Design Thinking Online Experiential Learning
This is the transcript of a speech I delivered in 2017 on Innovation, Design, and Learning Environments, entitled "Design Thinking for the Transformative Age of Education: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Distance Ed."
To read the full, academic version, click here.
Albert Einstein once famously said, “We cannot solve our problems with the thinking we used when we created them.”
And he was right. Whether you look at the problems we are facing individually or as a society, whether it is a toxic habit or global warming, all of them require innovative solutions that counteract what we were thinking when these problems emerged. And today, one of the fields that lacks this innovation is education.
Meaningfully educating the next generation of university students requires constant revolution and modernization. As the famous TED talk by Sir Ken Robinson has pointed out, we cannot educate 21st-century changemakers with educational practices from the industrial age. Similarly, in Qualified to Surf Chaos, authors Mann, Ker and O’Brien explore the principles of heutagogy, which essentially means a learner-driven education, and how this transformation of modern education is crucial in developing leaders of tomorrow who can handle the problems created today.
Personally, I previously was not a big fan of distance education. To me, compared to the in-person, community-based education that you get from a traditional institution, distant education seemed like a poor substitute. This is why if you had told me years ago that I would end up designing online communities for deep self-in-systems learning, I would have sarcastically commented that ‘online communities’ were an oxymoron. And yet, after four years of working with innovative global experiential learning (GEL) and leadership programs, I am now convinced of not only the effectiveness but also the significance of online communities and distance learning for the future of education. What’s more, design thinking for distance learning is an integral part of this journey. Here is why…
According to EY Australia, the current landscape of education is being changed by six factors:
1. The rise of continuous learning.
2. Blurring industry boundaries.
3. Changing world of work.
4. Changing student needs.
5. Evolving digital behaviour.
6. Increasing competition.
Figure 1. Disrupting forces driving change in the education landscape.
Moving towards Participatory Design Thinking
Although the traditional approaches to designing print and online education employed by professionals across the globe are functional and adequate for the time being, there are also limitations to these models that need to be countered for the changing world. One such strategy is ADDIE, which stands for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (Figure 2) and is the go-to instructional design method of the Open University, and many leading online learning systems.
Figure 2. ADDIE instructional design process (Monarch Media).
In his open textbook, ‘Teaching in a Digital Age’, Dr. Tony Bates expresses how ADDIE and other front-loaded instructional design processes work great for large and complex projects where a bulletproof plan is needed before launch. However, he also goes on to explain how ADDIE’s inflexibility and the one-way hierarchical relationship between the instructor and instructed are limiting, and not in line with established best practices in adult education. ADDIE’s inflexibility is one of the biggest issues with its design.
“The systems under which the world operates...are vast and complex - interconnected to the point of confusion and uncertainty. The linear process of cause and effect becomes increasingly irrelevant and it is necessary for knowledge workers to begin thinking in new ways and exploring new solutions.”
As educators, to overcome this linear delivery of knowledge and ideas that may not be the best fit for all learners, we need a new paradigm to stay relevant and connect learners to their vocational aspirations. Design thinking is one way to shift away from a monocultural, packaged model of education and move towards a model that adapts as the students grow.
This is where participatory design comes in. Research from Goldman et al. (2012) suggests that instead of building assessment models that capture students’ static mindsets, we should create learning environments that capture mindshifts. Mindshifts are the emergent processes where students “re-synthesize and reorient their worldviews, routes and propensities in problem-solving”. Designing for mindshifts is inherently experiential, and understands that:
Learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes.
All learning is relearning.
Learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed models of adaptation to the world.
Learning is a holistic process of adaptation to the world.
Learning results from synergetic transactions between the person and the environment.
Learning is the process of creating knowledge (Kolb & Kolb).
To sum up, since education is a continuous process of change, ‘educating’ should also be subject to constant change to be effective.
The Need for Distance Learning
Through the possibilities and opportunities presented by distance learning we can change our education system to be constantly innovative and facilitate innovation in young minds. In their book, ‘Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action’, authors Hase and Kenyon explain how student-led learning defuses hierarchies and makes it easier for ideas to emerge and spread. Without the restrictions of geography, textbooks, and fixed curriculums, students will be much better equipped to handle the direction of their education and allow for experiential learning that benefits them in numerous ways.
The landscape of education is changing, as are the desires and expectations of learners. One such desire is the increased demand for access and inclusion to world-class, global learning and leadership programs. As such, simple constraints like geographic location, the need to work, or care-giving duties should not be a barrier to deep learning opportunities.
Distance education also benefits from a wider circle of participants and possibilities which address an implicit inequality within bricks-and-mortar schools. Student-led learning, and participatory distance learning design defuses hierarchies and makes it easier for ideas to emerge and spread. Moreover, when design thinking is partnered with experiential learning, we can better facilitate whole-ecosystem approaches that value interdisciplinary, diverse perspectives, and change-ability allowing distance learning communities to be both innovative and an incubator for innovation.
As innovation in education, tends to happen at the edges, when people are able to shift between systems, communities, and disciplines.
The "Transformative Age" of education presents us, as knowledge workers, with a series of opportunities afforded by new technologies, pedagogies, and processes. When we approach the oncoming disruptive forces in higher education through the lens of design thinking, and with the tools of distance learning, the challenges before us turn into opportunities for invitation. An invitation to create something new. Something that, alongside our students and communities, is much better suited for our emergent and changing world and has the ability to transform the future for the better.
References & Additional Resources
Bates, T. (2014, September 9). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2yYVjyQ
Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Taking making into classrooms toolkit. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2zFkUwo
Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.
Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
Halloran, C. & Friday, C. (2018). Can the universities of today lead learning for tomorrow? The university of the future. Retrieved from https://cdn.ey.com/echannel/au/en/industries/government---public-sector/ey-university-of-the-future-2030/EY-university-of-the-future-2030.pdf
Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2013). Self-determined learning : Heutagogy in action. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212.
Lee, M. J. W., & McLoughlin, C. (2010). Beyond distance and time constraints: Applying social networking tools and web 2.0 approaches in distance education. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 61–87). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Mann, S., Ker, G., Eden-Mann, P., & O’Brien, R. (2017). Qualified to surf chaos: A self-determined degree. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322927987_QUALIFIED_TO_ SURF_CHAOS_A_SELF-DETERMINED_DEGREE
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design? Design Issues, 30(1), 67-77. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2Dx03je
Monarch Media. (n.d.). Understanding ADDIE and RAD. Retrieved from https://www.monarchmedia.com/understanding-addie-rad/
Robinson, K. (2010). Changing educational paradigms [Ted Talk video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms
Stroh, D. P. (2015). Systems thinking for social change: A practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Universities Canada. (2014). Possessing global skills key for internationalization — survey [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.univcan.ca/media-room/media-releases/possessing-global-skills-key-for-internationalization-survey/
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 6(2):185-194.
