# data[].attributes.headline
April 26th Meeting -- Learning Enviornments

# data[].attributes.subject
April 26th Meeting -- Learning Enviornments

# data[].attributes.body
While reviewing the "outcomes" diagram we discussed these words:
Jen: I like seeing the word "happier" -- that an outcome of ours might be to produce "happier" children. You'll hardly ever hear that in any formal set of goals from classroom teachers
Jer: "Playing"
Lori: "Prepared" is a word I like in this image.
Mary Hope: Community and "connectedness"-- parents, kids, educators. Being a good citizen. The World.
Kristin: "Feel and respect" are important. And "fun" -
Alex: "potential" and "anywhere" and "anytime"
Kristin: I don't see "equity" on there
David: "Ecosystem"

Does funding from CZI change what we believe or the outcomes we want?

David: There are still some parameters. They've already told us they don't want to fund TV. We shouldn't lose sight of their interest in LAP. Potential to share actionable information with caregivers.

Jer: I believe strongly that the way kids connect has to do with the story and characters and the way they know those thigns is because of the reach of the broadcast. My belief is that TV plays a big role, and whether CZI wnats that or not it doesn't change our goals -- which include reaching audience through broadcast. They have come to us because of our audience in this age range.

Abby: I think there is potential for influence. I don't know yet. It does make me think about in an RTL scenario there was a mandate. We had conversations about a 2-year focus and we want to make choices about what we're going after.

Keith: By tying in the TV component and putting some emphasis on that, are we not defining our core audience as preschoolers. Should we take a bigger view of this -- is it more than the broadcast audience? I don't want our core business in TV to constrain.

Jer: CZI isn't just talking to us. They're talking to other entities.

Lori: I know the idea is there to also consider applying LAP to Learning Media.

David: Jim Shelton is interested in making content from preK to lifelong development.Work force.

Kathleen: Create a model with PBS KIDS that's very character-driven. It might be difficult to graft that onto GA audience. It's really about a core subject area of interest. Or a mini-serires. But, I think if we want to do something that is gonna span and saying we're going to start with KIDS and scaling it up is ambitious. And I'm not sure it would graft to an adult learner.

Syed: All kids are prepared to succeed in K. Kids spend more time learning through play. Parents, Teachers, and Kids communicate more and more effectively.

Mary Hope: Help kids keep their curiosity. Give kids more opportunities to apply and keep their innate curiosity and creativity.

All kids prepared to succeed in Kindergarten

Do we want to create some sort of massive DB that can be used for research?

David: IES grant did enable us to contemplate taking our LAP and wielding it for purposes outside of PBS KIDS.

Jer: We can look at the people who would want this to exist for good or bad purposes. We would need to ensure that kids own their data. And a goal is to ensure that data isn't used for bad purposes. At the core the LAP is a way to get an observational record. Even proving some things don't work can be useful.

Alex: One of the goals is proof of learning outcomes.

Do we have the data to inform a hypothesis. We don't want to prove -- we want to see what's going on.  This would enable us to continue to  make more games that kids can learn from.  Could reduce anxiety and stress related to assessments. Save teachers time.

Learn more about how kids learn.

Abby: Another outcome was bringing what we know about learning and practice closer together through implementation and bringing those partners together. Bring research and practice closer together.

More parents and teachers know that play is learning.

What near term goals put us on the path to some of those outcomes: readiness, happiness, achievement, equity etc.?

Environments: Kindergarten came up a lot. Why was it mentioned so often. Communities and classrooms. Non-profit organizations. Service organizations. Faith-based communities.

# data[].attributes.headline
April 21st Meeting -- Outcomes/Environment

# data[].attributes.subject
April 21st Meeting -- Outcomes/Environment

# data[].attributes.body
Proposing across the whole range of our audience and possibly take a phased implementation strategy and stretch it out OR we can look at it as a series of target experiments (looking at what we can do across the range but with smaller, tighter focus w/ learnings applied across our audience as scale allows).

So "Why" are we doing this? Referencing an article supplied by Anne Lund/Sara Sweetman re: "adaptivity" that's appropriate for discussion. Alex will circulate article as follow-up.

What is the problem we're trying to solve? We want to look at why we're doing this and what outcomes we hope to see and how we'll measure them?

Abby: "Play to learn."  NOT "Learn to play." Learning can happen anywhere and anytime. Our content and characters are the reasons we have potential to reach kids.

Jen: We support life long learning and play-based learning and multi-generational experiences.

Kathleen: Every child deserves to realize their full potential. Kids should learn the right things at the right time and there's a lot of content and parents can feel overwhelmed.

Mary Hope: Parents want to raise kids who are empathetic and bring value to their community. Kids are naturally curious. Learning is fun. Parents want to learn and play with their kids.

We believe education is a universal good. PBS wants to educate and empower audience. Learning SHOULD be fun. Anywhere and anything can be an opportunity for learning. Education is a political act. Classrooms should have a variety of learning tools. Educators should be valued.

Sara: We believe that parents are what their children need to succeed.

Kristin: Learning can be fun. Kids are naturally curious. Classrooms should be places where kids feel safe and inspired. Learning should be student-centered.

Jer: All kids deserve equal opp and access to quality, free learning. We believe that games and video are good for learning. Game-based assessment can offer valuable results and information. Assessment as been highjacked for adminstration purposes.

Sophie: Learning is fun. Supporting the whole child regardless of ability, race, and background.

Alex: there were a lot of comments about parents and teachers and "all kids no matter where or who they are" and learning isn't limited to one place and time.

Alex: What are the things we could do based on what we believe? What is the problem we want to solve in the context of what we believe?

Jen: More social learning and social play

Jer: KPT -- Kids parents teachers learning together more! I want us to get really good at fostering learning outcomes for kids in need. We could be masters of media learning.

Abby: sustainable future for public media for kids. and it's in danger. it's competing with a faster commercial space. how do we ensure there's a "public" that is safe and quality for our kids. That's not about buying something. And a level playing field for kids!! And reach kids with quality media that respects and inspires them.

David: Young kids (from disadvantaged communities) are benefiting from quality media and can engage with the grown-ups in their lives in a meaningful way

Kathleen: Happier more educated children. Classrooms become places where kids feel empowered to have fun. Completely transform assessment. There is no separate test.

Mary Hope: Children achieve their potential. Create citizens who engage in society. Parents feel like real partners in helping their kids grow.

Sara: If we succeed all parents will not fear for their children' futures.

# data[].attributes.headline
CZI Meeting - April 14 -- Audience Analysis

# data[].attributes.subject
CZI Meeting - April 14 -- Audience Analysis

# data[].attributes.body
Representational view of expertise: confidence level high in preschool (ages 3-5). confidence level lower in both Kindergarten and 1st - 2nd.

Preschool is an area with the greatest challenge and impact. It's a tricky space and we're being honest about our challenges. Play-based learning is a good fit in this area and that's a strength for us. VERY strong. A sense that there's not a lot going on in this space and by starting here we can have potential to watch kids grow for longer term. Less standardized. Lack of tech and lack of assessments are challenges. Unpredictable behavior of younger kids.

Kindergarten we seemed a little more confident in this space. Opportunities seemed equal to risks. Some considered this a critical "bridge" year. K is still a space to get ready.  There is a considerable step in the utility and availability of ways to assess in K that don't exist in preK. As a bridge it might be the way that makes it easiest to expand from.  Kindergarten is more standardized than before.

1st - 2nd:  Moot. Our challenges and opportunities are almost equal, but we have less confidence, overall in this space. We might be looking to be more of remediation tool for kids who are already behind. Parents and teachers are less hesitant to use tech, but our programming seems younger. Though, our digital content ages up. Play-based learning is less tolerated. Increased competition in formal and informal content and products. Much noisier space.

Narrow vs. larger view: Narrow focus allows us to focus our measurement goals. PAL has potential to have more reach even when it's narrow because it scales. The ability to focus on one group lets us focus out time into building relationships and partnerships. Less chance of overreach and under-deliver. Better chance of measurable outcomes in the near term. Cons to narrow focus: weaker market position if we limit coverage and reach.  And possible missed opportunities in other areas. We may go for our sweet spot and we might miss an areas where we and PAL are more needed. If we focus on 1 then we will leave behind the ability to look at learner progression.

Jer: I'm not sure I understand why the scan indicated that we felt there might be a lack of preschool content. Do we think PBS KIDS lack this content or the larger competitive scan reveals a lack of preK content?

Sara: We need to acknowledge lack of PD for early childhood educators as another challenge/weakness. There is a receptive audience among parents for more preK adaptive learning.

Sara: There could be an in-between space. We could be talking purely home. We could also be talking about home that's assigned by the teacher. Formal component without being in formal environment

Jen: Another risk to Kindergarten is that kids are actually required to be in classroom and their schedule changes with far less free time than preK kids who might be in half-day programs or not in school at all.

Sara: Dinner time is a natural play pattern for the family unit.

Jen: Routines, in general, are a strength for our content -- dinner time, bath time, bed time etc.

Abby: subject-focus changes with each range. In K and preK it's more focused on EF. Older kids the emphasis is more on specific academic subjects (ELA and math etc.).

Kathleen: We can also pilot with narrow audience and expand. We can iterate our work into other spaces.

Dave: Challenges in preK may be very different than older grades .

Alex: "Saying no" is tough for PBS. "Strategic abandonment" we need to figure out where that money will be well-spent.

Abby: proving scaleability first then proving the outcomes.

Jer: We know a ton about how to scale.

Sara: Can we be supplemental and remedial rather than the whole program. Could we be working on something that teachers and parents don't have.

David: Anne's audit of advisor revealed what the "holes" were in kids learning -- Swiss Cheese model.

Kathleen: It might be worth starting to build. To build on little pieces of knowledge.

David: Part of the mix of what we start implementing could be PAL content and non-PAL content (with learning analytics). We can accomplish certain goals without PAL content.

Jer: I don't think we need to get to the point where the fixed goal is ratified. We can begin with prototyping. If we go after an implementation grant with CZI, how does the team feel about some of those activities being experimental?

1 skill: broad design & implementation vs. multiple skills: narrower design & implementation. Science from prek _ 2nd with a deeper dive into preK. When we start we test our older kid content with older kids and compare that later with the kids who complete the whole program from preK- 2nd. scale and outcomes

Kathleen: Suggests "research pods" divide and conquer and regroup to share learning.

Sara: another category -- Kindergarten readiness is another category. 4 years old.

Alex: what if we looked at this by age, competency learning. it could reduce phases to two. Phase by age rather than school room/grades. (4-5) + (6,7,8). Still going to need to deal with unique environments.

Sara: Government Relations says all the time that on the Hill as long as preK is not universal PBS plays a critical role in preparing kids for preK. There are specific standards folks want kids to be capable of when they hit Kindergarten.

Start with Kindergarten

# data[].attributes.headline
More about PBS KIDS Audience SWOR - March 24, 2017

# data[].attributes.subject
More about PBS KIDS Audience SWOR - March 24, 2017

# data[].attributes.body
Audience: Formal and/or Informal?
Q: How do we think of this as part of what we're doing already?
A: At least part of the answer is this: PBS KIDS adaptive and personalized playful learning ecosystem.
Q: Is our audience (kids ages 3-8) homogenous?
A: Maybe we limit ourselves by bounding the conversation to age ranges.

Sharon: A kid from a low-income background who is 3 might be very different, developmentally or competency-wise, than a kid with more resources.

Abby: School readiness is a topic to focus on. Your school readiness might not start until later when you're from a less supportive environment.

There's also a difference between kids who are attending preK and kids who aren't

Jen: There are differences as well among kids who have specific cognitive, developmental or social challenges

Issues of ELL

Q: What are differences among kids in school?
A: CONTEXT: Different regions have different policies (in some places Kindergarten isn't even mandatory)

Sharon: Adaptivity is very different for a 3 year old versus a 5 year old. The role of adult support might vary depending on the child's developmental and chronological age.

David: Older kids might still benefit from our products -- especially if they're behind on skills and prior knowledge. We might not be taking this into consideration when we stick to a hard age range.

Scott: Through anecdotal evidence we probably have an older audience on digital (sweet spot is probably 5-8) than broadcast (sweet spot is 4 and 5). Kart Kingdom attracts older kid players. Because desktop players tend to be older than app players. Older kids tend to have PBS KIDS as a content choice in school in computer labs.

We need more research on this

Q: What about parents and research on them?
A: We don't have the knowledge we actually want. Even though we have a lot of research.

Mary Hope: PBS Parents tend to be higher income based on FB findings. They're not as much low-income

Sharon: We know from qualitative research that low-income Hispanic families know nothing about our digital resources. Issues with access to devices and wifi. Probably introduced to our programming through other distributors (ex: Discovery)

Sara M.:We don't have much analytics information on parents from our pbs.org/parents site. What we have comes mostly from social media.

Our research isn't centered around a community that represents our audience. It tends to be more ad hoc.

Mary Hope: Parents tend to be unreliable at self-reporting

Abby: We need to define research categories -- Market research. How kids learn research.

We've never done longitudinal research

Sharon: We have a lot of research but we don't always have clarity about the kind and its purpose.

Mary Hope: Sometimes we do very product-specific research. We don't build on research. And we don't always apply findings across departments or projects.

Abby: advocates for putting our flag in the sand and committing to an approach and moving forward. We might not ever have enough research to propel us into this project.

Q: Are you working to make the PBS approach match definitions of personalization that are supported by John and Jim (at Facebook)?
A: They haven't really provided much guidance and they're interested in what we (PBS) think. We might start by describing it and take what we know about other investments CZI is making in this space and adapt our definition. We need good research to back up our descriptions and definitions.

Sharon: We are not a curriculum. We are not a formal system.

David: We are supplemental.

Alex: If it is supplemental then we should figure how we situate our offerings with competing products.

Jer: All this needs to be grounded in the learning design and research

FB is funding Digital Promise and we should draw on their research to support our definition

Alex: There's a CZI Slack Channel where we're gathering this research. Jer can add you to it.

Q: If PBS KIDS is our starting point and we're going to take a shot at this, where would we plant our flag in the sand in terms of who we reach:

Sharon: Kindergarten and 1st grade. But another thought is we pick one age and go deep. Becasue K- 1st is our sweet spot in terms of content and the kids are old enough in order to measure. I think younger than that it's harder to get that reliability. However, going deeper into one age lets us be super focused at the start and then branch out. For CZI I thought one of the desires was all subject and all frameworks. That would be hard to achieve across our whole audience.

What if we just focus on one subject? It would be hard to cover all frameworks.

Mary Hope: I was thinking of kindergarten readiness is our focus. We don't want this to be all academic. It's mostly social and emotional.

Abby: We are a supplement to the classroom. What doesn't happen in the classroom. Not homework games. What do kids do naturally to learn. We are the fun time. Not the homework time. Play as the center and growing from there. That play center or play pattern approach allows the kid to personalize it. Pretend Play. Literacy -- talking out loud. I'm leaning more 3-5 and not 7-8 because that's where our audience mostly hovers.

Scott: Kindergarten. The types of assessments we could provide would be more meaningful. In preK they don't care so much about that. Does CZI care about assessment:

Jer: Yes, they care about assessment as feeding back into the content -- the machine learning side of things. It's more important to CZI than assessments feeding back into the understanding of the caregiver or educator. They don't tend to care as much about assessments feeding back into the human factors -- not even the community. They want to scale with little additional cost.

# data[].attributes.headline
ADAPTIVITY: What are the unique challenges and opportunities presented by particular age groups and environments (formal classroom, informal learning environments, home, etc.)? Is a whole ecosystem required to achieve success w/adaptivity?

# data[].attributes.subject
ADAPTIVITY: What are the unique challenges and opportunities presented by particular age groups and environments (formal classroom, informal learning environments, home, etc.)? Is a whole ecosystem required to achieve success w/adaptivity?

# data[].attributes.body
Jer summarizes challenges: CRESST lit reviews on adaptivity and personalization definitions are unsettled. Most of the focus has been on formal classroom experiences rather than informal experiences. It's hard to get empirical research findings for the youngest kids (below 3rd grade).

Jer: PBS is going to have to contribute to that void in the field. We are standing on a rocky research foundation. We could make sure part of our project contributes to making this foundation less rocky.

# data[].attributes.headline
IDENTITY SYSTEMS: We know login systems can be a high hurdle for some audiences - how does this factor into our choice of target audience? What are some possible mitigating strategies for kid tracking depending on age / other factors?

# data[].attributes.subject
IDENTITY SYSTEMS: We know login systems can be a high hurdle for some audiences - how does this factor into our choice of target audience? What are some possible mitigating strategies for kid tracking depending on age / other factors?

# data[].attributes.body
Log in can be a barrier and can impact (negatively) uptake of content. We've attempted different strategies for giving kids things they understand and care about that incentivize login. The key challenge is that if we want them to log in to do data work they don't really understand that or care about it. That might shift the burden about log in to adults (ex: Teacher says: "This is something you will do as part of the class work).

We've tried different strategies like "save slot" and we might be able to take the next step on this front and evolve from this area.

# data[].attributes.headline
CURRICULUM & CONTENT: How does our choice of target audience (e.g. kid age) affect our choice of content and target learning outcomes? Do we have advantages in certain age ranges? Content frameworks? 

# data[].attributes.subject
CURRICULUM & CONTENT: How does our choice of target audience (e.g. kid age) affect our choice of content and target learning outcomes? Do we have advantages in certain age ranges? Content frameworks? 

# data[].attributes.body
Sara suggests completing the coding work first and then allow that to guide our target audience and goals for any products we create with these funds

Abby suggests litmus test to see if what we've produced in the past might fit this new model (possibly before completing a larger mapping project). Some of it might not work given that it wasn't made with an adaptive approach.

Sara suggests we might have enough to get started with in looking at legacy "self-leveled" content

Anne suggests beginning with advisors first, because we don't want to be in a position where we're gap filling. We want to be sure we're headed in the right direction.

Abby reminds us that critical thinking skills are paramount and the specific curricula is almost secondary.

Anne validates this -- it's more complicated than "Yes, we're going to teach phonics."

Lori points out that "inquiry" is somewhat "trendy" and it's not being implemented in a broad way and we shouldn't make the assumption that it's actually happening.

Sara asks: Are we trying to do everything with our digital products? We're trying to be supplemental or assistive. We don't want to try to be doing everything. How are the pieces we are developing going to be the most useful and have an impact. We are not trying to replace schools.

Abby asks: Do we see ourselves supplemental to schools or do we see ourselves as the learning solution -- the innovator?

Alex recaps -- we've talked about assessing the feasibility of growing from our existing content -- it's suitability/the prioritization of learning outcomes with advisor input/engaging audience stakeholders -- kids and parents (ex: What can we learn from what they actually do NOT what they want or would like)/environmental scan -- what are other producers doing (ABC Mouse)/stations can lay a role in connecting us more quickly to audience target/partners. Are we looking at frameworks as silos or as something more cross-cutting and what does coverage look like in the adaptive and personalized space where we need to respond to a learner's needs and preferences (for characters etc.)?

# data[].attributes.headline
CZI: how does the audience we select affect demonstrable fitness of plan and ability to prove efficacy? How does our choice fit in with other projects being funded in the space, now and in the next 5 years?

# data[].attributes.subject
CZI: how does the audience we select affect demonstrable fitness of plan and ability to prove efficacy? How does our choice fit in with other projects being funded in the space, now and in the next 5 years?

# data[].attributes.body
goal: make sure we are asking the right questions, consider the right avenues
- prepare ourselves to make the right decision wrt kid audience definition

What is PBS KIDS center in terms of kid audience?
Sharon: it depends, what is end game? Are we creating a service or a product?
David: research shows kids learn from engaging with our content, low SES make the biggest gains
David: serving low SES is one of the key defining characteristics of public media system, commitment to kids who have the least access
Alex: Sharon, can you share more about how product and service are differentiated?
Sharon: typically want to have the widest audience, or are we being targeted? What is the end goal?
Alex: opportunities can help define narrower goals
Syed: this speaks strongly to me
Anne: kids can’t tell you what they need
Syed: teachers are perfect conduit to define needs for kids
Anne: and parents
Alex: teachers are trusted guide to parent knowledge and needs
Anne: Sharon, in research, did parents talk about teachers as trusted guide?
Sharon: yes, for younger kids - don’t know about older kids
MHG: large % of kids don’t attend preschool, so they don’t have that figure in their life
Alex: Where is PBS KIDS age sweet spot?
Sara: broadcast: 3-5, digital is a little older, maybe 4-6,7
Alex: what role does TV play?
Sara: video is integrated into larger experiences, could what we do in digital have touch point or drive to TV
Sara: need to make sure this project meets the goal and strategic needs of PBS KIDS first
Sara: would be a problem if we couldn't use TV in this project
Sara: if issue of TV rigor, still can be foundational for story and characters
Anne: issue is do we have enough and what we need on the TV side
David: CZI gets role of TV in trasmedia, doesn't want to fund TV
Jer: willing to try to connect us to others who are willing to fund TV, but how realistic is this?
Alex: what will be required to show efficacy? what are the opporuntities and challenges around showing efficacy based on which audience we choose
David: could create products for low SES, do research in communities (deploy and test), quick and dirty development work, deploy, see where we need to iterate
Sara: could even go more basic - start with finishing up mapping and coding, what do we have, where is the sweet spot e.g. wrt age? What's the low hanging fruit? Where could we start? Inform what else we need.
Abby: current model for making digital does not contemplate (personalized and adaptive learning) PAL
Sara: we do have some models of adaptive features from self-leveling perspective
Anne: we could be starting talks with advisors even before the mapping is finished, just because we have a lot or a little of some approach doesn't mean it meets the most important need
David: we have some of this info from advisors already
Anne: yes, but high-level only, in email form only - we can be more direct about this
Abby: there is a lot more about process and practices that could be brought to bear, not just teaching within subject verticals, cross cutting, investigation
Lori: we're hearing the same thing about inquiry-based learning, very trendy, but still not being implemented in a broad scale way, we should not make assumption that it will be
Sara: great to think about what trends are, but huge question we need to ask ourselves: are we trying to do everything with our digital products? Even if a teacher is doing things in a cross-disciplinary way in their work, do our products need to do all of that too? We don't want to try to do everything. What will be happening in the classroom, and how will our pieces be the most useful and have the most impact? How does it fit in?
Abby: are we supplemental to where tools are now? Or as a core product to where the best learning approach is? Might not be the same thing. Might be innovation play
Sara: we're not trying to replace school
David: also thinking about reporting features, focus shifts to caregivers, formal classroom adults and informal home adults. Implications for product: what is most useful for educator and for parent.
David: could learn a lot from the communities about need
Alex: we can factor adult reporting needs into our kids audience definition. "Who we need to ask" can be base don where we think the opportunity lies.
Alex: Who can we ask in this short amount of time? How much bandwidth do we have?
Alex: Guerilla discovery sessions, mapping, can help give us better understanding. How broad an age slice do we conduct discovery? The broadest slice? Or narrow in advance?
Sharon: what already exists? environmental scan to see what others are targeting to help inform who we are going to target
Alex: how do we define product vs service? To Alex, service implies human involvement. What is the differentiation for us?
Sharon: do we have to start from the beginning or can we partner?
Syed: service is often in support of a product, defining the distinction early on is critical
Alex: focus on understanding what works, best outcome would be to have parent, educator buy in from beginning. can treat them as drivers of what would be valuable in their world. Not talking about focus groups, talking about listening labs where we understand what is going on in their day, the tools they use - beyond psychographic and demographic - instead this would be very low level understanding.
Alex: content: what do we have? what is the feasibility of using what we have?
Alex: curriculum: prioritization of learning outcomes via advisors
Alex: reporting: parent and teacher audience stakeholders re listening labs
Jer: environmental scan: who else is doing what?
Sharon: add stations to stakeholders, add partners
Alex: what does coverage look like in a PAL world? especially as we consider a kids preferences and choices more and more? what does that mean for coverage?
Alex: what role do identity systems play
Jer: description of identity challenges for young kids, push "caring" about id to adults? save slot / avatar approaches?
Jer: description of PAL challenges for young kids, lack of informal PAL research for young kids
Alex: What is the relationship between RTL and CZI?
Sara: they have to be very related, many similar questions, similar activities
Alex: timeline: about a 5 year plan?
Sara: can't go longer
Alex: probably shouldn't go shorter to do all we are after
Alex: what's the gut check scope in 5 years?
Sara: related to plan for how we make the stuff
Abby: this seems to be about foundational skills, we see ourselves and helping ids build foundational skills
Abby: look at Measure Up! as an informative guide post (not saying that is the model) for scope
Jer, Alex: challenges validating something like Measure Up!
Jer: Measure Up! + Super Vision + parent reporting + SpringRoll + porting 60 games + LAP
Sara: We did Measure Up! and then ran away from it, which is a problem.
Jer: We haven't learned what we can from testing it with kids and parents. Which pieces were successful about it? Which were problems?

# data[].attributes.headline
RESEARCHERS: require the ability to measure / validate outcomes - how does the audience we select impact measurability outcomes (and the type of validation that can be done)?

# data[].attributes.subject
RESEARCHERS: require the ability to measure / validate outcomes - how does the audience we select impact measurability outcomes (and the type of validation that can be done)?

# data[].attributes.body
Showing efficacy: What are the opportunities and challenges about being able to show efficacy depending on the target audience we choose?

"Quick and dirty" approach -- make content and place it in low-income communities and see early potential

Abby suggests that maybe there is research that could help us that is interest-driven and that's about what preschoolers learn and what approaches in a classroom are best-suited to helping them learn. (Since there's so little research about adaptive learning in preK setting.)

Sharon suggests setting up a long-term efficacy study.

Question: What kinds of research vehicles would we need to create to contribute to the research community? How many years do you need? How much time do you need/dosage?

David suggest longitudinal work given 5-year paradigm

# data[].attributes.headline
KID ECOSYSTEM: educators and parents are partners, gatekeepers, support vectors - how will they factor in? In what ways do we require their buy-in/participation to succeed? In what ways could we be hindered by their requirements/limitations/challenges?

# data[].attributes.subject
KID ECOSYSTEM: educators and parents are partners, gatekeepers, support vectors - how will they factor in? In what ways do we require their buy-in/participation to succeed? In what ways could we be hindered by their requirements/limitations/challenges?

# data[].attributes.body
Stations: CZI has an interest in the role of stations

David considers reporting features and their role in engaging caregivers and teachers. What will be most useful for caregivers? Parents?

Jer: We haven't settled forma vs. informal as well for CZI. We could borrow from our RTL definitions/boundaries.

Question: How (if at all) will this work relate to RTL? Are they connected somehow? (In terms of audience and content this is a good question for our group.)

Sara: Thinks they have to be related and linked otherwise we end up on separate paths. Both projects deal with similar questions. Let's consider looking at the RTL research questions and map them to CZI. Can RTL answer these questions or will CZI be better able to answer them.

Jer: Hopes CZI can represent a relaxation of those constraints so we can make a PBS KIDS version of what RTL wants from us.

# data[].attributes.headline
KIDS: kids learning experience is the center of everything - what is our center? (as a media organization? as a learning organization)? Do we have a preference/mandate to target low SES families, Title I schools, etc.?

# data[].attributes.subject
KIDS: kids learning experience is the center of everything - what is our center? (as a media organization? as a learning organization)? Do we have a preference/mandate to target low SES families, Title I schools, etc.?

# data[].attributes.body
Audience for Broadcast -- age 3 to 5

Audience for Digital -- ages up to include older kids, ages 4 - 7.

Role of TV: We are mapping TV content and incorporating video clips into whatever the experience is. Could what we say in digital throw to broadcast (ex: "Watch at 5pm).

Possibilities for TV might include short form content

Question: Do we ask teachers and parents how we can fit into their space or can we figure that out beforehand, more quickly? How do we determine who we go after?

David says we poll lower SES families and educators.

Alex suggests guerrilla discovery sessions with parents and educators and possibly try to define a specific slice of the problem space

David suggests maybe just focusing on 4-year-old kids and their parents and educators

Question: What already exists? Do we have to create something uniquely ours or do we benefit from partnering/partnership?

Question (related): What is a product vs. service? (Sharon asked earlier if we considered our work for CZI a product or service. ABC Mouse came up as a competitor.)

Alex suggest that "service" implies "human contact." And that Message from Me is an example of a personal product. She suggests we bring parents and kids into the design of these products or services early on in the form of listening labs. Maybe they can record or map their day and we can follow-up and better understand the tools they use and the procedures they engage in daily. This would be low-level functional understanding.

Recap/Questions: We haven't narrowed our age group -- is there a real on-the-ground limitation if we target too broad a group. PreK? Early elementary? What is the maximum scope that we feel we could manage successfully in a 5-year plan?

Abby suggests preK - 1st grade as the focus. PBS KIDS is in the school readiness space. Consider Measure Up and how much content we had just for preK in the area of measurement -- a single skill. It could be a good comp for a product/service combo funded by CZI because we know what it took to create.

Sara asks: Should we validate Measure Up approach with CZI support?

Alex: Measure Up can help us learn what it takes to validate a product in research.

Jer: Looking at Measure Up closely could be very useful. We didn't just build MU as a product we also built up SpringRoll (a game dev framework). The games pre-existed in a different tech and had to be ported.  Analytics and parent reporting. MU isn't a model for the product or service but it's worth running a postmortem on.

Sara: We launched MU and ran away from it -- we don't really know if parents liked it and we haven't yet validated that approach. Maybe part of what we do in these next few months is ask: "Can we make something like MU successful?"

Sharon: MU and Supervision asks a lot of parents. Is it something parents are prepared to do?

Alex: That's a valid question we can ask related to MU and other products and services that support parents and teachers. How does what we create fit in with parents' and teachers' ecosystems. It's important we get those people in the room and MU +SV could be a good vehicle for getting that discussion going and doing that guerilla audience research.