Abstract
The adoption of Design Thinking as an innovation method has grown from traditional design circles to a broader range of industries and professions looking to become more innovative. The growth seen in industry has also influenced a rise in Design Thinking research and education with a strong focus on team-based design. In the last 10 years, design research programs have yielded a rigorously vetted body of new knowledge in the study of team interactions in high performing teams. Despite research-informed and data-driven insights, the impact of these outcomes in the realm of Design Thinking education remains marginal, and the development and application of new DT methods, tools, and frameworks often lack a rigorous empirical foundation. In an effort towards bridging the gap between research and practice, this chapter presents new research-based training methods for team-based design. These training packages are built on the research outcomes from the Stanford Center for Design Research and the Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program, as well as contemporary work in cognitive science. The training packages take the form of performative patterns (Edelman et al. Design thinking research. Springer International, Cham, 2020). Performative patterns are micro-interactions that can be articulated into warm-ups, drills, and exercises for training purposes. Findings from this research demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach for both students of Design Thinking practice, and coaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1987). Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educat. goals; handbook. 30th print. London: Longman Group.
Brothers, T. D. (2014). Louis Armstrong, master of modernism (1st ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3328150
Dweck, C. (2008). Mindset. The new psychology of success. In Ballantine books trade paperback ed. New York, NY: Ballantine Books (A Ballantine books trade paperback).
Edelman, J. (2011). Understanding radical breaks: Media and behavior in small teams engaged in redesign scenarios. Retrieved from https://purl.stanford.edu/ps394dy6131, updated on 1/29/2019, checked on 2/18/2019.
Edelman, J., & Currano, R. (2011). Re-representation: Affordances of shared models in team-based design. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. J. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking. Understand—Improve—Apply (pp. 61–79). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0_4.
Edelman, J., Agarwal, A., Paterson, C., Mark, S., & Leifer, L. (2012). Understanding radical breaks. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research. Studying co-creation in practice (pp. 31–51). Heidelberg: Springer (Understanding innovation).
Edelman, J. A., Owoyele, B., Santuber, J., Talbot, A. V., Unger, K., & von Lewinski, K. (2020). Accessing highly effective performative patterns. In C. Meinel & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (Vol. 25, pp. 15–33). Cham: Springer International (Understanding innovation).
Eris, O. (2003). Asking generative design questions: A fundamental cognitive mechanism in design thinking. Doctoral Dissertation. Stanford.
Gagné, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human performance. American Psychologist, 39(4), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.377.
Harnum, J. (2014). The practice of practice. [Online content edition]. Chicago, IL: Sol UT Press.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (A Bradford book).
Kirsh, D. (1996). Adapting the environment instead of oneself. Adaptive Behavior, 4(3–4), 415–452.
Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI & Society, 25(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-010-0272-8.
Kirsh, D. (2011). How marking in dance constitutes thinking with the body. Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/archive/KIRHMI.pdf.
Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), 1–30.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.2.311.
Lakiza, V., & Deschamps, I. (2019). How to develop an impactful action research program: Insights and lessons from a case study. TIM Review, 9(5), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1239.
Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2020). Design thinking research. Investigating design team performance. Cham: Springer.
Porter, P. (1974). Judo from the beginning, volume 1: National coaching standards. Zenbei.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “Evidence-Based Management”? AMR, 31(2), 256–269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208679.
Royalty, A., Oishi, L. N., & Roth, B. (2014). Acting with creative confidence: Developing a creative agency assessment tool. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. J. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research. Building innovation eco-systems (Vol. 84, pp. 79–96). Cham: Springer (Understanding innovation).
Schar, M., Gilmartin, S., Harris, A., Rieken, B., & Sheppard, S. (2017). Innovation self-efficacy: A very brief measure for engineering students. In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings. Columbus, Ohio, 6/24/2017–6/28/2017: ASEE Conferences.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2014). Motor learning and performance. From principles to application (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Taheri, M., Unterholzer, T., Hölzle, K., & Meinel, C. (2016). An educational perspective on design thinking learning outcomes. Retrieved from https://hpi.de/fileadmin/user_upload/fachgebiete/meinel/papers/Design_Thinking/2016_taheri_unterholzer_ispim.pdf, checked on 1/6/2019.
Tversky, B. G. (2019). Mind in motion. How action shapes thought (1st ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). Embodied mind. Cognitive science and human experience. 3. print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Hasso Plattner Foundation for their generous support through the Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program. Thanks to the faculties of the Hasso Plattner Institut and the Design Division at Stanford University. Many thanks go out to the teachers and researchers from institutions too many to name, from whom we have drawn the many insights that have informed our work, including colleagues and mentors in Design Theory and Methodology, in the Cognitive Sciences and in Design itself. We would also like to thank the many participants in our studies and the studies of other researchers who have bravely given their time and energy so that we could observe, analyze and learn about the mechanics of high-performance teams.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Edelman, J.A., Owoyele, B., Santuber, J., Talbot, A.V. (2021). Designing as Performance: Bridging the Gap Between Research and Practice in Design Thinking Education. In: Meinel, C., Leifer, L. (eds) Design Thinking Research . Understanding Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62037-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62037-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62036-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62037-0
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)