Teaching and Learning Design Thinking (DT):

How Do Educators See DT Fitting into the Classroom?

REFERENCE TO UTTAR PRADESH: AN EMIPIRICAL STUDY

Mini Project II

Submitted

In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements

For The Degree Of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Submitted By

Adarsh Singh

Babu Banariasi Das Instituter Of Tochnology $ Management , Lucknow, India

 RABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents page no.

Title page
Certificate
Declaration
Copyright Transfer Certificate
Acknowledgment
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
Abstract

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction of the Study
1.2 Microfinance and Women Empowerment
1.3 Statement of the Problem
1.4 Need of the Study
1.5 Scope of the Study
1.6 Objectives of the Study
1.7 Hypothesis
1.8 Organization of Thesis
CHAPTER 2 DESIGN THINKING
2.1 Definition of Microfinance
2.2 Meaning of Microfinance
2.3 Origin and Evolution of Microfinance
2.4 Features of Microfinance
2.5 Terminology
2.6 Model of Microfinance Delivery in India
2.7 Legal Structure of MFI’s
2.8 Evolution of Microfinance in India
2.9 Micro Finances Global Figures
2.10 Current Scenario of Microfinance: India
2.11 Current Scenario of Microfinance: Uttar Pradesh
CHAPTER 3 ASSESSING CREATIVITY OR DESIGN THINKING?
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Empowerment
3.3 Microfinance and Women Empowerment International Evidences
3.4 Microfinance and Women Empowerment Indian Evidences
3.5 Summary Review of Literature
3.6 Research Gap
CHAPTER 4 DT IN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS

4.1 4.2 Objectives of the Study

4.3 Research Hypotheses
67
4.4 Research Approach
68
4.5 Research Design
69
4.6 Scope of Study
74
4.7 Sampling Design
75
4.8 Data Collection Method
78
4.9 Structure of Interview Schedule
79IX
4.10 Tools Used for Analysis
83
CHAPTER 5 METHODS
85 – 149
5.1 Introduction
86
5.2 Demographic Profile of Respondents
87
5.3 Respondents Awareness and Penetration of Micro Finance
93
5.4 Living Standards of Respondents
122
5.5 Results of Factor Analysis
127
5.6 Hypotheses Testing
134
CHAPTER 6 PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE
150 – 157
6.1 Introduction
151
6.2 Demographic Information of the Respondents
151
6.3 Respondent’s Awareness and Penetration of Microfinance
153
6.4 Role of Microfinance in Women Empowerment
CHAPTER 7 ONLINE INTAKE SURVEY

CHAPTER 8 FOCUS GROUP

CHAPTER 9 QUALITATIVE INTAKE SURVEY ITEM

CHAPTER 10 FOCUS GROUP THEMES

7.1 Conclusion
7.2 Limitations
 INTRODUCTION

Recently, education scholars and practitioners have called for emphasis on

developing
skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, and problem solving needed for
success in
the 21st century (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
[OECD],
2003, 2018; Battelle for Kids, 2019). To prepare students for success in the
globalized
digital world, it is essential that they learn and practise these new skills early in
their edu
cation. One way to cultivate this skillset is to combine knowledge from
computer science
(CS), such as computational thinking, coding, and digital technologies, with
existing core
curriculum content (Hennessey et al., 2017; Wing, 2006).
 TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION
Given the relevance of technology and innovation to advancing society in general,
education has adopted computational thinking (CT), or thinking like a computer scientist,
to solve problems (Wing, 2006). While CT is being widely integrated into classrooms,
research and practice are working simultaneously to reach consensus on where CT may
already exist across disciplines (Hennessey et al., 2017), and a reliable way to assess the
successful teaching of CT (Mueller et al., 2017). At the same time, education and industry
have also adopted another approach to problem solving called design thinking (DT), an
iteration-focused design approach popularized by the Hasso Plattner Institute at Stanford
University at the Stanford d.school (Hasso Plattner Institute, 2007; Plattner et al., 2009).
This design process can be considered complementary to CT, given the focus on “fail
ing forward” as students revise repeatedly to achieve the desired outcome. Innovative
solutions to modern problems are ever-emerging throughout education systems, from
elementary to post-secondary, as a result of this process (Buitrago Flórez et al., 2017;
Crichton & Childs, 2016; Hawthorne et al., 2014). While this approach has gained trac
tion through accessible institutions like the Stanford d.school, DT has been long-practised
by systems-theorists and designers beginning in the early twentieth century (Buchanan,
2019) and across fields such as industrial design, commercial marketing, and architecture
(Cross, 2011).
DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINKING
As new and different types of thinking are integrated into teaching, it will be
important to explore how one key group of stakeholders, the educators, think about and
implement DT into education and across disciplines. Moreover, as DT becomes more
frequently applied in educational settings, it will be essential to assess how DT affects
educators’ experiences and practices. To that end, we conducted a focus group with
educators, in collaboration with an industry partner who had developed design-based les
son plans to accompany their 3D printers, with two purposes in mind: (1) to gain insight
into educators’ perceptions of curriculum content designed with a DT framework, and
(2) to investigate how educators perceive DT “fitting” into their classrooms. The primary
purpose of this study was to provide an introductory examination of how DT might be
integrated into teaching and learning and to initiate the discussion on how DT fits into
classroom practice.
 Design Thinking

Design Thinking (DT) Defined According to the commonly cited Stanford d.school model
(e.g., Melles et al., 2012; Plattner et al., 2009), the DT process includes five stages:
empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. This process underlines how designers
should first empathize with the user of the final product or service to ensure that the
design process is fuelled by human needs. By defining the problem, imagining solutions,
and testing them, designers can ensure they meet the users’ needs rather than
addressing another extraneous purpose. Importantly, the cornerstone of the DT process
is its iterative nature, such that all stages can be repeated or returned to at any time until
the design is fully optimized. This characteristic flexibility promotes interaction among
different disciplines like science, business, and engineering, and creates a learning
environment that facilitates fast-paced iteration and prototyping (Plattner et al., 2009). In
addition to the five fundamental stages of DT, there are four guiding DT principles
delineated in Plattner et al. (2009). First, it should be recognized that all design is
governed by the need to satisfy the user, also known as a human-centric approach to
design. Second, designers should maintain some sense of ambiguity when designing so
that alternative solutions and perspectives remain possible. Third, all designs should be
subject to continued iteration so that products or services reliably meet people’s needs.
Fourth, those using a DT approach should strive for ideas and prototypes that are tangible.
As these principles suggest, DT aims to meet the practical needs of human beings while
constantly monitoring for adaptations and modifications.
DT is historically rooted in industrial design and engineering, it has more
recently been of interest to those in a wide range of professions, including design in
dustries and emerging technologies (Adams & Nash, 2016; Brown, 2008; Martin, 2009;
Rotherham & Willingham, 2009). In industry, definitions of the DT process support those
put forth by the Stanford d.school and Stanford scholars. Demonstrating continuity across
education and industry contexts, Schmiedgen et al. (2016) asked participants from dif
ferent organizations to define DT. Participants’ responses included several criteria in line
with the d.school’s DT process. For example, participants described DT as (1) an iterative
process; (2) a “special” way of understanding and creatively solving problems; (3) an
empathetic process; (4) a collaborative tool; (5) a mindset; (6) a toolbox for user research
and group creativity; (7) a way to prototype; and (8) a culture. Notably, in addition to
identifying these defining criteria, the majority (71%) of participants also reported that
DT had a positive impact in their workplace. These are intriguing findings given that DT
is seldom measured. Only 24% of organizations assessed by Schmiedgen et al. in their
study (2016) indicated measuring the effects of DT at all. Given the scarcity of research
assessing DT, one purpose of the present work was to gain insight about a potential
framework for assessing DT in education.
 Assessing Creativity or Design Thinking?

One potential challenge associated with implementing DT in an educational context is

assessment. Given that DT shares some crossover with general creativity (e.g., generating
solutions, reiterating), it is not surprising that many DT assessments are based on tests of
creativity. As in Hawthorne et al. (2014), creativity refers to “a state of being and adapta
tion of personal skill sets that enables an individual to synthesize novel connections and
express meaningful outcomes” (p. 113). This definition overlaps with the way in which
DT emphasizes continuous iteration throughout the design process. But how does one
assess creativity? One common group of creativity assessments is known as convergent
thinking tests, which evaluate the ability to connect multiple different ideas to develop
a shared solution. For example, the Remote Association Test (Mednick, 1962) presents
participants with three words (e.g., cottage, blue, and mouse) and they must identify
what
these words have in common (i.e., all are related to cheese)
 CREATIVITY
Creativity can also be assessed by measuring divergent thinking, which is the abil
ity to generate many solutions to a single problem. For example, the Torrance Test of Cre
ative Thinking (Torrance, 1990) assesses creativity as an open-ended process using words
or figures. In this test, participants are presented with a series of incomplete words or
figures and asked to complete them in as many ways as possible. Similarly, Wallach and
Kogan’s Tests of Creative Capacity (1965) provides participants with a single word (e.g.,
wheels) and they must identify as many items that contain this component as possible.
Given the overlap between DT and creativity in general, it is possible that the core activi
ties involved in both will also cross over. For example, the ideation phase of DT could be
considered parallel to the brainstorming process inherent in constructing a written essay.
Indeed, a recent content analysis of computational thinking identified computational
practices and perspectives across all disciplines, not just science and math (Hennessey et
al., 2017).
One of the most widely used assessments of creativity is the Alternative Uses
Test (Mendelsohn, 1976), in which participants are asked to generate as many uses for a
single object as possible (e.g., a pen). In the context of the DT process, perhaps a simi
lar approach could challenge students to design and create products that serve multiple
functions for different populations. However, most relevant to DT is the Design Thinking
Creativity Test (Hawthorne et al., 2014), which aims to capture the process and outcomes
of the DT process. In addition to some of the more objective measurements of creativity,
people can also assess their own creative thinking abilities and attitudes. For example,
the
Creative Attitude Survey (Schaefer & Bridges, 1970), the Creative Achievement Ques
tionnaire (Carson et al., 2005), and the Creative Confidence Scale (Royalty et al., 2014)
all include self-assessments of creative abilities. However, like all self-report measures,
this approach to assessment has its own set of challenges As discussed in Hawthorne et al.
(2014), approaches to assessing DT vary, from
the use of student portfolios to standardized creativity measures. One benefit of individu
al case-based DT assessment is that educators can gauge the extent to which growth has
occurred from the start to the end of the learning process. Indeed, one major focus of DT
is the iterative nature of designing and improving designs. Yet because DT is an approach
to problem solving, rather than a set of observable behaviours, as a construct, it remains
challenging for educators to assess.
 DT IN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS

DT’s characteristic focus on collaboration and iteration is relevant to learning theories

within education, developmental psychology, and social psychology. Vygotsky’s (1976)
social learning theory states that interacting with others is essential to learning, and
experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) describes learning as the process through which
knowledge results from gaining experience. Furthermore, the iterative nature of DT lends
itself to a parallel with Dweck’s (2006) research on implicit theories of the self, which
suggest that people can possess fixed (i.e., I am who I am, and I cannot change much)
or growth (i.e., I can change, learn, and grow) mindsets. Notably, cultivating a growth
mindset among students has been associated with positive outcomes, such as higher
achievement and greater persistence on challenging tasks (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). It is
therefore possible that a DT mindset that emphasizes iteration will result in similar posi
tive outcomes for students, such as persisting through different prototypes when altering
Designs In education, DT skills can be learned through pedagogical approaches that
involve problem-based learning, project-based learning, or inquiry-based classroom
activities (Dym et al., 2005). These approaches have been closely connected to the Mak
erspace movement in elementary schools (Crichton & Childs, 2016). Studies conducted
in K–12 education have demonstrated the role of design-based learning in the improve
ment of students’ skills across the curriculum in a variety of contexts, including problem
solving (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012), mathematics (Goldman et al., 1998), anatomical
systems (Hmelo et al., 2000), geographic systems (Carroll et al., 2010), interaction design
(Dukes & Koch, 2012), and informal learning activities like developing art education
tools (Roussou et al., 2007). In a variety of contexts, DT helps to foster innovation de
velopment through creative thinking and problem solving. It involves collaborative and
human-centred activities that assist in solving complex problems and adjusting to un
expected changes (Razzouk & Shute, 2012). While definitions of DT may vary across
disciplines, those definitions are all linked by the human-centred process that stems from
empathizing with other people to meet real needs (Brown & Wyatt, 2010).
 RESEARCH ON DT

Research on DT in education has primarily examined the experiences of students.

For example, Goldman et al. (2014) assessed how two student teams (independent of
instructors) learned the DT process. Students’ interviews indicated that the groups moved
somewhat fluidly across DT stages; however, the iterative process also elicited some in
terpersonal conflict among team members. The authors noted that to manage such
conflict
arising from ambiguity, instructors should provide consistent support throughout all DT
stages, as a sense of security could spark innovation. In addition to increasing innovation
more generally, in schools DT has been identified as a way to promote experimentation,
problem solving, and to turn feedback into solutions (Razzouk & Shute, 2012). More di
rect benefits to students are also observable; those who apply DT principles (versus those
who do not) are more efficient and persistent problem solvers (Anderson & Shattuck,
2012). Much of the previous research on DT in teaching and learning has focused on the
potential benefits for students (Chamberlain & Mendoza, 2017), whereas far less work
has examined the experiences of teachers as they adopt DT into practice (Retna, 2016).

Some previous research has examined students’ and educators’ experiences with
DT in the classroom. One study assessed how students and instructors responded to
implementation of a design curriculum in a middle school geography classroom (Carroll
et al., 2010). Over 12 hours of in-class time, students completed various activities relat
ed to the different stages of the DT process, including empathizing and prototyping. As
students completed activities, the researchers recorded students’ progress and educators’
impressions. Three major themes emerged across student and educator data: (1) the DT
process was characterized by exploration; (2) the DT process elicits positive mood and
collaboration; and (3) the DT process can be applied to curriculum content across disci
plines. Educators’ responses also indicated that one of the greatest strengths of DT is that
it gave students the opportunity to express themselves at each stage of the process. In all,
this study highlights the critical role of educators in successfully integrating DT into the
classroom and connecting DT principles to curriculum content.
 IN ANOTHER RELEVANT STUDY
In another relevant study, 17 DT experts (e.g., d.school teaching faculty from the
US and Germany) were interviewed about what they hoped to achieve by implementing
DT in their classrooms (Rauth et al., 2010). Overall, educators concurred that DT was a
toolbox from which they could draw different skills and subjects to solve problems. They
also reported that one goal of teaching with DT was to influence students’ behaviour,
such
that learners would move away from a more traditional, project-based mindset to a more
flexible, creative mindset that promotes iteration. Notably, educators reported
combining
knowledge from their previous professional backgrounds (i.e., as teachers, as administra
tors, in business) with DT to supplement the learning process. Such integration of previ
ous knowledge with DT could support the transition into using DT in practice and make
applying DT seem feasible in real-life situations and relevant across different subjects.
Arguably, there are several advantages to integrating DT into classrooms.
For example, DT may present opportunities to explore novel learning and teaching 06
environments, develop contextually-based theories of learning and teaching, advance de
sign knowledge, and increase students’ capacity for innovation (Design-Based Research
Collective, 2003). Thus, there is great potential for integrating DT into learning and to
support better understanding of educators’ experiences with DT in the classroom. Despite
the immense value in exploring educators’ experiences working with DT, little previous
research has assessed these experiences. The present study, therefore, was designed to
be
a first step toward advancing and merging knowledge from education research and
design
research to address two main research questions: How do educators understand the DT
process? How do educators see DT fitting into their classrooms?
 IN ANOTHER RELEVANT STUDY
In another relevant study, 17 DT experts (e.g., d.school teaching faculty from the
US and Germany) were interviewed about what they hoped to achieve by implementing
DT in their classrooms (Rauth et al., 2010). Overall, educators concurred that DT was a
toolbox from which they could draw different skills and subjects to solve problems. They
also reported that one goal of teaching with DT was to influence students’ behaviour,
such
that learners would move away from a more traditional, project-based mindset to a more
flexible, creative mindset that promotes iteration. Notably, educators reported
combining
knowledge from their previous professional backgrounds (i.e., as teachers, as administra
tors, in business) with DT to supplement the learning process. Such integration of previ
ous knowledge with DT could support the transition into using DT in practice and make
applying DT seem feasible in real-life situations and relevant across different subjects.
Arguably, there are several advantages to integrating DT into classrooms.
For example, DT may present opportunities to explore novel learning and teaching 06
environments, develop contextually-based theories of learning and teaching, advance de
sign knowledge, and increase students’ capacity for innovation (Design-Based Research
Collective, 2003). Thus, there is great potential for integrating DT into learning and to
support better understanding of educators’ experiences with DT in the classroom. Despite
the immense value in exploring educators’ experiences working with DT, little previous
research has assessed these experiences. The present study, therefore, was designed to
be
a first step toward advancing and merging knowledge from education research and
design
research to address two main research questions: How do educators understand the DT
process? How do educators see DT fitting into their classrooms?
 Methods

To answer these questions, we collaborated with an industry partner in educational

technology. We chose this partner because they had familiarity with DT and were experi
enced in developing and implementing technology-based classroom activities involving
3D printing and robotics. While technology does not have to be utilized in DT activities,
elements of technology are often the tools through which DT takes shape. In partnership
with this technology company, we adapted the Stanford d.school process for implemen
tation in a broader education context. Specifically, each stage in the d.school process was
adjusted for clearer use among younger students. For example, where the d.school pro
cess begins with the need to “empathize” with the user, the revised USERS framework
begins with the need to “understand” the perspective of the user. In all, the final revised
stages delineated a DT process in which students will understand the users’ needs, specify
the challenge being addressed, estimate different solutions, represent these solutions in
different ways, and support final designs (USERS).
 Participants and Procedure
Prior to collecting data, we received clearance from the university’s ethics review board.
Following ethics approval, we recruited a focus group of educators (n = 8; 50% female,
50% male, Myearsexperience = 13.25, SD = 4.05) through targeted Twitter messages and
email invitations to those in an existing network of educators experienced in integrating
technology in the classroom. Participants completed an online intake survey to gauge 07
attitudes toward technology in the classroom and knowledge of DT. Following the intake
survey, educators met in person to participate in a focus group where they reviewed, and
provided feedback on, curriculum content developed using a DT framework.
 Online Intake Survey

Approximately two weeks before the focus group, educators were sent a secure link to
an online intake survey. The survey asked both quantitative and qualitative questions
about years of work experience, familiarity with and usage of technology in personal and
professional contexts, understanding of DT, and perceptions of how DT might “fit” into
the classroom. Forced choice items were rated on scales ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5
(Extremely familiar) and 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very frequently). The intention of collecting
survey data was not to conduct inferential statistical tests, but rather to gauge workshop
participants’ experiences with technology in education.
 Focus Group

Educators attended a two-and-a-half-hour focus group session hosted by the two primary
researchers and two industry partner representatives. After a brief introduction to DT by
the researchers, educators reviewed the USERS DT framework and two detailed lesson
plans. Lesson plans had been developed and then programmed and displayed on an
online
teaching platform called Teachable1 in collaboration with the industry partner. Using
their
personal electronic devices (i.e., tablets, laptops) educators were asked to view the plans
individually and then provide feedback in relation to the lesson plan content, framework,
and interface (e.g., how material was presented on Teachable). Following this review,
the group discussed the curriculum content, providing commentary on how DT could be
integrated into teaching and learning. Educators spent an average of 30 minutes review
ing each lesson plan, after which time they engaged in a group discussion moderated by
the researchers.
Lesson plans. A set of lesson plans was developed by the researchers in con
junction with the educational technology industry partner. Content was meant to draw
1 Teachable is an online platform on which educators can create and access online
courses, https://teachable.com/
connections across the social sciences as well as science and technology (e.g., sustainabil
ity, the atmosphere on another planet) and often involved a 3D printing activity. Lesson
plans were designed to communicate course-related content and to present
opportunities
to cultivate global competencies such as collaboration and critical thinking (OECD, 2003
2018; Battelle for Kids, 2019).
Two lessons were selected for review in the study. The first lesson, titled “Mission
to Mars,” outlined multiple classroom sessions in which students are assigned roles and
tasked with designing 3D-printed solutions for life on Mars. The second lesson, titled
“One with Nature,” also outlined multiple classroom sessions in which students collabo
rated to design a 3D-printed model of sustainable and eco-friendly building structures.
 QUALITATIVE INTAKE SURVEY ITEM
Responses to four open-ended questions were reviewed to extract common themes that
described the participants’ understanding of DT and its integration in teaching.
1. What is your understanding of DT? All but one educator described DT as a
process involving prototyping and iterative improvement. For example, one educator
explained: “It involves identifying and articulating a problem, then iteratively developing
solutions and feeding that process forward into subsequent problems.” Another stated:
Design thinking is an approach to problem solving that centres around the user—
in such a way it involves developing empathy as a means to better identify and
understand problems in order to develop solutions that meet the needs of the user.
Creativity and critical thinking are key aspects in which learners ask questions,
discover relevant information and develop prototypes. Design thinking is iterative
in nature.
10
Overall, responses indicated that educators were somewhat familiar with and
knowledgeable about the concept of DT, consistent with past research showing that even
pre-service teachers are familiar with the basic tenets of DT (Willard-Holt et al., 2018).
 2. Integrating DT into curricula

Educators mostly described using prob

lem-solving projects, such as a 3D printing project, to integrate DT into their classrooms.
One educator commented that DT is a tool that enhances learning while emphasizing the
student-driven approach to assessment: “I use it as a tool to bring alive student learning…
adding accountability to their work.” Another educator commented on the role of inte
grating DT into the classroom to promote greater connection between curriculum con
tent and bigger concepts, saying they enjoyed “integrating real-world problems into the
classroom—using students’ knowledge and interests to help [them] develop new skills
that target big ideas in our curriculum.” Educators commented on the ease with which DT
could be paired with curriculum content. In general, educators believed that DT would fit
well into teaching the scientific process and problem-based inquiry learning. Educators
in a consultant role stated that they could see themselves providing support to educators
implementing DT
 3. RESOURCES NEEDED TO INTEGRATE DT INTO THE
CLASSROOM.

Educators indicated two main resources that would facilitate integrating DT into their
classrooms. First, many
stated that collaboration and discussion with colleagues would be beneficial to generate
ideas, including how to maximize activities during class time. Second, educators indicat
ed that appropriate technological support would be advantageous to integrating DT into
teaching.
 4. Assessing DT in the classroom.

Educators indicated that students should take

an active role in assessing DT in the classroom. Some educators reported that tools such
as student reflections, learning logs, and templates would be ideal student-driven ap
proaches to assessing DT. One educator elaborated:
Design thinking involves a great deal of research and problem solving. Finding
curricular connections is not difficult. Once you experience learning in this way,
you truly understand student-driven learning. The documentation of the learning
journey is the assessment.
Given that DT emphasizes the users’ needs in guiding the design process, it is not
surprising that educators identified student-driven approaches as optimal ways to assess
DT in the classroom.
 FOCUS GROUP THEMES

Educators were asked to view the plans individually and then provide feedback in relation
to the lesson plan content, framework, and interface (e.g., how material was presented
on
Teachable). The feedback regarding the interface was not a central focus of the research,
however, educators were keen to integrate perceptions of the interface during the
discus
sion of the content. Opinions on the interface were intended to provide practical
feedback
for the industry partner. Therefore, the following results focus on responses related to
the
curriculum content and DT framework.
Throughout the focus group session, educators provided written and verbal feed
back that was audio-recorded by researchers with the consent of participants. The group
was structured in a roundtable format, so that each educator had the opportunity to
share
verbal feedback individually before engaging in a group discussion. Once completed,
the focus group audio recording was transcribed and analyzed using analytic induction
(Goetz & LeCompte, 1984), open coding (Strauss, 1987) and constant comparison (Gla
ser & Strauss, 1967). In this process, two trained researchers reviewed transcripts from
the focus group and categorized responses according to common themes that emerged
from the data. Any discrepancies in thematic analyses were resolved by discussion and
consensus.
 PERCEPTIONS OF THE DT USERS FRAMEWORK
Given this group of educators was
quite familiar with at least one DT process prior to the workshop (e.g., Stanford’s d.
school, LAUNCH cycle; Spencer, 2017), it is not surprising that they quickly recognized
the USERS framework as virtually analogous to these. Overall, educators expressed
positive reviews of the USERS framework, commenting that the iterative nature of the
framework should be emphasized in graphical and written representations (i.e.,
portrayed
as more of a cycle than a process that begins and ends). To this end, one educator com
mented on students’ propensity to take a linear approach to solving challenges:
“Especial
ly in mathematics…when they get to the end, they’re like, ‘it’s done!’ Well, does it work?
[Are] there problems? Could you improve upon it?” This comment may be an indication
that some students will require extra encouragement to move beyond finding “the an
swer” to considering multiple or new solutions to challenges.
Integrating DT. Three major themes related to integrating DT within the curricu
lum emerged from the focus group: assessing DT; global competencies and DT; and inter
disciplinary learning through DT.
 ASSESSING DT

The most prevalent theme to emerge from the data was the
perceived challenge of assessing DT in the classroom. Several educators commented on
how integrating DT will affect assessment directly because of the shift away from grad
ing a final product, as opposed to assessing the process of designing and iterating. Some
educators suggested potential approaches that educators could use to assess DT,
including
learning journals, self-reflection, and learning logs. In support of these suggestions, one
educator commented: “You’re not just assessing that final project they created. They
real
ly do need to document their learning journey, and that is the assessment.”
Another educator similarly stated that using student documentation as an assess
ment tool can be empowering: “…ensuring student voice and student choice, so their
product can be whatever is comfortable for them to demonstrate their learning.” Com
ments from educators reflected the need for research to establish valid and reliable ways
for assessing DT, but to do so in a way that provides learners the flexibility to define
success or progress.
 GLOBAL COMPETENCIES AND DT

Several educators also discussed DT in

relation to the larger focus on global competencies and learning beyond classrooms.
In relation to the lesson plans, educators discussed several ways to include community
groups or academic experts, such as digital human libraries or virtual researcher programs
that connect classes with leading scholars without having to travel. One educator stated:
“…it’s not always leaving your classroom. You can have this authentic experience right
in your classroom, but sometimes it is a collaboration and communication with partners.”
As reflected in this comment, educators were enthusiastic about the potential for
commu
nity involvement in learning with a DT lens.
Another educator asserted the value of learning beyond the classroom: “…when
students do something for the teacher, they don’t do their best work, but when they do
something that’s public-facing, all of a sudden you start seeing some amazing things
happen.” According to this comment, collaborating with community partners to enhance
DT-focused learning can promote global competencies but also positively affect student
performance. Another educator reiterated students’ positive attitudes elicited by
connec
tion to the real world:
…kids go home and they want to do it, they’re excited about it. It’s doesn’t feel
like homework because they’re so invested in it. There’s a real reason to do this.
It’s not just because the teacher assigned it and I have to do it.
Comments from educators strongly suggested that one way to cultivate important global
competencies among students is to design and implement course materials that integrate
a
DT framework.
 INTERDISCIPLINARY LEARNING THROUGH DT
Another central theme to emerge from the data was that educators perceived DT as an
opportunity for interdisciplinary
learning. This was expected, given that the lesson plans reviewed by educators explicitly
linked activities to several different subjects. As one educator stated, DT can be a tool for
interdisciplinary collaboration: “…integrating across curriculum into social studies, sci
ence, math, and language.” For example, the “One with Nature” lesson plan was
connect
ed to measurement units in mathematics and science, and connected to research showing
the benefits of having plants in the classroom (Daly et al., 2010). An emphasis on inter
disciplinary studies is in line with the recent push to focus on STEAM (science, technolo
gy, engineering, arts, and math) versus only STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) subjects (Maeda, 2013).
 LIMITATIONS
The present study was guided by two questions asking how educators understood the DT
process and how they perceived DT fitting into their classrooms. To address these ques
tions, we recruited a group of experienced educators to complete an online intake survey
and then participate in a focus group. It is of note that we invited educators to participate
because of their working knowledge of DT and technology in the classroom. Not surpris
ingly, educators were quite familiar with some form of the DT process (i.e., were able to
define and describe the process), so this likely facilitated the ability to focus on the cur
riculum content using the DT perspective. Notably, educators’ familiarity with integrating
technology into the classroom may be considered a reflection of the broader systemic
emphasis on student engagement in STEM subjects (Government of Canada, 2014). On
the one hand, this specialized focus group allowed us to gain insight from educators on
the frontlines of implementing new and emerging technologies into teaching. On the
other hand, one limitation is that our findings showing educators’ familiarity with DT
may not extend to other Canadian educators. Additional research should therefore focus
on measuring educators’ perceptions of DT to gain a more comprehensive understanding
of how educators envision DT in teaching and learning.
An additional limitation of the current work is the small sample size and single
focus group. While valuable to understand the perceptions of experienced educators, it
must be noted that the data collected here only represents one small subgroup of
teaching
professionals. Future research should conduct further assessment of how DT might be in
tegrated into teaching among a more diverse and larger group of educators. Furthermore,
in the current study we asked educators to review lesson plans in which technology could
be utilized. However, such lesson plans are only one method of capturing the DT process
in the classroom. Therefore, future studies should also assess alternative methods of
inte
grating DT into learning beyond a structured lesson plan. Given these notable limitations,
conclusions from the present work should be interpreted as preliminary insights into how
educators see DT being integrated into their practice.
 DISCUSSION

Consistent with previous work (Hawthorne et al., 2014), the current focus group per
ceived some difficulty in assessing DT, but at the same time readily suggested various
innovative ways to do so, such as learning logs and student-driven and holistic assess
ments. These suggestions are in line with previous literature documenting ways to assess
DT in education, including project-based assessments (Hawthorne et al., 2014). Like the
challenge researchers and educators face in establishing a valid and reliable method for
assessing CT (Mueller et al., 2017), the current study supports the notion that assessing
DT in educational contexts may be perceived by educators as a challenging fea
Despite this perceived challenge, the present findings also suggest that integrating
DT into teaching and learning can be a means to achieve global competencies like criti
cal thinking, collaboration, and global citizenship (OECD, 2003, 2018; Battelle for Kids,
2019). The educators in our study were familiar with DT to some extent, but it is possible
that educators just learning about DT will express similar enthusiasm. Indeed, a founda
tion of the DT philosophy is human-centrism that seeks to improve constantly to satisfy
the users’ needs (Plattner et al., 2009). Moreover, it is encouraging that educators easily
linked DT with global competencies, given that the emphasis of both of these constructs
as being instrumental in future education (Government of Canada, 2014; Howell &
O’Donnell, 2017).
In line with previous research showing the positive effects of DT for educators
(Carroll et al., 2010), educators in the present study were enthusiastic about how DT
presents opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration. When reviewing our lesson
plans, educators frequently drew connections between different subjects such as arts,
sci
ences, social studies, and mathematics. This finding supports work on DT in classrooms
spanning multiple subjects (Carroll et al., 2010; Hmelo et al., 2000; Plattner et al., 2009;
Roussou et al., 2007). Just as previous research has shown that CT is relevant throughout
elementary curricula (Hennessey et al., 2017; Mueller et al., 2017), educators in the cur
rent study readily acknowledged the value of DT in linking concepts and content across
disciplines that can be useful in research and practice (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).
Also consistent with previous research (e.g., Rauth et al., 2010), educators in the
present study perceived the DT process as one in which they could solve problems using
a combination of previously acquired skills, knowledge, and current learning outcomes.
Also consistent with Rauth et al. (2010), educators described the potential link between
DT and a more flexible approach to problem solving. If educators cultivate a more in
cremental versus fixed mindset in relation to problem solving, students may experience
collateral benefits noted in previous research such as greater persistence on challenging
tasks (Yeager & Dweck, 2012).
The current study is timely. Government initiatives and industry efforts are striv
ing to prepare students for success in the 21st century (Government of Canada, 2014;
Howell & O’Donnell, 2017; OECD, 2003, 2018; Battelle for Kids, 2019). In Canadian
society, where almost all Canadians under the age of 45 use the Internet every day (Sta
tistics Canada, 2017), gaining digital literacy is an appropriate priority. In response to
Despite this perceived challenge, the present findings also suggest that integrating
DT into teaching and learning can be a means to achieve global competencies like criti
cal thinking, collaboration, and global citizenship (OECD, 2003, 2018; Battelle for Kids,
2019). The educators in our study were familiar with DT to some extent, but it is possible
that educators just learning about DT will express similar enthusiasm. Indeed, a founda
tion of the DT philosophy is human-centrism that seeks to improve constantly to satisfy
the users’ needs (Plattner et al., 2009). Moreover, it is encouraging that educators easily
linked DT with global competencies, given that the emphasis of both of these constructs
as being instrumental in future education (Government of Canada, 2014; Howell &
O’Donnell, 2017).
In line with previous research showing the positive effects of DT for educators
(Carroll et al., 2010), educators in the present study were enthusiastic about how DT
presents opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration. When reviewing our lesson
plans, educators frequently drew connections between different subjects such as arts,
sci
ences, social studies, and mathematics. This finding supports work on DT in classrooms
spanning multiple subjects (Carroll et al., 2010; Hmelo et al., 2000; Plattner et al., 2009;
Roussou et al., 2007). Just as previous research has shown that CT is relevant throughout
elementary curricula (Hennessey et al., 2017; Mueller et al., 2017), educators in the cur
rent study readily acknowledged the value of DT in linking concepts and content across
disciplines that can be useful in research and practice (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012).
Also consistent with previous research (e.g., Rauth et al., 2010), educators in the
present study perceived the DT process as one in which they could solve problems using
a combination of previously acquired skills, knowledge, and current learning outcomes.
Also consistent with Rauth et al. (2010), educators described the potential link between
DT and a more flexible approach to problem solving. If educators cultivate a more in
cremental versus fixed mindset in relation to problem solving, students may experience
collateral benefits noted in previous research such as greater persistence on challenging
tasks (Yeager & Dweck, 2012).
The current study is timely. Government initiatives and industry efforts are striv
ing to prepare students for success in the 21st century (Government of Canada, 2014;
Howell & O’Donnell, 2017; OECD, 2003, 2018; Battelle for Kids, 2019). In Canadian
society, where almost all Canadians under the age of 45 use the Internet every day (Sta
tistics Canada, 2017), gaining digital literacy is an appropriate priority. In response to