Design Process Model
We began the project by selecting the Stanford d.School Design Thinking Process before discovering and incorporating the Kemp Model. How well did this hybrid model turn out to fit the needs of this project?
This section was informed by the works of Svihla (2021), Morrison, Ross, & Kemp (2006), and the Design Thinking Process.
When we look at what experienced designers do, we find they tend to use iterative methods that sometimes appear a bit messy or magical...the most inspiring approaches that reflect this are human-centered design and design thinking.
Svihla, 2021
Our Design Model
Early Iteration
The lack of context at the beginning of the project made it difficult to select an Instructional Design Model right away. Many such models begin with identifying the instructional problem as its first step; for us, we needed some more data before being able to define it.
Design Thinking Process
We chose to begin the project with the Empathizing stage of the Design Thinking Process in order to at least begin collecting research data that could help inform our model selection.
Kemp Model
Our instincts paid off when we discovered the Kemp model to not only fit well with what we had discovered from our research but how seamlessly it blended with the Design Thinking Process.
Final Version
By the end of our project, we had a much clearer perspective on our design process as a whole, which we present below in its final form. It combines the Design Thinking Process with the Kemp Model in a more synergistic way.
Kemp-Design Thinking Hybrid
This model emphasizes truly understanding the Learner, which is why we placed it at the center - to show how each phase of the process is influenced by it. Although the affordance of the Kemp model allows designers to begin from any element, the logical flow of the Design Thinking Process provided a bit of direction.
Applying the Model
Below is a more detailed look at how, specifically, we incorporated the model above into our process. By infusing the various Kemp elements with Design Thinking, we were able to produce artifacts at each stage that really dug deep into the topic.
Application
At project kick-off, we had no clear idea of the instructional problem. We decided to survey and interview users because we were confident that they would be able to articulate it clearly.
Artifacts Created
Survey Results
Interviews
Application
The data did indeed allow us to define several Kemp elements (such as the instructional problem and learner characteristics). Additionally, we were able to work on these documents concurrently, given the non-linear and flexible nature of Kemp.
Artifacts Created
Needs Analysis
Learner Analysis
Goals Analysis
Content Analysis
Application
The next few Kemp elements consisted of designing the solution (including instructional methods, strategies, media & tech selection, etc). Of especially big help was the creation of our Logic Model, which helped us determine exactly how to proceed. Once that was made, we were able to complete these 3 Kemp elements concurrently as well.
Artifacts Created
Logic Model
Lesson Plan
User Journey Map
Application
For this stage, we created a prototype using Articulate Rise 360. The only shortcoming of the Kemp model is that it puts rather little emphasis on the Development stage (Analysis + Design account for 7 of the 9 Kemp elements).
Artifacts Created
eLearning Module
Application
The final step in the Kemp model was to create Evaluation Instruments, which is what we did with our Evaluation Plan & Report. We included both Formative & Summative evaluations in order to maintain the integrity of the Kemp model.
Artifacts Created
Evaluation Plan
Evaluation Report
