Design Journal Series: Week 2

Class: Feb 14, 2020

[As part of my design thinking class at the Harvard Graduate School of Education this Spring, I’m exploring how edtech experiences are designed and tested, with the help of a great bunch of classmates, instructors and ex-colleagues (who I debrief with first thing after class!). I’m starting this series of weekly design journal- where I hope to list down my assumptions, thoughts and post testing reflections.]

6 kindergarteners came to our class today. 6 real humanlings!
*Cute photos alert*

I found some fun things in my class notes. Here’s what I wrote:

“Kids are weird.

Kids are honest. Brutally honest.

They don’t like instructions.

Their attention span is proportionate to the size of their eyeballs.

They will entertain themselves, if you don’t.”

After the play-test, I listed down the assumptions I subconsciously+consciously made about the game I built. (Do leave comments if you try it out!)

“Assumptions:

-They know English. They know how to read. They want to read, a little.

-They have the patience to read

-The speed of animation is good for them

-In case they don’t know how to read, I will instruct. Music does not interfere with in person instructions.

-They know how to click.

-They will not worry much about the animation. Or the color of things.

-Kids know how to use keypad. Or Keyboard.

-Experience: Standing, sitting, what height, which hand, who else? What else is around?” (Notice how they are sitting- it affects how they interact with touch pads.)

About the game:

What I wanted to build: A simple, non-violent game, that offered some educational value, and taught some moral values too.

What I built: A visually non appealing, boring (slowwww and boring), annoying game, with a lie in the end (somewhere it says, “Good people always win in life”- could be a lie- but I believe it!)

After the brutal honesty and overwhelming cuteness from kids, we regrouped to debrief. We explored the question:

What might make this more interesting, more immersive?

The kids were in small, manageable groups. Would be good to find a way to keep them attracted and engaged- which can be tricky for the background noise. They seemed to play the games in groups. Is that possible to design testing experiences around it? Then how do we account for distractions?

I found out that I had to provide instructions verbally to them, while they were wearing headphones, which terribly interrupted with their attention!

Biggest takeaway: Ask yourself “How would the child refer to my game while talking to someone else?”

Turns out, kids, like us, remember the one thing that stands out to them. When Professor asked them which games they liked the most, they referred to the games with names that seemed relevant to them, like “The lobster game!”, “The dinosaur game”. Lesson: Make one simple thing stand out to them.

Some more observations from my classmates:

-Using keys is difficult, including keypad!!!! MOUSE should be a crucial part of the experience. This is generation i-Pad, PCs are outdated for them!

-It’s quite tricky to find a balance in difficulty level and interest level. Is it too hard? Is it too easy? Is it too fast? Too slow?

-Using both hands.. dragging can be challenging for this age group.

-Familiarity matters.. blue apple? What the hell?

I asked one of the kids if he liked my game. He said “NOOOOO.”
Another one said, “Umm it’s fine. May be I want to try a different one.”

I think that kid will go places!