I’ve learned that the profession of teaching and learning is not stagnant. The preferred ways of learning are changing with student generations, and methods of teaching in the past may not prove beneficial for the present or future. Times change and people evolve, and with that comes the recognition that what has seemingly worked in the past may no longer work. It is through the design process that we can recognize what has changed, define the problem, and work to “fix” the old using our creativity and critical thinking. Using the Stanford d.school’s five “modes” of design thinking, I set out to solve one problem in my professional context: Veterinary Nursing Program students are not retaining course content. Students are unable to grasp the concepts of dental abnormalities, which therefore influences their charting performance during their quiz and final. These modes, or components of design thinking, include empathy, define, ideate, prototype, and test.
The first mode of design thinking is empathy. With empathy, it’s important to recognize the feelings, opinions, and concerns of others. Suggested by Stanford's d.school, to empathize one must observe, engage, and immerse. This learning experience is for my students, not for me, so it was important to gain empathy for the students. Before I arrived at my final, clearly defined professional problem, I first centered my problem around my students’ utilization of technology to aid in their retention of content. To help gain appreciation of this problem, I asked colleagues to recite a recipe for creme brulee after following a set of instructions on how to view a how-to video and what to do with the content from the video. I knew that content can be learned through methods that are convenient and comfortable, but through this exercise I discovered that educators can create meaningful and lasting experiences for students through alternative learning methods that may be uncomfortable, impactful, and help foster true connections. To gain even more empathy, I would have liked to have gathered perspectives from my students, since they are the true audience. I also learned during this mode that I implied too many biases and failed to see the larger, broader professional problem I eventually landed on. As stated by Sabba Quidwai in her video Why Design Thinking In Education, “A lot of times when you begin with empathy, what you think is often challenged by what you learn” (Quidwai, 2017, 1:59).
Using the insight I learned through empathy, I moved onto the next mode of design thinking, define. To help further define my professional problem, or perhaps discover the root cause, I performed a root cause analysis. This exercise required me to ask five questions and respond with the “why” to each, in hopes that I’d dive further into defining my problem, arrive at the root cause, and ultimately give insight on how to “fix” the root cause. Additionally, I reflected deeper on my students. During this exercise I considered the students’ different points of views, creating my point-of-view map pictured below. With this map, I was able to consider the many different backgrounds and experiences my students may have had, which impacted my professional problem.
Through both exercises I realized just how complex my professional issue was and how many layers it contained. It was during this mode of design thinking that I was able to finally define my professional problem: students are unable to retain content and therefore perform poorly on their dental charting quiz and final.
I then ruminated on my professional problem during the mode of ideate. During this component of design thinking the concepts of brainstorming and incubation come into play. During brainstorming, one focuses on forming potential solutions to a problem. Incubation, on the other hand, uses less brain power and encourages one to step away from brainstorming and to reflect and rest the brain. After resting the brain, one resumes the task of brainstorming and is said to think even more creatively. I conducted a brainstorming session with my colleague to help think of solutions to my professional problem. In summary, we realized that the root of the issue is that students are not retaining information about tooth anatomy or understanding normals, so they are less likely to comprehend abnormals and chart correctly. Once we determined the root causes leading to poor performance it was easier to define why they didn’t retain information in these areas and how I might be able to help them do so. This information can all be seen in our brainstorming web pictured below.
I had only thought of one potential solution, that of presenting charting questions in a different format, prior to this brainstorming exercise. The "aha" moment was the need to include snapshots of normals in my lectures. I currently include pictures of entire halves of mouths, illustrating all four types of teeth (incisors, canines, premolars, and molars). Including snapshots of a tooth or two will force students to appreciate the structural differences between tooth types and to better recognize the tooth they’re presented with. I must remember that everything builds from the first semester in the program, and that it’s imperative for students to have a strong understanding of the basics and normals before moving forward. This brainstorming session helped me do so.
I then moved on to the mode of prototyping. During prototyping, the ideas or potential solutions that have been brainstormed to solve an issue are put to the test through the first phase of making or creating. A prototype is not the final product, but instead helps solidify potential solutions or helps to recreate new "better" ones. Through ideation I realized that students struggle to grasp abnormals in dentistry because they rarely retain knowledge about normal tooth anatomy and oral health. To help students retrieve knowledge of normal tooth anatomy and ensure concrete understanding of why normal tooth anatomy matters, I created a prototype of a student worksheet. Hoping to make this assignment impactful (i.e., help students better grasp the concepts of dental abnormalities), I asked students to define terms, draw pictures, describe normals, and view snapshots of images.
The final mode of design thinking is testing. During the testing mode, the prototype is tested, and feedback is given for future modifications and improvements. To test the effectiveness of this assignment I went to those who would use it, my students. I reached out to students who are currently enrolled in this dentistry course and to students who completed the course last spring. I contacted them via email and asked for honest feedback in whatever form(s) they felt most comfortable, including video response, written response, or images of the completed worksheet. I received feedback from three current students and one who completed the course last spring. I created a video showcasing the feedback from the students. In summary, I received positive feedback from all the students. They enjoyed the assignment, felt it was a great review of foundational material and allowed them to be creative. Feedback also provided me with suggestions for improvements. They suggested writing the directions more clearly to eliminate confusion.
Through this process I learned that design is truly a nonlinear journey. At times I found myself taking one step forward and two steps back. The modes of ideation and testing provided me with the most insight and momentum to create an improved prototype. For now, I have feedback and suggestions for providing clarity to my prototype. But I do not have feedback specific to the assignment’s intent, to aid in student content retention and improve their overall performance of dental charting. While students believed the assignment was a good review, I wonder if its implementation will improve student charting performance. I’ll need to assess continued feedback and dental charting performance from future students to ensure I’m achieving the desired effect of this prototype.
References:
Design Thinking Bootleg by Scott Doorley, Sarah Holcomb, Perry Klebahn, Kathryn Segovia, and Jeremy Utley is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Sadda Quidwai (Producer). (2017) Why Design Thinking in Education [Online video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHRImwq--aI.
Comments