Reflection – Learning Launch

Challenge and selection

We are a team of researchers working on innovative didactic (both normo- and disabilities) at

Google at the department of Electronics Information and Bioengineering. During the  last year, when Italy was locked down due to the COVID-19 pandemic, our lab challenge consisted  of offering an effective way to pursue the DAD ("didattica a distanza", i.e. distance teaching and  learning). The solution should have included an easy-to-use tool that helped professors and students  to feel and work together, though not being at school in the same physical class. The developed  tool, using the flipped classroom approach, makes the students watch a video before the  explanation made by the professor and provide this latter with a chart that shows students’  reactions (i.e. which parts of a video are clear and which, on the contrary, are not, along with the  overall acceptance, in terms of clarity and appreciation, of the videos).

Thus, our challenge was human-centered and there were many people involved in the problem;

anyway, especially at the beginning, the statement of the issue was not clear since never faced  before; similar (didactic) situation had never been experienced, then there were not analogous data  available, and many unknows and past indicators were useless. We then firstly needed to explore  and get agreement on the problem. For all these reasons, the Design Thinking approach seemed  very appropriate to the process of developing of our tool. Our team has never gone through Design  Thinking activities, but it was immediately unambiguous that it could have been very useful to solve  our problem: especially the learning launch tool, which is meant to quickly test ideas and  prototypes, was a perfect fit. Testing the prototypes of our webapp and examining the key  underlying value-generating assumptions of the new didactic initiative through quick and low-cost  experiments allowed us to create innovation indeed.    Application

Learning-launch moments and surveys and (also informal) interviews took turns and followed

one another. The first round of testing was launched with few instructors and not in large classes  (middle schools). We had students take questionnaires, which were both ethnographic and also  "empathetic", i.e. with open-ended questions focused on what students say they want. The category  of quality (not quantity) drove our research.

After these small experiments that tested our new idea in the real users' place, it was time to go

ahead with the acceptance of the uncertainty of the new learning-teaching situation by attempting  to make errors of promotion and not prevention: we made students test the tool again, although it  was still far from the best version.

At this point, the Design Thinking research plan puts on paper the main issue, letting us broaden

the scope. In fact, along with providing clarification regarding the what (the main aim of making feel  the online presence), the how (testing with the many contacts we had thanks to both mailing lists  of the lab and personal contacts), and the when (we did not have a precise deadline but the sooner  the better in order to help many students as possible, every order and degree), the Design Thinking  approach made us realize the very customers of our tool: the students were not the only ones we  need to inquire, yet also professors were involved firsthand.

Therefore, we, a team of technical researchers, stayed with the teachers during the lessons

where they used the tool, and, leaving professors space to give their contribution, we co-create with  them. Design Thinking allowed us to systematize our thoughts, enabling us to produce innovation  through applying the four typical questions (what is?, what if?, what wows?, and what works?) to

both the stakeholders involved, i.e. not only students but also professors. Once identified the real  consumers, we asked what was the need of both of them: the aim was to create engagement for  both sides, not to leave the student alone nor the instructor without doing nothing during the  student's personal learning process.

The next rounds of testing permitted to understand that a needed element was the feedback in

real-time for the professor. We then developed the tool making the instructor aware of the  students’ reactions beforehand, so that she could plan an efficient synchronous session,  immediately revising the difficult problematic concepts and building upon the knowledge that is  settled.

We continued to offer prototypes in order to collect data, which in fact made it possible to

improve the interface for both stakeholders: the instructors’ (after bubbles, peaks and curves,  columns seemed the best solution for the chart that the professor is provided with; before the  instructor saw the feedbacks in two separate pages, while in the next interfaces all of them at a  glance; …), and the students' (changing buttons written "I do (not) get it" with smiles button, they  could apply to more concepts - e.g., not only "I get it" but also "I like it" so that to deepen the topic;  changing the questions button in order to express not only queries but also comments; …).    Approach and Insight

Making use of the Design Thinking approach brought with it many valuable aspects. By focusing

on small and easily achieved goals, we could see if what we had done up to that point was really  working; by looking for patterns and themes in collected data, we identified the user personas in  every school order and degree, which allows us to make the tool useful for most of the students;  directly relating with customers and accepting to remain in the unclear for a lot of time, with the  patience to understand the best way, we reached a well-functioning tool. Applying the launch  learning tool affected our thinking about the challenge we were fronting: the insight we gained from  conducting experiments allowed us to gather many data that helped us to determine both A) our  idea has enough merit to warrant detailed investigation with the commitment of further time,  people, and resources B) the components we needed to take into account were more than the ones  we were focusing on.

Schools needed new tools, and our technicians could make them. Anyway, our team discovered

that the identified assumptions did not reflect every aspect of the real situation; in fact, actual  results were slightly different from what we anticipated: as above-highlighted, the students’  demands were not the only ones that needed to be studied, yet also professors’. For these reasons,  for future projects, we will start with better and more deeply asking ourselves to whom what we  are doing is addressed; then we will for sure make use of the learning launch tool again, being  prompt to incorporate new insights into future launch designs and maybe try to make use also of  other tools of the Design Thinking approach. In this way, we will start with a broader scope and can  anticipate a fuller rollout to quickly come closer to a compelling solution and improve even more.


Reflection – Learning Launch Challenge and selection We are a team of researchers working on innovative didactic ( both normo- and disabilities ) at Google at the department of Electronics Information and Bioengineering . During the last year , when Italy was locked down due to the COVID-19 pandemic , our lab challenge consisted of offering an effective way to pursue the DAD ( " didattica a distanza " , i.e. distance teaching and learning ) . The solution should have included an easy - to - use tool that helped professors and students to feel and work together , though not being at school in the same physical class . The developed tool , using the flipped classroom approach , makes the students watch a video before the explanation made by the professor and provide this latter with a chart that shows students ’ reactions ( i.e. which parts of a video are clear and which , on the contrary , are not , along with the overall acceptance , in terms of clarity and appreciation , of the videos ) . Thus , our challenge was human - centered and there were many people involved in the problem ; anyway , especially at the beginning , the statement of the issue was not clear since never faced before ; similar ( didactic ) situation had never been experienced , then there were not analogous data available , and many unknows and past indicators were useless . We then firstly needed to explore and get agreement on the problem . For all these reasons , the Design Thinking approach seemed very appropriate to the process of developing of our tool . Our team has never gone through Design Thinking activities , but it was immediately unambiguous that it could have been very useful to solve our problem : especially the learning launch tool , which is meant to quickly test ideas and prototypes , was a perfect fit . Testing the prototypes of our webapp and examining the key underlying value - generating assumptions of the new didactic initiative through quick and low - cost experiments allowed us to create innovation indeed . Application Learning - launch moments and surveys and ( also informal ) interviews took turns and followed one another . The first round of testing was launched with few instructors and not in large classes ( middle schools ) . We had students take questionnaires , which were both ethnographic and also " empathetic " , i.e. with open - ended questions focused on what students say they want . The category of quality ( not quantity ) drove our research . After these small experiments that tested our new idea in the real users ' place , it was time to go ahead with the acceptance of the uncertainty of the new learning - teaching situation by attempting to make errors of promotion and not prevention : we made students test the tool again , although it was still far from the best version . At this point , the Design Thinking research plan puts on paper the main issue , letting us broaden the scope . In fact , along with providing clarification regarding the what ( the main aim of making feel the online presence ) , the how ( testing with the many contacts we had thanks to both mailing lists of the lab and personal contacts ) , and the when ( we did not have a precise deadline but the sooner the better in order to help many students as possible , every order and degree ) , the Design Thinking approach made us realize the very customers of our tool : the students were not the only ones we need to inquire , yet also professors were involved firsthand . Therefore , we , a team of technical researchers , stayed with the teachers during the lessons where they used the tool , and , leaving professors space to give their contribution , we co - create with them . Design Thinking allowed us to systematize our thoughts , enabling us to produce innovation through applying the four typical questions ( what is ? , what if ? , what wows ? , and what works ? ) to both the stakeholders involved , i.e. not only students but also professors . Once identified the real consumers , we asked what was the need of both of them : the aim was to create engagement for both sides , not to leave the student alone nor the instructor without doing nothing during the student 's personal learning process . The next rounds of testing permitted to understand that a needed element was the feedback in real - time for the professor . We then developed the tool making the instructor aware of the students ’ reactions beforehand , so that she could plan an efficient synchronous session , immediately revising the difficult problematic concepts and building upon the knowledge that is settled . We continued to offer prototypes in order to collect data , which in fact made it possible to improve the interface for both stakeholders : the instructors ’ ( after bubbles , peaks and curves , columns seemed the best solution for the chart that the professor is provided with ; before the instructor saw the feedbacks in two separate pages , while in the next interfaces all of them at a glance ; … ) , and the students ' ( changing buttons written " I do ( not ) get it " with smiles button , they could apply to more concepts - e.g. , not only " I get it " but also " I like it " so that to deepen the topic ; changing the questions button in order to express not only queries but also comments ; … ) . Approach and Insight Making use of the Design Thinking approach brought with it many valuable aspects . By focusing on small and easily achieved goals , we could see if what we had done up to that point was really working ; by looking for patterns and themes in collected data , we identified the user personas in every school order and degree , which allows us to make the tool useful for most of the students ; directly relating with customers and accepting to remain in the unclear for a lot of time , with the patience to understand the best way , we reached a well - functioning tool . Applying the launch learning tool affected our thinking about the challenge we were fronting : the insight we gained from conducting experiments allowed us to gather many data that helped us to determine both A ) our idea has enough merit to warrant detailed investigation with the commitment of further time , people , and resources B ) the components we needed to take into account were more than the ones we were focusing on . Schools needed new tools , and our technicians could make them . Anyway , our team discovered that the identified assumptions did not reflect every aspect of the real situation ; in fact , actual results were slightly different from what we anticipated : as above - highlighted , the students ’ demands were not the only ones that needed to be studied , yet also professors ’ . For these reasons , for future projects , we will start with better and more deeply asking ourselves to whom what we are doing is addressed ; then we will for sure make use of the learning launch tool again , being prompt to incorporate new insights into future launch designs and maybe try to make use also of other tools of the Design Thinking approach . In this way , we will start with a broader scope and can anticipate a fuller rollout to quickly come closer to a compelling solution and improve even more .