{"id":54,"date":"2016-01-22T20:23:26","date_gmt":"2016-01-22T20:23:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/projects-old.etc.cmu.edu\/true-north\/?p=54"},"modified":"2016-04-29T00:04:15","modified_gmt":"2016-04-29T00:04:15","slug":"week-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/projects-old.etc.cmu.edu\/true-north\/index.php\/2016\/01\/22\/week-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Week 2: 1\/17-1\/23"},"content":{"rendered":"

This week, True North continued to narrow down brainstorming on the project direction, focusing on story and design development.\"story<\/p>\n

We determined preliminary characters in our story, based in large part on the personas the class created. \u00a0The experience right now focuses on a first person interaction, with three core student characters and a professor.\u00a0 The user and the students are part of a study group for the professor\u2019s class, and they have group and individual projects due throughout the term. \u00a0In the experience, the user will face a myriad of questions dealing with how \"characterstudents today interact with academic integrity. \u00a0We want the user to confront these questions through the lens of navigating friendship, learning, grades and the CMU community. \u00a0We plan to flesh out this story in greater depth over the next week, and create a paper prototype to test in partnership with the class.<\/p>\n

In the class this week, we discussed elements of the psychology behind cheating and plagiarism. \u00a0The class conducted research based off of university resources, articles and video TED talks. \u00a0In one such TED talk, Dan Ariely talks about the elements which drive people to cheat. \u00a0Environmental influences can encourage or discourage integrity violations. \u00a0In one example, in which he references CMU and Pitt students, he discovered that people who perceive those within their communities of cheating tend to rationalize and partake in it. \u00a0People who perceive those outside their communities of cheating, tend not to cheat. \u00a0In the example he uses, CMU students were less likely to cheat if they perceived a Pitt student cheating among them. \u00a0The opposite was true if they perceived a fellow CMU student of cheating. \u00a0The psychology of cheating plays off of an internal opportunity cost calculation, and people tend to cheat in little ways more often than bigger ways because they can rationalize this behavior.<\/p>\n

Below are some additional updates from our team. \u00a0Next week we plan to refine story points, begin preliminary playtesting, and present branding materials for the team before moving forward on the art. \u00a0In addition, we continue to experiment with the technology and what features we anticipate needing for the experience. \u00a0Below are some bullet points by department on our week\u2019s progress.<\/p>\n

Production<\/strong>:<\/p>\n