Tackling the challenges for our learners

Bridging knowledge gaps.

Working with a team of three other designers, we began to see points of divergence for our goals. Amanda’s focus on online activism and leveraging new technologies was compelling, but she was driven to do this work independently. Nandini and Michelle were also interested in the digital realm, but were not sure about the framing for citizenship.

One of the key challenges for addressing citizenship in the 21st century is the fundamental misunderstanding by the public of how we interact with these new technologies. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have removed the traditional political boundaries and geographic limitations of culture and ideas.

This is our stake-holder map, there are many like it, but this one is ours.

This is our stake-holder map, there are many like it, but this one is ours.

The advantage of this style of mapping is that we do not need to work from the current state toward feasible solutions. While the appearance may be linear, we actually developed our ideas for bridging the gaps by first looking forward, to a preferred state. Herbert A. Simon succinctly described the field of design as “changing existing circumstances into preferred ones,” which is exactly what we are plotting with this map. We then can backcast from the preferred state, and identify patterns and opportunities for intervention.

This tool is simple as it is effective. For weeks we had been looking at how technology was affecting citizens’ perception of reality (bots, trolls, hackers, fake news, hoaxes, disinformation campaigns, post-truth, etc.) but we had not adequately considered how bidirectional that perception was. In late 2013, a hacktivist documentary titled, TPB AFK (The Pirate Bay, Away From Keyboard) was released. This film chronicled the political and social aspects of digital sharing, and the rise of Sweden’s “Pirate Party.” Having won seats in parliament in 2009, The Pirate Party of Sweden was a recognized political group. Since then, other nations (e.g., Germany and Iceland) have also elected members from this movement.

The philosophy of the Pirate Party is best understood from their belief that “the internet is real.” They do not make the distinction between interactions “IRL” (In Real Life) and “online.” Instead, they use the term “AFK” (Away From Keyboard) to describe that state. In American politics, we can see the disruption all around us from this misunderstanding. People have been tricked into believing that their online activities are somehow contained, safely behind a prophylactic digital barrier. It’s “on the internet” and therefore not real. Except that it is. Imagine the mayhem that would exist if people believed that their personal vehicles and the roads on which they travelled were somehow a totally self-contained reality, separate from everything else.

Our goal therefor is not to leverage technology to help citizens become more engaged IRL, or AFK, but to help them understand that they are still citizens, even (and especially) when occupying digital spaces.

Considering stakeholders

Civic engagement: how grassroots movements make lasting impact.

As I continue to think about what citizenship truly means, I am disturbed to think about the lack of participation in western democracy. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the 2016 general election saw a 20-year low in voter turnout. It is tempting to shake my finger and to blame systems and policy (I still do this, in private), but when you pan back and look at the tension between discrete categories, it becomes much clearer what the stakes really are. I have heard from many of my closest friends and peers, that the election of Donald Trump has sparked an ad-hoc civics class. The Washington Post even launched a podcast whose title illustrates this phenomenon: Can He Do That?

One of the factors that prevents people from engaging with politics in a meaningful way, is the pervasive feeling of uncertainty. When you do not understand the mechanics of government and politics it is easy to be discouraged. The first amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to petition government for redress of grievances. This principle makes sense, but government is not a monolith. Government is not a person or a place, so who or what do you call upon when you have a valid complaint? When there is an emergency, you can call 9–1–1, but what about the slow-moving emergency of climate change, wage stagnation, the rising costs of education, childcare, or medical services? We the people might be pissed off. Many of the people who voted for Trump were voting with their middle finger — people often make poor choices when acting in anger.

Grassroots movements have historically been the most successful when groups form durable solidarity toward specific and appropriate goals. If we can find a way to synthesize a learning experience to form coherence with groups who share common grievances, we can make real impact. The 2020 election presents a unique opportunity to pressure elected officials. This is an ideal setting for researching this wicked problem.

Decoding a learning experience: notes from class presentation

We have not yet finished in-class presentations, but I wanted to take a moment to record what has been seen so far:

“The Learning Network” Provides current events in the format of lesson plans. Their goal — to expand reach to students. This is achieved through a combination of online lesson plans, quizzes, and student opinions.

Want to learn to play racquetball? Hillary described her initial interest as “like playing tennis, but indoors” — which makes sense, considering that we are living through winter in Pittsburgh. She discovered that Pickleball players (who are mostly 50+ year olds) are obsessed with this sport, and have countless posts on YouTube. Racquetball videos on YouTube, by comparission, are exceptionally rare (very few videos, the top pick being an upload from 10 years ago). Key takeaway: learn the moves before learning the rules.

Michelle Chou presented a sustainable seafood guide. App and website: Seafoodwatch.org, a resource created by the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Users can enter a search for the type of seafood they want to eat. The guide then provides information and recommendations (environmental impact, overfishing, etc.) Categories include: Best Choices, Good Alternatives, Avoid.

Kate played a showreel for the barbican Digital Revolution Exhibition. This traveling exhibition seeks to inform the public on how digital culture permeates modern-day life. The most impactful exhibit (I think) was an exploration into “Digital archaeology” (the history of human computer interaction).

Next, we looked at an online tool designed to teach DSLR users how to be more effective at digital photography: http://photography-mapped.com/. Most DSLR owners shoot in Auto-Mode, and never touch the manual settings. This interactive website explains the different functions of a DSLR. One of the key features of the siteShows instant feedback to help develop understanding.

There were more presentations (I might come back and post more from my notes), but you may have already noticed a pattern: new technology is what makes all of these learning experiences possible. These experiences may happen online or in-person, but all of them are leveraging technology to enhance people’s learning. Some of these experiences were not even possible a few decades ago.

Decoding a learning experience: a case study of factitious

One major area of concern going into the 2020 election is the role of social media in spreading disinformation. While I firmly believe that social media companies (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) need to take a more proactive role in combating fake news (and other propaganda), users and community stakeholders can also help to fight against the tide. One helpful tool is an online game, factitious.

The rules are simple: players are presented with a headline, text, and images — is it real or fake? The correct answer will be rewarded with points, while incorrect answers will provide helpful tips for how to spot a fake. Why is this game important? One of the hard-learned lessons from the 2016 election year was that people often share a news story without ever vetting the contents. Even worse, many Facebook users were willing to share a news story without ever having read the article.

What works: the game is simple, informative, entertaining, and free to the public. What could be better: the game is low stakes, and while that certainly encourages players to give it a try, it doesn’t have any replay value, or real incentives for competition. This could be improved.

Related links:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/09/how-misinformation-spreads-on-social-media-and-what-to-do-about-it/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-to-combat-fake-news-and-disinformation/

https://www.cits.ucsb.edu/fake-news/protecting-ourselves-teach

https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/anti-misinformation-actions/

Citizenship and technology: questions and hypotheses

This week we continued to explore citizenship from the lens of learning experience design (LxD). This issue is complex, affecting countless individuals, institutions, systems, and more. It was helpful to visualize the issue with a team (we continued a second day of whiteboard sketching, with post-its for card sorting. Ultimately, this helped us to identify the categories of “Five Ws” (Who, What, When, Where, Why) and How.

Who: voters (including potential voters). In 2016, voter turnout was at a 20–year low. Nearly half of voting-age Americans did not cast a ballot in 2016. It could be easy — even tempting — to look at this group and condemn their inaction. After all, Hillary Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump, but lost the electoral college due to roughly 100,000 votes spread between three so-called “swing states.” If we ever are to have a health democracy, we need more people to vote, and they need to vote consisently. There are no “off years” for civic duties.

What can be done to increase voter turnout? This varies from one state to the next, so this question cannot be addressed at a national level, unless we first address the specifics of each state. Since the focus of this class is not public policy, we should instead look at voters and what resources would help them to understand the election process. There are many competing ideas, and it is likely that not just one policy or change to our elections will do the trick. Ultimately, we need voters to understand the necessary steps in the process, from registration to the act of casting a ballot.

When? Now.

It is not particularly helpful to only look at voters during our election years — every year, all year is what we need. Voting is only one small piece of civic responsibility. Volunteering in your community, military service, writing and calling your representatives, participating in demonstrations, jury duty, and even paying your taxes are major areas of concern, and these activities happen every day (if not to you, then to someone you know) in the United States.

Where can we reach eligible voters? One of the challenges with an always-online culture is that attention itself has become a commodity. There is serious competition for clicks and participation. This constant battle for your attention leaves only razor-thin margins for the less exciting, less sexy areas of real life. Combating distraction presents a real challenge.

Why is voting turnout is low? This question is more difficult to answer. Voter suppression tactics, gerrymandering, apathy, and public misperceptions and attitudes about democracy are major factors.

How can we change that? Before we can answer that question, we must first understand what factors determine a person’s level of political engagement. This should be a serious area of focus for further research.

Further Reading:

Voter turnout (https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html)

Swing state voter margin (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/)

Voter suppression (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/)

Gerrymandering(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/what-is-gerrymandering.html)

Topics of interest: challenges in exploring the design of learning experiences

After the results of the 2016 election, many Americans (including a candidate who received nearly 3 million more votes than Donald Trump) wanted to know: what happened? What has unfolded since then has been an endless firehose of scandals, breaches of public trust, attacks against journalists, amplification of white nationalism, and a polarization of politics unlike anything seen in recent decades or even generations. For many, this question has been more about whether we are reliving 1968 or 1934. Depending on what happens in this year’s election, we may have an answer to that dreaded question.

I believe that recent events and how we interpret them are dangerously subjected to a “fragmentalization” of narrative: this happened, and that happened, because (?). It is in our nature to seek out patterns — we depend on them to make sense of our reality — but just like Rorschach tests, cloud formations, tea leaf and palms readings, what we *think* we see is often much more subjective than we are willing to admit. These truthy relationship between separate parts can easily deceive us, and make it harder to see firmer (but much less pleasant) truths. The facts remain the same, even if our interpretation of them varies wildly.

This is why I am choosing to engage in two important topics this semester: technology and citizenship (i.e., civic engagement). I believe that in our ever-increasingly digital world, that it makes no sense to separate these two topics. They are deeply interlinked, (from our political discourse online, Tweets by the President and his feverish supporters, the sharing of stories on social media, cybersecurity, data breaches, electronic voting, online privacy, and so much more) technology influences politics, just as politics influences technology. What we do to one, through innovation or policy, will affect the other. In other words: to understand 21st century politics is to understand the fifth dimension — cyberspace.

Here are some specific questions worth exploring: how can we combat disinformation, fake news, state-sponsored propaganda, bots, and trolls? If we are living in a post-truth era of hopelessly tribal politics, how do we exit from it? Is that even possible? Voter turnout in general elections has been flat (around 55%) since the 1970s, how can we get more eligible voters to engage in their civic duties? How can we promote a more confident and informed public? I have some ideas about all of this, but will wait until class tomorrow where we can discuss. I hope to get some good feedback.

Reframing Climate Action

Climate change represents an existential threat to all human and non-human life on our planet. This is a global crisis. It is a complex, compounded problem, representing a multitude of technological, political, and economic challenges; as big and complex as they are, we should welcome these challenges. We can start by reframing the debate. Later this month, families in the United States will gather to celebrate Thanksgiving. You may find yourself sitting at a table with someone who opposes the radical transformations necessary to address the climate emergency — someone who refuses to acknowledge the dire warnings from climate scientists, and who sees no real need to change our economy, food production or modes of transportation. Instead of browbeating them for their lack of concern or sense of ecological stewardship, consider this alternative: talk about how exciting this transformation could be.


Sustainability cannot be achieved if the only source of inspiration is our fear of a climate catastrophe. We need enthusiasm and a sense of adventure; we need to dream of big, radical shifts from the brightest corners of science fiction. We need to inspire people’s imagination, and show them a future that is possible: with proper planning and investment into new technologies, we can build something better. Recycling our plastic bottles, taking public transportation or riding a bicycle to work might make us feel good about our carbon footprint (and if you do these things, thank you), but these kinds of actions do little to inspire. We need a moonshot of new technologies that make fossil fuels obsolete. This cannot be a lateral transition.


One of the most common objections to adopting the necessary changes and policies to address climate change (e.g., generating 100% of our electricity from solar, wind, and other renewables, massive expansion of public transportation infrastructure, abandoning fossil fuels in virtually every area of the global economy, sweeping reforms to agricultural practices and global trade, etc.) is the notion that these changes are both radical and sudden. In fact, these changes are. It is radical to reshape how people power their homes, what they eat, or how they commute to and from work. The IPCC says that “unprecedented and urgent changes” are needed to keep warming below 1.5°C, and that failing to meet that goal will have catastrophic impact. In fact, even with the target of 1.5°C we are likely to see significant ecological impact beyond what has already taken place.


What these objections fail to account for is that radical change is happening, and it will continue so long as new technologies are being developed. At the beginning of the twentieth century, most people traveled long distances by rail, ships, or even by riding on the backs of domesticated animals. The Wright brothers sparked a radical change in 1903, when they successfully completed the first heavier-than-air powered flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Less than thirty years later in 1927, Charles Lindbergh became the first aviator to successfully complete a non-stop trans-Atlantic flight. A little more than a decade later in 1941, the Japanese Imperial forces launched a massive naval air strike against the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor. That same decade, in 1947,Chuck Yeager became the first pilot to break the sound barrier. Roughly twenty years after that, in 1969, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. By the end of the twentieth century, massive fiberoptic networks and satellites connected people from around the world and enabled communication at the speed of light.


It is an undeniable fact that some of the most transformative technologies of the twentieth century were not planned by governments or voted on by the consent of the public, but instead began with hobbyists. From powered flight to the home computer, radical change can come from the most humble beginnings. With proper funding, institutional support, public and private investments, and an insatiable drive for continual improvements, these new technologies have reshaped every aspect of our daily lives.


Even though it is commonplace today, flying on a commercial jet is still an adventure. One century ago, the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world could not enjoy the convenience or speed we now take for granted. It is an optimistic act to step inside of an aluminum tube and to trust total strangers to safely accelerate to over five-hundred miles per hour, thirty-thousand feet above the ground.


Unfortunately, this miraculous convenience comes at a heavy price: air travel is also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to one study from 2016, air travel alone could account for a quarter of our carbon budget by the year 2050. This is alarming but not hopeless. We do not need to abandon air travel and or return to riding on the backs of horses. The fundamental physics of aviation do not even require burning fossil fuels. In fact, there are already a number of prototype hydrogen-fueled aircraft that fly without producing any carbon emissions. Research indicates that hydrogen is the most suitable alternative fuel; hydrogen is abundant (it is the most common element in the known universe) and because it burns clean, it could extend the life of jet engines by 25%.


Why stop there? Jet A-1 (one of the most common jet fuels in use today) was developed in the 1950s. Considering the rapid progress of modern aviation, why should we continue to use a seventy-year-old fuel? Jet A-1 has a maximum burn temperature of roughly 4,000°F; that is impressive, but hydrogen can burn over a thousand degrees hotter at 5,100°F. The byproduct of burning this fuel is water vapor. What can we do with that extra thermal energy? SABRE hypersonic Reaction Engines are currently in development, and could potentially lead to commercial aircraft with a speed of over 4,000 mph. That’s three times faster than the (now defunct) supersonic Concorde airliners.


Imagine flying from New York to London in one hour.


That’s exciting, but I forgot to mention something: that speed only accounts for altitudes of 30,000 feet. Hydrogen-oxygen engines, unlike their antiquated kerosene-burning counterparts, are not dependent on atmosphere for their combustion. At higher altitudes, where there is no atmosphere or wind resistance, these hypersonic jets could reach speeds of up to 19,000 mph. Imagine flying from London to Sydney in less than four hours. This is radical change; it is faster, higher, hotter, and cleaner than anything we have ever built before, but it is not unprecedented. This is what we have always done: better, and more exciting.

 United Nations, “Special Climate Report: 1.5ºC Is Possible But Requires Unprecedented and Urgent Action” 08 October, 2018. (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2018/10/special-climate-report-1-5oc-is-possible-but-requires-unprecedented-and-urgent-action/)

 Roz Pidcock, Sophie Yeo, “Analysis: Aviation could consume a quarter of 1.5C carbon budget by 2050” 08 August, 2016. (https://www.carbonbrief.org/aviation-consume-quarter-carbon-budget)

 Andrew J. Hawkins, “This company wants to fill the skies with hydrogen-powered planes by 2022” 14 August, 2019. (https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/14/20804257/zeroavia-hydrogen-airplane-electric-flight)

 A. Godula-Jopek, A. Westenberger, “Compendium of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 4: Hydrogen Use, Safety and the Hydrogen Economy” 2016. (Pages 67-85)

 Rachel Cormack, “This Hypersonic ‘Space Plane’ Can Get From New York to London in One Hour” 27 September, 2019. (https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/sabre-hypersonic-space-plane-2871535/)


Why putting on the brakes is not enough

Pittsburgh Public.jpeg

Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, knows his platform allows for bad craziness to spread like cancer, but fuck it! He’s still getting rich. Who cares if his platform amplified the worst voices in this country, and did so at the shared expense of everyone else? Right? Anyone who still works for Twitter should seriously reconsider what they are doing with their lives. Imagine getting paid to provide Nazis a global megaphone. How do you sleep at night, @Jack?

Thoughts on Ruined by Design, by Mike Monteiro:


I’ve finished reading Mike Monteiro’s book, Ruined By Design, and his message is clear: “as designers, we need to think of ourselves as gatekeepers.” This means we must refuse to put harmful designs (in any form) into the world. He uses the analogy of the Hippocratic Oath, and a doctor’s pledge to “first, do no harm,” and argues for designers to adopt a code of ethics.

I can hardly disagree with the notion that designers, like many other professions, ought to operate under a set of values. But is this enough? No. It is not enough to *not* do unethical design. It’s a good start, but it is not enough. For every harmful act, for every data breach, for every easily preventable hack, for every racist and hateful Tweet, for every man-made environmental catastrophe, and for every preventable tragedy brought upon us in the name of “innovative technology” and “disruption,” there is another mile we all travel on this dark highway. Refusing to do something harmful is a neutral act, and ought to be perceived as part of a neutral position. If you are someone who remains “neutral” on climate change, staggering wealth inequality, or the very real threats of fascism and white nationalism, then you’re not really part of the solution - you’re just a speed bump.

We need to reverse this, and Mike Monteiro is passionately calling for us to start by putting on the brakes. It’s not enough, but it is an essential first step. What we desperately need is positive change. We are going down this road at the speed of internal, infernal combustion. We are going faster than hot chrome and sweaty sex. Running in the red.

Almost everyone (aside from a handful of oligarchs and their Fox News sycophants) agrees that we should (at the very least) slow down. And if you suggest we stop, do you know how you will be labeled? You will be called a “far-left radical.” As if wanting every hard working family in this country to live with some basic level of dignity is a communist plot! As if wanting Twitter and the rest of Silicon Valley to actually be held responsible for what they put out into the world is “too liberal” or “too PC.” Well, call me liberal, but I cannot see the value in letting racist assholes have a platform to make terroristic threats against hospitals. Seriously: Fuck you, Jack Dorsey.

Why are these matters controversial at all? Maybe it is because the only thing more grotesque than this horrify status quo is: ourselves. We have been ignoring hard truths for such a long time that we often fail to see how far off we have wandered. It’s after midnight. The road is dark. The engine is running in the red. Why? From wealth inequality, to endless wars, to climate change, we live in a world where crisis is the status quo. Why?

(?)

What the author correctly identified is that this is because it is designed that way. We can’t fix this by simply refusing to go further down this road; we need to actively work against the designs that lead to ruin. We need to take the wheel. And if we crash, we need to pile up the debris and preserve only that which functions as a warning sign: to tell future generations not to go down that same path ever again. I’ll let Mike have the last word on this.

If we want positive search results, we should do positive things. If we want to reassure the users of our products that they can trust us, we should do positive things. There’s a reason I wrote these last three chapters in this order. Community breeds standards; standards breed accountability; accountability breeds trust; licensure validates that trust. It’s a journey. It may be a long journey, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth taking.

Do positive things.

Monteiro, Mike. Ruined by Design: How Designers Destroyed the World, and What We Can Do to Fix It (p. 206). Mule Books.