Content uploaded by Daniel Rees Lewis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Rees Lewis on Jun 10, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Towards Bringing Human-Centered Design to K-12 and Post-
Secondary Education
Saadeddine Shehab (organizer), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, shehab2@illinois.edu
Mike Tissenbaum (organizer), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, miketissenbaum@gmail.com
LuEttaMae Lawrence (organizer), Carnegie Mellon University, llawrenc@andrew.cmu.edu
Daniel Rees Lewis (organizer), Northwestern University, daniel.rees.lewis@u.northwestern.edu
Matthew Easterday (organizer), Northwestern University, easterday@northwestern.edu
Spencer Carlson, Northwestern University, SpencerCarlson2017@u.northwestern.edu
Adam Royalty, Columbia Entrepreneurship, adam.royalty@columbia.edu
Helen Chen, Stanford University, hlchen@stanford.edu
Sheppard Sheri, Stanford University, sheppard@stanford.edu
Shelley Goldman, Stanford University, sgoldman@stanford.edu
Annie Camey Kuo, Stanford University, kuoannie@stanford.edu
Kimiko Lange, Stanford University, kimikol@stanford.edu
Melissa Mesinas, Stanford University, mmesinas@stanford.edu
Rose K. Pozos, Stanford University, rkpozos@stanford.edu
Dhvani Toprani, Penn State University, dqt5207@psu.edu
Mona AlQahtani, Penn State University, maa359@psu.edu
Yu Xia, Penn State University, yzx64@psu.edu
Marcela Borge, Penn State University, mbs15@psu.edu
Keith Sawyer (Discussant), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, rksawyer@email.unc.edu
Abstract: Human-Centered Design (HCD) is a growing field that has the potential to positively
impact students’ learning. A general consensus on the terms, practices, scaffolds, and
assessments of HCD can foster its effective implementation in K-12 and post-secondary
education. This session brings together researchers whose work is focused on implementing
HCD across K-16 classrooms. It aims to develop a coherent definition of HCD, its methods,
practices, and assessments, to help frame the field and reduce ambiguity at a critical time in its
broader adoption.
Introduction
Engaging students in problem solving experiences during project or problem-based learning has long been shown
as a particularly effective means for students to learn both content and thinking strategies (e.g. Hmelo-Silver,
2004). While effective, many of the problems that students are tasked with in these curricula do not have a direct
connection to their lives and experiences outside of the classroom. This disconnect between the content and their
lived lives has been shown to cause students, particularly those underrepresented in STEM, to self-deselect from
many career pathways, because they cannot envision how what they learn will have an impact on them and those
they care about (Valla & Williams, 2012). In response, Human-Centered Design (HCD) is an approach that
focuses problem-solving on the real needs of real people (Brown, 2008). In many ways, HCD has been shown to
help students develop human-centered, experimental, collaborative, metacognitive, communicative, and creative
mindsets (Goldman et al., 2012; Razzouk & Shute, 2012). With these mindsets, students become better prepared
to effectively engage in future learning endeavors and actively participate in today’s globally competitive world.
While, there has been increasing research into how we can best engage students in HCD in K-16
classrooms (Caroll et al., 2010; Zoltowski, Oaks, & Cardella, 2012), we still lack a general consensus on the
terms, practices, scaffolds, and assessments that are needed for us to effectively implement and scale HCD
integration. This lack of consensus makes it difficult for researchers, teachers, and policy makers to understand
the best practices for implementing HCD in their classrooms, to assess the efficacy of an implementation, or to
dive deeply into an implementation for iterative refinement. Given the increased interest in HCD as an approach
across the educational spectrum, there is a need to develop a more unified consensus around the terms, practices,
scaffolds, and assessments, or we risk a fragmented landscape.
Objectives
The symposium features researchers whose work on implementing HCD across K-16 classrooms focus on: 1)
defining the design thinking processes and practices that are associated with HCD; and 2) providing exemplar
approaches to integrate and support the teaching and learning of HCD. Lawrence and her colleagues introduce an
HCD taxonomy that defines the HCD processes and practices and can inform the design and implementation of
HCD curricula. Shehab and his colleagues present a case of integrating HCD in an undergraduate food science
capstone course that positively impacted students’ knowledge of implementing the HCD processes and using the
HCD skills. Dhvani and her colleagues propose an instructional model that integrates the practice of (human-
computer interaction) HCI education that takes an HCD approach in K-12 education by outlining the roles and
responsibilities of learners and facilitators, prioritizing learner’s agency in the process of learning. Lewis and his
colleagues present a design and researcher assessment approach for coupled iteration in design that can help
students learn to better create designs to meet human needs. Spencer and his colleagues present a researcher
assessment approach that assists students in identifying risks in the domains in which they will practice HCD to
reduce uncertainty and improve their designs. Royalty and his colleagues propose a reflective tool that can be
used to assess and capture how students develop HCD practices. Finally, Goldman and her colleagues show how
HCD can also be used by teachers to conduct their own educational design projects to better understand and
support their students. Together, these contributions aim to provide a single venue to synthesize the current terms,
practices, methods, and assessment of HCD. The symposium aims to develop a coherent and robust understanding
of HCD, and its uses in curriculum and instruction, to help frame the field and reduce ambiguity at a critical time
in its broader adoption. The symposium also offers methods and assessments that researchers can use to
understand the efficacy of their HCD instructional designs.
Session Format
The symposium will start with each researcher giving a six-minute talk to introduce the participants and attendees
to their work across the symposium’s two themes. Next, the discussant will facilitate conversations between
researchers on critical issues emerging out of our shared approaches to HCD such as: What are the challenges of
integrating HCD in non-design focused curricula, and how can we address them? How do we effectively scale
implementation of HCD in K-16 classrooms? How as researchers, do we know if our designs are having the
impact we want? Finally, the symposium will close with an open discussion with attendees to identify areas of
further research and collaborations that can help us better bring HCD to K-16 education.
Implications
We believe that this session will provide a foundation in a new and growing field. It will solidify the meaning of
HCD in order to avoid ambiguity. It will also facilitate the work of researchers and practitioners around the design
and implementation of HCD instruction and activities in K-16 classrooms.
Implementation of a Human-Centered Design taxonomy with a novice,
multidisciplinary design team
LuEttaMae Lawrence, Saadeddine Shehab, and Mike Tissenbaum
HCD is a problem-solving approach that identifies the unmet need of a population in order to collaboratively and
iteratively develop solutions (Brown, 2008). Researchers have studied important components situated in this
approach, including iteration (Lewis et al., 2018), sketching (Härkki et al., 2018), and design failure (Yan &
Borge, 2020), leaving unexamined how students navigate the overarching approach. While there are well known
models that theorize the processes of HCD (Brown, 2008), they do not provide pedagogical guidance that
articulates what this learning looks like and how to support it. Therefore, we have developed an HCD Taxonomy
that outlines five design spaces (understand, synthesize, ideate, prototype, and implement) (See Figure 1) and
practices that describe how students operationalize specific spaces. This taxonomy was designed iteratively with
designers, researchers, and teachers from multiple disciplines to develop a flexible tool that can be used across
contexts. The goal of this taxonomy is for teachers and designers to develop curricula, learning objectives, and
assessments based on what space they are teaching and the practices they want their students to implement. In this
case study, we present findings on how the taxonomy emerged during a novice team’s HCD approach. Toward
this end, we aim to understand how this novice team used HCD practices during their design project.
Figure 1. The HCD Taxonomy
We report on a five-week design project from an Introduction to Design Thinking course that teaches
students from non-design disciplines about HCD. Three members comprised the design team, a first-year graduate
student in education, a senior in civil engineering, and a first-year graduate student in architecture. The instructor
assigned a project to select a subculture of which they did not belong and develop three frameworks to address a
problem for this subculture. We collected instructional materials, audio recordings of the team’s meetings, video
recordings of their in-class presentations, and a reflection and post-survey from each team member. We leveraged
knowledge integration theory (Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2002) to analyze the design process and understand how
HCD practices can be interconnected to achieve higher levels of integration and can be built over time.
Using our taxonomy and knowledge integration theory (Linn, Eylon, & Davis, 2013), we sought to
understand how HCD practices were used by a novice design team and to what extent they made connections
across spaces and practices. While this team iteratively used the taxonomy spaces, our findings highlight the
challenges of teaching HCD to beginners and the differences among students. Within this group, only one student
was able to achieve high levels of integration more than a single instance. We also found that while the group
went through the motions of HCD, their process and final results did not always align to the overarching goals.
Our paper highlights the complexity and challenges of teaching with the HCD taxonomy, and we share learning
considerations to scaffold this process for beginners so that they may achieve higher levels of integration.
Integrating Human-Centered Design in a food science capstone course: A case
study
Saadeddine Shehab, LuEttaMae Lawrence, and Mike Tissenbaum
The integration of HCD in post-secondary education can help undergraduate students come up with innovative
solutions to authentic and complex problems that are relevant to their field of study (Withell & Haigh, 2013).
Lately, there has been some work around the implementation of HCD in undergraduate classrooms (Puente, van
Eijck, & Jochems, 2013); nevertheless, much of this work has been mainly reported from a theoretical or design-
focused lens, rather than empirical evaluation, especially in STEM disciplines. This case study describes the
integration of HCD into a food science capstone course through a) defining HCD and food science learning goals,
b) providing scaffolding tools that support students’ engagement and learning of HCD, c) creating opportunities
for formative assessment and revisions, and d) promoting students’ participation and collaboration (Barron et al.,
1998). The study explores the students’ experiences in this course to provide evidence-informed insights of
instructional models that effectively integrate HCD in post-secondary STEM courses.
This study is part of a broader design-based implementation research initiative led by the Siebel Center
for Design at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which collaborates with faculty members to
integrate HCD in their courses. The study took place in an undergraduate food science capstone course in which
students solve authentic food science problems while developing novel food products. In Fall 2019, the 42
students who took this course worked in small groups to develop a food product using HCD. Each week, students
attended two 50-minute lectures and one 4-hour lab section. The lectures were focused on introducing the students
to the different processes and practices of HCD and the principles of food product development. The laboratory
sessions were focused on engaging the groups in activities to implement HCD and using the principles of food
product development in refining and prototyping their concepts and thinking about the actual implementation of
their design in the food science industry.
Pre- and post-surveys were collected from the students to measure the impact of the course on their
knowledge of implementing the HCD processes and using the HCD skills, and to assess if the students
accomplished the food science learning goals. Classroom observations were collected during the lectures and the
laboratory sessions. The video and audio recordings of the students’ presentations of their final concepts and their
final products were collected from the six consented groups. Interaction analysis of the presentations indicated
that integrating HCD in the course helped the groups to systematically approach the development of their food
products through empathizing with the users, synthesizing design opportunities, and applying principles of food
product development in ideation and prototyping. A paired sample t-test was conducted using students’ responses
to the pre- and post-survey items and results indicated significant differences suggesting a positive impact of the
course on students’ knowledge of implementing the HCD processes and using the HCD skills, and that students
accomplished the food science learning goals. These findings support the use of an instructional model that can
help teachers teach about and through HCD in STEM post-secondary classrooms, including scaffolding and
assessment tools.
Embedded design: An approach to support learning of Human-Centered
Design practices
Dhvani Toprani, Mona AlQahtani, Yu Xia, and Marcela Borge
Creating learning environments for human-computer interaction (HCI) education for children requires taking a
broader perspective towards learning that goes beyond focusing on teaching domain knowledge to include higher-
order metacognitive, socio-emotional, and socio-metacognitive skills. However, formal education’s emphasis on
domain knowledge deprioritizes engaging learners in learning about and practicing these higher-order skills,
making it challenging to integrate HCI education into K-12 (Collins & Halverson, 2018; Duschl & Bismark,
2016). Within an increasingly connected world, HCI designers require to not only know but also practice
sophisticated thinking processes (Carroll, 2013). Building upon previous work on instructional support for
children to iterate and solve ill-structured, real-world design problems (Collins et al., 1991, 1989; Jonassen 2000),
and integrating HCD approaches we propose an instructional model, i.e., embedded design framework, for
designing learning environments that foster higher-order skills to integrate HCI education into K-12 (Borge et al.,
2020). The goal of embedded design is to create human-centered learning environments that focus on teaching
through practice where learners have the agency to craft their learning experiences.
This framework is developed from an ongoing research project with eight to twelve years old children
in an afterschool club, where children engage with playful design challenges within an HCI context. Children
worked in groups of three, using different technologies like Lego, Minecraft, and Makey-Makey. Each session
was structured to give children forty-five minutes to do hands-on designing with their group members, and the
instructors used ten to fifteen minutes at the beginning and end of the session for whole-class discussion to
introduce the design challenge and reflect on groups’ design and collaborative processes.
As an instructional tool, embedded design framework proposes six core principles for facilitators and
learners (See Table 1). These principles emerge from case studies drawn from one year of the afterschool club
data. It embraces learners’ agency by allowing their experiences and needs to be the main driving force of
community rules, future discussions, and activities. As needed, facilitators observe learners and create perspective
shifting opportunities to help learners discern complex concepts. They provide learners with activities where they
can take over different roles within an HCI design context as both users and designers. Facilitators take over the
role of orchestrators as they engage learners in reflective discussions where they help them recognize their needs
as well as the needs of others in their community. As a community and across time, facilitators work as connectors
of experiences as they help learners make sense of previous events in relation to current and future ones. In doing
so, community experiences become objects to reflect on, making abstract concepts accessible and attainable by
learners.
Table 1. Principles of Embedded Design and the Roles and Responsibilities of Learners and Facilitators.
Principles
Roles and responsibilities
Learners as Agents, Actively Participating in Domain Thinking Processes
Learners as primary
learning agents
Learners spend the majority of the time in control of their own learning
experiences. They work on self-directed projects with peers, making collective
decisions about what they will design and how they will spend club time.
Learners as central
participants
Learners are taking an active role in different aspects of design, even during expert
modeling, by playing an important complementary role that the expert must
interact with, i.e., user for the designer, builder for the planner, etc.
Learners as anchors of the
sense-making &
solution process
Learners' perspectives/feelings during the process of design anchor collective
sense-making during reflection. These concrete experiences are used as objects of
thought to understand problems and devise solutions.
Facilitators as Learning Designers, Orchestrating Co-Construction of Knowledge
Facilitators as creators of
perspective shifting events
Facilitators create opportunities for learners to experience a design event from
different perspectives, i.e., the learner takes on the role of designer receiving
feedback from potential users and then takes on the role of a potential user
providing feedback to the designer.
Facilitators as orchestrators
of ongoing reflection
Facilitators lead reflective activities where the facilitator prompts learners to share
their thoughts, feelings, and concrete experiences; learners' contributions are used
as a means to connect the situated practice to expert practice, help learners identify
important expert practices and existing problems in their own practices, and to
understand why these problems occur. Facilitators also help learners to understand
and develop shared goals and concrete plans for improving existing practices.
Facilitators as connectors
of experiences
Facilitators observe learner activity, taking notes on important topics to discuss
and analyze during community reflections. Individual and team experiences are
shared with the community to develop shared understanding of important
processes, dispositions, and values embodied by different experiences. These
shared experiences can then be used as shared references to make sense of future
events.
Embedded design contributes to the practice of HCI education that takes an HCD approach by outlining
the roles and responsibilities of learners and facilitators, prioritizing learner’s agency in the process of learning.
By prioritizing agency, the higher-order skills required for HCI education are learned around the authentic
experiences of the learner, giving them the opportunity to practice these abstract skills rather than learning it as
technical knowledge. The six principles outlined within embedded design are developed with the aim of helping
educators redesign their learning environments of HCI education by giving agency to children and broadening
our perspective of learning.
Planning to Iterate: Designing to support and assess iteration in design
Daniel Rees Lewis, Spencer Carlson, and Matthew Easterday
To meet the needs of the stakeholders they are designing for, HCD students must learn how to iterate
effectively. Iteration is a vital practice because real-world design problems are highly ill-structured, with
“ambiguous specifications of goals, no determined solution path, and the need to integrate multiple knowledge
domains” (Jonassen 2000, p. 80). To create solutions that support stakeholder needs, expert designers conduct
coupled iterations in which they simultaneously (a) learn more about the nature of the problem, including
stakeholder needs, (b) learn more about the extent to which their design is effective in addressing the problem,
and (c) change the design in accordance with what is learned (Adams, Turns, & Atman, 2003). In short, we argue
that if we are not supporting students to continually apply what they have learned about their problem,
stakeholders and current design to their future design, we are not teaching them the core skill in HCD.
We present Planning-to-Iterate (Rees Lewis et al., 2018), a design and researcher assessment approach
for coupled iteration in design. Planning to Iterate supports iteration by (a) facilitating discussions and prompting
teams to conduct a planning process of representing the problem, prioritizing unknowns, and making iteration
plans; (b) using two templates, the design canvas and iteration plan; (c) providing and prompting use of guiding
questions that drive students to consider common pitfalls, and examples.
We created the assessment in Planning to Iterate for researchers to understand the extent teams are
conducting coupled iteration—that is, to what extent are teams gathering information on problems and solutions
to inform revisions to their design. Assessment involves videoing and analyzing weekly student Planning to Iterate
sessions. We analyze weekly student planning through applying three codes in video analysis: (a) problem
learning which to capture team reports of learning about aspects of the problem, (b) solution learning which
captures reports of learning about the design, and (c) solution revision to capture reports of plans to change the
solution based on reported learning. We code for teams conducting coupled iterations when problem learning
(code a) and solution learning (code b), informed solution revisions (code c).
Our goal with Planning to Iterate has been to create scaffolds and assessments for supporting coupled
iteration. Initial work in Planning to Iterate shows that compared to a far more intensive face-to-face coaching,
student design teams supported by Planning to Iterate conducted more coupled iterations and created more
effective designs (Rees Lewis et al., 2018). In doing so, we can help students learn to better create designs to meet
human needs.
The Design Risks Framework: Risks as a key learning goal in Human-Centered
Design
Spencer Carlson, Daniel Rees Lewis, and Matthew Easterday
Iteration is the strategic management of the design process to refine one’s understanding of the problem and
advance a solution (Adams et al., 2003). As such, iteration is a defining characteristic of effective design processes
(Adams et al., 2003; Crismond & Adams, 2012). Design practitioners recognize that effective iteration requires
designers to identify risks—gaps in their knowledge of the problem stakeholders, and the current design that could
lead them to design something that does not support stakeholders’ needs—so that they can plan iterations in which
they learn more about those unknowns and update their design solution if necessary (Bland & Osterwalder, 2019).
While this skill is of general importance across design domains, the underlying knowledge varies by domain. For
example, toy designers must learn to identify the risk that their toy might be a choking hazard while social media
designers must learn to identify the risk that their platform might radicalize users.
We must teach students to identify risks in the domains in which they will practice HCD. This requires
assessment methods to measure students’ ability to identify risks in a given design domain. We present the Design
Risks Framework (Carlson et al., 2018), a researcher assessment approach for identifying risks in HCD. In this
approach, students construct an external representation of their knowledge about the problem, stakeholders, and
their current design. Then, students attempt to identify risks by reflecting on the gaps in their knowledge that
could lead them to design the wrong thing. Next, a researcher with design expertise (or a design instructor) reviews
the students’ problem representation to identify risks. Last, the researcher compares the risks they (or the
instructor) identified, with those the students identified. This allows researchers to measure students’ ability to
identify risks in their projects relative to that of an expert. Over time, this method also enables researchers to
develop a list of the key risks that students must learn to identify in a given design domain—thereby defining in
detail a critical learning goal for HCD learning environments in that domain. This list could be used to create
rubrics or checklists that instructors might use for formative assessment of students’ ability to identify risks.
Our goal with the Design Risks Framework has been to assess students’ ability to identify risks in specific
design domains. In initial work assessing novice designers completing service design projects, researchers used
the Design Risks Framework approach to assess a large number of domain-specific risks that students struggled
to recognize in their projects (Carlson et al., 2018). By focusing on risks as a key learning goal in HCD, we can
help students learn to plan iterations to reduce uncertainty and improve their designs.
Reflective Design Practice: A novel tool that captures how students develop
Human-Centered Design practices
Adam Royalty, Helen Chen, and Sheppard Sheri
Learning HCD in a university setting can be “messy.” Students often work in project teams on ambiguous
problems (Goldman et al., 2012). In short order each project unfolds in a unique way, making understanding
student growth difficult. This work utilized a tool for capturing students’ design work. Furthermore, we analyzed
this design work and found three ways in which students internalize the methods and mindsets of HCD.
The results come from a study of 33 students from five schools within a large U.S. research university
who took a 10-week introduction to HCD course. The data were gathered using a novel digital reflection tool
called Reflective Design Practice (RDP) which allows students to capture authentic work and reflect upon it
longitudinally (Royalty, Chen, & Sheppard 2018). RDP prompted participants to photograph an artifact they
created in their HCD course each week. The artifact could be tangible (e.g. a physical prototype) or it could be
intangible (e.g. an interview protocol). For each artifact, participants were given questions to help them reflect on
their creation. Participants uploaded the artifact and the associated reflections to an online folder—forming a
multi-page portfolio of design work. After seven weeks, researchers conducted a semi-structured interview with
each participant based on their weekly reflections. We used a grounded theory approach to analyze the weekly
reflections and the interviews. The aim was to distill how students linked their own perceived growth to the
academic environment in which they learned design.
The data suggest three general categories for student sense making. Supports for Learning Design are
specific details of the academic environment students identified as supporting how they learn design and transfer
that situated learning (Greeno Moore & Smith 1993). Self-Differentiation of Design are aspects of the academic
environment that shape students’ perspective of what design is and what design is not. Many of these realizations
come from contrasting design work with work performed in other courses. Student Responses are the cognitive
and emotional responses to design instruction that shape how students develop their own design practice.
Although Student Responses are internal, they develop through working repeatedly within the academic
environment. Each general category has between five and eleven sub-categories. These initial findings can help
researchers and practitioners better understand how students construct their own HCD practice. It may be the case
that students learn HCD in ways that instructors do not perceive or account for.
Empathy development in design thinking for improving access and equity for
students designated as English learners
Shelley Goldman, Annie Camey Kuo, Kimiko Lange, Melissa Mesinas and Rose K. Pozos
Design thinking during HCD begins with understanding a problem holistically and from the eyes of the people
for whom one is designing and iterates with cycles of prototyping and feedback (Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2016).
We report on a three-year, four school district research practice partnership (RPP) (Coburn, Penuel, & Giel, 2013)
to use design thinking with K-8 teachers and administrators to design solutions for supporting students designated
as English learners (DELs). As of 2018, DELs comprise approximately 19.3% of public school students in
California (McFarland et al., 2019). DELs are present in nearly every district, yet not all schools serving DELs
have specialized teachers or resource programs. The districts in our study lacked specialized supports for DELs
and had low numbers of DELs (10% or less), a situation not yet addressed by research or policy.
Our RPP employed design thinking in conjunction with hybrid professional development workshops
(Rutherford-Quach, Kuo, & Hsieh, 2018) to help teachers and administrators build capacity for understanding and
supporting DELs. The goal was to raise collective awareness of, and attention to, systematic educational inequities
surrounding DELs such as social isolation and lack of specialized language learning services, and to support
teachers and administrators in designing change to many aspects of their DELs’ experiences.
Empathy development was a key component of the training and the design thinking approach. The
educators generated 18-24 solutions for students each year. We relied on empathy exercises with teachers
throughout the design thinking process. HCD work stretched throughout the design process and was especially
evident during prototyping, feedback, and iteration cycles. Resulting designs ranged from new classroom
languaging strategies, to relationship building, to reorganizing specialized staff, to focused professional
development. The designs were responsive to individual students and small groups, whole classes, and district
and structural systems.
Data were gathered using an ethnographic approach, with documentation of the participants’ design
processes, with a goal of capturing small changes in practice and mindsets over time. We administered pre- and
post-year surveys, collected field notes, written artifacts from participants, video and audio recordings of
meetings, and focus group reflections. The role of empathy and the attention to students’ needs in the designs
turned out to be a key factor in effective design projects. We present an analysis of survey results and resulting
educator design project analyses to show how the empathy orientations impacted educators’ work on behalf of
students. We identify connections between the empathy work educators completed and their perceptions of their
DEL students’ abilities (e.g. exhibiting asset-based rather than deficit-based views) and achievements (being
situated in the system rather than in the children). Findings show robust changes in classroom instructional
practices, a few examples of systems change, and uneven awareness of and attention to inequitable social and
educational access for DELs. Empathy was essential to the progress that was made.
References
Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective
practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00056-X
Bland, D. J., & Osterwalder, A. (2019). Testing business ideas. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Borge, M., Toprani, D., Yan, S., & Xia, Y. (2020). Embedded design: engaging students as active participants in
the learning of human-centered design practices. Computer Science Education, 30(1), 47-71.
Carlson, S. E., Maliakal, L. V., Rees Lewis, D. G., Gorson, J. S., Gerber, E. M., & Easterday, M. W. (2018).
Defining and assessing risk analysis. Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning
Sciences Count, 1, 352–359. London, UK: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Carroll, J. M. (2013). Human computer interaction-brief intro. The Interaction Design Foundation.
Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and
the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design
Education, 29(1), 37–53.
Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Practice Partnerships: A Strategy for Leveraging Research
for Educational Improvement in School Districts. William T. Grant Foundation.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American
Educator, 15(3), 6–11.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading,
writing, and mathematics. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, 18,
32–42.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2018). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and
schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of
Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Duschl, R. A., & Bismack, A. S. (Eds.). (2016). Reconceptualizing STEM education: The central role of practices.
Routledge.
Goldman, S., Carroll, M. P., Kabayadondo, Z., Cavagnaro, L. B., Royalty, A. W., Roth, B., et al. (2012). Assessing
d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer
(Eds.), Design thinking research: Measuring performance in context (pp. 13–33). Berlin: Springer
Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2016). Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can
transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. In Taking Design Thinking to School (pp. 21–37).
Routledge.
Härkki, T., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2018). Hands on design: comparing the use of
sketching and gesturing in collaborative designing. Journal of Design Research, 16(1), 24-46.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational Psychology
Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(4), 63–85.
Lewis, D. G. R., Gorson, J., Maliakal, L. V., Carlson, S. E., Gerber, E. M., Riesbeck, C. K., & Easterday, M. W.
(2018). Planning to Iterate: Supporting iterative practices for real-world ill-structured problem-
solving. Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age. Making the Learning Sciences Count, 2018, 9.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Eylon, B. S. (2013). The scaffolded knowledge integration framework for
instruction. Internet Environments for Science Education, 47.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest Cataldi, E., Bullock
Mann, F., & Barmer, A. (2019). The Condition of Education 2019. NCES 2019–144. National Center
for Education Statistics.
Puente, S. M. G., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning
approaches: A search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
23(3), 717–732.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational
Research, 82(3), 330–348.
Rees Lewis, D.G., Gorson, J., Maliakal, L.V., Carlson, S.E., Riesbeck, C.K., Gerber, E.M., & Easterday, M.W.
(2018). Planning to Iterate: Supporting iterative practices for real-world ill-structured problem-solving.
In Proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences (ICLS). London, UK: ICLS.
Royalty, A., Chen, H., & Sheppard, S. (2018, October). Reflective design practice: A novel assessment of the
impact of design-based courses on students. In 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp.
1–4). IEEE.
Rutherford-Quach, S., Kuo, A. C., & Hsieh, H. (2018). Understanding their Language: Online professional
development for teachers of ELLs. American Educator, 42(3), 27.
Valla, J. M., & Williams, W. (2012). Increasing achievement and higher-education representation of under-
represented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields: A review of current K-
12 intervention programs. Journal of women and minorities in science and engineering, 18(1).
Withell, A. & Haigh, N. (2013). Developing design thinking expertise in higher education. CUMULUS 2013. 2nd
International Conference for Design Education Researchers Oslo, 14–17 May 2013. Retrieved from
https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/ handle/10292/6326
Yan, S., & Borge, M. (2020). Learning from design failure, collaboratively. International Society of the Learning
Sciences.
Zoltowski, C. B., Oakes, W. C., & Cardella, M. E. (2012). Students' ways of experiencing human‐centered design.
Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 28–59.
