Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

STEAM Education: Why Learn Design Thinking?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Promoting Language and STEAM as Human Rights in Education

Abstract

This chapter will discuss effects of using the design thinking approach when developing STEAM curriculum. The interesting perspective in this context is the synergies coming from the design thinking cycle (Brown, 2008) as it addresses directly the art and design in the STEAM context. The strength of the design thinking approach is the possibility to tackle complex and ill-defined problems (Brown & Wyatt, 2010), ranging from business to ecological and social context (Stolterman, 2008). The problems of this type are usually named wicked, as they have no definitive solution (Buchanan, 1992).

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 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Refers to things to know, ways of knowing them, and ways of finding out about them grounded in design as a discipline (Cross, 2006).

  2. 2.

    IDEO is a design consultancy that was instrumental in propelling DT. See http://www.ideo.com.

References

  • Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomkvist, J., & Holmlid, S. (2011). Existing prototyping perspectives: Considerations for service design. Nordes, 0(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation (SSIR). Stanford Social Innovation Review, 30(5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. In Designerly ways of knowing (pp. 1–13). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (Reprint ed.). New York: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2000). New conceptions and research approaches to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education. International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, 2, 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • CulĂ©n, A. L. (2015). Innovation and creativity in the HCI classroom. International Journal on Advances in Intelligent Systems, 8(3 and 4), 300–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • CulĂ©n, A. L., & Følstad, A. (2015). Innovation in HCI—what can we learn from design thinking. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 27, 109–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • CulĂ©n, A. L., Mainsah, H. N., & Finken, S. (2014). Design practice in human computer interaction design education. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, (pp. 300–306). ACHI (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalsgaard, P. (2016). Experimental systems in research through design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4991–4996). New York, USA: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(2), 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d.school. (2017). A place for explorers & experimenters at Stanford University. http://dschool.stanford.edu. Accessed September 2, 2017.

  • Fabun, D. (1968). You and creativity. Kaiser Aluminum News, 25(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallman, D. (2003). Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 225–232).

    Google Scholar 

  • Finken, S., CulĂ©n, A. L., & Gasparini, A. (2014). Nurturing creativity: Assemblages in HCI design practices. In Proc. Design Research Society, UmeĂĄ, Sweden (DRS 2014), 1204–1217

    Google Scholar 

  • Granberg, A., Traran, B., & Steinsø, T. (2017). Student project: Realfagsbiblioteket. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF2260/h16/presentations/biblioteket/sluttrapport_biblioteket.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2017.

  • Hansen, A., Hess-Bolstad, B., & Mjøvik, T. (2017). Student project: Easy Watt. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF2260/h16/presentations/iot-accenture/. Accessed September 2, 2017.

  • Hom, E. J. (2014). What is STEM education? http://www.livescience.com/43296-what-is-stem-education.htm. Accessed September 2, 2017.

  • Karabeg, A., Akkok, M. N., & Kristensen, K. (2004). Towards a language for talking about information visualization aimed at presentation on the Web. In Proceedings of The Eighth International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2004. IV 2004 (pp. 930–937).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiran, A. H. (2012). Responsible design. A conceptual look at interdependent design–use dynamics. Philosophy and Technology, 25(2), 179–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolko, J., & Austin Center for Design. (2012). Wicked problems problems worth solving. Austin, Texas: Ac4d.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC/Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press Elsevier.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoud-Jouini, B., Midler, C., & Silberzahn, P. (2016). Contributions of design thinking to project management in an innovation context. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 144–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. L. (2009). Design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinel, C., Leifer, L., & Plattner, H. (2011). Design thinking: Understand—improve—apply. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership- ERIC, 42(8), 40–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, B. (2011). Design thinking is a failed experiment. So what’s next? Co. Design, Fast Company, 6. https://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next. Accessed September 2, 2017.

  • Okun, Y., Harfallet, T., Skrebeliene, E., & Holm, K. (2013). Student project: Bookmotion. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF2260/h13/presentations/BookMotion/index.html. Accessed September 2, 2017.

  • Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2016). Finding the joy in the unknown: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 410–426.

    Article  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 

  • Roeser, S. (2012). Emotional engineers: Toward morally responsible design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. (2008). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevaldson, B. (2011). GIGA-Mapping: Visualization for complexity and systems thinking in design. Nordes, 0(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sochacka, N., Guyotte, K. W., Walther, J., & Kellam, N. (2013). Faculty reflections on a STEAM-inspired interdisciplinary studio course. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. Atlanta, GA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolterman, E., McAtee, J., Royer, D., & Thandapani, S. (2009). Designerly tools. Presented at the Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • SOD Tools. (2017). Timelines, scenarios, stories. http://www.systemsorienteddesign.net/index.php/tools. Accessed September 2, 2017.

  • Tessem, N., Lunde, T., & DĂĄstøl, K. (2017). Student project: City kids inspiration. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF2260/h16/presentations/citykids-inspiration. Accessed September 2, 2017.

  • Yakman, G., & Lee, H. (2012). Exploring the exemplary STEAM education in the U.S. as a practical educational framework for Korea. Journal of the Korean Association of Science and Technology, 32(6), 1072–1086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the University of Oslo Library.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Alma Leora Culén & Andrea Alessandro Gasparini

Authors
  1. Alma Leora Culén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Alessandro Gasparini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alma Leora Culén .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Zehlia Babaci-Wilhite

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Culén, A.L., Gasparini, A.A. (2019). STEAM Education: Why Learn Design Thinking?. In: Babaci-Wilhite, Z. (eds) Promoting Language and STEAM as Human Rights in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2880-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2880-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2879-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2880-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation