Task 14 - New Interactive Environments

What is it you are going to take with you from this course, be it negative or positive experience, content-related or organisational aspects and so on? Write down your experiences, observations, reflections on your Weblog.

What I did gain from this course were some good articles to use for other courses, the concept of activity theory, I got to know about PLENK course and MOOCs in general and Flashmeeting application. So actually some interactive environments.

In general I was not satisfied with the organization of the course. It seemed like there were a lot of demands from the lecturers side but not so much effort spent. It felt like we were just given tasks just because something had to be given. The whole concept was vague and to admit it, did not motivate to give a 100% from my side either.

I would make some recommendations for the next year:

• The concept of the course should be really thought through and argumented
• The timeframe and expected results should be specified
• If it is not possible to give all the tasks at once, there should be a certain time when the students can expect the new tasks
• If the course starts in the middle of the semester and most of the students are from IMKE, it is not a very good idea to spend so much time on defining the term "interactivity" as it has been done in almost all the courses so far.
• It is useful to provide some new interesting knowledge regarding the topics of the course, even if they are not part of the tasks, they may be interesting to investigate by the students
• Maybe there could be some interactive environments tested and reviewed by the students, which would make the tasks more practical

Things that I liked:

• The assessment process was clear and easily followable
• The reflections of the tasks by Terje
• The task of comparing Plenk10 and NIE course
• The different tools used in the process of the course as some of them were new to me

Task 13 - New Interactive Environments

Describe your activity and explain how would you redesign it, re-instrumentalise it and re-organised it to be more efficient, enjoyable, etc.

The activity that I am analyzing is workout. Working out has become an activity of itself, not a necessity for getting things done, but rather a thing we have to do to stay healthy and fit. Computers have helped in a sense that it is now possible to monitor the efficiency of our workout, to calculate calories, distance heart rate etc. It is a kind of motivator. In the other hand, computers are the reasons people are not moving naturally as much as they had to before these technological developments.

But how can digital technology help people be fit and at the same time make up for its guilt of turning people into office-slaves? One thing that I thought about was how technology can help to gain more from people, who are spending their time and energy working out. For example, people are going to gyms, spending hours in a week on exercise machines, spending energy and letting it all go to waste. But all this work could actually do something more than just burn fat or build muscle. The energy which is created on the exercise machine could be collected and used for example for the gym's lighting. Fortunately there are more and more gyms, which are starting to use the energy from exercise machines and therefore saving up from their electricity bills. This is one example but there should be much much more.

Because if to think about it, the gyms are not a necessity for people. It is possible to jog or lift weights or dance in a group everywhere. Instead, people spend money to go to one room with many people to sweat and suffer together. At least in the earlier days, this meant that something would come out of the sweating and suffering, such as a building for example :) Physical work was done for some purpose.

Digital technology together with science could take more advantage of people just jogging around or going to group exercises, dancing or boxing. There should be some kind of energy collectors used on the hands and feet of the people in action. Every movement could be transformed into energy and from there to electricity. Then why not go together to the gym and do good for the Earth. This is something to think about to the scientists and technology developers. It should not be very difficult I guess.

Task 10 - New Interactive Environments

Activity theory in practice

Task 10 of the NIE course involves analyzing two online courses according to the activity theory. Activity theory involves activities which are divided into actions which are again divided into operations.

PLENK2010 - Public Learning Environments, Network and Knowledge course is a massive open online course, where anyone from around the world can take part. The course examines the learning that occurs as a result of interaction and participation in the distributed community. The students are not given a certain body of content of the course, that they should remember, instead they are provided many reading, listening or playing materials. From these they choose the materials interesting to them and give feedback on the materials on their personal blogs, Twitter, Moodle discussion or anywhere else in a shared online environment.

The materials for the course are given in The Daily's. The Daily keeps the course together and helps to keep the focus on certain topics. There are also online live discussions on Fridays and Wednesdays. The course is very intensive and demands a lot of time if the participants are taking it seriously and daily going through the materials.

When describing PLENK2010 course in the concept of activity theory, I would use Kari Kuuti's example of activities, actions and operations.

Kari Kuuti's figure of activity theory:

PLENK2010

• Activity - Participating and learning from PLENK2010 course
• Actions - Going through the materials, participating in live course discussions and forum discussions, writing blog posts, reading other's blog posts, posting course related posts in Twitter and other environments.
• Operations - Choosing the blogging environment, choosing the materials of interest, registering to the course related environments, setting up personal profiles in different online environments etc.

New Interactive Environments is an online course which takes place in the fall semester in Tallinn University. NIE does not have a certain schedule of assignments nor body of content. The tasks and live online meetings are scheduled quite unpredictably, but are working kind of as a cumulative assignments, which should gradually bring the participants to the understanding of the course. The main goal of the course is to give a general overview of the interactivity, interactive environments and the theories of human actions and activities in these environments. The course involves keeping up with the course blog and doing the tasks and occasional live online meetings.

New Interactive Environments

• Activity - Learning about New Interactive Environments
• Actions - Keeping up with the course blog, doing the tasks, reading the feedback posts, getting familiar with the course related new environments
• Operations - Setting up an RSS feed to follow the new blog posts, providing personal blog address for the lecturers, visiting the suggested and tasks related web sites

If to compare the PLENK2010 and NIE courses, both have their pros and cons. Both of the courses have a broad field to cover and both are kind of experimental. While browsing through some of the blog posts of the participants of the PLENK2010 course I understood that they realized that the value of the course does not come immediately but through time. I guess it is the same for NIE course. Right now, being in the course, it seems general and has bites from here and there but the tasks to have some kind of cumulating value. I liked the organization of the PLENK2010 course better, since I work better intensively and when I am in full control of my time. But PLENK2010 has a very intensive schedule and it would be very time consuming to concentrate fully on completing the course. NIE does not have a comprehensive schedule and systemized tasks, which makes it difficult to see the big picture of what exactly are we trying to achieve.

Task 9 - New Interactive Environments

Put out a post summarising your understanding of activity theory and its potential for describing activity systems.

The concept of activity theory is in my opinion very wide and complicated. As one of my fellow students put it, explaining activity theory is like explaining nature. Activity theory, rooted from the work of a Russian psychologist Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky, who studied cultural-historical psychology, then developed by his colleague Alexei Nikolaevich Leont'ev has been developed in many fields of studies.

Leont'ev pointed out that people engage in "actions" that do not in themselves satisfy a need, but contribute towards the eventual satisfaction of a need. Often, these actions only make sense in a social context of a shared work activity. This lead him to a distinction between activities, which satisfy a need, and the actions that constitute the activities.(Wikipedia)

Activity theory has made a great impact on the studies of human-computer interaction as well as in the field of interactive design. I guess these are the fields which would fit in the concept of this course - New Interactive Environments.

Kari Kuuti illustrated the process of activity theory like this:

There is an activity, which leads to the primary goal. In the first case it is building a house. The primary goal is then to have a house. But in order to do the activity, there are different actions involved. In this case fixing the roofing, transport of bricks etc. In order to do the actions, one needs to operate in a ceratin way - hammering etc. The same goes for every activity. Therefore Leont'evs suggestion fits here - people do certain actions which do not achieve a goal, but

contribute towards the actual satisfaction of the need or goal.

Uden, Valderas and Pastor concluded their article by saying "Activity Theory constitutes a valuable tool for analysing software requirements. Furthermore, the use of a task-based Activity Theory model provides Web application developers with a model that allows them to properly specify navigational and organizational requirements." Activity theory helps to understand the human behaviour and therefore helps the software developers, designers and HCI specialists to understand, which operations and actions do people do in order to reach their goal. Activity can be broken down into actions, which are further subdivided into operations. In a design context, using these categories can provide the designer with an understanding of the steps necessary for a user to carry out a task (Nardi, Bonnie A. (1996)).

There have also been some criticism towards this theory. According to Engeström, Aaro Toomela (2000) brought out five main faults in activity theory:

1. It relies on unidirectional instead of a dialectical view of cultureindividual
relationships.
2. It focuses on analyses of activities without taking into account the
individual involved in the activity at the same time.
3. It underestimates the role of signs and the importance of focusing on
sign meaning.
4. It approaches mind fragmentally, without understanding the holistic
nature of mind.
5. It is fundamentally adevelopmental and therefore not appropriate
for understanding emerging phenomena, including mind.

Relying on these faults Toomela also said that activity theory is a dead end for cultural-historical psychology. Engeström overruled his statement and proved him to be wrong, as since the year 2000, the researchers interest in cultural-historical activity theory has risen. Ten years later we are also studying the concept of activity theory, therefore Engeström should be right about that.

New Interactive Environments - Task 8

Lüders, M. (2008). Concpeptualising personal media. New Media and Society, 10(5), 683-702.

In her article Conceptualizing personal media, Lüders tries to find distinct differences between mass media and personal media. As she studies previous theories which define mass media, she discovers that there are many similarities between personal and mass media. For example while personal blogs are an example of personal media, they could be read by a large audience - does that make it mass media?

The thoughts which came into my mind were that there are not only personal media and mass media, but also collective media as such. In the chapter Users as Producers, Lüders states that the mass media is being more and more created by the audience. Therefore she categorizes collectively generated media as mass media. In a sense it can be generalized as mass media, but in the other hand, it is a part which is constantly growing to maybe some day be one of the largest of media forms.

While to read from Lüders's image of axes, personal media is more symmetrical and de-centralized and not controlled, mass media is more one way communication and centralized, then where do for example Wikipedia or YouTube or any other collective sharing environment fit?

Collective media is generally co-controlled and not one- or two- way, but multi-way communicated. It does not have a centrum so to say other than the specific environment created online. Users can share their personal thoughts, ideas and works as well as promote businesses, products or even do politics. Popular sharing environments can not be categorized specifically as mass or personal media.

Media today is being constantly collectively created and changed. Mass media can no longer be a one-way great-leader-and-teacher, because people have ability to choose the content of media. There is not only mass media and personal media in my opinion, therefore it is difficult to find the differences between the two. This was also concluded by Lüders, when she said that

"Whereas the point of departure for this article has been a crude distinction between personal media and mass media, the reality is certainly more complex, especially considering the emergence of social and collaborative media situated between

these endpoints."

Task 7 - New Interactive Environments

What is interactivity?

Jensen (1998) describes interactivity as a buzzword or media studies blind spot, that does not have a certain definition. Many media scientists have tried to define the meaning of the term but none have actually found the most accurate definition. Therefore I can not say that I will provide my own definition for the term but I will try to describe interactivity as I perceive it based on my short period of IMKE studies.

One reason why interactivity can not be very easily defined can be that the technology is developing so rapidly and the characteristics that once could describe interactivity change daily. With the development of user interfaces and innovations in the ways users interact with the technology, there is no possibility to come up with a solid definition of interactivity, which would be feasible through time. Therefore I would agree with Jensen that interactivity is a continuum which changes and develops through time.

As I said in one of my earlier posts I am fascinated by the statement that face-to-face communication is the ideal way of interaction (Jensen, 1998). This type of communication demands full attention and usage of all the senses from both participants. The communication is natural and at the same time a big part of communication goes on through body language, tone of voice or usage of words. This kind of natural interactivity and user interface is in my opinion what every technology, software and users are reaching for.

While trying to reach for the ideal interactivity, the path getting there is quite interesting. Technology and software developers try to think of new ways of human-computer interactions to make the communication between humans and machines more natural and easy. At the same time the ways and for what people use computers are different. The ways of communication are affected by the cultural and social environments of the users. People perceive things differently, therefore it is hard to develop a coherent user interface for everyone.

This again proves that interactivity can not be solidly defined, but rather is a continuum, developing, improving and changing every day.

Task 6 - New Interactive Environments

Kiousis, S. (2002) Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society, SAGE Publications, Vol 4(3):355–383. Available at:http://rcirib.ir/articles/pdfs/cd1%5CIngenta_Sage_Articles_on_194_225_11_89/Ingenta866.pdf

Summary

In his article, Kiousis tried to define again the meaning of interactivity. He suggested that definition of interactivity could be a hybrid of conceptual definition and operational definition. In his research, he analyzed previous studies, which tried to define interactivity.

He used a two-dimensional analysis of literature, which compared object emphasized theories with intellectual perception theories. Object emphasized theories concerned technology, communication setting and perceiver. Intellectual perception theories considered the fields of communication and non-communication. Non-communication fields, where the term interactivity is used are for example sociology, psychology, computer sciences, etc.

The author brings out several definitions given by academics through time. He also brings out the problems with these definitions, as why they are not sufficient for explaining the concept of interactivity. He also states that the definitions do not have consensus and are often described from a point of view of different fields, which also changes the meaning of interactivity. The author does not want to alter the efforts of other researchers, but rather eliminates the not essential components and merges the essential ones.

Finally he concludes that interactivity consists of structure of technology, communication context and user perception.

Kiousis suggests that interactivity is in one hand media and in the other hand a psychological variable. Interactivity is media in a sense that it needs some kind of technology, which makes the communication possible and mediates the communication. Interactivity as a psychological variable means that interactivity reveals, when the users perceive the interaction. Thus it can be concluded that interactivity depends on both - the technology as well as human perception.

Task 5 - New Interactive Environments

Task:

Jensen, J.F. (1998). Interactivity: tracking a new concept in media and communication studies. Nordicom Review, 19(1), 185-204. Available at: http:// http://%20www.nordicom.gu.se/%20reviewcontents/%20ncomreview/%20ncomreview198/%20jensen.pdfreviewcontents/ ncomreview/ ncomreview198/ jensen.pdf

Have a look at the article, think about the concept of “interactivity” and put out a Weblog post summarizing its main message (300-500 words).


Interactivity – summary of “Interactivity: tracking a new concept in media and communication studies” by J.F. Jensen (1998).

In his article “Interactivity: tracking a new concept in media and communication studies” J.F. Jensen discusses the concept of the term Interactivity. He claims it to be a kind of a buzzword, like words which, within a certain topic, appear to refer to something very important and which – for a given time – are heard constantly, but are often difficult to understand since in reality nobody seems to know what they mean.

As he goes further with trying to find a background for the definition of the term, he describes the concept of the term in three academic fields: sociology, communication studies and informatics. After the discussion and analysis of the term ‘interactivity’ in the concepts of all these academic fields, he states: ‘Obviously, as far as the concept of interaction is concerned, there is already considerable confusion’.

Then he describes the term ‘interactivity’ as a prototype, criteria or continuum. Prototype example only describes the certain services or devices, which are considered to be interactive and finally leads to the understanding that the one truly interactive activity is face-to-face communication. Interactivity as criteria says that it is a kind of feature which needs to be fulfilled. He stays longer on the subject of interactivity being a continuum with different dimensions. First dimension being the most elementary mediums and their one-way communication from the sender to receiver. Then moving on to other levels of dimensions where the technology develops and communication part is getting more interactive. In the end of this research he states that it is difficult to find a certain concept of the term ‘interactivity’ when there are so many different dimensions.

Finally Jensen suggests a definition of his own. He suggests that interactivity is a measure of a media’s potential ability to let the user exert an influence on the content and/or form of the mediated communication. He divides the concept of interactivity into four dimensions: transmissional interactivity, consultational interactivity, conversational interactivity and registrational interactivity, which are presented in 3-dimensional graphic model.

As a conclusion Jensen states that he did not find a solution for defining the term ‘interactivity’, but he hopes that his efforts have made the understanding and concept of the term ‘interactivity’ a little more clear.

The article is a good overview of the different values given to the term ‘interactivity’ over the years. Although there are probably many more definitions suggested since 1998, when this article was published. I personally liked the idea that the closest example of total interactivity is face-to-face communication – using direct two-way verbal communication as well as physical reactions and mental perception of the person about the other person. Maybe interactivity is a constant try to reach the same level of communication as in face-to-face communication by developing technology and user interface. The purpose is to create such media, which makes the communication natural and totally interactive as in face-to-face communication. Just a thought.

New Interactive Environments - Task 3

Comparison of descriptions of creating a study plan

I compare the blogs of: Taavi, Ilya, Maria, Kristo and Valeria.

What elements, components, etc. have been used to describe their activity?
All of the blog posts consisted of an explanative text and some visual material, either a concept map or some other scheme. The most interesting solution was probably Valeria's. The colorful bubbles and yes/no answers in the concept map gave a good overview of her tools and actions in choosing the courses. Kristo's and Taavi's concept maps were easily understandable, simple and laconic. Ilya's and Maria's maps could not be so easily followed as they were more complicated.

What level of detail?
None of the maps were very detailed as we all have basically the same things to consider while choosing our courses. Maybe the most detailed and thorough plan was Ilya's, who took into consideration study card and academic points. But he is preparing to graduate soon therefore he needs to count his academic points more carefully then us, first year students. Taavi's map was the less detailed one, but it is because he is currently studying in a host university, has collected most of his points and has little to choose from.

What structural aspects are showing up in their descriptions/visualisations?
The structures of the maps show in my opinion the complexity and difference of people. Some like it simple and direct, others prefer it pretty, anothers just describe their thoughts and don't care about the visual result and some go into detail and thoroughly dissect every part of the process. It is interesting, as I think it shows much what are the people like.

What is missing?
I can not say what is missing as the task was relatively free. Maybe it would have been more interesting if everyone would have described the tools used in the process as well. And not only the ones used in the process of selecting courses but also the ones used daily while managing school assignments.

What are pros and cons of the different approaches?
The pros and cons probably depend on the purposes each approach is used for. Considering this specific assignment it is probably more useful to use an approach which is visually attractive and easily understandable as was Valeria's plan. The concept maps in general are good tools but they should be structured in a way which makes them easily comprehensive. Visual materials are in general better than plain text as they give a better overview and are easier to follow.

New Interactive Environments - Task 2

How did I plan my studies for Fall 2010?



While plannings my studies for this semester I considered four main aspects: the curriculum, available courses for this semester, my personal and work time schedule and my personal interests. When I found a compromise between all these aspects, I added the selected course blogs and web sites to my bookmarks and ordered RSS feeds where possible to my Gmail mailbox. IMKE Google calendar was a big help for getting an overview of the course timetable. Because of pretty big homework load I started using Remember the Milk for keeping up with all the assignments. My tasks in Remember the Milk are also connected to my mailbox. Basically all the necessary information is in Google calendar, bookmarks and mailbox.

Task 1 - New Interactive Environments

For work I use Web publishing tools such as Blogger, for analyzing the results Google Analytics, Facebook pages and Youtube. I have also tried out Google AdWords, but I can't say that I am familiar with the tool. For my personal interests I use Webfeeds for blogs I am interested in. Feeds are directed to my email. As for online social networks I use Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook. Before Facebook I used Orkut and before that Rate.ee.

For my schoolwork I have used different sources for searching academic materials for research, like Google Scholar and Ebscohost. For translation I have used different online dictionaries, also Google translator. Thanks to IMKE studies I am now familiar with Dropbox, Wikiversity, Cmap tool for building Concept maps, Flashmeeting tool, and getting to know even more.

For instant communication I use MSN messenger and Skype.

Looking forward to an interesting course! :)