Skip to content

SPUR Team 7

SPUR Team 7

SPUR Team 7

PROBLEM STATEMENT

At the start, we reviewed the problem statement and took it at face value as a starting point for our discussions with potential stakeholders.

How might we help undergraduate students better understand the research ecosystem to provide insights, create interest, and facilitate experiences.

With a team of four, we were concerned about the timeline, as we weren’t sure what would be expected of us.

Evaluate This Project
Discover : Planning

We identified and described a host of stakeholders – students and faculty with different specializations, interests, and lived experiences, as well as campus resources that would be involved in the process and their role in our initial problem statement. 

At this point in our process, we were looking at what we thought they might want to do in the sphere of research employment and their potential opportunities and challenges. These varied greatly depending on the personas we were describing. 

DISCOVER
Empathy : Observation

The primary findings of our observation activities were that learning about research opportunities and learning more about the process did not happen in person at the Undergraduate Research Hub. In addition, there were no clear indicators of engagement with passive information in person or in discussions where students gathered in the Library or Teaching and learning Commons.

Online accessible tools that could be utilized at the point of need/inquiry would seem to be more promising.

Empathy : Engagement

The stakeholders that were interviewed were undergraduate students and one graduate student. There were arrangements to interview faculty and other students, but they were canceled due to midterms, Thanksgiving break, and the need to complete the work.

Key takeaways from the stakeholder interviews were – the differences between STEM and non-STEM students in the types of experiences they wanted, how they learned about research experiences, and developing connections with faculty. STEM students need a platform to connect with professors that is manageable but rather inviting and open. Non-STEM students need to network with professors not just to join their research potentially but to help connect with other individuals whose research aligns more with their interests. At the same time, only students researching on campus knew about the REAL portal, as provided by the URH. However, they did not learn about and get these opportunities from the portal but by networking with professors via emails and in person (office hours, in class, etc.).

Empathy : Secondary Research

Primary takeaways from secondary research:

    • The lack of research focused on non-STEM disciplines
    • Limited research that explicitly surveyed students from underrepresented communities.
    • Primary drivers for research engagement depended on subject discipline, number of years on campus, and the role of faculty in encouraging research engagement. 

This indicated areas where further research would be warranted and helped us focus on potential prototypes based on what we had learned in the interviews.

DEFINE
Define : Synthesis Matrix

We focused on key stakeholders who were undergraduate STEM and non-STEM students, including transfer students, graduate students, and faculty. To summarize student needs, the key is connections – for STEM students, it’s developing connections with faculty who have opportunities, with non-STEM, it’s making connections to opportunities that align with their research and post-graduation goals, for transfer students, it is making connections in a new environment in a compressed timeline. For faculty they have needs for students with specific skills, knowledge, or aptitudes, but they do not necessarily have the time to find them with research on strict timelines. In addition, the campus process for student hiring is cumbersome and time-consuming.

Define : Update Problem Statement

Based on our findings, our problem statement evolved to recognize that students needed support in understanding that there were a variety of opportunities that would be considered research available and that the critical need for all stakeholders was reliable information and stable communication with faculty, facilitating a reliable connection.

Updated problem statement:

How might we help undergraduate students better understand research opportunities on and off campus, providing a concrete, reliable mechanism for information about faculty research interests and communication with faculty about research opportunities.

Summary : Key Takeaways

Based on our findings, and our collaborative work:

  • STEM and non-STEM (particularly social sciences) students have different needs. 
  • Transfer students work in a compressed timeline and need dedicated, early interventions.
  • Students will not go to a physical space – create a reliable, easy-to-use virtual space. 
  • Support/facilitate connection and communication.
Project Team Members

This team collaborated during the SPUR 1.0 program term to further the understanding of a problem statement and develop a potential solution. We recognize the collaborative work of the individuals who furthered our community’s knowledge of scaling paid undergraduate research.

  • Heather Briston, Director, Scholarship Tools and Methods Program
  • Danyal Rao, Student, Cognitive Sciences
  • Arjun Varshneym Student
  • Saleha Ahmedia, Student, Cognitive Sciences, Junior Designer Program
Team 7 Project Evaluation

Thank you for evaluating this and other SPUR Team projects. Each evaluation takes approximately 2-minutes to complete.

Please review the story and answer the five questions based on your knowledge, experience, and perspective. Your feedback will help us to learn, work, and develop ideas that will impact paid undergraduate research opportunities at UC San Diego.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

At the start, we reviewed the problem statement and took it at face value as a starting point for our discussions with potential stakeholders.

How might we help undergraduate students better understand the research ecosystem to provide insights, create interest, and facilitate experiences.

With a team of four, we were concerned about the timeline, as we weren’t sure what would be expected of us.

Evaluate This Project
Discover : Planning

We identified and described a host of stakeholders – students and faculty with different specializations, interests, and lived experiences, as well as campus resources that would be involved in the process and their role in our initial problem statement. 

At this point in our process, we were looking at what we thought they might want to do in the sphere of research employment and their potential opportunities and challenges. These varied greatly depending on the personas we were describing. 

DISCOVER
Empathy : Observation

The primary findings of our observation activities were that learning about research opportunities and learning more about the process did not happen in person at the Undergraduate Research Hub. In addition, there were no clear indicators of engagement with passive information in person or in discussions where students gathered in the Library or Teaching and learning Commons.

Online accessible tools that could be utilized at the point of need/inquiry would seem to be more promising.

Empathy : Engagement

The stakeholders that were interviewed were undergraduate students and one graduate student. There were arrangements to interview faculty and other students, but they were canceled due to midterms, Thanksgiving break, and the need to complete the work.

Key takeaways from the stakeholder interviews were – the differences between STEM and non-STEM students in the types of experiences they wanted, how they learned about research experiences, and developing connections with faculty. STEM students need a platform to connect with professors that is manageable but rather inviting and open. Non-STEM students need to network with professors not just to join their research potentially but to help connect with other individuals whose research aligns more with their interests. At the same time, only students researching on campus knew about the REAL portal, as provided by the URH. However, they did not learn about and get these opportunities from the portal but by networking with professors via emails and in person (office hours, in class, etc.).

Empathy : Secondary Research

Primary takeaways from secondary research:

    • The lack of research focused on non-STEM disciplines
    • Limited research that explicitly surveyed students from underrepresented communities.
    • Primary drivers for research engagement depended on subject discipline, number of years on campus, and the role of faculty in encouraging research engagement. 

This indicated areas where further research would be warranted and helped us focus on potential prototypes based on what we had learned in the interviews.

DEFINE
Define : Synthesis Matrix

We focused on key stakeholders who were undergraduate STEM and non-STEM students, including transfer students, graduate students, and faculty. To summarize student needs, the key is connections – for STEM students, it’s developing connections with faculty who have opportunities, with non-STEM, it’s making connections to opportunities that align with their research and post-graduation goals, for transfer students, it is making connections in a new environment in a compressed timeline. For faculty they have needs for students with specific skills, knowledge, or aptitudes, but they do not necessarily have the time to find them with research on strict timelines. In addition, the campus process for student hiring is cumbersome and time-consuming.

Define : Update Problem Statement

Based on our findings, our problem statement evolved to recognize that students needed support in understanding that there were a variety of opportunities that would be considered research available and that the critical need for all stakeholders was reliable information and stable communication with faculty, facilitating a reliable connection.

Updated problem statement:

How might we help undergraduate students better understand research opportunities on and off campus, providing a concrete, reliable mechanism for information about faculty research interests and communication with faculty about research opportunities.

Summary : Key Takeaways

Based on our findings, and our collaborative work:

  • STEM and non-STEM (particularly social sciences) students have different needs. 
  • Transfer students work in a compressed timeline and need dedicated, early interventions.
  • Students will not go to a physical space – create a reliable, easy-to-use virtual space. 
  • Support/facilitate connection and communication.
Project Team Members

This team collaborated during the SPUR 1.0 program term to further the understanding of a problem statement and develop a potential solution. We recognize the collaborative work of the individuals who furthered our community’s knowledge of scaling paid undergraduate research.

  • Heather Briston, Director, Scholarship Tools and Methods Program
  • Danyal Rao, Student, Cognitive Sciences
  • Arjun Varshneym Student
  • Saleha Ahmedia, Student, Cognitive Sciences, Junior Designer Program
Team 7 Project Evaluation

Thank you for evaluating this and other SPUR Team projects. Each evaluation takes approximately 2-minutes to complete.

Please review the story and answer the five questions based on your knowledge, experience, and perspective. Your feedback will help us to learn, work, and develop ideas that will impact paid undergraduate research opportunities at UC San Diego.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

At the start, we reviewed the problem statement and took it at face value as a starting point for our discussions with potential stakeholders.

How might we help undergraduate students better understand the research ecosystem to provide insights, create interest, and facilitate experiences.

With a team of four, we were concerned about the timeline, as we weren’t sure what would be expected of us.

Evaluate This Project
Discover : Planning

We identified and described a host of stakeholders – students and faculty with different specializations, interests, and lived experiences, as well as campus resources that would be involved in the process and their role in our initial problem statement. 

At this point in our process, we were looking at what we thought they might want to do in the sphere of research employment and their potential opportunities and challenges. These varied greatly depending on the personas we were describing. 

DISCOVER
Empathy : Observation

The primary findings of our observation activities were that learning about research opportunities and learning more about the process did not happen in person at the Undergraduate Research Hub. In addition, there were no clear indicators of engagement with passive information in person or in discussions where students gathered in the Library or Teaching and learning Commons.

Online accessible tools that could be utilized at the point of need/inquiry would seem to be more promising.

Empathy : Engagement

The stakeholders that were interviewed were undergraduate students and one graduate student. There were arrangements to interview faculty and other students, but they were canceled due to midterms, Thanksgiving break, and the need to complete the work.

Key takeaways from the stakeholder interviews were – the differences between STEM and non-STEM students in the types of experiences they wanted, how they learned about research experiences, and developing connections with faculty. STEM students need a platform to connect with professors that is manageable but rather inviting and open. Non-STEM students need to network with professors not just to join their research potentially but to help connect with other individuals whose research aligns more with their interests. At the same time, only students researching on campus knew about the REAL portal, as provided by the URH. However, they did not learn about and get these opportunities from the portal but by networking with professors via emails and in person (office hours, in class, etc.).

Empathy : Secondary Research

Primary takeaways from secondary research:

    • The lack of research focused on non-STEM disciplines
    • Limited research that explicitly surveyed students from underrepresented communities.
    • Primary drivers for research engagement depended on subject discipline, number of years on campus, and the role of faculty in encouraging research engagement. 

This indicated areas where further research would be warranted and helped us focus on potential prototypes based on what we had learned in the interviews.

DEFINE
Define : Synthesis Matrix

We focused on key stakeholders who were undergraduate STEM and non-STEM students, including transfer students, graduate students, and faculty. To summarize student needs, the key is connections – for STEM students, it’s developing connections with faculty who have opportunities, with non-STEM, it’s making connections to opportunities that align with their research and post-graduation goals, for transfer students, it is making connections in a new environment in a compressed timeline. For faculty they have needs for students with specific skills, knowledge, or aptitudes, but they do not necessarily have the time to find them with research on strict timelines. In addition, the campus process for student hiring is cumbersome and time-consuming.

Define : Update Problem Statement

Based on our findings, our problem statement evolved to recognize that students needed support in understanding that there were a variety of opportunities that would be considered research available and that the critical need for all stakeholders was reliable information and stable communication with faculty, facilitating a reliable connection.

Updated problem statement:

How might we help undergraduate students better understand research opportunities on and off campus, providing a concrete, reliable mechanism for information about faculty research interests and communication with faculty about research opportunities.

Summary : Key Takeaways

Based on our findings, and our collaborative work:

  • STEM and non-STEM (particularly social sciences) students have different needs. 
  • Transfer students work in a compressed timeline and need dedicated, early interventions.
  • Students will not go to a physical space – create a reliable, easy-to-use virtual space. 
  • Support/facilitate connection and communication.
Project Team Members

This team collaborated during the SPUR 1.0 program term to further the understanding of a problem statement and develop a potential solution. We recognize the collaborative work of the individuals who furthered our community’s knowledge of scaling paid undergraduate research.

  • Heather Briston, Director, Scholarship Tools and Methods Program
  • Danyal Rao, Student, Cognitive Sciences
  • Arjun Varshneym Student
  • Saleha Ahmedia, Student, Cognitive Sciences, Junior Designer Program
Team 7 Project Evaluation

Thank you for evaluating this and other SPUR Team projects. Each evaluation takes approximately 2-minutes to complete.

Please review the story and answer the five questions based on your knowledge, experience, and perspective. Your feedback will help us to learn, work, and develop ideas that will impact paid undergraduate research opportunities at UC San Diego.

Read Next

Design Lab Ucsd Elderly

Design for older people sucks. Here are four ways to fix it

Digital Arts editorial with Stefan Sagmeister and Design Lab Director Don Norman on designing for sixty-somethings.

Beginning in May, Alive Ventures launched a series of ongoing panels titled “Old People are Cool, Design for Them Sucks”, aiming to open up a discussion with the design community on how to better design for older adults. John Zapolski, founder of Alive Ventures, and design thought leader Ayse Birsel of Birsel + Seck, hosted the series of discussions, with guests including design luminaries such as Stefan Sagmeister and Don Norman.

“When I would visit him in retirement homes, I would see people who needed walkers and wouldn’t use them because it was a stigma,” said Norman. “They were so ugly and it sort of shouts out to the world, ‘Hey I’m old and crippled and therefore probably feeble minded as well,’ right? Well no, it’s wrong. And so I noticed that, but I didn’t pay much attention until I myself reached my eighties and started looking at my friends and other things and realised that, yes, people shunned a lot of things that are being made to help them because they don’t like to admit publicly they have problems.” - Don Norman

SPUR Team 10

The team addresses a fundamental challenge in the academic environment: enhancing the understanding between staff,…

Design Lab Self-driving Nissan Toyota Ford Duke Stanford E-hmi

Design Lab Helps Lead Self-Driving Car Workshop with Experts from Nissan & Toyota

Although Silicon Valley and Detroit automakers have been given the thumbs up from the U.S.…

Surveillance Drones San Diego

Chula Vista PD Approved For Broader Use Of Drones In Law Enforcement

Photo courtesy of Shalina Chatlani

The Chula Vista Police Department has been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration to broaden its use of drones.

Still, some academics say drones can be seen as a form of surveillance. And that having a video doesn’t necessarily mean that officers are making neutral decisions.

"Say you’re getting a call from someone acting erratic … like what would a drone be able to see that would discern a person screaming and waving their hands around as someone who needs intervention by the police, versus a mental health team?" said Lilly Irani, a professor of communication and technology at UC San Diego (and Design Lab faculty).

Even if officers are using video to see whether a situation is dangerous, human bias doesn’t just go away, she said.

"OK, so what type of visual symbols are you going to look for to discern the difference between dangerous and nondangerous?" Irani said.
Design Lab John Torous Healthcare App

Studio Session with John Torous – Engagement as #1 Barrier to Health Apps

Design Lab Studio Session: Engagement as #1 Barrier for Health Apps: The Urgent Need for…

Tricia Ngoon

Tricia Ngoon, UCSD & Design Lab PhD Graduate, Discusses “Adaptive Conceptual Guidance”

Currently, in the spotlight of Tricia Ngoon’s research and involvement with The Design Lab is her recently accepted paper, Shöwn: Adaptive Conceptual Guidance Aids Example Use in Creative Tasks, which will appear in the Designing Interactive Systems virtual conference this summer, 2021. Her research hypothesizes that providing “adaptive conceptual guidance” will improve a person’s implementation of examples within creative work, as opposed to providing a static example. Using the domain of web comics, “[researchers in the study] present concepts to people alongside examples as they work.” Ngoon adds that “It’s essentially a step towards coaching. For example, if [a person is] working on a comic you might present a concept to consider the framing or kind of the composition of the panel and then [show] examples of different types of framing and composition.” Ultimately, her research concluded that “these adaptive suggestions as a person is working in context really help with making a clear and more unique story. It kind of changes the way they look at their ideas because they are more likely to explore different [ones].” 
Back To Top