Sherman Lee's Report 6: CREATING GENERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT psy 409b

REPORT 6:

CREATING GENERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT



Back to Leon's Homepage?

METHOD OF IMPROVEMENT

PART I

For this report I am suppose to design a method for objectively showing whether the generational pages are improving in relation to the page's quality, depth, richness, and scholarship. I will do this by using these six measures: length, subheadings, references with comments, detail of topics, development of topic, and integration of psychology and science.

NOTE: Not all measures are relevant to every category!!!

These measures will be scaled from zero to ten. Ten would be the highest possible ranking, meaning that the page with a ten ranking would not meet the minium standards but it would exceed any expectations that anyone would have (in other words, an exceptionally brilliant page). The page that gets a zero ranking means that it never fit the criteria for rating therefore it cannot be rated at all. The page that gets a five ranking means that it has just fit the criteria and that is all (nothing special).

THE SIX MEASURES

1) LENGTH-----Length is the first obvious indicator that a page goes deep into a subject.

2) SUBHEADINGS-----The presence of subheadings is an indicator that a page is organized and deep.

3) REFERENCES-----The number of references or Links (with comments), indicate the depthness along with thoughtfulness of the page.

4) DETAIL-----The detail of topics show many things which could be specific depending on criteria.

5) DEVELOPMENT-----The development of topics clearly show the richness and depthness of a page.

6) INTEGRATION-----The integration of psychology and science shows the page's attempt to broaden their ideas and clearly indicates good scholorship.

THE MATCHING OF GRADING CRITERIA WITH MEASURES

QUALITY-----------> gets measured by: 1)REFERENCES 2)DETAIL 3)DEVELOPMENT and 4)INTEGRATION.

DEPTH----------> gets measured by all six measures: 1)LENGTH 2)SUBHEADINGS 3)REFERENCES 4)DETAIL 5)DEVELOPMENT and 6)INTEGRATION.

RICHNESS----------> gets measured by: 1)DETAIL and 2)DEVELOPMENT.

SCHOLARSHIP----------> gets measured by: 1)DETAIL 2)DEVELOPMENT and 3)INTEGRATION.

METHOD OF IMPROVEMENT

PART II

For this report I am also suppose to design a method for objectively showing whether the generational pages are improving using technology, connectivity, site integration, and navigation. I will do this by these five measures: links, navigation buttons, overall appearance, special effects, and presence of index & table of contents.

NOTE: Not all measures are relevant to every category!!!

These measures will be scaled from zero to ten. Ten would be the highest possible ranking, meaning that the page with a ten ranking would not meet the minium standards but it would exceed any expectations that anyone would have (in other words, an exceptionally brilliant page). The page that gets a zero ranking means that it never fit the criteria for rating therefore it cannot be rated at all. The page that gets a five ranking means that it has just fit the criteria and that is all (nothing special).

THE FIVE MEASURES

1) LINKS-----Links are an obvious indicator of a page's connectivity.

2) BUTTONS-----The presence of navigation buttons indicate the page's navigational function and overall organization.

3) OVERALL-----Overall appearance is a subjective indicator of what I think about the page.

4) EFFECTS-----Special effects show the availability of a pages software.

5) PRESENCE-----The presence of a table of contents and index indicates the pages intergrative features with it's topics.

THE MATCHING OF GRADING CRITERIA WITH MEASURES

TECHNOLOGY----------->gets measured by all five measures: 1)LINKS 2)BUTTONS 3) OVERALL 4) EFFECTS and 5) PRESENCE.

CONNECTIVITY---------->gets measured by: 1)LINKS and 2)BUTTONS.

SITE INTEGRATION---------->gets measured by 1)LINKS 2)BUTTONS and 3)PRESENCE.

NAVIGATION---------->gets measured by : 1)LINKS and 2)BUTTONS.

GENERATION 1


MEASUREMENT I-----> 93/130

MEASUREMENT II----> 79/120

TOTAL POINTS------> 172/250

Generation 1 was the first generation to start the cybercommunity. If it wasn't for their efforts the succeeding generations probably would not have made such strides as they did, do, and will do. The grading score should not be taken without considering the standards to which they are compared to, nonetheless they are relatively low with these standards. In general they did pretty well on measurement I. because their writings were well thought through and very descriptive. They also scored pretty high on the development and integration scale due to their additional files that contained glossaries, outside links, funstuff, etc. The downfall was mainly on measurement II. where their technological software was limited; their organization of links were poor, their overall appearance was poor, and their page's overall oragnizational function was also low on the scale.
One of the good additions that helped on measurement I. was the addition of glossaries. Beverly Dias added a simple but very functional glossary. Kevin Bogan's homepage had a lot of outside links so that helped the gradings with the links measure on all scales of measurement II however, all those links never really helped on the buttons measure because they lacked when it came to the integration of the site. Not only did it hurt in that measure but it also was hurt in the placement and organization of them. It seemed as if the links were placed all over the page without much thought to how they should have been organized. Another measure that was hurt extremely bad was all of the measures of measurment I. The reason for this was that his links to his labs were not functioning, which also brought points down on the buttons scale.
There are many reasons why G1 got a total score of 172/250: The first and foremost reason is that they are being graded by a criteria that is much more advanced and critical than their's was. They were the first generation so it is no wonder why they would get graded low with these standards; generation 6b's standards. In fact the next generation that succeeds mine will probably get more advanced and grade very critically to my generation also. Another reason why they could have lost a lot of points was because some links were not work, like Bogan's, so I was not able to add any points on those scales. Finally I think that their writing was well thought of and it made up for the lack on all the other scales.

GENERATION 2


MEASUREMENT I-----> 101/130

MEASUREMENT II----> 115/120

TOTAL POINTS------> 216/250

Generation 2 was my personal stepping stone into the cybercommunity. When I was a member of generation 3 my classmates and I would model after the work of g2 and we also learned a lot from some of the members of g2 because they were our lab tutors for our first month. From the grading scale g2 seemed to exceed g1 on all measures. As far as quality, depth, and richness on measurement I. they were almost the same. They too had some dead links so I was unable to give points on some measures. On measurement II. is where they garnered a lot of their points. They were far superior from generation one in the respect that they had better overall organization; their links were appropriate and organized well; their navigational buttons were placed and shown better; and their overall appearance was just better.
One example of how they were hurt was found on Cynthia Yap's page. Cynthia's links to her lab reports were dead so I was unable to grade them, however if you look at her site and how it is organized and how it looks you would get a good idea why they beat g1 on the point scale. Another g2 member that has a great homepage is Lori Morita. Lori's homepage has a great balance of functional organization, graphics, and personality. What also helped in the points on measurement II. is the fact that she has a Report Index,Topical Index, and a Search Engine Index. Having these seperate indexes helps navigation through her site much quicker and much more efficient. This coupled with the rest of the good aspects discussed was what made the drastic 78 points increase from g1!!!

GENERATION 3


MEASUREMENT I-----> 95/130

MEASUREMENT II----> 134/120

TOTAL POINTS------> 229/250

Generation 3 was the first and tentatively the only generation to be part of the World Ideas Bank (WIB). I was fortunate enough to be a part of this generation, so I might have been a tiny bit biased in my scoring so keep that in mind. ~just kidding. As far as the total points were concerned, g3 was 21 points behind of g2. G2 beat g3 as far as measurement I. was concerned, but g3 beat g2 on measurement II. The reason why g2 beat g3 on the first measurement was basically the fact that they generally had better writings, and the reason why g3 beat g2 on the second measurement was the fact that they improved the organizational design, graphics, and overall appearance. For example, Calvin Chung's Homepage is a perfect example on how he used tables to organize his work; how he used color and graphics to make it aesthetically pleasing; and how the overall difference of his page is representative of generation 3. There are many reasons to why there was a difference between the measurement scores. Basically, g3 did less intesive writing than g2 did, and the reason for this was the fact that g3 had to maintain a database along with doing reports. As far as the raise in measurement II. scores, g3 used most of the same kind of technology (graphics, links, text,etc.) as g2 did however g3 added with better uses of the graphics, better organization of the sites, and new kinds of graphics (animated gifs).

GENERATION 3a


MEASUREMENT I-----> 87/130

MEASUREMENT II----> 119/120

TOTAL POINTS------> 206/250

Generation 3a was a summer course. This might explain why the measurement scores are low, because I am working under the impression that every generation will have increasingly greater scores due to the nature of a generational curriculum. In general g3a wasn't very organized with their pages, links, or graphics.For example, Fran's Homepage is not organized in her links, graphics, and work. Another big fault I found was on her report 2.Specifically, she didn't close off one of her links on her "My Search Through Lycos" section. Another problem I found was that some didn't use relative links which could cause problems in the future if the generational curriculum changes sites. For example, Grant Muranaka's homepage uses absolutes links along with blinking text. These are just some of the problems a long with many others that contributed in the results of the measurements.

ARTICLE ON THE ONLINE GENERATIONAL CURRICULUM

After reading the Searching for Oral and Written Communicative Competence article by Dr. James I learned about the creation of the generational curriculum. The article stated that Dr. James had a psychological theory about the instruction of college students. The theory states that college students in general needed more training on fundamental literary competence. Dr. James defined this as "Oral and Written Communicative Competence." This idea came into being when he started a project with Dr. Diane Nahl in 1975 in search for a way to bring out authentic writing for students. The result of this work was the finding that Authenticity was a crucial element in communication. Along with this finding, his work in florida during the 1960's where he designed a method for training teachers of bilingual students an approach that was productive, inspired him to look at social situations as an integral part of communication. He then refined his theory by using the findings of Dr. Kurt Lewin where he found that social group forces can be controlled.
These two theories put together are the working dynamics that drive the Generational Curiculum. The generational curriculum is basically a collection of writtings done by college students that discuss a variety of topics.For example, one topic was on Pet Personality and Their Owners and another was on The Paranormal and how it correlates with one's personality. The earlier colletion from 1971-1991 can found in a collection called The Daily Round Archives. Luckily, my generation and all the previous ones up to 1992 were able to use the world wide web for publishing. This added many different dimensions to the generational curriculum along with different obstacles that we are try to overcome presently.

STUDENTS IN THE ONLINE GENERATIONAL CURRICULUM

Heather Roylo of generation 3 seemed to enjoy her experience being in the online generation curriculum. She seemed very aware of the fact that her work can be seen worldwide, so she made a conscious effort to design her page to entertain and stimulate the cybernaut who landed there. She also mentioned that she has learned invaluable information about computers and the internet, and that she would do all over again if she could. All of these comments could be found on her Report 4.
Grant Muranaka of generation 3a also felt very positive about being a part of the generational curriculum. He said that the class opened up a whole new world for him and that being on the generational curriculum was a challenge for him. He also suggests that people can find a new world that they never even knew existed if they were to be a part of the generational curriculum. All of these comments can be found on hisReport 1.
Robin Miller from Generation 3 also had very good things to say about the generational curriculum. On herReport 4 she felt that a computer class like her psychology 409 should be mandatory for all students in high school and college. She stated that she felt good when people acted surprised when she would tell them that she could construct home pages on the web. She feels that people should get over their technophobia because she feels life can be so much easier if you do.

I think every student that was in the online generational curriculum had problems learning and adapting to the internet. I know I sure did. The good side to this is that most of us eventualy found solutions to our problems.
Jason Tabudlo from generartion 3 expressed his conflicts and has triumphs on his Report 4.The Biggest Conflict Jason said he ever had was finding the time to go on the internet. He said, finding time was almost impossible and rather difficult especially if you are trying to get online from home. What Jason did to get around this was to dial into the UHUNIX system after 12:00 a.m. to avoid getting tied up for hours and basically you just have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best!!!!
Dellia Badua from generation 1 stated in her Lab Report 1 that she did not have problems getting into pine nor sending or receiving email but the problem she had was getting sample reports from gustie and kwok. I personally don't know what she means by gustie and kwok but I guess she figured out her problem because she stated that she figured it out ten minutes later and felt pretty silly about getting frustrated because the answer was pretty obvious.

DESIGNING A LONG TERM PROGRAM

To design a fool-proof program to insure the survival and success of the generational curriculum would be as easy as finding a needle in a haystack. It's just not realistic! However I do believe that some sort of plan has to be made in order to keep the generational curriculum going in the right direction.
Personally I feel that it's going in the right track as it is. I feel that it is still in it's young stage and that if you put to much structure on it now then it would limit its appeal. I do, however feel that the generational curriculum should have a structure and uniformity to it ONLY after ten or fifteen generations down the line. By then I would think that its identity and direction would kind of been decided and by then the refinements could be made.
I also feel that the World Ideas Bank should continue on despite the difficulties experienced by generation 3. When I was managing my own database in g3, I looked foward to reading and posting contributions sent to me. I felt a sense of responsibility to present their contributions on a well designed page and at the same time I also felt a even greater responsibility to have a well thought of site. As with the problem of topic choices, I feel that they should be assigned from the start and not choosen. By doing this there wouldn't be any problems with fairness. I do think that the topics should be broad enough to let the indivdual explore the aspect of that topic that would interest them. For example, If I were assigned a topic like "what I'm proud of" I would personally feel bound to just find things about what people are proud of. I feel that this topic doesn't give me any mobility to do anything, thus making the topic entirely boring. Now if I were assigned a very broad topic like "Pride" I could find tons of things to write about, like; "The psychological aspects of pride" or "The times in my life where I felt proud" or "Pride and television characters" etc. The point is that if the student has an equal balance of structure and freedom then I believe the WIB can be a success!!

BACK TO THE TOP?


E-Mail ME here!!!