Project Classroom: Design Thinking and Course Design

Challenge and Selection

I am an educational developer at a medium-sized, research-oriented University in the southern region of  the United States. My primary role is to work with faculty from multiple disciplines to support effective and  engaging student learning.  In my experience, faculty are often highly resistant to changing how they teach  and will hold on to established methods and perspectives long after they have ceased to be relevant or  effective.  I wanted to turn this around and make faculty more open, willing, and interested in adopting  new teaching methods. To better understand this challenge, we followed IBM’s process and consulted  research and experts in three areas: adult pedagogy (also called androgogy), faculty motivation, and  organizational change.  In addition, like the Good Kitchen team, my team and I conducted ethnographic  research on my own faculty, including individual and group interviews (of both students and faculty) and  extensive observations of classroom teaching across our campus.  Like the MeYouhealth team, we  determined that there are different sources of faculty resistance, but that these could be grouped into  categories, or persona (e.g. the junior faculty member who struggles with expertise; the mid-career faculty  member who struggles with opportunity costs).

After reviewing our insights from this information collaboratively, our team determined that our focus  should be on developing a growth mindset around teaching and learning in our faculty.  We reviewed a  number of established methods to inculcate growth mindset, but these methods seemed to focus either on K- 12 students or corporate employees---none were appropriate for our faculty audience. It was clear that  we would need to adapt an existing approach, and we gravitated towards design thinking because it  seemed to offer the autonomy and flexibility that the research on faculty motivation had identified as  significant. Further, design thinking offered a structured approach to innovation, which would allow us to be  able to scale our faculty development offerings (we could take a mixed group through the process  together, as opposed to, say, individual coaching) and to take into account the diversity of knowledge,  experience, and confidence we would likely encounter with our faculty participants (they can determine  what outcomes are within their capabilities or wow zones).

To that end, we designed a day-long retreat focusing on course re-design that incorporating modified  versions of all four tools (visualization, storytelling, mind mapping and learning launch). You might say that  the first iteration of this event constituted the learning launch for our project team.

Application

In our warm up exercise, we tried to limber up the visualization muscles (so to speak) of our participants by  having them imagine their dream house and describe it to the group, with attention to all of the senses and  dimensions of a house (e.g what does your house smell like? How does your house make you feel? Who is  in your house? Where is your house located?, We then had them transfer that same sense of vivid  visualization from their dream house to their dream course. This visualization included all of the elements of  a course, not just those that appear on a syllabus.  It is not usual for faculty to think of their courses as  something visual so this exercise proved to be very powerful in helping them “see” their courses in new  ways.  We would continue this emphasis on visualizing a course throughout the day.

In the second part of the day (what is?), we asked our participating faculty to tell the stories that led them  to their dream course; including attention to the specific challenges and opportunities they face in their  classroom (we used a set of prompt questions).  The research on faculty motivation talks about the value of  a sense of community, and that is often missing around teaching. Most faculty teach alone and rarely have  the opportunity to talk about teaching with others. Through story-telling, we provided them with the  opportunity to do just that, to feel a sense of belonging (I am not alone in the challenges I face) and to  gain inspiration from those colleagues whose repertoires differed from their own.

In the third section of the day (what if?), we engaged our participants in a mind mapping exercise in which  they incorporated all of the elements of their dream course in a structured and thoughtful way.  To that  end, we provided each participant with colored sticky notes. The colors corresponded to various elements  of a course (e.g. pink=readings; blue=experiential activities; lavender=assignment).  Once they identified  these elements, we showed them a few models for inspiration, and then asked them to create a visual map  of their course elements on a giant sticky note.

This process made them very uncomfortable (somewhat intentionally) as we asked them to throw out  everything they had accumulated from previous courses and to start the process over from scratch.  We  also modelled course designs that were highly advanced or innovative, moving well beyond what most  faculty would find comfortable of familiar.  In its initial stages, this was a largely silent and noticeably  tense process. That being said, this was also very much an iterative process, with participants moving and  changing their sticky notes elements based on the evolution of their own thinking as well as input from my  team and their colleagues.  After a while, conversation increased and tensions relaxed. We asked  participants to hang their creations along the walls of the room so that everyone could walk around,  review, and offer feedback; but this gallery walk served an additional purpose of providing a sense of  safety in numbers. In other words, they may be trying something new, which is scary, but they weren’t  doing so alone.

After creating their course maps, we asked faculty to develop the prototypes (we called them blueprints)  for their newly redesigned courses into formal syllabi.  At this point, we talked about turning these dream  courses into learning launches for the following semester.  Depending on their degree of comfort, we  encouraged them to do small learning launches. In other words, they didn’t have to try to implement the full  redesigned course immediately, but they could choose aspects of their design to adopt and evaluate; to  take baby steps towards their dream course.

We had identified risk-aversion as a major component of faculty resistance, and that risk-aversion comes  from many of the same factors the video identified in section 2 of the course.  From the literature, we knew  that faculty evaluations tend to dip down after the launch of new intervention, but then they rise above  previous levels after the 3rd iteration.  This is a major risk, especially for faculty who are working towards  tenure.  So, we knew that this was a critical juncture in our process.

We tried to change the risk equation by appealing to the affective motivation—their desire of faculty to  be creative (to see their creations come to life, so to speak).  This was especially powerful for our senior  faculty.  Throughout the day, we framed challenges as problems to be solved, rather than providing  answers or solutions; this appealed to the desire of faculty to be autonomous and engage with complex  intellectual questions.  This worked especially well for our junior faculty. We also appealed to their  practical side, by emphasizing the learning launch as an opportunity to collect evidence and feedback to  continuously improve and work towards their dream course.  This same data could be collected and lead  towards a publication in teaching, a benefit to those on the tenure track, but also those in mid-career for  whom this “double-duty” (teaching and research) would decrease opportunity costs.

Insight

We conducted a study of our own learning launch, the day-long course design event, using a pre- and  post- survey asking faculty to rate their knowledge, experience, and confidence in key aspects of course  design, teaching, and innovation.  We also interviewed volunteer participants about their experiences.   While all three factors increased, the confidence rating rose significantly.  Our interviews confirmed that  we had achieved our goal of increasing growth mindsets (or at least the perception of one).  Several  respondents even indicated that the same sense of self-efficacy had extended to their other courses.

In the field of educational development, we often borrow insights and techniques from education more  broadly.  This experience strongly underscores the insight that faculty do not learn and are not motivated  the same way as students, regardless of the age of the student. We gained empathy into the specific  factors that work with this target audience.

Because we worked with faculty from different disciplines, we learned that disciplinary mindsets inform  how faculty approach both storytelling and visualization.  Our engineers, for example, created course  maps that looked more like diagrams or wireframes; while our humanities professors often made free- flowing, organic images.  This proved to be challenging at times (some disciplines seemed to want more  structure, such as specific instructions, some wanted less) but ultimately extended the repertoire of my staff;  while also supporting divergent thinking among the participants.

Approach

One of the primary adaptions of the design thinking process that we made was to allow faculty to work on  individual projects (their courses).  We did not have them work in project or design teams.  Most college  courses are taught by individuals, so it is quite a challenge to consider how to make course design a group  project. Anecdotally, faculty are known for their preference to be “lone wolves” “cowboys” or other terms  associated with solitary work, but our interviews suggested that this is changing across the board, and that  some fields are becoming noticeably more collaborative then others.  We would like to figure out a way  to incorporate this aspect of design thinking into course design; especially the critical point between what is  and what if, where the process works to bring people together in pursuit of a shared goal and to judge  from criteria. This latter form of collaboration is often missing in academia; which is rife with people who  have ideas; but often lacking in the will or ability to turn those ideas into constructive change.  We need to  think deeply about how to incorporate this dynamic.

A second major factor has to do with the outcomes.  While we are confident that we increased the growth  mindset of our participating faculty, a growth mindset may or may not translate into actual growth; and  whether or not it does so is difficult to measure.  When I brought the results of our evaluations to my  supervisor, for example, she was less excited by the results than I was. For someone in her position, such a  shift in mindset is less tangible and seems only indirectly related to advancing the mission of the institution.   We could track the courses our participating faculty taught the following semester, but the impact of one  day of faculty development on teaching effectiveness is also indirect; as teaching effectiveness is  influenced by many, many factors beyond professional development.  And just what exactly would we be  measuring? Learning is not the same as, say, a toaster, and just what good learning is or looks like is  complicated, relative, ambiguous and contested.  We simply can’t definitely prove that our course design  day contributed to increased student learning.  Our challenge is try to come up with an additional  assessment (or set of assessments) that might get us closer to capturing this.

Finally, we have to consider our audience more carefully.  Because the event is voluntary and requires a  considerable time commitment (for which participants are compensated), we likely appealed to  participants who were already open to change, at least to some extent.  To put it colloquially, in some  ways we were singing to the choir.  If we want to promote change within the organization as a whole, we  need to find a way to get our more resistant or reluctant faculty to participate in activities such as course  design day. We need to get these folks to the table, and getting them there may change how we motivate  our participants and deliver our services.  To date, our assessment efforts have also focused on volunteers,  but perhaps it’s time to talking to those faculty who don’t participate; even those who actively argue  against the value of faculty development and/or teaching transformation.


Project Classroom : Design Thinking and Course Design Challenge and Selection I am an educational developer at a medium - sized , research - oriented University in the southern region of the United States . My primary role is to work with faculty from multiple disciplines to support effective and engaging student learning . In my experience , faculty are often highly resistant to changing how they teach and will hold on to established methods and perspectives long after they have ceased to be relevant or effective . I wanted to turn this around and make faculty more open , willing , and interested in adopting new teaching methods . To better understand this challenge , we followed IBM ’s process and consulted research and experts in three areas : adult pedagogy ( also called androgogy ) , faculty motivation , and organizational change . In addition , like the Good Kitchen team , my team and I conducted ethnographic research on my own faculty , including individual and group interviews ( of both students and faculty ) and extensive observations of classroom teaching across our campus . Like the MeYouhealth team , we determined that there are different sources of faculty resistance , but that these could be grouped into categories , or persona ( e.g. the junior faculty member who struggles with expertise ; the mid - career faculty member who struggles with opportunity costs ) . After reviewing our insights from this information collaboratively , our team determined that our focus should be on developing a growth mindset around teaching and learning in our faculty . We reviewed a number of established methods to inculcate growth mindset , but these methods seemed to focus either on K- 12 students or corporate employees --- none were appropriate for our faculty audience . It was clear that we would need to adapt an existing approach , and we gravitated towards design thinking because it seemed to offer the autonomy and flexibility that the research on faculty motivation had identified as significant . Further , design thinking offered a structured approach to innovation , which would allow us to be able to scale our faculty development offerings ( we could take a mixed group through the process together , as opposed to , say , individual coaching ) and to take into account the diversity of knowledge , experience , and confidence we would likely encounter with our faculty participants ( they can determine what outcomes are within their capabilities or wow zones ) . To that end , we designed a day - long retreat focusing on course re - design that incorporating modified versions of all four tools ( visualization , storytelling , mind mapping and learning launch ) . You might say that the first iteration of this event constituted the learning launch for our project team . Application In our warm up exercise , we tried to limber up the visualization muscles ( so to speak ) of our participants by having them imagine their dream house and describe it to the group , with attention to all of the senses and dimensions of a house ( e.g what does your house smell like ? How does your house make you feel ? Who is in your house ? Where is your house located ? , We then had them transfer that same sense of vivid visualization from their dream house to their dream course . This visualization included all of the elements of a course , not just those that appear on a syllabus . It is not usual for faculty to think of their courses as something visual so this exercise proved to be very powerful in helping them “ see ” their courses in new ways . We would continue this emphasis on visualizing a course throughout the day . In the second part of the day ( what is ? ) , we asked our participating faculty to tell the stories that led them to their dream course ; including attention to the specific challenges and opportunities they face in their classroom ( we used a set of prompt questions ) . The research on faculty motivation talks about the value of a sense of community , and that is often missing around teaching . Most faculty teach alone and rarely have the opportunity to talk about teaching with others . Through story - telling , we provided them with the opportunity to do just that , to feel a sense of belonging ( I am not alone in the challenges I face ) and to gain inspiration from those colleagues whose repertoires differed from their own . In the third section of the day ( what if ? ) , we engaged our participants in a mind mapping exercise in which they incorporated all of the elements of their dream course in a structured and thoughtful way . To that end , we provided each participant with colored sticky notes . The colors corresponded to various elements of a course ( e.g. pink = readings ; blue = experiential activities ; lavender = assignment ) . Once they identified these elements , we showed them a few models for inspiration , and then asked them to create a visual map of their course elements on a giant sticky note . This process made them very uncomfortable ( somewhat intentionally ) as we asked them to throw out everything they had accumulated from previous courses and to start the process over from scratch . We also modelled course designs that were highly advanced or innovative , moving well beyond what most faculty would find comfortable of familiar . In its initial stages , this was a largely silent and noticeably tense process . That being said , this was also very much an iterative process , with participants moving and changing their sticky notes elements based on the evolution of their own thinking as well as input from my team and their colleagues . After a while , conversation increased and tensions relaxed . We asked participants to hang their creations along the walls of the room so that everyone could walk around , review , and offer feedback ; but this gallery walk served an additional purpose of providing a sense of safety in numbers . In other words , they may be trying something new , which is scary , but they were n’t doing so alone . After creating their course maps , we asked faculty to develop the prototypes ( we called them blueprints ) for their newly redesigned courses into formal syllabi . At this point , we talked about turning these dream courses into learning launches for the following semester . Depending on their degree of comfort , we encouraged them to do small learning launches . In other words , they did n’t have to try to implement the full redesigned course immediately , but they could choose aspects of their design to adopt and evaluate ; to take baby steps towards their dream course . We had identified risk - aversion as a major component of faculty resistance , and that risk - aversion comes from many of the same factors the video identified in section 2 of the course . From the literature , we knew that faculty evaluations tend to dip down after the launch of new intervention , but then they rise above previous levels after the 3rd iteration . This is a major risk , especially for faculty who are working towards tenure . So , we knew that this was a critical juncture in our process . We tried to change the risk equation by appealing to the affective motivation — their desire of faculty to be creative ( to see their creations come to life , so to speak ) . This was especially powerful for our senior faculty . Throughout the day , we framed challenges as problems to be solved , rather than providing answers or solutions ; this appealed to the desire of faculty to be autonomous and engage with complex intellectual questions . This worked especially well for our junior faculty . We also appealed to their practical side , by emphasizing the learning launch as an opportunity to collect evidence and feedback to continuously improve and work towards their dream course . This same data could be collected and lead towards a publication in teaching , a benefit to those on the tenure track , but also those in mid - career for whom this “ double - duty ” ( teaching and research ) would decrease opportunity costs . Insight We conducted a study of our own learning launch , the day - long course design event , using a pre- and post- survey asking faculty to rate their knowledge , experience , and confidence in key aspects of course design , teaching , and innovation . We also interviewed volunteer participants about their experiences . While all three factors increased , the confidence rating rose significantly . Our interviews confirmed that we had achieved our goal of increasing growth mindsets ( or at least the perception of one ) . Several respondents even indicated that the same sense of self - efficacy had extended to their other courses . In the field of educational development , we often borrow insights and techniques from education more broadly . This experience strongly underscores the insight that faculty do not learn and are not motivated the same way as students , regardless of the age of the student . We gained empathy into the specific factors that work with this target audience . Because we worked with faculty from different disciplines , we learned that disciplinary mindsets inform how faculty approach both storytelling and visualization . Our engineers , for example , created course maps that looked more like diagrams or wireframes ; while our humanities professors often made free- flowing , organic images . This proved to be challenging at times ( some disciplines seemed to want more structure , such as specific instructions , some wanted less ) but ultimately extended the repertoire of my staff ; while also supporting divergent thinking among the participants . Approach One of the primary adaptions of the design thinking process that we made was to allow faculty to work on individual projects ( their courses ) . We did not have them work in project or design teams . Most college courses are taught by individuals , so it is quite a challenge to consider how to make course design a group project . Anecdotally , faculty are known for their preference to be “ lone wolves ” “ cowboys ” or other terms associated with solitary work , but our interviews suggested that this is changing across the board , and that some fields are becoming noticeably more collaborative then others . We would like to figure out a way to incorporate this aspect of design thinking into course design ; especially the critical point between what is and what if , where the process works to bring people together in pursuit of a shared goal and to judge from criteria . This latter form of collaboration is often missing in academia ; which is rife with people who have ideas ; but often lacking in the will or ability to turn those ideas into constructive change . We need to think deeply about how to incorporate this dynamic . A second major factor has to do with the outcomes . While we are confident that we increased the growth mindset of our participating faculty , a growth mindset may or may not translate into actual growth ; and whether or not it does so is difficult to measure . When I brought the results of our evaluations to my supervisor , for example , she was less excited by the results than I was . For someone in her position , such a shift in mindset is less tangible and seems only indirectly related to advancing the mission of the institution . We could track the courses our participating faculty taught the following semester , but the impact of one day of faculty development on teaching effectiveness is also indirect ; as teaching effectiveness is influenced by many , many factors beyond professional development . And just what exactly would we be measuring ? Learning is not the same as , say , a toaster , and just what good learning is or looks like is complicated , relative , ambiguous and contested . We simply ca n’t definitely prove that our course design day contributed to increased student learning . Our challenge is try to come up with an additional assessment ( or set of assessments ) that might get us closer to capturing this . Finally , we have to consider our audience more carefully . Because the event is voluntary and requires a considerable time commitment ( for which participants are compensated ) , we likely appealed to participants who were already open to change , at least to some extent . To put it colloquially , in some ways we were singing to the choir . If we want to promote change within the organization as a whole , we need to find a way to get our more resistant or reluctant faculty to participate in activities such as course design day . We need to get these folks to the table , and getting them there may change how we motivate our participants and deliver our services . To date , our assessment efforts have also focused on volunteers , but perhaps it ’s time to talking to those faculty who do n’t participate ; even those who actively argue against the value of faculty development and/or teaching transformation .