The research team commenced this project by investigating the challenges and possibilities of teaching design thinking non-traditionally through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (Taheri & Meinel, 2015). After defining clear learning outcomes on a skill-based level for different phases of design thinking (Taheri et al., 2016), we conceptualized and conducted three online courses on the skills of finding inspirations, creating solutions, and validating with users. We took an iterative approach in designing these MOOCs and tested different aspects of the learning experience to gather learner feedback and adapt content.
Three MOOCs on Design Thinking
In the course of their research, the team conceptualized and created three Massive Open Online Courses on design thinking skills. All courses are still open to be used in archive mode.
1. Inspirations for Design: A Course on Human-Centered Research
2. Human-Centered Design: From Synthesis to Creative Ideas
3. Human-Centered Design: Building and Testing Prototypes
MOOC Canvas
Based on the results of different learning interventions within the MOOC and interviews with MOOC design experts, the research team developed a MOOC design canvas. The canvas will serve as a template to design and conceptualize as well as analyse and describe online courses through a learner-centered lense. The publication of the MOOC canvas is forthcoming.
Former efforts of teaching design thinking online
Design Thinking has arguably become a state-of-the-art innovation methodology. It has received increasing attention from both media and educational institutes around the globe. Consequently, there is an increasing demand for Design Thinking education. In this research we aim to answer the question of whether and how Design Thinking can be taught in the form of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) that promise scalable teaching. In our research we discuss the potentials as well as challenges of teaching Design Thinking in a MOOC environment. In order to learn about the pedagogies and practices required for high quality teaching, we looked into four Design Thinking MOOCs and through the lens of a widely used pedagogical framework called the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. We also pay careful attention to the technological features and the didactical methods applied in selected courses and how they support the fulfillment of these principles.
Looking at the four selected courses from a pedagogical perspective, using the Seven Principles framework, provided us with the clues about how each principle is supported in an online environment. This allowed us to answer the question of whether Design Thinking can be taught with a high pedagogical quality in MOOCs. Table 2 demonstrates the evaluation results. Since the point of this evaluation was to identify the best practices, we decided to omit the course names and refer to the courses using successive numbers.
| Course 1 | Course 2 | Course 3 | Course 4 |
1) Encouraging contact between the students and faculty | Very Low | Very High | High | Low |
2)Encouraging cooperation among the students | Very Low | High | Very High | High |
3) Encouraging active learning | Very Low | High | Very High | Very High |
4) Providing prompt feedback | Low | Medium | Low | High |
5) Emphasizing time on tasks | Very Low | High | Very High | Low |
6) Communicating high expectations | Very Low | Very High | Very High | Very High |
7) Respecting and supporting diverse talents and ways of learning | Very Low | Low | Low | Medium |
Table 1 An overview of the evaluation results based on the framework of The Seven Principles of Good Practices in Undergraduate Education.
The results show that all the seven principles have been supported in one way or another in these MOOCs, although the level in which they are fulfilled varies from course to course. Thus the pedagogical principles assuring high quality teaching can be achieved in a MOOC environment. Despite the seemingly challenging nature of principle 7, the digital setting seems better suited to treat a massive number of learners individually than a typical classroom. This offers an interesting research opportunity in the field of adaptive learning environments.
Three domains of learning outcomes in DT education
Whereas technological and didactical decisions play a key role in (digital) course design the starting point should be defining achievable learning outcomes of the training session or program.
It is worth noting that there is no universal definition of design thinkingand there are clear disparities among experts regarding the general understanding of design thinking (von Thienen et al. 2010), let alone its expected learning outcomes.Therefore and additionally because of the wide variety of formats in which it is taught, it is time to raise the question: What do people learn as a result of taking part in a design thinking training? What are the expected learning outcomes of design thinking? Defining clear learning outcomes will help instructors and course designers to communicate achievable learning objectives and to manage the participants’ expectations within a given setting.
Based on an educational model built on three domains of learning outcomes (affective, cognitive and skill-based) (Kraiger, Ford, Salas, 1993) a literature review revealed a strong emphasis on the affective outcomes of design thinking in research, such as creative confidence, and on the cognitive outcomes,such as mindshifts. However, it is important to point out the threat of neglecting the skill-based outcomes; as this may eventually result in unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved in a training and applied afterwards. This is especially the case in professional trainings where individuals hope to apply their learnings within their own working context.
While believing in the potential of design thinking as an innovative problem solving methodology is achievable in a short workshop format, developing design thinking mindsets or skills might require more time and effort.
