Skip to main content

Design Thinking, Designerly Ways of Knowing, and Engaged Learning

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Learning, Design, and Technology

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.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. J. (2008). Design thinking. American Libraries, 39(1–2), 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Collins, H. (2013). Can design thinking still add value? Design Management Review, 24(2), 35–39. doi:10.1111/drev.10239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5–17. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Dordrecht, London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators toolkit. Palo Alto, CA: IDEO.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2014). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. London, UK: William Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. doi:10.2752/175470811X13071166525216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Liedtka, J. (2014). Innovative ways companies are using design thinking. Strategy & Leadership, 42(2), 40–45. doi:10.1108/SL-01-2014-0004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Designing for growth: A design thinking tool kit for managers. New York, NY: Columbia Business School Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Papert, S. (2002, June 24). How to make writing ‘hard fun’. Bangor Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html

  • Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulsen, S. B., & Thøgersen, U. (2011). Embodied design thinking: A phenomenological perspective. CoDesign, 7(1), 29–44. doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.563313

    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. doi:10.3102/0034654312457429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (1996). The computer clubhouse: Preparing for life in a digital world. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3 4), 431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1984). Problems, frames and perspectives on designing. Design Studies, 5(3), 132–136. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(84)90002-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change, 27(6), 26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Watson, A. D. (2015). Design thinking for life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonan Phillip Donaldson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Donaldson, J.P., Smith, B.K. (2017). Design Thinking, Designerly Ways of Knowing, and Engaged Learning. In: Spector, M., Lockee, B., Childress, M. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_73-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_73-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics