Advertisement

Design Thinking, Designerly Ways of Knowing, and Engaged Learning

  • Jonan Phillip DonaldsonEmail author
  • Brian K. Smith
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Learning is often framed in the learning sciences through a metaphor of construction, a perspective which describes learning as a process in which meaning is individually and socially constructed. Design thinking, designerly ways of knowing, and principles of constructionist learning provide powerful lenses through which to view the process of construction. The design thinking for engaged learning (DTEL) framework brings strands of research regarding design thinking, designerly ways of knowing, and constructionist learning together as a set of principles through which to develop and evaluate designs of constructionist learning environments.

Keywords

Design thinking Designerly ways of knowing Constructionist learning Engagement 

References

  1. Abrahamson, D. (2015). Reinventing learning: A design-research odyssey. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47(6), 1013–1026. doi: 10.1007/s11858-014-0646-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy- enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, S. J. (2008). Design thinking. American Libraries, 39(1–2), 44–49.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, J., & Dresdow, S. (2014). Design thinking: A fresh approach for transformative assessment practice. Journal of Management Education, 38(3), 436–461. doi: 10.1177/1052562913507571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blikstein, P. (2008). Travels in Troy with Freire: Technology as an agent for emancipation. In P. Noguera & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Social justice education for teachers: Paulo Freire and the possible dream (pp. 205–244). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  8. Buenano, G. (1999). The becoming of problems in design: Knowledge in action to frame wicked problems. (Ph.D. Disserataion), University of California, Berkeley, CA. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, M. (2014). Shoot for the moon! The mentors and the middle schoolers explore the intersection of design thinking and STEM. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1), 3. doi: 10.7771/2157-9288.1072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.01752.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, K., & Smith, R. (2010). Unleashing the power of design thinking. In T. Lockwood (Ed.), Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience and brand value (pp. 47–56). New York, NY: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cleary, B. A. (2015). Design thinking and PDSA: Don’t throw out the baby. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 38(2), 21–23.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, H. (2013). Can design thinking still add value? Design Management Review, 24(2), 35–39. doi: 10.1111/drev.10239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5–17. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Dordrecht, London: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dimmitt, C., & McCormick, C. B. (2012). Metacognition in education. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 157–187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fuge, M., & Agogino, A. (2015). Pattern analysis of IDEO’s human-centered design methods in developing regions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(7), 071405–071405. doi: 10.1115/1.4030047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2012). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 17, 84–89. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glen, R., Suciu, C., Baughn, C. C., & Anson, R. (2015). Teaching design thinking in business schools. The International Journal of Management Education, 13(2), 182–192. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2015.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gözen, G. (2016). Influence of design thinking performance on children’s creative problem-solving skills: An estimation through regression analysis. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 12(4), 1–13. doi: 10.9734/BJESBS/2016/22153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchinson, A., & Tracey, M. (2015). Design ideas, reflection, and professional identity: How graduate students explore the idea generation process. Instructional Science, 43(5), 527–544. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9354-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators toolkit. Palo Alto, CA: IDEO.Google Scholar
  28. Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. doi: 10.1111/caim.12023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Learning design by making games. In Y. B. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world (pp. 71–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 35–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Kafai, Y. B., Peppler, K. A., & Chapman, R. N. (2009). The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kaplan, A., Sinai, M., & Flum, H. (2014). Design-based interventions for promoting students’ identity exploration within the school curriculum. In S. Karabenick & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Motivational interventions (pp. 243–291). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karan, A. (2016). The role of an authentic audience in computational modeling: Designing models of tides for younger children. Paper presented at the learning sciences graduate student conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  36. Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2014). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. London, UK: William Collins.Google Scholar
  37. Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. doi: 10.2752/175470811X13071166525216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2015). Empathy via design thinking: Creation of sense and knowledge. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research: Building innovators (pp. 15–28). Dordrecht, London: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. Liedtka, J. (2014). Innovative ways companies are using design thinking. Strategy & Leadership, 42(2), 40–45. doi: 10.1108/SL-01-2014-0004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers. New York, NY: Columbia Business School Pub.Google Scholar
  41. Luka, I. (2014). Design thinking in pedagogy. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 2014(2), 63–74. doi: 10.15503/jecs20142.63.74 Google Scholar
  42. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.Google Scholar
  43. Mickahail, B. (2015). Corporate implementation of design thinking for innovation and economic growth. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 10(2), 67–79.Google Scholar
  44. Orthel, B. D. (2015). Implications of design thinking for teaching, learning, and inquiry. Journal of Interior Design, 40(3), 1–20. doi: 10.1111/joid.12046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  46. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: BasicBooks.Google Scholar
  47. Papert, S. (1999). Eight big ideas behind the constructionist learning lab. In G. S. Stager (Ed.), Constructive technology as the key to entering the Community of Learners (pp. 4–5). Philadelphia, PA: 2005 National Educational Computing Conference (NECC).Google Scholar
  48. Papert, S. (2002, June 24). How to make writing ‘hard fun’. Bangor Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html
  49. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Poulsen, S. B., & Thøgersen, U. (2011). Embodied design thinking: A phenomenological perspective. CoDesign, 7(1), 29–44. doi: 10.1080/15710882.2011.563313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. doi: 10.3102/0034654312457429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey & D. E. Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163–181). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (1996). The computer clubhouse: Preparing for life in a digital world. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3 4), 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 7–30. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0901_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  58. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce’s claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  61. Schön, D. A. (1984). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 132–136. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(84)90002-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schön, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  64. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (2000). Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements: Important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies, 21(6), 539–567. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00034-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vogel, C. M. (2010). Notes on the evolution of design thinking: A work in progress. In T. Lockwood (Ed.), Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience and brand value (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  67. Watson, A. D. (2015). Design thinking for life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18.Google Scholar
  68. Welsh, M. A., & Dehler, G. E. (2013). Combining critical reflection and design thinking to develop integrative learners. Journal of Management Education, 37(6), 771–802. doi: 10.1177/1052562912470107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Winne, P. H., & Azevedo, R. (2014). Metacognition. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.pp. 63–87). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zimmerman, B. J., & Labuhn, A. S. (2012). Self-regulation of learning: Process approaches to personal development. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 399–425). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.ExCITe Center & School of EducationDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations