Design Thinking For Educational Technology

Editor's Notes

• #4: This presentation gives a detailed overview of workshop concept and results – and is intended to inspire others who are planning creative, collaborative formats and events.
• #5: Design thinking is a problem solving method geared to overcome wicked problems, that have no right or wrong solution and resist traditional scientific and engineering approaches, as “the information needed to understand the problem depends upon one's idea for solving it” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, 161). Design thinking aims at transcending the immediate boundaries of the problem to ensure that the right questions are being addressed. The process foresees steps that allow participants to analyze, synthesize, diverge and generate insights from different domains through drawing, prototyping and storytelling (Brown, 2009). During the design thinking process, the facilitator encourages learners to see constraints as inspiration (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). The results are typically not directed toward a technological "quick fix” but toward new integrations of signs, things, actions, and environments (Buchanan, 1992). The essence of design thinking is to put learners into contexts that make them think and work like an expert designer, and thereby foster civic literacy, empathy, cultural awareness and risk taking (Sharples et al., 2016).  
• #6: Liedtka (2015) discussed design thinking as a method to reduce cognitive bias. According to her analysis, design-thinking practices carry the potential for improving innovation outcomes by mitigating an established set of cognitive flaws: people often project their own world view onto others, limit the options considered, and ignore disconfirming data.
• #8: In 2005, the Hasso-Plattner-Institute of Design at Stanford University in California began to teach Design Thinking to engineering students. The philosophy behind this venture was the conviction that it is possible to train engineers and scientists to become innovators.
• #19: We used the personas approach as a narrative tool to give workshop participants an authentic glimpse into the everyday life of people living in a prototypical neighborhood. Personas are an immersive way for bringing abstract target group information to life through the presence of a specific, fictional personality (Junior & Filgueiras, 2005). Acting as a “projection screen”, personas aid in identifying needs and possible behavioral patterns (Panke, Gaiser & Werner, 2007). After a brief overview of statistical data on typical demographics in a German neighborhood, participants worked in teams of 3, and designed 1-2 portraits, that outlined characteristics of each persona. 
• #21: In February 2018 the authors of this article were involved in a design thinking workshop at Muenster University of Applied Sciences (Germany) in the roles of facilitator and participant. Our case study analysis reflects both perspectives, and uses evaluation results to further illuminate how the workshop structure fostered creativity and empathy. A central aspect of the research cluster 'participation and well-being' at the Münster University of Applied Sciences is to seek ideas of how to develop the living quarters and neighborhoods in Germany cities. Despite the predominantly excellent digital infrastructure, the excellent health care and manifold assisted living offers in Germany, the potential of inclusion, equal co-existence and social coherence are not sufficiently supported.
• #22: Since design thinking is a visual and haptic approach, we started the workshop with an exercise that tapped into the visualization and spatial thinking skills of the participants by asking them to draw a map of their quarter. Specifically, the task was to map out barriers to inclusion and participation.
• #24: The personas and their legends delivered the necessary context for design decisions and priorities in the next step of the creative process, the design thinking cycle. During the design thinking process participants cycle rapidly through a series of tasks that prompt them to observe, brainstorm, synthesize, prototype and discuss. Each participant worked in a dyadic team. The partners went through four design sheets with structured prompts: DEFINE & FOCUS: Pick one of the personas and specify which social inclusion problem you want to solve for this person. Remember that how you describe the problem affects the solution, so pay attention to precise, concise and action-oriented language. Present to your partner. GENERATE & DEBATE Generate 3-5 ideas to address the problem with novel solutions or disruptive technologies. Aim for a large effect, broad reach and replicable results. Present to your partner. SELECT & SKETCH Choose one of your ideas and sketch it out in more detail (literally). Select the best-received, the most interesting to you, the most likely to be implemented, the most unusual or the solution with the most options for collaborating with others. Present to your partner. BUILD & PRESENT: Design a prototype or three-dimensional representation of your solution with the materials in the room (card board, paper, tape, clay). Let your partner / the gropup react to the prototype. Both express and receive positive and negative feedback, ideas for improvement or extension, and open questions.
• #25: We went through two cycles of the design thinking process so that each participant developed, discussed, sketched, and built out two ideas. After the first round, we re-formed the teams, so that everyone worked with two different people, ideally each from a different context. While the conceptual idea stages where developed in a dyadic setting, each participant presented their prototypes to the whole group and got feedback from the plenum. Community Engagement can happen in different spaces and places, through events or programs, facilitated by technology and public infrastructure, comprising public, commercial and private spheres. The workshop participants developed 28 different design ideas.
• #30: Seven weeks after the workshop, the participants received a result summary of the personas and the design ideas, together with a short online survey that comprised one binary, three Likert, and four open ended questions. The survey was distributed by email with a personalized invitation link. With two reminders, 11 out of 15 participants answered the questionnaire. As an incentive, we raffled off a recent design thinking book title among respondents.
• #33: In retrospect, the personas method could have been used more effectively by giving more specific prompts to target diversity, e.g.: Create a persona that significantly differs from your own background. What feels difficult about telling this person’s story? What assumptions are you making? How can you learn more?