This document provides a summary of a dissertation that examines a school district's approach to innovation through design thinking. It discusses the need for lifelong learning in the knowledge economy. It reviews literature on how traditional schooling does not adequately prepare students for today's world. Studies from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and learning sciences argue schools need new approaches focused on deeper learning. The dissertation will examine how one school district used design thinking for innovation.

1. Design Thinking in Education: A Case Study
Following One School District's Approach to
Innovation for the 21st Century
A Dissertation Presented
to
The Faculty of the School of Education
Department of Leadership Studies
Organization and Leadership Program
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
by
Loraine Rossi de Campos
San Francisco
December 2014

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page ...............................................................................................................
Abstract .................................................................................................................
Certification of the Reading Committee.................................................................
Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................
Dedication.................................................................................................................
Disertation Abstract ..................................................................................................
Table of Contents......................................................................................................
List of Figure..............................................................................................................
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Rationale.............................................................................................
Theoritical Framework........................................................................
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................
Statement of the Problem ..................................................................
Scope and Delimitation of th Study........................................................
Importance of the Study ...................................................................
Definition of Terms ............................................................................
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STUDIES...................................
Related Literature...................................................................................
Related Studies.......................................................................................
III. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................
Research Design .....................................................................................
Sources of Data.......................................................................................
Tools for Data Analysis ............................................................................
IV. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
OF THE DATA ....................................................................................
V. SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUDING
REMARKS...................................................................................................................
Summary ................................................................................................................
Concluding ………………………..........................................................................
Recommendatons.......................................................................................................
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................
Recommendatons.......................................................................................................
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................

3. CHAPTER 1
Rationale
The Need for Lifelong Learning
The inevitability of lifelong learning in knowledge-oriented societies implies that school
systems should have different objectives and characteristics than if education were considered to
have been completed when a student leaves initial education. Yet in practice, there remains a
tendency for school education to be assessed in terms of the achievements and targets that
systems have set themselves, rather than their broader success in laying the foundation for
lifelong learning.
In the knowledge economy, memorization of facts and procedures is not enough for
success. Educated workers need a conceptual understanding of complex concepts, and the ability
to work with them creatively to generate new ideas, new theories, new products, and new
knowledge. They need to be able critically to evaluate what they read, be able to express
themselves clearly both verbally and in writing, and understand scientific and mathematical
thinking. They need to learn integrated and usable knowledge, rather than the sets of
compartmentalised and de-contextualised facts. They need to be able to take responsibility for
their own continuing, life-long learning.
What PISA has to say According to PISA, school systems are not outstandingly
successful in preparing students for the kinds of abilities and skills that build the foundation for
lifelong learning. PISA attainments shed light on this question as they are based on a dynamic
model “in which new knowledge and skills necessary for successful adaptation to a changing
world are continuously acquired throughout life” (PISA, 2003b), rather than measuring
achievement in terms of specific curricula. With its focus on reading, mathematical and scientific
“literacy”, PISA emphasises the mastery of processes, the understanding of concepts, and the
ability to function in different situations in each domain, rather than the possession of specific
knowledge.
For instance, in only 5 OECD countries do more than two-thirds of young people reach or
surpass PISA level 3 in reading literacy - the level which involves comprehension and
interpretation of moderately complex text. (The 5 countries are: Canada, Finland, Ireland, Korea,
and New Zealand.) The average across OECD countries is 57.1% attaining level 3 or above. In
17 OECD countries, 40% or more do not
PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), has
measured the outcomes of education systems at the end of
compulsory schooling and related factors every three years since
2000, involving well over 1 million 15-year-olds surveyed and
over 60 countries.
Achieve at the level 3 threshold in reading literacy, and these low-performing students
are in the majority in four of these countries. The countries which have 40% or more achieving at
best at level 2 are Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Turkey, and

4. the United Kingdom. They are the majority of students in Greece, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, the
Slovak Republic, Spain, and Turkey. [PISA2006, Chapter 6]
Regarding problem-solving, around a fifth of the students in all OECD countries in 2003
could be considered “reflective, communicative problem-solvers”, who are able to analyse a
situation, make decisions and manage multiple conditions simultaneously, with just under a third
being ”reasoning, decision-making problem-solvers” and a third counted as ”basic problem
solvers”. This leaves around 16 % considered as “weak or emergent problem-solvers”, who are
generally unable to analyse situations or solve problems that call for more than the direct
collection of information.
Hence, the PISA results provide a prime facie case in that too many students are not well
prepared for the knowledge society in terms of the different literacies and problem-solving
abilities. These arguments are supported by many analysts working in the learning sciences.
The Learning Sciences Argument When learning scientists (Sawyer, 2006) first went into
classrooms, they discovered that most schools were not teaching the deep knowledge that
underlies knowledge work. By the 1980s, cognitive scientists had discovered that children retain
material better, and are able to generalise it to a broader range of contexts, when they learn deep
knowledge rather than surface knowledge, and when they learn how to use that knowledge in
real-world social and practical settings. Thus, learning scientists began to argue that standard
model schools were not aligned with the knowledge economy.
A set of key findings has emerged from learning sciences research: the importance of
learning deeper conceptual understanding, rather than superficial facts and procedures, the
importance of learning connected and coherent knowledge, rather than knowledge
compartmentalized into distinct subjects and courses, the importance of learning authentic
knowledge in its context of use, rather than decontextualized classroom exercises and the
importance of learning collaboratively, rather than in isolation.
Traditional models of schooling which are not in line with these key findings and, so runs
this argument, are thus not well suited to our knowledge economies and societies. Therefore,
learning scientists are calling for a change of today‟s schools.
The Call for New Approaches from „Schooling for Tomorrow‟ A radical change with a
strong focus on learning has not only been called for by learning scientists, but also by some very
near to policy-making at different times in the Schooling for Tomorrow programme. The keynote
address of Michael Barber to the 2000 Rotterdam Conference, for instance, argued from new
driving forces to new models in the following terms:
The explosion of knowledge about the brain and the
nature of learning, combined with the growing power of
technology, create the potential to transform even the most
fundamental unit of education - the interaction of the teacher and
the learner. Moreover, huge social changes, such as growing
diversity and population mobility, present educators with new
and constantly changing circumstances. As a result, the
characteristics which defined the successful education systems
of, say, 1975, are unlikely to be those which will define success
in the future. (OECD 2003a: 115)

5. More recently, the need to search for new approaches was articulated forcefully in the
conclusions of the Toronto Schooling for Tomorrow Forum in June 2004, especially by one of
the Canadian rapporteurs, Raymond Daigle:
For the past 15 years or so, a number of industrialised countries have
been implementing sweeping and costly reforms. Although there was
some real initial progress, these reforms have ultimately come up
against a wall, or rather a ceiling, beyond which further progress
seems impossible, leading increasing numbers of school
administrators and educators to wonder whether schools do not need
to be reformed but to be reinvented. (OECD 2006a: 187-188)
Like Barber‟s focus on the interaction of teacher and learner, Daigle talks about the
micro level – the organisation of teaching and learning in the place we call „the school‟. He does
not suppose that „the school‟ is necessarily an institution of formal schooling; for if it is to be
reinvented it can refer to all number of arrangements through which organised, deliberate
learning might take place.
The views of these particular commentators of the need for different approaches to
education – „reinvention‟ in Daigle‟s words – share the fundamental belief and are in line with
the argument of the learning scientists that the most fruitful area to search for new approaches
will lie in close attention to the nature of learning itself.
Insights from CERI and RelatedOECD Studies on Learning There have been a
number of projects in the Education Directorate of the OECD and in CERI in particular that give
insights on learning and provide directions for educational change that is focussing on learning.
The projects and their main findings will be presented in this section.
The Neuro-scientific Study of Learning The purpose of the CERI project on “Learning
Sciences and Brain Research” was to encourage collaboration between learning sciences and
brain research on the one hand, and researchers and policy makers on the other hand. It has
produced two important publications (see: OECD 2002 and 2007), as well as resulted in
intensive collaboration, networking and dialogue.
On many questions, neuroscience builds on the conclusions of existing knowledge from
other sources, such as psychological study, classroom observation or achievement surveys. But
the neuro-scientific contribution is important as it opens up understanding of „causation‟ not just
„correlation‟ and so can help identify effective interventions and solutions. Neuroscience is also
generating new knowledge, opening up new avenues. Without understanding the brain, for
instance, it would not be possible to know about different patterns of brain activities, e.g. why
certain learning difficulties are apparent in particular students even when they seem to be coping
well with other educational demands.
The understanding of literacy in the brain is one important area where brain research can
inform reading instruction. The dual importance in the brain of sounds and phonological
processing, on the one hand, and the direct processing of semantics or meanings, on the other,
can inform the classic debate between top-down and bottom-up approaches – “whole language”
text immersion and the development of phonetic skills, respectively. Learning sciences have also
charted the inverse relationship between age and the effectiveness of learning many aspects of
language – in general, the younger the age of exposure, the more successful the second- or third-
language learning. This is at odds with the education policies of numerous countries where
foreign language instruction does not begin until adolescence. This is a good example where

6. learning science confronts educational practice to ask whether attention to the evidence base
calls for significant change to conventional practice.
The study of the brain also highlights the importance of emotions. Emotional states
induced by fear or stress directly affect learning and memory. Brain studies have illuminated
how negative emotions block learning and have identified the amygdala, the hippocampus and
stress hormones, as playing a crucial role in mediating the effects of negative emotions on
learning and memory. Some level of stress is essential for optimal adaptation to environmental
challenges and can lead to better cognition and learning, but beyond this modicum it activates
responses in the brain associated with flight and survival and inhibits those responsible for
analytical capacity. Hence if the student is faced with sources of stress in an educational context
which go beyond the positive challenge threshold – for instance, aggressive teachers, bullying
students, or incomprehensible learning materials whether books or computers – it triggers fear
and cognitive function is negatively affected. Therefore, it might end up showing that concepts
which place emotional factors to the fore in various forms of “alternative schooling”, which had
previously been grasped intuitively or philosophically, may in fact have very sound neuro-
scientific underpinnings. One of the most surprising elements to emerge from the recent report
on „Understanding the Brain‟ concerns the more general, practical issue of how the science of
learning should be applied in education. Beyond informing general policy and practice, the
eventual application of the results of neuroscience to individual learners may be highly beneficial
in order to find out such matters as whether a student really does comprehend certain material, or
about their levels of motivation or anxiety. Used properly, this individual focus may add
fundamentally powerful diagnostic tools to the process of formative assessment and personalised
learning, as discussed above. At the same time, studies of the brain show that individual
characteristics are far from fixed – there is constant interaction between genetic function and
experience and plasticity, such that the notion of an individual‟s talents/capacity – as if this were
fixed and open to scientific scrutiny - should be treated with considerable caution.
Personalised learning the aim of “personalising learning” is of growing prominence in
thinking and policy discussion in some countries. It springs from awareness that “one-size-fits-
all” approaches to school knowledge and organisation are ill-adapted to individuals‟ needs and
to the knowledge society at large. This emerging idea is that systems capable of achieving
universally high standards are those that can personalise the programme of learning and
progression offered to the needs and motivations of each learner. Personalisation can mean
adopting a more holistic, person-centred approach to learner development, as well as more
demand-driven, market-friendly approaches to system change. In part, it reflects a change in
social climate, driven by the affluence and value change that arise from sustained economic
growth.
The degree of interest is reflected in the recent OECD/CERI publication, “Personalising
Education”, [OECD, 2006(b)]. Sanna Jarvela‟s contribution to that volume summarises some of
the findings of research into the nature of learning and aims for education, which the
personalisation agenda addresses:
 Collaborative efforts and networked forms of expertise are increasingly needed in the
future knowledge society.
 Students need to be able to develop their personal learning needs and individual
expertise in the areas which they either feel incompetent or they want to increase their existing
expertise.  Curiosity and creativity are increasingly essential.

7.  Learning is developed through explicit learning strategies, learning to learn skills,
technological capacities for individual and social learning activities, and through learning
communities with collaborative learning models.
 Learning needs to be sensitive to contextual conditions, different values and cultural
features.
 When technology is seen as an intelligent tool for supporting individual learning, as
well as collaborative learning among different individuals, there are multiple ways to expand
potential in every student.
Assessment for Learning - Formative Assessment assessment for learning may be
viewed as an essential element of more personalised approaches to education. It refers to
assessment of student progress that is an ongoing part of everyday teaching, rather than a special
event. Like other approaches which place learning at the centre – such as mastery learning or
intensive tutoring – they have been associated with significant gains in achievement. As well as
promising to raise standards, such approaches address equity head on. They do so through the
individualisation of teaching and learning strategies and through the continual identification of
and responses to students who are experiencing difficulties. Moreover, these approaches are
explicitly about developing cultures of learning in schools and classrooms. Yet, they receive far
less prominence than conventional forms of assessment such as achievement tests and
examinations which are much more in the “one-size-fits-all” mode. All this helps to explain the
interest of formative assessment to CERI (OECD 2005a).
Formative assessment is designed to provide teachers and students with critical
information about learning needs, help students to assess their progress towards learning goals,
and guide teachers to vary their teaching according to needs and goals. It can include data from a
number of sources such as classroom interactions, as well as more conventional forms of
assessment such as tests and examinations. It provides ways of responding to the aims of
enhancing learning and augmenting teacher professionalism rather than assuming that the act of
assessment itself, providing summary measures of achievement levels, is tantamount to
improvement. Some of the core methods and practices of formative assessment are useful to note
as potentially framing elements in enhancing the role of learning in innovation.
“New Millennium Learners” The CERI project entitled “New Millennium Learners”
investigates the effects of digital technologies on school-age learners. The project examines the
characteristics of learners and the impact of their sustained use of digital devices and services.
Surprisingly little is known about the effects of technologies on cognitive skills, outside of areas
related to visual-spatial skills and nonverbal forms of intelligence. The influence of technology
use on reasoning capability and judgment has been shown to be relatively small, while there are
many studies regarding the influence of technology use on abilities related to information
processing, reflective and critical thinking, creativity and, in general, meta-cognitive skills.
However, no research review has documented a positive effect yet on the basis of empirical
research. It may be that this shows the need for a “neuroscience of children and media” intended
to research the impact of digital media on children‟s brain development, a need that has only
been expressed very recently (C.A. Anderson, 2007).
Studies carried out with pre-adolescent children so far seem to indicate the importance of
two factors: first, the impulse to experiment and discover, and the consequent lack of fear, that
characterises the exploratory behaviour of children at a young age; and second, the
predisposition to emulate adults‟ behaviour. The latter relates in turn to the issue of gender

8. differences of technology use and the consequent impact this might have in education, both at
home and in schools. Hence the relevance of this work for enhancing creativity – the natural
dispositions of young people to experiment with ICT – alongside constraining factors (in this
case the role models provided by too many adults and the discouraging cultures of too many
schools).
An issue of competing policy discourses has been identified in the work of “New
Millennium Learners”. On the one hand, there is the discourse which claims that the real
educational benefits of using ICTs are to be seen in domains such as team-working, creativity,
problem-solving and the like, in ways very close to the subject of this paper. Yet so long as these
are not central to (or even recognised in!) assessment systems such as national examinations, the
potential for realising such benefits will always be severely constrained. The second discourse
focuses on the factors with a demonstrated impact on boosting educational performance as
measured in existing national and international surveys. And, as yet, there is insufficient
evidence that ICT use does have an incontrovertible impact on standards so undermining, for
those wedded to this discourse, the educational arguments for imaginative ICT use in schools.
However, no-one should expect each and every use of ICT to have a positive learning
impact – focusing the question back onto the ways in which ICT is used, in which circumstances,
for which students etc – and asking for incontrovertible evidence of the benefits of ICT in a
learning society may be no more sensible than to ask for the evidence about the value of books
before buying any for schools.
PISA on Approaches to Learning The PISA findings show that there is a positive
association between students‟ performance and their approaches to learning, such as their
motivation to learn, their beliefs about their own abilities and their learning strategies. These
learning approaches are not only associated with success but can also be viewed as an
educational outcome on its own: once students leave school, they have to manage most of their
own learning. To do this, they need to be able to establish goals, to persevere, to monitor their
learning process, to adjust their learning strategies as necessary and to overcome difficulties in
learning. Students who leave school with the autonomy to set their own learning goals are better
equipped to become successful lifelong learners.
PISA shows that there is a large variation in learner characteristics among students in
each school. Relatively few schools succeed in promoting particularly strong approaches to
learning among their students. This underlines the importance for schools and teachers to be able
to engage constructively with heterogeneity not only in student abilities but also in their
characteristics as learners and their approaches to learning. PISA shows how important positive
approaches to learning are for successful and lifelong learning. As argued above, they give rise
to concern that many countries are not well prepared for the knowledge society in terms of the
literacy and problem solving abilities of their next generation. Thus it is legitimate to ask the
question, if the traditional way of learning in many countries, is adequate for the 21st century
world.
Exemplary Designs for Learning the OECD‟s Programme for Educational Building
(PEB) periodically conducts a selection of educational designs to help the planners of
educational facilities know what is possible through showcasing leading international examples
(OECD 2006c). The international PEB jury chooses the facilities featured in the publication for
their fitness for educational purpose, with the new designs fitting one or more of the criteria
described below. The facilities‟ construction, design or use is judged to be noteworthy and to

9. contribute to educational quality. Included are newly built or renovated buildings, extensions or
grounds.
Flexibility is the main criterion used which is of interest to this report. This is understood
to mean that buildings or grounds are adapted to new forms of learning and research; institutions
that make special use of information and communications technology; or special educational
facilities. Characteristics include transformable learning spaces, student-centredness, problem-
based learning facilities, or provision for students with physical, learning or behavioural
difficulties or for “at-risk” students (those whose educational needs arise primarily from socio-
economic, cultural or linguistic factors).
There are other criteria considered by the jury. One is community needs: institutions that
encourage community involvement and/or access by giving multiple stakeholders the
opportunity to participate in their design, planning or day-to-day management; by catering to
lifelong learning; or by sharing the facilities with students‟ families or others. Another is
sustainability: facilities that demonstrate special consideration for the environment through the
efficient use of energy, choice of materials, local or natural resources, siting or management.
Safety and security is a further criterion, as is alternative financing, of capital expenditure
(including the use of private financing), or buildings whose life-cycle costs are sustainable.
Educational Reform and Innovation Educational reform and the concept of innovation
are clearly related to the search after new approaches to learning. If a school is to change so that
its approach to learning is significantly different from what went before it will often need
innovation.
Innovation and Knowledge Management Many studies have argued for more flexible,
open forms of learning and of school organisation but while it is not difficult to identify
numerous promising examples, it is not so easy to find evidence of more sustained and
widespread change. A variety of the factors inhibiting fundamental change to traditional
practices has been analysed in OECD/CERI work on knowledge management (OECD 2000a;
OECD, 2004a). This suggests that, in general, schools have weak networking and knowledge-
sharing among teachers. Spending on educational research and development is very low in
contrast to other sectors of activity characterised by the intensive creation and use of knowledge
and the application of the R&D is quite limited. Most of the professional knowledge that teachers
use in their daily work is tacit: it is rarely made explicit or shared with colleagues. Schools and
classrooms are normally isolated one from another rather than interlinked. In short, the message
is that too many schools still tend to have only rudimentary knowledge management practices,
despite knowledge being education‟s explicit business.
Reform and Innovation what is the relationship between reform and innovation? It would
be too simple to contrast the enterprise of reform as something directed from the centre and
necessarily flawed in contrast with the value of grass-roots innovation. The encouragement of
innovation as something isolated might even be a way of diffusing the pressure to change, as
Maria Roldau maintained in an earlier „Schooling for Tomorrow‟ volume reflecting on 1990s
Portuguese developments:
The “culture of the experiment”, conceived and experienced as an
exception to the general rule that remains otherwise untouched, made
its way deeply into schools and teachers‟ professionalism…This idea
of doing “good experimental things” means predominantly something
interesting and innovative that affects only some people in the school

10. or segment of the system but not the routines and the largely
dominant practices of teachers and schools. (OECD 2003: 89-90)
Hence, there is need to understand more profoundly the nature of innovation and to focus
on its encouragement and sustainability, even bureaucratisation, rather than just gather examples
of innovative practice as if by themselves they might inspire a profound change of practice.
Cros rehearsed in her contribution to the 1999 “Schooling for Tomorrow” volume some
alternatives for understanding the generalisation of innovation based on very different metaphors
and social processes.
In the Research-development-dissemination-adoption model, there are clear stages to be
followed based on the industrial conception of innovation as a technical process. This assumes
linear rationality, planning and the division of labour. Some of the evidence-based approaches to
educational policy and practice relate to this industrial conception of diffusion.
In the epidemiological model, innovation is understood to spread in a given population
rather as an epidemic, following a cumulative S-shaped logistic curve as growing numbers of
people are “touched”. More recent, naturalist theories of culture see ideas as contagious, not
practices. This relates to the discussion of personalisation and the warning of widening existing
inequalities. The epidemiological model of change would anticipate such an initial widening of
gaps, followed by subsequent re-closing as the innovation diffuses.
Individual decisions and their aggregated social effects lie at the core of the social-
interactionist model in contrast with the epidemiological model which allows little room for
wishes or decisions. This focuses on mechanisms for persuasion, more or less complicated,
linked to two key parameters: a) given and received information; b) communications networks.
In the institutionalisation innovation model, an innovation has a finite duration and, in
the best of cases, it leaves traces of its existence. When it is adopted by an institution, it becomes
appropriated so that the innovation loses its newness and energy, is absorbed by the institution,
and becomes part of a routine. The innovation is firmly institutionalised when it has found its
way into legislation requiring new forms of practice.
CERI has developed analysis of innovation in terms of four “pumps”: the “science-
based” innovation pump (research and development), “horizontally-organised” innovation pump
(networking), “modular structures” innovation pump (organisation), and “ICT based” innovation
pump to conclude that the potential of all these is underdeveloped in education. Since then, we
have moved towards the issue of making educational innovations more systemic, beginning with
those in Vocational Education and Training and Digital Learning Resources. We are also
actively contributing to the OECD Innovation Strategy.
Confronting the Resilience of Bureaucratic Systems Tom Bentley, in an analysis recently
prepared for OECD/CERI, argues that the challenges being placed before schooling requires
identifying and harnessing a particular approach to innovation and system change to recreate the
parameters of teaching, learning, participation and organisation. And it requires that we
understand properly the sources of bureaucratic and systemic resilience.
For Bentley, what is striking is the formal universal priority now enjoyed politically by
education yet with very similar reform goals adopted from country to country, with a strong
focus on pushing up quality through standards-based reform. For him, this focus has not resulted
in the replacement of the traditional bureaucratic model of schooling.

11. One explanation is that the familiar model of schooling has become so entrenched that it
is simply impossible to overturn it, because of the vested interests and centuries-old habits that
hold it in place. Traditional models of bureaucracy are usually characterised as rigid, rule-based,
and internally focused. But perhaps the explanation for their resilience in fact lies in their
peculiar flexibility. Rather than the formal, rational objectives and accountabilities of the
institutional system, which is the focus of so much school reform, much recent thinking about
the nature of social and economic behaviour has focused on the evolution of complex adaptive
systems. That is, human behaviour is adaptive in that it continuously adjusts to changing
environments and new experience, even without conscious decision-making.
These organisational structures are functional in the sense of creating the predictability
and responsibilities needed in order to organise at large scale. However, they produce boundaries
which limit the possibilities of learning, because they limit the scope of inquiry, interaction and
information flow, in teaching and learning activities. It results in a combination of stability and
incremental change which allows the traditional model of schooling, and of bureaucratic school
systems, to adapt continuously to all kinds of external change. It is thus well able to deflect the
disruptive potential of almost any innovation, no matter where it is coming from.
The lesson Bentley draws is that, rather than seeking to subvert or bypass the adaptive
capacity of existing systems, new reform strategies for improvement need to harness them. They
must connect them with the relentless, open-ended pursuit of better learning outcomes, rather
than to the implicit preservation of their own core values and underlying structure. For that, we
need a new view of innovation and its relationship to system design, and a refreshed sense of the
global context into which we should put education.
Conclusions and Concluding Questions What do CERI projects tell us on the nature of
learning and how can this knowledge base help policymakers to shape their direction of educated
change? The key findings of these projects give useful directions for new learning environments
in today‟s schools:
Personalised learning Learning sciences research suggests that more effective learning
will occur if each learner receives a customized learning experience. Different learners enter the
classroom with different cognitive structures and as we know from neuroscience, individual
characteristics are far from fixed. Therefore, students learn best when they are placed in a
learning environment that is sensitive to their pre-existing structures and that is flexible enough
to adapt teaching strategies to individual needs. Formative assessment can be seen as an essential
element of those personalised learning approaches, as it is characterized by the continual
identification of and responses to students‟ needs.
The importance of motivation and emotion in learning The motivation to learn, the
belief about one‟s own abilities and the existence of learning strategies are a precondition for
successful and lifelong learning, as PISA has shown. These findings are supported by the results
from neuroscience: Negative emotions that are caused, e.g. by incomprehensible learning
materials, affect cognitive functions negatively.
Use of diverse knowledge sources Learners can acquire knowledge whenever they need
it from a variety of sources: books, technology, and experts around the globe. ICTs have become
more and more important in today‟s world to acquire knowledge. Even though ICTs itself do not
seem to have a positive learning impact, it is unquestionable that the use of ICTs itself needs to
be a goal of today‟s schools.

12. Assessment for learning Tests should evaluate the student‟s deeper conceptual
understanding, the extent to which their knowledge is integrated, coherent, and contextualized –
instead of focussing on the memorization of facts. In addition, the work on formative assessment
shows how assessment should not only be used to „test‟ student‟s abilities but to help them
assess their own learning progress.
But there are also a number of questions remaining that will inform new CERI work:
1. On the learning sciences, there seems to be a widely-held viewpoint, among those
arguing for educational change at least, that this new discipline should provide the evidence base
for very different ways of organising education than under traditional arrangements. Are these
sciences yet at the stage to offer this profound basis of change? If not, what more exploration and
synthesis is needed – where are the gaps? If yes, are there clear messages about the best ways of
organising learning to convince the sceptic – what are they? On neither count is the picture yet
clear so this is a task which this study can very usefully address.
2. Despite the intense interest for a couple of decades in ICT applications in education,
the „new millennium learner‟ activity finds a weak evidence base on many basic questions. It is
common to observe that ICT by itself is simply part of the whole set of the resources and means
available for learning and education: the important question is not whether it is used but how it is
used. Similarly, it has long been apparent that much of the use of ICT in schools has been as an
alternative way of doing the same thing as before rather than to do something different. If this is
the case, for which aspects of learning does ICT permit things to be done which otherwise cannot
be? What is its unique “value-added”?
3. Many of the examples of innovative practice identified through different projects take
place in the “place called school”. It may well be helpful as a heuristic device to use a stereotype
construct of traditional schooling – transmission pedagogy, emphasis on the reproduction of
facts, strong selection based on binary right vs. wrong answers and uni-dimensional intelligence,
negligible cooperation among teachers and among learners, highly standardised organisational
and physical units etc. Yet in reality and worldwide, schools cover a very wide range of
approaches to learning, just as some of what takes place in out-of-school settings may be even
more traditional and close to the stereotype.
The scale of the challenge should not to be under-estimated: it certainly will not be
achieved by the optimistic hope that repetition of the need for change will somehow magically
bring it about. Education is not a technocratic process which, with a little tweaking here and
there, can be shifted to a new paradigm – school systems are both resistant to change and highly
adaptable. At the very least, major reform will need to arrive at basic consistency and resolution
of the contradiction whereby assessment and accountability regimes may stifle the very
approaches to learning and innovation that the reform seeks in principle to encourage.
Theoretical Framework
This study of Collaborative learning is structured blending of online tutorials, and lecture
supplemented with Socratic dialogue, role-based group assignments and other similar activities seems to
be a viable option in the context of the University of Botswana (UB). Successful blending requires an
understanding of the pedagogical attributes and affordances1 of new and emerging learning
technologies, the most desirable aspects of face-to-face teaching and the ways in which these aspects can
be appropriately integrated as discussed in the following sections. Therefore, this chapter discusses the

13. scope of these technologies in Higher Education (HE) from various perspectives, its potential impact on
the net generation students, its affordances in student learning and research, distinct features of elearning
and blended learning, how these modes of delivery compare with traditional face-to-face approaches,
and their benefits to higher education as well as the challenges they pose. This chapter also helps to gain
understanding of the conditions under which the enabling potential of technology will be realised and
further, establish the purpose of this study. In order to establish the rationale of placing blended learning
at the core of this study, this chapter proposes a theoretical framework that serves as the foundation for
the study; it is critical to have a theoretical framework as this is a descriptive and interpretive qualitative
case study; it helped the Researcher to review the underlying theories, philosophies, assumptions, and
methodological techniques of the study, and to formulate the basis for developing instruments for data
collection.
Blended learning does not have a pedagogy of its own, but it draws its strength from the three
basic theoretical perspectives on learning: behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Therefore, a
review of all these three basic learning theories and a few other theories derived from these that have
relevance to the design of studentcentred blended learning environments (e.g., social constructivism,
activity theory, and situated cognition) was made. Such a review of learning theories is critical to
formulate a scaffold upon which this study can be grounded. The literature review continues to Chapter
3 where a review of instructional systems design models, constructivist design principles and emerging
views around learning designs will be made in order to identify appropriate learning design principles
based on relevant perspectives from learning theories (which are descriptive). Moreover, this chapter
addresses the first two specific objectives and the first part of the third one listed under the research
question posed in Chapter 1, Section 1.8.
Societal foundation of the study
The 21st century society makes great demands on its members because of rapidly developing
and ever-changing political, cultural, social, economical and technological situations. Personal
computers, cell phones, and social networks, all of which were once considered frivolous, have made
such a huge impact on our culture that our daily lives will not be easy without them. Consequently, the
society expects its members to keep pace with these changing situations, and adapt their skills and
expertise in all aspects of life. Many societies around the world strongly believe that it is the duty of
higher education institutions to provide its youths with these skills and expertise. This raises increasing
societal concern for the quality of learning and teaching at higher education institutions. As a result of
such unprecedented pressure on educational institutions to keep pace with the ever-changing societal
needs and expectations, the emphasis in educational approaches has shifted over time in order to reflect
the transition from less formal schooling in the agrarian society to remedial repetitive learning in the
industrialization age to learning with an understanding (rather than teaching) in today’s knowledge
society. Educational approaches have also been influenced by the recent rapid advances and
proliferation of new communications technology. The kind of skills students need to develop to be
prepared for the jobs of the 21st century is different from what they needed 20 and odd years ago.
Today’s employers look for young people with problem-solving, interpersonal and team skills. The
concept of 'lifelong learning' and its role in building a 'knowledge society' are also high on the agenda.
As a result, learning design approaches, goals and processes as well as appropriate learning
environments must support the development of the aforementioned skills and expertise. Thus, an urgent
need to devise new ways of teaching and learning is critical if we are to prepare our students to live,
work and prosper in the 21st century. As a result, different modern educational strategies such as self-
directed learning, collaborative learning, experiential-based learning and active learning have emerged.
Although the new technology has significant impact on most segments of our society— work, leisure,

14. culture and social interaction— the same degree of its uptake has not been seen in the higher education
classrooms. Many educators believe that technology has the potential to solve many of the pressures
associated with the societal change in attitude and delivery of education (Franklin and Peat, 2001).
Considering the growing understanding of the potential of the internet and communications technology
(ICT) to connect learners with learners as well as with instructors, and to provide them with interactive
and engaged learning experiences, the transformation of teaching and learning in HE is inevitable. As
new educational technologies become available, re-thinking conventional practices around teaching and
learning is of paramount importance as resources gradually diminish and demand for access to better
quality higher education dramatically increase. Information overload is a serious concern in an
information-based, technology-driven society. So much information is available in the form of facts,
concepts, rules and procedures. For educators, the rapid changes in information and technology present
several challenges. Information literacy skill has become one of the essential skills as the other 3R’s
(Reading, writing, and arithmetic) in order to judge what information is “essential” and what content
information has to be included into their curriculum. All these require educators to train their students to
search for, access, retrieve, interpret, synthesize, organize, and communicate information, as well as to
become independent, life-long learners. In order to address the needs and demands associated with a
knowledge society and the wave of technological innovations, the HE system in Botswana must
transform.
According to Garrison and Vaughan (2008) higher education must start delivering on its
promises of providing learning experiences that engage and address the needs of society in the twenty-
first century. The good news is that the government of Botswana is fully committed to the widespread
adoption of ICTs in all sectors of society, including education. Subsequently, the University of
Botswana has developed the required technological infrastructure including the acquisition of an LMS
(Blackboard/WebCT), with a view to advancing one of its aspirations to develop a student-centred,
intellectually stimulating, and technologically advanced teaching, learning, and research environment
(University of Botswana, 2004). This study is around developing a model to tap the potential of new and
emerging technology by blending it with the traditional face-to-face teaching and learning environment
at UB.
The scope of ICT in higher education If African countries cannot take advantage of the
information revolution and surf this great wave of technological change, they may be crushed by it…
Catching this wave will require visionary leadership in Africa. …… Naidoo and Schutte (1999, p. 90)
Although modern technologies have had huge impact on most aspects of our lives, and the
society in general, they did not have the same transformative effect on higher education in Botswana. In
the following sections, the Researcher throws some light on why he thinks technology-supported
learning environments, when developed correctly and used appropriately, can engage students in
learning and can have a positive impact on student outcomes in higher education because that is the
underlying driver of this study. The discussions focus on ICT’s impact on higher education students’
characteristics, ICT’s benefits to students in their learning process and associated challenges. Further,
this section addresses the research objective, “to understand the strengths of ICT in higher education
context and the rationale of using it in teaching and learning in relation to conventional face-to-face
instructional approaches, and to identify the way forward to realise these strengths.” Chapter 2:
Theoretical framework and literature review 43 2.2.1 The impact of new technologies on the
characteristics
The impact of new technologies on the characteristics of higher education students Environment
seems to have an impact on a person’s intellectual development. As a result, it is likely that the rapid
societal and technological changes can have a huge impact on how students think and learn.

15. Neuroscientists are advancing their research into areas relevant to education. Dr. Gary Small, one of
America's leading neuroscientists and experts on brain function and behaviour in a new book called
‘iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind’ argues that daily exposure to
digital technologies such as the internet and smart phones can alter how the brain works (Small, 2008).
According to him, as we continue to learn, our brains continue to develop and create new pathways and
new connections which are continually shaped, reshaped and controlled by advancing societal and
technological advances. Recently, social networking applications such as blogs, wikis, and twitter have
seen an unprecedented uptake by many people, especially by the youth. Growing in an interactive,
socially interconnected technology environment, as compared to such passive activities as watching
television or listening to a lecture can cause a huge change in the demographics, interests, needs,
expectations and work habits of today’s student population. When technology and its impact is
ubiquitous and pervasive in all aspects of our life, our classrooms need to reflect what goes on around
outside. Schools must try to bridge the gap between classrooms and real-world scenarios. In the world of
pervasive Internet, and the Web 2.0 social networking technologies2 , learners are also evolving into a
new genre—the so-called “digital natives” who want to be in constant communication with their peers,
expect individualized instruction and a personalized learning environment, which automatically adapt to
their individual needs. In a recent study by Researchers at the University of Maryland on the impact of
cell phones, social media and the Internet on American college students, 200 students were asked to give
up all media for one full day (The New York Times, April 23, 2010). The study found that after 24
hours many of them showed signs of withdrawal, craving and anxiety along with an inability to function
well without their
Media and social links; these, in fact, are symptoms similar to drug and alcohol addictions.
Today's technologically savvy new generation of students have often taught themselves technical skills
and digital literacy; they use technologies—internet, mobile phones, instant messaging, and the like—
for socialisation, entertainment, etc and do not see technology as something foreign. They consider
technology to be part of their lives. It does not make sense to deprive learners of technology while they
are at school; they will want and readily accept technology at school.
As a result of such significant impact of new technology tools, most of today’s students enrolled
into HE institutions think and process information fundamentally different from their predecessors; they
may not be satisfied with the traditional transmission approach of the lecture approach and knowledge
transmission; they would prefer to interact with the instructor and to be in constant communication with
their peers, and learn best in highly customisable environments in which knowledge can be created and
shared collaboratively.
Further, they would expect technologicallyliterate teachers, a new form of tuition with emphasis
on individualized instruction and a personalized, engaging learning environment, new models of learner
support, and access to technology-supported courses. Dey, Burn, and Gerdes (2009) lament that students
arrive on campuses ready to engage information in new ways, only to find faculty who are reluctant to
alter their traditional and entrenched teaching approaches. It will soon be not a surprise if students
question conventional practices as an effective approach to engage them in critical and creative thinking
and learning. Therefore, a revolution in Botswana higher education landscape is inevitable. By
employing technologies familiar to students for designing and developing learning environments,
educators can better stimulate their active involvement in experiential and authentic learning in engaging
ways. Incorporating the concept of Web 2.0 into our courses, both on—campus and online—will help
elicit learner participation beyond the standard textual expectations and engage them more as active
learners (Kurtz and Sponder, 2010).

16. The classrooms have to change to reflect what goes on around outside, and to bridge the gap
between classrooms and real-world conditions such as changing workplace demands. As Tapscott
(2009) points out, the net generation (students born during 1977-1997) is forcing a change in the model
of teaching, from a “teacher-focused approach based on instruction to a student-focused model based on
collaboration.” According to Chris Dede (2005) “Rapid advances in information technology are
reshaping the learning styles of many students in higher education.” As a result, advances in technology
create new opportunities for higher education; emerging technologies can be used to deliver instruction
matched to the learning styles of the new genre of students. Therefore it is critical for Higher education
to make use of modern technologies in a manner that encourages and optimizes learning. However,
engaging students in meaningful and rewarding instructional activities in technology-supported learning
environments is a real challenge for both researchers and educators. It has become necessary for them to
learn more about their students and to put that understanding to work in the design and implementation
of their teaching and learning environments. Unfortunately, the new learner characteristics and needs are
not recognised by some or most of the teachers. Gabriel (2008) notes a recurring complaint among
university teachers that most of today’s students come underprepared to university; the simple reason for
this view is that most of today’s students are not interested in sitting down in traditional classrooms to
attend long lectures.
Conceptual Framework
One such mode for examining this type of work is through the concept of artefact analysis
(Halverson, 2003). For the purpose of this study, artifact analysis was used to explore how one school
district employed design thinking and though the use of a design team, began enacting reform efforts.
Drost (2008) suggested that the investigation, the object of design, the designer or design team, the
process, and the context in which the activity occurs, should all be interpreted as part of the study of
design. Used as the conceptual framework for this study, artifact analysis is dynamic enough to capture
the process and the context of the District Design Team (DDT) while bringing into focus the attributes
of the Design Team’s role as a sophisticated artifact within the district (Halverson 2003, 2006;
Halverson et. al., 2004). Halverson, Kelly, and Kimball (2004) argued that policies and programs can be
understood as sophisticated artifacts intended to shape or reform existing practices in an institutional
context. Leaders interested in reforming or innovating within organizations must engage in the process
of deconstructing and then rebuilding a new set of artifacts to shape organizational practices (Halverson,
2003). As a primary function of the DDT is to facilitate the implementation of the district’s vision for
21st-Century Learning, it can be viewed as a sophisticated artifact. Further, the actors and actions of the
DDT can be followed to investigate the extent to which a new artifact or set of artifacts can shape the 20
district’s practices toward successfully achieving the goals established by the implementation process.
According to Halverson (2006), designers build features into artifact(s) to shape practice in intended
ways. Analyzing the various components of artifacts creates an opportunity to investigate how
designers thought about the practices, therefore making it possible to use artifacts to trace the ways in
which leaders think about, initiate, and practice reform efforts in schools (Halverson, 2003, 2006;
Halverson, et. al., 2004). Sophisticated artifacts are introduced into educational organizations to alter
existing practices, enhance the capacity for new understandings, and to create new or supportive
organizational conditions (Halverson et. al., 2004).
In 2002, Halverson developed the Design Cycle Analysis Model (DCAM) shown in Figure 2.
This analytic model was designed to track the creation, development, iteration, and subsequent
institutionalization of artifacts. Appropriate to this study, the DCAM model seeks to understand how
artifacts that result from a problem setting and solving cycle can come to serve as resources for future

17. problem setting and artefact design. Component aspects of the DCAM model include the goals of the
designers, the strategies used in the design and implementation of the artifact, the resources drawn upon
in design and implementation, the situational constraints and affordances that affected the
implementation and use, and the ways in which artifacts evolved over time to become resources for
successive problem setting efforts (Halverson, 2003). Since artifacts open a window into how leaders
think and act in practice, understanding how leaders use artifacts to develop a capacity for innovation
can help to guide reform efforts (Halverson, 2006).
Figure 2: DCAM (Halverson, 2003)
During this study, the DCAM model was applied while following the DDT. Starting with the
DDT as the artifact, how and why the DDT came to be was explored. The resources and strategies used
to create the DDT, as well as the goals set for the DDT by district leadership, were investigated. After
the problem setting was established, the problem-solving phase of the DDT was reviewed. This included
the activities that the DDT engaged in to address the problem of implementing 21st-Century Learning
within the district and to achieve the goals established for the team. The affordances and constraints that
impacted the use of the DDT within the district were also examined. Through the application of the
artifact analysis framework, an understanding of how the DDT set the groundwork for the successful
implementation of the district’s vision for 21st-Century Learning and created a space for innovation
within the district becomes clear.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
An opportunistic, single-case study, this dissertation was focused on the particular phenomenon
of innovation within a specific elementary school district (Merriam, 2009).
A Conceptual Framework was used to interpret and discuss the findings. Known as artifact analysis, this
dynamic model captured the process and the context of the DDT while bringing into focus the attributes
of the Design Team’s role as a sophisticated artifact within the district (Halverson 2003, 2006;
Halverson et. al., 2004).

18. Findings from this study indicated that the use of the DDT supported the communication of a
definition for 21st-Century Learning throughout the district. Affordances like the use of an
Implementation Plan, generated from the newly adopted Strategic Plan and a shared vision among
district and site level leadership, aided the DDT in their work. Members of the DDT reported that design
thinking played an important role in the mindset of the team and approach of the leadership. Further, all
members of the DDT identified benefits around the use of design thinking either as a problem-
solvingapproach used to create opportunities to explore innovations in education or as a classroom
application through design learning. The DDT also identified constraints and frustrations with the DDT
process and the application of design thinking. This unique opportunity in public education yielded both
practical and theoretical insight into the systemic change process of this small suburban school district.
Statement of the Problem
The 21st-Century Learning and teaching movement is an effort by business leaders, policy
makers, and educators to provide children with the skills necessary for success in a rapidly changing
global and technology-driven society (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). This latest reform is in response to the
transition from a primarily industrial-based economy to a knowledge-based one. Due to the increase in
global competition, during which wider access and usage of new products and services is required to
stay ahead of the curve, the simultaneous and continuous education or training on these new products
and services is paramount. Therefore, the cycle of knowledge is rotating faster than ever before
(Cernetic, 2012). In addressing the concerns of global competition, education has become one of the
important sectors, and the restructuring of educational policy and educational achievement are being
demanded (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Karoly & Panis, 2004; Yan Yan, 2010).
While the nation is calling for real change within the education system to support this increased
rate of information exchange, true innovation could prove to be a challenge. The shift from the industrial
age to the knowledge age has created fundamental changes in the structure of our economies worldwide.
In the United States, about 54 percent of the economy was based on the production of material goods
and services in 1967. Thirty years later, 63 percent of the United States’ economy had moved to an
information product and service economy. Additionally, within the last two decades, millions of service
sector jobs have been created and millions of manufacturing jobs have 2 been lost (Hodge & Lear, 2011;
Partnership for 21Century Skills, 2008). As a result, we are encountering problems that can only be
addressed through innovation. American society is demanding that schools prepare students to be ready
to compete within the new terrain and within a global marketplace that is constantly and rapidly
changing. According to Norris, Brodnick, Lefrere, Gilmour, & Baer (2012), “these jump shifts are
calling for learner-centric, perpetual, just-in-time, personalized, and unbundled learning experiences
along with the seamless systems, processes, and services needed to facilitate them” (p.19). Further, the
prevalent doctrine in education pedagogy must have a strong focus in theories of human capital
(Cernetic, 2012). Much of this language is found within the discourse supporting the 21st-Century
Learning reform movement in education. Proponents of the movement argue that educational
organizations at all levels need to become more responsive to societal changes and provide educational
services that can make the contributions needed to sustain our society (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009,
Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoe, & Terry, 2013; Laguardia & Pearl, 2009; Norris, et. al, 2012; Partnership for
21Century Skills; Rutkowski, Rutkowski, & Sparks, 2011; Trilling and Hood, 1999; Yan Yan, 2010).
Creating opportunities for innovation to occur within the field of education is critical work for
today’s education leaders (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008; Finn & Horn,

19. 2013; McCharen, Song, & Martens, 2011; Schlechty, 2009). Universities and school districts across the
country are faced with developing new strategies to address the rapid changes and reform initiatives like
21st- Century Learning while simultaneously continuing to meet the everyday demands (Schoen &
Fusarelli, 2008). Unfortunately, educational institutions have historically 3 innovated using systematic
and sustaining innovative processes, which are incremental and do not require much in terms of
systematic change (Christensen, et. al., 2008; Duffy, Reigeluth, Solomon, Caine, Carr-Chellman,
Almeida, DeMars, 2006; Norris et. al., 2012). To accomplish the transformation called for by the current
economic paradigm and the 21st-Century Learning reform movement, schools and school districts will
need to undergo systemic change, as well as introduce innovations that are disruptive to many of the
current processes served by the present arrangement of schools (Duffy et. al., 2006; Christensen et. al.,
2008; McCharen et. al., 2011; Schlechty, 2009). Disruptive innovations are those innovations that are
not congruent with the current systems in place and require an enhancement of capacity and skill level
within the organization in order to become sustainable innovations (Christensen et. al., 2008; Duffy et.
al, 2006; Finn & Horn, 2013). Disruptive innovation rarely results in an abrupt shift within a system but
over time, it almost always results in a new system or a new way of doing business (Christensen et. al.,
2008; Finn & Horn, 2013). Consequently, new approaches to innovation are being prototyped in many
educational organizations, therefore changing the business model and creating spaces for new
orientations within educational institutions (Norris et. al., 2012). One such example is the strategic
application of design thinking. Well received within the business world, design thinking has been
recognized as a driver of innovation within product design for a long time and it has recently (within the
last decade) been acknowledged as an effective approach for creating systematic change within
organizations (Gloppen, 2009; Gloppen, 2011; Rice, 2011). Accordingly, design thinking has the
potential to be an effective tool for systemic change in education as well (Chance 2010; Rice, 2011).
Importance of the Study
The current innovations needed in education are centered on how we train teachers to teach and
the outcomes we desire for students. As a result, institutions will need to recalibrate by creating visions
or missions that embrace a focus on human capital and the philosophy of lifelong learning embedded in
the 21st-Century Learning rhetoric. The current lack of consensus around a definition for 21st-Century
Learning is of growing concern for the academic community as it is seen as a barrier to implementation
of 21st- Century skills or competencies within our education system (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009,
Dede, 2010; Jerald, 2009, Kereluik et al., 2013, Silva 2008, and Voogt & Roblin, 2012). 5 Further, there
are few examples found within the field of education that tell the story of how a school district defined
21st-Century Learning and implemented or articulated that vision throughout the district. This study is
important because it added to the literature on 21st-Century Learning in two aspects. First, it explored a
definition of 21st-Century Learning designed by a school district. Secondly, it captured an example of
how that school district took the definition and began disseminating it throughout the organization.
As the barriers to implementation of innovations within education systems are human-centered
problems, they require a human-centered, creative, iterative, and practical approach in order to find the
best solutions to these barriers (Brown, 2008; Duffy, 2003; Duffy et al., 2006; Fullan, 2001; Joseph &
Reigeluth, 2010; McCharen et. al., 2011; Peters, 2009; Schlechty, 2009; Thompson & Kritsonis, 2009).
Design thinking applied strategically and tied to products, services, communication, and outcomes can
result in the implementation of creative, radical changes, which enables an organization to innovate
(Braganza & Ward, 2001; Rylander, 2009; Snowden, 2002; Vogel, 2009). Nonlinear problem solving
approaches like design thinking are applicable to education planning and can result in a “best fit” for an
organization in terms of the successful paring of decision-making practices and appropriate solutions
(Acklin, 2010; Chance; 2010; Drost, 2008; Wetzler, 2013). Though design thinking has been embraced

20. for over a decade within the business world as a strategic approach to creating conditions for innovation
within organizations, little research is available on how it can be strategically integrated into educational
organizations. This study added to the body of research in this area. Specifically, this study contributed
to the literature by exploring a design process used by a school district to plan for the implementation of
21st-Century Learning within 6 the district. Further, the notion of design thinking as a strategic approach
to developing and managing organizations originated from the work of designers and design teams. For
this reason, it is important to consider the work of multidisciplinary teams, often called design teams,
with connections to both design and management as an approach to achieving innovations within an
educational organization (Johansson-Skoldberg, Woodilla, & Cetinkaya, 2013). This study added to the
literature on design teams in education by capturing the work of a design team focused on implementing
a definition of 21st-Century Learning within a school district.
Overall, the significance of this undertaking emerged from the documentation of how one Bay
Area public school district set out to implement 21st-Century Learning within the district. This project
examined the extent to which the use of a District Design Team (DDT) created an impetus for
innovation within the district and what functions of the team allowed this to happen. Of particular
interest was the role of the DDT in the articulation and implementation of the district’s newly adopted
definition of 21st- Century Learning throughout the district. This unique opportunity in public education
will provide both practical and theoretical insight into the systemic change process of a small suburban
school district. This research could help to identify next steps for school leaders who wish to innovate
within their organizations.
Definition of Term of Used
The following terms are defined for this study. As it is possible to apply many different definitions to
these terms, the ones presented below have been chosen for the purpose of this research.
1. Affordances are entities within the school environment that helped the school implement a school
reform artifact such as a protocol, program or procedure. The affordances, perceived by local
actors determine which features of the artifact areimplemented (Halverson, 2003)
2. Constraints are perceptions of artifact features that limit or qualify behaviors
(Halverson, 2003).
3. Design Teams are multidisciplinary teams with cross discipline viewpoints: (a) a common
agenda founded on the notions of globalization, technologies, and social change on the practice of the
fields, and (b) intensive collaboration through projects that results in learning from the different
perspectives preset within the team (Drost, 2008).
4. Design thinking is a fourth-order design principal used beyond the design context, for and with
people without a formal background in design. It combines designerly ways of thinking with business
thinking and is used strategically to promote innovation in organizations (Buchanan, 2008; Gloppen
2009; Johansson- Skoldberg, et. al. 2013).
5. Educational reforms are planned efforts to change schools in order to correct perceived social
and educational problems (Tyack & Cuban, 1995).
6. Reform movements in education refer to the economic political trends of an educational
reform, usually at a national level (Laguardia & Pearl, 2009).

21. 7. 21st-Century Learning/Skills has been used to describe the predicted capabilities that students
will need in order to be successfully employed during the 21st century and the desired outcomes for
students. It has also been used as a focal point for new visions of federal reform, K-12 education, and
higher education (Dede, 2007; Rutkowski et. al., 2011; Voogt & Roblin, 2012). The district’s Strategic
Plan included under Appendix A further defines it for the purpose of this study.

22. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In an effort to understand how principles of design thinking may be strategically applied within a
school district to implement a new vision for 21st-Century Learning and create a space for innovation, it
is important to understand the current state of these concepts within the literature. To inform this
dissertation study, a review of literature in the following areas within the fields of education and/or
business and management were completed: current reform movements in education, 21st-Century
Learning, and design thinking.
Current Trend in Education Reform
An investigation of the literature around the current education reform movement was completed.
The first objective of this inquiry was to identify the type of reform movement seen in education today.
The second was to identify the need for the current reform movement. A third purpose was to discover
how this reform movement connects to innovation within the field of education. The articles, briefs, and
reports used within this review of literature include both peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources.
This is primarily due to the fact that peer reviewed studies and sources are limited within many of these
topic areas.
In the last few decades, reforms in education have come swiftly and abundantly
(Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). The most current trend in education reform is not
exactly like the standards-based reform effort of the mid-1990s to early 2000s, which were marked by
the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001; however, those institutional reforms of the earlier
generations now constrain the present 27 trends (Cuban, Hampel, Johnson, Plank, Rativich, Tyack,
1996; Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). In essence, the fear of ever growing
achievement gaps fought through the application of standards-based curriculum and managed through
accountability measures, is still present in the emergent paradigm (Zhao, 2009).
Origins of this new direction can be traced back to the 1970s, when Daniel Bell invented the
term “knowledge society” and described this post-industrial world
(Hargreaves, 2010, p. 333). Teacher-inspired innovations and student-centered learning was a sign of
those optimistic and socially invested times (Hargreaves & Goodson,
2006). In general, this current reform represents a swing of the pendulum away from the
“back-to-the basics” approach of NCLB reform toward a more dynamic one said to infuse the cognitive
skills necessary for success in the 21st century and toward a more comprehensive approach towards
education (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). Regardless, similarities in ideologies
like social disruption and inequities, political realignments in constituencies, and the fear of foreign
competition are evident throughout both movements (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Cuban et. al., 1996;
Zhao,
2009).
Another clear commonality between these types of reform movements is that they are not driven
by research in the field of education nor do they begin in America’s classrooms (Bellanca & Brandt,
2010; Cuban et. al., 1996; Hargreaves, 2010; Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006; Zhao, 2009). Today’s
reform efforts resemble business models led by policy makers, motivated by the economic and social
impact of phenomena like globalization and the onslaught of the knowledge age (Hargreaves &
Goodson, 2006; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). Independent of the differences and similarities between 28
administrative progressives a century ago and the contemporary neo-progressive elites of today, each
generation has framed educational problems, proposed particular solutions, and sought to realize these
solutions through implementation in schools (Tyack & Cuban,
1995).

23. Proponents for the current educational reform movement in the United States point to three
primary claims illustrating the problems of education in this country: a changing world (globalization);
an out-of-date and ill-adaptive school system, which has resulted in ill-prepared students struggling to
compete in the knowledge age; and no clear sense of purpose or direction for securing the future of this
nation (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Levy and Murnane, 2005; Zhao, 2009; Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008;
Trilling & Hood, 1999; Peters, 2009). Basically, the shift from the industrial age to the knowledge age
has created fundamental changes in the structure of our economies and this, in turn, is driving the shape
and process of education in this country (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006; Trilling & Hood, 1999; Peters,
2009).
Several large-scale reports, commissioned at a national level have played a significant role in
shaping this conversation within the field of education. The seminalreport conducted for the U.S.
Department of Labor and sponsored by the RAND Corporation, entitled The 21st Century At Work, is
one such report. In that document, Karoly and Panis (2004) described five drivers (globalization, ICT
revolution, population trends, a shift in the type of skills needed within the workforce, and a shift in the
type of jobs available in the future) that can be found at the core of the 21st-century reform movement
literature in education (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Kay & Greenhill, 2012).
Other nationwide reports have added to this backdrop. One such example included the 2006
report to the Secretary of Education on the future of U.S. Higher Education. This report, entitled A Test
of Leadership: Charting the future of U.S. Higher Education, was commissioned by then U.S. secretary
of education, Margaret Spelling. The study was designed to recommend changes in national policy and
direction regarding higher education in this country. Highlights from the report suggested that higher
education “has yet to successfully confront the impact of globalization, rapidly evolving technologies,
an increasingly diverse and aging population, and an evolving marketplace characterized by new needs
and new paradigms” (Spellings Commission, 2006, p. xii). In this report, it was suggested that when
surveyed, employers reported that many newly hired graduated students were not prepared to go to
work. They often lacked the critical thinking, writing and problem-solving skills needed in today’s
workplaces. The business and government leaders were repeatedly and urgently calling for workers, at
all stages of life, to continue upgrading their academic and practical skills and to become lifelong
learners. As a result, it was recommended that universities and colleges in this country begin to embrace
and create cultures of continuous innovation and improvement.
Six recommendations were presented as a result of this research and are summarized as follows:
1. Nationwide postsecondary education.
2. Restructuring of the student financial aid system.
3. Change from a system primarily based on reputation to one based on performance.
4. Embrace a culture of continuous innovation and quality improvement.
5. The development of a national strategy for lifelong learning.
6. An increased federal investment in areas critical to our nation’s global competitiveness
(Spellings Commission, 2006, p. xi).
Also of significance to this reform movement in education was the 2008 report by The National
Education Association (NEA) entitled, Great Public Schools for Every Student by 2020. This report
focused on the failed policy of NCLB and was intended to announce the arrival of this education
consortium to the national conversation around the current reform movement in education. Specifically,
it focused on the role that the federal government should have in K-12 education. Authors of the NEA
report argued that state and local leaders are more appropriately positioned to transform education in this
country. They also argued that work with teachers, students, and a study of the activities taking place in
the classrooms should guide this nation’s reform effort. Further, they claimed that the support of the
federal government should take the shape of collaborative policies and resources that support state and

24. local reform efforts. The NEA report offered a framework that included six recommendations to the
federal government in regards to supporting reform efforts in K-12 education:
1. Support the profession of teaching as a desired and complex field of study and practice.
2. Guarantee the sustained funding of Title I and IDEA for special needs populations.
3. Equal access to educational services and supports.
4. Support state-led public school transformation through authentic accountability that is publicly
transparent.
5. Establish high-quality educational research and development as essential educational
improvement.
6. Support innovation and best practices to accelerate state-based improvement efforts and to
improve student learning, based on proven teaching strategies and programs grounded in sound teaching
and learning research (2008, p. ivvii).
Identified within this report are the familiar economic concerns present around job skills and the
21st-century workforce, including both the national and international achievement gaps and the reliance
on the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) as a measure for progress.
Yet another influential report was the 2010 Report to the president on K-12
Education, developed by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST). The PCAST was an advisory group made up of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers,
appointed by the President. The report, entitled Prepare and Inspire: K-12
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education for America’s Future, focused on the
importance of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) education in this country. The
preparers of this report cited the same economic need for
21st-century skills in our workforce and the need for a focus on human capital; however, they posited
that the competitive advantage of this country rests primarily with the effectiveness of STEM education
in the United States. Further, the PCAST indicated that the United States now lags behind other nations
in STEM education at the elementary and secondary levels, citing the national and international
achievements gaps as evidence. In response, the PCAST provided seven key recommendations for
supporting STEM education on a national level:
1. Provide financial and technical support for the current state-led movement for a shared set of
standards in Math and Science (Common Core).
2. Recruit and train 100,000 great STEM teachers over the next decade.
3. Recognize and reward the top five percent of the nation’s stem teachers.
4. Use technology to drive innovation in education.
5. Create opportunities for inspiration for STEM education outside of the classroom.
6. Create 1,000 new STEM focused schools with the next decade.
7. Ensure strong and strategic national leadership around STEM education
(2010, p. x-xi).
As a result of these recommendations, the U.S. Department of Education made STEM the sole
competitive priority as evidenced by the first two rounds of the Race to the Top competition. Race to the
Top was the name of Obama’s 2009 funding initiative created to
spark innovation and reform in state and local education systems. It includes STEM education as an
absolute priority for the second round of i3 grants. President Obama has continued to prioritize STEM
education further through his Educate to Innovate
Campaign (Opportunity in Education, 2011).
Regardless of all of the national reports and studies completed by both public and private
research groups, more research studies of educational policy and planning have been in high demand
within and between nations to identify the prominent paradigms of education reforms (evaluation,
financing, assessment, standards, professional training, curriculum), processes and impacts of

25. globalization on education (Yan Yan, 2010). This is in a large part due to the fact that major economic
changes tend to also be a source of disruption and realignment of societies (Christensen et. al., 2008). As
we move more fully into a globalized, knowledge-based economy, we are seeing clear signs of increased
economic and social inequalities (Karoly, & Panis, 2004, National Academy of
Engineering, 2004, and Microsoft Partners in Learning, 2011). Consequently, we are encountering
problems that can only be addressed through innovation (Brown, 2008;
Schlechty, 2009).
Education and political leaders in countries around the world have recognized that it is
imperative that we prepare our young people for the 21st century by transforming educational
opportunities and integrating technology into teaching and learning (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Bellanca
& Brandt, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Dede, 2010; Kereluik, et. al., 2013; Rutkowski et. al., 2011;
Trilling and Hood, 1999; Yan Yan,2010; Zhao, 2009). Educational institutions at all levels are being
called upon to embrace this shift towards a knowledge-based society and innovate. In fact, the concept
of innovation in education has become a term commonly paired with this reform movement and is
intended to replace the word reform by exclaiming that “tinkering with educational reform efforts” is no
longer an option for education leaders (Cuban et. al., 1996; Schlechty, 2009). Society is demanding that
schools prepare students to be ready to compete in the world marketplace (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010;
Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008; Williams & Johnson, 2013; Yan Yan, 2010).
In order for the United States to remain a front-runner in this newly globalized and ever changing
digital world, the American education system will need to change (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Dede
2007, Jareld, 2009, McCharen et. al., 2011; Schlechty, 2009; Rutkowski, Rutkowski, & Sparks, 2011;
Trilling and Hood, 1999; Zhao, 2009). The most current education reform movement in this country,
often called the 21st- Century Learning or 21st-Century Skills movement, is an attempt to support this
belief in the need for innovation within our educational institutions at every level (Ananiadou & Claro,
2009; Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Hargreaves, 2010; Voogt & Roblin, 2012).
National educational policies have continuously called for student-centered pedagogical orientations that
can be described as constructionist and constructivist (Rutkowski et. al., 2011). A large number of
organizations and individuals have responded to this call by establishing a 21st-century knowledge
framework or by attempting to identify the student knowledge/skills necessary for living and learning in
the 21st century (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Dede, 2010; Kereluik et al., 2013; Rutkowski et. al., 2011).
Further, for over a decade, research has focused on ways that ICT can assist in the transformation of
teaching and learning and has emerged in policy discourse as a “21st-Century Skills" pedagogical
paradigm (Dede, 2010; Rutkowski et. al., 2011).
A concurrent reform movement within education is the Common Core StatesStandards (CCSS)
Project. Supported by the Council of Chief State School Officers; the College Board; Achieve, Inc.; and
the National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices, this a national effort that establishes K-12 standards for students and replaces the old
standards found under the NCLB paradigm (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010). These standards are focused on
information literacies and depth of knowledge in all core subject areas (i.e., Language Arts, History,
Math, and Science). Considered an important step in the right direction by proponents of the 21st-
Century Learning reform movement, the Common Core Standards are said to have a focus on academic
knowledge development and college readiness but lack an emphasis on relevant skill building (Bellanca
& Brandt,
2010). Leaders of the 21st-Century reform movement argue that educators will need to develop new
methods for engaging students in skill development and assessing their progress if we are to successfully
prepare students for their future in this country’s workforce (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Partnership for
21Century Skills, 2008). As a result, the CCSS are usually viewed as a partner of the 21st-Century
Learning reform movement and are often aligned to support the 21st-Century Learning reform efforts
within a school or district (Partnership for 21Century Skills, 2010).

26. Derived from the combined efforts of stakeholders in the fields of economics, business,
technology, government, psychology, anthropology and education, the term
21st-Century Learning has been used to describe the predicted capabilities that people will need in order
to be successfully employed during the 21st century. It also has been used as a rallying cry for new
visions of reform in K-12 education and higher education (Dede, 2007; Rutkowski et. al., 2011; Voogt
& Roblin, 2012). Essentially, it is the umbrella term used to illustrate both the need and an approach to
addressing the problems of education under this current reform movement in the United States. Though
no one model for 21st- Century Learning seems to encompass all of the knowledge and skills predicted
as necessary for educating the workforce of this century, there are many trends and common themes
among frameworks (Dede, 2007; Kereluik et al., 2013; Voogt & Roblin, 2012). Furthermore,
controversy has been sparked as to whether or not this term is used to describe something new or if it is
just emphasizing a specific set of known competencies that have become relevant to our society
(Kereluik et al., 2013 and Voogt & Roblin, 2012).
Defining 21st-Century Learning
In an attempt to develop a better understanding for the current meaning and definition of the term
21st-Century Learning, a review of the literature using the search terms 21st Century Learning, twenty-
first Century Learning, and 21st Century skills and/or competences was conducted. The Education
Resource Information Center (ERIC), Education Source, PsychINFO, Library, Information, Science and
Technology Abstracts (LISTA), and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses databases were explored. In
addition, an Internet search using the Google search engine was conducted. Articles, books, websites,
dissertations, and reports on the topic of 21st-Century Learning and Skills, spanning the last twenty
years, were reviewed. As a result, over two dozen different frameworks or lists of skills, identified as or
referenced as 21st-Century Learning or skills/competencies frameworks were found. Within the
literature, 21st-Century Learning can refer to 21st- Century Skills, competences, competencies, or
literacies. For the purpose of this review, the term 21st-Century Learning will be used. Table 2
(Appendix B) includes a summary of the different frameworks, their authors or developers, and where
they were cited as a 21st -Century framework within the literature.
A review and discussion of three analyses, conducted on some of the more notable 21st-Century
Learning frameworks, reveal the gaps in the literature around defining 21st-Century Learning.
Regardless, these papers and a book chapter begin the important work of identifying common trends and
themes within the 21st-Century Learning Frameworks. Kereluik et al. (2013), suggest that understanding
and defining what 21st- Century Learning has become crucial because it will aid us in determining how
we teach our students and how we train and prepare teachers to do so. The current lack of consensus
around a definition is of growing concern for the academic community as it is seen as a barrier to
implementation of 21st-Century Learning and Skills within our county’s education system (Ananiadou
& Claro, 2009, Bellanca & Brandt, 2010; Dede, 2010; Jerald, 2009; Kereluik et al., 2013; Silva, 2008;
Voogt & Roblin, 2012). Currently, the ambiguous term is still used to encompass all of the knowledge,
skills, and dispositions that students should have in order to be successful, future workers in a
knowledge-based economy (Rutkowski et. al., 2011). To make matters worse, critics argue that the 21st-
Century Skills agenda is often in danger of leaving out knowledge, skills, and ideas that are beyond the
world of business (Hargreaves, 2010; Voogt &
Roblin, 2012).
Fourteen years into the 21st century, we are still in need of a coordinated approach to this reform
movement; however, some frameworks are finally starting to surface more often than others within the
literature. Table 3 identifies the three most cited frameworks for 21st-Century Learning found within the
literature reviewed. Among them is the P21 framework for 21st-Century Skills. Regarded as one of the
most vetted frameworks, including over a decade of research and expert endorsements invested in its
design, “Framework for 21st Century Learning” has become one of the most articulated models for

27. describing 21st-Century Learning within the field of education (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010). Though
many schools and districts across the United States are turning to the expertise of P21 in order to begin
implementing 21st-Century Learning into their organizations, the reform movement is still within the
nascent stages.
Comparing 21st-Century Learning Frameworks
Looking through the twenty-five frameworks included in Table 2 and the three commonly cited
examples abbreviated in Table 3, it becomes clear that they range from theories of mind, to lists of
skills, to frameworks for approaching instruction and learning. Of note is the scope of some of the
international frameworks. Many of them are designed as national frameworks for 21st-Century Learning
that can unite schools under a common vision. Also of interest is the large amount of private and
corporate involvement in the defining of 21st-Century Learning. Of concern is the minimal involvement
of academic and education groups in the design of many of these frameworks. Only seven of the 25
frameworks were published in academic journals with clear roots to prior research within the field of
education. Finally, many skills, themes, and concepts overlap within the different models. In the last two
years, a few researchers have taken on the challenge of sifting through the more prominent frameworks
to look at commonalities and differences in the hopes that a common definition or overarching
framework can be decided (Dede, 2010; Kereluik et al., 2013; Voogt & Roblin, 2012). Unfortunately,
even between these researchers, there does not seem to be strong consensus.
Table 3
Most Commonly Cited 21st-Century Learning Frameworks
Cited as a Framework for 21st-
Century Learning
Author(s) Framework
Framework for 21st
Century Learning:
Developed by The
Partnership for 21st
Century Skills (2007)
Framework for 21st
Century Learning:
Learning and
Innovation Skills
Digital Literacy
Skills
Career and Life Skills
Bellanca & Brandt, 2010;
Dede,
2007; Dede, 2010; Jerald,
2009;
Kereluik et al., 2013; Leh,
Kouba,
& Davis, 2005; Silva, 2008;
Snape
& Fox-Turnbull, 2011; Voogt
&
Roblin, 2012
enGauge 21st Century
Skills model:
Developed by The North
Central Regional
Educational Laboratory
(NCREL) and the Metiri
Group (2003)
enGauge 21st Century
Skills model:
Effective
Communication
High Productivity
Inventive Thinking
Digital Literacy
Dede, 2007; Dede, 2010;
Kereluik
et al., 2013; Silva, 2008;
Voogt &
Roblin, 2012
OECD Framework:
Developed by The
Organization for
Economic Cooperation
and Development or
OECD (2005)
OECD Framework:
Information;
Information as source
Information as
product
Communication;
Effective
communication
Collaboration and
virtual interaction
Ethics and Social
Impact
Social Responsibility
Social Impact