Project Classroom : Design Thinking and Course Design 

 Challenge and Selection 

 I am an educational developer at a medium - sized , research - oriented University in the southern region of   the United States . My primary role is to work with faculty from multiple disciplines to support effective and   engaging student learning .   In my experience , faculty are often highly resistant to changing how they teach   and will hold on to established methods and perspectives long after they have ceased to be relevant or   effective .   I wanted to turn this around and make faculty more open , willing , and interested in adopting   new teaching methods . To better understand this challenge , we followed IBM ’s process and consulted   research and experts in three areas : adult pedagogy ( also called androgogy ) , faculty motivation , and   organizational change .   In addition , like the Good Kitchen team , my team and I conducted ethnographic   research on my own faculty , including individual and group interviews ( of both students and faculty ) and   extensive observations of classroom teaching across our campus .   Like the MeYouhealth team , we   determined that there are different sources of faculty resistance , but that these could be grouped into   categories , or persona ( e.g. the junior faculty member who struggles with expertise ; the mid - career faculty   member who struggles with opportunity costs ) . 

 After reviewing our insights from this information collaboratively , our team determined that our focus   should be on developing a growth mindset around teaching and learning in our faculty .   We reviewed a   number of established methods to inculcate growth mindset , but these methods seemed to focus either on K- 12 students or corporate employees --- none were appropriate for our faculty audience . It was clear that   we would need to adapt an existing approach , and we gravitated towards design thinking because it   seemed to offer the autonomy and flexibility that the research on faculty motivation had identified as   significant . Further , design thinking offered a structured approach to innovation , which would allow us to be   able to scale our faculty development offerings ( we could take a mixed group through the process   together , as opposed to , say , individual coaching ) and to take into account the diversity of knowledge ,   experience , and confidence we would likely encounter with our faculty participants ( they can determine   what outcomes are within their capabilities or wow zones ) . 

 To that end , we designed a day - long retreat focusing on course re - design that incorporating modified   versions of all four tools ( visualization , storytelling , mind mapping and learning launch ) . You might say that   the first iteration of this event constituted the learning launch for our project team . 

 Application 

 In our warm up exercise , we tried to limber up the visualization muscles ( so to speak ) of our participants by   having them imagine their dream house and describe it to the group , with attention to all of the senses and   dimensions of a house ( e.g what does your house smell like ? How does your house make you feel ? Who is   in your house ? Where is your house located ? , We then had them transfer that same sense of vivid   visualization from their dream house to their dream course . This visualization included all of the elements of   a course , not just those that appear on a syllabus .   It is not usual for faculty to think of their courses as   something visual so this exercise proved to be very powerful in helping them “ see ” their courses in new   ways .   We would continue this emphasis on visualizing a course throughout the day . 

 In the second part of the day ( what is ? ) , we asked our participating faculty to tell the stories that led them   to their dream course ; including attention to the specific challenges and opportunities they face in their   classroom ( we used a set of prompt questions ) .   The research on faculty motivation talks about the value of   a sense of community , and that is often missing around teaching . Most faculty teach alone and rarely have   the opportunity to talk about teaching with others . Through story - telling , we provided them with the   opportunity to do just that , to feel a sense of belonging ( I am not alone in the challenges I face ) and to   gain inspiration from those colleagues whose repertoires differed from their own . 

 In the third section of the day ( what if ? ) , we engaged our participants in a mind mapping exercise in which   they incorporated all of the elements of their dream course in a structured and thoughtful way .   To that   end , we provided each participant with colored sticky notes . The colors corresponded to various elements   of a course ( e.g. pink = readings ; blue = experiential activities ; lavender = assignment ) .   Once they identified   these elements , we showed them a few models for inspiration , and then asked them to create a visual map   of their course elements on a giant sticky note . 

 This process made them very uncomfortable ( somewhat intentionally ) as we asked them to throw out   everything they had accumulated from previous courses and to start the process over from scratch .   We   also modelled course designs that were highly advanced or innovative , moving well beyond what most   faculty would find comfortable of familiar .   In its initial stages , this was a largely silent and noticeably   tense process . That being said , this was also very much an iterative process , with participants moving and   changing their sticky notes elements based on the evolution of their own thinking as well as input from my   team and their colleagues .   After a while , conversation increased and tensions relaxed . We asked   participants to hang their creations along the walls of the room so that everyone could walk around ,   review , and offer feedback ; but this gallery walk served an additional purpose of providing a sense of   safety in numbers . In other words , they may be trying something new , which is scary , but they were n’t   doing so alone . 

 After creating their course maps , we asked faculty to develop the prototypes ( we called them blueprints )   for their newly redesigned courses into formal syllabi .   At this point , we talked about turning these dream   courses into learning launches for the following semester .   Depending on their degree of comfort , we   encouraged them to do small learning launches . In other words , they did n’t have to try to implement the full   redesigned course immediately , but they could choose aspects of their design to adopt and evaluate ; to   take baby steps towards their dream course . 

 We had identified risk - aversion as a major component of faculty resistance , and that risk - aversion comes   from many of the same factors the video identified in section 2 of the course .   From the literature , we knew   that faculty evaluations tend to dip down after the launch of new intervention , but then they rise above   previous levels after the 3rd iteration .   This is a major risk , especially for faculty who are working towards   tenure .   So , we knew that this was a critical juncture in our process . 

 We tried to change the risk equation by appealing to the affective motivation — their desire of faculty to   be creative ( to see their creations come to life , so to speak ) .   This was especially powerful for our senior   faculty .   Throughout the day , we framed challenges as problems to be solved , rather than providing   answers or solutions ; this appealed to the desire of faculty to be autonomous and engage with complex   intellectual questions .   This worked especially well for our junior faculty . We also appealed to their   practical side , by emphasizing the learning launch as an opportunity to collect evidence and feedback to   continuously improve and work towards their dream course .   This same data could be collected and lead   towards a publication in teaching , a benefit to those on the tenure track , but also those in mid - career for   whom this “ double - duty ” ( teaching and research ) would decrease opportunity costs . 

 Insight 

 We conducted a study of our own learning launch , the day - long course design event , using a pre- and   post- survey asking faculty to rate their knowledge , experience , and confidence in key aspects of course   design , teaching , and innovation .   We also interviewed volunteer participants about their experiences .    While all three factors increased , the confidence rating rose significantly .   Our interviews confirmed that   we had achieved our goal of increasing growth mindsets ( or at least the perception of one ) .   Several   respondents even indicated that the same sense of self - efficacy had extended to their other courses . 

 In the field of educational development , we often borrow insights and techniques from education more   broadly .   This experience strongly underscores the insight that faculty do not learn and are not motivated   the same way as students , regardless of the age of the student . We gained empathy into the specific   factors that work with this target audience . 

 Because we worked with faculty from different disciplines , we learned that disciplinary mindsets inform   how faculty approach both storytelling and visualization .   Our engineers , for example , created course   maps that looked more like diagrams or wireframes ; while our humanities professors often made free- flowing , organic images .   This proved to be challenging at times ( some disciplines seemed to want more   structure , such as specific instructions , some wanted less ) but ultimately extended the repertoire of my staff ;   while also supporting divergent thinking among the participants . 

 Approach 

 One of the primary adaptions of the design thinking process that we made was to allow faculty to work on   individual projects ( their courses ) .   We did not have them work in project or design teams .   Most college   courses are taught by individuals , so it is quite a challenge to consider how to make course design a group   project . Anecdotally , faculty are known for their preference to be “ lone wolves ” “ cowboys ” or other terms   associated with solitary work , but our interviews suggested that this is changing across the board , and that   some fields are becoming noticeably more collaborative then others .   We would like to figure out a way   to incorporate this aspect of design thinking into course design ; especially the critical point between what is   and what if , where the process works to bring people together in pursuit of a shared goal and to judge   from criteria . This latter form of collaboration is often missing in academia ; which is rife with people who   have ideas ; but often lacking in the will or ability to turn those ideas into constructive change .   We need to   think deeply about how to incorporate this dynamic . 

 A second major factor has to do with the outcomes .   While we are confident that we increased the growth   mindset of our participating faculty , a growth mindset may or may not translate into actual growth ; and   whether or not it does so is difficult to measure .   When I brought the results of our evaluations to my   supervisor , for example , she was less excited by the results than I was . For someone in her position , such a   shift in mindset is less tangible and seems only indirectly related to advancing the mission of the institution .    We could track the courses our participating faculty taught the following semester , but the impact of one   day of faculty development on teaching effectiveness is also indirect ; as teaching effectiveness is   influenced by many , many factors beyond professional development .   And just what exactly would we be   measuring ? Learning is not the same as , say , a toaster , and just what good learning is or looks like is   complicated , relative , ambiguous and contested .   We simply ca n’t definitely prove that our course design   day contributed to increased student learning .   Our challenge is try to come up with an additional   assessment ( or set of assessments ) that might get us closer to capturing this . 

 Finally , we have to consider our audience more carefully .   Because the event is voluntary and requires a   considerable time commitment ( for which participants are compensated ) , we likely appealed to   participants who were already open to change , at least to some extent .   To put it colloquially , in some   ways we were singing to the choir .   If we want to promote change within the organization as a whole , we   need to find a way to get our more resistant or reluctant faculty to participate in activities such as course   design day . We need to get these folks to the table , and getting them there may change how we motivate   our participants and deliver our services .   To date , our assessment efforts have also focused on volunteers ,   but perhaps it ’s time to talking to those faculty who do n’t participate ; even those who actively argue   against the value of faculty development and/or teaching transformation . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: 
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: Project Classroom : Design Thinking and Course Design 

 Challenge and Selection 

 I am an educational developer at a medium - sized , research - oriented University in the southern region of   the United States . My primary role is to work with faculty from multiple disciplines to support effective and   engaging student learning .   In my experience , faculty are often highly resistant to changing how they teach   and will hold on to established methods and perspectives long after they have ceased to be relevant or   effective .   I wanted to turn this around and make faculty more open , willing , and interested in adopting   new teaching methods . To better understand this challenge , we followed IBM ’s process and consulted   research and experts in three areas : adult pedagogy ( also called androgogy ) , faculty motivation , and   organizational change .   In addition , like the Good Kitchen team , my team and I conducted ethnographic   research on my own faculty , including individual and group interviews ( of both students and faculty ) and   extensive observations of classroom teaching across our campus .   Like the MeYouhealth team , we   determined that there are different sources of faculty resistance , but that these could be grouped into   categories , or persona ( e.g. the junior faculty member who struggles with expertise ; the mid - career faculty   member who struggles with opportunity costs ) . 

 After reviewing our insights from this information collaboratively , our team determined that our focus   should be on developing a growth mindset around teaching and learning in our faculty .   We reviewed a   number of established methods to inculcate growth mindset , but these methods seemed to focus either on K- 12 students or corporate employees --- none were appropriate for our faculty audience . It was clear that   we would need to adapt an existing approach , and we gravitated towards design thinking because it   seemed to offer the autonomy and flexibility that the research on faculty motivation had identified as   significant . Further , design thinking offered a structured approach to innovation , which would allow us to be   able to scale our faculty development offerings ( we could take a mixed group through the process   together , as opposed to , say , individual coaching ) and to take into account the diversity of knowledge ,   experience , and confidence we would likely encounter with our faculty participants ( they can determine   what outcomes are within their capabilities or wow zones ) . 

 To that end , we designed a day - long retreat focusing on course re - design that incorporating modified   versions of all four tools ( visualization , storytelling , mind mapping and learning launch ) . You might say that   the first iteration of this event constituted the learning launch for our project team . 

 Application 

 In our warm up exercise , we tried to limber up the visualization muscles ( so to speak ) of our participants by   having them imagine their dream house and describe it to the group , with attention to all of the senses and   dimensions of a house ( e.g what does your house smell like ? How does your house make you feel ? Who is   in your house ? Where is your house located ? , We then had them transfer that same sense of vivid   visualization from their dream house to their dream course . This visualization included all of the elements of   a course , not just those that appear on a syllabus .   It is not usual for faculty to think of their courses as   something visual so this exercise proved to be very powerful in helping them “ see ” their courses in new   ways .   We would continue this emphasis on visualizing a course throughout the day . 

 In the second part of the day ( what is ? ) , we asked our participating faculty to tell the stories that led them   to their dream course ; including attention to the specific challenges and opportunities they face in their   classroom ( we used a set of prompt questions ) .   The research on faculty motivation talks about the value of   a sense of community , and that is often missing around teaching . Most faculty teach alone and rarely have   the opportunity to talk about teaching with others . Through story - telling , we provided them with the   opportunity to do just that , to feel a sense of belonging ( I am not alone in the challenges I face ) and to   gain inspiration from those colleagues whose repertoires differed from their own . 

 In the third section of the day ( what if ? ) , we engaged our participants in a mind mapping exercise in which   they incorporated all of the elements of their dream course in a structured and thoughtful way .   To that   end , we provided each participant with colored sticky notes . The colors corresponded to various elements   of a course ( e.g. pink = readings ; blue = experiential activities ; lavender = assignment ) .   Once they identified   these elements , we showed them a few models for inspiration , and then asked them to create a visual map   of their course elements on a giant sticky note . 

 This process made them very uncomfortable ( somewhat intentionally ) as we asked them to throw out   everything they had accumulated from previous courses and to start the process over from scratch .   We   also modelled course designs that were highly advanced or innovative , moving well beyond what most   faculty would find comfortable of familiar .   In its initial stages , this was a largely silent and noticeably   tense process . That being said , this was also very much an iterative process , with participants moving and   changing their sticky notes elements based on the evolution of their own thinking as well as input from my   team and their colleagues .   After a while , conversation increased and tensions relaxed . We asked   participants to hang their creations along the walls of the room so that everyone could walk around ,   review , and offer feedback ; but this gallery walk served an additional purpose of providing a sense of   safety in numbers . In other words , they may be trying something new , which is scary , but they were n’t   doing so alone . 

 After creating their course maps , we asked faculty to develop the prototypes ( we called them blueprints )   for their newly redesigned courses into formal syllabi .   At this point , we talked about turning these dream   courses into learning launches for the following semester .   Depending on their degree of comfort , we   encouraged them to do small learning launches . In other words , they did n’t have to try to implement the full   redesigned course immediately , but they could choose aspects of their design to adopt and evaluate ; to   take baby steps towards their dream course . 

 We had identified risk - aversion as a major component of faculty resistance , and that risk - aversion comes   from many of the same factors the video identified in section 2 of the course .   From the literature , we knew   that faculty evaluations tend to dip down after the launch of new intervention , but then they rise above   previous levels after the 3rd iteration .   This is a major risk , especially for faculty who are working towards   tenure .   So , we knew that this was a critical juncture in our process . 

 We tried to change the risk equation by appealing to the affective motivation — their desire of faculty to   be creative ( to see their creations come to life , so to speak ) .   This was especially powerful for our senior   faculty .   Throughout the day , we framed challenges as problems to be solved , rather than providing   answers or solutions ; this appealed to the desire of faculty to be autonomous and engage with complex   intellectual questions .   This worked especially well for our junior faculty . We also appealed to their   practical side , by emphasizing the learning launch as an opportunity to collect evidence and feedback to   continuously improve and work towards their dream course .   This same data could be collected and lead   towards a publication in teaching , a benefit to those on the tenure track , but also those in mid - career for   whom this “ double - duty ” ( teaching and research ) would decrease opportunity costs . 

 Insight 

 We conducted a study of our own learning launch , the day - long course design event , using a pre- and   post- survey asking faculty to rate their knowledge , experience , and confidence in key aspects of course   design , teaching , and innovation .   We also interviewed volunteer participants about their experiences .    While all three factors increased , the confidence rating rose significantly .   Our interviews confirmed that   we had achieved our goal of increasing growth mindsets ( or at least the perception of one ) .   Several   respondents even indicated that the same sense of self - efficacy had extended to their other courses . 

 In the field of educational development , we often borrow insights and techniques from education more   broadly .   This experience strongly underscores the insight that faculty do not learn and are not motivated   the same way as students , regardless of the age of the student . We gained empathy into the specific   factors that work with this target audience . 

 Because we worked with faculty from different disciplines , we learned that disciplinary mindsets inform   how faculty approach both storytelling and visualization .   Our engineers , for example , created course   maps that looked more like diagrams or wireframes ; while our humanities professors often made free- flowing , organic images .   This proved to be challenging at times ( some disciplines seemed to want more   structure , such as specific instructions , some wanted less ) but ultimately extended the repertoire of my staff ;   while also supporting divergent thinking among the participants . 

 Approach 

 One of the primary adaptions of the design thinking process that we made was to allow faculty to work on   individual projects ( their courses ) .   We did not have them work in project or design teams .   Most college   courses are taught by individuals , so it is quite a challenge to consider how to make course design a group   project . Anecdotally , faculty are known for their preference to be “ lone wolves ” “ cowboys ” or other terms   associated with solitary work , but our interviews suggested that this is changing across the board , and that   some fields are becoming noticeably more collaborative then others .   We would like to figure out a way   to incorporate this aspect of design thinking into course design ; especially the critical point between what is   and what if , where the process works to bring people together in pursuit of a shared goal and to judge   from criteria . This latter form of collaboration is often missing in academia ; which is rife with people who   have ideas ; but often lacking in the will or ability to turn those ideas into constructive change .   We need to   think deeply about how to incorporate this dynamic . 

 A second major factor has to do with the outcomes .   While we are confident that we increased the growth   mindset of our participating faculty , a growth mindset may or may not translate into actual growth ; and   whether or not it does so is difficult to measure .   When I brought the results of our evaluations to my   supervisor , for example , she was less excited by the results than I was . For someone in her position , such a   shift in mindset is less tangible and seems only indirectly related to advancing the mission of the institution .    We could track the courses our participating faculty taught the following semester , but the impact of one   day of faculty development on teaching effectiveness is also indirect ; as teaching effectiveness is   influenced by many , many factors beyond professional development .   And just what exactly would we be   measuring ? Learning is not the same as , say , a toaster , and just what good learning is or looks like is   complicated , relative , ambiguous and contested .   We simply ca n’t definitely prove that our course design   day contributed to increased student learning .   Our challenge is try to come up with an additional   assessment ( or set of assessments ) that might get us closer to capturing this . 

 Finally , we have to consider our audience more carefully .   Because the event is voluntary and requires a   considerable time commitment ( for which participants are compensated ) , we likely appealed to   participants who were already open to change , at least to some extent .   To put it colloquially , in some   ways we were singing to the choir .   If we want to promote change within the organization as a whole , we   need to find a way to get our more resistant or reluctant faculty to participate in activities such as course   design day . We need to get these folks to the table , and getting them there may change how we motivate   our participants and deliver our services .   To date , our assessment efforts have also focused on volunteers ,   but perhaps it ’s time to talking to those faculty who do n’t participate ; even those who actively argue   against the value of faculty development and/or teaching transformation .
### Output: 