Boonjour NM4210!

To be frank, this assignment really led many to wonder, what has improving lecture experience really got to do with this UX course, which deals with interactive design? Is it a ploy by Mr. Reddy to enhance his lecture delivery or to support his research? At first sight, I would have thought so, but after going through this assignment, I personally felt Mr. Reddy have really something up his sleeve, but in a good way. I felt that this assignment, gives an indirect route towards understanding User Experience. The fact that we’re not supposed to present to Mr. Reddy directly, but to use our own (varying and creative) modes of delivery, is itself an ‘experience’ that probably Mr. Reddy hoped for us to deliver to him – the ‘user’.

From my observation fellow peers’ evaluation, some of them did mention technological innovations as a probable way of enhancing LT experience, especially the ‘microphone on chair’ idea, seems to be a good step in getting soft-spoken peers to play a more active participation in lecture, and likely to be implemented in the near future. Though agreeable in certain aspects, I felt that for technological aspect, its no longer an issue, existing technology seems to be sufficient enough, moreover, equipments and technology are supplements but not the core, as I’ve seen technologically-illiterate lectures giving an awesome lecture.

There have also been thoughts of computerizing the entire lecture experience – e.g. E-Learning week. There presently are many calls to move away from the traditional lecture to interactive computer learning systems that allow students access to information when and where they need it. I personally felt that’s really a step backwards. I personally feel students not being ‘forced’ to be in a physical classroom, tends to be distracted, or can’t even be bothered to attend the e-Lecture. While this shift to “just in time” information provided by computer is occurring, there is, and will continue to be, a need for educators who are prepared to deliver lectures.

In my perspective as a student, my experience brings me to conclude that the commonplace PPT presentations can be routine and mundane. It no longer was an innovative way of conveying lectures. I felt that new ways of delivering has to be realized, equating to much more interesting and better user experience. That aside, the lecture experience to be enhanced also have to break the existing norm. What I realized from what we gathered in our assignment, I felt particularly, Math and dry topics are often cited as ineffective, but the nature of the lecture really plays a deterministic role.

I feel that, as a student myself, students are really looking for lecturers with the X factor, the ‘charisma’ to interest and attract students to attend lecture. Efforts to improve the teaching of lecturers must focus on changing the role of the student from passive observer to active participant. One of the most important steps in achieving this shared responsibility is careful planning. When properly planned, with the use of appropriate varieties of materials, the lecture can be a very effective method of transferring information to students.

Reflecting on the techniques that we had used, I felt we had a really hard time selecting the most appropriate techniques. We carried out a wee bit on the ethnographic aspect, which proved to be fruitless, as we seems to be putting our own observations as an ‘outside user’ ourselves, which eventually turns out to be somewhat untrue and biased. Thankfully we switched to cultural probing instead, which is more user-oriented. Opinions are coming out from the genuine users. Also, we had actually tried to ‘force fit’ the Technology Experience framework, which really doesn’t work for us; literally all the findings we gathered are compositional. Its tough to differentiate them and it seems really awkward and gave us a lot of uncertainties. That probably sums up the effectiveness of the technique that we used, laddering and cultural probing, which was really helpful, where student spoke out their mind. I would think that for such a research in such a user-centric module, cultural probe ranks up much higher than ethnographic approach, as the real user’s opinion is vital to the credibility of the research.

* (In this entry, I’ll not be going through the details of the presentation, but focusing primarily on sharing the strenuous process (our approach and decisions) that my group had undertook on our dissertation of formulating the eventual solution on enhancing LT experience.) *

We were warned: NIGHTMARE ASSIGNMENT!
Fret not, our group undyingly inculcates a gung-ho spirit, so no worries, we overcome all challenges! Haha, just joking.

But yes, we did view it from a constructive point of view; in truth, we find the challenge rather exciting. The fact that it’s the e-learning week actually helped. It gave us the leeway to break away from the norm of routine in-class presentation to experiment with something different. Sir Reddy’s open-ended approach essentially allowed us to open up more options for our creative and exclusive inflow of ideas for various modes of delivery, eventually capitalizing on an interesting one that min always wanted to try out – Podcast. Consequently, our settings evolved around a lively yet ‘profound’ Podcast by our very own NUStation: 42.10FM: Get Reddy! – A live dialogue involving DJ interviewing two researchers for their ‘groundbreaking’ research, emphasizing on an ‘extraordinary’ framework that would enhance LT experience (with visual aid of presentation slides running at the backdrop).

42.10FM – GET REDDY!

Our focus: to really go deep and dig into why some lectures fail badly. Amongst the group, we shared our bona fide experience on the best LT and worst LT experiences. Not being stereotypical, but we seems to find Math lectures always dreary and lethargic, while Arts lectures always seems to be appealing and rousing. One that leaves me particular impression was Film & History lecture; it was always well-received, jam-packed with crowds and fun-filled. On hindsight, Statistics lecture never fails to lead me to the Zzz monster. Frankly speaking, being students and having attending countless lectures, we already had a vague impression of what works out in LT and what goes wrong, in the back of our head. What we really need to do is to probe further into other peers’ reflections, establish it, verify it and substantiate it.

We concurred on taking an upfront approach, focusing on defining on these area of concerns:

• Affective design of the lecture theatres in campus
• Students’ attitude, level of concentration and ability to comprehend lectures
• Lecturers’ competency in delivering the lecture

These concerns eventually prompted us with 6 eventual elements that we felt, would define the LT experience:

• Place/Time/Technology/Students/Lecturers/Content

Having the 6 elements in place, we reviewed the different models that would aid us in conducting further outlooks into the research. We felt that the four-pleasure framework didn’t appeal to us as we felt that lecture is for learning sake, not particularly pleasurable. In fact, we asked around and many peers remarked that even though they might like the way the lecture conducts the lesson – it only makes them feel better, but they still dread going for lectures. As such, pleasure framework doesn’t seem to be viable in our context. Tools wise, we adopted the laddering process ahead of ethnographic study. Reason being that we’re not particular comfortable with ethnography, as data collated would be based on our own perspective, which in some ways might be loop-sided and subjective, hence the validity might be questionable. Hence, to avoid that, we went along with a hybrid of the frameworks and tools geared towards users’ opinions: emotional design (for cross-checking affective influence of LT design and layouts), cultural probes, laddering (for data gathering from user’s perspective) and technology vs experience (for data analysis). Together, these would provide us with user insights, equipping us with a more user-oriented approach.

Awkwardly, as we progress on, we felt that the Technology/Experience framework doesn’t seem to fit well into our methodology. We find that literally almost all the findings we gathered are compositional. Its tough to differentiate them and it seems really awkward. Hence, to do away with the uncertainties that might cost us the soundness of our research, we voided the continuation of this framework, and worked our way deeper into the 6 elements of LT experience, evaluating their influence, intensity, interactivity and positivity.

The outcome of our finding boils down the the dissertation that out of our 6 elements – 3 are not really influential for long-term: Place/Time/Technology. These 3 elements are seemingly intertwined, in the sense that they contribute to the physical setting, which only have an impression for the initial stages which students are still familiarizing with the environment. We realized that in cultural probings, not much attention were given to these 3 elements (though time do affect slightly, particularly for early and very late classes). Probable reason that justifies this is that for place and technology, almost all LTs in NUS are functionally well-equipped and working. Hence, we adopted our solution not at all on functional (as we felt that even the worst lecture hall can attract students if the lecture conducted is good) but on a cultural framework that would work generally for all kinds of lecture. Viewing that even the worst LT has changed for the better (LT26 – previously branded as an iconic ‘most abysmal’ LT in NUS for its 1980s wooden chairs, now refurbished and is one of the best looking LT in NUS) and LTs in NUS are of generally fine standard, we felt that place and technology are in good shape. Time is definitely an uncontrollable aspect that can’t be changed (Early lessons has to go on). What we felt ultimately that influence the LT experience is:

HUMAN FACTOR!

(Lecturers/Students/Content)

Communications have to be a two-way process and it has to flow fluently Only when communication is fluid, that interaction is fruitful. Hence, our solution model emphasizes on the need to enrich through content by lecturers and students. Enlighten both students (for better attitude and absorption, preparation for lecture) and lecturers (to make better lesson deliveries, more variations and sensitivity adaptation to student’s need and stimulus) is necessary so as to work towards that target of giving students an interesting and pleasurable learning experience for every possible lecture.

SOLUTION: A 3-PRONGED CULTURAL FRAMEWORK

“Keep Them Alive!”