This week in LRNT 527, we were tasked with moving our design further along into the Define stage. For me to complete the define step, I needed to complete the empathy stage- which was my journey map. I ended up hitting a snag, as I originally had planned to use my new Chemistry 12 course that I had not seen yet. This would have allowed me to utilize the “beginner’s mindset” ( Stanford University Institute of Design [SUID], 2016, p. 6 ) as it would have been my first time moving through this new course and I would have less bias. Unfortunately, the courses were not released in time as planned. Therefore, I needed to go back and use one of my current courses that are running, but will soon be discontinued.
For my journey map, I put a timer on, and went through the first hour of my current Chemistry 12 course. This included logging in and trying to familiarize myself. After completing my hour in the course, I combined my new experience with my previously gathered observations, to create my journey map.
A few of my main takeaways from my own experience is how many videos there are for the student to watch. There was also a lack of engagement with the material, at least for the first hour of the course for me. Most interesting was the confirmation I got that the students are not watching and using the videos in the course. I confirmed this when watching the very first content video on the first page, which explained in detail how to complete a certain task ( Writing complete and net ionic equations). Oddly enough, this is one of the most asked questions I get on the first assignment, and one of the largest areas for mistakes. However, the video in the course clearly explains the steps and show multiple examples. If students are watching the videos they are not retaining the information needed. Another main insight I had, was that there did not need to be more videos for content delivery- and the current ones needed to be broken up a bit.
Once my journey map was completed, I started in the define stage. For this stage, I used a combination of a Point of view (POV) madlib and the Critical Reading Checklist (CRC) (SUID, 2016). I chose these two methods because I am completing this design challenge alone. Many of the other methods utilize teams and multiple perspectives, but I needed methods that I felt I could be successful at doing individually within our short time frame.
The POV Mad Lib allowed me to reconsider the needs in more detail of my user. The insight gained from my journey along with past observations highlighted many of my previous suspicions.
After completing my POV Madlib of I looked at the CRC and answered the questions “What is the point?” “Who says” “what’s new?” and Who cares?”
Of these 4 questions, the most intriguing one to me was what’s new? Having had made improvements to courses before, trying to look at approaching this in a new view is intriguing. Along with the results of the madlib, and the CRC, I adapted my POV to be
“DL students at WCLT have specific motivations and reasons for taking Chemistry 12; therefore, they need to engage more with the course content and the instructor at the start of the course to better understand the expectations of the course and be able to move through with more success.”
Overall, completing the empathy and design phase as confirmed my initial thoughts. It has shown me how slow and heavy the course starts out, which most likely is contributing to the confusion and slow start many students are having.
From here, we are off to Unit 2, where we start to design and create. Does anyone have any ideas for me to consider when it comes to my design of my digital learning resource?
Amanda
Reference
Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pd
I went down a similar path in the define stage, Amanda, for the same reasons. I was searching for a method that allowed for individual work as opposed to the best practice in design thinking: bringing an expert team together with different experience and perspective and find the right problems and the right solutions (Brown, 2009). Through the completion of the two first phases: Empathy and Define in the design thinking process, I have even a greater appreciation for the right amount of time it takes to conduct the empathetic process. After conducting the session and receiving the feedback and observations, I do feel that I have gained insight into the problem that incorporates the user’s perspective and gives a start into brainstorming for the ideating phase coming this week. The question is that within the course timeframe and working alone can I have a significant change, or will they be incremental improvements.
Reference
Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. NY: HarperBusiness.
Hi Beata,
Thank you for the feedback. It is always nice to hear when someone is having a similar experience. I agree, it is a challenge to take a step back and realize that the resources we are building may not “fix” the problem we are addressing, but be a step in the right direction. I am now thinking that it may be enough of a catalyst though to continue the process and continue to make small changes towards the end goal.
Thanks,
Amanda