Is There a Proper Way to Teach Design Thinking? Empirical Evidence from Design Thinking in Education

Q Engineering
Christoph Lattemann, E. Arntsen, Bjørn-Tore Flåten, Neele Fürst, J. Holen, Birgitta Cappelen
{"title":"Is There a Proper Way to Teach Design Thinking? Empirical Evidence from Design Thinking in Education","authors":"Christoph Lattemann, E. Arntsen, Bjørn-Tore Flåten, Neele Fürst, J. Holen, Birgitta Cappelen","doi":"10.22059/JDT.2020.76035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since about a decade ago, design thinking has become a prominent topic in the scientific and business world. In order to keep up with global competition, design thinking has proven to be a valuable concept for assisting companies to innovate their products, services and processes. Therefore, business schools worldwide have introduced design thinking courses with the aim of preparing the future workforce. Scholars debate about the appropriate approach to teach design, with this paper trying to identify how a design thinking course should be arranged to teach non-designers the processes, methods and mindset of design thinking. It deals with the question of which form of knowledge conversion is more effective for bringing non-design students closer to the design thinking mindset. To answer this, it reviews current studies on design thinking in education. In particular, the research refers to Simon’s and Schon’s concepts of science of design and reflection-in-action, along with Nonaka and Takeushi’s SECI model. The research involves an experiment with two similar one-week design thinking courses, each having different teaching approaches. The courses are then compared through analysis of reflection reports by students, semi-structured interviews with them and a survey. This research shows that applying design thinking knowledge to real-life projects should be a core element in design thinking curricula, as it plays a crucial role in successfully imparting design thinking. Further, co-teaching and co-learning modes, where designers and non-designers work together and socialization takes place, is more appropriate for imparting design thinking than instructional teaching and learning modes, where design thinking coaches instruct non-designers to internalize design thinking.","PeriodicalId":15588,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Display Technology","volume":"181 1","pages":"35-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Display Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22059/JDT.2020.76035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Since about a decade ago, design thinking has become a prominent topic in the scientific and business world. In order to keep up with global competition, design thinking has proven to be a valuable concept for assisting companies to innovate their products, services and processes. Therefore, business schools worldwide have introduced design thinking courses with the aim of preparing the future workforce. Scholars debate about the appropriate approach to teach design, with this paper trying to identify how a design thinking course should be arranged to teach non-designers the processes, methods and mindset of design thinking. It deals with the question of which form of knowledge conversion is more effective for bringing non-design students closer to the design thinking mindset. To answer this, it reviews current studies on design thinking in education. In particular, the research refers to Simon’s and Schon’s concepts of science of design and reflection-in-action, along with Nonaka and Takeushi’s SECI model. The research involves an experiment with two similar one-week design thinking courses, each having different teaching approaches. The courses are then compared through analysis of reflection reports by students, semi-structured interviews with them and a survey. This research shows that applying design thinking knowledge to real-life projects should be a core element in design thinking curricula, as it plays a crucial role in successfully imparting design thinking. Further, co-teaching and co-learning modes, where designers and non-designers work together and socialization takes place, is more appropriate for imparting design thinking than instructional teaching and learning modes, where design thinking coaches instruct non-designers to internalize design thinking.
是否有一种合适的方法来教授设计思维?设计思维在教育中的经验证据
自大约十年前以来,设计思维已经成为科学界和商界的一个突出话题。为了跟上全球竞争,设计思维已经被证明是一个有价值的概念,可以帮助公司创新他们的产品、服务和流程。因此,世界各地的商学院都开设了设计思维课程,旨在培养未来的劳动力。学者们争论设计教学的合适方法,本文试图确定如何安排设计思维课程来教授非设计师设计思维的过程、方法和心态。它涉及的问题是,哪种形式的知识转换更有效地使非设计专业的学生更接近设计思维的心态。为了回答这个问题,本文回顾了目前关于设计思维在教育中的研究。本研究特别参考了Simon和Schon的设计科学和行动中反思的概念,以及Nonaka和Takeushi的SECI模型。这项研究包括两个类似的为期一周的设计思维课程的实验,每个课程都有不同的教学方法。然后,通过分析学生的反思报告、对他们进行半结构化访谈和调查,对课程进行比较。本研究表明,将设计思维知识应用到实际项目中应该成为设计思维课程的核心要素,因为它对成功传授设计思维起着至关重要的作用。与设计思维教练指导非设计师内化设计思维的指导性教学模式相比,设计师与非设计师共同工作、进行社会化的合作教学模式更适合传授设计思维。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Display Technology
Journal of Display Technology 工程技术-工程:电子与电气
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: This publication covers the theory, material, design, fabrication, manufacturing and application of information displays and aspects of display technology that emphasize the progress in device engineering, design and simulation, materials, electronics, physics, and reliability aspects of displays and the application of displays. The Journal is sponsored by EDS, seven other IEEE societies (BT, CES, CPMT, IA, IM, PHO and SSC) and the Optical Society of America (OSA).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信