Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Week 5: "A Whole New Mind"
In class I shared that I was a bit skeptical of Pink's predictions of how values will change in society, especially given how slow some of our biggest and most influential institutions change. However, I think that his categories of "right-brain directed" thinking (design, story, etc) and activities to develop these skills are valuable to instructional designers. Because these elements do really affect people, they are great to integrate into instructional design because they can provide context and meaning for many lessons. Creativity, empathy, and big-picture thinking are essential qualities for designers and educators to nurture.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
When Things Go Wrong
Something is about to happen to that man's poor "whole mind" (oh, this is totally fake. in case you were concerned.)
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Week 4: Design Disaster
Meet my toaster. It seems innocent enough, useful even, given the quantity of English muffins that I eat. But there is a major design flaw - the top (see right) is made of a material that conducts heat. The way I imagine that people learn this is either by a) touching it and getting burned (ouch!), or b) leaving the package of English muffins on top of the toaster and having the plastic bag melt to the top (also, see right).
Week 3: History of Instructional Design
The presentations in class of the history of instructional design were a helpful review of a lot of the theories we learned in 800 and how they relate to modern instructional systems design. It was particularly useful to go over the various intructional theories, such as Bruner's and Gagne's, to see the relationships between their cognitive studies and the applications or practices that developed out of them.
The relationship between cognitive understanding and good design is also reinforced in The Design of Everyday Things. It is notable that the author does not have a background in design, but rather in cognitive psychology. It raises questions for me about why designers and prodcut developers don't receive more training in human cognition and usability!
The relationship between cognitive understanding and good design is also reinforced in The Design of Everyday Things. It is notable that the author does not have a background in design, but rather in cognitive psychology. It raises questions for me about why designers and prodcut developers don't receive more training in human cognition and usability!
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Week 2: Web 2.0 - Am I Over It?
The presentation in class was interesting and informative for me and provided some information beyond the basics that I am familiar with regarding the technologies discussed.
More broadly, I am starting to develop mixed feelings on the web 2.0 movement, particularly given the breadth of start ups that are getting venture capital to launch web 2.0 sites.
On the one hand, it is exciting for users to be so engaged in the content of a tool. Web 2.0 technologies allow opportunities for users to connect to one another and to create. It is possible for someone to write a radio show, create it in garageband, and post it on itunes for anyone to hear, all before cocktails on a Saturday afternoon. The creative possibilities of user-generated content are exciting.
On the other hand, do I really need to sign up for another network of "friends" in order to try out a tool that I may or may not ever use? And where are the SMEs? These are the two main questions that have been coming up for me a lot lately. For example, I have accounts with friendster, orkut, classmates, linkedin, geni, and myspace. I only use the myspace account, and simply because of the sheer numbers of people that are on it, otherwise I don't really care for it. The social network aspect of web 2.0 is getting a bit tired. Every new tool seems to require you to create a whole new profile and new community, which is annoying unless perhaps you have multiple personalities. It's really just a way for the Web 2.0 company to get you to create their user base. Can't they somehow form partnerships or something?
And in regards to quality and SMEs, the prevalence of user-generated content raises the question of how good the stuff is that we're actually consuming. For example, YouTube is a great application theoretically, and is certainly upsetting mainstream media in some ways. However, look at the top 100 videos. What is valuable or thought-provoking about nearly-nude adolescent girls lip-synching or drunk people falling over or monkeys sniffing their butts? It reminds of the book "Hello, I'm Special: How Individuality Became the New Conformity" by Niedzviecki. He suggests that in a culture in which one can get tattooed and pierced in the local mall and reality TV has taken over and everyone really does have their 15 minutes of fame, individuality and creativity are becoming extinct. (Like the culture the book analyzes, the book is totally average - I wouldn't recommend it). I just think it's worth asking if Web 2.0 technologies are creating more quantity than they ever could quality. And maybe it doesn't matter, except that just as tv networks make tons in advertising for reality shows that are cheap and easy to produce, Web 2.0 companies are making a profit by exploiting people's drives to be creative and special and famous.
More broadly, I am starting to develop mixed feelings on the web 2.0 movement, particularly given the breadth of start ups that are getting venture capital to launch web 2.0 sites.
On the one hand, it is exciting for users to be so engaged in the content of a tool. Web 2.0 technologies allow opportunities for users to connect to one another and to create. It is possible for someone to write a radio show, create it in garageband, and post it on itunes for anyone to hear, all before cocktails on a Saturday afternoon. The creative possibilities of user-generated content are exciting.
On the other hand, do I really need to sign up for another network of "friends" in order to try out a tool that I may or may not ever use? And where are the SMEs? These are the two main questions that have been coming up for me a lot lately. For example, I have accounts with friendster, orkut, classmates, linkedin, geni, and myspace. I only use the myspace account, and simply because of the sheer numbers of people that are on it, otherwise I don't really care for it. The social network aspect of web 2.0 is getting a bit tired. Every new tool seems to require you to create a whole new profile and new community, which is annoying unless perhaps you have multiple personalities. It's really just a way for the Web 2.0 company to get you to create their user base. Can't they somehow form partnerships or something?
And in regards to quality and SMEs, the prevalence of user-generated content raises the question of how good the stuff is that we're actually consuming. For example, YouTube is a great application theoretically, and is certainly upsetting mainstream media in some ways. However, look at the top 100 videos. What is valuable or thought-provoking about nearly-nude adolescent girls lip-synching or drunk people falling over or monkeys sniffing their butts? It reminds of the book "Hello, I'm Special: How Individuality Became the New Conformity" by Niedzviecki. He suggests that in a culture in which one can get tattooed and pierced in the local mall and reality TV has taken over and everyone really does have their 15 minutes of fame, individuality and creativity are becoming extinct. (Like the culture the book analyzes, the book is totally average - I wouldn't recommend it). I just think it's worth asking if Web 2.0 technologies are creating more quantity than they ever could quality. And maybe it doesn't matter, except that just as tv networks make tons in advertising for reality shows that are cheap and easy to produce, Web 2.0 companies are making a profit by exploiting people's drives to be creative and special and famous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)