Showing posts with label week 10. Show all posts
Showing posts with label week 10. Show all posts

Monday, 2 May 2011

Elearning design and privacy

What does the exploration of topic of privacy tell me about elearning design?

Some key points from reading:

Decew says that it is not possible to give a definition of privacy because of the diverse interests that it may cover. She believes that individuals should be able to choose when they forfeit their privacy without losing the benefits that technology brings.

Depending on the learning environment, anonymity and lack of personal data may help to create equality, especially when there are cross culture relationships to be built. (Chester and Gwynne, 1998)

Epling (2003) when talking about nurse education raises a very good point about the fact that the more collaborative and learner centred the design, the harder it is to create any kind of surveillance of the learner. Here they talk about the tensions between opening up online learning freedom and discussion and the need for teachers to see and take control of the learning. With learner centred design you cannot track a learners contemplation and analysis. Here a good point is raised that any tracking that is not about the learners’ interest, has the possibility to breach data protection.

A very full discussion is had by Jerman-Blaisic and Klobucar(2005), about the need for the elearning industry to adopt some standardised approaches to privacy. They talk about the potential of privacy threats by access to data through cookies, third party monitoring and data disclosure. Here they suggest that an appropriate privacy policy needs to be adopted and communicated that ensures the learner data is protected and that they are in control of their privacy giving within the learning environment.

Malhotra comments on digital information in an ecommerce environment. Even here, back in 2004, it seems that there had been little by the way of framework development to control this, and that people often have different opinions over what is acceptable or not. Here it is suggested that the approach should be about definition of what is being collected, control of this data and a transparency/ awareness of the privacy policies so individuals can make their choices.

Has technology changed are perception of privacy is what Sparck Jones(2003) asks. Here the definition is about an individual knowing what information different people have about them, and the fact that technology can often blur this knowledge. We cannot get away from the fact that what people see and know about us is different from the past, and education is necessary, as perceptions will not change if people are ignorant or ignore the risks.

Perfect privacy is when no one has any information about me, no one pays any attention and no one has any access to me – a state that is impossible (Gavison 1980).

When designing elearning these things need to be taken into account. Depending on the experience different amounts of information will be needed. A one off experience does not need to track data as much as a learning management system may, in order to facilitate and understand the ways that people learn. Compliance learning for example, involves a necessity for some learner data to be shared. Whatever approach is decided, those involved in the process need to know what and how data is recorded, the security systems in place and need to agree to any use of their data. If designing learning for an institution or organisation one also needs to take into account their own privacy policies and philosophy, and ensure they are upheld.

Reading

Chester, A. and Gwynne, G. (1998) ‘Online teaching: encouraging collaboration through anonymity’, Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, vol.4, no.2; also available online at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue2/chester.html (Accessed 2 December 2010).
DeCew, J. (1997) In Pursuit of Privacy: Law, Ethics, and the Rise of Technology, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.

Epling, M., Timmons, S. and Wharrad, H.J. (2003) ‘An educational panopticon? New technology, nurse education and surveillance’, Nurse Education Today, vol.23, no.6, pp.412–18.

Gavison, R. (1980) ‘Privacy and the Limits of Law’, Yale Law Journal, vol.89, no.3, pp.421–71.

Jerman-Blažič, B. and Klobučar, T. (2005) ‘Privacy provision in e-learning standardized systems: status and improvements’, Computer Standards and Interfaces, vol.27, no.6, pp.561–78.

Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S. and Agarwal, J. (2004) ‘Internet users’ information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale and a causal model’, Information Systems Research, vol.15, no.4, pp.336–55.
Spärck Jones, K. (2003) ‘Privacy: what’s different now?’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol.28, no.4, pp.287–92.

Sunday, 1 May 2011

Week 10 evaluating Usability

‘Usability’ Wiki says this is the ease of use and learnability of a human made object. Usability is often something I think about. I am sure that I have previously stated that I get distracted quite easily while online. Unless I am really passionate about using a site or developing my web tools then if I can’t figure it out, I don’t use it.
For example – it was my birthday last week and while considering where I might go to have a good bit of grub, I thought about going back to Benares, and amazing Indian restaurant in London. But they had changed their website to make it all pretty and flashy, and I couldn’t work out how to look at the menus. The scrolling tool, I discovered later, was now a lovely block of colour, but I couldn’t figure this out – so I chose not to go there!
The course materials say that there are many definitions and as yet not so much research in how usability and user perspectives in using elearning. Interestingly, this was one of the things that my interviewee for TMA2 talked about. Their system allows them to track learners, see where they get stuck and even for the learners to make comments and rate the pages.  It is quite hard to design something that will appeal to the spectrum of people likely to engage with it.
The OU has developed a framework called the Pyramid of Usability that looks at the different levels that one should consider, it reminded me a bit like a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs but for user design, ranging from basic functions to integrated learner design that enables the learner to become involved with the content and met the learning outcomes.  What I particularly like about this approach is that it comes from the user point of view. Kukulsa-Hulme says, for example, that you would expect technology students to have a higher degree of knowledge in comparison to say, healthcare students. For us we need to consider these things when starting to think about our learning designs and innovative elearning (I am sure there is an examinable component just around the corner!). I have certainly got frustrated when content is too pretty, but then equally get frustrated with plain text. So how do we make sure the design is right and works for all involved?
We also asked the question about mobile usability. Interestingly people use their mobile phones and other mobile device to access learning. I read the OU forums on my little nokia while on the train home.  Sites like ebay and facebook and even the transport for London journey planner now have a mobile browser format that you can use. Luckily the OU site easily translates into my small screen, but was it designed that way? Several of my fellow students have commented on the fact that there is a plethora of mobile designs and interfaces that it is impossible to design for all. It’s about understanding the context in which people learn, and that traditional static study changes. I use my phone to read the forums, but also often print off articles to read on the train. Yet I spend 2 hours of my day on a train, so this makes sense to my situation. But I have made the decision to study like this and the OU allows me to have this flexibility. When the use of mobile devices becomes a requirement then one needs to consider the sourcing and training in the use of a device. Kukulsa-Hulme also writes about the lessons already learned and things that needs to be considered from physical attributes of mobile devices, content and software applications, network access and reliability through to the physical environment in which it could be used.

Other Reading
Caroll, J. (1997) ‘Human Computer Interaction: Psychology as a Science of Design’ [online] https://courses.ischool.utexas.edu/Bias_Randolph/2009/Spring/INF385P/files/annurev.psych.48.1.pdf (accessed 18th April 2011)
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007) ‘Mobile usability in educational contexts – what have we learnt?’, Special issue of the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.8, no.2; also available online at http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/356 (Accessed 13th April 2011).

Nielsen, J. (2003) Mobile Devices: One Generation from Useful [online] http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030818.htmll  (Accessed 13 April 2011).

O’Malley, C., Vavoula, G., Glew, J.P., Taylor, J., Sharples, M. and Lefrere, P. (2003) MOBIlearn WP4 – Guidelines for Learning/Teaching/Tutoring in a Mobile Environment [online] http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/guidelines.pdf (Accessed 16th April 2011).

Shield, L. and Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2006) ‘Are language learning websites special? Towards a research agenda for discipline-specific usability’, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, vol.15, no.3, pp.349–69; also available online at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Are+language+learning+websites+special%3F+Towards+a+research+agenda+for...-a0149898447 (Accessed 13 April 2011).