Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘bad

 
Earlier this month, @tucksoon tweeted this CNA article about fake news.

I turn the question on teachers and rephrase it slightly. Do teachers know how to spot bad theory and practice?

Do they know why they should question:

  • Learning styles?
  • Homework?
  • Assessment practices?
  • Digital distinctions?

If not, I share what I have written and curated on:

Is there anything worse than Prensky’s false digital natives/immigrants dichotomy? (It is terrible and here is one good critique out of many.)

For over a decade, my answer was no. This year, someone decided to create a “trichotomy” of digital orphans, exiles, and heirs.

The newer distinctions suffer from the same core problem as the previous one: That you are born into the circumstances, and once there, you do not and cannot change.

The trichotomy is even worse in that while Prensky tried to cite a bit of research, the newer scheme is an opinion piece fuelled solely by anecdotal rhetoric.

The best theoretical model with practical realities is probably David White’s visitors and residents. This model is contextual and personal. Each person can be one or both depending on the circumstance.

For example, you can be a Facebook resident and a Snapchat visitor. Both involve forms of social media, but the labels of visitor or resident are not all-or-none. If you abandon Facebook and embrace Snapchat for personal or professional reasons, you might then become a Facebook visitor and a Snapchat resident. Who you are and what you do are not fixed.

So what if there are harmful or helpful models? Are these not just theoretical?

It is important to think critically about these models because they attempt to summarise and describe reality. If we do not point out falsehoods or chip away at inaccuracies, we misrepresent ourselves.

Words become actions. The Prensky dichotomy and the newer trichotomy can be used to craft speeches, shape policies, and dictate budgets. 

These weaker models are easy to digest because they might seem anecdotally close to experience. But anecdotes are not necessarily data and they certainly are not evidence until there are systematic and rigorous ways to collect and analyse them.

When most people speak of “blended learning”, they might actually be thinking about blended instruction. (Here are some considerations of blending that focuses on learning.)

There are many ways to blend instruction. Some might involve the modes (off and online), the content (seamless multidisciplinary content), and the pedagogy (direct instruction with x-based learning).
 

 
Most would justify blending based on the best possible outcomes. For example, in the case of blended modes, being face-to-face affords immediacy in social learning while still being able to leverage on timely resources online.

Not many might point out the worst of blending, particularly blended instruction. For example, someone might blend boring didactic teaching with YouTube recordings of irrelevant content.

Blending the teaching or learning processes does not necessarily lead to better outcomes. The contextual design of blending is critical. Online strategies and tools might not work as well in a low bandwidth environment, language might be a barrier in one context, and pedagogical expectations might be different in another. Here are examples of each.

When I lead talks, I find out how comfortable my participants are with going online with their phones. Depending on the country, venue, and people, I might resort to low bandwidth texting-like activities and think-pair-share instead of challenging them to watch and recommend YouTube videos.

I have conducted a variety of workshops for equally varied groups. When English is not the common language, I rely on activities and succinct pitstops to get the messages through. When I am with a group more familiar with training instead of teaching, I need not worry about much pedagogical baggage from my learners.

Bloggers, Pinterest boards, and tweets might declare blended learning to be engaging. They might be referring to blended teaching instead. Such an experience is not automatically engaging, and if blending is left only with the one who is teaching, is certainly not empowering.

Last year I outlined how the poorly designed McCafe app could be used to learn design principles. Missteps and mistakes are often the best sources of learning.

My StarHub is an app that I use to check my data consumption and it is a wellspring of lessons on how NOT to design a mobile app.

The app claims to let users customise what they see. Currently, there are four fixed cards and six selectable ones. The latter are selected by default.

One cannot actually customise as 1) there are fixed selections (including ads), and 2) if deselected, the optional cards return after restarting the app.

The people behind the StarHub app might have forgotten (or do not care) that the customer likes to customise. Perhaps they need to adopt a new custom and repeat it as a mantra.

The app also breaks the old web page three-click rule. This is the rule that states that a user should be able to find what they need within three mouse clicks. In the mobile app universe, this should be a one or two tap rule given the nature of the platform.

Once I open the app, I need to make six taps to know how much data I have consumed in detail. I need to tap on:

  1. My Account.
  2. Mobile usage.
  3. The filter option (I manage and pay for my family’s numbers and mine does not appear by default and I have no option to choose my mobile number as default.)
  4. My number in the filter.
  5. The done button.
  6. Data usage to view current usage.

The app offers a minimalist graphic on main page that looks nice, but 1) it does not always appear, 2) when it does, it sometimes happens after a delay, 3) it is not detailed enough for my needs.

All this puts form over function and the needs of the designers over that of the user. This makes for a terrible app experience and I am reminded of it every time I use it.

Designers of user interfaces should be familiar with the concept of user-centric design. I wish more were passionate about the practice of the same. This is particularly important for designers of educational apps, especially those that provide access to content and learning management systems. No one wants angry, frustrated, or anxious users even before the learning begins.

Patience might be a virtue, but frustration might be your reward.

I am nothing if not patient. When I read the news in November 2015 that my telco provider (StarHub) would lower its fees, I almost did a joyful jig.

As I was still tied to an existing two-year subscription plan, I had to wait to take advantage of this change. In January this year, I visited a StarHub store to find out exactly when and how to make the switch.

I found out that I could do this in late June 2016 for my mobile line and last week for my wife’s line. While the when was easy, the how was less so.

The process seemed to be designed to dissuade those that dislike jumping through hoops. According to a customer service representative (CSR), I had to call 1633, inform them of my wish to change, and then make the change myself online.

I did that, but I wondered: Why call when the process is do-it-yourself? Do some people need help figuring out when they can do this and which web page to visit? Automate the process and put it online!

I already had the URL by trawling the telco’s site, but the CSR on the phone read it out to me one letter at a time anyway.

I managed to make the switch online. The process involved verifying my credentials (logging in), checking my eligibility (a button on screen), and making the switch (clicking on that button). The initial phone call was not necessary.

I thought all was well and merely had to wait two more weeks to repeat the process for my wife’s line. However, hope springs eternal, patience is a virtue, and shit hit the fan.

StarHub messes up.

When I logged in to check my account, the telco had my mobile line under the wrong scheme. As a Hub Club member, I qualified for the SIM-only 4G 3 plan at $21.45 instead of $42.90 per month. My online account information indicated that I was on the more expensive plan, but an email stated that I was on the cheaper plan.

Which piece of information was I supposed to believe?

I emailed and called the helpline again and received email and verbal confirmation that I was on the cheaper plan. But the information online still indicted that I was on the more expensive plan. Which information will the billing department use?

Last week I tried switching my wife’s mobile line to the SIM-only plan. However, the process had changed. The verification process was no longer available online and there was no option to make the switch.

I called and emailed again. I was told to wait because they had to check their backend. If I was not already bummed out by that point, I might have made a cheeky response about them caring only about the bottom line or their service being the butt of jokes.

Instead I tweeted this:

I received a reply to DM my number phone and account number. I did so and also provided the annotated screenshot I shared above. Now I screenshot their DM reply.

StarHubCares?

Apparently when they “escalate” something, it takes three working days. As it was a Friday night by the time they replied, I presume they mean an optimistic Wednesday.

This sounds reasonable since I am not a Member of Parliament or mrbrown. I am just a little person who subscribed to StarHub services since its inception.

Three working days is definitely reasonable when there are still “contact us” pages elsewhere that claim a 14-day wait for a reply.

I can wait. The telco can take its time. During that time the billing cycle will kick in like clockwork to charge me more than it should. To address this, I will have to call, email, or tweet. Again.

Patience is a virtue, but frustration is my reward.

I have had the privilege of meeting lots of interesting people while I travel the world. I hear wondrous stories and am constantly reminded how more alike we are than different.

I have also discovered how bad apples worm their way everywhere, even in the education teams of highly selective mega corporations.
 

Bad Apple by i.hoffman, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic License   by  i.hoffman 

 
Actual bad apples are salvageable in that you might make cider out of them. Human bad apples are just a rotten bunch that pretend to do good, but are harmful in the short and long term.

Thankfully I have not met many of these bad apples. Sadly it does not take many to tarnish the barrel they are associated with.

Note: While I used someone’s creative manipulation of Apple’s logo, this is not a statement specifically about the people at Apple I know. It is about educational technology vendors as a whole and Apple is not immune from worms.

Tags: ,

Yesterday I rambled on why too much of a good thing is bad. Today I reflect on why too little of a good thing is also bad.
 

42/365 - feeling low by jypsygen, on Flickr
Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic License   by  jypsygen 

 
Unlike mine, Steve Wheeler’s blog is always a quality read. That is why it is one of my must-have RSS feeds.

Using RSS is a bit old school. So is taking the trouble to comment on a blog entry.

Wheeler recently shared the number of views and comments his top five blog entries of 2014 generated.

I calculated the percentage of commenters over viewers to illustrate how rarely people bother to comment or reply.

  • No. 1: Learning first, technology second, 22 comments, 8602 views (0.26% comments)
  • No. 2: Flipping the teacher, 16 comments, 6082 views (0.26% comments)
  • No. 3: Education, schooling and the digital age, 07 comments, 5872 views (0.12% comments)
  • No. 4: Watch and learn, 00 comments, 5688 views (0% comments)
  • No. 5: Vygotsky, Piaget and YouTube, 20 comments, 5586 views (0.36% comments)

Perhaps a decade ago, an edublogger might be fortunate to get one out of a hundred readers to say something. Now an edublogger with a large following might settle for one in a thousand.

A few caveats to the numbers.

  • The number of comments might include Wheeler’s own replies, so the number of commenters might actually be lower.
  • The low percentages are also exacerbated by the high number of views. If the top post garnered 860 views (one-tenth of the actual readership), the percentage would shoot up to 2.6%.
  • Comments and conversations on the blog entries on other channels (Twitter, Facebook, email, etc.) might not have been included.

This illustration is with just one anecdotal case. But I think I have selected a good example of the phenomenon I am highlighting.

This is not a slight on Wheeler not drawing comments because most edubloggers do not write specifically for views or comments. They share because they care.

This is about readers and lurkers who do not give back by critiquing ideas. This is about taking ideas and running away with them without saying thank you. This is about a culture of mute consumerism.

Too little of good things like online civility, connections, and content co-creation are bad. So here is another thought: How well do cyber “wellness” programmes address that?


http://edublogawards.com/files/2012/11/finalistlifetime-1lds82x.png
http://edublogawards.com/2010awards/best-elearning-corporate-education-edublog-2010/

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code


Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

My tweets

Archives

Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: