Advertisement

Student Teams in Search of Design Thinking

  • Shelley GoldmanEmail author
  • Zandile Kabayadondo
  • Adam Royalty
  • Maureen P. Carroll
  • Bernard RothEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

The research explored student teams as they worked independently of instructors and coaches to understand how students learn the design thinking process. Two approaches to the research were explored: taking cues from team members’ reflections on their working sessions; and, analyzing communication bids made by students using interaction analysis techniques. Teams from two design thinking classes at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (d.school) at Stanford were studied. Results indicate that groups struggled for sustained and focused talk and activity relating to their assigned tasks, yet ultimately, established ways to communicate and accomplish assigned tasks. The findings implicate course design, suggesting more attention to team process and communication.

Keywords

Team Member Team Meeting Time Segment Design Thinking Team Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the students who participated in our research. They have contributed to our understanding of how instruction might better impact their learning. A grant from the Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program made this work possible. Findings and opinions presented are those of the authors and do not represent the program.

References

  1. Adams RS, Turns J, Atman CJ (2003) Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice. Des Stud 24(3):275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bao P, Gerber E, Gergle D, Hoffman D (2010) Momentum: getting and staying on topic during a brainstorm. In: Proceedings of CHI 2010, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK (1988) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J Appl Psychol 83(3):377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booker A, Goldman S, Mercier E (2009) Interdisciplinarity in learning technology. In: di Giano C, Goldman S, Chorost M (eds) Educating learning technology designers: guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Brereton MF, Cannon DM, Mabogunje A, Leifer L (1996) Collaboration in design teams: how social interaction shapes the product, analyzing design activity. In: Cross NG, Christiaans HHCM, Dorst K (eds) Analysing design activity. Wiley, Chichester, pp 319–341Google Scholar
  6. Cross N (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Dewey J (1922) Human nature and conflict. Holt, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Dym CL (1999) Learning engineering: design, languages, and experiences. J Eng Educ 88(2):145–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey DD, Leifer L (2005) Engineering design thinking, teaching and learning. J Eng Des 94:103–120Google Scholar
  11. Gerber E (2009) Prototyping: facing uncertainty through small wins. In: Proceedings of ICEDGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldman S, Carroll MP, Kabayadondo Z, Britos Cavagnaro L, Royalty AW, Roth B, Kwek SW, Kim J (2012) Assessing d.learning: capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker, with. In: Meinel C, Leifer L, Plattner H (eds) Design thinking research: measuring performance in context. Springer, London, pp 13–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Katu (2012) Let’s spend our lives together. Bus Life 16–22Google Scholar
  14. Kress GL, Schar M (2012) Teamology – the art and science of design team formation. In: Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L (eds) Design thinking research: measuring performance in context. Springer, London, pp 189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mercier E, Goldman S, Booker A (2009) Focusing on process: evidence and ideas to promote learning though the collaborative design process. In: di Giano C, Goldman S, Chorost M (eds) Educating learning technology designers: guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools. Routledge, London/New York, pp 36–61Google Scholar
  16. Pimmel R (2001) Cooperative learning instructional activities in a capstone design course. J Eng Educ 90(3):413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169 [Reprinted in Cross (ed) Developments in design methodology. Wiley, pp 135–144]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rowe PG (1987) Design thinking. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Schegloff EA (1998) Reply to Wetherell. Discourse Soc 9:413–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schegloff EA (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: a primer in conversational analysis, vol 1. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. von Thienen J, Noweski C, Meinel C, Lang S, Nicolai C, Bartz A (2012) What can design learn from behavior group therapy? In: Meinel C, Leifer L, Plattner H (eds) Design thinking research: measuring performance in context. Springer, London, pp 285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vygotsky LS (1976 [1934]) Thought and language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations