The design case I chose to review was one that I had originally read for expansion on the topic of design cases, that I ‘couldn’t put down.’ I chose it based on my love of biking and the author was purely coincidental. I came back to it for this assignment because it was just so interesting and useful. While it does not relate to my organizational context of language learning and communication writing directly, it does promote the learning of academic material in an engaging way with activities that only indirectly relate to the content. In this way, it is like language learning in that students are given certain language content targets, but then practice them under various circumstances towards comfort and eventual mastery. For example, a lesson similar to the Bicycle Repair scenario could have students teach a grammar lesson on any of the previous course topics. Similarly, a Chopped type lesson could centre around content such as the best collaborative paragraph introduction/conclusion. The frameworks themselves provide enough detail as to be replicable in different learning environments, and in that way, they provide valuable learning precedent of the type that Gray (2020) describes.
The article I looked at was by Howard himself, and a colleague, and I was interested in whether he’d effectively follow his own advice. Also worthwhile was that the article compared two design cases from the colleagues in which they “found value in appreciating design moves the other had made and recognizing that similar perspectives resulted in dissimilar strategies” (Howard & Baaki, 2021, p.111).
The case presents a set of values in design that act as overarching principles motivating the designer and design purposes, and very saliently lays the foundation of context. Howard and Baaki have very conscientiously covered the two design cases in explicit detail such that a reader can both understand each design and compare them effectively. They have situated the design effectively and explained drawbacks to earlier iterations that lead to later revisions, showing appropriate transparency.
One feature that could be improved was their descriptions of the design itself. They showed the student UX, and they explained later iterations of design instructions, but this was done in a sort of roundabout manner that was not very straightforward. While arguably effective, it was a bit disjointed in its delivery.
Nonetheless, this design case was an excellent example of the stylistic and vigorous precedent that Gray (2020) values. Not only does it present an interesting and useful teaching of otherwise dry concepts, but it does so in such a way as to allow generalizability, or at least applicability, to other realms of learning. My only complaint, ironically, is that I didn’t actually learn anything about bicycle repair!
References
Gray, C. (2020). Markers of Quality in Design Precedent. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i3.31193
Howard, C. D., & Baaki, J. W. (2021). Chopped id and bicycle repair: contrasting values in synchronous graduate instructional designs for design learning. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 12(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v12i2.30001
Howard, C. (2011). Writing and rewriting the instructional design case: A view from two sides. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1). https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/article/view/1104/1315