Category: Uncategorised

“If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” — Abraham Maslow

Having a toolbox full of tools can make it easier to fix problems. But how do you know which tool to use? Below is a quick overview of different theoretical frameworks that can be used to select the right technology tool for creating a digital learning resource:

• SECTIONS – considers the following factors: students, ease of use, cost, teaching, interaction, organizational issues, networking, security and privacy
• RAT – assesses the value of the tool based on whether it replaces, amplifies, or transforms instruction and learning goals
• SAMR – assesses technology similar to RAT: substitution (replaces existing tech), augmentation (replaces existing tech and has improvements), modification (redesigns learning tasks), redefinition (allows for brand new learning tasks)
• TPACK – explains three levels of knowledge needed for instruction: technological (mostly digital), pedagogical (learning strategies), and content (subject matter expertise)

After reading articles on SECTIONS and RAT in depth and skimming articles on SMAR and TPACK, the theoretical framework I’ve chosen to use is SECTIONS.

• What are the affordances and limitations of the framework?
  • The framework can be used for both in person and digital learning environments.
  • The framework provides a macro versus micro perspective, which is useful at the outset of media selection.
  • The recommendations contained within the framework are practical in a variety of contexts.
• What are the limitations of the framework?
  • The framework does not consider social, cultural, or political factors external to an organization, which is particularly important for international contexts.
  • The framework does not consider the internal factors of learners (e.g., motivation, satisfaction) that could affect a successful outcome.
  • The framework does not address how to use media once it has been selected.
  • The framework does not consider which content might lend itself to certain media more than others.
• How well does the framework align to your existing educational and pedagogical practices?
  • I like the SECTIONS framework because it has clearly defined criteria and guidelines that can be applied. The framework provides a clear structure that can guide my thinking and conversations with clients. The other frameworks seemed more theoretical and abstract, which would be harder to explain to people without a background in learning and technology.
  • My preference is to let content (second only to learners) drive media selection, and this framework does not allow for that.
• How did the application of the framework impact your decision-making process?
  • I have not yet applied the framework because I am still assessing the existing materials to see how the content can be improved. Once I have a solid grasp on what content needs to be created, I will be in a better position to select the appropriate media and tool. However, after reviewing the top tools for learning, I have identified the following categories that I will assess against the framework:
    • Writing tools
    • Language tools
    • Video tools
    • Graphic design tools
    • Presentation tools
    • Content sharing platforms
    • Audio tools
    • Animation tools
    • Internet tools
    • Learner response tools
• Which components of the framework did you find most valuable to your decision-making process? Why?
  • It would be difficult to call out any one component of the framework as more useful than another, but I would have appreciated a greater level of detail regarding organizational issues, networking, and security and privacy, as those components were not as robust as the other components.

Below is a critical reflection on my experience completing the first two phases of design thinking – empathy and define – following Stanford’s d.school model. My reflection follows the what – so what – now what model developed by Borton (1970).

As part of feedback I received on my academic paper outline, Dr. Irwin DeVries encouraged me to give myself “some room to explore a little more freely” (personal communication, May 2018).  I am going to apply his feedback to my blog and do a bit of uncensored freewriting for this post.

Where to start? I feel like I am behind in this course because I have been overwhelmed working on three instructional design projects for my clients simultaneously. But I am obviously learning something from LRNT526 because I just finished creating a full-day training course that applied the concept of critical inquiry, which is what this course is about.

While creating a training course, I realized having learners create their own learning materials (job aides, checklists, etc.) is not only aligned with constructivism, self-directed learning, and critical inquiry but also is extremely convenient in a time crunch. (I had just five days to create the course from start to finish.)

Preparing a learning plan and outline as part of a larger deliverable for LRNT526 has shown me the practical value of taking time to reflect before moving forward. I have been introduced to critical reflection in other courses, but this is the first time I have had the chance to practice it mindfully in real-life. I spent all day Monday reviewing content inputs and my previous MALAT readings to decide on the instructional design approach I would take, and I am so happy with the results. I hope my clients will be too when I present the course for their sign off tomorrow.

So, what does the training course I created have to do with curated video libraries and digital learning modalities? Absolutely nothing. The course I created will be delivered entirely face-to-face, and given the short turnaround, creating educational videos and getting sign-offs was not possible. That said, what I learned about learner engagement as part of my research into educational video has proven valuable, both professionally and academically.

I struggled initially to settle on a grounding learning theory for my academic paper, so I ended up going down a bit of a rabbit hole and spent a few (very enjoyable) hours reading a variety of articles about learning theories that support learner engagement.

The articles were not documented in my learning plan, and not all of them will make it into my final paper, but out of genuine curiosity, I found myself digging into the connection between learner engagement and interaction, the interaction equivalency theorem, situated learning, transactional distance, self-directed learning, and learner control.

One quote in particular stood out to me:  “effective learning environments are framed within the convergence of four overlapping lenses” (p.47, Anderson, 2006). Those lenses are community-centred, knowledge-centred, learner-centred, and assessment-centred (Anderson, 2006). I realized in my exploration of educational videos as a learning modality, and my focus on learner engagement in particular, I was taking a very learner-centred approach.

In my readings, I also returned to the debate between Kozma (1994) and Clark (1994). They debated whether the medium itself influences learning or whether the choice of how to use media (aka instructional design decisions) influence learning. I do not think the debate was ever fully resolved, as both authors made valid points, but as I conclude this post, I cannot help but notice my discussion of educational video as a learning modality spent less time reflecting on the medium and more time on its supporting theories.

My freewriting has come to an end. My apologies for the long post, but as Blaise Pascal has been attributed as saying, “I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter” (translation by Quote Investigator, 2o12).

References

Anderson, T. A. U. (2006). Towards a Theory of Online Learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed., Vol. 2006, pp. 195–215). Edmonton: Athabasca University.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Education Technology Research and Development, 37, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299046

QuoteInvestigator (2012). If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter. Retrieved from https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/

I have spent the last decade working on enterprise technology and business process improvement initiatives as part of an organizational change management team. As a result, I had a hard time appreciating the theories and perspectives mentioned in the change management articles for this unit.

In particular, I struggled with the fact that the multiple change theories discussed in the articles by Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015), Biech (2007) and Weiner (2009) failed to include an organizational change model, Prosci, which is currently being practiced around the world.

Prosci is a change management company that provides related training, research, and consulting services to corporations. The company compiles an annual best practices guide for change management based on a robust global survey of organizations undergoing change. It has also developed the ADKAR model of change, a change management toolkit, a change management maturity model, and many other resources for organizations.

I suspect the oversight of Prosci in the literature is because Prosci’s research does not meet the research criteria demanded of academic publications; however, I believe research conducted using real organizations and real change management issues is more relevant than theoretical readings.

For example, I learned the “ready, willing, and able” concept on-the-job, and I appreciated the simplicity that the phrase embodied. Years later, I am now discovering the theory behind the phrase. Weiner (2009) unnecessarily complicated this approach in his discussion of change valence and change efficacy; it was not until he defined organizational readiness as “a state of being both psychologically and behaviorally prepared to take action (i.e., willing and able)” (p. 2) that I was able to connect my professional experience with theory.

In practice, I typically follow Prosci’s ADKAR model when developing change management plans for my clients. ADKAR stands for awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. Though each stage could include multiple change management interventions, I use typically map awareness to communication activities, desire to leadership activities, knowledge and ability to training activities, and reinforcement to performance support activities.

I have also read Kotter’s Leading Change (1996), Johnson’s Who Moved My Cheese (1998), and Boston Consulting Group’s The Change Monster (2002). Each of these books has informed my understanding of change management.

A senior change management practitioner once told me that no matter what goes right during a change initiative, lack of leadership support would guarantee a project to fail. She said she would never accept a client contract without first meeting with the executive sponsor and confirming he or she was fully committed to supporting the change initiative.

Her comments speak to the importance of leadership in managing change. Biech’s (2007) change model talks about the need to harmonize and align leadership; Weiner (2009) talks about how leaders need to communicate and act consistently in support of change; Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) draw on the leadership discipline as part of their change management literature review. While Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) do not explicitly mention leadership in the taxonomy of change literature or systematic change method, the need for effective leadership during change is woven throughout their discussion.

While I understand the connection between leadership and change management, I am having a hard time making the connection between change management and digital learning environments the way I think these readings are intended. I see digital learning environments as being used in support of larger change management initiatives, not as a driver of change itself. While education technology trends are appearing such as the movement toward open access publishing, massive open online courses, and more flexible learning management systems, I see these changes on quite a small scale compared to the other enterprise projects I work on. These issues would be more prominent in K-12 and higher education and would require significant leadership support to create change in those institutions, but I see changes to digital learning environments as far more incremental and easier to manage in the corporate world.

References

Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.

Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. 235.

Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).

Prosci (2018). People. Change. Results. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from prosci.com

Definitions

design principles – what influences how you create a learning environment, how the principles can improve learning

innovation: the introduction of something new; a new idea, method, or device 

impact on learning: the direct effect on the knowledge or skill acquired by instruction

reliance on technology: dependence on technical capabilities to accomplish a task; confidence in a manner of accomplishing a task based on experience

risk: the possibility of loss or injury; someone or something that creates or suggests a hazard; the chance that an investment will lose value

the value proposition of innovation in design: a clear, simple statement of the benefits, both tangible and intangible, that [a new idea, method, or device in [a plan or protocol for accomplishing learning]] will provide, along with the approximate price … for those benefits

Simplicity

I see simplicity as about minimalism – include only what is absolutely needed to contribute to learning. If it doesn’t add value for a learner, don’t include it. Simplicity encompasses language, aesthetics, navigations, and all other elements of the user experience.

• innovation – including only what is essential will be a new idea for my clients who will likely want lots of “bells and whistles”
• impact on learning – reduces cognitive load for learners
• reliance on technology – the technology tool needs to match the complexity of the learning needs
• usability; – want to test how usable the software is for development and for end users; not sure whether it will live up to its promise of usability
• risk – to learners: not being able to use the elearning platform; to me: offering a solution that doesn’t work; to clients: technology fails, learning outcomes not achieved
• the value proposition of innovation in design – benefits = better learning outcomes

Customization

All content I develop is unique for my clients and based on their situations; it cannot be pulled from off the shelf resources because even if the technology is off the shelf, their business processes aren’t.

I also need to include design elements that provide contextual clues so learners feel like what they are learning is part of the corporate culture and brand. There should be no cognitive dissonance and they shouldn’t be distracted by elements of the design that aren’t on-brand or what they would expect from their company.

• innovation – all content is new
• impact on learning – avoid cognitive dissonance with branding
• reliance on technology – the technology is off the shelf, not customized;
• usability – how much will the software allow for customization? is it a hard or soft technology?
• risk: to learners – content included is too out of the box to be of value; to me: software doesn’t allow for level of customization required
• the value proposition of innovation in design – benefits = unique to the company, contextual – link to adult learning best practice

Productivity = Effectiveness + Efficiency

End users are busy and have demanding jobs on top of the training they are being asked to take, so it’s important not to waste users time. Users should be able to advance as quickly as possible through the training if they are able to demonstrate they are able to meet learning outcomes. Learners should be given the choice to take longer to learn some concepts than others if needed. This ultimately comes down to learner control and self-paced instruction. Anything that doesn’t need to be included shouldn’t be because it is inefficient and ineffective. This connects to the design principle of simplicity.

• innovation – allowing users to be self-paced and have learner control will be new
• impact on learning – self-pacing and automoty follows adult learning best practices
• reliance on technology – using the technology to develop the training will allow for faster development, feedback, revisions; productivity will only be achieved if the technology works the way it promises
• usability – how quickly can you learn the software, as both a developer and a learner?
• risk: to learners, the software is hard to use and will embarrass them if they don’t know how to use it; it will take them longer to do than in person; to me: solution is not cost effective for clients; to clients: they will lose money/time vs. costs of delivering in person
• the value proposition of innovation in design – saves money vs. in person time; users see value in taking the training; may be more receptive to future training

Pragmatism

This design principle is less learner focused and more client focused. I believe that learning solutions need to reflect the reality of a situation and not always the ideal or best practice, depending on the constraints you are working with. Sometimes that means learning is compromised, and that’s a trade-off I will advise my clients of so they can make an informed decision against other variables. The technology solution I propose needs to work for my clients. The risk to them needs to be minimal. The solution needs to meet my clients needs.

• innovation – the new authoring software is a new development method for my clients; e-learning delivery in this format will be new to my clients and some end users
• impact on learning – there may be trade offs here and some end users may have a hard time learning technology while also learning how to use elearning
• reliance on technology – as long as the client can keep the package, and it works, they don’t care what technology is used
• usability – will using the software be practical for office workers to use?
• risk – the solution will not be pragmatic; this solution minimizes risk of other solutions
• the value proposition of innovation in design – can be delivered on time and on budget and meet needs

Sustainability

This is where I see the biggest opportunity for innovation, because my clients don’t seem to understand the value of creating something that will have some longevity. They are only focused on the here and now, and are less concerned with updates to the content later on. For example, the materials created for online learning can be accessed over and over again as performance support but delivering an ILT course in the classroom can only be used once. Clients don’t care if a course is responsive, but they will be happy the course can be converted to responsive once that becomes a requirement, without having to redo content. Using a subscription based cloud software also ensures that clients always have access to the latest functionality for future improvements.

• innovation – the idea of easy iterations and updates will be new to my clients
• impact on learning – delivery is not one time but can be delivered over time as performance support tool
• reliance on technology – will have access to the latest technology features going forward
• usability – how can usability features be built in at the outset to ensure future updates are easy? how easy is it to make revisions based on user feedback?
• risk to learners – it’s hard to re-access content; to me: clients are unhappy with needing to engage me for changes rather than making them in house; to clients: that they will have spent more on a solution they never intend to sustain
• the value proposition of innovation in design – future changes will cost less; reduce errors by learners because they can revisit content

Quality

This is a personal value that I hold. I take pride in my work and want to make sure that whatever I deliver to my clients is above average. I define quality as meeting my clients needs, being learner focused, following instructional design and graphic design and technology and multimedia best practices, delivering by deadline and within their budget, and making sure every deliverable is one I would be proud to include in my portfolio. It really is about doing good work. I would need to reflect on how this connects to innovation.

• innovation – new management will not know what to expect, so they will be surprised by the level of quality I deliver; the technology provides superior quality to PPT
• impact on learning – a focus on quality will ensure learning outcomes
• reliance on technology – Rise is a quality product and industry recognized
• usability – if users can’t use it, the software isn’t a quality product
• risk – that the software is low quality
• the value proposition of innovation in design – delivers on need for prototype and is sets a standard of excellence for the rest of the company – makes clients look good; learners want to work for a company that invests in them

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_propositionhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/designhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/riskhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usablehttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usabilityhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovationhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learninghttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impacthttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technologyhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relied

Below is an iterative version of the case I have chosen to develop based on the two instances of new or renewed learning practices in my organization. It will be republished with more content as I develop it. Comments and questions are welcome during the development process.

• A title – used to introduce the reader to what this case is a case of.
  • Keywords: online, e-learning, Storyline, Articulate, Rise, cloud-based, authoring tool, content, simplicity, cognitive load, technology training, business process training; digital learning environments (DLE)
  • Working title: Using a cloud-based e-learning authoring tool to design online business process and technology training for office workers
  • Working title: Using Rise as a DLE to integrate business process and software training for office workers
• A quote – positions your case within a broader human experience. Could be a quote taken from a range of sources (i.e., historical figure, common knowledge, participant in the case, etc.)
  • I love Einstein – find a quote from him that might work
  • Everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/)
• An introduction – several paragraphs that help the reader to understand why the case under study is important and has significance to the organization in which the case is situated.  The introduction also explains the underlying issues inherent in the case and shares any required background information.
  • Why the case is important
    • moving from traditional classroom-based delivery to self-paced online delivery
    • using a cloud-based authoring tool
    • aligns with principles of adult learning
    • may lead to more effective learning solutions
    • removes barriers to e-learning development
    • other organizations can learn from this organization
  • Why it is significant to the organization
    • conservative and traditional corporate culture
    • has relied on the status quo for a long time and is now seeing a cultural shift
    • this is a pilot project
    • if successful, other areas of the company will want to follow suit
    • potential to save the company money – ROI would need to be calculated
    • if it fails, learners will make mistakes with large industrial customers that could have significant negative consequences; a highly regulated industry, so mistakes would be not only financial from customer impacts but potentially legal from fines/penalties
  • Underlying issues
    • time and resource constraints on project – must be delivered by mid-February and estimated hours is over 400 – not enough time available
    • opportunity – budget is sufficient to do quality work
  • Required background information
    • Has the client used e-learning before? yes, but it has been clunky with more robust software than needed, and more expensive than it should have been
    • Has the client used the proposed authoring tool before? no
    • How has my client delivered previous technology and business process training? in-class, instructor-led training, typically PPT demos but no active scenario-based participation or practice; some e-learning has been used with practice scenarios, but the e-learning software was difficult for learners to use, which reduced the effectiveness of the training
    • vendor-provided software training is available but is off the shelf, not customized to the company’s business processes; client thinks the training materials are of sufficient quality (basically annotated screen captures)
    • a gap analysis has been conducted on what is changing; the expectation is to train to the gap – current vs new
    • previous experience working with this client has been positive but there has been a change in management that could affect client relationship – future work is at stake
• Case Narrative – shares the story of the case and the evidence.  This section is descriptive and forms the bulk of the case.  It could include charts, pictures, graphics, statistics, etc.
  • Who: learners are all office workers and already have some familiarity with computers; assumption that they are computer literate to level X (need to check Stats Canada levels again); the number of learners taking the training is approximately 25; learners are likely taking the training because they have to, not because they want to
  • What: training is for customer relationship management software; there is a need to integrate the vendor-provided training with business-specific process in a way that is seamless
  • When: training will have a limited shelf life of about 3-6 months before it is outdated and requires refreshing because IT/processes are continually changing
  • Where: training will be delivered online at learners’ computers.
  • Why: the company is moving from multiple IT platforms in multiple business units to one platform across all business units – ensures continuity across the company, reduces risk, and helps manage upgrades/infrastructure long-term
  • How: Learners will use either desktops or laptops. Does not require mobile optimization. Client wants to own the file on its intranet but does not care about how it is created, as long as they own it and it works; proposed authoring tool is Articulate Rise
• Discussion – analyzes the case narrative and helps the reader to understand the learning environment innovation from either a new or renewed perspective
  • the challenge will be to use an online delivery tool to deliver the training in a way that lets learners focus on the subject matter at hand and not on learning the online tool.
  • The online tool needs to be intuitive, user-friendly, simple, easy to access, navigate, load, stop and return to
  • All design decisions related to use of the tool need to reduce cognitive load
  • Design decisions need to integrate content that I have no say over; it needs to repurpose vendor-supplied materials and client-supplied materials
• Questions – prompts for the readers to consider or questions for the readers to answer for the case writer to help move the case forward or further develop the situation described in the case
  • How will using Articulate Rise enable or support e-learning?
  • How can I reduce the cognitive load for learners?
  • What can I do to engage uninterested learners?
  • How can I layer content for all computer abilities? Or should I assume everyone is starting at the same baseline?
  • What should I assume is already known? How can I determine that?
  • Even though my client doesn’t care about sustainability now, how can I put measures in place to make updating the content easier and cost-effective later on?
  • How will I measure success? How will end users measure success? How will my clients measure success?
  • What will be different about e-learning that will make it better than classroom training? How can I make sure e-learning is more effective than classroom training?
  • What kind of changes will I need to make to the process of developing content for e-learning vs the classroom?
• Resources and References – used to support the case and provide additional information
  • Link to articulate rise website

Below are my annotations for Innovation and change: Changing how we change by Dron (2014).

Major Theory

• The terms soft and hard technologies is confusing as compared to software and hardware; I don’t understand why academics insist on creating and using obscure terminology
• “What makes a technology softer or harder is the degree to which humans are colmpelled to, may, or should make creative choices” (p.242). Personal example: my boyfriend and I wanted to create a photobook. I preferred the more restrictive “hard” technology because it enforced graphic design principles, while my boyfriend lamented its restrictions for not enabling his creativity

Open Questions

• “It becomes increasingly difficult to find the most effective and relevant OERs” (p. 248) – Perhaps the educational sector needs a company like Google to help rank and prioritize content. Does Research Gate or do academic journals already fulfil this function?
• “The use of adaptive hypermedia (AH) in which a single set of resources can be adapted to many different user needs” (p. 249) – repurpose contenting is done all the time in marketing by adapting content for different media platforms; the argument that AH is difficult to produce can be flipped to argue repurposing the same content multiple ways is faster than creating new content for each purpose.
• “It is difficult to improve flexibility without also increasing difficulties or at least complexity for learners” (p. 249). The question for designers should be, what will be most effective for learners? An inflexible authoring tool for designers may create the simplest, easier solution for learners. There are always trade offs
• “Their [AH] cost effectiveness remains open to question” (p. 249) – Perhaps designers need to consider how user generated content can be used to reduce costs.

Implications for Practice

• “If it is assumed that change is a good (or at least a necessary) thing, then it is important that an organization designs the processes and procedures to support it (p. 251); this is a big assumption that not everyone may agree with. While change may be inevitable, not everyone will agree that it is good or necessary. Many organizations are resistant to change and would prefer to stick with the status go.
• “even the most well-meaning centralized IT departments are bound by the need to cater for everyone to produce something that is, inevitably, a compromise for some, if not all, who wish to use it” (p. 256). A great example of this is the limitations imposed by RRU on the use of WordPress plugins and other functionality. Additional functionality would benefit learners but could create complications for the IT department.
• “There are no simple answers to this problem apart from careful adherence to standards (as they emerge) for interfaces, coding, and design” (p. 257-258). I would suggest taking a page from the publishing world. Publishers have been relying on editorial style guides for decades, if not longer, to help ensure consistency and enforce standards.

References

Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda.Athabasca, AB: AU Press.

Below are my annotations for Assessing d. learning by Goldman et al. (2012).

Introduction and background

Research question: “How can we understand what is learned in design thinking classes, and how might assessments contribute to that process in authentic and helpful ways?” (p.14)

From mindsets to mindshifts

Definition of mindshift: “active shifts that students are making …” and “re-synthesis and reorientation of their worldviews, routes, and propensities in problem-solving” (p. 15)

Consider fixed versus growth mindset

• Question: how is a growth mindset different from a mindshift?
• Answer: they are very similar; a mindshift is “the active process of developing a mindset” (p. 22)

Four key mindshifts:

1. Human-centred – “focus on empathy for others” (p. 16); consider needs of other people, not your own needs
2. Experimental – “everything may be considered a prototype” (p. 17); be prepared to evolve your ideas
3. Collaborative – collaboration is needed for problem-solving
4. Metacognitive – being aware of what stage you are in when in the design thinking process

Needs

• Students need subject matter knowledge and skill to innovate
• 21st century skills = cultural shift, what skills are needed to succeed today
• Current assessment methods are lacking; new assessment/metrics needed to measure 21st century skills — see Silva (2008) for details

Theoretical perspectives

This section talked about a number of theoretical perspectives but lacked structure and focus for me to make sense of them in any meaningful way. Three key points stood out:

• Design thinking = problem solving – this finally clicked for me
• “based in experiential and sociocognitive view of learning” (p.19)
• Constructionism (Papert) – people learn by creating tangible outputs of ideas

Research methods and analysis

This section described activities taken to iterate the assessment tool prototypes discussed in the next section. It would be worth revisiting if I were ever to create a similar research study, but otherwise could be skipped over.

Assessment tool prototypes

Four assessment tool prototypes were developed:

1. The reflective assessment rubric – includes mindshifts listed above; three levels of expertise; related skills (interviewing, prototyping, synthesis, persistence, resilience, adaptability, risk-taking, brainstorming, bias toward action, storytelling, process vocabulary, collaboration); outcome: rubric is inappropriate for assessing mindshifts
2. The windaboolah experiment task – performance based task; students were asked to participate in a design challenge, to design an ambiguous, made-up item with specific criteria; this allowed for assessment of human-centred mindshifts based on level of experience with design thinking
3. The designing twenty-first century learning spaces task – reflection based task; assesses human-centred mindshifts; requires guidelines for scoring responses
4. The assessment dashboard – visual online dashboard to document learning progress as it happens and over time, including relevant skills, process stages, portfolio of work

I’m not sure I would use any of these activities or assessment tool prototypes in my own work. They lack the rigor and practicality my clients would expect of an assessment tool.

Summary and discussion

The majority of the paper and therefore this section focused on human-centred mindshifts. I would have liked to learn more about the other mindshifts identified as well.

References

Goldman, S. et al. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (eds). Design thinking research: Understanding innovation. (pp. 13-33). Berlin: Springer.

Tasked with a design challenge in course LRNT524: Innovation, Design, and Learning Environments at Royal Roads University, we (Gavin S. and Amber M.) partnered up to participate in Stanford’s d.school design thinking process (Stanford, 2016). Together, we reached a solution that encourages learners in our respective organizations to take intellectual risks and be engaged in their learning community.

Context

Through design thinking, we discovered our organizations and learners have some crossover.

Our organizations

Both organizations require ongoing, hands-on, skills-based training for learners as well as tracking for regulatory compliance. Both struggle with inconsistent instructor delivery, limited budgets, and difficulty coordinating in-person sessions.

Our learners

Learners hold safety-sensitive positions in both organizations (Amber’s are trades workers; Gavin’s are volunteer firefighters). Learners are geographically dispersed and located in remote communities, have different levels of computer savvy and technological comfort, and work variable hours that make attending scheduled training a challenge.

In-person training is critical for our learners, so we focused on prototyping an online learning community that would drive offline (real life) engagement and intellectual risk-taking.

Empathic Design

Our prototype incorporated four layers of sensitivity found in empathic design (Mattelmaki et al, 2014). Our learners have various skill sets, motivations, and needs we needed to account for (sensitivity toward humans) while ensuring content was relevant, authentic, and problem-based (sensitivity toward design) through real-time and in-person delivery that drove teamwork (sensitivity toward collaboration) and used technology appropriate for all levels of experience (sensitivity toward techniques).

Prototype

One prototype component used was gamification, with an approach similar to consumer rewards credit cards (the more it’s used, the greater the reward). Below are four features we came up with:

Learning target

Organizations assign a target value (e.g., 10,000 virtual points) to each learner’s annual learning plan. To demonstrate they have met their learning plan, learners must reach the target value. They can accumulate points by participating in learning activities. This feature addresses the organizational need for compliance tracking and sets expectations for learners, reflecting Gagne’s second event of instruction, expectancy (Thomas, 2010).

Flexibility of choice

Learners decide how to earn points by choosing which activities to participate in (e.g., attend in-person training events, respond to peer questions in discussion forums, or share lessons learned via blog posts) based on geographic or time availability. This feature uses self-directed learning (Merriam, 2001, as cited in Vann, 2017) and personalization (Bates, 2016) to mitigate obstacles to learner engagement.

Engagement and intellectual risk-taking

Points correspond to learning activities based on the engagement and intellectual risk-taking required. Attending training events might equal 1000 points while asking or responding to questions might equal 250. Based on social constructivism (Anderson, 2016), this feature directly addresses our design challenge.

Motivation

Progress is tracked with points. At key milestones or achievement levels (e.g., 2500, 5000, 7500, and 10000 points), learners can redeem points for real-life, tangible rewards. Each achievement level provides more rewarding options, allowing learners to “level up.” Learners can also choose rewards most meaningful to them. This feature draws on motivation theory (The RSA, 2010) and behaviourism (Ertmer & Newby, 1993) by encouraging continued learner participation.

Anticipated Challenges

We empathize with the struggles our learners face and know our prototype does not address all of them. An online community that is device and platform agnostic might remove technology barriers, live-streaming or on-demand services might mitigate geographic obstacles, and events in multiple locations might help avoid scheduling issues. Even so, we acknowledge our prototype is in its infancy.  Do you have suggestions for testing our prototype or improving its features? We welcome your feedback in the comments.

References

Anderson, T. (2016). Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning: Foundations and Applications (p. 38). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771991490.01

Bates, T. (2016). Choosing and using media in education. In Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning (pp. 334). Vancouver BC: Tony Bates Associates https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Ertmer, P.A. & Newby, T.J. (1993) Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.

Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What Happened to Empathic Design? Design Issues, 30(1), 67–77. Retrieved from  http://10.0.4.138/DESI_a_00249

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning continue to be important to our present-day understanding of adult learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-13. doi:10.1002/ace.3

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A virtual crash course in design thinking. Retrieved from http://dschool.stanford.edu/dgift/

The RSA (April 1, 2010). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc

Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and Instructional Systems Design, 181–290. Retrieved from http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/4245/04Chap 3_Learning and instructional systems design.pdf

Vann, L. S. (2017). Demonstrating Empathy: A Phenomenological Study of Instructional Designers Making Instructional Strategy Decisions for Adult Learners. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(2), 233–244. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe?