Marshall Hartlen and Nicolette Young
Post can also be found on Nicolette’s blog
Context: Identifying User Requirements and Goals
In going through the design thinking process, differing contexts emerged for each user. As we empathized with and defined each other’s needs, this became part of our design challenge – ideating a solution that would encourage learners in both settings to partake in intellectual risk taking (IRT), by actively engaging in an online learning environment that promotes inclusiveness.
Nicolette’s goal is to provide learning that is relevant, modern and clear in a corporate setting. Her challenge is to ensure flexibility in the design for unknown variables specific to each client. Marshall’s goal is to empower his secondary school students, and shift his instructor role from lecturing to guiding. His challenge is to focus more on developing skills pertinent to the Information Age.
Solution
SolutionTo address the identified challenge, our solution is to implement two synergistic elements – emphasising community and modelling IRT.
Creating a community of learners
Creating a community of learners 
A collaborative learning community will increase student engagement and independence. For Nicolette, to create links between learners with a varied knowledge base and experience level, and for Marshall, to create independent learners.
Successful learning requires the ability to acquire, evaluate and synthesise information in broad collaborative contexts (Thomas, 2010). Our community component allows for learning to be more meaningful, thereby eliciting engagement.The trend in both educational and corporate contexts is toward a more collaborative approach, which increases confidence, engagement, and offers a diverse base of community knowledge (Laal & Ghodsi, 2011). By focussing on building learner relationships within team environments, opportunities to delve into learning from each other as well as from the course are facilitated.
Modelling Risk Taking
IRT is defined as “Engaging in adaptive learning behaviours (sharing tentative ideas, asking questions, attempting to do and learn new things) that place the learner at risk of making mistakes or appearing less competent than others” (Beghetto, 2009 p. 210). We recommend that educators model IRT to encourage the same in their students.
For example, the instructor can employ new strategies that encourage feedback media res. This supports Marshall’s evolving skillset as a guide of learning by pursuing new strategies. In addition, students critiquing a project of Nicolette’s creation also encourages student risk taking through modelling.
Establishing a conversational tone and a safe learning environment that supports the exchange of knowledge, ideas and experience will also encourage IRT. This is because it allows students to feel comfortable exploring, experimenting and taking risks free from judgement (Kalchman and Koedinger, 2005). Timely feedback and positive support are also part of this solution and key in cultivating IRT (Beghetto, 2009).
Potential Limitations To Solution
Learners may feel that they do not have time, motivation or incentive to participate and/or contribute to communities, specifically if it does not feel meaningful to them. To combat this, graded collaborative and community participation activities will be included that offer learners flexibility, such as choice of topic and tool.
Modelling IRT may not result in students emulating this behaviour, especially if they lack knowledge, experience or interest in the course content (Beghetto, 2009). A course wiki would be available to augment knowledge of course content, but also editable for students to add their own ideas and findings.
Although contextual differences may appear to have limited our solution, the diversity allowed us to explore multiple perspectives and ideas to identify a mutually beneficial solution.
References
Beghetto, R. (2009). Correlates of intellectual risk taking in elementary school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 210-223. doi:10.1002/tea.20270
Kalchman, M., & Koedinger, K.R. (2005). Teaching and learning functions. In M.S. Donovan & J.D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 351–393). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486-490.
Sabbag, M. (2016, June 14). Why Organisational Structures are moving towards collaboration. Rework. Retrieved from: https://www.cornerstoneondemand.com/rework/why-organizational-structures-are-moving-towards-collaboration
Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A virtual crash course in design thinking. Retrieved from: https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources-collections/a-virtual-crash-course-in-design-thinking
Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana. (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Georgia College of Education. (2017). Are your students taking risk in their learning?. Retrieved from: http://gca.coe.uga.edu/are-your-students-taking-risks-in-their-learning/
Image Sources
Empathize, Define, Prototype images by Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University in An Introduction to Design Thinking Process Guide.
Photo by Luca Bravo on Unsplash
Photo by Igor Ovsyannykov on Unsplash
Photo by rawpixel.com on Unsplash
Hello Marshall and Nicolette,
I really enjoyed reading your post. The graphics and quotes made me feel like I was walking through the design thinking process with you both! Although you both have very different audiences, your shared solution will work well for both based on the intended outcomes you outlined.
In your post you mention establishing safe learning environments that support the exchange of knowledge, ideas and experience that will encourage IRT. In previous courses I have taken, there has been significant discussion around learner’s willingness to take risks in school-based settings. As Marshall’s students will be physically located in a classroom setting, other than modelling IRT, have you discussed other methods to establish trust and motivate students to engage in challenging tasks?
I like that learners in both contexts will be given an opportunity to choose their own topics and tools. This flexibility will be especially important for Nicolette’s audience of adult learners as research has shown that adults who experience learning environments where they are told what to learn become passive and in some cases foster negative attitudes towards learning (Gregson & Sturko, 2007). In Marshall’s case, offering his students choices will change his role in the classroom from that of an instructor to a guide. Does the solution you propose have strategies built in to manage this change? Finally, often too many choices can cause undue stress on learners. In both settings, how will you ensure that there is a manageable level of choice?
Great job! I look forward to your response.
Sue
References:
Gregson, J. & Sturko, P. (2007). Teachers as Adult Learners: Re-conceptualizing Professional Development. MPAEA Journal of Adult Education, 36(1), p. 1-18.
Hi Sue,
Thanks for the thoughtful comment and happy to hear that our choice to add images was useful.
In establishing safe learning environments, other methods in our solution entail that there is a whole scale process that extends beyond the task in question. Educators in either context will need to ensure its consistency in all aspects of learning within the course. A strong pedagogy/rationale that is understood by the learner is essential and will contribute to building trust with the student. If students see the validity of the process, this can bolster their confidence and make their learning meaningful (Thomas, 2010). This, in turn, will encourage them to engage in challenging tasks.
Another approach we will advocate is the provision of feedback throughout the learning process. This is essential as this way of learning is likely new to the learners. How that feedback is given is equally important. To encourage IRT, students need a growth, rather than fixed, mindset (Crichton & Carter, 2017). They may need to be praised for their effort, rather than their results. This will encourage students to take risks because they are being praised for taking chances.
The community aspect of our solution will offer built-in activities that encourage IRT including peer feedback, where students will learn to become critical friends to each other, creating a safe risk taking environment (Crichton & Carter, 2017).
To ensure a manageable level of choice, the assignments will offer a few suggestions of either tools/topics to use as well as encourage students to seek out other meaningful tools/topics to fulfill the learning requirements. In this way, the learner has the option of using the suggestions, but also is being oriented in a specific direction to refine their search and reduce the anxiety of a ‘black hole’ of choice.
However, in giving students choice, it is Marshall’s experience that the instructor is the one who can be overwhelmed by the variety of student submissions. One of the strategies that we propose will address this issue, while also managing the change between lecturer and guide. This strategy is to allow flexibility in the requirements, when IRT is being demonstrated by the student. For instance, if the learner demonstrates the ability to go beyond the parameters of a project in a meaningful way, this could indicate successful IRT. When learners engage meaningfully with a process that was designed to spark creativity and student agency, the instructor needs to employ this strategy of remaining flexible to actively support these efforts.
Thanks again for your insightful comment, it has allowed us to think deeper about our suggested process, which is greatly helpful moving forward with this task!
Nicolette and Marshall
Great reply! Thank you for the careful consideration you gave to answering my questions!
I strongly agree with your comments about feedback, especially in an online learning environment. Since starting in the MAIS program at Royal Roads, I have experienced many different learning environments within the Moodle (LMS). At the beginning of a course it often takes me some time to find my footing. Feedback from my professors and peers helps to bolster my confidence and go one step further (asking questions, researching a topic, trying new things). Without this feedback I personally would lose the motivation to continue and I believe that the quality of my work would suffer.
You bring up a good point in regards to the instructor being the one that can often be overwhelmed by the variety of student submissions when offering choice. It also begs the question of how the instructor assesses each unique submission? You don’t have to answer this question, I am just “thinking aloud”.
Good luck with part B of the assignment!
Howdy Nicolette and Marshall! I appreciate the work you did, especially visually. Your formatting is stellar. The graphics to delineate the sections are like a map which helps the reader to know exactly where they are in the story of your design process. Nicolette’s goal to link diverse learners and Marshall’s goal to create independent learners are very different, your work environments are very dissimilar as well, and you bridged the gap gracefully with your common solutions of creating a learner community and modeling intellectual risk. I liked all your ideas, but the questions which arose for me were related to details. What are the new strategies the instructor could employ to provide feedback mid-project? What type of project would Nicolette do that students could critique? You did an excellent job of backing up your thoughts with research. I know there’s not a lot of space to go into great detail with 500 words, but I’d like to see more examples so I can envision more clearly how your solutions will be implemented. For example, how exactly do you establish a conversational tone and safe learning environment? You speak of graded exercises, what would one of these exercises look like? What form of positive support will students receive? What type of graded, collaborative, flexible activities might take place? Do you have any ideas on how to measure if your method of modeling IRT is working for your students? It could be a significant challenge to select specific activities that would suit both your needs since your learners have such divergent demographics, but you could do what you two did so well throughout the blog: For Nicolette…. For Marshall…
I admire your finesse! 🙂
Hi Angie,
Thanks for your many thought-provoking questions and we will do our best to address them here.
In moving toward a role as the guide of learning, the instructor’s presence in the classroom automatically becomes more interactive and requires constant checking in with students. Learners will hopefully have embraced the new way of learning and when questions arise, the instructor is alongside ready to provide insight on how to engage risk in a constructive manner. This does require a certain degree of confidence on the instructor’s part in that s/he becomes the all knowing oracle who can steer students in the proper direction, but should be beneficial to students because the instructor is more available for constant feedback.
For the types of project that Nicolette could share, it would be dependent on the context of the course. Our thinking was that it would be an anonymized project that she had completed in her prior work. This way, she is modelling IRT for the learners, as she is putting her own work out for students to give her feedback on. For instance, if the course’s topic was Storytelling with Data – she could ask students to give feedback on the final workshop that she created to tell a story using a specific data set, in providing her project materials.
In terms of the examples you ask for, the solutions for each context would be fairly similar, and would only vary based on the intended learning outcome of the defined user requirement. Safe and conversational communities can be facilitated by gearing activities at the outset. This includes getting to know the fellow learners in the community through collaborative pair activities. These activities help to build trust and reinforce individual, as well as group, identities and expectations. Examples of this would be interviews, and collaborative graded activities, like the construction of a class wiki. Because the instructor is more involved alongside the learners in the class, s/he could act as a driver of this conversation by modelling the desired behaviour and engaging in conversations as necessary. This continuous feedback and involvement should also serve as positive reinforcement for the learner, and could also ensure that the desired level of IRT is being maintained.
Thank you for taking the time to provide meaningful feedback that we will use going forward to the next stage of our design thinking process.
Nicolette and Marshall
Nicolette and Marshall, I really enjoyed your post and feel you did an excellent job of your design process. It is certainly a challenge to try to merge very different types of learners together and come up with one solution that would work for the both of you. I think you did an excellent job of defining how that could be accomplished. While reading you post, many questions arose as I too come from a corporate training background. I am wondering about the details of how you would implement some of your ideas. For Nicholette in a corporate setting, I am assuming her learners are adult learners which can be difficult to encourage as they come with their own experiences, ideas and are often trying to juggle a work/life balance. I am wondering since these two groups are so diverse, did you discuss how you would educate those learners who are not very tech-savvy and may have challenges navigating a wiki or an LMS? What kind of projects would be developed? How would the learners be graded? In Marshall’s case I think it would be easy to develop a course syllabus to outline how the grading will take place, but am curious as to how that would look in the corporate setting? Just some food for thought.
Excellent post and I am eager for your response.
Hi Andrea,
Thanks for your comments and questions.
In establishing the level of learners in pre-course surveys, we could ascertain who may need support moving forward. Once this is established, smaller groups within the course could be strategically created so that less able tech learners were partnered with those who demonstrated technical prowess. This could have the combined benefit of empowering those students who possess advanced tech skills with leadership roles, thereby promoting IRT. This also facilitates the growth of a trusting community with learners helping learners, who take ownership of their learning as they move forward. As an example to apply the above, a project could be working in teams of two to add a suggested topic (or one of their choice) to the course wiki at the beginning of the course. This would allow learners to collaborate on a process that we will ask them to do throughout the course. Any number of potential projects could be designed around the stated learning objective, and could also be modified to meet individual learner/institutional needs.
Great question about how the ‘grading’ and/or assessment would look in a corporate setting. We envision a performance rating scale could be used that is similar to ones used in evaluating employee performance within the company. Evaluation could be flexible and adjusted for each client, to ensure alignment with the language they use in their employee performance reviews. This may aid in motivating the employee to engage more fully in the course, as their resulting overall rating would be provided as part of their professional development to human resources, and possibly their supervisors (depending on the company). In terms of how learners would be evaluated in Marshall’s context, similar to what you stated, he would provide a rubric for assignments and projects with clearly stated outcomes and expectations for learning.
Happy to provide food for thought and thanks for doing the same!
Nicolette and Marshall
Hi Marshall and Nicolette, sorry my response comes so late in the game, I hope it’s not too late to help give you more to work with in the response. I enjoyed your read, and similarly to Angie, I feel like more information on how you will implement and build this community would be helpful. A word limit is always tough to work within. I am also curious if you’ve considered any other methods to motivate contribution outside of grading. While we all participate when we’re forced to (if we want good grades) I personally struggle with finding a way to motivate learners in a way that makes them intrinsically interested in contributing, regardless of grades. It’s hard to know what rewards will be perceived as valuable to a wide audience of individuals. Let me know if you think of something!
Hi Adam, thanks for the comment, we hope to go into more detail in our part b regarding specific examples, but I will expand in broad strokes here too. For motivation, we felt it was important to build trust and confidence first. Learners who are confident in their learning are more likely to engage in the creative process and take the intellectual risks we are focussing on developing. So, motivation comes as much from the establishment of a robust group learning experience as it does from grading and assessment. Intrinsic motivation plagues us all, and it certainly plagues learners in both contexts. In traditional school systems, and traditional training environments, many learners have become disconnected. We have both experienced the most success with collaborative, hands on and constructivist activities (similar to ones we have suggested in our solution). When learners are having fun and see the value in what they are doing, they engage more and are more motivated to contribute.
Thanks for the comment,
Nicolette and Marshall