I just read an article in T&D’s magazine titled Leveling the Field – How to get the most success out of the Level 2 testing stage. Level 2 refers to the 2nd stage of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation testing whether “the participants learned what they set out to learn?” What I found interesting about the this article is that it provided the following checklist for evaluating learning:

* Know what you want people to learn and why it is important
* Measuring the effectiveness of your design and delivery is more important than measuring whether the learners are “good students.”
* Since you are measuring what matters, emphasize what matters in your design.
* Learn from your Level 2 evaluation by tweaking your design and delivery and tracking changes in results.
* Measure more than once. See what people retain over time, and track differences between learners or learning groups.

As I read the article I was struck by how relevant these tips are to design thinking. I believe the most important bullet is the first one which states “Know what you want people to learn and why it is important.” The instructional designer (or the design thinker) must be able to answer what is the goal for learning, how is it important and relevant to the person or organizational learning needs. The second bullet stresses the importance of “measuring the effectiveness of your design.” So instead of measuring how smart are your learners, the instructional designer should be testing out how effective the design allows for the transfer of knowledge. This idea is very much different than “testing” the ability of the learners. The final bullet suggests to “measure more than once [to] see what people retain over time, and track differences between learners or learning groups.” This concept reminds me of the iterative process for conducting usability testing for your design. Common themes will appear and it will be apparent what works and does work for the design. I think by following these tips, one can expect a positive learning experience for the learners and a better return in investment.

Design Mindfulness…Minding the Business of Society Not the Indivdual

John Thackara’s In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World challenges designers to think of design in terms of the desired goals and the value that it adds to our lives. (1) In order to be mindful, the author states that we, as designers, must:

Think about consequences and the context in which they are used.

Consider material and energy flow.

Give priority to human agency.

Deliver value to people-not deliver people to systems.

Treat content as something we do, not as something we are sold.

Treat place, time, and cultural difference as positive values, not obstacles.

Focus on services, not on things, and refrain from flooding the world with pointless devices.

These notions challenged me as an instructional designer. Often times, it seems as if fellow designers and I, spend countless hours thinking about what is “cool,” instead of what is truly valuable, feasible, and functional for the clients we serve and the world in which we live. Think about the implications of “throwaway technology” and the relationship to the sense of entitlement and wastefulness; the ideas related to the wedge that technology forces between human interaction; and how technology can perpetuate oppression as evidenced by the digital divide. With all this, as designers and world citizens, we cannot neglect opportunities to predetermine the effects of our design.

Two quotes shape this idea:

“We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.” Is designing a lifestyle or merely a means of income? If it is a lifestyle, which I presume it is, then we are forced to “give” as designers, thus our work must be seen as a service, not as a product.

Secondly:

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Thackara writes, “Man made smartness tends to be overly complicated.” As designers, we have to remember that the best designs are often those that are effortless and plain to the user. Determining when to stop and forcing ourselves to do what is useful in the world’s context is important if we see ourselves as designers who fuel societal progress.

As designers it is important to keep Design Mindfulness in the forefront of our occupation.

Reaching ones goal is often fraught with struggle. Most often time your original vision can be clouded with thick smoke. Instructional designer must think out of the box if they are to design and innovate in their effort to change design direction. They must open their mind to finding solutions in unusual places and people. I was led to this must read article titled “Design Meets Research” by Debbie Millman and Mike Bainbridge, while thinking and researching our discussion on “Design Thinking”. You all need to read this.

http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/design-meets-research

I was amazed that this article covers many of topical issues we have been exposed to in our immersion experience thus far. One of the designers in this article jumped up and said, “I know what to do! Let’s get Marta in here and see what she thinks!” moment remind me of Dr B. Bannan “Pizza delivery guy solution to a design problem” and confirms what the authors of this article called: “Attitudinal distinction of the design via any consumer—whether that person is the logical target market of that particular product or not.”

Tim Brown of MIT Sloan Management once said “Insights are about getting out into the world, connecting with new things. Designers see the world as a source of innovation, not just validation”.

Designer in general has a tremendous advantage to impact and change the world, if they are determined to design, innovate and re-invent themselves and their products.

I have been browsing Michael Michalko’s book Cracking Creativity – the secrets of creative genius. Michalko is an expert in creative thinking who leads workshops, seminars, and “think-tank” sessions around the world. Each chapter of his book details a different creative-thinking strategy that can be applied to any variety of problems. One strategy that Michalko describes is called Finding What You’re Not Looking For where one actively and purposively seeks the “accidental discovery” by deliberately exploring the odd and unusual. Michalko gives an example of a greeting card company who wanted new products and new markets so employees were asked to come up with absurd ideas. One of those “absurd ideas” was to send greeting cards to dead people. From that absurd idea the principle of communicating with the departed emerged and employees were asked to list the features and aspects of the absurd idea. Features such as leaving flowers and artifacts at cemeteries and publishing personal messages in newspapers to the departed were on the list. From there, “Imagineering” took place where employees were asked to take one of the principles or features and build it into a practical idea. Then, eureka! The feature of leaving things at the cemetery led to the idea of publishing memoriam cards on sticks so they could be inserted into the ground at the gravesite. Apparently these “cards-on-sticks” are now sold in florists shops that are located near cemeteries (Michalko, 2001, pgs. 243-244).

For more strategies that build creative thinking check out Michalko’s website at http://www.creativethinking.net/WP01_Home.htm. On the left sidebar, click on the “techniques” and/or “exercises” and have fun with some engaging activities. Then, reflect on our professional practice. To what degree does instructional design employ creative thinking? How can some of the techniques Michalko describes be used in the instructional design process? Are the most creative solutions always the best solutions?

From:
Michalko, Michael (2001). Cracking Creativity: The Secrets of Creative Genius. California: Ten Speed Press.

My impression of design thinking is that it is the process of using creativity to solve a problem.

When I am presented with a problem I consider every possible approach, no matter how insane or “out there” the approach may be.

I found a great video that illustrates the process of design thinking: http://stratige.net/2009/01/desing-thinking-at-stanford/ (Some Stanford students put together a video of how a coffee cup holder came to be).

The students defined the problem and their user (the user-bicyclers who like a coffee before class, the problem being that they had no good place to put their coffee cups while enroute). They come up with different ways to solve the problem (creatively using blue duct tape), then chose a prototype that worked and implemented their idea.

I like the quotes “Design Thinking is creativity in reaction to everyday problems” and “Wild Ideas Welcome”.

In terms of design, iterative processes enable development teams make educated changes while creating a useful and valuable product. Iterations are accomplished by the results from usability testing. Usability testing can prove to be a gold mine in regards to who the audience is, what they value, and how they will use the product.

While conducting usability testing, keep in mind that not all feedback will be objective. This feedback is still an asset as it provides important user experience data which lead to understanding the user’s mental model of the product.
- What is their thought about the product as a tool
- What language are they using
- Were user expectations met or not
The above observations can help prioritize which aspects to focus on for the next iterative process or perhaps the final product. The results from these observations can also lead to specific questions for future usability testing and research.
The Immersion Team has conducted a focus group. Based on the data collected from the focus group we switched gears and came up with another prototype which was later informally shared with a smaller segment of the focus group. We are now on our third iteration as we are now feeling confident that our product is coinciding with the user’s needs as well as satisfy our clients’ requirements.

User research, usability testing and iterative processes certainly are time consuming. However, the ROI is priceless. It’s crucial to know the users, their perceptions about the product, their expectations, their wants, and the language they use to describe a process or idea. The use of definitions and language was interesting for our team to observe. Our client, the users, and sometimes us, would say the same thing but use dated terminology, thus causing unnecessary confusion.

Devshed is an interesting open source website that focuses on website development. The article observes various data analysis stages while designing for the web.
http://www.devshed.com/c/a/Web-Services/Dynamic-Data-Analysis-on-the-Web-a-Design-Approach/

We have had several interesting class discussions about cultural issues when working in project teams. This led me to also think about how we should be considering cultural differences in our instructional design process. This seems to be becoming more important as many instructional solutions need to support audiences across international boundaries. Also, as Shahron discussed more and more organizations are creating educational content to be exported to other countries. This makes me wonder, as we outsource development of learning products to other countries can they effectively address our learners’ cultural needs?

I found the article Cultural Competence and Instructional Design: Exploration Research into the Delivery of Online Instruction Cross-Culturally (Rogers, Graham, and Mayes) to be very interesting as it examines how several instructional designers are developing instruction for other countries. The authors identified a number challenges facing instructional designers such as limited awareness and understanding of the actual culture differences, lack of formal training in cultural awareness, and lack of importance placed on culture differences in the design process.

After reviewing this article, do you think it is feasible to develop effective instruction for learners who come from cultures that are foreign to us? Do you think there are any benefits for developing instruction across culture boundaries?
What can be done to better address culture differences in instructional design?

Given that this week’s topic is, “Reporting and Corporate culture issues,” and Carl’s article regarding the design mindset that exists at apple, I was interested in finding resources that dealt specifically with issues of Corporate Design and the cultural impact of design on corporations.

My research led me to the Corporate Deisgn Foundation (www.cdf.org).

“Corporate Design Foundation, a non-profit education and research organization, was founded on the belief that design can make a major contribution both to an individual’s quality of life and to a corporation’s success, and that both individual and organizational interests can be served through the effective use of the design disciplines: product design, architecture and communication design. Accordingly, our mission is to improve the quality of life and the effectiveness of organizations through design.”

As you browse through their site, you can find a great deal of information pertaining to corporate design and how this organization functions in fostering corporate design. There are a lot of very interesting components of the site.

I was drawn to their areas of research in particular: http://www.cdf.org/research_areas/research_areas.html

They’ve identified 5 areas of research
• Innovative Product Design and Development
• Sustainability Courses
• Multidisciplinary Courses
• Workplace Design
• Design Practice

I found it interesting that not only are they focusing on Product design and development, but there seems to be an active interest in sustainable design. I expect we’ll hear more and more about this concept as time progresses, and there are some interesting articles on sustainable design in their most recent journal.

As I poked around this site, I kept finding more interesting content regarding corporate design, and I’m looking forward to reading more of their journal and continuing to explore the resources I found here. I hope everyone finds this website interesting.

Given that this week’s topic is, “Reporting and Corporate culture issues,” and Carl’s article regarding the design mindset that exists at apple, I was interested in finding resources that dealt specifically with issues of Corporate Design and the cultural impact of design on corporations.

My research led me to the Corporate Deisgn Foundation (www.cdf.org).

“Corporate Design Foundation, a non-profit education and research organization, was founded on the belief that design can make a major contribution both to an individual’s quality of life and to a corporation’s success, and that both individual and organizational interests can be served through the effective use of the design disciplines: product design, architecture and communication design. Accordingly, our mission is to improve the quality of life and the effectiveness of organizations through design.”

As you browse through their site, you can find a great deal of information pertaining to corporate design and how this organization functions in fostering corporate design. There are a lot of very interesting components of the site.

I was drawn to their areas of research in particular: http://www.cdf.org/research_areas/research_areas.html

They’ve identified 5 areas of research
• Innovative Product Design and Development
• Sustainability Courses
• Multidisciplinary Courses
• Workplace Design
• Design Practice

I found it interesting that not only are they focusing on Product design and development, but there seems to be an active interest in sustainable design. I expect we’ll hear more and more about this concept as time progresses, and there are some interesting articles on sustainable design in their most recent journal.

As I poked around this site, I kept finding more interesting content regarding corporate design, and I’m looking forward to reading more of their journal and continuing to explore the resources I found here. I hope everyone finds this website interesting.

As I searched the Internet for solutions that showed evidence of design thinking I came across two articles I wanted to highlight.

Bishop Gore School in Sketty raises pupil attendance with text message service (http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=19532)
Article Summary
This school had an attendance problem. Students would leave the homes as if there were going to school but would never show up to school. They addressed this problem by using a system that would sent text messages to the parent if the student did not show up to school and would continue to send those messages until the parent responded.

My Thoughts
I can imagine a lot of creative/design thinking going on in the minds of the staff of how to address this problem. They found that communication to the parents was going to be key in improving the students’ attendance habits and they made that part of their solution. What excites be about the final solution is that they did not limit themselves to ordinary ineffective means in which to solve the problem. They leveraged mobile technologies as the solution, by sending quick and efficient means text messages to the parent.

Mobile e learning via phone achieves real success with the young
(http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2869)
Article Summary
This report presents some innovative ideas on how mobile technologies, such as smart phones and PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants) can be useful learning aids – particularly with young people who have not succeeded through traditional education.

A few findings from the report
It helped engage young people who have been put off by traditional education methods.
It helped to remove some of the formality from the learning experience and engage reluctant learner.

My thoughts
Based on previous conversations in the 730 and 752 class the negatives of using mobile devices for e learning seems to be well thought out. I challenge us to look beyond the limitations of small mobile devices and brainstorm ways in which we can leverage these technologies in a useful way, such as the examples mentioned above. The key to both of these solutions was user research determining the everyday technology uses, user needs, understanding the problem, creative thinking and determining the best means of getting this information to intended group.