Design Thinking as a Means to Developing Critical Habits of Mind
Laurynn Evans
Abstract
Despite a rapidly changing global environment, K-12 education in the United States has remained frozen in time. Educational ideas and innovations come and go, with minimal impacts on student achievement outcomes. Despite these ideas and innovations, classrooms look remarkably similar to what they looked like at the beginning of the 20th century. Even the most significant change in schools, the introduction and integration of technology, has served to only change procedural aspects of learning in most schools and has had only spotty success in significantly changing student learning at a foundational level. But it is not just stagnation in our teaching and learning that is the only concern. Certain new deficiencies have emerged or have become more notable in recent years as a result of societal pressures, changes in student populations, and popular psychology for parenting. Employers have provided overwhelming evidence pointing to a lack of innovative thinking and a lack of perseverance in today’s graduates. Theorists have provided a strong research basis pointing to the need for learning experiences that cultivate stronger creativity, that foster an innovative spirit, and which cultivate greater resiliency in our students.
How might we instill a sense of self-efficacy and self-regulation in our students while continuing to provide content knowledge seen as essential to success later in life? Design thinking provides a potential avenue by which we can foster a spirit of innovation and resiliency in students while simultaneously instilling a passion for learning and knowledge. As defined by David Kelley, one of the originators of the process, design thinking is “a deeply human process that taps into abilities we all have but get overlooked by more conventional problem-solving practices.” In other words, design thinking is a structured approach that fosters creative thinking in situations where it may otherwise be overlooked. It integrates elements of many “best practices” in educational pedagogy and methodology, including but not limited to inquiry-based learning, metacognitive strategy use, problem-based-learning, and collaborative learning.
This paper will focus on the origins and principles of design thinking, as well as sharing the relevant literature regarding design thinking. Finally, possible approaches for the integration of design thinking into established programs, schools, and curriculum will be shared.
Introduction
Despite a rapidly changing landscape due to ever-increasing globalization, we have seen little change in classroom instructional practice over the past century. To the casual observer, K-12 education in the United States has remained frozen in time. A quick look into the vast majority of American classrooms reveals that they look remarkably similar to what they looked like at the beginning of the 20th century (Wiggins, 2007). However, this is not just a matter of classroom aesthetics. Several studies have demonstrated that American students have been slowly but surely falling behind their peers on most performance indicators (Wiggins, 2015). Unfortunately, we are not merely grappling with the fact that our physical classrooms have been in stasis, we are grappling with the fact that our students are exiting their K-12 educational experience without the skills or knowledge to be competitive in our globalized society (Wiggins, 2015; Fullan and Langworthy, 2013).
Educational ideas and innovations come and go, each touted as holding great promise - only to disappear having made a minimal impact on student achievement outcomes (Hattie, 2008). At the turn of the 21st century, technology was heralded as the “big solution” that would significantly move educational practice and outcomes forward. In the grand scheme, however, the integration of technology has only changed procedural aspects of learning in most schools, and has had only spotty success in significantly changing student learning at a foundational level (Fullan and Langworthy, 2013). Other recent pedagogical innovations have met with similar limited impact on student outcomes and achievement (Hattie, 2008).
We have long surmised that “learning by doing” leads to greater learning for our students (Dewey, 1938). Theorists have provided a strong research basis pointing to the need for learning experiences that cultivate stronger creativity, that are rooted within the paradigm of experiential learning and constructivist theories, and which cultivate greater resiliency in our students (Dewey, 1938; Piaget, 1976). Such experiences build self-regulation and self-efficacy in students, thereby setting them up for long-term personal and professional success (Bruner, 1997). Furthermore, theorists have similarly held that developing critical competencies or “habits of mind” are similarly important for life-long success (Costa & Kallick, 2000). Numerous studies demonstrate that when students engage in authentic, constructivist, experiential learning situations, they retain what they learned at a significantly higher rate than if they had learned via traditional means (Hattie, 2008).
More recently, Michael Fullan has continued the dialogue about experiential learning by advocating that when educational approaches blur the line between learning and life, students benefit with improved academic outcomes and stronger career success (Fullan and Langworthy, 2013). Technology, with its ability to put information at our fingertips at any time, has forever changed how students receive and interact with information. This has subsequently redefined what content students need to know, how they receive that content, as well as highlighting the need for the development of habits of mind (New Pedagogies, 2014; Costa & Kallick, 2000). These habits of mind, sometimes referred to as 21st century skills, include core competencies such as citizenship, collaboration, communication, creativity and critical thinking. Theorists surmise that these competencies are as important - and sometimes, more important - than traditional content knowledge for academic, personal and career success in the modern world (Fullan and Langworthy, 2013; Costa & Kallick, 2000).
Where other education innovations have failed, design thinking holds great promise for significantly and positively impacting student outcomes. It provides a way for student achievement to once again be competitive and an avenue to better prepare our students for the increasingly global society in which they will live. Why? It balances traditional content knowledge with the development of newly emerging habits of mind in an experiential, constructivist context. There is a natural give-and-take relationship between knowledge and doing - before you can do, you must have some core knowledge with which to begin (Martin, 2015). Design thinking embodies this relationship by honoring traditional content learning while simultaneously allowing students to gain exposure and confidence with important competencies required in the global workplace.
What is Design Thinking?
Defining design thinking proves to be a complicated endeavor as its principles and process intersect with a wide variety of other well-known educational methodologies, including problem-based learning, “making” or the maker mindset, experiential learning, the STEAM movement and philosophy, the creative process, and engineering design. Design thinking is most commonly defined today as a solution-focused method for practical, creative resolution of problems and/or the creation of solutions for humans, with the intent of an improved future result (Kelley, 2013; Buchanan, 1992). It is “a deeply human process that taps into abilities we all have but get overlooked by more conventional problem-solving practices” (Kelley, 2013). In other words, design thinking is a structured approach that fosters creative thinking and problem-solving in situations where it may otherwise be neglected. This process differs from the classic scientific method, because it identifies and investigates both known and ambiguous aspects of a current situation in order to discover hidden elements and/or open alternative pathways towards a solution. Today, the design thinking process involves a series of loosely defined steps which will be further described below.
While design thinking has only recently begun to permeate the K-12 educational space, the term “design thinking” has been around for several decades (Simon, 1969; McKim, 1973). The concept most notably emerged in the business world in 1991, when David Kelley founded a solution-based innovation company called IDEO (Kelley, 2013). David Kelley is largely credited for the modern definition of design thinking as stated above. This definition was enhanced by Richard Buchanan when he expressed a broader view of design thinking that infused the element of addressing human concerns through design and became more “user centered” or “human centered,” as well as being focused on solving “wicked problems” (Buchanan, 1992). The literature also often refers to design thinking as a human centered approach to innovation that integrates the needs of a person with known resources and creative potential (Kelley, 2013; Martin, 2015; Agency by Design, 2015).
In schools, design thinking takes the form of combining delivery of content with opportunities for students to apply their content learning by tackling open-ended, realistic questions or problems for which there is no one “right” answer. First students are provided with the foundational knowledge to support exploration and application of that knowledge as students develop solutions or responses to the open-ended problem. This process integrates elements of educational pedagogy, cognitive psychology, and constructivism, including but not limited to inquiry-based learning, metacognitive strategy use, problem-based-learning, habits of mind, and collaborative learning. This is achieved via a series of steps that have been articulated and scoped in various ways by different schools and businesses, but the steps most often follow this general sequence: Empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test (Kelley, 2013).
Empathy involves noticing a situation, problem or process for which a solution would present an improvement. Empathy becomes human-centered when the potential solution to the problem would improve the life, productivity, or well-being of another person. Once the problem is identified, it is then defined as a problem statement or question. This definition sets up the ideation phase, wherein the strategy is to generate as many possible thoughts, ideas, or solutions to address the defined problem. In this phase, one often refers to “plussing” wherein no idea is rejected, and all ideas are added upon by others in the process, and “blue sky thinking” wherein participants contribute ideas that might not be feasible, but which might contain a kernel of usefulness. In the conclusion of the ideating phase, the individual or team select possible solutions to prototype. In the prototyping phase, a “low resolution” representation of the solution is created. This can look like a rough draft, an actual physical object, or a flow chart. Finally, the prototype is tested to see if it addresses the initial problem presented. The test phase involves having the creator explain their product and process, and then having others experience the prototype and provide critical feedback. As needed, these steps are repeated, either in part or in whole, until a final, polished solution is created (Kelley, 2013).
While many would like to claim that design thinking leads to radical, large-scale, instantaneous innovation, the practical experience of those who engage in this work have discovered that more often than not, design thinking is a slow process that involves a series of iterations and improvements as a solution is developed. In the business world, the design thinking process is most often used by teams of disparate contributors who each have a distinct point of view. By merging disparate points of view, a more holistic solution results (Kelley, 2013). In the educational world, design thinking provides a means by which students engage with their learning more authentically as well as attain necessary habits of mind.
Benefits of Design Thinking in the Classroom
The promise of design thinking is that it provides a clear methodology to realize the goals of constructivist theories in our schools. Design thinking fosters a spirit of innovation and resiliency in students while simultaneously instilling a passion for learning and knowledge. It affords students an opportunity to learn how to problem solve, to iterate, to take healthy risks, persist in difficult tasks, to gain a sense of personal agency, and gain confidence in their capacity to learn new things (Agency by Design, 2015). Furthermore, design thinking encourages a growth mindset in learners, as well as encouraging the development of self-regulatory behaviors and reflective practice (Martin, 2015).
Learning how to learn is of paramount importance for our students. Design thinking encourages different ways of knowing and different applications of knowledge from the learner (Papert, 1991). The open ended nature of design questions means that students are put squarely in control of their learning process, and part of this process is determining how they will learn as they solve the challenge at hand. As Papert stated, "better learning comes from giving the learner better opportunities to construct" (1991). Student ownership of the design thinking process generates important self-regulatory skill development as students plan, set goals, and enact timelines. As students persevere though the iteration process and experience success, they gain confidence. This confidence leads to generative self-efficacy, which is closely related to long-term student success (Bruner, 1996). As highlighted in several studies, learning experiences that involve perseverance lead to a growth mindset in students. The development of a growth mindset in students is integral to personal and professional success, not to mention improved academic achievement (Dweck, 2006).
Design thinking also integrates metacognition or student reflection, as students must reflect on both the process of learning as well as what was learned. When students test their ideas, students must provide an explanation of their process to explain how they derived their solution. They must also demonstrate how their solution meets the challenge presented by the design question. During the test phase, students explain their work and also engage in feedback loops with peers or outside audiences, after which the student returns to incorporate suggestions into their work. This cycle of input and reflection not only leads to an improved solution, it leads to the development of self-reflection in the learning process for students. Numerous quantitative and qualitative studies have demonstrated that reflective practice leads to greater retention of learning by students. As such, since the use of design thinking provides an avenue for reflection during the prototyping and testing phases, it naturally provides a way to improve student learning and retention.
As mentioned by Costa and Kallick (2000), the cultivation of “habits of mind” has emerged as a critical set of competencies for students entering the workforce in this century. According to Aaron Vanderwerff, a highly regarded design thinking educator, “design thinking is the best college and career preparation I have encountered, in part because it isn’t the core goal. Through design thinking, students build their agency and find new passions” (2015). The process of developing solutions, whether individually or in collaborative teams, involves numerous habits of mind including empathy, collaboration, problem solving, communication, and being open to continuous learning. Because student interest is at the heart of design thinking learning activities, their interest and willingness to explore their personal development of habits of mind increases. Students are able to develop areas of strength as well as venturing into new territories when they are ready to learn something new (Martin, 2015).
Design thinking provides students a safe environment in which to try on ideas, flesh out those ideas with design, and test their ideas with an audience. A fundamental philosophy that underlies design thinking is that you “can’t get it right without getting it wrong” (Papert, 1991). In the design thinking community, educators often refer to making students “failure-positive,” and as such, mistakes are intentionally celebrated as part of the learning process. Students share their mistakes with peers and frequently reflect on what worked, what did not work, and why things did or did not work. This approach to learning, combined with the inherently iterative process of generating solutions, opens the door for students to develop perseverance. Most often ideas must fail before they succeed. A classroom that provides a safe harbor for failure by celebrating mistakes and celebrating the resulting learning from those mistakes leads to a learner who possesses a strong sense of resiliency and “grit,” both of which are closely correlated to lifetime happiness and success in the research literature (Tough, 2011).
To educators who are engaging in design thinking with their students, there is little doubt in their mind that students learn a tremendous amount through design thinking experiences (Agency by Design, 2015). However, design thinking in schools is too young of a phenomenon to have generated a broad research base to provide quantitative data regarding student achievement (Paul, 2015). Theorists and researchers have long held that hands-on, constructivist-oriented, experiential learning that builds on prior knowledge leads to improved student achievement (Papert, 1991). Numerous observations and qualitative data collections have shown that student engagement is much higher during design thinking activities than traditional classroom experiences (Agency by Design, 2015). Higher engagement of students during learning typically leads to greater retention of learned material (Papert, 1991; Hattie, 2008). When design thinking features student instigated discovery of options and solutions, one sees even greater levels of student engagement, student retention of information, and higher levels of creativity in thinking (Agency by Design, 2015). When students define the problem, their interest in pursuing the necessary knowledge, information, and skill to derive a possible solution exponentially increases. Further research in this area will undoubtedly demonstrate a close relationship between the efficacious use of design thinking in classrooms and improved student engagement, retention, and achievement.
Integration of Design Thinking Into the Curriculum
In Invent to Learn, Stager and Martinez (2013) share several classroom structures and routines that lead to positive design thinking experiences and outcomes. These suggestions range from how to arrange physical spaces to how to effectively plan instruction. Design thinking is at its best in an environment that fosters creativity, collaboration and critical thinking both in its social and physical spaces. This can be achieved by having a clearly articulated design thinking process with discrete steps, by paying careful attention to design of instruction, and by being attentive to the physical classroom environment and the available resources (Stager & Martinez, 2013).
The steps of the design thinking process can look very different in different institutions. What is important is that there is shared meaning regarding what transpires during each step, and that the language used to describe the process makes sense to both the teachers and students engaging in the process. When engaging in design thinking in the classroom, the teacher will need to clearly define what parts of the process will be activated for the particular learning experience, as well as to explain the goals and generalized end-product that may result from the process. Design thinking experiences should be crafted so that prior knowledge underlies the development of solutions or ideas. It is also important to keep these experiences age-appropriate for the learners in the room. By following a sequence of providing content knowledge or foundational knowledge first, and then having students explore a problem or question related to that content, students are set up to best use their creative and critical thinking skills (Paul, 2015). Another element of instructional design involves providing appropriate parameters within which the work will take place. Determining how students will be grouped, providing students with coaching on how to receive and give feedback, and how to appropriately and positively add to the ideas of others are all skills that require scaffolding and structure (Martin, 2015). Finally, thought must be given to scaffolding 21st century skills, “habits of mind,” or cultivating a “maker mindset” in a developmentally appropriate way that builds upon prior experiences in the classroom (Costa & Kallick, 2000; Martin, 2015). In many schools, these structures are derived from the “habits of mind” or character development programming that the school has in use already.
The physical environment is also an important consideration when crafting design thinking activities in the classroom. Providing collaboration-friendly spaces and setup is critical for students to discuss and share their thinking (Martin, 2015). A space that facilitates student movement and discussion in small groups often works best (Stager & Martinez, 2013). In many cases, for effective designing, creating, and prototyping to take place, physical and digital tools and resources will need to be easily at-hand for students (Martin, 2015). This may include “rapid prototyping” resources, computers, microcontrollers, and even 3-D printers. The selection of tools can be as open as desired or the teacher can put constraints on the availability of resources as a way to foster greater creativity in some situations.
Even with a growing body of literature about successfully implementing design thinking learning in the classroom, there are many questions that remain. These questions provide potential areas of study and research in regards to design thinking. One question that is currently being debated and explored is how a teacher might properly and authentically assess students who engage in design thinking. A second big question is how to assess student growth in the relevant 21st century skills, such as perseverance, resilience, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. And still another question involves how much complexity can be presented to students of varying ages and levels of knowledge or experience. Much like the struggle to assess any subjective learning measure in the classroom, or the debate about measuring only academic performance versus incorporating student effort and attitude into assessment practice, the measurement of design thinking skills and processes presents an assessment challenge. The dialogue on these questions will continue to grow as more schools incorporate aspects of design thinking in their classrooms.
Conclusion
Design Thinking combines a strong theoretical pedagogical base with the development of habits of mind to maintain a healthy balance between content knowledge and skill application. It is a highly engaging approach that gives students the ability to explore and apply their knowledge in areas of interest, thereby leading to increased retention of learned knowledge and skills. Furthermore, it provides foundational skills and habits that will serve students will both professionally and personally in their adult lives. As the research literature in this area grows, we will undoubtedly see strong evidence supporting the connection between student exposure to the Design Thinking paradigm and increased academic achievement.
References
Agency by Design. (2015). Maker-Centered Learning and the Development of Self: Preliminary Findings of the Agency by Design Project [White paper]. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Graduate School of Education. January 2015.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.
Costa, A, and Kallick, B, Ed. (2000). Discovering and Exploring Habits of Mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: MacMillan.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Related to Achievement. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Fullan and Langworthy. (2013). Towards a New End: New Pedagogies for Deep Learning. Seattle, WA: Collaborative Impact.
Martin, L. (2015). The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. 5(1), 30-39.
McKim, R. (1973). Experiences in Visual Thinking. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
New Pedagogies for Deep Learning. (2014). Seattle, WA: Collaborative Impact.
Papert, S, and Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Paul, A. (2015). When Kids Engage in Making, Are They Learning Anything? http://anniemurphypaul.com/2015/5. May 22, 2015.
Piaget, J. (1976). The Grasp of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Stager, G, and Martinez, S. (2013). Invent to Learn. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.
Tough, P. (2012). How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character. Boston, MA: Random House.
Vanderwerff, A. (2015). How Making Expands Students’ Visions of Themselves. http://smartblogs.com/education/2015/5/21. May 23, 2015.
Wiggins, G. (2007). Schooling By Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wiggins, G. (2015). Some Excerpts from PISA Math Results - 15 Year Olds. www.grantwiggins.wordpress.com.
