Location: Tobaccoville, North Carolina

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Designer's Philosophy

Has the presenter/designer stated their design philosophy in easy-to-understand terms?

When it comes to determining want should be designed (the need) I tend to sit back and listen. People around me often speak of things they notice, want to do, need to do but don’t seem to have the time to do. By listening to what I hear from various sources or compiling information from what I’ve read I’m able to prioritize and determine which project should actually be tackled.

Once the need has been determined I tend to run with things. I talk with people who have mentioned the need in order to discover what they feel is connected with need and how they feel the need will impact people (students, the school, community, family, etc.) From here I make a list of what should be done, sort of a plan of action. These actions are then organized and prioritized.

Now it’s time to stop and think again. I think by drawing pictures (graphic organizers, flow charts, concept maps). My mind thinks like a flow chart. I do best when I see where I’m starting, where I’m going, and have a pathway to get there. Concept Maps and flow charts help me see this. The diagramming process also helps me view various ways (pathways) to fulfilling the need. I choose the particularly pathway by talking to those who originally articulated the need. Their input helps me to put the pieces together; sometimes this means throwing out all of my plans, combining plans, and eventually putting a plan into action.

Once a plan is put into action I stop every once in a while to evaluate how things are going. Do I need to make modifications? Are things going as they are supposed to? My evaluation is both self-evaluation of the project and through discussions with stakeholders. If changes need to be made then I make them. The plan goes back into action using the modifications. And the process of evaluation begins again.

If you were to hire the presenter/designer, would you have a clear idea of how they will work with you and your organization and where they stand philosophically?

As you can tell by my design process, I consult with others at most stages of design. I find others input to extremely helpful. Often times, people in the same organization will have the same need but very different ideas of how the need should fulfilled or implemented. When this occurs good communication skills (negotiation, compromise, collaboration) are necessary. It is important for everyone to bring their ideas to the table and discuss them. An open dialogue is extremely important for the designer because the design should fit the needs of the user. The designer should be in contact with the user (stakeholders) to make sure the need is being fulfilled in the desired way. It is also important for the designer to feel comfortable making suggestions. The designer has the toolkit and knows what tools are available to complete the project. Essentially, the designer needs to put their knowledge to use (by making suggestions) in order to fulfill the stakeholders needs. The stakeholders and designer stay on track through communication with one another.

Did the presenter discuss their preferred processing types(s) based on the Learning Connections Inventory and indicate how they would ‘correct’ for their own processing biases in designing instruction?

I’ve have gone back and forth about which processing types I am. There are aspects of each that I use. Of the four processing types I feel that I lead with the sequential pattern because I like have a “map” to follow. This map does not need to be given to me because I feel comfortable creating my own map. I also have a strong desire for everything to be neat and well organized. I like to be able to put my hands on what I need immediately. I feel I am also strong in the precise pattern. I tend to be wordy, wanting to fully explain and provide details to back up what I’m saying. I enjoy researching information and coming up with a synthesis of the material I’ve found.

I correct for my processing biases by discussing the design with stakeholders and using a variety of teaching/explanation techniques. Through discussion examples of “real-world” (technical) and hands-on (technical) will come about. Such discussions allow people to pull from their own experiences (confluent) and demonstrate their own way (confluent) to fulfill the need being discussed.

In terms of the project at hand, a discussion board will be setup-allowing students to discuss homework problems. Through these discussion students of different processing types will be able to present their way of solving a problem. All processing types will have a chance to give input and take time to analyze what is being discussed.

Did the presenter indicate how their infrastructural skill set (e.g. communication, negotiation, conversation, etc.) would enable them to effectively address gender and cultural diversity in designing instruction?

Communication is a cornerstone of my design process. I plan to take time to allow stakeholders to provide input in the design, implementation and evaluation of this (and any other) project. I will work to provide a venue which is open and inviting thereby encouraging communication. Through conversation I will be able to listen to the voices of the stakeholders and make design adjustments accordingly.


Post a Comment

<< Home