ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing ArtsISSN (Online): 2582-7472
DESIGN THINKING AS AN INNOVATIVE TEACHING METHOD FOR MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION COURSES 1 Assistant Professor, Department of
Visual Communication and Electronic Media, PSG College of Arts & Science,
Coimbatore, India
1. INTRODUCTION Rapid advancements in media technology, the emergence of new platforms, and new habits in media consumption have brought lots of challenges for media organizations Küng (2013), Friedrichsen et al. (2017). Innovation is imperative for media companies to cope with such dynamic shifts Bleyen et al. (2014), Weiss et al. (2018), Badillo and Bourgeois (2020). However, there exists an ‘innovation gap’ where students are not prepared to meet the requirements of the organizations Wallin et al. (2014). Trilling and Fadel (2009) conducted a study among 400 human resource executives and major corporations. They found that secondary and tertiary level graduates lack seven basic and applied skills, which they termed as 21st century Gap. The skills identified were oral & written communication, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, professionalism and work ethics, teamwork, and collaboration, working in diverse teams, applying technology, leadership, and project management Trilling and Fadel (2009). There is also a widespread view that educational institutions should provide learners with skills and competencies to survive in a constantly changing occupational environment. According to Ponnan and Ambalavanan (2014), the current teaching methods, classroom practices, and single-skill training offered in schools and universities may no longer be relevant to industry expectations. Media organizations are looking for new competencies from their job entrants and renewed skills from their existing employees Ponnan and Ambalavanan (2014). Seechaliao (2017) investigated various learning strategies that facilitate creativity and innovation in education. The findings revealed that learning strategies such as design-based learning, problem-solving, creative problem solving, creative thinking, research-based learning, problem-based learning, and project-based learning support innovation in education. Also, using various stimulating ideas in problem-solving facilitates brainstorming and helps learners think about new ideas Seechaliao (2017). Hence, experiential learning and innovative thinking are crucial for the future career of today’s students Deutschmann and Botts (2015), Spanjaard and Stegemann (2018). Design Thinking (referred to as DT here onwards) as experiential learning gained popularity in recent years Gaskin and Berente (2011), Stock et al. (2018), Peck and De Sawal (2021). It is regarded as a model for increasing creativity and endurance, engagement, and innovation Dolak et al. (2013). This user-centered innovation method is increasingly used in professional consultancies, companies, and universities Thoring and Muller (2011), Deutschmann and Botts (2015), Brenner and Uebernickel (2016). Noel and Liub (2017) advocated that DT is an ideal choice for bridging the 21st-century gap identified by Trilling and Fadel. The skills that are necessary to bridge this gap are identical to the learning outcomes of design-based learning, which are learning and innovation skills, critical thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration skills, and digital literacy Noel and Liub (2017). A review of previous studies revealed that DT was used as an innovative teaching method in various educational settings, spanning from K12 to higher education Carroll et al. (2010). In higher education, the DT has been mostly applied in engineering and management courses Taajamaa et al. (2013), Withell and Haigh (2013), Ching (2014), Behm et al. (2014), Daniel (2016), Ranger and Mantzavinou (2018), Foster (2021), Kamrowska-Załuska and Parteka (2020), Avsec (2020). Further, its use is steadily on the rise in other educational contexts such as medical education, pharmacy education, tourism education, writing studies, and teacher education Thakur et al. (2020), Sandars and Goh (2020), Wolcott and McLaughlin (2020), Sandorova et al. (2020), Wible (2020), Henriksen et al. (2020). Few studies applied DT to teach courses in the media and communication stream Lugmayr et al. (2014), Yang and Hsu (2020), Fuente et al. (2019), Liu and Ko (2021), Ching-Jung (2021), Yilmaz (2021). However, the findings are not comprehensive enough to demonstrate the design, implementation, and effectiveness of the DT-based teaching method. Hence, the aim of this study is twofold. The first aim is to share the knowledge of how to design and implement the DT-based innovative pedagogy in teaching a course 'Television and Video Production'. The second aim is to establish how and why the DT approach is more effective. The study was conducted among the first-year postgraduate students of electronic media at the PSG College of Arts & Science, Coimbatore. 2. DESIGN THINKING: AN OVERVIEW DT is a solution-oriented problem-solving method Pusca and Northwood (2018). It is very effective in solving complex problems that are ambiguous or unknown Cook and Bush (2018), Interaction design foundation (n. d). With the empathetic understanding of human needs, it provides creative solutions to complex problems by redefining them in human-centric ways, creating innovative solutions in brainstorming sessions, and adopting a practical approach to prototyping and testing Luka (2014), Reinecke (2016), Garrette et al. (2018). The entire process is non-linear and iterative Scheer et al. (2012), Kloeckner et al. (2017). Nobel laureate Herbert Simon postulated one of the first models of DT in his seminal work ‘The Sciences of the Artificial’ in 1969. His pioneering model contains seven key stages. It was instrumental in framing many other DT process models used today. These models may have stages ranging from three to seven, but they are all developed from the principles featured in Simon’s 1969 model. The study adopts the five-stage DT model proposed by the Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford (d. school) because of its wider acceptance Plattner et al. (2011), Reinecke (2016). The five stages of the model are Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test (Table 1). Table 1
2.1. DESIGN THINKING AS AN INNOVATIVE TEACHING PEDAGOGY In recent times,
the popularity of DT as an innovative teaching pedagogy has been increasing in
schools and higher education institutions Withell and Haigh (2013), Matthews and Wrigley (2017), Panke (2019), Beligatamulla et al. (2019). It has been regarded as an ideal choice
for developing 21st-century skills among students Carroll et al. (2010), Luka (2014), Veerasinghan et al. (2021). The theoretical
foundation of DT is similar to Vygotsky’s
constructivist view of learning, where the learners construct their knowledge
through social interactions with others Vygotsky (1976),
Carroll et al. (2010), Kijima et al. (2021). In DT, the emphasis on improving
communication and collaboration skills correlates with the core principles of a
constructivist learning approach Kijima et al. (2021). In this context, several studies embraced
DT to facilitate constructivist teaching and learning in educational
institutions Scheer et al. (2012), Koh et al. (2015), Gross and Gross (2016), Pande and Bharathi (2020), and
Kijima et al. (2021). According to Beckman and Barry (2007), DT comprises all four phases of an ideal
learning cycle. They are experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. In a
typical learning cycle, experiencing is attained through observations and
reflections. These reflections are assimilated into abstract concepts which
form new implications that are tested in action and impact the creation of new
experiences again, thus confirming the feedback. The process of DT is analogous
to this. The basic nature
of DT is also similar to the model of knowledge
development elaborated by Owen (2007). According to him, in any field, knowledge
is generated through action. The DT process occurs through analytic and
synthetic stages. The analytic stage is a discovery stage, wherein the problem
is located based on the review of the existing studies and observations. This
stage is parallel to the stages of understanding, observing, and expressing a
point of view in the knowledge development model. The synthetic stage is an
idea generation stage, wherein providing solutions to the problem becomes the main focus. It occurs through ideation, prototyping, and
testing stages in DT, which corresponds to the application stage in the
knowledge development model. Trilling and Fadel (2009) in their book “21st Century Skills”
proposed a model for 21st-century learning. The model suggested an education
setup with attributes such as diverse teams in problem-solving, technology
infusion in curricula, real-world challenges, and project-based learning with
an emphasis on innovation and creativity. These attributes are intrinsic
aspects of a DT-based learning setup. Ferguson et al. (2019) proposed ten key pedagogical innovations in
their report ‘Innovating pedagogy 2019. Playful learning, action-based
learning, social and emotional learning (empathy), making thinking visible, and
learning through wonder were among the innovative methods highlighted by them.
Collectively, these methods are referring to DT-based teaching innovation. The most
significant benefit of DT-based teaching/learning tools is offering various
unconventional innovative tasks to students that develop their problem-solving
skills Luka (2014). The tasks may be completed by working in
groups, which helps students enhance collaboration and communication skills.
Students are motivated to accept unconventional ideas by expressing their
opinions and listening to others’ opinions, which is a crucial aspect of driving
innovation Luka (2014). Adopting a
creative pedagogy in classrooms is the need for the moment to encourage
creativity among students Noel and Liub
(2017). Creative teachers with their lesson plans,
organization of material, inventive teaching methods, and creative assessments
can bring novelty to content delivery Veerasinghan et al. (2021). Likewise, a creative pedagogy helps
students develop knowledge and skills on the subject as well as develop an
attitude towards creativity Starko (2013). Design education imparts non-academic
skills among students, which may lay a solid foundation for their future
careers Noel and Liub
(2017). Skills such as problem-solving, critical
thinking, innovation, curiosity, empathy, and collaboration are crucial in this
case. 3. REVIEW
OF LITERATURE Various scholars
have established how DT can be an effective pedagogical tool in various
educational contexts such as K-12 education, engineering education, management
courses, medical education, pharmacy education, chemistry education, tourism
education, entrepreneurship education, writing studies, and teacher
education Thakur et al. (2020), Sandars and Goh (2020), Wolcott and McLaughlin (2020), Sandorova et al. (2020), Wible (2020), Henriksen et al. (2020), Taajamaa et al. (2013), Withell
and Haigh (2013), Ching (2014), Behm (2014), Daniel (2016), Ranger and Mantzavinou
(2018), Foster (2021), Kamrowska-Załuska and Parteka
(2020), Avsec (2020). A few studies
have empirically proven the applicability of DT to media and communication
courses. In one such study, Lugmayr et al. (2014) designed a course for media management
students intending to explore new ways of creating ideas and provide a hands-on
approach to DT. The Tampere University of Technology organized the course. A
total of 11 students participated in the study as two teams. During the course,
two different projects were elaborated on with a problem statement. Each team
went through the five phases of the DT model to develop creative solutions. The
course evidenced that students could apply creative problem-solving methods in
their media management projects. Yang (2018) applied DT to a packaging design course at
the Ming Chi University of Technology, Taiwan. The aim was to make students
identify problems from the perspectives of packaging design. The teaching
outcomes of the case study showed that DT enhanced students’ practical
experiences, learning motivations, teamwork, and customer orientation. In a
subsequent study, Yang and Hsu (2020) studied the influence of DT on the
students’ creative self-efficacy and flow experience in a packaging design
course at the Ming Chi University of Technology. The study employed a
pretest-posttest experimental design with a convenience sample of 54 students
in 12 creative teams. The findings revealed that the students’ creative
self-efficacy and flow experience were superior in the posttest than in the
pretest. In a comparative
study, Fuente et al. (2019) evaluated the
implementation of a DT Project-Based Learning (DTPBL) model across several
courses in packaging engineering. DTPBL was implemented in eight quarters in
three years. The course outcomes were compared against the Traditional
Project-Based Learning (TPBL) approach. DTPBL yielded many more awards than the
TPBL, making it a successful pedagogical strategy to improve students’
creativity and innovation in packaging solutions. Liu and Ko (2021) conducted an experimental study to analyse
the effects of incorporating social media and DT into a corporate identity
design course in Taiwan. The sample comprised 60 students studying 11th grade
at a vocational high school. During the study, the experimental group received
innovative pedagogy combining Facebook and Line App with DT, and the control
group received traditional teaching. The findings showed that students in the
experimental group produced better design products than the control group. In
another Taiwanese study, Ching-Jung (2021) applied DT to advertising design courses.
The experiment recruited 48 students doing an advertising design
course and divided them into 13 creative teams. The control group received a
traditional lecture, and the treatment group received an innovative method
based on DT. The findings revealed that, compared with the control group
students, the experimental group students showed greater participation in
advertising issues and demonstrated better interaction and effective
communication both in the team and with the instructors, which finally improved
learning achievements in the course. A case study by Yilmaz (2021) analysed the effects of DT on the learning
experience among communication students at the Northeastern public university.
Student teams comprising 30 members solved a real-life problem relating to
online privacy, cyberbullying, and digital deception. Student reflections
showed that their learning experience is positive in terms of creative problem
solving, generating practical knowledge, and engaging in deeper learning and
collaborative creativity. While the
previous studies have established the applicability of DT to courses in media
and communication disciplines, they haven’t answered these two questions. How
are DT-based teaching interventions designed and implemented? How and why
is DT-based pedagogy more effective than that of previous teaching methods?
These questions require further investigations. 3.1. APPLICATION OF OTHER TEACHING METHODS Earlier studies
applied various other teaching methods in the context of media and
communication courses. Among them, cooperative learning, service learning,
collaborative learning, project-based learning, performance-based learning, and
technology-enhanced learning are notable methods. Tsay and Brady (2010) introduced cooperative learning to an
undergraduate communication research course at Northeastern University. The
findings showed that students’ active participation positively impacted their
academic performance. Wilson (2012) adopted a service-learning instructional
model in a public relations course to enhance critical thinking and
problem-solving. The results confirmed that service-learning increased
students’ abilities such as identifying new information, creative thinking, and
real-world problem-solving. Likewise, Moody and Burleson (2013) combined service-based and collaborative
learning in the journalism courses at Baylor University. The evaluation showed
that students became service-oriented and developed more volunteerism. Larrondo et al. (2021) conducted a case study on virtual collaborative
learning in online journalism. The course outcomes showed that the participants
had continual virtual coordination and dialogue with team members during the
project. Goh and Kale (2015) embedded a Project-based learning approach
to digitizing a traditional journalism course. The results evinced that the
approach improved collaboration and critical thinking among students.
Similarly, Graham (2018) embedded a project-based learning approach
to teaching data journalism. The approach empowered students to create
industry-standard work and enhanced their resilience and creative
problem-solving. Friesem (2019) applied a project-based learning model
to an undergraduate media literacy course. The results supported that the model
enhanced students’ media literacy skills. Jones et al. (2022) conducted project-based learning that
allowed the collaboration of disabled media-makers with students. The pedagogy
facilitated creative, collaborative access planning in each production and
enhanced students’ technical skills and attitude. Boland and Cameron (2005), employing the performance-based learning
as Newspaper Theatre, critically engaged communication students with media
coverage of contemporary issues. By assuming fictional roles and using dramatic
conventions, students could apply their skills and perform various tasks in a
typical newsroom. Matsiola et al. (2019) administered technology-enhanced
learning to undergraduate radio journalism students. The findings indicated
that students were satisfied with the outcome and the usefulness of the
process. The above
outcomes of previous teaching methods applied in media communication studies
showed that the approaches were only adequate in developing skills such as
collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving. However, they are not
holistic enough to develop 21st-century skills, especially empathy. Carlgren et al. (2016) observed that empathy is the main attribute
of the DT approach. As a learning method, DT uses collaboration to solve
real-world problems by considering people’s experiences and feedback and
applying creativity and communication Ray (2012). A review of the
past studies showed that there is a paucity of
comprehensive empirical evidence demonstrating the design, implementation,
and effectiveness of a DT-based innovative teaching method for teaching courses
in media and communication streams. It leads to the following research
questions. RQ1: How to design and implement a DT-based
innovative pedagogy for the Television and Video Production course? RQ2: How and why the DT-based innovative
pedagogy is more effective? 4. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The study adopted
an action research method to design, implement and investigate the efficacy
of the DT-based
innovative teaching method administered to first-year postgraduate electronic
media students at the PSG College of Arts & Science, Coimbatore. Action
research is a collaborative and participative approach to improving educational
practice. It involves action, evaluation, and reflection. As a reflective
practice, it gathers evidence to implement change in practices Clark et al. (2020). Like the DT approach, action research is
also an iterative process, in which plans are created, implemented, revised,
and then implemented Koshy et al. (2010). Hence, the application of the action
research method is appropriate in this context. Moreover, the DT as an
innovative pedagogy has its advantages. In comparison with other teaching
methods, the DT method is innately good for developing empathic creativity, as
it keeps the user at the core of any creative process
Reinecke (2016). The research
contained four different phases. In the first phase, the researcher identified
modules from a Television Production paper that can be delivered using the new
pedagogy. The modules - Television production process, Scenery, and Costumes, were
chosen for this purpose from the syllabus. In the second phase, the researcher
developed an innovative teaching method using a DT approach. A teaching plan
was prepared for that purpose (Table 2). During the third phase, the innovative
teaching method was introduced in a typical classroom environment.
Subsequently, its effectiveness was studied in the last phase. The study was
conducted during the odd semester of 2020. A total of 16 students took part in
the exercise, and they were divided into four groups, each containing four
members. Small groups or Collabs are ideal for DT activities Ray (2012). Each group received chart papers, sticky
notes, and crayons. A systematic
observation was done during each stage of the DT activity by the researcher. A
checklist (Appendix 1) was used to record the occurrence of
specific behaviour during the observation. In the end, post-activity
feedback was collected from the participant using a questionnaire
containing a 5-point Likert Scale. Data were analysed using Percentage analysis. Besides,
in-depth interviews were conducted with participants to get further insights
into the DT activity. 4.1. DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DT PEDAGOGY During the design
phase, the instructor developed a story idea for an animated sci-fi television
series and named it 10000 AD (in short, 10K AD). The
idea was kept intentionally unfinished to make student groups refine and
develop upon it. Besides, the story idea was set in a fictional world where
characters face a lot of challenges to sustain their life. This is to provoke
students’ problem-solving skills and make them come up with creative solutions
to solve the problems that the characters face in that world. Students were
given orientation in DT before introducing new pedagogy in the classroom
setting. The scenario of the animated TV series is given below. During the
year 10K AD, the earth has become inhospitable to life. Human Population has
dwindled to a mere 1 million. Earth crest has become extremely toxic, which has
led to the survival of very few animal and plant species. The sky looks dark
green colour during sunrise and sunset. But it looks black at noon. Atmospheric
Oxygen levels have gone down to just 0.33%. Earth’s land area is reduced to 5%.
Human beings are making their colonies under the Ocean. That’s the only place
where they can live. But the oceans’ top layers are carrying Hydrocarbons
Spills for a depth of about half a Kilometre. So, they need a special vehicle
to reach the top of the ocean. Wild Crow is only one Bird species
living. There are carnivorous plants (man-eating) on the land. Because of
extreme conditions, humans shed all hairs on their bodies and lost their teeth.
They eat sea cucumber for their survival. But it is available for just 3 months
a year. So, the colonies are forced into starvation. During the days of
scarcity, hunting wild crows has become an important activity for people in the
colonies. During the
implementation phase, the instructor introduced the unfinished story idea to
student groups. They were instructed to refine and develop upon the story idea
and offer various creative solutions to solve problems the characters encounter
in the animated series. Student groups are asked to pre-visualize things and
the characters which appear in the animated TV series. Clear instructions
and guidance were given at each stage of implementation. 4.1.1.
EMPATHIZE STAGE The scenario
presented above is not analogous to the present world. The first instruction
given to student groups was to create a fictional character and christen that a
name. In the next step, the instructor asked them to empathize with the
character by developing a Character Journey Map (CJM). CJM is originally
referred to as 'Customer Journey Map’, but the term has been modified to suit
the scenario. CJM is an interview or observation-based sticky note technique
for mapping the process that someone is going through. With this mapping,
design thinkers can empathize with users and eventually understand their needs Punyalikhit (2015). The preparation of CJM involves the
students empathizing and reasoning out the typical day of their characters in
10K AD. The main activity that the character does on a day is hunting the wild
crow. Student groups chronologically listed out actions that their character
does on a typical day in terms of before, during, and after. Table 2
While writing
activities relating to the CJM, the instructor asked students to visualize
their character’s looks, costumes, gears, weapons, and vehicles. Students came
up with a lot of innovative ideas. For the character and costumes, the student
team ‘A’ thought of a man ‘Norman’, wearing a shell costume and a shark’s tooth
as a weapon. He uses a giant sea turtle as a vehicle to reach the bottom of the
oil spills. From there, he swims across oil spills to reach the land for
hunting crows. Team B imagined a male character called Pichu. He wears a metal
costume made of Titanium. He uses a crow net as a tool to catch crows. Team C
imagined the character ‘Aristo’. He wears a costume made of synthetic material.
The costume also contains an oxygen cylinder embedded. The weapons used are
traditional bows and arrows. Team D imagined a male character Hanos. He is the
leader of the colony. People who lived in the colonies are divided into various
groups such as Divers, Landers, and Magners. Hanos is a 'Magner'. He has some
extrasensory powers. He wears an oil-proof costume and uses the bones of birds
and animals as weapons. 4.1.2. DEFINE STAGE During the define
stage, students were asked to analyse why hunting is happening as an important
activity for men living in 10K AD. The instructor introduced Toyota’s Five
Whys approach to the student groups. With this approach, design thinkers find
the root cause of the problem and protect the process from recurring mistakes
and failures Anderson et al. (2011), Card (2016),
Serrat (2017). Using this 5 Whys approach, students
reasoned that the seasonal availability of sea cucumber and its limited
breeding capacity have led to food scarcity. The outcomes of the 5 Whys
approach are given hereunder. 1st why - Why do
they hunt crows? 2nd why - Why do
they need to feed people in the colony? 3rd why - Why is
food scarce? 4th why - Why are
the sea cucumbers available only in certain seasons? 5th why - Why is
sea cucumbers’ capacity to breed throughout the year limited? As the human
population is living in colonies, feeding all of them throughout the year has
become a challenge. Here the student groups were asked to consider the
conflict of interest- when you over-consume sea cucumber and preserve it for
non-seasonal days, the species will be endangered. So, the alternative solution
is to catch the crow. But coming out of the sea for hunting crows will be a
difficult task and a life-threatening affair because of the hazardous nature of
the land. To solve this problem, student teams were led to the next stage
‘Ideate’. 4.1.3. IDEATE STAGE During the ideate
stage, the instructor guided student teams to a brainstorming session to solve
the food scarcity problem that persists during 10K AD. Student teams ideated
upon it and came up with a lot of creative solutions. Each team presented their
ideas and in one such solution, Team B introduced Artificial Intelligence as a
solution to catch crows. They invented a weapon called I-weapon. It was a crow
net with artificial intelligence (AI). It could catch crows on its own without
human interventions. Besides, they also created an AI crow. With that, they
collected seeds from the land and do agriculture in laboratories. Team B also
suggested the idea of breeding sea cucumbers in the laboratories. Team C provided
an interesting solution where the surplus sea cucumbers caught during seasonal
days were preserved for the future. In another solution, Team C introduced the
idea of finding out other land creatures such as edible plants and animals
apart from wild crows. Team A came up with ideas such as hunger suspending
capsules, cold storage of excessive sea cucumbers caught during seasonal days
and harvesting the man-eating plants to consume as food. Team D introduced
ideas such as improving hunting methods and capturing crows abundantly with
baits. 4.1.4. PROTOTYPE STAGE During the prototype stage, the instructor asked
student teams to produce prototypes of their solutions. A prototype can
be a sketch or a small two or three-dimensional model made with various
materials like paper, cardboard, or clay Carroll
et al. (2010).
Students drew pre-visualization sketches of solutions that they had thought of
for the food scarcity problem. Besides, students also drew pre-visualization
sketches of the characters, costumes, weapons, vehicles, and sceneries. These
sketches were suggestive of how things might appear in the animated TV series
10K AD. 4.1.5. TESTING STAGE During the
testing stage, testing of the proposed solutions was done. The instructor
assumed the role of the expert to find out whether the solutions provided by
the four teams were creative and workable. The solutions were analysed, and
suggestions were given to the students. The conflict-of-interest approach was
used to analyse the best creative solutions. Testing revealed
that Team B’s solutions such as introducing I-weapon to catch crows, and
breeding sea cucumber in laboratories were creative as well as feasible. The
use of I weapons seemed to be the best solution because it solved the problem
of men hunting on hazardous land. The breeding of sea cucumber also solved the
problem of its limited availability in certain seasons. Through breeding, sea
cucumbers can be made available throughout the year. Team C’s solution,
preservation of surplus sea cucumbers caught during seasonal days, was creative
but it failed in practicability. The problem was how much surplus sea cucumber
one should get to preserve it for the remaining nine months of scarcity. But
with the idea of finding out other land creatures such as edible plants and
animals apart from wild crows, team C went a little out of the box to find out
a solution that is creative as well as feasible. Team A’s
solution, consuming carnivorous plants, endured both creativity and feasibility
tests. Apart from catching crows for food, this would be an alternate solution
for the colonies. Team A’s other creative solutions such as hunger suspending
capsules, and cold storage of excessive sea cucumbers caught during seasonal
days, failed in the feasibility test. Though capsules seemed to be a creative
solution, consuming the same to suspend one’s hunger was not always feasible.
Cold storage of surplus sea cucumbers was not feasible because it was already
scarce. Catching too much sea cucumber for cold storage might lead to the
extinction of the species. Team D presented solutions that were highly
feasible but conventional in approach. Improving hunting methods and capturing
crows abundantly with baits were not creative in approach. 5. FINDINGS
AND DISCUSSION The study systematically observed each stage of implementing
the DT pedagogy. Besides, the findings of in-depth interviews and post-activity
feedback provided more insights. For interpreting the results of the in-depth
interviews, the study named students - A, B, C…, and P. Following are
the outcomes of the learning process. 5.1. APPLYING EMPATHY TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM The observations made during the empathize stage showed that students could create fictional characters and develop upon the ill-defined story idea. They could empathize with the characters by putting themselves in their situation. It was evident in their character journey map (CJM). In CJM, students mapped their character’s daily routine in three different time sets: before, during, and after. This empathic process helped them to understand the true nature of the problem present in the scenario. While reflecting on the empathy stage during the in-depth interview, students opined that they could establish an empathic connection with the character. "I have been able to visualize myself in the place of my character. It helps map the character’s journey," said Student A. Likewise, Student D said, "Empathizing has enabled us to relate to the world of the character which differs from ours." When talking about the benefits of the empathy stage, Student N commented, "With empathy, it is easy for us to see things from the character’s point of view. We could recognize the nature of the problem and refine the ambiguous story idea." These findings aligned with student feedback. Most students strongly agreed that they could gain an empathic understanding of the scenario presented in the activity (88%) and visualize a world and characters that are not like theirs (94%). 5.2. FINDING THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM USING
CRITICAL THINKING In the define
stage, students used their critical thinking skills to analyse the root cause
of the food scarcity problem presented in the scenario. It all started with the
question, “Why do they hunt crows?” Using the Five Whys approach, they were
able to redefine the problem from a human-centric angle. They found that the
limited breed capacity of sea cucumber was the reason for it. In-depth
interviews of students showed that the define stage organized their analytical
thinking. Student G said, “The Five Whys approach is useful in discovering the
root cause of the problem in a step-by-step manner.” Adding to that, student B
said, “We usually make random guesses to find out the root cause of the
problem. But the Five Whys approach is systematic.” Feedback from the
students also confirmed the usefulness of the Five Whys approach. Most students
(88%) strongly agreed that they were able to analyse and locate the root cause
of the problem. 5.3. DEVELOPING CREATIVE SOLUTIONS THROUGH IDEATION
TECHNIQUES During the ideate
stage, students brainstormed and proposed various creative solutions. In the
student feedback, most students (88%) strongly agreed that they were able to
ideate and offer many creative solutions through brainstorming. The
observations established that the students could use their problem-solving
skills and creativity in idea generation. Each team gathered a list of ideas
generated spontaneously by its team members. They evaluated and improved upon
their ideas to make them innovative and workable. Students
expressed positive views about the ideation process in their in-depth
interviews. “In the ideate stage, we generated many ideas in a short amount of
time,” claimed Student K. Similarly, Student L said, “There is no shortage of
ideas. With the involvement of our team members, we could generate a lot of
them.” Student N remarked on the collaborative nature of the ideation process.
“We listened to each other in the team while developing solutions in the ideate
stage. We thought of various possibilities and exchanged our views with each
one in the team.” 5.4. DESIGNING PROTOTYPES OF SOLUTIONS AS
PRE-VISUALIZATION SKETCHES During the
prototype stage, the study observed that students could design the prototypes
of their solutions as pre-visualization sketches. Prototyping
helped them to bring out their creative ideas visually. The feedback also
affirmed it, in which most students (94%) strongly agreed that they could
pre-visualize sceneries, characters, costumes, gears, vehicles, and solutions
to the scenario given in the DT
activity. Interview data
showed that the students saw prototyping as a method of giving shape to their
ideas. “Designing prototypes feels like bringing life to our ideas,” opined
Student M. Adding to that, Student P said, “Prototyping helped us to identify
mistakes and improve our solutions.” Likewise, Student J claimed, “It
eliminated vagueness and
communication gaps in solution providing.”
5.5. EXHIBITING DT MIND-SET In the test
stage, the instructor evaluated the prototypes and briefed students about their
merits and demerits. The in-depth interviews revealed that students positively
received the instructor’s feedback. Student C commented, “The instructor’s
feedback was useful in realising the strengths and weaknesses of our
prototypes.” In the same way, Student H admitted, “The activity encouraged me
to learn from the mistakes. It has altered the way I see problems. Now I
consider them as opportunities.” Subsequently, Student E asserted, “DT has
given me the confidence to solve problems creatively.” This finding was in line
with the feedback in which most students (94%) were highly confident that with
DT, the vague idea of an animated sci-fi television series can be refined,
prototyped, and tested. Overall, the
findings gathered during the DT activity suggested that students showed the
traits of a DT mind-set. Because the traits such as empathy, learning from
failures, experimenting with prototypes, optimism, embracing ambiguity,
creative confidence, and iterations are the intrinsic aspects of a DT process Design Kit (n.d.). 5.6. ENGAGING IN COLLABORATIVE COMMUNICATION WITH
TEAM MEMBERS The whole process of teaching and learning was a highly
collaborative learning atmosphere. The exchange of ideas occurred in both
instructor-learner and peer-to-peer settings. In-depth interviews revealed that
group members showed openness and had opportunities to express their diverse
views. Student O divulged, “I usually suppress my opinion because of my lack of
confidence. But the nature of the activity made me collaborate with others and
express my views openly.” Likewise, Student I commented, “Being part of a small
group allowed me to express my views as well as listen to others.” Student
feedback also reflected the same. Most students (88%) strongly agreed that the
activity facilitated effective communication among team members, and they could
provide solutions collaboratively. 5.7. IMPLEMENTATION OF DT-BASED PEDAGOGY:
CHALLENGES The findings
revealed that there were some challenges in implementing the DT-based pedagogy.
Despite receiving orientation at the start, students felt that the whole
process was relatively difficult. Besides, the transition from the traditional
learning approach to DT-based experiential learning was challenging and
time-consuming. "Initially, it was difficult for me to adapt to the DT
process. The orientation just helped me to understand the steps, but the
instructions given at regular intervals helped me to go through each stage with
fewer difficulties," opined Student P. Correspondingly, Student K
commented, "It took more time for me to understand various steps. At
first, it was confusing, but later with the guidance it became an enjoyable
learning experience." Hence, the instructor has an important role in
providing adequate guidance to students to overcome the implementation
challenges. The above findings made during the implementation phase substantiate that DT pedagogy has been more effective in imparting essential skills such as empathy, critical thinking, problem-solving, collaborative skills, creativity, and innovation. Hence, the study infers that, compared to previous teaching approaches adopted in the media and communication discipline, DT is a more comprehensive approach. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS The findings
suggest that DT can be used as an innovative teaching method to teach subjects
in media and communication courses. The study also evidenced that it is
effective in providing key competencies for 21st-century learners. It
provides learners with a highly collaborative learning environment. So, it is
ideal for courses that demand skills such as empathy, critical thinking,
problem-solving, collaborative skills, creativity, and innovation. Educational
institutions may adopt DT as a part of their teaching strategy to enhance their
curriculum delivery. Incorporating DT
into the existing curriculum and teaching plan was a challenging task. Since
the DT activity was a rather time-consuming process than conventional classroom
teaching. It required more teaching hours than usual. So, instructors may
consider the time constraints associated with DT pedagogies while preparing
their teaching plans. Besides, instructors may adopt the teaching plan (Table 1) given in this study with more or few
modifications, depending upon the requirements of the course they
teach. For the better
implementation of this innovative teaching method, instructors need prior
knowledge and experience in the DT. In such cases, they may learn DT through
books, courses, workshops, seminars, etc. As the study
sample comprises 16 postgraduate students, the findings were not generalizable.
However, the outcomes may help future studies to design and execute a DT-based
pedagogy. The formation of small groups is ideal for DT exercises because it
gives opportunities for every group member to express their views, which
contributes to peer-learning through teamwork and collaboration. 7. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT The study conducted this DT activity in a highly collaborative environment with four teams of students. The process took four and a half hours duration during the first iteration. With multiple iterations, the same activity may yield better results in terms of students coming up with better solutions and prototypes. Future studies may investigate the cross-domain efficacy of DT-based pedagogy. Further, the modalities of delivering an online-based DT pedagogy need to be studied. 8. CONCLUSION With changing business environments, the sustainability of media organizations depends on their business and operational innovations. Since conventional classroom practices no longer meet the industry talent requirements, adopting innovative teaching methods that impart 21st-century skills is highly encouraged at schools and higher educational institutions. Hence, the study conducted the action research to introduce a DT- based teaching innovation in teaching a few modules of a course 'Television and Video Production'. The study aims to show how to design, implement, and establish how and why the DT-based innovative teaching method is more effective. The findings demonstrated that DT is a holistic approach to media and communication courses as it helps impart skills such as empathy, critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, creativity, and innovation. CONFLICT OF INTERESTS None. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS None. REFERENCES Anderson, J. S., Morgan, J. N., & Williams, S. K. (2011). Using Toyota's A3 Thinking for Analyzing MBA Business Cases. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9(2), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00308.x. Avsec, S. (2020). Investigation into Design Thinking in Mechanical Engineering Students. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 18(2), 91-96. Badillo, P. Y., & Bourgeois, D. (2020). Innovation and Media : Googlization and Limited Creativity. the Industrialization of Creativity and its Limits, 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53164-5_13. Beckman, S.L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as à Learning Process : Embedding Design Thinking. California Review Management, 50(1), 25-56. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166415. Behm, M., Culvenor, J., & Dixon, G. (2014). Development of Safe Design Thinking Among Engineering Students. Safety Science, 63, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.018. Beligatamulla, G., Rieger, J., Franz, J., & Strickfaden, M. (2019). Making Pedagogic Sense of Design Thinking in the Higher Education Context. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0006. Bleyen, V. A., Lindmark, S., Ranaivoson, H., & Ballon, P. (2014). A Typology of Media Innovations : Insights From an Exploratory Study. The Journal of Media Innovations, 1(1), 28-51. https://doi.org/10.5617/jmi.v1i1.800. Boland, G., & Cameron, D. (2005). Newspaper Theatre : Applying Performance-Based Learning to Journalism Education. In Journalism Education Association (JEA) Conference. Griffith University, 1-20. Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity Through “Maker” Experiences and Design Thinking in the Education of Librarians. Knowledge Quest, 42(5), 58–61. Brenner, W., & Uebernickel, F. (2016). Design Thinking for Innovation. Research and Practice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Bross, J., Acar, A. E., Schilf, P., & Meinel, C. (2009). Spurring Design Thinking Through Educational Weblogging. In Computational Science and Engineering. CSE’09. International Conference. IEEE, 4, 903–908. Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M. (2016). Framing Design Thinking : the Concept in Idea and Enactment. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12153. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01632.x. Çeviker-Çınar, G., Mura, G., & Demirbağ-Kaplan, M. (2017). Design Thinking : A new Road Map in Business Education. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S977-S987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353042. Ching, H. Y. (2014). Design Thinking in Classroom : An Experience with Undergrad Students of a Business Course. Business and Management Research, 3(2), 110-119. https://doi.org/10.5430/bmr.v3n2p110. Ching-Jung, F. (2021). Design Thinking Applied to Advertising Design Courses to Enhance Students’ Learning Achievement. The Southeast Asian Conference on Education 2021 Official Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.22492/issn.2435-5240.2021.7. Clark, J. S., Porath, S., Thiele, J., and Jobe, M. (2020). Action Research. NPP eBooks. New Prairie Press, Kansas State University Libraries. 34. Conklin, W. (2011). Higher-Order Thinking Skills to Develop 21st Century Learners. Teacher Created Materials. Cook, K. L., & Bush, S. B. (2018). Design Thinking in Integrated STEAM Learning: Surveying the Landscape and Exploring Exemplars in Elementary Grades. School Science and Mathematics, 118(3-4), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12268. Daly, S. R., Seifert, C. M., Yilmaz, S., & Gonzalez, R. (2016). Comparing Ideation Techniques for Beginning Designers. Journal of Mechanical Design, 138(10). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4034087. Dam, R., & Siang, T. (2018). What is Design Thinking and Why is it So Popular. Interaction Design Foundation. Dam, R.F. (n.d). 5 Stages in the Design Thinking Process. Interaction Design Foundation. Daniel, A. D. (2016). Fostering an Entrepreneurial Mindset by Using a Design Thinking Approach in Entrepreneurship Education. Industry and Higher Education, 30(3), 215-223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216653195. De la Fuente, J., Carbonell, I., & LaPorte, M. (2019). Design Thinking as à Framework for Teaching Packaging Innovation. Journal of Applied Packaging Research, 11(1), 4. Deutschmann M., and Botts M. (2015). Experiential Learning through the Design Thinking Technique. In : Taras V., Gonzalez-Perez M.A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Experiential Learning in International Business. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137467720_26. Dolak, F., Uebernickel, F., & Brenner, W. (2013). Design Thinking and Design Science Research. Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen, HSG/IWI, 1-11. Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design Thinking and Organizational Culture : A Review and Framework for Future Research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274-2306. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0149206317744252. Ferguson, R., Coughlan, T., Egelandsdal, K., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., ... & Whitelock, D. (2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019 : Open University Innovation Report 7. Retrieved August 6, 2021. Foster, M. K. (2021). Design Thinking : A Creative Approach to
Problem Solving. Management Teaching Review, 6(2), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2379298119871468. Friedrichsen, M., Kamalipour, Y. R., & Kamalipour, Y. (2017). Digital Transformation in Journalism and News Media. Springer. Friesem, Y. (2019). Teaching Truth, Lies, and Accuracy in the Digital Age : Media Literacy as Project-Based Learning. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 74(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077695819829962. Garrette, B., Phelps, C., & Sibony, O. (2018). Structure and Solve the Problem Using Design Thinking. In Cracked it ! Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. 169-195. Gaskin, J., & Berente, N. (2011). Video Game Design in the MBA Curriculum : An Experiential Learning Approach for Teaching Design Thinking. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 29(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02906. Goh, D., & Kale, U. (2015). From Print to Digital Platforms : A PBL Framework for Fostering Multimedia Competencies and Consciousness in Traditional Journalism Education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 70(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077695815589473. Graham, C. (2018). A DIY, Project-Based Approach to Teaching Data Journalism. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 28(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1326365X18768308. Gross, K., & Gross, S. (2016). Transformation : Constructivism, Design Thinking, and Elementary STEAM. Art Education, 69(6), 36-43. Guvenir, C., & Bagli, H. H. (2020). The Potentials of Learning Object Design in Design Thinking Learning. Markets, Globalization & Development Review, 4(2). Henriksen, D., Gretter, S., & Richardson, C. (2020). Design Thinking and the Practicing Teacher : Addressing Problems of Practice in Teacher Education. Teaching Education, 31(2), 209-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1531841. Herodotou, C., Sharples, M., Gaved, M., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., & Whitelock, D. (2019). Innovative Pedagogies of the Future : An Evidence-Based Selection. Frontiers in Education 4, 113. Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00113. Jacobs, C. D. (2016). “Making Is Thinking” : The Design Practice of Crafting Strategy. In Design Thinking for Innovation. 131-140. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_9. Jones, C. T., Collins, K., & Zbitnew, A. (2022). Accessibility as Aesthetic in Broadcast Media : Critical Access Theory and Disability Justice as Project-Based Learning. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 77(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F10776958211000198. Kamrowska-Załuska, D. D., & Parteka, T. (2020). Design Thinking (DT) for the Design and Planning Education of Engineer-Architects. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 18(2), 97-101. Kijima, R., Yang-Yoshihara, M. & Maekawa, M.S. (2021). Using Design Thinking to Cultivate the Next Generation of Female STEAM Thinkers. International Journal of STEM Education. 8(14). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00271-6. Kloeckner, A. P., Libânio, C. D. S., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2017). Design Thinking Methods and Techniques in Design Education. In DS 88 : Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE17), Building Community : Design Education for a Sustainable Future, Oslo, Norway, 7 & 8 September 2017. 537-542. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. Y. (2015). Design Thinking and Education. In Design Thinking for Education. Singapore : Springer 1-15. Koshy, E., Koshy, V., & Waterman, H. (2010). Action Research in Healthcare. Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446288696. Küng, L. (2013). Innovation, Technology and Organisational Change : Legacy Media’s Big Challenges : An Introduction. In Media Innovations : A Multidisciplinary Study of Change, 9–12. Larrondo Ureta, A., Peña Fernández, S., & Fernandes Teixeira, J. (2021). Online Journalism Teaching and Learning Processes Beyond the Classroom and the University : Experiences in International Virtual Collaboration on Multimedia Projects. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 76(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077695820916620. Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective : Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes Through Cognitive Bias Reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163. Liu, G.C., & Ko, C.H. (2021). Effects of Social Media and Design Thinking on Corporate Identity Design Course in Taiwan. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2042753020950879. Lugmayr, A., Stockleben, B., Zou, Y., Anzenhofer, S., & Jalonen, M. (2014). Applying “Design Thinking” in the Context of Media Management Education. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 71(1), 119-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-013-1361-8. Luka, I. (2014). Design Thinking in Pedagogy. The Journal of Education, Culture, and Society, 5(2), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.15503/jecs20142.63.74. Matsiola, M., Spiliopoulos, P., Kotsakis, R., Nicolaou, C., & Podara, A. (2019). Technology-Enhanced Learning in Audiovisual Education : The Case of Radio Journalism Course Design. Education Sciences, 9(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010062. Matthews, J. H., & Wrigley, C. (2017). Design and Design Thinking in Business and Management Higher Education. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 41–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v9i3.294. Moody, M., & Burleson, C. (2013). Using Service-Based, Collaborative Teaching in Journalism Courses. Teaching Journalism and Mass Communication, 3(2). Noel, L. A., & Liub, T. L. (2017). Using Design Thinking to Create a New Education Paradigm for Elementary Level Children for Higher Student Engagement and Success. Design and Technology Education, 22(1), 1-12. Owen, C. (2007). Design Thinking : Notes on its Nature and Use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16-27. Pande, M., & Bharathi, S. V. (2020). Theoretical Foundations of Design Thinking–A Constructivism Learning Approach to Design Thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100637. Panke, S. (2019). Design Thinking in Education : Perspectives, Opportunities and Challenges. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 281-306. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0022. Peck, A., & De Sawal, D. (2021). Applying Design Thinking to the Measurement of Experiential Learning. IGI Global. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Weinberg, U. (2011). Design-Thinking- Understand-Improve-Apply. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Ponnan, R., & Ambalavanan, B. (2014). Innovations to Broadcasting Curriculum to Meet Workplace Expectations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1410. Punyalikhit, R. (2015). Empathy and Emotional Customer Journey Map Methods : for Designing Creative Learning Space. Veridian E-Journal, Silpakorn University (Humanities, Social Sciences and Arts), 8(5), 35-58. Pusca, D., & Northwood, D. O. (2018). Design Thinking and its Application to Problem Solving. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 20(1), 48-53. Ranger, B. J., & Mantzavinou, A. (2018). Design Thinking in Development Engineering Education : A Case Study on Creating Prosthetic and Assistive Technologies for the Developing World. Development Engineering, 3, 166-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.deveng.2018.06.001. Rauth, L, Kippen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design Thinking : An Educational Model Towards Creative Confidence. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of Design Creativity (ICDC 2010). Ray, B. (2012). Design Thinking : Lessons for the Classroom. Reinecke, S. (2016). What is it that Design Thinking and Marketing Management can Learn from Each Other ? In Design Thinking for Innovation. Springer, 151-162. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_11. Sandars, J., & Goh, P. S. (2020). Design Thinking in Medical Education : The Key Features and Practical Application. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2382120520926518. Sandorova, Z., Repanova, T., Palencikova, Z., & Betak, N. (2020). Design Thinking-A Revolutionary New Approach in Tourism Education ? Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 26, 100238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2019.100238. Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming Constructivist Learning into Action : Design Thinking in Education. Design and Technology Education : An International Journal, 17(3), 8-19. Seechaliao, T. (2017). Instructional Strategies to Support Creativity and Innovation in Education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 201-208. http://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p201. Serrat, O. (2017). The Five Whys Technique. Knowledge Solutions.
Springer, 307-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_32. Simon. H. A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial (1st ed.). Cambridge MA : MIT Press. Spanjaard, D., Hall, T., & Stegemann, N. (2018). Experiential learning : Helping Students to Become ‘Career-Ready’. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 26(2), 163-171. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ausmj.2018.04.003. Starko, A. J. (2013). Creativity in the Classroom : Schools of Curious Delight. Routledge. Stock, K. L., Bucar, B., & Vokoun, J. (2018). Walking in Another’s Shoes: Enhancing Experiential Learning Through Design Thinking. Management Teaching Review, 3(3), 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298117736283. Taajamaa, V., Kirjavainen, S., Repokari, L., Sjöman, H., Utriainen, T., & Salakoski, T. (2013). Dancing With Ambiguity Design Thinking in Interdisciplinary Engineering Education. in 2013 IEEE Tsinghua International Design Management Symposium. IEEE, 353-360. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIDMS.2013.6981258. Thakur, A., Soklaridis, S., Crawford, A., Mulsant, B., & Sockalingam, S. (2020). Using Rapid Design Thinking to Overcome COVID-19 Challenges in Medical Education. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003718. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills : Learning for Life in our Times. San Francisco : Josseybass. Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A Case Study of Cooperative Learning and Communication Pedagogy : Does Working in Teams Make A Difference ? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89. Valentim, N. M. C., Silva, W., & Conte, T. (2017). The Students’ Perspectives on Applying Design Thinking for the Design of Mobile Applications. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Software Engineering : Software Engineering and Education Track. IEEE Press, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2017.10. Veerasinghan, K., Balakrishnan, B., Ibrahim, M., Damanhuri, M., & Gengatharan, K. (2021). Design Thinking for Creative Teaching of Chemistry. Social Sciences, 11(3), 670-687. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS%2FV11-I3%2F8979. Von Thienen, J., Royalty, A., & Meinel, C. (2017). Design Thinking in Higher Education : How Students Become Dedicated Creative Problem Solvers. In Handbook of Research on Creative Problem solving Skill Development In Higher Education, 306–328. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0643-0.ch014. Wallin, J., Isaksson, O., Larsson, A., & Elfström, B. O. (2014). Bridging the Gap Between University and Industry: Three Mechanisms for Innovation Efficiency. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 11(01). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877014400057. Watson, A. D. (2015). Design Thinking for Life. Art Education, 68(3), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2015.11519317. Weiss, A. S., De Macedo Higgins Joyce, V. A. N. E. S. A., Harlow, S., & Alves, R. C. (2018). Innovation and Sustainability : A Relationship Examined Among Latin American Entrepreneurial News Organizations. Cuadernos. Info, (42). http://dx.doi.org/10.7764/cdi.42.1266. Wible, S. (2020). Using Design Thinking to Teach Creative Problem Solving in Writing Courses. College Composition and Communication, 71(3), 399-425. Wilson, B. (2012). An Experiential Approach to Improving Students’ Critical-Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills. Teaching Public Relations Monographs, 83, 1-4. Withell, A. J., & Haigh, N. (2013). Developing Design Thinking Expertise in Higher Education. International Conference for Design Education Researchers. Wolcott, M. D., & McLaughlin, J. E. (2020). Promoting Creative Problem-Solving in Schools of Pharmacy With the Use of Design Thinking. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(10). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8065. Yang, C. M. (2018). Applying Design Thinking as à Method for Teaching Packaging Design. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(5), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n5p52. Yang, C. M., & Hsu, T. F. (2020). Integrating Design Thinking into a Packaging Design Course to Improve Students’ Creative Self-Efficacy and Flow Experience. Sustainability, 12(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12155929. Yilmaz, G. (2021). Revitalizing the Communication Classroom : A Case of Design Thinking. Communication Teacher, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2021.1962934.
APPENDIX Appendix 1
© ShodhKosh 2022. All Rights Reserved. |