Stage 3: Feedback on Generative Research Presentation

Sara Hendren (Olin College) and Kevin Korpi (Microsoft)

Sara Hendren

Prior to presenting our generative research to the Microsoft team, we were fortunate enough to get feedback from Sara Hendren, Assistant Professor of Design at Olin College. In addition to providing feedback on our presentation itself, Sara pushed us to think more deeply about our principles, the goals for our design project and the big WHY we were exploring in our work.

Below are some of our key takeaways from Sarah’s review of our presentation:

• The pitch should better address the what (e.g. MR in vocational training) as well as WHY (current trends, creation of new jobs but people aren’t qualified for them, and the larger societal transition that is currently taking place)
• The principles from exploratory research seem to vague, the more compelling insights include: 1) the difference between diagnostics and problem solving — some things will get automated out, but can the solution help reinforce the skills that will remain human (ie problem solving); 2) the need to prepare life-long learners rather than skilled workers — technology will change and so will the skills needed to address them; 3) the need to train for flexibility in the face of rapid technological change — as important as skills are, a preparedness for technological change, and a flexibility in the face of this disruption, will be an essential skill of the future.
• In thinking about MR for education in this way, the solution might support a transformational learning experience that would disrupt the master/apprentice dynamic and serve as an invitation to break the hierarchy of education and invite new opportunities for transformative learning.

With her feedback in hand, we returned to our presentation to incorporate her thoughts, take our principles to that deeper level, and further develop our concepts to reflect those deeper principles.

Kevin Korpi + Class

Following our presentation, we also got feedback from members of the Microsoft team about how we might have improved our presentation as well as what to do next.

• How does a tool reinforce the notion of lifelong learning?
• How do we model lifelong learning for students? E.g. Having instructors showing students how they tackle new problems that they haven’t seen before or learn about new technologies and advances, etc.
• The notion of life-long learning needs to be carried through the presentation a bit more. It’s unclear how that relates to the concepts at the end.
• How do we prevent information overload on the part of students?
• How are things mediated without technology? How might technology mediate these things to make them possible in a different setting?
• Explore Hiroshi Ishi’s tangible interactions (buildable blocks)
• Excited about the notion of familiar form factors with new functionalities (ie physical tools that are already used embedded with sensors to make them dynamic learning tools)