Category: Design-Based Learning

#PYP “Sharing the Planet” by Design

#PYP “Sharing the Planet” by Design

By | | Comments 1 comment

I think one of the hardest decisions an educator has to do is to release the curriculum into the hands of the students. On most days, it’s just being in the “teachable moment”, but what if you handed over a whole unit of inquiry. Forget vertical alignment this once. Could you do it?

Last year we had a unit that was an abomination that I wrote about in Post Mortem Reflection: Autopsy of a Failed PYP Unit (Sharing the Planet). Needless to say, we WEREN’T teaching that unit again but then what would we teach?

In our new approach to planning, we usually properly launch a unit with doing provocations and THEN determine the learning outcomes. But I felt like we were trying too hard to interpret what the students were really interested in and assess their previous knowledge to determine the direction of the unit. Upon reflection, I felt it’d be better just asking them so we waste less time. I prefer to “pre-pack” a unit of inquiry rather than “unpack” it, so we took a Design Thinking approach to co-creating this unit with students.

design thinking.jpeg

With that in mind, we had to understand what the student’s prior knowledge might be. We felt a simple class discussion in which they could do a “turn and talk” then share their thoughts and feelings about what it means to “Share the Planet” would be perfect. Funny enough, they touched on every dimension of the transdisciplinary theme, which just seems like a testament of the genius behind the framework. Here are some note that captured some of their ideas:

IMG_8322.jpg

After reflecting on the ideas they shared, we summarized them into 5 main areas which touched upon the descriptions of the theme and highlighted the main concepts. We thought we’d have them rank them as their “learning priorities”. We spent some time describing the concepts and then gave them an opportunity to consider which ideas they felt most intrigued by. (The link to this doc is here.)

Screen Shot 2018-12-13 at 6.15.08 AM

While they were cutting and pasting their priorities, we went around and asked them to tell us a bit about how they were ranking them to gauge how much prior knowledge they might have of the concepts. The main concepts were:

  1. Sharing with living things
  2. Pollution
  3. Resources
  4. Earth Cycles
  5. Poverty

My favorite part of this exercise was actually when the students came back into the “big group” and talked amongst themselves about why they ranked the concepts in the order they did. Their conversations were gorgeous to listen to, and we found out if there were misconceptions or ideas that we need to clarify. Great data!!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

After that, we surveyed the class about their learning priorities to find out how we might craft central ideas to suit their interests. The students “took a stand” for what their first learning priority, and then we had them repeat the exercise for their second learning priority. We then added those up to get a total vote count. This helped us to define what the unit was going to be about: Sharing the planet with living things and Pollution were nearly tied.IMG_8335

Afterward, our team met and debated the concepts from this survey. We found it really hard to resist the urge to override the majority because we felt that “poverty” would be an interesting concept to delve into since most of our students have such limited appreciation for their high quality of life. Also, lower grades rarely touch upon this aspect of the transdisciplinary theme, and we were compelled by the challenge, especially since it would have a strong transdisciplinary math link with using money as the fodder for addition and subtraction. However, at the end of the day, we all agreed that if we were to honor the voice and choice of the students, we had to put aside our desires, but would see how we might add this concept to other units this year.

Once we were in alignment with that, we started to pour over our notes and curriculum documents to evaluate what they already have learned, examining our school Programme of Inquiry and ManagBac to get a bigger picture of where we might take the learning. We began to ideate, brainstorming some central ideas, and agreed on 3 potential central ideas. To be honest, we spent so much time looking at the data, we didn’t have much time to wordsmith anything unique so we modified a few that we found on other school’s POIs. If we had more time, however, we would have had the students help us write them in more to suit them specifically and in kid-friendly language. These were the central ideas that made it to the final round of debate and voting by the students:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

We discussed each central idea with the whole group then pinned them up around the classroom. Students took a moment to talk amongst themselves about what those central ideas meant to them and why they thought they would be interesting to learn about. IMG_8337After some time to discuss, we asked them to “take a stand” again, and migrate over to the corners where the central ideas were posted.  The vote counts were extremely tight, and we ended up having a near tie, which provided a great opportunity for students to debate and deliberate their choices. We asked one of the groups to re-choose and so the “leading” central ideas had to persuade those individuals to choose their central idea. It was fun to hear their interpretation of the central idea and their reasons why they thought that central idea would be the best one for our learning. At the end of this exercise, we came back as a teaching team to refine the central idea and create lines of inquiry that balanced student interests and the objectives of the TD theme:

Central Idea: Living things are affected by and often adapt to the natural world.

Lines of inquiry

  • Adaptations to weather (change)
  • Habitat loss (connection)
  • The impact of pollution on living things (causation)

Following the flow of a Design Thinking approach, we are in the prototype stage, and when we come back from holiday break, we will test this unit with our thoughtful provocations. It’s hard to describe the level of excitement for this unit by the students, and by us, the teachers. Emphasizing their voice and providing them with ample opportunities for choice grows their agency and engagement.

I hope you consider how you might apply a Design approach to co-constructing units with your students, no matter the age. I don’t know why we wait until the “Exhibition Year” group to have them write their own units. That puts tremendous pressure on those year group teachers. I understand that we didn’t have them write lines of inquiry, but we could certainly do that in our next unit since we already have a template of this experience to build upon. Perhaps this has sparked some thinking around this, and if you have alternate ideas, I would LOVE to hear them.

 

What Can Pedagogical Leaders Do to Grease the Wheels of Innovation in Their Schools?

What Can Pedagogical Leaders Do to Grease the Wheels of Innovation in Their Schools?

By | | Comments 1 comment

When you hear the innovative what does that mean to you as an educator?

I think for a long time we thought if we superimposed the business model upon schools, analyzing and improving our school’s mission, operations, outcomes, and personnel, we’d produce high-performance metrics and fiscal efficiency. Gains in test scores and budget expectations would be innovation in itself, but as we examine the high-stress that the high-stakes initiatives have created, it’s hard to call this improvement in education. In fact, I think this approach has been demonized rather than lauded, and countries like New Zealand are backing off standards-based approaches and beginning to embrace a competency-based model of student achievement, as personalized learning is beginning to become more of a focus. I know there a quite a few schools that question “What is school?” and are moving away from classrooms into “studios” while other schools would be better off calling themselves “resorts” in which the whole school timetable is collapsed, and children are at complete choice. Yet there are other schools such as these in America, that look at this same question, “What is school?” and has defined it differently, expanding it beyond the school campus, and look at how they can connect more to nature and their local community for an authentic experience of learning. I think several of these schools ask a more interesting question, instead of “What is school?”, “What is worth learning?” 

deweyLet me explain a bit: recently I sat down with a Grade 11 student to explain how gene therapy works for her Personal Project on cancer treatments (Previous to teaching, I aspired to get my Ph.D. in Genetics and conducted gene therapy research). But as I was chatting with her, discussing the biological mechanism of the treatment strategies, I really wanted to pull out some literature on epigenetics, an emerging field that demonstrates that we have more control over our genetics than we think–a paradigm that I know has yet to get written into the textbooks. So when I encountered this quote below, it made me think about all of the things we teach as “facts” that have contradictory evidence which would shift perspectives and approaches to solving problems in our future:

A school’s mission is to prepare children for the future by teaching them skills, knowledge, and values, which it can only do by drawing on the past—that is, by teaching them what we know now. Much of the curriculum is fixed or slow-changing (fractions, the meanings of Hamlet, the causes of the American Revolution), and many schools emphasize their commitment to enduring truths and established traditions. Education is a conservator’s work. Good teaching is always creative, but not perpetually innovative, and while it benefits from regular refreshers and occasional overhauls, it doesn’t demand the kind of continuous updating that, say, law or medicine or high technology do. Continuity is a core value in school life.

–Robert Evans, Why A School Doesn’t Run—or Change—Like A Business

With this in mind, I think as schools begin to grapple with defining innovation for their unique context, they need to look at both of these questions: What is school?, perhaps looking at this as the operational side of it, and What is worth learning?, the outcomes that we’d want to be achieved. I’d also say that we need to consider “How do we learn?” as an important question to add to our conversations, as we consider the role of technology and connecting to communities as a component of our school’s mission.

innovationThese questions aren’t answered in a 2-hour meeting, they are inquired into over time, in an institutional self-study, and requires getting teachers voice, choice, and ownership in initiatives. So often lofty goals subtract the perspective of teachers, who are the ones held accountable to many of the suggested changes. Pedagogical leaders choose efficiency over effectiveness, and often side-step the very educators who are laying the foundation of change in their learning institutions. Including teachers in all of these conversations, from the initial inquiry into “What is school?” is not only what is best practice when it comes to leadership, but it is critical to buy-in and sustainable transformation. I can’t help but reiterate this, simply because innovation doesn’t happen in closed-door meetings, it’s a community-driven mission, and it requires all stakeholders. I’ll stop my preaching here, but schools need a collaborative approach to cultivating lasting change that has a true impact on our students.

Needless to say, this is a process of probing a school’s values and traditions and asking if they are truly serving to benefit their students and preparing them for their future. All the research I’ve read suggests that when those foundational questions are asked, then a clear and compelling mission and vision can be the springboard to transforming schools. Once that comes into laser focus, the next layer to innovation, involves reflecting on the following set of questions:

  1. How can we create the conditions for a shared vision and a shared instructional language?
  2. How can we provide resources for research and development for teachers and the time to go along with deepening their understanding?
  3. How can we create conditions for team learning? How can you adopt looking at student work protocols?
  4. How can we create conditions for institutional learning?

Common ground and understanding are what creates a culture of community and self-efficacy that is organic and supportive of school goals. These 4 questions develop the glue that keeps the motivation for innovation intact. If I had to pin a job description on pedagogical leadership, it would be to do just that: to keep moving people forward, together, for the better.

I hope these questions give you a pause for reflection and make you start observing your school’s context in a new light, surveying the current values and traditions within your walls of learning. Moreover, I hope it motivates you to start these conversations and start unpacking WHO YOU ARE as a school and start designing WHO YOU CAN BECOME. In my opinion, if more schools had conversations like these, we’d move away from looking at the 1-dimensional performance metrics and expand our awareness and creativity into new territories for education.

#Change in Education- Leadership through Design: How Schools can Rethink and Reimagine Themselves

#Change in Education- Leadership through Design: How Schools can Rethink and Reimagine Themselves

By | | Comments 0 Comment

Four years ago I made a study of Design Thinking, taking courses, reading books and trying to figure out how I could bring it to our youngest learners. (Psst…I think it’s the Secret Ingredient to Student Agency.) My passion for it has not stopped. Beyond projects and products, however, I think schools could use this thinking approach, not just in our classrooms, but in every area of our school. Why? I think often schools make hasty decisions before really taking the time to really brainstorm possibilities and thoughtfully enact change. With a design-led approach, you can improve and amplify collaboration and innovation in schools through human-centered research, starting with empathy, considering the needs of the user or the audience of your “product”. It’s not about YOU–it’s about THEM!! I love that! It’s really the whole point of education–serving the needs of others.

Here is an overview from the d.school in which you can see how design thinking is a major departure from how school leadership might undertake challenges.

design slide

Currently, our “MakerSpace Man”, Al Gooding is utilizing this approach with a redesign of our primary playground. He is collaborating with Grade 5 and Grade 9 students to create a more interactive and engaging playground with our students. Although this project is underway, you can see how the primary students are “testing” out the materials, which included bricks, bamboo, tires, and rope. For a week, they collected data of how others used the equipment and what challenges there were to this sort of play.

As you can see in the video, there’s been immense enjoyment and creativity. It’s gorgeous to see how play has been transformed through this project. Now those Grade 5 and Grade 9 students are going back to the “drawing board” to reflect and continue to research ideas before unveiling a reworked design of what our playground could be like.

So if Design Thinking can be applied to our learning spaces, what else can it be applied to?

Hmm…..

I’ve been thinking a lot about report cards lately. It’s a topic that is near and dear to my heart, especially if you read my blog post on #ChangeInEducation: Setting a Match to the Report Card? A Couple of Questions on #Assessment in the #PYP. Naturally, I feel it’s worthwhile to take the time to analyze this entrenched assessment and reporting structure. So how might we approach a redesign of this?

  1. Define: Who is the report card for? Is its primary user students? parents? other schools?
  2. Empathy: Survey members of the community, such as students and parents FIRST. If they are the intended audience of this important document that provides feedback and articulation of a child’s intellectual and emotional growth, then we need to know their thoughts on it. What do they like and dislike about our report card? What do they wish it had on there? What do they wish we could eliminate?
  3. Brainstorm: Have staff get together and examine some of the information gathered. This can be a group of volunteers or this can be whole staff endeavor. We need a diverse group of thinkers and perspectives in the room so we could start playing What If?  This stage takes time–it’s not a 15-minute exercise. Creativity and divergent thinking require research and a touch of silliness so we can break out of the box of convention. We also need to consider how we create “teams of thinkers” so we can have groups that come up with a variety of strategies. We may even want to have students involved in this brainstorm–it’s about them, right?–they might offer some really great insights and ideas so we should value their voice.
  4. Iteration: We create mock-ups of what a re-imagined “report card” looks like. (I know in my mind right now, I’d create a more visual report card with infographics or some other visual design that would communicate better than a bunch of educational gibberish that is often put into reports.)
  5. Design Sprint: Share our best prototypes with our parents and students. What response do they have to them? What questions do they have? What needs are still not being met? (Can we meet those needs?). Then we go back to the drawing board, armed with their ideas for our staff to reflect upon to create a prototype.
  6. Unveil the Prototype (Test): Staff uses the new “report card” to communicate the learning. Teachers meet with parents to discuss the report to ensure they understand the information about their child’s learning. Students need to express their opinions as well. Do they think the report card summarizes their growth and learning well? Why or why not?
  7. Feedback and Moving Forward: We analyze various factors within the reporting process, such as how much time it took to “manufacture” the report, how well did the parents understand the report and how meaningful was the feedback system? What other challenges do we need to address? Do we still need to iterations to this or shall we continue with our re-designed report card?

Did you notice?

When we think about the “Enhanced PYP”, a design-led approach naturally cultivates formal and informal leadership within a learning community. There are voice, choice, and ownership on every level–admin, staff, students, and parents (perhaps even others outside our community). I believe that as we move forward in our quest to put “principles into practice”, we prioritize creating new ways in which we deepen our relationships within our schools and create a culture of inclusion.

I hope through these two examples of our playground and the report card, you might begin to see how design thinking can be transformative in leading change and innovation in your school.

 

#IMMOOC: Where We Are in Place and Time- Student Agency and Models of Inquiry in a #PYP Unit of Inquiry

#IMMOOC: Where We Are in Place and Time- Student Agency and Models of Inquiry in a #PYP Unit of Inquiry

By | | Comments 0 Comment

I am stuck on the question from the #EmpowerBook: What Decisions Am I Making For Students That They Could Make For Themselves? And I am staring at this image inspired by the book Dive Into Inquiry, wondering what part of the pool are we swimming in at this part of the unit of inquiry:diveintoinquiry

When I am thinking about the type a structured inquiry approach, the learning landscape could look like the 5E Model which is helpful for designing a teacher directed lesson. While controlled inquiry might look more like the Big 6 Research Model or guided inquiry might be experienced through a provocation or series of provocations using a model like Kath Murdoch’s.While free inquiry can happen more readily through a learning landscape like Genius Hour. Of course, the nuances of these types of inquiry has more to do with how much time and space you give to students while they are engaged in the learning. Even if you don’t connect with a model, per se, I think if you are pushing the inquiry along, you probably recognize instinctively that you are in the shallower end, while if you are providing more freedom for exploration, then you heading towards the deep end. And of course, student choice and voice play a big role in this. Not enough choice creates a passive stance, while too much choice can create overwhelm and inertia in learning, depending upon how confident a student is in their ability to discover and learn on their own.

From my experience with an inquiry, I feel that there are different parts of the pool that we are swimming in at different times of an inquiry. It’s never a linear path or clear model in play because, in the PYP, each line of inquiry is a microcosm of inquiry of itself–and sometimes we need to really do handholding and scaffolding because we are developing some new and challenging concepts; other times, the kids can be absolutely independent and divergent in their explorations because they feel confident in their knowledge and skills to do so.

For example, look at our current unit from Where We Are In Place and Time:

Homes reflect cultural influences and local conditions.

  • what makes a home
  • how homes reflect local culture and family values
  • factors which determine where people live

Developing the key concept of perspective through the line of inquiry of “what makes a home”, was tightly related to the key concept of connection in the line of inquiry of “how homes reflect local culture and family values”.  So we used guided inquiry with the hopes of revealing and developing these abstract ideas using a transdisciplinary approach with theatre, art, and language –because these disciplines open us up to a variety of points of views and creative self-expression.

Teacher-Question: What are 3 items that are in your home that are important to your family?: A student’s response: “an iPad to play games, a water bottle because we like to share and drink water, and my teddy bear for when I get scared.”
“Show and Tell”: Students came up with the idea to bring in items from home that reflected family values. They have brought in everything from legos, to necklaces, to family photos. And, both students and teachers, ask questions to reveal what is the significance of these things to the child and their family. 

 

What you see here are the early stages in which we are “tuning in” and “finding out” how our values and culture can be represented in different ways. We also have brought in the idea of “home” as our bodies as we consider what is going on in our brains and hearts, through mindfulness lessons.

We invited parents to come in a share a traditional folktale and read it in their home language. We had about 11 stories shared, from nearly all the continents, Students then had to deconstruct the messages or lessons in the story to determine a value from that culture.

 

Now as we come into the final weeks of inquiry, the sieve begins to tighten, as we move into our summative task: designing a home that reflects their family’s needs, culture, and values (from the line of inquiry: “factors which determine where people live”).  We want the students to create the same product, a model home.  Even though we intend to use design thinking, our inquiry is heading toward the more shallow part of the pool because this means, that we must provide a significant amount of resources and guidance to ensure their success. Although they are free to create their home in any style they choose, they must all be doing the same project, following the same timeline, and adhering to the same criteria.

So does this mean that we are stealing their agency by structuring the inquiry in such a way that drives them toward the home design? Honestly, I’m not really sure yet. My belief is that it isn’t because they are so incredibly inspired and excited to do this project, but at the same time, I hear John Spencer’s voice in my head:

What Decisions Am I Making For Students That They Could Make For Themselves?

Did we steal their agency when we gave them a pre-determined task? I mean they could have painted a picture or written a song as examples of other ways to demonstrate their understanding, right?  But in my teacher’s brain, I think they could add those elements to their home design that doesn’t detract from their self-expression.

So as I reflect on this question, I realize that I have to do my best to not micro-manage their creative process and I allow them to “own the learning”. This might mean that they might fail in some way. And it could be likely that this means collapsing elements of our timetable to allow them to complete the project to their satisfaction.

Inquiry-based learning isn’t always a clean and efficient process-no matter what model you use- but I believe that when we provide students with authentic and meaningful experiences, their agency will naturally ensue.

So it’s safe to say that my reflection on the unit and its ability to spark agency is “To Be Continued” (:

 

A Journey into Design Thinking to Tackle Classroom Challenges

A Journey into Design Thinking to Tackle Classroom Challenges

By | | Comments 1 comment

Design thinking isn’t a subject, topic or class. It’s more of a way of solving problems that encourage positive risk-taking and creativity.

-From LAUNCH by John Spencer and A.J. Juliani-

I am not proud to say this but I am really struggling with our school’s initiative to tear down classroom walls and combine classes to increase collaboration. I’m usually keen to try out new ideas but it’s made me question so many things about what is trending in education and has really made me “sharpen my stone” when it comes to classroom management.  But here’s the thing, I don’t want to ‘manage’ the students, I want to empower them. So I wonder what I am missing –how can I use this structure and type of learning to fulfill the needs of our 21st-century learners? How will this better prepare them for their future?  George Curous says “Change is an opportunity to do something amazing“. So I’ve taken on my innovator’s mindset and have begun to apply design-thinking to build a better functioning learning environment.

In Design Thinking, initially, you seek to understand your “audience” or the “user” and define the problems that they may have.  Currently, we have two perspectives to consider: our students and our team of teachers. Collectively we are a community of learners, but it’s important to put the needs of the children first–they are the reason why we are here anyway, right?!  But as teachers, we are the facilitators of this change, so I think our focus will ultimately be on the big WE, and cannot carve ourselves out of the equation when developing a flourishing community of learning.

user experience.jpg
The journey begins! What does our community of learners need? Why? How does it make them feel?!

Because this is the research and discovery phase, I am really digging into books and articles to find ways to make this work–not that we survive but to thrive in such an environment, and turn this challenge into an opportunity.

So I’ve begun to approach our situation through the lens of curiosity and ask questions about the challenges that are most immediate and pressing. As teachers, we have three main areas of concern: time for learning, the organization of the learning space, and conducting effective and engaging classroom discussion (in the large group and in small groups with our noisy space). Here is a list of just some of the questions I have begun to formulate about our collaborating Grade 1 classes:

  1. How can we structure our timetable to ensure that we have enough stand-alone literacy, maths and then transdisciplinary unit time?
  2. Of those transdisciplinary subject areas, how best do we need to develop the knowledge and skills in that areas?-in the “large group” (both classes combined) or in “split groups” (separated grade 1 classes) or through a carousel of activities.
  3. How do individual voices get heard in all the “noise”? What tools and strategies do we need to employ to make sure that there is a diversity of ideas being shared, especially our English Language Learners?
  4. How can we use our space to design areas, not just for literacy and maths, but for genuine collaboration, creativity, and quiet?
  5. What gets the kids not just “doing stuff” but actually thinking and reflecting?
  6. And how do we develop strong relationships with our students, knowing about who they are and how they learn best? What feedback systems can we create to help them go from learning passively to actively engaging and ultimately being empowered?

Although I know that we have already begun a rough “prototype” with how we tackle these challenge areas, I recognize that we need more time to understand our learners, our constraints and what the research says about developing more collaborative learning environments, which some have dubbed as Modern Learning Environments (MLE). 

desing evolved
From the wonderful website: http://corbercreative.com/the-ux-process/

So as I layer the designer mindset to frame our challenges, I recognize that we will need to actually get more data. If I am to rewind and start again, then our discovery phase requires a deeper analysis into the complexities of our learners and the needs of our community. Other than our co-planning meetings and daily reflections, I have 2 other ideas for mining some data:

  1. Student survey: we need to find other ways to include their student ideas so they are co-designers of our learning community. In the book, The Space: A Guide for Educators  , the authors encourage including student voice to create a purpose for the learning spaces and cultivate behaviors that support their emotional and mental growth. I am thinking of using the formative assessment app Plickers for a general climate survey and then work on interviewing students either individually or in small groups to get their feedback and input on how we can improve the learning.
  2. Fly on the Wall-I would like to ask some staff members, including administrators, to just pop in and make objective observations. I am thinking about making a questionnaire as a framework for their drop-ins, but I’m also really curious about them just capturing some conversations that they hear–what is the “talk” in the classroom?

As I begin to dive into our data, I will be sure to share some of the results. Truthfully, I’ve always thought about design thinking as something that you introduce when doing project-based learning and never thought to use it in this context, so I’m exploring new territory.  I am really keen to hear other people’s stories and ideas about how I can go deeper. What am I missing? What suggestions do you have?

The 14 Gifts of Design Thinking

The 14 Gifts of Design Thinking

By | | Comments 2 comments

Last month I finished up the MITX Design Thinking for Leading and Learning course, and I’m still assimilating the profundity of these ideas and the impact they can have in classrooms. It’s actually really hard for me to articulate since I’m in the midst of a paradigm shift as ideas are colliding between developing empathy, creativity, and critical thinking in students. It’s been a “perfect storm” in my mind and I’m still trying to erase my former notions about design as a cycle instead of it as a creative process–which was probably my key take away. When I learned about how schools of poverty and underachievement are transformed by using it, I was impressed, to say mildly.  And I have been chewing on how this is possible when it occurred to me that it wasn’t all the great knowledge that was gained, it was the mindset that was cultivated. In particular, it made me think about the work of Brene Brown and her research on shame and vulnerability.

The REVOLUTION will not be televised. It will be in your classroom! You are working on the hardest edges of love.

Do not ever question the power you have with the people you teach!

Learning is inherently vulnerable and it’s like you got a classroom full of turtles without shells.  The minute they put their shells back on, they are protected–from their peers, from their teachers, from whoever–no learning can come in…so we really have to develop ‘shame resilent’ classrooms.

-Brene Brown, author of Daring Greatly

I agree with Brene Brown about developing “shame resilience” and have found the usual tug of war between with teaching and mistake making diminishes when we introduce students to a mindset in which they appreciate the importance of recognizing our errors and strive for constant improvement. When I think about design thinking, I believe it could beinnovation a powerful way for students to experience their vulnerability and develop perspective taking, all the while creating real cool stuff–whether it is a piece of writing, a t-shirt, a rollercoaster, an app or, in my Early Year’s classroom, a garden. They learn how to fail forward and create another prototype. This design sprint is not a destructive but constructive element because, although they spent a lot of time developing their idea, the focus shifts from the product itself to the user–who will reap the benefits of this redesign. It gets the kids to detach from what they are making to who they are making it for. This nuance has a relatively big impact on the process of improvement.

So, it’s been in the midst of implementing it at a deeper level, that I had a moment of clarity in which I connected Brown’s ideas to that of design-thinking. Design-based learning creates a space in your classroom in which different “gifts” from the students’ learning can emerge:

  1. Love Of Ideas
  2. Belonging (in their collaborative groups)
  3. The Joy of creating something and learning new ideas.
  4. Courage to try new things
  5. Problem-finding by thinking future forward and considering what the possible issues might be with their design.
  6. Innovation by using different strategies and materials to solve a challenge.
  7. Ethical decision making by considering the different perspectives and considering if their solutions will be harmful to the environment or hurtful to others.
  8. Trust in each other and themselves
  9. Empathy for the users.
  10. Accountability to finish the job
  11. Flexibility with our time table and dealing with challenges.
  12. Creativity in designing.
  13. Listening to Feedback from others
  14. Hard conversations with each other

As my class is still in the midst of this design-based unit, I continue to be fascinated by their growth as the process reveals another level of their thinking and feeling about issues and ideas related to our current unit. I’m enjoying observing this process and love how it fits so well with the inquiry-based learning model of the Primary Years Programme (PYP). I definitely look forward to implementing this approach in future.

I’m wondering if others who have more experience with design thinking would agree with the “gifts” and/or add different ones to the list. Please share. I’m genuinely interested in your perspective.

3 Things Teachers Have to Know About Using Design Thinking In The Classroom

3 Things Teachers Have to Know About Using Design Thinking In The Classroom

By | | Comments 1 comment

Design in all around us. From our coffee mugs to our shoes to tissue paper, those things were all once thoughts inside someone’s head whose ideas escaped the confines of their brains and were put into form. Most importantly, those ideas were meant to solve a problem, either a physical problem or a problem related to a system, like as in transportation. For example,  in this Ted Talk with Elon Musk, he surprises you with his antidote to car congestion for commuters in Los Angeles. I thought it was going to be flying cars (Musk is the owner of Tesla, an electric car manufacturer) but it was creating tunnels that essentially launch you to your destination.

This is merely one of many examples of how someone can approach everyday challenges with a creative solution to them. This, in essence, is what design is and I believe it should be an integral part of how we approach our curriculum.The power of design thinking is the perspective in which we seek these creative solutions. It is a way of unlocking our imagination in an effort to produce viable options to things that trouble individuals.

So what makes up the components of design? What is design thinking in a nutshell?

  1. It is a process

I’ve seen all sorts of versions of design cycles, and I think teachers and schools have to think about how they are gong to use it in the learning, while not getting caught up with the language. The point is that it is a process that students can walk through easily when looking at examining an issue or challenge.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

For example, in my current Sharing the Planet unit (Central idea: We grow and use plants in many ways), students are going to design gardens that address the needs of a user–butterflies/bees or humans –so I am not going to use the MYP Design Cycle with them. They are 3-5 years olds after all!

2. It is a way of learning.

It is a way of inquiring and researching a topic that connects so many subject areas. As an PYP educator, it definitely is transdisciplanary, because one never knows when one discipline ends and the next begins, with Math, Science, Language, Art all happening simultaneously. But I what I love most about design-based learning is that it helps students to redefine what is failure so that they can appreciate that failing often leads to sooner success–taking the lessons of those failures and applying them is the learning!

3. It focuses on a user in mind.

They say art is creating something that satisfies the need of the artist, while design is creating something to satisfy the needs of others. Big challenges and their simple solutions often go through cycles of iteration as they look through the eyes of the user. This requires empathy and it is a skill that is really critical today as we start to consider the perspective and needs of others.

chairs
Image from Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum

I think this is the biggest distinction between project-based learning (PBL), and the hallmark of creating something that matters to someone. You really have to dig deep into understanding the nuances of each user, which is obvious in the examples above, right? In my current unit, I outlined the process in this design thinking post and I’ve had to shift from looking at creating a “product”–a garden–and have the kids consider what is important to the “user”, which in this case are the butterflies and humans. When we went to the farm, we had to discuss how and why the farmers created raised beds, which was got the children thinking about this subtlety and how it might be applied to the garden they want to create.

As I work through design-based learning approach in my own classroom, I can tell you that the depth of thinking definitely changes when you combine the experience of gaining knowledge + skills + perspective.

Now that you know more about design-thinking, perhaps you might give it a shot in your class–how could you flip your “project” into a design challenge?

 

 

 

Subscribe for weekly blog updates.

* indicates required


Like Minded? Let's Stay Connected!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,279 other subscribers

Verified by MonsterInsights