diff --git a/hyperstories.md b/hyperstories.md
index e69de29bb2d1d6434b8b29ae775ad8c2e48c5391..e36ccdd56b56209a4c815b05f426e9086f55eeb2 100644
--- a/hyperstories.md
+++ b/hyperstories.md
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+Tobias Gade (201809466), Jakob Overgaard (201706812), Mikkel Blok (201706535) & Keyan Javanshir (201407195)
+# Hyperstories
+During our lecture we were asked to analyze the paper Garzotto (2008) that involved a study of 24 children and two teachers. They were first introduced to the hyperstory platform and had exercises with the technology afterwards. The last part of the study involved the children creating their own hyperstories.
+This is our analysis of the study/paper from Hirsh-Pasek et al.'s (2015) model.
+
+## Active Learning
+Active learning is defined when children are actively engaged in their learning process.
+We rated the active learning of the hyperstory between medium and high. Our decision is made because, even though we feel that the children are actively engaging themselves in the material, there is still a bigger possibility for them being more active i.e. Teaching each other.
+
+As we read from the paper Garzotto(2008) wrote:" *We tried to include children's ideas and suggestions from the moment they started the hyperstory development, using different techniques to give all design partners a voice on the experience design process. This work was organized along a number of phases.*"
+
+It is clearly apparent the children where included from the start, which resulted in a higher degree of involvement and activity from the children. The fact that they introduced to the children to the material beforehand, and afterwards let them do the work enhanced the minds-on experience.
+
+## Engagement (high)
+
+We argued that engagement level was high in this context. There was not presented a lot of evidence of distraction in the paper, so we assume it was almost non-existent (of course... because the children were so engaged).
+
+There are two examples in the paper that we argue shows that the children had a high level of engagement in the process.
+
+The first example is: *Initially, we simply proposed to take textual notes on a project journal, but children progressively improved and refined this raw technique. Some children asked to use the digital camera to document the work..*.”.
+
+And: "*children had the idea of creating their own visual content for the story...*”
+
+We rate the engagement so high, because the children iterated and developed new creative ways of work without any guidance or involvement.
+
+## Meaningful Learning (Medium)
+The meaningful learning principle is positive, but not as impactful as the other principles, we argue.
+
+Our decision is based on an example from the paper:“*Before the study, two sessions were devoted to technical skills...*’.
+
+We rate it medium because they went from rote learning, to a more hands-on approach that supported meaningful learning. They were first presented information, and then had to use this knowledge in the ‘real world’.
+
+## Social Interaction (medium-high)
+We rated the social interaction principle medium-high, since the process supported collaborative learning in which the students, worked towards a common goal.
+
+The children were so engaged that they involved their parents:” Children also found a way to enforce situated learning and to engage families in the experience...” which enhances not only the involvement of children but also parents in their learning.
+
+And:” Finally, children contributed to identifying unexpected
+patterns of team work...”. The sharing-mode was highly appreciated by the children, so they could compare their work, with their peers.
+
+These examples support our decision on a medium-high rating. It was fully engaging and supported collaborative learning.
+
+## Reflection
+After the discussion of the four guiding principles from Hirsh-Pasek et al.’s (2015) model, we reflected on the study as an educational intervention.
+We came towards a conclusion, where we argued that it is an educational intervention.
+The Hawthorne effect (Adair, 1984) must be considered as the children knew they were a part of a study, which probably had an impact on the results.
+Even though it was not a part of their regular school environment, they gained important knowledge and skills through the process; skills in wide ranges like project-based work, communication, creative thinking etc..
+
+## Reference list
+
+1. Putting Education in “Educational” Apps: Lessons From the Science of Learning, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, 2015
+2. Broadening Children’s Involvement as Design Partners:From Technology to “Experience”, Franca Garzotto, 2008
+3.  The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), pp.334-345, Adair, J. (1984).
+