Design Thinking at SURFnet: An Inquiry into Student Perspectives on Digital Learning Environments

(1)

Design Thinking at SURFnet: An Inquiry into

Student Perspectives on Digital Learning

Environments

Corneel den Hartogh, 5876532 Supervisor: dr. A. C. Nusselder

Second Reader: dr. N. Brouwer-Zupancic July 20th, 2015

MSc Information Sciences: Business Information Systems University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Science

(2)

Executive Summary

This thesis consists of an action research project in which a design thinking process is executed at SURFnet. The topic of this design process is the future of digital learning environments and special attention is given to the perspectives of students in this regard. The goals are to (i) provide valuable insights regarding DLEs, (ii) evaluate the potential value of design thinking for SURFnet and (iii) evaluate, on the basis of this case, the usability of design thinking concepts and practices.

In the conceptual framework, it is established that there are ‘wicked problems’, that are, due to their uniqueness and open-ended nature, not solvable by more traditional scientific methods. Therefore, the iterative design thinking process is proposed. This process follows six steps: understanding, observing, point-of-view, ideation, prototyping and testing. The wicked problem in this thesis is the digital learning environment, a puzzle that will never be solved since it is entwined with other (evolving) phenomena. In order to come up with viable temporary (re)solutions, empathy and creative confidence are required.

After a literature review, observations of students, ideation with experts, developing of scenarios and testing those in sessions with students, I suggest regarding DLEs foremost that a digital environment could facilitate more personalised curricula and specific learning

environments per course that facilitate the development of the specific learning goals. Students currently experience a lot of difficulties with interaction and collaboration, while they realise this could, and should, lead to valuable learning experiences. In addition, more formative feedback would be appreciated.

While the six step design thinking process, as executed in this thesis, might not be useful for the on-going practices at SURFnet, based on observations and interviews, I conclude that more interaction with and deep understanding of the (latent) needs of students is needed. In addition, in order to become more creative, SURFnet could loosen the internal reporting formats. This would provide space for more visualisation and experimentation and thus a more innovative culture. Both elements (more empathy, more visual and material interactions) could stimulate creative confidence, which could, indirectly, lead to more innovations.

Empathy and creative confidence are, based on this research, identified as the most important aspects of design thinking for business purposes. The development and nurturing of these skills could lead to a more innovative culture in office settings.

(3)

Preface

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”

- Heraclitus, Greek philosopher

The quote above is particularly suited for action research, like the one I present in this thesis. Instead of trying to be a neutral bystander, the goal is to develop oneself and improve the action that one is participating in. This is inherently a complex, multi-layered and dynamic endeavour (symbolised by the Rubik’s cube at the front page). However, this whole process took place in the supporting environment of SURFnet, where Kirsten and Lianne offered me the possibility of an internship. While I kept working in the support team part-time, there was always respect for and interest in my thesis activities from my direct colleagues. And when I wanted to interview employees regarding innovation and design thinking all who were asked, readily agreed. In addition, from the university my supervisor André always responded quickly and clearly to my questions and was in general very encouraging. I am grateful to the external interviewees and student who participated in the brainstorm sessions as well. In the end, the research took a bit longer than the prescribed three months, but this was - due the complexity - no surprise for anyone involved.

Let me get back to Heraclitus, since he was not referring to action research with this quote. The main point of his philosophy was, allegedly, that everything continuously changes. If this is the case, and if change is continuing with an increasing pace - as contemporary

intellectuals argue - what does this mean for us as individuals, and members of organisations and societies? Is it really possible and wise to focus on concrete, one-dimensional goals? Or should we shift our attention to our attitude and assure that we remain open for the novel developments in the ambiguous and uncertain world that flows around us? I think we should, and I hope you will think so as well after reading my thesis.

Corneel den Hartogh July 16, 2015, Utrecht

(4)

List of Figures

Figure 1. A simplified version of the the LCPM-model of SURFnet Figure 2. Iterations through the problem and solution space Figure 3. The Triad of Innovation

Figure 4. Innovation model based on technology Figure 5. A sketch of Perception in Action

Figure 6. Action Research division between action and research Figure 7. Types of action research

Figure 8. Design thinking process in six phases Figure 9. 21th-century skills

Figure 10. Students learning simultaneously in collaboration, individually, face-to-face and mediated by technology in one self-organised learning session at the university Figure 11. Digital tools used within learning

Figure 12. TPACK model

Figure 13. Students brainwriting in response to the scenarios

Figure 14. Suggested model for a more flexible and personal learning environment Figure 15. Scenario: Universities as Learning Communities

Figure 16. Scenario: Universities as Personalised Learning Facilitators Figure 17. Scenario: Universities as Digitalised Makerspaces

Figure 18. Scenario: Universities as Reflection Spaces Figure 19. Presentation: The student paper

List of Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of design thinking and traditional managers Table 2. Users, needs and insights

Table 3. Illustrative quotes regarding administrative burden

Table 4. Illustrative quotes regarding lack of space for prototyping and visualisation Table 5. Illustrative quotes regarding deep understanding

Table 6. Illustrative quotes regarding technocratic culture

List of Abbreviations

DLE Digital Learning Environment

FPLO FLexible en Persoonlijke Leeromgeving (Flexible and Personal Learning Environment) HPID Hasso Plattner Institute of Design

LCPM LifeCycle Product Management

OOM Onderwijs op Maat (Tailored Education) PLE Personal Learning Environment

PM Product Manager

TPM Technical Product Manager CM Community Manager

ISO Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg CtM Contract Manager

(7)

1. Introduction

While most of us might still relate design to art, beauty and stylised objects the term has quite recently obtained a different connotation. In 2005, the ‘Hasso Plattner Institute of Design’ (HPID) was founded at Stanford University. This institute, informally known as the d.school, provides courses and fellowships in design. In this programs scholars are not only educated in the practicalities of design, but, more importantly, in ‘design thinking’. The concept of design

thinking has received widespread attention since 2009 with the publication of the canonical book of Tim Brown, ‘Change by Design’. Design thinking should no longer be seen as the approach of a creative happy few, but needed to spread, according to Brown (2009), to office blocks and boardrooms.

While Brown illustrates his calling with guidelines and examples, the question remains what design thinking in an office environment would actually consist of, and how to integrate this in a meaningful manner into these areas. Accounting principles, objectivity and planning hold strong positions in offices for a reason. In this regard, the acknowledgement of so-called ‘wicked’ problems, which are deemed to be inherently unsolvable by scientific methods, could provide support for design thinking (Buchanan, 1992).

In order to evaluate the potential value of design thinking in office practice, I will conduct action research at SURFnet, an organization that facilitates the IT infrastructure of the Dutch higher education sector. In order to investigate the potential value and implementation of design thinking I will become an active member of the program ‘Onderwijs op Maat’ (OOM, Tailored Education) and, more specifically, the team ‘Flexibele en Persoonlijke Leeromgeving’ (FPLO, Flexible and Personal Learning Environment). I will, in collaboration with the other

team-members, set up a design thinking process with regards to this project to identify the differences between the current practices and design thinking. Via this action, I hope to (i) provide the FPLO-team with valuable insights regarding DLEs, (ii) evaluate the potential value of design thinking for SURFnet and (iii) evaluate, on the basis of this case, the usability of design thinking concepts and practices.

After this (i) introduction, I will describe (ii) the case context, (iii) review literature on design thinking, (iv) elaborate on my action research methodology, (v) describe and reflect upon the launched design thinking process, (vi) present my results on the above mentioned levels, and (vii) discuss my conclusions.

(8)

2. Case Context

Within this section, I will give a description of the organisation where I will conduct my research and the particular team. With regard to the organisation I will focus on their current innovational practices. In my elaboration on the team, I will give special attention to development of the perceived role of the digital learning environment (DLE).

2.1 SURFnet BV

This action research takes place at SURFnet BV, a company owned by the SURF association, which is “the collaborative ICT organisation for Dutch higher education and research.”1_The mission of SURFnet is to boost the processes of this sector “through the support, innovation and development (...) of an advanced, reliable and interconnected ICT infrastructure.”2_{In order to} achieve this mission SURFnet collaborates with users and suppliers in order to realise

“innovative ICT solutions”.3_{Ideas for innovation are split into ‘demand-driven’ (‘vraag-gedreven’)} and ‘demand-inspired’ (‘vraag-geinspireerd’). These ideas then enter a version of well-known LifeCycle Product Management (LCPM) model (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. A simplified version of the the LCPM-model of SURFnet

This process is structured to support and streamline the development of potential services. In a presentation to the OOM-program, a representative from the management team explained that the prescribed practices in the LCPM-model were already common practice within SURFnet. However, SURFnet management aims to increase its income in order to remain stable in the long-term. Therefore, management desires to improve its innovation performance through business development. The goal of the explication of the LCPM-model is to ‘get better ideas’ according to management. In this regard, it is interesting, for our case in particular, that there is no emphasis on ‘idea generation and collection’, which is present in innovation models in

literature (Deschamps et al., 1995; Thom, 1980). The Go / No-Go moments by the board require

1_{https://www.surf.nl/en/about-surf/about-surf/index.html}

2_{https://www.surf.nl/en/about-surf/subsidiaries/surfnet/about-surfnet/mission-and-vision/index.html} 3_{https://www.surf.nl/en/about-surf/subsidiaries/surfnet/about-surfnet/approach/index.html}

(9)

a filled template of Business Model 0.5, 0.7 or 1.0 and an advice of middle management, while the ‘tools for inspiration’ are SWOT Analysis, Porter’s Five Forces, Scenarios and User

Personas. While these tools seem suited for the development of an already conceived idea, this model does not provide space, let alone stimulation, for free expression and reconfiguration of ideas.

In addition, since January 1, 2015, SURFnet has moved into a new building with the SURF association and SURFmarket with the aim to create synergy within the whole of SURF and its subsidiaries. This collaboration could enhance the potential of SURF to create new ideas since it enables novel combinations of methods, concepts and perspectives. With regards to new services, it might be interesting if those were conceived and developed in collaboration between these different entities. Such initiatives would organically support further collaboration. Therefore, we can conclude SURFnet would benefit from a better facilitation of the idea

generation process in order to gain better ideas. In addition, it this facilitation could include other entities of SURF this would be beneficial.

2.2 OOM-program & FPLO-team

The OOM-program is a novel ‘innovation program’ within SURFnet. Due to a reorganisation the department has moved from the SURF association to SURFnet since January 1, 2015. The aim of the program is to facilitate higher education institutes in their processes of educational

innovation with IT. Within the six teams of this program, common themes are change

management, (data) security, legal issues, and technological requirements. The program tries to facilitate the development of these processes through knowledge sharing and development. This is done in the form of booklets, special interest group meetings, workshops and funding of experiments (among other things). Due the diversity of activities, every member is involved in several projects at the same time.

While SURFnet has a strong reputation regarding technological innovation, it remains a subsidiary beneath an association with members (the educational institutes). Innovations developed at SURFnet need to be useful and implementable for them. In addition, actual innovations are in general implementations of novel technology at educational institutes. This means that careful, structured planning is required. The program itself has a four-year

‘controlling document’ and yearly ‘activity plans’ per team. Finally, due to increasing budget constraints in the public sector, employees of SURFnet experience that they have less time for creative thinking and experimentation. Therefore, simply becoming ‘more innovative’ in the

(10)

sense of developing novel technological tools and concepts is not a goal of SURFnet. However, effective methods that deliver relevant innovations for end-users in the higher educational sector are welcome.

The FPLO-team consists of core-members from the OOM-program complemented by two unofficial representatives from higher educational institutes, a member of SURFmarket who develops a pilot with regard to e-study books and a member of the supportive staff.

The team supports foremost IT and educational technology staff at universities. Those are the individuals that come to the above-mentioned special interest group meetings that SURFnet organises and contribute to the knowledge sharing booklets. SURFnet tries to support them in their effort to reach others within their institution (teachers on the one hand and higher

administration on the other hand) as well. This is necessary since DLEs are complex issues. In 2013, SURFnet presented a booklet and workshops regarding the ‘extended’ DLE, suggesting DLEs are moving from central comprehensive applications towards a “combination of services, some of them from inside and others from outside the institution” (SURFnet, 2013). Due to this technological complexity and diverse services, DLEs are also socially complex issues within institutions. In this regard, we can say that the subject of this team is becoming increasingly ‘wicked’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973, more on this in subsection 3.1). While the team name is partly composed by ‘flexible’ and ‘personal’, these terms are not strictly defined. In cooperation with the educational institutes, SURFnet wants to find out what these concepts mean in a higher education context. In this complex environment, it is for team members difficult to gauge the experiences and needs of students. However, these students do form the vast majority of end-users. My research aims to help in this regard.

2.3 Preliminary Conclusions

In conclusion, we can say that we have a case at an organisation that intends to improve its idea generation and innovation processes. In this regard, there is an emphasis on collaboration with other SURF entities and higher education institutes. In addition, within our particular team the challenge has become increasingly complex since DLEs are no longer considered a

technical, peripheral issue for education. It is increasingly brought to the center as a topic where learning, IT and educational vision come into realisation. Since it is currently lacking, the input of students would be in particular interesting for the FPLO-team.

(11)

3. Conceptual Framework

The aforementioned research question that emerged from the case should be embedded into a conceptual context. Firstly, what is actually a ‘wicked’ problem and why should design thinking practices be beneficial in this regard and, secondly, what are the particular characteristics of such a process? Thirdly, I will draw preliminary conclusions.

Firstly, the ideas behind the practice of design thinking must be enlightened in order to be able to devise a design process that suits our case. Secondly, our case is demarcated through the requirement that the solution should be provided through a digital learning environment. Therefore, we need to elaborate on DLEs in order to be able to see the possibilities. Thirdly, I would like to shortly discuss literature about students and what is expected from them with regard to 21th-century skills and digital literacy. Finally, I will draw preliminary conclusions.

3.1. Why Design Thinking

In order to explain design thinking it seems best to provide a short insight into the concepts and ideas regarding design in relation to science.

Time Concepts

1920 ‘De Stijl’ - “The spirit is opposed to animal spontaneity. In order to construct a new object we need a method, that is to say, an objective system.” 1960 Design Science Revolution – “Science, technology, and rationalism to

overcome the human and environmental problems. A teachable doctrine about the design process.”

1970 Backlash – “It had to be acknowledged that there had been a lack of success in the application of "scientific" methods to everyday design practice. Furthermore, “fundamental issues as wicked problems were raised.” 1980 /

1990

Design Methodology – “Growing in engineering and industrial design, although limited evidence of success.”

Table 1. Schematic history of design in relation to science, adapted from Cross (2002) Whereas earlier methods to design were more rigid, in front of the background of eclectic 60’s the design world drove away from strict, scientific methodology towards a diverse, loose

(12)

which is the scientific study of this approach in connection to particular practices and theory and the ‘Design Discipline’. The latter refers to the practice of designers on its own terms. This fits well with the work of Brown and the term design thinking. In this research, I will execute design thinking within an action research strategy. The action itself is a pilot of ‘Design Discipline’ at SURFnet, while the research, this thesis, adds to the literature of the field of ‘Science of Design’.

As stated above, the movement towards a less rigid approach to design arose partly due the fundamental issue of ‘wicked problems’. Rittel and Webber (1973) hold that problems, in real life, are, in contrast to scientific problems, often wicked. Rittel and Webber (1973, italics as in the original) define ten characteristics of these wicked problems:

1. Wicked problems have no definitive formulation, but every formulation of a wicked problem corresponds to the formulation of a solution.

2. Wicked problems have no stopping rules.

3. Solutions to wicked problems cannot be true or false, only good or bad.

4. In solving wicked problems there is no exhaustive list of admissible operations. 5. For every wicked problem there is always more than one possible explanation,

with explanations depending on the Weltanschauung of the designer. 6. Every wicked problem is a symptom of another, "higher level," problem. 7. No formulation and solution of a wicked problem has a definitive test.

8. Solving a wicked problem is a "one shot" operation, with no room for trial and error.

9. Every wicked problem is unique.

10. The wicked problem solver has no right to be wrong - they are fully responsible for their actions.

As a consequence of these characteristics, wicked problems do not have solutions, but only resolutions. They are constantly redefined due to the changes in perspectives or contexts. Another key aspect is that one cannot split the problem from its possible solution, since the problem definition is already excluding potential solutions. Our case of the digital learning environment for higher education is a typical example of a wicked problem. Every formulation leads to certain solution directions, it will continuously be further developed due to new

technologies and needs from students, it involves significant development and implementation costs and is, therefore, important and, lastly, it is part of a higher order problem: the overall (higher) educational system.

This last point, of a problem being a part of a larger problem, can be related to one of the complexity principles of Morin (2008), the holographic principle. With a holographic recording there is not one image, but a seemingly random structure. When it is lit, several images can be reconstructed from different viewpoints on the same objects as if they were still there. In the

(13)

words of Cath (2015, p. 11): “The part is in the whole and the whole is in the part. Simplicity only looks at the parts, isolated from their context (...) while holism only looks at the whole, without regard the specific.” I think this holds for our case as well. Therefore, a DLE is not suited to be analysed in isolation. It is an important medium in the interaction between a student and a higher education institution. Inevitably, values and pedagogy are imprinted in its design. On the other hand, only discussing these values and pedagogy in a holistic manner, would remove us too far from the actual DLE. Therefore, we have to discuss the whole (higher education) that we can see in the part (the DLE). We have to identify the role of issues in higher education in DLEs. While wicked problems are inherently complex, Cath (2015) argues that there is a meaningful difference with complicatedness. The latter is, according to Cath (2015, p. 16): “the result of the organizational and technical resistance to complexity, in a search for the perfect machine or the one best way. Mostly, we reduce the complexity issues to something simpler, something we can control.”

This can related to the field of DLEs, in which IT-staff will access the technical concerns and possibilities, educational experts focus on the pedagogy, university board representatives try to define the added value for the profile of the institution and visionaries hope to enable disruptive innovations.4 Different actors try to control a certain complex phenomenon, but fail to do so since they do not realise that one of the characteristics of complexity is that it cannot be fully controlled or determined. A digital learning environment is inherently and indeterminate subject, in the words of Buchanan (1992). In this regard, it is, like other wicked problems, particularly suited for design thinking, since designers are not concerned with determined, particular subjects (Buchanan, 1992). With regard to digital learning systems, proponents of the earlier discussed design discipline are able to wander, relatively freely, through all these

perspectives in order to come to a temporal definition and accompanying (re)solution of the wicked problem.

In this regard it is important to mention that some authors identify complexity as observer-dependent: “The complexity of a system, as seen by an observer, is directly proportional to the number of inequivalent descriptions of the system that the observer can generate” (Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001, p. 986; see also Casti, 1986). In this sense, it is a quality of the observer to be able to see the complexity of a practice, or, to rephrase it in terms of the principle of the hologram, the ability to see the whole in the part and vice versa.

Related to the ability to understand a wicked problem, is ‘creative confidence’ (Kelly and Kelly, 2013). This concept refers to the trust an individual has in his or her own creativity.

(14)

Teachers from design schools state that this is actually the capability they are trying to teach students through design thinking (Rauth et al., 2010). Individuals who have trust in their own creativity, might more easy challenge the status quo and respond better to changing

circumstances. This is an important capability since temporally defining wicked problems (also called ‘framing’) is important, especially when the professional practice in which an organisation falls, is evolving (Drost, 2011). With regard to creativity, it is important to note that more intuitive and rational approaches should not be seen as a trade-off. Matzler et al. (2014) concluded that rational and intuitive decision-making approaches are not in contradiction, but could, and should, be combined. In particular, regarding explorative success, valuable for innovative practices, more intuitive approaches are beneficial.

3.2 Design thinking concepts

As discussed in the previous subsection design thinking is not a member of the family of ‘traditional’ scientific thinking. In this subsection, I will explain distinctive features of design thinking to illuminate the contrast with logico-scientific thinking. The above stated ‘wandering through perspectives’, while continuously exploring the possibilities of in formulation of the wicked problem and solution, can be illustrated as is shown in Figure 2 below. Design thinkers are able to diverge and converge their thoughts in order to take broad perspectives into account when developing a single product or service. This aspect stands in stark contrast with more linear, logico-scientific approaches to problem solving as, for instance, the waterfall method. In the latter method, the problem is first, (i) unambiguously defined, then (ii) data is gathered and (iii) analysed, where after a (iv) solution is formulated and (v) implemented (Conklin, 2008).

(15)

As we can see in Figure 2, with design thinking the ideating and prototyping could still influence the process of defining the problem. Testing the prototype can be seen als implementation or, in traditional terms, gathering data (insights from test users) to (re)define the problem.

This does not mean that design thinkers are unable to follow a rigid method, they choose to work from a different perspective. In this regard, Bruner (1986, p. 11) claims there are “two modes of thought”. The scientific method is based on the ‘logico-scientific’ thinking mode and is characterized by an aim to reach the truth through tight analysis, categorical, non-contradictory and theory-driven work, to name a few characteristics (Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001). The method of design thinking is foremost based in the ‘narrative mode’, in which the aim is to to come to meaningful experiences based on stories, intuition, contradictions, experimental and context-sensitive work (Tsoukas and Hatch, 2001). This mode enables individuals to come to up with several, sometimes paradoxical, interpretations for an observation. In other words, the narrative mode enables them to see the earlier discussed ‘seemingly random structures’ of the hologram when they look through several viewpoints, while logico-scientific thinkers focus on the details in one particular viewpoint. The object of research is not the physical structure (hardware) behind the concrete phenomenon (learning via a digital learning system), but the hard- and software “presents an opportunity to rethink from a new fresh perspective our basic concepts from the beginning” (Dogic-Crnkovic, 2003). A digital learning system is a human-made object to serve the development of humans. It enables us to think and experiment differently with regard to learning. Therefore, this field is suited for a more narrative mode of thinking (of which design thinking is an example).

In order to demonstrate how design thinking transforms the abstract narrative mode to actual practices, I will draw mostly from the earlier mentioned work of Brown (2009). Instead of talking about wicked problems with high (social) complexity, Brown relates design thinking to the need for innovation. This innovation is supposedly a novel product or service which solves a difficult to define (i.e. wicked) problem. In addition to the problem formulation, the organisation and technological possibilities influence the innovation process as well. This is made visual in Figure 3, the ‘triad of innovation’. This triad is assembled by the constraints and reach of desirability, viability and feasibility. While the particular scope of technical feasibility, business viability, and human desirability is significant, for real innovation all three have to be taken into account.

(16)

Figure 3. The Triad of Innovation (Adaptation from Brown, 2009, p. 19)

The first circle covers human desirability. This is, according to Brown, the most difficult aspect since individuals, in general, do not always show or tell which innovations they need. Their needs are often ‘latent’, and practitioners of design thinking need to discover them. The second circle contains business viability, since every innovation needs a viable business case in order to become sustainable. Organisations need to figure out whether they are suited to fulfil the particular need that is discovered in the desirability circle. In the experience of Brown, most companies actually start their innovation process in this circle (2009, p. 20). They look at what suits their business and limit therefore the scope of potential ideas severely. As we have seen in the case context, this happens at SURFnet as well. There is no actual process to stimulate inspiration and ideation. Ideas that do arise are taken through the applied LCPM-model in order to assess the viability. The third circle refers to the technical constraints. Proponents of this view hold that firms firstly need to focus on the development of technology before considering other issues. This model is visualised in Figure 4 below. The most successful example of this

‘technology-push’ model is the Sony Walkman (Beard and Easingwood, 1992). However, there are risks as well (Chesbrough and Rosenbloom, 2002; Burgelman and Sayles, 2004; Brem and Voigt, 2009).

Figure 4. Innovation model based on technology (Adaptation from Brem and Voigt, 2009; based

(17)

Literature and organizational practices seem to focus on a combination of the viability and the feasibility. Therefore, the potential value of design thinking seems to lie foremost in discovering the desirability and the implementation of this aspect in innovative processes. In order words, design thinking is particularly appropriate for making sense of the wickedness, while technical know-how and organizational context remain as necessary conditions for innovative success. In order to illuminate the design process, Brown (2009) distinguishes three phases: (i) inspiration, (ii) ideation and (iii) implementation. The division between inspiration and ideation is particularly interesting, since most innovation models have at best one phase in the area of ‘idea generation and collection’ or take ideas for granted (as we have seen in our case at SURFnet, see also: Brem and Voigt, 2009; Deschamps et al., 1995; Thom, 1980). In this inspiration phase, key elements are understanding, observation and empathy. In the words of Brown (2009, p. 41): “A better starting point is to go out into the world and observe the actual experiences (...) In a design paradigm, however, the solution is not locked away somewhere waiting to be discovered but lies in the creative work of the team.” In contrast to traditional innovation literature ideas are not ‘collected’, but empathy is developed in the field. Direct observation of, and interaction with, the target group is mandatory. In order to postulate what people are thinking and feeling when they are active, abductive reasoning is needed. Abductive reasoning refers to processes of developing plausible hypotheses behind observations. Paul (1993) represents it as follows:

𝜑 → 𝜔, 𝜔 𝜑

“From the occurrence of 𝜔and the rule “𝜑implies 𝜔”, infer an occurrence of 𝜑 as a plausible hypothesis or explanation for 𝜔” (Paul, 1993). While deduction requires a logical relation that is necessarily true, abduction only demands a plausible connection between the occurrence and hypothesis. It is therefore suited for hypothesis generation, which can be tested in a later phase with methods of induction (Price, 1953). In addition, it is argued that most ‘psychologically simple’, or intuitive hypothesis should be preferred (Price, 1953; Paul, 1993). Since design thinking holds that every project is unique, hypothesis generation and, thus, abductive reasoning is a required capability for design thinking (Tschimmel, 2011, p. 3). Finding these considerations and feelings behind people’s behaviour is a difficult to master, but nonetheless practicable, skill (Brown, 2009, p. 43).

In addition, Brown suggests to focus on extreme users since they have “exaggerated concerns”: We could gain inspiration from their passion, their knowledge, or simply the extremity of their

(18)

circumstances (Brown, 2009, p.44, 206). Through this observations and insights, design thinkers hope to gain empathy with the users: “[Empathy] is perhaps the most important

distinction between academic thinking and design thinking (...). The mission of design thinking is to translate observations into insights and insights into products and services that will improve lives (Brown, p.49). Diverse, interdisciplinary teams are likely to come up with more potential underlying hypotheses of observed behaviour in comparison to mono-disciplinary individuals. In this regard, it is important that individuals collaborate intensively. In the gripping words of Brown (2009, p. 27): “this ability is what distinguishes the merely multidisciplinary team from a truly interdisciplinary one”.

Another element of design thinking is the visual, or, if we include all senses, perceptive cognition. This consists of the transformation of bottom-up processing of input through the senses into the mind and the top-down process of categorizing the elements of our input based on earlier experience (Tschimmel, 2005). In this regard, Bohm (2004) discusses ‘real

perception’ in contrast to mechanical perception. In the words of Tschimmel (2012): “We have to be aware that the repertoire of patterns, which we have in our minds, will determine our

recognition, our classifications, our analysis and all of ours subsequent thought processes.” This leads Tschimmel (2012) to the concept of ‘perceptive cognition’. This refers to the “complex process of exploiting at one and the same time the stimulus input, and also the reasoning about its properties” (Tschimmel, 2012). This perception “goes in and through images”. In order to (re)lay connections with a team (re)drawable images work much better than more static approaches (Ware, 2010). Ideas regarding perceptive thinking, lead Tschimmel to the creation of the Perception-in-Action model:

Figure 5. A sketch of Perception in Action by Tschimmel (2011)

The perception of a p/t (problem / task) leads to an interpretation by Dx (design thinker), which leads to a solution space. This space leads to new possible interpretations and so on. In every

(19)

phase, the senses are triggered which leads to new ideas, which can lead to unpredictable new steps. The importance of perceptive cognition relates to the human-centric perspective of design thinking. In the words of Dorst (2007), design thinkers are more “actively involved in the world than most people.”

The last important elements of design thinking that I will discuss are rapid prototyping and testing. From the importance of perceptive cognition, it follows that concepts need to be as visual and embodied as possible. This enables designers to evaluate a concept in ways that would not be possible as long as it remained in mere words. Schön (1983) describes this process as “conversations with materials”, which relates to the meaningful interaction of designers with their medium (Hartmann et al., 2006). It is important to contrast this type of prototyping with the functional prototyping by specialists that is normally done in IT. While the earlier mentioned waterfall-method is oftentimes replaced by ‘agile scrum’, this method only focuses the team on short-term goals. A more diverse approach that facilitates creativity, multiple perspectives, and radical new solutions is uncommon in IT (Lindberg et al., 2011). However, in the case context (see subsection 2.2) we already saw that the role of IT systems like DLE is changing from a one-dimensional technical issue to a more (socially) complex role. Therefore, IT development at companies like SURFnet could be revised to include rapid prototyping and testing in an earlier phase. This could lead to more suitable and innovative solutions. Within design thinking, meaningful prototypes could be sketched, experience blueprints, clay construction or build with foam. Besides the enablement of conversations between designers, stakeholders and the materials, rapid prototyping facilitates testing with real users (Brown, p. 231). Since design thinking intends to envision solutions for their latent needs, testing with real users is necessary to assess if the design team is on the right track.

3.3 Preliminary Conclusions

In conclusion, design thinking enables practitioners to develop innovations and reframe wicked problems. This is important in a rapidly changing environment with inherent ambiguity and uncertainty. The most important aspect of design thinking is its human-centric approach. It brings the element of desirability to the forefront of the innovation process, while other innovation models tend to consider this aspect only seriously at a later stage in the

development. In addition, from this focus on the human, the discussed elements of observation, abductive reasoning, empathy, collaborative teams, perceptive cognition, rapid prototyping and testing emerge naturally as well. While some of these elements could already be identified in

(20)

more mainstream business practices, the human-centric attitude that is enacted through design thinking provides them with more meaning and value. This is relevant for problems that are ‘wicked’ since the definitions of these problems are dependent on the interpretation and meaning of those that try to solve it.

(21)

4. Research Methodology

In this section, I will present my research methodology. Since I will conduct my research within an organization and with the aim of improving (a small part of) practices in that organization, my thesis will be grounded in action research (AR). AR is defined by Reason and Bradbury (2001, p. 1) as follows: “Action research is a participatory democratic process concerned with

developing practical knowing.” In this sense, AR is remarkably different from other scientific methods that stress objectivity, representational knowing and distance between the researcher and the research subject. Within an action research project, it is important to make a division between the action (i.e. the fieldwork within the organization) and the research about this action (in this case, the thesis). This is made graphically explicit by Perry and Zuber-Skerritt (1992):

Figure 6. Action Research division between action and research (Perry and Zuber-Skerritt, 1992)

While the action itself is outside the scope of scientific practice, it does needs to be verified by the participants and analysis is required on both content and process within the thesis. The

(22)

action starts in general with a plan that is approved by the participants, where after they act. The results of this process are observed and reflected upon. With regard to a master thesis, one such cycle is recommended (Perry and Zuber-Skerritt, 2002). In addition, one could make a distinction between three types of action research (see Figure 7 below).

Figure 7. Types of action research (Zuber-Skerritt, 2002; based on Carr and Kemmis, 1986) In deliberation with the project leader, I decided to conduct an emancipatory action research. I will be a member of the project team and the goal is to improve organizational practices. The goal is to increase the practitioners’ understanding of design thinking and develop suggestions for a change in the organizational practice towards innovation. The relationship is symmetric (type 3 in Figure 7 above), I will start up a design process besides the current processes of the team and we will try to learn from each other. In addition, I hope to be able to develop, on the basis of my intervention in this practice, scientific knowledge with regard to design thinking in IT and management (Iversen et al., 2004).

(23)

4.1 Action

Before the start of this design process, I did an intervention in a knowledge-sharing meeting of the whole OOM-program. On the basis of the following table, I discussed the different

approaches and emphasized the need to relate to the end-user.

characteristics of a Design Thinking Manager

characteristics of the traditional thinking manager

mainly visual, use of sketching and prototyping tools

mainly verbal, use of diagrams and tables

intensive observation and wondering, challenging stereotypical perception

immediate perception and quick interpretation of a situation

emotional and rational at the same time, subjective

mainly rational and objective

abductive and inventive analytical, deductible and inductive failure is a part of the process looking for the ‘correct’ answers comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty lead by organizing and planning empathic and human-driven, deep

understanding of peoples’ needs and dreams

customer-driven, deep understanding about what clients would like to have for their social status

principally collaborative principally individual

Table 1. Characteristics of design thinking and traditional managers (Tschimmel, 2012, p. 4-5) I choose this table in order to contrast design thinking to traditional thinking in very common terms to which the participants could relate. One participant coined the presentation

‘inspirational’, while others clearly needed some time to think about it. At the very least, I have provided with this table an impression of design thinking in office settings. The intervention was executed. Therefore, the alternative, design thinking process could begin. The HIPD has developed the following model:

(24)

Figure 8. Design thinking process in six phases (HPID, 2009)

There are other versions of this model in with a different amount of phases, but the process they intend to describe is roughly the same. I used this one not only in my research, but also within my action (presentations and discussions with stakeholders). Particular interesting features are, in my opinion, the connecting swirls between the spheres that embody the phases. This

represents, in my view, the less rigid, more flowing nature of a design thinking process. The fact that every sphere has at least two connecting swirls is a reference to the importance of iteration in design thinking.

4.2 Qualitative Data Analysis

For every phase in the design thinking process, I will reflect upon and analyse the action in this thesis. This action provides a varied set of qualitative data. Maxwell (1996) distinguishes three methods for analysis:

● memo’s

● categorizing strategies ● contextualizing strategies

During and immediately afterwards the actual data gathering process I wrote memos to capture my thoughts. Based on these notes and the raw data, I categorized my findings into themes. Within and around those themes, I employed a contextualizing strategy by developing (small) narratives. With regard to the interviews in the ideation (see subsection 5.4) and interviews with SURF employees (see section 6), I took notes during the first interviews, where after I

developed categories, which I tested among the latter interviewees. However, I still gave them space for novel suggestions. With the exception of the student session at the Sandberg Institute, all sessions and interviews were in Dutch. However, in order to facilitate readability I only provide English translations in this thesis.

(25)

5. Action Process

In this section, I will describe, reflect and analyse the performed action of the design thinking process phase by phase. In addition to the six subsections that follow now, Appendices A to E provide background information on elements of the action process.

5.1 Understand

Design thinkers are in general no experts on the specific matter of the design thinking process. Therefore, in the first phase of understanding experts are interviewed and more traditional research is conducted in order to gain necessary background knowledge. In this phase I talked with the experts of FPLO-team and OOM-program, read the booklets they have produced on this matter and investigated academic literature on DLEs, the role of technology in education and potential different learning needs of students. In addition, I took a look outside the world of higher education. Interestingly for our purposes, the head of the OOM-program visited nine institutions to reflect on the changing role of DLEs within their institution. This fits very well with the common practice of expert interviews in the understanding phase of the process. Due to this unexpected situation and the fact that FPLO team forms in itself a diverse group of experts, I decided to interview external experts later on in the process (see subsection 5.4 Ideation).

5.1.1 IT and Education

While the team supported earlier foremost the IT and educational technology staff at

universities, they have noticed that the DLE has gained more widespread attention within higher education institutes. It is no longer seen as a technical addendum to the educational process. It is moving towards a more central role with the primary processes of teaching and learning. Educational institutions experiment with different pedagogies and different, more

technologically-based forms of teaching. These are not only grassroots experiments at the level of individual teachers, but has become a strategic issue as well. Universities and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science are developing visions about the future of education in a more digitalized, rapidly changing world in which the DLE plays an important role. In this regard, we can conclude that the subject of this team is becoming increasingly wicked (Rittel and Webber, 1973).

Due to this trend, vision and strategy on the future of education become more important than before. Selwyn (2011, p. 2) argues therefore that for education technologists, “the primary

(26)

focus should not be on the actual technological devices, tools and applications per se, but the practices and activities that surround them.” In addition, learning itself is never an easy to define activity since it is “entwined with many other stratifications of social life” (Selwyn, 2011, p. 2). In the order to gain insight into the potential future of the DLE, we need to zoom out on the digital and the learning in order to be able to obtain an overview of the environment. With regard to the digital, Selwyn (2011) notices that contemporary technology enables many-to-many connectivity in contrast to earlier forms of technology like television that enables one-to-many broadcasting. This means that, among other things, elements of co-creation and knowledge sharing between peers could be better technologically facilitated than before.

However, whether co-creation and increasing peer-to-peer communication are beneficial for education is no longer a technological question. In this regard Selwyn (2011, p. 84) points out that debates about technology in education are often normative, since establishing a “‘cause-and-effect’ relationship between technology and learning is nigh on impossible.” Furthermore, there is not only a discussion about the ‘internal imperative’ for technology in education (whether certain technologies improve education), but also uncertainty about the ‘external imperative’ (whether different education is required due to a more digitalized world). In order to let these discussions flow more fruitfully Selwyn (2011) recommends changing the vocabulary of the discussion from the current combination of ill-defined concepts and technologies towards a discussion language based on the educational role of these technologies and more concrete practices. This is exactly want I intend to do in my further steps regarding ideation and

prototyping: Make this important matter of the (future of the) DLE more concrete and accessible for students, in order to enrich the discussion with their perspectives. Interestingly, the OOM-program of SURFnet is still foremost focused on improving these concepts and technologies in order to support the supporting staff at higher educational institutes. While the develop initiatives in this direction, SURFnet has to retain a balance between the roles of facilitator and change maker.

5.1.2 Digital World

While I will explore the potential internal imperative for technology education through

observation of my peer students in contemporary education, I did desk research regarding the external imperative. To what extent is the world becoming more digitalized? And what does this actually mean for education? Are enrolling students truly digital natives?

Floridi (2014) holds that those interacting objects influence the nature, and our

(27)

“the whole informational environment constituted by all informational entities, their properties, interactions, processes, and mutual relations” and maximally it becomes “synonymous with reality, once we interpret the latter informationally “ (Floridi, 2014, p. ??).”

What this means for our lives as individuals is not yet clear. Personal information is partly constitutive of who you are and how you see the world. When we become able to commoditize this through (learning) analytics, what does this mean for individuals? In this regard, I concur with Floridi that “it seems crucial that we understand how ICTs are significantly affecting us, our identities, and our self-understanding (Floridi, 2014, p. 58).”

In this regard, Floridi points out that human-computer interaction becomes a symmetrical relationship: Humans are not only developing ICTs and environments for them to inhabit, but ICTs are developing our identities and lifeworld as well (Floridi, 2014, Ciborra, 2002).

While the issues discussed in this subsection may seem to some as a rather futuristic perspective, this is not the case. The NMC Report 2015, according to experts the leading

publication on technological trends in higher education, suggests the Internet of Things will have an impact on higher education in four to five years (Johnson et al., 2015). In addition, in

summarizing the strategy of the Open University UK, the NMC Report signals an emphasis on “the importance of students learning how to collaborate with technology” (Johnson et al., 2015, p. 25, italics added). It speaks no longer of using technology, but of collaborating with

technology.

5.1.3 Digital Natives and Literacy

Within discussions about technology in education, the concept of ‘digital natives’ often comes to the fore. While this concept has no strict definition, it refers to the notion that individuals growing up in contemporary society have different information processing skills due to the rise of in informational objects in their surroundings (Prensky, 2001). Prensky (2001) argued that since these individuals have different skills they need different teaching methods to enable their learning. Empirical research in this area is still scarce, but early studies suggest caution in this regard, based on the following arguments: large differences in digital skills and usage within this generation (Margaryan and Littlejohn, 2008; Kennedy et al., 2008) and difficulties in assessment due to differences in actual and self-perceived skills (Correa, 2010; Corrin et al., 2010). Prensky (2011) himself has changed his perspective and talks about ‘digital wisdom’, i.e. how to achieve wisdom in the increasingly digital world described above. In this regard, it is important that there has been a change from the earlier discussed internal to the external imperative of technology in education. The question is no longer: ‘How could we improve current education with

(28)

technology?’, but rather: ‘How should we change current education to fit an increasingly

technological world? In practice, these two questions are no opposites, but for our purpose, the emphasis on the latter is beneficial. This question stresses the importance of the primary process and, thus, the perspectives of the students that are directly involved in this process. In addition, it points out that technology should no longer be seen in the light of potential means and ends, but as “hidden trait of all that today is taken as real” (Ciborra, 2002, p. 76).

In this regard the notion of ‘affordances’ is interesting (Norman, 1993). Technology makes certain actions possible, while it complicates and excludes others. As novel technologies are increasingly becoming part of our society, they will influence our actions in ways that cannot be easily foreseen. For educational purposes, it is important to realise that different technologies facilitate different actions.

5.1.4 21th century skills

This brings us to the question of the intention of our education. What is it that we try to learn students? A popular concept related to this issue is that of ‘21th-century skills’. Due to digitization, increasing the speed of change in society and globalization, there are calls for a different type of education. In his comparative study, Dede (2010) points out that an important fundamental aspect of these 21th century skills is that refer to more ‘contextual’ capabilities. Due to an increased complexity and (digital) possibilities of every-day life, interaction with the environment has become relatively more important than isolated task execution (Koraly and Panis, 2004). Within 20th century education knowing is separated from doing (Dede, 2010). Due to this fundamental inconsistency, proponents of 21th century skills support a more fundamental rethinking of education instead of adding little bits of 21th-century skills training on the edges. While it is out of scope for this thesis to discuss this issue in depth, I would like to present the most prominent framework of the Partnership for 21th century learning. Although other

frameworks (see: Metiri Group and NCREL, 2003; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2005; American Association of Colleges and Universities, 2007; International Society for Technology in Education, 2007; Jenkins et al., 2006) highlight different aspects, there is general congruence over 21th century skills in literature (Dede, 2010).

(29)

Figure 9. 21th-century skills (The Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2015) While Figure 9 shows the 3Rs (reading, writing, arithmetic), education (and thus the

assessments, curricula and learning environments) should support the development of life and career, learning and innovation, and information, media, and technology skills as well.

5.1.5 Outside Higher Education

Higher education does not exist a vacuum but follows on primary and secondary education. The above discussed aspects of digitization and different learning objectives are discussed and implemented there as well. I will discuss my observations of the Steve Jobs School and the documentary ‘Onderwijzer aan de Macht’ (Power to the teacher).

A Dutch initiative, O4NT (Education for a novel time) has developed the concept of the so-called ‘Steve Jobs’ Schools. These schools are organized in ‘tribal’ groups of the same size with students from all ages (4 to 12 years old). They start and finish the day in their tribe with half an hour that focuses on social interaction. In between, students can choose for themselves where they want to spend their time. Every classroom (studio) has a specific purpose (math, language, project or workshop to name a few). Children plan their own day on their iPad that ensures they are only able to choose classes and timeslots that are available.

The role of teachers is very different in this environment. Instead of providing classical instructions and revisioning student notebooks, they observe a diverse group of individuals and while the revisions of the student work is done by technology which provides direct feedback

(30)

and an adaptive learning path to the student, teachers can evaluate the learning analytics. This enables them to provide one-on-one support if they deem this appropriate. Teachers state that while it is difficult to release control, this system does enable them to look at students differently. Instead of treating them as a group, they are now enabled to see each of them as an individual. While discussions within higher education regularly questions the responsibility of students for their own learning process, children in the environment of a Steve Jobs School actually prove to be capable of doing so. This finding suggests that it might be more accurate to see the low student responsibility as an outcome of, instead of a rationale for, a more traditionally controlled learning environment.

In the documentary ‘Onderwijzer aan de Macht’5 several primary and secondary school change makers are interviewed. We learn that primary schools got rid of the courses like geography and history and give initiative to students to learn in those directions via projects. Within highschool, we see that students learn more via activated methods than just listening and reading.

5.2 Observe

I observed my fellow students at the university naturally when I was working with them in a group or following lectures with them. In addition, the Maagdenhuis, the building of the board of the University of Amsterdam, was ‘reappropriated’ by students. I will characterise my

observations of my fellow students in four groups: (i) Maagdenhuis, (ii) the opposition between individualization and collaboration, (iii) digital experiences (iv) lifelong learning.

5.2.1 Maagdenhuis

As discussed above, design thinking tries to find the (latent) needs and dreams of the end-users. In addition, the DLE is part of higher education at large. Therefore, I decided to zoom out from the digital elements towards perspectives on the whole of higher education. The

Maagdenhuis was a fruitful ground for such perspectives.

I choose the following five speakers to analyse: David Graeber, Sally Haslanger, Gloria Wekker, Wolfgang Streeck, Willem Schinkel (see Appendix A for background information). A common theme was ‘rendementsdenken’, a Dutch term referring to a narrow focus on efficiency, measurability and return on investment. Are we able to measure academic performance? Schinkel points to the concept ‘cognitive capitalism’, which refers to “the

(31)

increasing trend of using the human mind for the production of funds”. Individuals are, on the basis on this concept, required to invest in themselves. The increasing measurement,

necessary to determine the economic return on invest, focuses on the individual mind as a factor in production. According to Streeck: “[This] individualization is the end of science and we have come dangerously close to this point.” Science is, in his view, foremost a dialogue in which presence is essential. With regards to this dialogue, Wekker points out that universities are determined by a “mono-ethnic, mono-racial, mono-gender, mono-cultural state of affairs”. Currently universities are “cloning” the current staff. However, our students will need to be able to live and work in an increasingly diverse world. More importantly, “contemporary elites [like the university staff] have cognitive deficits since they are segregated”, according to Haslanger. Due to a focus on demarcated disciplines, scientists have trouble to truly understand societal

problems. A more multidisciplinary, problem-based education would be better, in her view. Graeber advised his audience to “act as if you are free”, with which he meant that university staff and students should devise their own education in dialogue with each other.

This sentiment could be heard at earlier protests at the university of Amsterdam. When in 2013 two faculties tried to merge without taking the views of students into account, students protested, proclaiming “We are the university”.6 In addition, when the Dutch Ministry of

Education asked students for essays on their vision of higher education in 2030, the second-placed essay provided suggestions for a more community-based university where students learned together with academics, alumni and other interested parties (Bolsius, 2015).

In conclusion, the importance of dialogue between within the university and with actual communities around the university was emphasised. In addition, there was a critique on the expansion of mechanical, individual assessment.

5.2.2 Individualization and Collaboration

While dialogue and interaction are important according to the speakers in the Maagdenhuis, we can also see a trend towards individualization. For instance, a fellow student said regarding group work: “Since our group is not working, I did all my individual assignments for the coming weeks already.” Instead of trying to find ways of making the group work, this student chose to make sure her individual work was in order. In another group with students who had a

background outside of academia one of them simply said: “I just do not understand this article.” However, we needed to organize a discussion session about this article as a group. This is no incident, group work at universities is often very difficult due to the different qualities,

(32)

perspectives and effort of students. Collaboration is therefore often more task division to an individual level than working together. In addition, due to the fact that students are in ad-hoc groups for short time frames, groupwork in academia is inherently more difficult to organise (Fransen et al., 2013).

Figure 10. Students learning in collaboration, individually, face-to-face and mediated by technology in one self-organised learning session at the university

These problems are particularly relevant for DLEs and technology in education. An element of 21th-century skills is the increased attention for collaboration, especially across disciplines and cultures. In addition, regarding this collaboration between students technology places an important role in communication. However, technology is also used to fit education more to individual demands (think only of the name of the FPLO-project team SURFnet: Flexible and Personal Learning Environment). Figure 10 above illustrates the diverse elements of learning in contemporary education.

5.2.3 Digital Experiences

In a group meeting at the end of a lecture a fellow student of mine said: “I have the feeling I’m about to say something quite filthy, but don’t you guys think we should meet physically?” As pointed out above, students already rely extensively on technology for their learning. From my own experience, I came to the following figure:

(33)

Figure 11. Digital tools used within learning

On the left side, there are official university portal, enrollment and roster sites. Thereafter, you find services that are also provided by the University of Amsterdam like Blackboard and Google Apps the Microsoft services (for instance Word and Skype) that are installed on the computers at the university. However, with some courses individual teachers decide to use Dropbox, Facebook pages and Skype. Students collaboration in groups makes often use of Whatsapp and individual students learn via MOOC-platforms like edX and Coursera or apps like Duolingo. In addition to these services, Dabbagh and Kitsantas (2012) point out that there is a growing interest in the pedagogical view that “the community is the curriculum rather than the path to understanding or accessing the curriculum” and that educational institutes should, therefore, integrate social media platforms more into their DLEs.

With regard to the term DLE, we have to ask ourselves if there will be non-digital learning environments in the near future. While concepts like ubiquitous computing sound futuristic, students are in lectures, working groups and even in group meetings (see Figure 10 above) always interacting with digital platforms. Even if students are, in the words of my group member, ‘filthy’ enough to meet physically, they still learn (partly) via digital media. If we wonder a moment about this, we might ask ourselves: ‘Using a term like DLE suggests that there is still a non-digital learning environment, but is this a tenable, future proof point of view?

Design Thinking at SURFnet: An Inquiry into Student Perspectives on Digital Learning Environments