The “beginning of year, no time for PD” simulation in class gave us a trial run of the process; we had to test drive new tech. I worked with two others to determine the affordances of 360 Environments for an English task of creating a scene using figurative language. Looking back at our analysis, we identified good outcomes and products, but did not list required affordances in the language of affordance analysis:

• What we listed: Graphic organizers, computers or iPads to watch the 360 Environments, publication tools

• What we should have considered (AKA language of affordance analysis): Write-ability, watch-ability, accessibility, playback-ability, browse-ability, permission-ability, share-ability

This is too often a reality in our own classrooms. We make daily decisions about affordances of objects. Affordance analysis is a clearer lens through which we can match the tasks with the tech. It offers us a way to simultaneously consider what the intention of the learning is, what is needed for learning to occur, and what tech best matches those needs. If the tool is wrong for the task, what else can my students use (focus on utility) to connect their learning to the desired outcome? It’s always good to have a Plan B tech tool, or even a Plan C analog tool.

Reference

Bower, M. (2008, 03). Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15. doi:10.1080/09523980701847115