Part 2 of the interpretation phase, we were instructed to find the meaning behind all of the responses we received from our end users. On the Linoit document, we began collaborating and sorting as categories emerged. This web 2.0 tool gave us the ability to sort and collaborate in real time and I was able to observe my teammates create and add their contribution simultaneously. Through our collaboration and the analyzing of the EL data from our end users, we noticed there were the following concerns: academic growth, language barriers, school values, challenges in and outside the school and ELD supports for teachers. We also noticed that there was a negative tone or perspective from our end users, especially the parents.
Many parents did not feel valued on campus or believed their children were not receiving the quality education they should be receiving. In other words, they have not been pleased with the support and the end results on a year to year basis. One of the parents also indicated the statement, “I know we’re invading your country but..,” the word “invading” absolutely shocked me that a parent on a certain campus has a feeling that she and her children are invading our country and campus. It’s an outsider perspective that needs to be adjusted to reflect an inclusion mindset and it starts with leadership. During part 3 of the interpretation phase, we created a google slides presentation where we were to present inspiring stories from the data collected. We began transferring the information we collected and also added visuals for the purpose of creating a summary of the story that was created from our findings.
My individual contribution this week was creating a shared checklist of the interpretation phase through google docs so all of us teammates can access it and refer to it frequently. The original checklist was a PDF creating as a google doc allows to modify and communicate through the document and throughout the process. As we began receiving responses to our surveys, we all began adding them to Padlet, as we were doing this I began cleaning it up and organizing them based on the category each question fit into, this made it easier to follow and understand. Then, as we began using Padlet, we decided that it did not meet our needs in regards to creating a document that was easy to sort by color so we switched to Linoit. As we switched, I assisted in moving over the data and sorting it by colors. White post-its represented themes that have emerged, yellow represents personal finding and anecdotes, and blue represented questions from findings (QFT). This lead to another individual contribution, the Questions Formulation Technique (QFT), which is a process that facilitates the process of asking rigorous questions that includes the following steps: 1. A Question Focus (QFocus), 2. The Rules for Producing Questions, 3. Producing Questions, 4. Categorizing Questions, 5. Prioritizing Questions and 6. Next Steps. Then, during part 3 of the interpretation phase, I began creating slides to our google slides presentation. I created a visual of our Design Thinking Question that guided our surveys, I added information we collected from part 1 and part 2 of the interpretation phase. Some of the challenges we encountered we the difficulty of understanding the checklist initially, time and fatigue due to the demands of the end of the year teaching schedule, the amount of work from all 3 classes that are currently in progress, and the switching of the web 2.0 tools in the beginning of our interpretation phase as it did not meet our needs.
I would apply this process with students during our writing block. Writing is one of the most difficult subjects to teach, according to many teachers I have spoken with and heard. It’s a long process, especially for second graders but I love the web 2.0 tool Linoit as it allows students to create a visual of their thoughts and findings and later collaborate to group them together based on their similarities. We have also used this process during our Next Generation Science Standards training's prior to developing lessons. We used post-its write down our thoughts, post all of them on a board and then collaborated to group and organize them based on the categories they fi. Creating a visual of this process makes the process more efficient.
In this process, several tenets of critical thinking were evident and necessary. When going through the interviews with the teachers and students, it was important for me to have an open mind and just listen to the concerns. This also means that I had to defer judgement and not offer advice or input as I collected the information. As a teacher, I think this is a hard thing to do, especially when you see colleagues expressing frustration and concern. Empathy and humility is also very important in this phase. Parents and students share some very private information and some may even feel embarrassed to admit that they do not have access to the internet or to a computer (or other device) or even trouble understanding the homework because of language barriers. It is important to approach these conversations with respect and ready to just listen and observe. When we approach these questions in this manner it builds a trusting relationship with the end users and hopefully a better solution will come of it.
Emily Pilloton's Project in Bertie County adds to my knowledge about the DT process and inspires my next steps because the story she tells about public education reminds me of the school I currently work for, there are some strong similarities. One of the differences of Bertie County and my current site is that we are aligned with 21st century learning and the necessary technology, however most of the homes surrounding our site are not. I love the the humanitarian focus of the design process as it is about designing “with” people and simply “for” people. This allows the end users to be a part of the process and allows the appropriate solutions to naturally emerge from within. The first step is to identify the need or opportunity and design within the public education system to give a fresh perspective to make education a great vehicle for community development. Below are the 3 parts of the design thinking process for education that helped me truly understand the DT process at a deeper level:
- Design for Education - physical construction of improved spaces, experiences and materials. This was created in response to outdated textbooks and classroom trailers. Schools must go through a series of renovations to ensure students and teachers are equipped for success. To create more engaging spaces instead of isolation and share the ownership with teachers.
- Redesigning Education - This a systems level look and how is education is administered. It’s about creating the conditions to where change is possible and develop a campaign that involves the entire community. The example from Bertie County was to ensure there is a desktop and internet connection in every home with a child in the public school system to extend learning by connecting the home and school.
- Design as Education - Teach design within public schools. The purpose is to apply design thinking and the addition of real construction toward a real community purpose. It’s an anecdote to all the boring verbal instruction as it applies hands on and engaging lessons/activities. To apply all subject learning in real life experiences.