Grandparent Speed-Dating: A Problem-Based Learning Case-Study

In workshops and training, I have often used the Design Thinking methodology and Problem-Based Learning in conjunction, both in developing workshops and structuring and facilitating them. I have even run workshops that have taught these processes and approaches to teachers and educators which has always proven to be a transformative experience. In those workshops, I’m very often asked to give an example of these at work and so I took some time to write up one of my favourite case studies for Design Thinking and Problem-Based Learning in schools.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of assisting a colleague of mine who was an English teacher looking for a way to challenge her students' language abilities while also fulfilling their graduation requirements for service activities. Together, we developed a problem-based learning unit that lasted for one school term, where students were required to solve a specific problem: many older people in the community wished to have better English language abilities but didn't find it easy to learn or had little access to good opportunities to improve their skills. We challenged the students to spend 8 weeks on solving the problem of improving their grandparents’ English.

Starting with Empathy

To solve this problem, we had students employ the Design Thinking methodology. We broke it down into five stages, starting with Empathise. In this stage, students were taken through a discussion of what empathy means and the different ways we can empathise with other people. Then, in teams, they conducted empathy mapping based on their own experiences and assumptions about the target group of older people or grandparents who wished to improve their English. Students explored what it meant to interview another person, how best to conduct interviews, and important things to consider when interviewing.

As part of this, students listened to or watched a number of good and bad interviews conducted in English and discussed them. From this, teams developed a set of standard interview questions that they would use when conducting further research. Students conducted interviews with grandparents or older people that they knew. Students then processed the interviews and brought this information back to their teams. Teams shared their interview results and reviewed their empathy maps, updating them to better reflect their learning from the interviews.

Finally, the teams presented their findings to the rest of the class, and we had a discussion about the experience of preparing, conducting, and analyzing the interviews and the role and value of empathy.

Defining the Problem

In the next stage, Define, students used the Empathy experiences to begin to define particular problems that they could try and solve within the wider challenge of improving English language confidence. They used Seven Why’s to get to the root issue and uncover implicit assumptions. Stakeholder Mapping was used to identify everyone that might be impacted or involved in addressing the given challenge. Idea Storming was used to identify many potential subsidiary problems that could be tackled. An iterative process was used that took teams from formulating many potential problems to clearly articulating a single, focused problem that they would engage in which were expressed as “How might we” questions. For instance, they asked, "How might we find engaging opportunities for participants to practise and use existing English language skills?" or "How might we make use of the knowledge and skills some participants already possess?".

Ideating and Exploring

In the Ideate stage, the teams went through an ideation process. This began with idea-storming to produce a large number of initial ideas. Following idea storming, a variety of tools and techniques were used to develop new ideas and select from the chosen ideas. These included the Worst idea/Best idea, Maximise and Minimise, R.E.M.I.X, Idea Circles, Dotmocracy voting, and How, Now, Wow. Through this process, teams developed many ideas and could focus on the ones that they felt were most exciting, could have the greatest impact, and that best addressed their chosen challenge. Groups selected 2 or 3 ideas to develop in greater detail at the prototyping stage. These were often variations on the same central idea. For example, if the challenge was to produce materials to support language learning, the ideas were often two or three different forms of materials.

Prototyping Solutions

In the Prototype stage, taking the two or three chosen ideas, teams had to produce developed plans for each. A discussion was had about what needed to be considered to develop their plan into something real and actionable, encouraging students to think about the practicalities of project management. Based on the project management discussion, teams developed plans that included timelines, roles and responsibilities, requirements, resources, milestones, and deliverables. Other teams evaluated these plans and provided feedback, input, reflections, and suggestions.

The teams reviewed their evaluated plans and improved them further. Each team presented their two or three plans to the rest of the group and then gave input on which plan they felt should go forward to final development and why. This opened up a discussion that helped each team move away from their favoured ideas and think about the plans in a more objective manner, focusing on impact, outcome, and success. Finally, each group chose the plan it wished to proceed with and was required to produce a document that stated how they would assess the success of their chosen plan and the outcome after it had been tested.

Putting it to the Test

In the Test stage, testing took place in two phases: the development phase and the action phase. The development phase was to begin putting the plan into place and to start developing the final chosen outcome. This required the teams to manage time, resources, and responsibilities. Throughout this process (and before), teams were encouraged to step back to an earlier stage if they felt they needed to go deeper, rework something, or clarify their thinking.

Groups returned to Empathise when groups needed to know more about how the participants felt concerning a specific idea, option, challenge, or possible outcome.
They returned to Define when groups needed to reformulate or rethink the challenge they were trying to tackle.
They returned to Ideate when groups felt that the ideas they were developing needed extending, improving, or enhancing.
They returned to Prototype when groups needed to refine the initial plans or incorporate some aspects of the plans that were not eventually chosen.

Finally, students produced their outcomes and were able to use these with the target participants. During this process, teams had to ensure that they were gathering enough data or feedback to evaluate the success of their plans, as per the documents they produced earlier.

Incredible Outcomes

Students produced various outcomes including:

A student-led, designed, produced, and hosted YouTube channel specifically offering short-form lessons in English for the target demographic.
A student-led, hosted, and produced podcast giving context and topic-specific language lessons including on-site audio recordings.
A student-designed, produced and distributed “textbook” or “workbook” to support individual English language learning for the target demographic.
A student developed and produced an app that used audio recordings of grandparents speaking about places that were important to them in the city in English, which were then overlaid in AR on those locations, and viewable via smartphone.
Of course, there was also the grandparent speed-dating event, where grandparents from across the student body were able to come, meet, socialise, and practice their English speaking skills with one another in a fun, friendly, and exciting way.

The Aims of the Project

The project had three explicit aims or objectives:

To challenge students to learn and use English in a broader variety of contexts to improve their English language skills and knowledge by thinking about them in new ways.
To provide students with an opportunity to engage in required service activities which were part of their graduating conditions
To develop Design Thinking skills for students, problem-solving skills, and to give opportunities for emergent learning.

Indirectly, the project also had several implicit aims and objectives, such as developing and improving inter-generational relationships, involving the older community in the broader school community, and sharing knowledge, experience, and expertise across a diverse range of individuals.

The Power of Emergent Learning

What made this project unique was that students developed a lot of new skills, gained much-increased competency in English, and learnt a lot of new things all without any direct instruction or teaching taking place. Students who developed apps, podcasts, and YouTube channels taught themselves how to make those things, only requiring minimal support, encouragement, and guidance from the teacher. Students who organised events learnt how to communicate with stakeholders, manage timelines, and delegate and divide responsibilities. All students learnt a great deal of new vocabulary and increased their abilities to express themselves in English. All groups learnt a great deal from the older participants - about their families, cities, and communities.

All of this was emergent learning, learning that happened as a result of the students being given a meaningful, interesting challenge, and being guided through a process to tackle that challenge. The teacher did not need to know how to make a podcast, only how to support students in learning that for themselves, provide them with a quiet room for recording, and encourage them to pursue their ideas. The learning then took care of itself.