Category: ETEC511

ETEC511 Final Project Retrospective

Project Design and Development

This project was something rather novel working in the realm of augmented reality, as I did not have a lot of previous experience with utilizing this kind of technology, especially in conjunction with language learning, which I am passionate about. It was fun to challenge myself in this way.

In terms of the design process, I think the literature review and supporting theories could be more thorough, as I would like to have the chance to dig deeper into existing research; put more thought in creating more robust scaffolded levels for language learners; and create supplemental potential user surveys to flesh out the usability testing.

As an example:
We changed our original idea of creating scaffolding levels based on the decreasing percentage of home language labels to increased delays in when the language labels will show up. This decision was made later in our design development, and though I think it is a better idea, I wished we had more background research to back it up.

If we had more time, I would like to develop the mock-up of our software a little more to create a more realistic demo of what could be achieved with the MyWebAR tools, to illustrate our concept and make it feel more grounded, concrete and feasible.

Collaboration and Teamwork

Bella, Jamie and Jennifer provided a lot of interesting observations from their hands-on experience working with elementary students in a classroom setting.  From their teacher’s perspective and the observations they provided, we quickly identified an existing problem that new immigrant students were struggling with. This reminded me of my own experiences trying to integrate into new classroom environments with a complete language barrier when I was younger.

Though I do not work with students directly, I was able to provide some of the design-thinking to the project from my experiences in research as well as creating learning content for language instructors, and contributed to the project in a different way.

All four of us worked collectively on the project proposal, report and slides.
Jamie took on the main responsibility for creating the AR demo in MyWebAR. Though the tool claimed to be rather easy for beginners to create AR elements, it seemed like it was also rather limited in what it could actually do. Jamie did a great job of creating an alternative user interface that demonstrated what we needed it to do.

I think one of the main challenges was finding time to work collaboratively together, as Jennifer was in a drastically different time zone. Sometimes Bella, Jamie and I we would block off time and work together on the project together, which I personally found super helpful.

Moving forward, one project management skill I would like to develop is creating clearer project objectives with actionable items and deadlines to ensure that we all know what needs to be done within what timeframe. I believe this will help drastically with group projects in the future.

Tipping Point – Open Education Resource Textbooks Case Study

Creation of Open Education Resource Textbook with Interactive H5P elements for FREN1205 – French Conversation course in the Modern Languages Department at Langara College

Introduction

For the case of technological displacement, we were curious to explore the tendency and shift from physical textbooks to digital Open Education Resources (OERs) in higher education institutions. We were specifically interested in the tensions and opportunities that arose from the transition to online teaching and learning after the pandemic, especially with the normalization of online and hybrid e-learning. 

We are grounding this inquiry of technological displacement in the case study of the creation of OER textbook with interactive H5P elements for a French conversation course at Langara College. In this assignment, we analyze the usability aspect of OERs from the instructor and student perspective, as well as explore the concerns of artificial intelligence, and issues surrounding digital labor in the process of creating OERs in higher education institutions. 

 

Motivation and Background

The FREN1205 – French Conversation course at Langara College is offered in-person with the utilization of a digital OER textbook Le Français Interactif created by the instructor Mirabelle Tinio. To support our work, we had the opportunity to speak with the instructor to learn more about the case study. All case study context provided in this assignment came from this conversation. Below are some of the motivators for the creation of the OER textbook from both the students’ and instructor’s perspectives. 

From the student perspective, the education landscape had been drastically transformed during the emergency transition to online teaching and learning during the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. The effects can be seen gradually resuming in-person teaching and learning once again in 2021, in which student surveys reflected that having additional supportive resources online available helped with their learning process and overall experience taking online courses. In addition, students reflected that physical textbooks were expensive and inaccessible, especially the ones that were ‘single-use’ for an individual course, and were less inclined to make such purchases.

From the instructor’s perspective, there were many factors that contributed to the transition of physical textbooks to a digital OER. The instructor that we interviewed had been teaching the French conversation course for the past at least 12 years. Though the original textbook they were using provided activities and exercises for everyday conversation scenarios, she found that the content was not up-to-date or culturally relevant enough for the students within the classroom. The instructor therefore found herself turning to other available language learning resources to patch together a curriculum plan that included vocabulary, grammar structure, and socio-cultural activities. The process was rather time consuming and she was never really satisfied with the existing resources. 

With both students and instructor identifying that the current resources were not meeting their needs, it became clear that another resource should be introduced to solve the problem of learning resources for this course. Here, we can use the concept of technological utility to demonstrate, in part, why a tipping point occurred. Utility asks the question of if the technology fulfills the users’ needs or if it does what the users need it to do (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 4). Physical textbooks were not meeting the learners’ and instructor’s utility needs, therefore, a new technology needed to be introduced. 

Simultaneously while working partially in the Educational Technology Department, there were many other instructors utilizing Pressbooks and other OER platforms to input resources into Brightspace, a learning management system. The existing integration of the learning management system and potential for further adaptation was an additional motivator for developing her own textbook as an OER for the class. 

The Tipping Point

The opportunity and tipping point presented itself when BCcampus Open Education Foundation Grant for Institutions applications were open for project proposals for specifically utilizing H5P for Pressbooks in 2021. The grant was intended for British Columbia post-secondary institutions wishing to explore, initiate or relaunch open educational practices, resources, support and training on their campuses. Through this grant, the instructor was able to secure additional funding and support for creating the French Conversation OER textbook. 

Benefits

Multi-modality, Interactivity and Flexibility  

Learning languages is an activity that is inherently multimodal and incorporates a combination of multi-sensory and communicative modes (Dressman, 2019). The utilization of online OERs makes it possible to include multimedia and interactive H5P elements such that students can actively engage with the learning content, allows for more diversity in learning methods, as well as increasing the accessibility of course content. 

Though the OER textbook included many different chapters and topics, each unit contained a similar format: the learning objectives, pre-test questionnaire, vocabulary, practice exercises, oral comprehension exercises, a post-test evaluation questionnaire, and self-reflection. This repeated format increases the OER’s usability because it is quickly learnable and memorable (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 33). The OER therefore creates a smoother user experience with less friction or frustration to navigate to the content than the physical textbooks, demonstrating again why this tipping point occurred (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 30).

The goal was to make the learning content accessible to both students and instructors with maximum flexibility and adaptability. Students could preview the units and prepare ahead of time before the classes; or review the units and practice on areas for further improvement, all at their own pace, with self-assessments available. Instructors can supplement the course delivery with additional resources, in-class activities or outing experiences, and utilize the textbook in a non-linear manner tailored to the needs and pace of the students in the classroom. 

Living Texts 

The content in the OER included resources that the instructor created and showcased content that previous students created as well, and can be seen as a co-created ‘living text’ (Philips, 2014) as a pedagogical tool, as well as a co-creation of knowledge within the classroom. 

For example, in the activity “Interview a Francophone”, the instructor uploaded recorded interview videos of previous student’s work, as an exemplar of what the assignment would look like when current students approached the activity themselves, but also as an exercise for current students to practice their listening comprehension and understanding of French conversation in context. The instructor identified that this was to also make the students feel appreciated for their active contribution towards the course, and recognized students as part of the co-construction of literacy knowledge through this kind of interaction (Philips, 2014). 

Creating an OER that operates as a living text supports increased usability because it allows for feedback to be implemented when offered by the learners (the users). A living text can push back against the challenge of “configuring the user”, where the designers imagine the “right way” for a user to engage with their technology instead of being open to how the users actually will engage with the technology (Woolgar, 1990). This OER as a living text can be adapted to user feedback and therefore there is not only one “right way” to use the resource. Instead, the OER can increase usability for a wider variety of users as instructors adapt it based on learner feedback. The instructor noted that keeping an OER like this up-to-date is very important. This is especially true if the OER is described by an instructor to learners as a living text that is responsive to their needs. 

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion 

As mentioned above, the multi-modality, interactivity and flexibility of the living texts contributes towards a classroom climate that reflects equity, diversity, and inclusion of the students that are currently taking the courses. This approach takes into consideration the positionality, lived-experiences, interests, and abilities of students within the classroom and their agency as an active participant in their own learning.

For example, taking the aforementioned activity of interview with a Francophone, with the crowd-sourced collaborative effort of the different interviewees, students are able to see the different kinds of ‘francophone-ness’ outside of the mainstream Eurocentric depiction of French speaking people, especially when it comes to the deep-rooted history of the French language as a tool of colonization. 

By embracing inclusive pedagogical approaches and recognizing students’ diverse contributions, this approach to creating OER textbooks creates a supportive and accessible learning environment, fosters a sense of belonging, and affirms the value of students’ unique contributions to the learning process. 

Challenges 

Current Concerns: Teamwork Makes the Dream Work 

One major challenge that the instructor encountered during the creation of this OER textbook was the lack of support from the institutional level, especially when new technological adaptations require more incentive and supporting resources to push for incorporation and utilization within the college, and furthermore, across institutions. Though the instructor did collaborate with other language instructors from the Modern Languages Department and advisors from the Educational Technology Department, there is a strong suggestion for creating a community of practice across institutions to support this work’s sustainability. The production of a brand new OER like this (as as its ongoing maintenance) involves significantly more time and energy than maintaining the status quo of using physical textbooks. There is a risk that the instructor’s digital labor of producing this kind of resource might be unknown by the institution if it is unseen. 

On a practical and logistical consideration, this ensures the articulation of courses are leveled and aligned across institutions, especially when it concerns the transferability of courses and credits for pathway programs, such as Langara College. On a more idealized and aspirational endeavor, this promotes the collaboration and commitment to sharing knowledge and resources, encouraging accountability, peer reviews and continuous development of teaching and learning practices, enabling the community to build on each other’s work and fostering a culture of openness and collaboration in education. 

Future Concerns: The Rise of Artificial Intelligence and Impact of Digital Labor  

Though the BCcampus grant did provide funding for the instructor to develop the OER textbook, there needs to be more support when it comes to compensation of the unseen invisible work that is added on to the already existing duties of a teaching faculty member. With increased digitization of instruction within higher education, comes an expectation of an accelerated pace of work (Woodcock, 2018, p. 135). There can be an expectation, even implicitly, within institutions that work becomes “easier” as a result of digital resources like this OER textbook. This can result in work pressures and time pressures expanding for instructors who have created digitized aspects of their work. 

Another risk for instructors is the value that is placed on published work to push an academic career forward (Woodcock, 2018, p. 136). The motivation to pursue the creation of open access work can be reduced if the institution the academic is working within has rewards for published work. While an OER like the one described in this case is a different kind of open access work than a journal piece, its creation and upkeep exist within the same labour hours for an instructor. The instructor must be significantly committed to the creation of the OER if there is limited institutional support, as described in this case, and also if there is institutional pressure to spend time doing other, more valued work, such as publishing at a more prestigious journal. 

Finally, there is a tension inherent in the use of artificial intelligence in relation to OERs. As with this case study, we know that producing and maintaining OERs can be time, labor, and resource-intensive. With the rise of large language models like ChatGPT in the past year, there is a potential to employ AI tools like this to support the creation of OERs. This might seem to reduce the human labour needed to create an OER like Le Français Interactif. However, we also know that AI tools like ChatGPT do not appropriately cite sources and can even ‘make up’ information. Uncited sources are problematic because they effectively steal intellectual property from other academics and false information is problematic because it diminishes the reliability and utility of the OER. 

Even more concerning is that AI language models are trained with data that can be biased and produce content that is embedded with this bias (Buolamwini, 2019). With an OER project like this outlined in our case study, it could be counter to the desire to create more culturally-relevant and inclusive resources to produce them in “partnership” with an AI tool. More relevant to this case study, regarding language translation, AI tools like DeepL can be helpful but are not yet at the point where they can translate as effectively as a human who speaks multiple languages. For this reason, instructors might be wary of using AI tools as “co-authors” for OERs to ensure the quality of the instructional or learning resource remains high. 

Conclusion

This case study demonstrates how the creation of an OER textbook for the FREN1205 – French Conversation course at Langara College exemplifies a pivotal shift in educational resources toward digital platforms. This tipping point is a response to the evolving needs of both students and instructors in the post-pandemic era of education. Ideally, an OER textbook offers learners enhanced accessibility, flexibility, and more inclusivity within their educational experience. However, challenges such as institutional support for digital labour and concerns surrounding the rise of artificial intelligence underscore the importance of institutional buy-in and ethical considerations as we integrate OER textbooks into the student experience.

References

Buolamwini, J. (2019, February 7). Artificial Intelligence has a problem with gender and racial bias. Time. https://time.com/5520558/artificial-intelligence-racial-gender-bias/. 

 

Dressman, M. (2019). Multimodality and language learning. In M. Dressman, & R. W. Sadler (Eds.), The handbook of informal language learning (pp. 39-55). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119472384.ch3

 

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015) Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer.

 

Phillips, L. G., & Willis, L. (2014). Walking and talking with living texts: Breathing life against static standardisation. English Teaching : Practice and Critique, 13(1), 76.

 

Woodcock, J. (2018). Digital Labour in the University: Understanding the Transformations of Academic Work in the UK. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 16(1) pp. 129-142.

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl.), S58-S99.

Intellectual Production #7: Digital Labour

Brief

Based on a close reading and careful analysis of Kate Crawford’s chapter on “Labour” in her book Atlas of AI. Identify and describe, in her terms, a kind of work you regard as “digital labour”. Illustrate your observations, with examples and ideas drawn from the readings.

Use any cartoon-creation/animation software of your choice to communicate your understanding of how, why and in what ways work today has revived older practices of industrial labour exploitation, especially on the role of AI in this reversal.

Preface

Drawing upon a conversation through text with my friend E, it made me reflect on her experience of creating online content in relation to ideas that I was reading about in this module about Digital Labour. That was the starting point to creating this collage comic about some of the connecting concepts and theories to what she was going through.

For this project, I decided to use a collage comic as the medium for a few reasons:

Collage Imagery

Drawing from the different readings in this module, it resembles a montage of concepts, akin to a collage where individual ideas are layered and interconnected with each other. I wanted to use juxtaposition of imagery and text to create a meme-like image similar to “content” that one would see on social media, as a critique yet participation in “content-creation” as a form of sharing of ideas.

Woodcut Printing and Pop Art

I chose to use woodcut-printing of imagery as this technique of printing can be mass produced due to the division of labour in the creation process such that artists can adapt to the medium easily without needing to learn the use of woodworking skills. Usually prints are described as “designed by” rather than “by” an artist, highlights the invisible labour from woodworkers and printers that carve the actual blocks, yet go uncredited.

I chose to use bright neon blocks of color reminiscent of the pop-art movement as the philosophy of pop-art not only celebrates the imagery and symbols of mass culture (i.e. advertisements, consumer products, etc.) they also critique the consumerist nature of society. This movement also challenged elitist notions of art by blurring boundaries between high and low culture, making art more accessible to a wider audience and thus democratizing the art. I think this parallel can be drawn to how social media democratizes many aspects of production and distribution of labour.

 

 

References

All images are sourced from the public domain archives of the British Library.

Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300252392

Duffy, B.E., (2017). (Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1q31skt

Gandini, A. (2021). Digital labour: an empty signifier? Media, Culture & Society, 43(2), 369-380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720948018

Intellectual Production #8 – Attentional Record and Analysis

Brief

Create a table for 12 hrs, keep a record of what you paid attention to (include multitasking with specification of tasks) and for about how much of that hour you paid attention to.

Look for patterns, relationships, cause and effects, etc. to compose in whatever format/medium, a visual representation and analysis of your attentional notes.

Preface

For this assignment, I will restructure my attentional records not on a temporal-basis (due to my inability to perceive passing time in neurotypical fashion), and use a spatial/environmental-basis to delimit my attention span. Having this distinction can also capture Citton’s concepts of environmental wisdom (ecosophy) and attentional dynamics (echology), while providing more contextual and situational account of my attentional experiences throughout my day, afterall, Citton did say that “we are always attentive in a particular situation” (p. 83).

I have made a Genially with a template similar to that of a board-game, as it shows the temporal and spatial aspect as the day progressed. Should the pop-out windows seem too small, feel free to view the Genially in a new tab.

 

Analysis

This day seems to be an outlier in terms of usage of my phone and its impact on my attention, as I had forgotten it at home for the majority of the day. Usually, there would be more back-and-forth texting with my friends, sending of memes on social media, and more frequent distractions  (*ahem*) breaks.

Usually in transit, I would use music and podcasts as a filter to tune out my surroundings to make it less sensory overwhelming. However, without my phone to play music, I could hear all the different kinds of conversations floating in and out of my awareness on transit. On days when I do have energy, it is fun and amusing to eavesdrop; on days when I have little energy, I can feel physically fatigued, and therefore need to be more protective of what I allow or do not allow to pass through me (p. 178).

One major thing I have noticed in my attentional record is the tendency to focus on social interactions with those around me, whether with strangers like the bus driver, or with friends like S, M and T.

Citton talks about joint attention that “involves the shared feeling of a co-presence that is sensitive to the emotional variations of the individuals involved” (p.85), which I think resonates with the feeling of how it feels like to “be seen” by others — the bus driver noticing my sprint, catching the attention of M on his bike, and the mutual recognition and acknowledgement by T.

This feels especially amplified on the day of Lunar New Year where much of it is in spirit is the collective attention to the new lunisolar cycle, and therefore the natural inclination to gather and celebrate together. I value quality time with my friends and family, and therefore, it is where I pay most of my undivided attention to.

References

Citton, Y., & EBSCOhost. (2017). The ecology of attention (English;1;1st; ed.). Polity Press.

Intellectual Production #3 – Algorithms

Brief

Discuss how the meaning of these 5 terms have changed, drawing from Chapter 1 of Neyland’s The Everyday Life of an Algorithm (2019) to help explain the role of algorithms in reconfiguring their meanings.

  • Informed consent
  • Fair use
  • Discrimination and Net Neutrality
  • Personalization
  • Friend

Preface

An algorithm is conventionally defined as 'a process or set of rules to be 
followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer'. In this sense, an algorithm strictly speaking is nothing more than the ordering of steps that a combination of software and hardware might subsequently put into operation (p. 4)

Neyland starts off the chapter by defining the conventional idea of what we think algorithms are and what algorithms do, providing examples of how we utilize algorithms to sift through job applications, drive predictive policing for potential crime, and market Nutella sales based on what it believes consumers find attractive.

However, he is not interested in how algorithms affect the “humdrum banalities of our everyday life”, rather, he is interested in the everyday life of the algorithm, specifically through what means were they produced, how were they imagined and brought into being and put to work.

He poses three insightful questions that framework the rest of the book:

    1. How do algorithms participate in the everyday?
    2. How do algorithms compose the everyday?
    3. How (to what extend, through what means) does the algorithmic become the everyday?

The following sections will briefly lay out some important concepts that Neyland utilizes to answer the questions above before diving into my own analysis on how his way of perceiving algorithms have altered the meanings of the five given words in our modern life.

Power

It is apparent the power that algorithms have in modern living, and two notions of power can be discerned. In the traditional sense, “the power in which algorithms act to influence and shape particular effects”; and in the Foucauldian sense, “algorithms as part of a set of relations through which power is exercised” (p. 6).

To elaborate the latter, the Foucauldian sense of power is distributed and dispersed through the ongoing “plaiting of relations” between the human and non-human operatives that each are required to play their roles to carry through the demands of the algorithm and the effect of the consequences that follow through. This emergent system of participants in an array of activities that are bound to each other with the production of effects, unanticipated or otherwise intentional is how algorithms participate in our everyday life.

Everyday Life of Things

Much emphasis is placed on the analysis of the everyday as it is a “site of containment and potential change”, and “necessary to attend to the human practices that then shape the algorithm” (p. 10).

Latour’s idea of the “missing masses” takes the everyday life of objects, materials and technologies into serious consideration, especially the roles that these non-human things play “social, moral, ethical and physical actions” (p. 11) as part of the ecosystem that humans and non-humans participate in.

Recognizing that the algorithmic participation provides a grounds for establishing the nature of things that is always at stake, as "being at stake is the political condition in which the nature of things is both settled and unsettled"[...] 

Drawing from the Latin etymology of the word mundane (mundus) to explore how matters are not just ordinary or pervasive, but become the world. What is settled and unsettled, what is at stake, is this becoming. (p.11)

Such selections are made in order to delimit what will become part of the world and what will be dismissed, and consequentially, the responsibilities and accountabilities for action are distributed such that “the status of people and things will be made always and already at stake by the very presence of the algorithm” (p.14).

Terms Reconfigured

Informed Consent

In the context of data collection and privacy, often the algorithm may collect and process personal information in ways that are not completely transparent to users, challenging the traditional concept of “informed” consent. Oftentimes, the only way to access certain online services is to accept the terms and conditions without having full transparent and freely given consent, as the alternative would be to not use the service or to boycott it, in which the Foucauldian power struggle is brought to the surface of such interaction.

Fair Use and Personalization

Here I have decided to discuss the the terms fair use and personalization together, as I believe they are similar in the ways that algorithms have impacted the prioritization and influence of certain information on digital platforms based on profit-driven engagement. This may limit access to more diverse or opposing perspectives of public discourse, and can create echo-chambers keeping participants in insulated digital bubbles, further perpetuating the algorithm to feed into the cycle.

Discrimination and Net Neutrality

Expanding on the consequences of fair use and personalization, algorithms can perpetuate biases when trained on biased datasets, potentially leading to discriminatory influence on users themselves. Challenging the original concept of “net neutrality” of internet service providers enabling access to all content and applications regardless of source without favoring or blocking particular websites, the internet is rendered non-neutral.

Friends

With connections being mediated online through social media, who appears on your social media feed is also being filtered be the order and prominence of posts via engagement statistics, potentially impacting the depth and quality of our connections. I would argue that for the terminally online, this would be more of an issue, but for those who don’t have a strong online presence, but continue to keep in contact with friends via other means (i.e. text messages, phone calls, snail mail, etc.) are less impacted by the algorithm. I believe with intention, one can bypass the algorithmic barriers!

In our modern age, the greatest impact of algorithms on informed consent, fair use, discrimination, net neutrality and friends is greatly impacted by the digitization of interactions. With participation in such activities being more technologically mediated, there will be imbalances in power structure and how that reshapes the ways we are held accountable and responsible in relation to each other.

References

Neyland, D., Springer Social Sciences eBooks 2019 English/International, OAPEN, DOAB: Directory of Open Access Books, SpringerLink (Online service), & SpringerLink Fully Open Access Books. (2019;2018;). The everyday life of an algorithm (1st 2019.;1; ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00578-8

Intellectual Production #2 – Artificial Intelligence

Introduce these people and how they contributed to the development of artificial intelligence? Create a chart to show the comparison between your work and ChatGPT’s side by side.
(~50 words each)

Below I have created this infographic in Genially.
The white text blocks are the introductions that I have written myself, whereas the black text blocks are written by ChatGPT3.5.
Click on the photos for links to Wikipedia references of each scholar.

The prompt:

Provide a brief introduction of the following people, and provide an account of what they define as intelligence. Shorten each entry to less than 50 words. 
Alan Turing, John McCarthy, Herbert Simon, Marvin Minsky. Timnit Gebru

 

How do “machine (programming) languages” differ from human (natural) ones? (~100 words)

I think one main difference between programming and natural languages is the flexibility in which language can be used, and the goals in which the language is used for. With programming languages, it requires more rigid and structured syntax such that the machine can register and follow through with its given tasks. With human languages, there is more space to flaunt and subvert conventions of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics to be creative, communicate or express a broad range of emotions.

Machine languages, used in programming, are precise and unambiguous with strict syntax, designed explicitly for computer communication. They lack redundancy and prioritize efficiency. Human languages, on the other hand, are flexible, expressive, and context-dependent. They allow for redundancy, creativity, and adaptation to diverse communication needs, serving purposes beyond information exchange. Learning machine languages is a deliberate process for programmers, ensuring computers understand instructions. In contrast, human languages are acquired naturally, evolving over time for cultural expression, emotional communication, and conveying complex abstract ideas with adaptability and flexibility in mind. -- ChatGPT3.5

How does “machine (artificial) intelligence” differ from the human version? (~100 words)

I believe one main difference between artificial and human intelligence is the way that human intelligence can account for a larger range of contexts and nuance, by taking bodily sensations, emotions, and “intuition” into account. A big topic of discussion during my undergrad cognitive systems courses is also whether or not artificial intelligence has “consciousness” or understand certain “qualia” of experiences, given the often seemingly “behavioristic” measures that we can observe artificial intelligence by.

"Machine (artificial) intelligence" differs from human intelligence in essence and approach. While AI excels in data processing, pattern recognition, and repetitive tasks, it lacks human-like understanding, consciousness, and emotional intelligence. AI operates within defined parameters, lacking the intuitive, contextually nuanced reasoning of human cognition. Human intelligence incorporates emotional, social, and moral dimensions, enabling creativity, empathy, and complex decision-making. AI lacks the innate adaptability, self-awareness, and holistic understanding that characterize human intelligence, which integrates sensory experiences, emotions, and a deep contextual grasp for more nuanced problem-solving and learning. -- ChatGPT3.5

How does “machine learning” differ from human learning?

Human learning in general feels more holistic and can take into consideration past experiences that are unique to each individual, which is a continuation of the previous question on the discussion of “qualia”. This integration of personal narrative can change over time as well, and create novel and serendipitous connections to propel forwards in continuation of learning. I am not sure whether or not machine learning can thread experiences over time to inform its own learning.

"Machine learning" differs from human learning in methodology and depth. While machines excel at processing vast datasets, identifying patterns, and optimizing based on predefined criteria, human learning involves intuition, emotional intelligence, and a deeper contextual understanding. Machines rely on algorithms and statistical models, learning from explicit data inputs, often lacking common-sense reasoning or the ability to grasp abstract concepts effortlessly. Human learning is holistic, integrating sensory, emotional, and social cues, facilitating nuanced decision-making, and adapting to diverse situations. Unlike machines, humans possess innate creativity, curiosity, and the capacity for lifelong learning beyond structured training sets.-- ChatGPT3.5

How do your answers to these questions differ from what a machine could generate? (~200 words)

I found that ChatGPT3.5 responses tend to be more general and overarching in a way that provides an overview of the question in a glance, which I appreciate when it comes to wanting to understand concepts and ideas on a surface level. Sometimes when I read ChatGPT responses, it feels very emotionally “flat” and has a strange “diplomatic” tone that makes the content of the response feel rather sterile and impersonal, but more objective and factual at the same time.

In comparison, my human answer tends to be more focused on a few aspects that delve a little deeper, with anecdotes that refer to my personal experiences. My choice of words to use would feel more or less  with usage of words that seem more “alive” and less “uncanny” (I hope!)  which makes it  is something that ChatGPT3.5 is unable to provide.

References

OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (Jan 24 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com

Timnit Gebru, (2024, January 16). In Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timnit_Gebru

Harris, J.  (2023, May 22). “There was all sorts of toxic behaviour”: Timnit Gebru on her sacking by Google, AI’s dangers and big tech’s biases The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/may/22/there-was-all-sorts-of-toxic-behaviour-timnit-gebru-on-her-sacking-by-google-ais-dangers-and-big-techs-biases

John McCarthy, (2023, December 05). In Wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist)

McCarthy, J.(2007, November 12)What is Artificial Intelligence? https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/whatisai.html

Marvin Minsky, (2024, January 04). In Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky

Herbert Simon, (2024, January 24). In Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon

Alan Turing, (2024, January 24). In Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

 

Intellectual Production #1 – Users, Uses and Usability

Formulate a conception of usability and what is missing from the conception from an educational perspective —  what is educational usability?

Human Computer Interaction (HCI) is an interdisciplinary field of study concerned with the iterative design, evaluation, and implementation of  interactions between humans and technological interfaces as a system.

The principals of usability are guidelines that help measure the quality of human-computer interactions, taking into consideration of interface functionality, efficiency and effectiveness depending on user’s needs, contexts and level of satisfaction (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 30)

From an educational perspective, I believe that context and user’s needs should be prioritized when it comes to evaluating the educational usability of educational technologies and resources within a learning context. Ideally, this would be implemented as a system, such that the interfaces can assist the user’s with their learning process, and can be adapted to fit the user’s ever-changing needs. This means necessarily having interfaces that are accessible to fit the user’s needs physically, cognitively, culturally, and digitally to provide support that is contextualized.

Based on Woolgar’s paper, identify and discuss 2 examples of “usability gone wrong”.

In Woolgar’s paper (1990), he seemed to be concerned about usability testing within the “right context” of both the user and the environment.

Having chosen employees within the company as test subjects (p. 81) , it is unclear whether or not their behaviors will reflect that of what is expected by their target users. Even with the provided manuals, it is uncertain that the instructions are “sufficiently clear” to target users, such that the errors made in the usability tests could be misattributed to other factors (p.82). Lastly, due to the simulated environment, the test subjects even ironicized their attempts of creating an “objective test” , making it challenging to discern whether the test subjects behave in a way “natural” to target users at all (p. 86).

Lacking concrete definition of the machine and user personas, and simulation of “objective tests of natural user behavior” overall undermines the robustness and reliability of the usability test.

Discuss the differences seen in the two excerpts of “usability”

…the usability evaluation stage is an effective method by which a software development team can establish the positive and negative aspects of its prototype releases, and make the required changes before the system is delivered to the target users"  (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 29).
“…the design and production of a new entity… amounts to a process of configuring its user, where 'configuring' includes defining the identity of putative users, and setting constraints upon their likely future actions” (Woolgar, 1990).

Based on the two excerpts, it seems like both of them are converging on the idea of iterative and interactive systems to adjust and create better experiences for users when they utilize the interface.

The main difference seems to be that Issa and Isaias’s approach is more from “after-the-fact” feedback, such that improvement is based on the reactions and responses of users. On the other hand, Woolgar seems to make “before-the-fact” assumptions of the users to see whether the hypotheses are confirmed or not — hence “configuring” its users.

While both approaches create recursive feedback loops to push development of the interface and are initially “human-driven” in design, it makes me wonder —  how much of our interactions with technology are directed by human agency, and how much of our interactions are shaped more by the affordances of our technology?

References

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015). Usability and human computer interaction (HCI) In Sustainable Design (pp. 19-35). Springer.

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38(1, Suppl.), S58-S99.

Truth and Reconciliation Reflection

Brief

The project brief was to find a document and explore the portrayals of indigenous and First Nation peoples in your chosen locale, and provide a reflection of how Indigeneity and Indigenous people represented in these documents make up our knowledge and understanding of the history of education.

Preface

Having grown-up and spent most of my adolescent life in Taiwan and its education system, we naturally learned about Taiwanese history and culture in our elementary to high school curriculum. The long history of colonization by Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish and Japanese, as well as the settlement of Chinese immigrants resulted in much tension and conflict amongst the diverse groups of people inhabiting the small island.

It wasn’t until coming to Vancouver and learning more about the Indigenous history and the overall activism surrounding reconciliation did I have the lens to reflect back on the ways I have learnt about Taiwanese history, specifically re-thinking the narrative of the curriculum and portrayals of Indigenous peoples, colonizers and settlers in relation with each other.

Project

The “document” I decided to choose for this project is the Taiwanese 2011 film Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale  directed by Taiwanese director Wei Te-sheng.

This film portrays the historical 1930 Musha Incident (霧社事件) of the Seediq (賽德克)  people against the colonial Japanese forces in response to the long-term oppression. Due to the nature of the subject matter, it does have explicit depictions of violence, forced assimilation policies, dispossession of land and natural resources, armed conflict, etc. which was a reality for many of the indigenous communities under Japanese colonialization.

This film was shown in competition at the 68th Venice International Film Festival. I chose this film as it was seminal in terms of bringing Taiwanese colonial history and “representation” of Indigenous peoples of Taiwan onto the international stage, creating an entry point when it comes to learning and understanding more of history of Taiwan.

Throughout the film, I am constantly confronted with this question:

What are the underlying themes being driven in this narrative and what is assumed of the positionality of that perspective?

As a film involving conflict amongst many different groups — Japanese colonizers, Han Chinese settlers, and the indigenous Seediq people — understanding the historical and cultural context from each group is necessary.

Below is a brief glance at the historical context of Japanese colonial rules and assimilation policies imposed onto the indigenous peoples, including:

Status and categorization – varying degrees of “barbarians” 番 (fan)
    • 生番 (sheng fan) : non-acculturated indigenous people; lived outside of administrative units
    • 化番 (hua fan) : semi-acculturated indigenous people; lived outside administrative units
    • 熟番 (shu fan) : acculturated indigenous people; treated with status en-par with Han Chinese as “natives of Taiwan”
Settler-Aboriginal Boundary 隘勇(yi yong)

The Japanese claimed all unreclaimed forest and mountain land in Taiwan as government property, denying the rights of indigenous people to their property, land and anything on the land. The Japanese colonizers reinforced the “settler-aboriginal boundary”  that further restricted indigenous people’s living space.

Japanization “kominka”  Era （皇民化運動）

After the Musha Incident, many new policies were put into place to control indigenous people and their resources, including assimilation through education, language and prohibition of indigenous cultural practices.

Naturally, the film garnered both praise and criticism. That being said, I believe the controversy is what creates an abundance of topics for critical conversation and discussion.

What are the underlying themes being driven in this narrative and what is assumed of the positionality of that perspective?

This rather broad/general/nebulous question not only generates discussion on the surface-level of media portrayal, historical narrative, but also in a self-referential way in terms of the critic needing to reckon with their own positionality and perspective through the act of critiquing.

As a student back then, we did not have the time nor space in the elementary, middle and high school curriculum to have a deeper and more nuanced understanding of historical events in general, not to mention having in-depth discussion on topics related to indigenous communities at all.

Living in Taiwan, there are traces of colonialism in everyday life. It is ingrained in the architecture, in the transportation system, historical documentation that is available to the rest of the world, and even the educational system itself. There is still a big gap in terms of restorative justice and the overall dissemination of the concept of truth and reconciliation and efforts of  decolonization, and I believe the first step and front lines of this dissemination is starting within the classrooms in education.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet