LRNT 527 Activity 4 – The Define Phase
As I synthesize my data about academic integrity, examining my methods of the Extremes and Empathy Map, I natural found myself dabbling in many methods of the define stage.
Working through the empathy map, naturally brought me to ask “Why + How?” (Bootleg Bootcamp, 2016) when looking at the quadrants Say, Do, Think, and Feel. I would add to and build on my thoughts with questions to myself — hmm, why are students choosing to plagiarize? Why don’t they speak to their teacher about how to cite? Why don’t students ask for an example assignment? Why do they risk it? How do students feel safe to ask these questions
? How is the deadline more important than the consequence? How is my school going to be better at this?
Themes evolved.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I have two competing stakeholders – students and teachers. Through my empathy stage and moving into my define phase, the student as my primary user emerged. I continue to be mindful of teachers and their vital role in the solution. I am happy to resolve my tension identified earlier, as it was difficult to address both sides of the fence. However, I feel that if I look at the needs of the students, I am on the side of the fence that has the greatest impact.
Maintaining empathy for the teachers, I have written POV statements for students and teachers, exploring the 2×2 matrix for teachers and students on one axis versus ‘knowledge and understanding’ and ‘no knowledge or understanding.’
The 2×2 matrix was an initial define method. Although it solidified some themes, I went back to the Madlibs POV and the “How+Why” ladder for depth and greater clarity. These two methods extended from my empathy stage and reflection process.
The POV I have drafted for my user has been revised as I play with the needs and insights. I feel that there are not enough layers and I have difficulty keeping it simple. Keeping it simple is essential. Complexity is not useful for stakeholders–students or teachers. I reflect and then revise the statement, trying to find clarifying words.
Because I often use analogies, I went down that path—for fun. In my creative spurt, the analogy spilled out after the other methods were processed and I walked through them. The analogy helped me cement my thinking.
The analogy, although complicated, comes down to a circus a clown (maybe a bear) who rides a unicycle and juggles balls all the while trapeze artists are flying above with a safety net, taking risks with a team and are able to sustain poise and grace – both of which the circus clown may not have. In my analogy, the circus clown is the student, expected to do these many things and juggle a hectic life with academics, athletics, arts, and service and not always knowing how it will turn out. There is not a team but only a ringleader (the teacher). The clown performs to entertain and please the ringleader; whereas the trapeze artists, who practice and take chances with a team, perform knowing their risks or errors are not so detrimental. If there is a missed swing, there is a safety net and a team to protect and pick up the trapeze artist to practice, apply what was learned, to better the outcome. In hopes that the clown is not a solo act and feels supported.
For this define phase, the themes of trust, support, transparency, and understanding emerged.
References
Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf
IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods