A. Initial conjectures

Assigned Week 1 (January 30). Due Week 3 (February 13).

Assignment description

This assignment asks you to frame out your initial ideas about what you are going to build, who it's for, how it might work, and what success might look like. These initial ideas are almost certainly wrong, but they will serve as a starting point for an iterative process of learning about your users and the problem you are trying to solve, and improving your design. We will use Sandoval's (2014) conjecture mapping framework to organize our design work this semester. If you haven't previously, read the paper carefully for definitions and a worked example.

Conjecture mapping diagram

Introduction

List your group members and choose a group name.

High-level conjecture

By high-level conjecture, I mean [a] sort of theoretically principled idea of how to support some desired form of learning, articulated in general terms and at too high a level to determine design. Such conjectures or meta-principles (Kali, 2006) are usually the result of some initial problem nalysis

(Sandoval, 2014, p. 22).

What is the big idea you want to explore in this project? What kinds of learners are you interested in working with, and in what context (formal or informal educational environments, work, family, online?) How do researchers who work in this domain think about learning?

Initial design conjectures

Design conjectures take the general form “if learners engage in this activity (task + participant) structure with these tools, through this discursive practice, then this mediating process will emerge.”

(Sandoval, 2014, p. 24).

Start by describing an initial idea for your design, including the tools and materials, task structures, participant structures, and discursive practices, to the extent they are relevant. What are the core mechanics of the design you propose? That is, what are the key aspects of your proposed design, and how do you think they are going to work? What kinds of observable evidence (mediating processes) would you look for to know that your design is working?

To support your initial design conjectures, analyze two precedents. Choose two technologies, either working in the same domain as you, or having similar core mechanics, and explain how they work.

Initial theoretical conjectures

(Sandoval, 2014, p. 24).

Describe (and cite) a theoretical framework for learning appropriate to your domain of interest. Within this framework, explain how you think of learning. What specific outcomes are you interested in? Provide a rationale (based in your theoretical framework, and possibly empirical evidence from other projects) for why do you think the mediating processes produced by your design will lead to your outcomes of interest.

Conclusion

Taking into consideration prior literature and your analysis of existing products, what are the most important questions you do you need to find out from your user research?

Deliverables

Written conjectures

In no more than three pages (roughly two pages of text; one page of screenshots), describe your group's initial conjectures, following the headings described above.

Presentation

Prepare slides and be ready to give a five-minute presentation to the class the week this assignment is due.

Rubric

Dr. Proctor's rubrics always start by asking the question for each criterion, "Does the work meet expectations?"

If so, "Does the work exceed expectations?"
If not, "Does the work at least approach expectations?"

Criterion A: Design conjectures

Exceeds expectations: AND The design conjectures are sufficiently specific that they could be operationalized. The proposed design incorporates lessons learned from precedents. The conclusion (explaining the most important questions for user research) is clearly aligned with the design conjectures and/or the theoretical conjectures.
Meets expectations: Clear articulation of how specific proposed design features might lead to mediating processes. Two relevant precedents cited. Their relevance to the proposed design are explained.
Approaches expctations: BUT The proposed design, the mediating processes, or the connection between them may be vague or missing. Fewer than two precedents, or their relevance to the proposed design are unclear.

Criterion B: Theoretical conjectures

Exceeds expectations: AND The theoretical conjectures are sufficiently specific that they could be operationalized. Justification for the theoretical conjectures is given, with theoretical and/or empirical support from the theoretical framework or from additional references.
Meets expectations: The proposed design has some form of learning as a goal. This goal is defined with reference to a cited theoretical framework. A rationale is given for why speficic mediating processes might result in the targeted learning.
Approaches expctations: BUT The mediating processes, the learning goal, or the connection between them may be vague or missing. A learning goal is specified, but may not refer specifically to a theoretical framework.

Tips

You are not expected to magically know a new field of literature, or even to know how to find your way in. If you're exploring a field which is new to you, you are strongly advised to plan a meeting with Dr. Proctor, or someone with relevant expertise who can suggest where to start.
If you are new to literature reviews, this would be an excellent time to invest in tools that will make you more effective throughout grad school. Zotero is a free, open-source reference manager which you can use to store your downloaded papers, add notes, generate pre-formatted bibliographies, and sync across devices.
Academic search engines like Google Scholar are a great place to start. One strategy for finding the central work of a field is to find highly-cited papers and then search within articles that cite them.
Skim, don't read! Your goal in a preliminary literature review is to find out what's out there.