How Do You Read the Term?
When you read the term “Instructional Design”, in your mind’s eye, how does it read? Is it ‘Instructional Design’ or is it ‘Instructional Design’… or do you give both words equal weighting?… Or better yet, have you ever thought about which word is emphasized?
Does all learning require instruction?
The big question is whether learning can take place without instruction? If you did the other reading assignment for this cycle, selecting an instructional delivery system, you might better understand what we are getting at here.
For those of you who think visually, click the plus sign below:
Actually, the differentiation is bigger than that. Sometimes, these terms beg smaller questions when actually we should be focusing on the bigger ones. What we are alluding to here is a concept known as design thinking.
For us educators, here is a great start to help start the conversation
Digging Deeper
Click the tabs to delve into this a little more:
As Wikipedia explains, design thinking may be defined as
Further, “its broader use in describing a particular style of creative thinking-in-action is having an increasing influence on twenty-first century education across disciplines. In this respect, it is similar to systems thinking in naming a particular approach to understanding and solving problems.”
So, in effect, if one follows the premise of Instructional Systems Design (ISD), it is not a large ‘mental jump’ to understand design thinking. If you take a look at the link here, you may notice several similarities in topics in the ISD manual/handbook to the topics we have been discussing this semester. It is hoped that a short discussion on design thinking makes for a great culminating reading/reflection activity for this course.
The basic premise of design thinking is that, in order to create solutions, one must first discover what the bigger questions are. All too often we focus on the wrong ones. We also make assumptions based on preconceived notions and inferences that can cloud our creative juices.
A significant aspect of design involves developing empathy for the client or end user through research and understanding their particular needs and desires. This exercise focuses on that specific part of the design process through a simple and common aspect of modern life; giving a gift. We all give gifts, we all receive gifts, and this exercise uses the act of giving and focuses on improving that process. It does so by close and personal interviews, development of design concepts, fast prototyping, and critique. Through the use of a common experience/subject, giving, one can learn more about the larger process of design. The education and processes of instructional designers can benefit from an understanding of design thinking. Design thinking is viewed as a third way of thinking, different from the sciences and the humanities (Cross, 1982). It involves extensive experimentation and exploration, based on an expanding body of knowledge that develops as part of an iterative process. An explanation of design thinking will be presented, followed by series of activities to illustrate the concept of design thinking. A leading trend today is a conscious adoption of aspects of design thinking in a range of divergent professions. Design thinking is a leading trend in the business world and in the field of medicine.
For example, the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto offers design classes within the business school; the Mayo Clinic has an ongoing design studio charged with improving medical practices in the organization. To better understand the concept of design thinking, it is valuable to briefly explore some broadly held ideas about the nature of design, and to focus on the fields generally understood to be design, including architecture, graphic design, and industrial design. While other fields such as mechanical engineering or computer science consider aspects of their professions to be design, this presentation focuses on the design professions and specific aspects of design thinking. Cross (1982) describes Design Thinking as a mode of thinking different than either the rational, logical, deductive method of science or the inductive, reflective methods of the humanities. “These ‘two cultures’ have long been recognized as dominating our social, cultural and educational systems.”
The three directions are different in their focus, their values and in their methods of inquiry. The sciences generally study the natural world, while the humanities examine human experience, and design explores the “artificial” or man-made world. Design values practicality, ingenuity, empathy, and appropriateness in contrast with the scientific values of objectivity, rationality, and a focus on absolute truth. Contrary to scientific thinking, design thinking could be described as forward looking, (Nelson & Stolterman, 2001), seeing answers in possible futures; therefore, many of the results are anticipatory or the products of the imagination. As a distinct mode of thought, design thinking does have it’s own epistemology, including (Archer, 1979) that design has it’s own distinct “things to know, ways of knowing them, and ways of finding out about them.” Design thinking is future oriented; concerned with “the conception and realization of new things”. At its core is a focus on “planning, inventing, making, and doing.” (Cross, 1982).
Developing the skills of design thinking generally occurs through a studio curriculum and practice, but can be examined through a more didactic means. Aspects of design thinking include challenging assumptions, being trans-disciplinary, visualization, empathic research, use of metaphors, designing one’s own behavior, facing consequences, embracing constraints, and an action oriented agenda. Each of these will be addressed in the presentation. The process of design is iterative and extensive, with a series of gambits, of experiments that develop an expanding body of knowledge. Designers learn through the practice of design. Designers learn about given topics as they design solutions, a deep method that is consistent with problem based learning or the case study method. Design is centered on doing; results generally evolve from tangible artifacts (Löwgren & Stolterman, 2004) such as drawings, models or prototypes. Moldoveanu, & Martin (2008) contrast design thinking with business thinking as two different means of solving problems.
Business thinking seeks predictable results as a result of only incremental change through the use of algorithms, whereas design thinking, based in the use of heuristics, seeks possible futures. In popular use, design is generally thought of as an aesthetic treatment applied after the solution of challenges or problems. “More often, it is equated with ‘style’; fashionable clothing or handbags, distinctive typefaces, elegant Philippe Starck furniture or Michael Graves teakettles. ” (Berger, 2009, p.3). For example, within the field of instructional design, the graphic designers are brought in at the conclusion of programming and technical work to apply their aesthetic skills. The first level of understanding of design thinking is that design is involved throughout the solution of the problem, not as an afterthought. Design thinking is a divergent way of developing or constructing knowledge, and is particularly valuable in solving complex problems. At the same time, beyond the simplistic definition of design as “problem solving,” it is, at skilled levels, problem setting. It is “… the process by which we define the decision to be made, the ends to be achieved, the means which may be chosen” (Schön, 1983, p. 40). A central aspect of the design process, and consistent with most design fields, is a questioning of the design challenge itself; examining the assumption of the problem, and stretching the “problem space” (Cross, 1997, Gero, 2002). Central to the process of design is the questioning of the design problem. Here, the unique “vision” for the project is developed—the idea, the spark, the concept that drives all the work (Löwgren & Stolterman, 2004).
An example
Dr. Hokanson happens to be a friend and colleague. Currently, he is Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Outreach at the University of Minnesota in their School of Design, Housing, and Apparel. So, you ask, what does all of this have to do with education? …. The curriculum at his college includes architecture and fashion design. He usually teaches classes on creative thinking and manages to have a lot of fun doing it. His role of Associate Dean also includes responsibility for Freshmen orientation.
During his orientation program, he attempts to demonstrate to incoming students that the culture in his college is to stimulate creative thinking in the design process. So, as part of his dialog, he asks a simple question?
Of course most would say ‘no’ based on their preconceived notions about the concept of rain, which limits their ability to seek out a more accurate response. He then proceeds to instruct the group to create a the sounds of rain by clapping their hands and their chairs for thunder. He adds a little special effect with the lighting, and voila! the sounds of a rainforest…
… a simple, but effective, way to demonstrate how to get folks to start thinking outside of the box.. which is the ultimate idea here… you see, when someone says do you to ‘make it rain’ most are bound by preconceived notions… the traditional concept of rain… wetness… and water…. but a rain storm has many connotations, both the wetness and the sounds and visuals of rain. In short, he asks the question and then goes beyond what one would think is the obvious answer… that, in effect, is the basic concept behind design thinking… going outside of the box to come up with creative solutions… in this video he captured that event… note the virtual ‘light bulbs going on when students as they applaud their own creativity…
So, All in all, maybe the bigger question for us is...
in order for learning to take place, is instruction always needed?
To answer that question, one must decide on what 'instruction' is/entails....some of you may have already concluded that instruction in its broader context includes 'facilitation' or in fact ALL activities that an instructor partakes in order to bring about learning. To go that route, one also must decide on what is the issue at hand and what is the desired end result? Sometimes we chase symptoms rather than actual causes (and effects) again bringing us back to the other reading for this cycle on choosing an instructional delivery methodology...
The point is that you must learn to ask the right/big questions... asking the right question will often give you a slightly better chance at arriving at the right answer (which, in turn, begs the question as to if there is always a 'right' answer)...and things that may have been thought not possible previously become obvious...
So, here is a question that comes to mind...
if we are actually serious about implementing something like a constructivist environment in our instruction, then we must change the way we approach the problem... we cannot look at it in the same ol' linear way (do this then do that then do the other thing...) We need to re-frame the question in terms of what is it that the person in charge of setting up the learning environment is trying to accomplish ? NOT what kind of instruction needs to take place.. that is too narrow of a question. What is the ultimate goal and what is the best way to accomplish it? AND is 'instructing' the best way to accomplish it? Even a bigger question than selecting the best instructional delivery methodology as taught in the other lesson.
To give you more insight as to how we can apply design principles to an instructional (or a learning) problem., here is a synopsis of a recent presentation on design thinking in which Brad attempts to make a believer out of you:
Design Thinking: Towards the Construction of Knowledge
1. Introduction
Education and instructional design process can benefit from an understanding of design thinking. Design thinking is viewed as a third way of thinking, different from the sciences and the humanities (Cross, 1982). It involves extensive experimentation and exploration, based on an expanding body of knowledge that develops as part of an iterative process. An explanation of design thinking will be presented, followed by series of activities to illustrate the concept of design thinking.
2. Styling v. thinking; Applied v. integral
In popular use, design is generally thought of as an aesthetic treatment applied after the solution of challenges or problems. "More often, it is equated with 'style'; fashionable clothing or handbags, distinctive typefaces, elegant Philippe Starck furniture or Michael Graves teakettles. " (Berger, 2009, p.3). For example, within the field of instructional design, the graphic designers are brought in at the conclusion of programming and technical work to apply their aesthetic skills. The first level of understanding of design thinking is that design is involved throughout the solution of the problem, not as an afterthought. Design thinking is a divergent way of developing or constructing knowledge, and is particularly valuable in solving complex problems. More and more it deals with the concept of designing in an "invisible century", one where the artifacts are less physical, and more systemic.
3. Changing thinking
A leading direction today is a conscious adoption of aspects of design thinking in a range of divergent professions. Design thinking is a leading trend in the business world and in the field of medicine. For example, the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto offers design classes within the business school; the Mayo Clinic has an ongoing design studio charged with improving medical practices in the organization. Allina Health Systems and Kaiser Permanente also have design studios; the University of Minnesota has a center called Design in Health which examines cognitive retraining of medical professionals for substantial reductions in health care incidents and costs.
To better understand the concept of design thinking, it is valuable to briefly explore some broadly held ideas about the nature of design, and to focus on the fields generally understood to be design, including architecture, graphic design, and industrial design. While other fields such as mechanical engineering or computer science consider aspects of their professions to be design, this presentation focuses on the design professions and specific aspects of design thinking.
4. Defining design thinking
Cross (1982) describes Design Thinking as a mode of thinking different than either the rational, logical, deductive method of science or the inductive, reflective methods of the humanities. "These 'two cultures' have long been recognized as dominating our social, cultural and educational systems." (7) The three directions are different in their focus, their values and in their methods of inquiry. The sciences generally study the natural world, while the humanities examine human experience, and design explores the "artificial" or man-made world.
5. Future oriented thinking
Design values practicality, ingenuity, empathy, and appropriateness in contrast with the scientific values of objectivity, rationality, and a focus on absolute truth. Contrary to scientific thinking, design thinking could be described as forward looking, (Nelson & Stolterman, 2001), seeing answers in possible futures; therefore, many of the results are anticipatory or the products of the imagination. Moldoveanu, & Martin (2008) contrast design thinking with business thinking as two different means of solving problems. Business thinking seeks predictable results as a result of only incremental change through the use of algorithms, whereas design thinking, based in the use of heuristics, seeks possible futures.
6. Epistemology
As a distinct mode of thought, design thinking does have it's own epistemology, including (Archer, 1979) that design has it's own distinct "things to know, ways of knowing them, and ways of finding out about them." Design thinking is future oriented; concerned with "the conception and realization of new things". At its core is a focus on "planning, inventing, making, and doing." (Cross, 1982).
7. The Skills of Design Thinking
Developing the skills of design thinking generally occurs through a studio curriculum and practice, but can be examined through a more didactic means. Aspects of design thinking include challenging assumptions, being trans-disciplinary, visualization, empathic research, use of metaphors, designing one's own behavior, facing consequences, embracing constraints, and an action oriented agenda. Each of these will be addressed in the presentation.
8. Iterative, experimental, and visual
The process of design is iterative and extensive, with a series of gambits, of experiments that develop an expanding body of knowledge. Designers learn through the practice of design. Designers learn about given topics as they design solutions, a deep or "thick" method that is consistent with problem based learning or the case study method. Design is centered on doing; results and knowledge generally evolve from tangible artifacts (Löwgren & Stolterman, 2004) such as drawings, models or prototypes.
9. Problem seeking: Stretching the problem space
At the same time, beyond the simplistic definition of design as "problem solving," it is, at skilled levels, problem setting. It is “… the process by which we define the decision to be made, the ends to be achieved, the means which may be chosen” (Schön, 1983, p. 40). A central aspect of the design process, and consistent with most design fields, is a questioning of the design challenge itself; examining the assumption of the problem, and stretching the "problem space" (Cross, 1997, Gero, 2002). Central to the process of design is the questioning of the design problem. Here, the unique "vision" for the project is developed—the idea, the spark, the concept that drives all the work (Löwgren & Stolterman, 2004).
10. References and Resources
Cross, N. (1982) Designerly Ways of thinking. Routledge.
Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design: concepts and framework, Knowledge-Based Systems 9(7): 435-448
Löwgren, J. & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Schön, D. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust.
Here are some links if you would like to dig deeper into this concept:
Due to the fact that we are nearing the end of the semester and already have much on our plates, there are no specific deliverable for this lesson. We do, however, want to provide you with one last take-away. During this term we have been analyzing almost everything you need to consider in designing appropriate instruction, whether it be for K-12 or business and industry. One last word of caution.. always remember: SIMPLER IS (ALMOST) ALWAYS BETTER.. In short, be careful not to over-engineer the solution. Here is a PowerPoint to help you remember:
You may utilize what is presented here to guide you in your final project.