{"id":490,"date":"2018-12-03T12:13:32","date_gmt":"2018-12-03T17:13:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0055\/?p=490"},"modified":"2019-01-09T10:05:32","modified_gmt":"2019-01-09T15:05:32","slug":"kate-dino-our-design-challenge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/malat-webspace.royalroads.ca\/rru0055\/kate-dino-our-design-challenge\/","title":{"rendered":"Kate & Dino: Our Design Challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kate designs global experiential learning cohorts for undergraduate programs. Dino leads learning and design efforts for pilot training at a Canadian airline. Despite having disparate contexts both are seeking blended learning strategies to increase, the utility, accessibility and engagement in their short-course training programs. <\/span><\/p>\n

Our problem scenario<\/b><\/p>\n

There is low student engagement (i.e. passive learning) during the introductory portion of the course in both contexts. Feedback suggests this is because the inductions are formatted to be content-driven and instructor-centred rather than learner-focused. <\/span><\/p>\n

For example, there is a high reliance on PowerPoints and ‘information dumping’ to cover the required content in Dino\u2019s train-the-trainer course. The three-day program content is bound by larger regulatory authorities and must incorporate a significant amount of theoretical and practical material. <\/span><\/p>\n

Whereas in Kate’s contexts, the information imparted is less structured and more experiential. The course guides learners through a series of curated projects related to their specific international settings and goals. <\/span><\/p>\n

Design thinking process <\/b><\/p>\n

In both contexts, traditional and inflexible instructional design models (e.g. ADDIE) were not best serving the experiential learning goals (Bates, 2014). Instead, we looked to learner-empathic approaches to explore and improve how students would experience the instruction (Parrish, 2006; 2008, as cited in Vann, 2017). Using the Stanford University Institute of Design (2016) design thinking process as a base, we co-constructed solutions by looking at our challenges from the lenses of user experience and learner-empathy. <\/span><\/p>\n

Through a cyclical process of inquiry and ideation, our design thinking took into consideration the shared parameters, challenges & needs showcased in Figure 1. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure 1.<\/span><\/i> Summary of challenges (own image).<\/span><\/p>\n

Solutions<\/b><\/p>\n

Once we defined and unpacked our student needs, we began to imagine a well-designed blended-learning environment that served as a community of practice. We realized a shared need to introduce strategies that would invite intellectual risk-taking, inciting curiosity and prompt deeper engagement. \u00a0For example, including auto-ethnographic approaches like inviting students to share their backgrounds, experiences, expectations at the outset of the course. <\/span><\/p>\n

Following multiple brainstorms, we compiled our respective ideas and came up with the following solution possibilities:<\/span><\/p>\n