Introduction: Simply, what?

I submitted my PhD thesis in late 2022 and a week before a new level of using generative AI became globally accessible. My PhD was a design-based research project which focused on improving clinical reasoning development in undergraduate health science students, inspiring the creation a digital decision wheel tool to enhance independent and problem-based learning. The guiding principle: harness a simple design, was a key outcome to make moments of critical thinking and reflection visible before, during, and after group work. Students and educators described the tool as versatile, inclusive, and efficient to use. I was excited!

Then, as implications of genAI use for higher education caused wide-spread panic, I wondered if my PhD outputs still mattered amid new ways to offload rational thinking to machines. Fast-forward three years, and it turns out that simple tools to evidence moments of authentic learning are more relevant than ever.

Body: Simply, why?

Fostering independent and rational decision making during social learning continues to be a key topic of interest in higher education. With genAI now becoming an integrated part of the learning process, a new challenge has emerged in how to know actual learning has occurred.  Daily social media posts appear to look for evidence of learning rather than cheating, to ensure actual capability is visible during assessment, and to educate that critical thinking is still crucial. The concept that every assessment task can be completed by a student with genAI, much like groupwork is a reality (as postulated by Jason Lodge on LinkedIn). We know now that genAI can support students through almost any task. How to assure learning is authentic across a qualification is causing both angst and a new wave of creative solutions.

See references document for the references for the section above.

I am reminded of one reflection from a third-year bachelor level health science student,

We had a little bit of an argument in an academic forum, kind of feel like a real discussion, about why we thought that was a different priority […] so we discussed it and we learned about the other person’s perspective of why they think that was more important and less important. And most of the priorities did change a little bit’.

This quote was inspired after using the simple decision wheel tool to work through case scenarios with a peer during a synchronous class during this research project.

My PhD project explored how combining independent online clinical reasoning with group work could support rational decision-making. Using reflexive thematic analysis and bounded rationality theory, the decision wheel tool was tested, refined, and retested across 20 subjects, with students, teachers, and learning designers from Torrens University, Australia. Across 44 semi-structured interviews and 20 focus groups, one message was clear: simplicity supports authentic learning.  

The decision wheel tool: Simply, how?

The decision wheel tool is simple in both design and function. Users rate customised category sections on a first landing page and then use a scale of 1 to 10 based on importance on the second page. Individually or in groups, students completed wheel tool attempts as many times as needed. These could be downloaded, saved and uploaded into individual or group forums to share and discuss outcomes.

When using bounded rationality theory to guide analysis, it was evident that the category of ‘information imperfection’ was experienced more acutely for learners when they had less time using the rating scale of the decision wheel, or less time to discuss attempts with peers or teacher.

Figure 1: First landing page of decision wheel tool

Figure 2: Wheel attempt by a 2^nd year bachelor student deciding on physical examination priorities for a case scenario.

Figure 3: Wheel attempt with questions to ask a patient after discussing with a group and teacher

As these examples indicate, the decision wheel tool helped students visualise their thinking at different stages of learning. One first-year student shared,

‘I would have had a completely different outcome for my assessment if had not used the wheel tool. It helped a lot to come to the best outcome. Helped me to notice ratings, priorities, and things to consider. If no wheel, the considerations to reflect on would not have been as broad’.

Interestingly, students and educators did not want the tool’s simple design to change. Focus was given to questions used with the decision wheel rather than on the tool itself. Students did not think of outsourcing wheel attempts because it was so ‘simple’. The possibilities opened when the tool was used intentionally with discipline discernment and a dose of imagination (all of which I hear genAI can assist with these days!).

Conclusion

Now more than ever, if we want to show growth in skills of interpretation, reflection, and self-regulation in the age of genAI, we need to make authentic learning moments ‘stickable’. The design principle: Harness a simple design, was inspired by the decision wheel tool from my PhD that helped learning progress be visible. Afterall, many authentic visible learning ‘moments’ can become a whole unique learning story across a course in the end.

Call to action: Simply, do.

Design principles from a DBR projects can often outlast the design artefact itself. You are invited to apply the Design Principle 3: Harness a simple design to encourage moments of authentic learning in your own context.  You may also like to use the decision wheel tool, whether individually or in groups, for asynchronous or synchronous learning, planning, and reflection activities.

Curious to learn more or keen to chat? Reach me on kgalvin@swin.edu.au

Decision wheel artefact QR code: Galvin, K. (2021). The Decision Wheel Tool artefact https://x16.space/dw/