Month: December 2017

My thoughts, concerns and questions from Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker (Goldman, 2012). 

How can we understand what is learned in design thinking classes, and how might assessments contribute to that process in authentic and helpful ways?

Mindset vs Mindshifts:

Mindshifts represent the active shifts that a student makes during the design process. They consider instincts and viewpoints. It’s a change in thinking and can happen quickly and intensely or slowly and gradual. Carol Dweck (2007) states that growth in mindsets can be learned through hardwork towards problem solving. Mindshifts can be difficult to observe, it would be assumed that to assess they you would focus on tangible things like processes and skill development. However, throughout this study, that viewpoint was shifted to looking more at the epistemological aspects during the evaluation of design thinkers.

4 Key Mindshifts:

Human-Centered:

• Focuses on empathy for others
• Designers begin to think of the needs, desires, experiences, or preferences of others over their own
• Determine or create design that benefit others

Is there a link or advantage for people who are naturally empathetic in their personal lives? Can that be easily transferred from personality to the designer?

Experimental:

• Focuses on the evolution of design and considering everything as a “prototype” open to constant shifting or change.

Collaborative:

• Working collaboratively is essential for innovation to occur and to develop stronger problem solving skills.

Metacognitive:

• Awareness of the learned process and the ability to respond in an agile manor.

Needs of Students in the 21^st Century:

• Skills required to be innovative in this day and age are:
  • Problem solving, critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity, and innovation.
  • Content learning, life skills, innovation, and fluency with technologies like media and web functionalities are also critical.

Overall Takeaways:

• Design thinking encourages out of the box thinking
• Technology has made significant advancements in almost all fields from medicine to communication, however when it comes to learning and development, resources are still somewhat archaic in design and have seen little shift or evolution.
• Not enough onus is on the collection of information on student learning to provide it to individuals who are decision makers capable of supporting ongoing training initiatives.
• Design thinking = problem solving and creative confidence
• Design thinking puts doing and innovating at the center of problem solving
• Heightened confidence in thinking things out and finding a new dimension to flush out concepts and innovative challenges, seem to empower students to truly make a difference and change in their lives professionally, personally, and even globally.
• Mindshifts express the developmental journey of becoming a design thinkers and behaviours and orientation change while somebody is in the process of becoming a design thinker.

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. 

 

 

My thoughts, concerns and questions from Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change (Dron, 2014)

What changes and innovations have occurred in distance education?

• Single Mode (print/radio)
• Mixed Mode (telephone tutors/CD-ROMs)
• Social Mode (LMS/Forums)

Distance pedagogies:

• First started out using behaviourist/cognitivist theories that focused on how people learn.
• The second generation is based on social constructivist focusing on how knowledge is constructed socially.
• The third generation is connectivist theory stating that learning is done through the relationship humans have within a network and this includes non-human elements.
• Lastly, the fourth generation goes by “holist” and states that no pedagogy really reigns supreme.
• When behaviourist/cognitivist theories were at the forefront of distance learning, systematic design methods were used to ensure formalized steps.
• Distance education used to be a fixed series of steps.

What I took from this information is that the means of delivering distance education has continued to evolve throughout the years, from technology like a radio, where information was given in one direction, to platforms that encourage back and forth collaboration and contribution (like discussion forums and interactive learning management systems). It makes me wonder however, does the delivery change because of the technology evolution solely? Or is pedagogy truly considered when changes are implemented?

How does such change come about? What are drivers, what are the obstacles to change?

• Technology itself seems like the key driver of change of distance education.
• Quick growth with technology can be attributed to accelerated rates of available technologies combining and recombining which ultimately creates faster development and progress.
• With knowledge happening through social and collaborative methods, technologies have changed to become softer (see below) to become more agile and uncertain.
• Ultimately, softer technologies have contributed more to the change in distance education.
• Disruptive technologies could be the levers for change for structured systems.
• Resources and knowledge skills are seen as main barriers for overcoming difficulty in the education sector. Access in general seems to be the ultimate barrier for distance education as a whole.
• LMS systems are prominently used however as a whole they are typically hard and rigid technologies, leaving less room for flexibility, creativity, and innovation. The driver for change here is how these platforms can blend and house space within it to allow for learners to create and think outside of the confines while still providing guardrails within the learning system.

How should change be managed in a distance environment?

• The concept of Hard vs. Soft Technologies can help designers and educators manage distance education (or eLearning in general).
• Soft Technologies are described as malleable, slower to produce, less consistent, and they offer flexibility to the user. Pedagogies are considered soft technologies.
• Hard Technologies are described as quicker to produce, require less effort, and are more consistent than soft technologies.
• Designers can add or take away techniques to make the system harder or softer depending on their requirements.
• The degree of hard or softness is noted to be determined by the user competency. If the designer or teacher can understand the needs of the learner or level to which they are comfortable with technology, the proper delivery methods can be put into place to accommodate and create an effective learning environment.
• An important thing to note is the discussion on how distance education and many other online avenues are taking the approach of quick and easy results, therefore stunting creativity while sacrificing efficiency.
• Overall, it seems that hard technologies are more resistant to change which I think in my line of work makes sense to some degree as we require consistency and sustainability in certain training requirements. In other environments like higher education where creativity can add value to learner, I understand the benefits of choosing more open, softer, technologies.
• RLOs can allow for change in distance education as they allow flexibility and the ability to adapt and change contexts where necessary. They did however face issues in the long term when it came to copyright, granularities and other factors. They seem to be better served in the education sector.

Overall learnings:

• It’s not enough for technologies to change for change to occur in distance education.
• It’s not whether people choose to use a new technology but more of whether the technology even has real value.

The learning theory that is/was prevalent at the time has a direct effect on the progression of change within distance education. Behaviourist/Cognitivist approach caused slower innovation whereas connectivist approaches fundamentally embrace change and promote innovation. However, the point is made about courses being built on these loose approaches, experiencing higher dropout rates and lack of commitment. If the new age learner is expecting to control their learning and go at their own pace, and we build training programs for them for that reason, will we see a lack of interest and learning growth?

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.