---
# System prepended metadata

title: Feedback Document

---

# Feedback Document

# Patrick

Good introduction setting the scope and purpose.
Glad to see that interaction design x learning inquiry / point.

The "important point" to emphasize how we should FRAME this stuff we're reading about... around learners, their special goals etc. Nicely done.

Again, continuing to help the listener/audience think of this in terms of learning by reminding them explicitly is a smart speaking technique.

Some of the examples you provide in learning contexts to show how some concepts from UX translate are also nice.

Okay. I like how you come back to help the listener differentiate about how it's framed in the reading (system) in a more 'literal' sense and what this might mean if expanded to the learning context.

Yup. I think you're taking the feedback I gave last time and utilizing that as a source of thinking how you frame your talking. And this so far, has been a nice way to focus your narrative discussion.

The synthesis between system-design concept and what it means in the learning context - I'm following your idea much better today than I was when you first proposed this.

DIAGRAM: ... 

OKAY - again - I love how you prepare the audience to think about this (it's about how we borrow this idea and make meaning of it in learning) before you dive into it.

OKAY! I LOVE your followup slide to this as you TRANSLATE these sub-concepts into the context of learning. Very nice. This synthesis is what I think will be effective or at least, helpful in getting our audience to see your point and see the relevance/meaning of this for our practice. Illustrating this with examples you're filling in is also helpful.

One extra thought - as I look at this diagram. You might refer back to the Plass reading which has an interesting diagram about interaction and how that affects our thinking. Might be an interesting/useful comparison to support some of your ideas and purpose here of making the analogy.

I think if I were a student listening, after seeing this up to here - I'd be thinking - "so then what does this do or what concrete things must I do that represents 'using' this approach for learning?" For example, I think one thing you're doing is you're taking each PART of the system-centered approach e.g. sensor and making sure we identify and articulate the learning analogy to it. e.g. what is the learning "sensor?" etc. This might help when you're in a breakout - how you guide them. "So if sensors in system-centered is this, means this... what is the learning equivalent if we want to achieve this?" etc.

SUMMARY SO FAR:

So much more clear to me how you're synthesizing the connection between system-centered approach and how it might relate to learning. Nice improvements and I think this is in a place that I feel comfortable with.

SCENARIO:

Great. I think this last slide answers that last question I posed about what students might think - and guiding them through this with scaffolded organizing materials like what you have on the last slide will be helpful.

Nice progress - I just need to see how this fits in the GROUP's larger narrative and what the LARGE takeaway is that this builds into cohesively.

# Qiang

Activity centered design

Okay - some background info on what is actions, operations.

Your example: Aunt Sally... wait - you just zipped by that. Are these going to be skipped slides? I'm not sure I fully understood the example you gave here, how it relates, what you want to say about it.

6 components...
- When you show that diamond with interrelations... I think it might be good to make sure you clearly articulate what these mean in terms of an illustration/example.

So if you say things like, it's about subject uses tools on an object... okay. That defines the concept of 1. what these are, and 2. that they have relationships. But then if you give a short example that is concrete... for example person A uses a B on C in order to achieve specific D that might help to make this more concrete. the followup to this is then what does this mean for us in terms of learning? Here what I'd do is provide an analogy of the same pattern but in the learning context.

"So what about in learning? We can use this concept and approach to think about interactions. For example: identify the subject (little kids) use tool (telescope) on subject (natural phenomenon - sky) to achieve objective (learn about stars)" etc. This kind of progression will help make more concrete the relationship you see between this and this in learning contexts.

"Points I want to emphasize..." Okay - here I love the point you make about clarifying what subjects might mean in learning. Also with tools - how you talk about what this means for how we conceptualize this idea in learning.

I think it might benefit for you to do this sort of thing piece by piece, deliberatly to give people a sense of how these translate sort of like what your colleague Patrick did and you did for a few. Doesn't have to be long but:

Concept > Learning Analogue > Example

I liked how you started doing this and how, but wondered what the others might look like if you synthesized the connection.

I CAN DEFINITELY HELP YOU.
>>> comparision, user/activity

I like the analogy users horse designer car.

I definitely think this is true. There are things we can glean from this statement in terms of implications. What are some LEARNING examples?

E.g. users may know things like their preferences, or what makes knowledge/understanding meaningful to them - but they may not actually know what the best way (e.g. cognitively) it is to learn it. Whereas designers might. etc.

With user-centered design - there are advantages as well but what would the example look like or tradeoff look like?

Then what do you want people to be thinking as a result of this proposed comparison?

You go through this seciton really fast. You might want to think about how you're going to build this around your intended take-away and how you can help the audience digest. I think you're on the right track and in the right space, just don't need to rush through.

It might be good to use this (since your next is the case) as a place to plant the question you want people to think about more clearly before heading into the case.

Case STUDY Activity?
It's somewhat a scenario than a rich case but okay.
If this is a case study, what about this do you think people are supposed to NOTICE, or in what ways should they be THINKING about this?

So far, based on what you had prior - you talk about ACD as having parts and that those parts have relationships.
So if you're trying to emphasize that - I'd make sure your case as you articulate it has elements of those parts embedded in it in a way that allows your audience to 1. identify those parts, 2. explain what the relationships are.

Like given your two sentences, is it enough for your audience to be able to say: This is the subject, object, tool, community, rules, division of labor, in this scenario and here is the relationship, and here is what this all means in terms of learning and why we're doing this approach?

You say you want to keep this broad so your peers can generate more details. But this is generally more difficult than you may think and will take time. Only you have a concrete idea that can be matched nicely with what you've gone over so far. For your audience, I'm not sure they will be able to do this unless you have some clear ideas of how you're going to guide this as opposed to them just answering the fill-ins without knowing where you're going with these fill ins.

In general - I would recommend providing more rich data around this "case" rather than letting students "build it out." Building out can be a useful activity if the purpose is for example, inquirying to find missing information. But I feel like here, the main thing you're trying to do is get people to actively think about how specific components can be extracted from the scenario. I'd provide a richer one and have them identify object, subject, etc. from that rich case rather than letting them create something. Leave little room for ambiguity for this task.

You say you want them to do this to then reason how to create a larger learning artifact, but then you skip forward and backwards through slides and have me a little confused.

Your task 2, you want people to "clarify actions". But to be honest, I'm not exactly sure how you see "the actions" of the small scenario you built since it's not very specific. I think while your heading is clarify action, your sub headings are learning goal - and it's going to be hard for the audience to understand how learning goal and this clarify actions should relate. For example, are you saying that setting goals in an activity centered approach has some sort of unique consideration? Like, its about emphasizing actions as opposed to how people think during those actions that is more important in this approach? Or are you saying thinking in terms of actions allows us to think about how learners will be thinking when doing those actions? Or that the way we should adjust actions is to think about what thoughts go into it or something else? Or that the whole reason we went talked about different entities like subject object tools community etc is to help us think of actions/activities that happen between these things and that this gives us a bigger picture of affordances or constraints we have to work with in developing an experience that makes different parts "interact" etc.?

I think - what the problem I'm having here is is - you have things like prompts that you yourself have good reasons to ask in your head based on your understanding... that is, why you are asking these prompts. But I have a feeling you're going to have to communicate that better to your audience or they will just answer the prompts without understanding how it relates to this approach and this will lead to completion of a procedure rather than understanding why this procedure etc.

For your task 3, personally I don't understand why your prompt questions are the way they are or what purpose you're trying to get across in these. Is there a context I'm missing here? I feel like you might be imaginging a richer case in your head than what you have in the two sentences you gave at the start. But since I'm not privy to what you're thinking I don't really know what your prompt questions are trying to elicit as it relates to what you're trying to get across about the main topic.

How do your prompting questions relate to ACD or UCD? I feel like maybe you have an underlying reasoning for why these prompt questions but I don't know if you have a clear idea of how you can get that across to the audience.

Here are some prompts.
Okay... (answers prompts).

But that doesn't necessarily mean they understand what aspect of ACD or UCD these prompts directly relate to or address.

The activity - task 1,2,3 - seems like a lot of stuff to do. As of right now, I'd be inclined to remove task 3 and just focus on making sure task 1 and 2 answer the question: "Do my audience understand how the things I'm having them do relate to understanding ACD as a process." "Do my audience see the analogy between parts of acd as written in the text and what these parts look like in learning phenomenon." "Do my audience understand how relationships between these parts turn into design inferences or considerations, or inform our choices?"

I'm kind of on the fence. I feel like you might have an idea of what you're trying to do. But I can't say it's super crystal clear to me at this point. Part of it might be communication technique. Part of it might be that when you got to your activity, you started talking more like we were having a discussion and you were seeking advice than how you would have actually run it if I were a student (i.e. dry run.) But this is the extent to how I'm processing this right now.

# Zahar

Genius design: what is...
Assumption: leverages the strengths of an experienced designer

Characteristics - ... okay. "tends to work better for" "potential in areas" okay.

How it relates to user centered...

It might be a good idea for some of this introduction to also introduce, 1. how you want your audience to think about (e.g. the characteristics, assumptions, etc.) to a learning context. 2. quick example of how we might imagine in learning. analogy.

Example: Interestingly, Palm Pilot / Handspring and clones were kind of successful if you remember. And I think Newton coined the PDA (personal digital assistant), pushed forward handwriting recognition, and Larry Tesler who was an important figure in all this - went on to create ARM which is now dominating the efficient CPU (mobile) market. So maybe unsuccessful for the consumer market, but successful in other ways. For example, the medical market which may be something to think about in terms of "genius design" implications. Who is the designer? If the approach centers around them, what kinds of situations should make this an appealing approach?

Matching - in learning context
Okay. I think this slide answers my prior comment about the integration/synthesis of how this connects to learning contexts.

e.g. Teachers, but also instructional designers, maybe even SMEs fall into this categoery.

Might be interesting to mention or pose the question of what shortcomings, biases, or cautions we must consider with this approach.

One thing I appreciate here is your discussion of how students may in some circumstances be "the genius" that understands something about the learning experience. That said - the prior question I pose stands and it might be something to talk about as well. While students might know something about their own contexts etc. is this about students being the center of the design or students being the center of a designer's consideration (i.e. user-centered) etc. I think this is not an A or B answer and there is plenty of grey in between. But something to ponder.

And I guess it stops here?
I'm wondering where this goes into next or how it connects to the other parts.


---

NOTES:

1. If ACD is about having people do tasks - how do we design using this?
2. Maybe Activity Theory helps us decide what tools, what actions, etc. in order to...
3. Advantages of activity theory design - tradeoff with against user-centered... therefore... ???


---

Open - approaches but also - what's it mean for us in learning?

APPROACHES:
user-centered design - for each othe approach a comparison and consideration.




Good question. "Is it only about doing something OR.... ______" and this might end up being a point to talk about.

I think I would not JUMP into the video immediately. Viewers will not know what they are looking FOR in this video. If you start with a quick definition or important feature of ACD or activity theory etc. Then TELL the audience why we will watch this video - it will make more sense.

Many of your narration over video describes what is being shown in the video - you'd be better off explaining how what we see represents what we need to understand about ACD - the RELATION/CONNECTION between what we're seeing and the theory needs to be synthesized.

OR watch the video first, then go into the chart, then revisit the video.

# Ruowen

Okay. I think your introduction and transition to learning context, forecasting the purpose and direction works. Your 3 conceptual models slide is more aligned with the larger narrative and you explain the relationship between these better. Examples also help me to better understand what this diagram is portraying. The juxtaposition to the learning context works well in close proximity to the UX example. You’re adding more “meaning” to what’s on the slide than you were before (as opposed to just reading off the slide.)

For make things visible, the feedback analogue is important. In other words, in learning there are many INVISIBLE things (what is going on in a teachers/experts head or learner’s heads) which I think are important to make visible. See Cognitive Apprenticeship.

For simplify tasks - might be good to emphasize the difference between simplifying the task vs simplifying the learning. Reducing load of task is fine, but struggle is also actually important to activate cognition and learning if it’s pertinent load. Also to emphasize the idea that simplifying “learning tasks” might have to relate with scaffolding / cognitive load etc.

Interesting example. I think there are multiple ways you could talk about this but I think it works for your purpose.

Mappings - MAYBE we want to match user intentions. But what if user intention is a result of MISUNDERSTANDING of some learning? I thought X would happen but Y happened. This might not necessarily be bad for learning. But for task related mappings, yes of course we don’t want unexpecteds. So the question I think to think about is what is germane and what is not in learning experiences.

I think overall this aligns with the group strategy we discussed so I think you’re in the right space and right trajectory with this.