CARGAS OBJETO DE REPARTO

This created a great deal of in-class discussion. The popularity of this code presented in Table 5.1. Split across the 3 sessions the table displays sub-codes relating the contextual need theme. To the right of the table the sub-codes have been member checked and presents the number of students who agreed of had issues with this sub-code. Out of the 335 instances recorded, 136 related to contextual needs. Presented at the end of each session is a sub total, the sub totals from each session help to demonstrate the magnitude over the three session, so in this case Context of Need Activities was consistently high as an issues in the three session starting with 56 recorded instances and ending with 61 recorded instances.

Table 5.1:Formative Session Sub-Categories - Context of Needs Activities

Formative Session

Breakdown of the most popular instance (emerging sub code/categories)

n= Member Checked

Session 1 Understanding context of need 18

Session 1 Scenario development based on need 11

Session 1 Stress/coping - placement 1

Session 1 Timescale of needs is too quick to solve 17

Session 1 Occurrence Sub Total (Needs) 56

Session 2 Too many needs within information scenario 16

Session 2 Confusion between needs and scenarios 12

Session 2 Occurrence Sub Total (Needs) 28

Session 3 Grouping elements of the model 18

Session 3 Need (initiation) How does we start the test 7

Session 3 Panic in capturing a need 10

113

Session 3 Occurrence Sub Total (Needs) 61

Total 136

The first formative session introduced the model. Students completed a range of activities aimed at initiating a test around an information need/or needs. This session focused on understanding what context of information need means within a mobile context, students explored the mobile context of information needs and how all the parts of the model fit and work together. This exploratory exercise created a wide and varied set of codes, as students understood the meaning behind context of information needs within the model. In the

session the researcher coded 56 instances were coded for Contextual Need Activity. The first formative session found that an “understanding context of need” and “timescale of needs is too quick to solve” were the most popular sub-codes capturing 18 and 17 instances. Reflecting upon the researcher’s observational notes, these two sub-categories were interrelated and centred on student confidence, meaning that they did not fully understand what this meant and how a context of need and how it fits in a test strategy. Students’ initial understanding of context of need activities was firmly associated with the applications functionality. Based upon this 18 (or 32.14%) of the 56 instances noted an issue relating to their own product and how it functions. This insecurity echoed from students agreeing that, “my app is limited”. The assignment brief does clearly state that the applications build quality (and its overall functionality) was not being assessed it is based upon experimental methods adopted to conduct tests. These methods will gather data based around information needs, context (social and physical) and modalities. Using the

assessment, the researcher explained that, “students need to think of the broader issues associated with context, for example how does motion challenge user interaction?”

The second session helped to guide students’ in collating information needs together into an “information rich” scenario based activity. A scenario would consist of a number of needs and/or demands making a contextual need activity. Students had difficulties with the concept of a scenario activity and the “scenario development based on need” emerged creating 11 instances for discussion. Exploring this, it became apparent that students struggled with the concept of an information need evolving into an activity. Students’ listed a number of demands and needs and struggled to contextualize these to form information driven activities. Contextualizing needs fed into the sub-code “confusion between needs and scenarios” (12 instances) the students mindset and their interpretation was process-driven (i.e., go here>get this>find that>email to friend). The prescriptive approach based upon simple system demands did not have the depth or scope to build into a context of need

114

activity, hence the worry of “my app is limited”. Students were encouraged to think a little more broadly about activities that support a users’ experience. The difficulties with scenario activities also fed into the number of needs for a test students worried about having “too many needs within an information scenario” (16 instances). As they modelled needs and interactions using the model the magnitude of the test started to take hold.

The second session modelled cognition mapping how test participant interact with the application (i.e., the operations or pinches/swipes, the goals and sub-goals to a

demand/need and the different pathways a test could follow to complete the same need activity). Modelling cognition created uncertainty relating to the “number of needs” required, 9 instances related to this point, as the researcher probed this point it became apparent that students were scoping out assessment details attempting to identify the minimum number of needs required to pass the module. Asking this question helped them work out “what was needed to pass the module?”, or the minimum needed to get a 2:1.

Contextual Need Activities became practical in the third session. The practical nature was due to their impending field tests, students begun to question data capture and “how needs fits into the overall test strategy?” As final preparation took place students pondered how things are going to be, notably “how are they going to start a test in the field”? Students felt the lab comfortable and reassuring but what happens on the train or walking down the high street? They need to be prepared and the “need fitting with a test strategy” (17 instances resonated with students). In the discussion, the need and fitting with the strategy related to planning and orchestrating the field tests. Students worried about tests activities as they ventured out into the field and need to feel self-assured that the test will meet the baseline goals set out. The researcher noted that the field data compared against the baseline data from the pilots test would support their experimental strategy. The level of anxiousness about the field tests was echoed with “need (initiation) - how do we start the test?” (7 instances). The researcher tied this point back to contextualizing an information need if students have a clear context then the test will initialise and flow anywhere. Initiating a context of need fits with the last point raised “panic in capturing a need”. A point which reverberated across all qualitative fieldwork - the unknown. Students’ worried about

capturing field data especially things that cannot be seen. The researcher explained that this is something that faces all field tests, especially something of a qualitative nature like a need in the field. This about data capture and preparation making sure this is suitable for a field environment to get the most of the test.

115