what matters ?

What matters(?)B.L. William Wong

Professor of Human-Computer InteractionHead, Interaction Design Center

School of Engineering and Information Sciences

Annual Learning and Teaching Conference 29 June 2010

ENGAGING THE DIGITAL GENERATION IN ACADEMIC LITERACY

2

Scope

What matters(?) Academic literacy

Digital Generation

Engaging

HCI Research

Lessons from HCI Research forengaging the digital generation in academic literacy

The 7 Habits

As Educators …

3

Academic Literacy: What is it?• To engage in the on-going intellectual conversations

– Competencies in thinking, reading, writing, speaking– Awareness of logical, emotional and personal appeals used in

argument– Understanding of audience, tone, language usage, rhetorical strategies– Skills that enable one to define, summarize, detail, trace, explain,

evaluate, compare and contrast, analyze and synthesize, dissect and (re)combine ideas, make connections to related topics, anticipate

• Critical thinking skills to enable complex analytical work• Society has changed

– Nomadic – agricultural – industrial – knowledge– Abstract problems– Interpret, judge, and assemble evidence about value, significance or

relevance– Tolerate ambiguity– Distinguish between results of conjecture vs evidence-based

Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates (2002). Academic Literacy: A statement of competencies expected of students entering California’s public colleges and universities

4

Academic Literacy: Why?

• Why does this matter?• To foster success in higher education

– Success is motivating and addictive– Affects retention and completions

• To be effective contributors and participants in advancing our communities and society – Discernment – Advancement– Better citizens, better consumers

5

The Digital Generation

• The Generations– Gen X => 1960 – 1970s Baby Boomers– Gen Y => 1970s – 2000– Gen Z => early/mid-1990s – 2012

• The Digital Generation, the Google Generation– Those born and immersed into a world of technology,

communications, constant connectivity, the WWW, instant messaging, text messaging, YouTube, MP3 players, mobile phones

• Our concern: Educating this generation– How they learn, communicate and socialize differs significantly from

previous generations– They are now coming through universities– To get the best out of them, we need to re-think how we teach

6

Google Generation: Typical Stereotype

• Web savvy young people whose first port of call for information is Google

• “On the screen was some history/ physics/English document, but also his Facebook and iTunes pages. In his ears were the iPod plugs, playing back a podcast. And sometimes, just to fracture his concentration even further, he might have had a half-played video running on YouTube as well.”

– (Catherine O’Brien (2008). How the Google generation thinks differently, The Times, 9 July 2008, http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4295414.ece)

7

The Google Generation• 89% of college students use search engines to begin an information

search (while only 2 per cent start from a library web site)• 93% are satisfied or very satisfied with their overall experience of using

a search engine (compared with 84 per cent for a librarian-assisted search)

• search engines fit college students’ life styles better than physical or online libraries and that fit is `almost perfect’

• college students still use the library, but they are using it less (and reading less) since they first began using internet research tools

• `books’ are still the primary library brand association for this group, despite massive investment in digital resources, of which students are largely unfamiliar

– College Students’ Perceptions of the Libraries and Information Resources: A Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC, 2006, in Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: A CIBER Briefing Paper, Jan 2008, UCL

8

The Claims: How true is all this?• Generally true:• They are more competent with technology• They have very high expectations of ICT• They prefer interactive systems and are turning away from being passive consumers of

information• They prefer visual information over text (but text is still important)• Open:• They have shifted decisively to digital forms of communication: texting rather than talking• They multi-task in all areas of their lives• They are used to being entertained and now expect this of their formal learning experience at

university• They think everything is on the web (and its all free)• They do not respect intellectual property • They are format agnostic• No:• They have zero tolerance for delay and their information needs must be fulfilled immediately• They find their peers more credible as information sources than authority figures• They need to be feel constantly connected to the web• They are the ‘cut-and-paste’ generation• They pick up computer skills by trial and error• They prefer quick information in the form of easily digested chunks rather than full text• They are expert searchers

– Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: A CIBER Briefing Paper, Jan 2008, UCL

9

What is the extent of this?

• 27% of UK teenagers could really be described as having the kind of deep interest and facility in IT as the term ‘Google Generation’ suggests

• 57% use relatively low level of technology to support their basic communication or entertainment needs

• 20% who actively dislike and avoid using technology whenever possible

– Synovate (2007). Leisure Time: Clean living youth shun new technology. www.synovate.com/current/news/article/2007/02

10

Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants• “Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the

people our educational system was designed to teach.” (Prensky, 2001)• Digital natives – born into the world of technology and the internet

– Like receiving information quickly from multiple media sources.– Like parallel processing and multi-tasking.– Like processing pictures, sounds and video before text.– Like random access to hyperlinked multimedia information.– Like to network with others.– Like to learn “just in time”.

• Digital immigrants – those, not born, but have adopted technology– Like slow and controlled release of information from limited sources.– Like singular processing and single or limited tasking.– Like processing text before pictures, sounds and video.– Like to receive information linearly, logically and sequentially.– Like to work independently.– Like to learn “just in case”.

• However, not everyone born in this period are ‘natives’, although they can be connected to it

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).

11

How do they search for information?

• Horizontal information seeking– 60% of e-journal users view no more than 3 pages and the majority (65%) never return

• Navigation– They spend as much time finding their bearings as they spend viewing what they

found• Viewers, rather than readers

– Typically (‘power’) browse for 4-8 minutes• Squirreling behaviour

– Download and store• Diverse information seekers

– Geography, gender, type of university, status … all very different• Checking information seekers

– Assess authority and trust by cross-checking

Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the Future: A CIBER Briefing Paper, Jan 2008, UCL

12

The UBiRD study• In total: 34 participants (16 female, 18 male)

– A Russell Group University: 12 (5 UG, 3 PG & 4 Researchers)– A 1994 Group University: 10 (6 PG & 4 Researchers)– Million+ University: 12 (5 UG, 4 PG & 3 Researchers)

• Two stage study:– Stage 1: Focus Groups – Stage 2: Observation & in-depth interviews ~ 2 hours

• 3 tasks of increasing difficulty and ambiguity to find information in library and non-library systems

• 68 hours of video and audio recordings• Retrospective protocol analysis

– Wong, B. L. W, Stelmaszewska, H., Bhimani, N., Barn, S., & Barn, B. (2009). User Behaviour in Resource Discovery: Final Report. Available at: www.ubird.mdx.ac.uk, November 2009. JISC Grant Ref. Num. CSSERSA2 / SERV ENHANCE

13

User information search and retrieval

PK/E Used: Friends and personal networks = 29 / 34

Wong, B. L. W, Stelmaszewska, H., Bhimani, N., Barn, S., & Barn, B. (2009). User Behaviour in Resource Discovery: Final Report. Available at: www.ubird.mdx.ac.uk, November 2009. JISC Grant Ref. Num. CSSERSA2 / SERV ENHANCE

Search Start Points:Google, Wikipedia, YouTube etc = 19 / 34Library resources = 4 / 34Publishers resources = 12 / 34

14

e-Gov, e-Social Service Information: Citizens’ Advice Bureau

Portal

Wong, B. L. W., Keith, S., & Springett, M. (2005). Fit for Purpose Evaluation: The case of a public information kiosk for the socially disadvantaged. In D. Benyon, J. Gulliksen & T. McEwan (Eds.), People and Computers XVIV, Proceedings of HCI 2005. (Vol. 1, pp. 149-165): Springer Verlag.

Information is hierarchically organized and silo-based

15

Users are looking for answers and relationships that span hierarchies and silos

16

Do low literacy users have problems accessing online information?

• 9 times longer to complete the task– On average time spend on a task in seconds by high lit 84.81 and low lit 776.81

• Visited 8 times more web pages– On average for a task total number of pages visited by high lit 4.47 and low lit 39.56

• Back-tracked 13 times more– On average back tracked by clicking the back button by high lit .83 and low lit 13.19

• 4 times more likely to re-visit web pages– On average revisited previously visited pages by high lit 12% and low lit 51%

• Spent 1/3 more time on a web page– On average time spent on a web page in seconds by high lit 19.6 and low lit 21.85

• 13 times more likely to get lost – On average lostness for the tasks by high lit 0.07 and low lit 0.91

• They were generally less successful in finding information

– Kodagoda, N. & Wong, W. Effects of low & high literacy on user performance in information search and retrieval, in Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on HCI 2008: People and Computers XXII: Culture, Creativity, Interaction - Volume 1. 2008, British Computer Society: Liverpool, United Kingdom.

17

High Literate User Info Search Model

Low Literate User Info Search Model

Kodagoda, N., B.L.W. Wong, and N. Khan (in press). Information seeking behaviour model as a theoretical lens: High and low literate users behaviour process analysed as way of informing interface design. In Proceedings of ECCE 2010, the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics

18

•Very large amounts of data, about many different and some possibly related, but much un-related topics, and within each topic area may have fragmentary information relating to several threads•Supplied by many different sources, reside on possibly un-connected or loosely coupled data sets•Be of different formats such a numerical, video, photos, un-structured text•Varying quality, reliability, ambiguous, similar yet different •Be incomplete with missing data, and out of sequence•Entities with unknown and unexpected relationships

Frame of Reference

Visual Analytics: Making Sense of Data

Lack of the ‘big picture’

Jig-saw puzzle(not one, but many)

- Looking for patterns - Looking for patterns that triggers- Structuring, modifying, re-arranging, identifying relationships- make an estimate of what is happening- create a ‘hypothesis’- search for evidence to support- Mosaic Theory vs Medical Diagnosis Theory

19 P. Pirolli, & Card, S. (1995). Information foraging in information access environments. Paper presented at the Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ‘95, Mosaic of Creativity, Denver, CO.

Information Foraging

20

Line of enquiry

Theories

Questions

Info. seeking strategies

Evidence

Knowledge reps

Lines of enquiry

Investigators

Theories

Questions

Info. seeking strategies

Evidence

Knowledge reps

Lines of enquiry

Investigators

Theories

Questions

Info. seeking strategies

Evidence

Knowledge reps

Lines of enquiry

Investigators

Theories

Questions

Info. seeking strategies

Evidence

Knowledge reps

Lines of enquiry

Investigators

Recursive decomposition

Attfield, S. and Blandford, A., (in press) Making Sense of DigitalFootprints in Team-based Legal Investigations: The Acquisition of Focus.Human Computer Interaction Journal, Special Issue on Sensemaking

21

Workflow model

Attfield, S. and Blandford, A., (in press) Making Sense of DigitalFootprints in Team-based Legal Investigations: The Acquisition of Focus.Human Computer Interaction Journal, Special Issue on Sensemaking

22

Qualitative Data Analysis: Emergent Themes

Wong, B. L. W., & Blandford, A. (2002). Analysing ambulance dispatcher decision making: Trialing Emergent Themes Analysis. In F. Vetere, L. Johnston & R. Kushinsky (Eds.), Human Factors 2002, the Joint Conference of the Computer Human Interaction Special Interest Group and The Ergonomics Society of Australia, HF2002 (pp. CD-ROM publication). Melbourne.

23

Academic Literacy: Similarities across different domains

• Academic literacy shares many similarities with sense-making– Competencies in thinking, reading, writing, speaking– Awareness of logical, emotional and personal appeals used in

argument– Understanding of audience, tone, language usage, rhetorical strategies– Skills that enable one to define, summarize, detail, trace, explain,

evaluate, compare and contrast, analyze and synthesize, dissect and (re)combine ideas, make connections to related topics, anticipate

– Interpret, judge, and assemble evidence about value, significance or relevance

– Tolerate ambiguity– Distinguish between results of conjecture vs evidence

• Frame of reference – Knowledge of the subject or domain– Theories and concepts– Methods in the subject

24

Engaging the Digital Generation: Learn, communicate, and socialize

• Moving from Twitter’s 142 char to 1500 word documents that require integrative and sustained thinking, reflection and intellectual dialog

• Success in engaging the Digital Generation– The Digital Generation Project

• http://www.edutopia.org/digital-generation

– Digi-Teen Project • http://digiteen.ning.com/

– Flat Classroom Project• http://www.flatclassroomproject.org/

25

‘Classroom21’ Project • A pilot study to identify factors that influence how children learn with and through

Information and Communications Technology– University of Otago, NZ, in 2000

• Standard 4 children (10-11 year olds) • Prepare a core group of primary school teachers to develop multimedia and

internet-based project such as a website that has QuickTime Virtual Reality environment and multimedia.

– Bradford Primary School, Kaikorai Primary School, MacAndrew Bay Primary School, St Clair's Normal School

• The children learnt the tools and methods– QTVR Authoring Toolkit, KidPix, HyperStudio, Clarisworks, DreamWeaver, HomePage – digital photography, art, sound, movie editing, storyboarding, webpage development

• Created a QuickTime Virtual Reality record of a site they visited and then to have that visit posted on the internet.

– e.g. Portobello Marine Laboratory, the Royal Albatross Colony, Larnarch’s Castle• Children researched and reported on aspects of the visit

– Biology, marine life, the Royal Albatross, history– Research skills: reading, writing, assembling

• Hot links created from the VR environments to relevant aspects of their researchPeterson, K. A, and Wong, W. B. L, (2000), Interactive Children: The Use of Virtual Reality and Web Technologies, Ozchi2000, C. Paris, N. Ozkan, S. Howard and S. Lu, Sydney, CSIRO Mathematical and Information Sciences, 12-14.

26

27

QTVT movie, requires QuickTime 7

28

29

30

31

QTVT movie, requires QuickTime 7

32

What matters(?) in these projects

• … or at least, appear to matter:• Empowerment• Create-ability• Collaboration

33

Empowerment: CRISIS• “… the attention span of a gnat”?• From computer games and training simulation CRISIS: What matters(?)• System performance

– Good frame-rate, for several/many simultaneous players• Realism

– Rendering, movement and physics• visualisation - realism of objects and characters, including their rendering, as well as their

movement in the scene• Interaction – compatibility of I/O devices with the type of game or training

– Believable (socio-behavioral) scenarios• Require situation assessment, and (team) decision making• Require relevant expertise and competency

• Realistic decision making• Collaboration and problem solving • Storyline control

– Control over responses and what is to be done

CRitical Incident management training System using an Interactive Simulation environment

FP7-SEC-2009-1 Grant Agreement No. FP7-242474

34

Team work in crisis management: Similarities between the real-world, and

online gaming environmentsJane Barnett

35

Real-world• Commander – overall

responsibility; give orders to rest of team

• Ambulance – life preservers• Firefighters – extinguish fire

Online• Commander – overall

responsibility; give orders to rest of team

• Healers – life preservers• Damage dealers – extinguish threat

Expertise

Jane Barnett

36

Empowerment

• Control– Control over how they act, respond and learn

• ‘Classroom21’ • Their teachers guided the learning• Our researcher taught the technical skills• The children controlled

– the design and development– researching and developing the projects– Deep vs shallow learning

37

Create-ability

• 3D-in-2D Displays for Air Traffic Control– EUROCONTROL CARE INO III Innovation Research

Programme, EEC Contract No. C06/12399BE

Ciampino ATC

Rome Area Control Centre,

Ciampino Airport, Italy

40

Proof of concept: DV’s Lente

41

Proof of concept: SA’s Distortion Lens

42

43

44

45

Wong, B. L. W., Rozzi, S., Gaukrodger, S., Boccalatte, A., Paola, A., Fields, B., et al. (2008). Human-Centred Innovation: Developing 3D-in-2D Displays for ATC. In D. Vu N., A. Zellweger, D. George & J.-M. Garot (Eds.), Proceedings of ICRAT 2008, the Third International Conference on Research n Air Transportation (pp. Accepted for publication).

46

Create-ability

• Competence – Knowledge and skills that enable them to carry out real tasks– 3D/2D Sound understanding of the air traffic task, goals and constraints– 3D/2D Understanding how technology affects how we do things, and how that

changes the demands that places for new technology• Courage and confidence

– Courage to apply, and ability to learn from their mistakes– 3D/2D Novelty requires breaking the norm

• Creative and initiative– Familiar with problem solving, lateral thinkers– Initiates and tinkers (because it is seldom that we get it right the first time)– 3D/2D Requires knowledge of state of the art, theories and concepts,

operational concepts, and not just a wacky idea• Critical thinking

– Slice and dice, analyze and dissect, distinguish between ‘shades of grey’– 3D/2D The 3C’s Framework – Containers / Controls / Content

47

Collaborate

• INVISQUE Project INteractive VIsual Search and QUery Environment

– JISC RI Rapid Innovation Programme Ref. IEDEVC19 / RI

• INVISQUE demo

48

49

Collaborate

• Co-discovery– Collaborate and working in teams to discover or

accomplish together– Librarians and Users (researchers and students) to

understand the problem in order to innovate– Developers to flesh out the concept

• Communicate – Able to articulate their ideas and to coordinate and

implement them– Particularly difficult as the novel concepts were very

difficult to explain, and to overcome prior thinking

50

So, What matters(?): The 7 Habits• Competence

– Knowledge and skills that enable them to carry out real tasks• Control

– Control over how they act, respond and learn• Courage and confidence

– Courage to apply, and ability to learn from their mistakes• Co-discovery

– Collaborate and working in teams to discover or accomplish together• Communicate

– Able to articulate their ideas and to coordinate and implement them• Creative and initiative

– Familiar with problem solving, lateral thinkers– Initiates and tinkers (because it is seldom that we get it right the first time)– Requires knowledge of state of the art, theories and concepts, and not just a

wacky idea• Critical thinking

– Slice and dice, analyze and dissect, distinguish between ‘shades of grey’

51

In Conclusion …

What matters(?) Academic literacy

Digital Generation

Engaging

What do we focus on?Technology Most visible, most tangible, most seductive

As Educators …

52

In Conclusion …

What matters(?) Academic literacy

Digital Generation

Engaging

Empowerment, Create-ability, Collaboration

53

In Conclusion …

What matters(?) Academic literacy

Digital Generation

Engaging

The 7 HabitsCompetence; Control; Courage and confidence;

Co-discovery; Communicate; Create and initiate; Critical thinking

Empowerment, Create-ability, Collaboration

54

Thank-you