I’m the last in my line of Suttons. My grandfather “Buck” had one daughter (my mother), and she had one daughter (me). When my mom married, she took on my dad’s name and when we lost my grandpa in 1988, the family thought that was the end of our Sutton lineage. It was then that I decided to change my name to Sutton to extend our name for one more generation. I too have one daughter (and two stepsons) who do not carry the Sutton name so I’m making the most of it as long as I can.
For this assignment, I saw an opportunity – not just to keep our name alive – but rather because of the intrinsic meaning of the name to me and how it relates to the principles I hold in life and learning design. My grandfather was a fire chief in suburban Chicago and my mother is a psychologist in Vancouver. Both professions are strongly principled and take oaths to serve both as commitments to their professional principles and because they hold people’s lives in their hands. Before my grandfather, several generations of Sutton men and women were in service roles, taking care of others.
Helping organizations adopt AI does not carry such weight but inspiring businesses and individuals toward positive change and measurable success through learning is where I find meaning and so take my oath in the form of The SUTTON Six design principles.
SCALABLE
Effective learning design should be able to grow and adapt. Drawing from Successive Approximation Model (Allen, 2012), this principle emphasizes the need for adjustable learning designs and technologies to accommodate more learners or learning contexts while ensuring the core learning experience remains robust and effective no matter the scale.
UNIVERSAL
Learning experiences must be inclusive and accessible to all learners. This principle reflects Universal Design for Learning (Takacs et. al., 2021) with a commitment to ensuring that learning materials are designed considering accessibility, localization, Indigenization, equity, and inclusion of culturally relevant materials for learning where everyone can thrive.
TIME-SMART
Learning design and delivery should be efficient. It must respect both the learners’ and instructors’ time and understand human limitations on cognitive load as described by Sweller (2019). This principle focuses on streamlining learning by optimizing the use of time and technology to focus on the most relevant content in quick, digestible chunks.
Tailored
Learning experiences should be tailored to meet the unique needs of individual learners. Recognizing that learners are diverse, this principle encourages Stanford d.School’s (2018) Design Thinking practices of inquiry and understanding of learners’ needs – both as individuals and businesses – to design and deliver experiences for their learning styles and preferences.
Outcome-based
Designs should focus on measurable results and actions. Using Constructive Alignment (Biggs, 1996), this principle highlights the importance of connecting learning activities and assessments with specific business outcomes. This ensures effective design with demonstrable progress for learners toward their goals.
Nimble
The process of design should embrace Kaizen’s continuous improvement (Kregel, 2019). This principle acknowledges that the learning landscape is dynamic and requires the ability to evolve and improve designs. Like SAM (Allen, 2012), it encourages ongoing evaluation and rapid adjustments based on learner feedback, data, and emerging technologies.
The SUTTON Six design principles – Scalable, Universal, Time-Smart, Tailored, Outcome-Based, and Nimble – represent my commitment to creating learning environments that are not only effective but also equitable, engaging, and relevant. These design principles are the latest discovery on my interdisciplinary learning journey. Drawing from course materials and academic literature, my professional experiences, constructivist bias, socio-technical systems theory, and 27 years of design thinking practice, it was validating, cathartic, and deeply informative to pen these principles. I am committed to continuous improvement in creating experiences that are transformative for all learners – and, in making the Sutton family proud in doing so.
Some final thoughts…
My work supporting organizations in digital transformation is a complex challenge shaped by a panicked convergence of technological, organizational, and human elements. Designing learning experiences to improve the adoption of technology requires an interdisciplinary approach and why I’m in the MAIS program. The interconnected nature of technology, organizations, and individuals necessitates collaboration between different disciplines to enrich our theoretical understanding and enhance the practical applicability of strategies aimed at fostering successful digital transitions. Effective digital transformation involves not only a profound grasp of technology but also requires crucial changes in process and people that can be realized through effective learning experiences. I’m grateful for this assignment and this leg of the journey. Thank you for welcoming me into the MALAT program – taking LRNT523/524 has been amazing.
References
Allen, M. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: Moving beyond Content-Centered design. In ASTD Handbook II. https://content.alleninteractions.com/hubfs/eBooks%20-%20White%20Papers%20-%20Case%20Studies/White-Paper-Allen-Interactions-Leaving-ADDIE-for-SAM-Beyond-Content-Centered-Design.pdf
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00138871
Kregel, I. (2019). Kaizen in university teaching: continuous course improvement. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 10(4), 975–991. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlss-08-2018-0090
McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by design framework. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/UbD_WhitePaper0312.pdf
Stanford d.school (2018). Design Thinking Bootleg. Stanford d.school. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg
Sweller, J. (2019). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
Takacs, S, Zhang, J., Lee, H., Truong, L., & Smulders, D. (2021) A comprehensive guide to applying universal design for learning. Justice Institute of British Columbia. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/jibcudl/