Focus on the following points:
- Students’ views and perspectives
- Are the course leaders happy with this usage?
- What I wanted to do with the data vs secondary research with the data based on time restrains and impossibilities.
- Focus on conversation with managers and course leaders who are excited to use the analysis as a tool, to be continued. Positive outcome regardless of initial limitations.
- Separate YR1 and YR2, vs consultations and see how times are distributed. Aside from course distribution.
- Ask students how comfortable they feel asking questions and exploring the space. Is the space open enough for exploration to be done your way, how to be more inviting?
- Ask stakeholders how they feel about students perceptions of the technical space and how that aligns with their plan to include laboratory experimentation in the curriculum.
KEEP ALWAYS IN MIND: Paulo Freire’s idea of social capital of communication, theory of social justice and equality.
Expanding on the idea of giving all core users basic skills to navigate and play in the space based on their interest, could empower them to feel a sense of belonging. – Goes back to artefact idea.
Do they feel a sense of non-belonging? INTERVIEW
Are the students that consult more end up being in the space more? Courses like MABD who have a heavy workshop based curriculum end up being heavy users of the space. Correlation with the type of support given or reflection of the course brief?
The attached questionnaire draft sums up my overall ideas and intentions. That would hopefully help me gain a better understading of the students perspectives. I could introduce this questionnaire at the end of term, as a feedback form open to all students to fill.
The idea of self-assesment of ‘frequent’ vs ‘sporadic’ user could bring interesting reflections and saves me from putting the students on the box of my own perceptions.
Another point that can have practical consequences is the feedback on time and space limitations affecting student experience.