Lessons Learned A Plea for Curricularizing Design Thinking in Engineering Education

2021 ◽  
pp. 220-244
Author(s):  
Anne Wallisch ◽  
Kristin Paetzolc
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Education ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Lessons Learned

scholarly journals Lessons learned: intentional implementation of second makerspaces

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Moorefield-Lang
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Planning Process ◽  
Research Participant ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
The Body ◽  
Planning Study ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Scholarly Publications ◽  
Study Results

Purpose What happens when a librarian outgrows their maker learning location or transfers to a new library? The purpose of this study is to explore the planning process for second and/or new library makerspaces. Is the planning more intentional? Is there more focus on how the makerspace should be put together for the community served? Is the community further involved? This study will explore those questions and more. Design/methodology/approach Using content analysis, the perspectives of practicing librarians in the achievement of subsequent makerspaces are examined. Data include librarian interviews, an analysis using NVivo 11 through the lens of design thinking, and a final review using member checking by each research participant. Findings Makerspaces continue to grow in popularity in school and public/community libraries. What is unexplored is the moving from a first makerspace to the implementation of a second and/or new maker learning location. More intentional planning is involved. The community served by the library is further engaged in the planning. Study results illustrate the value that community insight and intentional planning play in the design and implementation of makerspaces. Originality/value Makerspaces in libraries continue to grow in popularity; in turn, the body of peer-reviewed, scholarly publications also continues to grow. Librarians in the field are beginning to move from their first to second makerspaces. This study investigates those perspectives. Much can be gained from the experiences of those who have implemented their second or third makerspace.

scholarly journals From summative to developmental

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Steele Gray ◽  
James Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Integrated Care ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
Service Design ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Portal System ◽  
Contextual Influences ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Patient Reported

Purpose Models of integrated care are prime examples of complex interventions, incorporating multiple interacting components that work through varying mechanisms to impact numerous outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to explore summative, process and developmental approaches to evaluating complex interventions to determine how to best test this mess. Design/methodology/approach This viewpoint draws on the evaluation and complex intervention literatures to describe the advantages and disadvantages of different methods. The evaluation of the electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) mobile application and portal system is presented as an example of how to evaluate complex interventions with critical lessons learned from this ongoing study. Findings Although favored in the literature, summative and process evaluations rest on two problematic assumptions: it is possible to clearly identify stable mechanisms of action; and intervention fidelity can be maximized in order to control for contextual influences. Complex interventions continually adapt to local contexts, making stability and fidelity unlikely. Developmental evaluation, which is more conceptually aligned with service-design thinking, moves beyond these assumptions, emphasizing supportive adaptation to ensure meaningful adoption. Research limitations/implications Blended approaches that incorporate service-design thinking and rely more heavily on developmental strategies are essential for complex interventions. To maximize the benefit of this approach, three guiding principles are suggested: stress pragmatism over stringency; adopt an implementation lens; and use multi-disciplinary teams to run studies. Originality/value This viewpoint offers novel thinking on the debate around appropriate evaluation methodologies to be applied to complex interventions like models of integrated care.

scholarly journals Creating a Virtual Leader Development Course Using the Design Thinking Process for Innovation

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hinck ◽  
Steven Davis ◽  
Justin Longmire ◽  
JB Byrnes
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Leader Development ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Multiple Cycles ◽  
Thinking Process ◽  
Development Course

This paper examines how a U.S. Air Force (USAF) faculty team reimagined and redesigned an in-person Leader Development Course (LDC) to a virtual version (vLDC). Using the Design Thinking Process for Innovation (DTPI) and action research methods, a new, virtual course was imagined, designed, tested, and improved over a six-cycle-process. Data was collected via multiple sources from 121 participants (19 faculty/staff and 102 students) and analyzed using manual coding and NVivo Software. Results are organized into 22 categories under four themes (general course design, student experience, instructor experience and faculty development, and technology experience) showing a progressive refinement with key lessons learned that led to the final creation of the new virtual course. Of the five key features in action research (actions matter, context-specific research, multiple cycles and phases, inclusion of people as research target, and reflections), participants reported that multiple cycles and reflections were most important in relation to the DTPI so that change could be enacted that reflected participant voices in the design process of the virtual course. The application of the DTPI using action research methods produced results and lessons learned in the design process that contribute to the theory and practice on developing and teaching in a virtual learning environment. The study fills a gap in the scholarly field and informs other institutions on the process, failures, and successes of course redesign to a virtual version.Keywords: design thinking process for innovation, action research, USAF, leader development

DESIGN-ED: a pedagogical toolkit to support K-12 teachers’ emergency transition to remote online education

2020 ◽  
Vol 121 (5/6) ◽  
pp. 331-339
Author(s):  
Paul Flynn
Keyword(s):  
Online Education ◽  
Design Research ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Iterative Refinement ◽  
Design Development ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Online Engagement ◽  
Educational Engagement ◽  
K 12

Purpose K-12 educators face persistent and nascent challenges as they grapple with making an emergency transition to remote online modes of engaging with their students. Crossing the digital divide that exists between multi-site educational engagement is challenging. This paper aims to address the particular challenge of maintaining or, perhaps re-conceptualising, the constructs that support social interaction in the face-to-face setting. A second pressing challenge is considering issues of equity when making the emergency transition to remote online engagement that are, in the physical classroom, somewhat mitigated by practitioners and the systems that support them. Design/methodology/approach DESIGN-ED is the output of a design-based research study. Findings However, in the rush to support this transition, it is possible that such challenges could be exacerbated if practitioners are not supported by a sustainable pedagogical process to frame their engagement with K-12 students in remote online formats. This paper explores these nascent challenges, presents a conceptual framework and explicates a subsequent design research model the form of a practitioner focussed “toolkit” that has the consideration of equity at its core. The “DESIGN-ED Toolkit” adopts and adapts a contemporary, effective and rapidly iterative design process from industry known as design thinking. Research limitations/implications The core components of this this process (empathy, definition, ideation, prototype and test) are pedagogically translated for use in complex and dynamic educational settings such as remote online engagement. Practical implications Lessons learned from the design, development and iterative refinement of this toolkit over three years are presented, and affordances of engaging with such a process are explored. Originality/value Lessons learned from the design, development and iterative refinement of this toolkit over three years are presented, and affordances of engaging with such a process are explored.

Lessons Learned About Gamification in Software Engineering Education

2022 ◽  
pp. 1473-1496
Author(s):  
Beatriz Marín
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Software Engineering ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Learning Process ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Software Engineering Education ◽  
Functional Size Measurement ◽  
Class Diagrams ◽  
Improved Learning

Software engineering courses traditionally mix theoretical aspects with practical ones that are later used in the development of projects. Teaching software engineering courses is not easy because in many cases the students lack motivation to exercise the topics prior to project development. This chapter presents the application of gamification on some topics of a software engineering course to engage students and increase their motivation. The authors argue that with the proper motivation, the students can better exercise the topics and obtain stronger knowledge. The authors have created five games to help in the learning process of the software engineering course. The games are related to risk management, BPMN modeling, Scrum process, design and inspection of class diagrams, and COSMIC functional size measurement. Gamification has been applied during four years in the software engineering course, resulting in an improved learning experience for the students. Finally, lessons learned are presented and discussed.

Concept Diagramming Software for Engineering Design Support: A Review and Synthesis of Studies

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan L. Eng ◽  
Rob H. Bracewell ◽  
P. John Clarkson
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Engineering Practice ◽  
Levels Of Abstraction ◽  
University Of Cambridge ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Software Interfaces ◽  
The University

Engineering design thinking combines concepts from heterogeneous sources like personal experience, colleagues, digital and hardcopy media. Despite this challenge, modes of thinking across levels of abstraction through multi-dimensional (spatial) representations are widely neglected in digital support systems. This paper aims to summarize lessons learned through years of experience with software tools that augment this visio-spatial conceptual thinking. This work cuts across disciplines to provide a needed, coherent starting point for other researchers to examine complex outstanding issues on a class of promising support tools which have yet to gain widespread popularity. Three studies are used to provide specific examples across design phases, from conceptual design to embodiment. Each study also focuses on an exemplar of diagrammatic software: the University of Cambridge Design Rationale editor (DRed), the Institute for Human Machine Cognition’s (IHMC) CmapTools and the Open University’s Compendium hypermedia tool. This synthesis reiterates how hypermedia diagrams provide many unique, valuable functions while indicating important practical boundaries and limitations. Future research proposed includes: a need to build more diagrammatic literacy into engineering practice, the need for more detailed studies with experts in industry and specific directions for refining the hypermedia diagram software interfaces.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document