I was reflecting for a moment on the picture here, where Design Thinking was in action, and was thinking about how we often ask students, teachers, parents, administrators, workers, and so on to add their ideas to a wall through a brainstorm method. But I was also thinking about accountability. I wonder if it would be better to create a system like this where everyone needs to have their name attached to their idea. My theory is that it would help in two ways.
The first is that the overall architect(s) would be able to return to the brainstorm and see who’s name is attached to the idea. This way, if there is a problem, they can quickly follow-up with that person to get a clearer idea of what they were writing about.
The second idea stems from the fact that I assume people will put more effort into an idea if they know their name is attached to it. With anonymity could come sloppiness, laziness, or downright silliness.
Where I think it might squash some of the better ideas because people may not want to put them forth since their name is attached, to counteract this, people could be asked to come back to the wall or another wall for another turn at it. This time, they could put any idea that came to their head, but could do it anonymously.
I would argue that using both methods would be most useful because most ideas would be well thought out and articulated from those who had their names attached, but the second method would enable out-of-the-box thinking and the bizarre ideas to flourish.
What do you think? Has this approach been done before?
At the Nanjing International School, we use both the IBO curriculum and we are trying to adopt NoTosh’s ideas about Design Thinking.
I might argue that since we are trying to follow both the IB Design Curriculum AND Design Thinking we ask students to choose from at least one strand in each criterion. In my teaching career with MYP, I have noticed most times every item from the IBO’s level 7-8 criteria does not make sense for students to complete. They are not realistic and rather than student being informed by the process, they are bored out of their mind.
A case example:
If students would like to make a website, they might only choose:
Criterion A: Inquiring and analysing
i. explains and justifies the need for a solution to a problem for a client/ target audience
ii. constructs a detailed research plan, which identifies and prioritizes the primary and secondary research needed to develop a solution to the problem independently iii. analyses a range of existing products that inspire a solution to the problem in detail
iv. develops a detailed design brief, which summarizes the analysis of relevant research.
Criterion B: Developing ideas
The student: i. develops detailed design specifications, which explain the success criteria for the design of a solution based on the analysis of the research (in this case, a website layout) ii. develops a range of feasible design ideas, using an appropriate medium(s) and detailed annotation, which can be correctly interpreted by others
iii. presents the chosen design and justifies fully and critically its selection with detailed reference to the design specification
iv. develops accurate and detailed planning drawings/diagrams and outlines requirements for the creation of the chosen solution.
Criterion C: Creating the solution
i. constructs a detailed and logical plan, which describes the efficient use of time and resources, sufficient for peers to be able to follow to create the solution ii. demonstrates excellent technical skills when making the solution.
iii. follows the plan to create the solution, which functions as intended and is presented appropriately iv. fully justifies changes made to the chosen design and plan when making the solution.
Criterion D: Evaluating
The student: i. designs detailed and relevant testing methods, which generate data, to measure the success of the solution
ii. critically evaluates the success of the solution against the design specification based on authentic product testing iii. explains how the solution could be improved iv. explains the impact of the product on the client/target audience.(IBO, 2014)
Following this idea, teachers would still have something to mark for every criterion, but it would be more succinct and we could enable the FUN back into the learning. I would emphasize that we would want the students to choose and (verbally) justify why they have chosen those criteria. Along the lines of Design Thinking, we want the kids to: “be immersed, synthesize, ideate, prototype, and then display” (NoTosh, 2015).
I think it is important that we follow the rules, but as educators we need to realize when the rules should be broken if we are ensuring that our students are not enjoying the subject matter.
This video is the next in a series about instructional design and technology integration. It focuses on “weeding” (Mayer and Moreno, 2003 as cited by Mayer and Clark, 2010, p. 308). Note the video in this post: https://ict-design.org/2013/11/28/instructional-design-and-technology-integration/ where cognitive overload occurs because of the split attention effect. As a viewer, you are trying to focus either on the writing at the bottom of the screen or the verbal explanation. The videos are nearly identical; however, in the video in this post most subtitles and music while speaking occurs was removed. The effect is that it reduces extraneous processing by the viewer.
Mayer, R. E., & Clark, R. C. (2010). Instructional strategies for receptive learning environments. In K. H. Silber, & W. R. Foshay (Series Ed.), Handbook for improving performance in the workplace: Vol. 1. Instructional design and training delivery, (pp. 298-328). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
This is the first video in a series involving key ideas in instructional design. It has technology integrated through authentic means in the lesson. It is meant to induce cognitive overload, but embeds a lot of information about instructional design in doing so. Watch this video as a comparison. This video specifically explores:
Split Attention Effect
Primacy and Recency
Presentation of the Whole Task (Pebbles in the Pond)
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experimental, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Martinez, M. E. (2010). Learning and cognition: The design of the mind. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Silber, K. H. (2010). A principle-based model of instructional design. In K. H. Silber, & W. R. Foshay (Series Ed.), Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Vol.1. Instructional design and training delivery, (pp. 23-52). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
van Gog, T., Ericsson, K. A., Rikers, R. M., & Paas, F. (2005). Instructional design for advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate practice. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(3), 73-81. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu
van Merriënboer, J. J., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design implications for e-learning. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(3), 5-13. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu