Building on Design Thinking: Pedagogical Challenges and Titanic Solutions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Building on Design Thinking: pedagogical challenges and Titanic solutions Paul J. McElheron, Assistant Professor, VIA University College, Herning, Denmark. PhD student, Aarhus University, Graduate School Arts, Denmark. E-mail: [email protected]. Abstract: This paper charts our efforts aimed at developing students’, (novice designers), creativity, complex problem solving skills and innovative potential through combining design thinking and knowledge building. Over three case studies, we went from evaluating design thinking as a creative problem-solving tool to combining the process and practices of design thinking with the principles of knowledge building. We find that this enables students to work creatively with knowledge and helps sustain idea improvement. With these case studies as the background, we explored how to communicate design thinking and knowledge building to students as this faces some pedagogical challenges. To facilitate this process we used the sinking of RMS Titanic in 1912. Faced with the problem, “How could more lives have been saved?” using a design thinking methodology saves over 700 additional lives, teams using the combined approach develop solutions that may save the entire ship. The challenge enabled students to engage in sustained collaborative idea improvement and gain an introduction to the concepts of design thinking and knowledge building. Keywords: Knowledge building, design thinking, creativity Introduction In our experience, students and novice designers who lack domain experience or procedural knowledge benefit considerably from a process. Design thinking is a creative problem-solving process including several practices aimed at ensuring ideas are generated freely, expressed visually, combined, prototyped and tested. It uses a process map in five steps: understanding user needs, framing problems to understand real needs, generating ideas, prototyping solutions and obtaining feedback. Some of the criticism directed at design thinking has implications for teaching it and for using its potential as a driver of innovation. A widely acknowledged issue in the design thinking discourse is the difficulty explaining what design thinking is, there is no generally agreed definition and the “literature on which it is based is contradictory, (Koh, 2015). Rylander, (2009) suggests that it is “hard enough understanding design and thinking, let alone design thinking”. Knowledge building also has some challenges when it comes to communicating the concept to students. While it has an agreed definition as a social activity focused on the continuous generation and improvement of ideas, (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006), it is based on a set of principles rather than a process or prescribed methodology. These principles, aimed at maintaining creative, sustained idea improvement for example “epistemic agency”, “scaffolding” and “rise above” require explanation. Scardamalia & Bereiter, (2006) acknowledge that adhering to a principled rather than a procedural approach has undoubtedly impeded the spread of knowledge building. A second issue is the type of innovation that might be expected from the human-centered design-thinking approach and the role of empathy as a starting point for radical innovation. Human-centered design has attracted some criticism for lacking the skills & knowledge required to generate radical innovation, (Norman & Verganti, 2012). Knowledge building has as its starting point a critique of the status-quo and use of expert sources of information. According to Nonaka & Takeuchi, (1995), the key to innovation is knowledge and most problems require both creativity and knowledge to solve them, (Dörner & Funke, (2017). We were interested in exploring how design thinking would assist novice designers cope with these types of problems. While students are generally able to generate ideas, remaining actively engaged in continuous idea improvement is not something that comes naturally to most students, (novice designers), (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006), but the principles and building cycle of knowledge building might help make explicit what some highly effective teams do implicitly when engaged in problem finding and innovative concept development. Background, three case studies For some time, we have been experimenting with using a design thinking methodology to assist multi-disciplinary student teams generate innovative solutions to ill-defined, ambiguous (wicked) design problems, (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Our experience has been that when students are confronted with such problems and encouraged to develop solutions using a design thinking methodology, innovative solutions are often generated, whether in the form of artifacts, processes or systems, (McElheron, 2017). In an attempt to explore this further and isolate the effects of design thinking, our approach has been to run studies where the innovative concepts from teams of students using design thinking are compared with the concepts from teams of students who do not. Following this, we further experimented with adding knowledge building to the design thinking process in order to understand how this extra focus on knowledge would affect the students’ suggestions for solutions. In the following, we will briefly describe three cases studies that investigated the effects of design thinking and/or knowledge building: the three case studies serve as a background for the main study in the paper: The Titanic problem. Case study one: Design thinking with a well-defined problem A cohort of 72 BA fashion design & business students in their 2nd semester was divided into 20 teams, and presented with a product design challenge - to develop an urban bicycle concept. All teams were provided with a design brief specifying the requirements of the design, (new generation of urban bike, quality of design, flexibility, integration of features, aesthetics, mandatory features etc.). Half the teams were asked to use the process and practices of design thinking. Half the teams did not use design thinking. The teams’ concepts were evaluated by a panel of experts using the Taxonomy of Creative Design, (Nilsson, 2012). The concepts from the design thinking teams scored significantly higher on the taxonomy in terms of the variation, combination and transformation of ideas. Our observations suggested that the teams not using the design thinking process jumped directly to solution mode, ideas were generated, but often not captured or developed. These teams tended to fragment early working on separate tasks and communication between team members suffered. Conversely, the teams using the design thinking process and practices spent more time framing the design problem, generating ideas and considering technical feasibility, desirable & viability. Case study two: Problems that require both creativity and knowledge to solve them In looking for a longer design period than a short workshop, two teams of six BA Business and Engineering students in their 5th semester, were observed over five days while engaged in solving an ambiguous problem using the same design thinking methodology used in case study one. The design challenge was to design an app that would enable people with ADHD/Autism (AUT) to monitor their emotions and get feedback on them seeking to reduce anxiety in their daily lives. To work with this challenge, the teams would have to acquire substantial knowledge of the ADHD/AUT condition, and what this means in terms of problems with self-direction, executive function, social interaction and communication. Both teams succeeded in developing and presenting solutions that the sponsoring company considered innovative, feasible in terms of functionality, and cost. However, one team concept was far more sophisticated and as a team they differed from the other team in several important respects. Firstly, they demonstrated a high level of knowledge about the subject, specifically a deep understanding of the ADHD – Autism – Anxiety cycle that is typical for people diagnosed with this condition and how this might be disrupted. Secondly, how this knowledge made its way into the team’s concept and thirdly in the way they acquired this knowledge. Where the one team followed the same design thinking process and practices in case study one, the more successful team followed a different pattern when on day two they started to be engaged in what Engle & Conant (2002:44) describe as research – share – perform cycles, where students “collaboratively construct meaning and action thereby transforming the classroom into a community of discourse”. Their focus was on acquiring knowledge as a community – not just as individuals. The team frequently created concepts, ideas or theories which were used to acquire further knowledge. Effective use was made of “expert” sources of information, including people with ADHD/AUT and their carers. They continued to reflect on what they knew, and what action or knowledge they needed to move forward. Their concept emerged gradually over the five days: as they knew more, they could begin to develop solutions that addressed particular problems that they had identified through their new found knowledge. The way this team operated reflected several features associated with the principles of knowledge building proposed by Scardamalia & Bereiter, (2006), which is concerned with the sustained collective generation and improvement of ideas. Figure 3: Model of Team 2’s working style Case study three: Building on design thinking The observations made in case study two caused