Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash
As I reflect on the design thinking process and the digital learning resource (DLR) that was created from engaging in this process, I now delve into consideration for all that went into the design, subsequent iterations based on formative feedback received and improvements to come based on summative feedback. The Human Centered Needs Assessment led to the creation of a MoodleCloud course that delivers policy and procedure training from a constructivist approach in which the learners ultimately co-create policy as a form of knowledge collaboration and knowledge construction.
The most surprising part of the entire design thinking process was the notion that this prototype would not have been created without the information that was gleaned from the human centered needs assessment. The importance of interviewing for empathy cannot be understated in my experience thorough the design thinking process as it was an effective way to gain access to the thoughts and feelings of the individuals for which a DLR is being designed (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016, p. 12). As the design plan developed, elements were created to, not only meet the needs of the users but also to reflect multiple perspectives and elicit metacognition, problem solving and exploration. Taking a beginners mindset was an essential part of the process as it allowed me to remain curious and unbiased (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016, p. 9). During the development phase, formative peer feedback fostered concepts of scaffolding and authentic activities. The summative feedback received included measurable outcomes to be added to the learning goals, the addition of activity submission guidelines and increased instruction for assignment completion as well as information about how the learners can expect to get feedback.
Further investigation will need to go into the area of design elements that focus on reducing cognitive load. This DLR was intentionally designed to utilize segmentation as a way to reduce cognitive load (Mayer, 2003, Wong et. al., 2012), however more design elements are needed. Policies and Procedure training has been heavily text based in the past and building more elements into the MoodleCloud to reduce cognitive load is expected to improve the learning outcomes. Hypermedia and voice-over videos were some suggestions that will be explored and incorporated.
The next steps that will be taken for this digital learning resource are the incorporate of the feedback that has been received into the resource so that a beta test can be completed with next round of placement students that are beginning this September at our organization. The feedback gleaned from a beta test is expected to produce improvements in future iterations of this digital learning resource.
Some feedback that was unanticipated was the need for technical support or orientation for how to use the MoodleCloud interface itself. These pieces were overlooked in the initial designing of this DLR and will be created and implemented in the next iteration.
The design thinking process has proven to be very useful for gathering information required to not only understand the user needs of a DLR but also for the incorporation of design elements that meet as many user requirements as possible. The design thinking process will continue, in future iterations, to inform the evolution of this DLR and contribute to continued improvements. Throughout the development of this digital learning resource a design thinking challenge was introduced at an All Staff Meeting. The design thinking process was a new experience for the staff members who participated and was very well received. The design thinking process, as a result, has been approved by the management team to be incorporated into the development of, not only the design of subsequent learning resources but also future program design as well. It should be noted that the design thinking process benefits from being scaled in the sense that larger projects need more time in each phase of the process. Careful planning and intentional implementation of design thinking are expected to result in superior product and process design in our organization.
References
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf
Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient
information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004
August 17, 2019 at 6:06 pm
Theresa, I agree that it is surprising how much the design of a learning resources can change when designing using design principles. I think I found in particularly surprising, because I always thought I did design with the end-user in mind, but it’s hard to do that meaningfully without the right kinds of consultation.
I’m excited to hear about the impact the design thinking process had on your organization, including that it has been approved for future learning resources. It’s always exciting to see such a direct impact from our learning in the MALAT program.