Implications of Design Thinking for Teaching, Learning, and Inquiry

Abstract

The term design thinking has recently gained prominence within postsecondary design programs across the United States. The term is often used to explain and advocate for design's unique approach to solving problems in innovative ways. The term is also used as a general description for unexplained or ill-defined representations of what designers do. If design educators have a clear understanding of design thinking, they can improve teaching and learning, and reframe design-based and interdisciplinary inquiry. This article addresses design thinking through two layers. The first layer highlights key ways that designers think through an overview of more than 50 years of design thinking's foundational literature. The second layer reports a 3-year-long, teaching-and-learning research project that compared learning in a design course and a similar nondesign course. The research project explores the application of design thinking's key ideas through the two courses. The project examined learning by 110 students enrolled in two courses during an annual, residential, summer enrichment program for high school seniors. The courses were structured in parallel ways for exploring design thinking and wicked problems, but addressed design and nondesign topics. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the courses and student learning demonstrate how the students used attributes of design thinking. The results challenge design educators to reconsider how design thinking may influence the classroom and inquiry.In recent years, the term design thinking has gained prominence within postsecondary design programs across the United States. Design thinking, as a process, can be a valuable approach and descriptor for what designers do. Design educators use the term to explain and advocate for the potential that design has to improve lives, solve problems, and enrich interdisciplinary collaborations. But, do we know what design thinking is? As design educators and scholars, we teach our students how to design and what design's effect can be in improving quality of life. We have an obligation to continually improve our teaching. Improving our teaching requires refining our understanding of how we design. If we consider carefully the more than half-century of focused research on design thinking, we will gain a stronger understanding of what we do-and how design thinking can transform our actions, enhance our teaching, and provide ways for us to reshape design's position within the academy.How designers think about a solution may seem opaque or foreign. At the same time, design thinking may be inherent in the ways that our students and colleagues already understand and act on ideas. To advance our use of design thinking, two layers of design knowledge must be addressed. The first layer requires that we (as design educators and designers teaching) understand how designers recognize, think through, and solve the problems they face. The second layer requires exploring how far design thinking extends. Do students learn the design thinking ...

Research Utilization in the Design Decision Making Process

“…Salama's (2008Salama's ( , 2015 design-based 'Trans-Critical' pedagogy theory was offered to address the integration of knowledge across disciplines (Disciplinary Component), the methods by which knowledge is acquired (Inquiry-Epistemic), and how students assimilate new knowledge (Cognitive-Philosophical). Other scholars have proposed tools and methods which emphasize the collection and analysis of information (Bose, Pennypacker & Yahner, 2006;Marinic, 2010;Orthel, 2015;Oxman, 2004), and the integration of knowledge (Deshpande & Khan, 2010). Yet, the pervasiveness of these integrative models in unclear -especially in interior design -and confusion remains amongst students surrounding the role of research in interior design practice (Dickinson, Marsden, & Read, 2007).…”

Concretising Design Thinking: A Content Analysis of Systematic and Extended Literature Reviews on Design Thinking and Human‐Centred Design

“…Broadly, the goals of most of the articles (nine out of 11) were to situate design thinking within the relevant industry for the purpose of bolstering its processes or practices (Orthel, ; Nia & Atun, ; Kleinsmann et al , ; Noel & Liub, ; Oxman, ; Cook & Bush, ; Kleber, ; Robbins, ; Periera & Russo, ). Of the remaining two, one sought to determine the nature of design thinking and its relevant competencies for application to education (Razzouk & Shute, ), and the other was part of a larger conversation seeking to negotiate the role of embodied cognition in relation to design (Goldschmidt, ).…”

Como o Design Thinking é ensinado nas melhores universidades do mundo?

“…Por ser centrado no problema do usuário, Burdick (2011) considera o DT como uma abordagem de alfabetização adequada ao século 21. Estudos sobre a aplicação de metodologias baseadas no Design Thinking sugerem que não há diferença significativa entre sua aplicação por designer e não designers (ORTHEL, 2015). Uma vez que foca seu aprendizado baseado na ação e na descoberta da solução iterando com as partes interessadas.…”

“…Quais os dados disponíveis? Há pouca informação relevante sobre o assunto Existem diversas abordagens e dados análogos que podem ser utilizadas Fonte: Liedtka, Ogilvie e Brozenske (2014), adaptado pelos autoresVersátil não somente para negócios, o DT tem se mostrado eficaz para a resolução de problemas em diversas áreas como: Sustentabilidade(ANDREWS, 2015;SHAPIRA;KETCHIE;NEHE, 2017;BIRKELAND, 2012); novos negócios (MUELLER; THORING, 2012; KATHERINE, 2016); Inovação(LIEDTKA, 2011;BONINI;SBRAGIA, 2011); Educação (MELLES;HOWARD;THOMPSON-WHITESIDEC, 2012;BEHM;CULVENOR;DIXON, 2014;CASSIM, 2013;BURDICK;WILLIS, 2011;ORTHEL, 2015); saúde (HEIJDE, 2016); entre outros.…”