610
S. M. Weber
‘Design Thinking’ (Plattner et al. 2007; Weber 2014) support designing social innovations.
In self-organized groups, students develop and design alternatives to institutionalized inequalities. Learning goals of this section are, that students experiment in
designing alternatives to established institutionalized inequalities.
They to (a) build knowledge by open mindedness and new perspective integration
and (b) to gain wisdom by interdisciplinary reflection and to be able to act accordingly.
3.4 Design-Ability
In the last section, including three sessions, the program addresses design learning
of one’s own future strategies. Here, sustainability issues and problem solving for
sustainable futures are core. Students as multiplicators are enabled, to (a) collectively
plan and act together with others and (b) to plan and act foresightedly. The program
connects to ‘life work planning’ methods (Bolles 1998) and works with a biographical
and resource-based approach.
In total, in its’ weekly turn, the program focuses four thematic fields over three
sessions each, leads into understanding, analyzing, designing and creating the future.
Systematic research, realized over five years shows the huge positive effects of this
program. By training participatory and systemic methods, the program strengthens
students’ future designers’ abilities. Students learn to train their peer students and
contribute to transformative education (Kokemohr 2007). Education contributes to
a change of self and world relations (Koller 2012). The program’s value lies in the
integration of novel concepts. It does only support mastering transitions, but also
enables students to deal with heterogeneous groups of students and to foster social
inclusion.
After having presented the program learning goals (3), empirical results of the
program evaluation will be shown (4). As the program is interested in the effects and
outcomes of evaluation, it uses learning goals primarily in order to transmit learning
interests. Following an impact-oriented perspective, the program evaluation relates
empirical and outcome oriented perspectives. In an inductive qualitative analysis of
14 group discussion (which is the total of 72 involved ‘coaches’ being trained in
the program), program impact will be discussed. We will see, that the program is
perceived as an ‘alternative space’ of the university.
S. M. Weber
‘Design Thinking’ (Plattner et al. 2007; Weber 2014) support designing social innovations.
In self-organized groups, students develop and design alternatives to institutionalized inequalities. Learning goals of this section are, that students experiment in
designing alternatives to established institutionalized inequalities.
They to (a) build knowledge by open mindedness and new perspective integration
and (b) to gain wisdom by interdisciplinary reflection and to be able to act accordingly.
3.4 Design-Ability
In the last section, including three sessions, the program addresses design learning
of one’s own future strategies. Here, sustainability issues and problem solving for
sustainable futures are core. Students as multiplicators are enabled, to (a) collectively
plan and act together with others and (b) to plan and act foresightedly. The program
connects to ‘life work planning’ methods (Bolles 1998) and works with a biographical
and resource-based approach.
In total, in its’ weekly turn, the program focuses four thematic fields over three
sessions each, leads into understanding, analyzing, designing and creating the future.
Systematic research, realized over five years shows the huge positive effects of this
program. By training participatory and systemic methods, the program strengthens
students’ future designers’ abilities. Students learn to train their peer students and
contribute to transformative education (Kokemohr 2007). Education contributes to
a change of self and world relations (Koller 2012). The program’s value lies in the
integration of novel concepts. It does only support mastering transitions, but also
enables students to deal with heterogeneous groups of students and to foster social
inclusion.
After having presented the program learning goals (3), empirical results of the
program evaluation will be shown (4). As the program is interested in the effects and
outcomes of evaluation, it uses learning goals primarily in order to transmit learning
interests. Following an impact-oriented perspective, the program evaluation relates
empirical and outcome oriented perspectives. In an inductive qualitative analysis of
14 group discussion (which is the total of 72 involved ‘coaches’ being trained in
the program), program impact will be discussed. We will see, that the program is
perceived as an ‘alternative space’ of the university.