Notes on D'Arcy Norman

Mercader & Gairin. (2020). University Teachers Perception of Barriers to the Use of Digital Technologies

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:38:01 -0600

Mercader, C., Gairín, J. (2020). University teachers' perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: the importance of the academic discipline. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 17, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0182-x

Article looks at instructors' reported use/adoption/barriers of digital technologies for teaching.

The article appears to have been written in 2017, and only published in March 2020? Why the delay?

They propose a typology to classify barriers to adopting digital technologies:

personal and professional barriers
contextual and institutional barriers

surveyed 527 university instructors from 4 universities. 65% had never received training re: technology. (but how do they define training?)

conclusions:

a person’s personal traits are not as relevant to improving digital technology integration as are his or her professional attributes

and

strengthening teachers’ professional development in terms of digital competencies (time management, training, pedagogical approaches, experience and teaching approaches using digital technologies, etc.)

and

the type of academic discipline is an influential factor in teachers’ perception of barriers

(arts/humanities profs described more significant barriers to adoption. discipline-specific barriers…)

My questions:

are the differences really due to the discipline (are Humanities profs struggling that much more?) or is it a result of other institutional effects (sciences may have more ready access to tech? better PD? more community/networking support? etc…)
What is the role of community/peer support, rather than “training”?
How does their typology fit into my thesis framework?

Harel & Papert. (1990). Software Design as a Learning Environment

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Sat, 07 Mar 2020 11:06:16 -0700

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive learning environments, 1(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482900010102

An elementary school math class developed software to teach fractions. One class. In a high-end experimental school with full access to then-new technology. For part of one semester. Some students did the usual fractions classes, some did the “write some software to teach someone something about fractions”. The software-design group spent a few weeks building their software, and showed better comprehension of fractions. Is it because they designed software? Is it because they were part of an experimental group and thus fractions were a special and exciting topic? Something else? Who knows. But the kids made some interesting software and Harel and Papert got another data point for constructionism.

…our special emphasis on project activity which is self-directed by the student within a cultural/social context that offers support and help in particularly unobtrusive ways.

pg. 3:

We saw the physical environment as a very important factor in shaping a learning culture. These open spaces allowed us to bring the technology closer (physically and conceptually) to students and teachers; to integrate the computer activities with the regular classroom activities; and to facilitate movement and action around the computers; to reinforce communication and information-sharing regarding computer-based activities across grade levels and among teachers.

Sounds like the design of the physical space - not a separate computer lab but a giant combined classroom space with about 100 computer stations arranged in a giant circle, with classroom spaces branching off of that (although, that sounds kind of computer-lab-y, despite their claim to the contrary - I’d love to see a diagram of the school’s layout…)

pg. 5:

…the children’s daily activities resulted in 17 different pieces of instructional software about fractions - one product for each child in the experiment - and 17 personal portfolios consisting of the plans and designs they wrote down for each day’s work, and the pieces of Logo code they had programmed, as well as their written reflections at the end of each session on the problems and changes they had dealt with that day.

So. That’s a whole lot more than just learning fractions. A daily journal of learning. Software representations of what they learned. A portfolio. How much of the learning was a result of the portfolio and reflective practice, and how much as a result of designing software? They say that it’s impossible to separate - that it has to be taken as a whole - but it looks like much of the students' active learning was really just a rigorous reflective practice. Which is awesome and should be adopted by self-motivated learners. But it’s not “write code and you’ll learn better”. (assuming silicon valley would read this article and say “LEARN TO CODE!")

pg. 22:

…we speculate that improvement in performance might be affected by factors related to the affective side of cognition and learning; to the children’s process of personal appropriation of knowledge; to the children’s use of LogoWriter; to the children’s constructivist involvement with the deep structure of fractions knowledge (namely, construction of multiple representations) to the “integrated-learning” principle; to the “learning by teaching” principle; to the power of design as a learning activity.

That’s a whole lot of stuff going on. It looks like writing software was related to a whole string of things that led to or was correlated with deeper engagement with learning.

pg. 22:

Only by considering them together, and by speculating about their interrelations, can we take a step towards understanding the holistic character of Constructionism in general and ISDP in particular.

Can’t isolate factors in describing the effect of learning environments…

pg. 28:

In the designing process, Perkins¹ says, the problem’s meaning is not given by the problem itself; rather, the designer imposes his own meanings and defines his own goals before and during the process.

“his”. ugh.

pg. 28:

Schon’s work (1987)² is also relevant to this theme. He is interested in how different designers (e.g., architects) impose their own meaning on a given open-ended problem, and how they overcome constraints (created by themselves, or given as part of the problem they solve) and take advantage of unexpected outcomes. This interactive process requires high-levels of reflection and develops the ability to “negotiate” with situations in “as needed” and creative ways.

Designers impose meaning on an environment and its users…

pg. 28:

When composing lessons on the computer, the designer combines knowledge of the computer, knowledge of programming, knowledge of computer programs and routines, knowledge of the content, knowledge of communication, human interface, and instructional design. The communication between the software producers and their medium is dynamic. It requires constant goal-defining and redefining, planning and replanning, representing, building and rebuilding, blending, reorganizing, evaluating, modifying, and reflecting in similar senses to that described by Perkins and Schön in their work.

Perkins, D. N. (1987). Knowledge as design: Teaching thinking through content. Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice, 62-85. ↩︎
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. ↩︎

Notes: Alter, S. (2014). Theory of Workarounds.

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:21:25 -0700

Alter, S. (2014). Theory of Workarounds. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34, 1041-1066. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03455

Abstract

Although mentioned frequently in the organization, management, public administration, and technology literatures, workarounds are understudied and undertheorized. This article provides an integrated theory of workarounds that describes how and why workarounds are created. The theory covers most types of workarounds and most situations in which workarounds occur in operational systems. This theory is based on a broad but useful definition of workaround that clarifies the preconditions for the occurrence of a workaround. The literature review is organized around a diagram that combines the five “voices” in the literature of workarounds. That diagram is modeled after the diagram summarizing Orton and Weick’s [1990] loose coupling theory, which identified and combined five similar voices in the literature about loose coupling. Building on that basis, the theory of workarounds is a process theory driven by the interaction of key factors that determine whether possible workarounds are considered and how they are executed. This theory is useful for classifying workarounds and analyzing how they occur, for understanding compliance and noncompliance to methods and management mandates, for incorporating consideration of possible workarounds into systems analysis and design, and for studying how workarounds and other adaptations sometimes lead to larger planned changes in systems.

Notes

Describes themes in organizational processes that result in workarounds to adapt/overcome to problems and obstacles in the workplace.

Workarounds may occur when cumbersome processes seem too slow, when information required by idealized processes is not available, when technologies malfunction, when situational constraints or anomalies make it difficult to perform work activities, when personal goals conflict with organizational goals, and when people feel motivated to bypass or undermine processes or decision criteria mandated by corporate management, labor agreements, industrial standards, or government regulations. Sometimes workarounds are viewed as both unremarkable and essential for performing everyday work. Sometimes they are viewed as questionable, undesirable, hazardous, and even unethical or illegal violations of procedures and responsibilities.

Temporal aspect - from immediate/short-term to longer-term improvisations:

A temporal view of workarounds shows the progression from improvisation and bricolage to emergent and planned change.

Definition of “workaround”:

A workaround is a goal-driven adaptation, improvisation, or other change to one or more aspects of an existing work system in order to overcome, bypass, or minimize the impact of obstacles, exceptions, anomalies, mishaps, established practices, management expectations, or structural constraints that are perceived as preventing that work system or its participants from achieving a desired level of efficiency, effectiveness, or other organizational or personal goals.

Types of workarounds:

overcome inadequate IT functionality - shadow IT
bypass obstacles built into existing routines
bypass or overcome transient obstacles due to anomalies or mishaps - software’s down - go to Plan B…
respond to mishaps with quick fixes - something goes wrong, and people have to act quickly to fix it, before existing processes could have dealt with it
augment existing routines without developing new resouces
substitute for unavailable or inadequate resources
design and implement new resources - develop and implement software workarounds, shadow systems
prevent mishaps
pretend to comply
lie, cheat, steal for personal benefit
collude for mutual benefit

Direct effects of workarounds

continuation of work despite obstacles, mishaps, or anomalies
creation of hazards, inefficiencies, or errors - workaround adds risk
impacts on subsequent activities - workaround in one area breaks something else
compliance or noncompliance with management intentions

Perspectives on workarounds

as necessary activities in everyday life - “local workarounds, tinkering and ‘situated improvisations’ are not anomalies or design shortcomings but constitutive elements of working technologies” - Leonardi (2011)¹
as creative acts
as source of future improvements
as quick fixes that don’t go away - they can become entrenched, and then unplanned/unsupported workflows become de facto standards
as add-ons, shadow systems, feral systems
as inefficiencies or hazards
as a means for maintaining appearances
as resistance
as distortions or subterfuge

Organizational challenges and dilemmas related to workarounds

Operating despite exceptions, built-in obstacles, and incomplete specifications
Balancing interpretive flexibility versus management control - allows work system participants to use common sense and ingenuity in achieving legitimate objectives while also recognizing and honoring necessary controls
Balancing personal, local, and organizational interests - address local goals within organizations
Permitting and learning from emergent change - many workarounds provide learning that may be an important starting point for emergent change and planned change. workarounds overcome problems that are built into routines and/or mandated practices

Leonardi, P.M. (2011) “When Flexible Routines Meet Flexible Technologies: Affordance, Constraint, and the Imbrication of Human and Material Agencies”, MIS Quarterly, (35), pp. 147–167. ↩︎

Notes: Juul, J. (2005). half-real

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Fri, 03 Jan 2020 12:00:00 -0700

Juul, J. (2005). Half-real. Video games between real rules and fictional worlds.

(some additional notes by Manfred Thaller are available online)

p. 6: What a game is

Classic game model has 3 parts:

a rule-based formal system

with variable and quantifiable outcomes

where different outcomes are assigned different values

Can game design be a game as well? a meta-game that meets these criteria while designing a game? Are academic courses formal games? (or does the lack of abstraction and fiction mean that these are not formally games?)

p. 37, Table 2.3: the classic game model

	The game as formal system	the player and the game	the game and the rest of the world
1. Rules	X
2. Variable and quantifiable outcome	X
3. Value assigned to possible outcomes		X
4. Player effort	X	X
5. Player attached to outcome		X
6. Negotiable consequences			X

p. 58, on rules, limitations and affordances:

Rules specify limitations and affordances. They prohibit players from performing actions such as making jewelry out of dice, but they also add meaning to the allowed actions and this affords players meaningful actions that were not otherwise available; rules give games structure. The board game needs rules that let the players move their pieces as well as preventing them from making illegal moves; the video game needs rules that let the characters move as well as rules that prevent the character from reaching the goal immediately.

and these rules/limitations/affordances/structure are what guide a player/learner through the experience, toward a (productive? positive?) outcome or goal.

p. 73: games of emergence

Games of emergence exhibit a basic asymmetry between the relative simplicity of the game rules and the relative complexity of the actual playing of the game.

p. 197: conclusions:

The classic game model describes games on three levels: the game itself, the player’s relation to the game, and the relation between playing and the rest of the world. The entire theory can therefore be described as the intersection between games as rules and games as fiction, and the relation between the game, the player, and the world. The player may pick up a game, invent a game, or negotiate game rules with other players. A game may exist before the player plays it, but the player generally plays it because he or she wants to. Fiction cues the player into understanding the rules, and rules can cue the player into imagining a fictional world. This… does not imply causality - the theory has no first principle or starting point, but many simultaneous parts that interact.

Inventing (designing) a game as a way of interacting with the world, the rules of the game. How does the meta-game interact with the game itself? Does it? The game of designing a game - does it touch the game itself, and the player of that game?

Notes: Wermeskerken et al. Effects of Instructor Presence in Video Modelling Examples on Attention and Learning

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Mon, 09 Dec 2019 09:00:00 -0700

van Wermeskerken, M., Ravensbergen, S., & van Gog, T. (2018). Effects of instructor presence in video modeling examples on attention and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 430-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.038

Does including a video that includes a view of the presenter add (through instructor presence) or detract (through distracting the viewer by forcing them to split attention)? This paper takes a look at a specific design pattern - an instructor presenting some content in a presentation - and uses eye tracking to observe where a viewer’s attention is focused during the video, and tries to assess the impact on learning (using pre/post test scores as a proxy). Is the a deeper connection through social response stronger than the “split attention effect” where viewers are automatically drawn to look at a human face rather than the content in a presentation? Does working memory¹ get messed up by having the instructor visible (but separate from the content)?

My Questions:

Should we include a picture-in-picture or split-view that shows the instructor during a presentation?
Should we separate a presentation into an introductory bit that shows the instructor (yay instructor presence) but not during the presentation itself?
Does the lightboard² ³ mitigate this? Instructor presence during a presentation, without distracting the viewer? Or is that just moving the distraction closer to the content so it’s not as severe?
The split-attention effect - does it actually hinder learning, or is immediate recall of processes affected differently from longer-term understanding of concepts?
Does this study generalize to non-process learning through video, or could instructor presence help in other topics?

Notes:

They looked at 2 versions of a video, one “Instructor Visible”, one “No Instructor”.

3 hypotheses:

viewers of “Instructor Visible” version would spend significant time looking at the instructor rather than the content of the presentation.
viewers of “Instructor Visible” version would spend less time focused on the relevant content displayed, taking longer to focus attention on relevant content when it is displayed.
presence of instructor in “Instructor Visible” version would hinder learning.

They used a video on calculating probability. The study involved:

pre-test of 5 questions of different types
watch one of 2 formats of the video (“Instructor Visible” or “No Instructor”). eye-tracking observation while students watched the video
post-test of 10 questions

Viewers of the IV version demonstrated split-attention, as documented by the eye-tracking system.

BUT - there was no significant difference in either retention or test performance, so maybe it doesn’t affect learning?

Despite the substantial amount of attention that was paid to the instructor’s face, at the expense of attention paid to the task overall and to the task parts the instructor was referring to, learning out- comes (i.e., retention and transfer scores) were not significantly affected by instructor presence (H3); even though performance was slightly higher (about 10% on both retention and transfer test) when no instructor was visible, this difference was not statistically reliable. The exploration of the association between viewing behavior and learning outcomes in the instructor visible condition (Q2) did not reveal any significant association.

and

Thus, the fact that the instructor attracts learners' attention, can be used to guide learners' attention when the instructor employs social cues such as gaze and/or gesture cues, or when the instructor manipulates objects

Which really sounds like something like Lightboard could be a useful method of integrating instructor presence and social cues without distracting attention from the displayed content… Which, obviously, but data!

Hultberg, P., Calonge, D. S., & Lee, A. E. S. (2018). Promoting Long-Lasting Learning through Instructional Design. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(3). ↩︎
Skibinski, E. S., DeBenedetti, W. J., Ortoll-Bloch, A. G., & Hines, M. A. (2015). A Blackboard for the 21st Century: An Inexpensive Light Board Projection System for Classroom Use. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92, 10, 1754-1756 ↩︎
Peshkin, M. (2015). Lightboard. https://lightboard.info ↩︎

Gamelog: Hexaflip

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Sun, 06 Oct 2019 02:22:18 +0000

I’ve been playing some casual games as part of the Apple Arcade, and have really been enjoying Hexaflip by Rogue Games. One part Q-Bert, one part Marble Madness, one part platform runner.

It’s a deceptively simple game - there are only two “controls” - tap left and tap right. No forward or backward. No jump. Just left and right, always moving forward. Some of the tiles can change your direction, so you have to plan accordingly. It gets complicated quickly.

It does have some in-game currency, which I usually find intolerable. It’s only used to optional restart a level from a save point, but it’s still annoying. Collecting coins and skins is just tacky.

Randy Bass – the impact of technology on the future of human learning

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 18:57:10 +0000

Technology can best improve education by helping us distinguish ourselves from machines and to make that distinction itself fundamental to the “project” of education.

As we look to the future, and as machines get better at being machines, the primary purpose of higher education must be helping humans get better at being human. Ultimately technology (machine intelligence) will have its greatest impact on human learning through the evolution in human capacity—the ‘complementarity’—that will be required to stay ahead of its advance.

Randy Bass (2018) The Impact of Technology on the Future of Human Learning, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50:3-4, 34-39, DOI: 10.1080/00091383.2018.1507380

Metaphysics of teaching?

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Sat, 13 Oct 2018 17:02:34 +0000

Children believe robots…

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Wed, 22 Aug 2018 04:11:15 +0000

Children are more likely to believe robots than themselves

Interesting. Would novice teachers believe feedback from a robot while reviewing a session?

Volumetric capture for movies – Intel Studios

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Fri, 10 Aug 2018 20:39:50 +0000

This is pretty cool. Waaaay more high-end than what I’m thinking of, but passively turning a scene/event with multiple participants interacting in complex ways into a point cloud with nothing more than a bunch of cameras? Gold.

via BoingBoing

Remixed Reality: Manipulating Space and Time in Augmented Reality

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 19:50:01 +0000

Thanks to Ehud for the link to this video and paper from CHI 2018. This is almost exactly the tech I built in my head to use for my PhD research. Last year, this was completely impossible. Then, kind of possible but kludgey. Now, it’s basically there.

With this, you could volumetrically record a room, and play it back from various spatial and temporal vantage points. Check out the 2:40 point where the viewer and recorded-person separate, and then the recording is played back from a different time…

How would this tech handle recording an environment like a small classroom?

How would it handle recording multiple participants? (instructor and students)

How would this kind of recording and interactive playback be used to support reflection by participants in a session?

Miguel Chevalier visualizing motion and interaction

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Thu, 19 Oct 2017 01:43:38 +0000

A crazy series of interactive visualizations of motion. What if people in a space bend the space time fabric like the traditional visualization of planets in orbit around the sun? How could these visualizations be used to provide feedback on what is happening in a space?

More info at

miguel chevalier weaves ‘onde pixel’ installation through milan’s unicredit pavilion

Brookfield, S. (1995). Become a critically reflective teacher.

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Sun, 02 Jul 2017 23:41:40 +0000

Brookﬁeld, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reﬂective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

The role of autobiography – a “critical incident questionnaire” to document classroom dynamics during a class.

“Critically reflective teaching happens when we identify and scrutinize the assumptions that undergird how we work. The most effective way to become aware of these assumptions is to view our practice from different perspectives. Seeing how we think and work through different lenses is the core process of reflective practice.” -p. xii-xiii

4 distinct and interconnecting lenses:

Our autobiographies as learners and teachers – autobiographical reflection
our students’ eyes – student perspective – how they perceive (our) actions
our colleagues’ experiences – colleague’s perspective – perceptions and experiences
theoretical literature – viewing within and outside of our area of practice, applying alternative theoretical frameworks.

“Teaching innocently means thinking that we’re always understanding exactly what it is that we’re dong and what effect we’re having. Teaching innocently means assuming that the meanings and significance we place on our actions are the ones students take from them.” – p .1.

“Critically reflective teachers will make sure that they find some way of regularly seeing what they do through students’ eyes.” – p. 11.

on autobiographies: “The prospect of public humiliation is one reason why many reflective efforts begin with private autobiographical analyses of teaching. There are several tools we can use for this purpose, including teaching logs, teacher learning audits, role model profiles, survival advice memos, videotaping, ideology critique and best/worst experiences matrices.” – p. 33

“The intrinsic problem with approaches to private self-reflection is that when we use them, we can never completely avoid the risks of denial and distortion. We can never know just how much we’re cooking the data of our memories and experience to produce images and renditions that show us off to good effect. I use autobiographical reflection myself because I think it’s a good starting point for my own efforts to see myself more clearly, and I have also seen it work well with other teachers. But we need to be aware of the limits to any approach that relies on self-reporting and self-analysis.” – p.33.

“Without an appreciation of how students are experiencing learning, any methodological choices we make risk being ill-informed, inappropriate, or harmful.” – p. 35.

“The literature that seems to have the greatest effect on teachers, however, is that in which autobiographical stories of teachers’ struggles are the springboard for wider theoretical analysis.” – p. 39.

“When we take critical reflection seriously, we also begin to think differently about professional development. It is the nature of the reflective process for us to always be evolving.” – p. 42.

“Videotaping our teaching can be a wonderful, though sometimes shocking, way of getting to see ourselves as others see us. At a purely behavioral level, a videotaped record of a class allows us to pick up a variety of gestural and verbal tics. We catch ourselves looking at the floor, fiddling with assorted body parts, making eye contact sporadically and only with certain people, leaving sentences uncompleted, promising to talk about six themes and addressing only five, speaking with frequent hesitations, pauses, and stumblings, and son on. These are behaviors that are distracting or confusing but about which we would otherwise be completely unaware.” – p. 80.

“Through videotape, we can also become aware of the tonal qualities of our teaching. We can see whether we smile a lot, look blank, or frown. We can judge how often we give encouraging nods, acknowledging remarks, and other affirmations in response to students’ contributions. We can listen carefully to our vocal modulations and get a better sense of when, probably unwittingly, our voice suggests that we are being patronizing, demeaning, or condescending. We can see how we react to criticism, lassitude, or what we perceive as inattention.” – p.80.

“Many teachers resist being videotaped because they are uncomfortable with a peer’s scrutiny. They fear being revealed in front of a colleague as the impostor that they feel, deep in their bones, they really are. As we know from working with students, the fear of looking foolish in public is one of the strongest causes of resistance to learning.” – p. 82.

“Although videotaping is a dramatic way to see ourselves as others see us, we should not expect that on its own it will change how we act. While it can indicate aspects of our teaching that need work, it does not necessarily tell us what to do.” – p. 82.

“Student learning journals are regularly compiled summaries of students’ experiences of learning that are written in their own terms. These journals are highly revealing, and writing them is arduous and time-consuming. Sometimes none but the most committed, articulate, and thoughtful students (in some ways, the ones who least need to do it) will bother.” – p. 97.

Critical Incident Questionnaire – quick survey filled in at the end of each class, documenting responses to 5 questions:

at what moment in the class this week did you feel most engaged with what was happening?
at what moment in the class this week did you feel most distanced from what was happening?
what action that anyone (teacher or student) took in class this week did you find most affirming and helpful?
What action that anyone (teacher or student) took in class this week did you find most puzzling or confusing?
what about the class this week surprised you the most? (this could be something about your own reactions to what went on, or something that someone did, or anything else that occurs to you.)

On connecting theory to practice:

theory lets us “name” our practice.
theory breaks the circle of familiarity – by studying ideas, activities, and theories that have sprung from situations outside our circle of practice, we gain insight into which features of our work are context-specific and which are more generic.
theory can be a substitute for absent colleagues.
theory prevents groupthink and improves conversation with colleagues – breaking ideological homogeneity.
theory locates our practice in a social context.

“(Theorists of reflective practice) believe… that practitioners, including teachers, must research their own work sites. This involves their recognizing and generating their own contextually sensitive theories of practice, rather than importing them from outside.” – p. 215.

demo of “immersive” 360˚ video

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Tue, 20 Jun 2017 19:39:57 +0000

and, the raw 360˚ video, which should play back in Chrome or on a Daydream/Cardboard-enabled phone. And probably on an actual VR platform…

Thoughts on immersive capture

dnorman@me.com (D'Arcy Norman) — Sat, 17 Jun 2017 00:28:35 +0000

I’m still not sure how to fully describe what I’m trying to do. At the most basic level, I want to find ways to apply technologies and practices to support and enhance reflection by people as they learn the craft of teaching. That’s what prompted the Nao robot study, and the various types of media (text, video, cartoon video, audio, synthetic audio…).

In a perfect world, what would this look like? I imagine capturing a teaching and learning session (a classroom session, a field trip, a laboratory activity…) volumetrically. The shape of the spaces. The shapes of the participants. The flow of participants throughout the session. The content on various displays and devices as used during the session. The video/texturemap and audio of the session. To capture everything. Multimodal, multisensory, volumetric capture of an event.

Why? Not just to capture it. Documentation is the first stage. But then, to support the learning-teacher to come back and revisit the session. To view it from their perspective, as well as those of the various participants. As well as from arbitrary perspectives. What did the session look like from above? From the point of view of Student Particpant 23? Etc.

And, even that isn’t the end goal. What if various other types of data and information are layered on top of the experience as it is reviewed? What if positional data – heat maps of locations for participants throughout the session, biometric information, kinesthetic information (body posture, motion…), dramaturgic information – connecting the kinesthetic to presentational and performative theory? When a teacher is in this position, in this posture, it commonly indicates this … to the participants. When you do this, it implies … and participants often infer …

How do we use the connections between disciplines, the connections between recorded and interpreted data – applying expert knowledge to interpret the actions and interactions within the session – to help support meaningful reflection by the instructor (and other participants)?

But WHY focus on reflection? Because that is how we learn. By examining what we have done, what we have assumed to have done. To openly and meaningfully analyze how we have performed, and how that compares to our plans and intentions, in order to shape or improve future performances.

By providing a way for learning-teachers to deeply review and reflect on their performance, they have the opportunity to intentionally shape future actions in ways that is not possible through simply assuming and trying harder.