ICER Day 3: Theory in Practice via Food

When the inside of the brownies are uncooked it is theoretically much easier to not eat them. Unlike for pepperoni, the theory that removing the bits of sausage from the surface will result in the elimination of the meat from the pizza proves to be incorrect. Fortunately, three days of incredibly stimulating theoretical and applied discussions at ICER have prepared me to apply my newly primed computational thinking skills to the task of applying some of the theoretical constructs we learned in a greater context.

Were I to assess the brownie/sausage learning experience via an Active-Constructive-Interactive Framework (attributed to Chi and discussed as part of Quintin Cutts talk) in conjunction with Peer Instruction (PI) I would have to design a PI-centered analysis such that we moved through the Passive Stage (stare at the offending food items) to the Active Stage (cautiously pick up the offending food items) to the Constructive Stage (wrap the pizza around the brownie taco-style) to the Interactive Stage (turn to my friend and offer to trade my sausage brownie taco for her broccoli) while sending an unhappy message about the brownie via Clicker to the Dining Services food database. The pizza mess up was totally my own doing.*

If I assess the brownie/sausage learning experience while holding a Theory View of food choices I would decide that whether or not to eat raw dough and invisible sausage bits was only relevant if the problem was not NP Complete. If, conversely, I held a Programming View I would write a Python program to compare and contrast the tradeoffs of not eating at all vs. eating food that bordered on the undigestible. If however, I held a Broad View, I would pause and evaluate at length the possible origins of the dough, the sausage, the intermingling of ingredients as the two situate on the same plate, and the effect upon the ecosystem if they pass through my body or go straight into the trash bin.**

In the event that I approach the entire episode from an experiential perspective and applied the Zones of Proximal Flow theory (as presented in Alex Repenning's talk) I would take stock first of the momentary Anxiety I felt after I swallowed the solid lump of dark dough and felt the greasy sausage remainders sliding down after it. Then, as I became accustomed to this challenging experience and realized I could perhaps leverage the unwanted protein and sugar in new ways, I would make a mental note that I was in Vygotsky's ZOPED (Zone of Proximal Development). With the assistance of an experienced wise person, I could be scaffolded into a state of Flow (as made famous by Csikszentmihalyi), buzzing along with full attention on the post-lunch presentations and discussions - totally unaware of the nutritional experience taking place below. Much later, after I had fully mastered the experience of the afternoon I might find myself Bored. I'm happy to say that never happened. Although if I had I might have been challenged to eat something even more offputting and start the whole process over again.***

And so it goes. It was no doubt the depth and solidity of much of the research we heard over the last three days that led to so many members of the audience feeling happily brain fried. Whether presenting quantitative statistical results or rigorous qualitative analyses, or while engaging in dynamic give and take with a sometimes hard core questioner, the bar remained high.  Ray Lister, who is known for his willingness to say it like it is, made the point quite well when he said how much he hates claims that begin with "In my experience...." Ray called this The Yoda Argument. Brownies aside, Yoda was not present at ICER 2013. Yet we had a heck of a lot of fun while we learned - good pedagogical theory seen in action.

*(with sincere apologies to Quintin Cutts who, I hope, will forgive these unwarranted extensions of his rigorous and compelling work on engagement in the university computing classroom)
**(with full apologies to Mike Hewner who presented these Views of Computer Science as the heart of his research results, with absolutely no intention they be applied in this manner)
***(more apologies, this time to Alex Repenning who gave an incredibly  fascinating and solidly supported research talk on integrating computing into the middle school classroom with absolutely nothing remotely resembling unsound nutrition)

*****Overall the food was wonderful!!!!! Just want to make sure I said that***** 

UX Without Psychology?

"You can talk about behavior without knowing anything about psychology" 

according to Christopher Konrad, one of the panelists at the UX and Psychology meeting I have been discussing in the last few posts. Konrad has a significant background in  software for several large companies we all know and love (or hate, depending upon your personal taste) such as Microsoft, Intuit and Sandia National Labs. He also has a degree in Psychology and runs his own design firm (suitably named Konrad) so you can't just write off his comment without considering what it might mean.

No doubt Konrad likes to be provocative. He made another point by holding up a photograph of a user restrained in a chair with an eye tracker covering their face. Provocative gets you attention and if handled skillfully can make you think critically.

There is Psychology and then there is psychology. Konrad has critiques of both. Capital "P" Psychology can be, under the worst scenario, a deadening pileup of statistics and controlled studies divorced from reality. When it comes to understanding what users do in their lives, what they care about, the type of Psychology Konrad takes issue with is a waste of time.

psychology (lower case "p") refers to pop psychology. Inferring what Konrad meant by pop psychology, I take this to be exemplified in its worst guise through a certain genre of self-help books ("Break All Your Bad Habits in Six Days"). These kinds of books, software and the motivational speakers that promote them make me ill because they prey on gullible people. When it comes to professional UX work of any sort I cannot but agree with Konrad - there is no place for pop psychology.

Many people don't know what "psychology" (upper or lower case) means, as was evident by the enthusiastic audience discussion following Konrad's remarks. Not everyone agreed with him, but some did.

One of the other speakers, Matt Kelly, provided an excellent balance. Kelly is a human factors researcher at Pacific Science and Engineering whose work relies heavily on traditional psychological research methodologies. He gave some excellent examples of where collecting and analyzing formal data can make the difference between saving lives or losing them. He stressed the "...importance of not getting a 60% fail rate on mission critical applications - something might kill you".

If something might kill you, you want to make sure your application has all its ducks in a row in terms of how it and users interact. I couldn't help thinking about the term "collateral damage" which has come to stand in for people dying or getting severely injured. If running formal experiments and tests will save lives, power to Psychology.

Can you study behavior without Psychology? It depends what you mean by studying behavior and by Psychology.

Can you "do" UX without Psychology? 

Looking Forward to UX Speakeasy - Whither Psychology?

This weekend I will be attending the first UX Speakeasy conference - a San Diego based conference for User Experience (UX) enthusiasts. The conference has come together in a few months through the effort of a group of highly dedicated people in UX here in the San Diego area, many of whom did not know each other 8 months ago. They have managed to pull together an exciting group of speakers and workshop presenters. I can't wait for Saturday.

There are many things to look forward to and one of them for me, in particular, will be watching to see how much attention is given to psychology in UX. Why? Some surprising conversations on LinkedIn is why. Last year there was a fairly lengthy conversation on several UX LinkedIn groups about what role, if any, psychology should play in UX.

I was a bit flabbergasted. "If any"? The "X" in UX stands for "Experience" and experience is a holistic term based in great part upon how someone feels. What emotions they have - using more precise terminology, their "affect". In addition, their cognitive interpretations of the technology are critically important (since we are talking computing topics here I'll stick to the digital world of UX). Psychology provides the basis for understanding cognition and affect.

Affect + Cognition = The vast part of Experience. How can you evaluate/observe/comment on User Experience without reference to the psychological aspects of the interplay between user and technology?

Many of the LinkedIn group conversations revolve around technical issues - how tos, best practices, resource identification etc. Incredibly useful information and I learn from reading these posts. Thus my surprise to discover that when someone brought up the question of psychology in UX work, many (many) respondents took this as new information, a new perspective, something they had not thought of before. Happily, most posters were very excited by the idea of incorporating psychology (in one or more of its various forms) into their work.

Computing is always both a technical and social activity. In some situations this is more obvious than in others. In UX work, psychological considerations should be front and center if you want to really understand what is going on with your website/app/software/device. Think about it. If you are frustrated and pissed off, are you going to be efficient and productive? Will you come back (assuming you have a choice in the matter)? Will you go the extra mile to do more with the technology? Compare your answers to the same questions if you are pleased with your interactions.

We can count keystrokes, perform eye tracking, monitor time on page (etc) all we want, and these tasks provide valuable information. But without incorporating affect and cognition into the equation you have only part of the story.

Thus, this weekend I will be keeping all my senses attuned to monitor my full range of experiences, others' full range of experiences, and the speakers' full incorporation of experiences in their presentations. I will of course provide a report here.

Considering Collaboration with the Social Sciences?

Psychology and computing have an interesting historical relationship. With the onslaught of All Things Digital, that relationship is becoming more complex. It should go without saying (although experience indicates periodic reminders are needed) that computing's relationship with psychology and other social sciences are as important as with any "hard" science - or should be. There are exciting questions to be considered and challenges to pounce on.

Historically, we tended to think of psychology as intersecting  with computing via Human Computer Interaction (HCI), or in Artificial Intelligence. Yet, in both fields the emphasis has almost always been on the cognitive - efficiency and effectiveness in the former, data discover and interpretation in the latter.

But psychology is also about affect.  As related in a recent article in UX Magazine about "Understanding Social Computing", the whole online user experience is more and more about personal interaction. Online educators know this. Marketing professionals know this - what marketing these days is not heavily digital? But there is so much more to talk about.

There is enormous opportunity for computing professionals who have a background in psychology (cognitive and affective). In the affective domain, we have opportunities well beyond the arena of sales and marketing. We have opportunities with educational software development to really maximize learning through sophisticated understanding of the interplay between the emotional and cognitive self. No doubt computer science can contribute to a greater ability to put that understanding into action. I wonder how often computer scientists work directly with educational psychologists?

Then there is anthropology and sociology. A friend, who is interested in the intersection of physics and anthropology got me thinking about this as we were joking around about her ideal future career in the search for extra-terrestrials. Where do computing and anthropology/sociology weave together?

Throwing a few thoughts out for your consideration: consider the context in which globally divergent groups perceive and interact with computing as cultural artifacts. Books and articles have been written by non-computing professionals on this topic. But how much has been written from within the computing disciplines?  How do different ethnic, religious, urban, agrarian groups perceive and appreciate the potential of computing? If you think this isn't something for a computing professional to focus on, think again.

Or... ponder the different, surprisingly different, cultures that exist between traditional institutions of higher learning and non-traditional computing education organizations (private for-profits for example). Before you dismiss this subject for whatever reason (e.g. media reports of all the problems with for-profits) remember that just because something may not be palatable doesn't mean ignoring it is a good idea.

The more we think about it, the more I think we'll realize that culture is huge in terms of how computing "works" or "doesn't work"; collaboration with anthropologists and sociologists has enormous potential for benefiting the users, clients, customers, the public in general and for the field of computer science. And I'm talking about computer science here - the science of computation. Something to percolate on: What is the contribution that computer science can make to the study of culture?

So, I put these out there as questions: computing professionals, do you have working relationships with professionals in psychology - beyond the somewhat already trodden cognitive domain?

Computing professionals out there, do you have a working relationship with someone coming from anthropology? Sociology? 

If this sounds at all appealing, and you don't have such a relationship, how could you form one?

Design Studios, Studying Design

Back in August, while attending the ICER conference, I discussed some work being done to incorporate the studio model into the computing classroom. Several people replied, sharing their own work in this area or knowledge of others' work. At least one person I spoke with believed the studio model was impractical. Interestingly enough, there is a discussion about the use of Design Studios within the UX (User Experience) community. In late August, the first of two articles in UX Magazine discussed the basics of Design Studio. The rationale for using Design Studios included the following:

"The reality of designing modern digital solutions is that no individual can solely capture all the complexity of creating a truly vibrant product with various customer engagement points, different usage patterns, and behaviors based on complex needs, goals, and customer backgrounds, all interwoven into an emergent, ubiquitous engagement tapestry. This is why innovation really is, and should be, a team sport."

The above quote reflects a key feature of UX work: obtaining a holistic view of the interactions, perceptions and ramifications of users interacting with digital artifacts. Beyond traditional user interface and graphical design issues (although those are relevant), to include all the complexities that people, as people, bring to the table and what that complexity means for their "experience" (hence the name User Experience). Cognition, affect, behavior, environmental and social factors.

The second of the articles, which came out today, provides resources and guidelines for how you can put Design Studios into action. Very interdisciplinary:

"Teams should be designed to have some balance representing various disciplines. Mix up key stakeholders representing various functions within the company. I have found that it’s crucial to include participants from sales and customer support. They bring a unique vision of the customer and the market to a process. Ideally, Design Studio should cut across executives, sales, customer support, product management, development, marketing, and experience design."

These articles are a great resource if you are interested in the implementation of design studios - either in the classroom or in your workplace.

If you follow the guidelines shared in these articles, ... what has your experience been?

IFF Computing == Cabbage

I am periodically asked "what is it like to write a book?" If you have written a book you may be having a small laugh to yourself all of a sudden. A sort of evil chuckle. Because you know, .... well, I don't need to tell you. It takes you over in strange and wonderful and unexpected ways.

You probably also know that no matter what you say it may not convince the conversant that conceiving cognitively comprehensible and convivial concepts takes considered concentration. Even if you say "it is Computer Science!" (people often assume fiction for reasons I know not why) there is ofttimes a clinging to the concept that you must spend much of your time continuously cavorting. Come again? If we waited to compose for when we felt suitably inspired by The Muse ... my Editor could conceivably consider calling out the Costa Nostra (uh, just kidding...right, Randi and John?)

Perhaps my more-often-than-usual far away look, prompted not by my new glasses so much as by a looming deadline, brings on the question with greater frequency lately. However, I find myself contemplating a different question: "How do you know when you are really and truly becoming one with interdisciplinary computing?" (with which topic my book most certainly is concerned).

I have the answer. It came to me this evening as I took a break and sat looking out over a neighborhood canyon just breathing calmly. Even in stillness, everywhere I looked I saw things that reminded me of a computer. "Canyon - how lovely...oh, Canyon starts with the same letter as Computer." "Critter poo on the sidewalk leading up to the bench....Critter reminds me of Computer". "I Cannot see the stars because there are Clouds in the sky. Clouds? Computer!" "Concentrate on your breathing ...Concentrate. Concentrate. Computer Computer Computer".

A Colleague gave me a red Cabbage from their garden. Oh my gosh that was good - a fresh Cabbage tastes like Candy Compared to Cabbage from the grocery store". Candy? Compared? More "C" words! Cabbage. Is an excellent source of Vitamin C and beta-Carotene. Consuming large amounts of Cabbage reduces the Chances of getting Colon Cancer because it Contains Chemicals that protect Cells against free radicals. All those words Commence with the same letter as COMPUTER! Perhaps I have passed the threshold and am now officially (Crazy?) Coalescing with interdisciplinary Computing and Computer science and Computational thinking.

The Cabbage Convinced me. Computers are truly everywhere. All you have to do is Consider it.

A New Spin on "Should I get a smart phone?"

An article in yesterday's New York Times (link below) discussed advances in artificial intelligence, the future of AI and what it means to be human. As a computer scientist, many of the questions and topics posed were the same ones we have discussed for decades such as:

What are the possibilities and implications of using AI to augment human capability (i.e. help humans do better at what we already do well, or could do well) vs using AI to replace humans? The former has always been a goal with positive implications for most people and the latter has always been a goal that provokes uneasy, mixed reactions. That duality has not changed, although the article makes the point that the lines are blurring between the two.

An interesting example is the pervasive use of smart phones. No argument: they augment human capabilities: find information faster, sooner, in more detail, add to it, pass it on, discuss it, disseminate. Provoke thought, enlightening discussion, be "on" whenever we want.

I don't have a smart phone and people sometimes say to me: "Lisa, you of all people? No smart phone?". It isn't that I don't want one. My gadget nerd side wants one - bad. On the other hand, there is the issue of the blurring line between my human self and, dare I call it, my technology self. Something there says: maybe not a good idea?

I am already mainlined into my computer almost 24/7 and I when I think about the withdrawal symptoms that occur when I am off for very long...hmmm. Is my computer a part of my bloodstream and nervous system? When did that happen anyway? If we agree that yes, my computer is an extension of me, what happens if I get a smart phone and it never leaves my pocket. I have friends (you know who you are :) who post from their smart phones wherever they are (the library, the donut shop, the laundromat, 15 feet away from the parking lot) and I wonder what would happen if they were forced to stop? Could they do it without becoming as grouchy as a caffeine addict (of which I am one) who misses their morning coffee? Not a pretty sight.

The very last line in the NYT article is a quote that really bothered me: “The essence of being human involves asking questions, not answering them,” he [John Seely Brown] said.


Say what???????? Evolution would argue otherwise. Besides which, life would be SO BORING if I didn't spend time seeking answers to the endless barrage of questions my mind comes up with. 

So...as we become more and more connected, and the lines blur between augmentation of human abilities and the replacement of human requirements to actually do things for ourselves ("hey, if I can have the computer take care of it, why should I do it?" goes the refrain) do I want a smart phone really?

Yes.
No.
Yes.
NO.
YES.
NES, YO.

This is why I have not bought one yet. I need to work this out - am I enhancing myself in a beneficial way or am I creating a part of myself that will supplant myself while I'm obliviously typing away?

I want to be the one answering the question. I don't want a computer to answer it for me. Much as I love them.


NYT Article that inspired this post (and discusses many topics that have nothing to do with what I discussed here): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/science/15essay.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha26

Alice -> Excel in the APCS Principles Pilot

Midterm follow up, but I'm afraid there isn't anything earth shatteringly new to add. As Beth Simon had promised, the (34) questions on the midterm looked very much like the in-class quiz questions. If you have been following the podcasts, then you know exactly what those questions look like. There were exam questions on virtually all the major topics covered in the course.

Having started to tally the types of topic questions, I began to decide that this effort probably wasn't going to help out those of you who are still interested in details about the excellent midterm results. I believe that the varied analyses of the project that will take place after the course concludes may produce more engaging information than if I list out a topic frequency count.

It is more interesting to briefly discuss what happened in the class sessions in which Beth discussed Excel. As mentioned in a previous post, she went to great lengths to make a smooth transition between Alice and Excel, showing the relationships between two seemingly disparate programs. Alice is an animation oriented programming system and Excel is a spreadsheet program, albeit a now quite sophisticated piece of software. However, in working through complex concepts such as relative vs. absolute addressing (often a tricky distinction for learners), Beth demonstrated through example how an Alice exercise (such as a singing group called The Beetles - no that is not a typo, they were insects) had underlying code similar to formulas they could create in Excel. She discussed similarities and differences in concepts such as loops and conditionals. All very creatively.

This type of teaching supports what the learning literature describes as Transfer - the ability of a learner to successfully apply understanding from one learning experience to another and to rapidly learn new related information. Observing the class it appeared that transfer was likely occurring because students asked intelligent and thoughtful questions about the Excel exercises and remained engaged throughout the lectures.

This is also a good time to note that the course has been supporting two other types of well researched learning that I have not specifically referred to previously:  problem based learning and collaborative learning. If you are not familiar with the research in these areas, an excellent read is How People Learn put out by the National Academies Press. It has become a classic and very accessible reference on learning in educational settings. Well worth the read.

How Do You Understand if Students Understand???

Wow. Class starts in six days and we are down to the wire on some hard questions for our APCS  Principles pilot course. We have some very nice labs shaping up (we think. we hope). We have some very nice homework assignments shaping up (we think. we hope). We have some awesome lectures shaping up (we think and hope). But arrrrggggggggg. We will want to know, really want to know, if the students understand what they are doing! And we want to know it right away. Silly desire huh? Why would we care about THAT?

There are going to be some well tested uses of Peer Instruction in lecture, which will provide one mode of rapid feedback to us and them (and some other nifty lecture related in-class assessment activities). Good. Good. Good.

BUT....

But what about those labs and homeworks? Let's just talk labs although a similar principle applies to homework. There was a loooooooong and painful** discussion today about how to assess the labs not just for a grade, but to really understand and to help the student understand if they understand. Do they understand the "while loop" construct or not? Conditional expressions - understand or no? or parameters - understand?

Especially for the purpose of this pilot offering we want to find out what is going on cognitively - immediately.  Not just after an exam or a week or so later. But while it is still fresh. And to transmit that in a formative way to the students. So a score or a checkoff sheet may produce a grade (recall: 4 assistants per 40-46 students in a 2 hour lab) but we want more. In itself this is not new - it is always a pedagogical goal to have assignments not only produce a grade, but produce deep learning that both student and instructor can be aware of.

For our project data gathering purposes the goal is even more important. We are considering asking a set of questions as the last part of each lab that will serve as formative feedback and thought provocation for the student and give us some concrete info to pore over.

Set aside the large numbers of students for a moment. What exactly do we ask in this short list of questions? This is not the kind of question we ask our CS1 students. ("Do you really and truly and in a deep and meaningful way understand what you just did? Write an answer that thoroughly convinces us one way or the other please")

We are in uncharted territory. But we understand that.

** PAIN: definition provided by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary b : acute mental or emotional distress or suffering