When asked to articulate and then refine a ‘problem of practice’ from my current professional life, I didn’t have to contemplate very long to identify a challenge I was currently facing. As an instructor in higher education, I (along with many others) have been recently challenged to transition the courses I teach from traditional to remote delivery. I also find myself in the midst of a curriculum development project for one of the courses which recently underwent this rapid transition. Among other issues that have emerged throughout this project, I settled on the following for my problem of practice; how might we provide learners with an opportunity to demonstrate and perform skills-based learning outcomes in an online setting, in a way that is greater than or equal to what could be performed in the existing simulation lab?
This seemed like a fitting problem, in that it might lend itself well to a digital solution. However, after considering what Seelig (2013) suggested in the way of reframing a problem, I identified that the way in which I initially framed my problem might limit potentially fitting solutions. Seelig suggested that instead of only looking at the obvious problem from your own perspective, that you adjust your lense to consider alternative frames of reference (April 29, 2013). In this case, I zoomed out and widened my own frame of reference to ask why we might want to replicate the experience gained in a traditional simulation lab in the first place, instead of only asking how we might do so. Upon reflection, I identified that the reason why I was trying to create this experience remotely was because I believed (and had vetted this belief with industry input) that learners required authentic, realistic experiences in order to adequately prepare them for the workforce. Considering this, I decided to expand my problem of practice to; how might we provide learners with an opportunity to demonstrate the essential skills required of an entry-level MOA through all delivery modalities?
This second iteration of my problem of practice seemed more appropriate, in that it more accurately reflected what I wanted to achieve through my digital learning resource, and also in that it was more consistent with a universal design approach where certain learners might not be excluded from learning opportunities due to the delivery modailty they selected.
After I framed this problem more clearly, I was able to reflect on how I might approach the process of designing a solution. In keeping with the suggestions offered by Worsham and Roux (2019), I considered potential challenges that might emerge, as well as my own values in learning design. After much internal dialogue I imagined the following to be the manifesto that I, and others involved in the project would keep at the forefront throughout the design process.
.
Following the creation of this manifesto, I continued with the tool offered by Brecher Cook and Worsham (2018), to begin mapping through the design phase of empathy (pictured below).
If the problem of practice I articulated here resonates with you, I welcome input, feedback, or collaboration as I embark on this design journey.
References
Brecher Cook, D. & Worsham, D. (2018). Let’s Build Something! (The Toolkit). Retrieved from https://ucla.box.com/v/build-something-toolkit
Worsham, D., & Roux, S. (2019). Foundations in Learner-Centered Design. Retrieved from https://uclalibrary.github.io/foundations
Seelig, T. (April 19, 2013). How reframing a problem unlocks innovation [Web log post]. Retreived from https://www.fastcompany.com/1672354/how-reframing-a-problem-unlocks-innovation
July 1, 2020 at 4:23 am
Hello Laren, thank you for a great post with nice design elements. I like the pragmatic nature of your manifesto and your willingness to examine a more learner-centred consideration of your PoP. As an online design practitioner for many years in post-sec, it has been my experience that the requirement for creativity designing effective digital activities is an eye-opener for most traditionally f2f faculty members. The elements they create in this new environment extend back into their f2f teaching if they are dual mode teachers and they are very engaged by the possibilities over time. I can see this happening in most disciplines right now and it’s a great time to explore activities, content, and evaluations that suit multiple modes of delivery. Good foundation for a DLR in your area of expertise.
July 3, 2020 at 9:57 pm
Hi Laren,
Great post, and I really found your use of the question “why” powerful in this context, one in which I too share. How to translate experiential learning into virtual. I would have suggested alternative assessment strategies like; have them explain the reasoning behind an application or task, or speculating on alternative results should the task not be completed in the prescribed manner. However, your expression of why even create the experience led me to in turn ask, what learning would be achieved BY the experience. This may afford the opportunity to find a parallel in an alternative modality.
The concept of asking why is discussed in the adapted excerpt of Seelig’s work; How Reframing A Problem Unlocks Innovation. Identifying how the idea of altering perspectives through asking why can facilitate a broadening of one’s view on the topic (Seelig & Seelig, 2013).
The incompleteness of the design creating space for further iterations is a fantastic way of explaining the idea of presenting something as an early first version. Any instances of improvement required will drive further examinations of the entire design. I always struggle with this as my professional context does not allow for imperfect first attempts, though many occur regardless. This idea of imperfect is one I will struggle with as my learning progresses.
I see a potential challenge with the insistence on evidence-based rationale as this does not leave room for intuition and feelings. Both of which can be sources of great ideas and unexpected direction changes. How could you express this idea in a way that leaves room for a hunch or a feeling?
Any chance you could provide a larger or high-resolution image of your empathy map? I’d really appreciate looking at your thinking process.
Have a great evening,
Owen
Reference
Seelig, T., & Seelig, T. (2013, April 19). How Reframing A Problem Unlocks Innovation. Retrieved June 22, 2020, from Fast Company website: https://www.fastcompany.com/1672354/how-reframing-a-problem-unlocks-innovation
July 6, 2020 at 11:23 am
Hi Owen,
I will email you a copy of my empathy map separatley so you can take a look (this was the best I could do in WordPress).
And thanks for your comment on the ‘evidence-based’ rationale elemnt of my manifesto. What I was trying to ensure, was that there was a logical reasoning for including certain elements into the design, so that elemtns aren’t embedded arbitrarily and just for the sake of it, or for thesake of what’s been done before. But you’re right, insisting on evidence-based rational alone might deter original innovation and risk taking. Maybe I can tweak it to just say ‘elements rely on an explainable rationale’…or something like that – to keep it more open.
Designs and curriculum as ‘works in progress’ is a pardigm I’d like my organization to shift towards. In my experience, end-prodcuts are often help-up to scrutiny, and judgment, and then deemed as lacking, or scrapped all together. This is not helpful to anyone in the process. Rather, feedback should be encouraged and built into future iterations. I think even pitching designs as ‘protypes’ referames our expectations for what we produce. It also challenges us to think about how we can build agility into a design, so that future iterations can come about easier.
Thanks for the thoughts Owen, certainly much to consider!
Laren
July 6, 2020 at 9:18 am
Hi Laren,
I enjoyed reading your blog post and your reference to Seelig’s article on reframing a problem. I sometimes catch myself in a solution mode with the assumption that I asked all the good questions! However, expanding our skills to reframe a problem and asking a lot of why help with viewing a problem from a different perspective. My PoP is on supporting the educators at my work to enhance their skills in using MS Teams and initially, I was convinced I know the solution but after several conversations with this group, I may need to go back to the drawing board. One of my design values is co-creation. Hence, it is not about what I think will work but what the users think will work for them. The reframe of your PoP through your reflection and digging deep into what is important to you and the users inspire me to move forward with a fresh set of angles and to stay curious. Thanks!