1
GAMED Prototype Research Plan
Running head:GAMED PROTOTYPE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
GAMED Prototype Research and DevelopmentResearch Plan
Eliza Auckerman, Janelle Esposito, Rhonda Gross, Emad Goda, Andrea Hancock, Carmen Harris, Susan Kenney, Cheri Sandford
George Mason University
EDIT 752, Spring 2008
GAMED Prototype Research and Development 1
Summary
This research plan delineates the goals of the design team to rapidly advance prototype development through two iterative research and design cycles. Our proposed research methods include an online data-gathering survey and contextual inquiries with an initial limited prototype and then with our revised/expanded prototype. A tentative schedule through May 5, 2008 and an estimate of resources are provided.
This research plan is valid between March 3, 2008, and May 5, 2008.
Goals
We plan to complete two cycles of formative design evaluation based on user feedback on our prototype design of a mobile device developed for use by students with ADHD and giftedness and their caregivers. One cycle will gather data from both the primary target audience of the students and the secondary audience of parents and teachers. The second cycle will focus primarily on the students with additional survey questions disseminated to the secondary audience if needed.
These two cycles of data collection are designed to allow us to gather a large amount of data from important stakeholders in the first round. The results of the first cycle will impact changes to our prototype, which will be further tested in the second round of data collection.
Issues
Our interactions with our subject matter experts (SMEs) have been limited in both frequency and duration. Although we had sufficient information to begin prototype development, our design cannot adequately progress without ongoing input from either the SMEs or the target audience for the device. Specifically, with regard to the users' experiences, we would like to answer the following questions:
- Have our target audiences encountered a similar device being used for educational purposes?
- When, or for what purpose, would our target audiences use the device the most?
- What aspects of the device's appearance/display matter the most to our target audiences?
- Is the redundant access of device features through different methods and paths helpful?
- What would be the preferred source(s) of input? (i.e., Stylus, Keypad, Voice)
- In terms of learning curve, how difficult is it to learn to use the features of this device?
- Can users foresee using this device on weekends and/or out of the classroom environment?
- How much will our target audiences interact with the device and rely on it? Or would they prefer to use other ways to achieve their tasks?
- What is the most attractive feature for each target audience?
- Will the device decrease or increase the time necessary for students to accomplish their educational tasks?
- Will use of the device decrease or increase the frequency and/or duration of off-task behavior?
Existing User Profiles
Prior to the initial prototype design, we conducted user needs assessments with members of our target audiences. As a result, we were able to develop user profiles (personas) for students, teachers, and parents who might use our mobile device.
Personas are attached (Appendix A: persona_summary_page.pdf).
Research Methods
We will complete two rounds of data collection focusing on both our primary and secondary target audiences.
In the first round of data collection we will conduct a contextual inquiry through individual interviews and observation sessions with students from our primary target audience. We hope to have a sample population of 10 students. Students will review a prototype or wireframe of the GAMED device and perform some simple tasks. The students will be interviewed to determine what features of the device are most valued and what features require improvement.
Additional first round data will be gathered from the secondary target audiences of parents and teachers who work with twice-exceptional students. Again, we hope to have a sample population of at least 10 participants with an emphasis on the teacher population. As a basic usability test, participants will review a website describing the features of the GAMED device with content representative of our prototype. After reviewing this website, they will be asked to fill out a brief (approximately 20 questions) online descriptive survey assessing the features and utility of the proposed device. Their responses will be analyzed for trends relating to the appropriateness and operability of various features.
Adjustments will be made to the prototype based on the comments and recommendations received. A second round of data collection will then take place based on the revised prototype.
A second contextual inquiry with the students will be conducted via student interviews and observations based on the revised prototype. Students will be asked to interact with the revised prototype and respond to questions about the ease of use of the prototype and their general attitudes toward it.As time and resources permit, brief follow-up interviews will be conducted with adult participants.
Schedule
Our schedule will be determined, to some extent, by research approval from the George Mason University Human Subjects Review Board. Our tentative schedule for research cycles and deliverables is as follows:
February 18 - 24 All team members completed CITI online training.
Outstanding data for HSRB application were compiled and submitted necessary .
February 25 - 29 Completed preparations for basic usability test (expanded
wireframes with graphic overlays, webpage for adult survey participants to visit, etc.) Formulated descriptive survey questions for web delivery.
March 3 - 17 Deliverable: Research Plan
[Assuming approval from HSRB] Begin recruitment of adult and student participants. Set up observation/interview times for studentcontextual inquiry.
March 17 - 21 Data Collection: Complete first cycle of online surveys.
March 24 - 28 Complete data analysis on survey responses. Revise
prototype, as necessary.
March 31 - April 11Data Collection: Complete contextual inquiries with
students (observations and interviews).
April 14 - 18 Complete data analysis on contextual inquiries.
April21 - 25 Revise prototype, as necessary.
April 28 - May 2 Prepare for User Research Final Presentation.
May 5 Deliverable: Final Presentation of User Research
Budget
Financial Resources
We have no allocated budget for our research. All costs will be absorbed by the researchers, jointly and/or individually. Equipment may be borrowed from design team members, schools, or George Mason University. There are no incentives provided for this research.
Human Resources
All design team members will share responsibility for all aspects of the continued design and development of our prototype. However, team leadership for the project will rotate based upon skills, interests, and available time.
Goal or Deliverable / Team Leader / Other members and ResponsibilitiesGoals/Questions / N/A / all
HSRB / Cheri / Andrea, Rhonda, Emad, Janelle, Carmen-CITI training; Janelle - device description
Research Plan / Eliza, Andrea
Survey Development / Emad / Survey-Eliza, Carmen, Andrea, Janelle, Emad (esurveypro), observation questions - Rhonda, Susan, Cheri
Preparation & Prototype Production / Rhonda / tool creation- Rhonda, Andrea (website),
Data Collection / Susan, Rhonda / Participant Recruitment - (students) Cheri, Susan, (adults) Rhonda
Data Analysis / Cheri
Prototype Revision / Janelle, Carmen
Final Presentation / ALL
Time Resources
Task Time
Preparation
HSRB application/consent 2 hours
CITI training 2-3 hours/person
Research Plan 5-6 hours
Survey Development (online) 1-2 hours
Development of Interview Questions 3 hours
Prototype Production 2-3 hours
Recruiting 1 hour/person for previous contacts
2-3 hours/person for new contacts
Research
Data Collection: Survey Responses 2-3 hours/participant
Data Analysis: Survey Responses 2-3 hours/participant
Data Collection: Contextual Inquiries 4-5 hours/participant
Data Analysis: Contextual Inquiries 5-6 hours/participant
Design Revisions
Following usability tests 2-3 hours
Following contextual inquiries 5-6 hours
Final Presentation
Preparation 8-16 hours (2/design team member)
Final Presentation/Question & Answer 1 hour