Disrupting Higher Education: Engaging Design Students in UX Processes to Enhance Innovation in Higher Education

Design students from two courses, DESN 268: History and Theory of Sustainability in Design and DESN 481: Designing for User Experiences, participated in research for an “Imagine Beach 2030” event. Students in DESN 481, an introductory UX design course, conducted a qualitative data collection process to engage a large number of design students in a brainstorming and idea generation process resulting in several “idea generation boards.” Students in DESN 268, a design seminar course, formed teams and prepared in-depth research papers and presentations on topics involving future innovation for higher education. These two courses and research strategies were integrated by seeding the idea generation boards with the research topics of the seminar classes.

The culmination of the UX data gathering strategies was a design sprint conducted on November 15, 2018, during the campus-wide “Imagine Beach 2030” event. The sprint included presentations by the DESN 268 seminar students on their deep dive research. After the presentations were completed, students at the sprint were given the opportunity to form teams along these topics and were provided with the idea generation boards containing crowd sourced ideas on the same topics. Students used the Connectivity Model, a UX research model based on social, emotional, motivational and physical parameters, to assess and develop final innovation concepts for what the university should be in the year 2030.

The student led brainstorming, classroom engagement, and the use of a design sprint to engage large numbers of student stakeholders in the university envisioning process will be discussed. The specific methods, tools, UX strategies and outcomes of this unique series of events will be presented. In addition, the application of these UX processes as an innovative strategy for self-evaluation and innovation in higher education will be discussed.

Our triangulated research strategy reframed several questions of interest in different formats of data gathering and participation. The reframing methods were derived from design thinking techniques made popular by Tim Brown and David Kelly [1]. By applying our methods in different contexts and formats we broadened the spectrum of the data gathered. For the purposes of maximum student engagement and divergent thinking, incorporating in-depth research and critical thinking in problem solving, the following three strategies were combined into a triangulated research methodology:

1. 1.

   Crowd Sourced Student/Stakeholder Input via Public Crowd Sourced Data Collection;

2. 2.

   In-Depth Subject Research Papers/Presentations; and

3. 3.

   Design Sprint Teams.

At the Beach 2030 Design Sprint event held in the California State University, Long Beach’s Design Department Gallery, we incorporated in our three strategies several creative problem solving methodologies pioneered by Alex Osborn and Sidney Parnes [2]. One of our goals in data gathering at the design sprint was connecting the “how might we statements” utilized in the other two approaches of our triangulated research strategy. These statements are designed to encourage divergent thinking and are commonly utilized in many design thinking and creative problem solving frameworks. In our sprint, we integrated a series of exercises aimed at promoting the reciprocation of divergent and convergent thinking. Our tools of choice incorporated a combination of white boards, dry-erase pens, writing materials, paper and post-its to emphasize rapid exercises to cultivate the exchange of information in a group setting and synthesize an environment of idea sharing and building.

DESN 268: History and Theory of Sustainability in Design explores the intellectual and cultural foundations of sustainability issues across design practices and disciplines in human society including historical, contemporary and future theories. Its BEACH 2030 Sustainable Futures project addressed several student learning outcomes for the course, including: create hypotheses for future scenarios from a base of historical and theoretical understanding; demonstrate effective use of integrative learning skills, including synthesis and interdisciplinary methods of inquiry; and contextualize sustainability topics as influenced by specific and diverse global, local, cultural and historical conditions.

The BEACH 2030 Sustainable Futures project built from the premise that anticipating and shaping future design trends can have a significant influence on sustainability. Students worked together in groups to research and propose future trends in sustainable design and determine potential applications for California State University, Long Beach. Each group selected a certain product category, system, process, or sphere of the physical and/or digital environment and determined what it may look like, from a sustainability perspective, in 2030. They then applied those research insights to determine how sustainability could be improved in that area at CSULB. We discussed methods, models, and practices for determining sustainable design futures in class and our methodological approach began with R. Buckminster Fuller’s Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science as general framework for research-based, iterative futures development [3]. We also looked at contemporary case-studies for design futures research and development projects with a particular focus on issues of ecological, social, and economic sustainability, including design futures approaches to products as explored by Bradley Quinn and sustainable architectural futures projects by Ted Givens, Koen Olthius, and Werner Sobek, among others [4].

Once we explored futures theories, systems, and approaches we built on our previous coursework on sustainable systems and processes for product and service design and building systems. Students were encouraged to combine visionary creativity with rigorous research to anticipate and contextualize sustainability futures. Student groups determined their own research topics, which included academic technology, transportation and parking, energy, water, building technologies, and green roofs, and conducted research into contemporary design and sustainability trends in these areas. Research questions centered around recent changes in the field, developments on the horizon, including problems addressed and anticipated success, and other innovations that may have an impact on sustainability, either in a positive or a negative way, in the near future. Students then determined which trends and developments were likely to continue into the next decade to anticipate the state of sustainable design in each field in 2030 and applied that research to issues or problems faced by CSULB. We utilized design thinking and active learning strategies to approach research, writing, and presentation development as an iterative process best done in diverse, multidisciplinary teams with an emphasis on creative experimentation through prototyping and constructive feedback [5, 6]. Once the teams had selected topics and conducted preliminary research we held a round robin session addressing sustainability developments in each area and brainstorming potential applications for our campus. Based on these sessions students conducted further research and prepared advanced drafts of their presentations for informal review through desk critiques. Feedback from these sessions was incorporated into a final 10-minute public presentation which detailed their research on recent and contemporary sustainability trends in their area and explained their vision for the state of sustainable design in their field at CSULB in 2030.

In anticipation of the presentations, we prepared six “how might we” statements related to the various research areas and used them to seed UX idea generation boards to solicit community engagement and feedback. Each board was titled with one of these statements and armed with an assortment of dry-erase pens then stationed throughout our department in hallways, classrooms and gathering points in the days leading to the final presentations and our design sprint.

Students participating in the sprint were given research tools to inform them with regard to considerations in the areas of Social, Emotional, Motivational and Behavioral aspects of their designs. The Connectivity Model was used as a framework for the research tools. As a design research methodology, the Connectivity Model uses audience analysis to understand the characteristics of a target audience with regard to their activities, emotions, motivations, and cognition. This model considers the artifact or environment being designed as part of a larger contextualized experience. The social and emotional needs of the user, as well as any physical constraints are integral to the constraints for the final design. Only those solutions that meet these requirements will be considered optimal solutions (Fig. 3).

Crowd Student and Stakeholder Data was Collected in Public Spaces on our Themes.

Full size image

The series of informational research tools included:

1. 1.

   Disruptive Technologies/Disruptive Economies;

2. 2.

   Emotional Factors;

3. 3.

   Social Factors;

4. 4.

   Behavioral Factors; and

5. 5.

   Motivational Factors.

The purpose of the informational research tools was to stimulate the thought processes of the sprint participants in each of these areas. They were projected onto the screen during the design sprint as the teams were working. Since the time frame of a sprint is compressed, the purpose of these tools was to insert additional ideas and concepts at critical points in the brainstorming and ideation phase of the project.

The concept of T-shaped people and T-shaped skills have permeated design circles since the early 90 s with David Guest and later IDEO’s Tim Brown championing the strategy as the ideal combination of deep knowledge along with breadth of skills and empathy. According to Brown:

“T-shaped people have two kinds of characteristics, hence the use of the letter “T” to describe them. The vertical stroke of the “T” is a depth of skill that allows them to contribute to the creative process. That can be from any number of different fields: an industrial designer, an architect, a social scientist, a business specialist or a mechanical engineer. The horizontal stroke of the “T” is the disposition for collaboration across disciplines. It is composed of two things. First, empathy. It’s important because it allows people to imagine the problem from another perspective- to stand in somebody else’s shoes. Second, they tend to get very enthusiastic about other people’s disciplines, to the point that they may actually start to practice them. T-shaped people have both depth and breadth in their skills [7].”

The nature of our design innovation strategy for this event used many of the strategies common in T-shaped groups. In our event the breadth was achieved in the crowd sourced data collection and the eclectic composition of the sprint teams. The depth of knowledge was introduced in through the design research and theory presentations. Each of the final sprint teams had members from a variety of backgrounds and representatives from the research teams. Additionally, students were allowed to organically form teams after listening to the research talks and the sprint teams were then provided with the crowd-sourced data on the same subjects.

Based on the T-Shaped strategy, the following two design courses assigned comprehensive projects to support the Beach 2030 event:

DESN 268 - History and Theory of Sustainability in Design

This course is a seminar class that explores the intellectual and cultural foundations of sustainability issues across design practices and disciplines in human society including historical, contemporary and future theories.

DESN 481 - Designing for User Experiences

This course is an introduction to user experience design. It explores the application of theories, research methods, ethics, and design processes of UX (user experience) design. Students research, develop, and test UX designs. Design strategies are discussed as they apply to physical, virtual, and hybrid solutions.

Six how might we statements were developed from the DESN 268 research topics as a tool to gather feedback and response from outside the course:

• How might we utilize green roofs to increase social and ecological sustainability on campus?

• How might we leverage emerging technologies, including AR/VR, to envision the university education of the future?

• How might we deploy new building techniques and materials to meet the growing demand for student housing and other needs?

• How might we reimagine a transportation network for all stakeholders at CSULB?

• How might we harness new forms of renewable energy to fuel our campus?

• How might we create water systems that address a drought-parched future?

The culmination of our triangulated research strategy was expressed in the form of a design sprint immediately following the aforementioned DESN 268 student presentations. We invited students, faculty, staff and community members from throughout the city of Long Beach to participate in the design sprint held within California State University, Long Beach’s Design Department Duncan Anderson Gallery. The sprint utilized creative problem solving methods, environmental tone changes, energy, and competition to gather further data.

Our methodology incorporated several creative problem solving exercises formatted in a series of rounds. Each round addressed and slightly reframed a question from the DESN 268 student presentations. One of the key elements of divergent thinking revolves around the problem solving environment. We utilized a format of rounds and prizes aimed at encouraging participation, sharing and fun within the event. Prior to each round we motivated the behavior of the participants to utilize the standards of productive divergent thinking by sharing several guidelines for idea gathering derived from the Creative Problem Solving “CPS” process [8] (defer judgement, seek wild ideas, combine and build, etc.). Each round utilized our “how might we” spark questions and challenged the participants to produce ideas rapidly. Each spark question incorporated our Connectivity Model as a theme:

Social Factors:

1. 1.

   Knowledge of Social Roles, Rules, and Scripts;

2. 2.

   Effective Listening Skills;

3. 3.

   Understanding What Makes Other People Tick;

4. 4.

   Impression Management Skills; and

5. 5.

   Verbal Fluency and Conversational Skills.

Motivational Factors:

1. 1.

   A Need for Achievement-Goals, Standards, Competition;

2. 2.

   A Need for Affiliation-Liked, Honesty, Reaching out; and

3. 3.

   A Need for Power-Command and Control.

Behavioral Factors:

1. 1.

   Aggressive;

2. 2.

   Assertive; and

3. 3.

   Passive-Aggressive.

Emotional Factors:

1. 1.

   Self-Awareness-Emotional Self-Awareness;

2. 2.

   Self-Management, Self-Control, Adaptability, Outlook;

3. 3.

   Social Awareness-Empathy, Organizational Awareness; and

4. 4.

   Relationship Management-Teamwork, Leadership.

Within each round, students were led by faculty members in sharing their ideas onto a movable whiteboard using post-its and colored dry-erase markers.

After several rounds of spark questions and exercises, the participants amassed a healthy library of ideas and approaches to answering each spark question. We then moved into a convergent round in which we changed the perspectives of the participants into ones that promoted thoughtfulness, building, and deliberate decisions based upon guidelines developed by the Creative Education Foundation [8]. Ideas, thoughts, experiences and suggestions on the post-its were collectively categorized and ordered using heuristic creativity ordering techniques within the group setting. We converged the ideas further by labeling and circling each node group of ideas on the whiteboard with our dry-erase markers.

Following this round, and after prizes of course, the cohort of participants battled against each other in a final design charrette in which each group utilized its boards of data to develop a final gestural design that addressed the spark questions from our Connectivity Model methodology. Each team then shared their work and exchanged their thought process (Fig. 4). The sprint offered a forum for the rapid collection and exchange of concerns, thoughts and innovations while leveraging the diversity of our audience (Fig. 5).

In-Depth Research Presentations were made during the Sprint prior to the Design Phase.

Full size image

The Connectivity Model Optimal Solution Zone.

Full size image

The Sustainable Instructional Technology Futures presentation focused on how to leverage emerging AR/VR technologies in the classroom to create hybrid environments that help to replicate the social aspects of face-to-face education in order to keep students engaged and promote efficient use of resources. The results from our divergent and convergent design thinking methodology charrette emphasized AI, increasing internationalization of the student body amid globalization, and the need for responsive educational technology. The design phase produced a low fidelity prototype for an AI-enhanced universal language translator that would allow for near real time translation of speech or text in recognition of the fact that language barriers often lead to educational challenges for a variety of CSULB students and that rapid and accurate access to course content can improve learning and academic success (Fig. 6).

Sprint Teams used the Connectivity Model along with the Information from Presentations and Crowd Sourced Data to design Beach 2030 Innovations for Campus.

Full size image

The triangulated research strategy provided several lenses of data gathering propelled by a combination of team teaching and a set of thoughtful and meaningful collaborations. A loosely construed yet purposeful framework provided a useful, iterative, and thoughtful process. The three diverse data gathering and feedback approaches were leveraged to provide a space of ownership for all participants while producing an unknown that came from the way each approach connects together and differs. We took this opportunity to develop ideas to a level of fruition and we found the final design sprint provided artificial constraints while also promoting a sense of urgency. This effectively yielded tangible lo-fidelity results in a short time period (Fig. 5).

Design Sprint Team Process.

Full size image

The T-Shaped emphasis of research encouraged multiple discussion areas at diverse levels of granularity. By harnessing horizontal strokes aimed at UX and a design sprint, we were able to add breadth to the topics focused upon within the DESN 268 cohort’s deep dive vertical stroke. This format was paramount in disrupting the rigid framework of university schedules and traditions. For example, we found the format to be an effective method of bringing students together not only from different levels and programs within our curriculum, but without the necessity to schedule courses in parallel nor drift from each course’s student learning objectives.

Sprint Teams Created Drawings and Models to Support their Innovation Designs.

Full size image

Although the team teaching strategy lacked many constraints, this served as an advantage to encouraging diverse participants. It is worth noting that we see our research strategy as a generator of an awareness of diverse and inclusive topics. However, the activities and events held within our triangulated research strategy were not built to be conductive of gathering the utmost diverse and inclusive participation. charrette style is not adherent to accessibility and not everyone can be involved in the traditional settings of brainstorming. Frequently, common thinking comes from brainstorming environments. And while we like to believe in stigma and bias how might we identify the emotional aspects of discomfort and bias? What happens when participant gets an idea but doesn’t want others to know they are thinking of it? In retooling this research strategy, how might we design an event that captures and shares the diversity of social sustainability and inclusive design? In future deployments of this research strategy it would be a priority to apply socially sensitive and diverse methods to gather a greater degree of contribution of various participants from a behavioral, emotional, social, and motivational perspective.

This research strategy is flexible and could be easily adapted to be used in many contexts and frameworks. Moving the design approach utilized in our research strategies from stakeholders to professionals appears to require a retooled approach. Sometimes, inclusive discussions that move into a business become ideas that are seized instead of shared and contributed back. There isn’t a mechanism in our strategy currently to return the value to those who provide the value.

We hope to utilize our approach as modules and apply them to different events in the future in an effort to validate, evaluate and improve its effectiveness. A set of guidelines or a workbook could be developed to promote deployable and reproducible results which could be documented to expedite improvement. Depending upon the mix of collaborators and coordinators, different lenses can be customized and applied. In redefining each deployment of the triangulated research strategy, we can recruit an expert as a catalyst for the vertical stroke’s deep dive of the T-shape collaboration structure or perhaps any subsequent design sprint.