Precedent Study

During this stage we need to identify the instructional value of the proposed project, justify why it constitutes a good candidate for multimedia, and include everything in a precedent study document. The way I chose to do this is by using the NABC framework. NABC stands for Needs, Approach, Benefits, and Competition which are four fundamental elements to consider when assessing the value for a proposed project. This document provides the NABC assessment for Nature Explorer, the system's tentative name. It also contains a complete description of the proposed project, some preliminary sketches, some design principles to be followed, as well as future steps.

Nature Explorer (NE) introduces a novel way of exploring the exhibits of a small community museum, through a game of guided discovery. The game will be installed and tested in Blacksburg’s Price House Nature Center, a local volunteer-based museum run by the organization called SEEDS (Seek Education, Explore, DiScover). The nature of the proposed learning experience aligns well with the SEEDS’ mission which is “to inspire kids’ love for learning through outdoor nature education, discovery learning, and civic awareness.” 

Instructional Design

NE is an open-ended environment of guide discovery, employing many gaming elements to engage the young museum visitors. As such it does not comply strictly with the four phases of instruction, although I think it can adequately satisfy them, considering the informal setting for learning of the space. More specifically, NE accommodates the phases as follows:

•   Present information: information is presented in three modalities (i.e., as images, text and audio) to accommodate for the diverse needs of the audience (children between 4 to 10 years old), either through hints or extra info (trivia) about the item/critter being requested by the system
• Guide the learner: different levels of hints are provided to guide the visitor/player as of which artifact in the museum the assignment refers to
• Practice: speed will be encouraged by using extra points for fast item identification; two different levels (intentionally not connected with age) and ability to play again with a random set of items might elicit retention and fluency
• Assessment: although assessment can not be ensured in such an informal environment, NE will provide a printout after the quest prompting visitors to fill in the missing information related to their accomplishments (things they have already learned)

Finally, NE is designed to be very engaging by demanding that kids move around the space, and interact with the items and the system using most of their senses. They can touch most of the exhibits, they see pictures and hear sounds of animals, and are also physically involved with the discovery experience. One of NE's strong points is its potential to involve kids physically and emotionally in the learning process, which is believed to have a positive impact to their risk tolerance[1], and, consequently, their ability to try new things (i.e., experiment with different animals without the fear of making mistakes).
 

Layout

As far as the layout of the system is concerned I feel that designing a computer game-style environment for kids does not lend itself well as an application for the guidelines suggested in the textbook. The textbook is addressed clearly to graphic designers working for print and web design where there is an obvious need for clean visual communication, since the images and the copy are the main means for capturing attention. In a game, and especially for kids, things are much more open-ended and you need to be creative in other way (part of which is visual communication) in order to grab the user's attention.

As an example, you can hardly follow the golden proportion rule or the rule of thirds, which are great for static layouts and even photography, but not for dynamic environments such as games. In a game you usually have many more elements you need to use to convey information (e.g., score, time, inventory indicators etc.) but also to serve utilitarian needs (e.g., change level, interact with game elements, pause game, etc.). Additionally, you have other tools to draw the user's attention and guide them through the game (helping construct a mental model of how actions should performed), like sounds, animations, virtual helpers/agents, etc. Applying set standards and guidelines from the typing or web design industry simply won't work.

---

[1] Isbister, K. (2011). Emotion and motion: games as inspiration for shaping the future of interface. interactions, 18(5), 24-27.

Problem identification

Within the next steps for this project is the identification of a problem that might be effectively assisted using computer-mediated instruction. According to class discussions we should consider this process under the prism of visual communication and design, principles of multimedia design, phases of instruction, and the malleability of media.

Visual communication and design

Having worked for quite a few years on multimedia production I have come to appreciate the power of sketching and visually representing design ideas. Although I have been mainly assigned to work on the interaction development side of computer systems, the necessity to work and collaborate fluently with other professionals (i.e., graphic designers, architects, historians, 3D modelers, museum educators, etc.) demanded that the design process is communicated unproblematically between the involved parties. This was mainly done through sketches, mockups, and (interactive or  not) prototypes.

Additionally, during my graduate studies I have learned the importance of keeping a design journal by practically using one during two of my class projects. Their purpose was twofold: to document the design process as a means of communication (and assessment) with the "clients" (by the professors), but also to be able to look back and reflect on the design decisions that (in)formed the design of the system based on the stage of my understanding about the given topic/problem at the time. Overall, my professional and academic experiences have greatly helped me to appreciate the value of such skills (good visual communication) and tools (sketching ideas, process book/design journal).

However, the principles of visual communication for conventional multimedia are totally different, and in some cases obsolete, when designing for some more advanced types of media. For instance, in most virtual environments (VEs) used for learning (or training) there is no interface, which means that most of the guidelines proposed in the textbook are not applicable. Furthermore, novel types of interaction, like speech and gestural interfaces impose a totally different set of design guidelines than the ones demanded for web-based application development. Still, the design process is largely the same and when talking about visual communication between the project's stakeholders then sketching and prototyping are the prevalent means for conveying ideas and the development progress.

Principles of multimedia learning and phases of instruction

The general principles of using multimedia for learning were quite helpful in having some general instances where multimedia might be beneficial to learners. Also, emphasizing on the strengths of the human and the machine in this equation provided a framework for thinking about what might constitute a good technology-enhanced solution to a given problem. Nonetheless, it is far from easy to discriminate when the use of technology might have a clear advantage over traditional methods of instructions. It has become a common belief nowadays that technology is a panacea for teaching difficult subjects, due to so many affordances for learning that it offers. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) comes in so many flavors that has become pretty difficult to discriminate when it is appropriately applied or overused/abused. Edutainment, interactive virtual learning environments (IVLEs), serious games, team-based learning, on-line education, are just but a few of the uses of technology for facilitating learning. Yet not enough evidence exists to support their extensive use.

Maybe the most prominent and unquestionable use of technology in teaching is its motivational power. Learners from the new generation have been overly exposed to technology (laptops, smart phones, internet, games consoles) that it seems absolutely natural to exploit such means for teaching purposes as well. However, building a game-based learning experience for solely motivation's shake constitutes a lurking danger of developing a poor educational experience which could have been more aptly served by traditional means of instruction. That is why the target audience plays once more a pivotal role in the choice of instruction strategy (methodology). Consequently, problem identification becomes a major first component in the development of effective interactive learning media applications, as a major determinant of who the intended users are and which are their needs.

However, narrowing down to a specific problem is a whole different matter! That is because through this process I came to realize that as a technologically-driven individual I was thinking more of how "hot" technologies can be leveraged for instructional purposes, than how to use technology to teach difficult concepts/material. It is obvious now that a totally different perspective is needed if you are looking the same challenge from the instruction's point of view; the goal becomes identifying the problem first, examining its appropriateness for using a technology-mediated solution (deriving from the principles of multimedia learning), and then looking for the best technology to assist in tackling this problem (deriving from the phases and methodologies for instruction).

Although I largely agree with the proposed four phases of instruction (i.e., information presentation, guidance, practice, and assessment), I believe that there exist learning opportunities using technology where not all of them can/need to be satisfied. For instance, explaining difficult to grasp concepts do not demand retention and fluency, primary constituents of the practice phase. Instead, they demand appropriately structured instruction that guides the learner to comprehend the difficult concept (e.g., "The Round Earth project" using a collaborative VE for teaching children that the earth is round). Instances like this present a totally different challenge for the instruction designer than the ones, for instance, in constructing regular online classes were fluency, speed, and assessment are of primary concern.

Malleability of media

This is indeed a powerful distinguisher of interactive, digital media compared to their traditional counterparts -like textbooks, notes, etc.- which needs to be harnessed, if we want to maximize the benefits of technology for learning. Even when teaching with a traditional lecture the instructor can adapt the information presented dynamically according to the audience. However, different learners have different learning capacity and absorb information in a different way (using different channels: aural, visual, kinesthetic) and/or in a different pace. Technology can alleviate some of these idiosyncrasies; depending on the application and the platform we are building for, it might be easier or more difficult to accommodate these personalized needs (e.g. online content can be maintained and updated easier than offline one). Thus, customization is one of the ways to ensure -in some degree- that an educational system will be useful.

Another, even more important in my opinion, way to develop a useful product that will be widely accepted is innovation. Innovation is tightly related to the "coolness factor" which, according to Holtzblatt [1] is a key factor for the acceptance of any type of product. By emphasizing some aspects of life and experience that make us perceive things as "cool" designers might effectively create popular products that bring joy to users' lives. I think this is equally the case in designing and building educational software as well. Such elements revealed through the product's design and its significance for instruction are:

• accomplishment: learners should have a clear feeling that the system allows them to accomplish things (learn) which would otherwise be too difficult or impossible to do (e.g., "travel" inside the human body with VR technology)
• connection: this is an innate vital human need (also revealed by the popularity of Facebook), thus collaborative learning activities provide a joyful experience to everyone
• identity: this has to do with finding our role in life, but also manifests itself through everyday activities and behaviors (e.g., being an owner of a BMW or an iPhone) and can be satisfied e.g., by impersonating a unique character in a learning game
• sensation: experiences that take us away from everyday life offer sensational pleasure (e.g., being immersed in the fantastic world of Atlantis), but also "elements of sensual delight", expressed through effective visual or aural communication (e.g., the colorful Candy factory), can offer an equally strong joyful experience

Holtzblatt goes on to define three elements that cause joy in product use and need to be taken into account during the design phase. These are: 

• direct into action: no need to explain the significance of learning from a product without a demand to spend time and energy to learn (how to use) the medium itself
• the hassle factor: refers to the exact opposite and designers need to minimize it in order to increase the joy of using the product, and eventually its effectiveness
• the delta: this is a factor heavily dependent on the target audience and defines how effective is the product in exploiting their existing knowledge and capacities (learning or other), in order to make its use easier to understand and master.

Of course innovation stems from creativity, which should be an indispensable part for every design process, not excluding instructional design [2]. I believe that all these boil down once more to the significance of identifying your intended audience, studying their habits, existing learning tools, technology competency, etc. in order to provide a "cool" learning experience. Contextual inquiry is one of the methods to accomplish such a goal (advocated by Holzblatt herself), gathering user data that will help the designer identify the requirements that will largely define the appropriate technology, instruction methodology, and the specifics of the learning product/system. Hence, the analysis phase of software development is the one that greatly defines the success of correctly identifying a problem and strategies of how to tackle it.

[1] Holtzblatt, K. (2011). What makes things cool?: intentional design for innovation. interactions 18, 6 (November 2011), 40-47.
[2] Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: the Design/Creativity Loops model. Educational Technology and Research Development, 60(1), 111-130.

ILMD Definitions

The discussion during the first class was a great opportunity to communicate our ideas and assumptions about the different terms comprising "Interactive Learning Media Development". Besides the definitions given by my class mates about those four terms, what was more important for me is to realize that everyone understands and interprets the integration of these words in a sentence it their own way. Someone thought that media is the significant term in the equation, while someone else claimed that it's all about development; this fact formed everyone's priorities, assumptions, and consequently definitions, to some extent.

Similarly, my own focus was on the word learning which I consider pivotal in the context of the course's title, and largely dictates the definition of the other words. More specifically, ILMD is about disseminating knowledge (by inducing learning) using a collection of resources (media), which react to the learner's input (interaction), and are accessible through a planned, predefined, and well-designed system (as an outcome of the development process). In my perspective, learning is the epicenter of ILMD and interactivity-media are used as a vehicle to achieve learning, while development is the necessary process to produce the learning system.

A schematic way to represent how this idea works is presented in the diagram below. The system is inclusive of the knowledge being taught, which is communicated to the user with the use of various media (i.e., text, images, audio, video, etc.) The user/learner has to perceive the information, interpret it, and make sense of the knowledge that is transmitted. Then she forms a goal in her mind, plans a sequence of actions, and executes them by interacting with the system. These two discreet parts are known as the "Stages of Action" in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), as defined by Donald Norman. I think they aptly apply to learning settings where users are not only called to make sense of the information as a means for interacting with the system, but also participate in this cycle of actions as active learners.

With such an interpretation of ILMD in mind, it becomes obvious that there are a few assumptions that are being made. These are:

• the system contains all the necessary knowledge that needs to be imparted (it may or may not be dynamically updated after distribution)
• it uses a combination of media (multimedia) to communication the knowledge, presented either synchronously (all the the same time) or asynchronously (at different points in the learning process)
• the system allows some form of input, enabling the user/learner to define the sequence of actions and the presentation of information at the desired pace (to some extent)
• the system is programmed to anticipate specific input from the user and respond in an appropriate way, providing meaningful feedback (it might offer some form of artificial intelligence properties, but not within the scope of this class)
• the interaction can be facilitated by a tutor or other users (collaborative), and may include a combination of media, either digital or physical

I believe that these assumptions are not very restrictive and offer plenty of room for different types of systems to be developed for a diverse range of audiences. In every case, I believe design should follow a user-centric approach, since the intention of the system is to be effectively used and achieve its purpose as effortlessly as possible. In the case of ILMD specifically, the scope is to achieve learning and the system is the medium, so it should not impose a larger cognitive load for the user in order to learn how to use it. Thus, user studies are of vital importance in order to understand the needs of the prospective users, the ways they have been using to achieve the same task until now (how they learn that knowledge?), in order to identify effective ways to improve their intended goals.

 

Form and function in ILMD

The doctrine about form and function is that "form follows function." This is largely the case for most designs with just a few exceptions where aesthetics is more important (e.g. works of art with minimal utility). A typical example of a really bad application of this doctrine comes from one of the pioneer companies in user interface design, Microsoft, and their elegant but totally ineffective design of the Windows Vista DVD case. Hence, going back to the previous point, having the user in the center of the design process and in some cases involving him in an iterative process, will ensure that such usability problems are avoided.

As far as designing a learning system, it is even more imperative to clearly identify the audience and design for their preferences. A user interface for K12 education will have a totally different functionality but also "look and feel" than a platform for teaching business people a new marketing plan. This puts the emphasis again on the significance of user studies and how the gathered data can be interpreted in requirements and applied during the design phase. Traditional usability engineering methods of interactive systems are using a three stage process exactly for ensuring that equal emphasis is given both to function and form:

• activity design is used to translate user needs/requirements in the types of activities the system should support (how it should function)
• information design is used to ensure that the layout and presentation of the system can appropriately convey and support those activities (the form factor)
• interaction design is the stage where the necessary tools and widgets are embedded in the system, in order to facilitate the designed activities

Even the sequence of these stages dictates the importance of utility over aesthetics in the interactive system development process. This is even more the case for ILMD where learning is mainly achieved due to the functioning components of the system; a largely unusable educational tool is of little use even if it contains an abundance of information. Nonetheless, an aesthetically-ugly system might be off-putting for users and have the exact same effect as a nicely-looking but dysfunctional one. As with everything in life, the right balance is always the what works best, and it's the successful designer's task to communicate the information (knowledge) clearly, by presenting it in a pleasing, yet easily retrievable, way.