Introduction to
Human Computer Interaction
& Design
Team TooGather
Team Member:
B02902109 林進源
R05922101 楊騏瑄 R04922117 王晨宇
R05942126 Mathis Zamboni
R04922152 Julian J
Problem Domain
We want to change the behaviors of not participating a lot in class. The lack of participation in
classrooms whether it be in the form of discussions, Q&A or some other modality is in need of fixing so that students can have a microculture where a state of belonging is at its best.
Initial Point of View
We met a group of students. We were surprised to realize that they rarely participate in class. It would be game-changing to increase class participation so that they can learn more from interactions.
Additional Needfindings Results
Needs:
1. A platform for discussing & interacting, the current platform either do not exist or is too hard to use.
2. Increase of belonging in a group Insights:
1. Online courses differ too much from the class, the participation is in very different ways.
2. People tends to be quiet in a group not because they do not want but they just not feel belonged
Some interesting findings/ surprises :
1. Individuals from various backgrounds recognize there is a need for increased participation 2. Agreement that much of the behavior revolves around students and professors perceptions 3. Anonymous features would be important to take into consideration
Refined Point of View
Based on our needfinding results, we try to refine the point of view (POV) that we have. We try to have a detailed points of view that show the needs and insights.
POV 1
We met a group of students from different cultures and have diverse personality. We were surprised to realize that both professor and students want a blend of diversity, respects and freedom in the class. It would be game-changing to form a class atmosphere that encourage diversity and discussion, formed of groups with different microculture that optimized the sense of belonging to both class and group and suited each student.
POV2
We met some students who have a shy personality and value their images(they care how people think about them). We were surprised to realize that students try not to ask or answer a question because asking a silly(that might just be their personal perception) question or giving a wrong answer will make them look dumb to others in their opinion. It would be game-changing to let them ask and answer in an anonymous matter so that they can interact with the class freely.
How Might We questions
From the POV that we generated, we try to make some how might we (HMW) questions. We try to discuss about each HMW and choose the one that we interested in.
Below is the 3 HMWs that we chose.
HMW for POV 1
1. HMW group students with different personalities and culture?
2. HMW increase belonging and discussion in the group?
HMW for POV2
1. HMW change way to ask or answer questions?
The relationship between HMWs and POVs
It seen that the HMWs are not that strongly related to the POVs but they are all good one in our opinion in terms of increasing the class participation or group participation.
Solution for HMWs
For each HMW, we brainstorm for solutions, we propose more than 15 as some solutions that our teammates put forward is similar but kinds of different in details.
The underlined solutions are those that we think that it is feasible, effective and creative. Instead of only choosing the “best” solutions, we try to combine and refined the solutions to get the prototypes that we want. The list of solutions we have is in the document at here:
Experience Prototypes
As mentioned above, we made some prototypes from the solutions. Below is the description about our content:
Solution: The solution that generate the prototype. The aspects that need more attention is pointed out.
Assumption: We try to split the assumption into two parts, one is about the assumption about user behaviour and another is about the assumption of results and functionality of our prototype
Making: Some details about the prototypes we make, basically they are classified into paper prototype or functional prototype that we only want to get insights for the functions from users.
Testing: Scene (The place, time, situation, person involved), the steps we do the prototype and variable that we want to test on.
Results: What worked, what didn’t and insights we get from the users.
Valid of assumption: The validity of the assumptions, the reason why they are valid or not and new assumption that we make
Prototype 1
Solution Let students do review for a certain person in a group after each activity. Everyone take turn to receive reviews from others.
- Anonymous - Do not know who give which review Assumption User Behavior
● Anonymous : People will not know who wrote the review
● Willingness : Students are willing to write and receive reviews
● Rationality : Students will only write good or constructive reviews, they will avoid using offensive sentence or words
● Self-motivation and cooperation : Students will try to improve themselves depends on the reviews they get
Results:
By receiving peer reviews, there will be increase in cohesiveness, thus increase
understanding, increased interaction, decrease shyness, decrease inhibition, increased open-mindedness and increased group performance.
Making
1. A paper prototype about the UI
2. Using sticky notes, let testers write the reviews for everybody else in the group.
The sticky notes is collected in a bag and then distributed to the specific person.
Testing Place : Any Time : Any
Situation : After each group activity Person Involved : Students in a group
1. Let user have a look at the UI
2. Let a group of users write reviews to people except themselves
3. Interview them about their experience and comments about the prototypes Variable that we want to test on:
1. Feeling
- Getting a positive review - Getting a negative review - Writing reviews
2. Efficiency 3. Reproducible Results What worked/ didn’t:
1. [Y] People get to know how people feel about them
2. [N] Some reviews contradicts and people may not know how to improve themselves
3. [N] Writing reviews is troublesome for some people.
4. [?] Even slightly negative reviews can cause a crack in group Insights:
1. People have difficulties writing reviews to someone they are not very familiar with and being quiet
2. People worries if their negative reviews will be recognized.
Valid of assumption
Our assumption is not quite valid, negative reviews may cause suspicion and crack in a group.
New assumption:
Students understands that the review is for benefits not for lit up a war.
Prototype 2
Solution Create a platform where students can ask, answer questions and give comment to class.
- Anonymous - student's’ identity are not shown to others - Sorting
- +1 Assumption User Behavior
● Anonymous : People will not know who asked the question or wrote the comments
● Willingness :
○ Students are willing to write reviews and ask questions
○ Prof, TA are willing to give solution and reply questions
● Helpful : Students are trying to help each other
● Abuse : Students do not post random junks on the platform Results:
By having a platform that allow students to ask questions anonymously, students are willing to ask question more often and they can interact with themselves better. It can also help professor and TAs about the understanding of students.
Making
1. A paper prototype about the UI Testing Place : Any
Time : Any (Include during class)
Situation : When a student have Q/ want to give comments/ when free Person Involved : Students, professors, TAs
1. Let user have a look at the UI
2. [Not done] Pass a notebook in class to let people write down questions or reply to the questions
3. Interview them about comments about the prototypes Variable that we want to test on:
1. Feeling
- When people post something you have doubt on 2. Reproducible
3. Enrollment(effectiveness) Results What worked/ didn’t:
[Y] Anonymous make people more willing to ask questions, answers or give comments [Y] The +1 is a good way to know other people’s doubt
[N] They may not always give answer unless they are sure about it [Y] Sorting is useful
Insights:
Is professors happy with students using mobile phone during class is a huge matter to consider
Valid of assumption
Our assumption is valid, students are happy with the anonymous when they answer questions and give comments, the +1 function show that they are together for some view or have same doubt.
New assumption:
Good reward system is implemented in the system so that students are willing to help other more frequent.
Prototype 3
Solution Use “Exploding bomb game” to replace the normal Q & A process. The bonus is doubled every time a people give an answer regardless of the correctness. Some bonus is given for people who try to answer.
- Fun
- Good reward system Assumption User Behavior
● Costs : Prof are willing to pay the costs (time, points, snacks)
● Fairness :
○ Everyone is getting a fair chance
○ Fairness on the reward Results:
By adopting interesting way of Q&A and a good rewards system, the students are trying to participate more in the class.
Making
1. A paper prototype about the UI
2. Using roll of paper, the size indicated the amount of bonus.
Testing Place : In class Time : During class
Situation : When there is a question in class that tutor want students to answer Person Involved : Students, professors, TAs
1. Let user have a look at the UI
2. Let a group of people try the exploding bomb style of QA
3. Interview them about their experience and comments about the prototypes Variable that we want to test on:
1. Feeling 2. Efficiency 3. Reproducible Results What worked/ didn’t:
[Y] It is fun!
[Y] The game like feature make students comfortable to answer questions [N] The reward system may not be that attractive.
Insights:
1. The whole process is too time consuming
2. This is not suitable for large class or very small class 3. The focus is lead from the QA to the game
Valid of assumption
Our assumption is valid but hard to be carried out, the entertaining QA process is fun and our testers enjoy a lot but it is too time consuming.
New assumption:
The course have sufficient time for students to interact in an entertaining way.
Pictures for Prototype 1
[Left] A group of students writing reviews
[Right] The students read reviews from others.
UI design
Pictures for Prototype 2 UI design
Pictures for Prototype 3
The paper bomb that we use in our experience prototype UI Design
Conclusion for Prototype
We found out that prototype 2 was most successful in achieving the desired solution, prototype 1 has a very huge blurred zone for the outcome that depends on personality and prototype 3 is not so applicable.
