Commencing my journey into Interaction Design during the COVID-19 pandemic, it felt fitting that we closed this semester (and look forward to a new future) inquiring about learning experiences during this "new normal".
Co-Managing an Interview with my teammate, Emily.
Of course, it's not about us. It's about our users. Together with my teammate Emily Tseng, we were presented with a design research challenge concerning Time Zones, Schedules & Deadlines in an online learning environment.
Task: To identify challenges of synchronous time, scheduling, time zones and deadlines and discover students' struggle with time.
Learning From Others: The Research Process
Specific to this task, our objectives were to learn about the effects of timezone separation on online learning, students' methods and experiences managing schedules/deadlines, and struggles with communication (with peers and professors) due to globally differing timezones.
Participant Demographics for this Study (Names redacted for confidentiality. Individuals 10-13 were unavailable or didn't respond)
Finding Participants
Emily and I started by identifying the primary demographic variables needed to acquire diverse insights relevant to our objective. We recognized that the main element – timezone – was the most vital. Thus, we crafted a table of suitable participants and virtually scouted beyond borders to learn about different students' experiences worldwide.
Most participants were located in Asia, Africa and other states within the Central and Eastern US. However, one participant* (#5) was based in the Bay Area, which we examined as a "control" to draw comparisons with her experience and identify opposing pain-points in her engagements with peers/professors across multiple time zones.
Location of Participants' Contacted for the Research Study (Facilitators Locality in Blue)
With Emily and I located on almost opposing world's ends, it was challenging to coordinate and reach out to as many individuals as possible in various localities. Only nine students were comfortable and available to assist out of the 13 we contacted.
Throughout this process, we kept focusing on prioritizing timezone and class level diversity (related to the task) over other variables. We achieved relative balance on these, but I later noticed that others, such as gender, were overlooked, resulting in more females than others.
I realize later that it was something crucial to observe, even though it may not directly impact the topic at hand. In any research study, whether design-related or otherwise, it is always important that there was a healthy balance to ensure clear objectiveness of gathered insights.
The Interview Process
Interviews for the Research Study conducted via Zoom
The study's methodology was 1:1 interviews conducted over Zoom. Questions consisted of open-ended inquiries that prompted participants' experience throughout the semester in their classes, group projects, and management strategies towards schedules and deadlines.
I also probed into what they wanted to change going forward (we call it the "magic wand"). But more than just forward-looking opinions, I decided to touch on their expectations based on their experiences/views formed before the semester.
The magic-wand question taps into what they hope to have (in the future) while expectations look into what they thought they would already have.
"Based on your experiences in the Spring or your general impressions of online learning, could you describe some things that you expected to have but didn't receive during this Fall semester?"
With remote learning operating for the second semester, I felt that it was beneficial to look into these qualities that they believed would improve during the Fall. For first-year students, I posed the question to determine their impressions based on the information they were presented with or assured before starting college (online).
As a process of inquiry, I felt that it was crucial to distinguish specific areas that matter to the user to allow designers to establish priorities.
Connecting Insights: Notes, Sticky Notes and an Affinity Map
Mini Mind-Map Sketches from Engagement with Interviewees
For each interview, I sketched my notes on an iPad to capture each interviewee's main pointers. The information was then reviewed with consented interview recordings and summarized into sticky notes that Emily and I shared on a MURAL board.
We decided to capture all vital viewpoints (without filtering) to ensure that we did not leave any information that could be of later importance to our consolidation with the others.
Sticky Notes on MURAL From Our Interviews
Afterwards, we clustered information in three successive stages to form our Affinity Map.
Grouped Sticky Notes after our First Sorting
Stage 1: Topical Subject Matter
We first grouped our notes by subject matter to focus on the context of things mentioned during our interviews. We discovered that our interviewees often referred to the topics – timezones, schedules and deadlines – interchangeably. Thus, we had to clarify and reach a consensus on our sorting groups' context to ensure that notes were not misplaced.
For notes that were unsortable (then) or we felt were general opinions, we placed them in separate categories to review at a later stage.
Grouped Sticky Notes after our Second Sorting
Stage 2: Patterns and Objective Goals
Emily and I then reviewed each note in each column and further identified patterns from our interviewee's perspective.
However, we had to be specific. We re-looked at our objectives and noted that we should sort them by the scope of what we set out to achieve, rather than what the patterns describe intrinsically (the context may differ).
Sticky Notes Clustered based on a "Tree" Layout
We defined a standard structure (almost like a tree layout) that identifies common patterns from broad categories (e.g. Pain-Points), followed by sub-categories (e.g. Lack of Quality Sleep) and arranged them in a Z-pattern. General observations were consolidated at the top of each main category.
At times, Emily and I had to clarify with one another on specific notes' context as it can be unclear. Notes had to shift across the primary groups, and sometimes, we had to re-look at our interview recordings to make sure we recalled the discussion accurately.
I attributed this obstacle to the language I used when drafting notes, which I later found to be unclear despite seemingly apparent. It was a lesson learnt that I should aim to be as coherent as possible as it is ultimately a form of communication. While we strive to keep descriptions concise, it may create unnecessary confusion and frustration for a design team to clarify a point-of-view, let alone the resources needed to review past recordings. This is especially relevant in future studies that may be much more extensive.
Grouped Sticky Notes and Discovered Priorities after the Final Stage
Stage 3: Priorities and Opportunities
After defining patterns from our interviewees' perspectives, we proceeded to discover opportunities to create improved, meaningful experiences for students – our users. I have to admit. It was exciting to see patterns of information emerge and feel that one could work.
However, we discovered later that it could also be a "trap".
Sample of a Cluster Pattern: Work and Spaces
While it was easy to jump on the first strong pattern we discovered, we reviewed our objectives once again and found that some were not necessarily relevant to our task at hand. Our topic was timezones, schedules and deadlines, and our opportunity scoping should address this aspect.
Re-looking at our affinity map again, we highlighted patterns that showed promise based on diverse input and defined three "focuses" to move forward.
The Outcome: Our Discovery
Based on the patterns and analysis of the notes on the affinity map, these were short summaries of our identified pain-points and users' wants:
Focus A: Time Zone
Students were often uncomfortable with odd hours (with some unable to achieve quality rest).
Students experienced difficulties staying on task or arranging meetings due to timezone confusions.
Students want to feel like they're in the same timezone or have comfortable schedules for classes, meetings and tasks.
Consideration For Next Steps: How might we help students feel more comfortable working with various timezones in a remote environment?
Focus B: Management Strategies (Schedules and Deadlines)
Students highlighted that schedules and deadlines are often in many different places (and platforms) which creates confusion.
Students experience difficulties managing deadline submissions, but prioritization helps them to define importance.
Students want to feel that their deadlines are consistent and manageable.
Consideration For Next Steps: How might we create or integrate methods to help students manage their plans, schedules and deadlines more cohesively?
Focus C: Engagement
Students have experienced loss and limited ability to communicate with peers and professors over digital platforms.
Students find it challenging to make arrangements to communicate in real-time due to different timezones.
Students experience a disconnect, a lack of social interaction and community – a factor which is vital to their learning.
Consideration For Next Steps: How might we help the students feel more engaged amongst their community across different time zones?
Learning Experience
In my journey to become an Interaction Designer, one of my biggest hurdles (and frankly, inertias) is finding the confidence to conduct research, let alone building an affinity map to discover opportunities. This project challenged my abilities, putting me through the paces to connect with others in school, and across the world to learn insights on what's potentially a great design story.
Running good research has its defining qualities. Speaking with others allowed me to identify areas I should improve, such as projecting better structure and confidence in listening and probing for more profound insights into users' experiences.
The keyword is preparation; Doing it better is one step to alleviating some of Emily and I's concerns with later uncertainties. It would allow me to listen more closely to users, observe the unspoken and translate a conversation into more meaningful insights which seed meaningful solutions.
The affinity map was a first for me, however. Yet, working with Emily was illuminating, and cross-sharing our thoughts prompted us to think beyond our mental models. Nevertheless, I realized that one of the most vital aspects of the process is working close, alongside the objectives.
It often seems apparent to move from one logical stage to another (e.g. jumping on the most significant opinion), especially in UX which thrives in solving problems. But going back to our objectives keeps us grounded, and we ought to stay focused to solve what needs to be solved.
Although the past two weeks made this project short, it was a pleasant reminder that our craft is purposeful. It requires focus. It requires a designer's touch – passion and determination – to drive possibilities with the backbone of design thinking. This experience feels like a jumpstart of a new chapter for me to embrace discovery before making, which we also love.
What a way to end one chapter in interaction design and a welcoming start to the next!
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Emily for contributing to a splendid working partnership throughout this project. Her passion for the craft is noteworthy, and her efforts vastly contributed to the project's ability to acquire broad insights as we had initially aspired towards. I am incredibly grateful for her dedication and dynamism to share, review and discover opportunities, and I look forward to future opportunities for our collaboration.
Comments