AskCraftHome / Creator blog · teaching report
Creator blog · teaching report
Saved recipes. Different dinner choices.
How to organise recipes around a reader’s circumstances rather than dish categories alone.
All six accounts, quotations and findings in this example are fictional teaching material. This is a demonstration of a deliverable, not a client case or a completed study.
Example materials
Research design, account analysis, reasoning and a test plan. All data are fictional teaching material.
Download report
For reading, printing and discussion with your team.
Download workbook
Evidence, interpretations, decisions, tests and questions.
What the team would consider first
For guests, show preparation order and likely points of failure.
For learning, retain detailed explanations: making everything shorter would miss this job.
The decision behind the research
The creator must choose between changing categories, recipe cards and content length. Research question: what happens between saving an idea and deciding to cook?
Scope comes before an interview count. The six examples demonstrate comparison; they are not a recommended sample size.
Relevant experience, not a follower list
Look for recent meal decisions involving an attempt to use a recipe: weekday dinner, entertaining or cooking to learn. Participants should recall actions and alternatives. Following a particular creator is not required. Enjoying recipe videos alone does not establish the relevant experience.
In an actual project, document recruitment sources, screening outcomes, missing groups and no-shows. Do not report fictional examples as recruitment results.
The evidence behind the interpretation
Late weekday evening; ingredients are already at home.
“I save what looks good. In the evening I need something I can make with what I have.”
What happened. Opened saved recipes, could not find substitutions and made a familiar omelette. Saving did not mean intending to cook that recipe.
What remains uncertain
Navigation may not be the only barrier: fatigue and ingredients could determine the outcome regardless of the site.
The family needs dinner before evening commitments.
“Twenty minutes turned out to mean time at the stove. I noticed the extra hour later.”
What happened. Chose a video by its stated time, discovered marinating and ordered delivery. Time until eating mattered more than active cooking time.
What remains uncertain
A follow-up should establish whether total time would have helped select another recipe, or whether cooking was already off the table.
Cooking for friends for the first time; wants to avoid letting them down.
“I asked my friend which step usually goes wrong.”
What happened. After browsing, chose a recipe a friend had tested. Needed confidence in execution rather than another idea.
What remains uncertain
The friend’s recommendation may have mattered in its own right; written guidance need not replace personal trust.
Several dishes need to be ready at the same time.
“Every recipe has its own steps. I need one plan for the whole evening.”
What happened. Saved a collection, then asked a friend to sequence the work. The barrier sits between recipes rather than inside one.
What remains uncertain
A menu schedule still depends on equipment and guest numbers, which need clarification.
A free Saturday; learning to handle dough.
“I want to understand why it behaves that way. A short clip does not explain it.”
What happened. Moved from short clips to a detailed explanation. Length was acceptable because learning was the goal.
What remains uncertain
Saturday willingness to watch longer content does not describe the same person’s weekday behaviour.
Wants to apply a technique to different ingredients.
“If I understand the principle, I can substitute. If I only know the steps, I am afraid to change them.”
What happened. Chose a long explanatory article and returned during another attempt. The material supported transfer to a new situation.
What remains uncertain
Returning to an article does not establish that the format will increase reach or subscriptions.
How a follow-up changes the interpretation
Interviewer
What happened before you ordered delivery?
R02
I had taken the ingredients out. Then I saw: marinate for an hour.
Interviewer
What did you need to have done by then?
R02
Eat before my child’s evening activity.
Interviewer
What options were still available?
R02
I could have made something familiar quickly, but I was frustrated and ordered.
The fragment establishes a deadline and an alternative. It does not prove that correcting the time label alone would solve the problem: frustration had already changed the subsequent choice.
Fictional dialogue. These are not transcript excerpts from a real session.
Job hypotheses, with visible sources
Get weekday dinner done with less effort
With low energy and limited time, choose feasible food from available ingredients to complete a household task.
Prepare a meal for others with confidence
When cooking for guests, understand sequence and risks beforehand to complete the meal successfully.
Learn a principle and apply it independently
With time to learn, understand a technique well enough to adapt rather than follow steps rigidly.
Do not average away the difference. R01 wants less decision-making while R05 wants time to understand. We therefore do not recommend making everything shorter. The distinction concerns situations, not permanent categories of people.
A plan to test, not a promise of growth
| Priority and evidence | Proposed change | What to observe | What would challenge it |
|---|---|---|---|
| First · J01 | Recipe card: active time, waiting, ready-to-eat time and substitutions. | Give a deadline and available ingredients. Ask the person to choose a feasible option and explain it. | If the card is understood but fatigue prevents cooking, presentation is not the whole issue. |
| Next · J02 | One guest-menu collection with a shared schedule and recovery guidance. | Ask someone to sequence preparation and resolve a specific mistake. | If personal advice remains necessary, written instructions may not provide enough confidence. |
| Separately · J03 | A detailed explanation with a transfer exercise. | Introduce another recipe and check whether the person can explain how to adapt. | Repeating the explanation without applying it means the learning job is not yet supported. |
Agree an owner, a prototype and an observable task before testing. Compare with the current experience and record failures as well as successes. These checks have not been carried out in this example.
Limits and the next research question
No prototype use, job prevalence or audience growth has been measured. Saving, cooking and returning are different behaviours and should not be collapsed into one usefulness metric.
Before using these hypotheses, conduct real recruitment and interviews, inspect contradictory accounts and agree the evidence needed for the decision. The number of mentions in this demonstration is not a population statistic.
All six accounts, quotations and findings in this example are fictional teaching material. This is a demonstration of a deliverable, not a client case or a completed study.
Discuss your research question
Define the decision, relevant participants and useful deliverables.
AskCraft
Analyse your own question
Start with a blank template containing four worksheets: brief, evidence, interpretations and tests. Use your own material, separately from this learning example.