Methods: Intro (Jill)

Each of our team members met the qualifications of our student user, but to further our understanding of our customer population, we conducted contextual interviews and took into account informal observations. We observed various classes that both did and did not use the original UP program, and students study without the UP individually and in groups. Our main informants consisted of thirteen undergraduate college students in the San Diego region that are currently enrolled in classes at University of California, San Diego and San Diego State University this spring 2007. Our users were drawn from a spectrum of classes, ranging over mathematics, biology, engineering, neuroscience, and cognitive science. The majority of our users were preparing for midterms at the times of the observations and interviews.

Either during or following observations, our student users were asked about the processes of what they were doing and why they believed they were doing it. Additionally, the users were asked for insight about the structure of their classes and their personal study habits pertaining to the class. They were also asked to explain their relations and interactions with other students, TAs, and professors. Though our focus was primarily on the explicit routine of our users study habits, we also needed to take into account any factors that may influence the direction of how each individual studies. 

Methods: Details (Natan/ edited by: Brian, Ben, Jill)

Before observing any students, we met with a member of the UP development team to understand the capabilities of the system. After she provided us with a better foundational understanding of the program, we collected data on its intended usage for both student and professor in order to provide a contrast to our subsequent observations of how it was actually being utilized. The UP team further assisted us by providing a list of classes using the system and other available contacts.

            From that point, our team members sat in on classes using UP to gather general classroom observations. These observations included course discipline, how media was presented by the professor, and how it was captured by students. Some examples of our data collection include our observations of how many students used laptops, and amongst those how many were used for note taking versus distractions. We also observed how and how much the UP was used in the classroom setting. The remaining data for feature design was obtained from student study sessions. Our user base consisted of 13 undergraduate students from a wide variety of majors. Students were interviewed either alone or in a group, with the primary focus on studying for upcoming midterms. In general, contextual interviews involved extensive note taking, collection of physical media, and audio recording where possible.

            Variance in the types of interactions between group sessions necessitated a wide range of interview tactics. Some groups spent most of the session engaged in verbal communication, using active discussion rather than note taking, as the primary learning method. In these groups, the interviewer played a more passive role, capturing relevant observations such as the use of artifacts and gestures to facilitate communication. Some groups that focused on media exchange, operated as individuals simply studying for the same class in close proximity, with sporadic and occasional interaction. These groups afforded more opportunities to ‘drop-in’ on each student and ask questions using one another as supplementary resources.

Models

-          Made flow models for each interview

-          Made cultural models for most interviews.

o       Stopped when they became excessively redundant.

-          Made sequence models which describe the basic steps of each study session.

-          Made a single physical model based on one of the group interviews.

Affinity Wall

-          Everyone made post its with their own interview quotes

-          Notes were randomly distributed among the group

-          We compiled a few lists with many notes under one section

-          Then divided up list into smaller categories of 3-5 notes

o       Assigned names to each category (give examples)

-          Then grouped them into 10 main sections

o       Give example of main sections

-          Sections were further organized to reveal high level processes involved in studying.

Consolidation Process: we did it.

-          Specify sequence models: Group study, (list others here)

Visioning

Here we synthesized the data into design ideas.

-          Redefined primary

Storyboarding An excellent method for visualizing design ideas…

Utilizing both the personas and the design ideas from the visioning process, we illustrated story boards for that solved each breakdown that we had discovered in the consolidation process.

Prototyping

            By the time we finished visioning and storyboarding, we had very little time to conduct a second iteration on our new design. The prototyping basically involved taking all our ideas and throwing them onto one screen!