Social discussion of CS in K-12

[Pattsi Petrie <pattsi2 AT gmail.com>]

Below is a posting from the academic urban planning listserv. It is interesting to read a bit of cross fertilization of what gets posted on this listserv to urban planning.

P2
________________________________________
From: Planning Educators Electronic Mail Network [PLANET AT LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU] on behalf of Robert Goodspeed [rgoodspe AT UMICH.EDU]
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 12:53 PM
To: PLANET AT LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU
Subject: Re: Design Thinking

Dear Cuz,

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Your email reminded me of a thoughtful recent article I read recently on the application of design thinking to K-12 education:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/education-technology-gates-erickson/

However, I want to use this response to make a somewhat broader point, since design thinking hasn't been addressed recently on PLANET. Design has always played an important role in the planning field, whether through the design of cities, the design of planning processes and participation, or the design of planning tools such as maps and planning support systems. When I am involved in tasks calling for creative design, I look to methods compiled<http://dschool.stanford.edu/dgift/chart-a-new-course/> by the Stanford d.school for inspiration. (Unsurprisingly, many of these can also be found in our own field, but are rarely cataloged so conveniently.)

However, design thinking is not merely multidisciplinary but carries its own assumptions, some of which are described in the article above. We know well that a city is a fundamentally different design problem than a consumer product, which I take to be the primary conclusion of Rittel and Webber's classic 1973 article. Therefore, I'd reject the claim that design thinking is somehow equivalent to communicative (or collaborative) planning ideas, although there may be important connections between the two.

The ever-growing ambitions of the proponents of design thinking -- and the related field of social entrepreneurship -- mean these ideas are increasingly being applied in planning domains (see an example<http://socialimpact.umich.edu/programs-activities/social-impact-challenge/> from here at Michigan). Therefore I think it is important for us to seriously engage with these intellectual trends in the classroom, in order to prepare our students to better navigate the professional world.

Sincerely,

Robert Goodspeed
Assistant Professor of Urban Planning
Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning
University of Michigan



On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:40 PM, cuz <cuzpotter AT korea.ac.kr<mailto:cuzpotter AT korea.ac.kr>> wrote:
The Chronicle of Higher Education seems to be pushing the notion of design thinking as an administrative tool for redesigning curricula.

http://chronicle.com/article/A-College-Turns-to-Design/229081/
http://chronicle.com/article/Is-Design-Thinking-the-New/228779/

As I was reading the first article above, it struck me that there is a good deal of communicative planning principles being invoked (e.g., conversations that let the "planners" understand the underlying individuals and needs).

Perhaps planners with expertise in this field should be trying to get involved? After all, curriculum changes are a form of planning.

--
Cuz Potter
Assistant Professor, Division of International Studies
Korea University

--

Pattsi Petrie, PhD, FAICP
P2 Consulting
Champaign County Board, Chair , district 6,
Retired, Department of Urban and Regional Planning/DURP
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign/UIUC
<mailto:pattsi AT uiuc.edu>

College of Fellows, American Institute of Certified Planners

Professional Education and Outreach Programs
Past Chair APA Planning Women Division