Ahah, I’m a designer?!: Becoming Empowered Designers ... · Ahah, I’m a designer?!: Becoming Empowered Designers through Course Experiences Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch*, Hsin-Hui Chang,

I’M A DESIGNER 1

Ahah, I’m a designer?!: Becoming Empowered Designers through Course Experiences

Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch*, Hsin-Hui Chang, Takuya Hayakawa,

Jason Michael Mastrogiovanni, Lisa A. Shipley, Cody Miller, and Terrica M. Durbin

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

*Correspondence to this article should be sent to Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch, Educational Psychology and Counseling Department, 513 Bailey Education Complex, Knoxville, TN 37996. Contact: [email protected]

Keywords Instructional Design, Design Thinking, Design Education, Graduate Education, Qualitative Research, Collaborative Research

I’M A DESIGNER 2

We introduce our work as a collaborative research team of faculty and graduate students about design thinking. This work is an example of how working adults do not know when they are engaging in design in their personal and professional lives. In our discussions, we will examine how Design is a forgotten discipline in K-16 Western formal education even though as human beings we engage in design in our daily activities. Many people engage in design without identifying as designers.

We will present how students in a Learning, Design, and Technology doctoral program, from a variety of professional backgrounds such as K-12 education, higher education, nursing, graphic design, and corporate training, discovered what it means to be a designer. We will present a summary of the literature on design in instructional design and technology. Then we will introduce design thinking, in which design is conceptualized as a complex problem-solving activity. We will present the context of the study, data collection methods, analysis, as well as findings and implications.

Evolving Relations between Theory and Practice

The field of instructional design and technology has been shaped and influenced by an emphasis on scientific research methods to legitimize findings in human interaction research (Ohlsson, 2010). This practice has ranked scientific truths of higher importance than truths discovered in design precedents from practical experiences (Boling, 2010). The value that is put on theories and models in instructional design and technology demonstrates the tendency for presenting scientific truths as the content that instructional designers must learn. This has resulted in a field laden with theories based on what is believed to be true, and models that represent those truths.

Many design models in the field of Instructional Design and Technology were developed when systems theory was popular in the 1950s and 1960s (Edmonds, Branch, & Mukherjee, 1994; Gibbons, Boling, & Smith, 2014). They were initially created as a teaching tool rather than as a tool for defining design (Dick, 1996). These design models were often focused on solving problems (Smith & Boling, 2009) and expressed as a set of procedures (Branch & Koptcha, 2014).

The quest to ensure scientific rigor in design research has made findings from those works irrelevant to practice, and provided little guidance to designers on how to advance the field as a practice (Hanington, 2010). An overemphasis on theories and models has left no room for practitioners to learn from trial-and-error, which may be relevant to their future design activities (Gropper, 2015). In many situations, expert designers do not follow process models that were taught in formal educational settings (Boling & Smith, 2012; Fortney & Yamagata-Lynch, 2013). For example, Klein (1991) and Young, Reiser, and Dick (1998) found that teachers do not follow instructional design models while engaging in their daily instructional design and planning.

Design models have become the default definition of design in our field, but do not sufficiently address the complexities that instructional designers encounter every day (Bichelmeyer, Boling, & Gibbons, 2006). Many practitioners find design models to be difficult

I’M A DESIGNER 3

to apply to their specific situations (Tessmer & Wedman, 1995). As a result, they have discounted theories and models they learned in their formal training because they are often unable to translate them into practice (Yanchar, South, Williams, Allen, & Wilson, 2010).

Instead of devoting a significant amount of time on the content of how design can be represented, designers need time to learn about designerly ways of knowing (Cross, 2006). The historical context of Design Education in Instructional Design and Technology has created a gap between what instructional designers know and do and what they are taught in formal training (Boling & Smith, 2012; Rowland, 1993). Furthermore, the content taught in formal instructional design education dominated by process oriented models may be getting in the way for professionals to develop design expertise (Jonassen, 2011).

Understanding Design through Design Thinking

Design thinking, which has gained popular ground in efforts to understand design, is practice-based and recognizes design problems as ill-defined and ill-structured (Cross, 2011). In contrast to scientific problems, design problems have been described as wicked and grounded in practical situations (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Rittel and Webber (1973) further explain that design problems often involve multiple individual interests with contradictions and resource constraints that lead to challenges for maintaining equity within a large social system. Since Rittel and Webber’s work was published in the 1970s, other authors have challenged their claim that design problems are wicked and scientific problems are tame is an overgeneralization. However, it can be safely stated that there is far less research efforts put into examining what design is and what designers do compared to understanding the works of scientists (Farrell & Hooker, 2013).

Cross (2006) explains that design is often omitted from formal education because the Western language and culture lacks the ability to understand it in words. Designers do not share design knowledge regularly through language in written form because it is not their professional mode of communication (Lawson, 2004). According to Lawson, designers value actions more than recording ideas for the purpose of externalizing design knowledge. However, while analyzing design related conversations between an experienced architect and an apprentice, Schön (1983) explains that design involves a meta-language, which he calls “language about design” (p. 81).

Language is a necessary and powerful tool in the human learning experience. It allows individuals to understand concepts and actions while they share their knowledge to communities in which they belong (Bruner, 1990; Vygotsky, 1986). Inevitably, when there is not an emphasis on sharing design knowledge through language and learning the language about design in formal education and everyday life, it becomes difficult for many to see themselves engaging in design.

Nelson and Stolterman (2012) state that human beings are hard-wired to engage in some relationship with design. We engage in design because everything surrounding us is a product of design (Cross, 2006). In other words, whether individuals are aware or not, they are constantly being introduced to design, acting based on design, and engaging in design themselves.

I’M A DESIGNER 4

Design can be described as a reflective conversation that professionals engage during problem-solving in practice (Schön, 1983). In this reflective conversation, designers reflect on complex constructs in their practice (Thorpe, 2004). Schön explains that in its broadest sense design is about making things. Lawson and Dorst (2009) describe design as a free flow of ideas and creativity to make something new while exploring satisfactory solutions. Rowland (1993) shared his definition of design as:

Design is carried out in numerous fields and will vary depending on the designer and on the type of thing that is designed. Designing requires a balance of reason and intuition, an impetus to act, and an ability to reflect on actions taken (p. 80).

Rowland summarizes that becoming a designer involves individuals finding a balance between technical skills and creativity as well as rational and intuitive thought processes.

Design involves engaging in multi-dimensional problem solving with the unknown where not all goals and constraints related to the problem are discovered (Dorst, 2011; Jonassen, 2011). Jonassen (2011) explained that design involves problem solving through model building activities with an infinite number of solutions that can be explored within the culturally accepted context. He continued that this type of problem solving is different from scientific program solving where the goal is to hone into the best solution that can be generalized to multiple situations.

The iterative path to a final solution may contain both successes and failures (Dorst, 2011). Cross (2006) explains that while experiencing initial failures, designers often find themselves in a place where they break through from being stuck, and find themselves encountering a creative leap whether it is a small leap forward or a significant leap. He further explains that in this process designers “need to learn the self-confidence to define, redefine, and change the problem-as-given in the light of the solution that emerged from their minds and hands” (p. 7).

Methods

Data Context

The graduate level course about design thinking in which this study took place was required for all students in a doctoral level Learning, Design, and Technology program. In the course students explored both theoretical and empirical works about design in various fields, design research methods, and the sociocultural implication of design in human learning environments (See Appendix A Syllabus). The course was offered in 2013, 2015, and 2016, and students were required to examine their role as a designer by completing a design reflection journal throughout the semester as well as a design philosophy paper at the end of the semester. Additionally, students were required to write a design case and present on non-traditional research methods to examine design. The findings introduced in this chapter will be based on the in-class discussions, student design reflection journals (See Appendix B for Design Reflection Journal Topics), and student design philosophy paper (See Appendix C for Design Philosophy Paper Guide).

I’M A DESIGNER 5

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection was performed by the faculty researcher starting in 2013. Each year the course was offered, the faculty researcher had a third party collect informed consent from students enrolled in the course, after grades were submitted and students had completed their instructor evaluations. Over the three-year duration, a total of 18 students volunteered to participate. Graduate student authors of this chapter were all enrolled in the course in one of the years that it was offered.

Data analysis began in 2017, when the graduate students became involved in the collaborative research team. This process began with each author acclimating to the data while identifying initial codes following the constant comparative method (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Once a set of agreed upon codes and definitions to each code were identified, the team coded the data in NVivo. This involved initial coding of documents as individuals then during research team meetings assigned pairs came to a consensus of the coding.

After coding was completed, the research team began analysis by running reports for codes that were used most frequently. The reports consisted of the coded raw data, which then sub-teams were assigned to examine for overarching findings. These efforts were recorded and shared in an electronic notebook hosted on Evernote. During our research team meetings, each sub-team presented their findings, and the team reached a consensus on the identified findings.

Trustworthiness and Authorship

As described above to ensure methodological rigor, we involved multiple researchers, relied on multiple sources of data, and contextualized our work within the existing literature (Denzin, 1989; Tracy, 2010). All authors were involved in the coding, analysis, meaning making of the data to findings, and continual analysis of our work in the process of writing this chapter. The data analysis workflow of our team consisted of (a) reaching a consensus on steps to take as a team, (b) sub-teams engaging in data analysis, (c) sub-teams presenting findings to research team, (d) research team coming to consensus on the analysis and findings, and (e) research team finding relevance of our work in the context of existing literature. This led to a continual state of renegotiation of what we learned while we collectively made meaning of the data.

Authorship decisions were made based on the authorship agreement that the research team identified in 2017 (see Appendix D Research Team Authorship Guide). This agreement was based on an agreement the faculty author had already had in place with a different faculty graduate student research team. The current collaborative team modified and adapted the agreement through a consensus process. The initial set of authorship order was based on the level of individual contribution to the writing of this chapter, from then on when authors had equal contribution they were presented in alphabetical order of last names.

Findings

In the early entries of the design research journals across all cohorts, participants shared that they would not refer to themselves as a designer. Participants also shared that this belief

I’M A DESIGNER 6

originated from their work in non-design related settings. They did not perceive that design took a role in their daily practice. In some cases, there were participants who showed bewilderment or resentment early in the semester during class sessions by sharing comments that as an educator they could not understand why a course about design was required. In their journals, many posed questions about the relevance of design to their work because formal training for their profession did not include design.

At this early stage in the course, participants discussed the definition of design through personal examples. Ashley, who was a former K-12 educator as well as a web designer for a non-profit organization, commented “when I was a web designer, I tended to see design in a very literal way: design was the active process of creating something” (Design Reflection Journal Entry 1, 2013). When asked what design meant to them in their first assigned journal entry, many participants shared that it was something related to personal preferences such as home decor and for “creative types.” In many cases participants’ definition of design led them to believe that they interacted with design as a consumer, and never thought of themselves as a designer. Tracy, formally trained in nursing, stated, “My basic assumption [prior to this course] was that design was something other people were involved with, and that my interaction with design was limited to using objects designed by other people” (Design Reflection Journal Entry 1, 2016).

Participants shared that becoming a designer was unreachable and unattainable because they were not formally trained as a designer. They specifically associated design to what they perceived as creative activities and because they did not see themselves to possess creative talent, they did not imagine that they were designers. For example, both Ashley and Jennifer from the 2013 cohort, had formal training as classroom teachers and shared in their journal that when they began the course they believed that design was for people in professions such as architecture, graphic design, and art in general.

In addition to individuals who believed they did not qualify as a designer, there were a smaller number of participants who began their course experience with formal training as a designer in creative fields. For example Emily who enrolled in the 2015 course, shared that she was trained as a graphic designer and “design played a significant role in my life so far” (Design Reflection Journal Entry 1, 2015). Interestingly, Emily continued to share that until this course she had applied design specifically to her work as a graphic designer and not in other areas of her life.

As course activities progressed, participants began recognizing design in their everyday lives. Ava from the 2015 cohort who has a background in academic coaching for university athletes shared in her journal that; “The more I learn about design such as what constitutes being a designer, and what constitutes design as a whole, the more I realize that I am engaged in designing on a day-to-day basis.” Susan, who had formal training as a city planner and a classroom teacher, while referring an assigned reading in class by Nelson and Stolterman (2012), shared that; “I realized that design is all around us and it is not something that we are always conscious of” (Design Reflection Journal Entry 5, 2015).

I’M A DESIGNER 7

Many participants started to see how design took a role in both their personal and professional lives every day and everywhere. Participants shared during class and in their writing that they were now aware of the necessity to reflect and acknowledge how they engage in design. Susan described how she had been engaging in design in the past without realizing:

...I have designed as a teacher....I’ve designed lesson plans and PowerPoint lectures (going crazy with the “clip art.”) When I was teaching high school, I had to arrange and fit 32 student desks, a teacher’s desk, a filing cabinet, a computer table, and a technology cart “comfortably” in a classroom. I use quotes because under those circumstances, as long as I wasn’t blocking the exit, I think I did pretty well. (Susan, Design Reflection Journal Entry 1, 2015)

As participants recognized that design took a role in their personal and professional lives, they also started to see themselves as designers.

Cheryl, who was formally trained as a classroom teacher and was a practicing English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher described her process of this recognition as follows:

I had an “ahah” moment during the first class. Our discussion revolved around the current curriculum used in my position and I had commented that before this new curriculum had been purchased, I was essentially on my own to create my lessons….There it was; I was a designer. I had been creating curriculum for my special group of ESL students who did not fit they typical mold of a student you would find in a regular classroom. (Design Reflection Journal Entry 1, 2013).

At various points within the course, participants from all three cohorts claimed their role of designer as they reflected upon their new understanding of design and their own day-to-day actions. As expressed in comments shared above, all participants commented in their class discussions and written work that they saw themselves in a new light engaging in design.

When reflecting on why she did not see herself as a designer prior to the course, Tracy, from the 2015 cohort, shared in her journal that previously she had built “artificial boundaries” around the concept of design as her professional education had not included design. This comment was also shared by participants who claimed a design background. Emily from the 2013 cohort explained that she had purposefully limited design to take a role in her professional life, but by being part of the course she came to understand that she needs to examine design and its role in her personal life. Many participants shared comments similar to Tracy and Emily that the boundaries they had built around design had been preventing them from purposefully engaging in design in both their personal and professional lives. At the end of the course, participants shared a new sense of commitment and a sense of empowerment in claiming their role as a designer.

Implications

The findings from this study suggest that participants prior to taking the graduate level course about design thinking did not know that they were engaging in design every day.

I’M A DESIGNER 8

Participants associated this difficulty to the lack of opportunities in their formal education to learn about design. However, once participants started to see how design took a role in both their personal and professional lives, they were able to overcome the boundaries they had created themselves reserving design as a talent only for people in few professional fields. By tearing down the walls participants had created around design, they gained a sense of confidence and empowerment to claim being a designer. This resulted in participants finding opportunities to see their past and present in a new light.

It is time to reflect on how to address design education in instructional design and technology programs. Similar to findings from Yanchar et al. (2010), we found that educational programs for instructional designers need to provide experiences that help students understand design in a manner that is relevant to both theory and practice. These experiences cannot solely focus on introducing students to theoretical content represented through instructional design models (Gropper, 2015) because practitioners do not engage in design the way they were taught (Boling & Smith, 2012; Fortney & Yamagata-Lynch, 2013; Klein, 1991; Young, Reiser, & Dick, 1998).

Future instructional design programs need to make room in their curriculum to move beyond the agreed upon content of theories and models, and provide students to develop their language about design (Schön, 1983). Students need to develop their language about design so that they are able to to use them as a conceptual tool throughout their theoretical and practical education (Bruner, 1990; Vygotsky, 1986). Students need to see themselves as designers and gain the confidence that will provide opportunities for them to see design problems as a designer (Cross, 2006).

As a conclusion, we believe that there needs to be more focus on recognizing, nurturing, and empowering student habits and beliefs related to being a designer. When students see themselves as a designer they become intentional about engaging in it. From our experience, when students claim their designer identity, they become bold, innovative, and confident in generating solutions to evolving ill-defined problems.

References

Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. S. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research and teaching in instructional design technology. In R. M. Branch, M. Orey, & V. J. McClendon (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 31, pp. 33–73). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1). doi:10.14434/ijdl.v1i1.919

Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 358–366). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

I’M A DESIGNER 9

Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77–87). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_7

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. New York, NY: Springer.

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44, 55–63.

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006

Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 55–72. doi:10.1007/BF02298055

Farrell, R., & Hooker, C. (2013). Design, science and wicked problems. Design Studies, 34(6), 681–705. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2013.05.001

Fortney, K. S., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2013). How instructional designers solve workplace problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(4), 91–109. doi:10.1002/piq.21130

Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Instructional design models. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 607–615). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_48

Gropper, G. L. (2015). Whither instructional design and teacher training? The need for experimental research. Educational Technology, 55(1), 3–11.

Hanington, B. M. (2010). Relevant and rigorous: Human-centered research and design education. Design Issues, 26(3), 18–26. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00026

I’M A DESIGNER 10

Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.

Klein, J. D. (1991). Preservice teacher use of learning and instructional design principles. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 83–89. doi:10.1007/BF02296441

Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Architectural Press.

Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press.

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Ohlsson, S. (2010). Questions, patterns, and explanations, not hypothesis testing, is the core of psychology as of any science. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 27–43). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730

Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91. doi:10.1007/BF02297094

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design?: Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.

Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1995). Context-sensitive instructional design models: A response to design research, studies, and criticism. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 38–54. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1995.tb00685.x

Thorpe, K. (2004). Reflective learning journals: From concept to practice. Reflective Practice, 5(3), 327–343. doi:10.1080/1462394042000270655

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 837–851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design.

I’M A DESIGNER 11

Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 39–60. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9129-6

Young, A. C., Reiser, R. A., & Dick, W. (1998). Do superior teachers employ systematic instructional planning procedures? A descriptive study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 65–78. doi: 10.1007/BF02299789

I’M A DESIGNER 12

Appendix A

LEES650 Design Thinking and Theory

University of Tennessee Knoxville

Instructor Information Lisa Yamagata-Lynch

Educational Psychology and Counseling 513 Bailey Education Complex

University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996 Phone: 865-974-7712

[email protected] http://www.lisayamagatalynch.net/

*Please note that the instructor reserves the right to modify the syllabus during the semester and participants will be notified through the learning management system announcements.

Meeting Time Monday 5:45PM- 8:35PM at Claxton 210

Office Hours Monday 4:00PM-5:00PM, Other appointments can be arranged upon request

Course Description and Value

This course is designed for doctoral students interested in learning environments design. Participants will read both theoretical and empirical works to reflect and make new meanings about research and development of design and its role in various fields. Throughout the semester participants will address design research methods and the sociocultural implications of design activities in relation to human learning environments. Participants will explore his/her design philosophy in relation to learning environments and write and analyze a design case. The readings selected for this class are primarily from design fields, and participants are responsible for collaboratively investigate the implications and applications of ideas introduced in class to learning environments design.

Course Format

I’M A DESIGNER 13

This course will be delivered primarily face-to-face. As you are graduate students, I am going to assume you are a professional and I will treat you as such. That means I am not going to tell you what you need to know, check attendance, or try to motivate you. I assume that you are going to take responsibility for your own learning in this course. Please review the Classroom Etiquette section carefully to understand your responsibilities as a professional participant in this course. If you choose to engage in activities that are unprofessional, disrespectful to others, or disruptive you will lose points toward course participation.

Objectives

By engaging in course activities participants will be able to:

● understand design as it is researched and practiced in various disciplines and its implications to learning environments;

● identify design research methods for future investigations of learning environments; ● reflect on the sociocultural implications of design activities; ● identify individual role as a designer in relation to learning environments research and

practice; and ● write a design case analysis.

Required Text

● Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg Publishers.

● Martin, B. & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers.

● Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Architectural Press

Recommended Text

● Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.

Resources You Need Access

● American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, (6th ed.). American Psychological Association (APA).

● For APA style you can also examine the Purdue OWL APA Formatting and Style Guide http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Course Communications

I’M A DESIGNER 14

You will regularly receive course related communications from the instructor through email and through Blackboard announcements. It is your responsibility to make sure that your university email account is in working condition. If you have technical issues or need help troubleshooting, please contact OIT at remedy.utk.edu/contact/ or call the helpdesk at 865-974-9900. You should expect your instructor to respond to your message within 24 hours on regular business days during the week and 48 hours on weekends and university holidays. If you do not hear back from the instructor, please send another message or call 865-974-7712.

University Civility Statement

Civility is genuine respect and regard for others: politeness, consideration, tact, good manners, graciousness, cordiality, affability, amiability and courteousness. Civility enhances academic freedom and integrity, and is a prerequisite to the free exchange of ideas and knowledge in the learning community. Our community consists of students, faculty, staff, alumni, and campus visitors. Community members affect each other’s well-being and have a shared interest in creating and sustaining an environment where all community members and their points of view are valued and respected. Affirming the value of each member of the university community, the campus asks that all its members adhere to the principles of civility and community adopted by the campus: http://civility.utk.edu/.

Disability Services

Any student who feels he or she may need an accommodation based on the impact of a disability should contact the Office of Disability Services (ODS) at 865-974-6087 in 2227 Dunford Hall to document their eligibility for services. ODS will work with students and faculty to coordinate reasonable accommodations for students with documented disabilities. You can find more information about ODS at http://ods.utk.edu/.

Your Role in Improving Teaching and Learning Through Course Assessment

At UT, it is our collective responsibility to improve the state of teaching and learning. During the semester, you may be requested to assess aspects of this course either during class or at the completion of the class. You are encouraged to respond to these various forms of assessment as a means of continuing to improve the quality of the UT learning experience.

Assignments

Course Participation 300pts

General Participation 100pts

I’M A DESIGNER 15

Please come to each class sessions prepared by completing readings on days that are due with relevant questions for class, and by being a productive participant in course discussions. You need to able to share your understandings about the readings, new ideas, and discoveries about design through collegial, effective, and professional discussion in class.

Design Research Methodologies and Example Discussions 200pts

You will choose 3 design research methods from Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers. Then you will investigate each method to lead a class discussion with other participants regarding the 3 methods and present an example for each method based on reports included in journal articles, books, presentation papers, or technical reports. You will prepare a handout, with a minimum of 1-page and a maximum of 3-pages, that will provide the key summary of each method, list the reference of where you obtained examples, and any other items you see fit to include for facilitating discussions as the leader. Throughout the semester there are 5 class sessions designated for this discussion to which you will be designated a specific date.

Design Reflection Journals 200pts

The purpose of this reflection is for you to make progress towards the Design Philosophy Paper and Design Case Analysis while sharing your ideas with the instructor and other course participants. You are responsible to maintain a reflective journal for this class about your developing understanding about design. Your instructor will provide you topics to reflect on that will help you prepare for other course related assignments. For each entry the instructor will provide you with a guide to complete your reflection. There are a total of 5 entries you need to complete throughout the semester. You will use your previous design experiences, information from readings, and thoughts from class discussions to reflect on your understanding about design. These journal entries will be shared to the instructor and others in class. As long as you follow the guides provided to you prior to you in class and you put a genuine effort in completing the journal entries and providing comments to other participants you will gain full marks towards this assignment. Every entry is due on the WordPress site at: http://lees604journals.wordpress.com/ by Wednesday 11:59pm and you are responsible to read and comment to journal entries of other participants by Friday 11:59pm.

Design Philosophy Paper 200pts

The purpose of this paper is for you to identify your current definition of design within the context of the greater field you believe you belong. Based on your current definition, you are required to discuss what you see your role is as a learning environments design researcher/practitioner in your field. Based on your definition of design and your role as a learning environments researcher/practitioner, discuss how you will approach design related

I’M A DESIGNER 16

research and practice. Then discuss how you will address the inevitable tension between theory and practice in your future design work.

Design Case Analysis 200pts

The purpose for writing this design case is for you to proficiently describe a design situation, that you have been involved in the past, as a human activity, be able to analyze the situation, and communicate your experience/findings to others. You are required to present the narrative of the design activity, then engage in analysis using activity systems analysis.

Design Case Analysis Presentation 100pts

You will present your Design Case Analysis in class.

Note about all Writing Assignments

When writing your assignment reports please follow the writing requirements below:

● Use first person and tell the story of your experience in your field. ● Use double-spaced Times New Roman 12 point font. ● Use pseudonyms in place of all real names! ● Include page numbers and a title page. ● Use headings and subheadings to guide the reader through your paper. Use transitions to

guide the reader through your argument. ● Use APA citation style, or let me know which other style you are using. ● Be sure to proofread your paper. Treat this like a professional manuscript that reflects the

hard work you have done this semester.

Assignment Submission Details

Please submit all assignments using the Canvas Assignment feature unless the instructor provides other instructions. All assignments must be submitted by 11:59pm the day they are due. Please save your files as “your last name-assignment description.” For example, “Smith-observation assignment”. This helps me organize the files while reviewing your work.

Assignments and Total Possible Points

I’M A DESIGNER 17

Assignments Communication Format

Participation Mode Possible Points

Class Participation Oral/Written Individual 300 Design Reflection Journal Written Individual/Group

Feedback 200

Design Philosophy Paper Written Individual 200 Design Case and Analysis Paper

Written Individual 200

Design Case and Analysis Presentation

Oral Individual 100

Total Possible 1000

Assignment of Final Grade

Grades are updated regularly in Blackboard. Final grades will be given according to the UT grading scale:

A=900-1000 B+=850-899 B=800-849 C+=750-799 C=700-749 D=600-699 F=599 and below

A Note Regarding Letter Grades

Completing all assignments and meeting the minimum expectations of the course constitutes “B” work; truly outstanding/superior work constitutes “A” work; and failing to meet the minimum expectations will result in a grade of “C” or lower. Spending a lot of time on course requirements (or having a history of being an “A” student) may not, in and of itself, necessarily result in an “A” grade.

Criteria

A= Superior performance, B+= Better than satisfactory performance, B=Satisfactory performance, C+=Less than satisfactory performance, C= Performance well below the standard expected of graduate students, D=Clearly unsatisfactory performance and cannot be used to satisfy degree requirements, F=Extremely unsatisfactory performance and cannot be used to satisfy degree requirements.

I’M A DESIGNER 18

Academic Honesty

Academic integrity is a responsibility of all members of the academic community. An honor statement is included on the application for admission and readmission. The applicant’s signature acknowledges that adherence is confirmed. The honor statement declares:

An essential feature of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is a commitment to maintaining an atmosphere of intellectual integrity and academic honesty. As a student of the university, I pledge that I will neither knowingly give nor receive any inappropriate assistance in academic work, thus affirming my own personal commitment to honor and integrity.

You are expected to complete your own work. You cannot re-submit work here that was done for previous classes.

Plagiarism

Students shall not plagiarize. Plagiarism is using the intellectual property or product of someone else without giving proper credit. The undocumented use of someone else’s words or ideas in any medium of communication (unless such information is recognized as common knowledge) is a serious offense subject to disciplinary action that may include failure in a course and/or dismissal from the university. Some examples of plagiarism are

● Using without proper documentation (quotation marks and a citation) written or spoken words, phrases, or sentences from any source.

● Summarizing without proper documentation (usually a citation) ideas from another source (unless such information is recognized as common knowledge).

● Borrowing facts, statistics, graphs, pictorial representations, or phrases without acknowledging the source (unless such information is recognized as common knowledge).

● Submitting work, either in whole or in part, created by a professional service and used without attribution (e.g., paper, speech, bibliography, or photograph).

Extreme caution should be exercised by students involved in collaborative research to avoid questions of plagiarism. If in doubt, students should check with the major professor and the Dean of the Graduate School about the project. Plagiarism will be investigated when suspected and prosecuted if established. For this class, plagiarism will result in a zero on the assignment and a meeting with your academic adviser.

Academic writing conventions and abilities

I’M A DESIGNER 19

All assignments must conform to the style and reference notation format outlined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association 6th edition. The APA manual is an essential tool for graduate school academic writing. Please study it carefully and refer to it often. If you are unsure about particular APA formatting and citation rules, refer to the manual.

The ability to write in an appropriate academic manner is critical to successful graduate study. If you find that you need assistance with your writing, please visit the university’s free Writing Center https://writingcenter.utk.edu/. They do not proofread or edit your work, but they can help with idea development and organization – key elements of successful academic writing

Resources and Responsibilities

It is assumed that this course will "cost" you extra resources in time and expense. Any new skill such as computer use or graphics design should be considered time-consuming and most work will be done outside of the regular class period. It is further assumed that those who enter the course have a wide range of experience and expertise in the field. Ownership of a microcomputer is not required; however, access to one is a necessity. We will be using both Macs and PCs in this course.

Attendance Policy

Students are expected to be on time, attend all classes, and participate in class discussions, small group activities, exercises, and projects. You may not receive class participation credit for missed classes and are responsible for missed information. However, emergencies can occur at any time and the instructor reserves the right, based on the individual situation, to accommodate a student with any emergency. A student missing class must complete all assignments to the satisfaction of the instructor before credit will be issued. Absences are not considered excused for job interviews, vacations, regular doctor's appointments, or general lack of planning. Students are granted one "free" absence, regardless of the situation. However multiple absences and excessive tardiness are considered unacceptable for success in this course and can be cause for a final grade reduction. Attendance will be taken every class session, and every unexcused absence after the "free" absence will cost you a 10-point deduction from your final grade.

Tardiness

Tardiness is disruptive and rude to your instructor and your fellow students and reflects badly on you - it can speak about your attitude and work ethic. Students arriving late to class should wait

I’M A DESIGNER 20

until the instructor, fellow student, or guest speaker is finished talking and should take a seat close to the door. Excessive tardiness = 20 minutes late more than two times.

Classroom Etiquette

While your instructor, your peer, or guest lecturer is conducting a presentation you are expected to pay complete attention to what they are presenting. It is not only rude, but also distracting to the presenter and other students in class when you are working on the computer, personal portable devices, cell phones, or behaving in any manner that is disruptive to them. If you are engaging in activities such as surfing the web, writing a paper, reading/writing email, working on class assignments, answering your cell phone, Skyping or any other disruptive activities in class you will be asked to leave for the day. If your disrespectful and disruptive behaviors continue, you will lose points from course participation, which will affect negatively on your final grade for this course. Make sure that your cell phone and/or beeper are turned off or set on manner mode. Please inform the instructor before class session begins if you are experiencing circumstances that warrant your cell phone/beeper to be turned on, such as extreme weather conditions that may put your family members in danger.

Schedule

*Please note that readings must be completed by the class session on the date they appear in the schedule.

*All Assignments are due 11:59pm the day it is due.

Week Day Topic Assignments/Readings 1 8/22 Course Expectations, Website,

Blackboard, and Introduction to Design and Design in Education

Readings

Smith & Boling (2009)

Cross (2006) chp. 1

Rittel & Webber (1973) 2 8/29 Changing Nature of Design in

Educational/Instructional Technology Readings

Boling & Smith (2012)

Rowland (1993)

Jonassen (2011) chp. 7

I’M A DESIGNER 21

3 9/12 Understanding Design and the Designer Readings

Text: Lawson & Dorst (2009) chp. 2

Nelson & Stolterman (2012) chp. 14

Lowgren & Stolterman (2007) chp. 3

Assignment

Reflective Journal Entry 1

Your entry is due 9/14, your comments to others are due 9/16

4 9/19 Design Thinking Examples

Design Research Methodologies and Example Discussions I

Readings

Text: Cross (2011) chps. 1-6

Cross (2006) chp. 2

Text: Martin & Hanington (2012) 5 9/26 d.School

Welcome to the Virtual Crash Course in Design Thinking http://dschool.stanford.edu/dgift/

Bring supplies to class

Assignment



6 10/3 Design Thinking

Design Research Methodologies and Example Discussions II

Readings

Cross (2006) chp. 4

Dorst (2011)


Text: Martin & Hanington (2012)

I’M A DESIGNER 22

7 10/10 Design Expertise Readings

Goldschmidt & Rodgers (2013)

Lawson (2004) chps. 1, 2, & 3

Assignment



8 10/17 Writing Design Cases

Design Research Methodologies and Example Discussions III

Readings

Boling (2010)

Howard et al. (2012)

Parrish (2006)

Text: Martin & Hanington (2012) 9 10/24 Analyzing Design Cases with Activity

Systems Readings

Yamagata-Lynch (2010) chp. 1

Yamagata-Lynch (2014)

Assignment



I’M A DESIGNER 23

10 10/31 Sample Design Cases

Design Research Methodologies and Example Discussions IV

Readings

Boling (2014)

Yamagata-Lynch & Luetkehans (2014)

Choose another design case to read from IJDL

Text: Martin & Hanington (2012) 11 11/7 Design is it Uniquely Wicked? Readings

Farrell & Hooker (2013)

Buchanan (1992)

Nelson & Stolterman (2012) chp. 11 & 12

Assignment


Post 3 pages double-spaced worth of your Design Philosophy Paper Draft


12 11/14 Design Research Methodologies and Example Discussions V

Design as a Social Activity

Readings

Dong (2009) chp. 1

Iversen, Halskov, & Leong (2012)

Assignment

Design Philosophy Paper

I’M A DESIGNER 24

13 11/21 Design Practice, Methods, Science, and Education Discussion

and Participant work time

Readings

Krippendorff (2006) chp. 7


14 11/28 Participant Presentations Assignment

Design Case and Analysis Presentation

Design Case and Analysis Paper

Readings

Throughout the Semester Determined to be Necessary

● Martin, B. & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers.

Week 1

● Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design?: Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.

● Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer. chp. 1 ● Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.

Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730

Week 2

● Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed., pp. 358–366). Allyn & Bacon.

● Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving Learning Environments. Routledge. chp. 7

● Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91. doi:10.1007/BF02297094

I’M A DESIGNER 25

Week 3

● Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise. Architectural Press. chp 2 ● Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The Design Way: Intentional Change in an

Unpredictable World (2nd edition.). The MIT Press. chp. 14 ● Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2007). Thoughtful Interaction Design: A Design

Perspective on Information Technology. The MIT Press. chp. 3

Week 4

● Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Berg Publishers.

● Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer. chp. 2 ● Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to

Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers.

Week 5

● d.School Welcome to the Virtual Crash Course in Design Thinking http://dschool.stanford.edu/dgift/

Week 6

● Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer. chp. 4 ● Dorst, K. (2011). The core of “design thinking” and its application. Design Studies,

32(6), 521–532. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 ● Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise. Architectural Press. chp. 3 ● Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to

Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers.

Week 7

● Goldschmidt, G., & Rodgers, P. A. (2013). The design thinking approaches of three different groups of designers based on self-reports. Design Studies, 34(4), 454–471. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.004

● Lawson, B. (2004). What Designers Know. Architectural Press. chps. 1-3

I’M A DESIGNER 26

Week 8

● Boling, E. (2010). The Need for Design Cases: Disseminating Design Knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/article/view/919

● Howard, C. D., Boling, E., Rowland, G., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Instructional design cases and why we need them. Educational Technology, 52(3), 34–39.

● Parrish, P. (2006). Design as Storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82. doi:10.1007/s11528-006-0072-7

● Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers.

Week 9

● Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2010). Activity Systems Analysis Methods: Understanding Complex Learning Environments. New York: Springer. chp. 1

● Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2014). Understanding and Examining Design Activities with Cultural Historical Activity Theory. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds). Design in Educational Technology: Design Thinking, Design Process, and the Design Studio. pp. 89-106. New York: Springer.

Week 10

● Boling, E. (2014). “Making Alcatraz Amazing”: The Alcatraz Cellhouse Tour. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 5(2). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/article/view/13141

● Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Luetkehans, L. M. (2014). Longitudinal Design Case of a University Preservice Technology Integration Curriculum Shaped By Its Sociopolitical Context. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 5(1). Retrieved from http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/article/view/5167

Week 11

● Farrell, R., & Hooker, C. (2013). Design, science and wicked problems. Design Studies, 34(6), 681–705. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2013.05.001

● Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World (2nd edition.). The MIT Press. chps. 11-12

● Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. doi:10.2307/1511637

● Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Rockport Publishers.

I’M A DESIGNER 27

Week 12

● Dong, A. (2009). Designing and the Language of Design. In The Language of Design (pp. 1–21). Springer London. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/r603385312162514/abstract/

● Iversen, O. S., Halskov, K., & Leong, T. W. (2012). Values-led participatory design. CoDesign, 8(2-3), 87–103. doi:10.1080/15710882.2012.672575

Week 13

● Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. CRC Press. chp. 7

● Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design Expertise. Architectural Press. chp. 6

Week 14

● No readings, participant presentations

I’M A DESIGNER 28

Appendix B

Design Reflection Journal Topics

Overview

This page will identify the journal entry topics. If you are a participant of LEES 650 Design Thinking and Theory class during fall 2016, please follow the agreed deadlines and post your journal entry as a blog post. Then participate in the peer commenting portion of the journal activity following the agreed deadlines in the course syllabus.

Journal Deadlines and Instructions


Deadlines: Your entry is due 9/14, your comments to others are due 9/16

Topic: How would you define design based on your past experiences, what you have read for class thus far, and based on insights from class discussions? To the extent that you are able to provide a definition that is currently satisfactory to you and as much as you see necessary articulate elements in your definition such as assumptions, themes, and sub-themes relevant for building your argument. Remember that this journal activity is a work in progress throughout the semester so if there are elements you have a hunch about and want to make a note of in this entry, but cannot articulate well that is fine. Once you have identified a definition that is currently satisfactory to you examine the definition you just wrote and determine how your definition has been influenced by what has been introduced to you throughout your life as the nature of science. Then discuss what role design has had in your education thus far, and what role you see it continue to have in your doctoral education.



Topic

Thus far through course readings, discussions, and activities we have examined the nature of design. Through these examinations and sharing of ideas several of you have stated or voiced that you may be engaging in design more often than you thought through work and through

I’M A DESIGNER 29

everyday activities. For this reflective journal entry, think of a design activity from work or everyday life that you engaged in the last month. You can share an activity that involved individual or a team design situation. Provide a brief description of the activity. Then reflect on why the activity you described was design. Then discuss what skills you needed to be an active participant of the activity, and how you came about acquiring those skills. Then discuss if you were to teach/train somebody to become able to engage in the same activity you did, how and what would you teach them. Use references to readings and discussion we have had related to this class when appropriate.



Topic

The focus of our class topic for the next couple of weeks will be on reflective practice. While we engage in discussion of this topic, you as a designer need to identify what are critical reflection questions that need to be addressed when sharing reflective narratives about design experiences. When writing a narrative about a past design situation you need to provide a “thick description” that give you and the reader an opportunity to (re)experience the situation. In this reflective journal entry define what reflective practice means to you. Refer to selected readings from class when appropriate, and/or introduce works of authors you have encountered in the past that take a vital role in your definition of reflective practice. When you share your definition, in order to contextualize your discussion, include a short narrative about a time in your career that reflection took a role in your development. Then chose 3 Reflective Journal Entries from Entry 2 and identify additional questions for your peers to address in their entries so that you will be able to better understand the design situation through their reflections and learn from his/her design expertise. Narrow down to a maximum of 3 questions. Finally, provide reasons to why you would like your peers to address the questions you identified.



Topic

Explore projects included at http://www.ideo.com/ (for commercial projects) and http://www.ideo.org/ (for humanitarian projects) to find one project that you will focus on discussing in this reflection. You will have to dig into the information included at the websites pretty deep and find narratives, pictures, and any other documentation about a project to become familiar with it. There may be some projects with more sources of information than others, so keep that in mind while you are exploring projects. To prepare for this reflection, engage in a

I’M A DESIGNER 30

thorough study of your favorite project. Then to practice your design storytelling skills, based on all the information that is available prepare a narrative in your own words. After you write your design story reflect on the following: (a) how did you decide which elements of the design to include in your story, (b) why did you think that others would be interested in your story, (c) what elements of the design story drew your attention to this story, (d) how did you maintain rigor when writing the story, and (e) after writing the story did you think that it was a worthwhile story to share and why? Note: If you are interested, you can read a New York Times articles about IDEO at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/automobiles/10FACE.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fD%2f and another article about humanitarian design that mentions IDEO.org at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/dignifying-design.html?pagewanted=all.


Deadline Your entry is due 11/9, your comments to others are due 11/11

Topic

Share at most a 3-page double-spaced portion of your Design Philosophy Paper.

I’M A DESIGNER 31

Appendix C

LEES 650 Design Philosophy Paper Guide

The goal of this assignment is for you to explore how you define design within your field, how you see yourself as a design practitioner, how you see yourself as a design researcher, and how you identify your various views about yourself and design will affect your future work. Writing this paper will require you to reflect on your past experiences as a design practitioner and researcher. It will also require that you reflect on readings you have completed for this class, experiences you gain from this class, and discussions with other participants in class both face-to-face and online. This assignment is an opportunity for you to explore, reflect, identify sources, and engages in a professional conversation about your design philosophy.

Your paper should include the following sections:

1. Title Page

2. Introduction: Provide a clear overview, purpose, and plan for your paper. In this introduction state what types of discussions the reader can expect from your paper.

3. Definition/Approach to design within your Field of Practice and Research: Provide a discussion about your design definition/approach within your field of practice and research. Your discussions can include how your definition/approach has evolved. Refer to relevant readings, discussions with other participants, and personal experiences that help clarify your arguments to the reader.

4. Reflections on Future Practice: Provide a reflection on how your definition/approach to design will affect your participation in future design practice. Include discussions on design projects you want to be involved, what role as a designer you want to take in future projects, how you intend to work with other designers, what specific design activities you envision you would be engaging in, and what type of relationship you want to cultivate with clients/target audience.

5. Reflections on Future Research: Provide a reflection on how your definition/approach to design will affect your participation in future design research. When discussing about design research, include discussions on likely research settings you will position yourself and how you are likely to engage in data collection and analysis.

I’M A DESIGNER 32

6. Concluding Remarks: Provide a conclusion that explains what you intended to accomplish in this paper, your assessment of how you accomplished them, and impact on your future work.

7. References and if necessary Appendices

Your paper should be between 2500 and 3500 words double-spaced using 1-inch margins 12-point Times New Roman font excluding title page, references, and appendices following APA style guide 6th edition. If you exceed the required word count your work will not be read past that point. On the title page please include the exact word count of your document excluding the title page, reference, and appendices.

I’M A DESIGNER 33

Appendix D

LEES640 Participation and Authorship Guide

Last Updated: February 2, 2017

Project Participation Guidelines

As a contributing member of the research team you are responsible of the following:

1. Be present at weekly meetings; 2. Be an active contributor to the research team, and participate in one of the projects and

serve as an author at any given time 3. Be supportive to one another, including research team tasks and doctoral work; 4. Have fun with your work in the research team, if you are not having fun, consider what

needs to change and discuss with Lisa YL; 5. Complete work assigned to you; 6. Keep a matrix of individual tasks accomplished for the team to communicate your

contributions and update your CV at the beginning of every academic semester; 7. All members must strive to publish two articles as part of the teamwork where s/he does

not lead the work and is not the first author of the articles, and a third article where s/he leads the work and is the first author of an article.

Authorship Guidelines

As a research team the goal of our work is to publish our joint work. The general guidelines for authorship is as follows: (1) Lisa YL will determine authorship position for all authors after discussing with the team; (2) all team members with a possible interest in a particular topic must be invited to become coauthors; (3) members who contribute in the writing of an article will be given higher authorship position, (4) authors will be listed in order of magnitude of their contributions throughout the article conceptualization, data collection, data analysis, and writing process of the article; (5) where the contributions of coauthors are considered equal, authors will be listed in alphabetical or reverse alphabetical order; (6) as projects develop, based on individual interests and needs there may be situations where individual authorship status change both in terms of being added as a new author or being dropped from the project; (7) in an effort to maintain open communication within the team when there are any concerns share them; and (8) when concerns are brought up from team members, treat one another with respect and work together to address the concern.

I’M A DESIGNER 34

Note, writing as an activity includes the following:

1. Idea generation for bringing form to the article—e.g. notes, brainstorming, concept maps; 2. Literature search that result in note taking, and synthesis; 3. Data collection and analysis that lead to key ideas included in the findings of the article; 4. Writing specifically assigned sections of a manuscript, even if later that section were

heavily edited by Lisa YL or removed; and 5. Providing considerable editing help to make abstract concepts concrete for the team to

communicate clearly to the reader.

Acknowledgement Guidelines

Research team will be mentioned in the acknowledgement when they do not meet the criteria to be considered as an author of an article, but provide contributions to the project.

Documents

Ahah, I’m a designer?!: Becoming Empowered Designers ... · Ahah, I’m a designer?!: Becoming Empowered Designers through Course Experiences Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch*, Hsin-Hui Chang,