This week, we did critique on some of the existing educational technologies, which involves an analysis of the design decisions of a learning technology -- both the explicit and implicit intentions of the designer.

Description and context
-Learning goals: Construct robots with imagination.

-Target population- K-12 teenagers who can make the right use of these kits.
Meant to be used individually. But can also work collaboratively, diverse in family, teacher-student, friends etc.

-Growing: Can be a developmental tool, and the product itself also iterates (bluetooth, scratch)

-Use - Construct robots . Not too much customize designs.

-Instructional scaffolds and supports are provided with the technology: Built-in scaffolds within the technology (e.g. feedback systems, structuring of activities etc.); External scaffolds and support provided with the technology (e.g. online forum ); Come with a Instructions.


Critique- Design of the Technology
-Selective exposure (blackboxing) : No programming. Use magnet to join kits and sensors, and block to cconstruct.

-Selective exposure for usability (“embedded error correction”): Hard for users to use and understand it correctly. The idea is cool, using more user-friendly interface.

-Symbolic systems and representations: Representations are mapped explicitly onto each other, or does the user have to make that step?

-Cultural forms: social patterns of activity.

-Demand new sets practices ( in its latest version, add programming)

-Low floor - high ceiling - wide walls:
Low floor: Join blocks and sensors. Magnet as connection.
High ceiling: novices can follow instructions and experts can create their own
Wide walls: support different forms of exploration and expression in some way
Salience of powerful ideas
The core ideas embedded in the system is let kids do hands-on robots without programming. They are implicit in the interaction with the too and taught directly.

Critique- Synthesis
-LOW FLOOR AND WIDE WALLS:
The underlying theories, design decisions and learning goals aren't align: animal bionics, robot ( no programming).
The “doing” of things are not easy : the connection is not strong enough; user is blackboxing on whether the construction is right or wrong.
Not too much cognitive processes.

-Only can use things are magnetic.

-Much cost, but less popularity.

Critique- Design proposal
Suggest to make a change on its connection since its only are joined by the magnet balls. By changing the appearance of the blocks, we can expand contact area and add more shapes in the magnets