The ChallenGE Project: Using Design-Based Research to Determine the Effectiveness of a Design Thinking Approach to Professional Learning in Gifted Education

Abstract

Using a Design Thinking (DT) approach, the ChallenGE Project in South Australia (SA) was an innovative professional learning (PL) program that was developed, implemented, and researched by three Senior Educational Consultants from the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia (AISSA) and one academic from Flinders University over three years. The aim was to support participating schools (n = 27) to improve outcomes for their highly able learners (HALs). The ChallenGE Design-Based Research (DBR) project developed principles and a framework for contextualised PL in gifted education through an inductive qualitative manual coding analysis of participants’ self-reported learning. This paper, applying the format for reporting DBR studies recommended by Jen et al. (2015) explains the goals and elements of the innovation, the setting within which it was implemented, a description of each phase, the outcomes, and the lessons learned. This research study contributes to an expanded view of effective PL in gifted education using insights gained from a DT approach.

Keywords

Design Thinking design-based research gifted education highly able learners professional learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Association of Independent Schools of New South Wales (AISNSW) (2020, February 11). ELEVATE Insights series. AISNSW. https://www.aisnsw.edu.au/school-leaders/leadership/the-elevate-program.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Schools Australia (catalogue number 4221.0) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release, (accessed 18.3.2021).

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2020). The shape of the Australian Curriculum (version 5.0) . ACARA.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2012). Australian Charter for the professional learning of teachers and school leaders. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-charter-for-the-professional-learning-of-teachers-and-school-leaders.pdf?sfvrsn=6f7eff3c_4

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2014). Learning through doing: Introduction to design thinking. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/learning-through-doing-introduction-to-design-thinking

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2017). Coaching resources. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/lead-develop/develop-others/coach-others/coaching-resources

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2018). The high quality professional learning national dialogue: Stimulus paper – November 2018. AITSL.

Barab

(2014). Design-Based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In Sawyer

(Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 274–302). Cambridge University Press.

10.

Barab

Squire

. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

11.

Barab

. (2020, February 11). Storied truths . Sasha Barab. https://sashabarab.org/activity/storied-truths/

12.

Bransford

., Brown

., & Cocking

. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. National Academy Press.

13.

Brown

A. L

. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2

14.

Calvert

(2016). Moving from compliance to agency: What teachers need to make professional learning work. Learning Forward and NCTAF.

15.

Challenge Project Lead Team (CPLT) (2016). ChallenGE project brief. https://www.ais.sa.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/Pages/ChallenGE/ChallenGEProjectDocs/ChallenGE-Project-Brief-November-2016.pdf

16.

Chessman

(2006). Identification of students form culturally diverse backgrounds: Coolabah dynamic assessment model (CDAM). NSW Department of Education and Training, Curriculum K-12 Directorate.

17.

Christensen

West

(2018). The development of design-based research. In West

(Ed.). Foundations of learning and instructional design technology (chapter 25). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations

18.

Clarke

Hollingsworth

. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7

19.

Collins

(1992). Toward a design science of education. In Scanlon

O’Shea

(Eds.). New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Springer-Verlag.

20.

Collins

(Chair). (2001). The education of gifted children. Report by the Senate Employment Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Reference Committee. Australian Government Publishing Service.

21.

Colston

. (Chair). (1988). The report of the senate select committee on the education of gifted and talented children. Australian Government Publishing Service.

22.

Costa

Kallick

. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 49–51.

23.

CREATEDU (2013). Design thinking. http://createdu.org/design-thinking/

24.

Cronbach

L. J

. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist 30(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10/1037/h0076829

25.

Curtis

. (2018). High achievement in Australian senior secondary student: Contributing factors and change over time. [Paper Presentation] Flinders University/AAEGT National Research Colloquium: Towards a national research agenda. Adelaide, South Australia. 24–25 September, 2018.

26.

Dai

Chen

(2015). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide to theory-based, practice-focused research. Prufrock Press.

27.

Darling-Hammond

Hyler

M. E.

Gardner

(2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute.

28.

De Bono

(1985). Six thinking hats. Little, Brown and Company.

29.

Desimone

. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualisations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

30.

Desimone

Pak

. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory into Practice, 56(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241947

31.

Dewey

(1915). The school and society. University of Chicago Press.

32.

Doecke

., Parr

., & North

. (2008). National mapping of teacher professional learning project. [Final Report]. Melbourne, Australia, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. https://www.academia.edu/17439395/National_mapping_of_teacher_professional_learning_project_final_report?auto=abstract

33.

Easterday

M. W.

Rees Lewis

D. G.

Gerber

E. M

. (2017). The logic of design research. Learning: Research and Practice, 4(2), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2017.1286367

34.

Easton

L. B

. (2008). From professional development to professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(10), 755–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808901014

35.

Gagné

(2018). Academic talent development: Theory and best practices. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

Shaunessy-Dedrick

Foley-Nicpon

(Eds.), APA Handbooks in psychology. APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 163–183). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-011

36.

Gallagher

Curtain

(2018). Serve the need not the label: Highly able learners in international schools. The Next Frontier Inclusion. http://www.nextfrontierinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ServeTheNeed-Final1.pdf

37.

Getzels

J. W

. (1979). Problem-finding: A theoretical note. Cognitive Science, 3(2), 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0302_4

38.

Griffin

. (2015). Submission 20. The effectiveness of the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy. Education and Employment References Committee. http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/Naplan13/Submissions

39.

Guskey

. (2016). Gauge impact with five levels of data. Journal of Staff Development, 37(1), 32–37.

40.

Hagan

(2014). Law by design. [e-book]ttp://www.lawbydesign.co/en/home

41.

Hattie

(2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Pearson.

42.

Hattie

(2016). Shifting away from distractions to improve Australia’s schools: Time for a reboot. Australian Council for Educational leaders Monograph #54, ACEL.

43.

Henderson

Jarvis

. (2016). The gifted dimension of the Australian professional standards for teachers: Implications for professional learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(8), 60–83. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n8.4

44.

Henderson

Riley

(2018). School programs and strategies for gifted learners. In Jolly

J. L.

Jarvis

J. M.

(Eds.), Exploring gifted education: Australian and New Zealand perspectives (pp. 112–131). Routledge.

45.

IDEO. (2015a). The field guide to human-centered design. Canada. http://www.designkit.org/resources/1

46.

IDEO. (2015b). Design kit: The human-centered design toolkit. https://www.ideo.com/post/design-kit

47.

Ingvarson

Meiers

Beavis

. (2003). Evaluating the quality and impact of professional development programs. Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us. (Proceedings of the ACER Research Conference, 28–34).

48.

Jarvis

Henderson

. (2012). Current practices in the education of gifted and talented learners in south Australian schools. Australasian Journal for Gifted Education. 21(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2015.0018

49.

Jen

Moon

Samarapungavan

. (2015). Using design-based research in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly 59(3), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215583871

50.

Joyce

Weil

Calhoun

(2004). Models of teaching (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

51.

Kelley

(2014). Design thinking and the liberal arts. Designlab@Smith.

52.

Kelley

(2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. Random House.

53.

Kembel

(2007). d.school operators’ handbook. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/george-kembels-dschool-operators-handbook

54.

Koh

J. H. L.

Chai

C. S.

Wong

Hong

H. Y.

(2015). Design thinking and 21st century skills. In J. Koh, C. Chai, B. Wong, & H. Hong. Design thinking for education (pp. 33–46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-444-3_3

55.

Lave

Wenger

(1990). Situated learning perspectives. Educational Technology Publications.

56.

Liedtka

. (2014). Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163

57.

Lockyer

. (2018, August 13). Enhancing teaching and learning through design practice [paper presentation]. Research Conference 2018 - Teaching practices that make a difference: Insights from research. https://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference/RC2018/13august/9

58.

Loughran

Berry

Clemans

Keast

Miranda

Parr

, Riley, P., & Tudball

. (2011). Exploring the nature of teachers’ professional learning. In Navigating in educational contexts (pp. 93–102). Brill Sense.

59.

Martinez-Serrano

L. M.

(2020). The pedagogical potential of design thinking for CLIL teaching: Creativity, critical thinking, and deep learning. In Gomez-Parra

Abril

(Eds.) The handbook of research on bilingual and intercultural education. (pp. 427–446). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2588-3.ch018

60.

Masters

G. N

. (2015b). Challenging our most able students. Teacher Magazine , 20 April 2015. https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/columnists/geoff-masters/challenging-our-most-able-students

61.

Masters

G. N

. (2015a). Understanding and addressing the learning needs of our highest-performing students. [Paper presentation] AAEGT/IRATDE international conference in Brisbane, March 19–21, 2015.

62.

Matthews

M. S

. (2006). Gifted students dropping out: Recent findings from a southeastern state. Roeper Review, 28(4), 216–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190609554367

63.

McKenney

Nieveen

Akker

Van den

, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In Van den Akker

Gravemeijer

McKenney

Neiveen

(Eds.) Educational design research (pp. 62–90). Routledge.

64.

Meinel

Leifer

. (Eds.). (2019). Design thinking research, looking further: Design thinking beyond solution-fixation. Springer.

65.

Micheli

Wilner

Bhatti

., Mura

., & Beverland

. (2018). Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(2), 124–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12466

66.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2018). How people learn II: Learners, contexts and cultures. The National Academies Press.

67.

Needels

Gage

(1991). Essence and accident in process-product research on teaching. In Waxman

Walberg

(Eds.) Effective teaching: Current research (pp. 3–31). McCutchan.

68.

Netolicky

D. M

. (2016). Rethinking professional learning for teachers and school leaders. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 6(4), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-04-2016-0012

69.

O’Connor

Joffe

. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13. https://doi.org10.1177/1609406919899220

70.

Opfer

V. D.

Pedder

. (2011). Conceptualising teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609

71.

Organisation for Economic, Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/

72.

Patton

Parker

Tannehill

. (2015). Helping teachers help themselves: Professional development that makes a difference. NASSP Bulletin, 99(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515576040

73.

Plattner

., Meinel

., & Leifer

. (Eds.). (2012). Design thinking research: Studying co-creation in practice. Springer.

74.

Plomp

. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In Plomp

Nieveen

(Eds.) An introduction to educational design research. Proceedings of the seminar conducted at the East China Normal University. November 23–26, 2007. (pp. 11–50), Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.

75.

Plunkett

Kronborg

. (2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International, 26(1&2), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2011.11673587

76.

Rauth

Köppen

Jobst

Meinel

. (2010). Design thinking: An educational model towards creative confidence. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC2010), (pp. 1–8), Kobe, Japan.

77.

Razzouk

Shute

. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429

78.

Rhodes

. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/20342603.

79.

Riley

(2013). Literature review: Learning leaders matter. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Prepared in partnership with Monash University.

80.

Rogers

. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306324

81.

Rowley

. (2012). Professional development needs of teachers to identify and cater for gifted students. The Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 21(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.098757303683336

82.

Runco

M. A.

Nemiro

. (1994). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16(4), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000194

83.

Salen

. (2017). Designing a place called school: A case study of the public school quest to learn. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. 3(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.08.002

84.

Sawyer

R. K.

(Ed.) (2014). The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. (2nd ed.) Cambridge University Press.

85.

Smithers

., & Robinson

. (2012, July). Educating the highly able. Report to the Sutton Trust, UK.

86.

Stanford d.school. (2019). Design thinking bootleg. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design Stanford University. https://dschool.stanford.edu/resources/design-thinking-bootleg

87.

Terman

(1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.

88.

The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005

89.

Thomson

De Bortoli

Buckley

(2013). PISA 2012: How Australia measures up. Australian Council for Educational Research.

90.

Timperley

(2011). From professional development to professional learning. In Timperley

, Realising the power of professional learning (pp. 1–24). McGraw-Hill Education.

91.

Timperley

Kaser

Halbert

(2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry. Centre for Strategic Education.

92.

VanTassel–Baska

. (2005). Gifted programs and services: What are the non–negotiables? Theory into Practice, 44(2), 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4402_3

93.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

94.

Walter

Briggs

(2012). What professional development makes the most difference to teachers?. University of Oxford Department of Education.

95.

Wright

Wrigley

. (2019). Broadening design-led education horizons: Conceptual insights and future research directions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9429-9