1. As far as I understood Issa and Isaias (2015), usability determines the value of technology and shows its ability to do the task it has been developed for quickly and with minimum efforts. Woolgar (1990) added a “versatility” to this description, and I would amount “reinvention” because of recuring nature of teaching English to international students and fast-changing technology. I will illustrate it with the YouTube video which primarily aim was English speaking; however, I successfully used its content to review Simple tenses and non-action verbs, i.e., grammar, as well as vocabulary (Learn English with Rebecca – engVid, 2014).
2. Issa and Isaias (2015) treat technology as a business product that a designer first gives to the supposed users for testing. It is a seller-buyer relationship for the writers, and it is not like that in school, even in online classes. The teacher can be a designer, or they can use a technological product created by someone else (a movie, an application, an electronic dictionary etc.). Whether education is student-centred or participatory, the teacher is always a user who constantly experiments and decides what works with certain students. Educational usability therefore, is a characteristic of an educational tool, its ability to suit the evolving learning needs of a teacher and students. For the classroom, the teacher decides what is currently usable and what can be usable in the future, not a product designer or student.
3. The aim of the final experiment described by Woolgar (1990) was to evaluate the documentation accompanying the product by setting the participants to read and follow those manuals’ instructions. I believe “configuring users” meant turning this quasi-experiment into less controlled product-testing by providing assistance that participants were not supposed to get in their natural environment. I liked how quickly a complicated diagram was redrew after getting informal feedback (p. 76), or how Woolgar himself was hesitant to buy the product because he knew its strengths and weaknesses all too well (p. 78). The innovators seemed to do their best, and I kept remembering a “Halt and Catch Fire” TV series while reading the resource. I have been teaching English and creating exercises since mid-90s, and I am quite confident in my ability to set and reach the academic goals. I look at usability from the educator’s point of view, and a computer is a tool for me, “a thing that gets us to the thing” (Cantwell & Rogers, 2014-2017). I am also very interested in students’ position on effective educational tools.
4. Two citations in general are about different stages of a product creation. In particular, the first one describes its trial or “usability evaluation stage” (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 29) of the software development. It focuses more on the product. I can relate to this stage of the development process in this way: when the ESL students and I are using the new educational technique that I created, I can see if it is effective and efficient, whether it helps me reach our short-term and long-term goals, and what can be done to make it better (to shorten the text, add a visual, change the mode of the activity or order of exercises etc.). I also keep in mind that with other students this same set of exercises might have a different outcome, so numerous trials will bring more trustworthy results. The second citation is about earlier stages of development, its planning and pre-production. As Issa and Isaias (2015) put it, a designer should consider “future users’ needs, values, and supportable tasks” (p. 21), so it centres less on a product and more on its target audience. In the educational context, it is also applicable to the content of an academic program. Educators “arrange” both students and the program (with its methods of delivery) at the beginning of the semester, applying the diagnostic tests, discussing their results with the students and reaching a consensus with them regarding future studies. If students can be divided into groups based on their level of proficiency, it will be even better. Those Woolgar’s constraints turn into an educational range then – who will study what and how. In a way, I configure students every day, for example, when I forbid them using non-action verbs in Progressive or their smartphones during a test. Outside the classroom, students can do whatever they want with their English and gadgets, but during the lessons we follow the rules. 

 References

Cantwell, Ch., & Rogers, Ch. (Producers). (2014-2017). Halt and Catch Fire [Television series]. AMC. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543312/

Issa, T. & Isaias, P. (2015). Sustainable design: Hci, usability and environmental concerns. Springer. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4471-6753-2.pdf

Learn English with Rebecca – engVid. (2014, Feb. 3). Speaking English – 8 ways to be positive & encourage others. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xz7C7TRRbo&t=76s

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