SWETHA RAMASWAMY

Overview

SMART Technologies is a leader in technology solutions that enable collaboration in schools and workplaces. The SMART product suite includes products that enable educators and businesses to present content in a manner that encourages collaboration. SMART Technologies partnered with my team at the UW, to understand how teachers used their products in the classroom.

Project Objectives

Investigate how SMART Technologies can improve the in-classroom experience, and gain an edge over competitors.
SMART was interested in knowing how their flagship products – the SMART Board, SMART Amp and the SMART Notebook were being used by educators to deliver content. The study was conducted to identify gaps in the User Experience, and a set of design recommendations was provided to build into product strategy.

My Role

I worked with a team of 2 students and the lead researcher to create the study plan, set up the equipment and conduct remote interviews. I also handled scheduling and incentives.

Methods and Participants

We spoke to 8 teachers across grades K-12, with less than ten years of teaching experience. Ten participants were interviewed for this study. Semi structured interviews and a collage were the research techniques used.

Research Methods

Collage Method

Teachers were asked to share pictures of their classroom, prior to interviews . This helped identify areas to probe into, and also  understand classroom set up.

Insights

  • Kindergarten classrooms had more room for children to move around and play. The SMART board was central to that interaction.
  • Teachers had laptops, and in certain classes, it was a 1:1 ratio.

Interviews

Understanding Technology use

  • What kinds of digital content did teachers present?
  • What hardware and/or software did they use?
  • What were they primarily using the SMART product suite for?
  • Did they use any competitor products (such as Google Classroom)? What did they like about it?
For each participant, there were follow up questions asked about the photographs they had sent across. To gain insight into the teacher’s workflow, we wanted to know more about:

Understanding Behaviour

  • When was the last time they presented? What was the experience like?
  • Did they edit content on the fly? What was their experience like?
  • Did they find themselves hiding searches from their students? Why or why not?

Competitive Analysis

Google Classroom was identified was identified as a top competitor. Several teachers also spoke about using the Google Education suite (Google Classroom, Google Drive, Forms and Slides) extensively for teaching. We compared Google Classroom with SMART’s education suite and looked at:
  • Cost
  • Compatibility with other software and hardware
  • Ease of access to training.

Results

Wins
Teachers liked the engagement that the SMART Board provided. They liked that they could lead the discussion by actively encouraging students to interact with content. Teachers also liked using the interactive features of the SMART Board to teach science and math.

Opportunities: High, medium and low severity

Based on feedback received, several opportunity areas were noted. The issues were categorized into degrees of severity such as:

  • High Severity: Problems that derail classroom productivity indefinitely
  • Medium Severity: Problems that temporarily derail classroom productivity.
  • Low Severity: Problems that affect classroom productivity to a minor degree.