c Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of … Broadening...Sydney School of Architecture, Design and Planning The University of Sydney 148 City Road, Darlington, Australia [email protected]

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:

Wright, Natalie & Wrigley, Cara(2017)Broadening design-led education horizons: Conceptual insights and futureresearch directions.International Journal of Technology and Design Education. (In Press)

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/113978/

c© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature2017

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such ascopy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For adefinitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9429-9

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Wright,_Natalie.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Wrigley,_Cara.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/113978/

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9429-9

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

1

Broadening Design-led Education Horizons: Conceptual Insights and Future Research Directions

Natalie Wright

School of Design

Queensland University of Technology

2 George Street, Brisbane, Australia

[email protected]

Cara Wrigley

Sydney School of Architecture, Design and Planning

The University of Sydney

148 City Road, Darlington, Australia

[email protected]

Abstract:

Design as an overarching pedagogical framework has been regarded by some as the avenue to re-envision

general education to develop capabilities required for twenty-first century citizens. However, despite the

adoption of design thinking within other domains, generic design-based education for lifelong learning

remains largely unexplored. A comprehensive review of literature on educating a workforce for the

knowledge economy, and the role of design in business and educational innovation, has been conducted to

create a new approach to building a culture of practice for design-led education, based on the theory of

the Innovation Matrix and the development of twenty-first century skills. This study proposes ‘design-led

educational innovation’ as a new area of research which requires a deeper understanding of the

knowledge, skills and mindsets students require to thrive in the twenty-first century and beyond as

lifelong learners in informal and formal education contexts. The findings provide an opportunity to

explore dynamic theories and methodologies borrowed from within the field of design-led innovation in

business that will broaden the horizons of design-led education, challenging existing practices to

transform educational institutions as knowledge creation organisations. This is the first paper to introduce

the Design-led Education Innovation Matrix concept, providing a prototype design-led framework to

assist educators in developing and assessing twenty-first century knowledge, skills and mindsets. In

addition, it identifies related future research areas for academia, thereby extending the reach and scope of

this emerging research area.

Keywords: Creative knowledge economy, design education, secondary education, educational innovation, lifelong learning, twenty-first century skills.


2

Introduction

Over the next 10-15 years, as a result of rapid advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs),

dominant global economic forces of automation, globalisation and collaboration will transform the way the

current population work, live and learn. In Australia, this translates into the disappearance of almost five million

current jobs (40%) (FYA 2015; CEDA 2015), the creation of almost 2 million new ones (Deloitte Access

Economics 2012; Skills Australia 2010), and 80% of workers employed in tertiary knowledge-intensive service

industries (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu 2015). The new industrial revolution of the creative knowledge economy

necessitates that people of all ages embrace technology and virtual connectivity, pursue more flexible

occupations, utilising creative and social intelligence to resist automation (Bakhshi, Frey and Osborne 2015;

Frey and Osborne 2013) and drive innovation. They are also required to compete internationally with an

increasingly higher educated (particularly in Asia and the Pacific) and mobile talent pool (FYA 2015; CEDA

2015). It has become imperative that individuals and organisations continuously evolve, participating in self-

directed lifelong learning in preparation for this rapidly changing labour market (Bentley 1998; Livingstone

1999), and personal and social fulfillment (Sheridan 2007).

This article explores the impact the creative knowledge economy is having on the education of a twenty-first

century workforce, including the development of twenty-firstst century skills (P21 2009; Trilling and Fadel 2009) and learning environments for lifelong learning. It then discusses design thinking as a framework for twenty-first

century educational innovation and the need to develop an evidence-based culture of practice in order to endorse

widespread adoption. As a requisite of this, a ‘Design-led Education Innovation Matrix’ conceptual model is

proposed, which aims to assist in broadening the horizons of design-led education at all levels leading towards a

design-led culture. This builds on theories and methodologies borrowed from within the field of design-led

innovation in business, and provides a new design-led framework to assist educators and students at every level

in developing and assessing twenty-first century knowledge, skills and mindsets. Through the unpacking of this

Matrix, further research areas are identified for academia to pursue in this emerging field. Educating a workforce for the Twenty-first Century Knowledge Economy: The Education Paradigm Shift

The transition to a creative knowledge economy necessitates new cross-sector strategies, systems and policies for

educational innovation that allow the identification and acquisition of the competencies required for active and

effective participation (Gordon et al. 2009). These competencies are generally categorised as being (1)

transversal (i.e. not directly linked to one specific field but relevant to many); (2) multi-dimensional (including

knowledge, skills and attitudes); and (3) associated with higher order skills and behaviours that represent the

ability to embrace complex problems, unpredictable solutions and ambiguity (Westera 2001; OECD 2005;

Gordon et al. 2009). Hearn and Bridgstock (2010) note that innovation occurs when transdisciplinary

knowledge at the intersection of the scientific/technical, creative/cultural and business realms is combined and

generated by agents who are organised via complex, flexible and social scale-free networks. Therefore,

capabilities in innovation (creativity as well as entrepreneurship/business education), trandisciplinarity and

networks must be developed alongside domain specific creativity in the scientific/technical and creative-cultural

areas, in order for future business people, creative specialists, engineers and technologists to speak the same

language (Cox 2005).


3

At a school level, this demands pedagogy and curriculum that fuses artistic interests, technological innovation

and entrepreneurial energy. A cohesive interdisciplinary learning paradigm like STEAM (science, technology,

engineering, arts and mathematics) is favoured over a STEM focused one (Bakhshi, Hargreaves and Mateos-

Garcia 2013), for example. Further, it requires a move away from a focus on explicit knowledge and static

curricular units towards more ‘connected learning’ (Ito et al. 2013) involving ICTs and rich media, and social,

authentic learning opportunities, precluding artificially siloed disciplines. In this transition from a “teaching-

based approach” to a “learning-based approach” (Thomas and Brown 2011, p. 37-38), a combination of both

formal and informal experience-based learning approaches must be adopted (Misko 2008). These learning

experiences need to introduce subject matter which enables generation ‘P’ (for participatory) (Jenkins 2006)

‘prosumers’ (Toffler 1980) to embrace the unknown, and passively over time curate and recreate knowledge

socially through their own networks or ‘collectives’, either face-to-face or online, underpinned by self-

motivation and curiosity (Thomas and Brown 2011). These new models of education are demand-led, do-it-

yourself, individualised modes of learning, but focused on connections with society and exposure to a wide

range of context, role models and experiences of genuine responsibility (Bentley 1998).

Developing Twenty-first Century Competencies & Skills

Table 1 below illustrates the World Economic Forum’s (2015) view on the sixteen (16) twenty-first century skills

to be developed by students as part of lifelong learning. In a comparison of some of these skill indicators

(Foundational Literacies, Critical thinking/Problem-solving, Creativity and Curiosity) from a sample of high-

income OECD countries, Finland, South Korea and Japan performed strongly in all skills. When surveying the

performance of other countries, in general, it seems a weaker performance in Creativity or Critical

thinking/Problem-solving skills attributed to a corresponding weaker performance in some of the foundational

literacies (World Economic Forum 2015).

Twenty-first Century Skills Required for Lifelong Learning

Foundational Literacies How students apply core skills

to everyday tasks

Competencies How students approach complex

challenges

Character Qualities How students approach their

changing environment 1. Literacy 2. Numeracy 3. Scientific Literacy 4. ICT Literacy 5. Financial Literacy 6. Cultural and Civic Literacy

7. Critical Thinking/Problem-solving 8. Creativity 9. Communication 10. Collaboration

11. Curiosity 12. Initiative 13. Persistence/Grit 14. Adaptability 15. Leadership 16. Social & Cultural Awareness

Table 1. Skills required by students for the twenty-first century (Adapted from the World Economic Forum 2015).

To date, several frameworks envisioning student acquisition of twenty-first century competencies, in order to

drive teachers’ design of students’ learning experiences, have been developed. These include the EnGauge

Framework (Group & NCREL 2003), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD)

Key Competencies for Education (OECD 2005), the Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (Binkley et

al. 2010), and the Partnership for Twenty-first Century Skills (P21 2009; Trilling and Fadel 2009). Researchers

such as Voogt and Roblin (2012) have summarised common facets among these frameworks and more recently,


4

Koh et al. (2015) suggest that educators need to design twenty-first century learning that engages students in the

following five dimensions:

• Social-cultural dimension – situated in collaborative contexts that may also be multicultural

• Cognitive dimension – applying basic literacies and content knowledge (beyond regurgitation) to solve

ill-structured real-world problems

• Metacognitive dimension – learning from the learning/process to develop self-regulatory practices for

adaptation and support lifelong learning

• Productivity dimension – authentic learning for workplace realities, with real-world productivity

expectations for quality and efficiency built into assessment

• Technological dimension – exploitation of appropriate ICT tools (information and media) to support

learning

Curriculum anchored in contexts supporting the social construction of new knowledge, metacognition,

experimentation and risk-taking, the use of real-world assessment criteria and the exploitation of technology, can

help citizens apply these dimensions to develop twenty-first century skills, knowledge and mindsets which will

underpin innovative nations. However, systemic change in educational practices at all levels to support the

development of these competencies, requires the disruption of the traditional epistemology of “knowledge as

verified truth” (Koh et al. 2015, p.9) born of the Industrialised Age, which favours direct instruction and

regurgitation to support testing requirements. A new educational landscape is required, which expands the

traditional epistemology toward a design epistemology (Rowland 2004; Tsai et al. 2013; Cross 2006) to enrich

learning horizons though the creative and social construction, proposition and contextual evaluation of practical

ideas to resolve real-world complex problems. This positions student-engaged acquisition of twenty-first century

competencies within Popper’s (1978) three interacting ontological worlds of the physical, psychological and

conceptual, as the central driver for the design of learning environments and experiences, and therefore impacts

educator practices, preparation, and evaluation.

An Evolving Field: Design Thinking for Educational Innovation

For the purposes of this research, ‘design’ and ‘design thinking’ shall be used to describe design practice and

competence practiced for and with non-designers (Johannsson-Skoldberg et al. 2013) in the educational context.

Utilisation of a systematic human-centred approach to explore the definitions of problems and synthesise

solutions (Buchanan 1992; Owen 2007) in an iterative, collaborative framework encompassing inspiration,

ideation and implementation (Brown 2008), is implied. This is distinct from “designerly thinking” which is used

to describe professional designers’ practice (Johannsson-Skoldberg et al. 2013). In this context, ‘design-led

education’ for students, is an approach used in concert with interdisciplinary academic content to support

personalised generic twenty-first century capabilities and life-long learning, rather than ‘about design’ as a

cluster of autonomous professional disciplines. At a strategic level, for educators (as designers of innovative

learning experiences), it describes the expansion and delivery of a vision for student-centred educational

transformation, through co-design with stakeholders. This requires the capabilities of a combination of principles

including design process (knowledge), design skills (methods and tools) and design mindsets (Brenner et al.

2016; Koh et al. 2015; Hoadley and Cox 2009).


5

Design as an overarching pedagogical framework has been regarded as an avenue to develop the twenty-first

century capabilities of innovation and enterprise, especially in collaboration with art, science and technology, in

educational contexts (Howard 2008; Trilling and Fadel 2009; Koh et al. 2015; Noweski et al. 2012; Yelland,

Cope and Kalantzis 2008; Lee and Kolodner 2011; Razzouk and Shute 2012; Sims 2014). In particular, design

thinking utilised in repetition, has been conceived as an educational model that creates mindsets that build

‘creative confidence’ (Rauth, et al. 2010; Jobst et al. 2012; Koh, Chai and Lee 2013) or “creative self-efficacy”

(Tierney and Farmer 2002), a view consistent with Dweck’s findings on growth and fixed mindset (Dweck 2006).

Additionally, in response to issues of engagement in foundational school literacies, design thinking is proposed

as a “way of thinking and being that can potentially enhance the epistemological and ontological nature of

schooling” (Razzouk and Shute 2012, p. 343) and foster agency and active citizenship. It provides the benefits of

interpersonal learning through collaboration in diverse teams (Page 2007), considering multiple perspectives

(Ballanca and Brandt 2010).

Koh et al. (2015) have proposed that the aforementioned twenty-first century learning dimensions can be

externalised as design episodes as a way of scaffolding and assessing learning. Design thinking can also assist

educators to be more competent in solving problems and make epistemic leaps beyond routine expertise. With a

knowledge of design patterns (Hoadley and Cox 2009), and by developing the differentiating designerly

practices of ‘framing’ (Schön 1983, 1987; Dorst 2015) and reflective practices such as ‘reflection-in-action’

(Schön 1983, 1987), contextual constraints can be transformed into opportunities for educational innovation

(Koh et al 2015).Sims (2014) proposes “design alchemy” as a model for instructional designers, which

incorporates the learning theories of constructivism, social learning, situated cognition, experiential learning and

connectivism to develop active/creative, socially inclusive, contextual, problem solving and emergent pedagogy.

Even though the conceptual importance of design thinking is gaining recognition with educators, the gap

between theory and practice remains wide open, especially in the area of K-12 preservice teacher education, and

little research has yet been dedicated to understand its value in assisting development of pedagogical repertoire

to support twenty-first century learning (Koh et. al 2015).

Wright and Davis (2014) propose a flexible, scalable and inclusive learning environment model (Figure 1) for

both informal and formal design-led education at all levels (primary, secondary, tertiary and professional

development), which references the three defining features of the creative knowledge economy – innovation,

transdisciplinarity, and networks (Hearn and Bridgstock 2010). It highlights new models of engagement between

education sectors, industry and community required to expand knowledge creation between business, education,

science, design and the creative sectors in areas of research and practice. Consequently, this heralds a

disintegration of the traditional classroom as a learning environment, but also larger, the silos of the education

ecosystem.


6

Figure 1. Learning Environment Model (Wright and Davis 2014)

In the context of the democratisation of generic design competencies, there is little public understanding of the

difference between novice and expert designers. Adapted from the The Five-Stage Model of Adult Skill

Acquisition (Dreyfus 2004), Lawson and Dorst (2009) distinguish between seven ‘levels of design expertise’

which correspond with seven different ways of design thinking or operating in design practice. These are ‘Naïve’

(result-focused/choice-based and representing design done by ordinary people in everyday life), ‘Novice’

(convention-based and exploring design “as a series of activities organised in a formal process”), ‘Advanced

Beginner’ (situation-based), ‘Competent’ (strategy-based), ‘Expert’ (experience-based), ‘Master’ (creating new

schemata) and ‘Visionary’ (redefinition of the field) (Dorst 2015, p.57). Each of these levels comes with its own

methods, critical skill set and mode of reflection. Arguably, undergraduate design students reach a ‘Competent’

level, at which they are capable of actively steering development of a design problem within their design domain,

rather than merely reacting to a problem situation (Dorst 2015). In order to cultivate appropriate and effective

21st century competencies, this research therefore proposes that general design-led education should target a

baseline level of ‘Advanced Beginner’ at which it is recognised that design problems are “highly individual and

situated” and “less amenable to standard solutions” (Dorst 2015, p.58).

Waks (2001) proposes that Schön’s general educational design (1995), places formal project-based learning and

design education as the “central hub” of the secondary school, leaving the university free to devote itself to

professional training. However, he concedes that secondary students, unlike those in professional schools, will

not generally be novices in chosen vocations, and school educators will not generally be masters in specific

occupations. This points to a more generic discipline of school design education with generalist teachers capable

of responding flexibly in amateur design projects generated by school students. As facilitators, they would be

motivating them to make use of general knowledge, and guiding them through frustration and uncertainty to

successful completion, in readiness for domain specific design-led education at a higher level.

Developing a Culture of Practice in Design-led Education

Davis and Littlejohn (2017) detail a rich history of K-12 project-based and design-based formal and informal

teaching and learning developed in schools, universities, cultural institutions, design firms and foundations

(some funded by research and led by designers) for both educators and students since the 1970s in the USA.

Stanford University Graduate School of Education REDlab and the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (d.school)

publish vital research on the value of design thinking for education (eg. Goldman and Kabayadondo 2017;

Carroll et al. 2010). In the UK, despite the inclusion of Design and Technology as a discrete national


7

curriculum subject in the 1970s, and sponsored research on Design in General Education, reviews highlight a

lack of evidence-based research assessing its impact on national innovation and education systems. However,

this did reposition design as a distinct body of knowledge comparable to, but distinct from, the humanities or

sciences. It introduced writings (Cross 2006; Lawson 1990) which continue to be seminal references in books on

design thinking for the business community (Davis and Littlejohn 2017).

More recently in the Asia-Pacific region, South Korea, Hong Kong and China are reexamining design education

at all levels towards workforce innovation (Design Commission 2011; Education Commission 2002; Heskett

2003). Singaporean children are exposed to design education programs in both primary and secondary school

and valuable research examining design thinking for twenty-first century learning, from both pre-service and in-

service teacher perspectives, is being conducted (Koh et al. 2015).

However, despite the ubiquitous adoption of design thinking in business, IT and engineering contexts, and the

desire to re-envision education to foster the traits identified as twenty-first century competencies, there is still no

widespread adoption of design thinking in formal education to support educators’ practices or the cultivation of

student capabilities for innovation. David and Littlejohn (2017) suggest that in order to define and evaluate the

use of design in schools, there needs to be an organised disciplinary “culture of practice”. This would explicate

how proponents establish learning communities to build practice and research consensus, and drive field maturity,

educational policy and universal adoption. Arguably, this is required at all levels of education. This “culture of

practice” will be defined by communities of practice comprised of people who share collective beliefs and values,

a distinct network of connections, communicate through a common vocabulary and participate in frameworks

with a particular structure (Lave and Wenger 1991).

Davis and Littlejohn concede that to date this traditional definition has been challenged in the USA (and

arguably in Australia) due to the majority of activity having been “largely in outreach efforts, under the direction

of external curriculum developers and the in-service training of teachers in short workshops” in formal and

informal learning contexts (2017, pp. 28-29). Additionally, these efforts have been evaluated on the success of

delivering design-based instruction rather than on 21st century student achievements against measured

disciplinary criteria. They propose the following gaps in this practice are “(1) Consensus about the purpose and

theories of action about design thinking as applied in education; (2) Documentation and interpretation of its

history and philosophy in the literature of education; (3) development of systematic methods of evaluation and

empirical research that recommend specific practices over others; and (4) inclusion of design-based strategies in

the pre-service education of teachers.”

These gaps can only be filled through the formation of purposeful learning communities or networks including

educators, academia, industry (including designers) and community to co-design and evaluate learning

environments. Design-led education requires a “reactive pedagogy” which cannot be reduced to applying a series

of linear steps, and requires an acceptance of ambiguity and unpredictability (Cox et al. 2017). Frequent

conversation and documentation about perceptions, process and outcomes between members of the community

(Koh et al. 2015), including students, is necessary for innovation. Koh et al. (2015) also suggest that the

introduction of external instructional leaders such as researchers to seed and co-develop new pedagogical


8

vocabularies as design frames, effectively motivates and progresses the development and adoption of

transformative design ideas. This is due to a greater focus on learner needs, and the prevention of the premature

curtailing of teachers’ ideation by focusing on contextual constraints.

The Design-led Education Program Framework (Figure 2) is the next evolution of the Learning Environment

Model (Figure 1). It captures the importance of networks or learning communities in the pursuit of educational

innovation towards transdisciplinary learning in both the classroom and educational institutions, while in parallel,

developing evidence-based research towards a culture of practice. This represents a shift for educators to

continue to expand their skillset as co-designers and facilitators of curriculum, community engagement and

partnership brokers, and also as researchers building evidence for learning and leadership.

Figure 2. Design-led Education Program Framework

In order to respond to the first aforementioned gap in developing a culture of practice for design-led education,

this article now proposes a conceptual framework for Design-led Educational Innovation.

The Design-led Education Innovation Matrix: Conceptual Framework

Baghai, Coley & White (1999) describe a company’s growth potential to be a function of three distinct phases or

‘horizons’ of product and revenue creation, as shown in Figure 3. Each phase must be managed simultaneously

for effective innovation but requires different competencies, capabilities and personal profiles. In this framework,

Horizon One is defined as the core business of the current corporation, which usually accounts for the lion’s

share of annual revenue, profit and cash flow. Horizon Two includes the ventures in the entrepreneurial phase

poised for rapid growth or the products just entering the market (with a long way to go before market

maturation). Finally, Horizon Three contains the seeds for tomorrow’s growth or the projects that are real

investments and more than just ideas.

Design-led Education Program

Academia

Com

munity

Networks

Ind

ust

ry

Innovation

Research

Cul

ture

of P

ract

ice

Transdisciplinarity


9

Figure 3. The Three Horizons Model (Baghai, Coley and White 1999).

In the business context, the success rate for bringing new innovation ideas to market is also woefully low. This is

due to the incorporation of linear processes which neglect the complexities and funnel research results, new

feature-rich technologies and, to a lesser extent, user experiences, towards advanced development and new

business processes into the market too early (Kyffin and Gardien 2009). This is usually performed within the

dominant innovation model of glocalization, in which the organisation develops products to suit a developed

economy and, with a few changes, then launches the same product in emerging markets (Immelt et al. 2009).

Kyffin and Gardien (2009) propose a different way of capitalising on new ideas towards market adoption by

starting again to investigate territories surrounding the idea in a non-linear approach through Christensen’s (1997)

theory of transformational or disruptive innovation. This broadly describes a process in which a product or

service targets the lower spectrum of a market and the needs of these users, and then over time moves through

the upper end of the market to eventually displace a mature competitor.

Figure 4. The Innovation Matrix (Kyffin and Gardien 2009)

In “Navigating the Innovation Matrix”, Kyffin and Gardien (2009, p. 57) propose that “the scope of innovation

has increased in complexity, where products, services, user needs and technologies need to be integrated while

bringing many different stakeholders together”. They indicate that this therefore requires an alternative process

of innovation as a network of options seen within a trajectory of the three horizons of growth and utilised on a

case-by-case basis, rather than the linear “straitjacket” approach. Kyffin and Gardien’s (2009) ‘Innovation

horizon 1

specificcampaigns

conceptcar

aspirationalpromise

incrementalinnovation

collaborativeinnovation

innovation debate(probes)

people &market research

future focusedpersona research

social culturaltrends &

narratives

communicatevalue

developvalue

identifyvalue

horizon 2 horizon 3


10

Matrix’, as shown in Figure 4, emphasises that different competencies, capabilities and personal profiles are

required for each phase. It proposes that the mechanisms of ‘identifying value’, ‘developing value’ and

‘communicating value’ are superimposed on the three horizons model to show a number of interesting and

effective ways of capitalising on opportunities in Horizon Three.

This research uses Baghai et al.’s (1999) framework in order to better understand a model for design-led

innovation that can potentially translate across educational contexts. Just as these horizons represent the ‘growth

staircase’ of manageable actions for business, parallels can be drawn to establish three horizons required for

effective innovation in the classroom and the growth of the twenty-first century student, as shown in Figure 5.

Carroll et al.’s (2010) research from the Taking Design Thinking to Schools Research Project focuses on the role,

impact and efficacy of design thinking within a semi-urban middle school geography classroom in the United

States San Francisco education system. It highlights three major themes of (i) Design as Exploring:

Understanding Design, (ii) Design as Connecting: Affect & Design, and (iii) Design as Intersecting: Design

Thinking & Content Learning. In this context, using the Partnership for Twenty-first Century Skills Framework

(P21 2009; Trilling and Fadel 2009), the ‘Design as Exploring’ theme could be categorized as the ‘Horizon One’

phase described by Baghai et al. (1999). This is where students explore and understand the design process while

also mastering foundational tools of information, media and technology literacies, core subjects and twenty-first

century interdisciplinary themes (P21 2009; Trilling and Fadel 2009). The ‘Design as Connecting’ theme relates

well with the ‘Horizon Two’ phase (Baghai et al. 1999). This involves preparing students for more complex life

and work environments with learning and innovation skills (often referred to as the 4Cs - critical thinking,

creativity, communication and collaboration - and categorised as competencies in Table 1) (P21 2009; Trilling

and Fadel 2009), as well as metacognitive skills. Lastly, the ‘Design as Intersecting’ theme correlates with the

Baghai et al’s (1999) ‘Horizon Three’ objective. This consists of planting the seeds for tomorrow’s growth by

developing adequate life and career skills to empower utilisation of design thinking in life and work

environments (P21 2009; Trilling and Fadel 2009).

Figure 5. The Three Horizons of Design-led Education Model (Adapted from Baghai, Coley and White 1999;

Carroll et al. 2010; P21 2009; Trilling and Fadel 2009; Hess et al. 2014)


11

Within the educational context, utilising Hess et al.’s (2014) research on career and college readiness (which

identifies three skillsets necessary for success in post-secondary education) and the work of Estrada and

Goldman (2017), Horizon 1 and Horizon 2 focus on the development of “cognitive” skillsets. These emphasise

“critical thinking, information literacy, reasoning and argumentation” (2017, p. 38). Horizon 2 and 3 focus on the

“interpersonal” and “intrapersonal” skillsets (Hess et al. 2014). The “interpersonal” skillset personalises the

experience of learning in any social context, and includes “communication, collaboration, responsibility and

creative-productive thinking”. The “intrapersonal” domain develops both independence and interdependence

“through action with reflection or praxis and the application of learning to the larger social context” (Estrada and

Goldman 2017, p.39). The foundational dispositions of interpersonal and intrapersonal skills are not often

intentionally nurtured through formal education, but when synthesised with cognitive competencies through

design thinking, promise to prepare citizens for life readiness (Figure 5).

Educators as designers need to have the skills and mindsets to facilitate the co-creation of innovation beyond

internal organisational/institutional collaboration, to maintain a people-focused perspective, building concepts

from the bottom up. Mapping the efficacy of design thinking with the twenty-first century student outcomes

provides a framework for the evaluation and continuous improvement of design thinking pedagogy in the

classroom. However, in order for this framework to resist a linear approach to knowledge, skill, and mindset

development, and allow for more widespread, localised and longitudinal data collection within a culture of

practice, design-led educational innovation must similarly incorporate the complexity of changing learning

environments and the options for various intermediary social structures.

The quest for a design-led innovation approach in the education context for creative capacity building requires a

fundamental shift towards a more complex and experimental pedagogical setting. Horizon Three represents the

development of individual skills for lifelong learning, enabling active citizenship and the navigation of complex

environments in the globally competitive information age. This demands “mutual involvement of teacher and

student in assembling and disassembling cultural products designed to inform, entertain, subvert, problem-solve

and inquire” (McWilliam and Haukka 2008, p. 662), drawing on a fluid network of people and ideas to manage

and implement methods and processes (with the tertiary sector as the central actor) (Wright & Davis 2014).

Schools and other educational institutions need to be radically reframed as knowledge creation organisations,

fostering a generic design mode of thinking among today’s learners (Bereiter and Scardamalia 2006) and a

repositioning of the role and skills required of the educator. The Design-led Education Innovation Matrix (shown

below in Figure 6) therefore emphasises the different competencies, capabilities and personal profiles required

for each horizon phase, as process, skills and mindset, corresponding to the identify value, develop value and

communicate value mechanisms required to capitalise on opportunities in Horizon Three.


12

Figure 6. The Design-led Education Innovation Matrix (Adapted from Kyffin and Gardien 2009; Carroll, et al. 2010; P21 2009; Trilling and Fadel 2009)

This Matrix (Figure 6) assumes that a non-designer in an educational context, after suitable repetitive practice of

design thinking processes and skills, building mindsets which in sum cultivate “creative confidence” (Kelley and

Kelley 2013) (not accounting for other factors affecting skill development), can achieve generic base-level

design thinking capabilities to the Advanced Beginner (situation-based) level or in the case of undergraduate

design students to a “competent” (strategy-based) level in Horizon 3. This would be the goal for formal

education in the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors, obviously moving towards more sophisticated levels of

integration based on student maturity, and therefore becoming more solution-focused rather than problem-

focused with experience (Cross 2004).

It is proposed that in design immersion programs of up to three days duration, which initially introduce non-

design students at any level of formal education to the processes, skills and mindsets of design thinking and take

them through various scaffolded design challenge activities in order to put theory into practice, that the aim is to

seed a Horizon 2 capability, building momentum in the learning of this emerging framework for action. This

would equate to the emerging capabilities of an ‘Advanced Beginner’ (situation-based) level, at which design

problems are considered to be “highly individual and situated” (Dorst 2015, p.58). In a half to one-day program

it is unlikely that students will move beyond Horizon 1 or a ‘Novice’ level (2015), but this may seed the

opportunities afforded by design thinking and promote self-regulated learning in collectives, which move

towards Horizon 2. In the case of educators of these learning environments (dependent on the audience), it is

proposed that they would need to at least be an ‘Advanced Beginner’ but preferably ‘Competent’, and therefore

have completed undergraduate studies in design (Horizon 3 capabilities), to facilitate learning environments up

to the Horizon 2 level.

Implications of the Design-led Education Innovation Matrix

The Design-led Education Innovation Matrix has implications for both the professional development of in-

service and pre-service educators and the development of student efficacy as twenty-first century citizens,

beyond the professional realm of design. It will allow them to embrace new learning opportunities beyond the

classroom, combining the rigour and depth of the best professional instruction with the flexibility and

horizon 1

disciplinary-adaptive

Design as ExploringUnderstanding Design

(Mindset)

(Skills)

(Process)

Design as Connecting:Affect and Design

Design as Intersecting:Design Thinking &Content Learning

context-adaptive/locally situated

visionaryleadership

foundational &information/media/technology literacy

learning/ innovation (4cs)& metacognition

life & careerempowerment

recognition &adoption

collaborativeapplication

integration

communicatevalue

developvalue

identifyvalue

horizon 2 horizon 3


13

motivational power of community-based collaborative learning and co-design. Schools will need to “transform

themselves to become the hubs of learning networks, centres of learning excellence which aid the development

of understanding by brokering learning opportunities with people and organisations in the communities around

them” (Bentley 1998, p.183). The construction of the Design-led Education Innovation Matrix will allow

innovation-generating possibilities in an open learning model, to leverage future development in this sector. It

assumes the potential variables of community, parents, design and industry professionals, business professionals,

university instructors, tertiary design, business and education students, online tools and out-of-classroom activity.

The Matrix provides an aspirational framework for educators developing design-led educational pedagogy and

curriculum to ensure that both informal and formal learning environments are building lifelong twenty-first

century skills to support an evolving workforce. As such, it is intended that the aforementioned five dimensions

(Koh et. al 2015) are incorporated and therefore technology informs practice but does not determine it (Sims

2014).

Brief overviews of the three mechanisms of identify value (process), develop value (skills) and communicate

value (mindset) are provided below and the Horizons explained and expanded upon in the following ‘Research

Propositions and Potential Directions’ section. It is important to note that the Matrix positions the learner or

student and their development of the “4Cs” (outlined as the competencies of critical thinking, creativity,

communication and collaboration in Table 1) and metacognition at the centre of educational innovation, with the

capacity to move between Horizons dependent on individual and group abilities. As this framework applies to

generic design-led education for lifelong learning, the following sections discuss non-designers as learners,

which includes both students and educators aiming to achieve an ‘Advanced Beginner’ level of design expertise.

Identify Value (Process)

For non-designers, applying the principles of design thinking alone without a structure is too demanding for the

‘Novice’, so in order to identify value for progressive adoption, collaborative application and ultimate

integration of design thinking as a generic problem solving/knowledge creation habit in Horizon 3, a number of

definitive phases are outlined. These are used iteratively rather than linearly, and must be recognised and

understood metacognitively by all non-designer learners in order to define and solve authentic problems and deal

with varying levels of ambiguity. Carroll et al.’s (2010) study utilised a design thinking process including phases

of understand, observe, point of view, ideate, prototype and test (Stanford University 2007). Other design

processes such as IDESiGN thinking (Burnette 1993), d.school (Stanford University 2007), Design Thinking for

Educators (IDEO 2012) and Design Minds (The State of Queensland 2012; Duell et al. 2014) have similar

components that may be articulated slightly differently. It is important to emphasise in educational contexts that

these different processes exist, among others, however they can be customised dependent on audience and

context. It is expected that in addition to knowledge about design phases, progressively learners over the three

Horizons will develop knowledge of the values and philosophies underpinning design choices, patterns across

design problems, and the roles that designers can play within a design team (Hoadley and Cox 2009).

Develop Value (Skills)

Abilities to deploy appropriate tools and methods within the process of design thinking to hone mindset

(explained in the following section) and develop value, are essential capabilities in the twenty-first century.


14

Foundational skills of information literacy, observation and interviewing for early research stages of the design

process and information/media/technology literacies and storytelling to encourage experimentation and

communication in Horizon 1, are essential. Guidelines on idea generation, workspaces, moderation and methods

for optimum teamwork in Horizon 2, and ultimately reflection, time management and leadership tools will

enable operation in Horizon 3. These methods and tools originate from diverse knowledge areas such as

ethnography and informatics, creativity and design, communication and quality management, and cannot be

easily assigned to particular phases in the design process. Tools that differentiate design thinking can include

stakeholder (Brenner et al. 2016), empathy and journey mapping (Stanford University 2011); persona-method or

composite character profiling (Brenner et al. 2016; Stanford University 2011); the 5-Whys Method (Ohno 1993);

brainstorming and bodystorming; and prototyping (Stanford University 2011), to mention a few.

Communicate Value (Mindset)

Learners on the journey to becoming design thinkers through their interactions with materials, objects and

experiences, need to inherit and develop the social and epistemic dispositions essential to use the process and

skills to create innovative and human-centred ‘out of the box’ solutions. Design thinking can assist in shifting

deeply ingrained siloed limitations such as privileging of predetermined correct answers, exposure to pre-

selected dominant narratives, and the pursuit of decontextualised problem solving skills (Goldman et. al 2017).

The learning environment will determine the level of “sophistication, transformation, application and integration”

of mindsets (Goldman et al. 2012, p.13). In the case of learning environments for the ‘Novice’ and ‘Advanced

Beginner’ (Lawson and Dorst 2009), which aim for Horizon 1 and Horizon 2 capabilities respectively, learners

should experience the strengthening of four key conceptual “mindshifts: human centred; experimental;

collaborative; and metacognitive” on the journey to becoming a design thinker, which can be measured alongside

process, and skills in a reflective “Design Thinking Assessment Rubric” (Goldman et al. 2012).

The requisite, idiosyncratic “human-centred” mindshift is characterised by moving beyond egocentric

perspectives to enable empathic insights and solutions, and foregrounds the “collaborative” mindshift or belief

that radical collaborations form the basis for transformative innovation. The “experimental” or “fail often and

early” (Brenner et al. 2016) mindshift is indicated by a realisation that prototyping - doing, making and

visualising – is integral to thinking and the evolution of ideas. The “metacognitive” mindshift requires an

essential awareness of how different phases of the iterative design process, including a combination of divergent

and convergent thinking, can be utilised to respond to changing problem parameters. As design thinkers mature,

and reach a Horizon 3 capability of ‘Competent’, and beyond to ‘Visionary’ level (Lawson and Dorst 2009), it

would be expected that they exhibit the fundamental intrinsic mindsets, or orientations to learning. These are

Human-centredness, Empathy, Mindfulness of Process, Culture of Prototyping, Show Don’t Tell, Bias Towards

Action and Radical Collaboration (Carroll et al. 2010). They could be expanded to a repertoire of Schweitzer et

al.’s (2016) eleven mindsets (including both cognitive and behavioural components), when utilising design

thinking in a business context.


15

The Innovation Matrix - Research Propositions and Potential Directions

While much remains to be discovered in this field, future research propositions and potential research directions

are evident and necessary to be explored, in order to develop an evidence-based culture of practice around

design-led education. Three driving research directions and key research questions have been influenced by the

three Horizons of the Design-led Education Innovation Matrix (Figure 6).

Horizon 1 – Design as Exploring: Understanding Design

The Horizon 1 Design as Exploring: Understanding Design theme (Carroll, et al. 2010), reflects learners

recognising and adopting the discourse of design and diverse aspects of the design thinking process, various

foundational tools (skills) and preliminary mindshifts, in a prototype-driven learning environment. Learners are

exploring all aspects of a problem situation through multiples sources and iterations, without jumping to

immediate solutions. Importantly, this is achieved through social interaction, an empathic lens, and learners

beginning to view themselves as active change agents. Learning impact is measured by the development of

empathy or human-and environment-centred concern (Razzouk and Shute 2012), curiosity, optimism,

purposefulness, self-motivation, a challenging of preconceived ideas, and a viewing of the world differently.

Demonstration of understanding of key concepts and content is also necessary and can be achieved for all

Horizons through “Performance of Understanding (PoU)” and “peer and public scrutiny” (Gudipati and Sethi

2017; Sara and Parnell 2004).

In this Horizon, it is accepted that, as educators are inherently designers of learning, “design thinking is not new”

(Kwek 2011, pp.14-16). It focuses on getting the students to master the central concepts and principles of core

subject areas (English, world languages, arts, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history,

government/civics) and twenty-first century interdisciplinary themes (global awareness and entrepreneurial, civic,

health and environmental literacies) (P21 2009), while exploring a real-world problem in a similar way to

project-based learning. To date limited published studies have examined the role of design thinking in the K-12

context to aid mastery in core subject areas such as STEM (Carroll 2015; Carroll 2014), STEAM (Tan et al. 2017)

and more specifically science (Kolodner et al. 2003; Puntambekar and Kolodner 2005; Levy 2013; Doppelt et al.

2008; Wendell and Rogers 2013), technologies (Todd 1999; Kangas et al. 2013), engineering (Goldman et al.

2017) and mathematics (Goldman et al. 1998; Middleton and Corbett 1998). While some exemplar research of

disciplinary-adaptive Horizon 1 adoption of design has been conducted in other subject areas, such as social

studies/history (Koh et al. 2015) and geography (Carroll et al. 2010), further research needs to be conducted in

other subject areas to determine viability.

It is also understood that in exploring the application of the design process, because of its iterative nature, both

learners and educators “don’t have to do all the parts” in a neat step-by-step process in order to dovetail with the

disciplinary objectives, particularly in more formal learning environments (Kwek 2011, pp. 16-18). Instead,

design thinking can be operationalised with individual design process phases, skills and mindsets that can be

applied as “standalone activities within a lesson” (Zielezinski 2017, pp. 196). This is particularly relevant to the

learning of information, media and technology digital literacies (P21 2009; Trilling and Fadel 2009), which

encourage the exploitation of technology tools and online resources to build knowledge to support the design


16

thinking process (Howland, Jonassen and Marra 2012). In the case of educators, who must themselves shift from

a decontextualized direct instruction approach, this has the benefit of lowering the barriers to entry and

encouraging experimentation with design thinking in learning environments for the ‘Novice’ and within

particular subject areas that have their own languages and traditional modes of thinking such as inductive

thinking in science.

This leads to questions such as:

• How can universities, cultural institutions, professional associations and curriculum advisors build

strategic partnerships to extend and evaluate consistent informal learning outreach efforts towards a

praxis model for widespread recognition and adoption of design-led education at all levels?

• How can a design-led education framework assist in student-centred disciplinary content mastery and

the reframing of educators as ‘designers of learning’ for knowledge creation rather than knowledge

acquisition?

• What are the roles of professional designers and tertiary design educators and students as “design

innovation catalysts” (Wrigley 2016) in upskilling non-designer educators and students in foundational

design process, skills and disciplinary mindsets?

Horizon 2 - Design as Connecting: Affect and Design

The Horizon 2 Design as Connecting: Affect and Design theme (Carroll, et al. 2010), foregrounds the powerful

role design thinking plays in preparing students for complex life/work environments, strengthening and nurturing

“creative confidence” (Kelley and Kelley 2013) and a growth mindset (Dweck 2006). This is achieved through

the affective elements of social interactions and the Learning & Innovation Skills of Critical Thinking &

Problem Solving, Creativity & Innovation, Communication and Collaboration (the “4Cs”) (P21 2009; Trilling

and Fadel 2009). Learning impact can be measured through a growth in the dispositions of Horizon 1 as well as a

bias towards action and risk-taking, development of the above skills, and also metacognitive skills, which

demonstrate an awareness of progress within the design process, and behaviours required at each phase. In this

Horizon, learners will exhibit Razzouk & Shute’s (2012, p.336) design-thinker characteristics of “Ability to

visualize”, “Predisposition toward multifunctionality”, “Ability to use language as a tool”, “Affinity for

teamwork”, and “Avoiding the necessity of choice”.

Horizon 2 is categorised by moving beyond subject area/disciplinary boundaries to engage in personally

meaningful, relevant work, which crosses subject area/disciplinary boundaries to be more locally situated and

“context-adaptive” (Johnson 2017) in a greater social context. This is critical, given the importance of place in

the creative knowledge economy (Deloitte Touche Tomatsu 2015), and being empathetic to the tailored

education needs of those citizens living in regional and remote areas outside primary agglomeration economies,

and therefore with less exposure to formal and informal education opportunities offered by universities, cultural

institutions and professional associations. Additionally, design thinking beginning with context/place as the

foundation through which to make connections to content, accommodates learners and educators of “hybridised

multiculturalism and multilingualism”, “shaped by globalization, political instability, technological innovation,

climate shift and migration” (Johnson 2017, p.126), indigenous and eastern perspectives. It also aligns to, and


17

has been explored and documented as, a tangible process to complement context-adaptive teaching approaches

such as place-based learning (Grunewald and Smith 2014; Grunewald 2003; Smith 2002) and culture-based

education (Kana ‘iaupanai et al. 2010; Castagno and Brayboy 2008), to tackle social exclusion and improve the

“adaptive expertise” of educators (Johnson 2017).

The context-adaptive and locally situated Horizon 2 mindset for communicating value is dependent on educators

at all levels cultivating “well-leveraged and constantly evolving strategic partnerships” (Estrada and Goldman

2017, p.38) with professional designers and members of their local community, committed to collective and

reflective action, guided by research. An exemplar of ‘radical collaboration’ in a learning community has been

documented by the Stanford Graduate School of Education REDlab d.loft STEM Learning Education and

Research Project in the short documentary film Design Time (Cole et al. 2015), telling the story of the team

journey.


• What is the impact of adopting design thinking as a foundational framework for context-adaptive rather

than standardised common curricula in regional and rural areas?

• What is the value of both informal and formal design-led learning environments in developing creative

confidence and transformative twenty-first century Learning and Innovation Skills (critical thinking,

communication, collaboration & creativity)?

• What does best practice partnership as a part of a design-led learning community look like and what

tools and methods can be developed to support collaborative application of design-led frameworks in

the classroom and community?

Horizon 3 - Design as Intersecting: Design Thinking and Content learning

The Horizon 3 Design as Intersecting: Design Thinking and Content Learning theme (Carroll et al. 2010)

highlights the relationship between design thinking and academic content learning, and emphasises an ability to

integrate design thinking as a process to connect content knowledge for personal lifelong learning and career

empowerment, thereby inspiring others to utilise design thinking through visionary leadership. Learning impact

can be measured through the development of the Life and Career Skills of Flexibility and Adaptability, Initiative

and Self-Direction, Social and Cross-Cultural Skills, Productivity and Accountability and Leadership and

Responsibility (P21 2009; Trilling and Fadel 2009), a growth in the dispositions of Horizon 1 and 2, as well as

heightened metacognitive skills. This is demonstrated through a more sophisticated mindfulness of the design

process such as reflection-on-action, reflection-in-action (Schön 1983), thinking modes (including divergent and

convergent thinking, integrative thinking, abductive reasoning, emotional intelligence and systems thinking),

“systemic vision” (Razzouk and Shute 2012, p. 336) and behaviours required at various phases (Schweitzer

2016).

For educators, this integration of design thinking and entwined content learning assumes an ability to also

integrate academic and education standards, subject area curriculums, and the constraints and values of existing

classroom culture, while giving the students a voice in the content learning. Estrada and Goldman (2017)


18

envision a new future for design-led K-12 education as twenty-first century pedagogy for career and life

readiness in the state of Utah, USA through connecting different like-minded organisations in a learning

community dedicated to developing a praxis model. As more educators achieve generic base-level design

thinking capabilities to the “competent” (strategy-based) visionary leadership level in Horizon 3, it is hoped that

their collective actions will be amplified to create a compelling praxis model towards an evidence-based culture

of practice in design-led educational innovation.


• How can universities, as part of learning communities, assist and encourage educational institutions at

every level to adopt and embed design-led signature pedagogies and qualitative action research/case

study research practices towards developing an organised culture of practice in design-led education

and ultimately a design-led culture for innovation?

• What are the best practice theories, methods and evidence-based evaluation measures required to

upskill educators at all levels (including pre-service, in-service teachers and university lecturers) to

contribute to generic design education and the preparation of twenty-first century capabilities and

transformative formal and informal learning experiences?

• What is the value and impact of design-led education on life-long learning and life readiness and how

does this affect the greater community in regional economies of agglomeration?

Conclusions

This study understands that in order for design-led education to be adopted as a framework for re-

envisioning general education to develop capabilities required for twenty-first century citizens, there is an

urgent need to prioritise methodologically rigorous evidence-based research, conducted and disseminated

through the formation and collaboration of purposeful learning communities that showcase its value and

effectiveness to education policymakers. To enable this, a ‘culture of practice’ is required at every level of

design-led education. As part of the development of this ‘culture of practice’, as a starting point,

consensus of the purpose and theories of action about design as an epistemology and ethical practice for

students and educators in the twenty-first century, needs to be determined for different disciplinary areas

and curriculums. Additionally, at a systemic level, education leaders and policy makers must incorporate

design thinking to strategise future educational goals, systems and processes (Koh et al. 2015) in relation

to the larger culture.

In order to move towards this aim, this paper has explored literature regarding twenty-first century workforce

requirements, the role of design in educational innovation, and dynamic theory and a methodology borrowed

from within the field of design-led innovation in business, to propose a conceptual framework that has the

potential to broaden the horizons of design-led education innovation as an emerging research agenda. The

Design-led Education Innovation Matrix aims to provide a structure centred on personalised student acquisition

of twenety-first century capabilities in both informal and formal learning environments at every level through

design-led education.


19

Further development of this framework, will successively allow documentation and interpretation of the history

of design in educational literature and the development of appropriate research agendas and strategies, perhaps

incorporating a multipronged approach of contextualised evaluation in which designer perceptions, processes, as

well as design outcomes are measured with appropriate validated instruments (Koh et al. 2015). Evidence-based

outcomes will then inform a body of literature guiding future research and practice and methods of application

such as repertoires of pedagogical instruction, scaffolding, performance-based assessment and community

engagement and partnerships. This will consequentially influence future informal outreach efforts, pre-service

and in-service teacher professional development, national curriculums and tertiary offerings. While this

undertaking could be seen to be a twenty-first century ‘wicked’ problem, failure to urgently prioritise education

innovation, jeopardises the collective ability of future generations to effectively tackle even greater 21st century

problems. In the words of Albert Einstein “imagination is more important that knowledge”.

References

Baghai, M., Coley, S., & White, D. (1999). The Alchemy of Growth: Practical Insights for Building the Enduring Enterprise. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.

Bakhshi, H., Frey, C.B. & Osborne, M. (2015). Creativity Vs. Robots: The creative economy and the future of employment. Resource document. London: Nesta. http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/creativity-vs-robots. Accessed 10 August 2015.

Bakhshi, H., Hargreaves, I., & Mateos-Garcia, J. (2013). A manifesto for the creative economy. Resource document. London: Nesta. http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/manifesto-creative-economy. Accessed 14 December 2013.

Bellanca, J.A., & Brandt, R.S. (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Bentley, T. (1998). Learning Beyond the Classroom. In I. Hargreaves and I. Christie (Eds.), Tomorrow's Politics: The Third Way and Beyond (pp.80-95). London: Demos.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education for the knowledge age. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd Ed.) (pp. 695-713). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F., & Abrell, T. (2016). Design Thinking as Mindset, Process, and Toolbox. In W. Brennan & F. Uebernickel (Eds.), Design Thinking for Innovation: Research and Practice (pp. 3-21). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft White Paper 1: Defining 21st Century skills. Melbourne, Australia: ACTS.

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21. Burnette, C. (1993). IDESiGN - Seven ways of design thinking, A teaching resource. Resource document.

http://www.idesignthinking.com/. Accessed 7 January 2010. Carroll, M. (2015). Stretch, dream, and do: A 21st century design thinking and STEM journey. Journal of

Research in STEM Education, 1(1) 59-70. Carroll, M. (2014). Shoot for the Moon!: The mentors and middle schoolers explore the intersection of

design thinking and STEM. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 14-30. Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, K., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, Imagination

and the Fires Within: Design Thinking in a Middle School Classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education 29(1), 37-53.

Castagno, A., & Brayboy, B. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941.

CEDA. (2015). Australia’s future workforce. Resource document. Melbourne: Committee of Economic Development of Australia. http://www.ceda.com.au/research-and-policy/policy-priorities/workforcehttp://www.ceda.com.au/research-and-policy/policy-priorities/workforce. Accessed 29 September 2016.

Christensen, C.M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.


20

Cole, W., Estrada, C., & Goldman, S. (Producers). (2015). Design Time: Learning that is transformative. Documentary Film. REDlab, US. https://vimeo.com/122065737. Accessed 22 January 2017.

Cox, G. (2005). Cox review of creativity in business: Building on the UK’s strengths. Resource document. London, UK: Design Council. http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/publications/the-cox-review/. Accessed 14 December 2013.

Cox, C., Apedoe, X., Silk, E., & Schunn, C. (2017). Analyzing Materials in Order to Find Design Opportunities for the Classroom. In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking Design Thinking to School (pp.204-20). New York: Routledge.

Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427-441. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Vol. 1. Aufl.;1;. London: Springer. doi:10.1007/1-84628-301-

9. Davis, M., & Littlejohn, D. (2017). The Culture of Practice: Design-based Teaching and Learning. In S.

Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking Design Thinking to School (pp. 20-36). New York: Routledge.

Deloitte Access Economics. (2012). Economic modelling of skills demand and supply, prepared for the Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. Barton: Deloitte Access Economics.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. (2015). The purpose of place: Reconsidered. Building the Lucky Country (5). Resource Document. Sydney: Deloitte Australia. http://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/building-lucky-country/articles/purpose-of-place-reconsidered.html. Accessed 12 September 2016.

Design Commission. (2011). Restarting Britain: Design Education and Growth. Resource document. London: Policy Connect. http://www.policyconnect.org.uk/apdig/restarting-britain-design-educationand-growth. Accessed 27 April 2013.

Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M.M., Schunn, C.D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2). http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v19n2/doppelt. Accessed 15 August 2017.

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: The MIT Press.

Dreyfus, S.E. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(3), 177-181. doi:10.1177/0270467604264992

Duell, C., Wright, N., & Roxburgh, J. (2014). Developing ‘design minds’ for the 21st century through a public sector initiated online design education platform. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 19(1), pp. 62-74.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House. Education Commission. (2002). Progress Report on the Education Reform (1). Resource document. Hong

Kong: Hong Kong Education Bureau. http://www.e-c.edu.hk/eng/reform/report_html.html. Accessed 28 December 2014.

Estrada, C. & Goldman, S. (2017). A Praxis Model for Design Thinking: Catalyzing Life Readiness. In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking Design Thinking to School (pp. 37-49). New York: Routledge.

Foundation for Young Australians (FYA). (2015). The new work order. Resource document. Foundation for Young Australians. http://www.fya.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/fya-future-of-work-report-final-lr.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2016.

Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2013). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerization? Resource document. Oxford: University of Oxford. http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2013.

Goldman, S., Carroll, M.P., Kabayadondo, Z., Cavagnaro, L.B., Royalty, A.W., Roth, B., Kwek, S.H. and Kim, J. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the Journey of Becoming a Design Thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design Thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context (pp.13-33). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Goldman S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (Eds.) (2017). Taking design thinking to school: How the technology of design can transform teachers, learners, and classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge.

Goldman, S., Knudsen, J., & Latvala, M. (1998). Engaging middle schoolers in and through real-world mathematics. In L. Leutzinger (Ed.), Mathematics in the Middle (pp.129-40). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Goldman, S., Zielezinski, M.B., Vea, T., Bachas-Daunert, S., & Kabayadondo, Z. (2017). Capturing middle school students’ understandings of design thinking. In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking Design Thinking to School (pp. 76-93). New York: Routledge.


21

Gordon, J., Halsz, G., Krawczyk, M., Leney, T., Micehl, A., Pepper, D., Putkiewicz, E., & Wisniewski, W. (2009). Key competences in Europe: Opening doors for lifelong learners across the school curriculum and teachers education. Resource document. Warsaw: Centre for Social and Economic Research on behalf of CASE Network. http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/doc/keyreport_en.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2013.

Group, M., & NCREL. (2003). EnGauge 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the digital age. Chicago, IL: NCREL.

Grunewald, D.A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational researcher 32(4), 3-12.

Gruenwald D.A. & Smith, G.A. (Eds.). (2014). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gudipati, M., & Sethi, K.B. Adapting the Design Framework for K-12 Education. In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking Design Thinking to School (pp. 94-101). New York: Routledge.

Hoadley, C., & Cox, C. (2009). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it. In C. DiGiano, S. Goldman, & M. Chorost (Eds.), Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative education tools (pp.19-35). New York: Routledge.

Hearn, G., & Bridgstock, R. (2010). Education for the creative economy: Innovation, transdisciplinarity and networks. In D. Araya, & M.A. Peters (Eds.), Education in the creative economy (pp. 93-115). New York: Peter Lang.

Heskett, J. (2003). Shaping the future: Design for Hong Kong - A strategic review of design education and Practice. Resource document. Hong Kong: The Design Task Force (DTF), School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Hess, K., Gong, B., & Steinitz, R. (March, 2014). Ready for college and career? Quincy, MA: The Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

Howard, J. H. (2008). Between a hard rock and a soft space: Design, creative practice and innovation. Resource document. Council for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS). http://www.chass.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PAP20080521JH.pdf. Accessed 28 January 2017.

Howland, J.L., Jonassen, D., & Marra, R.M. (2012). Meaningful Learning with Technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

IDEO. (2012). Design Thinking for Educators. Resource document. IDEO. http://www.designthinkingforeducators.com/. Accessed 24 April 2012.

Immelt, J.R., Govindarajan, V. & Trimble, C. (2009). How GE is Disrupting Itself. Harvard Business Review, October, 56-65.

Ito, M., Gutierrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., & Watkins, S.C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.

Jobst, B., Köppen, E., Lindberg, T., Moritz, J., Rhinow, H., & Meinel, C. (2012). The faith-factor in design thinking: Creative confidence through education at the design thinking schools Potsdam and Stanford? In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research, Understanding innovation (pp. 35-46). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. doi 10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_3.

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146.

Johnson, Z. (2017). Teachers as designers of context-adaptive learning experience. In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking Design Thinking to School (pp.126-142). New York: Routledge.

Kana ‘iaupuni S.M., Ledward, B., & Jensen, U. (2010). Culture-based education and its relationship on student outcomes. Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools, Research & Evaluation Division.

Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Design thinking in elementary students’ collaborative lamp designing process. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 18(1), 30-43.

Kelley, D. & Kelley, T. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. New York: Crown Business.

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C.S., & Lee K.S. (2013). Design opportunities and their impact: Preservice teachers’ perception of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Global Chinese Journal of Computers in Education, 10(1), 20-35.

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. (2015). Design thinking for education: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning (2015th ed.). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-444-3.


22

Kolodner, J.L., Camp, P.J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Promoting deep science learning through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design classrooms. In N.M. Seel (Ed.), Instructional Design: International Perspectives (pp.89-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kwek, S.H. (2011). Innovation in the Classroom: Design Thinking for 21st Century Learning. Masters Thesis. http://www.stanford.edu/group/redlab/egi-bin/publications_resources.php.

Kyffin, S., & Gardien, P. (2009). Navigating the Innovation Matrix: An Approach to Design-Led Innovation. International Journal of Design 3(1), 57-69.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lawson, B. (1990). How designers think. Vol. 2nd. Boston; London: Butterworth Architecture. Lawson, B. & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press. Lee, C.S., & Kolodner, J.L. (2011). Scaffolding students’ development of creative design skills: A

curriculum reference model. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 3-15. Levy, S.T. (2013). Young children’s learning of water physics by constructing working systems.

International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 537-566. Livingstone, D.W. (1999). Lifelong learning and underemployment in the knowledge society: A North

American perspective. Comparative education, 35(2), 163-186. McWilliam, E.L. & Haukka, S. (2008). Educating the Creative Workforce: New Directions for 21st Century

Schooling. British Education Research Journal, 34(5), 651-666. Middleton, J.A. & Corbett, R. (1998). Sixth-grade students’ conceptions of stability in engineering contexts.

In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp.249-66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Misko, J. (2008). Combining formal, non-formal and informal learning for workforce skill development. Adelaide, South Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Noweski, C., Scheer, A., Büttner, N., von Thienen, J., Erdmann, J., & Meinel, C. (2012). Towards a Paradigm Shift in Education Practice: Developing Twenty-First Century Skills with Design Thinking. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research, Understanding innovation (pp. 71-94). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. doi 10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_5.

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies (Executive Summary). Resource document. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf. Accessed 28 January 2017.

Ohno, T. (1993). Das Toyota-Produktionssystem. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. Owen, C. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16-27. P21 (Partnership for 21st Century Learning). (2009). P21 Framework Definitions. Resource document.

Washington DC, USA: The Partnership for 21st Century Skills. http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework. Accessed 27 April 2012.

Page, S. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Popper, K. (1978, April 7). Three worlds. http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/popper80.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2010.

Punthambekar, S., & Kolodner, K. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185-217.

Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educational model towards creative confidence. In DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2010).

Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-348.

Rowland, G. (2004). Shall we dance? A design epistemology for organizational learning and performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 33-48.

Sara, R., & Parnell, R. (2004). The review process. CEBE Transactions, 1(2), 56-59. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Boston: Basic Books. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching in the

professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. (1995). The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change 27(6), November/December,

27-34.


23

Schweitzer, J., Groeger, L., & Sobel, L. (2016). The Design Thinking Mindset: An Assessment of What We Know and What We See in Practice. Journal of Design, Business & Society, 2(1), 71-94. doi:10.1386/dbs.2.1.71_1.

Sheridan, J. (2007). Lifelong learning in a postmodern age: Looking back to the future through the lens of adult education. LLI Review, 2, 4-16.

Sims, R. (2014). Design Alchemy: Transforming the Way We Think About Learning and Teaching. Vol. 8, Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02423-3.

Skills Australia. (2010). Australian workforce futures: A national workforce development strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Smith, G.A. (2002). Place-based education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 584. Stanford University Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. (2007). Design thinking process. Palto Alto, CA:

Stanford University. Stanford University Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. (2011, March). The Bootcamp Bootleg. Resource

document. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design: d.school. http://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf. Accessed 28 January 2017.

Tan, V., Keune, A., & Peppler, K. (2017). The materiality of design in e-textiles. In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking Design Thinking to School (pp.180-194). New York: Routledge.

The State of Queensland (State Library of Queensland). (2012). Design Minds. Website. http://designminds.org.au/?categories=resources,community. Accessed 12 February 2013.

Thomas, D. & Brown, J.S. (2011). A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Lexington: CreateSpace.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S.M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Acad Manage J, 45(6), 1137-1148.

Todd, R. (1999). Design and technology yields a new paradigm for elementary schooling. Journal of Technology Studies, 25(2), 26-33.

Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York: Bantam Books. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass. Tsai, C.-C., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., Hong, H.-Y., & Tan, S.C. (2013). Positioning design epistemology and its

applications in educational technology. Educational Technology and Society, 16(2), 81-90. Voogt, J., & Roblin, N.P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century

competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299-321.

Waks, L. (2001). Donald Schon’s philosophy of design and design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 11(1), 37-51.

Wendell, B.K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513-540.

Westera, W. (2001). Competences in education: A confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 75-88.

World Economic Forum. (2015). New vision for education: Unlocking the potential of technology. Resource document. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEFUSA_NewVisionforEducation_Report2015.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2016.

Wright, N., & Davis, R.M. (2014). Educating the creative citizen: Design education programs in the knowledge economy. Techne Series: Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A, 21(2), 42-61.

Wrigley, C. (2016). Design Innovation Catalysts: Education and Impact. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 2(2), 148-165.

Yelland, N., Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2008). Learning by Design: Creating pedagogical frameworks for knowledge building in the twenty-first century. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 197-213.

Zielezinski, M.B. (2017). Finding Your Fit: Empathy, Authenticity, and Ambiguity in the Design Thinking Classroom. In S. Goldman & Z. Kabayadondo (Eds.), Taking Design Thinking to School (pp.195-203). New York: Routledge.

Documents

c Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of … Broadening...Sydney School of Architecture, Design and Planning The University of Sydney 148 City Road, Darlington, Australia [email protected]