Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Technology Supported Active Learning

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Educational Technology ((LNET))

Abstract

Design thinking has been offered as a solution for various challenges entrepreneurship, educational, learning and team teaching to name few areas. In this chapter we concentrate on the educational, learning and stakeholder involvement—especially teachers and students—when using design thinking in module design. We shall present the previous studies on design thinking in module and curricular design. We describe step by step our experience on applying the design thinking methods, tools and mindset into designing an engineering project-based module anew. In the end, we ponder about the outcomes of the experience, which have been constructive but challenging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, J. (2013, December 9). The benefits of design- and maker-thinking. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/13/12/benefits-design-and-maker-thinking.

  • Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain, Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f317/c2912db1c09387a5eb17dfa66b063956afba.pdf.

  • Brown, T. (2008, November). Tales of creativity and play. TED. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play/transcript?language=en.

  • Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006). Transformation design. Red Paper 02. Design Council, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buus, L., & Georgsen, M. (2017). A learning design methodology for developing short learning programmes in further and continuing education. In Higher Education for the Future: Accelerating and Strengthening Innovation: Conference proceedings The Online, Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference. G. Ubachs & L. Konings (Eds.), The online, Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference (EADTU) pp. 28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C. S., Koh, E., Lim, C. P., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Deepening ICT integration through multilevel design of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(1), 1–17. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0002-1.

  • Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ça change (pp. 27–84). National Center for Research on Teacher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S., & King, D. (2006). Skill sets: An approach to embed employability in course design. Education+ Training, 48(4), 262–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diefenthaler, A., Moorhead, L., Speicher, S., Bear, C., & Cerminaro, D. (2017). Thinking & acting like a designer: How design thinking supports innovation in K-12 education. Wise & Ideo, 6(3), 2019. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://www.wise-qatar.org/sites/default/files/rr.1.2017_-_ideo.pdf.

  • Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(11), 105–121. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.loft.io/attachments/Design%20Research%20What%20We%20Learn%20When%20We%20Engage%20in%20D.pdf.

  • Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263–291). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrada, C., & Goldman, S. (2017). A praxis model for design thinking: Catalyzing life readiness. Taking Design Thinking to School, 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2017). Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassi, L., Paju, S., & Maila, R. (2015). Kehitä kokeillen–organisaation käsikirja. Talentum Pro.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, B. (2016, February 25). Design thinking and PBL. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/design-thinking-and-pbl-beth-holland.

  • Ideo (2013). Design thinking for educators. Retrieved 02.12.2017 from: https://designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/.

  • Kapros, E. (2016). The role of empathy in designing for education. The Learnovate Centreweblog, Trinity College Dublin (2016). Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://www.learnovatecentre.org/empathy-in-designing-for-education/.

  • Kershner, R., Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kleine Staarman, J. (2014). Primary children’s management of themselves and others in collaborative group work: ‘Sometimes it takes patience…’. Education 3–13, 42(2), 201–216. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03004279.2012.670255.

  • Knudsen, J., & Shechtman, N. (2017). Professional development that bridges the gap between workshop and classroom through Disciplined Improvisation. In Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Lim, W. Y. (2015a). Creating and learning through design: teacher professional development for 21st century learning. Presented in the International Conference on Researching Work and Learning (RWL9). Singapore, 9–11 December 2015 organised by The Institute for Adult Learning, the National Institute of Education (Singapore) and SIM University. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/17354/3/ICRWL-2015-Paper067_a.pdf.

  • Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. (2015b). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Stieger, D., & Matzler, K. (2011). Avatar-based innovation: Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 160–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, T., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2010). Evolving discourses on design thinking: How design cognition inspires meta-disciplinary creative collaboration. Technoetic Arts, 8(1), 31–37. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from https://edit801fall10.pbworks.com/f/lindberg,+noweski+and+meinel.pdf.

  • Littlejohn, D., & Davis, M. (2016). The culture of practice: Design-based teaching and learning. In Taking Design Thinking to School (pp. 38–54). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattelmäki, T., & Battarbee, K. (2002). Empathy probes. In T. Binder, J. Gregory & I. Wagner (Eds.), Pdc 2002 participatory design conference 23–25.6.2002 (pp. 266–272). Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melles, G., Anderson, N., Barrett, T., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2015). Problem finding through design thinking in education. In Inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (pp. 91–209). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royakkers, L., Timmer, J., Kool, L., & van Est, R. (2018, March 16). Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9452-x.

  • Sanders E. B.-N. & Stappers P. J. (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, Co-design, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068.

  • Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education, 17(3), 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanford Design thinking school (dschool). https://dschool.stanford.edu/about.

  • Tran N. (2017). Design thinking playbook, for change management in K12 schools, Retrieved 21.12.2017 from: https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-playbook-from-design-tech-high-school.

  • Weinbaum, E., & Supovitz, J. (2010). Planning ahead: Make program implementation more predictable. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100714. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/003172171009100714.

  • Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec511dlg10/files/2012/07/zhaofrank2003.pdf.

  • Zielezinski, M. (2017). Finding your fit: Empathy, authenticity, and ambiguity in the design thinking classroom. In Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zupan, B., Stritar, R., & Nabergoj, A. S. (2014). Design Thinking as a course design methodology. Proceedings of 8th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development and 4th Eastern European ESD Conference: Building Resilient Economy, Zagreb, Croatia, I. Filipovic, G. Kozina, & F. Galetic (Eds.), (pp. 465–476). Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency (VADEA). Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://www.esd-conference.com/past-conferences.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Karaportti 2, 02610, Espoo, Finland

    Merja Bauters & Petri Vesikivi

  2. School of Digital Technologies, Tallinn University, Narva rd 25, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia

    Merja Bauters

Authors
  1. Merja Bauters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Petri Vesikivi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merja Bauters .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Carlos Vaz de Carvalho

  2. Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia

    Merja Bauters

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bauters, M., Vesikivi, P. (2021). Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers. In: Vaz de Carvalho, C., Bauters, M. (eds) Technology Supported Active Learning. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-2081-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-2082-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation