(Re)claiming Design: Examining Reiteration Within Co-Design

• In Event: 54.042 - Co-Design in Practice: Seven Case Studies

Abstract

Purposes
This case study examined the iterative nature of co-design as enacted by a small team within a larger curriculum project. The team--which included five teachers, two graduate students, one researcher, and one consultant--took up co-design as an iterative process. Drawing upon an understanding of design-based research as projects that evolve through “multiple iterations of (re)design” (Ormel et al., 2012), this study sought to understand the potential of reiteration for designers during the development of an English Language Arts curriculum unit. The members of this team utilized a process of reiterative design to both develop as a community and to retain individual autonomy (Kwon et al., 2014; Penuel et al., 2015, Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Perspectives
This study presupposes teachers’ abilities to leverage experience to “address problem[s] of practice” (Kwon et al., 2014). Drawing upon multiple frameworks--including design-based research and research practice partnerships--this study positions practitioners as experts able to address complex issues through active participation in the design process (Voogt et al., 2015; Penuel et al., 2007; Swan et al., 2013; King et al., 1989). Additionally, I drew upon notions of community to understand design teams as communities made up of autonomous individuals collaborating to create collective solutions (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Kwon et al., 2014; King et al., 1989).

Data sources
The co-design team met monthly during the 2015 fall semester, and weekly in smaller groups during the 2016 spring semester. This team used online tools to facilitate remote collaboration, including Slack (a communication application), Google Drive (as a collective journal), and Zoom (a conferencing service). During this study, I examined field notes and recordings of both meetings and classroom implementations, and conducted interviews with each of member of the small design team.

Methods and modes of inquiry
Data was analyzed using a grounded theory approach (Glaser, 1992) to code themes that appeared within field journals, recordings, and interviews. I then engaged in open and selective coding to examine, trace, and categorize participant interactions across iterations of curriculum design, mapping interactions and examining codes to reveal patterns of acceptance or rejection.

Warrants for arguments/point of view
Because (re)iteration is seen as essential to the co-design process (Voogt et al., 2015, Swan et al., 2014, King et al., 1989), this study seeks to better understand the impact of various iterations upon a design team both as a community of practice and as a group of autonomous individuals (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Polman et al., 2014; Ormel et al., 2012).

Scholarly significance of the work

Examining the potential impacts of reiterative design work upon members of a co-design team contributes to the body of literature aimed at exploring the necessity of iteration within a co-design methodology (Design Based Research Collective, 2003). By understanding the ways that reiteration both facilitates and inhibits autonomy within co-design communities, this study offers a pathway for other teams to navigate the complex roles that designers take within design communities (Penuel et al. 2007; Penuel et al., 2015).

Author

• Kristina M Stamatis, University of Colorado - Boulder