Creative thinking

Portal web d'intercanvi d'idees creatives, confeccionat en tecnología JEE i Liferay com a gestor de continguts i gestor de portlets.

Assessment of facilitators' design thinking

Meeting design is one of the most critical prerequisites of the success of facilitated meetings but how to achieve the success is not yet fully understood. This study presents a descriptive model of the design of technology supported meetings based on literature findings about the key factors contributing to the success of collaborative meetings, and linking these factors to the meeting design steps by exploring how facilitators consider the factors in practice in their design process. The empirical part includes a multiple-case study conducted among 12 facilitators. The case concentrates on the GSS laboratory at LUT, which has been working on facilitation and GSS for the last fifteen years. The study also includes ‘control’ cases from two comparable institutions. The results of this study highlight both the variances and commonalities among facilitators in how they design collaboration processes. The design thinking of facilitators of all levels of experience is found to be largely consistent wherefore the key design factors as well as their role across the design process can be outlined. Session goals, group composition, supporting technology, motivational aspects, physical constraints, and correct design practices were found to outline the key factors in design thinking. These factors are further categorized into three factor types of controllable, constraining, and guiding design factors, because the study findings indicate the factor type to have an effect on the factor’s importance in design. Furthermore, the order of considering these factors in the design process is outlined.

Thinking Outside the Box: Enhancing Science Teaching by Combining (Instead of Contrasting) Laboratory and Simulation Activities

The focus of the present work was on 10- to 12-year-old elementary school students’ conceptual learning outcomes in science in two specific inquiry-learning environments, laboratory and simulation. The main aim was to examine if it would be more beneficial to combine than contrast simulation and laboratory activities in science teaching. It was argued that the status quo where laboratories and simulations are seen as alternative or competing methods in science teaching is hardly an optimal solution to promote students’ learning and understanding in various science domains. It was hypothesized that it would make more sense and be more productive to combine laboratories and simulations. Several explanations and examples were provided to back up the hypothesis. In order to test whether learning with the combination of laboratory and simulation activities can result in better conceptual understanding in science than learning with laboratory or simulation activities alone, two experiments were conducted in the domain of electricity. In these experiments students constructed and studied electrical circuits in three different learning environments: laboratory (real circuits), simulation (virtual circuits), and simulation-laboratory combination (real and virtual circuits were used simultaneously). In order to measure and compare how these environments affected students’ conceptual understanding of circuits, a subject knowledge assessment questionnaire was administered before and after the experimentation. The results of the experiments were presented in four empirical studies. Three of the studies focused on learning outcomes between the conditions and one on learning processes. Study I analyzed learning outcomes from experiment I. The aim of the study was to investigate if it would be more beneficial to combine simulation and laboratory activities than to use them separately in teaching the concepts of simple electricity. Matched-trios were created based on the pre-test results of 66 elementary school students and divided randomly into a laboratory (real circuits), simulation (virtual circuits) and simulation-laboratory combination (real and virtual circuits simultaneously) conditions. In each condition students had 90 minutes to construct and study various circuits. The results showed that studying electrical circuits in the simulation–laboratory combination environment improved students’ conceptual understanding more than studying circuits in simulation and laboratory environments alone. Although there were no statistical differences between simulation and laboratory environments, the learning effect was more pronounced in the simulation condition where the students made clear progress during the intervention, whereas in the laboratory condition students’ conceptual understanding remained at an elementary level after the intervention. Study II analyzed learning outcomes from experiment II. The aim of the study was to investigate if and how learning outcomes in simulation and simulation-laboratory combination environments are mediated by implicit (only procedural guidance) and explicit (more structure and guidance for the discovery process) instruction in the context of simple DC circuits. Matched-quartets were created based on the pre-test results of 50 elementary school students and divided randomly into a simulation implicit (SI), simulation explicit (SE), combination implicit (CI) and combination explicit (CE) conditions. The results showed that when the students were working with the simulation alone, they were able to gain significantly greater amount of subject knowledge when they received metacognitive support (explicit instruction; SE) for the discovery process than when they received only procedural guidance (implicit instruction: SI). However, this additional scaffolding was not enough to reach the level of the students in the combination environment (CI and CE). A surprising finding in Study II was that instructional support had a different effect in the combination environment than in the simulation environment. In the combination environment explicit instruction (CE) did not seem to elicit much additional gain for students’ understanding of electric circuits compared to implicit instruction (CI). Instead, explicit instruction slowed down the inquiry process substantially in the combination environment. Study III analyzed from video data learning processes of those 50 students that participated in experiment II (cf. Study II above). The focus was on three specific learning processes: cognitive conflicts, self-explanations, and analogical encodings. The aim of the study was to find out possible explanations for the success of the combination condition in Experiments I and II. The video data provided clear evidence about the benefits of studying with the real and virtual circuits simultaneously (the combination conditions). Mostly the representations complemented each other, that is, one representation helped students to interpret and understand the outcomes they received from the other representation. However, there were also instances in which analogical encoding took place, that is, situations in which the slightly discrepant results between the representations ‘forced’ students to focus on those features that could be generalised across the two representations. No statistical differences were found in the amount of experienced cognitive conflicts and self-explanations between simulation and combination conditions, though in self-explanations there was a nascent trend in favour of the combination. There was also a clear tendency suggesting that explicit guidance increased the amount of self-explanations. Overall, the amount of cognitive conflicts and self-explanations was very low. The aim of the Study IV was twofold: the main aim was to provide an aggregated overview of the learning outcomes of experiments I and II; the secondary aim was to explore the relationship between the learning environments and students’ prior domain knowledge (low and high) in the experiments. Aggregated results of experiments I & II showed that on average, 91% of the students in the combination environment scored above the average of the laboratory environment, and 76% of them scored also above the average of the simulation environment. Seventy percent of the students in the simulation environment scored above the average of the laboratory environment. The results further showed that overall students seemed to benefit from combining simulations and laboratories regardless of their level of prior knowledge, that is, students with either low or high prior knowledge who studied circuits in the combination environment outperformed their counterparts who studied in the laboratory or simulation environment alone. The effect seemed to be slightly bigger among the students with low prior knowledge. However, more detailed inspection of the results showed that there were considerable differences between the experiments regarding how students with low and high prior knowledge benefitted from the combination: in Experiment I, especially students with low prior knowledge benefitted from the combination as compared to those students that used only the simulation, whereas in Experiment II, only students with high prior knowledge seemed to benefit from the combination relative to the simulation group. Regarding the differences between simulation and laboratory groups, the benefits of using a simulation seemed to be slightly higher among students with high prior knowledge. The results of the four empirical studies support the hypothesis concerning the benefits of using simulation along with laboratory activities to promote students’ conceptual understanding of electricity. It can be concluded that when teaching students about electricity, the students can gain better understanding when they have an opportunity to use the simulation and the real circuits in parallel than if they have only the real circuits or only a computer simulation available, even when the use of the simulation is supported with the explicit instruction. The outcomes of the empirical studies can be considered as the first unambiguous evidence on the (additional) benefits of combining laboratory and simulation activities in science education as compared to learning with laboratories and simulations alone.

Mythology as a key to historical ways of thinking

Kirjallisuusarvostelu

Improving reporting and internal control with process thinking - case study in a multinational corporation

The aim of this Master’s Thesis is to find applicable methods from process management literature for improving reporting and internal control in a multinational corporation. The method of analysis is qualitative and the research is conducted as a case study. Empirical data collection is carried out through interviews and participating observation. The theoretical framework is built around reporting and guidance between parent company and subsidiary, searching for means to improve them from process thinking and applicable frameworks. In the thesis, the process of intercompany reporting in the case company is modelled, and its weak points, risks, and development targets are identified. The framework of critical success factors in process improvement is utilized in assessing the development targets. Also internal control is analyzed with the tools of process thinking. As a result of this thesis, suggestions for actions improving the reporting process and internal control are made to the case company, the most essential of which are ensuring top management’s awareness and commitment to improvement, creating guidelines and tools for internal control and creating and implementing improved intercompany reporting process.

Design thinking framework of experience innovation

Innovation remains one of the key drivers of sustainable and successful business. The variety of innovation approaches such as open models, intersectional thinking and co-creation tackles the challenge of viable novel offerings across the world. These approaches have certain similarities and their elements constitute design thinking. Recent market and society trends such as technological advances and globalization have intensify companies’ interaction with customers. Emotional engagement, pleasing communication and delight have gained equal to functionality importance. The complex of these components constitutes consumer experience. Academic research conceptualizes these changes by introducing customer-centered innovation, which replaces product-oriented approaches. However, both methods omit experience concept and provide fragmented explanation of experience innovation. Experience is an essential process of offering perception, which drives customer decisions. Therefore, an agenda of experience innovation development can systemize and explain the mechanisms of experience innovation. The purpose of this study is to create and explain the stage process framework of experience innovation by the means of design thinking approach. The research proceeds in accordance with the following sub-objectives: 1. Conceptualization of consumer experience through customer value. 2. Creation of experience innovation framework by the means of design thinking. This study is conducted by the means of conceptual research methods. The main theoretical contribution of the study is creation of the integrated framework of consumer experience innovation. The elaboration of design thinking agenda and methods applied to experience design builds the guidelines of experience innovation development. This research synthesizes the conceptual elements of the framework that resolves inconsistencies and duplications of theories. This essential clarification simplifies application of the experience innovation agenda, which can be useful for the wide range of specialists, from marketing to strategists, and from managers to entrepreneurs, willing to offer compelling experience to customers. The study highlights the crucial role of consumer experience in maintaining customer loyalty and designs the roadmap of innovating experience through the communication with customers.

Heidegger on the way of thinking

This thesis attempts to clarify what Heidegger meant by the term "thinking" (Denken), where this ^'meanr is submitted in the double sense: firstly, in the sense of what Heidegger intended by the use and exposition of this term that we find in his lecture series. Was Heisst Denken?, where Heidegger quickly makes it clear that this intention is to actually bring thinking on the way, viz. making provision for the leap into thinking, and where this intention was carried out with the employment of a specific guiding phrase. In the second sense, it is an attempt at clarifying the meaning of the term. But this is not to say that we are here simply out to see how Heidegger defines the word '*thinking." It is in fact precisely within such definitive discourse that thought dies out. It is not merely be a case of defining a word, because this enterprise would be just as shallow as much as it would be unworkable. It is for this reason that Heidegger decided to establish for himself the task, not merely of explaining thinking as something to be beheld at a distance, but rather of bringing thinking underway by means of his lecture, proclaiming that, "Only the leap into the river tells us what is swimming. The question 'What is called thinking?' can never be answered by proposing a definition of the concept thinking, and then diligently explaining what is contained in that definition." (WCT, 21) This being Heidegger's intention, in order to understand Heidegger in his treatment of the term thinking, it is clear that we must also undergo an experience with thinking. It is in this spirit that the present work was written so as to collaborate the two senses of what Heidegger meant by "thinking."

Thinking skills in the language arts : an application of cognitive schema theory to the narrative writing process /

A cognitively based instructional program for narrative writing was developed. The effects of using cognitively based schematic planning organizers at the pre-writing stage were evaluated using subjects from the Primary, Junior and Intermediate divisions. Results indicate that the use of organizers based on problem solving significantly improved the organization and the overall quality of narrative writing for students in grades 3, 6 and 7. The magnitude of the improvement of the treatment group over the control group performance in Organization ranged from 10.7% to 22.9%. Statistical and observational data indicate many implications for further research into the cognitive basis for writing and reading; for the improvement and evaluation of school writing programs; for the design of school curricula; and for the inservice education for teachers of writing.