See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324684320

Design Thinking in Education: A Critical Review of Literature

Conference Paper · May 2017

CITATIONS

10READS

16,326

1 author:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teaching Creativity & Innovation through Design Thinking View project

Kidzania Educators Forum View project

Rex Lor

De La Salle Araneta University

4 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rex Lor on 22 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Conference Proceedings

May 24-26, 2017 Bangkok, Thailand

IACSSM

International Academic Conference on Social Sciences and Management

ACEP Asian Conference on Education and Psychology

IACSSM

International Academic Conference on Social Sciences and Management

ISBN 978-986-5654-23-8 ACEP Asian Conference on Education and Psychology

ISBN 978-986-5654-50-4

3

Content

Welcome Message ............................................................................................................................ 5 General Information for Participants ....................................................................................... 6 International Committees ............................................................................................................. 8

International Committee of Social Sciences ......................................................................... 8 Special Thanks to Session Chairs .............................................................................................. 12 Conference Venue Information ................................................................................................. 13 Conference Schedule ..................................................................................................................... 15 Keynote Speech ............................................................................................................................... 16 Oral Sessions .................................................................................................................................... 18

Communication / Psychology / Education (1) ................................................................... 18 IACSSM-28 ................................................................................................................................. 19 ACEP-7 ........................................................................................................................................ 33 ACEP-15 ..................................................................................................................................... 34 ACEP-8 ........................................................................................................................................ 36 ACEP-10 ..................................................................................................................................... 69

Culture / Law / Society ............................................................................................................... 83 IACSSM-8 ................................................................................................................................... 85 IACSSM-17 ................................................................................................................................. 87 IACSSM-20 ................................................................................................................................. 89 IACSSM-32 ................................................................................................................................. 91 IACSSM-6 ................................................................................................................................ 103 IACSSM-34 .............................................................................................................................. 106 IACSSM-35 .............................................................................................................................. 107

Education (2) .............................................................................................................................. 109 ACEP-3 ..................................................................................................................................... 110 ACEP-12 .................................................................................................................................. 125 ACEP-14 .................................................................................................................................. 137 IACSSM-16 .............................................................................................................................. 139 IACSSM-42 .............................................................................................................................. 147

Economics / Finance / Management/Politics ................................................................. 159 IACSSM-7 ................................................................................................................................ 161 IACSSM-30 .............................................................................................................................. 173 IACSSM-37 .............................................................................................................................. 186 IACSSM-38 .............................................................................................................................. 207 IACSSM-18 .............................................................................................................................. 215 IACSSM-36 .............................................................................................................................. 217

4

Poster Session (1) ....................................................................................................................... 219 Education ..................................................................................................................................... 219

IACSSM-23 .............................................................................................................................. 220

36

ACEP-8 Design Thinking in Education: A Critical Review of Literature

Rex R. Lor

De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde rex.lor@benilde.edu.ph

Abstract

Design Thinking is an innovative, creative and human-centered process and mindset that employs collaborative multidisciplinary teams in order to generate user-focused products, services or experiences. It has been applied beyond the original sphere of design work to business, engineering, technology, and more recently, education, because of its ability of advancing creativity and innovation by applying an empathetic, flexible and iterative approach. With the quest for a teaching strategy for 21st century skills, work habits and character traits, there has been, in the past five years, keen and wide interest towards Design Thinking as applied in education. This paper therefore provides a systematic, comprehensive and analytical strategy in mapping out and offering a critical review and analysis of over 68 journal articles, books and reports on design thinking in education. Overall, this paper recognizes the gains that can be made from utilizing Design Thinking in education especially in the global quest of teaching 21st century skills. This paper also suggests a need to pursue further studies on the development of a Design Thinking framework for teaching, learning, curriculum design & teacher training. How do you teach students in a world that doesn’t yet exist? This has been the gnawing question educators have recently tackled noting how exponential growth and advances in technology and knowledge acquisition in the world have disrupted the normal order of things in education. With the exponential advances in technology coupled with the rapid “shrinking” of the world through globalization, the challenge of future-proofing education is both a challenge that needs to be solved. This disruptive issue is thoroughly presented in a policy paper written by Barber, Donnelly, Rizvi & Summers (2013) entitled An Avalanche is Coming: Higher Education and the Revolution Ahead. The essay took this hard question and looks further ahead the academic landscape in the next twenty years acknowledging the impending massive changes that will cause an avalanche of disruption in the higher education sector. In summary, the authors outlined the potential problems such as: (1) the unsustainability of the economics of education of today where the cost has risen dramatically faster compared even to that of healthcare; (2) the ubiquity and acceleration of digital disruption that offers both high quality, low-cost online alternatives to higher education and ready knowledge at the tip of the

37

fingertips; and, (3) the education of digital natives in the next twenty years who are at one with their tablets and smartphones. The same issues were also discussed in a book by Christensen, Horn & Johnson (2008) where they explained how disruptive innovation could be applied to the school education system. The authors pointed out the disruptive potential of information technology (IT) especially on the manner in which education is delivered today. But they argued, too, that information technology (IT) could be creatively harnessed in order to deliver customized education according to the specific needs of future learners. Going back to the book The Avalanche is Coming, Barber, et al (2013) specifically noted the nature of the digital natives where there is a demand for “creative creators” who are well-educated, imaginative, collaborative and confident people who take personal responsibility and will go the extra mile. Furthermore, they added that since content has become ubiquitous and will continue to do so at an exponential rate, this would cease to be a decisive factor for survival. There is, therefore, a big opportunity for schools and universities to innovate on this aspect and to focus on educating in a way that the approach for learning has to be integrative of both theory and practice and where students are able to create value out of these experiences (Barber, et al, 2013; Christensen, et al, 2008). This need to teach creativity in the classroom is also in consonance with the demand from the industry. In a 2010 survey by IBM of over 1,500 chief executive officers from over 60 countries and 33 industries worldwide, they believe that creativity is required to successfully navigate an increasing complex world, even more than rigor, management discipline, integrity or even vision. In addition, Shaheen (2009) presented in her paper that European, American, Australian and East Asian policy documents have stated and acknowledged that creativity has come to be seen as an important element in economic competitiveness in advanced economies. There is, therefore, a need for this shift due to the world becoming an information society with tech-savvy students who learn more by absorption and experience than by reading and lecture (Bruton, 2010). Brief history of teaching creativity and innovation If we go back through history, teaching creativity, artistry and innovation is not something new as there have been efforts in the last 100 years to integrate and teach creativity in mainstream education. The following presents the different approaches and strategies developed by notable figures in the academe.

38

Dr. Rudolph Steiner (1861-1925), the father of anthroposophy, established the Steiner Schools with the aim to educate the whole child. Steiner schools, according to Kirkham & Kidd (2015) focuses more on the artistic-imaginative, dramatic and creative with the aim of promoting an intrinsic desire to learn through the stimulation of feelings and senses. The pedagogy of Steiner education emphasizes the role of imagination in learning, striving to integrate in a holistic way the intellectual, practical and creative development of pupils. The overarching goal is to develop free, morally responsible and integrated individuals who are socially competent. Steiner’s stages of childhood development is divided into three: (1) early childhood education – focuses on practical, hands-on activities and creative play; (2) elementary education – focuses on developing artistic expression and social capacities; and, (3) secondary education – focuses on developing critical reasoning and empathic understanding. In terms of assessment, there is more emphasis on qualitative over quantitative assessments. Around the same time as Steiner, another method was developed by Maria Montessori (1870-1952) that aims to help students develop strong problem solving skills and foster creativity. Montessori’s approach emphasizes on independence, freedom within limits and respect for the child’s natural psychological, physical and social development. Although the strict and inflexible Montessori method may seem to suppress creative impulse, Lillard (2005) however argued that previous studies has been shown that it cultivates divergent, problem-solving and creative thinking skills. The constructivist perspective according to Masek & Yamin (2010) in their literature review, suggests that it generally fosters creativity development, especially on domain-relevant skills, creative-relevant skills and task motivation. The authors espouse the Problem-based Learning (PBL), as a constructivist approach, as it indicates inclination towards positive effects on creative thinking. Although PBL is able to develop creativity, Macintosh (2012) argued that it tends to explore a teacher-initiated relatively narrow subject area with a narrow essential question where the teacher generally sets ideas. To make learning creativity authentic, the approach should offer a degree of flexibility including a broader design problem or theme, ability for the students to write the essential questions and to be able to generate a broad spectrum of ideas. De Bono (2015) also proposed a system of creative problem solving using a practical lateral / parallel thinking approach metaphorically symbolized by the Six Thinking Hats. Each hat is a unique perspective that can be applied to a specific problem being hurdled by a group. Leveraging a collaborative atmosphere to think more effectively within the group, the Six Thinking Hats provides a means to plan thinking processes in a detailed cohesive way. The Six distinct directions include: (1) Blue – managing; (2) White – Information; (3) Red – Emotions; (4) Black – Discernment; (5) Yellow – Optimistic response; and, (6) Green –

39

Creativity. These metaphors calls for a complete and elaborate segregation of thinking decisions indicating problems and solutions about an idea. This approach has since been used in teaching students how to creatively problem solve using different perspectives represented by the Six Thinking Hats. A Global Initiative to Teach Creativity & Innovation Leading the global initiative is the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) focusing their efforts on the national college and career preparation conversation. P21 has played an active and crucial role in guiding education policy by building an alliance of future-thinking individuals to provide the framework of the 21st Century Skills. Now becoming a global movement, its model is now widely recognized for integrating 21st century skills into the core subjects of English, Mathematics, Science, Geography, Social Studies, Language and the Arts (Mishra & Kereluik, 2011). Proponents of this movement asserted that education should be more responsive to the changes brought about by globalization and technology providing for services that can prepare the students to make relevant and sustained contributions to the future society (De Campos, 2014). Close to home, Tan (2014) wrote that the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has acknowledged that the industry partners are looking for graduates who have acquired skills in problem-solving, leadership and creativity. The prospects for a stronger creativity training in our schools are however dim due to cultural conformity and blind obedience. This is then a challenge to both the industry and the academe to push for an education agenda that espouses creativity. UP President Alfredo E. Pascual highlighted in his keynote speech at the UP Knowledge Festival the need to develop the Philippine human capital into the kind of “innovative, multidisciplinary leaders we need” along with a creation of a strong culture for research, development and artistic work in order to generate inclusive economic and social growth. In response to this, the P21 21st century skills model has been integrated in the K-12 education reform agenda through the Department of Education’s (DepEd) National Educational Testing and Research Center (NETRC). According to the Assessment, Curriculum and Technology Research Centre (ACTRC) (2015), a collaboration of the DepEd and the Assessment Research Centre of the University of Melbourne (UM-ARC), the main goal of the joint project is to provide for the Filipino student the needs and conditions of education and employment in the Philippines noting the many systemic changes brought about by the development of technology.

40

Central to the framework borne out of the collaboration between DepEd-NETRC and the UM-ARC are the threefold foci on: 1) Information, Media & Technology; 2) Learning and Innovation; and, 3) Communication. This framework is reminiscent of the P21 Model where overarching themes in strategy focus on critical and creative thinking, problem solving, innovation and collaboration. With this is the need to adopt a teaching strategy that supports the implementation of 21st Century Learning, specifically in teaching creativity and innovation and integrating technology in the context of collaboration. Design Thinking for 21st Century Learning Design Thinking is a discipline that uses the designer’s mindset and sensibility and methods to satisfy the needs of the end-users to arrive at a strategy that is both technologically feasible and business viable thereby converting into customer value and market opportunity (Brown, 2008). In addition, Serrat (2010) explains that design thinking is a non-linear protocol to see, shape and build infusing insight into the process in order to address unpredictable issues and problems. These issues and problems are what is referred by most design thinkers as “wicked problems” or problems that seems to have no solutions or whose solutions can only be solved by multidisciplinary means (Brown, 2008; Leinonen & Durall, 2014). In short, design thinking uses the sensibilities or mindsets and methodologies often used by designers to create new ideas, solutions, alternatives and choices that satisfy the desires of the end users or stakeholders. Fundamentally, it is abductive in nature as it requires one to clear one’s mind of traditional solutions leading to new and creative problem solving (Fischer, 2015; Dunne & Martin, 2006; Johansson-Skoldberg & Wodilla, 2013; Donar, 2011; Schlenker, 2014). Serrat (2010) further explains that as a strategy employing abductive reasoning, design thinking is “empathic, personal, subjective, interpretive, integrative, experimental, synthetic, pictorial, dialectical, opportunistic and optimistic” (p. 2) that in sum builds creative confidence (Rauth, Koppen, Jobst & Meinel, 2010). In education, design thinking is defined as “an orientation to learning that encompasses active problem solving and marshaling one’s ability to create impactful change. It builds on the development of creative confidence that is both resilient and highly optimistic.” (Kelly, 2012, p. 225) Educators who have applied design thinking in education argued that it promotes innovation, problem solving, creativity and collaboration (Kwek, 2011; Anderson, 2012; Skaggs, et al, 2009; Scheer, et al 2011; Watson, 2015; Caruso, 2011). Scheer & Plattner (2011), Bruton (2010), Carrol (2014), Noweski (2012), Kwek (2011) further argued that design thinking, as a Constructivist learning strategy or strategy, allows the student to be motivated for exploration and problem solving, being open to ideas, allowing them to be innovative and creative. Scheer and Plattner (2011) noted that Design Thinking is effective in fostering 21st century learning through its application in complex interdisciplinary projects in a holistic constructivist manner. Design thinking, as a holistic concept to design cognition and learning,

41

allows the participants to work successfully in multi-disciplinary teams as they creatively solve difficult real-life problems (Rauth, et al, 2010). Going back to the global thrust of P21 and its application to the Philippine educational milieu of the ACTRC, existing research has shown that Design Thinking has the capability to foster creativity and innovation most especially when it is set in a collaborative multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach in problem solving. Carroll (2010), in her ethnographic research on Design Thinking in the middle school classroom, noted that it has an impact on the way that the students engage in the learning process encouraging creativity and innovation and fosters collaboration as students are willing to listen, take risks and share ideas among peers. Because of the diverse application of Design Thinking as a strategy both in management and learning especially in the way it approaches problem solving (Kimbell, 2011), this has been applied in different fields and discipline such as enterprise, innovation work, social good and, in the last decade, education and learning in general (Beckman & Barry, 2007). Brown (2009) explains that design thinking is seen as a powerful, effective, and broadly accessible approach to impact innovation that can be integrated in business, education and other fields. The application continues to attract and inspire researches that can be effectively applied to operations, products, services, strategies and management (Serrat & Simon, 2010) and in a wide range of contexts beyond the traditional preoccupations of designers (Kimbell, 2011). Although design thinking was at first only explored and developed in connection with professional designers, strategies and methodologies have been identified that are relevant to all disciplines and professions (Lindberg, Noweski & Meinel, 2010). Unlike traditional learning methodologies, Design thinking follows a two-fold part being both a mindset (Carrol, 2014) and a dynamic non-linear process (Serrat & Simon, 2010). As such, this strategy is valuable for organizations and societies to innovate and initiate change due to the ways designers problem solve (Kimbell, 2011). What sets Design Thinking apart from other approaches is that it focuses on the process instead of the product. And as a creative process, it follows a mindset that is human-centered, action-oriented, prototype-driven and non-judgmental (Carrol, 2014). Thus, it espouses positivity and eliminates the fear of failure and maximizing input and participation from the participants. Design Thinking as a Mindset Brown (2008) argued that design thinking is not limited to a select group of people and that many people actually have an innate aptitude to do so. Furthermore, he explained that design thinkers do not necessarily come from design schools although successful ones had some form of training. The correct mindset is a requirement for design thinking as it sets the correct perspective from where one starts to create and innovate. Actions done in the design thinking

42

process are manifestations of the attitudes and mindsets. A person with a closed mind will never be able to accept new and non-traditional ways and methods.

In summary, the following mindsets are common among different frameworks used by authors stated above: human-centeredness, empathy, mindfulness of process, culture of prototyping, show don’t tell, bias towards action and radical collaboration. Other mindsets or sensibilities identified include optimism, experimentalism and integrative thinking. These mindsets are reminiscent to the skills espoused by both P21 and the ACTRC. Design Thinking as a Process

43

Design Thinking as a dynamic and non-linear framework (Scheer, et al, 2011) follows an iterative process broken down into five steps: (1) Empathize, (2) Define, (3) Ideate, (4) Prototype and, (5) Test. Carroll, Goldman, Britos, et al (2010) simply explains design thinking, as applied in education, is an approach to learning that focuses on developing students’ creative confidence and where participants engage in hands-on design challenges that focus on developing empathy, promoting a bias towards action, encouraging ideation, developing metacognitive awareness and fostering creative problem-solving. It is a formal method for practical, creative resolution of problems or issues, with the intent of an improved future result (Cohen, 2014). As an iterative process, it essentially does not follow the sequential waterfall model where progress is seen as flowing downwards. The whole idea is to fail, and fail fast, in order to learn from the failures and rapidly iterate in order not to miss opportunities and waste resources. Design Thinking as both Mindset and Process The design thinking mindset and process are both intricately linked together. The mindset is required before one begins to do the design thinking process. Regardless of the steps one take during the design thinking process, it being non-linear, the elements underlying the process are the mindsets previously discussed in this paper (Rauth, et al, 2010). The same authors also asserted that as one repeats the process, it creates and enhances the same mindsets that in sum build creative confidence. An Emphasis on Empathy for Creativity The idea of emphasizing empathy goes a long way back in history according to Eakin (2003) when Spinoza argued against Descartes that body and mind are not two separate entities. History has taught us however that Spinoza lost and was vilified for centuries. But Dr. Antonio Damasio, the head of Neurology at the University of Iowa Medical Center, claimed that Spinoza was right after all as his research has showed that “you can’t shut off all the

44

emotions from rational decision-making.” Eakin (2003) cited the Chronicle of Higher Education that academics are now studying emotion and how it affects our decision-making. This way of thinking has also reverberated in the practice of management where there is much emphasis on a more holistic balance among multiple forms of well-being for multiple stakeholders, coining the term “multi-stream” approach (Dyck and Neubert 2010). Multi-stream approach promotes concern for other stakeholders which makes it more meaningful to the community in terms of relationship, compassion and empathy. Lim (2014), a designer and researcher, presented in his TED talk that empathy improves creativity, innovation, design and collaboration. He argued that empathy as a key to creativity and innovation allows one to create solutions that will create value to the users as it represents an emotional engagement and connection. He added that design created out of empathy and compassion for the subject creates an emotional connection and practices respect. This relationship between empathy and creativity is not anecdotal as Carlozzi, Bull, Eells & Hurlburt (1995) presented in their quantitative study the relationship between empathy to creativity, dogmatism and expressiveness. The results of their multiple regressions provided support for the hypotheses that empathy is positively related to creativity. They also found out in their study that empathy is inversely related to dogmatism. The results however do not support the hypothesized positive relationship with that of expressiveness. Design Thinking Application in Teaching & Learning Various studies have been conducted utilizing design thinking as a teaching and learning approach and applied in teaching business and entrepreneurship (Bruton, 2010; Mumford, Zoller & Profrta, 2016; Dunne & Martin, 2006; Laviolette, Lefebvre & Radu-Lefebvre, 2014; Nielsen & Storvang, 2014), management education (Schlenker, 2014), engineering education (Plattner, Meinel & Leifer, 2011; Dym, Agogino, et al, 2005; Skaggs, Fry & Howell, 2009; Altringer & Habbal, 2015), knowledge management (Wang & Wang, 2008); technological literacy (Wells, 2013); cryptography education (Alhamdani, 2016); spirituality education (Tan & Wong, 2012); writing studies (Purdy, 2014); art education (Watson, 2015), and distance education (Lloyd, 2013). Aside from its application in higher education, Design Thinking as a learning approach is also applied in basic education or K-12 education (Carroll, Goldman & Britos, 2010; Donar, 2011; O’Donoghue & Berard, 2014; Carroll, 2014; Becker & Mentzer, 2015; Mentzer, Becker & Sutton, 2015). According to IDEO (2009), an award-winning global design firm, progressive universities like Rotman and Stanford have trailblazed some successful early models in applying Design Thinking in the curriculum of primary and secondary schools. Carroll (2010) implemented an

45

inter-disciplinary design curriculum by a team of university instructors in a public charter school to teach creativity through collaborative activities challenging students through emphatic problem solving to find answers to complex and difficult problems that have multiple viable solutions. And as a teaching strategy, Caroll (2014) and Lee & Wong (2015) argued that design thinking is anchored upon the Vygotskian Sococultural constructivist learning theory as it utilizes the scaffolding framework and predisposes a constructive way of learning: “motivation for exploration, openness for new ideas, creative thinking and other metacognitive competences (Noweski, 2012).” Prospects of Design Thinking in Education Despite the strong interest in its application in schools, there have been no studies to critically review the latest research on Design Thinking in education and fewer studies that reflect the actual educational methods used by teachers to foster creativity (Rauth, Köppen, Jobst, et al, 2010). Because of this keen interest, there has been a significant increase in research internationally as it is applied in education. This increase in empirical studies raises the following questions: Across studies, what are the range and types of issues that contribute to Design Thinking in education as it is applied as a teaching-learning approach and a as a tool in curricular design? How is Design Thinking applied in schools as a teaching-learning approach and as a tool in curriculum development? The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to critically analyze the growing body of literature on Design Thinking as it is applied in education. This critical review of related literature shall begin with a critical analysis of empirical studies of how design thinking is applied as a framework for curricular design in order to provide a human-centered curriculum relevant to the needs of the learners. Secondly, this paper shall focus on empirical studies of design thinking as a teaching-learning approach in education. Empirical studies included in this critical analysis shall cover from the year 2005 to 2016. This review shall be concluded with specific recommendations for practice and future research.

Methodology Literature searches were conducted on a number of databases (e.g. Proquest, EBSCO, Springer Link and Google Scholar) including relevant and reliable internet sources via Google search using the keywords “Design Thinking” and “Education.” The search focused on peer-reviewed journal articles and conference presentations, including relevant articles that focus on theoretical essays and documents from year 2005 through 2016. Empirical studies included in the review: 1) used design thinking as its primary theoretical framework; and, 2) offered findings on how design thinking has been used as a teaching-learning approach, a tool in curricular design and teacher training.

46

A total of 68 articles were identified and is comprised of 46 peer-reviewed journal articles, 5 thesis and dissertations, 13 national conference presentations and 4 books and relevant magazine articles obtained from the aforementioned research databases. Figure 2 shows the increase of interest in studying design thinking in education.

These empirical studies along with other essays included definitions, conceptions and processes used in Design Thinking in education. Each study and article were obtained, read in its entirety and reviewed, with the analysis of each study framed within the application of Design Thinking in education. The list of Journals and other Literature can be viewed on Appendix A.

Results The following section presents the studies, provides a synthesis and critical analysis of empirical studies conducted between 2005 through 2016 revealing a growing number of studies loosely aligned with the concept of applying Design Thinking in schools, colleges and universities. Available literature on design thinking read, reviewed and critically analyzed in this paper boils down to two connected questions: What should be learned? and How should it be organized for teaching? This understanding is particularly true with the various literatures of design thinking as applied in education and can be narrowed down into three dimensions: (1) design thinking in curriculum design (Dunne & Martin, 2006; Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj, 2005; Bruton, 2010; Anderson, 2012; Altringer & Habbal, 2015; Duening, 2008; Nash 2011); (2) design thinking as a teaching-learning approach (Carroll, 2014; 2015; Leinonen & Durral, 2014; Donar, 2011; Marin, Hargis & Cavanaugh, 2013); and, (3) teacher training & support for design thinking (Kwek (2011), Carroll (2014), Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj (2005), and Bruton (2010). The findings are therefore presented based on the abovementioned sets. Student Populations of Interest In summary, the articles written about design thinking is a diverse collection of literature utilizing design thinking in middle school (Carroll, 2014; Carroll, Goldman, Britos, et al, 2010; Kwek, 2011; De Campos, 2014), senior high school (Becker & Mentzer, 2015) and tertiary

47

education (Donar, 2011; Lecanides-Arnott, 2014; Wells, 2013; Marin, Hargis & Cavanaugh, 2013; Anderson, 2012). The application in different fields of discipline is as diverse as it is flexible. Renard (2014) showed this flexibility in applying design thinking when he conducted a qualitative study examining a hands-on learning model as a vehicle for developing design thinking capacity in students. Two case studies were presented: a) Felt Construction, a material-based specialized studio course; and, b) Felt Frontiers, an iteration of the first case study where workshops were organized and led by the instructor focusing on the introduction of specific techniques and skills. Both studies led to the conclusion that design thinking and the design process are intrinsically flexible and adaptable as it allows students to draw and develop their capacity to frame opportunities for change and form ideas that improve the status quo. In addition, his study showed that students developed the ability to navigate undefined territory and the capacity to act on their environments. Noting the flexibility of the application of design thinking in education, this study therefore focuses on the common elements as it is implemented in different fields of discipline and levels of education. Design thinking and curriculum design In an interview of Roger Martin, the dean of the Rotman School of Management, by David Dunne on the topic design thinking, they discussed how design thinking can be used to approach managerial problems as designers approach design problems due to its potential impact on management education (Dunne & Martin, 2006). The discussion centered on the idea that through the design thinking paradigm, students participating in the program would be encouraged to think deeply about problems, empathize and deeply understand the users and recognize that the contributions of their peers have intrinsic value in the collaborative atmosphere. Martin’s proposals, according to Dunne, have far-reaching consequences and if implemented will result in significant changes to curriculum and the profile of students recruited to the universities. The reason for this is that the design thinking framework attracts for a different set of students who are more open to newer and more innovative mindset and processes. In addition, Martin sees a business world that is ready to accept the idea of managers as designers, who are open to multiple perspectives such as abductive logic, radical collaboration and pluralistic approaches. Bruton (2010), supported this idea that design thinking as a course design strategy can be used not just as an end (teaching strategy) but also in the actual curricular design for “the conception, design, characterization, prototyping, testing, pitching and innovation of new venture concepts in a renewed and cross-campus entrepreneurship offerings” (p. 4). Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj (2005), on the other hand, advanced the idea of utilizing design thinking in revamping the

48

whole tertiary education course while Carroll (2014) focused on enriching the existing curriculum using it to shift from content-based curriculum to that of a problem-based one. The three ideas presented above may have differed in terms of the venues with which design thinking is applied but the main objective is all the same – to instill the mindsets of empathy, innovation, creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration. Further exploration on the studies of Bruton (2010), Zupan, et al (2005) and Carroll (2014) will be presented in the proceeding section. Motivations for shifting to design thinking. Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj (2005) quoted Visschen, Voerman & Gustaffon (2004), Van Mernienbor & Kischner (2012), Tripp and Bichelmyer (1990) and Booyse (2010) that most course design methodologies have been labeled as outdated as they neglect the importance of empathy and integrative thinking to know what are the real needs of the students, the effect of diverse teaching-learning situations and strategies and the importance of prototyping. According to these authors, there is a need for curriculum designers and educational leaders to empathize with the end-users – the students – in the design of the curriculum otherwise there will be disconnect from the intention and the need. They added that design methodologies focus to a great extent the use of content in otherwise obsolete textbooks. Nash (2011) stressed the importance of moving beyond the stated problem and getting to the emotions attached to the problem reminding school leaders to keep empathy in their thinking. He added that school leaders benefits most from listening, carefully considering the needs of others and rethinking their own biases in order to move forward their solutions that meet the needs of end users. Noting the need for empathy, Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj (2005) presented their impetus to redesign the curriculum using DT as a course design strategy because of the criticisms, weaknesses and challenges of traditional entrepreneurship education. This same reason is likewise the same with Carroll (2014) and Carroll, Goldman, Britos, et al (2010) arguing the “disconnect” from the practical and in ensuring that innovative and creative skills are integrated in the curriculum. Design thinking, as described in their studies, showed the needed shift and focus from teaching content to practical problem solving. While Carroll, Goldman, Britos (2010) had the full backing of REDLab, the research in education and design arm of the Stanford University School of Education, Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj (2005) hurdled the fact that they had no specific literature or guidelines on how to adapt and implement it. They had to employ an empathy-based trial and error approach without using any specific course design methodologies. Zupan’s team however noted that the design thinking framework is similar to those of other existing course design methodologies while offering a holistic solution as a promising contemporary source of innovation-oriented

49

course design fostering learning rather than teaching. Their study eventually made the educators involved in the curricular design proficient as course designers and effective practitioners as teaching strategists. Lessons from applying design thinking in curriculum design. Anderson (2012) outlined in his conceptual paper a project which aims to develop and track design thinking skills within groups of rural students in late primary and early secondary years of schooling in Queensland in order to strengthen their creative skills and innovative mindsets. His study was prompted by its growing significance applied across disciplines after being widely and successfully used in industry and tertiary education. He further explained that very few empirical studies or projects exist to add knowledge to this growing literature about the use of design thinking in school settings with the aim of promoting innovative, flexible and creative thinking and the development of multimodal literacies. Some of the major expectations of the study include the following: (1) acquisition of a set of design thinking skills involving problem solving and collaboration; (2) a framework for embedding design thinking skills across the curriculum; (3) better theoretical understanding of the design thinking model as it applies to classroom use; and, (4) development of a learning model that fosters closer links between the school setting and students' lives out of school. Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj (2005) conducted a qualitative study in the development of a new entrepreneurship course through a descriptive chronological case study demonstrating design thinking as a course design strategy as designed by the Faculty of Economics at the University of Ljubljana. Using a data triangulation method in collecting data, Zupan, et al (2005) documented the procedures so as to enrich the thinking and discourse regarding development of educational theory by a systematic and reflective documentation of experience. Doing this, they established validity of the results and built a sound case for discussion. Their study was motivated by problems identified in the delivery and contents of their current entrepreneurship courses evaluating them as impractical and not resembling of what entrepreneurs actually do. Their course design study is marked by the following key points: (1) teaching teams were utilized instead of single teachers per class; (2) more engagement in practice rather than mastering theory and writing theoretical business plans; (3) assignment of students in problem spaces rather than narrowly defined problem; (4) involvement of industry coaches, partners and guest speakers; (5) emphasis on user-centeredness. Finally, the researchers found out that from a methodological perspective, the application of design thinking as a course design strategy does not require fundamental changes in the way courses are currently designed but offers additional tools and approaches that has shown to significantly improve the process. Furthermore, it enables course designers to develop in-depth understanding of not only the subject but also on how the students will interact with the topic.

50

The studies of Anderson (2012) and Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj (2005) study gives us a clear picture of how school leaders can implement a curriculum that utilizes the design thinking framework. In another study, Bruton (2010) conducted a study utilizing the phenomenological approach that outlined a project named Ventured Design Studio (VDS). He employed qualitative methods to describe and systematically analyze the student experience and learning outcomes throughout the learning process. The VDS is an experiential and iterative 12 to 16-class and makes up over half of a new first-year undergraduate course called The Entrepreneurial Experience where they work in teams to design, represent and pitch new venture concepts. Data collection for the study was done using the collaborative web environments created by over 120 students in 4 classes which includes student surveys, videotaped elevator pitches and snapshots of their written work. The qualitative study developed and tracked design thinking skills in late primary and early secondary years with the goal of strengthening their creative skills and innovative mindsets. The researcher proposed that design thinking is a very attractive approach to entrepreneurial learning for curricula that aims to provide students with authentic and practical experiences. Their data has shown overwhelmingly positive feedback from their students often expressing a desire for the approach. In addition, the students were able to meet or exceed all learning objectives to do with the toolset, mindset and collaborative knowledge creation. Bruton also noted the need to engage local entrepreneurs and venture capitalists making student projects more innovative and feasible compared to those from other entrepreneurial teaching approaches. The research concluded with a note that there is more research that is needed to be done in describing in more detail what happens when students learn in this way, understanding how learning actually takes place and understanding whether and in what other ways design thinking approach might be better suited than other teaching methodologies. Meanwhile in Harvard, Altringer & Habbal (2015) presented a qualitative case study of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) curriculum development where they successfully transition the organization towards multidisciplinary innovation education. The authors employed a mixed method research design where they described the course descriptions offered by Harvard SEAS and presented the results of a student outcome assessment tool. Initiative towards this change was enabled primarily by a core group of faculty members who envision a trans-disciplinary structure with no silos and departments, conducting interdisciplinary research and cross-disciplinary and system-level courses. The mission of Harvard’s SEAS is to reinvent engineering education for the 21st century and to create a “T-shaped” engineer who is educated broadly and able to collaborate across all disciplines while

51

possessing depth in one discipline. The curriculum that SEAS created was a balance of theory, critical thinking skills, hands-on design projects providing active learning points. They also give the students an opportunity to understand the design process and the tools needed to solve some of the world’s most complex problems. Subjects offered offers a multitude of project-based design courses that teach engineering principles in a multidisciplinary concept. The following are key learning points the researchers have encountered during the years of implementation of the SEAS program: (1) Courses offered contain more than 50% design content attributing it to problem solving, implementation and verification, project management and teamwork and communication; (2) Some courses offered were complex, multidisciplinary, open-ended and multidimensional where students play a large role in shaping the course. Students set their own deadlines, determine leadership roles and manage group dynamics, and in the end, they learn real-life critical project management skills; (3) SEAS created cross-disciplinary courses dedicated to: (a) Address messy, real-world, interdisciplinary problems, (b) Identify the central needs in problems and formulate plans to address them, (c) Explore the extent of the problem space, (d) Develop prototypes as a means of hypothesis testing and exploration, (e) Use existing technical knowledge to model and analyze the problems, and, (f) Work effectively on group and individual projects; (4) The presence of mentors who were dedicated to teaching and advising contributed to the success of this program serving as role models and lecturers emphasizing active learning and entrepreneurship; and, (5) Emphasis on communication, leadership and organizational skills required in real-world environments. As part of the results of their student outcome assessment tool, one of the sources of data for their case study, Altringer & Habbal (2015) noted that initially students found the courses vague and difficult to follow complaining about lack of structure and guidance. Additionally, they complained that “they did not know how to obtain the highest grade and that there were no clear assignments or problem sets to solve.” The researchers noted that after a few years, students claim that it was the most useful course for them in their subsequent jobs. The studies of Zupan, Strigar & Nabergoj, Bruton (2010) and Altringer & Habbal (2015) is also reminiscent of the study made by Duening (2008) where he argued that the following curricular approaches were recommended: a) interdisciplinary and combinatory, b) relentless prototyping; c) outcome is a narrative or a story. The whole idea is to emphasize on the error prototyping approach, interdisciplinary and innovative thinking, highly collaborative and participatory atmosphere. As an effect, existing literature affirmed the transformation of the whole curricular design experience from a closed framework to that of an open interdisciplinary one. As Bruton (2010) claims in the study previously presented in this paper, the DT-enhanced curriculum transformed their class from a regular four-sided box with

52

perfectly aligned armchairs to that of a design school where interdisciplinary and collaborative work closely together. Design Thinking as a Teaching-Learning Approach The Global Initiative Partnership for 21st Century Skills or P21 has acknowledged that new teaching styles have emerged in the past decade as a way to adapt to the needs of the new generation of learners. Kwek (2011), Carroll (2010), Rauth, Koppen & Meinel (2010) Carroll, Goldman, Britos, et al (2010), Altringer & Habbal (2015) and many other authors implementing design thinking as a strategy agreed that applying the empathetic, problem-solving, rapid prototyping and multidisciplinary collaborative approach teaches creativity, creative confidence and innovative mindset. We have established this as necessary if we are to teach the students to be adaptive rather than content-oriented for them to be better prepared for the unknown future. For a teaching-learning approach to make sense, it must be anchored on a tried and tested learning theory. Scheer & Plattner (2011), Bruton (2010), Leinonen and Durrall (2014) and Carroll (2014) argued in their studies that design thinking is in essence follows Lev Vygotsky’s social constructivism theory. Scheer & Plattner (2011) argues that the design thinking teaching strategy gives “faith in the creative abilities through a process to hold on to when facing difficulties during the project” (p. 18). This is reminiscent of Vygotsky’s concept of scaffolding where teachers acts as facilitators to support and move the learners to their appropriate level of performance. But design thinking also allows peers to facilitate the scaffolding as it encourages multidisciplinary collaboration. Becker & Mentzer (2015) noted in his study that more competent peers also contribute significantly to the development through supportive scaffolding allowing the other students to take the next step. Scheer & Plattner (2011) asserted that design thinking is the missing link between theoretical findings in social transformative pedagogy and the actual application or practice of the skills required in the future. They further discussed that design thinking meets “the crucial criteria for effective 21st century learning by facilitating interdisciplinary projects, approaching complex phenomena in a holistic constructivist manner thereby leading to a transition from the transfer of knowledge to the development of individual potentials” (p. 18). Lessons from applying design thinking as a teaching strategy. Kwek (2011) conducted a qualitative study that sought to explore how design thinking as a new model of learning is used in classroom learning especially on understanding the motivations and considerations that drive teachers to adopt this innovation approach in the teaching of core content. The study also sought to explore the factors that influenced the way design thinking is used in classroom and how it intersect with academic content. Utilizing a single case study methodology, the study focuses mainly on the teachers of the New Horizons Academy, a public middle school

53

partnering with the Stanford d.School, where interviews were conducted with school leaders and classroom observations were done by the researchers. The findings of the study showed that the teachers turned out not to be passive recipients of the design thinking pedagogical tool as they applied it in multiple ways to suit different purposes. The researcher found out that teachers utilize design thinking as a strategy to maximize student motivation helping students to feel successful by experiencing “lightbulb” and “a-ha” moments. Another key finding in the study is that design thinking, as a conceptual tool, is manifested as a familiar classroom activity where it is applied as a task for application of learning in a multidisciplinary project. Lastly, the study found out that mastery of academic core content still drives how design thinking is used to intersect with classroom learning. Carroll, Goldman, Britos, et al (2010) presented the results of the Taking Design Thinking to Schools Research Project in their qualitative ethnographic study where a team of university instructors and graduate students implemented a design curriculum for a middle school (7th grade) geography class. The goal was to gain a multilayered understanding of the perspectives of the participants (students, teachers, instructors and graduate students) as they engaged for the first time in design activities in the classroom. The project spanned a three- week period where the sessions occurred twice a week during a two-hour period for a total of 12 hours of classroom time. A team of two researchers acted as participant-observers and collected descriptive data through notes, audio recordings and video recordings. Each researcher observed three of the six sessions. Carroll, et al (201) implemented a modified design thinking framework rewording them to make it understandable for the Grade 7 students: Understand – Observe – Point of View – Ideate – Prototype – Test. Interesting design challenges that have many potential solutions were given and students focused on the process of defining the problems and dealing with varying levels of ambiguity and thereafter prototyping solutions. Three (3) key themes emerged from their research, namely: (1) Design as Exploring: Understanding Design. The highlight of the first theme focused on the students participating in the classroom design activities. Students adopted design thinking in a variety of ways and became reflective on the nature of the process giving them the opportunity to explore as they embark in a problem solving process. In their study, the researchers also noted that students did not immediately jump into conclusions and instead focused on exploring all aspects of the problems through multiple sources and iterations. (2) Design as Connecting: Affect & Design. The highlight of the second theme focused on the powerful roles that design thinking plays in developing students’ creative confidence. The researchers noted that students were engaged in meaningful collaboration where they had opportunities work in a group setting and to express their voices. (3) Design as Intersecting: Design Thinking & Content Learning. The highlight of the third theme was on the challenging and problematic relationship between design thinking and academic content learning noting the many obstacles the participants experienced. The

54

researchers noted the difficulties of the students as they struggled to learn both the methodology as well as geography content. Carroll, et al (2010) learned from their study a variety of implications for practice that can enhance the connections between academic content learning and design thinking: (1) The function of design thinking should be to enhance classroom instruction by way of learning what the teachers’ instructional goals are and using design thinking as a support to student learning; (2) Design thinking must be integrated into academic content by way of designing a curriculum that focus on creating activities that entwines academic content learning with that of fundamental mindsets and processes of design thinking; (3) Design thinking has an impact on the ways that the students engage in the learning process noting in their study that it challenges them to think in new ways and take risks; (4) Design thinking and collaboration are intricately linked as it is impacted by students’ willingness and risk-taking in listening to others’ ideas and sharing their own; (5) Design thinking provides a means for students to be cognizant of where they are in the process encouraging metacognitive awareness; (6) Design projects and design discourse practices can provide new ways of thinking can be incorporated in both students’ learning approaches and teachers’ instructional strategies. Rauth, Köppen, Jobst & Meinel (2010) established in their research the direct link of design thinking and creative confidence. The qualitative research study utilizing a mixed method data collection methodology focused on the search for underlying methods and mechanisms of design thinking education where they conducted 17 expert interviews in d.School’s both in Stanford, USA and Potsdam, Germany. Using a qualitative approach, the researchers looked for emergent patterns and significant correlations of design thinking and creative confidence.

The researchers found out, as shown in the empirical part of their study, that there are different levels of creative knowledge, skills and mindsets that can be achieved by design thinking education, culminating in a capability that is called ‘creative confidence’ (see Figure 3). The researchers summarized their findings in a graphical representation about how creative confidence and competence are developed and reinforced in design thinking education. They

55

argued that students already have developed their own creative methods and it is up to the teacher to scaffold these as they go through the design thinking process. This will then lead towards the development of the design thinking mindsets and onwards to creative confidence. Building on these results they demonstrate how design education contributes to both the development and understanding of design creativity. The research findings led them to conclude that design thinking as a learning model is geared towards creative confidence. Carroll (2014) conducted an ethnographic study of a university afterschool program in an urban setting in San Francisco USA. Utilizing qualitative mixed method data collection methodology in the data collection and analysis, the study describes the journey of a group of university students working with underserved middle students as mentors in a STEM-based afterschool program. In a nutshell, the project goal revolves around the following: (1) provide students with pathways to STEM careers through the introduction of design thinking; (2) introduce the work and technologies used by the engineers, tech developers and scientists; (3) integrate the academic work the university students were engaged in; (4) provide role modeling and mentoring relationships to the middle schoolers. The findings of the researcher were organized into key areas. These are: (1) The Dynamics of the Mentoring Relationship – Mentors relationship was characterized by inspiration, defining one’s role, balancing authority, making connections, building rapport and building a team culture; (2) The Design of Instructional Activities – The mentors utilized the insights from their mentees to enhance the instructional design of the activities. This was possible as the mentors knew the students personally, thus, they were able to become flexible and responsive; (3) The Role of Design Thinking – The mentors and the middle school students learned design thinking together. Carroll (2014) discussed the results of her study arguing that design thinking process provided a frame within which university students learned how to be mentors where they also learned how to create user-centered learning experiences while sharing their experiences as developing STEM professionals. The mentor-mentee relationship formed a process by which they were able to create a scaffold to take risks, enjoy learning and build creative confidence. Design Thinking in K-12. The application of design thinking in high school usually focuses on the Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) discipline strand (Mentzer, Becker & Sutton, 2015; Becker & Mentzer, 2015; Altringer & Habbal, 2015; Carrol, 2014). However, literature reviewed by this study shows that it is also applied in multidisciplinary core subjects and content (Kwek, 2011; Carroll, Goldman, Britos, et al, 2010; Scheer & Plattner, 2011; Carroll, 2014; Anderson, 2012) focusing on it as a teaching-learning approach teaching empathy, collaboration and social engagement (O’Donoghue & Berard, 2014; Sauder,

56

2013), creativity or creative confidence and innovation (Anderson, 2012; Bouchard, 2013), and prototype and experimentation mindset (Carroll, 2014). Marin, Hagis & Cavanaugh (2013) also used design thinking in developing challenge-based learning. From the different studies on applying design thinking in K-12 schools, there is an inclination for its application as a project-based learning approach focusing on the STEM subjects with the intention of teaching empathy, multidisciplinary collaboration, creativity, innovation and a prototyping or experimentation mindset. In addition, it is observed that K-12 schools tend to teach design thinking as a concept rather than attached to a specific discipline. Subjects are almost always grouped together not individually but as a group of inter-related subjects, such as STEM, Business & Entrepreneurship and Art & Design. The motivation by which educators utilize design thinking as a teaching strategy usually focus on teaching creativity and innovation through the repetition of the processes in order to inculcate the designer’s mindsets. Design Thinking in Higher Education. Applying design thinking as a teaching strategy follows a different context for higher education as it is mostly applied in specific courses or disciplines. Since design thinking primarily originated from the world of the designers, there is a good number of design thinking research focusing on art, design, architecture & environmental design (Donar, 2011; Bruton, 2010; Lee & Wong, 2015; Mentzer, Farrington & Tennenhouse, 2015; Watson, 2015; Goldman, Kabayadondo, Royalty, et al, 2014; Donar, 2011; O’Donoghue & Berard, 2014). Technical courses whose school leaders want to teach empathy, innovation and creativity among university students have also utilized design thinking in the sciences, engineering, computer science & information technology education (Skaggs, Fry & Howell, 2009; Leinonen & Durrall, 2014; Skaggs, Fry & Howell, 2009; Altringer & Habbal, 2015; Beckman & Barry, 2007; Alhamdani, 2016; Leinonen & Durall, 2014; Lindberg, Noweski & Meinel, 2010). In addition, management, business & entrepreneurship education have also embraced design thinking as a teaching strategy (Mumford, Zoller & Proforta, 2016; Dunne & Martin, 2006; Schlenker, 2014). The primary reason for higher education school leaders and teachers apply design thinking in higher education is the same as with that of the K-12: to teach empathy, foster creativity, innovation and a prototyping mindset. Dunne and Martin (2006) explained this well when he said that “today’s business people don’t need to understand designers better, they need to become designers” (p. 513). Although design thinking in higher education tends to be applied in silos, there is in fact great emphasis in reaching out to other disciplines to ensure multidisciplinary collaboration. As Leinonen & Durrall (2014) explains, multidisciplinary collaboration ensures that wicked problems solved in such a way that the solutions do not cause other problems. And this can only be done when different perspectives from various disciplines are involved in the design process. Zupan, Stritar and Nabergoj (2005), Dunne &

57

Martin, 2006 and Bruton (2010) also agree that the primary motivation for utilizing design thinking is to ensure that students are exposed to the practical and experiential application of what they have learned in the universities. The design thinking strategy approximates the kind of environment university students will encounter when they start working after they graduate. The application of the design thinking process in both K-12 and higher education is different. Some K-12 researchers simplified the process in order to be understandable and applicable for high school students. Such is the case of Carroll, Goldman, Britos, et al (2010) where they rephrased the steps into more understandable words: Understand, Observe, Point of View, Ideate, Prototype and Test. Most researchers however like Anderson (2012), Becker & Mentzer (2015) and Rauth, Köppen, Jobst & Meinel, (2010) utilized the typical design thinking process. In higher education, the process follows the purist approach of empathizing-defining-ideating-prototyping-testing. Noting the motivations of why higher education leaders apply design thinking, the reason for this is that they would like to approximate how the real world applies the process. Teacher Training & Support for Design Thinking Teacher training & support has been an implied need in most of the researches conducted in utilizing design thinking in education. Studies of Kwek (2011), Carroll (2014), Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj (2005), and Bruton (2010) argued that adequate training and support should be provided to the teachers in order to effectively implement and mitigate the difficulties that usually arise in its application. In her research findings, Kwek (2011) discussed the importance of teacher support by way of allocating time, space, financial and material resources in schools, teacher support and training in design-based teaching and learning to increase expertise and confidence. The interest of research, which was explained at length in the previous section, sought to examine how schools and teachers work to circumvent the constraints and difficulties encountered during the implementation process noting the novelty of the pedagogy. Carroll (2014), on the other hand emphasized the mentorship model in teaching design thinking to both teachers and students. In her study, she argued that the design thinking process provides the frame where mentors learned how to create user-centered learning experiences while sharing their experiences as developing STEM professionals. She outlined the important characteristics of a good design thinking mentor, namely: inspirational, well-defined role, balanced authority, able to make connections and build rapport, and able to build a positive team culture. Her argument that mentors and students learned design thinking

58

together is a good benchmark for teachers to learn design thinking by doing and practicing it with the students. In another study previously presented, Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj (2005) outlined unique characteristics of teaching styles that can be integrated to teacher training and support. The researchers argued to utilize teaching teams instead of single teachers per class focusing more on engagement rather than mastering theory. Teaching teams also encourage multidisciplinary collaboration as teachers have their own set of specialized skills and competencies thereby adding to the richness of the content and strategies that can be learned by the students. In addition, the researchers also involved industry mentors and coaches, partners and guest speakers who can provide additional support to the students. Bower, Highfield, Furney & Mowbray (2013) explains in their study a development and evaluation project aimed at transforming pre-service teacher education programs at Macquarie University to more effectively cultivate students' technology-enabled learning design thinking. The qualitative case methodology examined the change processes and evaluated the effectiveness of integrating Information and Communications Technology (ICT) into pre-service teacher education programs so that they could successfully integrate and model technology use fostering the same model of training for the students. Learning design and design thinking were mainly considered in the training as it offers unique possibilities for technology integration enabling the teachers to move beyond being technological consumers to being creative and effective designers. Key findings include the sustained effort that is required in order to engender change, and the primary importance of relationship building in successful ICT education development. Summary of Theoretical Studies Based on the studies previously presented in this paper, progress has been made in better understanding on how design thinking has been used as a course or curricular design methodology and as a teaching-learning approach. Corollary to this is the need to address the concern for teacher training and support to ensure effectiveness in its application. Although several attempts have been recently made to conceptualize design thinking in the education context, the majority of the work has primarily been qualitative and exploratory in nature. Hence, there is still a need to validate the proposed theories in order to properly examine and determine the effectiveness of the approach. Therefore, a theoretically valid conceptualization of design thinking in education is needed to understand what design thinking is, its strategies for application, the intended results of teaching creativity and innovation and how the students experience it.

59

Proposals & Recommendations Proposed Theoretical Framework We have discussed in the previous section of this study that the application of design thinking in education is narrowed down into three (3) dimensions: (1) design thinking in curriculum design; (2) design thinking as a teaching-learning approach; and, (3) teacher training and support for design thinking. A deeper analysis on the application of the design thinking framework for all studies, common themes emerge from it: (1) empathy-building and user-centeredness; (2) creativity and innovation; (3) rapid-prototyping and experimentation mindset; and, (4) open-minded multidisciplinary collaboration cutting across various disciplines. These four comprise the common elements targeted and discussed by researchers as they conduct research in design thinking in education. These domains are also consistently aligned with the goals of teaching of 21st century skills of teaching creativity and innovation. Figure 4 illustrates the relationships between the three (3) dimensions and four (4) themes. The whole idea is that a successful application of design thinking in education requires a systematic and cohesive program for design thinking-enhanced curriculum design, utilization of a design thinking teaching-learning approach and appropriation of resources for teacher training and support. The end goal is to teach creativity and innovation, empathy and user-centeredness, prototyping and experimentation and multidisciplinary collaboration.

60

Design thinking teaches the students user-centered empathy-building necessary in ensuring that solutions derived from the process are relevant and desirable. (Lam & Suen, 2015; Brown, 2008; Goldman, Kabayadondo, Royalty, et al, 2014; Marin, Harris & Cavanaugh, 2013; Carroll, 2014; Anderson, 2012). As the students repetitively do design thinking, it creates mindsets that eventually build creative confidence leading towards teaching creativity and innovation. (Rauth, Köppen, Jobst & Meinel, 2010; Lecanides-Arnott, 2014; Bowler, 2014; Carroll, 2014; Kwek, 2011; Carroll, Goldman & Britos, 2010) Design thinking always consists of rapid and iterative problem solving cycles of construction and reflection in order to create innovative product, systems and services (Rauth, Koppen, Jobst & Meinel, 2010; Plattner, Meinel & Leifer, 2011; Lam & Suen, 2011; Caruso, 2011; Scheer & Plattner, 2011). Design thinking is effective when it involves an open-minded collaboration among different disciplines (multidisciplinary) as it produces better results when students build on the ideas of others (Plattner, Meinel & Leifer, 2011; Altringer & Habbal, 2015; Kwek, 2011; Zupan, Stritar & Nabergoj, 2005; Rauth, Köppen, Jobst & Meinel, 2010) Recommendations for Future Research and Practice The increase in interest for design thinking in education has likewise sparked the same keen interest in research as exemplified by the number of studies published in the last 11 years. While studies have shown the value and effectiveness of design thinking as a teaching-learning approach and as a framework for curricular design, it has also exposed gaps that are worthy of further studies. The following are the recommendations for future research and practice: As previously identified by most researchers studying design thinking in education, empathy with the user is first and foremost an important mindset required for educational leaders, curriculum designers, teachers and students alike. Nash (2011) emphasized the need to move beyond the stated problem and get to the emotions attached to the problem in order to meet the underlying needs primarily of the students. Studies covered by this paper are also in agreement that empathy is the starting point of innovation and creativity – that before one jump to solutions, one needs to build empathy for the people for whom they are creating ideas and solutions. Because of this, there is therefore a need to conduct further studies focusing on how curriculum designers, teachers and students can acquire empathy as an important design thinking mindset. Researchers such as Zupan, et al (2005), Anderson (2012), Bruton (2010) and Altringer & Habbal (2015), have different ways of implementing design thinking as a curricular design framework. Early adopters such as Zupan, et al (2005) complained of a lack of specific

61

literature or guidelines on how to adapt and implement design thinking as a curricular design framework. In addition, little has been done to address the proper integration of the design thinking processes with that of the educational standards and academic content as expressed by Carroll, Goldman, Britos, et al (2010). There is a need to clearly establish this connection in order to ensure that design thinking as a teaching-learning approach is relevant to the existing curricular framework both in K-12 and higher education. While current literature treats design thinking as a form of project-based methodology focusing on independent projects such as capstone projects and thesis, integrating design thinking as a teaching-learning approach for existing curricular framework and academic content will make teaching creativity and innovation transform into a mainstream one. Further study is also needed to search for effective ways in integrating design thinking into traditional classroom settings without sacrificing its multidisciplinary and collaborative characteristics. Bruton (2010) recommended to conduct more research in describing in more detail what happens when students learn the design thinking way and how learning actually takes place. In addition, it is important to explore and understand in what other ways the design thinking approach might be better suited in the classroom setting. And as it is applied in mainstream education, it is also important to conduct further studies in the effective assessment of what students are learning about design thinking and about the academic content, lesson or subject matter. During the implementation of design thinking as a teaching-learning approach, researchers usually employed teaching teams and mentors with the aim of providing multidisciplinary scaffolds in the learning process. The importance of mentorship for a successful design thinking implementation is clear in all studies and is consistent with it as a social constructivist approach. Studies conducted by Carroll (2014) shows that mentorship is necessary to allow students to become independent learners. Further studies, therefore, should be done with the aim of understanding how mentorship can be leveraged to optimize learning in the design thinking process. In addition, further studies should also be done on how teachers can be equipped with the proper mentorship skills prior to implementing design thinking in their respective schools. A clear difference should also be made on how design thinking should be applied to different academic levels (i.e. Middle School, High School, Senior High School and College levels) noting the cognitive and developmental ages, scholastic level and achievement and acquired skill sets. To note, design thinking applied in K-12 is usually project-based where the process is simplified. Furthermore, it is taught as a concept rather than attached to a specific

62

discipline. ON the other hand, design thinking in higher education is mostly attached to a specific discipline or cluster of courses where the process is made to be as close as possible to how designers actually conduct it. Lastly, if design thinking is to be effectively applied in schools, there is a need for teachers to gain confidence and expertise in facilitating constructivist learning through design thinking (Scheer & Plattner, 2011). Thus, proper teacher support, school resource allocation and development is needed to effectively apply design thinking both as a course design and as a teaching strategy.

References: Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive

innovation will change the way the world learns (Vol. 98). New York: McGraw-Hill. Lillard, A. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York: Oxford University

Press. Kirkham, J. A., & Kidd, E. (2015). The Effect of Steiner, Montessori, and National Curriculum

Education Upon Children's Pretence and Creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Brophy, J. E., & Choquette, J. J. (1973). Divergent Production in Montessori Children. Barber, M., Donnelly, K., Rizvi, S., & Summers, L. (2013). An avalanche is coming. Higher

Education and the revolution ahead, 73. Tomasco, S. (2010). IBM 2010 Global CEO Study: Creativity selected as most crucial factor

for future success. Retrieved March, 19, 2016, from https://www-935.ibm.com/services/c-suite/study/studies/ceo-study/.

Masek, A., & Yamin, S. (2010, June). Fostering creativity from the constructivist perspectives: A literature review. In Proceeding of the 3 rd Regional Conference on Engineering Education & Research in Higher Education.

Kazerounian, K., & Foley, S. (2007). Barriers to creativity in engineering education: A study of instructors and students perceptions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(7), 761-768.

Spendlove, D. (2008). Creativity in education: A review. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 10(2).

McIntosh, E. (2012, August 22). Design Thinking, Education & Learning. Retrieved March 04, 2017, from http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2012/08/whats-the-difference-between-pbl-and-design-thinking.html

Shaheen, R. (2010). Creativity and education. Creative Education, 1(03), 166. Tan, M. (2014, March 7). Creative education. Retrieved from

http://opinion.inquirer.net/72304/creative-education Culture, Creativity, Innovation. (2016, April 20). Retrieved March 04, 2017, from

http://www.up.edu.ph/culture-creativity-innovation/

63

Kelly, R. (Ed.). (2012). Educating for creativity: A global conversation. Brush Education. Van Der Linden, J., & De Lacerda, A. P. I Feel, Therefore I Am. Eakin, E. (2003, April 18). I Feel, Therefore I Am. Retrieved March 04, 2017, from

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/19/books/i-feel-therefore-i-am.html Lim, S. C. (2014, April 28). Seung Chan Lim: How Humility, Courage, And Empathy Help

Navigate The Creative Process [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.tedxpsu.com/videos/146

Dyck, B. and Neubert, M. (2010). Management: Current Practices and New Directions. Boston: Cengage/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Carlozzi, A. F., Bull, K. S., Eells, G. T., & Hurlburt, J. D. (1995). Empathy as related to creativity, dogmatism, and expressiveness. The Journal of psychology, 129(4), 365-373.

De Bono, E. (2015). Serious Creativity: How to be creative under pressure and turn ideas into action. Random House.

Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011, March). What 21 st century learning? A review and a synthesis. In SITE Conference (pp. 5-236).

The Philippines’ approach to assessment of 21st century skills, ACTRC Research Forum Presentation (https://actrc.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/actrc-forum_21cs-jul2015_diss.pdf), 18 July 2015.

Kim, M. J., Ju, S. R., & Lee, L. (2015). A Cross-Cultural and Interdisciplinary Collaboration in a Joint Design Studio. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 34(1), 102–120. http://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12019

Cahn, P. S., Bzowyckyj, A., Collins, L., Dow, A., Goodell, K., F. Johnson, A., … Zierler, B. K. (2016). A design thinking approach to evaluating interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 1820(April), 1–3. http://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2015.1122582

Wang, S., & Wang, H. (2008). A Design Thinking Approach to Teaching Knowledge Management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(2), 137–140. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ831364

Ungaretti, T., Chomowicz, P., Canniffe, B. J., Johnson, B., Weiss, E., Dunn, K., & Cropper, C. (2009). Business + design: Exploring a competitive edge for business thinking. Management, 74(3), 4–43.

Laviolette, E. M., Lefebvre, V., & Radu-Lefebvre, M. (2014). Business Modeling as Design Thinking: Implications for Entrepreneurship Education. In Conference of International Council for Small Business (pp. 1–4). Ireland.

Kim, H., & Lee, H. (2016). Cognitive Activity-Based Design Strategy for Novice Visual Communication Designers. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(2), 196–212. http://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12054

Sauder, J. (2013). Collaborative Stimulation in Team Design Thinking. University of Southern California.

64

Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity Through “Maker” Experiences And Design Thinking In The Education Of Librarians. Knowledge Quest, 42(5), 5.

Renard, H. (2014). Cultivating Design Thinking in Students through Material Inquiry. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://proxy.library.carleton.ca/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697486571?accountid=9894

Schlenker, L. (2014). Design in Practice : Scenarios for Improving Management Education. In 11th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA (pp. 187–194). Porto, Portugal.

Fischer, M. (2015). Design it! Solving sustainability problems by applying design thinking. Gaia, 24(3), 174–178. http://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.24.3.9

Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 1–10. Serrat, O. (2010). Design Thinking. Knowledge Solutions, 78(March 2010), 1–6. Leinonen, T., & Durall, E. (2014). Design Thinking and Collaborative Learning. Pensamiento

de Diseño Y Aprendizaje Colaborativo., 21(42), 107–115. http://doi.org/10.3916/C42-2014-10

Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–523.

Lee, C.-S., & Wong, K.-S. D. (2015). Design Thinking and Metacognitive Reflective Scaffolds: A Graphic Design-Industrial Design Transfer Case Study. In 12th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2015) (pp. 173–179). Dublin, Ireleand.

Campbell, K. (2015). Design thinking and the Deanly conversation: Reflections on conversation, community and agency. Journal of Learning Design, 1(3).

Zupan, B., Stritar, R., & Nabergoj, A. S. (2005). Design thinking as a course design strategy. In 8th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development and 4th Eastern European ESD (pp. 465–477). Zagreb, Croatia.

Watson, A. D. (2015). Design Thinking for Life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1060382&lang=de&site=eds-live&authtype=ip,uid\nhttp://www.arteducators.org/research/art-education

De Campos, L. R. (2014). Design Thinking in Education: A Case Study Following One School District’s Approach to Innovation For the 21st Century. University of San Francisco.

Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2013). Design Thinking in the Management Discourse: Defining the Elements of the Concept. Mindspace. Retrieved from http://www.mindspace.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/HassiLaakso_2011_IPDMC.pdf

Benson, J., & Dresdow, S. (2013). Design Thinking: A Fresh Approach for Transformative Assessment Practice. Journal of Management Education, 38(3), 436–461. http://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913507571

65

Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design Thinking: An Educational Model towards Creative Confidence. In First International Conference on Design Creativity (pp. 1–8). Kobe, Japan.

Anderson, N. (2012). Design Thinking: Employing an Effective Multidisciplinary Pedagogical Framework To Foster Creativity and Innovation in Rural and Remote Education. Australian & International Journal of Rural Education, 22(2), 43–52. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=80037529&site=ehost-live

Bouchard, J. (2013). Design Thinking: Exploring Creativity in Higher Education. Michigan State University.

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146.

Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design Thinking: Understand-Improve-Apply. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0

Nielsen, S. L., & Storvang, P. (2014). DesignUni : University Entrepreneurship Education through Design Thinking Suna Løwe Nielsen. In The XXV ISPIM Conference – Innovation for Sustainable Economy & Society (Vol. 57). Dublin, Ireleand: International Society for Professional Innovation Management.

Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, Imagination and the Fires Within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom. The Journal of Academic Development and Education, 1.

Lecanides-Arnott, M. (2014). Developing Self-Awareness and Confidence in Students of Design. SUN Journals, 28(3), 1085–1106.

Lloyd, P. (2013). Embedded creativity: Teaching design thinking via distance education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 749–765. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9214-8

Altringer, B., & Habbal, F. (2015). Embedding Design Thinking in a Multidisciplinary Engineering Curriculum. In National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (pp. 1–13). Hadley, Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1749280842?accountid=14701\nhttp://sfx.scholarsportal.info/ottawa?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ:entrepreneurship&atitle=EMBEDDING+DESIGN+THINKING+IN+A+MULTIDISC

Dym, C., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103. http://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2006.1679078

Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering Design Thinking: High School Students’ Performance and Knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 417–432. http://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105

66

Becker, K., & Mentzer, N. (2015). Engineering Design Thinking: High School Students’ Performance and Knowledge. In International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) (p. 8). Florence, Italy.

Lindberg, T., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2010). Evolving discourses on design thinking: how design cognition inspires meta-disciplinary creative. Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research, 8(1), 31–37. http://doi.org/10.1386/tear.8.1.31/1

Lam, Y. Y., & Suen, B. Y. S. (2015). Experiencing empathy in design education through community engagement. International Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 7(2), 53–69.

Cassim, F. (2013). Hands On, Hearts On, Minds On: Design Thinking within an Education Context. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 32(2), 190–202. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.01752.x

Mumford, C., Zoller, T., & Proforta, T. (2016). How to Teach Design Thinking within Entrepreneurship- A Practical Guide. In United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Conference Proceedings (pp. 1–3). Boca Raton: United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking. California Management Review, 50(1). http://doi.org/10.2307/41166415

Hong, S., & Kwek, D. (2011). Innovation in the Classroom: Design Thinking for 21st Century Learning. Stanford EDU, (2011). Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/redlab/cgi-bin/materials/Kwek-Innovation In The Classroom.pdf

Skaggs, P., Fry, R., & Howell, B. (2009). Innovations Unlimited: Thinking About Design Thinking. In The NCIIA 13th Annual Meeting (p. 2009). Washington, D.C.

Cupps, E. J. (2014). Introducing transdisciplinary design thinking in early undergraduate education to facilitate collaboration and innovation. Iowa State University.

Marin, C., Hargis, J., & Cavanaugh, C. (2013). iPAD LEARNING ECOSYSTEM: Developing Challenge-Based Learning using Design Thinking. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE), 14(2), 22–34. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=89236869&site=ehost-live

Crichton, S. (2014). Leapfrogging Pedagogy: A Design Approach to Making Change in Challenging Contexts. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 12(1), 3–13. Retrieved from http://proxy-remote.galib.uga.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1020956&site=eds-live

Carroll, M. (2014). Learning from What Doesn’t Work: The Power of Embracing a Prototyping Mindset. Retrieved from web.stanford.edu/group/redlab/cgi-bin/publications_resources.php

67

Chahal, M. (2013). Lesson Writing: Innovations in Problem Designing. European Scientific Journal, 9(17), 163–171.

Tan, C., & Wong, Y.-L. (2012). Promoting spiritual ideals through design thinking in public schools. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 17(1), 25–37. http://doi.org/10.1080/1364436X.2011.651714

Nash, J. (2011). Reform by design: using design thinking to create technology driven change in schools. In EDULEARN 11 (pp. 96–101).

Kimbell, L. (2016). Rethinking Design Thinking : Part II. Design and Culture, 4(2), 129–148. http://doi.org/10.2752/175470812X13281948975413

Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306. Carrol, M. P. (2014). Shoot For The Moon! The Mentors and the Middle Schoolers Explore the

Intersection of Design Thinking and STEM. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1).

O’Donoghue, D., & Berard, M.-F. (2014). Six Qualities of Socially Engaged Design. Art Education, (November), 6–11.

Mentzer, N., Farrington, S., & Tennenhouse, J. (2015). Strategies for Teaching Brainstorming in Design Educations. International Technology Education Association, 74(8), 8–13.

Goldman, S., Kabayadondo, Z., Royalty, A., Carroll, M. P., & Roth, B. (2014). Student Teams in Search of Design Thinking. (C. Meinel, H. Plattner, & L. Leiffer, Eds.), Design Thinking Research: Building Innovation Eco-Systems. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01303-9

Bower, M., Highfield, K., Furney, P., & Mowbray, L. (2013). Supporting pre-service teachers’ technology-enabled learning design thinking through whole of programme transformation. Educational Media International, 50(1), 39–50. http://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2013.777183

Duening, T.N. (2008) “Five Minds for the Entrepreneurial Future: Cognitive Skills as the Intellectual Foundation for Next Generation Entrepreneurship Curricula,” paper published at the 2008 Conference of the USASBE, Jan. Dunne,

Bruton, A. (2010). Teaching and Learning for the 21st Century. In International Council for Small Business: International Conference. Cincinnati, Ohio: ICSB.

Alhamdani, W. A. (2016). Teaching Cryptography Using Design Thinking Approach. Journal of Applied Security Research, 11(1), 78–89. http://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2015.1069646

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Benjamin, W., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and Design Thinking: A Framework to Support ICT Lesson Design for 21st Century Learning. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 535–543. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0237-2

68

Brown, T. J., & Kuratko, D. F. (2015). The Impact of Design and Innovation on the Future of Education. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(2), 147–151. http://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000010

Wells, A. (2013). The importance of design thinking for technological literacy: A phenomenological perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 623–636. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-012-9207-7

Caruso, C. (2011). The Tools of Engagement: Bridging Design Thinking and Social Media to Enhance and Support Collaborative Learning. Carleton University.

Donar, A. (2011). Thinking Design and Pedagogy: An Examination of Five Canadian Post-Secondary Courses in Design Thinking. The Canadian Review of Art Education, 38(1), 84–102.

Scheer, A., & Plattner, H. (2011). Transforming Constructivist Learning into Action: Design Thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 8–19.

Leonard, S. N., Fitzgerald, R. N., & Riordan, G. (2015). Using developmental evaluation as a design thinking tool for curriculum innovation in professional higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 4360(November), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087386

Purdy, J. P. (2014). What can design thinking offer writing studies? College Composition and Communication, 65(4), 612–641.

View publication statsView publication stats