MIT 2020 - Step 8: Crazy 8's - IDEATE

The final step of our design thinking process was to use the CRAZY 8s technique to come up with eight different ideas or solutions for our newly improved challenge.

We each contributed to two cycles of anonymous feedback by:

Round 1: Placing stickers next to solutions we thought could fly
Round 2: Sticking googly eyes on the best idea 

We had time to reflect on which of our potential solutions the other MITers thought had traction and then took turns to present our 'findings' to the group. It was reassuring to see that six of my original ideas were considered viable. There was a clear 'winner' with five votes, however three other ideas also had support.

5 eyes 

An app/site page that provides a 'one stop' shop for students, teachers and whanau to access self-management toolkit based on a cultural model e.g. Te Whare Tapa Wha, Kete of Knowledge, Wayfinding

MIT 2020 - Step 6: How Might We...? - Bringing multiple optimistic viewpoints to the challenge

Following on from feedback from my 5 WHYs buddy and the School Hall scenario, the sharing of the EMPATHY role plays, we switched gears. The focus was no longer on breaking down the problem but on providing POSITIVE suggestions for new ways of framing our individual challenges.

We updated a poster to show our tweaked challenge statement  and put them on the walls around us. Armed with post it notes and a felt-tip marker, we moved from poster to poster and left prompts for each other, using the question starter, HOW MIGHT WE...? 

Thank you fellow MITers for the valuable feedback! Thank you to Dorothy for helping me resolve the conflict I had in my original moonshot proposal between whether it was the teacher or the students with the problem! (FYI: It's the students!)

UPDATED CHALLENGE STATEMENT

I feel excited by my new and improved challenge statement - it defines a more specific skill set for Year 8s to acquire and develop and also shifts the focus of responsibility from teachers to students to build their own capacity as self-managers.

MIT 2020 - Step 3: School Hall Scenario

With my moonshot proposal and 5 WHYs completed, the next part of the design thinking process came unexpectedly!

Matt and Dorothy took us through a role play centred around a fictitious School Hall scenario. Each of the MIT 2020 group were given parent personas  from the local community to act out (e.g a pizza maker, a lawyer, a bach cleaner).  The gathering was led by a senior staff member (Matt) with a representative from ERO (Dorothy) in attendance. Parents were asked to prioritise a series of issues impacting the school. There was a tangible sense of frustration as we progressed from one issue to another. Indeed, comments from 'the floor' got quite heated at times:

               "We need more information! 

                What do you mean my kid can't listen!

                Are you telling me my kid is dumb? 

                It's not my problem? 

                What are the teachers doing to fix this?  

                Why are we only hearing about this now?

The senior staff member (Matt - heroically sticking to character!) pretty quickly came under the pump. Due to circumstances out of 'his control', he could not provide any of the details requested by parents to help clarify each issue and figure out which were the most pressing.

At some point, the penny dropped. It turned out that the 'issues' we were hotly debating were in fact the achievement challenge statements from each MIT member.

GENIUS! 

Having each MITer in character as part of an audience dialled down any potential awkwardness or defensiveness that might have come up had we been asked instead to present our ideas in front a group of relative strangers.The role play was a way for us to hear an upfront critique of our initial musings and prompted each of us to go back and re-examine our initial problem statement.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:- was the issue expressed in concise language? was the issue actually worthy of investigation as a design thinking project?