Main Article Content
This article presents two similar design cases and a discussion of how like values resulted in dissimilar design moves. Both cases were gamified learning activities for graduate students in instructional design. Both interventions employed rapid prototyping and were delivered synchronously in an at-a-distance setting. This article compares the two designs, the two designs’ similar development narratives, and the two designs’ divergent features. We give special attention to the common values the designers brought to the act of designing. Contrasting crucial features in similar designs allowed us, as designers, to appreciate divergent design moves. A discussion of the two cases explains how designers arrived at different design decisions through similar rationale. The authors were both designers and instructors of the implementations; each presents their case in relation to the other. Our combined cases explore how designers might compare salient features of similar instructional interventions and appreciate design moves that one chose not to make.
Copyright © 2012 by the International Journal of Designs for Learning, a publication of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology. (AECT). Permission to make digital or hard copies of portions of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page in print or the first screen in digital media. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IJDL or AECT must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. The IJDL site and its metadata are licensed under CC BY-NC-ND. A simpler version of this statement is available here.
Baaki, J. & Luo, T. (2019). Instructional designers guided by external representations in a design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 513-541.
Baaki, J., Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2017). Give us something to react to and make it rich: designers reflecting-in-action with external representations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 667-682.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Berg.
Driscoll, M. (2018). Psychological foundations of Instructional Design. In Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. (pp 52-60). Boston: Pearson.
Howard, C. D., Boling, E., Rowland, G., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Instructional design cases and why we need them. Educational Technology, 34-38.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. John Wiley & Sons.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2013). Design expertise. Routledge.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
Smith, K. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Tracey M.W., Baaki J. (2014) Design, Designers, and Reflection-in-Action. In: Hokanson B., Gibbons A. (eds) Design in Educational Technology. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer.