# Key meetings and the power of “What’s up with that?”

One of the biggest privileges of leadership is building on the brilliance and creativity of others. What I can do on my own is small compared to what I can do as part of a team. And, hopefully, what I have learned over the years helps the ambitious, creative, brilliant people that work with me achieve meaningful goals. It is definitely a messy business because people are messy, precisely because of the unique talents and perspectives we all bring. The following are not exclusively my ideas, but I have tested and tested and tested them over again, and they have proven their value. Where possible, I will tell you what sources I based these strategies on.

1. Some meetings are key. You have to meet with people one on one every week for at least 30 minutes.
1. Why one on one? Because when something is uncomfortable or going wrong it either won’t come out in a group meeting or will come out sideways and create the additional need for understanding and repair with a lot more people.
2. Why once a week? Because if the frequency is less than that, the vacations, travel, and illness that occasionally derail these meetings create breaks that can span three to four weeks and a month is definitely too long for a problem to fester.
3. Why 30 minutes? It takes 30 minutes to talk about a complicated subject. I actually have found that if I meet with someone about projects AND people (including themself), I schedule 45 minutes minimum because the complicated subject often comes up after some simpler things get discussed.

2. The power of “What is up with that?” I learned this respectful strategy for recovering from failures from The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey and the wonderful parenting book how-to-talk-so-kids-will-listen-and-listen-so-kids-will-talk by Adele Faber. The basic idea is that, when you think something has gone wrong, the most important factor in resolving the problem is understanding it.

The first step is to describe the problem non-judgementally. So, for example, the non-judgemental description part might be I noticed that we aren’t going to deliver feature-x by time-y or “I noticed that we had an outage yesterday,” or “People looked tense in meeting z,” or “We collected this data, and I thought it was pointing us toward doing x, but then we did y.”

Then you ask “What is up with that?” to the person most likely to be responsible and/or have critical information. (For non American English speakers, you can try “What happened with that”? Or “What is going on with that?”)

As a leader or manager (or team mate) it is your responsibility to discuss any setbacks your team faces, but no one is perfect at handling these conversations. This technique works for anyone, but it is particularly useful for both under and over-reactors. For those of you who might prefer to avoid conflicts, it gives you a way to discuss something in a simple, factual, non-confrontational way. It also works for those who tend to jump to conclusions and overreact, which could intimidate the receiver of the message, by instead giving the receiver space and respect to respond.

The key to this technique is not to overload either question with whatever stories you might be telling yourself about why or who is to blame. Leaving those stories out preserves trust, maintains a team atmosphere, and keeps the person you are asking on your side and un-defensive. The form of the question is important because it is neutral and open to the information the person you are asking has. You will be surprised what you learn. From a heart-felt “I screwed up and here is how I am fixing it” to “Oh, because we got an opportunity for even better feature la-di-da” to “We didn’t have this important thing we need. Can we work together to figure out how to get that?” It takes a ton of practice, but the good part of this is that the more you do it, the more you trust that you really do have colleagues working with you and not against you.

# HCOMP 2019 Part 1 – Motivation isn’t all about credit.

HCOMP 2019 Humans and machines as teams – takeaways for learning

The HCOMP (Human Computation) 2019 conference was about humans and machines working as teams and, in particular, combining ‘crowd workers’ (like those on Mechanical Turk and Figure Eight) and machine learning effectively to solve problems. I came to the conference to ‘map the field’ to learn about what people are researching and exploring in this area and to find relevant tools for building effective educational technology (ed-tech). I had an idea that this conference could be useful because ed-tech often combines the efforts of large numbers of educators and learners with machine learning recommendations and assistance. I wasn’t disappointed. The next few posts contain a few of the things that I took away from the conference.

Pay/Credit vs. Quality/Learning. Finding the sweet spot. Ed-tech innovators and crowd work researchers have a similar optimization problem: finding the sweet spot between fairness and accuracy. For crowd workers, the tension comes from a need to pay fairly for time worked, without inadvertently incentivizing lower quality work. The sweet spot is fair pay for repeatably high quality work. We have an almost identical optimization problem with student learning, if you consider student “pay” to be credit for work, and student “quality” to be learning outcomes. The good news is that while the two are often in tension with each other, those sweet spots can be found. Two groups in particular found interesting results in this area.

1. Quality without rejection: One group investigating repeatability of crowd work (Qarout et. al) found that there was a difference in quality (about 10%) between work produced for Figure Eight and Amazon Turk (AT). Amazon Turk allows requesters to reject work they deem low-quality and Figure Eight doesn’t and the AT workers completed tasks at about 10% higher quality. However, the AT workers also reported higher stress. Students also report high levels of stress over graded work and fear making mistakes, both of which can result in detriments to learning, but we have found that students on average put in less effort when work is graded for completion rather than correctness. Qarout et. al tried a simple equalizer. At the beginning of the job, on both platforms, they explicitly said that no work would be rejected, but that quality work would be bonused. This adjustment brought both platforms up to the original AT quality, and these modified AT tasks were chosen faster than the original ones because the work was more appealing once rejection was off the table. It makes me think we should be spending a lot of research time on how to optimize incentives for students expending productive effort without overly relying on credit for correctness. If we can find an optimal incentive, we have a chance to both increase learning and decrease stress at the same time. Now that is a sweet spot.

2. Paying fairly using the wisdom of the crowd: A second exploration that has implications for learning is FairWork (Whiting, et. al). This group at Stanford created a way for those wishing to pay $15/hour to Amazon Turk workers to algorithmically make sure that people are paid an average of$15/hour. Figuring out how long a task takes on AT is hard, similar to figuring out how long a homework takes, so what the Stanford group did was ask workers to report how long their task took and then throw out outliers and average that time. They then used Amazon’s bonusing mechanism to auto-bonus work up to \$15/hour. The researchers used some integrated tools to time a sample of workers (with permission) to see if the self-reported averages were accurate and found that they were. They plan to continue to research how well this works over time. For student work, we want to know whether students are spending enough effort to learn and we want them to get fair credit for their work. So it makes sense to try having students self-report their study time, and using some form of bonusing for correctness to balance incentivizing effort without penalizing the normal failure that is part of trying and learning.

# Accessibility Sprint – Part 3: Giving non-visual feedback for learning from interacting with PhET simulations

This is the third part of a series of blog posts about a coding sprint about creating interactive online learning that is usable for people with disabilities.

The first post gives an overview of the coding sprint. Each of these subsequent posts describes the work of one team.

### Sims Team Goal

Make the University of Colorado Boulder’s well respected, freely available, open-source PhET simulations more accessible for students who cannot see the simulation. By providing just the right amount of aural feedback about what is happening in the simulation after an action taken by a learner, blind and low-vision students could interact with the simulation, hear the results, and try additional actions to understand the underlying physics principles.

For example, PhET has been working on making their Balloon and Static electricity simulation accessible by including scene descriptions that screen readers read aloud in order to orient learners that can’t just look around to see what looks controllable. The controls are all accessible via keyboard actions. But, when a learner takes an action, for instance removing a charged wall that is keeping the balloon steady, the resulting balloon movement must be described. It would overwhelm the listener if small changes are repetitively described, and it can be confusing if messages end up being read out of logical order. For instance, messages about the balloons movement might end up being read behind a message describing its reaching an object and stopping.

This group decided to work on extending the messaging being reported by this balloon sim, in order to better report very dynamic events, such as moving the balloon, or the balloon moving itself (attracted to sweater) without overwhelming and overlapping messages. To do this, they designed an UtteranceQueue, which is a FIFO (first in, first out) message queue with certain rules: it takes an object that contains an utterance, an object the utterance is associated with, an expected utterance time (to delay before the next utterance) and a callback that returns a boolean, to allow the utterance to be cancelled, rather than spoken, when it reaches the top of queue. This should allow a simulation programmer to design the set of messages a particular object should report. For example the balloon would report being moved, as well as its state of charge, and whether it is stuck to something. The callback would allow, for example, the balloon movement messages to cancel themselves if the balloon is in fact now stuck to the sweater or wall.

### Testing (of the earlier version)

While the above development was occurring, one of the team members, Kelly, tested the feedback announcer function in the existing version of the balloon sim (the one before the code sprint) and got some user feedback for the group. The person that she tested with had worked with the sim before, but not with the new scene narration. Her test subject found the narration volubility to be just about right. He did, however, want to have a way to repeat some narration.

### Demo

At the end of the day, this group demonstrated the operation of the new UtteranceQueue when the wall is removed and the balloon starts drifting toward the sweater. The movement was described (and not overly repetitive) and when the balloon got to the sweater that event was narrated. No other messages followed.

People who worked in this group: Jesse Greenberg, Darron Guinness, Ross Reedstrom, Kelly Lancaster

# Accessibility sprint – part 2: Creating a mobile-friendly and accessible Infobox for maps

This is the second part of a series of blog posts about a coding sprint that happened the day before CSUN 17. The sprint was about creating interactive online learning that is usable for people with disabilities. This whole software area is called accessibility, and known as inclusive design.

The first post gives an overview of the coding sprint. Each of these subsequent posts describes the work of one team.

## Creating a mobile-friendly and accessible Infobox for maps

### Team Goal

Create a widget for helping people who are blind or have low vision explore maps that display statistical information (think popular vote winners in the US). This type of map is called a choropleth.

The existing infobox widget takes statistical data in a simple format and works with hot spots on an svg map to bring up an info box as a user mouses over or tabs to different regions on the map. The current version, however, isn’t accessible for low vision, doesn’t work well with screen readers, and doesn’t work on mobile. The team worked on improving these aspects of the widget (which can be reused for any statistical map).

## United States 2016 presidential race: Popular vote by state.

### Demo at the end of the day

Doug Schepers demonstrated the improvements. The demo showed the map tool improved for low vision and screen reader access. For low vision, the state selection outline was thickened, the info box contrast was increased and made resizable, the info box placement was adjusted to make sure the selected state was not covered. The ability to select the next state via tabbing on the states was added. Selection is currently in alphabetical order, and a better system would work on the navigation also. He also demonstrated using a screen reader and being able to select a state and hear it read the info box for each state. It uses ARIA Live Regions to update things. The statistical data is formatted using simple name, value pairs.

The ultimate goal is to define a simple standard for describing statistical map data and provide an open-source, reusable, accessible widget for interacting with these maps.

Doug Schepers and Derek Riemer worked together.

The code is available here: https://github.com/benetech/Accessible-Interactives-Dev/tree/master/MapInteractives

# CSUN 17 Acessibility Coding Sprint for People with Disabilities (Making learning accessible) – Part 1

Last week, my colleagues at OpenStax, Phil Schatz, Ross Reedstrom and I attended the 2nd annual pre-CSUN (but third overall) accessibility coding sprint to help make learning materials useable by people with disabilities.

## Prior accessibility coding sprints

The first took place in 2013 and was jointly sponsored by my Shuttleworth Foundation fellowship and Benetech and held at the offices of SRI. You can read more about that one in these earlier posts (2013-accessibility-post-1, post-2, post-3, post-4, and post-5). The second took place last year before the CSUN 2016 Accessibility Technology Conference in sunny San Diego and was again sponsored by funds from my Shuttleworth Foundation fellowship and by Benetech. That one focused specifically on tools for creating accessible math. Read more in Benetech’s blog post under “Sprinting towards accessible math”, Murray Sargent’s follow up post on accessible trees and Jamie Teh’s post about creating an open-source proof-of-concept extension of math speech rules used by the NVDA browser to make them sound more natural.

## This year’s sprint Participants at work

This one again took place in not-quite-as-sunny San Diego (California has been getting lots of rain) before this year’s CSUN-17 conference. The focus was on making interactive learning content accessible. And the very cool thing from my perspective is that my fellowship had nothing to do with the organization of this one. Benetech and MacMillan Learning sponsored and organized this one. The attendance was the largest ever with 30-ish in person participant and 5 or so attending remotely. We had several developers that both create accessible software and use assistive technology themselves.

Like previous sprints, we spent time initially getting to know each other and brainstorming and then divided into multiple teams ranging from a single person to five people working together to prototype, explore, or make progress on a particular accessibility feature. In upcoming posts, I will highlight each of the team’s goals and what they demonstrated at the end of the day.