Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Design Thinking in Teacher Education: Preparing Engineering Students for Teaching at Vocational Schools
Thilo HarthFachhochschule Münster
Stefanie PankeSchool of Government
University of North Carolina at Chapel HillUnited States
Abstract: The paper discusses design thinking as a conceptual framework and methodological approach for empowering the teaching agency of STEM students who are preparing for a career as vocational school teachers. Our pilot study, a workshop on curriculum development, lesson planning and instructional techniques with engineering students, reflects the specific traits and current challenges of vocational education in the German dual mode system. We analyze and reflect upon the conceptual development, facilitation and evaluation of the workshop. We give a detailed overview of workshop concept, workshop results and workshop evaluation data. Practitioners and researchers alike will find this article a valuable source for contemplating the effectiveness of design thinking in teacher education. While our case study is situated in the particular context of preparing future vocational school teachers within the German education system, the resulting concepts are applicable to other populations. Design thinking can enrich teacher education by allowing students with little prior teaching experience and career changers to experience their agency as inventors in the classroom laboratory, thus creating both excitement and appreciation for the art of teaching.
Introduction
Design thinking is a problem solving method geared to overcome wicked problems, that have no right or wrong solution and resist traditional scientific and engineering approaches, as “the information needed to understand the problem depends upon one's idea for solving it” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, 161). Design thinking aims at transcending the immediate boundaries of the problem to ensure that the right questions are being addressed. The process foresees steps that allow participants to analyze, synthesize, diverge and generate insights from different domains through drawing, prototyping and storytelling (Brown, 2009). During the design thinking process, the facilitator encourages learners to see constraints as inspiration (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). The results are typically not directed toward a technological "quick fix” but toward new integrations of signs, things, actions, and environments (Buchanan, 1992).
The essence of design thinking is to put learners into contexts that make them think and work like an expert designer, and thereby foster civic literacy, empathy, cultural awareness and risk taking (Sharples et al., 2016). According to Skaggs (2018) the tools observation, experience and inquiry allow designers to understand human needs and shape information to drive the creation of products and experiences that make human connections through aesthetics, need-finding, or making meaning.
As awareness of the designed experience increases, so does the desire to apply the process of design thinking to a wider range of scenarios to analyze and resolve any business or productivity challenge in a new, insightful, invigorating manner (Hodgkinson, 2013). Teacher education is one such challenge: Scheer, Noweski & Meinel (2012) claim that design thinking as a team-based learning process offers teachers support towards practice-oriented and holistic modes of constructivist learning in projects.
The challenge we describe and tackle in this article is specific to the German secondary and tertiary education system. The German dual mode education of apprenticeship and vocational school is internationally renowned and generally considered effective in creating a highly skilled technical workforce. However, the vocation schools
themselves have trouble recruiting enough teachers, particularly in engineering and related subjects. Engineering students who choose to become vocational school teachers often have little pedagogical training or experience in instructional design. Hence, many new teachers deliver run-of-the-mill lessons that do not align with the instructional quality needed to succeed in today’s vocational classroom.
Our case study is set in the particular context of engineering students who prepare to teach different aspects of construction work at vocational schools. The class ‘Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Structural Engineering’ is the first opportunity for these teacher candidates to plan their own (fictitious) lessons and see themselves in their future teaching role at a vocational school.
Pedagogical content knowledge (German ‘Fachdidaktik’, subject-matter didactics, see Kansanen, 2009) covers only 5 out of 180 credit points in the bachelor's program for teaching engineering. However, students are typically highly motivated to assume the role o teacher and plan lessons and larger curricular units. In the classic instructional setting of a weekly seminar meeting, this enthusiasm typically fades away as the semester progresses. It becomes clear to the students that instructional planning is more tedious than expected, and they loose both confidence and interest in trying. The design thinking workshop was intended as a mean to preserve motivation and create ‘verve’ (cf. von Thienen, Royalty, & Meinel, 2017).
We used design thinking as the framework for developing an instructional class that challenges the students to think like teachers, own their instructional choices, and thereby develop a sense of agency. The methodological approach promoted collaboration in the seminar and unconventional approaches to lesson planning. The workshop structure and material can be easily adapted to other teacher education settings and contexts. The evaluation results, particularly the student reflections, capture promising effects: Increased motivation to think through didactical challenges, high engagement during the class, peer learning, and gains in creativity and empathy.
The article opens with an overview of the German model of vocational education, its current teacher recruitment problems, and an overview of design thinking. The balance of the article focuses on applying design thinking practices to vocational teacher education in engineering, with a case study on imparting pedagogical content knowledge through a design thinking workshop. The main argument that emerges from the case study is that design thinking is a way to celebrate teaching as public service, highlighting the challenges that future teaching professionals face, and at the same time showcasing how to solve problems with collegial, team-based planning techniques.
Dual Mode Vocational Education in Germany
Germany’s vocational education comprises two complimentary components: (1) the paid apprenticeship that happens on the job through mentoring and supervision in the workplace, (2) the vocational school (‘Berufsschule’) which offers a mix of general general education classes (e.g., language classes, politics, economics, religion, P.E.) and vocation-specific content. The vocation-specific content is taught with input from professional associations and allows to compensate for any bias caused by training at only one company (Deissinger, 1997; Deissinger & Hellwig, 2005).
Germany’s secondary education provides three different qualifying degrees and graduation points: The ‘Abitur’ is designed to prepare students for higher education and finishes after grade 12 or 13. The ‘Mittlere Reife’ has an emphasis on preparing for vocational and trade schools and apprenticeships. This degree can be arned after grade 10. Likewise, the ‘Hauptschulabschluss’ prepares students for entering vocational schools and apprenticeships, and is earned through a final exam after grade 9.
Traditionally, most people undergoing an apprenticeship entered the vocational training track as teenagers after grade 9 or 10. There was little diversity in the vocational school classroom – most students had similar educational trajectories and social backgrounds. Meanwhile, however, more and more career changers and college dropouts discover that vocational training can offer job security and choose to enter apprenticeships. Together with demographic change, the refugee crisis and immigration, the typical vocational school classroom now has significant diversity in age, language and cultural backgrounds. At the same time, the economy needs skilled labor more than ever, and students at vocational school need to acquire lifelong learning skills to stay competitive on the job market.
While they are facing new challenges and demands, vocational school have problems filling teaching positions with qualified candidates. Statistically, only one out of 145 electrical engineering students will choose to specialize for a
teaching career at vocational schools (Straush, 2018). Positions in the industrial sector offer higher pay. The problem affects vocational training in a wide variety of professional sectors – current estimates by the German teacher union ‘Bildungsgewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft’ see a lack of up to 22.000 teachers by the year 2025 (Dohmen, 2018).
In addition to general recruitment there are also problems with instructional quality, rentention and job satisfaction. Teacher education for engineers has to counteract typical attitudes towards instructional design competencies and pedagogical content knowledge as ‘nice-to-have’ but not essential to the role of the vocational school teacher. Common misconceptions are that anyone can teach, and that it is easy to teach vocational skills since the engineers know so much more about the subject-matter than their future students. In classrooms that are characterized by increasing diversity the teacher candidate who think ‘I will assign some textbook reading, maybe a math problem or two and the lesson is done’ faces a harsh awakening and experiences high levels of stress on the job. Burnout, depression and other mental health issues have become a problem amongst teachers in vocational schools (Lehr, 2011).
Design Thinking
While the concept of concept of design thinking within the academic dialogue of design has been under discussion for more than 30 years, its recent adoption as an innovation method has lead to its popularity in various disciplines (Wigley and Straker, 2017). As Goldschmidt (2017) stated, the term design thinking means different things to different communities. The author distinguishes two facets: (1) Descriptive models of the design process, based on observational research of real-life or laboratory design activities by individuals or teams; (2) a method to be practiced in industries that strive to introduce innovative products or services. Interest in how designers work and think progressively moved from the purview of designers and architects to the field of management and business administration (Elsbach & Stigliani, 2018). Both communities emphasize iterative processes, collaboration, speed of concept modeling and testing through prototyping, and interaction with users. However, as Goldschmidt (2017) emphasized, the difference between cognitive models and facilitation methods should not be overlooked. Similarly, Wigley and Straker (2017) note a shift from discussing and studying design thinking as cognitive processes designers use, to a specific way that non-designers evaluate and use design methods – a shift “ from design as a science to design as a mindset” (Wigley and Straker, 2017, p.2).
Elsbach and Stigliani (2018) describe design thinking as an approach to problem solving that uses tools traditionally utilized by designers of commercial products, processes, and environments. According to Cochrane & Munn (2016) the three main elements of design thinking are observational research, visual sense making, and rapid prototyping. The authors describe a typical design thinking process as a cycle of (1) empathizing and observing, (2) defining the problem, (3) creating ideas, (4) prototyping and (5) testing (Cochrane & Munn, 2016).
Design and design thinking have been identified as making valuable contributions to business and management, and the numbers of higher education programs that teach design thinking to business students, managers and executives are growing (Mathews & Wrigley, 2017). For students to be marketable and competitive in today’s global marketplace, they need to posses an understanding of, and abilities directly related to innovation; where they posses the aptitude and capacity to generate, develop, and implement new and meaningful ideas (Wright & West, 2010). Moreover, even the design discipline recognizes that the procedural knowledge of design thinking might be more important than the actual design skills – “the survival of design as a profession may depend less on traditional design education and more on responding strategically to contemporary changes, influenced by ethical and environmental issues as well as technological advancements” (Cassim, 2013). In the context of this article, we follow a similar view of design thinking as a process and mindset. Furthermore, we relate design thinking to participatory design, bricolage and serious play:
Participatory Design is an approach that involves the users of a product early on in the development process. Related to the theoretical framework of activity theory, participatory design techniques expose the intricate mix of activities users engage in, reflecting the complexity, flexibility, and social character of each activity (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2012). Lamb und Kling (2003) criticized the notion of individuals as “users” and propose the richer perspective of social agents - “the socially thin user construct limits our understanding of information selection, manipulation, communication, and exchange within complex social contexts” (Lamb & Kling, 2003). Instead of
being a research subject, people are given influence and room for informing, ideating, and conceptualizing activities in the early design phases (Sanders & Stappers, 2008).
Bricolage means to engage in a dialogue with a heterogeneous collection of materials and tools, in which items are repurposed and rearranged to solve a problem (Sharples et al., 2014). Bricolage comprises tools and artifacts that were accumulated over time. This may include material that was collected without any specific purpose, and picked up simply because it might be useful someday; as well as outcomes, products or ‘leftovers’ from other projects. The typical bricolage setting is one of constant remix: Its tools and artifacts are not limited to only use nor does one need specialized expertise to adapt and use them. Bricolage means to engage in a dialogue with a heterogeneous collection of materials and tools, in which items are repurposed and rearranged to solve a problem (Sharples et al., 2014). Bricolage does not necessitate having a clear end in sight. On the contrary, it requires the stakeholders to be open and start with a vaguely defined idea.
LEGO Serious Play is a collaborative, creative method that uses Lego blocks and figures to develop scenarios for organizational development, conflict resolution or web design (Cantoni et al., 2009). The method aims at improving group problem solving, shared learning, listening and collaborating by making and creating. Building solutions and prototypes using LEGO bricks is thought to create flow experiences for participants. There are many connections between serious play and design thinking, and oftentimes design thinking processes involve the use of LEGO bricks.
Empathy Design thinking allows developers to embrace ‘the blurred space of social ambiguity’ with the purpose of making outcomes more innovative (Lindberg, Meinel & Wagner, 2011). Bross, Acar, Schilf & Meinel (2009) describe design thinking as “a human-centered systems thinking approach that creates experiences for stakeholders by matching human factors with technological feasibility and business viability” (p. 904). The approach seeks to bring together different areas of expertise and leverage concepts and tools sets from from each domain to analyze, synthesize, and generate insights and new ideas (Melles, Howard & Thompson-Whiteside, 2012).
Liedtka (2015) discussed design thinking as a method to reduce cognitive bias. According to her analysis, design-thinking practices carry the potential for improving innovation outcomes by mitigating an established set of cognitive flaws: people often project their own world view onto others, limit the options considered, and ignore disconfirming data. While the author analyzed 9 different types of cognitive bias in detail, she also offered three distinct general categories of cognitive bias. In the context of inclusiveness, Liedtka’s first category of biases that relate to decision-makers’ proclivity to become trapped in their own world view is specifically meaningful. It comprises the following tendencies:
Projection bias: People have a tendency to project their past experiences and thus over-estimate the extent to which the future will resemble the present.
Hot/cold gap: People’s emotional state, whether emotion-laden (hot) or not (cold), unduly influences their assessment of the potential value of an idea.
Egocentric empathy gap: People consistently overestimate the similarity between what they value and what others value.
Focusing illusion: People tend to over-estimate the effect of one factor at the expense of others, overreacting to specific stimuli, and ignoring others.
According to Liedtka (2015), a remedy for category 1 biases is to improve decision-makers’ ability to imagine the experience of those other than themselves, even in the absence of first-hand data gathering. This makes design thinking a powerful tool in instructional planning, especially when you want to emphasize inclusive teaching techniques.
Creative MasteryFurthermore, design thinking can be characterized an educational approach to help students acquire and experience creative mastery: the approach enhances creative problem-solving skills by providing a creative problem solving process, creative work-spaces and collaboration in multi-perspective teams (von Thienen, Royalty, & Meinel, 2017). It also enhances the motivation to tackle difficult tasks and stay focused during the process. According to von Thienen, Royalty, & Meinel (2017), students experience design thinking verve when they are excited about their projects, use a high pace of work, readily abandon comfort zones, experiment and learn from failures, lean trustfully into the process, regularly experience and share amazement.
Case StudyIn July 2018 the authors of this article conducted a design thinking workshop at Muenster University of
Applied Sciences (Germany) with a pilot group of eight engineering students in the context of the class ‘Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Structural Engineering’. Our case study analysis uses evaluation results and content analysis of student exam papers to illuminate how the workshop structure fostered creativity and empathy, and what limitations the participants perceived.
Since the application of design thinking techniques in teacher education is relatively unexplored, a pilot implementation case study provides advantages for refining concepts and initiating theorizing. Robert Yin notes that a case study is “an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2009, p. 14).
"The class ‘Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Structural Engineering’ builds on the lecture 'Didactics of Vocational Disciplines' and allows students to take the first palpable instructional planning steps in the field of construction work and civic engineering. Students reflect upon the specific challenges in the occupational field of construction work. They identify the different subject elements of construction projects and the corresponding subject-related pedagogical approaches. They learn to focus on skill building and competence-oriented teaching, and approach the selection of suitable instructional methods and media.
Table 1: Demographic characteristics, overviewIn which semester are the students?
First degree program?What did they study before? Graduated?
Gender Prior Apprenticeship? Prior Teaching Experience?
5 x 2. semester Bachelor
2 x 4. semester Bachelor
1 x 8. semester Bachelor
First degree program 3x
Prior degree 2x (als Civil Engineer)
Previous College Dropout 3 x
Female 3x
Male 5x
No 2x
Yes 6 x (architectural draftsman, carpenter, cabinet maker, road builder)
No 4 x
Some tutoring experience 3x
Several years as a tutor, some coaching of vocational students 1x
Workshop DesignThe workshop engaged participants with participatory development techniques and design thinking tools to orchestrate pedagogical planning for engineering disciplines in vocational schools. The purpose was to challenge engineering students to think as school teachers. To this end, we blended design thinking exercises with lesson planning tasks and pedagogical reflections. Throughout the workshop students worked individually, in dyads, and in groups. Table 2 offers an overview of the workshop structure:
Table 2: Workshop Concept, OverviewTime Method / Task Structure Material45 minutes Sketchnoting: Personal recollection of T&L setting Individual Whiteboard, Markers
Result presentation Plenary30 minutes Bird of a Feather (BoF) Plenary20 minutes Lesson planning (core content, learning outcomes as
competencies, teaching methods)Group Handout with prompts
Result presentation Plenary15 minutes Identifying threshold concepts in the lesson material Group Handout with prompts60 minutes Planning a lesson block (90 minutes) in detail Group Large Posters, Paper, Markers, glue
stickResult presentation Plenary
45 minutes Personas Dyad Personas Poster, glue sticks, photos
Result presentation Plenary45 minutes Scenarios: Creating a narrative about a worst case
classroom situation.Dyad Handout with prompts
Role play scenario and teacher reaction. Plenary
60 minutes Sketchnoting: Structuring / curricular planning of module
Group Large Posters, Paper, Markers, glue stick
Result Presentation Plenary10 minutes Identifying threshold concepts in the module Individual Post-its60 minutes Design Thinking Cycle to address threshold concept
as instructional challenge – round #1Dyad Handout with prompts,
prototyping material (cardboard, scissors, glue, LEGO bricks, clay, play-dough, string, pipe cleaner, …)
Result presentation Plenary60 minutes Design Thinking Cycle – round #2 Dyad See above
Result presentation, final discussion Plenary15 Minutes Reflection Network Plenary Yarn ball
Ice Breaker: SketchnotingSince design thinking is a visual and haptic approach, we started the workshop with an exercise that tapped into the visualization and storytelling skills of the participants by asking them to draw a memorable teaching and learning situation they were part of – be it good or bad. While none of the participants had prior teaching experience, they all had experienced teachers, that is other people teaching them. As we all, they were experienced learners, and as such had acquired concepts, expectations and personal stories. This exercise utilized the innovation lab setting with its whiteboard walls for drawing and sharing results, though this would also work as a simple pen and paper exercise.
This was an interesting way to get to know one another, and create a collegial atmosphere. It also resulted in both a shared understanding and individual awareness of the teacher personalities the students aspired to become and the values they want to express in their teaching. Teaching settings that the students recounted as positive were characterized by variety, incorporating different learning settings and innovative methods. In addition students valued group work, and skillful shifting between theory and practice. Negative recollections included marginalization, prejudice, discrimination, monotony, routine and inflexible teaching settings.
Figure 1: 'Sketching icebreaker activity
Birds of a Feather ‘Birds of a feather flock together’ – we used the conference format BoF (‘Birds of a feather’) for gathering spontaneously around topics of interest to form groups (cf. Budd et al., 2015). These groups then collaborated throughout the workshop. The students organized into two groups that were tackling the following subject areas:
Introduction to building with ferro-concrete. Introduction to building with wood.
Curricular Planning and Lesson PlanningVocational education is structured into modules (‘Lernfelder’). Typically, modules comprise 40 lessons of 45 minutes. Lessons are mostly taught consecutively in blocks of two. The single lesson planning thus covers 90 minutes. During the workshop, students constantly shifted their planning focus. They started out by planning one
specific lesson (material qualities of wood / material qualities of concrete), that marked the first instructional unit in the module. On the second day, they collaboratively structured the complete module. Working with peers to define the flow and content of module aligns with the realities of vocational school teaching which is highly flexible and collaborative to account for regional differences and the specific vocational contexts of the student body.
Threshold ConceptsThe idea of threshold concepts emerged from a national research project in the UK, where researchers looked into the possible characteristics of strong teaching and learning environments for undergraduate education. Disciplines have ‘conceptual gateways’ or ‘portals’ that lead to a new, previously inaccessible way of thinking.
Meyer and Land (2003, 2005) characterize threshold concepts with the following qualities: transformative (significant shift in the perception of a subject), integrative (exposing a previously hidden interrelatedness), oftentimes bounded (meaning that they separate academic disciplines), probably irreversible (unlikely to be forgotten, or unlearned only through considerable effort) and potentially troublesome (often problematic for learners, because the concept appears counter-intuitive,
alien, or incoherent).
During the workshop, we asked students to identify threshold concepts in their material (construction with ferro-concrete, wood construction). On the first day, the participants tried to find thresholds for their single lesson, which chiefly served the purpose of introducing the concept. On the second day of the workshop we asked students to individually review the modules, using post-its to annotate the curricular design that each group had developed for their respective module, identifying the threshold concepts in the material.
Figure 2: Students collaboratively structuring module; posit-its signify threshold concepts
Personas, Scenarios & Role PlayThe use of personas – fictional persons – to represent an abstract consumer originally derived from the field of marketing and, since the late 1990s – inspired by a publication by Cooper (1999) has also been applied within the framework of software engineering to expand other usability methods (Pruitt & Grudin, 2003). We used the personas approach as a narrative tool to give workshop participants an authentic glimpse into the everyday life of people living in a prototypical neighborhood. Personas are an immersive way for bringing abstract target group information to life through the presence of a specific, fictional personality (Junior & Filgueiras, 2005). Acting as a “projection screen”, personas aid in identifying needs and possible behavioral patterns (Panke, Gaiser & Werner, 2007). Using the personas approach in our use case allowed the students to form specific ideas about who might class be sitting in front of them in their future classroom (with which background, with which motivation, with which prior knowledge) and deliberately choose what a suitable technical, didactic and methodical teaching approach would be.
Figure 3: Students creating personas posters, results
The material set for the personas exercise comprised posters and a variety of headshots to choose from to construct the fictional biography outlines. The students created 6 different personas, that were all hyperbolic representations of different apprenticeship trainees. We used these personas to script and then enact worst case scenarios of classroom breakdowns. Exaggerating certain traits offered a good way to talk about learner characteristics that were perceived as potentially troublesome in the classroom. The role play offered an unthreatening forum to point out the potential classroom management challenges that worried the teacher candidates. It offered a way of letting go of the fear of ‘loosing control’ and jumping into oftentimes absurd, chaotic scenarios in a safe, fictional setting.
Design Thinking ProcessThe threshold concepts that the students identified within their modules formed the design challenges that the participants tackled in the next stage of the workshop. We asked them to find creative instructional solutions to teach different threshold concepts. Each student was randomly assigned to a concept, and had to come up with teaching method to convey the information.
During the design thinking process participants cycled rapidly through a series of tasks that prompted them to observe, brainstorm, synthesize, prototype and discuss. Each participant worked in a dyadic team that went through four design sheets with structured prompts:
(1) DEFINE & FOCUS: Pick one of the personas and specify which social inclusion problem you want to solve for this person. Remember that how you describe the problem affects the solution, so pay attention to precise, concise and action-oriented language. Present to your partner.
(2) GENERATE & DEBATE Generate 3-5 ideas to address the problem with novel solutions or disruptive technologies. Aim for a large effect, broad reach and replicable results. Present to your partner.
(3) SELECT & SKETCH Choose one of your ideas and sketch it out in more detail (literally). Select the best-received, the most interesting to you, the most likely to be implemented, the most unusual or the solution with the most options for collaborating with others. Present to your partner.
(4) BUILD & PRESENT: Design a prototype or three-dimensional representation of your solution with the materials in the room (card board, paper, tape, clay). Let your partner / the group react to the prototype. Both express and receive positive and negative feedback, ideas for improvement or extension, and open questions.
We went through two cycles of the design thinking process so that each participant developed, discussed, sketched, and built out two ideas for how to teach a specific threshold concept. While the conceptual idea stages where developed in a dyadic setting, each participant presented their prototypes to the whole group and got feedback from the plenum.
Figure 4: Design thinking snapshots: prototyping process and results
Reflection NetworkTo conclude the workshop, we asked students to form a circle and throw a ball of yarn to someone in the circle whilst holding on to the string, stating what they appreciated and what they learned from this peer. We repeated this process until all members had at least one connection, and a learning network emerged. This exercise was a prompt to recall at least one learning outcome for each student, and to emphasize the specific contributions each individual brought to the workshop.
Post-Workshop At the end of the two-day workshop, students were confronted with the following reflection task:When did you start to think like a teacher? What exactly happened there? Write down 10 learning outcomes that you derived from the design thinking approach for your didactic lesson planning. The students used this reflection prompts, a summary document (photos, notes) and the slides to write an individual seminar paper.
Evaluation Results
Two weeks after the workshop, the participants received a result summary together with a short online survey that comprised one binary, three Likert, and four open ended questions. The survey was distributed by email with a personalized invitation link. 7 out of 8 participants answered the questionnaire. We asked participants to rate the efficiency of design thinking to present and share ideas. Generating ideas and concepts, increasing empathy and working collaboratively are seen as strength of the approach.
Figure 5: Please rate the effectiveness of design thinking based on your workshop experience. (n=7).
Are the haptic aspects of the design thinking method (i.e. three-dimensional prototyping) particularly helpful for developing or presenting ideas? As in previous workshops (cf. Panke & Harth, 2018), participants felt they did not have enough time to fully flesh out and further develop their ideas.
Figure 6: As how helpful did you perceive the prototyping? Please rate the effectiveness. (n=7)
Overall, the participants viewed the workshop experience favorably, as the following comments illustrate: I thought of a boring block seminar that robs me of my free Saturday. Wrong! It was really fun and I
especially liked the Saturday, with the many group work projects and crafts. The workshop fully met my expectations. Despite the very unfamiliar working environment and tasks, we
immediately had s positive and creative working atmosphere. The workshop was fantastic! The workshop fully met my expectations. I learned a new problem solving approach that does not follow
the usual narrow thinking patterns. I like this very much. The workshop fully met my expectations. I especially liked learning to use new methods and that we
developed many different things together.
There were important ideas for improvement on how to secure the results, how to support deeper reflections, and allow room for individual note taking:
Solutions stayed on the surface, I would have liked more in-depth discussions. I neglected note taking because we were busy with group work and constantly active. That makes it hard to
go back to the results and work through the material. Possibly giving a little more time for the idea finding phase. It seemed very rushed, especially if you really
struggled to find solutions.
Regarding design thinking as a method, participants reported the following positive aspects and outcomes. Group work Working on practical solutions Working under time pressure on tasks can lead to new perspectives A new way to handle problems / new approach to problem solving. Receiving feedback from people with different backgrounds allows to quickly filter out what really matters. Since the approach does not correspond to "the norm", it achieves in more innovative results, that are
actually demand-oriented. Problem definitions and solutions are tangible.
As potential negative aspects the participants noted barriers of participation, the problem of superficial solutions if participants lack expertise in a field, and the difficulty to let go if ideas.
I can imagine that some people dismiss this method "crafting" and therefore not take it seriously. You need to have thorough prior knowledge. Otherwise, it can be difficult to work out ideas in a short time,
and it would be better to sort through information and do research individually. The danger of losing oneself in the first idea and being unable to detach from it.
Content Analysis
Given the small number of students who participated in the pilot, we complemented the evaluation with a supplementary content analysis of the student seminar papers. We coded text excerpts that provided evidence of learning gains, and grouped these into six distinct categories: (1) ‘starting to think like a teacher’, (2) ‘recognizing students as individuals’, (3) ‘extending the methodological repertoire’, (4) ‘experiencing the influence of the learning environment’ (5) understanding the role of threshold concepts (6)‘constructing and discussing prototypes’.
(1) The workshop encouraged students to start to think like a teacher.
We tried to reach learners who typically have no interest in the subject. We tried to motivate with interesting problems. So I started to think about which problems I can give my students to trigger workable solutions. That’s when I felt like a teacher. (Student K)
After I presented my design thinking prototype to the group the feedback was: You thought like a teacher! That was the point when I realized that this was the actual goal of the workshop. I did not try to reinvent the wheel. Instead, my prototype was built from what already existed in the group. This can be done wonderfully with students in the classroom. Intermediate results lead to the next learning step. (Student M)
I take from this experience to remind myself that less is sometimes more. When choosing and using methods, I need to pay attention to the characteristics of the class and the learning objectives. Only if the method makes sense for the audience and if it helps achieve the learning objective, it should be used. (Student A – who had a penchant for extremely complex, resource intensive lesson plans)
(2) The personas method allowed teacher candidates to recognize their students as individuals (extending the traditional view, leaving the ‘comfort zone’):
When creating the personas it quickly became clear how important it is to understand the composition of a heterogeneous classroom for the preparation and delivery of lessons. The consideration of strengths, weaknesses and interests of all students as well as the overcoming of individual barriersand social prejudices are two of the biggest challenges that confront teachers in their professional life. (Student A)
This was the first time in my degree program that I have been confronted with students as individuals. Typically, we only discuss statistics that associate students with generic traits such as graduation or family background. For a rough overview of the expected clientele statistics may be helpful, but a teacher confronts no abstract student body, but deals with individuals. Exactly this aspect makes the life of a teacher so exciting and diversified for me. (Student T)
When you take the time to get to know the students better, you can incorporate their personal interests and problems into the subject and thus make the topic more interesting. For example, the basketball player may be more interested in creating a foundation for basketball goals, while the mother may be more interested in constructing a swing set. (Student J)
I noticed that one subconsciously has certain stereotypes of vocational students in mind. These can sometimes be positive, but too often also are negative. (Student S)
When I think about our role play in retrospect, it strikes me that a learning process unfolded behind the curtain of our easy-going, fun stage acting: It got me thinking about how a particular student might react to classroom situations, why he might react that way and what personal circumstances motivate his actions. (Student F)
(3) The design thinking experience extended the teaching method repertoire.
Forming a group with the" Birds of a Feather "principle is extremely useful. I could see that the motivation of the group members is higher than in the conventional method of assigning randomly by counting, etc. Due to the similar interests, learners have the same starting point and less conflicting interests. (Student T) Sketchnotes made me think back to the blackboards of my own classroom experience as a learner. The overwhelming part was in written form, sometimes difficult to decipher, and usually hard to keep up with. To avoid these problems, I want to try out sketchnoting. Since construction workers deal with sketches on a regular basis, this way of presenting ideas is not only helpful to prepare for everyday working life, but also supports transfer learning. (Student T)
I would like to include the reflection network in my classes. I liked the experience very much. This is such a good method for bringing together a class that is heterogeneous and could potentially resolve conflicts. (Student S)
There certainly is pressure to express oneself in the the reflection network. However, this particular pressure helped me to remember important details. Usually, I am a quiet person who does not speak up during feedback sessions. But this approach forced me to praise other participants, and I finished the class with a good feeling. (Student T)
Working with prototypes has left a lasting impression on me. If time permits, I want to use this format often in class. It trains problem solving, the ability to work in a team, and it’s a playful kind of competition that increases the motivation of the students (Student T).
(4) The participants recognized that the learning environment influences the learning process.
I noticed that the spatial arrangement in and of itself created an open learning atmosphere. It really fostered collaboration, and deconstructed the distance both among students and between students and teachers that typically characterizes the classroom. It makes the learners move around and seeks dialogue. Especially for vocational school classes in which the learners are preparing for a job in the construction industry this spatial concept can level communication barriers and lead to an open teaching-learning situation. (Student T)
We worked very differently in this seminar, which was also due to the learning environment, the room. This room was like a learning lab and totally different from a normal classroom. That inspired me to approach things in new ways. (Student M)
(5) Students gained a heightened awareness of the role of threshold concepts in STEM education.
I realized for the first time that I take my own level of knowledge as the benchmark when I explain something. Yet this is totally counterproductive in interacting with students, as they likely will not have the same level of knowledge as their teacher. Especially right at the outset of their education. As a teacher, I need to be aware of this and pay attention to the technical terms I use all the time. I may have overcome the roadblocks, but I cannot assume the same of my students. They will not have the same understanding of the facts as the teacher. (Student T)
Beware of bottlenecks! In STEM certain concepts are a prerequisite for the further understanding of the content. These concepts are crucial and therefore require a lot of care when you are teaching. Being aware of this is really helpful. When I am planning a lesson, I can reflect beforehand what the bottlenecks are and how can I assess if the students really understood these crucial concepts. (Student J)
I felt that I had returned to my own learning experiences in vocational school. There were so many topics that students did not understand directly at the beginning. However, the teacher was totally unaware of this. I hope that I will be able to recognize these threshold points in my lesson planning. (Student S)
(6) Prototyping is constructive, motivating and facilitates communication:
A surprising observation of design thinking and prototyping part was for me that the best and most extraordinary ideas for solving a "wicked problem" did not arise in the individual creation of the prototypes, but in the subsequent discussion in the group. The prototypes we presented served as a starting point. The critical contributions of the other participants regarding feasibility, effectiveness and expediency turned the idea into a conclusive teaching concept. (Student A) I discovered that a prototype eliminates the need for lengthy explanation and resolves misunderstandings. (Student T)
When dealing with a difficult problem, it is often helpful to write down several solutions in a short period of time. So you do not immediately stay with the first solution, which may not be ideal, and can choose from a wider range. In addition, the ideas can be combined and if the chosen path does not workyou still have alternatives. (Student J)
In the first round we created several solutions that were pretty good. In the second round, we combined and matched solutions, resulting in even better concepts. (Student J)
Prototyping was particularly difficult for me at the beginning. I was thinking too much about how to best build the prototype instead of just starting to build. In addition, I was not convinced that my ideas were any good. Later, as all the workshop participants talked about each idea in detail, we found that some prototypes were more and some less effective. As we critically evaluated each other, I became aware that my ideas were better than I thought, and that every idea can be improved upon. (Student S)
Summary & Outlook
Design thinking is a playful approach that should by no means be misunderstood as 'anything goes'. Rather, a design thinking process requires careful facilitation with clear rules, especially with regard to time management. During the workshop students had several ‘light bulb moments’ - both grand ideas and small, yet valuable insights for didactic planning. For the most part, the students did not walk away answers, but with the ability to ask the right questions, for example: ‘How long can the introduction to a module last? Where do I spend my teaching time?’ This demonstrates a shift in mindset: Whereas at the outset the teacher candidates tried to fill up their lesson time, in the end they cautiously filtered what to include, and treasured their instructional time as valuable. Likewise, we observed a shift in how students perceived classroom management and instruction. Their view of teaching changed from ‘fairly easy’, to ‘difficult and challenging’. The motivation evolved to teaching because it is a challenging profession, not despite of it.
Since creative solutions often entail the exploration of something new and unfamiliar, interventions to “abandon comfort zones” can support the development of creative problem-solving skills (von Thienen, Royalty, & Meinel,
2017). Throughout the workshop we were able to immerse students in their role as teaching professionals. Instead of seeing themselves as students, they had to question their values, biases, teaching style and their interaction with their professional peers. The most powerful outcome was the gain in empathy and awareness for the students in the classroom.
Building out three-dimensional representations of the idea is an important part of the design thinking process. As the blogger Jackie Gerstein puts it ‘the human need to create is innate’ so when people are given the opportunity, materials, and methods, they typically fully embrace making and creating (User Generated Education, March 2018)1. Completing two rounds of the design thinking cycle allowed participants to work with more than one partner, gain familiarity with the process and creatively build upon each others results.
Generalizable, definite conclusions cannot be based on a single case study. Instead, the purpose of our case study and the applicability of our findings can be characterized as exploratory and intrinsic following the typology described by Baxter and Jack (2008). This article provides practical examples that practitioners can re-use, repurpose and adapt. We hope to inspire the application of design thinking in teacher education, based on the central learning outcomes we documented for this workshop: Perceiving students as individuals, perceiving oneself as a teaching professional, extending the instructional repertoire, recognizing the importance of learning environment factors such as innovative furniture, understanding threshold concepts, and experiencing the value of prototyping.
Overall, we see design thinking as a way to celebrate teaching as public service. From our perspective, the most important outcome was that the students felt excitement and pride in their future profession. They clearly understood the challenges of the teaching profession, and at the same time they felt empowered and inspired to meet instructional challenges. We plan to replicate the workshop format, and continuously evaluate and document outcomes. Based on our experiences in this pilot case study, design thinking has the potential to inspire passion for vocational teaching, and thus help ameliorate recruitment and retention problems that are a significant threat to the quality of vocational education in Germany.
References
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.Bross, J., Acar, A. E., Schilf, P., & Meinel, C. (2009, August). Spurring Design Thinking through educational weblogging. In Computational Science and Engineering, 2009. CSE'09. International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. 903- 908). IEEE.Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29-43.Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues, 8(2), 5-21.Budd, A., Dinkel, H., Corpas, M., Fuller, J. C., Rubinat, L., Devos, D. P., … Wood, N. T. (2015). Ten Simple Rules for Organizing an Unconference. PLOS Computational Biology, 11(1), e1003905. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003905Cantoni, L., Marchiori, E., Faré, M., Botturi, L., & Bolchini, D. (2009, October). A systematic methodology to use lego bricks in web communication design. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on Design of communication (pp. 187-192). ACM.Cassim, F. (2013). Hands on, hearts on, minds on: design thinking within an education context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), 190-202.Cochrane, T. & Munn, J. (2016). EDR and Design Thinking: Enabling Creative Pedagogies. In Proceedings of EdMedia 2016--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 315-324). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved April 3, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/172969/. Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum:[Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity]. Indianapolis: Sams.Deissinger, T., & Hellwig, S. (2005). Apprenticeships in Germany: modernising the dual system. Education+ Training, 47(4/5), 312-324.Deissinger, Thomas. "The German dual system-a model for Europe?." Education+ Training 39, no. 8 (1997): 297-302.
1 https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2018/03/04/the-magic-of-making-the-human-need-to-create/
Dohmen, D. (2018). Prognose der Schüler*innenzahl und des Lehrkräftebedarfs an berufsbildenden Schulen bis 2030. FiBS Forschungsinstitut für Bildungs- und Sozialökonomie, GEW. https://www.gew.de/fileadmin/media/publikationen/hv/Berufliche_Bildung/20180309_Bedarfanalyse-Schueler_innenzahl_web.pdf Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture: A Review and Framework for Future Research. Journal of Management, 0149206317744252.Ferguson, R., Barzilai, S., Ben-Zvi, D., Chinn, C.A., Herodotou, C., Hod, Y., Kali, Y., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Kupermintz, H., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Sagy, O., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Weller, M., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Innovating Pedagogy 2017: Open University Innovation Report 6. Milton Keynes: The Open University, UK. Retrieved April 3, 2018 from https://iet.open.ac.uk/file/innovating-pedagogy-2017.pdf Goldschmidt, G. (2017). Design Thinking: A Method or a Gateway into Design Cognition?. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(2), 107-112.Hodgkinson, G. (2013). Teaching Design Thinking. In J. Herrington, A. Couros & V. Irvine (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2013--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1520-1524). Victoria, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Hunt, V., Prince S., Dixon-Fyle, D. & Yee, L. (2018). Delivering Through Diversity. McKinsey & Company Report. Retrieved April 3, 2018 from https://www.efm-berlinale.de/media/pdf_word/efm/68_efm/microsites/horizon/diversity-report.pdf Kansanen, P. (2009). Subject-matter didactics as a central knowledge base for teachers, or should it be called pedagogical content knowledge? Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 17(1), 29–39.Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Synthesis Lectures Human-Centered Informatics, 5(1), 1-105.Lamb, R., & Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 197-236.Lehr D. (2011). Belastung und Beanspruchung im Lehrerberuf: Gesundheitliche Situation und Evidenz für Risikofaktoren. In: Terhart E, Bennewitz H & Rothland M. (Hrsg): Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf. Münster: Waxmann, 757–773. Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925-938.Lindberg, T., Meinel, C., & Wagner, R. (2011). Design thinking: A fruitful concept for it development?. In Design Thinking (pp. 3-18). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Matthews, J. H., & Wrigley, C. (2017). Design and design thinking in business and management higher education. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 41-54.Melles, G., Howard, Z., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2012). Teaching design thinking: Expanding horizons in design education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 162-166.Meyer, J., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines (pp. 412-424). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Meyer, J. H., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher education, 49(3), 373-388.Oygür, I. (2018). The machineries of user knowledge production. Design Studies, 54, 23-49Panke, S., Gaiser, B., & Werner, B. (2007). Evaluation as Impetus for Innovations in E-learning—Applying personas to the design of community functions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 179-190.Panke, S. & Harth, T. (2018). Design Thinking for Inclusive Community Design: (How) Does it Work?. In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, … O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 284-296). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003, June). Personas: practice and theory. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences (pp. 1-15). ACM.Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169.Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18.Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3).Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., & Whitelock, D. et al. (2014). Innovating pedagogy 2014. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University.Sharples, M., de Roock , R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C-K, McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. Milton Keynes: The Open University
Skaggs, P. (2018). Design Thinking: Empathy through Observation, Experience, and Inquiry. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1168-1172). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Straush, A. (2018). https://www.sueddeutsche.de/karriere/arbeitsmarkt-deutschland-gehen-die-berufsschullehrer-aus-1.3887763 von Thienen, J., Royalty, A., & Meinel, C. (2017). Design thinking in higher education: How students become dedicated creative problem solvers. In Handbook of research on creative problem-solving skill development in higher education (pp. 306–328). IGI Global.Wright, G. & West, R. (2010). Using Design Thinking to Improve Student Innovation. In J. Sanchez & K. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2010--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 391-395). Orlando, Florida, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374-385.Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
