July 2018 – Bobbi's Blog

Activity 2- Selecting Promising Ideas

The Empathy and Design stage did not create as much anxiety as this stage to narrow my ideas. I know the choice of the right tool is vital to the learning outcome and impact on the students. While reading about the frameworks to help select a digital resource, I appreciate different elements of TPACK and SAMR in various capacities of my work — where classroom dynamics, specific content, and tools used to enhance or redefine learning is more in play. For this project, the aim is to provide a resource that helps to present and educate about academic integrity.

In my current scenario for this project, I am looking at the framework of Bates’ (2015) SECTIONS to guide my process in determining my best-fit digital tool. The SECTIONS (Bates, 2015) framework provides key questions to consider when choosing and designing a digital resource. The structure helps to ensure all consideration of all aspects when deciding on the digital tool. Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber (2006) RAT framework is a check in the purpose of the technology implementation — to replace, amplify or transform. RAT (Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006) creates dimensions for the degree of use of the technology is used. This affirms the purpose, and in the design process keeps the aim in sight.

What are the affordances and limitations of the framework?

Affordances

- Logical. The framework walks you through reasonable questions to consider, helping you to work in perspectives that ensure that you are looking beyond my viewpoint and considering many aspects of my users. It is a practical look and analysis that will help justify the decision for the technology tool.
- K-12 context. Bates’ framework (2015) is applied directly to my context of K-12 education, specifically grade 9-12 students.
- Dual settings. The framework allows for the consideration of the tool in a classroom setting and an online.
- Inclusive. Considerations for ensuring the needs of all students are met with the tool that is chosen.

Limitations

- A detailed perspective. The many direct questions ensure the designer considers the finer points, however, it may cloud or hinder the bigger picture.
- Assumptions. The questions have an assumption that there is a level of comfort or understanding of technological pedagogy/practice for the teacher to be successful or be able to consider and answer the guiding questions.

How well does the framework align with your existing educational and pedagogical practices?

- For my purpose of this project, the SECTIONS framework allows for a straightforward and clear process for thinking and choosing my digital tool. I appreciate the TPACK (Koehler, Mishra & Cain, 2013) and SAMR (Puentedura, 2013) framework as the models seek to enhance student learning and to create shifts in instruction to impact learning. For this circumstance, the purpose of this resource is not better to integrate technology to transform a lesson or specific target — not yet, anyway. This is where the RAT framework has kept me in check to understand that I am using technology to amplify the student learning for understanding and efficiency of the school’s academic integrity policy.

How did the application of the framework impact your decision-making process?

- The application for the framework in my decision-making process to help work through assumptions and ensure that I am looking at all possibilities. The practicality helps me with the bigger picture to use a platform that people can easily access and willingly access as programs at our school.
- The framework is reminding me to keep it simple and to look at the learning targets and how to maximize learning within the realm I am capable of creating that is accessible to everyone.
- I have decided to use the Google Sites, in conjunction with Google Forms and Google Classroom. I haven’t decided which program I will be using yet for audio and visual. Depending on my better dabbling in Camtasia and Snagit or to keep it simple with Screencastomatic.

Which components of the framework did you find most valuable to your decision-making process? Why?

- The components of the framework that I found the most valuable are the guiding questions that are applied at the end of each element. The Students component is helpful to look past biases and assumptions. Also, the Teaching/Media Selection to provide tips and considerations when creating an effective digital resource.

References

Bates, A. W. (2015). Chapter 8. In Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning. Vancouver BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd.

Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006, March). Assessing technology integration: The RAT–replacement, amplification, and transformation-framework. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616-1620). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

Koehler M. J., Mishra P., & Cain, W. (2013). What Is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal Of Education, 193(3), 13-19.

Puentedura, R. R. (2013, May 29). SAMR: Moving from enhancement to transformation [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000095.html

Activity 4: Define Phase

LRNT 527 Activity 4 – The Define Phase

As I synthesize my data about academic integrity, examining my methods of the Extremes and Empathy Map, I natural found myself dabbling in many methods of the define stage.

Working through the empathy map, naturally brought me to ask “Why + How?” (Bootleg Bootcamp, 2016) when looking at the quadrants Say, Do, Think, and Feel. I would add to and build on my thoughts with questions to myself — hmm, why are students choosing to plagiarize? Why don’t they speak to their teacher about how to cite? Why don’t students ask for an example assignment? Why do they risk it? How do students feel safe to ask these questions

? How is the deadline more important than the consequence? How is my school going to be better at this?

Themes evolved.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have two competing stakeholders – students and teachers. Through my empathy stage and moving into my define phase, the student as my primary user emerged. I continue to be mindful of teachers and their vital role in the solution. I am happy to resolve my tension identified earlier, as it was difficult to address both sides of the fence. However, I feel that if I look at the needs of the students, I am on the side of the fence that has the greatest impact.

Maintaining empathy for the teachers, I have written POV statements for students and teachers, exploring the 2×2 matrix for teachers and students on one axis versus ‘knowledge and understanding’ and ‘no knowledge or understanding.’

The 2×2 matrix was an initial define method. Although it solidified some themes, I went back to the Madlibs POV and the “How+Why” ladder for depth and greater clarity. These two methods extended from my empathy stage and reflection process.

The POV I have drafted for my user has been revised as I play with the needs and insights. I feel that there are not enough layers and I have difficulty keeping it simple. Keeping it simple is essential. Complexity is not useful for stakeholders–students or teachers. I reflect and then revise the statement, trying to find clarifying words.

Because I often use analogies, I went down that path—for fun. In my creative spurt, the analogy spilled out after the other methods were processed and I walked through them. The analogy helped me cement my thinking.

The analogy, although complicated, comes down to a circus a clown (maybe a bear) who rides a unicycle and juggles balls all the while trapeze artists are flying above with a safety net, taking risks with a team and are able to sustain poise and grace – both of which the circus clown may not have. In my analogy, the circus clown is the student, expected to do these many things and juggle a hectic life with academics, athletics, arts, and service and not always knowing how it will turn out. There is not a team but only a ringleader (the teacher). The clown performs to entertain and please the ringleader; whereas the trapeze artists, who practice and take chances with a team, perform knowing their risks or errors are not so detrimental. If there is a missed swing, there is a safety net and a team to protect and pick up the trapeze artist to practice, apply what was learned, to better the outcome. In hopes that the clown is not a solo act and feels supported.

For this define phase, the themes of trust, support, transparency, and understanding emerged.

References

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf

IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods

Activity 3: Empathy

Through the readings and discover in the journey of empathetic design, one of the crucial aspects is the ability to step in and out of a situation, to ‘walk the walk’ of others and then to reflect on what was heard, observed, and said. Through the readings of this unit, I appreciate that Kroupie and Visser (2009) have distinguished the affective and cognitive response to the user with an emotional response, affective, plus recognition, cognitive, from the user’s point of view. I appreciate the distinction because it has made me think where I already work within the empathy methods—do I to any degree have an emotional response AND recognition of the users’ point of view?

I am looking at academic integrity in my high school for my design project. My users are BOTH students and teachers. This is where this dichotomy of Kroupie and Visser (2009) appealed to me. Although I am an administrator, I continue to teach. As I am still in the classroom, I have the empathy for the teacher and student in one aspect. Then as an administrator, I observe, listen and respond to both perspectives of student and teacher.

In consideration of empathy methods, I have to consider the situation of summer with international faculty and students. I do not have any success with connecting with my users. I am relying on the notes and past conversations, as well as documented data for academic dishonesty that I do have.

I am deliberating between two methods of the Empathy map and the Extreme Users (Extreme and mainstreams from IDEO.org) from the Bootleg Bootcamp. These methods seemed much more applicable due to my situation of summer break and the ability to access my users.

Although these methods need to be adjusted to my circumstances, I have data from our school database on academic dishonesty as well as documented conversations when dealing with the teachers and students in these particular situations. The application of these methods will cause reflection on the data and the discussions with the teacher and student. As I already have this data

Resources

The resources to apply these empathy methods are the database from my school as well as the documentation, student letters, and reflections on conversations with students and teachers regarding the academic dishonesty.

Challenges

Regarding Matthews, Williams, Yanchar, and McDonald (2017) and possible key tensions, one of the barriers and conflicts I face is that I have multiple stakeholders. Students are the learners of the academic integrity, and I empathize with what they are receiving for knowledge and consistent learning between all the disciplines. I empathize with the faculty to develop a consistent message and tutorial for the students, generating a consistent message to the learner. Both stakeholders are important and valuable in this process.

Empathy, noted in Kroupie and Visser (2009), “is finding echoes of another person in yourself.” This resonates with me as I feel that I am at least in the shoes of one of my users in my design challenge. I will have to keep both stakeholders in mind, as the situation is sensitive to both stakeholders.

References

Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.

Matthews, M., Williams, G., Yanchar, S., & McDonald, J. (2017). Empathy in distance learning design practice. Tech Trends, 61(5), 486-493.

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf