Content uploaded by Katja Tschimmel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katja Tschimmel on Mar 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research
Report
D-Think
Katja Tschimmel, Joana Santos, Dirk Loyens, Alexandre Jacinto,
Rute Monteiro, Mariana Valença
Design Thinking Applied to Education and Training
ERASMUS+ KA2 Strategic Partnerships
D-Think: Design Thinking Applied to Education and Training
Many academic organisations are calling attention to the need for
urgent changes in curricula and learning methods demanded by the
continual social transformation of an increasingly technological
world. Transversal skills such as the ability to think creatively and
critically, take initiative, and work collaboratively for common
goals, are essential to guarantee a qualified and entrepreneurial
workforce in Europe. The D-Think research project emerged in this
educational context during September 2014. It is an initiative of 7
partners from 6 different European countries, supported by the
Erasmus+ Programme of the European Commission. The project
aims to promote a wider use of Design Thinking as a transversal
learning tool by developing and making available a toolkit and an
innovative digital course for educators and professional trainers.
The result of the first year of the D-Think project is a Research
Report about Design Thinking and its application in Education and
Training, providing a spring board for the next stages of the project:
the creation of the D-Think toolkit and the D-Think m-learning
course, both in development and testing until August 2017.
The main objective of the Research Report is the clarification of the
role of Design Thinking in HEI (Higher Education Institutions) and
VET (Vocational Training) Education, and the identification of new
approaches to teaching/learning. The target group of the D-Think
project are educators/trainers who want to rethink the education
system and the current teaching/learning methodologies. As a
result, the partnership expects HEI´s and VET providers to prepare
people to respond better to the challenges of the labour market,
and so be able to stimulate the growth of flexible and innovative
businesses in the future.
Research Report D-Think
Design Thinking Applied to Education and Training
ERASMUS +
KA2 Strategic Partnerships
Research Report (print version)
October 2015
Project title
Design Thinking Applied to Education and Training
Project Acronym
D-Think
Program
ERASMUS+
KA2 Strategic Partnerships
Authors of the Research Report
Katja Tschimmel, Joana Santos,
Dirk Loyens, Alexandre Jacinto, Rute Monteiro, Mariana Valença
Design
Rute Carvalho | Communication Department ESAD Matosinhos
Edition
ESAD Matosinhos, Portugal
ISBN
978-989-8829-03-0
© 2015 All rights protected
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the
author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
European partners of the project
Advancis Business Services (Portugal), Vaasan Ammattikorkeakoulu VAMK Ltd. University of Applied Sciences (Finland),
ISTUD Business School (Italy), Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna wŁodzi (Poland), Venture Hub (Spain) and EFMD
- European Foundation for Management Development (Belgium).
Research
Report
D-Think
00
Executive
Summary
This report is for the
following audience:
Firstly for the European partners of
the D-Think project, as the report is the
base for the development of the D-Think
toolkit and m-learning course;
Academics working in the field of
educational innovation;
Researchers and practitioners
of the Design Thinking community,
interested in DT applied in a research
process;
Policy makers in Education.
6 7
executive summary
Executive
Summary
Many academic and governmental organisations call
attention to the need for urgent change of curricula
and learning methods demanded by continual social
transformation and an increasingly technological
world. Transversal skills such as the ability to think
creatively and critically, take initiative, and work
collaboratively for common goals, are essential to
guarantee a qualified and entrepreneurial workforce
in Europe. The D-Think research project emerged in
this educational context, starting in September 2014.
This Research Report is the result of the first
phase of the D-Think project, the research about
Design Thinking and its application in Education
and Training, providing a baseline for the next
stages of the project: the creation of the D-Think
toolkit and a D-Think m-learning course, both
in development and testing until August 2017.
Based on a Constructivist Design Research, the
research process itself was structured on a Design
Thinking model, the Evolution 62 model.
The main objective of this research report is the
clarification of the role of Design Thinking in HEI
and VET Education, and the identification of new
approaches to teaching/learning which can be
useful for the D-Think toolkit for Educators and
the m-learning course. The target group of the
D-Think project are educators/trainers who want to
rethink the education system and teaching/learning
methodologies.
The research group came to the conclusion that
Design Thinking is seen today as a method and
a process for investigating open and ill-defined
problems, acquiring and analysing information,
identifying opportunities for innovation, deepening
empathy, experimenting with new perspectives
and visualising new concepts. Design Thinking is
essentially human-centred, multidisciplinary and
collaborative, optimistic and experimental. Its
thinking style is characterised by dualistic reasoning,
creative thinking, playfulness, reframing and a holistic
view. For these reasons it is suitable for application in
HEI and VET Education.
Since Heutagogy was identified as the emerging
contemporary education style, it served as a
conceptual guide to this research. In Heutagogy the
learner is seen as highly autonomous, self-determined
and focused on the development of his learning
capacity and capability. Other important trends in
HEI and VET teaching and learning methodologies
are blended learning, mobile learnings, MOOCs,
e-learning, flipped-classroom, problem-based learning
and game-based learning. Interviews done with HEI
educators and VET trainers showed that most of them
are neither familiar with these emerging educational
trends nor with Design Thinking, but that they feel
the urgency of a change in education and training.
Educators do not have a formal design education
and are not trained in the creative development of
learning programs. Therefore a Design Thinking
model with its emphases on empathy, creativity and
a human centred approach could be a valuable aid in
doing just that. It would provide an educator with the
necessary guidelines and support to develop strategies
and programs with the goal of improving learning
competences and capabilities.
An Educator in the paradigm of Heutagogy is
characterised by a human-driven, abductive and
problem-based teaching approach and a principally
collaborative learning format with different social
forms, where mistakes are a part of the process.
To develop an entrepreneurial mindset, educators
are rather facilitators or coaches in the knowledge
creation processes, instead of being knowledge
providers as is the traditional teacher. Because of
its human-centredness and its multidisciplinary,
collaborative and experimental approach, Design
Thinking offers an enormous potential to improve the
current educational system.
TOP 10 Design Thinking
Principles for Innovation
in HEI & VET Education
1 EVOLUTION
double loop learning,
iteration
3 COLLABORATION
sharing knowledge,
multi and interdisciplinarity
4 CREATIVE THINKING
thinking in variety and
future possibilities,
thinking outside the box,
against stereotypes
5 EMPATHY
human centred approach,
understanding people’s
needs
2 DUALISTIC
REASONING
intuitive and methodical,
rational and emotional,
divergent and convergent
6 VISUAL THINKING
sketching and mapping,
visual boards
8 PLAYFULNESS
experimentation,
failure is a part of
the process
9 HOLISTIC APPROACH
connection between
ideas, getting the big
picture
10 MOTIVATION
optimism and dedication,
positive attitude to
novelty and innovation
7 PROTOTYPING
early materialisation,
early testing and
improving
1110
chapter 1
Introduction to the Research Project 12
chapter 2
Research Methodology 16
The foundation
The Design Thinking model
The design of templates, matrices, maps and boards
chapter 3
Research Process 24
Introduction
Emergence Phase
Acquiring and analysing information, Identification of opportunities
Empathy Phase
Knowing better the context and Deepening empathy
Experimentation Phase
Generating ideas for the Research Report and for the Learning Toolkit
Elaboration Phase
Visualising and prototyping the Research Report
Exposition Phase
Communicating the Research Results to the target group
Extension Phase
Supporting the development of the Toolkit and m-Learning Course
Contents
chapter 4
The Design Thinking Concept 54
The origin
Design Thinking as a method for innovation
The main characteristics of Design Thinking
The Design Thinking process models
chapter 5
Design Thinking applied in HEI and VET Education 64
Design Thinking in HEI Education
Trends in Entrepreneurship Education and Training
Design Thinking in Training and VET Education
The future of Design Thinking in Education
chapter 6
Conclusions of the Research Phase 70
chapter 7
Bibliography List 76
01
Introduction
to the Research
Project
The focus of this research project is
on using Design Thinking to redesign
education and to develop educational
tools. The use of the D-Think toolkit and
m-learning course will also contribute to
a change in the educator’s mindset.
It is not our purpose to teach educators
how to teach Design Thinking to their
students.
14 15
Introduction to
the Research
Project
As early as 2009, the EU Forum for University Busi-
ness dialogue called attention to the need for urgent
change of curricula and learning methods, as the com-
petitiveness of economics is increasingly dependent
on the availability of a qualified and entrepreneurial
workforce. More recently, in its publication Rethink-
ing Education (2015), the United Nations Education-
al, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)
points out that we need a new kind of education for
a century characterised by continual social transfor-
mation. According to the UNESCO report, education
should move beyond literacy and numeracy, to focus
on learning environments and on new approaches to
learning for an improvement of social, economic and
environmental conditions. This humanistic vision of
education as an essential common good, demands the
development of transversal skills such as the ability
to think creatively and critically, take initiative, and
work collaboratively for common goals. Many recent
publications by academics, practitioners and even gov-
ernment organisations, claim that design thinking has
the power to stimulate these social competences and
to drive innovation in organisations, social institutions
and education. Design Thinking (DT) refers to the
methods and processes for investigating ill-defined
and wicked problems, looking for new perspectives
and solutions. DT is founded on the ability to combine
empathy for the context of a problem, creativity in the
generation of insights and solutions, and rationality to
analyse and match solutions to the context.
In an increasingly complex and technological world,
above all in education, new learning methods have to
be enhanced, as the profile of learners has changed a
lot. Digital technologies and the internet have dimin-
ished the relevance of the classroom and transformed
the teaching/ learning experience. These changes
challenge the traditional pedagogical paradigm.
It is in this current methodological and educational
context, that the D-Think research project emerged in
September 2014, closing in August 2017. During those
3 years, the European partners involved in the project,
worked on the following outcomes:
1. Research Report
about Design Thinking and its application in Educa-
tion and Training;
2. Toolkit
which facilitates the learning of Design Thinking in
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and Vocational
Education Training (VET);
3. m-Learning Course
which permits HEI and VET educators to learn with a
digital support the DT methodology.
introduction to the research project
This report is the result of the first phase of the
D-Think project, the research which gives the foun-
dation for the D-Think toolkit and the D-Think
m-learning course. The realisation of the research was
the responsibility of the Portuguese partner ESAD
(College of Art and Design). Forming the ESAD team
were: Joana Santos, Alexandre Jacinto, Dirk Loyens,
Rute Monteiro, Mariana Valença, Rute Carvalho and
Katja Tschimmel, who coordinated the research
process and the elaboration of this report. The legal
representative manager of the team was José Simões,
the director of ESAD.
The research work was characterised by regular
weekly meetings (November 2014 - May 2015), in
which the team travelled through the Design Think-
ing process itself by applying several DT techniques.
In between the meetings, each researcher and de-
signer realised several process tasks. The European
partners of the D-Think project participated actively
in several phases of the research process. They are:
Advancis Business Services (Portugal), Vaasan Am-
mattikorkeakoulu VAMK Ltd, University of Applied
Sciences (Finland), ISTUD Business School (Italy),
Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna wŁodzi
(Poland), Venture Hub (Spain) and EFMD | European
Foundation for Management Development (Belgium).
The authors of the D-Think project would like
to thank Prof. Jose D’ Alessandro (ISTUD
Business School) and Prof. Ricardo Morais
(Catholic University of Porto) for their
scientific revision of this report and for
their constructive and valuable comments.
02
Research
Methodology
DESIGN RESEARCH
SOCIA L
SCIENCE
RESEARCH
INTERPRE TATIVE
HUM ANISTIC
RESEARCH
ETHICAL
FRAMEWO RK
NATURAL
SCIENCE
RESEARCH
FUNCIONALIST
PRO DUCT
SEM ANT ICS
+ SE MIO TICS
DES IGN PHE NOM ENO LOG Y
CLINIC AL
RESEARCH
RE SEA RCH
FOR DES IGN
BASIC
RESEARCH
RESEARCH
ABOUT DESIGN
DIS CIPLI NE
OF D ESIG NING
DES IGN PRA XIO LOGY
RE SEAR CH
IN DE SIGN
THI NKIN G
DES IGN
EPIST EMO LOGY
CONSTRUCTIVE
DESIGN
RESEARCH
APPLIED
RESEARCH
RE SEA RCH
THROUGH DESIGN
PROJECT
GROUNDED
RESEARCH
VIS UAL
RE SEA RCH
GEN ERAT IVE
RE SEA RCH
PAR TICI PATOR Y
RE SEA RCH
HUM AN
ORI ENTED
RE SEA RCH
RE SEA RCH
THR OUGH
ETH NOLOG Y
RESEARCH ABOUT + THROUGH
DESIGN THINKING FOR
EDUCATION + TRAINING
DES IGN THINK ING MODEL – ES AD
EVO LUT ION 62
ACT ION
RE SEA RCH
PR ATICE
LED
DES IGN
CAS E ST UDY
EXTENSION
ELABORTION
EXPERIMENTATION
EMPATHY
EMERGENCE
EXPOSITION
i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
K
n
o
w
i
n
g
b
e
t
t
e
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
d
e
a
s
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
s
e
m
a
n
t
i
c
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
w
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
,
o
b
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
,
i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
18 19
Research
Methodology
The foundation
The research methodology is based on Constructive
Design Research as described in the book Design
Research Through Practice (Koskinen, Zimmerman,
Binder, Redström, Wensveen, 2011). Koskinen et al.
found their approach on the concept of ‘Second Mo-
dernity’ by Andrea Branzi, who identifies new oppor-
tunities for the discipline of Design based on emerging
social trends starting in the early 1980s. These new
opportunities can be summarised as:
The change from an industrial and consumer
focus in design, to a technology and human
centred focus.
The evolution of design from product and
graphic design to service, system and business
model design.
The movement of design methodology from
the rational and analytical paradigm to the
paradigm of emergence, characterised by a
holistic and pluralistic approach (in Koskinen
et al., 2011: 10).
As the rationalistic design movement of the 1970s
failed, designers and design researchers turned to the
behavioural and the social sciences, where user-cen-
tred design, ethnographic research, emphatic meth-
ods, multidisciplinary collaboration and a systemic
approach are crucial (Koskinen et al., 2011). From the
1990s on, novel ‘generative’ research methods also
put design practice at the core of a research process.
These practice-oriented methodologies include expe-
rience prototyping, game-based proceedings, visual
tools such as mood boards, storyboards and personas.
These techniques are today an essential part of the
Design Thinking process. Since this novel Construc-
tive Design Research process is essentially multidis-
ciplinary, not only designers, but also many different
people from other disciplines are regularly involved
in the design process.
Summarised, Constructive Design Research can be
characterised as:
not based on natural sciences (facts), but on
humanistic and interpretative social science;
exploring the imagined world inspired by
experiencing, interacting, playing, simulating,
etc.;
producing ways to understand how people
interact with the artificial world.
Constructive Design Research creates knowledge
about:
the design process and its techniques;
how to apply these techniques in design
practice and in other innovation contexts
(education);
ways to justify methodological choices and
the understanding of these choices.
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
It is precisely because of those characteristics that
a Constructive Design Research approach has been
chosen as the methodological foundation the D-Think
research process. The following diagram explains in
a visual way the theoretical approach of the research
methodology.
research methodology
fig. 2 Diagram of the Research Methodology
20 21
The Design Thinking model
As Constructive Design Research is intimately con-
nected with design practice and applied research, the
research phase itself used a Design Thinking method-
ology. Design Thinking includes quantitative and qual-
itative, primary and secondary research methods, con-
nected with visual thinking and sense-making tools in
a similar way as Design Research does. Furthermore,
the research process itself is structured on the Design
Thinking phases, and several DT tools are applied and
tested in the research process. This approach has an
experiential character, and is seen as a Case Study for
Design Thinking applied in Research.
The DT model to be used for the research part of this
project was the Evolution 62 model, developed by the
coordinating head researcher, Katja Tschimmel, for
ESAD and the SME Na’Mente in 2012. It has been
licensed since 2015 under Creative Commons Attribu-
tion 4.0 International License in the version ‘by-sa’ (to
view a copy of this license, visit http:// creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) with the name Mind-
shake Design Thinking Model - Evolution 62.
The model is called Evolution 62 for the following
reasons:
Evolution because the creative process is an evolu-
tionary and iterative process in which a lot of indi-
viduals and situations are interacting. The graphical
solution illustrates that each E-phase of the model is
connected with the other phases in iterative loops.
The original graphical representation was developed
by the Portuguese Design Atelier Nunes and Pã, but
was recently redesigned by Irena Übler.
E6 because in English as well as in Portuguese, the
name of every stage of this six phased model starts
with an ‘E’: Emergence, Empathy, Experimentation,
Elaboration, Exposition and Extension. And since
there are also moments of Exploration (divergence)
and Evaluation (convergence) in every phase of the
model, the model is called E62.
The research group decided to adopt the Evolution 62
model, to verify if it can also be applied in research,
assuming this project as a Case Study. The model has
been applied and validated in several design projects
before: in the redesign of the Multimedia Course at
ESAD, in classes and projects of the Post Graduation
Course in Design Thinking at ESAD (case studies for
Apgei and Amorim Cork Ventures), and in Training
and Coaching sessions for Portuguese companies
(Roche, Moretextile, NOS, etc.) realised by the SME
Na’Mente.
The model being composed not only by 6 phases but
also by 36 DT tools, the maximum of the techniques
and associated methods were applied in the research
process. Beside many of the visual tools such as ma-
trix, visual boards, maps, etc., primary research meth-
ods were used in the Emergence and Empathy phase,
such as observation tools, and interviews (human
centred approach based on ethnography). Secondary
methods included research on literature, data analy-
sis and assessment on: (i) the evolution of the Design
Thinking concept; (ii) the Design Thinking potential
as a learning tool (literature and visual research); (iii)
Case Studies on the use of Design Thinking as a learn-
ing tool in different contexts: higher education areas
and vocational training; (iv) the emergence of new
learning methods linked to DT, such as problem based
learning or game based learning.
The application of the Design Thinking
model Evolution 62 in the research
process itself has an experiential
character, and is seen as a Case Study for
Design Thinking applied in Research.
fig.3 The Min dshake Desig n Thinking mo del Evolution 62
research methodology
22 23
k
k
k
k
The design of templates, matrices,
maps and boards
To streamline collaboration within the research group
at ESAD, and between the local research group and
the European partners, several DT templates were
elaborated. These templates will be presented in the
chapters describing the different E-phases of this
research project:
a template for the organisation and
visualisation of secondary research
(Media Research Card - Emergence phase)
a template for systematising the identified
trends of teaching and learning methods
and of DT toolkits (Trend matrix -
Emergence phase) [fig. 10, 11]
a template for the interviews with images
(Interview - Empathy phase) [fig. 16]
a Persona template
(Personas – Empathy phase) [fig. 22]
Research Report
Research
Re por t (B ETA)
EMERGENCE EM PATH Y EXTENSION
Tool Kit
M-Learning
ELABORATION EXPOSITIONEXPERIMENTATION
ELABORATION EXPOSITIONEXPERIMENTATION
ELABORATION EXPOSITIONEXPERIMENTATION
fig. 4 Dia gram of the Rese arch Process d uring the 3 year s of the D-Think Pr oject
To visualise the field research results and the
results of secondary research, several maps,
diagrams and boards were elaborated:
the Research Methodology diagram [fig. 2]
the D-Think skill diagram [fig. 42]
an Opportunity Mind Map [fig. 14]
a Stakeholder Map [fig. 15]
the Inspiration Board [fig. 13] and the Mood
Board [fig. 24 ]
the first draft of the DT Toolkit Matrix [fig. 28 ]
a Photo-Storyboard about the whole research
process [fig. 32 ]
and finally the diagram, which explains
visually the research process of all involved
European partners of the D-Think project
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
research methodology
[fig. 9]
[fig. 4]
03
Research
Process
26 27
Introduction
Understanding if similar work has been done in the
area of ‘design thinking’ and ‘education/training’ is
essential for perceiving the importance and the rele-
vance of the ongoing study. Furthermore, it is para-
mount to consult pioneering research that can provide
theoretical support and contribute with insightful
thoughts on the development and management of this
research project. Media Research was started with a
review of scientific text sources and a scan of popular
media like websites, social media, specialist magazines
and other media. The objective was to look for in-
sights finding new perspectives and directions for the
research, and work on building a credible foundation.
In the first meeting between all partners of the project
the following set of four fundamental research ques-
tions were discussed and accepted:
Why is DT important to education?
How is DT transferable to education?
How can DT improve the learning process?
Which kind of DT tools are appropriate in
teaching and learning processes?
The hypotheses which was the origin of this
research question is:
Design Thinking is a transversal learning
methodology which improves learning
experiences and professional training.
fig. 5 Br ainwriting an d Clustering on t he research qu estions of the p roject
Research
Process
k
k
k
k
Acquiring and analysing information
A systematic literary search was conducted with the
objective of quantifying relevant literature about the
subject in study. The following bibliographic database
were used in this study: Research Gate, Academ-
ia, Scopus, ERIC (Institute of Education Sciences),
Science Direct, EBSCO, B-on and Web of Science.
Additionally a general search on the internet was con-
ducted using the Google Scholar search engine. This
research was conducted in March 2015.
The following boolean combination of keywords was
used for this systematic literature search: “design
thinking” AND education OR training. The bibli-
ographic search was limited to the title of a peer
reviewed journal article, book chapter or conference
presentation paper.
The table below [fig. 6] presents selected results
obtained for each database, considering the specific
theme of the publications. To conclude this, it was
necessary to analyse all abstracts of the literature
gathered in each database search and select only those
in accordance with the goal of this research project.
fig. 6 Table of literature r esearch for each database
After eliminating the repeated results, the number
of bibliographic references found for the main theme
of the research was as presented in the table below
[fig. 7 ]. For the specific theme of this study, Design
Thinking in Education, 39 peer reviewed publications
were found.
fig. 7 Table of b ibliographi c references fo r DT in Education and Training
An additional research, limited to the Google Scholar
database, was done with the following conditional
keywords: “design thinking” AND “teaching” OR
“learning” OR “heutagogy”. After analysing the ab-
stracts, the results of this search process were divided
in two groups [fig. 8].
fig. 8 Table of b ibliographi c references fo r DT - Teachin g and Learnin g
All relevant search results were compiled in a list
containing the bibliographic reference in APA style,
and for those publications relevant for this study
the full abstracts were also included in the list. This
full list of results can be consulted in the following
link: http://www.esad.pt/documents/144/attach-
ments-d-think-report.pdf.
data
bas e numb er of r esults - hits fo r each t heme
Design Thi nking AND Edu cation
Design Thinking
AND Training
Design Thinking
IN Education Design Thinking
Education
SCOPUS 814 1
web of scienc e 0 4 4
Science Direct 1 2 0
Google Scholar 10 66 0
Academia 3 1 0
Research G ate 18 9 0
ERIC (Institute of Education Sciences 2 5 0
ESBCO 6 4 0
B-an 4 3 0
total 88 108 5
the me of st udy nu mber of ref eren ces
DT in Educati on or Training 39
DT Education or Design Education or DT Programmes 21
the me of st udy nu mber of ref eren ces
DT applied in Teaching or Learning or Heautagogy 23
Teaching or Lea rning DT 24
Emergence
phase
research process
28 29
fig. 9 Templa te for the Media Re search Card
Media Research Cards
Each researcher analysed up to six selected publi-
cations (paper, books, toolkits, etc.) with relevance
to the present study and elaborated Media Research
Cards [fig. 9] . In total thirty-five Media Research Cards
were completed.
Media Research Analyses
All Media Research Cards were carefully analysed
and a total of six peer reviewed journal articles and
research papers were selected as most significant for
this research project. All these papers are directly
related to the Design Thinking concept and to new
learning approaches. However, the elaboration of
the Media Research Cards was not limited to peer
reviewed articles and book chapters, but considered
all relevant publications. Since DT toolkits, books and
research reports are not peer reviewed but might be
of equal importance for this study, a separate selection
was made including a further selection of five publica-
tions considered essential for the development of the
DT Toolkit.
The selected peer reviewed papers
Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Keegan, H., &
Narayan, V. (2014). Riding the wave of BYOD:
developing a framework for creative pedagogies.
Research In Learning Technology, 22, 133-46. doi:
10.3402/rlt. v22.24637
This paper was selected for its careful research study
of a framework designed for mobile learning pro-
grammes and because of important insights about the
affordances of mobile devices in creative pedagogies
and emerging student learning styles. The authors of
this paper have conducted several m-learning courses
over the last ten years, contributing with important
knowledge to the field of M-Learning. Furthermore,
M-learning courses are of particular relevance to the
research project since one of the planned outcomes
of this project is itself an m-learning course about the
use of the DT Toolkit in education and learning.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’
and its application. Design Studies, 32, 521-532.
This paper was selected because the author Kees
Dorst had an active part in the original research
movement in design thinking in the early 1990s. His
research work was related to the review of the meth-
odological paradigms of design (Dorst 1997). Today
he is still researching in that domain, but focused on
the transfer of design thinking to other professional
fields. In this paper, Dorst explains his perspective on
the core of design thinking and what it could bring
to practitioners and organisations in other fields. He
describes the fundamental reasoning patterns behind
design, and then looks at the core design activities
of framing and frame creation. In his view, it is the
creation of new frames in open and complex problem
situations, where design thinking can give a valuable
contribution to organisations. In problematic situa-
tions organisations often react in a way that requires
the least effort and fewest resources, thus setting out
in a conventional problem solving manner. Design
thinking can help them in the deconstruction of a
problem, finding new perspectives or frames from
which to approach it. And in this aspect, the paper is a
rich contribution to the field of education, particularly
in the reframing of education methods.
Hase, S., Kenyon C. (2001). Moving from andrago-
gy to heutagogy: implications for VET. Proceedings
of Research to Reality: Putting VET Research to
Work. Australian Vocational Education and Train-
ing Research Association (AVETRA), Adelaide, SA,
28-30 March, AVETRA, Crows Nest, NSW. Pub-
lished version available in: http://www.avetra.org.
au/Conference_Archives/2001/proceedings.shtm
In this paper the authors refer for the first time to
Heutagogy as the study of self-determined learning.
Heutagogy draws together several ideas from various
approaches to learning that emerged from the 1950s
until late 1990s. Understanding the future of higher
education and training regarding new methodologies
is vital to the development of the D-Think project.
Heutagogy is seen by many as an essential approach to
the development of individual capability. In a rapidly
changing world, capable people are more likely to be
able to effectively respond to a changing environment
and workplace.
research process
30 31
Kimbell, L. (2009). Beyond design thinking: De-
sign-as-practice and design-in-practice. Centre
for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (CRESC).
Manchester. Available in http://www.lucykimbell.
com/LucyKimbell/Writing.html
This paper is a very valuable contribution to the
evolution of the concept of design thinking. In the
introduction of the paper, Kimbell identifies the rea-
sons why the term DT is confusing. Then she exposes
in a very synthetic way the development of the DT
concept, from a cognitive style to an intellectual and
methodological approach to problem framing and
problem solving, considering social and business
aspects. This paper was also selected because of the
importance of the author who has published several
papers about Design Thinking, and more recently
The Service Innovation Handbook
(2014, BIS Publishers).
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012).
Transforming Constructivist Learning into
Action: Design Thinking in Education. Design
and Technology Education: An International
Journal, V, 17, 3. 8-19. Available in http://eric.
ed.gov/?q=%22Design+thinking+in+Educa-
tion%22&id=EJ996067
This paper is an important contribution to this re-
search project because it relates DT to the construc-
tivist perspective of learning, which in itself is also
related to Heutagogy, the learning approach which
was considered appropriate for this D-Think pro-
ject. Constructivism offers a good theoretical basis to
developing a teaching model in which students can
co- determine the learning methods. Constructivist
didactics understands learning as a process of self-or-
ganisation of knowledge. The educator shouldn’t
merely produce the knowledge that ‘goes into the stu-
dent’s head’, but he or she should facilitate process-
es of automatic and independent development and
acquisition of knowledge, and so create the conditions
for self-organisation of the learners. In this paper, the
authors show how DT offers teachers support towards
practice-oriented and holistic modes of constructivist
learning in projects. Their case study confirms an im-
provement of classroom experience, for teachers and
students alike, when using DT.
Von Kortzfleisch, H. F. O., Zerwas, D., & Mokanis,
I. (2013). Potentials of Entrepreneurial Design
Thinking® for Entrepreneurship Education. 4th
International Conference on New Horizons in
Education, 106(0). 2080–2092. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2013.12.237
This paper was selected because of the innovative pro-
posal it introduces: the application of Design Thinking
methodology to Entrepreneurship Education. This
publication introduces a model for entrepreneurial
design thinking® and analyses its potential as a new
method for entrepreneurship education in universities.
Important books, articles and reports for
the D-Think project (not peer reviewed)
Gaebel, M., Kupriyanova, V., Morais, R., & Colucci,
E. (2014). E-learning in European Higher Educa-
tion Institutions - Results of Mapping Survey
2013. European University Association: EUA
Publications.
The relevance of this study to the DT Research is the
awareness of e-learning/m-learning as an effective
way of innovation in the learning process. According
to the study, the main purposes for e-learning’s use
are cited as being: “the more effective use of class-
room time and greater flexibility in learning provision,
regardless of whether learners are on or off campus,
recent school leavers or adult learners”. Also present-
ed are two important structural reflections to be taken
into consideration for the elaboration of the toolkit
and e M-Learning tool:
1. “(...) e-learning can in many ways help to stimulate
and inform institutional discussions and reform –
should transfer e-learning from the realm of specialist
discussion into a wider European debate on learning
and teaching methods in higher education, in which
leaders, practitioners and researchers at institutions
could all take part.” 2. “(...) changes taking place are
not only of a technical nature but also social and intel-
lectual.”
IDEO (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Cen-
tered Design. 1st Edition. Available in http://www.
designkit.org/
This latest toolkit developed by IDEO can be consid-
ered as the logical follow-up to the previous publica-
tion from IDEO: “Human Centered Design Toolkit
HCD”. While the first version, originally from 2009
but with a revised second edition in 2012, is specifi-
cally focused “on base of the pyramid” design for use
by NGO’s in developing countries, this new toolkit
is targeted on anyone who wants to apply a Human
Centered Design strategy to a design and development
process for a product or a product-service-system.
Although it is not specifically built for use in develop-
ing countries, NGO’s can still use it for this purpose.
The design process described in the previous pub-
lication was divided into three main phases: Hear -
Create - Deliver (hence with the acronym HCD). The
design process presented in this new toolkit is also
divided into three phases, named: Inspiration - Idea-
tion - Implementation. The general structure is thus
very similar to the previous process. However the
selection of design tools is more extensive and their
logical order is slightly changed. Despite the fact that
“Design Thinking” is not once mentioned throughout,
this field guide can be considered a bit strange. The se-
quential organisation and structure of this toolkit and
the use of multiple DT tools, makes it easily fit within
the design thinking framework. Another publication
from IDEO with which this field guide can be com-
pared, is the toolkit “Design Thinking for Educators”
(identified below). This design guide is specifically
targeted for application in a design challenge in the
field of education, be it the design of education spaces
or the development of curriculum, processes, tools or
systems. Although the process described in this guide
is divided into five phases, based on the DT model
proposed by Stanford, intent and underlying structure
are very similar to the structure of the HCD process
proposed in the Field Guide. As a final conclusion it
can be stated that this new toolkit: “Field Guide to
Human Centered Design”, seems to strive for a more
effective approach to the HCD process. It is therefore
quite versatile and can thus be used for any design
challenge anywhere, including education.
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström,
J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design Research Through
Practice. MA: Elsevier - Morgan Kaufman.
The book gives an important contribution to bridging
the gap between Design Research and Design Practice,
providing multidisciplinary examples, and illustrating
how research could be applied in design practice. The
approach of Constructive Research in Design Re-
search is important to the foundation of the Research
Methodology of D-Think. It supports the Methodolo-
gy “Research about and through Design Thinking”.
Riverdale, & IDEO (2012). Design Thinking for
Educators. 2nd Edition. Available in http://www.
designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/
At present (May 2015), this toolkit developed by IDEO
is the only DT toolkit specially conceived for educa-
tors. It is a step-by-step guide that offers many ways of
designing new solutions for classrooms, schools and
communities. The target audience are educators who
want to improve their methods and results. There are
a lot of problems in education today both in K12 and
in HEI education, and this toolkit is positioned as an
opportunity to design new possibilities in harmony
with the needs of educators and students alike. These
needs are evolving as rapidly as the technologies that
compete for attention. Furthermore, the challenges
facing educators are very complex and vary from
school to school. Teachers know their students and
their school better than others, and they require new
perspectives, new tools and new approaches. Design
Thinking could be one of these approaches. In 2007,
Riverdale began exploring how Design Thinking could
be used by their faculty and students with the help
from IDEO. The outcome of this collaboration was the
Design Thinking toolkit for Educators.
Zupan, B., Nabergoj, A.S., Stritar, R., & Drnovsek, M.
(2014). Action-based learning for millennials: Using
design thinking to improve entrepreneurship edu-
cation. In E. Doyle, P. Buckley, & C. Carroll, (Eds.).
Innovative Business School Teaching: Engaging the
Millennial Generation. Routledge.
In this article, the authors present an approach to
teaching entrepreneurship in HEI using the Design
Thinking methodology. The authors consider Design
Thinking as a valuable teaching tool and present a
case study of an entrepreneurship course where this
methodology was applied with success. Students,
scholars and companies involved in the course gave
positive feedback on the experience.
research process
Trendmatrix
Clssifiction of Trends of Teching nd Lerning Methods
formerly currently emerging
educational style PEDAOY: discipline-bsed
eduction, techer centr ic
ANDRAOY: interdisciplinry eduction,
project bsed techi ng nd lerning,
curriculum centric
HEUTAOY: interdisciplinry nd problembsed
eduction, lerner centr ic, utoregultive,
design-bsed
learning style individul work, dependent lerning,
lerning by memorising,
lbour experiences
group work, independent lerning,
lerning by doing, p rticiptive nd collbor tive,
combintion of indivi dul nd group work, uton-
omy, experientil lerning (ctive experimenttion
+ reflective ob servtion), rel life experiences,
competitive lerning ( by gmes), met-cognitive,
lerning nlitics
students role pssive prticipnt ctive prticipnt, individu l nd criticl peer support, sel f-determined, tem effor t,
control of own lerning , quntified self
teaching style frontl nd expositive style,
homogenised teching
roundtble communiction style, student centred,
differentition in clss
vrible teching st yles, co-determintion of
teching/lerning contents
teachers role Techer = Mster,
techer evlutes
Techer = Tutor/Pilot, mixed evlution (te cher+
group+self-evlution) Techer = Fcilittor, mximum of self-evlution
training offers clssroom trining,
seminr, conference
in rel context trinin g, outside compny trining ,
personlised trining courses
short trining cour ses, co-working courses, mker
spce, combintion of con tents, informl,
unscheduled
learning ambience in clssroom/uditorium,
hierrchic clssifict ion of contents,
rigid timetble
in flexible rooms, tbles in group position,
prtil clssif iction of contents, dpt ive nd
flexible timetble
without wlls, dif ferent socil forms, bootcmps,
pitch dys, lerner centred timetble
technology
(web, mobile, etc.) using computers in clas sroom e-learning, online courses, b-learning, m-learning, virtual assistant, MOOCs
(massiveopenonlinecourses -http://moocs.com)
EMERGENCE
32 33
Trend Observation and Matrix
Identification of trends in learning methods
Analysing the results of the media research and the
systematic literature search, in this first part of the
research were given a wealth of information about
what is changing in the field of education for HEI’s.
Important information and insights were gathered
about topics of ongoing research; about the influence of
a constructivist view on education and the importance
for the development of active learning strategies; about
the results and application of novel methods in HEI;
about the supporting role of technology in the shaping
as well as in the success of active learning and teaching
methods, and much more.
Organisation and visualisation of trends
All this information had to be summarised in a clear
and visual way in order to support the further analysis
and development of the toolkit during this research
project. And so, a standard DT tool, the Trendmatrix
(Kumar, 2013), was used. A trendmatrix serves as a
summary of continuing change and gives a structured
visualisation of the ongoing evolution in the project
field. As such, the D-Think Trend Matrix provides a
framework for the classification of current, former
and emerging tendencies in HEI education and educa-
tion strategy. It further informs and maps, over time,
the innovation, transformation and modification of the
most important parameters of teaching and learning
methods. [fig. 10]
Creative Process Models and DT-Toolkits
A similar approach was used to evaluate trends in the
development of creative process models and de-
scriptive models for the DT process. Insights from a
DT-model matrix and the application of the trendma-
trix yields an interesting overview of how even for this
particular topic, interesting direct relations can be ob-
served between the construction of knowledge about
DT, the descriptive model of the DT process and how
this information is graphically treated and presented
to the community. [fig. 11 , 12]
Inspiration Board
The Inspiration Board is a popular tool to visualise
ideas and inspirations from individuals or groups
alike. This tool can be used in many contexts: in com-
panies, classes, coaching sessions, events and much
more. It’s a way to transmit thoughts and perceptions
through images with the goal of discovering new
opportunities and challenges. The use of an inspira-
tion board is fun, and stimulates creativity and visual
thinking. It is risk free and stress free, and it allows
each person to create a different concept in his or her
mind without criticism and judgment from the others.
[fig. 13 ]
fig. 10 Trend matrix - Class ification of Trends of Teaching and L earning Met hods
fig. 11 Trend matrix - Classi fication of Trends o f Creative Process Model s
Trendmatrix
Classification of Trends of Creative Process Models and DT-Toolkits
formerly currently emerging
presentation of
PHASES Lin ear, 4 - 7 Organic , 3 - 6 Itera tive, 5
colour codes Neutral Rainbow Unicolour, Yellow
background CPS, Industrial Design Methodology (Service) Design Thinking Design Thinking for Educators
authors CPSI: Osborn, Parnes, Puccio IDEO, Brit ish Council, d. school, ESAD, et c. IDEO/Stanford
elements process model, description of techniques book or booklet with the process model and
tools, Card Set with tool description, tool icons mobile application
icons
EMERGENCE
research process
34 35
fig. 12 C omparison of the phases o f different DT Mo dels
fig. 13 Inspiration Board
Emergence
phase
Identification of opportunities
Opportunity Mind Map
With the increasing amount of information gathered
during the secondary research phase, it became
obvious that a visualisation tool would be most im-
portant for the team to have a holistic overview of all
these new concepts and insights and how they relate
to each other. Stimulated by the Inspiration Board, an
Opportunity Mind Map was constructed to explore
and organise the new knowledge and insights which
were gathered up till then.
fig. 14 Opportunity Mind Map
The main theme of the project, Design Thinking
applied to Education and Training, is located at the
centre of the mind map. Two main branches were
set on a horizontal axis: one for HEI Education and
another one for VET Education/Training. The layout
started by dividing the data into several sub branches
and sections based on the main categories identi-
fied during the ongoing research, such as: emerging
teaching trends, future teaching trends, game-based
learning, stakeholders of HEI and training, and many
more. On top a DT branch was set that would evolve
into tree structure with all the main methods and tools
of DT. This way it was possible to frame DT as a mind-
set to problem solving. This was most important since
it was necessary to visualise the relationship between
DT, education process models, learning methods and
heutagogy.
The idea of learner-centred education, Andragogy, is
recognised as the main goal of HEI institutions, but
Heutagogy as an evolution of Andragogy, was iden-
tified as the emerging education style, as has been
shown in the Trendmatrix above. Therefore a major
branch of the Mind Map was set as the future of HEI
education. As such, it became clear that the core “op-
portunity” for the development of the tool kit would
be the vertical axis illustrating the strong relationship
that can be established between by DT and Heutago-
gy. This relationship sets the focus of the DT Toolkit
as a support for teachers and trainers of educational
and training institutions in the preparation of life-
long learners who are capable of adapting to the fast
and constant changes in the demanding needs of the
workplace.
research process
36 37
Andragogy is an educational theory for adult
teaching, characterised by learner control and
self-responsibility in learning. The role of the edu-
cator is that of a tutor or facilitator to support the
learner to become more self-directed in his learning.
Heutagogy is based on the methodological ap-
proach of self-determined learning where learners
are highly autonomous, self-determined and fo-
cused on the development of their learner capacity
and capability.
eLearning is the use of information and commu-
nication technology as a platform for teaching and
learning activities. Although it first started off in
the 90s, as a distance learning tool, it has recently
been used in the proper classroom as well.
Mobile Learning builds upon the concept of
E-Learning and can be defined as the use of mobile
technologies, together with wireless and mobile
networks, to extend, allow and facilitate teaching
and learning, at any time and anywhere. People can
use mobile devices to get instant access to edu-
cational resources, create and share content, and
connect with others, both inside and outside the
classroom.
Blended Learning is any programme which
combines face-to-face instruction with any form or
use of online resources to provide the student with
a more personalised learning experience. Although
online learning can be at other locations than the
classroom, most applications of blended learning
are done in the proper classroom or school building,
using models such as Lab Rotation, where groups of
students switch between individual online learning
and face-to-face discussion in the classroom, or the
Flex model, in which students engage online in the
classroom, but always under the supervision of a
teacher who is physically present.
MOOC stands for Massive Open Online Courses
and, although successfully in development since
2008, has grown rapidly since 2012. The main
purpose of a MOOC is to improve the learning
experience and to provide more learning opportu-
nities. MOOCs are free online courses, accessible
to everyone with no formal entry requirements. In-
stitutions that provide MOOCs don’t award credits,
only a participatory certificate, although this is to
change in the near future.
Flipped Classroom is a learning and teaching
approach where passive learning activities are re-
moved from the classroom, and precious class time
is spent on active and collaborative learning. More
personalised guidance and interaction with the
students allows for differentiated learning where
students engage directly with material and review
content at their own pace.
Problem Based Learning (PBL) is an active
learning method where students work in small
collaborative groups to resolve complex, realistic
problems under the guidance or coaching of the
teacher. The students’ learning occurs in the con-
text of solving an authentic problem and all learning
activities are related to a larger task.
Game Based Learning (GBL) is a strategy
where a game structure is applied with well-defined
learning outcomes and with the goal of enhancing
the learning experience and the motivation of the
student. Competition, intrinsic motivation and
immediate rewards encourage active learning,
self-reliance and self-determination. Thought pro-
cesses and subject matter are balanced with game
play and as a result, the student works towards a
goal, can choose his actions and experiences the
consequences.
Maker Spaces are learning environments where
active learning is at the centre of the learning pro-
cess. The main objective of a maker space is teach-
ing problem solving skills through a project-driven
process of learn-by-doing. This learning process is
self-directed, informal and unscheduled.
Intent Statement
An Intent Statement, according to Kumar (2013: 48)
is “stating an initial innovation intent based on an
identified opportunity”. After analysing the collec-
tive Opportunity Mind Map, the research group got
a new sense of the main focus of the research, which
contributed also to an extension of the initial research
questions. The Intent Statement technique builds
on the understanding that a clear view of the further
research is at some point necessary. Intent Statement
is a tool which offers the opportunity to reframe the
original goals of a project. Using the structure offered
by Kumar, the research group came to the following
understanding:
Intent Statement *
Principal Problem
Research questions.
Intention
Elaboration of a research report, which offers
orientation and important insights to the de-
velopment of a DT toolkit and a website for
educators and trainers, based on the Evolu-
tion 62 model.
Opportunities
Better understand the potential of DT for
education and society.
Contextualise DT between other emerging
learning methods.
Create a theoretical foundation for a special-
ised DT toolkit for European HEI and VET
educators.
Test the Evolution 62 DT model in a research
project.
New Value
Insights for the development of a DT toolkit
especially for educators and trainers, based
on the educational concept ‘Heutagogy’ and
on emerging trends of learning methods.
Public
All European partners of the D-Think project,
and additionally, everybody interested in the
D-Think research process.
* It is important to emphasise that this Intent Statement is only for the
elaboration of the Research Report, not for the further D-Think project
(toolkit development and m-learning course).
Redefinition of the research questions
of the D-Think project
As a consequence of all secondary and media research
done up to this point, and after the realisation of the
Intent Statement, we completed the initial research
questions in the following way, being the new ques-
tions marked in bold:
What is DT and why it is important to HEI
and VET education?
What is the level of knowledge in
education about DT?
How is DT transferable to education?
How can DT improve the learning process?
Which kind of DT tools are appropriate in
teaching and learning processes?
How can the new DT toolkit help
educators to learn how to improve
the learning competences and capabilities
of their learners?
Is the Evolution 62 model appropriate
to be applied in our research process/
learning process?
Conclusion of the Emergence Phase
The most important conclusion which can be drawn
from this phase is the strategic shift in HEI education
from Pedagogy to Andragogy, and just lately from
Andragogy to what has been called “Heutagogy”. The
driving force behind the transformation from Pedago-
gy to Andragogy is rooted on the protagonism of the
actor in the mechanism of knowledge transfer in the
process of teaching and learning. Focus is no longer on
the teacher but converges on the learner who has to
take an active role in the successful conclusion of his
own educational development. However, expansion
of the body of knowledge and the evolution of meth-
ods for sharing this information points to yet another
emerging progression in educational strategy and
style. General access to this wealth of knowledge and
information, together with the importance which has
been given to technology in the process of learning
and teaching made it clear that the process of learn-
ing can no longer be confined. Teaching and learning
are no longer time and place restricted. Learning and
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
research process
Glossary of the concepts in the
Opportunity Mind Map
38 39
teaching are life-long ventures no longer confined to
universities or schools. Learning and teaching are no
longer separate endeavours, each learner is also his or
her peers´ teacher. Both teachers and learners share
the same information and assessment is a continuous
self-regulated process. It is exactly in this new context
and learning paradigm, that Design Thinking can play
an important role. If we compare the Design Think-
ing principles with the new role of educators in the
teaching/learning approach of Heutagogy, we can find
many parallelisms, as the characteristics of the DT
educator in figure 41 showed us. Design Thinking is
based on a human-centred approach, which expresses
itself in the collaborative way designers work and in
participatory methods of co-creation. The product/
service-user in DT can be seen as a ‘partner‘ in the
creative process. As the designer does, in the new
learning approach of Heutagogy, the educator acts as a
facilitator or even as a co-learner by giving orientation
and resources to the student-learner. Communication
and teamwork skills are essential in learning process-
es in design contexts such as in educational contexts.
By applying their competencies to new and unfamiliar
learning situations, the student as the designer, has to
be creative and flexible, and has to accept that failure
and mistakes are an important and unavoidable part of
a learning process. Dealing with incomplete infor-
mation and ambiguous situations, requires designers
and students to feel comfortable with uncertainty.
The new DT-toolkit and m-course, final results of our
D-Think research project, aim to give educators and
learners this “heutagogy”-perspective of education
and training, and offer them a method and toolkit to
find new educational frameworks and teaching/learn-
ing methods.
research process
STAKEHOLDER MAP
FOR THE
RESEARCH PROJECT D-THINK
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y
U
S
E
R
S
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
U
S
E
R
S
HEI
EDUCATOR
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
G
R
O
U
P
I
N
D
I
R
E
C
T
F
I
N
A
L
U
S
E
R
S
TANJA
ORAVIITA
TAUNO
KEKALE
FIN.
BEL. / ITA.
BORIANA
MARINOVA
T
O
O
L
K
I
T
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
V
A
L
I
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
I
L
O
T
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
D
I
S
S
E
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
M
-
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
C
O
U
R
S
E
SIMONETTA
MANZINI
MATHIEU
CARENZO
SPA.
JAUME
ARGERICH
JOANA
SOARES
POR.
ELZBIETA
DUL-LEBWOSINKA
POL.
KATARZYNA
BUJAK
KATJA
TSCHIMMEL RUTE
MONTEIRO
MARIANA
VALENÇA
JOANA
SANTOS
JOSÉ
SIMÕES ALEXANDRE
JACINTO
RUTE
CARVALHO
DIRK
LOYENS
HEI
STUDENTS
TRAINEES
DESIGNER
PHD
STUDENT ENTREPRENEUR
I&D
PROJECT
MANAGER
MARIA
CARAMAZZA
I&D
PROJECT
MANAGER
TRAINER
CONSULTANT
RESEARCHER
DESIGNER
CONTACT PERSON LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE | EUROPEAN AGENCY
POR.
MARIA JOÃO
DORNELAS
ANA
BARROCA
WYATT
ROSENTAL
CHRISTOPHE
TERRASSE
ERIC
CORNUEL
fig. 15 Stakeho lder Map of the D-Think project
Knowing the context better
Stakeholder Map
A stakeholder is a person, group, organisation or sys-
tem that affects or can be affected by a project or an
organisation. The stakeholder map is used to catego-
rise and visualise these individuals, groups or organ-
isations, define their relationships and position them
by levels of contributions and activities. In this project
we divided the stakeholders or people involved into:
Research group composed of the ESAD team,
Toolkit Development composed of the
Finnish team,
Quality Validation composed of the Belgian
and Italian teams,
Pilot Training composed of the Spanish team,
Dissemination composed of the Portuguese
team from Advancis,
M-Learning Course composed of the Polish
team,
Legal representation of the European Agency,
Primary Users who are our target and
future toolkit users, like HEI Educators,
I&D Project Manager and trainers,
Secondary Users who are the learners and
partners of the primary users, who can also
be users,
Indirect Users who are the final
students and trainees.
Informal Primary Research
To understand better the context of HEI educators,
the ESAD research team participated, on February
12th, in the "Education in Portugal" conference with
António Sampaio da Nóvoa*, the former dean of Lis-
bon University.
*António Sampaio da Nóvoa is an historian and educator. He was dean of the University
of Lisbon and is currently Honorary Dean of the same institution. He holds a PhD
in History from the University of Paris IV Sorbonne, as well as PhD in Educational
Sciences from the University of Geneva.
Empathy
phase
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
40 41
This meeting was organised by professors and re-
searchers from Aveiro University and researchers
from the Centre for Didactic Research and Technolo-
gy in the training of Trainers (Centro de
Investigação Didática e Tecnologia na Formação de
Formadores/CIDTFF).
The seminar’s purpose was to create an informal
discussion around pressing questions regarding
education in Portugal, debating critically, profoundly
and constructively the current state of education in
general and more particularly official state education,
allowing all participants to question the guest and
encourage participation in the debate. In this seminar
António Nóvoa claims that Portugal is tired. Starting
in the late 1990's its educational system started show-
ing signs of wear, which he characterised using three
keywords: "Development", "Disaster" and "Too Much".
- Development: “Sufficient” and “necessary” is not
enough when it comes to education.
- Disaster: Disaster in Education.
- Too Much: Portugal is spending too much on
education without fulfilling its purpose.
According to Nóvoa, obsessive focus on merit and
futile discussions about the quality of exams is once
again jeopardizing general cultural development of
the Portuguese population. The origin of these mis-
takes can be traced back to the policy on education of
the last two years. The lack of a vision about culture as
an inclusive project resulted in too many financial cuts
on education even within the context of the ongo-
ing financial crisis. Unfortunately it is today that we
should be preparing for the huge changes we’re about
to face in the near future.
This seminar was accompanied by a round table din-
ner, where the dynamics of teaching in higher edu-
cation were discussed. At the end of his intervention,
when questioned about his knowledge about Design
Thinking and how this could be applied to Education,
Sampaio da Nóvoa recognised there’s a great need to
change educational methodologies.
Some of those novel methods are already being im-
plemented in the private sector, but unfortunately not
yet in the general public education system. It is mainly
due to nervousness and misundertanding, that those
new methods are only being applied in elite education.
However he acknowledges that design and designers
can become valuable contributors for the creation of
new approaches in education, specifically because
designers are aware of ongoing and future trends in
society. After the speech and the formal dinner, some
of our research team used the opportunity to inter-
view in an informal way some of the present educators
about their knowledge of Design Thinking, in general,
and more specific as applied in education. Not one of
the interviewed educators knew DT as a method for
innovation or learning, they always associated DT
with Product or Graphic design, as Sampaio da Nóvoa
did as well. But after explaining the concept and po-
tential of DT applied in education, every participant
confirmed interest in this new methodology, and was
very curious to know more about it.
In order to have a better understanding of the needs
and opinions of HEI educators regarding their teach-
ing and learning experience as well as the teaching
methodologies used in the classroom, another in-
formal primary research was conducted. This study
consisted in the observation of educators and stu-
dents’ behaviour in an HEI environment completed by
deeper informal conversation with the educators.
In theoretical classes the most common methodology
was frontal teaching using visual presentation to ori-
ent the teaching process and debate oriented methods
were used whenever considered useful. Occasionally
group or individual exercises are completed under the
teacher’s orientation. In practical learning laboratory
classes, the most common method is the individual
and group orientation of students in requested as-
signments. Informal conversation with the educators
made it clear that most teachers have great difficulty
in selecting better learning methods to apply in class.
Most of the teachers are aware of the necessity for
change, most of all to motivate students to actively
engage in the learning process and provide them with
access to new teaching tools to do so.
This informal primary research was significant for the
preparation of the interview with educators conduct-
ed in the next stage of the research process.
Deepening empathy
Interviews with images
The main research goal for the designed interview
was to obtain feedback from teachers and train-
ers about their knowledge on new methodological
approaches of teaching/learning, their needs and
difficulties in the teaching/learning context and also
to inquire about their knowledge of Design Thinking
methodology. [fig.16]
research process
Structured interview with educators
1. Sex F M
2. Age:
3. Profission:
4. Our research concerns tendencies of new methodological approaches of teaching-learning.
Which of the following methods do you know and which do you apply?
1. Flipped class room (theoretic preparation at home,
practical application in class room)
2. Problem based learning (active learning by experiences)
3. Game based learning (learning through playing)
4. Design based learning (project based learning)
5. Blended learning (e-learning, online learning, m-learning, MOOCS)
6. Maker Space (hands-on learning through building things)
7. Connectd learning (knowledge and expertise through digital connections)
8. Other (which?)
5. What is your opinion of the methodology you apply in teaching?
1. very ecient
2. ecient
3. not very ecient
4. inecient
Why?
6. What are your principal needs in your teaching process?
7. And what are your greatest diculties?
8. What suggestions or solutions would you oer to resolve the problems you mentioned above?
9. Are you familiar with the Design Thinking Method? If yes, please elaborate.
10. We will show you 5 images. Please choose 3 and comment on them freely.
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
Thank you for participating!
fig.16 Guideli ne for the stru ctured inter view with educators
fig.17 Images for q uestion 10 of the i nterview
42 43
The technique Interview with images was used be-
cause it creates more empathy between questions and
inquiries and it stimulates people to comment more
freely without restrictions. Verbal questions usually
provoke immediate answers, images allow a more
fluent argumentation and a broader contextualisation
of the answer.
Interview matrix
From the gathered data with the conducted interviews
a table was constructed compiling all the information
in order to facilitate posterior data processing. [fig.18]
A total of 49 interviews were conducted by all the
project researchers. The interviews were conducted
with higher education teachers and trainers from var-
ious scientific areas. Of these 49 interviews, 26 were
conducted with women and 23 with men. The age
distribution was as follows in the graphic presented
below. About 70% of the interviewees were between
30 and 50 years old.
fig.19 Infographics about the interviewed participants
The interviews were conducted with 42 higher educa-
tion teachers and 7 trainers. The main focus of the re-
search was to obtain feedback from higher education
institution professors and teachers, hence the higher
number of teachers among the target group, about
86% of the group questioned. When asked about their
knowledge and use of new methodological approach-
es of teaching-learning, and presented with a list of
the most relevant at the moment, the best known are:
1) Blended learning, 2) Problem based learning and
3) Game based learning; and the most applied are: 1)
Problem based learning, 2) Design based learning and
3) Flipped classroom. The least known and used meth-
odologies are Maker space and Connected learning.
The graphic on the right [fig. 20 ] presents in 2 colours
the answers obtained as to the knowledge (K) and as
to the practical application (A) of the new methodo-
logical approaches of teaching-learning asked about in
the interview, in question number 4.
The interviewed people were also asked about other
methodologies they knew and used, not listed in the
interview, and to name them. We identified the fol-
lowing methods: learning by doing, personal tutoring,
role-playing, critical thinking, coaching, client based
teaching, apprenticeship training, entrepreneurial
learning and learning by research. When questioned
about their own opinions of the methodologies they
apply in teaching, 76% of the group questioned con-
sidered them to be efficient and 18% considered them
very efficient. The most common evidence presented
was the students’/trainees positive feedback and the
satisfactory final evaluation results.
In spite of considering the learning process as effi-
cient when questioned about the principal needs in
the teaching process, the main concern is the need to
learn new methods and tools to successfully motivate
students/trainees in the learning process. Other main
difficulties identified are the lack of adequate previous
preparation of students’ and difficulty in identifying
and satisfying students needs, in their own individual
learning process. The low motivation of students and
trainees is a difficulty identified by several respon-
dents who want to make classes more interesting,
appealing, and related to real life scenarios in order to
inspire students. A big gap between these two could be
identified. The learning process is mainly considered
efficient but there is a strong reference to the lack of
interest and motivation by students and trainees. The
need to define individual learning paths adapted to
the student specific curriculum and professional goals
is also mentioned so by some interviewees. When
questioned about their knowledge of the DT meth-
odology, 51% of the target group responded affirma-
tively, some knew little about it, others learned about
it in their professional career. The final part of the
interview consisted of commenting on 5 images [fig.17]
related to different tools and techniques used in the
Design Thinking methodology. The respondents were
asked to comment freely. The majority identified the
objective of the technique used, or some aspect of it,
even if not knowing its exact designation. Some have
used them before in different contexts, including in
the teaching context.
fig. 21 Diagram of educators knowledge of Design Thinking
research process
fig.20 Diagram of the knowledge in new approaches in teaching-learning methodologies
fig.18 Snaps hot of the matrix f or analysing the interv iew results
professional occupation
14% trainer
86% HEI profes sor / teacher
47% men
53% women
gender distribution age distribution
6% · < 30
10% · >61
14% · 51-50
33% · 31-40
37% · 41-50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4.1 K 4.1 A 4. 2 K 4.2 A 4.3 K 4. 3 A 4. 4 K 4.4 A 4.5 K 4.5 A 4 .6 K 4. 6 A 4. 7K 4.7A 4.8K 4.8 A
opinion about their own methodology applied in teaching
0% · inefficie nt
76% · efficient
18% · very effic ient
6% · not very eff icient
44 45
Elaboration of Persona Cards
From the results obtained in the conducted inter-
views, it was possible to characterise three different
personas which represent the interviewed target
group. The three personas [fig. 22] are two higher edu-
cation professors and one professional trainer. Rita is
a lecturer and researcher in Psychology in a University
and also works in a big company. She is very interest-
ed in improving her teaching methods and using her
company work experience to do so, experimenting
with new teaching/learning methods in class. Ricardo
is a professor and research coordinator in the field
of Physics. One of his main concerns is to provide a
successful learning process for his students. Exchang-
ing experiences with collaborators in other countries
is very important for him as a teacher and researcher.
Last, but not least, Rui is a trainer in Vocational Edu-
cation and Training courses. He likes being a trainer,
especially dealing with young people with different
motivations, but with a common goal, to acquire skills
and learn a job. Rui is always searching for new tools
to help him in the training process. Motivating differ-
ent kinds of students isn’t easy, and sometimes he feels
lost and without a clear guidance in the teaching/
learning process.
name
Rita Fonseca
age
46
profession
social science educator
education
Psychology PhD
knowledge
work psychology / statistics
interests / hobbies
cultural events
frustations
diculty to manage family and work
/ no time for sports
goals
time for family
top of academic career
personal story - a day life
Rita has a PhD in psychology and she teaches and researches in the Fac-
ulty of Psychology in the University of Oporto. She’s a single mother, so
every day, before going to work, she must take care of her kids, preparing
their lunch packets and taking them to school.
Rita’s weeks are full but Tuesday, although it is a very busy day, is her
favourite. Today is that day; after leaving the children at school, Rita goes to
Vodafone where she‘s developing a project in order to improve their labour
practices. This professional dimension allows her to have eective contact
with another reality and to acquire essential skills for her classes. For Rita
it is very important to be able to share real live practical experiences. This
morning she’ll have a meeting with the Sales Director and then she’ll have
the opportunity to see firsthand the work of the company’s sales represen-
tatives.
At college, early in the afternoon she’ll meet with the coordinator and other
members of her research group in order to continue the preparation of the
next International Congress of Psychology, University of Oporto. This is a
project that has required a lot of her time, because it is intended to have a
wide involvement of guest speakers.
At 5 pm Rita starts classes with a group of students that she finds very in-
teresting, and with whom she tries out new learning methods, which is very
rewarding for her. The enthusiasm of both parties guarantees a lively dis-
cussion and promotes a thorough development of the topics under review.
It is at 7 p.m., that Rita again assumes the role of mother. She brings her
sons home, prepares their baths, helps her older son with homework, gets
dinner ready and then puts them to bed, with a story. At 9 pm Rita begins to
organise the next day.
I think it would be very important that every teacher
has more training in new learning methods, but this
would imply a paradigm shift regarding the evalua-
tion of our activity.
name
Rui Lambert
age
50
profession
Trainer in VET
education
Mechanical Engineer
knowledge
Mechanical Engineering and
Industrial Management
interests / hobbies
Running and Gym
frustations
Working long hours and lack of
acknowledgment
goals
working normal week hours, having
more family time
personal story - a day life
Rui is a trainer in vocational education and training courses. He works in 2
dierent technological and professional schools that oer this kind of cours-
es. During day time he works in one school, where he is trainer and also
pedagogical coordinator of the Industrial Maintenance Technical course,
running on full-time classes. This course prepares and qualifies students for
work and leads to a diploma as a professional technician. He trains young
students to become specialised technicians in repair and maintenance of
machinery in the metallurgy industry.
Today he starts at 9:00h with the monthly teachers meeting, where the
relevant events of the month are discussed and next month activities are
planned. He tries to do all the coordination part of his work during the
morning, because he has classes during the afternoon, starting at 14:00h.
He likes being a trainer, especially dealing with young people with dierent
motivations, but with a common goal, to acquire skills and learn a job, and
more rapidly access the professional market.
Rui is also a trainer in another school, in evening classes. The schools are
not located in the same city, which means that Rui has to spend some time
traveling from one to the other, 3 times a week. He leaves at 18:00h to start
working at the other school at 19:30h. In these evening classes he has older
students, sometimes unemployed, witch pose a dierent training challenge
and demand a dierent approach. But Rui likes challenges, or he wouldn’t
have this job! Normally, on these days he arrives home around 11 pm, which
doesn’t make his family very happy. He can still spend some time with his
wife and teenage daughter before going to bed.
What I have learned about Design Thinking seems
great. I work with big classes of trainees with dierent
backgrounds and dierent reasons for choosing VET
education. Most of the time it’s dicult to motivate
them. I’m excited with the Design Thinking mindset,
because it seams that it’s application will improve the
classroom experience.
fig. 22 Persona cards
research process
name
Ricardo Teixeira
age
55
profession
science educator and research
coordinator
education
Physics PhD
knowledge
nuclear Physics
quantum physics
interests / hobbies
running, gym with a personal trainer
traveling
frustations
wife doesn’t allow to buy a motor
bike
goals
time for traveling and leisure
personal story - a day life
First job of the day – ensure that he is in the right place! Ricardo works both
as a lecturer in the Physics Department at University Porto (FEUP) and con-
duct research in a Portuguese Research Institute INEGI.
Most days, Ricardo concentrates on teaching activities in the morning and
then head to INEGI in the afternoon to meet with his team of researchers
that makes up the Quantum Optics Group.
This morning he is with a large group of budding engineers giving a lecture
on mechanics. After the lectures, he spend a couple of hours helping to
bring together compatible students, projects and supervisors. The match
is important to make sure that the student has an enjoyable experience,
learning new skills that he or she will use in the workplace or if they choose
to study for a higher degree such as an MSc or PhD.
Once teaching is over, he walks to the research laboratory to see how
things are going there. The lab is a hive of activity with a number of exper
iments running. In one experiment they explore novel types of laser sys-
tems, known as microlasers due to their size. Ricardo needs to organise a
trip for himself and one of his research students to visit their collaborators in
Germany and Austria next month. The research group meet to discuss who
should travel and the benefits to the people involved - there are usually
more volunteers than places so this is a tough decision to make. At 4pm
he’s o to meet a visiting US professor who is giving a talk on “55 Years of
the LASER” to celebrate the laser’s historic birthday since it first come into
operation in 1960. This is part of a series of seminars for all the sta and stu-
dents, which Ricardo organises, so he is delighted to see a good turn out.
7pm and time to leave. Ricardo lists all the jobs to be tackled the next day
and sends e-mails to the researchers to make sure they know what to do.
Another work day is over and he’s o to the gym where is personal train-
er is waiting. At home around 8:30pm, having dinner with his wife and his
22-year-old daughter.
I don’t know Design Thinking, but it seems interest-
ing to me. Unfortunately I do not have much time to
dedicate to the didactics of my teaching. But I would
love to know methods which could help me with my
research groups.
46 47
fig. 23 O nline moodb oard in Pintere st conceived by a ll partners
Moodboard
The online platform Pinterest was used as a canvas to
perform visual brainstorm session using only images
of data representation, report layouts and other graph-
ical media as the source for inspiration. The resulting
collection of images were put to a vote between all the
members of the research team and the subsequent set
was used to elaborate a moodboard for the production
of the research report. [fig. 23 e 2 4]
fig. 24 F inal moodbo ard printed out for the idea g eneration
research process
48 49
In the Experimentation Phase it was very important to
differentiate between the idea generation for the Re-
search Report and idea generation for the DT toolkit
to be developed by the Finnish partners. The diagram
of fig. 4 explains the three parallel processes of the
D-Think project.
Generating ideas for the Research Report
Brainwriting and Clustering
The development of this research project and its
organisational structure is based on the Evolution 62
DT model. This is a novel approach in design research
and therefore an innovative approach to the standard
research report model has to be questioned and a dif-
ferent approach in its elaboration tested.
Within the framework of this project, the elaboration
of the research report itself was also developed within
the mindframe of Design Thinking, based on the
first three phases: Emergence, Experimentation and
Elaboration. Some standard DT tools and some very
specific tools and techniques were used in the prepa-
ration of the structure and the graphical identity of
the research report. The process for the development
of the research report started with a standard brain-
storm. The expected outcome of this exercise was a
set of ideas for the visual strategies in the presentation
of the research report. This could either be a process
or a series of actions, types of media or a series of
techniques to represent information. All the sugges-
tions were clustered on relevance and applicability on
metaphoric layout simulating a thermometer, visually
attributing relative importance to the proposed media.
Considered most pertinent were: images, storytelling,
storyboard, research process orientated, infograph-
ics and game style report. The results of this small
exercise were the input for graphical experimentation,
first on the platform Realtimeboard and later in the
conceptual phase of the design process for the final
graphical identity of the research report.
fig. 25 Draft for the research report on Realtimeboard
Generating ideas for the DT Learning Toolkit
Brainwriting and Clustering
The framework of the new toolkit is also based on the
Evolution 62 DT model for orientation of the creative
planning of a human centred teaching and learning
process [fig. 26]. A modified brainstorming session was
organised in order to get a better understanding of the
set of tools which could be used for the planning of
such a process. This Goal Orientated Brainstorming
(GOB) is not as much focused on novel ideas as it is
used to create different structures for toolkits using
existing tools and techniques, sometimes out of their
usual context and in combination with ideas for novel
tools and techniques. The GOB was orientated by
three of the (reformulated) research questions for this
project and by one additional question (the last one):
Experimentation
phase
* How can DT improve the learning process?
* Which kind of DT tools are appropriate in
teaching and learning processes?
* How can a new DT Toolkit help educators
to improve the learning competence and capa
bilities of their learners?
* Which DT tools help to create a positive class
room experience (in theory and practice based
classes)?
The original set of tools described and applied in
the Evolution 62 DT model (Tschimmel, 2014a) was
complemented with tools described in the general DT
literature (Curedale, 2012; Kumar, 2013; Van Boeijes,
2013; Sanders & Stappers, 2012; IDEO, 2009) and in
the research project specifically focused on DT in
education (IDEO) a matrix was constructed based on
the six phases of the Evolution 62 DT model as vertical
columns and a set of activities which are all part of
the planning for a teaching and learning process. Four
action-intended categories were then applied as hor-
izontal rows and labelled: Getting Insights, Sharing
Insights, Ideation and Organisation of Ideas/Selection.
Within each phase those categories refer to tools
which are either exploration tools or evaluation tools.
The GOB was an idea generating process with a lively
but structured discussion between the multidisci-
plinary team involved in this part of the research. The
raw results of this brainstorming exercise were col-
lectively revised. Actions, tools and techniques were
clustered along the subsequent timeline of the Evolu-
tion 62 DT model and amended. Some of the tools and
techniques were re-framed to adjust to the particular
needs and expected outcome for this particular tool-
kit. The matrix was then discussed, evaluated in detail
and restructured [fig. 27 ].
Organisation of ideas in a matrix
Although the initial model of the matrix was planned
with four categories for each phase, this set-up proved
to be unnecessarily complex, inducing the notion
that each phase in a DT model needs necessarily four
types of actions to be completed, which is not always
true and does not apply in this case. Therefore in the
revised matrix those four categories were abandoned,
and exploration and evaluation tools were colour
coded.
The final revised matrix [fig. 28 ] describes a sequential
set of actions along all six phases of the Evolution 62
DT model and proposes a collection of DT tools and
techniques appropriate for the accomplishment of
those actions. This series of DT tools and techniques
are the first proposal for a toolkit, further ideation will
complement, optimise and tweak the overall structure
of the DT Toolkit for education.
fig. 26 Organised Brainwriting
fig. 27 B rainwriting a nd selection for the toolk it
research process
50 51
EMERGENCE EMPATHY EXPERIMENTATION ELABORATION EXPOSITION EXTENSION
activities
Discover a
Challenge
Frame the
Challenge
Define the
Context/People
Define the
Project
Create Concepts Value Hypothesis Solution Materialisation Solution Validation Materialise
Solution
Create
Communication
Implementation
Planning
Evaluation
techniques
tools
methods
Follow your Nose
Gut Feeling +
Experience
Inspiration Board Observation Insight
Statements
From... To
Exploration
Current to New
Perspective
Desktop Walkthrough Proposition Drawing Pilot Test Solution Protype Short Videos Funding
Strategy
Evaluation
Monitoring
Leading Expert
Simposium -
Workshop
Model
Buzz Report Image Interview Design Brief How might we?
Insights to
Oportunities
Education
Model Canvas
Role Play Evaluation Matrix Storyboarding Info Graphics Team Formation
Planning
Questionaires
SWOT Analysis Frame Challenge
Sheet
Empathy Map Innovation
Project Plan
Goal Orientated
Brainwriting
Value Web
(Stakeholder
Exchange)
Rapid Prototyping Vision Statement Presentation Board Implementation
Plan
Feedback Map
Media Research Oportunity Mind
Map
Interest Group
Discussion
Analogies Future Scenarios Competence
Plan
Assessment
Tools
Interview Intent Statement Stakeholder Map
Personas Map +
Cards
First draft for the D-Think Toolkit
EXPERIMENTATION
fig. 28 F irst draft for the D-Think to olkit
The Elaboration Phase of the D-Think toolkit is at
the moment (while writing this report) in the hands
of the Finnish partners of the project (VAMK). Thus,
here only some comments about the elaboration of the
Research Report itself can be made.
After organising the new ideas for the materialisation
of this Report, semantic and graphic solutions had to
be tested and to be improved. ESAD’s communication
designer, together with some researchers, made sev-
eral prototypes of the Research Report before the Beta
Version, first for print, and then developing a digital
version. The purpose of the digital report version was
to make the process of Pilot Testing for the validation
of the Research Report more sustainable, as the re-
viewers could read the report on a digital device. After
getting numerous feedbacks from the European re-
search partners of the D-Think project and a selected
scientific panel, chosen by the Italian partner ISTUD
and the Belgian partner EFMD, the recommendations
for improvement were applied through a continuous
dialogue between the researchers. At this moment,
you have the final print version of the Research Report
in your hands.
Elaboration
phase
fig. 29 P rototyping the Research Report
fig. 30 I mages from two d igital beta versions
research process
Extension
phase
52 53
Exposition
phase
The Exposition Phase of the E62 DT model is charac-
terised by the application of techniques which help to
communicate new concepts and/or material solutions.
This DT-phase is essentially related to the dissemi-
nation of the research process and outcome. As the
entire D-Think research project is divided into three
nearly parallel processes [see fig. 4 ], at this stage it
becomes clear that the Design Thinking process is
strongly iterative.
Communication material related to the Research
Report are Diagrams [fig. 1, 2] , informative Tables [fig. 6 -
8], Matrices [fig. 10 - 12 ], Maps [fig. 15] and a Storyboard
of the whole research process of the team at ESAD
Matosinhos [fig. 31, 3 2]. More communication material
will be produced later on in the dissemination phase
of the project. The techniques Presentation Board and
Vision Statement will be applied for the presentation
of the D-Think project on a special Event, organised at
the end of 2015 by Advancis and ESAD. Other visuali-
sation techniques will be applied to be used in further
print media and web media.
Teambuilding exercise
with some of the
european partners at
the Kick-o meeting.
Discussing the research
questions with the
european partners at the
Kick-o meeting.
TrendMatrix: looking
for Trends in Education
Methodology and in
Design Thinking.
Media Research: looking
for peer reviewed papers,
case studies, toolkits, etc.
about Design Thinking and
New Learning and Training
Methods.
Inspirationboard Mind Mapping - identifying
opportunities for the
project.
Final Opportunity Mind
Map
Discussing the Intent
Statement of the Research
Report.
Reviewed Research
Questions
Peer reviewed high quality
Desktop Papers
Important books, articles
and reports for the D-Think
project (not peer reviewed)
Understanding better our
public:
· Conference Dinner about
Education in Portugal
· Structured interview
· interview matrix
Structured interview
with images
· MoodBoard
· Stakeholder Map
· Persona Template
· Persona Cards
Generating ideas for the
research report through:
Brainwriting and Clustering,
Analogies, Experimental
Drawing.
Generating ideas for the DT
Learning Toolkit through:
Brainwriting and Insight
Clustering, Organization
of ideas in a Matrix.
Programme
ERASMUS + KA2 Strategic Partnerships
Project Title
Design Thinking Applied to Education and Training
Project number
27521-LA-1-2014-E4AKA-ECHE
Partners
ESAD | Escola de Artes e Design [Portugal]
Advancis Business Services [Portugal]
Vaasan ammattikorkeakoulu VAMK Ltd,
University of Applied Sciences [Finland]
ISTUD Business School [Italy]
Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi [Poland]
Venture Hub [Spain]
EFMD | European Foundation for
Management Development [Belgium]
Project start: 01-09-2014 Project End Date: 31-08-2017
Peer reviewed high quality Desktop Papers
1. Cochrane, T., Antonczak, L., Keegan, H., &
Narayan, V. (2014). Riding the wave of BYOD:
developing a framework for creative pedagogies.
Research In Learning Technology, 22. doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.24637
2. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’
and its application. Design Studies 32. Elsevier.
521-532.
3. Hase, S., Kenyon C. (2001). Moving from an-
dragogy to heutagogy: implications for VET. In
Proceedings of Research to Reality: Putting VET
Research to Work. Australian Vocational Educa-
tion and Training Research Association (AVETRA),
Adelaide, SA, 28-30 March, AVETRA, Crows Nest,
NSW. Published version available from: http://
www.avetra.org.au/Conference_Archives/2001/
proceedings.shtml
4. Kimbell, L. (2009). Beyond design thinking:
Design-as-practice and design-in-practice. Centre
for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (CRESC).
Manchester. Available in http://www.lucykimbell.
com/LucyKimbell/Writing.html
5. Scheer, A., Noweski, C. & Meinel, C.(2012).
Transforming Constructivist Learning into Ac-
tion: Design Thinking in Education. In Design
and Technology Education: An International
Journal V. 17, Nº 3. 8-19. Available in http://eric.
ed.gov/?q=%22Design+thinking+in+Educa-
tion%22&id=EJ996067
6. Von Kortzfleisch, H. F. O., Zerwas, D., &
Mokanis, I. (2013). Potentials of Entrepreneurial
Design Thinking® for Entrepreneurship Education.
4th International Conference on New Horizons
in Education, 106(0). 2080–2092. doi:10.1016/j.
sbspro.2013.12.237
Research Questions
1. What is DT and why it is important to education?
2. What is the level of knowledge in education
about DT?
3. How is DT transferable to education and
training?
4. How can DT improve the learning process
and the learning experience?
5. Which kind of DT tools are adequate in
teaching and learning processes?
6. How can the new DT toolkit help educators to
learn how to improve the learning competences
and capabilities of their learners?
7. How can the Evolution 6 model be applied in
our research process?
EMERGENCE EMPATHY EXPERIMENTATION ELABORATION EXPOSITION EXTENSION
activities Discover a
Challenge
Frame the
Challenge
Define the
Context/People
Define the
Project
Create Concepts Value Hypothesis Solution Materialisation Solution Validation Materialise
Solution
Create
Communication
Implementation
Planning
Evaluation
techniques
tools
methods
Follow your Nose
Gut Feeling +
Experience
Inspiration Board Observation Insight
Statements
From... To
Exploration
Current to New
Perspective
Desktop Walkthrough Proposition Drawing Pilot Test Solution Protype Short Videos Funding
Strategy
Evalation
Monitoring
Leading Expert
Simposium -
Workshop
Model
Buzz Report Image Interview Design Brief How might we?
Insights to
Oportunities
Education
Model Canvas
Role Play Evaluation Matrix Story Boarding Info Graphics Team Formation
Planning
Questionaires
SWOT Analysis Frame Challenge
Sheet
Empathy Map Innovation
Project Plan
Goal Orientated
Brain Writing
Value Web
(Stakeholder
Exchange)
Rapid Prototyping Vision Statement Presentation Board Implementation
Plan
Feedback Map
Media Research Oportunity Mind
Map
Interest Group
Discussion
Analogies Future Scenarios Competence
Plan
Assessment
Tools
Interview Intent Statement Stakeholder Map
Personas Map +
Cards
EVOLUTION 6²
Mindshake Design Thinking Model
trendmatrix
analogies
semantic confrontations
experiential drawing
insight clustering
brainwriting
user journey map
moodboard
empathy map
persona map and cards
image interview
stakeholder map
intent statement
inspiration board
trendobservation
media research
opportunity mind map
desktop walkthrough
role play
proposition drawing
rapid prototyping
evaluation matrix
service blueprint
pilot testing
solution storyboard
concept illustration
vision statement
solution prototype
presentation board
visual business model
implementation map
print media
digital media
questionnaire
feedback map
roadmap
EXTENSION
ELABORATION
EXPERIMENTATION
EMPATHY
EMERGENCE
EXPOSITION
i
d
e
n
t
i
fi
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
k
n
o
w
i
n
g
b
e
t
t
e
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
i
d
e
a
s
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
o
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
s
e
m
a
n
t
i
c
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
w
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
a
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
,
o
b
s
e
r
v
i
n
g
,
i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
,
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
Structured interview with educators
1. Sex F M
2. Age:
3. Profission:
4. Our research concerns tendencies of new methodological approaches of teaching-learning.
Which of the following methods do you know and which do you apply?
1. Flipped class room
2. Problem based learning
3. Game based learning
4. Design based learning
5. Blended learning (e-learning, online learning, m-learning, MOOCS)
6. Maker Space
7. Connected learning
8. Outro
5. What is your opinion of the methodology you apply in teaching?
1. very ecient
2. ecient
3. not very ecient
4. inecient
Why?
6. What are your principal needs in your teaching process?
7. And what are your greatest diculties?
I KNOW I APPLY
8. What suggestions or solutions would you oer to resolve the problems you mentioned above?
9. Are you familiar with the Design Thinking Method? If yes, please elaborate.
10. We will show you 5 images. Please choose 3 and comment on them freely.
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
Thank you for participating!
name
age
profession
education
knowledge
interests / hobbies
frustations
goals
personal story - a day life
name
Ricardo Teixeira
age
55
profession
science educator and research
coordinator
education
Physics PhD
knowledge
nuclear Physics
quantum physics
personal story - a day life
First job of the day – ensure that he is in the right place! Ricardo works both
as a lecturer in the Physics Department at University Porto (FEUP) and con
duct research in a Portuguese Research Institute INEGI.
Most days, Ricardo concentrates on teaching activities in the morning and
then head to INEGI in the afternoon to meet with his team of researchers
that makes up the Quantum Optics Group.
This morning he is with a large group of budding engineers giving a lecture
on mechanics. After the lectures, he spend a couple of hours helping to
bring together compatible students, projects and supervisors. The match
is important to make sure that the student has an enjoyable experience,
learning new skills that he or she will use in the workplace or if they choose
to study for a higher degree such as an MSc or PhD.
Once teaching is over, he walks to the research laboratory to see how
things are going there. The lab is a hive of activity with a number of exper
iments running. In one experiment they explore novel types of laser sys-
I don’t know Design Thinking, but it seems interest
ing to me. Unfortunately I do not have much time to
dedicate to the didactics of my teaching. But I would
love to know methods which could help me with my
research groups.
name
Rita Fonseca
age
46
profession
social science educator
education
Psychology PhD
knowledge
work psychology / statistics
personal story - a day life
Rita has a PhD in psychology and she teaches and researches in the Fac
ulty of Psychology in the University of Oporto. She’s a single mother, so
every day, before going to work, she must take care of her kids, preparing
their lunch packets and taking them to school.
Rita’s weeks are full but Tuesday, although it is a very busy day, is her
favourite. Today is that day; after leaving the children at school, Rita goes to
Vodafone where she‘s developing a project in order to improve their labour
practices. This professional dimension allows her to have e
ective contact
with another reality and to acquire essential skills for her classes. For Rita
it is very important to be able to share real live practical experiences. This
morning she’ll have a meeting with the Sales Director and then she’ll have
the opportunity to see firsthand the work of the company’s sales represen
tatives.
At college, early in the afternoon she’ll meet with the coordinator and other
members of her research group in order to continue the preparation of the
I think it would be very important that every teacher
has more training in new learning methods, but this
would imply a paradigm shift regarding the evalua
tion of our activity.
name
Rui Lambert
age
40
profession
Trainer and consultant
education
MBA Management
knowledge
Marketing, Management
personal story - a day life
Rui is a consultant and trainer for international and large corporations. He
spends his days training companies on innovation strategies while improv
ing their long lasting life. In his spare time he’s researching conferences,
contents, trends and future clients, as well as working his presentations and
personal marketing.
For Rui, his appearance is of most importance and all details count. Today,
he has a training/presentation at Unilever about the new digital market
ing trends and how these can contribute for the innovation of a consumer
goods company.
He arrives 2 hours early to test his interactive presentation and prepares
the scenography. All contributes to a perfect performance to captivate the
trainees/audience. After warming his voice, he takes a “selfie”, showing his
first slide with the Unilever logo at the back, posting it on social networks.
It’s 9:30h. Unilever managers arrive and he personally greets everyone to
create empathy, showing his perfectly designed presentation and action
Design Thinking is great. I saw some interviews and
Ted Talks with Tim Brown and Tom Kelley. The com
panies I work with, need fast and e
ective results. I
believe, Design Thinking is a valuable asset, but I still
couldn’t implement it in the process of training with
my clients. I use it personally as a visual method.
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y
U
S
E
R
S
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
U
S
E
R
S
HEI
EDUCATOR
R
E
S
E
A
R
C
H
G
R
O
U
P
I
N
D
I
R
E
C
T
F
I
N
A
L
U
S
E
R
S
TANJA
ORAVIITA
TAUNO
KEKALE
FIN.
ERIC
CORNUEL
BEL. / ITA.
BORIANA
MARINOVA
T
O
O
L
K
I
T
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
V
A
L
I
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
I
L
O
T
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
D
I
S
S
E
M
I
N
A
T
I
O
N
M
-
L
E
A
R
N
I
N
G
C
O
U
R
S
E
CRISTINA
GODIO
MATHIEU
CARENZO
SPA.
JAUME
ARGERICH
ANA
BARROCA
POR.
ENA
SZCZAWINSKA
POL.
KATARZYNA
BUJAK
KATJA
TSCHIMMEL RUTE
MONTEIRO
MARIANA
VALENÇA
JOANA
SANTOS
JOSÉ
SIMÕES ALEXANDRE
JACINTO
RUTE
CARVALHO
DIRK
LOYENS
HEI
STUDENTS
TRAINEES
DESIGNER
PHD
STUDENT ENTREPRENEUR
I&D
PROJECT
MANAGER
MARIA
CARAMAZZA
I&D
PROJECT
MANAGER
TRAINER
CONSULTANT
RESEARCHER
DESIGNER
CONTACT PERSON LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE | CONTA
CT PERSON
POR.
Research Report
Research
Report ( BETA )
EMERGENCE EMPATHY EXTENSION
Tool Kit
M-Learning
ELABORATION EXPOSITIONEXPERIMENTATION
ELABORATION EXPOSITIONEXPERIMENTATION
ELABORATION EXPOSITIONEXPERIMENTATION
fig. 31 Preparation of a scientific presentation of the D-Think research process
Once a new concept is presented to and accepted by a
community, it has to be implemented. Various com-
munication supports, such as articles, flyers, sites,
etc. can help to make the innovative character of the
D-Think project understandable. For the research
team at ESAD, the Extension Phase signifies sup-
porting the development of the D-Think toolkit (its
specification, elaboration, testing and dissemination)
and the development of the m-Learning Course. In the
last year of the project, visual material will be neces-
sary for training for the trainers program, the pilot
testing of the m-learning course and its dissemination.
Questionnaires and a Feedback Map will be realised to
improve the outcome of the D-Think project.
fig. 32 Storyboard of the research process
research process
04
The Concept
Design Thinking
56 57
The Concept
Design
Thinking
The following text about the origin and evolution of
the concept Design Thinking and the description of
its main characteristics and toolkits is the result of
the systematic literature search and its bibliograph-
ic database in the Emergence Phase of the research
process. The most quoted DT models are presented
and compared.
The Origin
Design was always a catalyst for innovation processes
in product and service development. But over the last
10 years, with more and more publications about De-
sign Thinking, the term has gained popularity in engi-
neering fields, business media and finally in the area
of education. Design Thinking became a label for the
awareness that any kind of organisation can benefit
from the designers’ way of thinking and working. Two
decades before becoming a popular method for inno-
vation, design thinking (at that time written in lower
case) had been defined and studied by an internation-
al research group, solely as the cognitive process of
designers (Cross, Dorst & Roozenburg, 1992; Eastman,
McCracken & Newstetter, 2001). The objective of
these studies was to get more insights into the import-
ant attributes of Design Creativity. Instead of looking
for universal design methods (as the movement of the
1960s and 1970s had done), research in design think-
ing is interested in identifying the essential mental
strategies of designers while working on a project.
Born in the 1990s, the research movement in design
thinking is still in continuous development, trying to
identify the fundamental reasoning patterns behind
design and looking at the core design practices. Kees
Dorst (2011), for example, identifies in his paper “The
core of ‘design thinking’ and its application” (chosen
as a high quality desktop paper for this research) the
creation of frames as the core of design practices. Lucy
Kimbell (2009, 2011, 2012) tries in her several papers
to build a bridge from design thinking as a cognitive
process to Design Thinking as an innovation process
where designers meet practitioners from other disci-
plinary fields.
In the last 10 years (2005 - 2015), the concept of de-
sign thinking has been stretched, and is now free of its
domain limits. Today, Design Thinking (now written
in upper case) is understood as a complex thinking
process, expressing the introduction of design culture
and its methods into fields such as business innova-
tion, social innovation or educational innovation.
Two authors and their books have been central to the
reconfiguration of design thinking: Change by Design:
How Design Thinking Transforms Organisations and
Inspires Innovation by Tim Brown (2009), CEO of
IDEO, one of the world’s most influential design con-
sultancies, and The Design of Business: Why Design
Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage (2009) by
Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Manage-
ment in Toronto, with a background in management
consulting. Although both authors define and describe
Design Thinking differently, they both explore its
role and potential within organisations. Martin even
claims in an interview carried out by Dunne, that
Design Thinking skills should be taught in MBAs, as
MBA students have to learn collaborative skills, and
to get a deeper understanding of the user experience
(Dune, 2006: 514).
Design Thinking as a method for innovation
Since 2005, Design Thinking (DT) is not only seen as
a motor for innovation promoted by designers, but
it offers new models of processes and toolkits which
help to improve every creative process, carried out
not only by designers, but in multidisciplinary teams
in any kind of organisation. According to Kimbell
(2009), some governmental institutions, such as the
British Design Council, promote Design Thinking as a
key-player in innovation processes. In one of his first
articles about Design Thinking, Tim Brown (2005) de-
fines DT as an inherently prototyping process: “Once
you spot a promising idea, you build it. In a sense, we
build to think”. According to Brown (2009), Liedtka &
Ogilvie (2011) and Tschimmel (2012), the new use of
the term DT, specifically the combination of "think-
ing" and "design", offers fields such as Innovation
Management the opportunity to apply design tools to
other problem-solving-contexts not directly related
with the appearance and functionality of artefacts, but
with the form of businesses, services and processes.
In this line of thought, in education and training, the
combination of “thinking” and “design” signifies a
big potential for being integrated into new learning
approaches.
The main characteristics of Design Thinking
Traditionally, design thinking relies on the designer’s
capacity to consider at the same time: 1. Human needs
and new visions of living well; 2. Available material
and technical resources; and, 3. The constraints and
opportunities of a project or business (Tschimmel,
2012). According to Pombo and Tschimmel (2005),
the integration of these three factors demands from
the designer the ability to be at the same time analyti-
cal and empathic, rational and emotional, methodical
and intuitive, oriented by plans and constraints, but
remain spontaneous. Some design researchers call this
kind of dualistic reasoning designers’ use ‘abductive
thinking’ to differentiate it from the rational deduc-
tive and inductive reasoning (Martin, 2009; Cross,
2011; Dorst 2011). Abductive reasoning is a concept
developed by the philosopher Charles Sander Pierce,
who defended that no new idea could be produced by
eduction or induction using past data. Thus, abductive
thinking is thinking in new and different perspectives
and about future possibilities, which do not fit into
existing models. And it is a way of thinking in which
feelings and emotions are just as important as ratio-
nality.
Related to the concept of abductive thinking is the im-
portant role of perception in Design Thinking. Since
visual perception is the dominant among the senses,
perception in and through images plays a special role
in Design Thinking. This is emphasised by several
design researchers, such as Goldschmidt, Lawson or
Cross. Lawson (1986, 2004) and Cross (2011) suggest
that designers usually apply sketches, drawings and
material models to explore the project problem and
solution together. The act of visualising their thoughts
seems to clarify designers’ ideas, an observation which
Goldschmidt confirms (1991, 1994, 2003). In her vari-
ous publications on the central role of visual represen-
tation in the formation and development of ideas in a
design process, Goldschmidt defends that sketching
is an extension of ‘mental imagery’. By visualising his
thoughts about aspects of the project, the designer
expands the problem space of the task, to the extent of
including and even discovering, new aspects.
In the same way that sketching helps the designer to
think and elaborate ideas, early prototyping is another
way of visualising and testing new solutions, and thus
is a principle, and tool, of Design Thinking. It is a visu-
al manifestation of concepts, the transformation of an
idea in a testable model, and thus, according to Liedt-
ka and Ogilvie (2011) indispensable to the creative
design process. And as the designer never has enough
information about a project, rapid prototyping allows
testing of early product or business details, forms
and nuances. And as rapid prototyping materials are
cheap, it permits early failure. The understanding and
acceptance that failure and mistakes are important
elements of Design Thinking, differentiates DT from
the traditional way of thinking in business. Dealing
with incomplete information, with the unpredictable,
and with ambiguous situations, requires designers to
feel comfortable with uncertainty (Pombo & Tschim-
mel, 2005).
Another fundamental characteristic of Design Think-
ing is its human-centred approach, which expresses
itself in the collaborative way designers work and in
participatory methods of co-creation. In design prac-
tice the American design agency IDEO is an excellent
example of this change of approach (see Brown 2009;
IDEO, 2009, 2015). Their HCD-model applied in
social innovation processes, foresees the involvement
and participation of impoverished communities in the
whole design process, from identifying the problems
the concept desig n thinking
58 59
and challenges, to idea generation, prototyping and
evaluating the design outcomes. Designers not only
develop innovative solutions by working in teams with
colleagues (other designers, engineers, marketing spe-
cialists, etc.), researchers and stakeholders, but also
often in collaboration with the final customers and
users of their creations.
The DT process models
Following on from classical design methodology, the
design process has been divided into several stages to
facilitate the planning of project tasks, collective and
production activities, and timetables. The first refer-
ences to a multiphase structure of the creative process
in general, go back to Poincaré (1924), who through
his reflections on his own creative thinking process in
solving mathematical problems, gave the impulse to
Wallas (1926) to divide the creative process into four
phases: the preparation, the incubation, the illumi-
nation and the verification phase. This classification
was the starting point of the research movements into
design creativity, which looked for new models to
best describe the phases of a creative problem solving
process (Tschimmel 2012). As shown by several design
researchers, the classification and respective visual-
isation of the different phases of the design process
depend mainly on the methodological paradigm in
which the creative process in design is analysed and
described (Dorst & Dijkhuis, 1995; Dorst, 1997; Tsch-
immel, 2011a).
In the domain of Design Thinking applied in inno-
vation, several process models have been published
and defended as the most appropriate. Some of the
best known models are the 3 I model (Brown &
Wyatt, 2010) and the HCD model (http:// www.ideo.
com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit), both
developed by IDEO, the HCD model in 2 different
versions, the Double Diamond model from the British
Design Council (http://www.designcouncil.org.uk),
the Design Thinking model of the Hasso-Plattner-In-
stitute (http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/d_school/
designthinking) and the Design Thinking model of the
University of Stanford. The last are both related to the
d.school in Potsdam, Germany, and in Stanford. Until
now (2015) the only existing DT toolkit for Educators
was also designed by IDEO in collaboration with the
Riverdale School. In the following, all these models
will be briefly introduced and at the end, discussed.
IDEO’s 3 I model
The DT model of 3 I’s (Inspiration, Ideation, Imple-
mentation) was developed by IDEO in 2001 in the
context of service and social innovation. As the design
agency was increasingly being asked to work on
problems far removed from traditional design (health
care, learning environments, etc.), they wanted to
distinguish this new type of experience-oriented
design work from industrial design (Brown & Wyatt,
2010). Inspiration, the first Design Thinking phase of
the model, includes the following design activities:
the identification of the design problem or oppor-
tunity, the elaboration of the design brief to give the
design team a framework, and the observation of the
behaviour of the target group in their daily living
environment. After identifying the context by obser-
vation and design research, the Ideation phase of the
Design Thinking process starts: an interdisciplinary
team goes through a process of synthesis in which
they distil what they have observed and learned into
insights that lead either to opportunities to change, or
immediately to new solutions. During this brainstorm-
ing process, visual representations of concepts are en-
couraged to help others to understand complex ideas.
The third phase of IDEO’s DT model is Implementa-
tion, the phase in which the best ideas are turned into
an action plan. According to Brown and Wyatt (2010),
prototyping is the core of the implementation process.
Through prototyping, new ideas and material solu-
tions are tested, iterated and improved. After the final
product or service has been created, the last activity
of the implementation space is the development of
a communication strategy to help communicate the
solution inside and outside the organisation.
Observe and Inquire
Spread
Inspiration
1
Ideation
2
Implementation
3
Brainstorm
Synthesize
Create|refine prototypes
Observe and Inquire
Tell stories
Introduce ‘experiments’
Spread
fig. 34 C omparison of t he 2 versions of the HCD mode l (IDEO, 2009: 8
and 2015: 12)
IDEO’s HCD models
(version 2009 and version 2015)
In response to a call from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, IDEO developed in 2009 another DT
model, first as a toolkit for NGOs and social enterpris-
es that work with impoverished communities in the
developing world (Brown & Wyatt, 2010), and later on
(2015) as a toolkit for every designer:
The HCD-toolkit for social innovation:
IDEO (2009). HCD Toolkit: a step-by-step guide
to the elements of human-centred design. 2nd
released & revised by IDEO (in October 2015
it was no longer available for download).
A recent version of the HCD-toolkit, but this time
reformulated as a Design Toolkit, elaborated for the
use by designers:
IDEO (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centred De-
sign. 1st Edition. Available in http://www.designkit.org/
(03/10/2015).
a) IDEO: The HCD-toolkit for social innovation.
The first version of the HCD toolkit shows how to
use the Human-Centred Design approach to over-
come challenges and develop innovative solutions in
non-profit businesses, more specifically in the de-
veloping world. The model is also based on 3 phases
which form the acronym HCD, which at the same
time stand for Human-Centred Design and Hearing,
Creating and Delivering, the 3 phases of the model.
The user is guided through a participatory design pro-
cess, which is supported by activities such as building
listening skills, running workshops, and implementing
ideas. The first version of the HCD toolkit is seen as a
step forward in sharing the practice of human-centred
design with the social sector. In its introduction was
the following explanation of the HCD approach: “Hu-
man-Centred Design (HCD) will help you hear the
needs of constituents in new ways, create innovative
solutions to meet these needs, and deliver solutions
with financial sustainability in mind.” (IDEO, 2009)
Through a series of methods, activities, and resources,
the toolkit can empower individuals and organisations
to become designers themselves and enable change in
their own communities.
The process of Human-Centred Design starts with a
specific Design Challenge and moves from concrete
observation of people, to abstract thinking while
uncovering insights and themes, and then back to the
concrete thinking while describing tangible solutions
[fig. 3 5].
The HCD toolkit adopts a small set of rules for creat-
ing an environment to facilitate innovation: Building
multi-disciplinary teams, with no less than 3 and no
more than 8 individuals; Using dedicated spaces to
focus on the challenge; Planning finite time frames,
with a beginning, middle and end.
fig. 35 HCD Process diagram (IDEO, 2009: 8) fig. 33 T he DT model of 3 I's (IDEO)
the concept desig n thinking
60 61
b) IDEO: The design toolkit for Human-Centred-De-
sign. The second version of the HCD toolkit, also de-
veloped by IDEO, does not promote itself as a descrip-
tive guide for a Design Thinking process. The term
Design Thinking is not even mentioned. It is however
very similar to the previous toolkit, although it is no
longer specifically focused on NGO's and developing
world problems. In fact a human-centred design pro-
cess should not be singled out for particular problems
within a specific context, but should be useful for al-
most any kind of design process. This HCD field guide
is therefore more complete than the first HCD toolkit,
and it should be possible to use its techniques in the
design of educational programmes, learner outcomes
and active learning strategies.
The field guide offers problem solvers a chance to
design with communities, to understand people, to
dream up a score of ideas, and to create innovative
solutions based on people’s actual needs. Being a
human-centred designer is about believing that as
long as designers stay grounded in what they have
learned from people, the teams can arrive at a new
solution for a real world need. According to IDEO
(2015), human-centred designers think and test, fail
early and often, and spend a surprising amount of
time not knowing the answer to the challenge at hand.
They are optimists and makers, experimenters and
learners, they empathise and iterate, and they look
for inspiration in unexpected places. They make their
ideas tangible, test and refine them. Interesting in this
field guide is the description of seven complementa-
ry mindsets for a Human-Centred-Design process:
Empathy, Optimism, Iteration, Creative Confidence,
Making, Embracing Ambiguity, and Learning from
Failure.
The models of the d.school (Hasso-Plattner Insti-
tute and Stanford University)
Another DT model, similar to IDEOs’ 3 I, but devel-
oped in an educational context, is the Design Thinking
model of the d.school of the Hasso-Plattner-Institute
at the University of Potsdam in Germany, an insti-
tution directly connected with Stanford University
and IDEO. Nearly the same DT model is proposed
by Stanford University themselves, with only a small
difference in the first 2 phases [see fig . 37 and 38].
In these models, based also on process experience
from IDEO, the design thinking process is visualised
in five/six steps, which are in the Hasso Plattner Mod-
el connected by curved lines to indicate that each step
is performed in iterative loops. According to Thoring
& Müller (2011), in the first step of the model, Under-
stand, existing information about the topic is gathered
through secondary research.
The second stage, Observe, is based on a qualitative
research approach that includes interviewing and
observing techniques to collect insights about the
users’ needs. Through storytelling, the insights are
shared among the group and subsequently synthesised
into a visual framework called Point of View which
reflects the user’s perspective. In the Stanford version
of the model, this phase is called Define. The stage
of Ideation corresponds in both models completely
with the Ideation phase of the 3 I model. The next two
steps Prototype and Tests contain the same activities
and considerations as the Implementation phase of
the 3 I model.
Double Diamond model of the British Council
The Double Diamond design process model, devel-
oped at the Design Council in 2005, is graphically
based on a simple diagram describing the divergent
and convergent stages of the design process, which
gives the model the form of a double diamond (http://
www.designcouncil.org.uk/about-design/ How-de-
signers-work/The-design-process/, 03.05.2015). The
model is also called 4 D model because the name of
each phase starts with a ‘D’: Discover, Define, Develop
and Deliver. What differentiates this model from the
one of 3 I’s or the HCD is the visual mapping of the
divergent and convergent stages of the design process,
characteristic for design thinking.
The first quarter of the Double Diamond represents
the initial divergent part of the project, the Discov-
ery phase, in which the designer is searching for new
opportunities, new markets, new information, new
trends, and new insights. The second quarter, which
closes the first Diamond, marks the Definition stage,
a kind of filter where the first insights are reviewed,
selected and discarded. The Define stage also covers
the initial development of project ideas, in which the
designer must engage with the wider context of the
identified opportunity. The key activities during the
definition phase are project development, project
management and corporate sign-off. The third quar-
ter of the Double Diamond represents the period of
Development. As in the Develop stage the project has
been taken through a corporate and financial sign-off,
we find ourselves again in a divergent period. De-
sign-led solutions are developed, iterated and tested
within the company by multi-disciplinary teams and
under the use of DT tools such as brainstorming,
sketches, scenarios, renderings or prototypes. In the
last phase of the 4 D model, the convergent Deliver
stage, the final concept is taken through final testing,
signed-off, produced and launched. Every phase of
the Double Diamond design process is much more
detailed and complex than can be explained here, and
this is of course true for all the other models present-
ed in this chapter.
DT toolkit for Educators
Until now (2015) the only existing DT toolkit for
Educators was also designed by IDEO in collaboration
with the Riverdale School:
Riverdale & IDEO (2012). Design Think
ing for Educators. 2nd Edition. Available in
http:// www.designthinkingforeducators.
com/toolkit/ (03/10/2015).
Riverdale and IDEO’s DT for Educators is a complete
working guide with very detailed specifications for
each phase of the process. It is composed of 5 phases:
Discovery, Interpretation, Ideation, Experimentation
and Evolution, oscillating between divergent and
convergent thinking modes. It's also accompanied by
a workbook, so that it can be easily applied by edu-
cators. Although it was primarily designed with the
Riverdale School in mind, it also sheds some light on
issues and strategies regarding HEI education.
The toolkit introduces and motivates the discussion
around Design Thinking in education and the par-
ticular DT mindset which is described here also as
human-centred, collaborative, optimistic and exper-
imental. Because this is a toolkit for those that aren’t
familiar with the Design Thinking process, the guide
starts by presenting a number of questions and exam-
ples of needs identified in the context of education,
starting from the actual needs and opportunities taken
from real testimonials.
In the first pages of this toolkit, many problems in the
context of education are given, searching for new per-
spectives, new tools and new approaches. After this
presentation it is intended for educators, presenting a
set of solutions and benefits Design Thinking can of-
fer, followed by a definition of what Design Thinking
is, what are its main characteristics, where can it be
applied, how it is practiced and explaining the design
process. It ends with some suggestions for an appropi-
ate mindset on the part of educators.
fig. 36 P hases and tool s of the 2nd versio n of the HCD Proc ess
(IDEO, 20 15)
fig. 37 T he Design Thi nking Model of t he Hasso-P lattner-Ins titute
fig. 38 T he Design Thi nking Model o f Stanford fig. 39 The Double Diamond design process model,
developed by the British Design Council.
fig. 40 P hases and tool s of the DT for Educa tors toolkit
(River dale & IDEO, 2012: 15 )
the concept desig n thinking
62 63
Conclusion about the DT toolkits
The first well-known model, the 3 I model, is based
on an acronym, which presented a big advantage: the
three phases are easy to remember and each phase has
an associated space of action. The weak point of this
model, as Tschimmel (2012) pointed out, are the terms
used for the two first phases, Inspiration and Ideation.
Because of the etymological significance, these terms
can lead to wrong interpretations: ‘Inspiration’ leads
to the false impression of easily formed ideas and an
artistic approach of the creative process. ‘Ideation’
etymologically limits the second phase to idea gener-
ation, excluding the material and technical contribu-
tions to new ideas and concepts.
In comparison with the 3 I model, IDEO’s HCD model
is a lot more complex and comprehensive, as it comes
with a practical toolkit. Furthermore, the double
meaning of the acronym HCD happily embraces the
human centred design approach and the 3 phases of
the creative process in the first edition of the toolkit.
The etymological associations of Hear, Create and De-
liver are much more appropriate to describe the cre-
ative design thinking process than the more abstract
terms of Inspiration, Ideation and Implementation.
Nevertheless, IDEO resumed these terms to divide the
design process in 3 phases in the new version of the
HCD model. This new HCD design toolkit is clearly a
fusion of the first HCD model with the 3 I model.
Comparing the space-phase sequences of all above
presented models, despite the different numbers of
process phases, we can affirm that they are very sim-
ilar [compare fig. 12], DT for Educators being the model
with the more different division of the process. The
iteration principle of Design Thinking is presented in
this model through the last phase, called Evolution.
Better than all the other models, the DT model from
the Hasso-Plattner Institute [fig. 37 ] shows that the
stages of a design process are not always undertaken
sequentially, but that projects may loop back to earlier
phases. On the other hand, the Stanford DT model
and the Double Diamond model are characterised by
a visual description of the divergent and convergent
stages of the design process.
Based on the experience of IDEO with social innova-
tion projects, the 3 I and HCD models have in com-
mon the human-centred design approach: DT is seen
as a process that contributes to innovation through
learning with people to meet their needs in their so-
cial context. The same can be said about the approach
in the DT for Educators toolkit.
With the exception of the 3 I model and the DT model
from Hasso Plattner, all models have a complementary
toolkit where the process phases and the different DT
techniques are explained and contextualised through
practical examples. Design Thinking for Educators
refers in its workbook to the duration and degree of
difficulty of each technique, and classifies the tech-
niques in ‘reflective’, ‘interactive’ or ‘hands-on’, identi-
fying the number of participants, advantages of use
and some mindset tips.
The recent HCD design kit starts with a brief intro-
duction to the designer mindset as a problem solver.
Giving particular importance to the mindset, several
testimonies are given: David Kelley (Creative Con-
fidence), Krista Donaldson (Make it), Tim Brown
(Learn from Failure), etc. Regarding the tools, the
HCD field guide offers 57 methods, a comprehensive
set of exercises and activities that lead the design chal-
lenge towards the “getting into the market” stage. It
assumes that some tools will be used several times and
some not, according to the situation and work. A cer-
tain flexibility for the use of the DT tools are given in
every toolkit, calling attention to the fact that the pro-
cess is not linear and some tools are able to be applied
in more than one phase of the process. All analysed
toolkits are very visual, each technique/method has
its own pictogram and a brief introduction followed
by a series of steps for its implementation. The DT for
Educators toolkit is extremely detailed, but easy to
read, using images, topics, helpful tips, and little notes
which provide an outline to the whole process.
In a final observation, the utility of the DT for Educa-
tors model has to be highlighted, but also all the other
presented DT models and toolkits can give an import-
ant contribution to the development of the D-Think
toolkit.
the concept desig n thinking
05
Design Thinking
applied in HEI and
VET Education
66 67
Design
Thinking
applied in
HEI and VET
Education
Design Thinking applied in HEI Education
The need for educational reform has led to much re-
search documenting the value of experiential learning
and creative problem solving to increase relevance
and motivation in learning. According to Norman
(2000), Design, which may be succinctly defined as
purposeful thought and action, can serve as a frame-
work and catalyst for teaching and learning strategies
that promote innovative thinking, cooperative team-
work, and authentic performance assessment. The
workbook Design Thinking for Educators (Riverdale &
IDEO, 2011) with its case study, mindset and toolkit, is
the best example for this affirmation.
According to the results of a delphi analysis, Park and
Kim (2013) came to the conclusion that Design Think-
ing can be seen as the foundation of multidisciplinary
education. Taajamaa et al. (2013) presented in their
paper “Dancing with Ambiguity – Design Thinking
in Interdisciplinary Engineering Education” two
master level project courses that use design thinking
processes and problem-based learning as the main
educational approach. One of the courses has been
under development since 1996 and another one was
launched during 2012. Both are interdisciplinary and
multicultural by nature and have a liberally-defined
and open-ended real-life problem setting. In their
paper they examine the two courses impact on the
learning results concerning working life skills such
as communication skills, teamwork, design thinking,
problem solving and an entrepreneurial mindset. They
also seek to understand how these findings relate to
design thinking and problem-based learning theories.
Based on semi-structured interviews, journal reviews
and surveys, they conclude that in both course struc-
tures, the students go through a significant learning
process that involves learning from the areas of: 1.
Communications, team dynamics, cross-cultural, and
multiple disciplinarity; 2. Self-discovery, personal
growth and team based group work; 3. Design process,
prototyping, testing and decision-making; 4. Attitude
for failing, entrepreneurship. However, this research
is limited to the student and teacher perspective of the
learning results. Industry, university administration
and other stakeholder opinions and perspectives were
not within the scope of this paper.
In the following matrix the thinking process elements
of Traditional Educators are compared with the mind-
set of a Design Thinking Educator.
Trends in Entrepreneurship Education
and Training
In our research about trends in entrepreneurship
education and training we came to the conclusion that
the majority of the identified studies were related to
entrepreneurship education in HEI and very few pub-
lications were found regarding the specific context of
training. An important aspect to consider in entrepre-
neurship education is its practical application in soci-
ety, development of the economy and general business
activity. Teaching entrepreneurship in HEI is particu-
larly important because it is also in the entrepreneur-
ial environment that high technology is being devel-
oped. It is the perfect nesting ground for the birth of
new successful ventures. The transfer of knowledge to
the economy is also of great importance for universi-
ties all over the world. The University of Cambridge,
for example, has been exceptionally successful in sup-
porting entrepreneurship clusters and providing the
means for its communication with economic agents
(Hyclak & Barakat, 2010). The creation of successful
start-ups is a fact that supports this. Entrepreneurship
education is needed to empower and promote the
success of new businesses and innovation. In the Uni-
versity of Cambridge programmes have been designed
to inspire an entrepreneurship mindset in science and
engineering students.
One trend identified in Entrepreneurship teaching
and learning is the new role taken by teachers, as
facilitators or coaches. Students develop an entrepre-
neurial mindset with the help of a teacher/facilitator
who orients the learning process, using the resources
made available by the HEI. The teacher is the cata-
lyst, so he has to be well trained, with the right skills
and attitudes (ECORYS UK, 2011). Entrepreneurship
education is essential in the correct and successful
development of the entrepreneur persona in students,
as it is to acquire the needed competencies.
The process of entrepreneurial learning is rather
complex. According to Politis (2005), entrepreneurial
learning is an experiential process where the entre-
preneurs personal experience is transformed into
knowledge, which in turn can be used to improve the
further choice of new experiences. Some researchers
reflect on the study of the suitability of different ped-
agogical approaches in entrepreneurship education.
Teaching entrepreneurship demands different kinds
of teaching and training to achieve and develop the
full entrepreneur potential in students and trainees.
Different pedagogic approaches may be combined to
achieve the best results. Ripollés (2011) points out the
need to balance training in business knowledge with
training in the behaviour skills as paramount for an
entrepreneur.
The use of bootcamp models for training is becoming
increasingly common, not only in HEI, but especially
with big companies. Recent research claims that the
learning context can be one of the most determinant
factors in the success of the learning process. Taking
people out of their usual learning/training context and
training in entrepreneurship campsites can promote
excellent results (Bager, 2011). In this context, the
educator is viewed as a facilitator in the knowledge
creation processes instead of a knowledge provider.
Von Kortzfleisch, Zerwas, & Mokanis (2013) identify
the unexplored possibilities of applying the DT meth-
odology in the context of entrepreneurship education.
They propose the concept of Entrepreneurial Design
Thinking® as a new method for teaching entrepre-
neurship in higher education. According to the study,
the characteristics of Entrepreneurial Design Think-
ing® can enhance entrepreneurship education by sup-
porting the respective action fields of entrepreneurial
learning. Based on the body of knowledge covering
cha rcte rist ics of a d esig n
thi nkin g educ ator
cha rcte rist ics of
a tra diti onal e ducato r
abductive and inventive analytical, deductive and inductive
problem and design-based discipline based
without wa lls, different s ocial forms classroom cen tric, tables in g roup position
principally collaborative principally individual focused
failure is a pa rt of the proce ss looking for "correct" answers
comfort able with ambig uity and unc ertainty lead by org anizing and pla nning
empathic and human-driven, deep understanding
of learne rs needs and dre ams
student-driven, deep understanding about
what stud ents have to learn a ccording the c urricula
mainly vis ual, use of sketchi ng and prototy ping
tools mainly ve rbal, use of diag rams and table s
design thinkin g applied in H EI and VET education
fig. 41 Ho w could Educato rs think like Des igners?
68 69
design science, design thinking and entrepreneurship,
the authors define Entrepreneurial Design Thinking®
as a team diversity based approach, for treating us-
er-centred problems as entrepreneurial opportunities
within an iterative process supported by the use of
creativity fostering tools and environments. A model
for Entrepreneurial Design Thinking® is introduced,
and its main characteristics and the implications for
entrepreneurship education are presented. It is left
as a suggestion that this methodology may increase
the likelihood of successful start-ups with university
origins.
The article from Kortzfleisch et al. was considered
by the ESAD research team as one of the high qual-
ity papers used in desk research. Another import-
ant publication which supports the use of Design
Thinking in entrepreneurship education is the article
“Action-based learning for Millennials: Using Design
Thinking to improve Entrepreneurship Education”
(Zupan, Nabergoj, Stritar & Drnovšek, 2014). Zupan et
al. describe an approach to teaching entrepreneurship
courses in HEI using the Design Thinking methodol-
ogy. They identify several advantages of introducing
Design Thinking in the curriculum of entrepreneur-
ship courses. The study compares what entrepreneurs
and designers do, concluding that there are numerous
similarities. The authors conclude that Design Think-
ing can be successfully used as a methodology for
teaching entrepreneurship and contribute to improve
student’s entrepreneurial skills.
Design Thinking applied in Training
& VET Education
When we compare the quantified results obtained in
the literature review in the search for relevant articles
about Design Thinking applied in Education with
the ones obtained in the search for Design Thinking
applied in Training / VET Education, a very different
reality can be observed. In the conducted research
very few peer-reviewed publications were found
about Design Thinking applied in Training. In total,
five publications with interest to this project were
identified. After verification, it was clear that even
those publications applied the word Training as a syn-
onym for the development of skills and competencies
in Design Thinking, and thus not directly addressing
it as a methodology applied in vocational education
training. In the conducted research, namely in the
realised interviews, trainers expressed the need to
improve the training/learning process suggesting the
use of new methodologies. Our research indicates that
Design Thinking has the potential of being a success-
ful tool in this context, but it is not yet being applied.
Our research didn’t find any case studies about that
subject reported in peer-reviewed publications. This
shows that there is an open field of study to explore
in future research, studying the use of the Design
Thinking methodology in the specific Training / VET
Education context.
The Future of Design Thinking in Education
Despite the success the Design Thinking methodology
has at the moment in the professional universe of in-
novation and also in education for creative thinking in
general, some authors are moving to other conceptual
frameworks, such as Nussbaum (2011) who devel-
oped the concept of Creative Intelligence (Nussbaum
2013). In his book Creative Intelligence, Nussbaum
identifies and explores creative intelligence as a new
form of cultural literacy and as a powerful method
for problem-solving and driving innovation. A similar
approach we can find in the new way David and Tom
Kelley (2013), the Founders of IDEO, are promoting
design thinking as a way to get creative confidence.
They based their approach on research studies such
as the one realised by Rauth et al. (2010) or Jobst et
al. (2012). Rauth et al. describe in their paper “Design
Thinking: An Educational Model towards Creative
Confidence”, design thinking as a learning mod-
el towards creative confidence. Their study draws
attention to the question of how creativity can be
mediated via design education. Since the institutions
they belong to focus on teaching design thinking, they
questioned themselves what the experts in education
believe they achieve with their lessons, and how they
support students in developing a capability of think-
ing and acting creatively. In their empirical research,
Rauth et al. find that there are different levels of
creative knowledge, skills and mindsets that can be
achieved by design thinking education, culminating
in a capability which they call 'creative confidence'.
Building on these results they demonstrate how de-
sign education contributes to both the development
and understanding of creativity.
Whatever the upcoming concepts in
the next years may be, Design Thinking
as a mindset of creative thinking,
focused on empathy with a problem
context and users, will continue to
give its contribution to innovation in
organisations and education, as it offers
systemised creative process models and
tools which stimulate the evolution of our
artificial world.
design thinkin g applied in H EI and VET education
06
Conclusions of the
Research Phase
72 73
Although at this point of the D-Think project, it is not
possible to fully answer the initial research questions
of this research project, the first insights and direc-
tions are given in the following.
1. What is DT and why it is important
to education?
After a change of paradigm, Design Thinking is seen
today, in an interdisciplinary approach, as a method
and a process for investigating ill-defined and wicked
problems, acquiring information, analysing knowl-
edge, deepening empathy, experimenting new per-
spectives and ideas, visualising and prototyping new
concepts, always focusing on results. Design Thinking
is essentially human-centred, multidisciplinary and
collaborative, optimistic and experimental. For these
reasons it is suitable to be applied in education and
training.
- Human-centred because it begins with the under-
standing of human needs and motivations, educators
has to develop empathy to successfully rethink the
educational system and learning methodologies.
- Multidisciplinary and collaborative, because in
order to solve problems and to get better and inno-
vative solutions, Design Thinking as a design process
engages different people with specific knowledge
and with collaborative roles in the development of a
project. For example: people who work at, with and
in Higher education schools. Design Thinking invites
experts and users to find the best solutions. This can
also happen at schools that will benefit from multiple
perspectives and the creativity of others to find new
educational solutions.
- Optimistic because it’s believed that anyone, teach-
ers and learners included, can create new solutions to
solve a problem regardless of size, time and available
budget.
- Experimental because Design Thinking is based on
the belief that failures are an important input in the
iterative process of learning from mistakes. In Design
Thinking early tests are conducted with the objective
to fail sooner, and learn from failures in order to find
better solutions without spending too much money. It’s a
“learning by doing” process, where new ideas are based
on a looped process of learning based on acquired feed-
back. In education, the idea of perfection persists with
teachers, although it’s required for them to experiment
with students, to find new insights and new possibili-
ties. Design Thinking is about believing that everyone
can make a difference by transforming problems and
difficult challenges into opportunities for change and
improvement.
Conclusions
of the
Research
Phase
2. What is the level of knowledge in
education about DT?
In the phase of Empathy, observing and listening to
many educators and trainers, the research group came
to the conclusion that more than half of the educators
and trainers knew nothing at all or only very little
about Design Thinking and were not aware of any
techniques or methods, including those applied in the
teaching context. It is important to point out that in
fields such as Psychology and Educational Sciences,
some work has been done to improve the education in
HEI. Analysing those novel methods and the results
after application, it became clear that, although those
methods do not belong specifically to a Design Think-
ing model, they are quite similar with Design Think-
ing principles and approaches.
Educators and trainers do not associate Design Think-
ing as a method for innovation or learning. Design
Thinking is seen as particular to the field of Product
or Graphic Design. However, after a short introduc-
tion to the concept and the potential of DT applied in
education, all of them manifested interest in this new
methodology and were curious to know more about it.
3. What is the role of DT in education and
training, and how is it transferable?
Design Thinking is an attitude, a model to structure
and focus a design process. It can be used in education
in the same way that it has been applied in regular
design processes of products and service systems.
It can be applied in education and training the same
way as it is used in the field of management, or in any
other field, wherever one needs the creative develop-
ment of processes, strategies and programmes.
It is the focus on empathy with the user which makes
the application of DT interesting. Empathy is what is
needed to shape education and training according to
the needs and motivation of individual learners and
educators. Early experiments with the use of Design
Thinking in education seemed to prove effective.
Emerging trends in education are interdisciplinary
study methods, problem based learning, student/
trainee centred approach, team based learning, exper-
imental learning, and the changing role of the teacher/
trainer as a facilitator of a process.
All of these are very similar to what is the base of a
Design Thinking approach: multi-disciplinarity, cre-
ative problem solving, human-centredness, collab-
oration, experimentation and the need for a process
facilitator. It can therefore be acknowledged that De-
sign Thinking can be used to uphold any challenge in
education, such as improving the curriculum, spaces,
teaching and learning processes and tools, as well as
shaping educational systems.
To transfer Design Thinking methodologies to the
field of education, it’s important for teachers to
connect with their students and understand what
are their interests outside the context of the school.
A deep understanding of personal interests is neces-
sary to foster motivation. This can be done by relating
educational content to their personal interests. How
can students be inspired so that they’re capable of
finding knowledge in unknown issues? Spaces need to
be re-thought so that teachers and students can feel
motivated, enthusiastic and comfortable, in order for
collaboration to occur. Schools already have their pro-
cesses and tools, but they can be redesigned. Not all
people can contribute with new ideas in the current
system, but they could for the new one, like connect-
ing with the community reinforcing external relations.
4. Which kind of DT tools are appropriate in
teaching and learning processes?
As stated before, the framework of the new toolkit is
based on the Evolution 62 DT model with the full set
of 36 methods and tools. During the experimentation
phase, this original set of tools was complemented
with other tools as described in the literature about
Design Thinking and Design Methodology. Those
tools were selected using a modified goal orientated
brainstorming session. This generated a first broad se-
lection of tools based on a set of activities which were
considered relevant for each of the six phases of a
development process based on the Evolution 62 model.
Those activities were selected based on the percep-
tion of a generic design process, independently if it
was going to be used for the development of teach-
ing strategies, active learning planning or the simple
design of more adequate interactive classrooms. Gut
feeling, professional experience and references from
other design thinking toolkits were plausible input
for the structuring and organisation of this first draft
of the toolkit. Therefore, at this stage of the research
project this set of tools should be considered adequate
in teaching and learning processes. But, since this
project itself is based on a DT model and is as such
a human-centred design process, this original set
of tools has to be considered as the initial input for
conclusions of the researc h phase
74 75
an iterative design process of make-test-analyse-re-
design. Which kind of DT tools are appropriated in
teaching and learning cannot be fully answered at
this stage, but should be the conclusion of a process of
refined selection through experimental application.
Furthermore, the present set of tools is too extensive
and some of the tools have to be polished and adapted
to the specific needs for shaping learning and teach-
ing processes. In the following 2 years of the D-Think
project, this research question will be answered with
the participation of all European partners under the
coordination of the Finnish partner VAMK, represent-
ed by Tanja Oraviita.
5. How can the new DT toolkit help educators
to learn how to improve the learning compe-
tences and capabilities of their learners?
In traditional education, information and knowledge
transfer were all focused on one central figure, the
teacher. Learning was a rather passive process and
learning competences and capabilities was something
each one had to find out for himself. However, at the
beginning of the 20th century and through construc-
tivist influences on education philosophy, respon-
sibility for the learning process shifted towards the
learner. It was claimed that a more active attitude to
learning would improve the process and consolidate
the knowledge gained much more effectively. Fur-
thermore, each learner was considered unique and a
general learning process fit for all was considered very
unproductive. However, changing existing educational
programs and reshaping them for personal improve-
ment of each individual learner proves difficult.
Educators do not have a formal design education and
are not trained in the creative development of learning
programs. It is, therefore, that a DT model with its
emphases on empathy and a human centred approach
could prove to be a valuable aid in doing just that,
providing an educator with the necessary guidelines
and support to develop strategies and programmes
which the goal of improving learning competences
and capabilities. These would target each one of his
learners individually, finding the ability to combine
empathy for the context of a problem, creativity in the
generation of insights and solutions, and rationality to
analyse and fit solutions to the context.
Design Thinking can also create and improve a posi-
tive classroom experience, however no one single tool
or method can be pointed out as being able by itself
to create positive experiences in the classroom. This
is not what those tools were designed for. If positive
classroom experiences are the goal of a planned de-
sign process, it is the careful structuring of the process
based on the application of a selective sequence of
tools and methods which will determine the out-
come of the design process. It is the application of the
outcome of this process which might provide positive
classroom experiences, be it either in theory based or
practice based classes. It is one of the main objectives
of the toolkit, which is the subject of this research
process, to be able to provide the methodological
guidelines to assist teachers and learners to devel-
op strategies, processes or even objects which will
support their quest for positive experiences. These
experiences are the driving force and the motivational
support for life-long learning.
6. Is the Evolution 62 model approppriate
to be applied in our research process/
/learning process?
Research can be defined as a “studious inquiry or
examination aimed at the discovery and interpretation
of facts” (Merriam Webster, 2008: 1059). The goal of
an exploratory research, such as the one which was
conducted in this project, aims to clarify a given set of
research questions. How this research is framed and
structured depends on the topic, the final goal and the
particular field or discipline. In this project the final
goal was the exploration and clarification of the role
of Design Thinking in education and training, getting
empathy with the target group, and identifying new
approaches of entrepreneurship learning which can
be useful for the D-Think toolkit for Educators and
the m-learning course.
The Evolution 62 model, developed by the head
researcher of this project, had been proposed as a
workable structure for this research process and as
such was accepted. The Evolution 62 is a descriptive
and generative model which can be used as a method
to guide a design process. It includes quantitative and
qualitative, primary and secondary research methods,
connected with visual thinking and sense making
tools. The Evolution 62, with the full set of 36 methods
and tools, was used in this project to guide the explor-
atory research and structure the process through the
application of a set of methods and tools. Visual tools
such as matrices, visual boards, maps, etc, supported
the primary research methods. The essentially visual
nature of the outcome of most of the tools which were
applied was most helpful to map the results and sup-
port the interpretation of sometimes quite complex
information that had been collected. The visual pres-
entation of results also provided the means for better
communication between the different researchers not
always present at the same instance. Furthermore,
following the model helped to identify divergent and
convergent moments of the process.
As Design Thinking is an iterative process, in the
following phases of the D-Think project, specifically
the development of the DT toolkit and the m-learning
course, the process of the E62 model will continue,
probably going back to the empathy phase by testing
some of the identified DT tools with educators and
trainers to get their feedback on it. As visually exposed
in fig. 4, the research process of this DT project goes
on 3 parallel channels, thus the guidance by a model
as the Evolution 62 gives an important methodological
support to an international research team working
mostly at distance.
fig. 43 P articipant s of the first par tner meetin g in Portugal
fig. 42 The D -Think Skill Diagra m
conclusions of the researc h phase
07
Bibliography
78 79
* All the defined High Quality Papers and Books
are marked in bold
Research Methodology
collins, h. (2010). Creative Research. The Theory
and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries.
Lausanne: AVA Publishing.
koskinen, i., zimmerman, j., binder, t.,
redström, j., wensveen, s. (2011).
Design Research Through Practice. MA:
Elsevier - Morgan Kaufman.
ulibarri, n., cravens, a. e., cornelius, m., royalty,
a., & nabergoj, a. s. (2014). Research as design:
Developing creative confidence in doctoral students
through design thinking. International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, 9, 249-270. Retrieved from http://ijds.
org/Volume9/IJDSv9p249-270Ulibarri0676.pdf
Design Methods
curedale, r. (2012). Design Methods 1. Topanga:
Design Community College.
curedale, r. (2012). Design Methods 2. Topanga:
Design Community College.
dorst, k. (1997). Describing Design, A Comparison
of Paradigms. Delft: Delft University Press.
kumar, v. (2013). 101 Design Methods. Hoboken NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
van boeijen, a., e.o. (2013). Delft Design Guide.
Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
sanders, e. & stappers, p. (2012). Convivial Toolbox.
Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
ideo (2009). HCD Toolkit - A step-by-step guide to the
elements of human-centered design - 2nd re-released &
revised by IDEO. Downloaded March, 23rd, 2015 from
http://www.designkit.org/resources/1
Design Thinking Concept Evolution
brown, t. (2005). Strategy by Design. In Fast
Company. Special Issue Masters of Design.
June 2005. 2-4.
brown, t. (2009). Change by Design. How Design
Thinking transforms Organizations and inspires
Innovation. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
cross, n. (2011). Design Thinking: Understanding How
Designers Think and Work. Oxford: Berg.
cross, n., dorst, k., roozenburg, n. (Eds.) (1992).
Research in Design Thinking. Delft: Delft University
Press.
dorst, k. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and
its application. Design Studies 32. Elsevier. 521-532.
dorst, k., dijkhuis, j. (1995). Comparing paradigms
for describing design activity. Design Studies Vol. 16.
Elsevier Science Ltd. 261-274.
eastman, c., mccracken m., Newstetter, W. (Eds.)
(2001). Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in
Design Education. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
goldschmidt, g. (1991). The dialectics of sketching.
Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 4, Nº 2. 123-143.
goldschmidt, g. (1994). On visual design thinking.
Design Studies, Vol. 16, Nº 2. Elsevier Science Ltd.
189-209.
goldschmidt, g. (2003). The Backtalk of Self-
Generated Sketches. Design Issues. Vol. 19, Nº 1.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 72-88.
kimbell, l. (2009). Beyond design thinking:
Design-as-practice and design-in-practice. Centre
for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (CRESC).
Manchester. Available in http://www.lucykimbell.
com/LucyKimbell/Writing.html
kimbell, l. (2011). Rethinking Design Thinking:
Part 1. Design & Culture, Vol. 3 (3). 285-306.
kimbell, l. (2012). Rethinking Design Thinking:
Part 2. Design & Culture, Vol. 4 (2).
kimbell, l. (2014). The Service Innovation Handbook.
Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
lawson, b. (1986). How designers think. London:
The Architectural Press.
bibliography
lawson, b. (2004). What designers know. Oxford:
The Architectural Press.
lima, m. (2011). Visual Complexity. Mapping Patterns
of Information. New York: Princeton Architectural
Press.
lockwood, t. (Ed.) (2010). Design Thinking.
Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience, and
Brand Value. Design Management Institute. New York:
Allworth Press.
martin, r. (2009). The Design of Business. Why Design
Thinking is the next Competitive Advantage. Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.
osborn, a. f. (1993). Applied Imagination. New York:
Creative Education Foundation Press (orig. 1953,
Charles Scribner’s Sons).
oxman, r. (2002). The thinking eye: visual re-
cognition in design emergence. Design Studies, Vol. 23,
Nº 2. Elsevier Science Ltd. 135-164.
poincaré, h. (1924). The foundation of science. New
York: Science Press.
pombo, f., tschimmel, k. (2005). Sapiens and
demens in Design Thinking – Perception as Core.
In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of
the European Academy of Design EAD’06. Bremen:
University of the Arts Bremen.
pricken, m. (2001). Kribbeln im Kopf.
Kreativitätstechniken & Brain-Tools für Werbung &
Design. Mainz: Ed. Hermann Schmidt.
schön, d. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New
York: Basic Books.
thoring, k., müller, r. m. (2011). Understanding
the Creative Mechanisms of Design Thinking:
An Evolutionary Approach. In Proceedings of the
DESIRE’11 Conference Creativity and Innovation in
Design. Eindhoven: ACM. 137-144.
tschimmel, k. (2014a). Evolution 62. Booklet.
Matosinhos: Ed. ESAD & NaMente.
tschimmel, k. (2014b). Design ou Design Thinker:
Reflexão sobre Conceitos. In PLI - Arte & Design.
Matosinhos: Ed. ESAD. 159-165.
tschimmel, k. (2012). Design Thinking as an effective
toolkit for innovation. In Proceedings of the XXIII
ISPIM Conference: Action for Innovation: Innovating
from Experience. Barcelona.
tschimmel, k. (2011a). Design as a Perception-
in-Action Process. In Taura, T., Nagai, Y., Design
Creativity 2010. London: Springer Verlag. 223-230.
tschimmel, k. (2011b). Processos Criativos. A
emergência de ideias na perspectiva sistémica da
criatividade. Matosinhos: ESAD.
tschimmel, k. (2010). Sapiens e Demens no
Pensamento Criativo do Design. Phd Dissertation.
University of Aveiro, Department of Communication
and Art, Aveiro. Available in: ria.ua.pt/
bitstream/10773/1270/1/2010000838.pdf
tschimmel, k. (2007). Training Perception – the
Heart in Design Education. In Design Education:
Tradition and Modernity. Papers from the International
Conference DETM’05. Ahmedabad, India: National
Institute of Design. 120-127.
wallas, g. (1926). The art of thought. New York:
Harcourt.
Design Thinking in Education and Training
bager, t. (2011). The camp model for
entrepreneurship teaching. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2).
279-296.
cope, j. (2005). Toward a dynamic learning
perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship
theory and practice, 29(4). 373-397.
dunne, d. (2006). Design Thinking and how it
will change Management Education: an Interview
and Discussion with Roger Martin. In Academy of
Management Learning & Education. Vol. 5, Nº 4. 512-
523. Available in: http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/
facbios/file/DunneMartin.pdf.
80 81
ecorys uk limited. (2011). Entrepreneurship
Education: Enabling Teachers as a Critical Success
Factor. Entrepreneurship Unit Directorate-General
for Enterprise and Industry European Commission.
elmuti, d., khoury, g., & omran, o. (2012). Does
entrepreneurship education have a role in developing
entrepreneurial skills and ventures’ effectiveness.
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 15(1). 83-98.
glen, r., suciu, c., baughn, c. (2014). The Need for
Design Thinking in business Schools. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, Vol. 13, Nº 4.
653-667.
hyclak, t., & barakat, s. (2010). Entrepreneurship
education in an entrepreneurial community. Industry
and Higher Education, 24(6). 475-486.
ideo (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered
Design. 1st Edition. ISBN: 978-0-9914063-1-9.
Available in http://www.designkit.org/
jobst, b., koppen, e., lindberg, t., moritz, j., rhinow,
h., meinel, c. (2012). The Faith-Factor in Design
Thinking: Creative Confidence Through Education at
the Design Thinking Schools Potsdam and Stanford?
In Plattner, H. & al. (Eds.). Design Thinking Research
– Understanding Innovation. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-
31991-4_3. Available in: http://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_3.
kelley, d., kelley, t. (2013). Creative Confidence.
Unleashing the Creative Potential with us all. New
York: Crown Business.
koh, j.h.l., chai, c.s., wong, b., hong, h.-y. (2015).
Design Thinking for Education. Conceptions and
Applications in Teaching and Learning. Ed. Springer
Verlag. ISBN 978-981-287-444-3.
löbler, h. (2006). Learning entrepreneurship from
a constructivist perspective. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 18(1). 19-38.
lourenço, f., & jones, o. (2006). Developing
entrepreneurship education: comparing traditional
and alternative teaching approaches. International
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 4(1). 111-140.
niras consultants, fora, econpöyry. (2008). Survey
of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education
in Europe. Directorate-General for Enterprise and
Industry. European Commission.
norman, j. (2000). Design as a framework for
innovative thinking and learning: how can design
thinking reform education? IDATER 2000 Conference.
Loughborough: Loughborough University. Available in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28575776_
Design_as_a_framework_for_innovative_thinking_
and_learning_how_can_design_thinking_reform_
education or https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/
handle/2134/1371.
noweski, c., scheer, a., buttner, n., von thienen, j.,
erdmann, j., meinel, c. (2012). Towards a Paradigm
Shift in Education Practice: Developing Twenty-First
Century Skills with Design Thinking. In Plattner, H. &
al. (Eds.). Design Thinking Research – Understanding
Innovation. Available in: http://link.springer.com/
chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_5.
park, s.-m., kim, s.-h. (2013). The Study of Design
Thinking as Foundation of Multidisciplinary
Education. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences
Education. 02/2013, 25(1).
politis, d. (2005). The Process of Entrepreneurial
Learning: A Conceptual Framework. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 29(4). 399-424.
rauth, i., köppen, e., jobst, b., meinel, c. (2010).
Design Thinking: An Educational Model towards
Creative Confidence. In Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Design Creativity
(ICDC2010). Kobe.
riverdale & ideo (2012). Design Thinking for
Educators. 2nd Edition. Available in http://www.
designthinkingforeducators.com/toolkit/
ripollés, m. (2011). Aprender a emprender en las
universidades. Arbor, 187(Extra_3). 83-88.
scheer, a., noweski, c. & meinel, c.(2012).
Transforming Constructivist Learning into
Action: Design Thinking in Education. In Design
and Technology Education: An International
Journal V. 17, Nº 3. 8-19. Available in
http://ergov/?q=%22Design+thinking+in+
Education%22&id=EJ996067
taajamaa, v., sjöman, h., kirjavainen, s.,
utriainen, t., repokari, l., salakoski, t. (2013).
Dancing with Ambiguity – Design Thinking in
Interdisciplinary Engineering Education. Design
Management Symposium (TIDMS), 2013 IEEE
Tsinghua International. 353 - 360. DOI: 10.1109/
TIDMS.2013.6981258. Available in: https://www.
academia.edu/8194745/Design_thinking_in_
interdisciplinary_engineering _education
wilson, k. e. (2008). Entrepreneurship education in
Europe. Entrepreneurship and higher education. OECD.
withell, a., haigh, n. (2013). Developing Design
Thinking Expertise in Higher Education. In
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference for
Design Education Researchers. Design Research
Society/CUMULUS. Oslo.
taatila, v. p. (2010). Learning entrepreneurship in
higher education. Education + Training, 52(1). 48-61.
van der sijde, p., ridder, a., blaauw, g., &
diensberg, c. (2008). Teaching Entrepreneurship:
Cases for Education and Training. Physica-Verlag HD.
vyakarnam, s. (2005). To inspire, inform and help
implement – The role of entrepreneurship education.
Second AGSE International–Entrepreneurship Teaching
Exchange. 14-16 February 2005. Melbourne.
volkmann, c., wilson, k. e., marlotti, s., rabuzzi, d.,
vyakarnam, s., & sepulveda, a. (2009). Educating the
Next Wave of Entrepreneurs-Unlocking entrepreneurial
capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st
Century. A Report of the Global Education Initiative.
von graevenitz, g., harhoff, d., & weber, r. (2010).
The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1). 90-112.
von kortzfleisch, h. f. o., zerwas, d., &
mokanis, i. (2013). Potentials of Entrepreneurial
Design Thinking® for Entrepreneurship
Education. 4th International Conference on New
Horizons in Education, 106(0). 2080-2092.
zupan, b., nabergoj, a.s., stritar, r.,
drnovsek, m. (2014). Action-based learning for
millennials: Using design thinking to improve
entrepreneurship education. In Doyle, E., Buckley,
P. & Carroll, C. (Eds.). Innovative Business School
Teaching: Engaging the Millennial Generation.
Routledge.
Learning Methodologies
bocconi, s., kampaylis, p. & punie, y. (2012).
Innovative Learning: Key Elements for Developing
Creative Classrooms in Europe. Luxemburg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
cochrane, t., antonczak, l., keegan, h., &
narayan, v. (2014). Riding the wave of BYOD:
developing a framework for creative pedagogies.
Research In Learning Technology, 22.
friesen, n. (2012). Report: Defining blended learning.
Retrieved from http://learningspaces.org/papers/
Defining_Blended_Learning_NF.pdf
gaebel, m., kupriyanova, v. morais, r. &
colucci, e. (2014). E-learning in European Higher
Education institutions - Results of mapping Survey
2013. European University Association: EUA
Publications.
hase, s., kenyon c. (2001). Moving from
andragogy to heutagogy: implications for VET. In
Proceedings of Research to Reality: Putting VET
Research to Work. Australian Vocational Education
and Training Research Association (AVETRA),
Adelaide, SA, 28-30 March, AVETRA, Crows Nest,
NSW. Retrieved from: http://www.avetra.org.au/
Conference_Archives/2001/proceedings.shtml
hlubinka, m. e.o. (2013). Makerspace Playbook
- School Edition. Maker Media. Retrieved from:
http://makered.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/
Makerspace-Playbook-Feb-2013.pdf
johnson, l., adams becker, s., estrada, v., freeman,
a. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education
Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
mok, h. n. (2014). Teaching tip: The flipped classroom.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(1). 7.
khan, s. (2012). The One World Schoolhouse: Education
Reimagined. Great Britain: Hodder & Stoughton.
bibliography
82 83
kirschner, p. a., sweller, j., & clark, r. e. (2006).
Why minimal guidance during instruction does not
work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist,
discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-
based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2). 75-86.
kwek, s.h. (2011). Innovation in the Classroom: Design
Thinking for 21st Century Learning. Master’s Thesis.
Retrieved from http:www.stanford.edu/group/redlab/
cgibin/publications_resources.php
madhuri, g. v., kantamreddi, v. s. s. n., & prakash
goteti, l. n. s. (2012). Promoting higher order
thinking skills using inquiry-based learning. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 37(2). 117-123.
plotnikoff, d. (2013). Classes should do hands-
on exercises before reading and video, Stanford
researchers say. Stanford News, Jul 16. Retrieved
from http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/july/
flipped-learningmodel-071613.html
samtani, h. (2013). Meet the makers: can a DIY
movement revolutionize how we learn.
School Library Journal, 6. 28-33.
sharples, m., adams, a., ferguson, r., gaved,
m., mcandrew, p., rienties, b., weller, m., &
whitelock, d. (2014). Innovating Pedagogy 2014:
Open University Innovation Report 3. Milton Keynes:
The Open University.
Andragogy and Heutagogy
blaschke, l. m. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong
learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-
determined learning. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1). 56-71.
cochrane, t., antonczak, l., keegan, h., & narayan,
v. (2014). Riding the wave of BYOD: developing
a framework for creative pedagogies. Research in
Learning Technology, 22.
henschke, j. a., & cooper, m. k. (2006). International
research foundation for andragogy and the
implications for the practice of education with adults.
In Proceedings of the 2006 Midwest Research-to-
Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, Extension and
Community Education. 93-98.
holmes, g., & abington-cooper, m. (2000). Pedagogy
vs. Andragogy: A false dichotomy? Pedagogy, 26(2).
kenyon, c., & hase, s. (2001). Moving from Andragogy
to Heutagogy in Vocational Education. In Research
to Reality: Putting VET Research to Work. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED456279).
knowles, m. s. (1989). The making of an adult
educator: An autobiographical journey. Jossey-Bass
Inc Pub.
bibliography
