Category: LRNT 524

For this assignment, we were asked to consider and state our design principles for a proposed solution to a design problem we identified in a previous assignment using the design thinking process. Design principles are guidelines that inform decision-making and help designers narrow the scope of their design to ensure that their decisions are appropriate for the user (What Are the Principles of Design?, n.d.). Design thinking is a process that helps solve problems with focus and consideration of the user at the centre of the process (Baker & Moukhliss, 2019). Both centre on designing for the user.

The full design process can be seen in this video, which provides context to my students’ issues and barriers and the project. However, for this post and some context to what my design principles refer to, the solution my partner and I decided on was a redesign of the current Learning Management System (LMS) at my college. Leveraging the functions of the LMS can mitigate barriers and challenges they face and increase student success. Success in this context is defined by students understanding the materials, completing assessments, and passing the courses.  All the design principles that guide the LMS redesign consider the impact they could have on student success.

Design for the User

For effective design, a designer must understand the user and their needs as the basis for design development (What Is User Experience (UX) Design?, n.d.) to increase usability. Usability is about ensuring that what is being produced meets the user’s goals in a suitable context for their needs (Petrie & Bevan, 2009). This includes focusing on the user experience (UX) and the functionality of the product (What Is User Experience (UX) Design?, n.d.). The students in my scenario are all from India and are dialling into mandatory online synchronous sessions on a phone, and they are often at work while doing so. In this context, designing for the user considers the Universal Design for Learning principles (UDL) because, when implemented, it successfully removes barriers for international students and promotes a flexible approach to learning (Fovet, 2020).  Redesigning the LMS, knowing who the user is and what they need, helps to mitigate inflexible barriers and biases in place with the current design and aims to improve usability to help them succeed. Focusing on the user is the overarching design principle guiding all other design decisions in this context.

Design for Flexibility

UDL is a “framework for designing flexible instructional environments” (Rao & Meo, 2016, p. 1), which the users in my scenario need because the inflexible design hinders student success. Flexibility in design aids usability because it is about accommodating changes required by the user (Petrie & Bevan, 2009). In this context, flexibility to meet user needs requires options for asynchronous assessment completion and leveraging the LMS functions to create asynchronous activities to promote engagement. Offering a combination of asynchronous and synchronous components in an online learning community creates a more favourable digital learning environment for the students (Blayone et al., 2016).  Furthermore, it increases perceived flexibility and engagement when students can pace and determine to learn time in online courses (Kokoç, 2019). Thus, designing with flexibility for the user can impact their ability to participate in the course and be successful.

Design for Access

Accessibility, from a UDL perspective, speaks to the principle of using multiple means of representation and focuses on providing access and limiting barriers to resources (CAST, 2022; Fovet, 2020). Ways that can be leveraged to offer multiple means of representation are by considering the user in how information is displayed and offering various mediums to present information, such as audio, media and language options (CAST, 2022). Fovet (2020) notes that with a UDL mindset, instructors can use LMS as a tool for inclusion by moving beyond using it as a space to hold traditional resources. Considering how the student’s access and view materials in the LMS is essential in this context because most use a phone rather than a laptop which can be cumbersome to read. Offering audio and language options can increase their ability to access course materials and understand because all the students have varying English language competencies. Designing for access can positively impact user success because it integrates consideration of user needs for comprehension.

Design for Simplicity

What does it mean to design for simplicity? Making things “easy to use, easy to learn, easy to find, and easy to adapt” (Hess, 2009, 5 Guiding Principles for Experience Designers section). Keeping the design simple in an online space promotes user engagement and acceptance (What Is Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS)?, n.d.) by creating a user-friendly environment. From a UDL perspective, designing with simplicity speaks to using multiple means of representation by guiding information processing and visualisation (CAST, 2022). Designing for simplicity in the LMS redesign will promote useability by creating simple and intuitive pathways to access information. This can be achieved by removing items from the LMS that are not vital to instruction and outcomes, releasing information in chunks and creating prompts for steps to guide the student rather than overwhelm them with all the information at once. Designing for simplicity can enhance student comprehension and increase their capacity for success.

Design for Consistency

Like designing for simplicity, consistency helps users adapt, promoting usability and learning the platform (Nikolov, 2017). Consistency from a user perspective is the ability to use devices and platforms without additional training (Seok, 2015). It instils a feeling of reliability and trust because things work in a manner the user understands (Hess, 2009). Think of the differences between an iPhone and an Android in design, how things work, where functions are located, and what things look like; they are inconsistent between products. If you switch brands, as a user adapting and learning can take time. However, if you switch from an iPhone to a newer version, the ability to adapt is quicker because it is recognisable through consistency. In the context of my students, keeping the LMS’s navigation, text, layout and functionality consistent from one course to the next aids the user’s capacity to access and use the site.  These are an example of implementing UDL practices in an LMS because they aid in accessibility and ease of use (Dell et al., 2015) by reducing barriers and increasing students understanding.

Design for Feedback

Designing for feedback as a principle is viewed from two angles in this design project: designing to provide multiple avenues to receive and use feedback and planning opportunities for users to provide feedback on the LMS and it is functioning to improve the next course shell (which is every four weeks in this context). The first aligns with the UDL principle of increasing mastery-oriented feedback because it speaks to giving various means of timely feedback by encouraging and supporting the user (CAST, 2022). Programming specific feedback to responses while providing resources and further options for additional exploration support is possible in the LMS. It can aid in student understanding when given options to repeat tasks to promote mastery. The LMS can also be used to provide different media options for feedback to the user but also from the user.  Regarding receiving feedback on design, I envision every course shell as a prototype where the user will have an opportunity to provide feedback on what works and what does not and any aspects of the design that may need clarification. Prototyping considers the user by increasing functionality and considering the user’s perspectives that may not have been identified earlier in the design process (Petrie & Bevan, 2009)—giving space to receive and provide feedback aims to diminish barriers and increase the usability of the LMS site.

By focusing on these design principles in the LMS redesign project, I can focus the design decisions on UX guided by UDL principles to increase my student’s success. 

And with that final note, I bid LRNT 524 adieu. Thanks for reading.

References

Baker, F. W., & Moukhliss, S. (2019). Concretising design thinking: A content analysis of systematic and extended literature reviews on design thinking and human‐centred design. Review of Education, 8(1), 305–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3186

Blayone, T., Van Oostven, R., Barber, W., DiGiuseppe, M., & Childs, E. (2016, November). Developing learning communities in fully online spaces: Positioning the fully online learning communities (FOLC) model [Conference Paper]. Conference: Higher Education in Transformation, Oshawa, ON, Canada.

CAST. (2022, September 2). UDL: The UDL guidelines. CAST: Until learning has no limits. https://udlguidelines.cast.org

Dell, C. A., Dell, T. F., & Blackwell, T. L. (2015). Applying universal design for learning in online courses: Pedagogical and practical considerations (EJ1068401). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068401.pdf

Fovet, F. (2020). Universal design for learning as a tool for inclusion in the higher education classroom: Tips for the next decade of implementation. Education Journal, 9(6), 163. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20200906.13

Hess, W. (2009, November 23). So you wanna be a user experience designer — Step 2: Guiding principles. Pleasure & Pain by Whitney Hess. Retrieved January 12, 2023, from https://whitneyhess.com/blog/2009/11/23/so-you-wanna-be-a-user-experience-designer-step-2-guiding-principles/

Kokoç, M. (2019). Flexibility in e-learning: Modelling its relation to behavioural engagement and academic performance. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1251161.pdf

Nikolov, A. (2017, April 8). Design principle: Consistency. the most known and most fragile design…. Medium. Retrieved January 12, 2023, from https://uxdesign.cc/design-principle-consistency-6b0cf7e7339f

Petrie, H., & Bevan, N. (2009). The evaluation of accessibility, usability, and user experience. In Human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1–16). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420064995-c20

Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using universal design for learning to design standards-based lessons. SAGE Open, 6(4), 215824401668068. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016680688

Seok, W. (2015). A framework proposal of UX evaluation of the contents consistency on multi screens. In (Ed.), Communications in computer and information science (pp. 69–73). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21380-4_13

What are the principles of design? (n.d.). The Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved December 28, 2022, from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/design-principles

What is keep it simple, stupid (KISS)? (n.d.). The Interaction Design Foundation. Retrieved January 13, 2023, from https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/keep-it-simple-stupid

“Robot sitting at a desk in a classroom” – Fotor Image Generator

For this task, we were asked to consider the impacts of a chosen learning innovation. I was unable to participate in the last activity in the course, where we researched a recent instance of innovation in instructional design. However, I read what my peers wrote, and  I am intrigued by the topic of AI content writers. I decided to examine that further in this task because I have found an upturn in written work submitted by my students where it is evident that they did not write what they submitted, but the work is not plagiarised. Students used an AI content writer.

AI content writers use artificial intelligence to produce written text based on the user’s input and generate “human-like” content (Choudry, 2022).  In an everyday scenario, we use AI content writers in the form of predictive text or often programs such as Grammarly (McKnight, 2021). They are not new, but the programs are becoming more advanced, and people’s awareness of the prevalence of their use is increasing (Thorley, 2021).  AI content writers are commonly used for marketing, blogs and online content generation (Choudry, 2022; Thorley, 2021). They are quick and easy to use. Using a selected app, the user can enter a topic/ detail they want to write about, and within seconds written text on that topic is produced. The key factor on the user’s side is that they must ensure that the details they enter are fit for purpose or that what is generated is not what is intended.

In the case of my students, for a paper they were tasked to write, I received well-written text meeting the word count that spoke very generally about the topic but did not include any citations. The work missed nuances of specific instructions, such as “use key terms from the text” or “why do you believe this to be true.” The submitted work was generic, lacked original thought and did not produce what was asked in the task. AI-content writers lack personality, writing style (Fyfe, 2022; McKnight, 2021), and originality (Mathew, 2022). You might wonder how I knew an AI content writer wrote it. Well, my students are ESL students whose written English is developing. When writing to a student to state I did not believe they wrote their perfectly written 800-word assignment, I received this response: “but Teacher i wrote . you cant prove .” After a conversation, they and others admitted what they had done.

In the case of my students, their reliance on easy-to-use technology impacts their learning. They feel they do not need to do the work or learn the content because they use an app to generate products to convey learning. There are limits to developing their written skills further if using an AI content writer rather than completing the task independently; however, there is an indication that grammar-checking apps can improve student mastery of grammar when instructors use it as a marking tool for feedback (Toncic, 2020).  AI content generation being submitted for text-based tasks has implications for the authenticity of work and academic integrity (Thorley, 2021). Suppose the other instructors in my program do not know what to look for in AI-generated content. Students may receive passing grades and graduate without learning or legitimately meeting the program’s demands. Teachers often unknowingly give better grades to students who use AI grammar-checking apps (Toncic, 2020), which brings forth discussions of access based on socioeconomic factors and digital literacy (Thorley, 2021). It also raises concerns about the academic rigour and program reputation of those who graduate and cannot compose a simple sentence without errors.  There are also implications on assessment choice, deliverables, design and ensuring that students learn what is intended.

In the traditional context of academia, the increase in AI content generators will force educators to consider multiple aspects of their practice. There will need to be considerations as to what writing is, what we place value on (Thorley, 2021) in teaching and assessment, and ensuring that students have equal access to the tools.  In terms of impact, there is much to consider. Still, it is important to note that there are cases where deliberately using AI content generators as co-creators of content integrated as part of a task can increase student writing competencies. For example, in a small study,  Kangasharju et al. (2022) had a group of students use the AI-based Poetry Machine as part of the draft process, using varying features and versions of their poems to create a final copy. The study found that the process of a co-writer increased student creativity and the quality of the product (Kangasharju et al., 2022).  Nazari et al. (2021) found that AI writing tools can improve self-efficacy and engagement while supporting self-directed learning in post-graduate non-native English speakers. While the results of these studies have limitations in scope and size, they demonstrate an opportunity to use AI content writers for good in a controlled environment. They present a positive outlook on how AI-writing tools can support student learning compared to a tool for cheating. Maybe as we re-think teaching and assessment of writing overall, we can find ways to integrate AI writing tools, and students will be less inclined to use them dishonestly. 

References

Choudry, M. W. (2022, October 18). What are AI content writing tools? (and should you use one?). HubSpot. https://blog.hubspot.com/website/ai-writing-generator#:~:text=AI%20writing%20tools%2C%20also%20known,businesses%20that%20conduct%20content%20marketing.

Fyfe, P. (2022). How to cheat on your final paper: Assigning AI for student writing. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01397-z

Kangasharju, A., Ilomäki, L., Lakkala, M., & Toom, A. (2022). Lower secondary students’ poetry writing with the ai-based poetry machine. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100048

Mathew, V. (2022, August 3). Ai content writing risks – 8 unspoken consequences you need to know. ShoutMeLoud. https://www.shoutmeloud.com/ai-content-writing-risks.html

McKnight, L. (2021, March 9). To succeed in an AI world, students must learn the human traits of writing. The Conversation. Retrieved December 31, 2022, from https://theconversation.com/to-succeed-in-an-ai-world-students-must-learn-the-human-traits-of-writing-152321

Nazari, N., Shabbir, M., & Setiawan, R. (2021). Application of artificial intelligence powered digital writing assistant in higher education: Randomized controlled trial. Heliyon, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07014

Thorley, J. (Host). (2021, June 1). Anticipating the impact of AI-based writing on education and assessment (No. 28) [Video podcast episode]. In Integrity matters. turnitin. https://youtu.be/oEvvi-0Wggc Toncic, J. (2020). Teachers, AI grammar checkers, and the newest literacies: emending writing pedagogy and assessment. Digital Culture and Education, 12(1), 26–51.

• 

I was reflecting on the notion of deciding on an instructional design model and what factors come into play when making those decisions. I believe that only some design with a model in mind because subject matter experts (SMEs) often are unfamiliar with educational theories and practices) despite being employed to instruct (Hogue, n.d; Weller, 2020). This was addressed from an educational context, but I suspect those in the program from industries outside of education would confirm this to be true elsewhere. When I think about my experience as a restaurant manager training employees or as an educator and the training/education I received before being unleashed on those I was instructing, the consideration of design models was limited to non-existent.

Regardless of my experience or knowledge of instructional design models, the following were factors in making my design decisions:

1. Outcomes– what are the learners supposed to know or be able to do when completing the course or training session?
2. Who– are the learners?
3. Timelines– how long do they have to achieve the outcomes?
4. Delivery tools, access and environment– what tools are available to deliver the outcomes, and where is the training happening?  What tools do my learners have and what would they need to achieve outcomes?
5. Assessment– how will they be assessed, and what are the measurements of success?

These decisions align with various aspects of instructional design, such as design goals, design approaches, and design assessment, that Parchoma et al. (2019, Table 2) describe without subscribing to one model or even having knowledge of specific models compared to best practices acquired over time.  They also have aspects of the ADDIE process, a foundation framework for multiple design models (Dousay, 2018).  Instructional design is layered and is rarely about choosing one model; instead, the designer draws upon various models, theories, strategies and experiences to “customise each instance of instructional design” (Dousay, 2018, Other ID Models section).  Much of the choice regarding innovation depends on the learning environment, such as face-to-face (F2F), online (synchronous or asynchronous or both), or blended as well as the digital literacy of instructors and learners. 

I choose different tools for the same course for different delivery modes while the outcome remains the same. Innovation does not always infer technology as part of instructional design; however, innovation can come from a willingness to change and improve the design. This can derive from collaborating with instructional designers trained in instructional design. It can also come from listening to student feedback, and perception of a course design is vital to ensuring that the course is learner-centred  (Hogue, n.d.). As an instructor, it is important to be flexible, listen to what worked, and adjust accordingly in the design to improve. That is innovation: responding and changing to make something better. 

As part of the guiding questions, I considered which models I integrate into my own instructional design or have adapted as I learn more about instructional design over the past few years.  I use Bloom’s taxonomy to design unit outcomes and lesson-learning outcomes. Saved on my desktop is a copy of “Bloom’s verbs” (see photo) listing numerous verbs related to the six objectives of knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis and synthesis.  I aim for outcomes that reach each level in some way, and these outcomes lead to the BOPPPS model for lesson planning.  I find BOPPPS to be an excellent lesson model regardless of the learning environment.

I primarily work with international students and have been examining Universal Design Learning (UDL) and aiming to adapt some practices by designing for students with multiple pathways to achieve learning outcomes (Tacks et al., 2021).  Giving them options and more variety has increased both achievements of outcomes and engagement in my courses. One thing I noted from the readings, however, was the assumptions behind Bloom’s focus on outcomes with limited consideration for learner diversity (Easter-Ekholm, 2020). If aiming to design a course with UDL principles, I’ll need to ensure that the outcome themselves are not hindering learners from the outset. Has anyone had any moments where they realised unintentional bias or social-cultural context in their instructional design is limiting their learners? 

References

Dousay, T. A. (2018). Instructional design models. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. Ed Tech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/instructional_design_models

Heaster-Ekholm, K. (2020). Popular Instructional Design Models: their theoretical roots and cultural considerations. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 16(3), 50–65. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1275582.pdf

Hogue, R. J. (Host). (n.d.). S3E1: Janet Lee and Darlesa Cahoon are analyzing intsructional design [Audio podcast episode]. In Demystifying intrusctional design.

Parchoma, G., Koole, M., Morrison, D., Nelson, D., & Dreaver-Charles, K. (2019). Designing for learning in the yellow house: A comparison of instructional and learning design origins and practices. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(5), 997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1704693

Tacks, S., Zhang, J., Lee, H., Truong, L., & Smulders, D. (2021). A comprehensive guide to applying Universal Design for Learning. JIBC. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/jibcudl/

Weller, M. (2020). 25 years of ed tech (1st ed.). ACP – Athabasca University Press.