K12 Design Thinking Competition
Posted: July 24, 2014 Filed under: In the classroom | Tags: design thinking 2 CommentsI got accepted into the Georgia Tech K12 inventure prize challenge! I’m so excited to be able to bring this experience to my students. The inventure prize is televised on GA public TV every year, and I’ve watched the finalist the last couple of years. I’m really impressed by the creativity of the Georgia Tech students that compete for the $20,000 grand prize. Some of my favorite designed projects were a biometrics app that only allows you to unlock a cell phone; a universal phone charger that folds into the sized of a credit card; a redesigned crutch; robotic dog toys; and this year’s winner the Safi Choo Toilet. This year’s winner was particularly cool because 1) it was social entrepreneurial in nature, 2) was designed by an all female group of engineers, 3) tackled an issue that may otherwise have been swept under the rug (toilet and water sanitation in refugee camps).
Here are the cool benefits of the K12 challenge (narrative still reflects last school year’s pilot):
During the 2012-2013 school year, the pilot program was tested at Peachtree Ridge High School and Rockdale Magnet School for Science and Technology. Seven lessons that guide teachers and students through completing an engineering design and entrepreneurship project were implemented. Students received feedback on ideas from professors during a Pitch Day at their schools. They also witnessed undergraduate innovation and voted for a K-12 prize at Georgia Tech’s Fall Capstone Expo. Students then made and tested their own prototypes. The top 3 student teams from each school were invited to present their work at a VIP reception prior to the InVenture Prize. An additional 100 InVenture Challenge participants were audience members during the InVenture Prize. For the second year, the goal is to expand the program to an additional six to eight schools. (https://inventureprize.gatech.edu/challenge/aboutus)
The materials and training provided by Georgia Tech are fantastic and I’m most excited about students pitching their ideas to GT professors. We piloted something similar at our school last year and the high stakes environment surrounding the “pitch party” was really eye opening and beneficial for students. The suggested lesson plans provided by GT are an adaptation of Stanford d.School’s design thinking process. I feel good about that as I know that myself and my students are familiar with the process and have done several design challenges.
The K12 challenge does not compete with the college level entrants (pheeew), but I’m still really anxious about getting started. The main source of my anxiety is trying to determine which group of students to invite to participate. My plan was to do it as part of my new Technology, Engineering, and Design course, but I’m nervous about adding one more thing on top of what I already like as a course design. I also could do it with my makers club, but because we only meet briefly after school once a week. I’m nervous this may not be enough time to “make a dent”. My essential question, then, is “Which best enhances student centered learning and creativity: work inside of class or outside of class (via clubs)? Are CTSOs like the TSA and FIRST Robotics an indication that the best student centered learning innovation happens outside of the classroom?
Engineering Design vs Design Thinking
Posted: June 15, 2014 Filed under: EDU philosophy, Inspiration | Tags: definition, design thinking, engineering, Roger Martin 5 CommentsI have been posed the question before, and was most recently solicited on twitter: What is the difference between engineering and design thinking. As most of my colleagues know, I’m a fan/student of design thinking. My intuition tells me it is right for use in school. However, this particular conversation really forced me to lean in and think about specific differentiators between the two.
One bit of information that I left out of my “argument” was perhaps my all time favorite definition of designing thinking as proposed by Roger Martin – @RogerLMartin – of the Rotman School of Business. Martin describes design thinking as the overlap between analytical thinking and intuitive thinking.
His visualization of design thinking is so elegant to me – perfectly capturing the tension between the analytical (ie. engineering design; “prove it”) and the intuitive (ie. trust your gut; “love it”).
Anyway, I captured the previously mentioned twitter convo using Storify. How did I do? How would you differentiate between engineering design and design thinking?
For student engagement, drop a challenge and get out of the way
Posted: May 19, 2014 Filed under: Inspiration, Teacher Resources | Tags: biology, Dean Kamen, design thinking, empathy, engagement, prototype, students, TED 1 CommentMy bio classes just wrapped up one of my favorite projects. As part of our unit on structure and function (physiology), I have students create a functional prototype for a replacement limb organ. As part of the project, students also present an 8 min TED talk where they must 1) build empathy for a particular user or set of users 2) describe a problem with existing solutions 3) demonstrate their own prototype.
I’ve blogged about this project before, but this year was a little bit of a different experience. I introduced the project much later in the school year than in the past and within days of attending my 5th TEDx conference. Experiencing TED in person reminded me to spend more time in class on presentation skills. So, we watched about 8 TED talks – including Mike Ebeling (below), Dean Kamen, Tom Chi, Anthony Atala – over the course of the project and discussed as a class how effective the talks were and for what reasons.
The class concluded that talks with a real user (ie. empathy was developed) as well as those that demonstrated some product were their favorites. This was apparent in their own talks as students did a great job of generating empathy, highlighting a problem, and story telling how their prototype could make a difference.
The second change this year was that I was behind the eight ball in terms of trying to cram this project in before exams. It was not an ideal scenario, but I felt the experience for students was worth it. In fact, I did not even grade the project as I felt it was too close to exam time for a large project grade to go in (I did, however provided feedback to students). What was crazy was how engaged students were in the process. At a time of year where it can be hard to capture the attention of students who are looking forward to summer break as well as being bombarded with other school stress, I took special note of students’ willingness to work when confronted with real and tangible problems. Students brought in materials and tools from home. They suggested improvements to other groups’ prototypes. They (apparently) rapidly iterated ideas at a weekend sleep over. They wowed each other with their stories and working models. This was with much less direct instruction and guidance than in years past. All I had to do was get out of the way…..
It’s a fixin to come one
Posted: May 14, 2014 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: career and technical education, DEEP, design thinking, experiment, journal, technology education Leave a commentTranslation: things are changing or there is a storm headed this way. I love this phrase! I learned from some relatives, but I’m still unsure if I am using it right.
It is fixin to come one on this blog. I’ve been ridiculously absent for quite some time. Let’s just say that teaching, coaching, renovating a new house, and other school related passion projects have taken priority over my blog this year. With summer approaching I’m trying to get myself back on the horse. I will be posting more often, however you may notice a different feel to the posts. I will still use this as a sounding board for design thinking and technology education in K-12, but you may notice a tone that is more akin to a journal than a clearinghouse of information.
This largely reflects my current state of mind in regards to my teaching career. I’m finishing up my 3rd year of teaching after a career change. I was previously a process engineer and then small business owner/operator. At this point I feel like I’ve graduated from the “Discovery” mode of my teaching career where I took heavy doses of empathy along the way. So, following my schools DEEP design thinking methodology – Discover, Empathize, Experiment, and Produce – I seem to have found myself in the experiment phase. I’m pondering questions like: How might we formalize design thinking into school curriculum? How might we assess the “soft skills” associated with design thinking? What are the similarities and differences between design thinking and engineering design which is often associated with Technology Education? and lots more to come.
So here we go….my own experimental thought journal on issues surrounding design thinking and technology education. I expect there will be lots of questions and few answers. Yes, this is totally self serving exercise, but perhaps you share some of my same questions. My hope is this new change in format will prompt some discussion and feedback. I’m looking forward to the ride!
Is the the buzz around Design Thinking buzzworthy?
Posted: June 16, 2012 Filed under: DT Library | Tags: criticism, d.school, design thinking, IDEO, stanford Leave a commentI’m really excited and anxious for the opportunity to attend a workshop at Stanford d.Schools K12 Lab this week. It’s a fantastic opportunity to network and learn how to truly make design thinking actionable in a k12 classroom. Be looking for notes from the workshop and in a follow up post (part 2 of making DT actionable).
In the meantime I’m curious of different opinions regarding how relevant DT really is. DT is one of those terms that seems to be reaching a saturation point. It’s a buzz word. While I’m cautious of the buzz around DT, I’ve also observed tremendous demand. The Design & Thinking movie was funded entirely through kickstarter and had its premier this spring. Resources like IDEO’s educator toolkit and offerings from Stanford d.School are gobbled up with continued ferocity. d.School now has a heat map to track interactions with their virtual crash course and twitter buzz.
Design Thinking is not without critics, though. I was struck by a recent blog post by William Storage on The Multidiciplinarian entitled Design Thinking’s Timely Death. The article is a thoughtful criticism on DT…one that gives me pause. After reading Storage’s piece I found Cameron Norman’s response: The Hyberbole and Exaggerated Demise of Design Thinking. Please consider reading both. They are excellent point-counterpoint examples that include recent and relevant literature reviews on design thinking. The heart of the debate is whether all the buzz around design thinking is indeed buzzworthy.
My response to Storage’s post on whether we should bury the term “design thinking” below:
Defining DT is a bit of a conundrum. From Harvard Business Review Blog: Start-ups, Skunkworks, and Your Next Big Product:
“Much of this confusion stems from applying one term to too many contexts. Most businesses are actually pursuing two types of innovation; product innovation and process innovation. Product innovation focuses on the experiences the company offers to the customer and process innovations refer to the internal improvements to improve operations and delivery. Both are important, but organizations should approach the two types very differently.”
The “letter” of DT is the process proposed by Stanford d.School and Ideo. The “spirit” of DT is making positive change. The DT process itself is more conducive to product development in my opinion. I use DT in a high school environment and it is very difficult for students (and adults!) to apply DT to a process or experience. So, going through the DT iterations is not necessarily the best route for organizational or process innovation. By the way, I think DT is often misinterpreted as a linear approach…it is most definitely iterative.
On the other hand, I do feel that designers have a knack, namely creativity, for affecting change. So the spirit of DT can indeed benefit organizational or process change. It’s a willingness to look for alternatives to the status quo.
Ultimately, I appreciate your willingness to challenge design thinking. I’m squeamish about the way design thinking has been thrown around as a panacea for all our ills, but I don’t think it needs to die…we just need to be real about what it is and what it isn’t.
Quick Post: Closing the gender gap in Tech / Sci / Engineering
Posted: April 28, 2012 Filed under: Inspiration | Tags: design thinking, engineering, gender gap, sustainability Leave a commentStumbled upon the Makers website this morning. If you are a teacher looking to promote girls’ participation in science and engineering (or many other careers), then look no further. I’m intrigued by this topic because in many ways it was the impetus for pursuit of how (and why) to make design thinking happen in K12 education. Almost a year ago to the day I presented a paper for my Diversity in Education class as required for a masters program. The idea is that there are many cultural implications that inhibit girls and young women from pursuing careers in science and engineering. After a year of reflection and research on Design Thinking, it is apparent to me that closing the gender gap in science and engineering is more critical than ever. In my opinion and experience, women are more innately able to empathize – a key component to design thinking methodology. If we want to create a culture of innovators (as Tony Wagner proposes in his new book) – particularly social innovators – then the gender gap conversation is an important one.
Back to Makers. There are lots of website out there promoting girls and STEM, but I find most to be too “kiddy”. Putting up a website with a pink themed background and linking to interviews with female astronauts does little to inspire in my opinion. Nothing against astronauts of the space program, but it is not what is once was. Is it? Makers profiles successful women in a professional and straightforward way. No pink bows, no frills – just inspirational stories of entrepreneurship, empathy, and what it’s like to be an agent for change. Below is a clip of civil engineer with a passion for sustainability and environmental stewardship. More sci/tech profiles here.
Vodpod videos no longer available.A taste of the Design Thinking Summit 2012
Posted: April 22, 2012 Filed under: Inspiration | Tags: big ideas, conferance, design thinking, successful practices Leave a commentThis spring the Mount Vernon Institute for Innovation based out of a independent school in Sandy Springs, Ga hosted a Design Thinking Summit. Innovative educators from Atlanta’s independent schools, public schools, and universities came together to learn about the power of design thinking.
This is a taste of an inspiring day of innovation, collaboration, and fun!
Design Thinking in Bio Class
Posted: April 6, 2012 Filed under: Teacher Resources | Tags: biology, design thinking, lab, prototype 1 CommentReBlog: Design Thinking in Bio Class
ReBlog from my school’s website. One student project in particular gave me goosebumps with excitement. Students empathized with kids that had cochlear implants – an amazing biotechnology that can restore hearing to deaf people. Students discovered that these implants can draw unwanted attention and become potentially inconvenient if swimming or bathing (processor needs to be removed). My students’ elegant solution: use off the shelf technologies like Android speech to text apps + pair of sunglasses + small directional microphone to create the EyeTalk.
The EyeTalk uses a small directional microphone embedded int he glasses frame to listen to whoever the user is looking at. This audio is converted to text via opensource android technology and projected on the interior of of the glasses lens. Inspiration was taken from HUD (heads up displays) commonly used in aircraft cockpits. Their prototype was built in class using readily available and cheap materials: oversize party store sunglass with an android smart phone (prepped with speech to text app) mounted to the back of one lens. The prototype was not glamorous as I asked students to keep them decidedly “low resolution” (meaning cheap, quick, and dirty). The result, however, did everything I could ask for in a prototype – it’s a way to make hope visible.
Making Design Thinking Actionable (Part 1)
Posted: January 17, 2012 Filed under: Teacher Resources, Uncategorized | Tags: 21st century learning, design thinking, divergent thinking, education, Roger Martin, successful practices, Tim Hurson, wicked problems 5 CommentsDesign Thinking is necessarily vague…..applicable to products and procedures alike…vegetable peelers to your experience at the book store (Barnes and Noble was among the first to redesign store layout to the index of topics that we are used to today). I get it. But teachers tend to not like vague. I need to have some way of anticipating where my students’ work is going to lead. It’s the same frustrated feeling many of us have experienced after leaving a training seminar of one kind or another. We tend to cheer enthusiastically “YES!” then dejectedly wonder “but how?”.
Fortunately, I just finished Tim Hurson’s book “Think Better”. It’s awesome. It lays out specific, actionable, exercises for design thinking which Hurson calls “productive thinking” (told you designers can’t agree on a definition). Just to be different, I want to consider using Hurson’s methods in my classroom, but call it “Innovative Thought (I.T.)”. Productive thinking sounds pretty corporate to me. Understandably so since Hurson’s book is aimed at businesses and found in the afore-mentioned business section at Barnes and Noble. Innovative Thought ties nicely with my school’s mission to incorporate innovation into 21st century teaching and learning as well. So I want to get my thoughts on this book down, completely selfishly, to try to frame how Hurson’s process might look in a classroom.
Lets’ first agree that thinking is hard. My students remind me of this every day. Getting the answer (presumably from me, but also from answers.com and the like) is far easier than generating an original response. I can’t say I blame them. The outcomes look the same…the answer. But design thinking is different because there is no answer….yet. Design thinking is for the world’s wickedest problems. If that’s a little dramatic for you, consider the hurdles/challenges you face every day at work. Is there an answer that your boss checks you against, or are you expected to generate something plausible/workable/logical on your own accord? Exactly.
As Hurson proposes, innovative thought is a series of iterations of divergent (creative) and convergent (analytical) thinking. I like it; and consider it validated by Roger Martin’s work in general and this graph in particular.
Roger Martin – via Mutually Human blog
(http://mutuallyhuman.com/blog/2011/10/31/design-thinking-and-innovation-part-1-2)
Design Thinking is hard work because of what it’s not…Reproductive thinking. Six Sigma and TQM are business world examples of fine tuning or micro managing the details of a process to improve quality. Is this a good thing for business? Sure. Is it an example of innovation? No. As Hurson says, this is an “illusion of innovation.” The product or process improves, but nothing is done to ask the question “can we do this in an entirely new way?
Example: DVD/VCR combo
Reproductive:
Designed so that you can purchase and use any type video media available.
Innovative:
Netflix stream video so that you don’t need to buy physical media in the first place or go to brick and mortar store to rent one.
To start an innovative process you first need a problem…an issue…or as Hurson says an “itch” to tackle. To do this with students, I imagine having them tap into their everyday experiences. What annoys them? List it…as many as possible. This is divergent thinking and we should consciously try to free ourselves from any inhibitions and us our imaginations. It can be hard to resist our analytical mind’s urge to mark an idea as “dumb” or “…will never work”. Ignore it. We will use convergent thinking to refine the list later. I asked some seniors at our school what annoyed them and got these responses:
“I wish I had better access to a printer, like in the hallway on the way to class”
“I wish we had a better place to put our back backs during lunch” (these pile up everywhere!)
“I wish freshmen would get out of the hallways” (I presume this means the halls are too crowded? Lockers should not be centralized?)
With a list generated, it’s time pick one that feels right. Which “itches” are the team drawn too? I like the third one about crowded hallways. I want to know more about what is the root of this….the real problem. This intuition is critical to the creative process (as suggested by Martin). With an issue identified that pulls you toward it….piques your interest…you’re in business. The ball is rolling.
DT Approach to an Inspiring Syllabus Challenge
Posted: August 15, 2011 Filed under: Inspiration, Uncategorized | Tags: creativity, design thinking, education, stupid questions, successful practices Leave a commentI’m coming off a great first day of planning feeling inspired to innovate and push the envelope of what are best practices (or as I learned from my head of school today – successful practices. After all, best practice implies there is no room to improve). So I thought I’d go through a design thinking exercise that I’ve been meaning to try out. About a month ago I came across a post by John Burke regarding his “Inspiring Syllabus Challenge”. John presents a compelling reason we should reexamine syllabi in order to better “sell” our objectives to students. Since this is planning week for me; seems an apt time to give this a shot.
In keeping with the spirit of my own blog I thought I’d add a design thinking element to syllabus challenge to see if I could validate it some how. So, I set out to ask stupid questions and apply the 5 Whys technique to see if I could uncover some truth about about the information I’d like to convey in a syllabus. At the same time I can put these techniques to the test. Here we go:
Initial Design Question: How might I redesign my syllabus in order to better “sell” students on the subject?
Why do I need to sell it?
Because it outlines what would be covered in the class.
Why do students need to know beforehand what will be covered in class?
So students know what to expect and whats expected of them.
Why do students need to know what is expected of them?
Because it sets expectations for behavior and helps teachers manage them.
Why do we require certain expectations for behavior?
So That we create an environment that maximizes learning.
Why does the syllabus help create an environment that maximizes student learning?
Mine doesn’t.
I’m not sure this worked perfectly – I probably could have stopped at the fourth question. Also, I think for this technique to really work the questions need to be asked by an outsider. Since I’m a teacher questioning my own policies, I may have some how channeled “what I want to hear” into the responses. Ultimately, though, I’m pleased with the results. I’m now looking at my syllabus as the first touch point for creating a learning environment that I think maximizes student learning. So, what does that environment look like? For my style its: active, inquiry based, participatory, organized, effective, fun.
Therefore, the new design question might be: How might I recreate my syllabus into something active, inquiry based, participatory, organized, effective, and fun?
That’s a tall order, but one that could be fun to pursue. At least now I have a clearer picture of what I’m trying to achieve.
Now – if only I had the guts to give it a try….
Planting T's 
