Zoe Armstrong – MET

IP 2 – Artificial Intelligence

The work for my IP 2 Assignment can be found here.

IP 1 – Users, Uses and Usability

Usability

Usability is a two-way street between user and system. It encompasses the inherent competencies of each individual user as well as the capacities of the system to “show” the user how to navigate its parts to in turn find success. What is success in usability? According to Dix et al. (1998, p. 162) and Nielson (2003) as cited in Issa & Isaias (2015), success has to do with the “learnability, flexibility, robustness, efficiency, memorability, errors and satisfaction” a system provides its user (p. 33). For a system to have high usability means to support human beings of all backgrounds (race, socio-economic level, age, previous experience with technology, physical ability, etc.) in accomplishing the task they initially set out to use the system for, bringing the user a sense of success without having had too much of a sense of frustration or irritation. A highly usable system provides a clear and guided path for its user to follow, teaching them how to achieve the most favorable outcome for their desired task.

Educational Usability

The biggest difference between usability and educational usability is that ultimately, the goal with the latter is to learn. So though general usability is concerned with learnability, the ways in which human beings acquire information needs to be stressed even further. Learning theories and learner theories should be prioritized upon initial designs of machines and systems. An even clearer understanding that learners are extremely diverse as human beings should be maintained knowing that users will come from all walks of life. For educational usability, there must be an acknowledgement that attempting to define a target audience will be difficult. For a machine or system to be educationally useable and useful, it needs to be able to meet diverse user learning needs.

Usability Gone Wrong

Woolgar (1990) identified many examples of a usability study gone wrong. One of the largest indications of the study or system configuring its users is through the heavy reliance on manuals and technical support.  The study is attempting to test the usability of the machine, not the usability of the manuals and support hotline. “In the event of uncertainty, users are redirected back to sources – either user documentation or the the company technical support hotline – which can re-establish the correct pattern of user action,” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 80). A study determining a level of usability should not already have a “correct pattern of user action,” (Woolgar, 1990, p. 80).

The second indication from Woolgar’s 1990 study of user configuration instead of machine configuration, is the “recurrent commentary on the subjects’ performances,” (p. 85). To collect unbiased and reliable data, study participants need to be placed in an environment that would most closely mimic a typical users environment. A typical user would not have a company employee on their shoulder guiding their next move. In this sense, the observer is configuring the user in what to do next instead of exposing the errors in usability that designers and engineers need to re-configure to meet the needs of users.

Positions of Usability

Issa & Isaias (2015) view usability as a responsibility fulfilled by designers and engineers of the corresponding machine or system. Using beta from the usability evaluation stage, it is the obligation of the company to make changes that will increase the likelihood of users finding success in their desired tasks. This view of usability negates the notion that users are highly diverse human beings who will never all fall into the intended “target audience.”

Woolgar (1990) negates that same notion in stating that it is possible to define “the identity of putative users,” (p. 59). This view of usability places more of the responsibility on users. If a system is highly usable, it will be able to teach and to guide its users to the desired information. It will be able to configure these users so they understand how to find success more quickly each time they use the machine or system.

Perhaps what needs to be considered here between Woolgar and Issa & Isaias is that both their viewpoints need to be examined collectively. Usability involves that ability for the machine or system to be a flexible teacher that can guide users to find satisfaction, a perspective initiated from Issa & Isaias (2015). It also involves the users ability to learn the machine or system’s ways, while being comfortable making errors without becoming defeated, a perspective initiated from Woolgar (1990). So, though positionally these two views are quite different, together, they make a lot of sense.

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

For this assignment, I have decided to work with the Alberta Education’s Kindergarten to Grade 6 Social Studies curriculum from 1981, from 2005 and the draft  Social Studies curriculum that was released in 2021.

SS Curriculum1981

SS Curriculum2005

SS Curriculum draft

Though Indigenous knowledge and truth and reconciliation should be woven into all school subjects, it is most prominently discussed in Social Studies. The texts we read as students in school guide the way we view the world. They prompt us to think about the people, places and values around us. Often these texts are selected based on curriculum topics. The attention to Indigeneity and Indigenous peoples within these 3 curricula relates to how much our general society (or rather, those attending K-12 public schools) will know and understand about these topics. More emphasis on Indigeneity within school settings can lead to an understanding of the importance of those whose footsteps have marked the land we are on for time immemorial. Thus, I am curious to find out how this emphasis has changed over time.

These curricula are hugely influential to our educational history and to Teacher Professional Development. The focuses of curriculum often determine where teachers spend their energy in terms of professional development. They guide the leadership direction of principals, of districts and ultimately of our public school system as a whole. Because of this, my first question is: to what extent do these curriculums emphasize Indigenous knowledge? For this search I will use the following terms:

• Indigenous
• Aboriginal
• First Nation
• Inuit
• Métis
• Native
• Indian

Here are my results:

*1981 Document is not “searchable” and thus I had to find the keywords myself. Numbers may not be exact.

It is evident based on these results that over time, Alberta Education has begun to emphasize Indigenous history and knowledge as more of a priority. As mentioned on the Indigenous Foundation Terminology page, language evolves over time, as it has in these curriculum documents. I found it especially interesting that in the 2021 draft curriculum the term “Aboriginal” did not even appear once. It is not shocking that it is not found in the 1981 curriculum however, as “this term came into popular usage in Canadian contexts after 1982,” which would have been after the document was released (Indigenous Foundations, n.d.).

As I was searching for terms in the 1981 document, I noted in Grade 3 Topic B: Lifestyles of Canadians in Other Times, that there was much discussion of settlers. Instead of referring to whom the settlers were interacting with as First Nations, Native or even Indian, they chose to use the term “other” (p.35). With so little mentioned about Indigenous folks in this document it is no wonder that at a time when residential schools were still up and running there was so little value placed on understanding and empathy for Indigenous ways of knowing and culture.

The new Social Studies draft curriculum has been criticized heavily for many reasons. In the context of Indigenous peoples, the criticism comes in that “references are too vague and at other times, they are focused on factual knowledge only, not on Indigenous Knowledge systems or perspectives,” (Peck, 2021). So, though the terms are multiple within the document, it is likely missing authentic engagement with Indigeneity and Indigenous peoples. This would be the largest limitation to my search. A word such as “native” was historically used to describe anything that began life somewhere, for example a type of tree or flower. When searching for these terms I am being given quantitative data, however to really answer my question, I would need to dig deeper into the documents to find out in what contexts these terms are or were being used.

– – –

As I have been on my own journey of truth and reconciliation, I have learnt the importance of place for Indigenous people. When we discuss ways in which we can genuinely and authentically engage with Indigenous knowledge and content, we must first understand the place we are situated and its history, especially in relation to Indigenous peoples. Because of this, my second question is: to what extent do these documents emphasize locality and place in relation to Indigenous land and peoples? For this search I will use the terms in my first search as well as:

• Community
• Locality
• Treaty
• Reserve
• Reservation

Here are my results:

*1981 Document is not “searchable” and thus I had to find the keywords myself. Numbers may not be exact.

The 2021 draft curriculum compared to the current curriculum appears to favor “treaty,” “reserve,” and “reservation” more than the 2005 curriculum. On the other hand, it hugely disregards the term “community” as the number of times this term appeared dropped significantly. From this information I could draw the conclusion that in the 2021 draft document,  we are discussing more the terms that our government uses to allow for Indigenous peoples to reside on land that is theirs. I could also attempt to conclude that a focus on what community is and it’s importance is fading.

The 1981 document very clearly favors the term “community.” It very also very clearly neglects almost all mention of any term relating to Indigenous peoples. Without too much further digging, I can conclude that this curriculum advocates and focuses on community however not in relation to Indigenous peoples and knowledge. One of the limitations of my search is that I could have also searched for words like “settler,” “colony,” “European,” so to have some numbers to compare the literal zeros that appear in my results for terms (past and present) relating to Indigenous peoples.

In conclusion, based on these searches, it would appear that we are moving in the right direction, towards truth and reconciliation. In order to continue this movement, it is crucial for the critics to continue to be vocal and to advocate for more, more, more when it comes to Indigenous peoples, knowledge and culture within our public school curricula. The literal erasure of these topics in historical curricula is unmistakable and we’ve got a lot of ground to make up on.

References:

Alberta Education (1981). 1981 Alberta Social Studies Curriculum. Curriculum Branch.

Alberta Education (2005). Social Studies Kindergarten to Grade 12.

Alberta Education (2021). Draft Social Studies Kindergarten to Grade 6 Curriculum.

Indigenous Foundations (n.d.). Terminology. Indigenous Foundations. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/

Peck, C. (2021, March 29). Analysis of the Draft Alberta K-6 Social Studies Curriculum (Part 1). Carla L. Peck, PhD. https://carlapeck.wordpress.com/2021/03/29/analysis-of-the-draft-alberta-k-6-social-studies-curriculum-part-1/