Welcome back readers, this week are continuing our exploration of design cases and using both Howard’s (2011) and Gray’s (2020) criteria for comprehensive design case precedents. After exploring the literature, we searched for two recent examples from the Scholar Works journal and today I’m using the criteria mentioned below to critique one of the examples I reviewed.
To keep my lens in the world of sport and coaching, I read a design case about grade-school teachers using a variety of coaching methods to help students build a more complete association with homeless populations, and conversely, an interactive game-based learning method to help prepare sports coaches to handle violent emergency situations. For today’s post, let’s look at the latter case.
For reference purposes, the following criteria informed this critique:
- Howard (2011)
- situating and describing the design,
- depicting the experience of the design, and
- developing trustworthiness and purpose.
- Gray (2020)
- interest to other designers,
- rich representation of the design,
- articulation of transparency and failure,
- accessibility of style, and
- acknowledgment of complexity and scope.
Current research indicates that interest in and motivation to complete self-defence training is not high in the public domain (Honess, 2016). Moreover, since defence training is often compartmentalized and skill development focused, it is not effective in real-world scenarios (Korner & Staller, 2018). The design case does a great job exploring the context of the study, or situating the design, during the introduction by including the above points from the literature.
With regards to promoting trustworthiness and a rich articulation of transparency, the design acknowledged “the recurrent issue of a lack of motivation in former mandatory training settings was frequently brought up by participants of the program” (Staller et al., 2020, p. 2). In response, the simple structural model was used to engage the learners. The final certification, therefore, included a 45-minute mock lesson run by groups student groups. This session included skill initiation in a controlled space, acquisition with a partner, and consolidation in a game-based environment. This progression matches skill development best practices across the sports sector.
With regards to depicting the design, the author included photos of the game and disclosed the photos and videos may be potentially triggering.
With regards to acknowledging the complexity and applicability of the design, the authors discussed how the rules may be modified in the future to better simulate real-world scenarios, therefore optimizing the effectiveness of the game.
In summary, the author used the below headings to guide their design case and I enjoyed getting acquainted with a real design case sample.
- Introduction (includes literature)
- Context of the design case
- A game of self-defence
- Reflection on the game
- Conclusion
Next up, we are writing our own design case, due this weekend. Until then!
References
Gray, C. (2020). Markers of Quality in Design Precedent. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i3.31193
Honess, R. (2016). The mandatory delivery of ongoing training within the police service of England and Wales and its relationship to the adragogical principle of self-motivation (Unpublished dissertation). Canterbury Christ Church University.
Howard, C. (2011). Writing and rewriting the instructional design case: A view from two sides. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1).
Körner, S., Staller, M. S. (2018). From system to pedagogy: Towards a nonlinear pedagogy of self-defense training in the police and the civilian domain. Security Journal, 31(2), 645–659. http://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-017-0122-1
Staller, M. S., Heil, V., Koch, R., & Körner, S. (2020). “Playing Doom”: A Design Case in Self-Defense Training. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(2), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v11i2.24108
Svihla, V., Reeve, R., Field, J., Lane, W., Collins, J., & Stiles, A. (2016). Framing, Reframing, and Teaching: Design Decisions Before, During and Within a Project-based Unit. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i1.19427