Reflection – Learning Launch 

 Challenge and selection 

 We are a team of researchers working on innovative didactic ( both normo- and disabilities ) at 

 Google at the department of Electronics Information and Bioengineering . During the   last year , when Italy was locked down due to the COVID-19 pandemic , our lab challenge consisted   of offering an effective way to pursue the DAD ( " didattica a distanza " , i.e. distance teaching and   learning ) . The solution should have included an easy - to - use tool that helped professors and students   to feel and work together , though not being at school in the same physical class . The developed   tool , using the flipped classroom approach , makes the students watch a video before the   explanation made by the professor and provide this latter with a chart that shows students ’   reactions ( i.e. which parts of a video are clear and which , on the contrary , are not , along with the   overall acceptance , in terms of clarity and appreciation , of the videos ) . 

 Thus , our challenge was human - centered and there were many people involved in the problem ; 

 anyway , especially at the beginning , the statement of the issue was not clear since never faced   before ; similar ( didactic ) situation had never been experienced , then there were not analogous data   available , and many unknows and past indicators were useless . We then firstly needed to explore   and get agreement on the problem . For all these reasons , the Design Thinking approach seemed   very appropriate to the process of developing of our tool . Our team has never gone through Design   Thinking activities , but it was immediately unambiguous that it could have been very useful to solve   our problem : especially the learning launch tool , which is meant to quickly test ideas and   prototypes , was a perfect fit . Testing the prototypes of our webapp and examining the key   underlying value - generating assumptions of the new didactic initiative through quick and low - cost   experiments allowed us to create innovation indeed .     Application 

 Learning - launch moments and surveys and ( also informal ) interviews took turns and followed 

 one another . The first round of testing was launched with few instructors and not in large classes   ( middle schools ) . We had students take questionnaires , which were both ethnographic and also   " empathetic " , i.e. with open - ended questions focused on what students say they want . The category   of quality ( not quantity ) drove our research . 

 After these small experiments that tested our new idea in the real users ' place , it was time to go 

 ahead with the acceptance of the uncertainty of the new learning - teaching situation by attempting   to make errors of promotion and not prevention : we made students test the tool again , although it   was still far from the best version . 

 At this point , the Design Thinking research plan puts on paper the main issue , letting us broaden 

 the scope . In fact , along with providing clarification regarding the what ( the main aim of making feel   the online presence ) , the how ( testing with the many contacts we had thanks to both mailing lists   of the lab and personal contacts ) , and the when ( we did not have a precise deadline but the sooner   the better in order to help many students as possible , every order and degree ) , the Design Thinking   approach made us realize the very customers of our tool : the students were not the only ones we   need to inquire , yet also professors were involved firsthand . 

 Therefore , we , a team of technical researchers , stayed with the teachers during the lessons 

 where they used the tool , and , leaving professors space to give their contribution , we co - create with   them . Design Thinking allowed us to systematize our thoughts , enabling us to produce innovation   through applying the four typical questions ( what is ? , what if ? , what wows ? , and what works ? ) to 

 both the stakeholders involved , i.e. not only students but also professors . Once identified the real   consumers , we asked what was the need of both of them : the aim was to create engagement for   both sides , not to leave the student alone nor the instructor without doing nothing during the   student 's personal learning process . 

 The next rounds of testing permitted to understand that a needed element was the feedback in 

 real - time for the professor . We then developed the tool making the instructor aware of the   students ’ reactions beforehand , so that she could plan an efficient synchronous session ,   immediately revising the difficult problematic concepts and building upon the knowledge that is   settled . 

 We continued to offer prototypes in order to collect data , which in fact made it possible to 

 improve the interface for both stakeholders : the instructors ’ ( after bubbles , peaks and curves ,   columns seemed the best solution for the chart that the professor is provided with ; before the   instructor saw the feedbacks in two separate pages , while in the next interfaces all of them at a   glance ; … ) , and the students ' ( changing buttons written " I do ( not ) get it " with smiles button , they   could apply to more concepts - e.g. , not only " I get it " but also " I like it " so that to deepen the topic ;   changing the questions button in order to express not only queries but also comments ; … ) .     Approach and Insight 

 Making use of the Design Thinking approach brought with it many valuable aspects . By focusing 

 on small and easily achieved goals , we could see if what we had done up to that point was really   working ; by looking for patterns and themes in collected data , we identified the user personas in   every school order and degree , which allows us to make the tool useful for most of the students ;   directly relating with customers and accepting to remain in the unclear for a lot of time , with the   patience to understand the best way , we reached a well - functioning tool . Applying the launch   learning tool affected our thinking about the challenge we were fronting : the insight we gained from   conducting experiments allowed us to gather many data that helped us to determine both A ) our   idea has enough merit to warrant detailed investigation with the commitment of further time ,   people , and resources B ) the components we needed to take into account were more than the ones   we were focusing on . 

 Schools needed new tools , and our technicians could make them . Anyway , our team discovered 

 that the identified assumptions did not reflect every aspect of the real situation ; in fact , actual   results were slightly different from what we anticipated : as above - highlighted , the students ’   demands were not the only ones that needed to be studied , yet also professors ’ . For these reasons ,   for future projects , we will start with better and more deeply asking ourselves to whom what we   are doing is addressed ; then we will for sure make use of the learning launch tool again , being   prompt to incorporate new insights into future launch designs and maybe try to make use also of   other tools of the Design Thinking approach . In this way , we will start with a broader scope and can   anticipate a fuller rollout to quickly come closer to a compelling solution and improve even more . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: 
PHONE_NUM: 
STREET_ADDRESS: 
URL_PERSONAL: 
USERNAME: 

### Task: You are a PII (Personal Identity Information) Detection. Given a essays written by students, you have to identify ONLY the following:
NAME_STUDENT - The full or partial name of a student that is not necessarily the author of the essay. This excludes instructors, authors, and other person names.
EMAIL - A student’s email address.
USERNAME - A student's username on any platform.
ID_NUM - A number or sequence of characters that could be used to identify a student, such as a student ID or a social security number.
PHONE_NUM - A phone number associated with a student.
URL_PERSONAL - A URL that might be used to identify a student.
STREET_ADDRESS - A full or partial street address that is associated with the student, such as their home address.
### Input: Reflection – Learning Launch 

 Challenge and selection 

 We are a team of researchers working on innovative didactic ( both normo- and disabilities ) at 

 Google at the department of Electronics Information and Bioengineering . During the   last year , when Italy was locked down due to the COVID-19 pandemic , our lab challenge consisted   of offering an effective way to pursue the DAD ( " didattica a distanza " , i.e. distance teaching and   learning ) . The solution should have included an easy - to - use tool that helped professors and students   to feel and work together , though not being at school in the same physical class . The developed   tool , using the flipped classroom approach , makes the students watch a video before the   explanation made by the professor and provide this latter with a chart that shows students ’   reactions ( i.e. which parts of a video are clear and which , on the contrary , are not , along with the   overall acceptance , in terms of clarity and appreciation , of the videos ) . 

 Thus , our challenge was human - centered and there were many people involved in the problem ; 

 anyway , especially at the beginning , the statement of the issue was not clear since never faced   before ; similar ( didactic ) situation had never been experienced , then there were not analogous data   available , and many unknows and past indicators were useless . We then firstly needed to explore   and get agreement on the problem . For all these reasons , the Design Thinking approach seemed   very appropriate to the process of developing of our tool . Our team has never gone through Design   Thinking activities , but it was immediately unambiguous that it could have been very useful to solve   our problem : especially the learning launch tool , which is meant to quickly test ideas and   prototypes , was a perfect fit . Testing the prototypes of our webapp and examining the key   underlying value - generating assumptions of the new didactic initiative through quick and low - cost   experiments allowed us to create innovation indeed .     Application 

 Learning - launch moments and surveys and ( also informal ) interviews took turns and followed 

 one another . The first round of testing was launched with few instructors and not in large classes   ( middle schools ) . We had students take questionnaires , which were both ethnographic and also   " empathetic " , i.e. with open - ended questions focused on what students say they want . The category   of quality ( not quantity ) drove our research . 

 After these small experiments that tested our new idea in the real users ' place , it was time to go 

 ahead with the acceptance of the uncertainty of the new learning - teaching situation by attempting   to make errors of promotion and not prevention : we made students test the tool again , although it   was still far from the best version . 

 At this point , the Design Thinking research plan puts on paper the main issue , letting us broaden 

 the scope . In fact , along with providing clarification regarding the what ( the main aim of making feel   the online presence ) , the how ( testing with the many contacts we had thanks to both mailing lists   of the lab and personal contacts ) , and the when ( we did not have a precise deadline but the sooner   the better in order to help many students as possible , every order and degree ) , the Design Thinking   approach made us realize the very customers of our tool : the students were not the only ones we   need to inquire , yet also professors were involved firsthand . 

 Therefore , we , a team of technical researchers , stayed with the teachers during the lessons 

 where they used the tool , and , leaving professors space to give their contribution , we co - create with   them . Design Thinking allowed us to systematize our thoughts , enabling us to produce innovation   through applying the four typical questions ( what is ? , what if ? , what wows ? , and what works ? ) to 

 both the stakeholders involved , i.e. not only students but also professors . Once identified the real   consumers , we asked what was the need of both of them : the aim was to create engagement for   both sides , not to leave the student alone nor the instructor without doing nothing during the   student 's personal learning process . 

 The next rounds of testing permitted to understand that a needed element was the feedback in 

 real - time for the professor . We then developed the tool making the instructor aware of the   students ’ reactions beforehand , so that she could plan an efficient synchronous session ,   immediately revising the difficult problematic concepts and building upon the knowledge that is   settled . 

 We continued to offer prototypes in order to collect data , which in fact made it possible to 

 improve the interface for both stakeholders : the instructors ’ ( after bubbles , peaks and curves ,   columns seemed the best solution for the chart that the professor is provided with ; before the   instructor saw the feedbacks in two separate pages , while in the next interfaces all of them at a   glance ; … ) , and the students ' ( changing buttons written " I do ( not ) get it " with smiles button , they   could apply to more concepts - e.g. , not only " I get it " but also " I like it " so that to deepen the topic ;   changing the questions button in order to express not only queries but also comments ; … ) .     Approach and Insight 

 Making use of the Design Thinking approach brought with it many valuable aspects . By focusing 

 on small and easily achieved goals , we could see if what we had done up to that point was really   working ; by looking for patterns and themes in collected data , we identified the user personas in   every school order and degree , which allows us to make the tool useful for most of the students ;   directly relating with customers and accepting to remain in the unclear for a lot of time , with the   patience to understand the best way , we reached a well - functioning tool . Applying the launch   learning tool affected our thinking about the challenge we were fronting : the insight we gained from   conducting experiments allowed us to gather many data that helped us to determine both A ) our   idea has enough merit to warrant detailed investigation with the commitment of further time ,   people , and resources B ) the components we needed to take into account were more than the ones   we were focusing on . 

 Schools needed new tools , and our technicians could make them . Anyway , our team discovered 

 that the identified assumptions did not reflect every aspect of the real situation ; in fact , actual   results were slightly different from what we anticipated : as above - highlighted , the students ’   demands were not the only ones that needed to be studied , yet also professors ’ . For these reasons ,   for future projects , we will start with better and more deeply asking ourselves to whom what we   are doing is addressed ; then we will for sure make use of the learning launch tool again , being   prompt to incorporate new insights into future launch designs and maybe try to make use also of   other tools of the Design Thinking approach . In this way , we will start with a broader scope and can   anticipate a fuller rollout to quickly come closer to a compelling solution and improve even more .
### Output: 