Category: Project Milestones

This week, we made an important pivot in the direction of the project. The feedback from the faculty promoted us careful reflect upon our scope and priorities. Here is a list of the key changes:

1. Redefining objective: Previously, our objective is to teach teens how to use library resources. After realizing that doing so will not guarantee sustainable motivation for teens to keep coming back to the libraries, we knew the old objective was not sufficient. The redefined object is to help libraries attract and retain teen patrons. It is broader umbrella definition, but it more accurately reflect our real purpose. This shift also means that we need to be more comprehensive in our problem-solving approach, instead of hoping the Alternate Reality Game to do the heavy lifting.
2. Elevate research effort to 50% of project: We realized that we needed a lot more data than what we had to provide substantial grounds for our deliverables. There is also a considerable amount of existing works out there which, if properly compiled, can be very informative and helpful to our clients. It is our acknowledgement that the scope of our project is inherently limited in its long-term impacts. In order to truly build a meaningful, lasting relationship between the libraries and teens, a lot of the changes need to happen over time, in location, with continued efforts from the library staff. In light of this, our research’s aim is precisely to supply our clients with the information and ideas they need to implement these long-term changes.
3. No long using micro:bit: The decision to let go out this technology came down to two reasons. For one, we were unfamiliar with this technology, and while we could look into how to meaningfully, effectively incorporate this technology into our experience, finding that answer was not really the goal of our project. The feeling among the team and our instructors was that we shouldn’t be “designing for the technology”. The second reason was that incorporating micro:bit would add an extra layer of design complexity that our designer deem unnecessary. Once again, we were grateful for the help and support from ETC Educational Network Coordinator John Balash. But unfortunately, sometimes we have to let a cool idea go due to the demands of the project.

So what is the structure of our project now? It will be 50% Alternate Reality Game and 50% Research + Paper.

BY MAI AO

At the end of the previous week, ETC’s Educational Network Coordinator John Balash presented us with a potentially game-changing device: micro:bit. This small chip is a programmable “micro computer” developed by BBC for educational purposes, particularly teaching children programming. It has been deployed around the world and has seen great many successes. John suggested that we could possibly tapping into the scaleable nature of this platform due to its relative low-cost. We could make a micro:bit based experience and deliver the chip into the hands of hundreds of students. It was a very exciting opportunity, so we immediately started to investigate what we could build with micro:bit.

Our programmers discovered a plethora of mini games one could easily build into this chip, confirming the plan’s viability. Therefore, in the 1/4 presentations in front of all faculty, our team brought forth the proposal of integrating micro:bit into an ARG (alternate reality game) experience. The experience would be aimed at teaching the teens library resources. Our designer Jacob drafted an example game to illustrate how our micro:bit ARG could look like.

The feedback we received was mixed. More optimistic voices showed excitement about the potential of this relatively unexplored (at least in US) device. Some suggested that we could build puzzles involving micro:bit, but in order to understand certain clues, students need to attend some library programs that would expand their knowledge related to the given clue. For instance, the clue could require basic knowledge of Morse code, or a history event, or astrological facts, providing a good springboard to learning.

On the other hand, the more cautious opinions pointed out several looming questions, which our plan did not necessarily address. What is in it for the teens? Why would they want to come to play the game in the first place if they don’t like to show up at the library? Even if the micro:bit idea was a successful, how would teaching teens library resources guarantee that they would keep coming back to the libraries?

There seemed to be a substantial feeling among the faculty that we could not sufficiently answer how our plan would solve the real problem of the library. Some were not entirely convinced that we had enough data to clearly explain the real problem and its causes. However, most of the faculty acknowledged the inherent ambiguity and challenge of our problem space. Their feedback singled out the most important question we should keep in mind as we started developing prototypes.

BY MAI AO

It was a long drive. Two hours up north to the edge of the Great Lakes. There we were warmly greeted by our clients, the directors from Ashtabula County’s ICAN libraries. We sat down for a brief snack while being interviewed by a kind old lady who avidly took notes of who we were and where we came from. The enthusiasm was palpable from both sides. Waiting for us was other board members and around twenty patrons. They were all invited into participate in our first co-design session. The activities were called “co-design” because it wasn’t just a way for us to survey the information we wanted. It was a collaborative approach that deemed the inputs and involvement of the target audience integral to the design. Jacob was our team’s expert in facilitated discussions. Through a series of carefully calibrated activities, he led the librarians and patrons to open up about their relationship with the library, their experience using its services. People voiced their thoughts on libraries’ values to the community, while also addressing the changes brought by technology. It was a fruitful and candid conversation that I think surprised both parties to some extend.

We noted that libraries play an crucial role in the communities there. It is the place people come to meet others, to make friends, to discover what other people reading, and even better, to engage in a variety of fun programs that enrich people’s lives. People also visit libraries for civic information, personal assistance, or training programs. Those who frequent the library adore it. But it is their concern that still many neighbors, even civic leaders, do not even have a library card. The younger generation apparently do not have the same experience with libraries as their parents or grandparents’ generations. The library leaders want children nowadays to still understand how to build a relationship with their local libraries. It would be a terrible shame, as they pointed to us, if younger people of our time were to grow up without knowing how to benefit from libraries’ rich resources.

 

The center of our later discussions moved on to the concrete steps we could take, to improve libraries’ bond with its community. We highlighted several key topics for patrons to brainstorm ideas together with the librarians: library and community, personable service, digital resources, and library programs. It became clear to us, as the talks went on, that a lot of the improvements could be implemented in a low-cost way by simply doing things differently: for instance, librarians could try to have more floor presence; information about the libraries’ resources could be printed on the back of the library cards, etc. Then, there was how we came in. Five students, four months. We could direct our efforts to a specific task with high priority and a certain degree of technical challenge. So we asked our clients: What would it be? Their answer: Teens!

No problem. Let’s get this started.