Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Education Studies

Editor-in-Chief: Bastiaens, Theo

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2544-7831
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Inter-Organizational Design Thinking in Education: Joint Work between Learning Sciences Courses and a Zoo Education Program

Steven J. Zuiker / Michelle Jordan /
Published Online: 2019-08-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0001

Abstract

A case study of design thinking in education considers how two educational organizations—a university graduate program and a public zoo—develop and enact design thinking processes in relation to one another. It also examines how this inter-organizational design thinking project contributes to a “center without walls,” or collaboratory (Wulf, 1993), pursuing an aspirational vision: to support interest-driven learning while also connecting youth to a wider landscape of formal and informal learning opportunities among educational organizations in a major US metropolitan area. As an initial step in pursuit of this vision, the work of the collaboratory concentrated on one of the zoo’s community-focused education programs called Overnight Adventure. Over seventeen weeks, the project involved the collaborative efforts of two faculty and twelve students from a college of education, and three full-time staff and nineteen part-time instructors from a zoo education program across ten inter-organizational events and observations of five Overnight Adventures. To characterizer inter-organizational design, the case employs contiguity-based connecting strategies to analyze design thinking across four timescales. Findings describe the structures and processes of inter-organizational design thinking and the role of cultivating relational agency.

Keywords: design thinking; relational agency; collaboratory; zoo; learning sciences; infrastructuring

References

  • Bang, M. & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making, Cognition and Instruction, 34, 173-193.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bateson, G. (1978). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

  • Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Burkitt, I. (2015). Relational agency: relational sociology, agency, and interaction. European Journal of Social Theory, 19, 322-339.Google Scholar

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dorst, C. H. (2003). The problem of design problems. In E. Edmonds, & N. G. Cross (Eds.), Expertise in design, Design Thinking Research Symposium 6, Sydney, Australia: Creativity and Cognition Studios Press.Google Scholar

  • d.school. (n.d.). Design thinking bootcamp bootleg. Retrieved March 8, 2019, from https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/the-bootcamp-bootleg

  • Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168–182.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Edwards, A. (2007). Relational agency in professional practice: A CHAT analysis. Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 1, 1-7.Google Scholar

  • Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Stigliani, I. (2018). Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2274–2306.Google Scholar

  • Elwood, K. (2018). Design thinking instructional problems: Exploring how K-14 STEM teachers enact design thinking practices. Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree doctor of philosophy.Google Scholar

  • Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628.Google Scholar

  • Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201-225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators toolkit. Retrieved March 8, 2019, from https://www.ideo.com/work/toolkit-for-educators

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Long, N. (2001). Development sociology: Actor perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Maxwell, J. A., & Miller, B. A. (2008). Categorizing and connecting strategies in qualitative data analysis. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 461–477). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

  • Muff, K. (Ed.). (2014). The collaboratory: A co-creative stakeholder engagement process for solving complex problems. Sheffield: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Muff, K. (2016). The collaboratory: A common transformative space for individual, organizational and societal transformation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2016(62), 91–108.Google Scholar

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (1993). National collaboratories: Applying information technology for scientific research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

  • Pendleton-Jullian, A. M., & Brown, J. S. (2018a). Design unbound: Designing for emergence in a white water world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Pendleton-Jullian, A. M., & Brown, J. S. (2018b). Design unbound: Designing for emergence in a white water world: Ecologies of change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Penuel, W. & Gallagher, D. (2017). Creating research-practice partnerships in education. Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar

  • Razzouk, R. & Shute, V.J. (2012). Review Of educational research: What Is design thinking and why Is it important? NASSP Bulletin.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sanders, E. (2008). An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions, 15(6), 13-17.Google Scholar

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.Google Scholar

  • Schwan, S., Grajal, A., & Lewalter, D. (2014). Understanding and engagement in places of science experience: Science museums, science centers, zoos, and aquariums. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.917588Crossref

  • Shroyer, K., Lovins, T., Turns, J., Cardella, M. E., & Atman, C. J. (2018). Timescales and ideaspace: An examination of idea generation in design practice. Design Studies, 57, 9–36.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar

  • Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Tseng, V. (2012a). The uses of research in policy and practice. Society for Research in Child Development, 26(2), 3–16.Google Scholar

  • Weick, K. E, Sutcliffe, K. M, & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wells, A. S., Hirshberg, D., Lipton, M., & Oakes, J. (1995). Bounding the case within its context: A constructivist approach to studying detracking reform. Educational Researcher, 24(5), 18–24.Google Scholar

  • Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias. New York: Verso.Google Scholar

  • Wulf, W. A. (1993). The collaboratory opportunity. Science, 261, 854–855.Google Scholar

  • Yin, R. K., (1994). Case study research design and methods: Applied social research and methods series. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Zuiker, S. J., Piepgrass, N., & Evans*, M. D. (2017). Expanding approaches to design research: From researcher ego-systems to stakeholder ecosystems. In J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, & M. D. Childress (Eds.), Learning, Design, and Technology. An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy (pp. 1-28). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_74-1.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zuiker, S. J., Jordan, M., Accettaa, D. Sanders, E., Li, S., & the Learning Landscapes Team. (in preparation.) Words with animals: Fostering curiosity and wonder during zoo field trips.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2019-03-26

Accepted: 2019-07-12

Published Online: 2019-08-12


Citation Information: Open Education Studies, Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 1–23, ISSN (Online) 2544-7831, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2019-0001.

Export Citation

© 2019 Steven J. Zuiker et al., published by De Gruyter Open. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License. BY 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in