we:solve prototype workshop · notepads and 1 of 4 color post-its (representing which group they...

!1 Peace Building Through Education

WE:SOLVE Prototype Workshop Prepared for: OpenIDEO and Interested Parties Prepared by: Marques Anderson, Yannis Bacalis, Janell Johnson and Karin Attia July 2, 2015 Place: Domiz Refugee Camp, Kurdistan Region of Iraq

WORLD EDUCATION FOUNDATION


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective The objective for prototyping a workshop in the Domiz refugee camp in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq was to identify the feasibility of a 13 week WE: SOLVE Lab incubator by measuring both the want and need from the participants and local mentors. We aimed to promote learning and social cohesion between refugee and host community youth through a participatory approach to creating new ideas and solving problems.

Demographics of the Workshop:15 participants: 15 - 20 years old. 5 males and 10 females 4 local mentors; 3 males and 1 female

Goals The World Education Foundation performed a 1 day workshop to gain deeper insight concerning the possibilities of local youth solving their own community problems. WE aimed to provide each participant with the skills to be a human-centered designer. Through the process of performing a needs assessment, brainstorming, creating a prototype and pitching their solutions, participants were empowered and educated on how to solve problems. The WE Team also wanted to prove there was a space to perform

Solution Through running the prototype WE confirmed there is a space to hold lessons and workshops in the camp. Refugees are eager to learn and connect with their community, feeling a deep sense of empowerment in solving their own problems. The involvement of the various parties in the human-centered process can lead to social cohesion, educational opportunities and transference of knowledge between all participating members.

Project Outline

1. Introduce the project and facilitate a group icebreaker sues

2. Perform a ‘Community Needs Assessment’ to source the main issues and problems within the community. One and half hours in the field collecting data. 3. Brainstorming and Explanation on How to Prototype, to help identify and map out solutions to the problems within the community. 4. Pitch’ solutions to communicate to a wider group ways to solve problems within the community. 5. Group Harvest, this is when we collected feedback and reflections from eh participants.

WORLD EDUCATION FOUNDATION


General Overview • Location of the WE:SOLVE Prototype workshop was held in a newly built 300 seat conference hall towards the

entrance of the Domiz camp. The camp manager explained that it was held for community activities and served as a place for presentations, workshops and conferences. The conference hall was convenient, but did not represent the aesthetic or nature of the total camp.

• We perceived the prototype of going very well, consisting of good flow and cohesion between the WE Team -->Local Mentors-->Participants-->Community members.

• There was a willingness and enthusiasm to participate.

• Good collaboration between group members

• Wonderful facilitation skills and knowledge by the local mentors

• Refugees and host community thoroughly enjoyed engaging in the workshop

• Liked being the ones conducting the needs assessment. They liked that it was in the field and hands-on and was not just sitting in the classroom. Actively engaged in the activities.

• Both the local mentors and the participants enjoyed working together and collaborating as a team, without the feeling of it being a hierarchy. Fluid sense of teamwork.

• Ideas were innovative, relevant and creative.

• Members picked up on the content quickly and were eager to have more time for each of the activities.

• Participants were eager to have the opportunity for a 13 week session, to complete the cycle from idea to implementable solutions.

COMPANY NAME


1. Group IceBreaker : 40 min (Led by Karin Attia)

Beginning the workshop, most of the participants were shy towards other members they did not know and reluctant to communicate, sticking in clusters of 3-4 with their friends. After providing each of the participants with notepads and 1 of 4 color post-its (representing which group they would be assigned to) we asked them to switch their post-it with a participant they did not know. WE opened up the session by individually introducing the WE Team (Marques Anderson, Janell Johnson, Yannis Bacalis, Karin Attia and Ali Clare) and the Local Mentors (Roj Majeed Saeed Abdallah, Matty Yaqo, Jiyan Kurdistani, Jumaa Mahmoodd). WE thanked them for participating and provided an overview of the WE Foundation.

WE then had the participants stand in a circle and do a 4 minute active listening/presenting exercise with the person next to them. In pairs, the task was to introduce each other to each other and tell a fun fact about themselves along with the meaning or significance of their name. After the paired introduction exercise was complete each of the participants introduced the other to the whole group. The WE TEAM and Local Mentors did the same. During this session, many interesting meanings and stories were presented and laughs and smiles created a comfortable environment to proceed.

Introduction to Activities: 35 min (Led by Marques Anderson)

The WE Team took time to explain the concept, flow and expected outcomes of the workshop. Introducing each of the phases for the day, the WE Team briefly explained the curriculum of each phase and focused most of this session's time on ‘How to Perform a Good Needs Assessment’ (included in the WE Prototype Worksheet). WE took questions from participants and made sure there was an understanding for the procedure.

WE then asked the participants to switch their colored post-its one more time and then introduced the core themes each group would focus on for the day.

Themes: Green: Energy Pink: Education Yellow : Health and Sanitation Orange: Food and Agriculture

The participants broke out into their groups with their designated local mentor and took 15 minutes to identify 2 personas and areas for the different people and places they would approach while doing their needs assessment. Within this process they generated specific questions they would ask the interviewees during the interview process.


2. Community Needs Assessment: 105 min (Led by Local Mentors)

Participants and local mentors went out into the field to interview multiple community members and were shadowed by members of the W E T e a m t o m a k e observations, but not intervene with the ‘needs assessment’ process. A total of 31 interviews were taken by the groups . The Local Mentors were advised to have as l itt le as possible feedback during the interview process, and give advices and suggestions after each interview was completed.

Each member divided 4 different roles during each interview, which consisted of:

1. Ask questions to interviewee. 2. Take notes on answers from interviewee. 3. Observe body Language of interviewee. 4. Observe surroundings of interviewee.

During this time each group fielded their own interviews and gathered as much specific data as possible concerning their theme.


3. Brainstorming and Explanation on How to Prototype: 30min (Led by Janell Johnson)

Once participants gathered their data, each group had 10 minutes to quickly analyze their data, brainstorm ideas and find common themes which arose from their needs assessment. During this time WE asked the groups to focus on what they learned by advising them to share notes on sounds, smells, textures, colors, enactors etc. Each group was provided questions which would allow them to perform a deeper analysis:

A. What were the most memorable quotes? B. Why were they memorable? C. What was most surprising to you? D. What was interesting about your theme? E. What questions would you like to explore in the interview?

Once the groups had a clear idea on what they wanted to focus on WE provide them with the tools on how to prototype their solutions. By structuring the process, WE encouraged each group to source their ideas, come up with a hypothesis, create user groups, make assumptions and ask big questions and finally coming up with a prototype plan.

Prototyping and Testing Solutions: 45 min

Each group took this time to approach the ideas that they wanted to focus on. Some groups had multiple ideas and ran each of the ideas through the process, sometimes merging the two solutions to combining into one solution. After 35 minutes of prototyping their solutions, each group paired with another group and gave a mini-pitch explaining what problem they approached and the idea they prototyped for. After the mini-pitch the listening team provided comments and feedback to the presenting team.


4. Prepare a Pitch (Led by Yannis Bacalis): 55 min

At this point, each group had the solution they wanted to focus on and WE then provided the groups with a suggested flow for their pitch.

Each group was designated 5 minutes to: Introduce their Team: 30 seconds Tell what problem they came across: 2 minutes What solution they came up with: 1 minute 30 seconds Explain how their solution affects the community: 1 minute

They were then presented with some basic tools on how to pitch by reminding them to: a. Know how much time they have b. Focus on key issues/challenges c. Be confident d. Be concise e. Speak Slowly and Articulate f. Address key takeaways and emphasize solutions g. Look at the crowd while presenting their topic


The topics, ideas and solutions presented by each group are summarized as:

Group Problem Solution

Group 1: B.S.B. (Local Mentor Matty) Vertical: Energy Project Title: Solar Cells Project between Domiz Camp and Mosul Dam

• Lack of power and energy in the camp. • Energy goes off for up to 6 hours a day in

the camp • Energy is being wasted, as there is an

abundance of sun, but doing nothing with it.

• Create a project between Domiz camp and Mosul Dam-

• Develop Solar water pumps which can provide water to the Domiz camp

• Transport water by solar energy • Create jobs in the process • Provide education courses on solar and

renewable energy

Group 2: Kubane (Local Mentor Jiyan) Vertical: Health and Sanitation Project Title: Creating a Health Care system in the camps

• No quality control of pills and vaccinations. • No communication with the doctors on

how to use medicines • Community members do not have enough

money to go outside of the camp to other hospitals.

• Hospitals are not caring enough for the patience

• Engage with the Ministry of Health. • Create Health workshops and getting

feedback on what doctors need to learn • Provide programs for specialist to train

local doctors and ensure quality care. • Create platform which teaches/reminds

patience how to treat themselves once they have their diagnosis and medicines.

Group 3: Green Apple (Local Mentor Jumaa) Vertical: Food/Agriculture Project Title: Food Security through Education

• Water shortage affects agriculture • Insects contaminating food supply, fecal

matter a vomit. • Uncovered food sold on the side of the

road and in camps affect sanitation and health in the camp

• Fires within tents that spread that can burn down trees or plants planted by families.

• Have better collaboration with orgs. that are responsible for water distribution, within the Domiz camp, so we can solve our own problems.

• Sending a request to organizations that handle food and agriculture to bring pesticides to repel the insects that are damaging food crops

• Increase the food regulations and have a mechanism to monitor quality, to create an awareness campaign to inform people

• Request orgs to work with refugees to build tents with cinder blocks.

Group 4: Sterk (Local Mentor Roj) Vertical: Education Project Title: Increase Space and Quality- Increase Minds and Capacity through Education

• They found there was not enough space in the schools for education.

• Students are feeling uncomfortable, do not have enough personal space.

• Also, lack of services and educational equipment.

• Provide a special area inside the camps dedicated solely to the schools.

• Work with the Local Ministry of Education to provide quality control for the teachers and test them on their competencies.

• Create a mobile platform where students can grade and respond to teachers actions


5. Group Harvest/Discussion 30 min

The WE Team took this time to thank the participants for their diligent and exciting ideas and work. WE then asked them a few questions to get their feedback on the day, process, content and needs to improve for future workshops. The questions which were posed were:

Questions Answers

How was the process for each group? • We really enjoyed solving our OWN problems. • We really enjoyed the collaboration and teamwork. • We really enjoyed being active in the field collecting our own data. • The concepts were clear and it was easy to pick up the tasks and

perform the activities. • We thought it was really fun and educational. • There was good organization

Was there another topic they felt should have been approached?

• We thought this should include Child Protection, Psychological Support for children 5-18, Job Creation, Working Conditions.

Any comments for improvement on prototyping? • We would have liked to have more time • We would like to have examples to follow.

What would be the barriers to you participating in a 13 week program?

• Being in school • Jobs

What worked? • We liked the layout of the day . • There was really good organization. • We felt involved in the community. • The educational content was clear. • It was something new for us. • We enjoyed working with the local mentors

What didn’t work? • We would like to have more time to prepare for the workshop. • We would like to have follow up sessions to have something to

continue to develop the idea. • We would liked to have more time for ‘pitch’ preparation

What would you improve? • More time to prepare for the pitch. • A workshop on public speaking? • Having more participants. • Wish we could pick our own topics.


FEEDBACK and OBSERVATIONS

Local Mentor’s Observations and Feedback

The Local Mentors were exceptional during the project and picked up on the concept, content and collaborative process of the workshop very quickly. They were referred to us by two University professors and were taking their summer break in Duhok, which is 10 minutes from the Domiz Camp.

The feedback WE received from the Local Mentors was broken down into 6 sections:

A. Content B. Observations of Participants C. Relationship and interaction between Local Mentor and Participants D. Local Mentor interaction with WE Team E. Language F. Technology Integration

Below is a harvest of the feedback discussed by each Mentor-


Local Mentor Feedback Topic Answers

Content • We thought the content was good and easy to follow. It was good that we met the day before to prepare for the workshop.

• We felt confident with the material. • We think it would be great to have a workshop teaching the

participants how to pitch. • During the workshop it would be great to have time for each group

to have a practice pitch amongst the groups, before the entire group for practice purposes.

• The icebreaker was necessary and useful, but wanted to have something more creative and out of the box to get people laughing and loosened up.

• We liked that the content was in English, we find it more interesting and challenging.

• Would like a workshop in Program Management

Observations of Participants • At first we saw that they were shy and reluctant to interacting with each other.

• In the beginning some of the more vocal participants spoke over the shyer ones, thus limiting their interactions and development in the process.

• Participants struggled with the difference between asking questions subjectively and objectively to interviewees.

• Some within the group struggled to go through each step of the prototype, skipping straight from idea to solution.

• Some group members took on multiple roles at the same time, even though they were assigned one role per interview.

Local Mentor Interaction with WE Team • We felt like a family and trusted one another • We felt like there was open communication to ask questions to the

WE Team. • We felt like there was a lot of opportunities to learn from the WE

Team. • We felt comfortable turning to the WE team when our participants

had questions we could not answer, open channel of communication.

• Have built relationship within and outside of the workshop • We felt like a team when we are working and a family when we are

hanging out.

Language • Language was not a barrier • It was more interesting to have the workshop in English because

some things are lost in translation. • Participants felt more challenged with the workshop in English. • It was vocalized that participants wanted to learn English. • Participants can look up terms and study more creative concepts

in English. • Certain terms did not have their respective translations in Kurdish

or Arabic ergo essence is not transferred.

Local Mentor Feedback Topic


WE Team Observations and Feedback (next 2 pages)

A. General Feedback of the WE Team B. Content of Workshop C. Relationship between WE Team and Local Mentors D. Observation of Local Mentor Dynamics E. Observation of Relationship between Local Mentors and Participants F. Observations between Participants and Interviewees G. What WE can Iterate to Create better Program

Technology Integration • The participants would love to learn practical technology skills (programming software, arduino, robotics, 3D printing)

• All solutions did not have to be technology based, solutions could also be realized with basic tools, such as pen and paper.

• Theory gets boring with technology, therefore need deliverables; something actual to interact with.

AnswersLocal Mentor Feedback Topic


WE Team Feedback Topic Answers

General Feedback of the WE Team • Awesome Sauce! • We had wonderful team cohesion and felt prepared with the

material being presented. • Resilient in spite of challenges during the workshop • Open communication • Could have had all materials prepared before the morning of

workshop • We were all participating and engaged with the process. • In the beginning WE developed deeper trust for one another's

abilities to deliver. • We could have interacted with the participants more when they

first arrived. • WE had good collaboration with Local Mentors

Content of Workshop • WE felt like the content was challenging, educational, interesting

and beneficial for the host community as well as the refugees • It was a unique and new concept for refugees and host

community members to collaborate in a team structure to solve problems.

• The content addressed that problems would be solved from community members which would promote empowerment and peace-building

• Was accepted by the participants • We could have added a follow up activity to have participants

continue to develop what they learned at the workshop. • WE could of had 1 vertical example that explicitly explains what is

expected from each activity. • Give more time for group feedback after role play activity. • Not put so much emphasis on time for the pitch.

Relationship between WE Team and Local Mentors • WE thought it was brilliant - interacted very comfortably • Good level of trust and communication. • Language was not a barrier • WE were comfortable and impressed with their grasp of the

content. • Would be good to spend more time with them in a working

environment to better understand their working styles.

Observation of Local Mentor Dynamics • Very supportive team. When one mentor did not understand the

concepts, another would chime in and explain.

WE Team Feedback Topic


Observation of Relationship between Local Mentors and Participants

• The Local Mentors were very friendly, helpful and had knowledge of their role as facilitators which enabled a smooth flow of the process.

• May have advised the participants to reflect on each interview before performing the next interview.

• Local Mentors were very helpful and actually learned a lot from the participants.

• Local Mentors were sometimes guiding the conversation instead of planting ideas for participants to creatively generate own ideas.

• Participants trusted in the knowledge and information the Local Mentors had to offer.Respect and trust were main components of establishing collaborative relationships.

Observations between Participants and Interviewees • Were able to perform a lot of interviews in the time period and

conditions they had. • The interviewees felt more comfortable talking to members of their

own community • They were very resilient to declined interviews. • Interviewees were asking good questions to a diversified pool of

interviewees. • Interviewee engaged with every participant within the interview • Participants went to multiple locations to gather data. • Some groups were asking the right and some were asking the

wrong people concerning their theme. • Participants had a good male/female balance in interview

process. • Cultural gender components were evident when interviews were

taking place. • Average time of interview was 5 minutes.

What will WE Iterate to Create a better Program • We can promote the workshop a week in advance to ensure that

we have the expected number of participants • We can create a follow-up activity that the participants can do on

their own time. As a way to continuously engage even after the workshop. Possibly the Local Mentors can provide follow up.

• Have all materials prepared two days before workshop • Engage with participants better when they arrive. • Manage time better. • Add more visual explanations to provide examples of each step in

the process. • Give participants more time to prepare for their pitch. Possibly

have a run through with another group. • Allow more time for feedback between groups after prototype

session. • Not focus so much on the time allotment for the pitch, instead

take more time to focus on how to pitch. • We can let the participants lead the group harvest rather than us

asking specific questions. • Have materials translated in both Kurdish and Arabic and do the

presentation in English.

AnswersWE Team Feedback Topic


Narrative Observations from the WE Team

The WE Team was quite impressed by the flow and cohesiveness of the day. WE were also impressed by the level of engagement by the local mentors as well as the participants. Everyone took the workshop seriously, was eager to learn and picked up on the content quite quickly. Due to Ramadan and personal reasons, 5 of the participants were unable to make it to the workshop. Other potential barriers preventing adequate attendance could be school/university classes (depending on the timeframe the workshop would be held), cultural and family obligations. Concerning the 13-week workshop, lack of financial resources and search for employment may also be considered as barriers to adequate attendance. WE were aiming for 20 participants for 5 groups of 4, but iterated the process to having 3 groups of 4 and 1 group of 3. We were unable to include one of the themes, which was Safety.

During the needs assessment the WE Team shadowed each group and observed that the roles designated to them were being shared by more than one person. The team used a more organic approach where each participant seemed to utilize their self-autonomy. Even though the participants did not directly follow the directions, the general feedback we received was that they very much enjoyed the teamwork. We heard several times that along with the teamwork the overall process was one of relevance and importance. The participants explicitly stated that completing their own needs assessments provided them the opportunity to collect their own data and evaluate possible solutions, which were relevant to their situation. By providing them with a space for the prototype session and pitch, the participants were able to start thinking creatively and analytically about local solutions to local problems.

WE observed that language was not a barrier and participants were challenged and interested in having the content presented in English. It is quite imperative for local mentors to have a good command of the English, Kurdish and Arabic language in order to communicate with participants and Global Advisors.

Through this workshop activity WE identified a space to hold the workshops within the camp as the community leaders were very eager and helpful in assisting this program. We also learned that performed needs assessments by local community members helps refugees connect with their communities. Involvement of the various parties (Refugee, Internally Displaced People, Host Community) in the human-centered process can lead to social cohesion. Ultimately the workshop provided the want, need and feasibility for the WE: SOLVE Lab incubator to empower refugees while transferring new skills, educational content, potential livelihood opportunities and most importantly solving real problems.


WE TEAM IRAQ

we:solve prototype workshop · notepads and 1 of 4 color post-its (representing which group they...

Documents