What's the difference between design thinking and making?

[Parker Thomas]

“What’s the difference between Design Thinking and making?”

Uh, oh. That was the first question I received after a recent presentation I gave on design thinking in schools. Of course, when you present on a topic, you’re supposed to be an expert, but this one caught me off guard. I’m sure I stammered through an answer, but it wasn’t a good answer. I’ve been thinking about the question ever since. Here’s the answer I wish I could’ve given:  

https://medium.com/@parkerthomas/what-s-the-difference-between-design-thinking-and-making-614cb089bc5e#.an86y6m90

 Would love all of your thoughts. What did I miss?

Parker 

[Sylvia]

Hi Parker,

I agree with some of the points you make here. However, I think it needs to be said that Design Thinking, both in its origin and existing implementation in K-12 schools is about product design. There are many more avenues of design than just making products for a specific audience. Many inventions were simply found by noticing unexpected results and following that path. Artists often say that the materials "speak" to them as they work. Authors say that their characters tell them how the story is going to unfold. In the same way, I think "making" values this kind of serendipity in the design process where Design Thinking does not value it as much. Basing everything on "the needs" of some group, audience, etc. is more about marketing than engineering, science, or art. It’s a mistake to imagine that teaching Design Thinking (as promoted by the d school and IDEO) is equivalent to teaching design.

So, do I “hate” Design Thinking? No, of course not. It’s a process of product design that’s been nicely packaged for K-12. I don’t “hate” it any more than any other packaged process for project-based learning. But I think there’s more to the design process than Design Thinking. 

There are three parts of the design process that schools should grapple with:

1. Learning. If you believe that constructionism is a valid explanation of how people learn, then you want a design process that allows people to build on their existing experience, make sharable, meaningful things, have time to assimilate new ideas and thoughts, and then iterate.

2. Teaching. How will I handle the balance between telling and allowing exploration? Are the steps necessary and valid for all occasions? Who chooses the materials? Will there be grading on the final product?

3. The product. Does your process end with a real product or an imagined product. Models and simulations fall somewhere in between.

I know there are thousand ways that schools implement Design Thinking so my thoughts here are an amalgam of what I’ve seen in lots of conference presentations and dozens workshops for teachers and/or students. What I’ve seen is a lot of emphasis on teaching. The steps, how the process should go, handouts that walk through every stage, giving short shrift to the iterative nature. The focus on the steps creates two problems: 1) if you commit to an audience and plan, it's an investment in a path that becomes more and more difficult to change as time goes on. If the materials you have don’t really support your idea, or you find other obstacles, or even have a better idea, it’s too much of a penalty to change it up and follow that new idea. It makes it worse if the stages are evaluated and become part of a final grade. The “success” of many of the designs in a Design Thinking workshop is not a signal that it’s a good methodology, but rather that it’s too constrained. 2) It fulfills the worst instincts of teachers to overplan and pre-digest design for their students. I’m sure it makes teachers feel better that they have a checklist and process to use back in their classrooms, but that’s a false sense of security.

Most things that people make for the first time don’t need a plan, storyboard, mindmap, outline, flowchart, diagram, etc. It’s false complexity to introduce those kinds of structures before they are really needed. If you make a wallet, make a wallet. Then and only then will you start to see how the materials work, what parts were easy and what was hard, that it might have be a good idea to make the two sides the same width, etc. And then you must have time to do it again… and again…. A teacher trying to impose their favorite internal structure on others means that the student now has two tasks - to figure out what the heck the teacher wants in the bubble diagram, and also how to make a wallet.

On the product, I’ve seen Design Thinking workshops that allow for imaginary products. It’s great to have a vision of a trash can that floats around the ocean collecting trash, it’s another thing to make it work. Just making something float upright is pretty hard! But that’s how you really learn about floating. I would classify designing imaginary products in the same category as writing fiction - it’s a great literacy to have, but it’s not design, and it’s certainly not engineering. We shouldn’t conflate the two. Making things work is, to me, the most important part of making.

Now, I’m not just saying that “making” solves all these problems. The word has been handy - I can tell you there would be no “hacker revolution” in schools. But the word is also meaningless. It’s what marketing people call an “empty vessel” - and marketing is all about searching for these kinds of words that people can fill with their own definitions. So everyone is happy but no one has to agree. I have no illusions that every time someone says “making” in education it’s this wondrous experience of agency and enlightenment. Most of what I just wrote about the perils of Design Thinking I’ve seen done in exactly the same way in “maker” classrooms and workshops.

Like Parker said, these experiences can weave in and out to the point where it’s difficult to tell them apart - both good and bad aspects!

The biggest disagreement I have with Parker’s article is that making is "centered on the object" - I strongly disagree. To me, making is about making sense of the world. This is where what you believe about learning comes into play. Making is not just the simple act of you being the difference between raw food and cooked food. I don’t think we need to always ascribe learning to the act of making - but the act of making allows the learner, and maybe an outsider (a teacher, perhaps) to have a window into the thinking of the maker. So, do you need a teacher for learning to happen? Maybe, maybe not. Some people are good at thinking about their own process (“oh, next time, I’ll stir the garlic so it won’t burn.” “Next time, I’ll test the circuit before I solder.” ) and some people are less likely to do that. But if I watch you cook, I will see certain things - how you organize your ingredients, how you react when you make a mistake, how you deal with uncertainty - and that is what teaching is about, watching carefully for these kinds of signs, and then challenging the learner with harder recipes, more interesting ingredients, a few tips, and helping them understand their own thinking and growth. 

Technology has not simply become intertwined with the maker movement in education because it’s new, but because it’s the most interesting material out there. Computers support design in ways not possible otherwise. The command “Save As..” is the most important design tool there is. Technology, especially computational technology also allows educators to answer the question, "Isn’t this just arts and crafts?” And of course after defending arts and crafts - we can say that computational technology allows these same skills and mindful habits to connect with the math and science we want children to learn. Design is not just important for the A in STEAM, it’s essential, but here’s a bigger idea, it’s also essential for the T & E - and for them all to come together.

One final thing - I believe words matter. The verbs “think” and “make” are very very different and signal the most important difference between the two. Thinking is internal, making is external. Making asks the maker to create something outside of themselves that expresses their own thoughts and ideas. Thinking asks that an internal process happen in a certain way. I believe learning (and thinking) happens inside a person, but when you make something meaningful and shareable outside yourself, it cements that learning in place as a building block for the next iteration.

Sylvia Martinez

http://sylviamartinez.com

http://inventtolearn.com

[Parker Thomas]

Several months ago, I got the question "what's the difference between design thinking and making?" After presentation. I've been thinking about it since. So I wrote this article and wanted to share it. What do you think? What would you add?

https://medium.com/@parkerthomas/what-s-the-difference-between-design-thinking-and-making-614cb089bc5e#.y1459tl7r

Parker

--

PS - I use speech recognition software, so please forgive the occasional typo or misspelling.

____________________________________

F. Parker Thomas

http://www.linkedin.com/in/parkerthomas

Member, Urban Montessori Charter School Design Team

Founder, STEAM Factory

Maker, RV-8 N626CT, RV6A N421PT

Inventor, Maker Studio

[Diego Fonstad]

This is an interesting question and discussion.  I have always opted to side-step comparisons saying that they are each components of a larger picture of interrelated teaching tools and objectives.  If we try to squeeze too many concepts under the umbrella of "making" or "design thinking" we overstretch the umbrella beyond logic and end up limiting the potential of the space.

Over the last few years we have identified 5 high level categories that make up what we are currently calling "Innovation Literacy" and Making and Design Thinking are only components within two of those categories within this framework.

We are still flushing out the details but here's the framework we first introduced at the 2014 FabLearn

Mindset is permeated throughout and covers such concepts as:

- Optimism (say yes, or yes and)

- Process over product

- Lifelong learning

- Collaboration and community

- Self assessment/reflection

Computational Thinking covers such things as:

- Project management 

- Logic structures

- Algorithmic thinking

- User Interface

Maker Arts includes

- Visual Thinking

- Measurement and assessment

- Prototyping

- Building skills

- Basic electronics

Design Process is still being better defined but is a mash-up of design thinking and project Zero and entrepreneurship. 

Applied math and science explores hands on projects in  in biology, engineering and 

This is all still very rough and high level but is meant to illustrate how much we risk limiting the impact of this space if we limit our discussion to only  "making" and "design thinking". 

Diego

--
For a compilation of resources/links/etc mentioned on this forum, visit: https://sites.google.com/site/k12makers/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "K-12 Fab Labs and Makerspaces" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to k-12-fablabs...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to k-12-f...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/k-12-fablabs/c32094cc-404c-47d2-bc32-9ce39704a93f%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sylvia]

Diego,

I think we have to answer both questions - like Parker, I often get the "what's the difference between maker and ....?" and I want to be able to compare and contrast. Your larger picture is your school's thoughtful answer to the question, "How do we make our beliefs real?" We could probably have a good conversation some time about this specific split and how it looks in real life. Knowing your team at Casti, I'm sure this is an ongoing conversation.

Sylvia

[Thomie timmons]

My perspective. (Bias should be noted that I graduated from a Bauhaus inspired design school Columbus College of Art and Design but have spent 20+ years in arts education 9-12.)

Design Thinking for me has always meant a process of thinking, sometimes formalized in a variety of design cycles. Design Thinking in our district has shown similarities between disciplines ie. Writing Process, Scientific Method etc. Thus, creating "cenergy" in trans-disciplinary problem based learning. It is "the" process used in Making. Much like part of design thinking of brainstorming, in my opinion is the formalization of (day)dreaming. I believe accidents and discoveries happen in this process and that because Design Thinking is not, in my mind, a regimented step by step linear process; those incidents change the course in Design Thinking.

In short, Making is the activity and Design Thinking is the process much Science the activity and Scientific Method the process

I think there is a lot of blurring between Making and Tinkering, which I am not saying is bad. I agree that invention comes from both. For me. Making has intent. Intent does not necessarily mean product, for example it could be an adaptation of an existing product or a new use of an existing product; solution focused. Tinkering (I guess you could argue this is intent) is playing, taking something apart/together to see what happens. Tinkering strives for answers/questions and Making strives for solutions/problems. 

I think "Invent to Learn"(awesome by the way, Sylvia) is a great book everyone should read on this topic.  Obviously, some of what I have posted is not necessarily in "accordance" with this book, however, the thoughts in this book have definitely had impact on my Making thoughts in these ideas. In fact, it is a must read for all K12 Maker Educators and in my work with districts in this region (Central Ohio) is very "dog eared" from use. 

Thanks for opening this topic, I have been thinking about this a lot and absolutely value this communities input. 

[mary cantwell]

Thankful to Maggie Powers for sharing this discussion feed around design thinking & making to me yesterday.  I appreciate the narratives and point of views expressed in this discussion.  I hope to share my point of view which will be brief and somewhat concrete...

If I was asked this same question, Parker, my response would go something like this...

Design thinking is a process of trying to understand implicit and explicit needs and desires of someone else. To be a design thinker, to do design thinking work it must always be about another person and empathy. Without the two, the action, creation, "product" falls under some other aspect of design (which is fine by me) . Design Thinking is people + empathy. The design of a "product" "thing" "idea" comes way after the fact of understanding, empathizing, absorbing from another person... As great as it is to have an "end product", I am more of the mindset of the process moving the needle and gaining a greater insight and perspective into others's needs and unspoken aha moments and connections. 

My evolved definition of design thinking is a human-centered approach to learning, creating, and being through empathy.   Design thinking is problem solving yet it is also uncovering  problems through another person... 

so those are my 2 cents worth.   Sylvia, I appreciate the discourse and this platform to see and gain understanding of different view points.  As you can see, I have not really added my 2 cents to the MakerED side of this discussion... mainly because my view point is beyond simple and possibly disagreeable... Everything to me is making yet not everything is design thinking... and to me that is a great thing...

On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 2:17:52 AM UTC-4, Parker Thomas wrote:

[Mark Loundy]

Parker,

I see design thinking as an intellectual tool to solve problems or meet challenges. We're all familiar with the various versions of the Design Cycle. Making is an expression of the design cycle in the physical world. Making could simply solve the problem of "how can I entertain myself for the next 20 minutes?" Or, it could be a self-assignment to solve a more serious challenge. That's where Mary and I differ. I don't think that design thinking has to meet the needs of somebody else.

Mark Loundy

Instructional Technology Specialist

Google Certified Educator, Level 1

De Vargas Elementary School

Cupertino (Calif.) Union School District

[Christa Flores]

What I love about this post is reading how everyone is constructing their own definition of this very hyped term. While there are subtle differences in how we all see Design Thinking, I think we all agree that it is a useful process, like Thomie says, the scientific method. If we use these tools in school, we are asking students to think about their own thinking and creative work methodically, rather than playfully or in a less structured manner that making and tinkering would likely afford. The scientist in me loves the design process because it is creativity in the disguise of science or maybe its the other way around. Thank you Diego for sharing the Innovation Literacy idea, I love this. What tools are we giving kids to be creative, constructive citizens? Design as a tool to innovate is without a doubt, one of the best tools we have in the box at the moment. To Sylvia's point that the coined term "design thinking" has deep ties to the product industry is something we all need to unpack, AND we cant throw the baby out with the dirty Silicon bath water. Understanding the roots of US democracy - that the constitution was written by and for white males - does not dilute the power of the concept of democracy. Thanks all for your ideas here. 

-Christa

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:17:52 PM UTC-7, Parker Thomas wrote:

[Sylvia]

"we cant throw the baby out with the dirty Silicon bath water" - well, that made me laugh!

I agree that Design Thinking is like the writing process, but I would still say that it's like the writing process if you added constraints that the writing had to target a particular audience. It's still writing, and it's still an interesting exercise, but it's not without consequence to add that constraint. Certainly all real world problem-solving lives within constraints. I just think these artificially imposed constraints should be acknowledged.

Sylvia

[Parker Thomas]

All - 

I just wanted to say thanks. I didn't expect such lengthy and thoughtful responses.   They certainly made me think. My two favorite quotes involve the "dirty Silicon Valley bathwater" and that "The command “Save As..” is the most important design tool there is." those certainly made me think, as did Sylvia's point about the first time something is made likely doesn't need a detailed plan. That's going to change my approach tomorrow.

I'll be thinking about all of this and will post a few more thoughts soon. Again, thank you.

Parker 

[Kevin Jarrett]

#threadoftheyear

Thank you all!

​

-----

Kevin Jarrett

Middle School STEAM Teacher

Technology, Engineering & Design Program

Northfield Community Middle School

kjar...@ncs-nj.org | @kjarrett

"Life ​changes when you trust kids.​" - ​Ira Socol