neurodiversity-game

[neurodiversity-game]

Week 1: January 24, 2022

Synthesizing Interviews

After inquiries with many people and five educator interviews later, I think I've come to a consensus as to what I think I should make for thesis: a social game.

In my interviews, a few themes came up:

- Things that are beyond an educator's control, like teaching to a standardized curriculum.

The curriculum taught in public schools are changed every few years, and with each iteration, they test different areas of ability. Before, it was based on skills like reading and writing, but now, it's all about how well students do on assessments; if their curriculum doesn't match what is being assessed, then it appears that "students are not learning."

With AP testing, educators are still teaching to a test, but they also encounter experience additional pressure of balancing speed, depth, and rigor within the given timeframe so that their students have the best shot at getting a good score on the AP test, which then lessens the financial burdens for that student and their family in their pursuit of higher education.

Therefore, creating a tool that intervenes with the curriculum is not a highly viable option.

- Pedagogically, unless a future educator is getting their masters/specializing in Special Education, educators are generally not equipped/prepared enough to help accommodate students with specific needs, yet alone know how to advocate for them.

Because colleges are preparing educators to teach anywhere, most educators will experience a survey class about all the conditions they could encounter in a given classroom, covering everything and nothing at the same time.

If one has not obtained a masters in teaching, but they do some form of informal teaching, then the first time they may learn anything about teaching to students with specific needs is on the job, so it up to the employer to equip their staff with the appropriate resources and training, if they decide to invest in these things in the first place.

Therefore, the more educators can learn about and seriously understand their student/their student's family's reality is on a daily basis, the better.

- For students with an IEP and their families, attending an IEP meeting is a dehumanizing experience.

A child referred for support services will undergo testing and the data collected during those sessions are relayed to the parents. Because the scientific experts are interpreting the data, they use deficit-centered language: "your child is below average; your child can't do x, y, z; I don't think your child will be able to do x, y, z." Understandably, families will bring in a lawyer or a personal consultant to provide emotional support and help advocate for their child.

At the age of 14, students are invited to attend IEP team meetings, at which point they are on the direct receiving end of this "news", no longer shielded away from this treatment by their parents.

Therefore, instilling a child self-advocacy and self-determination skills early on will carry them far beyond the limits external forces try to impose on them.

- Two was the common number of students with IEPs among my interviewees, within their school including a large ELL population.

With ELLs and students with IEPs, what support staff essentially do is reduce the blocks they may have from accomplishing a task. This could look like equipping ELLs with translation tools so that they can reference words/concepts they don't know, or by condensing the number of pages of a reading to the main ideas for a student with an IEP.

Before starting this deep dive into accessibility within classrooms, I recognized students in general come from diverse cultural, educational backgrounds, and varying degrees of familial support and access....because I'm like that, so I didn't want to initially limit the demographic of people in my scope.

Therefore, because centering accessibility or putting accessibility first benefits everyone, then I should address this issue with a solution that encompasses multiple experiences or a revolves around a common denominator.

Common Denominator

...which brings me to the idea of creating a social game. During my first design sprint, something Jason Gottlieb brought to my attention was the four categories of games:

Competition

Chance

Imitation/Mimicry

Disorientation

Disorientation and mimicry is what Ana Tobin used in her "Neuro Divergent" installation experience to help visitors understand what it's like having a learning disability.

I experienced disorientation when I realized there are certain skills neurotypical people like me take for granted because they're not necessarily "built-in" in everyone, like understanding facial expressions, reciprocal conversations, and determining cause of emotion. This was a huge eye-opener for me.

In relation, one of my interviewees mentioned that this is what it feels like to have your assumptions shattered upon realizing and acknowledging other people's reality of having to think differently.

Direction

So, if my objective is to address the pain-points of both ELLs and students with IEPs, why not create a game that'll help develop social and interpersonal skills, while also immersing educators into their everyday challenges?

So, what am I doing to take on this idea? Well I'm taking a game design class this semester, half of which will be dedicated on social games, so that's good.

What if I don't create a successful game? I'm not expecting myself to get it right by the time May rolls around, but I'm also thinking about my self-directed process book, which I will be able to populate with so much content just from the playtests alone.

How is this graphic design? Well, this game is going to need a designed rulebook and game pieces, packaging and body copy, while my exhibit installation is going to need an exhibition poster, social media graphics, and a promo reel. PLUS, the process book scratches my publication design need.

I think I'm covered. I got this.