#ahointeractive

Brief #10 Interactive learning 

Week four and we are done !

Today we had our last, final presentation and all in all we got a lot of nice feedback. We felt that we worded ourselves well and were able to communicate our message in a nice way. As feedback, we received the following:

We were good at delimiting the theme area early so that we had something concrete to work with in the process.

We had good argumentation in the presentation for why we have chosen what we have chosen. 

That we used content that already exists in popular culture, and stories in general - moving from text blocks, positioning out and being able to control pace is a clever move to facilitate reflection. at the same time, it can be difficult to find good stories that are not overly moralizing.

Furthermore, we received feedback that we had good questions in the discussion assignment in the end, they were not too moralizing and opened up for a nice discussion.

By using recognizable stories, they thought that the young people might make assessments in recent times, when they see other series as well. something they think was good.

We were asked why exactly these emojis, and whether they fit other stories. We have at least tested out on three different stories in our prototype, and iterated many times. But of course it can always be iterated more.

In the end, we could have been even clearer in what we got out of the user tests in terms of how they discussed, rather than most focus on interfaces.

Brief #10 Interactive learning

Week four

Brief #10 Interactive learning 

Week four 

Brief #10 Interactive learning 

Week four 

Week four

At the beginning of this week, we have iterated a lot on our prototype. We have removed something - and added something else. Tuesday this week we went out to Helset ungdomsklubb again, and got tested on the same youths as last time, as well as a new group. Through these user tests, we received good feedback and we have iterated the prototype based on that, as well as based on some small tests with classmates.

In both of these user tests, the young people were very good at discussing and reflecting on what happened in the story. Therefore, we became unsure whether it is really necessary to have the block that says "discuss why you reacted like this". Nevertheless, from a different perspective, the discussion will not always come automatically to all young people. We experienced this in the previous user test, and concluded that the bar need to exist, so those who do not necessarily speak so easily, also are "forced" to discuss and reflect.

In the first group, there was actually a person who had dyslexia, and the person managed to participate well in the discussion. The person even read parts of the story aloud over time - something we think was very nice and impressive.

Furthermore, we have added a function where you can, in the overview screen at the end of the tool, change the reactions you have reacted with. It can quickly happen that you become wise afterwards, and then we found out that it can be annoying not to be able to change the reaction you have given. And also, in case you didn´t react at all. This became clear in user test number two.

We have removed the function where you could send to the teacher, as it will in any case be available as data for the teacher afterwards. There may be misunderstanding for the students as there are no right or wrong answers. In addition, they felt that the teacher had become hanging over their shoulders.

Finally, we also received feedback from the young people that it could be difficult to choose which emoji mans to react with in several situations . They think the shock emoji not quite fits, and that the exclamation point we had previously fitted better. Still, they were unsure when they would use such a shocking emoji, and that it rather could be replaced with a completely different one, such as a person crossing their hands. In addition, they could also imagine having a fourth emoji, as in many situations it would have been natural to react with something between cross and skeptical. We took this into account and changed to four emojis, where two are completely new.

Week three

We have further iterared the hypothesis and now it looks like this: An interactive story will make it easier for middle school students to understand cases of boundary setting and facilitate discussion and reflection in groups.

Since we received many, many good and constructive feedback on the user test we had Tuesday evening, we simply decided to start all over again on Wednesday. We created a graphic profile that we ourselves think appeals to the sensual in sex education. Then there was a nice red thread in the tool.

Initially, we added a short onboarding that gives an indication of what should happen when using this tool. Furthermore, you can choose which story you want to discuss, and based on this, you can immediately react to what is happening. When you have finished reacting, you get an overview of what you have reacted in the different situations, before you can send it to the teacher.

In the second block in our tool, you get discussion questions that you can reflect afterwards. If the discussion not starts by itself, you can move the arrow over the help card to start the discussion.

We also tested with some classmates, whether it could be relevant to get acquainted with a character - kind of like being assigned a role in advance of the story. But we only received feedback that this was unnecessary and would create more distraction than discussion, so we chose to take it away.

Week three

This week the fun part started - I think. We have now formed a good basis for what we are going to work with, done thorough research to find out what is relevant, and made a rough sketch on paper of what our product should look like. Thus, we are ready to start on the actual product !!

We have chosen to produce our product in Figma, and already Monday and Tuesday morning we made a fully usable sketch that we could test on youth. We made two versions: one with only pictures of the story, and another with gifs that we imagined ideally would be short videos. In this version, you could first click through the story, and then afterwards go through the story again - but now with reactions. Here we were curious to whether its relevant to see the story without reactions first, or whether its unnecessary. Furthermore, we wanted to map how sensitive the youth is, will there be too much video / gif? All in all, we also just wanted to find out how well the actual flow we have designed works.

We traveled to Helset Ungdomsklubb in Bærum and tested four youths there. We ran the test on two "groups" where the first group was a girl (15) and a boy (15). They were convinced that an interactive story would make teaching much more interesting for the whole class, as well as easier for those who may not dare to speak / discuss in plenary. Now it so happened that these two young people were extremely good at reflecting on what happened in the story, and they discussed very well together. This was positive for us and we received a lot of good feedback, both constructively and positively. The actual flow in the user test was a bit choppy, as the users were a bit unsure of how to press back and forth. They came up with a good idea to insert arrows, which we fixed right away. When it comes to reacting, they think this was something that could be done in the first round, it became too tedious to run two rounds of history. When it comes to gifs or pictures, those pictures seem best suited when gifs could be interfering with everything else around.

The second group was two girls (14). With these users, we experienced a slightly different situation. They were not as talkative as the group before. This was nice to experience as not all young people are equally comfortable discussing loudly, especially not in sex education. Despite the fact that we did not get as much feedback from these two, we learned how awkward this actually can be, and learned that its something we have to pay extra attention to.

Just to get a different look than our own, we also tested on some people who worked there. This was also useful, when they gave us feedback that the cases easily could be a little more in the gray zone, that it should not be TOO obvious what is "right" or "wrong".