No abstract

This paper explores the educator experience and sense-making of design thinking pedagogy in the higher education context. Design thinking has become a pedagogical phenomenon in higher education due to its widespread relevance across many disciplines. Some studies discuss design thinking as a pedagogy in the educational context; however, there is a lack of empirical research to understand the educator perspective on design thinking pedagogy. Three design thinking educators who have had more than fifteen years of teaching experience were interviewed to explore their experiences. The data from these individual in-depth, semi-structured interviews were analysed employing Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). One super-ordinate theme; capability building for everyone, and four subordinate themes; developing a participatory approach towards world issues; developing an open, explorative attitude; developing creative ability; and developing an ethical mindset were identified. From these findings, the paper argues that design thinking educators have the basis for a pedagogical rationale that transcends disciplinary boundaries and provides common ground for collaboration and on-going development of design thinking pedagogy as an emerging field in education.

The study here contributes to our understanding of student learning, describing it from the viewpoint of students and lecturers engaged in specific learning and teaching contexts. The conceptions of learning, together with the relationships between the various conceptions, are discussed highlighting differences between lecturer and student experiences of the same phenomenon. A description of the implications of these findings for curriculum development, teaching and assessment is outlined. It is concluded that there is a definite need for lecturers to externalize, reflect upon, and respond to the conceptions of learning underpinning teaching and learning practices.

In response to the ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), Australian housing industry leaders, supported by the Australian Government, committed to transform their practices voluntarily through the adoption of a national guideline, called Livable Housing Design. They set a target in 2010 that all new housing would be visitable by 2020. Research in this area suggests that the anticipated voluntary transformation is unrealistic and that mandatory regulation will be necessary for any lasting transformation to occur. It also suggests that the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement are unfounded. This paper reports on a study that problematised these assumptions. The study used eleven newly-constructed dwellings in three housing contexts in Brisbane, Australia. It sought to understand the logics-of-practice in providing, and not providing, visitable housing. By examining the specific details that make a dwelling visitable, and interpreting the accounts of builders, designers and developers, the study identified three logics-of-practice which challenged the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement: focus on the point of sale; an aversion to change and deference to external regulators on matters of social inclusion. These were evident in all housing contexts indicating a dominant industry culture regardless of housing context or policy intention. The paper suggests that financial incentives for both the builder and the buyer, demonstration by industry leaders and, ultimately, national regulation is a possible pathway for the Livable Housing Design agreement to reach the 2020 goal. The paper concludes that the Australian Government has three options: to ignore its obligations under the CRPD; to revisit the Livable Housing Design agreement in the hope that it works; or to regulate the housing industry through the National Construction Code to ensure the 2020 target is reached.

This paper reports on a study of the voluntary provision of inclusive housing. The impetus for the study is the Livable Housing Design initiative, an agreement among Australian housing industry and community leaders in 2010 to a national guideline and voluntary strategy with a target to provide minimum access features in all new housing by 2020. Situated in and around Brisbane, Australia, the study problematises the assumption that the housing industry will respond voluntarily; an assumption which this study concludes is unfounded. The Livable Housing Design initiative asks individual agents to consider the needs of people beyond the initial contract, to proceed with objective reasoning and to do the right thing voluntarily. Instead, the study found that interviewees focused on their immediate contractual obligations, were reluctant to change established practices and saw little reason to do more than was legally required of them. This paper argues that the highlycompetitive and risk-averse nature of the industry works against a voluntary approach for inclusive housing and, if the 2020 target of the Livable Housing Design