Keywords

1 Statement of Problem

In 2015, China State Council issued the “Made in China 2025” circular. It set forth the strategic guideline of innovation-driven basic principles clearly. Improving innovative design capabilities, developing various types of innovative design education and stimulating the enthusiasm and initiative of innovative design became a strategic mission across the society. However, what is taught and how to teach innovative courses in colleges has always been bothered teachers. At present, the total number of innovation and entrepreneurship courses in colleges of China are not enough, there are not many public courses, few specialized courses. There is no gradient curriculum system of innovative education (Zheng 2016). The reason is that our country has a long way to emphases on developing innovative thinking, spirit and theories, but slight practice and skills. Education and industry are out of touch (Yan 2015). Faced with questions from academics and practitioners about the quality of innovative ability of college students, we believe that the cultivation of innovative ability based on curriculum should get rid of the traditional teaching logic which deduced practice from theory, and should be come from the action logic of innovative practice. In short, it is teaching knowledge around practice (Xu 2010).

Design Thinking is a methodology which founded on the behavioral studies of architects, designers, and engineers since the 1960s. It is considered as an innovative methodology based on practice and action. The characteristics of innovative activities include learning in innovation, action oriented, multi-disciplinary team facing real problems, and complicated problems without unique solutions, all of which are in line with the characteristics of design thinking.

Several landmark research findings of design thinking show its core features: (1) The solution to the “wicked problem”. This formulation was first put forward in the mid-1960s. Design thinking was considered the solution to the extremely complex and multidimensional problems. In a subsequent study, Buchanan argued that design thinking highly integrates and applies domain knowledge to find non-unique solutions to “difficult problems” (Buchanan 1992). (2) User-centered problem solving process. This feature includes two aspects, people-oriented and problem-solving process. The implementation includes “observation, concept, prototype, test” mode (Simon 1996), the five stages of design thinking of Stanford d. school, “Empathize”, “Define”, “Ideate”, “Prototype”, “Test”, IDEO Design Thinking Phase, “Inspiration”, “Ideate”, “Implementing”, the three-gear design thinking triangle of thinking at Joseph L. Rotman School of Management of the University of Toronto, “empathy and in-depth user understanding”, “conceptual visualization”, and “Business Design Strategy” (Carlgren 2016). (3) Multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary collaboration. As a solution to complex problems, the design thinking emphases on forming a more comprehensive, integrated and in-depth understanding of the problem through the establishment of cross-disciplinary teams including marketing, product development, information technology and customer service. (4) Iteration. Cross considered that the design activity characterized by rapid generation of satisfactory solutions rather than scientific research aimed at obtaining the best solutions to hypotheses (Cross 1982). “The sooner you fail, the faster your success.” What is implied in the iteration is the way in which design thinking iterates (Brown 2011). (5) visualization of the results of each stage. The results of all stages of design thinking require visualization, and IDEO puts forward the notion of “making an idea come true” as an effective way to promote deeper thinking (IDEO 2015).

Introducing design thinking into innovative courses in colleges and reconstructing the course structure and implementation methods not only meet the logical starting point of such course development, but also provide an exploratory path for the course reform.

2 Cooperative Learning and Four Learning Outcomes Based Design Thinking

As an educational approach, cooperative learning aims to organize teaching activities into academic and social learning experiences. It has been shown that Cooperative and interdisciplinary learning better prepares students for work and citizenship by developing higher order cognitive skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, and the ability to see multiple perspectives (Lattuca et al. 2004). It can not only provide work abilities training at the capstone level, but at freshman level classes. (Fu 2017)

It has five essential elements, which are positive interdependence, individual and group accountability, promoted interaction, small group skills, group processing. A research conclusion from a literature review showed the context and practices of Cooperative are substantial elements for innovation and open science (Ramírez 2017). From design thinking perspective, learning outcome is a key in teaching and learning practices. In order to arouse the learning motivation of student collaboration, learning activities such as user research, briefing design, brainstorming, storyboard design, team reporting and product roadshow are designed to be completed by each group. In addition, based on 5 steps of design thinking, four key learning outcomes were proposed, that is “a poster of user research”, “a storyboard”, “3 prototypes” and “a road show”.

The poster of user research included photos of the field trip, 3 pain points and 3 solutions. The whole workshop has one story board and prototype in each iteration. At the end of workshop, a roadshow provides a chance for students to present and exhibit their whole works.

3 Collaboration Learning Activities Sequences and Implementation

Collaboration learning is based on a certain learning philosophy or theory, in order to achieve a learning goal, learning activities framework and procedures. The content of collaboration learning is organized according to five aspects of design thinking, “empathy”, “define”, “Ideate”, “prototype”, “test” and “reflection”. The nonlinear characteristic of design thinking is embodied in the framework design of collaboration learning in three iterations (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

The layout of collaboration learning based on design thinking

Full size image

Figure 1 shows the respective positioning and tasks of collaboration learning clearly. In order to deal with divergences which are come from different thinking pattern, knowledge and skills of different discipline students, tutors group developed assignments which students can work together. At the first two parts “empathy” and “define problem” sections, each group completed the user research and context research, determined pain points and solutions. Though students have different thinking patterns and knowledge backgrounds, all of them can work together for the first learning outcomes. In these two part, teachers provide a learning layout and a templet to reduce the difficulties in implementing the learning outcomes, especially for the students who came from design programs. At “creativity” part, students use d story board to tell the story of their product usage. At the last two parts, “prototype” and “test”, students use variety of tools and equipment to make prototype and test it by the user feedback. The whole learning experience contains 3 iterations. Each iteration improved the solution in one prototype. The last prototype presented at a roadshow showing the whole process and the usage of the prototype.

4 Details of Learning and Teaching Implementation

The whole collaboration learning included four lectures, a 8-day workshop and a road show. Thirty college sophomores came from five specialties, which were art and design, electronic information engineering, communications engineering, mechatronics, and software engineering. They mixed into five groups. The art design and engineering students numbers ratio was 1: 2. They had mastered designing methods and intelligent technologies, but had no multi-disciplinary collaboration learning experiences. The task of workshop was to design a smart green energy-saving product for the campus they lived. Five instructors were the electronic information technology, communications technology, art design, mechanical model design and architecture. In this lesson preparation, the teachers found that different specialty teachers had different thinking models and working habits, such as engineering teachers were used to considering the technology route, a certain technology or an equipment at the beginngin of the task. While in the advanced stages of product development, design teachers tend to be away from the group because they were unable to intervene in technical work. Based on these issues, instructors group adjusted their teaching arrangements to emphasize less-technical thinking in the “Defining” part, and provided a framework of presentation and roadshow documentation for art design students during “Prototype” and “Test” part. These can promote students learn from each other and improve the learning effectiveness.

The workshop provided five contexts to research. Each group picks one of five by drawing lots, which is library, student dormitory, student canteen, office building and gymnasium.

Prep class had two parts, the basic intelligent hardware and junior design. The students needed to accomplish two assignments. At the intelligent hardware unit, students learn the working principle of intelligent hardware, visual programming methods, sensor types and so on. And at the junior design unit, students learned user-center design concept and the design method from WHAT, HOW and WHY aspect. Students had two tasks in this session: (1) Using visual programming tools, intelligent hardware and sensors to make a flow lamp, then draw a technical roadmap of this lamp. (2) Analyze a product from WHAT, HOW and WHY aspect.

The three iterations in product design students accomplished the learning outcomes three times. In the first iteration, four learning outcomes emphasized on using a poster to show the user research, propose the solution, then used the fist prototype to implement ideas. As there is a general lack of user-based research in engineering backgrounds students, a course survey, reporting exercise, and study materials are provided to students on the campus. After reporting the feedback, students conduct research independently and collect and analyze data according to the requirements of the next day’s report and make a poster (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
figure 2

The first iteration poster

Full size image

It the second iteration, the prototype is the emphasis on the four learning outcomes. It includes advanced solution and technology. Take the “student dormitories” group as an example. After the first proposal is denied, students think deeply about two issues. One is the user behavior in the student dormitories. What are the pain points? The second is to expand their understanding of the “green”, which is physical energy and bio-energy low-consumption lifestyle. After the second scenario research, the team redefines the problem as a solution to the “Understanding the habits of using lamps in the students dormitory.” Students draw the storyboard again to show their solution. (Figure 3) Than the team report on the second prototype through a combination of performance and prototype display. This demonstration of learning outcomes facilitates cross-disciplinary collaboration among team members and is of great benefit to the advancement of technologies and solutions in the second iteration.

Fig. 3.
figure 3

The second iteration storyboard

Full size image

At the last day of the workshop, each group presented their final prototype in a roadshow (Fig. 4). In order to structure the whole work, tutors group provides a presentation templet for the students, which includes “Introduction of group members”, “Brainstorm”, “Context research”, “Pain point”, “Storyboard”, “3 prototypes”, “Technology road map”and “Posters”.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

The road show

Full size image

5 Pros and Cons of the Collaboration Learning by Using Four Learning Outcomes in the Interdisciplinary Workshops

After completed of the 8-day workshop, the instructors group made a questionnaire to survey the effective of collaborate learning in interdisciplinary study. Thirty questionnaires were distributed, thirty were recovered, the recovery rate of 100%, of which 100% of valid. In the survey of “do you accept interdisciplinary studies”, the proportion of “more accepted” and “very accepted” reached 76.66%. In the five-star rating scale, the students were surveyed on the usefulness of 9 learning contents: “situational research”, “user research”, “teamwork”, “mind mapping”, “design geometry”, “product design storyboard”, “Arduino technology”, “Triz innovation theory”, and “Model Processing”. The data showed that “user research” was considered the most useful, the proportion of “useful” and “very useful” was 73.3%. The proportion of the second-highest “Product Story Edition” was 56.7%. Data showed that more than half of students thought the four learning outcomes helped them complete the workshop task.

Students were asked to rank the learning activates by effectiveness from high to low. The ten learning activities were “brainstorming in teams”, “listening to teacher review groups”, “attending lectures” and “group report”, “combing product interaction with storyboard”, “classmates comments”, “displaying product design plan with posters”, “context research”, “doing user interview” and “writing reflective card”. In addition to the last “write reflective card” score was significantly low, the other nine scores were above five points (up to ten points), as shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.
figure 5

Scores of the effectiveness of learning activities

Full size image

All the instructors who we interviewed in the survey considered that the four learning outcomes played a key role in achieving teaching objects. They also thought students’ abilities of critical thinking were improved during the creativities from birth to landing in multi-disciplinary learning.

In summary, there were three pros of collaboration learning in the interdisciplinary workshop, which were: a. Improved students’ collaborative abilities in using four learning outcomes; b. Provided a visualization method to reduce the difficulties in collaboration learning; c. Provided a model to make self-reflections.

The cons of collaboration learning included two aspects: a. To some extent, learning effectiveness depended on the harmony between the team members; b. It was difficult to improve abilities, technologies and skills deeply in short-term workshop.

6 Conclusion

This paper explored the development of collaboration learning activities by using design thinking in interdisciplinary workshops. The researchers proposed four learning outcomes which were based on the key steps of design thinking, reconstructed the teaching structure, prepared the teaching materials and resources, redesigned learning and teaching activities and implemented it. During the workshop, the researchers made a investigation. The questionnaires and interviews showed that students generally accepted interdisciplinary collaboration. The visualization of the four learning outcomes, which were a poster of user research, a storyboard, 3 prototypes and a road show, improved students’ collaborate and self-learning reflection abilities, reduced the difficulty of cross-disciplinary learning. However, it is undeniable that the effectiveness of interdisciplinary collaboration learning relied to some extent on the smooth collaboration among team members. Therefore, how to cultivate a deeper level of professional abilities and inter-disciplinary collaboration across disciplines, how to popularize the teaching mode and improve the coverage and participation are the research directions in the future.