The DT MOOC Prototype: Towards Teaching Design Thinking at Scale

  • Mana Taheri
  • Lena Mayer
  • Karen von Schmieden
  • Christoph Meinel
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)


The increasing demand for learning and experiencing the human-centered approach of design thinking has led to a need for more and broader education formats. In this research project, we investigate how design thinking can be taught to a massive, global audience with the use of digital education. In this chapter, we describe our design thinking MOOC prototype Inspirations for Design. We commence by presenting the research and theoretical foundation on which we created the MOOC’s didactic design and discuss our aims for testing a pilot version of the MOOC and consequently the MOOC prototype. Results from the pilot version and the MOOC prototype are reported and discussed. We end this chapter by presenting deduced ideas for an Inspirations for Design iteration and future digital design thinking learning units and propose adaptations for the openHPI platform to facilitate design thinking education in a MOOC environment.



The authors are grateful for the constructive feedback and support from the openHPI experts Thomas Staubitz, Stefanie Schweiger and Jan Renz. They thank Sebastian Ihrke, Thomas Hertzer, and Stefan Blankenburg from Medientechnik HPI for video shooting and cutting and Xiaoyin Che for the support with caption creation, and Dr. Sharon Nemeth for copyediting and language support.


  1. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036-1183.Google Scholar
  2. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.Google Scholar
  3. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goldman, S., Carroll, M. P., Kabayadondo, Z., Cavagnaro, L. B., Royalty, A. W., Roth, B., & Kim, J. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 13–33). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2014). MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention—A literature review. In EdMedia: World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications: Vol. 2014(1) (pp. 1305–1313).Google Scholar
  6. Kraiger, K., Ford, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training education. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Parslow, P., & Williams, S. (2014). Dropout: MOOC participants’perspective. In U. Cress & C. Delgado Klos (Eds.), Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2014 (pp. 95–100). Retrieved from
  8. Meinel, C., & Willems C. (2013). openHPI. The MOOC offer at Hasso Plattner Institute (Technical Report No. 80). Potsdam: University of Potsdam, Hasso-Plattner-Institute for IT-Systems Engineering.Google Scholar
  9. Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30(4), 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning—A cultural change needed in teacher education and schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 763–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educational model towards creative confidence. In DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2010).Google Scholar
  12. Rovai, A. P. (2000). Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 3(4), 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning. Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
  14. Staley, C. C. (2003). 50 ways to leave your lectern: Active learning strategies to engage first-year students. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  15. Taheri, M., & Meinel, C. (2015). Pedagogical evaluation of the design thinking MOOCs. In: Proceedings from the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers (pp. 469–481).Google Scholar
  16. Taheri, M., Unterholzer, T., Hölzle, K., & Meinel, C. (2016a), An educational perspective on design thinking learning outcomes. In ISPIM Innovation Symposium (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).Google Scholar
  17. Taheri, M., Unterholzer, T., & Meinel, C. (2016b). Design thinking at scale: A report on best practices of online courses. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research (pp. 217–235). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. von Thienen, J., Noweski, C., Meinel, C., & Rauth, I. (2011). The co-evolution of theory and practice in design thinking–or–“mind the oddness trap!”. In C. Meinel, L. Leifer, & H. Plattner (Eds.), Design thinking (pp. 81–99). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Web University. (2016, November 28). Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mana Taheri
    • 1
  • Lena Mayer
    • 1
  • Karen von Schmieden
    • 1
  • Christoph Meinel
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso Plattner Institute for Software Systems EngineeringPotsdamGermany

Personalised recommendations