Week 11: qualitative evaluation of concepts

Our online survey is now underway, and while this virtual format isn’t exactly like so-called “speed dating,” we are hoping that it will be able to serve a similar purpose for our research. Creating a meaningful online experience for our participants was a tall order, especially with such tight constrains. There are many risks when created a fully automated and hands-off system. Not being there to clarify or to address questions or concerns in realtime was something we needed to accept as a trade-off. In exchange, we have a dozen unique participants ranging from 2 years to 27 years of experience, and from various districts around the country.

So far, the majority of responses have been from an online community of English teachers, so our data is skewed toward this perspective. On the plus side, English teachers provide excellent written responses. To avoid the pitfalls of statistics and quantitative analysis, we designed an online survey with open text fields, and we framed our questions around hypothetical scenarios. This would provide us with reflection and insights into how teachers imagine these concepts for themselves, and what perceived deficiencies come up for them in thinking about these systems in action.

Screenshot of survey responses, exported into a CSV file

The last 24 hours in particular have been very exciting, as we finally gained access to online educator communities. This process has been slower than wanted, but we first needed to fully develop our survey before we could deploy it. This process in and of itself was a design challenge. 

Last weekend, we decided to use the Tripetto platform. This gave us the same logic capabilities as TypeForm, but without any additional costs. It became clear almost immediately that we would need to prototype and refine our survey before receiving teacher feedback, and this effort was highly collaborative.

With multiple teammates, it was possible to divide this task into several areas that could be worked on independently and in parallel. We first decided on a basic structure  and strategized the division of labor. Carol worked on the text/content based on a logic diagram we crafted together. While Carol crafted this outline, I created a mockup version in Tripetto. Without access to finalized concept sketches, I took some poetic license.

Screenshot of 2nd iteration prototype survey

As Carol and I worked together to refine the text copy, Cat and Chris worked together to create images and descriptive text for our participants. Once all of this content was ready for Tripetto, we began doing test runs, trying to break the experiences. This revealed some quirks with Tripetto’s logic functions and some of the less apparent features.

There are a few honorable mentions; Tripetto has a lot of subtle features that we often take for granted in other online experiences. Things like placeholder text, required fields, multiple choice radio buttons, checkboxes, multi and single-line text boxes. During the refinement phase, these features became essential and it was exciting to discover them—only after they were deemed essential enough to be worth the effort.

The minimalist UI of Tripetto made these features less evident, but not too hard to locate or execute. From start to finish, this experience felt a little shaky and uncertain but viable.

I often found myself this week grinding away on the platform, slipping into a state of mind that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes as “flow.” In other words, creating a survey on Tripetto wasn’t easy to use, but just challenging enough to keep me interested in working through obstacles. I think that what helped support this effort the most was building models within platforms where everyone on the team is already fluent. For us, this was primarily Miro, Google Docs, and Sheets.

Screenshot of two representations of the survey, carried across platforms (Miro and Sheets)

First impressions matter, and we didn’t want to put out anything that wasn’t necessarily a work in progress. Even with this in mind, we did have a few last minute tweaks as we adapted our survey to maximize pulling power with other social media environments.

Arnold Wasserman’s desk critique was incredibly valuable for our team, as his feedback helped us to consider the importance of our survey as a communication tool. He recommended that we make the implicit, explicit, to directly communicate to our participants what we expected and why. We were encouraged to explain what questions we were asking, and to share this openly. This kind of transparency can be tedious, especially in text-based systems. I took this to task and simplified statements throughout the entire experience.

This gave the survey a personality all its own; like a casual and curious friend, we asked about specifics but with little pressure. We kept things open.

Open data cannot be calculated, it must be evaluated for patterns. Next week will be a scramble to synthesize patterns and new insights as we work to finalize system concepts into well defined parameters. We hope that through this process we will also identify opportunities to produce relevant and compelling artifacts (our final output/deliverable).

It still feels like a risk to be so far into a process and to still not have a clear idea of what it is we are making. We instead draw our assurances from what we have already made: an index of relevant articles, interview notes, countless diagrams and visual representations of high-level abstract concepts and maps at almost every level of visual fidelity imaginable, hundreds of presentation slides, dozens of pages of reflective text, and months worth of slack messages, shared links, and drafted emails. We created interactive digital workshop spaces and protocols for our participants, and archives with 256-bit encryption.

When looking at the collective volume of effort from this team, it’s difficult to imagine that we wouldn’t make something meaningful in the end. Is that too optimistic? Ask me in a month.

Week 10 update: Speed dating and concept evaluation

We had a somewhat irregular week for studio II. After our presentation, our team regrouped and strategized on how we might conduct the next phase of our research. We started out with just two concepts (an ARC educator “hackathon” and a community-promoting “ARC awards” program), and while our team felt confident that these concepts were feasible and desirable to addressing our problem space, we still had a lot of open-ended questions that would require further inquiry. Additionally, we became very concerned with the potential opportunity costs of not exploring more alternatives.

To address this concern, we decided to return to our primary research and synthesize niche problem statements that my provoke additional concepts. This went extremely well, and we now have more than a dozen concepts ready for evaluation. We’re excited to get these ideas in front of educators, but this remains to be a substantial obstacle to our process.

We consulted with Hajira and Sofia about our concerns, and asked how we might convert the highly synchronous activity of “speed dating” to a more online and asynchronous form. They recommended Typefrom and while this option was appealing, it came with a few drawbacks. The ultimate dealbreaker on this platform was the price. It costs $40 to enable the features that actually make the platform more useful than free products such as Google Forms. After some digging, I found a free alternative (they literally marketed themselves as such). Tripetto offers logic and branches that will enable our team to structure paths for our survey to tailor the individual experience. This is pretty huge, considering the scarcity factors our team has struggled with since the beginning of this project.

Despite this progress and excitement for next steps, I’ve personally struggled with motivation this week. I know that a lack of regular sleep and some external stressors are partially to blame, but there are many factors contributing to this. It’s been difficult to process (cognitively and emotionally) what comes next for me.

This week, I received my cap and gown, a diploma frame, and a few other artifacts to commemorate my time at CMU. I’ve been in school since January of 2014, and I feel incredibly lucky and grateful for this opportunity. To date, academics has been my longest career. I have spent more time being a student than my entire Navy enlistment, or my time working at Intel as an engineer. Each chapter came with its own struggles, failures, and success.

Each made an indelible mark on my psyche and personality. I could never imagine in my wildest dreams that my educational path would end here, in Pittsburgh, confined to my shoebox apartment, a deadly virus burning down countless lives while I indulge in high-level theories. I owe so much for this good fortune, and I do not know how I will ever repay the world for what it has given me.

It’s not so much that I am procrastinating — I put in a lot of hours this week, especially for this project — it’s that I’m paralyzed, afraid that what we are doing is missing something vitally important yet still unnamed. I also know that 15 weeks is hardly enough time to understand potential futures and their relationships to the current state. 

It’s all crushing me down. I feel the weight of an obligation to deliver good work, yet terribly uncertain about this process. I’ve never done such intensive research before, and while I believe these theories and frameworks I’m soaking in (Worldview filters; Voroscone; Archplot structures; CLA;  Empathy mapping; Participatory, Generative, Co-design, etc.) are helpful and necessary to our work, it’s difficult to know if the way our team applies these unfamiliar methods will yield truly impactful results.

I know that this is a learning experience, first and foremost it is an invitation to fail brilliantly as we discover new ways of making, but without any prior experience with this stage, it’s so difficult to keep my chin up and to believe in my own creativity and ability.

Week 9 Update: Presenting Generative Research Findings

Fiona Hovenden (of Prospect Studio) was back in class with us this week. Monday through Wednesday blurred together as our team worked around the clock to bring our findings into coherence. Through this process, we found that it was easier than past presentations for us to produce clear and concise summaries of our work. This outcome stems from two key advantages:

• Our team continues to get better at coordination and understanding of each other’s strengths and weaknesses. This has accelerated our communication and the delegation of tasks.

• As we continue living and breathing in this problem space, we have gained deep familiarity with core concepts and structures. This has allowed us to develop a kind of fluency in addressing Portland Public Schools as a topic.

There is still a lot that we do not know, but this is something which we must (as a matter of need) become comfortable accepting as a default state. There are limits to what we can and cannot know over a fifteen week period, with limited access to our stakeholders.

Nevertheless, we are slowly inching toward viable concepts.

These concepts are derived from last week’s workshops and diary studies. There was a lot of doubt and uncertainty going into our work last week, as we started with a zero participants. By Tuesday, all of this changed, and we found ourselves scrambling to coordinate with five different participants. Additionally, we coordinated with our counterparts (“Team Ahaa”) and I even took part in one of their workshops—after nearly 11 years of living in Portland, I had some qualified opinions to share.

This accelerated and compressed path from research to presentation ensured that we quickly moved from documentation to synthesis. Our team only had ten minutes to present all of this, and this constraint was helpful motivation to distill everything we learned over the last two weeks. So, what did we learn?

At a high level, generative research helped us to understand how educators see their relationship with various stakeholders. We gained more intimate, personal, and “day in the life of” perspectives from educators. We also got surprising feedback regarding their perception of possible futures. In general, there is not much hope for things improving substantially in the next ten years, but there is still a very real sense of urgency to make things better. This paradox has been with us since our first round of interviews but remains unresolved.

The most salient insights for our team were around issues of resilience and community: 

• Educators feel supported when colleagues show up and help proactively

• Informal but reliable networks among educators support their resilience

• Lack of resources and top-down surprises make teachers feel unsupported

• Quality of life and mental health resources are poorly leveraged

“Empathy” and “Community” are other target areas in the Educator Essentials ring.

In our team’s presentation debrief, we had a lengthy discussion about this overlap, and our concerns about spreading ourselves too thin or not staying on target. This is an ongoing conversation and part of our general concerns for this project. We considered whether or not ARC is a “keystone” goal— resting on requisite conditions, and also essential to achieving other areas. This enmeshment is not entirely incompatible with the brief and Prospect Studio’s understanding of the problem space, but we must carry the burden of interpretation.

As we continue developing and evaluating concepts and potential interventions, we hope to achieve more focus on ARC, and to draw clear distinctions between outcomes and means to outcomes—e.g., is empathy an outcome of ARC, or is it a means to achieve ARC? This isn’t yet well defined, but I have faith in our team’s ability to resolve it.

Coming away from our Wednesday presentation, I can say that this task was both a relief and a source of pride. It was a huge relief to affirm key findings from Prospect Studio’s work, and also a moment of pride to have found these insights through workshops and protocols developed in house. This validated our research methods and demonstrated our core competency. Our protocols and assets were effective and entirely reproducible.

In terms of project management, we also took time to reflect on what was and was not working with our process and team contract. We do this every week as part of our “Rose, Bud, Thorn, and Shoutout” check-in exercise. We still felt more rushed than we’d preferred, and thought about ways to better support each other. We decided to designate “backup roles” to augment the facilitator and note-taker tasks. We hope that this will keep everyone equally engaged, while still offering flexibility and variety throughout the process. There are diminishing returns to these types of reforms, as we are already more than half way through the project. Nevertheless, every improvement counts. 

Week 8 Update: Generative Research and Future Visions of Portland Public Schools

We began this week with a guest lecture from Adam Cowart, a PhD candidate in the transition design program. He introduced us to the concept of CLA (Causal Layered Analysis). We used this framework to better understand the landscape of our problem space at Portland Public Schools. Adam described different facets of the problem space through the lens of “litany filters.” To recognize what futures are feasible, we need to understand the triad of history, present, and future, and what elements in our landscape pull, push, or weigh down progress.

We took some time in class to reframe our insights through this framework, and began synthesis of potential elements to build a bridge toward the future vision created by Prospect Studio. This process began slowly, but after some heavy lifting we began filling out the diagram with great enthusiasm! It was refreshing to revisit our secondary research (which was already categorized under a STEEP-V framework). It was revealing to see visually how much further we have advanced our understanding of this problem space since literature review and background reading.

Outside of class, our team was busier than ever — working to adapt and overcome the obstacles we’ve encountered in our generative research phase has not been easy. I’ve struggled to support these efforts. The external factors of my personal and professional life have been an ongoing source of strain. I feel so much gratitude to the support and encouragement I’ve received from this team, and this week I felt a great deal of pressure to reciprocate.

Sample of generative research protocols

This effort to pay back the generosity I received (when I needed it most) began with a complete/comprehensive draft of our protocols for generative research, and the specifications for our workshop. Working with Carol, we delivered this to the team ahead of schedule. It was necessary for us to draft new protocols and workshop exercises to include a broader audience, outside of Portland Public Schools. We found that last week was somewhat of a dead end for seeking participation from our intended stakeholders (administrators and educators at PPS).

For our workshop, we wanted to know how different stakeholders perceive their relationships with counterparts, learn what different stakeholders prioritize and why, gain deeper understanding of how educators think about the future of public education, and to explore and define preferred futures.

We conducted three separate workshop sessions with educators outside of PPS. This included neighboring districts of PPS (Gresham-Barlow), as well as out-of-state educators. This approach allowed us to glean insights regarding that which is common in the US public school system, and that which is more specific to Portland. While this adaptation is not without its risks to skewed data, it is far more preferable that to remain without any additional insights beyond our primary research activities.

Screenshots of workshop activity

This was my first experience with executing participatory design with stakeholders and it has been such a rollercoaster of emotions. Since Carol and I worked on the protocol together, it was only logical that we also create the visual and interactive components for the workshop. We iterated on our initial concept by practicing with our own team, with each member taking a turn roleplaying as a participant. This helped us to work out the kinks and refine details before putting anything in the hands of our participants.

The first workshop with a real participant was very revealing. Having access to their thought process in real time, their visual associations, priorities, and ideas about the future were peeled back in layers, digging deeper into their lived experiences than we ever got through primary research and conversational interviews. Even the generation of simple sketches gave us glimpses into their inner worlds. I now question how important it was to conduct traditional interviews in the first place. Workshops are just so much more dynamic and active than interviews, and I consistently came away feeling more connected to the participants and their experiences.

This weekend was highly reflective. With new insights in hand, we spent over five hours evaluating what we discovered. There was so much for us to consider and it was only once we had the chance to pick it all apart together as a team that we could begin to make sense of it all. Many of our initial assumptions were blown out of the water. Our newfound perspective gave us a real sense of how important relationships are in the field of teaching. We also learned that technology is probably the least important factor for educators — with the exception of a desire for students to have high-speed internet at home, there was little to no interest in improving access to technology generally.

I’m still getting used to applying so many different approaches and methods so quickly.  I feel like I’m only occasionally operating with a sense of clarity. There has been prolonged fuzziness that’s difficult to describe or ignore. It seems as though new insights provoke deeper questioning, while offering little in the way of certainty. I think this is just the experience of progressively revealing collective and individual ignorance. Before learning enough to act decisively, we must first gaze into the vast abyss of what we still do not know.

Week 3: Portland Public Schools — Reflection on Researching Educator Essentials For a Vision of Teachers Who Are Resilient, Adaptive, Open to Change

“In sum, if you can set yourself up with a definite question for every day in the field, find a solid, reliable way to get the data you need to answer it, and feel confident in the insight that emerges- you will get where you need to be in the long run.”

—Christena Nippert-Eng

This week, our team took a deep dive into secondary research. Using the STEEP analysis framework, we assembled a large collection of articles, relevant URLs, case studies, and much, much more within a relatively short period of time—the power of scale is in play for reasons I’ll illuminate soon. Close reading of this text was then distilled into short summary statements. Hat tip to Dr. Elaine Gregersen, for this wonderful article on how to make use of spreadsheets for research. This approach had several advantages:

1. a clear division of labor.

Specifically, our team was able to divide our secondary research along discrete domains/categories while also sharing any incidental discoveries. This “yes, and” approach to research lowered the stakes and allowed for maximum contribution by every member of our team.

2. expanded exploration and discovery.

We were given a specific focus of our own choosing, and this was based entirely on our affinities, curiosities, and professional backgrounds. A clear advantage of having such a diverse group was our ability to apply personalized knowledge toward an information gathering process.

3. Rapid synthesis.

After gathering our sources and insights, and taking time to discuss our findings as a group, it was easy to recognize patterns and apply our newfound information to the task of formulating dozens of relevant interview questions. This process set us on a clear path from secondary research and lit review to primary and ethnographic research.

4. Clarity and transferability.

This information has been collected in a manner that will potentially benefit other teams; the indexical structure of the information we’ve collected, when paired with short summary statements, will enable others to quickly browse a significant amount of research in a relatively short period of time. It’s a buffet of relevant information!

We’re on the precipice of a convergent process, and we can now begin to glean some visions of the future of PPS beyond what was offered in the brief. The most dramatic insight revolves around “The Great Reset” brought upon us by COVID-19 is revealing unseen potential futures. We often cannot see what is possible until it happens, and the sudden shift to work/study from home is no exception. American schools are strained by unique technological and social needs. People are isolated, but also finding new and compelling ways to communicate and collaborate. We are working from within the context a novel problem and circumstance, and in doing so revealing new methods of organization and interaction.

There is a window of opportunity that I fear might be closing as vaccine rollout accelerates and we embrace a return to “normalcy” (a pre-pandemic world that we want to believe, desperately, still exists). If we return to this sleepy shadow of what once was, we risk a deep and terrible slumber that our children will never forgive us for—a good crisis is a terrible thing to waste. If we return to old habits and old ways of thinking, we will do so at the expense of those most negatively impacted by COVID-19. The underlying power structures and inequality that we cannot ignore under current conditions will be something we’ll be very tempted to sweep back under the rug once people are able to return to work without a deadly virus burning through our communities unchecked.

We need clear visions of the future; we need that clarity so much more now than before the pandemic.

Next week, our plan is to setup times for interviews. Now that we have a general landscape of what is known and documented, we have lots of questions to ask and new insights to gain. I’m very pleased with the work our team has been doing and have absolute confidence in our ability to make these interviews a success. The curiosity is palpable at the moment and we’re eager to begin connecting general and specific knowledge. These first-hand insights will fill so many gaps if we can just ask the right kinds of questions.

The current pace seems to be sustainable and the progress that we are making has been very satisfying, but I’ll admit to having symptoms of “Confluenza.” The opportunities afforded by a job fair are not something I can ignore, and while I have done my best to take advantage, I do find the experience a needless distraction. Last year’s “open studio” was downright nauseating. The contradiction of values and actions was disturbing and felt like an intrusion into an important space: the studio was a haven for critical thinking and offered a high degree of psychological safety. The presence of so many “talent seekers” and alumni felt like an intrusion in 2020. This year, those same people were viewing me from a camera inside my home.

Simply put: from a personal perspective, the online/remote format of 2021’s Confluence wasn’t an improvement. The people I spoke with were professional and generous with their time and engagement, but I could feel their fatigue through the screen. There’s just a cloud of general burnout and I admire the way so many people manage to push back against it.

Our team selected Educator Essentials because we recognized the value of educators as vital tissue, making the rest of the body of education whole and capable of movement, growth, and change. Knowing that our ultimate goal is to produce an artifact that inspires an image of educators that are resilient, adaptive, and open to change, I am both grateful and terrified of the flood of countless examples I see every day, through every interaction I share across cameras and screens. I see people who work diligently, compassionately, through these screens.

If you want to get some sense of what I really mean by this (because it is always better to show than to tell), then just watch how these children self organize when an educator is temporarily absent from zoom.  The teacher, Emily Pickering of El Paso, Texas, exhibits these traits, and it is evident in how her students responded in her absence. The future is now and we should marvel at the efforts we are seeing in our daily lives. This moment is so much bigger than all of us. The future isn’t something we can wait in line for. It is something thrust upon us with all of its dazzles and horror. What we are seeing from educators and students is just one piece of a larger picture.

We are not “making the best of this” we ARE the best of this. All of us. For better or worse, everyone is doing the best they can. This was true before the pandemic, but it’s easier to see it now.

Week 2: Portland Public Schools Territory Mapping, Personal Reflection

“It always seems impossible until it’s done.”

—Nelson Mandela

On Wednesday we presented our territory maps to the class and Fiona—our guest from Prospect Studio. From completing the MA last year, and my work in the Service Design seminar course, I feel somewhat confident in the quality of our combined efforts and the contributions I personally had to offer. We worked through several iterations, and presented our first draft on Monday for Peter’s review. The feedback we received was helpful. In particular, Peter asked that we include systems level goals, specify equity-centered outcomes, and leverage personas and vignettes to aid in narrowing to a single area of focus. We were also encouraged to focus our primary and secondary research on the current state of things at PPS.

First Draft territory map, as it was presented on Monday

Stef recommended that we begin our presentation with an explanation for why we chose PPS and our chosen area of focus. Thinking about how we might explain these choices revealed for our team how these different aspects are connected, and to being recognizing some common threads. On Tuesday our team met for an informal work session. These kinds of meetings have been very helpful in keeping us on track and motivated—especially during this prolonged quarantine, working independently can be a real drag. Working together remotely and having realtime communication with one another has also been useful in ensuring we reach consensus on key decisions.

For example, at the beginning of our meeting on Tuesday, we spent roughly fifteen minutes clarifying our intentions, area of focus, and defining the various terms outlined in the brief: what does it mean for an educator to be “resilient, adaptive, and open to change”? This was important for the next phase of refining our territory map. We converged from exploring three distinct areas in the brief to a single section (educator essentials). We decided on a general format for the territory map (based on examples shared by Hajira’s morning presentation) with “who,” “what,” and “how” as distinct categories, arranged from inside-out. Initially, the concentric arrangement proved limiting. Our team opted to transition to an elliptical arrangement, exploiting the typical 16:9 widescreen format.

While I cannot speak for the entire team, I am most proud of our willingness to embrace ambiguity and to continue working through high degrees of uncertainty, toward something more coherent. I have no doubt that the outcome of our collective efforts were far superior to anything we could have made by working individually. Our collective intelligence was on display Wednesday, and it seemed that Fiona and Peter were pleased with the work.

Ultimately, we produced a fairly comprehensive map; this first deliverable represents many different perspectives, and our combined understanding of the brief. We managed to produce something that is visually appealing, and which communicates our ideas on this topic. There is still quite a bit of work to be done before we can validate these categorical relationships, but our team was very successful at representing the current state of our research, and how our process will unfold over time.

Final draft of our team’s territory map, as presented on Wednesday.

One unsettled question: how can we maximize the impact of our field research and ethnographic approach in the context of a pandemic? We shared a few options, and while we could not settle on an exact methodology just yet, we did agree to pool our resources and purchase some small tokens of gratitude. This was inspired—through personal experience with volunteering, I know that “thank you” goes much further when it includes a tasty treat or tangible artifact to commemorate the experience.

We met again this weekend and debriefed on our experience with the presentation. We continued working in a variety of collaborative digital environments and management tools (Figma, Trello, Miro, Google Docs, Slack), but upon Chris’ recommendation, we have decided to add another tool to the mix: Framer. Our team contract remains intact at this time, but we amended our debriefings to include a “rose, bud, thorn” framing. This made it much easier for the team to share their thoughts and feelings about the work so far. We also added a “shoutout” option for meaningful expressions of gratitude. This worked very well for our first debrief, and will likely be standard going forward.  

The Future of Portland Public Schools — Week 2, Team Update

This week, our team posted a bio on our course homepage. Chris put it best, “we cute as hell, just saying:”

Making the best of remote collaboration

We also drafted a team contract to establish expectations and roles, among these are:

Goals for this project:

• Sharpen our skills for…

• Research-based design

• Remote collaboration

• Providing meaningful artifacts for a client

• Something great for our portfolios

Expectations

• Meetings scheduled to avoid conflict and maximize productivity

• Established deadlines

• Delegation of tasks

• Regular updates and communications for peers

• Time to celebrate accomplishments

Policies:

• Commitment to ongoing research to strengthen and refine ideas, concepts.

• Flexibility and understanding (because there’s still a pandemic and bad things can and will happen)

Consequences and conflict:

• Call people in, not out. If something is not going well, we all have a problem and can work together to solve it.

• Transparency: let’s communicate when there are problems, we all have valuable perspectives and may recognize something that others do not

• When possible, table discussions if we cannot easily make decisions. Decide when/if to address problems as a group or between group members

Custom rules for meetings:

• Rotation of responsibilities so folks don’t burn out on repetitive tasks.

In addition to structuring our collaborative efforts, we also completed a first draft of our research team’s territory map.

First draft version of territory map for PPS, based on the brief provided by Prospect Studio

Our professor, Peter Scupelli provided feedback on our initial presentation draft:

• Need to include systems level goal

• Need to specifically include equity-centered systems and outcomes

• Leverage personas and vignettes to aid in choosing area of focus

• Recommend researching the current state with a focus on equity

To improve the focus and process of our research, we’re also reviewing text from How To Future, a book by Madeline Ashby and Scott Smith. Chapter 3 describes the process for sensing and scanning information, which will be useful for our secondary research and literature review, as well as synthesizing insights from primary research and participant interviews.

Since the scope of this project is fairly broad and also because we are working on it for 15 weeks, we’ve also decided to adopt the project management tool, Trello to aid us in tracking our individual and collective progress, assign/delegate tasks, and note passing key milestones.

Using the feedback we received from our professor and our excellent TA, Sefania La Vattiata, we set more specific goals for completing our territory map.

Summary of Decisions/Surfacing Perceived Alignments:

• Converged from 3 slices to one sections of the outcomes. Current Territory Map should focus exclusively on Educator Essential: Adaptive, resilient and open to change

• To frame our future, we are currently considering the possibilities and methods that adults can learn how to partner with students about what happens after graduation/their long term goals

• New Format for territory map based on Hajira’s work. From the center outward: Who-> What -> How -> Future experiences

• Future experience should be structured within the futures scenario we are currently exploring

• For the future experiences outer most rim, each scenario ideally aligns with an accompany assumption or question about the present. ie Future: VR explorations of proposed new school house Past: How/Can people see these plans today?

To do list for Wednesday’s Presentation:

• Update deck with new (1) focus, (2) research, (3) Territory Map/Reasoning

• Add Section in the deck about for the proposed Future Scenario we are exploring

• Deck should be finished no later than Wednesday at 11am, share any changes

Which area are we truly focussing on? Educator Essentials? Graduate Portrait? We’re a bit hung up on the adaptive, lifelong learning? Our hope is that through this process, it will be easier to narrow our focus to the educator essentials.

UPDATE:

Our team completed their second revision of the territory map for the Educator Essential vision of Adaptive, Resilient, and Open to Change.

Reflecting on the first week (Studio II and Research Methods)

On Monday we kicked off a design research project for Studio II. Peter began the brief with a quote:

“We see things not as they are, but as we are.”

—H.M. Tomlinson, Out of Soundings

This has stuck with me throughout the week as our team began exploring two public schools for consideration of focus. Portland Public Schools are an obvious choice because I bring unique insights to this domain—I have a couple years experience volunteering at Ockley Green K-8 and NAYA’s after school youth mentorship program. I’m able to contribute lived experience and perspective. I know PPS educators and know many of the challenges they face. I also feel very much indebted to this community, as they opened their doors to me and helped me at a critical stage of my journey into the field of design. It is my sincerest wish and goal to contribute to a more positive future for the children of district.

Having reviewed the briefs for Portland Public and for Santa Clara, I am reminded of the work I did over the previous summer, interning as a communication designer for Dezudio (Ashley and Raelynn’s design studio, here in Pittsburgh). This was a fantastic opportunity to apply recently acquired skills and knowledge from service and communication design coursework to address the challenges of Brooklyn LAB Charter School in the context of COVID-19. Central to this work was understanding the needs of historically marginalized communities which already could be described as “in crisis.” These conditions were amplified by COVID-19, but also presented an opportunity to justify significant overhaul to this institution and their approach to supporting student’s academic needs.

I’m excited to work with our assigned team. Cat, Caro, and Chris were all members of our MA cohort, and we have good rapport from previous projects and our time together in the studio. Additionally, this team comprises of a plurality of individual experiences and perspectives. Cat attended a private school in D.C., Carol is from Taiwan and has no direct or personal experience with public education in the United States. Chris and I both come from hyper-conservative and religious homes, and this impacted the way in which our parents made choices regarding education. For Chris, this meant a combination of home schooling as well as traditional enrollment. For me this meant several gaps and educational deficiencies (e.g., attending a rural school district with trailers in lieu of a school building) and eventually dropping out altogether. I did not finish high school, and instead passed the G.E.D. when I was still seventeen years old. These experiences lend to a strong negativity bias on my part, which I hope will balance out some of the more optimal experiences of my peers—I know all too well what doesn’t work in public education.

For the first week of our Research Methods course, we read excerpts from Alan Cooper and a paper by Branka Krivokapic-Skoko. A few points I found helpful from Cooper:

I agree with many sentiments, but his definitions for design, expertise, stakeholders, and just the entire framing of “users” feels very outdated.

I’m not sure that I agree with him on this statement:

• Users of a product should be the main focus of the design effort.

I take issue with this framing because, as Cooper points out, the user is not always the same person as the customer. This is certainly the case in public schools, where students are not paying for a service, but still have specific needs. And are students “users” of a product? This market-based framework seems much more useful in a for-profit context.

When he says that, “it is important to speak to both current and potential users, that is, people who do not currently use the product but who are good candidates for using it in the future because they have needs that can be met with the product and are in the target market for the product” I question why this is the goal. Is it good to grow the market for growth’s sake? What if I’m designing iron lungs and that JERK Salk is trying to push me out of the market? 

• Product and competitive audits: Also in parallel to stakeholder and SME interviews, it is often quite helpful for the design team to examine any existing version or prototype of the product, as well as its chief competitors.

This one seems pretty obvious, but last semester it was also very important that our research include lots of exploration into the same product/system space. Knowing what is out there helped us to recognize new potentials for existing applications and solutions.

On Wednesday, Stef (our TA for the class) shared her team’s project to give us a better sense of what to expect in terms of process and crafting our deliverables. This was useful for priming ideas about how to approach the somewhat open-ended prompt to create an artifact to represent daily life for PPS in the year 2035. Based on this impression, I began thinking about individual goals for this project and thinking about what I can hope to improve or learn throughout this process:

• Remote collaboration

• Research-based design

• Providing meaningful artifacts for a client

• Producing something great for a portfolio

I inserted these items into our team contract. For Monday, we need to complete a first draft territory map for PPS. This process has been a bit slower, and Cat mentioned how much she misses having access to a physical whiteboard. Even though we’ve been working in this “new normal” for nearly a full year, it is impossible to ignore what we have lost by switching to a remote learning context.