Rethinking the Campus Experience in a Post-COVID World: A Multi-Stakeholder Design Thinking Experiment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Design Thinking Methods Applied to Reimagine the Campus Experience
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Inspire
- Trend analysis—“a recent news piece/article about some innovation in higher education that you found interesting”;
- Empathy—“a comment you’ve made or heard on campus regarding some problem or constraint related to equipment, space, or process that affected the pedagogical experience”;
- Benchmark—“one or more images that represent the ideal campus space”;
- Parallel worlds—“a brand or company that could, hypothetically, manage their university campus building, e.g., Apple, Netflix, DHL, …”.
2.2. Ideate
2.3. Implement
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- García-Morales, V.J.; Garrido-Moreno, A.; Martín-Rojas, R. The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: Emerging challenges in an online learning scenario. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandler, W.L. A teacher space or a learner place?: Reconsidering the classroom environment. Int. J. Learn. 2009, 16, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehlers, U.D.; Beyond, B.P. Future Skills for a European Higher Education. Bologna Process Beyond. 2020, pp. 311–324. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ulf-Ehlers/publication/343255424_Future_Skills_for_a_European_Higher_Education/links/5f1fedba299bf1720d6ac5b3/Future-Skills-for-a-European-Higher-Education.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2021).
- Domae, L. Planning the Campus with Place in Mind: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Lifeworlds of Community College Campuses in British Columbia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Cunningham, M.; Walton, G. Informal learning spaces (ILS) in university libraries and their campuses. New Libr. World 2016, 117, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boys, J. Building Better Universities: Strategies, Spaces, Technologies; Routledge: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Carrigan, M. Are We All Digital Scholars Now? How the Lockdown Will Reshape the Post-Pandemic Digital Structure of Academia. Impact Soc. Sci. Blog. Available online: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/10/are-we-all-digital-scholars-now-how-the-lockdown-will-reshape-the-post-pandemic-digital-structure-of-academia/ (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- Tejedor, S.; Cervi, L.; Pérez-Escoda, A.; Tusa, F. Digital Literacy and Higher Education during COVID-19 Lockdown: Spain, Italy, and Ecuador. Publications 2020, 8, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finkelstein, A.; Ferris, J.; Weston, C.; Winer, L. Informed principles for (re) designing teaching and learning spaces. J. Learn. Spaces 2016, 5, 26–40. [Google Scholar]
- Jamieson, P. Designing more effective on-campus teaching and learning spaces: A role for academic developers. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 2003, 8, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrew, H.; Hutton, L. Design for the Changing Educational Landscape: Space, Place and the Future of Learning; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Seamon, D. Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods, and Applications; Manzo, L.C., Devine-Wright, P., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; Chapter 1; pp. 11–22. [Google Scholar]
- Deshmukh, J. Speculations on the post-pandemic university campus–A global inquiry. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2021, 15, 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maturana, B.; Salama, A.M.; McInneny, A. Architecture, urbanism and health in a post-pandemic virtual world. Archnet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2021, 15, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, K.J.; Evans, J.; Karvonen, A.; Whitley, T. Capturing the social value of buildings: The promise of Social Return on Investment (SROI). Build. Environ. 2016, 103, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margarita, G.; Penn, A. Socio-Spatial Analysis of Four University Campuses: The Implications of Spatial Configuration on Creation and Transmission of Knowledge. In Proceedings Volume I, Complex Buildings Space Syntax First International Symposium; University College London: London, UK, 1997; pp. 13.1–13.14. [Google Scholar]
- Macmillan, S. Added value of good design. Build. Res. Inf. 2006, 34, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dugdale, S. Space Strategies for the New Learning Landscape. Educ. Rev. 2009, 44, 51–63. [Google Scholar]
- Vischer, J.C. Towards a user-centred theory of the built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pande, M.; Bharathi, S.V. Theoretical foundations of design thinking–A constructivism learning approach to design thinking. Think. Ski. Creat. 2020, 36, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorst, K. The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Des. Stud. 2011, 32, 521–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balassiano, K. Tackling ‘Wicked Problems’ in Planning Studio Courses. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2011, 31, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organisations and Inspires Innovation; Harper Business: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lockwood, T. Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience, and Brand Value, 3rd ed.; Allworth Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Kolko, J. Design thinking comes of age. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2015, 2015, 66–71. [Google Scholar]
- Dell’Era, C.; Magistretti, S.; Cautela, C.; Verganti, R.; Zurlo, F. Four kinds of design thinking: From ideating to making, engaging, and criticizing. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2020, 29, 324–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T. Design Thinking. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 84. [Google Scholar]
- Buhl, A.; Schmidt-Keilich, M.; Muster, V.; Blazejewski, S.; Schrader, U.; Harrach, C.; Schäfer, M.; Süßbauer, E. Design thinking for sustainability: Why and how design thinking can foster sustainability-oriented innovation development. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 1248–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lubberink, R.; Blok, V.; Van Ophem, J.; Omta, O. Lessons for responsible innovation in the business context: A systematic literature review of responsible, social and sustainable innovation practices. Sustainability 2017, 9, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, S. The research on the design concept of the campus planning of national Taiwan university-Taking National Kaohsiung First University of science and technology as an example. In Proceedings of the 2015-1st International Symposium on Social Science, Wuhan, China, 29–30 August 2015; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. A Place to Learn: Lessons from Research on Learning Environments; Technical Paper No. 9; UNESCO Institute for Statistics: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett, P.; Zhang, Y.; Moffat, J.; Kobbacy, K. A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Build. Environ. 2013, 59, 678–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keppell, M.; Souter, K.; Riddle, M. Physical and Virtual Learning Spaces in Higher Education: Concepts for the Modern Learning Environment; IGI Publishing (IGI Global): Hershey, PA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Perks, T.; Orr, D.; Alomari, E. Classroom re-design to facilitate student learning: A case-study of changes to a university classroom. J. Scholarsh. Teach. Learn. 2016, 16, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lundström, A.; Savolainen, J.; Kostiainen, E. Case study: Developing campus spaces through co-creation. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2016, 12, 409–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whang, L.; Tawatao, C.; Danneker, J.; Belanger, J.; Weber, S.E.; Garcia, L.; Klaus, A. Understanding the transfer student experience using design thinking. Ref. Serv. Rev. 2017, 45, 298–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Harth, T.; Panke, S. Design Thinking in Teacher Education: Preparing Engineering Students for Teaching at Vocational Schools. Int. J. E-Learn. 2019, 18, 413–439. [Google Scholar]
- Nizamutdinova, Z.F.; Potonova, N.A. Determination of territorial compactness and analysis of optimisation of energy-efficient characteristics of the university campus. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 751. [Google Scholar]
- Thiti, J.; Jantakun, K.; Jantakoon, T. STEAM Education Using Design Thinking Process through Virtual Communities of Practice (STEAM-DT-VCoPs). J. Educ. Issues 2021, 7, 249–259. [Google Scholar]
- Henriksen, D. Creating STEAM with Design Thinking: Beyond STEM and Arts Integration. STEAM J. 2017, 3, 11. [Google Scholar]
- Cook, K.L.; Sarah, B.B. Design Thinking in Integrated STEAM Learning: Surveying the Landscape and Exploring Exemplars in Elementary Grades. Sch. Sci. Math. 2018, 118, 93–103. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ssm.12268 (accessed on 31 May 2022). [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; West, J. (Eds.) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm; Oxford University Press on Demand: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Mosely, G.; Wright, N.; Wrigley, C. Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise. Think. Ski. Creat. 2018, 27, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldman, S.; Carroll, M.P.; Kabayadondo, Z.; Cavagnaro, L.B.; Royalty, A.W.; Roth, B.; Roth, B.; Kwek, S.H.; Kim, J. Assessing d. learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In Design Thinking Research; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 13–33. [Google Scholar]
- Seidel, V.P.; Fixson, S.K. Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmondson, A.C.; Nembhard, I.M. Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2009, 26, 123–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miaskiewicz, T.; Kozar, K.A. Personas and user-centered design: How can personas benefit product design processes? Des. Stud. 2011, 32, 417–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, R. Design thinking: Achieving insights via the “knowledge funnel”. Strategy Leadersh. 2010, 38, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
- Berger, W. The secret phrase top innovators use. Harvard Business Review, 17 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Serrat, O. The five whys technique. In Knowledge Solutions; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 307–310. [Google Scholar]
- Cassidy, T. The mood board process modeled and understood as a qualitative design research tool. Fash. Pract. 2011, 3, 225–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, Q.; Lee, M.H. Design issues for assistive robotics for the elderly. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2006, 20, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boyce, C.; Neale, P. Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Monit. Eval. 2006, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Gardner, L. Can design thinking redesign higher ed. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 10 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Thoring, K.; Müller, R.M. Understanding design thinking: A process model based on method engineering. In Proceedings of the DS 69: E&PDE 2011, the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, London, UK, 8–9 September 2011; pp. 493–498. [Google Scholar]
- Hasso-Plattner-Institut. Photo ID#7103: Innovation Venn Diagramm [Image on the Internet]. 2021. Available online: https://hpi.de/en/school-of-design-thinking/design-thinking.html (accessed on 8 December 2021).
- Shapira, H.; Ketchie, A.; Nehe, M. The integration of design thinking and strategic sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 277–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, A.U.; Fang, C. Appraisal of gaps and challenges in Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction priority 1 through the lens of science, technology and innovation. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2019, 1, 100006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Djalante, R.; Shaw, R.; DeWit, A. Building resilience against biological hazards and pandemics: COVID-19 and its implications for the Sendai Framework. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2020, 6, 100080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmon, G. Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J. 2005, 13, 201–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Stakeholder | Key Pain Points/Method Used | Verbatim |
---|---|---|
Students |
|
|
Students (postgraduate/night time) |
|
|
Faculty |
|
|
PhD Sudents/ Researchers |
|
|
Academic Support Staff |
|
|
Alumni |
|
|
Insight | “How Might We” Question | Idea/Prototype |
---|---|---|
Younger students pay more attention to the university brand and facilities than to the quality of the learning experience. | How might we make the university experience more attractive for all age groups? | Bridge of Knowledge: an inverted classroom with a professor cockpit that allows the parametrization of interactive walls and environment sensors aligned with the type of learning objectives. |
Students do not often explore activities and spaces outside of their course work due to a lack of free time and energy. | How might we create an environment that motivates students to explore other activities on campus? | Knowledge Network: an academic social network to share knowledge and events, and to promote networking through a gamified experience. |
Anticipating the time needed to get on time to the next class creates stress and anxiety. | How might we improve the campus circuits and navigation to reduce stress and anxiety? | Smooth Navigation App: an augmented reality app to helps users to navigate the campus. |
Students have different workspace preferences (e.g., silence, individual/group, lighting). | How might we create a study place that suits different study styles? | Diverse Study Spaces: different study environments and corners that enable different forms of working regarding concentration and collaboration needs. |
Students with disabilities feel excluded by being unable to access certain facilities. | How might we improve accessibility on campus? | Inclusive Campus for All: a campus designed for inclusivity. |
Students feel that the traditional curriculum does not respond to reskilling and upskilling needs. | How might we adapt learning journeys for reskilling/upskilling? | Tailor-made Learning Programs: personalised learning pathways fully adaptable to the student’s needs. |
People restart their mindset when they change spaces, enabling them to focus better on the next activity. | How might we adapt space to motivate a certain mindset? | Village Campus: ability to adapt different spaces/buildings, using different colours and shapes, to fulfill different academic and social purposes. |
Students highly value the sense of community. | How might we create a space that connects the academic community with itself and the world? | Immersive Rooms: develop 360° data visualisation rooms for internal and external presentations and events that create a “wow effect” |
Student engagement in a class is strongly related to how inspiring the professor is, independent of the topic. | How might we help professors to be more engaging and inspiring? | Super Teachers App: a gamified app that motivates professors to try new teaching techniques with tips and challenges. |
Students value the spaces that allow for both socialisation, being alone, and connecting with nature. | How might we embed nature in a space that allows for different types of interactions? | Connecting Gardens: development of green natural places for meeting, relaxing, or studying. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Victorino, G.; Bandeira, R.; Painho, M.; Henriques, R.; Coelho, P.S. Rethinking the Campus Experience in a Post-COVID World: A Multi-Stakeholder Design Thinking Experiment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137655
Victorino G, Bandeira R, Painho M, Henriques R, Coelho PS. Rethinking the Campus Experience in a Post-COVID World: A Multi-Stakeholder Design Thinking Experiment. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137655
Chicago/Turabian StyleVictorino, Guilherme, Rita Bandeira, Marco Painho, Roberto Henriques, and Pedro S. Coelho. 2022. "Rethinking the Campus Experience in a Post-COVID World: A Multi-Stakeholder Design Thinking Experiment" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7655. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137655