Design Journal

Our class learning materials this week were chapters from Creative Confidence by David Kelley and Tom Kelley, and Designing Interactions by Bill Moggridge. The readings gave me insight into the end goals of a creative design project and the human-centered processes that go into it. Any design endeavor I can think of (architecture, fashion, industrial, instructional) demands not only creative skills but also a technical skill set, as these two elements are always inherent to design. I have previously explored the concepts of growth and fixed mindsets  earlier after reading Mindset by Carol Dweck, and I see their applications to the creative and design spaces. The Kelleys describe a growth mindset as a "passport to new adventures" and a prerequisite for achieving creative confidence. Individuals with a growth mindset believe that their capabilities can be expanded through passion, effort, and training, regardless of their starting level, while those with a fixed mindset will stay in their comfort zone due to the belief that their abilities are innate and discomfort in exposing their limitations.

Creativity necessitates observation, experimentation, self-efficacy and a growth-mindset to cultivate the design thinking skills such as empathy and problem-solving. These skills, in turn, foster intuition, enabling the creation of high-performance products that can cater to a diverse audience. What distinguishes innovative design that can drive performance and outcome improvements from design that merely creates a product is the exploration of human interactions with the product. This requires a significant amount of empathy, research, and imagination to “put yourself in someone else’s shoes,” as well as collaboration with interdisciplinary teams to achieve. Morridge presented several quotes from both design professionals and others that he found to be inadequate explanations of the definition of design. Among these quotes, I found the one from a 10-year-old to be the most insightful! "With art—if you like, you can be really weird. But in design you have to think about what other people will like." 

I created the mind map below to visualize the connections I made from the subject matter from both sets of authors. The second image is the hand-drawn map I created on a tablet from my reading notes; the first image was created by Google Gemini's Nano Banana using my hand-drawn image the input. 

This week, I also worked on expanding my professional learning, by attending a webinar on ensuring accessibility on open education resources (OER). I have recently become more interested in OER and am seeking out opportunities to learn more and interact with groups that promote these resources. I definitely see how creativity and design thinking contribute to both OER and accessibility, in making resources available and usable for as broad an audience as possible.

I have been greatly interested in accessibility for several years, and it profoundly influences my work; I believe accessibility is an inherent component of any educational technology or instructional design initiative. To maintain my CPACC certification, I will participate in further continuing education in the coming months.  

I am still considering several ideas for what type of artifact to create for my  course design project. As I weigh options such as an interactive module or a facilitation guide, I am paying close attention to how each possibility would allow me to demonstrate empathy for learners, thoughtful use of technology, and clear alignment with instructional goals. This week's learning has framed the design, technical and user-centered skills as all parts of the same creative process. 

Our continued readings from Creative Confidence and Designing Interactions with the additon of Design as Storytelling by Patrick Parrish, have further informed my perspective on the intersection of mindset and methodology in instructional design.

One of the most compelling concepts in Creative Confidence is guided mastery. By breaking down daunting challenges into small, incremental successes, designers can dismantle the "fixed mindset" that leads many to believe they simply aren't "creative types." Albert Bandura called this "self-efficacy", the resilient belief that one can influence outcomes through their actions. I’ve realized that this isn’t just about feeling good; it’s what I have known as an "ethic of experimentation". It’s the willingness to throw-everything-at-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks, knowing that even an unsuccessful attempt is a data point that leads to a better solution.

This culture of experimentation is mirrored in Moggridge’s discussion of rapid prototyping. He argues that breakthroughs occur when we move ideas out of our heads and into the world every day. Whether it is "experience prototyping" to understand a user’s current pain points or using a prototype to communicate a vision to stakeholders, the goal is to fail frequently to succeed sooner. Interestingly, he noted that the fear of this process exists at both ends of the skill spectrum. Highly skilled designers often battle perfectionism, refusing to share work that isn’t "finished," while novices may lack the confidence to share anything at all. To counter this, we must build design teams that prioritize the "rough draft" over the final product, ensuring no one’s ideas are shut down prematurely.

Finally, Patrick Parrish’s work adds a vital layer of empathy to this technical process. He suggests that instructional design is less about technical problem-solving and more about storytelling. By viewing a design story as a form of immaterial prototyping, we can inhabit the learner's journey before a single instructional or digital asset is built. This narrative approach eliminates the emotional distance inherent in technical specifications. It forces us to ask: What will improve the learner's engagement? How can we make the learning expereince better for them? How do we give them a sense of choice, voice, ownership, and authenticity? 

By combining the self-efficacy of guided mastery with the iterative rigor of prototyping and the empathy of storytelling, we can create learning environments that are not just functional, but deeply meaningful.

This week, we have looked further into the design process, shifting away from superficial fixes toward a more profound interrogation of reality. My readings from the Kelleys and Don Norman's The Design of Everyday Things have reinforced a critical truth: understanding the problem takes a lot of observation of the environment, of what people do, and how they think.

Identify the Problem: Going to the Root Cause

The core of design thinking is actually figuring out what the actual problem is and not what we think the problem is as designers. Often, even the end-user or the customer isn't good at identifying or articulating the issue. To bypass this, I’ve been focusing on strategies to go from nothing to a solution by reframing the question and bypassing mental blocks and resistance.

By identifying all the issues and coming up with a real problem statement, we need to ensure we never try to solve a problem without figuring out what the real issues are.

• Direct Observation: There is no substitute for direct observation in the field. This is essentially ethnography in a very applied form.

• The Power of Ideation: More ideas mean more opportunities for solutions. I see the value in finding those smaller moments and smaller ideas that act as a spark for something greater.

• Transferable Inspiration: The Kelleys story of the Ferrari pit crew coaching hospital staff shows that inspiration can come from many places. Skills and ideas from one industry can be applied to another, proving that design is a universal language.

You’re the Problem: Designing for Real People

One of the most significant insights this week is that real people are not averages. There is a wide range of human experience, abilities, and needs. This is where design research becomes vital; it’s figuring out what people actually need, not just what they do, but what they are thinking. Norman describes this through the levels of human activity:

• Be-goals: The abstract value system (the "Why").

• Do-goals: The plans (the "How").

• Motor-goals: The specific tasks (the "What").

I see a clear analogy here between business methods like Scrum and Agile and the ADDIE model in instructional design. All are iterative methods meant to handle the processes of the human element of a project. Furthermore, I’ve realized that designing for special needs and accessibility benefits everyone. If an accommodation is provided by default, it eliminates the need for "retrofitting" and makes the artifact more usable for the entire "normal curve."

I’m the Problem: The Designer’s Subjectivity

Finally, I am including myself in the design problem. In my research design course, I have been working on a narrative about my own subjectivity, and I’ve realized how critical this is for a designer.

Your own perspective informs what you’re going to do and how you’re going to interpret information. My personal and professional journey, my motivations, and my ethical safeguards inform every project I touch. My biases, priorities, and even my deficiencies will inevitably inform the final product. Understanding the design problem, therefore, is a dual task: it is a problem of understanding the people and also understanding myself.

This week’s focus shifted from the internal "problem of the self" to the external "necessity of action." My readings from the Kelleys and Don Norman emphasize that you can’t innovate until you take action with your ideas. This "do something mindset" is the only antidote to the paralysis of perfectionism.

The "Do Something" Mindset vs. Perfectionism

The Kelleys argue that we must keep our planning concise and our action immediate. I’ve realized that a perfectionist mindset is a behavior very much linked to procrastination. If everything has to be just in place before you start, you may end up never getting started at all.

To combat this, I am adopting several strategies:

• Proactive Idea Tracking: I’m moving away from passive thinking by keeping running lists. I’ve found that using voice notes on a smartphone is a powerful way to record ideas; it not only captures the thought but transcribes it so the text is immediately usable elsewhere.

• Small, Achievable Goals: Breaking the process into steps that can be accomplished faster reduces the "resistance" to getting started.

• Accountability and Feedback: By consulting with peers and having an audience, I can take some of the burden off myself and use external feedback to steer my iterations.

• Prototyping as a Storytelling Tool: A good prototype should be experimental and fast. It serves as a mechanism to learn more about what you’re doing, but it also functions as an "elevator pitch." A successful prototype tells a story that is persuasive, helping stakeholders see the vision before the final product is built.

The Design Gap in Educator Training

Don Norman discusses how confusing objects often fail because the fault lies in the design, not the user. I see a direct connection here to my the design artifact I am creating for this course. In my project details I noted a major flaw in current educational structures:

"While many instructional leaders and faculty are theoretically familiar with Universal Design for Learning (UDL), they rarely see it modeled effectively in their own training. Consequently, they are expected to implement complex, inclusive strategies independently without ever having experienced them as learners."

By applying Human-Centered Design (HCD), I am prioritizing what people actually need over just the theory. It isn’t enough to present solid concepts; if we don't model the engagement we expect, we are asking educators to go do something we haven't shown them how to do. My artifact aims to bridge this gap by creating an environment that is actionable and engaging by modeling active learning through the very delivery of the PD.

This week, we had to flex our instructional design muscles in a new way by creating a design story to support our project. I have to admit, this challenge caused significant writer's block. If you asked me for the pedagogical framework or the technical specifications, I could rattle them off easily. But composing a narrative left me stumped because I haven't been challenged in this way often.

While I have conducted learner analyses and focus groups to identify pain points, I realized I had never truly "put myself in their shoes" in a meaningful, narrative sense. This exercise forced a shift away from emphasizing technical problem-solving and toward composing a story of the learning experience.

The Discovery of the First Person

I deeply connected with Patrick Parrish’s idea that "storytelling itself is a process of discovery for the teller." To navigate this, I chose to write my design story in the 1st person. Writing from this perspective was more relatable than a detached 3rd-person account. It forced me to express the user's thoughts, feel their feelings, and understand their disappointments and aspirations as a professional. Building this "instructional design muscle" trains us to have a level of empathy that technical specs simply cannot capture. Designs based solely on function might work, but they rarely engage or excite.

Visualizing: The Mandala of Design

Andrew Gibbons' article, What and how do designers design?, asks us to consider what we are designing on a fundamental level. He introduces the concept of "centrisms," which I visualize as a mandala, expanding outward from the basic to the big-picture.

Gibbons argues that the mature designer works on this Model-Centric paradigm. Interestingly, I believe technology has finally caught up to this ideal. With Artificial Intelligence, it is now easier to provide the complex feedback systems and adaptive environments that were difficult to build when Gibbons wrote this. AI allows us to move away from static media and truly design the "experience" at the model level.

This week, the focus shifted toward communicating our ideas visually. I worked on creating a professional presentation video that serves as a pitch for my design artifact. Within this video, I walked through the overarching goals behind the project, sharing storyboards and infographics that detail the prototype and the specific functions of the artifact.

The Design Artifact: Modeling Active Learning

The core of my project is an Open Educational Resource (OER) module paired with an AI companion, designed specifically to model active learning within professional development.

To set the stage in my pitch, I told the story of a familiar, frustrating reality: educators are far too often trained in passive, sit-and-get lectures. The actual pedagogical techniques they are expected to use are rarely modeled for them, which actively hinders inclusive educational practices.

Instead, with the help of the tools I am designing we can immerse participants directly into the practices they are learning. This approach removes the cognitive load and the barriers to figuring out how to implement immersive, inclusive design. By lowering these barriers to entry, the practices can be easily transferred into the classroom to the learners who need them the most.

Bridging the Gulf of Execution

Our readings this week from The Design of Everyday Things  (Chapter 2, "The Psychology of Everyday Actions") perfectly articulated this problem. Norman’s concept of the Gulf of Execution relates directly to what happens in standard professional development.

Educators are provided with very high-level information in these workshops, but there is no hands-on aspect or modeling to show them how to execute those ideas. My artifact’s goal is to bridge that gulf. As Norman states, the quote that stuck with me is that the "difficulties reside in their design, not in the people attempting to use them." This validates that when professional development fails to produce useful outcomes, it is because it is poorly designed. It is not the fault of the educators; they simply aren't given actionable, well-designed information.

Professional Passion and the Courage to Leap

In Creative Confidence, the Kelleys dedicate Chapter 5 ("Duty to Passion") to the ability to unlock creative potential in your life, framing it largely in terms of personal fulfillment. However, I found this applies just as strongly to professional fulfillment.

Educators genuinely want to be creative and unlock their potential in their teaching. But often, the barrier to entry is simply too high; especially when it comes to the heavy lifting of instructional design and creating highly engaging, interactive lessons. Having a toolkit like the one I am developing does that heavy lifting for them. It assists with the structural design so that educators can find the "courage to leap." It empowers them to try something new, break away from the familiar status quo, and ultimately redefine their professional roles into something much more fulfilling.

This week, the focus was on evaluating our peers' pitches and opening our own design artifacts up to critique. Reviewing my peers' work through the lenses of human-centered design, storytelling, user interface, and functionality provided a valuable mirror for my own process.

Learning from Peer Designs

Looking at the work of my cohort was a valuable reminder to explicitly tie the design concepts we have learned in this course to design decisions. Seeing them map those tenets so clearly inspired me to keep these principles at the forefront of my mind for the communication of my own artifact.

Additionally, observing their approaches sparked some new considerations for the future of my project:

• Integration vs. Standalone: Some projects made me realize the potential of creating an artifact that adds functionality to an existing platform, as opposed to just being a standalone tool. While this is a more ambitious idea, it is definitely something to think about for a further stage of my project.

• Educational Leadership: I appreciated how some peers brought the lens of educational decision-making into their design. This is an important perspective to include in any resource that provides information to educators or educational leaders.

Refining the Pitch Through Feedback

Invariably, when you are designing something, it makes complete sense to you. However, when you communicate it, it may not make sense to the viewer or end-user. This is why the peer feedback I received was so useful.

The feedback highlighted several areas for improvement in my pitch:

• Show, Don't Just Tell: My pitch could have included more of a scenario or an example. I realized I could have incorporated elements of my design story directly into the presentation to provide a better visual of the actual experience. I need to use the pitch as an opportunity to model the usage of the artifact, as opposed to just saying what it does.

• Assessing Prerequisites: A great point was raised about prior knowledge: How much prior knowledge does the user need to use this effectively? I need to account for people of different technical aptitudes and, now that I think about it, varying levels of pedagogical expertise.

• Validation of the Core Concept: Despite the need for more visuals of the user in action, the feedback validated the necessity of tools like this for adult learning and professional development. My peers agreed that the AI assistant aspect will help reduce the workload of implementing the resource.

Theoretical Connections: Gal and Hokanson

The insights from this week's peer reviews resonate with our readings from Gal and Hokanson.

In Gal’s Footholds for Design, he notes that our tools, including those based on computers, need to be aligned with the process of the design inquiry. This gibes perfectly with the feedback I received that modeling is critical. If we want users to understand technical tools, the presentation itself must align with the active inquiry we expect from them.

Hokanson’s piece on Role-Based Design offered a critique that resonated with my project's goals. He points out that instructional design tends to concentrate on technological and pedagogical requirements rather than the quality of the learning experience or innovation. This is a crucial distinction: something can be pedagogically sound, but that does not mean it is a smooth learning experience or creatively implemented. Instructional design could heavily benefit from more creative, innovative, and artistic ideas.

Hokanson also raised a point that serves as a vital safeguard for my artifact. He stated that algorithms and instructional design models seek an anticipated solution. Example this to the technology we use today, this is exactly what an AI agent seeks to do. However, instructional design issues are highly complex and not always well addressed by purely algorithmic processes. As I continue to implement an AI agent to solve an instructional issue, I must keep this limitation in mind to ensure the technology enhances, rather than flattens, the complexity of the learning experience.