DESIGN THINKING GROUP PROJECT
When I introduced the Google Doc checklist this time around to the group, I included notes I made under a few of the bullets that pertained to the instructions from the module’s vodcast, along with a couple charts to organize our planning. Together we went over indicators for our successful project (process and product), we shared links to our individual weekly reflections and more importantly, we pinpointed some of the aspects of the program that we wanted to discuss and reflect as a group. Before convening our meeting, we shared our plans to pitch to our outside audience, who we decided would not be educators but individuals who would still understand and appreciate the importance of creativity as a 21st Century Skill developed in schools.
I presented our Design Thinking project to a University of California San Diego Ph.D Biologist. As science being one of the core subject areas that we were targeting, feedback from an expert in the field opened up a few aspects that were overlooked. In summary, he basically said that the problem, or design challenge, needs to be clearly conveyed to convince teachers, who don’t see their teaching methods requiring any change, to want to look at the website we’ve created. His objective is that creativity comes in many forms and since there’s such a broad spectrum, narrowed and clear examples of how they could be practiced will clarify how our prototype will resolve an actual need for End Users. For an example, he referred to the introduction, the reinvention, of the iPhone and how the users didn’t know they had a need for it until it was clearly presented to them, that they said, yes, that’s what I need, it is relatable. They would not have thought otherwise if the product did not exist. He also presented a number of examples of how he included mathematics to problem solve, interpret, and represent his research. Thus, explaining that our prototype would be better and more attractive if we could show what creativity is.
At our team’s follow-up meeting we shared the additional feedback we obtained from this Phase and addressed how we would respond. We reflected on our cohorts’ feedback from the previous Phase again before refining the prototype altogether. Each of us took a task to complete and edit the website. We also recorded our group reflection in detail, which helped us re-evaluate our process and how Design Thinking was achieved. Through all our discussions I was challenged to resist the urge to start over and redevelop our design challenge: Did we do this right? Despite going through all the steps rigorously and targeting End User’s need, I still felt skeptical and uncertain at times. However, in consulting with my team and working out one step at a time I can really appreciate the Design Thinking process. With more practice, I’m sure I’ll be more familiar and comfortable in using it.
As for implementing the reflection process with students or staff, a checklist of indications for success will definitely help focus on how the design goals were met. If the project fails, or still needs work in certain areas, a list of follow-up actions should be included. Taking feedback and recognizing what worked and what didn’t should not be taken personally; and instead, tackled as a team. Also, by sharing personal perspectives and experience with the project can trigger reflections in areas that were originally forgotten. Hence, communication is an essential role in collaboration.
Effective asynchronous communication, allowed our group to have ongoing discussions without having to sit down altogether at the same time. By using Voxer, we were able to leave voice and text messages to be listened to or read at any other time by our team members. Voxer also notified all other team members when someone was recording their message and could thus be heard in real-time, like a walkie-talkie, a means of synchronous communication. Furthermore, we used Google Hangout, which did require arranging an exact time have a video conference, to tackle the project and to document any Voxer decisions we had already made. Google Doc allowed both asynchronous and synchronous communication as well, real-time editing and commenting and saved to be seen by other members at another time. Therefore, depending on the culture of the group, how communication is arranged can vary. Having a virtual team, required the available digital tools to meet the required diversity, and time restricting aspect, of our group.
TONY WAGNER: “REINVENTING EDUCATION FOR THE 21st CENTURY” &
CHARLES TSAI: “IF STUDENTS DESIGNED THEIR OWN SCHOOL”
In concluding my experience working through the Design Thinking process, I can see how much more there needs to be considered in planning for a 21st century education than I had originally thought. As Wagner puts it,
“We have to become advocates of the outcomes that matter most. The problem with our accountability 1.0 system is that we are measuring things with predominantly factual recall multiple choice tests that tells us absolutely nothing about college, work, or citizen readiness in the 21st century. They are virtually useless… We need the 4 Cs: critical thinking, collaboration, communication, creative problem solving. We need to advocate for accountability 2.0.”
In order to conduct the Design Thinking process, all 4 Cs are practiced extensively. Furthermore, the use of web 2.0 tools and social media plays a significant role in the direction a plan could go. If we want teachers and students to have a meaningful educational experience, they must take responsibility for their teaching and learning. To do so, they are to build the skills that will set them forward in their passion. Design Thinking will be able to guide them, to have intrinsic motivation and to create a supportive environment. In a 21st century education, where more students are encouraged to self-direct with a guide on the side, Design Thinking evaluates and tests for the best outcomes that will meet End Users needs.
When I introduced the Google Doc checklist this time around to the group, I included notes I made under a few of the bullets that pertained to the instructions from the module’s vodcast, along with a couple charts to organize our planning. Together we went over indicators for our successful project (process and product), we shared links to our individual weekly reflections and more importantly, we pinpointed some of the aspects of the program that we wanted to discuss and reflect as a group. Before convening our meeting, we shared our plans to pitch to our outside audience, who we decided would not be educators but individuals who would still understand and appreciate the importance of creativity as a 21st Century Skill developed in schools.
I presented our Design Thinking project to a University of California San Diego Ph.D Biologist. As science being one of the core subject areas that we were targeting, feedback from an expert in the field opened up a few aspects that were overlooked. In summary, he basically said that the problem, or design challenge, needs to be clearly conveyed to convince teachers, who don’t see their teaching methods requiring any change, to want to look at the website we’ve created. His objective is that creativity comes in many forms and since there’s such a broad spectrum, narrowed and clear examples of how they could be practiced will clarify how our prototype will resolve an actual need for End Users. For an example, he referred to the introduction, the reinvention, of the iPhone and how the users didn’t know they had a need for it until it was clearly presented to them, that they said, yes, that’s what I need, it is relatable. They would not have thought otherwise if the product did not exist. He also presented a number of examples of how he included mathematics to problem solve, interpret, and represent his research. Thus, explaining that our prototype would be better and more attractive if we could show what creativity is.
At our team’s follow-up meeting we shared the additional feedback we obtained from this Phase and addressed how we would respond. We reflected on our cohorts’ feedback from the previous Phase again before refining the prototype altogether. Each of us took a task to complete and edit the website. We also recorded our group reflection in detail, which helped us re-evaluate our process and how Design Thinking was achieved. Through all our discussions I was challenged to resist the urge to start over and redevelop our design challenge: Did we do this right? Despite going through all the steps rigorously and targeting End User’s need, I still felt skeptical and uncertain at times. However, in consulting with my team and working out one step at a time I can really appreciate the Design Thinking process. With more practice, I’m sure I’ll be more familiar and comfortable in using it.
As for implementing the reflection process with students or staff, a checklist of indications for success will definitely help focus on how the design goals were met. If the project fails, or still needs work in certain areas, a list of follow-up actions should be included. Taking feedback and recognizing what worked and what didn’t should not be taken personally; and instead, tackled as a team. Also, by sharing personal perspectives and experience with the project can trigger reflections in areas that were originally forgotten. Hence, communication is an essential role in collaboration.
Effective asynchronous communication, allowed our group to have ongoing discussions without having to sit down altogether at the same time. By using Voxer, we were able to leave voice and text messages to be listened to or read at any other time by our team members. Voxer also notified all other team members when someone was recording their message and could thus be heard in real-time, like a walkie-talkie, a means of synchronous communication. Furthermore, we used Google Hangout, which did require arranging an exact time have a video conference, to tackle the project and to document any Voxer decisions we had already made. Google Doc allowed both asynchronous and synchronous communication as well, real-time editing and commenting and saved to be seen by other members at another time. Therefore, depending on the culture of the group, how communication is arranged can vary. Having a virtual team, required the available digital tools to meet the required diversity, and time restricting aspect, of our group.
TONY WAGNER: “REINVENTING EDUCATION FOR THE 21st CENTURY” &
CHARLES TSAI: “IF STUDENTS DESIGNED THEIR OWN SCHOOL”
In concluding my experience working through the Design Thinking process, I can see how much more there needs to be considered in planning for a 21st century education than I had originally thought. As Wagner puts it,
“We have to become advocates of the outcomes that matter most. The problem with our accountability 1.0 system is that we are measuring things with predominantly factual recall multiple choice tests that tells us absolutely nothing about college, work, or citizen readiness in the 21st century. They are virtually useless… We need the 4 Cs: critical thinking, collaboration, communication, creative problem solving. We need to advocate for accountability 2.0.”
In order to conduct the Design Thinking process, all 4 Cs are practiced extensively. Furthermore, the use of web 2.0 tools and social media plays a significant role in the direction a plan could go. If we want teachers and students to have a meaningful educational experience, they must take responsibility for their teaching and learning. To do so, they are to build the skills that will set them forward in their passion. Design Thinking will be able to guide them, to have intrinsic motivation and to create a supportive environment. In a 21st century education, where more students are encouraged to self-direct with a guide on the side, Design Thinking evaluates and tests for the best outcomes that will meet End Users needs.