The session discusses design thinking as a conceptual framework and methodological approach for fostering discussion and facilitating ideas that promote intergroup empathy. I provide a theoretical overview of design thinking and related approaches to then discusses two case studies. I give a detailed overview of workshop concept, workshop results and workshop evaluation data. Practitioners will find this presentation a valuable source for design thinking ideas and material. Researchers can use the analysis as a starting point for further investigating the effectiveness of design thinking.

1. Dr. Stefanie Panke
University ofNorth Carolinaat Chapel Hill
panke@sog.unc.edu

2. Where I am from, and what I do
The Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE), founded in
1981, serves the edtech community with
international conferences, journals, digital
library and social media channels (AACE
Review).
As the largest university-based local
government training, advisory,and research
organization in the United States,the
Schoolof Government serves more than
12,000 public officials each year.

3. Why I am here... - OER, Design Thinking, Digital Citizenship
http://www.aace.org/review/flipgrid-news-microsoft-buys-video-discussion-platform-an-interview-with-ceo-jim-leslie/
Meet me onFlipgrid – and learn more about Flipgrid in the
AACE Review interview with Jim Leslie!
aace.org/review

4. Overview
o Design Thinking
Background
o Workshop Examples &
Methods
o Two Recent Workshop Case
Studies
o Evaluation Results
o Discussion

5. What’s
the
id-­‐ ea?
Design
ThinkingDesign Thinking and Wicked Problems
Traditional Model:
Wicked Problems:
“The information neededto understand the problem dependsupon one's idea for
solving it” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, 161).
Problem
Definition
(Analyzing)
Problem
Solution
(Synthesizing)
“Tell me what
success looks like”.

6. Wicked Problem Checklist
https://goo.gl/AbwfWz

7. What’s
the
idea?
Design
Thinking
Design Thinking is problem solving method geared to overcome wicked
problems.
o Transcend the immediate boundaries of the problem to ensure that the right questions are
being addressed
o Analyze, synthesize, diverge, generate insights from different domains
o Drawing, prototypingand storytelling (Brown,2009)
o Constraints as inspiration (Brown,2009)
o Not directed towarda technological "quick fix” but towardnew integrations of signs, things,
actions, and environments (Buchanan, 1992)
o Fosters civic literacy, empathy, cultural awareness and risk taking (Sharples at al., 2016)
Design Thinking

8. Design Thinking and Cognitive Bias (Liedtka, 2015)
• Projection bias: People have a tendency to project their past experiences
and thus over-estimate the extentto which the futurewill resemblethe
present.
• Hot/cold gap: People’s emotional state, whether emotion-laden (hot) or
not (cold), unduly influences their assessmentof the potential value of an
idea.
• Egocentric empathy gap: People consistently overestimatethe similarity
between what they value and what others value.
• Focusing illusion: People tend to over-estimatethe effect of one factor at
the expenseof others,overreactingto specific stimuli,and ignoring others.

9. Related Approaches: LEGO Serious Play
Lego SeriousPlay is a collaborative,creative method that uses Legoblocks
and figuresto develop scenarios for organizational development,conflict
resolution or webdesign.
Characteristics:
• Strategic planning tools and systems
• Improve group problem solving
• Learning,listening and collaborating by making and creating
• Building solutions and prototypes using bricks
• Creating flow experiencefor participants

10. Related Approaches: Participatory Design
Participatory Design is an approach that involves the users of a product early
on in the developmentprocess.
Characteristics:
• Paradigm shiftfrom ‘users as subjects’ to ‘users as partners’
• Basedon participatory action research- empowerment
Barriers:
• Difficulties in organizing and expressingideas
• Difficulties in harmonizing implicit design goals
• Difficulties in maintaining openness

11. “Even
on
a
cursory
inspection,
just
what
design
thinking
is
supposed
to
be
is
not
well
understood,
either
by
the
public
or
those
who
claim
to
practice
it”.
Kimbell, 2011
Design Thinking

12. http://dschool.stanford.edu/dgift/
80 minute, interactive
video with individual and
partner activities,more at
https://goo.gl/LU8q8F
Design Thinking: Resources

13. Design Thinking: Use Cases
Website Redesign Workshop
o School of Government (2013/14)
o Carolina MPAWebsiteRedesign (2016)
o Center for Faculty Excellence (2017)
o Center for Public Leadershipand
Governance (2018)
Designing Web Apps / Tools
o Superior Court Judges Benchbook (2014)
o NC Finance Connect (2015)
Designing Courses / Curricula
o Public ExecutiveLeadershipAcademy
course design workshops (2017)

14. Design Thinking Examples: Website Categories

15. Pleasethink about the
website as a museum.
What are 10 things you
want to point visitors
to? (Really useful
resources,interesting
events,services,
downloads, projects…)
Design Thinking Examples: Website as Museum (Flyer)

16. Design Thinking Examples: Content Types
‘InformationCurators’describe the content using visual building blocks provided

17. Design Thinking Examples: Website Strucure with LEGOs
Content Sections
Annotate
Groups structure the main areasof the website / navigation /
homepage

18. Design Thinking Examples: Course Design Series
Design a one-day workshop for local elected officials
o Decide upon deliverables:learningobjectives
o Decide what mattersafterthe class:competencies
o Decide what counts: content
o Decide how to deliver:pedagogy
Plan and structure 6 hours of instructional activities

19. Design Thinking Examples: Course Design – Make it
relevant
What’s on your plate
right now?
Get input from participants on
problems they are currentlyworking
on, presentstrategieson hoe to get
things ‘off your plate’

20. • Work in groups of up to 5 people
• Use Lego bricks to build course structure
• Plan up to 4 hours per group
• Lego plates symbolize time
• Lego bricks symbolize group / individual
activities / structure
Build Course Strucure with LEGOs

21. 1 hour
30 minutes
15minutes
2 hours
Build Course Strucure with LEGOs

22. Audience:
Personas
Personasare fictional, yet data-driven,user biographiesthat allow design
teams to relateto the users’point of viewinstead of focusing on personal
experiencesand anecdotes.
Personas

23. Collaboration / Consulting Work at FH Münster, Germany
https://www.fh-muenster.de/wandelwerk/index.php

24. o February2018: Design thinking workshop at Muenster
University of Applied Sciences(Germany)
o Workshop theme:Inclusive community development -
designing neighborhoods for engagement,social cohesion
and inclusion
o Part of the researchcluster‘participation and well-being’
o Participants:Faculty from differentdisciplines,city planners,
architectsand students
Case Study A: Inclusive Community Development

25. Ice Breaker: Tell Me About Your Neighborhood – Who / What
Is Not On the Map?
o Draw a map of your own
neighborhood.
o What are some barriersto
inclusivenessand social activities
that you experience?
o Who do you never meet in your
neighborhood?Why do you think
that is?

26. ‘I do not interact with the
people in my neighborhood.
Everyone has a house with
garden,every yard is fenced
in.And everyone gets home
from work to do their own
thing.
Results: Unexpected Barriers

27. Personas
o Input: brief overviewof statistical
data on typical demographics in a
German neighborhood
o Material: Posterswith prompts,
variety of headshots
o Goal: Construct fictional biography
outlines and reflecton needs and
barriers for civic inclusion.
o Outcome: 11 personas

28. (1) DEFINE & FOCUS: Pick one of the personas and
specify which social inclusion problem you want to
solve forthis person.
(2) GENERATE & DEBATE Generate 3-5 ideas to address
the problem with novel solutions or disruptive
technologies.
(3) SELECT & SKETCH Choose one of your ideas and
sketch it out in more detail (literally).
(4) BUILD & PRESENT: Design a prototype orthree-
dimensional representation of your solution with
the materials in the room(card board,paper, tape,
clay).
Design Thinking Cycle

29. Design Thinking Outcomes

30. o February2018: Design thinking
workshop at Muenster Universityof
Applied Sciences(Germany)
o Workshop theme:Pedagogical
Planning for Engineers – training
engineeringstudents to become
vocational school teachers
o Participants:10 Students
o Location: Innovation Lab
Case Study: Engineering Students As Teacher Candidates

31. Draw Memorable Teaching & Learning Setting (Good or Bad)

32. Students worked in two
groups on lesson
planning for a curricular
unit (wood, concrete).
Curricular Planning & Lesson Planning
• OneTopic (10-15 hrs)
• First Lesson(120 min.)
• Curricular Unit (60hrs)

33. Personas
• Students worked in dyad
teams on personas
• Groups createdworst case
teaching scenarios with
personas
• Personas offeredfoil to
discuss bias / inclusion

34. Threshold Concepts
A threshold concept is “a portal,opening up a new and
previously inaccessible way of thinking about
something” (Meyer and Land, 2003).
Curricular Unit
Topic
o Transformative
o Integrated
o Bounded
o Irreversible
o Troublesome

35. Design Thinking
After the curricular planning, we let each studentdraw a threshhold concept
for which they needed to develop a pedagogical approach using design
thinking as a technique.

36. Evaluation
o Qualtrics survey
o Total of 18 responses(both groups):11 (15)
+ 7 (8)
o One binary,threeLikert,four open ended
questions
o distributed by email with a personalized
invitation link
o Design Thinking book prize

37. Evaluation Results
How effective is design thinking…..(n=18, participantsfrom both workshops)

38. Evaluation Results
How helpful did you perceive the prototypingaspect of design thinking?(n=18,
participantsfrom bothworkshops)

39. Evaluation Results – Positive Aspects
o To receiveimpulsesto think in other directions.
o Interdisciplinary approach
o The developmentof personas and the subsequent
prototyping
o The open approach and the integration of different
perspectives.
o Creativity, possibility to think through unconventional
ideas.

40. Evaluation Results – Negative Aspects
o It is unclear how to move from first ideasto further
development of innovative,marketableproducts / services.
o Unclearwhat is alreadyon the market.That would need to
be researched in a timely manner so that ideas do not fizzle
out.
o It lacks the opportunity to research whether the imagined
solution alreadyexists,and whether it makesany sense.
o Realistic assessments of models and ideas:all comments
and ideaswere treatedequal (both strength and weakness),
missing data (ideas arisefrom a ‘gut feeling’)

41. Give morespecific prompts to target
diversity, e.g.:
o Createa persona that significantly
differsfrom your own background.
o What feelsdifficult about telling this
person’s story?
o What assumptions are you making?
o How can you learn more?
Makesure participants feel connectionto
the personas they create
Lessons Learned: Personas

42. o # of rounds: Make surethat participants do not get
‘tired out’, and feeltheir creativity whither.
o Deal with too fast/too slow pace by manipulating
time
o Encourage participants to build upon each others
ideas
o Make surethat participants tackle wicked problems
o Structured Follow-up: Allow to further develop /
researchideas,shareback with the group
o Time delayedtwo-day format,blended approach,
flipgrid?
Lessons Learned: Design Thinking Cycle

43. (How) Will You Use Design Thinking?
Adapted fromSanders, Brandt & Binder,2011 Panke & Harth (2018)
https://goo.gl/QyCQVP https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326331098
Panke, S. & Harth, T. (2018).Design
Thinking for InclusiveCommunity
Design: (How) Does itWork?. In
Proceedings of EdMedia: World
Conference on Educational Media and
Technology (pp. 284-296).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association
for the Advancement of Computingin
Education (AACE).
Handout Planning
Special Issue
Forthcoming
Conference talk