Review of Munyofu et al.’s

the Effect of Different Chunking Strategies

in Complementing Animated Instruction

Wenchao He 

Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Australia

Munyofu, M, Swain, W J, Ausman, B D, Lin, H, Kidwai, K & Dwyer, F 2007, ‘The effect of different chunking strategies in complementing animated instruction’ Learning, Media and Technology, vol.32, no.4, 407-419.

Review of Norman’s “Three Challenges for Design”

Wenchao He

Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Australia

Norman, D. (2007). Three challenges for design.   Retrieved 15/08/2008, from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/three_challenges_for.html

Norman has summarised the three main challenges for design, which are (1) ever-increasing complexity of everyday things, (2) ever-increasing burden of security, authentication, and identification, and (3) ever-increasing use of automation (Norman 2007). These issues’ focuses are on the different parts of human-computer interaction (i.e., users’ contexts, interfaces between users and machines, and the operation of programs).

In terms of complexity of everyday things, Norman used the example of the danger of automobile drivers’ mobile phone usage (Strayer, Drews et al. 2006) to explain the challenges for automobile dashboard design. He calls for better design to assist relatively unskilled drivers manage two or more tasks at the same time during driving. Even though without same time stress and safety concerns, as the users’ life has become full of complex stuff (e.g., various appliances’ menus, multiple choices, and microprocessors), designers should try effort to reduce complexity so that users’ mind will not be overloaded. Cognitive load theory (Sweller 1988; Sweller 1989) can further explain Norman’s (2007) concern in terms of complexity. The theory suggests that ineffective instruction occurs if learners or users unnecessarily are required to mentally integrate disparate sources of mutually referring information such as separate text and diagrams. Such split-source information may generate a heavy cognitive load. That is to say, people’s working memory is so limited that can not store and process too much information at the same time. Norman (2007) did not explore the challenge deep from the users’ perspective. Actually, such challenge is likely to be solved if users’ cognitive load is reduced. It has been recognised that cognitive load is a central consideration in the design of multimedia instruction (Mayer and Moreno 2003). Mayer & Moreno (2003) further provided nine ways to develop multimedia so that users’ cognitive load can be reduced, which included moving some essential processing from visual channel to auditory channel so that users’ attention on the two channels can be even, allowing time between successive bite-size segments, placing printed words near corresponding parts of graphics to reduce need for visual scanning, etc.

Regarding burden of security, authentication, and identification, Norman (2007) points out that the differences between the three phrases are usually not understood very well and more thorough security demands usually lead to less secure results because of inappropriate security procedures. As a result, the burden of security has decreased the degree of ease of use. However, Norman (2007) does not think this is a typical technical problem and he encourages using psychological and social approaches to deal with the challenge, but he has not provided further support to this point of view. Actually, multimedia security design’s goals can be categorised into content copyrights and content access rights management (Yu 2002). Traditional techniques such as cryptographic tools (Schneier 1996) would result in the security paradox that Norman (2007) described (the more thorough the demands of security, the less secure the result), because after decryption operation, there is no mechanism to protect against unwanted media access and duplication. Knowing this weakness may psychologically and socially increase our concern and burden of security. Therefore, we may want to use the digital watermarking technique to embed a discreet data stream imperceptibly into a digital medium data stream using steganographic (i.e., data hiding) principles (Barni and Bartolini 2004). This technique is believed to maximise the protection of both content copyrights and content access rights without adding burden to users (Yu, 2002).

As for automation, Norman (2007) does identify it as a challenge, but has not demonstrated any convincing evidence to support the argument. Although he points out that difficulties exist in automated domains and predicts that the next domain of automation, the relationship between automation and design is still unclear in his discussion. His main point about automation and design is that over-automation would increase stress and workload and change the type of error and accident. However, if the degree of automation of either design process or final products is controllable, the potential disadvantages of over-automation are not likely to be recognised as “challenge” because the designers can make their own decision. This is different from the former two much less controllable challenges. As multimedia designers need to “have a clear picture of what goes on whenever the user interacts with the program” (Vaughan 2004), the term “automation” in multimedia design process should be more like a part of user response planning. That is to say, designers should exactly predict what users will “automatically” response when they see and/or hear something. This prediction would form the basis of subsequent development of the multimedia products. On the other hand, focusing on the design process per se, “automatic authoring” can refer to either an advanced helper for creating new multimedia presentations or a mechanism to facilitate automatic creation of more useful multimedia documents from existing sources (Li and Drew 2004). Such automation is a great advantage for designers, especially for beginners. For example, text-to-speech tools (Dutoit 1997) can help designers automatically convert text to speech, which saves them from actual voice recording. This kind of automation is highly controllable. It is the designers who decide whether adopt this approach during their work.

At the end, Norman (2007) provided us with some suggestions in response to the challenges he identified. For example, he suggests giving people more choices they want and need to deal with the complexity issue, reducing unnecessary security procedure, and avoiding over-automation. Where this paper goes beyond these suggestions is that, (1) rather than purely giving users more choices, designers can learn from the results of cognitive load experiments and adjust the way they design to ensure the users’ mind will not be overloaded; (2) rather than reducing “unnecessary” security procedures, designers can incorporate new technologies to the authoring process so that the security approach in the production can influence the users to the minimum extent; and (3) the present paper demonstrates that “automation” is not likely to be a challenge for design.

References: 

Barni, M. and F. Bartolini (2004). Watermarking systems engineering : enabling digital assets security and other applications. New York, Marcel Dekker.

Dutoit, T. (1997). "High-quality text-to-speech synthesis: an overview." Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Australia  Retrieved 18/08/2008, from http://lands.let.ru.nl/TSpublic/strik/onderwijs/fonetiek/literatuur/Dutoit.pdf.

Li, Z.-N. and M. S. Drew (2004). Fundamentals of Multimedia. Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education.

Mayer, R. E. and R. Moreno (2003). "Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning." Educational Psychologist 38(1): 43-52.

Norman, D. (2007). "Three challenges for design."   Retrieved 15/08/2008, from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/three_challenges_for.html.

Schneier, B. (1996). Applied Cryptography. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Strayer, D. L., F. A. Drews, et al. (2006). "A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48(2): 381-391.

Sweller, J. (1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning." Cognitive Science 12: 257-285.

Sweller, J. (1989). "Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science." Journal of Educational Psychology 81: 457-466.

Vaughan, T. (2004). Multimedia: Making it work. Burr Ridge, McGraw-Hill.

Yu, H. (2002). Digital multimedia at home and content rights management. IEEE 4th International Workshop on Networked Appliances, Gaithersburg. 

不要轻信各种表面信息，分析其利益驱动是关键

何文超

      这周四我在家里看了堪培拉奥运火炬传递的电视直播，当天晚上和第二天很多人跟我一起讨论这个事情，问我在澳洲的见闻。我突然发现，信息的不对称居然是如此的强烈！

      其实这次堪培拉的火炬传递的路线安排是非常巧妙的，因为在首发地点有许许多多的pro-China和pro-Tibet的人在示威，所以当局采取了“隔河” 措施分散人流。也就是说，安排第一棒火炬手跑到了湖边把火焰传给第二个火炬手，第二个火炬手坐着划艇走了，之前示威的人追着第一棒火炬跑了一段到了湖边就只好傻傻地站在那里，然后陆续散开。第二个火炬手乘着划艇到了对岸之后，试图把火炬的火焰传给岸上第三个火炬手的时候，发现火炬的火焰没有了，也许是划船的时候风太大了（毕竟划船速度是挺快的，跟慢跑不一样），于是就站在那里等待“奥运火种”（那盏油灯似的东西）过来重新点燃。至于中国派出的蓝衣护跑手，第一棒的两位护炮手护跑到湖边的时候就停下来了，另外两位护跑手在对岸接应，护跑手除了在两侧跟着一起跑以外，还帮忙用火种重新点燃火炬，护跑手全程都接近火炬手，几乎都是肩并肩了。此外，陆上传递过程全程有大量警察和警车，水上传递时有警船。澳大利亚出动的警力大大超过了美国布什总统访澳的警力。

      以上这些信息是我在电视直播里看到和主持人说的。那么这段信息到了中国，会变成是什么样子呢？有人说火炬熄灭是有人搞破坏弄熄灭的。有人说澳洲不允许中国派的蓝衣护卫贴近火炬手。有人说护跑手被减少至两人（这是外国记者第二天问外交部发言人的问题）。有人说警察没有保护好火炬，导致火炬熄灭……

      我想，这中间其实夹杂着非常复杂的利益关系。首先我需要指出，任何一个媒体的最大利益是吸引更多的观众和读者，从而吸引更多的广告业务。好，当我们明白了这个最根本的问题之后，我们再看，媒体为了实现这个利益，会做些什么？他们首先一定会考虑，用什么办法可以让更多的人关注他们的新闻信息。一个专业的记者定义什么新闻才有“新闻价值”的标准也一定是其对这条新闻对看客的吸引力度的多少。有些时候，为了“挖掘新闻”价值，可以用看客们喜欢的或者出乎其意料之外的方式来表达一件事情。有些时候，他们会遵从“我不告诉你某些事情并不等于我骗了你”的原则。因此，有些新闻的内容只反映了部分更具吸引力的信息，而其余信息则需要看客们的想象力。当这些想象力转化为看客们之间的讨论的时候，原本的信息也就随之改变。

      例如把火炬熄灭了两次报道出来但并不说清原因，同时放在一个许多藏独人士示威的上下文里，那么就容易使人觉得是不是有人把火炬弄熄灭了？把护跑手分成两批分别在湖的两边接应的事实说成被减少到两人，容易给人一种感觉是不是只有两人？把火炬熄灭放在警方保证加强警力保证圣火安全的背景来报道，是否让人觉得警方保护不力呢？

      我们其实可以观察到我们的新闻媒体的发展是日新月异的，以往的“开会新闻”模式已经转变到深切关心观众的品味。但是，请不要忘记，任何一个商业媒体发布的信息，其本质都是一件“商品”。你享用了这件“商品”的同时，你付出了看广告的可能性，媒体凭着这种可能性换取广告收入。一旦你认清了其“商品”的本质之后，你一定想到，任何一件商品都需要包装，以便增强其吸引力度。正如你每次去肯定基吃炸鸡的时候，你看到的那张托盘彩纸都会宣传他们的鸡的营养有多丰富，但并不把油炸食品的其他信息告诉你。你也不用生气，因为没有告诉你不等于骗你，至于你的想象力有多丰富，这是你的事情了。

      CNN也好，BBC也好，他们之所以敢做某些东西，是因为他们权衡了利弊之后作出的决定。他们作出了某些报道和评论，换来的是西方当地许多人的满意，同时换来中国的很多人的不满意，哪怕他们最终要作出道歉，最终的赢家还是他们，因为他们获得了巨大的广告收入，要是他们错过了这个这么具有“新闻价值”的东西，把一件事情报道得平平无奇，其利益又如何实现呢？记者的“专业水准”又体现在哪里呢？

      所以，我们都理性一点吧，理性一点地享用各种“信息”。任何表面信息都有其内部的利益驱动。甚至大家还可以分析一下我写这篇东西的利益驱动是什么。呵呵，其实很大程度是想找个地方抒发某些体会，与各位好友分享，同时宣传我的想法。大家也不一定完全相信我说的东西，因为为了吸引大家来看这篇东西，并且把它看完，我可能已经用了某些更有吸引力的表达方法来传达一些平平无奇的信息。

Summary and Analysis of

User-design Research by Carr-Chellman & Savoy (2004)

He, Wenchao

CoCo Research Centre

Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia

23 April 2008

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to examine a research stream of user-design by summarizing the main points in Carr-Chellman and Savoy’s (2004) arguments on user-design research, and comparing the main methods and methodologies that the authors identify to do user-oriented design.

Definition

Traditionally, end users of a instructional system is consulted through needs assessment conducted in which the instructional designers find the problem and begins to create a solution to it. Seemingly, the end users play an important role in instructional design circle. However, Carr-Chellman and Savoy (2004) point out that while traditional instructional designers analyzes, creates, and negotiates, and the leaders initiate, approve and decide, users are left to accept or reject the innovation.

User design, in contrast, empowers the users to engage authentically in the decision-making process that is design. It is an approach to design that attempts to actively involve the end users in the design process to help ensure that the product designed meets their needs and is usable. This means releasing power from the administrators to the end users. In this case, on the other hand, rather than only being outside researchers ,consultants, or even facilitators, instructional designers must be users as well, which increase their stake in the effectiveness of the design process and final product.

Problems

Though user design has empowering potential, many users still need convincing. This is because users may not desire to be involved in the design process where their responsibility and pressure may be increased. So user-design researchers should try their best to make the users aware that their participation will make a difference, the result will be implemented, and the process of design will be an enjoyable experience (Ehn, 1993).

In terms of objective obstacles, a lack of common standardized language of user-design concepts has been hindering research. Also, the varying knowledge levels the end users possess, and the difficulties in generalizing user groups, impose a dilemma for effective user-design.

Currently in literature, user-design empirical research on instructional systems is almost nonexistent. There are fields that are similar to user-design, and research conducted in those particular fields may offer some hindsight regarding the efficiency and applicability of user-design. One of the authors of “User-design Research”, Carr-Chellman, with Cuya & Breman, used the new approach to conduct a pioneer study of home nursing agents (1998), in which they found that user design was very time-consuming and resource hungry. However, Carr-Chellman and Savoy (2004) later acknowledged that the study was both naïve in its attempt to apply user-design principles to an organizational setting and unskilled at the actualizing of appropriate research methods.

Based on these problems identified, Carr-Chellman and Savoy (2004) express the demand for extensive empirical research conducted in user-design and emphasize the importance of selecting the appropriate research methods.

Models

The discipline of user-design originates from two models, the Scandinavian user design and the stakeholder participation model.

Scandinavian researchers have a long history of user-centered, user-design, and emancipatory design literatures. This empowerment is possible due to the strong position labour unions hold in Scandinavian countries. However, the relationship between Scandinavian user-design research and the application of user design to instructional design is still quite limited. Although Scandinavian user designs’ primary emphasis is on human-computer interface, many of the ideas are useful for instructional design.

Stakeholder participation has been widely researched. Most studies agree that including stakeholders in the decision making process is beneficial to the end result as long as the administrators actually take the stakeholders input into consideration. Understanding the ways in which leaders can enable stakeholders to take a decision-making role in the design of their own systems of human learning is the next step toward effective implementation of technology and educational practices. However, most of the studies about stakeholder participation lack significant methodological attention and rigor, because they use strategies and techniques that mix and match in somewhat less intentional ways and rarely display the rigor associated with excellent qualitative or quantitative inquiry.

One method suitable in user-design research is the PAR model (Participatory Action Research) that focuses on involving the test subject in the research by providing them with all accessible information. It is collaborative research where the “community” is in control (Stoecker, 1999). Participatory action researchers do not define problems ahead of time but determine, in collaboration with the participants, the problems throughout the research process.

User-oriented Design Research

Though PAR is expected to suit user-design research, it still has little specific research conducted on either process or product (Carr-Chellman, Cuya, & Breman, 1998). So basing future user-design research on similar user-oriented design research will be beneficial. Even though research in user-design is rare, there is a relatively large amount of research conducted in user-oriented design fields. According to Carr-Chellman and Savoy (2004), there are three distinguished methods for user-oriented design: learner-centered design, user-centered design and emancipatory design. Learner-centered design aims at improving the control an individual learner has on their learning experience and its focus is mainly on providing the designer better understanding of the different learners’ needs. User-centered design aims at manipulating users’ adoption rates of tools such as human-computer interface and library media by considering and understanding their context in which the user works. Emancipatory design’s main goal is user empowerment and it aims at instigating change in organisations.

These three designs are evaluated focusing on users’ true partnership in the design process. Empirical research in the three areas for the most part showed positive findings for involvement of users in the creation of their own systems part. However, these studies were overly reliant on certain forms of research methods, such as case studies and surveys, and were not holistic in terms of understanding complete disciplines.

For research method, learner-centered design usually uses multiple research methods to process the research, while user-centered design is criticized for being superficial and merely using case studies and surveys as research methods, but most of emancipatory design researches are case based.

As for research emphasis, learner-centered design focuses on learning outcome; user-centered design focuses on appropriate tools to be produced; emancipatory design focuses on the benefit of management for organisations. So the levels of their research subjects are therefore different: individuals, tools or organisations.

As for research hypothesis, although the three designs acknowledge the importance of users’ contribution for developing and improving education, products and management, their internal structures differ. Learner-centered design hypothesizes that the more the learning needs are clear to instructional designers, the better the learning out will be. User-centered design researchers consider that the more the users’ contexts are clear to product designers, the better the product using experience will be. Emancipatory design researchers hypothesize that the change of individuals will lead to the change of organization that they belong to.

As for users’ powers and role, both leaner-centered and user-centered designs treat users as those who may adopt the results and will not really empower users. Although users are interviewed, observed, surveyed and consulted, the final decisions are still made by designers and administrators. Emancipatory design, however, asks users to find ways to create systems for themselves that serve themselves primarily, which leads to users’ power and indigenous knowledge become more powerful and respected than those of the expert designer.

As for the scopes of involvement, learner-centered and user-centered designs limit users’ experience within a specific area such as a classroom or a specific behaviour such as using software. At the same time, the researchers also try to avoid other factors that may influence the experiment in the scopes. However, emancipatory design researchers consider individual users’ immediate daily life as part of the objects to be empowered. This means emancipatory design is to change entire structures that dominate and oppress.

As for data collection and analysis, learner-centered design mainly collects and analyzes information about learners’ needs, learning outcomes from different approaches, etc. User-centered design needs users’ report of experience of using a specific tools and suggestions for improvement. However, emancipatory design seldom collects data for research as most of them are case based, where analysis is processed qualitatively.

As for difficulty to success, learner-centered design researchers always report increased student motivation, fewer disciplinary problems in classrooms, higher student performance and improved student-teacher relations, which seems that the successful rates are very high, though there are factors that could have distorted these results out of the research context. In contrast, the results of user-centered and emancipatory design research are not so promising because they rely on either designers’ skills and experience or individuals’ success.

Conclusion

This paper has summarized the basic definition of user design, the problems existed, the three models for user design, and three similar user-oriented design models. The three user-oriented design models are elaborated by comparing their methodologies from different aspects, such as evaluation focus, research method, research emphasis, research hypothesis, users’ power and role, scopes of involvement, data collection and analysis, and difficulty to success.

References

Carr-Chellman, A., Cuya, C., & Breman, J. (1998). User-design: A case application in the health care training. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 97-114.

Carr-Chellman, A. & Savoy, M. (2004). User-design research. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Rsearch on Educational Communication and Technology (2ed., pp. 701-716). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stoecker, R. (1999). Are academics irrelevant? Roles for scholars in participatory research. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(5) 840-854.