Technology Education in the Finnish Primary Schools

Ari Alamäki

Introduction

Technology Education in Primary School This study focuses on the practices and potential of technology education in Finnish primary schools, where technology education is a compulsory school subject. As in many other countries, the content of technology education is currently being discussed and debated in Finland. For example, Autio (1997), Kananoja (1997), Kankare (1997), Kantola (1997), Lind (1996), and Parikka and Rasinen (1993) argue in their studies that more up-to-date technological content is needed.
Finland has a long tradition of teaching practical school subjects. Since 1866, educational handwork (sloyd) has been a compulsory school subject for both boys and girls (Kantola, 1997). Finnish technology education, called "technical work" in the national curriculum guidelines, is a school subject in which pupils design and make products by using different materials, machines, processes, techniques and tools (e.g. Kankare, 1997). This emphasis on designing and making is an essential part of Finnish technology education. It is believed that such experiences develop pupils' knowledge, personal qualities, and psychomotor skills (Peltonen, 1995; Suojanen, 1993). As with the traditional (sloyd) programs that preceded it, there is general belief that the design and build approach used in contemporary technology education programs enhances the pupils' creativity, dexterity, diligence, initiative, problem solving, self-image, and preparation for work.
As technology education has evolved in Finland, more content has been introduced, including such areas as electricity, electronics, machinery, and computers. Construction kits for teaching control technology have also been adopted. In addition, technology education classes now offers pupils the opportunity to service and repair their bicycles, mopeds, and other technical equipment. These areas, combined with the more traditional sloyd (craft and design), have made Finnish technology education more diverse than in other Scandinavian countries.
In informal discussions among teachers and teacher educators, there seems to be a general feeling that technology education in Finnish primary schools is out of date, emphasizing older technological processes such as the making of wooden and metal items. Even though technology education has been updated to an extent, there is a general feeling that there should be more connection to the modern technological world than that which exists presently. The technological concepts of communication, construction, energy, manufacturing, and transportation are rarely reviewed from ecological, economical, cultural, and social viewpoints. The activities in which the pupils are engaged determine the kinds of technological knowledge and processes they learn. These activities must therefore be upgraded.
The Finnish School System The Finnish comprehensive school provides compulsory basic education to pupils between the ages of 7 and 16. It is divided into a six-year lower level (grades 1-6), which corresponds internationally to primary education, and a three-year upper stage (grades 7-9), corresponding to lower secondary education. This study focused on technology education at the primary school level, where pupils are between 7 and 13 years old.
In the third grade of the primary school, it is compulsory that all pupils study technology education. After that they have to choose either technology education or textile work. As one might expect, boys usually choose the former and girls choose the latter. Pupils who have chosen technology education study it for at least two hours a week from third through sixth grades.
In Finnish primary schools, technology education is usually taught by regular classroom teachers. Today these teachers must hold a master's degree in education and most have studied technology education as part of their teacher preparation program. A separate technology education room is provided for instruction, with an ideal maximum of 16 students in the facility at one a time.
The national curriculum reform in 1994 gave schools noticeably more freedom in developing their own curricula (Kohonen & Niemi, 1996). The national core curriculum and curricular guidelines are very vague, providing only brief outlines. Though this allows for local flexibility, it also increases the diversity in the way in which technology education is taught from one school to another. In the latest national core curriculum, the main emphasis is on the "idea-to-product" process, with the pupil fully engaged in designing (Opetushallitus, 1994). Although, the designing and making of products remains as the central part of the national curriculum guidelines, the need for a broader technological understanding and capability is also mentioned.

Research Questions

The research questions of the study are summarized as follows:

1. What kinds of teaching practices are there in technology education in primary school? This question was intended to elicit information, for example, on the extent of computer usage in technology education now and that expected in the future, the extent of cooperation with local industry, and the kinds of tasks performed by students in technology education.
2. What goals of technology education are accomplished in primary school? This question focused on the extent to which the goals of the national curriculum were being realized. This included product design-based work and the extent to which students were copying designs rather than actually developing designs themselves. Information on the teaching methods used to teach design was also investigated.

Demographic data about the age of the teacher, educational background, and teaching experience were collected so that comparisons could be made. Secondarily, this study investigated how teachers define the word technology, perceived obstacles to the development of technology education, and the ideal way in which teachers would like to view technology education.

Method

Instrument The research questions were addressed by means of a survey instrument. The main part of the instrument was modeled after instruments used in two other technology education studies (see Alamäki, 1997; Kankare, 1997). These initial instruments were shown to be acceptably valid. There was no reason to believe that the teachers would not answer truthfully. They answered anonymously and it is plausible that they viewed the questionnaire as a way for them to contribute to the development of technology education. The majority of the questions were close-ended, requiring responses on a five-point scale with the following descriptors: "never," "seldom," "some extent," "often," "very often." The responses were assigned numerical values from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). A few open-ended questions were also included.
Sample The study was conducted in the Finnish provinces of Oulu and Varsinais-Suomi. The former lies in northern Finland and the latter in the southwestern region. The instrument was mailed to a sample of 300 primary schools, stratified by geographic region, in the spring of 1997. One technology education teacher at each school was selected as the contact person. At the beginning of the following school year, another copy of the questionnaire was sent to non-respondents. After these two mailings, 212 (70.7%) completed questionnaires were received. By geographic strata, 104 of the responding teachers were in city schools, 28 in provincial towns, and 80 in rural areas. The data showed that the vast majority (205) of the teachers in the study were male.
The average age was 41.1 years (SD=10.05). The average amount of teaching experience was 15.8 years (SD=10.22 years), with 14.6 years (SD= 9.92) spent teaching technology education. On average, the respondents taught technology education 5.3 hours (SD=4.79) per week. Twelve of the teachers held a degree in technology education and all of the respondents except five had a bachelor's or master's degree in education. Ten of the teachers worked as technology subject teachers, whereas the remainder of them worked as regular classroom teachers. All had studied technology education in the teacher preparation program since such study is compulsory.
Procedure The close-ended questions were analyzed quantitatively by using frequencies and averages. Chi-square testing, one-way ANOVA and Pearson correlation analysis were also applied to selected responses. The "copying teaching method" and the "design teaching method" were compared using a dependent sample t-test. The reliability coefficients of the variables concerning the goals of teaching and the teaching method ranged between .61 and .83 and were deemed acceptable. The open-ended questions were also analyzed quantitatively by using descriptive statistics, grouping similar responses together.

Results

Practices in Technology Education The first section of the instrument focused on the use of computers in teaching technology education now and in the future. It included two close-ended and one open-ended questions. Analysis revealed that 15% of the respondents had the potential of using a computer in technology education and 32% felt that they would have this potential in the near future. There was not a statistically significant difference in the potential of using a computer among cities, townships and rural areas, either presently or anticipated in the future. The predominant use of computers in technology education was for drawing and planning. Use of the World Wide Web or software developed for educational purposes was rarely mentioned.
Cooperation with local industry was examined with both closed-ended and open-ended questions. Nineteen percent of the respondents indicated that they have cooperated with local industry. In most cases, this involved the donation of materials or the provision of student field trips. Examples of the latter include visits to a sawmill, a fiberboard factory, and a fishing lure manufacturer. In some cases, the teachers also received expertise from the local industry. No differences were found among geographic strata.
The study also investigated the kinds of activities used in technology education and their suitability to students at the primary level. Respondents were asked to rate nine selected activities. A description of each activity was provided. For example, it was explained that in the activity "woodworking," wood was the primary material with which the students worked. Regarding electrical equipment, it said that this activity included such topics as transistors, IC-circuits, and construction kits for teaching electronics. Familiarity with technological equipment included such elements as exploring the functional principles of radios or computers; service and repair included topics such as the maintenance of students' bicycles and other equipment. These data are reported in Table 1.

Table 1

Extent of Use of Selected Activities in Primary School Programs

	Never	Seldom	Sometimes	Often	Very Often	Total
Activities	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	M	SD
Woodwork	1(1)	0(0)	11(5)	92(44)	107(51)	211(100)	4.44	.64
Service and Repair	11(5)	46(22)	111(53)	33(16)	9(4)	210(100)	2.92	.87
Metal Work	10(5)	60(29)	100(48)	36(17)	4(2)	210(100)	2.83	.84
Plastic Work	14(7)	60(29)	88(42)	45(21)	3(1)	210(100)	2.82	.89
Electro-mechanical equipment	20(10)	78(37)	88(42)	22(10)	3(1)	211(100)	2.57	.96
Electronic equipment	44(21)	55(26)	75(36)	31(15)	5(2)	210(100)	2.51	1.05
Familiarity with technological equipment	124(59)	52(25)	26(12)	5(2)	2(1)	209(100)	1.61	.87
Construction kits	135(64)	51(24)	20(10)	3(1)	2(1)	211(100)	1.51	.80
Internal-combustion engines	131(62)	56(27)	18(9)	5(2)	0(0)	210(100)	1.50	.75

Woodwork was clearly the most popular technological activity in Finnish primary education. The next activities in terms of popularity consisted of plastic work, metal work, service and repair of technical equipment and vehicles, electric-mechanical equipment, and electronic equipment. Least popular were construction kits, internal-combustion engines, and familiarity with technological equipment. In addition to the nine listed activities, respondents were asked to list one other activity. Leather, rattan, mosaic work, and building model airplanes were among those listed most often. When age, education, school location, and work experience were considered, the only statistically significant result was that those teachers who hold degrees in technology education use more activities that are related to electro-mechanical equipment than those who did not hold such degrees (p=.01).
The teachers generally felt that all of the nine prescribed activities could be suitable for technology education at the primary level (see Table 2). Woodworking was considered the most suitable (and the most popular); 72% of teachers stated that it is a very well suited activity for technology education. In addition, the teachers felt that activities such as service and repair, electronic equipment, electric-mechanical equipment, plastic work, and metalwork were well suited to the primary level, although they did not teach them often. The teachers, however, supportive of the suitability of activities related to techno-logical equipment and internal-combustion engines. When age, education, the location of school, and work experience were considered, it was found that there were not any statistically significant differences that had relevance to the study.

Table 2

Suitability of Selected Activities to Primary Level Technology Education Level of Suitability

	Not at all	Poorly	Neutral	Well	Very Well	Total
Activities	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	M	SD
Woodwork	0(0)	1(1)	9(4)	48(23)	150(72)	208	4.67	.58
Service and Repair	0(0)	7(3)	54(26)	87(42)	59(29)	207	3.96	.83
Electric-Mechanical Equipment	1(1)	8(4)	56(27)	96(47)	45(22)	206	3.85	.89
Plastic Work	1(1)	12(6)	64(31)	96(46)	34(16)	207	3.73	.82
Metal Work	0(0)	12(6)	71(34)	91(44)	33(16)	207(100)	3.70	.81
Electronic equipment	7(3)	18(9)	57(28)	82(40)	42(20)	206	3.65	1.00
Construction Kits	8(4)	16(8)	87(42)	72(35)	22(11)	205	3.41	.92
Familiarity with technical equipment	24(12)	65(32)	74(36)	31(15)	11(5)	205	2.71	1.03
Internal-combustion engines	27(13)	65(32)	74(36)	29(14)	9(4)	204	2.65	1.02

The Goals of Teaching
The Finnish curriculum guidelines mention creativity, cultural heritage, environmental education, entrepreneur education, self-image, problem solving skills, social skills, and readiness for work life as the general goals of a comprehensive education. This study investigated how these general goals were manifested in technology education. The responding teachers were asked to describe the extent to which pupils' activities in technology education corresponded to the goals.
According to the results reported in Table 3, technology education focuses most on students' creativity. The development of problem-solving skills, self-image, cultural heritage, and social skills are also often associated with technology education. However, readiness for work life, environmental education, and entrepreneur education are associated to only a limited extent with technology education according to the responding teachers.
In addition to general goals, this study also considered activities related to product design. Product design strongly emphasizes creating products, such as that suggested in the "idea-to-product" processes mentioned earlier. Traditional product design-based work includes the development of manual dexterity, product planning, work safety, work education, and aesthetic education. The results indicated that manual dexterity was most central to the product design-based work. In addition, work education, work safety, and product planning were considered essential components. Aesthetics were considered to be a limited part of teaching and the pupils' work.
The study also included an assessment of the three dimensions of technological literacy as espoused by Dyrenfurth and Kozak (1991) and others: the utilization of technology, the evaluation of technology, and the appreciation of technology. The utilization of technology refers to the acquisition of the knowledge and skills necessary to use and make technological products and solutions. The evaluation of technology refers to the critical evaluation of the impact and consequences of technological processes. The appreciation of technology refers to understanding the outcomes of technological innovations as they relate to a higher standard of living. The data in Table 3 indicate that the respondents feel that technology education is most concerned with the utilization of technology and that the evaluation and appreciation of technology are of lesser significance.

Table 3

Educational Goals and Dimensions Realized Through Technology Education

	Never	Little	Some Extent	Much	Very Much	Total
Activities	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	f (%)	M	SD
Creativity	1(1)	3(1)	53(25)	113(54)	41(19)	211	3.90	.73
Problem solving skills	0(0)	14(7)	61(29)	114(54)	20(10)	209	3.67	.74
Student's self-image	2(1)	10(5)	78(37)	90(43)	29(14)	209	3.64	.82
Social Skills	0(0)	19(9)	81(38)	95(45)	16(8)	211	3.51	.77
Cultural heritage	2(1)	14(7)	85(41)	91(43)	17(8)	209	3.51	.78
Work life	4(2)	39(18)	90(43)	66(31)	12(6)	211	3.20	.87
Environment education	8(4)	57(27)	104(49)	39(18)	4(2)	212	2.88	.82
Enterprise education	19(9)	77(37)	84(40)	26(12)	4(2)	210	2.61	.89
Manual dexterity	0(0)	1(1)	5(2)	86(41)	119(56)	211	4.53	.57
Work education	0(0)	4(2)	34(16)	106(50)	68(32)	212	4.12	.74
Work safety	0(0)	1(1)	39(18)	118(56)	54(25)	212	4.06	.68
Product planning	0(0)	4(2)	87(41)	96(45)	25(12)	212	3.67	.71
Aesthetics	1(1)	16(7)	90(42)	99(47)	6(3)	212	3.44	.70
Utilization of technol.	1(1)	12(6)	92(43)	98(46)	9(4)	212	3.48	.69
Evaluation of technol.	4(2)	45(21)	115(54)	44(21)	4(2)	212	3.00	.76
Appreciation of technol.	4(2)	66(31)	101(48)	39(18)	2(1)	212	2.85	.77

One approach used in technology education involves students in the making of artifacts using prescribed drawings or plans. In this study, the aforementioned approach is referred to as the "copying teaching method." Pupils can also invent, design and make products by themselves. This second method is referred to as the "design teaching method." Five statements with a five-point scale focused on each teaching method. According to the results, the teachers use the design teaching method significantly more (p<.001) than the copying teaching method. The means were 3.12 and 2.85 respectively. Thus technology education in primary school is more design-oriented.
The Obstacles to the Development of Technology Education
The study investigated obstacles to developing technology education in primary education with both closed-ended and open-ended questions. The respondents indicated that the three most significant obstacles, in order, were:

1. Lack of financial resources.
2. Insufficient material on how to teach technology education.
3. Lack of other accompanying resources.

The lack of financial resources determines what type of teaching materials may be purchased. In turn, this relates to the teachers' perceptions about delivering a valid technology education program. One teacher, for example, stated, "Can anybody manage to develop technology education in a positive direction with these kinds of financial resources?" The lack of financial resources was followed by the lack of teaching ideas and the lack of other accompanying resources. The latter is related to classroom tools, machines, and other equipment that must be purchased with resources other than those used for supplies and materials. No significant differences among the respondents were found for the top three obstacles listed above. Though not at the top of the list, motivation was one of the obstacles identified. It was found that older teachers felt that they had significantly less motivation compared to younger teachers (p<.05).
The Development of Technology Education Perceptions about technology education in the future were also investigated in this study. An open-ended question asked the respondents how or in what direction they would like to see technology education change in the future. Over one-fourth of the respondents felt that program updating was the most important goal to pursue in the future for the development of technology education. Samples of the respondents' statements with some caveats included, "...modern technology must be included in the right amount in the curriculum in such a way that it does not become an end in itself" or "More technology should be generally forced into the comprehensive school. But it can not take away from the diminishing number of handwork specialization courses...people have a need to do work with their hands...".
Eighteen percent of the respondents felt that the making of products should continue in the future. Several connected this perception with the need to bolster the content as well. There seemed to be a strong sentiment about moving toward a changed program but not discarding critical elements of traditional programs. Examples of statements supporting this were:

• "I appreciate the teaching of handiwork tradition and the applying of technological integration...Therefore, teaching of technological understanding is already entitled to start from childhood."
• "The diversified use of different materials, new work methods, and technology should nonetheless be realized without losing traditional woodworking."
• "Generally more technology to the comprehensive school, but this may not take time from more and more important dexterity...".
• "In technology education the final product is also important. The subject may not only be going toward technological knowledge. The making of concrete articles is very rewarding for many kids...".
• "Certain basic skills, techniques and traditional tasks should be saved, but stressing technology education could be moved toward so-called new teaching of electronics."

Diversification of curricular content to increase breadth was mentioned by 17% of teachers. Sample responses included, "Technology education should strive toward diversification" and "more diverse content is needed." Modernizing programs was mentioned by nine percent of the respondents. The term modernizing in this context refers to the need for programs to reflect contemporary society. A sample response in this category was, "More connection with these modern times." Nine percent of the teachers mentioned creativity, such as: "Move away from wood, toward creativity and new materials" or, simply, "More creativity." Teaching basic skills, electronics, planning, and the traditional handwork were also mentioned, but to a lesser extent.

Table 4

Goals for the Future Development of Technology Education (n=118)

	f	%
More technological content	32	27
The making of products (handwork)	21	18
Diversification of Curriculum	20	17
Modernizing Curriculum	10	9
Creativity	10	9
Other	85	72
Total	178	--

The Concept of Technology
The study sought to determine teachers' perceptions of the word technology by asking them to write a definition for it. Due to the breadth of the responses, some of the definitions were placed in more than one category. These data are reported in Table 5.

Table 5

Teachers' Definitions of Technology (n=170)

Definitions	f	%
Utilizing technical devices	61	36
Knowledge, skills, and means for doing different tasks	56	33
Technical devices and machines (artifacts)	38	22
Production process	25	15
Knowledge of how technical devices and machines work	8	5
Others	45	27
Total	233	--

Over a third of the teachers defined technology as the utilization of technical devices. The teachers in this group tended to emphasize the practical purposes of technology. Examples of definitions in this group included "work which is accomplished with machines" or "the use of technical devices instead of muscular strength."
One third of the teachers defined technology in terms of human knowledge and capability relative to accomplishing tasks. Technology was seen as know-how, or "human capital," which helps humans satisfy their needs and wants. Examples of statements in this category are "the adapting of modern technical know-how for the needs of humans" or "an activity which is realized with the help of thinking and equipment in practice."
Nearly a quarter of the group thought of technology in terms of artifacts. Sample definitions include "devices and machines which help the work and activity of humans" and "today's high technology consumer products, such as mobile phones, computers, gauges, etc." Technology was understood as a production process by 15% of the responses. Included in the "other" response category were concerns about the elimination of existing content such as, "the killer of a traditional handwork...or at least a big threat" and "everything involving dexterity is technology."

Discussion

Woodwork is the most popular activity area in technology education in Finnish primary schools. Electricity and electronics tasks, plastic work, and service and repair are taught to a certain extent. Nonetheless, all of the activities listed in the study were considered suitable for technology education at the primary level except for those related to familiarity with technological equipment and internal-combustion engines. Computers are not yet used to a large extent in technology education, but use is expected to increase rather dramatically in the near future. There is evidence of substantial cooperation between teachers and industry. The biggest obstacle for the development of technology education is inadequate financial resources and the resultant lack of materials and equipment necessary to teach it.
The age, education, and work experience of the teacher and the school location did not seem to be related to technology education practice. The traditional goals of Finnish technology education and the general goals of primary education are clearly manifested in technology education. The practical aspects of technological literacy were considered to be essential aspects of technology education. The design-based teaching method is more commonly used than the more antiquated and less educationally sound copying-based teaching method. It appears as though most of the teachers in primary schools understand the concept of technology from a perspective that encompasses more than just new technological artifacts or computers. The definitions of the term technology, in fact, seemed to match Mitcham's (1994) modes of technology. The study showed that the teachers felt that technology education should include more modern technological content while, at the same time, retaining traditional educational handwork.
Wood as an educational material has over 130 years of history in Finnish technology education, and it is still an appropriate material for design-based work. Teaching resources in school, for example, support the use of wood as a construction material. Significant learning experiences in technology, such as inventing or design, do not always require complicated tasks. The cognitive and affective processes that the activities of technology education evoke are more important than what the appearance of the products produced. However, it appears that a shift is needed toward activities through which students solve real-world, technological problems. Moreover, the development of technological literacy requires experiences that are representative of all fields of technology, not just the physical elements.
A surprising result of this study was that familiarity with technological equipment was not considered very suitable for technology education at the primary school. Although the teaching of abstract and rapidly changing technical facts is not advisable, some technological concepts, principles, and their consequences and impact on nature and society can be learned through such activities. For example, as students design and make electronic or electro-mechanical equipment, the teacher could easily organize class discussion that would cause pupils to reflect upon how their work relates to society and the environment.
It was surprising to find that neither the age of the teacher nor the geographic location of the school seemed to make a difference in technology education. The respondents were optimistic about the further development of technology education in the future. This was encouraging since the teachers are the principal determinants of the curriculum. The teachers clearly felt that more financial resources were needed in order for the programs to improve. In other words, they were willing to change if the resources are available. Yet the lack of necessary resources seems to be a problem shared with technology education in most other countries. Technology education is universally one of the most expensive school subjects. Efforts to change the values of financial decision makers must continue, along with the efforts by teachers to convincingly demonstrate the values of the program relative to the cost.
One way to diversify technology education is to develop activities that correspond more closely with the modern technological world. The designing and making of products should include more theoretical elements, abstract thinking, and links to the technology that students encounter in their everyday lives. Pupils, as current and future consumers of technological products, should be able to make valid inferences about the impact of technological products and solutions on their lives. Pedagogically, more attention must be placed on developing activities that are suitable for a particular grade level.
On the other hand, the aim in developing technology education in primary schools is not to create a technology education classroom wherein pupils only read textbooks, watch videos, use computer software, and complete worksheets. The cultural, economic, natural, and social aspects, together with the technological aspects, should be considered in connection with designing and making products. Chemical and biotechnology could also be taught in conjunction with science, although they can also be taught in connection with design and making processes. The history of technology could be correlated to humanities classes as well. In summary, the objects designed and made in technology education should not be "museum artifacts," but rather ones that are relevant to modern society. An example of such a project might be an electronic device found in some modern consumer product. In designing and making products, pupils should be taught to reflect upon the impact and consequences of technology to the society and the environment around them.
As the study indicates, teachers would be ready to include more technological content in their teaching if they had more financial resources and teaching ideas. However, they also want to preserve the traditional design and making of products, which enjoys a long, successful history in Finnish technology education. Hence, we must not throw "the baby away with the bath water" when making decisions about technology education. More than just technological understanding is needed in the future. Although technological thinking depends on specific knowledge, many examples of powerful and productive thinking result from sharing across disciplines and situations (see Bruer, 1994; Resnick, 1987). Therefore, a multidisciplinary approach like that suggested by Petrina (1998) seems most appropriate to the development of technology education in primary education in Finland. Nevertheless, more research and many more proven examples of practice are needed to accomplish these ideals.

References

Alamäki, A. (1997). Käsityö- ja teknologiakasvatuksen kehittämisen lähtökohtia varhaiskasvatuksessa [Starting points of developing for craft and technology education in early childhood education]. (Publication series A. Research reports No. 181). University of Turku, Finland: Faculty of Education.
Autio, O. (1997). Oppilaiden teknisten valmiuksien kehittyminen peruskoulussa. [Student's development in technical abilities in Finnish comprehensive school]. (Research reports No. 117). University of Helsinki, Finland: Department of teacher education.
Bruer, J. (1994). Schools for thought. A science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Dyrenfurth, M., & Kozak, M. (Eds.), (1991). Technological literacy. 40th Yearbook. Council on technology teacher education. Illinois: MacMillan.
Kananoja, T. (1997). Teacher training in technological education in Finland. In T. Kananoja (Eds.), Seminars on technology education. Oulu, 7.-8.5.1996; 18.20.10.1996 (pp. 9-16). (Research reports No. 69). University of Oulu, Finland: Faculty of Education.
Kankare, P. (1997). Teknologian lukutaidon toteutuskonteksti peruskoulun teknisessä työssä. [The context of technology education (Technical work) in schools]. (Publication series C. Research reports No. 139). Turku, Finland: University of Turku.
Kantola, J. (1997). Cygnaeuksen jäljillä käsityönopetuksesta teknologiseen kasvatukseen. [In the footsteps of Cygnaeus: From handicraft teaching to technological education]. (Studies in education, psychology and social research 133). Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
Kohonen, V., & Niemi, H. (1996). Developing and evaluating teacher education in Finland: Current trends and future challenges. In S. Tella (Ed.), Teacher education in Finland. Present and future trends and challenges (pp. 21-43). (Studia Pedagogica 11). University of Helsinki, Finland: Department of Teacher Education.
Lindh, M. (1996). Matematiikan ja fysiikan integrointi tekniseen työhön. Virikeaineistoa yleissivistävän koulun teknologiakasvatukseen. [The integration of math and science into technology education. Practical examples for technology education in comprehensive school]. (Publication series C. Research reports No. 68). University of Oulu, Finland: Faculty of Education.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology. The path between engineering and philosophy. Chigago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Opetushallitus. (1994). Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelman perusteet. [The curriculum guidelines for general education]. Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.
Parikka, M., & Rasinen, A. (1993). Technology education experiment, curricular points of departure for the experiment, In I. Mottiers, J. Ratt & M. de Vries (Eds.), Technology education and the environment. Improving our environment through technology education (pp. 189-206). Proceedings of PATT-6 conference, The Netherlands.
Peltonen, J. (1995). Craft and prevocational education in pre-primary and primary education. In J. Lasonen, & M-L. Stenström (Eds.), Contemporary issues of occupational education in Finland (pp. 27-41). University of Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for educational research.
Petrina, S. (1998). Multidisciplinary technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(2), 103-138.
Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Suojanen, U. (1993). From a technical crafts students into a critical one - a process of development through reflective teaching. The Finnish Journal of Education. Supplement 1(24), 61-66.

Ari Alamäki (ari.alamaki@utu.fi) is with the Department of Teacher Education in Rauma, University of Turku, Finland.

Experience the Digital Education Revolution

by Dr. Evan Arthur / June 22, 2009

At present, schools do not have easy-to-use systems to connect learners with resources, tools and each other. In many cases, it is easier for teachers to provide information to students, set tasks and assess performance offline. The reality is that ICT applications do not often connect with each other and teachers and administrators are faced with unpredictable costs if they use technology to the maximum.
The Australian Government is investing $32.5 million over the next two years to supply students and teachers with online curriculum tools and resources that will enhance the capacity of the Digital Education Revolution to deliver world-class learning outcomes. Online curriculum tools and resources will be aligned with national curriculum that will be developed by 2010 and implemented by all states and territories from 2011. More information on the National Curriculum Board and the kindergarten to Year 12 curriculum can be found at www.ncb.org.au.
Online curriculum resources and tools aim to engage students and enable the creation of learning experiences that are meaningful, authentic and allow for the development of deep understanding. Key to providing such resources is their accessibility, discoverability and usability by teachers and students and their affordability by school authorities over time.
NIDAAG (a National Interoperability and Digital Architecture Advisory Group) will be established, and will provide advice on a range of frameworks to support online curriculum resources and digital architectures that aim to facilitate access to, and sharing of, affordable collaborative online curriculum resources and information cross ICT systems. Key issues that will be addressed include:

• how to identify individuals and allocate roles and privileges to them across heterogeneous identity management systems;
• how to persistently identify information;
• how to move data from one system to another; and
• how to ensure applications run in different systems.

A review of existing online curriculum resources and an analysis of gaps and needs in relation to available online curriculum resources is expected to be completed in early 2009. The review will also examine current arrangements for the provision of online resources as well as barriers and enablers to their use by teachers and students.

The importance of copyright

Copyright can be a major impediment to innovation in the use of technology in education. The very nature of online use requires the copying and communication of material all the time. Online, every student and every teacher is potentially a ‘publisher’. It is very difficult for individuals to understand the details of copyright law and what can and cannot be done online, let alone what certain things might cost. One option is to create large bodies of material which are copyright cleared in advance so teachers and students can use and manipulate them without facing uncertain costs and liabilities. As part of the online curriculum and tools initiative, a working group has been established to try to address copyright issues. Early areas of work identified to date are:

• exploring nationally agreed open or free copyright licensing regimes that all education sectors can access;
• minimizing copyright obstacles to implementing the Digital Education Revolution;
• investigating the range of new and emerging technologies being used in schools to identify and raise any legislative issues that may arise in their use; and
• enhancing and developing copyright knowledge in the education sectors including through technological solutions.  

Teaching challenges

Teacher pre-service education coverage of ICT issues is varied. A significant proportion of the teaching workforce is not engaged in integrating ICT into their teaching practice. Aligning the usefulness of technology to the intrinsic work practices of teachers to share and collaborate with each may improve uptake. This may include better tools that facilitate online engagement, particularly Web 2.0 tools.
The Australian Government is committing $11.25 million to ICT-related, school-based teacher professional development in 2009 through the AGQTP (Australian Government Quality Teacher Programme) and has started a process to deliver strategic advice for the ‘Teaching for the Digital Age’ initiative through the establishment of a cross-jurisdictional Teaching for the Digital Age Advisory Group. This advisory group has developed a work plan that will focus on the teacher professional development required to integrate ICT into pedagogical practice to meet students’ needs and harness the resources of the Digital Education Revolution.
To optimize improved education and training outcomes, the Digital Education Revolution is being rolled out in partnership with education authorities in all jurisdictions and educational sectors. This collaborative approach will ensure that Australia has the skills, curriculum materials and supporting systems and infrastructure in place to sustain and utilize the Australian Government’s investment in ICT and broadband capital effectively and innovatively.
—Dr. Evan Arthur is the Group Manager, Digital Education Group, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. This article is based on his presentation to industry in October at the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2008 in Canberra.
*This story is from the April/May 2009 issue of Australia's Education Technology Solutions.

The Coming Education Revolution

By Nestor A. Toro

Many conclude that the modern worldwide education system is broken beyond repair. Yet all hope is not lost!

Every school system faces the same twofold challenge: how to guarantee access and excellence.
First consider access. According to the United Nations, approximately 57 million children worldwide are uneducated. In 2000, 189 nations pledged to address the issue through the second of the United Nation’s eight Millennium Development Goals to be attained by 2015: “Achieve Universal Primary Education.”
Two years ago, during a World Economic Forum meeting held in Davos, Switzerland, leaders discussed the issue. Following the conference, Britain’s former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who supports a global education fund, wrote in the article “Our Silent Education Crisis” that “global progress towards universal primary education has slowed since 2005.
“On current trends, the out-of-school population could increase to 72 million by 2015…Another 71 million adolescents are out of school, many of them lacking a basic education…Millions of children enter school only to drop out in the first one or two grades, long before they have acquired basic literacy and numeracy skills. Around 10 million children drop out of school in sub-Saharan Africa alone each year.”
In modern times, the United States and other Western nations have provided education to most of their citizenries. Wide access, however, has often come at the expense of the second challenge: excellence.
While millions of children do attend school, many are “receiving an education of such abysmal quality that they are unlikely to gain even the most basic…skills,” Mr. Brown stated.
“This twin crisis,” he continued, “in access to school and learning in school, does not make media headlines. Cameras will never capture children going hungry for want of education, or lives devastated for want of learning. Yet there is overwhelming evidence that disadvantage in education costs lives, undermines economic growth, fuels youth unemployment…”
The solution to effectively address both sides of the problem has remained a mystery to educators. What have these well-meaning reformers missed?

A Troubled “Student”

As arguably the most successful country of all time, the U.S. has offered educators a national school system to test different teaching methods. This approach provides a clear example of the continual struggle to implement long-term policies that work.
In effect, the American education system has resembled a troubled student who has had ups and downs, but has never seemed to steadily perform well. Early education efforts included the establishment of Latin grammar schools in the 1600s, academies started by Benjamin Franklin in the mid-1700s, a university started by Thomas Jefferson in 1819 (to separate schools from religion), Lyceums in the 1820s (where figures such as Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, and Isaac Newton spoke), and high schools in the 1870s. These initiatives opened up paths toward educational access for all.
For instance, the movement of pragmatism, which intended to stimulate a more active style of learning through hands-on experimentation, started in the mid-19th century.
The National Education Association made a broader attempt to foster educational excellence with its Seven Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education in 1918. These were (1) health, (2) command of fundamental processes (reading and writing—oral and written expression—and arithmetic), (3) worthy home membership (fostering strong familial bonds), (4) vocation, (5) citizenship, (6) worthy use of leisure time (to teach that it should enrich one’s life, not hinder it), and (7) ethical character.
Then America was put to the test through the Great Depression. Many school programs saw severe cuts. The educational agenda was shifted to promote a better economy through governmental programs. This movement saw education as a vehicle to further political and societal change.
Over the next few decades, the U.S. school system experienced many shifts in focus. Education was retooled when the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957 triggered an increase in federal education funding, emphasizing math, science, technology and foreign languages. In the 1960s and 70s, many schools embraced a progressive reform known as Open Education, which endorsed the idea that students should learn “their own way.”
By the early 1980s, many in the U.S. felt that the constantly changing approach to educational theory was inadequate. This brought about a 1983 report by leading educators titled “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.”
The Encyclopedia of Education described how the report “found a ‘rising tide of mediocrity’ that threatened the nation’s future.” It felt that the nation “had engaged in unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”
In an attempt to correct the course of American education, in 1989, then-president George H.W. Bush set a number of ambitious goals to be accomplished by 2000. These included increasing the high school graduation rate to at least 90 percent, that U.S. pupils would lead the world in science and mathematics, and that all schools would be drug and violence free.
By the early 21st century, desperation birthed the largest attempt yet by the federal government to overhaul education: the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
The initiative put forth by former President George W. Bush was intended to raise accountability with more emphasis on reading and closely monitored standardized testing. If a public school did not perform well on designed tests, it risked losing some of its federal funding. The act also intended to give greater choice to parents as to which school their children attended. If their local school system was underperforming, they could potentially receive a waiver for their child to attend a different nearby district.
Over a decade later, the desired results have not materialized.
“The same year that No Child Left Behind came out, the iPod came out,” former Education Department official Mike Petrilli stated in the Charleston Daily Mail. “We’re still on No Child Left Behind, version 1.0, and we’ve had new versions of the iPod, iPhone, iPad.”
Even with numerous educational approaches and the money to implement these varied ideas, America has never been able to achieve widespread, lasting success.

Calls for Revolution

In addition to the twin challenges of access and excellence, educators the world over face the problem of keeping up with the times—which is made worse in an ever-morphing, hustle-bustle 21st century.
Rapidly changing technology introduces a towering question educators must ask: “Will the knowledge we are teaching now be obsolete in five years?”
Such uncertainty has brought on calls for a modern education revolution. Champions of the cause lament that while the globe is well into the digital age, most education is still based upon the needs of the Industrial Revolution. The thought is that overemphasis is placed on classes where there is only one right answer such as reading, math and science. Critics contend that, while these are important skills, they often crowd out classes that foster critical thinking—such as music, art and dance—in which students can be pushed to discuss ideas and form their own opinions.
The European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth, Androulla Vassiliou, commented on this problem: “Today’s young people are the most educated in the whole of European history and yet they find it hard to get steady work after graduation in spite of the two million unfilled vacancies across Europe.
“Education can provide some answers. The crisis has revealed serious weaknesses in Europe’s educational systems. Indeed, it has sharpened what we expect from our education systems.
“Our goal is to make graduates more employable, foster entrepreneurship and stimulate innovation. By combining entrepreneurship education and interaction with business, students can develop the practical skills, knowledge and attitudes that allow them to innovate…There is a lot at stake. Today, more than ever, it is education that can deliver social progress. When we invest in education, we commit ourselves to the development of our citizens and the future welfare of our society.
“The health of a society depends on the quality of the education it imparts to its citizens.”
Consider: Europe has essentially achieved the UN goal of “Universal Primary Education.” Despite this success, it still grapples with failures in its school systems.
Something more is obviously missing.

Teaching True Values

In 1947, a small college opened in Pasadena, California, which exemplified what real education will look like in the future after it undergoes a much-needed transformation. The institution was called Ambassador College and it was well ahead of its time.
Its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong, understood what had been missed by higher education for centuries: that there are invisible laws that affect all of mankind. If these are followed, they can ensure success in every aspect of life, including education. This set of laws constitutes the proper foundation of all knowledge.
Almost 40 years after the institution’s founding, Mr. Armstrong wrote in the college’s 1986 yearbook: “Ambassador College knows and teaches the purpose and true meaning of life—the true values that pay off—and the way to peace, happiness and abundant well-being.”
“The Bible is the world’s biggest seller, but also the book almost nobody knows. It is the foundation of all knowledge, and the approach to acquirable knowledge…Ambassador students are taught the missing dimension in education—the underlying purpose and the real meaning of life; the worthwhile values; the basic laws of success, not only in economic fields, but in life as a whole. They are given individual attention in the development of character, poise, culture and personality. Ambassador is a unique character-building institution.”
The coming education revolution actually began with this man who was used by God to restore lost knowledge. Part of what had been lost to humanity was captured in the college’s motto: “The Word of the Lord is the foundation of knowledge.”
(To learn more about Herbert W. Armstrong’s life, request the biography Herbert W. Armstrong – His Life in Proper Perspective.)
Today’s continuation of that college is Ambassador Center, which is the educational arm of the publisher of this magazine, The Restored Church of God. This institution imparts the same biblical principles—invisible laws—that made the original “AC” a one-of-a-kind success story. These include an emphasis on give rather than get, the understanding of cause and effect, and developing a well-rounded personality. Also emphasized are proper teamwork, the benefits of hard work, true quality, healthful living, and strong character, among other elements.
These fundamental laws shine a blinding light into the dark recesses of the modern education system.

Wrong Foundation

Plato’s Academy circa 400 BC is regarded by many as the first university. As ancient as this system is, the concept of instruction actually started much earlier. The true origin of this world’s education—both good and bad—is found early in the Bible book of Genesis. The familiar account mentions two trees—the Tree of Life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9). These two trees, and the decision to eat of them, symbolized two completely opposite ways of life.
In his most important book, Mystery of the Ages, Mr. Armstrong wrote about Adam’s role in that first choice and how it ties into the modern education system: “Adam, not deceived, nevertheless went along with his wife. With her, he took to himself the determination of what is right and what is wrong—thus disbelieving what his Maker had said, rejecting God as Savior and Ruler—rejecting God as the source of revealed basic knowledge. He believed and followed Satan’s way!”
He continued: “When God ‘drove out the man’ from the Garden of Eden, and barred reentrance—lest he go back and receive eternal life in sin (Gen. 3:22-24)—God pronounced sentence!
“God said, in effect: ‘You have made the decision for yourself and the world that shall spring from you. You have rejected me as the basic source of knowledge…’ Go, therefore, Adam, and all your progeny that shall form the world, produce your own fund of knowledge. Decide for yourself what is good and what is evil. Produce your own educational systems and means of disseminating knowledge, as your god Satan shall mislead you. Form your own concepts of what is god, your own religions, your own governments, your own life-styles and forms of society and civilization. In all this Satan will deceive your world with his attitude off self-centeredness—with vanity, lust and greed, jealousy and envy, competition and strife and violence and wars, rebellion against me and my law of love.”
The first humans had plenty of access to the most excellent, spiritual knowledge of God. They, however, settled for physical mediocrity.
In the same book, Mr. Armstrong showed the same mindset that prevails today: “The primary divisions of this world’s civilization—government, religion, education and science, technology, industry—all shy away from God.
“They want God to keep his nose out of their affairs! The mention of God embarrasses them. This ignorance cannot be explained except by the invisible and unaware influence of the supernatural evil power of Satan the devil and the unseen demoniacal spirit beings. When we read in Revelation 12:9 that all the world has been deceived by Satan, it does not exclude those of advanced intellect. Jesus Christ thanked God that the real truths are hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed to those who are babes in materialistic knowledge.”
The real problem behind the two-fold education model is a wrong foundation: false knowledge has been spread for millennia. Its author, Satan the devil, has effectively deceived the entire world about it—including you!
How can any educational institution expect to achieve excellence if the knowledge it teaches is wrong?
The good news is that a worldwide educational revolution based on true knowledge is foretold in the Bible. But first, mankind must learn once and for all the lessons of its failed experiment. This revolution will start with a dramatic change of administration.

Master Educator in Charge

The Bible teaches that Satan—who can be likened to the current superintendent of this world’s educational systems—will soon be bound. This amazing prophecy found in Revelation 20 reveals why: “…that he should deceive the nations no more…” (vs. 3).
Jesus told His disciples, “I will come again” (John 14:2-3). Few understand that during His earthly ministry, Christ qualified to soon replace the devil as ruler of this world. (See II Corinthians 4:4.) The devil’s veil of deceit will be removed.
When Christ returns, He will reinstate true knowledge from God. This will revolutionize education!
What should be most inspiring to anyone concerned with the future of education is that Jesus Himself was—and is—a teacher. Consider that most of His ministry while in the flesh was teaching. He preached about the coming solution to the world’s problems! There are many people who may actually read the Bible for instruction, but remarkably they often miss what Jesus Christ constantly taught: the kingdom of God.
A kingdom is a government. Christ’s message was simple: the governments and systems of man, education included, will be replaced. Jesus said: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent [change] you, and believe the gospel [good news]” (Mark 1:15).
A well-known Old Testament verse often sung in concert halls and cathedrals should now suddenly make more sense to you: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever…” (Isa. 9:6-7).
Understand—believe—what God says He will do. Do not miss that one of the titles Jesus Christ will carry at the fulfilment of this prophecy is Counselor. Excellent counsel and instruction will be available to all when God’s kingdom is in place.
As the Master Educator who taught Adam and Eve, God has all the qualifications great teachers require. Notice He has no issue with…
Large classrooms: Christ taught thousands at a time (Luke 9:14).
Pupils with little to no background knowledge: He trained fishermen, such as Peter, to become apostles and great teachers themselves.
“Challenging” students: “But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are” (I Cor. 1:27-28).
Only in God’s kingdom will men come to realize, “The Word of the Lord is the foundation of knowledge.”
Having learned the hard way that its systems do not work, mankind will finally accept God’s excellent instruction. Only then, education will not only succeed—it will thrive. This is just another reason Christians are commanded to pray, “Thy kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10; Luke 11:2).

Universal Access

The goal of universal education, which nations are so desperately trying to reach, will eventually be achieved—and soon! In the coming education revolution, knowledge will no longer be a mixture of good and evil compiled in libraries and worldly institutions with limited access. Notice what it will be like when Christ returns: “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Hab. 2:14).
During this coming time, God’s Way will be taught the world over. Truly high expectations will characterize classrooms in the world to come. At that time, proven, effective teaching will include:
The benefits of obeying the Ten Commandments: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do His commandments…” (Psa. 111:10).
Clear course objectives: “To know wisdom and instruction…perceive the words of understanding…receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity…give subtlety to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion…increase learning…attain unto wise counsels…understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings” (Prov. 1:2-6).
Rigor: “Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Tim. 2:15).
Discipline motivated by love: “For whom the Lord loves He chastens…” (Heb. 12:6).
Individualized programs: “…your eyes shall see your teachers: and your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, This is the way, walk you in it, when you turn to the right hand, and when you turn to the left” (Isa. 30:20-21).
Parental support: “Only take heed to yourself, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life: but teach them your sons, and your sons’ sons…” (Deut. 4:9).
Reading comprehension: “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Neh. 8:8).
Man will learn how to live, as well as how to earn a living. He will understand his awesome purpose and potential role in God’s kingdom. (This answer can be found in the free book The Awesome Potential of Man.)
This is the incredible solution that has remained a mystery ever since Adam and Eve rejected God’s Way. It is what educators have missed: “…the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith…” (Rom. 16:25-26).
Through The Real Truth magazine, God’s Church is making plain the coming education revolution now! Yet schooling is just one aspect of life that Christ’s supergovernment will revolutionize. The Real Truth magazine Editor-in-Chief David C. Pack elaborates on this coming wide-spread change in his book Tomorrow’s Wonderful World – An Inside View!:
“[A] better, perfect government—one not left to the devices, machinations, and confusion of men—is coming. It will usher in peace, happiness, unity, abundance, and prosperity for every human being and every country on Earth. While such a vision may seem impossible, it will happen—and in your lifetime!
“It was always the Creator’s Plan that a whole new and infinitely better world would come—one built from the beginning on the right foundation…The coming utopian age that God planned long ago will be absolutely marvelous—breathtaking to behold!—and it appears scripturally in vivid colors, with sharp outlines, and in exquisite detail, as a stunning, beautiful, panoramic, and previously unimagined future worldscape.”
A wonderful new world is on the way, and this book offers an advance preview—an inside view! For much more information order or download your free copy today. Using many verses from the Bible, it provides a window into the awe-inspiring world to come! 

More on this Subject:

• What’s Missing from the Classroom?
• Never Stop Learning!
• The Scourge of Illiteracy – Soon to be Erased!
• The EDUCATION CRISIS – Part 2
• The EDUCATION CRISIS – Part 1

Design Thinking in Schools: Building a Generation of Innovators

by Rafiq Elmansy · 03/10/2016

Observing today’s world can tell us much about tomorrow and what human beings need to meet future challenges. Along with the increasing challenges that we face everyday from economical challenges and climate change to extremism and the increasing language of hate between nations, we should raise a generation that is able to meet these challenges and find innovative solutions for tomorrow’s problems. In a previous article, Can we Apply Design Thinking in Education, we discussed how the current education systems still depend on the some core education pedagogy since decades. Although there is a sustaining innovation in some education systems, these future challenges seek a disruptive innovative that can contribute to building a generation programmed to solve problems rather than dealing with them.
When investigating the different routes to achieve this goal, one route seems to be appealing, as it aims to change how we thinking, which aligns with Albert Einstein’s quote: “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.” This route is based on design thinking, a methodology that aims to solve problems with a creative approach while putting the user in the center of the process to achieve a user-centered approach. Design thinking processes are not only applied to design business but extend to become a method that can be applied in daily life situation in order to solve our everyday problems or make our lives easier through innovation and creativity.

Why Do We Need Design Thinking?

So, how can this methodology contribute to changing our education system to become more innovation and creativity-biased? While there are different design thinking models—two of which will be discussed later in this article—most of them share the same characteristics while changing the steps and the how the process flows. Some of the characteristics include the following.
Highlight problems and curiosity: In the core of the design thinking there is a question to answer or problem to solve. All the design process start with a question that need to be addressed and reaching this question requires an open-mind that is fueled with curiosity to address problems that may not be addressed before.
Collaborative: The process is based on collaborating and sharing ideas and effort among a design thinking team either inside a company or a classroom.
Constructive and holistic: The design process is based on thinking about old ideas with a new approach in order to achieve innovation. Also, it targets a holistic perception for the situation and focuses on the whole system rather than individual elements, similar to systems thinking theory.
Empathic: In order to put the user in the heart of the process, empathy aims to put the team in the shoes of the user of the product or the service. Therefore, they tend to understand their problems, needs, and aims strategies to solve it.
Iterative: The design thinking process depends on appreciating iteration and ongoing improvement through the different steps of the process and even after delivering the final solution.
Nonjudgmental: Developing ideas during the design thinking process depends on a non-judgmental approach. The team freely develops ideas, seeking criticism in order to unleash creativity especially in the ideation and brainstorming phases.
Universal: The design thinking process doesn’t only apply to design; it can be adopted to solve issues in daily life or problems facing any industry.

Design Thinking Models for Education

Although the design thinking process was initially developed for organizations, the above characteristics promote it to become a successful educational method to teach students on different levels about how to think in problems differently and build innovative solutions through chasing their ordinary thinking matrix. Over the course of targeting the education system, two main models were introduced in association with the IDEO, Stanford d.school, and Hasso Plattner Institute of Design. These processes were developed along with local schools and teachers in order to be presented in a form of educational strategy including the process itself, and a number of these activities and tools can be used in school classes.

Stanford d.school Design Thinking

The Stanford d.school design thinking for education model aims to put teachers and students together in hands-on design challenges that focus on building their skills through different design thinking processes. This model depends on the following steps:
Empathy: This stage aims to discover the gaps between what people say and do, which will present the question or the opportunity to provide the solution. In this stage, students start by investigating a specific situation or place and how people interact with it.
Define: At this stage, students transform their findings into a description for the situation. This description is the target that needs to be addressed in the following steps.
Ideate: In this stage, students intend to arrive at a solution using any of the design thinking methods such as brainstorming and mind mapping.
Prototype: Students start to build a prototype for the suggested solution. This visual prototype allows them to evaluate the idea and determine whether it meets with the target.
Test: This is the first iteration stage, where the prototype is tested by the students and receives feedback to improve the product to reach a better results.
Iterate: Even after the product is delivered, there should be a process to learn about the current and future experience with the product and to develop the future version of the product.

The Stanford design thinking model (Source: d.school Stanford)

Note that the above model suggests a continuous iteration process between different stages in order to improve the final product. So, the process may not flow in a linear line, as the iteration process may lead to jumping between processes. Another model was provided with different names for the process: understand, observe, point of view, ideate, prototype, and test.

IDEO Design Thinking for Educators

The IDEO mode is introduced on a dedicated website about Design Thinking for Educators, where their toolkit can be downloaded and adopted in classrooms. Similar to the d.school model, this model is based on a process that presents a workflow for educators. It supports a number of in-class activities and tools that help them achieve the target of the design thinking process in education. IDEO model for education is based on five phases.

IDEO design thinking for educators (Source: IDEO Design Thinking for Educators).

Discovery: This investigation phase intends to build a deep understanding of what is needed and what needs to be solved. This phase gives an understanding to the proposed design challenge.
Interpretation: This phase transforms the collected data or observation into a design opportunity, combining thoughts to form a direction for the ideation phase.
Ideation: This phase is similar to the d.school model. It tends to generate ideas and thinking in different ideas without judgment, criticism, or any constrains.
Experimentation: This phase presents the prototype. Ideas are visualized and turned into a prototype product that can be tested and evaluated.
Evolution: This phase presents the iteration nature of the process, including planning for further development and improving the ideas.

Resources for Design Thinking Educators and References

Design thinking for education resources are available online in different domains that can help educators and school administrators to directly put this approach into action. The following are some resources that can be downloaded and used in class or to build a class system based on design thinking:

• IDEO Design Thinking for Educators website
• Stanford Educator Guide to Design Thinking
• Taking Design Thinking to Schools
• Introduction to Design Thinking
• IDEO Design Thinking Kit
• Change by Design, a book by Tim Brown
• Make Space: How to Set the Stage for Creative Collaboration, a book by Scott Doorley, Scott Witthoft, Hassor Plattner Institute of Design, and Stanford University

In the current and future challenges that face our world, we should raise a generation with a high ability to solve problems and innovate new solutions for problems. This can be achieved through adopting new ways of thinking, and one of the highlights of these suggested methods is design thinking—a method that intend to build problem-solving skills through creativity and the adoption of a user-centered approach.
Using design thinking as a teaching method helps our students to become more empathic, collaborative, and open-minded. They can solve problems regardless of the industry they will work in when they join the workforce. While there are different design thinking methods, the Stanford d.school and IDEO design thinking methods were introduced along with a set of tools and activities that educators can implement directly into their classes. This approach can help schools directly adopt a creative thinking model, which may change students’ thinking to a more creative and innovative approach, resulting in a new generation geared toward solving world problems instead of making them.

5 Steps to Turn Your Creativity into a Successful Design Business

by Rafiq Elmansy · 02/23/2016

In today’s challenging economy, it’s harder to get a job as a designer in a company. Therefore, I tell my students to open their minds to different business models that they can conquer using their talent and education in design, such as working as a freelance designer or establishing design start-ups. Many of today’s big companies, such as Google, LinkedIn, Facebook, IKEA, and Lego, started as start-ups or individual businesses. However, the majority of design schools lack the education of design business and how to think in design from a business and managerial perspective, which reflects on the students’ acquired skills. Many designers who attempted to start their own businesses failed due to business-related factors rather than design or creative-related factors.
Navigate through design websites such as Coroflot, Behance, and others. There are thousands of prototypes and creative ideas that never leave the studio to transform into a real product. Many factors involve a design failure or an inability to see the light as a product that drive profits for their owners. Observing these experiments and projects, we can highlight five points that can contribute to converting design talent—or even a hobby—into a successful business as described below.

Step 1: Think of it as a Business

The moment you start to think about building your own design business as a freelancer or a start-up, you are taking yourself from being a designer and putting yourself in the shoes of a businessman or a manager analyzing your business. At this point, the ideas you fall in love with while doing your creative art of design project will be seen from a totally different perspective. You will start to judge the ideas from a pure business and innovation point of view to determine if they if they are marketable or not.
You need to analyze the market, observe other competitors or potential competitors, and learn about their products, branding, and how they sell these products to their consumers. Ask yourself questions. Is it a good product? Is it easy to use? This will let you build empathic understanding for the similar product. Then, you need to put together ideas about the characteristics of your business. While many designers don’t have business education as highlighted earlier, there are handy tools that allow you to visualize your business, such as the Business Canvas Model we highlighted in a previous article, Download Our Free Business Model Canvas Template.

The business model canvas template

This tool allows you to analyze your business or build its characteristics based on the target consumer segment, proposed value, marketing channels, communication with the consumer, suggested revenue stream, cost structure, and others.

Step 2: Brand Your Business

Once you build a business plan for your design business, this plan should reflect on the product or the business identity through a unique and representative brand. While many design schools teach branding, this can be a strong point for designers if they can implement it to support their business. The brand reflects not only on the visual elements, such as logos and business identity, but it also determines the characteristics of the marketing plan used to advertise and promote the business through the suggested channel in the business canvas above.
At this stage, your design skills merge with your understanding of the market and the business in order to form a brand that can stand out of the crowd and describe your business to consumers.

Step 3: Choose a Design Process to Follow

In order to market a successful product, consumers should be placed in the heart of the development process. This can’t be achieved without a design process that ensures that consumers are targeted during every stage of the development process, starting from initiating the idea, building the prototype, and moving to delivering the product and collecting feedback from the consumer. Companies like Apple, IBM, IKEA, and others tend to adopt design thinking process models to achieve this goal. The good news is that these models can be deployed in different sized companies, including your own start-up.

The Design Council double diamond process (Source: Design Council)

There are many design thinking process models to use in your business, including the Stanford d.School design thinking model, Design Council double diamond model, and recently, IBM stablished their very easy to learn and adopt model that we covered here: IBM Design Thinking Model: A Shift Toward Big Enterprises. Most design process models follow general characteristics to organize the flow of the development process around consumer needs and expectations. You need to choose the model that suits your business scale and plan.

Step 4: Find Funding for Your Business

One of the major challenging barriers facing designers when they start thinking about their own business is how they are going to fund it and cover the costs related to production, marketing, and HR. In recent years, many funding models have been presented as solutions for start-ups and small companies to fund their innovative projects, such as crowd-funding websites like Kickstarter, angel investment, business incubators, venture capital, and others. You can find details about each funding model in 8 Tips to Finance Your Design Business.
During business model development, designers need to determine the funding resources for their business. Each resource may fit a specific business rather than the other. Some models are easier to afford, such as Kickstarter crowd-funding and loans, while it may be hard to find a local investor or build a successful partnership.

Step 5: Build a Reliable Team

In competing markets, it is no longer an option to work alone unless you have the business qualifications, including assets, experience, and talent. Many designers may lack the talent to manage a business themselves or to do specific tasks such as marketing and business relationships. You can easily fulfill this need by hiring the right team in your start-up. The team may work based on a preset salary or as part of a partnership. However, it is important to find the right team members to join your league.
You can search between your friends, local communities, or even through online freelance websites to build a team that can help you fulfill the experience required to start a successful business. For example, if you are a good designer with no experience in coding, you can easily hire a developer to handle this part of the development instead of wasting your time trying to learn coding from scratch.

In sum, it isn’t easy to find a design job in this current economy, but you can start your own business as a freelance designer or run a design company if you know the right tools for building a successful business. While most design schools lack the education of the business side of design, observing both successful and failed companies teaches us lessons and inspires us to take steps to creating a design business. These steps include building a business plan, building a business band, relaying on a design process, finding project funding, and depending on a reliable team. Achieving these steps can contribute to leading your business to success, even if you don’t have previous business experience or education.

10 Tips to Achieve Creativity and Innovation in Education

10 Tips to Achieve Creativity and Innovation in Education

by Rafiq Elmansy · 04/16/2015
Advertisement

Our current world is evolving more rapidly than the capacity of any existing education system. The challenge of learning is getting even harder for the next generations. We do not have a prediction of how tomorrow will look like, but we know that flexible process models are able to face the changes comparing with fixed-style models; we know that the ability to adapt helped our ancestors to survive on this planet for about six million years.

This leads us to the question; what is the most important skill to teach our kids in schools? The answer:  How to build creative and innovative minds that can adapt and face future unpredictable challenges. Albert Einstein, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Larry Page provide successful examples of how adopting innovation in education can help in building creativity and better abilities in order  to solve problems.

Many governments adopt the policy of free basic education, a large base of students are privileged by this policy to learn. These policies have very wide range of standards, quality and infrastructure. Therefore, a focus strategy on the essential skills should be implemented. These skills include the following:

    Think creatively in order to compete in the market
    Find innovative solutions for existing and future problems
    The ability to evaluate current status and find better alternatives if needed

innovation in education

Design thinking for kids at ZURB Command Center (Source: ZURB)

In order to achieve the above, we need to apply creative and innovative strategies in education with a particular focus on the basic kid’s education. While education systems are varying in their capability to implement creative teaching methods and curricula, a teacher can easily adapt their teaching methods towards more creative thinking through the following tips:
Encourage children to find the answer

It is also called the Pestalozzi method. Unlike the ordinary models of giving the direct answers for questions, this method aims to encourage students to find the answers on their own. It helps the students to learn how to observe, imagine, judge and reasoning. One of the successful examples of applying this method is Albert Einstein.
Children learn, teachers observe

The current educational system depends on teacher-driven lessons, where the teacher leads the class leaving no space for students to self-develop their skills and capabilities to innovate. The Montessori method aims to give a space of students to self-learning while the teachers observe the progress. One of the successful examples of using this method is Google founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.