Reflection

The Empathetic Informed Design for Digital Environments was developed to address the demand to empathize with students in online learning environments (Carpenter & MacKay, 2021). Part of the scope of the solution “hoped [to] close the perceived gap between online learning and traditional learning” (Carpenter & MacKay, 2021, p. 2). Multiple aspects of the solution, the questionnaire (Piechnik, 2021), the model (Norum, 2021), the process (Doguan, 2021), was well-received. In contrast, other aspects like the specific time-frame of implementation (Piechnik, 2021; Doguan, 2021) confused some peers. 

While I value the design process and have used and modelled to my peers a derivative of the d.School’s Design Bootleg (2018) this process leads me to an inherent flaw in the perceived scope and function of design. Many educators view design as a static solution to their problems, making them afraid to deviate off the path, to make the design their own. The idea of best practices or shortcuts to becoming the best educator is saturated in the field. It is this mindset that poisons budding designs because educators want the best solution. Ironically, there is no best solution; perhaps there are best guidelines for a given scope in a given number of known variables, but the idea of a best practice implies a disinfected environment with no outside stimuli, such as student agency, that could contaminate the fragile ecosystem needed for optimal efficiency. It becomes frustrating as a designer, as I am sure many artists could appreciate, that their clients are missing the point of the design, it is not made for them to copy and paste into their practice, but put out there in the hopes that they improve and customize it for their purposes. 

In my practice and this assignment, it has become my hope that future educators twist my designs for their purposes. This mutated design is perhaps the best feedback I could receive, as it shows rather than tells me where flaws can emerge through practice. One example I could use is my twist on our empathic framework. Rather than using a questionnaire, an activity that required students to interact on their idea of learning would tell me more about my students’ learning styles and possible methodological approaches I could use to reach them best. Using this activity, I am still fulfilling the purpose of the questionnaire, to “understand the learner’s educational experience and how they view the learning process” (Carpenter & MacKay, 2021). However, at least in my context, this activity would give me a more rich understanding of my students. Likewise, I acknowledge that this approach will not work for everyone, reviving my call that educators need to personalize designs for themselves, their students, and their given environment.

The design process as envisioned by d.School (2018) is a significant first step in developing the confidence needed to tinker in design and can be used as a framework for such purposes. Since the design process is iterative, it allows designs to be deposited into the framework and viewed as a new iteration. The would-be tinker still needs to go through the design process, yet some interesting implications emerge. In the empathize stage, where educators observe, engage, and immerse themselves in their learners’ minds, they can also empathize with the original design’s context and question its application in their environment, leading organically to the define phase. In the define phase, educators now can compare and contrast to differences and most likely come to a more prosperous understanding of how to apply this design in their setting effectively. Likewise, the ideate phase builds upon the previous stage by allowing new ideas to form specifically to the educators setting. Next, the prototype and test phases explore the new ideas’ effectiveness, refining them and eventually leading to new designs derived from the original, customized for the new educator’s context. 

The process of integrating another design is not new in the software development industry, where open-source models (Open Source Initiative, 2021) are used to crowdsource software development effectively. It is perhaps time for education to adopt such a model to incite innovation in such a dynamic field. As Morris states, “the worst best practice is to adhere to, or go searching for, best practices” (2018, para. 27). However, rather than searching for the end product, the search begins with the best foundation for the solution; changing the statement to the best method is to modify another’s best practice. 

Design Principles

Beginner’s Mindset

One of the most vital principles that could be applied universally across all fields and applications is starting the design process with a beginner’s mindset (Morris, 2018). A beginner’s mindset encourages the educator to think about the design process as a beginner, removing all previous knowledge and biases that could skew their perceived solutions. By attempting to create a tabula rasa state, a blank slate, the mind is free to explore the myriad of possible solutions from a multitude of different perspectives. Solutions that previously would have been hypothetically shrouded by a fixed perspective based on experience become more viable and, in some cases, visible. The beginner’s mindset essentially allows the educator to view the developed material through their students’ eyes, allowing them to develop an empathetic bond with their learning experience before class even begins. This process simulates the empathize method echoed in d. School’s design thinking by immersing oneself in the students’ experience (2018).

Backwards Design

If students are the primary clients of an educator, part of the empathize process is undoubtedly developing a concrete way to demonstrate learning successfully. The concept of backward design encompasses a top-down approach that focuses on the successful mastery of a learning outcome and identifies how to achieve it (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Despite backwards design having a systematic approach that could quickly be followed, it is essential not to fall into the philosophical traps that a systemic design offers by viewing backwards design as the sole panacea for the design process. Rather than focus on the process for this principle, focus on the philosophy behind the backwards design. Educators following the philosophical view rather than the framework still benefit from a grounding approach of viewing the ends to identify the means, yet are afforded the freedom to deviate from a systematic approach and empathize with their student’s needs and wants. 

Realistic Application

If backwards design focuses on the how and why of creating a successful design, a realistic approach focuses on the practical application, or the what, needed to achieve these learning outcomes. Likewise, this reinforcement of outcomes is needed to close the perceived and potential gaps between school-based knowledge and real-world applications (Aistrich et al., 2006, pp. 73 – 74; Barron et al., 1998, p. 273). A realistic application of outcomes borrows from project-based learning by creating experiences that allow students to scaffold their knowledge and skills in an increasingly complex and realistic environment (Barron et al., 1998, pp. 277 – 278). By scaffolding the learning, students develop the knowledge and apply said knowledge realistically by developing their understanding within their zone of proximal development (Doolittle, 1995), the ideal continuum where learners are stimulated and engaged in learning.

Agile Implementation

No matter how thorough the design, how many factors are considered, the design process is designed for failure. This failure has nothing to do with flaws in its methodological approaches or philosophical views, but because of the static nature of a design being impose on a dynamic element, human nature. Humans are agents of chaos, this chaos is not wholly random or unpredictable events, but behaviours built upon constraints with an intelligent force behind the action (Mohr, 2017, p. 2). Designers have the impossible task of designing a static process within this intelligent force’s constraints, which undoubtedly has near-infinite permutations. Like Agile design models, recent design methodologies have focused on adaptability to the circumstances and rapid prototyping to oppose this inherent flaw. However, these rapid response models are unlikely to affect the inciting incident that prompted the new development cycle. It falls to the educator to be flexible enough to adapt to their students, veer off the prescribed design, and meet their students’ needs should the situation require.

Modelling Innovation

Educators looking to create meaningful learning experiences and incite lifelong-learning in their students need to model the means of this change. Innovation needs to be embedded in the design process, whether directly or indirectly. “The most effective designs for change are those that may most easily be extended and modified” (Brand, 1997, as cited in Dron, 2014). Following this precedent, design models and their products need to take chances, innovate on previous successes and failures, and continuously push the need to improve. It becomes too easy to do what works rather than strive for constant improvement because it necessitates the need to accept failure.

Quest for Improvement

The final principle is to quest for improvement. At a glance, it is reminiscent of reflective or evaluative steps from systematic models like the ADDIE, analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate, model (Dousay, 2017). However, while it encourages a reflective approach, it also reinforces the need to envision multiple solutions and scenarios to problems. The issue with a step dedicated to evaluation or reflection is that they are often accounted for at the end of the product, taking in a global or macro-view of the design, often missing the small inciting incidents that drive the macro-scale epiphany. As the name implies, a quest is a long-standing goal that is more equated to a marathon than a step or phase. It is akin to a mindset, where a reflective element is viewed on all interactions, no matter where they fall on the scale of success and failure. Likewise, it takes the idea of failure and treats it as a necessary element of improvement because it is the precursor to learning, which is needed for improvement. 

Reference

Aistrich, M., Saghafi, M. M., & Sciglimpaglia, D. (2006). Ivory tower or real world: Do educators and practitioners see the same world? Marketing Education Review, 16(3), 73-80.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10528008.2006.11488975?casa_token=p-DmxAxB36UAAAAA:MKMMICOd72Jll1JH0o-9q9BIME1LZTXG4jjLau-jv4a2BrmZra63iNNNLSfMyBMn1myezUgkxIXXIH8

Bates, T. (2015). ‘Agile’ design: Flexible designs for learning.Teaching in the digital age. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/6-10-agile-design-flexible-designs-for-learning//a>

Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7<(3-4), 271-311. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672056?casa_token=_UlBVEk0AEUAAAAA:YlPUiVpGe4sy5_RaXfJ0ulrMJ6LRh5OaKD-oa8jRKgdeoVxPwPPd3pk0Sm-Up-qHnqDo_A4cx89Z59o

Carpenter, J., & MacKay, M. (2021). Solution summary. School of Learning and Technology, Royal Roads University. https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0158/lrnt-524-assignment-3-solution-summary/

d.School. (2018). Design thinking bootleg. Stanford d.School. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg

Doolittle, P. E. (1995). Understanding Cooperative Learning through Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED384575

Dougan, S. (2021). Re: Team 4 (Michael and Jonathan). https://moodle.royalroads.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=721506#p2912196

Dousay. T. A. (2017). Chapter 22: Instructional design models. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations

Dron, J. (2014). Chapter 9: Innovation and change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press. https://www.aupress.ca/books/120233-online-distance-education/

Mohr, K. (2017). Chaos and the trickster: Universal change agents and their implications for consciousness study. https://www.academia.edu/download/63922429/CHAOS_AND_THE_TRICKSTER_-KMohr20200714-7857-1elcu6m.pdf

Morris, S. M. (2018). Critical instructional design. An Urgency of Teachers. Pressbooks. https://criticaldigitalpedagogy.pressbooks.com/chapter/critical-pedagogy-and-learning-online/

Norum, S. (2021). Re: Team 4 (Michael and Jonathan). https://moodle.royalroads.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=721506#p2908213

Open Source Initiative. (2021). News. https://opensource.org/

Piechnik, D. (2021). Re: Team 4 (Michael and Jonathan). https://moodle.royalroads.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=721506#p2907358

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). What is backward design. Understanding By Design, 1(7-19). https://valenciacollege.edu/faculty/development/courses-resources/documents/WhatisBackwardDesignWigginsMctighe.pdf