As part of LRNT 524 at Royal Roads University, one of our assigned readings was “Design thinking research: Measuring performance in context” (2102) by Goldman. It was interesting to see what their study confirmed what myself and my assignment partner concluded for our recent analysis. As part of Assignment 2, we were asked to come up with a prototype to help student in our respective organizations develop a sense of inclusion. Our proposed idea was to teach the process of web design. However, what we concluded, and what was reaffirmed by feedback on our blogpost, was that the strength of our strategy was to teach the design model known as ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation). My personal observation was that this process was precisely the same that I adopt in my field of work. And through the assignment, I have finally come to appreciate the value that process brings not only in my own line of work, and instructional design as well, but ultimately to any design process.
The only correction we would have needed to make was to recognize that what we were actually referring to was not just teaching ADDIE, but as the article emphasizes, we were proposing to teach “design thinking.” The article further substantiates our observations, but revealed that our conclusions have been shared by others. The purpose of our proposed prototype was to teach technical literacy. But what we found was that there was a higher order competency that would help students better understand the value of the technology they would be making use of, but helping them learn that the design process, the development of tools to be used by others, is founded on “empathy,” or what Goldman (2012) in this case refers to as “human centered” design (p. 17).
As Goldman (2012) notes, “The experimental mindshift is characterized by a realization that everything may be considered a prototype” (p. 17). The value of learning of this process, therefore, is applicable to a multitude of situations, and can be applied to the design of any situation or product, from a marketing strategy, a business plan, website, industrial design product, or even a course of instruction. The value learned is that we should approach all design projects with an understanding that we are designing for a particular need, and that we first need to understand the true nature of that need before we proceed. That need is determined by two things: an interview process, and then research to further explore the nature of that need, and to discover existing solutions, or to provide data to assist in design a new solution, if one does not already exist.
That aspect of the design process is the first phase of ADDIE: analysis. My only criticism of that process is that it fails to emphasize an important aspect of what constitutes analysis, and that is research. I’m not sure that research is implied in analysis, and if not, it should possibly be included as an additional letter in the acronym, would become: RADDIE. Because first comes research, then analysis. It is a process that we as students should have come to value, and that is the need for empirical approach, which seeks to substantiate any opinion or conclusion with either expert opinion or researched-based evidence. Likewise, its value applies to all situation, and therefore, not just to research, but to design. In my own field of work, this is known as “data-driven” design (MacDonald, 2016, n.p.).
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.
Jon MacDonald (2016, November 15). Getting started with data-driven design. Inside Design.