The Application of Design Thinking Tool In Discovering Students’ Inability to Generate

and Develop Ideas in ESL Writing Class

Joy Cooper

Sabah, Malaysia

Introduction

The design thinking tool was applied in a classroom environment of a secondary school where  the focus was on teaching and learning. There are five aspects of this reflection: challenge,  selection, application, insight and approach.

Challenge

As a teacher in a secondary school of a rural area in Sabah, the least developed state of Malaysia,  teaching and learning are the core business of my job. Almost all of our students have difficulties  in generating ideas in writing tasks.  I am an English teacher and I always hear my students say  that they have no idea of what to write or they simply say “I don’t know” whenever I ask them a  question. There are many assumptions of how this could happen: lower English proficiency, lack  of confidence, lower grasp of thinking skills or poor level of motivation to learn. Therefore, it is  crucial for me to identify the root cause of this issue and help the students to generate and  develop ideas better. I therefore selected a class of 17 students where we intended to overcome  this problem by identifying what areas of our teaching and learning that should be improved.

Selection

I introduced the students with the design thinking tools I learned from this course and attempted  to make these techniques as relevant as possible to them with examples from everyday life,  school and teaching techniques. We decided that Learning Launch was the best tool for us to try.  The tool was discussed thoroughly in the Week 4 lectures which consisted of one particular  video on Learning Launch Tool. Learning Launch was selected because it was consistent with  the teaching stages that we do in schools that involve processes of learning and discovering via  testing and experimenting. Plus, this technique shows similarities with action research methods  that teachers usually conduct in their classroom. Since I always tell the students that trial and  error and discovery learning are essential in their development, we felt that this technique was  the most plausible one since it allowed us to test our ideas to seek confirmation or  disconfirmation.

Application

For the first learning launch, we attempted to focus on enhancing student-centered learning  where students were the ones who created their own questions instead of teachers based on Q- Matrix (Wiederhold, 1993).  I trained the students on how to construct questions using Q-Matrix  and how some higher order thinking questions could be designed based on the chart. We started  applying it in our class in which each individual student created their own higher order thinking  question based on a given literary text. We then selected one question for everyone to answer.  Their submitted their answers to me and I scored them using Structure of Observed Learning  Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy (Hattie & Brown, 2004; Potter & Kustra, 2012). We conducted this

technique for four times in a row in our class. I then shared the results of the scoring to them and  discussed the feasibility of the technique.

For our second learning launch, we changed our focus on students’ development of creativity in  writing using the SCAMPER technique for students to generate and expand ideas creatively.  SCAMPER technique is an acronym for a set of operators or categories that are used to generate  ideas: (S) Substitute, (C) Combine, (A) Adapt, (M) Modify/Magnify/Minimize, (P) Put to other  uses, (E) Eliminate, and (R) Reverse/Rearrange ( Eberle, 1997).  I trained the students on how to  use this technique before applying in our class. The students were given a literary text that was  either a short story or a poem. The students were required to study the given text. They then  composed a short story or a poem using this technique where they applied at least one of the  operators of SCAMPER in creating their own version of the given text that could be short stories  or poems. In using this technique, the students were individually required to share their idea to  the entire class. Hence they orally spoke about their ideas as well as wrote them down. This  activity was conducted in four sessions. Their improvised short stories and poems were assessed  with SOLO rubric (Brabrand & Dahl, 2009) and Creativity Rating Scales (Dianaros et al., 2003;  Torrance, 1964, Sternberg, 1998;  Soh 1997)

Insight

The implementation of Learning Launch Tool in the first launch revealed that the students had  no difficulties in generating higher order thinking questions but their responses to such questions  in class remained poor, short, undeveloped and they exhibited lower motivation in doing the  tasks especially in generating and developing their ideas. We therefore discovered that students’  level of interest in the tasks highly influenced their commitment in generating and expanding  their ideas. They were able to generate several ideas but they did not elaborate these ideas in a  more developed manner. Thus, our assumption that the students could not generate ideas might  not be caused by their lower thinking skills or language proficiency but rather their interest in the  tasks that they were given.

Our second Learning Launch helped us to see that students were able to produce creative ideas  and expand them in details when they were given more freedom to be creative and they had the  opportunity to orally present their ideas to their classmates.  They demonstrated great level of  interest and commitment in the implementation of Second Learning Launch. Thus, these gained  insights will serve as fundamental information to the next steps in enhancing students’ ability to  be creative and critical thinkers.

Approach

Since the Learning Launch Tool appeared to be practical, consistent and effective in helping us  to gain more insights on the possible causes to the problem our students faced, this technique  will be used in our future thinking design processes especially if our focus is on the teaching and  learning that occurs in classroom. This tool allows students and teachers to work collaboratively  in a familiar and comfortable environment where students are more willing to contribute and  share their opinions in the class as well as to take part in the process. The nature of Learning  Launch which focuses on experimenting, discovering, learning and improving the next step are  more viable in helping us to identify the solution to our problem.

Conclusion

Thinking Design is a viable approach of facilitating the process of innovation and problem- solving in education. This technique should be promoted and expanded further in order to  enhance its application as an effective tool in identifying problems and solutions.

References

Dianaros, A. M., Tan, A. G. & Soh, K. C. (2003).  Enhancing Children’s Creativity: An  Exploratory Study on Using the Internet and SCAMPER as Creative Writing Tools. The Korean  Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving. 13(2), p. 67-81

Eberle, B. (1997). SCAMPER . Texas: Prufork Pr.

Hattie, J.A.C., & Brown, G.T.L. (2004). Cognitive processes in asTTle: The SOLO taxonomy.  (asTTle Technical Report 43). University of Auckland/Ministry of Education.

Brabrand, C. & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression  of university science curricula. Higher Education, 54 (4), 531-549.

Potter, M.K & Kustra, E. (2012). A Primer on Learning Outcomes and the SOLO   Taxonomy.Course Design for Constructive Alignment. Centre for Teaching and Learning,  University of Windsor.

Soh, K.C (1997). Teaching creativity in Singapore schools: What needs to be done? The Paper  was presented at the Educational Research Association Singapore. Singapore.

Sternberg, R.J. (Ed.) (1988). The nature of creativity. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Torrance, E.P. (1964). Education and creativity. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.). Creativity: Progress and  potential. New York: McGraw Hill.

Wiederhold, C. (1993). Cooperating Learning and Critical Thinking: The Question Matrix.  California. Resource for Teachers.


The Application of Design Thinking Tool In Discovering Students ’ Inability to Generate and Develop Ideas in ESL Writing Class Joy Cooper Sabah , Malaysia Introduction The design thinking tool was applied in a classroom environment of a secondary school where the focus was on teaching and learning . There are five aspects of this reflection : challenge , selection , application , insight and approach . Challenge As a teacher in a secondary school of a rural area in Sabah , the least developed state of Malaysia , teaching and learning are the core business of my job . Almost all of our students have difficulties in generating ideas in writing tasks . I am an English teacher and I always hear my students say that they have no idea of what to write or they simply say “ I do n’t know ” whenever I ask them a question . There are many assumptions of how this could happen : lower English proficiency , lack of confidence , lower grasp of thinking skills or poor level of motivation to learn . Therefore , it is crucial for me to identify the root cause of this issue and help the students to generate and develop ideas better . I therefore selected a class of 17 students where we intended to overcome this problem by identifying what areas of our teaching and learning that should be improved . Selection I introduced the students with the design thinking tools I learned from this course and attempted to make these techniques as relevant as possible to them with examples from everyday life , school and teaching techniques . We decided that Learning Launch was the best tool for us to try . The tool was discussed thoroughly in the Week 4 lectures which consisted of one particular video on Learning Launch Tool . Learning Launch was selected because it was consistent with the teaching stages that we do in schools that involve processes of learning and discovering via testing and experimenting . Plus , this technique shows similarities with action research methods that teachers usually conduct in their classroom . Since I always tell the students that trial and error and discovery learning are essential in their development , we felt that this technique was the most plausible one since it allowed us to test our ideas to seek confirmation or disconfirmation . Application For the first learning launch , we attempted to focus on enhancing student - centered learning where students were the ones who created their own questions instead of teachers based on Q- Matrix ( Wiederhold , 1993 ) . I trained the students on how to construct questions using Q - Matrix and how some higher order thinking questions could be designed based on the chart . We started applying it in our class in which each individual student created their own higher order thinking question based on a given literary text . We then selected one question for everyone to answer . Their submitted their answers to me and I scored them using Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes ( SOLO ) taxonomy ( Hattie & Brown , 2004 ; Potter & Kustra , 2012 ) . We conducted this technique for four times in a row in our class . I then shared the results of the scoring to them and discussed the feasibility of the technique . For our second learning launch , we changed our focus on students ’ development of creativity in writing using the SCAMPER technique for students to generate and expand ideas creatively . SCAMPER technique is an acronym for a set of operators or categories that are used to generate ideas : ( S ) Substitute , ( C ) Combine , ( A ) Adapt , ( M ) Modify / Magnify / Minimize , ( P ) Put to other uses , ( E ) Eliminate , and ( R ) Reverse / Rearrange ( Eberle , 1997 ) . I trained the students on how to use this technique before applying in our class . The students were given a literary text that was either a short story or a poem . The students were required to study the given text . They then composed a short story or a poem using this technique where they applied at least one of the operators of SCAMPER in creating their own version of the given text that could be short stories or poems . In using this technique , the students were individually required to share their idea to the entire class . Hence they orally spoke about their ideas as well as wrote them down . This activity was conducted in four sessions . Their improvised short stories and poems were assessed with SOLO rubric ( Brabrand & Dahl , 2009 ) and Creativity Rating Scales ( Dianaros et al . , 2003 ; Torrance , 1964 , Sternberg , 1998 ; Soh 1997 ) Insight The implementation of Learning Launch Tool in the first launch revealed that the students had no difficulties in generating higher order thinking questions but their responses to such questions in class remained poor , short , undeveloped and they exhibited lower motivation in doing the tasks especially in generating and developing their ideas . We therefore discovered that students ’ level of interest in the tasks highly influenced their commitment in generating and expanding their ideas . They were able to generate several ideas but they did not elaborate these ideas in a more developed manner . Thus , our assumption that the students could not generate ideas might not be caused by their lower thinking skills or language proficiency but rather their interest in the tasks that they were given . Our second Learning Launch helped us to see that students were able to produce creative ideas and expand them in details when they were given more freedom to be creative and they had the opportunity to orally present their ideas to their classmates . They demonstrated great level of interest and commitment in the implementation of Second Learning Launch . Thus , these gained insights will serve as fundamental information to the next steps in enhancing students ’ ability to be creative and critical thinkers . Approach Since the Learning Launch Tool appeared to be practical , consistent and effective in helping us to gain more insights on the possible causes to the problem our students faced , this technique will be used in our future thinking design processes especially if our focus is on the teaching and learning that occurs in classroom . This tool allows students and teachers to work collaboratively in a familiar and comfortable environment where students are more willing to contribute and share their opinions in the class as well as to take part in the process . The nature of Learning Launch which focuses on experimenting , discovering , learning and improving the next step are more viable in helping us to identify the solution to our problem . Conclusion Thinking Design is a viable approach of facilitating the process of innovation and problem- solving in education . This technique should be promoted and expanded further in order to enhance its application as an effective tool in identifying problems and solutions . References Dianaros , A. M. , Tan , A. G. & Soh , K. C. ( 2003 ) . Enhancing Children ’s Creativity : An Exploratory Study on Using the Internet and SCAMPER as Creative Writing Tools . The Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving . 13(2 ) , p. 67 - 81 Eberle , B. ( 1997 ) . SCAMPER . Texas : Prufork Pr . Hattie , J.A.C. , & Brown , G.T.L. ( 2004 ) . Cognitive processes in asTTle : The SOLO taxonomy . ( asTTle Technical Report 43 ) . University of Auckland / Ministry of Education . Brabrand , C. & Dahl , B. ( 2009 ) . Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula . Higher Education , 54 ( 4 ) , 531 - 549 . Potter , M.K & Kustra , E. ( 2012 ) . A Primer on Learning Outcomes and the SOLO Taxonomy . Course Design for Constructive Alignment . Centre for Teaching and Learning , University of Windsor . Soh , K.C ( 1997 ) . Teaching creativity in Singapore schools : What needs to be done ? The Paper was presented at the Educational Research Association Singapore . Singapore . Sternberg , R.J. ( Ed . ) ( 1988 ) . The nature of creativity . UK : Cambridge University Press . Torrance , E.P. ( 1964 ) . Education and creativity . In C. W. Taylor ( Ed . ) . Creativity : Progress and potential . New York : McGraw Hill . Wiederhold , C. ( 1993 ) . Cooperating Learning and Critical Thinking : The Question Matrix . California . Resource for Teachers .