As our cohort embarks on the design thinking process and orienting ourselves with the concept of co-designing, I reflect on my work environment and the challenges of trying to apply the design-thinking process in my world. As I pause to understand my apprehension, my curiousity kicked in. Why am I falling into the trap of “this is not possible” rather than assert the “this is possible” notion? I am curious if my initial reaction is shared by most of my colleagues in the instructional design field?
In my blog on orienting myself to the field of instructional design, I stated the opportunities and challenges that the instructional designers faced in 21st-century learning (Ambata-Villanueva, 2019, para.1). Learners need to make sense of their world to create new knowledge. The ubiquity of digital tools and online social network have made learning more social. Thus, collaboration to solve novel problems are crucial to learning. Bates (2019) and Merrill (2002) asserted that learners should be at the center of the learning design. Crichton & Carter (2017) and Mattelmäki, Vaajakallio, & Koskinen (2014), highlights the importance of empathic design, in which learning designers co-design the program with the learners utilizing the principles of the design thinking process. This humbling and mind-enriching activity has profoundly shifted how I view instructional design.
As our team prepare for assignment one- design thinking process, we recognized that learning design and co-designing a learning program can be challenging because it is a paradigm shift to what is familiar to each of our organization. I have experienced co-design events at my workplace and being part of it can be inspiring, uplifting, and motivating. It can also be demanding on everyone’s time; hence, striking a balance between time, effort, and other priorities at work can be difficult. To mitigate these risks, addressing the potential barriers to participation in a co-design and seeking support from the leaders of the organization are critical factors to consider when embarking on a design thinking process. Another area to consider is the skills and competencies of the instructional designers leading this change. Similar to our team’s experience in assignment one, we need to shift our mindset that we are learning designers- change agents and leaders in the “learning enterprise” (Kenny, Zhang, Schwier, & Campbell, 2005). Hence, it is vital that we self-educate ourselves on the tools and emerging technologies so we can effectively advocate for what is best for the learners and lead the learning evolution.
Ambata-Villanueva, S. (2019, November 17). Re: Activity 1 – Orienting myself to the field of instructional design and designing instruction [Blog comment]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0118/activity-1-orienting-myself-to-the-field-of-instructional-design-and-designing-instruction/
Bates, Tony. 2019, September 16. Chapter 11.4 Open Pedagogy [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2019/09/26/chapter-11-4-open-pedagogy/
Crichton, S., & Carter, D. (2017). Section two. Making the connection: designing, making, and a new culture of learning. Taking Making Into Classrooms. Retrieved from https://mytrainingbc.ca/maker/en/toolkit/Taking_Making_into_Classrooms.pdf
Kenny, R., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked [HTML page]. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31(1). https://doi.org/10.21432/T2JW2P
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design. Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=ea5e66a8-821a-47a7-83e9-93150309979c%40pdc-v-sessmgr05&bdata=#AN=93319826&db=aph
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/article/10.1007/BF02505024