More than a useful myth: A case study of design thinking for writing across the curriculum program initiatives
Related Publications
In this article, Jenna Pack Sheffield puts forth design thinking as a useful framework for “addressing structural or curricular problems in WAC programs” (p. 168). She sees this framework as distinct from and complementary to systems thinking, as presented by Cox, Galin & Melzer (2018). Sheffield notes that design thinking and systems thinking both developed as ways to analyze and solve problems, but originated from different fields, with design thinking emerging from architecture and art/design disciplines (p. 168) and systems thinking from fields like engineering and biology (p. 171). She sees the two approaches as complementary, arguing that “systems thinking may be more valuable for initial program development, but design thinking can be rather quickly (depending on the context and goals) and cheaply applied for innovation at any stage of a WAC program’s lifespan” (p. 171). This useful article is a useful extension of the whole systems approach that bears closer examination.
