Technology Supported Active Learning: Student-Centered Approaches (Lecture Notes in Educational Technology) 9811620814, 9789811620812

Table of contents :
Contents
1 Technology to Support Active Learning in Higher Education
1.1 Book Structure
References
2 Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking
2.1 Introduction
2.2 The Rise of Agile and Lean Design Methods
2.3 Design Thinking and Its Origins Introduction
2.3.1 Design Thinking Process and Phases
2.3.2 Techniques
2.3.3 Design Thinking Types
2.3.4 Stakeholders and Empathy
2.4 Best Practices and Critical Constraints for Design Thinking Teams
2.5 Conclusion
References
3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Defining Project-Based Learning
3.2.1 Reasons for Project-Based Learning Implementation
3.2.2 Phases in Project-Based Learning
3.2.3 PBL Versus Doing Projects
3.2.4 Relevance and the Educational Value of PBL Implementation
3.3 Models for Supporting PBL with Technology
3.4 Collaborative Learning Through PBL
3.5 Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning
3.6 Assessment Methodology in PBL Settings
3.7 Examples of PBL in Higher Education
3.8 Conclusion
References
4 Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Definitions and Frameworks of Inquiry-Based Learning
4.3 Examples of Using Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education
4.3.1 Inquiry-Based Learning in Curricula
4.3.2 Separate Inquiry-Based Courses
4.3.3 Inquiry-Based Learning as Part of a Course
4.4 Benefits and Challenges of Using Inquiry-Based Learning
4.5 Conclusions
References
5 Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Educational Methods in Project-Based Learning
5.3 Experiences Form Modules Using Agile and Design Thinking Methods
5.3.1 Application Development Project (ADP)
5.3.2 Software Engineering Intensive Module (Swengi)
5.3.3 Game Development
5.3.4 Mobile Project
5.3.5 Software Business Start-Up
5.4 Discussion
5.5 Conclusions
References
6 The Design of a Problem-Based Learning Platform for Engineering Education
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Challenges Towards Modernizing Engineering Higher Education
6.3 Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education
6.4 Objectives of the ALIEN Active Learning Intervention
6.5 Addressing Institutional Challenges on the Adoption of Problem-Based Learning
6.5.1 Physical Infrastructure
6.5.2 A Digital Platform for Supporting Problem-Based Learning in Engineering Education
6.5.3 Instructor Capacity Building
6.6 Experiences from the Deployment of Problem-Based Learning in Engineering Higher Education
6.6.1 In Greece
6.6.2 In Malaysia
6.7 Conclusions
References
7 Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Agile Design
7.3 Lean Production
7.4 The Educational Benefits of Serious Games
7.5 A Serious Game for Demonstrating the Applications of the 5S Lean Production Model in Engineering
7.6 A Serious Game for Demonstrating the Applications for the SCRUM Agile Design Model in Engineering
7.7 Experiences from the Deployment of Serious Games on Agile and Lean Design in Engineering Higher Education
7.8 A Suggested Approach for Introducing Serious Games in Problem-Based Learning in Engineering Higher Education
7.9 Conclusions
References
8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Design Thinking for Supporting Teachers Work and Curricula Design
8.3 Methods and Analysis Tools for Describing the Design Process
8.3.1 Data Collection Methods
8.3.2 Analysis Methods
8.4 Applying Design Thinking to Collaborative Learning Design
8.4.1 Context
8.4.2 Developing the Learning Design Process
8.4.3 The Five Design Phases
8.5 Conclusions
References
9 Design Thinking for Promoting Human-Centred Design
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Approaches, How Design Thinking Principles Are Used in Higher Education Context
9.3 Design Thinking Competences
9.4 DesignIT Project and DesignIT Collaborative Application
9.5 Data Collection and Analysis Methods
9.6 Results
9.6.1 Case Studies with DesignIT Platform
9.6.2 Supporting Design Thinking Competences with DesignIT
9.6.3 Usability of DesignIT Platform for Design Thinking
9.6.4 Discussion
9.7 Conclusions
References
10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice and in-Service Teacher Training
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Game Design-Based Learning
10.2.1 The Process of Game Development
10.2.2 Game Development Framework
10.3 GDBL and Learning
10.3.1 Constructivism and Constructionism
10.3.2 Trialogical Learning
10.4 The SADDIE Method
10.4.1 Specification Phase
10.4.2 Analysis Phase
10.4.3 Design Phase
10.4.4 Development Phase
10.4.5 Implementation Phase
10.4.6 Evaluation Phase
10.5 Achieving Digital Competences with GDBL and SADDIE
10.5.1 Professional Cooperation and Training
10.5.2 Digital Resources
10.5.3 Teaching and Learning
10.5.4 Assessment
10.5.5 Empowering Learners
10.6 Conclusions
References
Index

Citation preview

Lecture Notes in Educational Technology

Carlos Vaz de Carvalho Merja Bauters   Editors

Technology Supported Active Learning Student-Centered Approaches

Lecture Notes in Educational Technology Series Editors Ronghuai Huang, Smart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Kinshuk, College of Information, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA Mohamed Jemni, University of Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia Nian-Shing Chen, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliu, Taiwan J. Michael Spector, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

The series Lecture Notes in Educational Technology (LNET), has established itself as a medium for the publication of new developments in the research and practice of educational policy, pedagogy, learning science, learning environment, learning resources etc. in information and knowledge age, – quickly, informally, and at a high level. Abstracted/Indexed in: Scopus, Web of Science Book Citation Index

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11777

Carlos Vaz de Carvalho · Merja Bauters Editors

Technology Supported Active Learning Student-Centered Approaches

Editors Carlos Vaz de Carvalho Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto Porto, Portugal

Merja Bauters Tallinn University Tallinn, Estonia

ISSN 2196-4963 ISSN 2196-4971 (electronic) Lecture Notes in Educational Technology ISBN 978-981-16-2081-2 ISBN 978-981-16-2082-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Contents

1

Technology to Support Active Learning in Higher Education . . . . . . Carlos Vaz de Carvalho and Merja Bauters

1

2

Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kai Pata, Merja Bauters, Petri Vesikivi, and Jaana Holvikivi

13

3

Project-Based Learning in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alenka Žerovnik and Irena Nanˇcovska Šerbec

31

4

Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Külli Kori

59

5

Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . Petri Vesikivi, Merja Bauters, and Jaana Holvikivi

75

6

The Design of a Problem-Based Learning Platform for Engineering Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Tsalapatas, C. Vaz de Carvalho, A. A. Bakar, S. Salwah, R. Jamillah, and O. Heidmann

91

7

Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies . . . . . . . . . 107 H. Tsalapatas, O. Heidmann, and T. Jesmin

8

Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Merja Bauters and Petri Vesikivi

9

Design Thinking for Promoting Human-Centred Design . . . . . . . . . . 145 Kai Pata

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice and in-Service Teacher Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Matej Zapušek and Jože Rugelj Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

v

Chapter 1

Technology to Support Active Learning in Higher Education Carlos Vaz de Carvalho and Merja Bauters

Abstract Learning is an inherently individual process that depends on the learner’s profile, that is his/her pre-existing knowledge, abilities, skills, competences, motivation, etc. The black-box behavioural approach that expected learners to perform identically when facing similar educational constructs did not take into account previous experiences affecting that learning experience. That industrial, one-size-fitsall, educational approach mostly delivered passively through lectures and repetitions has been demonstrated not to be efficient and to fail to develop abilities, skills and competencies required for professional life. Active learning corresponds basically to any pedagogical method that requires and fosters the involvement of learners in their learning process and therefore recognises and promotes their personal experiences in social contexts. These methods develop learners’ skills and competencies beyond the immediate achievement by allowing them to reach higher cognitive levels. In this book, we give an overview of how active learning can be scaffolded in different ways, and we present cases and examples of how technology can foster the uptake and efficiency of such methods. The book focuses on higher education once, as incredible it may seem, most institutions at this level still rely heavily on passive expositive methods. Keywords Active learning · Technology-enhanced learning · Higher education Simply put, Active Learning corresponds to any pedagogical methodology that is concerned with how the students learn and that puts the student in the centre of C. Vaz de Carvalho (B) Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Politécnico do Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 431, P4200-072 Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] M. Bauters Metropolia University, Helsinki, Finland Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia M. Bauters e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_1

1

2

C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters

the learning process. The Active Learning concept was popularized by Bonwell and Eison (1991) when they stated that “… in active learning, students actively participate in the process [of learning]”. They also proposed that “Active learning engages students in two aspects – doing things and thinking about the things they are doing”. In their report, they added that, to learn, students cannot just be passive listeners: they must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems. By doing that, the students participate in higher-order cognitive tasks such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Renkl et al., 2002) and they understand a subject through inquiry, gathering, analysing and synthesising data. Dewey (1938), Bruner (1962), Silberman (1996), Roberts (2003) and Hattie et al. (1997), among others, have equally reflected and promoted acting, experimenting and experiencing as an effective way to knowledge acquisition and skill development. Active learning follows the constructivism ideas that propose that learners construct or build their understanding by ‘making meaning’ of the newly received information, connecting new ideas and experiences to the previously acquired knowledge and practices to form new or enhanced knowledge (Bransford et al., 1999) and achieving more profound levels of understanding. Learners are then better able to analyse, evaluate and synthesise ideas (thus achieving the higher cognitive levels). The identified benefits for students are considerable improvements in critical, lateral and creative thinking, analytical skills, problem-solving strategies, intrinsic motivation, group collaboration, communication skills, entrepreneurship and integration with the society (Haase et al., 2013), increased retention and transfer of new information and improved interpersonal skills (Prince, 2004). Active learning also develops the students’ autonomy and their ability to learn therefore helping them become ‘lifelong learners’ as they master a higher control over their learning. Barnes (1989) proposed that active learning should incorporate a set of principles: • Purposive: that is, the learning should be relevant to the students’ concerns and objectives. • Negotiated: the goals and methods of learning should be agreed between the students and the other involved stakeholders like the teachers and educational managers. • Reflective: the learning should provide opportunities for the students to reflect on what was learned and its meaning. • Critical: following the previous, students should be able to analyse and appreciate the learning process and compare it to other different ways and means for learning. • Complex: learning should require students to analyse and execute complex tasks, eventually relating to complex situations existing in real life. • Situation-driven: learning should be contextual and the context should lead to establish the learning tasks. Nevertheless, the achieved knowledge should be transferable to other situations. • Engaged: learning should reflect real-life tasks to engage the students therefore providing realistic and practical sense to the learning activities. Following Vygotsky that stated that learners learn best when they can see the usefulness of what they learn and are able to connect it to the real world (1978).

1 Technology to Support Active Learning in Higher Education

3

Grabinger and Dunlap (1995) added a few extra principles, by stating that active learning environments should respect…: • Alignment with constructivist strategies where new knowledge is integrated in the existing knowledge. • Promotion of research-based learning through investigation. • Encouraging leadership skills of the students. • Promotion of collaborative learning and group work. • Support of interdisciplinary learning. Looking at Barnes’s proposal, the principles of active learning can be applied by a broad range of educational methodologies and learning activities, from simple (e.g., peer discussion to discuss a concept) to more complex (e.g., case studies analysis and discussion, problem-solving, project development). In fact, the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching from Iowa State University identified more than 200 different active learning activities (CELT, 2017). These activities may range from a couple of minutes to a full class session or may take place over multiple class or facilitation sessions. Project- and problem-based learning, experiential learning, action learning, agile learning, design thinking and inquiry-based learning are examples of active and learner-centred methodologies that can be used to scaffold active learning. These methodologies normally are applied by having students working together in groups, but they can also be used to foster individual reflection. Active learning places a higher degree of responsibility on the learner, but instructor’s guidance is still crucial to direct learners to the right path. Skilled teachers and facilitators promote learning by providing advice and support that challenges students based on their current ability. Teachers usually find that the increased level of academic discussion with their students is much more rewarding than the simple passive lecturing. That practice is a sure way to overcome frequent misconceptions, like misinterpreting the role of the teacher who is now a facilitator in contrast with his/her previous role as an activator (Hattie, 2009). Other misconceptions relate to the actual application of active learning strategies in different learning setups. Active learning does not necessarily involve learners moving around the room or undertaking group work. Active learning is happening if students are thinking hard and relating their new learning to existing ideas in a way that enables them to make progress! Active learning is already extensively applied in several universities as numerous studies have shown evidence to support the efficiency of active learning. A metaanalysis of 225 studies done by Freeman et al., (2014) compared courses with passive vs active learning designs for failure rates and student scores on exams and other assessment activities. They found that students in passive lectures were 1.5 times more likely to fail than students in courses with active learning and that the most positive effects were achieved in class sizes with less than 50 students. Richard Hake (1998) found that Physics students improved 25 percentage points when enrolled in classes that used active learning and interactive engagement techniques. Hoellwarth and Moelter (2011) reported that student learning improved 38

4

C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters

percentage points when instructors switched their Physics classes from conventional instruction to active learning. A study reported by the United States President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) discovered that students using active learning techniques were twice as likely to continue their engineering programmes and not drop out of college (PCAST, 2012). Baepler et al., (2014) reported that active learning approaches have improved students’ perceptions of their own learning. Duderstadt (2008, p. 2) reviewed more than 15 studies conducted by significant engineering organisations which agreed on the need for a pedagogical paradigm change in engineering education. In sum, there seems to be already a strong consensus that active teaching and learning methodologies must be used, that is, student-centred, experiential, project-oriented pedagogical processes, supported by problems coming from the industry or the society (Vernon, 2000). Active learning can also take place through the use of technology. Supporting active learning through ICT tools (virtual community’s platforms, personalised learning platforms, games, simulations, virtual labs, virtual and augmented reality systems, etc.) creates learning environments where the “digital native” student feels comfortable and is motivated to learn (Batista & Carvalho, 2008). These tools, advanced Open Educational Resources (OER), highly interactive and immersive, can be used effectively to scaffold learning for higher education students as they develop the required set of competencies. The students can easier reflect the dynamic nature of the world and the quick evolution of systems that prompt changes in the necessary professional skills. These emerging technologies need to be taken into consideration by policymakers, researchers, developers, and educators (Chen et al., 2014). But even simpler technological solutions like real time participation systems (in hardware or software) or discussion tools (forums, whiteboards, etc.) can be used to support active learning. A large quantity of research studies have shown how these environments can be used in domains such as computer science, economics, politics, health, environment, globalisation and tourism (Cabanero-Johnson & Berge, 2009; Cooper, 2007; Cox, 1999; Dondlinger, 2007; Hofstede & Pedersen, 1999; Ke, 2008; Orfinger, 1998). Higher education programmes must be designed to use this new generation of learning tools that promote the learner’s autonomy, collaboration, creativity and critical analysis ability. Learning with these tools should emphasise visualising, hearing, feeling, experimenting and interpreting so that there is an active construction of knowledge (Pereira et al., 2007). Next, we will explain and describe through the book chapters various usages of tools integrated into different learning approaches, all of which emphasise characteristics of active learning in higher education applied through problem-, project-, or inquiry-based learning, design thinking , game design, serious games or combinations of these. Therefore, there is a unique and varied sample learning approaches and different tools which can be used in active learning.

1 Technology to Support Active Learning in Higher Education

5

1.1 Book Structure The book follows a theoretical to practical approach, focusing on some of the most used active learning approaches, firstly, in a theoretical perspective and then through an implementation point of view. Nearly all potential ICT solutions have been in use in one way or another. Platforms with useful examples, collaborative tools and virtual features have existed for some time already. The game design will bring forward stronger the potential of simulations, VR and AR. Design thinking traditionally emphases being face to face and interactive with the physical environment. However, even here, the digital tools are creeping in to support and scaffold the design thinking process. Chapter 2 by Pata, Bauters, Vesikivi and Holvikivi dives into the theory of design thinking and why agile and lean are essential concept, and processes to know currently. The chapter starts by providing a brief history of agile and lean and then grounds the reasons why it is presently seen as necessary. Some of these reasons include but are not limited to horizontal organisation structure which promotes equality and responsibility, flexible way of producing a product and correcting mistakes as well as a process that invites the user or other stakeholders into it. However, although many companies claim to use it, the concepts have become so lucid it is hard to say how many follow lean and agile methodologies. The chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the discourse on design thinking. The authors have made an avid attempt to structure different views on design thinking from history (e.g., Rittel & Webber, 1974) to the current day (Miyata et al., 2017). Besides, the authors clarify some persisting confusions, for instance, on the concept of abduction—about the differences of abduction as weak inference and abduction seen as part of the design process. Other aspects discussed consist of the methodologies, methods, techniques and procedures. The chapter creates a solid base for additional discussions on the use of design thinking. Chapter 3 explains why project-based learning has been found useful for enhancing skills, such as critical thinking, analytic and communication skills, and decision-making (see, for instance, Mumtaz, & Latif, 2017). A thorough discussion of how to define project-based learning versus small projects, how to successfully implement project-based learning in higher education and how to assess the worth of technology used for learning. Frameworks such as Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR), the Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) and DIGCOMP the European Digital Competence Framework are discussed more. The authors discuss how project-based learning enhances collaboration and interdisciplinary teaching and learning, both of which are an essential and challenging aspect of active learning. Furthermore, the chapter provides a view into the reasons why project-based learning supports teaching methods that enhance student-centred active learning. Such practices include providing students meaningful projects; Teacher-facilitated process, not teachers dictated or pre-designed process; helping students’ planning, designing and researching s well guiding towards learning such skills as critical

6

C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters

thinking and creativity. This chapter guides well to the other chapters on project-, problem- and inquiry-based learning by providing the ground methods and usages. Chapter 4 discusses inquiry-based learning. The chapter flows smoothly forward, beginning with a thorough introduction into inquiry-based learning contextualising Vygotsky’s work and its relation to progressive inquiry-based learning (Muukkonen et al., 2005). The chapter provides an overview of examples of the inquiry-based learning in higher education from three levels: inquiry-based learning running through the curricula, as separate courses, and as part of a course. These examples are well-chosen for highlighting a different aspect of inquiry-based learning; for instance, how the context can be created. Külli Kori, further, explains the benefits of using inquiry-based learning in higher education but also has an interesting discussion on the challenges of implementing inquiry-based learning. The benefits and challenges are discussed from the perspective of organisation level, teacher level and student level. Chapter 5 on agile combined with design thinking in engineering education by Vesikivi, Bauters and Holvikivi, discuss design thinking through the Google Ventures design thinking sprint. The Google Ventures design spring fits well into the agile process. It is executed in one week as one sprint in the whole process. The chapter explains how the sprint is executed and provides various examples of modules where the design thinking and agile methods have been combined. These are discussed from positive to negative issues which have occurred in the modules (courses). The skills which are enhanced are, for instance, collaboration, empathy, creativity, tackling complex problems and communication with multiple stakeholders. Issues that have been seen to be challenging to acquire is time for the teacher team to support each other and for students to understand the real need of the scrum, which they often appreciate in work life. Chapter 6 discusses how to design a problem-based learning platform in the context of engineering education. The chapter has multiple writers who all have been involved in the design and creation of the problem-based platform. The authors Tsalapatas, Vaz de Carvalho, Bakar, Salwah, Jamillah, and Heidmann, claim using various studies conducted by EU (e.g. European Commission, 2017), that especially engineering students are in need to learn “soft” skills such as collaboration, leadership, entrepreneurial mindsets, and creativity. These skills are seen to drive innovation and to support beneficial collaboration between academic programs, companies, and public services. The method allowing the collaboration is problem-based learning which helps students apply newly developed knowledge in the field as well as grants to combine engineering studies with skills of critical thinking, and entrepreneurial mindsets (Navy et al., 2019). The research teams went further than just using problem-based learning in their courses; they have created a platform that scaffolds the learning and handling of the problem-solving for teachers who have not tried it before or who unsure of their abilities yet. The platform offers support for the teachers’ facilitation role (Boud & Feletti, 1997) and provides examples of context settings of the problems and challenges that should be solved, with various complexity, it guides through the process offering examples and templates. The platform has been in use, for instance,

1 Technology to Support Active Learning in Higher Education

7

in 12 physical laboratories in universities of Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Nepal. The labs are equipped to learn current digital technologies (AR/VR, 3D-printing) through problem-based learning. Many of the cases presented in this chapter guide us to the next topic of gamebased learning and design thinking methods and techniques. Both the game-based learning and design thinking methods have been used in a multitude of ways to support active learning and especially critical thinking practices. Chapter 7 focuses on the serious games supporting agile and lean methodologies. Tsalapatas, Heidmann, and Jesmin describe how serious games can enable students to form experiences through which complicated issues can be remembered but also understood. In this chapter, the authors underline the need to learn agile and lean industrial methods and processes already before entering work. Suggestion for providing students with the close to real experiences has been attempted to be solved with work training phases within studies. However, this is not always possible and not all work training provides those experiences which are aimed at. The needed skills and experiences are achieved through the integration of handson activities into curricula. These activities challenge students to use new skills and competencies in an environment that simulates the way industry managed knowledge (Brathwaite and Schreiber, 2009). The solution is serious games (Michael and Chen, 2005). The combination of simulating industry processes through serious games have been proven to be successful. The chapter presents a project LEAP1 where the game for agile and lean processes has three theme simulations such as pharmacy, office, scrapyard, and the game for learning SCRUM has two simulation scenarios: urban engineering and agricultural engineering sectors. The chapter 8 on design thinking describes how the design thinking can be used as a tool for collaborative course design. Bauters and Vesikivi underline that the approach is not aimed as a teaching method for training teachers but for teachers at work to design their joint courses together. The aim of using design thinking as a tool is to enhance communication and shared understanding between the teachers planning the same module. Design thinking is also assumed to scaffold empathy toward others; thus, in the case of course design, empathy is directed towards students for understanding what the students wish and experience during the course. The chapter describes phase by phase how design thinking can be used with lean service design canvases for collaborative redesign a course with the students. The challenges met in the process, and the benefits are discussed in the end. Chapter 9 describes how students get in touch with methods for creativity, lateral thinking, and collaboration within the process of agile and lean development. Kai Pata meticulously explains design thinking aims of ERASMUS + project DesignIT in which a mobile platform DesignIT was designed and developed for supporting the early phases of design thinking, namely, contextual inquiry and creativity. Pata further describes seen benefits of design thinking after which she describes four case studies and draws conclusions on these cases. The cases are from different countries and are combined from various disciplines and contexts. The courses vary 1 https://leapproject.eu.

8

C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters

from engineering courses to interdisciplinary courses on designing new practices and tools to museums. The conclusion of the usefulness of the platform and design thinking is promising while challenges were also in student teams virtual collaboration support by the tool. On the positive side design, thinking practices could be used in real empirical settings and with the customers, prompting empathy. The DesignIT platform was particularly suitable for supporting locating and assessing resources, examples and ideas; iterating the design space conceptually and visually, for instance for testing hypotheses and tinkering; for identifying problem aspects and needs in context. Chapter 9 presents well the similarities between all the chapters explaining a different aspect of active learning. All of them emphasise the student centredness, the building of self-agency and shared understanding, supporting communication and collaboration, allowing empathy to grow, complex problem-solving skills, critical thinking, reasoning skills, creative thinking, systems thinking, visual thinking and teamwork skills as well as teachers role as instructors or facilitators. The methods may differ, but the aim is the same in all of the approaches. Chapter 10 presents a game design used for in-service and pre-service teacher learning. It is different from the other chapters as it discusses how game design, not games themselves can be used for learning various digital, teaching and learning skills. The game design method is grounded on trialogical learning (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2009) and constructionism (Gee, 2003; Piaget, 1976). The authors Zapušek and Rugelj, have created a method with five phases to support the use of the game design for teacher training. The technique is called SADDIE (Specification, Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and evaluation, which is based on ADDIE, (see Kurt, 2017). The process of the game design-based learning is described in detail, and the explanations are provided on how to use it for in-service teacher training for understanding technology and clear uncertain feelings on the use of technology, but also for learning the so-called soft skills such as collaboration, shared understanding and self-agency. The chapter has detailed explanations of the different phases with examples, in addition to experiences of conducting the process and what is learned in each stage concerning the guidelines from The European Framework for Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu).

References Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., & Driessen, M. (2014). It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms. Computers & Education, 78, 227–236. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006. Barnes, D. (1989). Active Learning. Leeds University TVEI Support Project, p. 19. ISBN 978-1872364-00-1. Batista, R., & Vaz de Carvalho, C. (2008). Work in progress: Learning through role play games. Proceedings of FIE 2008—38th IEEE Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Saratoga Springs, USA.

1 Technology to Support Active Learning in Higher Education

9

Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Information Analyses—ERIC Clearinghouse Products (071), p. 3. ISBN 978-1-878380-08-1. ISSN 08840040. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED336049.pdf. Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning. Kogan Page. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington. Bruner, J. (1962). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Harvard University Press. Cabanero-Johnson, P., & Berge, Z. (2009). Digital natives: Back to the future of microworlds in a corporate learning organisation. The Learning Organization, 16(4), 290–297. https://www.eme raldinsight.com/10.1108/09696470910960383. CELT. (2017). 226 Active Learning Techniques [Online]. https://www.celt.iastate.edu/wp-content/ uploads/2017/03/CELT226activelearningtechniques.pdf. Chen, J., Metcalf, S., & Tutwiler, M. (2014). Motivation and beliefs about the nature of scientific knowledge within an immersive virtual ecosystems environment. Journal of Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 112–123. College of Engineering. Oregon State Univ Experiential Learning. https://engineering.oregonstate. edu/experiential-learning. Cooper, T. (2007). Nutrition game, In D. Livingston & J. Kemp (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Life education workshop (pp. 47–50). https://www.simteach.com/slccedu07proceedings.pdf. Cox, B. (1999). Achieving intercultural communication through computerised business simulation/games. Simulation & Gaming, 30(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687819903000106. Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Dondlinger, M. J. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 4, 21–31. Duderstadt, J. J. (2008). Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and education. The Millennium Project, The University of Michigan. https://16mhpx3atvadrnpip2kwi9or-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/upl oads/2016/12/ChangingWOrld.pdf. European Commission. (2017). Modernisation of higher education in Europe: Academic staff. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. https://doi.org/10.2797/ 6688. Retrieved from https://www.anefore.lu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/EURYDICE-MOD ERNISATION-OF-HIGHER-EDUCATION-IN-EUROPE-2017-1.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2019. 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. https://doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1319030111. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan. Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. ALT-J, 3(2), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0968776950030202. Haase, S., Chen, H. L., Sheppard, S., Kolmos, A., & Mejlgaard, N. (2013). What does it take to become a good engineer? Identifying cross-national engineering student profiles according to perceived importance of skills. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 698–713. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and outward bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 43–87.

10

C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters

Hoellwarth, C., & Moelter, M. J. (2011). The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 79, 540. Hofstede, G., & Pedersen, P. (1999). Synthetic cultures: Intercultural learning through simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 415–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/104687819903000402. Ke, F. (2008). Computer game application within alternative classroom goal structures: Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Education Technology Research and Development, 56, 539–556. Kurt, S. (2017, August 29). ADDIE Model: Instructional design. Educational Technology. https:// educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/. Michael, D. R., & Chen, S. L. (2005). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Muska & Lipman/Premier-Trade. Miyata, K., Nagai, Y., Yuizono, T., & Kunifuji, S. (2017). Human capital development through innovation design education. In Proceedings of SA ’17 Symposium on Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134368.3139219. Mumtaz, S., & Latif, R. (2017). Learning through debate during problem-based learning: An active learning strategy. Advances in Physiology Education, 41(3), 390–394. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527–565. Navy, S., Edmondson, E., Maeng, J., Gonczi, A., & Mannarino, A. (2019). How to create problembased learning units Science and Children, 56(5), 68. https://search.proquest.com/docview/216 2383929?accountid=11365. Orfinger, B. (1998). Virtual science museums as learning environments: Interactions for education. Informal Learning Review, 33(1), 8–13. https://www.informallearning.com/archive/1998-1112a.htm. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2009). From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts: A trialogical approach to CSCL. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL 2009 conference proceedings (pp. 83–92). International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS). Pereira, C. F., Afonso, R. A., Santos, M. J., Araújo, C. A. L., & Nogueira, M. (2007). Aprendizagem Baseada em Problemas (ABP) – Uma proposta inovadora para os cursos de engenharia, nogueira.eti.br., XIV Proceedings of the SIMPEP – Simpósio de Engenharia de Produção. https:// www.nogueira.eti.br/profmarcio/obras/publicado_1474.pdf. Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H. Chipman, C. Zwingmann, & J. Piaget (Eds.), Piaget and his school: A reader in developmental psychology (pp. 11–23). Springer. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing on million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. https://whitehouse.gov. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70(4), 293–315. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1974). Wicked problems. Man-Made Futures, 26(1), 272–280. Roberts, T. G. (2003). An interpretation of Dewey’s experiential learning theory. https://eric.ed. gov/?id=ED481922. Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom. Random House. Silberman, M. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. State University, Experiential education—Brief history of the role of experience in education, Roles for the Teacher and the Student—StateUniversity.com https://education.stateuniversity. com/pages/1963/Experiential-Education.html#ixzz5P1VW8ZPS. University of British Columbia. Experiential Learning and Research. https://you.ubc.ca/ubc_pro grams/electrical-engineering-okanagan/. Accessed May 8, 2017.

1 Technology to Support Active Learning in Higher Education

11

Vernon, J. (2000). Engineering education: Ending the centre or back to the future. European Journal of Engineering Education, 25(3), 215–225. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Chapter 2

Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking Kai Pata, Merja Bauters, Petri Vesikivi, and Jaana Holvikivi

Abstract Approaches and methodologies that promote and trigger twenty-first century skills such as critical thinking, creativity, from self-employment to entrepreneurship, sustainability and responsibility of climate have been current topics in media, in funding resources and scientific research. One of the approaches which has been provided as partial solution is design thinking combined with agile and lean methodologies. This chapter provides an overview of the background of agile and lean methods and design thinking in educational institutes inspired by industries’ practices. The chapter starts by discussing the reasons for engineering practices need to be renewed after which brief background on evolvement of agile and lean methodologies in higher education institutions are presented. The chapter then focusses on the background and needs of design and highlights good practices and risks. Keywords Agile and lean methodologies · Design thinking · Creativity

2.1 Introduction The way information technology is applied in organisations, skills related to organisational understanding, business and interpersonal relationships gain increasingly emphasis when systems grow. Competencies required from engineers are widening. Systems designers and developers are expected to understand the product lifecycle from early planning to design, implementation, and maintenance. Moreover, they are supposed to possess agency, proactive improvement of practices and empathy K. Pata (B) · M. Bauters School of Digital Technologies, Tallinn University, Narva Road 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] M. Bauters e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] M. Bauters · P. Vesikivi · J. Holvikivi Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_2

13

14

K. Pata et al.

towards co-workers and clients. Therefore, educational institutions strive to provide competences including twenty-first century skills and tools that help to face this constantly growing and evolving challenge (Schleicher, 2018). Although education standards vary in different countries, the international and global character of media and software development enforces certain amount of unity in training. Similar methods, tools and programming languages are used all-over the world. Moreover, many large system development projects are divided between various locations also in different countries at the same time. Even though there are some systematic differences in the working practices and organization of the work between cultural areas, global requirements for collaboration challenge them. Increasingly, organisations with low hierarchy allow employees self-determination and freedom to apply design thinking and agile and lean methods. These methods have acquired ground as the new standard of work. Due to the transformation of the work practices in industry, new competence requirements are stipulating necessary changes in professional education. Marjoram (2010), in the UNESCO global report on the status of engineering in 2010 concludes that the engineering education has developed worldwide towards similar overall practices. According to the report, a consensus exists on main goals of engineering education. Additionally, national and international accreditation bodies define information technology, software and media engineering competences, which is done broadly to accommodate various educational institutions and programs. The US accreditation organization ABET1 includes into the engineering competence an ability to consider constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability, as well as ability to act ethically. The European federation of professional engineers FEANI2 keeps a database of accredited engineering educators, and requires that a professional engineering course must have the following minimum requirements: 20% of basic sciences such as physics and chemistry, in particular higher mathematics must represent a minimum of 24 ECTS. Engineering subjects must correspond to a minimum of 50% of the overall ECTS, and non-technical subjects (communication skills, economics, management, teamworking, law, safety, environment, languages) must correspond to a minimum of 10% of the overall ECTS. However, these requirements do not necessarily echo current industry needs for media and information technology engineering in current situation, according to local industry feedback in Finland (Holvikivi & Hjort, 2017). Companies increasingly stress capabilities for collaboration, efficient teamwork and professional communication including empathy skills. Moreover, a need to understand development and design processes would be vital according to the industry feedback, as well as an ability to adapt to new practices and work cultures.

1 https://abet.org. 2 https://feani.org.

2 Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking

15

2.2 The Rise of Agile and Lean Design Methods When software systems grew larger and increasingly complex in 1960s, advanced systems analysis, software life-cycle methods and slightly later first user centric methodologies were developed to manage software projects. The earliest software engineering methods emphasised structural, controlled and linear processes, as well as extensive documentation. These processes were coupled with project management methods. The development work was divided into distinct phases, which is referred to as the waterfall model: defining business requirements, system analysis, design, implementation, testing and evaluation, deployment, training and maintenance. Each phase had fixed deliverables, milestones, and summative measures that marked its completion and move to the next phase (Encyclopedia of software engineering, 2002). The basic so-called waterfall model led to development of CASE (computer aided software engineering) tools in the 1970s to smoothen the development work. Because of a large failure rate and challenges in delivering a suitable product on time, various methodologies and frameworks have been developed to handle the process effectively, such as ITIL and PRINCE.3 However, the overall approach has become problematic because of the long development time: information technology, company and user requirements change rapidly, which has required changes in the original plans. Furthermore, system development is inherently a learning process for the project participants: developing and testing reveals new requirements that were not yet apparent in the requirement definition phase. Various remedies such as prototyping and iterative development cycle were introduced in the 1970s. However, when internet and browser-based systems entered the market in 1990s, the before-mentioned problems exploded. This raised a strong opposition against structured models, and a group of developers published the Agile manifesto in 2001 (Agile manifesto, 2001). The agile manifesto is a list of principles that begins with: The highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software. Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage. Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

Essential concepts of agility are encapsulated in the elements of cooperativeness and synergism, strategic vision that enables the ability of knowledgeable workforce to come to terms with continuous and unpredictable change, to create and deliver customer-valued, high quality goods and/or services within a consistent and unified (electronic) network of equally respected partners. Significant aspects considered in agile design approach are (Agile manifesto, 2001): • Adaptive approaches with flexible milestones, short feedback loops (e.g. daily scrum) and short mission phases. 3 https://itil-docs.com,

https://prince2.com/eur.

16

K. Pata et al.

• Responding to change, changing iteratively the plans according to the changing needs. • Individuals and interactions—working together effectively is more significant than tools and processes. • Using collaborative design techniques and methods such as pair-development, design patterns and others to speed up and raise quality. • Prioritizing customer collaboration since only the customers know what their needs are, while the designers can educate their customers of the design opportunities during the whole process. • Working products—primary is using prototypes as design process representations because users understand this better than technical documentations. • Iterative development model where the testing phase is completed in the same iteration as designing. Agile design refers to product development in cycles of design, implementation, and evaluation phases; design is revisited several times throughout product development for enhancing the product characteristics based on input from end users. This approach ensures that the final product will more effectively address real world needs. In educational contexts, agile learning refers to the design of learning activities that follow industrial agile product and service design processes. Person-related agility attributes are self-determination and empowerment, proactivity, adaptability, flexibility, responsiveness, resilience, productivity and speed (Varghese & Bini, 2019). Agile design is built on the pillars founded by Lean philosophy (Krafchik, 1988), production line approaches (Levitt, 1972) and its tools: focus on core competencies; teamwork; rapid prototyping; continuous improvement; multi-skilled and flexible workforce; empowerment; virtual enterprise; information and communication technologies; concurrent engineering; change; and risk management. “Lean” refers to a collection of operational processes linked with the highly productive use of resources. The following key aspects mainly describe lean systems (Womack & Jones, 1996): • Specify value for the design product through its redefinition and re-evaluation through the eyes of the customer. • Identification of the value stream for each design product that contain all actions needed to bring the final product to the customer. • Flow should contain of value chain phases without overlaps and interruptions. • Pulling of the design product is customer lead. • Pursuing Perfection in the process, time and design product. The agile and lean processes are conceived trendy and modern by the industry. Even companies that rely heavily on structured methods, advertise that they have gone agile (Accenture, 2019; Lean service creation, 2017; Microsoft, 2019). Actual use of agile methods is hard to measure, as they are applied aside of other methods, or in some part of the process. Because the term refers to a principle and not a single

2 Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking

17

method, it can mean different things for different companies. Moreover, there are commercial certificates such as certified scrum master,4 which define agile methods in a certain way. “The state of agile report” is a global survey that shows that methods already are a common industry practice in 2017, and the use is growing.5 The practices where designers and developers work together were growing fastest in 2017. However, only 12% of the organisations in the survey felt that they have a high level of competence in agile. Organisational cultures were reported to be the worst impediment, 53% of respondents stating that they were at odds with agile practices. For instance, software development industry in Finland uses agile methods more widely than global industry. In 2018, according to a survey conducted by University of Helsinki and software company Nitor (Laanti, 2018), companies utilised Scrum (88%), Kanban (81%), DevOps (62%), scaled agile framework (SAFe) (61%) and Lean methods (52%). Various methods can be used together with a structured methodology or as a part of the development work, overlapping with other methods. For example, scaled agile framework supports building large, integrated solutions that typically require hundreds of people or more to develop and maintain. Whereas agile and lean methods define and prioritise certain practices and workmodes for productive codesign work, the cognitive and creative aspects of customeroriented rapid design are addressed by design thinking methods. Next, we describe the background and growth of design thinking methods as methods for agile design.

2.3 Design Thinking and Its Origins Introduction Design thinking framework is one popular tool for designing a product in a user centric fashion and with iterative cycles. Tim Brown the CEO of the design agency IDEO is often credited to be the establisher of Design Thinking (IDEO, 2013). However, the roots of design research on design thinking characteristics date back to 1960. For instance, 1960s Nigel Cross (2001 new edition), Emeritus Professor of Design Studies at The Open University, UK, reminded of the design versus science discussion in his paper Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline versus design science discussed the different ways designers think and solve challenges. Horst Rittel and Webber (1973), a design theorists, are known for coining the term Wicked Problem. They wrote and spoke on the subject of problem-solving in design and has contributed on the application of design methodologies in tackling wicked problems. In 1970s cognitive scientist and Nobel Prize laureate for economics, Herbert Simon (1976), has contributed many ideas that are now regarded as tenets of design thinking: e.g. rapid prototyping and testing through observation. Robert H. McKim (1972), an artist and engineer, focused on the impact visual thinking has on our understanding of things and our ability to solve 4 https://www.scrumalliance.org/. 5 https://stateofagile.versionone.com/.

18

K. Pata et al.

problems. He emphasised the importance of bringing a holistic form of thinking and visions into the problem solving. 1980s Bryan Lawson (1980), professor at the School of Architecture of the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom found out that scientists were problem-focused problem solvers in comparison with designers who were solution-focused problem solvers. The solution-focused problem solvers generated a large number of solutions and eliminated those which did not work. Sometimes the concept of “designerly” way of solving problems is used also in this context. Peter Rowe (1987), then Director of Urban Design Programs at Harvard, Design Thinking, brought the idea of Inquiry based design in to the design process. In the same decade, Donald Alan Schön (1983) a philosopher and professor in urban planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology contributed design with the famous book: The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. It has influenced designers, educators and social sciences broadly. In 1991 IDEO was formed and showcased its design process modelled on the work developed at the Stanford Design School.6 The work amounted forming a school, called d.school, Stanford School of Design, which has successfully operated since 2005. The d.school, known today as the Hasso Plattner Institute of design, has made the development, teaching and implementation of design thinking as one of its own central goals since its inception (Dam & Siang, 2018). Design thinking approach can be divided into three dimensions: Practise, cognitive and mindset (see Hassi et al., 2015, Hassi & Laakso, 2011a, b). Practise dimension is important because it provides the means for methods and practices. It is closely related to what occurs in companies currently. For example, in design companies adopted tools and lean service include creation canvases to hep data collection and systematic analysis of the data (see for instance chapter Design thinking as a collaborative learning design tool for teachers). Theoretically this dimension builds on human-centred approaches (Norman, 2010), thinking by doing (Schön, 1983) and collaborative work style (Brown, 2009; Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2014; Rylander, 2009; Sato et al., 2010; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Hakkarainen, 2001). The cognitive dimension stands on the research of thinking types—especially on the research of creative thinking. Its basis is on abductive reasoning (Dew, 2007; Lockwood, 2009; Paavola, 2015a, b, Koskela et al., 2018) and hands on research on thinking and doing (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2014). In such reasoning a design insight leads to a new idea. An idea that is hypothetical. The insight is achieved often subconsciously and is an uncontrolled mental process. Being able to have such an insight implies a need for an incubation period which allows the flash of realisation to surface into the consciousness. It also means a particular type of reasoning such as abductive, but different than in the scientific inquiry where abduction is seen to occur in the beginning of the inquiry process. In design, abductive reasoning is seen to appear in all stages of the design process (Koskela et al., 2018). Ideation, creative thinking or in other words coming up with ideas out of the box—close to abductive weak form of inference—requires the following activities and characteristics: 6 https://dschool.stanford.edu/.

2 Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking

19

• • • •

Searching anomalous, surprising, or disturbing phenomena and observations. Detecting details, little clues, and tones. Continuous search for hypotheses and understanding their presumptive nature. Aiming at finding what kind or type of explanations might be viable for scoping the challenge. • Aiming at finding ideas which can be explained or rather be experimented if they work. • Searching for “patterns” and connections that fit together to make a reasonable unity. • Understanding and paying attention to the process of discovery—it’s different phases (Paavola, 2014). The last dimension mindset, means the orientation problems and challenges are approached. The orientation includes characteristics such as: being able to stand uncertainty, willing to learn from mistakes and being emphatic. These characteristics are learnable (Cooper et al., 2009; Drews, 2009; Hassi & Tuulenmäki, 2012; Hassi et al., 2015; Mattelmäki & Battarbee, 2002). In active learning framework, design thinking is often discussed through the process or phases, thinking types, techniques, and the role of stakeholders and empathy in development cycles. Figure 2.1 displays the relations of design thinking dimensions and the design thinking phases, thinking types techniques and empathy. The dimensions operate in higher abstraction level than the more concrete guidance of process phases connecting the practice and cognitive dimensions, creative thinking manners join the aspects from the mindset and cognitive dimension and techniques that support and trigger particular—creative—mindset. Empathy is the skill connecting all dimensions and practical guidance alike.

Fig. 2.1 Relationship of the dimensions to the practical guidance

20

K. Pata et al.

The next chapters present these aspects of the design thinking approach within the framework of active learning.

2.3.1 Design Thinking Process and Phases The names of the design thinking phases may vary in different sources and models, but generally the diverging and converging of the design space (Brown, 2009), sensemaking, exploration and assimilating, pitching and validation activities are conducted in the phases of Empathising, Defining, Ideation, Prototyping, and Testing (see Fig. 2.2). Razzouk and Shute (2012) in their overview of design process address its exploratory and iterative, chaotic and conflicting nature that requires mutual adjustment among the process stakeholders and particularly the ability to hold strategic control. The design thinking is a situated, socio-constructivist, enacted and embodied cognitive practice. The cognitive processes of generation, exploration to widen the problem space, while comparison and selection are conducted to narrow the problem space when the designers focus on the three design aspects—function, behaviour, and structure (Stempfle & Badke-Schaube, 2002) (see Fig. 2.3 which emphasizes the constant widening of the scope and narrowing it again). Creativity or inventiveness is the use of discovering and developing original ideas for creating something. Evolutionary creativity concept (Gero, 1996; Hybs & Gero, 1992; Thoring & Müller, 2011) considers creativity in systems and teams and describes it through three processes: retention (ideas are retained, either in the mind, written down, or otherwise captured, and communicated), generation (new ideas can also be generated by idea mutation and idea recombination) and selection (fitness of the ideas is tested). In design thinking, diverging happens as a generation of ideas (creating choices) and converging as a selection of ideas (making choices). Thoring

Empathise

Ideate Define

Prototype Test

Fig. 2.2 The often-presented visualisation of design thinking phases from Stanford education7

7 https://web.stanford.edu/group/cilab/cgi-bin/redesigningtheater/the-design-thinking-process/.

2 Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking

g

din

an est

Se

U

Div

g

lec

atin Cre

tin

nd

g

g

erg

ing

in rg

ve

n Co

EMPATHY

21

Div

Deliverin

g

Se

lec

ting

g

gin

r nve

erg

ing

ging

Conver

Co

IDEATE – PROROTYPING

Fig. 2.3 Phases presented with the diverging and converging iterations

and Müller (2011: 141–142) explain the creativity in design thinking process through the divergence and converging. In the initial phase of the process, information and insights that can later be used as a source material for mutation and recombination are gathered about the problem and how it occurs in the wild. In the next step the formal problem statement is developed, narrowing down the possibility space. In the ideation phase ideas concerning this problem are generated by recombination and mutation of the previous insights, usually in the form of a brainstorming session. This is actually the ‘creative’ step in which the ideas are produced and the possibility space is expanded again. Voting for ideas can be considered a kind of ‘artificial’ selection. Those solutions are then visualized in the prototyping phase. The ideas need to become more tangible (or turned into the actual representation—the phenotype) in order to be judged by the environment, i.e., the users, that serves for retention. The possibility space is then opened up again, since the team is now considering details and alternatives. If time allows, more than one prototype should be developed. In the testing phase, the users evaluate the prototype(s) and give feedback (for examples, on design thinking phases in case studies see especially Chapter 9, in this book).

2.3.2 Techniques Within design thinking, there are alternative creativity techniques, such as divergent thinking techniques that promote the generation of multiple open ideas (e.g. brainstorming, brain-dumping, ‘the dark horse’, creative writing, speed-storming in changing pairs), convergent thinking techniques where multiple resources are used to assimilate inductively one design hypothesis (e.g. open grouping for ideas, naming groups and structuring, affinity diagrams), integration techniques (e.g. sketching), and attitude techniques. The following aspects and principles are meant to support the creative process in design thinking: (a) the design thinking process itself with its different process steps and ideation techniques, (b) a multidisciplinary composition of teams, (c) the setting of the work environment, such as the work space and certain involved and produced artefacts, and (d) the specific culture and atmosphere (Thoring & Müller, 2011). It has

22

K. Pata et al.

been found that simultaneous idea-generation might be more fruitful that turn-taking in generating the examples. Salehi and Bernstein (2018) list a number of idea-space centred approaches to increase creativity: collaboration by intermixing ideas, for example by grouping and combining submissions, and encouraging contributors to use each other’s submissions.

2.3.3 Design Thinking Types The design thinking types were refined by Cross (1982) to be general enough to be used across different disciplines for solving ill-structured design problems that lack the defined solution paths and goal states. Hatchuel and Weil (2009) asserted that design is a reasoning activity that starts with a concept about a partially unknown object and attempts to expand it into other concepts and/or new knowledge. Jonassen (2000) defined in his category of problems several complex, ill-structured problems that require forward reasoning (e.g. design problems, decision-making and dilemmasolving problems) and backward reasoning (e.g. troubleshooting problems, diagnosing problems). In forward reasoning (Sharma et al., 2012), the reasoning acts as in the thread taking. It takes the form of the root of the search tree; rules that match to the root node’s initial state are proposed, compared and validated until a configuration that matches the goal state is generated. The forward reasoning extends the design space. The backward reasoning starts from the goal state, continues by generating the pool of possibly fitting rules that match with the root node, often new queries are required, and chaining backwards validates and eliminates the incorrect rules until start state is generated. The backward reasoning narrows down and optimizes the design space. In design thinking approach the forward and backward reasoning are used in iterative cycles until the solution is found that meets the expectations of the stakeholders. “Failing often” is the prioritised way of working (Hardy et al., 2018), to battle against the idea that creation is a stepwise, orderly, progression from point A to point B in the most efficient way possible. Design thinking incorporates frequent switching of types of cognitive activity (Dorst & Cross, 2001) requiring adaptive learning (Stempfle & Badke-Schaube, 2002). The phrase: “Analogy pervades thought” (Gick & Holyoak, 1983: 1) describes the finding that using analogical reasoning may serve as a tool for discovering common structures, processes, and may be used for inferring the principles that govern similar systems—analogy based creation supports learning from existing patterns that solve certain problems. This is particularly true when examples are taken from other domains. Extending from analogy, abductive reasoning enables to transfer the discovered relations and processes to other dissimilar systems, thus discovering hidden regularities, and seeing those systems new ways. Abductive reasoning can be seen as weak form of reasoning, even though it is stated that in abduction intuition is used. The intuition is still based on broad and deep experience base also called phronesis involving bodily reasoning. A summary of different understanding and

2 Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking

23

places of the desing process where abduction is used can be found from Koskela et al. (2018). They state that abduction in design shows characteristics not yet found or identified in science. For example, abduction can occur in connection to practically all inference types in design; it is a property of an inference besides an inference itself. (Koskela et al., 2018: 153)

The variety and number of sources, examples, environment cues have been seen to affect creative thinking. Gentner (2002) argues that local and familiar analogies fill in gaps in established framework, while distant and unknown analogies, may create new framework. Lee and associates (2010) have attempted to explore the growth of designers’ creativity due to examples availability in design. They highlighted that the provision of examples based on similarity enhances the focus on details while the variety of different examples may prompt discovery or alternatives. According to Cross (2004) having more than one alternative design concepts may stimulate a more comprehensive evaluation and understanding of the problem. The expert designers use conjectures as a means of helping them to explore and understand the formulation of the problem and matching solution to the problem (Dorst & Cross, 2001). Dorst and Cross (2001) found that experienced industrial designers start by exploring the problem and finding, discovering, or recognising its partial structure. Afterwards, they use this partial structure to generate initial ideas for forming the design concept, then they expand and develop the partial structure. The generation of the ideas and forming of design concepts guides towards the next aspects of the design thinking, which is the methods that are generally associated with design thinking. These methods include taking into account or involving the stakeholders and using the skill of empathy.

2.3.4 Stakeholders and Empathy Design thinking engages the stakeholders into the participatory codesign process. Different participation models exist for design processes, in which the extent of engagement with the stakeholders varies from being an object and subject in the design research (e.g. providing data, testing and assessing the designs) to being a full member of the design team (constructing the design space), or even becoming a member of the open design communities (iterating the designs in open innovation). The variety of design thinking practices may be used in the phases of the codesign process (a variety of design thinking practices may be found such as provided by IDEO8 ). The design practices primarily build on empathy for the situation and the stakeholders, attempting to open up human issues, considering different stakeholders’ perspectives and broad social motivations of designs. The experience driven empathic design that initially focused on being involved with the customers, also emphasises the new kinds of collaborations with the design team and partners. Hakio and 8 https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit.

24

K. Pata et al.

Mattelmäki (2011) posit that empathy towards another co-worker, colleague, stakeholder or user, provider or purchaser of public services, arises in daily situations and encounters. When people are able to position themselves in another’s situations, it is the key to the transformation and change. Design can help by setting the stage and providing the tools. Empathic design practices developed by Sanders and Dandavate (1999) capture a principle called say-do-make: “Say” stands for what people say and think that can be captured with interviews. ‘Do’ is about what people do and use, which can be approached with observations. “Make” refers to what people know, feel and dream, which may be captured from reflections, think-aloud and expressions. Gamified approaches may be used to capture expressions at codesign. Visual and tangible game-material works as a natural conversation opener and foster active dialogue while all the participants are given an equal opportunity to say their opinion and contribute their expertise (Brandt, 2006). Empathy is essential for any design process. Empathy may be developed at different levels among designers but also students—showing an interest in the daily lives of others and developing motivation for creativity that involves diverse types of people. Expanding the awareness through empathy bridges self-awareness and awareness of others and inspires future innovation (Miyata et al., 2017). Empathy is a skill composed of different facets: • experience sharing: vicariously sharing targets’ internal states; • mentalising: explicitly considering (and perhaps understanding) targets’ states and their sources, and; • prosocial concern: expressing motivation to improve targets’ experiences (for example, by reducing their suffering) (Zaki & Ochsner, 2012: 675). Another understanding of empathy refers to social presence and skills needed in it. In this case, empathy is seen to be composed of facets • co-presence—feeling inclusion or isolation and mutual awareness; • psychological involvement—meaning mutual attention and shared understanding; and • behavioural engagement as behavioural interaction and dependent action (Sivunen & Nordbäck, 2015). Thus, empathy is essential in teamwork of any kind but also in understanding stakeholders’ context and future needs. The next sub-chapter will summarise successful practices from literature but also from the experiences of the writers of this book. Various chapters in this book describe, explain and discuss case studies in which design thinking has been used (see for instance, Chapters 5, 8, and 9).

2 Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking

25

2.4 Best Practices and Critical Constraints for Design Thinking Teams Pedagogical approaches that exercise problem-based learning, project-based learning and inquiry-based learning (see Chapters 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 in this book for more details) are well fitted into design thinking mentality (Dym et al., 2005). These learner-centred approaches increase students’ awareness about good design processes. The courses need to be designed to include: generation of ideas/solutions, receiving support e.g. on-going feedback about the feasibility of various solutions by providing multiple and varied opportunities to design and create prototypes, experiment with different ideas, collaborate with others, reflect on their learning, and repeat the cycle while revising and improving each time (Razzouk & Shute, 2012: 343). It is often asked: How to form design teams smoothly? How to engage team members to work together? How to trigger creativity? What will be the role of digital support (e.g. artificial intelligence (AI) in design thinking? Here we present some successful practices found in literature. For instance, creativity may be supported by forming diverse groups to encourage rich divergence of thought (Hong & Page, 2004; Thoring & Müller, 2011). Another empirically tested approach for boosting creativity is through automated network rotation of ideation between team members in collective or crowd-based designing especially in case of open-ended goals for collective design (Salehi et al., 2018). Salehi and Bernstein (2018) noted that mere exposure to others’ ideas does not result in meaningful engagement with those ideas since these are situated and developed in the context of social relations. There are findings that collaboration with people who bring new perspectives results in engagement and increases the influence of new ideas, in a way that abstract exposure to those ideas does not (Choi & Thompson, 2005). Particularly the best insights come from distant perspectives, not proximal ones (Wauck et al., 2017). The obstacle in recruiting ideation partners is that membership change requires adjusting with new ideas, that is cognitively costly and causes some reluctancy (Salehi & Bernstein, 2018). These authors found that membership change is most beneficial when the new temporal member feels comfortable disagreeing with the rest of the team and proposing alternatives. However, newcomers may prefer to go along with the group in order to be accepted in the new team, resulting in groupthink that undermines the membership change. The new temporal members ask questions and engage in conversations with other team members that helps the team to re-evaluate assumptions, integrating new perspectives and shifting their ideas. Searching for information and examples such as in the empathising, defining and ideation phases is one constraining factor that differentiates novice and expert design thinkers—novices may get trapped to information gathering rather than progressing to solution generation and decomposing the problem (Christiaans & Dorst, 1992). The design thinking process usually incorporates the search for examples or example cases. Designing with examples (Lee et al., 2010), the contextualized instances of how form and content integrate for specific purposes thus providing the awareness

26

K. Pata et al.

of the design space, has been one of the approaches on inspiring the design process. Such an example-based design process lowers the barrier to entry, enables building on existing examples, and adapting past solutions. This may inspire and evoke creativity, and prompt discussions, but it also might constrain the design space into the existing frames due to conformity induced by prior knowledge (Lee et al., 2010). The conformity bias threatens novices who are inclined to stay with the correct answers to the problem, but does not affect the design experts (Lee et al., 2010; Seidel & Fixson, 2013). Visual representation of multiple examples, as well as, visualising the current state of the design space to the stakeholders during the design thinking process phases is of utmost importance. Many design thinking methodologies particularly address co-constructing the design space visually since different visual iterations can reveal the design space conceptually and may be used for translating the conceptual design to the applicable affordances of the solution. Visual representations may reveal unexpected discoveries (Suwa et al., 1994). Nagai and Noguchi (2002) describe in their empirical paper how using keywords, as abstract level categories of meaning, affected the designers’ thinking paths in their search for new forms of design objects in the prototyping phase. The designers in their experiment tied the form of the design to the detailed concrete and low-level descriptive categories which were used as design metaphors. The stage of conceptual sketches, where the categories were used and connected with the basic components of the design was followed by the stage of form making drawings where consistency between form and function was developed. Future human-centred design for developing social and business services incorporates intelligent AI partners. New technical opportunities based on artificial intelligence support and visualisation and simulation elements are constantly extending the design thinking process. The studies (Bradner et al., 2014) describe the typical prototyping workflow where design optimisation software is used. Using the optimisation tools in design thinking process, the design stories are told by the abstract parameters, the abstracted and programmed inputs from design criteria are provided by designers in the design space to automatically generate a set of possible solutions in the solution space, then the exploration of models may lead to the next iterations and narrowing down to the prototype. Working with such optimization tools, as well as, using the dynamically collected user behaviour data captured by sensors (e.g. energy efficiency, movement data), will extend the future design thinking competences towards visual thinking, algorithmic thinking and working with AI partners.

2.5 Conclusion In this chapter we have discussed how agile and lean processes have been appropriated into wider use in industry. We also touched upon the relation between the agile and lean approaches to design thinking approach. To understand better the current

2 Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking

27

combination of agile, lean and design thinking we provided a background of the growth of design thinking practices and mindset. This chapter aimed to provide a theory baseline for smooth reading of the other chapter where agile, lean and design thinking have been integrated with, for instance, problem-based, project-based and inquiry-based learning, and gamified approaches into higher educational learning.

References Accenture. (2019). https://www.accenture.com/us-en. Agile Manifesto. 2001. https://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html. Bradner, E., Iorio, F., & Davis, M. (2014). Parametres tell the design story: Ideation and abstraction in design optimization. Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design 2014, Tampa, FL. Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games: A framework for participation in participatory design? In Proceedings of the Ninth Participatory Design Conference 2006. ACM. Brown, T. (2009). Change by Design. HarperCollins. Choi, H.-S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132. Christiaans, H., & Dorst, C. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: A protocol study. In D. Taylor & D. Stauer (Eds.), Design theory and methodology—DTM92. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Cooper, R., Junginger, S., & Lockwood, T. (2009). Design thinking and design management: A research and practice perspective. Design Management Review, 20(2), 46–55. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–441. Dam, R., & Siang, T. (2018). Design thinking: Get a quick overview of the history. Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/design-thinkingget-aquick-overview-of-the-history. Dew, N. (2007). Abduction: A pre-condition for the intelligent design of strategy. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 38–45. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437. Drews, C. (2009). Unleashing the full potential of design thinking as a business method. Design Management Review, 20(3), 39–44. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103–120. Encyclopedia of software engineering. (2002). Wiley Online Library. Gentner, D. (2002). Analogy in scientific discovery: The case of Johannes Kepler. In L. Magnani & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-46150605-8_2. Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(7), 435–448. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer.Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6. Hakio, K., & Mattelmäki, T. (2011, June). Design adventures in public sector. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (p. 60). ACM. https:// doi.org/10.1145/2347504.2347570.

28

K. Pata et al.

Hardy, D., Myers, T., & Sankupellay, M. (2018). Cohorts and cultures: Developing future design thinkers. In Proceedings of ACE 2018, Association for Computing Machinery (pp. 9–16). Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011a). Conceptions of design thinking in the design and management discourses. In Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, Delft (pp. 1–10). Hassi, L., & Laakso, M. (2011b). Making sense of design thinking. In T.-M. Karjalainen, M. Koria, & M. Salimäki (Eds.), IDBM papers (Vol. 1, pp. 50–63). Helsinki: IDBM Program, Aalto University. Hassi, L., Paju, S., & Maila, R. (2015). Kehitä kokeillen: organisaation käsikirja. Talentum Pro. Hassi, L., & Tuulenmäki, A. (2012). Experimentation-driven approach to innovation: Developing novel offerings through experiments. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM). Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: An advanced formulation. Research Engineering Design, 19, 181–192. Holvikivi, J., & Hjort, P. (2017). Agile development in software engineering instruction. In A. Tatnall & M. Webb (Eds.), Tomorrow’s learning: Involving everyone. Learning with and about technologies and computing. WCCE 2017. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (Vol. 515, pp. 609–618). Cham: Springer. Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385– 16389. Hybs, I., & Gero, J. S. (1992). An evolutionary process model of design. Design Studies, 13(3), 273–290. IDEO. (2013). Design thinking for educators. Accessed 2 December 2017 from https://designthi nkingforeducators.com/toolkit/. Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology: Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. Koskela, L., Paavola, S., & Kroll, E. (2018). The role of abduction in production of new ideas in design. In P. E. Vermaas & S. Vial (Eds.), Advancements in the philosophy of design (pp. 153–183). Cham: Springer. Krafchik, J. F. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. MIT Sloan Management Review, 30(1). https://www.lean.org/downloads/MITSloan.pdf. Laanti, M. (2018). https://www.nitor.com/en/news-and-blogs/nitor-surveying-state-agile-finlandtogether-university-helsinki. Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think: The design process demystified (1st ed.). The Architectural Press Ltd. Lean service creation, Futurice. (2017). https://www.leanservicecreation.com/canvases. Lee, B., Srivastava, S., Kumar, R., Brafman, R., & Klemmer, S. R. (2010). Designing with interactive example galleries. In Proceedings of CHI 2010: Perspectives on Design (pp. 2257–2266). Levitt, T. J. (1972, September–October). Production-line approach to service. Harvard Business Review, 41–52. Lockwood, T. (2009). Transition: How to become a more design-minded organization. Design Management Review, 20(3), 29–37. Marjoram, T. (2010). An introduction to the organization of the profession. In Engineering: Issues, challenges and opportunities for development (pp. 135–136). UNESCO. Mattelmäki, T., & Battarbee, K. (2002). Empathy probes. In T. Binder, J. Gregory, & I. Wagner (Eds.), PDC 2002 Participatory Design Conference 23–25.6.2002 (pp. 266–272). Malmö, Sweden: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. McKim, R. H. (1972). Experiences in visual thinking. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Microsoft. (2019). https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/learn/agile/what-is-agile. Miyata, K., Nagai, Y., Yuizono, T., & Kunifuji, S. (2017). Human capital development through innovation design education. In Proceedings of SA ’17 Symposium on Education. New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134368.3139219.

2 Agile and Lean Methods with Design Thinking

29

Nagai, Y., & Noguchi, H. (2002). How designers transform keywords to visuals. In C&C ’02, October 14–16, 2002 (pp. 118–125). Loughborough, UK. Norman, D. (2010). Design thinking: A useful myth. Core77 [online]. https://www.core77.com/ blog/columns/design_thinking_a_useful_myth_16790.asp. Paavola, S. (2014). From steps and phases to dynamically evolving abduction (Commens Working Papers no. 5). Pub. 140828-1417a. Commens: Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce. https://www. commens.org/papers/paper/paavola-sami-steps-and-phases-dynamicallyevolving-abduction. Paavola, S. (2015a). Deweyan approaches to abduction? In Action, belief and inquiry (p. 230). Paavola, S. (2015b). From steps and phases to dynamically evolving abduction. University of Helsinki. Accessed, 12. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2014). Trialogical approach for knowledge creation. In Knowledge creation in education (pp. 53–73). Springer. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. MIT Press. Rylander, A. (2009). Design thinking as knowledge work: Epistemological foundations and practical implications. Design Management Journal, 4(1), 7–19. Salehi, N., & Bernstein, M. S. (2018). Hive: Collective design through network rotation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1–26. Salehi N., Michael S., & Bernstein, M. S. (2018, November). Hive: Collective design through network rotation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 2, CSCW, Article 151, p. 26). New York, NY: ACM. Sanders, E., & Dandavate, U. (1999). Design for experiencing: New tools. In C. J. Overbeeke & P. Hekkert (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design and Emotion (pp. 87–92). Delft, The Netherlands: TU Delft. Sato, S., Lucente, S., Meyer, D., & Mrazek, D. (2010). Design thinking to make organization change and development more responsive. Design Management Review, 21(2), 44–52. Schleicher, A. (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system. OECD. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books Inc. Scrum Alliance. https://www.scrumalliance.org/. Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(S1), 19–33. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2001). Composition and construction in experts’ and novices’ weaving design. Design Studies, 22, 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(99)000 38-1. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Huotilainen, M., Mäkelä, M., Groth, C., & Hakkarainen, K. (2014). The promise of cognitive neuroscience in design studies. In Design Research Society Conference DRS 2014. Umeå, Sweden. Sharma, T., Tiwari, N., & Kelkar, D. (2012). Study of difference between forward and backward reasoning. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 2(10), 271–273. Simon, H. (1976). Administrative behavior (3rd ed.). The Free Press. Sivunen, A., & Nordbäck, E. (2015). Social presence as a multi-dimensional group construct in 3D virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(1), 19–36. https://doi. org/10.1111/jcc4.12090. Stanford University Ideo courses. https://dschool.stanford.edu/about. State of agile report 2018. https://stateofagile.versionone.com/. Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaube, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams—An analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23, 473–496.

30

K. Pata et al.

Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Purcell, T. (1994). Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements-important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies, 21(6), 539–568. Thoring K., & Müller R.M. (2011). Understanding the creative mechanisms of design thinking. In Desire ’11 (pp. 137–147). Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Varghese, E. M., & Bini, R. T. (2019). Workforce agility—The Holy Grail. International Academic Journal of Business Management, 6(1), 152–158. Wauck, H., Yen, Y.-C., Fu, W.-T., Gerber, E., Dow, S. P., & Bailey, B. P. (2017). From in the class or in the wild? Peers provide better design feedback than external crowds. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(11). Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675.

Chapter 3

Project-Based Learning in Higher Education Alenka Žerovnik and Irena Nanˇcovska Šerbec

Abstract Many Higher Education Institutions are implementing Project-based Learning (PBL) as a part of their curriculum. As there are a lot of different definitions and perceptions of PBL, we first define it. We analyze the main reasons for implementing PBL in higher education curriculum. Further on we discuss the phases of PBL implementation and its pedagogical values. For successful PBL implementation teachers need to follow essential project design elements: starting with challenging problem or question designed by the student or group of students, enabling time for sustained inquiry where students can ask, explore, search and engage materials in meaningful way, encouraging authenticity, giving students voice and choice in designing their project, encouraging reflection during and at the end of the process of PBL, critiquing and revisioning through feedback for project improvements and finally making the product of PBL public. Considering that PBL is happening in a technology-rich environment, we explore options to support learning by technology, so we describe Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR), Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) and DIGCOMP. We distinguish between PBL and doing small projects and highlight the pedagogical value of PBL as framework for collaborative and/or interdisciplinary teaching and learning. We conclude the chapter with assessment methodology in PBL settings and examples of successful implementations of PBL in higher education curriculum from our own practice. Keywords Project-based learning · Higher education · Technology-rich environment · Collaboration · Assessment methodology

A. Žerovnik (B) · I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec Department of Mathematics and Computer Science‚ Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: [email protected] I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_3

31

32

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

3.1 Introduction The science education community argues that society needs scientifically literate citizens, and yet research shows that many educational systems throughout the world are failing to graduate such students (OECD, 2007). Many educational systems are based on superficial knowledge rather than integrated knowledge that would allow students to draw on their understanding to solve problems, make decisions, and learn new ideas (Krajcik & Shin, 2014). Cognitive science research also reveals that our students need deeper conceptual understanding and discovering principles that govern learning. The Bologna Process (2009) has brought an exceptional reform with the aim of making higher education programs more transparent and comparable to each other, enabling students and teachers to increase mobility in the European educational environment. This has led to a greater emphasis on student-centred teaching approaches. In a student-centred approach student independently manages his study expectations and constructively develops his learning paths (MacHemer & Crawford, 2007). In contrast to conventional teaching approaches that usually involve lectures, note-taking, memorizing data and reproducing it (Maclellan & Soden, 2004) in implementation of student-centred approaches, students are responsible for their own behaviour, participation, and learning (Brandes & Ginnis, 1986). One possible way of implementing student-centred teaching and learning is through implementing a project-based learning (PBL) approach. Recently PBL and other student-centred approaches that underline deeper learning and the development of skills necessary for success in college, career, and civic life have become common topic of innovative pedagogical approaches (Huberman et al., 2014; Scardamalia et al., 2012 in Condliffe et al., 2017) although in the past those approaches encountered criticism, especially from those who stress the importance of students’ developing specific content knowledge in traditional subject areas (Kirschner et al., 2006; Loveless, 2013; Peterson, 2012; Ravitch, 2000 in Condliffe et al., 2017). Project-based learning is a meaningful instructional approach that enables students to master content knowledge, academic skills and develop skills necessary for future success in twenty-first-century society. Its goal is to increase students’ engagement and help them develop a deeper understanding of important ideas (Blumenfeld et al., 2000). PBL allows students to learn by doing, to apply ideas, to solve problems, to collaborate, and engage in real-world activities similar to those of professional scientists (Krajcik & Shin, 2014).

3.2 Defining Project-Based Learning There is no widely accepted definition of PBL although it has existed a long time and the literature defines numerus different definitions of PBL. The roots of PBL extend back to the work of educator and philosopher John Dewey (Dworkin, 1959) who

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

33

argues that the students will develop a personal investment in the material if they engage in real, meaningful tasks and problems that emulate what experts do in realworld situations (Krajcik & Shin, 2014). PBL is a form of situated learning (Greeno & Engeström, 2014) and based on the constructivist assumption that students gain a deeper understanding of material when they actively construct their knowledge by working with and using ideas in real-world contexts. We take into account the definition of PBL given by Wurdinger et al. (2007: 151) for the purpose of this book. He describes PBL as a teaching method where teachers guide students through a problem-solving process. That includes identifying a problem, developing a plan, testing the plan against reality, and reflecting on the plan while in the process of designing and completing a project. Jones et al. (1997) and Thomas et al. (1999) similarly define project-based learning as learning that involves complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems, that involve students in design, problem-solving, decision-making, or investigative activities; give students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over extended periods of time; and culminate in realistic products or presentations (Thomas, 2000). The main idea in PBL is that students are engaged in meaningful projects through which they learn at a deeper level and develop critical thinking and creativity skills. PBL is a student-driven, teacher-facilitated approach to learning, knowledge, and skill acquisition. It requires students to collaborate with peers, construct usable knowledge by linking new and old ideas, relate new science content to student lives, and selfregulate across the weeks or months that the project might unfold (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Krajcik et al., 1998).

3.2.1 Reasons for Project-Based Learning Implementation The teacher’s intention in introducing PBL is to support students learning by involving them in an inquiry that invokes their curiosity and critical thinking. This learning approach can help students develop the necessary twenty-first century skills and strategies, such as metacognitive, cognitive and social. Meta-cognitive skills gained by PBL are research planning, reflecting on their process of inquiry, tracking their own progress, etc. Cognitive skills related to PBL are collecting data, analysing and interpreting data, synthesising, evaluating and presenting gathered information, etc. Social skill gained by PBL are collaborating, taking turns, negotiating meaning, sharing, etc. (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Other skills gained through PBL are: management skills, active and critical learning skills, linking learning to real-life situations, critical and creative thinking skills to facilitate problem-solving and entrepreneurship, collaboration and communication skills and critical reflection skills (Du Toit et al., 2016). Changes in society and culture, based on the new technology, have effects on learning environments. In research literature there is strong evidence that PBL is frequently supported by digital environments (Istance & Kools, 2013). Digital

34

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

competence is the most recent concept describing technology-related skills developed in digital environments (Carretero et al., 2017). Digital competence is grounded on basic skills in ICT, i.e. the use of computers to retrieve, assess, store, produce, present and exchange information, and to communicate and participate in collaborative networks via the Internet. Digital competence is one of the key competencies identified in the European framework for key competencies for lifelong learning (Becker et al., 2017).

3.2.2 Phases in Project-Based Learning Implementing PBL into curriculum demands strategic planning of the implementation process that can be divided through the following phases: Planning learning outcomes and objectives aligned with the curriculum and the form on how to represent them to the students. In order for students to be able to design a challenging problem or question, the outcomes and objectives should be written or presented by the teacher in such a way that the student can easily understand them. Organization of brief activities and time management plan. The teacher prepares the draft schedule of delivering the basic content knowledge to the students and a schedule of submission of students planned deliverables. Effective timemanagement and collaboration skills are important. The knowledge to gain those should be also a part of activity planning. Planning group and whole class reflections, discussions, presentations, feedback delivery, and assessment. Teacher is the organizational manager of the process who needs to establish the procedure for effective group discussions and presentations. He is also in charge to encourage students to give feedback to their colleagues. This feedback is more productive when students have the possibility to update and improve their work according to the feedback delivered. Providing Clear Guidelines for Success. Teachers and students can work together in designing the assessment methodology. When students are actively engaged in the process of defining the success criteria, they will understand them better, and therefore, they will spend less time thinking about what success means. Then they can spend more time on research and implementation of the project itself. Buck Institute for Education promotes a research-based model called “Gold Standard PBL” to help ensure students are getting the main course and are engaged in quality PBL. There are seven important project design elements, as shown in Fig. 3.1. 1.

Challenging problem or question designed by the student which truly engages and intrinsically motivates the student to work on the problem. Driving questions are at the core of the project-based science design principles (Krajcik & Shin, 2014). Authors have provided five criteria for high-quality driving questions:

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

Public product

Critique & revision

35

Challenging problem or question

Key knowledge, understanding & success skills

Reflection

Sustained inquiry

Authenticity Student voice & choice

Fig. 3.1 Gold Standard PBL: Essential project design elements (Larmer et al., 2015)

2.

3.

4.

(1) feasible, (2) worthwhile, (3) contextualized, (4) meaningful, and (5) ethical (Krajcik & Shin, 2014). Sustained inquiry. Students ask questions, explore the literature, search for the answers and engage in meaningful research. Students explore the driving question by participating in scientific practices—processes of problem-solving that are central to expert performance in the discipline. As students explore the driving question, they learn and apply relevant ideas in the discipline. Students, teachers, and community members engage in collaborative activities to find solutions to the driving question. This mirrors the complex social situation of expert problem-solving (Krajcik & Shin, 2014). Authenticity. Students need to perceive the problems as real and the problems should be tied with an actual real-world context. Gordon (1998) makes the distinction between academic challenges, scenario challenges, and real-life challenges. PBL incorporates real-life challenges where the focus is on authentic (not simulated) problems or questions and where solutions have the potential to be implemented in real-life situations (Thomas, 2000). Student voice and choice in designing the entire project the entire time. Students decide on how they work and what they create to meet the desired outcomes which are aligned with the curriculum. Krajcik and Shin (2014) discussed the parameters of student choice in PBL and noted that while some PBL methods

36

5.

6.

7.

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

allow students to design their own driving questions, their project-based science approach involves teachers and curriculum developers in designing the driving question as well as students having the freedom to “explore solutions to their own related questions” throughout the unit (Condliffe et al., 2017). Reflection during the process of PBL and at the end when delivering the final product. Students and teachers reflect on the learning, the effectiveness of their inquiry and project activities, the quality of student work, and obstacles that arise and strategies for overcoming them (Larmer et al., 2015). Students learn better when they express their developing knowledge and then receive feedback and opportunities to reflectively analyze their knowledge creation process. DarlingHammond et al. (2008), Grant (2002), Krajcik and Shin (2014), and Larmer and Mergendoller (2015) all note the importance of students having time for self-assessment, reflection, and feedback. Critique and revision. Students are giving, receiving and applying feedback to improve their process and final products and are also engaged in peer critique and constant iterative revision. Public product. Students need to launch the final product to an authentic audience. When final products and artefacts of PBL are to be made public, they can encourage students to make an additional effort and present opportunities for peer- and teacher feedback. Darling-Hammond et al. (2008), Larmer and Mergendoller (2015) and Ravitz (2010) all emphasize the importance of students presenting their work to public audiences.

The learning process within PBL implementation is complex and involves solving multiple problems along the path to completion. When all the essential project design elements are combined well, they result in students learning specific and important knowledge, understanding, and skills derived from educational standards and central to the academic subject area. Important success skills are explicitly targeted to be taught and assessed, including critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, selfmanagement, and self-regulation. PBL usually works in tandem with other pedagogical models, such as inquirybased learning (more in this chapter), design-thinking, and problem-based learning. Research shows that the implementation of PBL strategy can result in significantly better achievements and improvements in student’s life skills of responsibility, problem-solving, self-direction, communication and creativity and a minor improvement in time-management, collaboration and work ethic (Wordinger & Qureshi, 2014), which are all important twenty-first century skills. Žerovnik et al. (2016) have analysed the motivational factors of project work and evaluated student’s attitudes towards multidisciplinary work, collaborative learning and self-evaluation of the project work and found out that students were motivated due to their active participation in choosing the content and the context and due to dealing with real-world problems. Highly motivated students that gained better results in PBL also expressed better and more meaningful experience with PBL and collaborative work (Žerovnik et al., 2016).

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

37

3.2.3 PBL Versus Doing Projects PBL is usually planned at curriculum level and impacts all the learners while the methodology of doing projects is mostly planned at the level of individual teacher’s learning plan of specific lesson and does not necessarily include all the students in the class. Distinguishing between doing small projects and implementing PBL strategy is essential as there are crucial differences between the two (Table 3.1). PBL strategy is incorporated into the curriculum and the focus of it is on learning new content knowledge and skills through the process of project design and implementation, unlike small projects that are usually defined at the level of one or two lesson plans and have goal specific small problems assigned by the teacher. PBL also requires that students use different higher-order thinking skills during the process of designing and implementing PBL. It is consequently essential for students to be able to identify and solve problems and make decisions using criticaland creative thinking. As PBL is time-consuming, includes open-ended problems and often requires examining situations and problems from multiple perspectives, requires lots of discussing and clarifying ideas, and evaluating the ideas of others, it is therefore usually implemented as collaborative work leading to collaborative learning which provides additional important educational benefits. Those benefits are described in more detail in Chapter 5. When the activity is implemented as doing Table 3.1 Differences between PBL and doing small projects PBL

Doing projects

Learning new content knowledge and skills through projects. The project contains and frames curriculum and instruction

Culminating projects around short specific goals

Requires higher-order thinking skills like critical thinking, problem-solving strategies, collaboration, and various forms of communication

Mostly lower-order thinking skills such as remembering teacher delivered information

Student choice in the design of the process and the project

The teacher creates instructions to be followed by the student

Student inquiry throughout the process of the project

Pre-planned questions by the teacher

Student’s ownership of the process

Teacher’s ownership of the process

The student is active in the assessment

The teacher assesses all the work

Projects that are time-consuming, take longer to complete and are hard to determine the exact time frame

Light, short projects that take shorter periods of time to complete and can be precisely time framed

Students work in pairs or teams that lead to the development of collaborative learning skills essential to modern society

Students work independently, in pairs or groups. Pair and group work are usually more cooperative in nature and less collaborative

38

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

small projects during the course lesson, students commonly use lower-order thinking skills to show an understanding of teacher-delivered content. In PBL, students are on all occasions, actively engaged, and they are the owners of the whole process of learning. Their choices in the design of the process and the project are vitally important and the project development process requires students’ continuous inquiry. Students and teachers participate together in creating the success criteria and forms of assessment. As Palloff and Pratt (2007) stated—collaborative assignments should be assessed collaboratively through a 360-degree feedback approach in which self-perception is compared to feedback from the teacher and peers. In doing small projects teachers own the process of learning, and they are the ones that create and define the problems and provide instructions that students need to follow to solve the problem or complete the project task. Teachers use pre-planned questions and procedures that encourage students to work on the assignment, and they alone design the criteria for success and assess all the work. PBL derives projects that are typically open-ended, time-consuming and thus take longer to complete. Because of their openness, the projects in PBL cannot be exactly time-framed. It is also hard to predefine the exact milestones of delivery when there are more teams involved in different kinds of projects. In doing small projects, students often work independently. When teacher organizes pair or group work in small projects the work between the students is usually more cooperative than collaborative in nature. The reasons for that are diverse: the project assignments are highly structured and offer the possibility for students to distribute tasks, students do not feel the need for collaboration as a result of too structured projects, the process of collaboration takes time and specific skills on the student’s and the teacher’s side. Olivares (2008) defines cooperative learning as a highly structured, carefully facilitated, and focused process on developing specific skills and in contrast to that the collaborative learning as an intentionally ill-unstructured process to foster open debate and focus on knowledge construction and problem-solving. True collaboration, therefore, involves student and teacher interdependence—reliance on one another in problem-solving and achieving mutual goals (Heinemann & Zeiss, 2002). Shared decision-making, conflict resolution, reciprocal trust and respect, shared leadership, and equality of influence are all essential collaborative elements (Gardner, 1998).

3.2.4 Relevance and the Educational Value of PBL Implementation Although PBL is often experienced as challenging by students, educational research has demonstrated that an appropriate degree of challenge is necessary for effective learning (Hattie, 2009). Research has shown that the use of computers has eliminated the need for humans to perform tasks that involve solving routine problems or communicating straightforward information (Autor et al., 2003; Levy & Murnane, 2004 in Anderson Koenig,

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

39

2011). Non-routine problem-solving and complex communication and social skills are becoming increasingly valuable in the modern workplace that requires workers to have broad cognitive and affective skills. Those are often referred to as “twenty-first century skills” (Anderson Koenig, 2011): Cognitive skills: non-routine problem solving, critical thinking, systems thinking. Interpersonal skills: complex communication, social skills, teamwork, cultural sensitivity, dealing with diversity. Intrapersonal skills: self-management, time management, self-development, selfregulation, adaptability, executive functioning. Skills that employers seek in their employees included the following (Anderson Koenig, 2011): • • • • • • •

Communication skills (oral and written) Ability to work productively in teams and groups (teamwork skills) Customer and business focus (understanding the big picture) Ability to listen for meaning and comprehension Ability to prioritize work and self-evaluate (self-reflection and time management) Development of original solutions to novel problems (problem-solving) Ability to lead and act responsibility (leadership and ethics)

Implementing objectives and assessment strategies for the development of the above mentioned soft skills into curricula is therefore important for all future students and professions. The best way to accomplish those skills within student educational programs is by implementing student-centred learning approaches among which is also PBL that can support skill acquisition from all three clusters and the list of Anderson Koenig. PBL incorporates project management skills that are one of the most important career skills. It also enables transferable career-ready skills including self-direction and self-management, critical thinking and problem-solving, media literacy and technology skills. Team projects build social awareness and collaboration skills. Using design thinking skills for project construction prepares young people for a life full of novelty and complexity.

3.3 Models for Supporting PBL with Technology The digital age has changed the society: the settings where we live, work, and learn— has likewise changed. Both the amount of information and access to it have grown exponentially; a significant potential for using varied resources in numerous ways for instruction and learning has emerged (Hill & Hannafin, 2001). However, several issues related to the educational uses of varied resources (e.g., people, places, things, ideas, methods) must be addressed to PBL environments and education 4.0. Broadly speaking, education 4.0 essentially uses technology-rich environments (e.g. internet of things, cloud technology, virtual and augmented reality) and resources to foster student-centred learning to support collaboration, communication, seeking-giving

40

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

resources, content sharing, peer feedback… However, in many ways, technology has profoundly changed education (Zierer, 2019). Technology has also begun to change the roles of teachers and learners. However, because of the access to information and educational opportunity enabled by technology. In many classrooms today we see the teacher’s role shifting to the “guide on the side” in contrary with “sage on the stage” as students take more responsibility for their own learning using technology to create innovative digital artefacts. Models for technology integration are still focused on instructional design approach. Modern society requires educated self-efficient resource managers and innovative thinkers that have developed digital competences. We will describe an example of model for technology integration into PBL process. SAMR is a four-level, taxonomy-based approach for selecting, using, and evaluating technology in modern curricula settings (Hilton, 2016; Puentedura, 2006; Zierer, 2019). It facilitates the development of competences for both participants of on-going educational process: students and teachers with the perspective of promoting twenty-first century skills…” (Cummings, 2014). The SAMR Model (Fig. 3.2) is a framework created by Ruben Puentedura that categorizes four different degrees of classroom technology integration. The letters “SAMR” stand for Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. SAMR framework is focused on the levels of integration of educational technology. Using technology effectively means creating the kind of rich tasks that redesign traditional ways of learning and create opportunities that do not exist without the use of technology (Hamilton et al., 2016). The SAMR model provides a means for examining each learning task or levels to determine the depth and complexity of technology integration. The level could be determined by answering the questions below:

Substitution Tech acts as a direct tool substitution, with no functional change

Augmentation Tech acts as direct tool substitute, with functional improvement

Redefinition

Tech allows for the creation of new tasks, previously inconceivable

Transformation

Modification Tech allows for significant task redesign

Enhancement

Fig. 3.2 SAMR model (Puentedura, 2013)

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

41

Substitution: • What will I gain by replacing the older technology with the new technology? Substitution to Augmentation: • Have I added an improvement to the task process that could not be accomplished with the older technology at a fundamental level? • How does this feature contribute to my design? Augmentation to Modification: • How is the original task being modified? • Does this modification fundamentally depend upon the new technology? • How does this modification contribute to my design? Modification to Redefinition: • What is the new task? • Will any portion of the original task be retained? There are also other models for integration technology into learning, such as: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), created by Punya Mishra and Matthew Koehler (2006), is a unifying framework designed to bring together elements of content, pedagogy, and technology in a manner meant to assist teachers in delivering effective technology-infused instruction (Hilton, 2016). The Technology Integration Matrix (TIM) provides a framework for describing and targeting the use of technology to enhance learning. The TIM incorporates five interdependent characteristics of meaningful learning environments: active, collaborative, constructive, authentic, and goal-directed (Welsh et al., 2011). DIGCOMP the European Digital Competence Framework as a reference framework to explain what it means to be ‘digitally competent’. It is about how to access the new opportunities to learn, work, create and engage in a society which is shaped by digital technology. Competence areas are: information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety and solving problems (Carretero et al., 2017). The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) recognized that in an increasingly digital world, students need skills in the following areas: (1) Creativity and Innovation; (2) Communication and Collaboration; (3) Research and Information Fluency; (4) Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making; (5) Digital Citizenship; and (6) Technology Operations and Concepts (Larson & Miller, 2011). SAMR appears to most easily connect to student-centred approach to learning in that each activity is examined for specific opportunities to embed technology in a manner that improves the independent learning capacity of the students. Therefor this model is relevant for the implementation of PBL.

42

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

Alternatively, TPACK and TIM approaches appear to more easily align with teacher-centred instructional design philosophies, given that when operating in the central space of TPACK technology, pedagogy, and content are filtered through the teacher into learning opportunities that capitalize on emerging technology. TIM framework focuses on planning, describing and evaluating technology integration in the classroom usually done by teachers. DIGCOMP is general competence framework, for all citizens. We will demonstrate latter how digital competences are developed in the context of PBL in technologically rich environment. By means of PBL students also develop skills related to ISTE areas. In the last few years, international communities concerned with digital competence development analyse the meaning of computational thinking and media & information literacy skills. They mainly describe practical applications and approaches to develop students’ twenty-first century skills that supports learners’ integration of twenty-first century skills. To prepare students to understand the consequences of technological change, adapt when using technologies, (some of them) develop new technologies or even to work in jobs that haven’t yet been invented, not only does the ‘what?’ and ‘how?’ of the subject needs to be taught, pupils also need to develop techniques to ask and be able to answer the question ‘why?’. Computational thinking supports doing so. Computational thinking skills are the set of mental skills that convert “complex, messy, partially defined, real world problems into a form that a mindless computer can tackle without further assistance from a human.” Computational thinkers also need to possess collaborative skills (Curzon & McOwan, 2017). Those advanced twenty-first century skills could be developed with implementation of PBL.

3.4 Collaborative Learning Through PBL Collaborative learning is grounded in social constructivism with the authors Bruner (1996), Dewey (1916), Piaget (1973), and Vygotsky (1978). It is concerned with creating new knowledge where the teacher serves mainly as a facilitator to the social process of discovery (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1998). In his theory, Vygotsky developed a mechanism for stimulating learning in the context of social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). The interpretation of Vygotsky thus emphasizes the importance of joint cooperation and the construction of the knowledge of the group members. Learning in this process is more than a consequence of one’s own efforts, the consequence of participation in a social context (ibid.). For successful collaboration, Roschelle and Teasley (1995) emphasize the importance of synchronous collaboration in joint activities and the ongoing effort to construct and maintain a common understanding of the problem. Collaborative learning is based on mutual cooperation, assistance and trust, and contributes to better learning outcomes. Through collaboration students also develop a number of skills, such as skills in leadership and organizing, communication skills, solving conflict situations, empathy and others.

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

43

Modern instructional approaches emphasize the development of competencies of the twenty-first century including collaboration, management and social skills. Grant (2002), Krajcik and Shin (2014) saw collaborative work as an essential element of PBL. In addition to subject-based knowledge, the goals of PBL include twenty-first century skills such as problem-solving, reasoning, critical thinking, collaboration, and self-directed learning (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Walker & Leary, 2009). The research has not only shown that group work leads to better learning outcomes than individual work (Cohen, 1994; Webb & Palinscar, 1996) but also relates multiple kinds of processes to learning outcomes, not just individual learning outcomes. Barron (2000) states that these include opportunities to explain one’s thinking (Cohen, 1994; King, 1990; Webb et al., 1995), share knowledge (Coleman, 1998; Hatano & Iganaki, 1991), observe peers’ strategies (Azmitia, 1988), share processes of monitoring solutions (Schoenfeld, 1989), provide critique (Bos, 1937) and engage in productive argumentation (Amigues, 1988; Phelps & Damon, 1989). Social interaction plays an important role in learning. Interacting with other people has proven to be effective in assisting the learner to organize their thoughts, reflect on their understanding, and find gaps in their reasoning. In collaborative learning social interdependence where students and teachers consolidate their knowledge by teaching one, another is established. It involves the mutual engagement of students and teachers in a coordinated effort to solve a problem or design a project. According to Johnson et al. (1988), the conditions that make effective collaboration possible are promoting positive interdependence, interactions, individual responsibility, social skills, and group self-reflection. PBL promotes social learning as students practice and become proficient with the twenty-first-century skills of communication, negotiation, and collaboration (Bell, 2010). Quality social interactions contribute to outstanding learning results when teachers, students and other members of the community work together in situated learning activities to construct shared understanding by solving problems or designing projects. Students develop understandings of principles and ideas through sharing, using and debating ideas with others (Blumenfeld et al., 1996). In the literature different models of collaboration have been presented (Bailey & Koney, 2000; Frey et al., 2006; Gajda, 2004; Hogue, 1993; Peterson, 1991). All the models commonly focus on defining the stages of collaboration through relationship characteristics. Placing students in a group and telling them to work together does not guarantee the happening of collaboration (Johnson & Johnson, 1994). In our context, we find the model of Frey et al. presented in Table 3.2, one that describes the levels of collaboration exactly as it turns out in PBL practices. When the teacher facilitates students and offers suitable strategies for collaboration, all members of the groups can easily reach the level of cooperation. For the members to reach the level of collaboration as the strongest possible connection and interdependence of students, they need to focus on building strong interactions, follow common goals, share individual and group responsibility, have strong social skills and use a lot of meta-cognitive skills like self-reflection, self-regulation, self-monitoring, shared judgment and planning. Further on Berg (2015) defined The Collaboration Pyramid (Fig. 3.3) as a model

44

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

Table 3.2 Levels of collaboration and their characteristics (Frey et al., 2006) Networking Relationship Aware of characteristics organization Loosely defined roles Little communication All decisions are made independently

Cooperation

Coordination

Coalition

Collaboration

Provide information to each other Somewhat defined roles Formal communication All decisions are made independently

Share information and resources Defined roles Frequent communication Some shared decision making

Share ideas Share resources Frequent and prioritized communication All members have a vote in decision making

Members belong to one system Frequent communication is characterized by mutual trust Consensus is reached on all decisions

Fig. 3.3 The Collaboration Pyramid model (Berg, 2015)

that is intended to show what areas need to be addressed for a team that wishes to become collaborative. Activities that are important and necessary for natural collaboration to happen are listed in the pyramid. The model consists of eight layers that are divided into three larger layers: community building, cooperation and collaboration. Activities specifically associated with team collaboration are listed in the top three layers. Bottom five layers are less visible to the outside observer and have more social characteristics of collaboration. Collaboration in PBL emphasizes the creation of an open process of research and exploration whose results will depend on the interaction of all the participants. The main objective is in the creation of a research context and the process of exploring in itself and not just in the final result of the project. Within collaborative PBL environment, all the participants (teachers and students, supervisors and supervised) learn and change because everyone constructs something new and different from sharing, exploring, connecting and entwining own voice with others (Anderson,

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

45

1997). As part of this transformation, students get a higher sense of autonomy and authorship and as a consequence of sharing their learning students begin to recognize and value their own knowing, competence, and talent (Iborra et al., 2010).

3.5 Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Interdisciplinary learning and teaching encourage teachers and students to engage in meaningful and relevant content, authentically coherent learning experiences and practically applied contexts through collaboration between teachers and students, sometimes also other organizations or industries. Inquiry processes and divergent thinking skills are incorporated into learning concepts, topics, and problems. Knowledge creation is linked to real-life situations which enhance student motivation and forces them to make more effort. Borrego and Newswander (2008) argue that for successful interdisciplinary work, the efforts of all members of the group are crucial for understanding and appreciating the contribution of each individual from various disciplines. Solving complex problems requires large amounts of time and resources, and multiple levels of expertise (Cone et al., 1998; Cooke et al., 2000) therefore project teams are often formed. A lot of research has been made about interdisciplinary collaboration and learning across different subject areas in education (Coyle et al., 2006; Tien et al., 2002), but the research on interactions between the members of interdisciplinary teams are relatively limited (Schaffer et al., 2008). Cone et al. (1998) define interdisciplinary teaching and learning as an approach that integrates two or more subject areas into a meaningful association in order to enhance and enrich students’ learning in each subject area. Schaffer et al. (2008) have developed a three-dimensional theoretical framework for Cross-Disciplinary Team Learning (CDTL). Significant process shifts are believed to occur during the life cycle of a team project (Fig. 3.4): • from self-efficacy to collective efficacy; • from individual process to team goal and from • knowledge acquisition to knowledge creation. Fig. 3.4 Macro-level Cross-Disciplinary Team Learning framework (Schaffer et al., 2008)

46

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

These shifts are facilitated by feedback and monitoring processes during and after a project. Various affective, behavioural, cognitive, and sociocultural processes mediate team effectiveness throughout this life cycle (Ilgen et al., 2005). CDTL framework represents a fusion of knowledge building and problemsolving, cooperative learning, collaborative learning, cross-disciplinary learning, team creativity and innovation, performance support and self-regulation (Schaffer et al., 2008). Figure 3.5 summarizes the specific elements within each dimension of the CDTL

Fig. 3.5 Theoretical model of Cross-Disciplinary Team Learning (Schaffer et al., 2008)

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

47

framework. Identification consists of a high degree of self-assessment and information seeking, goal setting, and planning and is primarily an individual process involving introspection and self-assessment to determine the degree to which team members feel that they can contribute to the team. Formation is a linking process that involves many of the core structures and processes of effective team functioning: bonding, trust building, and peer feedback, as well as leadership and project management tasks such as coordination, budgeting, and resource acquisition and management. When teams start to function, team members engage in cooperative and collaborative processes. Adaptation is an integrating process in which teams create new knowledge, develop understanding, and think innovatively (Schaffer et al., 2008). According to Schaffer (2010), cross-disciplinary group work has its strengths and weaknesses. Strengths: • Teams are more effective than individuals when a project is complex and requires a creative solution. • Cross-disciplinary teams produce a wider variety of creative, innovative solutions. Discussions that evolve throughout the process of project work encourage students divergent and creative thinking that allows them to produce different creative and out of the box ideas and solutions to the problems. • Forming teams with individuals from different disciplines greatly increases the number of divergent ideas generated during brainstorming and scoping/defining phases of a project. From our practice experiences in cross-disciplinary PBL, the number of generated divergent ideas is highly connected to student’s interpersonal skills, especially their openness to accept diverse ideas and their skills to listen actively. Empathy also plays a role. Weaknesses: • Evidence of the effectiveness of diverse teams is mixed. Literature shows that while diverse teams are creative they are also prone to inefficiencies and longer cycle times. Groups and teams that find similar interests and make a quick bond between each other are those that are able to produce efficient creative ideas in a short period of time but can also lead them to go off-topic quickly which then leads to longer cycle times and inefficiencies. We also noticed inefficiencies between the students that could not find some common interests either in the content knowledge or in personal significance. • While a culture of learning within an organization is necessary for capacitybuilding, organizational cultures that value task completion over innovation will generally not see the potential benefits of supporting cross-disciplinary learning processes. In higher-educational settings, we also experienced a need for a strong obligation of teachers believing in cross-disciplinary benefits. Cross-disciplinary

48

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

and cross-cultural teams also need more facilitation in discussion skills, time management and finding an agreeing in common rules of the team. Many higher education institutions integrate cross-disciplinary objectives into the curriculum (Borrego & Newswander, 2008; Tsang et al., 2001; Žerovnik et al., 2016). Students in cross-disciplinary teams are expected to learn to transcend their own disciplinary boundaries, acknowledge different frameworks, and eventually broaden their perspectives to include those of other disciplines (Borrego & Newswander, 2008; O’Brien et al., 2003). To support cross-disciplinary work in the higher-educational setting, the leaders need to plan the integration of social and interdisciplinary skill development activities for teams to be able to collaborate effectively in projects. A consideration of teacher competencies in managing teams and project work is also of great importance.

3.6 Assessment Methodology in PBL Settings According to Mergendoller (2018), there are six important criteria elements of PBL high-quality projects. The High-Quality Project Based Learning (HQPBL) Framework was developed by the educators that describe six criteria that must be at least minimally present for a project to be judged “high quality,” and those are (Mergendoller, 2018): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Intellectual Challenge and the Accomplishment that enables students to learn deeply, think critically and strive for excellence. Authenticity through activities where students work on projects that are meaningful and relevant to their culture, their lives, and their future. Public Product. Students’ work is publicly displayed, discussed, and critiqued. Collaboration. Students collaborate with other students in person or online and/or receive guidance from adult mentors and experts. Project Management. Students use a project management process that enables them to proceed effectively from project initiation to completion. Reflection. Students reflect on their work and their learning throughout the project.

For assessment, we use a collection of different strategies and methods. At the beginning of the course, students are represented with main course objectives and main elements of assessment: rubrics for project deliverables, reflections, a diary for project management and time management, search for feedback throughout the course and project development, final presentation for the public, self-evaluation questionnaire and evaluation of teacher’s guidance and incentives. Darling-Hammond et al. (2008), Grant (2002), Krajcik and Shin (2014) and Larmer and Mergendoller (2015) also emphasize the importance of self-assessment, reflection, and feedback.

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

49

The final project deliverables are assessed through rubrics. Senior students are actively engaged in developing rubrics. They get the main elements of the rubric that are consistent with the course objectives. Students then write the descriptors for each element of the rubric. We conduct a whole-class discussion for the final assessment rubrics. In the first year of study, final rubrics are designed by the teacher who explains and presents them to the students at the beginning of the course. Reflections are made throughout the whole process of PBL. Larmer and Mergendoller (2015) also noted that students and teachers should reflect on what they’re learning, how they’re learning, and why they’re learning throughout the whole process of project work. Every student is obligated to deliver personal reflections and a diary where they record what they have learned and what resources they used. First-year students get some questions that help them produce quality reflections, like: What did I learn from the project?, If I had more time, I would add, modify, improve …, What work did I devote the most time to and why?, Where and how can I use the acquired knowledge during my studies and in my professional career?, Which part of the project was my favourite and which part was the least motivational for me?, What would I change in the project to make it better? Students reflect on how well they worked in a collaborative group and how well they contributed, negotiated, listened, and welcomed other group members’ ideas. They also self-evaluate their own projects, efforts, motivations, interests, and productivity levels. Students become critical friends by giving constructive feedback to each other, which helps them become aware of their own strengths and improve on their interactions with each other (Bell, 2010). The final project deliverables and artefacts are posted online to public audiences and also presented at the end of the course in between the colleagues and students in the class. We use a collaborative online portfolio system based on Wordpress Content Management System where students can collaborate to publish digital artefacts. The advantage of online portfolios is also that all the content is immediately accessible to peer students that can provide meaningful feedback and possible improvements. Darling-Hammond et al. (2008), Larmer and Mergendoller (2015) and Ravitz (2010) all emphasized the importance of students presenting their work to public audiences. One of the important aspects of the process of PBL is also feedback provision throughout the whole process of project development. In our PBL implementations teacher provides feedback every week throughout the whole semester (15 weeks). It is desired that students develop skills of feedback seeking by preparing questions and describing the challenges they encounter. We encourage students to seek solutions for problems first inside the group and with the help of online resources and lastly they ask the teacher. In that way, students develop self-efficacy and self-regulatory skills. When students deliver their final projects for assessment they get written argumentative feedback among the rubric score, and they can improve their product or final delivery in several cycles. That way they have the opportunity to learn from the feedback and make more effort to deliver better products and get better marks.

50

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

3.7 Examples of PBL in Higher Education In this section we will explain our more than 10-years experiences with PBL in higher education supported by technology. We focus on two different cases and aspects of PBL implementation with 1st year students of Primary Teacher Education program and 5th year mastery students od interdisciplinary course ICT in Education. First we will describe the settings, workflow, results and achieved competences of PBL among 1st year students of the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education (program of Primary Teacher Education), prospective teachers, who attended course ICT in education. Students, divided into groups, consisting of 2–3 members, are producing digital stories. Topics of digital stories differs from year to year and is related to abstract concepts of Slovene primary school curricula, for pupils aged between 6 and 9. Examples of such themes that illustrate concepts that are somewhat abstract to children are “time” and “space”. Both topics are covered in 1st and 2nd year primary science curriculum. Another example of the story themes are remakes of Slovene folklore fairy tales that are connected with 1st to 3rd primary Slovene language curriculum. The topics and objectives were selected together with fellow didactics in the field of social sciences/literature with aim to enable the development of subject specific competences, competences for collaborative work and digital competencies of the students. The students pass through different phases of PBL: Planning learning outcomes and objectives aligned with the curriculum. At this stage, students are introduced to seven elements for effective digital storytelling (Robin, 2008). In the first phase, students prepare a sketch of the story and start storyboarding. Organization of brief activities and time management plan. We prepare the draft schedule of delivering the basic digital artefacts and a schedule of submission of students planned deliverables. At that phase students are introduced to the digital competences model development, with licenses, and rights to use resources and software, and they start using the technological environment (Arnes web based on Content-Management System Wordpress). They are actively exploring options for selecting digital storytelling software. We introduce them with basic knowledge from multimedia design (graphics, audio and video) and software for creation of interactive content (e.g. H5P). Planning group and whole class reflections, discussions, presentations, feedback delivery, and assessment. We foster students to research the topic, to organise group discussions and presentations, to give feedback to and from their peers. Students are introduced with cloud services that enable them real-time collaboration and sharing resources. Students are collecting and creating multimedia materials for their stories. At the same time in their e-portfolio they describe story development and reflections on the teamwork. Providing Clear Guidelines for Success. 1st year students are introduced with rubrics for assessment and they are encouraged to reflect and give feedback to assessment criteria. Through whole semester student get oral or written feedback on the process of creation of the final product. Final product is assessed at the end

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

51

of semester by the teacher assistant, professor of the course and fellow didactics from the field of chosen topics. Student are also involved in final peer-assessment during the public presentation of final digital stories. The settings and the workflow of our second example is similar to first one, with the exception of interdisciplinary groups, chosen topics and assessment strategies. Faculty of Education, Slovenia offers students an elective interdisciplinary course in their final year of study. Students of math, physics, mechanics, biology, chemistry, home economics, primary school teachers, students of speech therapy and surdo-pedagogy students can attend this course. Students have diverse knowledge of technology integration and application. The main objective of the course is to develop digital competences needed in their future teacher profession. Because the students have very diverse pre-knowledge, the course is designed as PBL approach through witch different needs of students can be addressed. Students work in pairs with colleagues from different disciplines and in the first phase they are obligated to brainstorm various challenges in their basic disciplines that can be effectively supported with digital technology to accomplish contribution at each area of discipline. Further on students engage in project-based learning through problem solving and inquiry to come up with the best possible contribution for both disciplines. Some students have already developed basic digital competences for PBL communication, content sharing, activity design etc. And some students start from scratch. In the beginning of the course we support students and offer time to connect and start collaborate effectively. PBL approach also gives us the possibility to monitor and mentor students highly diverse projects and problems that they design. Nearly every pair or group needs some personal assistance and guidance from the mentor at least a few times during the semester. The process of work is therefore very individualised and based on mentor-student approach where students are responsible for their learning goals, seeking feedback and their learning outcomes. They are expected to deliver the modified or redefined content reach in technology use for highest possible contribution to both disciplines. Students are also active participants in designing the assessment of the process and final products. For self-evaluations we use reflection diary-based e-portfolio system. The assessment criteria are designed together with students in about ¼ of the semester when they already accept and assimilate to the process of BPL. Individual reflections are also an important part of the PBL process. In the previous research (Juvan et al., 2016) we analyzed the factors that are impacting the results of PBL. Factors were determined according to Webb’s system of interaction within collaborative learning groups (Notari et al., 2013). The interaction between members has a crucial influence on the final product of the group. Characteristics of the individual student, such as knowledge, skills, personality traits, characteristics of the group, and external motivation, could impact interaction. Our focus was on the analyses of impact of digital competence of students on the results of the PBL. We assessed the digital competences of an individual by means of DIGCOMP. We modelled the interaction of the personality traits and interpersonal competencies’ factors that had an impact on the classification degree of the individual students within the PBL. According to the criteria of assessment of the student’s

52

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

contribution to teamwork we were searching for combinations of factors or interacting characteristics of the student within a group that have an impact on the final grade. The research focused on how certain personality characteristics of a student, such as student learning style and attitudes toward collaborative learning, impact the results of project work. The models that are interpreting the interaction of factors and characteristics were constructed by machine learning methods. By interpreting the decision trees, we found out that the students, who did not have an opinion, or they did not care about others’ opinion in the group, got lower ratings for PBL. Although they like to work in a group, students who are always insistent in their opinion are also poorly assessed. Those who feel responsible only for their work are mostly less successful. Models have shown that the most successful students are the students, who have ideas and who are responsible for their work and the work of others in the team. The assessment of the digital competence of an individual is a complex and challenging task. There are variety of approaches and instruments, used for assessing specific dimensions of digital competence. Some of them are focused on pragmatic skills, needed at the workplace (e.g. ECDL), others are related to the key competence, contextualized, closer to “learning to learn” skills (self-assessment and problem solving tests), e.g. OECD PISA (2015, 2018) problem-solving with digital tools (Poldoja et al., 2014). Our research was based on the three types of instruments for measuring the level of digital competence: questionnaires (mostly selfevaluations) designed to obtain information about an individual’s use of technology, analysis of the results of problem-solving tests, and the gathering and analysis of secondary data. We used adapted Digital Competence Assessment instrument, which is based on three dimensions: cognitive, technical and ethical (Calvani et al., 2010). Analyses of the results showed that for the achievement of particular level of digital competence of the individual could be explained by his/her level of technological and cognitive dimensions. Digital content creation and problem solving skills, according to DIGCOMP model, influenced the student’s achievement in PBL (Juvan et al., 2016).

3.8 Conclusion The responsibility of education is always to cultivate the human being. One of the key components for students to accomplish this is to take part in today’s participatory culture, which involves becoming creators of knowledge rather than being passive consumers of information. By means of PBL students develop twenty-first century skills that are important for their professional engagement and future life. Our more than 10-years of experiences in the field of PBL in higher education among prospective primary school teachers confirm the benefits of collaboration, problem solving and inquiry learning. The advancement and accessibility of ICT have the potential to engage students in the PBL process. Teacher role in the process of PBL is significantly different from traditional teaching practices. Teacher has

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

53

to make stimulating learning environment for the students and provide them with meaningful feedback, to support collaboration among group members. The role of the teacher is in mentoring and scaffolding the content and the process of student’s knowledge acquisition. For the purpose of effective PBL mentoring, teachers also need to develop new competencies and skills. We consider to take further research in the field of teacher competencies and skills development to support effective PBL.

References Amigues, R. (1988). Peer interaction in solving physics problems: Sociocognitive confrontation and metacognitive aspects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45(1), 141–158. Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. Basic Books. Anderson Koenig, J. (2011). Assessing 21st century skills. The National Academies Press. Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one. Child Development, 59, 87–96. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403–436. Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Darling-Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G. N. Cervetti, & J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning. What we know about teaching for understanding (pp. 11–70). Jossey-Bass. Bailey, D., & Koney, K. (2000). Strategic alliances among health and human services organizations: From affiliations to consolidations (Abr ed.). Sage. Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition (pp. 1–60). The New Media Consortium. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39–43. Berg, O. (2015). Collaborating in a social era: Ideas, insights and models that inspire new ways of thinking about collaboration. Intranätverk, GB. Blumenfeld, P. C., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable technology—Embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35, 149–164. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 37–40. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369–398. Bologna Process. (2009). The Bologna Process 2020: The European higher education area in the new decade. The Bologna Process. Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. (2008). Characteristics of successful cross-disciplinary engineering education collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 123–134. Bos, M. C. (1937). Experimental study of productive collaboration. Acta Psychologica, 3, 315–426. Brandes, D., & Ginnis, P. (1986). A guide to student centred learning. Blackwell. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.

54

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

Calvani, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Digital competence in K-12. Theoretical models, assessment tools and empirical research. Anàlisi: Quaderns de Comunicacio i Cultura, 40, 157– 171. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use (No. JRC106281). Joint Research Centre (Seville site). Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35. Coleman, E. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 387–427. Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42, 151–173. Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M. G., Bangser, M. R., Drohojowska, S., Saco, L., & Nelson, E. (2017). Project based learning: A literature review. Cone, T. P., Werner, P., Cone, S. L., & Woods, A. M. (1998). Interdisciplinary teaching through physical education. Human Kinetics. Coyle, E. J., Jamieson, L. H., & Oakes, W. C. (2006). 2005 Bernard M. Gordon prize lecture*: Integrating engineering education and community service: themes for the future of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(1), 7–11. Cummings, C. (2014). Teacher created prescriptive interactive content (TCPIC), SAMR, and modernizing remediation in social science education. The International Society for the Social Studies Annual Conference Proceedings, 1, 37–39. Curzon, P., & McOwan, P. W. (2017). The power of computational thinking: Games, magic and puzzles to help you become a computational thinker. World Scientific Publishing Company. Darling-Hammond, L., Barron, B., Pearson, P. D., Schoenfeld, A. H., Stage, E. K., Zimmerman, T. D., Cervetti, G. N., & Tilson, J. L. (2008). Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding. Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Free Press. Du Toit, A., Van der Walt, M., & Havenga, M. (2016). Project-based learning in higher education: New skills set for consumer studies teacher education. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 14(3), 54–71. Dworkin, M. S. (1959). Dewey on Education: Selections, no. 3. Teachers College Press. Frey, B. B., Lohmeier, J. H., Lee, S. W., & Tollefson, N. (2006). Measuring collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383–392. Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 65–77. Gardner, D. B. (1998). Effects of conflict types and power style use among health professionals in interdisciplinary team collaboration. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59(1-B), 0157. Gordon, R. (1998). Balancing real-world problems with real-world results. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 390–393. Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases, and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5, 65–98. Greeno, J., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (pp. 128–148). Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through a collective comprehension activity. In R. L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Routledge.

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

55

Heinemann, G. D., & Zeiss, A. M. (2002). Team performance in health care: Assessment and development. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52. Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73. Hogue, T. (1993). Community-based collaboration: Community wellness multiplied. Chandler Center for Community Leadership. https://www.uvm.edu/crs/nnco/collab/wellness.html. Accessed 21 May 2019. Iborra, A., Garcia, D., Margalef, L., & Pérez, V. (2010). Generating collaborative contexts to promote learning and development. In E. Luzzatto & G. DiMarco (Eds.), Collaborative learning: Methodology (Chapter 2, pp. 47–80). Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. Istance, D., & Kools, M. (2013). OECD work on technology and education: Innovative learning environments as an integrating framework. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 43–57. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1988). Cooperation in the classroom. Interaction Book Company. Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. American Psychological Association. Juvan, N., Nanˇcovska Šerbec, I., & Žerovnik, A. (2016). Modeliranje dimenzij digitalne kompetence študentov prvega letnika izbranih pedagoških smeri. Andragoška Spoznanja, 22(4), 29–42. King, A. (1990). Facilitating elaborative learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredericks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 313–350. Krajcik, J., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-based learning. In R. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 275–297). Cambridge University Press. Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R (2015). Gold standard PBL: Essential project design elements. Buck Institute for Education. www.bie.org. Accessed 21 May 2019. Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project based learning: A proven approach to rigorous classroom instruction (p. 34). VA, USA: ASCD, Alexandria. Larson, L. C., & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121–123. Machemer, P. L., & Crawford, P. (2007). Student perceptions of active learning in a large crossdisciplinary classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 9–30. Maclellan, E., & Soden, R. (2004). The importance of epistemic cognition in student-centred learning. Instructional Science, 32(3), 253–268. Mergendoller, J. R. (2018). Defining high quality PBL: A look at the research. Buck Institute for Education. https://hqpbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Defining-High-Quality-PBLA-Look-at-the-Research-.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2019. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Notari, M., Baumgartner, A., & Herzog, W. (2013). Social skills as predictors of communication, performance and quality of collaboration in project-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(2), 132–147. O’Brien, W., Soibelman, L., & Elvin, G. (2003). Collaborative design processes: An active-and reflective-learning course in multidisciplinary collaboration. Journal of Construction Education, 8(2), 78–93.

56

A. Žerovnik and I. Nanˇcovska Šerbec

Olivares, O. J. (2008). Collaborative vs. cooperative learning: The instructor’s role in computer supported collaborative learning. In K. L. Orvis & A. L. R. Lassiter (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning: Best practices and principles for instructors. Hershey. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow’s world. OECD. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Peterson, N. L. (1991). Interagency collaboration under Part H: The key to comprehensive, multidisciplinary, coordinated infant/toddler intervention services. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(1), 89–105. Phelps, E., & Damon, W. (1989). Problem solving with equals: Peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 639–646. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Grossman. Poldoja, H., Väljataga, T., Laanpere, M., & Tammets, K. (2014). Web-based self- and peerassessment of teachers’ digital competencies. World Wide Web, 17(2), 255–269. Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and Education. Retrieved 27 May 2018, from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/puentedura_tte.pdf. Puentedura, R. (2013). SAMR: A contextualized introduction 2013. https://www.hippasus.com/rrp weblog/archives/000112.html. Accessed 17 May 2019. Ravitz, J. (2010). Beyond changing culture in small high schools: Reform models and changing instruction with project-based learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 290–312. Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into practice, 47(3), 220–228. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In J. Roschelle & S. D. Teasley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Schaffer, S. P. (2010). Cross-disciplinary team learning. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), A handbook of improving performance in the workplace (Chapter 25, 2nd ed.). Pfeiffer Publishers. Schaffer, S. P., Lei, K., & Reyes Paulino, L. (2008). A framework for cross-disciplinary team learning and performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 7–21. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1989). Ideas in the air: Speculations on small group learning, environmental and cultural influences on cognition, and epistemology. International journal of Educational research, 13(1), 71–88. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of the research on project-based learning (pp. 1–45). The Autodesk. Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. The Buck Institute for Education. Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606–663. Tsang, E., Van Haneghan, J., Johnson, B., Newman, E., & Van Eck, S. (2001). A report on servicelearning and engineering design: Service-learning’s effect on students learning engineering design in introduction to mechanical engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(1), 30–39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta-analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 12–43. Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (p. 841–873). Macmillan Library Reference USA; Prentice Hall International.

3 Project-Based Learning in Higher Education

57

Webb, N. M., Troper, J. D., & Fall, R. (1995). Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 406–423. Welsh, J., Harmes, J. C., & Winkelman, R. (2011). Florida’s technology integration matrix. Principal Leadership, 12(2), 69–71. Wurdinger, S., Haar, J., Hugg, R., & Bezon, J. (2007). A qualitative study using project-based learning in a mainstream middle school. Improving Schools, 10(2), 150–161. Wurdinger, S., & Qureshi, M. (2014). Enhancing college students’ life skills through project based learning. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 279–286. Žerovnik, A., Žnidariˇc, L., & Rugelj, J. (2016). Project based learning evaluation of multidisciplinary post-graduate course “ICT in education”. In K. Aškerc Veniger et al. (Eds.), Improving the quality of teaching and learning in higher education: From theory to practice, from practice to theory (pp. 191–201). Center RS za mobilnost in evropske programe izobraževanja in usposabljanja. Zierer, K. (2019). Putting learning before technology!: The possibilities and limits of digitalization. Routledge.

Chapter 4

Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education Külli Kori

Abstract Inquiry-based learning is an active learning method which has found to be beneficial for developing students’ inquiry skills and enhancing academic achievement, engagement, motivation. Inquiry-based learning is widely used in science and math classes in general education schools, but despite the benefits of using inquirybased learning, this approach is less used in higher education institutions. Still, some good examples can be found, but in higher education level the concept of inquirybased learning is used in a broader sense and in many different forms (e.g., progressive inquiry). The focus is mostly on formulating questions and answering them through investigation of different materials and theories. This chapter gives an overview of some examples on how inquiry-based learning has been implemented in higher education institutions on three levels: systematically in curricula, separate courses of inquiry-based learning, and inquiry-based learning as part of a course. Additionally, the benefits of using inquiry-based learning in higher education are pointed out and the challenges of implementing inquiry-based learning are discussed on organization level, teacher level and student level. Keywords Inquiry-based learning · Progressive inquiry · Higher education

4.1 Introduction Inquiry-based learning has been added into general school curricula in many countries and this approach is mostly used in teaching science and math lessons (Buchanan et al., 2016). As an active learning method, inquiry-based learning has found to support the development of students’ inquiry skills (e.g., Kallas & Pedaste, 2018; Kori et al., 2014; Pedaste et al., 2016; Siiman et al., 2017), domain-related knowledge (e.g., Pedaste et al., 2016), reflection skills (e.g., Baird & White, 1996; Davis, 2003; Kori et al., 2014; Mäeots et al., 2016) etc. Based on a literature review SaundersStewart et al. (2012) concluded that the benefits of inquiry-based learning include K. Kori (B) School of Educational Sciences, Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_4

59

60

K. Kori

the development of knowledge and skills, expertise, self-efficacy, task commitment, positive attitudes towards learning, increasing intrinsic motivation and creativity. Therefore, inquiry-based approach should not only be used in teaching science and math, but could also be applied to other disciplines and higher education studies. Still, in some cases traditional and teacher-centred methods are dominating in teaching at higher education institutions. However, teaching in higher education in moving towards using more student-centred and active learning methods like projectbased learning, problem-based learning and inquiry-based learning. These methods have potential in improving the quality of higher education by moving towards more students-centred approach and learning how to learn. Besides, studies on higher education level have found that inquiry-based learning helps to develop student’s engagement, academic achievement and higher order learning outcomes (SpronkenSmith, 2012). The current chapter aims to give an overview of how inquiry-based learning has been used in higher education institutions. It starts with explaining what is inquiry-based learning and the frameworks of inquiry-based learning that are used in general education schools and higher education institutions. Then examples of implementing inquiry-based learning in higher education are presented and the benefits and challenges of this approach are discussed.

4.2 Definitions and Frameworks of Inquiry-Based Learning Inquiry-based learning has its roots in social-constructivist theory (Vygotsky, 1978), which states that learning takes place when learners interact with each other through dialog and asking questions, and through the interactions the learners actively construct their own knowledge. Another backbone of inquiry-based learning has come from the work of John Dewey, who claims that knowledge is constructed through practical experiences and activities (Dewey, 1938). Therefore, learning takes place by doing something practical with your own hands. This approach has led to the concept of discovery learning, which has derived from Jerome Bruner’s work in 1960s. Bruner (1960) suggested that learning is more effective when it comes from the inner desire to discovers something new. Therefore, discovery learning can be defined as a process of constructing new scientific knowledge and testing it (Pedaste & Mäeots, 2010). However, the inquiry-based learning differs from discovery learning because the aim is not to discover something new, but on acquiring skills that are needed for discovering (Pedaste & Mäeots, 2010). Many definitions of the inquiry-based learning can be found from the literature. For example, the inquiry-based learning has been defined as a process of discovering new relations between different variables through formulation hypothesis and testing the hypothesis in experiments or by collecting data through observations (Mäeots et al., 2011). It means that students are following methods that are similar to those that scientists use in order to construct knowledge (Keselman, 2003). Inquiry-based learning is student-centred, active learning approach that is focusing on questioning, critical thinking and problem solving (Savery, 2015).

4 Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education

61

The inquiry-based learning is also closely related to problem-based learning, which can be defined as an instructional student-centred approach that guides learners to conduct research, combine theory and practice, and apply their knowledge and skills to develop a solution to a problem (Savery, 2015). Several researchers have tried to differentiate the inquiry-based and problem-based methods. According to Savery (2015) the main difference is the role of the teacher. The teachers’ role in the inquiry-based learning is in facilitating learning and providing information, but in the problem-based learning the teacher only supports the process. Problembased learning can also be seen as a prescriptive form of inquiry-based learning (Spronken-Smith et al., 2007). Another concept that can be combined with inquiry-based learning is the projectbased. The project-based learning can be defined as a model for organizing learning around projects, which have (or include) complex tasks, based on challenging questions or problems and involve students in designing, problem-solving, decision making or investigating activities (Thomas, 2000). During the project, students work relatively autonomously over a certain period of time and the process ends with products or presentations (Thomas, 2000). The project-based learning is similar to inquiry-based learning and problem-based learning as the learning activities are organized around a shared goal, which is the project (Savery, 2015). However, in the project-based learning the learners are usually more focused on the end product and the learning process is more oriented into following the procedures. While working on a project, learners could be facing several problems and teachers act more as coaches who provide guidance, feedback and suggestions for achieving the final goal than in the traditional teacher roles (Savery, 2015). When investigating the inquiry-based learning, different models and phases can be found. To sum it up, Pedaste et al. (2015) conducted systematic literature review to identify the core phases of the inquiry-based learning and how these are involved in the learning process. They found 109 different terms of inquiry phases that are used in different domains of studies and that were overlapping. As a result, they included all the phases into the framework of inquiry cycle (see Fig. 4.1). The framework divides the inquiry learning into five phases: Orientation, Conceptualization, Investigation, Conclusion, Discussion. The inquiry cycle usually starts with Orientation phase where some kind of a situation is described and a problem is formulated based on that. This is followed by Conceptualization phase where research question or hypothesis is formulated. The next step is Investigation where experimentation or exploration is planned, data is collected and analysed. This is followed by Conclusion phase where conclusions are drawn based on the collected data and from comparing inferences, which were made using the hypothesis or research questions that were formulated in Conceptualization phase. The last phase is Discussion, which is related to all the other phases of the inquiry cycle. In the Discussion phase, findings of a particular phase on the whole inquiry cycle are presented to others, feedback is collected and discussion with others takes place. Besides, reflection takes place in the Discussion phase, which has found to be crucial in developing students’ inquiry skills (Kori et al., 2014; Mäeots et al., 2016). The Discussion phase can be seen as optional because the individual learners can execute the inquiry learning without

62

K. Kori

Fig. 4.1 Inquiry cycle (based on Pedaste et al. [2015])

communication and reflection. However, this phase is important for gaining knowledge in each inquiry phase (Pedaste et al., 2015). The inquiry stages form a cycle, which means that it might be needed during the process to go back to previous stages or new questions may raise that need investigation. The cycle follows the steps of scientific inquiry, and therefore, it can clearly be used in general education science classes to structure inquiry process, but it could also be used in social science and higher education studies. In the higher education level, the inquiry-based learning is used in slightly different forms than in the general education schools. The inquiry-based learning in the higher education has been defined in a broader sense as a process of developing high order intellectual and academic skills through student-driven and instructor-guided investigations of student generated questions (Justice et al., 2007, 2009). The focus of inquiry-based learning in higher education is on formulating questions, answering them and getting better understanding of the questions that students have raised (Justice et al., 2009). According to Spronken-Smith et al. (2007) the inquiry-based learning should be driven by questions or problems, based on seeking new knowledge and understanding, student-centred and student-directed with teachers acting as facilitators. The inquiry-based learning in the higher education level helps students to develop research skills and become lifelong learners (Spronken-Smith, 2012).

4 Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education

63

There are also some frameworks of inquiry-based learning that are developed especially for higher education studies. For example, Levy and Petrulis (2012) developed a framework that includes four ideal-type modes of inquiry-based learning: Authoring, Producing, Pursuing and Identifying. In the Authoring mode, the inquiry tasks are designed to encourage students to explore their own open questions in interaction with a knowledge base (how can I answer my own question?). In the Producing mode, the inquiry tasks are designed so that students explore questions framed by the teachers in interaction with a knowledge base (how can I answer this open question?). In the Pursuing mode, the inquiry tasks are designed to encourage students to explore a knowledge base actively by pursuing their own question (what is the existing answer to my question?). And in Identifying mode, the inquiry tasks are designed to encourage students to explore a knowledge base actively in response to questions framed by teachers (what is the existing answer to this question?) (Levy & Petrulis, 2012). So, there are four modes of the inquiry-based learning that differ, if the question comes from the student or teacher and if the answer is provided by the students or searched from existing answers. These forms can be used in higher education studies with different aims. The framework of progressive inquiry stands out from the literature of the inquirybased learning in higher education because of its clear theoretical model. The progressive inquiry is defined as “a heuristic framework for structuring and supporting students’ epistemological advancement and development of epistemic agency and related skills” (Muukkonen et al., 2005: 530). The framework was developed by Hakkarainen (1998), Hakkarainen (2003), Muukkonen et al. (2004) and it comes from the theories of knowledge building (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994), the interrogative model of scientific inquiry (Hakkarainen & Sintonen, 2002; Hintikka, 1999), and concepts of distributed expertise in a community of learners (Brown & Campione, 1994; Hakkarainen et al., 2004). The framework has mostly been implemented to the studies at the University of Helsinki in Finland. The progressive inquiry includes different stages that form a cycle similarly to the inquiry cycle developed by Pedaste et al. (2015) (see Fig. 4.2). The core element of the progressive inquiry is shared expertise which emphasises collaboration between the participants. The participants are acting as members of community and they are sharing cognitive responsibility for the success of the inquiry. This means that in addition to delivering the tasks, the learners take responsibility to discover what needs to be known, set goals, plan, and monitor the inquiry process. The process of progressive inquiry starts with creating the context to anchor the complex realworld problems that are being investigated, and teachers together with students set up common goals. The next stage is setting up research question that will direct the inquiry process. After that, working theories are constructed. In this phase, the students explain the problem with the existing background knowledge and do not use any information sources. This is followed by critical evaluation which addresses the need to assess strengths and weaknesses of theories and explanations that are produced and to direct and regulate the joint cognitive efforts. The next stage is sharing deepening knowledge, where students look into theoretical materials that the teacher offers or search the materials by themselves. After that the participants

64

K. Kori

Fig. 4.2 Elements of progressive inquiry (based on Muukkonen et al. [2004, 2005])

generate subordinate questions that are more specific than the questions generated at the beginning of the inquiry process and are based on the new knowledge that they gained from the previous stages. After that new working theories are developed. The participants use the knowledge that they gained, which leads to new theories and explanations (Muukkonen et al., 2004, 2005). Based on the knowledge that students gain new questions may raise and this causes a new cycle of progressive inquiry. In addition, collaborative technology has an important role in the progressive inquiry. As all the stages are well organized in a collaborative environment, the participants have easy access to the work done in prior stages and technology helps teachers or tutors to guide the process more easily (Muukkonen et al., 2005).

4.3 Examples of Using Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education Inquiry-based learning can be implemented in the higher education institutions on three level: (1) systematically in curricula, (2) on separate courses that focus on inquiry-based learning, and (3) inquiry-based learning task can part of a course. Next, the overview of examples of implementing the inquiry-based learning in those three levels are given.

4 Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education

65

4.3.1 Inquiry-Based Learning in Curricula There are some universities that have taken the aim of implementing the inquirybased learning systematically in their curricula. For example, McMaster University in Canada has two study programs that systematically implement inquiry-based learning (Justice et al., 2009). The first program is a 5-year Engineering and Society Program, which allows students to complete engineering course requirements of all the disciplines that offer engineering in the university and take courses about the place of engineering in society. The program has seven core courses and three of those are inquiry-based and focus on the question-driven and self-directed research. The workshops and projects in these courses are designed to develop students’ skills of critical thinking, posing questions, anticipating possible findings, researching, weighing evidence, and presenting findings both orally and in written formats. The teachers use active learning and group work in small-groups to emphasise learning how to learn. The first inquiry-based course focuses on teaching the art of inquiry using the theme of a sustainable society. Local issues are used as starting points for questions that students discuss in small groups. In the second inquiry-based course students work in pairs to investigate the application of preventive engineering to the issues of sustainability. In the third inquiry-based course students work independently with a supervisor to investigate a question that student chooses. The course ends with writing a paper and doing an oral presentation of the results of their inquiry (Justice et al., 2009). The second inquiry-based program at the McMaster University is a 4-year Health Science program. The program is entirely built around the inquiry-based learning and the students have to take courses focusing on inquiry in each year of studies. The other courses are design to support and develop the inquiry skills as well. During the first year, the students have to take a full-year inquiry-based course that focuses on the skill development and group work. The students participate in activities, which guide them to form their own ideas about the skills they need to develop. The student groups are guided by tutors. In the second year, the students work in groups of ten and the aim is to lead them towards formulating their own learning objectives. They pursue the objectives in the third year inquiry project and during the last year students write their thesis. They can choose between a number of inquiry courses for the third and fourth year, for example, one of the courses involve students as peer tutors for first-year students who participate in their inquiry-based course (Justice et al., 2009). Other examples of implementing inquiry-based learning into the curriculum can be found as well. For example, Hampshire College in the United States focuses on active inquiry and Roskilde University in Denmark organises studies around inquirybased group projects (Jenkins et al., 2003). During the first year of the studies at the Hampshire College in the United States, students formulate questions about a specific subject, critically analyse the theoretical framework of the question and methods they can use in investigating the question. During the second and third year, students define an area to study and formulate question about it. Based on that students design their own study program (courses they take, internships, independent study). The fourth

66

K. Kori

year of studies is for writing the thesis or doing artistic project that ends with oral examination (Jenkins et al., 2003). In the Roskilde University in Denmark, during the first two years of the studies 50% of the curriculum is taught through project-based group work that is oriented to investigating problems (Jenkins et al., 2003).

4.3.2 Separate Inquiry-Based Courses Separate inquiry-based courses are offered in several universities. For example, University of Helsinki in Finland has implemented 2-week progressive inquiry-based projects to compare it with ordinary teacher-centred study period (mostly lectures and small-group work) (Litmanen et al., 2012). During the period of progressive inquiry-based project the students adopted multidisciplinary perspective, arranged their study schedule and worked in collaboration with the university lecturers. Each lecturer met with the students individually four times during the course. Between the meetings the students searched for scientific information, read articles, wrote essays, discussed with university lecturers and produced a portfolio describing the process. At the end of the project students and teachers met to discuss and agree on a common grade for the whole group. University of Helsinki in Finland has also implemented 15-week course that includes elements of progressive inquiry (Lakkala et al., 2005b). During the course 2-h lecture took place weekly and the students received tasks between the lectures. The students had to formulate research problems (individually and in groups), present it to all the participants and then the teacher grouped the research questions and the students (4–7 in one group) chose the questions to investigate. During the investigation students wrote their own questions and explanations, and gave feedback to others. At the end of the course, they wrote a summary of their own contributions and learning process. In addition, during the progressive inquiry, each group had a tutor who knew the principles of progressive inquiry, but did not get specific instructions on how to support the students. To support knowledge building and progressive inquiry an asynchronous groupware system Future Learning Environment (https:// fle.uiah.fi/) was used in the course (Lakkala et al., 2005b). Tallinn University in Estonia implements LIFE (Learning in Interdisciplinary Focused Environment) course for the students (see https://elu.tlu.ee/). LIFE is a 6 ECTS (156 working hours) university-wide study course where students from different study areas collaborate with academics and partners from outside university to carry out projects with interdisciplinary problems. Learning activities are carried out in teams of 6–8 members. The teams include Bachelor and Master students with different background and experiences. The students divide the roles by themselves and choose the tasks they wish to be responsible for. The aim of LIFE projects is to adjust learning to twenty-first century circumstances which include changing labour market, the rapidly renewing information environment and society (Tallinn University Development Plan 2015–2020). In general, students in LIFE projects

4 Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education

67

need creativity, teamwork skills, leadership skills, adaptability, critical and interdisciplinary thinking skills. The learning activities include asking questions, discussions with other participants, searching information, trying out something new, analysis of activities, and reflections (The Concept of LIFE [Learning in Interdisciplinary Focused Environment], 2018). The LIFE projects are often inquiry-based as students have to gather background knowledge to be able to participate in the brainstorming, discussions and debates. Supervisions can recommend additional materials and the students are encouraged to find additional materials by themselves. The teams meet with the university supervisors regularly and use web-based environments for getting feedback. The project could also be a little different: some are research projects where a study is conducted and data is collected for research or solving problems; some are development projects where an innovative solution is developed for a service, product, environment or an object; and some projects include students in planning and carrying out events that include thematic and information days or weeks with an educational purpose. Many examples can be found where LIFE projects are inquiry-based. For example, students have investigated how to carry out a citizen science project, investigated the data that is available about Estonian movie and TV, investigated the current situation of the Baltic Sea, investigated how to support a student with special educational needs (for more finished projects see https://elu.tlu.ee/projects/finished). In addition to these examples, McMaster University in Canada has inquiry-based courses which are taught in sections of 20–25 students assigned to one instructor (Justice et al., 2009). During the inquiry-based course all sections of students used a common schedule, reading materials, process assessment, and goals. The classes met once a week, 12 times for three hour sessions and a lot of class time was used for group work of four or five students. All of the sections of students explored the aspects of the same broad social science issue and addressed a common inquiry thematic question. The students developed their own questions within this issue, learned how to investigate their questions through a process of developing and testing hypotheses using secondary sources. The teacher guided tasks for building the students’ critical and research abilities. In general, the course focused on developing independent and collaborative learning skills, skills of searching and evaluating information, synthesis, oral and written communication skills, and self and peer evaluation skills (Justice et al., 2009). In summary, many different examples of inquiry-based courses can be found in different universities.

4.3.3 Inquiry-Based Learning as Part of a Course Some examples can be also found about the experiences of including the inquirybased learning as part of a course. For example, McMaster University in Canada had included two self-directed research and writing assignments into gerontology course as the inquiry component (Justice et al., 2009). The inquiry-based part of the course was designed so that the students started with a question, then searched and

68

K. Kori

read about the topic to get some background knowledge. When the first assignment was finished, students had a research question that is specific, relevant to literature and interesting for them. Then students received feedback, worked more with the literature and wrote a synthesis of their work. At the beginning of regular lectures, the inquiry process was integrated into the course through the provision of skillbased lessons. The skills like developing questions, assessing research literature, and synthesizing ideas, were presented in the sequence dictated by the needs of the students’ inquiries in the course (Justice et al., 2009). The university teachers probably use many different inquiry related tasks in their teaching as part of a course. Aditomo et al. (2013) investigated inquiry-based teaching methods in three Australian universities and found that this approach is used in different disciplines, in undergraduate and postgraduate courses, and in both larger and smaller classes. The teachers in these universities explained what kind of inquirybased tasks they use in teaching and these were divided into nine forms on inquiry tasks: (1) scholarly research (close to academic research), (2) simplified research (simpler version of academic research, e.g., research questions are pre-specified, methods and analytic frameworks are provided for students), (3) literature based inquiry (students conduct a review of the scientific literature on given topic), (4) discussion-based inquiry (students conduct independent research, which is discussed in groups), (5) applied research (similar to simplified research, but the practical issues or problems are addressed), (6) simulated applied research (similar to applied research, but are based on made-up scenarios or data), (7) enactment of practice (students carry out inquiry in order to enact roles that are regarded as important in the relevant profession), (8) role playing (similar to enactment of practice, but students provide service in a role-play situation), (9) other inquiry tasks (e.g., tasks that required students to solve short quantitative problems) (Aditomo et al., 2013). It is clear that inquiry can be part of a university course in many forms.

4.4 Benefits and Challenges of Using Inquiry-Based Learning There are many benefits of using the inquiry-based learning in higher education studies. Justice et al. (2009) interviewed administrations in a university that has applied inquiry-based learning systematically and found that administrators believed that through the inquiry-based approach students learn to learn and it also improves the quality of learning in other courses. The inquiry-based approach was found to have effect on the student retention as well, especially on the retention of the good students who were attracted to the aims and skills involved. Also, faculty got to know the students better and formed direct relationships with the students through the inquirybased approach. In addition to the benefits for the students, the administrators saw that the instructors benefit a lot from trying new teaching approaches—the principles of inquiry-based learning diffuse into other courses and they got new ideas how to teach

4 Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education

69

more effectively. Moreover, the university received feedback from the graduates on the value of the acquired inquiry skills for their life and work (Justice et al., 2009). University teachers may use the inquiry-based learning with different aims. Aditomo et al. (2013) concluded that university teachers apply the inquiry-based learning with the aim to develop students’ topic or domain specific knowledge, professional skills, research skills, tactic professional insights, collaboration skills, critical thinking and self-regulated learning skills, communication and presentation skills, epistemological knowledge, efficacy and motivation, personal beliefs and identity. Also, a relationship between using inquiry-based learning and students’ academic achievement has been found. It refers to students increased involvement in learning as a result the students construct deeper knowledge (Zafra-Gómez et al., 2015). To compare the inquiry-based learning in university with the traditional teaching methods Litmanen et al. (2012) investigated teacher students’ learning experiences in a 2-week ordinary teacher-centred study period (mostly lectures and small-group work) and in a 2-week progressive inquiry-based project. As a result, it was found that studying during the progressive inquiry-based project period produced stronger experiences of being challenged as well as negative effects than the teacher-centred period. However, the interviews showed that although the inquiry-based period was intensive, the students still enjoyed the process. Litmanen et al. (2012) concluded that negative effects are part of the process of gradually learning to take responsibility for both individual and collaborative learning processes. There is a danger that students find that the tasks are too challenging and it may lead to frustration and loss of interest. Other studies have also found challenges of using the inquiry-based learning in higher education. Firstly, the challenges could be related to the study organization in the university because of the institutional and curricula constraints (Lakkala et al., 2005b; Muukkonen et al., 2005). It is very difficult to organize long-term inquiry processes in universities because of the curriculum design and setting of courses. The students usually have to take several courses on different topics at the same time and this does not allow them to focus on inquiry. Therefore, researchers have suggested that there is no point to focus on changing one course at the time. The aim should be on developing the whole curriculum so that it supports the inquiry-based approach (Muukkonen et al., 2004). Secondly, the challenges on the inquiry-based learning could be related to the teachers. The teachers could have resistance to the idea of inquiry and it is difficult to find appropriate and willing instructors (Justice et al., 2009). Therefore, it might be that the university teachers do not have the readiness to implement inquiry-based learning and they do not have enough knowledge how to do it. The teachers are affected by the materials available for the inquiry-based learning and there are less materials for higher education than for general education. Thirdly, there are some challenges of implementing the inquiry-based learning in on student level. Levy and Petrulis (2012) found that students who participated in the inquiry-based activities had the following challenges: information literacy, personal beliefs about learning and knowledge, personal self-confidence, inquiry

70

K. Kori

framing and direction-setting, and peer collaboration. Collaboration plays important role in inquiry-based learning. However, collaboration might be challenging for the students and they need support in it (Veermans & Järvelä, 2004). Lakkala et al. (2005a) concluded that to overcome this challenge, the teachers need pedagogical competencies to support students’ collaborative inquiry. The teachers have to understand the theoretical principles and apply the theories in practice (e.g., how to organize the inquiry-based learning and collaboration, how to find successful methods for scaffolding students, how to use web-based technologies meaningfully). Technology can help supporting students in the inquiry-based learning. There are several web-based learning environments designed for supporting inquiry-based learning in general education level, especially for science lessons. For example, SCY-Lab (Science Created by You)—learning environment for studying science and technology domains both individually and in collaboration (de Jong et al., 2010), Young Scientist—web-based situational inquiry learning environment for science lessons (Pedaste & Sarapuu, 2007), Go-Lab—online learning platform for the inquiry-based science learning that includes virtual and remote laboratories and scaffolding (Hovardas et al., 2018). However, less environments are designed for supporting the inquiry-based learning in higher education level. One suitable learning environment is Future Learning Environment (https://fle.uiah.fi/) that is developed for supporting students and tutors in the progressive inquiry (Lakkala et al., 2005b). However, using technology in the inquiry-based learning does not guarantee successful results. Research in the computer-mediated learning has shown contradictory results. Some studies show that computer-mediated communication between learners is more effective than face-to-face learning (e.g., Gürsul & Keser, 2009; Wishart et al., 2011), and other studies indicate the advantages of face-to-face communication (e.g., Van der Meijden & Veenman, 2005; Wendt & RockinsonSzapkiw, 2014). There are also studies that present no difference in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication (e.g., Engel et al., 2014; Suthers et al., 2003). It should not be taken granted that when students have the possibility to interact socially with each other in a collaborative learning environment, they will actually interact effectively; and social interaction and socioemotional processes should not be neglected because the focus is on cognitive processes (Kreijns et al., 2003). Lakkala et al. (2005b) suggested that support in learning with collaborative technology is needed on three levels: task organization level (organizing the learning activities, structuring the tasks), tool level (built-in tools that structure and direct learning) and process level (human coaching, situation-specific guidance, expert participation during the collaborative activity). Also, in the inquiry-based learning students need gradual scaffolding from the teacher to ensure that the task do not become too challenging for the students (Litmanen et al., 2012). The role of tutors and technology mediation in the progressive inquiry was investigated by Muukkonen et al. (2005). They compared three conditions: non-mediated, technology-mediated with a tutor and technology-mediated without a tutor. The results proofed that technology with tutoring supported the students in formulating research problems, evaluating the progress of inquiry and meta-reflection. The students who did not use technology concentrated more on understanding the theoretical content. The tutoring was found

4 Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education

71

to have some role in deepening the inquiry process and guiding the students to return to previous questions and theories as well as to readdressing them. Muukkonen et al. (2005) concluded that the tutoring might be even more effective if the tutors were participating at the lectures that the students participated and had face-to-face contact with the students. Tutors’ role in the progressive inquiry was also investigated by Lakkala et al. (2005b) who focused on a 15-week course where the elements of progressive inquiry were included. During the progressive inquiry process, each student group had a tutor who knew the principles and goals of progressive inquiry, but did not get specific instructions on how to support the students. It was found that more experienced tutors acted as meta-level commentators and less experienced tutors were more coinquirers who also produced inquiry questions. Lakkala et al. (2005b) summarised that successful scaffolding should include all the elements that came from different tutors’ practices: promotion of idea-rich dialogue, exploitation of knowledge sources and scientific theories, and fostering the deepening of inquiry. This means that tutors need social, pedagogical and technical competencies, and also subject-domain expertise.

4.5 Conclusions In the general education level, the inquiry-based learning is mostly used in the science and math classes and it follows the stages of the inquiry cycle (Pedaste et al., 2015). However, in the higher education level, the inquiry-based learning is used in different forms, e.g., progressive inquiry (Hakkarainen, 1998, 2003; Muukkonen et al., 2004), scholarly research, literature-based inquiry, applied research etc. (Aditomo et al., 2013). Universities have implemented the inquiry-based learning either systematically into the curriculum, as separate courses or teachers use the inquiry-based tasks as part of a course. It has been argued that it is difficult to implement the inquirybased learning in only one course because students have to take other courses at the same time and cannot put enough effort into the inquiry process. Therefore, it can be suggested that the whole curricula should support the inquiry-based learning to implement it effectively (Muukkonen et al., 2004). Several studies have shown the benefits of using inquiry-based learning in higher education studies, e.g., learning to learn, developing research skills and collaboration skills. However, there are many challenges of implementing inquiry-based learning in higher education level. The challenges could be on the study organization level, university teachers’ level and on student level. Because of that the inquiry-based learning is not implemented to the higher education studies as much as it could be. Especially the university teachers need more knowledge how to implement the inquiry-based learning effectively to their courses. For overcoming some of the challenges, the technology enhanced learning environments and tutors could be used.

72

K. Kori

References Aditomo, A., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A. M., & Ellis, R. A. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: Principal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1239–1258. Baird, J. R., & White, R. T. (1996). Metacognitive strategies in the classroom. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. (pp. 190–200). Teachers College Press. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory & classroom practice (pp. 229–287). MIT Press. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press. Buchanan, S., Harlan, M. A., Bruce, C. S., & Edwards, S. L. (2016). Inquiry based learning models, information literacy, and student engagement: A literature review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(2), 23–39. Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 91–142. de Jong, T., van Joolingen, W., Giemza, A., Girault, I., Hoppe, U., Kindermann, J., Kluge, A., Lazonder, A., Vold, V., Weinberger, A., Weinbrenner, S., Wichmann, A., Anjewierden, A., Bodin, M., Bollen, L., d’Ham, C., Dolonen, J., Engler, J., Geraedts, C., … van der Zanden, M. (2010). Learning by creating and exchanging objects: The SCY experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 909−921. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. Engel, D., Woolley, A. W., Jing, L. X., Chabris, C. F., & Malone, T. W. (2014). Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e115212. Gürsul, F., & Keser, H. (2009). The effects of online and face to face problem based learning environments in mathematics education on student’s academic achievement. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2817–2824. Hakkarainen, K. (1998). Epistemology of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, ON. Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Emergence of progressive inquiry culture in computer-supported collaborative learning. Learning Environments Research, 6, 199–220. Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Elsevier. Hakkarainen, K., & Sintonen, M. (2002). Interrogative model of inquiry and computer-supported collaborative learning. Science and Education, 11, 25–43. Hintikka, J. (1999). Inquiry as inquiry: A logic of scientific discovery. Jaakko Hintikka selected papers (Vol. 5). Kluwer. Hovardas, T., Pedaste, M., Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2018). Model-based inquiry in computersupported learning environments: The case of Go-Lab. In M. E. Auer, A. K. M. Azad, A. Edwards, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Cyber-physical laboratories in engineering and science education (pp. 241−268). Springer. Jenkins, A., Breen, R., & Lindsay, R. (2003). Reshaping teaching in higher education: Linking teaching with research. Psychology Press. Justice, C., Rice, J., Roy, D., Hudspith, B., & Jenkins, H. (2009). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: Administrators’ perspectives on integrating inquiry pedagogy into the curriculum. Higher Education, 58(6), 841. Justice, C., Rice, J., Warry, W., Inglis, S., Miller, S., & Sammon, S. (2007). Inquiry in higher education: Reflections and directions on course design and teaching methods. Innovative Higher Education, 31(4), 201–214. Kallas, K., & Pedaste, M. (2018). mobile based inquiry learning application for experiment planning in the 8th grade chemistry classroom. In J. C. Yang, M. Chang, L. H. Wong, & M. M. T. Rodrigo

4 Inquiry-Based Learning in Higher Education

73

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE 2018) (pp. 387−396). teneo Manila Univ, Ateneo Lab Learning Sci, Metro Manila, Philippines: Asia Pacific Soc Computers in Education, Taoyuan City, Taiwan. Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898–921. Kori, K., Mäeots, M., & Pedaste, M. (2014). Guided reflection to support quality of reflection and inquiry in web-based learning. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 242–251. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls of social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335–353. Lakkala, M., Lallimo, J., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005a). Teachers’ pedagogical designs for technologysupported collective inquiry: A national case study. Computers & Education, 45(3), 337–356. Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005b). Patterns of scaffolding in computermediated collaborative inquiry. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 13(2), 281–300. Levy, P., & Petrulis, R. (2012). How do first-year university students experience inquiry and research, and what are the implications for the practice of inquiry-based learning? Studies in Higher Education, 37(1), 85–101. Litmanen, T., Lonka, K., Inkinen, M., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Capturing teacher students’ emotional experiences in context: Does inquiry-based learning make a difference? Instructional Science, 40(6), 1083–1101. Muukkonen, H., Hakkarainen, K., & Lakkala, M. (2004). Computer-mediated progressive inquiry in higher education. In T. S. Roberts (Ed.), Online collaborative learning: Theory and practice (pp. 28–53). Information Science Publishing. Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Technology-mediation and tutoring: How do they shape progressive inquiry discourse? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 527–565. Mäeots, M., Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2011). Interactions between inquiry processes in a webbased learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2011 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 331–335). Athens, GA. Mäeots, M., Siiman, L., Kori, K., Eelmets, M., Pedaste, M., & Anjewierden, A. (2016, March 7–9). The role of a reflection tool in enhancing students reflection. In Proceedings of INTED2016 Conference: 10th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED 2016). IATED, 1892−1900. Valencia, Spain. Pedaste, M., Kori, K., Mäeots, M., & de Jong, T. (2016). Improvement of inquiry in a complex technology-enhanced learning environment. In: M. Riopel & Z. Smyrnaiou (Eds.), New developments in science and technology education (pp. 55−62). Springer International Publishing. Pedaste, M., & Mäeots, M. (2010). Uurimuslik õpe loodusainetes. https://oppekava.innove.ee/uur imuslik-ope-loodusainetes/ (in Estonian). Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. Pedaste, M., & Sarapuu, T. (2007, March 14–16). Web-based inquiry learning environment “young scientist”. In V. Uskov (Ed.), Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Web-based Education (WBE): Chamonix, France (pp. 35−40). ACTA Press. Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S Barrows. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 9, 5–15. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265–283. Saunders-Stewart, K. S., Gyles, P. D., & Shore, B. M. (2012). Student outcomes in inquiry instruction: A literature-derived inventory. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 5–31.

74

K. Kori

Siiman, L. A., Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., Rannikmäe, M., Zacharia, Z. C., & de Jong, T. (2017, September 20–22). Design and evaluation of a smart device science lesson to improve students’ inquiry skills. In H. Xie, E. Popescu, G. Hancke, & B. Fernández Manjón (Eds.), Advances in Web-Based Learning—ICWL 2017, 10473: 16th International Conference on Web-Based Learning (pp. 23−32). Cape Town, South Africa. Springer International Publishing (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Spronken-Smith, R. (2012). Experiencing the process of knowledge creation: The nature and use of inquiry-based learning in higher education. International Colloquium on Practices for Academic Inquiry. University of Otago (pp. 1–17). Spronken-Smith, R., Angelo, T., Matthews, H., O’Steen, B., & Robertson, J. (2007, April 19–21). How effective is inquiry-based learning in linking teaching and learning. Paper presented at the International Colloquium on International Policies and Practices for Academic Enquiry, in Marwell, Winchester, UK. Suthers, D. D., Hundhausen, C. D., & Girardeau, L. E. (2003, January). An exploratory comparison of the roles of representations in face to face and online collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003 (10 pp.). IEEE. Tallinn University Development Plan 2015–2020. https://www.tlu.ee/public/eng-arengukava/mob ile/index.html#p=28 (June 20, 2019). The Concept of LIFE (Learning in Interdisciplinary Focused Environment). (2018). Tallinn University. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MxG4JtIeV8AK7cMQ9ck5 CDq-LVB_zLydyULasPrsGfM/edit?usp=sharing (June 20, 2019). Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Van der Meijden, H., & Veenman, S. (2005). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in a primary school setting. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 831–859. Veermans, M., & Järvelä, S. (2004). Generalized achievement goals and situational coping in inquiry learning. Instructional Science, 32(4), 269–291. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, Trans.). Harvard University Press. Wendt, J. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2014). The effect of online collaboration on middle school student science misconceptions as an aspect of science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1103–1118. Wishart, J., Green, D., Joubert, M., & Triggs, P. (2011). Discussing ethical issues in school science: An investigation into the opportunities to practise and develop arguments offered by online and face-to-face discussions. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1(1), 47–69. Zafra-Gómez, J. L., Román-Martínez, I., & Gómez-Miranda, M. E. (2015). Measuring the impact of inquiry-based learning on outcomes and student satisfaction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(8), 1050–1069.

Chapter 5

Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking Petri Vesikivi, Merja Bauters, and Jaana Holvikivi

Abstract This chapter discusses the role of agile software development methods and design thinking in university education. We will discuss the combination of agile and design thinking methods in software and media engineering education. The approaches of project-based learning and agile methods intermingled into various learning contexts are presented and discussed. The knowledge gathered from a series of experimental modules at the Metropolia University of Applied Sciences in Helsinki is brought together into a summary. Keywords Agile · Design thinking · Project-based learning · Media and software engineering

5.1 Introduction Design thinking framework (as mentioned in the Chapter 2 in this book) is a mindset, which includes various methods for executing the aims of the mindset. Design thinking is a user centred approach which aspires to create surprising but still fitting solutions to business or social challenges. From business perspective, it aims to enhance customer experiences for companies’ benefits and the social entrepreneurship focuses in introducing economically viable solutions to challenging social issues. While user centred design has been applied with diverse principles from as early as end of 1990s, design thinking introduces a methodology, which allows to turn the problems upside down so that solutions that have not been thought of become visible and viable (Baeck & Gremett, 2011). The best-known ideas of design thinking P. Vesikivi (B) · M. Bauters · J. Holvikivi Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] M. Bauters e-mail: [email protected] M. Bauters School of Digital Technologies, Tallinn University, Narva Road 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_5

75

76

P. Vesikivi et al.

are the aim to “empathise with users”, define the problem statement in unheard-of ways, collaborating, and thinking out of the box. On these grounds, designers should be able to introduce solutions to “wicked” problems where no straightforward solutions are available. Most often mentioned methods in design thinking are: activities empathising with users, inspiration methods, ideating for potential solutions, iteratively creating prototypes that a user can interact with, and experimenting with solutions using users engagement as a main criteria (Stanford D.School, 2018). However, design thinking is similarly a challenging mindset to describe and define as is the agile approach (see Chapter 2 in this book). In brief, agile approach refers to iterative product development. Where the following phases design, implementation, and evaluation are revisited several times throughout product development. The aim of this cyclical development is to enhance the product characteristics relying on the user involvement. The approach assures that the final product will meet real world needs. In the educational context, agile learning refers to learning activities which adapt industrial agile product and service design processes. In this chapter, we analyse and compare various ways to include design thinking and agile approach to software and media engineering education. The experimental courses span over twenty years comprising of modules aimed at international student groups with heterogeneous academic backgrounds. As the methods have changed during that time, the latest, Google Ventures (GV) design sprint, is analysed most thoroughly. The Google Ventures has developed a version of sprints called GV Design Sprint1 that is principally intended to help start-up companies find the right focus for their innovations. The method is sufficiently general that it can be applied in other contexts as well, such as in colleges and universities to introduce design thinking, user centred development and innovation to students. Because the product is free and welldocumented, and it can be used without registering with them, the extent of use is hard to estimate. However, for example the Finnish government IT development centre claims that they have tried over 100 product ideas with this method, and found it effective and efficient (Ministry of Finance, 2019).

5.2 Educational Methods in Project-Based Learning Traditional educational methods at universities have included lecturing, writing essays, laboratory work and written exams. However, the understanding that students are human beings who autonomously and continuously construct their knowledge in active participation with other people while working on shared objects (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2012), leads to other methods being included in the educational practice, including inquiry and project-based learning. Project Based Learning (PBL) has been used in the field of engineering successfully for a few decades (Edström & 1 https://gv.com/sprint.

5 Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking

77

Kolmos, 2014). PBL supports autonomous learning, teamwork and communication skills as well as managing complex challenges (Millis & Treagus, 2003). Project Based Learning allows student-centred strategy to be used, which can foster active participation and may engage students on authentic open-ended challenges stemming from real-life phenomena. Collaborative design is essential in engineering activity. While students tend to divide the work into separate tasks for each member of the team, collaborative design underlines the need for joint effort on shared objects which are developed iteratively (Lehtinen, 2003)—such as coding or prototyping. Collaborative learning emphasises working on joint tasks, sharing of responsibility, and establishing a working culture that promotes using various perspectives and different methods when designing solutions together (Dillenbourg, 1999; Lantos et al., 2009). However, collaborative design has some known difficulties. These include an insufficient or inappropriate analysis and understanding of the design problem (Ho, 2000; Mathias, 1993), design fixation towards a particular solution (Mähring & Keil, 2008; Purcell & Gero, 1996), as well as a temptation to reduce the complexity of the problem for reaching a solution faster. The current findings in cognitive science have highlighted the importance of complete physical and emotional participation in the learning process. Learning is efficient with repeated practice and self-acquired knowledge in a physical and social collaborative setting (Lakkala, 2010). One of the key components in understanding users within design thinking mindset is empathy. Empathy has been pinpointed in neuroscience to be the core skill in collaborative work such as design (Wikström et al., 2017). Moreover, investigations have shown that fluent cooperation in teams remote or face-to-face requires empathy (Engel et al., 2014). Besides, it is harder to keep empathy along in remote interactions than face-to-face interactions (Carrier et al., 2015). In this regard, it has been suggested in the field of affective computing that digital systems do not currently consider emotional processes well enough. As a consequence, digital systems transfer well text, images and videos but do not present emotional information or feelings of empathy, which in face to face interaction is integral for interpreting meanings in communication correctly (Zaki & Ochsner, 2012). These research results highlight the importance of using empathy in design but also to design possibilities to communicate emotions and use empathy in digital systems. These aspects are taken seriously in the design thinking mindset. To the point, that design thinking methods are now integrated to various pedagogical approaches for allowing students to learn empathy skills and to practise contextually connected face to face design practices. Next, we will elucidate our experiences in combining design thinking and agile methods into various modules at the Metropolia UAS.

78

P. Vesikivi et al.

5.3 Experiences Form Modules Using Agile and Design Thinking Methods Most developers have to be able to co-operate in diverse teams and to apply flexible working methods. Even though agile methods already are mainstream in the industry, the adaptation of the encompassing changes in development practices into academic curricula has been reluctant. Possibly one of the reasons is the same as in the industry, namely the mismatch of organizational culture with agile thinking. Additionally, accreditation and traditional assessment requirements raise concerns on how to apply flexible practices in education and thus have influenced the slow curriculum development. Initial attempts to introduce agile methods to higher education were executed already more than a decade ago and involved offering separate modules on agile methods. On project modules agile methods have replaced the waterfall approach, enforcing a new kind of project management concept. Key benefit of using agile methods on a module is that it provides for early visibility of problems in the work and enables the teams to make many iterations of the process that supports gaining understanding of the method and the problem at hand. Alternatively, project management and related methods could also be introduced with a module having just lectures and exams, but that approach fails to provide opportunities for profound learning on practising the methods and team work skills. The Metropolia University of Applied Sciences departments of information technology and media engineering have applied project-based learning and client-defined assignments in the curriculum over twenty years, starting already when they were part of the EVTEK UAS. Part of the module work was planned and documented in several EU funded projects, including Netpro, KP-Lab, and CKDCI. Research on the implementations and results has been published in numerous articles (Bauters et al., 2011; Lakkala et al., 2009; Pohjola et al., 2011). The KP Lab project concentrated primarily on trialogical learning (collaborative learning with artefacts) and the CKDCI project on inquiry within design. Moreover, collaborative inquiry and project-based learning in other European universities were benchmarked by the educational development team at Metropolia during 2011–2014. Visited universities included Aalborg University, DTU Copenhagen, University College London and Sheffield Hallam University. Our educational practices have also raised interest in the Danish Accreditation Institution, who visited us early spring in 2018 to learn our educational methods and processes. For providing a deeper view into the practices, we describe here some of the modules that followed project-based learning approach, included a large amount of student collaboration, teamwork, agile and design thinking (DT) methods, and the successive module development. The modules are summarized in Table 5.1. The language of instruction of these modules was mainly English due to the international composition of student teams. Each module is described and analysed separately, and the findings are analysed and summarised in the discussion.

Provide students replacement of work placement: learn work life skills, application development, user engagement, SW development processes, experience in programming

Object-oriented programming (oo) 15 with Java,maths, mechanics, web page creation, English presentation and team skills, project work, scrum, game design

Design and implement application based on customer needs

Business skills, setting up a small company, innovation and creation of product prototype

Software engineering intensive

Game development

Mobile Project

Software Business Start-up

15

15

30

10

Innovation in practice, a real client, user engagement, business planning, application development and processes, give and take feedback, authentic cross cultural and disciplinary teamwork

Application development project

Credits

Learning targets

Module

Table 5.1 Modules using agile methods

45

24

30

15

60–90

Group size

3

3

6

2

10

#implementations

3rd year IT students

3rd year IT students

Sprints. Scrums. Backlog. Kanban and DT

Daily video recorded sprints, weekly face to face review sessions and DT

Weekly sprints and weekly module feedback sessions. Game design skills

Daily scrums (teachers as observers). Backlog. Review meetings and DT skills

4th year + IT and media students in need of work placement

1st year IT students

Weekly project review sessions and DT design, including module feedback

Agile and DT methods

3rd year Industrial Management students and 4th year IT students

Students

5 Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking 79

80

P. Vesikivi et al.

5.3.1 Application Development Project (ADP) Application Development Project (ADP) is a 14 weeks long project where students from industrial management and software engineering form teams around topics provided by partner companies and develop an application as well as a business case around it. The students meet twice a week to work on their project. The module has been implemented ten times since the year 2009. Some years there have been students from nursing and communications study lines. Typically, one third of the students have been exchange students and international bachelor program students. The teacher team has included two or three software engineering teachers, one or two industrial management and one design thinking teacher. Division to teams has been executed based on students’ responses to the pre-module online questionnaire. In order to maximise the diversity of the teams the rule has been that there must be at least one exchange or international student in each team and there cannot be two international students of the same nationality in any team. Team size has varied between three to six students. During the latest implementation of the ADP module lean service creation canvases (https://leanservicecreation.com) developed by Futurice were used to help students with design thinking steps such as, contextual inquiry, understanding with empathy the users pain points, enhance the end user engagement and requirement capturing. Feedback for design thinking was mixed. The student teams were to use six different canvases. Many student teams felt the canvases to be a burden rather than a helpful tool. The canvas set at leanservicecreation.com is comprehensive and the canvases are designed to enforce creative thinking about the problem at hand. Some students would have wanted to have clearer and more detailed instructions on how to use the canvases and failed to appreciate the value in using the canvas as an object enabling a trialogical approach to learning about the application and business challenge at hand. At the end of the module, some student teams expressed appreciation towards the method, though. It seems that the composition of the team has a substantial effect on the success of the project. Usually teams that have more than one active and ambitious student achieve best results. Furthermore, team diversity has a positive effect on the success: the more diverse the team is, the better results it usually produces. Worst results have been produced by teams that have just one nationality and students from a single major. Having only one active student in the team according to our experience rarely produces optimal results as the rest of the team falls easily into a passive mode expecting the one active person to do the work. Working during studies also affect the team dynamics as the idea is that students would be in the same physical place working on their projects 1.5 days on each week. The students working often fail to be present, which tends to deteriorate the team dynamics. On the other hand, few teams manage to overcome the hurdles with team members not being able to meet each other on weekly basis.

5 Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking

81

5.3.2 Software Engineering Intensive Module (Swengi) Software Engineering Intensive module (Swengi) was an intensive, six hours a day for 15 weeks mobile application development module. The module was targeted to students who had difficulties in finding a work placement in the industry. The aim was to create an authentic work environment that would enable learning work life skills including communication, team- and project work, as well as design and agile methods. The idea of the first implementation was to have the students working in an office for six hours a day for 15 weeks developing a mobile calendar application for university students. The teacher team designing and implementing the module was composed of two software engineering teachers, an English communications teacher and a teacher specialised in design thinking. The first implementation of the module started with one-week intensive practice on iOS application development as the calendar was to be developed for iPhone. After the intensive period the calendar application idea was introduced and the system design for the application was created. 15 students on the module were divided into three teams each responsible for one of the identified sub-systems. Having three five-person teams proved out to be a good way to create an environment that provided enough communication and teamwork challenges for the students. During the intensive module both programming and teamwork skills improved considerably. Furthermore, students learned how to deal with wicked problems and find out information with the help from teammates. Design thinking in this module focussed on the basic concepts of user centred design and on understanding the importance of being able to discuss and disagree on the design suggestions within a team. The second implementation was again organized as a simulated work placement for a group of students, and the task was given by a large newspaper that wanted to attract young audiences to their tablet version. The development of tablet and mobile versions of the newspaper had thus far been centred around iPhone and iPad versions. As the use of Android devices was more common among the younger target audience, they were assumed to need a specifically designed user interface. The client was looking for fresh ideas for the user interface, and how to customize the offer of content especially for students, but no functional product was expected. Project work was relying heavily on the student team’s ability to work independently without instructions. During the 14-week period ability to work independently developed considerably and several students also brought it up in the final interview. During the module we noticed that the presence of teacher had a negative impact on student’s motivation to find information on their own as it was much easier to ask even simple things from the teachers. Student self-evaluation was done continuously in scrum meetings. Very soon it turned out that students reported rather mechanically their progress but actual self-reflection was superficial. Another finding was the lack of detail in reflection and reporting. The fact that the teams had mixed nationalities was considered positive by all participants. On past modules students had formed the teams by themselves ending up with teams that had for instance, only Finnish or only Vietnamese students.

82

P. Vesikivi et al.

Such team formation was felt suboptimal as more diversity in the team generates more pressure for the team members to improve their performance. In the closing session of the project, students were asked to answer the question “What did I learn?” The answers included many technical skills, and most importantly, teamwork skills. Students also mentioned their improvement in multicultural skills. Additionally, they mentioned communication skills, scrum and project skills, presentation skills and English, and finally, stress management. However, students did not mention enhanced user experience or design thinking understanding, user research methods, and actual design skills, which were perceived by the instructors but went unnoticed by students (Holvikivi & Hjort, 2017). All students on the Swengi modules had previously had modules on objectoriented programming, but there were discrepancies in their basic skills such as comparing objects/scalars, using properties, scope of variables etc. It seemed that students overestimated their skills. For instance, one student explained he knows well sql, but did not actually know how to insert a record to a table. It may be that shorter specific IT modules do not provide all students enough opportunities to practice coding and complex challenges to allow accurate estimation of one’s skills.

5.3.3 Game Development Game development was one of the four new first year 15 credit eight-week long modules that Metropolia introduced when the new project-based curriculum was implemented in 2014 (Vesikivi et al., 2019). The aim of the module was to learn team work, communication, OO, design, Java programming and English communications. Software engineering and English communication training were centred around the game development project. The 30 students divided themselves into teams of two or three for the project. The module included also individual programming exercises and exams on object-oriented development with Java. Project initiation was on the first day. During the first week student teams created the game concept and wrote a storyline for the game. Development of the game and related teaching was organised in weekly sprints. A session was held each Friday where concerns about learning were recorded and corrective actions were discussed. Design thinking methodology was partially implemented as the designing of the game was started by finding information about existing games and based on their features brainstorming ideas for games. Each student team brainstormed their own game and utilised the ideas found from existing games. The game ideas were presented to the class to collect feedback for improving the ideas. After the game idea was developed enough, a storyline for the game was written. Next step was to design the object model for the game by identifying potential objects from the storyline. Once there was a working version of the game, it was tested by a peer team. The task to develop a text-based game proved out to be complex enough to make programming challenging, but the task was still attainable with the limited skills in

5 Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking

83

application design and implementation. All teams completed at least a rudimentary version of the game and some even created notably complex and feature rich games. Students appreciated the project-based model as it provided an opportunity to learn team working skills and make a game application that was much more comprehensive than a game done individually would have been. The game application also provided an environment for practicing object-oriented programming with Java (Vesikivi et al., 2015).

5.3.4 Mobile Project In the Mobile project the structure is based on projects from customers. The students are responsible for customer interaction, stakeholder communication and designing, planning, developing and testing of their outcomes iteratively. The module has a minimal number of lectures. The teacher team was composed of four software engineering teachers and one teacher specialised in design thinking. On first day of the module five companies introduced their application ideas or challenges they had to the students. The students formed two or three separate project teams for each customer. The student teams were responsible for the project including the weekly communication with the customer. There were two checking points in the module where the teams presented their process and outcomes to the teachers. In addition, each Friday all teachers were present and discussed with the teams about any hindrances or success the team might be facing. The teams were also asked to have scrums each morning and record these to get feedback from the teachers. During last week of the module there was a kind of product fair where student teams demonstrated their application to their customers. Design thinking was introduced to the teams and some of the customers were demanding that the teams would use of it. Challenge with teaching design thinking seems to be that students initially may not see it worthy, even if after completing the module and finishing the project they start to appreciate the benefits in gaining understanding of customer needs early in the process. Students who learn to understand the need for design thinking, appreciate the templates provided by the site lea nservicecreation.com. Extra effort needs to be put into justifying the need to use a systematic approach in design. However, from our experiences it seems to require involvement in several projects in order to fully appreciate the importance of user centred approach and the tools available for executing it. The daily scrums that were recorded for review and feedback by teachers proved out to be a well-working practice especially in the early part of the module as it provided full visibility to what is happening and by whom in the project. A surprising element in the scrums was that it took several rounds before a team was able to stick to the agenda of each team member in their turn to report what has been done, what will be done and what impediments they were facing.

84

P. Vesikivi et al.

5.3.5 Software Business Start-Up In Software business start-up the design sprint was used as an introduction to user centric design instead of continuous emphasis during the module. The main aim of including a design sprint to the software business start-up module was to introduce agile thinking ideas in a compact form and on the other hand, let students practice innovation process in a relaxed setting that would foster creativity. In many modules where students have been asked to develop a software product such as a website or a mobile application based on their own product ideas, students tend to be cautious in selecting an idea. They focus on getting a product prototype implemented, and often choose something that is close to their own everyday experience such as personal time-management, finding a restaurant or concert, etc. However, in the software business start-up students were encouraged to find innovative ideas for a start-up company that would have chances on the extremely competitive market of mobile applications. The Google Ventures (GV) design sprint was chosen because it is welldocumented, it has a large user base in industry, and it applies the most important ideas of agile development and design thinking. It can be introduced quickly, and its progress is intuitive and systematic. It does not require much earlier knowledge of any of the methods, even though some previous exposure to team work, design thinking and user centred methods is helpful. Currently, most information technology students are aware of agile methods, and as they know that they are important in the industry, they are eager to learn them. The GV sprint method has a book as well as a website that contains a schedule for the sprint, a list of supplies and equipment that is needed, plus a set of short videos where the five days of the sprint are introduced. Students like to follow the videos, because they commonly practice new skills by watching videos anyway. We have implemented the design sprint twice in the beginning of the software business start-up module that lasts eight weeks for third-year bachelor students in an international group. The module offers some new technical knowledge, mainly the MEAN method for implementing web applications (Mongo database, Javascript and Node.js servers), business skills such as accounting, financial statements, and start-up business basics. The idea of the module was to practice business skills by creating a mock start-up and developing a product prototype. During this module, the first week was spent in getting familiar with the technology, and starting to set up the tools for development. The second week was devoted to the design sprint. 45 students were divided into seven teams by the instructor. The teams were formed in a way that they had a diverse composition of female and male students, and from several nationalities. The reason for the diversity was to allow students to know as many different types of fellow students as possible to set up innovative business project teams. The product ideas that were developed for the sprint were intended to be for practice only, but in some cases, students decided to continue with the same idea for their business case.

5 Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking

85

The instructions for the design sprint were adapted to educational setting, and that modified the schedule into four days. The guidelines were explained to the student teams. Two large classrooms were booked for the whole time, and they were supplied with whiteboards, flap-paper boards, and a huge amount of post-it stickers. The students used their own laptops for documenting their progress in a cloud-document that consisted their log. All documentation was shared among all participants. Students also used their own smartphones to take photos and videos of their prototypes and user testing sessions. One teacher was available for consultation during the whole time, additionally, other teachers dropped occasionally in the classroom to discuss the progress. The sprint schedule instructions looked as follows: • Day 1: Each day follows the same basic structure of the teacher explaining the sprint and giving guidelines. The guidelines are composed of GV video and a simplified checklist adapted from the GV design sprint check lists. The day 1 contains dividing roles in the team, selecting a challenge and finding deeper information of the challenge from net and experts. • Day 2 focuses on the solutions. The day is composed of various sketching and reviewing methods. • Day 3 aims to find the target and guides the team to create many storyboards from which they select through review processes the main storyboard or combination of storyboard to be developed further. • During day 4 the teams create prototypes and experiment the prototypes with users, after which they analyse the feedback and list improvements and next steps that they would take in case they continue with the idea. The international student teams were rather heterogeneous, consisting of students from Vietnam, Nepal, Western and Eastern Europe, and Africa. All teams completed their sprint successfully on time, and delivered that was asked: a prototype, a log and user testing results. Many of the teams were happy enough with the experience to continue the module with the same team members during the business development process, even though they could reorganise after the initial sprint.

5.4 Discussion Based on the experience from the modules described above, it is apparent that agile methods and design thinking are very useful ways of providing project-based modules with a structure and process that not only helps to keep the progress on track, but also caters for learning team working skills. This chapter summarises our thinking on the benefits and disadvantages of using these methods on project-based modules. Firstly, we will discuss the team work, and secondly our experience on design thinking and agile methods. Agile methods and design thinking include a substantial amount of team work, which has its known challenges. Similarly, to real world project team forming, it is

86

P. Vesikivi et al.

a crucial step in project-based courses. Team forming can be approached in various ways including random selection of team members, maximising diversity through pre-set teams, letting the teams form around a topic or letting the students form their teams. Forming teams based on student’s interest on a topic seems to produce motivated and, in many cases, successful teams. However, on modules where there are diverse projects from multiple customers this kind of an approach is not optimal, as it would leave some customers without a team. A halfway-house between teams formed around a topic and forced teams has been the least successful team forming strategy. Freely chosen teams with rules like each team needs to have one international student and one Finnish student sometimes produces diverse teams, but if there is only one international student in a team, the risk is that he is left out of even some important team discussions and decisions due to language problems. According to research in social psychology, certain diversity factors influence the success of group processes, namely interpersonal attraction, and characteristics of group members such as openness to experience (Levine, 2013). In our projects, teams consisted of several nationalities, which also required that cross-cultural communication issues were identified. Therefore, instructors needed to have cross-cultural experience and training. Nevertheless, similarly to findings in organizational psychology of workplace contexts, diversity has turned out to be beneficial for creativity, and quality and variety of innovations by the teams (Levine, 2013). One-nationality teams tend to display stereotypical behaviour such as reluctance to take risks whereas in multinational teams’ students become more open to unexpected challenges and ideas. In creative student teams, it is important to overcome the factors related to production loss such as social loafing, evaluation apprehension, production blocking, and downward comparison. One of the means is to ensure that team members are held accountable for their individual contributions to the team. This has been achieved by peer-evaluation of project work, as well as regular weekly exams on theoretical learning. The positive outcomes from the design sprint in software business start-up included efficient learning of the method, and enhanced teamwork skills. Importantly, all teams continued to apply methods that they had learnt during the sprint, using daily or at least weekly scrum meetings, developing their ideas on post-it stickers, and discussing in open spirit their innovation development. The student teams face several challenges, some of which were addressed by the sprint method implicitly. The dominance of vocal students is mitigated by the demand to give turns in discussion to all team members, as well as the requirement for voting for proposed ideas. That also reduces criticism, when ideas go through a selective process and discarded ideas can be kept for future reference. Less criticism leads to more creativity and better innovations, which is a central business skill that was also an intended outcome of the module. The group processes have been studied extensively, in particular in business context, and the main reasons for success and failure have been found to be connected to group cohesion and leadership (Levine, 2013). Furthermore, team members should feel free to express their ideas as they occur without fear of others’ criticisms, and members must be motivated to process information from other members. Research

5 Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking

87

has proven effectively that successful real-world collaborative groups have a common vision and set of values. Moreover, transformational leadership improves group cohesion. It occurs where the leader takes a visionary position and inspires people to follow (Levine, 2013). Establishing leadership in student teams is problematic as students often are reluctant to assume that role. Instructors of student teams must encourage team decision-making and to monitor closely the progress of team work. If the roles in a team are assigned firmly as is the case in the GV design sprint, it greatly assists in the progress. On the other hand, the agile method supports efficient learning as it allows changes in the plans. To ensure relaxed conditions in student teams, instructors have a crucial role, as well. When the teacher team is fully committed in developing their teaching and educational methods, their caring and enthusiastic attitude is conveyed to the students and reflected by their behaviour. Student feedback always focuses much on the teachers and their abilities and character, which mirrors the importance of teacher attitudes. Software engineers should not only be proficient in software engineering, but also have understanding of design thinking concepts. Introduction of design thinking methods has its challenges. Design thinking is particularly hard to grasp as it is more a mindset than a set of methods for executing design process always in a similar manner. Prior to adopting GV design sprint, design thinking was introduced gradually during the modules in weekly sessions and workshops. Most of the students did understand the value in design thinking, but it was still often felt as a secondary subject as their main aim was to learn programming. Other drawback of the gradual introduction has been that the programming related tasks tend to pile up towards the end of the project and thus eat up all available time leaving design thinking at a low priority. Students find it hard to select the methods for design thinking and need clear, detailed guidelines for the process and deliverables. It seems that GV design sprint is way of overcoming the above-mentioned hurdles as it defines a clear, structured and documented approach for a five-day design sprint. Furthermore, it forces the team members to trust each other and create the set deliverables. The design sprint process had a strict schedule where results of each day were reported immediately, which prevented procrastination. Most students tend to work hard only when the deadline approaches, therefore it helps to give them short deadlines and to split the process into small increments, which exactly is the agile idea. Because of the very practical hands-on methods for idea creation, organization and development, the target remains visible. In the final feedback, students also felt that they had improved their communication skills in addition to the other mentioned skills. The requirement of being physically present and not through virtual communication brought the students better together, and allowed more than just verbal communication: they could see each other’s body language and develop mutual working habits. Cognitive science studies have shown that people synchronize their behaviour when being close, which also develops empathy skills towards each other (Wikström et al., 2017). Quite often students would like to jump straight on implementing the application, which is kind of according to the agile principles, where each sprint ends up with demo

88

P. Vesikivi et al.

of the application. However, when a new application is created by inexperienced students, it would be important to first learn more about the end user requirements to form a solid basis for implementation of the application. Design sprint in the beginning of the module helps the students spend effort on designing the application instead of proceeding directly to implementation of the application. It forces the team to focus on user prior to implementation, which helps in constructing and prioritizing the product backlog. Moreover, design sprint pushes students to test the application with potential users prior to implementing it. Feedback from students has been that following the design sprint method, they started not only understand the importance of design thinking, but also find ways of coping with the uncertainty related to solving wicked problems. Having the design thinking teaching compressed to intensive design sprint in the same room allows the students to fully focus on design and thus the other course topics do not eat up time of learning design thinking methods.

5.5 Conclusions As agile methods are the industry norm in IT system development, it is important that they are used in all IT projects students will do as part of their studies. Even if agile methods are not very complex, it looks like that their adoption requires substantial support from the teacher team. Especially, understanding and appreciating the need for short standing scrums is hard and usually comes later after the module or through experience in work life. It could also be related to the fact that daily scrum sessions easily make visible the individual efforts and achievements in the project. Besides, the need for the sprint plan is not clear as there are also the daily scrums. This might be related to the general aspect of trying to plan ahead. Scrum also underlines the challenges that students have with agency to organise their own studies, work and learning. Our long experience with project-based modules and student teamwork has mainly been positive, leading to deeper student understanding of development processes and challenges in developing new applications without sacrificing individual programming and other technical skills. As analysed in the discussion above, the methods require constant monitoring and devotion from the teacher teams. However, when students have participated in several project-based modules and have had their handson with agile methods, they acquire skills that improve their efficiency significantly and prepare them for industry demands. On the other hand, these methods are flexible and low-cost, and can be applied in a variety of settings and environments. Based on our experience, use of modified GV design sprint combined with an agile process like scrum develop understanding of the importance of design thinking and ways of tackling complex problems in an organised and documented way. Furthermore, design sprint and agile methods are a great tool for increasing team cohesion and team work in general.

5 Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking

89

Acknowledgements Thank you for your cooperation and contribution.

References Baeck, A., & Gremett, P. (2011). Design thinking. In H. Degen & X. Yuan (Eds.), UX best practices— How to achieve more impact with user experience. Mcgraw-Hill Osborne Media. Bauters, M., Lakkala, M., Paavola, S., Kosonen, K., & Markkanen, H. (2011). KPE (Knowledge Practices Environment) supporting knowledge creation. In N. Callaos, M. Savoie, M. Siddique, & C. Dale Zinn (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Applications (ICTA 2011) and The International Conference on Information Design and Modeling in Science, Education, and Technology (DeMset 2011) (pp. 84–89). Carrier, L. M., Spradlin, A., Bunce, J. P., Rosen, L. D. (2015). Virtual empathy: Positive and negative impacts of going online upon empathy in young adults. Computers in human behavior. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.) (1999), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Advances in Learning and Instruction Series. Elsevier. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Elsevier. Edström, K., & Kolmos, A. (2014). PBL and CDIO: Complementary models for engineering education development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 539–555. Encyclopedia of software engineering. (2002). Wiley Online Library. Engel, D., Woolley, A. W., Jing, L. X., & Chabris, C. F. (2014). Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PloSONE, 9(12), e115212. Ho, C. (2000). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: Differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22, 27–45. Holvikivi, J., & Hjort, P. (2017). Agile development in software engineering instruction. In A. Tatnall & M. Webb (Eds.), Tomorrow’s Learning: Involving Everyone. Learning With and About Technologies and Computing. WCCE 2017. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology (Vol. 515, pp. 609–618). Springer. Lakkala, M. (2010). How to design educational settings to promote collaborative inquiry: Pedagogical infrastructures for technology-enhanced progressive inquiry. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki. Lakkala, M., Paavola, S., Kosonen, K., Muukkonen, H., Bauters, M., & Markkanen, H. (2009). Main functionalities of the knowledge practices environment (KPE) affording knowledge creation practices in education. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer supported collaborative learning— (CSCL ’09), Vol. 1. International Society of the Learning Sciences (pp. 297–306). Lantos, G. P., Brady, D. L., & McCaskey, P. H. (2009). New product development: An overlooked but critical course. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(6), 425–436. Lehtinen, E. (2003) Computer supported collaborative learning: An approach to powerful learning environments, In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. Van Merrie¨boer (Eds.), Unraveling basic components and dimensions of powerful learning environments (pp. 35–53). Elsevier. Levine, J. M. (Ed.). (2013). Group processes. Psychology Press. Mähring, M., & Keil, M. (2008). Information technology project escalation: A process model. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 239–272. Mathias, J. R. (1993). A study of the problem solving strategies used by expert and novice designers (PhD thesis). University of Aston, Birmingham, UK.

90

P. Vesikivi et al.

Millis, J. E., & Treagus, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 11, 2–16. Ministry of Finance in Finland. (2019). https://vm.fi. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). Trialogical approach for knowledge creation. In S. C. Tan, H. J. So, & J. Yeo (Eds.), Knowledge creation in education (pp. 53–73). Springer. Pohjola, M. V., Pohjola, P., Paavola, S., Bauters, M., & Tuomisto, J. T. (2011). Pragmatic knowledge services. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 17(3), 472–497. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs017-03-0472. Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17, 363–383. Stanford D.School. (2018, December 4). https://dschool.stanford.edu/. Vesikivi, P., Hjort, P., Lakkala, M., Holvikivi, J., & Lukkarinen, S. (2015). Adoption of a new Project-Based Learning (PBL) curriculum in information technology. In The Proceedings of the 43rd Annual SEFI Conference. Vesikivi, P., Lakkala, M., Holvikivi, J., & Muukkonen, H. (2019). The impact of project-based learning curriculum on first-year retention, study experiences, and knowledge work competence. Research Papers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1677755. Wikström, V., Makkonen, T., & Saarikivi, K. (2017). SynKin: A game for intentionally synchronizing biosignals. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3005–3011). ACM. Zaki, J., & Ochs.ner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls and promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 675

Chapter 6

The Design of a Problem-Based Learning Platform for Engineering Education H. Tsalapatas, C. Vaz de Carvalho, A. A. Bakar, S. Salwah, R. Jamillah, and O. Heidmann

Abstract Engineering higher education is in need of modernization of practices towards linking student skills to labour market needs. The challenge for engineering schools is to develop well rounded professionals who are able to transfer the knowledge and skills developed through academic initiatives to real world professional practices upon transitioning to the world of work. As engineering professionals, they will need a sound theoretical background and practical skills. In addition, they will need transversal competencies demanded by industry, including analytical thinking, entrepreneurial mind sets, collaboration skills in multicultural environments, leadership skills, and others. Active learning as a pedagogical approach contributes to the capacity of students to apply newly developed knowledge in the field by exposing them to problems, projects, or other activities in which they are challenged to introduce solutions in a hands-on manner. This work presents an active learning framework that promotes more direct student engagement in learning. The solution involves physical labs as well as a digital service that promotes access to rich educational content, collaboration, and know-how exchange. The solution is being designed by a network of European and South Asian universities integrating needs from diverse cultural, economic, and educational environments. H. Tsalapatas (B) · O. Heidmann CTLL Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece e-mail: [email protected] C. Vaz de Carvalho Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Politécnico do Porto, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida, 431, P4200-072 Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] A. A. Bakar · S. Salwah · R. Jamillah Department of Software Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia e-mail: [email protected] S. Salwah e-mail: [email protected] R. Jamillah e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_6

91

92

H. Tsalapatas et al.

Keywords Active learning · Problem-based learning · Engineering education · Skills mismatches

6.1 Introduction The fast evolution of technology in innovation related sectors, such as engineering, has led to a redistribution of jobs. Industry is in need of skilled personnel in technology related sectors (Moretti, 2012). Moreover, innovation related sectors create five time more jobs than it is possible to fill (Moretti, 2012). The rapid evolution of technology is a driver for high growth in innovation related sectors. It enables the introduction of new services that are in high demand by the public. On the other hand, this high demand and desire for innovative solutions leads to the development of even more emerging business opportunities. An example is the digital market, which has been fueled by significant advances in network connectivity and speed, enabling the development and fueling the demand for digital services addressing diverse sectors that range from government to education, banking, online commerce. However, most of the sectors still are in need of mature big data to put into use the real power of digital services (see Castelo-Branco et al., 2019). This fast evolution of technology, and the resulting public desire for ever easier access to richer services has led to a high demand for skilled personnel by service developers. One of the inhibitors to growth is the lack of availability of skilled personnel for pursuing emerging business opportunities in sectors such as ICT according to the New Skills Agenda for Europe (European Commission, 2016). According to a recent survey by Deloitte and SEMI (2017), 82% of executives in the semiconductor sector reported a shortage of qualified technical candidates. According to a similar study by Deloitte for the manufacturing sector, skills gaps may leave an estimated 21.4m positions unfilled in the USA between 2018 and 2028 (Deloitte, 2018). The above demonstrate a need of addressing skills mismatches in innovation related sectors. According to the Investing in Europe’s Youth Communication (European Commission, 2017a), the investment in skills can contribute to the fighting of unemployment, innovation, competitiveness, and social fairness. The high demand for skilled personnel challenges engineering schools to keep educational offerings updated in the face of fast evolving technical innovation. Schools are in need of developing the technical and theoretical background of students as well as “soft” skills including collaboration, leadership, entrepreneurial mindsets, and creativity. This need is highlighted in the Agenda for the Modernization of Higher Education roadmap (European Commission, 2017b), which argues that higher education institutions are in need of aligning the skills they build to society, to drive innovation, and to link their academic programs to the needs of people, companies, and public services in their regions for benefitting their surrounding areas.

6 The Design of a Problem-Based Learning …

93

Modernising higher education programs for addressing the needs of industry and society can be addressed through a range of interventions (European Commission, 2017b). Updating educational approaches through emerging educational frameworks, such as active learning, promotes the transferability of the skills developed to professional settings. Deploying digital technologies allows students to explore emerging mediums towards building knowledge and skills. Designing learning activities around real world challenges demonstrates the link between education and real life (European Commission, 2017b). This work presents a learning intervention for updating engineering higher education through active and problem based educational frameworks enabled by digital technology. The intervention aims to address the challenges that higher education institutions face in their modernization efforts, including the lack of physical infrastructure, lack of supporting digital services and content, and instructor training. The framework is being designed and developed in the context of project ALIEN: Active Learning in Engineering Education (2017), which brings together universities from Portugal, Greece, Estonia, Bulgaria, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Nepal. The project aims to build a community for the exchange of experiences and good practices towards making active and problem-based learning a strategic educational choice in engineering universities.

6.2 Challenges Towards Modernizing Engineering Higher Education Bridging the gaps between the skills build in academia and those demanded by industry requires the alignment of higher education practices to industry and societal needs. The need for the modernization of higher education is highlighted in flagship initiatives for promoting smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth (European Commission, 2011). Growth strategies in Europe include targets raising the higher education completion rates to at least 40% for individuals aged 30–34 by 2020 and increasing employment rates among individuals aged 24–65 to 75% by addressing skills gaps (European Commission, 2010). In addition, the need for high level skills, as those developed by higher education, is constantly increasing. By 2020 it is expected that 35% of jobs will require high level qualifications (CEDEFOP, 2015). On the other hand, South Asia’s emerging economies have high growth prospects, estimated at 6.1% (OECD, 2018) for the period 2019–2023. High growth introduces challenges to higher education in terms of building the skills and competencies required for fuelling sustainable development. While each country has individual strengths and faces different challenges, some similarities exist in countries of interest in the ALIEN project (Tsalapata et al., 2019), namely Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Nepal. These include fighting unemployment, addressing inefficiencies, balancing the demand and supply of higher education, increasing enrolment,

94

H. Tsalapatas et al.

recognising qualifications, and ensuring that skilled graduates enter the work market to support development (OECD, 2012, 2013a, b, c). Another key objective in Nepal is making basic education accessible to all (Danida, 2004). The modernisation of higher education requires addressing the shortcomings of educational systems as well as the daily challenges faced by educational institutions. Modernising higher education involves a number of actions. These actions include the following; Updating educational methodologies through the integration of emerging learning design; Active, problem-based, and experiential learning build skills through action, ensuring that skills are transferable to the world of work; The adoption of innovative learning design requires instructor training for building the capacity of individuals and institutions to effectively enrich educational experiences (European Commission, 2017b). Bringing education to the digital age (European Commission, 2018). Even today, the digital divide is evident in higher education, with disparities on the access of students to digital services and content. Digitally enabling higher education requires the development of basic infrastructure at educational institutions in the form of labs and networking infrastructure. This can be facilitated by initiatives include the development of a single platform for online learning, blended mobility, virtual campuses, and exchange of good practices (European Commission, 2018). It further requires enabling access to open educational content and services, which is a key strategical objective of the European Commission Education and Training 2020 objectives (European Commission, ET2020). Finally, it is not possible to upgrade educational offerings without updating the skills of educators. In this context, providing initial and continuing skill development for instructors on how to enrich educational practices through emerging pedagogies and information technology both in initial and continuing education is important for promoting quality of educational offerings.

6.3 Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education Active learning refers to any educational activity that allows students to build knowledge through higher engagement, by doing. Active learning is a broad term that covers diverse approaches that differ in the manner and intensity of learner engagement (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Problem-based learning is an active learning approach that challenges learners to build skills by solving a specific problem, usually inspired by real life situations (Barrows, 1986; Savery & Duffy, 1995). Problem-based learning was first introduced in medical curricula (Barrows, 1996). Medical students are building knowledge by being exposed to specific cases and challenged to provide a diagnosis and suggest a course of action for improving a patient’s condition. Problem-based learning is now broadly deployed at all educational levels. Students engaged in problem-based learning are called to understand a given problem and its parameters, analyse potential solution approaches, break it down to tasks, and synthesise a solution by combining those to smaller, easier to tackle puzzles. The

6 The Design of a Problem-Based Learning …

95

instructor assumes a role of facilitator that guides students through the discovery and learning process (Boud & Feletti, 1997). In engineering education, problem-based learning offers significant learning benefits. In addition to building core knowledge, the method promotes the development of critical and analytical thinking skills, inquiry, collaboration, and entrepreneurial mindsets. The methodology helps build problem-solving capacity. In addition, the methodology facilitates the understanding of principles that involve the linking of diverse concepts. Furthermore, it helps students apply newly developed knowledge in the field (Gijbels et al., 2005). The problem-based methodology also builds motivation for engaging in learning, critical thinking, and entrepreneurial mindsets. In real life learning scenarios, problem-based learning can be applied both offand on-line. Digital technology, however, can contribute to the enrichment of related activities by increasing interaction and collaboration and by providing complementary environments for hands-on experimentation. Digital tools can enhance educational experiences throughout the problem-solving process from problem statement identification, to parameter analysis, collaboration, and solution synthesis. Types of digital tools that can support problem-based learning include simulations, serious games, collaboration services, content sharing services, virtual learning environments, communities, and more. As an example, the eCity learning application (eCity, 2013) helps build engineering skills by exposing students to problems the solution to which requires the combination of knowledge from diverse subjects.

6.4 Objectives of the ALIEN Active Learning Intervention Capacity Building in Higher Education project ALIEN introduces an active learning intervention for engineering education. The approach is based on problem-based learning environments addressing real-life issues related to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) concepts. The intervention aims to facilitate the more effective transition of students from the academic environment to the world of work. The ALIEN active learning intervention addresses challenges related to the modernisation of higher education. Active learning intervention builds core engineering knowledge through digital activities that are linked to engineering curricula. The intervention helps to build links between education and industry by addressing skills mismatches through learning scenarios inspired by real life industry and societal challenges. It promotes the deployment of digital technology as a complementary learning medium that enriches student engagement and provides meaningful feedback. Moreover, the intervention builds transversal skills that help students excel independently of subject area, including analytical and critical thinking, entrepreneurial capacity, ability to collaborate in an international environment, capacity for independent work, presentation skills, and more.

96

H. Tsalapatas et al.

6.5 Addressing Institutional Challenges on the Adoption of Problem-Based Learning The ALIEN active learning intervention aims to address the challenges that higher education institutions face towards modernizing engineering learning offerings. Specifically, it aims to address infrastructure shortcomings, access to digital services and content, and instructor capacity building for facilitating the broad adoption of active learning at the institutional level.

6.5.1 Physical Infrastructure In relation to infrastructure development, ALIEN builds physical laboratories in 12 South Asian universities in Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Nepal. The laboratories are tailored to the institutional needs of each organization and aim to digitally enable active learning practices by providing the technological means for integrating digital services and educational content into learning. The lab specifications include a number of workstations that support individual work. They further include projectors, often in the form of smart TV’s that promote collaboration at the team and the class level. Finally, they promote the deployment of digital tools such as serious games, simulations, and AR/VR in educational contexts through specialized tools. Additional specialised equipment includes writable surfaces that allow students to collectively work on the design of solutions as well as 3D printers that allow the testing of prototypes. The physical organisation of the labs aims to promote collaboration in the context of active and problem-based learning. Equipment is installed in “islands”, i.e. round tables that allow students to work in groups. A good example is the laboratory developed at the University of Malaya in Malaysia. Each island includes a workstation, a writable surface, equipment for programming robotics solutions (Arduino® and Rasberry Pi®), and a smart TV for projecting information.

6.5.2 A Digital Platform for Supporting Problem-Based Learning in Engineering Education The physical infrastructure is supported by digital services that facilitate exploration, experimentation, and collaboration in the context of problem-based learning. The digital services are designed for use as a complementary educational service that enriches educational activities through higher engagement, higher interaction, and feedback. They provide access to rich, digitally enabled educational content

6 The Design of a Problem-Based Learning …

97

that enriches problem-based learning practices in engineering contexts. In addition to enriching classroom collaboration, the digital services further facilitate student interaction across participating universities through transnational educational activities. The ALIEN digital collaboration platform includes services for educators, for students, and for community building around the topic of problem-based learning.

6.5.2.1

Digital Services for Educators and Students

The ALIEN digital services aim to provide an environment for educators through which they can structure and publish problems and activities as well as have access to a rich base of content published by peers. For publishing a problem, the platform guides educators to organize information in a manner that will allow its reuse. The problems published through the platform typically deploy digital tools. Information published on a problem includes activity goals, learning objectives, context in which the activity may be executed, instructions that the educator can provide to students for executing the activities, supporting resources that the educator can provide to students, instructions to educators aiming to facilitate the reuse of the content, additional activities suggested for early finishers, and potential variations of the activity. In addition, the educator can indicate the duration of execution of the activity, the language used, keywords, and tags. Activities are categorised by thematic area, such as electrical engineering, computer engineering, data sciences, materials sciences, and others. Higher granularity of thematic areas is also available within each discipline. The activities may be published in English or in the national language of the contributor. Figure 6.1 demonstrates an example of a screen that an educator may see while browsing for activities on interest. In addition to browsing for an activity of interest, an educator may also search for problems of interest using keywords related to a problem category, author, language, duration of execution, and more. An educator further has access to services for managing her problems, including editing their descriptions and creating new problems from existing ones. Educators can activities that deploy diverse types of digital resources. The resources can be in the form of digital learning games, simulations, or other applications and services that challenge students to deploy theoretical knowledge in practical contexts towards solving problems inspired by industry and social challenges. Upon publishing a problem, an educator has the option of suggesting one or more PBLEXs, namely structured activities that students can implement in the context of broader blended learning. An educator can organize an educational activity in steps, for each he can provide a set of specific instructions that guide student work. At the end of each step, the students may turn in deliverables and discuss outcomes in class for reinforcing new knowledge. Each PBLEX activity has a code that distinguishes participating students.

98

H. Tsalapatas et al.

Fig. 6.1 A collection of educational activities published in the ALIEN problem-based learning platform

The students, on the other hand, can browse the ALIEN database of problems. They can further join a PBLEX structured activity, implementing the steps that their instructor provides.

6.5.2.2

Community Building Services

The ALIEN digital problem-based learning platform has a strong community building component. The objective of these services is to encourage know-how exchange among educators, experts, industry players, and students on good practices related to the deployment of problem-based learning in engineering higher education. The community building services, demonstrated in Fig. 6.2 include forums that focus on special interests. The community services are open to all parties interested in problem-based learning. Community members may post or respond to posts by others. They may also

6 The Design of a Problem-Based Learning …

99

Fig. 6.2 Special interest groups in the ALIEN community building services

manage their profile, get connected to friends, send and receive messages, review their own activity and the activity of other community members, and post to forums. One important feature of the community building services is the special interest groups. These groups aim at further promoting problem-based learning through conversations among community members on topics related to problem-based learning. Examples of topics of collaboration include integrating problem-based learning with gamification practices, artificial intelligence in education and problem-based learning, problem-based learning tools and approaches, problem-based learning in specific areas such as software engineering, and problem-based learning good practices in the countries in which university partners are located, including Portugal, Greece, Estonia, Bulgaria, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Nepal.

6.5.3 Instructor Capacity Building Insufficient instructor training is identified as one of the inhibitors of modernising higher education. The ALIEN instructor capacity building services aim to empower educational institutions to effectively integrate digitally-enabled problem-based learning activities to already well-designed educational practices for better preparing students to enter the workforce. Instructors are an integral part of problem-based learning interventions as they assume the role of mentor, guiding students through the implementation of educational activities (Boud & Feletti, 1997).

100

H. Tsalapatas et al.

ALIEN instructor training activities aim to build educator skills on problem-based learning in general and the ALIEN proposed learning intervention in particular. It aims to promote problem-based learning concepts, to expose educators to good practices and problem-based learning activities for engineering education, and to familiarise them with the ALIEN physical labs and digital services and how these can digitally enable existing educational activities. Instructor training activities include the development of skill building material on themes such as problem-based learning, active learning, experiential learning, blended learning, inclusive learning and teaching, gamification, and VR in education. Additional material includes reference guides for the ALIEN digital platform and suggestions on extra curricula activities related to problem-based learning. A series of instructor training sessions are taking place at all university partner sites. One of the strengths of the ALIEN project is its broad consortium of partners that span 10 counties in Europe and South Asia. Transnational training events in the form of webinars and physical meetings further contribute to the exchange of experiences and good practices on problem-based learning in diverse cultural, academic, and economic environments, bringing together educators and students. Figure 6.3 demonstrates instructor training that took place at the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur with the participation of educators from all universities engaged in the ALIEN project.

Fig. 6.3 Instructor training activities taking place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in January 2019

6 The Design of a Problem-Based Learning …

101

6.6 Experiences from the Deployment of Problem-Based Learning in Engineering Higher Education The ALIEN digital problem-based learning platform is currently in use in participating universities. The platform is being deployed in different ways at each site, taking into account individualised organisational needs as well as academic objectives tailored to the economic and social environment in each country.

6.6.1 In Greece In Greece, the platform is being deployed in the context of a number of courses at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering of the University of Thessaly. These include both core and elective courses in all years of study. The platform provides a means through which instructors can share challenges that are directly linked to engineering educational curricula and are inspired by real world activities. Examples of course in which the platform is currently being deployed include technology in education, databases, data extraction, game design, programming, image processing, and others. An example of an activity deployed at the University of Thessaly involves a serious game designed for building programming skills among school learners (Coding4Girls, 2019). Higher education students enrolled in the Technology in Education course of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering deploy the environment for structuring digitally enabled educational activities, demonstrating how technology can enrich interaction and enhance feedback towards reaching educational goals related to programming. The digital solution includes services for teachers and students. Teacher services introduce an easy to use web-based interface through which they can structure programming activities that students can execute in steps. The environment enables teachers to introduce a high-level project and then break it down into small, manageable coding tasks that demonstrate programming concepts. The student services are demonstrated in Fig. 6.4. The services are in the form of a 3D environment that supports learners in the executing of the programming activities that their teacher has introduced. The students log into their class through a unique identifier that the teacher provides for controlling access. The 3D environment integrates mini games for demonstrating programming concepts with collaboration and programming activities. Upon being introduced to an overall challenge, students are encouraged to brainstorm in a group and to post ideas in a common digital canvas towards synthesising a solution as demonstrated in Fig. 6.5. Once students feel comfortable with their proposed solution, they can access mini games through the digital environment that demonstrate concepts such as structuring loops, introducing sounds, matching patterns, changing the appearance of an object,

102

H. Tsalapatas et al.

Fig. 6.4 The Coding4Girls 3D student digital environment that promotes programming skills

managing strings, introducing randomness, and more. Once they feel comfortable with their drafted solutions, students are encouraged to actually code it using the Snap! (Mönig & Harvey, 2019) environment. Upon completion of the coding sessions students present their solutions and have the opportunity to review the solutions of others, discussing concepts such as optimisation. Additional problems are being contributed by other Greek universities, including the School of Science and Technology of the Hellenic Open University and the Department of Computer Science of the University of Crete. One of the activities involves the OnLabs (2016) digital application developed by the Hellenic Open University, which constitutes an adventure game that simulates the use of a biology lab (Zafeiropoulos et al., 2014). The application can be deployed in the context of wider lab activities to familiarise students with the function of the lab’s equipment, such as the Optonic microscope, before being exposed to the actual lab facilities. Challenges contributed by the University of Crete involve data management activities in the context of databases courses.

6 The Design of a Problem-Based Learning …

103

Fig. 6.5 A digital collaboration canvas for student brainstorming in programming activities

6.6.2 In Malaysia The ALIEN intervention is currently deployed at the University of Malaysia, that has developed the TEALS learning space designed for conducting active learning classes in the Software Engineering Department, FCSIT. The aim of creating the learning space is to equip software engineering students for the workplace to solve future problems, and to improve the psychomotor, cognitive and affective skills in teaching and learning software engineering courses. To achieve this aim, hardware and software are used in the active learning process to strike a good balance between emphasising knowledge and application of the knowledge. The equipment consists mainly of programmable hardware which could be related to software engineering and current industrial usages such as the Internet of Things (IOT), Machine Learning and Cloud Computing. TEALS consists of seven islands with 7–8 students per island. Each island is equipped with movable workstations, monitors, writable surface, Arduino, and Raspberry Pi. TEALS is also equipped with programmable autonomous car, 3D printer, and programmable drones. In the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) course, the project assigned to the students was conducted through problem-based learning using the TEALS lab with the intention of covering the following topics: design principles, conceptual design method, storyboarding, personas and usability testing. The students were called to

104

H. Tsalapatas et al.

design, prototype and evaluate an interactive game and to apply the knowledge and content of the HCI course in real-life situations using Arduino/Raspberry Pi, 3D printer, and writable surface. The students were asked to build a LED memory game using the equipment in the TEALS lab to collaborate in groups, to brainstorm, to share information, to experiment, and to validate their solution. A total of 159 second year students carried out the activities in the spring of the 2018–2019 academic year. The students were divided into 23 groups of 6–7 individuals that collaborated in 5 tutorial sessions. The instructors were able to monitor the progress through an on-line repository in which the 23 groups stored their project work tasks. The reaction of the students to active learning through the TEALS physical lab was very positive. Over 88% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that using game-based approaches as the ones introduced by the project helps them apply the knowledge and content of the HCI course in real life. Over 91% of students agreed or strongly that active learning based on serious games increased their technical and soft skills. Finally, over 91% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that using the TEALS lab in learning is a good example of active approaches applied in higher education.

6.7 Conclusions This work presented a problem-based learning intervention developed in the context of the ALIEN project. The digital platform is part of a vertical learning intervention that aims to build the capacity of engineering organisations to adopt problem-based learning as a strategic educational methodology for preparing students to effectively transition to the world of work. The proposed capacity building approach further involves the development of physical labs as well as instructor training. The digital problem-based learning platform offers services for students and instructors. Through the platform students have access to a rich pool of digitally-enabled challenges, which they can join and execute individually or in groups under the guidance of their instructor. For educators, the platform allows the structured publication of educational activities as well as the sharing of good practices in problembased learning among peers through an international community. The digital services are currently deployed in Portugal, Greece, Estonia, Bulgaria, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Nepal in broad engineering courses enriching the educational experiences of students and instructors through enhanced engagement and interaction. Acknowledgements This work is funded with the support of the Capacity Building for Higher Education Erasmus+ Program of the European Commission. Project ALIEN: Active Learning for Engineering Education, with ID 586297/2017, is implemented from 2017 to 2020.

6 The Design of a Problem-Based Learning …

105

References Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12. Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (AEHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1). Jossey-Bass. ISBN 978-1-878380-08-1. Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning. Psychology Press. Castelo-Branco, I., Cruz-Jesus, F., & Oliveira, T. (2019). Assessing industry 4.0 readiness in manufacturing: Evidence for the European Union. Computers in Industry, 107, 22–32. CEDEFOP. (2015). European skills and jobs survey. Retrieved from https://www.cedefop.europa. eu/files/3072_en.pdf on September 26, 2019. Danida. (2004). Joint Government—Donor of Basic and Primary Education Programme II. Evaluation. Nepal. Danish State Information Centre. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/countries/ nepal/35049393.pdf on January 30, 2018. Deloitte. (2018). Skills gap and future of work in manufacturing study. Deloitte & SEMI. (2017). Workforce Development Survey. European Commission. (2010). Communication from the commission Europe 2020, A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COM PLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20v ersion.pdf on September 26, 2019. European Commission. (2011). Modernisation of higher education in Europe. Funding and social Dimension. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. https://doi.org/ 10.2797/67665. Retrieved from https://commit.eucen.eu/sites/commit.eucen.eu/files/Eurydice% 20Report%202011.pdf on September 26, 2019. European Commission. (2016). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. A new skills agenda for Europe, Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/? uri=CELEX:52016DC0381&from=EN on January 30, 2018. European Commission. (2017a). Investing in Europe’s youth. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2016:940:FIN&from=FR on January 30, 2018. European Commission. (2017b). Modernisation of higher education in Europe: Academic staff. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. https://doi.org/10.2797/6688. Retrieved from https://www.anefore.lu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/EURYDICE-MODERN ISATION-OF-HIGHER-EDUCATION-IN-EUROPE-2017-1.pdf on September 26, 2019. European Commission. (2018). Digital education action plan, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0022&from=EN on September 26, 2019. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Van den Bossche, P., & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2015). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025—Higher education. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Retrieved from https://www.um.edu.my/docs/ default-source/about-um_document/media-centre/um-magazine/4-executive-summary-pppm2015-2025.pdf?sfvrsn=4 on January 30, 2018. Mönig, J., & Harvey, B. (2019). Snap! (2019). Retrieved from https://snap.berkeley.edu/ on October 1, 2019. Moretti, E. (2012). The new geography of jobs. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. OECD. (2012). Skills development pathways in Asia. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/ Skills%20Development%20Pathways%20in%20Asia_FINAL%20VERSION.pdf on January 30, 2018.

106

H. Tsalapatas et al.

OECD. (2013a). Structural policy country notes, Cambodia, Southeast Asian economic outlook 2013: With perspectives on China and India. © OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/ dev/asia-pacific/Cambodia.pdf on January 30, 2018. OECD. (2013b). Structural policy country notes, Malaysia, Economic outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2014: Beyond the middle-income trap. © OECD. Retrieved from https://www. oecd.org/site/seao/Malaysia.pdf on January 30, 2018. OECD. (2013c). Structural policy country notes, Vietnam, Economic outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2014: Beyond the middle-income trap. © OECD. Retrieved from https://www. oecd.org/site/seao/Viet%20Nam.pdf on January 30, 2018. OECD. (2018). Economic outlook for South East Asia, China, and India 2019. Retrieved from https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/economic-outlook-for-southeast-asia-china-andindia-2019/summary/english_f8d45e2b-en#page1 on January 30, 2018 Project ALIEN. (2017). Active learning in engineering education. Erasmus+ Capacity Building in Higher Education Project 586297/20. Retrieved from https://projectalien.eu on January 30, 2018. Project Coding4Girls. (2019). Erasmus+ project. Grant Agreement no. 2018-1-SI01-KA201047013. Retrieved from https://www.coding4girls.eu/ on October 1, 2019. Project eCity. (2013). A virtual city environment for engineering problem-based learning. Retrieved from https://ecity-project.eu on January 2, 2019. Project OnLabs. (2016). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/onlabseap/home on October 1, 2019. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38. Tsalapatas, H., De Carvalho, C. V., Heidmann, O., & Houstis, E. (2019). Active problem-based learning for engineering higher education. 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU, 2 (pp. 347–351). Zafeiropoulos, V., Kalles, D., & Sgourou, A. (2014, July). Adventure-style game-based learning for a biology lab. 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 665–667). IEEE.

Chapter 7

Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies H. Tsalapatas, O. Heidmann, and T. Jesmin

Abstract Higher education prepares learners for their future role as professionals and active citizens by building field specific knowledge as well as soft, transversal skills. It further prepares students to effectively transition from the educational environment into the professional world, to become productively integrated into the professionally community, and to adapt to market-driven processes. To effectively facilitate this transition, higher education offerings must expose students to industry processes rather than be limited to the development of theoretical knowledge. This exposure may be achieved to a certain degree through specific courses; more effectively, it may be achieved through the integration of hands on activities into curricula that challenge students to use new skills and competencies in an environment that simulates the way industry deploys knowledge. This work presents the LEAP learning intervention towards building experience among higher education engineering students on emerging lean and agile industry practices. This is pursued through the design and implementation of serious games that allow students to build experience on the benefits of lean and agile design in broad engineering scenarios that go beyond the sectors in which these methods were originally introduced. Keywords Agile design · Lean design · Serious games · Active learning

H. Tsalapatas · O. Heidmann (B) CTLL Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece H. Tsalapatas e-mail: [email protected] T. Jesmin Tallinn University, Tallinn, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_7

107

108

H. Tsalapatas et al.

7.1 Introduction Engineering is a highly innovative sector that both generates and deploys rapidly evolving technology in business, scientific, and research contexts. The key challenge in engineering higher education is to effectively prepare students for their future role as professionals in a sector that, according to the Digital Agenda for Europe (European Commission, 2015), drives economic growth. The rapid evolution of technology introduces challenges in engineering education. These are related to the effective and continuous updating of curricula in a manner that follows the pace of technological advances, the needs of industry, and societal demands. Educational institutions strive to not only build theoretical and field knowledge but also to introduce among learners the skills that will empower them to be adaptable professionals with the capacity to stay at the cutting edge of their sector in their careers: critical and analytical thinking, lifelong skill development and learning ability, capacity to adapt to evolving methods of work, and ability to work in groups. Most importantly, engineering higher education must facilitate the effective transition of learners from the academic environment to the world of work, ensuring that newly build knowledge is transferable to real world engineering design and development contexts that address actual industry and societal challenges. The capacity of learners to effectively use newly built knowledge can be supported through their exposure to real world industry practices. This exposure may be achieved through experiential educational activities that empower students to combine knowledge, skills, and competencies in an educational environment that simulates problem solving practices and processes deployed in industry. This chapter presents a learning intervention that is based on learning games and aims at building experience and knowledge among higher education students on emerging agile and lean industrial design and production practices in engineering that aim to best address the needs of customers through flexibly design cycles while containing production costs. The learning intervention is based on a digital educational application that demonstrates how agile and lean practices may facilitate the redesign of products and processes in broad and diverse engineering scenarios for the benefit of consumers and providers.

7.2 Agile Design Agile design refers to production processes in which the definition of user requirements and the implementation phases are intertwined. Agile design differs from traditional waterfall models in which the implementation of a project is divided in distinct steps of user requirement analysis, design, implementation, and evaluation. In waterfall models, each step is initiated only upon completion of the previous one; furthermore, once completed, a step is not revisited (Sommerville, 2015). This implies that the identification of user requirements is a process that is distinct from

7 Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies

109

design and development, and leads to requirements that are not updated once set, even if additional information emerges further down in the implementation process that can contribute to the definition of requirements that more closely address user needs. The rigidity of waterfall models makes them good in design process paradigms for products and services that require well set blueprints before production starts. Having well set requirements is also useful in safety critical systems where functionality must be very clearly defined in advance. The waterfall models are typically the first design paradigm to which students are exposed to in introductory software engineering courses. The waterfall design model is not ideal in situations where user requirements are not well known or understood in advance. This can be the case for many reasons. For example, the customer that hires a software development team to produce a product does not have a clear picture of the desirable functionality. On the other hand, the implementation team may be designing a product for a fast-evolving market in which customer desires shift rapidly. In similar situations it is desirable to implement a product in cycles, identifying a set of user requirements at the beginning of each implementation round and refining them in each follow up cycle until user needs are properly addressed (Sommerville, 2015). Agile design aims to better address customer needs by intertwining the user requirements definitions, design, and implementation phases of a project (Sommerville, 2015). The concept of agile design originates from software engineering, a principle in which user requirements often need to be analysed and reviewed in cycles until a product effectively addresses customer needs. In agile design the implementation team works closely with the customer to identify and prioritize desirable product features and then implements the functionality in increments. A well-known practical paradigm of the application of agile design is the SCRUM process, an approach that focuses on sprints, short intense sessions of software development activity during which the implementation team builds into software a subset of user requirements identified at the beginning of the session. During the sprints the SCRUM master ensures that the implementation team works without distractions, and that the SCRUM process is followed. A sprint results into a prototype that the product owner, playing the role of liaison with external stakeholder, can practically use to determine whether the software works as desired. If not, the prototype can be discarded and work can begin anew. At the end of each sprint all stakeholders, including the SCRUM master, the product owner, and the implementation team meet to plan for the next cycle. This meeting is called a SCRUM, a term that lends its name to the entire process.

7.3 Lean Production Lean design refers to processes that aim to contain production costs by identifying and eliminating activities, and related costs, that do not add value to the production

110

H. Tsalapatas et al.

process. By streamlining development processes, lean design eliminates production costs related to sustaining unnecessary or suboptimal practices (Womack et al., 1990; Womack & Jones, 1996). Lean design has its origins in the Japanese automobile construction business. One of the most well-known lean techniques is 5S, a workplace organization method where 5S stands for “sort”, “set in order”, “shine”, “standardize”, and “sustain” (Hirano, 1996). Sort refers to sorting all items in the production plant and removing unnecessary ones. Set in order refers to categorizing items and organizing them in optimal positions. Shine refers to maintaining order in the workplace. Standardize refers to standardizing the production process. And sustain refers to an agreement among all involved to sustain the good practices identified.

7.4 The Educational Benefits of Serious Games Serious games are games that are developed for a purpose other than entertainment (Michael & Chen, 2005). They bring down the barrier between learning and fun (Prensky, 2001). The difference of a serious game from a game designed for entertainment is that the former has been designed from the beginning for educational purposes. This facilitates the more effective integration of the serious game in learning contexts, formal or informal. Games designed for entertainment may also be deployed in learning, however their functionality and content, which was not originally designed for educational purposes, may require some adaptation of the educational activities by the instructor to the game content and purpose. Educational games exploit elements that make games attractive to promote learner engagement, to build, and to facilitate the retaining of new knowledge and skills (Brathwaite & Schreiber, 2009). These may include a sense of purpose and mission, a sense of affiliation with a higher cause, a sense of belonging to a group, competition, collaboration, an engaging story, and elements of surprise. They may also include rewards in the form of collecting inventory such as badges, stars, or other items, social recognition in the form of leader boards or publication of achievements in social media, and incentives for avoiding penalties. Game mechanics themselves, or the interaction of the user with the game and its elements, such as avatars or other objects, is also in itself a source of entertainment and fun (Adams, 2014). Designing a serious game is about identifying the desired educational objective for a specific target audience and integrating an appropriate blend of gaming elements with educational content in a manner that facilitates the more effective addressing of learning goals. A successful game puts the user in a state of flow: high immersion in the game activities with is achieved when effective design ensures that gameplay activities are just right for user skills, not too difficult, which would discourage the user, and not too easy, which would bore the user (Schell, 2008). The power of games to positively affect user behaviour has led to the introduction of “persuasive” games. These are games that aim to instil positive attitudes and behaviour on users in broad social issues. Persuasive games can be used to promote

7 Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies

111

broad objectives from maintaining a healthy lifestyle, to using public transport, to raising awareness on social challenges such as poverty and the prevention of suicide. They can be a medium for promoting educative, political, or marketing ideas (Abt, 1970). Using digital games for learning is not a new concept; rather the idea has its roots in the beginning of the digital gaming industry in the 1970s. The question is not so much whether to exploit educational games in learning contexts, but rather how to ensure that the deployment of learning games contributes to reaching educational objectives. Some of the criticism that educational games received revolve around the fact that users may make random choices until they find the correct answer by chance. In this case, the game does not contribute to learning goals. This danger can be alleviated by introducing games into broader learning activities where the game elements are combined with instructional content towards achieving specific learning goals. The deployment of educational games takes place in cycles at the beginning of each the educator identifies learning goals of a specific activity, exposes learners to an educational game possibly combined with other content, and debriefs learners upon completion of the cycle to ensure that choices during game use were conscious and that new knowledge was actually achieved and progress was made towards reaching learning goals as evidenced by the observation of the user behaviour (Garris et al., 2002). Finally, games can be useful for preparing users in a safe digital environment for effectively addressing situations in real life. Simulation games are deployed for building skills and competencies when the related real-world activity is dangerous or when physical training activities are scarce or expensive to use. Simulations and role-playing games can be used for training pilots, medical personnel, educators, and others by allowing them to practice safely before exploring their skills in the real world (Brathwaite & Schreiber, 2009).

7.5 A Serious Game for Demonstrating the Applications of the 5S Lean Production Model in Engineering Project LEAP: Lean and Agile Practices Linking Engineering Higher Education to Industry,1 aims at building among higher education engineering students experience on emerging lean and agile design industry practices, thus better preparing them for their transition from the academic environment to the world of work. The project aims to demonstrate how lean and agile practices can be deployed beyond the sectors in which they were originally introduced, namely the automobile construction and software engineering, to broad engineering contexts that can benefit from good practices for streamlining production towards reducing costs that stem from activities that do not add value to the production process and the final product 1 Project

LEAP: https://leapproject.eu.

112

H. Tsalapatas et al.

and for better addressing customer needs through user centred design (Tsalapatas, 2017). The project applies active learning design through which students build experience through hands on practice in a virtual environment that exposes them to challenges inspired by real world industry practices. The virtual environment is designed in the form of serious games that demonstrate the benefits of agile and lean design in broad contexts while building the capacity of students to apply agile and lean design for addressing complex problems the solution to which requires the integration of diverse knowledge stemming from engineering curricula as well as critical and analytical thinking capacity. More specifically two games were developed in the framework of the project exploring the value of lean and agile methodologies beyond their original sectors. The first demonstrates how lean practices, and more specifically the 5S model, can offer benefits towards standardizing processes in sectors that differ significantly from automobile construction, evidencing the broad applicability of lean production planning. The serious game introduces three scenarios that show how sustaining a well-designed and clean production process can contribute to better addressing customer needs by reducing service times while also benefiting providers by helping contain service costs. In this game, three scenarios have been developed. The first addresses the organisation of a pharmacy inventory through lean concepts with the objective of faster fulfilling customer orders through sound organisation. The second demonstrates how lean practices can contribute to the effective organisation of a digital office space, thus allowing its user to effectively find and manage information and archives. The third demonstrates how lean practices can contribute to the sound organization of a scrapyard. Figure 7.1 shows a snapshot from the pharmacy scenario. The challenge given to the students is to organise the inventory in a manner that allows servicing the customer in the most effective manner. Initially, the student is exposed to a “story” mode of the scenario. Inventory is not organised in any way with medicines being randomly stored in big boxes that all have the same brown colour and lie on the pharmacy floor without any specific order as demonstrated in Fig. 7.1. The pharmacy is open from 9.00 to 17.00. Once the clock shows 9.00 o’clock a customer enters the pharmacy and asks for the filling of a specific prescription, which appears at the bottom right corner of the screen in a dialog box. The student assumes the role of the pharmacist and must find the requested medicines in the brown storage boxes. There is no effective way for the student to find the medicine. She simply must check each box until the correct package is found. In most cases, unless the student is lucky, the time needed for finding the medicine is too long and the customer leaves unhappy without having the prescription filled. The story mode has been made available to demonstrate in a stark way the frustration that bad organisation can cause to both the provider and the customer. Once the student completes the story mode, he is directed to the standard gameplay mode of the scenario. In this mode the student has the option of applying the steps of the 5S model. She can either apply the model manually by executing activities such

7 Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies

113

Fig. 7.1 The pharmacy scenario in the 5S game that demonstrates lean production benefits

as setting order in the pharmacy or by clicking on the screen buttons that correspond to each 5S model step. Applying the 5S model will result in drastic changes taking place. Clicking on the 1S button will result in cleaning up all items that lie on the floor. This activity takes some time to complete, and this is shown by the time advancing quickly on the clock. The idea is to demonstrate that while some initial time must be invested in applying the steps of the 5S model, in the long term the effect will be of benefit for the pharmacist and the customer by reducing service times. Clicking on the 2S button will result in colour coding all medicine available using the legend that is displayed at the bottom right of the screen. By clicking on the 3S button, the entire pharmacy will get cleaned from dust, thus making medication tags a lot more visible. Clicking on the 4S button results in removing all cardboard boxes and sorting the medicines on shelves each of which is colour coded shelf cases and represents a specific molecule. In addition, each shelf is colour coded in relation to the expiration date on each medicine box, with red corresponding to expired, yellow to soon expired, and green for not expired (see Fig. 7.2). In the context of the game, there is no 5S button. Rather, 5S corresponds to an agreement to sustain the lean practices in the long term. The purpose of the game is to fulfil as many prescriptions as possible in a limited amount of time, for example 5 days. By applying the 5S model, the student will lose

114

H. Tsalapatas et al.

Fig. 7.2 Clicking the 4S button results in the sorting of medicines on shelf cases colour coded according to molecules

some time at the beginning of the game but will be able to fulfil more orders once the model is implemented, resulting in a higher score at the end of the game. The functionality of the 5S model is similarly demonstrated in the scenario for the management of the office. In this scenario, the student is presented with a digital office space in the form of a laptop screen and is asked to perform a task such as finding a file and sending it via email. The digital office space is originally not organised. All files are on the laptop and are presented with the same icon. This makes the student’s task of finding a specific file difficult as he needs to examine the name of each of the many files on the screen, which are not distinguishable from each other is some manner such as through icons that help the student identify different file types. Similarly, to the previous scenario, the student has the option of applying the 5S model to clean the workspace. In this scenario, clicking on the 1S button leads to cleaning the computer workspace by removing notes. Clicking on the 2S button assigns types to each file, making them more distinguishable through icons that represent file types. Clicking on the 3S button renames files in an efficient manner. Figure 7.3 demonstrates the result of executing the first 3 steps of the 5S model. Clicking on the 4S button organises the files in folders, each of which corresponds to a specific file type. Similarly, to the pharmacy scenario, time is of essence. Executing each step takes time, and this is reflected on a clock on the screen. The scenario is

7 Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies

115

Fig. 7.3 The digital office space after performing the first 3 steps of the 5S model. The screen is cleaner and files are categorized in file types through icons

straightforward, but demonstrates the concept that maintaining a clean and organised working space, even though it requires the investment of time up front, contributes to the more efficient execution of daily tasks in the long term. The 3rd scenario corresponds to organising the workspace in a scrapyard in a manner that allows workers to easily find specific spare parts. The concept is the same as for the scenarios presented above. Initially, the scrapyard is unorganized, with parts randomly lying around. The player interacts with elements on the screen, which correspond to cars. By clicking on a car, a new interface appears that demonstrates which car parts are available in the scrapyard for repairing the car. Finding the desired part is difficult without any specific organisation of the inventory. The student has the option of applying the 5S model. Clicking on the 1S button has the following effect—the button removes any unnecessary material, such as barrels, wooden boards, and more. Clicking on the 2S button colours spare parts according to a specific colour code, allowing the user to easily recognise them. Clicking on 3S cleans the scrapyard. And clicking on 4S sorts all material according to type. The result of applying the four steps of the 5S model appears in Fig. 7.4.

116

H. Tsalapatas et al.

Fig. 7.4 The result of applying the four steps of the 5S model in the scrapyard scenario

7.6 A Serious Game for Demonstrating the Applications for the SCRUM Agile Design Model in Engineering A second game has been developed that demonstrates how the SCRUM agile design model can be deployed beyond the software engineering sector to benefit product and service design in broad engineering principles for the benefit of end users as well as producers. To demonstrate the versatility of agile design, the game demonstrates how it can be applied in urban engineering and agricultural engineering sectors. These two sectors have been selected because they are very different from software engineering, which is the sector from which agile design originated. The player assumes roles related to the SCRUM process. He/She can play the game as the product owner, the SCRUM master, or a team member as shown in Fig. 7.6. The activities available to the player are different in each assumed role and are defined by the SCRUM methodology. The gameplay is based on dialogues and minigames. Some dialog boxes provide information to the player while others require an action to be taken. The following discussion will describe the user experience when assuming the role of product owner, namely the individual that approves the final result and ensures that it is in line with customer desires. The user starts the game by meeting the customer. The customer presents the challenge, which is to build a university campus for a faculty that focuses on music. The campus must be built in an area of 500 hectares and accommodate 2 000 students. The project must be completed in a specific amount of time. Once the user receives

7 Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies

117

Fig. 7.5 The user meets with the implementation team in the SCRUM game

the challenge, he meets with the implementation team and discusses the project as demonstrated in Fig. 7.5. The team brainstorms by selecting from a pool of available features the ones that will be integrated into the project. Not all features may be selected, which means that the team needs to select the ones that closer address customer desires. Subsequently, the team prioritises the selected features by colour coding them. The features selected for implementation appear in the “product backlog” as demonstrated in Fig. 7.6. The features will be implemented in cycles of intense production work, known in the SCRUM model as sprints. The team selects the features that will be implemented in the first sprint, which are introduced into the “sprint backlog”. Features completed after a spring appear in the “done” list. This process continues in iterations. At the end of each spring cycle, the user / product owner meets with the customer to discuss progress. Upon the implementation of the entire product backlog the user sees the completed project, with the selected features appearing on a campus map as demonstrated in Fig. 7.7. The presentation of the final result is a source of satisfaction for the user, who sees a completed overview of her work. The game ends with a screen that assigns the user a score. The score is calculated based on the completion of essential facilities, the functionality of the campus, and the covering of the needs of students. The user receives two grades: one for overall performance and one for the completion level of the project. The second scenario of the SCRUM game is related to agricultural engineering. The following description demonstrates the user experience when she assumes the role of SCRUM master, namely the individual that oversees the production process

118

H. Tsalapatas et al.

Fig. 7.6 In the SCRUM game, the team prioritises selected product features by colour coding them. Then, it selects the features that will introduced into the spring backlog, i.e. will be implemented in the first sprint cycle

Fig. 7.7 The completed project in the SCRUM urban engineering scenario, a music education campus

7 Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies

119

Fig. 7.8 In the SCRUM game, the user, assuming the role of the SCRUM master, meets with the product owner to receive information on the project to be implemented

and acts as a liaison between the implementation team and the product owner. The game starts with the user meeting with the product owner, as demonstrated in Fig. 7.8. The SCRUM master receives instructions on the project ahead, which is to design and implement a herb garden in an area of 500 hectares accommodating 3 000 plants, to be completed in a specific timeframe. The game implies that the product owner has already met with the customer. The SCRUM master, in collaboration with the implementation team, brainstorms to select features to be implemented in the garden, and prioritizes the features by colour coding them. What is different in the role of the SCRUM master though is that she, in collaboration with the implementation team, decides on the weight of each task, which means that time needed for its completion. Subsequently, the SCRUM master allocates tasks to be implemented in the following sprint to each team member as demonstrated in Fig. 7.9. This process continues in iterations until the work is completed. After each sprint the SCRUM master sees an overview of the partly completed project. Figure 7.9 demonstrates the completed project at the end of implementation. The final step of the gameplay involves the user receiving feedback in the form of a score on completion and performance, similarly to the urban engineering scenario.

120

H. Tsalapatas et al.

Fig. 7.9 The SCRUM master allocates tasks to each team member

7.7 Experiences from the Deployment of Serious Games on Agile and Lean Design in Engineering Higher Education The 5S and SCRUM games were deployed in diverse educational and cultural contexts with over 300 higher education students in Greece, Estonia, Portugal, Spain, and the UK (Jesmin, 2018). The games were used in the context of educational activities related to educational technologies, project-based learning, computer engineering, forensic computing, and networking. During the evaluation activities the students deployed the 5S and SCRUM games and provided feedback on the following: • The content of the game and how this contributes to the understanding of lean and agile concepts • The gameplay and how this contributes to improving learning on lean and agile processes • The interaction between user and game More specifically, evaluation activities in Greece involved the deployment of the 5S and SCRUM LEAP games with electrical engineering higher education students. The games were deployed with a total of approximately 130 students in the context of the Technology in Education course that is taught in the 3rd of a 5 years curriculum.

7 Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies

121

The course focuses on the deployment of technology as an educational tool in lifelong learning contexts as well as on emerging learning design, including collaborative learning, explorative learning, active learning, mobile learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, gamification, and others towards the enhancement of learning experiences in formal, informal, and non-formal learning. The students were asked to evaluate the games from the perspective of a software design engineer focusing on: Over 94% of the Greek students felt that the games offer learning benefits in terms of introducing students to the general concepts of lean and agile design. They further succeed in exposing students to the technical aspects of deploying, the 5S and SCRUM processes in practical situations at work. The strong points of the games were identified as being the easy interaction and user interface, the direct feedback provided by the game in relation to user actions, and the visualization of the scenarios in a manner that simulates the application of agile design in real world activities. Evaluation activities in Estonia involved 69 students enrolled in the Educational Technologies Master’s program. The students were asked to deploy the 5S and SCRUM games and answer an on-line survey with questions related to the effectiveness and usability of the games in-line with the questions used in the Greek pilot. The students responded that the games teach the user to think ahead, to systematize actions, and to effectively manage resources. At the same time, the students felt the games help build problem solving skills. Evaluation activities in Spain involved 54 students in the context of a Project Lab course that promotes team work among engineering students towards implementing a project or product. 95% of Spanish students responded that games improve learning. 84% responded that the gaming approach is a good learning method that contributes to the understanding of concepts from a practical point of view while demonstrating the advantages of lean and agile design. According to the students the innovation of the games lies in the way lean and agile concepts are introduced. Specifically for the 5S game, the need for lean process design is strikingly demonstrated through an untidy initial working environment that is dramatically improved through the application of 5S steps. In addition, the 5S game further demonstrated how an initial investment, while costly, can improve daily life in the workplace in the long term. Another advantage of the games was the demonstration of real-life scenarios in which agile and lean design can offer benefits. In relation to the SCRUM game, the students pointed as an advantage the fact that the game encourages the user to make decisions, to prioritize, and to manage production tasks. Furthermore, it allows the user to experience the SCRUM process through a variety of roles, including those of SCRUM master, team member, and product owner, developing a well-rounded understanding of agile processes. Evaluation activities in Portugal involved 60 Master’s level students in the Computer Engineering and Electrical Engineering curricula. Computer engineering students were very familiar with agile design. Electrical Engineering students, on the other hand, were not. Students responded that games are good motivational tools in learning. They further suggested that, when properly deployed, they can contribute to more solid knowledge acquisition. They commented that the LEAP games can be

122

H. Tsalapatas et al.

deployed in broad educational scenarios, including vocational training contexts of individuals already employed. More specifically, in relation to the SCRUM game, the students responded that the fact that the user can “play” different roles supports the better understanding of the relations and communication among team members as well as between team members and the client. Evaluation activities in the UK involved 28 students enrolled in Master’s programs in Computing, Information Security, and Interaction Design. The students were keen to see game-based activities becoming an embedded part of their learning in other subjects and saw the LEAP games as a good use case. They felt that games are a good way to engage students in class activity. During the evaluation there was evidence that the games promoted collaboration, with students talking to one another while using the games. Finally, some students commented that the games can be a good way to introduce students to an otherwise “dry” topic, such as agile design. In summary, the games benefited students by introducing into higher education curricula industry practices, facilitating a smoother transition to the world of work. They enriched educational experiences through the introduction of serious games used as simulations that promote active experimentation in broader, blended learning activities. They introduced industry inspired scenarios that demonstrating how lean and agile design can enhance production and design practices in broad engineering sectors.

7.8 A Suggested Approach for Introducing Serious Games in Problem-Based Learning in Engineering Higher Education The LEAP games introduce a problem-based learning paradigm where the user learns through experience by working on an open problem. They help the user acquire knowledge by doing, through trial and error. This paradigm is based on the constructivist approach knowledge development, which advocates that knowledge is synthesized rather than transferred. In practice, constructivist learning is delivered through “microworlds”, which are abstract depictions of the real world that present objects and rules of interaction and are simple enough to allow the student to focus on a problem without distractions. Constructivism is a learner centred approach in which the educator plays the role of a guide allowing the learner to experiment (Papert, 1993). Early applications of the constructivist approach were in children’s education. Although adults and children differ in their understanding abilities, their willingness to collaborate, beliefs, experiences, ability for abstract thinking, learning motives, and more, mechanisms through which they learn are believed to be continuous or remain the same throughout a person’s life. Therefore, constructivism has been utilised as a paradigm for the education of adults (Groves, 2008).

7 Serious Games to Support Agile and Lean Methodologies

123

The constructivist approach, although widely accepted, has also attracted criticism. This includes the view that opinions and conclusions of more active students dominate the group’s conclusions, that constructivism forces students to “reinvent the wheel”, and that although learners may be engaged in constructivist activities they may not be learning (Mayer, 2004). These schools of thought advocate that the benefits of the constructivist approaches do not necessary follow and that guided discovery may be offering more advantages than pure constructivist learning design (Kirschner, 2006). The 5S and SCRUM games have been designed for integration into learning activities that follow a semi-constructivist learning design that combines the free exploration of constructivism with instructor guidance. The deployment of the games in real life learning experiments engaging higher education students demonstrated that the tools provide maximum benefits if they are used in a learning contexts that start with a high level explanation of lean and agile design processes followed by digital, game-based exploration through which learners build a deeper understanding of concepts, concluded by instructor led sessions in which the formal theory of lean and agile design are presented while learner experiences are shared and questions are answered. These steps may be deployed in learning cycles, each leading closer to the fulfilment of educational goals, ensuring that the gameplay experience contributes to the achievement of educational goals (Garris et al., 2002).

7.9 Conclusions Serious games are an essential platform for supporting problem-based learning in diverse educational contexts addressing broad educational objectives. They are particularly applicable in situations requiring the development of hands-on experience by providing a safe, cost-effective virtual environment in which students can experiment before applying skills and competences in real life. Serious games can be deployed as simulations for exposing students to industry processes, allowing them to experiment with emerging practices such as lean and agile production. Designed for use in broader learning offerings that combine experimentation with instructor direction, the 5S and SCRUM games developed in the context of the LEAP project are a good demonstration of how games can enrich educational experiences through interactive activities based in real life industrial scenarios. Acknowledgements This work is funded with the support of the Capacity Building for Higher Education Erasmus+ Program of the European Commission. Project LEAP: Lean and Agile Practices Linking Engineering Higher Education to Industry, with ID 023624/2016, was implemented from 2016 to 2018.

124

H. Tsalapatas et al.

References Abt, C. (1970). Serious game. University Press of America. Adams, E. (2014). Fundamentals of game design (3rd ed.). NRG. Brathwaite, B., & Schreiber, I. (2009). Challenges for game designers. Charles River Media. European Commission. (2015). Digital single market strategy. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2015/0287, Brussels 9.12.2015. Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467. Groves, M. (2008). The constructivist approach in adult education. California State University. Hirano, H. (1996). 5S for operators: 5 pillars of the visual workplace. Productivity Press. Jesmin T. (2018). Good practice recommendation on the collaborative, active learning design for integrating agile and lean industrial process experience in higher education. LEAP Project Report. Kirschner, P. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. Mayer, R. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. Michael, D., & Chen, S. (2005). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Papert, S. (1993). Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game based learning. McGraw Hill. Schell J. (2008). The art of game design. Taylor & Francis. Sommerville, I. (2015). Software engineering (10th ed.). Pearson. Tsalapatas, H., Kourias, S., Stylla, D., & Heidmann, O. (2017). Collaborative and agile methodological learning frameworks for promoting higher education student preparedness to enter the world of work. LEAP Project Report. Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking. Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world: Based on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5-million Dollar 5-year study on the future of the automobile. Rawson Associates.

Chapter 8

Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers Merja Bauters and Petri Vesikivi

Abstract Design thinking has been offered as a solution for various challenges entrepreneurship, educational, learning and team teaching to name few areas. In this chapter we concentrate on the educational, learning and stakeholder involvement— especially teachers and students—when using design thinking in module design. We shall present the previous studies on design thinking in module and curricular design. We describe step by step our experience on applying the design thinking methods, tools and mindset into designing an engineering project-based module anew. In the end, we ponder about the outcomes of the experience, which have been constructive but challenging. Keywords Design thinking · Empathy · Collaboration · Co-creation

8.1 Introduction Designing spaces, places and practices for learning is often dominated by technological novelties, without full consideration of the potential learning practices and outcomes (Royakkers et al., 2018) Learner-centred pedagogy and design has been offered as a solution for being able to focus on the learner instead of technology. However, it is not enough to focus on the learner, designing for learning requires to take into consideration and along all parties: the learners, teachers/facilitators, support personnel and physical and social spaces (Kapros, 2016). Our proposed solution for involving all into designing learning in higher education, is to use design thinking methodologies. Design thinking is known to support and guide how to be emphatic towards different stakeholders and users (in this case the learners). Design thinking allows tools and methods that are tangible aiding M. Bauters (B) · P. Vesikivi Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Karaportti 2, 02610 Espoo, Finland e-mail: [email protected] M. Bauters School of Digital Technologies, Tallinn University, Narva rd 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_8

125

126

M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

collaboration around and through iterative use of the oncrete artefacts, which are also called probes (see Mattelmäki & Battarbee, 2002). Design thinking methodologies are used within modules to enhance creative and critical thinking. These learner-centred approaches exercise problem-based learning, project-based learning and inquiry-based learning which are well fitted into design thinking mentality (Dym et al., 2005; Razzouk & Shute, 2012). Such approaches place new demands and challenges on teachers’ work. Buus and Georgsen (2017) point out that teachers need support in the new directions of learning design as teachers often become, especially in online courses, the only contact, in addition, to the need of different communication skills when facilitation approach is taken into use (2017: 28). Buus and Georgsen (2017) further demand support for teachers for learning co-creation practices. Especially such skills as: articulating pedagogical principles and imagination on the supporting technological are needed. We have acknowledged the challenge teachers are facing. However, there is more than lack of new skills or ability to cope with the different and growing number of tasks (see e.g. Cohen, 1988). One of the unsolved issues is team teaching. Team teaching poses various challenges, such as: agreeing on content, methods, roles, timing, and understanding the others views and challenges as well as being able to arrive to a shared understanding of the aims of the module or curricula. We see a possibility in the design thinking methods to enhance and support the team-teaching process of planning, designing, implementing and executing practices in the course with students. This has been successfully been in use with primary school teachers, for instance in Portugal in Porto Matosinhos school called Scholé (https://www.schole.pt/).

8.2 Design Thinking for Supporting Teachers Work and Curricula Design The well-known guidelines for curricula and module design using design thinking are: IDEO’s design thinking for educators (IDEO, 2013) and Stanford Design thinking school (dschool) (see also Tran, 2017). Both of the guidelines are used for designing modules or curricula. However, these guidelines lack focus on how to enhance teacher team work in modules design and during the modules. Zupan et al. (2014) have been studying team teaching and how design thinking methods could enhance team teaching. Their summary states, for instance, that the teacher team formed within the process of using design thinking enhances a mindset where the module is treated as an ever-evolving prototype and where the teachers acquired skills to empathize, learned to respond to students needs and actively support the students. The applied methods further created potential to involve a wider array of stakeholders from the business community to contribute to module design (Cox & King, 2006). Annette Diefenthaler et al. (2017) stalwartly state that design thinking encourages design teams to bring an experimental mindset to the endeavour at hand. Including,

8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers

127

the questioning of one’s assumptions about what school is or should be in favour of what it could be in order to best meet students’ needs. Diedenthaler et al. (2017) also believe that educators who practice design thinking mindset and methods will become agents of change. They aim at starring small, namely, by tiny, iterative experiments (see also Hassi et al., 2015). However, we can also argue that experimentation is not a new approach in designing learning settings (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Borko, 2004; Edelson, 2002; Elmore & Burney, 1999; Garet et al., 2001). Kohler et al., for instance, explain that experimentation allows teachers try out and create new activities, environments, tools and subject matter for reflecting their teaching practices (2011). We can also claim that Dewey (1915) has been the father of advocating experimenting in learning through what nowadays is called problem-based learning, enquiry-based learning, and project-based learning approaches. Differences between problem-based, project-based and inquiry learning versus design thinking appear in the mindset. In design thinking one truly should try to step into others shoes, try to feel, find similar emotions that the ones whose challenge/problems is to be solved. As Brown (2008: 87, in Diefenthaler et al., 2017: 15) expresses that a “human–centred mindset is a belief that meaningful and innovative solutions are rooted in empathy”. The other stronger difference lies in the experimenting, in design thinking the aim is to learn from the experiment not to validate potential solutions (the validations comes later when the challenge/problem is really understood) (see for more in Anderson, 2013; Estrada & Goldman, 2017; Goldman & Kabayadondo, 2017; Holland, 2016; Melles et al., 2015; Scheer et al., 2012). Thus, it is safe to say that there exist positive overlaps with the existing approaches, but design thinking complements the other approaches by guiding teachers in their joint teaching activities by emphasising on the empathy and acceptance in failing with the iterative experiments before finding the working one. Besides, the proponents argue that design thinking aids multi-professional teams to develop shared understanding because design thinking emphases on team-based learning activities (Lindberg et al., 2010, p. 35). For team teaching, a promise of supporting teamwork and building of shared understanding would be a welcomed outcome. For instance, well-structured workshop using design thinking methods can raise up biases that the teacher team has as a whole or as individual members of the team. As Diefenthaler et al. (2017: 30) and Zielezinski (2017: 195) state, that cultural competence is composed of “sensitivity, knowledge, skills, actions, and awareness of one’s own biases.” Nonetheless, it is not easy to convince in broader level the convenience of design thinking in module and curricula design. Koh et al. (2015b) claim the macro level have the power to hinder or encourage the mezzo levels to change. The macro levels refer to administrators, school and community leaders and the mezzo level to the teachers and other assistants close to the everyday practise level. Allowing the mezze level to experiment with their daily practice and supporting that kind of activity encourages pedagogical change (see also Chai et al., 2014; Kershner et al., 2014; Weinbaum & Supovitz, 2010; Zhao & Frank, 2003). It has also been confirmed that often the teachers are left without support when new curricula, organizational or structural changes are implemented (Clark & Peterson, 1986). If teachers were supported and aided in changing their belief in a positive way

128

M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

this would easy out changing the habits—the habitual practices (Koh et al., 2015a). Therefore, it is not enough if design thinking practices emerge bottom up—it can be a positive start—it still requires support from the mezze and especially macro levels to sediment the iterative cycles of trying ideas and learning from experimentation rather than by trying to create a perfect a plan and execute that with reflection afterwards. The aim with fast early and small experimentation cycles is to provide educators faster learning loops, acquire feedback more often and easier for changing practices. The most crucial role that the macro and mezze level actors have, is to let go. There should be a trust on let teacher experiment—they are the experts of their area of teaching (Diefenthaler et al. 2017: 53; Knudsen & Shechtman, 2017). Notwithstanding, there exists critical views on the implementing design thinking approach to curricula and module design. The criticism states, for instance, that often the proof provided is compelling case studies and narratives of student accomplishment, lacking empirical research which could confirm that design thinking approaches have been aiding for the positive outcomes (Littlejohn & Davis, 2016). Having said this, we will add that we shall in this chapter do exactly that—provide yet another case study. However, as it has been discussed above our aim is not to evaluate student learning outcomes, but view systematically on teacher team’s experiences in using design thinking for their module planning and execution practices. We may also touch upon what we have perceived on the students learning, but this will not be the main outcome. The main aim is to describe and reflect on a teacher team’s experiences in using design thinking for module design. Thus, this not a traditional case design description. Next, we shall explain our methods used for documenting and reflecting on our design thinking module design processes.

8.3 Methods and Analysis Tools for Describing the Design Process 8.3.1 Data Collection Methods The research data collection of the module design process was executed during the module design and executing the module. Time frame of data collection was from 2015 to 2018. The process was documented by taking images, videos, audio recording and notes from the workshops, interviews and outcomes of the workshops and interviews. The audio, video and notes have been digitized into textual form, but images are left as they are to provide deeper contextual information of the events and outcomes. The new data was reflected in the light of the previous modules and appropriate literary resources. We organised (see also Table 8.1). 1. 2.

Workshops for course targets in 2015 (2) and 2017 (3); Workshop and interviews with students on the learning aims and habits as well as other aspects of life (such as hobbies and work situation) 2015 (1) and 2017 (interview of 5 students)

8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers

129

Table 8.1 Changing made in modules between 2015 and 2018 2015

2018

Module targets

Defined by individual teachers

Motivation for the change Defined by the teacher Create a truly shared team in a workshop understanding of the target and define the goal for the teacher team

Student involvement Workshop with all Selected focus group Get as diverse input to students on the module with maximal diversity the learning design as possible. Individual interviews and small workshop give equal opportunity of the participants to express their views Documentation

Pictures of workshop whiteboards

Feedback

Feedback sessions after Weekly feedback the module

3. 4. 5.

Fake advertisement Make the result of the canvas shared with the joint design work students visible to everyone and collect feedback Follow up the targets in a systematic manner and make adjustment to the course

Survey to all students 2017 (30) Short feedback interviews two times during the course Joint focus group type of feedback session to all after the course

The teacher team was composed of 4 teachers, who joined all the planning and feedback sessions. Two of the teachers executed the interviews, planned the focus groups and workshops as well as collected the data. Consent form were collected of all participated participants. The number of students in the module is around 30 (some students drop out of the module, some get sick or have some other unexpected occurrences that force them to take the module again, or pass it by other means).

8.3.2 Analysis Methods We examined the process, aims and content of the module design with participants (teachers and students) based on their experiences. The data from the workshops, interviews and surveys was analysed using analytic autoethnography approach (Garance 2010). Meaning that the researchers were part of the teacher team and collected the data from all above actions (1–5). The distancing oneself was used in the study and analysis of the data.

130

M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

In the following chapters we will describe the 2017 module design as case study where design thinking methods are used to redesign a module that is based on team teaching. First, we will describe the context, constraints and potentials and then go through the team-teaching module design phase by phase. We will summarise the section with analysis of the case study outcomes.

8.4 Applying Design Thinking to Collaborative Learning Design 8.4.1 Context We set out to apply design thinking and lean development principles into collaborative learning design aiming to maximise learning opportunities for students involved with the module. Traditionally in institutions, ours included, teachers plan the module content and implementation and after the course some feedback is collected. When planning the next implementation, the feedback from the previous module would be taken into account. Curriculum in Mobile Solutions major was designed to consist of 15 credit multidisciplinary modules. This 15-credit module is targeted to sophomore Mobile Services program students. Subject areas on the course are iOS application development, machine learning, English communications and user experience design. The module involves several teachers, typically four to seven. Team teaching needed to be applied. Successful team-teaching calls for a collaborative learning design process by all teachers involved in the module. As design thinking guides all participants should be involved in the process, thus, we extended the design collaboration to students on the course. We all felt that this way of working made us to think more profoundly about students on the module and the module’s targets. It has been stated that design thinking may produce prospects to, for instance, module management to go beyond service design (Dunne & Martin, 2006). Sanders and Stappers (2008) further define that service design integrate various previous design traditions such as: visual communication design, information design and interaction design, to enhance management activities. Service design as many of the other design traditions and trends such as transformation design, are based on participatory practices in combination with user-centred methods. These build on design skills to address social and economic issues and is used for design processes to support various disciplines and stakeholders to collaborate’ (Burns et al., 2006). Our experiences conform the use of different approaches in design and management practices. Methods are often the similar, but the emphasis on empathy of design thinking mindset is an important aspect we needed to implement in the collaborative course design process. Therefore, we decided to take into use canvases from design companies and modify those to fit our module design aims and processes. Working with a physical canvas helped us to share the experiences. Idea being that we could use design thinking methods as they are commonly mixed with service

8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers

131

design. We consider learning design as service design, where the service is facilitated and mostly provided by the teachers. Initially we assumed that the students should be seen as customers to the service, but after running workshops with the students, we arrived to a conclusion that students should be seen as users using the learning service. Customer for the service would be the prospective employers that would be partly represented by the study program. Design thinking takes into account all stakeholder requirements, but the actually design is centred around the users. We wanted to apply an analogous pattern to learning design where the learning requirements would come from the customers (prospective employers and study program), but the module would be planned together with the users i.e. students in order to maximise learning opportunities for all students involved. output. Next, we shall explain the process, phases, methods we used in the collaborative planning of the course.

8.4.2 Developing the Learning Design Process To develop student centred collaborative learning design process, we took an iterative approach. In 2015 the first workshop was organised that included all the 30 participants of a forthcoming Mobile Application Development -module. Figure 8.1, displays the themed whiteboards generated together with the students during the workshop. Topics ranged from the content of the course to the team size of project teams: 1. 2.

CS content Module practicalities (weekly exams, lecture/practical work mix etc.)

Fig. 8.1 2015 learning design workshop for tuning the content, tasks, evaluation and participation

132

3. 4. 5. 6.

M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

Weekly schedule English communication content Application ideas Team size

The workshop involving students in the module design worked better than doing the design in traditional way, namely, studying the feedback of the module then trying to improvements to the next module. However, the teacher team still felt that there is room for improvement in understanding the students and involving them more into the module design process. Since design thinking was one of the subject areas that was thought in courses, it made sense to try design thinking methods on our own processes also. Table 8.1, summarises the changes made to the process used in 2015. The process for taking into use the service design and design thinking with modified canvases from design companies was planned to have five phases: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Define module target Interview a focus group of students Run module planning workshop Document the module into fake advertisement Weekly feedback

We picked six out of the 17 canvases available at the lean service creation portal https://www.leanservicecreation.com/canvases and modified them into learning design context. Table 8.2 lists the six selected canvases, there purpose and the corresponding lean service creation canvas. To adapt the canvases into learning design, we changed some of the headings and subheadings on the canvases. We also made slight adjustments to some of the layouts including the addition of more groups to the student grouping canvas. In a nutshell, the process first addressed the module targets. We decided to take an approach where the targets were developed by the teacher team in a workshop based on the curriculum requirements and best current understanding the prospective employer’s wishes. In 2015, the workshop with all students work fairly well, but we thought that a maximally diverse focus group would potentially be better as it could give the opportunity for all kinds of students to give their input to the learning design. Based on the student interviews, workshop and module targets, we formulated a “fake advertisement” of the module. Next we shall describe the phases in more detail.

8.4.3 The Five Design Phases Phase 1 is a workshop for discussing and defining the module targets using the Course Objective Canvas (see Fig. 8.2) and answering the following questions that displayed in the canvas: How will we know that we have succeeded, Who needs to be involved?, What enables us?, What prevents us?, What are the learning objectives and why are they important? The centre aim is the definition of the module objective.

Purpose Define module targets, identify stakeholders, enablers, hindrances

Learning design canvas

1. Module objective and context

Table 8.2 The different canvases that were used

Business Objective and Context

Lean service creation canvas

(continued)

Figure 8.2 Filled module objective canvas

I

Phase

8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers 133

Purpose Define what data would be needed to plan the course

Which student groups would be using the module?

Learning design canvas

2. Data Collected from previous module feedback, impressions and from survey to the current module

3. Student grouping

Table 8.2 (continued)

Customer Grouping

Data

Lean service creation canvas

(continued)

Figure 8.3 The defined student groups

II

II

Phase

134 M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

Purpose Document the module content and implementation for sharing and validation

Define metrics and follow up

Learning design canvas

4. Fake Advertisement

5. Weekly feedback & validation

Table 8.2 (continued)

Fake Advertisement

Lean service creation canvas

IV

Validation

Figure 8.4 The result of the workshop ended up being prosperous

II–III

Phase

8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers 135

136

M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

It is not enough just to set the objectives; it is important to think and define why each objective would be essential for the students. The work with the canvas is finished when the following criteria has been met: every member of the teacher team has given input, goals have been verified with head of the study program, feedback from previous implementation of the module has been taken into account, the canvas is understandable and the teacher team is comfortable to proceed to phase 2. Activity and Outcomes The course design workshop with the teacher team was executed in December 2018. The workshop extended from its original time frame. Our assumption was that we could manage to introduce the canvas, guide on the work styles for filling up the canvas with post-its and reflect on the outcome in hour and a half. In the end we consumed 2 h. Convincing why we are doing this, took 20 min after which the actually filling of the canvas with post-it was fast. Reflection was laborious. Our aim was to compare the outcome in the canvas to our previous practices and feelings of running the module. The four of us were divided in seeing the worth of the practise and if anything, new case out of it. Programming teacher pointed out that all documented there was known, e.g. that some students work, some have serious language skill issues, exchange students do not mingle with locals and other way around, that programming is hard and UX is boring. In a way, he was right but having the issues openly in the wall seen by all together at one glance, did make difference for the UX and the English teachers. For instance, the English communication teacher said that the joint design workshop helped to better understand the module’s technical content and learning targets. This is a valuable outcome because it helps to see the different challenges we have in relations to our work, potentially giving ideas what each of us could do in our part to solve at least some of the issues. We had tried already previously to support those who had to work while studying, or who had small kids, or mental issues in the family or who felt different and could not fit in. However, we had not supported each other with these endeavours. This was taken as one of the aims for the future course: to have a joint plan how to support the students. We needed to place increasing effort on understanding the students but also on understanding each other. Therefore, we decided to have multiple ways to interact with the students for understanding them. We provided a pre-questionnaire asking basic facts, we interviewed students belonging to the main students’ groups, and we organised a workshop with them. Within the next phases 2–4, we will open up these activities. In phase 2, teacher team firstly defined what data would be needed for planning of the module and what would be the relevant sources of data. Secondly, students on the module are grouped based on relevant factors like previous success and skills, amount of work during the module and English language skill (teaching is in English, but there are none native English speakers on the module). Thirdly, we selected one

8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers

137

representative from each of the created student categorisations. During January– February 2018 phases 2 and 3 were executed. Activity and Outcomes Building on the phase 1 outcomes the teacher team had a solid understanding of which kind of data was needed to understand more in depth the students. Three teachers had already been teaching most of them which helped to plan the survey for acquiring basic information about the students. Google forms questionnaire was used to find the focus group with maximal diversity. The survey consisted such questions as: How familiar are Mac computers (as the course is about iOS programming); how well studies have gone so far (to understand their general level in studies); Their own understanding of their programming skills (to understand what the students assume they can do versus what their scores are); Similar question about English communication skills; Are they working during the course period and how much work hours per week. The outcome of the survey confirmed some of the understanding the teacher team had but introduced more depth into it. For instance, we knew that many of the students work but did not know how often. Sometimes the students themselves tell during the module how much they work but the overall vision was missing for the teacher team. The survey helped in pinpointing this over all view. In brief, nine out of 30 students worked 11 to 20 h per week, which is considered to be a lot. However, all of these students also stated that their programming and English communications skills are 3 to 5. In general, all students rated their programming, English communication skills and ability work (progress in studies) better than these actually were according to our experience and by the scores on the previous modules. Clearly, the students are not underestimating themselves. Relying on the survey information and previous knowledge of the students, we selected 5 students for interview. The selection was executed in a design thinking manner, trying to get extreme ends and the average—the common types of students. Thus, we selected one Finnish speaking, one to represent Asians (because they are well represented group among exchange students) and two represented other exchange students from different countries; three out of five were working, one was good in English and programming and one who was not as well as one student who represented the average (three in the grading scale) on all aspects. In phase 3, the student grouping canvas was used to support the teacher team in identifying the different groups of students. The objective is to analyse the students’ characters and wishes that are meaningful from the learning point of view before the actual design. The dimension can be but are not limited to those investigated in the questionnaire but we decided to broaden the view to what the students would bring in. The final outcome of this phase is a canvas (Fig. 8.3) were the students are grouped into relevant groups for the module design. Activity and Outcomes Interviews lasted from 15 to 25 min depending how talkative the student was. Two teachers were present asking questions on the following themes: Aims and interests

138

M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

in studies; What tools, methods and processes you are accustomed to use in your studies; Different aspects of teamwork (team formation, size, working habits); How does working affect studying, if it does, how should it be taken into account during the module; Aspects and feelings of language challenges and lastly issues on studying challenges. The interviews were recorded and students signed a consent form in which they could agree or disagree on the use of the videos for research purposes, scientific dissemination and educational purposes. All agreed on all usages. In addition to transcribing the video recordings, both teachers took notes during the interviews. The interview results are described in the following manner: first we introduce statements and comments that we found out interesting based on our experiences from the previous similar modules. After which, we described what similarities the selected student had and what issues were contradictory wishes. For instance, the exchange students expressed a need to get support for knowing the other students and that “when teachers guide in Finnish the Finnish students, it leaves the non-Finnish speakers with a feeling that they miss some information”. Another surprising comment was on planning phase of the project work with the team. There was a need to get more support on the planning phase. Furthermore, those who worked felt that they should handle it and if one works during the course it should not affect others’ grades and project work. For the Asian group expressed that they like to work from home, still they would like to be able to integrate into the class. Besides, they would like to have diverse groups so that their English skills would improve but they rather would not be present. Most of the students wished random team formation so that they would have change to get to know others and work with different people. This contradicts what Finnish student wished as to be able to choose their team since they hoped that they could be with those with whom the working was smooth. Nonetheless, all wished that the teams would be formed early in the module, for enabling time for the planning of the team project. The team member amount as 3 was consistent through all interviewed. Most students were mainly interested in programming iOS or other programming languages. Only two students mentioned that user experience (UX) is their main interest and the other one was slightly indecisive which one would be more interesting UX or programming. On learning, the students wished that teachers would walk around and help them, that teaching would be fast phased (two) and in the same time that it should be good to have recaps and repetition (two). These comments present the difference between those that feel they are good learners to those that feel they have challenges. All mentioned that it helps when they can share learning with their friends—learn together. The Attendance in school was felt to be annoying but each sort of admitted that there should be some way to support attendance. We could say that the students realise that if there is no checking or support or interest many would not be present enough, but still they wish that there would not be need of attendance. Next, we present the student groupings with their special characteristics, challenges and assumed solutions.

8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers

Advanced students:

Problem:

Potential solutions: “Average” Student:

Problem: Potential solutions: Non-native English speaker:

Problem: Potential solutions:

Students who studying:

work

while

Problem: Potential solutions: Struggling Students:

Problem: Potential solutions:

Joint solution for Students who work, Non-native speakers and struggling students:

139

Module grades > 4,5; Solid English communication skills; Well executed projects in previous courses; Good self-management. Getting bored and uninterested, part of the students only want to graduate with minimum effort. Course should introduce also more challenging activities. The students that we do not notice very easy, they tend to blend away into the crowd; Average module grades; Dutiful but not shining with knowledge, skills and enthusiasm; 70–80% present. To go beyond average. – English skills make learning difficult; Reading and writing issues are frequent; Difficulties in understanding the guidelines; Following given timetables may be a challenge; these students tend to stay with others that have language issues also. How to mingle? Find relevant learning material in native language; Totally mixed teams; Find friends who know English or Finnish. Presence at school is limited; May have relevant work experiences; Might not want to do the same things in school again; Gets frustrated if module content is not relevant to him/her when s/he is present at school; Sometimes overestimates the time available in the module; Sometimes overestimate their own skill levels. How to find balance with work and school? Self learning materials; Joint learning with others during non-school hours. Module grades 0–2; Incomplete projects in previous modules; Hindrances in life that affect learning and being in school. Widening gap in skills. Make sure the module includes activities also for students with less than average skills, possibilities for additional support solving other life hindrances. Group non-native speakers, struggling students and students who work to self-study together in their own time.

140

M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

In Phase 4, the fake advertisement was created (see Fig. 8.4). The purpose of the fake advertisement canvas is to define and describe the module objectives and outcomes in a visual way created collaboratively by the teacher team. The canvas should be designed so that it would provide to the students a quick and solid understanding on what the module is about, how and what it will be like to attend the module. The categories in the canvas were: Tweets about the module; What would you feel when studying in the module; What would you learn; How would you learn; What artefacts would be produced and What next. The fake advertisement was presented to the whole student team to get further improvement ideas. Activity and Outcomes The teachers view on what the course would be like, what would be learned and how and so forth was discussed with the students representing each of the abovementioned student groups. The discussion lasted about an hour. Differences on what the teacher team had suggested were for instance, in how you learn. The teacher team had suggested tutorials, short guideline lectures, team work, exams and feedback. The students suggested short videos, doing by yourself, support in time planning and planning in general, detailed guidelines (step by step manner) and recaps. Tutorials were seen as OK, but rather as supplementary material if the other methods fail to support learning. What they would like to learn: iOS coding, Java, minority wishes user experience subjects, machine learning. All the previous were mentioned by the teacher team also, but new suggestions were: good practices and outcomes for CV, image processing and math. About artefacts the student mainly mentioned the app. Tweets, the students, skipped but about how they should feel they suggested the following: supported, relaxed, flexible time schedules, they wanted guidance, again help for planning and organising their time and to learn new things and clear structure of the course so that the feeling of uncertainty would be diminished. In phase 5, feedback and documenting the corrective actions during the module. Activities and Outcomes The teacher team divided the students so that each teacher had around 10 students. Aim was to have 3 short 10–15 min interviews with the students during the module. One in the beginning, then in the middle and finally close to the end of the module. Not all teachers managed to get hold of all the students allocated to them 3 times during the module. In general, it can be said that during the first interview the students were still enthusiastic to tell about their hopes and feelings but the last two interviews the outcomes were less thick in description. The first interview conformed well with the students hopes and suggestions to the fake add. Thus, the students were consistent in what they wished for. However, during the last two interviews the students concentrated on the challenges they faced. These were for instance, team dynamism problems, the course was going to fast or too slow, too many tasks, or too few, too broad and difficult tasks or too easy. There we also different preferences for teachers’ different teaching and guiding styles. It was obvious that despite we tried to take into account the different student groups—those who struggled and those

8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers

141

who felt it was easy—we failed. There were some general issues also, for instance, the student did not see worth in using Trello as a sprint planing tool, because their teams were small so they felt they can keep track other ways also of their work. The students also appreciated weekly or biweekly exams. There was also one interesting suggestion; to try to organize the lunch so that the students could mingle together and eat together, especially the Asian felt it horrible to eat alone.

8.5 Conclusions As Dym et al. (2005) and Razzouk and Shute (2012) stated, we also noticed, that design thinking mindset is apt to project-based learning settings well. It was uncomplicated to see where the different methods would fit in the module design and executing the module. We implemented the design thinking practices in five different phases: 1. Module objective and context, 2. Data collection, 3. Student grouping, 4. Fake advertisement and 5. Weekly feedback and validation. Our main aim to involve students increasingly into the design of the module, succeeded. The involvement of other stakeholders (Kapros, 2016), such as management and service personnel had complications. The students provided their ideas, wishes and challenges. They also build up their agency on being able to provide constructive feedback of the module. Nonetheless, the students could not keep up the constructive feedback within the continuous feedback sessions we organised. Their feedback on the short interviews grew shorter and increasingly focussed on their challenges in the project not in the module organisation. We found out that although we executed, for instance, the forced team formation, it was not appreciated by the students. To be able to keep the student involvement, it would require that the same involvement process would be kept up in the forthcoming modules also. To keep these practices ongoing and build them as habits, it would require support from the management and administrative services of the institute (Burns et al. 2006; Buus & Georgsen, 2017). We lacked time, space and equipment resources as well as mental support (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Diefenthaler et al. 2017: 53, Knudsen & Shechtman, 2017; Koh et al., 2015a) for trying out new and promising practices that should enhance the teachers and students learning and empathy skills. Sometimes not being supported grows to be too much of challenge and the teacher team had to drop issues that were planned, such as frequent join teacher team meetings. For the teacher team the design thinking practices were intriguing. We learned from each other, and during the module we had better collaboration. However, we struggled to keep it up until the end of the module. The old habits push back when situations and resources become very tight. Due to the lessened support the teacher team did not manage to collaborative support the different types of students, despite that this one of the aims the teachers had in the start of the module. The experience we received is worthwhile to share because it presents how difficult it is to change the practices. It is ever harder when the support for attempting change is not there. We learned to appreciate each other views and we learned new methods.

142

M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

We aim to continue the changing of the practices, but since there is even less support now that when we started, we have to carefully decide for future module, which methods we shall take into use. Based on our experience, we will continue but in smaller iterative attempts (Hassi et al., 2015). For instance, we use some canvases such as the module objective canvas and student grouping canvas, both of these we can also provide for the students to use in their projects. We shall continue in asking continuous feedback but not through interviews because it is too time consuming. We shall most likely design a canvas that is digital and where to students can add their feedback at any time during the module. We are forced to choose the digital version of a canvas because we are not able to have a same premise for one module anymore, thus there is no physical place that stays for the students through the module. The lack of having the same classroom is one of the challenges when using design thinking because at its best, it needs physical activity executed together, and a possibility to leave the outcomes for further use (see more on the chapter Agile Methodologies in Learning with Design Thinking of this book on importance of physical presence).

References Anderson, J. (2013, December 9). The benefits of design- and maker-thinking. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/13/12/ben efits-design-and-maker-thinking. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practicebased theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). Jossey-Bass. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain, Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f317/c29 12db1c09387a5eb17dfa66b063956afba.pdf. Brown, T. (2008, November). Tales of creativity and play. TED. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https:// www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play/transcript?language=en. Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006). Transformation design. Red Paper 02. Design Council, UK. Buus, L., & Georgsen, M. (2017). A learning design methodology for developing short learning programmes in further and continuing education. In Higher Education for the Future: Accelerating and Strengthening Innovation: Conference proceedings The Online, Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference. G. Ubachs & L. Konings (Eds.), The online, Open and Flexible Higher Education Conference (EADTU) pp. 28–42. Chai, C. S., Koh, E., Lim, C. P., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Deepening ICT integration through multilevel design of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(1), 1–17. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0002-1. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). Macmillan. Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ça change (pp. 27–84). National Center for Research on Teacher Education. Cox, S., & King, D. (2006). Skill sets: An approach to embed employability in course design. Education+ Training, 48(4), 262–274. Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society. University of Chicago Press. Diefenthaler, A., Moorhead, L., Speicher, S., Bear, C., & Cerminaro, D. (2017). Thinking & acting like a designer: How design thinking supports innovation in K-12 education. Wise &

8 Design Thinking as a Collaborative Learning Design Tool for Teachers

143

Ideo, 6(3), 2019. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://www.wise-qatar.org/sites/default/files/rr.1. 2017_-_ideo.pdf. Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–523. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103–120. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(11), 105–121. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://s3.amazonaws. com/media.loft.io/attachments/Design%20Research%20What%20We%20Learn%20When% 20We%20Engage%20in%20D.pdf. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263–291). Jossey-Bass. Estrada, C., & Goldman, S. (2017). A praxis model for design thinking: Catalyzing life readiness. Taking Design Thinking to School, 37–49. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. Goldman, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2017). Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. Routledge. Hassi, L., Paju, S., & Maila, R. (2015). Kehitä kokeillen–organisaation käsikirja. Talentum Pro. Holland, B. (2016, February 25). Design thinking and PBL. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia. org/blog/design-thinking-and-pbl-beth-holland. Ideo (2013). Design thinking for educators. Retrieved 02.12.2017 from: https://designthinkingfore ducators.com/toolkit/. Kapros, E. (2016). The role of empathy in designing for education. The Learnovate Centreweblog, Trinity College Dublin (2016). Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://www.learnovatecentre.org/ empathy-in-designing-for-education/. Kershner, R., Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kleine Staarman, J. (2014). Primary children’s management of themselves and others in collaborative group work: ‘Sometimes it takes patience…’. Education 3–13, 42(2), 201–216. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. 1080/03004279.2012.670255. Knudsen, J., & Shechtman, N. (2017). Professional development that bridges the gap between workshop and classroom through Disciplined Improvisation. In Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. Routledge. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Lim, W. Y. (2015a). Creating and learning through design: teacher professional development for 21st century learning. Presented in the International Conference on Researching Work and Learning (RWL9). Singapore, 9–11 December 2015 organised by The Institute for Adult Learning, the National Institute of Education (Singapore) and SIM University. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/17354/3/ICRWL2015-Paper067_a.pdf. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. (2015b). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Springer. Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Stieger, D., & Matzler, K. (2011). Avatar-based innovation: Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 160–168. Lindberg, T., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2010). Evolving discourses on design thinking: How design cognition inspires meta-disciplinary creative collaboration. Technoetic Arts, 8(1), 31– 37. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from https://edit801fall10.pbworks.com/f/lindberg,+noweski+and+ meinel.pdf. Littlejohn, D., & Davis, M. (2016). The culture of practice: Design-based teaching and learning. In Taking Design Thinking to School (pp. 38–54). Routledge.

144

M. Bauters and P. Vesikivi

Mattelmäki, T., & Battarbee, K. (2002). Empathy probes. In T. Binder, J. Gregory & I. Wagner (Eds.), Pdc 2002 participatory design conference 23–25.6.2002 (pp. 266–272). Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Melles, G., Anderson, N., Barrett, T., & Thompson-Whiteside, S. (2015). Problem finding through design thinking in education. In Inquiry-based learning for multidisciplinary programs: A conceptual and practical resource for educators (pp. 91–209). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. Royakkers, L., Timmer, J., Kool, L., & van Est, R. (2018, March 16). Societal and ethical issues of digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20, 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676018-9452-x. Sanders E. B.-N. & Stappers P. J. (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design, Co-design, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068. Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education, 17(3), 8–19. Stanford Design thinking school (dschool). https://dschool.stanford.edu/about. Tran N. (2017). Design thinking playbook, for change management in K12 schools, Retrieved 21.12.2017 from: https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-playbookfrom-design-tech-high-school. Weinbaum, E., & Supovitz, J. (2010). Planning ahead: Make program implementation more predictable. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009 100714. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/003172171 009100714. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840. Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://blogs.ubc.ca/etec511dlg10/files/2012/07/zhaofrank2003.pdf. Zielezinski, M. (2017). Finding your fit: Empathy, authenticity, and ambiguity in the design thinking classroom. In Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. Routledge. Zupan, B., Stritar, R., & Nabergoj, A. S. (2014). Design Thinking as a course design methodology. Proceedings of 8th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development and 4th Eastern European ESD Conference: Building Resilient Economy, Zagreb, Croatia, I. Filipovic, G. Kozina, & F. Galetic (Eds.), (pp. 465–476). Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency (VADEA). Retrieved 05.02.2019 from: https://www.esd-conference.com/past-con ferences.

Chapter 9

Design Thinking for Promoting Human-Centred Design Kai Pata

Abstract This chapter suggests that design thinking is a required skill for higher education institutions’ (HEI) graduates from many disciplines for solving complex and ill-defined problems in human-centred innovation context. The chapter provides an overview for the educational specialists in HEIs of the approaches how design thinking has been recently applied in HEIs, and what are the key competencies of design thinking they need to consider in integrating design thinking to the learning context. The empirical part describes the novel approach of promoting design thinking at HEI context with the gamified collaborative mobile app using DesignIT platform developed in the Erasmus+ project DesignIT. DesignIT was tested and formatively evaluated in different educational contexts in four partner countries’ HEIs in Finland, Estonia, Portugal and Greece. The results present four case studies, and discuss how certain design thinking processes could be embedded to the collaborative learning process with DesignIT practices utilising the DesignIT mobile app as a tool, and how learners perceived learning for design thinking competences. The best practice ideas of applying DesignIT for developing design thinking competencies in human-centred innovation activities in HEIs were summarised as the practical takeaway for higher education educators. Keywords DesignIT platform · Design thinking · Higher education

9.1 Introduction Miyata and associates (2017) define innovation as a practice that changes the society by connecting ideas in a way that has not been done previously to solve newly emerging problems caused by rapid changes in society. Design for innovations is driving the transformation of the society. The design and innovation of products and services is a major component of business competitiveness and economic and social changes. The recent trend in the World is involving the societies by promoting K. Pata (B) School of Digital Technologies, Tallinn University, Narva rd 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_9

145

146

K. Pata

peoples’ creative mindsets and entrepreneurship that would enable them to part-take in the shaping of the future through the democratisation of the industrial, governance and social solutions. How to move education to develop universal ability for human centred innovation among students? In this chapter I posit that design thinking as the means of inductive and abductive thinking in sciences (Simon, 1996, see also Chapter 2) is a required skill for higher education institutions’ (HEI) graduates from many disciplines for solving complex and ill-defined problems in human-centred innovation context. The chapter provides an overview for the educational specialists in HEIs of the approaches how design thinking has been recently applied in HEIs, and what the key processes and competencies of design thinking are, which they need to consider in integrating design thinking to the learning context. The empirical part describes the novel approach of promoting design thinking at HEI context with the gamified collaborative mobile app developed in the Erasmus+ project DesignIT.1 The DesignIT platform2 can be used with mobile devices and computers and was developed in the project, tested and formatively evaluated in different educational contexts in four partner countries’ HEIs in Finland, Estonia, Portugal and Greece. The results focus on how certain design thinking processes could be embedded to the collaborative learning process with the DesignIT mobile version, and how the learners perceived the design thinking process with it. The best practice ideas of applying DesignIT for developing design thinking competencies in human-centred innovation activities in HEIs are summarised as the general model and the practical takeaway for higher education educators.

9.2 Approaches, How Design Thinking Principles Are Used in Higher Education Context Many countries address creativity and ability to innovate as the main competences that drive the economy, yet there is a competency gap in actual job practice regarding design thinking skills that promote the methods for being creative in human-centred innovation. To provide solutions in formal education and beyond, recently the higher education institutions have started to integrate design thinking courses and approaches into the curricula in education, computer science, economics, natural and social sciences and other disciplines. Hardy and associates (2018) describe three application forms for design thinking in HEIs as follows: • As a standalone subject; • Integrated into the curriculum as a background framework; • As the combination of the two. In some countries and HEIs, the curricula holistically develop the design thinking and innovation design culture among the students and staff (Hardy et al., 2018; Miyata 1 https://projectdesignit.eu. 2 https://designit.e-ce.uth.gr.

9 Design Thinking for Promoting …

147

et al., 2017). For example, in bachelor level informatics curriculum in James Cook University, Queensland, Australia (see Hardy et al., 2018) the design thinking competency is iteratively developed within 3 study years following the model introduced by Landis (2017), starting from basic design thinking principles and methods, continuing with Lean UX, and finalizing with agile design thinking practices (see also Chapter 5 in this book). Other HEIs have applied design thinking practices holistically as an active learning method in project work to boost creativity and collaboration. Miyata and associates (2017) describe the postgraduate level approach in Japan, Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Nomi, Ishikawa, targeting human capital development through innovation design education. To solve complex social issues, avoid potential harm, develop multidisciplinary creative power and practical skills in addition to focused domain expertise and analytical skills, three schools of this university (Information Science, Material Science, and Knowledge Science) have developed a specific course “Innovation Design,” as a liberal arts component of postgraduate programs that fosters a general creative problem solving methodology. “Innovation Design” course engages students mastering design thinking methodologies to understand the potential needs of users, proposing and implementing innovative ideas. In Tallinn University, Estonia, even wider cross-university approach has been taken to introduce design thinking among other generative approaches as a creative practice in interdisciplinary LIFE project course that every student must pass with the students from other disciplines. The LIFE project course calls students to proactively discover and solve challenges, engaging with societal actors (see the design thinking application example below in this chapter). Many HEIs attempts to integrate design thinking into the project work with customers from the industry, SMEs, public sector or wider society. The lean and agile methods and design sprint approaches likened to hackathons (see the Chapter 4 in this book) are becoming more common especially in engineering, and human-computer interaction domains. Design thinking methods may be used for promoting creative thinking for other purposes than solving societal or business problems, such as to develop the research proposals for master studies in Human Computer Interaction domain (Tallinn University), or for simulating complex problem solving (Jonassen, 2000) as part of the course activities (see the dilemma-solving example below in this chapter). Lugmayr (2011) describes a media education course in Tampere University, Finland where creative thinking approach was used to foster creative team work and providing students with a method for idea-generation and development. The above example courses and curricula aim to allow students to develop a particular set of skills. These and competences are discussed next.

9.3 Design Thinking Competences While the concept “design thinking skills” has frequently been addressed, the concrete subset of skills it incorporates has not been clearly outlined. Some authors consider them as problem solving skills of the twenty-first century (Razzouk &

148

K. Pata

Shute, 2012) or the innovator mindset. Design thinking skills concept incorporates complex problem-solving skills, critical thinking, empathy, reasoning skills, creative thinking, systems thinking, visual thinking skills, collaboration and teamwork skills (Razzouk & Shute, 2012). They have mapped the set of design thinker dispositional and personality characteristics as well: human and environment centred concern, ability to visualize, predisposition to multifunctionality, systemic vision, ability to use language as a tool, affinity to teamwork, avoiding the necessity of choice by avoiding decisions and combining best choices. Several design thinking competency models have been developed (Razzouk & Shute, 2012; Shute & Torres, 2012;) that operationalise the design thinking construct for learning and assessment purposes. The main blocks in these competency models are demonstrating: 1.

Design thinking skills by a. b. c. d.

2. 3.

Identifying problem aspects and needs; Locating/assimilating/generating/assessing resources, examples and ideas; Iterating the design space conceptually and visually, such as by creating and testing hypotheses, theories and models and by tinkering; Innovating design in contextual, process-related and aesthetic aspects;

Use of design thinking terminology in design process context; and Employing design thinking behaviours with persistence, time management and adaptability.

The case studies results presented below will be discussed using the above competences. I ask the following research questions: • How was design thinking approach embedded to the collaborative learning process with the DesignIT platform? • Which design thinking competences could be developed using DesignIT? • What was the usability of DesignIT platform to support solving challenges with design thinking approach? Firstly, I discuss the project DesignIT, then the methods and finally the results.

9.4 DesignIT Project and DesignIT Collaborative Application In the sections below the research done in the frame of an ERASMUS+ project DesignIT is introduced. DesignIT project3 aimed at facilitating design thinking in higher education by introducing a gamified learning approach that engages students with design thinking principles towards building their capacity to act as innovators in business and civic contents (DesignIT Project, 2018). 3 http://projectdesignit.eu.

9 Design Thinking for Promoting …

149

The gamified design thinking approach for mobile devices in DesignIT platform was developed together with the project experts from participating universities. The DesignIT tool (Tsalapatas et al., 2019) was developed in collaboration with the students from Metropolia University of Applied Sciences. In sequential design sessions the students were asked to use post-its stickers for describing the game elements and other ideas/comments and place them to the backboard into the spot where they thought the elements should be. The post-its comments were collected and categorised into the game flow. Another student team further designed the game flow, explained the implementation ideas and designed wire-frame description for the project to develop the game platform for both mobile and desktop devices. The experts from the project discussed the wireframes of the gamified DesignIT platform after which the developing of the prototype followed. The particular aspects of supporting creativity in the gamified way during design thinking phases were: dividing the work according to the design phases that support extending the design space; the team formation by own choice; the competition between the team challenges; the brainstorming and peer evaluation for increasing cross-team creativity, templates for constraining the design practices and providing the frame of evaluation for each phase, canvases representing the design phases that may be used for collecting and organizing various assets (images, links, videos), and time management. The DesignIT platform allows flexibility to educators on integrating diverse design thinking practices in the classroom or outside of the classroom. The game master (teacher or facilitator) may define the challenges or these may be defined by students. The game master may define the number of phases. DesignIT platform’s priority is on the early phases of the design thinking process— the phases extending the design space. The tool may be used with mobile devices, that supports using it in distributed teams working in real empirical settings. The templates for canvases may be created by the game master to provide instructions for different design thinking practices. However, the tool itself is not structuring the inputs to canvases. The teacher can get a good overview of how participants contribute. Process of collecting evidences is gamified. Each challenge has a timeframe, and after it ends the players need to upload it to the review. The players can gain points on individual experience and team activities when they are submitting their work or evaluating the other design teams’ work. DesignIT engages students in the design thinking processes of empathising, ideating, designing, and validating through an on-line learning platform that promotes collaboration in and across teams, brainstorming, and peer reviews of designs allowing students to learn from experience through cases inspired by real world challenges.

9.5 Data Collection and Analysis Methods The DesignIT platform was tested at higher education courses in Estonia, Portugal, Finland and Greece during Fall 2018 and Spring 2019. The feedback from the

150

K. Pata

students was collected with online survey with open ended questions. The online surveys comprised questions about the perceived creativity of the learning process using DesignT, the perceived support of the DesignIT platform on students’ design process, and usability of the tool for supporting design thinking. The online survey was distributed to the students after they had taken part of the design practices with the DesignIT. Additionally, the learning scenarios were composed based on the notes and observations made by the educators and compared formatively to make generalizations of best practices. In total 263 students from Greece, Estonia, Finland and Portugal tested the DesignIT in the HEI course settings. The duration of using Design IT as part of the learning courses varied from one lesson to projects lasting several months. The students were from interdisciplinary backgrounds—in some cases students from the same discipline formed the teams, in other cases the teams were interdisciplinary, incorporating the bachelor and master level students and exchange students. The design challenges were introduced by educators or by outside clients from companies and organisations. However, each student team could then open up the challenge from their points of views. In some of the challenges, students worked only in the distant mode, in other cases the blended distant and faceto-face learning sessions were combined. In some example application scenarios, the students had to work with real customers from companies or museums. Additionally, the training sessions were held in Estonia, Greece, Portugal and Finland engaging 285 educators from HEIs and schools. At the trainings several short 2 h workshops were held to introduce the potential of the tool for active learning in various domains and contexts. The qualitative data analysis was used to highlight the emerging topics from the observation, students’ reflections and surveys. The descriptions and observations about the teaching cases were synthesised and structured around the design thinking process phases (see Chapter 2 in this book). The qualitative survey data was categorised under the design thinking competencies (see Razzouk & Shute, 2012; Shute & Torres, 2012)—Design thinking skills; Use of design thinking terminology in design process context; Employing design thinking behaviours with persistence, time management and adaptability. The survey feedback was also used to evaluate the usability issues of the DesignIT tool.

9.6 Results 9.6.1 Case Studies with DesignIT Platform This section describes and compares the different DesignIT practice examples: Design thinking for lean and agile design sprint for business innovation (Finnish case); Design thinking for designing educational innovations with external partners (Estonian case); Design thinking for applying STEM for human-centred innovations (Greece case); Design thinking for simulating complex dilemma solving (Estonian

9 Design Thinking for Promoting …

151

case). The cases are described from the viewpoint of embedding design thinking approach to the collaborative learning process with the DesignIT platform.

9.6.1.1

Case 1: The Mobile Application Development Module, Metropolia UAS, Helsinki, Finland

Participants: targeted to sophomore Mobile Services program students (40 students). Students worked in teams of four to six. The international student teams were heterogeneous, consisting of students from Vietnam, Western and Eastern Europe, and Africa. The module involves several teachers, typically four to seven. Team teaching was applied. One or two teachers were available for consultation during the whole time (from 9:00 to 16:00); additionally, other teachers dropped occasionally in the classroom to discuss the progress. Goal: Design, plan and develop a mobile application according to simple guidelines. The guidelines provide information on the technical features that need to be fulfilled to pass the module. Context: Subject areas on the course are iOS application development, machine learning, English communications and user experience design. The module follows project-based learning using agile development methods. The ideation and design of user experience part was placed into a week, taking place at the beginning of the module. The continuous user testing was spread through the rest of the module. The Google Venture design sprint is well-documented, has a large user base in the industry, and it applies essential ideas of agile development and design thinking. It does not require much earlier knowledge of any of the methods, even though some previous exposure to teamwork, design thinking and user-centred methods is helpful. The GV and design thinking were explained to the students and how these activities feed to the progress of the rest of the module. DesignIT tool was to be used to take images and videos of the design sprint. After each day students had to review the work of other groups. Duration: 4 days Mode: blended, classroom and online. A cosy classroom was booked for the entire time and was supplied with whiteboards, papers, flap-paper boards, and a vast amount of post-its stickers. The students used their laptops and mobile devices for the background research and for using DesignIT platform for documenting their progress. From the feedback during the days it seemed that the students appreciated the possibility to see others work, give and receive feedback about their work (see Fig. 9.1). Process phases and tasks: Phase 1: Set the stage, design team, challenge. Start asking experts. Read articles, spot opportunities of How might we? Vote and select. Phase 2: Focus on solutions. Inspirations: a review of existing ideas to remix sketch, following the four-step process that emphasizes critical thinking over artistry. Phase 3: Critique each solution, select the ones worth going forward. Create a storyboard: a step by step plan.

152

K. Pata

Fig. 9.1 Student feedback to another teams’ work

Phase 4: Prototype. Test it with users. Template appearance: the instructions for the design sprint were adapted to our educational setting from Google Venture (GV) sprint methods,4 the video tutorial was provided for each day, and the checklist in Google document format. Canvas usage by students: The daily canvases were filled in ordered way with coloured notes containing the pictures of the sketches and templates the students had used in the classroom (see Fig. 9.2). Results: All teams completed their sprint successfully on time and delivered what was asked: a prototype, documentation in DesignIT and user testing results. Many of the teams were happy enough with the experience to continue the module with the same team members during the development process, even though they could reorganise after the first sprint. Some also stated that this was the first time they understood the worth, need and way to do design and involve users. We could see (observations of the teachers) that the student got immersed in the process and their documentation became abundant.

4 https://www.gv.com/sprint/.

9 Design Thinking for Promoting …

153

Fig. 9.2 Documentation in the team challenges on the sketching (left) and on the ideation (right)

9.6.1.2

Case 2: The Interdisciplinary LIFE Course, Tallinn University, Estonia

Participants: 25 students participated in Museum this project, together with the museum learning experts and two supervisors from different Schools of Tallinn University (digital technologies and humanities). Goal: The LIFE projects explored The Museums in Tallinn, their goal was to form 3 competing teams who offered design solutions for the child museum Miia Milla Manda, Tallinn Photo Museum and Kalamaja Museum. Each museum requested the teams to explore the problem situation in the museum, discovering visitor opportunities and needs, describing the visitor types, and finally offering the solutions how to change the museums according to the visitor needs. Context: Tallinn University runs for all students at bachelor and master level a project-based LIFE course,5 that is an interdisciplinary design activity by nature, bringing together different students from several curricula into the teams. The interdisciplinary open project ideas are offered by supervisors and the external partners. LIFE project team was opened where testing of DesignIT platform was executed during the period from February until May 2019. Duration: 4 months Mode: classroom, online in DesignIT and in the museums Process phases and tasks: We divided DesignIT challenges into 3 phases—for idea generation, for persona description and evaluation of user needs, and for prototyping. These phases were to be evaluated by student teams at certain deadlines. In between evaluations we had face to face meetings to narrow down the problem and find the 5 https://elu.tlu.ee.

154

K. Pata

design idea, to evaluate the user needs in respect to design idea, and to complete for the museums the change offer as the paper prototype. The final project event took place at Tallinn Photo Museum in Tallinn old town where all the teams presented their design activity results. Template appearance: The design thinking templates were generated to support design thinking phases with examples of method application. Canvas usage by students: Students piled the idea notes on top of the canvas, but did not organize these, colours were used to systematize topics (Figs. 9.3 and 9.4). Some groups did post the ideas initially on the wrong canvas. To work in remote forms, students used Google document, the links to these documents were posted to canvases. The communication between them took place also in Facebook group, and particularly they needed to use the voice meetings in Messenger to create common ground (Figs. 9.3 and 9.4). Results: The students from non-technical domains were quite able to use DesignIT in remote settings and systematically. Some issues appeared in reviewing the other teams and in some teams the students got lost between the three levels and reported their task phase at wrong boards. Although at face to face events the students were applying the templates, that were presented in the boards as examples, in practice

Fig. 9.3 The board presenting ideation at the Miia Milla Manda museum

9 Design Thinking for Promoting …

155

Fig. 9.4 The board presenting the persona mapping at the Tallinn Photography museum. The work with personas took place using Google docs for collaborative writing

the students selected other more familiar methods like grounded theory, or market plan to report their final results to the museum. They seemed of not understanding how the persona method generalized their results.

9.6.1.3

Case 3: The Course “Technology in Education”, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) of the University of Thessaly, Greece

Participants: 140 students, 28 teams (5–8 master level students). Goal: design a pervasive learning service that supports education anywhere and anytime through mobile and other devices, students could narrow down their ideas. Duration: 6 steps, where each step started in a different week. Together 6 weeks? Mode: Online, distributed. Process phases and tasks: Phase 1: Getting to know design thinking and pervasive learning. Task: Find information or sources about design thinking and pervasive learning. Phase 2–3: Using the Beaconing software Task: Experience the software in use. Gather information of the functioning of the software for pervasive learning, add ideas with notes to the DesignIT board. Phase 4: Design your own ideal educational platform with Beaconing software Task: improve the ideas of your service, add comments or sketches. Phase 5: Refine your design and write it down. Task: Add the prototype idea to the canvas and describe it.

156

K. Pata

Fig. 9.5 The board presenting the template for the challenge at Beaconing Task

Phase 6: Feedback of DesignIT usage for design thinking activities Task: Fill in the survey. Template appearance: each task was written as an instruction on separate note. No specific design thinking templates were used (Fig. 9.5). Canvas usage by students: students used colour to personalize their contributions. The posts on the screen were organized, but overlapped (Fig. 9.6).

9.6.1.4

Case 4: Design Thinking for Simulating Complex Dilemma Solving

Participants: ERASMUS+ training conducted by EUNEOS for the international group of teachers from basic schools and gymnasiums, 29 educators. Goal: The learning activity at these training settings was developed as a STEM role-play to solve the problem of disappearing bees. Context: It was posited that solving dilemmas requires playing through complex negotiation and voting between differently-minded stakeholders. Particularly the practices from Empathising and Ideating phases of the design thinking process were found usefully supporting dilemma solving. All the teachers that participated were

9 Design Thinking for Promoting …

157

Fig. 9.6 The board presenting the ideation for Beaconing software Task

also introduced with the methodological aspects of using DesignIT platform for teaching. Each teacher received the teacher code for registering the teacher profile for further usage. Duration: 2 h Mode: In class blended learning activity. Process phases and tasks: Phase 1: The brain-dumping approach was used for generating problem causes. Phase 2: In the second phase of the role-play the teams had to choose one of the stakeholders’ roles (legislation, economy, environment, engineering), and had to use the templates of personas to reveal the stakeholders’ perspective to the problem. The work with personas took place using Google docs for collaborative writing. Phase 3: In the final stage the dilemma voting technique was used with Tricider.com software. This enabled to compare different ideas, add positive and negative arguments as well as voting for the best idea. Template appearance: In the initial phase the problem was introduced in multisided ways by embedding the bees’ problem video and the task templates to the first board of the challenge (Fig. 9.7 left). The second phase template presented the persona method, and links to the google documents for collaborative work on persona cards (Fig. 9.7 right).

158

K. Pata

Fig. 9.7 The board presenting the Bees’ dilemma task template (left) and the board presenting the persona mapping and the Bees’ dilemma. The work with personas took place using Google docs for collaborative writing (right)

Canvas usage by students: the students used the canvas mainly as the central point of reference to discover links, and add some ideas. Results: The ERASMUS+ STEM training group used mainly the smart devices for accessing the boards in the DesignIT platform. In the international team some participant teachers from Turkey used the automatic translation option, and it functioned well in using DesignIT platform. This short training event indicated that it is feasible to use the DesignIT platform for various teaching purposes where design thinking is embedded as an element. The usage of the DesignIT platform was sufficiently intuitive and did not require much learning.

9.6.2 Supporting Design Thinking Competences with DesignIT In this section I map students’ perceptions of the design thinking with DesignIT on the model of design thinking competences described above (see Shute & Torres, 2012; Razzouk & Shute, 2012).

9.6.2.1

Design Thinking Skills

Identifying Problem Aspects and Needs The tool supported performing new strategic problem solving. The challenge helped students to gather and narrow down the results of brainstorming sessions. The challenge made them using their creative mind more and prompted them to put their thoughts into one place. The initial problem was broken down the into smaller ones, so that each post-its sticker represented a smaller problem. The defining of the problems space and investigating the context was seen to be easier in DesignIT

9 Design Thinking for Promoting …

159

as the platform could also be used on portable devices and users could collect data ubiquitously and analysing them.

Locating/Assimilating/Generating/Assessing Resources, Examples and Ideas The students could express their ideas personally with stickers on board. Each students’ ideas could be contributed and considered. The notes on the board helped at working together, but also see the progress and ideas of other teams. Availability of collected information and ideas on the common board motivated creative brainstorming. Students could organise ideas jointly and creatively. The ideas were moved on the board. Students could simultaneously categorise ideas on the board using different colours. Working step by step was practiced to gradually improve the ideas. Splitting the design idea structurally into different parts of the board helped the students to focus on one subject at a time. Uploaded information snippets enhanced information processing. The help from other design teams was used to get feedback. Students followed the sequence of collecting all the ideas, then provided peer feedback, which was used for revising ideas, and taking the best ideas together again. Visualising ideas trigged creativity in real-time and prompted processing of ideas. Some students did not perceive the process sufficiently creative, because of the lack of options.

Iterating the Design Space Conceptually and Visually, Such as by Creating and Testing Hypotheses, Theories and Models and by Tinkering The tool helped students to be creative and trigged experimenting and explorations. Students could compare notes and ideas and understand divergent viewpoints. Students could combine ideas to make something better and bigger. The board with stickers of ideas made information easier to process for students. They moved iteratively from one design space to another. Building creatively upon templates prompted them to reorganise design space according to different filters, rationalize ideas and work on solutions.

Innovating Design in Contextual, Process-Related and Aesthetic Aspects No particular comments were collected about this aspect.

9.6.2.2

Design Thinking Skills Within the Team and Collaborative Creation

The interface promoted ubiquitous collaboration. All team members could sign up in a “challenge” and then had a common work space. Students stated on the use of

160

K. Pata

DesignIT platform that through DesignIT it was easy to creatively organise ideas, and work all-together as a team. It was impossible to move forward without conducting the tasks jointly. The collaborative discussions were needed for comparing ideas and discussion over the progress. Team members rated each other’s contributions for their challenge in the discussions, and they provided in DesignIT platform feedback to the boards of other teams. Students would have liked that the DesignIT platform would have supported the discussions virtually. They communicated in other channels like messenger and went to DesignIT environment to add the ideas after that.

9.6.2.3

Employing Design Thinking Behaviours with Persistence, Time Management and Adaptability

The DesignIT platform enhanced the designing process and made it more efficient, since the users had to follow certain steps and rules. This guided the way of thinking and made designing more structured and functional. Statements from students related to the time-, resource- and ideation-management. For example, students appreciated the visual support with design thinking phases that also provided the holistic understanding of the design thinking process. The templates were found helpful to define activities in the phases. The built-in time management features constrained the time working with each template. Students reported that it made them more effective and faster, as well as helped them in taking the responsibility to pursuit by deadlines. Students appreciated the opportunity to work asynchronously, so that each team member could follow his own schedule and ideas. Adaptability was experienced by simultaneous contribution of ideas and editing the boards. Anonymity of the contributors promoted openness to diverse ideas and allowed for more creative ideas to arise.

9.6.3 Usability of DesignIT Platform for Design Thinking Briefly the usability issues of the DesignIT platform were reported in the survey. The different tools of the platform were easy to be used. The interface was considered user friendly and supporting interactive learning. The simplicity of use without the manual was appreciated. Some student noted that DesignIT platform was very different for him/her. Students found all the game features useful. In general, the gamification features were liked but insufficient information was collected about the gamification practices with DesignIT to make further implications. Getting performance points was appreciated because it could be used as a monitoring element. Students would have liked the improvements of the coin system.

9 Design Thinking for Promoting …

161

9.6.4 Discussion In summary, it was found to be easy to set the human-centred innovation challenges in DesignIT environment in HEI courses. It was noticed that the design thinking was widely applicable for solving different challenges in interdisciplinary teams, and together with customers from industry and society. In some observed cases the design thinking practices could be used in real empirical settings and with the customers, prompting empathy (see, e.g., Lockwood, 2010; Wauck et al., 2017). While reviewing the results from case studies, and students’ results we could observe the same aspects that have been reviewed about the features of the design thinking process, being related with creativity and collaboration in human-centred innovation settings. This indicates that the design thinking experiences in innovating situations are quite universal. The collaborative design thinking approach could be effectively embedded to DesignIT and the collaborative learning processes generally worked out. The team composition in courses was in most cases international and multidisciplinary, that promoted diversity in ideas, but also caused tensions among team members. Working in remote online mode discouraged developing common ground, but shared canvases were found good for orchestrating the team activities, and enabling everyone’s contributions to be considered (see, e.g., Choi & Thompson, 2005; Hong & Page, 2004; Stempfle & Badke-Schaube, 2002). Educators used the opportunity to structure the templates in DesignIT for creating the design thinking process, but they interpreted design thinking tasks and phases differently. The original design thinking boards are usually filled in face-to-face mode, and DesignIT did not enable to create the template structures for all kinds of boards. The instruction notes with links to boards’ printouts, and visual examples of the design thinking methods were presented on DesignIT templates. In some cases (for persona cards) it was possible to create structured boards with other collaborative creation software. Regarding learning for design thinking competences, DesignIT tool seemed to be particularly good for supporting (i) Locating/assimilating/generating/assessing resources, examples and ideas; (ii) Iterating the design space conceptually and visually, such as by creating and testing hypotheses, theories and models and by tinkering; and (iii) Employing design thinking behaviours with persistence, time management and adaptability. The support for (i) Identifying problem aspects and needs, and (ii) Innovating design in contextual, process-related and aesthetic aspects was weakly provided with DesignIT features, but could be added at challenge or template level, making the tool quite adaptable. It was noted that some issues of the platform still needed polishing. The canvases did not support well organising the collection of ideas. Students often used other collaboration means external from DesignIT. Often students merely presented links of their work on canvases, but they still appreciated seeing all contents in one place in each phase. Due to structured canvases, students were aware of the design thinking phases and generally felt that this supported their design process. The reviewing of

162

K. Pata

other teams’ canvases was liked, and the teams benefitted from contributed ideas and comments (see, e.g., Dorst, & Cross, 2001). The design thinking DesignIT platform could support effectively the empathising and ideation activities where design space was to be extended, but it was not as suitable for the optimisation of the design space, which was best done in face-to-face settings. The design thinking processes that are iteratively extending and narrowing the space of opportunities (see Chapter 2) would require that different design representations were seamlessly connected. In this sense, while using DesignIT platform and face-to-face discussion and real face-to-face representation space together, DesignIT remained functioning mainly as an ideation tool and repository. The gamification was quite seamless, and students were excited of this idea but they noted that seeing other students and teams’ points would have motivated them more to compete on challenges and perform in own teams. The gamification with points requires more time and more technical development, the impact of competing in design challenges could not be fully validated (see, e.g., Brandt, 2006). In total, the observation confirmed that students developed with DesignIT practices some design thinking competencies when solving societal and business problems—they grasped the whole process better, and understood the need to extend and narrow the design space and using empathic and creative approaches, the role of visualisation and discussions in iterating the design space. All the student teams developed innovations and mostly experienced designing for human-centred innovations positively.

9.7 Conclusions In this chapter some practice models have been reviewed to describe the applicability of design thinking in HEIs. Some of these models were tested out in DesignIT project, using the gamified collaborative tool DesignIT in different contexts. The best practices of applying DesignIT for developing design thinking competencies in human-centred innovation activities in HEIs were summarised for higher education educators. The need to review the design thinking competences was also pointed out, particularly as the artificial intelligence support in relating the design and problem spaces, as well as, on using seamless sensor-based observations will become part of the design practice.

References Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games: A framework for participation in participatory design? In Proceedings of the ninth Participatory Design Conference 2006, ACM, Trento, Italia.

9 Design Thinking for Promoting …

163

Choi, H.-S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132. DesignIT Project. (2018). https://projectdesignit.eu. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437. Hardy, D., Myers, T., & Sankupellay, M. (2018). Cohorts and cultures: Developing future design thinkers. In Proceedings of ACE 2018, Association for Computing Machinery, 9–16. Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385– 16389. Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. Landis, D. (2017). What does Lean UX have that I don’t? https://lithespeed.com/lean-ux-dont-part1-3-2/. Lockwood, T. (2010). Design thinking. Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value. Allworth Press. Lugmayr, A. (2011). Applying “design thinking” as a method for teaching in media education. Proceedings of MindTrek’11, 332–334. Miyata, K., Nagai, Y., Yuizono, T., & Kunifuji, S. (2017). Human capital development through innovation design education. In Proceedings of SA ’17 Symposium on Education. ACM, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134368.3139219. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. Shute, V. J., & Torres, R. (2012). Where streams converge: Using evidence-centered design to assess quest to learn. Technology-based assessments for 21st century skills: Theoretical and practical implications from modern research, 91124. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press. Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaube, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams—An analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23, 473–496. Tsalapatas, H., Heidmann, O., Pata, K., Vaz de Carvalho, C., Bauters M., Papadopoulos S., Katsimendes, C., Taka, C., & Houstis, E. (2019). Teaching design thinking through gamified learning. In Proceedings of CSEDU 2019. Wauck, H., Yen, Y.-C., Fu, W.-T., Gerber, E., Dow, S. P., & Bailey, B. P. (2017). From in the class or in the wild? Peers provide better design feedback than external crowds. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Chapter 10

Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice and in-Service Teacher Training Matej Zapušek and Jože Rugelj

Abstract This chapter considers the use of game design-based learning approach for acquiring competences in teacher education study programs. Future teachers will have to deal with the needs and specifics of the students from today’s digital generation and therefore need such knowledge and skills in order to implement state of the art teaching methods and practices. We selected relevant digital competences from the Digital Competence Framework for Educators, which is the result of collaboration of a wide range of experts in the field of education supported by digital technologies. To help our students to achieve these competences, we developed our own method for game-based learning, SADDIE. It is the result of more than ten years of research, development and refinement at the Faculty of Education of the University of Ljubljana. SADDIE is the acronym of the phases of the educational game design process, i.e. Specification, Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation, where students in small groups create educational computer games, from the selection of suitable learning goals to the final version of the game. The results show that, due to active forms of learning and collaboration, students are more motivated for all types of learning activities, acquire all the required digital competences and generally learn even more than we anticipated in the syllabus. Keywords Game design-based learning · SADDIE · Trialogical learning · Digital competences · Teacher education · Active learning

10.1 Introduction European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) is a document written at Joint Research Centre of EC in Seville (Redecker, 2017). It is the M. Zapušek (B) · J. Rugelj Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pl. 16, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: [email protected] J. Rugelj e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9_10

165

166

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

result of collaboration of a wide range of experts. It summarises the potential of using digital technologies for enhancing teaching and learning and for preparing students for life and work in a digital society. Its goal is to identify teachers’ professional and pedagogic competencies that are needed for enhancing their professional engagement, and their skills for managing digital resources and effective use of digital technologies to support the pedagogical approach or strategy they are using. Its content is especially important for future teachers because they are the ones responsible for making a fundamental shift from traditional teacher-centred educational practices often still used in today’s schools (Bates, 2018) to the methods and practices putting the learner in the centre of active engagement. Traditional approaches to teaching are particularly ill-suited for learners of digital generation that are not satisfied to sit passively and listen to teacher lectures (Tapscott, 2009) or just reading a textbook or manual. In their everyday lives, they are surrounded by digital technologies that are fundamentally changing their perceptions of the world and consequently on how they prefer to learn (Jukes et al., 2010). They are capable of processing visual information much faster, often multitask and prefer learning by doing in order to be actively engaged in meaningful activities that preferably have to be exciting and fun. They are also connected through social networks and thus not used to be isolated from others, which furthermore reflects on the way they learn. Consequently, teachers have to provide them with learning experiences and environments that foster active participation and provide opportunities to create their knowledge, which enables them to achieve conceptual understandings with increased motivation for learning. Curriculum content has to be blended into problem-based situations that reflect meaningful and authentic real-world problems. With the use of digital technologies, it is possible to develop environments that implement such learning and have the capability of inducing immersive experiences and possibilities of observing concepts from different perspectives. Competencies in DigCompEdu describe knowledge and skills needed for implementing state of the art teaching methods and practices with the potential for educator’s continuous development. Document describes the use of digital technologies to communicate, collaborate and reflect with students and colleagues, as well as outlines the necessary skills considering identifying, assessing and selecting digital resources for teaching, expertise for creating or modifying digital resources and for managing, protecting and sharing them. In this chapter, we will introduce the SADDIE method for developing educational games, which we developed ourselves, to propose a game design-based learning (GDBL) as an appropriate method for achieving digital competencies, expected from future teachers, as declared in DigCompEdu framework.

10.2 Game Design-Based Learning Wu and Wang (2012) define game design-based learning (GDBL) as a learning approach in which students are encouraged to make design decisions (Spieler &

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

167

Slany, 2018) in order to develop their own or to modify existing games on a basis of a chosen game development framework. Many researchers (Guzdial, 2015; Harackiewicz et al., 2014; Kafai, 2012; Qian & Clark, 2016; Spieler & Slany, 2018; Tzuo et al., 2012) have been recognizing the efficiency and positive effects on teaching and learning with the use of GDBL. Kafai (2012) argues that learning is most efficient if students are involved in a design process that includes the building of artefacts or objects because it engages their thinking and learning, especially if they are designing something that is personal and meaningful to them. Designing of games is a particularly complex example of artefact design because it requires students to be familiar with media and technology (Qian & Clark, 2016) and also to be capable of critical thinking, interpreting, applying and observing their existing knowledge from multiple perspectives (Rogers & Scaife, 1998). GDBL enhances areas of subject learning because through the process of re-interpreting and creating students are able to reconstruct their existing understandings, knowledge, meanings and even values (Tzuo et al., 2012). This is inspiring and can also increase their interest in learning because when students consider the knowledge from different viewpoints, they have a feeling of usefulness, relevance, and autonomy (Harackiewicz et al., 2014). Furthermore, game construction context can influence the students’ performance and their intention to create projects in which knowledge and skills from previous activities would be transferred (Guzdial, 2015). There are also other benefits of designing games that include development of important skills such as analysis, synthesis, evaluations, revising, planning and monitoring (Wu & Wang, 2012), enhancing problemsolving skills, fostering the development of creative thinking skills (Spieler & Slany, 2018) which emerges naturally during the process of producing the game (Sanford & Madill, 2007), improving critical thinking, facilitating twenty-first century skill development (Qian & Clark, 2016), and overall making learning more engaging (Seaborn et al., 2012). A very important aspect of GDBL is its social component because it encourages further collaboration and engagement through teamwork (Spieler & Slany, 2018). When taking the role of game designers, learners have to become so-called ‘sociotechnical engineers’ that have to take into consideration various aspects of the game they are making. When they have a particular design idea about how to include a certain piece of knowledge into a game, they have to make it explicit and defend the reasoning behind it, create and test hypotheses and also consider possible design issues that might arise. All these require rethinking the technological, social, communicational, and artistic concerns in the form of scientific thinking: hypothesis and theory testing, reflection and revision based on evidence (Lambert, 2016). GDBL is also becoming a more reasonable learning approach because today learners don’t focus just on the negative aspects of playing games but also recognise their positive features such as social integration, development of skills and their educational value. Also, today’s students’ teachers will probably have a higher intrinsic motivation to use it later in their work (Wu & Wang, 2012). A review of relevant literature (Carbonaro et al., 2010; Spieler & Slany, 2018; Wu &Wang, 2012) from the field of GDBL reveals that the integration of game design-based learning has been successfully used in numerous different disciplines.

168

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

Most of them show that GDBL is a popular approach to introduce students to relevant topics from computer science, with the emphasis on programming, conceptual thinking, acquiring skills and competences to work with ICT, engineering, artificial intelligence, data structures, and Boolean logic. We can also find examples from other disciplines like language literacy, design, and arts. Most importantly, there is also evidence that it can be efficiently used to teach digital competencies that are essential for teachers (Rugelj & Zapušek, 2018).

10.2.1 The Process of Game Development The process of designing a game is a complex and multi-layer activity (Salen, 2007). Although there is no one exact way to design a game, the process can be divided into stages that summarise essential phases that are common for all games. The initial phase usually starts with choosing the target audience, selecting a genre, title and writing a story. Then, designers have to define gameplay elements. They have to decide which actions will be allowed by the player, design a set of precepts that will outline a foundation for winning strategies, choose how the interaction will be managed and the motives that will engage players. These phases are followed by selecting the rules of the game, choosing goals and challenges that will lead players towards the goals of the game (Spieler & Slany, 2018). Once the elements mentioned earlier are set, producers have to create the assets of the game. Creating assets denote designing a digital representation of the characters, animations, potential 3D models, sounds and music. All the elements have to be then programmed according to previous decisions into a working game (Wu & Wang, 2012).

10.2.2 Game Development Framework The popularity of game design-based learning has been increasing in recent years because of the widespread availability of programming toolkits that easy the process of creating a game. There are a lot of tools that don’t require programming knowledge or are so simplified that can be used with the most basic understanding of computing logic. Game development frameworks (GDF) can be divided into three categories: game engines, game editors and integrated development environments (Wu & Wang, 2012). A game engine is a software application that manages the complexity of the technical implementation of graphics rendering, simulation of real-world physics, animations, asset management, collision detection, interaction mechanisms, and sound/music reproduction, allowing game designer to focus on the game logic and interactions. Game engines differ in the programming knowledge required of game designers and consequently in complexity and number of game genres that can be implement with them. Examples of more complex but also more versatile game

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

169

engines are Unity 3D, Unreal Engine and GameMaker. All of them require moderate programming skills in one of the following programming languages: C, C#, Java or some version of Actionscript, and are consequently most suitable for computer science students. There are also more basic game engines like GameSalad, Buildbox or Construct that allow developers to modify full game templates, have drag and drop functionalities that provide users with a list of pre-made events and properties that can be used with no prior coding knowledge and some sort of visual scripting for creating scripts without the need to write a single line of code. The unfavourable side of those simpler tools is in their limitations in a manner of choosing the game genre and functionalities which reflect in the customisation and diversity of in-game activities. Game editors are authoring tools that are included in commercial games and can be used to create custom maps, levels, quests or puzzles. Examples of games with some of the best editors are Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft 3, Portal 1 and 2, Unreal series, Elder Scrolls, Civilization and StarCraft, just to name a few. The integrated development environment (IDE) is a software application that usually consists of a code editor, a compiler, a debugger, and a graphical user interface (GUI) builder and can be also used for designing games. They represent the most complex type of GDF’s because they require advanced programming knowledge in order to implement all the technical foundations that are hidden in game engines or editors. Examples are Visual C ++, Eclipse and Android SDK.

10.3 GDBL and Learning In this section, we want to identify and discuss some of the learning theories that tend to support the use of game design-based learning in educational settings.

10.3.1 Constructivism and Constructionism Constructivism is a learning theory developed by Piaget (1976). It emphasizes the importance of constructing our understandings and knowledge of the world in an environment where our experiences and ideas interact to construct that knowledge. Learners are therefore active creators in the process of knowledge acquisition. Duffy and Jonassen (1991) argue that constructivist learning must be embedded in a complex, realistic, and relevant environment capable of supporting various perspectives and modes of representation because individuals participating in such environments differ and may have multiple perceptions about experiences they encounter. Collaboration and social negotiation are another essential notion of constructivism because they provide opportunities to develop new understandings through argument and discussion. Learners can, therefore, observe different points of view of other than

170

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

their own. A game design-based learning environment, if it implements the requirements mentioned above, provides realistic, complex, and relevant conditions for the knowledge construction process as learners interact with their teachers, peers, and the context (Gee, 2003) during the process of designing a game. Constructionism was introduced by Seymour Papert, a student of Piaget. Papert and Harel (1991) implies that the construction of knowledge occurs when learners are engaged in building external and sharable objects which they can reflect upon and share with others, through authentic, real-life learning opportunities that are meaningful for them (Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Therefore, constructionism includes two main assumptions. The first is that the new mental models of knowledge are constructed as a consequence of participation in real-world activities, and second is the notion that new knowledge is more efficiently constructed if learners create something interesting for them (Wu & Wang, 2012). Similarly, to constructivism, a collaborative process involving peer feedback is also essential. Constructionism has a long history of incorporating aspects of video games to achieve the desired learning goals (Weintrop et al., 2012). Caperton (2010) claimed that the argument for applying game design-based learning is that creating video games is suitable for constructionist learning. Namely, the game has a role of artefact. The fact that the games have become very popular in youth and adult culture means that the process of designing a game must be exciting and meaningful for them.

10.3.2 Trialogical Learning Trialogical learning is a learning approach in which activities are organised in a way that students collaboratively develop or modify shared knowledge artefact, for example, idea, phenomenon, rule, principle, goal, topic or computer program (i.e. computer game in our case) in a form of systematic process (Paavola & Hakkarainen, 2009). The most crucial premise is that learning occurs not only within one’s mind (monological approach), or by interacting with peers (dialogical approach), but when a learner is interacting jointly with others through the artefacts during the design process of their creation. In this way, the artefacts grow from one form of representation into another, getting richer and more sophisticated. The computer game has, in the trialogical learning understanding, the role of the common aim which learners have to design from an initial idea and develop it to the final product in an iterative process of creating. During the process they work on many shared artefacts e.g. they have to write a scenario according to target audience, define learning goals and goals of the game, create multimedia game assets and develop programming code. Work is organised in groups. Learners can discuss the results individually or collectively, and reflect on their process. The teacher plans learning activities in a way that the game is getting enriched through the design process when learners take into account different perspectives and practices and through iteration, the learners acquire new knowledge and are inspired to do so.

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

171

Collaborative work in groups is an essential feature of trialogical learning because it assumes that a group of students can achieve more than an individual because the collective zone of proximal development (ZPD) is broader compared to ZPD of a single student. ZPD is a concept identified by Vygotsky (1978). It is defined as the difference between the actual and potential level of development. The actual level of development represents the knowledge that is obtainable by the learner individually, without any help or support from her peers or teachers, while the potential level indicates the level of development that a learner can achieve with the teacher’s support or by collaborating with more experienced peers. In a game design process, learners will be able to work collaboratively in groups to help and support each other and will construct knowledge about game design and develop additional competencies that are needed to finish a game. Trialogical learning also requires each member of the study group to form ideas, models, prototypes, and representations in a way that enables others to continue their work. This enhances the process of creating new knowledge and can help them with improving the artefacts they design (Paavola et al., 2011). This principle can be supported with the help of ICT tools; e.g., if they share a joint document on Google Drive, they can track changes. Every addition or modification is immediately accessible to all members of the group, so that they can comment on it and can accept or reject suggested modifications and continue with their work. We suggest using some sort of version tracking software (for example GitHub) to support this principle in the game development process. Every change of code is instantly shared with collaborators, making programming in a group more comfortable and more manageable. As a summary, we can state that the above discussed learning theories and different pedagogical models that emphasise real-world problems and the collaborative discovery process in learning support are well suited for GDBL. Such pedagogical models are for instance, problem-based, project-based, inquiry-based learning models (see Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Chapters 2 and 3 in this book).

10.4 The SADDIE Method SADDIE method was developed by Zapušek and Rugelj (2014) to use game designbased learning in teacher education. It is designed to support developing pedagogical and technical competencies that are needed by student teachers in pre-service and in-service teacher training. Thus, they can acquire essential didactic and digital competencies and get familiar with innovative methods and approaches to teaching and learning. The method is based on the ADDIE model, which was developed by the US army to support the development of efficient educational materials (Kurt, 2017). The acronym SADDIE denotes the phases of educational game design: Specification, Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. We adjusted the original phases of the ADDIE model to the specifics of educational game design

172

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

and added the initial phase, called specification. The specification phase is essential because it considers the pedagogical aspects of the educational game design and deals with the didactic foundations of the game. The use of SADDIE method has two important outcomes. The first one is a developed educational game itself, but even more important than the final product is the development of students’ pedagogic and digital competencies. These competencies include: • the ability to define relevant learning objectives that are consistent with the curriculum, • the selection of appropriate didactic approach for the selected learning topic and their implementation in the learning process, • the decision about relevant and useful teacher’s feedback to students, • the ability to evaluate acquired knowledge and the learning process, • the potential of communicating and collaborating with peers, with a teacher, and with the use of digital technologies, • the knowledge about creating and modifying digital content, • the ability of solving conceptual problems and problems in digital environments, and • knowledge and respect about copyrights. Students acquire these competencies throughout active engagement in a carefully refined process of design and development of a game which proves to be motivating for them (Rugelj & Zapušek, 2018; Zapušek & Rugelj, 2014). The SADDIE method is based on group work of students. For practical reasons, it is important that groups consist of at least three members and that we let students to decide the composition of groups themselves. Students are relatively free in organising their activities and work as long as they meet the proposed deadlines for the planned tasks. The tutor does not fix the roles of individual members of a group; instead, students can recognise and analyse their prior knowledge, affinities, talents, and motives and decide on the distribution of roles and tasks accordingly. The dynamics and organisation of work have to be precisely described in a log of activities in the project so that the tutor can get a true picture of individual contributions and overall developments to evaluate their work correctly. When the log is analysed, it is possible to determine whether the group had an exposed leader or responsibility to organise work was evenly distributed among all group members. To follow students’ progress and to guide them towards desired objectives, tutors have to organise regular weekly meetings where students can share their insights, experiences, and challenges. At these sessions, they can get immediate feedback from peers and tutors, and if difficulties arise, they can get suggestions and hints.

10.4.1 Specification Phase The specification phase starts with the selection of the expected target group of the educational game and with the identification of learning goals that are complex

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

173

and thus difficult for the students representing the target group. Another criterion for the selection of learning goal is that it is suitable for implementing in a game format; it is assumed that we can expect some didactical gains from presenting it in a game format. Students (the teams) define or select specific learning goals from a set of general learning goals and are encouraged to choose them from the formal curriculum, because the produced educational game has a better chance that it will be used in a classroom. If a general learning goal is not included in the curriculum, but the team still considers it to be relevant, team members have to defend their decision in front of tutors and peers. If the suggested learning goal is accepted, the team is encouraged to define and propose specific learning objectives, which are again subject to discussion and evaluation. When the teams set learning topic and related objectives, they continue with defining a rough outline of the scenario, which should be suitable to integrate selected specific learning methods for acquiring learning objectives. The assessment of knowledge must also be considered. The teams have to make decisions about formative and summative assessment and how to incorporate it in a game. They have to choose the level and the means of providing feedback to a player. The next task is to consider the motivational elements of the game, which must be aligned with the potential special features of the selected target group. If the game target preschool children, it would be worthless to include a sophisticated talent tree system for character progression, which could, on the other hand, be a very effective motivational element for secondary school students. They also have to decide on didactic approach and select methods that are most suitable for achieving the selected learning goals. The specification phase concludes with the decision about how to incorporate the developed educational game into the learning process. It can be implemented as initial motivation for the introduction of a new learning topic, as teaching material for introducing new concepts, for individual independent learning at home, or for drill and practice. Example Specification of educational game History Journey • Learning topic: Block programming. • Learning objectives: – – – –

write an everyday problem as a sequence of steps, present a simple task with the algorithm, present an algorithm using a simple language, comparison of different algorithms and selection of the most efficient one, according to the given criteria.

• Motivational elements: stop-motion animation, interesting story, attractive graphics, open 3D world, interesting in-game tasks. • Didactic methods to achieve learning objectives: method of interpretation, conversation, practical use and demonstration.

174

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

10.4.2 Analysis Phase In the analysis phase, the teams have to source and analyse all the relevant information for the development of the game. They have to carefully consider available resources in a sense of hardware and software requirements, identify the required skills that they already have and also determine the competences which they are expected to acquire in the framework of the project in a given time in order to successfully finish the project. The most important task in this phase is a precise analysis of learning objectives. For each of them, they have to define a taxonomic level according to Bloom’s digital taxonomy (Churches, 2008) and the type of knowledge which can be declarative, conceptual, based on rules, procedural or soft (Kapp et al., 2014). This information is needed for selection of game mechanics in the Design phase. Example Specification of educational game History Journey • Available resources: LeoCAD models, stop motion animation with the use of Lego blocks, recording of sound and speech, use of open source image editing software. • Development environment: Unity 3D. • Target audience: pupils of the 2nd triad of elementary school (9–11 years old). • Analysis of learning objectives: – Type of knowledge: procedural knowledge (player determines the correct sequence of commands leading to the solution of the task), – Expected taxonomic levels of knowledge: comprehension, application and analysis, – Game mechanics: following instructions, programming with the use of blocks, dialogs.

10.4.3 Design Phase In the design phase, the story of the game, challenges, and activities are defined. The teams have to write a detailed scenario which is similar to the film production synopsis. They have to describe precisely the key elements of the game such as scene, characters, dialogs, activities, and rewards. It is very common that they provide rough sketches of the scenes and characters, their family trees and descriptions of their personality traits. The next task is arguably the most crucial one. The teams have to decide how to link the learning objectives with in-game activities and goals. This part is so critical because it depends on it if the game will be interesting to pupils and how effective it will be in the learning process. The best results can be achieved by combining or hiding learning objectives into game goals and incorporating the logic

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

175

of the concept that are to be taught into game mechanics. In this way, the students can achieve the highest taxonomic levels of knowledge according to Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Example from the game Lets go to the sea • The student understands the meaning of IP address - > an analogy with house numbers (street address represents the network address; house number represents the device number on the network). • The student knows how DNS server translates domain names to IP addresses - > the name of the product is converted into a store number where we can buy it.

10.4.4 Development Phase At this point, the student teams have prepared all the necessary prerequisites and can start to code a game in a selected game design framework. The main goal of this phase is to acquire digital competences for creating and modifying digital 2D or 3D visuals, sounds and music, and programming skills. The latter in a case where they use a more complex game design framework that requires writing programming code. This phase is intended for the students that require those skills, especially for future computer science or digital art design students, for others it can be entirely outsourced. The implementation process usually begins with creating artworks for a game. The graphics editing software selected depends on their decision to make a 2D or 3D game. For 2D visuals, they have to select suitable graphics editing software for designing raster or vector artworks and for 3D graphics they have to select a 3D authoring tool. The decision for 2D graphics is usually an easier option because it is challenging to acquire the necessary expertise in 3D modelling during the process of game design that is complex by itself if the team do not already have those skills. The need of different skills can also be viewed as an opportunity for cross-curricular integration. The next step is animation design in which the team has to make character animations as well as cut scenes. A lot of game design frameworks have tools that can facilitate this process already included in a software package but the teams should also be encouraged to find specialised software for particular tasks that can yield better results.

176

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

10.4.5 Implementation Phase The context of implementation in SADDIE method is understood as how to incorporate the educational game into the process of learning. The teams have to prepare so called “pedagogical package”, that contains all necessary instructions on how to include educational game into a lesson. This involves all the activities that we need to prepare for students before, during, or after gameplay. Game based learning efficiency can be improved if it is extended to out-of-game activities, defined in the pedagogical package. Thus, the teams can transfer knowledge and skills to other contexts and generalise them. They can also facilitate other transferable skills such as writing, evaluation, and presentation skills (Whitton, 2009). There are different means that can support these activities. Reflective accounts and logs allow students to keep of their progress through the game, to justify decisions taken, and to reflect on the gaming process as well as the outcomes. Small team work give students means to discuss what has happened during the game, the implications of decisions taken and what could have happened differently. Development of what-if scenarios consider what could have happened under different circumstances. Production of artefacts that relate to the game, such as posters, presentations, graphics or rich media and storytelling around the characters or plot of the game can get the teams to think about what happened next in the narrative.

10.4.6 Evaluation Phase In the evaluation phase, the teams have to conduct extensive testing with different groups of audiences. The first test is performed between the student teams that design and develop games in the course and it covers the didactical aspects of the game (i.e. questions regarding the quality of learning objectives, the use of motivational elements, the quality of the pedagogical package, the suitability for target audience, the tempo of difficulty increase), quality of developed game (i.e. questions regarding the originality and adequacy of content, the quality and appropriateness of the graphics for a target audience, the aspect of interactions, the originality of the story), technical aspects of the game (i.e. the complexness of game elements, the faultless of gameplay), and quality of project documentation and logs. To summarise all the phases, see the Table 10.1. In the table we have collected the most important aspects into one view—it presents the phase, goals of the phase, activities associated in the phase and how to assess the activities and outcomes of that phase.

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

177

Table 10.1 Summary of the SADDIE method’s phases, goals, activities and assessment Phase

Goals

Activities

Assessment

Specification

To define learning goals, teaching methods, and assessment To prepare the outline of the story

Review of curriculum Identifying a topic that is difficult to teach Identifying didactic approach Sketching the outline of the story

Appropriateness of the selected learning objectives Suitability of the selected didactic approach Suitability for the selected target group

Analysis

To analyse information relevant for game design and development

Analysing available resources: hardware, software, time, workforce Analysing learning objectives

Quality of resource analysis Appropriateness of the selection of taxonomic level and type of knowledge

Design

To connect learning objectives with the game To prepare a screenplay To prepare graphic elements of the game

Linking the learning objectives with in-game activities and goals Writing a screenplay, based on the story Describing graphic elements of the game

Quality of the learning objectives In-game activities and goals links Quality of the screenplay Quality of graphic designs

Development

To create graphic elements To code the game

Drawing characters, objects and scenes Coding the game or using drag and drop game development software

Quality of graphic elements Technical aspects of the game Playability

Implementation

To integrate the game into Preparing lesson learning process plans Preparing instructions (for teachers and for pupils) Creating learning materials

Evaluation

To get feedback from peers, users and teachers To improve the game using feedback

Didactic suitability of the game learning package Ability to achieve learning objectives

Testing the game on Evaluation methodology peers Improvements based on testing the game on feedback from players pupils Interviewing teachers

10.5 Achieving Digital Competences with GDBL and SADDIE Students studying in pedagogical study programs must acquire specific digital competencies in the course of their studies. This will allow them to work more

178

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

effectively with “digital” generations of pupils. With these competencies they will be more efficiently involved in digital society and at the same time, they will be able to provide appropriate knowledge and behaviour in digital environments to their students. These competences will give them the means to implement innovative learning approaches and strategies, supported by digital technologies, in their future pedagogical work and thus making it better adapted to new generations of pupils. The European Framework for Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu) (Redecker, 2017), consists of specific digital competencies for teachers, classified into six areas: (1) professional cooperation and training, (2) digital resources in terms of planning the learning process, (3) their implementation in teaching and learning, (4) assessment, (5) empowering pupils, and (6) encouraging the acquisition of digital competences among pupils. In the subsections that follow, we will present the key competencies of the first five areas and advocate why we can successfully teach them using the game design-based learning approach with the SADDIE method.

10.5.1 Professional Cooperation and Training The first area covers teacher’s professional engagement and deals with the use of digital technologies for communication, collaboration, reflection and professional training. The communication aspect covers competences for using digital technologies for providing access to additional resources and information, enabling efficient communicating with pupils and their parents in terms of general and also individual information, for interacting with colleagues within the institution or wider, with other individuals who are occasionally involved in the learning process and for sharing information online (e.g. in, social networks, on school web site, in online classroom). Collaboration aspect focuses on the use of digital technologies for facilitating group work in a project, for sharing knowledge, resources, and experience and for designing learning materials. It also covers competencies for online networking among colleagues for the purpose of introducing new learning practices and methods. This can be helpful for all involved partners and can lead to the improvement of their pedagogical process. Competencies for acquiring new specific professional skills with the use of digital technologies are imperative. In this way, they will be able to acquire specific domain knowledge timely. This will have a positive impact on the pre-teacher training students’ professional development. Through the use of internet services such as video courses, MOOCs, webinars, etc., future teachers will not only be able to be involved in continuous professional education but it will also be beneficial for the organisation where they will work. A teacher, who will learn how to create a plugin for a school website using the Youtube video clip, will be able to code it and enable an easier organisation of signing to the parent-teacher conferences. With the GDBL learning approach, we can positively influence the development of competences from the first area of DigCompEdu. According to the SADDIE method, the teacher students produce educational games (learning materials) within the team. There is an emphasis on the importance of digitally supported collaboration within

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

179

the team and also with other teams in terms of sharing ideas, experiences, knowledge, and resources. Creating a computer game requires a lot of communication, collaboration around shared artefacts and often the acquisition of new skills. The students mostly do not have the opportunity to meet in person. Therefore, the teachers of the course encourage them to use appropriate computer programs for “always-on” type of communication that enable the students to participate in team and individual conversations, to have traceability of conversation history for easier assessment of individual efforts, and also to be able to interact with teachers. Each game has its own specific requirements, which lead to specific challenges for students. For this reason, it is important for the students to participate in dedicated forums and other web platforms, where they can ask specific questions to a wider range of experts or interested amateurs who are engaged in the discussed topics. When the students, are done with creating the game, they are instructed to promote it on social networks, on the faculty website, and on digital bulletin boards. During the game design and development process, the teacher students have to regularly write a log where they describe the workflow. For convenience, they are working on a shared document that is stored in a cloud. They learn how to share digital resources safely using digital file sharing services. The students also use version management systems in the development of the game, which make their game development easier and more transparent. The design and development of computer game provides an excellent opportunity for the students to learn how to identify and find quality-learning materials needed to solve the problems that they encounter in the game design and development process. Thus, they acquire specific knowledge “just in time” and apply it immediately to their work. It positively influences their motivation, helps with the acquisition of the competencies and shapes the habits that they can use in their later professional work.

10.5.2 Digital Resources The second area of the “DigCompEdu” addresses competencies related to digital resources and the correlated learning process planning. A teacher who is competent in this field has knowledge about how to appropriately choose, change, manage, legally protect and share digital resources. The field includes a wide range of competencies; we will highlight those that can be successfully taught using the GDBL method. One of the key competencies from this area, which the pre-service students can acquire by means of GDBL, is the proficiency in knowing and respecting different types of copyright licenses. The main focus of the development of the educational game for the purpose of acquiring specific competencies for educators with SADDIE method is on its didactical design. Students are therefore encouraged to use free license materials that they can directly use in a game or they can adjust them according to their needs so that too much time is not consumed with the development of graphics, animations, sounds or programming scripts from scratch. During the process, they implicitly acquire competencies for finding, modifying, transforming and combining

180

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

digital resources, as well as the knowledge about different types of licenses and how to comply with their terms. Web portals and repositories that offer free licensed materials are a good starting point, but we encourage students to find new sources and they are taught how to make clever considerations about the quality and suitability of those. Another important competence from this field is to be able to take into account specific learning objectives, context, pedagogical approach and target audience in the production of digital learning resources. In the SADDIE method, there is an entire phase (specification) dedicated precisely to address this aspect and it is crucial for students of all pedagogical programs, even if they do not undertake the actual creation of the game. Students from other fields (e.g. Computer Science) can program the game or it can be outsourced to external companies. As this phase is of utmost importance, we implemented a lot of time for its implementation so that students can plan, reflect and acquire the knowledge about the didactic aspect of designing digital teaching materials. Upon completion of the projects, the produced games are shared to the interested public. In this process, students acquire the competencies for sharing digital resources on web platforms (e.g. learning managing systems) and websites and also for appropriate referencing and licensing. The students are supposed to upload the produced game to the learning management systems and to create a website that allows game downloads for various operating systems and platforms. They have to appropriately reference the resources they have used in the design process and to license the game under the CC license.

10.5.3 Teaching and Learning The area of teaching and learning comprises the following categories of competencies: integrating digital devices and resources into the learning process, providing assistance and support, fostering collaborative learning, and assisting in the selfregulated learning. The SADDIE method, in its last phase (i.e. evaluation), foresees pedagogical intervention with the educational game, designed and developed in the project, in the framework of teaching practice in school, which is an integral part of pedagogical study programs. In this way, students can acquire hands-on competencies for using activities and digital teaching materials in structuring the lesson for facilitating learning objectives acquisition. Furthermore, they have the opportunity to learn how to use digital resources in order to support teaching and learning to reach specific learning goals on different taxonomic levels and also to reflect on the efficiency of their practice. Based on the experiences in the classroom and discussions with their mentors, they are prompted to flexibly adapt. Experimenting with the use of innovative didactical methods is also expected. Students can use the developed educational game

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

181

to implement flipped learning and to observe and evaluate the effectiveness of the method. The cooperative aspect of learning is supported by the games that have this feature incorporated into their design. In order to acquire the competencies for digital supported collaborative learning, the game design and development process is organised in a way that obliges students to write an online diary. They are supposed to describe their activities using wikis, blogs, or other suitable activities in a learning management system. In this way, students can present the results of their work in teams digitally, which is also one of the competencies in this area.

10.5.4 Assessment In the set of competencies that correlate to the digitally supported assessment of the knowledge, there are the following categories: evaluation strategies, generating, analysing and interpreting results, and providing feedback. The category of evaluation strategies covers forms of formative and summative assessments that are realised with the use of digital technologies. Competencies from this category focus on the learning process itself and are therefore less applicable to be acquired by means of game design-based learning. Conversely, a very suitable way of applying this method is the category of data generation, analysis, and interpretation. The educational games are an excellent platform for designing and integrating evaluation into digital material because it is relatively easy to integrate functionalities that register and collect data about how successfully player performs in game activities and progresses through the game. Game can use these data to inform the model that performs an adaptation of learning paths and therefore affect the gameplay. If the educational game is properly designed, each activity corresponds to the learning goal that was meant to be thought. In this way, it is rather effortless to discover if the player was not successful and the game can consequently redirect her to repeat that particular task or provides similar activities so that the player can consolidate her knowledge. It can also prevent her to advance further in a game if the knowledge required for higher levels is not sufficient. These data are a valuable source of insight for the teachers, who can gain a more realistic overview of their pupils’ knowledge. Thus, the teacher can carry out more focused pedagogical interventions and concentrates on learning goals that pupils have not obtained yet. When designing and implementing such an assessment, the students acquire the competencies for its implementation in the framework of the design and development of educational games. Feedback is one of the key functionalities of each game. If player is successful in gameplay, she gets a reward in form of points, registered achievement, access to a higher level, improvement of the main player’s appearance or performance, or aesthetic or functional prize within the game.

182

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

In the design of educational game, students have to create meaningful feedback wherever they have the potential to support learning and accordingly ease the understanding of the concepts in the learning material. Well-designed feedback can assist the students in identifying those parts of knowledge that have not yet been adequately adopted and motivates them to play game again. Competencies for the use of digital technologies for peer assessment and as a support for collaborative self-regulation and peer learning are acquired after they make the first prototype of a game and perform beta testing of games, developed by other groups in a course. By using online survey forms, they create joint questionnaires for game assessment that they share and fill in. The data collected from the questionnaires are then analysed and reflected on. Based on the results, students can plan adjustments and improvements of the games. Therefore, the teacher students acquire the competencies for using digital technologies for supporting reflection and assessment of their work.

10.5.5 Empowering Learners The empowerment of learners deals with the concepts that focus on using digital technologies for the realisation of activities that support students to play active role, the inclusion of pupils with different characteristics and special needs, and to take into account differentiation and personalisation of learning. The concepts in the first category include use of digital technologies for visualisation and more obvious interpretation of new concepts, the use of activities that are engaging and motivating for learners, placing the active use of digital technologies at the heart of the learning process, learning about the learning material with the approach of active participation (i.e. manipulating with virtual objects, observing the structural characteristics of the problem), choosing the right digital technology to promote active learning in the chosen pedagogical context or to acquire a specific learning objective, and reflecting on the effectiveness of using digital technologies in improving the student’s active participation in the learning process. With the SADDIE method, the students can acquire all competencies listed in the phases of specification and evaluation. The educational game, which is created by means of SADDIE method, has to be designed in such a way that it implements the idea or concept that is wanted to taught into the core of game mechanics and gameplay. The students have to consider carefully from the beginning in the specification phase, if the knowledge they want to teach by means of the gameplay is appropriate for this form of learning. During design and development of a game, students are inspired to obtain a positive attitude towards the use of games in the learning process, which can lead to more frequent use of games in their teaching. One of the game design tasks is to consider how to incorporate the created educational game into a learning process. Students are encouraged to produce games that

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

183

can be used for the independent learning. In this way, they can learn about important features that digital learning material must possess in order to position learner in the centre of the teaching and learning process. Games offer an opportunity for creating virtual environments where learners can learn new knowledge, concepts, and skills in an authentic, but also safe way. Students, designing and developing games can learn about essential characteristics of good educational games that support such learning and, consequently, they can also recognise these features in other learning materials that they will use for their teaching. In a game that can help student to learn responsible behaviour on social networks, entitled “Niko and the social networks”,1 player gets feedback from a number of friends who come to Niko’s birthday in the game. Every friend in the game represents a specific learning objective. His absence in the party gives feedback that the player did not acquire the learning objective, connected with him. One of the goals in the above-mentioned game is that a player needs to know she cannot publish pictures of people without their consent. If player has published friend’s photos arbitrarily, this friend did not come to the party. This can motivate player to play again and to try avoiding irresponsible behaviour. It can also encourage her to make an additional reflection on this topic, and more appropriate behaviour in the repeated playing and consequent adoption of this knowledge. The competencies for reflecting on digital learning materials are acquired at the last stage when the students use their game in the classroom. The teacher students provide their students learning environment according to their initial idea about how to use the educational game for learning. The students can observe how their original idea has actually been put into practice and can, based on the experiences gained from the situations in the classroom, fix the game or supporting learning materials, redesign some parts or reconsider the way they planned to use it with students.

10.6 Conclusions In this chapter, we presented a game design-based learning approach in teacher education study programs. We introduced the features of the digital generation to which today’s students belong and gave reasons for the need for change in teacher education. In the beginning of the chapter we present the theoretical foundation of game design-based learning explaining why its features can be successfully used for efficient learning and how it’s been used in numerous different disciplines yielding promising results. We also identify and discuss some of the learning theories that tend to support the use of GDBL in educational settings with an emphasis on trialogical learning approach. We presented the essential ideas of the main categories stated in DigCompEdu and linked them with the features of the SADDIE method with the practical examples we collected over the years developing and refining the method. 1 http://hrast.pef.uni-lj.si/games/website/NikoInDruzabnaOmrezja.html.

184

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

Today’s teacher has to acquire necessary digital competences in order to be able to cope with the needs and specifics of the digital generation and to be able to implement learning. Their characteristics and their needs must be taken into consideration if we want them to be motivated for learning and that their learning will be effective. Therefore, we need to take into account modern learning theories that emphasise the importance of active learning that has well-defined learning objectives, that take place in an authentic environment, has shared artefacts, is student-centred and supported by information-communication technologies. In the final part of the chapter, we have also described how our students in teacher education study programs achieve digital competencies defined in the “DigCompEdu” reference framework using game design-based learning based on the SADDIE method. We justified the need for change in teacher education and how we see the document DigCompEdu as the most relevant document to be a basis of implementing GDBL approach for achieving digital competences in teacher training. Today’s teacher has to acquire essential digital competences in order to be able to cope with the needs and specifics of the digital generation and to be able to implement learning. The pupils’ characteristics and needs must be taken into consideration if we want the pupils to be motivated for learning and be effective in learning. Therefore, the modern learning theories that emphasise the importance of active learning, the well-defined learning objectives, authentic environments, student-centredness and that use the information-communication technologies, need to be taken into account. Modern curricular approaches, based on modern learning theories, include learning with games and even more learning by designing and making games.

References Bates, A. W. (2018). Teaching in a digital age. Guidelines for designing teaching and learning for a digital age. Ontario OER Collection. https://openlibrary-repo.ecampusontario.ca/jspui/handle/ 123456789/276. Caperton, I. H. (2010). Toward a theory of game-media literacy: Playing and building as reading and writing. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 2(1), 1–16. Carbonaro, M., Szafron, D., Cutumisu, M., & Schaeffer, J. (2010). Computer-game construction: A gender-neutral attractor to computing science. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1098–1111. Churches, A. (2008, April 1). Bloom’s taxonomy blooms digitally. Tech & Learning. https://www. techlearning.com/news/bloom39s-taxonomy-blooms-digitally. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Continuing the dialogue: An introduction to this special issue. Educational Technology, 31(9), 9–11. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan. Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(6), 1–165. Harackiewicz, J. M., Tibbetts, Y., Canning, E., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Harnessing values to promote motivation in education. In S. A. Karabenick & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. Motivational interventions (Vol. 18, pp. 71–107). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

10 Game Design-Based Learning for Preservice …

185

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3. Jukes, I., Crockett, L., & McCain, T. (2010). Understanding the digital generation. Hawker Brownlow Education. Kafai, Y. (2012). Minds in play. Taylor & Francis. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Routledge. Kapp, K., Blair, L., & Mesch, R. (2014). The gamification of learning and instruction fieldbook. Wiley. Kurt, S. (2017, August 29). ADDIE Model: Instructional Design. Educational Technology. https:// educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/. Lambert, D. (2016). Building digital video games at school: A design-based study of teachers’ design of instruction and learning tasks to promote student intellectual engagement, Deep learning and development of 21st century competencies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Calgary, Calgary. Paavola, S., & Hakkarainen, K. (2009). From meaning making to joint construction of knowledge practices and artefacts: A trialogical approach to CSCL. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann, & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 conference proceedings (pp. 83–92). International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS). Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., Kosonen, K., & Karlgren, K. (2011). The roles and uses of design principles in a project on trialogical learning. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 233–246. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1–11. Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H. Chipman, C. Zwingmann, & J. Piaget (Eds.), Piaget and his school: A reader in developmental psychology (pp. 11–23). Springer. Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50–58. Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of cducators: DigCompEdu. In C. Redecker & Y. Punie (Eds.), European framework for the digital competence of educators. Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union. http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/159770. Rogers, Y., & Scaife, M. (1998). How can interactive multimedia facilitate learning? In J. Lee (Ed.), 1st international workshop on intelligence and multimodality in multimedia interfaces. Research and applications (pp. 1–25). Rugelj, J., & Zapušek, M. (2018). Innovative and flexible forms of teaching and learning with information and communication technologies. In Education and research in information society (pp. 11–20). Institute of Mathematics and Informatics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Salen, K. (2007). Gaming literacies: A game design study in action. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 301–322. Sanford, K., & Madill, L. (2007). Understanding the power of new literacies through video game play and design. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(2), 432–455. Seaborn, K., El-Nasr, M. S., Milam, D., & Young, D. (2012). Programming, PWNed: Using digital game development to enhance learners’ competency and self-efficacy in a high school computing course. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 93–98). ACM. Spieler, B., & Slany, W. (2018). Game development-based learning experience: Gender differences in game design. Paper presented on 12th European Conference on Games Based Learning, France. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. McGraw-Hill. Tzuo, P. W., Ling, J. I. O. P., Yang, C. H., & Chen, V. H. H. (2012). Reconceptualizing pedagogical usability of and teachers’ roles in computer game-based learning in school. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(20), 419–429. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

186

M. Zapušek and J. Rugelj

Weintrop, D., Holbert, N., Wilensky, U., & Horn, M. S. (2012). Redefining constructionist video games: Marrying constructionism and video game design. In Proceedings of the Constructionism 2012 Conference. Athens, Greece, pp. 645–649. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/papers/2012/645649_BP_68_Weintrop.pdf. Whitton, N. (2009). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. Routledge. Wu, B., & Wang, A. I. (2012). A guideline for game development-based learning: A literature review. International Journal of Computer Games Technology, pp. 1–20. https://www.hindawi. com/journals/ijcgt/2012/103710/. Zapušek, M., & Rugelj, J. (2014). Achieving teachers’ competences in the serious game design process. In Proceedings of 8th European Conference on Games Based Learning (Vol. 2, pp. 662– 665). Academic Conferences International Limited, Reading.

Index

A Abduction, 5, 18, 22, 23 Active learning, 1–5, 7, 8, 19, 20, 59, 60, 65, 93–96, 100, 103, 104, 112, 121, 147, 150, 160, 182, 184 Agile, 3, 5–7, 14–17, 26, 76–79, 81, 84, 85, 87, 88, 108, 109, 111, 112, 116, 120–123, 147, 150, 151 ALIEN, 93, 95–101, 103, 104

C Competencies, 4, 7, 13, 16, 34, 48, 50, 51, 53, 70, 71, 93, 108, 111, 146, 150, 162, 166, 168, 171, 172, 177–184 Creative thinking, 37, 47, 147, 148, 167 Creativity, 36, 92 Critical thinking, 5–8, 13, 33, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 148, 167 critical and analytical thinking, 95, 108 critical and creative thinking skills, 33

D DesignIT, 7, 8, 146, 148–155, 157, 158, 160–162 Design thinking, 3–8, 14, 17–27, 36, 39, 75– 78, 80–85, 87, 88, 146–151, 154, 156, 158–162

E Empathy, 8, 23, 24, 47, 77, 148 empathic, 23 empathic design, 24 empathise/empathising, 76, 156, 162

emphatic, 19 Evaluation, 2, 8, 15, 16, 23, 36, 48, 51, 52, 63, 67, 76, 81, 86, 108, 120–122, 149, 153, 167, 171, 173, 176, 180–182

G Game design, 4, 5, 8, 101, 110, 167–171, 175, 178, 179, 181–184 Games, 4, 7, 8, 82, 83, 95–97, 101, 104, 108, 110–112, 116, 120–123, 166–170, 176, 178, 180–184

H Higher education, 32, 62, 108

I Impact, 17, 37, 51, 52, 81, 162, 178 Inquiry, 7, 18, 33, 36, 51, 52, 59, 61–71, 76, 78 Inquiry-based, 3, 4, 6, 25, 27, 36, 59–71, 171 problem-solving, 61

K Knowledge building, 46

L Lean, 5, 7, 14–18, 26, 27, 80, 108, 109, 111–113, 120–123, 147, 150 Learning, 2–8, 15, 16, 18, 22, 25, 27, 32, 33, 36–42, 45, 47, 51, 52, 59–71, 76– 78, 81, 86–88, 93–101, 103, 104, 108,

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C. Vaz de Carvalho and M. Bauters (eds.), Technology Supported Active Learning, Lecture Notes in Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2082-9

187

188

Index 110, 111, 121–123, 146, 148, 150, 151, 155, 161, 166, 167, 169–174, 176, 178–184

Situated learning, 43 Skills, 2–8, 13, 14, 24, 32–34, 36–39, 42, 43, 47–49, 51–53, 59–63, 65, 67–69, 71, 77, 78, 81–88, 92–95, 101, 108, 110, 111, 121, 123, 146–148, 158, 159, 166–168, 175, 176

P Problem-based, 3, 6, 7, 25, 27, 36, 60, 61, 93–101, 103, 104, 121–123, 166, 171 problem-solving, 33, 35, 36, 38, 51, 108 Problem-based learning, 95, 101 Problem solving, 18 Project, 3, 15, 33–39, 45, 47–49, 52, 61, 65– 67, 69, 78, 80–87, 93, 95, 100, 101, 103, 104, 108, 109, 111, 112, 116, 119, 123, 147–149, 154, 174, 176 Project-based, 5, 25, 27, 32–34, 36, 51, 60, 61, 66, 76, 78, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 120, 121, 151, 153, 171 problem-solving, 43 Project-based Learning, 31 problem-solving, 46

T Teaching, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18, 32, 33, 45, 52, 59, 60, 65, 68, 69, 82, 83, 87, 88, 100, 103, 150, 151, 157, 158, 166, 167, 171, 173, 178, 180, 182, 183 Team, 6, 8, 20, 21, 23, 25, 38, 39, 44, 46, 48, 52, 66, 67, 77, 78, 80–88, 96, 109, 117, 119, 120, 122, 149, 151, 153, 157–159, 161, 162, 173–176, 179, 181 Tinkering, 8

S Serious games, 4, 7, 96, 104, 110, 112, 120, 122, 123

W Wicked problems, 76