Tech 4 Learners – Week 10 – Assignment Lessons Learned

Assignment

Response

Team SAL: Soren, Alex, Lucas 

Lessons Learned

  • Time with the intended user and rigorous user testing are critical to success. Every interaction our team had with our OMS student yielded more ideas and insights.
  • It can be challenging to figure out whether an idea is not good or whether its implementation was the issue. It’s quite possible that a user will not engage well with a prototype even though the basis of the prototype is a worthwhile idea. Consequently, it is important to identify the critical learning mechanism to be tested and give the learner different ways to engage with it.
  • What would be motivating to us is not necessarily as motivating to other learners. For example, while our team might be excited to narrate videos, our OMS learner was much more motivated to help a blind cat understand the video.
  • It is important to use a learner’s strength to help him improve upon his weakness. With our OMS learner, we found greater success when we played off of his strength (caring for others) to motivate him to talk.
  • The Wizard of Oz technique enabled our team to rapidly test, change, and evolve our prototype. The freedom to build just part of our prototype and simulate the rest of the prototype experience also allowed us to test several backup ideas, which helped us gather additional insight on our learner’s motivations and interests. 
  • We realized how important it is to record and review testing sessions. By closely analyzing when our learner showed engagement, we were able to pinpoint the specific mechanisms through which our prototype encourages participation and positive affect. 
  • The “protege effect” – or more broadly the task of teaching someone else – is a powerful motivator. Our strongest prototype turned our learner into a teacher that would explain videos to a blind cat who couldn’t see them. Our learner was quite responsive as he saw real purpose in generating words to help the needy creature.

Qualitative Research – Week 10 – Group Meeting

Met with Ana and James at the Starbucks in down town Palo Alto to talk about our propositions and main hypothesis of what we observed in terms of Tech Adoption and iHub.

Here are some of the updates:

Abstract (Ana):

Problem statement:

  • How do third party organizations facilitate productive technology adoption practices between schools and education technology companies?
  • How does iHub facilitate education technology innovation?
  • How does iHub facilitate collaboration between educators and entrepreneurs to promote education technology innovation?

Propositions:

  1. (Lucas): iHub’s activities revolve mainly around teachers
    1. iHub’s emphasis is on supporting teachers
    2. iHub focuses mainly on supporting teachers
    3. iHub primarily focuses on supporting teachers more so than other stakeholders
    4. iHub focuses on supporting teachers rather than entrepreneurs
  2. (James): Having a focus on teachers grants organizations access into schools
    1. Fostering relationships with teachers facilitates technology innovation
    2. iHub’s relationships with teachers facilitate startups’ access to schools
    3. iHub’s relationships with teachers grant startups classroom access
  3. (Ana): iHub feels they have to do more than #1 and #2 room for improvement

 

Context (Lucas):

  • What are SVEF and iHub?

Methods (James):

  • No literature review/research of topic
  • 1-hour observation
  • Field notes
  • Interview guide peer-reviewed by classmates
  • Two 1-hour interviews
    • Together with observation = methodology triangulation
  • Transcriptions
  • Coding and propositions

Limitations (Lucas):

  • Interview and observations had little correlation
  • Limited previous knowledge of what the company did
  • Findings (everyone):

Conclusion:

iHub successfully brings together educators and entrepreneurs, but we don’t know if this is actually having a positive impact on ______

A note on method

Thought I’d might state that I alter the post dates to match the day of the subject matter, not the day I actually create the post…