Advertisement

STEAM Education: Why Learn Design Thinking?

  • Alma Leora CulénEmail author
  • Andrea Alessandro Gasparini
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter will discuss effects of using the design thinking approach when developing STEAM curriculum. The interesting perspective in this context is the synergies coming from the design thinking cycle (Brown, 2008) as it addresses directly the art and design in the STEAM context. The strength of the design thinking approach is the possibility to tackle complex and ill-defined problems (Brown & Wyatt, 2010), ranging from business to ecological and social context (Stolterman, 2008). The problems of this type are usually named wicked, as they have no definitive solution (Buchanan, 1992).

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the University of Oslo Library.

References

  1. Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California Management Review, 50(1), 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blomkvist, J., & Holmlid, S. (2011). Existing prototyping perspectives: Considerations for service design. Nordes, 0(4).Google Scholar
  3. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation (SSIR). Stanford Social Innovation Review, 30(5).Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. In Designerly ways of knowing (pp. 1–13). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (Reprint ed.). New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Wolfe, R. (2000). New conceptions and research approaches to creativity: Implications of a systems perspective for creativity in education. International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, 2, 81–91.Google Scholar
  11. Culén, A. L. (2015). Innovation and creativity in the HCI classroom. International Journal on Advances in Intelligent Systems, 8(3 and 4), 300–309.Google Scholar
  12. Culén, A. L., & Følstad, A. (2015). Innovation in HCI—what can we learn from design thinking. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 27, 109–114.Google Scholar
  13. Culén, A. L., Mainsah, H. N., & Finken, S. (2014). Design practice in human computer interaction design education. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interactions, (pp. 300–306). ACHI (2014)Google Scholar
  14. Dalsgaard, P. (2016). Experimental systems in research through design. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4991–4996). New York, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Dillon, J. T. (1982). Problem finding and solving. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(2), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. d.school. (2017). A place for explorers & experimenters at Stanford University. http://dschool.stanford.edu. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  17. Fabun, D. (1968). You and creativity. Kaiser Aluminum News, 25(3).Google Scholar
  18. Fallman, D. (2003). Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 225–232).Google Scholar
  19. Finken, S., Culén, A. L., & Gasparini, A. (2014). Nurturing creativity: Assemblages in HCI design practices. In Proc. Design Research Society, Umeå, Sweden (DRS 2014), 1204–1217Google Scholar
  20. Granberg, A., Traran, B., & Steinsø, T. (2017). Student project: Realfagsbiblioteket. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF2260/h16/presentations/biblioteket/sluttrapport_biblioteket.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  21. Hansen, A., Hess-Bolstad, B., & Mjøvik, T. (2017). Student project: Easy Watt. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF2260/h16/presentations/iot-accenture/. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  22. Hom, E. J. (2014). What is STEM education? http://www.livescience.com/43296-what-is-stem-education.htm. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  23. Karabeg, A., Akkok, M. N., & Kristensen, K. (2004). Towards a language for talking about information visualization aimed at presentation on the Web. In Proceedings of The Eighth International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2004. IV 2004 (pp. 930–937).Google Scholar
  24. Kiran, A. H. (2012). Responsible design. A conceptual look at interdependent design–use dynamics. Philosophy and Technology, 25(2), 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Kolko, J., & Austin Center for Design. (2012). Wicked problems problems worth solving. Austin, Texas: Ac4d.Google Scholar
  27. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC/Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. Oxford: Architectural Press Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahmoud-Jouini, B., Midler, C., & Silberzahn, P. (2016). Contributions of design thinking to project management in an innovation context. Project Management Journal, 47(2), 144–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, R. L. (2009). Design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  32. Meinel, C., Leifer, L., & Plattner, H. (2011). Design thinking: Understand—improve—apply. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., & Järvenoja, H. (2014). Socio-emotional conflict in collaborative learning—A process-oriented case study in a higher education context. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership- ERIC, 42(8), 40–45.Google Scholar
  35. Nussbaum, B. (2011). Design thinking is a failed experiment. So what’s next? Co. Design, Fast Company, 6. https://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  36. Okun, Y., Harfallet, T., Skrebeliene, E., & Holm, K. (2013). Student project: Bookmotion. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF2260/h13/presentations/BookMotion/index.html. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  37. Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16–27.Google Scholar
  38. Quigley, C. F., & Herro, D. (2016). Finding the joy in the unknown: Implementation of STEAM teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(3), 410–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roeser, S. (2012). Emotional engineers: Toward morally responsible design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sanders, M. (2008). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–27.Google Scholar
  43. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Sevaldson, B. (2011). GIGA-Mapping: Visualization for complexity and systems thinking in design. Nordes, 0(4).Google Scholar
  45. Sochacka, N., Guyotte, K. W., Walther, J., & Kellam, N. (2013). Faculty reflections on a STEAM-inspired interdisciplinary studio course. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  46. Stolterman, E., McAtee, J., Royer, D., & Thandapani, S. (2009). Designerly tools. Presented at the Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.Google Scholar
  47. SOD Tools. (2017). Timelines, scenarios, stories. http://www.systemsorienteddesign.net/index.php/tools. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  48. Tessem, N., Lunde, T., & Dåstøl, K. (2017). Student project: City kids inspiration. http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/ifi/INF2260/h16/presentations/citykids-inspiration. Accessed September 2, 2017.
  49. Yakman, G., & Lee, H. (2012). Exploring the exemplary STEAM education in the U.S. as a practical educational framework for Korea. Journal of the Korean Association of Science and Technology, 32(6), 1072–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alma Leora Culén
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrea Alessandro Gasparini
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations