Why (again)

Is this going to work? Will I even know if its working?

I needed a plan. I needed to figure out what I expected to happen, what I hoped to happen, and to find a way to prove whether or not this program is a success. I'm okay with failing, I just need to know exactly why I failed so that I can keep that in mind for round 2. Here's what I came up with:

1. Outcomes to evaluate

   1. Increased creation based activities in curriculum compared to initial baseline.

   2. Improved student learning of the design thinking process

2. Evidence to collect to evaluate those outcomes (interviews, surveys, etc).

   1. Work samples of new creation based activities

   2. Interviews with students about the design thinking process

   3. Survey of teachers regarding creation based assignments (to compare against initial baseline)

3. When would you collect each type of evidence? (beginning of the design, throughout, 3 times during implementation, etc?

   1. Work samples to be collected after execution of the program

   2. Interviews to be conducted during the program and 12 weeks thereafter to gauge retention

   3. Survey to be conducted at end of academic year to compare against pre-program baseline

4. How would you determine whether the design was successful? (what in the indicators would show success?)

   1. If quantity of creation based activities increased by at least 50% in the inaugural year of the program, it would be a success. Each year thereafter would have similar expectations to be determined after the result of year 1.

   2. If stakeholder feedback (teachers and admin) is positive and excited about another iteration in year 2, the program would also be a great success (given that creation based activates increased by 50%).

It started with data and anecdotes so it must stay grounded in data and anecdotal evidence

It probably wouldn't be a good idea to tackle a problem because of survey data and then evaluate it based on principal feedback, would it? Not that stakeholder feedback isn't important, but we need to compare apples to apples whenever we get a chance to. All additional feedback and data points we can identify will be important measurements throughout the program.

Reflecting on the Experience

Since I wanted to improve the frequency and quality of creation based activities in the classroom, I felt that it was important to design a program that involved creation and design in it. Some would call this "practicing what you preach", others might call it "eating you own food", but it essentially just boils down to not being a hypocrite. Imagine if I wanted to increase and improve creative activities and I offered a 2 hour lecture on the topic. That would be quite silly, wouldn't it? So I decided to design something experiential, and something that achieved learning outcomes without specifically addressing the learning outcomes in the experience. This can be a bit risky in retrospect. I want the educators to improve their creation based exercises, so in order to accomplish that I designed a program where they guide students through a creativity and innovation week. This would be the same as trying to improve a person's diet by having them plan out and facilitate a meal plan for a family member. I'm optimistic about this program, however, and fully expect that the first iteration will not be perfect, but that it can grow into something spectacular.

It was hard to know if it will work without trying it. I feel like this may be a potential weakness of mine -- I just want to try something out to see how it goes. I'm pretty flexible on design until I see it in action, and willing to make quick iterations throughout testing... but that also means that I may not be paying enough attention to the initial design before the prototype gets its first users.

It was quite easy to plan out what the week looks like because Dr. Warr incorporates the design thinking process into our courses, and my work at the innovation academy is always founded within the design thinking process. I talk about it all the time with my peers and with students, so it was natural for me to design a program that is based around a 5 day design sprint.

I learned that while designing this creativity week was exciting, and while I know that all participants would enjoy it and benefit from it, designing the program will not be where the future roadblocks are. Politics, time management, educator buy in, and administrative approval will prove much harder to acquire than a successful execution of the program. I'm asking a lot of people to go through this program, specifically I'm asking for a lot of time that is not directly associated with state curriculum requirements. It's something I feel enough passion for to drive forward, but the journey will get frequent "push back" as resources must be allocated.

For the design process, I love that we spent so much time identifying a problem, and then refining that problem down to something consumable and actionable. I agree that this is how me need to approach innovation in education -- one small problem at a time. The ideation party was quite fun and extremely helpful in terms of getting beyond my own brain and to think creatively with my peers. I hope to execute this program in the future when I'm in a position to do so, and to then iterate and change it every time based on results and feedback.

Where to next?

Design is cyclical. I'll meet you at the beginning.