Week 3 - Readjustments
At the start of the week, all four groups reconvened to discuss how our findings fit together. Whilst some areas aligned well, others didn’t. Ultimately, we decided our ideas aren’t coming together in a way that made sense. After a small reshuffling, Chazzo, Shaye and I continued in our small group independently, taking on additional elements of the brief we thought would be covered by other groups, including methods of communication and harnessing motivation.
💡Reflection: As our discussions were regarding abstract concepts and relied on research we’ve done in isolated groups, we could’ve communicated our thoughts better, perhaps through tangible or visual methods rather than just verbally. Lengthy conversations, especially in a large group, can become mentally draining. I also suspect some of our disagreements stemmed from semantic gaps and misaligned definitions of concepts, like our use of the word “toolkit”, which may have meant something different to everyone.
One useful piece of advice we were given during this period of time was to “fix some variables”. Whilst this helped us move forward with the design, it again highlighted the clash between Anarchism and design. However, we couldn’t design for every possible scenario and user within the required timeframe. Ideally, those variables would be informed and shaped by further, dedicated research. One element we set, for example, was the notion that students are interested in anarchy but aren’t anarchists yet. This gave us the possibility to eliminate some resistance to the tasks we’re asking our imaged students to complete.
Our Initial concept:
Physicalising the abstract, we sought to make a box that would be sent out to the students wherever they are, that will include tools to facilitate their self-regulated studies during the programme. The goal is for students to not need us in order to learn.
↑ We physicalised elements of the system using post-it notes in order to play around with the structure of the system and figure out points that need addressing.
↑ Brainstorming around the explanation of items, unsure yet which items we’d include.
↑ We wanted the physical material we include to be a part of the learning experience, like a book intended to be destroyed or include analogue encryption methods.
The challenge laid in communicating our intent without replicating the existing hierarchical structures in education systems. We didn’t want to tell our students what to do. Instead, we wanted the contents of the box to subtly nudge them towards autonomous learning. Informed by our references of SRL (Brenner, 2022) and ZPD (Vygotsky, 1980), we sought to include items that hint towards finding collaborative opportunities, not just within the cohort but also by reaching out to local communities. Finally, we wanted them to document and share their learning with the cohort.
We conducted a short and simple research to identify the first item, which resulted in a map. We created two small prototypes to present our ideas at the mid-point presentation.
The feedback we received was encouraging and positive, so we set out to find the rest of the items in a similar research-led, iterative way the following week.
↑ small rough prototype of the welcome box, which includes a local map (the pink paper for this prototype).
↑ The map, which we plan to be localised for each student, is meant to encourage real life discovery of local community.
References:
Brenner, C.A., (2022) Self-regulated learning, self-determination theory and teacher candidates’ development of competency-based teaching practices. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), p.3. Available at: https://slejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40561-021-00184-5 (accessed April 11, 2025).
Vygotsky, L. S., (1980) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.