The Games We Play

At the conclusion of the course I solicited feedback from the students to get their impressions of what worked well and what needed improvement.  I asked structured questions to help focus their responses, but I allowed free responses as well.  The feedback was deposited into my mailbox in the main office.  Here is a summary of what they said:

Many seemed to enjoy the first assignment (games) best for its ability to structure their decision making process and reveal better concept designs for the games themselves.

The brevity of the assignments (1/week) also was viewed as a strength (“phaf at an all time low”), when supported by a clearly structured task list for the interim days of the week when students worked independently.

Students also enjoyed the amount of attention given to each others’ work and the level of critique rendered during discussions and assessment tasks.

The general thought was that there was too much content in the Monday lectures–i.e. it could have been given double the amount of time. Otherwise, the terms introduced were helpful and the time was useful for discussion.

The grading was described as something to look forward to–a fun process that everyone seemed to be involved in. It meant staying focused & helping others, and it allowed students to learn more about their own work as a consequence.

Contrary to the instructor’s expectations, the grading was described as reducing the competition that usually exists–because it was fun.

Students definitely found the syllabus helpful, even if it was revised somewhat during the course. The blog also seemed to help keep time, give feedback, and to support documentation and accessibility. Students also preferred the small group/collaborative work. The worksheet for the first assignment supported understanding and preparation. Overall course structure was good and doubts about deadlines were reduced–lowering stress.

The biggest and most common critique was that there weren’t enough visual & tactile examples and case studies. The presentation time, because it was so compact, was also deemed less successful for comprehension and additional clarity.

Some thought we diverted somewhat from the topic at hand. Other misunderstood the purpose and intent of the second assignment, instead assuming it was about creating awareness (ed. “Srishti bias perhaps?”).

Some thought that IF they got stuck in the ideation process, time became a constraint which would have otherwise allowed additional detail and refinement. Some would have also used that time for an intermediate round of feedback.

The students’ design process could have been helped by more group brainstorming and examples, clearer goals, peer review prior to submission, and prior specialized knowledge of focus topics (e.g. water issues).

Things left unresolved include:
How the exercises related to the goals of the course.
The idea of a “nudge”.
Definition of a visual artifact.

Average self-reported effort = 7.7/10
Average grade = 12.9 = B+

Make the course longer and more in-depth.
More examples.

Most of us (students) find it difficult to sign in every morning. We sometimes have late nights and getting to school at 9:00am is tough. We get others to sign in for us, so we aren’t marked absent.

There are chances of getting caught, so I noticed that if we sign in with the rest that come on the bus – the office gets more busy and crowded. This makes it harder to keep track of people signing in and easier to sign in for a friend.

Firstly I talked to the bus driver about the timings of the bus. It usually reaches at 8.55am rush hour.


I wrote out a message and sent it to everyone.


c And the Message Reads:

d e f g h

When there are few people – it is harder to sign in for another


But when the Bus arrives and the crowd gets bigger.

k l

It is easier to sign in for another –

NOTICE in the picture – some doing so!! m

Using Random Order and Paint writing techniques to diminish the chances of corruption (i.e signing in for others)



Decreasing defection in the sign up system

The present sign-up system has numerous opportunities to cheat, which, the smart students of Srishti make full use of. In order to stop this nefarious habit, the old system has to be done away with.

In the new system, each student is issued a second copy of their already existing library card. Each student is required to directly hand in their card every morning before 9:00 am. There are four collection points for the four srishti batches;

1st year : Admin office

Collected by Mr.Anand/ Mary

2nd year : Cafeteria

Collected by Matthew

3rd year : Parking lot gate

Collected by the guard

4th year : Main gate

Collected by Prakash anna

The cards will be taken by the individual at the respective check-in point. Those coming in after 9:00 am will have their cards kept separate.

At 9:30 am all the cards are collected in the office/ library. Using the existing system (for library use) the cards are scanned in to the system and attendance given accordingly.

After college hours the students are required to pick up their cards and then leave so as to use the card the next day.


  • Disables cheating as the cards have to be personally handed in. The collecter (obviously) would notice.
  • Reduces crowding as it is only a matter of handing it in.
  • Makes sign-up faster.
  • Makes the entering of data easier and faster for Mr.Anand/ Mary

(The photos are part of a video which i will put up as soon as i figure out how)


An attempt in decreasing cheating in our everyday sign up

(Though we highly do not recommend it)

Each student has a card(two weeks on each card) which is separated in-terms of years instead of specialization, since most of us mostly consider signing-in for our same-specialization friends because we know who comes late and what classes we have. Thus by arranging it in terms of classes, we are minimising the chances of finding our specialization friends.

It is arranged in alphabetical order, as seen in the picture with slots for each alphabet. It is made easier for the students to find their card by searing within a maximum of 10 cards, in a single tray which is meant for their batch. All they have to do it search in the slot with first letter of their name. This is placed near the main gate, minimising the time the student needs to get to the sign up, thus more people can be on time! The time when the student collects the card is the time noted. They need to do this before 9.00 am.

The student then takes his/her card and signs on it and needs to hand it over personally in the office upstairs before 9.05 am, thus again, minimising the cheating. Even if the student flicks someone else’s card, it is impossible for them to hand over two cards to the administrator.

This mainly draws from a filing system. This system

–   Reduces commotion and noise when people crowd around various notepads each morning

–   Makes students run less

–   Ensures two stages at which a student can be caught cheating

–   Thus decreasing chances of students singing up for other students

Here is a storyboard of a possible scenario in Srishti on a Wednesday morning. (Please click on the image and then press ctrl and + to enlarge)


attendance issues!

Enhance cooperation between students to hack the sign- up system!

If a person has to sign in for someone else (say X) but can’t due to reasons like Matthew or Mr.Anand being super vigilant at that moment, they can ensure that the next person coming in knows that X needs to be signed in for by putting a little dot on the left hand corner of X’s signature box. These dots will represent the need to sign in for someone else and they can go undetected if students ensure that they cover the dot while signing.

Similarly if I know that I won’t be coming to college tomorrow or not come in time to sign in I myself can put a dot in my signature box for tomorrow. This will inform my friends and partners in crime that I need to be signed for.

This system reduces the cost of students by not having to spend money by messaging others to sign in for them the next day and avoids detection by Mr.Anand since telling people to sign for others outside the office is a risk for students.

Signing in for others by word of mouth  is the current system Getting caught is a risk!

The new DOT code simple-easy

DOT dot done! on Vimeo.

(click the above link to watch the video)

by Pushpi Bagchi


Constant Vigilence from sargam gupta on Vimeo.

It is too difficult for one person to keep vigil over every student, and make sure that no one signs up for the other. I decided to distribute sign ins for students according to their destination and the numbers.

I chose 4 hot spots:

– Entrance Gate (Guard)

– Office (Mr. Anand)

– Library Entrance Desk (Guard)

– Cafeteria (Matthew)

If the sign up sheets are distributed tactfully, there will be fewer numbers for each of the above authorities to preside over, and the chance of signing up for other people will reduce drastically.

Enjoy the video!


It is not a link

P.S the image is not the link 🙂

gradesLast week in class we evaluated the nudge assignments along 14 different criteria in four themes (concept, design, documentation, and presentation).  The scale ranged from 1-5.  Evaluations were conducted for each person presenting by each of the others in the class.  The scores for each of the 14 criteria were averaged for each theme to create a “theme score” that could be visualized for each person who provided it as well as for its recipient.

We will look at the graphs for each theme in class.  In the meantime, here are two examples showing 1) the range of scores generated by the evaluations, and 2) the scores in close proximity to those who received them.

You can see the visualizations here:





Graph of scores sent by evaluators to recipients.  The size of the circles without numbers represents the value of that score.  Circles of the same color originate from the same evaluator.

Graph of scores sent by evaluators to recipients. The size of the circles without numbers represents the value of that score. Circles of the same color originate from the same evaluator.

This graph shows scores in close proximity to their recipients.  The colors of the non-numbered circles indicate the source of the evaluation.  The sizes are the average values of those scores for the theme (in this case "presentation").

This graph shows scores in close proximity to their recipients. The colors of the non-numbered circles indicate the source of the evaluation. The sizes are the average values of those scores for the theme (in this case "presentation").