Assignment 2 – Malik
Posted: February 21st, 2013 | Author: Malik Hussain | Filed under: Assignment 2 | No Comments » Human body is a most fascinating and fantastic machinery in existence, consisting of numerous powerful organs and systems at work throughout, in synchronicity and mutual support. From the pumping of the heart to supply blood, to taking in and processing oxygen, to creating acids to decompose food particles extracting nourishment, it’s just fascinating! But the human body is also very complex, which makes learning about it with any significant success a big challenge for many learners. This can lead them to have less than optimum learning experience with minimum engagement and motivation and dismal learning outcomes as a result. How can we better connect learners with learning of human anatomical systems (e.g. muscular, skeletal, circulatory)? What type of learning environment design and technology can deeply engage them? I feel an immersive and simulative design can play a significant role to address these questions: Providing learners with human body simulations (virtual cadavers, AR overlays) of high fidelity multi-sensory experience with “manipulatables”, where learners can immersively experience parts of virtual human body and interact with it to study as if they were real (e.g. “holding” the virtual heart and feel it pumping, “moving” it a little to the side to assess what’s behind it, “deep zoom” from organ to cell to sub-atomic levels via multi-touch). Although Krevelen and Poelman paper mentions direct manipulations of objects as a current challenge in AR (pg. 8), it is nonetheless one of the most exciting areas for deeper AR impact. Of course, all this technology needs to be implemented with the application of an encircling theoretical framework in cognitive science with evidence of learning outcomes based on how people learn. Combining how people learn with the power of AR technology is just mind-blowing!Assignment 2–Perovich
Posted: February 21st, 2013 | Author: Laura Perovich | Filed under: Assignment 2 | No Comments »I thought the authors raised a few interesting points for consideration as well as offering an informative overview of the state of AR.
First, I was interested in the everyday future of AR. Beyond the specialized applications, what could AR look like to the average person in day to day life? I like the idea that AR presents opportunities for playfulness and exploration, but find it much more likely that everyday AR will be a means for marketing and advertising. I found this possibility fairly discouraging, though the authors seem more accepting of it. We are already so immersed in advertising and it concerns me that this could provide yet another means for marketing to become more constant, subliminal, and pervasive.
The range of interactions that tactile AR might present also interests me, though it is perhaps more difficult than visual approaches to implement thoroughly at this point.
It’s also interesting to consider AR’s path to social acceptance–I expect that after some kinks it will be taken for granted, as social media generally is today. Google glass will be an interesting step in “widespread” implementation. The cultural conflicts that emerge from it may lead to new manners and social norms that facilitate its integration–though I expect Miss Manners will not approve as we stumble through the process.
assignment02_Jifei
Posted: February 21st, 2013 | Author: jifei | Filed under: Assignment 2 | No Comments » Imagine you have a friend, who cannot only see things that you cannot see, but also interpret those in a way that you usually don’t. You enjoy very much the way you see the world, but you also appreciate if you could see the world through its eye. The change of perspective is the key of stimulating new thoughts. The friend is a computer vision system. As the technology growing mature, we can now easily switching between human eyes’ perception and computer vision. Our naked eyes provide us a non-mediated world where we could make sense of everyday objects effortlessly, while computer vision can see the invisible things like electromagnetic field, and quickly analyze and abstract it. What intrigues me most is that how can we learn more a bout the nature of physical world through AR. What is the height of Eiffel Tower? How much does an apple weight? AR technology could help us to bring such knowledge back to real world, so that it is not something dry and abstract in the book, but vivid in everyday life. <Found Functions> - Graziano
Augmented Reality & Situated Learning
Posted: February 21st, 2013 | Author: Brandon Pousley | Filed under: Assignment 2 | No Comments » Augmented Reality (AR) is exciting because of the potential to embed the powerful elements of digital technologies in the physical world. The fluid nature of this technology enables digital information to enhance our experience in the world rather than extend at best and distract at worst. Currently, the technical challenges to realizing AR technologies seem less daunting than the structural and content challenges. If we are to have a “network of things” in a ubiquitous computing environment, where does the content come from and how does it connect to the rest of our digital world. AR is presently stifled by the need to rely on singular, static applications. Just as the internet is a platform that is built upon a codified structure, enabling easy connectivity and adaptability, AR needs a similar construct. Relying on QR codes and “entering” hotspots and specified GPS triggers is not seamless and leaves AR in the realm of technical gadgetry. The true advantage of AR is its potential to understand context and provide relevant content in real time. For instance, a powerful learning application for AR is a technology that understands a learner, including her interests, preferred modalities of learning, areas of study, needs for support, and history. The system then compares this profile with the surrounding context of the learner and presents her with authentic learning opportunities that leverage local assets. The most exciting thing about AR is the ability to provide content to learners at optimal times, leveraging knowledge of users and local environments to create meaningful connections.Assignment 2 – Champika Fernando
Posted: February 20th, 2013 | Author: champika | Filed under: Assignment 2 | No Comments » The possibilities with AR are no doubt exciting and in some ways seem limitless. In particular what might be possible with head-attached or spatial devices is alluring because in both those cases the user is less aware of the technology/ hardware and thus interacting with it/ through it is less of a burden. That said, I’m more interested in AR through hand held devices. Though the limitations in usability are more obvious I am interested in the possibility of reaching a broader audience. Mobile phones are (currently) much more accessible, affordable and broadly used than other AR platforms and in terms of learning I think they could reach the audience that stands to gain the most. This idea is highlighted in van Krevelen and Poleman’s ‘A Survey of Augmented Reality Technology, Applications and Limitations’. Connected to this idea of reaching a broader audience, one thing in particular that Lanier says that resonates with me (though I don’t share his emphatic skepticism/ criticism of most of these things) is the need to preserve the power of technology as tool for creation. He points to the move from desktop/ laptop computers to iPads and mobile phones as a move away from tools of creation to a tools of consumption. Though I agree with him that this is the state of the technology at the moment – I don’t feel it’s an inevitable trajectory. I’d like to think about how we can use AR to make these tools (iPads, mobile phones) better tools for creation – since I believe creation is a powerful means of learning. (Of course Lanier goes further down the path of the youth of today giving up wealth for the ability to share online…which I think is a valid consideration, but the statement is a bit black and white) One passage in the Andy Clark interview that I thought was particularly relevant to the discussion of technologies for learning was this one: ‘One possible story locates the difference in a biological innovation for widespread cortical plasticity combined perhaps with the extended period of protected learning called “childhood”. Thus “neural constructivists” such as Steve Quartz and Terry Sejnowski depicts neural (especially cortical) growth as experience — dependent, and as involving the actual construction of new neural circuitry (synapses, axons, dendrites) rather than just the fine-tuning of circuitry whose basic shape and form is already determined. One upshot is that the learning device itself changes as a result of organism-environmental interactions — learning does not just alter the knowledge base for a fixed computational engine, it alters the internal computational architecture itself.’ First – he implies some possible benefit of the extended period of learning in childhood, second he points out the importance of the act of learning as a means for altering not just the data but the ‘computational architecture’ (of the brain) itself. I think this is relevant when thinking about ‘just in time learning’. A question it raises is how can we create systems for ‘just in time learning’ that don’t merely present data/ information and thus possibly undermine the value of the act of learning itself.Assignment One – Dhairya
Posted: February 19th, 2013 | Author: dhairyadand | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments »
#Mastery and Mimicry
I found Sep’s article an inspiring manifesto for how our tools should be.
##Self-Limitation
His first section about Self-Limitation, was ideologically empowering for me. I have always pondered what happens when our life is so full of technology that we loose control, how much is enough, should we the technologists start imposing ethical reasoning on our work. This self-debate has led me to a cyclic argument of ‘it will be when it will be’. With his examples of the bacteria and the body, I found a beautiful analogy to technology and humans – that in chaos peace will find its way. Having rested this argument with myself, I can move on.
##Accessibility
This section talked to me of the ripple effects our tools can have outside of their intended use. Specifically his example of Gandhian DIY loom and its effects on the socio-political mindset of Indians was interesting, partly because thats is my heritage and more so because I could find some similarity in my past project – ThinkerToys – which started out as a hack but had educational and environmental impact. It was a good reminder about the nature of tools I should keep building – upstream and accessible.
##Cyclicity
Particularly his argument about metrics struck me, how I should re-evaluate my work and re-measure it in terms of its qualified purpose and not its quantified goal. Lots of learning here for me.
##Heart and Head
Oh my god, this was poetry, I was tripping through each word. Sep doesn’t paint an ideal unachievable vision but rather dissects into the heart of a builder. I am still trying to soak in parts of this. I found beautiful his idea of what our tools should serve – connection, intuition, gift, purpose. I feel like taking longer walks, getting back to analog photography, sketch with charcoal more, and write more poems – connect to myself to make the tools in my most pure image.
#Augmenting Human Intellect
This was a rather heavy read an interesting one in terms of its historical perspective. Overall I found Doug’s motivations for augmenting human intellect still valid today, although written in the 70s, many of the things he envisions aren’t a functional reality today. I liked his approach by proposing his H-LAM/T model of an operating system-like workings of the mind. Having established his model made it much easier to then digest his proposal. Something I felt we do less often today, there is less ground theories that aid our explorations, mostly hunches. Yes discovering by doing is good and more often leads to breakthroughs; but having a model to go by is more systematic wandering. I still haven’t made complete sense of his proposal, but to me when I build tools I now would like to spend more time investigating the problem from a psychological and evolutionary perspectives. Assignment 1 – Mohit
Posted: February 14th, 2013 | Author: Mohit | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments » I found certain similarities between the Kamvar’s and Engelbart’s pieces. Both alluded to the emergent properties of a system which are different in character from the combined properties of its sub-pieces. Kamvar attempted to co-relate natural processes to the constructed world of humans. Though I have a slightly different opinion on his definition of self-limiting tools. He contends that search engine is an example of self-limiting tools while television and video games are not. I would argue that even search engines are not self-limiting. The method of perpetuating the usage of tool is of different kind in the case of search engines. The more accurate the search result, the more likely the user is going to return. It is not continuous self-reinforcement like video games and TVs but a discrete and disjointed form of it, but self-reinforcement nonetheless. I was a bit surprised by Kamvar’s contention that companies which provide free services supported by ads are somehow benevolent. This reminds what Brain Acton and Jan Koum (of Whatsapp) said,” Remember, when advertising is involved you the user are the product.” I remember reading Pierre Bourdieu’s ‘Sur La Television’ where he said that if you think television channels sell ads to support the programming they make for you, you’ve got it the other way around! Engelbart says that, “The entire effect of an individual on the world stems essentially from what he can transmit to the world through his limited motor channels. This in turn is based on information received from the outside world through limited sensory channels; on information, drives, and needs generated within him; and on his processing of that information.” I think there is more to what a human can do in the world which goes beyond his/her sensory capacities as an individual. In real life situations, to compensate for the limitations of attention and working memory, individuals offload certain cognitive tasks on to the environment to increase efficiency and epistemic reach. This offloading does not necessitate advanced/electronic tools but can occur even in the presence of natural artifacts and environment. While designing tools for augmentation, it is particularly important to keep the “embedding” nature of of cognitive constructs in mind, so that the activities and scenarios can be structured in a way that encourages effective offloading strategies while retaining the most essential cognitive processes.Assignment 1 – Anette von Kapri
Posted: February 14th, 2013 | Author: kapri | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments » There are two aspects in the text that I want to highlight. Engelbart distinguishes conscious from unconscious processes. While we are learning something the ideal would be to transform a highly conscious thought into a more and more unconscious one. This way we keep more open conscious space in our mind for other processes while the unconscious processes can run in parallel. One example could be learning how to write. First it takes some effort to learn how to hold the pen, how the ordering of the strokes are, how to connect characters etc. But this becomes more and more unconscious to a point where when writing a letter I don’t need to consciously think about how to write but rather what I am writing about. This brings me to the second point. Engelbart distinguishes 3 different human process capabilities. explicit-human(executed completely within the human integument), explicit-artifact(possessed by artifacts) and composite. Explicit-artifact would be how to hold a pen and explicit-human would be what to write about. It seems to me that the explicit-artifact processes are easier to learn and easier to automate. There is a tool that I need to operate, there are x different ways how to do that and if I have done it long enough I can remember it. The explicit-human seems to be more difficult. It is not only about specific algorithms running in the head such as doing mathematical calculations but rather how to create new ideas and design new systems. Engelbart talks about an executive process that brings all these processes together: how to combine motor action with what I see and what I learned in class the other day for example. This defines how I can combine things in my head. What I would like to consider when designing tools for learning is how my way of thinking can be changed. At the media lab we have students from so many different backgrounds. students with a formal education in computer science think in different patterns than with a formal education in design. Through the focused study of their field over 4 years or more the thought patterns have changed, how things are combined or analyzed is done differently. How would we teach such kind of thinking process?Assignment1-Anirudh Sharma
Posted: February 14th, 2013 | Author: Anirudh | Filed under: Assignment 1 | No Comments » Mastery and Mimicry Sep talks about Gandhian approach to developing tools. Today developing economies should design tools of their own ‘by the people, for the people’. Thoughts such as OLPC being relevant came to my mind. What if those tools were developed by the local engineers, who’ve themselves been a part of the society? The problems faced by under-developed world are rather more than just technological. A hungry boy will rather feed him first than use a laptop designed by powerful economies. He’d rather sell it and feed himself. The Arduino/Processing on the contrary is a great example(not being ‘expensive technology’)- it was developed by people who themselves pursued art, design and had an itch to create something for similar people. If tools like these are given to the right people- amazing things can happen. They’re like the Gandhi’s wheel of the modern world where technology can be a great tool. Tools like these are a great leveler, anyone can participate, design and build now. Unlike 1990′s where only elite universities/research institutes could. Example, a modern day movement- a strong community and a self sufficient village in Rajasthan that thrives on designing solar panels. http://www.barefootcollege.org/- User Centered Design: Its valuable when in cases where a specific iteration of a present technology needs to be done. People didn’t know in 1990s that they’d need an iPod, till Apple actually designed one and showed them. Poets don’t do a survey of what people would like to read- they write it, and see if people like them. Same with art/music. You can’t design a guitar with a user centered survey. That inventive spark has to be there- which is somewhat synonymous to being an artist.
Recent Comments