Defining the Problem: Bringing Design Thinking Best Practices into Instructional Design
In a previous post, I wrote about how, as Instructional Designers, we can apply Design Thinking practices to support our work.
For those needing a refresher, Design Thinking facilitates human-centered design, meaning designers design to address the core needs of the individuals they are creating for.
There are five stages of the Design Thinking Process:
Stage 1: Empathize (i.e., uncover your users' needs through research)
Stage 2: Define (i.e., identify users' needs and problems)
Step 3: Ideate (i.e., brainstorm potential solutions)
Step 4: Prototype (i.e., bring a possible solution to life)
Step 5: Test (i.e., test your solution to uncover what works and what doesn't before eventually launching the product or service)
In my previous post, I discussed how, by keeping the learner's perspectives in focus, it will be possible to create content that addresses their actual pain points and unmet needs. I spoke about how we can use tools to research users and their challenges, like interviews, field research, focus groups, empathy maps, and journey maps. That said, what do you do after you've conducted thorough research on your targeted learners? Let's turn our attention to the second stage in Design Thinking: 'Define'.
Defining the Problem
In the 'Define' stage of Design Thinking, we thoughtfully define the problem we found our user group to have so that we can attempt to solve it. In other words, at this point, you will have observed some trends as you combed through your research about your audience, their pain points, and their unmet needs. Now, we want to hone in on how to resolve these pain points and unmet needs by first defining the problem. If we fail to take the time to define the problem correctly, we may be unable to develop a relevant and effective solution.
There are two ways we can frame our problem statement: Point of View (POV) and "How Might We?" statements. Let's take a moment to look at each.
POV Statements
A POV statement helps to define the right challenge to address in Stage 3 (Ideate). The POV statement allows you to construct a goal-oriented, user-focused problem statement.
When beginning to craft your POV statement, first think about who you're designing for: the user. Then, think about their most essential need that must be fulfilled. This information should be drawn from the research you completed previously. Finally, think about the insights you gathered in your research. What would you say if you were to synthesize the pain points and unmet needs of your learners? You may find it helpful to plot this information out in a table like so:
User | Need | Insight |
|---|---|---|
An adult who is interested in upskilling. | To have asynchronous online learning accessible to them. | The user would want to be able to complete the course content at their own pace, without the need for scheduled meetings because of their busy work/life schedule. The individual would still want the support of an instructor and their peers, as they think it is important to not complete their studies in complete isolation. |
Once you have a rough idea of your user, their need, and your insights about them, you can combine this information into an actionable problem statement that sets you up to continue your design work. You can adopt a MadLibs approach here, crafting the statement like so:
[User] needs to [User's need] because (insight).
If we use the information featured in the previously mentioned chart, this may look like:
Adults who are interested in upskilling need to have asynchronous online learning accessible to them because their busy schedule requires them to have some flexibility; however, learner support and community shouldn't be compromised.
"How Might We?" Statements
We want to create our "How Might We?" statements after we've created our POV statements. To create our "How Might We?" statements, we want to try to reframe our POV statement into a question or series of questions. By rephrasing our POV statement as a question, we set ourselves up to explore new ideas and solutions for our unique design challenge in the 'Ideation' stage of the Design Thinking process.
Those three little words – 'how', 'might', and 'we' – help us to be open to new ideas and collaboration. Let's take a moment to explore why that's the case.
- The word 'how' suggests we have no clear-cut answer yet and are open to exploring various options.
- The word 'might' implies that any responses we generate are simply possibilities, not definitive solutions. As a result, we're being encouraged to be in a mindset of being open to various outcomes, not one singular solution.
- The word 'we' emphasizes that our attempts to answer the question at hand are a collaborative effort and that teamwork is required to come up with a solution.
Now, if we were to adapt our POV statement from earlier, our "How Might We?" statements may look like the following:
- How might we create a community in asynchronous courses?
- How might we inspire adult learners to contribute to the community in asynchronous courses?
- How might we make adult learners in asynchronous courses feel like they're in an actual classroom with peers and an instructor?
What strategies do you use to help you define your Instructional Design-related problems? Have you ever used POV or "How Might We?" statements before? Please share your experiences in the comments - I'd love to hear from you!