“IX” Design: Designing for Immersive Experience

July 16, 2017 by Brian Hughes

I’ve been thinking about a new “IX” focus for designers and educators:

Immersive (I): Multimedia is used to surround participants.

Experience (X): Participant experience is organized by a story.

How can these dimensions help participants achieve substantial new knowledge (i.e., information, perspectives, and/or values)?

Other elements that seem important:

Participant interaction is planned.
Sequential elements are planned and rehearsed.

This might lead to new sub-genres of IX:

“Social IX”
“Rehearsed IX”

And so on…

Documentaries in the curriculum

May 15, 2015 by Brian Hughes

Filming_Documentary_about_Sinenjongo_High_School_in_Joe_Slovo_Park,_Cape_Town,_South_Africa_-_02 — Someone documenting someone!

Jeff Frank‘s article on expanding the educational significance of documentary film (Frank 2013, detail below) is a thoughtful reflection on how film and education can intersect.

Frank is a philosopher interested in better understanding education generally, with a specific interest in literature and other narrative texts (I love that he teaches a class entitled, “What Does it Mean to be Educated?”).

In this essay he outlines how educators can be “responsive to genre” when teaching from/with documentary films. By contrasting how a documentary approach is different from a “news” approach, Frank surfaces issues of how bias is constructed and experienced through media. He argues that a documentary film necessarily surfaces the issue of how a subject is represented, and what the inherent biases, shortcomings, or values of that approach may be to the viewer. News, for example, often sidesteps this “deeper” discussion of the many problems of representation (perhaps, not wrongly, news relies more heavily on the “brand identity of the publisher?).

He then returns to his claim that documentary film is a more meaningful educational tool than a source of mere content, connecting it’s method (of surfacing issues of representation) to the project of building a democratic public. Drawing on Stanley Cavell’s voice and work, Frank shows how engaging a documentary might lead someone through a “transformational” educational experience—the kind of experience where the world changes you. Very cool.

Full citation: Frank, J. (2013). The Claims of Documentary: Expanding the educational significance of documentary film. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 45(10), 1018-1027.

Opening Up Museums

January 31, 2013 by Brian Hughes

I really enjoy Nina Simon’s blog, and her recent talk is especially exciting: Museum 2.0: Opening Up Museums: My TEDxSantaCruz Talk.

With an upcoming year-long exhibition highlighting the 125-year history of Teachers College, EdLab designers are focused on eliciting “audience” participation in our exhibition environment – three floors of Russell Hall (nearly 30,000 sq. ft.!).

I like how Simon frames the issue of participation around the challenge of making it meaningful – because it’s all too easy to create meaningless activities. But at the same time, she suggests, the hooks for engagement have to be simple enough that people are willing to try something new.

That’s tough to do!

I find that easy and interesting are often at odds. For example, our current goal is to use Twitter as a tool of engagement. But what do you ask people to contribute? 160 characters is already technically simple for folks with a Twitter account, but what kind of content should we elicit?

For me, solving this issue for a particular content is the essence of an exhibition design process – a process that should result in a unique and engaging solution that serves as a great foundation for learning.

One strategy is to aim to make the results of small contributions cumulative – either in a way that creates one large result, or as a mosaic showcasing individual contributions. Another is to make them personal (perhaps identity-oriented is a similar but useful way to think of this).

Another strategy is to offer an extrinsic reward – to offer a prize, for example. But this seems to be less genuine, or at least less likely to relate to learning. On the other hand, this could be a hook that engages a contributor to do more.

One recent example of a bad interactive solution that comes to mind is from the recent Creatures of Light exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History (sorry guys). While the exhibit had some nice elements, I was disappointed by the gigantic firefly (six feet long?) that hung from the ceiling and glowed at the press of a button (working from memory here) at the entrance of the show. What did this accomplish?

I assume it was supposed to echo the bioluminescence theme of the exhibit, but for my 3-year-old it really just raised the question, “Are fireflies really that big?” I’m not saying that elements need to work for everyone, but really: aren’t there dozens of more exciting ways to show off the mechanisms of science while creating a stronger foundation for learning? (Wouldn’t a six foot magnifying glass aimed at a life-size firefly been many times more awesome? Aren’t there ways to use lighting to better effect?)

Using a traditional exhibition toolbox (scale, lighting, drama, etc.) alongside newer technologies is a big challenge. I’m excited to see what we can come up with here at Teachers College!

The Rise of the New Groupthink

August 29, 2012 by Brian Hughes

The Rise of the New Groupthink – NYTimes.com

I like this discussion, but it misses a key perspective. Cain make a bit of a straw man out of the pro-groupwork crowd. Fair enough, there are plenty of reasons to push back. But here’s my spin: cut the part about “creativity” and there are many reasons to get better at working together.

I find it unhelpful that in trying to set her view apart from the so-called New Groupthink crowd, Cain goes even further to reify the importance of creativity. I like creativity, I do. But I think it’s helpful to read this article and replace variations of “creation” with a simpler notion of “production.” It strikes a different tone – and it falls a bit flat. For example:

If you look at how Mr. Wozniak got the work done — the sheer hard work of creating something from nothing — he did it alone. Late at night, all by himself.

Becomes:

If you look at how Mr. Wozniak got the work done — the sheer hard work of producing something — he did it alone. Late at night, all by himself.

Wow, he produced something alone. Even if it’s a very special thing, we know his work was likely supported in many other ways. Paying attention to the importance of “creativity” emphasizes how much Cain relies on a special meaning that should be cast in doubt.

By default, people are pretty bad at working together. Especially on difficult problems, I think. I like the idea that schools and workplaces are trying to emphasize the importance of collaboration and asking people to practice. Such efforts might not result in outcomes we’d consider creative. That’s OK.

No one wants better collaboration to come at the cost of drowning out individual gains in learning, but perhaps it’s worth some displacement of individual achievement?

Epistemic Games… and GAPS?

June 22, 2012 by Brian Hughes

This is an intriguing new marketing direction for the Epistemic Games Group: GAPS

Games and Professional Simulations [GAPS] is a cooperative group comprised of six research groups across the country. We are headquartered by the Epistemic Games Group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

(Love the idea, dislike the acronym?) Also check out this vialogue featuring Padraig Nash’s recent talk on “distributed mentoring” at the EdLab. Cool stuff!

Drawing and an Argument for its Autonomy

October 30, 2011 by Brian Hughes

Should the ability to draw be seen as a literacy? Is it sensible to characterize the act of drawing as the reduction of multi- dimensional events to readable two-dimensional imagery?

Last Thursday I was lucky to attend a lecture and conversation by Professors Stephen Farthing and Simon Betts on “The Bigger Picture of Drawing: A New Curriculum a New Pedagogy” at the Macy Gallery at Teachers College. From the gallery website:

Visiting professors Farthing and Betts will speak about the bigger picture of drawing, and their new UK high school drawing qualifications and Masters course. They will discuss together the implications these courses have on pedagogy and student learning.

The generally spoke of the value of drawing, and offered a vast definition of drawing – taking stock of drawing in diverse places and cultures to make their case, such as the example of the Maori tattoos.

Response

What stood out to me is how their argument in favor of drawing literacy at least partly seems to be driven by the belief that drawing should be understood as not only a “literacy,” but as a distinct practice (understood as theorists Michael Walzer and Alasdair MacIntyre would have us understand “social practices” as distinct contexts of meaning and truth) within the broader domain of the visual arts.

Should drawing be seen this way? It would follow that drawing would have more autonomous value – a different value from other art practices and other cultural activity. This line of reasoning seems appealing, especially in light of a pervasive condition described by an audience member – the familiar observation that “all children begin by loving drawing, and most learn to believe they are not ‘good at it’ by the time they are in middle school.” (TC professor Judy Burton traced this experience back to drawing being “taught as a technical skill.”) Let’s take a closer look.

It seems to me that Farthing and Betts are proposing shoring up such autonomy with a weak and strong definition of drawing – locating it both within other domains (examples offered ranged from the obvious (architecture) to the more obscure (financial planning and social greeting)), and as the center of its own domain (and hence a full-featured practice). Unfortunately, if we look at the kinds of cultural institutions that other Practices rely on to maintain autonomy, it seems like a difficult road ahead: the autonomy of legal practice, for example, is supported by vast professional organizations, educational norms, social networks, and physical infrastructure. A larger question that emerges (for me, at least): Can school and the academy really be the epicenter of a cultural practice? With the worry that students lose interest in drawing because they “can’t do it” in mind, it seems overly hopeful that the problem can be corrected by, in, and primarily through an educational context. Are Farthing and Betts really proposing something more? Would they be comfortable with a primetime television show “American Drawer” or celebrity draw-offs? Or ultimately is a different direction such as shoring up the autonomy of “the visual arts” or “visual culture” preferable?

I’m not sure. As a serious (if former) student of drawing, I would first like to believe that there need be no serious and sustained theoretical argument to secure a space for drawing within public education. But as they say, times are tough. Granting that we need such an argument, it then pains me that it must be so far-reaching as to rest on shifting claims (between a weak and strong definition) about its foundation and, therefore, value. As much as it pains me to admit, I think we might be better off hitching drawing’s presence in education to existing arguments about the visual arts (as a broader category of artistic practice) – arguments that could benefit from diverse examples of the important impact of drawing on culture and, at an importantly small scale, human well-being. I suspect Farthing and Betts are sympathetic to this approach, but their presentation needs some retooling to better position the distinctive nature, impact, and promise of drawing.

On the other hand, what about a t-shirt service? Submit a drawing and get it put on a shirt! Maybe there could also be a cross-funding opportunity to an important humanitarian cause (think no further than what the color pink currently represents) combined with something about the identity of the drawer that reinforces a cross-domain basis of expertise and utility . . .

Miscellany

As for the issue of students’ “losing faith” in their own ability to draw, I wonder: Is formal instruction the dominant cause of people losing interest (and/or confidence) in drawing? What else might be a part of this attitude shift?

On the distinction between craft and art, Dean Betts claimed “[craft] doesn’t have within it the key to make sense of it?” This seems far-reaching and, for me at least, demonstrated the weakness of a simple dichotomy between art and craft. It’s an interested thought experiment: Does art really always carry its own “key?”

The Skinny on the Media Show

June 11, 2010 by Brian Hughes

The Media Show – a show produced by EdLab’s video team that came out of the After Ed TV project, and a product of Gus Andrews’ imagination – recently won the Fair Use Award at the Media that Matters Festival (see the posting here). The particular episode that won the award (above and on youtube) is a look at the use of Photoshop in advertising, and a short history of image manipulation. Here’s Gus’ description of the show and the episode:

The Media Show is a YouTube channel series staring puppets Weena and Erna, two high-school-aged sisters skipping school to spend time making their own videos in an abandoned storage closet in an advertising agency in New York City. The show’s model of media literacy aims to reconcile the exuberance of fan-created media with a critique of ad-driven corporate media.

In this episode of The Media Show, My Hotness is Pasted on Yey!, Weena and Erna happen across a terrible graphics job in Cosmopolitan, leading them to the website Photoshop Disasters, which gets them thinking about other photo manipulation throughout history. Stalin, Hitler, OJ Simpson, Beyoncé—who hasn’t been touched by photo alteration in some way? The girls explore art and propaganda and end up playing with Photoshop themselves, taking control and manipulating their own appearance.

Perhaps even more exciting than the development and grow of the YouTube-based show, is a case study Gus has developed for using The Media Show in schools (see the Pressible site). We hope this will create an inroad for using these video resources in new and interesting ways.

For example, earlier this spring Gus worked with students at a Brooklyn High School using The Media Show to support a media literacy curriculum about advertising. Skye Macleod supported this collaboration and helped produce videos about the experience (see them here and here).

We’ll showcase the case study in the next few months on the EdLab website, and look forward to talking with educators (and others!) with an interest in this resource.

See more on the history of The Media Show here.