Following observational testing, the key uncertainty was how to address identified usability and accessibility issues responsibly within real classroom constraints.
To resolve this, I designed and facilitated a four‑week online co‑design initiative with teachers, teaching assistants, a Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator (SENCo), and a headteacher.
This phase focused on translating research insight into inclusive, feasible decisions around instructions, training, accessibility, and classroom delivery.
At this point, the uncertainty had shifted from identifying problems to determining appropriate solutions.
While observational testing showed where children struggled, designing fixes in isolation risked creating materials that would not work within real classroom constraints or for diverse learners.
Co-design with educators was used here to ensure that decisions about instructions, accessibility, and feasibility were informed by domain expertise rather than researcher assumptions.
The co‑design group consisted of six education professionals spanning delivery and oversight roles, including teaching assistants, teachers, a SENCo, and a headteacher.
These roles reflected how Turbo Typing would realistically be implemented and supported in schools, making their input essential for feasibility decisions.
Work was conducted remotely via weekly two hour group sessions, with additional asynchronous tasks to allow reflection on accessibility and classroom constraints.
Each session combined structured discussion with practical exercises to ground ideas in classroom reality.
I recruited a dedicated developer at this stage so I could focus fully on user research and facilitation.
I planned and led all co-design activity, and collaborated closely with the developer, bringing them into selected sessions so feasibility questions could be addressed in real time and decisions were not lost in translation.
After each session, I synthesised inputs and worked with the developer to agree priorities and sequence changes using a shared GitHub issues list, allowing research insight to translate directly into prioritised, implementable work.
This phase combined structured co design workshops with asynchronous reflection to translate earlier observational findings into feasible, inclusive decisions. Weekly online group sessions were used to explore classroom constraints, accessibility needs, and delivery trade offs collectively, while interactive exercises such as task walkthroughs and scenario mapping helped ground discussions in real use.
Between sessions, educators completed diary style reflection activities, testing materials, reviewing draft instructions, and reflecting on accessibility for Special Educational Needs (SEN), English as an Additional Language (EAL), and neurodiverse learners in their own contexts. This intentional combination reduced group think, allowed deeper consideration of complex constraints, and produced higher quality input than workshops alone.
After each session, I synthesised discussion notes, written reflections, and simple quantitative indicators from live polls, and brought consolidated themes back to the group. This supported evidence led prioritisation, enabled trade offs to be agreed collectively, and ensured insights directly informed next steps rather than sitting as unacted feedback.
Educator feedback was synthesised across sessions to identify consensus, disagreement, and feasibility concerns that shaped final decisions.
Across sessions, I synthesised inputs iteratively, combining group discussion, written reflections, and simple quantitative indicators to identify areas of strong agreement and delivery risk. The following themes consistently emerged and were prioritised for action.
Educators identified points where existing instructions were too complex, ambiguous, or cognitively demanding for children.
Teachers highlighted that reliance on written instructions would exclude pupils with reading, language, or processing needs unless additional support was built in.