8.4 Future Directions
8.4.6 Educators to Reflect on the Norms and Ethics of Design
Design thinking no doubt opens new and exciting opportunities for education. But as Chap.2has tried to show, the advocates of design and design thinking should not ignore the normative and ethical issues that may inhere in the domain of design. In the first place, a bit of humility may be in place in theorizing about the nature and scope of design. The term design can be used to encompass the world of artifacts both material and conceptual throughout human history. It is safe to say that no one human person or group has the ability and capacity to know all about human culture and creativity. Even within specific domains of knowledge or practice, there are differences of opinion regarding what the design is and what it can accomplish. Yet, it is very rare to find writers explicitly acknowledging the limits of what they know about the universe of design.
When making the case for design, advocates should not be so quick to go beyond the boundaries of what they know or are competent in. As we live in a world that is highly connected and integrated, interventions in areas which we know about may have repercussions in areas where we have little or no knowledge. Those who emphasize innovation and change should be always alert to problems of unintended consequences. They should keep in mind that the path to hell is often paved with
good intentions. Just because we did not intend something to happen does not mean that we would not be morally tainted by it when it happens.
As Simon (1996) says, anyone who designs aims to change existing situations into preferred ones. We want to change things for the better. But here we need to be very clear about what we mean by changing things for the better. Better in what respects? Better for whom? Underlying these questions are the enduring questions about the human quest for the good, the true, and the beautiful. Advocates in their enthusiasm for the creative potential of design thinking should not presume to know what is good for all. And if they are prepared to bring about change, they should be prepared to deal with the moral implications of their acting in the world.
These reflections on the moral challenges of design thinking are not meant to discourage its use. But they help to show that the teaching of ethics cannot be divorced from the use of design and design thinking especially in the education context. Indeed, the teaching of ethics or the cultivation of the proper ethical dispositions should be an integral part of the pedagogy of design and design thinking.
While design occurs in many specific forms in fields such as product develop- ment, architecture, software development, and graphic design, we have chosen in this book to explore how design thinking could be relevant for the field of education by presenting examples of design thinking from the perspectives of both students and teachers. Educators need to further consider how the ideas presented may be applicable, adapted, or even redesigned for different content and subject areas. This is because design is a highly contextualized activity whereby effective strategies and design scaffolds differ according to problem situations. Generic models of design thinking are better treated as starting points for the generation of new design practices suitable for particular contexts of use.
For design thinking to be more deeply entrenched within the field of education, the relevance of design as an epistemology and ethical practice for both students and teachers need to be established for different subject areas. At systemic levels, design thinking can also be applied by school leaders and policy makers to strategize educational goals, systems, and processes. These are areas that can be considered and developed by educators in future design-thinking work.
References
Apeddoe, X. S., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Strategies for success: Uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning.Instructional Science, 41, 773–791.
Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes.Design Issues, 22(3), 4–17.
Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning.Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.
Goldschmidt, G., & Weil, M. (1998). Contents and structure in design reasoning.Design Issues, 14 (3), 85–100.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’technological pedagogical content knowl- edge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 393–416.
References 127
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology.Computers & Education, 49 (3), 740–762.
Koh, J. H. L. (2013). A rubric to analyze teachers’conceptions of meaningful learning in ICT lesson planning.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(6), 887–900.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tay, L. Y. (2014). TPACK-in-action: Unpacking the contextual influences of teachers’ construction of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).Computers & Education, 78, 1–10.
Koh, J. H. L., & Divaharan, S. (2011). Developing pre-service teachers’technology integration expertise through the TPACK-developing instructional model.Journal of Educational Com- puting Research, 44(1), 35–58.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J.,. . .Ryan, M. (2003).
Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom:
Putting learning by design (tm) into practice.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.
Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.
Resnick, M. (1998). Technologies for lifelong kindergarten.Educational Technology Research &
Development, 46(4), 43–55.
Sch€on, D. A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Simon, H. A. (1996).The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Summerville, J., & Reid-Griffin, A. (2008). Technology integration and instructional design.
TechTrends, 52(5), 45–51.
Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., Wong, B. K. S., Hong, H.-Y., & Tan, S. C. (2013). Positioning design epistemology and its applications in education technology.Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 81–90.
Index
A
Alexander, C., 112 Anderman, E.M., 9 Ang, P.L., 92 Angeli, C., 117 Apeddoe, X.S., 51
B
Baytak, A., 49 Benson, C., 52, 63
Bereiter, C., 5, 6, 10, 11, 53, 67 Besemer, S.P., 74
Brabham, J., 28, 29 Brown, T., 5, 10 Burdick, A., 8
C
Chai, C.S., 7, 69, 93, 114, 116 Chen, K.-C., 113
Clark, R.E., 112 Collins, A., 117
Cox, C., 109, 110, 111, 112, 118 Cox, S., 41
Cross, K., 87
Cross, N., 2, 18, 23–26, 24, 25, 28, 30, 89, 111
D
Dabby, D., 20 Dalziel, J., 112 De Croock, M.B., 112 de Jong, T., 51, 63
Descartes, R., 27 Design artifacts, 84, 125 Design-based education, 68
Design-based learning, 51, 53, 54, 56, 59–64, 68 Design competencies, 68, 118
Design disposition, 68, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118 Design episodes, 40, 43, 58, 59, 95, 97 Design epistemology, 9, 121
Design evaluation, 115, 125, 126 Design for Change (DFC), 68 Design framing, 88–91, 103–105, 124 Design mode, 5, 6, 11, 43, 53, 68, 89 112 Design talk, 52, 53, 64, 93, 95, 116, 123,
124–125
Design thinking, 1–13, 17–30, 33–44, 47–64, 67–84, 87–105, 109–118, 121–127 Doppelt, Y., 51
Dorst, K., 87, 110 Dufour, P., 8
E
Education, 1–13, 17, 18, 21–24, 29, 30, 36, 37, 47, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, 61, 62, 67–69, 71, 74, 84, 90, 91, 92, 109, 111, 112, 113, 115, 118, 121–127
Ertmer, P.A., 91
Ethics, 4, 26–30, 126–127
G
Goodyear, P., 112 Gopinath, S., 8 Graham, C.R., 41 Gray, D.L., 9
©Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015 J.H.L. Koh et al.,Design Thinking for Education, DOI 10.1007/978-981-287-444-3
129
H
Halverson, R., 117 Harel, I., 49 Hargreaves, A., 7 Heidegger, M., 28 Heinich, R., 43
Hoadley, C., 109, 110, 111, 112, 118 Hoogveld, A.W., 89
Howland, J.L., 54, 117
I
Information and communication technology (ICT), 7, 8, 33, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 54–57, 59, 63, 68, 90, 91, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 122, 125 In-service teachers, 13, 69, 87–105, 121,
123, 125
J
Jang, S.-J., 113 Jonassen, D.H., 37, 117
K
Kangas, K., 52 Ke, F., 50 Kimbell, L., 2, 17 Kimbell, R., 2
Knowledge building, 5, 11, 12, 53, 67, 69–79, 81, 83, 84, 122, 123, 125
Knowledge creation, 6, 10, 56, 59, 63, 90, 121 Koehler, M.J., 12, 41, 43, 75, 115, 116 Koh, J.H.L., 92, 114, 115, 116, 117, 125 Kolodner, J.L., 40, 41, 50, 51, 124 Krysinski, D., 51
L
Land, S.M., 49 Laurillard, D., 12 Lawson, B., 89
Learning-by-design (LBD), 40, 41, 47, 48, 50–52, 62, 68, 117, 122
Lee, K.S., 114 LeeWee Tan, L., 69 Leifer, L., 71 Levy, S.T., 51 Lim, C.P., 7 Lim, W.P., 92 Ling Koh, J,H., 69 Littleton, K., 61 Lunt, J., 52
M
March, L., 24 Marra, R.M., 117 McAndrew, P., 112 Mehalik, M.M, 51 Meinel, C., 71, 73 Mercer, N., 61, 62 Michlewski, K., 111
Mishra, P., 12, 41, 43, 75, 115, 116 Murray, G., 28, 29
N Noah, 27
P
Papert, S., 49 Peirce, C.S., 25, 88 Penuel, W.R., 104 Perry, W.G., 115 Popper, K., 4, 5, 10, 40 Porras-Herna´ndez, L.H., 91
Pre-service teachers, 12, 13, 53, 67–84, 87, 109, 113, 122, 123, 125, 126
Problem-solving, 3, 6, 9, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 44, 51, 63, 75, 77, 87, 89, 90, 93, 110, 122 Puntambekar, S., 50, 124
R
Razzouk, R., 110, 111, 118
Reflection-in-action, 21, 22, 40, 44, 88, 95, 103, 113, 121
Reflective practitioner, 22, 23 Reid-Griffin, A., 43, 121 Resnick, L.B., 9 Reymen, I., 110 Rogers, C., 51 Roschelle, J., 104
S
Salinas-Amescua, B., 91
Scardamalia, M., 5, 6, 10, 11, 53, 67
Sch€on, D.A., 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 33, 40, 103, 113, 121
Schunn, C.D., 51 Shakespeare, W., 4 Shechtman, N., 104 Shirley, D., 7
Shulman, L.S., 41, 43, 122 Shute, V., 110, 111, 118 Silk, E., 51