Month: May 2022

Usability describes a collection of attributes that makes a system simple, intuitive, and efficient to users. It quantifies and qualifies the users’ experiences when interacting with systems to accomplish tasks. Issa and Isaias (2015) highlight that usability is multifaceted and encompasses many concepts. Its framework considers how systems function and the characteristics of both users and tasks, which collectively influence the user’s reaction. Usability assesses the intention behind and experience of the interaction, in addition to the accuracy of output, indicating whether the context and language between users and systems are in sync. High usability can lead to increased use, task retention, and decreased learning time. These advantages produce loyalty and profit. Usability can be misjudged in contexts where the intent of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) is to anticipate users’ future needs beyond current ones. As such, utility – or the anticipated function of a system – also plays a critical role in the perception of usability. This is particularly important in the context of education, as successful knowledge transfer often relies on purposeful problem-based learning where users understand why they are learning, particularly as adults. If the system produces results that are disjointed from what the user anticipates, it risks being assigned low usability and rejected.

Considering educational usability, one aspect that Issa and Isaias (2015) neglect to include is the social influence on learning. These include collaboration, cooperation, mentorship, feedback, and support from more knowledgeable others. Social Cognitive Theory emphasizes that learning takes place in social contexts, and therefore social influences can alter a user’s characteristics (knowledge, motivation, and discretion) significantly while being completely independent of them. For example, imagine an individual who has chosen to use an iPhone for the last decade. Recently, they started working for a new company that provides Android devices to all employees. In this case, negative outcomes of usability cannot lead to “suspension and discontinuation of the system” (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p.32) as it is a requirement for the new job. One could argue that this is simply motivation (learn new system = keep new job), however, that oversimplification neglects the value of social influence within the workplace. There is a profound divide between Android users and iPhone users, and one’s choice to engage with one or the other often goes beyond mere usability and relies more on the social constructs within which they see themselves. Marketing of technology and systems frequently capitalizes on social influence.

Woolgar (1990) alludes to these social influences in explaining the concept of configuring users. One example of users being configured in Woolgar’s (1990) account of the trials is the initial setup, designed to emulate an ordinary work environment. This creates an expectation of competence (I am successful at my job, so I can do this) while the features that are not often present at work, e.g., video cameras and observers, encourage users to persevere (they are watching so I will keep trying to make this work). Combined, these social aspects of the environment made the users think they were fit for any tasks presented in the trial.

A second example of configuring users was the commentary from the not-so-objective observers. Feedback like “you’ve done fine so far” or “let’s assume we succeeded there which I think you did” (Woolgar, 1990, p.85) can adjust the user’s perception of what occurred during the interaction. Here, the social influence collides with constructivism; the user’s reflective observation of their concrete experiences is being influenced and formed into a positive memory, thereby inflating the perceived usability of the technology.

One of the biggest differences between how Woolgar (1990) and Issa and Isaias (2015) present usability is their acknowledgement of what can, or should, be configured. Woolgar (1990) explicitly states that configuring users is a natural part of usability; by shaping and arranging users and their expectations they can be successfully set up for designated tasks, resulting in high usability. In contrast, Issa and Isaias (2015) imply that systems should be configured through iterations targeted to increase usability. The question then becomes, are these ever truly separate? Changes to a system will alter how users interpret and interact with it, thereby adjusting user reactions. Feedback and other steps taken to prepare and guide targeted users can make them fit better with the systems and tasks, swaying user characteristics and reactions. Ultimately, the adjustments made to either the user or the system (or both) to increase usability are aiming for the same result: a simple, intuitive, and efficient experience.

[Word count: 735]

References:

Issa T. & Isaias P. (2015). Usability and Human Computer Interaction (HCI). Sustainable Design. London: Springer. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1007/978-1-4471-6753-2_2

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: the case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38 (1_suppl), 58-99. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03349.x

 

The primary resource selected for this assignment was found through a Google search using the phrase, ‘history of education in Canada.’ The first result in the list was a page on The Canadian Encyclopedia’s website titled History of Education in Canada (Gaffield, 2013).

Using the find functionality (ctrl+F), the term ‘residential’ was found twice on the webpage, identifying two short paragraphs that referred to residential schools and the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples. However, one paragraph did contain a link to another webpage titled Residential Schools in Canada (Miller, 2012)

These resources were found after many attempts to locate and determine appropriate resources for this assignment. Being unfamiliar with educational history or teacher professional development, my aim became to find a resource that summarized the history of education in Canada to see how Indigeneity, Indigenous people, and residential schools were represented in a resource that would be available to the public. The Canadian Encyclopedia was selected on the assumption that encyclopedias are seen as a credible source for information on various subjects and are designed to expand one’s knowledge on topics.

As mentioned above, the find functionality was used to find specific terms within the online text. The results for History of Education in Canada (Gaffield, 2013) are as follows:

• Residential = 2 (in reference to ‘residential schools,’ a search term recommended by the instructor)
• Indian = 0
• Indigenous = 0
• Aboriginal = 9
• First Nations = 0
• Native = 0

The term ‘Aboriginal’ was only presented in the context of education as a mission for colonial assimilation. Also, only one of the nine instances of Aboriginal was capitalized. Based on the information available on the First Nations Studies Program’s (2009) Terminology page, it would have been more respectful to capitalize every instance of the term.

The topic of residential schools’ assimilation of Indigenous people was only referred to in four (of 56) paragraphs. Although there was a link to a separate webpage dedicated to residential schools in Canada if one does not choose to seek this additional information it would be easy to assume that the formal attempts to “undermine the traditional culture” (Gaffield, 2013, para.7) of Indigenous people was extremely minor in the overall context of Canadian education history.

Using the find functionality again, the same list of terms (minus ‘residential)’ was searched within this webpage. The results for Residential Schools in Canada (Miller, 2012) are as follows:

• Indian = 19
• Indigenous = 29
• Aboriginal = 1
• First Nation = 9 (to capture both singular and plural versions)
• Native = 0

While reviewing the above two resources, some of the content prompted me to consider the intergenerational effects of residential schools. This also connected to a third resource that I had found during my initial searches for resources, produced by Stout and Peters (2011) and titled kiskinohamâtôtâpânâsk: Inter-generational Effects on Professional First Nations Women Whose Mothers are Residential. This study examined the ongoing impact of residential school experiences, affecting generations of individuals who did not attend residential schools themselves.

My professional background – both education and experience – includes human resources and workplace learning, so the new questions that came to mind when reading these resources were:

• For those who do not take the time to educate themselves further (i.e., beyond the curriculum taught in Canadian schools), how does this shape their assumptions, either known or unknown as adults? How does that translate into the workplace, hiring practices, management strategies, and tolerance for diversity?
• What other ‘ripple effects’ continue to impact workplaces today as a result of these residential school experiences and how Indigeneity has been – and continues to be – represented in formal educational contexts?

These individuals’ personal circumstances would undoubtedly extend into their professional roles, which lead to questions about how current hiring, training, and other retention strategies systemically discriminate against Indigenous people. While the topic of systemic discrimination is being discussed and examined in many workplaces today in the context of how best to avoid unconscious bias, there is immense value in understanding that some attitudes, habits and contexts of work are connected to influences that run much deeper than the worker’s own personal experiences.

One of the biggest limitations of these results is my own unconscious bias and perspective, as a white-European treaty land inhabitant (Cuthand, 2021) currently living and learning on the Haldimand Tract within the territory of the Neutral, Anishinaabe, and Haudenosaunee peoples.

Another limitation is the digitization of information and assuming that encyclopedias are trusted resources. I grew up going to school in the 1980s and 1990s and was often directed to encyclopedias to further my knowledge on various topics. However, if these resources were produced by other white treaty land inhabitants they may not have had access to the full story of Canada’s educational history.

References

Cuthand, S. (2021, August 30). Introducing yourself as a ‘settler’ creates division. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/calling-yourself-a-settler-pov-1.6151582

First Nations Studies Program (2009). Terminology. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/

Gaffield, C. (2013, July 15; last edited June 18, 2020). History of Education in Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/history-of-education

Miller, J. R. (2012, October 10; last edited May 20, 2022). Residential Schools in Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/residential-schools

Stout, R. & Peters, S. (2011). kiskinohamâtôtâpânâsk: Inter-generational Effects on Professional First Nations Women Whose Mothers are Residential. Canada Commons. https://canadacommons.ca/artifacts/2039292/kiskinohamatotapanask/2791735/