Sheryl Cababa is a multi-disciplinary design strategist with more than two decades of experience and has worked extensively in human-centered design within the social impact space. She specializes in developing tools and methods for designers to expand their mindsets beyond user-centered design, anticipate unintended consequences, and engage in systems thinking. Some of her recent work with the Gates Foundation includes leading student voice research to inform the K-12 Balance The Equation Grand Challenge, working with Gates Foundation teams to provide equity-centered technical assistance to their grantees. She’s worked with IKEA, Microsoft, frog design and at Substantial, A hybrid-first Insights, Design + Development Studio, where she is the Chief Design Officer. Her newest book, Closing the Loop: Systems Thinking for Designers, came out in Feb 2023; you can find a link to it in the shownotes for this episode .
Recommended Resources
Sheryl Cababa is a multi-disciplinary design strategist with more than two decades of experience and has worked extensively in human-centered design within the social impact space. She specializes in developing tools and methods for designers to expand their mindsets beyond user-centered design, anticipate unintended consequences, and engage in systems thinking. Some of her recent work with the Gates Foundation includes leading student voice research to inform the K-12 Balance The Equation Grand Challenge, working with Gates Foundation teams to provide equity-centered technical assistance to their grantees. She’s worked with IKEA, Microsoft, frog design and at Substantial, A hybrid-first Insights, Design + Development Studio, where she is the Chief Design Officer. Her newest book, Closing the Loop: Systems Thinking for Designers, came out in Feb 2023; you can find a link to it in the shownotes for this episode .
Recommended Resources
Welcome to Season Two of edtech insiders, where we talk to the most interesting thought leaders, founders, entrepreneurs, educators, and investors, driving the future of education technology. I'm your host, Alex Sarlin, an edtech veteran with over 10 years of experience at top edtech company. Sheryl Cababa, is a multidisciplinary design strategist with more than two decades of experience. She has worked extensively in human centered design within the social impact space, especially in education, and ad tech. She specializes in developing tools and methods for designers to expand their mindsets beyond user centered design, to anticipate unintended consequences and to engage in systems thinking. Some of her recent work with the Gates Foundation includes leading student voice research to inform the K 12 balance the equation Grand Challenge, working with gait foundation teams to provide equity centered technical assistance to their grantees. And she's worked with IKEA Microsoft Frog Design and add substantial hybrid first insights design and development studio where she is the Chief Design Officer, her newest book, closing the loop systems thinking for designers came out in February 2023. And you can find a link to it in the show notes for this episode. Sheryl Cababa Welcome to EdTech insiders.
Sheryl Cababa:Thank you so much, Alex, I'm really happy to be talking to you today,
Alexander Sarlin:you have a really unique and unusual background when it comes to guests on this podcast, which is that you work with a variety of different education and edtech players from the perspective of Student Centered Design, Design Thinking equity design, it's you're really a very experienced design thinking and design expert, which is really exciting. I think it's going to be incredibly interesting for our listeners to hear how you see the education system. Can you give us a little background about how you got into education as a focus for some of your design work?
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, absolutely. So I kind of think about it as my horizontal expertise kind of lies in these various aspects of design. And then kind of like my vertical expertise happens to be in education, mostly because like, that's the work that the consultancy, I'm with substantial is mainly focused on. But it's also the space that has really fed a lot of my thinking around designing for complex systems, designing for equity, etc. There's just so many rich possibilities when it comes to the design practice and how we can harness it, specifically in education. And so my background is in human centered design, which I find it really exciting that more and more folks in education are talking about it as a practice and as a, an approach to problem solving. And I'm an educator myself, so I am a lecturer at University of Washington, in their Human Centered Design and Engineering program there. And a lot of my work also intersects with technology. So working on at tech products are working on strategies for how technology can be integrated within education. And so I think this sort of like Venn Diagram of education and design thinking has been just like really rich in terms of, I guess, just like synergies of what, like the values that drive each thing. And I find it yeah, really rewarding to be working almost exclusively in education in order to kind of further my own practice and that of the consultancy with which I work. You just
Alexander Sarlin:got back from South by Southwest edu, where you're presenting about what type of systems thinking and design thinking in education, maybe you could give our listeners a little bit of a sense of what substantial does what it actually means to have a human centered design consultant working with an education company in education, philanthropy and edtech company, what do your engagements look like? And maybe you could give us a couple of examples?
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, for sure. I think one of the main partners that we work with quite often is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and working with their US Programs team in education, anywhere from early childhood education all the way up to post secondary and higher ed. And I think one of the ways that our practice best benefits our clients like the Gates Foundation, or ad tech developers who are working this way As we've worked, for example, with Khan Academy, the primary lens that we use within our work is really centering student voice, thinking about how to integrate students, and empower them in decision making within the process, as well as providing additional context about the student experience to our clients and partners. So essentially kind of thinking about, overall, how do we elevate students throughout this process, hear from them in their own words, rather than an interpretation through what others are thinking are saying about their experiences. And what we find, especially as we take a human centered design lens to our problem solving, is that those who are most impacted by systemic decisions are those who are most left out of the decision making itself. And so we're very, very lucky to be working with clients and partners, who share our own mission in terms of elevating student voice as much as possible within these processes. And that's how we kind of exercise what we call equity center design throughout the process. And to kind of figure out how to, not just like engage students, but also parents, teachers, those who we call end users and beneficiaries of the things that are being decided upon and designed. So rather than designing for them, we try to encourage our partners to design with them. So that's where we kind of facilitate those experiences.
Alexander Sarlin:That idea of trying to bring student voice student agency and students true opinions into the design process is something that I think a lot of Asian and edtech companies aspire to. But in the sort of hubbub of product roadmaps and quarterly meetings and you know, various things in the actual workplace, they don't happen as much as people would think. And I'm sort of, you know, sad to say that, you know, in my experience, I've been in edtech, for 10 years, the number of times when people have cited, you know, their own kids as the, as the the people who will be using this, I'm sure you've heard this or, you know, assume what teachers will do, or what students will do, or say, you know, students will find that scary, or students will be bored by that, without actually going and talking to students. It's, it happens a lot more often than I think any of us like to admit, I'd love to just hear from you about what you think the sort of current state is for some of these companies. And I'm not looking for, you know, to say anything bad about anybody. But, you know, what is the default for people who don't incorporate student voice into the decision making process?
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, I'm going to caveat by saying anything that I'm about to say is also not unique to the education space is basically, you know, a common thread throughout the technology design and development space. So yeah, I often think, especially like tech developers, courseware, developers, etc. Don't involve students as much as they should. Sometimes they're involving faculty. And but there's a reason for this, right. And it's because students and even like the teachers using those products are not actually their customers, their customers are those who are kind of like at the district level, or at the institution level, we're buying the products. And so if you're low on resources, and you're thinking about where to put your energies is going to be appealing to buyers, and not necessarily to users and beneficiaries. And that's just kind of like a reality that a lot of tech companies are dealing with. That said, the more you have end users and beneficiaries who actually benefit from your products, their outcomes are better, their experience is better using your products, teachers like using it and advocate for your products. There is a reason that I think a lot of folks in ad tech are really interested in increasing their exposure to you know, students and teachers and making them part of the process, even if they're kind of like unsure how to do it, or they haven't done that before. And that's just like involving just like any students and teachers. Now, a lot of our work is focused on improving outcomes for marginalized communities of students. So we're focused a lot on racial equity. So how do we improve the experiences of black and Latino students, for example, as well as students experiencing poverty who are in more resource poor environments or his historically under resourced communities? That's a whole other step in the process for edtech developers who are I think there's some Horley kind of like barely engaging students to begin with. There are others who maybe are doing some of that engagement. But maybe it's like, it could be like the wealthy suburban school right next to the office park where you're located. Right. And that is, they might not be a good example of like, the most extreme of your users are those who have the most barriers. And so you using them as like kind of like a datasource can actually, not only like not well serve those who are most marginalized in the education system, but it can actually cause harm if you are kind of only making decisions based on their input or feedback. So I think like, there is definitely a gap in terms of like, this is something that I think there's increasing interest in this space. And I saw that at South by there was a lot of discussion about equity and creating more equitable education systems, how this has an intersection with how we problem solve with products that are based on digital technology, including things like AI. And so I appreciate that there is feels like a progression in that direction of like thinking about how do we better involve students, and not just the most privileged students as well.
Alexander Sarlin:So I'm hearing you name two factors, which feel very, very right onto me. One is the convenience factor. It's sometimes you know, people, when they're trying to bring students or faculty or teachers into the mix, they reach for the people, they already have good relationships with, or as you said, literally the school next door, and it's convenient, it's faster, it feels like, okay, we're doing our due diligence and talking to teachers and students. But you know, under the hood, you're talking to a very, very specific version of teachers and students, you know, people in Mountain View in, you know, people in in New York are some of the hubs of edtech. And then there's also the sort of incentive issue, when edtech companies are deciding what to prioritize, sometimes the buyer, as you say, as a district procurement center, it could be you know, and the decisions made have to be, are are often made to offer and for that buyer, rather than the end user. So things like, you know, compliance, or data privacy, or integration with existing student information systems, or LMS is take precedence often over, you know, really adding does amazing features for the teachers or for the students who end up using the product. I'd love to dive into that a little bit. I know, I want to talk a lot about equity, centered design here. But just one more question here, which is that, you know, when you work with a con, or when you work with, you know, some of these edtech companies, how do you help square the circle between prioritizing the needs of the buyers and the end users? I think this is something a lot of our listeners have faced?
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, I think it's really around kind of understanding that we're all kind of seeking the same outcomes, right? Which is like, yeah, improvements in the student experience improvement in educational outcomes for students in general, right. And so it's really difficult to do that without ever, like, directly, I don't know, having the context of which students are experiencing your product, and what the barriers are, and whether there's kind of like, a death by 1000 paper cuts in terms of its use in the classroom. And so I mean, I have a lot of sympathy for kind of that focus on buyers and kind of their needs. And as you were saying, like things like integration within LMSs. But you can see a lot of, I guess, untapped potential, like, even just like, if you're looking at it very like coldly and objectively, from a market standpoint, you can see a lot of untapped potential in terms of like, what educators are looking for in the classroom by like, you know, why are so many teachers using Teachers Pay Teachers? Why do teachers use things like YouTube and Khan Academy, which came up pretty organically through as being like, a supplementary thing that students were doing at home, but started being used in the classroom. And that was one of the things that we were kind of working on with Khan Academy is kind of like understanding certain students from like, their experiences from historically under resource environments, and how Khan Academy might be able to be used in the classroom. And I think like, kind of looking at those examples, it shows that there are things missing in the actual classroom experience, that ad tech developers by like, ignoring, kind of like, what is happening in that classroom context, might be missing the boat in terms of opportunity, if they're just focused on buyers, and they're like thinking about like ticking these boxes, about messes about budget, etc. They have to think about both, honestly, and I think that's part of the barrier. is like doing this well takes some time and energy that you might not be prepared to take on as an organization, which is where like, I think, for example, us working with funders in the space, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is really helpful, because then it kind of like, actually gives resources to do this kind of work to their grantees.
Alexander Sarlin:That makes a lot of sense, because in my experience working with with user researchers, and UX designers, who are some of my absolute favorite people in I've ever worked with, they're always looking for more time and more resources and saying, we just have to keep talking to users, we have to get into the classroom, we have to watch how people use this, we have to talk to teachers. And then of course, the other side is the development team, or the business team that says, We need to launch new features, we need to launch our new version of the product by x date, and there's this constant push and pull of, should you go slow and aim more carefully, or should you go fast and, and ship and make sense that additional resources sort of buy time or at least buy the ability to parallelize that process and learn while you're building? Let's talk about equity. You've mentioned equity centric design a couple of times, and I couldn't agree more. That's even another another step beyond what what too many tech companies are forced to do to really think about the most marginalized communities? How do you think about equity centered design? What are some of the best practices in bringing all the voices into the room as we design?
Sheryl Cababa:First and foremost, I mean, there are different forms of equity, right? Like, oftentimes, we're talking about better serving those with disabilities, we're talking about racial equity. And we are kind of talking about economic equity. And oftentimes, in our work, we, you know, in order to kind of jump into equity center design and how we approach it, we think about how we define equity. And the way we think about it is removing racial and economic status as predictors of educational success. Right. And so a lot of our projects are, are focused on racial equity, as well as you know, the experience of students who live in low income settings. And we take an approach that is one focused on like, how end products or services or what have you can be focused on improving outcomes for those students. But then we're also kind of focused on well, as you're kind of designing solutions, how do you engage in an equitable way with these communities that you're focused on. So if you are focused on designing for students from historically under resourced communities, let's say you're designing for black male students in math, right? This is a group who is outcomes, you know, kind of suffer from systemic barriers within just like the education system in general. So it means involving those students kind of throughout the process, and those who are kind of within their community and their community supports, and empowering them throughout the design process, like making them part of decision making, and as well as like understanding their contexts. So oftentimes, like within our projects, where we're kind of thinking about how, how, let's say, like, a course where a product can be designed, or a tutoring product can be designed, what we might do is figure out how to interview students basically from like, specific backgrounds, maybe from diverse regions, so we can kind of understand their experience, interview them to basically kind of understand what their experience is like. And then also involve them, like in what we call co design workshops, and things like that, so that they can be part of like the ideation of how to solve certain problems, right? And how to actually kind of think about where these products like sit in their own experiences. So I think there's a lot of assumptions in terms of like, okay, well, all we have to do is get students and like, talk to them, and what have you, there is a layer of that, but you can also do it in a very harmful way, especially with students who have, you know, experiences that stem from generational trauma. And so, it's like really important, like as like trust building exercises, etc. to kind of think about how you engage students within the process. There's already a power dynamic no matter what right with just students in general even like the most privileged students like coming into like a process With product developers, that's intimidating. It's not like the space like they're usually engaged in. Some of them might be like really curious, but others might just be like, I don't even know how I'm supposed to act in this kind of environment. And so we try to decrease that power differential as much as possible one by having lived experts on our team. So that might be people with like, a shared background or experience. So if we're, you know, focused on our interviewing Latino students, like we will try to have like a Latino researcher on our team, who maybe has some shared educational experiences, too, that they can talk about. And I think there's, like, so much of that is what we emphasize, in our own work is just trying to help. I know, it's like jargony, but it's like, we tried to help like, at, you know, ed tech companies like build capacity in this space. So just like kind of thinking about, like, how can you do this continuously, and like at every turn, and also without us necessarily, so kind of teaching them about our processes, and like how you might do this in a way that isn't harmful, and also kind of like, continually involve someone throughout the process.
Alexander Sarlin:That concept of CO designing is really interesting. And I'd love to hear you drill down into what that looks like when you mentioned there, you know, how might you empower your clients or various education or ad tech companies to be able to continuously event whether or not they're in in consultancy with an agency to continuously perform that codesign type research? I'm curious what that looks like. I've been in a number of design thinking, workshops, I've led Design Thinking workshops, but I don't think I've ever really felt like I've hit that codesign target. And I know this is something you really specialize in, tell us what a code design session might look like.
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, and I will caveat with saying we are in a on our own journey to try to do this more and more throughout our projects. So I feel a little bit like, I think like, it's really, it can be really difficult to get to what we might think about the ideal level of like true co design, that would probably be like, yeah, having students just like having students there, like at every turn. And like throughout the development process, that doesn't really happen. Because I think there are some levels of like, there's still kind of like, that level of expertise and skill building in order to actually kind of like, do the minutiae of designing products, right. So there's still like an interpretation that happens. But what we're trying to do is kind of reduce as much of that interpretation as possible. So I think like, sometimes when people think co design, this is gonna make me sound like a really old person. But there was like a Simpsons episode like many, many years ago, where Homer designs a car. And if you just like Google this and look up like Homer Simpson's car, is just like, it's just bananas, like, it's like all these like weird features. And it was a total failure. And like, company, he did this for, like, closed down or whatever. And I think oftentimes, people in the even in the design field, I've seen, like design educators use this as an example of like, this is what you don't do is have like, an end user come in, and basically like, say, this is everything that I want, and then you just like, make the thing. So I do think there is like a level of interpretation that some of these processes have to kind of pass through in order to one well, one, make them practical. And two, I think is also just kind of like thinking about what needs to be done. What are like, latent needs, versus like what people are asking for, like, there's kind of a traditional view, in design research that what you don't do is you, you don't go and let's say like you're interviewing research participants, you don't go and just like ask them what they want. Because like, people are often like, really, like, not good at articulating what they want, like ourselves included, right? And so they might say they want something but really, that's not actually like what they might do or take action on. So you know, I might want to live healthier and like, I want to get like go to the gym every day. But that is not like a true indicator of like, what is actually like my latent need and what are like the barriers and challenges that like prevent me from doing that. And so it's up to like a design researcher or designer to kind of interpret how, like an understanding of someone's experience can be transferred. formed into, like, you know, a product or something that will help solve those problems. I think co design sessions are kind of like that in which like, you're bringing some ideas to the table, but oftentimes is meant for interpretation. Like, you're not just saying like, okay, here is like, the landing page for the course that you're going to be taking. Why don't you sketch like what you would want to see here? It's more about involving them to say, like, okay, let's like go through a process of like imagining how you might use this. And then, you know, you're kind of like walking through these scenarios. And here's the landing page. And there's these like, types of communication here. And sometimes these are real things. Sometimes these are just things that are meant to spur discussion. I think IDEO, you know, the famous design firm calls them sacrificial concepts, which is like a weird term that I whatever reason I don't like to use, but it's just like, it's like concepts that aren't meant to be like, the finished product, but are just meant to spur discussion, and help people, like come up with ideas. And so those kinds of tools are really useful, like, especially when you're engaging students in sort of cocreation, when you are trying to kind of understand with them, like, what their experience could be like. And I think like, there's some nuance involved there. Like, it's not just like this direct one to one relationship of like, Oh, they're sitting down with you and designing it. And then you're like, Okay, now we're gonna go off and build this, it is more like, okay, how can you kind of get these latent needs out on the table, and then go through a process of like turning that into things like features, and then kind of designing for it.
Alexander Sarlin:Really interesting. So what I'm hearing is that, you know, keeping students in the process, ideally, you know, every turn is really, you know, a great way to bring student voice consistently into the mix. And that could be a variety of different students from different regions, different backgrounds. But it's not just about having the students tell you what to do, or or any, any end user telling you what to do. It's really about a conversation and sort of continuing evolving conversation, where you're soliciting the latent needs, understanding what the end users in this case, students really, really want to happen. And then not just following their prescription for how to get there, I remember that Homer Simpson episode really well. It's like a bubble on top of the car, because it's really about interpreting and sort of bringing that voice into the professional design world and production world and, you know, product management world and compliance world, there's a lot of constraints on ad tech products, and trying to get that the core need met in a way that's actually feasible. Yeah, one thing that runs me I've, in my work in the past is, you know, when you work with teenage users, I lessons one of the things that tends to come up a lot, and I don't mean to broad brushstroke too much, but is that you're, you're thinking that the students are going to be engaged directly with the content or with the teacher. And often they'll say things like, well, I want to know what other people are doing. Or I want to know, what's the most popular one, or things like that, and there's a lot of sort of pure input that they want to have, that's just again, broad brushstroke, but something I've encountered, and the latent need there, of course, you know, you can sort of start to see it, it's, it's, they don't want to be too much of an outlier, or they want to understand, or they do want to be too much of an outlier. They want to go swim against the stream, but they want to decide what to do in relationship to what their peers are doing, not into what the teacher is doing, not into what the content is doing. And understanding that can suggest a whole slew of different potential features, it doesn't mean that you do exactly what they say and put it on whatever social media or whatever people people initially say, you have to think about how do you meet that need of bringing peer voice into the experience, just one potentially silly example. But something that I think is hopefully illustrative of what you're saying about sort of getting underneath what they're exactly telling you to what they're really looking for?
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, actually, that example resonates with me a lot, just because like it actually came up and like a post secondary project that we were working on the very same thing, which was kind of like wanting this sort of, like, peer input. And yeah, just sort of like a lens on what's happening like with others, like within my peer group, and yeah, actually did result in a feature that, you know, like we were investigating, like within a course or a product that we were working on. So yeah, I think that is it is a really good example of like, kind of identifying latent need and you can do this in other ways too, like without even like talking about your product, like one of the things like we do in our research methods. And sometimes I think, at times like our partners can be like, initially perplexed by Like, why we're doing this sort of thing, but like, you know, they're like, learn about the student experience. So they're like, you can go interview them, etc. And some of the things we do instead of just like interviewing them and asking them these very direct questions about their experience, is have them actually engaged in like creative activities that are about expressing, like themselves, like from an identity standpoint, or from like, kind of mapping about like how their day looks or like, what they view their community to be. And choosing from again, this is all about, like empowering them in the process, and also making engaging in this like, worth their time as well. Like, we try to really reciprocate that, right. So you know, one example is like, having students create memes that describe, like some of their experiences in math class. And it's really interesting. Yeah, one of our partners at the foundation, he's like, often described like memes was like, the 21st century form of cultural expression. And it's just like, oh my gosh, yeah, giving students of any level like, all the way from like, sixth grade all the way up to like, higher ed, like an opportunity to create means like, actually create such rich discussion with them about their educational experiences. And so I think it's like examples like that, like that, those kinds of ideas come out, it's just like, I really care what my peers think about, I feel like, the way we're assessed is really unfair, or is, you know, a black box to me, and I don't really know how to navigate that. And these come on up to like, the funniest, you know, just like, the Drake meme, where he's just like, you know, and I think is just like a really good way to kind of not just connect interpersonally, but also put them in a space of like, actually being able to talk about these wider themes. Without it being, you know, yeah, just feeling like super directional, or even trauma inducing. Like if you ask the student like directly about like, what's the worst assessment experience you've ever had? Like, that is traumatizing for a lot of students. But that Congress? Yeah. Yeah, I asked my husband about the LSAT to this day, 20 plus years ago, but it's just like, that conversation can come out organically, it can come out with humor, if you kind of like use these techniques that puts them as like, what would be called a research participant will we call them lift experts lead you boy like a lift expert in the driver's seat of like, how they want to kind of talk about their experiences.
Alexander Sarlin:When you talk about memes being the modern form of cultural expression. I love that and it resonates enormously with me, it makes me think that, you know, German has these like extendable nouns where you can sort of tack all these things on to get more and more specific, like, you know, a kid might, or a student might want to say, you know, I feel happy that this happened, but also disappointed because this wasn't as good as I wanted. And it's like, it's all summed up in one GIF. Yeah, it's like, it's kind of amazing. You know, it gives people a whole other language. Emojis do a little bit of this, too. But I think memes are even richer. It's really interesting. You have a book called closing the loop systems thinking for designers. And I want to ask you a little bit about this concept of systems thinking, because anybody who's ever worked in education or at Tech knows how many stakeholders there are, how complex, you know, the systems tend to be how sometimes there's legal role, you know, laws, and there's policies, and there's norms, and there's different people in the room. And, you know, computers used to come on carts, and now they come on iPads, and depends on the funding of the school, you know, there's so much going on there. Talk to us a little bit about what systems thinking is and how it works in the education and edtech world.
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, so to boil it down, the way I think about systems thinking is just like, it's like an acknowledgement that everything is interconnected, that there is a system that exists beyond your purview that behaves in certain ways, because of the way that is designed. And I think what happens a lot in product development is that we end up having this like very narrow purview, like let's say, like, we're in is going to sound at first, like I'm contradicting myself. So let's say, like you're designing a product for students to use, you might be focused on like, kind of talking to the student directly, or having them walk through the product if you're like evaluating what they're doing, and you're just kind of thinking about the direct benefit of use at the moment of using a product. And I think what gets kind of left on the table through like, you know, just like a critique of my own of like, the design thinking process is that oftentimes the that focus, which is meant as like a form of user advocacy ends up being myopic in, in and of itself as well. Right? And so like you, you do have to think about like, as we were talking about buyers earlier, what are they incentivized by? What are the educators in the classroom incentivized by? What are students incentivized by? What are kind of like the state policymakers? How are they making decisions? And what are the incentives, and kind of like making sure you acknowledge all of this, even if it feels like you're designing or developing something that is very direct, I think, is really important in order to like, understand one, you know, potential unintended consequences of our decisions. And then, I guess just like to to ensure success as we intended it, right. Like, it might be that the way that you're designing something, you're not thinking, for example, about the interoperability of Yeah, various, like, existing, not just like LMSs, but whether schools even have internet resources, or what have you. And so kind of thinking about all of those different layers, I think, is a really important form of analysis before you go in design products for spaces, complexes, education,
Alexander Sarlin:it's such an insightful way to see the world, especially in education. And I think, you know, I think all of us, you know, who worked at ad tech, are constantly surprised at how complex these systems really are, and how these, these elements come up, that you just hadn't planned for, I think of experiences like privacy. And I don't mean data privacy, just privacy of you know, a student is working on a computer on a particular problem. And as a designer, as you're building the technology, you're thinking, Okay, well, they're working with a problem, it's the kid and the computer and they're in contact, that's what's happening. But in real life, they're doing that in a classroom, surrounded by their peers, with a teacher on one side of the room and a TA on the other side of the room, and maybe a literary literacy specialist behind them. And everybody's working on different things, and there may be a certain amount of noise. And there may be, you know, the state has just put in a new policy that says that, you know, only have this many computers and in one space, and it's, you know, without really under zooming out, you just talk about myopia, you know, without zooming out and saying, This is where this kid is engaging with this software, you know, you might think it's private, but there's, there's people all around them looking at their screen and comparing their screens. To them. It's a really different experience than you might have imagined. And I think the system's thinking lens is so powerful. And I think it ties into the idea of, you know, getting close to the end user and actually seeing what their experience is like, and asking them what their experience is like. Tell us more. I you know, you mentioned the idea that education has a lot of wicked problems. But tell us about what wicked problems are and how they work. And education
Sheryl Cababa:is an interesting question. I think it actually comes from like, I want to say like urban design or something like that, like anyway, it was like an academic called Horace Ritter, who kind of like came up with the phrase to kind of describe these sorts of problems that have like a great deal of complexity. And oftentimes, there's no singular solution that will basically kind of solve all the issues happening in this space. You know, you look at things like homelessness, like our healthcare system, basically, like how our technology systems work at scale. These are all examples of like, potential wicked problems. I think there is sort of like an intersection. It's interesting, like I just like wrote a little like blog post about how systems thinking can intersect in education. And I talked about a case study in there of there's a researcher, Matthew Raffaello, who is at UC Berkeley, and he was doing this study on like, technology access in different kinds of school environments. And he found that, you know, he like he did this like comparison of three different schools, like the first was like an affluent school with like, 80% white students. The second was, you know, had students who were like mostly middle class and Asian, and I think a small percentage of them were on like, free or reduced lunch. And then he did focused on a third school, which was working class Latino, and it has, like, the majority of the students were on free or reduced lunch. And what it was interesting, because he said, like, kind of across the board, there was like pretty good access to technology in these schools. But the perceptions of like dealing with technology were completely different in each of these schools in the wealthy white school, like interacting with digital technology was like almost like a creative outlet. And kids were like, kind of encouraged to engage, to build to kind of think about how they're using technology in a way that is like, productive. And then in that second school, which was mostly middle class in Asian, like, there was a perception, like the students were always trying to hack the system, or just like, you know, it's not relevant to what they might be doing in the future. And then in the lowest resource school, it was just like, they're not going to need this for future jobs, like these are all kids who are going to go into like something vocational or something that doesn't involve using technology. And so if you think about it, something like that, that involves like mental models, unconscious biases, perceptions, different types of resources, who is teaching in the schools, this is like an example of like, you know, the type and aspect of like a wicked problem that is like the intersection of, you know, racial and economic biases, and how it affects like these children's education and the use of technology, right? So it's just like, these things come together. And there's different stakeholders involved. And so you can look at a thing like that, and like, research like that, and you go, how do we solve for this? And I think it's truly like a systems thinking problem, right? Like you're going to get into, well, why is this teachers hold these perceptions? What is happening in terms of like, the student outcomes in these environments? What are the policies about the ways in which technology is used in these classrooms? What kinds of technologies do the students have access to? And why is there so much like, disparity in terms of, yeah, this perception of how they use it? Like, are there certain classes in the wealthy white school that exist that don't exist in the, you know, resource poor schools that have, you know, children of color in them? So it's like one of those things where like, you can't just pinpoint and go like, Okay, now we're going to design an app. An app might be a useful, you know, is kind of what I describe when I'm talking about systems thinking. As it's like, it's multi finality, right? Like, there are kind of different ways of kind of solving for this. Some might be through policy, some might be through technology solutions, some might be through how you design curriculum in those schools. Some might be through teacher professional development, like there's like kind of these different aspects. So yeah, one thing that I appreciate about like, especially working with a funder, like the Gates Foundation is kind of like they are thinking about, they don't think about like one thing as a silver bullet, they are thinking about how to make change incrementally through many different avenues. And how can there be strategies where even they're not involved? But you know, that they're kind of putting this thinking out in the world? You know, when it comes to things like policy when it comes to things like technology? And then how do they best direct their investments into multiple different directions that can help like kind of chip away a problem
Alexander Sarlin:is daunting at times to think of all the different aspects of education that come into play, you know, when you mentioned this study, which I really want to read that study, and we will link to it in the show notes about the different high technologies used in different types of schools, clearly very relevant to our listeners here. You know, it makes me think about how, in some schools technology is used as a reward, basically, it's enrichment, it's freedom, it's, you know, when we finished our, our class for the day, everybody gets some computer time to play cool math games. And in other contexts, it's used almost as a punishment, it's remediation, it's okay, we're, you know, the only students who are on computers are the ones who can't keep up with the class who are a year or two years behind and who need fundamental training in reading or math. And I mean, you just think about that on the highest level and say, Okay, so for that's almost the opposite use case. Some students have access to the same technology at home as they have in the classroom that sort of dovetails with your mention about apps. You know, some people have their own phones or iPads at home where they can get into the same app and go home and continue their work on you know, Roblox education or you know, anything like that, and others don't have access to that at all. And their only access is in the school, and it just completely changes their trajectory. There's so many aspects to wind here. How would you recommend that? You know, Ed, tech creators engage with these deep questions without getting despairing that they're sort of unsolvable? I mean, that's part of the definition of wicked problems is that there is no one silver bullet, as you mentioned, you sort of incrementally improve things by lots of different things. means, how do you stay really optimistic about the Khan Academy's role in improving education, and how the different pieces that might complicate it can be overcome to make it as close as possible to universal? Good?
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, the way I try to think about it is like, rather than being overwhelmed by these problems, you kind of have to think about it as opportunities. Like they're all opportunities for change. And, yeah, I wouldn't suggest like edtech developers, it's not great to get kind of like bogged down in the problem space, necessarily, like in areas that you can't do anything about. But kind of doing a little bit of analysis to kind of like, understand where your products is, like, oftentimes, like a do these exercises within workshops that are just kind of just really basic is almost like mapping your primary, your secondary and your tertiary stakeholders, right? Like, what is the system of people and stakeholders who surround the use of your product? And where can you find opportunities within that space, to make change or to facilitate the successful use of your product? And I think, I think there's actually a lot of organizations who kind of do this work without necessarily calling it systems thinking. And so I don't want to, like make any claims necessarily, but I do think like, those kinds of exercises are really helpful. I also kind of talk a lot about like the iceberg model, which is like a model we use, in systems thinking that is like kind of thinking about like, what are the things that you see that are happening within the problem space? And then kind of like, what are those structures and mindsets? And what have you below that, that are kind of the root cause? And oftentimes, if you're kind of like doing that analysis, where you're kind of identifying like, well, what is the root cause of problems, what are like the mindsets, etc, then you can find places there to intervene even within the course of like your product, or how your product interacts with the environments as in. And so I think there are just like ways of I think it is actually like a good way to kind of spur innovation that goes beyond the purview of like him designing a digital product. And here's like, what's going to be on the screen, and also maybe opens up your lens on like, who your stakeholders actually are. It's not just like necessarily either buyers, or even end users, right? They're also like, oh, are there ways that we can engage parents like in a meaningful way that we haven't kind of thought about before? And are there things that we need to think about from like, states have so many different policies, right about education? And are there things like we need to be thinking about in one region versus the next? How do we better serve like multilingual learners, I heard that certain statistic of South by that by 2025 25% of students in the US will speak a different language at home than they do in the classroom. So it's just like, those are all things that are ripe for like innovation and opportunity within the space.
Alexander Sarlin:That is a very inspiring answer. I heard three things that it makes me feel more optimistic about the relevant. One, is that that reframing of wow, this is complex to wow, there are so many opportunities to improve it. And I think a lot of people at ad tech, try to see it that way. And it's great. I love the iceberg model. I have seen that used in exercises in the past. And I think what's so powerful about it is it forces you to sort of look beyond what's visible to zoom out, like you're saying, you know, to be less myopic about what you're trying to fix, and instead see what is going on below the surface and the root causes. And that idea of mapping different levels of stakeholders, I think, is incredibly powerful for edtech startups in particular, because I think when you're starting a new edtech company, you tend to think, Okay, our client is this, our end users this are our learners are these people, and you sort of get right on them, you focus right on them. And then you don't always necessarily realize that, you know, there are lots of other people surrounding that student, their parents, their teachers, their siblings, their other people in the school, there are other people in that student's life, maybe mentors, or coaches or counselors, and just starting to zoom out and say, every person, every learning moment is a social moment. You know, even if you don't see it that way this there's a lot of things happening, I think forces us all to to think in a more broad systems way. That's my read on it. I love thinking that way. It makes me feel less like I want to throw my hands up and say these wicked problems are too hard to show. I am feeling very inspired by this design thinking approach to education, but we're coming to the end of our time, and I really want to ask you our final questions. You've been talking about systems thinking design thinking equity lens, what is a trend that you see, especially coming right off of South by rising in the EdTech landscape, what's something that's sort of coming into You around the next corner that our listeners should be aware of?
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, I mean, one of the things I've been thinking about through the course of my own project work lately is culturally responsive education and culturally responsive pedagogy. And I think there's a role for it in many different forms in which it can, yeah, it benefits like all students, I think it's like, there's a lot happening in the political education landscape that is basically resistance to that type of thinking around education. And yeah, it's really kind of like disheartening, kind of the resistance to critical race theory, etc. And it's almost been like turned, it's been like CO opted as a term is just like, not even what it actually is, which is like truly wild. But I do think like, just in interacting with students so frequently in my work is just, it's clear that when students kind of like when what you're doing, or what you're teaching resonates with them through a cultural lens, it's like such a natural entree to these things that they're trying to learn when done well, and truly integrated into, you know, the subjects that they are learning, and I think is something that is definitely you know, it comes up in every single one of our projects, from an elevating student voice perspective. And it isn't just about like, oh, having racially diverse pitchers in a textbook, I guess, like, or talking about salsa in a word problem, I think is like, is genuinely trying to kind of connect with students, like meet them where they are from a cultural perspective. And I think oftentimes, it gets misinterpreted as only just, oh, it's like we have to engage in like, racial cultural tropes. Like that's not it at all. It's just like, Well, how do you better connect with your students about the things they care about from a cultural perspective, and just like build it into your pedagogy, and I think it's just like such a powerful idea. And I see a lot of grassroots kind of movement in that space, just like integration of, you know, teaching students about things like social justice, through data analysis and things like that. It just seems so many like inspiring forms that in my project, work with subject matter experts that we work with that, I think is like a really interesting area right now for educators.
Alexander Sarlin:Really interesting, a quick thought that I am thinking about, as I hear you speak about both culturally responsive pedagogy as a concept, but also the political backlash that we've been seeing against critical race theory, culturally responsive pedagogy, there's even a backlash against social emotional learning. Right now, as it what I realized that hearing you talk about it is in some ways, I think some of this backlash is really rooted in in sort of anti intellectualism or almost anti elitist because even the term culturally responsive pedagogy, you know, many people in the world and in the US don't know what pedagogy is. I mean, that's not a term they use every day. And I think there's a feeling of couching these ideas, in terms that sound very academic, almost, for certain people is such a turn off. It's such a fearful kind of thing. And what strikes me as I listened to you talk about this is, you know, we've engaged in various types of culturally responsive pedagogy for 100 years, I mean, and, you know, rural Texas schools had to teach about farmland and how to think about, you know, the jobs you might get in your particular area that's culturally responsive pedagogy, right? Or talking about an old school that was in an Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn using, you know, Italian heroes in their examples. That's culturally responsive pedagogy. But I think it's become coded and sort of synonymous with racial change and social justice, as you said, and I wonder if there's some way to use language to get to get the politics of this to be a little less heated? Just a passing thought, What do you think?
Sheryl Cababa:I don't know. I mean, because like, I'm sort of have the mindset that I don't think we should necessarily kind of watered down our language for those who are kind of like arguing in bad faith anyway, right. Like, if somebody's not interested in culturally responsive pedagogy, or like, let's say making the experience of school better for black students. Like I don't think like any change in the language is going to encourage them to do so necessarily. Right. And I do think there's an opportunity here for addressing kind of like the needs of students who have been most disenfranchised by the system through techniques like culturally responsive pedagogy, right. And that hasn't necessarily He happened over time. And I think it is kind of constantly trying to keep a lens on those kinds of inequities. And why it might be important from a racial and social justice perspective, I think, is important to acknowledge because I think there are many forms of how culturally responsive pedagogy might be exercised. But I do think like, there is a special focus, at least in terms of the work that I do in addressing, like kind of the needs of students who have been most marginalized in the system and who suffer from the worst outcomes, because the system, and where's the opportunity there to engage in these practices
Alexander Sarlin:are very, very interesting is is a conversation that it'd be really fun to have edit other time, because there's a lot I think, of great stuff to unpack there. Yeah, that's a whole podcast. And then, we've talked about a lot of things today. And we obviously linked to your recent book about systems thinking for designers, as well as the substantial website and things like that, but what is a resource or a blog or a book or a newsletter, that you would recommend for people who want to sort of dive deeper into any of the things we talked about today?
Sheryl Cababa:Yeah, so at the risk of just sounding like an author being self promotion, he I would recommend my book, because like, I do think a lot of the frameworks that came up today, you know, I talked about within the book, it's very, like practical way of, I don't know, exercising some of those methods. And so like, trust me, I hope it's not inaccessible, I think the ideas that you can like, read some of it and take some of those practices into your team or your work the next day, in terms of like, within the education space, one of my favorite books, and kind of related to the last part of the conversation we're having about culturally relevant education and culturally responsive pedagogy is Goldie Muhammad's book, which is called cultivating genius and equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. And in there, she talks quite a bit about like some examples that are meant to kind of address how teachers can better integrate sort of like thinking about racial equity within their classrooms, you know, through some of this lens about like, how do you think about things like identity development with your students? And I think it was just like, it has really helped shape my work over the last few years, and I just highly recommend it.
Alexander Sarlin:Absolutely. So we will put a link that's yet Dr. Goldie Mohamad, cultivating genius and equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. And we will link to that as well in the show notes for this episode, as well as closing the loop systems thinking for designers by Sheryl Cabomba. Cheryl Co. Baba, thank you so much for being here today. This was a really interesting conversation. And I think, you know, my wheels are spinning and I imagine our listeners are as well. Thanks for being here with us on edtech insiders.
Sheryl Cababa:Thank you so much. I really enjoyed this conversation. Alex, you too.
Alexander Sarlin:Thanks for listening to this episode of edtech insiders. If you liked the podcast, remember to rate it and share it with others in the EdTech community. For those who want even more Ed Tech Insider, subscribe to the free ed tech insiders newsletter on substack.