Applying Design Theory Through Desk Critiques

March 15, 2026

This week’s desk critique process provided me an opportunity to engage deeply with instructional design ideas while applying concepts from the readings to real design artifacts. Reviewing peers’ prototypes required not only understanding their artifact vision but also thinking critically about how their designs addressed learner needs and how the ideas might evolve through further iteration. The experience reinforced that instructional design is rarely a straightforward, linear process. Instead, it involves ongoing reflection, dialogue, and adaptation as ideas develop in response to context and feedback. The desk critique format mirrors the collaborative studio tradition in design fields, where feedback helps designers refine concepts and discover possibilities that might not emerge through solitary work.

Desk Critique session infographic created using Chat GPT

One concept that resonated strongly during the critique process was the contrast between traditional top-down design approaches and more iterative or contextual design practices. Norman (2013) describes a classical engineering approach in which a designer begins with a concept, generates a few possible designs, selects one, and then systematically works through the details before moving into production. In this model, tools such as engineering drawings and diagrams help designers maintain a clear mental map of the project and communicate the design's structure as it develops (Norman, 2013). While this structured approach can be effective for certain engineering tasks, the desk critiques this week show how instructional design often requires more flexibility. When reviewing peers’ prototypes, I noticed that their designs were not fixed solutions but evolving concepts shaped by learner experiences, technological affordances, and educational goals. This iterative nature reflects the reality that instructional design rarely follows a perfectly predictable sequence from concept to final product.

The readings by Hokanson and Miller (2009) further explain why strictly linear models can be limiting for instructional design. They argue that instructional design problems are frequently ill-structured or “wicked” problems, meaning they do not have a single correct solution and cannot be solved through a simple algorithmic process. Traditional design models, such as those that follow highly codified procedures, assume that designers can apply the same steps across all contexts and produce consistent results. However, educational environments are complex and dynamic, shaped by learner backgrounds, institutional expectations, and rapidly changing technologies. As Hokanson and Miller (2009) note, design processes that are overly constrained and disconnected from context often struggle to produce effective instructional solutions. This idea became clear during the desk critique process because each prototype addressed a different learning challenge and required a different design strategy.

For example, the Coastal Motion prototype I looked at focused on place-based environmental science learning, encouraging students to observe natural processes such as water runoff and marsh movement in their own surroundings. Providing feedback on this prototype required thinking about how the design supported experiential learning and how the observation, documentation, and reflection cycle could help learners connect their everyday experiences with scientific concepts. Rather than evaluating the design using a predetermined formula, the critique process considered how well the concept supported authentic inquiry and how additional features might strengthen the learning experience. This kind of feedback reflects the idea that instructional design must respond to contextual learning opportunities rather than simply applying standardized design procedures.

Another important concept from the readings is Role-Based Design, which emphasizes that effective design requires multiple perspectives working together throughout the process. Hokanson and Miller (2009) describe four key roles in design work: the artist, the architect, the engineer, and the craftsperson. Each role contributes a different type of thinking to the design process. The artist focuses on creative exploration and innovation, generating ideas that expand the possibilities of the project. The architect considers the broader system and strategic context, examining how the design fits within a larger framework. The engineer applies logical and technical reasoning to ensure the design functions effectively. Finally, the craftsperson brings attention to detail and aesthetic execution, refining the design so that it is polished and usable (Hokanson & Miller, 2009).

The Role-Based Design model (Hokanson and Miller 2009). L-R artist, architect, engineer, craftsperson 

During the desk critique process, I found myself shifting among these roles as I evaluated different aspects of each prototype. At times, I approached the design from the perspective of the artist by recognizing creative elements and imagining ways the concept could evolve. In other moments, I took on the role of the architect by thinking about how the design aligned with the learning environment or curriculum. I also engaged in engineering-style thinking when considering how the interaction flow or feedback mechanisms might function in practice. Finally, the craftsperson perspective appeared when suggesting improvements to the clarity of prompts or the organization of the user experience. Hokanson and Miller (2009) emphasize that these roles should not be isolated phases but integrated perspectives that inform the entire design process. The critique experience illustrated this integration because meaningful feedback required balancing creativity, strategy, technical logic, and attention to detail simultaneously.

The readings on creativity also provided insight into the importance of feedback and experimentation in the design process. Kelley and Kelley (2013) discuss how fear of failure often prevents individuals from exploring new ideas or taking creative risks. In design work, however, experimentation and iteration are essential because they allow designers to learn from small successes and gradually refine their ideas. The authors describe this process as guided mastery, in which individuals build confidence through a series of manageable challenges that gradually expand their capabilities (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). The desk critique format supports this process because it allows designers to test early ideas, receive constructive feedback, and revise their work before finalizing a product.

I also noticed that providing feedback required adopting a mindset focused on improvement rather than comparison. Kelley and Kelley (2013) explain that creative confidence grows when individuals focus on experimentation instead of measuring their work against others. In the context of peer critiques, this perspective is important because the goal is not to determine which design is “better,” but rather to help each designer strengthen their concept. By offering specific suggestions for refinement, such as clarifying interaction flows or adding reflective prompts, I was able to contribute to the iterative improvement of the designs while also learning from the ideas presented by my peers.

Finally, this week’s activities reinforced the idea that instructional design is fundamentally collaborative and iterative. The desk critique process created a space where ideas could be examined from multiple perspectives and strengthened through thoughtful feedback. The readings highlighted why this type of interaction is essential for addressing the complex challenges of instructional design. Rather than relying solely on linear procedures or predetermined solutions, effective design requires creativity, contextual awareness, and ongoing reflection. By applying these principles during the critique process, I was able to see how theoretical ideas about design roles, creativity, and problem-solving operate in practice. This experience strengthened my understanding that instructional design is not simply about producing a finished artifact but about engaging in a continuous process of exploration, feedback, and refinement.

References

Gal, S. (1996). Footholds for design. In Winograd, T. (Ed.), Bringing Design to

Software (pp. 215-227). New York: Addison-Wesley

Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: A contemporary framework for 

innovation and creativity in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21-28.

Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential 

Within Us All. New York, NY: Currency.

Open AI. (2026). Desk critique experience: Collaborative, iterative, and reflective

design process [AI-generated image].