DO YOU WANT TO PLAY A GAME?

Over the weekend, I had some time to digest a very fruitful and in-depth session with my design team. We focused on learning experiences through play. There is no denying that gameplay has significant educational value. Consider the 2002 Millennium Challenge. The US Dept. of Defense spent over $250 million to explore the scenario of a US invasion of Iran. A retired USMC Lt. Gen, playing for the “red team” (i.e., opposing forces), and shocked US commanders when his opening moves defeated the US Navy during a simulated attack. His tactics were so devastating that the game facilitators had no choice but to reset the scenario, and impose artificial restrictions. His tactics revealed a strategic weakness, and exposed the unknown. Was it worth $250 million? Considering the expensive lessons we learn (or, fail to learn) during actual warfare, I would argue that such simulations are a bargain.

With so much potential (for both learning and fun), we explored game mechanics as a way to make the abstract concepts of digital rights more accessible. We rant into a few obstacles with this approach, but none more frustrating than the fact that there are already several games that attempt to do exactly that. We agreed that we do not need one more in that mix.

Toward the end of that session, I became acutely frustrated by the divide between tactics and strategy. Encryption is important, and I want people to know about it, but I also don’t see it as a solution to systemic issues of user privacy, data collection, and surveillance capitalism. To be clear, I still think that it is a valuable tactic and an essential technology, but it falls short of addressing most of my strategic concerns. Worse yet, addressing these technologies as their discrete parts leaves little room for addressing the issue of digital citizenship, digital rights, and the electronic frontier we all care so much about.

How then, can we present this level of complexity to our intended learners? And *who* are our learners, exactly? We reached consensus that “digital natives” make the most sense — but really it should be everyone who benefits from (or can be harmed by) the internet.

Pictured: a young netizen. There is no way that this kid gave consent for this picture to be distributed, but let’s put a pin in that for now... Intel Free Press — https://www.flickr.com/photos/intelfreepress/8433147083/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Where is the strategy? Where is the awareness? We began to focus these concerns through a framework created by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, and their “six facets of understanding.” Before we can decide how to address *how* learners will understand this complexity, we first needed to develop concrete goals for learning.

The six facets for learners

• Explain: learners can produce written/verbal information relevant to the topic

• Interpret: learners can construct a narrative, linking cause and effect for a given phenomenon

• Apply: by contextualizing what they know, learners can adapt their model of understanding to solve novel problems

• Perspective: learners are able to think through a problem from the perspectives of different actors

• Empathize: can think experientially about other’s interactions with a context, and value how they experience it

• Self-knowledge: be aware of how that knowledge affects their thinking and decision making. Know the limits of their understanding, and what remains unknown to them

In the game monopoly, children (ages 3 to 10) learn zero-sum capitalism, market failure, scarcity, opportunity cost, property rights, legal penalties, and much, much more. The players get to take on the role of a property tycoon, and quickly learn that there are different layers to the game. This was by design: the original intent of the game was to teach players about income inequality. It is a game born out of the Great Depression. One of the often overlooked aspects of Monopoly is that “house rules” are determined by the players. A game of monopoly need not be cut-throat. The rules can be tweaked to be more equitable for all. This is true beyond the board game context—this is core to the very concept of democracy.

Not knowing how to synthesize something so elegant (to address digital rights), I told the group that what I really wanted was a constitutional convention. I wanted people to take on the 21st century equivalent of Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and Washington. I wanted smartphones and powdered wigs, tough negotiations and duels. I wanted people to think about their dissatisfaction of being mere subjects to the kingdoms of Facebook and Google, to having no higher status than “colonist” on a digital frontier.

Could roleplaying be enough? Could personas to represent different stakeholders facilitate a learning experience? How can we get people to take these roles seriously? I had more questions leaving our session than I came in with.

Upon reflection and a white board session with Nandini, we returned to the idea of game mechanics in a learning experience. I think we both retreat to the territory of fun when things get difficult. Indeed, for such a heavy subject, I do want people to have fun, and make the learning happen under a blanket of stealth; people tend to be more open to new ideas when they step outside of their own context to engage in play, and we wanted to leverage that. As I alluded to earlier, this is also true in the context of war games.

Returning to Wiggins and McTighe, we began synthesizing game mechanics around the six facets.

I’ll do my best to make sense of these scribbles—I promise!

Mechanics under consideration (an incomplete inventory)

• Digital and physical mechanics

• Hidden agendas

• Secret personas

• Objectives with dynamic feedback

• Inevitable conflict, plausible compromise

We now envision a game, where players use their mobile device as an interface, while interacting in physical space. The players are participating in the first constitutional convention of the internet. They are randomly assigned roles that will dictate their objectives (e.g., a movie and television streaming service, a government surveillance agency, or a social media platform). These personas will act as stakeholders, trying to advance their agenda. Players will take turns, negotiating for an objective to be codified into a digital constitution. Players will then anonymously vote (using their mobile device). As certain provisions are agreed upon, the player’s objectives will change in real-time. For example, an video streaming service is naturally harmed by asymmetrical restrictions on bandwidth… unless they also control that restriction themselves, giving them an unfair competitive advantage over competing platforms. If they “lose” the fight to obtain net-neutrality, their agenda shifts to obtain power over the inequality. Likewise, a government agency and a social media platform might both benefit from anti-privacy measures.

This is as much of a convention as it is a war game.

How does this perform under the six facets?

• Explain: players will learn key terms related to cyber security, digital rights, privacy, and the institutional structures governing the World Wide Web

• Interpret: to perform well at this game, players will need to engage their critical thinking skills and explore the relationships of a highly dynamic and complex system. They will develop mental models to account for economic, social, and political aspects of 21st century technology

• Apply: as their mental model improves, players will begin to think strategically about their objectives, and the objectives of other players. They will improve their ability to persuade and advocate for complex policy positions

• Perspective: players will become aware of the competing stakeholders, their agendas, and the consequences of their proposals over time

• Empathize: players will learn to value differing and conflicting goals, and will understand the gains and loses for themselves and others

• Self-knowledge: players will become aware of the complexity, and will identify gaps in their knowledge through multiple playthroughs

Why Privacy, Security & Surveillance: Netizenship in the 21st century

This week we began to establish framing (reframing) and constraints for our learning experience. We presented our initial research, and received substantial feedback from the class. I will address a couple of points here.

Ema:

“Interesting shift to digital rights from civic tech. The graph/exercise you went through seems like a good way of mapping commonalities within a large stakeholder group. Digital and media literacy in a real place like the internet — it’s everywhere — is very important to civics. Exposed to everyone else around the world. Need to start adapting people’s thinking to the unintended consequences of the internet development. Unsure about audience — feels like there are a lot… Who is EFF? Would be nice to make sure that the jargon is out of the presentation. It’s great to see an example of an analysis of a learning experience that you think could work.”

Who is EFF? The Electronic Frontier Foundation is “the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world.” They provide advisory and advocacy for important matters related to people and technology. This question from Ema has helped to identify another area of focus for our project. Many of the terms related to this topic are quite esoteric. We need to adapt the language and build analogies to avoid alienating our intended audience.

Tomo:

“This is an important topic to explore and I appreciate your thorough investigation of it. The idea of role-playing is interesting and I agree that it could potentially be a meaningful experience. Great that you explored existing resources and identified problems. Gamification — it is not typical that gamification enhances learning (when assessed rigorously) but it is rather a tool for enjoyment and engagement. Thinking about preferred state and what assessment you would need to measure learning might help?”

I think it is valid to be skeptical of gamification as an educational tool/method. My primary interest in the potential for teaching in this format is largely based on my military experience, and the training modes for combat. War Games are not intended to provide a 1:1 experience, but to build institutional knowledge and to help identify weaknesses/opportunities for improvement. It also helps leaders and lower ranks experience multiple perspectives in a conflict scenario. For example, consider submarine hunting. By having US Navy ships assigned with the task of hunting one of their own submarines, they can evaluate the stealth capabilities and limitations of subs. It can also make surface ships more aware of the challenge to identify certain threats.

Likewise, these “opposing forces” exercises allow learners to role-play interactions without stakes. It is an opportunity to help stake-holders better understand threats and challenges, without fear.

Playing Catch-up

Thinking fast vs. looking back

Season 2, episode 1 is easily the most famous episode of the 1950s TV series, I Love Lucy. Ethel and Lucy go to work at a chocolate factory, while Fred and Ricky take on their respective housework. Whether or not you’re familiar with this comedy, chances are you probably know (or are about to know) where this is headed.

I Love Lucy, “Job Switching” (Season 2, Episode 1), 1952

Lucy and Ethel are assigned with the task of wrapping chocolates on an assembly line. Having already disappointed the foreman with their poor performance from earlier in the episode, this is their last chance to avoid being fired. Their task is simple, and repetitive: wrap the chocolates as they come down the belt, and don’t let any chocolates through unwrapped. At first the speed is manageable, but it quickly speeds up, and the quantity of chocolates increases dramatically — and that’s what makes this episode so damn funny. Lucy and Ethel panic. They begin setting chocolates aside, but eventually resort to stuffing the chocolates into their blouses and mouths. At the end of the episode, Fred and Ricky realize that they are terrible housekeepers, and decide that they want Lucy and Ethel to return to their traditional roles. As a token of appreciation, Ricky gives Lucy a gift: a box of chocolates.

What does any of this have to do with LxD, civic engagement, elections, or the unaddressed hazards of 21st century technology? Not much. It is however, a great analogy for my schedule last week. I managed to stay on top of things through the first few weeks of the semester, but then the belt sped up, and I had too many “chocolates” without the capacity to wrap them. I’m now looking back, instead of writing and reflecting in the moment. This shift in perspective has been fruitful, I along with the rest of my team have made significant strides toward our goal of developing a learning experience.

What is still missing are my posts on Medium and this personal blog. I want to document this process, but am doing so one week later. The next two posts (06-11 February) are dated to correspond with the class schedule and for their prompts. This is done for clarity, and not a deception. The advantage of writing from this vantage point is that I now have the benefit of knowing how these ideas unfolded. I can write about what was done, and how it changed things.

Notes from class presentations

Considering approaches and interventions

This week, groups in our class presented their initial findings from researching their chosen field of interest. I recorded some of my ideas and observations during class session and thought it would be worthwhile to include a couple of them here:

Ema, Kate, Nick, and Yue: Food Systems

This group is exploring the relationships that college freshmen have with their food, through the context of campus food vending services. There are many places to eat on campus. We have a food truck, cafés, several eating areas in the University Center, as well as residential halls. There is a disconnect between the staff and the food they serve. This is compounded by the disconnect students experience by not preparing meals themselves. The team has proposed a series of interventions, designed to create more student engagement and a sense of ownership.

My thoughts: Freshmen are going through a series of drastic changes in their life. This presents a unique opportunity to change habits early in adult life — people are more likely to adopt new habits during periods of change. I am also curious about the idea of a student-led cleaning weekly session. Could this produce an opportunity to build empathy with the staff? Could it create a greater sense of joint ownership?

Amanda: Civics and Tech

Amanda is interested in how to instruct political radicals to leverage technologies to mobilize and affect meaningful political and social change. She has several different avenues to explore along this subject:

• Political engagement through digital and physical spaces

• Who are their stakeholders and what are your thoughts on their understanding of them and discoveries they made?

• Mass mobilization and online activists

• Students

• Politically-minded

• Radicals

• High focus on community

• Interested in both digital and analog engagement

The *How* remains unclear (this is more or less true for all of the groups at this stage), but I do have some thoughts, given that we began this process as a single group:

What are your thoughts on their use of the 4MAT System (McCarthy) to propose ways of planning and executing effective learning experiences?

I agree with the method of starting with the WHY quadrant of the 4MAT chart. I do wonder if you will meet an obstacle due to knowledge gaps. “Why” can be harder to justify if the intended audience does not already understand “WHAT.” I wonder if there is a way to leverage the audience’s curiosity, and to help them learn of their own knowledge gaps. How then would you proceed from that discovery, to compel them to consider the “WHY.” One other thing that comes to mind is the alternate reality game, “YEAR ZERO” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_timeline_of_Year_Zero). Originally launched in 2007, it anticipated a future America in the year 2022 (we are getting close now), where America’s government has fallen, replaced by a Christian-dominionist, fascist government (this seems more likely now, which is terrifying). A resistance group uses digital technologies to try to fight back against an oppressive regime, leading to a series of clandestine information sharing methods. Have you considered alternate reality games? It could spark some creative methods for teaching this subject.

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.

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.

Who are my learners?

What can we teach about civic engagement?

Last week our teams mapped out the stakeholders for our chosen topic (citizenship and grassroots).

Our stakeholder map was stolen from the studio. This was the last picture taken before it went missing. If have any information, call: 1-800-STOLEN-MAP No questions asked if you return it. Really, at this point we all just want closure.

By looking at the tension between groups, we can easily get overwhelmed. What was most helpful was to recognize where common interests exist between stakeholders. These should provide opportunities for engagement, or perhaps even leverage points between groups in conflict (or perceived conflict). Additionally, we identified a disturbing aspect: asymmetry. While there were mutual and shared interests between our three groups, there were also some goals that actually provided benefits at the expenses of others.

The easiest way to understand this dynamic is to think about big tobacco. Smokers want and desire cigarettes. They are willing to pay for them, even when discouraged through taxation. They smoke throughout the day, despite knowing that it has a negative impact on health. Who benefits the most in this relationship? In the short term, the smoker benefits. In the long term, the tobacco companies benefit. These relationships are exploitative, but also difficult to break.

Reactionary politics benefit a minority of the powerful at the expense of everyone else, but it also provides validation to a cynical and disengaged citizenry. For those who insist that politics is self-serving, and incapable of providing value to the public, it is very easy to be proven correct, even if the outcomes that produce that validation are not beneficial.

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.

Source: factitious.augamestudio.com

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.

Designing Experiences For Learning

What excites me about diving into designing experiences for learning and why.

During my undergraduate studies, I took an elective on Design Thinking, and nothing has been the same ever since. I began to rethink what it means to solve problems, and became acutely aware of how easily and often products and services fail to address human needs. This journey lead me to volunteering at a “Design and Innovation” classroom at Ockley Green Middle School in Portland, OR. Working with these young minds helped me to appreciate the value of fresh perspectives, and exposed many of my own gaps of knowledge. I was gobsmacked to see people half my age building interactive prototypes for mobile apps, and completing design challenges with intuition and glee. In many cases, they were even doing more compelling work than some of my peers in the Art School at Portland State. The craft was often lacking, but their concepts were rich and deeply human — solid evidence that their imaginations were still unspoiled and wild.

When given permission to try “crazy ideas,” while also being properly supported by mentors and educators, there is earnest potential for groundbreaking innovation (this was evident, even in a K-12 context). Through many exchanges and observations along the way, I knew that I wanted to be a part of this process, to educate and support this kind of growth. My own experiences with public education were less than ideal, and I never saw this sort of potential before. I became deeply interested in the learning process, and wanted to know why some students succeed while others fail. I wanted to know what methods and environments helped people to become better versions of themselves. Most of all, I wanted to know what role Design Thinking could play in these developments.