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

 and Develop Ideas in ESL Writing Class 

 Joy Cooper 

 Sabah , Malaysia 

 Introduction 

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

 Challenge 

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

 Selection 

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

 Application 

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

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

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

 Insight 

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

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

 Approach 

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

 Conclusion 

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

 References 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: Joy Cooper
PHONE_NUM: 
STREET_ADDRESS: 
URL_PERSONAL: 
USERNAME: 

### Task: You are a PII (Personal Identity Information) Detection. Given a essays written by students, you have to identify ONLY the following:
NAME_STUDENT - The full or partial name of a student that is not necessarily the author of the essay. This excludes instructors, authors, and other person names.
EMAIL - A student’s email address.
USERNAME - A student's username on any platform.
ID_NUM - A number or sequence of characters that could be used to identify a student, such as a student ID or a social security number.
PHONE_NUM - A phone number associated with a student.
URL_PERSONAL - A URL that might be used to identify a student.
STREET_ADDRESS - A full or partial street address that is associated with the student, such as their home address.
### Input: The Application of Design Thinking Tool In Discovering Students ’ Inability to Generate 

 and Develop Ideas in ESL Writing Class 

 Joy Cooper 

 Sabah , Malaysia 

 Introduction 

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

 Challenge 

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

 Selection 

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

 Application 

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

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

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

 Insight 

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

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

 Approach 

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

 Conclusion 

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

 References 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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