design thinking process

DT in DT and HM: Design thinking in the Digital Technology and Hangarau Matihiko Curricula

Posted on by

“With its focus on design thinking, technology education supports students to be innovative, reflective, and critical in designing new models, products, software, systems, and tools to benefit people while taking account of their impact on cultural, ethical, environmental, political, and economic conditions.” (Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum, Ministry of Education, 2017)

design thinking process
With the strengthening of Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko within the Technology learning area in the New Zealand Curriculum, and the Hangarau Wāhanga Ako in Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, this has prompted change for schools, kura, and Kāhui Ako. While there is certainly much that is new to the learning areas, something that is not is design thinking.

Design thinking has always underpinned the Technology and Hangarau curricula because this these are learning areas that are process-driven. Both technology — in all its forms — and design thinking are about identifying problems, creating solutions for people, experimenting, refining, acting on feedback.

So, while we’re grappling with new concepts and content, perhaps the strengthening of Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko is also an opportunity to put the spotlight back onto the process of design thinking and its mindsets.

What is design thinking?

Design thinking is a creative process that can be adopted to find solutions to complex problems. There are various models of design thinking, but one that is often cited is that created by the d.school at Stanford University. This has five phases, as can be seen below:

the five phases of design thinking

The NZC doesn’t suggest a particular model, but in the English translation of the draft Hangarau Matihiko document, the following steps were outlined:

  • Dedication — to people and their thoughts and feelings and knowing the users and their needs. (Empathy)
  • Define — the major issues and the available pathways.
  • Propose ideas — formulating concepts, and outcomes / solutions. (Ideate)
  • Original model — construct an original model. (Prototype)
  • Experiment — test the model and adapt correspondingly. (Feedback)

The two models map comfortably onto one another. But, design thinking is about more than process, it is also about choosing to adopt innovation mindsets.

What are the design-thinking mindsets?

Again, Stanford’s d.school suggest the following mindsets as being key for design thinking:

mindsets of design thinking

Given the opening quote from the New Zealand Curriculum, and the design-thinking process suggested by Te Matauranga o Aotearoa, here, we will focus on three particular innovation mindsets:

  • human-centred
  • culture of prototyping, and
  • bias towards action.

Human-centred

In the context of Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko, the focus is on creating technology to support people. People are, and must be, at the heart of the design process. There is no use designing a solution to a problem that doesn’t work for the people concerned. This is why empathy, being human-centred, is the fundamental component of design thinking.

Culture of prototyping

When we think we have a solution that might just work, it’s important to get that idea out of our heads and into the real (or digital!) world. This allows the idea to be tested, for us to challenge our assumptions, and to find the flaws. Prototyping — making a model — invites us to use our creative and critical thinking. A prototype is primarily a vehicle for feedback from the very people for whom we are designing the solution. Based on their feedback, we refine, adapt, and change our solution: we iterate. This mindset calls on us to hold our ideas lightly, to be human-centred, and to be prepared to alter, or even abandon, our proposed solution based on new knowledge.

Bias towards action

When grappling with a problem it is easy to be stuck:

  • What is the problem?
  • Who is it a problem for?
  • How do we know it’s a problem?
  • What can we do about this problem?
  • What if we try…?

A bias towards action mindset calls on us to acknowledge this learning phase and to move towards doing something about the problem. It is closely linked to the above culture of prototyping mindset. Identify and define a problem; let your imagination loose to find multiple ways of solving the problem; then filter down to one or two key possibilities that you make tangible and test. It is like being in ‘beta mode’. We are used to having to update the apps on our smartphones in order to make them work better and more efficiently. We don’t sit around and wait for everything to be perfect before we release the solution into the wild. We prototype, test, and refine. We innovate.

How might we…

Let’s not lose sight of the underlying design-thinking process and its mindsets when exploring the brave new world of Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko. In fact, we could well use the design-thinking process to give structure to our exploration. Perhaps a starting question could be:
How might we integrate Digital Technologies and Hangarau Matihiko into our local curriculum?

 

If would like help with building a design-thinking approach to your curriculum, get in touch!

 

Resources

 

Image credits:
Feature image: by the author
5 phases – d.school K12 Lab Wiki (used by permission)
Mindset for design thinking – d.school K12 Wiki (used by permission)

read more
Posted in
wellbeing wordle

Nothing about us without us: Student wellbeing

Posted on by

Schools cannot simply rely on their positive culture and respectful relationships to promote wellbeing but need to provide opportunities for students to make decisions about their wellbeing and to be active in leading their learning, Education Review Office, 2016, p. 18.

The wellbeing of young people is increasingly an area of focus for schools here in Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as overseas. In the past, we have possibly relied too heavily on an implicit approach to the wellbeing of our staff, students, and school community that:

  • teachers and students have a good rapport
  • leaders have an ‘open door’ policy whereby any issue can be raised at any time
  • the school environment has a positive feeling.

While these are indeed all strengths schools can build upon, this isn’t an approach to wellbeing in and of itself. If we see wellbeing as important, then it must be reflected in all areas and aspects of a school. Wellbeing requires an explicit approach, as the Education Review Office (ERO) calls for in the quote above.

What is wellbeing? When I asked participants this very question at a recent CORE Breakfast, this is what people said:

wellness wordle

A synonym I like to use is flourishing (as did one or two others!). That our young people are nurtured to do more than exist; they thrive. They have the right to be who they are without having to leave any aspect of their identity (such as their ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual orientation) at the school gate.

This is all very laudable, but how do schools go about explicitly planning for our young people to flourish and thrive?

Both ERO and the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) have produced useful work for schools focusing on the wellbeing of students. When we bring this material together, we can see that both organisations call for:

  • a whole-school approach to wellbeing
  • taking a youth development perspective in wellbeing work
  • seeing young people as active agents in their lives.

Whole school really means whole school: that wellbeing goals are reflected in school policy, curriculum, the physical environment, pastoral care practices, in the staffroom, in the boardroom, and in the classroom. It means that we monitor the wellbeing of all students and staff, and that we iteratively design and evaluate wellbeing strategies and initiatives.

Taking a youth development perspective requires moving beyond our previous practices of focusing on responding to specific issues as they present themselves (bullying, teen pregnancy, smoking, for example) to promoting wellbeing. It also means that students are actively involved in developing and leading wellbeing programmes. This goes hand-in-hand with treating young people as agentic. Young people are experts in their own lives; they have knowledge that deserves respect and offers learning opportunities for adults.

Last year, I had the privilege of being selected for the Lifehack Flourishing Fellowship. Lifehack was a systems-level intervention in youth mental health and wellbeing in Aotearoa New Zealand. One of the amazing resources I was introduced to was the ‘Mapping and Mobilising Conditions for Youth Wellbeing and Hauora’. This is a tool primarily designed for youth work teams and organisations to “identify and strengthen their practices and ways of working across areas that are known to promote youth wellbeing, hauora, and positive youth development.” As soon as I saw it, I got excited. I could see its potential to be used in schools as a reflection tool. I tested it with a group of teachers, and we had a think about both its format and its language. Based on their feedback and thoughts, I had a play to create this version for use in schools and Kāhui Ako: Pathways towards student wellbeing.

In it, I pose three key questions:

  1. Agency and Engagement: How are young people involved?
  2. Cohesion and Collaboration: How do we learn and work together to nurture wellbeing systemically?
  3. Environment and Community: Do our environments show that young people are valued and important?

Agency and engagement

Much of the literature about youth wellbeing places emphasis on agency — that young people are involved in the planning, leading, and implementation of wellbeing programmes and initiatives. We should work towards the consistent involvement of diverse groups of young people, including initiatives and programmes they co-design and lead.

As a prompt to consider where you might be at in your school with regards to agency and engagement, you may like to consider student leadership.

  • Who are the student leaders in your school?
  • How are they selected?
  • What role(s) do they fulfil? How much agency do these leaders have?
  • Who is not represented in student leadership roles?

And perhaps more broadly:

  • To what extent are young people involved in the design of programmes/initiatives and in decision-making generally?
  • Are there are a variety of opportunities for young people to participate and be involved in meaningful ways?

Cohesion and collaboration

To grow the capacity of a school to support youth wellbeing, it is important to be a learning community. The principle of ako is crucial here: how do we learn with and from one another; how do we share this learning; and, how do we curate this learning? The challenge in this space is to have a commitment to cohesion, innovation, and collaboration, and iterative ways of working and learning both internally and externally.

As a prompt to consider where you might be at in your school with regards to cohesion and collaboration, you may like to consider learning as inquiry.

  • Who decides what is taught and how?
  • To what extent is learning through inquiry a basis for learning in classrooms; as professional learning and development; as building capacity for leadership?
  • How do we share the learning from our inquiries with one another?

And perhaps more broadly:

  • To what extent are individuals, groups, teams and/or departments operating in silos or in isolation?
  • How do individuals and teams draw on and contribute to data and a shared knowledge base?

Environment and community

The third aspect to consider is that of environment and community. This is intentionally broad, encompassing all aspects of the environment: the physical, cultural, social and emotional environments of the school. It is important that the input and value of young people are reflected in places, spaces and governance structures.

As a prompt to consider where you might be at in your school with regards to environment and community, you may like to consider what’s on display on the school and classroom walls.

  • Do we display learning in progress or finished products?
  • Who decides what is displayed?
  • Who decides where material is displayed?
  • How often is material for display changed?
  • What isn’t displayed on walls?

And perhaps more broadly:

  • Do young people feel welcome and included in our spaces and community places?
  • Does the design and management of amenities and spaces specifically incorporate young people’s needs?

These are big issues for schools to grapple with. However, starting by asking young people what is happening for them in their lives and in your school; auditing wellbeing programmes, initiatives and data; and then considering the strengths the school has to build upon, are useful beginning steps. The key theme is that of agency: Nothing about us without us. This is a wero all schools should wrestle with.

Resources:

 

Let’s not forget about the importance of supporting the health and wellbeing
of all staff in centres, schools and kura, too.

Discover the Educators’ Wellbeing Toolkit.

read more
Posted in
design thinking

iCubed: How design thinking develops lifelong learners

Posted on by

In an interview with Jesse Mulligan on RNZ in June, Kevin Kelly, founding editor of Wired magazine, said that we have to accept being “perpetual newbies” in this digital era. He argued that, “We’re going to have to become lifelong learners. I think this is the major meta-skill that needs to be taught in schools.”

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) agrees: “The capacity to continuously learn and apply / integrate new knowledge and skills has never been more essential.” (OECD, 2012, p. 8)

Handily, for us here in Aotearoa New Zealand, the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa (TMOA) mirror these sentiments. No doubt we are familiar with the call to develop young people who are confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners.

why, how, what

Doubly handily, the NZC doesn’t just leave us floundering with the abstract notion of the ‘lifelong learner’, but gives us the key competencies by which lifelong learners are developed. If you like, the key competencies are the ‘how’ to the ‘why’ of the NZC’s vision; they directly support it.

The ‘what’ is the ‘stuff’ teachers decide to do, guided by the essence statements of each learning area. And while there is a lot of ‘stuff’ competing to be on the list of things teachers could do, I’d like to suggest design thinking as a way to develop the key competencies, and thus nurture lifelong learners.

It’s difficult to capture in a succinct sentence what design thinking is. It’s a methodology, it’s a mindset, it’s a kind of inquiry process on steroids. David Kwek does reasonably well when he defines it as, “An approach to learning that focuses on developing children’s creative confidence through hands-on projects that focus on empathy, promoting a bias toward action, encouraging ideation and fostering active problem-solving” (Kwek, 2011, p. 4).

i-cubed

I like to think of design thinking as being a way to bring people together to explore, learn, and co-develop solutions to real-world problems. I see it as having three broad phases:

  1. Immersion: researching, scoping, thinking, exploring, and, most importantly of all, empathising.
  2. Ideation: synthesising, defining, brainstorming, creating.
  3. Implementation: prototyping, pitching, gathering feedback, refining, problem-solving.

I call it iCubed.

And, I believe that as learners grapple with each phase of the design-thinking process, they actively encounter the five key competencies: thinking, relating to others, using language, symbols and texts, managing self, and participating and contributing.

By way of a brief example, a few years ago my Year 8 English class was exploring how we might welcome new students into our school. We began by putting ourselves in the shoes of a new student. We close-read some passages, we role-played, we conducted interviews. We were using language, symbols, and texts, relating to others and thinking. After generating loads of creative ideas, we formed groups around those we thought might have the greatest impact. We made prototypes, pitched to each other and to key members of staff. We sought feedback, refined our ideas, and worked together to find solutions. We were thinking, managing self, participating, and contributing.

While this is a high surface overview of both the learning and the key competencies that were being fostered, it was clear to me that design thinking is a powerful way to develop creative, empathetic thinkers. And my students thought that too. As one said, “Design thinking helps you to learn how to process ideas into something to help people”.

In other words, my students were being “critical and creative thinkers, active seekers, users and creators of knowledge, informed decision-makers” (NZC, p. 8). They are lifelong learners.

Philippa is also presenting on this topic as part of CORE’s Breakfast programme. She’ll be in Dunedin on 8 November.

Bibliography

Other resources:

read more
Posted in