Categories
ETEC 511

IP 8 — ATTENTION

I work at UBC’s School of Pharmaceutical Sciences.

This past Wednesday, our beloved first-year students had their comprehensive exam to wrap up the semester.

Over 200 students were split in half — one group went through a series of rotations from 8 am to 12 pm, and the other group from 1 pm to 5 pm. I had to be around for both chunks.

I knew this would be an interesting day for me to track my attention. I was involved with these exams last term too, and they really went by in a blur. You’re on your feet for most of the day, and you’re always around people responsible for different elements of the operation — invigilators, examiners, administrators, and so on. 

And of course, there are the students too. 


THE DAILY MORNING ROUTINE

I made it to work at around 7 am, but my day really began at 5:15 am when my alarm went off in Coquitlam.

Tracking attention during this 2-hour window wasn’t difficult — likely a combination of (1) my singular focus on beating traffic and getting to work on time, (2) having a routine to follow, and (3) just being too tired to think about anything else. 

Here’s a simple spreadsheet I put together, and I’ll provide some commentary where I see fit as well:

Row 2 — I don’t snooze, believe it or not!

Row 3 — I usually check for deals while I’m getting ready (i.e. brushing my teeth, moisturizing my face, admiring my hair) in the bathroom. My thinking is that I might actually be awake early enough to catch some crazy doorcrasher… 

Row 7 — I don’t look at my phone while driving, but I will ask Siri to read me my notifications.

Rows 11 — I let my hair air-dry in the morning to save time, and it usually sets by the time I get to campus. 

Rows 13 — Whoever designed the PharmSci building was a huge fan of glass, and it is through the large glass windows that you can see right into the lobby. On exam days, I pay closer attention to how many students are there to do some last minute studying. It also gives me an idea of how heavy elevator traffic might be, and whether my introverted self will be taking the stairs up to the 5th floor that morning. 


SCREEN TIME

After washing my hands — fine, I also checked my hair again — the first time I did was turn on my laptop. I wanted to check if any students had emailed to ask about potential tech issues.

Before I started working, I never thought too much about screen time because I felt like it was just a number. As a grad student for example, I stared at my essay-in-progress for hours on end everyday. The number was high, but it honestly didn’t feel like a problem. 

With work though, there are tasks which could be time-sensitive. These tasks can also come in a variety of forms and requests, or may require collaboration and assistance from others — in other words, my screen time now involves multiple priorities, needs, and people. 

It’s also spread to multiple devices as well — I find myself answering emails or messages while walking to the bathroom, all because technology lets me do so… 


THE EXAM

Anyways, I still don’t fully understand the exam schedule but I do know it worked so here it is:

Afternoon rotations are set up in the same way

To understand my role better, you should know that:

  • Work Up = 35 minute quiz
  • Written #1 = 20 minute quiz
  • Written #2 = 20 minute quiz

Depending on the colour of tape on their desks, all students start with the Work Up before they’re sent to different places or “stations”.

My main responsibilities included:

  • make sure students can find the right quizzes on Canvas
  • make sure students enter the correct access codes
  • address any tech issues they might have (i.e. disconnected from wifi)
  • check that submissions went through okay 

As you might be able to guess, most of these tasks happen at the beginning and end of each rotation. In theory, it looks like I have some downtime once each quiz launches right?


ENVIRONMENT AND DISTRACTION

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple…

The comprehensive exam takes place across different rooms on a single floor, and all of the staff involved gather in an open area somewhere in the middle. 

I’m disappointed in myself for not taking a photo of what I’ll call our “hub”, but just know that it’s not really set up for work. Everyone stands, and there’s a large cabinet where laptops, water bottles, and snacks are placed on top as a makeshift standing desk — we would probably all agree though that this setup is neither ergonomic or conducive to productivity.

People are always moving around as well — students going to the bathroom or being chaperoned to the next station, staff checking on the rooms or coming together for quick chats between slots. I had to kind of actively tune everything out if I wanted to read or respond to an email, for example. 


REPETITION AND FAMILIARITY

After the first hour or so, I found that I was no longer thinking about making it to 12 pm. Instead, I was just looking forward to when the quiz timer would hit zero again and usher in the next rotation. 

Like clockwork, I would enter the rooms a few minutes before the quizzes ended just to be present when student submissions started trickling in. In all honesty, I mostly just stood there but I do think my presence gave the invigilators and students some peace of mind…  

Everyone is already familiar with myself (or others from my office), since we’ve been around to support classes and assessments throughout the entire term. This familiarity lets our invigilators and students pay attention to their own tasks — if something goes wrong with the tech, they know they’ll be supported.   


MULTIPLE PLACES AT ONCE 

Somehow we made it through the morning session, and the smell of fried chicken (complimentary!) filled the air. 

I did have to hop downstairs to check in on another exam scheduled to launch at noon though, which delayed my greasy fingers from latching onto the greasy takeout. In fact, I even got a reminder that my food was ready for pick up while I was in that classroom. 

We create a Teams thread for every exam to track issues, and for support staff to communicate in real-time. This is what I had open on my computer when I finally went upstairs to eat, my gaze alternating between my sandwich and the screen — that darn screen again.

I should also note that my phone was vibrating with every incoming message as well. Usually I have this off, but I was expecting a call that day and I didn’t want to miss it. 


NERVOUS ATTENTION

I guess I can talk about this call, actually.

Without going into too much detail, I had taken my car in for service the day before. The issue required some time to fix, so they gave me (1) a courtesy car and (2) a promise that they would call to give me an update. 

They also said something about fees if I kept the courtesy car longer than I should… 

The call never came though, and so at around 4 pm (they close at 5) I gave in to my worried mind and called them myself. Citton (2017) says we have “a certain control over our immediate environment” — picking up the phone was my way of exercising it (p.174). 

On the other hand, Citton (2017) also suggests that this control is “always extremely limited” (p.174). The car somehow ended up being ready, and they even drove it to UBC so we could swap — but I was always at the mercy of their workflows and schedules. 

I did feel much better after I got my car back though and took my mind off it.  


SURPRISE SURPRISE

We had next to no tech issues throughout the day, so it was a surprise when one did come up. 

A student flagged me down, but I wasn’t really understanding what he was saying at first — in fact, it took almost an hour for me to get it after discussing the issue with others who were just as confused. 

When I was first chatting with him though, I knew that we only had a minute or two before the next quiz needed to launch. One or two other staff members also joined our huddle in that moment, which wasn’t really productive for me since they started asking the student their own questions.

I can’t say that I was stressed because I’ve been in those situations before, but it’s never a good feeling to have your attention pulled in different directions — especially with a time crunch looming in the background. I came up with a decent solution in the end, but it certainly wasn’t the best one…  


Eventually, the day came to an end.

Looking at it as a whole and maybe in context of what we can apply to teaching and learning, I’d say that there was an interesting dynamic between what I’ll call passive and active attention. 

The former can be noticed in the routine, the predictable, and the familiar. I think of this as a sign that educators should focus on building good habits within their students — getting them to think about academic integrity in every stage of a course for example, rather than just at the beginning in the syllabus. 

The latter happens when external — and perhaps unexpected — factors emerge. In these cases, I think that agency is key. Maybe students shouldn’t be held to just one way of learning or problem-solving, but be encouraged to stay flexible and adaptable. You could even say the same for instructors too…   


Citton, Y. (2017). Conclusion: Towards an Attention Ecology. In The Ecology of Attention. John Wiley & Sons.

Categories
ETEC 511

IP 7 — DIGITAL LABOUR

Life seems so convenient with platforms like Uber Eats — take out your phone, find a restaurant, order a few items, and have them delivered right to your doorstep…

Beneath the surface though, what can we learn about ourselves and even the businesses taking advantage of services like this? Are we just consumers, or are we more involved than we might think?

Categories
ETEC 511

IP 6 — SUSTAINABILITY

An attempt at exploring the EMPLOYEE as a resource…


Enter full screen for a better viewing experience 😉

Categories
ETEC 511

IP 2 — ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

IMPORTANT PEOPLE

Alan Matheson Turing

Turing played an important role in the British effort to crack the German Enigma cipher during WW2.

His research after the war influenced many of the earliest principles in computer science and artificial intelligence. One of the most notable was the “Turing test”, which questioned whether a machine could imitate a human.

Turing questioned what “thinking” really was, and wondered if machines could be ever be capable of it. 

John McCarthy

In 1955, McCarthy was one of three to formally introduce the term “artificial intelligence”. 

He developed LISP in 1958 — a programming language. LISP would eventually set a standard for code to be (1) expressive (able to deal with different functions) and (2) reflective (able to adapt and self-modify). 

McCarthy identified human logic and ability of abstraction as skills that machines should strive to emulate. 

Herb Simon

Simon helped create some of the first artificial intelligence programs ever.

One was the “Logic Theorist”, which used automated reasoning to prove mathematical theorems. Another was the “General Problem Solver”, which searched for possible actions to reach a defined goal. 

Simon considered problem solving and decision making as key factors of intelligence. 

Marvin Minsky

Minsky and McCarthy co-founded MIT’s AI lab in 1959.

Much of Minsky’s work involved hardware — head mounted displays and improved microscopes, for example. 

This all came together in his “Society of Mind” theory, where he broke up the individual into separate components (like language and memory). Minsky argued that “intelligence” was the outcome of their interactions.

Timnit Gebru

Gebru has emerged as one of today’s leaders in artificial intelligence. 

Her work aims not only to illuminate risks like surveillance and algorithmic biases when AI is used, but also on broader issues of diversity, ethics, and control within big tech.

One of Gebru’s current projects at the DAIR involves collaborating with researchers around the world to explore how AI has affected African immigrants in the states — hoping to thoughtfully leverage artificial intelligence for social good. 


MACHINE VS HUMAN LANGUAGE

Programming languages have a smaller margin of error than human ones.

Their rules for syntax (how words are used) and semantics (what words mean) are predefined, and usually not very flexible. 

There is no room for emotion, slang, or non-verbal cues in code either — all of which heavily influence human-to-human interaction. While we can express one idea in many different ways, programming operators are far less likely to overlap. 

Both machine and human languages change over time, but the former depends on authority developers to release something new before they can come into effect.

Human language involves formal processes too — new words added to the dictionary, for example. Yet nothing was stopping us from saying “lol” before it was added to the Oxford in 2011… 


ARTIFICIAL VS HUMAN INTELLIGENCE

Many agree that artificial intelligence mimics human thought processes like logic and reasoning. After all, one of the benefits in getting machines to “think” is their ability to process large amounts of data — much faster and more thoroughly than we can.

But volume presents an issue too when AI is so laser-focused on finding patterns and trends — it struggles when dealing with change or anything “extraordinary”…

Of course, AI is really an application of human intelligence at the end of the day. We decide what information machines should have, we set goals for what they should be able to accomplish, and we intervene to train and adjust these systems whenever we feel the need to. 


MACHINE VS HUMAN LEARNING

Machine learning is shaped by whatever data is available.

I thought a long time about this question — you could make the argument that humans have the same constraint…

Even though the internet gives us access to all the information in the world, we really only learn (1) what we’re taught / told and (2) what we think we’re interested in and willing to make an effort for.

Having said that — and even if limited — it is our potential to independently access information and make decisions with it that sets human learning apart machine.

The machine can’t do much about bias — it might not even recognize bias, whether the source is from flawed data or the very engineers responsible for building and programming these things.


WOULD THIS PAGE PASS A TURING TEST?

I did feel — for lack of a better term — somewhat robotic throughout this assignment.

I didn’t know any of the “important people” for example, except for a tiny bit about Turing. I was doomed to simply repeat what others have already said about these individuals…

So I controlled what I could — being selective with what to share, and being intentional with how I did it. If you revisit my summaries of the big players, you’ll notice they all include (1) a general fact, (2) a notable contribution in the field, and (3) how “intelligence” manifested in their work.

During the other questions, I found myself wandering through the web for answers. Yet the more I read, the more I didn’t understand (Turing completeness ???).

Instead of trying to explain everything, I chose to focus on what actually made some sense to me. The theme of reflexivity — and the machine’s lack of it — served as a nice anchor.

I write in oddly short paragraphs, and I’ve been accused of using em dashes too liberally — it’s my style, even if conventions and traditions within the art of writing frown upon it.

There is no doubt in my mind that a machine could write just like me — but would it understand why it’s doing that?


REFERENCES

Alan Turing. (2022, January 26). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Turing&oldid=1068099570

Artificial intelligence. (2022, February 3). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&oldid=1069601384

Brittanica. (2022). John McCarthy. In britannica.com. Retrieved February 3, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-McCarthy

General Problem Solver. (2021, March 6). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Problem_Solver&oldid=1010719225

Gurskas, D. (2018, June 20). Computer and human languages. diessi.ca. https://diessi.ca/blog/computer-and-human-languages/#:~:text=When%20it%20comes%20to%20human,introductory%20books%20to%20Computer%20Science

Harris, A. (2018, October 31). Human languages vs. Programming languages. Medium. https://medium.com/@anaharris/human-languages-vs-programming-languages-c89410f13252

Heilweil, R. (2020, February 18). Why algorithms can be racist and sexist. Recode, Vox. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/18/21121286/algorithms-bias-discrimination-facial-recognition-transparency

Herbert A. Simon. (2022, January 28). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_A._Simon&oldid=1068450790

John McCarthy. (2022, February 2). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist)&oldid=1069550389

Kumari, R. (2021, January 3). 7 differences between artificial intelligence and human intelligence. Analytics Steps. https://www.analyticssteps.com/blogs/7-differences-artificial-intelligence-ai-human-intelligence

Lisp (Programming Language). (2022, January 31). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisp_(programming_language)&oldid=1068970338

Logic Theorist. (2022, Feburary 3). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Logic_Theorist&oldid=1069745360

Machine learning. (2022, February 4). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Machine_learning&oldid=1069785162

Marvin Minsky. (2022, January 15). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marvin_Minsky&oldid=1065870561

Society of Mind. (2022, January 8). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Society_of_Mind&oldid=1064510404

Tam, J. (2015, August 11). RIP to LOL – the history of laughing out loud. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-33858624

Turing completeness. (2022, February 1). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turing_completeness&oldid=1069191175

Turing test. (2022, February 3). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turing_test&oldid=1069691794

Categories
ETEC 511

IP 1 — USABILITY

“The implementation of HCI can be perceived as an art as well as a science…” (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p.22)

Rather than thinking about usability as a metric that can be hit or missed, it might be more productive to think about it as an ongoing, fluid, and necessary endeavour

For me, the usability of something is:

  1. its ability to understand the user’s needs;
  2. its ability to meet those needs; AND
  3. how positive the overall experience is for the user

The best products manage to appease a whole demographic — sometimes broad, other times niche. Finding different ways to do this is art.

The science is how evidence can be collected and leveraged to generate best practices. While there isn’t one magic formula, there are certain factors like flexibility or ease-of-use which always deserve attention…


USABILITY IN EDUCATION 

The landscape of education has much room for tech, but it’s also where tech has often been incorporated just for the sake of… incorporating it. 

I work in EdTech which is why I believe in it, but I also recognize that it needs to be applied meaningfully — otherwise, I wouldn’t have a job

Fundamentally, usability in education should be very concerned with ensuring that systems do not distract students from content or the learning process. They should be spending time writing papers, not trying to figure out how to upload them.

Now I’m not saying this just because I’m in the field, but I believe people play an important role here.

During my undergrad, we were forced to attend library workshops. They were incredibly boring, but now I appreciate how useful those lessons in manipulating search engines actually were. 

Usability in education needs facilitators who are “on the ground” — librarians who want students to find better sources, instructional designers who strive to listen and address student frustrations. 

It’s about making whatever tech is available work for you, and not the other way around.


USABILITY GONE WRONG

Woolgar’s (1990) participant observation was fun because it captured struggle.

In the “wrong socket” saga, tester Ruth was given a task and provided with documentation to accomplish it. Yet it turned out she was given the wrong thing to plug into the machine… 

Ruth checked the manual first — something consumers have been “configured” to do. We aren’t encouraged to be curious about how our machines work, we’re conditioned to ask questions only when they don’t. 

When Ruth found nothing helpful in the manual, she turned to the observers in the room. In the real-world unfortunately, accessing responsive — not to mention effective — support from companies is not always easy…  

Staffers stepping in to assist Ruth was just one example of the instances where observers intervened in the study — acts Woolgar (1990) described as “thoroughly unnatural” (p.85). 

I got the sense that the observers found it difficult to just stand by. Instead, they showed an urge to help and connect with the participants — maybe they took “know your user” too seriously? 

My feeling is that these actions perpetuated the expert-novice relationship. Whereas Ruth and others were invited to provide insight into how people outside of the company would interact with the products, there wasn’t much room to do that when staff would just jump in and offer suggestions based on their implicit expectations. 

Consider the instance when the observer offered one of the participants a coffee break (Woolgar, 1990, p.71). The participant asks whether this is a task in itself — even jokingly, we can see how the line between exploration and surveillance had become blurred. 


ISSA & ISAIAS vs WOOLGAR

Issa and Isaias (2015) were broad and general — highlighting various usability guidelines to consider while promoting a user-centred approach.

Woolgar’s (1990) work helped illustrate the potential obstacles in attempting to do so…

He described how designers and engineers built the product, yet their colleagues in support or sales had little faith that they actually understood the user. There is irony here in how each team had their own conception of “the” user, based on their work — even if some of them were not even customer-facing!

In the same company, usability was hindered by division and bureaucracy.

Lack of collaboration represents a practical issue — so do resources (which Issas & Isaias touched on) as well as time. At some point, the product needs to ship.

Testing should never end anyways, which is why I argue that usability is more a continued process than a static benchmark.


REFERENCES

Issa T., Isaias P. (2015) Usability and Human Computer Interaction (HCI). In: Sustainable Design. Springer, London. 

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. The Sociological Review38 (1_suppl), 58-99.

Categories
ETEC 511

TRUTH, RECONCILIATION, EDTECH

The first thought that popped into my head when considering “history-related documents” — newspapers. Better yet, why not student newspapers for this assignment?

Fortunately, UBC Library offers a digital archive of The Ubyssey dating back to its very first issue in 1918. This archive is open to everyone — in fact, only about 250,000 of the collection’s total views came from within Canada!

You can start by jumping to a particular year and date, or you can do what I did and start feeding keywords into the search. Clicking on a result brings you directly to where the word was used in the paper.


THE QUESTION

Going into this, I really wanted to leverage this huge set of data to take “snapshots” over time and observe change — very general, sorry… 

I knew that the content — ideas, themes — would deserve much attention. Additionally though, I also saw this as an opportunity to explore something like aesthetics or formatting.

Publications in the black and white days, for example, were definitely more text-heavy. Check out the ads in the November 3 1921 edition — simple, stylish, and effective, relying on nothing more than words and letters. 


THE SEARCH

Warning — I am about to introduce some pseudo-scientific methods here…

I began my exercise by taking the 5 keywords provided — Indian, Indigienous, Aboriginal, First Nations, Native — and searching for them one by one within the collection. 

In terms of scope, I went with a neat and tidy 100-year window. I applied two filters to each word — results between 1918 and 1968, and between 1969 and 2019 — to quickly compare usage between each half of the century.

Search TermSearch A, # of Results (1918 to 1968)Search B, # of Results (1969 to 2019)
Indian9601263
Indigenous*14386
Aboriginal32506
First Nations31635
Native7291388

I took a look at these numbers, and decided to drill down into “Indigenous”. I tried not to interpret or make any judgments at this point — the figures simply showed that (1) there were barely any hits pre-1918 and (2) because 386 divided by 14 is almost 28, which means that the word was used almost 28 times more after 1968!


THE SELECTION

Moving on, the next step was to actually look through some of these publications.

Conscious of time, I decided to pick 2 items from Search A and 2 items from Search B for a total of 4. I sorted the search results by date, going from oldest to newest. I used the first result as Item 1, and the last result as Item 2 before repeating this pattern in Search B. This will make more sense when you look at the table below: 

Search A, 1918 – 1968Item 1: November 3 1921
Item 2: October 3 1967
Search B, 1969 – 2019Item 3: January 31 1969
Item 4: December 4 2018

It was not until I put this all on paper that a flaw in the design immediately became apparent… 

Item 2 and Item 3 came too close together, relatively — what I should have done was start from 1921 (the first time “Indigenous” appears in The Ubyssey) and look at articles in 25-year increments (1946, 1971, 1996, and 2021) for a more even snapshot across the 100 years.


THE FINDINGS

Item 1 featured an article titled “The Little Theatre”, which revolved around the drama scene (stage plays) in North America at the time. It concluded with an observation that:

“Vancouver people often lament their isolation from the good plays and other things seemingly indigenous to the “East”. 

In Item 2, “indigenous” comes up in a piece defending The Georgia Straight. Without going into too much detail, my understanding is that the Straight was founded in 1967 (by a UBC student!) as an anti-establishment newspaper. It was quickly cracked down on, which led this Ubyssey writer to comment on how:

“The few oasis of true indigenous artistic attempts starve slowly to death — the Bunkhouse, the Bistro, the Bau-Xi Gallery. Art has nowhere to go but underground”

Item 3 brings us to a review of poetry:

”Dorothy Livesay’s book contain six poems. Four of them, as the title suggests, are long, narrative poems — documentaries. They were written in the ‘30’s and 40s to record major social phenomena occurring in our nation. They compose part of an indigenous Canadian form dating from Isabella Crawford’s Malcolm’s Katie”

In Item 4, the word “Indigenous” shows up at least 10 times. I should note that it is capitalized now as well. Repeated mentions of the newly formed “Indigenous Engagement Committee” at the time certainly inflated some of these results, but there was also an article about chocolate:

”If we think about some of the key tree species, scientists are discovering what many Indigenous societies and cultures have long known”

THOUGHTS

It would be easy to jump to conclusions or point out low-hanging fruit at this juncture — or at least I did when I first started thinking about my findings… 

My immediate reaction, for example, was finding irony in Items 1 and 2. I questioned how these writers could essentially complain about locals being unable to (1) access art / culture or (2) express themselves when Indigenous and minority groups still struggle to do so today. 

Even Item 3 had me a little uncomfortable — can a form of poetry and writing which emerged only in the 30s and 40s really be considered “indigenous” to Canada?

Finding truth requires looking past skepticism and doubt — both of which are driven by hindsight, along with a tendency to immediately judge past actions by today’s expectations. “Indigenous” would not be the best word to use in those articles now, but that is due in part to years of ongoing reconciliation and recognition of history — with hopefully many more to come. 

Rationally, I would probably need to read all of Dorothy Livesay’s work before I should even feel comfortable commenting on it. Even then, I would just be making interpretations of her writing — a one-sided affair where she is not around to provide context, explanation, or debate. 

So I found myself turning more towards the present and future…

For example, I enjoyed learning more about the progress being made at UBC by the Indigenous Engagement Committee and its continued efforts to normalize and promote visibility of Indigenous groups — student residences named after Indigenous communities, physical markers and posts on campus, routine land acknowledgements, growing representation within the student and faculty bodies. 

I also found out — barring any changes to plans — that July 2022 will feature the inaugural cohort of students for UBC’s Master of Education in Indigenous Education. This, apparently, will be the first program of its type in the province…


ON EDTECH

While I pointed out some positives above just now, I should stress that these reflect more relief than excitement. The work is nowhere near done, but at least there is hope that we can make things better through education — a field that I work in.

I went to UBC for 5 years as an undergrad. Not once did I ever read an issue of The Ubyssey — if I ever had a copy, it was probably used as a placemat or something. Fast forward a half decade and now, I can look at and search through any edition of this student newspaper whenever I want. 

During this task, I even went down a rabbit hole of sorts — stumbling on articles about former UBC president Dr. Arvind Gupta and his sudden departure in 2015, when I was a student at the school!

I was reminded of how little I knew or cared about these things back then. Now that I am older and back at UBC as a staffer — not in a presidential role, of course — I have more of an interest and maybe even window into workplace politics and bureaucracy. 

Thanks to digitization and the thing known as the internet, I was able to take learning into my own hands for this assignment. I feel like this sort of open and self-directed experience is something that all instructional designers should aim to facilitate in their work — even if it means that students may run off course and bend guidelines to accommodate their learning, which is probably what I did here…

Spam prevention powered by Akismet