[Edited for clarity] The first thing that jumped out at me in chapter 7 was that Fortney and Boling had moved beyond what was presented in chapter 1 of the textbook; taking it as a given that multidisciplinary methods and processes of Design were a given approach to the work of ID. "I believe that the education of instructional designers needs to first emphasize the thought processes involved in design in general before tackling the specific nature of instructional design problems." (Forney, p 57, emphasis added).
This is a large leap from the call in chapter 1 that was making a case for the concept of design to be used and considered at all. This same thing happens in chapter 8 when Smith asserts that, "I take the position that design disciplines, while not equivalent to one another, can usefully inform one another's debates." (Smith, p 64) . Though I use that quote while also making space to acknowledge that she wants to respect there are limitations to our ability to do this well (ex: things that will need to be adapted, limits to generalization). That we must consider what could come of it by looking at the way design fields have developed a long set of systems in place to define what it means to do well (or poorly), how much money you should earn, how you build a reputation so that you get hired (or not hired), and how the field glorifies itself to keep it feeling fresh and adapting in relevance.
However, I liked that in chapter 8 the answer to a lot of those last concerns are addressed with a strong appeal to closely guard our field from making the same kinds of mistakes - calling them out as mistakes being the first boon, and then discussing what an alternative field that held itself accountable was doing differently. How was it training its student/teacher/worker elements on ways to examine, work with, and self-reflect on how to have a symbiotic process. A process that champions novices, whose very inexperience is lauded as a strength in the field. Both in that it can remind teachers and professionals of where they have been, and as a source of creative rejuvenation and collaboration. Suggesting that this in turn can foster additional ideas on how students can have authentic experiences.
What bothered me was that even though both Smith and Hirumi understand that creativity must mean space for designer authenticity, and novices who are treated with value and who treat their mentors with value - "The fundamental conflict appears to lie between current conceptions of operational excellence and creativity, reducing variance, and eliminating errors -- all practices that are contrary to creativity." (Hirumi, 69) - if I flip back to the investigations into the psyche and development of structuring the field, the best suggestion Fortney can produce is, "Key requirements for a successful program would be an organization with a proven commitment to employee development that could sustain an extended partnership ..."
It is difficult to imagine a professional organization with enough resources to partner with a local university or program - as asserted - that would not want to reinforce students who are thinking in terms of operationalized ID rather than giving them opportunity to also question themselves and the field in ways they can be successful using creativity or ever hope to use it in the field to the extent that it led the field's overall approach to educating its future professionals. In part because both universities and professional organizations are profits and acclaim driven. We can remove the ego element of how we value design professionals, but it will not change that as students we will feel pressure from our courses, our past school training, our identity and how it's treated in our courses, and the insecurity that if a professional organization is not impressed by creativity they will not hire you, nor might any other company who may look to the university connected one as an example to help them vet their own future IDs.
It almost feels like if we are to ID in the manner that is best suited to the nature of design - the nature of balancing context and process and human and delivery methodology - the nature of producing professionals who had experiential learning opportunities more like what Smith suggests in labs, creativity championing venues for building and conversation amongst peers, and letting students reveal their gaps or grapplings before we attempt to fill them up with process and procedure. We have to start now in our journey to ask ourselves if we are the type who feel ready to be quite stubborn and resistant to the patterns we are trying to break in our field showing up in other areas of our professional/educational development (ie eschwing critique and acclaim based vaunting, foundations that seek to build themselves on self reflection and context with accountability, and a willingness to stick up for everyone's right to pursue creative exploration with mentoring and also as equal with those who are doing the mentoring because their lived experience adds perspective to what is easily taken for granted, and deserves to be treated with the experience and serious grappling and reflection that good mentors do for their mentees).
OTHER NOTES:
As I read, I realized that I have been and was observing myself doing what Smith talks about in chapter 8, "Novices may hold naive conceptions of design, the inevitable conflict between their initial conceptions and the ideas embedded in projects and dialogue with peers and instructors affords opportunities to make visible the ideas and beliefs they have" I am a novice internalizing the field to the extent that language starts to become automatic and no longer something novel or a source of investigation. Though I appreciated that the Smith was calling it out, and asserting that the investigation of the novice (me, in this case) is crucial to building a field that does not lose sight of both the IDs and the contexts, and However, I also appreciated that in that process I was reading a call to bring awareness to it, and that the call was proposing ways of doing that at a time in my own schooling where it was impactful. It is perhaps the unique benefit of being in fairly young field being able to see and read in real time what questions and ideas that field is trying to build itself on. A revolving feedback loop of self-reflection and a call to intentionally study the behaviors of teachers and students in the field to help keep the field accountable for itself is a base layer intention that I felt hope for.
Comments
Post a Comment