Assignment 1 | Design Thinking Process (Partners)
There are two parts (Part A and Part B) to this assignment.
Review Unit 1 Schedule.
Part A: With a partner, you will participate in a design thinking process using the Design Challenge below.The Parameters section in the Design Challenge guides your process. Step 8 results in a 400 to 600 word deliverable that is then shared openly for comment by a broad audience (on student blogs) on the effectiveness of the design.
Submit: Assignment 1, Part A – as a post to one student blog nominated to represent your partnership.
Due: Sunday, December 01
Part B: Based on the feedback from the broader audience that was received on Part A of this assignment, you and your partner will develop a formal critique of the Part A deliverable evaluating through the lenses of learner/needs assessment and empathetic, participatory design. This deliverable will be between 1600 to 1800 words not including title page and references. You are expected to adhere to APA standards for citations and references and back up your statements with appropriate academic literature.
Submit: Assignment 1, Part B – the final deliverable as a Word document to the Assignment 1 dropbox in Moodle.
Due: Sunday, December 08
Assignment Context: Design Challenge
Contemporary approaches for designing instruction and learning environments are as varied as the adult learners’ experiences. As an example, here are six statements from your readings.
Bates (2014, What are the limitations to ADDIE? section, para. 4) critiques the inflexibility of the ADDIE model in the digital age.
My main criticism though is that the (ADDIE) model is too inflexible for the digital age… In particular knowledge workers must deal with situations and contexts that are volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (what Adamson calls a VUCA environment). This certainly applies to teachers working with ever changing technologies, very diverse students, a rapidly changing external world that puts pressure on institutions to change (italics added for emphasis).
Thomas (2010, pp. 191-192) lays the foundations for various learning and instructional design models and systems. For example, he describes rapid prototyping as an instructional design solution including:
a set of concurrent, overlapping four-level parallel process that will help both to speed up the process and to overcome many limitations of the traditional instructional design models [such as ADDIE] … The advantages of the rapid prototyping are the utilization of the design with active participation of potential learners, which leads to participatory design; a design environment which makes it practical to synthesize and modify instructional artefacts quickly, which also leads to increase in creativity; an accelerated development, which built on sound footing by the earlier detection of the errors by the quick iterations (Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990; Wilson, Jonassen, and Cole, 1993).
Karunanayaka and Naidu (2015, p. 340) discuss the impact of the 4R Framework of Open Educational Resources (OER) on Open Educational Practices (OEP)
According to the 4R Framework of OER – Reuse; Revise; Remix and Redistribute (Wiley & Green, 2012) users are permitted not only free use of materials, but also the ability for re-purposing them through improvement and creation of new materials, as well as innovative teaching practices using OER. This focus on OER extends beyond mere ‘access’ to engagement in ‘innovative open educational practices’ (OEP), with different degrees of openness in the usage and creation of OER, ranging from “no usage” or “OER (re-) usage” to “OER (re-) usage and creation” of (see OPAL, 2009).
Crichton and Carter (2017, p. 15) shifts the focus from instructional design to designing experiential learning
Our research and experience tells us that Papert (1980) was right—when we give [learners] powerful tools to think with, there is no limit to learning! All too often we ask too little of our students and give them too little time to uncover all the exciting things there are to explore and learn. As a pedagogical orientation, the roots of making [using a design thinking process] can be found in John Dewey’s call for experiential learning.
Mattelmäki, Vaajakallio, & Koskinen, (2014, p. 67) describe empathic design as:
an interpretive approach … [with] its roots in design practices … [It] focuses on everyday life experiences and on individual desires, moods, and emotions in human activities, turning such emotions and experiences into inspiration.
Campbell and Schwier (2014, p. 371) conclude as a connoisseur instructional designer, we
must attend to the nuances of the work, continuing the longstanding focus of creating effective learning resources and environments, but appreciating that being effective is a very elusive, very context-based, and very value-laden goal.
Like many other practitioners and researchers in the field today, these authors / designers describe and develop their approaches based on previous research, critiques, learning theories, professional learning / development, personal experiences, and contexts.
Individually and collectively, you explored learning theories in your previous course, LRNT 523 Foundations of Learning and Technologies. You have already reviewed and analyzed some of the literature (Bates, 2014 & Thomas, 2010) concerning instructional design in Week1 | Orienting yourself to the field of instructional design. You have explored d.School’s design thinking process. Therefore, you and your partner are in a powerful position to engage in d.School’s design thinking process to answer the following question:
What are ways we (You and Your Partner) might encourage our students to engage in intellectual risk taking and become more actively engaged in the online learning environments we design?
You and your partner have been selected by your respective organizations to develop a prototype of a component of an online integrated program that will help students in both your organizations begin to create a sense of inclusion in their new online learning community. Your prototype should encourage students to engage in intellectual risk taking and become more actively engaged in the online learning environments you design.
- You and your partner will go through the first seven steps of the d.School design thinking process together, either asynchronously or synchronously. Please download Design Thinking Process (Version 2 pdf) before you start.
- In Step 8, you will negotiate and build a solution that both you and your partner might be able to adapt and adopt in your own contexts. This Step will result in a 400 to 600-word deliverable (Assignment 1, Part A) that is shared openly for comment by a broad audience (on your blogs) including the effectiveness of the design solution you have created. (Review Assignment 1, Part A before starting Step 8).
- In Step 9, you will share your solution and receive feedback on your blog post. At the same time, you will be a critical friend to your peers as you give feedback on their solutions.
- You and your partner will review your solution, others’ solutions, and feedback you received/gave. You will develop a formal critique of your deliverable through the lenses of your learners/needs assessment and empathetic, participatory design. This deliverable will be between 1600 to 1800 words not including title page and references. You are expected to adhere to APA standards for citations and references and back up your statements with appropriate academic literature (see Assignment 1, Part B).
Assignment 1: Part A and Part B – Rubric
|Course Learning Outcome/Assessment Criteria||Excellent
(A+ to A)
(A- to B+)
(B to B-)
|Citation and APA format||All citations and APA format are correct.||Most citations and APA formatting are correct.||Some citations and APA formatting are correct.||Few citations and APA formatting are correct.|
|Style, Grammar, Spelling||All aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. The style of language and form of communication used are suitable and extend the discussion.||Most aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. The style of language and form of communication used are mostly suitable for the debate context.||Some aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. The style of language and form of communication used are somewhat suitable for the debate context.||Significant spelling and grammar errors. The style of language and form of communication are not suitable for the debate context.|
|Identifies relevant terms and concepts important to the solution.||All relevant terms and concepts are clearly identified and defined.||Relevant terms and concepts are mostly identified and defined.||Relevant terms and concepts are somewhat identified and defined.||Relevant terms and concepts are not identified or defined.|
|Organization and flow||The overall organization and flow is clear.||The overall organization and flow is unclear in places.||The overall organization and flow is both unclear and confusing.||Not organized or no flow.|
|Part A: Content [Blog Post]||Solution is thoughtful and original. It demonstrates the design thinking process and the inclusion of the learners from each partner’s context.||Solution is either not thoughtful or not original. It demonstrates adequate development of ideas, but would benefit from more specific development of relevant points through more discussion.||Solution has some development but seems to lack insufficient discussion or contain irrelevant details that do not yet develop a clear sense of purpose.||Solution requires more details on every level, and lack relevance and originality.|
|Part B: Analysis/Synthesis [Critique]||Clearly and articulately addresses the limitations of the solution including anticipated rebuttals or judgments. Shows engagement with feedback about specific features, suggestions about specific testing situations, or captures results to inform future iterations.||Solution is summarized but not synthesized or connected with other perspectives. Generally speaks to the limitations of the solution in their post without any attempt to counter any anticipated rebuttal or judgment. Shows little engagement with feedback about specific features, suggestions about specific testing situations, or does not capture results.||Supportive information is stated and not summarized or backed by supporting evidence from the literature. Minimally speaks to the limitations of the solution in their post in an attempt to counter the anticipated rebuttal or judgment. Itemizes feedback without any engagement.||Information is stated but lacks relevance and connection to the position statement. Statements are not backed by evidence from the literature. Does not speak nor engage any of the limitations of the solution to counter the anticipated rebuttal, judgments, or feedback.|